Posted on 03/19/2006 10:05:40 AM PST by Kolokotronis
"What are the controversial issues in Orthodoxy?" This question, recently posed on a Beliefnet message board, is the dandelion in the lawn of Orthodox inquirers. It’s the question I kept asking, fifteen years ago, when my family was deciding to leave our mainline denomination. If we became Orthodox, what would we be getting into? Was it going to be the same heartbreaking arguments and debate - just over pierogis instead of doughnuts?
Well, there are controversies in Orthodoxy, all right, but they’re not *those* controversies. You can find people on the internet arguing heatedly about whether churches should follow the old or the new calendar, or whether Orthodox should participate in any kind of ecumenical dialogue. But the fierce internet debates don’t seem to come up much at the parish level (though you’ll find garden-variety power struggles, nominal faith, and other frustrations that plague any church).
Some very big controversies are actually on the mend. For a century there was a split between those Orthodox who left Russia in order to preserve the faith, and those who stayed behind. But on the feast of Pentecost (June 19, 2005), leaders of both bodies signed an agreement that paves the way for reunion. That’s cause for rejoicing.
So, yes, there are controversies — but that’s not what American inquirers mean. What about gay marriage? What about women’s ordination? Is there an abortion-rights movement in Orthodoxy? Are there bishops who teach that the Resurrection was a myth?
Those are the questions causing turmoil in most American denominations. When my husband and I began looking into Orthodoxy, gay issues weren’t yet on the horizon, and we didn’t have any problem with women’s ordination. (I attended seminary myself and sought ordination, until I got a good look at how hard a pastor’s job is.) What concerned us instead was theological upheaval - for example, bishops questioning the Virgin Birth, miracles, and the bodily Resurrection. We wanted to find a place where our children could be secure in the original faith. My husband had a t-shirt that read, "Have a Nicene Day!"
But as I moved toward my chrismation I felt worried. I could see that Orthodoxy was preserving the faith just fine - for now. But it had no visible means of *enforcing* that faith. The Orthodox hierarchy doesn’t have the kind of power that high-ranking clergy do in other churches. There isn’t even a world-wide governing board to hold all the various Orthodox bodies together. On the ground it looked pretty ad hoc, especially in America, where waves of immigrants have set up parallel administrative bodies.
And there didn’t even seem to be an Orthodox *catechism,* for goodness’ sake. It seemed like the faith was supposed to be learned almost by osmosis, by living it. How could that work? If a church with an infallible pope and a magisterium could have as much rioting in the pews as the Catholics did, what hope did the Orthodox have?
So I figured it was just a matter of time. Trying to maintain the classic faith without a powerful hierarchy didn’t look like doing a high-wire act without the net; it looked like doing it without the *wire*.
The following fifteen years have been devastating to the peace of most American churches. People who have lived through these battles are battered and worn. And yet - unbelievably enough — Orthodoxy has remained untouched. It’s as if the contemporary American furor is just a tiny blip in history, and not our concern. We still don’t have demands for gay marriage, or nuns agitating for women in the priesthood. We don’t see theological revision or liturgical innovation. The biggest controversy today would be the painful wrangle among Greek Orthodox about their charter - yet, when it comes to theological and moral issues, people on both sides there still believe the same things. That’s what being Orthodox means: holding a common faith. All the "big questions" were settled over a millennium ago, and no one is inclined to revise them.
How can we resist the cultural tides this way? I have a theory. I think it’s because you can only change something if you have the authority to change it. You have to be in a position of power, enabled to explain and define the faith anew; or you can battle noisily against those in that position, and make it awkward for them to use their power. In any case, faith is understood as something eternally under construction, responding to the challenges of each new generation.
But in the Orthodox Church, nobody has that kind of power. The church is too decentralized for that. Even those who are our leaders are a different kind of leader. Orthodoxy is less of an institution (like, say, the Episcopal Church) and more of a spiritual path (like Buddhism). It’s a treasury of wisdom about how to grow in union with God — theosis.
And that wisdom works, so people don’t itch to change it. It doesn’t need to be adapted to a new generation, because God is still making the same basic model of human being he has from the beginning. Practictioners of the way don’t find it irksome or boring; they just want to get into it deeper. For us, authority is not located in a person or an organization, but in the faith itself - what other Orthodox before us have believed.
Every question is settled by asking, What did previous generations believe? And since previous generations asked the same thing, the snowball just keeps getting larger. Against that weight of accumulated witness, a notion that blew in on the cultural breeze doesn’t stand a chance.
What’s surprising is that there is so little variation from culture to culture. As missionaries carried Christianity to new lands, each new outpost looked back to the "faith once delivered." So Russian, Greek, Romanian, Antiochian and other Orthodox all share the same beliefs. Even the Oriental Orthodox, the Armenians and Copts and others, who have been separated from us since the fifth century, still look an awful lot like us. They, too, are looking back toward the authoritative early faith.
So someone who wanted to challenge Orthodoxy would not be able to locate a building to hold a protest march in front of. The faith is too diffused. And what if a high-ranking hierarch attempted to enforce innovations? He’d be recognized as a kook and rejected. Anyone who disagrees with the inherited faith has stepped outside the building.
Although we don’t have innovation, we do have nominalism. Lots of Orthodox go to church every Sunday but don’t know much about the faith. Yet they know that there is something that they don’t know much about. They don’t try to redefine "Orthodoxy" to cover whatever they’re doing or not doing. If they’re dissatisfied, if they want something more contemporary, if they want to attend a more "American" church, there are plenty they can choose from.
And meanwhile, of course, lots of people are coming in the other door. The Dallas Morning News reports that, in the Antiochian Archdiocese, 78% of the clergy are converts. This means an infusion of parish leaders who are very well-informed about theological and cultural issues, and very intentional about why they have become Orthodox (sometimes at great personal sacrifice).
So instead of spending the last fifteen years fighting and worrying and being bruised in a hostile denomination, I’ve been able to focus on the face of Jesus Christ. I’ve been able to dig deeper into awareness of my own sinfulness, and take baby steps toward spiritual healing. I’m able to worship in an ancient communion full of awesome beauty, one that is now being blessed with quiet revival. My one regret? That I didn’t do it sooner.
[This article originally appeared in Beliefnet.com in August 2005]
Father Webster was concelebrating Liturgy at our parish today.
Thank you for the explanation. All monastics of any religion share similarities. That is why Thomas Merton attended a conference with his Buddhist brothers in Thailand. Unfortunately for Merton, he never took a course in the physics of electricity and electrocuted himself.
Explain to me how she wasn't abandoning her vows and family? I seem to have missed it because it seems that's exactly what's happening here yet you state that it is not.
With all due respect I cannot for the life of me see any similarities between Buddhism and Xstianity besides these superficial sweeping generalities you list...especially given the respect for Buddhism by the likes of the brain trust of the SS in Nazi Germany who were extremely interested in Vedic- and Buddhist- teachings, in the Lamaist culture, and in Zen-Meditation - Goal? to construct its own nazi religion with elements of these eastern beliefs.
I work with a few Buddhists and they are pretty amazingly devoid of self-interest - you could easily mistake it for kenosis.
In fact I work with a Hindu man who is also comparable in this regard.
They fast regularly, are most humble in daily dealings, are very giving, and lacking in self-promotion. They never condemn others or try to convert anyone. They make wonderful coworkers. :-)
Fr. Seraphim Rose describe Zen Buddhism (which combines the insights of the Buddha with those of Taoism) as 'the highest form of philosophy humanity could attain without Divine revelation.'
The Buddha managed to get an awful lot right, and what's wrong Buddhisms teachings are mainly uncorrected hold-overs from Hindu pagan ideas.
Taoism is curious, in that some of its adherents insist that it isn't a religion, and that one can be a Christian Taoist in the same way one can be a Christian Aristotelian. Indeed the Tao occupies the same place in Chinese thought that the Logos did in Greek thought when St. John was penning his Gospel. Read the Tao te Ching with the thought kept in the corner of one's mind that the Tao is a person: there is only One who fits, and He died on a cross and rose again on the third day.
Fr. Damascene, one of Fr. Seraphim's followers even wrote a book using quotes from the Tao te Ching and Christian Scripture to preach the Gospel.
I don't recall whether it was Fr. Damascene or Fr. Seraphim, who said, 'To Lao Tzu was given the intuition of the self-less absolute, to the Hebrews was given the revelation of the personal absolute.'
You wrote: "there is no meaningful difference between a Roman Catholic annulment (which would permit a second marriage) and the Orthodox Christian granting of a second marriage."
I hadn't realized that before. I always thought that the Orthodox would in some cases grant an actual divorce, that is, authorize husband and wife to leave a sacramental marriage behind and contract a new sacramental marriage with somebody else. If that's not the case, I'm very pleased to hear it!
On the question of contraception, I'm afraid that you've misunderstood the Catholic position. The CC is against contraception per se --- people speak loosely of "natural" and "artificial," but that really has nothing to do with it. Anything that deliberately perverts sexual interourse is wrong, and that includes deliberately altering it (or altering your body) to make it infertile. "Natural" contraception (withdrawal? using intravaginal sea sponges?) is wrong; contraceptive pills would be wrong even if they grew on trees.
"By the way, did you know that an Orthodox couple can be refused Communion for using contraception?"
No, I didn't know that. But it makes sense! If people really knew, deep down, how sacred sexual intercourse is, how significant it is in the eyes of God and how holy, they would recoil inwardly from contraceptive sacrilege.
A good and luminous Lent to you. God's mercy upon all. Pray for me.
I read this on the telephone to an Orthodox priest-friend of mine who stays away from computers, and he ROARED!
"The fervor of a convert . . . even one of 15 years! I wonder how often she's had to have the prescription changed in her rose-colored glasses?"
His favorite lines were about the Church being "less an institution and more a spiritual path" and, especially, about "hierarchs not introducing innovations". He said he'd like to see the innovation of authentic and honest financial auditing in his little portion of Orthodoxy, for starters, especially since the lack thereof covers, in his opinion, a multitude of scandals, if not sins. "And we're up to quite a high number of 'rejected kooks' at this point too."
Finally, he said that she's onto something with the "nominalism" thing and suggested that THIS is why there's so much "peace" in Orthodoxy. "Most of the people just don't care about anything so long as the liturgy is exactly the same from generation to generation, especially the converts who came in for the liturgy." (He's on the West coast now, and I'm on the East, but we both knew a hierarch who used to say that non-Orthodox men didn't convert just to Orthodoxy, they converted to the Orthodox priesthood). "There's peace in the cemetery behind my church, too," he concluded.
Maybe your priest friend shoud be looking for another avenue of employment, TM. Apparently he slept through the Spyridon troubles, or spent it taking lessons in Donatism.
I'm not generally a partisan of Frederica Mathewes-Green, but I do think she represents a particular strain in Orthodoxy in this country which generally bodes well, rather than badly, for the future of the Faith here.
He's not GOA - though one of my colleagues was caught up in THAT whole painful crisis. My friend is in another jurisdiction, with its own troubles - by the boatload.
But, hey, neither is as bad as the situation in MY church!
He and I agreed, however, that she sounds a lot like the Pastoral Provision people coming in from the Anglican Church. Many converts NEED to be finding peace and tranquility after "fighting the good fight" and being persecuted for it whence they came.
Such "peace" - however attractive - just doesn't seem to match the Lord's clear warnings in the Gospel, nor the experience of even the Apostles ("trials without, trials within") - not to mention the Fathers and Saints.
Speaking of converts, Flannery O'Connor seemed to have a pretty clear picture of things when she remarked, "Often we have more to suffer FROM the Church than FOR the Church!"
"Speaking of converts, Flannery O'Connor seemed to have a pretty clear picture of things when she remarked, "Often we have more to suffer FROM the Church than FOR the Church!"
Precisely the right attitude to have when it comes to the hierarchial and clerical establishment. The foundations and guardians of Orthodoxy are the Laos tou Theou, the people of God, and they always have been. Spyridon and the current scandal in your West Coast friend's OCA, as well as the various modernist heresies being taught by some at our seminaries, are perfect examples of this in Orthodoxy. Its the people's job to straighten this out and for that we need to "Keep The Faith".
Perhaps the point was that, institutionally, Eastern Orthodoxy looks more like a movement and less like an institution. This is precisely what attracts many Protestants to Eastern Orthodoxy, as it is similar, in this one respect, to most Protestant communities.
It is also the frequent criticism of Catholics.
Thank you for the clarification.
Now, there's a parish I wouldn't want to support.
I haven't seen Fr. Webster since I moved away from D.C. over a year ago. How is he?
He's doing quite well. The time spent in Afghanistan and Iraq appears to have agreed with him.
Father Webster was concelebrating Liturgy at our parish today.
Thanks for the link to the interview with Fr. Webster. I have not heard of him before, but I like what he has to say. I was very disappointed with the language of that letter by the Orthodox Peace Fellowship a few years back. This is the first Orthodox priest I have heard of who is speaking out against the sloppy language of that letter. I will have to get Webster's new book.
If you ever come across a church that has no controversies, don't join it and pleeeeeease don't drink the Koolaid. Every legitimate Christian church has issues. That's what happens when an organization is made up of sinners needing redemption. Also keep in mind that one denomination's problems usually seem silly and trivial to another denomination. ECUSA's gay bishop controversy seems like a no brainer to the Orthodox. On the other hand, the Orthodox debate on the date of Christmas seems stupidly trivial to Episcopalians.
That said, I must offer one warning to those Catholics, Orthodox and Evangelicals watching the turmoil in "mainline" Protestant churches: you're next. When the forces of the world consume one denomination, they grow bolder and move on to the next one. First it was the United Church of Christ, now it's ECUSA and ELCA. Next there will be an all out assault on the UMC. Think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are immune to this? Think again. Some say that the US Catholic Church is already in trouble by pointing to the weakness of many of its bishops in the face of the abuse scandals and the growing culture of death.
Explain to me how she wasn't abandoning her vows and family? I seem to have missed it ..."
That's just the point. I am painfully perplexed about it. It seems to me as clear as daylight that she was going through an uncomfortable patch in her marriage, and she was "allowed" to divorce with a view to remarriage --- which she praises as an example of the "mercifulness" of the Orthodox Church. I have seen close-up her 16-year-old son go into a tailspin of self-destructive behavior over this. Some mercy.
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.