Official OCA position

Logos · Post by **Logos** » Tue 19 August 2003 3:16 pm

The danger of getting rid of the Greekness or Russianness for the church is that protestant tendencies begin to creep in that are alien from Orthodoxy. This is not an easy issue.

bogoliubtsy · Post by **bogoliubtsy** » Tue 19 August 2003 3:28 pm

Logos,
I was just yesterday discussing this with someone. The parishes in America that seem to uphold the faith in all its fullness and splendor also seem to often be the most "ethnic", unfortunately having no real focus on evangelization. Yet the parishes that use 100% English, make attempts at outreach to non-Orthodox, etc. also seem to have replaced "ethnicity" with an almost undefinable blandness that really turns me off. I suppose if you remove "ethnicity" from a parish as much as possible, there's a good chance it will be replaced with a flavor resembling American/Protestant parish life...this is the footing many convert lay people and pastors are familiar with and this type of convert baggage seems to easily keep popping up.
I think this is partially why Fr.Seraphim Rose is so important for American converts- his vision of Orthodoxy was evangelical and universal yet rooted firmly in a living tradition- a tradition that inevitably had some needed Russian-ness attached to it. Fr.Seraphim presented Americans with a perfect balance of faithfulness to tradition and a newness that comes in presenting Orthodoxy to a new land.

Methodius · Post by **Methodius** » Tue 19 August 2003 7:40 pm

Unfortunately these are just the symptoms of bigger problems in some World Orthodoxy jurisdictions.

Nektarios14 · Post by **Nektarios14** » Tue 19 August 2003 8:08 pm

Unfortunately these are just the symptoms of bigger problems in some World Orthodoxy jurisdictions.

Exactly. In and of themselves none of the modernisms are really an issue, nor even close to worth breaking communion over. But I get fed up when I see people attacking the issues in and of themselves rather than looking at the big picture. Then I get frustrated with people whose sole puprose in life is to discredit the Orthodox Church (i.e World Orthodoxy) and promote some novel sect of pharisees. It is all very ahistorical, especially when the highly beloved (at least here) Russian church of centuries past was incredibly secularized and the origen of many of today's questionable practices.

fserafim · Post by **fserafim** » Tue 19 August 2003 9:28 pm

Dear Friends in Christ.

Fr Seraphim Rose's vision of mission is right on track. Of course God can use any means to convey Orthodoxy to the world but history tells us that Orthodoxy is a living tradition, not something that can be adapted and modified for local consumption by means of library research. Our parish is 99% Russian speaking. Our services are in Slavonic and English. We know that we shall grow and that we need to reach out to the non-Orthodox around us. But we need this living base in order to do this. I once belonged to a parish that worked from books. It failed and no longer exists. Our mission is not to slavonize (!) our fellow citizens but to introduce them to a way of thinking that is 'different' and as of necessity needs to be rooted in our traditions.

How it will develop, only God knows, but we have parishioners who don't speak Russian and they feel equally at home. In fact they are highly respected by their Slavic brethren - probably for their patience . Sounds like an ideal situation? It is!

Yours in Christ,
Fr Serafim

Logos · Post by **Logos** » Tue 19 August 2003 11:07 pm

Mor, English is a language that borrows words from other languages. I don't see anything wrong with using Theotokos in English. So what is wrong with using Theotokos then?

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Wed 20 August 2003 8:28 am

Nektarios

It is all very ahistorical, especially when the highly beloved (at least here) Russian church of centuries past was incredibly secularized and the origen of many of today's questionable practices.

I fail to see where on this forum the Russian Church of the past has been overly praised. You are not the first person to make such a claim, but I really don't understand where this is being done at. If anything (personally speaking), I think contemporary (1700-1917) Russian morality (much like early Byzantine morality) is romanticized and so try to avoid making generalized comments about "how great it was in the ole days". I'm not one to go as far as Schmemann and claim that there was no "holy Russia" whatsoever, but I (for my part at least) don't romanticize it either. I'd be interested in knowing which "questionable practices" you see coming from the Russian church of centuries past.

Mor,

I don't think the content would be changed by adopting "Mother of God," which is a fine translation of theotokos. God bearer is not necessarily better, it just emphasises a different thing. It mentions (makes explicit) the actual carrying of Christ, while implying the birth and life-long relationship. Mother of God mentions the life-long relationship, and implies the carrying and giving birth. I've also heard the term "Birth giver of God," which of course mentions the birth, but only implies the life-long relationship and carrying of Christ. Regardless of what you choose, no term in English is going to convey explicitly every theological belief that the Orthodox hold to. I'd prefer (personally) to say a mixture of them, but primarily to stick with Theotokos; I don't see that it matters much though.