Ivory Tower Orthodoxy

My previous post perhaps seemed a bit harsh.  It was probably sinful, too.  But the Ochlophobist's attitude towards Fr. Ken and Emmanuel Orthodox Church made me as angry as I've been in a long time.

If I recall correctly, Owen is married but has no children of his own.  Perhaps if he had children of his own, he would have less time to pontificate on certain Orthodox subjects.

It is precisely those of us with young families who cannot afford to indulge in what I call "Ivory Tower Orthodoxy."  This is a substandard practice of Orthodoxy more concerned with academic discussions than with changing lives.

The CULTURAL practices of singing praise music, meeting for small group bible studies and the other things evangelicals do are greatly beneficial to young families with children.  Some of these young families lack a deep background in biblical knowledge and need more than lectures on what is or isn't kosher when it comes to the challenging religion that is Eastern Orthodoxy.

We all can't be monks and oblates.  Some of us have to live and work in the world.

Doing so requires a certain ongoing level of encouragement that some of our parishes aren't good at providing.

I will pray for the Ochlophobist, but it will take me a while to get over my anger towards him and how unjust he seems to be with his criticisms.

I will have to be angry and sin not.  My anger will have to be righteous anger directed against the small mindedness of what I read over the weekend.

It is opinions like the ones Owen White voiced that tempt me at times to return to Anglicanism, and specifically the Anglican Province of North America.  I know I should never do this, and that I should stick with Eastern Orthodoxy for life, but such opinions don't help.

Saint Columba and Saint Silouan pray for this wretched sinner.

Columba Silouan

THE OCHLOPHOBIST IS A JERK DOT COM

In my opinion, it's now official.  Brother Owen White, otherwise known as the Ochophobist, is a real jerk.

In one of his latest posts, Owen White has decided to take on Emmanuel Orthodox Church and Saint Stephen's Orthodox Church to task because they sing praise music.  Evidently, these two parishes that came to us from the Charismatic Episcopal Church are just not Orthodox enough for Owen.

Emmanuel as you may recall from an earlier post has a period before their Divine Liturgy and after Matins where they sing praise music for around 30 minutes.

If I recall correctly, parish members of Saint Stephens sing praise music during the week in small group settings.

Owen White treated Father Ken Devoie in a condescending manner in the comments section after his critical posting.

I will post more about this story later.

Brother Owen needs to quit acting like such a pompous ass.  Again, this is only my own opinion.

Forgive me.

Columba Silouan

Not One, but Two New Blogs

Good evening dear readers.

This repentance thing is a lot of hard work.  Now instead of one new blog, I've started two.

The first new blog is called House of Repentance and is a blog about how I work out my repentance, and thus my salvation in the context of my daily life.

The other new blog is called Lessons After The Fall and this blog covers the biggest failure of my life, which was my time at Biola University.  The subject matter of this one involves what led up to my Biola wipeout and the aftermath.

As far as any new Orthodox Mission to Parker goes, the most I can do right now is to immerse this project in prayer.  I would like to do more at some point, but there are too many pressing duties right now to move forward.

I plan to start working again on Growing up Christian in America which is an autobiographical issues oriented book detailing why I became an Eastern Orthodox convert and what I believe Orthodoxy can say to Christians today.

Blessings in the Holy Trinity, One God.

Columba Silouan 

Where Angels Fear to Tread: Fools Rush In

As one friend of ours said when I recently created a Facebook account:

"Welcome to the Dark Side."

My recent projects online have been nerve-wracking at times and I've struggled with questions about whether I am doing things correctly when I participate in this medium called The Internet.

I've decided to start a sister blog to this one called the House of Repentance blogspot.

This new blog will be dedicated to exploring the concept of repentance and how I as an Orthodox Christian pursue repentance in the context of my family, my parish, my workplace, and with my other relationships and associations.

Orthodox Parker will continue to explore the possibility of a future Orthodox Mission in Parker, Colorado and other Orthodox subjects.

I will post the new URL shortly.  This new blog is also a Blogger website.

Columba Silouan

The Hard Reality of Career

Good evening dear readers,

All the blogging about developments in the Roman Catholic Church and in the Orthodox Church of America has been fun and interesting, but now I'm back to thinking about what I should be doing as my life's work.

I'm thinking about becoming a teacher.

I'm also thinking about putting desires and dreams about the Orthodox priesthood on temporary to permanent hold.

When I look at the subdeacons and deacons of my parish, every one of them has a better or more solid career situation as their "anchoring job."

There are at least three computer programmers, one corporate trainer and a full time UPS employee among the ranks of our clergy at Saint Marks.

Only our Archpriest is paid full time in his direct role as a priest.

God has been impressing on me more and more that my first duty and priority must be to my family, and their support.

I am currently employed at Dish Network.  It's a good company and a decent position, to be sure, but it doesn't feel safe or permanent.  I don't know what the outcome is going to be.

My career situation has been problematic for a long time.  I feel the need to find a permanent, long-term solution to this issue before I will have the strength necessary for any run at the Holy Priesthood.

So I plan to pray a lot and move forward gingerly in the direction of becoming a school teacher.

I don't know how Dish Network is going to turn out.  I hope it turns out well, but in this economy, you just never know.

God's Blessings to you and yours,

Columba Silouan

What if: What if a Joint Parish was Created?

Here is an interesting link to a church I came across during my years in Virginia Beach, VA:

Church of the Holy Apostles

This church is a parish with an Anglican congregation and a Roman Catholic congregation in the same building, but with separate altars.

All of this talk about new structures for Anglican converts got me daydreaming of an imaginary future parish somewhere composed of a Roman Catholic congregation in the new Anglican Apostolate and an Eastern Orthodox congregation in a potential OCA Anglican Diocese.

Such an arrangement would have the advantage of pooling scarce resources during times of economic trouble such as ours.

Such a parish would also have twice the appeal to potential converts to both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

I don't know if Eastern Orthodox canons would allow for such an arrangement, but it made for an interesting daydream, to be sure.

Blessings in the Holy Trinity.

Columba

Further Discussion about "Semi Conversion"

Good evening, dear readers.

My Orthodox brother in the Lord Subdeacon Joseph had some further comments about this subject, so I've decided to address these further.  He wrote the following in a comment:

One who wholeheartedly believes in all Orthodox theology and doctrine".... there is the crux of the problem. "Semi-converts" accept SOME of the Orthodox doctrine, along with SOME of their former doctrine, as the Orthodox doctrine. (I am specifically referring to things at variance with Orthodoxy).

I am also confused as to how you could make the SJC liturgy the core of a Western rite service.

Well, let's start with the second question first.

I'll admit that when I first decided to make the Western Rite my home in Holy Orthodoxy, I thought of an obvious question:  If Byzantine Rite Orthodox object to The Liturgy of Saint Tikhon because of it's rootedness in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, why didn't someone come up with an approach that placed the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom at the center of things and then build around it with the western forms and customs the Western Rite has that stand apart from the Saint Tikhon Liturgy?

If this approach had been looked at first, the worship of Western Rite Orthodox Christians and Eastern Rite Christians would at least share the same words of the core liturgy used.

So I've pictured how this might work as follows:

You replace the Mass or Divine Liturgy in a current Western Rite service with the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom.

You leave the rest of the services intact, including the collects of the day, which are treasured by those coming from the Anglican and Lutheran traditions.  You examine these collects closely to make sure they conform to Holy Orthodoxy.

You leave the use of Anglican Plainchant and Gregorian Chant intact in Western Rite Services.

You leave the Hymnody intact, including the use of the Saint Ambrose Hymnal and the 1940 Episcopal Hymnal that those parishes that came into Orthodoxy from the Anglican tradition brought with them.

You leave the customs intact, including the blessing of birthdays and anniversaries and the prayers of the people. You leave the use of western style vestments intact. You allow praying of the Rosary as well as use of The Jesus Prayer.  You allow the use of The Stations of the Cross.

And finally, you allow the music programs of these parishes to continue with full choirs, pipe organs, pianos and the like.

This approach could have been taken, however when the disaffected Anglicans of the 1970's entered Holy Orthodoxy, they wanted to bring a cleaned up version of the 1928 BCP with them. Bishop Bellavin who later became Saint Tikhon had already gone over the Anglican Book of Common Prayer many years before, along with some other Orthodox assistants and had produced a version compatible with Eastern Orthodox theology.

The Anglicans had fought a major battle over the 1928 Prayerbook in the Episcopal Church and had also battled against Women's Ordination to the Diaconate and Priesthood.  They lost these battles and the so-called 1979 "Book of Common Prayer" was adopted in the Episcopal Church. As a result, many of these traditionally minded Anglicans were forced all the way out of their former church homes.    

My theory is that Metropolitan Phillip and other Antiochian Leaders in an attempt to be gracious to these battle weary Anglicans who desired to enter the Orthodox Church allowed the Liturgies of Saint Tikhon and the Liturgies of Saint Gregory to stand in the Antiochian jurisdiction.

One of the attachments to the 1928 Book of Common prayer re-worked into the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon was the use of the "Old English" or "King James English" in its pages.

The Anglicans of the 1970's distrusted all "Novus Ordo" type liturgical innovations, having been burned by the 1979 BCP controversy.  This distrust of modern English usage included Orthodox translations of The Divine Liturgy into modern English.

My journey into Eastern Orthodoxy came at a later time.  We finally converted in 2006, with developments in this direction taking place beginning in the 1980's and stretching into the 1990's.  Some of the influences that started me in this direction were those of C.S. Lewis and Dr. Francis Schaeffer.  

My wife and I were not as hung up over the use of "King James English" as those who came before us into the Western Rite of Holy Orthodoxy.  We are products of a different time.

My wife was raised an Episcopalian, but later became a "born again" worshipper at an Assembly of God church in Colorado Springs.  During her college days, she attended Baptist Churches and Protestant College Campus groups.

I attended Biola University, transferred to Colorado Baptist University, took graduate courses at Pat Robertson's Regent University, and evolved from my Baptist roots through different Anglican jurisdictions, spent a year and a half in the LCMS Lutheran Church waiting for a time when my wife might convert to Holy Orthodoxy, and then finally made the journey to Saint Mark's in Denver while maintaining ties to Saint Catherine's Greek Orthodox Church in Greenwood Village.

With this background in Evangelical and Charismatic circles, the main versions of the Bible that I encountered were the New International Version, the New King James, The Revised Standard, and finally the English Standard Version, which is actually a pretty good translation.

When our conversion to Orthodoxy was complete, we picked up a copy of the Orthodox Study Bible, which features a new Old Testament translation from the Septuagint paired with the New Testament translation taken from the New King James version of the Bible. 

I was taught to love traditional language and music by my mother, who raised me in a way that is unusual in this day and age.  It was due to her influence that I moved in the Orthodox direction.  The Roman Catholic Church was implementing Vatican II during this time and most of the Protestant world was following their lead and "modernizing" everything to do with worship and church music.

About "Semi Conversion" to Holy Orthodoxy

Sudeacon Joseph has said that many of us who convert to Holy Orthodoxy only semi convert. But here is another way to look at it:  God leads many of us who are converts from western christian confessions and traditions by steadily divorcing us from our past errors and moving us ever closer in the direction of Orthodox beliefs.

In my case, God had to first cleanse me of common Baptist errors such as Pre-millenial Dispensationalism, Rapturist and Antinomian "Personal Savior" easy believism and "Eternal Security" heresies.

Then, he had to separate me from other protestant errors such as "Semi - Deism" where certain gifts of the Holy Spirit were for a bygone age and no longer operative in modern times and where a person could not expect to be delivered from demonic bondage and oppression or supernaturally healed of diseases or distresses.

He also had to instill in me a love of the Holy Eucharist and Liturgical worship and He had to break me of protestant iconoclasm.  Time spent as an Anglican helped greatly with this process.

Perhaps the biggest false doctrine God had to bring me out of was the belief that Jesus could be my Savior without being The Lord of my life.

And finally, God brought me to Holy Orthodoxy when my own belief system was turned on it's head:  Instead of believing that one decision had saved me, I fell into the despair of believing that one sin had damned me forever.  Saint Silouan's holy example became a help to me later, since he went through similar struggles.

It was easy for Satan to turn heterodox doctrines against me to the detriment of my soul. Heresy is cruel to its adherents.

I have accepted every basic Eastern Orthodox doctrine that has been presented to me, but I will say this: ALL CHRISTIANS SOMETIMES DOUBT ASPECTS OF THEIR OWN FAITH.

And I've run into Eastern Rite Orthodox who don't observe any of the fasting disciplines of The Church, who don't regularly go to Confession, who hardly ever partake of the Eucharist, and whose women don't cover their heads or dress modestly.

So the problem of "semi-conversion" would not just appear to be a Western Rite issue.

Again, I would mention that Subdeacon Joseph is a member of the clergy, and as such is probably much more devoted in his faith than some of the ordinary laymen and laywomen of many an Orthodox parish.

I, too, as a minor order member of the clerical ranks, am probably more interested in these matters than some laymen and laywomen who just try to go about their daily lives in humble, if simple obedience to our Church.

I believe that with the scandal of the division of Christians, that all of us sometimes have doubts.  One of my deepest frustrations is that there are four ancient christian groups who name the name of "Christian" who claim the exclusive title of The Church:  These are, of course, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Chaldean Church, or The Assyrian Church of the East.

I have settled on Holy Orthodoxy as being the purest form of Christianity that exists, but I've come to realize that even though we are The Church, that the "Ancient Undivided Christian Church" we always talk about persisted, but the people who called themselves "Christians" did suffer from divisions starting in A.D. 431 with the second major division taking place in A.D. 461.

And so I've often asked this question:  "Why didn't The Lord appear to these ancient christians at these key times and stave off these divisions?  And why if Church Unity is so important, did not all the Bishops refuse to budge until the Holy Spirit brought them back to unity?"

The right conclusion, even if somewhat unsatisfying at times is the following:  He allowed us our free will and we divided one from another in our fallenness.

Even though I've come to accept that The Church is, indeed, Infallible, I know that her members certainly aren't.  I first accepted this belief because I concluded that the alternative of a fallible church was a terrible one, and unacceptable.

It is hard to get a complete handle on "Things that are at variance with Orthodoxy."  It is easy to get the basics right, but there are more complicated matters that only the highest ranks of the clergy and monastics came truly come to grips with, and these over hundreds of years.

This is why The Rudder is a record of all the decisions about canon law without being a completely binding document for Orthodox Christians.  Some of the canons have been deemed to be culturally bound to the times they were written in.

This is why we have "Great Synods of the Orthodox Church" every now and then.  So we can iron out certain things through the guidance of the Holy Spirit working through the clergy and laity until agreement is reached.

As Orthodox Christians, we no more take the Bible alone than we take the Canons alone.  Sola Scriptura does not apply, neither does Sola Canonica.  The living tradition of The Church becomes the final arbiter.

So these thoughts above are my best attempt at trying to address the questions raised by my brother in Christ.

Fr. John Connely, my priest, believes that The Book of Common Prayer can be a valid form to worship God with.  So do the leaders of the Western Rite movement in Holy Orthodoxy.

These matters are for The Church to decide, and not us as individuals.  And for now, Antioch has allowed the use of these liturgies to stand.

Is it possible that God will reverse these decisions?  I suppose so.  He is God.  Let Him do what is Right in His Eyes.

But I believe that some form of The Western Rite movement is here to stay.

I believe this because I don't believe He would allow the Roman Catholics to be better at something than we who are The Church are at something.

Why would he be more compassionate with them and working through them than with us and through us?

That wouldn't make any sense at all.

I think the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is setting up an alternative Anglican structure at this time, and the fact that Metropolitan Jonah has been reportedly setting up a similar arrangement might mean The Holy Spirit is at work.

I also think that these high ranking leaders keep in contact with each other more than we know.

This past Sunday I heard from a subdeacon at my parish that Bishop Hilarion was at the Vatican two weeks ago.  Bishop Hilarion knows Metropolitan Kyrill, and Metropolitan Kyrill of Russia knows Metropolitan Jonah.  And I'm sure Pope Benedict knows all three of these Holy men.

These Christian leaders are responsible men.  I'm sure as responsible men, they realize it is important to keep in touch with one another for the sake of a unified Christian witness to the watching world.

So my guess is that some "cross-pollenization" might be taking place.

We need to expect great things from our Great God.  He is able to bring our schisms to an end, and we need to expect that He might do so.

There need be no division between Eastern Rite Orthodox and Western Rite Orthodox.  If there is a division, it is our fault and not God's.

My conclusion is this:  Apparent shortcomings of Western Rite Orthodox Christians in the view of Eastern Rite Orthodox Christians are sometimes more a matter of culture than a matter of falling short of our Holy religion.  Let us think the best of each other and not the worst.

Sincerely in the Blessed Trinity,

Columba Silouan 

Some Thoughts on Questions Raised

Good afternoon dear readers.

I was asked some questions during this process of discussing a possible new Anglican diocese and I thought about these all day while I was at work.

The following are only my opinions and are not reflective of "official Orthodoxy."

First, it was alleged that those of us who are members in good standing of Orthodox parishes that are Western Rite are "Semi-Converts."

Well, if being a "semi-convert" means someone who regularly goes to confession with a canonical Orthodox priest, one who regularly attends the Divine Liturgy, one who tries to keep the times of abstinence and fasting during the Church Year, one who tithes faithfully to his or her parish, one who regularly reads up on Orthodox subjects and who reads Orthodox books, one who wholeheartedly believes in all Orthodox theology and doctrine, one who prays the Jesus Prayer, one who prays for his or her parish Priest, one who has a Spiritual Father and Father Confessor, then may all of us be "semi-converts."

I'll have more to say about this and other subjects in a future posting.

In the meantime a picture paints a thousand words, so I'll link to a church website that illustrates what I mean by creating a better space for Anglicans (and by extension other converts from the western cultural church traditions) to illustrate what I mean:

http://www.walsingham-church.org/photos

If the Roman Catholic Church can allow former Anglicans the kind of freedom it takes to have their own architecture and music, why is it that we can't be granted the same freedoms in the Holy Orthodox Church?

As long as all Orthodox elements are present in a parish community, why is the kind of architecture and music practiced at Our Lady of Walsingham in Houston off limits?

The current Western Rite is good, but it could be better.

It is my personal opinion that the Romanesque architecture mandated by the Western Rite of Antioch is "over-thinking the plumbing."

Some food for thought:  If in our wildest dreams as Orthodox Christians the whole realm of England decided to convert to Holy Orthodoxy in a gigantic move of the Lord in that country, do you really suppose they would leave all their church forms behind?

Rather, they would blend their forms, some of which are ancient, with Orthodox forms and develop their own unique style and culture while becoming completely Orthodox in doctrine and practice.

Those of us who favor a "Western Rite" in Orthodoxy don't intend to take the entire Orthodox Church over, driving out the Eastern Rite and the Eastern forms.

We just want our own forms included in the Church as well.

I wouldn't have a problem with making the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom the core liturgy in the Western Rite as long as Western Forms could be built around it.

Blessings in the Holy Trinity, One God.

Columba Siluoan

Notes From The Underground Part Two

Good evening once again.

What follows are the postings on NFTU and my responses to them.  The tone was mostly polite and I found it to be a good experience overall.

Wed Oct 21 2009 

From:  Notes from the underground.  

True Orthodox and Ecumenical News 

"Anglican Diocese" of the OCA?!?!? 

Posted by Subdeacon Joseph Tuesday, October 20 

We can't really be reading this. More Angliochians? More semi-convert Anglican parishes? More people who have no clue as to what Western Orthodoxy is taken in to the OCA? More "Liturgy Of St Tikhon" (Or "LOST" for short) parishes?

The whole post can be found linked to the title but if this really came from St Mark's Angliochian Parish in Denver, then we can be sure this may well be happening. 

Click the story below to see it....

Comments that followed:

Good evening. 

Okay, that would be my web blog. Thanks for increasing traffic on it. I wasn't aware it was even searchable.  Nice. 

My name is Columba Silouan and I'm a tonsured lay reader at Saint Marks. 

It's high time for the Eastern Orthodox Church as a whole to broaden their view of reaching out to Anglicans. 

The Roman Catholic Church has just announced that their doors are open for the Traditional Anglican Communion to enter in large numbers. 

And so we are going to do . . . what exactly? 

In my opinion, we need to be as generous and proactive as the Romans. Bravo for Metropolitan Jonah's efforts and vision. A Western Rite in the OCA might be a better one than the one we have in Antioch. 

Otherwise, Rome will gain all the Anglican converts while we sit on our hands with our noses in the air. 

I, too am an ex-Anglican and I fervently pray that all that was good and beautiful in the church of my heritage and ancestry will be redeemed and preserved in Holy Orthodoxy.  The Anglican movement is dead, and those of us who were Anglicans are looking for Good Samaritans, not those who pass by the road on the other side. 

I know many Eastern Rite Orthodox who are warm, humble and holy people, including my Greek Orthodox Confessor, Fr. Lou at Saint Catherine's in Denver. 

I also have encountered some who are disdainful snobs who think that anything western at all is heterodox and off limits. 

I can assure you that you won't win many converts from Anglicanism with attitudes of the latter nature. 

Sincerely in the Blessed Trinity, 
Columba Silouan

Note:  I have to admit here that I was a tad frustrated at the time I posted my first comment.  I had just learned of the Roman Catholic action of setting up a "constitution" by which Anglicans can be received into the RCC.  I didn't believe it was time to quibble when our biggest ecclesiastical competitors had made such a bold, and in my estimation, generous move.
I also may have been a bit harsh in my assessment that the overall Anglican movement is dead.  Apart from Holy Church, however, it is certainly wounded.  

The next post is from Subdeacon Joseph from New York:

Dear Columba Silouan, 

You write, "I also have encountered some who are disdainful snobs who think that anything western at all is heterodox and off limits.... I can assure you that you won't win many converts from Anglicanism with attitudes of the latter nature. " 

I don't have a problem with Western rites as long as they are Orthodox; it has long been a position of mine that the "Liturgy of St Tikhon" is very questionable. I myself pray using a Western Rite, but I am certain it is Orthodox by *its nature* (knowing where the text comes from) as opposed to it being Orthodox by *my nature* (because it is familiar to me in my youth-- much of what is Western and actually Orthodox was not-- and I just happen to be Orthodox). 

In my Archdiocese we allow the use of a generally Sarum (11th century) recension of the Roman rite. These texts are clearly Orthodox in their doctrinal content and we know how to use them. It's not "liturgical archaeology", as many falsely claim, since any educated High Church Anglican has seen a Sarum Liturgy. I see no reason to use false BCP or 
AM constructions. We shall never see properly converted English Orthodox of Western provenance if we keep offering bread for a stone. As for Rome taking them; well, Rome approved many of Cranmer's modifications with the New Mass, so I think we can agree that at the least, Rome is a place where those who cannot accept that the post-schism and Protestant nature of their liturgical and spiritual practices are actually post schism and Protestant would be more than 
welcome. 

Still, I sense we'll be seeing more of the LOST. And that saddens me. Because in the desire to preserve Anglican tradition, we are forgetting genuine English Orthodox tradition. 

-- 
In Christ, 
Subdeacon Joseph Suaiden 
St Eulalia Orthodox Mission, Bronx NY

The Second Comment in response to my first posting was 

less sympathetic to Western Rite Orthodoxy in general:

Jonathan· 1 day ago

I personally feel that 'Western Rite' Orthodoxy is a strange and possibly dangerous thing, since it doesn't have a continuous tradition in Orthodoxy, unlike the Eastern Rite. It would certainly be better to dig up an old Latin rite from the days when the Latin Church still held to Orthodox doctrine, as St John Maximovich tried to do when he was Archbishop of Western Europe, rather than try to adapt a rite born in the midst of heresy, such as the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, as St Tikhon tried to do. 

But even the ancient Orthodox Latin rites have fallen into disuse, and I think it's unwise to take any liturgy out of its historical context, mainly because in all these rites there is a wealth of unwritten tradition that accompanies what has been written down. In the Eastern Rite, it is possible for Westerners to draw upon this unbroken tradition to supplement the codified rituals; in the 'Western Rite', the oral tradition is lost and one has to 'reconstruct' it based on one's personal reading of history, which is almost bound to lead to errors. 
If even St Tikhon, who was born and bred in the Orthodox faith, was unable successfully to recreate the heretical Anglican rite as an Orthodox rite, how much less are we unsaintly converts?

My next posting follows and was partly in response to the idea that the Sarum Rite would be a better Western Rite to use than the 1928 BCP / Liturgy of Saint Tikhon:

Good evening. This is Columba again. 

I've got no problem with the idea of using the Sarum Rite. Supposedly much of the BCP had as it's primary source the Sarum Rite. But the Western Rite goes beyond just the core liturgy. One small for instance is that we sometimes pray The Stations of the Cross as Western Rite Orthodox. And many Orthodox parishes of both rites have started to use stained glass in their churches. 

The Western Rite in the Antiochian Archdiocese also allows the use of music from various western sources, including Gregorian Chant, Anglican Plainchant and hymns drawn from sources as late as the 19th century. 

I'm thinking here of hymnody by John and Charles Wesley and Isaac Watts, to name only three sources. 

In the Western Rite, we also use Bach, Handel, Brahms, Mendohlsen, Motzart, Beethoven, Haydn and countless other western composers whose music became the backbone of some of the greatest western hymns, anthems and oratorios of the faith. 

These hymns don't take over the entire service by any means, but they do well at various points in a Western Rite service. The predominate form of music in our services is still chanting, which is the backbone of Orthodox music. 

And of course, I wouldn't advocate changing things like Icons or Iconography AT ALL. But using western music is a different matter in my opinion. Most converts come to the use of Icons without a background involving them. They don't come to church music without a background, however. 

Now as Orthodox Christians, we should screen the words of western hymns to ensure that they fully comply with Eastern Orthodox Theology, but if you truly want to reach Christians from all the western confessions you need to have the option of incorporating their greatest works of music. 

Bishop Basil of the Diocese of Wichita once attended a high mass at an Episcopal Cathedral back in the days before many of the modern Episcopal innovations and heresies occurred. He wept because he realized this form of worship was in serious danger of dying out. 

Its in danger of dying out because modern protestants are stampeding en - masse to entertainment based and trendy worship forms. And Vatican II in the Roman Catholic Church didn't help matters, either. 

The only places left where traditional style western worship is truly safe is in isolated pockets of traditional Roman Catholics, a few Presbyterian churches, the LCMS, perhaps WELS, the Traditional Anglican Communion, other traditional groups of a similar nature, and Western Rite Orthodoxy. 

In my opinion, reaching America for Eastern Orthodoxy must take into account the entire remaining ecclesiastical church culture of the target country. We can't do it exactly like Saint's Cyril and Methodius did it because this culture already has a remnant christian culture present where Holy Russia was a completely pagan country. 

I was taught as a catechumen that the Orthodox Church knows where The Church is, but can't state where The Church isn't. It isn't entirely the fault of my American and English forefathers that Holy Orthodoxy was lost to them. And I believe in a God who preserved a "faithful remnant" in the middle of imperfect "church" situations.

The holiest of the Protestants and Roman Catholics of non-orthodox countries nevertheless knew God. Even the Orthodox believe that men like George Herbert, C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein walked with God and had creative works that were inspired by the life (energies) of God. 

And think of Johann Sebastian Bach who titled all of his music "To The Glory of God." 

The Great Schism was a terrible tragedy, not just a crime committed by the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestant Reformation was also a great tragedy. 
I'm sure God has grieved the consequences that millions of innocent Christians suffered from these two events. 

We can have a larger view of Orthodox cultural engagement without compromising our beliefs. Our God is big enough to handle it if we adopt such a perspective. 

You may win converts and deny them their heritage, but that will make for converts who are saddened at their very core by the loss of that heritage. And that sadness is an unnecessary burden in a world that already saddles us with many a burden. 

I believe that BOTH rites are necessary to have a healthy Orthodox Church in America. There are many people who have been cut off from the heritage of the west due to their education or background or through complete disinterest. The Eastern Rite can be for them a great discovery of faith and the joy of worshipping in a traditional and rooted way. I don't see why we can't use both Rites to grow parishes. 

For instance, why can't a parish be planted with two services available, one Eastern Rite and one Western Rite with both done with the greatest amount of excellence possible? 

Doing such a thing would be casting the widest possible net. 

Many times as Orthodox Christians we limit ourselves unnecessarily. 

At any rate, I need to be humble and open to whatever God is trying to teach me personally about this subject. If the Western Rite is truly wrong, I would hope that the entire Orthodox Church would convene a church council of some sort to come to a resolution about it. 

I took my family for a visit to an OCA Eastern Rite parish last Sunday to try and make some contacts for dreams of an Orthodox mission in Parker. This dream and hope was the original idea behind my small blog. I found the Eastern Rite that was practiced there to be uplifting and holy. 

But I still love the Western Rite and hope to see God work through it as well. 

Sincerely in the Blessed, Kind, Merciful and Holy Trinity, 

Columba Silouan

Brother Jonathan then wrote the following:

Columba Silouan, you wrote:"It's high time for the Eastern Orthodox Church as a whole to broaden their view of reaching out to Anglicans." 

Please define what you mean by, "reaching out"? 

Also, include the rudder index to each canon you may specify, as well as to which rudder you are using. 

I am unfamiliar with such a canon or an economia made on behalf of the Orthodox Church, please, exemplify what you mean to demonstrate by Church Law.

Columba, my main suspicion about Western Rite Orthodoxy is that it is not organic. Tradition is not something that can be invented anew. Think of it as the life-force of a tree or a vine: you can graft branches onto the tree, but it depends how long the branch has been severed. If the branch still has life in it, it will continue to grow after being grafted, but if it has long since died and dried out, it will not come back to life. The West has been cut off from the life-giving Tree of the Church for a thousand years. Its ancient rites are like dried out branches, which have lost the life of unbroken Tradition, while the post-Schism rites never had life to begin with. 

If converts are unwilling to accept that, that means they have not accepted that hitherto they have not been practicing true Orthodox Christianity, but a heretical pseudo-Christianity, which means they are still not fully converted.Reply0Jonathan· 1 hour agoAnd no, the Orthodox do NOT believe that the 'holiest' of the Catholics and Protestants (whatever 'holy' is supposed to mean outside the Church) 'knew' God or 'walked with' God. 

This doesn't mean everything they wrote was worthless, but if they happened to write something compatible with our Faith, that does not take away from the fact that they were heretics and not part of the Church. Their ultimate fates are in God's hands, but we cannot use them to say it's possible to be saved outside the Church, which goes clear against Orthodox teaching. It's like saying that it's fine to be a pagan because many pagan Greek philosophers happened to say wise things despite their spiritual darkness.

To which I responded thusly:

Hello again, brothers and sisters. 

As far as referring to The Rudder and The Canons goes about this subject, all I have to say in response is that our Holy Orthodox Church is already in violation of some of the canons and especially when it comes to multiple Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States, which is a far more serious matter than how we set up a structure for converts from Anglicanism. 

And the Western Rite isn't just an outreach to Anglicans, either. I was a Baptist before I converted to Anglicanism and then later to Holy Orthodoxy. Some of the music in our Hymns at Saint Marks was even sung by the baptist churches I was a part of. 

Western Rite Orthodoxy can appeal to Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians and even Baptists. That's why I believe it's a good thing. 

Okay, Orthodoxy OFFICIALLY might not state that people such as C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkein, or for that matter, Corrie Ten Boom and Mother Theresa of Calcutta knew God, but most Orthodox people know better than that. We might not think these heterodox christians knew Him as well as they should, but it is an extremely strange view of GOD to hold that only those Christians who have the blessing of being within The Church truly know God. Even Jesus told those who were offficially "IN" the ancient Jewish "church" that they DIDN'T know him. I'm talking about the Scribes and Pharisees, folks, who were "Officially" spotless but inwardly were wolves that Christ didn't recognize as being His. 

I'm sure Jesus hasn't changed in the past 2,000 years in these matters. 

Even our Holy Monks hope that all people may one day be saved. That speaks to me of a very generous attitude on the part of our Lord. Now, I do think some people will be lost, but one thing I love about Orthodoxy is the hope that the majority of all people God has created might be saved in the end. I found Protestantism pretty negative in that regard where most people would be lost in the end. 

Again, with the formula that I was taught as a Catechumen, you can't state with certainty that the people I've mentioned here were not imperfectly a part of The Church, even if they were outside it's visible boundaries. Even the Roman Catholic Church isn't so narrow about this issue.  

Jesus said to us that "we will know them by their fruit."  He also told His Disciples that "Everyone who is not against us is for us."

I will say in conclusion that I don't accept all modern views about what Orthodoxy believes about these matters. One of my Orthodox textbooks I've read, The Mystery of Faith, posits the idea that the Fathers of the Church were less narrow in their views than we modern Orthodox are and have become about them. 

Why does the heterodox Roman Catholic Church seem to have a more wholesome and generous attitude about these matters than some of us? We are the Church, they are short of the Church. But sometimes they do put us to shame with their liberality of spirit. 

I learned some of these ways of thinking from the Greek Orthodox Church, not the Western Rite. I do think the Greeks are sometimes more open minded about these things. Sometimes some of them are too open minded. But I appreciate their warm and generous attitudes as well. 

Saint Silouan the Athonite would probably emphasize more of God's love and compassion. This is in part why I adopted his name as one of my Orthodox names. He was a remarkable example of the love of Christ. 

I adopted the other name, Columba, in honor of Saint Columba, who was a very flawed monk before he became a holy saint. So it is with me currently and a layperson who tries to repent in the "monastery" of my family, church and job, so I hope to become someday. 

I'm looking forward to the first modern Western Rite saint being canonized. I think someday it will happen. 

Sincerely in Christ, 

Columba

Notes From The Underground Finds This Blog

Good Evening and Greetings in the Most Holy Trinity, One God.

Well my little blog has been discovered.  My post about the strong possibility of a new Western Rite / Anglican Diocese has raised some eyebrows in some quarters of the Orthodox Web Blog World.

I don't have much time to cover this development this evening, but I can say that the Notes From The Underground web blog somehow found my Anglican Diocese Post and it concerned them, to say the least.

I will post everything related to this soon.  I will also say that no one at Saint Mark's in Denver cautioned me about mentioning this bit of news.  I don't think it's anything to be furtive about.  Of course, I'm strongly in favor of such a development, and I realize some Eastern Rite Orthodox are probably firmly opposed to it.  We can agree to disagree about this and remain brothers and sisters in the bonds of love.

I primary use this blog to practice my writing and was unaware that it could be found, although I'm pleased as punch that it was.  Must be the inner journalist in me.

Again, the primary purpose for Orthodox Parker is to generate interest in an Orthodox Mission to the town of Parker, Colorado.

My original hope was that the mission would be a Western Rite mission, but I'm open to a different outcome.

God's will be done.

Sincerely in the Holy Trinity,

Columba Silouan

New Western Rite in the OCA

Greetings in Christ.  

Last Sunday, news of the conference at Nashotah House between Metropolitan Jonah, Saint Vladimir's Seminary Dean Chad Hatfield, and conservative Anglican Leaders was reviewed by our parish priest at Saint Marks in Denver.

One of the major announcements during Sunday School was that Metropolitan Jonah, and by extension the OCA, is proposing a new diocese for the OCA called The Anglican Diocese.

This would be a Western Rite diocese that would mirror other ethnic dioceses that currently exist in the OCA such as the Bulgarian Diocese, the Albanian Diocese, etc.  This Diocese would allow the customs and culture of Anglican converts to Holy Orthodoxy to be preserved and practiced freely.

The OCA also seems to have regional dioceses, so they have the best of both worlds, so to speak.

The new Anglican Diocese would have it's own Bishop, which would be a step forward for the Western Rite overall.  The Antiochian Western Rite currently has a Dean, but not a Bishop.

Of course, this is not to say that the Diocesan Bishops Antioch has aren't excellent.

A Western Rite in the OCA would be a wonderful thing.  Please keep this possibility in your prayers.

Columba Silouan

The OCA Targets Parker

A few weeks ago, during the Feast of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary, I learned from local Orthodox priest Fr. David Mustian that the OCA has targeted Parker for an Orthodox mission.

The Orthodox Church in America had as it's local dean a wonderful priest named Fr. Hirsch, who died over the summer.  He was the main contact for this effort.

This is an answer to my prayers, but is not without a price.

The OCA has no Western Rite and many among its ranks are not favorable towards the Western Rite.

Another local priest, Fr. John Armstrong is one of the remaining contacts for this missionary effort.  I've e-mailed him once and received a kind response confirming the plans of the OCA, and called him and talked to him.

I've asked my family to make a pilgrimage to Saint Herman's Orthodox Church a couple of Sundays from now in an attempt to cultivate ties with Fr. Armstrong and other Parker residents who might attend Saint Herman's.

I also broached the subject of a Western Rite presence in any new parish, in the form of a chapel or oratory.

Please stay tuned on further developments.

Columba Silouoan.

An Elephant in the Room

With the scandals rocking the Antiochian Archdiocese over the past year, much discussion is taking place about what the future might hold if things don't improve.

There is no need here to go into the details of "the recent troubles" in Antioch.  But the Ochlophobist wrote something of particular interest to anyone who is a part of the Western Rite:

+Jonah, after a few speeches, has put the OCA in a situation where if they were to start a Western Rite they would get virtually all WR parishes that would have thought of going to the AOANA previously. Perhaps the OCA will not go that route, but I'm told of at least one parish and at least one entire small group of continuing Anglicans that are currently more or less holding out for an OCA option in part because they do not consider the AOANA viable at this time. It could well turn out that neither of those institutions would have become Orthodox anyway, but there is no doubt that the "energy" with regard to WR is going to leave the AOANA if this scandal continues (which virtually everyone expects) and the OCA puts another option on the table. 

The statement above becomes an elephant in the room for those of us in the Western Rite and the Antiochian Archdiocese.  The Diocese of Wichita, which is the diocese I worship in, has a godly bishop, Bishop Basil, but the problems at the national level are causing headaches everywhere.

I'm sure these problems can be outlasted, but in the short run real damage is being done to our witness.  

It seems we have an elephant in the room, and a bull in the china shop doing much damage.  Let's pray God in His mercy intervenes.  God save our Archdiocese!

Columba Silouoan

The Ochlophobist Blows Away Wild at Heart

Over on one of my favorite Orthodox web blogs, the Ochlophobist has taken aim at John Eldredge and the book Wild at Heart. Literally.

Here is what he said about this subject:

Ken Myers, of the Mars Hill Audio Journal, wrote an excellent essay some years ago that was an historical overview of the relationship of Evangelicals to “high” culture. He notes the influence of Francis Schaeffer on a generation of Evangelical college students, and the urgent and hasty embrace of “high” culture right at the very time that “high” culture in the West went into a rather earnest self-destruct mode. Myers then describes and catalogs the complete lack of discernment and lack of wherewithal on the part of culturally liberated Evangelicals now with a fetish for all things cultural.

One sees the result of this trend in the later manifestations of (the new & improved) Christianity Today, Book & Culture, Sojourners, the Emergent Church, and a number of Evangelical and Evangelical offshoot cultural enterprises. The desire, or the base impulse anyway, that started all of this crass and furious cultural engagement was more or a less a good one – the thought that to be an embodied Christian in a world God loved meant to relate, on some meaningful level, with culture. But that good desire went, well, pretty much nowhere, for the most part, because it was awash in unmitigated stupidity and intellectual immaturity. The whole ethos of Evangelical attempts at an engagement with culture is adolescent in the current sense of that term (perpetual and narcissistic), to the core. The few anomalies decidedly stand out. Alan Jacobs.

Wild at Heart may declare that “man is made for the purpose of actively participating in and enjoying the wonder, beauty, and the fruits of God's good creation” but this message is so drowned in a sea of effete emotionalism, and unmitigated self-consciousness, and 14 year oldish masturbative catharsis seeking, that the impulse loses virtually all merit. I would argue that the impulse is itself just a game. It establishes a pretty predictable and obvious crisis to do battle in and with, and the battle then plays out with unreserved affect and exaggerated import.

I have heard, from more than a few, how liberating this book is for those who come from certain, “restrained” backgrounds. I do not think the book actually liberates. I think the book sets up an emotional playground of manipulated catharsis in which the reader or group of readers plays out the (now) very common game of personal liberation. It reminds me of Evangelicals who become Anglicans or Catholics or Orthodox and all of a sudden find themselves allowed to drink alcohol. They (often, usually the males) make a big deal out of it. They sort of take on this new identity as “drinker.” They talk about it a lot, they think about it a lot, they feel a lot about it, they convince themselves of their new ontological status. But after three drinks it is apparent to any serious drinker that joe schmuck cannot handle the slightest buzz. They love the new self-fabricated identity far more than they do the actual act of drinking, and on top of it they are incompetent as a drinker.

This book is an icon of that sort of marketed (to self and others) image falsification. This book will not actually bring the reader, any reader, closer to the fruits of God’s creation. It will not teach one anything of importance with regard to wonder or beauty or a genuine thanksgiving for God’s fruits. It will teach one to posture about these things, but not to actually engage them. For real engagement, read Papadiamandis. Read Archimandrite Sophrony.

I stand by what I said about this book above in the thread. It is a horrible book. It is destructive to the soul. Every copy should be destroyed. It is one of many examples of a man profiting from the selling of trash in a religious context. He profits both in terms of money and in terms of his apparent need for cathartic release. Thus a whip is certainly in order.

As I have argued here before, there is a strong strand of antinomianism running in American Orthodoxy. They like the desert fathers and certain modern elders a whole lot, but their ethos strikes me as having a lot more in common with those popular distortions of Zen one sees about everywhere these days than it does anything particularly Orthodox. What I always chuckle about with regard to these folks is this - they espouse a rhetorical pacifism - their understanding of judging goes beyond not judging the man, and extends to an extreme disinclination to judge what the man does, even though what the man does might be affecting many people, even many Orthodox people. I disagree with this extension of the prohibition against judgment, but I would have a modicum of respect for it were it not for this - these same folks who are so averse to the judging of actions apparently find no problem with publicly passing judgment upon the actions of those who judge in a manner they don't like. It reminds me of those who are tolerant of everyone except those who are not tolerant of the things they are tolerant of, in which case they become quite intolerant. Spirit of the age, methinks.

My first response was as follows:

The Orthodox Tentmaker said...

Dear Ochlophobist,

Tsk, Tsk. On this one, you and I will have to respectfully disagree.

I like JE. I consider him to be a potential Orthodox Convert, and then you go ahead and do this.

I actually taught an adult Sunday School class at Saint Mark's in Denver about an Orthodox perspective on his books.

It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness. I don't think Fr. Stephen Freeman would consider this a laughing matter, and I know you respect him.

Now, if you took a gun to The Purpose Driven Life, I wouldn't bat an eyelash. But Eldredge is a potential ally and I don't think it's a good idea to alienate him.

I have every one of his books, and I'm not about to shoot them up. Kindly reconsider bro.

And of course, I'll remain a faithful reader. Although this one sorely tested my loyalty. AHEM!

Sincerely Yours,

Columba Silouan

To which our dear Ochlophobist said...

Orthotent,

Let me assure you, somethin' got lit up.

Should Fr. Stephen ask me to take this post down, I would.

If shooting JE's book does not encourage him to convert, I don't know what will. If the man actually cares to follow the principles and stylized posture he presents on the surface of his work, then I would think he might be inclined to understand this post. If not, well, he sells enough books to get by with the "good life" - so what does it matter?

But thank you, my friend, for being willing to look past my worrisome idiosyncrasies and prejudices. I need all of the slack I can get.

So now I have a ton of things to write about this evening, 

(and I'm sure, a few subsequent evenings).

I'll start out by saying that later, I did chuckle a bit at the picture. I appreciated the male humor. Nevertheless, as someone who really likes John Eldredge, I feel the need to address some things.

As a convert to Orthodoxy, I try to view all subjects through the prism of my faith. Orthodoxy comes first, and all other beliefs from my past life as a heterodox Christian come second. Nevertheless, I don't reject out of hand all the good things I was exposed to in my life prior to Orthodoxy. I believe God was at work, even before my conversion.

Dr. Francis Schaeffer's influence was one of the stepping stones that led to my conversion. And I know from one of JE's monthly newsletters from Ransomed Heart that he is one of JE's main models.

Ortho made a good point about drinking above. I'm afraid that I, indeed have been guilty of the attitude he describes about that subject, at least.

But there is a danger for us converts. That danger is to hold bitterness in our hearts towards any of the people who might of helped to drive us out of our former church affiliations and into Orthodoxy.

There is also a danger of envying the successes of our heterodox brothers and sisters. Och mentioned that John Eldredge lives "the good life." I don't fault JE for this. He's worked hard for everything he has. Is it his problem if we Orthodox can't get our own acts together and become as influential in this culture as he is?

There are many refugees in Orthodoxy who disagreed as a matter of principle with Charismatics and Evangelicals. Some of us have actually suffered rejection and outright mistreatment and disrespect from these people.   I'm included among that number.

Nevertheless, not everything those who have rejected us or our interests have done in their own attempts to live out their Christianity has been negative.

I've learned many Orthodox things from Charismatics and Evangelicals. I first had to convert away from fundamentalist Baptist theology to Charismatic (with a small "C") theology before I was able to finally convert to Holy Orthodoxy.

We can't return mistreatment for mistreatment. We are certainly free to criticize JE and his work, but in my opinion we must maintain a good attitude when we do so. The Holy Scriptures tell us that when we say "Raca" or "You fool" to our brothers, whether heterodox or Orthodox, we are in danger of the "hell of fire."

I know The Ochlophobist meant well.  I think his views are a tad overboard on this matter, however.  JE has many Orthodox leanings.  Now, if only we could give him a good push all the way into Orthodoxy!

I plan to address this subject in greater detail, as time permits.

Blessings in the Holy Trinity,

Columba Silouan

Pastoral Care and the Crisis of Power

The following comments are by Archimandrite Touma (Bitar), abbot of the monastery of Saint Silouan at Douma. These comments speak to the recent troubles in the Antiochian Archdiocese that began in the winter of 2009. This was originally posted on the Notes on Arab Orthodoxy blog and on The Ochlophobist blog. These are some of the finest words yet written on the subject.

In the See of Antioch, at the current time, there is a confrontation, a crisis of opinion, and painful consequences may follow. Are the bishops, within an eparchy that is headed by a patriarch or a metropolitan as an ecclesial administrative unit, bishops over a territory and a faithful people, or are they auxiliary bishops (asaqifa musa’idun)?

The traditional position, within the Orthodox ecclesiological framework, makes the bishops within a single eparchy brothers and the primate (mallak) of the eparchy first of all the first among equals and secondarily the head of a local council, governed by principles and canons and made up of the bishops of that eparchy. This assumes that each of them oversees a territory and a people. In principle, bishops are not titular or auxiliaries, dependent upon the metropolitan or the patriarch.

But, historical events came about in past eras that divided some bishops from their territories and their flocks, as happened in the Byzantine Empire after the fall of some of its regions to the Ottomans. It was hoped at the time that exiled or refugee bishops would return to their regions. However, matters became more complicated and situations worsened and such bishops found themselves permanently exiled from their flocks. Or, the dioceses which they had overseen in principle were emptied of their Orthodox people.

With the passing of time, this inaugurated the custom of consecrating titular bishops who, at first, longed for military or political turnarounds that would return an Orthodox presence to their former regions. When the years went by and the winds did not blow as the boats wished, hopes changed to almost a formal etiquette, and the custom became firmly entrenched of choosing titular bishops who quickly became helpers (musa’idun) or auxiliaries (mu’awinun) to some of the actual primates of the eparchies, dependent on the patriarch. This gave birth to an unintended custom, without any ecclesiological base. However, it became accepted and enshrined in practice insofar as the ancient traditional practice among us of each bishop being the bishop of a people and a territory into decline in practice. With it, the page closed on local synods within one eparchy and it sufficed to have synods on the level of patriarchates or the equivalent.

Some circles, today, hold fast to the contingent practice over ecclesiological theology because it has become widespread and followed for many years. The temporary became permanent. Others hold to intellectual principles of ecclesiological theology and hope to rectify the current historical deviation in this situation and to return dioceses to their traditional function, especially since there exists a need, here and there, for more bishops of territory and people so that we do not go too far in making the episcopate in general only an administrative, ritual function. The bishop is the pastor par excellence and must remain so in practice.

Between those who seek this or that line of thought, today, there is confrontation and debate. It does not appear that it will result in a speedy understanding in the foreseeable future and it is to be feared that it will grow into an impasse and from there into something with an unpraiseworthy outcome.

How to get out of this dilemma?

The answer is not easy. However, if we were to put forward the reasons for this crisis, we do not find it to be simply ecclesiological or canonical in nature, but also historical, temperamental, and psychological. We have become accustomed to such with the passing of generations! It is not easy for those who have become accustomed to sole power in their eparchies and to dealing with titular bishops almost like deacons to have partners in power within the lifetime in which they work. Let us say it frankly: the problem is the problem of a power struggle! Few are prepared to let go of their prerogatives! The issue, at the base, is not ,as it is put forward, a theological issue and it is not a pastoral issue. What determines the traditional or the ecclesiological, theological or the canonical argument, at the basic level, is the holding on of each of the concerned parties to the power which they think rightly belongs to themselves and not to others. Each one brings forward this or that evidence, in reality, because it is convenient for him. If we were to hold fast to ecclesiological theology and the traditional canons, in the matter before us, then we would have to openly express only a small number of the positions we implicitly adopt or to which we consent and which are not in agreement with [Orthodox] principles.

The question of the diaspora, especially North America, is today in our opinion the foundation of the current problem and what brought to light the intellectual divide which had long remained hidden. The status of any of the Orthodox churches, the See of Antioch included, is not sound there, either from an ecclesiological or a canonical standpoint. By what right do we hold on to the dependence of the Antiochian Archdiocese in North America on us? That eparchy is no longer at the stage of just being sent out. We helped it during its beginnings, but now it is mature, and more mature than us here in its theology and its learning and its organization. By what right, then, is it assumed that it should be under our care? Is it because some of its people have left us? So what? Generations and generations have grown up there for years and the people in those lands have become American. Is it because there is a sentimental heritage which ties us to them and them to us, or because there is something like nationalist feelings which hold us to them and them to us so that they must be subject to our local ecclesial structure? This has no relation in any case to ecclesiological thought nor to the ancient ecclesiological practice which has come down to us from the Apostles and saints. Thus the practical theology which we use in this matter is faulty and unacceptable if we were to be fair and correct.

And what is to be said about the canonical disorders that we’re up to our ears in over there?

The situation of all the Orthodox eparchies dependent on mother churches in North America is uncanonical. There is one Orthodox church in those lands whose situation is sound and canonical: the American Orthodox Church (OCA). This alone is independent and autocephalous and this is de-facto recognized by the other Orthodox eparchies. Its recognition, formal or implicit, by the eparchies depending on mother churches is clear and frank confirmation that the status of these eparchies is uncanonical and unsound. If these eparchies and mother churches on which they depend were to be logical with themselves and consistent with Orthodox ecclesiological and canonical thought, in the true sense of the word, then they would belong to the OCA or would at least enter into an understanding with it and the thorny crisis of the Orthodox presence there, theologically and canonically, would end. The simplest position and the most sound is for us to leave the Orthodox in North America to themselves and to encourage them to arrange their affairs themselves! We and the other mother churches are the ones who are complicating their affairs!

Naturally, there are those who claim that the problem of the diaspora is, to a great extent, a problem of nationalist sentiment. The sentiments exist, but not to the degree that is thought. The Church in the past has dealt with nationalism-- in Constantinople, in Antioch, and elsewhere-- and she is able to deal with it in every time and place whenever proper ecclesial sentiment abounds. But if nationalistic notions eclipse concern of the Church, then this is a dangerous event and a serious deviation because we are no longer a church possessing one faith, but rather a group of tribes. The truth is that the mother churches hold on to their eparchies in North America because they do not want to be stripped of their prerogatives and their benefits and their power there. The issue of money plays an important role in this matter and likewise does political and ecclesial influence. None of this has any connection to the Church in the exact meaning of the word, not to her theology, nor to her canons, nor to pastoral care for her people nor to her spirituality.

I will return to the subject of the bishops and I will say that the hidden cause behind the debate going on between those who hold to the concept of titular, helper bishops and the concept of local bishops over a people and a territory is, in reality, related to the passions. There is struggle for power, in the worldly sense, going on, and the arguments put forth call for each to claim his own power and leadership. But we have no power to receive, rather service to give for the Church of Christ and the People of God. For this reason, if we were to be just, then we must, first and last, to put pastoral care for the People of God before ourselves and before any other standard. The struggle for power going on today is, unfortunately, on account of this pastoral care! The single legitimate and acceptable question in this context is: what is most appropriate for the care of the Orthodox faithful here and there?

For this reason it is to be hoped that the interaction of the metropolitan with the bishops within a single eparchy, wherever they may be and especially right now in North America, will be first of all with goodness, love, humility of heart, and magnanimity. The issue of the episcopate, which has long been outside the genuine ecclesiology, will not be solved by emptying it of its pastoral content and enshrining its titularity, and not by, in response, idolatrously harping on the application of cannons but rather by the metropolitan embracing the bishops as brothers, and the bishops the metropolitan. Calmly and deliberately we will become able to solve our issues in cooperation and simplicity and flexibility, relying on [Orthodox] principles, and we will raise up the People of God in truth so that God will be glorified in us. The way of dividing, subjugating with decisions from on high, and debasing is of no avail. It will only alienate and create factions and lead to schism! I say this and it is to be feared that we are in a delicate and dangerous situation. Orthodox America will not be treated in the ruinous way we are accustomed to in our lands here! If we do not leave our selfishness and our pride and build each other up with kindness and generosity and put the good of the Church and its unity and theological principles ahead of any personal consideration, whatever it may be, then worse is to come!

Archimandrite Touma (Bitar)
Abbot of the Monastery of St. Silouan the Athonite-- Douma
Sunday July 12, 2009

Thoughts about the Western Rite

Sometimes I wonder if the Western Rite in its current form is all it should be.

One of the thoughts I've had frequently is why the approach to a "Western" from of Eastern Orthodoxy didn't just take the following approach:

Start with a King James English language version of the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom and build western practices around it. The core Liturgy would be all the same words with collects and other texts added around that skeleton. Then add Western Hymnody and you have a Western Rite closer to what the Eastern Rite Orthodox use.

The texts to the Eastern Rite liturgy combined with the styles and forms of the west would be a powerful combination.

I wonder sometimes why no one ever thought to try this approach?

At any rate, I love the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon and the Book of Common Prayer, but some of the most vocal critics of the current Western Rite liturgies focus their criticisms on this Liturgy the most.

So were we wise in adapting it for Orthodox use if doing so has proven to be so controversial?

I would be able to grow quite comfortable with a new Western Rite liturgy that had at it's core the Eastern Rite texts combined with Western forms of ritual, music and the like.

Things to ponder on a Wednesday evening.

Columba Silouan

Get to Know the Original

I've just found a "Widget" on the website for Saint Andrew's Orthodox Church, located in Oklahoma. This is the coolest thing ever! After my "shock and awe" from seeing what the ACNA is doing with evangelism efforts, it was a real shot in the arm to see something this innovative coming from our Orthodox brothers and sisters.

Maybe there's hope yet in our own efforts to reach others with Holy Orthodoxy.

Pax,

Columba Silouan

Reflections on the ACNA

Well, it's now official. The Anglican Church of North America, with it's inaugural assembly is officially launched.

One of the guest speakers at this event is Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA. It is my hope that he will generate interest in Holy Orthodoxy among many.

There is much that is admirable about this new Anglican province, but it differs from Holy Orthodoxy in important respects.

While Orthodoxy unreservedly acknowledges the Seven Ecumenical Councils in their entirety, the ACNA accepts the first four, and the Christological statements of the fifth, sixth and seven Councils. One would guess that this would allow ACNA Anglicans to be favorable towards the use of Icons and Images, because they are aspects of the Christology of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

The Orthodox Church holds Scripture and Holy Tradition to be part of the one revelation of Jesus Christ, while the ACNA puts Holy Scripture alone as the final authority on matters of faith and doctrine.

The ACNA limits the office of Bishop to those who are male, like Holy Orthodoxy. Unlike Holy Orthodoxy, there is limited acceptance of female priests and deacons permitted in some quarters of the province. In other quarters of the province, this practice is not allowed.

The standards for worship will differ between the ACNA and Western Rite Orthodoxy, not to mention with the wider Orthodox world. My guess is that the majority of ACNA Anglicans will worship in a more contemporary manner than what would be acceptable in Holy Orthodoxy.

One area where I expect the ACNA to continue to outdo us in Holy Orthodoxy is in the area of Evangelism and Church Planting. I hope we can gain ground in this area.

I have some unique feelings about this new Anglican endeavor, since I was once a member of one of the sub-groups that make up this new province, the Anglican Mission in the Americas.

I wonder what my life would be like right now if I had stayed in the AMIA.

I think I would have been constantly frustrated by the lack of interest in traditional Anglican worship. Thankfully, I'm not faced with this issue in the Antiochian Archdiocese.

It is unavoidable that there will be ties and frequent interaction with ACNA Anglicans and Western Rite Orthodox Christians. Those in the ACNA are "our country cousins" of a sort and many of them experienced similar battles with the Episcopal Church. But those of us who converted to Holy Orthodoxy went down a different path.

I still believe our Holy Orthodox faith is THE TRUTH and anything else, even if very close, is less than the truth.

So it's good that my family and I are where we are.

This being said, I firmly believe a large percentage of ACNA Anglicans have a closeness to the same God I worship.

Christ is in our midst,

Columba Silouan

Saint Ambrose Orthodox Church, Revisited

Good afternoon and Happy Father's Day everyone!

The Antiochian crisis over auxiliary bishops appears to be over, with a favorable ruling from the Holy Synod stating that the Episcopate is one, and that a Bishop is a Bishop, period. There is no such thing as an "auxiliary bishop."

At first glance, it appears that the decision is a bit of a split decision. No, there is no such thing as an "assistant bishop," but the existing bishops were still said to be those who assist the Metropolitan in the administration of the Archdiocese.

At any rate, during the crisis, one of the silliest edicts that came down was a prohibition of public prayers at the Divine Liturgy for any bishop but the Metropolitan and the Patriarch, unless the "auxiliary bishop" was present in the parish at the time.

Of course, most of the Priests thumbed their noses at this unwise and unnecessary edict. I say, rightly so. All of our bishops need prayer all the time.

I learned from observing this to respect the office of bishop, but not necessarily every lame-brained decision coming down from the individuals who hold the office.

I've also come to the conclusion that it's time to move forward with the dream of finding new convert families in the Parker area in the hopes that an eventual Western Rite mission can be established.

The benefits of establishing new parishes are increased revenues for the new retreat center and for Lancelot Andrewes Press, and a much greater readership for our materials. Other benefits are obvious: Increased conversions, vital parishes, and the blessings of obeying the Great Commission.

A local priest responded to a question I offered about an exception to the 60-mile rule in the following manner:

Benedictions,

I cannot do anything about the 60 mile rule. I can, once some of the
dust settles on the Diocesan bishops crisis, offer an opinion under
the best circumstances and get a response, maybe, from Bp Basil and
that, so far as I am concerned would be the road map. However, a
'mission station' would still need layers of approval further up the
hierarchy at some time. My sense is the whole scheme would float on my
reputation and personal contact with Metropolitan Philip and
Chancellor Kevorkian and Bp Basil. So far all that is working pretty
well.

A Road Map is designed to be followed to a destination.

I took the following from this response:

Maintain a good relationship with the established priests in our area at all times. Be obedient to their leadership and guidance.

Go ahead with dreaming and planning for an eventual mission. Start the work.

Don't do anything that might embarrass our local priests or harm their reputations.

Once enough people and resources are garnered, put the ball in the court of our local priests and let them carry that ball to the Bishop, the Vicar General, and on to the Metropolitan.

We live and serve in a heirarchical church, and acquiring permissions is just part of things with us. As long as everything is done decently and in good order, God can open doors no man can shut.

So if we build it correctly and bathe the endeavor in prayer, perhaps the approval will come.

In other words, do the work and then cross the bridge of gaining the proper approvals when we come to it.

Worst case-scenario: Generate interest and conversions to Holy Orthodoxy and if no approval comes, pack out Saint Marks.

But I believe God can move mountains, and there is no harm in trying to brush back the "60 mile rule."

Pax Christi,

Columba Silouan

The Recent Troubles in the Antiochian Archdiocese

In my opinion, the issue of the American Bishops being reduced to Auxiliary Status came at a really bad time. The Archdiocese is growing and new Western Rite Parishes are joining from the Charismatic Episcopal Church, an organization I spent a year in myself.

In addition to the new parishes joining en-masse, here in Colorado we've seen the publishing of a new Book of Common Prayer, and the continuing progress of the new retreat center in Southern Colorado.

Why now, when enthusiasm is building and exciting things are happening did this unwelcome interruption occur?

I think first and foremost, this controversy is a spiritual attack from the enemy of our souls. My hope is that, as often is the case, the devil will overreach and Christ and His Church will emerge stronger and better for these travails.

I have prayerful hopes that the trip of the American Bishops to Damascus to meet with Patriarch Ignatius will bear good fruit.

Pax Christ,

Columba Silouan

Free at Last! My New I-Mac and Me

At long last, I have a new and powerful tool at my disposal. After following the Dave Ramsey plan, my wife and I saved up enough emergency fund and living expenses money to allow for the purchase of a new computer.

My old PC, complete with Windows 98 finally got to the point where my virus protection would no longer update because the operating system was too old and not supported.

This new machine will allow for better and faster blogging and many other things. It's a powerful tool that I would like to use to promote Eastern Orthodoxy.

Now, if I could just think up a name for my new machine.

Blessings,

Columba Silouan

Latest Hopes and Dreams

Hello, fair readers! It's time for a "Hopes and Dreams" update.

Here's where I'm at at the moment. I see a new approach to Orthodox Evangelism in my mind's eye, and it goes something like this:

Personally speaking: Continue to take steps towards increased Reading and Acolyting experience, perhaps culminating in "the next step." Enjoy this process and don't rush things.

Discipleship: Start the small group Orthodox Bible Study soon, and grow it to the point where a mid-week praise and worship session / hymn-sing can be included. Eventually institute praying with each other. Throw in the best elements from protestant "cell groups."

When enough growth occurs, start up "men's groups" along the lines of John Eldredge or Marked Men for Christ.

Evangelism: Start helping one of my fellow parishoners with lay readers services down here in Parker.

Make the new goal absolutely packing out Saint Marks Orthodox Church to the point where a new mission in our area becomes necessary.

Methodology: The way we gain new members is to be a regional AND loyal sub-group of the larger group with our own unique emphasis and philosophy. We "hang out" together, just like those members of the so-called "house church" down the street from my wife and I, but we always convene at Saint Mark's on Sundays and we continue to give our time, talent and treasure faithfully to our mother parish.

In my opinion, some of the people we draw this way will stay with Saint Marks. They won't want the hassle of a new mission. But some of the most energetic will want a new mission when Saint Marks just can't hold all the people anymore.

The end result will be TWO vibrant Orthodox parishes.

Models to look at: I think the major way Saint Mark's can grow numerically is to take the approach that Emmanuel Orthodox Church and Saint Stephen's Orthodox Church has taken. We maintain our liturgical and musical standards but also allow for additional expressions and activities in our common life.

We do our uniquely Orthodox alternative to the Vatican II model: Always preserving the Divine Liturgy and its Holy integrity, while practicing the best things that we did when we were protestant christians "on the side", so to speak.

If we had a vital and dynamic small groups / cell groups ministry, I think many more people would strongly consider Holy Orthodoxy as a spiritual home.

And I plan to state UP FRONT that one of the goals is church growth and new missions, provided we fill up and improve life at Saint Mark's first.

This small groups ministry can bridge the gap for new converts, giving them the encouragement they are used to from their past traditions, allowing them to "catch their breath" figuratively speaking in doing the (for many of them) hard work of Orthodox worship and living. We practice a rigorous form of Christianity that many just aren't used to. One thing we aren't is "laid-back." Converting to Orthodoxy is an adjustment for a great many converts. We can help make that adjustment a much smoother one.

Our religion is "the Maximalist form of Christianity." Let's live like it and go after new families.

I believe Saint Marks is a special place, and that makes it something I want to see duplicated.

So "The Dream" is back, but with this new focus I've written about here.

Let's overcome the obstacles in our way and convert both lost people and heterodox christians, bringing them into the blessings of Holy Orthodoxy.

Saint Mark's first, then in God's good time, Saint Ambrose!

Forgive me,

Columba Siluoan.