Article on Scary Politics in Orthodoxy

3,045 Views | 32 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by AgLiving06
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I found this article interesting because it enlightened me as to the on the ground realities of Orthodoxy and reminded me of schisms in the Baptist and Methodist polities.

Quote:

Some background: Orthodox Christian ecclesiology is pretty much a confederacy of national churches, all believing the same things, and worshiping in the same way, but administered by national hierarchies. The Russian Orthodox Church is the Orthodox Church in Russia. The Greek Orthodox Church is the Orthodox Church in Greece. And so forth. They're all normally in communion with each other. If you're a Russian traveling in Greece, you can go to communion in a Greek Orthodox parish, no problem.

It's confusing to Americans, because we have so many different Orthodox churches here in the US. It's not supposed to be that way, but that's how it happened, with each immigrant group bringing its own hierarchy over. We're supposed to have a single Orthodox church in our country, but it hasn't happened, and might never happen. We're all in communion with each other, though.
------
That's probably about to change, and for ugly reasons.

The two great rival churches in Orthodoxy are the Greeks and the Russians. This goes back many centuries. In Orthodox ecclesiology, the Patriarch of Byzantium has historically been considered the first among equals. Orthodoxy does not have a pope; it's ruled collegially, by synods. The Byzantine patriarch is more like the Archbishop of Canterbury in that way. After Byzantium fell to the Ottomans, the Moscow the Russian church became the de facto great power in world Orthodoxy. The Byzantine patriarch now called the Ecumenical Patriarch has continued on all these years as a figurehead. The current one, Bartholomew, lives in a small quarter in Istanbul. Unlike Moscow, he has no money, but he does have the power, by virtue of his office, to grant "autocephaly" the right to self-rule to national churches in communion with his See.
(I have probably oversimplified this explanation. Forgive me. It's complicated.)

So, the crisis coming to a head right now threatens to split world Orthodoxy. Since Russia and Ukraine began fighting, a large number of Ukraine-based Orthodox parishes have wanted to break away from the Moscow Patriarchate and form a Ukrainian Orthodox patriarchate a national church independent from Moscow. Moscow has fought this hard. For one, a huge number of parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church are in Ukraine. To lose them would be a big, big blow to Moscow. For another, Ukraine is the birthplace of Russian Orthodoxy, in the 10th century. It is hard to overstate how much this means to Russian Orthodoxy, on an emotional and symbolic level.

But if the breakaway Ukrainian Orthodox bishops ask the Ecumenical Patriarch for autocephaly, he can grant it and, according to this report today, is moving very quickly to do that. If this happens, there will almost certainly be a schism between Moscow and the Ecumenical Patriarchate. World Orthodoxy will likely split along lines of those faithful to the EP, and those who align with Russia. It will be a severe wound to the body of Orthodoxy, and highlights Orthodoxy's greatest weakness: its lack of unity.
------
The Moscow Patriarchate, aka the Russian State Church, has a disproportionate number of its believers and parishes in the Ukraine. Ukraine wants as much separation as possible from the Putin kleptocracy, to include its servant church. As per this AP report last month:

The nexus between Russia's intelligence and religious establishments survived the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union and the KGB's reorganization into the FSB, according to Moscow-based political analyst Dmitry Oreshkin. "Our church leaders are connected to the FSB and their epaulettes stick out from under their habits," Oreshkin said. "They provide Vladimir Putin's policy with an ideological foundation."


Their solution? Apply to the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople (Istanbul) for a tomos of autocephaly that would mean independence from the KGB church in Moscow.
This request, brought personally by the Ukrainian head of state and spurring a visit from Patriarch Kyrill to Istanbul in response, gives Constantinople the first bit of leverage it has had in years against the state-supported Russian church. The attempt at an Oeceumenical Synod last year the first steps toward union with Rome were blocked by the Slav churches in obedience to Moscow and at the anything-but-universal Synod by anti-ecumenist bishops from Greece who refused to recognize the papist heresy as a "church" akin to the Orthodox Church. The Ukraine tomos possibility gives Constantinople, essentially toothless in any political or ecclesial battle with the well funded Russian State Church, a chance for payback and to assert its claims to 'first among equals' status in the Orthodox world.
-------
Here's the thing.

What you find is that it is all about politics, demographics, money, and power.
Autocephaly, though, is supposed to be granted in recognition of a daughter church's maturity in the faith, i.e., that it producing wonder working saints, an Orthodox culture, and a distinct aspect of Christ unique to its part of the world.

This is what made the Russian State Church's awarding of autocephaly to the Metropolia, now 'The Orthodox Church in America,' during the Vietnam War such a comi-tragic farce. It was a pay-off for tribute and the transfer of the Orthodox Church of Japan to Moscow's control, not a token of American sanctity or Orthodox maturity.

Everything has to be politics now, not just the reporting, but in the Church leadership itself. They don't even bother to pretend that the tomos would be in recognition of anything spiritual.

As an Orthodox monk shared with me:
It amazes me how utterly political all of these matters are to the prevailing "Orthodox world." There was a time when autocephality[cephaly] was, at least ideally, akin to a recognition of a local Church's spiritual maturity and status. Today, superficial issues of demographics, power alignment, and even ecumenical consensus from heterodox voices obtain. Analogous would be the tonsuring of a Great Schema monastic because he or she has a sufficiently well-sewn or brightly colored analabos for the ceremony of tonsure. No need for an new name. Just use the largely unused "church name."

Anyway, there are a bunch of links below that show just how bad the political infighting is between the equivalents of the Vatican in the Orthodox world. Note especially the fears in Istanbul that Patriarch Kyrill would poison Bartholomew in some kind of FSB hit.
The Catholics have it bad, that's for sure. But in these end times, the figurehead leaders of Orthodox, Inc., are at least as worldly and disconnected from anything of Christ as Francis and company.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-ugly-politics-of-orthodoxy/
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I like Dreher and agree with a lot of what he says but he can be overly dramatic at times. This is one of those times.

The reality on the ground is nothing like what I experienced in Protestant churches with the theological "circular firing squad" (as dermdoc puts it), and rival theological factions. I got to see a church split unfold and it was not fun.

But you don't believe me and want to test me out?
Go to an Antiochian Church and tell them you're Greek. Or go to a Greek Church and tell them you're Russian. Etc. No one will care. They celebrate the same Liturgy.

Now go to First Baptist in Dallas and tell them you are a mainline liberal who believes everyone is saved. Or go to a hyper-Calvinist Church and tell them you believe in free will. Or go to an Episcopalian Church and tell them that they need greater outreach to save sinners from hell. How well do you think you'll be received?

It is sad that politics came into the Ukraine/Russian situation, but it's never even been discussed once that I've heard in my parish. It's just a non-issue in our spiritual life.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

will be a severe wound to the body of Orthodoxy, and highlights Orthodoxy's greatest weakness: its lack of unity.

lol ok
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gator03 said:

I like Dreher and agree with a lot of what he says but he can be overly dramatic at times. This is one of those times.

The reality on the ground is nothing like what I experienced in Protestant churches with the theological "circular firing squad" (as dermdoc puts it), and rival theological factions. I got to see a church split unfold and it was not fun.

But you don't believe me and want to test me out?
Go to an Antiochian Church and tell them you're Greek. Or go to a Greek Church and tell them you're Russian. Etc. No one will care. They celebrate the same Liturgy.

Now go to First Baptist in Dallas and tell them you are a mainline liberal who believes everyone is saved. Or go to a hyper-Calvinist Church and tell them you believe in free will. Or go to an Episcopalian Church and tell them that they need greater outreach to save sinners from hell. How well do you think you'll be received?

It is sad that politics came into the Ukraine/Russian situation, but it's never even been discussed once that I've heard in my parish. It's just a non-issue in our spiritual life.
Reminds me of a guest preacher at my (Assembly of God) church this past Sunday. He said that the problem with right wing fundamentalism and left-wing fundamentalism (social justice gospel which is anthropomorphic) is that they have no solution for dealing with the day to day life and spiritual issues of the believer (my paraphrase).
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yeah, I agree with that. I think you've mentioned your Methodist background before; they are a good case study. Wesley himself was influenced by the Eastern fathers (see the paper below), and the spiritual component has always seemed important for Methodists.

However, over time many leaders have taken the Methodist church into the theological area inhabited first by Unitarians and Episcopalians, namely, an area where the attention of the church is turned towards the drafting of social statements on contemporary problems.

You see this from Protestants on both "left" and "right" and you see it from Catholics (see the Pope as example 1A). I think the danger there is that you start to get entranced by worldly issues and that becomes the "end" of your church.
https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I sort of chuckled when reading about how idyllic things were in the past. I'm working my way through the History of Byzantium podcast, and around 900 the Bulgarians converted to Christianity. There was a big fight between the Pope and the Patriach over who would have authority. Bulgaria was instead granted an independent church, and Byzantium immediately sent missionaries to show them what it meant to be Christian. So it was on some level a very similar situation over a thousand years ago. Some people like to idealize the past, but things have always been as screwed up as they are now.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

Yeah, I agree with that. I think you've mentioned your Methodist background before; they are a good case study. Wesley himself was influenced by the Eastern fathers (see the paper below), and the spiritual component has always seemed important for Methodists.
He was very heavily influenced by the Eastern church fathers---he knew that western institutional Christianity had evolved into a very materialistic system run for the benefit of the clergy and their political allies. The Church of England was especially moribund but he took heart from the Moravians and luminaries such as Madame Guyon.
Post removed:
by user
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
They'd say that's nice, want to join us at coffee hour? Khouria made her homemade hummus this week.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JJMt said:

Quote:

Go to an Antiochian Church and tell them you're Greek. Or go to a Greek Church and tell them you're Russian. Etc. No one will care. They celebrate the same Liturgy.
But what happens when you go into one of those churches and tell them that you are a hyper Calvinist protestant?
k2 has the succinct response.

It is hard to explain because it is just a different mindset, but a few things come to mind:

1. The link i posted above mentions the fact that theology in the east is seen as a practical matter whereas in the west it's seen as a theoretical science.

2. Practically, if you participate in the Liturgy and partaking in the Eucharist then you are affirming the Church's theology. The calvinist is free to go through catechism and participate if he'd like, or not. People will still be friendly to him.

3. The way we participate in Liturgy doesn't change from person to person; the the way people interpret Scripture does change from person to person.

4. Because of that, theology based on the former (along with Scripture, the Councils and the Fathers) will necessarily stay far more fixed than theology based on sola scriptura, which will be as varied as the number of interpreters of the text.

5. Because of the varying theologies in Protestantism and the theological divides, it is important that everyone in an individual church stay somewhat on the same page; theologically-differing opinions are an existential threat to the system in a Protestant church; the same is not true in an Orthodox church (although again I have to stress that it's not even an issue anyway because theology is seen as something different).

6. Ultimately I don't think many Orthodox believe that you will be sent to hell for believing the wrong thing or having a wrong theological opinion on something. In fact, that's exactly the type of speculation that it's good to avoid.
Post removed:
by user
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As it turns out, you can catch flies with honey, beer, or hummus. Come to my church, tell me you are another denomination and of course, I will be kind and invite you to beers afterward.... however, If you would like, I'll happily tell you all the reasons your denomination is wrong too
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JJMt said:

But what if that Calvinist does not want to participate in the liturgy?

K2 has said really snarky things about the reformation and protestants here before. Methinks orthodoxy is not that much different from any other Christian sect. Like all of the others, I suspect that it too is full of sinners who all too frequently fail to act like Christ towards other believers.

1. If the Calvinist doesn't want to participate in the Liturgy he doesn't have to. No one will kick him out.

2. I think k2 tries to defend and explain Orthodox theology and sometimes that leads to clashes, but I also don't think it's as big a deal as it might appear to be; he's not trying to convert other Christians (not really an Orthodox thing to do) or tell anyone they're going to hell for believing something.

3. Sure, as my priest said, there are members of our parish who have no idea they need salvation, there are some who know they need it but are struggling, and some who are further along the path. You will encounter all kinds. It's a hospital for sinners, not the Christian Hall of Fame.

4. I'm in a worse-off spiritual position than most Protestants or Catholics, so I desperately need the spiritual development I find in the Orthodox Church. I don't judge or look down on any other Christian or even Buddhists or atheists or anyone else. Who am I to do that? Who am I to judge anyone else?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JJMt said:

But what if that Calvinist does not want to participate in the liturgy?

K2 has said really snarky things about the reformation and protestants here before. Methinks orthodoxy is not that much different from any other Christian sect. Like all of the others, I suspect that it too is full of sinners who all too frequently fail to act like Christ towards other believers.


craigernaught
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

But what happens when you go into one of those churches and tell them that you are a hyper Calvinist protestant?

There will be one angry nerd who wants to make a big deal out of it so he can feel smart and nobody else will care. It's a lot like the R&P board that way.

I've visited tons of other denominations. We were required to in seminary. We were from the super liberal school and we would visit every kind of church imaginable. The nicest, by far, was the Arabic Baptist Church. They changed from Arabic to English because a few of us visited so that we could worship too. They invited us to lead them in song and "to give our testimony". Then they fed us lunch, and gave us tupperware full of leftovers to take home. They were awesome.

The Orthodox for the most part, never talked to us. Really ever. In any church we went to. Even now when I go where I live. I did get invited to join a wedding at an Orthodox Church in Nazareth though. The groom was thrilled and wanted us to stay all night.

The whole "my denomination is nicer than yours" is super dumb.
craigernaught
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Orthodox I know from the Middle East and from the Balkans are worried about the political divisions. They care about it a lot and are worried how it will affect the church. The role of politics among Orthodox churches in the region, particularly in Syria, is very concerning to them, and quite frankly is a little shocking to an outsider. I worry about them a lot.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Why do you think that is? What has been the role of westerners in the region? Has middle eastern Christianity been growing over the past century? How have Protestants historically interacted with the Orthodox Church? Have they strengthened the communities or undermined them and split families apart? I don't have all the answers. But I agree that you should worry about them, it's a bad situation.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
craigernaught said:

The Orthodox I know from the Middle East and from the Balkans are worried about the political divisions. They care about it a lot and are worried how it will affect the church. The role of politics among Orthodox churches in the region, particularly in Syria, is very concerning to them, and quite frankly is a little shocking to an outsider. I worry about them a lot.

Of course they are. But sampling Orthodox is like asking Americans. Some think Putin is doing good work, some think he's pure evil. It's so difficult to know.

Unfortunately geopolitics has always impinged on the Church. Rome, Islam, the Russian empire, Communism.. it never ends. And the bishops are frequently where the damage can be seen.

I think the problem is in looking at this the way that article does is shown in the part quoted. Unity and division in the way that article is describing are meaningless. The church isn't one by a sum of the parts or when all the bishops or pawns or nation states or whatever say it's one. It's One when the faithful and the bishop are together celebrating the mysteries. By the other measure the church has never been one - which is why it's so funny the guy says this is a weakness.

I worry about this because what I've seen makes me believe that the state of affairs in Ukraine doesn't have anything to do with the church at all. I worry for the geopolitical implications. I worry about Patriarchs being corrupted and their position used by politicians for earthly ends. But these are all temporal worries, the same way I worry about drone attack's in the strait of Hormuz or political unrest here in the US. They're not about the Church, because these kind of things can't help or harm the Church.
Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dreher is an overly solipsistic hysteric who nevertheless is good about bringing important issues to his audience. I still cringe thinking about all the (MANY) times he spilled family "drama", including "analysis" of his young nieces.

In this case:

The Apostolic churches (Catholic / Orthodox) are both enduring severe crisis, with many of the wounds inflicted by the prelates themselves.

For Catholics, this is the nexus of money / blackmail / (vasy majority post-pubescent same sex) sexual abuse. (It's true, all reports say so, and read the Vigano letters).

For Orthodox, overly comfortable with temporal power.

PRAY.
Post removed:
by user
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My experiences have been much different than yours. I grew up hearing the pope was the Anti Christ and basically a Satanic figure. Been at Catholic friends funerals where some of the Protestants(usually Baptists)there questioned my friend's salvation as he was a Catholic. There are still Protestants who are trying to "convert" Catholics/Orthodox like they are not even Christians. And the double predestination and limited atonement theology is troublesome to a lot of folks.

And I am sure the Catholic/Orthodox have their folks also. But growing up in the South, they were the targeted group on my experience.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Post removed:
by user
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I agree with both you and your pastor. My Baptist Church in Beaumont was the only Baptist church who would do anything ecumenical. We also were the only Baptist church that had open communion. I guess we are all shaped by our own experiences.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

But will they allow him to have communion? If not, what are the Orthodox requirements to allow a non-Orthodox believer to join them in communion?
No. Holy Communion is for members of the Church. If you are not Orthodox, you do not have the same faith as us, so we cannot in good conscience commune with you -- and you shouldn't commune with us in good conscience either, for the record.

Quote:

What does get me a bit on this board is the incessant attacks and criticisms of Protestants (i.e., the frequent post that "I used to go to a Protestant church and they did [fill in the blank]"). Sure, there is lots of hypocrisy and error on the part of Protestant believers and churches. But the same is true for all groups of Christians and all churches. No Christian and no church is perfect, but we are all members of the body of Christ and should value each other as priceless treasures in that capacity.
Protestants are an easy target because the definition is so broad. I mean it's basically non-Orthodox, non-RCC. But there is a perfect Christian Church, and that is the universal Church formed by the members of the body of Christ, the faithful and the bishop, at each and every communion. It is perfect because of Christ.

Not everyone who says they are a Christian is a member of the body of Christ. The scriptures tell us as much.

Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

There are some theological differences we should be willing to give our lives for. There are others we might give up a day for, and most we might not want to give up our lunch over. Only the core principles of the faith are worth giving our life over, and those core principles almost all involve Jesus himself (that he existed, was the son of God, died for our sins, and was resurrected, and probably a few more). Why would we let any theological difference less than that create a dividing wedge between ourselves and other believers?
To be very clear, this is exactly the teaching of the Church. And the "list" is fairly short - more or less encapsulated by the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed along with the confessions of the ecumenical councils.

Theology, properly, is much narrower than the broad academic definition it gets today. It is the study of God, this is what the word itself means. Doctrines, dogmatics, history, adjacent philosophy, all these are not theology. Much of what divides Christians is not theology, and not enough emphasis is placed on the divisions based in theology. St Gregory says that it's fine for everyone to speculate about philosophy or physics or even maybe church politics or salvation because if you come to the right answer that's good, and if you don't it's not that big of a deal. But philosophising about God, true Theology, is not for everyone and is dangerous to err.

But, if this is truly what you believe, why are you not Orthodox? That's always the rub isn't it? What's dividing others from you is trivial; what divides you from others is important...

Better actual confusion and division than false understanding and unity.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I am starting to believe that theologically we should all be Orthodox.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

I am starting to believe that theologically we should all be Orthodox.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We should all strive to be catholic and orthodox in our beliefs.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm really enjoying all the Orthodox input we've gotten here recently. It's been a great motivation to study and research the huge chunk of Christian history and practice outside the old Catholic v Protestant issues.

Orthodoxy is an authentic representation and continuation of early Christian belief. Thats sort of the whole point of Orthodoxy and why it exists. That's impressive.

One problem, though, is that Orthodoxy represents only one subset of a variety of early Christian beliefs, and as time has gone on the definition of Orthodox has become narrower and narrower. For a comparison, imagine you wanted to define the term American. Well all the first Americans were part of the original 13 colonies, so there only people in those states are Americans. Then let's say people in Boston and people in New York disagree on what it means to be American, so people in Boston decide that people in New York have the wrong definition and are therefore no longer American. Repeat with other states and eventually only Bostonians are American. While most would agree that Bostonians are unquestionably American, most would also not consider them the entirety of what it means to be American. Thats how I see Orthodoxy in relation to Christianity in general.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
DVC2010
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
swimmerbabe11 said:

As it turns out, you can catch flies with honey, beer, or hummus. Come to my church, tell me you are another denomination and of course, I will be kind and invite you to beers afterward.... however, If you would like, I'll happily tell you all the reasons your denomination is wrong too

I've been out for beers with your church friends. I know how this goes.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Right...buuuut... the analogy with the US is imperfect, because all 13 states are still around. First issue is that all of these various branches of early Christianity or pseudo-Christianity aren't. The second thing is that all 13 states were unified under a common definition, ie the constitution. The various early branches weren't. So i don't think we can say that the definition got narrower. Contrary you could say it was it the same all along and the sects that weren't orthodox splintered, vanished, etc.

You have to be able to say, this is the authentic apostolic faith, that isn't. Otherwise why do we say we do orthodox Christianity vs Arianism, ebionites, Gnosticism, or whatever?
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That is very true. Considering how much early writing was dedicated to combating heresy, it was clearly critical. However, it's also telling that Orthodoxy had to make a rule that couldn't be declared heretics long after their death. There were saints in the second century, per se, that would have been heretics in the 8th century even with the exact same beliefs. Subordinationism was common in the early church but later a heresy, for instance. So the definition of orthodoxy became narrower.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yeah St Photios talked about that with St Augustine - that even if he was wrong on some things we shouldn't pull this (ie the Filioque if I recall) up and make a heretic of him if he never had the benefit of instruction and the opportunity for correction.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As with most analogies, nothing ends up being perfect, but I think this is good general idea.

I think a major flaw within American Christianity is that most don't seem aware of the Church Fathers or what they taught or didn't.

That's the starting point I've come to in my study/understanding of Christianity.

Using that as the starting point leaves probably less than 10l Christian groups. Several of those groups (Episcopal for example) have made more modern decisions that probably remove them from the list.

So I really land with probably 3-4 groups that have theologies that are well defending from the historical front.

Certainly if I listed them out, we'd (collective forum) go round in circles firing at each other, as we've done in the past, so I'll just keep it general. Each group has some great strengths that I've tried to learn from and add to my daily growth as a Christian. But each group also has flaws. Fortunately we know perfection awaits us who struggle to the end.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.