The Catalog of Good Deeds

His Eminence Metropolitan Jonah (Paffhausen) became Orthodox in the age of 19 having been received from the Episcopalian Church in San Diego at the parish of Our Lady of Kazan (Moscow Patriarchate). In 1981 he graduated with a B.A. from the University California (Santa Cruz) and enrolled in St. Vladimir’s Seminary, where he earned his master’s degrees in divinity (1985) and theology (1988).

The editor of Historical Studies of the Russian Church Abroad conducted this interview on November 5, 2017 in the parish in the honor of the icon of the Mother of God “Joy of All Who Sorrow” in Cumming, Georgia. Metropolitan Jonah and Deacon Andrei Psarev both presented there at the conference reflecting on the 100th anniversary of All-Russia Council.

Metropolitan Jonah (Paffhausen)

– Vladyka Jonah, for how long now have you been in the Russian Church Abroad?

– A little over two years.

– A little over two years? I thought you came to us much longer, actually.

– Well, I’ve actually been primarily attending the services in the Russian Church Abroad for five years.

– Right, I see what you mean. Alright. Vladyka, I believe – I don’t know if you agree with this or not – I think there is some consensus in the Orthodox world in North America that the Russian Church Abroad has a strong, impressive tradition of piety, tradition that is coming back from old Russia, and Russian Church Abroad clergy are admired for their self-sacrifice and for their devotion. But, comparing Russian Church Abroad clergy’s situation with other churches’ clergy in this country, what would you say regarding this?

– Well, I think one of the biggest issues is the difference in compensation. In most Churches in America the priests are paid a living salary and benefits by the congregation so that they don’t have to work, and especially senior clergy are well compensated; of course, junior clergy not quite so much, but that’s normal. Missions’ clergy compensation of course is a little more sketchy. I think the next step in the growth of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia needs to be a complete re-visioning of the whole system, not only of the support of the clergy but also the whole financial system for the support of the Church because there are definite things that would be extremely helpful – administrative kinds of structures and various kinds of funds to assist the clergy, to assist education, and to build temples and not only structures but institutions.

– Right, but we don’t even have a Pension Committee in our Russian Church Abroad, and sometimes you hear that it’s really too complicated and we don’t have means, we don’t have resources, and basically, our outstanding clergyman are expected to work at additional jobs, so what would be your response to this – that it’s impossible to change?

Well, it’s certainly possible to change. The Orthodox Church in America started out probably in a very similar position. The ROCOR does have new immigrants. It also has a lot of people who are very well-established, well-educated, and have highly lucrative jobs. What has not been taught is the critical importance of supporting the Church on a substantial level. In other words, a constant financial commitment on a communal basis that will allow the Church to develop itself and to develop programs and ministries that people will need, and to develop outreach. There are some very good things that go on in the Russian Church Abroad. One of the things that I was particularly impressed with in Australia was their homes for the elderly, assisted living and even nursing homes that are supported by the Church, and in some cities, there are multiple institutions. There is a good consciousness of that kind of humanitarian outreach. That’s one of things that right now is very difficult to do. There is that tradition in the past in the Russian Church Abroad. There is still the Tolstoy Foundation in America. There are a couple of nursing homes and things like that but those need to be rebuilt, rethought, redone, and revivified. And, unfortunately, it takes money. People aren’t going to be able to… well, let’s put it this way: you take a young guy who goes to seminary. What kind of a future is he looking at? He’s looking at a secular job, which is going to occupy 75% of his time, and the rest of the time, even as a priest, is a volunteer position.

– Almost volunteer…

– Almost volunteer – yes. And it’s nice that people want to do that, and it’s a remarkable and commendable thing that people are willing to make that kind of sacrifice. And, there is an advantage – that it enables a priest to be free of the control of the parish council: he’s not afraid for his salary [in order] to make the necessary kind of decisions. But, on the whole, it makes life very difficult. I believe it’s a great shame to the Church when you have priests who are not able to pay their bills and support their families, or are on welfare with food stamps.

I believe what happens is that we deal with consequences of the previous refugee epoch when everyone was poor and everybody basically worked on a voluntary basis. But the question is: is this model really sustainable for modern reality? Is this something that we need to carry on or is it a cycle that has to be broken down?

It’s a cycle that has to be broken down because it’s not sustainable. I think one of the things is that the ROCOR needs to come to terms with the fact that it is an American Church – in America, it’s an American Church; in Canada, it’s a Canadian Church; in Australia, it’s an Australian Church.

– What does this mean? What does your emphasis mean?

– It means that, regardless of language, regardless of the cultural basis, we’re here to stay, and we need to take up that universal mission that the Lord commanded, which is to go out and bring people in, to preach and teach and to make disciples. Whether we are ministering to new converts and inquirers or to Russian immigrants, the work is the same: to establish communities and build churches to reach out and bring people to Christ.

– And use resources as best we can?

– Use the resources as best we can. One of things that I think is really important too, is that there is a kind of traditional pattern in American culture of how parishes are structured, and it’s interesting: it doesn’t matter — Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox. You have a church

and they are all structured the same way. A part of that’s just the American laws under which the church operates. And there are certain kinds of expectations, and even the taxes are structured so that there are certain kinds of expectations – taxes for the clergy, the tax

structure of the church itself. But, I think, one of the most important things is that we have to give seminarians a hope for the future. I think, one of the most important things is that we have to give seminarians a hope for the future. Holy Trinity Seminary (Jordanville, NY) is moving now beyond just a Bachelor of Theology to a Master’s degree. The administration of Holy Trinity Seminary and its trustees do the great work of enabling young men to obtain a terminal Master of Divinity degree with minimal fees or no costs through the generosity

of kind benefactors. But we should start considering some kind of financial incentives that will enable graduates to earn a living as a result. Otherwise, it’s totally demoralizing to the seminarians, and this is a really very important issue.

Conducted by Deacon Andrei Psarev

Source: http://www.rocorstudies.org/2018/02/21/one-of-the-most-important-things-that-we-have-to-give-seminarians-is-a-hope-for-the-future/

If I were to venture a guess as to the most commonly confessed passion that I hear in confessions, I would say that it is anger. Just about everyone is angry. According to many of the saints, anger and misdirected desire are the two main passions from which all vices and passions come. The sources of anger can be varied, but I think there are two sources of anger that are most common in the people here in western Canada whom I confess and with whom I often have ‘confessional chats.’

The first source is, it seems to me, cultural expectation. There is a cultural expectation in Canada, and in North America generally—especially among the privileged class (usually of European descent, working class or better off financially, and that is most pronounced among the better educated)—an expectation that life would, could, and should be fair. We in North America generally have egalitarian suppositions and expectations. We expect the courts, institutions, businesses and other people in general to treat us fairly and equally. And when this is not the case, when either I or someone with whom I identify is treated unfairly, I become angry.

Anger coming from this source, if the source is not a particular injustice I am experiencing, often comes from politics, from identifying with a particular political position, party or issue. That is, although I myself am not immediately or directly effected by a real and immediate injustice, I identify with those who are or seem to be or even might possibly be effected. Some Christians, particularly those especially interested in political action, argue that such vicariously acquired anger is a good thing because it motivates one to work politically for change in unjust systems. The Church Fathers of the desert and philokalic tradition, however, see things differently.

In this particular ancient tradition, anger, or any passion for that matter, is not an appropriate motivation for any action. This tradition takes seriously Jesus’ admonition to think of others as better than oneself. Instead of seeing the problem of injustice as a matter of poorly constructed systems or even of particular people who selfishly oppress others, the Fathers and Mothers of the desert see the problem of oppression as a spiritual problem. For them, the oppressor is also a victim, a victim to his or her passions which are driven by demonic forces. And when you see your oppressor as also a victim, you can begin to have pity on her, you can begin even to love your enemy.

This does not mean, however, that one should just be a doormat—as people often ask of me at this point in the conversation. It does mean, though, that one should allow pity and love to douse the fire of anger in your heart. Of course one must act, personally and politically, in whatever ways are possible and appropriate to make the world a better place, but not with anger burning in your heart. Anger blinds and deafens. Anger keeps us from thinking clearly and from paying attention to and loving the human beings in our presence right now. Anger drives away the Holy Spirit and consistently leads us to say and do things we later regret. Anger is not the way.

One technique that I have found helpful as I wrestle with anger of this sort, of the sort coming from injustice and unfairness in my life or in the world, has been to rethink my cultural assumptions. My assumption that the world would, could, or should be a just place has to be reconsidered. Jesus did say, after all, “in the world you will have tribulation” and “if they persecuted me they will persecute you.” And doesn’t the scripture speak everywhere—except in reference to the eschaton—that the rich and powerful generally trample upon the poor, and therefore the Lord must help them? This unfairness and oppression is part of the way this fallen world is. Where do you think the evolutionists (social or biological) got the idea of the survival of the fittest? I, or the ones I identify with, am not being specifically targeted, except that I am poorer or weaker or less privileged or less whatever than the one who wants to take from me what I think is mine: my right, my privilege, my possession, my parking space.

Acknowledging that this is the way the world is, is not to say that it’s OK. It’s not OK that the strong oppress the weak, but it is nonetheless how the world largely functions. Sure, there are some systems that seem to be inherently less unjust than others. In one area, the bad guys may wear athletic suits and carry brass knuckles and in another they may were designer suits and carry briefcases. The means by which the rich and powerful get their way may vary, but just about always the rich and powerful get their way. It’s the way of this world. And as a Christian, of course, whenever possible, I need to act in ways that are not of this world. And as much as is possible, I need to resist and not be complicit in oppression and violence. This is the way of Jesus, the way of the cross. However, the way of the cross is not the way of anger. It is the way of self-sacrifical love.

And more than this, we pray. The scripture and particularly the Psalms are full of encouragement that the power of the oppressor, even the power of the very devil itself, is limited by God. Sure, political systems and justice systems can be improved and made more just, but ultimately it is God who delivers us from our enemies. And if we don’t do business with God, if we don’t first and foremost recognize that ours is a spiritual battle played out in this fallen and unjust world, if we don’t master our own anger most of all, then even if we succeed in meeting our external objectives, we will only replace one dictator with another, one crooked system with another, one loop-hole ridden set of laws with another. And so the anger remains. At least that is what seems most often to play out historically.

Another common source of anger, and not unrelated to the first, is more personal. It has to do with not getting my own way. A priest friend of mine used to often say that every thought I have starts with the assumption that I am good, I am right, and I and innocent. And to this I would add at least one more: and that I already see the situation clearly. When trying to solve a problem, we just about always assume that our solution is the best one, and when others don’t see it that way, it frustrates us and leads to anger. How often parents and children, wives and husbands, employees and employers tell me that they struggle with anger because the one won’t do (or let them do) what the other tells them is the best thing to do. A child is angry with her parents because her parents won’t listen to her (i.e. won’t let her do what she thinks is best) Parents are angry at a child because he won’t listen (i.e. won’t do what the parents think is best). And so on it goes.

There is an illuminating story in the letters of Sts. Barsanuphius and John that addresses this problem of anger coming from not getting one’s way. John of Beersheba [different from St. Barsanuphius’ friend, St. John] was a leader (but not, apparently, abbot) in a monastery that was doing some construction. Because he was skilled and experienced in architecture, he was assigned the task of drawing up the plans. After he had made the plans, and unknown to him, some of the brothers made changes to the plan that “somewhat spoiled” them. St. Barsanuphius writes to this John and advises him to deal with his anger by keeping this thought in his mind: “Did I become subject to God to subject others?” According to St. Barsanuphius, anger is overcome when we remind ourselves that we are subject to God, so our job is not to subjugate others, to make them submit—even if we’re right!

Does this mean, then, that the brothers were right to change the architectural plans without talking to John? No, certainly not. The brothers failed. However, that’s the brothers’ problem to wrestle with, not John’s. John’s anger came from his (self) righteous indignation that he was not fully listened to initially nor consulted when changes to his plan were proposed. And the fact that the building was “somewhat spoiled” only added a pretext of justification for his anger. However, St. Barsanuphius’ advice to John is to remember that it is not his place or responsibility to subjugate others; rather his place is to submit to God.

So much of the anger we struggle with is of this nature. Someone who should listen to us doesn’t. What we see as clearly right, clearly good, clearly the will of God, someone else does not see at all. What we see as our authority, our expertise, our privileged or our unique perspective, the other seems to show no respect for at all. And so we become angry. Teenagers are angry because parents do not respect their unique perspective on their own life. Parents are angry with children because they do not respect the authority and experience they have to offer. Parishioners (or the clergy) with expertise or experience or concerns in one area are angry with other parishioners (or clergy) because their expertise or experience or concerns seem to be ignored—or given less weight than they think they should be given. And so (self) righteous indignation fuels anger, and anger results in blindness and deafness and further strife.

But, you may argue, I am the parent or the priest or the expert or the one who will be most effected by the outcome. I have a right to be listen to. I have a right to be obeyed. This may indeed often be the case. Nevertheless, anger, especially ongoing anger, is never a helpful nor appropriate response. And St. Barsanuphius recommends that to overcome anger you remind yourself that you—if indeed you are a Christian—have submitted yourself to God, not in order to submit others to yourself. But, again, some may argue, that because of my position of authority, in not submitting to me, to my plan, to my wisdom, to my advice, to my decision, the disobedient one is actually not submitting to God. OK then. So be it. The disobedient one is not submitting to God, so let God deal with them. Let God get angry, for if God does experience anger (and it’s is not just a biblical anthropomorphism), then God’s anger is without sin. Can you say that of your anger?

Let us submit ourselves to God and forsake anger and wrath, as Psalm 37: 8 advises us. Then we will see a little more clearly. Then we will listen a little better. Then we will be able to take more appropriate action, action motivated by pity and love, action that is more likely to carry the grace of God and to bring healing. Otherwise, we will be blinded by our anger and act in wrath, which almost always only makes matters worse.

By Fr. Michael Gillis

Source: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/prayingintherain/2018/06/some-thoughts-on-anger/

St. Augustine made the observation that in the Scriptures, circumcision was a sign of the covenant between God and His people. The community did not wait until a man had proven his faithfulness to God before circumcising him. Baby boys were circumcised and then the community had the responsibility to help them grown into faithful men. For Augustine, baptism works in a similar way as part of the new covenant – a sign of God’s faithfulness which each person receives and then works on converting their heart to God. St. Augustine writes:

“In the case of Isaac, circumcision was performed as a sign of the righteousness of faith on the eighth day after his birth; he then followed the example of his father’s faith. Thus, the sign of righteousness had come first in the infant, and the righteousness itself followed in the growing man. In a similar way, the sacrament of regeneration comes first in baptized infants and, if they later commit themselves to Christian fidelity, then the conversion of heart follows, for which there was an earlier sign in their bodies.” (Romans: Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators by J. Patout Burns Jr., Kindle Loc. 2014-17)

Though baptism has a spiritual antecedent in circumcision, it is still something totally new.

In the Old Testament, physical birth determined whether someone belonged to the chosen people. Only the children of Abraham were heirs to God’s promises. Despite the fact that proselytism was especially strong by the time of Christ’s coming – “You traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves” (Matthew 23.15) – the neophytes themselves were not regarded in all respects as true members of Israel, but only their descendants. In the New Testament however, it is spiritual birth that determines if someone belongs to the Church: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3.5). Beginning with the first apostolic preaching on the day of Pentecost, the sacrament of baptism by water and the Spirit is the one and only way of entering the Church, without which salvation is impossible. (Nicholas Afanasiev, The Church of the Holy Spirit, p. 23)

If the only purpose of baptism was the washing away of sin, then there would be no reason to baptize infants. But baptism is not God’s reaction to sin, but rather God’s own effort to unite each of us to Himself, so that we might share in the divine life. Baptism gives a new birth, a new life to each person – a spiritual life in communion with God in Christ. A baby is fully human and thus capable of being united to God and to share in the divine life. [for further thoughts about the baptism of infants see my post Baptism or Blindness] Baptism is a sign and a sacrament so is rich in meaning. As biblical scholar Geza Vermes writes:

“For Paul, the baptismal pool had a deep allegorical meaning. It symbolized the tomb in which the crucified body of Jesus was laid to rest and where it remained until the resurrection on the third day. Baptism for Paul is a myth-drama. Being dipped into and lifted from the baptismal pool meant an allegorical identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Through the baptismal ritual, the effects of the cult drama were transferred onto the new Christian. Baptism seen through believing eyes was a sacramental rebirth.

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. (Rom. 6:3–4)” (Christian Beginnings, Kindle Loc. 1708-14)

Source: https://frted.wordpress.com/2018/06/07/baptizing-infants/

“For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard”
(Acts 4:20).

Apostle Peter, just like all the other apostles, was a simple and uneducated person. He did not know the Holy Scripture and was not taught public speaking. Nevertheless, on the day of Holy Pentecost, when the Lord sent the Holy Spirit from the Father to His beloved disciples, Peter acquired the great gift of preaching. According to the Book of Acts, after the Descent of the Holy Spirit, Apostle Peter addressed the Hebrews with an emotional speech and turned about 3,000 people to Christ.

In the Book of Acts we read that on their way to the temple, Apostles Peter and John healed a man who was limp from his birth and then “he, leaping up, stood and walked and entered the temple with them—walking, leaping, and praising God” (Acts 3:8). When people recognized in that leaping man the beggar who had sat asking for alms by the doors of the temple, they “were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him” (Acts 3:10). Then Peter delivered another sermon quite familiar to us , in which he explained that the apostles healed the man not with their own power or holiness, but in the name of Jesus Christ – the Prince of Life, Who was killed and then resurrected, Who was preached by Moses and all the other prophets, Who was foretold by God to suffer for the redemption of the humankind; “through faith in His name, has made this man strong, whom you see and know. Yes, the faith which comes through Him has given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all” (Ref. Acts 3:12-16). Many people, who listened to the Supreme Apostle at that moment, believed in his words, and there were about 5,000 of them.

The Apostles and the beggar

As we can see from Peter’s sermon, it contained the whole Gospel in a short form, as well as all the main points of the Christian faith and apostolic teaching. Here the Lord Jesus Christ is called the Prince of Life and we know that only God, the Creator of all things, can be the Prince of Life. We hear also about the suffering and death of Christ, about which the ancient prophets foretold, who announced the resurrection of Christ and repentance and forgiveness of all the sins of the world in His name. Apostle Peter states also that “heaven must receive Christ until the times of restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21), about which God had told already through His prophets. In these words, we see the teaching stating that Jesus Christ is at the right hand of God the Father, and we are waiting for His great Coming in the end of times.

After that sermon, the apostles were taken into custody until the next morning. On the next day, they were brought to the rulers, elders, scribes and Annas the high priest as well as other people of the family of high priest, so that they answer for their words.

The arrest of the Apostles

What did Peter do? He, who was afraid of a mere servant, who could not handle the fear of death before the Lord and denied Him three times, is acting in a completely different way now. Now he is as tough as a stone, as a rock. His heart did not shake before the supercilious sights of the scribes and elders; he was not afraid, but full of the Holy Spirit. Peter bravely preached about Jesus Christ that He is “the stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone. Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:11-12).

Apostle Peter was preaching the words of his Lord and Teacher for all his life. He converted thousands and thousands of people and became the Apostle for all Hebrews, as well as established many Christian churches that exist even today and that are preaching the Name of God all over the world. For many Christians, in his apostolic letters we find the living voice of the Good Shepherd comforting our hearts on this hard and narrow path to the Kingdom of Heaven.

What St. John Chrysostom says in his works:

“O blessed dyad, in which the souls of the whole world have believed! Peter, the beginning of orthodoxy, the great revealer of the Church, the needed counselor of Christians, the treasure of the powers from above, the apostle honored by the Master. Paul, the great preacher of the truth, the boast of the world, the man in heaven, and angel upon the earth, the glory of the Church, the eagle that soars in the heights, the lyre of the Spirit, the swallow and cicada (τέττιξ), the Master’s organ, the speedy servant of Christ. Paul and Peter, the yoked oxen of the Church, who passed through the world well in things, taking up the cross instead of a yoke, instead of a driver the Savior, instead of a furrow laid down the Scriptures, instead of the plow the grace of the Holy Spirit. Paul and Peter, who daily gladden the Church, the Master’s treasuries, the inns of the world, the receptacles of the Spirit, those who explain the Holy Trinity, those who relate the economy of the divine word. Peter, my spiritual love; Paul, the vessel of election, and my staff. Peter, the temple of God; Paul, the mouth of Christ, the lyre of the Spirit”.

Reflections in the Holy Church tradition:

Thou, O Lord, didst give the Church as good foundations and strong supports Peter’s firmness and constancy, Paul’s wisdom ablaze with light and his understanding, with the truthful preaching of each of them concerning God, which drove away godless error from the earth. And so, initiated by them both, we sing hymns of praise to Thee, O my Jesus, Almighty Lord, Thou divine Savior of our souls. (2nd sticheron on the “O Lord I have cried", Great Vespers on June 29)

To be continued…

Click here to see the full infographics.

The term “dialogue” (along with its synonyms, “conversation” and “discussion” and “engagement”) seems to have taken its place alongside the proverbial terms “motherhood”, “apple pie”, and “the flag” as sacred and untouchable. It used to be that no one in their right mind would speak against this Trinity of American values, and now no one is allowed to suggest that anything bearing the sacred word “dialogue” should be viewed with suspicion. A commitment to dialogue is considered an essential part of civilization, and a sign of one’s tolerance, reasonableness, and open-mindedness. Anyone lacking a sufficient commitment to these modern virtues (the new Trinity of American values) is a fitting candidate for denunciation and insult. If you think this last sentiment is too strong, you probably do not own a computer or go online very much.

One could almost formulate a spiritual law that any site or online contribution which contains the D-word or its synonyms is pushing the same basic agenda. Take for example the site, “Orthodoxy in Dialogue” (with D-word prominently displayed) or the site “Public Orthodoxy” (which says that it “seeks to promote conversation by providing a forum for diverse perspectives on contemporary issues related to Orthodox Christianity”). Like other liberal sites these are dedicated to the destruction of traditional Orthodox belief and praxis. Obviously no site hoping to gain traction among fellow-Orthodox will advertise this agenda and goal. Like all deconstructionist movements, other softer terms must be found—usually using multi-syllabic words, which is almost always a bad sign.

In the same way the Orthodox deconstructionists usually fudge or hide their actual agenda. I have seen this at work for quite a while. Take for example the work of the late and brilliant feminist Elizabeth Behr-Sigel. Like other Orthodox feminists of her vintage, she rarely came out and declared that her goal was the ordination of women priests. No. She was just asking questions, having a dialogue, promoting a conversation about a certain topic, engaging the modern world. In a paper given in 1976 entitled, “The Meaning of the Participation of Women in the Life of the Church” she ended with the plaintive cry, “[These] are questions on which some of us have already reflected deeply, while others are dimly aware of them, and they are questions which we Orthodox women gathered here wish to put before the Church, praying that the Spirit will guide her and will guide us in the right way. In the words of the psalmist we say, ‘Show us the way we must take!’” What humility and openness! She is not pushing towards a predetermined goal, only trying to discern the right way forward. Or consider her essay, “The Place of Women in the Church”: she ends her essay with the words, “On a problem like the ordination of women, might we not imagine different ‘helpful things’ that the local Churches could determine for themselves?…Would not such a pluralism of discipline [wherein some Orthodox churches ordained women and others did not] be compatible with the unity of faith and ecclesial communion?” She is just asking a question, after all, asking us to “imagine” certain things, not promoting an agenda.

From all this one might conclude that for Ms. Behr-Sigel the question was an open one. It is not so. She was as sure of her conviction that women should be ordained priests as I am sure (and as St. Paul was sure) that women should not. This is apparent from the rest of her writing, such as the place in the same essay in which she denounced St. Paul’s counsel in 1 Timothy 2 as “rabbinical exegesis”, and the Church’s “patriarchal” conceptions as “infecting Christian thinking”. The passages in St. Paul that meet with her approval (such as Galatians 3:28) she applauds (with exclamation marks) as “the Spirit clearing a new path through the thick forest of human prejudices!” Clearly Behr-Sigel had already made up her mind as to “the way we must take”, her disingenuous tentativeness notwithstanding. The posture of tentative questioning was not sincere or honest, nor was the proffered dialogue genuine. In this dialogue, all the retreat and reconsideration was to flow one way. Those holding to the historic Orthodox position would retreat from it, while those holding to the new reconstructed position would not retreat. The deconstructionists had no doubt of the truth of their convictions; the only question was how to advance their agenda. One is reminded of the aphorism of JFK: “You cannot negotiate with those who say ‘What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable’”. As far as those committed to the reconstructed and revised order are concerned, their own convictions are not negotiable. It is the traditional Orthodox that are being invited to negotiate and to be willing to retreat from their positions.

One detects a certain common vocabulary in those inviting the retreat. Certain buzz-words recur: they speak of “patriarchy”, “sexism”, of the necessity of a “creative reimagining”. They speak (in the multi-syllabic terms mentioned above) of “an awareness of the multifaceted nature of truth that continues to be discovered and implemented over time through a process of prayer, creative reflection, and debate”, of “a pluralistic era which presents Christianity with new and unique challenges”, and attempt to “discern God’s hand in contemporary life”—as if the authors were not already sure of where God’s hand in contemporary life was to be found and were still trying to “discern” it. When one reduces the multi-syllabic rhetoric to words that a child could understand it translates as: “You must change your teaching to conform to ours. Our modern secular culture no longer accepts your views so you must change them to fit in with that secular culture”.

All this dialogue and open-mindedness to the secular values at odds with Orthodoxy is comparatively new. The Fathers did not open such dialogues with pagans or heretics. They did engage “the pluralistic era which presented them with new and unique challenges” of course, and the people who were in the forefront of this engagement are known by the name “the Apologists”. The Church did not withdraw from the secular society into a safe and holy huddle with the drawbridge pulled up behind them, but met the new and unique challenges head on, trying to convince and convert the world. They talked to pagans and even acknowledged that the pagans had got some things right. These things they were happy to claim as their own (one author called the process “plundering Egypt”). But the coincidence of agreement in some areas between Christian and pagan or between Christian and heretic did not make the Church open to learning from pagans or heretics. The Church was confident that (in the words of our contemporary Orthodox Liturgy) it had “found the true faith”, so that its task was to correct the world, not learn from it. When Justin Martyr used the term “dialogue” (such as his “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew”) he was not investigating to see what he could learn from Judaism, but trying to convert his Jewish friend to Christianity. For Justin and for the Fathers generally, “dialogue” involved not openness to changing or abandoning one’s convictions, but civil and respectful debate in an attempt to help someone else change theirs.

The essential dishonesty of the contemporary dialogues can be seen in their choice of dialogue partners. The deconstructionists are happy to dialogue with the LGBQT community, and with feminists keen to denounce patriarchy and to ordain women. I am not aware of any enthusiasm for dialogue with, say, White Supremacists. That is because our liberal friends agree with the agendas of the gay and feminist communities and (quite properly) abhor that of the White Supremacists. I suggest that this consistent choice of dialogue partners reveals that the true goal of the liberal Orthodox proffering dialogue is not real give and take, but simple capitulation on the part of the conservatives. And ask yourself: has our decades-long dialogue with the liberal Protestant WCC resulted in a substantial shift of the member churches towards Orthodoxy or slowed their accelerating drift into greater theological liberalism? Has the dialogue with the feminists resulted in the reduction of any of their cherished anti-patriarchal convictions or in a greater appreciation of the Church’s traditional praxis? Not a bit, which proves the wisdom of JFK aphorism quoted above. Those inviting us to dialogue are not interested in “discerning God’s hand in contemporary life”, but simply in changing our minds. That is quite acceptable; I am happy to enter into civil debate with anyone. But honesty should compel us to make our true intentions and goals known.

By Fr. Lawrence Farley

Source: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/nootherfoundation/dishonest-dialogue/

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Search This Blog

featured Slider

Metropolitan Jonah (Paffhausen): "Giving Seminarians a Hope for the Future"

Some Thoughts on Overcoming Anger

Baptizing Infants as a Part of the New Covenant with God

Parable of the Day: Sedated by Satan

Apostle Peter: The First Catch of the Fisher of Men

The Danger of Dishonest Dialogues

Partners