Men and Church
Frederica Mathewes-Greene | October 2, 2007
In a time when churches of every description are faced with Vanishing Male Syndrome, men are showing up at Eastern Orthodox churches in numbers that, if not numerically impressive, are proportionately intriguing. This may be the only church which attracts and holds men in numbers equal to women. As Leon Podles wrote in his 1999 book, The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity, “The Orthodox are the only Christians who write basso profundo church music, or need to.”
Rather than guess why this is, I emailed a hundred Orthodox men, most of whom joined the Church as adults. What do they think makes this church particularly attractive to men? Their responses, below, may spark some ideas for leaders in other churches, who are looking for ways to keep guys in the pews.
Challenging. The term most commonly cited by these men was “challenging.” Orthodoxy is “active and not passive.” “It’s the only church where you are required to adapt to it, rather than it adapting to you.” “The longer you are in it, the more you realize it demands of you.”
The “sheer physicality of Orthodox worship” is part of the appeal. Regular days of fasting from meat and dairy, “standing for hours on end, performing prostrations, going without food and water [before communion]…When you get to the end you feel that you’ve faced down a challenge.” “Orthodoxy appeals to a man’s desire for self-mastery through discipline.”
“In Orthodoxy, the theme of spiritual warfare is ubiquitous; saints, including female saints, are warriors. Warfare requires courage, fortitude, and heroism. We are called to be ’strugglers’ against sin, to be ‘athletes’ as St. Paul says. And the prize is given to the victor. The fact that you must ’struggle’ during worship by standing up throughout long services is itself a challenge men are willing to take up.”
A recent convert summed up, “Orthodoxy is serious. It is difficult. It is demanding. It is about mercy, but it’s also about overcoming oneself. I am challenged in a deep way, not to ‘feel good about myself’ but to become holy. It is rigorous, and in that rigor I find liberation. And you know, so does my wife.”
Just Tell Me What You Want. Several mentioned that they really appreciated having clarity about the content of these challenges and what they were supposed to do. “Most guys feel a lot more comfortable when they know what’s expected of them.” “Orthodoxy presents a reasonable set of boundaries.” “It’s easier for guys to express themselves in worship if there are guidelines about how it’s supposed to work-especially when those guidelines are so simple and down-to-earth that you can just set out and start doing something.”
“The prayers the Church provides for us-morning prayers, evening prayers, prayers before and after meals, and so on-give men a way to engage in spirituality without feeling put on the spot, or worrying about looking stupid because they don’t know what to say.”
They appreciate learning clear-cut physical actions that are expected to form character and understanding. “People begin learning immediately through ritual and symbolism, for example, by making the sign of the cross. This regimen of discipline makes one mindful of one’s relation to the Trinity, to the Church, and to everyone he meets.”
With a Purpose. Men also appreciate that this challenge has a goal: union with God. One said that in a previous church “I didn’t feel I was getting anywhere in my spiritual life (or that there was anywhere to get to-I was already there, right?) But something, who knew what, was missing. Isn’t there SOMETHING I should be doing, Lord?”
Orthodoxy preserves and transmits ancient Christian wisdom about how to progress toward this union, which is called “theosis.” Every sacrament or spiritual exercise is designed to bring the person, body and soul, further into continual awareness of the presence of Christ within, and also within every other human being. As a cloth becomes saturated with dye by osmosis, we are saturated with God by theosis. A favorite quote comes from the second-century bishop, St. Irenaeus: “God became man so that man might become god.” (By the way, it’s easy to find long-time church members who are unfamiliar with this, and may never have been taught it. The main instrument of teaching Orthodox faith has always been theologically-rich hymnography, and they may attend a church where worship is in a beautiful but archaic language they can’t understand.)
Challenges and spiritual disciplines increase self-knowledge and humility, and lead to strength over sins that block union with God. A catechumen wrote that he was finding icons helpful in resisting unwanted thoughts. “If you just close your eyes to some visual temptation, there are plenty of stored images to cause problems. But if you surround yourself with icons, you have a choice of whether to look at something tempting or something holy.”
A priest writes, “Men need a challenge, a goal, perhaps an adventure-in primitive terms, a hunt. Western Christianity has lost the ascetic, that is, the athletic, aspect of Christian life. This was the purpose of monasticism, which arose in the East largely as a men’s movement. Women entered monastic life as well, and our ancient hymns still speak of women martyrs as showing ‘manly courage.’”
“Orthodoxy emphasizes DOING. Grace is not just a static concept, as in the old acronym, ‘God’s Riches at Christ’s Expense.’ Grace is God’s activity in the world and within us, and we’re supposed to share in it and participate in it. The emphasis on action really appeals to a man’s desire for significance. Guys are ACTIVITY oriented.”
A New Dimension. One man expressed his “excitement at discovering a dimension I had somehow sensed [in previous Christian experience] but had been unable till now to identify, the noetic.” The Greek biblical word “nous” (adjective “noetic”) gets translated “mind” in English bibles, but it doesn’t mean the cogitating intellect. The nous is the aspect of “mind” that comprehends and understands; it is designed to perceive the voice and presence of God.
“Noetic reality,” the reality of God’s presence and of the entire spiritual realm, “had become completely distorted in the Christianity I knew. Either it was subsumed into the harsh rigidity of legalism, or confused with emotions and sentimentality, or diluted by religious concepts being used in a vacuous, platitudinous way. All three-uptight legalism, effusive sentimentality, and vapid empty talk-are repugnant to men.” The discovery of the ancient Christian concept of the nous means that he can now “encounter (really encounter, not just pick up as an emotional infection) the invisible realities that form the genuine substance of the Christian lexicon. It is not just empty talk after all!” This unpredictable, life-changing, immediate encounter with God is “inherently dangerous, a new adventure, and a consummate challenge.”
Challenges well-met bring a man closer to something else that attracts him: freedom. “Even if we have yet to experience complete freedom from the passions, we know that freedom will be paradise. To have self-control over carnal appetites, to have clarity for noetic insights, to be liberated from the permanence of death-that is the freedom we crave.”
So the challenges have a practical goal. “Participation in the Holy Mysteries [sacraments], observing the fasts, daily prayers, and confession with a spiritual director means making progress along a defined path that is going somewhere real and better.”
Jesus Christ. What draws men to Orthodoxy is not simply that it’s challenging or mysterious. What draws them is the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the center of everything the Church does or says.
In contrast to some other churches, “Orthodoxy offers a robust Jesus” (and even a robust Virgin Mary, for that matter, hailed in one hymn as “our Captain, Queen of War”). Several used the term “martial” or referred to Orthodoxy as the “Marine Corps” of Christianity. (The warfare is against self-destructive sin and the unseen spiritual powers, not other people, of course.)
One contrasted this “robust” quality with “the feminized pictures of Jesus I grew up with…I’ve never had a male friend who would not have expended serious effort to avoid meeting someone who looked like that.” Though drawn to Jesus Christ as a teen, “I felt ashamed of this attraction, as if it were something a red-blooded American boy shouldn’t take that seriously, almost akin to playing with dolls.”
A priest writes: “Christ in Orthodoxy is a militant, butt-kicking Jesus who takes Hell captive. Orthodox Jesus came to cast fire on the earth. (Males can relate to butt-kicking and fire-casting.) In Holy Baptism we pray for the newly-enlisted warriors of Christ, male and female, that they may ‘be kept ever warriors invincible.’”
After several years in Orthodoxy, one man found a service of Christmas carols in a Protestant church “shocking, even appalling.” Compared to the Orthodox hymns of Christ’s Nativity, “‘the little Lord Jesus asleep on the hay’ has almost nothing to do with the Eternal Logos entering irrevocably, inexorably, kenotically, silently yet heroically, into the fabric of created reality.”
Continuity. Many intellectually-inclined men began by reading Church history and the early Christian writers, and found it increasingly compelling. Eventually they faced the question of which of the two most ancient churches, the Roman Catholic or the Orthodox, makes the most convincing claim of being the original Church of the Apostles.
A life-long Orthodox says that what men like is “stability: men find they can trust the Orthodox Church because of the consistent and continuous tradition of faith it has maintained over the centuries.” A convert says, “The Orthodox Church offers what others do not: continuity with the first followers of Christ.” This is continuity, not archeology; the early church still exists, and you can join it.
“What drew me was Christ’s promises to the Church about the gates of hell not prevailing, and the Holy Spirit leading into all truth-and then seeing in Orthodoxy a unity of faith, worship, and doctrine with continuity throughout history.”
Another word for continuity is “tradition.” A catechumen writes that he had tried to learn everything necessary to interpret Scripture correctly, including ancient languages. “I expected to dig my way down to the foundation and confirm everything I’d been taught. Instead, the further down I went, the weaker everything seemed. I realized I had only acquired the ability to manipulate the Bible to say pretty much anything I wanted it to. The only alternative to cynicism was tradition. If the Bible was meant to say anything, it was meant to say it within a community, with a tradition to guide the reading. In Orthodoxy I found what I was looking for.”
Continuity is what stands behind those opening “challenges” and gives them authority, and makes the Orthodox life an organic unity. Spiritual disciplines chosen piecemeal, according to taste, will lack that resonant authority, but if the goal is still union with Christ, they remain of value. But if such disciplines are valued merely as bait to attract men toward Christianity, they’re vain and empty (not to mention patronizing). One priest ridiculed the artificiality of “retreats where men beat drums, scream, and grunt for no apparent reason!”
Worship weirdness. Men who go from intellectual exploration to visiting an Orthodox church can be initially bewildered. “Orthodoxy is too startling to a Protestant who first encounters it.” “It’s amazingly different.” “The prostrations, the incense, the chanting, the icons-some of these things took getting used to, but they really filled a void in what I’d experienced till then.” “Some men initially can’t make heads or tails of what we do in worship, because it’s not purely intellectual, and employs poetic worship language.”
Perseverance pays: “Orthodoxy is startling at first, but the more I hung around, the more a sense of being home took hold.” “At first we were bowled over by the high liturgy and its intense reverence, but there was something else going on too. It’s that there is such a strong masculine feeling to Orthodox worship and spirituality.” Speaking as a girl, I initially disliked Orthodox worship, because I was used to an approach that aimed at inspiration and uplift-in short, aimed at me. The relentless focus on God alone seemed “hard.” After a few months, though, I discovered that I had a deep-seated hunger for that objective God-focus, though I’d never suspected it before. A female visitor to a Vespers service that was only occasionally in English told me that she didn’t understand much that went on, “But I know one thing: this is so not about me.”
A life-long Orthodox priest writes, “Orthodoxy is full of testosterone! We sing, we yell ‘Christ is Risen!’, we shove even adults under water in baptism, we smear them with oil. Two or three things are always going on at once. Unlike what I saw in a Western church, it doesn’t take a huddle of people several minutes of fussing to light a censer. You light it and off we go, swinging it with gusto and confidence!”
Not Sentimental. In The Church Impotent, cited above (and recommended by several of these men), Leon Podles offers a theory about how Western Christian piety became feminized. In the 12th- 13th century a particularly tender, even erotic, strain of devotion arose, one which invited the individual believer to picture him or herself (rather than the Church as a whole) as the Bride of Christ. “Bridal Mysticism” was enthusiastically adopted by devout women, and left an enduring stamp on Western Christianity. It understandably had less appeal for guys, and perhaps the rigor and objectivity of the Scholastic movement which arose about the same time was an equal-and-opposite reaction. “Head” and “heart” were split; men retired for brandy and cigars in the Systematic Theology Room, while praying and church-going were given over to women. For centuries in the West, men who chose the ministry have been stereotyped as effeminate. A life-long Orthodox layman says that, from the outside, Western Christianity strikes him as “a love story written for women by women.”
The Eastern Church escaped Bridal Mysticism because the great split between East and West had already taken place. Christians in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Asia, and Africa continued to practice an earlier, non-dualistic form of Christianity, with an emphasis on acquiring continual awareness of Christ’s inner presence through spiritual disciplines and humility.
The men who wrote me expressed hearty dislike for what they perceive as a soft Western Jesus. “American Christianity in the last two hundred years has been feminized. It presents Jesus as a friend, a lover, someone who ‘walks with me and talks with me.’ This is fine rapturous imagery for women who need a social life. Or it depicts Jesus whipped, dead on the cross. Neither is the type of Christ the typical male wants much to do with.”
During worship, “men don’t want to pray in the Western fashion with hands clasped, lips pressed together, and a facial expression of forced serenity.” “It’s guys holding hands with other guys and singing campfire songs.” “Lines about ‘reaching out for His embrace,’ ‘wanting to touch His face,’ while being ‘overwhelmed by the power of His love’-those are difficult songs for one man to sing to another Man.”
“A friend of mine told me that the first thing he does when he walks into a church is to look at the curtains. That tells him who is making the decisions in that church, and the type of Christian they want to attract.”
“Guys either want to be challenged to fight for a glorious and honorable cause, and get filthy dirty in the process, or to loaf in our recliners with plenty of beer, pizza, and football. But most churches want us to behave like orderly gentlemen, keeping our hands and mouths nice and clean.”
One man said that worship at his Pentecostal church had been “largely an emotional experience. Feelings. Tears. Repeated rededication of one’s life to Christ, in large emotional group settings. Singing emotional songs, swaying hands aloft. Even Scripture reading was supposed to produce an emotional experience. I am basically a do-er, I want to do things, and not talk about or emote my way through them!” He was helped by Richard Foster’s Celebration of Discipline, which introduced the idea that there are such things as “spiritual disciplines, other than passive Bible reading.” Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Cheap Grace was also eye-opening. “As a business person I knew that nothing in business comes without effort, energy, and investment. Why would the spiritual life be any different?”
Another who visited Catholic churches says, “They were conventional, easy, and modern, when my wife and I were looking for something traditional, hard, and counter-cultural, something ancient and martial.” A catechumen says that at his non-denominational church “Worship was shallow, haphazard, cobbled together from whatever was most current; sometimes we’d stand, sometimes we’d sit, without much rhyme or reason to it. I got to thinking about how a stronger grounding in tradition would help.”
“It infuriated me on my last Ash Wednesday that the priest delivered a homily about how the real meaning of Lent is to learn to love ourselves more. It forced me to realize how completely sick I was of bourgeois, feel-good American Christianity.”
A convert priest says that men are drawn to the dangerous element of Orthodoxy, which involves “the self-denial of a warrior, the terrifying risk of loving one’s enemies, the unknown frontiers to which a commitment to humility might call us. Lose any of those dangerous qualities and we become the ‘JoAnn Fabric Store’ of churches: nice colors and a very subdued clientele.”
“Men get pretty cynical when they sense someone’s attempting to manipulate their emotions, especially when it’s in the name of religion. They appreciate the objectivity of Orthodox worship. It’s not aimed at prompting religious feelings but at performing an objective duty. Whether you’re in a good mood or bad, whether you’re feeling pious or friendly or whatever, is beside the point.”
Yet there is something in Orthodoxy that offers “a deep masculine romance. Do you understand what I mean by that? Most romance in our age is pink, but this is a romance of swords and gallantry.” This convert appreciates that in Orthodoxy he is in communion with King Arthur, who lived, “if he lived,” before the East-West schism, and carried an icon of the Virgin Mary.
From a deacon: “Evangelical churches call men to be passive and nice (think ‘Mr. Rogers’). Orthodox churches call men to be courageous and act (think ‘Braveheart’). Men love adventure, and our faith is a great story in which men find a role that gives meaning to their ordinary existence.”
Men in Balance. A priest writes: “There are only two models for men: be ‘manly’ and strong, rude, crude, macho, and probably abusive; or be sensitive, kind, repressed and wimpy. But in Orthodoxy, masculine is held together with feminine; it’s real and down to earth, ‘neither male nor female,’ but Christ who ‘unites things in heaven and things on earth.’”
Another priest comments that, if one spouse is originally more insistent about the family converting to Orthodoxy than the other, “when both spouses are making confessions, over time they both become deepened and neither one is as dominant in the spiritual relationship.”
Men in Leadership. Like it or not, men simply prefer to be led by men. In Orthodoxy, lay women do everything lay men do, including preach, teach, and chair the parish council. But behind the iconostasis, around the altar, it’s all guys. One respondent summarized what men like in Orthodoxy this way: “Beards!”
“It’s the last place in the world men aren’t told they’re evil simply for being men.” Instead of negativity, they are constantly surrounded by positive role models in the saints, in icons and in the daily round of hymns and stories about saints’ lives. This is another concrete element that men appreciate-there are other real human beings to look to, rather than a blur of ethereal terms. “The glory of God is a man fully alive” said St. Irenaeus. One writer adds that “The best way to attract a man to the Orthodox Church is to show him an Orthodox man.”
But no secondary thing, no matter how good, can supplant first place. “A dangerous life is not the goal. Christ is the goal. A free spirit is not the goal. Christ is the goal. He is the towering figure of history around whom all men and women will eventually gather, to whom every knee will bow, and whom every tongue will confess.”
********
Frederica Mathewes-Green
www.frederica.com
Tuesday 02 Oct 2007 | Jacobse | Orthodox Christianity |
Although I do not really understand much of what is said, about the non-Orthodox groups, experientially, as I am cradle, intellectually I can understand. Very interesting analysis. Especially the part that if you accept the forms but not the substance, men will not be fooled by the deception (the outward appearance of the Church). What do you converts say about this? (I do not mean “converts” in an insulting way, just that you are the ones with the experiences outside Orthodoxy).
The dualism of western Christianity, especially as it is expressed in the “heart/head” split kept me from Christianity for a long time. It is heretical actually.
In the Orthodox Church a man can experience “The Bridal Chamber” without becoming a woman and vice versa.
The presence of Mary in a real way, not the esoteric idology of the Catholics nor the stupid rejection of her by many protestants.
Real women in the Church. It is much easier to be a man when there are genuine women around.
The kenoticism of the priesthood (the living sacrifice that allows the Holy Spirit to work in the earth).
In short, yes, yes and yes again and the article only touches the surface.
What a fascinating survey. For me, as an adult female convert from Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy was real, serious and true. And, liberating, especially liberating from feminism. Theosis is not “gender-specific”, Glory to God!
Rebecca,
Google for “St. Nina” and you will see that people drawing their inspiration from the World Council of Churches are actively organized for the sole purpose of legitimizing female ordination in the Orthodox Church. Unfortunately, that side of the debate is organized and very, very persistent. I don’t see an organized counter-force.
The feminist theologians were nearly unimpeded in their march through the Mainline Protestant churches. It was not because there were not people who disagreed with them, it was because an effective counter-force was not organized until it was too late. By the time a counter-force was organized the deanship of most seminaries and the professorate were held by tenured feminist radicals, almost impossible to dislodge. The seminaries became a fountain of radical theology, sending their graduates out to transform the churches to which they were assigned.
I will concede that the foregoing analysis is secular, it is couched in terms of secular matters alone. However, I would state that the non-feminist members of the Mainline Protestant Churches had no idea of how radical the feminists were and how hard they would push to almost completely displace orthodox (intentional small “o”) Christianity. When the feminists where through they had radically rewritten the Bible, the Creeds and the liturgy.
The end result is nearly unrecognizable and it is primarily pagan IMHO.
Best wishes, anyway. I don’t think I have “made your day.”
Casandra, the protestants had given up the ghost long before the feminists came on board. They had, in fact, lost the battle with the rejection of the Incarnation inherent in the continual devolment of theology from the Reformation onward. Once they rejected Mary as Theotokos, the resurgence of paganism was almost inevitable. Mary is the opposition to female ordination. As long as we continue to honor her properly as Theotokos, we will weather the stoms.
Rebecca, it is wrong to conclude that Theosis is not gender specific. Men and women experience and communicate the Divine Energies quite differently and the blocks to Theosis are also experienced differently. We have different functions equal in importance that must not be confused by secular egalitarianism.
Note 5, Michael, I’m sure you are correct, but…..
You are, undoubtedly correct, the root cause lies deeper.
However, the non-feminists were shockingly naive about the true goals of the feminists. The non-feminists failed to challenge rank heresy at the onset and the heresy took root and grew rapidly, almost without opposition, until, I noted, it was too late.
It remains true that St. Nina’s is an organizing point for those seeking to legitimize female ordination in the Orthodox Church. They are deadly serious and they are organized. They are setting up conferences and publishing papers and pressing their case at every opportunity.
I have no doubt the assalt has been mounted. We have to be vigilant. We have to demand of our bishops that they not give into heresy. Calling on them to to their job of “rightly dividing the word of truth”. We need to work for non-participation in the NCC and the WCC. We must not be afraid to call heretical ideas heretical but keep in mind that not all who hold heretical ideas are heretics. We must be able to articulate why an idea is heretical.
But do you think that the many who took refuge in the Church from the destruction of even orthodox Protestantism will remain quite a second time?
Protestantism was heretical at inception. The Church is not. That makes big difference.
Also, I don’t exactly think that St. Nina, Equal-to-the-Apostles and Enligthener of Georgia will take kindly to such a miss use of her name and her person. Pray to her.
Note 7, Michael, well-said, and duly noted
I find this article to be true about Orthodoxy and one of the reasons why I would like to convert. But their our a couple of things holding me back, unfortuantly.
It remains true that St. Nina’s is an organizing point for those seeking to legitimize female ordination in the Orthodox Church. They are deadly serious and they are organized. They are setting up conferences and publishing papers and pressing their case at every opportunity.
This is true. They are practicing what has been called “liturgical archeology”, so far with limited success. I have ran into a few folks who have been influenced by what they are doing, but thankfully not too many. I wonder what the mood is among the seminary professionals and Bishops, who tend to be influenced by this sort of movement. I have read where the clergy, particularly the convert clergy (a greater percentage every year - now the majority in the Antiochian diocese) fully recognize the danger this group poses.
Note 10, This is how it started in the Mainline Protestants
I fully recognize that there exists a massive theological chasm between Protestantism and Orthodoxy BUT organizationally there are some parallels which are worth heeding.
First, I consider it critical that those in positions of authority refuse to tolerate students entering seminary who clearly bring with them a “reforming agenda.” Sorry to say, but women need to be very carefully screened here. The first mistake that the Mainline Protestants (MP) made was to “tolerate” diverse views in the seminary and treat “dialogue” as healthy. Dialogue isn’t healthy because it presupposes that there is something open to “dialogue” about. At this point the word “dialogue” gives me hives, it is a dishonest way of establishing the idea that a settled doctrine is open to debate and therefore vulnerable to “reform.”
Second, those in positions of authority refuse to tolerate teachers or professors in Orthodox seminary who propound a “reforming agenda.” Let them find a home in secular universities if they can, they should not be supported by Orthodox seminaries. “Academic freedom” cannot be held to encompass preaching against the received Faith.
Third, I think those in proper positions of authority should challenge and question the actions of those involved in St. Nina’s. If actual ordained Orthodox clergy contribute articles to the site which support the revisionists point of view, they should be disciplined. I don’t know if this occurs or has occurred, but, I think those in authority should be watching. If persons holding teaching positions at Orthodox seminaries contribute supporting articles they also should be disciplined.
Fourth, I don’t think local churches should host their seminars or invite their speakers to talk.
In the MP it started in the seminaries where tolerance was extended to people who were enemies of the Faith. Those people become tenured professors. The tenured professors produced apostate clergy who spread their ideas to individual congregations and eventually worked their way up the clerical hierarchy.
By the way, as the E”C”USA dispute shows, tolerance operates only in one direction, from the orthodox to the revisionist. The revisionists in the E”C”USA are busy filing lawsuits against remaining orthodox clergy. They don’t mess around as soon as they get institutional power they use it for their side and only for their side.
You was warned!!! (smile)
I remember reading about ultra-marathon runner Dean Karnazes who suffered a spiritual crisis of sorts on his 30th birthday. That very night he ran 30 miles from downtown San Francisco to Half Moon Bay, launching what would become a career as an extreme athlete and sporting goods designer. My reaction, however, was to wonder why Dean just didn’t go to church and have a chat with his Priest.
A lot of young men face spiritual crises as they grow into adulthood and confront the pitfalls, false attractions and ethical dilemmas of modern life. These situations are sometimes the trigger that often brings young men back to the church after a long absence. Other times they are the turning point that leads men down the road that leads to despair and alienation from God’s love.
It is important that the church reach out to young men as they grow from teenagers into young adulthood and let them know that as they face difficult situations their life the church is there as a place for support and guidance. Men are taught to suck it up, be tough, and not show weakness. But inside there can be a pain or wound that needs healing and the church can be a place where that healing can occur.
Ya Ho Dean another non sequitur. How do you manage to do it?
What do you mean? Non Sequitor means “it does not follow”. What doesn’t follw?
Your post
Mrs. Missourian,
If only we could get your recommendations enacted! I noticed that Bishop Ware and Fr. Stanley Harakas are “honorary board members”, so as usually, the corruption starts from the seminary professionals and populizars such as Bishop Ware…
Note 16, Christopher
Yes, I noted that. I don’t know what to say. …..
Frederica M-G is, with all due respect, in denial.
One commenter, at St. Ninas, supported the idea that the “maleness” of Christ was not important. The commenter created the false debate in which orthodox Orthodox had to defend the male priesthood by coming up with reasons why Christ was incarnated as a male.
My simplistic take is that we don’t know why God created male and female in Genesis, but, we know He did. God chose to act through a Son and it is not for us to second guess Him. It was His plan and we shouldn’t rewrite it.
As night follows day, female clergy will change the titles of the Trinity from Father, Son and Holy Spirit to something else, such as, Parent, Child and Friend (I kid thee not!!). It is the very first thing they will do (and have done). Clearly the entire theology of the Trinity changes if this change occurs and what you get is some kind of quasi-New Age, pagan version of Christianity. Further , if gender is not relevant to human personality or one’s spiritual life then homosexual conduct can no longer be labeled immoral.
By the way, I don’t feel “left out.” The male priesthood does not constitute an obstacle to my salvation and I do not lack for service opportunities. So what is there to be “left out” from? The revisionists want the honor and stature afforded the priesthood: titles, status and leadership positions.
Mrs. Missourian:
You’re already taking advantage of at least one very important “service opportunity” by defending the Faith (here on this Blog). You’re defending the “Faith” with a capital “F”…the Faith that doesn’t change…not the “faith” that so many are trying to (re)create in their own image and to their own liking.
Thank you for your service.
Those who desire a “female” priesthood want power because all that they see in the priesthood is power and authority. That very conception of the priesthood is pagan and non-Christian. Either that or they have so rationalized and intellectualized Chrisitianity as to emasculate it. Rather than the encounter with the Living God Incarnate, Risen and Ascended, Christianity becomes an idea among many other ideas. That IMO is Arianism in a modern form.
The storm will come and it is a far more important battle to fight than any poltical/cultural battles.
Suffer not the works of heretics!
(Actually from a board game, but never mind.)
Serious battles. Time to strip for the contest, and gird ourselves with spiritual armor, and the dual weapons of prayer and fasting (Some hints from St. John Chrysostom).
http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-06-21
Michael, in Watertown, N.Y., a pastor fired a female Sunday school teacher after 50 years. The pastor cited 1 Timothy 2:11-14.
Do you agree with the pastor’s decision? Why or why not? It seems pretty clear from Scripture, but I wasn’t sure what the Orthodox stance was on this and if they regard this passage as relevant to today or not.
Micheal,
Don’t you do it! If you answer this flame bait you will be a big fat, if delicous bass…
http://www.icaughtyouadeliciousbass.com/index2.html
Note 21, See this was what I meant, even if I didn’t say it
Hmmm, Note 21 is what I meant, even if I didn’t say it. SMILE. This is what I was attempting to say. This is also what I directly observed.
By the way has anyone read Reuther? This woman is truly a piece of work, angry doesn’t begin to describe her stance towards the world, let alone Christianity.
Chistopher, how does one answer a non sequitur?
James, what’s your opinion, should I paint my house?
Michael, how is it a non sequitor?
Look, I understand being annoyed with people who hope to change a 2,000 year-old tradition, and when one changes too many elements of these traditions, it begins to lose its flavor and it becomes something else entirely. It’s like that family member who grumbles about having Christmas at Aunt Ruth’s place … it’s ALWAYS been held there so just shut about it! If you don’t like it, find another family.
The question is: from where is the role of women in the Church derived? Scripture? If it’s from Scripture, there are passages that clearly state that women should have no authority over men (this includes the business world!) and that they should not teach. Why take passage “x” in a literal manner and “y” in another? Both teachings came from St. Paul.
Now, if you say that the view of women priests (or not having them, really) comes from an “Orthodox anthropology”, well, that’s fine, but that’s really a non-answer. How was that anthropology constructed so that women being priests was necessarily excluded? The other thing that strikes me is how, once again, all these assertions are being made about these women’s characters when no one here is ever met them or spoken to them. Yet, all sorts of statements are made here about these peoples’ motivations and desires. It seems a bit presumptuous.
As I said, I understand the relucance on this issue. Yet, I don’t find it to be a moral issue, per se.
CFLConservative writes: “The goal should be to convert the United States, a no more impossible task than once upon a time converting the whole Roman Empire.”
Michael writes: “Personally, my experience here has led me to the conclusion that it was far easier to tell the rest of the story to real pagans than to tear out chapter after chapter of the story that has become like an H.P. Lovecraft version of Christianity that has been written by what Christopher aptly calls post-human philosophy.”
I’ve never understood what the Orthodox approach to evangelism actually is.
For example, I have never seen an Orthodox TV show. I have never listened to an Orthodox radio program. I have never seen a “come to our Orthodox church” ad in the newspaper or on billboards. No one has ever handed me an “Orthodox tract” on the street, or on my doorstep.
I have been two the fall festivals of two Orthodox churches. Everyone was very nice and friendly, and the churches were very beautiful. But in both cases I could not detect any interest at all in having any of the attendees “check out” a church service. At one church I even talked to the priest for 20 minutes about various icons in the church, and towards the end of the conversation I expected to hear some kind of invitation to attend a church service, or to be directed to the rack of literature, or something. But, there was nothing. At the other church, my wife even ran into woman with whom she went to college, but there was no invitation of any kind.
I thought this was kind of strange. I mean, here are all these people who have actually come to the church, who are there in a friendly and positive and appealing setting. If the message could be presented anywhere, it was there. But there was no message.
I don’t mean any of this in a critical way. It’s just that I have not seen the Orthodox church or message presented in any of the typical ways that evangelism normally occurs. So when someone talks about “converting the United States,” I’m not sure how that occurs. When someone talks about how hard it is to present the message, well, yeah, I guess it’s so hard that the message isn’t presented very much.
Of course, there are Orthodox web sites. There are Orthodox books. But I think these would appeal to people who are already Christians, who perhaps are dissatisfied with their current churches. In fact, as far as I can tell, most conversions to Orthodoxy are conversions from some other Christian church to the Orthodox church. I’m sure there are cases of “real pagans” converting to Christianity; I just don’t know of any personally.
So if the Orthodox want to convert the United States, or even a small percentage of the United States, how does that happen, if the normal avenues of evangelism are not used?
Hey Jim,
In other words, you haven’t encountered this kind of attitude as shown below. (From my parish Website)
Of course, our parish is growing and adding new families, but the ones you have interacted with probably aren’t.
What we’re doing is right. What they’re doing is wrong. The parishes doing what we are doing (inviting people, talking to people, working in the community) will grow. The parishes that don’t will die off.
That is simply the way things will go.
JamesK, I simply do not have the time, the space or the skills to break through the ignorance your questions reveal. The questions you ask simply have no relation to the question under discussion–none. That you see a relation only accentuates the depth of your ignorance. My experience with you is that it is an ignorance you wish to maintain and you questions are not genuine.
Have you read On the Incarnation by St Athanasius yet?
Michael, I’ve come to see that Orthodoxy is a complicated protocol, and I think protocol is an appropriate term. It’s a systematic way of interpreting life, the universe, God and Scripture in a very particular way. Now, if you’re accusing me of being ignorant of the Orthodox conventions of interpreting these things, well yes, otherwise I wouldn’t ask the questions. However, what you and Christopher fail to see is that Orthodoxy is peculiar in its methods, and as such, you can hardly expect the outsider to intuit what comes so naturally to you. You mustn’t also act so outraged when the non-Orthodox look at Orthodoxy and scratch their heads, trying to make heads or tails out of how you derive your anthropology.
The Protestant conventions are much easier to follow: they read Scripture, and when it says “x”, it means “x”. Something should be taken as hyperbole only when its obvious. Catholics too, are much more systematic in their moral and doctrinal theology, although their approach is quite different.
When it comes to the Orthodoxy, I’m beginning to see that this whole complex system just “is”. You either accept it or you don’t. Thus, when St. Paul says “x”, it must be taken literally, but when he says “y”, it can be discarded in favor of the philosophy formulated over the last couple thousand years by various Orthodox saints, whatever that philosophy may be. Why? Well, I asked the question why and got my hand slapped by Christopher.
Again, I share many moral values with the Orthodox. I appreciate their value and respect for life. This is why it’s so frustrating to encounter such a hostile resistance to a discussion of how this framework of Orthodoxy was constructed. Instead, I just read a lot of statements that we are to accept wholeheartedly without question.
If the Orthodox hope to impact the culture for the good, they will need to lower their weapons and start discussing these topics with some kind of common language.
note 30:
Fr. Jacobse, how long are you going to allow these Trolls (JamesK in this case) to post endlessly on your blog??? Just because it is “public” does not mean you can’t ask (and enforce) some basic standards…
Christopher: You really need to read Luke 18:9-14. It contains important lessons for you.
Dean, perhaps you should reference Matthew 7:4
But, if Fr. Jacobse will notice, we are now 33 posts into this thread, had a decent (if somewhat mundane) discussion going, until one of the Trolls derailed it (starting at post #22 - now all three are jumping on the bandwagon)…
Touche!
http://m-w.com/dictionary/touche
note 34
Sounds more exotic
CFL Conservative writes: “In other words, you haven’t encountered this kind of attitude as shown below. (From my parish Website) . . . Please feel welcome to come worship with us! . . . We would love to hear from you!”
Well . . . no. I admit that my in-person exposure to Orthodox churches is limited. But certainly both churches I went to had everything that they needed in order to have that attitude. I mean, the people were great. They were friendly. They were interesting. The priests were interesting. The ethnic aspect — Greek in one case, Arabic in the other — was interesting. Both of the churches were beautiful, works of art, really. Upon entering both churches one knew instantly that one was entering a sacred space. And, not to omit the important factor — the food was good too. But — no invitation. They were 98 percent of the way there, but somehow didn’t go the other 2 percent.
So what happened? Looking back, my take is that for most of the church members, Orthodoxy was something they had grown up with. It was in the air they breathed. It was part of the landscape. They didn’t have an Orthodox “worldview,” it was just who they were. They didn’t realize that for the vast majority of people showing up on their doorstep Orthodoxy wasn’t in the air, wasn’t part of the landscape. They didn’t understand that those people were on the outside and needed to be invited to come inside.
JamesK, I have attemted to give you answers about the Orthodox approach many times. It has not mattered. Both my ability to articulate the answers and your ability to receive them seem to be lacking.
The Orthodox faith is traditional, experiential, communal and personal. It is not systematic, rationalized, intellectualized philosophy. The continuity and integrity of Orthodox faith and practice is maintained by the Holy Spirit acting in and through the Church. The core of the Church is the Liturgical Eucharistic mysteries and worship. There is nothing in Protestant experience or thought that can even comprehend Orthodox worship (although many Protestants can when they transcend their theology), and little remaining in Roman Catholic understanding.
In the early Church some of the information you have been given on this site would not have been spoken of until you had made a decision to unite yourself with Christ and been received into the community. The reason being that there was simply no foundation for the catechuman to really understand–as you and others here have shown. I know you will intrepret that as an arrogant statement. It is not. It is simply that Baptism and Chrismation change you ontologically. Initially the grace of these mysteries prepares you to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which along with the participation in the other divine mysteries, prayer, fasting and almsgiving continues to deepen and expand the ontological change, if we allow it to.
The Orthodox Christian faith is actually quite simple. It is not simplistic nor legalistic, nor moralistic–all of which you seem to crave. It is only our poor beings, clouded by arrogance, confused by passions and hardened by pride that make it complicated.
It is interesting that you brought up Fr. Seraphim Rose in the Gay Marriage thread. I guarantee you that he would not have continued to debate with you or the others here. If he chose to comment at all, he would have posted once, done the best job he could do and then simply made no further comment. Anything else is a power struggle in which there is no winner and the truth is sacrificed.
You are correct to a point in one thing you say: the Church is what she is, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. She does not need defending or explaining in the sense you typically request and she is not a smorgesbord of ideas from which to pick and choose. If you long for union with God through Jesus Christ (the only way to union with God), then you will eventually come to the the Church. If you do not long for such union, it is better that you stay away as the parable of the man invited to the wedding who came in without a wedding garment illustrates.
God forgive me if I have placed any additional barriers in your way.
Re #27, 28 and 36
I have had many converts tell me that what Jim experienced was what attracted them to Orthodoxy. If you radiate the fruits of the spirit people will be attracted. If you don’t, people will be repelled. The amount of time blaring “YOU ARE WELCOME HERE” really makes no difference.
A couple who recently converted and joined our church told of a Lutheran church where they had visited and been bombarded with WELCOMING! The next Saturday two guys showed up on the doorstep of their home to ask if they were coming to church the next day.
Likewise, I find it disgusting how many of the mainline protestants are so obsessed with how many minorities they have in the congregation. It all reeks of pandering and paternalism.
Your post actually explains why I don’t see Orthodox apologetics in the book stores next to books by Josh McDowell and C.S. Lewis. Why bother? It would be like explaining nuclear physics to a squirrel. Besides, the whole idea of apologetics is seen as demeaning to Orthodoxy by its use of language and constructs that are fundamentally beneath it.
Thus, there is no discussion of things like Biblical history and criticism. History (even when used to discuss the canons) is a worldly science that seeks to define things with materialist definitions and uses material definitions of proof. (I should remind you that many people do become Christians by investigating and forming conclusions about the historicity of the Gospels.)
So Orthodoxy is essentially a circular system, defined by its own standards. We know it’s true because it says it is.
The reason I find this perplexing is because it seems to fly in the face of its own anthropology: there seems to be a Gnostic-like rejection of the physical world even as it insists that the physical and spiritual are intertwined.
Have I misunderstood?
Yes
JamesK,
Orthodox apologetics see Eighth Day Books http://www.eighthdaybooks.com/
If you want to really experience Orthodox evangelism, visit the store in Wichita. Even a simple examination of the list books on the site will show clearly how much you misunderstand the Orthodox Spirit, James.
Once again, I offer you “On the Incarnation” by St. Athanasius as a wonderful apologetic.
with the introduction by C.S. Lewis