Posted on 08/10/2004 10:07:31 PM PDT by Destro
The Holy Mountain
Intimations of the geopolitical future in a place where time stands still
by Robert Kaplan
.....
It was while visiting Mount Athos, more than a quarter of a century ago, that I first heard the Soviet Union would collapse—and would do so in my lifetime. There, in northeastern Greece one early-spring afternoon, two young Russian-American seminary students spoke to me of the greatness of the czars and the Russian Orthodox Church, and of how both the Romanov dynasty and the Orthodox Church were more legitimate than Leonid Brezhnev's Communist regime of the day. A time would come, they insisted, when the czar would again be revered in "Russia," as they called it. I was both fascinated and mystified. Throughout my life I had been taught that the Soviet system, for all its cruelties, was nevertheless an improvement over the reactionary rule of the czars. Moreover, because the Cold War had been in progress since before I was born, I unconsciously assumed its permanence. But these seminary students spoke matter-of-factly about the fall of the Soviet Union, as if it would occur the following week. They provided no analysis, and little explanation. According to them, the matter was simple: because the Communist system was godless, it had no moral legitimacy, and therefore Russia would necessarily be restored to its true self before long.
I attempted to argue, but they brushed me off good-naturedly with a few references to Russia's pre-Communist, Orthodox past. I liked them, but I did not believe them. Yet I believed my surroundings, where little seemed to have changed since the time of the Byzantine Empire—an era defined by the Eastern Orthodox Church, with all its passions and intrigues. My mind might disagree, but in this setting it was difficult for my heart to follow.
Copyright © 2003 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
The Atlantic Monthly; December 2003; The Holy Mountain; Volume 292, No. 5
bump
"Throughout my life I had been taught that the Soviet system, for all its cruelties, was nevertheless an improvement over the reactionary rule of the czars."
Wow. Must have been a red-diaper baby.
By the same vision, Serbs know that Kosovo will be theirs again de facto, as it is always theirs de jure.
Classic Russian prophecy. Predicted by many. On the way to becoming true.
"...These two world views [Christian theism vs naturalist, impersonal matter or energy shaped by impersonal chance] stand as totals in complete antithesis to each other in content and also in their natural results--including sociological and governmental results, and specifically including law. It is not that these two world views are different only in how they understand the nature of reality and existence. They also inevitably produce totally different results. The operative word here is inevitably. It is not just that they happen to produce different results, but it is absolutely inevitable that they will bring forth different results..."
His son converted to Orthodoxy.
Marmema and I have discussed that several times over the last year. Franky(now Frank)'s conversion was my introduction to Greek Orthodoxy. I was troubled by Frank's brusque (bitter?) treatment of his parents' legacy (still am), and while I gather he has since mended those wounds with mother Edith, I must have missed the actual event. Still, out of respect for Frank, I started looking into the Orthodox church to understand his conversion and what Orthodoxy believes.
Re Orthodoxy itself, I have troubles with what I see as a fat-lady-stuck-to-the-couch mingling of Orthodoxy and Greek culture (being of Greek ancestry, that complaint is theological, not cultural). I believe I understand it correctly, and I have a great deal of respect for it, but I do not agree with it theologically. I have remained sincerely and firmly Reformed in my understanding of the Scriptures, and in my approach to the world.
Orthodoxy compiled the scriptures for you understand so I find it backwards logic when people find truth in the other direction. Being a historian I am trained to think the closer you are to the original source the more accurate the information is. As for mixing of culture and theology - as long as it does not change the theology I think that is great and what the Church Fathers wanted. In culture neutral America of course such a thing may lead some to feel uncomfortable about and disdain their ethnic culture. But I find it great that Serbs and Russians and Greeks and Arab Orthodox, etc have their own big fat way of living in Christ.
Most likely this is what I said to you last time.....so apologies if I am repeating myself. You are absolutely correct - our largest sin is that of nationalism.
At the same time it is a wonderful part of our faith, and brings some cohesion to it. What I mean is that many of those ethnic traditions ( with a small "t") are delightful parts of our community of worship. My children have a wonderful time sitting around on Sat mornings with elderly, patient, loving Babushki, learning to mold Russian pastries by hand.
That said you can always avoid much of this issue by looking for an OCA parish, typically primarily American, and often considered to be closer to the protestant faiths than the RC ( it is where I worship with joy and I bear this accusation with pride).
Our Orthodox faith retains that "village" mentality, which means we are often eating or working together at all times during the week.
"Compiling" is quite a different matter than "authoring". While I am not informed enough to argue the former, I can emphatically argue for the latter, and I do not believe the Orthodox Church, as a body, can take credit for the content of the Holy Scriptures. Either they were inspired at the time they were written, or they were not. I will give credit were credit is due regarding compilation and canonization, but it is the content itself that I believe disagrees with portions of Orthodox thought. I am not making a judgement of heresy, only diagreement.
MarMema - Most likely this is what I said to you last time.....so apologies if I am repeating myself. You are absolutely correct - our largest sin is that of nationalism.
Au contraire! It's absolutely not as a result of anything you have said or inferred. Rather, it was a conclusion I'd drawn years earlier, from my investigation of the Orthodx Church in the period following Frank(y) Schaeffer's conversion. It's a conclusion confined to my understanding of the Greek Orthodox Church, not of Orthodoxy in general (the others I am woefully ignorant about).
If you look at certain Reformed denominations, you will find (in varying amounts) a similar melding of faith and culture, especially Scottish, Scandinavian, and Dutch cultures, and I agree with your assessments that various cultures provide wonderful elements to help build a community of believers. But to weld the culture to theology, so thoroughly as to either nationalize the faith or to baptize a political/geographical entity, I believe is a profound error.
And you know how I love Greek food, so you can be assured this isn't my palette making that judgement :)
None taken :)
The "often", within my church itself, is at most one to two times per week outside of Sunday worship, and the setting is usually a topical Bible study for 90 mins. But this does not count fellowshipping with like-minded believers in other settings, such as lunches, phone calls, or impersonal chats such as this, which are daily events for me.
The "village mentality" of the Orthodox Church is a trait I admire and am encouraged by, even if my own church does not practice it with quite the same comprehensiveness yours does. I was raised with the mindset of Lot, who learned (the hard way) that it was better to long-distance commute in order to be with a body of faithful believers, rather than perish with his neighbors to avoid the inconvenience. If "do not forsake to fellowship together" must be defined as a geographic/localized commandment, then my church could be doing much better, as there are few in my local community who attend there.
The Protestants can't make this claim in any way. No cliam in their church having any founding relationship (Apostolic succession) with the authors of the NT nor a relationship with the compilers of the NT.
Ah, but if that were extended back far enough, even the Gentiles would be excluded from the promise of Abraham. Who is the true Israel? Those who can trace their ancestry back to the founders, or those whose (correct) faith grafts them into the family?
Apostolic succession assumes that every apostolic successor was appointed in a sinless decision-making process. I do not have that kind of faith in human nature. Catholic Papal history only reinforces that belief, just as it prompted the Reformation in Europe.
It was until Jesus.
Apostolic succession assumes that every apostolic successor was appointed in a sinless decision-making process. I do not have that kind of faith in human nature. Catholic Papal history only reinforces that belief, just as it prompted the Reformation in Europe.
Well maybe a Catholic would agree with your assumption but not the Orthodox.
The Orthodox do not believe in Papal or any Bishop's infallibility - not even to that of the Virgin Mary (No immaculate conception). What the Orthodox do believe is that the ecumenical council of Bishops of the whole church of which 7 are recognized as being so are infallibale via the grace of the Holy Spirit acting through the council's debate - truth finding - and then the agreement process via vote and declaration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.