I don't necessarily want you to print this on your website, but rather I want "dialogue" in the strictest sense.
My name is XXX and I'm a student at XXXX Orthodox seminary in New York. I was raised Southern Baptist, renewed my committment to Christ mid way through college and continued in an Episcopal college ministry. The lack of authenticity and foundational truth in the Episcopal Church led me finally into the most ancient and traditional church in the world, the Orthodox Church.
I saw that you had read a couple of books by Orthodox writers, namely Fr. Schmemann…. I would like to suggest that these are not the meaty part of Orthodoxy, nor even of Schmemann's work (his best stuff can only be understood within the Orthodox context... he was truly brilliant). If you want to see some really superb Orthodox understandings I would suggest picking up some weighty books by our current staff/faculty such as The Road to Nicea and The Faith of Nicea by John Behr (this guy will be the foremost expert in Patristics in years to come), Introduction to the Old Testament vol. 1 by Fr. Paul Tarazi, or any of the tradition series by Jaroslav Pelikan. We're not all quite as cute and cuddly little living icons as some would like to believe.
I find that many view the Orthodox Church like fine china - pretty at a distance, but not to be used. unfortunately they often pick up books by overwhelmed non-professional-theologians who forward this vision. We get our share of those who are converted by a kind of spiritual masturbation with things odd and quirky (you know, born self-marginalizing contrarians). They like the Eastern chants and the Greek food I guess... whatever.
Now then, to my point (brevity is my forte... j/k). I find myself absolutely destroyed inside by two competing ideologies: Traditional authenticity and missionary flexibility. This is to say that I have a dual obsession with 2 aspect of Christianity which are often at odds. It seems that people have not learned how to have an authentic and apostolic discipline without also carrying along ethno-political baggage trains miles in length.
Let me illustrate. It is my firm belief that Orthodox have a perfect approach to scripture. We filter our scriptural readings through the tradition of the Church Fathers handed down through the apostolic succession of bishops. The Church really can say, without fear of contradiction, that their doctrines remain as they are. They've preserved the ancient faith, albeit with plenty of baggage in the area of praxis, in such a way that I think it is quite acceptable to those who evaluate it neutrally. The Church has maintained order and stability in ways that Protestants and even Catholics have found completely unattainable.
On the other hand, I find that practice of the faith is often wrapped up in Eastern packaging which is largely foreign to Western sensibilities. We ARE growing in America, but not nearly so much as we should be because well... for better or for worse many in our organizations just don't understand (or don't care to appreciate) the American mindset.
Not only that, but there are deeply ingrained "expectations" as to what church is supposed to be. Unfortunately due to Eastern European history, this varies from parish to parish, but tends to involve participation more than personal renewal.
In short, there is a large disconnect between what Orthodoxy has in its tradition and depths and what is actually experienced by an individual parishioner.
I actually agree with you to the utmost in most of your contentions, especially those you outlined in your own churchs "beliefs" section.
However, if you will permit me, I'd like to posit some problems and ask your responses...and... even wonder if I could respond to the reply if you wouldn't mind? I've got a potential resolution in mind, but I want to hear yours:
1. Apostolicity and the physical integrity of the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" cannot with intellectual integrity be thought to mean anything but that the authentic church is that church which has bishops in a line of ordination tracing back to the Apostles. As such, a REAL church, to be taken seriously as a return to the ideal church, needs in some sense to be apostolicly genuine.
2. We cannot simply ignore the rigors of the Nicene Creed without also undermining the Bible since it is the same body which authenticated the Scriptures.
3. The unstructured congregationalism which you seem to promote contributes just as much as anything to the fundamental belief that there is no "Truth" out there. i know that's not your intention, but it is actually disagreement on these matters which we may perceive as "peripheral" that in turn begins to marginalize our ability to speak as "Christians" outside of our local congregation. In short the success or failure of a church ends up being charisma of the clergy rather than something which can be given across time and space (ie: I am a member of the same Church the apostle Peter was).
4. The SAcramental aspect of the church is almost guarenteed sublimated in all evangelistic movements. This simply can't be justified in Christian history. Even the Reformation drastically short changed the Eucharist as "Real PResence". We do our faithful persecuted forefathers a complete injustice by adopting such a stance. Many died precisely to take the Body and Blood of Christ. We don't have to say transubstantiation, nor does communion per say need to be closed to any baptised Christian, but at the same time we should recognize the profound and lethally serious mystery which Christ instituted at the last supper, realized and remembered by all of the apostolic Church for centuries. I know that I might sound bold here, but it's just undeniable. Pull out any pre-Reformation non-heretic and I'll show you a man who understood my position to be correct.
5. The most authentic Christian faith is not the Reformation. I know that shakes worlds in America, but the simple fact is that the Reformation didn't Re-form anything, but rather formed something entirely new which had never been formed in the past. Therefore, I would suggest that we take serious the Catechesis materials of the ancient church (which we still have in the Didache and the Shepherd of
Hermas) in looking how to practically organize a Church. Extra-Biblical sources can be of the highest value when thinking about "Reformation" in the best sense of the word.
6. You need to read about Orthodox understandings of salvation
(theosis) and synergy (synergia). I believe in my heart of hearts that these could have resolved so many of the problems in terminology for the Reformation and counter-Reformation if Orthodox had been present at the dialogue. Synergy in particular provides a beautiful and moving explanation for how Christians deal with apparent contradictions (predestinate and free will, grace and works, etc).
7. Liturgy is the fundamental way that worship was done in the church for centuries. Only VERY recently has this kind of anarchic style of worship flourished. In order for a church to truly be Catholic (universal) it must have a linking style of praxis, particularly in Eucharistic prayer and Lectionary. Lectionaries ensure that the prayers and readings of the community are consistent and not an arbitrary "bullet point" hodgepodge of whatever the pastor feels like speaking about that day. Liturgy also keeps the prayers of the people consistent (though of course private prayer should be promoted as equally essential).
I have my own suggestions about resolving these tensions, but I want to hear your feelings on the things I've said.
Answer: I removed all personal information so others can benefit from your question. I wish I had time to dialogue with everyone who asks me, but since I don’t, I hope this will be at least a little helpful.
There is a small but growing number of Orthodox brothers and sisters engaging with the emergent conversation, and you all add a lot. You have a number of assumptions that I do not share: if I did, I would become Orthodox as you have. Meanwhile, I have learned so much from Orthodox authors. By the way, Fr. Schmemen’s work didn’t seem lightweight or “warm and fuzzy” to me at all – but rather rich, deep, honest, sincere, substantial, and thoughtful.
You’re frustrated with some things in Orthodoxy – things that keep your new-found home less missional than it could or should be. Yet these things may be necessary consequences of the assumptions you now hold, so I don’t think I can help you: It hink you’ll either need to adapt some of your assumptions, or reduce your missional expectations. I have two suggestions:
1. If you “send up a trial balloon” at the emergentvillage.com website, or perhaps at theooze.com, you may find other Orthodox folk to dialogue with.
2. If you and other Orthodox friends would ever like me to join you – I’d love to try to be with you.
I especially have been influenced by Orthodox soteriology and spiritual formation. My Orthodox friends sometimes criticize me, thinking that I’m like the guy who goes into a candy shop and licks a lot of the lollipops – because I’m too cheap to buy just one and stick to it. They suggest that I shouldn’t borrow anything from Orthodoxy unless I embrace it all. But what if Orthodoxy helps me see resources that have been there in the Bible all along – and so I’m actually rooting my discoveries in the Bible?
That’s not to deny that it’s possible that I and others might be dilettantes or “grazers” – that’s always a danger. But even then, we may be engaging with the meaning behind Orthodox practices more deeply than many Orthodox folk themselves – who, as you imply, don’t always know what treasure they have! If you send me your thoughts on the questions you raise, I’ll make sure we post them here on the site, as long as they’re not too lengthy.
I hope we’ll get to meet in person sometime.