For someone who identifies himself with the “debate” of the public square, you seem inordinately “scorned,” chastened, and disapproved, Abouna. Perhaps a re-read of Ephesians 6:13ff?

I would note the distinct “aroma” of relativism in the air following a read of your response; and no, I’ll substitute nothing for anything because it is ridiculous. What rings in my ears is the hymnography following the Eucharist: “We have found the true faith…” Not surprisingly, these are the same words proclaimed by each Council in succession, “joining with those Fathers before us… this is the true faith, this is the Orthodox Faith.” He who was before Abraham (JN 8:58) and is the Truth (JN 14:6) is the “Orthodox Truth.” This is the faith of the Fathers and what distinguishes us as not a “third way, but the way by which “one comes to the Father.” (JN 14:6) This is the centuries-held radical message and faith of our Orthodox Church! Are there other, alternate “ways” to the Father? As I have written here many times, “God is our Father, and the Holy Spirit goes where He wishes.” We know with complete certainty where the Truth is, and it seems to me this is sufficient. And the fact that this certainty is not “irresistible” to our friends and admirers leads me to conclude as I have. Fr. Schmemman insisted that the sin of Pilate was not giving Christ over to be crucified, realizing his innocence, but rather in his statement, “What is truth?” (JN 18:38)

The concept of omogenia really sees the Church as a synagogue. There is no sense of a new nation, or believers being called out of all nations. As such, I don’t see how it cannot but stifle the Spirit of God.

Change “Orthodox” to “Catholic,” remove the references to Barrios and Pelikan, and the logic would be just as true for a Catholic that defines “Truth” as “Catholic Truth” as it is for you who defines “Truth” as “Orthodox Truth.” No, this is not an argument for denominational relativism, and no I will never be anything but Orthodox. But to say “Truth” is synonymous with “Orthodox Truth” really doesn’t rise above the level of polemics, not matter how elegantly you try to phrase it.

In your eyes, you are right. In the eyes of your Catholic brother (the triumphalist one), he is right. So who is right?

See the problem? The logic doesn’t really work. It offers no knowledge that illuminates the distinction that you claim it makes. That means that the scold it is meant to enforce doesn’t hold any weight either.

BTW, you never answered the questions I posed in my earlier reply.

It saddens me to imagine that yet another public figure – whose ultimate place in history, judging by the tribute, is more significant to others than I would personally ascribe – is described as an “admirer” and held a “deep appreciation” for the Orthodox Church. Apparently, as well, he held similar moral, political, cultural, and religious views as the “conservative” Orthodox (or they as he, I’m not exactly sure). Yet, unlike the examples of Professors George Barrois of Princeton and Jaroslav Pelikan of Yale, being a “friend” of Orthodoxy is not the same as “those who hear the word of God and obey it.” (LK 11:28). And so I am left to consider, as we wait in the on-deck circle, what is it we bring to the “plate?” Judging solely by outcome, it is quite obvious that we are not bringing the irresistible “attractiveness” of the heart; the endless “provocation” of the mind; or the inexpressible joy of the soul described by St. Seraphim that, together, constitutes the Truth we hold. Of course they “welcome us” and look for our “contribution” because it is more of the same: back-slapping “we-are-all-good-people.”

And what will happen on the day we assume the role of Christian “radical,” again Elijahs (cf. MT 11:12ff) taking the kingdom by force, that we are called to assume? When, in fact, the “rubber meets the road?” We will see how fine and offensive the line between “conservative” and “fanatical” become. There will be no turning back, a fact I believe the “conservative” Orthodox are profoundly aware, and therefore choose to remain in the shallow end of the pool.

Chuck Colson was a “friend” of Orthodoxy, and I pray that now he sees.

George, you could not be more right in stating that the GOA is not interested in truly successful ministries. I have always held that any program the GOA supports or runs cannot be “too sucessfull” less the whole idea of omogenia before Orthodoxy be challenged. Sure a couple of converts here and there is nice but the 79th Street power base would never tolerate large amounts of converts for fear of losing power.

It is sad that at one time the Greeks could evangelize the known world yet today they shun evangelism for fear of upsetting the omogenia. It also shows you that the entire idea of omongenia is not based on culture but genetics/race.

Fr, I remember attending the OCL conference in Houston two years ago when one of the GOA’s leading cheerleaders came to bamboozle us about the first Episcopal Assembly. In the private Q & A held the next day, I mentioned Colson and his work (I can’t exactly remember the context). The priest in question haughtily sniffed “I’ve seen his numbers, they’re not that great.”

I was stunned. I sputtered. That’s when I knew that we’d been had. What fools we all were to actually believe that the GOA was actually interested in the success of the EA or in engaging in real ministries.