George, I was refering to your comment in #25 on this thread, but you can belive what you like. Your humilty is quite impressive. I am sure you are most proud of it.

I, for one, contimue to believe Fr. Elpidophoros was right on target, no matter what a few “professors” from Holy Cross thought.

Tom

I’m always on target. My critique of Lambrianides was part of his ignorance of Byzantium. There was no one “ecumenical” patriarch. Rome was one nation with five patriarchates. That’s why his propaganda doesn’t hold water.

geo

Most of my fellow parishoners can’t understand my opposition to organ transplant. They think I’m too radical, but I decided long ago that the philosphy behind organ transplant was an assualt on humanity depsite the seemingly good outcomes.

Your comment that folks today would not take to the streets to object to a heresy acutally supports my point.

George,

On this you are right on target!

why? Because China is getting older before it gets richer. The one child policy is not only decimating the Chinese population, it’s creating a surplus of rogue males who will never have access to females (32 million and counting). This means increasing homosexuality, which leads to violence and eventually the outbreak of wars of conquest by the Chinese gov’t in order to use the excess virility and direct it outwards.

As for Islam, I believe it it is in a state of collapse as well. The same sexual inequality exists as well there, though it has nothing to do with female infanticide. What is happening in Islam is the loss of eligible females due to polygamy. As a rule, only the well-to-do can afford surplus wives, up to four total. This means that for every one wealthy man with four wives, there are three poor losers who don’t stand a chance. What to do with these rogue males? Make them suicide bombers. As for the Islamic states themselves, they are examples of failed states. Consider these statistics: more books, monographs, and technical manuals were translated into Greek in 2007 (11 million speakers) than into Arabic (200 million speakers). The GDP of Spain (37 millions people) equals that of all Arab countries. The one major deficit of Islam at present is its propensity for endemic and systemic and unremitting violence, which is just as often as not directed inwardly as it is outwardly.

The strengths of the Chinese are their entrepeneurial spirit coupled with a Confucian work ethic. Plus, Christianity is growing by leaps and bounds in China. (I think they’d make excellent Orthodox Christisans.)

The strengths of Islam aremore evident in the decaying western cities of Europe, where Mohammed is the #1 name for newborn baby boys in many of those cities.

Unless America shakes off the shackles of socialism and takes back its Christian heritage, then all is lost. Neither China can serve as an active hegemon for more than 20 years and there is no resilient, moderate and powerful caliphate on the horizon.

I’m an ex-money manager (ex since 2000 – not a recent change) with a love for economic (as well as Byzantine) history – one of the reasons I got out of the business actually – so you need not explain the degenerative economic problems. There’s no question that you are right…we are no longer the “sole” superpower. Further, the same could actually have been said of China (and later Western Europe) in the case of the Eastern Empire – certainly at the end this was even more true.

However, despite that imprecise adjective, I still think there are similarities galore…this is not something that needs to be “stretched” to fit.

My real point, however poorly communicated, is that the Eastern Empire was a financial colossus – this had been true throughout the time of the Roman Empire…the money was always in the East – a legacy of the Hellenistic kingdoms of Alexander. This is actually the real reason why the Empire in the East survived so much longer than in the West. The Western Empire was a financial midget compared to the East, even though it contained the capital.

An additional aside may make the similarities more clear. The Byzantine currency, eventually called “the Bezant” outside the empire, was used the world over for trade. There’s actually a story about a Roman merchant who, in the presence of the Chinese ruler, was arguing with a Persian merchant about whose king was greater. The Persian had expounded on the power of the Persian king, how much land they ruled, the cities, the wealth etc etc etc. The Roman, in turn, simply asked the Chinese ruler to take a (Byzantine) gold coin out of his pocket, which carried the image of the Byzantine emperor. “Any questions”, was practically the response.

This story is particularly ironic, given your comment about the Chinese debt, because of the recent Chinese inspired dustup about reserve currencies (and increased use of SDR’s). At least so far, the USD has been the reserve currency for the world (for the last 50 years anyway).

In any case, among other things, this financial success gave rise to and supported an educated populace. In turn, this populace became extraordinarily involved in the day to day life of the Church on every level – both in the governance (as I said, there are examples of cities returning bishops), in theology (at the Council of Florence, the emperor turned to Patriarch Joseph and reportedly said something to the effect of ‘Why are all my smartest theologians my LAY theologians?’) and in practice. Perhaps the greatest example of the involvement of the laity, aside from the monastic movement, were the riots throughout the Middle East during the Monophysite heresy. Can you imagine people taking to the streets because of such arguments today? I can’t.

Getting back to your main point though…I don’t think the same degree of cleavage exists in the East as you are describing in the West. Keep in mind even the Greeks were organized on a City-State level, not a national one.

You said:

I was thinking of the largely Protestant/Enlightenment mentality that tends to be reduced to individualism in which any sort of community, even the family is thought of as expendable. There is distrust and even anatagonism of any approach in which the individual will is not supreme.

I’m getting into philosophical things that I don’t know much about, but I think that last statement, “the individual will is not supreme” may be the big difference. I will let others more knowledgeable than I explain more, but I do not think the same either/or attitude prevailed in the East. I could be wrong.

Perhaps Fr. Hans can elaborate more.

Best Regards,
Dean

It has always seemed to me that it was easier for folks in pre-modern times to find identification in a larger community than it is now. However, I could be wrong.

Dean says:

Think about it for a moment: both were the only superpowers on the planet (for much of Byzantium’s history anyway), both valued a national citizenship over ethnic and tribal affiliations (Roman then, American now), both were economic colossus’s spawning a currency which was used the world over, that economic prowess in both cases gave rise to a largely literate citizenry (we had NO Dark Ages in the East until the time of the Turks, literacy levels never fell in the East as they did in the West following the Fall of Rome), that educated, literate citizenry became highly engaged in the Church (we know there were laity at most of the ecumenical councils – and read about the riots during the monophysite heresies).

On a potential energy basis alone, China far out paces us, they own a large portion of our debt and will out bid us for scarce resources. Plus we are happily funneling them the very resources they need to eclipse us. Then there is the massive demographic threat of Islam. I don’t think we are the lone superpower. American citizenship is not highly valued by an increasing number of people and our economic hegemony is crumbling. What passes for literacy is declining rapidly as we digress from communication of ideas with words to a new sort of hieroglyphics. Real ideas are seldom engaged at all.

Individualism has eroded concern for the theology of the Church to a point where religion is often just an individual therapy. Most people refuse to engage in religious ideas at all labeling them as ‘Church politics’ and retreating to a private spirituality.

Dean, as attractive as your idea sounds, I think you are ignoring the tremendous inertia in our culture/people’s hearts that works against any realization of your vision as well as using a false analogy to illustrate it.

Please clarify your question for me as well…I’m having trouble with it as well.

I would not say that individual freedom is a new concept to the Orthodox. Along with the various examples of individual/lay participation and decision making sited above, I’d also point out the Orthodox concept of ekonomia, which is nothing more than an attempt to allow the parish priest and/or local bishop to make decisions at the local level which are appropriate.

The tendency in the East has always been a devolution to localized decision making (I guess they’d have made good Republicans!).

I would say that the concept of individual participation is a longstanding practice in the East – on the other hand, the diminution is not of the community, but of the centralized power…hence the lack of a Papacy in the East.

There’s a great, if anecdotal story which illustrates the point. My grandfather explained to me the situation when the first traffic lights were installed in Athens. I imagine in most other places, people accepted the automatic directions as a relief.

Not so in Athens – the story I heard was that when the Greeks saw the traffic light, they paused, pointed at it, and then started laughing…”THAT is going to tell me when i can go?” they said, laughing hysterically.

I can’t imagine the Arabs were much different.

That’s a pretty good illustration of what the Eastern Church has been contending with for 2000 years.

It’s really no different than when the King of Persia turned to Xenophon and threatened to kill him, leaving the 10,000 man army stranded and leaderless in the middle of Persia (in the story The Anabasis). That was generally a good strategy when dealing with slave armies.

In response, Xenophon told the king, “Kill me, and you will have 10,000 generals,” referring to the Greek propensity to individualism in the extreme.

Things have really not changed that much in 3000 years.

Best Regards,
Dean

How does the relatively new idea (at least I think it is) of individual freedom and the concomitant diminuation of community fit into your thesis?

I’m glad you liked that idea…the idea that we must return to the practices of the Church of the First 15 Centuries is something that I’ve come to believe over time. It has nothing to do with wanting to go “back in time”.

The more I’ve read about the Eastern Empire, the more amazed I’ve become at the similarities between the conditions which the Church grew up in and the modern USA.

Think about it for a moment: both were the only superpowers on the planet (for much of Byzantium’s history anyway), both valued a national citizenship over ethnic and tribal affiliations (Roman then, American now), both were economic colossus’s spawning a currency which was used the world over, that economic prowess in both cases gave rise to a largely literate citizenry (we had NO Dark Ages in the East until the time of the Turks, literacy levels never fell in the East as they did in the West following the Fall of Rome), that educated, literate citizenry became highly engaged in the Church (we know there were laity at most of the ecumenical councils – and read about the riots during the monophysite heresies).

While it is certainly possible to push the analogy too far, I think there are many similarities. It’s interesting to me because if this is true, the modern USA, with it’s diverse cultures and ethnic affiliations, is probably the closest environment to the Eastern Empire in 1000 years. The nice thing is that the Church should THRIVE in such an environment. On the flip side, I think the system of ecclesial governance that was left to us (conciliarity, transparency, accountability) is something that most modern Americans would feel right at home in if exercised in it’s pure form.

You know, I’ve actually read accounts of bishops being assigned to Sees, and the laity returning those bishops BACK to the metropolis…essentially “return to sender” – 1000 years ago. So that rebellious nature you talked about is nothing new to Orthodoxy. And if you ever read the tomos of the Council of Constantinople of 1872 (against Ethno-phyletism – see the masthead at http://members5.boardhost.com/STANDREWHOUSE/msg/1240677841.html) it’s something that could have come out of the mouth of Martin Luther King…just 100 years ahead of his time.

If we can only eliminate the “bath-tub ring” attached by the Turks (the monarchical hierarchs, asbolutist tendencies of the same) and return to the practices of the First 15 Centuries, I honestly believe we can evangelize this continent.

Anyway, I’m glad you liked the thought..I think there’s a lot there.

Best Regards,
Dean

This ties into another thesis I’ve been developing over the past few years: There is a compatibility between some foundational values of American culture and Orthodox Christianity — not necessarily a one-to-one correspondence certainly but a congruency of sorts, especially in our notions of inalienable rights, the dignity of the individual, the high value placed on freedom, and so forth.* I tried to flesh out some of these ideas in an article I wrote for Again Magazine a while back (Orthodox Leadership in a Brave New World).

*Hold on to your hats guys. I am talking about freedom, rights, etc. within a cultural context informed by Christian morality.

The EP could be a great leader to the American Orthodox if he understood his role primarily as the teacher of the Gospel rather than universal ethnarch. In return, the American Orthodox would grow to love him (it is who we are) and support him beyond his wildest hopes.

Constantinople does not understand that Americans simply are not going to respond well to the kinds of claims made by Fr. Elpidophoros (including, I think, thinking Greeks once they grasp that this is more about ethnic authority rather than authority rooted in the Gospel of Christ). We just don’t handle heavy-handed claims of supremacy very well. We chafe under the pronouncements of those who themselves have yet to prove their veracity — like Fr. Elpidophoros. It’s part of our cultural character. Further, the fact that they don’t understand this undermines their claim that they are the best qualified to lead the American Orthodox Church.

Critics say this is a weakness, that we are rebellious or immature. There is probably some truth to this. On the other hand, the creativity, energy, drive, hopefulness, generosity, inventiveness, and other qualities particular to the American character that you just don’t find in Fr. Elpidophoros’ lumbering scold count for something too.

But failures in leadership increasingly seem to be stock in trade, witness the unfortunate words of Abp. Demetrios to Pres. Obama. That no one perceived that the empty-headed flattery would communicate a spirit of servility doesn’t speak well for his handlers either. Why didn’t they grasp this? Is the Greek lobby just listening to itself?

In my opinion, the only proper award for El Jefe would have been for his neck to have been wrung by the chain upon which the pendant rested.