Which is the best method for helping others to understand the Orthodox view? Some take the "let's be friends" route, following the belief that there must be mutual respect, cooperation, and friendly dialogue for there to be any real "connection". Others hold to the position that the Orthodox should do nothing other than proclaim the truth, and that dialogue of any kind is to be avoided and viewed as dangerous. So which is correct?
The difficulty is, both are correct (depending on context and other factors). We find lots of examples of both methods in Church history. (examples can be provided if necessary 
). So, the question for us today really is: should we be involved in the ecumenical movement? Whatever the answer, I think we need to remember that when people come to a different decision, it isn't proper to think that they're using an unorthodox method; at most, they are misapplying an orthodox method.
The "let's be friends" method can be very beneficial, and is leastwise the method that allows the most non-polemical language. Some would say that this is a con, because it make you go too far the other way in avoiding confrontational language; I guess it depends on the people and the discussion. In my discussions with people online, both Catholics and Protestants, I've found that this method provided the most enjoyable and beneficial results for me. When I think about the times when I learnt the most, and was best able to articulate the Orthodox position while still remaining totally irenic, it was using this "let's be friends" method.
As an example, I befriended a number of Catholics on Paltalk, and side by side (so to speak) we defended traditional Christianity against many Protestants who would wander into the Orthodox and Catholic rooms. We learnt to trust each other, even if we disagreed sometimes, and we formed attachments--friendship. Now, when it came time to debate differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy--and we had some really good discussions: though they remained peaceful, they could get quite intense--we knew that the other person was a friend. There was no questioning of motive, and there was no thinking (secretly sinning in judging) things like "This guy can't see what I'm saying? what an idiot!". We were forced to treat the people as friends, and this made all the difference in keeping the discussions civil, and information flowing back and forth.
And as I said, this was the method that was most enjoyable for me, and the one which I learnt most through. However... what I get out of the discussion isn't particularly important (at least from an Orthodox perspective). Though we never tried to "take sheep from each other," we both secretly hoped that the other side might join our own Church. I don't think this could happen, though. One of the reasons that I enjoyed the debate is because it allowed me to feel more confident in my own position. As I tried to articulate the Orthodox position, I was reminded of many arguments and evidences that supported my own position. Hence, I was left more sure of my position, even if I also had more information on their position.
I can only imagine, however, that those who I discussed Orthodoxy with, using this method, had the same experience. For all the information going back and forth, and for all the evidences presented in support of the Orthodox position, I very much doubt I made much of an impact as far as someone actually becoming Orthodox. Indeed, if they experienced anything like I did, they were probably less likely to convert to Orthodoxy after the discussion(s). This seems to be confirmed by the experiences on a much broader level: those involved in the ecumenical movement. Sure there are converts to Orthodoxy who are also very ecumenically minded (Jaroslav Pelikan comes to mind), but how many people have actually converted as a direct result of Orthodox participation in the Ecumenical movement?
This is the goal, isn't it? We of course don't say that we're there to convert others, but come on, saying that "we're there to witness to the apostolic faith" simply begs the question. Why are we doing that witnessing? What outcomes do we hope for through such witnessing? Conversion to Orthodoxy, obviously. Thing is, it just doesn't work.
Not working is not, of course, necessarily a sufficient enough reason to drop such dialogue. "We're making progress" someone might say (I would ask what they are progressing towards, but that's another thread). Why are traditionalists so against the ecumenical movement? Is it just because it doesn't seem to be working? The reason they are against it is because there are other Cons to the whole ecumenical movement participation. First, canons and traditions seem to be broken. Praying with the heterodox is one example of this, and considering some of the things that have happened at such prayer meetings, there is no doubt that canons are clearly being violated. (Joint prayer after 9/11 was perhaps one thing--but those involved in the ecumenical movement sometimes pray right alongside members of other religions... to what end?)
There is another con here. A number of Fathers teach that you should witness to the faith, and then let that be it. They teach that you should not get involved in lengthy discussions or debates. Even if you don't get corrupted--and they say that you most likely will--by heterodox ideas, you'll still cause harm, both to yourself and those you talk to. These are some reasons traditionalists don't approve of the dialogues going on currently. (it's a matter of which method to use, not a matter of lacking love).
On the other hand, sometimes traditionalists can go too far the other way. They say that we should only be a witness to our faith, and not get involved in such discussions, but then they leave a huge void where the witnessing should be happening. And what fills this void? Polemical and uneven-handed texts that are usually defensive and based on knee-jerk reactions. We traditionalists say we need only "articulate Orthodoxy and move on," but then we don't articulate it: we just move on. We dismiss convert questions as "unimportant" and "typical of westerners". Well guess what... we live in the west. I am a westerner, and I plan on always being a westerner.
Maybe some questions shouldn't be asked, but as long we are talking in maybe's, I think just about everyone is going to be judged (e.g., anyone on this forum going to be able to say on judgment day: 'I never spoke an idle word, Lord'?). I'm not saying we should ignore the "anti-western" literature, some of it is very good (e.g., that by Seraphim Rose, Justin Popovich, Nikolai Velimirovich, etc). What I am saying is that, once we understand what the problems are in western culture, we need to go past this attacking and start providing solutions. The early Christians knew full well the inadequacies and lack in pagan Greek philosophy, yet they didn't just attack it, but both used it against the pagan Greeks, and also offered an alternative to it. It's notable that the alternative was cast in decidedly Greek thoughts and language (though of course the Hebrew roots were never lost). If we want to reach "the west," I think we'll have to do likewise.
The ecumenical movement is, IMO, not the way to provide this alternative. But then, instead of simply attacking the ecumenical movement, we traditionalists should get to work on providing the solution. And of course, in the spirit of Saint Seraphim of Sarov, among other saints, we need to focus on ourselves before we worry about the salvation of others. "Ascetics are Orthodoxy's only missionaries". (Justin Popovich).
Justin
