Cross-posted with the author's permission. Much to ponder here. (Happy Feast Day!)
I admit, I've always preferred visiting a Catholic or Orthodox church that felt identifiably Catholic/Orthodox, rather than one attempting to pass itself off as a form of Lutheranism with icons. Of the Orthodox, I've probably been to about six different churches, and been more impressed with the traditionalist-style services. Part of this, admittedly, is a consequence of their tendency to handle the more difficult sections of the music better. At the same time, there's something just a little peculiar about the whole idea of modernist Orthodox. From the Protestant perspective, even the most modernist of Orthodox still have certain customs and rituals that they defend enthusiastically, and often it appears as if the decisions of what to drop as culturally outmoded and what to preserve as spiritually valuable are being made opportunistically, on a personal level. That makes it more difficult to take seriously the critique that Orthodoxy is trying to make against Protestantism.
I can understand a traditionalist Orthodox congregation that strictly follows all ancient customs prescribed by Scripture, patristic witness, and canon law. That seems consistent, even if I don't necessarily accept all those authorities myself. I can understand a progressive Protestant congregation that considers itself entirely free to interpret the Bible and revise old denominational customs for the sake of outreach and cultural relevancy. That again seems consistent, even though I often think it goes too far. I can certainly understand very conservative Protestant congregations that create a hierarchy of observance, holding fast to all Biblical or ancient apostolic praxis, but allowing flexibility on customs that developed later. But it just comes across as really strange to see a group of Orthodox who invest great energy in keeping track of which fast days permit a katalysis for wine and oil, but feel relatively nonplussed about shrugging off two-thousand years of universal and biblically grounded practice on the issue of women's headcoverings. It just comes across as picking and choosing according to private taste, which according to the Orthodox is supposedly the great fault of Protestant praxis. Net impression: "We'll do detailed legalistic things, provided we get to pick which detailed legalistic things we want to do, and they aren't too inconvenient."
Of course, I'd probably prefer a general and intentional reconsideration of all Orthodox practice toward the modernist direction to be a good thing, but I'm just critiquing internal consistency of the Orthodox with their own theology. If the Orthodox are going to dump headcovering and beards and bring in pews and organs, then I have trouble taking as seriously the residual insistences on liturgical purity, fasting strictures, and exclusive use of iconographic-style art and eastern chant (as opposed to Western art and music). It looks as if the modernist Orthodox are just retaining a few parts of their own tradition that help them feel "non-Protestant" on the basis of local personal preference, in which case they ought to stop being so smug about the superiority of their "God-centered" worship. (Trads, on the other hand, can go on being smug, and at least be asured that in the process of being judgmental, they aren't also being logically inconsistent!)
