Russia and Evangelical missionaries [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Father David Moser

01-09-2009, 04:11 PM

"Why is it that EO countries (presumably Slavic) are so antagonistic to Western missionaries?

Well, ask your friend how he would like it if Philippino (to pick a foreign country with a strong Christian component) missionaries of a Christian tradition different from his own came to his town and began to preach and give out money, food, clothing and other material goods and told everyone that they needed to become Christians and when the people replied that they were already Christians, their faith would be discounted and told it was only a cultural relic and not real Christianity.

Now add the above into the mix that in other Orthodox countries the Church works closely with the civil government to encourage basic moral behavior and patriotic duty. When you come in and try to pull people out of that Church and tell them that what they believed was wrong and that the Church should not only have nothing to do with the government but should oppose the government - well then it starts to look not like religious teaching, but more like the seeds of revolution. Many governments are not going to look kindly on that kind of activity.

Why send missionaries into a developed nation where the people are already Christian and who have a tradition of Christian faith centuries older than your own? If you want to send missionaries into an Orthodox nation to convert the non-Christians there, then have some respect for the traditions of the people and the Church that is already working in that field. Send your missionaries to work under the guidance and direction of the national Church - not in opposition to it.

Fr David Moser

Jacob

01-09-2009, 05:23 PM

Well, ask your friend how he would like it if Philippino (to pick a foreign country with a strong Christian component) missionaries of a Christian tradition different from his own came to his town and began to preach and give out money, food, clothing and other material goods and told everyone that they needed to become Christians and when the people replied that they were already Christians, their faith would be discounted and told it was only a cultural relic and not real Christianity.

Now add the above into the mix that in other Orthodox countries the Church works closely with the civil government to encourage basic moral behavior and patriotic duty. When you come in and try to pull people out of that Church and tell them that what they believed was wrong and that the Church should not only have nothing to do with the government but should oppose the government - well then it starts to look not like religious teaching, but more like the seeds of revolution. Many governments are not going to look kindly on that kind of activity.

Why send missionaries into a developed nation where the people are already Christian and who have a tradition of Christian faith centuries older than your own? If you want to send missionaries into an Orthodox nation to convert the non-Christians there, then have some respect for the traditions of the people and the Church that is already working in that field. Send your missionaries to work under the guidance and direction of the national Church - not in opposition to it.

Fr David Moser

Thank you. That was very helpful.

Owen Jones

01-09-2009, 05:58 PM

On the other hand, what if Orthodox in the West were more missionary minded, in our own countries? We could teach the importance of humility, for example, without which there is no true faith or knowledge. We could witness to the importance of giving all of our worldly possessions away, i.e. the monastic calling, as last Sunday's Gospel addresses. That passage is one of many that Protestants don't underline. etc.etc.etc.

Nicolaj

02-09-2009, 08:45 PM

Thank you Father for the big Point you made!

And Owen, about being more missionary minded, Christ told us not to put the light under the table, but to raise it up. We all are there to be witnesses and to tell others about the way Orthodoxy touched our lives.

Christos voskrese, Nicolaj

Julia Hayes

03-09-2009, 08:04 AM

I think this site shows very clearly why Orthodox countries have a problem with protestant missionaries. These are BAPTISTS (http://www.ebcgeorgia.org/Neue_Dateien/start.html) in Georgia.

Ryan

03-09-2009, 01:58 PM

I think this site shows very clearly why Orthodox countries have a problem with protestant missionaries. These are BAPTISTS (http://www.ebcgeorgia.org/Neue_Dateien/start.html) in Georgia.

Well, that crosses the line from offensive to just plain weird. I'm looking around for bits about their history. It looks like they've been around for a while (since 19th century)... it might be that Orthodox religious culture seeped in more gradually than it looks here.

Nathaniel Woon

03-09-2009, 03:37 PM

This is most unusual and to me a bit dishonest - if they really were Baptists, why are they dressed as if they were Orthodox? And if all the 'trappings' of Orthodoxy are important to them, perhaps they really should look into becoming Orthodox

Julia Hayes

03-09-2009, 04:36 PM

Nicolaj

07-09-2009, 10:54 AM

They say themselves that they behave this way to have a more easy approach to the native believers.

So they get the orthodox to come to their services and make them baptists also.

Real wolves trying to look like sheep.

In Christ, Nicolaj

Andrew

08-09-2009, 05:32 AM

Evangelical missionaries are oftentimes, wittingly or not, agents of Anglo-American empire. They are a means of destabilizing independent national movements (traditional Orthodoxy or Catholicism) and allowing for Western interests to take control of third world nations. Jeff Sharlet's The Family has a lot of bits of good information here and there regarding this issue. The big evangelical missions throughout the world take grassroots energy away from independent political movements for liberation and redirects the poor to have a "personal relationship with Jesus" instead of concern for the health and future of their own communities. Orthodoxy is not conducive to globalism or Anglo-American imperialism because it values culture and homeland. Wahhabism and Evangelical Christianity are conducive to globalists, and that is why they are well funded by globalists.

Shawn Lazar

12-09-2009, 07:52 PM

J. K. Amra

13-09-2009, 01:25 AM

Friends,

I was in a discussion with a Protestant friend who was worried about my interest in Orthodoxy. Eventually the discussion meandered and he asked, "Why is it that EO countries (presumably Slavic) are so antagonistic to Western missionaries? (He actually used more mean and scathing words, but that's the jist of it).

Well, since I am interested and sympathetic to Orthodoxy, as well as having a love for Slavic countries, I tried to answer him as best I could. But for many of us who grew up in America and are essentially western in orientation, whether we like it or not, we are often at a loss on how to answer such questions.

If you could give me an Orthodox perspective to this issue, I would appreciate it.

Kindly,
Jacob

This is very simple, Orthodoxy has a 2,000 year history of martyrdom, persecutions, sainthood, and miracles. Orthodoxy and it's Mysteries, to it's practitioners, are a very special part of their life, and the Protestants specifically deny these Mysteries like the Eucharist and the Confession of sins. Everywhere where there is Protestantism (especially in America) there follows not the traditional Christian way of life as is (or in these times just the elements of the once existing) seen in Orthodoxy, but a morally stripped watered down pseudo Christianity.

This is called charismatic Christianity, as quoted on father alexander's page (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/essence_christianity_2.htm)

Regrettably such a naive conception of one's own sinlessness and holiness, along with a failure to understand the essence of Christianity, has characterised Protestant denominations since the time of Martin Luther (the beginning of the 16th century). A prominent Protestant theologian summed up the Protestant understanding of Christianity thus: "The justification of a sinner is an all-embracing act of God. When a believer is justified, all his sins - past, present and future - are forgiven. The moment God pronounces him justified, the totality of his sins is pardoned" (William G. T. Shed, Dogmatic Theology, Grand Rapids: Zondervan 1888; emphasis added).

Apparently faith in Jesus Christ automatically guarantees a man, if not sinlessness, at least an absence of guilt for his sins. Such an opinion is not only radically wrong, but also very harmful, because it deprives man of the powerful means of regeneration which our Lord Jesus Christ gave to believers for their spiritual purification and sanctification.

This is what the Orthodox fear.

YouTube - ИСТИНСКИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СВЕШТЕНИК (2.део) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l15XYEBMv-s&feature=channel_page)This is a great video explaining everything that you need to know about Protestantism, from a view of an American convert to Orthodoxy who is a priest.

Paul Cowan

13-09-2009, 06:27 AM

I suppose a relevant question is, who exactly is offended by these missionaries?

I don't think you can paint with a wide brush and say that Orthodox countries as a whole are offended by their presence, as opposed to certain Orthodox hierarchs, the faithful, and many politicians.

Consider the evidence. Isn't there a Pentecostal church in Kiev with over 20,000 people attending? And isn't that the largest single church in the entire (historically) Orthodox world? That number is, presumably, larger than the EP's entire diocese. My point is, clearly there is a need, and at a popular level people are spiritually hungry. People want to know more about Jesus and about the Bible and they simply aren't getting it from the Orthodox Church, and so, it appears, they aren't offended by these missionaries at all.

And who can feel offended by having missionaries come to Orthodox countries after such a long period of atheism, preceded by an even longer period of nominalism when it has long been recognized that Russia was baptized but not enlightened? (Leskov) No doubt that is true of most Orthodox countries. Judging from the cradle Orthodox I meet in the West, hardly anyone can articulate their faith in Christ. At best, you encounter a vague form of Deism. If its the same in the Orthodox world, no wonder the missionaries come believing the gospel (as they understand it) will be received as something completely unknown among Orthodox people... probably because it is!

At the very least, I hope this situation forces the Orthodox pick up the mantle of evangelism given to us by Christ, and start to truly educate the people of Christ and God's revelation in the Bible. Because, needless to say, the 'evangelical' gospel is partial at best, and distorted at worst.

I think if you take the time to read up on these "orthodox" countries and what they have gone through and endured and what they are now being subjected to by these "missionaries" you will see what you have said above is, well, uneducated.
Orthodoxy does not deal in popularity. Neither did Christ. Yes, the people are probably spiritually hungry because all they are getting is bombardment from PC missionaries. If they will go back to the church of their fathers and actually participate, they will have their fulfillment.

If you truly think Russia was not enlightened, you truly have not done any research on its history. 80 years of oppression, is not enough to wash away 1100 years of Orthodoxy. Damage, sure. Just because a person can not quote scripture and verse does not mean they do not know their bible. Proof texting scripture is a poor way to win people.

Because, needless to say, the 'evangelical' gospel is partial at best, and distorted at worst.[/

This alone should cause to want to prevent missionaries from going to Orthodox countries, if they are in such bad spiritual shape. No?

Paul

Shawn Lazar

13-09-2009, 06:55 AM

Paul, I don't deny that EO countries have suffered, and terribly! Nor am I saying that its necessarily a good thing for evangelicals to be there. The original question was, why are EO countries so antagonistic towards these missionaries? I'm just questioning whether that is really so. It seems to me that given the evident success of these groups winning large amounts of converts, its hard to say that entire countries are antagonistic to evangelical missionaries. Rather, the antagonism is restricted to the OC and other people who stand to lose ground, whether political or religious.

And hey, I didn't make up the idea that Russia was baptized but not enlightened. Nikolai Leskov said that. And in reading, say, the opening chapters of St. Theophan's 'Path to Salvation', it seems to be an opinion widely shared at the time, and still holds true today: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles-2009/Nassif-The-Calling-Of-A-Bishop-Is-To-Preach-The-Gospel.php.

That being said, given the choice between being nominally Orthodox or a genuine Jesus-loving Baptist or Pentecostal, I'd much rather see Russians and Greeks and others go evangelical. I know that I became a Christian, and started to love Jesus and want to follow Him when I was 17, long before I was received into the OC. So I can't deny that evangelicals will do some, maybe even a lot of good, among people who would never hear the gospel otherwise (because the OC doesn't do much evangelism anymore). Would it be better if they became fervent Orthodox instead? Sure.

Paul Cowan

13-09-2009, 07:09 AM

I don't think it is fear of losing ground that heiarchs try to keep missionaries out of their countries, but they are so fervent for their flocks or what is left of them they do all they can do prevent heresy from entering in.

I grew up PC. I think there is a place in God's big plan for what they teach. My mind sees them as God's training wheels for a bicycle. We use them while we need to but at some point we become better at riding the spiritual bicycle and no longer need them. I also know Orthodoxy is the fullness of the faith. There are over 22,000 groups attesting to be "christian". I am sure they all believe they are the "true" body of Christ. Well, perhaps they are a fingernail or a mole on the body of Christ. Who is to say.

We had a thread a year or so ago on Orthodox evangelism. It did not go well as I recall with all the posters. I will see if I can find it. Yes, I think we need to open our doors a little wider. But I think people will come to Orthodoxy from our witness rather than our knocking on doors. I seem to recall reading a while ago about one of these mega PC churchs in Russia that had as many people leaving as they had coming in. I think when the people see what they are being taught versus what they grew up learning from the matushkas, they leave just as quickly as they came.

We can all do better in getting the word out. It is our commission after all. How we do that is each person's responsibility.

Paul

Father David Moser

13-09-2009, 02:15 PM

I don't think it is fear of losing ground that heiarchs try to keep missionaries out of their countries, but they are so fervent for their flocks or what is left of them they do all they can do prevent heresy from entering in.

This, I think, is key. It is the pastoral love for one's own flock that generates the antagonism towards the outsiders coming in and preaching what they call "the Gospel". Sure there is a great hunger for Christ among these cultures that were for so long starved by their Godless rulers, but lets put this in a perspective we can all understand. Your family suffers a setback and is stricken by famine. For years you feed your children what little you can gather, but no one is full, everyone is always hungry. All of sudden the famine is over and food is again plentiful and you begin to feed your children lots of healthy food. But some stranger comes into your house and begins to offer your children candy and ice cream and all they have to do is come with him. Sure he's giving them food, but it is not healthy food and the cost is that they renounce their family. As a father, I'm more than a little antagonistic towards the interloper and will do everything in my power (including calling upon the civil authority, i.e. police) to toss him not only out of the house, but out of the neighborhood and send him back to where ever it was that he came from.

The "genuine Jesus loving" protestant theology is (in the words of one of my God-daughters) "Bubble gum religion". It has a lot of sugar coating and fancy flavors, but it is empty of substance. Once the emotional "flash in the pan" is gone, then there isn't much left. Returning to the healthy diet of Orthodox teaching is made all that more difficult because even if you realize that this is not healthy food, now you have to unlearn the bad "eating habits" that you picked up and relearn from the beginning. As a father to my flock, I would rather they remained hungry but healthy than have my family fill up on poisonous food and then have to detox them before they can begin to learn to eat again.

There is no place for "genuine Jesus loving" heresy (talk about an oxymoron) in the spiritual life of the Orthodox Christian. The Church (and the government who sees the danger as well) is just trying to protect their children from a glut of poisonous candy.

Fr David Moser

Herman Blaydoe

13-09-2009, 03:00 PM

To people who are starving, even garbage can seem like a feast. The Church does not want her children to feed on garbage and it seems no surprise to me that the bishops might be less than happy about it.

Sure, junk food "satisfies" at first, and many obviously prefer it to healthy food. But that does not mean it is good for you, witness the severe problem the US has with overweight and heart and other health problems.

Who is offended by it? I am. Why should we be happy with seeing the children being given a stone instead of a fish? Orthodox countries do not need MacReligion!

http://www.monachos.net/forum/picture.php?albumid=3&pictureid=8

Owen Jones

13-09-2009, 04:01 PM

I know for a fact that many pious ethnic Orthodox in the U.S. hunger to be evangelistic. But the clergy tends to keep that bottled up. "That's why we send money to the OCMC!!!!"

First of all, I'm not sure if it is a good mission strategy to accuse Protestants of practicing bubble gum religion, as much as it is true, or begin by establishing their heretical lineage. That is certainly not the way St. Paul approached the Greeks. To say, on the other hand, that you lack knowledge of the fullness of the Holy Trinity, or the means for acquiring the fullness of Christ in you, might be a better approach. Or, you believe whatever you want, and you call it the truth. But still probably too critical. Evangelism hardly begins with criticism.

My friends who are converts from protestantism say that their biggest problem as a protestant was that they were searching for the Church, and the problem in protestantism was that it was all personality based, but no Church.

Then, I think we have to ask ourselves, what is our motive? Is it out of love for all mankind, or is it a feeling of superiority, as if we were driving around town in our Bentley while sneering at the people driving Chevys?

Owen Jones

13-09-2009, 04:10 PM

Perhaps the simplest way of putting it is that Orthodoxy is spiritual. This implies, of course, that Protestantism isn't. But let them infer that instead of rubbing it in their noses.

Andrew

13-09-2009, 06:02 PM

Perhaps the simplest way of putting it is that Orthodoxy is spiritual. This implies, of course, that Protestantism isn't. But let them infer that instead of rubbing it in their noses.

I agree with you on this! The mystical nature of Orthodoxy that affects all aspects of human life and allows man to commune with God and God's people is something that you can't find anywhere else, and this spiritual "atmosphere" touches hearts. There is something different about our religion, and those who yearn for their hearts to be at peace feel that peace in the Church.

Jacob

15-09-2009, 01:16 PM

Hello friends,
I haven't responded much to this thread (time reasons) but have found th responses to be very helpful. Thank you for your input.

Shawn Lazar

16-09-2009, 08:41 AM

Father David Moser

16-09-2009, 04:02 PM

Is evangelicalism bubble gum religion? It can be. At other times, it can be quite deep. I've yet to read an Orthodox theologian write with the same depth on a Biblical topic, as many evangelicals have. I've yet to hear an Orthodox sermon that matched the same clarity, depth, and conviction as the sermons I listed to in my former evangelical churches.

When I was an evangelical prostestant - lo these many many years ago - I was (and still am) a voracious reader of spiritual books. I also took my undergrad degree in Religion from a Christian university and thus not only read the scripture and spiritual writers, but also had the chance to discuss what I had read with many learned people. Yes, there is the perception of depth within many protestant writers, but it is only a perception that will not bear scrutiny. One of the things that brought me to Orthodoxy was the multitude of unanswered and unanswerable questions that arose throughout my protestant life. In Orthodoxy, particularly in the Holy Fathers, I have found a depth and density to spiritual knowledge that is infinite.

But all of this speaks only to a depth of knowledge. If there is a depth in protestantism, that is the only kind of depth that does exist. The other thing that drove me to Orthodoxy was the complete lack of depth of experience in the spiritual world. The mystical life was something only hinted at and rarely if ever experienced. Once in a great while one could find a person who lived a deeply spiritual life, but that was the exception to the rule and such a life was not accessible to the average Joe-in-the-pew. In Orthodoxy there are people who are truly advanced in the spiritual life, and I have met some of them. But they are not the exception living a life that is not generally available to all. They are simply those who live out the same life that we live in the Church, but with more fervor, energy, love, consistency. The same path is open to all of us. And these same people who have been to me living example of spiritual depth have a whole different quality in their lives from those in the Protestant faith who can be considered spiritual - this is something that I cannot explain adequately in words - especially in the written word.

If you do not see the difference in your own experience, I can only say that you have yet to truly experience Orthodoxy. Stay the course, don't look back, (in fact don't look forward, but look only at Christ in your heart), immerse yourself in the life of Christ as it is made available to you on a day by day moment by moment basis by the practice and tradition of the Church.

As for spiritual writers - I have never in Protestantism experienced anyone who wrote about the spiritual life in any kind of even remotely comparable manner to those such as St Isaac of Syria or St Gregory Palamas. The writings in the Philocalia have no comparison for depth of spiritual life. The academic or scholasitic style writings of Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian about the nature of the Trinity or the Nicene fathers on the incarnation are again without compare -they are foundational to any and every protestant writer that can be considered within the mainstream of Christianity who writes on these topics - in fact all of the perceived depth of those protestant writers comes only when they are expressing what they have already read in Orthodoxy. Perhaps you have not yet read enough of the Fathers to see this, I don't know. But again immerse yourself in the fathers and you will see there a depth that is found no where else.

Fr David Moser

Shawn Lazar

17-09-2009, 02:30 AM

Fr. David,

I hear what you're saying, and the convert in me wants to agree. I would love to say that Orthodoxy is head and shoulders above Protestantism, but if I'm really honest, I just can't do it.

Certainly, I can point my evangelical friends to certain saints whose lives don't have much parallel in Protestant literature. Then again, my evangelical friends might not agree that a life of isolation in the a forest, or a cave is a Christian life at all. And I agree that St. Isaac the Syrian is really in a league of his own, and I consider his Homilies to be tantamount to Scripture. But those are the exceptions.

For instance, and this is off the top of my head, when I compare the sermons of St. John Chrysostom or St. Macarius with Charles Spurgeon; Spurgeon, to me, is the much deeper, clearer, Christ-exalting thinker. If I compare Blessed Theophylact's commentaries with those of John Calvin, there's simply no comparison, Calvin is lightyears ahead (and much more nuanced than in his Institutes). Andrew Murray (the South African) compares favorably with St. Gregory Palamas; George Mueller's diaries are comparable to St. John of Kronstadt My Life in Chris; TF Torrance or Barth's works more edifying and instructive, at least to me, than St. John of Damascus' Exact Exposition or Pomazansky's Dogmatics. (And, also to be fair, there is a wealth of Catholic material that compares with both evangelical and Orthodox writings. Take 'Unseen Warfare' as an example. And what Orthodox ethicist can compare with John Paul II?)

Do Protestants only reach a significant spiritual depth so far as they express what they find in the Cappadocians (or Athanasius, etc) and other early Fathers? When it comes to the Trinity, undoubtedly. I mean, where would TF Torrance be, without his dependence on St. Athanasius? But beyond that... The early (and later) Fathers are little help in understanding Scripture (at least, history has not left us very much to work with), and in the area of Biblical exegesis, where evangelicals shine, the depths they have achieved really doesn't have any parallel in Orthodoxy.

Do my impressions in this area reflect the poverty of my own experience in Orthodoxy, and not necessarily a lack in Orthodoxy itself? Yes! I'm sure you're right about that. I converted primarily for historical reasons, not spiritual. If anything, my wife and I have tried to fight to retain the zeal for Christ, prayer, evangelism and reading our Bibles that we used to have, because Orthodox nominalism is so stifling. In any case, I certainly need and want a great deal of improvement. Jesus knows that! But at the same time, to be fair, couldn't an evangelical turn that around, and simply say that the poverty of your own experiences in evangelicalism had more to do with you, and less to do with it?

At the end of the day, maybe the Holy Spirit is much more loving and gracious to those outside the Church, and who call upon Jesus, than we expect.

Mary

17-09-2009, 03:28 AM

Do my impressions in this area reflect the poverty of my own experience in Orthodoxy, and not necessarily a lack in Orthodoxy itself? Yes! I'm sure you're right about that. I converted primarily for historical reasons, not spiritual. If anything, my wife and I have tried to fight to retain the zeal for Christ, prayer, evangelism and reading our Bibles that we used to have, because Orthodox nominalism is so stifling. In any case, I certainly need and want a great deal of improvement. Jesus knows that! But at the same time, to be fair, couldn't an evangelical turn that around, and simply say that the poverty of your own experiences in evangelicalism had more to do with you, and less to do with it?

At the end of the day, maybe the Holy Spirit is much more loving and gracious to those outside the Church, and who call upon Jesus, than we expect.

Hi Shawn,

you're right, an evangelical could say that anything I found lacking in evangelicalism had more to do with me than with it. And the nominalism in Orthodoxy could be stifling, but that's always the danger with losing sight of the purpose of our Traditions. My protestant past didn't provide me with enough Traditions to hang my faith on to. It was all in my mind. And the way my mind works, every once in awhile, I lose it, and that causes me to despair.

Anyway - there is a good reason for all of our Traditions. I've often wondered why God gave the Israelites such details of how to worship Him. Was it just to keep the Israelites busy? According to my Protestant faith, once Jesus came, all that 'busy work' was no longer necessary. I was free, to do whatever I wanted and worship in any which way I pleased! The poor Israelites, all that work for nothing!

But is that really true? Does God really give us stuff to do that has no purpose? Does He Himself do anything that has no purpose other than to just kill the time while waiting for when it's all over and He can be free? From a Jewish family who is converting, I learned that our way of worship is very much identical to the Old Jewish ways. That was the most beautiful thing I'd heard in a long long time! Talk about history!

So what is the purpose of all these loads of Traditions that either gets too burdensome or else becomes an end in itself? I've been thinking about this a lot, and I wish I had the time to read stuff, but I'm guessing, there's a proper way to approach God, and that's what He taught the Israelites. And since God doesn't change, neither does the way we're supposed to approach His presence. The only changes that needed to be made to the old way of worship, was to add on all the parts to show how God had fulfilled all His promises, in Christ. And of course, to stop killing all those animals.

So, I'm guessing, since a lot of our Traditions are the same as the Jews, then, we too, are in the same dangers as they are - of becoming all bogged down in Traditions and forgetting that they're the way to get us close to God, and not an end in themselves. So, when we become hypocrits, we're exactly the same as the Pharisees; but when protestants are hypocrites, it's not such a big deal. At the same time, when we are able to keep focused, the results are much deeper, and more powerful than what happens in protestantism. However, God is merciful, and He is able to do powerful things in protesants too.

But ordinary people like myself, had no chance of experiencing such miracles in protestantism. I just dont' have the brain power or the discipline, to understand it all and self-hypnotise myself to such an extent that I never have doubts again, that I am loved, that my sins are all forgiven, and that I will be saved because Jesus died for me. It's so much easier to be Orthodox. I don't have to remember everything, because I'll hear it again next year. I don't have to understand everything, I just need to obey what I do understand. I know what to do with all my doubts and my sins... I can confess them, over and over and over again, till the day I die. And this, to me, is freedom, because these were the things that were weighing me down as a protestant, and I had no idea how to get rid of these burdens.

I have friends and family, who say they have experienced the same freedom that I describe, without having to become orthodox. I do not argue with them. How can I say that my freedom is different than theirs? I do not know. Only God knows. All I can say is, that I didn't have it before, and i have it now, although I haven't become more intelligent, or more spiritual, or more disciplined - and that makes Orthodoxy more real to me, more deeper to me, more meaningful to me, than all the protestantism in the world.

I'm sorry to hear that you've had to struggle to 'retain the zeal for Christ, prayer, evangelism and reading our Bibles that we used to have, because Orthodox nominalism is so stifling'. Don't look to others. Your spiritual life is between you and God, and theirs is between them and God. God won't ask me to list how the nominalism of someone else hindered my progress. He's only going to ask me what I've done with what I've been given. If we've been given the ability to not be nominal, then we better not be nominal! But we do not know what strengths and weaknesses others have been given.

In Christ,
Mary.

Jacob

17-09-2009, 01:06 PM

Mr Shawn makes an interesting point. I think much of the reason that Evangelicals have such a tremendous biblical and scholarly output is that the Anglo-American world has reaped the benefits (and problems!) of capitalism. Paper is cheap and no one is trying to kill you. Our brothers in the East have suffered under Communism and Islam. There isn't as much impetus to simply go to school and write monographs when you are in the catacombs (I say this as an American who spent two years at a Calvinist seminary trying to figure out if I were called to the ministry--I wasn't).

Another reason is the Evangelical insistence on "word" and "learning." Of course that has its good parts. While the average evangelical bookstore is 85% nonsense, some good and learned works have been produced (Pelikan before he became Orthodox, for one). When you can reduce your faith to word and the priority of mental constructs, a result will be a proliferation of books and learning. (I realize there are drawbacks to that as well).

Ironically though, I think much of the scholarly evangelical output, especically on the Fathers, is making many Protestants question their own traditions and to look deeper into the well.

Owen Jones

17-09-2009, 04:39 PM

I was in the Moscow airport in 1991, I think it was, and ran into an American protestant minister who was leading a group of evangelists. He stated quite bluntly that Russian Orthodoxy was spiritually dead, apparently not even considering how ignorant and arrogant he was being. I told him that I had converted to Orthodoxy because American protestantism was spiritually dead, and you could have knocked him over with a feather! So protestants want to know why Slavs are somewhat wary and resentful of American protestants evangelists?

J. K. Amra

17-09-2009, 11:16 PM

I think its all a matter in what one views as spiritual. Are words and sermons spiritual? Sure, they can be. Different preachers can arise different feelings of emotion in people when on a stage talking, but in my opinion spirituality is deeper than just words and sermons, I think true spirituality lies in practice, self sacrifice, obedience, and everything else that the Orthodox Church possesses, and Protestantism doesn't.

Its a choice to the Orthodox individual to explore this spirituality, a Protestant can live the way Christ wants us to, but in my opinion he can never truly experience this deepness of spirituality and eventually will lose his faith in God, but to an Orthodox, he/she is like a drop of water in an ocean full of spiritual material which doesn't only consist of different sermons, and Bible studies.

-
A person can only study and preach the Bible so much before he learns everything that is in it and gets to the point where he asks himself if "this is it".

If you go down to the South, like Texas, there is bubble gum religion everywhere, 30 minutes of sitting and 20 minutes of singing, the end, very 'fast food' and processed, and people usually have to resort to digging deeper in trying to express their spirituality with little posters that they hang on the wall and with other decorations and/or bumper stickers.

Paul Cowan

18-09-2009, 05:01 AM

If you go down to the South, like Texas, there is bubble gum religion everywhere, 30 minutes of sitting and 20 minutes of singing, the end, very 'fast food' and processed, and people usually have to resort to digging deeper in trying to express their spirituality with little posters that they hang on the wall and with other decorations and/or bumper stickers.

Hey, hey, hey. Just cause we're the biggest and best at what we are accused of, don't single us out from our fellow southerners. I beleive Texas also has the most Orthodox churches in the South.

Paul

J. K. Amra

19-09-2009, 07:07 AM

Hey, hey, hey. Just cause we're the biggest and best at what we are accused of, don't single us out from our fellow southerners. I beleive Texas also has the most Orthodox churches in the South.

Paul

I understand, I lived in Texas for 4 years, unfortunately at an age where I was young and not interested in Orthodoxy. Though I wasn't talking about Orthodoxy but some of the Protestant churches that I've visited and heard of, which completely turned me off of religion even more at the time.

Paul Cowan

19-09-2009, 07:55 AM

Sorry, those were two separate comments.

Priest Seraphim Holland

19-09-2009, 03:47 PM

Fr. David,

I hear what you're saying, and the convert in me wants to agree. I would love to say >that Orthodoxy is head and shoulders above Protestantism, but if I'm really honest, I just can't do it.

After years of fasting and attending and reading the services, which are the best biblical exegesis I have ever seen (but an acquired taste, which takes time and great effort and good shoes to develop), I have learned what true Christianity is, and am trying to attain it. Protestant thought and practice is not even close to the beauty and profundity of Orthodox Christian holiness.

>Certainly, I can point my evangelical friends to certain saints whose lives don't have much parallel in Protestant literature. Then again, my evangelical friends might not agree that a life of isolation in the a forest, or a cave is a Christian life at all.

This is because they have not entered into the Orthodox life. It is not as easy to understand as the "Protestant" life. They judge what they do not understand.

>For instance, and this is off the top of my head, when I compare the sermons of St. John Chrysostom or St. Macarius with Charles Spurgeon; Spurgeon, to me, is the much >deeper, clearer, Christ-exalting thinker. If I compare Blessed Theophylact's commentaries >with those of John Calvin, there's simply no comparison, Calvin is lightyears ahead (and much more nuanced than in his Institutes).

We cannot understand the writings of holy people without becoming holy. We will understand St John Chysostom when we have begun to live like he lived. Most of our understanding will come from our life's experiences and the grace of the Holy Spirit working within us, and not from our study.

>Do Protestants only reach a significant spiritual depth so far as they express what they >find in the Cappadocians (or Athanasius, etc) and other early Fathers? When it comes to >the Trinity, undoubtedly. I mean, where would TF Torrance be, without his dependence

Before there were "Protestants" the church carefully defined dogmas about God. The ENTIRE body of believers in the ENTIRE WORLD thought these things to be critically important. This is hard for the modern mind to understand.

>Do my impressions in this area reflect the poverty of my own experience in Orthodoxy, >and not necessarily a lack in Orthodoxy itself?

I am poor too, but I have always taken advantage of every opportunity to worship. This is the key for everyone. Now as a priest, I can serve even more services now, but from the beginning, when I had questions similar to your, I was in church all the time, from beginning to end. We have a saying - "the cliros is the seminary". I have seen this be true in my own life. It will take years to understand, and many long vigils. I can only say that it works.

Nothing happens in isolation. We cannot fast without prayer and hope to be benefited. We cannot read the scripture in isolation. We cannot study the Fathers (when I finish Chrysostom and a dozen others, maybe I will look more at Spurgeon) without attempting to submit our mind to the mind of the church. Evangelism without dogma is a sham. Dogma without evangelism is a sham. Anything without personal holiness will be a lie on some level.

Priest Seraphim Holland

http://www.orthodox.net

Owen Jones

20-09-2009, 02:55 PM

Thanks Father Seraphim. However, I think one of the main attractions of Protestantism is that you are promised a dramatic, sudden conversion by accepting Christ as your Savior. With all of the dogmatic and other problems associated with this, one cannot, I think, challenge its basic premise. So while the Orthodox worship discipline is good for the soul, I think sometimes we too easily dismiss the importance of sudden conversion. Christ demands that we give our lives to Him now! The Gospel is full of this message, and its dramatic results. I realize that you do not oppose this, but it is an inference easily drawn. And most people do not have the luxury of attending many services during the week because they are running businesses and raising families in the world. Also, I belong to a parish that does not exactly involve the faithful in the worship. The priests want the laity to attend more services (and arrive on time on Sunday!), but it is a struggle to get that message across, and part of the problem is that the way the worship is conducted, the laity are more or less passive observers.

Oleg Anishchenkov

12-11-2009, 08:25 AM

Sadly enough and too often, Protestants have behaved here in my Mother Land like the spiritual gurus of post-Soviet fraudulent gas and oil businessmen, seeming to ignore any ethical, at least, restraints that might weaken their conversions.

Luxurious Moscow hotels settled for an American-style “prayer breakfast”; conferences delivered entirely in English giving an idea that we should adapt to the Westerners; immodest musical tunes; manipulative charity campaigns (dishonest technique used by some) Protestant missionaries - are unpleasant.

Fortunately, misbehavior by American missionaries in Russia are less common now than in the past. It is not "terribly healthy" now to continue living in Russia. Some of the reasons are the fall of the U.S. dollar, the difficulty of learning the Russian language, the increasing role! of the ROC.

My gut feeling is that we Russian people don't live here in Russia to get the Roman Catholic or Jewish or Buddhist or Atheist or Protestant view of Eastern Orthodoxy and this is why, when it comes to matters of the Faith teachers of the different and mixed background are not much welcomed here.

Rather than continue on, I'll just simply say that Orthodoxy here in Russia has always been very attractive to people, it is a part of them; we are attracted to Orthodoxy by what we know as Grace...

Rick H.

12-11-2009, 02:31 PM

Christ demands that we give our lives to Him now!

To consider what is said here causes me to pause and then allow more room for the message of the Revivalist in Russia or anywhere else. This is too easily dismissed.

Owen Jones

12-11-2009, 03:40 PM

Eric Peterson

12-11-2009, 06:15 PM

St. Gregory Palamas says something to the effect that the Non-Orthodox who speak about spiritual things and say the same as the Orthodox, say so by coincidence. The Holy Fathers speak with the mind of Christ, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Outside Orthodoxy, truth is arrived at only partially and humanly. In Orthodoxy is the whole breadth and depth of truth and divine revelation. We accept for our own what is true spoken by Non-Orthodox, but the difference needs to be recognized. There is a fundamental spiritual difference. The Holy Fathers were enlightened by God, the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. We do not accept, however, that the same indwelling and enlightenment can occur in those who have not joined themselves to Christ and His Church through the Holy Mysteries. People make mistakes when they approach spiritual writings and instruction from a superficial intellectual state. The Holy Fathers can only be grasped in context of Orthodox life.

Paul Cowan

13-11-2009, 06:15 AM

Another point --many Protestant churches in the U.S. take up collections for mission work abroad, and encourage people to become personally involved in missionary trips, have training programs, etc.etc. I sense a frustration among the faithful in my own parish -- they WANT to become missionaries for Orthodoxy, at the very least in our own communities. But this desire is basically suppressed. So one good thing would be for the Russian Orthodox Church (in Russia that is) to send missionaries to the U.S.!!!!

We had a man from the OCMC (http://www.ocmc.org/) come talk to our parish last week about missionary work. So where the IOCC (http://www.iocc.org/) is relief efforts, the OCMC is evangelism. But yes, I agree. We might send missionaries into our own neighborhoods. But wait, didn't Jesus tell US to do that already?

Paul

Oleg Anishchenkov

13-11-2009, 06:41 AM

Ryan

13-11-2009, 12:39 PM

Mary

13-11-2009, 02:46 PM

I have decided to delete my account from the forum.
Unfortunately my last massage about the danger of Protestantism in Russia was not properly understood and resulted in misunderstanding and accusations. (It seems to me that brothers on this forum are ready to discuss only those topics that please very much (Russian expression) their ears.

Please forgive me and pray for me.

In Christ,
Oleg A.

Dear Oleg,

every topic pleases some, and displeases others. If something disturbs our peace too much, we don't participate in it, and move on to another discussion. We don't have to delete our accounts every time we're misunderstood.

About protestantism in Russia - I agree with what you say. Protestant missionaries have been rude and obnoxious and think they know it all. I was one of them. But a kind orthodox priest took time to show my protestant missionary friend, the Truth. That friend converted, and three years later, another protestant missionary friend and his family converted because of that first friend, and another three years later, it was time for me and my family to convert - because of both of them. And we're not the first group of protestant missionaries to convert. There have been many before us, and many I've heard of since my own conversion 3 1/2 years ago.

You see, it doesn't matter how dangerous protestants are. If the Church is strong in its teachings, in it's own internal relationships, no one can stand against it, not even pesky protestant missionaries.

I recently invited two Jehovah's witness women into my home, just because it was cold outside, and although I saw their tracts in their hands, and was getting ready to go to church, I asked them to come in for a few minutes to warm up. They came in. Talked a bit. And then they forgot why they came, and ended up asking me a hundred questions about orthodoxy. After a half hour, they wanted to come back again another day, to ask more questions. I told them to come.

Later, I was saddened, to overhear some of my orthodox friends talking rather harshly about these people. To me, they are people. They may be the devil's tools, but they are created in God's image, and that's enough reason for us to have compassion on them, and be willing to show them the truth. If we don't, who will? I don't have the time of day to go out and find people to talk to. They come to my door. How can I turn them away? If they're truly interested, they'll come back, if not they won't. My part is to show hospitality and kindness, and then I'm done. If I slam the door in their faces because I know their teachings are heretical, how will that be helpful to them?

So, if Russians don't have the resources to send missionaries to other countries, why not snag all those lost protestant missionaries who find their way into your country, and show them what orthodoxy truly has?

in Christ,
Mary.

Herman Blaydoe

13-11-2009, 04:59 PM

Ben Johnson

14-11-2009, 05:24 AM

Oleg Anishchenkov

14-11-2009, 07:51 AM

Speaking in Captain Gulliver style (from Swift’s "Gulliver’s Travels") I came ashore from a perilous journey and greatly rejoiced to find my family, my oldest and dearest friends being well off.

(The detailed account of the further events can be found here, starting from the words "And on the third day there was a wedding in Cana Galilee, ..." )

The Wedding Guest List with names and email addresses are always available at http://www.monachos.net.

I would like only to mention a few names (all taken from "Russia and Evangelical missionaries" thread in alphabetical order) - Andrew, Ben Johnson, Eric Peterson, Julia Hayes, Herman Blaydoe, Jacob, J. K. Amra, Father David Moser, Mary, Nathaniel Woon, Nicolaj, Owen Jones, Paul Cowan, Priest Seraphim Holland, Rick Henry, Ryan, Shawn Lazar.

Oleg A.

Oleg Anishchenkov

14-11-2009, 08:11 AM

The resentment could be that along with missionaries from "regular" protestant Churches come missionaries from Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons and other cults.

I can't but agree with you, Ben.

I live in a provincial town of Vyazma (half way between Moscow and the Byelorussian border). What is amazing about Vyazma is that it has so many churches. Before the WW2 there had been 32 churches plus one cathedral! (the population of the town was not more than 30 – 35 thousand). Nazis destroyed all Orthodox shrines here.

Good news – many of the churches and chapels in my town have been restored. Half of them are now functioning. At the same time (and that is bad news) we have got 6 or 7 houses of worship of Jehovah's Witnesses and other cults bearing biblical names.

In Christ,
Oleg A.

Herman Blaydoe

14-11-2009, 03:15 PM

I can't but agree with you, Ben.

I live in a provincial town of Vyazma (half way between Moscow and the Byelorussian border). What is amazing about Vyazma is that it has so many churches. Before the WW2 there had been 32 churches plus one cathedral! (the population of the town was not more than 30 – 35 thousand). Nazis destroyed all Orthodox shrines here.

Good news – many of the churches and chapels in my town have been restored. Half of them are now functioning. At the same time (and that is bad news) we have got 6 or 7 houses of worship of Jehovah's Witnesses and other cults bearing biblical names.

In Christ,
Oleg A.

What is happening in Russia is joyous and sad. Joyous that the Church is once again coming into its own after such an incredible persecution that tried to annihilate it completely. The sad part is that so many wolves have come in to attack the flock while it is still recovering. But God saved the Russian Church from the Soviets, He will also save it from the McMissionaries. And God has a sense of humor. I also know of several former Protestant missionaries to Romania who are now Orthodox! If we cannot convert them here, I guess we send them to you and let you do the job....

God be with the Russian people and rebuild His Church there.

Herman

Paul Cowan

14-11-2009, 06:42 PM

As I began to learn about Orthodoxy, I began to wonder, like a previous poster, why the missionaries do not go over as helpers of the Orthodox Church, rather than as "competitors." It could be also that when Western Churches see Eastern European countries, that they see a need to go over and help amend what communism did to the countries. They may not have researched Eastern Europe's history and realized how significant Orthodoxy has been to those countries.

Missionaries go to these countries not to mend communism influence, but to turn the "heathen Orthodox" away from worshipping idols (icons) and to show the wrongs of following Traditions rather than solo scriptura and Marianism. Protestants do not understand Catholocism much less Orthodoxy and think because the have "found Jesus" and "been saved" they know more the Church does. God forbid they should misinterpret the scripture that says to call no man Father. How can they possibly understand our belief system when they have been ingrained with the root word of thier faith; protest? Eastern countries are in stages of recovery from wars and insurrections and abuses of government and "the World Churches". Look what thier recovery involves. Orthodoxy. Not Protestantism. Look how poorly behaved the western countries are and how audacious we are to think our miserable system of religion is superior to the First Church.

May God save us from ourselves.

Paul

Mary

14-11-2009, 08:40 PM

Speaking in Captain Gulliver style (from Swift’s "Gulliver’s Travels") I came ashore from a perilous journey and greatly rejoiced to find my family, my oldest and dearest friends being well off.

Oleg A.

And we are glad to see you safely back, from your perilous journey. =)

I can't but agree with you, Ben.

I live in a provincial town of Vyazma (half way between Moscow and the Byelorussian border). What is amazing about Vyazma is that it has so many churches. Before the WW2 there had been 32 churches plus one cathedral! (the population of the town was not more than 30 – 35 thousand). Nazis destroyed all Orthodox shrines here.

Good news – many of the churches and chapels in my town have been restored. Half of them are now functioning. At the same time (and that is bad news) we have got 6 or 7 houses of worship of Jehovah's Witnesses and other cults bearing biblical names.

In Christ,
Oleg A.

In the parable of the wheat and the tares, both the good and the bad grow side by side, both growing stronger and stronger, till the day of the harvest, when they're all cut down and the tares separated and burned up.

That's what I see when I look around. The bad things are getting worse, and will continue to get worse. But those who are faithful, are also getting stronger, their desire and hunger for God is increasing, and they will find Him, when they seek Him. For those of us who are already in the Church, we shouldn't slack off, just because we're 'in', but we have to work hard, and make sure we're ready to answer anyone at anytime, the reasons for our faith. Shrugging our shoulders and saying "That's how we've always done it," just isn't going to cut it. We need to know why. We need to understand - to the best of our abilities.

After my introduction to the two JW women, a friend told me of a book that was recently printed at St Anthony's monastery - about two JW Greek men, who became orthodox. It was joyful and sad at the same time. Joyful, that they were truly seeking the Truth and found it. Sad, because the reason for their joining JW could've been avoided, if the orthodox church had been able to statisfy their deep spiritual hunger. They were asking questions, and no one, not even a priest, could answer them. There was one orthodox man who was able and willing to answer, but after 6 hrs, when the JW man still had doubts left, the orthodox man gave up on him, got angry, and left. But the seed he planted, eventually sprouted. Thank God.

We need each other. We need to reach out to others - not just strangers, but even our own. I saw my children going from loving the church to hating the church, in the space of 3 years, because there were no other children in the parish we went to. Their parents didn't bring them, except when it was their turn to host coffee hour. We moved to a different parish. There are more families there, who also bring their children to every single service the church has. In just six months, my children have come back to life. When they make plans for what to do on a saturday, they include vigil in the evening, as a part of their day, and dont' complain anymore that they have to stop having fun with their friends, in order to go to church.

The protestants and those from heretical cults, know this already. They make sure they don't lose their children. That's how i grew up. On sundays, the only thing on the calendar was church. And I was happy to go, because all my friends would be there too. It has made me very very sad, that for many orthodox, this is not so.

While I understand the need to protect ourselves and our children from cults and other false teachings, I think part of that protecting process involves equipping them to defend themselves - with sound teaching, and making sure that they feel like a part of the church community - yes, relationships are important. They may seem small and insignificant next to all the prayers and liturgies and so on... but I think everyone should be able to say: "This is were I belong, this is where I am loved" - and for that we truly need each other to care about each other.

When I was in Ethiopia earlier this year, it was during the Dormition fast. I told my family what it was about, and they were interested. They said they'd asked some of the Ethiopian orthodox friends whom they knew, what the fast was about, and they did not know. When someone is interested enough to ask a question about what we're doing, should we not be ready to answer? If we have no answer, they think they are right in believing that we're following man-made traditions. And Jesus had a lot of harsh things to say about those who followed man-made traditions.

From Ben's post - is 'resentment' the right kind of response to have towards protesant and other cult 'missionaries'? It seems to me that resentment of any kind is wrong, because it isn't a fruit of love, is it? Just asking... I have heard of 'rightous anger' - like the kind that Jesus displayed when he chased the money changers out of the temple, and probably when he was preaching all his "Woe-to-you sermons" as well. But I've never heard of 'righteous resentment'.

in Christ,
Mary.

Andreas Moran

16-11-2009, 12:51 AM

What is happening in Russia is joyous and sad. Joyous that the Church is once again coming into its own after such an incredible persecution that tried to annihilate it completely. The sad part is that so many wolves have come in to attack the flock while it is still recovering. But God saved the Russian Church from the Soviets, He will also save it from the McMissionaries. And God has a sense of humor. I also know of several former Protestant missionaries to Romania who are now Orthodox! If we cannot convert them here, I guess we send them to you and let you do the job....

God be with the Russian people and rebuild His Church there.

Herman

Not only wolves from without but wolves within - careerists and opportunists, wolves wearing the mitre and riasa.

Salaam Yitbarek

16-11-2009, 05:10 PM

That's beautifully put, Mary.

I'm Ethiopian Orthodox, and from what I've seen in Ethiopia, the presence of Evangelical Protestant, and previously Catholic and Lutheran, missionaries has had the positive effect of pushing the Ethiopian Orthodox Church to do its job better in all areas. This includes pastoral work, catechism, cleaning up its act in terms of getting rid of heretical practices, etc.

For example, most Orthodox churches in urban areas now have something akin to cathecism classes every day in the afternoon. Churches and their compounds are full during these classes. We now have marriage preparation classes, something we didn't have in the past. (Well, perhaps we did in the time of the Fathers, but certainly not in the past few centuries.) We are slowly getting rid of the heresy of 'fake marriages', that is, marriage without communion to facilitate divorce! And so on.

I hear the same is true for the Catholic Church in Latin America and perhaps the Orthodox in Eastern Europe and Russia.

So some good is coming out of the missionary incursions.

Of course, the basis of Evangelical Protestantism, or any Protestantism, is flawed. Perhaps this is why mainline Protestantism is in deep decline, on its way to disappearing, and it looks like Evangelical Protestantism will follow it. I would say that the flawed basis of Protestantism is why it cannot stand against the tides of modernity which sweep the West, and are moving on to the rest of the world.

But I agree with Mary that that's not the point. The point is not that Protestantism is wrong, which we all know. The question is, how do we as Orthodox deal with it. If we fix ourselves and do our own jobs well, then there'll be no problem.

Orthodoxy, as far as I understand, values introspection. Consider a favourite quote of mine by Bernard Lewis:

When people realize things are going wrong, there are two questions they can ask. One is, "What did we do wrong?" and the other is, "Who did this to us?" The latter leads to conspiracy theories and paranoia. The first question leads to another line of thinking: "How do we put it right?"

I would have thought that we Orthodox would be the ones asking the first question. Ironically, many social scientists claim that people in Orthodox countries tend to ask the latter question! How has that come to be?

Let us hope that we Orthodox become better Orthodox, and, as Mary says, become the wheat from the tares.

Oleg Anishchenkov

17-11-2009, 01:06 PM

Tank you for your post, Salaam.

The question about the right response towards protestants is very important to me. So I would like to say some words about it, not to make comments but rather to tackle the problem from the other side (since I live on the other side of the Atlantic).

Protestantism is natural for America; the Founding Fathers were practicing protestants. I think there is nothing so special if the family living next door to you is a protestant one.

This is NOT true for Russia or Serbia where protestant missionaries are still birds of passage. They are viewed upon by many as people who bring, apart from their religion, westernization with all its sinful habits, material benefits and “joie de vivre”.

At the same time God has been revealing numerous miracles for Orthodox people. In the vicinity of my city there are two weeping icons now, we have dozens of holy relics in churches of Vyazma.

But protestants ignore this. Their role seems particularly striking when one realizes that here in Russian they act as forerunners of a more dangerous cult (the religion of the future as Fr Seraphim Rose put it!). By trying "to steal" the faithful people protestants are preparing the coming of this new religion.

You wrote, Salaam, that Evangelical protestants, and previously catholic and lutheran missionaries had the positive effect of pushing the Ethiopian Orthodox Church to do its job better in all areas… This sounds strange to me. I have never heard that Orthodox people and their elders (nothing to say about Saint Fathers) in my country had a need for heretics to learn from them how to be more competitive. Far be it from Holy Russia! Far be it from Her!

http://www.rus-sky.com/miracles/images/58

Michael Stickles

17-11-2009, 02:53 PM

This sounds strange to me. I have never heard that Orthodox people and their elders (nothing to say about Saint Fathers) in my country had a need for heretics to learn from them how to be more competitive.

I don't know that it's any stranger than this story about Bishop Nonos and Pelagia:

Once the Patriarch of Antioch was sitting with his bishops in the courtyard of the church of Saint Julian. While they were engaged in discussion, they heard an unusual commotion in the street. At that moment a luxurious carriage was passing by outside the church. The courtesan Pelagia was pridefully seated inside. The road sparkled from the brilliance of the jewels which she wore. The air was filled with the scent of her expensive perfumes. The crowd of people cheered her as though they were out of their minds.

The bishops turned their heads aside in disgust, to avoid facing the satanic woman, who had led so many of the young aristocrats of the city into the mire of immorality. Only one, Bishop Nonos, followed her persistently with his gaze, until she disappeared at a turn in the road. Afterwards he turned to the other bishops and said to them with a sorrowful voice:

"Woe to us, brothers in Christ. This woman puts us to great shame. Did you see how much care she takes in dressing her body in order to lure her lovers? While we lazy people-what do we do to adorn our souls to attract the love of our heavenly Bridegroom?"

Saying these things, he prayed with fervor for that sinful soul. And his prayer was heard. Divine Grace restored her and Pelagia came to believe in Christ, repented her sinful life, was baptized by the holy Nonos, and came to a holy end.

I would think that, if Bishop Nonos can look at a prostitute and feel shamed in comparison with her, surely there are things we can learn about ourselves from looking at Protestant missionaries - if we look with the right spirit. From what Salaam said, it sounds like the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is following in the spirit of Bishop Nonos.

In Christ,
Michael

Oleg Anishchenkov

17-11-2009, 04:42 PM

I would think that, if Bishop Nonos can look at a prostitute and feel shamed in comparison with her, surely there are things we can learn about ourselves from looking at Protestant missionaries - if we look with the right spirit. From what Salaam said, it sounds like the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is following in the spirit of Bishop Nonos.

In Christ,
Michael

I know this story, Michael. But I have a question: would Bishop Nonos have felt this shamed if he had met a heretic (the "heretic is the key word here) whose teaching was a threat for the Church?

Herman Blaydoe

17-11-2009, 05:49 PM

I know this story, Michael. But I have a question: would Bishop Nonos have felt this shamed if he had met a heretic (the "heretic is the key word here) whose teaching was a threat for the Church?

The "teaching" of a prostitute that pleasure is more important than Faith is a threat as well, don't you think? But the point is not to copy the Protestant missionaries, but to be motivated in our efforts to educate our people and give them the 'weapons' they need to defend against pernicious teachings. You can do this two ways I suppose. One way is to "chase" the Protestants away and try to keep them quiet. The communists and Moslems (and occasionally the Catholics) have tried to do that to us and you see how well that has worked.

I know that Russia is a "different" place, but in America (and evidently in Ethopia) the chosen way is to go "head-to-head" by meeting their proselytizing with Orthodox education, and to lead by example and to remember the words of our Lord Himself who said "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35) Just assuming that people will be good Orthodox through osmosis doesn't work as well as it used to. Work to make people strong in the Faith and then convert the converters.

At least that makes some sense to this bear of little brain
Herman the Pooh

Michael Stickles

17-11-2009, 06:15 PM

... would Bishop Nonos have felt this shamed if he had met a heretic (the "heretic is the key word here) whose teaching was a threat for the Church?

If that heretic showed a zeal for God that made his own look weak? Or a care in teaching the unlearned that made his own teaching look superficial? Or any of a thousand other things along those lines? I believe - Yes. Absolutely.

I don't mean to suggest that Bishop Nonos wouldn't have opposed the heretical teachings - rather, I have no doubt that he would have. But I also have no doubt that he would also have let the heretic "show" him his own faults, in the same way as he allowed Pelagia to do.

But beyond that, I do think "heretic" is the key word here, but probably not for the same reasons you do. I think that in dealing with modern Protestants, the use of "heretic" is applicable only rarely, is monumentally unuseful most of the time, and can even be counterproductive. As Fr Seraphim Rose once wrote to a catechumen (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/fsr_84.aspx) who had asked him for counsel on how to regard non-Orthodox Christians:

The word “heretic” ... is indeed used too frequently nowadays. It has a definite meaning and function, to distinguish new teachings from the Orthodox teaching; but few of the non-Orthodox Christians today are consciously “heretics,” and it really does no good to call them that.

Fr Seraphim wrote at greater length in an article in defense of Fr Dimitry Dudko (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/dudko.aspx), a Russian priest who lived under the Communist oppression, and I think there are things there which are applicable to the current topic (I've used underlining to replace italics in the original):

These critics quote certain statements of Fr. Dimitry (in his book Our Hope) which they think deny the uniqueness of Orthodoxy: "We can't look down upon those of other faiths" (p. 19); "rejoice that you're Orthodox, but don't look upon others as if they'd all gone astray. God will judge us all, and we should leave such judgment to Him" (p. 44); "the Catholics also form a church, and we don't call them heretics" (p. 46). In some of these statements there are faults—strictly speaking, for example, Roman Catholics are indeed "heretics," as St. Mark of Ephesus stated them to be. But these statements are addressed to simple people whose main concern is not theological precision, but practical advice: how should we behave towards the non-Orthodox? Fr. Dimitry's replies are pastorally correct, even if theologically sometimes imprecise. For this he cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be called a "heretic."

In actual fact, however, we in the West have something to learn from Fr. Dimitry's attitude towards the non-Orthodox. Among Western converts to Orthodoxy (to speak of something close to home) there is indeed a temptation to speak too freely of "heresy" and "heretics," and to make the errors of the non-Orthodox an excuse for a certain pharisaic smugness about our own "Orthodoxy." Even when it is worded in a theologically correct manner, this attitude is spiritually wrong and helps to drive away from the Orthodox Church many who would otherwise be attracted to it. Fr. Dimitry's attitude in this case, even if he sometimes expresses it in an imprecise way, is a sound one, both for the avoidance of phariseeism and a certain "sectarian" attitude on the part of his own Orthodox flock, and for the conversion of the non-Orthodox.

... Fr. Dimitry strives to be "strictly Orthodox"; he is respectful towards those of other religions, but he is quite firm that one cannot be "simply a Christian" but must be definite in one's belief—and in his opinion Orthodoxy is the true belief. When he states that "for me Orthodoxy is correct," or "we shouldn't judge those of other faiths," we need not believe that he is denying the objective truth that Orthodoxy is indeed the true Church of Christ; he is simply expressing himself in a humble manner which, especially in Soviet conditions where the people are just awakening to faith as opposed to atheism, is very understandable, sharply distinguishes him from the sectarians who proclaim loudly that everyone else is in error, and helps to make converts to the Orthodox faith. Fr. Dimitry himself has baptised some 5000 adult converts—itself a testimony that he is not "indifferent" as to which faith one should belong to, and that his missionary approach is quite effective!

Missionaries can and do convert to Orthodoxy, but meeting them with harsh polemics is unlikely to achieve that. The attitude Fr Dimitry showed, and the approach Herman describes, are, in my opinion, much more likely to be fruitful.

In Christ,
Michael

Fr Raphael Vereshack

17-11-2009, 07:21 PM

Mary

17-11-2009, 08:26 PM

It is important though to recognize that the West & Russia are two very different realities.

Here in the West Fr Seraphim's words are exactly correct. Whenever we are serious we wander very rapidly into pharasaism.

In Russia however what to us looks brutal & paranoid is really a result of a different vision- of the need for example of an immediacy in going from point a to b. Of a singleness of vision in regards to what is detrimental. (I have spoken with many younger Russians about this difference between our cultures- what to us seems a high value of tolerance to them seems hypocritical in reality and self-deluded in result. ie if a culture believes in something shouldn't it be an inherent cultural imperative to defend these beliefs? or similarly How can you say you believe in something if you are not willing to act against whatever threatens this?)

Perhaps you could say then that these are two different visions of reality: the 'tolerant' western one and the 'actively protective' Russian one do not transfer easily. Pastorally this needs to be taken into account according to who or what reality you deal with.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

This is helpful, in that I understand where this Russian protectiveness is coming from, and I understand the need for it.

But shouldn't there be some kind of balance between tolerance and protectiveness? I mean, I can be tolerant of those outside the church, because they do not know what they do. However, if they should become orthodox, I would not be able to tolerate their old ways of life and would expect them to have to change how the think and teach and live. I really, really, really love the orthodox church as it is, and can't tolerate anyone who wants to mess with it and change it.

But it still seems to me, that the threat of change is more from the inside than the outside. I'm not sure how things work in Russia though. It's hard for me to grasp that it can be so vastly different that it is more important to be protective than tolerant - especially of those who are outside the church. Isn't there a right way to act against the threats? For instance, for those sheep-stealing protestants, instead of beating them up and chasing them out of the country (which only ends up making them feel like martyrs!) - what if they were invited to first take a look at what orthodoxy teaches, and state for themselves, what they think they can add to it? If anyone truly cared, they'd see that they have nothing to add, and much to gain by becoming orthodox!

But then, what to do with the person who doesn't care? This would require a great deal of those entrusted with the care of their flock. Chasing away a protestant is the easy way out. Equipping the congregation to show love and kindness and not be swayed by the teachings of a protestant... now that is a lot of work.

Oleg's question: "would Bishop Nonos have felt this shamed if he had met a heretic (the "heretic is the key word here) whose teaching was a threat for the Church?"

made me think of some of my protestant friends, who have sacrificed their lives of ease to work among the women of the streets, in some african and south american countries. They make friends with these women (they go to the places where they'd find these women), help them get off the streets, equip them with some kind of skill so they can make a proper living, and then, after having poured all that love on them, they teach them what they know of Christ.

I do not know if Bishop Nonos would be ashamed, but I am. I do not risk my life for Christ. I may know a lot more than they do, but I'm no good to the woman on the street. She will go, where she finds friends and love. She will believe that their Christ is real, because from them, she received kindness, shelter, food, and a means of getting off the street. If what we believe and teach is not backed up by how we live and reach out to others, then what good is all our knowledge?

in Christ,
Mary.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

17-11-2009, 11:06 PM

Dear Mary,

It is hard for us to get our heads and hearts around this because we do not see how much we have changed in the past century or so.

Belief for us is a choice set among many other possible choices. It is of more or less value to us according to how we relate to what we choose. We may disagree with those who do not hold to our belief. But we are unlikely to believe ourselves fundamentally threatened by other types of belief since we ourselves believe that the possibility of multiple choices is a higher value than belief itself. We as individuals may hold sincerely to a particular form of belief; but we also allow that there are also many other equal choices available. This in turn gives a certain place to what belief means since it no longer as in past ages refers to an absolute truth which the entire community needs to hold to and be marked by. Choice and allowance for choice has come to be our chief marker and what defines us (and what we are prepared to defend) rather than a particular belief.

Belief though used to be an absolute part of what you are. It was inseparable from & a defining marker of being part of a certain community. The only possible option was to defend this community because in a real sense you & the community were all one living being of belief with the Church as its heart at the center. To reject this would have been like a form of suicide, sinful and self-destructive.

Of course though again this is all very hard to understand. After all even self destruction and self mutilation and suicide are seen as 'valid choices'.

The best policy for us then I believe is to live in the reality where God has allowed us, to sympathise with it, and then work with it in the best way possible.

However my main point here has been that something fundamental has changed over the past while. Meanwhile other cultures that appear intolerant preserve more of this past reality than ours does.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Andreas Moran

17-11-2009, 11:59 PM

Father Raphael, in his last post, does, if I may say so, hit the nail on the head. Half a century ago, England was a Christian country (albeit of the Anglican variety, mostly), and I still find it strange to have to think of myself as a Christian - it was at one time taken for granted that people were Christians here. Not only that, but it was understood - because it did not have to be stated - that this was a country whose culture, morals and outlook had been formed by the Christian faith. This country bent over backwards to be welcoming and tolerant towards those who came here from the 1960s onwards who were not Christian, and, indeed, for the most part, Moslem. At the same time, we saw a growth in secularism, materialism, modernism, and the dilution of the Christian foundations of our society. Only recently has it become apparent that the Christian faith here needs defending, but such has been the progress of those elements in society which oppose it that views which were the norm only thirty or forty years ago are now condemned as rabidly reactionary. In Russia, however, Orthodoxy always was, despite the failings of some Orthodox, an integral part of the very fabric of life in Russia in a way which defined what Russia was and what it meant to be Russian in a much deeper way than could be said of the Church in England. This was so to such an extent that the catastrophe of the Revolution and the 70 years 'Babylonian captivity' could not erase that reality. Instead, Russia gave the Orthodox Church more martyrs than in the whole of Christian history put together. Thus, even if the majority of Russians today are not churchgoers, Russians feel that Orthodoxy defines who they are as a people and defines Russia as a country. Protestant evangelists who seek to turn people in Russia from Orthodoxy to heresy, are accordingly viewed as threats not only to the Orthodox Church but to Russians as they understand themselves to be and Russia as they know it. Russians I know see them as aliens peddling an alien thought.

Mary

18-11-2009, 03:11 AM

Belief though used to be an absolute part of what you are. It was inseparable from & a defining marker of being part of a certain community. The only possible option was to defend this community because in a real sense you & the community were all one living being of belief with the Church as its heart at the center. To reject this would have been like a form of suicide, sinful and self-destructive.
However my main point here has been that something fundamental has changed over the past while. Meanwhile other cultures that appear intolerant preserve more of this past reality than ours does.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Dear Fr Raphael,

Thank you for explaining. And although, it took me a while to understand what you said, I found a parallel in my own life that I think might be a simplified example of what you're saying.

We live in a small town, and just a block away from us, is a smaller town, with a very pretty name, that all the ex-convicts are released into when they are finished with their time in prison. We only hear of those who were convicted of sexual crimes and who have a high chance of repeating their offense. We get notices from the school district, at least once a month, to tell us of who else is now a part of our neighborhood. We also have neighbors who are not criminals, who got on the front page on our local newspaper - for trying to settle some domestic problem with a gun, and others who seem to always be needing the help of cops to settle things.

Since we can't afford to leave to a safer neighborhood, I had to learn to live with it, either in fear, or trusting God to take care of us. I oscillate between the two. But, in relation to what you said, if our neighborhood had been the safest possible one, and they started to release criminals into our community, I'm sure we would do everything we possibly could to keep those criminals out. The last thing we think about when our children are in danger, is that the predators are created in the image of God and need to be treated with love....

I've lived in Ethiopia, which also has a long history of orthodoxy in it. And I understand how orthodoxy seeps into the general population, even if they do not go to church and aren't even Christian. Orthodoxy does have the power to change societies! There is something about Ethiopians in general - an openness, a friendliness, a very simple and beautiful love, that I have not experienced in other communities as a whole. And it is only after becoming orthodox that I started to wonder, if maybe, that positive quality of the Ethiopian people might be the effect of many generations of orthodoxy. But these qualities are accepted as 'Ethiopian' and aren't seen as 'orthodox', as they have become a cultural norm.

I think that is what you're saying about Russia, which has had the blessing of so many generations of orthodoxy, that being orthodox, and being Russian, are seen as pretty much the same thing. This is a very, very good thing. But it still creates one slight problem. We've all encountered those who wonder why we want to become orthodox, because they see becoming orthodox as being the same as becoming Russian, or becoming Ethiopian. But, I suppose, that's another story. =)

Andreas, thanks for what your post. It's always exciting to see how orthodoxy has become a part of the community, so much so, that even non-orthodox accept it as a part of themselves. I wish that could happen here. But I suppose, we would need ever and ever so many single-minded orthodox people!

Choice and allowance for choice has come to be our chief marker and what defines us (and what we are prepared to defend) rather than a particular belief.

This is so true. But it seems to be the only chance we have, by which we can defend our own freedom to be Christians. Otherwise they can force us to stop being Christian, and they can force us to stop teaching our children - by saying that our beliefs are 'narrow' and 'racist' and even 'unlawful'. Isn't that why the media gets so excited every time they find someone who claims to be a Christian, involved in some activity that is against the law? If they can prove that Christians are a danger to society, we will lose our freedom to be Christians.

It's a backward way of getting to the place that all those countries under communism experienced. But we're the ones to blame for all the negative attitudes towards Christianity.

I have a sudden feeling that I've strayed from the topic, so I'll stop.

in Christ,
Mary.

Oleg Anishchenkov

18-11-2009, 01:46 PM

I want to thank everyone, my dear Brothers, Sisters and Teachers, who has already sent posts to this thread.

Understanding and Tolerance and the Love that you showed me will be with me in my life. I feel I don’t need to say something like “my intention wasn't to create trouble…” because the post of Fr Raphael and your sincere words explained everything. I feel that this forum is a safe place to ask questions and learn about Orthodoxy and ourselves, to make great friends who lead you to want to be with God.

P.S. The weeping icon in my above post portrays elder Nikolai Guryanov who would say: “Rejoice and be glad that we belong to Christ."

Fr Raphael Vereshack

18-11-2009, 04:09 PM

Mary wrote:

I've lived in Ethiopia, which also has a long history of orthodoxy in it. And I understand how orthodoxy seeps into the general population, even if they do not go to church and aren't even Christian. Orthodoxy does have the power to change societies! There is something about Ethiopians in general - an openness, a friendliness, a very simple and beautiful love, that I have not experienced in other communities as a whole. And it is only after becoming orthodox that I started to wonder, if maybe, that positive quality of the Ethiopian people might be the effect of many generations of orthodoxy. But these qualities are accepted as 'Ethiopian' and aren't seen as 'orthodox', as they have become a cultural norm.

I think that is what you're saying about Russia, which has had the blessing of so many generations of orthodoxy, that being orthodox, and being Russian, are seen as pretty much the same thing. This is a very, very good thing. But it still creates one slight problem. We've all encountered those who wonder why we want to become orthodox, because they see becoming orthodox as being the same as becoming Russian, or becoming Ethiopian. But, I suppose, that's another story. =)

Yes- I see what you mean. It is a mysterious thing how Orthodoxy affects culture in a distinct way in each country. These are generalizations but it is true that in some countries the expression of Orthodoxy is quite mellow while in others it is quite intense. I think we should make allowances for each of these and also for the unique way in which Orthodoxy would be expressed here.

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.

Anyway I've certainly wandered off the topic.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Andreas Moran

18-11-2009, 04:59 PM

Mary

18-11-2009, 05:19 PM

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 Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael,

this is what I have seen among the clergy and the monastics that I've gotten to know so far. To hold oneself to a much higher degree of accountability, and not judge those who live in any way they please, but being available to them by praying for them and extending hospitality and kindness, should they ever turn around and ask for help.

And it seems like the best way for me to live my life this way too, in my home, not expecting as much of my kids, as I do of myself, and yet, taking every opportunity I get to teach them what is good and right, and praying that I do not disqualify myself or endanger their salvation by living as a hypocrite in front of them, and that they may one day love God of their own free will and not because of me.

in Christ,
mary

Mary

18-11-2009, 05:29 PM

There is the old chestnut of why Orthodox countries tend to show the least effect of Christian values on the societies in those countries. Why do they have such high abortion rates? Why are they among the most corrupt countries in the world? Why are many people in Orthodox countries (including some Orthodox clergy) so uncaring about their neighbours?

Andreas, I think Salaam answered your question already! =) The orthodox have suffered much. But like so many other groups of peoples who have been oppressed at one time or another, we're also asking the wrong questions. We want whoever did this to us, to fix our problems, because the world owes us something for causing us to suffer, doesn't it?

Orthodoxy, as far as I understand, values introspection. Consider a favourite quote of mine by Bernard Lewis:
When people realize things are going wrong, there are two questions they can ask. One is, "What did we do wrong?" and the other is, "Who did this to us?" The latter leads to conspiracy theories and paranoia. The first question leads to another line of thinking: "How do we put it right?"I would have thought that we Orthodox would be the ones asking the first question. Ironically, many social scientists claim that people in Orthodox countries tend to ask the latter question! How has that come to be?

Andreas Moran

18-11-2009, 09:05 PM

Michael Stickles

18-11-2009, 09:20 PM

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.

Hmmm... it looks like this kind of cultural/social condition is mutually reinforcing with the current Western religious sensibility, which holds faith to be an individual choice, and the only valid religious community to be one where all members freely choose to subscribe to its tenets.

It also kind of defines the "understanding divide" between the Russian attitude Fr Raphael described and the Western attitude, and how that can so easily lead to antagonisms. The idea of a civil community being defined by a particular Christian or religious vision, to a degree that includes even those within it who have not personally chosen to actively follow that vision, makes little or no sense in the West. So, while "sheep stealing" in the Russian view could conceivably include Protestant evangelism of anyone Russian in Russia, to the Protestant missionary it probably only makes sense when applied to trying to convince an active churchgoer to change churches (if even to that - since they could argue, "if the person chooses to change, what's the problem?").

Unfortunately, the two visions going head-to-head are quite likely to generate mutually reinforcing misunderstandings.

In Christ,
Michael

Mary

19-11-2009, 12:06 AM

Mary, I don't think the first question posed by Bernard Lewis adequately addresses the problem. Corruption has been rife in Russia for a long time - Gogol satirised it in 'Dead Souls'. This week, Transparency International has published a league table of corruption in the world. As one might expect, the Scandinavian and Anglo-Germanic countries come out best (New Zealand is placed first); Russia is in 146th position. My wife has just been speaking to her mother. A friend of hers in St Petersburg died a few weeks ago. The deceased's husband was contacted by a woman from 'social services' offering to come and help. The scam was explained by my mother-in-law to her friend's widower; someone comes to the apartment, offers to make tea and laces the tea with a substance which causes a heart attack. The apartment is then taken over and either occupied by the gang responsible or sold. This week I have been told of, but do not want to relate, the account of a thoroughly corrupt bishop. What are the questions to be asked?

I too read an article about the findings of Transparency International. I've no idea what they look at besides bribery. Any ideas?

But you're right, what are the questions to be asked when our own bishops are corrupt? I really don't know, because I don't know how the church heirarchy/government works. Are they accountable to us, as we are to them? Can we can question them and their actions, or do they have absolute power to do whatever they think is right? We are open and transparent when we take our confessions to them, do they 'owe' us the same? They're human too, and they sin like we do. In their position, everything they do and say affects a great many people so I think they are supposed to be very trustworthy men. If that's not important, then what criteria is the choice of a bishop based on?

I suppose, some questions to ask would be: How did this person become a bishop? Did the government force him upon the church, or did the church choose him of her own free will? If it is the doing of the church, then we have to figure out how a such a person was chosen? Or was the person a model of righteousness before and only became corrupt after becoming bishop? For someone like that, how does the church handle a sinful bishop? Since everyone under the care of the bishop suffers when he is not trustworthy, it is a far more serious issue than the sins of us little people. I've also heard that a person who is elected bishop is faced with a lot bigger temptations than a normal person is. What kind of help is available for bishops, to help them face their larger than life struggles?

And also, do we faithfully pray for our bishops and do our part or do we expect them to solve all our problems? Do we give freely of all the blessings that God has blessed us with? More than any other time, we have so much access to books and recordings of excellent sermons and so much more. If we are truly interested, we could get an excellent orthodox education, from the best orthodox teachers that have ever lived, in times past and also those in the present. If we have a priest who can't preach to save his life, we aren't crippled or underfed, because we can get online and get a load of great soul food from Ancient Faith radio, or even you tube! We have no excuse, and can't blame our bishops for our own weaknesses.

What do you think? If we know what is right and good, should we not do it, without waiting for everyone else to catch up?

- so sorry! This is way off topic!

Oleg Anishchenkov

19-11-2009, 01:34 PM

Unfortunately, the two visions going head-to-head are quite likely to generate mutually reinforcing misunderstandings.

I can agree with this, Michael, although to some extent. Head-to-head phenomenon may occur when individuals like me navigate English language net resources (English is my third foreign language) thinking about themselves that they know a lot. Or alternatively, when you come to Moscow and say that you are free to choose religion (you will be understood that you are free to choose Orthodoxy), but if you go further and say I’m free to choose Protestantism or Papism or any other “ism “ as well you will probably hear “Poor captive! You shall choose the wrong one.”).

I want to underline that the rejoicing and triumph that we experienced not long ago at the unification of our Churches make me think that Orthodox bishops both in Russia and abroad know how to deal with this problem allowing the room for what Fr Raphael called different visions of reality.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

19-11-2009, 03:02 PM

Michael Stickles wrote:

So, while "sheep stealing" in the Russian view could conceivably include Protestant evangelism of anyone Russian in Russia, to the Protestant missionary it probably only makes sense when applied to trying to convince an active churchgoer to change churches (if even to that - since they could argue, "if the person chooses to change, what's the problem?").

Yes- this describes the difference in understanding quite well I think. To someone from the west the missionary is simply working with people's free choice to pick among the many different options available. In Russia however this work is seen as going after the heart & definition of the community.

I am sure that this is why you often see the various 'interesting ways' in which religious groups are denied legal permission to operate. This is often enacted by an official who is not a believer. The point is that the official believes Russian Orthodoxy to lie at the heart of what his country is. He/she will protect this even if he/she is not a believer but as an assertion that he is part of Russia.

In a way then what we have is a different idea of what constitutes a country from what we know in the west.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Kosta

20-11-2009, 05:27 AM

Herman Blaydoe

20-11-2009, 11:53 AM

I'm shocked when Orthodox defend whack jobs like Billy Graham & Benny Hinn. These people dont know anything about christianity including the teachings of the bible, most of their sermons are heresy filled rhetorical garbage (well Hinn is just a magician).

And we do well to remember that Hinn was originally Orthodox...

Father David Moser

20-11-2009, 04:55 PM

And we do well to remember that Hinn was originally Orthodox...

While I will grant that B. Hinn may have received an Orthodox baptism and possibly even grown up in an Orthodox home, I don't think that he was ever really Orthodox.

Fr David Moser

Michael Stickles

20-11-2009, 07:59 PM

If protestants dont know why they are not wanted in Orthodox countries, its because there extreme hippocrites. I can just imagine the rage in America, if thousands of saudi citizens land in the bible belt to proselytise their religion. And i can just imagine the rage amongst the white protestants of the south when they find fertile ground amongst the poor black neighborhoods. They would call upon the government to oust them and racial violence would be shocking.

Secondly protestants only try to convert other christians to their way of thinking, yet there dogma is that there is no such thing as a visible church. If thats the case why go into christian countries and then establish rival churches?

Kosta, please forgive me for being so blunt about this, but these statements - at least if you mean all Protestants instead of just a minority - are false to the point of slander.

Working more-or-less backwards:

First, I have no idea where you got the idea that Protestants only try to convert other Christians. I have known numerous Protestant missionaries, and all of them except two familes have worked in areas with minimal-to-no Christian presence. And those two families explicitly concentrated their outreach efforts on those who apparently had no active faith (i.e., did not attend church, knew little if anything about Christ, claimed religion wasn't that important to them, etc.). Active christians - regardless of what church they belonged to - were not seen as needing conversion.

Second, it's because Protestants don't believe in a "visible church" that they can set up what you see as a "rival church" while thinking of it as no such thing. They are totally accustomed to numerous denominations working relatively close to each other in a given city without being "rivals"; each is just seen as another part of the invisible church which is ministering to a different demographic. They would naturally see their own efforts in a traditionally Orthodox area as the same thing - ministering to those the Orthodox haven't reached.

Now, in both of these I'm assuming the missionaries actually see the Orthodox Church as being fully Christian. Those with a seriously fundamentalist doctrinal bent might not, in which case they wouldn't see themselves as converting Christians at all, and the idea of setting up a "rival" church would make no sense at all to them - they'd ask, "rival to what?"

Third, I personally find the characterization of "white protestants of the south" completely off-base. I was one back in the day, and cannot imagine any such thing from the people I knew. The only way any of them would call on the government to oust Saudi proselytizers is if they were proven to be fomenting terrorism, not just for making Muslim converts. The only legitimate answer they recognized to non-Christian groups making proselytes among us was to be more active educating our own and reaching out to others. No "rage" or "racial violence" needed, or even called for.

Finally, for why they can't figure out why they're not wanted in Orthodox countries, go back and re-read my first two points, Fr Raphael's posts on the "different realities" of Russia and the West, and my reply. No need for hypocrisy, merely different and not really compatible worldviews. Frankly, I see the Orthodox attitude which insists Protestant missionaries are invaders with a foreign religion, yet demands that the Protestants see the Orthodox as fellow Christians with a "territory" which may not be infringed - even while Orthodox are making converts in traditionally Protestant "territory" - to be far more hypocritical.

One last note: I find the characterization of Billy Graham as a "whack job" to be offensive, uncalled for and out of line. If you want to call out specific things he's preached, that's one thing - there are plenty of errors to choose from - but name-calling and attacks on someone's character really have no place here.

In Christ,
Michael

Herman Blaydoe

20-11-2009, 08:13 PM

I agree that Billy Graham is not in the same league as Benny Hinn. Agree or disagree with him, but he is no hypocrite as far as I can tell. Uncharitable things can be said about any church, and we Orthodox have our warts as well.

Let us not bend or break the truth while trying to defend it!

Andrew D. Morrell

21-11-2009, 03:40 AM

Dear Kostas,

You wrote an interesting statement that includes a lot of truth but no love. If an Orthodox man had said the below to me back in my protestant ministry days, I would have smiled. chuckled and mentally dropped him in the same box as street corner Bible thumpers and televangelists. This forum... it was one of my frequent haunts before becoming Orthodox. I hope me pointing this out does not offend you.

Regarding the original topic, five or so years ago, my wife (who was then embracing Orthodoxy) showed me a 70 page doctoral paper titled "Witnessing to People of Eastern Orthodox Background:Turning Barriers of Belief into Bridges to Personal Faith".

When I looked it over, I laughed... I was still protestant, still heading up several evangelical ministries. I said something like... "So? If an Orthodox person's faith is so shallow that they can get pulled into another denomination (<smile>), at least they'll be around people who are on fire for Christ." I understood her point but didn't see it as any big deal.

Yikes, right? Now, as I strive to have an Orthodox mindset, I can see how wrong it is. At the same time, I understand where those folks are coming from. It's not right, it's wrong doctrine... but they are (generally) sincere and well intentioned. And, I was part of that crowd. Frankly, outside of having a right doctrine now... I still see the same kind of people in church, the tepid, the zealous and everything in between. <SMILE> My new family is as dysfunctional as my old family.

Having a ready answer for those who "witness" to us Orthodox... now that's a solid approach. They are as precious to the Lord as anyone else and I have found listening and talking to be a very effective way to love them. I have been blessed beyond measure to see the fruit of that approach.

Here is a discussion about (and at the bottom of the page, a link to) the paper I mentioned above: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles7/AndrewsBaptist.php

In Christ,
Andrew

PS - I learned a wonderful and effective approach to one specific area of life from Billy Graham: never be alone with a woman who is not your wife. Wise counsel, even for the unmarried.

If protestants dont know why they are not wanted in Orthodox countries, its because there extreme hippocrites. I can just imagine the rage in America, if thousands of saudi citizens land in the bible belt to proselytise their religion. And i can just imagine the rage amongst the white protestants of the south when they find fertile ground amongst the poor black neighborhoods. They would call upon the government to oust them and racial violence would be shocking.

Secondly protestants only try to convert other christians to their way of thinking, yet there dogma is that there is no such thing as a visible church. If thats the case why go into christian countries and then establish rival churches?

I'm shocked when Orthodox defend whack jobs like Billy Graham & Benny Hinn. These people dont know anything about christianity including the teachings of the bible, most of their sermons are heresy filled rhetorical garbage (well Hinn is just a magician).

Salaam Yitbarek

21-11-2009, 02:28 PM

I would like to add a couple of points - maybe they've been mentioned before, but I haven't seen them.

First, in Ethiopia, and I think probably in many other areas, especially Latin America (substitute Catholicism for Orthodoxy), evangelicals tend to do their conversion by emphasizing anti-Orthodoxy more and pro-Evangelical Christianity, if you understand what I mean. And of course, they do not look at the best of Orthodox to criticize it, but the worst. So they'll talk about all the heretical practices, poor pastoral practices, etc., in the Orthodox Church. Their priests get drunk (a few is enough to make this point stick), they don't know what's in the Bible, they worship the Saints, etc. Of course, the Orthodox reply in kind, and the confrontation we've talked about continues.

I think there's a similar theme in the U.S., but focused on anti-Roman Catholicism. I think we can sum it up with something I heard Father Peter Gilquist say when talking about Evangelicals converting to Orthodoxy, something like "(Evangelicals think) that if the Catholics do it, it must be wrong, even if it's in the Bible!"

So I think this is a factor in Evangelicals not being wanted in Orthodox countries. They do not shy away from anti- rhetoric.

Second, although in my first post I gave my opinion on how I think we Orthodox should react to Evangelical proselytizing, I think I may have mistakenly given the impression that the reaction of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was all positive. Far from it. Many Orthodox clergy and laymen spend far, far too much time being anti-Evangelical than pro-Orthodox. Many priests cannot complete a sermon without saying something anti-Evangelical! Even here in North America, I have a tough time getting them to understand that the Evangelicals are not the threat (eg. the cause for their children to leave Orthodoxy), secularism is. So there are problems in Ethiopia.

Mary

21-11-2009, 05:01 PM

Second, although in my first post I gave my opinion on how I think we Orthodox should react to Evangelical proselytizing, I think I may have mistakenly given the impression that the reaction of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was all positive. Far from it. Many Orthodox clergy and laymen spend far, far too much time being anti-Evangelical than pro-Orthodox. Many priests cannot complete a sermon without saying something anti-Evangelical! Even here in North America, I have a tough time getting them to understand that the Evangelicals are not the threat (eg. the cause for their children to leave Orthodoxy), secularism is. So there are problems in Ethiopia.

This is true. The positive responses are very recent. I was in Ethiopia this past summer and I had interesting conversations with many friends, old and new. Islam is seen as the greatest threat now, and all the churches, protestant, catholic and orthodox, are trying to work together to somehow strengthen themselves against islam. One of my friends was at such a meeting. He said, one of the things they agreed upon was to not be involved in any sheep-stealing, and at the same time, not prevent any of their members from learning from each other, by threatening to disown them.

This same friend, is very sympathetic towards orthodoxy, and he thinks that most of the negative attitudes of the protestants towards the orthodox is because of ignorance. He had so many questions to ask me, and he kept saying: "Everything you say, makes so much sense. But most people I talk to, don't know how to answer my questions." I made excuses for them, saying I knew him, so I knew how to answer his questions. But, what he says is true. Most people can't satisfactorily explain, for instance, that we do not worship the saints. Perhaps there are some who really do!

I had the opportunity to attend one divine liturgy. I got there at 6am, and the church was almost half full. By 7am, it was packed. More than half the people there, had brought their children, even little ones. How they got up early enough, and got there before taxis and buses are running full-force, I do not know! But I was so thrilled to see them there. I found myself in the midst of a bunch of older women, and I was even more excited to hear them, reciting the whole service along with the chanters and the priest! Some of them had service books but others didn't. They knew the whole service. Obviously, it wasn't their first visit to church.

Salaam, it's not just the Ethiopian priests who can't complete a sermon without saying something anti-evangelical. It really bothers me when they do so. They speak out of ignorance, but they shouldn't be speaking about things they know nothing about! Sort of like my cousin, who has never been out of India, he always had such strong and many times, negative opinions of people from other countries, especially Americans. Once I asked him: "How many American friends do you have?" And he never shared his opinions with me again. Now that I think about it, he was pretty smart to understand what I was trying to tell him, eh? =)

in Christ,
Mary.

Ryan

21-11-2009, 07:11 PM

I recently saw a video of Sarah Palin and some protestant preachers doing missionary work among Alaskan natives in the town of Russian Mission. I know there's an Orthodox church there, and Orthodox people most likely being converted to protestantism. I'm wondering if the Church is doing something to counter-act this.

EDIT: Oops, I meant to put this under the "Russia and Evangelical missionaries" thread.

S. Rey

16-12-2009, 09:48 PM

That being said, given the choice between being nominally Orthodox or a genuine Jesus-loving Baptist or Pentecostal, I'd much rather see Russians and Greeks and others go evangelical. I know that I became a Christian, and started to love Jesus and want to follow Him when I was 17, long before I was received into the OC. So I can't deny that evangelicals will do some, maybe even a lot of good, among people who would never hear the gospel otherwise (because the OC doesn't do much evangelism anymore). Would it be better if they became fervent Orthodox instead? Sure.

Shawn,

The goal of Christian life is to acquire the Holy Spirit and be made again in the likeness of God; this is why the Holy Church places a lot of emphasis on practice--fasting being at the top of the list--and helps us pray truly--a rock band and constant shoutings and laughter do not lead to prayer. The Apostles who originally travelled across the Roman world did not preach people to "love Jesus" but wanted them to know the One True God, the Creator and Sustainer of Life. This may seem trifle matter but it is not: for what purpose would I "love Jesus," Who seems little more than a nice guy, by hearing those evangelicals "missionaries," and what is this heaven that I can get if I trust Him? Knowing the Gospel is not the most important issue; being able to read and quote from it does not mean that one is "saved," or even a true Christian. Orthodox people have sustained their faith for much longer than all the West, despite foreign and atheist occupations. In the meantime, it is in Protestant countries that Deism, atheism and secularism, as well as science and capitalism were born, and that revolutions took on an anti-religious stance. Because our faith is lived as a community, it is in the community at large that we see how well it lives on, not in what private individuals can or cannot do. Sometimes, traditional Orthodox peoples seem not involved in the Church; why then did the West end up in the ugliness of atheism, nihilism, and instant gratifications of desire as well as devoting all its energies to economic production? Greeks remain one of the most religious peoples in Europe, so do Georgians. I had much rather not be able to read at all--the Gospels are read at every liturgies, matins, vespers, and all other services--than exchange the wealth of our Holy Church for the "Jesus" of someone else' own invention.

In Christ,

Sylvain.

Shawn Lazar

23-12-2009, 01:16 AM

Hi Sylvain,

First, I understanding "loving Jesus" to involve all the things you advocate. Loving Jesus just is knowing the One True God. How could you know God without loving Him? Loving God is, after all, the summation of what we owe to God, and to our neighbor.

Second, in the interest of fairness to Westerners, all of the bad things you point to as happening in the West (Deism, secularism, atheism, nihilism, instant gratification, etc), may have had (and still have) a presence here, but they never took root as fully as in Orthodox countries. As we all know, it was the East that gave itself over, almost entirely, to purely atheistic regimes and suffered terribly because of it, and, are still largely under their sway. But no Protestant country ever adopted communism. And also recall that the entire Orthodox middle east converted to Islam, with the result that all the historic Patriarchs live in Muslim countries. But the West resisted. In other words, I'm not sure if Orthodoxy is in the position of pointing out the speck in Protestantism's eye, when we have a log in our own.

But returning to the subject of loving Jesus. I recently came across a telling passage from George Fedotov, who taught Church History at St. Serge in Paris, and St. Vlad's in New York. This is what he says about the relationship of Byzantine religion to Christ:

"Practically the whole of Byzantine religion could have been built without the historical Christ of the Gospels, upon a simple myth of the heavenly saviour similar to Helenistic saviour myths. The divine, glorified Christ is, certainly, the main object of the Byzantine cult– together with His Mother, the Queen of Heaven. Yet, strangely, His earthly life, and His good news of the Kingdom of God, and particularly His teaching, attracted little attention. The Gospels became a book of mysteries of Christ; a source of theological speculations. Since Christ Himself was the Word of God, His own spoken word was little heeded – or rather, was almost inaccessible beneath all the allegorical exegesis. Of the ethical teaching of Jesus what remained most forceful was His uncompromising commandments, obviously beyond human achievement, reinforced by the promise of Terrible Judgment." (The Russian Religious Mind, p. 35)

Fedotov is critiquing the trend of replacing the personal Jesus with a Christ principle. Christ became a theoretical supposition to justify Orthodox religion in the same way that Kant treated God as a theoretical supposition of his ethics. And in the process, a living relationship with Christ got lost. Perhaps its not like that in your community. But I certainly recognize it. I think this kind of attitude is what evangelicals rightly criticize in Orthodox countries. And what they're doing, trying to ignite a passion for Christ, and a love of the Bible, can only be beneficial to people who must be hungry to know Christ in a personal way.

Lastly, regarding reading the Bible. True, we Orthodox love to read long passages of Scripture in our services. (I know, I'm in the choir!) But does anyone actually understand what's being said? The rapid, monotonous drone, often in a dead language, without any explanation. It reminds me of what St. Paul said in 1st Corinthians 14:19: "But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue." Applied to our services, I would argue that its better to just read one verse of Scripture and explain it to the people, than to read 1000 verses, in a language no one understands, and without any explanation. The wisdom and wealth of Orthodoxy is only worth something if its being taught to the people. I don't think it is. Not in an effective way. That's why I'm grateful for evangelicals who, despite the poverty of their theology, still believe basic truths about Christ (most evangelicals agree with Nicea and Chalcedon), and are eager to teach these truths to anyone who will listen. Hopefully that will force the rest of us to take the Great Commission more seriously.

Olga

23-12-2009, 02:00 AM

Shawn, there is much that I could say regarding your post. However, I will focus on this paragraph:

Lastly, regarding reading the Bible. True, we Orthodox love to read long passages of Scripture in our services. (I know, I'm in the choir!) But does anyone actually understand what's being said? The rapid, monotonous drone, often in a dead language, without any explanation. It reminds me of what St. Paul said in 1st Corinthians 14:19[ (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=1+Corinthians+14%3A19): "But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue." Applied to our services, I would argue that its better to just read one verse of Scripture and explain it to the people, than to read 1000 verses, in a language no one understands, and without any explanation. The wisdom and wealth of Orthodoxy is only worth something if its being taught to the people. I don't think it is. Not in an effective way. That's why I'm grateful for evangelicals who, despite the poverty of their theology, still believe basic truths about Christ (most evangelicals agree with Nicea and Chalcedon), and are eager to teach these truths to anyone who will listen. Hopefully that will force the rest of us to take the Great Commission more seriously.

1. The clearest and most accessible source of the proper interpretation of Scripture and Patristic writings in the Orthodox Church is in its hymnography and its iconography, two elements which are sadly, all too often neglected and ignored.

2. I have lifelong experience in both the Greek and Russian forms of Orthodoxy, with both churches using liturgical languages which, for many centuries, have ceased to be vernacular, spoken languages. Yet, is it so difficult for anyone, particularly in these days of practically universal literacy, to have recourse to Orthodox liturgical texts in their first language, particularly English (which happens to be my first language)? Was not the great gift to the Apostles at Pentecost the ability of speaking languages other than their own, to enable them to carry out the Great Commission?

For the record, the Greek church has produced bilingual (liturgical Greek and English) layman's service books for many years; Fr Nicholas Elias' The Divine Liturgy Explained was first published in 1966, Fr George Papadeas' Holy Week - Easter, which has the full liturgical texts for every service from Palm Sunday Evening to the Agape service of Pascha, was first published in 1976. Both books have remained in print continuously since they first appeared.

On the Slavonic side, the work of Fr Issac Lambertsen in translating the Slavonic Menaion and many other liturgical texts, readily available through the St John of Kronstadt Press and many other sources, can only be regarded as epic in scale. Other local churches have done likewise, both on a large scale, and small. I myself have been called upon to provide bilingual texts (Greek/English and Slavonic/English) for churches and individuals over the years, and I have lost count of the number of icons I have provided to churches and individuals. Particularly in this internet age, there is a treasury of Orthodox liturgical material readily available, in many languages, traditional and otherwise, which can be used to great benefit.

My point? Orthodoxy well and truly has the resources and the availability of those resources, for the education of its flock, and its accessibility is becoming increasingly easier. There is little excuse in the notion of "if Orthodoxy is incomprehensible, then it's better that any form of Christianity is better than none". It behoves the clergy and all of us to make the effort to get to know our faith better, be it in western countries, or in countries of the former Eastern Bloc, or even in countries where Orthodoxy where the faith was never the norm.

Herman Blaydoe

23-12-2009, 02:36 AM

Some of this post is almost too bizarre to know where to begin, but here goes...

Second, in the interest of fairness to Westerners, all of the bad things you point to as happening in the West (Deism, secularism, atheism, nihilism, instant gratification, etc), may have had (and still have) a presence here, but they never took root as fully as in Orthodox countries. As we all know, it was the East that gave itself over, almost entirely, to purely atheistic regimes and suffered terribly because of it, and, are still largely under their sway. But no Protestant country ever adopted communism.

OK, so Germany, the home of most Protestantism did not adopt communism. But Nazism isn't much to brag about either, is it? And the first part of this paragraph is just plain over the top. How do you document such preposterous claims? I call "bogus". Let us break out the nihilism meter and do a comparison shall we? How about the atheism meter? Just how do you make a comparison? What, exactly, are the metrics?

And also recall that the entire Orthodox middle east converted to Islam, with the result that all the historic Patriarchs live in Muslim countries. But the West resisted. In other words, I'm not sure if Orthodoxy is in the position of pointing out the speck in Protestantism's eye, when we have a log in our own.

Oh please. There still are Christians in moslem-occupied lands, so to say the "entire Orthodox middle east" is totally outrageous hyperbole. And most "conversions" were at the point of the sword. This statement is an absolute insult to the many martyrs killed by the Moslem conquerors.

Lastly, regarding reading the Bible. True, we Orthodox love to read long passages of Scripture in our services. (I know, I'm in the choir!) But does anyone actually understand what's being said? The rapid, monotonous drone, often in a dead language, without any explanation. It reminds me of what St. Paul said in 1st Corinthians 14:19: "But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue." Applied to our services, I would argue that its better to just read one verse of Scripture and explain it to the people, than to read 1000 verses, in a language no one understands, and without any explanation. The wisdom and wealth of Orthodoxy is only worth something if its being taught to the people. I don't think it is. Not in an effective way. That's why I'm grateful for evangelicals who, despite the poverty of their theology, still believe basic truths about Christ (most evangelicals agree with Nicea and Chalcedon), and are eager to teach these truths to anyone who will listen. Hopefully that will force the rest of us to take the Great Commission more seriously.

Dude, come visit my English-serving parish. I guarantee that you will understand the Gospel and the prayers, and all the wonderful hymnography of the Church. OK, so some of it could stand a little more skillful and poetic translation, but the understanding is there, and in the hymns are some wonderful explanations.

But really, before you go making unsubstantiated insults to entire cultures, you really need to pause a moment before hitting "send".

Shawn Lazar

23-12-2009, 02:57 AM

Hi Olga,

Thank God that vernacular translations of our services have been made and increasingly used, especially in the US and Canada. I don't know whether the same progress is being made in Orthodox countries. As for churches that conduct their services exclusively or mostly in the language spoken by the people, obviously my objection to using a dead language does not apply.

Are the services available to the common person? Yes, theoretically. Of course, most of the service books are too expensive for the common person to buy. The Menaion goes for, what, $1200? And the services are so complicated to follow (this past feastday we were flipping around 8 different books), I don't see how anyone without special training would be able to follow them. But still, you are right, more and more of these materials are being made available for the individual worshiper to study.

In any case, having the services performed in the vernacular is only one step towards making their message understandable to the people. You say the clearest most accessible source of proper interpretation of Scripture is in its hymnograpy and iconography. I strongly disagree. I don't think the service books and icons provide anything like a clear interpretation of Scripture. If anything, they require more interpretation than Scripture itself! Yes, they treat Scriptural themes. And there is some wonderful theology contained in them. But they do not exegete the Scriptures, and that is what is absolutely necessary. While there are dozens, and possibly hundreds of Protestant commentaries on the book of Romans alone, there are very few Orthodox resources for actually exegeting Scripture, in the manner of St. John Chrysostom and Blessed Theophylact. Those Fathers went through the Bible line by line, explaining the meaning of the text in a way anyone could understand (well, Blessed Theophylact did that). But aside from those two Fathers, its hard to point to any comprehensive Orthodox Bible commentary. Though I hope that will soon change.

But to come to the main point. Does Orthodoxy have the resources available to teach the flock? Absolutely. I've never questioned that. But I'm sure you'll agree that having resources available and actually teaching the flock are two different things. If a chemistry teacher stood with his back to his class, and began to quickly chant his chemistry book in the 8 tones, partly in English, partly in Slavonic, would you expect any child to learn the subject matter? I can just imagine what that would sound like:
"Enthalpy in the Fourth Tone: Enthalpy(H)isdefinedsothatchangesinenthalpy(DeltaH )areequaltotheheatabsorbedorreleasedbyaprocessrunn ingatconstantpressure."

Would you send your child to a school that taught chemistry like that, or one that used more conventional methods?

When it comes down to it, its not a question of resources, but of pedagogy. I do not think the services are primarily pedagogical. Rather, they assume the people have already be taught to love Jesus, and the details of our faith in Him. But the problem is, they haven't. And in lands where Orthodoxy is theoretically available, but not actively taught, I do indeed think it better for someone to come to love Jesus because of the testimony of an evangelical, then never to know Jesus at all.

Mary

23-12-2009, 02:59 AM

Herman, I don't understand every thing Shawn said, but he hasn't said anything insulting.

Mary

23-12-2009, 03:07 AM

And in lands where Orthodoxy is theoretically available, but not actively taught, I do indeed think it better for someone to come to love Jesus because of the testimony of an evangelical, then never to know Jesus at all.

There's only one slight problem with that. The Christ that the evangelicals would introduce them to, is not the same Christ in the Orthodox church. They would just be falling in love with their own concept of who Christ is or might be. In other words, just their imagination that they name "Christ" - like imaginary friends that kids (or grown ups) - might invent to keep themselves company. That will do them no good. It would also make it harder for them to recognize the real Christ, when they see Him face to face.

Herman Blaydoe

23-12-2009, 03:11 AM

While there are dozens, and possibly hundreds of Protestant commentaries on the book of Romans alone, there are very few Orthodox resources for actually exegeting Scripture, in the manner of St. John Chrysostom and Blessed Theophylact. Those Fathers went through the Bible line by line, explaining the meaning of the text in a way anyone could understand (well, Blessed Theophylact did that). But aside from those two Fathers, its hard to point to any comprehensive Orthodox Bible commentary. Though I hope that will soon change.

How much more than Sts. John and Theophylact do you need? Yes there are thousands of Protestant commentaries, many of them simply wrong, all putting their particular spin on things. How many commentaries are really necessary? Have you read "The Word in the Desert" or "The Power of the Word in the Worshipping Church"? I think you may want to consider expanding your Orthodox library.

But to come to the main point. Does Orthodoxy have the resources available to teach the flock? Absolutely. I've never questioned that. But I'm sure you'll agree that having resources available and actually teaching the flock are two different things. If a chemistry teacher stood with his back to his class, and began to quickly chant his chemistry book in the 8 tones, partly in English, partly in Slavonic, would you expect any child to learn the subject matter? I can just imagine what that would sound like:
"Enthalpy in the Fourth Tone: Enthalpy(H)isdefinedsothatchangesinenthalpy(DeltaH )areequaltotheheatabsorbedorreleasedbyaprocessrunn ingatconstantpressure."

Would you send your child to a school that taught chemistry like that, or one that used more conventional methods?

When it comes down to it, its not a question of resources, but of pedagogy. I do not think the services are primarily pedagogical. Rather, they assume the people have already be taught to love Jesus, and the details of our faith in Him. But the problem is, they haven't. And in lands where Orthodoxy is theoretically available, but not actively taught, I do indeed think it better for someone to come to love Jesus because of the testimony of an evangelical, then never to know Jesus at all.

Once again, I invite you to visit another Orthodox parish or two. Most of the ones I have visited or been associated with don't sound anything like what you are describing here. How many parishes have you visited?

Just askin'.

Shawn Lazar

23-12-2009, 03:18 AM

Herman, I did not mean to insult you.

You're right about Eastern Germany. My bad. I take it back. At least one Protestant country fell under the communist gun. But, if memory serves, it was because Russians forced it on them at the end of WWII. But I could be wrong about that too.

I don't see how my stating the obvious about the Middle East is hyperbole. Those were Christian countries. Now they are Muslim countries, with tiny Christian minorities. Did they convert at the end of a sword? I'm sure some people converted for that very reason. And clearly there were many martyrs. But despite that, all evidence indicates the people willingly converted en masse to Islam. And after 1400 years you'd think if they didn't willingly convert, Islam would have lost its influence long ago, as communism has. In any case, my point remains unchanged. A previous poster laid every kind of blame on the Western doorstep without recognizing that we have all the same weaknesses, perhaps in even greater measure. So we should be careful of our criticisms of the West, lest we forget our own sins.

Does your English parish preach the gospel clearly? I'll take your word for it, and praise God in thankfulness for faithful communities like yours. But my argument does not depend on what your particular church does or doesn't. Unfortunately, the Orthodox churches have a long history of neglecting the faith. Already in the Apostolic era the Lord was complaining that many of his churches had "left their first love" (Rev 2:4), had become "lukewarm", etc. And the saints through the ages have lamented the failings of their Church. Wasn't monasticism begun for that very reason? Or think of all the trouble St. Symeon the New Theologian had to go through when he criticized the formalism of the Church. Or think of John Romanides seeming rejection of most of modern Greek theology as essentially atheistic and Western. Thus, I don't think its an insult to point out the obvious, that Orthodoxy is affected by widespread nominalism. Rather, its just a fact on the ground that has long been recognized by our most illustrious saints, and even by our own Lord!

Mary

23-12-2009, 03:20 AM

How much more than Sts. John and Theophylact do you need? Yes there are thousands of Protestant commentaries, many of them simply wrong, all putting their particular spin on things. How many commentaries are really necessary? Have you read "The Word in the Desert" or "The Power of the Word in the Worshipping Church"? I think you may want to consider expanding your Orthodox library.

Once again, I invite you to visit another Orthodox parish or two. Most of the ones I have visited or been associated with don't sound anything like what you are describing here. How many parishes have you visited?

Just askin'.

Shawn is not putting down anything Orthodox. He is comparing the enthusiasm that protestants have for learning the Bible, for teaching it to their children, for sharing it with others, etc, etc etc. Something that is lacking in the orthodox world, maybe not in your particular parish, but in 'general' it is! There's nothing wrong with admitting that the Orthodox haven't been good about educating the children, and the new comers. Yes, they have the resources. But they aren't used very well, and they are not readily available to the lay person, who is not a choir member.

Our services are long and beautiful, filled with innumberable treasures, but just because of the very largeness of it all, you miss most of it. And if the reader doesn't read clearly or readds too fast, you DO miss most of it! (Except the verses you already know).

Olga

23-12-2009, 03:32 AM

Hi Olga,

Are the services available to the common person? Yes, theoretically. Of course, most of the service books are too expensive for the common person to buy. The Menaion goes for, what, $1200? And the services are so complicated to follow (this past feastday we were flipping around 8 different books), I don't see how anyone without special training would be able to follow them. But still, you are right, more and more of these materials are being made available for the individual worshiper to study.

Too expensive to buy? The Divine Liturgy and the Holy Week books I referred to cost perhaps AUD$20-25 and $45-50 respectively, well within the capacity of most Australian parishioners, and available at every Greek church I've set foot in in this country. In addition, Fr Nicholas' book is actually published in Greece, and distributed all over the world.

The St John of Kronstadt menaion is available in leaflet form for each feast for about a dollar (US) last time I checked. Even a small mission can afford this for the major feasts, gradually acquiring more material as funds permit. Also, if a common layman like me (who is not a reader, singer or choirmistress) can follow the rubrics in the back of a church calendar in a liturgical language foreign to my primary language, and successfully compile Vigil services, then there's hope for everyone. I agree, it takes time and effort, but someone's gotta do it.

In any case, having the services performed in the vernacular is only one step towards making their message understandable to the people. You say the clearest most accessible source of proper interpretation of Scripture is in its hymnograpy and iconography. I strongly disagree. I don't think the service books and icons provide anything like a clear interpretation of Scripture. If anything, they require more interpretation than Scripture itself! Yes, they treat Scriptural themes. And there is some wonderful theology contained in them. But they do not exegete the Scriptures, and that is what is absolutely necessary.

Nonsense. Regarding iconographic interpretation, I have lost count of the number of times I've stood in church during a Vigil and heard a piece of hymnody which has, yet again, explained this or that detail in an icon. Similarly, when an iconographer worth his salt wishes to paint an icon of a saint or feast, particularly of a saint who is not well-known, it is imperative that he looks at the hymnography for that saint.

While there are dozens, and possibly hundreds of Protestant commentaries on the book of Romans alone, there are very few Orthodox resources for actually exegeting Scripture, in the manner of St. John Chrysostom and Blessed Theophylact. Those Fathers went through the Bible line by line, explaining the meaning of the text in a way anyone could understand (well, Blessed Theophylact did that). But aside from those two Fathers, its hard to point to any comprehensive Orthodox Bible commentary. Though I hope that will soon change.

You haven't looked hard enough. I'm sure many on this forum can prove your opinion mistaken.

But to come to the main point. Does Orthodoxy have the resources available to teach the flock? Absolutely. I've never questioned that. But I'm sure you'll agree that having resources available and actually teaching the flock are two different things. If a chemistry teacher stood with his back to his class, and began to quickly chant his chemistry book in the 8 tones, partly in English, partly in Slavonic, would you expect any child to learn the subject matter? I can just imagine what that would sound like:
"Enthalpy in the Fourth Tone: Enthalpy(H)isdefinedsothatchangesinenthalpy(DeltaH )areequaltotheheatabsorbedorreleasedbyaprocessrunn ingatconstantpressure."

Would you send your child to a school that taught chemistry like that, or one that used more conventional methods?

All along I have advocated that it is the great responsibility of clergy and layman alike (such as parents, Godparents, Sunday school teachers, and the like) to educate their flock in the faith. Show me where I have stated otherwise.

When it comes down to it, its not a question of resources, but of pedagogy. I do not think the services are primarily pedagogical. Rather, they assume the people have already be taught to love Jesus, and the details of our faith in Him. But the problem is, they haven't. And in lands where Orthodoxy is theoretically available, but not actively taught, I do indeed think it better for someone to come to love Jesus because of the testimony of an evangelical, then never to know Jesus at all.

But in lands where Orthodoxy was there for many centuries, and where there is the "infrastructure" to restore what has been lost or forgotten over a comparatively small period of time (70 years compared to 1000 for Russia, 400 years compared to 2000 years for Greece), why on earth could an Orthodox Christian possibly wish to suggest that "any Jesus is better than no Jesus at all"?

Herman Blaydoe

23-12-2009, 03:34 AM

Herman, I did not mean to insult you.

Not me, my friend, your unqualified and hyperbolic statement insults the millions of martyrs that died under the yoke of Islam and the Christians that are persecuted even today in those lands. They did not simply "become Moslems". To imply they did is simply insulting, plain and simple.

You're right about Eastern Germany. My bad. I take it back. At least one Protestant country fell under the communist gun. But, if memory serves, it was because Russians forced it on them at the end of WWII. But I could be wrong about that too.

Excuse me, you managed to totally miss my point. Germany (all of it) tried to take over the world, having fallen under the spell of the NAZIS. Or did you forget about World War II and why it happened? Right, it certainly was not "communism" or Islam but once again, it was nothing to brag about either.

I don't see how my stating the obvious about the Middle East is hyperbole. Those were Christian countries. Now they are Muslim countries, with tiny Christian minorities. Did they convert at the end of a sword? I'm sure some people converted for that very reason. And clearly there were many martyrs. But despite that, all evidence indicates the people willingly converted en masse to Islam. And after 1400 years you'd think if they didn't willingly convert, Islam would have lost its influence long ago, as communism has. In any case, my point remains unchanged. A previous poster laid every kind of blame on the Western doorstep without recognizing that we have all the same weaknesses, perhaps in even greater measure. So we should be careful of our criticisms of the West, lest we forget our own sins.

Wow. Never have I read a more simplistic and thoroughly wrong version of history. What do they teach in the schools these days?! Please, do yourself a favor and actually study what happened in the world between 622 and 1453, from what you have written it seems like you have no real idea.

Does your English parish preach the gospel clearly? I'll take your word for it, and praise God in thankfulness for faithful communities like yours. But my argument does not depend on what your particular church does or doesn't. Unfortunately, the Orthodox churches have a long history of neglecting the faith. Already in the Apostolic era the Lord was complaining that many of his churches had "left their first love" (Rev 2:4), had become "lukewarm", etc. And the saints through the ages have lamented the failings of their Church. Wasn't monasticism begun for that very reason? Or think of all the trouble St. Symeon the New Theologian had to go through when he criticized the formalism of the Church. Or think of John Romanides seeming rejection of most of modern Greek theology as essentially atheistic and Western. Thus, I don't think its an insult to point out the obvious, that Orthodoxy is affected by widespread nominalism. Rather, its just a fact on the ground that has long been recognized by our most illustrious saints, and even by our own Lord!

No endeavor associated with human beings is without problems. And yes the Church has had to deal with them since Apostolic times. Why the Lord has had to deal with problems since He first created us! To say the Church needs to do a better job is one thing. I agree that there is much that needs to be done, but the first place that needs correction is myself. When you and I become perfected, then we can perfect the Church.

Shawn Lazar

23-12-2009, 04:52 AM

Herman, Again you're right. Nazi Germany is a good example of how atheism took hold of a Protestant country. But since the charge made by the previous poster was to lay all manner of evil (including atheism, secularism, etc) at Western feet, without recognizing these same evils existing in Orthodox countries, I don't think your correction invalidates my main point that Orthodox countries are just as culpable as Western ones.

Do I know what happened in that part of the world? Certainly not as much as I should. However, I studied Islam at the Institute for Islamic Studies at McGill University in Montreal, so I'm somewhat familiar with it. The bottom line is, all the Ancient Eastern Patriachates are now in Muslim countries. The Hagia Sophia is a mosque. So is the Temple Mount. But St Peter's Basilica is still a Church. Islam begins and ends where Orthodoxy once reigned. Is that a coincidence? I don't know. But I expect that widespread nominalism has something to do with it, since the saints themselves complained about it so often. Again, my point was simply that Orthodoxy shares the sins of Western Christendom as far as widespread atheism, etc, is concerned. The presence of suffering Christians in those lands no more refutes the point, than the presence of suffering Christians in Germany refutes the idea that millions of nominal Protestants tragically supported the Third Reich.

I'm glad we agree that much work needs to be done. That's all I wanted to say, adding only that if the Orthodox Church does not do the job teaching its people about Jesus Christ, then other people will fill the void.

Olga,

I don't mean to say the services are devoid of illuminating comments. As I said, they contain beautiful theology. I'm sure people already familiar with the Bible find lots of insights when reading (or hearing) the services. But when you claim the services are the clearest interpretation of Scripture, my only reply must be that they are as hard to understand as Scripture itself. Indeed, one must first know the Scriptures to make sense of them, for they presuppose the Scriptures and not the other way around. For instance, the Biblical story of Elijah is far easier to understand than the icon depicting the scene. If anything, the icon is virtually uninterpretable without knowing prior knowledge of the Biblical story. The latter does not interpret the former. And who could understand the icon of the Transfiguration without prior knowledge of the Gospel account? Iconography is a series of symbols to be interpreted.

Elsewhere you had said that Orthodoxy has all the resources necessary to instruct the faithful. Which I agreed was a valid point. But my concern, and the concern of this thread, was that the Orthodox Church was not using its resources to teach the faithful. And that void is being filled by evangelical groups and other cults, in Russian and elsehwere. Hence, my distinction between having resources, and actively teaching people out of those resources.

Finally, no doubt the Church in lands previously devastated by atheism, has tremendous potential. But until that potential becomes actual, I think its better that people find out about Jesus Christ from evangelicals, if the alternative is never to know Jesus Christ at all. That is not because I believe in the salvific message of evangelicals, but because I believe in the salvific message of Jesus, indeed, that He is merciful and loving to all who call upon his name. But you can't call upon Jesus' name until you've heard about him. And if you've heard about him from an evangelical, then so be it.

Eric Peterson

23-12-2009, 05:09 AM

How easy it is to criticize the Church (even if one is in it--strange, but it happens), and yet, essentially, we have been given a large degree of responsibility for ourselves. This would be the case for anyone, in any religious body, or even in an academic setting. If one wants to know something, one has to make the effort to learn it. It seems a cop-out, to me, to fault the university because you didn't learn anything. Maybe there was a poor professor, but there are ways to overcome the disadvantage and succeed. Even if the classes were incomprehensible, there are other professors to talk with, and tutors. Failing that, is there not a library?

Resources on Orthodoxy abound. I could make a list for you, with links, for you you can get thousands of titles, many available free or cheaply, and all of them edifying--I should know, I'm writing from between the stacks. More and more are available every day. And, besides all that, and even more important, are the spiritual resources--public and especially private prayer, fasting, charity, the sacraments, humility, reformation of life. How often do we draw on those? What matters is not the language or the books or the attentiveness of the priest--though they're all important--but what really matters, I come to feel more and more, is the disposition of the person. A person with a good disposition can make do with whatever God sends him, be grateful for it, and grow spiritually by leaps and bounds.

There are things that we cannot change for how things are in Orthodoxy in the big picture or even at our local parish, but there are plenty of things that we can change for ourselves by making a holy effort. Just as it would do no good to blame apostasy on the Protestant missionaries, it is useless, I think, to whine that Orthodoxy is not full-service enough, that things aren't done the way we want them to be. That's life. Nothing is going to be perfect as a rule on this earth before the Lord returns, but there will be an even greater deficit of perfection and of our contentment if we expect things to be the way that will make us happy. But we can change our attitude, we can increase our efforts, and we can examine our hearts and work on them even without the physical resources that we have more and more of every day. As for the spiritual resources, the grace of God, that's completely free and available to anyone who so much as asks for it.

Andreas Moran

23-12-2009, 05:17 AM

Finally, no doubt the Church in lands previously devastated by atheism, has tremendous potential. But until that potential becomes actual, I think its better that people find out about Jesus Christ from evangelicals, if the alternative is never to know Jesus Christ at all. That is not because I believe in the salvific message of evangelicals, but because I believe in the salvific message of Jesus, indeed, that He is merciful and loving to all who call upon his name. But you can't call upon Jesus' name until you've heard about him. And if you've heard about him from an evangelical, then so be it.

This is profoundly wrong and also confused in its thinking. The Church in Russia is already 'actual', and the people in Russia are very well aware of it as they are of Christ; it is the people who need to achieve their potential as active members of the Church. Accordingly, there is no need for evangelicals. I do not see how logically you can say you do not believe 'in the salvific message of evangelicals' and yet think that their teaching about Jesus could be beneficial. But the point is redundant since people in Russia do know about Jesus Christ and the Orthodox Church. In my experience, it is impossible to pass a single day in Russia (and I don't mean Moscow and St Petersburg - I have been to many provincial towns and several remote areas of Russia) without being aware of the Orthodox Church, its clergy and its message.

Olga

23-12-2009, 08:19 AM

Let me ask you this direct question, Shawn: What are you doing to increase your comprehension of the hymnody you sing, the scripture that you read, the icons you venerate, and how are you helping others grow in their understanding?

Herman Blaydoe

23-12-2009, 05:20 PM

Herman, Again you're right. Nazi Germany is a good example of how atheism took hold of a Protestant country. But since the charge made by the previous poster was to lay all manner of evil (including atheism, secularism, etc) at Western feet, without recognizing these same evils existing in Orthodox countries, I don't think your correction invalidates my main point that Orthodox countries are just as culpable as Western ones.

Peoples is peoples. The west has no monopoly on secular, the east has no monopoly on holy, given. "Holy Russia"' Holy Greece", and a "Holy Byzantine Empire" are more mythos than reality.

Do I know what happened in that part of the world? Certainly not as much as I should. However, I studied Islam at the Institute for Islamic Studies at McGill University in Montreal, so I'm somewhat familiar with it. The bottom line is, all the Ancient Eastern Patriachates are now in Muslim countries. The Hagia Sophia is a mosque.

Minor point admittedly, but Hagia Sophia WAS a mosque. It is now a museum and not used for worship of any sort at the moment. Many of the frescos and iconography have been restored.

So is the Temple Mount.

Um, well, like the Temple Mount never was a Christian Church. The was built on the ruins of the Jewish Temple after Islamic forces captured Jerusalem from western Crusaders. Oh and last time I looked, the Patriarch of Jerusalem is not in a "Moslem country", it is in Israel.

But St Peter's Basilica is still a Church. Islam begins and ends where Orthodoxy once reigned.

Again, it may be a minor point but Orthodoxy once reigned throughout the Roman/Byzantine Empire, a very big area. Russia is not Islamic, neither is Greece, or Albania, or Romania, or Georgia or a host of other countries. A admittedly sizable chunk of the once united Roman Empire is now under Islamic influence. So what?

Is that a coincidence? I don't know.

Not a coincidence, just a poorly formulated strawman conclusion.

But I expect that widespread nominalism has something to do with it, since the saints themselves complained about it so often. Again, my point was simply that Orthodoxy shares the sins of Western Christendom as far as widespread atheism, etc, is concerned. The presence of suffering Christians in those lands no more refutes the point, than the presence of suffering Christians in Germany refutes the idea that millions of nominal Protestants tragically supported the Third Reich.

It doesn't have to be a "holier than thou" contest. If Russians resent western Protestant missionaries taking advantage of a persecution-weakened Church, using questionable proselytization methods, try not to get so worked up about it.

I'm glad we agree that much work needs to be done. That's all I wanted to say, adding only that if the Orthodox Church does not do the job teaching its people about Jesus Christ, then other people will fill the void.

Fast food is not a substitute for real nutrition. McReligion is not a suitable substitute for the Truth. Garbage may look like a feast to a starving man, but we do no one any favors by endorsing it. That is all I'm saying.

Herman the Pooh, who has a different idea of what "fast" food ought to be (just one of the many problems with Protestantism I have)

Andreas Moran

23-12-2009, 05:43 PM

Herman the Pooh, who has a different idea of what "fast" food ought to be (just one of the many problems with Protestantism I have) Would that be honey, by any chance??

Michael Stickles

23-12-2009, 08:14 PM

I don't know about Russia, but old friends of ours work as Protestant missionaries in Bulgaria. Through their time there, they have grown to appreciate many things Orthodox - the reality in the sacraments, the liturgy, the concept of theosis - they may not "get it" fully, but are learning. Yet, they run into people who have lived there all their lives, who are probably (nominally) Orthodox, but don't really have a clue about their own faith. It's kind of ironic when an Orthodox person in a traditionally Orthodox country needs an American Protestant to come explain to them what Orthodoxy teaches!

The current state of those people (not the admittedly unusual perspective of our friends) is the context of understanding I'm working from when I read Shawn's comment:

Finally, no doubt the Church in lands previously devastated by atheism, has tremendous potential. But until that potential becomes actual, I think its better that people find out about Jesus Christ from evangelicals, if the alternative is never to know Jesus Christ at all. That is not because I believe in the salvific message of evangelicals, but because I believe in the salvific message of Jesus, indeed, that He is merciful and loving to all who call upon his name. But you can't call upon Jesus' name until you've heard about him. And if you've heard about him from an evangelical, then so be it.

We're talking about people who know pretty much nothing about Christ, the Church, or salvation. They have no real personal or corporate spiritual practice. In short, nothing to move them in the direction of seeking God.

I read Shawn's comments as saying, in effect, that it's better they have something moving them in the direction of faith, even if it is far less than ideal, than for them to be left in that nowhere land of ignorance and spiritual apathy. To refer back to Herman's analogy, saying garbage is better than starvation hardly seems like an "endorsement" of garbage.

In Christ,
Michael

Andreas Moran

23-12-2009, 10:07 PM

Perhaps the point is that many people in countries such as Bulgaria (about which I know nothing) do have faith. People who lived under communism often did have faith (people such as my wife's parents and their parents); they now practice it in the Church. How many people in Greece and Cyprus are really only nominally Orthodox, and have little knowledge of the Church, its teachings and practices? Should American Protestant evangelists go and tell them about Orthodoxy? Or even just about Jesus? Faith - Orthodox faith - is greater than religious knowledge, I suggest. The kind of evangelism we are talking about here is a result of breath-taking ignorance and the grossest sort of western presumption; most western Christians, including many Orthodox, haven't a clue about Orthodoxy as it is believed and held in places like Russia.

Peter M

23-12-2009, 11:13 PM

Islam begins and ends where Orthodoxy once reigned.

I try to avoid understanding history with a rationalist mentality, but with a spiritual outlook instead. What attracted me to the Orthodox Church was not its historical successes or its numbers, or its outreach programs, or its digital prowess, but the fact that it is the Church that has undergone the most suffering -- for that is the Way about which Christ spoke. If you read Scripture closely, you will see that Jesus prepared His apostles and disciples not for outrageous successes, but for terrible persecution and horrific consequences. In fact, I would say that in the West, where we are still free to practice our religion of choice (to some extent), we are worse off than the handful of Orthodox Christians in the Islamic world, who face many of the same dangers as their 3rd century predecessors did at the hands of the Romans!

I once belonged to a fundamental Baptist organization that had "missionaries" in most Orthodox lands. Their gospel sounds much more orthodox than an outright cult gospel would, and they are so extroverted and emotional that they can seem very attractive to anyone seeking a place to belong. But this kind of evangelism is, in a way, far more dangerous than that of the cults, because it carries far less stigma for an ordinary citizen of an Orthodox land to get pulled away from the truth towards an E-Z Jesus than to join the LDS Church or Watchtower. Thus, there are many who are being led into error and away from real salvation by wolves in sheep costumes.

The Orthodox Church evangelizes through prayer and miracles as well as doctrine (teaching). I got brought in not because of intellectual stimulation, but because of the mysteries of the Church, its ineffable Liturgy, its holiness, its love. These things, I believe, is what all people are craving deeply and if anything, we must help them realize that they can have that in our Church. I hope I made any sense at all.

S. Rey

24-12-2009, 09:09 PM

First, I understanding "loving Jesus" to involve all the things you advocate. Loving Jesus just is knowing the One True God. How could you know God without loving Him? Loving God is, after all, the summation of what we owe to God, and to our neighbor.

Indeed, you are right. But by listening to Evangelicals, it seems at times that there is nothing beside Jesus Christ--not even the Father, not even the Holy Ghost, and, possibly, not even the Son as eternal second person of the Trinity! To them Jesus seems to have been reduced to a mere man, a very great man perhaps, but a mere human being. And in this they do more wrong than good, because it confuses people.

Second, in the interest of fairness to Westerners, all of the bad things you point to as happening in the West (Deism, secularism, atheism, nihilism, instant gratification, etc), may have had (and still have) a presence here, but they never took root as fully as in Orthodox countries. As we all know, it was the East that gave itself over, almost entirely, to purely atheistic regimes and suffered terribly because of it, and, are still largely under their sway. But no Protestant country ever adopted communism. And also recall that the entire Orthodox middle east converted to Islam, with the result that all the historic Patriarchs live in Muslim countries. But the West resisted. In other words, I'm not sure if Orthodoxy is in the position of pointing out the speck in Protestantism's eye, when we have a log in our own.

I am not sure if you are really aware that the West is currently the most secular region in the world. Also, in order to be able to create a scientist and secular mind, the West, from where these things originated, has had to undergo a certain intellectual process that involved the gradual withering of faith. It is precisely this intellectual process that Max Weber described in his book, and others after him (Charles Taylor for instance). The race to profit and the scientific world-view are indeed products of the West, and this happened because or despite of Christianity in the West--and I am saying this as a Westerner myself.
Marxism originated in the West, and later was imported into Russia--but not the entire Orthodox world. And if it gained ground in Russia, it is for certain historical reasons peculiar to itself, but not to the entire Orthodox world.
Indeed Orthodox countries do face problems, concerning their faith as well. But it doesn't mean that they cannot point out to problems in the West, especially since the West is in dominant position.

But returning to the subject of loving Jesus. I recently came across a telling passage from George Fedotov, who taught Church History at St. Serge in Paris, and St. Vlad's in New York. This is what he says about the relationship of Byzantine religion to Christ:

"Practically the whole of Byzantine religion could have been built without the historical Christ of the Gospels, upon a simple myth of the heavenly saviour similar to Helenistic saviour myths. The divine, glorified Christ is, certainly, the main object of the Byzantine cult– together with His Mother, the Queen of Heaven. Yet, strangely, His earthly life, and His good news of the Kingdom of God, and particularly His teaching, attracted little attention. The Gospels became a book of mysteries of Christ; a source of theological speculations. Since Christ Himself was the Word of God, His own spoken word was little heeded – or rather, was almost inaccessible beneath all the allegorical exegesis. Of the ethical teaching of Jesus what remained most forceful was His uncompromising commandments, obviously beyond human achievement, reinforced by the promise of Terrible Judgment." (The Russian Religious Mind, p. 35)

Fedotov is critiquing the trend of replacing the personal Jesus with a Christ principle. Christ became a theoretical supposition to justify Orthodox religion in the same way that Kant treated God as a theoretical supposition of his ethics. And in the process, a living relationship with Christ got lost. Perhaps its not like that in your community. But I certainly recognize it. I think this kind of attitude is what evangelicals rightly criticize in Orthodox countries. And what they're doing, trying to ignite a passion for Christ, and a love of the Bible, can only be beneficial to people who must be hungry to know Christ in a personal way.

The entire Byzantine--and Western--culture is precisely a product of the recognition of this fact: the Christ has taken on human flesh that we may retake our divine status. The Church Fathers in their writings and struggle expressed this truth, and suffered for it. We cannot do that for an abstract principle. As St. John Damascene confesses: "I saw the human face of God's and I am saved." Or again, what are the Blessed Augustine's Confessions but a testimony of a personal, face-to-face love with the Christ?

Lastly, regarding reading the Bible. True, we Orthodox love to read long passages of Scripture in our services. (I know, I'm in the choir!) But does anyone actually understand what's being said? The rapid, monotonous drone, often in a dead language, without any explanation. It reminds me of what St. Paul said in 1st Corinthians 14:19: "But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue." Applied to our services, I would argue that its better to just read one verse of Scripture and explain it to the people, than to read 1000 verses, in a language no one understands, and without any explanation. The wisdom and wealth of Orthodoxy is only worth something if its being taught to the people. I don't think it is. Not in an effective way. That's why I'm grateful for evangelicals who, despite the poverty of their theology, still believe basic truths about Christ (most evangelicals agree with Nicea and Chalcedon), and are eager to teach these truths to anyone who will listen. Hopefully that will force the rest of us to take the Great Commission more seriously.

The chanting tone is there precisely to help us understand, and the homily explains the readings. I disagree with the fact that Orthodox churches use dead languages: these may be only older versions of the same language. If there is a need to use the modern version of the language, then the entire Church concerned will change if it feels the need to. Indeed, there are problems, issues, which we must deal with; but we know that we possess the fullness of Revelation, and have not changed and modified it. The Church has experienced much persecutions and sufferings in the last centuries, and perhaps has not yet fully emerged from these. It is now up to the Church in its entirety to reveal the fullness of the Truth to the world and prevent distortions of this Truth to take hold. This may take some time, but let's hope that it will succeed!

S. Rey

24-12-2009, 09:25 PM

Finally, no doubt the Church in lands previously devastated by atheism, has tremendous potential. But until that potential becomes actual, I think its better that people find out about Jesus Christ from evangelicals, if the alternative is never to know Jesus Christ at all. That is not because I believe in the salvific message of evangelicals, but because I believe in the salvific message of Jesus, indeed, that He is merciful and loving to all who call upon his name. But you can't call upon Jesus' name until you've heard about him. And if you've heard about him from an evangelical, then so be it.

To continue with Andreas' comment, it is not the case that it is better to be evangelical for lack of better things. There are thousands of people in non-Western countries, Africa, Asia, and Latin America, who turn to Evangelicalism. Unfortunately, I doubt that after that they will see in the Orthodox Church the fullness of Truth and eventually go to Her. Rather, having learnt the message of Christ through another Gospel, they will hold on to it as sufficient, and they will see no need to do anything else, as if they were certain that they already possessed the Church. Can we then let people hear a different gospel who would keep it as true?

No, it is easier to spread the message of Christ to non-believers than to people who have newly discovered Christ through, in this case, evangelicalism. If they could be like the Russians, who had first enquired about what each faith had to offer! But it is not the case with most of them, unfortunately.

Shawn Lazar

18-01-2010, 05:15 PM

Hi S. Rey,

Your comment presupposes that Orthodoxy is evangelizing the world. And that anyone who hears of Jesus through Evangelicalism will be close minded when Orthodoxy comes around and also tells them about Jesus. Unfortunately, Orthodoxy is not doing (much) evangelism. Let me give two examples of what I mean. First, I lived in Louisiana for a time. Orthodoxy has been present in Louisiana since the early 1800s. In 250+ years of Orthodox presence, maybe 5 churches of less than 30 people were established around the State (and one Cathedral). In fact, most of those were established in the last 5 years, and largely because of Evangelical converts to Orthodoxy! By contrast, there were about five evangelical churches within 3 blocks of my house, and thousands more across the State. Second, I lived directly across the street from a Greek Orthodox Church in Montreal, and down the block (no more than 50 feet) from a Ukrainian Orthodox Church. That's two Orthodox church within a stone's throw of my flat. But while Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentecostals and Evangelicals came to my door, and across my path, several times, I never heard anything from those Orthodox Churches. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. I probably would have gone my whole life without hearing about Orthodoxy, if I hadn't gone looking for myself.

In other words, millions of people around the world will live and perish without ever hearing about the Orthodox Church. And given that situation, its better that such people hear about Jesus from an Evangelical, than from no one at all. Why? Because, because Jesus has the power to save those who call upon him in faith. But how can people call upon Jesus, if they've never heard about Him? Thus, I repeat, its better that someone hear about Jesus from an Evangelical, than never to hear about Jesus at all.

I would also point out that as far as Christology is concerned, most Evangelicals adhere to Nicea and Chalcedon. So the information they are getting about Jesus not much different than what they would hear in an Orthodox Church anyway. If anything, it will probably be better, because we Orthodox do such a poor job of teaching our own folks about the faith, let alone those outside the Church.

Herman Blaydoe

18-01-2010, 05:25 PM

Well, this thread in particular is not about "evangelizing the world", it is about the Russian Church trying to recover from years of horrendous persecution and certain parties taking advantage of its weakened state. That certain parties in Russia find this less than desirable should not come as a big shock to people.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

Rick H.

18-01-2010, 05:41 PM

I don't know if there is a thread, or not, for Shawn's comments above, but if there isn't there outta be!

Shawn Lazar

18-01-2010, 06:03 PM

Hi Herman,

For all I know, the Russian Church maybe doing its level best at evangelizing Russians, but they can't reach everyone. Certainly there will be people who fall through the cracks both within and without the Church. So you can apply my comments to Russia directly, and ask this question: Is it better for a person in Russia to never hear about Jesus at all, or to hear about Jesus from an evangelical?

Or think about a second, more difficult, question: Is it better for someone to be nominally Orthodoxy (e.g. without conscious faith in Christ) or to be an evangelical who fervently loves Jesus?

I think the answer must be, its always better to hear about Jesus than not. And its better to love Jesus, than not.

~Shawn

Herman Blaydoe

18-01-2010, 06:11 PM

As I believe I said before, garbage is better than nothing at all to the starving, but it is no substitute for real food. We should certainly be doing what we can to provide real food, the full and true Gospel of Christ instead of being content to let "the Protestants" do the work for us. And perhaps we should allow the Russians to be Russians and let the Church deal with the situation as it sees fit rather than sit in judgement over something we really don't know all that much about.

Or think about a second, more difficult, question: Is it better for someone to be nominally Orthodoxy (e.g. without conscious faith in Christ) or to be an evangelical who fervently loves Jesus?

Which is better? Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:4)

Andreas Moran

18-01-2010, 07:00 PM

Hi Herman,

For all I know, the Russian Church maybe doing its level best at evangelizing Russians, but they can't reach everyone.
~Shawn

As I've said before, no one in Russia can be unaware of the Russian Orthodox Church. You can't open a newspaper or watch TV without seeing something about the Church. Usually, it's footage of the Patriarch or some patriarchal spokesman. Been there, seen it.

Shawn Lazar

18-01-2010, 08:34 PM

Herman,

I'm not standing in judgment of anyone. I'm asking about spiritual states. Is it better to love Jesus or not? Is it better to hear about Jesus or not? Only God is the judge. But He has also made plain in his Word by what standard he will judge: did the person love Jesus?

Andreas,

No doubt people in Russia are aware of the Russian Orthodox Church. But being aware of the Church and being aware of Jesus are two different things. I knew there was an Orthodox Church across the street from where I lived. But I did not know anything about Orthodoxy. In the same way, there is a big difference between a Russian knowing there is a Orthodox Church down the street (or seeing a bishop on TV), and knowing that Jesus came to save a sinful world by his death and resurrection. You can know the one, without knowing anything about the other.

I've spoken to several Orthodox people who spent decades in the Orthodox Church, but do not know about Jesus. In fact, nominalism may be the norm in Orthodox Churches, and our most pressing challenge. As Bradley Nassif has said: "The most urgent need in the Orthodox world today is the need for an aggressive internal mission of converting our nominal Orthodox people to personal faith in Jesus Christ." (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles-2009/Nassif-The-Calling-Of-A-Bishop-Is-To-Preach-The-Gospel.php)

May God help the Church do a better job at evangelism, preaching, and teaching! But nevertheless, given a reality where many people are never taught about Orthodoxy, and where many Orthodox people are never taught the gospel, I think its better that people get taught about Jesus by an Evangelical than not at all.

~Shawn

S. Rey

19-01-2010, 01:05 AM

Dear Shawn,

Your comment presupposes that Orthodoxy is evangelizing the world. And that anyone who hears of Jesus through Evangelicalism will be close minded when Orthodoxy comes around and also tells them about Jesus. Unfortunately, Orthodoxy is not doing (much) evangelism.

This is, however, what seems to be taking place (accoring to my own experience at least). What do they learn? They are taught that icons are wrong and 'pagan,' and that the Orthodox are nothing but Catholic, and that Catholic are not Christians; how would a person in Asia or Africa who received his beliefs from an evangelical change his mind, especially when this beliefs are considered the norm of the Christian faith? And thus they are certain that they have been taught right, and believe their teachers, and consider the Orthodox are corrupted. Is this what we want? Is this what we accept? This very issues are enough of a pain for me everytime I am engaged in a conversation with Evangelical friends and loved-one.
The reason why we Orthodox do not (seem to) evangelize other Christians is precisely because we still consider them as Christians, evn if in error. The Papacy 'evangelized' the orthodox East after the fall of Constantinople, and so are the Protestants today, but the Orthodox never sent missionaries among heterodox Christians, because it is up to them to understand their errors and come back to the Church.

I would disagree, however, as to the extant of the lack of missionary work in the Orthodox Church nowadays: the Patriarchate of Alexandria has been very active in East Africa. Also, since you said you lived in Montreal, I assume you understand French, and so would be interested in taking a look at an interview with Archbishop Jonas, Metropolitan of the OCA concerning their work in Latin America and the possible conversion of a large group of Maya Indians in Guatemala. Yet no one seems to be talking about all this--why?

I would like to add finally that the Orthodox Church is still emerging from several centuries of persecutions and immigration, during which the Church was more concerned about Her own survival than about missionary work which she could not undertake. Now that freedom has been recovered, the Church seems to be in a process of rebuilding Herself, while it also has to deal with a globalized world. All these are challenges new to the Church, and it will take some time to find adequate solutions and recover Her full missionary potential. It is up to us all, if we believe in the salvific mission of the Church, to be missionaries and apostles, and to witness the truth of our faith to others.

But while Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentecostals and Evangelicals came to my door, and across my path, several times, I never heard anything from those Orthodox Churches. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. I probably would have gone my whole life without hearing about Orthodoxy, if I hadn't gone looking for myself.

Knocking on the door and handing out a paper with candies has never been the evangelizing tool of the Church. St. Herman of Alaska never knocked on people's door; he evangelized through humility, love, charity, and a living faith. And this is precisely what seems to attract many dissatisfied protestants to the Church here in the US at any rate.

I would also point out that as far as Christology is concerned, most Evangelicals adhere to Nicea and Chalcedon. So the information they are getting about Jesus not much different than what they would hear in an Orthodox Church anyway. If anything, it will probably be better, because we Orthodox do such a poor job of teaching our own folks about the faith, let alone those outside the Church.

Indeed, yet they never publicly acknowledge it in their services; many new groups also completely reject these as corruption of the Constantinian era. However, it is not the same Christ nor the same faith, even if they still adhere to Nicea and Chalcedon: the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the theology of icons are enough to show that we have a different conception of Christ and of the Church, and so we do not have the same faith.

Don't Catholics also have the same issue? And what of traditionally Protestant families? Do all of them kow about their faith? The fact that Evangelicals seem to know more about their faith than Orthodox do is due to the fact that many are 'born-again' or simply new converts, and therefore learn all these things--as we converts to Orthodoxy know about our faith. Yet we know it intellectually at first, and not yet spiritually, which is the result of much work and hardship--and this is what distinguishes us from them. Cradle Orthodox may not seem at first to know everything intellectually, yet they have the possibility of entering into the life of the Church and know the Bride and Christ spiritually--which many do.

I've spoken to several Orthodox people who spent decades in the Orthodox Church, but do not know about Jesus. In fact, nominalism may be the norm in Orthodox Churches, and our most pressing challenge.

The Church is the Bride of Christ and the image of the world to come; if we know the Church, we start to know Christ and He appears to us. The more we partake of Her mysteries, the more we know Christ and the more the Holy Spirit descends on us. Are all Orthodox really nominalist? Some yes--unfortunately for them!, many not. Are they disinterested in their faith? Not quite; Easter time shows that they are far from being disinterested. Easter time shows that they have retained their faith in a better way than in the west (secularism originated in the West, not in the East). There are problems, of course, in Orthodox countries. Now it is up to the church and her priests to reinvigorate it, and rediscover their faith truly. And I believe that if we sincerely believe in the truth of our faith, and cease to find solutions among others, this will be possible to revitalize the Church as it was in the beginning. This will take some time, and will need all our prayers and work, but I sincerely hope and believe that it is possible, with God's help!

Andreas Moran

19-01-2010, 02:04 AM

Andreas,

No doubt people in Russia are aware of the Russian Orthodox Church. But being aware of the Church and being aware of Jesus are two different things. I knew there was an Orthodox Church across the street from where I lived. But I did not know anything about Orthodoxy. In the same way, there is a big difference between a Russian knowing there is a Orthodox Church down the street (or seeing a bishop on TV), and knowing that Jesus came to save a sinful world by his death and resurrection. You can know the one, without knowing anything about the other.

I've spoken to several Orthodox people who spent decades in the Orthodox Church, but do not know about Jesus. In fact, nominalism may be the norm in Orthodox Churches, and our most pressing challenge. As Bradley Nassif has said: "The most urgent need in the Orthodox world today is the need for an aggressive internal mission of converting our nominal Orthodox people to personal faith in Jesus Christ." (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles-2009/Nassif-The-Calling-Of-A-Bishop-Is-To-Preach-The-Gospel.php)

May God help the Church do a better job at evangelism, preaching, and teaching! But nevertheless, given a reality where many people are never taught about Orthodoxy, and where many Orthodox people are never taught the gospel, I think its better that people get taught about Jesus by an Evangelical than not at all.

~Shawn

How can you know whether Russians are unaware of Jesus Christ? Do you think that the Russian Church doesn't preach the Gospel? Do you think it is difficult to discover Christ and His Church in Russia? I don't think westerners are entitled to make any assumptions about a people which has given us countless martyrs and saints. One thing is for sure - Russians do not need western evangelists who haven't the foggiest idea about the true Christian faith blundering into Russia with the impudent idea that they can tell these people about Jesus Christ! It's offensive nonsense.

Shawn Lazar

19-01-2010, 03:07 AM

Andreas and Rey,

Is it always better to hear about Jesus from the Orthodox Church than an evangelical group? Of course. Is the missionary situation improving in the Orthodox Church? I hope so. Do other religious traditions suffer from nominalism? Sure.

These issues, while interesting, do not address my point about whether it is better to hear about Jesus from an evangelical or not at all.

Let me put it another way. I am raising the logical possibility that some people in Russia, and elsewhere, may never hear about the gospel of Jesus Christ except from an evangelical. Surely you admit that is logically possible? If you do, them my question stands: is it better to know about Jesus from an evangelical, or never to know Jesus at all? I think its better to hear about Jesus than not.

~Shawn

Michael Stickles

19-01-2010, 05:23 AM

What do they learn? They are taught that icons are wrong and 'pagan,' and that the Orthodox are nothing but Catholic, and that Catholic are not Christians; how would a person in Asia or Africa who received his beliefs from an evangelical change his mind, especially when this beliefs are considered the norm of the Christian faith?

I don't know about Asia or Africa, but that's almost exactly where I was belief-wise at one time, and now I'm in the Church. Being taught that way is not a permanent inoculation against Orthodoxy.

Beyond that, though, I have to admit that I'm really beginning to wonder what the point of this thread is. It seems like the arguments have become entrenched, and I don't know if anyone is really hearing what others they disagree with are saying (if I'm brutally honest, I'd propbably have to include myself in that). Anyway, given the strong emotions surrounding the Russian experience, perhaps Shawn's question could be re-proposed in its own thread, so it can be discussed without the messiness of a connection to any particular national situation.

In Christ,
Michael

Father David Moser

19-01-2010, 06:19 AM

I have always believed (well always at least since I have been Orthodox) that anyone searching for the Truth will find Him and that search will, one way or another, lead him to the doors of the Orthodox Church. At that point he will have to decide whether to enter in or whether to keep searching. If he continues to search, then perhaps it is not Truth but his own version of the truth that he is looking for. Some people come in right away, some people wait outside and dither about for a while (that was me) before coming in and some people keep coming back and back and back until finally they make a choice.

In any case, let's assume that these foreign missionaries have no different teaching than that of the Orthodox Church and that they have only the best intrests of the people at heart. Even with that assumption, when a person is coming into a Christian nation, it is only good manners to contact the local Church and to work in conjunction with them. These missionaries, if they are truly interested only in the effective preaching of the Gospel and in the welfare of the people to whom they are preaching should be working under the guidance of the local Church - they should therefore be contacting the local parish priest (at least) or even better the local bishop and asking how they can help and support his ministry. St Paul tells us that all things in the Church should be done decently and in order. Working outside the established local Church and at time even in opposition to it is anti-scriptural and downright rude.

Fr David Moser