I have struggled with the “Americanization” of Orthodoxy in America. I have been called “sanctimonious” among other things, yet no one has challenged me on the merits of my positions, about which I am willing to be wrong.
For me, Orthodoxy has just become another profit, not prophet, center in America. It is “trendy” and commercialized. The first thing that I noticed was the lack of single women coming into the church, as well as my own wife’s experience in our conversion. I do believe there are many priests who mean well, and are “good” men, as far as any of us may be said to be “good”.
Then I noticed that it’s all polemics, mainly against the Jews and liberalism, eschatology, or even metaphysics. It seems to me that there is no “body” to the church. I have been working on something where I am exploring in the light of being a type of denial of Chalcedon, or rather Christ’s being fully man. It’s like Gnosticism. It’s an overcorrection to Rationalism. What it is not, is simple faith, the “Orthodoxy of the Heart” spoken of by Father Seraphim Rose. I didn’t find brotherhood. I found an almost militant and angry faith that points its finger saying “thank God I’m not like that man”. It’s really too much to put within the confines of a comment on an article. But it suffices to say, something seems very “off” on many levels.
It was Berdyaev who opened my eyes to the fact that the institution of Orthodoxy, and Orthodoxy Herself, are two different things. I’ve begun to wonder if it will be destroyed as was The Temple in Jerusalem.
Thank you for sharing your insight. Makes me feel less “alone” if that makes sense. Anytime I attempt to discuss these things, I end up contending with logical fallacies rather than actual opposition to my statements, and never am I corrected with love. Kind tells me I touched a nerve, honestly.
I would love to discuss these things further. But I could see the institution of Orthodoxy collapsing, yet The Church remains eternal and unblemished. I don’t think Americans can separate the two. It’s almost like we blend elements of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism and bring that baggage with us into the church.
You said a lot there. And you are preaching to the choir! Very profound observations.
I absolutely agree with just about all of it. I would also add that your observation about the trendiness, especially among men, is unusual, and spot on. It is one of the many refuges for disaffected young men today, unfortunately, many of which are looking for a place to validate their anti-Western sentiments.
The other thing is that, because we see everything through the lens of dichotomy, everything is either/or rather than both/and. So, there is a danger in not realizing that, as we affirm The Orthodox Church to be Israel, as is true, we fail to understand that if we are the Israel of Abraham, Jacob and Isaac, necessarily, we must also be the Israel spoken of by the prophets Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah, and that the institution of the church can, in fact, become an idol. I think that is a great deal of what is taking place in America.
Probably in other places as well. Again, really good observations and I like your perspective very much.
The reformed Orthodox have a serious convert problem, from my perspective. The numbers are a cause of celebration to them, even indicating that it must indicate that they hold the truth, but without observing which other faiths are having the same experience.
Converts are like immigrants. With a meager amount, there can be confidence in assimilation, even including language. But with a large sustained stream, not only will there not be assimilation, but the converts will change the institution. And the population of disaffected young men, in my observations, are not men who are broken, spiritually, who need to follow Christ because they know it is their lives that need to change.
Rather they are joining for much more superficial reasons, like political reasons, or because (and I have seen this), they are thrilled at the image of mystical monastic elders, who not only have really cool, exotic looking outfits, but seem to all have these spiritual magic powers as well. It is the fetishization of miracles and craving and seeking the abuse of the elder/disciple relationship, which is intended and appropriate only for monastic elders and their monastic disciples, not for a monk and hordes of googly-eyed laypeople. Every pre-Optina monastic would have sooner died than to be given such spiritual power and temptation!
Old Believers have plenty of problems of their own, without the converts. Converts might even do them some good, in moderation. Truly. But when the scale is very small, it's much easier to hide. The same holds true for Catholics, who can easily be mocked for their problems without any appreciation that their population is 6 times larger than the Orthodox population, and 700 times larger than the Old Believers! It is an unimaginably large population...
It’s really refreshing to hear someone say these things. It’s also very sad to be able to say that. It’s just that I’ve struggled so much with loneliness in Orthodoxy, because, as I started to notice these things, I was just dismissed. I found many who wanted to talk about metaphysics, eschatology and the toll hoses, Lord have mercy🤦🏻, but I did not find brotherhood.
I thought I was the problem, and of course, I still am. I am broken too. But I don’t want to hate the Jews, or Protestants. I don’t want to “own them” in a debate. They’ve rallied so hard against feminism, that they now hate women, but nobody can see it. There is nothing for a single woman in most American churches, because it is all metaphysics and such, and as you said, an almost fetishization of the saints, but that’s not how they approach the faith. I asked a group one time how they planned to grow the church when they basically view women as whores who need to be saved by men?
I began to realize that I had to “un-Americanize” myself if I were to ever encounter true Orthodoxy. America is anti-Logos. It’s Babylon. It consumes everything. I wrote a thing about how fast immigrants’ culture and traditions are destroyed when they come here. It takes less than a generation. America’s is the most diametrically opposed culture to Orthodoxy, perhaps ever. At least the pagans had a spiritual framework.
You can’t take someone who is already broken and compartmentalized, have him go by “Paisios” on Sundays, and “Chad” the rest of the week, without serious problems. It’s just a further division of Christ as God and man within the person.
My question is, where does one go? I can’t even have this conversation with anyone that I know. I’m willing to be wrong. All I ask is to be corrected in love, and don’t have me arguing against a straw man, which is what seems to happen every time.
The truth is that if American Orthodoxy was actually a danger to this world, the persecutions would have already come. It’s being rotted from within. I’ve told many of these guys that this “revival” they think could happen is possible… but the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. We aren’t ready for that.
Sorry for rambling. It’s just that I spend so much time feeling like I speak another language, it’s nice to be heard and have someone to honestly engage with. Also not trying to trauma dump.
I just want a simple faith. The more I read or study theology, the more I understand it to be not about adding anything, rather stripping everything away. I just want to “un-learn” this world and focus on Christ.
A very interesting take on America. I had not thought about it quite that way before. I can see it, now that you say it.
The sad thing, is that I don't really believe that this "American" culture is really anymore American than a burqa is. Perhaps America is still too young of an experiment to have a strong cultural identity in that way, but it has only been a few generations since it began abandoning its own moderate Protestant roots (and Catholic ones as well). The 1960s saw not only the social revolution and the beginning of the abandonment of America's traditional Protestant identity, but also Vatican II and its general reorientation against traditionalism. It was a kind of spiritual assault on Christians of every flavor, in a much more efficient way than physical persecution.
Then add in historically miraculous economic prosperity and stability, and more than enough of freedom, and it is a wonder that there is anyone who wants to follow Christ anymore. But wherever this began to manifest - it is not, I believe, just an American problem, nor is really America's fault - she was just the first and biggest target. Its everywhere now.
In this sense, I think that there is a unique opportunity in America. On an individual level, I mean. To actually follow Christ, simply, as you said, but sincerely, in the way it seems the entire content of the Gospels are written to support, is almost a kind of spiritual martyrdom.
It is like trying to study and pray inside of a children's funhouse. Who can do it?
I agree with your sentiment. As a rule - I don't ever recommend or try to proselytize my own faith, as its quite strange to most, and God will lead people to where they need to be, if they are listening inside the funhouse.
But, I think that if you are trying to follow Christ, simply, and seriously - sincerely, that you are already further ahead in the race than just about everyone else.
In our faith, a core saying we use, to express our general hope in Jesus Christ in our strange circumstance (without a priesthood - small numbers, poor organization, etc), is "the Savior knows how to save". The churches all set up elements of faith and piety that it sees are both beneficial to follow, and harmful to oppose. It is good. But it is also unavoidable that they can become litmus tests that are merely ends in themselves.
The need for a simple faith hits the nail on the head. But faiths are lived out within the context of others, usually within churches. Perhaps there is a natural tension between communal faith and personal faith. I don't know, but your final sentence is just great, and sums it all up very nicely.
I've become very interested in The Old Believers. I came across them around the same time I did the Slavophiles. In fact, I believe that The Slavophiles' dismissal of The Old Believers was a mistake. They were trying to contend with The West, and Rationalism, on its own terms. It seems that Kireevsky and Khomakhov, for example, were more "Westernized" than they realized. I believe they loved Russia, but I also can't help but feel like they were trying to find a way to marry Orthodoxy and The West. This was a problem because "соборность" was never able to fully take root, even within The Slavophiles themselves. There was disagreement on any number of things. But to dismiss The Old Believers, it seems to me that one would have to also dismiss The Catacomb saints of the twentieth century, but I could be missing something.
But I also believe that it makes it plain to see how Orthodox Russia presented such an existential threat to The West and Rationalism, and still does. Orthodoxy was the only thing that was able to stand up to Western philosophy, especially Hegel. I also believe that Hegel was a huge threat to The West, and I'm not sure how I haven't come across even Orthodox philosophers who recognize that Hegel, the apogee of Rationalism, in his treatment of the dialectic, The Universal and The Concept, had encountered The Trinity. I think that is why philosophy really stopped with him, leading to the postmodern era. But, that is its own rabbit trail...
The difference in America is that we have no spiritual foundations to which we can return, and I believe this was very intentional. We essentially have "denominations" within Orthodoxy. In my city, I believe there are Antiochian, Romanian, Russian and Greek parishes. Even this strikes me as odd, as if America, having no spiritual foundation, seeks to appropriate those of other cultures. But it is just more multiplicity.
Even though Russia did have strong Orthodox foundations and traditions, many knew that it wouldn't be saved. It has been said that Dostoyevsky created the character of Natasya in "The Idiot" as an allegory for Russia, the point being that she didn't want to be saved. The Prince, despite his best efforts and altruism, ended up insane from trying to save her. This opened my eyes to America. I finally accepted that she does not want to be saved.
What you said is exactly what I feel. America will not be saved, but the individuals within America may be. But we must first "die to America" before that can happen. Capitalism, patriotism, democracy, separation of church and state, etc. for us have largely become idols, and the standard by which we measure "good" or "bad", rather than the lens of Christ being the standard by which these things are judged. We are "America first".
But, you cannot take a nation founded upon the ideology of the individual and "convert" it to Orthodoxy without the entire system collapsing first. Our fundamental presuppositions are diametrically opposed to Christianity. I encounter young men who cheer this on, and I just tell them how, forgive me, stupid they are. They have no idea how many people would have to suffer and die for that to happen. I am 44. If it started tomorrow, I would not live to see the other side of it.
What you wrote really resonated with me, because I have encountered a great deal of pride within Orthodoxy, wherein it is espoused that one can only be saved in The Orthodox Church. For me, it seems like we are limiting the grace of God, making it subject to temporal and/or spatial constraints. Can God's grace not be present at a Satanic black mass if that is what He wills? I cannot be so quick to condemn Protestants and Catholics to hell because the subscribe to penal substitutionary atonement, or don't understand the essence/energies distinction, and I grew very weary of polemics.
It seems to me that the theology, sacraments and even wisdom of the fathers are all "invitations" to the encounter with God. Yes, contained within Orthodoxy is the fullness of the faith, and our best hope to be "made well", yet they are not ends in and of themselves. Affirming that they are, again, limits the grace of God and renders our salvation to be based upon "works", rather than faith.
We cannot understand paradox, even though we talk about it, and that is all Christianity is. That is what the dialectic of Hegel is, the "negation of the negation" by which we are always "becoming" in communion with the other. We cannot be saved without the other, yet we can only be concerned with saving ourselves by denying ourselves in service to the other, if we are to help the other to be saved. So, in a sense it is a "selfish selflessness". What God does with us from there is up to His divine providence. It took me a long time to understand that. The Church has her Hero and Savior, so she doesn't need a loudmouth like me. Lol
You are totally fine! But can you be specific about what you are asking?
Everyone justifies their positions - that is how we formulated our dogmas, after all. Every theological disturbance produces justifications on both sides. I hope there is not a perception that the mere act of explaining or apologetics is somehow Protestant, or Evangelical!
What assertion or element struck you in this way, and what about it makes you think so? (I ask this in a friendly way, not a confrontational one, and am happy to engage and clarify my perspective)
Thank you. I don’t know that I have a specific thing that was said. The reformers have countless justifications for not being in Christ’s church. I’ve heard so many of these justification over the years I’m numb to them and don’t even listen. I’m interested and curious about the lives of the Old Believers both current and past. No matter the theology/dogma/etc. Their story is in some way shape or form my story. So when I read the justifications for the continued existence, practice, etc… I wonder why these explanations are valid/justified yet all others outside of what is commonly understood as Orthodoxy should be considered invalid. Every dissenter has a “reason why” they’re dissenting. And just for clarity I’m not unaware of the immeasurable problems with what is commonly understood in modernity as Orthodoxy. My question is less about “right” and more in terms of why is this dissent valid when all other dissents are truly nonsensical both in terms of the latins and protestants. And again because some of these internet conversations can be so bitter, I want you to know that I am genuinely curious about the answer and the topic. Thank you for writing about it.
There is a lot here. Let me address what I can in a comment.
"why is this dissent valid when all other dissents are truly nonsensical both in terms of the latins and protestants?"
I cannot answer that, because it is both too vague and general. Dissents, if by dissent, you mean a deviation or a change to Tradition, are forbidden by both canons, and Tradition itself. But to say that all dissent is nonsensical is strange - before such a judgment, I would at least need to weigh the objection, and see where Tradition lays.
So, my question to you is, what is your guiding principle when looking at, for example, the views of a modern Orthodox theologian, and those of a Roman Catholic? Do you just assume that the Orthodox one is right because he belongs to the same formal church? What if, when examined, it turns out the person in your own party is actually speaking against the tradition of his own church? Note that this happens all the time, and churches are in constant states of dealing with new thoughts, explanations, theologies, and perspectives - always weighing them against their own traditions.
What people believe regarding God and their faith is usually central to their lives - and it is our duty, when we believe we are correct, to not brush off their thoughts, but they should be considered so that they can be addressed in a genuine spirit of understanding and love.
I believe, like I assume you do, that to "dissent" from Tradition is wrong, to the point of being a rebellion, placing you against the Church - and outside of it. This is why I believe it was wrong for Nikon and his followers to dissent and start their own church, opposed to their own tradition. But, the individual details of this should be freely discussed, and I do/have with Nikonians, both here and on other forums. And I will continue to listen to their beliefs on where and why they continue to dissent from their pre-Schism faith. And I do so respectfully - even though we always have opposing views of which one is in "Christ's Church".
People of sincere faith - especially people who genuinely are trying to follow Christ, personally, and sincerely - deserve the basic respect of listening and considering their points of view. And when we disagree to the point of exclusivity - we will have a clean conscience knowing that we at least tried to understand where they were coming from.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your highly insightful article on the Priestless Old Believers. The profound perspectives on the "fiery desire" and the theological foundation of spiritual communion were exceptionally enriching and provided me with a new understanding of this complex topic.
Building on your text, a few questions come to mind: Are there currently any tendencies or movements within the priestless communities to return to an institutionalized priesthood? Furthermore, is there anything in this context comparable to what we in the West understand as an "ecumenical movement"?
Additionally, I would be very interested to know if there are any ongoing theological discussions or dialogues between the Old Believers and the mainstream Orthodox Church. Do such exchanges take place on a theological level to better understand and potentially resolve historical and dogmatic misunderstandings?
Thank you in advance for your time. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on these matters.
Thank you for such a thoughtful and respectful question!
On the search for a valid priesthood - the answer is no. The belief that “we cannot say for sure” is really not a reflection of any doubt about the invalidity of the existing priesthoods. Rather, it is more of a kind of academic honesty, that says we cannot absolutely say, for certain, that in some remote forest, or mountain, there is not an ancient Christian community with a priesthood that has continued uninterrupted, that preserves the elements of the ancient piety. If such were found, I suppose the question might come to life.
As for the ecumenical movement, in Russia there are dialogues and interfaith meetings that Old Believers do participate in. The Old Believer hierarchy in Moscow has held formal, but infrequent, and completely unproductive dialogues with the Moscow Patriarchate, and representatives from the Pomorians will also appear at more broad Old Believer gatherings as well. But, in Russia, these are not, from what I have seen, gatherings to try and issue joint statements or address divisions - they are more like academic conferences for churchly types.
As far as dialogue with mainstream Orthodoxy toward reconciliation - this is possible, but like finding surviving ancient Orthodox priests, it is really only a theoretical possibility. Churches do not overturn their established traditions (1666 being an exception), so it would be very strange for the Nikonians to return to pre-Schism piety - and frankly, it would scandalize their own, creating doubts, and possibly shaking even individuals’ faith. It is unrealistic. As such, there really are not any genuine pursuits.
I have struggled with the “Americanization” of Orthodoxy in America. I have been called “sanctimonious” among other things, yet no one has challenged me on the merits of my positions, about which I am willing to be wrong.
For me, Orthodoxy has just become another profit, not prophet, center in America. It is “trendy” and commercialized. The first thing that I noticed was the lack of single women coming into the church, as well as my own wife’s experience in our conversion. I do believe there are many priests who mean well, and are “good” men, as far as any of us may be said to be “good”.
Then I noticed that it’s all polemics, mainly against the Jews and liberalism, eschatology, or even metaphysics. It seems to me that there is no “body” to the church. I have been working on something where I am exploring in the light of being a type of denial of Chalcedon, or rather Christ’s being fully man. It’s like Gnosticism. It’s an overcorrection to Rationalism. What it is not, is simple faith, the “Orthodoxy of the Heart” spoken of by Father Seraphim Rose. I didn’t find brotherhood. I found an almost militant and angry faith that points its finger saying “thank God I’m not like that man”. It’s really too much to put within the confines of a comment on an article. But it suffices to say, something seems very “off” on many levels.
It was Berdyaev who opened my eyes to the fact that the institution of Orthodoxy, and Orthodoxy Herself, are two different things. I’ve begun to wonder if it will be destroyed as was The Temple in Jerusalem.
Thank you for sharing your insight. Makes me feel less “alone” if that makes sense. Anytime I attempt to discuss these things, I end up contending with logical fallacies rather than actual opposition to my statements, and never am I corrected with love. Kind tells me I touched a nerve, honestly.
I would love to discuss these things further. But I could see the institution of Orthodoxy collapsing, yet The Church remains eternal and unblemished. I don’t think Americans can separate the two. It’s almost like we blend elements of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism and bring that baggage with us into the church.
You said a lot there. And you are preaching to the choir! Very profound observations.
I absolutely agree with just about all of it. I would also add that your observation about the trendiness, especially among men, is unusual, and spot on. It is one of the many refuges for disaffected young men today, unfortunately, many of which are looking for a place to validate their anti-Western sentiments.
The other thing is that, because we see everything through the lens of dichotomy, everything is either/or rather than both/and. So, there is a danger in not realizing that, as we affirm The Orthodox Church to be Israel, as is true, we fail to understand that if we are the Israel of Abraham, Jacob and Isaac, necessarily, we must also be the Israel spoken of by the prophets Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah, and that the institution of the church can, in fact, become an idol. I think that is a great deal of what is taking place in America.
Probably in other places as well. Again, really good observations and I like your perspective very much.
The reformed Orthodox have a serious convert problem, from my perspective. The numbers are a cause of celebration to them, even indicating that it must indicate that they hold the truth, but without observing which other faiths are having the same experience.
Converts are like immigrants. With a meager amount, there can be confidence in assimilation, even including language. But with a large sustained stream, not only will there not be assimilation, but the converts will change the institution. And the population of disaffected young men, in my observations, are not men who are broken, spiritually, who need to follow Christ because they know it is their lives that need to change.
Rather they are joining for much more superficial reasons, like political reasons, or because (and I have seen this), they are thrilled at the image of mystical monastic elders, who not only have really cool, exotic looking outfits, but seem to all have these spiritual magic powers as well. It is the fetishization of miracles and craving and seeking the abuse of the elder/disciple relationship, which is intended and appropriate only for monastic elders and their monastic disciples, not for a monk and hordes of googly-eyed laypeople. Every pre-Optina monastic would have sooner died than to be given such spiritual power and temptation!
Old Believers have plenty of problems of their own, without the converts. Converts might even do them some good, in moderation. Truly. But when the scale is very small, it's much easier to hide. The same holds true for Catholics, who can easily be mocked for their problems without any appreciation that their population is 6 times larger than the Orthodox population, and 700 times larger than the Old Believers! It is an unimaginably large population...
It’s really refreshing to hear someone say these things. It’s also very sad to be able to say that. It’s just that I’ve struggled so much with loneliness in Orthodoxy, because, as I started to notice these things, I was just dismissed. I found many who wanted to talk about metaphysics, eschatology and the toll hoses, Lord have mercy🤦🏻, but I did not find brotherhood.
I thought I was the problem, and of course, I still am. I am broken too. But I don’t want to hate the Jews, or Protestants. I don’t want to “own them” in a debate. They’ve rallied so hard against feminism, that they now hate women, but nobody can see it. There is nothing for a single woman in most American churches, because it is all metaphysics and such, and as you said, an almost fetishization of the saints, but that’s not how they approach the faith. I asked a group one time how they planned to grow the church when they basically view women as whores who need to be saved by men?
I began to realize that I had to “un-Americanize” myself if I were to ever encounter true Orthodoxy. America is anti-Logos. It’s Babylon. It consumes everything. I wrote a thing about how fast immigrants’ culture and traditions are destroyed when they come here. It takes less than a generation. America’s is the most diametrically opposed culture to Orthodoxy, perhaps ever. At least the pagans had a spiritual framework.
You can’t take someone who is already broken and compartmentalized, have him go by “Paisios” on Sundays, and “Chad” the rest of the week, without serious problems. It’s just a further division of Christ as God and man within the person.
My question is, where does one go? I can’t even have this conversation with anyone that I know. I’m willing to be wrong. All I ask is to be corrected in love, and don’t have me arguing against a straw man, which is what seems to happen every time.
The truth is that if American Orthodoxy was actually a danger to this world, the persecutions would have already come. It’s being rotted from within. I’ve told many of these guys that this “revival” they think could happen is possible… but the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. We aren’t ready for that.
Sorry for rambling. It’s just that I spend so much time feeling like I speak another language, it’s nice to be heard and have someone to honestly engage with. Also not trying to trauma dump.
I just want a simple faith. The more I read or study theology, the more I understand it to be not about adding anything, rather stripping everything away. I just want to “un-learn” this world and focus on Christ.
A very interesting take on America. I had not thought about it quite that way before. I can see it, now that you say it.
The sad thing, is that I don't really believe that this "American" culture is really anymore American than a burqa is. Perhaps America is still too young of an experiment to have a strong cultural identity in that way, but it has only been a few generations since it began abandoning its own moderate Protestant roots (and Catholic ones as well). The 1960s saw not only the social revolution and the beginning of the abandonment of America's traditional Protestant identity, but also Vatican II and its general reorientation against traditionalism. It was a kind of spiritual assault on Christians of every flavor, in a much more efficient way than physical persecution.
Then add in historically miraculous economic prosperity and stability, and more than enough of freedom, and it is a wonder that there is anyone who wants to follow Christ anymore. But wherever this began to manifest - it is not, I believe, just an American problem, nor is really America's fault - she was just the first and biggest target. Its everywhere now.
In this sense, I think that there is a unique opportunity in America. On an individual level, I mean. To actually follow Christ, simply, as you said, but sincerely, in the way it seems the entire content of the Gospels are written to support, is almost a kind of spiritual martyrdom.
It is like trying to study and pray inside of a children's funhouse. Who can do it?
I agree with your sentiment. As a rule - I don't ever recommend or try to proselytize my own faith, as its quite strange to most, and God will lead people to where they need to be, if they are listening inside the funhouse.
But, I think that if you are trying to follow Christ, simply, and seriously - sincerely, that you are already further ahead in the race than just about everyone else.
In our faith, a core saying we use, to express our general hope in Jesus Christ in our strange circumstance (without a priesthood - small numbers, poor organization, etc), is "the Savior knows how to save". The churches all set up elements of faith and piety that it sees are both beneficial to follow, and harmful to oppose. It is good. But it is also unavoidable that they can become litmus tests that are merely ends in themselves.
The need for a simple faith hits the nail on the head. But faiths are lived out within the context of others, usually within churches. Perhaps there is a natural tension between communal faith and personal faith. I don't know, but your final sentence is just great, and sums it all up very nicely.
I've become very interested in The Old Believers. I came across them around the same time I did the Slavophiles. In fact, I believe that The Slavophiles' dismissal of The Old Believers was a mistake. They were trying to contend with The West, and Rationalism, on its own terms. It seems that Kireevsky and Khomakhov, for example, were more "Westernized" than they realized. I believe they loved Russia, but I also can't help but feel like they were trying to find a way to marry Orthodoxy and The West. This was a problem because "соборность" was never able to fully take root, even within The Slavophiles themselves. There was disagreement on any number of things. But to dismiss The Old Believers, it seems to me that one would have to also dismiss The Catacomb saints of the twentieth century, but I could be missing something.
But I also believe that it makes it plain to see how Orthodox Russia presented such an existential threat to The West and Rationalism, and still does. Orthodoxy was the only thing that was able to stand up to Western philosophy, especially Hegel. I also believe that Hegel was a huge threat to The West, and I'm not sure how I haven't come across even Orthodox philosophers who recognize that Hegel, the apogee of Rationalism, in his treatment of the dialectic, The Universal and The Concept, had encountered The Trinity. I think that is why philosophy really stopped with him, leading to the postmodern era. But, that is its own rabbit trail...
The difference in America is that we have no spiritual foundations to which we can return, and I believe this was very intentional. We essentially have "denominations" within Orthodoxy. In my city, I believe there are Antiochian, Romanian, Russian and Greek parishes. Even this strikes me as odd, as if America, having no spiritual foundation, seeks to appropriate those of other cultures. But it is just more multiplicity.
Even though Russia did have strong Orthodox foundations and traditions, many knew that it wouldn't be saved. It has been said that Dostoyevsky created the character of Natasya in "The Idiot" as an allegory for Russia, the point being that she didn't want to be saved. The Prince, despite his best efforts and altruism, ended up insane from trying to save her. This opened my eyes to America. I finally accepted that she does not want to be saved.
What you said is exactly what I feel. America will not be saved, but the individuals within America may be. But we must first "die to America" before that can happen. Capitalism, patriotism, democracy, separation of church and state, etc. for us have largely become idols, and the standard by which we measure "good" or "bad", rather than the lens of Christ being the standard by which these things are judged. We are "America first".
But, you cannot take a nation founded upon the ideology of the individual and "convert" it to Orthodoxy without the entire system collapsing first. Our fundamental presuppositions are diametrically opposed to Christianity. I encounter young men who cheer this on, and I just tell them how, forgive me, stupid they are. They have no idea how many people would have to suffer and die for that to happen. I am 44. If it started tomorrow, I would not live to see the other side of it.
What you wrote really resonated with me, because I have encountered a great deal of pride within Orthodoxy, wherein it is espoused that one can only be saved in The Orthodox Church. For me, it seems like we are limiting the grace of God, making it subject to temporal and/or spatial constraints. Can God's grace not be present at a Satanic black mass if that is what He wills? I cannot be so quick to condemn Protestants and Catholics to hell because the subscribe to penal substitutionary atonement, or don't understand the essence/energies distinction, and I grew very weary of polemics.
It seems to me that the theology, sacraments and even wisdom of the fathers are all "invitations" to the encounter with God. Yes, contained within Orthodoxy is the fullness of the faith, and our best hope to be "made well", yet they are not ends in and of themselves. Affirming that they are, again, limits the grace of God and renders our salvation to be based upon "works", rather than faith.
We cannot understand paradox, even though we talk about it, and that is all Christianity is. That is what the dialectic of Hegel is, the "negation of the negation" by which we are always "becoming" in communion with the other. We cannot be saved without the other, yet we can only be concerned with saving ourselves by denying ourselves in service to the other, if we are to help the other to be saved. So, in a sense it is a "selfish selflessness". What God does with us from there is up to His divine providence. It took me a long time to understand that. The Church has her Hero and Savior, so she doesn't need a loudmouth like me. Lol
sincere question. I ask humbly and respectfully and in no way attempting to be confrontational nor to disagree.
How is this different from any western protestant confession attempting to justify their position.
As a western person I've heard many "justifications" for any number of practices.
You are totally fine! But can you be specific about what you are asking?
Everyone justifies their positions - that is how we formulated our dogmas, after all. Every theological disturbance produces justifications on both sides. I hope there is not a perception that the mere act of explaining or apologetics is somehow Protestant, or Evangelical!
What assertion or element struck you in this way, and what about it makes you think so? (I ask this in a friendly way, not a confrontational one, and am happy to engage and clarify my perspective)
Thank you. I don’t know that I have a specific thing that was said. The reformers have countless justifications for not being in Christ’s church. I’ve heard so many of these justification over the years I’m numb to them and don’t even listen. I’m interested and curious about the lives of the Old Believers both current and past. No matter the theology/dogma/etc. Their story is in some way shape or form my story. So when I read the justifications for the continued existence, practice, etc… I wonder why these explanations are valid/justified yet all others outside of what is commonly understood as Orthodoxy should be considered invalid. Every dissenter has a “reason why” they’re dissenting. And just for clarity I’m not unaware of the immeasurable problems with what is commonly understood in modernity as Orthodoxy. My question is less about “right” and more in terms of why is this dissent valid when all other dissents are truly nonsensical both in terms of the latins and protestants. And again because some of these internet conversations can be so bitter, I want you to know that I am genuinely curious about the answer and the topic. Thank you for writing about it.
There is a lot here. Let me address what I can in a comment.
"why is this dissent valid when all other dissents are truly nonsensical both in terms of the latins and protestants?"
I cannot answer that, because it is both too vague and general. Dissents, if by dissent, you mean a deviation or a change to Tradition, are forbidden by both canons, and Tradition itself. But to say that all dissent is nonsensical is strange - before such a judgment, I would at least need to weigh the objection, and see where Tradition lays.
So, my question to you is, what is your guiding principle when looking at, for example, the views of a modern Orthodox theologian, and those of a Roman Catholic? Do you just assume that the Orthodox one is right because he belongs to the same formal church? What if, when examined, it turns out the person in your own party is actually speaking against the tradition of his own church? Note that this happens all the time, and churches are in constant states of dealing with new thoughts, explanations, theologies, and perspectives - always weighing them against their own traditions.
What people believe regarding God and their faith is usually central to their lives - and it is our duty, when we believe we are correct, to not brush off their thoughts, but they should be considered so that they can be addressed in a genuine spirit of understanding and love.
I believe, like I assume you do, that to "dissent" from Tradition is wrong, to the point of being a rebellion, placing you against the Church - and outside of it. This is why I believe it was wrong for Nikon and his followers to dissent and start their own church, opposed to their own tradition. But, the individual details of this should be freely discussed, and I do/have with Nikonians, both here and on other forums. And I will continue to listen to their beliefs on where and why they continue to dissent from their pre-Schism faith. And I do so respectfully - even though we always have opposing views of which one is in "Christ's Church".
People of sincere faith - especially people who genuinely are trying to follow Christ, personally, and sincerely - deserve the basic respect of listening and considering their points of view. And when we disagree to the point of exclusivity - we will have a clean conscience knowing that we at least tried to understand where they were coming from.
Thank you very much for taking the time. I know you didn't have to. Bless you.
Thank you for such a well written, interesting article!
I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your highly insightful article on the Priestless Old Believers. The profound perspectives on the "fiery desire" and the theological foundation of spiritual communion were exceptionally enriching and provided me with a new understanding of this complex topic.
Building on your text, a few questions come to mind: Are there currently any tendencies or movements within the priestless communities to return to an institutionalized priesthood? Furthermore, is there anything in this context comparable to what we in the West understand as an "ecumenical movement"?
Additionally, I would be very interested to know if there are any ongoing theological discussions or dialogues between the Old Believers and the mainstream Orthodox Church. Do such exchanges take place on a theological level to better understand and potentially resolve historical and dogmatic misunderstandings?
Thank you in advance for your time. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on these matters.
Thank you for such a thoughtful and respectful question!
On the search for a valid priesthood - the answer is no. The belief that “we cannot say for sure” is really not a reflection of any doubt about the invalidity of the existing priesthoods. Rather, it is more of a kind of academic honesty, that says we cannot absolutely say, for certain, that in some remote forest, or mountain, there is not an ancient Christian community with a priesthood that has continued uninterrupted, that preserves the elements of the ancient piety. If such were found, I suppose the question might come to life.
As for the ecumenical movement, in Russia there are dialogues and interfaith meetings that Old Believers do participate in. The Old Believer hierarchy in Moscow has held formal, but infrequent, and completely unproductive dialogues with the Moscow Patriarchate, and representatives from the Pomorians will also appear at more broad Old Believer gatherings as well. But, in Russia, these are not, from what I have seen, gatherings to try and issue joint statements or address divisions - they are more like academic conferences for churchly types.
As far as dialogue with mainstream Orthodoxy toward reconciliation - this is possible, but like finding surviving ancient Orthodox priests, it is really only a theoretical possibility. Churches do not overturn their established traditions (1666 being an exception), so it would be very strange for the Nikonians to return to pre-Schism piety - and frankly, it would scandalize their own, creating doubts, and possibly shaking even individuals’ faith. It is unrealistic. As such, there really are not any genuine pursuits.
This whole debate is so apropos today for catholics. Thank you for sharing.