I agree with this.

Robert, IMO there is no such thing as a ‘community of individuals’ there can be and is a community of persons who share one another’s life as they share Christ’s life. [There is a big difference between an individual and a person]

Human beings are not created to live as individuals. We are not autonomous beings. My bishop once said in a homily that “there is no such thing as a ‘personal relationship’ with Jesus Christ”. We are bound together as the result of our created nature and even more profoundly by the mystery of the Incarnation and the communion we share.

The tension between the unique person and the demands of community are reflective of the many different ways in which we are challenged to recognized that apparent conflicts are actually part of the same whole truth: Jesus-fully God and fully man; we must die to live; in the world, not of it; peacemaking warriors, etc. The more we submit our will to God’s the more we become more uniquely who we are created to be. The more we express our own individual will, the less unique we become.

Dualism is not part of the Church. Any descent into dualism automatically reflects that something is wrong somewhere.

It cannot be forgotten that the Church is hierarchical. We receive from above the teachings and the sacrament. We give as we have received. Even Jesus said he did nothing on his own, but merely what the Father told him to do. Any time we act, the Church is acting. Therefore it behooves the Church through the hierarchy to ‘rightly divide the word of truth’ to lead by action as well as words; to unite us to reflect the unity and truth to which Jesus Christ calls us.

The premier cultural issues of our time are often matters of faith, doctrine and morality that simply cannot be addressed on an individual, ad hoc basis. Certainly each one of us has a responsibility to act in accord with our faith and the teaching of the Church, but that does not suffice.

There seems to be also quite a bit of a cross current (animosity??) I seem to be picking up between the two camps. It is quite puzzling to me, perhaps I am just dumb or naive, or both. Is it possible the two can have a conversation without the biting off the proverbial heads?

Your proposition is too individualistic/personalist and, in a sense, denies the incarnational reality of the Church. Saints become saints because of their activity in the Church. One cannot profitably separate the saints from the Church any more than one can profitably separate the Bible from the Church.

Pseudo-neutrality and the attempt to present oneself as aloof from the fray, is also indicative, IMO, of a fundamental denial of the incarnational/sacramental calling of Christians to be IN the world, but not of it. Your posts seem to suffer from just such an attitude. I, as well, would urge you to be more direct and specific. That allows for good dialog as well as being scriptural: Let your yes be yes and your no, no.

Pithless Thoughts has a post up about engaging culture and such matters.
http://pithlessthoughts.blogspot.com/2010/09/saints-and-evangelism.html

“how do we evangelize and “engage the culture”? I think the answer is this: There is no Orthodox service for the baptism of a “culture”. There is only one baptism: of persons, and one at a time. The “Church” does not engage cultures, saints encounter people. When enough people live as saints and enough persons are baptized because of those encounters, cultures change.”

Your thoughts?

Alexander, thank you for additional insights and clarity. One of the reasons I have my ire up is that as an Orthodox Christian, I’ve seen the very real damage that dhimmitude can do to a church. All of the ancient patriarchates –Antioch especially–are essentially apologists for Islam. Now please understand, I’m not saying that these churches don’t have valid concerns, or that Islam is ipso facto not a valid civilization –far from it. It’s just not our civilization and acquiescence to it necessarily results in the loss of the Gospel.

We see this in so many different ways: when the EP gave a “holy Qu’ran” to Mukhtar Kent at Atlanta, when +Ignatius gave an “on the one hand this, on the other that” condolence after the brutal attacks on 9/11, and so on. Recently, another fine blogger (ochlophobist) documented how the AOCNA gave monies to Islamic charities in Syria and the West Bank. Monies raised from its American flock. I’m sure that others can recount a myriad more such tales. Think of the comical and criminal demotion of bishops in the AOCNA to auxiliary status. This is unprecedented.

Why are any these things happening? One reason I will grant you is that because these churches are subjugated to an Islamic state. Bottom line: just because these ancient patrarchates have valid fears doesn’t meant that their biases, fears, and prejudices should be ours. We have our own context here in North America, our own history, culture, biases, fears, needs, and wants. We need to look after our own house and put it in order. If other churches can’t that’s there problem, not ours. We will be judged for our own sins, not for those of our ancestors.

So where are we? How do we discern truth; how to proceed? I submit that we should keep this point in the forefront: Where is the Gospel in all this? Where is evangelism? Where is caring for the sick, poor, and hopeless neighbors we see every day on the street corners of the nation in which we actually lead? Don’t tell me about FOCUS (which is s GREAT ministry) because it’ll only prove my point. The enthusiasm for this fine ministry from the bishops of the GOA and AOCNA has been tepid at best and in reality quite hostile sub-rosa.

Sorry Father I have no agenda, hidden or otherwise. I am sorry I made you think that way. I am clearly out of my league here. I beg your forbearance.

No, not meaningless but undefined — there’s a difference, a big difference in fact.

Thus, your question about whether or not different spiritual disciplines are “equally valid” can’t really be answered, not without knowing the context and presuppositions that inform your question. Contradictions often are only a surface phenomena, especially with matters of the soul. One person serves in cities, another eschews human contact almost exclusively for example, yet both are the ways of God. Clearly more is at work here.

You are asking very general questions, yet your trajectory is offensive (as in offense vs. defense). You really ought to just come out and say what you are trying to keep hidden. Much more fruitful that way in the long run.

I am glad I haven’t offended you. Thank you.

Simply stating our job is to engage culture is meaningless. Can this not be answered in a myriad of diverse and perhaps contradicting ways, even within an Eastern Orthodox context? One would say this means simply tending to our personal podvigs, yet others would propose this to mean an organized effort towards evangelization ala Fuller. Are all methods equally valid? Anyways, I have already asked you this.