George,

My view of GOARCH is admittedly quite parochial. I’ve only been to a few Greek parishes within a few hours of my town. I mention that to convey that you have much wider knowledge of GOARCH, despite not being in it anymore, than I do.

Schism is always a tragedy. But sometimes a necessary tragedy, given the attitudes that people can adopt. As long as we all officially proclaim the same faith, I suppose intercommunion is appropriate. Nonetheless, all should work for a rebirth in appreciation of the traditional ways of doing things.

If there is to be a schism, let it be a schism initiated by the more liberal hierarchs or priests against the Athonite monasteries and those who side with them. I’m sure there would be a jurisdiction willing to accept them. Otherwise, if someone is concerned about a lack of orthopraxis in their jurisdiction, they should switch to another more conservative one. One caveat though: we are not congregationalists. To be a communicant of the OCA, or ROCOR is to share the same faith, at least officially, as GOARCH or Antioch. If that were not the case, we would not be in communion.

“Blessed are ye who are persecuted for My sake.”

Scott, I only wish more priests agreed with you. Rather than castigate individual priests, let me just make this observation: I believe we are soon going to be witnessing a major split within the GOA, between those few parish priests who have been influenced by the Athonite revival and the others who long ago became conformed to the world. While it is true that some pietists have gone too far (or can go overboard) the lengths to which the more liberal priests go to castigate those who are trying to inculcate spiritual formation is disturbing.

Hence, Hispanics can get away with belonging to racialist groups like La Raza (which means “the Race”) but not whites.

I honestly don’t know how Orthodoxy is going to sanctify our culture at present, however we must persevere and try as best we can. Perhaps the Holy Spirit in His mercy will forgive us and allow the broken vessels that we manifestly are to be the vehicles of salvation wherever we are planted.

Michael,

I sympathize.

Perhaps a story of personal evolution might illustrate what I think is the predicament in which we find ourselves:

Earlier in life, I was quite impressed with “traditional” southern culture. I don’t mean the racist aspect of it, which I have always detested, but the genteel, chivalrous aspect of it. To me, it meant breakfast, dinner and supper (as opposed to breakfast, lunch and dinner). It meant rising when a lady entered the room. It meant gentlemanly behavior not in the sense of “gentle man”, but in the sense of the habits of the landed gentry of the South.

However, what I came to gradually realize, is that that culture has disappeared except for nostalgia. Now it’s country music, NASCAR, tubetops and tatoos. It’s gradma watching the illegitimate kids because mom still thinks she’s a saucy 17 and still wants to party all the time.

That’s not a bad analogy to what’s happened to Western culture over the last hundred years or so.

BUT, there’s never a good reason to be depressed or despondent. Our hope is in Christ, risen from the dead. I look hopefully to the future. It’s just I am pragmatic and expect this society to continue to degenerate.

Assuming for a moment that Jesus tarries (and I urge Him not to in my prayers), I think the culture will get much worse before it gets better. Our leaders and our people are very hard headed.

I see a better future elsewhere, in less democratic more traditionally minded cultures in which there is a Christian presence. Here in America, I think the best we can do is evangelize whomever we can into healthy churches who draw clear lines between the Body of Christ and this pagan culture. That way, they are actually entering something which can assist them in their salvation, rather than confirm them in their sins.

There are no quick fixes for this culture or for the Church as it exists today within it. We have strayed far and for a long time and the way back is just as far and may take just as long.

But if God is with us, who can stand against us?

To address something else you touched on: I too get the feeling from some quarters in the “old world” and from the more ethnocentric Orthodox here in America that they think the people here are not worth the sharing of orthodoxy. You see it in the remarks of some who don’t like converts: “Why don’t they just go to their own churches and leave ours to us?”

This may be due, however to an inferiority complex that keeps them from taking Orthodoxy too seriously. I mean, they must not believe that Orthodoxy is the fulness of truth if they don’t want to share it. Or perhaps they believe that all religions are equally true, equally false and equally useful. Who can say.

I have met many good, welcoming Greeks, Arabs and Russians though. So I can separate the sheep from the goats in my own heart and I don’t get too bent out of shape about the lack of interest in evangelism among some cradle Orthodox – – or about the more ethnocentric tendencies of some of the old world patriarchs. I just tend to write that stuff off as an annoying irrelevancy.

Scott, I don’t know exactly. I’m trying to ask some questions because it is too easy for me to want to head for the bunkers.

Unfortunately, many of the Orthodox in the past seem to think that there is a vast difference between the souls of Anglo’s and the souls of Greeks, Russians, etc. We just aren’t worth worrying about.

Much of Anglo-German culture is a double-edged sword when it comes to discerning what works within the Orthodox Tradition and what does not. We Americans tend to be a culture of individuals rather than one of community. Humility is not a virtue which we admire. Freedom in an individual sense is clearly not something that is easily absorbed into Orthodox Tradition. A state that is free from religion and its guiding ethics is a problem. The pluralsim (at best) that results in which faith is reduced to one more ‘choice’ in the ‘market place of ideas’ makes a travesty of even the idea of true worship, true doctrine and an incarnate Church.

The founders were heavily influence by Enlightenment philopsphes whose anti-Christian, anti-hierarchical, anti-human “humanism” is easily turned by the demons into fodder for their lunacies.

As our techological and economic power has grown, our spiritual power has decreased.

What to do?

Michael,

I realize I did not answer your opening question, “What is the Traditional faith?” I will attempt to do so.

The traditional faith is found in Scripture, the Creed, the Councils, the Liturgy, in Orthodox iconography, in Orthodox hymnography, etc.

It is also found in Orthopraxis, as well as being guarded and preserved by Orthopraxis.

What happens when orthopraxis becomes compromised, corrupted and eroded? So does the faith.

So . . .:

When you blur the traditional roles of men and women in the Church, destroying hierarchy within the family and modesty, you reap abortion, promiscuity and divorce.

When you allow communion without confession, then you get the ugly phenomena of people getting to church just before communion, having just arrived from IHOP with syrup dripping from their lips (this was a phrase used by Dr. Anthony Coniaris who spoke at our church and who wrote the book with which I was catechized). They do so because the holiness of communion has disappered for them. No awe, just an entitlement.

I could go on, but the point is that outward matters are vital because they directly affect the spiritual attitude of the faithful. They are inseparable. If the outward environment of the church suggests informality and acceptance of the secular culture, then the morals and practices of the people will reflect that. If externals are not particularly important, then we waste a truly offensive amount of money on vestiments, icons, domes, incense, candles, censers, liturgical items, prayer ropes, etc.

Michael,

If you tell me what all of the above means in terms of practical, concrete activity, I will let you know what I think.

“I was reading a quote today from Elder Sophrony of blessed memory. He was making a similar point by saying that taking a traditional Greek, Russian or Arab monastary and plopping it down in the middle of modern England or the US would immediately make that monastary in-authentic and not Traditional.”

If by “traditional Greek, Russian or Arab monastary” you are referring to what language is being used, then I agree. If you are referring to the retention of those practices that are specifically Arab versus Russian, or Greek versus Romanian, then I also can see the point. If you mean the practices of the monks in those monastaries that are common to Orthodox monastics over the ages, then nothing could be further from the truth. We sometimes behave as if modern Western culture has to be addressed differently because there is something admirable about its practices which differ from those of the Orthodox over the ages.

There is not.

There is nothing unique about the souls of Americans, or English, or Westerners, as opposed to any other people on earth.

“That is to say, the faith delivers the truth that God has consistently revealed in the Church throughout time, not merely the outward form . . .”

Not “merely the outward form”, to be sure. But including the outward form.

” . . . the prevailing culture is not ignored nor demonized.”

It is not to be ignored, although some of it is in fact demonic. It is to be converted/transformed.

Michael,

The problem is that there is very little left that is good in American and Western culture. Religion is either severly watered down or disappearing. The institution of the family has been destroyed in its Christian/patriarchal form. Modesty is a foreign concept. Large families are ridiculed by the culture as “breeders”. I could go on. The good things about American culture are mostly in its past. We can look to earlier generations of Americans for a conservative (although non-Orthodox) Christian culture which can be used to build on. That is precisely what some Orthodox churches are, in effect, doing by using the early modern English of the King James variety in their prayer books and liturgy.

But the truth is that there may be less here suitable to be adapted than there was in pagan Rome, or in other non-monotheistic cultures. There are those who would insist that American political ideas are superior, but, of course, the machine built by the “Founding Fathers” produced this sick, heathen culture . . .

Scott, not to be agumetative but what is “the Traditional faith”?

My understanding:

1. It is nothing if not incarnational. Among other things that means that the faith is a witness to a particular people in a particular time and place of the person and work of Jesus Christ.

2. It is historic not in an antiquarian manner but in a prophetic manner. That is to say, the faith delivers the truth that God has consistently revealed in the Church throughout time, not merely the outward form from this or that particular time and place and communicates it in the here and now.

3. The faith is relational, not just personal. That means, among other things, that the prevailing culture is not ignored nor demonized. The truth and beauty is found and connected (even baptized) in such a way that communication of the Truth is made easier.

None of this means to suggest any accomodation with the narcisstic, amoral nihlism that has become the norm, however, I was reading a quote today from Elder Sophrony of blessed memory. He was making a similar point by saying that taking a traditional Greek, Russian or Arab monastary and plopping it down in the middle of modern England or the US would immediately make that monastary in-authentic and not Traditional.

The real question that the leaders of the Church have steadfastly refused to address here is what is worth saving? In fact, they have often expressed the opinion that neither the people of the US and the ‘west’ nor any of the historic fruits of the Anglo-Germanic culture are worth saving. We are too uncouth. Such sentiments seem to frequently come from the most outwardly ‘traditional’ jurisdictions. Nothing could be less Traditional however.

The clergy is it’s own brotherhood and a culture of its own. They think they know what’s best and aren’t going to be persuaded by anything other than significant defections, if that.

In the long run, the whole package of practice in a given diocese or jurisdiction will seal its fate. Churches which reject this evil culture’s assumptions about what is conventional and acceptable regarding worship and morality will survive and prosper. Those that assimilate modern Americanism into their faith, to whatever extent they do so, will suffer decline.

It’s simply not possible to maintain the fixation on lots of Greek in the services while assimilating American attitudes toward gender and reproduction, toward a casual Christianity-lite “faith”, and not to suffer from a lack of converts, low reproduction rates and losses to Protestant and Catholic churches through intermarriage.

There is a direct connection between being “Byzantine Protestant” and being morally compromised by the surrounding culture. They are just two facets of the same phenomenon. To be ashamed of traditional practices is to reject the Orthodox mindset in favor of something else. That “something else” is what leads to fiascos like the subject of this article.

I know it’s frustrating. But the best thing for all of us to do is hold to the traditional faith as best we can. God will separate the wheat from the chaffe.

so what’s the answer? What +Jonah asked the AOCNA a couple of times already: “let’s just get together and unite. There are no redundant bishops among us, our evangelical mission is patent, etc.” Does that mean that we go from two votes on the Episcopal Assembly to one? Yeah, but so what? Overnight the authentic local American Orthodox Church would grow exponentially. Anyway, that’s my take.

Prosecutors sometimes push forward with “he said, she said” cases, but not always.

I’d have to agree with your apparent impression, however, that this one would be pretty tempting to push forward, especially if the community has a vocal, activist homosexual population (as suggested by a gay bath house in an area known for cruising).

I also agree, after hearing the beginning of the 911 call that the Marine was awfully tenacious. If he continued beating the priest three blocks away, that’s pretty dubious.

Whatever you are going to do, whatever Archons and Leadership 100 and parish priests that care about the future… it needs to be done right soon. You know because of the bouzoukia still at large right now and every day that passes by we are generating sexual events and legal problems that will be the subject of big payments we can’t even guess at now to be paid in the future– and we aren’t the Vatican with a basement full of often looted amazing art we can sell for zillions to hush up the damaged.

Otherwise if we wait there won’t be enough of people left to make correcting anything worthwhile. And don’t expect anything much from the OCL. I was involved in that group for a few years and particularly after the Spyridon/Holy Cross scandal– clergy sexual misdoing was the third rail they’d see but the OCL leadership would always make sure was never touched. General writings, ‘unity — maybe under a local synod maybe with just that little twist where we work to infact solidify foreign control..’ and that foreign control was totally supportive of exactly ‘the special ordained young never married bachelor leadership killing us right now.’

OCL continues to beg action from leadership usually with a great deal more interest in no action, some demonized the voice that group has given in the past to educated people expressing this or that theological opinion as a way of putting off the day their own sexual choices in high places might get an unwelcome spotlight.

Anyhow, this situation calls for the rolling up of the sleeves, not harming actual celibates but otherwise taking care of business and the only way with a future that I can see so we don’t find ourselves right back in this pot three years later is to have married empty nesters priests as full synod bishops along with the actual real celibate monastics. We don’t need a ‘witch hunt’, we need good decisions and to get that we need people to be able to make them on the synod and to appoint their successors who won’t cause us to make this series of growth-killing mistakes a second time.

It’s beyond time for the parishes and the priests to protect the future in whatever way we can, in all ways we can. I wish I could do more than an occasional online posting but due to my personal medical load this is about my limit. It is important not to confuse ‘asking people who are themselves enabling and responsible for the problem to correct it’ with ‘doing something’. If we can’t see now that they’ve had their chance and here we are then we are already dead and the parishes are going to live just long enough to offer funerals for the old timers.

And DO NOT think things are clean and pure in other Orthodox groups or look to ‘really self-congradulatory spiritual monastics claiming the approval of Athos’ to fix parish life. The entire OCA synod knew the score and sat on its hands during the entire Theodosius / Herman era. Archbishop Job was the only one to stand up and he’s not on the scene anymore, and there are plenty of ‘two person monasteries’, which in some states would be classified now as a ‘common law gay marriage’. Check ocanews to learn how deep reform really goes in the AOA.

Families go to churches to work through the joys and cares of family life, and there are plenty of more organized programs that better attract kids a whole lot closer to home than our Orthodox churches right now, we don’t have forever to get the doing in tune with the saying.

Last, don’t be put off by the sniffy voices that go along the lines ‘are we all perfect in laity land? No, then you go fix that and once you are perfect come on back and we’ll talk’. That makes about as much sense as telling the patients at the hospital to go away, get well and then come back and get treatment you don’t then need from ‘the doctors’ who only get the white coats if they are a member of a very special club in more need of doctoring than many of the patients.

Then after a few incidents of this type, the laity can start demanding a seat at the table, this means all governing bodies of the Church, including the Holy Synod. As I’ve said before, all dioesan bishops should be nominated (at the very least) by the laity of a diocese. I’d go so far as to say that they should ELECT the local bishop and he should be subject to confirmation only by the Holy Synod, and then consecrated by 3 or more bishops.