What say you?

[Dorothea]

Take a gander at this article, and please read the comments below in the blog article.

I take issue with many of them about Frederica's POV. The Orthodox Church isn't right because it's older. It's right because it was given and has preserved the Truth.


Frederica Mathewes-Green Doesn’t Quite Bash the Emerging Church

But, I do have to add....what are your thoughts on their problem with the ethnicity of the Orthodox Churches? Does this seem like a valid complaint? To a certain degree, I can agree with it. What do you say?

 

[boomersoonerliz]

I have to agree with you Dorothea.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

It's what I would expect her to say, and what I would expect protestants to respond with.

She's right of course, cutting off the traditions from Tradition is going to end in tradition's death (if it's not too artificial to discuss traditions like that). Perhaps not, as the blog-author thought she meant, in one individual, but in generations their children will not be venerating icons or praying with chotki. Orthodoxy (and it shares this with Roman Catholicism and some Anglicans) looks more at the long run (as one commenter pointed out) and whether the faith will be preserved until the Second Coming.

Her points are completely true, IMO. It's a point many make often in Orthodoxy; one must take the whole and cannot piece together just what one likes, one must be part of the Church to receive the lifeblood of Living Truth for certain throughout all time, one must experience Orthodoxy in its fullness to even understand it.

Having never encountered anything like this before Protestants cannot understand that taking this or that and using it in your spiritual life will probably help you for a while, but will ultimately be cast aside, whether because something newer and more interesting has come along (including newer arguments which change one's position) or because one encounters the spiritual dryness which is used by God to raise us to higher levels of devotion and, not realizing this is part of the Christian Life, they feel the practices are no longer 'helping' them. Protestantism is, at its center, a "pick and choose" faith, so it's no surprise that they should look to Orthodoxy and pick and choose what they like from our menu.

 

[Dorothea]

Thanks, Elizabeth.

It's what I would expect her to say, and what I would expect protestants to respond with.

She's right of course, cutting off the traditions from Tradition is going to end in tradition's death (if it's not too artificial to discuss traditions like that). Perhaps not, as the blog-author thought she meant, in one individual, but in generations their children will not be venerating icons or praying with chotki. Orthodoxy (and it shares this with Roman Catholicism and some Anglicans) looks more at the long run (as one commenter pointed out) and whether the faith will be preserved until the Second Coming.

Her points are completely true, IMO. It's a point many make often in Orthodoxy; one must take the whole and cannot piece together just what one likes, one must be part of the Church to receive the lifeblood of Living Truth for certain throughout all time, one must experience Orthodoxy in its fullness to even understand it.

Having never encountered anything like this before Protestants cannot understand that taking this or that and using it in your spiritual life will probably help you for a while, but will ultimately be cast aside, whether because something newer and more interesting has come along (including newer arguments which change one's position) or because one encounters the spiritual dryness which is used by God to raise us to higher levels of devotion and, not realizing this is part of the Christian Life, they feel the practices are no longer 'helping' them. Protestantism is, at its center, a "pick and choose" faith, so it's no surprise that they should look to Orthodoxy and pick and choose what they like from our menu.

True. It kind of bothered me when they said they take what the like but would never become Orthodox. That would take sacrifice and change, which it sounded like, from reading their comments, they didn't want. They didn't want to give up their own opinions and ideas.

I remember reading something of Carlton's a few years back that said it wasn't about what Church fits what I believe. It's about the Church taking you in and your changing and molding to what it teaches - through Christ.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

I remember reading something of Carlton's a few years back that said it wasn't about what Church fits what I believe. It's about the Church taking you in and your changing and molding to what it teaches - through Christ.

Yes. Similarly I recall having a difficult time trying to get a friend to understand once that if we never have difficulty believing in anything we believe in, how likely is it that our beliefs come from us vs. Someone Else?

 

[Dorothea]

Yes. Similarly I recall having a difficult time trying to get a friend to understand once that if we never have difficulty believing in anything we believe in, how likely is it that our beliefs come from us vs. Someone Else?

Good points! It seems to me it all revolves around being obedient to God and others. There are some who don't know theyre not being obedient to God in this way, so I'm not saying many people are doing it on purpose.

 

[MKJ]

I don't know Dorothea - are you Orthodox despite not thinking it is true? I don't imagine that is the case - you think it is true, so you subordinate yourself to it.

It sounds like you think though that other people should subordinate themselves to it even when they think it is not true. That is why non-Orthodox don't become Orthodox, whether they are correct or not. They take what they see is true, but they leave what they think is wrong. Which is I suspect very much how most people approach things you didn't think were wholly true.

 

[Dorothea]

I don't know Dorothea - are you Orthodox despite not thinking it is true? I don't imagine that is the case - you think it is true, so you subordinate yourself to it.

It sounds like you think though that other people should subordinate themselves to it even when they think it is not true. That is why non-Orthodox don't become Orthodox, whether they are correct or not. They take what they see is true, but they leave what they think is wrong. Which is I suspect very much how most people approach things you didn't think were wholly true.

Sure, it seems that way to me, and you would be right. My background is not of any other Christian faith, and all I did was rediscover Orthodoxy when I was an adult, so I suppose my opinions aren't really good ones.

 

[buzuxi02]

In the article the person says he wants a mosaic faith? What the heck is a mosaic faith? Something to do with Moses?

 

[MrJim]

In the article the person says he wants a mosaic faith? What the heck is a mosaic faith? Something to do with Moses?

 

[gracefullamb]

In the article the person says he wants a mosaic faith? What the heck is a mosaic faith? Something to do with Moses?

Are not mosaics those pictures that take a bunch of tiny pieces tiles or glass to and put them together to make the image. If that is right would it mean he is taking pieces of belief & praxis from Orthodox or other denominations to make up his own. At least that is how I took the statement, though I might be misunderstanding it.

The one website I found said it deals with Judaism or rather beliefs tracing back to Judaism. The other website states what I posted below.

As our name suggests, Mosaic represents a rich variety of backgrounds, lifestyles, and vocations. But we are united by belief in Jesus Christ and the hope he offers to us, our city, and our world.
Like many churches, Mosaic was founded with two key priorities: to grow in love for God and to grow in love for each other. We tend to do these best through the arts, hospitality, and community.
Here’s what that means: we try to live our faith creatively, offering welcome and safety to each other and to the people around us, helping each other to heal, grow, and discover our God-given destinies.
Other churches have different strengths; these are ours. If these things resonate with you, you’re welcome to come and see how they take shape among us.

 

[cristinasorina]

I believe a mosiac faith is their definition of a hodgepodge of beliefs that one finds true (sprinkle a little orthodoxy with a pinch of catholicism, and a dash of protestantism and viola!). At least thats the gist I got from the article.

I agree with Fredrica. Is it also not a matter of getting past ones pride to be able to submit to the Churches teachings? Afterall, do these pick and choose Christians think nothing of the Holy Fathers teachings or of the Ecumenical councils? That seems to be a pretty bold mindset to have.

 

[Dorothea]

I thought it seemed to center on pride, but since I don't know where Protestants are coming from, I suppose that's not accurate. But it probably is in some cases because we all struggle with pride.

 

[rusmeister]

Sure, it seems that way to me, and you would be right. My background is not of any other Christian faith, and all I did was rediscover Orthodoxy when I was an adult, so I suppose my opinions aren't really good ones.

Hi Dorothea,
If I may hit you with a Chestertonian crack, your opinions certainly ARE good ones, or else they are not your opinions. You may have ideas that are not opinions but only impressions, but that's another matter.

 

[rusmeister]

I don't know Dorothea - are you Orthodox despite not thinking it is true? I don't imagine that is the case - you think it is true, so you subordinate yourself to it.

It sounds like you think though that other people should subordinate themselves to it even when they think it is not true. That is why non-Orthodox don't become Orthodox, whether they are correct or not. They take what they see is true, but they leave what they think is wrong. Which is I suspect very much how most people approach things you didn't think were wholly true.

Hi MK,
I don't think you've expressed the problem correctly. Obviously, we think people SHOULD submit to the Church because it IS true, and where theythink things are not true they are wrong and need to discover why.
The problem we see on their side is that they rely too completely on their own wisdom and knowledge. They give unlimited license to what we give limited license to. We acknowledge enough to bring us to the Church, but not enough to correctly lead ourselves into all Truth.

As to how most people approach most things, they rarely do so as part of a complete and holistic philosophy, but as separate - I would say "broken-up" - consideration. If the Apostles had done that with Christ, we would all be screwed. As it is, that is precisely what many people did when He taught that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have salvation. They found the sayings hard, and left. The Apostles were the ones who set aside their own wisdom and accepted what Christ taught them, even though it went against their earthly knowledge.

 

[rusmeister]

But, I do have to add....what are your thoughts on their problem with the ethnicity of the Orthodox Churches? Does this seem like a valid complaint? To a certain degree, I can agree with it. What do you say?

I think it a valid complaint. Ethic clinging, above all in the US, is a stumbling block.

But outsiders meed to be aware that much that appears to their eyes as division is not truly division. Administrative division is not doctrinal, nor is it prescibed.

The ethic divisions in the US, administrative though they be, are doomed, one way or another. Either the American leaders will overcome the divisions and unite into one American Church, or they will persist in all of the legalistic reasons for the divisions and the Church in America will decline, and everyone will see it as an ethnic fashion thing. Everyone must categorically lay down all claims of territory and property in an All-American Council and accept the decisions arrived at to achieve that unity.

In the meantime, we need to repent of unwelcome and ethnic division.

 

[Dorothea]

Hi Dorothea,
If I may hit you with a Chestertonian crack, your opinions certainly ARE good ones, or else they are not your opinions. You may have ideas that are not opinions but only impressions, but that's another matter.

Thanks, Rus, and thank you for the couple of great and insightful posts after this one that you put forth.

 

[MKJ]

Hi MK,
I don't think you've expressed the problem correctly. Obviously, we think people SHOULD submit to the Church because it IS true, and where theythink things are not true they are wrong and need to discover why.
The problem we see on their side is that they rely too completely on their own wisdom and knowledge. They give unlimited license to what we give limited license to. We acknowledge enough to bring us to the Church, but not enough to correctly lead ourselves into all Truth.

As to how most people approach most things, they rarely do so as part of a complete and holistic philosophy, but as separate - I would say "broken-up" - consideration. If the Apostles had done that with Christ, we would all be screwed. As it is, that is precisely what many people did when He taught that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have salvation. They found the sayings hard, and left. The Apostles were the ones who set aside their own wisdom and accepted what Christ taught them, even though it went against their earthly knowledge.

I'm not sure how this speaks to what I said at all? My only point was that it seemed a gross and unfair conclusion to assume non-Orthodox do not become Orthodox because they are essentially lazy spiritually and do not want to submit to authority, rather than because they think some part of Orthodox teaching is incorrect? And equally that all Orthodox Christians are people who just somehow are willing to accept the truth and somehow even know where Truth resides without making some kind of judgement on what is true and thus there is nothing of themselves in it when they decide to submit.

I think it a valid complaint. Ethic clinging, above all in the US, is a stumbling block.

But outsiders meed to be aware that much that appears to their eyes as division is not truly division. Administrative division is not doctrinal, nor is it prescibed.

The ethic divisions in the US, administrative though they be, are doomed, one way or another. Either the American leaders will overcome the divisions and unite into one American Church, or they will persist in all of the legalistic reasons for the divisions and the Church in America will decline, and everyone will see it as an ethnic fashion thing. Everyone must categorically lay down all claims of territory and property in an All-American Council and accept the decisions arrived at to achieve that unity.

In the meantime, we need to repent of unwelcome and ethnic division.

You know, I've never quite understood why people find this kind of thing to be a theological issue, because to me it just seems like the kind of thing you expect in groups of people living together, or the kids of situations that would develop in a newly colonized country. While it clearly can be difficult for someone who is treated inappropriately, or even just feels very left out, I don't really get why it is a theological issue for some. But maybe that is because I am used to the idea of national churches that are in relation to each other.

But I have been a bit worried about a broader kind of ethic identification I've seen in the OC, and it's something that has made me unsure about whether it's claims about itself are really true - and I don't from conversations I've had think I'm unique in that. That is, there seems at times to be a kind of demand among many Orthodox Christians for a kind of unity of externals that seems worrisome to me.

To give a more concrete example, I belong to an Anglican parish that is, I suspect, one day going to be looking for a new home outside the Anglican Communion. I've wondered if when that happens it would be appropriate for me to suggest that we look at the Orthodox Church. But I wonder, what would the demands be on the parish for that? Of course there would be calls for legitimate change, like how Confession is practiced. But what about less clear or obvious practices? I worry that it would be rather like the synod of Whitby, when the Romans came to Britain and demanded that the British Church abandon many of it's own distinctive practices and conform to Roman ones. Which, being a good child to the Western Patriarch, it did without much fuss. But since we know how that turned out, I find myself a bit suspicious of similar attitudes as do many other catholic Anglicans.

I don't know if that is ethnocentrism exactly, but it is I think related and something I find myself considering and changing my mind about about once a month.