Fr. Deacon Drew,

Sound Theo0logy does not proceed from an unsound premise or conduce to unsound conclusions.

Aridas’ overarching principle is to separate Divine Revelation from the Divine Revealer. How can this be the work of a “good,” or even a Christian, Theologian? To be Christian, a Theological attempt must be faithful to Christ–Who was quite clear in His moral teaching. And, like it or not, offended by it or not, huffily dismissive about it or not, acceptable by the standards of the world or not, the record of that teaching is reported in the Bible. All Theology which is rightly called Christian refers to that body or reportage and is obedient to it. Otherwise, while it may be theology, it is not Christian. One need look no further than the writings of the Fathers and the Councils, which always justify their conclusions by citing Scripture, and never make the slightest suggestion that it is anything less than authoritative.

Are the Fathers anachronistic in their approach? We are free to think so, believe so, even preach so. But if we do, our thinking is not consistent with the Orthodox Phronema, our belief is not the belief of the Church, and in our preaching we proclaim a different gospel.

We are continually being told we must “interpret these things in context.” Which context? There is the context of the Church, which bids us be faithful, and the context of the world, which bids us be “relevant.” Relevant to what? Why, to the world, of course. So, we have a choice. Whom do we serve–the God of the Church, or the god of this world?

A “good Theologian” doesn’t give a fig for being “relevant.” He is, and hopes to help others be, faithful.

Blessings,
William

John C – If I may respond.

Part of the strength of Orthodoxy has always been its awareness of cultural/racial differences, and, where applicable, allowing/encouraging national Churches to develop their own Orthodox self-witness. At least, in the Slavic countries, this has been the case. However, in the UK, France, and especially in the USA, this ‘national church’ is often villified, demeaned, and treated as the “Anglo… at the back of the bus.’ Starting with Bp. John Maximovitch’s desire to enable the French to have their own (read, ‘non-Byzantine’ rite) up to the ‘Western Rite Vicariate’ on-again, off-again ‘canonicity’ in any number of US jurisdictions, the disconnect (even as a ‘proposition Ethnic Church,’ if you will, with a nod to the similar heresy of a ‘proposition nation’ on the political sphere) is palpable, vast, and clearly phyletistic.

But, as recent illegal actions by clerics and hierarchs in the USA have shown (I’m speaking of the “Two Matts” case in Indiana, chronicled over at http://www.TradYouth.org) such a desire: for a simple, national Orthodox Church in the USA- once grudgingly given to the Bulgarians by the Greeks, but clearly denied to the Anglos by the SCOBA folk (I cannot/will not call them ‘canonical’ even though they change their name to avoid their duplicity – as numerous posts on this forum have shown, thanks be to God!) is still the ‘sticking point’ among so many, many Orthodox. We are not Byzantines, We Anglos, We are not Greeks, Russians, or Arabs. We are Englishmen, who have a liturgical history, piety, and forms that predate the Schism, yet are denied this, at every turn! As that old hymn states, ‘Once to every man AND NATION, comes the moment to decide.’

Episcopalianism, when it was most English, MOST Anglican, and most Anglo, was the ‘stupor mundi’ of the West. Even Rome feared her, and the Papal ‘Absolutely Null and Utterly Void’ encyclicals of the late 19th Century, clearly stated it, albeit obliquely. Amazingly, it was American Anglo-Catholic Anglicanism that first interested, intrigued and even influenced Patriarch St. Tikhon Belavin, PRECISELY because it was (as you said- with corrections) because “…their focus [wa]s… on English culture, [and] on Christ, love and reaching theosis.”
It’s not an ‘either/or’ with True Christianity, it has to be a ‘both/and.’ Nation/Church; Narodnost/Ethnicity; Symphony and Theosis.

Orthodoxy failed (and continues to fail) in the US, precisely because we DIDN’T/Don’t embrace the unique racial, cultural, ethnic, and linguistic norms that the BCP, the KJV, and Nashotah House stood for upon Tikhon’s Pastoral Visit early last century, but instead became a ‘propositional faith’ that morphed into Byzantine Uniformity redolescent of the most stringent Papist decrees; and/or a desire to go the way of Vatican Ewww – and the less said of that sorry communion, the better.

If Orthodoxy in the West is going to avoid going the way of all [perverted] flesh, whether aping the non-Europids of the world, or worshiping the Asherah of the Sodomite Fringe, she had better jettison the Multicultural Metissage Message of former [Jewish] Sarkozy of France, Bogus Blair of Britain, and Marxist Merkel of the former DDR, as well as the blasphemy of “Franky the Last” and the SCOBA inclusionists such as the Arid[-a] minds of certain ‘clergy’ in SCOBA noted in this column.

Rather, true Ecumene advocates should start embracing an explicitly racial/cultural/narodnost Anglo Expression of the Orthodox Faith.. or else, we shall all become that which Fr. Seraphim Rose once put so succinctly: ‘In the End all the Churches will serve Antichrist.’

And what is Antichrist, if not the explicit denial that Christ was incarnated in One Flesh, among One Race, for the salvation of One People, for all time? [Gen. 3;15 [his seed/your seed -‘sperma’ in the LXX] Amos 3:2 [ you ALONE of all the peoples on the earth – ‘Mishpachah’ in Heb. ‘tribe, family, people/race’] Matt. 1;21 [save His People from their sins] Matt. 10:6, ‘lost sheep of the HOUSE of Israel’ – Gr. ‘oiku Israel’
‘oikos’- household, family, lineage, nation].

The heresy of Egalitarianism and Democracy have corrupted the Church of God, Orthodoxy notwithstanding. And it’s time to repent of it.

As far as growth in the church – we’ve lost more than we have gained,and I believe that it is because of our “club atmosphere” that exists there. The recent article from the Greek Orthodox archdiocese proves the point – “90% of Greek-American don’t participate in the Orthodox church, why is that? Can we take a guess!

I’m an Orthodox Christian, not a very good one I might add, but I do attend. I’ve also begun attending an Episcopal Church where their focus is not on English culture, but on Christ, love and reaching theosis. Why is that wrong? In my mind it isn’t – I’m being spiritually fed by a church that many people dislike for a number of reasons. I can tell you that this church is packed every Sunday, it preaches the message that churches are suppose to preach with a priest who can connect with his congregation in a way that many others can’t.

No condemnations please, just at what time and date will Orthodoxy become like this Episcopal congregation that is doing right in litugy and life.

I could go on with other issues, but that is for another time.

God Bless,
John C.

I don’t “drag Frs. Schmemann and Florovsky into this debate” except to point out that their names are often invoked to justify questionable things. I mention them only once and then in the context of “Orthodox gravitas.”

“Orthodox gravitas” is merely the Orthodox version of Episcopal politeness. Both enforce an arbitrary norm of civility in which the hard questions are not allowed to be asked. Call it political correctness Orthodox style.

My hunch is that neither Florovsky or Schmemann would stand for it.

If you are arguing that Fr. Arida’s essay constitutes sound theological discourse, then you need to read Let Your Yea Be Yea and Your Nay Be Nay.

Why do you drag Frs. Schmemann and Florovsky into this debate considering that Fr. Robert never even mentions them in his article? This paragraph is particularly misleading:

“Orthodox culture is different. Unlike the Episcopalians, Orthodox liberals prefer appearances of gravitas over politeness. When the liberals have a point to make, they draw out the big guns like theologian Fr. Georges Florovsky, offer allusions to recent thinkers like Fr. Alexander Schmemann, provide the obligatory criticism or two of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, cite a relevant quote from the Fathers — all the elements necessary to enforce civility through presumptions of authority and erudition.”

The behavior you quote here is not the work of liberals, it is the work of a good theologian. Authority does derive from reference to the Fathers and Scripture does it not? Why do you characterize such activity in the negative and “liberal?”

Monomakhos is back up. I think they were doing some maintenance. You can find the Wonder Blog essay there too.