Just some Thoughts
The following is from a book I'm reading on Constantinople in the Age of Justinian. It deals with the Liturgy at that particular time:
"Thus, if the services were elaborate, they were not static. They were long, but this was because there was much to be said and sung, and to omit any of this, or to curtain a service temporarily, would have been to lose something precious; the whole act of worship would be rendered vain. If the essential contents of the services were not changed, this did not mean that they were stagnant; it was simply that the texts were considered to be complete and perfect, wholly satisfying the need. They had reached a state which could not be bettered." - Glanville Downey, Constantinople in the Age of Justinian, (University of Oklahoma Press, 1960), p. 119
The author, Glanville Downey, was an Episcopalian layman and secular* historian**. Yet, this man (in the quote and pretty much throughout the book) seems to "get" the spirit of Orthodoxy more than some Orthodox theologians (who will go unnamed) from our recent past (and our present). Sure, Glanville doesn't use Orthodox terminology, and his lack of knowledge of Orthodox historical religious practice is obvious in some places, but he "gets it" when it comes to the real "heart of the matter" more times than not. In everything from the Liturgy to the place of Justinian in Byzantine (and Orthodox) history, he truly seems to understand from an almost Orthodox perspective. I wonder why some theologians who are actually Orthodox, being taught in Orthodox schools, and themselves teaching Orthodox students in Orthodox schools, can't get the "spirit" of certain aspects of Byzantium as wholly as this wonderful Episcopalian man.
Justin
- I call him secular not in disrespect but only to differentiate him from an Church (ie. Orthodox) historian.
** Ph.D. in Classics from Princeton, taught Byzantine History at Harvard, then taught Classics at Indiana University, among other accomplishments
PS. When I say that the alluded-to theologians will go unnamed, I mean it.. I'm not trying to beat around the bush so that I can later attack certain theologians. I have no interest in "naming names" in this thread. 
PSS. Obviously the Title of the thread isn't meant to be taken at face value. Though admittedly a few Episcopalians have suprised me (Lewis, Chesterton, and now Glanville)
