BTW, now that you brought it up, does anybody know what’s happened to Alexei Krindatch? he was at Berkely doing great work there but he seems to have been removed. Any ideas?

Fr. John,

You may be right, and that is truly sad.

As I mentioned above, if all they are doing is preaching to the choir about, “those inauthentic people on the fringes, you know who you are.” then it seems pretty childish for what purports to be a responsible document.

If “opinion has it that . . .” “fundmentalism” is a response to a crippling inferiority complex centered around insecurity regarding the OCA’s status, then I would agree that an inferiority complex is not the most healthy motivation for insisting on orthopraxis. Or, alternatively, ascribing good practice to emotional disorders might simply be a tactic of the critics of traditionalism, substituting for substantive discussion of the rationales behind the different practices. Who can say?

It is indeed unfortunate to hear an Orthodox clergyman refer to other Orthodox clergy as “mullahs”. For example, although I am no great fan of Patriarch Bartholomew, I refrain from referring to him as “Black Bart” as some critics have done. Simply offering a reasoned critique of his views and practices seems sufficient to me.

To put it another way, I understand perfectly well that the leadership of the OCA is criticising those whose practices somehow don’t pass muster as being “mainstream” within the OCA. It would be useful not to have to guess what those objectionable practies are, however, since it is not possible to assess whether these practices are somehow foreign to Orthodoxy over the ages or just to its modern, neo-Orthodox expression in the one corner of Orthodoxy in the Western world (which is itself only a small corner of world Orthodoxy).

Revised: 5:30pm, EDT.

The term was borrowed from the great split in American Protestantism that occurred around the early 1900’s between liberals and conservatives. “Liberal” ideas, especially German literary criticism was introduced into the seminaries (Princeton Seminary was a flash-point) and a split developed about the authority of scripture which led to a crisis of authority within Protestant ecclesiology that continues to this day. The liberals were called “Liberal”, and some on the Conservative side later appropriated the term “Fundamentalist.”

The term is relatively new (maybe 60 years old or so). (Read anything by George M. Marsden, an outstanding — and readable — historian of American Protestantism and culture to learn more.) It self-described the believers who were committed to the “fundamentals” of the faith. This is why you see some modern Protestant conservatives still embracing the term.

Today in popular culture the term has been ripped from its historical context and used as a pejorative. Karen Armstrong (“History of God”) for example uses it to mean any person or group who holds to a cohesive set of beliefs — dogma, actually. That’s roughly how it is used in the popular media as well. It functions as a euphemism and is often used to heap scorn on what the secular censors see as rigid and unenlightened thinking (read fidelity to certain religious dogmas). The “fundamentalist” is always the person who holds a view contrary to the views of the secular censors (political correctness in religion).

Euphemisms function to hide other ideas, attitudes, even policies. The term “fundamentalism,” because it has the euphemistic character in popular usage, should be avoided in the OCA study. It has no specific meaning (at least the specific meaning is lost to all but specialists), is needlessly offensive to some, and throws a pejorative cast over discussions that could benefit from a little more clarity and good will. The fact that we already see three or four opinions about what the the term might mean (along with a few gallons of emotion invested along with it) in our discussions here proves the point.

I think the writers of the statement are assuming familiarity among readers with what ‘fundamentalism’ means in an OCA context. In some quarters of the OCA this tendency shows in a style of church life which is out of the mainstream, characterized by harsh criticism of the New Calendar, elaboration of ‘conservative’ liturgics (e.g. silent Anaphora), overt rigorism, disdain for ‘worldly’ churches and churchmen, and a generally adversarial attitude toward secular culture which verges on a sectarian, not Catholic expression of Orthodox Church life.

Opinion has it that fundamentalism is a response (at least in part) to a crippling inferiority complex among some clergy regarding the OCA’s status among churches. Priests searching for authenticity take influence from ‘mullahs’ that often lead the community into conflict (e.g. Resaca, GA). An attempt to exemplify the perceived best and institute akriveia can convey a rough sense of a serious piety in places where life outside church is seen as dark and chaotic.

I think the culture of the OCA is progressing along several tracks, to reference the recent work of Alexei Krindach,author of the PAOI-sponsored survey of Orthodox church life in North America. One of the tracks might be called fundie, though I have never been in circles where the term was used. Coming from California, the only usage I ever heard of the fundamentalist label was in a sermon published in the Diocsesan newsletter by His Grace, Bp. TIKHON, entitled something like “I am a Fundamentalist”. His Grace was ‘taking back’ the term for Orthodoxy, explaining his view of church life which I suppose he must have intended to be seen as uncompromised.

So, the term still needs to be unpacked as I am not entirely clear what they mean by it in our context.

Scott, though I’m in the OCA, I really couldn’t speak to that. Again, the diocesan structure is so rigid within the OCA that what went on in Syosset had no bearing at all on the parishes. My guess is those who take a more legalist/rigorist approach to things.

Again, if I may bring up the Athonite monastaries (I know, GOA), in my rather limited experience, I’ve experienced tremendous grace there and not legalism or judgmentalism. So the picture is rather more complicated than we polemicists often make it out to be.

We need to have a dynamic tension between those who hold to the old ways in what many would deem to be a fundamentalist manner, and those who seek to expand the application without compromising the essence.

To me the greater threat lies in abandoning the Tradition in favor of a moderism with the patina of the Tradition.

I’ll be happy to put up with a few fundamentalists and even a few anxious extremists for the sake of the overall health of the Church.

Forgive me, Fr. Gregory, but you seem all too willing to accomodate the modern in ways that leave me with many questions.

“It is being used to describe a particular orientation or stance relative to the Tradition of the Church. Specifically, the working plan sees as a threat to the spiritual health of the Church a growing tendency among some to understand, and present, the Tradition of the Church in a “static and narrow” fashion.”

Perhaps, but what does “static and narrow” mean? It does sound like totally subjective language used to condemn something that differs from ones own practice. Particularity would be helpful instead of broad language describing some nebulous threat, the exact nature of which we’re left to speculate about. The label could just as easily be used by the OCCA (the non-canonical “gay Orthodox Church”) to describe the OCA. If they are talking about those who baptize converts putatively thought to have already been baptized, or about those who criticize ecumenical efforts, or about those who do X, Y or Z, or neglect to do A, B and C, then they should have the courage to be specific. Otherwise, the line is almost useless to anyone. I can assure you that even the more conservative elements in ROCOR would not consider themselves “fundamentalists” or “narrow and static”. Probably the Ephraimites wouldn’t either. If they’re just preaching to the choir (“They know who they are.”), it seems childish.

If they do not define what they perceive as “fundamentalism” or by what benchmark they measure “static and narrow”, the criticism is valid. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume they mean those Orthodox who have more conservative views than their own. Again, in light of the practices in world Orthodoxy as a whole, the criticism of those who are more conservatively oriented than the median of the OCA seems fairly small minded.

Bottom line is that if they want to categorize someone’s idea of orthopraxis as being inauthentic, they ought to expect to be asked to clarify and defend their statement. They could avoid the entire matter by simply removing the line.

At the same time, I would argue within the context of the paragraph, the meaning of “fundamentalist” is clear. It is being used to describe a particular orientation or stance relative to the Tradition of the Church. Specifically, the working plan sees as a threat to the spiritual health of the Church a growing tendency among some to understand, and present, the Tradition of the Church in a “static and narrow” fashion. If that includes some members of the ROCOR or the various Old Calendarist jurisdictions and supporters of Elder Ephrem (whose monasteries though Athonite do not exhaust either Orthodox monasticism in general or its Athonite expression), it also includes clergy and laity in the OCA and the other SCOBA jurisdictions.

While fundamentalism is a threat, it is hardly the only threat to which the text refers. Of greater concern is how many in the OCA–specifically, the “Holy Synod, Priests, laity”–would prefer to proceed as if the events of the last several years had not happened. The criticism directed to fundamentalists is mild compare to what is said about those who those in the OCA who have not focused their “lives on Christ,” have to offer a true and zealous witness to Christ, and instead live lives that are increasingly fragmented and isolated from the main Body of the Church.

Forgive me but I think the criticisms of the term “fundamentalism” are simply off base.

In Christ,

+FrG

Glad you chimed in on this. Being in the OCA, do you have an idea of who they were referring to as “Fundamentalist Orthodox”? I’m making assumptions but I would imagine they had some particular group(s) or individual(s) in mind.

I should also say, on the whole, the proposed document seems to me to be a very good effort (commenting as an outsider, of course).

That’s a different matter. Sort of like the Senate impeachment. Ordinariy, the VP presides. The Chief Justice presides only in an impeachment. Of course, the primate must be given three opportunities to come and make his case before being deposed. If he comes, that problem is solved. If he doesn’t, after the third time, he can be deposed in abstentia.

It was Pope Theophilos of Alexandria. Part of the issue was Constantinople was autocephalous, but had no jurisdiction delineated, and hence no real synod of its own.

You need 12 bishops to depose any bishop.

Scott, I agree with you for the most part. The OCA should define what it means and not use the blanket label “fundamentalist.” As for the Athonite monasteries, they would be unobjectionable within ROCOR and the more conservative OCA dioceses, so I think that that’s rather a red herring. What makes them stand out (read: objectionable) is the worldliness/secularism that has overtaken most of the GOA. Dean however is right, they need to be integrated into the GOA diocesan structure, the question however is can they? given the worldliness of many of these parishes.

Dean,

I’m happy that the OCA has a well integrated monastic system. Perhaps the reason the GOA does not is the hostility many within it feel to the traditionalism of the Athonites. There is an organization, I believe out of Chicago (where all good things originate, apparently), whose mission is to oppose the Athonite communities.

“I came not to bring peace, but a sword.”

Given that ROCOR has a commission studying what obstacles remain preventing closer ties with the OCA, and given that since they are already in communion, to further ties may imply unity, it may be wise to avoid undefined labels like “fundamentalist Orthodox” and to state that such a phenomena is at odds with “authentic Orthodox” witness. Just let them say “non-canonical Old Calendarists” (such as the schismatic Greek Old Calendarists) if that is who they mean. If not, let them specify exactly what “fundamentalism” they object to. That’s the wiser and more charitable course.

As it stands, it sounds like a blanket denunciation of everyone who leans to the right of current practices in the OCA. Since perhaps the majority of Orthodox on earth live in Eastern Europe, and for the most part they are more conservative than the OCA, the statement could be construed as being critical of the authenticity of the Orthodoxy of the majority of the Orthodox. We tend to forget that we here in America are a tiny little part of world Orthodoxy and the OCA is a minority even of our tiny little corner.

On the other hand, nobody kicks a dead dog. The line may be in reaction to attempts within the OCA to move it further toward traditionalist practices. If so, in an odd way, it is encouraging.

Re: They might want to consider removing the italicized portion of this paragraph. A healthy appreciation of the Athonite monastic developments in this country and possible dialogue on unity with ROCOR would be better served by laying off the “fundamentalist” label. Many pious Orthodox have never accepted the OCA’s definitions with respect to “Big T tradition versus little T tradition”.

At the same time, a respect for monastic traditions is stated in the first section. Also, I’d guess the OCA runs the largest, and most completely integrated set of monasteries in the country. I say “completely integrated” because, while the Athonite monasteries have clearly established a presence here, they have created quite a bit of discord among the local parishes, and operate outside the diocesan structure for the most part. That comment is based on conversations with Greek Orthodox priests from communities in the area.

On the other hand, in our area (Michigan), Dormition Monastery in Rives Junction is revered by just about everyone in the area (Romanians, OCA, Antiochians, GOA) and operates in a way that keeps them very closely integrated into the community. They are truly a jewel of the Orthodox community in the Midwest.

Best Regards,
Dean

Personally, I think that just by having real dioceses, and this means the diocese of the capital city itself, a lot of the problems that plague the ethnic eparchies will go away. Not all problems, just most. Why do I say this? Because in the present situation, there was no accountability within the dioceses –bishop to people, people to bishops. This OCA just took a major step in the right direction in rectifying this with the election of the most recent bishops in Pittsburgh and in Chicago. (The process anyway.)

MY contention is that –and my recommendation to the OCA strategic draft committee–that the dioceses be formed according to strict legal directives, with clearly defined legal terms. In other words, a legal corporation with the Bishop as Chairman of the Board, the Chancellor as Chief Executive Officer, etc. Who is the bishop? how he’s elected? who is a member? how does he get to vote? an amendment process for the dissolution of the diocese into additional dioceses (or more accurately expansion), etc. These things have to be spelled out chapter and verse. Of course the Holy Synod should have the final say (as per apostolic canon 34) but the activity within the diocese should arise from within it.

As long as votaries of the EA keep preaching “semi-autonomy” and the American church never receves complete autocephaly, we will never have accountability or transparancy. This means that it’s up to the OCA to do the heavy lifting necessary to point the way. Do it, and the others will come around.