Hellenists and Converts, oh my, part 01

I have seldom seen the Bible come to life as much as I have in the last month as I have read two articles, one by a priest and one by a layman, that exemplify the great disputes going on within Orthodoxy in the USA. The first article, “The Orthodox Church of Tomorrow” was published by a convert priest, but was later removed. However, you can still read a copy of it here. The second article was published by a Greek layman and titled, “The religious right must not set agenda for Orthodox Church.” It can be read in the September 24 issue of the Hellenic Voice, but registration is required to access the archives.

Acts 15:1-5 says: And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them. But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

American Orthodoxy is undergoing debates similar in emotion and type to the arguments that the Early Church faced. How Greek (or Jewish) should Orthodoxy be? How free is the developing Orthodox Church here in America (or Gentile) to make changes and adapt the faith once delivered? I will tell you that I consider both men to be behaving very badly. Nevertheless, in spite of that, they are very illustrative of the “no little debate” that is going on in American Orthodoxy.

In his article the priest said:

“The notion that traditionally Orthodox ethnic groups (the group of ‘our people’ we hear so much about from our primates and hierarchs) are going to populate the ranks of the clergy, and therefore, the Church in the future is, frankly, a pipe dream. . . They [Ed.: converts and reverts] refuse to accept the Church as a club of any kind, or closed circle kaffeeklatsch. No old world embassies will be tolerated for much longer – they will go the way of the dodo. No one will have to work against them; they will simply die from atrophy and neglect. The passing away of the Orthodox Church as ethnic club is already taking place. It will come to fruition in a short 10 years, 15 years in larger parishes. . . [T]he last holdouts of corruption, Byzantine intrigue and phyletism (a fancy theological term for ethnic preference) are clinging desperately to a vision of the Church that is, quite frankly, dying fast. Oh, they are doing everything to shore up their power and influence, and busy serving their own needs, but their vision is dying.”

The layman tries to convince us, using politics, that the converts entering in are simply the Religious Right trying to take over the Orthodox Church, but read his comments carefully and you will see that he has a second concern:

“Most converts end up in the Antiochian Archdiocese and OCA. They often bring their political beliefs with them and now claim to be the voice of true Orthodoxy in America when it comes to politics. The Christian Right focuses on one main issue, outlawing abortion; other issues are not as important to them. . . It seems that the Orthodox “dominianists” have also hijacked the Orthodox unity movement in part to serve their political agenda. Since the rise of the religious right Orthodox there can be no doubt that a big reason many of them are pushing for one Orthodox Church in America is to give religious right Orthodox a stronger voice in Washington. . . The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America has not followed the religious right Christians into politics and remains committed to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and to preserving the Greek faith, language and culture. In hindsight this has proved to be a wise decision.”

In the context of the article, the layman appears to only be taking on politics, but note how he carefully tars both the Antiochians and the OCA all the way up to the level of the Metropolinate because they have supposedly “given in.” In a follow-up to his article the layman continues:

“Greek-Americans want to keep their culture and heritage as well as their language. As Metropolitan Kallistos Ware said recently in Detroit, ‘What would be an American Church?’ He is right, we have so many cultures and races here, would the church be Arab, Black, Hispanic, Indian, Asian or Anglo-Saxon? Our culture respects all races, nationalities, and creeds. Multicultural diversity is the only way we can go if we want to have a country. Many hold on to their cultures. There is nothing wrong with an ethnic church and there is nothing wrong with an American Church. We are free in America to worship the way we want. . . As time goes by more and more of these converts do not like what they see in the Orthodox Churches in America. They do not like the many ethnic jurisdictions and feel that there must be only one Orthodox Church in America because Canon Law calls for one bishop in each city.”

Let me repeat that I consider BOTH of these men to be behaving badly. Nevertheless, in these sets of quotes, one can see the debate that is going on in America. And, that debate is the parallel of the debate that went on in the Early Church as she worked through what it meant to cross from being a Jewish/Samaritan Church to including Gentiles as full members. We are undergoing the same stresses now as that Church was undergoing. We are having “no little debate” as well as having people displaying anger, triumphalism, etc. Though the layman ostensibly attacks on the issue of politics, it is quickly clear that the issue is cultural adaptation. Politics is merely the vehicle that he uses to get to the conclusion that the way things were is the best. Meantime, the priest seems to want the changes to come quicker than they have, and is understandably tired of an insistence on practices that appear to him to be merely external cultural habits and languages that he never spoke. But, neither has taken the right road to a solution. Rather, they have both helped to inflame the process.

—MORE TO COME—