Sitting with the wise replies to the Emerging Orthodox post I am impressed again with the great wisdom which comes from engaging the Holy Tradition. The wisdom of “us” (which always includes the presence of God by the Holy Spirit) is always greater than the wisdom of “I.” Thus the community decision making (councils, etc.) as part of the unfolding drama of the living church as practiced by the Eastern Church reflects the relationality of God in a way that the Roman Papacy and Protestant here-I-stand-convictions simply can’t.
My journey over the last few years allowed for increasingly influence from folks like George Dragas, David Ford, Christos Yannaras, Avery Dulles, Christopher Hall, Francis George, Susan Wood, Kenneth Tanner and Tom Oden in their (and many others) work toward developing a New Ecumenism. Books like Nicene Christianity, The Rebirth of Orthodoxy, Generous Orthodoxy, and After Our Likeness have been leading me in the direction of submitting to the living historical community of God.
Last night in the “Church” class at Mars Hill Graduate School there was a great group presentation of the Lutheran Church. During the presentation one of the Lutheran church crests was displayed…
What struck me as I saw the crest this time, was the word “alone.” Granted, there was a historical context . . . but “alone” has in so many ways been the battle cry and the heart ache associated with so much of protestant faith.
The Orthodox churches’ emphasis on self-emptying service, stemming from its understanding of the perichoretic inner life of God stands at the center of its practice of church life. This kind of church practice is not cool or relevant and will rarely grow the kinds of hip ministries that emergent/YS readers want read about. And yet this kind of service marks the very life of God and thus can mark the life of God’s people.
In so many ways I am a budding student of the Eastern Church, they have lived mystery, engaged story, listened to history, pursued costly oneness, etc in ways that I and so many in the Western tradition are beginning to wake up to. I still struggle with some Eastern practices when it comes to the praxis of incarnational theology.
Having been influenced by the Eastern Church in recent years I am coming to describe ecclesiology as: Pneumatological, incarnational, social construction. Emphasizing church a community socially constructed by the presence of the Holy Spirit together with the Saints of old, its current “members” and those who will be part of the church, with all the particularity of incarnation.
Having never participated in the ongoing life of an Orthodox community I can only wonder about just how Eastern an Orthodox church can be in the West. Churches do not stand apart from culture but perichoretically embody Christ within the particularities of culture. I can only imagine the kinds of questions American Orthodox communities must wrestle with regarding the honoring of traditions in a culture which does not, or consensus building in a culture of individualism, and consumerism. How difficult if must be as protestant groups scavenge the Holy Traditions picking and choosing whatever “works for them” thus contributing to the commodification of Orthodox tradition.
The theology of the Eastern church is filled with the riches of mystery, relationality, paradox which seem – from my vantage point – to foster faith, hope and love, while the theologies of the West tend toward comparatively simple systems with a working assumption that one system has got to be the Right System often located in the work of an individual (Luther, Calvin, Arminius, Simons, Knox, Wesley, etc). Though I don’t know about the East, the Western church seems to shine in aiding people within their communities to own their faith, mission, and piety.
I have a growing sense of my need for my Eastern brothers and sisters. I don’t know what I have to offer them, other than my person. And please hear me, when I say “my person” I mean that as a social-self or a codividual. As a social self I can say, “here I stand” but I am not alone.
Peace, dwight
ps – Sky I’d love to buy you a coffee or a pint.
I understand the draw of the rich theologians in the orthodox and the catholic traditions. I understand the appeal of a contextualized scripture throughout the ages rather than a textbook to teach laws from today.
I even have enjoyed the richness of services.
But I dont know that the theology that we engage with is the religion practiced by most worshippers. Maybe you dont have to know the theories to understand – but then arent you approaching magic and ritualism?
However, I dont know that I will ever say to another follower of Christ – I am not willing to be your neighbor and share in communion with you nor can I ever say to a sister that I am somehow better than she because Jesus and I both had penises.
I love the mystery but even before orthodoxy there are matters of orthopraxy on which I have too many questions.
dwight, what a rich generous and disarming response.
grazi! you articulated many of the themes that launched me on my journey to Orthodoxy. i can hardly improve on them. and since youve outlined a framework of some of the whys and wherefores from a theological/historical/spiritual perspective, lets talk a little praxis now. because at the end of the day, orthodox spirituality is not conceptual… it is lived and experienced and expressed. it is encounter. an encouter first with the Persons of the Trinity, then expressed as self-emptying love.
so let me try to add to your post by sympathizing with you on your comment about the praxis of incarnational theology…
now i am not entirely clear what questions you may have about incarnational praxis, but let me assume that they have something to do with how a real orthodox community may appear from the outside, or what you may find deficient on the inside, given your heart to take the gospel to the culture.
meaning, straight up, there may be those orthodox churches in america that sill appear ethnically bound, ghettoized, closed communities, with no real sense of "mission" or open "evangelism" or, well… "life"…
ie, the my big fat greek wedding cliche of, once the dude was baptized and chrismated his new family all cheered and said "now your greek!". whatever. heresy.
because we are communal creatures, and because many emergents desire a vibrant community, i know that the feel and warmth and missionality of a faith community is essential. and i would say that that is true for me as well. essential, but not singular. ie, faith without works is dead. social justice or mere relationality without a community encountering God and worshipping God is, to borrow from James, dead.
that said, i think it is very important to realize that the expression of orthodoxy in america is very young. the question of "what will the orthodox church look like in america" is just beginning to be addressed. were in a kind of infancy… and while that is not literally true, it is true in a way.
some of the very first expressions of christianity on american soil came from russian missionaries to alaska several centuries ago. and rather than sit them down and preach to them about the evils of their pagan ways, they lived among them, served them, loved them, and conversions to Christ happened as the native alaskans asked for it, were drawn in by transfigured lives. but that kind of model of mission work did not take root in the lower states. instead, orthodoxy really began to take root in america with immigrant generations streaming in during the last century.
america always has been an enormous experiment. the proverbial melting pot. as immigrants fled from war or various homeland troubles, or towards a new start, they did what most would do… birds of a feather flocked together. ie, in big cities you had your jewish district, your italian district, your irish district, and yes… your russian and your greek and your serbian and syrian districts. so the immigrants formed not only their own banks and stores and businesses to meet the needs of the community, they also formed their own churches, in their own languages, and *still ecclesiologically connected* to the bishops in their respective mother-lands. beleagured immigrants in an unfamiliar culture created a sense of the old world in the new world, so to speak. and so you had greek churches pop up next to russian churches, with little exchange between them. and so today, just 60-70 years later, you have three primary orthodox churches:
1. the orthodox church in america (OCA)… still a tad russian in ethnicity
2. the antiochian church… independant from but still connected to the bishop in syria… the antiochian church has a lot of protestant converts mixed with various middle east ethnicities. st pauls in lynwood is an antiochian church, with fr james bernstein. he was actually an orthodox jew, then an evangelical and one of the initial founders of Jews for Jesus, and now a long time orthodox priest… a wonderful man. you all should invite him to speak at marshill grad school.
3. the greek orthodox church… still, well… greek.
and then you have various serbian and romanian and even ROCOR churches. there has been great effort at having these churches unite under a common american orthodox church. that would naturally be the OCA… but there are difficulties. im not entirely clear of all the difficulties, however as a member of the OCA i personally havent felt any significant disunity when i visit a greek or antiochian church. in fact, i appreciate the diversity expressed with *such synchronicity*. ie, even tho there are various ethnic expressions, it is still the same faith, the same liturgies, calendar, fasts, sacraments, the same general praxis. its quite beautiful and acutually, if you really dive into the history… IT IS STUNNING that across so many centuries of conflict and divsion and war and cultural tensions… that the Orthodox Church as remained so very unified worldwide.
as a gent recently wrote at blogodoxy.com:
"The ancient Orthodox Church survived the persecutions under the Roman emperors, the Muslim conquests, and the communist purges. It is a manifest historical fact, that through all the change in cultures, history, and thought, Orthodoxy has maintained a consistent doctrine, a consistent worship, a consistent way of life (though with local variations). Two thousand years is a pretty great track record."
so lets take my home parish for example: st spiridon. http://www.saintspiridon.org (check out the website by the way). its the blue/white onion dome-y church by REI. 25 years ago father vadim was sent to, essentially, shut it down. it was down to a handful of russian families, with services in 9th century slavonic (similiar to a catholic church with few people and services in latin)… ive heard stories of people showing up and the old babushkas saying "vat you do-ink here, you not russian?!".
no longer. today saint spiridons is bustling. regular converts, a health community, a great deal of giving, involvement in the local community. lots of new children. we are about 40% cradle orthodox (those baptised as children) and about 60% converts… with more converts coming in, in ones and twos year round. and yes, we have the same issues of sin and dysfunction as ANY community does. pride, selfishness, inconsiderateness, anger, etc… and so we should. we are in a passage, growing towards the likeness of God.
so all this to say, there are a great number of questions for orthodox parishes in america. these questions are being addressed in earnest amongst the clergy, in seminaries, by lay people, on blogs… etc…
(it is a secret hope of mine that many in the emergent church, if their hearts were captured and captivated by the Spirit alive in the Eastern Church… if they could grasp the total way and vision of life that she expresses… that many emergent christians would take their energy and passion and DESIRE and bring it to bear IN the orthodox church… rather than merely borrow a few tokens of fabric from the deeper tapestry and then strive to remake a coat of many colors where a garment has already been woven over the last 2000 years… but that is my own desire, which comes out of my story. becoming orthodox meant coming home and resting in the fullness of Church, where i didnt have to feel so much ambivalence and angst to re-create the church. i could instead use that energy of emergent angst and desire to – love my wife, to truly begin to pray, to care for my community… to BE and EMERGE as a christian! again, this is just my selfish desire for the emergent community… out of my own story).
now to my last point. in terms of praxis… there is only so much conceptualizing that can be done. at the end of the day, to really get any of this you simply need to enter into the rhythm of life in a parish… it takes a bit of time. i know thats not easy for many. however praxis is not just horizontally expressed as social justice and vibrant welcoming community groups… it is also the rhythm of self-emptying worship. of encounter with God in a posture of surrender.
if there are two themes to know about the orthodox church, they are these: communion and martyrdom. or also expressed as surrender and union.
so let me offer this. not in an attempt to convert anyone or anything like that… but since were talking about incarnation: for those of you in seattle holy week for us is this coming april 24th through may 1st. we have services every day/night. easter, or as we call it "pascha" (meaning passover) at st spiridons is celebrated with a liturgy that starts at 11:30pm at night, and concludes with a huge feast at about 3:30am in the morning may 1st. we also have services throughout Great Lent this month… every week… particularly on wednesday nights and saturday nights. come to some of the mid-week or holy week services… particularly the one on thursday night on holy week. it will seem a bit alien, strange, perhaps also beautiful, but speaking of incarnation, it will put some "flesh" to what were talking about. and then we can go have that pint!
jeff,
you said: \" arent you approaching magic and ritualism?\"
what makes you say this? i\m not clear. to be sure, orthodoxy is inherently mystical. apophatic (negative) theology VS cataphatic (positive) theology. it is a way of interior encounter expressed through love. there are Mysteries in our faith. the greatest of course being the Eucharist. but mysticism doesn\t mean magic… it means union. as the catholic mystic evelyn underhill said \"mysticism is the art of union with God\". and for us, this art if you will, is not esoteric… it is physical, practical, touching on the real issues of sin, repentance, and love in your real life.
you also said \"I dont know that I will ever say to another follower of Christ – I am not willing to be your neighbor and share in communion with you\"
i\m not sure where you ever heard the part about not willing to be a neighbor…sorry, i can\t address that. as for closed communion, well… historically the apostolic churches have always been closed communion. look at the history of the Eucharist. communion was ALWAYS the END of union in the community, NOT THE MEANS TO ATTAIN UNITY. ie, we certainly long for union amongst all christians, and we are among some of the most active in worldwide ecumenical groups. but the Eucharist has never been the means to attain that union… it is the end result of that union. not to go into the history and theology of it… but closed communion certainly exists in the vast majority of BOTH Roman Catholic churches (altho many american catholic churches has a \dont ask dont tell\ policy) AND in many many Protestant churches. in fact, there are many protestant churches that would not even consider catholics or orthodox to be \christian\. egad. they even send missionaries to orthodox countries! i can remember many a southern baptist service as a kid, when communion was offered you had to not only be an evangelical christian, but a *member of that local church* to partake. and for centuries in the early church, communion was an almost secret thing. if you were a catachumen (ie, on a journey towards becoming christian) you were allowed to stay for the first half of the liturgy… the liturgy of prayer and teaching… but the second half of the liturgy (and you can still see this distinction in catholic and even anglican liturgies) is focused on the Eucharist… and in the early church, the catechumens were dismissed to, essentially, sunday school. they were initiated into the mystery of Eucharist after they were a full member of the Church. i\m not trying to convince you, just to give some historical and even current context. those who offended by closed communion often dont know the history of the develoment of Eucharist, and are in fact a historical minority in all the 30,002 demoninations that call themselves christian. but again, not to convince you… i DO get the spirit of what offends you.
lastly, you said in the same sentence: \"…nor can I ever say to a sister that I am somehow better than she because Jesus and I both had penises\".
this is TOTALLY false. again, i dont know where you EVER heard this. but my sense is that it has to do with the ordination of women. without going into another long time in dwight\s blog comments, let me just say that the Orthodox church first and foremost ENTIRELY rejects the quite worldly (in the worst sense) notion that to be \"important\" or \"better-than\" is to be in a position of power and leadership. we do not agree with the foundation from which you raise your critique. that foundation is anti-Christian. Christ came in meekness, humility, and said that the most powerful among you will be your servant. paul taught that the man was to love his wife as Christ loved the church and was crucified for-her, and the wife is to submit to the husband. as i\m sure you\re aware, the passage has to do with mutual submission. in our Church, women are saints, teachers, theologians, missionaries, monastics, and so on. but yes, there is a theology of gender in regards to the priesthood. but you must be assured that it is in NO WAY based on the western politic of better-than VS less-than. and this is where it gets tricky… if you want to understand our theology of gender, you have to start with Mary. who is revered as the first among us, as the pinnacle of what it means to be a Christian. remember those themes of union and surrender. Mary embodies those. giving her soul, her status, her very body to incarnate God. and not as passive and helpless, but she participated *in her womanhood* AS the space for life to arise-within, in giving birth to God. again, with the themes of NT gender… themes of mutual submission… where the priest is a type of icon, an image, of Christ, laying down his life in sacrificial service to the Bride… and the Church is an icon of Mary, surrendering and incarnating God in the world.
and in our parish, the women are QUITE important, active, involved, powerful, whatever adjective you want to use. i\ve not encountered the kind of woundedness i experienced in SO many of the evangelical churches i\ve been a part of. that\s not to say it isnt there. i\m sure we could both drag up the worst examples of how women are treated in our respective churches.
but again, let me just reiterate that the assumption your critique comes from is a false one as applied to the Eastern Church. in Christ we are neither male or female, and we are fully and mutually participators in our respective genders.
Dwight, Im just trying to see why my response to your latest journal entry didnt show up.
AHHHHHHHHHH. . .and Ive been waiting for this conversation for quite some time. If a beer or pint is shared, may I come?
Egads – I knew I was too terse with my comments yesterday and thank you for the approaches that you took hearing them.
BTW I did get to meet Fr Bernstein while taking worship at mhgs and he is a wonderful man.
I understand that close and closed communion are more typical practices – my complaint is that an extreme measure of exclusion in the apostolic era has become a common division amongst a fractured body today. I think that you see that though.
The penises comment had especially too much vitriol. Yes, God has placed me where I walk alongside many women preparing for ordination and to have a voice that has been long silenced. I think that there is much more to be discussed on the theology of gender. I suspect the evangelical church needs to learn even more about how the pastor (male or female) is in a biblically feminine role with respect to Christ as a representative of the body of the church.
These are two of the driving factors for why I am working within the existing mainline church as much or more than within evangelical churches.
Lastly my first comment on magic and ritualism is a critique of the separation between the theologians and congregants. It may be more accurately applied to some of my catholic friends or protestant friends. (I dont know that any of my orthodox friends grew up in the faith.) By magic I refer to our attempts to control God through appeasement/sacrifice/obedience. I suspect that the health and wealth heresy of the mega-churches are much more examples of this than anything in the orthodox tradition.
OK now Im taking up too much space on Dwights blog.
I look forward to beer as well, if I might be invited.
Jeff
hey jeff… looks like were going to several of us sharing pints, and i respect the fact that these are two issues that run very deep with you. a few comments:
you said: " an extreme measure of exclusion in the apostolic era has become a common division amongst a fractured body today. "
not sure if you mean that the exclusion in the apostolic era is what has *caused* the divisions today?
the division which existed in the apostolic era wasnt a question of keeping people out… it was a question of, in many ways, fighting with Gnosticism and striving to affirm who Christ was: fully God and fully Man.
i would think that the roots of most of the actual and real division we experience today comes from quite literally the East-West Great Schism in 1054, and then of course the West-West Reformation. and i would also include the Gnostic movement(s) as well. these three are each historically the most significant turning points in terms of real and formalized division. im not an academic historian, but it seems clear to me that the motivating ethos of all three of those movements are still alive and well today. ie:
* you see Gnosticism all the time (da vinci code anyone? mainline liberalism anyone?)…
* in one sense, a core ethos of the reformation is still alive even in the Emergent movement (ie, critique–> serious reformulation–> a new movement that moves out of the old–> even more division. 30,000 denominations and growing.
* the Great Schism… well, the Catholics & Orthodox still struggle over the issue of Papal Supremecy, and theres still some bad blood over Vatican-influenced political moves in Europe and Eastern Europe. and the Orthodox can just be plain pig-headed about these things sometimes. i dont claim to entirely know why. in part because i think there are deep national/cultural issues mixed in.
now im not sure how THOSE divisions leads to the issue of closed communion…
but i can say a bit more about it from the Orthodox persepective. her consciousness remains the consciousness of a Church committed to maintaining the conciliar, collegiate, community-centric ethos from Pentecost until present… there is a *living* lineage that has stood an enormous test of time, starting with the early consciousness that would not compromise with the Gnostics over trying to reach an ecumenical least common denominator. ie, either the Church was One and Whole and Catholic and *actually* United in essential matters, or not. you can read the first 1000 years of church history through that lens… and so to this day, the Orthodox Church still refuses to appeal to the lowest common denominator as a way to define the Church. otherwise, that lowest common denominator can quite easily continue to be reduced… i mean, why not include Mormons, JWs, the KKK, further… why not include other non-Christian religions as part of the Church? i mean, in that context, even many Emergent Protestants would claim to have actual limits… they wouldnt necessarily consider Sadhu priests to be a part of the Church (altho perhaps some emergents would… i know a few).
for many who would claim that the Church is made up of a collaged, invisible group whose set is defined by a lowest common denominator of, say, belief in Christ… or the Nicene Creed… there is in that definition still a kind of real Limit.
all this to say, closed communion comes from the ethos that the Mystery of the Eucharist is an expression of the FULLNESS and COMPLETION of a unity that really does actually exist in physical, space/time reality (ie, shared faith, praxis, context, worship, etc…) and not in an invisible community that could never actually be known or interacted with.
now from here we can go down many rabbit trails. and before that, let me just say that there is DEEP and PROFOUND and ACTIVE acknowledgement that we can never, never, NEVER limit God… we can never deny that God is in the emergent movment, any more than we could deny that God is at work in the life of a Sadhu priest. in other words, we take quite seriously John 3:8… the Spirit blows where the Spirit wills… and at the same time, while we remain open to the Spirit working wherever the Spirit chooses… we will affirm where God actually IS… at work in His church. there is a bit of a paradox here. we can say where God is… in His bride, but we cannot say where God is not. and what that calls us to in a very real sense, is, well… love, and humility.
i doubt very much that any of this will help, or even sound very palatable. nevertheless.
as for women… again i hear in your comment that a motivating drive here is political and rights-based. ie, women have been "silenced", and therefore a political/social wrong must be addressed and rectified, and the way to do that is to put women in the positions of power that they have been wrongly denied. i guess that what undergirds the assumptions of that critique are, again, just not entirely relevant to why women OR men would be ordained in the Orthodox church.
the goal for any committed Orthodox is personal martyrdom and communion with God… a whole living surrender that moves one towards deeper union with God through love. ie, again: Mary. and those two themes of surrender and union saturate everything in the Church, from ecclesiology, to theology, to worship, really everything. and these two themes, sourced from Scripture, determine where real "power" exists. again, if anyone would be great, let them become the least and the last.
that said, there is a significant conversation happening in Othodoxy about ordaining women into the Diaconate. the Diaconate is the body of ordained ministers in the church… it includes Readers, Deacons, Priests, and Bishops (and various sub-sets of each). historically, women WERE ordained into the Diaconate, specifically as Deacons, and had a significant and diverse role. many Orthodox communities worldwide are discussing what it could mean and look like to revive this (and in fact, a jurisdiction in Greece recently DID). personally, i really really wish they would revive this – but NOT from the context of wrongs that need to be righted and therefore the priesthood gets reduced to a personal right in the fight for equality.
in fact, women in orthodoxy CANNOT been silenced… whether than woman is Mary, or Mary Magdalene (who weve always formally called "equal to the Apostles") or any of the countless Saints, theologians, writers, martys, etc… because again – where real power lives, where real power occurs, is not in holding a title or an office… but in the living work of divinization, of union with God. in this way, many of the most "powerful" people in our history were poor, indigent, monastics, hermits, outcasts, men, women, even children… people who through love became transfigured into the likeness of Christ. THAT is where the power is.
on this same theme, we say that "theologians" are NOT those who read books and can talk or write at length "about" God. but theologians are those who experience God in prayer. theology as theoria.
as for priests… well, there is a common saying about priests, it comes from St John Chrysostom… he said quite plainly that the road to hell is lined with the skulls of priests and bishops.
look fwd to that pint w/ you all. when?
Fortunately there may be lots of beer available to be shared, further proof that God loves us. (I love St Brigids description of the lake of beer in heaven.)
My comment of the extreme measure of apostolic was that of denying communion within the community. I was not associating that in any way causally with the splittings that exist today but rather mourning that the practice of closed communion in effect systematizes an exclusionary practice. I see closed communion not as a protection of relationship but as an honoring and affirming of the fractured relationship. I dont want to honor sin.
Part of my motivation with women is the justice thing but also there the knowledge that I need to hear. If not for my mother, grandmothers and sisters – I would not know God (certainly not as well and possibly not at all) as I do today.
I am encouraged by the step toward returning to the Diaconate of women and the honoring of Mary and Mary.
I broke bread today with a Mormon.
shalom,
Jeff
One paradigm to check out in Seattle is on First Hill – there is a group made up of Orthodox, Reorrganized Mormons, etc., that has been pursuing unity.
the Gospel IS exclusionary. its an opt-in exclusion. just like marriage.
we will of course agree to disagree, but let me just say that it is just not the case that the only people the Church ever hears from, or who ever impacts
the life/praxis/consciousness of the Church, are ordained men… that would just be completely inaccurate. although i could see how this could be the case within protestatism, in that in the profound ABSENCE of remembering/reverencing/naming saints and stories and martyrs and feast days would lead one to only hear the voice of whoever is in the pulpit. alas.
dwight~ i was raised unchurched as a kid, church stuff takes me a little while to process because it wasnt raised with it . . . i often tell my wife that i feel as though i belong in the remedial classes at the byzantine seminary that i am attending at the rate of a truant middle school kid . . . but thus far that not an option . . .
i printed out your post and read it in the quietest place in our house . . . i need to tell you i have been blogging for a little over 2 years and this is one of the most insightful homegrown posts ive read related to emerging church . . .
i came into the church through the stream of protestant evangelicalism . . . i am now looking back at the unified voice of the Church in both the roman and orthodox churches to retrofit my life-praxis . . .
you raised several particularly points regarding:
the will to power and the great schism,
the importance of the 7 councils,
honoring difference by by encouraging the multiplicity of leaders,
non-progressive theology,
Romans relationships to the Caesars,
the protestant reformation in a contextless text,
Protestantisms contribution of bible studies,
the yeast like function the Church has within the world rather than making the church the entire loaf
these things were very concise and will be deposited in my binder that i look at and write in . . . i really appreciated your insights . . . this wasnt just more stuff on the emerging church from my seat . . . peace: : :
david