An American Orthodoxy? III

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

Thanks very much, to those who did, for your participation in the previous two versions of this thread. This thread to date has been a true blessing and has been a source of great enlightenment and blessing for me personally. There have really been some very fruitful discussions here, especially towards the latter half of "version II" I think. And, in an effort to hopefully continue this constructive and more focused trend that we have seen I would like to offer some thoughts in this first post of AO? III.

As Nina has well said repeatedly in the past, diversity is a huge part of an American Orthodoxy. And, our subject is a very broad topic. So I do think this thread needs to allow room for a variety of focus while at the same time avoiding an arena for a kind of free-for-all that ends up with no real focus at all, or one which simply becomes a hub of sorts for 100 independent conversations. But, also as both Herman and Owen have demonstrated in the recent past there clearly can be broad trajectories which do embrace various 'sub-plots' in a consistent and VERY useful way.

So, again, with this said, and so that we can have some deliberate and definable sense of focus as we begin, I would like to offer some possible aims/points of address at the outset. And, I do not think that these will encompass all points relevant to our theme; but, these are presented as a possible place of re-orientation or a way to draw points together that may be helpful if there would be a slipping off into tangents along the way:

I. An American Orthodoxy: its nature, limits, and boundaries

II. An American Orthodoxy today as compared/contrasted with Orthodoxy in America today

III. The diversity found within an American Orthodoxy

IV. An American Orthodoxy and Orthodox Evangelism/Outreach in America today

V. The relationship between an American Orthodoxy and "'the ultimate/radical individualism"

VI. The relationship between an American Orthodoxy and a "radical personalism"

VII. The relationship between an American Orthodoxy and jurisdictions and Orthodox hierarchies

VIII. The relationship between the spirit of an American Orthodoxy and the spirit of the desert fathers

IX. The relationship between the heart of an American Orthodoxy and a monasticism of the heart

X. The ontology and epistemology of a diverse American Orthodoxy today compared/contrasted with the state of being and the way of knowing of the various Orthodox churches in America today.


And, as I look back over this list that has just passed through my fingers and onto the screen, I see primarily broad trajectories as stated above. However, all under the umbrella of an exploration I think. But, I think what we may be seeing here for our discussion in '08, that could possibly be different from '06 with AO I and in '07 in AO II is that all of the above is somewhat limited to discovering the shape of an American Orthodoxy. Possibly, we can keep this in mind, as well as harken back to it if necessary, as we move forward in a constructive way with our conversation . . . or better yet with our "exploration" of the shape and dimension of an American Orthodoxy.

And, now here at the end of all of this I find myself trying to remember a quote from Alister McGrath in his book, "Christianity's Dangerous Idea." It was something like 'the past anticipates the present and the future.' And, I bring this up because I would absolutely love it if those who are more well read in the saints and the fathers (especially the desert fathers) could bring these writings into this conversation from time to time. This is the one aspect of our conversation that I think we have been severely lacking in. In fact, possibly it was no accident that the McGrath book that I only skimmed one day at the book store has come to mind now. As I remember another part of the book where he shared the wrestling of a text based group which came to be known by the historians as the Reformers. In this section he explained that the key question (and one that even Luther himself tried to pull them back from early in the Protestant movement) was: is true faith determined by an institution or by the individual? Possibly, there is some overlap here as we may consider the Church and the local churches, as we may consider those who in the earliest of days withdrew from their communities to follow the monasticism of their hearts [even before the institution of a Christian monasticism]. There is a spirit represented in all of this (even the Reformers who clearly missed the mark) that I am not so sure brings a lowest common denominator; but, instead the highest in their searches, in their explorations, in their ways of knowing and being.

In Christ,
Rick

[M.C. Steenberg]

For those who will read in future, the predecessors to this thread are found as:


An American Orthodoxy? (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3181) (November 2006 - April 2007)
An American Orthodoxy? II (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4020) (August 2007 - February 2008)

[Rick H.]

An American Orthodoxy: its nature, limits, and boundaries


Dear Monachos Discussion Community,

As we may continue our exploration of an American Orthodoxy now, I am reminded of the words of Father Anthony, in the past, who repeatedly said that one must consider and be aware of what has been tried in the past as it relates to an AO.

And, with this in mind, it seems that, in another discussion community, I find myself in a one-on-one conversation with Metropolitan +Samuel of the American Catholic Orthodox Church at the present. From him I have been told of the "founding father" of American Orthodoxy (according to the ACOC) who was Aftimios Ofiesh, Archbishop of Brooklyn. And, as I attempt to learn more via. independent study of Archbishop Aftimios, I learn about the "The Holy Eastern Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church in North America."

It is my understanding so far, which is confirmed by Metropolitan +Samuel, that the above name (THEOCACNA) was 'the first attempt by mainstream Orthodox canonical authorities at the creation of an autocephalous Orthodox church for North America. It was chartered in 1927 by Metropolitan Platon (Rozhdestvensky), primate of the Russian Metropolia and his holy synod. During its short existence, it was mainly led by Aftimios Ofiesh, Archbishop of Brooklyn.'

Today in a response to me, the Metropolitan has said [speaking of circa 1927]:




There was also a great deal of upheaval among the Orthodox Jurisdictions in this country at that time, as several arms of that Church were formed. From this came such Jurisdictions as the OCA and ROCOR, which, if I might add, were under Archbishop Ofiesh's omophora at one point. However, they chose to continue in an ethnic vein and walked away from Archbishop Ofiesh who clung tightly to a true American orthodoxy.



To date this last quote which claims that the OCA and ROCOR were under the jurisdiction of Ofiesh at one time is the most interesting in my study of the history of an American Orthodoxy. And, this claim is one that I am hoping some of the big guns can help to either verify or discredit. Or, if any at all would have any information on what is considered to be synonymous with an American Orthodoxy by some viz. the ACOC which claims to be a re-chartering of THEOCACNA I would really appreciate a sharing/education on this matter.

I actually thought that Father Anthony was probably referring to the Fr. Gilchrist group in his promptings to look back into the history of an American Orthodoxy; but, possibly what is spoken of above is part of the intended view in a look backwards?

In Christ,
Rick

PS Come to think of it, if I remember correctly, in one of Father Raphael's very first posts in "AO I" he was suggesting that a look to the history of an American Orthodoxy was in order for the contributors of that thread back then as well.

[Father Anthony]

Dear Rick,

My intention in the suggestion in looking back was simply what you have eluded to in your previous post. The history from the time of the Russian Revolution on, and the events that occurred here in America are rather complicated and have filled many volumes. There are many online sources that will give you a rounding of the events. One can not progress forward unless one understands what some of those events were and how we can avoid similar mistakes.

The example the good “Metropolitan” gives is a stellar example. An interesting short article is offered here, http://orthodoxwiki.org/American_Orthodox_Catholic_Church . As you can see just by this brief explanation that it was not a simple manner that involved one or two factions, but multi-fold. By carefully reading the history of the Church in America from the time of the revolution to 1970s will give you a better idea why things are rather complicated and certain issues need to examined and addressed. I would suggest you follow some of the links in that article and do some online hunting.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

[Herman Blaydoe]

Bishop Aftimios was, indeed, at one time a legitimate bishop in a very chaotic time, ecclessiastically speaking. However, I believe that he gave up all claims of legitimacy when he married and started ordaining bishops single-handedly. The OCA was certainly never under his jurisdiction because the OCA did not technically exist until it was officially formed in 1970. ROCOR existed prior to Metr. Sergius who is not without some controversy himself, and to say that it was put under Bishop Afthemios is a stretch at very best. ROCOR exists in many countries, not just the US, so putting them administratively under Afthemios would have been tandamount to saying all Russians outside of Russia throughout the world are now American Orthodox. I just do not see that as a realistic possibility.

In a time of upheaval, turmoil, and chaos, figuring out just who was in charge of what can certainly be problematic. I suspect this whole episode can be basically summed up as an experiment that didn't work out, in that the spiritual descendents of Ofiesh are few, scattered and not in regular communion with any recognized Orthodox body.

My own litmus test when dealing with these groups (and I have had to owing to my monasteries directory (http://omna.malf.net)), is to check into how closely they adhere to traditional Orthodox teachings. In that some of these groups allow women's ordination and advocate same-sex relationships, the determination is pretty easy. Otherwise, their "go-it-alone" attitude seems less than conscilliar at best and raises a warning flag at least for me.

Herman

[Matthew Namee]

The information on Orthodox Wiki comes largely from the book The Quest for Orthodox Church Unity in America by Fr. Serafim Surrency. The book is, as far as I'm aware, unavailable for purchase anywhere, but you can find copies via interlibrary loan. Also, in his massive three-volume The History of the Greek Church of America in Acts and Documents, Paul Manolis reproduces a number of letters exchanged between Abp Aftimios and the Greek Abp Alexander. These letters are invaluable in understanding Abp Aftimios' claims.

One of the arguments advanced is that Abp Aftimios, not Met Platon, was the rightful head of the Russian Church in America (and therefore, according to his logic, all of the Orthodox in America). The logic went like this: with the departure of the various Russian bishops from America, Abp Aftimios was the last remaining "legitimate" bishop and therefore the de facto head of the Church. Met Platon's situation was, of course, highly irregular -- he was a refugee who arrived in America and was accepted by the majority of the Russian Archdiocese (future Metropolia/OCA) as being their archpastor, but it was all somewhat less formal than one would have liked. Desperate times called for desperate measures, and all that.

Regardless of Abp Aftimios' claims, very, very few Orthodox outside of his own Syrian diocese ever accepted his authority. Even the Syrians were quite divided on the issue. Immediately after St. Raphael's death -- in early 1915, well before the Bolshevik Revolution -- there was a division among the Syrians with regard to jurisdiction.

One of Abp Aftimios' favorite things to do was to take canons and church regulations and extrapolate from them conclusions in favor of himself. He did this even though his logic was highly questionable and his support among other bishops, priests, and laypeople was very small. Of course, it all worked itself out when he married a 20-year-old girl in 1933, thus eliminating what little support he still had.

[Father David Moser]

I], which is confirmed by Metropolitan +Samuel, that the above name (THEOCACNA) was 'the first attempt by mainstream Orthodox canonical authorities at the creation of an autocephalous Orthodox church for North America. It was chartered in 1927 by Metropolitan Platon (Rozhdestvensky), primate of the Russian Metropolia and his holy synod. During its short existence, it was mainly led by Aftimios Ofiesh, Archbishop of Brooklyn.'

Today in a response to me, the Metropolitan has said [speaking of circa 1927]:



To date this last quote which claims that the OCA and ROCOR were under the jurisdiction of Ofiesh at one time is the most interesting in my study of the history of an American Orthodoxy.


Bishop Aftimios was, indeed, at one time a legitimate bishop in a very chaotic time, ecclessiastically speaking. ... The OCA was certainly never under his jurisdiction because the OCA did not technically exist until it was officially formed in 1970. ROCOR existed prior to Metr. Sergius who is not without some controversy himself, and to say that it was put under Bishop Afthemios is a stretch at very best.

Ok, look at your own research and put the timelines together. In 1927, the North American Metropolia was still a part of ROCOR which was at that time headquarted in Serbia. It makes absolutely no logical sense that the Metropolia and/or all of ROCOR would be under Aftimios Oefish if they were, in fact, the ones who ordained and chartered him (btw, Aftimios Oefish was in fact defrocked after his marriage). The whole core of the Metopolia/OCA vs ROCOR dispute is about ecclesiastical authority over the Church in North America - is it conceivable that either of those bodies who have been nipping at each other's heels all these years about who is the true successor of the Russian Church in North America would give it all up to a newly consecrated Arab - I don't think so.

There is really no good single history of the Orthodox Church in North America. There was a time when I would have suggested Ware's The Orthodox Church but the recent revisions have compromised the accuracy of his history (But if you get a copy of the 1963 reprinting, then you should get a good history). In any case Ware is only an overview. As a result, I can only suggest that you read Bishop Gregory (Afonsky)'s book alongside the essays of the ROCOR Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) entitled "Toward a history of the ecclesiastical divisions within the Russian Diaspora" and St john of Shanghi and San Francisco's The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad: A Short History. In digging through my Libary fro these references, I came across another good book that will contribute to the topic of the Church in North America - The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Rusia: A History and Chronology by Fr Alexey Young. This last is out of print and so may be hard to find - but it is well worth the read.


I would be leery of any sources that connect back to Oefish, there are lot of very "fringe" people (well meaning, but not Orthodox) who look to him as their founder. I know of no Orthodox group that can trace its lineage to or through Aftimios Oefish that is, in fact, Orthodox.

Fr David Moser

[Matthew Namee]

(btw, Aftimios Oefish was in fact defrocked after his marriage)
Fr. David, do you have documentation of this? I'd be very interested to see it. I'm not challenging you at all; it's just that in the (very strange, near-hagiographical) biography of Ofiesh published a few years ago by his widow, the claim is repeatedly made that Ofiesh's marriage was never officially addressed by any Orthodox bishops. According to their account, Ofiesh wanted to be called before some council so that he could justify his decision to marry. He was upset that this never happened, and that the Orthodox world basically just ignored him after his wedding. So if in fact he WAS defrocked or deposed, this information should be published, along with its source documents. I always thought it was a de facto defrocking: the Orthodox as a whole recognized that this man had renounced his own episcopate by marrying, and no further action was required.

[Father David Moser]

Fr. David, do you have documentation of this? I'd be very interested to see it. I'm not challenging you at all; it's just that in the (very strange, near-hagiographical) biography of Ofiesh

No, I don't have any doccumentation (at least not at hand and not that I know of). I sorted through this whole issue of "vagante" bishops a long time ago (one of them was a good friend - somewhat influential in my conversion in fact) and quickly learned that there is nothing to them. "Paper" credentials are worthless, the only credential that means anything is a living, viable, link to the whole Body of Christ. If you require "papers" to "prove" that you're legitimate, then chances are you aren't.

As for the documentation that you assume exists - if it was done by either the Metropolia or ROCOR, there is a good chance that those documents have been lost simply by the vagaries of war, time, chance, and so on. Keep in mind that the second world war was a tremendously chaotic time for the Church - especially for the emigre Russian Church - and that much was lost, destroyed or left behind due to the movements of troops, refugees and the like. In fact, I suspect that this was the origin of the litany in use in ROCOR where we pray for "this country, its authorities and armed forces" because all too often the people weren't sure which country they were in.

Fr David Moser

[Matthew Namee]

As for the documentation that you assume exists - if it was done by either the Metropolia or ROCOR, there is a good chance that those documents have been lost simply by the vagaries of war, time, chance, and so on.
Well, I checked some sources, and here's what I found:

Orthodox America, an official OCA publication from 1975, states that Ofiesh "was deposed by his followers" after his marriage (p. 195).

Fr. Serafim Surrency, in his book The Quest for Orthodox Church Unity in America (1973) states the following (page 42):


Curiously enough, the formal "Removal from Office and Suspension" of Aftimios was only done officially on the 7th of October 1933 by Bp Sophronius in his capacity as President Locum Tenens [of the American Orthodox Catholic Church]...
This must be the official deposition to which you're referring. Bp Sophronius (Beshara) was one of the other bishops of Ofiesh's AOCC. He died less than a year later, in September 1934. Lots of bishops died during this period -- all the other Syrian claimants (there were five total, four of whom died and one, Aftimios, who was deposed) as well as Met Platon and the Living Church bishop, John Kedrovsky. There may have been others... Anyway, it's one of the most dramatic slate-cleanings in history. Total chaos, and at basically the same moment, everyone drops dead.

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

Thanks very much[!] to each person who responded to the initial questions yesterday. This is an example of the Monachos.net discussion community at its finest in the way this was collectively addressed. Yes, direct answers to direct questions--very illuminating--and somewhat of an example of 'ask and ye shall receive.' Thanks especially to the one who contacted me with additional information--very informative/helpful.

As Father David wrote:




There is really no good single history of the Orthodox Church in North America.



this speaks volumes to me, and emphasizes a great need I think. And, moving forward with Father Anthony's advice I read the following timeline yesterday:

Timeline of Orthodoxy in America - OrthodoxWiki (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Timeline_of_Orthodoxy_in_America)

I would like to recommend this to any with a limited knowledge of the history of Orthodoxy in America such as myself. While this does not fill the void that Father David highlights, it is very helpful, and I can see this being referred back to in the future.

And, while we might want to guard against this moving too far into a discussion about THEOCACNA, I would like to share the following from the constitution of THEOCACNA drafted in December of 1927:





Article III: This Church is independent (autocephalous) and autonomous in its authority in the same sense and to the same extent as are the Orthodox Patriarchates of the East and the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches now existing.

Article IV: This Church has original and primary jurisdiction in its own name and right over all Orthodox Catholic Christians of the Eastern Churches and Rite residing or visiting in the United States, and Alaska and the other territories of the United States, in Canada, Mexico, and all North America.



This is from the source Father Anthony has recommended above, and as Matthew Namee has indicated there was a response from Fr. Serafim Surrency, who said:





"To anyone knowledgeable in Canon Law, these two sections just quoted are absurd."



Whereby, I wonder if any could speak to this first attempt at an American Orthodoxy? It *seems* in this early stage this group had proper links to Eastern Orthodoxy . . . but, I wonder if any can speak to the 'validity of this ministry' (and my mind moves to a piece quoted by John Zizioulas once before on this), or to help bring clarity/understanding of this approach which seems to resemble more a hostile take over than anything else. If I relate this to past experiences in Protestantism/Evangelicalism then I can see that there are different names and faces but otherwise the same ole-same ole. But, without me making assumptions about politics, personal ambition, and the nationalist agendas . . . I wonder if there could be any additional informed discussion about this first attempt at an American Orthodoxy as we might consider the methodology as well as the seemingly genuine backing it had at the time? It occurs to me that this could be a "stellar"/outstanding example and very helpful in a consideration of both the limits and boundaries, as well as the nature of an American Orthodoxy and an Eastern Orthodoxy together.

In Christ,
Rick

[Matthew Namee]

The origins of Ofiesh's "American Orthodox Church" long predate its actual establishment, and the whole story has never been told. In 1905, a defrocked (unjustly, as many believed) Episcopal priest named Ingram Irvine was ordained an Orthodox priest by St. Tikhon. He spent the rest of his life working to promote inter-ethnic Orthodox unity and the use of English. He died in the early 1920s, and just before his death, a number of Americans (many of them former Episcopalians) converted to Orthodoxy and formed what they called the "American Orthodox Catholic Church," which was under the jurisdiction of the Russian archbishop.

Following Irvine's death, this group was transferred to the jurisdiction of Bp Aftimios Ofiesh, who at the time was the Syrian bishop under the Russian Archdiocese. (Incidentally, Irvine thought that Ofiesh was a scoundrel; he would have been dismayed had he known that his mission would end up under Ofiesh's omophorion.) Among the surprisingly large group of converts in this period were two who would play a decisive role in Ofiesh's later movement: Fr. Michael Gelsinger and Fr. Boris Burden. By 1927, when Ofiesh's AOC was formally established, Gelsinger and Burden were really leading the charge.

From the start, the AOC was a fringe group. They were founded with the blessing of Met Platon, whose own status in America was certainly not beyond dispute. Ofiesh himself would imply that he, not Platon, was the only rightful leader of the Russian Archdiocese (and thus, in his reasoning, by extension all the Orthodox in America). The Greeks, who (with a few exceptions) had never at any time accepted Russian authority, of course regarded Ofiesh's claims as absurd. The Arabs were already split, with many priests and parishes acknowledging the authority of the Patriarchate of Antioch. The other ethnic groups -- Romanians, Serbs, etc. -- had their own bishops. Converts, though more numerous at the time than most people now probably realize, were still not a large enough population to be significant in bolstering Ofiesh's claims. In short, Ofiesh had the support of a tiny minority of Orthodox laypeople and parishes, and while he initially had the blessing of the Metropolia, he soon ran afoul of them as well. He had a claim on paper; nothing more.

The biggest problem with the AOC, though, was Ofiesh himself. He was not the wise, steady leader which was necessary to unite the Orthodox of America. Instead he was erratic, idealistic, and (as evidenced by his later marriage to a 20-year-old girl) morally suspect. Many years earlier, Irvine, attempting to convince the Russian bishops not to consecrate Ofiesh a bishop, said that if such a thing were to take place, its result would be division and disaster. He would, sadly, be proven right.

Any attempt to form a unified "American Orthodox Church" must have the backing and participation of ALL the jurisdictions. In the cases of both Ofiesh's AOC and the later OCA, the groups went ahead with their plans despite the absence of support from the Greeks. Ultimately, they both failed to unite all the Orthodox in America, in part because without Greek support, something like half of the Orthodox in America are instantly excluded. Lessons no doubt can be drawn from all this. I would propose at least these two:

1) Any American Orthodox Church must include all the major jurisdictions.

2) This Church must have a leader who is an exceptional man. Multiple exceptional leaders would be preferred.

[Matthew Namee]

I just found something else regarding the deposition of Abp Aftimios Ofiesh:


NIAGARA FALLS, N.Y., July 31 (AP) -- Archbishop Aftimios Ofiesh who claims to be the leader of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church of North America, says Alexander Tathen, Patriarch of Antioch, has no authority to rule his marriage a violation of church regulations. A recent letter by the patriarch declared the archbishop had severed his connection with the church as a result of his marriage to Miss Marion Namey, 22-year-old church worker, of Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
"Contests Ruling of Greek Patriarch," New York Times, August 1, 1933, page 19

Patriarch Alexander III (Tahan) of Antioch was Patriarch from 1928 to 1958. So it appears that not only Bp Sophronios but the Patriarch of Antioch himself weighed in on the Ofiesh situation. Ofiesh had never acknowledged Antiochian authority, but as most of his followers were Arabs, it's understandable that the Patriarch of Antioch would make some sort of statement. In the end, within a very short time all of Ofiesh's former Arab parishes would join the Antiochian Archdiocese.

[Father Anthony]

Dear Rick,

As you can see, the matter of the first attempt at ecclesial unity in North America is not as clear and is rather complicated. Instead of providing a spring board for unity, it went to create further division and upheaval, some of which we are dealing with today. We can begin to see certain parallels to that time at present. As a church history "buff" I have many of the books in my possession that are cited. If you are looking for fast answers, it isn't going to happen. I have spent a good part of 20+ years researching this from various sources from many sides. just keep on digging and reading, and you will start to get a better idea as to what I mean.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

[Rick H.]

Researching the Shape and Dimension of an American Orthodoxy


Yes, Father Anthony, it is these 'certain parallels' that I think are helpful in this present conversation. Somewhat ironically, these same parallels may provide a springboard for us here. And, continuing on with Matthew Namee's top shelf work, I would like to present the following, for review, from the words of another today who is attempting to bring understanding of the links between today's American Orthodox Catholic Church (AOCC) and an historic Orthodox Christianity. Father David's words in his posts here in this thread are ringing in my ears as I continue a conversation with this person and as I ask for input on the following information:





To bring the historical perspective of the AOCC I have been trying to impart to all of you into a more contemporary focus though, I begin with a certain Archbishop Walter Myron Propheta who was consecrtaed to the Episcopacy in 1964 by Archbishop Peter Zhurawetsky, who was then the exarch for the Greek Patriarchate of Alexandria in the United States; with co-consecrators being Archbishop Joachim Souris, Primate of The Autocephalous Greek Orthodox Church in America (Old Calendarist), and Archbishop Theodotus DeWitow, Primate of The Holy Orthodox Church in America (Eastern Catholic and Apostolic).

Archbishop Propheta was a Mitred Archpriest with the Ukranian Orthodox Church in America. He excardinated from that Jurisdiction because the then sitting Primate of the UOCA refused to allow the English language to be used in the celebration of the Divine Liturgy. In 1963 Archpriest Propheta came under the omophora of Archbishop Souris.

A little more background ... all three of Propheta's consecrators were consecrated in Apostolic Succession to Archbishop Aftimios Ofiesh; Zhurawetsky in 1950, Souris in 1951, and DeWitow in 1936.

DeWitow received his consecration from a certain Archbishop Ignatius Nichols, who received his consecration from Archbishop Ofiesh in 1934.
Archbishop Ofiesh received his consecration in 1917 from three Hierarchs of the Orthodox Church of Russia. We maintain a record of the consecrations, via consecration certificates, as far back as Archbishops Nichols, DeWitow, and Zhurawetsky to prove our claim.

As far as the Oriental Orthodox background of the AOCC as it exists now ... its roots, as I have stated, are with the Ethiopian Church, extending from Abuna Basilios, first Patriarch of that Church. Sadly, and unfortunately, the Ethiopian Church has thus far not cooperated with us in providing any documentation. I do, however, have it on corroborated verbal authority from both Archbishop David Worley and a Priest of the Ethiopian Seminary in Ethiopia that Abuna Basilios did indeed consecrate a certain Archbishop Gabre Kristos Mikael, who in turn consecrated the afore mentioned Archbishop Worley, who in turn consecrated me.

Our Orthodoxy, thus, comes from those sources. Both Archbishop Propheta and Archbishop Gabre Kristos Mikael in no way wavered from the True teachings of the Church. They implanted this in their Hierarchs and Clergy.

We believe that, through those sources I have spoken of, we have maintained as unbroken the Orthodox faith.



In Christ,
Rick

[Matthew Namee]

Ignatius Nichols, following the example of Aftimios Ofiesh, got married while he was a bishop. According to Fr. Serafim Surrency's book (p. 42), Bp Sophronios formally deposed and removed Ignatius Nichols on November 2, 1933. Anyone who traces their "apostolic succession" through Nichols is probably illegitimate.

The problem is, these groups HAVE to justify themselves with "apostolic succession" lists. That very fact should disqualify them. When you visit the websites of, say, the Greek or Antiochian Archdioceses, do you see prominently displayed (or displayed at all) a detailed list of successions and consecrators? Of course not; they are mainstream. While such lists could no doubt be produced, they are unnecessary. Indeed, they are insufficient -- "apostolic succession" is not merely the legalistic lineage of consecrators. It is living; it requires the living Orthodox faith and participation in the life of the Orthodox Church. Even if Ofiesh was never formally deposed, he cut himself off from the Church by his marriage, and from that moment he was no longer a bishop. Likewise Nichols, from the moment he married (if not at some point earlier), effectively ceased to be an Orthodox bishop. They were rejected and ostracized by the body of the faithful and the entire Orthodox hierarchy.

I once knew a man who was an Orthodox priest. One day, every member of his parish received a letter from him stating that he had decided to join the Byzantine Rite of the Roman Catholic Church. Eventually, his name was removed from the list of priests in his (former) Orthodox jurisdiction. But he was never actually deposed, and it was not the removal of his name which effected the end of his Orthodox priesthood. He did it himself, the moment he chose to renounce the Orthodox faith and join himself to a body which is not Orthodox. I am not trying to raise an argument about the validity of Roman Catholic orders; that is not my point at all. My point is that deposition and excommunication usually are accomplished by the person themselves and are only later formally confirmed and declared by the Orthodox Church as a whole. It is the same, I suppose, with sainthood -- the saint is a saint whether he is canonized or not; the formal glorificaiton is merely the recognition of something which is true -- it does not make someone who was not a saint, a saint.

[Matthew Namee]

Another thing -- I thought I would point out how numerically insignificant Ofiesh's church was.

The 1936 US Census of Religious Bodies (compiled by the US Census Bureau) includes statistics for the "Holy Orthodox Church in America." This is Ofiesh's church. According to the Census -- which gets its numbers from the churches themselves -- the HOCA had one parish (in New York) and three missions (in Alabama, Illinois, and Pennsylvania). It reported 804 members.

The HOCA was not even the largest pseudo-Orthodox group in America in 1936. A body called the American Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Eastern Church, founded in 1932, claimed 5 bishops, 16 clergy, 9 parishes and missions, and 1,700 members. (Actually, they reported conflicting numbers -- in another place they are shown to have only 4 parishes and 1,420 members.) There was also the "American Episcopal Church (The Holy Eastern Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church)," which claimed 12 churches and 6,380 members.

For the sake of comparison, in 1936 the Greek Archdiocese had 241 parishes and 189,368 members.

[Father Anthony]

Dear Matthew,

You may want to check the names of those two church organizations against your texts for that period. I am sure that at least one of those is the original name for the Ofiesh church. Specifically check the reproduction of the articles of incorporation to see what I mean.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

[Rick H.]

Final Jeopardy

Matthew, thanks very much[!], your contributions are invaluable and bring into view this aspect with great speed. Very enlightening.

I think now after re-reading all of the above posts, I really just have one last question. As I put up for review a piece quoted in this thread from the site Father Anthony recommended:




'the first attempt by mainstream Orthodox canonical authorities at the creation of an autocephalous Orthodox church for North America. It was chartered in 1927 by Metropolitan Platon (Rozhdestvensky), primate of the Russian Metropolia and his holy synod. During its short existence, it was mainly led by Aftimios Ofiesh, Archbishop of Brooklyn.'



In the beginning, was this attempt one that was "MAINSTREAM" and backed by "Orthodox canonical authorities?"

(cue Jeopardy music . . . do-do-do-do . . .do-do-do . . .)

In Christ,
Rick

[Father Anthony]

Dear Matthew,

If I recall right (I am in my office and not at home were the repository of my historical books are), Mariam Ofiesh's book about her husband bears the official crest of the church. If I recall right, the name of the latter in your post was the official name of the church, which could have been used by one of the former hierarchs of that group at that time.

Also, I believe that the US Census Bureau compiles its data at the beginning of a decade and then releases it as statistics during the years that follow. In other words the data may have been collected in 1930, but not released until other vital and required statistics were released first.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

[Father Anthony]

Dear Rick,

I have to state one thing in the number of years I have looked at this situation, I have never seen Metropolitan Platon's name on any official documents (civil/legal) that stated he a part of the chartering process. That aside, the idea that a hierarch was part of two different churches, in this case being a heirarch subject to the Russian Church and at the same time the head of another "autocephalous" church is highly irregular canonically. I am sure that there are others that can chime in on this also.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

[Matthew Namee]

You may want to check the names of those two church organizations against your texts for that period. I am sure that at least one of those is the original name for the Ofiesh church. Specifically check the reproduction of the articles of incorporation to see what I mean.
Fr. Anthony,

I'm not sure which texts you mean. If you mean the Surrency book, for various reasons, I only have about half of it (digitized), so if there are articles of incorporation in the back of the book, I won't have them. Just looking at the Census itself, the Apostolic Episcopal Church (etc, etc,) traces its roots through a certain Arthur Wolfort Brooks, who was consecrated in 1925 by various "Chaldean" bishops. It definitely isn't Ofiesh's church.

The other one, the American Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Eastern Church, states that it was incorporated in the State of New York on April 17, 1933, having been organized the previous May. Its primate in 1936 was Clement Sherwood, a name which frequently appears in the succession lists of these pseudo-Orthodox groups. From what I can tell from a quick Google search, Sherwood did not claim his succession through Ofiesh, though their "descendants" intermingled. It may be that Sherwood traces his succession through Joseph Rene Vilatte, an Old Catholic episopus vagans who spawned hundreds of little groups, most famously the "African Orthodox Church." In any case, I don't think that either of the other pseudo-Orthodox groups in the 1936 Census were connected to Ofiesh's church.

[Matthew Namee]

If I recall right (I am in my office and not at home were the repository of my historical books are), Mariam Ofiesh's book about her husband bears the official crest of the church. If I recall right, the name of the latter in your post was the official name of the church, which could have been used by one of the former hierarchs of that group at that time.

Also, I believe that the US Census Bureau compiles its data at the beginning of a decade and then releases it as statistics during the years that follow. In other words the data may have been collected in 1930, but not released until other vital and required statistics were released first.

I currently have a copy of Mariam Ofiesh's book on my desk at home, but (alas!) I am at work. I'll be sure to look at it as soon as I get a chance. As for the Census Bureau, I believe the Censuses of Religious Bodies were actually conducted in years ending in "6" but not released until a few years later. They weren't conducted in conjunction with the regular US Census, which of course always takes place in "zero" years. (The exception is the first distinct Census of Religious Bodies, which was in fact conducted in 1890. It was followed, however, by Censuses of Religious Bodies in 1906, 1916, 1926, and 1936.)

[Herman Blaydoe]

In the beginning, was this attempt one that was "MAINSTREAM" and backed by "Orthodox canonical authorities?"

(cue Jeopardy music . . . do-do-do-do . . .do-do-do . . .)

In Christ,
Rick

Afthemios Ofiesh was properly and canonically ordained as an Orthodox bishop under Bishop Raphael to serve the Syrian Orthodox Church under the Russian Metropolia. In the chaos that followed the Russian Revolution, the Church in America went through a very chaotic state and Bishop Afthemios was to some extent abandoned to his own devices. I doubt that the Church of Russia was ready to establish an independent Church in America at the time regardless, but was obviously ready to let Bishop Afthemios fare as best he could (what else could they do under communist persecution they had their own worries). He evidently did not handle this difficult situation well (I doubt many of us might have done much better all things considered). However, he cut himself off from the Church when he decided to get married in defiance of established Orthodox tradition, if not before. He tried to start an "American" Orthodox Church that was independent (I suspect all the better to do what he wanted rather than have to answer to anyone else). Whether it was intended or not, the "experiment" ultimately failed and to this day merely adds to the confusion that is the state of the Church in America.

[Matthew Namee]

"Mainstream" in 1927 was a far more complex concept than it is today. The Russian Church was split in three, basically -- the Metropolia, the Moscow Patriarchate, and the remnants of the Living Church. The Syrians had Ofiesh, but also Bp Emmanuel (Abo-Hatab) under the Metropolia, plus the official representatives of the Patriarchate of Antioch, plus Met Germanos (Shehadi), an Antiochian bishop operating without the blessing of the Patriarchate of Antioch. The Greeks were also split multiple directions, and I have yet to sort it all out enough to be able to speak about it off the top of my head.

I highly doubt that Met Platon meant to authorize the creation of a true autocephalous Local Church in America which all Orthodox in America would be expected to join. It seems to me that, in a chaotic situation, he was trying to give a free hand to Ofiesh and his American convert allies to operate without having to worry about Soviet intervention. Met Platon's entire second episcopate in America was occupied by constant battles with the various bishops and pseudo-bishops from the USSR.

Rick asked,
In the beginning, was this attempt one that was "MAINSTREAM" and backed by "Orthodox canonical authorities?"
Well, was Met Platon an "Orthodox canonical authority"? To some extent, yes, though Moscow certainly didn't agree. The Greeks were the largest Orthodox group in America, and they didn't back Ofiesh's church. The other Syrians didn't back it. Not one single patriarchate or autocephalous Church backed it. Even if Met Platon is an "Orthodox canonical authority," he was just one bishop and the Metropolia was just one of many bodies in America. There certainly wasn't plural backing -- that is, nobody outside of the Metropolia backed it at all, and Met Platon of course removed his backing soon after he gave it.

Was Ofiesh's church mainstream at the beginning? Hard to say, but I'd suggest that it wasn't really. At the beginning it was on the edge of mainstream. By 1933 it had become increasingly irrelevant. By 1934, it was well outside the mainstream.

[Matthew Namee]

Afthemios Ofiesh was properly and canonically ordained as an Orthodox bishop under Bishop Raphael to serve the Syrian Orthodox Church under the Russian Metropolia.
This isn't true. Ofiesh was not consecrated during St. Raphael's lifetime. He was consecrated a couple years after St. Raphael died to be his (Russian-backed) replacement. A number of the Syrians refused to accept his authority, even at the very beginning.

[Father Anthony]

Dear Matthew,

The book I am referring to, in order to check out regarding the names of churches is Mariam Ofiesh's book that would have the crest on the cover and have reproductions of the original articles of incorporation. One thing about this book, though it can be enlightening at times, the chronology of events is definitely skewed in it. I would have to have the book before me, but there are numerous events cited that are misrepresented (whether deliberately or not) by as many as ten years in it in regards to events in the teens and twenties.

----------------------

Herman,

If I recall correctly, Archbishop Aftimios was consecrated some three years after the death of Saint Raphael.

----------------------

A point to all, the Synod of ROCOR and the Patriarchate of Moscow both saw this establishment of this new "autocephalic" to be irregular at best and uncanonical at worst and actually questioned it publicly. The other Orthodox Churches ignored or publicly rebuffed the proclamation outright, and I have yet to see any sort of official recognition given to the effort documented. No matter whose book or article you refer to except possibly the book by Mariam Ofiesh, this is stated repeatedly.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

[Rick H.]

Was Ofiesh's church mainstream at the beginning? Hard to say, but I'd suggest that it wasn't really. At the beginning it was on the edge of mainstream. By 1933 it had become increasingly irrelevant. By 1934, it was well outside the mainstream.




Dear Matthew, Dear All,

Thanks for the above, and I wonder if Herman's thought in the following provides a key to the unlocking of all of this?:





. . . Bishop Afthemios was to some extent abandoned to his own devices.




My mind goes back to the day President Regan was shot and I heard Alexander Haig come over the radio proclaiming that he was in charge. That was a chaotic day and by no means was Haig the next in line to assume control of the US. What Haig did was absurd/laughable that day, but he did it and it is a part of American History.

As I might attempt to boil this down, is it too *simple* on my part to compare the actions of Haig with those of Ofiesh?

In Christ,
Rick

[Father Anthony]

As I might attempt to boil this down, is it too *simple* on my part to compare the actions of Haig with those of Ofiesh?

In Christ,
Rick

Dear Rick,

Are you sure now? It seems both of their careers where finished after similar actions. :)

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

[Matthew Namee]

As I might attempt to boil this down, is it too *simple* on my part to compare the actions of Haig with those of Ofiesh?
A bit too simple, yes. I think I mentioned this earlier, but in Paul Manolis' The History of the Greek Church in America in Acts and Documents, Vol. II, part of a letter exchange between Ofiesh and the Greek Abp Alexander is reproduced. In it, you can get a good feel for how Ofiesh justified his claims. Initially, at least, he argued that the Metropolia, acting with the implicit authority of the Moscow Patriarchate (so said Ofiesh), had established the autocephalous American Orthodox Church. Ofiesh's claims were largely dependant upon the claims of the Russian Church over America. So in his mind at least, he had gotten approval from the necessary parties. He could and did construct a coherent argument for his authority. Now, his appeals to history are easily refuted and his arguments easily countered, but it's not like he just said, "Hey, I'm in charge here!" He went through what he considered to be the proper channels.

[Rick H.]

The Shape of an American Orthodoxy




A bit too simple, yes.

. . . Ofiesh's claims were largely dependant upon the claims of the Russian Church over America. So in his mind at least, he had gotten approval from the necessary parties.




After reading some of the letter exchange between Ofiesh and the Greek Abp Alexander two days ago, when you speak of Ofiesh's mindset/method and say "in his mind," above, this is what I am speaking to when I suggest a distillation of things in my last post. I think I have a kind of radar built in, and granted this could not possibly be more subjective and unreliable; however, through this letter exchange (and in light of Herman's comment) there is definitely a blip on the screen. I have had my fair share of dealings with so called religious men who are nothing more than ambitious politicians/opportunists with their own personal agendas for the advancement of their own personal kingdoms. But, I guess I am now making way too many assumptions. For that matter I am assuming Herman's comment is correct when he says:




. . . Bishop Afthemios was to some extent abandoned to his own devices.



Wherein, I wonder if this would be a point of agreement?

If this is a true statement, I think this speaks directly to much of what we see in this first attempt at an American Orthodox Church which was void of anything remotely resembling a natural occurring or organic process. Otherwise, I defer to the more informed in our midst.

The method which is seemingly employed here, in this example, is perfectly parallel to other church growth experts/gurus that I have met in the past whereby the end justifies the means every time, and all people and circumstances are means to be used to obtain the desired/contrived end. Whereby, in the wake of all such efforts destruction and division are to be found. Especially, in efforts/vehicles promoted for the purpose of unity, it seems that what initially was intended to unite is the very thing which divides, which becomes a vehicle of division. In this sense, my sense of things is that the mindset/method of Ofiesh is not unique, but is very recognizable.

And, while this may be a part of the history of Orthodoxy in America, I would like to suggest that this has nothing to do with an American Orthodoxy of the present day.

And, this is usually the point where I kill all conversation in these AO threads by means of speculative thought. . . but, I wonder if any here see a distinction between Orthodoxy in America and an American Orthodoxy? It seems that with great speed as the eye is turned to the history of Orthodoxy in America (especially just even a glance at the timeline) much of the intuitive writing in previous AO threads is fully supported with little research effort.

It is my view that Orthodoxy in America, and the history of Orthodoxy in America has little to do with an American Orthodoxy as it is emerging today. In fact, on the website we are using here, I appreciate it that they title their timeline "A Timeline of Orthodoxy in America" as opposed to 'A Timeline of American Orthodoxy,' because I think we are just now seeing the emergence of an American Orthodoxy.

Or, possibly the timeline on the website should be titled "A Timeline of the Divisions found in Orthodoxy in America?"

So, as I have made a move to begin to distinguish between Orthodoxy in America and an American Orthodoxy, I would also like to offer up a thought for additional conversation which is:




"The greatest hindrance to the emergence and development of an American Orthodoxy today is Orthodoxy in America today."



But, even in this proposition we begin to see another train of thought, a distinction between an American Orthodoxy of today and an American Orthodox Church of tomorrow--and my mind moves to the preacher of Ecclesiastes who speaks of division and unity when he says there is a time to rend, and a time to sew back together.

In Christ,
Rick

[Matthew Namee]

Well, for what it's worth, here are my own thoughts on the subject:

Orthodoxy in America is an historically unique phenomenon. For all intents and purposes, there was no organized Orthodoxy in the "lower 48" until the mid-1860s, and even then, it was very scattered. There were organized parishes in New Orleans, San Francisco, and New York, but the New York parish closed in 1885. Some have claimed that the New Orleans parish was under the Russian Church, but I have found little evidence to support this; it appears to have been a quasi-independent church with some affiliation to the Church of Greece. In 1890, there were only two parishes, San Francisco and New Orleans. The seven largest cities in the United States did not have an Orthodox church.

Can we all, then, agree that any talk of "Orthodox unity" in America prior to 1890 is a little silly? Orthodoxy barely existed in America at that point. In the 1890s, two things happened that totally changed the face of Orthodoxy in America: the conversion of the Uniates and the flood of immigrants from Greece, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. In an (historical) instant, the entire landscape of Orthodoxy in this country was dramatically altered.

These immigrants, among whom were my own ancestors, brought with them their culture, their ethnic foods, their languages, and, yes, their Orthodox faith. But their Orthodox faith was not usually something distinct from their larger identity as Greeks, Serbs, Arabs, etc. It was an essential part of their being, but while they acknowledged the oneness of faith with other Orthodox, the respective ethnic groups naturally tended to gravitate towards one another. This wasn't just along ethnic lines. In Chicago, for instance, a Greek parish was founded in 1892, but by 1897 a second parish was founded, the Chicago Arcadians wishing to have their own parish rather than attend the Spartan-dominated church. This sort of thing was not inconsistent with the general tenor of the times.

It is easy to sit back now, in 2008, and call these immigrants ethno-centric. But many were simple villagers. They were initially almost all young men, with very few women. In the 1906 US Census of Religious Bodies, we find that over 85% of the Orthodox in America were male. Specifically, the Greeks were 94% male, the Serbs 86%, the Russians (presumably including the Carpatho-Rusyns) 68%, and the Syrians 61%. By 1916 the women had made some gains, but still the population was overwhelmingly male: 71.5% male overall, Bulgarians 88%, Greeks 83%, Albanians 82%, Serbs 77%, Romanians 73%, Russians 63%, Syrians 56%.

Anyway, these were not missionaries who brought Orthodoxy to America and built churches and started Sunday schools. Many of us owe our very Orthodoxy to them, though -- I certainly owe a debt of gratitude to my ancestors who kept the faith in a foreign land. Many of their fellow Lebanese Orthodox did not: some would join the Roman Catholic Church, others the Episcopal Church or some other Protestant body. Some immigrants kept all their traditions except for their Orthodoxy, preferring to take the easy route and join an American church. But those immigrant Orthodox from this early period remained firm in their faith and preserved Orthodoxy, keeping it alive for their descendants as well as for future generations of converts. We should not criticize them too much. Yet we must admit that the very sentiment which led them to preserve their faith also led them to divide along ethnic and/or village lines. They were preservationists in a sense, not only of their religion but of their culture. The attitude of many towards their fellow Orthodox was something like, "Yes, we share the same Orthodox faith, but we are Syrians and they are Greeks; why should we feel the need to have one church?" These people were not thinking in the macro, and they were not planning for the year 2000. They were thinking of themselves and their communities, then, in 1900 or whatever.

So often in life, the good comes along with things which aren't so good. Orthodoxy in America is no exception. We owe our churches to these immigrants, but we owe our divisions to them as well. Rather than fault them, and rather than look back at the past as some sort of mythical idyllic period of inter-ethnic cooperation and unity (which it never was), we should instead appreciate the contributions of those who came before us while not using them as excuses for our present troubles. It is up to us to find unity. Diversity is the greatest, most defining characteristic of American Orthodoxy, both then and now, and with diversity comes division. The question is whether we can preserve diversity and accomplish unity at the same time.

[Father Anthony]

So often in life, the good comes along with things which aren't so good. Orthodoxy in America is no exception. We owe our churches to these immigrants, but we owe our divisions to them as well. Rather than fault them, and rather than look back at the past as some sort of mythical idyllic period of inter-ethnic cooperation and unity (which it never was), we should instead appreciate the contributions of those who came before us while not using them as excuses for our present troubles. It is up to us to find unity. Diversity is the greatest, most defining characteristic of American Orthodoxy, both then and now, and with diversity comes division. The question is whether we can preserve diversity and accomplish unity at the same time.
Dear Matthew,

That is the million dollar observation there. For too long we have been told the myth that the church lived in a multi-ethnic cohesiveness prior to the Russian Revolution in this country. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have numerous examples of how from the 1890s on, there were serious cracks that have been gloss over in the name of that myth.

The majority of Greek parishes in this country at the turn of the century relied on clergy and antimins supplied from either the Church of Greece, Constantinople, or the Patriarchate of Alexandria depending on where most of that community was from. There is the famous incident in the late 1900s when the Russian Archbishop Platon (later Metropolitan) showed up at Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church (now Cathedral) in Manhattan to preside at the vespers of Good Friday unannounced to claim his jurisdiction with that community. The parish barred him entrance claiming that they under the jurisdiction of the Church of Greece. In 1908, the Church of Constantinople transferred jurisdiction temporarily of it parishes in North America to the Church of Greece until 1922.

Then you have the Syro-Arab communities that as early as 1910 had initiated proceedings to come under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Antioch. This became known as Russy-Antaky situation that would plague these parishes for almost 25 years after that finally being resolved with the full release of all those parishes to the Antiochian Patriarchate in 1935 or 36. Using the date of 1910, one can clearly see that this issue existed during the time of Saint Raphael of Brooklyn.

One of the reasons that Saint Tikhon made his bold proposal to the Holy Synod of Russia, was that numerous ethnic groups had begun to reach out to their churches in the old country and began requesting bishops to be sent and minister to them as extensions of their home territories. Saint Tikhon’s proposal may have had a chance to work, and then again maybe the time was not right. We will never know.

Now the question becomes as you have wrote, “...is whether we can preserve diversity and accomplish unity at the same time”. Hopefully by learning about these past issues, we can start working towards seeing if we can find a solution to that question.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

[Rick H.]

Sentiment & Method : "On broad shoulders and crocuses"


Dear Father Anthony, Dear Matthew, Dear Herman, and All:

The last thing I want to do is to place myself at odds with you Father Anthony, or you Matthew, or you Herman. I appreciate, very much the spirit represented in all three of you (spoken of as the highest common denominator in the last paragraph of the first post here). I have gained so much awareness and found such blessing in your posts, especially you Pooh over the years, that I do not want to take a chance on pitting myself against you where it might work out that you would go mute on me in the future.

So if I thought your shoulders were not broad enough for this I would not bring it up; however, I would like to strip in some quotes now to begin to address an aspect of this exploration for all of our fellow explorers:




The question is whether we can preserve diversity and accomplish unity at the same time.







Now the question becomes as you have wrote, “...is whether we can preserve diversity and accomplish unity at the same time”. Hopefully by learning about these past issues, we can start working towards seeing if we can find a solution to that question.







Originally posted by Herman: >

Are we so insecure and afraid that Orthodoxy is not "up to" flourishing outside the green house, that it cannot supplant the native flora or thrive in native soil?

I bet it can, I know it will, I see it happening. And I and Owen and Rick and others want to do all we can to help it along. That's all, really.



And, these are all most excellent sentiments! I especially love the green house and native soil analogy! The sentiment behind what is being expressed is spot on, and I share this sentiment completely (100%). And possibly I am overly sensitive to this, but, regarding method, I wonder what happens when you go back over these quotes and reread them allowing the pronoun "we" to pop out as if it was in bold letters each time it is encountered?

-- whether we can preserve . . .
-- we can start working . . .
-- we can find a solution . . .
-- do all we can to help it along . . .

And, there is a very fine line here as we consider this, I think. Because when the muscles are straining at Herman's church in order to get that Beautiful tent up, for some this can be very taxing and require that some do all they can! The folks that are responsible for raising that tent *could* all just stay home and pray for divine intervention, and have faith and hope that God will put that tent up for them . . . but, I think chances are when it was time for the event to begin the tent would still be laying their on the ground with poles and stakes.

And, some of this gets back to a post above where one rascal was suggesting:

I. A distinguishing between Orthodoxy in America and an American Orthodoxy

II. A distinguishing between the history of Orthodoxy in America and the emergence of an American Orthodoxy in our time.

And, if I understood this person correctly, there was even a suggestion of:

III. An American Orthodoxy that exists today which is to be understood apart from an American Orthodox Church that may exist tomorrow (or which may never exist at all).


And, in this post also, we are possibly taking the long way round; but, I wonder if there is anything expressed here that speaks to the reader as it relates to an American Orthodoxy?

In Christ,
Rick

PS Are the crocuses blooming yet Marie?

[Father Anthony]

Dear Rick,

Interesting post, and let me be the first to say that I have no intention on being pitted against you as an adversary.

The reason why I had you have a historical glimpse into the past, was to lay the ground work as to why we have such an ecclesiastical mess in North America at present. Almost without exception it was our forbearers that demanded and created the situation even though their were the likes of Saint Tikhon and Aftimios Ofiesh who were trying to project unity for whatever reasons. It is our present generation that seems to be happy to wallow in the mire that is the result of the past, instead of actually giving an honest effort at achieving an American Orthodoxy.

While I am all for some sort of ecclesiastical unity, I am perplexed by alleged advocates of such a cause today. We have the present claimants of the title Orthodox Church in America and despite numerous difficulties that they are experiencing from internal mismanagement, they are not growing but experiencing a serious decline in their membership. This is well documented in their pre-conciliar documents from which their numbers instead of being the alleged 100,000 to 1,000,000 that have been officially quoted publicly are actually hovering in the 30,000 faithful range. Recent evidence shows that the hierarch of the indigenous diocese of Alaska is suppressing local usages that extend the span of the history of that diocese. It is proving by reports to have dire effects, with a sharp drop in faithful being a part of the life of the Church there. The situation is actually one that hurts the Church outside of those effected in that particular locality.

The second instance that seems to me at least perplexing is the second largest group of Orthodox in this country, the Antiochians. While I read of the primate's wish and desire for Orthodox unity, his actions tend to state differently. Instead of working towards becoming part of either the OCA or some other body, thus eliminating one of the duplications jurisdictions and thus helping achieve the cause of American Orthodoxy, we seem to have the opposite occurring. I am directly stating the achievement from the Patriarchate of Antioch of setting up an autonomous church. This is generally a step on the way towards achieving at a future point autocephaly. This was done to the acclaim and fanfare of the majority of the faithful of that jurisdiction. How many autonomous or autocephalous churches do we actually need in one territory?

The above cited example was done not in the hopes of ecclesiastical unity, and if it was, I would really like to know how it is working to achieve such a goal by this action. Inter-Orthodox cooperation outside of a few public ministries really does not exist. I run the office of a department of my archdiocese, and when requests were made to collaborate with other jurisdictions on projects that could be mutually beneficial to all faithful the response has either been nothing or an actual declining of the offer with our efforts being duplicated.

The groundwork shown historically is present today. I have previously stated we can not progress forward unless we learn the causes and then from our education in these matters start to address and educate not only ourselves but the faithful as to the necessity of the importance of the goal of American Orthodoxy. This means going back to important concept that our mother taught us when we were children, that is the concept of sharing with our spiritual siblings and learning to play nice with each other.

We are squandering our resources with infighting and jealousy, with each trying to be the king of the hill. We have had two similar plans laid forth from the past, and neither seems to be palatable to the Orthodox faithful at present, for if they were it would be the Church today. Maybe it is time to rethink these proposals and rework how they might be put into an acceptable working model, that an American Orthodoxy can be achieved not only in word but in reality.

Sorry for my ramblings, but I am think I am expressing the realities of what is the Church in America today.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

[Matthew Namee]

A few comments, though I won't even attempt in a single post to address all the important issues raised in the recent posts by Fr. Anthony and Rick.

First of all, I don't agree that Met Philip's efforts to gain a measure of self-rule are counterproductive for the general cause of Orthodoxy or Orthodox unity in America. It gives the Antiochian Archdiocese a freer hand; it allows their (our, in my case) bishops to have actual diocesan authority over their territories rather than be mere vicars (this was the cause of serious practical problems in the past); it allows for the election of bishops who don't speak Arabic (and even a convert bishop, Mark of Toledo); in general, I think it will make the hypothetical future independence from the Patriarchate easier and more feasible. It's a step in the right direction, and I don't think it's a step towards just another "autocephalous" church.

I also don't agree that an OCA-Antiochian union would be a positive step. As most are aware, the OCA is facing serious problems. Even aside from these, their canonical position is challenged by, among others, the Ecumenical Patriarch, who refuses to acknowledge their autocephaly. Real Orthodox unity means a unity that involves (and probably is led by) the Greeks, but an Antiochian-OCA union would make no progress toward that goal.

With regard to history, I think it is easy and convenient for many today to find someone to blame -- Lenin, Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis, Greek nationalism, Met Germanos Shehadi, etc. It's easy, but it's not accurate. History is so very complex. And this, as I tried to illustrate earlier, gets to the heart of the "American Orthodox/Orthodoxy in America" dichotomy being discussed here. Orthodoxy in America IS American Orthodoxy.

What is America, or American culture? Individualism, you say? What could be more individualistic than the Greek trustee parishes which hired and fired their priests at will in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? Is America a "melting pot"? Here in America, we are the inheritors of not one Orthodox tradition, but every Orthodox tradition -- Greek, Russian, Serbian, Syrian/Lebanese, Romanian, Palestinian, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, etc., etc. The defining characteristic of Orthodoxy in America (or American Orthodoxy, if you wish) to me is that of encounter -- an encounter between fellow Orthodox, an encounter between Orthodox and non-Chalcedonians, an encounter between Orthodox and Anglicans, an encounter between Orthodoxy and Western culture. This is who we are. Nothing is emerging, per se; it is evolving. There is a difference. There will not be a moment in the future where we look back and say, "Back then it was Orthodoxy in America, and now it is American Orthodoxy." Because qualitatively, the best things about American Orthodoxy in 1900 are the same as the best things about it today, and I dare say they will be the same as the best things about it in 2100.

[Father David Moser]

As regards the idea of a singe united American Church administration - I am basically neutral, or at most doubtful. Therefore to establishment of the Autocelphalus Antiochian archdiocese is really neither good nor bad in my opinion. However, I would like to give a little perspective on Matthew's comments.


First of all, I don't agree that Met Philip's efforts to gain a measure of self-rule are counterproductive for the general cause of Orthodoxy or Orthodox unity in America. It gives the Antiochian Archdiocese a freer hand; it allows their (our, in my case) bishops to have actual diocesan authority over their territories rather than be mere vicars (this was the cause of serious practical problems in the past); it allows for the election of bishops who don't speak Arabic (and even a convert bishop, Mark of Toledo); in general, I think it will make the hypothetical future independence from the Patriarchate easier and more feasible. It's a step in the right direction, and I don't think it's a step towards just another "autocephalous" church.

Autocephaly is not a "necessary condition" for diocesan bishops to be ruling bishops instead of just vicar bishops. That only takes a designation from the higher Church authority that the diocese in question is its own entity. If I am not mistaken, the GOA diocesan bishops were recently all raised to the status of ruling bishops without autocephaly. The election of non-Arabic speaking bishops is again not dependent upon autocephaly but is purely an internal matter of the Holy Synod. The American Antiochian Archdiocese has always had a pretty "free hand" in how it managed its internal affairs - the problem was not necessarily the Patriarch or the "old country", but rather the bottleneck was Metr Philip who used that situation as a means towards his ends. Autocephaly was simply the means which Metr Philip used to achieve these ends - but it certainly wasn't the only way that they could have been achieved. Thus it could be said that autocephaly was certainly sufficient, but not necessary for all of the conditions which were brought about.

Given the pace, size, communications links, ease and speed of travel, etc of the modern world, I'm not sure that the old idea of Orthodox missions (moving into a new territory, teaching the indigenous people the faith, baptising and in a few generations raising up Church leaders, eventually to establish new culturally distinct nationally Orthodox Church) is necessarily applicable anymore. I think that we may have to look at the North American model of multiple emigre Church administrations, tied to traditional centers of faith, coexisting throughout the world. Perhaps our efforts should not be to create an American Church but to work on the model by which the various Churches which are in America can work together and speak and act in unison.

But thats just me.

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I very much agree with what Frs Anthony & David have written. Unity is a great desire among us, but the greatest fruits of this seem to have resulted only where the reality of our individual churches/jurisdictions have been taken into account. Wherever though all encompassing plans of unity have been attempted these have borne little fruit. And I would say for good (as well as bad of course) reason.

Our medium sized city of Winnipeg for example I think is a good illustration of this. We have a very good proportion of Orthodox parishes in proportion to population. In the very recent conditions of more canonical unity we are able to have services together that could not have been done in the past. (for the recent Sunday of Orthodoxy Vespers there was 1 metropolitan, 16 priests & 4 deacons serving )

This however is working from the acknowledged reality of each of our churches/jurisdictions. If we tried to deny this little would be accomplished. And again as a note of disagreement with many past tendencies in Orthodoxy, I think this is for very good reason.

The fact is that each of our churches has by this time (ie after 100 years or so in N America) a distinct culture & people we are called to minister to. To overlook this or only portray this as falleness is plain wrong.

For example why as a priest would I minister to the many Russian people in my parish as if they other than they are? This seems quite wrong and so we- along with the jurisdiction we are part of- minister directly in response to who these people are. Even where parishes are mostly or completely English speaking we minister with a Russian spiritual perspective. This also includes issues unique to present day Russia as a country.

Where we have begun learning to change from the past however is in how we approach those Orthodox different from us. In these new conditions it seems blessed to approach each other in a more open hearted fashion than perhaps could be done previously.

And what do we find? That with humility & open heartedness our difference does not necessitate that other Orthodox change into our shape. But nor does it necessitate that we lose our own character either. Open heartedness to others must be balanced with faithfulness to who we are called to minster to.

So then I think the present conditions call for a unique balance between the character of each of our churches/jurisdictions. I think the evidence shows that through this we can attain a very rich level of Orthodox unity indeed.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

History is so very complex. And this, as I tried to illustrate earlier, gets to the heart of the "American Orthodox/Orthodoxy in America" dichotomy being discussed here. Orthodoxy in America IS American Orthodoxy.

The defining characteristic of Orthodoxy in America (or American Orthodoxy, if you wish) to me is that of encounter -- an encounter between fellow Orthodox, an encounter between Orthodox and non-Chalcedonians, an encounter between Orthodox and Anglicans, an encounter between Orthodoxy and Western culture. This is who we are. Nothing is emerging, per se; it is evolving.




Dear Matthew,

I must say that you are right on here with you focus in this thread/exploration! As you direct our attention so perfectly to:


1.) The Heart of an American Orthodoxy


2.) The Defining Characteristic of an American Orthodoxy



you take us to The Ground which offers the most fertile field for tilling and cultivation bar none. Thank you my new friend!


You have provided a vehicle for clarity in your last post which is most helpful as we may consider the two seemingly opposing views:



a.) Orthodoxy in America is to be equated with an American Orthodoxy


b.) Orthodoxy in America is to be distinguished from an American Orthodoxy


and, I think it is possible that the lens one looks through at these two seemingly competing propositions will have a bearing on one's perspective/point of view. Possibly, one with a pastoral bent would see these issues differently than one with a leaning to academic theology, and possibly a historian would see these issues differently than both of the afore mentioned. Possibly either clergy or lay which are 'non-cradle' Orthodox with no ethnic ancestral ties would have a slightly different view than the cradle Orthodox with ethnic ties.


And, Matthew, I noticed that added to this proposition, above, is the word "dichotomy." So I draw the conclusion from this that you see this proposition as being:




divisive or one that creates two mutually exclusive groups.



And, while I don't think this is the case at all, I would like to suggest that often times to add to a proposition is to change a proposition. And, while I don't want this to turn into a 'Spiritual IQ' question I would like to point out that the word "distinguished" above is used by way of




an estimation of difference in regard to differences or distinguishing circumstances.



And, as we may consider an Eastern Orthodoxy today, and an historic Eastern Orthodox Christianity it would be foolish to try to create dichotomies within the Church; but it is proper and helpful to draw distinctions. So I don't think we are seeing a dichotomy being discussed here at all.


I'm out of time now, but I hope to come back to what I think is the most insightful part of your last post (which is possibly more helpful as a pointer than any in any of the AO threads). As you speak of 'the heart of an American Orthodoxy' and 'the defining characteristic of an American Orthodoxy'--which I feel are ONE in the same--yes, this is all about "encounter," I agree fully with you there . . . although I'm not quite sure we have full agreement about an 'evolving' as somewhat opposed to a 'transcending,' and as presented I don't think we have agreement about the focus of the experience/encounter. What do you think Matthew[?] . . . what if we were to broaden our view, or lift our eyes a bit in consideration of an historic Eastern Orthodoxy and the history of Eastern Orthodoxy (which requires no indefinite article or question mark), I wonder if any of the above positions would change? But, a development of this for another day.


Oh I can't stop myself (thanks Owen!) . . . in light of Father Raphael's post above (which does sound good):


Is it better to a.) equate historic Eastern Orthodoxy with Orthodoxy in America today; or b.) distinguish between Orthodoxy in America today and historic Eastern Orthodoxy.


In Christ,
Rick

[Owen Jones]

The great criticism by Protestants is that liturgical churches are spiritually dead. That we do not have a "personal relationship" with God in Jesus Christ. While at one level this is an ill-informed judgment bordering on judgmentalism, it is not entirely without merit. And I think the spiritual power of Orthodox Christianity has yet to really be discovered by most Orthodox Christians in America, partly because it is so easy in a liturgical church to observe the outward forms without the inner transformation that they are based on.

One has to tread lightly here because such sweeping statements sound judgmental as well, and I for one would not want to set myself up as judge, jury and executioner. Clearly there are many, many pious people in our faith in America, far more devoted and disciplined in the faith than I. What concerns me mostly is the things that we take for granted through the liturgical forms of worship. What really makes the Orthodox Christian different than other Christians, or other people in general? Are we really any different than just the average sort of pious church-goer just because we believe our worship is true? How does the difference in our worship, and the theology exemplified in our worship effect our "inner disposition" and the way we live our lives -- other than just trying to be decent, good people? Another way of putting it, how counter-cultural should Orthodoxy in America be, or strive to be, without being self-conscious about it? I think the last point is key, because there are clearly many Orthodox, especially converts, whose counter-culturalism is driving everything else, whereas it probably ought to be the other way around. In which case our faith is really an ideology, not true faith.

There should simply be something different about us/me and if that is not evident in some way, then we are failing to measure up to Christ's example. The ought to be cases of people saying, "there goes an Orthodox Christian," and not because he is Greek, or because he is a convert and has grown a beard.

Just some musings from a frustrated soul I suppose. But it seems to me that problems regarding Church polity really pale in importance to the problem of actually absorbing an Orthodox phronema towards the world around us.

[Marie-Duquette]

Dear Rick,

As I read this thread of OAIII, it encourages me to place a little "interlude" in the midst of the serious intellectual work being done here. The "interlude" is called "broad shoulders and crocuses"

Yes, the crocuses are in bloom and have been popping up their lovely yellow, purple, white cups from a still cold and tawing ground! These tiny, fragile things speak of HOPE in the New Springtime that is emerging, in Nature as well as in the Orthodox Church, as well as in our personal, individual hearts and souls.

Today, the feast of the Veneration of the Holy Cross speaks silent volumes, about interludes, the heart of Orthodoxy, and the ground from which all Life Emerges!

Time lines are a great way of logging History, but in all time lines, which are the horizontal flow of time as it is lived day by day, there is the interlude, or intercepting point. This intercepting point is vertical, and creates a space in time for the creative Breath of God to intervene, bringing about "New Life", " Unity in the midst of diversity, and a resting point, for awe and wonder. This resting point propels one into the heart of the mystery, doesn't it?

"The Son of Man must be lifted up as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desrrt, so that everyone who believes may have eternal life in Him." Jn 3:13-14

"We kiss your Holy Cross, oh Christ, which you were pleased to bear upon your shoulders, on which you have accepted to be lifted up and crucified in the flesh; and from it we receive strength against our invisible enemies." p.342 Lenten Triodion.

Christ is all and in all! "Broad shoulders and crocuses!" It must ALL be lived in Christ, our Life, Light, Love!

marie+duquette

[Rick H.]

Dear Marie,

Glad to hear the crocuses are in bloom. I knew of the yellow and purple in your backyard, but not the white-- I think these look best when the colors are mixed together. Possibly we can take a lesson from Nature whereby the Creator does not segregate in his planting of flowers. In Nature we see different cultivars, but same genus and species side by side, as you have planted yours. Different colors, but all crocuses.

It is funny because our crocuses and other bulbs are up now (and coming up) and since I have 'met' you I cannot help but to think of some of your posts when I am outside looking at them each spring. I especially appreciate what you have said in your last post:




This resting point propels one into the heart of the mystery, doesn't it?



How often do I/we need to be reminded and reminded of this? But, now the crocuses are a constant springtime reminder to "cease striving" and "be still" as the Psalmist said. If there is no "resting point" or no waiting on God then we mock the Scriptures which exhort us to these very things so clearly and repeatedly. Now these crocuses, among other things, are a constant reminder to me to be on guard for the promoters of a frenzied activism which leads to a superficial giddiality at best.

But, yes Marie, these tiny fragile things speak so loudly to me now about Hope in the very ways you have outlined.

Thanks so much for your last post. This interlude is one that I can see myself coming back to in the future as you have written in such a refreshing way about the cross of Christ on His shoulders and these crocuses. Yes, He is all in all. It will be easy to remember this post which is so full of gems and jewels. As there is unity in diversity as you wrote, I will associate this page in my mind with its page number (3). You are the first post on page three, as the Three are One. Now as I consider St. Gregory's writing on the Trinity, I wonder to myself if he had crocuses outside his window where he wrote? :)

Thanks for this blessing Marie.

In Christ,
Rick

[Rick H.]

Not a Rejection; but, a Turning From




But it seems to me that problems regarding Church polity really pale in importance to the problem of actually absorbing an Orthodox phronema towards the world around us.




As usual, Owen has his finger right on the pulse of this thread. Possibly, this is because he characteristically seems to have his finger right on the pulse of Orthodoxy in America. This above statement is, I think, most representative of an American Orthodoxy today. This point that Owen is making here is one that I hear from fellow American Orthodox among other things that are not freely shared--especially from the lay to the clergy. So possibly awareness is an issue with this. However, this statement above points to why there does seem to be a New Spring as Marie has written about the emergence of her flowers through the ground which is only now just thawing. When we see an evolving or a changing, often times the model used in Change and Conflict courses of a frozen state of something, which then thaws and then refreezes can be helpful.

However, as we may consider the problem of an Orthodox mindset and 'Christ in culture' (if you will), and the problems regarding Church polity, it is just as Owen has said above. And, this is where the new way of thinking and the transcending of all divisions in Christ can be understood as it relates to an American Orthodoxy. In my opinion, there is an emerging of an American Orthodoxy that understands the priority of an Orthodox phronema over the problems with church polity, and this is much to do with what is written in these AO threads, and this is why it matters. Possibly, this is why some are uncomfortable with what is discussed here as well (as my PM box and personal feedback area can testify over the years).

There is beginning to be an increasing frustration expressed by the laity, and a lower nonsense threshold for what we have seen historically in Orthodoxy in America in the last one hundred years or so. It is beginning to become clear to some that based on a look back as much as a look around, there probably never will be an American Orthodox Church. In this sense there is an evolution, possibly in the true sense of the word in terms of growth. Or, possibly an "emergent evolution" used as a noun, whereby in our case, there is not a 'rejection' of present circumstances by any means, but there is a 'turning from.' And, the end result of all of this is I think more of a transcending than anything else.

Yes, Owen, as you say, "the inner disposition" . . . whereby our state of being can find harmony/balance with our way of knowing (and believing). Otherwise Orthodoxy in America will continue to oscillate between a kind of autistic orthodoxy and a kind of ADHD orthodoxy for many years to come (doomed to have history repeat itself regardless of the level of awareness of an Orthodoxy in America or an historic Eastern Orthodoxy).

In Christ,
Rick

[Nina]

Now as I consider St. Gregory's writing on the Trinity, I wonder to myself if he had crocuses outside his window where he wrote? :)
In Christ,
Rick

St. Gregory Palamas wrote about things he saw, experienced and were not of this world. He had visions of the Uncreated Light.

[Rick H.]

Sorry Nina, I should have clarified that I was speaking of Gregory of Nazianzus. I'll get the hang of this one of these days! :)

[Matthew Namee]

I'm out of time now, but I hope to come back to what I think is the most insightful part of your last post (which is possibly more helpful as a pointer than any in any of the AO threads). As you speak of 'the heart of an American Orthodoxy' and 'the defining characteristic of an American Orthodoxy'--which I feel are ONE in the same--yes, this is all about "encounter," I agree fully with you there . . . although I'm not quite sure we have full agreement about an 'evolving' as somewhat opposed to a 'transcending,' and as presented I don't think we have agreement about the focus of the experience/encounter. What do you think Matthew[?] . . . what if we were to broaden our view, or lift our eyes a bit in consideration of an historic Eastern Orthodoxy and the history of Eastern Orthodoxy (which requires no indefinite article or question mark), I wonder if any of the above positions would change? But, a development of this for another day.


Oh I can't stop myself (thanks Owen!) . . . in light of Father Raphael's post above (which does sound good):


Is it better to a.) equate historic Eastern Orthodoxy with Orthodoxy in America today; or b.) distinguish between Orthodoxy in America today and historic Eastern Orthodoxy.

I'm not quite sure how to respond. I suppose I'm splitting hairs by making a distinction between "emerging" and "evolving." Let me try to make my point another way. In some quarters, there seems to be a kind of platonic ideal of American Orthodoxy. Perhaps it is best expressed by Fr. Alexander Schmemann in his essay "To Love Is to Remember," in which he cuts this ideal and pastes it onto the American Orthodox past (pre-1917). The resulting myth, believed by many, is that American Orthodoxy prior to 1917 was a near-utopia of inter-ethnic cooperation, and to solve all our problems we need simply to return to that blissful state. Others, of course, don't buy the myth, the result being that they criticize the people of the past for their ethnocentrism and lack of vision. If only they could have worked together, we would have none of these problems today! goes the lament.

When I hear "emerging" (and I do not mean to imply that Rick actually thinks what I perceive; this is just my perception), I get the sense that a new thing, "American Orthodoxy," is coming forth from an old thing, "Orthodoxy in America." It is as if the two phenomena are qualitatively different, like the metamorphosis of a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. This is why I hesitate... Let me ask a common question (to this thread) another way: What does it mean to be American, and be Orthodox? One could also ask the question, "What does it mean to be Russian/Greek/etc and be Orthodox?" There certainly is a distinctiveness to Russian Orthodoxy which involves the interaction of "Russian-ness" and Orthodoxy. Likewise for Greeks, Georgians, Serbs, Romanians, and so forth. Each of those cultures has its own particular qualities, and many of these qualities are not so much native to Orthodoxy as they are baptized by Orthodoxy, made holy by their encounter with Orthodoxy.

Really, then, we must begin with a purely cultural question: What is America, and what is American? America is a more fluid concept than, say, Russia or Greece. The Greeks have an inheritance dating back thousands of years. In the Russian Primary Chronicle, one can discern distinctly Russian (or Slavic, if you prefer) traits even in the story about St. Andrew visiting the region in the first century. The conversion of St. Vladimir did not fundamentally alter what it meant to be Russian (or whatever you want to say that he was; anyway, the Russians certainly are inheritors of that tradition). Instead it transfigured it. The same can be said of all the lands and peoples which Orthodoxy has touched. The Greeks are probably an even better example -- even the pre-Christian philosophers were baptized and corrected by Christianity.

My point is, "America" is new, and it is not strictly the property of one ethnic group. I am a fourth-generation Lebanese, and I am an American. My wife has ancestors who came here on the Mayflower, and she is an American. A fresh immigrant is equally an American. You are an American if you choose to be an American. This is a very unusual thing.

I think I should stop now; I've written enough for the moment. I'd like to hear what others think of this idea, of what exactly it is to be American and how that relates to being Orthodox. Those immigrants in the 1890s were Americans -- hyphenated Americans in an age of hyphenated Americans. That is just as American as our Americanism today.

[Matthew Namee]

Oh, one more thing: Rick, what is "historic Eastern Orthodoxy"? Has there ever been an "Orthodoxy" which was totally distinct from its culture? I think it would be better to compare American Orthodoxy to its older counterparts in other countries and cultures.

[Rick H.]

Has there ever been an "Orthodoxy" which was totally distinct from its culture?




Dear Matthew,

I'm not sure how you would define 'totally distinct;' but, I think Orthodoxy in America is and has been most distinct from the American culture since day one . . . but, then again in many ways it should always be distinct. I think every Orthodox church I am aware of in America is close to being totally distinct from its culture. But as Owen has written above, there is also a counter cultural move involved here as there was from day one of an historic Orthodox Christian approach--in the time of Christ and the Apostles.

Thanks for your above first post of the day--excellent post. I am going to grind some beans and give this a hard read. I think this is the second time that you have written about the myth of "a near-utopia of inter-ethnic cooperation" in the early history of Orthodoxy in America, but I have not heard/read of this anywhere else before. I would not have guessed this would have been the case, but thanks for sharing this and again increasing my awareness of Orthodoxy in America (including now the myth(s) associated with it).

And, in the meantime, may I second what you wrote in the following:




I'd like to hear what others think of this idea, of what exactly it is to be American and how that relates to being Orthodox. Those immigrants in the 1890s were Americans -- hyphenated Americans in an age of hyphenated Americans. That is just as American as our Americanism today.



We just may be heading into a development of what Fr. Dcn. Matthew wrote about once before when he wrote of "a radical personalism," or possibly again as has been written about "a radical individualism" or "the ultimate individualism." In this we might even touch upon the myth of postmodernism and even consider the mindset and way of knowing of some of your wife's ancestors!


In Christ,
Rick

PS Non-organic Kroger's french roast anyone?

[Owen Jones]

Again, Orthodox unity and harmony in America will not be achieved from the top down, or the outside in. We cannot wait for a unified Orthodox polity to emerge, absent a Trinitarian unity being achieved first -- within. The polity problem is a soul problem. This will continue as long as a true, powerful, Patristic Orthodoxy remains, for all intents and purposes, dormant. And that will continue as long as our preachers and teachers fail to exemplify the Patristic mind. Reading the Fathers, as if they have ideas, is not a substitute. Please God, please just give me one preacher who really reflects a true, Orthodox mind! Most of the time, it's just accidental, like a broken clock being right twice a day.

[Matthew Namee]

Again, Orthodox unity and harmony in America will not be achieved from the top down, or the outside in. We cannot wait for a unified Orthodox polity to emerge, absent a Trinitarian unity being achieved first -- within. The polity problem is a soul problem. This will continue as long as a true, powerful, Patristic Orthodoxy remains, for all intents and purposes, dormant. And that will continue as long as our preachers and teachers fail to exemplify the Patristic mind. Reading the Fathers, as if they have ideas, is not a substitute. Please God, please just give me one preacher who really reflects a true, Orthodox mind! Most of the time, it's just accidental, like a broken clock being right twice a day.
Owen, I agree with you. It is the acquisition of the mind of the Fathers, as opposed to mere repetition of their words, that defines Orthodoxy.

What do you mean by "preacher," though? Do you mean a clergyman in general, or specifically one who has the gift of preaching? I have known priests who could speak with the tongues of men and of angels but truly had no love for their flocks; I have known others who exemplified humility and sacrifice but had no oratorical abililty.

Also, with regard to the issue of "unity," it absolutely must develop on a grass-roots level. Every attempt to assert a top-down unity has failed (cf. Ofiesh and the OCA). If we imbibe the spirit of true Christian unity, the same spirit which is present in the Fathers, we can live out that unity regardless of how lousy and short-sighted (or great and visionary) our hierarchs might be. Ultimately, it is the people who will bring about whatever unity is in store for us. The bishops are, after all, only a tiny percentage of the Church. More and more, on the local level, Orthodox people and parish priests are living out the spirit of unity. In many large cities, the priests of the various jurisdictions now have active clergy brotherhoods. In Portland, Oregon, the Orthodox parishes have banded together to create an Orthodox home for the dying. In Massachusetts, there is a pan-Orthodox nursing home. There are many, many other examples of these cross-jurisdictional efforts.

With canonizations of saints, the people venerate a holy person and the hierarchs eventually acknowledge and confirm that which God already revealed and the people already declared. Likewise with unity, if the laity and parish clergy live out the spirit of unity, which is certainly blessed by God, the bishops will eventually have little choice but to recognize a reality which already exists. There need be no top-down imposition of a merely structural unity. Unity will be accomplished not in a moment, but over generations. If I may paraphrase St. Paul, we are "working out our unity," hopefully in fear and trembling.

[Owen Jones]

I suppose I was referring to clergy in general, most of whom have to perform a preaching function on a regular basis.

Every successful sermon must have several elements.
1) Pathos -- a deep feeling that we all share and can experience in the present moment and later, through prayer and reflection, this feeling is continuously made present.
2) To evoke in the listeners a specific, inner recognition and acknowledgement of our sins and sorrow for our sins.
3) To evoke a strong desire to turn away from sin and toward God.
4) Specific direction in the practical means for achieving this, with God's help and that of our fellow believers, so that it is not predicated on self-will and we do not have to face the truth of ourselves on our own. For instance, it is not sufficient that we are told that we must have humility. We must be taught and shown by specific example what it means to be humble and how to acquire humility.
5) Showing that it is possible to do what we are commanded to do, by giving examples, from Scripture, from the lives of saints, but more and more important today, from examples in everyday life. That it is not a hopeless task that causes us to give up and despair before we have made any progress.
6) A vision of that which we are created to be and created to become that will evoke awe, wonder and inspire us to never give up. In other words, a vision of the progress of the soul through its various stages.

Theoretically this can be done in ten minutes. Christ's sermons were that short, or shorter. But let's face it, most of the best of preachers cannot carry this off in a ten minute homily.

It does not require great oratorical skill. There are many oratorical styles. Simplicity is the key.

[Rick H.]

When I hear "emerging" (and I do not mean to imply that Rick actually thinks what I perceive; this is just my perception), I get the sense that a new thing, "American Orthodoxy," is coming forth from an old thing, "Orthodoxy in America."



Dear Matthew,

I think your example of a butterfly 'emerging' from a cocoon is very helpful in many ways [and I appreciate the way you continually remain engaged and on target] although possibly in the end the caterpillar/butterfly does not speak to the kind of "awakening" or "renewal" that I think we are seeing at the present. Here unlike the butterfly where a new thing comes from an old thing, as you say, in an American Orthodoxy today, I think we are seeing what can possibly better be described a "renewing." It is obvious, and I admit to being forever the idealist; however, I see this emerging AO as a return to the Eastern Orthodoxy that I have read about before I decided to 'convert' to EO (and way before I ever considered a GO, RO, or an AO in particular).. I do not see an American Orthodoxy as being anything new at all, if anything, I see Orthodoxy in America today as something new if we are to not open the window and throw the Canons of the Orthodox Church out into the bushes. In some ways, it brings peace to associate an American Orthodoxy with a butterfly (viz. 'a theology of freedom'), and in this same vein of thought it is appropriate in light of American History; however, again I think of AO not as a coming forth of a new thing, but an old thing.

As far as your other question goes, it has been asked before and addressed somewhat, but I think it holds a very fertile ground for any group which would attempt to minister in America. If your question is not addressed at the present, something tells me we will loop back to this in the future.

Thanks again Matthew, your contributions are much appreciated here. Some posts make me think and learn more than others, some posts put me into a stupor more than others, obviously yours are in the first group just about 100% of the time. Much appreciated.

In Christ,
Rick

[Matthew Namee]

Rick, I'm still a little unsure of what you mean by "Eastern Orthodoxy." There is, of course, the Apostolic Tradition, the Mind of the Church, which was given once and for all and experiences no change. This is why many of our best theologians today have said that "development of doctrine" is not a valid concept in Orthodoxy.

That said, there has never been a manifestation of Orthodoxy which was independent of the culture in which it existed. The Orthodoxy of the Cappadocians, for example, cannot be fully appreciated without an awareness of the Greek and Roman culture of their day. The Cappadocians were educated with the Greek classics and they lived in the earliest days of the Christian empire. The culture of that place and time period is unique in history. Who, though, would dare say that the Cappadocians were any more "Orthodox" than St. Sergius of Radonezh and St. Andrei Rublev, who lived in fifteenth century Russia? Yet those Russian saints did not read the Greek classics and their culture was vastly different from fourth century Cappadocia. One could go on with endless examples; my point here is that we can identify many people and periods which are authentically Orthodox, yet in all cases they exist in context. We cannot escape context. Without context, all we have are ideals, concepts. Context is the world in which those concepts manifest themselves. Orthodoxy has been made manifest in every age since the Apostles, and the faith itself is one, but there has never been a "pure" Orthodoxy, devoid of context. American Orthodoxy has been influenced and affected by all the peculiarities of life in America. It is a unique phenomenon, just as Greek and Russian and Serbian Orthodoxy are unique.

One way Rick's comments could be interpreted, though, is that American Orthodoxy is particularly well-suited for an authentic experience of Orthodoxy. To this I would agree, though I would not mean it in any sort of comparative way (it's no judgment of other Orthodox cultures). The reason I would say this is because it really gets to the heart of what I feel is distinct and special about American Orthodoxy.

One of the very unusual facets of American Orthodoxy is that virtually every member is descended from immigrants. Maybe there are some people who are exclusively descended from this continent's original inhabitants, but my understanding is that by this point, even "natives" have, via intermarriage, some ancestors who immigrated to the New World. In other words, we are all foreigners. Some of our families have been here longer than others, but there was a time in the past 500 years when every single American Orthodox Christian today had an ancestor who was born in another country. The same thing cannot be said of all Orthodox in the Old World, where many families have lived in the same village or region from time immemorial.

Thus, our Orthodoxy is a transplanted Orthodoxy. It is also a polyglot Orthodoxy; it is not the product of one country's missionary effort or even one country's immigration. Orthodoxy was brought here by Russians via Alaska, Greek and Syrian and Serbian (and other) immigrants crossing the Atlantic, Carpatho-Rusyn Uniates who converted to Orthodoxy in Pennsylvania coal towns. From its earliest days in America, Orthodoxy has had her converts as well. It has always been a mix of cultures. In this, I feel that the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. I think I've said this before, but here in America we have the inheritance of essentially every Orthodox culture which exists. We have the incredible opportunity to learn from not just one Orthodox tradition but every Orthodox tradition. All the saints are ours, not just local ones or saints unique to a single culture. All the spiritual and theological writings are ours, not just the ones which were written in our language or in our country. All the musical forms, all the iconographic styles which are authentic to Orthodoxy belong to us. Obviously they belong to all Orthodox in theory, but here in America, they belong to us in practice. We have made Orthodox one of the most vital aspects of American life: multiculturalism.

There is much, much more that could be said, and many more facets of "America" which could be articulated in an Orthodox manner, but I will stop for now. Sorry for being so long-winded!

[Nina]

Who, though, would dare say that the Cappadocians were any more "Orthodox" than St. Sergius of Radonezh and St. Andrei Rublev, who lived in fifteenth century Russia?

This never had crossed my mind until I read this post. Neither I have read/heard the same before. I do not know where these kinds of thoughts emerge from. It is strange. We are not in a competition in Orthodoxy. The only one we compete against in this life, is ourself - this is what the Patristic mind teaches us - since Owen is right that we need much more influence from the Orthodox phronema in this country. And thank God for monachos.

On another note, since cultures are discussed here as they are detached from one another, or exist independently: Let's not forget that our modern cultures (and also American in our case) are highly influenced by the classical cultures of the world. Be that in the linguistic realm, academia and the rest. Take English as a language for example and look at the etymology (surprise! even the word etymology is borrowed from another language) of all the words in the Merriam Webster. A great part of the words in English originate from classical languages and other ancient/older languages. Such knowledge can grant one admission for studies like those of St. Basil for instance.

Since Cappadocians were mentioned... they studied classics, we study classics. I mention it also above. Actually being fluent in such areas of knowledge is an indicator of a well rounded, very good education even in our days.

[Rick H.]

Interlude

Dear Matthew,

When you ask:




Rick, I'm still a little unsure of what you mean by "Eastern Orthodoxy."



I don't think I am using "Eastern Orthodoxy" in my writing to you with any special or new meaning. As usual your post caused me to think yesterday. And, as I was just even considering a definition of "Eastern Orthodoxy" it occurred to me that this is not an easy assignment. I looked for a post of Owen's from awhile back without success, but in this post he spoke about Truth. And, he did it in a way that was unique in my view, it seemed to me (initially) that he was speaking about Truth as possibly a New Ager or Buddhist might speak about Truth. It seemed that he was presenting truth as a concept separate from the Trinity, as a kind of impersonal force or as one whom held to a non-theistic position might speak of Truth. But, after reading through a few times, I realized that he wasn't saying any of this and he had actually provided a tour de force, a brilliant and masterful feat. And, I wish I could find this because it has a place here and now for sure. His short post about Truth is what I wish I could provide to you now as an answer.

And, I thought I would check the Monachos Orthodox Dictionary for definitions of EO and The Church. I thought I would share these with you to demonstrate that I was not attempting to bring about and special or new meaning, of "an historic Eastern Orthodoxy," in my writing to you. But, then I realized that this feature is not here anymore, so strike two!

But, at this point I think I would like to create a strong wind if nothing else and swing for the fence by offering another interlude of sorts.

It occurs to me that possibly you have read some of my posts in the past whereby I have compared an American Orthodoxy with an Eastern Orthodoxy. And, possibly this is why you ask for clarification about what I mean by Eastern Orthodoxy because there there does seem to be the implication of a special meaning. And, you yourself touch on some of this, as you link an American Orthodoxy with an authentic experience of Orthodoxy, when you wrote:




One way Rick's comments could be interpreted, though, is that American Orthodoxy is particularly well-suited for an authentic experience of Orthodoxy. To this I would agree, though I would not mean it in any sort of comparative way (it's no judgment of other Orthodox cultures). The reason I would say this is because it really gets to the heart of what I feel is distinct and special about American Orthodoxy.



This authentic experience this state of being, this theory of being (if you will), yes this is IT. But, this is not something that you can point to is it? One cannot point to one's ontology or one's epistemology any more than one can point to Eastern Orthodoxy, or anymore than one can point to an American Orthodoxy. Here we talk about experience/encounter. Here although it is primarily (hopefully) a ministerial/servanthood place/ground that drives all such considerations, and although there may be an academic language/method employed at times, ultimately we are speaking of a mystical relationship. We can use words like universal(ism) and particular(ism), or we can even make up our own words like aparticular(ism). We can parrot a saying like one's ontology models one's epistemology, but at the end of the day, what have we really said, what has really been accomplished with anyone? It has been said of Yeats that "Yeats writes only for Yeats."

But, this sort of situation is not limited to any one branch. Incoherence can be found in abundance in the academic theology ranks to the same degree as it can be found in the ranks of the mystics, the monastics. When the focus is on the individual the same high level of incoherence can be found in the ranks of the one who speaks exclusively from a pastoral point of view. And, here's the point Matthew, when you have one who attempts to speak from the place of the academic, the mystic, and the ministry of pastoral care simultaneously then the degree of confusion skyrockets! It is perceived as a mish-mash at the very best! However, and here's where the rubber meets the road, this combined perspective is I think very representative of an American Orthodoxy and is what is unique to an American Orthodoxy, and this is what is vital to understanding and recognizing an American Orthodoxy! There is not a priority of the mind over the heart in an American Orthodoxy just as there is not a priority of the heart over the mind--it is the mind in the heart. I think, there is a huge integral aspect of an American Orthodoxy, a huge communal aspect (again as you have written) that innately transcends all divisions in Christ, including and especially the jurisdictional lines, limits, and boundaries. And, this is what needs to be recognized! Because left unchecked this will bring about an increasingly unhealthy view of the hierarchies in America, and then hierarchies in general. And, while I agree with you and Owen 100% that is ludicrous and naive to consider a top down structural unity, what I am suggesting now is something different. I appreciate Herman's love and respect for his bishop, but from where I sit, this is becoming an increasingly rare way of knowing in America. You see, bordering on resentment, the increasing disrespect and frustration shown for the hierarchies even here on Monachos very clearly (through the writing of others about their hierarchs). On an increasing basis the hiearchs are portrayed as being out of touch, distant, withdrawn, and impotent figureheads--objects of ridicule.

So on the one hand to not recognize an American Orthodoxy does not really matter. As has been said recently in another thread, just because a saint is not canonized does not mean he or she is not a saint, the lack of recognition (official or otherwise) does not change the reality of the situation. But, on the other hand if deaf ears and blind eyes continue towards the subject of an American Orthodoxy there will be consequences, there will be ramifications.

Possibly, in the End, while trying to find a place to land this thing, I can leave off with a proposition of sorts whereby the one who can recognize and define an American Orthodoxy is the same one who can recognize and define an Eastern Orthodoxy. Okay, maybe just one more . . . as we consider the original question in the first post of AO I, "Is there an American Orthodoxy" I would suggest that if there is no American Orthodoxy then there is no Eastern Orthodoxy.

There is so much in the posts above that I hope to backtrack with, I hope these don't get away (especially the sentiment expressed in Owen's most recent posts which perfectly demonstrates an AO). In America we as a culture definitely have our faults, but it can be a true blessing when either a prophet of God or someone in the gas and oil business is not afraid to call a spade a spade or to say the emperor has no clothes at times. And, as I think about the prophets of God who lived in the ancient near east it occurs to me now that possibly the act of crying out (or shouting it out) is not unique to America at all.

In Christ,
Rick

[Owen Jones]

Memo to Rick: KISS

[Rick H.]

Memo to Rick: KISS

You must have been a lot of fun in the classroom at seminary Owen. I see what you have done with this, let's see if Matthew chooses to respond the same way.

In Christ,
Rick

PS Maybe you think this is a sermon?

[Rick H.]

The Patristic Mind/The Apostolic Spirit

Dear All,

I ran across this quote yesterday, and even though there are probably not many who will appreciate it in light of this discussion, I would like to place it right here, at this time.

I think this is not without direct implication to an American Orthodoxy . . . whether we are aware of it or not. In many ways, I think, this speaks also to recent discussions elsewhere about both the value of and what is the Patristic Mind as it is perceived and participated in by both the 'cradle' (born in N. America) and the 'converts' found in North America today:




Epistemology pertains to where we "take our stand" on what we believe. Christianity is not simply taking a stand on what we believe about Jesus Christ, but is the ontological presence and activity of the living Lord Jesus within and through the Christian.



And, this can have a wider application. But, yes, the treasury, Holy Tradition, the patristic mind, and an orthodox phronema . . . in some ways this is puzzling for Western/American Christians even though they often live and exemplify the apostolic spirit themselves unaware.

As John Meyendorff wrote:




In a way that is often puzzling for Western Christians, the Orthodox, when asked positively about the sources of their faith, answer in such concepts as the whole of Scripture, seen in the light of the tradition of the ancient Councils, the Fathers, and the faith of the entire people of God, expressed particularly in the liturgy. This appears to the outsiders as nebulous, perhaps romantic or mystical, and in any case inefficient and unrealistic (John Meyendorff, Catholicity and the Church, p. 100).





With the first quote above in mind, I wonder if any have an appetite for considering the patristic mind as it relates to an American Orthodoxy today? Namely, a consideration of the level of understanding of this concept in America as well as a consideration of the level of participation in the patristic mindset? For that matter (while resisting the temptation to form another spirtual IQ question) must the former be a prerequisite for the latter or vice versa?

In Christ,
Rick

[Ken McRae]

The great criticism by Protestants is that liturgical churches are spiritually dead. That we do not have a "personal relationship" with God in Jesus Christ. While at one level this is an ill-informed judgment bordering on judgmentalism, it is not entirely without merit. And I think the spiritual power of Orthodox Christianity has yet to really be discovered by most Orthodox Christians in America, partly because it is so easy in a liturgical church to observe the outward forms without the inner transformation that they are based on ...

... But it seems to me that problems regarding Church polity really pale in importance to the problem of actually absorbing an Orthodox phronema towards the world around us.

While I realize the mixed emotions harboured by many Orthodox toward Bl. Seraphim Rose, (and yes, I do number him among the "blessed,") it is said of him that he acquired the mind of the Fathers, first, through his deep immersion into the Church's liturgical prayer cycle, second, through his close and spiritually penetrating study of the Patristic writings, and third, through his close personal contact with St. John of San Francisco.

Despite whatever legitimate criticisms that can be laid at his feet, Bl. Seraphim Rose continues to strike me as one who indeed entered deeply into the Patristic mind and experience, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on one's theological perspective. He is, for me, (despite his idiosyncracies,) a true model of "Western" Orthodoxy personified; and models, (for me at least,) its continuing potential, under the right formative influences.

One big problem, for me, though, is the language barrier. Granted, I don't often attend the Orthodox Church these days, but that is partly because of the language problem. When I use to frequently attend it, back in the late 90's, it was generally the OCA parish, though I visited several others as well. At that time, the priest of the OCA parish was using a considerable degree of English in the liturgy, though far below the 50% mark. On top of all that, the OCA priest (at that time) was not a preacher of any kind, whether good or bad, which further complicated matters.

Today, that same parish is nearly 100% Church Slavonic, due largely to the huge influx of Russian immigrants. To me, that is completely unacceptable. A true "North American" Orthodoxy for me is one that is predominantly English-speaking in its liturgical prayer-life. If I can't get an English liturgy in what is probably the largest OCA Parish in the country, what is the likelihood I'm going to find it anywhere else in the province, let alone within a reasonable distance from my own residence?

So, it is not so easy a thing for persons, in my situation, to "immerse" themselves in the Church's liturgical prayer cycle, (after the recent example of Bl. Seraphim Rose,) even if they whole-heartedly desired to do so. The language barrier is too highly restrictive, in that respect. The best I can possibly hope to do, I feel, under those circumstances, is mere outward conformity to the liturgical "forms," as I cannot possibly hope to enter into them very deeply, if at all, for said reasons.

So, I'm left to wonder if it is at all possible for any kind of Orthodox believer, whether cradle or convert, to actually acquire the mind of the Fathers, without being deeply immersed in the Church's liturgical prayer cycle; and without the penetrating study of Patristic writings; and most of all, without the benefit of a close personal relationship with at least one Orthodox Christian who has actually acquired that Patristic mind of Christ, to a greater or lesser degree, like either Bl. Seraphim Rose, or his spiritual mentor, St. John of San Francisco.

So, from where I stand, I must agree with Owen, that the liturgical experience for most persons in my shoes will be less than satisfying; at least until one can learn enough of the liturgical language to get by. Until then, it is more likely to be a kind of "dead" experience, save for the Holy Sacrament itself. I don't imagine the liturgical experience is going to be much more than that for most English-only speaking converts, under such conditions, and I hope to hear from some voices here that are in precisely that kind of predicament.

Regarding Owen's comment about how the Protestant perceives the Orthodox way of communicating with Jesus, in a personal way, I must confess to sometimes having the same problem myself. I mean, there has been more than one occasion in which I have read the biography of an Orthodox saint, that said precious little, if anything, about his/her close intimacy with Jesus himself; while yet there was no lack of information about their love and devotion to the Holy Theotokos, or the saints glorified in Christ.

The one thing that most Evangelical Protestants will look for in any Pastor, whether Orthodox or not, is a deep and discernable love for Jesus, that literally eclipses any love they might have for either the Theotokos herself or any of the saints, no matter how great they are. Despite my many criticisms of Evangelicals, I find it difficult to fault them on this. I can think of no good reason, as I write this, why any Orthodox Christian (or Catholic, for that matter,) should have a greater love for anyone, than for the precious Saviour of their soul!

[Rick H.]

While still pursuing "An American Orthodoxy: its nature, limits, and boundaries", I would like to share that I was reading the blog of a community member yesterday. In this blog, under the title "How Should We Approach What We Believe" there was some discussion about the personal and the subjective and the institutional and the objective.

Specifically, there was a quote from the introduction to On the Mystical Life, that caught my attention. And, this quote caused me to stop and ponder two things: 1.) The complete subjectivity of this thread about American Orthodoxy; 2.) Why does there need to be such a tension between the personal/subjective and the institutional/objective in Eastern Orthodoxy? And, to share this provocative quote in the following Alexander Golitzin, in the introduction to On the Mystical Life, says of St. Symeon the New Theologian:




He makes use of a long-established vocabulary of theological thought, of even older liturgical and ascetical traditions, and reads these traditional elements -- which he understands very well--through the lens of his own, personal experience. But there is no conflict, let alone rupture, between the last element and the preceding ones. Symeon is not an apostle of the personal and subjective over the objective and institutional -- though, as we will observe in our Introduction, he may strain certain tensions to their limits. Rather for him Orthodoxy and the ascetic tradition serve to illumine and define his experience while the latter provides the substantiation or proof, of the former."



This speaks to prior conversations about 'individualism' and 'personalism', I think. And, if I remember correctly Hannah was the last to chime in about western individualism as "the strongest barrier to an American Orthodoxy;" however, I wonder if any of the new blood here on monachos have any thoughts about the above?

As for myself, I see a beautiful harmony between the personal/institutional and the subjective/objective to be found within Eastern Orthodoxy and American Orthodoxy together, which results in the type of "radical personalism" that Fr. Dcn. Matthew was pointing to in a past discussion--which involved the thinking of John Zizioulas. (and just for the record, I do own more than one book [viz. 'Being as Communion]) . . . but I seem to keep reaching for this book almost each week, and now I am thinking of his essay on the local church and the universal church which are one in the same as it relates again here to a proposed consideration of particulars and universals (and aparticulars for any who remember that from AO I).

But, again, why do these so called tensions need to be strained to their limits, as was said of St. Symeon's approach . . . or to hold that up to the light and turn it a different way yet, lest we narrow our view severely within Eastern Orthodoxy how can these types of things be considered to be in opposition as it relates to a promotion of the Life in Christ?

In Christ,
Rick

[Paul Cowan]

Lord, knows I am not looking to restart this trilogy, but I ran across this blog (http://bonovox.squarespace.com/journal/2008/9/29/pray-for-fr-john-peck.html)and thought of this thread. Perhaps we are closer than we think to an American Orthodoxy.

Paul

[Mary]

Paul, that was a great essay. Thanks! I love the part about Transparency! =) I was thinking out transparency in general, and thinking how easily that would solve all the problems we have.

in Christ,
Mary.

[Rick H.]

"The Bishop Within"

As this relates to point #10 in the first post of this thread:

Thanks for posting this article Paul. This is possibly an example of what Owen has commented about in the past about courage and stating the obvious (as well as 'the Bishop within') I'm sure Father John has experienced some grief for this piece, but, I am willing to bet he knew that would be the case when he wrote it.

Whether one agrees with everything that Father John has said or not, I appreciate his style. He puts it out there in a way that leaves little doubt for what is being said. I think his open letter clearly demonstrates that there is an American Orthodoxy now, today . . . but, it cannot be seen at all by those who can only relate to such things as buildings and budgets and festival tents. The state of being, the spirit, of an American Orthodoxy in the present day has nothing to do with such things as these any more than did the earliest of Christian communities. The way of knowing, the spirit, of an American Orthodoxy has nothing to do with anything that can be seen or touched or pointed to. But, and here's what I think most people cannot grasp in any form or fashion . . . "There is an American Orthodoxy" as Fr. Metrakos has said/written (in the first post of AO I). And, there is an American Orthodoxy as evidenced in Fr. John's article above. There is an American Orthodoxy as evidenced by other writings from clergy referenced in this 'AO trilogy.' And, what should be most obvious to the readers of Monachos.net is that there is an American Orthodoxy as evidenced by many of the posts in these AO threads here. On one hand, it is astonishing to me that this cannot come into view for some.

But, on the other hand, there is nothing new about a way of knowing which is based on the old sentiment, "I'll believe it when I can see it."

And, possibly this speaks to some who are in positions of leadership in Orthodoxy in America today? Much as Fr. John has written about those in leadership today . . . or possibly better yet, as I think back to two of Fr. Raphael's posts where he shares that often times leadership follows what has come into being by the lay members of the Church (only after it has come into being) best exemplifies what is at play with an American Orthodoxy today.

And, we could take the high road here and speak of the check and balance that is supposed to reflect an Eastern Orthodoxy. We could speak of the appropriateness of the lay and the clergy working in harmony with each other to show what is approved. And, this sounds very good, doesn't it?

Or, we could ask what is a leader? And, we could find one definition as being:

"A leader is one who leads"

We could consider such things as the necessity of vision and discernment in our leaders.

As well, we could consider the call in the past for pastoral theologians to rise up in Orthodoxy in American today (as Fr. John has), pastoral theologians who actually care about things other than buildings, budgets, tents, ethnic clubs, their parish council's happiness and keeping their own jobs as priests.

And, if we did consider some of these things, I think there would possibly be a sharp line of division between the two different kinds of leaders that we have in place, today. We would have leaders who work for Orthodoxy in America and we would have leaders who work for an American Orthodoxy--two very distinct things. Two very distinct things which are very controversial and evoke a passionate response from both sides (lest apathy has overwhelmed ones self).

But, again what is new? There have always been those who would consider such as an American Orthodoxy, something that cannot be seen, as being a rag-tag band of brothers at best, or a rebellious bunch who does not fall in line with the way things have always been done.

However, from an historical Christian perspective, I think, there is clearly more of a modeling of the earliest church in an American Orthodoxy than Orthodoxy in America today. And, while it could be said that there was a kind of a passing of the baton in the earliest days of the Church (as if this discredits what is said about an AO . . . the opposite is true today. There is clearly a passing of the baton going on between Orthodoxy in America and an American Orthodoxy today. And, these are two different epistemologies, I think. Two different ontologies. Two different ideologies. Which is why there is so much passion and controversy around this topic at times.

More specifically, this is why it takes courage to state the obvious in this regard. Because there will be a backlash. I hope Fr. John did not receive too much grief here. And, I hope he has not backed down from what he has written. There are different kinds of martyrdom, aren't there? I'm reading a provocative article about Orthodoxy in America now (as related to a bridge in Orthodox spirituatlity) by Vincent Rossi. And, I think it does take courage to write some of the things that some of these men do.

But, the true test for any who feel compelled to say the emperor has no clothes, or to state the obvious, is found in one's willingness to sacrifice for what one truly believes to be the Truth. Take Fr. John for example, I wonder what would happen if his GOA superiors said something like what you have just written is stupid, foolish, and sinful . . . you need to recant or be defrocked. I hope Fr. John wouldn't back down. I guess things could be reasoned around, possibly like some martyrs in the past, whereby to hide what is believed and what one feels compelled to share is the best course of action. Especially, when one has invested his whole life into training for the ministry and the ministry itself, in such cases. However, on either side of the isle . . . I wonder, what leader today, would be willing to sacrifice one iota of anything for what one truly believes? Because this is the test of Tests, where the rubber meets the road. And, to flunk this test means that one has run in vain the whole way.

I can think of two people who have passed this test here on monachos with not a small amount of sacrifice to stand up for what is believed about such things as the true church, ecclesiology, and polity. But, I'm not sure I know of anyone else in Orthodoxy in America, in the recent past, who has done this, in this way in the present day. I know of some who have made similar moves as it relates to Orthodoxy in America, but these moves were made in a contrived way with safety nets and parachutes in place, so not the same.

But, regarding this test, this purification process, this itself manifests an American Orthodoxy clearly, as well as the old saying one's ontology models one's epistemology.

[Robert Hegwood]

Speaking of Fr. John's grief, is there any news on his situation? The response to his article from his higher ups has seemed ill disposed to say the least.

[Rick H.]

To continue on with the above train of thought, please note point #9 in the first post of this thread which is:


IX. The relationship between the heart of an American Orthodoxy and a monasticism of the heart


And, in this point we find much help from the above mentioned article by Vincent Rossi, "Asceticism: The Bridge Between Marriage and Monasticism In Orthodox Spirituality" (published in Again Magazine, 1996). In this article, Rossi makes several points which speak directly to an American Orthodoxy and a monasticism of heart. Like Fr. John, Rossi also writes in a very direct style which leaves little room for confusion, little room for fog in the readers mind.

I am introducing Rossi's article into this conversation because it seems there is a disconnect, a divide, which is brought to light through his pen, one which I feel strongly has much to do with 'the heart of an American Orthodoxy' in the present day. Aside from all discussion about Orthodox RealPolitik in America, aside from all discussion about the multicultural aspects of America, aside from everything which would seem to bring only division and separation . . . Rossi employ's a technique of St. Maximos the Confessor whereby we must 'distinguish in order to unite.'

I hope the reader doesn't just read over this principle and allow it to provide a momentary flash of insight; but, instead, I hope there can be a pause on this for just even 3 seconds: There is much wisdom in this, I think, and it is a crucial principal as it relates to an American Orthoodoxy:


We must 'distinguish in order to unite'


Specifically, what I mean about a disconnect and a divide, is to speak about two groups, two opposing mindsets that are found in Orthodoxy in America today:



Group #1:


Those who confuse and conflate{!} a 'monasticism of the heart' with the institution of monasticism.


Group #2:


those who understand the dual meaning of the word monasticism, viz. the difference between an 'outer' monasticism and an 'inner' monasticism.


And, I would like to thank Marie Duquette for sharing this expression with me, "monasticism of the heart." I have never heard of this or read this anywhere before Marie shared this. It is very helpful.


As well, I think, one of Rossi's key points is very helpful at this point when he shares plainly that:


"We need to distinguish asceticism from monasticism."


. . . and I realize that this is starting to seem a little jumbled here, although it is all one excellent thought unit. So I am just going to stop at this point and see if it whets any appetites . The fuller understanding of the big picture here offers much to all Orthodox today, whether convert or cradle, and regardless of one's geography. But, I think it would be hard for an aspect to speak more directly to the heart of an American Orthodoxy than what is being presented at the present.

[Anna Stickles]

I just received this in the mail yesterday. This ties together the ideas of a monasticism of the heart and the heart of American Orthodoxy --what else do we need? St Paul says "Let us run with patience the race set before us."

When one utters the word "unity" these days in Orthodox America, the thoughts of one's listeners inevitably turn to our current administrative disunity. However, I would submit that, as scandalous as it is, our administrative disunity is not the real problem for the Orthodox in N. America, but merely a symptom of the real problem, the root of which will not be found in the chanceries, synods and sobors of our various jurisdictions, but in the human heart. Indeed I would submit that our administrative disunity is reflective of a problem so profound, it goes straight to the essence of what it means to be a human as God intended us to be. …



The gift of unity in Christ is a basic component of our Godlikeness, and it presence yields many fruits of righteousness, while its absence causes all manner of sin to flourish…Unity is love…Love forces us out of the self-centeredness that is the hallmark of our fallen state and in so doing heals the fall of Adam, reorienting mankind's vision first upward to God, and thereby away from his desire to possess the world on his own terms, and then outward toward other people and away from the reflexive selfishness that caused Adam to accuse Eve of his own sin. …

Unity has as its necessary precondition love and love has as its necessary precondition a right relationship with God.

The unity of the Church in America will not be achieved by virtue of protests, polemics or politicking, because the problem at the root of our disunity is the malice that lives in my own heart. If I want the Church in America to be united, I have to start by loving the person standing next to me at the Divine Liturgy. If we ever expect to see an administratively united American Church, we must first begin to live as a united body of believers within our own homes and parishes. In his letter to the Colossians, Paul sets forth and excellent description of how we can do this:

Therefore, as elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness longsuffering.; bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do. But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection, and let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body (Col 3:12-15)

Ultimately the unity of the Church is not a political issue, but rather a moral one, and like all moral issues, the issue of unity begins and ends in the heart of each person. If we are to manifest Christ, in our own lives and as a Church, we must "love one another, that with one mind we may confess, Father Son and Holy Spirit, the Trinity one in essence and undivided." by Kory Warr, in "Life Transfigured", Journal of the Orthodox Monastery of the Transfiguration, vol 40 #3

[Rick H.]

. . . a monasticism of the heart and the heart of American Orthodoxy --what else do we need?




What you have written above is really kind of the point Anna. This is really the whole point!!!

All things considered--what else is there?

I think I have successfully avoided any real conversation about administrative unity or administrative disunity (with the exception of a few posts on cycles of dysfunction) in these AO threads. Because that's not what these threads are about.

I would really just as soon have a double quarter pounder limburger cheese sandwich, or take a nap, or talk about the chances of an administrative unity of Protestantism in America as to talk about an administrative unity of Orthodoxy in America.

And, while I hope to keep my record in tact, as it relates to discussion about an administrative unity/disunity, I would like to comment on the article you posted. As this person has written, and as many others have also written in the AO threads . . . this kind of unity must come about as a naturally occurring organic process. And, this 'from below' most likely on a grass roots level. This is nothing new. In fact, in some ways this understanding is in jeopardy of becoming cliche or the battle cry of the bourgeois (viz. an anti-bourgeois rebellion of the bourgeois). However, without this basic understanding, at best, there will be vain attempts to create the original Community which will result in artificial recreations, or a giving up a bad kind of resignation and a full blown apathy at worst. So it is important to be reminded of the necessity of a naturally occurring organic process, which is not complaint driven (as most levels of government and politicians are), and not one which is not driven by any form of RealPolitik or Power Politics (as most governments and politicians are)..The author of the above article has well said[!] "Ultimately the unity of the Church is not a political issue, but rather a moral one, and like all moral issues, the issue of unity begins and ends in the heart of each person." I think it is critical to understand this very point--this kind of unity can *not* be approached on any type of mundane level in that way.

But, otherwise, it seems to me that this article is somewhat shortsighted and employs a very flat-footed approach . In short, there is neither anything profound about the problem(s) which the author writes of nor is there anything unique about the problem(s) that he writes about in America. The author goes on to list some other seemingly negative methodologies and to state that unity will never come about by means of these. This is to disregard both Church History and the check and balance system between the hierarchy and the Church completely. While positive approaches, and indirect approaches are more palatable and usually received better, it is an ignorant statement to dismiss a negative approach or to declare this type of direct approach as being somehow always wrong or taboo. I see nothing in this article which is said about an American Orthodoxy that cannot be said also about an Eastern Orthodoxy!

And, this is again, kind of the point!

So, I appreciate this article because it yields the opportunity to work in the area of point #7 from the first post:

VII. The relationship between an American Orthodoxy and jurisdictions and Orthodox hierarchies

But, there is a subtle distinction here, isn't there? And, this does not have anything to do with an administrative unity/disunity.

And, it is interesting, the more I think about it . . . as we consider some of the clergy who have written articles of protest. As we consider some of clergy and theologians who have presented problems with Orthodoxy in America for the purpose of bringing these to light--for the purpose of increasing awareness. I think it should *not* be lost on us that they know what waters they are entering before steering in this direction. As well, they know ahead of time that they have everything to lose and nothing to gain, by writing and speaking in this way, at this present time, in the history of Orthodoxy in America.

So what is their motivation? What is their inspiration? What compels them? What is their driving force? In some ways it is ironic that the author of the article you supply references the Apostle Paul--the more one reads Paul, the more one really gets to know him, and can relate to him. It could *not* possibly be more obvious to me that most of the men who write and speak, in order to bring awareness and light to these issues are writing and speaking from the very same unction/anointing as the Apostle Paul. Yes, an American Orthodoxy and the Apostle Paul indeed! :) I can only imagine what it would be like to have Paul in the Church today, at this point in history. :)

The Church of Galatia would seem to have gotten off very-very easy in comparison to the Church in America, if he was here today.

Yes, the more I think about IT, thank God for the men of the Church who *do* have chests.

There is a paradox at play here. Who will judge the words, the emotions, the sentiments of either the Apostle Paul, or men of our day like Father John for example? Who will do this. Will it be the present day hierarchy? Will it be other men? For that matter what does the Apostle Paul say to the Church of Corinth whom he was also rebuking and offering correction? What does he (Paul) say there, to the Corinthians about Whom it is that judges him???

Who were the people who questioned Paul's apostleship, methods, and point of view?

When Paul said, "Let us run with patience the race set before us," he was not talking about how one should deal with immature and divided churches such as Orthodoxy in America today or the Church in Corinth of his day anymore than he was talking about how to deal with the foolish and deluded Church of Galatia of his day! Anyone who has even skimmed the letters of Paul can see this very easily. Again, there is nothing profound or subterraneous about any of this. And, I can imagine people in Paul's day accusing him of being arrogant and insensitive as they do the men today, like Fr. John . . . but there comes a time when one does need to take a stand. It is so easy to practice escapism in a way that one does abdicate her responsibility, sometimes under the guise of humility and a strict obedience, but this does not release one from one's responsibility . . .wilful ignorance is not an excuse, in fact it is just the opposite. Wilful ignorance is an obstinate thing, it is in the end a perverse thing, a perverse self-will which brings about a very slow death whereby in the end there is only the end.

So maybe this is *exactly* why people get so emotional about this subject. To practice a mundane escapism, to abdicate one's responsibility in his/her direct and responsible relationship with God under the guise of humility and obedience is a very powerful drug. A very addictive drug. And, once one is addicted to a drug one needs the drug. And, if any attempt to move in (especially through such methods as an intervention) the one addicted can become very violent and combative/aggressive lashing out at the one(s) performing the intervention.

What drug addict wants to even consider the possibility of going without his/her drugs? Going without his/her fix? Going without his/her fixation on religion?

This is a sad thing now that I think about it . . .

Anywho . . .where was I . . . oh yes, a summary statement--there is a dialectical theology at work here of which the author of the above article seems to be completely unaware.

[Rick H.]

In an attempt to get back to last week's post about:


IX. The relationship between the heart of an American Orthodoxy and a monasticism of the heart

I would like to share again an observation about what seems to be a disconnect and a divide found in Orthodoxy today. Specifically, what is found in seemingly two groups, two opposing mindsets:


Group #1:


Those who confuse and conflate{!} a 'monasticism of the heart' with the institution of monasticism.


Group #2:


Those who understand the dual meaning of the word monasticism, viz. the difference between an 'outer' monasticism and an 'inner' monasticism.



And, this is a kind of roundabout way towards point #9 above, in our exploration of ''the shape and dimension of an American Orthodoxy;" but. I think it is helpful to consider what the traditional teaching of the Church is about these two ways of knowing.

In fact, let's put this in the form of a question (still working from the Rossi essay):

-- Is it the traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church that monasticism is a "higher" or the "highest" calling?

[Herman Blaydoe]

Does "higher" have to mean "better"?

"O, ye'll take the high road, and I'll take the low road, and I'll get to Scotland afore ye!"

Herman the lowland Pooh

[Father David Moser]

I would like to share again an observation about what seems to be a disconnect and a divide found in Orthodoxy today. Specifically, what is found in seemingly two groups, two opposing mindsets:


Group #1:


Those who confuse and conflate{!} a 'monasticism of the heart' with the institution of monasticism.


Group #2:


Those who understand the dual meaning of the word monasticism, viz. the difference between an 'outer' monasticism and an 'inner' monasticism.


I think that this is a false dichotomy or at best a red herring. There can be no "inner" monasticism without "outer monasticism" - nor can there be the "outer" monasiticism without "inner" monasticism. Anymore than there could be an "inner" Orthodoxy without "outer" Orthodoxy (and vice versa) There can be no division of the two.

Not everyone is a monastic - those who are not "external" monastics are also not "internal" monastics but rather have a separate calling. Does St John of Kronstadt, for example, ever refer to himself as an "inner monastic" - no, he knows his place is to live and work in the world as a married priest (irregardless of the unique character of his marriage). Some here will recall Fr Averky - a monastic priest (and my good friend). He would often tell me that he was "a poor monk" because he lived too much in the world and not enough in the monastery (despite the fact that he lived a very pious and righteous life).

I will concede certainly that there are certain qualities of a monastic life that should be evident in non-monastics, but those qualities are not "monastic" but are universal (it just so happens that they are more visible in the focused and concentrated life of the monastery). However, to say that one can be "monastic" in an inner fashion without being an exterior monastic is, to me, not truly possible.

Fr David Moser

[Rick H.]

Dear Herman,

When you wrote:




Does "higher" have to mean "better"?



You jumped ahead here, but right on track, and I smiled. However, when you wrote:




"O, ye'll take the high road, and I'll take the low road, and I'll get to Scotland afore ye!"

Herman the lowland Pooh



I hope you were being funny because while this does make the point again very well, I laughed out loud. when I read that. Even though I have never heard your voice it was like I could hear you, picture you singing this in a fake Scottish accent and wearing that skirt you talked about in the skirt thread. The lowland Pooh??? You are too much! http://cdn-cf.aol.com/se/smi/0201d201a5/01

Thank you.

[Vasiliki D.]

In reading a few of these posts ... I think, Wow ..what wonderful and sincerely humbling comments and thoughts ... and then I stop ... and it hits me ... "An AMERICAN OrthodoxY"

What?!

Am I witnessing something that the prophet Daniel prophecied long ago? Do we all understand and appreciate the arrogance of a "collective ownership" of "Orthodoxy" as "an American Orthodoxy"?

You might all jump up and down when you read my post ...that is ok ... I have frequently seen "Americans" completely WIPE OUT the word "Greek" from anything Orthodox ... if you dare to post the word Greek on most Internet Orthodox sites ... you are quickly disciplined and scolded and told not to be nationalistic ... but the truth is ... Orthodoxy has and always will be defined and structured ... it has been moulded for over 2,000 years and already IS perfect ... why are the Americans in the last 10 years doing their 'darndest" to "make it their own"?

Do Americans simply want to be the new "Greeks"? What is the real agenda behind "An American Orthodoxy" when the RULES of Orthodoxy are already shaped and in place?

Just because Americans JUST discovered Orthodoxy doesnt mean that it is "owned" by them ... it is almost a paradox to think that the Americans criticise everyone else (and by that I mean the Greeks) saying that Orthodoxy is NOT owned by the Greeks and yet ... you guys are applying the Americanised thinking to Orthodoxy ...its scary.

Really ...its scary ...its eschatological in its core ... even if you all think Im crazy ... I really really tremble when I see such a title ... really really do.

[Rick H.]

Dear Father David,

It is 1:35 AM my time. I just woke up on the floor in the living room. The last thing I remember I was making a post in reply to you. It looks like this will have to wait until tomorrow. That will teach me to run a chain saw in the woods all day. BTW, you are not the only one with a pair of bibs! ;)

But, thanks for your post, it is helpful to me. With the events of this week we might not get to move forward with this until after Christmas. But, I hope you will have time to help me sort through the alternative view represented in some like the Rossi essay quoted above, who says not that there can be no division of the two, but instead, "We need to distinguish between monastic spirituality in its two meanings: outer monasticism and inner monasticism." He goes on to develop this with quotes from St. Theophan and St. Maximos the Confessor. Hopefully, I can share these tomorrow for your review. But, for now thanks for weighing in. Your last post reminds me of another time when there was an helpful clarification brought in on terminology and thinking in a thread on spiritual fatherhood.

[Rick H.]

Dear Vasiliki,

I, for one, do not think you are crazy. I guess we could take a poll, but what would that really accomplish in the long run?

And, I hope nobody jumps up and down after reading your post because you are merely expressing your views and your insights. It appears that you have had a real "aha" moment there! Actually, some of these same views/assumptions have already been expressed in the AO threads. I'm not sure where they come from. But, in you post, like some others (similar in nature and scope),there is a cosmic irony at play, do you see it?

[Vasiliki D.]

Dear Vasiliki,

I, for one, do not think you are crazy. I guess we could take a poll, but what would that really accomplish in the long run?

And, I hope nobody jumps up and down after reading your post because you are merely expressing your views and your insights. It appears that you have had a real "aha" moment there! Actually, some of these same views/assumptions have already been expressed in the AO threads. I'm not sure where they come from. But, in you post, like some others (similar in nature and scope),there is a cosmic irony at play, do you see it?

Hi, thank God for people like you - calm! :) Thank you for merely listening sometimes it is hard to express a point of view without it becoming a full blown war which is not often the intention of the person posting ... obviously my concern rises not from your post but from other stand points ... I dont mind to be educated towards someone elses way of thinking provided it can be substantied with respect as a key and a nice dialogue. Please explain to me (simply) what u mean by cosmic irony at play so I can understand.

Junior Poster :)

[Vasiliki D.]

Oh yes, and as an after-thought perhaps the solution is an easy "title"change .. perhaps rather than "American Orthodoxy" which almost sounds like a take-over ;) maybe something like Orthodoxy in America or American Culture and Orthodoxy or OR or ???

[Rick H.]

Dear Vasiliki,

Thank you for your calm and clear post, and with not a lot of time this morning to write myself, possibly I can begin to explain what I mean by 'cosmic irony' with a reference to the very first post in AO I:



An American Orthodoxy?

Dear All,

I read an article recently by Fr. Aris Metrakos titled, There is an American Orthodoxy, http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articl...kosAmerica.php which I thought raised some interesting points or at least provided some food for thought (viz. his consideration of the viability, comprehensibility, and degree of connectedness of the Orthodox Church in America--as well as the question of the validity of an American Orthodoxy). In particular, I would like to turn his statement into a question and ask, "Is There an American Orthodoxy?" On the surface, it would appear that we are dealing with praxis related issues here including matters of cultural preference and tradition with a lower case "t;" but, on a subterraneous level [mystical theology] there is a dimension here that needs to be explored/addressed as it is relates to the faith and the Tradition of the Church with a upper case "T."



In these threads we are considering the question, 'Is there an American Orthodoxy' and for those who feel there is an AO, we are exploring the shape and dimension of it.

With no offense, for sure, towards Fr. Aris, I'm not sure how much effort he put into his article (above), it almost seems like he was in a hurry when he wrote it it some ways. But, if you have time to click on the link above and read it, there might be some help there.

And, you know Vasiliki, granted, now that you mention it, I can see how some may feel like there is a kind of take over in what he writes, but I don't think this is what he intended. I think he is simply communicating his observations of an AO based on his experience as a priest and what he is exposed to himself. Really, that's all any of us here are doing regardless of whether one feels there is an AO or not. There has been a strong contribution from early fathers and saints in some areas of this thread, as well as modern day fathers which speak to various aspects. But, honestly, here, like most threads, the substantive posts by the community members are clearly driven by "theology in the first person" (and not the second).

And, even on this 'take over' methodology that you have written, there is a cosmic irony at play in those who feel there is an AO and in any who would desire a kind of 'take over.' Because, this would be stupid, foolish, and sinful. I feel that it doesn't matter what adjective one places before the word "Orthodoxy," or what country we are talking about in that both on a personal level and a corporate level (in any given generation), Orthodoxy is something that is learned anew for oneself. As one grows and matures--like any form of Orthodoxy in any land--it has to be an organic thing, a naturally occurring thing based on the cooperation of God and man (barring Divine intervention).

And, as far as the title is concerned, "An American Orthodoxy?" there is even another irony at play here. The title is most contrived, but it is meant to high-light the above distinction between what we may call "community" and what we may call "society" . . . what we may call a genuine/authentic growing and maturing as opposed to what we may call political/pragmatic power plays . . . and, as well, what we may call an American Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy in America.

I'm not very awake right now to be honest with you, and sometimes words just get in the way, but hopefully there is something in the above that is a help.

There are different ways we can explore this issue which is not a cut and dried issue by any means. Most recently we are considering/employing an exploration of the heart of an AO in relation to a 'monasticism of the heart.' Which in the End, may be just about the best avenue we have in our present day. As Anna very well said above, "What else do we need?", and as I supplied a secondary thesis to this, "All things considered--What else is there?" . . . possibly we see less of a 'take over' mentality and more of a way of knowing based on "surrender" as well as what I hope is a good kind of resignation, a sweet resignation to the sovereignty of God.

[Paul Cowan]

In reading a few of these posts ... I think, Wow ..what wonderful and sincerely humbling comments and thoughts ... and then I stop ... and it hits me ... "An AMERICAN OrthodoxY"

What?!

Am I witnessing something that the prophet Daniel prophecied long ago? Do we all understand and appreciate the arrogance of a "collective ownership" of "Orthodoxy" as "an American Orthodoxy"?

You might all jump up and down when you read my post ...that is ok ... I have frequently seen "Americans" completely WIPE OUT the word "Greek" from anything Orthodox ... if you dare to post the word Greek on most Internet Orthodox sites ... you are quickly disciplined and scolded and told not to be nationalistic ... but the truth is ... Orthodoxy has and always will be defined and structured ... it has been moulded for over 2,000 years and already IS perfect ... why are the Americans in the last 10 years doing their 'darndest" to "make it their own"?

Do Americans simply want to be the new "Greeks"? What is the real agenda behind "An American Orthodoxy" when the RULES of Orthodoxy are already shaped and in place?

Just because Americans JUST discovered Orthodoxy doesnt mean that it is "owned" by them ... it is almost a paradox to think that the Americans criticise everyone else (and by that I mean the Greeks) saying that Orthodoxy is NOT owned by the Greeks and yet ... you guys are applying the Americanised thinking to Orthodoxy ...its scary.

Really ...its scary ...its eschatological in its core ... even if you all think Im crazy ... I really really tremble when I see such a title ... really really do.

It might help your perspective to read the entire AO 1, AO 2 and AO 3 threads to fully grasp what the title is trying to say. No one is trying to "take over" Orthodoxy in the US just because Americans are typically accused of taking over the world in every other arena. But more so how Orthodoxy adapts (without change) to the countries it arrives in so the people of that country can hear the truth of it and not turn away from it.

Yes, Orthodoxy is flourishing and growing in America. It does not mean Americans are trying to change Orthodoxy to fit it's culture. If anything we are trying to go back to the beginning and are embracing the roots of the faith more so than what I have witnessed from Greece or other countries.

If you do choose to read the entirity of this trilogy, better to first make a large pot of coffee.

Paul

[Rick H.]

Paul!!!

Back to the Beginning?? Coffee???

If I could, I would make you the President of American Orthodoxy in America! http://cdn-cf.aol.com/se/smi/0201d201a5/01 And, hopefully, you would return the favor and appoint me to a post such as Redundancy Secretary of Redundancy. http://cdn-cf.aol.com/se/smi/0201d201a5/02

But, seriously, well said in the above post sir.

[Paul Cowan]

Paul!!!

Back to the Beginning?? Coffee???

If I could, I would make you the President of American Orthodoxy in America! http://cdn-cf.aol.com/se/smi/0201d201a5/01 And, hopefully, you would return the favor and appoint me to a post such as Redundancy Secretary of Redundancy. http://cdn-cf.aol.com/se/smi/0201d201a5/02

But, seriously, well said in the above post sir.

For you Rick it should be a big pot of that Chi? stuff you drink. I'm a tea fan myself. Don't make me president of anything. I got fired from running my life. Now it is up to God to do with it as He wills.

[Vasiliki D.]

Yes, Orthodoxy is flourishing and growing in America. It does not mean Americans are trying to change Orthodoxy to fit it's culture. If anything we are trying to go back to the beginning and are embracing the roots of the faith more so than what I have witnessed from Greece or other countries.
Paul

Fortunately for me I am a huge fan of coffee and can drink lots of it without losing sleep.

My initial reaction to Rick is that he is very much a gentleman and very informative and I thank him from the bottom of my heart for his patient and informative response, especially since he was tired and must be reiterating the same response over and over ...

Paul, I dont agree with you that you can not have witnessed Orthodoxy and the faith from Greece and other countries ... where have you been the last 2,000 years or does that not count? You should be humble in your approach and eschatological in your approach because if it werent for "these" countries YOU and many other YOU(s) would NOT have orthodoxy to embrace!

Our European countries have shed a LOT of blood to keep Orthodoxy alive ... I notice that this attitude of judgement comes generally from people who have been influenced by Protestant thinking - ie. Outside In - people who are scholastic but not historical and inclusive of history in their approach to the Body of Christ.

If you are disappointed in the Greeks for not being "Orthodox" enough ... I challenge you to find the point where the Greek people "shifted" from being orthodox to becoming more "Western"? I can tell you that it is in the last 20 years - with Anglosaxon and Western politics (yes, the Age of Aquarias!) invading the country of Greece and other countries ... so let us be careful WE are the ones who are guilty for this change ... WE push and push and push simple countries to be like us and then criticise them when they change the original way that they were ....

The devil has been attacking the Country of Greece and the Balkans for over 2,000 years - without much success! He has tried everything and has not broken the spirit ... he is only NOW finding the way into their hearts and that is through consumerasim ... yet, Orthodoxy is VERY MUCH alive in this country and in the people ... they DO have their faith in God and the saints but this win for the devil is only momentary ... and the Bible tells us to SEEK OUR OWN SALVATION AND TO NOT CRITICE OTHERS - THIS PLAYS ON MANY LEVELS AND NOT JUST ON PERSONAL ... one country to the next should NOT judge ...

As Daniel prophecies - this hickup is only temporary and is being allowed for education of the Greek people ... as a convert please do not sit there and place the Americans and the Australians or whoever onto a self made pedastool and the judges of these people ... we are (the Western countries) only infants in the eyes of the Lord and have NOT shed our blood for Christ .... we have not proven our worth yet ... we are very much scholastic christians who talk much but have no history up our sleeve ...

With respect I sign this post ... I hope you understand my words.

[Herman Blaydoe]

It is not a matter of judging. If I go to Greece, I expect to attend a Greek Church. If a Greek moves to Russia, does he write his bishop to send a Greek priest or does he go to the Russian Church?

If I am in America, why would I go to a Greek Church? Why does it have to be "Greek Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" or "Antiochian Orthodox" in America? Why can't it simply be the Orthodox Church? Americans simply want a church they can invite others to that worships in a language they will understand and not make them feel unwelcome in God's house because they are not Greek, or Russian, or because they are Black, or Oriental, or Hispanic. A church that doesn't look like a myriad of jurisdictions ("denominations" yes I know the difference but Joe the Plumber doesn't) which makes us look on the surface no different than the Protestants. A Church with an administrative unity that is able to build hospitals and actually impact American society and not simply be an occasional interesting story in the Metro section of the paper about an ethnic festival.

We want to share the Gospel. Making people learn a new language and culture just to get in the door makes that challenging at best. Making them choose a particular "foreign" culture before he even gets to the door makes it worse. It is not how Sts. Cyril and Methodios did it. It is not how Sts. Innocent and Herman did it. Why can't America also have an indigenous Church? Is that really too much to ask?

In the final analysis, I think that is all we are really talking about here.

Or so it seems to this bear of very little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Vasiliki D.]

In the final analysis, I think that is all we are really talking about here.
Or so it seems to this bear of very little brain.
Herman the Pooh

Ok, ok ... I think that Rick covered it well in his initial response to me ... and the topic definately has gone off topic ... by me.

On the surface uniting the churches to be a generic "American Orthodox" title might seem good to you all on the surface ... but this topic is more eschatological than you all think ... We are already in the New World era of the Age of Aquarias ... this means the old IXTHIS is out and the NEW IXTHIS is in ... globalisation starts with politics and geographical boundaries and the icing on the cake will be globalisation of the Church ... America is not like Greece or Russia or some of the other countries ... America is multicultural and represents the tide of politics and geographical boundaries ... which is to link them all and make them ONE New World ...

OuWe Isaiah has prophecied ... dont underestimate the Greek interpretors of prophecies ...

PS. You are not dumb - you are intelligent and your response is from the heart and represents a true and well-meaning and intentioned desire to see the good for Orthodoxy ... that is not dumb ... we all have opinions .. me inclusive.

[Paul Cowan]

Fortunately for me I am a huge fan of coffee and can drink lots of it without losing sleep.

My initial reaction to Rick is that he is very much a gentleman and very informative and I thank him from the bottom of my heart for his patient and informative response, especially since he was tired and must be reiterating the same response over and over ...

Paul, I dont agree with you that you can not have witnessed Orthodoxy and the faith from Greece and other countries ... where have you been the last 2,000 years or does that not count? You should be humble in your approach and eschatological in your approach because if it werent for "these" countries YOU and many other YOU(s) would NOT have orthodoxy to embrace!

Our European countries have shed a LOT of blood to keep Orthodoxy alive ... I notice that this attitude of judgement comes generally from people who have been influenced by Protestant thinking - ie. Outside In - people who are scholastic but not historical and inclusive of history in their approach to the Body of Christ.

If you are disappointed in the Greeks for not being "Orthodox" enough ... I challenge you to find the point where the Greek people "shifted" from being orthodox to becoming more "Western"? I can tell you that it is in the last 20 years - with Anglosaxon and Western politics (yes, the Age of Aquarias!) invading the country of Greece and other countries ... so let us be careful WE are the ones who are guilty for this change ... WE push and push and push simple countries to be like us and then criticise them when they change the original way that they were ....

The devil has been attacking the Country of Greece and the Balkans for over 2,000 years - without much success! He has tried everything and has not broken the spirit ... he is only NOW finding the way into their hearts and that is through consumerasim ... yet, Orthodoxy is VERY MUCH alive in this country and in the people ... they DO have their faith in God and the saints but this win for the devil is only momentary ... and the Bible tells us to SEEK OUR OWN SALVATION AND TO NOT CRITICE OTHERS - THIS PLAYS ON MANY LEVELS AND NOT JUST ON PERSONAL ... one country to the next should NOT judge ...

As Daniel prophecies - this hickup is only temporary and is being allowed for education of the Greek people ... as a convert please do not sit there and place the Americans and the Australians or whoever onto a self made pedastool and the judges of these people ... we are (the Western countries) only infants in the eyes of the Lord and have NOT shed our blood for Christ .... we have not proven our worth yet ... we are very much scholastic christians who talk much but have no history up our sleeve ...

With respect I sign this post ... I hope you understand my words.


Yes, I do understand your words. Hopefully by the time you finish the trilogy you will understand more of what this thread is about and over the course of time, who I am. The internet is a poor medium for communication. Forgive me.

Paul

[Vasiliki D.]

Yes, I do understand your words. Hopefully by the time you finish the trilogy you will understand more of what this thread is about and over the course of time, who I am. The internet is a poor medium for communication. Forgive me.
Paul
No, I would like to humble myself and ask for your forgiveness and the forgiveness of the other people who read my responses ... I am not an ill-intentioned human being but I have two weaknesses that are very evident over a computer - the first is that I am not able to represent my thoughts well in writing ... I am a poor scholar of English and will always have grammatical errors and not much logic in my pacing ... So, I will come across harsh or abrupt without meaning too ... or maybe illogical although in my head or out loud I would be able to clearly express this point of view withour repetitions ...

The other is that I am too passionate (though I am sure we are all guilty) but I personally have jumped the gun and should have read the ENTIRE thread before posting ... that definately is my fault and perhaps I would have phrased a response differently? Who knows ... maybe my response would still be the same? I will read the trilogy posts and have a wholistic understanding of where you are coming from ...

[Father David Moser]

It is not a matter of judging. If I go to Greece, I expect to attend a Greek Church. If a Greek moves to Russia, does he write his bishop to send a Greek priest or does he go to the Russian Church?

If I am in America, why would I go to a Greek Church? Why does it have to be "Greek Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" or "Antiochian Orthodox" in America? Why can't it simply be the Orthodox Church? Americans simply want a church they can invite others to that worships in a language they will understand and not make them feel unwelcome in God's house because they are not Greek, or Russian, or because they are Black, or Oriental, or Hispanic.

And here I have to agree with you (as much as, at other times i argue for the appropriateness of the retention of Russian, Greek, Serbian, Antiochian etc culture in a local parish or even jurisdiction). My parents live in a city where there are two Orthodox parishes - a GOA parish that is very Greek and an Antiochian mission that started out half and half but has, over the years grown heavily Arabic. My parents and brother know the Antiochian priest's family (they are well established in town in the garment business) and even at times see them socially. There are times when I would like to send my family members to an Orthodox Church (belief-wise they are almost there) but there is nowhere now to send them as the Greek parish is very very Greek and the Antiochian parish is very Arabic. Would that there would be a place to send my family members that was in English and where they would not feel as "outsiders" simply because they are Americans. But - it is as God provides...

Fr David Moser

[Vasiliki D.]

Fr David Moser

Father Moser, the concept of creating a parish that caters to the English language as opposed to unifying the different "branches" are different things ... to start converting various parishes into English speaking would be a start but overall ... if you all try and merge under one umbrella ... which Patriarchate would you report to or do you create a brand new Patriarchate independant of Constantinople, Russia and Antioch? Hmm ... spicy situation :)

[Father David Moser]

Father Moser, the concept of creating a parish that caters to the English language as opposed to unifying the different "branches" are different things ... to start converting various parishes into English speaking would be a start but overall ... if you all try and merge under one umbrella ... which Patriarchate would you report to or do you create a brand new Patriarchate independant of Constantinople, Russia and Antioch? Hmm ... spicy situation :)

Well, personally, I am under the Patriarchy of Moscow (Russian Church Abroad) and my parish is established as an English language mission. There is, in Boise, a second English language mission parish under Antioch. The GOA parish is still pretty Greek here, but the priest is very mission minded and so uses English when he can. I don't really care which administration (jurisdiction) such a parish is under as long as it would be a place where Americans who are not of Greek, Russian, Arabic, etc ancestry can come and find the Orthodox faith (which in many cases is what they are looking for but don't know it). In my parent's city, there is no such wealth of English speaking missions - the Greek parish has services mostly in Greek and the Antiochian parish has services mostly in Arabic. I had hopes that the Antiochian parish might develop into a reasonable mission parish alternative, due to its original mix of Americans and Arabs - but over the years the Americans have disappeared, and with them, most of the English.

Fr David Moser

[Vasiliki D.]

Fr David Moser

This is an interesting thread because what America is experiencing, Australia is only starting to see as a problem (I suppose we are behind your shadow on these issues in that we can see them coming but it is not overwhelming us yet)

Here a similar trend is ... Greek is Greek, Russian is Russian and Antiochian was trying to bring in the English/be missionary but has ended up catering primarily for the Arabic and Palestinian community (of which I have a God-daughter baptised Greek Orthodox but living in the Antiochian arm).

So, excuse me for this comment but it would seem that God is permitting the same veil in the multicultural countries of America and Australia ... is it possible that God does not will the same things that we, with our own logic, will? Maybe its not time for this to happen ... He knows more about what He wants than what we do because He knows the future complications and we dont ...

Ok, maybe I am not very educated but this is my simplistic thinking ... why dont you all follow the example of previous Councils and ask for God's input on the debate ... I know .. I sound silly .. but put the different options onto separate papers .. fast and pray as a community and leave the options at God's feet after 40 days and see how He replies? Am I being naive? I truly believe that the miracle with St Euthimia can happen in our times and any time ... it just takes us to stop being so scholastical and reliant on our own logic and knowledge and put a bit of trust and guidance in God's providence ... so MAYBE (im just saying MAYBE) ALL the Orthodox churches in America can hold one day and meet with these papers ... leave them with a Saint or something ... and see how God's responds???

[Nina]

As I experience it, an American Orthodoxy at the present is an amalgamation of various Orthodox traditions and the newly illumined Orthodox of American nationality. As an example (and symbol in my opinion): Washington DC where there is a Greek Orthodox church across from the Antiochian and the ROCOR one. I totally love the GO one, however I feel so drawn to the ROCOR one there (and services are in Slavonic which I do not speak!) While in EU we have to cross borders to access another Orthodox tradition, here I just can walk accross the street. :)

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Unity will only come to the larger Orthodox Church in as much as we work with the reality of who God sends to us. That there can be problems in ethnic parishes is known. But similar problems can and do occur in our non-ethnic parishes. Thus we are talking of how to make all of our parishes Christ centred parishes first.

This last point is crucial. God has sent many different people of different Orthodox cultures here- Greek, Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Russian...and then we have our own native people or those now assimilated who hunger for Christ. All of these people must be cared for but according to the reality of who they really are. Thus for example both Greeks & Russians are part of the larger Orthodox Church. However the sensibility in each of these churches is distinct. So it is also with those native to this culture. To impose Russian standards on Greeks or Canadian on Russians is a basic violation of who these people are as God sent them to us.

Seen positively however we can see that if we no longer feel the Russian or Greek or native parish to be a threat then in fact we thrive and become more spiritually healthy within our own parishes. While being very much part of our own parish with its particular ethos we are still able to be fed and inspired by other parishes also.

As an example of all this in our own parish the majority of our people are of that classic Russian Church Abroad background along with many new arrivals from Russia and the Ukraine. We also have some converts and those of assimilated background whose Russian is very limited or non-existent. What seems to work best pastorally for us is a great use of Slavonic with some use of English. Following the basic proportions of those who attend the service our Liturgy is about 75% Slavonic/25% English. For the evening services we do according to whoever attends.

In any case the point here is that we are a basically Russian parish who also accommodate those Canadians who can meet the challenge of a different (in all ways) expression of the Church. However realistically this challenge is too great for the majority of Canadians. Therefore we recently have begun giving support to an English only mission of another jurisdiction which is trying to get started in our city. At first sight it might seem that our parish could be threatened by this. However we have discovered that in so many ways we are the ones who benefit both spiritually & morally.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

As may we pick back up with sub point #9 in this thread:

IX. The relationship between the heart of an American Orthodoxy and a monasticism of the heart

The old saying, 'sometimes words just get in the way at times' comes to mind. And, it occurs to me that possibly the expression "monasticism of the heart," or specifically the use of the word monasticism creates a barrier or a kind of obstacle. I think we experienced some of this not too long ago with the expression "monks without monasteries." And, this is because within Orthodoxy to speak of a monk or a monastery is to speak of a very specific and distinct vocation and institution. So in a sense, either one gets it or one doesn't (viz. the thinking along the lines of 'what do you mean a monk without a monastery--how can this be possible?). Or, on another plane, as Fr. Raphael expressed yesterday in another thread:




So monasticism is something distinct within the Church and a specific calling. Without this sense we risk losing the very witness to us monasticism is set up to be.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

So it occurs to me that this expression itself, "monasticism of the heart" could be hindering the conversation (as well as providing another conversation behind the conversation). To some, this expression is very meaningful/powerful and helpful in their inner man. I think these are represented by the above group #2:



Group #2:

Those who understand the dual meaning of the word monasticism, viz. the difference between an 'outer' monasticism and an 'inner' monasticism.


And, again, while this could be nothing more than a language barrier (or possibly an epistemological divide), there does seem to be a fence of sorts up between group #2 and the above mentioned group #1:

Group #1:

Those who confuse and conflate{!} a 'monasticism of the heart' with the institution of monasticism.

And, I do not mean to alienate anyone from this conversation, but, even the language, the expressions employed here clearly put on display some of the dynamics involved with an AO, and in this sense the nature of an AO today herself!

This speaks to the naturally occurring organic aspect of the growth of an AO. And, this matters for two reasons:

1.) Converts of today and tomorrow

2.) Missionary an evangelistic efforts


And, just for the record this sub point #9 has nothing to do with the nature of monasticism, as a stand alone subject/topic; but, everything to do with the 'monastic ideal' (and 'how' it is taught to the lay) This sub point has nothing to do with the "external image" of monasticism, but everything to do with the teaching of St. Theophan on the "internal image" of monasticism. Or, to again take from St. Theophan, and hold this up to the light and turn it around a different way . . . this has nothing to do with "monastics in black mantels who are lay women at heart," but everything to do with "lay women in light colored dresses who are nuns in spirit."

This is very meaningful and matters very much to those who can understand what is said in either the expression, 'monks without a monastery' or 'AO without and AO church.'' And, again, this is not to sound a rebel yell and charge across any field/turf. There is nothing militant implied here at all. Although I think of Met. Anthony Bloom when he was tonsured a monk and then soon left for the army, and was a monk as much as anyone is a monk. Met. Anthony was a monk without a monastery. There is a parallel here, but possibly it is one that has to be experienced for oneself to be understood--theology in the first person.

***And, by way of reminder the quotes that I'm using here are from a second hand source by Vincent Rossi (mentioned above), I normally do not like to cite second hand sources, preferring to read first hand in context, but the Rossi essay seems very solid. As well, I am using a lot of Rossi's phrases and thoughts in this--I really hope some click on the link above and read this for yourselves.

Also, in lieu of presenting a counter-point by Rossi to your post above Fr. David, I would like to start to bring this home a little bit (even if we do end up taking the long way home) as it applies to American converts--missions/evangelism, in a way that might be more helpful. And, this is to speak of:


"The need to distinguish asceticism from monasticism"


This is because as Rossi says;





". . . the way of ascesis, the way of the cross, is not automatically monasticism . . ."




and he goes on to state that ascesis is required of all Orthodox Christians. His conclusion is that the key to non-monastic asceticism is to strive without ceasing, according to one's ability. But, I am wondering[?] how this compares with Fr. Raphael's post mentioned above, when he says:





There is a commonality of these virtues for all with the monastic life. There is a way in which in a sense all are called to follow one ascetic life in Christ.



"There is a way . . ." "in a sense . . ." "to follow one ascetic life." Are we talking about the difference between (as Zizioulas says) a "eucharistic" spirituality and a "monastic" spirituality? Not that the eucharistic dimension could ever be separated from the monasticism as Rossi says.

So I wonder if there is an opportunity for learning here? Maybe maybe not. BUT the point is how we communicate what we are saying is everything. Forget about foreign languages. We are all using English here. But, what is being presented paraphrased from Rossi is:

1.) There is confusion about the role of monasticism in the life of married and non-monastic single people in the Church

2.) The traditional teaching of the Orthodox church that monasticism is a "higher" or the 'highest' spiritual calling is received by many converts as an oppression and a confusion.

"Thirdly, there is the confusing , somewhat insensitive and basically ineffective way the 'monastic ideal' is often presented to Western converts, which correlates to a *warning* from Fr. Serephim Rose where he speaks of the 'weight' of the entire tradition of Orthodoxy in all its magnificence and transcendence relentlessly bearing down on the hapless convert, sometimes pushing him right out of the Church.

Yes, forget about the 'religion of the future' . . . how about the children of the present.

4.) It is crucial that Church leaders, theologians, catechists and evangelists take these into account as Orthodox Church expands its missionary and evangelistic efforts in the West.


This post has turned into kind of a trainwreck, or a kind of smorgasbord as it relates to sub point #9. But, these are the thoughts that have been in my mind for the past few days, and as a result of reading Rossi's paper.

Possibly, for any interested there are certain points above to interact with, or this post could be possibly considered a kind of palette to pull from for other compositions/contributions.


PS As it relates to this aspect of the discussion, I like what happens when we combine Fr. Raphael's statement with that of Rossi's:

"Monasticism is something distinct within the Church and a specific calling--the way of ascesis, the way of the cross, is not automatically monasticism."

[Rick H.]

From an article by Professor G. Mantzaridis (http://www.katinkahesselink.net/christianity/monasticism-orthodox.htm) which Anthony supplied in another thread:


"While the world goes on its earthbound way, and the faithful with their obligations and distractions of the world try to stay within the institutional limits of the church tradition, monasticism goes to other direction and 'soars.' It rejects any kind of compromise and seeks the absolute. It launches itself from this world and heads for the kingdom of God. This is in essence the goal of the Church itself."

[Rick H.]

In the above post (two posts ago) it reads:

"AO without and AO church.''

This is a typo. It is supposed to say:




"An American Orthodox without an American Orthodox church"



Now we can all sleep better knowing this.

[Rick H.]

The original question in the first post of AO I was, "Is there an American Orthodoxy?"

I thought this quote from Met. Jonah deserved a home here:






Let us give thanks to God for our unity, let us give thanks to God for our diversity. Let us affirm to our bishops that they will tell the bishops of the Old World, “There is an American Orthodox Church. Leave it alone.”


Transcribed from a sermon given by Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church of America at St. Seraphim Orthodox Cathedral, April 5, 2009.

In Christ,
Rick

[Nina]

We must remember that we all are Orthodox because of God's grace! Everything good we do is because of God's grace.

[Mary]

The original question in the first post of AO I was, "Is there an American Orthodoxy?"

I thought this quote from Met. Jonah deserved a home here:





In Christ,
Rick

Sometimes, a tiny quote, can do more damage than good. Here is the entire message:

http://www.dosoca.org/files/Pan-orthodox-talk-4_7_09.pdf

In Christ,

Mary

[Rick H.]

Here's a link for those who are not fans of Adobe (and for an even fuller picture the speech can be viewed as it was delivered here as well):

American Orthodox Institute Blog (http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/)


Dear Mary,

Ryan had to bring me up to speed on something akin to this topic in another thread today (for which he got one thumb up from me) . . . is there something in this quote here that you think is incomplete as a thought unit?




Let us give thanks to God for our unity, let us give thanks to God for our diversity. Let us affirm to our bishops that they will tell the bishops of the Old World, “There is an American Orthodox Church. Leave it alone.”




The title of an adjacent article there, as you can see, is:





Met. Jonah to Old World bishops: Hands Off the American Church!



It seems pretty straight forward to me. Maybe you want a thumbs-up on your post? :)

In Christ,
Rick

[Mary]

Dear Mary,

Ryan had to bring me up to speed on something akin to this topic in another thread today (for which he got one thumb up from me) . . . is there something in this quote here that you think is incomplete as a thought unit?

It seems pretty straight forward to me. Maybe you want a thumbs-up on your post? :)

In Christ,
Rick

Dear Rick,

You must forgive me. I know nothing of these things. All I know is, that it is very easy to take a part of what someone says, take it out of context, and then present a twisted picture of who they are and what they said.

The part that you quoted is complete as a thought unit. However, it is does not contain the entire thought of the message. It may be what you wish to say. But it is not what Metropolitan Jonah said. That is why I included the link to the whole message, so those who care, may read and come to their own conclusions.

What good is a thumbs up to me? At best, it tells me someone likes what I said, at worst, it feeds my pride.

in Christ,
Mary.

[Rick H.]

Dear Mary,

Good points all the way around. You really have been making some pretty good posts in the past four weeks though. Okay, I tell you what, I was going to give you 2 thumbs-up today, but in order to keep you somewhat humble, I'll just give you one thumb up above.

Thanks. :)

In Christ,
Rick

[Mary]

Dear Mary,

Good points all the way around. You really have been making some pretty good posts in the past four weeks though. Okay, I tell you what, I was going to give you 2 thumbs-up today, but in order to keep you somewhat humble, I'll just give you one thumb up above.

Thanks. :)

In Christ,
Rick

Rick Henry! You're funny! lol =)

[Peter Brooke]

This is really just a request for information. It seems relevant to a thread on American Orthodoxy but only indirectly to the line of argument that is being pursued at the present time. Also, it may have been discussed elsewhere, in which case please redirect me.

My question is this: does OCA's autocephalous status mean that it is entirely independent from Moscow? If so does that mean that now that ROCOR has come under Moscow's jurisdiction, ROCOR is now the representative of Moscow in the US?

[Father David Moser]

My question is this: does OCA's autocephalous status mean that it is entirely independent from Moscow?

yes


If so does that mean that now that ROCOR has come under Moscow's jurisdiction, ROCOR is now the representative of Moscow in the US?

That remains to be seen. If you read the report of the just completed Synod meeting of ROCOR (http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/eng2009/5ensynodmeeting.html) you will see that a committee has been appointed (actually reappointed and reorganized) to work on the resolution of the OCA/ROCOR question. Since Metr Jonah has been in close contact with Metr Hilarion, one can only assume (and hope) that a corresponding committee will be established in the OCA enabling this to be a 2 way process.

Fr David Moser

[Peter Brooke]

a committee has been appointed (actually reappointed and reorganized) to work on the resolution of the OCA/ROCOR question.

Fr David Moser

Thanks, Father.

Though even if good relations are established between OCA and ROCOR it is presumably unlikely that OCA will go back to Moscow. So its still the case that as a result of the union with ROCOR Moscow now has what it didn't have previously, a church under its jurisdiction in the US, and that church ROCOR, a situation that seems a little ... ironic.

I'm very ignorant in these matters which may well already have been discussed at length, but can anyone refer me to a good account, preferably online, of why Moscow agreed to OCA's autocephaly in the first place?

Peter Brooke

[Ryan]

Peter- Actually, the Moscow Patriarchate has had its own parishes in the US for a while. There are even a couple near me, in Philadelphia.



That remains to be seen. If you read the report of the just completed Synod meeting of ROCOR (http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/eng2009/5ensynodmeeting.html) you will see that a committee has been appointed (actually reappointed and reorganized) to work on the resolution of the OCA/ROCOR question. Since Metr Jonah has been in close contact with Metr Hilarion, one can only assume (and hope) that a corresponding committee will be established in the OCA enabling this to be a 2 way process.

Father, bless.

Is a possible OCA- ROCOR merger being discussed, or are the issues more limited to resolving the "bad blood" between the jurisdictions in the past?

[Father David Moser]

Father, bless.

Is a possible OCA- ROCOR merger being discussed, or are the issues more limited to resolving the "bad blood" between the jurisdictions in the past?

I don't know what the scope of the discussions will eventually encompass. At present as I understand it, the purpose is to clarify our relationship and as you said above to "resolve the 'bad blood'" There are no suggestions of a "merger" at this time.

Fr David Moser

[Andreas Moran]

Just to mention that there is an OCA church in the centre of Moscow, St Catherine's.

[Theodora E.]

Better relations between the jurisdictions is *always* a good thing! I was recently elected president of our local pan-Orthodox association (it's a daughter organization of the local clergy association), and on this personal level, we have good relations between OCA (me), GOA, Serbians, Carpatho-Russians, Antiochians (these are the folks who participate on a regular basis). It's a shame when some parish priests in the area won't even publicize the annual Sunday of Orthodoxy Vespers (pan-Orthodox).

[Herman Blaydoe]

This is really just a request for information. It seems relevant to a thread on American Orthodoxy but only indirectly to the line of argument that is being pursued at the present time. Also, it may have been discussed elsewhere, in which case please redirect me.

My question is this: does OCA's autocephalous status mean that it is entirely independent from Moscow? If so does that mean that now that ROCOR has come under Moscow's jurisdiction, ROCOR is now the representative of Moscow in the US?

I do not believe it is correct to say that ROCOR is under Moscow's jurisdiction. The two have reconciled, and re-established communion, but ROCOR is still pretty much independent, able to select its own bishops without Moscow's approval, just as it has been since the tomos that established it. ROCOR is therefore NOT the "representative of Moscow" since it is not really under Moscow.

Herman

[Father David Moser]

I do not believe it is correct to say that ROCOR is under Moscow's jurisdiction. The two have reconciled, and re-established communion, but ROCOR is still pretty much independent, able to select its own bishops without Moscow's approval, just as it has been since the tomos that established it. ROCOR is therefore NOT the "representative of Moscow" since it is not really under Moscow.

Herman

Yes and no. ROCOR is a self governing part of the Russian Church, much the same as the Churches in the Ukraine or Japan. Our first hierarch must be confirmed by the Patriarch and Synod of the Russian Church before he is enthroned and newly elected bishops must be approved before they are consecrated. Moscow is a "final appeal" for certain matters of ecclesiastical decision. We commemorate the Patriarch at all services in the litanies and in the entrances and wherever our local hiearchs are commemorated. We are self governing in all "internal matters" including our relationship with the other Orthodox jurisdictions in NA (which includes the OCA).

On the other hand we are not the Patriarchal representative in the territories outside Russia. The Patariarchate still maintains its own metochia and exarchates to Europe and North America and other places. The shrines in the Holy Land are still divided in administration between Moscow and ROCOR according to historical precedents. Whether ROCOR will ever become the "representative of Moscow" in the future remains to be seen but it is not the case at present.

Fr David Moser

[Peter Brooke]

We are self governing in all "internal matters" including our relationship with the other Orthodox jurisdictions in NA (which includes the OCA).

Fr David Moser

Does this mean that ROCOR could if it wished re-establish the communion it once held with, say, the Holy Transfiguration monastery in Boston or the Synod in Resistance? I'm not suggesting that this is likely (the HTM and SiR would hardly want it under present conditions) only asking if they have a theoretical right to do so under the terms of their relationship with the MP. Or is their freedom limited to relations with jurisdictions that are in communion with Moscow?

Also I understand that some of the Old Calendarist groups trace their legitimacy from ordination by ROCOR bishops. Given that Moscow recognises the canonical validity of ROCOR does that mean that it also recognises the validity of such ordinations?

And while I'm asking questions can anyone tell me what the wider affiliations of the Holy Transfiguration monastery are? I know its not with the Resistance Synod - is it with the 'Florinites'? or the 'Matthewites'?

Peter

[Herman Blaydoe]

Does this mean that ROCOR could if it wished re-establish the communion it once held with, say, the Holy Transfiguration monastery in Boston or the Synod in Resistance? I'm not suggesting that this is likely (the HTM and SiR would hardly want it under present conditions) only asking if they have a theoretical right to do so under the terms of their relationship with the MP. Or is their freedom limited to relations with jurisdictions that are in communion with Moscow?

I am reasonably sure that any re-establishment of communion with HOCNA would require HOCNA to also reconcile with Moscow.


Also I understand that some of the Old Calendarist groups trace their legitimacy from ordination by ROCOR bishops. Given that Moscow recognises the canonical validity of ROCOR does that mean that it also recognises the validity of such ordinations?

We don't do "valid". "Validity" is not a valid Orthodox term. If someone was ordained by a ROCOR bishop, then they are bishops or priests for as long as they remain united to that(those) bishop(s). Once the relationship is severed, the "validity" is also severed. It is not magic.


And while I'm asking questions can anyone tell me what the wider affiliations of the Holy Transfiguration monastery are? I know its not with the Resistance Synod - is it with the 'Florinites'? or the 'Matthewites'?

Peter

Outside of themselves, I don't know that they are in communion with anyone.

Herman

[Father David Moser]

Does this mean that ROCOR could if it wished re-establish the communion it once held with, say, the Holy Transfiguration monastery in Boston or the Synod in Resistance?


ROCOR never had any kind of communion with prayer with HOCNA - simply because HOCNA did not exist when Holy Transfiguration Monastery and its associated parishes were part of ROCOR. Reestablishing communion with HTM and its associated parishes would require that those clergy and monastics return to ROCOR and repent of their rebellion and schism and submit again to the authority of ROCOR. If past experience is any indicator, those who did so repent would likely be received in the same condition in which they were when they left (i.e. priests would be priests, monks would be monks, and so on)

ROCOR was at one time in communion with the Synod in Resistance. That communion was not broken by ROCOR but by the SiR. Thus the impetus to reestablish that relationship would have to come from the SiR - they would have to recognize the Mosow Patriarcate as a legitimate part of the Orthodox Church (which was the reason they broke with ROCOR in the first place - our reconciliation with Moscow). One of the things that ROCOR was doing at the time that the SiR broke relations was encouraging the Old Calendrist Churchs such as the SiR, the Bulgarian Old Calendrists and the Romanian Old Calendrists to follow a similar path to work out some kind of reconciliation with their own Patriarchs. (Moscow was doing the same thing from the other end - pushing the appropriate Patriarchates to receive such petitions from the Old Calendrist groups with sympathy.)

This is all history and ROCOR would be able to reconnect with those groups should it prove to be beneficial for the life of the Church - but this is all a "what if" since the issues that brought about the breach of relationships are deep and full of difficulty. ROCOR perhaps misunderstood those groups and those other groups certainly misunderstood ROCOR. I think the conditions which would be a part of any restoration of communion in prayer would require major movement on one side or the other and have more far reaching effects on relationships with the whole of the Orthodox world than just the relationship between these groups and ROCOR in isolation.

Fr David Moser

[Peter Brooke]

[Quote] We don't do "valid". "Validity" is not a valid Orthodox term. If someone was ordained by a ROCOR bishop, then they are bishops or priests for as long as they remain united to that(those) bishop(s). Once the relationship is severed, the "validity" is also severed. It is not magic.

Herman

Does this mean there are no circumstances in which the Orthodox faithful can ever separate from their Bishop? I ask because, say, the heirarchy agrees to suppress the veneration of icons, or a patriarch and a number of leading heirarchs decide to put themselves under the authority of Rome - such things have been known to happen - the question of the validity of orders is surely posed.

More to the immediate point, ie American Orthodoxy, the Orthodox in America as in other 'non-Orthodox' countries, and of course converts, are faced with a rich choice of jurisdictions. Some people think that is a bad thing, I think it can be seen as a positive thing and it is certainly the situation that has been given us by the providence of God. But it does pose the question of the 'validity' of the different jurisdictions and their ordinations.

Peter

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Just a short comment. Once you are in communion with one part of the canonical Orthodox Church you are in communion with the whole Church. This is 'Orthodoxy 101' as it were.

Of course though the precise way in which this is implemented- church to church, jurisdiction to jurisdiction, parish to parish, priest to priest- varies and has always varied over time. This is according to episcopal guidance and pastoral discernment.

Otherwise Orthodoxy becomes a virtual buffet of pick & choose with us continuously being in and out of communion according to the latest concern, fashion & whim. This is very wrong and the Fathers in the past always acted canonically precisely to counter-act this kind of self regulation.

Again, in cases of disagreement- which have always been present in Orthodoxy since the time of the Holy Apostles- there is another way to act than choosing to be out of communion with whomever you disagree with.

In the Risen Christ- Fr Raphael

[D. W. Dickens]

Does this mean there are no circumstances in which the Orthodox faithful can ever separate from their Bishop? I ask because, say, the heirarchy agrees to suppress the veneration of icons, or a patriarch and a number of leading heirarchs decide to put themselves under the authority of Rome - such things have been known to happen - the question of the validity of orders is surely posed.


I think of these as non-questions. They presuppose that the body is already dysfunctional (which, of course, it is). I'm not trying to dismiss you. What I'm trying to say is, there is no answer because this shouldn't happen. Yes, it has happened, but it shouldn't and therefore there isn't really anything "correct" to do about it. You have to live with doing the best you can and asking God to fill what is lacking.

There is no "way forward" that will come without it's difficulties. If I were to look at myself, I drive almost 25 minutes to an OCA parish because that is where my spiritual father is, but also because the Greek church only 8 minutes away (and soon to be 4 minutes when they build their new building) doesn't suit me. If the confusion of jurisdictions ended tomorrow, I would be hard pressed to defend my pattern of attendence (not that it's easy now).



More to the immediate point, ie American Orthodoxy, the Orthodox in America as in other 'non-Orthodox' countries, and of course converts, are faced with a rich choice of jurisdictions. Some people think that is a bad thing, I think it can be seen as a positive thing and it is certainly the situation that has been given us by the providence of God. But it does pose the question of the 'validity' of the different jurisdictions and their ordinations.


Oddly enough, this is why jurisdictionalism is bad. Because we can misinterpret God's economy with God's approval.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

Please let us not side-track this thread with OCA/ROCOR discussion, which can be held in a more appropriate place. Let us keep this thread dedicated to its own unique topic.

With thanks,

XB, Dcn Matthew

[Peter Brooke]

Dear friends,

Please let us not side-track this thread with OCA/ROCOR discussion, which can be held in a more appropriate place. Let us keep this thread dedicated to its own unique topic.

With thanks,

XB, Dcn Matthew

This thread has, as I understand it, been discussing the problems faced by a country (America) which has a range of different Orthodox jurisdictions covering the same territory. These problems are in broad outline shared by all non-Orthodox countries, including those in Western Europe.

On the one hand the existence of different jurisdictions is a simple consequence of the arrival of people from different parts of the world. On the other hand (I think numerically to a much smaller degree) there are differences in principle over such questions as the calendar and participation in the World Council of Churches.

The co-existence of different jurisdictions in a single territory is condemned in the canons and it is understandable that many people see it as a scandalous situation that needs to be rectified. I think this is relevant to the main concerns of this thread, though of course it necessarily keeps on rising in other contexts as well.

Most of us I'm sure would prefer to concentrate our attention on the life of penitence and prayer and not have to bother with questions of this sort.

It seems to me that there are two strategies for reaching this happy state of affairs. One is to solve the problem - to find some means by which America (or the UK or France or Germany) can be governed by Bishops enjoying a monopoly of episcopal authority in their respective territories. In my view this is a quixotic adventure that can only lead to a great deal of turmoil and disruption.

The other option, which I favour, is to accept that things are the way they are and learn to live with them, recognising that the canons were devised in the context of a political unity which is long gone and can never be recovered (most of us probably wouldn't want to recover it. It was very unamerican!).

There is among all the varieties of Orthodoxy a great unity - we venerate the same saints, we accept more or less the authority of the same historical texts and we follow the same liturgical pattern (with the deeply distressing exception of the calendar). So long as no-one tries to force us into some sort of uniform institutional mould I don't see why we shouldn't all be able to get along swimmingly.

Peter

[Owen Jones]

I do not consider myself to be a paragon of Orthodox phronema. (I blame it on my parents!) But seriously, the way I deal with the subject of division in the U.S. is to simply claim to be Orthodox. I currently am a member with my wife and one of my daughters of a Greek Orthodox parish. This is for primarily practical reasons. a) it is nearest to where we live b) it is a large parish and we prefer being a member of a large, well established parish for a number of practical reasons, including, we do not want to get involved in parish politics. In a much smaller parish, this is more difficult. You can practice anonymity in a large parish. c) we don't want to get involved in jurisdictional stuff.

I do not consider myself to be Greek Orthodox because I am a member of this parish. I consider myself to be Orthodox. What still needs to occur is for me to become a Christian.

With that said, my priest said something revealing of what I assume to be the "party line" at present. He said that the Greek Church in America is too "immature" to be autonomous. It is not ready. And presumably, autonomy would have to be a precondition to some united Orthodox Church in America. So clearly this is not going to happen any time soon. I was very proud of myself by keeping my mouth shut when he said this! And then there is always the slight possibility that he is right!

[Rick H.]

. . . the way I deal with the subject of division in the U.S. is to simply claim to be Orthodox.




Leave it to Mr. Jones to summarize a three-part thread in one sentence.

Yes, the subject of division.

"Divided without division."

In Christ,
Rick

[Rick H.]

When I read the following by Fr. Raphael this reminded me of the first post I made in the American Orthodoxy I thread:




Having said this however I think that there is a lot more that should be looked at in our society. My personal belief is that our modern culture is not just 'another culture among the wider mosaic'. That is often how we as Orthodox interpret this. I would suggest though that what we are living amidst is more the conditions of a cultural/social/religious revolution where civil society defines all core values. This places religion and the Orthodox Church in particular into an unprecedented role since the underlying assumption is that a Christian or religious vision can no longer (even legally) define the society we are part of. My own thought is that this places us in an unprecedented situation in which belief is a 'niche' choice. This obviously affects us in profound ways but we rarely look carefully at this question. Instead we posit two extremes: Orthodoxy is called to adopt and transfigure the culture it finds itself in or it radically rejects the culture it is part of. Personally I am uneasy with both of these approaches in the conditions we presently find ourselves in. Although it could be that it is good & proper to cherry pick among several of the values found here and to modify them according to need. Thus tolerance can be modified from 'anything goes' to a form of charity or care for others.

In a sense then what we are doing is allowing that society places us as Orthodox into a very odd situation where personal choice will always appear relative no matter what. But along with this we can employ what is available within our society and use it to good purpose (eg the internet is an expression of the fragmentation of the traditional community; but paradoxically it can be used to bond kindred spirits within that fragmented community). Like the children of Israel making off with the jewels of Egypt we also can make good use of what surrounds us if we are creative enough in mind & heart.



This reminded me of two quotes in that post:




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



I wasn't sure there was much more to say after Owen's post above, but I maybe there is?

[Oleg Anishchenkov]

I think that the role of American Orthodoxy is of great importance now. I think that American Orthodox people are in the front line of the struggle for Truth, Love, and Beauty. You are in the middle of the "melting pot" of the society which consists of different religions, ideas, races, etc, etc, etc.., and t e m p t a t i o n s.

You are in the front of us Russians now who (unfortunately) have not done their best at defending the Orthodox values. Here in my country sin is becoming "a commodity", it is in vogue now! My 15-year-old son Antony told me that all the girls in his class smoke cigarettes or pretend they can smoke to show off, and they are not churchgoers as you may conclude (this is just an example of what I mean). We are loosing our Orthodoxy and ourselves! On the other hand you have already accumulated experience of how to survive and not only to survive but how to win under such conditions; American Saints like Fr S. Rose have proved this to the world.

I can't but admire the inborn Christian values of your people, your openness and outgoing, patience, mercy, and rigidity when it is necessary.

i want to learn from You a lot!

In Christ,
Oleg A.

[Paul Cowan]

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

[Mary]

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

Perhaps it is different kinds of grass, and we can share what we have and learn from each other? =)

[Owen Jones]

I think there is plenty of precedence for American Orthodox. It is true that secularism is a comparatively new thing. The Roman persecutions were more severe, Christians had to be more secretive (although in those days there was a secretiveness to the Holy Mysteries), and the major problem was that Christians refused to burn incense to the Roman gods. Today, persecution is much more subtle (becoming more overt as time goes on); there is a subtle corrupting influence to secularism that afflicts most of us in some way, and just being a super-traditionalist is not the answer. With all of that said, the choices are still really the same for us today as they were in, say, the 5th century. The problem of empire as a competing spiritual force is there, even though it was a Christian empire then and a secular empire now. I don't mean empire in the conventional sense of nations going out and colonizing other nations. An empire is a self-consciously spiritual entity that projects power. And the Gospel is all about power. [This is the one theme sadly lacking in our preaching and teaching. Too often, our theological truths are expressed merely as important and necessary information -- no power behind it] That is what we are confronted with in the modern secular super state. We have yet to see a constructive reaction to this by Christians of any stripe really. The reaction to Christian empire and its corrupting influence (Christianity became too popular!) was a very robust monastic movement. We have yet to see that in our own day, even though there are some promising signs. I think really that is the key -- for the parish priests to not so much promote monasticism but to point to monastics as our exemplars so that we can practice asceticism in our own "back yard," and help people to think of monastics as a potential font of spiritual wisdom. Some priests I know struggle with this tension between the parish priesthood and monasticism. Unfortunately I think all too often this occurs among priests who are kind of frustrated monastics themselves, and this is not a good way to go. And I think most clergy think of the parish as the beginning and end of all things, and see monasticism as a bunch of people off doing their own thing. Or as a kind of competition.

[Owen Jones]

I appreciate Oleg's fresh point of view. All too often we just hear condemnation of America from Orthodoxy. If nothing else, it is an impractical approach. One thing that America has stood for in the past is innovation and practical wisdom. We need not fear it with respect to practical applications of evangelism.