What's the Problem?
What's the Problem?
A post ridden with “”'s
Is it the “Institution” that is the problem? Whether it is the standardized “I'm spiritual, not religious” or “I don't like organized religion”, people seem to believe almost instinctively that there is something wrong with “Institution.” The most organized or dare I say “Institutionalized” breed of such thinking is of course expressed amidst the “pomo” or “reimagine church” movement. They've all seeming decided that the Institution is the problem and that if they simply alter the structure of church, that suddenly Christianity will be something other than whatever bad thing I assume they believe it is now. While using hip contemporary words like “organic” and such, I think in the end many are simply looking to “reimage” the church into something more palatable both to their own tastes and to the taste of one or more various breeds of pop-culture.
However, I don't wish to outright deride their motivations because I know a number of people involved in such endeavors and they all have very good points about the sad state of many aspects of “church.” Seeking something different ('new”?) seemingly makes a good deal of sense. Of course, I am a minor order clergyman in what is likely the most traditional and oldest expression of Christianity and as such some may argue I am representing all that is wrong with the church: hierarchy, out of date customs/practices, “traditions of men”, and frozen-in-time liturgics. Most, if not all, of the offered “solutions” to the problems of the church suggests we do away with such stuff. And thus you end up with leaderless house churches perpetually experimenting with “new” means of expressing worship and in general “doing” Christianity. So, how can I, of all people, suggest their complaints are valid? Well put simply: because I think their solutions aren't.
The problem isn't the “Instituion” per se but rather the people themselves. The old adage regarding the baby and the bathwater is very much applicable to the tossing out of the “Institution” in order to solve all the “problems” in modern Christianity. As most of you know we Orthodox believe that the many demonized aspects of our “Institution” are, beside being beautiful and very much a part of the earliest Church, are also guarantors of our “o”rthodoxy. For you see a “generous orthodoxy” that embraces heterodoxy isn't an “o”rthodoxy at all. What we believe isn't important because what's in our head saves us, it's important because it ends up speaking to what we do and who we are a human persons and that's the key to salvation.
People will no doubt argue about what it means to be “authentic” or “organic” or whatever post modern-esque term you wish to apply to the new images of what the church should be, but I would submit that ultimately what people are looking for is a greater sense of community. I can think of nothing that is more natural, more organic, and more authentic than community – which is to say simply: people being together, being honest and open with one another, and caring for one another. This cannot happen by changing externals, it happens by changing internals. I grant that the “new church” folks have some degree of advantage because in essence they are all largely like-minded people seeking these things to begin with and thus a sense of community and honesty is going to be there – however I would suggest some caution in that people are people and I'll leave it at that.
Yes, in more traditional settings you will find people “going through the motions”, but does this condemn the motions or the person? Will there not also be people just “going through the new motions”? Even if the motions are perpetually being changed and reinvented?
If I REALLY take my Orthodox faith seriously...if I let the rich traditions flood over my everyday life and infuse my home with the aroma of its teachings and practice then I would submit that nothing could be more organic, more authentic, more manifesting of community, and more in keeping with the Apostolic Faith, I'm not here to change Christianity, Christianity – or rather Christ and His Church – are here to change me. Nothing outside needs to be reinvented, it's the inside that needs to be reinvented and for that we have a tried and true ancient path. If I may steal from Chesterton: that path has not be tried and found lacking, but has been found difficult and not tried.
Comments
This seems weird to us because we cut our teeth on comparative religions, courses in "Christianity" that presented different "pictures" of salvation, all of which must be seen as complementary, of course....And why? Because we're the Melting Pot, and the only truly democratic view of religion is not only denominationalistic, but thoroughly syncretistic....Any why, again? Because dear Aunt Sally was a Baptist, or some beloved friend from long ago switched from Calvinism to Judaism (yes, I know such a man). So how can we embrace a view of Christianity that rejects these things? And it seems to me that if Orthodoxy stands apart from comparatively venerable (in terms of time) traditions such as the Calvinistic, Baptistic, and Judaistic, that it stands apart from whatever passes for American pop culture is simply a given. Frankly, I find the concept "pop culture" oxymoronic, similar to such strange contemporary media coinages as "instant classic".
It's not about hating dear Aunt Sally, or closing the book on anyone who's journey differs from ours. Everyone has the right to make whatever journey they think they have to, but here's the thing: That doesn't make them right, it doesn't rewrite history, and it doesn't mean I have to find a way to accommodate & incorporate their worldview into mine. It's about language making sense. "A" cannot be "A" and "non-A" at the same time and in the same sense. You might believe that it can, and you might be my wife, son, daughter, mother, lifelong acquaintance, or whatever, and my word to you will still be, "I'm going THIS way, not THAT. You can come along. Or not."
Gary Patrick
So we need more people like you, but I also think we should, at every possibility, keep Orthodoxy from becoming too "institutional". Think only of our local parish: most of what goes on there, aside from the Liturgy, is our own american "institutionality" inserting itself: the idea of a "membership," the elected parish council, the 501c status, the coffee fellowship, the numerous meetings and fundraisers, the church bulletins, most of this started on this side of the Atlantic because Russian immigrants rather wanted to fit into the 1950s church scene, back when institutionality was cool. I think the answer is to be thoughtful in the way the local parish decides to do things. For example, there should be a focused conversation about the purposes and value of "Sunday School," which I would argue is completely foreign to Orthodoxy and so often appeals to our worst instincts about children. My basic point is that the "business" of church, of what exactly we're doing, is too unconsciously accepted. I think we should think more critically about what "community" is, recognize that people's commitments to it are more limited than in the past, they're seeking a "connection" with others, and try to make sure that "Church" is still a place where people can meaningfully encounter one another, and not just be a place where people get their culture affirmed, or just go out of obligation. I think these connections are not spelled out in canon law because in previous ages, the "parish" consisted of an actual geographic community, a village or town, and the Sunday event was a sort of special way, not the only way, that the community gathered. But nowadays it's the "only way" remaining.
Just my 2 cents.
- Steve Knowlton
So we need more people like you, but I also think we should, at every possibility, keep Orthodoxy from becoming too "institutional". Think only of our local parish: most of what goes on there, aside from the Liturgy, is our own american "institutionality" inserting itself: the idea of a "membership," the elected parish council, the 501c status, the coffee fellowship, the numerous meetings and fundraisers, the church bulletins, most of this started on this side of the Atlantic because Russian immigrants rather wanted to fit into the 1950s church scene, back when institutionality was cool. I think the answer is to be thoughtful in the way the local parish decides to do things. For example, there should be a focused conversation about the purposes and value of "Sunday School," which I would argue is completely foreign to Orthodoxy and so often appeals to our worst instincts about children. My basic point is that the "business" of church, of what exactly we're doing, is too unconsciously accepted. I think we should think more critically about what "community" is, recognize that people's commitments to it are more limited than in the past, they're seeking a "connection" with others, and try to make sure that "Church" is still a place where people can meaningfully encounter one another, and not just be a place where people get their culture affirmed, or just go out of obligation. I think these connections are not spelled out in canon law because in previous ages, the "parish" consisted of an actual geographic community, a village or town, and the Sunday event was a sort of special way, not the only way, that the community gathered. But nowadays it's the "only way" remaining.
Just my 2 cents.
- Steve Knowlton
Gary Patrick
Gary Patrick
By the way, had some beer from Stone Brewing Company, the other night. It was first rate, though, James, I'm sure not as tasty as your brews.
Best
Mike
Yes, demonized is perhaps too strong a word, but there is indeed aspects of our "Institution" that are heavily criticized - particularly in the emergent church crowd.
I think you are mostly correct in that many people are largely ignorant of Orthodoxy, but I would add that for many who are NOT ignorant of it, they would indeed have strong criticism to offer.
The Baptists have a "fascinating" and lengthy guide for their eastern European missionaries on all that is wrong with Orthodox theology and how to successfully argue with Orthodox believers and convert them to the "truth."
As an evangelical I had many encounters with people who believed that the Roman Church is the whore of Revelation and the Pope the Anti-Christ...they would (or did for those who knew) see little distinction with Orthodox for what they would fail to discern are differences in our faith and the Roman Church. Sans Pope of course.
I have evangelical family/friends who pray for my soul worrying that my being Orthodox puts it in serious jeopardy.
And, not a few "emergent" Church folk will happily pick and choose from our traditions and practices, but revile the notion of truly submitting themselves to the fullness of them.
As to beer...well...I'm no professional, but I have had a few batches that turned out as good if not better than many commercial ales :) My tap remains open to you at any time you may choose to partake!
:)
BTW...I was reminded by your question of a time a friend of mine converted from an evangelical sect to Roman Catholicism and I recall he told me that when he invited his brother (also in the evangelical setting) to attend his confirmation and first communion, his brother told him he'd rather go and watch him take cocaine that RC communion. Serious.
Best,
Mike
Gary Patrick
Gary Patrick
My priest (I think it was him) once told me that we should be VERY thankful that the Monty Python crew knew nothing of Orthodoxy.