Christopher,

Thank you for your questions. Reading them it seems to me that you have more questions than I can effectively answer within the limits of a comment box. I would encourage you to read the Moscow Patriarchate’s “Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church that I quoted above. This offers a good introduction to the question of the Church’s social witness.

God willing, I will post later a more extensive treatment of the foundational questions inherent in the Church’s social teaching and witness and the limits that prudence imposes upon the participation of Orthodox Christians in non-Orthodox organizations and movements. Until then, if you wish, we can continue this conversation privately.

In Christ,

+FrG

Honest question. For example, if I faithfully adhere to Orthodox dogma as such can I at the same time be an abortionist. I don’t mean unconsciously, but consciously in that I defend the aborting of children as not only allowed but a virtue within Orthodox Christianity? Would such a position be limited to a “prudential” decision or would it be a dogmatic one as well? Is there any such thing within Christianity as a mere prudential decision/stance and a mere dogmatic one?

A secondary question to the above would be this: If a fellow Orthodox Christian disagrees with my honest and sincere belief that being an abortionist is in no way a conflict with being a Christian, is he a “sectarian” if he disagrees (cites it as a “dogmatic” issue) and thus refuses to be in communion with me?

Again, these are honest questions.

I have heard this argument before (indeed even before becoming Orthodox) that there is an ominous surge of “dogmatizing on practical disagreements” within orthodoxy. I don’t buy it for a second. Here is why:

1) The only people I have heard advancing this argument are those who are doing quite controversial things. Those who on the one hand come up with several theological reasons why it is not only prudent but theologically necessary to be involved in the WCC/NCC for example. Then, when someone comes along who disagrees with them they quickly cry “sectarian” even when those who disagree with them answer on their own theological terms. How can folks who put forth detailed arguements as to why dogma supports what they are doing “practically”, then on the other hand say those who disagree with them are “dogmatizing practical disagreements”?!? At best it’s intellectually lazy, at worse it’s simply calling people names and using rhetoric in attempt to deflect from the substantial disagreements.

2)Unless someone can show that there is a clear (and thus un-organic) demarcation between dogma and the practical, the Truth and the mere prudential, then obviously one can’t point to someones position and say “They, but not I, are being dogmatic” or “They, and not I, are being practical”. It goes back to what I was saying above – it’s being lazy and dishonest with those who disagree with you (assuming their disagreement is substantial).

3)Who gets to decide what falls under “dogma” and what falls under “prudential”? Clearly it is the bishops in the main. Yet, why is it then not the bishops who are most often alarmed by the alleged “sectarians” but the liberal/progressive orthodox intellectuals and the seminary professionals (along with EP “bishops” of lands with no Christians in them) who literally make a living by attending WCC/NCC, going to Copenhagen, etc.

Fr. Gregory, unless you provide some substance (i.e. a sound moral and theological argument) as to HOW it is “sectarian” to refuse to actively participate in the modern anti-human and anti-Christian “environmental movement” and in particular point out someone who has actually broken communion with the EP or any other Orthodox Christian who supporting said movement, then you are simply crying wolf. You remember what happened to the little boy who cryed wolf don’t you?

I think George Michalopulos (#27) is on to something when he writes

my fear is that as in so many other avenues of Orthodox witness, we come away co-opted or at the very least, accepting the premises and/or language of those supposedly well-intentioned people in (fill-in-the-blank) movement.

The Church being co-opted always something we must guard against. At the same time and as recent history has shown, one need not travel outside the Church to find those who would co-opt the Church for their own ends. This certainly has been part of what has plagued the OCA for the last several years.

If I may speak for myself, I’m concerned that our participation in the environmental movement represents a real risk for the Church. If we are not careful–more careful than we’ve been by the way–I think that the Church will find itself being exploited for ends contrary to the Gospel. This is why I am critical of the public statements by the EP.

It seems to me though that the risk that George points to–and his example of pro-choice/pro-life cooperation is another good example of this–is inherent in the evangelical mission of the Church. We always risk being misunderstood or misrepresented or co-opted by others. As I suspect most priests know, this is also the risk that is run when I hear confessions and grant absolution. It is always possible that the penitent will take Christ’s words of forgiveness as words of approval for his sin.

But in every area of life misunderstanding and even betrayal are always possible. The only way I can avoided this is to refuse to love. Unfortunately when I do this I commit the greatest act of betrayal there is.

One can certainly argue that in a world of limited resources the EP’s time could be better spent other ways than in speaking about the environment. One could even argue that–given the risks involved–the return for his investment is so small as to not be justified.

Of course one could argue that I am likewise wasting my time in this conversation though I would respectful disagree. 😉

I think a good argument can be made on prudential grounds that Orthodox Christian involvement in the environmental movement is ill-advised. Though I an sympathetic with those who argue that our participation is imprudent in terms of content, I’m not sure our involvement is imprudent in and of itself (though I am open to being convinced).

But even if Orthodox involvement in the environmental movement is imprudent in and of itself, this is a practical disagreement not a dogmatic one.

This is where I think the arguments against Orthodox participation in the environmental movement (or the ecumenical movement, or the reception of the Evangelical Orthodox Church, or the former members of Christ the Savior Brotherhood or any other number of intra-Orthodox disagreements) varies toward the sectarian. Too frequently Orthodox Christians (from both the left and the right) try to dogmatize their position on practical matters.

If we don’t stop doing this we will rip the Church from within and do the devil’s work for him.

If I have misunderstood anyone, that is to say if I have wrongly assumed that someone has made a dogmatic argument when he was actually making a prudential argument, then please accept my apology and I ask forgiveness for my error.

In Christ,

+FrG

The Manhattan Declaration is a good example of “collaborative” work. The NCC/WCC is a negative example. The “environmental movement”, by which you really mean almost all modern non-profit organizations and movements (e.g. Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, most government involvement such as Copenhagen, etc.) are the Planned Parenthoods of this ideology – A Christian (who is conscious – and thus voluntarily sinning) simply can not active work for or with these organizations because they actively promote a non-human and non-Christian outlines of the “problem” and solutions of said problems.

Even if you don’t agree that this particular movement is anti-human and anti-Christian I would think you would agree that Christian “witness” does not by theological necessity mean that we need to be an active in all ideologies and sub-societies to carry out said “witness”. Such an assertion falls on it’s own absurdity rather quickly – such as one would have to be an active pornographer to “witness” to those in the porn industry, or one would have to be a thief to “witness” to the criminal underground. If not being a thief makes one a “sectarian” then yes, I am a sectarian.

As far as “collaborative” work in general, I do not think that it is an accident those of a certain reflexive/instinctive “progressive” bent are the very persons who seem very heavily invested (on both an emotional and professional basis) in such alliances. In general, too much is made of them. Not enough is made old fashioned “preaching”. It also appears to be a generational infatuation as well, peaking with the baby boomers (which, again no accident, are most reflexively “liberal” in politics, religion, and culture)…

Christopher,

I am clearly not understanding the argument you are making. So it would help me if you could please in what areas do you think the Church can establish a common witness with non-Orthodox groups(religious or secular)? It would also help me if you could explain why you think we can (or can’t) work collaboratively with these groups. Fro example, do you think I was wrong for signing the Manhattan Declaration?

As for the other comments, with the recent, unexpected death of Archbishop Job and my different speaking and writing obligations, I have not had time (or energy) to compose responses. God willing after the coming Feast of Nativity, I will be able to answer folks.

Thank you all for you indulgence.

In Christ,

+FrG

The arguments advanced here in opposition to the Church’s involvement with the environmental movement strike me as a variation of the arguments made against my own pastorate by disgruntled parishioners who wanted a nice, middle class parish and were upset that I was attracting the wrong kind of people.

Now your just being stubborn. Go back and re-read what Michael wrote again. Also, this is just a wee bit arrogant – in the face of rational criticism your claiming that your actions is just what Jesus did and would have done in this situation.

At this point no doubt, you will respond, “Yes, this is all true. But this is why we must witness to these people. But we ought not to witness with them.” I confess I am at a lost to understand how I can do the former without the latter.

Really, you can not see how this is done? You “stand apart” in the sense you don’t join the movement(s), don’t campaign for their anti-human and anti-Christ ways. Are you saying I have to work in a Planned Parenthood abortion mill in order to to witness to those who abort babies? Give us a break – your REALLY out on a limb here.

I don’t think this is true but I see where the discussion my post has inspired would leave people with this view that AOI is some sort of Eastern-rite of the Religious Right.

Baloney. Anyone who would read this discussion and come to that conclusion is already predisposed (due to certain ideological commitments) and would find almost any post and discussion here “right wing”. This discussion has real substance to it – the only exception perhaps being your strange insistence that one has to actually become a part of and actively work for these anti-human organizations in order to witness and speak to them about the Gospel or anything else.

We are to be involved in the environmental movement. Our witness is to be a Christian witness to be sure, but it is also to be a witness of active participation. I do not believe I am called to personally involved (though I am always available to speak!), but it is a legitimate area of social witness for Orthodox Christians.

To re-re-iterate, it all depends on what you mean by “involvement” and “environmental movement”. Yes we are all called to a moral relationship with the created order – but that does NOT mean Orthodox Christians need to be inside and a part of the organizations of the “environmental movement”. We are in society with people in many other forms and ways and it is not “sectarian” to refuse to join Greenpeace, Copenhagen, etc….

Father, your words and actions show a priest with a gift for pastoral care. May God continue to bless your labors and multiply the fruit of those labors.

My brother’s parish in Indianapolis,IN has a similar profile as the one you describe and it is a wonderful place in which to worship.

It is precisely my contention that a pastoral approach to the care for the earth is what is required in contra-distinction to the mass ideology that typifies the current environmental movement and is so obvious in the EPs remarks on the subject.

Such an approach will be small, quiet, seemingly ineffective, but it will be the actual leaven that is needed. I think you are involved in the real work of caring for creation that God commands. Missonary work pure and simple. Sacramental acts powered by participation in the Holy Mysteries.

The personal, the small, the intimate, the voluntary offering of self in genuine asceticism is trampled by the environmental movement as it is currently structured. Said movement is a utopian nightmare fueled by the same dualism and the myth of positivist progress that informs the anti-human, anti-community ethos that is typical of industrialisation (despite the movements stated opposition to advanced industrial states).

To me the most powerful statement of environmentalism is Psalm 103/104 that leads off Vespers (at least in the Antiochian Archdiocease) and indeed, regular, heartfelt particaption in Vespers itself that reaches the climax in the Divine Litury when the priest chants: “Thine own of thine own we offer unto thee on behalf of all and for all.”

Of course there are other acts that must be taken in order to incarnate, so to speak, the vision and the experience of Vespers and Liturgy.

If I may speak for myself, my fear is that as in so many other avenues of Orthodox witness, we come away co-opted or at the very least, accepting the premises and/or language of those supposedly well-intentioned people in (fill-in-the-blank) movement.

If you would permit me, I remember a few years ago a “dialogue” between pro-life women and pro-“choice” women who wanted to come together and try to tone down the level of rhetoric and ultimately find some common ground where the end-result would be the overall diminution of abortions (which was their stated position). I can’t remember the name of this group but I do remember that there were some high profile Orthodox women in it (if memory serves). Besides minimizing abortion, its other goal was for these opposing camps to get together and see each other as human beings and not as frothing, rabid, blood-enemies. Anyway, I don’t know whatever became of it because nothing has been heard from. My suspicion is that it was just a ruse to get pro-lifers to stop calling pro-abortion women “pro-abortion.”

Having said that, I do think there’s a valid place at the table for Orthodox Christians as far as environmentalism is concerned. I just hope that we don’t sacrifice our principles just because we’re bought a first-class plane ticket to Copenhagen or wherever. What scares me (and I think others on this blog) is that the EP has totally bought into the premises of the globalists/materialists/environmentalists/etc. As you pointed out, you have courageously pointed out where you thought the EP (our “pope in effect”) was wrong.

I stress again, there is a vital and viable place for us. I just want us to be able to know first of all, what our theology is and secondly, what our anthropology is as well. Plus, it would be good for our hierarchy and their clergy spokesmen (I’m thinking Chryssavgis here) to be more calibrated and rational in formulating their positions. As I’ve said on many an occasion, the illogic and historical ignorance that proceeds from their mouths is embarrassing (I’m thinking Arey here). And their lack of scientific knowledge is also appaling (pretty much every press release put out by the GOA press office).

The arguments advanced here in opposition to the Church’s involvement with the environmental movement strike me as a variation of the arguments made against my own pastorate by disgruntled parishioners who wanted a nice, middle class parish and were upset that I was attracting the wrong kind of people. But Jesus reminds us that it is the sick and not the healthy who need a physician. Taking our Lord and Savior at His word it would seem that those who, for whatever reason, hate the gift of their own humanity are the ones most in need of the Divine Physician and the ministry of the Church.

At this point no doubt, you will respond, “Yes, this is all true. But this is why we must witness to these people. But we ought not to witness with them.” I confess I am at a lost to understand how I can do the former without the latter.

Pastoral challenge aside, however, it seems to me that such willingness to stand apart from those to whom we are ministering flies in the face of the Gospel. Jesus is not simply God ministering to, but He is God With us; He is Emmanuel. Yes Jesus chastises Judas–as He chastises at one point or another all the apostles–but this chastisement is not from outside but arise out of His communion with us, out of His communion with Judas.

As I have said several times before, I am not involved in the environmental movement and what little I have written on it has been critical of both the science and the ethics I’ve seen in evidence by many of its proponents.

Looking at the Church’s involvement, I have publicly criticized the Ecumenical Patriarch for what I saw as his rather confused argument in favor of proposed international agreements (which I argued were bad policy). And in the post that has started this thread, I have criticized the anti-human anthropology much in evidence at the Copenhagen meeting (and thanks to John for adding the video link above).
Whatever else I am, I am not a proponent of the environmental movement.

But the arguments made against Orthodox participation in the environmental movement are instances of special pleadings. Yes, as I pointed out in the original essay, many people in the environmental movement hold to a deficient anthropology. But so what? If the fact that some, many, espouse error is a reason to withdraw then we must likewise call for Orthodox Christians to withdraw their signature from the Manhattan Declaration since this too is an example of a common witness with those who hold all manner of explicit dogmatic error. Let us be consistent.

If the presence of those who espouse theological error is a reason to withdraw from common witness with those on the political and cultural Left then it is a sufficient reason to withdraw from a common witness from those on the political and cultural Right as well.

This is what I know. I am a political and social conservative and that’s why I write for AOI and others. While I hope that my politics are compatible with the Gospel, I work hard not to confuse the two. I must also accept the fact that there are times when my politics are contrary to the Gospel and when this happens I must lay aside my politics.

AOI has been criticized by some as being nothing more than the voice of the religious right. I don’t think this is true but I see where the discussion my post has inspired would leave people with this view that AOI is some sort of Eastern-rite of the Religious Right.

Finally let me say again, I’m not involved in the environmental movement, I am in fact a critic of it. My criticism is apologetically as a political conservative. All that to one side however, I am an Orthodox Christian first and foremost and the Church not only the through Ecumenical Throne but also the Moscow Patriarchate’s “Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church” has blessed and encourage my brother and sister Orthodox to participation in the environmental movement. For example, from the bishop of Russia:

The Orthodox Church appreciates the efforts for overcoming the ecological crisis and calls people to intensive co-operation in actions aimed to protect God’s creation. At the same time, she notes that these efforts will be more fruitful if the basis on which man’s relations with nature are built will be not purely humanistic but also Christian. One of the main principles of the Church’s stand on ecological issues is the unity and integrity of the world created by God. Orthodoxy does not view nature around us as an isolated and self-closed structure. The plant, animal and human worlds are interconnected. From the Christian point of view, nature is not a repository of resources intended for egoistic and irresponsible consumption, but a house in which man is not the master, but the housekeeper, and a temple in which he is the priest serving not nature, but the one Creator. The conception of nature as temple is based on the idea of theocentrism: God Who gives to all «life, and breath, and all things» (Acts 17:25) is the Source of being. Therefore, life itself in its various manifestations is sacred, being a gift of God. Any encroachment on it is a challenge not only to God’s creation, but also to the Lord Himself. (XIII. 4.)

We are to be involved in the environmental movement. Our witness is to be a Christian witness to be sure, but it is also to be a witness of active participation. I do not believe I am called to personally involved (though I am always available to speak!), but it is a legitimate area of social witness for Orthodox Christians. And while yes, not everything that comes under the banner of the environmental movement is acceptable to the Church, the Church nevertheless blesses those who are involved to be involved.

In Christ,

+FrG

Several things bother me about the environmental movement.

On the rational level, it is difficult to subscribe or take seriously any such movement when there is no open or frank discussion or critical analysis of the data. It is not serious science to reason from the top down, to create an idiology and seek or manufacture data to conform to the idiology and/or ignore or suppress data that does not so conform.

On the anthropological level, it sees humanity in an inconsistent way. At the same time that it pictures humanity as the depraved predator destroying nature it also sees some of humanity (namely themselves) as the know-it-all saviors of nature. It becomes a strange blend of pure Calvinism and pure neo-paganism/humanism. When I ponder on witnessing with or within them, in contradistinction to them, I draw back and remember His words: “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” (Matthew 16:23). I don’t think that I could have accused HIM, had I lived in that time and place, of sectarianism. Ultimately catholicity and truth are inseperable.

No offense personaly but yes you are wrong on at least two points IMO:

1) You seem to conflate “active participation” which in fact means furthering the anti human and anti Christian goals of the movement in question with “witness”. If a person spends their time and efforts furthering totalitarian movements such as Copenhagen (as the EP in fact does) and claims this is “witness” then the term “witness” has a meaning that is beyond my understanding. Christ did eat with Judas, but He did not participate in Judas’ sin.

I simply do not see the “sectarianism” you are seeing when we point this out. Perhaps I am wrong, but I don’t see anyone on this thread arguing for a sectarian response in theory. Instead, I see arguments for a practical witness – one that does not actively promote the anti-human goals of the environmental movement in question. Sometimes a proper witness can only be from the outside. One can not “witness” the porn industry by producing porn.

I think the main disagreement here is practical as you describe better the anti human basis/philosophy of the current environmental movement better than most. However, you seem to find more humanity and correct impulse in it than I can see. You evidently know and counsel some people who actively participate in it. Well, if they are furthering the anti-human goals with their work (even if at the same time they are trying to temper or change the philosophy that leads to this anti-human work) then I don’t see how you can justify that. I saw no one here say you should not be their priest.

You quote Applebaum who on the one hand seems to see the anti-human aspect of the current environmental movement, and yet seems to agree with the core issue – that the burning of fossil fuels is an inherent evil. What is one to make of such a movement if one holds that the fossil fuels are a blessing and we should burn and burn and burn them until we truly do run out – and by doing so help the planet get back to more normal CO2 levels which (on a geological time scale) are still frighteningly low?

If after the above explanation you still think this is “sectarian” position then your simply calling people (who disagree with you) names at this point.

2)as to:

I stand by what I said, there is a growing tendency among some Orthodox Christians–mostly but by no means exclusively converts–to pass judgment on what is, and more to the point is not, an appropriate venue for an Orthodox Christian witness. Such comments are inappropriate and fly in the face of the Gospel and the witness of Our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ.

I completely disagree. I remember Fr. Hopko saying almost the exact same thing in the mid 1990’s in response to criticism of Orthodox participation in the NCC and WCC. Such an outlook twists the term “witness” beyond all understanding. Apparently almost anything can be done in the name of “witness” – no institution is too corrupt, and all methods of witness are beyond criticism.

Such an outlook has a narrow view of what it means to be part of an institution, ideology, or “movement”. When you participate in such movements by becoming a member you purchase their methods and core presuppositions. One can not actively participate, sign the documents, campaign for the goals of such organizations and then come back to the parishes and regular Orthodox believer and claim “I don’t really buy into all that ballyhoo, I am simply following the example of our Lord and “witnessing”” –AND, on top of that, cry “sectarian” to anyone who points out the essential contradiction.

I think that there is a certain tendency among eastern, culturally and instinctively liberal (and often these folks are professors, seminary professionals, celebrity speakers on the Orthodox lecture circuit, etc.) “cradle” (and convert) Orthodox to label converts “sectarian”, “zealot”, and who endlessly look for the protestant in the converted Orthodox

Apparently you are a proud member of this group – who of course imputes pride unto those who dare question your purported “witness”…

It would see that we would be much better off to witness to such organizations rather than with them. I am sure we could find many other Christians who would join such an effort. Jesus did not join the Pharisees or the Sanhedrin to witness to them. As much as I long for a sensible approach to our use of creation, NOTHING in the popular environmental movement offers a decent alternative and in fact would make most situations worse. I see nothing to be gained by working with them except in a case by case local situation with specific, concrete goals.

You also take this distrubingly binary approach to work in the environment. It is either with the prevailing organizations or it isn’t witness. That’s just wrong.

Your objection to my comments on the self-defeating nature of technology is denigrating with little thought and a progressively ad hominum approach–or so it seems. I am simply saying that we should evaluate all technology and its use in the light of Holy Tradition and not be mesmerized by its largely false promises. Actual asceticism by voluntarily giving up certain forms of technology is a good thing to consider. However, the emphasis should be on personal efforts for real people, real projects that effect the local area (not the greater good of all).

The impression I am left with is that if I disagree with you, I’m sectarian or inappropriately judgemental of my brothers. I’m sure you do not mean that, but it is the impression I am left with.

You further state that unless HAH or others are preaching heresy, it is not our business or words to that effect. Well, I am not alone in suspecting that HAH’s infatuation with Rome and the liberal, anti-Christian environmentalists at best leads to a diminuataion of the teaching of the Church and could lead to all sorts of dualistic heresies.

I also fail to see anything ‘disturbing’ in our conversation to this point until your final two posts. They disturb me.

Father, a very helpful answer – on many points – to issues raised both here and in other posts. I take particular note of your comment about the EP and his vocation: “it isn’t my place to tell him–or any one else–what it is that Christ has called him to do for His sake and the sake of the Kingdom.” This posture is essential if we are to see the presence of God in myriad forms of prophetic witness. This is why so many – from the Old Testament prophets to Fools for Christ – were spurned by those around them who were able to make little sense of their behavior or activities.
More directly, the comment mirrors Christ’s own response to Peter in reference to the Beloved Disciple (John 21:22): If He wants another to serve Him in this manner, what is that to us? We must follow Him in that to which we are called.
This is St. Paul’s point as well: to serve Christ where we are, as we can. Too often we “slot” people into pre-set callings. This may make it “easier” for us to deal with our lives, but it may also allows to avoid truly listening to God to hear and see what He is doing – in us or in those around us. We are called to be a light on whatever bushel basket we find ourselves. And wherever we are we can be a vessel for His Spirit and His grace for the blessing and conversion of others. (Except in the Democratic Party. 😆 )