In another thread someone mentioned something that I think would be good to discuss:
Many convert accept Father Seraphim as infalliable and never read the other views. (not saying you)
It is true that some converts can get caught up in making too much of certain people, and making them into almost infallible men and women. I think I understand exactly what was meant by this above statement, and I wholeheartedly concur with it's author. Many times we converts do read something by a Saint or Father, from Fr. Seraphim to Saint John Chrysostom, and tend to simply take what is said as "gospel truth" without any further thinking. Oddly enough, those who are looked to as sources (e.g., Fr. Seraphim or St. John) did not themselves approve of such a confident placing of one's faith in all that a man said, even if he were a very holy, learned man. In this I think we converts maybe get a bit too "quote happy" sometimes, using quotes like proof-texts, or compiling lists of quotes to support our position. We would be better served to spend more time reading the Fathers, rather than collecting quotes by them that deals with certain subjects, but too often we take the less profitable route. Most of these people seem to be to the "far right".
On the other hand, I've seen an opposite reaction among some converts, where they become a cradle-wanna-be and attack anything and everything that appears to them to be the product of "baggage" from before they converted. I've noticed that most of these people are moderate or modernist, and half the time attack others because they are themselves being convicted. Whenever these types of converts get confronted with something they don't want to hear, they just accuse those converts who are more to the right of being "puritans," the claim is made that they are "looking for guru's" and so forth. I know, I've been called these things and had worse said about me (though I would hope that I am not in the first group of converts mentioned above). For this group of converts (the moderates/modernists), anything and everything said by a Saint or Father needs to be closely scrutinized and discussed. Normally what the Fathers said about entertainment, fasting, modesty, etc. gets pitched out the window as irrelevant.
The third type of convert are in between these two... or rather, above them. I don't say that I'm in this third type, but I try to seek after conforming myself to this position, the traditionalist position, as much as I can. In this position, the convert does not take everything a saint says as "gospel truth," but he does treat the words of the saints as precious. Even when it is obvious that something being said is not relevant for modern applications (e.g., canons dealing with slavery), such a convert still has a hard time mentioning the word "irrelevant" and "saint" in the same sentence. He will do so, and explain himself, but it is not easy for him, both because the spirit is never irrelevant, and because it is so easy for either side to misunderstand what he has said (e.g., the modernists hear what he says and thinks they can pitch the canon or quote entirely; while the person on the far right attacks the traditionalist for daring to "judge a saint" or think that he "knows better than a saint"... and you can be sure that the guy on the far right will have a half dozen patristic quotes to show you that you're wrong). [Just a note here, I'm not talking about anyone here on this forum when I mention those on the far right. Just as an example, while OOD does give many quotes, he always does so within a totally Orthodox framework, and not in a Protestant "I have more proof texts than you!" type of way.]
- One thing I rarely see mentioned in these types of discussion is the fact that Orthodox cradles have baggage as well. Anyone who is exposed to the secular world for any amount of time today will have "baggage". Maybe it's not "religious" baggage from a past Church, but secular baggage is just as dangerous--if not more so. Also rarely discussed, at least from what I've seen, is the fact that cradles are not immune to having "zeal without knowledge" (a charge usually thrown at converts). Indeed, there have been a number of instances in Greece documented where cradle Greeks (and educated men at that) caused schism or disruption over very small "canonical infractions". Overly zealous religious fervor is not just a convert problem (though of course they are in more danger).