Thursday, July 13, 2006

Orthodoxy at the "Amish point"?

I’ve been reading with interested the four-part series on the general state of the Orthodox Church at the Ochlophobist’s blog. Much of what I’m about to write will deal with some of the issues brought up in these four lengthy posts, so I recommend anyone about to plunge ahead with this post, first go and read the First, Second, Third, and Fourth parts of the series…

By all accounts Orthodoxy in America is not growing at an appreciable rate. Using corporate business ideas of perpetual growth to judge our Church is a very poor idea, however, leaving aside a mania for abstract numbers, realizing that our Church is not growing should cause us to look at our praxis, both as individuals and communities. The fact my subconscious evangelism is ineffectual (because God forbid we Orthodox do any active evangelism- and for those who want to quote St. Seraphim and talk about aquiring the Spirit of peace- show me the thousands around you being saved. If you even had a tiny bit of the Spirit of peace, could you not at least show me a dozen people around you being saved?) should cause us all to sit down and ask ourselves, “Where is the Orthodoxy Christianity in my life outside of church?” By this I don’t mean do I have an icon on the dash of my car, a prayer rope on my wrist, and how many co-workers have I explained why I’m not eating meat or cheese to today, I’m talking about the more rudimentary and oft-forgotten basics of the Gospel message. All those things Christ told us would separate the sheep from the goats, all those outward manifestations of basic Christian virtue that should identify us as members of the Body of Christ long before they see our icons and our Byzantine chant CDs.

If the way we our living our Orthodox faith does not produce in us even the faintest germination of the seed of Christian virtue, then what is the point? Do we really think we are being saved by going through the motions every Sunday? Perhaps I am simply projecting my own inadequacies on the state of Orthodoxy at large, but I see it around me as well. Imagine, just imagine, someone who for whatever reason becoming interested enough in Orthodoxy to walk into their nearest Orthodox church on Sunday, and they are unfortunate enough to walk into a Greek or Serbian (or any other heavily “ethnic” congregation). Are they going to hear the Liturgy? Of course, but they won’t understand most of it. Are they going to see the beauty of Orthodox worship? Sure there will be the singing in an incomprehensible language, the beautiful icons, the incense, etc. But do you really think this person is going to be received by THE PEOPLE there in a welcoming, loving Christian manner? I’m as guilty as the next “ethnic”. I couldn’t tell you how many times I’ve seen an “Anglo” at church, and never bothered greeting or speaking with them after the service, because I’d rather go speak Serbian with the usual bunch of guys near the bar. Of course by the time the priest is through consuming the whole Eucharist (because in the Serbian church only infants receive Holy Communion more than once or twice a year, myself included), these proto-inquirers have left in dismay. On an Orthodox e-mail list for converts, the usual answer to enquirers that receive this sort of treatment is “Keep going back, you’ll get through to them.” or, “Find another parish that is convert friendly.” This strikes me as basically saying either, “We may have the Truth, but it makes us a bunch of insular xenophobes” or “We may be the True Church, but you’re going to have to do some looking around before you find a church in the True Church that is a True Church.” Now of course mostly convert churches have a much better track record in accepting inquirers, but only up to a point. Nothing in more bizarre to me than the existence of entirely convert missions in the Serbian Orthodox Church. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m glad to see new Orthodox communities form. But I cannot for the life of me comprehend why (aside from the fact that though the OCA is the Orthodox Church in America in name, it does not function as the American Orthodox Church) a group of people who are named Smith, Jones, and Hanson would decide to begin a mission in the Serbian Orthodox Church (or ROCOR or any more “ethnic” jurisdiction for that matter). I esteem Patriarch Pavle as a living Saint, but I can’t grasp the logic of a convert parish, somewhere in America submitting to him as chief hierarch, or a church administration that thinks it makes sense to create parishes of “Anglo” converts who have no connection to Serbia at all. One begins to suspect less-than-pure motives on both parts, Converts: “It has to be Traditional, gotta be Old Calendar, and, yeah definitely no Ecumenism.” Bishops: “More money in the coffers, more numbers of parishioners on the rolls.”
(to be continued)

12 comments:

jeremy said...

greetings my friend, happily happened upon your blog and thought to leave you a note.
peace,
jeremy

Radoje S. said...

Welcome to the ol' blog. Hope you find something here that is profitable.

David Bryan said...

Hmmm...

Well, I have to admire the honesty. It is refreshing, honestly, to hear these questions coming from someone who's grown up in the faith. Our light should shine forth apart from (and only enhanced by) all the "trappings" of the Faith, not because of them.

We should be actively evangelizing/bringing friends and co-workers with us on Sunday mornings/Wednesday nights/Saturday nights.

As for this quote: "Nothing in more bizarre to me than the existence of entirely convert missions in the Serbian Orthodox Church... I cannot for the life of me comprehend why...a group of people who are named Smith, Jones, and Hanson would decide to begin a mission in the Serbian Orthodox Church.... I can’t grasp the logic of a convert parish, somewhere in America submitting to him as chief hierarch, or a church administration that thinks it makes sense to create parishes of “Anglo” converts who have no connection to Serbia at all."

The reason, in my book, is this, though it may be rather blunt and somewhat insensitive: it really has nothing to do with Serbia or Greece or Lebanon or "Holy Rus" at all. It's a bunch of determined anglos who, upon realizing that the ethnic members of the parishes near them are not willing to meet them where they are (language, inclusion, acceptance or, heck, even just acknowledging their presence), they "went over their heads and, thankfully, obtained permission from the hierarch to "do it themselves." I'm glad to hear that these converts were so committed (in sufficient numbers) to establish a parish on their own. It was done, though, because they care about being in a communion that preaches the apostolic Faith, and they want that to be accessible to English-speaking America.

As I said, I didn't convert to this Faith to be Russian, Greek, or anything else. I came because I believe the Orthodox Faith, and this Church preaches said Faith, period. No ethnic flavor can substitute for the Kingdom of God being spread.

I do appreciate it when someone who is "ethnic" (I try to avoid that term, btw) advocates looking past the "cultural preservation society" mentality plaguing parts of the Church and seeks to actively spread the Gospel to all possible people groups.

My sincere apologies if I, as a clueless anglo convert, have needlessly offended you.

Radoje S. said...

No offense taken at all. I'll grant that in some cases convert parishes form for the exact reasons you specify. However I am thinking of two examples in my neck of the woods of convert parishes coming under the Serbian Church that constitute the only Orthodox congregations in a hundred mile radius. I also know of a couple ROCOR parishes in the exact same situation. This sort of thing smack of "shopping" for Orthodoxy that is just as bad as the Evangelical habit of church-hopping. Of course the jurisdictional mess in this country means they have to choose someone to be under but I worry that in many cases the choice of jurisdiction has less to do with administrative issues and everything to do with forms of piety. Piety is very important, but it should not form the basis of which Orthodox church one attends.

The Ochlophobist said...

This is a thoughtful post. Much to think about here and your perspective as an "ethic" who cares very much about his faith is fascinating.
The St. Seraphim line made me laugh. If I had a nickel for every time I have heard that quote at my parish which has averaged 35 people a Sunday for as long as it has been OCA then I would be able to buy a very nice bottle of Scotch.

Eric Weiss said...

You wrote:

Of course by the time the priest is through consuming the whole Eucharist (because in the Serbian church only infants receive Holy Communion more than once or twice a year, myself included)

Why is this? Do the members of the church not believe in the Eucharist as the Early Church Fathers did, or not believe what the Orthodox Church teaches the Eucharist to be?

As an Orthodox inquirer, now catechumen, one of the difficult things for me to accept, coming from a non-sacramental Protestant Charismatic/Evangelical background, was the centrality and importance of the Eucharist in early Christian worship. But that historical fact was one thing that caused my wife and me to begin exploring the Catholic and then the Orthodox Church - because if the early church view of the Eucharist was the correct one, and what the Apostles had taught, then to be Christian we felt we had to go learn what this was all about (and that pretty much meant either the Catholic or the Orthodox Church, the two churches we knew of that taught and believed that the bread and wine were the Body and Blood of Christ, and that taught that one's spiritual life was nourished and fed and sustained by participation in the Eucharist).

jeremy said...

perhaps revelvant and non-profitable, i don't plan on selling your writings but i'll likely continue to visit your site, and you in person as well.

some thoughts on "Church" and "Evangelism"

when i was in (protestant) college studying bible and theology two views of the of the church surfacing and creating confusion were those questioning and claiming the proper function of the church; these being 1) that it was perceived primarily as a venue to which Christians could to to receive affirmation of the personal/individual salvation (i.e. where Christians can go to be "fed," to "get something out of worship") and 2) the Church was to be a tool of evangelism, that it should be structured in a way so as to be "seeker friendly," appealing to visitors in style and simplicity of message (simple "biblical" gospel message and invitation to salvation on each sunday). There was always an incredible emphasis on style, appeal, and "relevancy" (to regnant culture); most notably there was a desire to change, to evolve with the times according to the cultural context.

some of us, it seems, have become aware of our own historical/spiritual/theological myopia that had previously enabled our reductionistic views of the function of the church on earth. we have realized that the "tree" (or vine) of the Church requires rootedness--nourishment from the wisdom of the past-- in order for proper outgrowth (as reaching of the branches, especially for fruit-bearing). in desiring to become members of the "Body of Christ," the living reality of the incarnation in the people of God by the Holy Spirit, we have become discontent with the many attempts to re-make the apostolic church; our commitment to the One Christ has led us to discover the transformational eschatological community of the Kingdom preserved and present in the Orthodox Church. all that being said--with the understanding that i can only really speak for myself, and in attempt to conclude--in Orthodoxy should be found a way of orienting oneself to reality, an active fulfillment of our created identity before our loving Creator that causes a reorientation of the self in relation to all of creation. we love God not only in our acts of piety but in our love, reverence, humility toward all of creation--particularly toward humanity as created in the image of God. there is a potential danger for converts to translate their conversionism into pietism when entering the Orthodox Church, rather than finding the necessary rootedness that leads to proper evangelism, a lifestyle of giving, sharing, and presenting the grace of the Living God in word and deed.

i hope this wasn't too tangential. i very much appreciated your friendship and insight. thanks for the dialogue.

"let us love one another..."

Radoje S. said...

Eric:
In a perfect world the Serbian church affirms, just as all Orhtodox communions affirm the centrality of the Eucharist, the partaking of the Body and Blood of Our Savior as a means of joining ourselves to Him, becoming "partakers of the Divine Nature."
Sadly this is not a perfect world. The Slavic tradition of Orthodoxy at some point came to see a very close connection between the Sacrament of Confession and partaking of Communion. Approaching the chalice was only done after rigorous preparation in both fasting and prayer. Becuase people are lazy this meant Communion was only taken a few times a year. Once you couple this with the oppression of the church during communist times, which made it even more difficult to partake of the Eucharist, infrequent communion became an entrenched habit. The Serbian Church has been trying to change this state of affairs, but old habits are very hard to break. Every priest I have spoken to in Serbia laments that fact that fifty years of communism have set Serbia back hundreds of years spiritually and that supposedly pious superstition (for example one of my relatives does not commune often because he has been taught that even handling blood constitues breaking the fast, and he butchers pigs for roasting every week) is a detriment to living an authentic Orthodox life.
So to make a long story short, do not take the disordered state of Orthodoxy in post-communist countries to represent the norm.

jeremy said...

rade, the address to my blog is http://unscarred.blogspot.com
i'm not sure if it shows up on my profile.
peace.

Radoje S. said...

Jeremy: Thanks for the link to your blog, it wasn't on your profile. I appreciate your comments coming from your journey from evangelical Protestantism to the Orthodox faith. The transformational ascpect of Orthodoxy is at the heart of what I feel is necessary for us to live fully in the faith. We must allow the grace of God we recieve to be transformational on a fundamental level. I hope to continue this discussion with you, and perhaps it is something that can be talked over at our group meeting next Sunday.
Peace.

Joel said...

I would dearly love to become Orthodox but can't bring myself to for theological reasons. That said, the ethnic situation bugs me. I don't want to be in an ethnic enclave, whether it is an all white Protestant church or a Greek Orthodox Church. I thought we were supposed to be one new man. I hope the Orthodox become an American church soon.

I have refelected on the growth or lack thereof of the EO too. In Africa many denominations are exploding from Anglicans to new denoms, but I don't see any EO presence there (outside of Ethiopia and the Copts) or in Asia. I think in 100 years the bulk of Christians will be Pentecostal, Catholic, or Anglican.

Anonymous said...

RE: "I cannot for the life of me comprehend why (aside from the fact that though the OCA is the Orthodox Church in America in name, it does not function as the American Orthodox Church) a group of people who are named Smith, Jones, and Hanson would decide to begin a mission in the Serbian Orthodox Church (or ROCOR or any more “ethnic” jurisdiction for that matter)."

Why? Because they are drawn to the Faith and ethnicity, culture and social-life potential are all secondary, tertiary concerns.

I would rather go to an unabashedly, unashamedly "ethnic" Orthodox Church and learn the language and liturgical particular than a "convert-friendly" anti-ethnic, orthodoxy-lite, eastern-rite protestant church any day.