Unity? Yeah right.
American Orthodox Leaders Meet
Interesting that a number of papers carried only the first half of this article - choosing to end it with this line: "the Orthodox presence in the United States is relatively minor." Curious that I end up in Montana to find the enitre thing.
There's a number of ironies in this article, which I will let you - my very dear readers - find for yourself.
I was a tad irked by this: Many Orthodox are frustrated that, in a nation of spiritual seekers, the elaborate ritual, liturgy and teachings of the Orthodox tradition are failing to attract more newcomers. Advocates for unity say a merger would create badly needed resources for outreach.
Hello? Logic? Ummm...if the elaborate rituals et. al. are the cause for failing to attract, how will additional resources help? We don't need more money to make our rituals less "elaborate" (Whatever that means)or to seek a better way to be attractive...can you imagine the Craigslist ad: "Looking to trade 19th centutry Icon of the Theotokos for bass guitar and drum set"
I think the reporter missed something here. Our "elaborate ritual, liturgy and teachings" are not in any way going to change...in fact, we generally tend to see this fact itself is cited as being an attractive feature by new converts. Resources will help to give us greater exposure, though...something we definately need.
I used to have some hope for unity, but not so much anymore...and I'm not sure I am terribly concerned about it either. Call me a cynic, but I just don't think the hierarchs are going to make it happen, despite their talk - new parishes with "ethnic mentalities" are both persisting and being born.
So...whatcha gonna do layperson?
- Get link
- Other Apps
Comments
For the vast majority of Americans, the proliferation of the various jurisdictions in "SCOBA Orthodoxy" is INCREDIBLY confusing and a detriment to evangelizing, especially those who are "churched" in another Christian tradition. One should not have to undergo a socio-political history course in order to be welcome in the Orthodox church, but, sadly, that's often the case in the U.S.
I agree with your last paragraph that Unity would provide a more consistent witness - especially when we consider our claims re: the Church.
But I also think our hieracrchs aren't really pushing the issue - except in words.
Which means we outnumber Episcopals in this country. Would someone speak of the Episcopals being relatively minor? Relatively minor compared to what anyway? There are only around 20million Southern Baptists in this country, and even with our jurisdictional differences we are able to speak with a far more unified voice than they.
"...and several of the jurisdictions are shrinking"
While others are growing extraordinarily fast.
The major thing that the author misses, though one can't hold it against him too much for he probably only became familiar enough with Orthodoxy to write this article such as it is, is that we are 'unified'. We just do not share the same hierarchy. The author does not seem to recognize that, in spite of our jurisdictional differences, we are still all in communion and we all share the same sacraments. We aren't 'splintered' the way, say, presbyterians, baptists, and methodists are splintered.
Our situation is certainly a violation of canon law and needs to be corrected. But the problems that exist are minor in comparison to the problems we could have. Doctrinal unity and intercommunion are really more important, in the grand scheme of things, than hierarchical unity. If we didn't believe this, then we'd be looking to Rome as the seat of all Christian authority. And look at the situation with the Roman Church. While there certainly are Catholics in this country who are strong in the faith, many -- included many hierarchs -- cannot really be described as having an doctrinal unity to Rome.
Even intercommunion is nothing without doctrinal unity, look at the Anglican communion. Sooner or later one of two things always have to happen where there is no doctrinal unity: 1) A split in communion so the 'true faith' may be preserved, or 2) an ending of the notion of a 'true faith' for the sake of a watered down and baseless unity. Anyway, those are my two bits.
Our situation is certainly a violation of canon law and needs to be corrected ... Doctrinal unity and intercommunion are really more important
I was taught that the holy canons are simply the practical application of dogma to the life of the Church. And the corrolary of that is that when violations of the canons occur, and particularly when they are allowed to persist, it is a symptom of an underlying dogmatic problem. Which means, not to put too fine a point on it, a problem of heterodoxy. I don't think that it is too difficult to see how that principle applies to Orthodoxy in America today.
The Church teaches that the catholicity and the unity of the Church is manifested in the Eucharistic assembly of all of God's people gathered about the one bishop who is responsible before God to shepherd the Church in a given place. The Fathers (especially St Ignatius of Antioch) testify to this; and the holy canons testify to this. If there is more than one Eucharistic assembly in a given place, or if (God forbid) there is more than one bishop in a given place, then the unity of the Church is not manifest. And therefore the catholicity of the Church is not being manifested either. When there are multiple bishops who claim to be in "doctrinal unity", the doctrine they are proclaiming by their actions is, at least as regards ecclesiology, not orthodox.
Based on this, it is clear (to me at least) that to say "it's only a canonical violation, not a doctrinal matter, because we have 'doctrinal unity' " is a total cop-out.
Let me put it this way: if I am looking for the true Church as described by St Ignatius, St Cyprian, and the holy canons, what possible basis do I have for believing that any of the Orthodox Churches in the U.S. look like what they described?
You bring up a very good point concerning the relationship between canon law and doctrine that I should have considered before speaking. The principle of Ignatius and the early Church, -- one baptism, one Church, one bishop, and one Lord -- is most certainly beyond dispute and I did not mean to challenge in the least the necessity of reunion. I, for one, believe that one of our central goals, after getting our own act together, should be to seek to bring the other churches into true doctrinal unity with us (though not in the way the oecumenical movement might have it). Divisions among those who claim the name of Christ are offensive to the diginity of the Chrurch to say the very least.
This being said, I may put my case this way. I firmly believe that the doctrinal unity that exists among the Orthodox in America will lead to the unity of the hierarchy or else. Just as with my example concerning the episcopals, something has got to give. Either the doctrinal unity we have will lead to jurisdictional unity or the jurisdictional disunity will lead to doctrinal disunity. Just as it is true that, among the other confessions, doctrinal disunity must be ended or schism will occur.
This being said, I would argue that while our current situation must be corrected, with as much speed as prudence will allow, it is our doctrinal unity that makes this reunion certain and our uncannonical situation only temporal.
"if I am looking for the true Church as described by St Ignatius, St Cyprian, and the holy canons, what possible basis do I have for believing that any of the Orthodox Churches in the U.S. look like what they described?" I agree, you won't find it here exactly. The eccelesiology St. Ignatius has in mind is one bishop in every city. You certainly won't find that here, though I believe with jurisdictional unity we might be able to move closer to that ideal. If you are looking for the true Church, you must always contend with a human element, and a human element is necessarily temporal. So long as our prototype remains the true prototype, so long as we beleive in the same one true Church, with God's grace the cannonical situation will be remmedied.
If I have been any clearer, it should become apparent that I do not mean to cop-out - "we can get away with this mess, because its only canon law after all", but rather I was merely asserting that we are not divided in the sense the article might lead one to believe.
Our actions - our desire for reunion, the existence and actions of SCOBA, our many projects and cordial relations --in spite of occasional problems-- are precisely what reveal that the true unity does exist among us and the incorrect jurisdictional situation that we are in, which arises from historical and temporal circumstances, will come to an end.
Let me know if that is any clearer or if you find it more acceptable. You certainly won't hurt my feelings by disagreeing, for I'll not deny my ability to simply be wrong.
You are right Chris...however, we should note that the hierarchs admit this as well. They recognize what you say. Our canons recognize what you say. EVERYONE - I think - admits that this is a problem.
If they did NOT...if we did NOT....if we claimed this is fine, this is normal or acceptable - then our claim to BEING that same Church of St. Ignatios and Cyprian is seriously wacked.
Sin. We aspire to avoid it, we preach against it...but we fall into it from time to time. Some groups have given up preaching against it.
There's a lesson here for us I think.
Well, that is clearer. As to whether it is "more acceptable", I am not so conceited as to think that other peoples' theological views have to be "acceptable" to me.
Your point about the human element in the Church is well-taken. There is no Church body in this world which is without flaw; there are only -- by God's grace -- some Churches which are faithful to the Apostolic deposit of faith and remain, despite their human failings, the stewards of the mysteries of God.
My problem with all of this is an intensely practical one. To my way of thinking, it is the Orthodox Church which has the best claim, historically and theologically, to be that Church which has faithfully preserved the Apostolic deposit of faith. But at the same time, she has compromised a critical article of faith: the unity and catholicity of the Church. But if I am to excuse such a doctrinal failing on account of the "human failings" in the Church, why should I not similarly excuse the doctrinal failings of other Church bodies?
For example, the Lutheran Church agrees with Orthodoxy on Christology, sacramentology, ecclesiology (mostly), and many other issues; but it does not have bishops in the apostolic succession. That is easily explained as the result of "human failings" which are quite understandable in historical perspective. Why not give the Lutherans a "free pass" on bishops, if we are going to give the Orthodox a "free pass" on their infidelity to Ignatian ecclesiology? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
So your view is that because the hierarchs understand and acknowledge that there is a problem on a theological level (as I have outlined it), that makes it OK for the situation (and the heterodoxy that it reveals) to persist more or less indefinitely.
I don't buy it.
Orthodoxy has been in North America for over 200 years. If the only problem were a temporary canonical "anomaly", that would have been plenty of time to iron it out. This is a simple problem to fix; it is not rocket science. If the Orthodox want to fix this problem, a solution could be decided on in one year, and implemented in five years or less. But the truth of the matter is that the Orthodox do not want to fix this problem. They don't care.
From this I can only conclude that they do not see themselves as, and have no intention to become, the apostolic and catholic Church in this country. If all you want to be is the provider of spiritual services to one or the other ethnic group (with the occasional interested stranger at best tolerated, never encouraged and certainly never sought out), then having more than one bishop in a city is just no problem. But if you claim to be the Apostolic Church, more than one bishop is a big problem. It gives the lie to your claim.
Which is it: an ethnic social and spiritual service provider, or the Catholic and Apostolic Church? It can't be both.
"So your view is that because the hierarchs understand and acknowledge that there is a problem on a theological level (as I have outlined it), that makes it OK for the situation (and the heterodoxy that it reveals) to persist more or less indefinitely."
I don't think one can take his statement to mean the above, or at least to that extent. The persistence of the situation is never acceptable, but it does not give lie to the claim of the Orthodox Church in America (in the broader sense, not just the OCA) of being part of the apostolic and catholic Church, that is unless its persistence ceases to be unacceptable to us. It is like faith and works. May one have faith, or doctrinal unity, without works, or jurisdictional unity? Well, I think that the appropriate response to this is, 'Oh Lord I believe, forgive my unbelief'. A cry which proves faith exists, if only as the grain of a mustard seed, and a cry that with grace shall never stand without works. I have a bit more to respond to concerning the status of other churches, but I haven't time today. Perhaps tomorrow.
Nope, not at all. What I am saying is that there is a BIG theological difference between recognizing this problem and saying it really doesn't matter anyway.
So whereas you might say that Orthodoxy in America doesn't look (at least in this context) like the Church of Sts. Ignatios or Cyprian, this does NOT mean it ISN'T still that very Church. Even New Testament Churches of a particular region (for example Corinth) were in need of correction from time to time.
I agree it is a problem and I agree that our hierarchs are failing to address it...I don't think it calls into question Orthodoxy's ecclesial claims. I have often said that this will be an issue that will be solved by the laity...like the hierarchs we could fix this problem quickly as well: walk out en mass and join the one autocephalous jurisdiction here in the states. A controversial thing for me to say, I know and I am not entirely willing to completely own the idea...but at least the hierarchs would wake up when they found their parishes empty on sunday morning.
No doubt there are many laypeople who are perfectly happy to remain "Greek" Orthodox or "Russian" Orthodox or "Arab" Orthodox...but again this is not something that reflects on the truth of Orthodoxy - anymore than Thomas' denial was a reflection of our Lord's teaching skills.