The Orthodox and the Artificial

The Orthodox and the Artificial

If there is a future for Orthodox Christianity in America, it will be grounded in its authentic expression of Christianity. Our claim is that we have a living and organic continuity with the Apostles, and the Eucharist we celebrate is the same which was celebrated by Christ with those Apostles in the Upper Room. Each time we gather together for the Eucharist, we participate in the Sacrifice offered once and for all on the Cross. Christ made this manifest around a table, so in essence we too are gathered around a table as well during the Liturgy.

The Eucharist then, is at heart a very simple act; simple yet mysterious. The Liturgy has developed, to be sure, but always keeping in fidelity with the central act of offering by the priest. Every hymn, every vestment, every work of Church art and architecture is never an "innovation" so much as an accessory intended to deepen the mystical experience of the Sacrament.

It is in stating this, then, that I have grown seriously concerned with the use and overuse of instrumentation in the Liturgy. Over centuries the Church has corporately developed a discipline towards Liturgical music particularly demonstrated by the tonal system. Once again, the underlying wisdom behind this is the deepening of the experience of the central offering, particularly repentant and triumphant tones when appropriate. If there is to be instrumentation during the Eucharist, let it be orient the congregation towards the altar. The abuse of the organ, synthesized beats, and raucous tunes do nothing but direct attention to the choir instead. Choirs, of course are expendable, but the altar is not.

If the hallmark of our faith is authenticity, why do we then trade that in for the artificial? If the new generation of Orthodox Christians were simply looking for a good beat, they'd find better quality productions elsewhere. We should be experiencing the Liturgy in calm and in peace, not as if we were at a concert, but instead the Holy Table of Christ.

-Steve K.

What's Bringing People to Orthodoxy?

Recently I've been getting acquainted with the podcast "Journeys to Orthodoxy" on the OCN. As is the case with the conversion stories I've heard on Ancient Faith Radio, the most often repeated reason for joining the Orthodox Church is AUTHENTICITY.

Now, I was born in the Church, so my take is admittedly a bit different. But what I thought would be the most attractive part of Orthodoxy would be CONTINUITY, in that over time and space the Church has consistently taught the same thing as Christ did to the Apostles; it's not just antiguity, it's accuracy.

There is so much depth to Orthodoxy that many people will come to this Faith by many different roads, whether it's through the beauty of our services, the mystical experience of asceticism, or even our social outreach. The problem is that anecdotally, in the Malankara Church, none of this is being communicated!

So, from the twitter and facebook readers, I would like to know what draws you to, or keeps you in this Church and how that will continue to sustain you. That's the homework for tonight. Thanks :)

-Steve K.

Why Are Sheep Leaving the Church?

Dear all:

Of the reasons usually submitted on this subject, I don’t think any are particularly new. St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians clearly deals with factionalism, immorality, and disunity within the fledgling Church. The people who make up the Church have never been perfect, and they never will be. The First Century Church was able to grow in a world without religious freedom. We have religious freedom but can’t even fathom anything resembling growth. Instead the best we can do is “slow” the exodus. I for one believe the teachings of the Orthodox Church are objectively true; we are the Church that Christ established. That being said, what good is having the fullness of the Gospel in theory when in practice we are either ignorant of or simply don’t care about the real content of our Faith?

In my own spiritual journey I can honestly say I had no idea about my Faith until I made a concerted effort to learn about it on my own. I never learned about our Patristic mindset or monastic heritage until I encountered it in books first and then within my college Orthodox Christian Fellowship. I learned that there is an unbelievable depth to our Faith which spends most of the time sitting on the shelf. For example, within Orthodoxy we have innumerable Saints, Fathers, and Mothers of the Church who have had a hand in forming our Tradition. In actual liturgical practice though, we venerate about five. And while I’ve heard countless references to Gandhi from the pulpit; not once have I heard a mention of the venerable saints who really exist within our tradition such as St. John Chrysostom or the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste.

There is much to be offered within Orthodoxy that simply does not get taught or actualized within our daily experience of the Church. How much have we emasculated the Sacrament of Confession by giving no-questions-asked absolution? We have neither interest in iconography nor any theological reasoning behind our Church art and layout. We don’t preach that each and every person can truly pursue a profound personal relationship with Christ within the corporate body of the Church. We have no catechesis program for new converts into the faith (especially by marriage), and we have rationalized our way out of doing any meaningful evangelism work. Therefore, I ask the question: Are people really leaving the Orthodox Church, or are they leaving a shell organization with the word “Orthodox” written on the sign outside?

I realize that I am, of course, painting with broad brush strokes and there are very many reasons to be optimistic. My point though remains the same: people don’t leave the Church because we are “too Orthodox.” They leave because we aren’t “Orthodox” enough and they get a stronger, clearer message elsewhere which gives them a better feeling of fulfillment. We have the tools within the Church, yet we need the resolve to act accordingly. Overcoming the language barrier is but the first step in the process. We can no longer be simply carriers of the Faith, but rather proclaimers of the Gospel as we believe it was really intended to be.

Rethinking The Lost 60%

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles-2009/Salaris-Concerning-The-Sixty-Percent.php
- Fr. Salaris, Orthodoxy Today

There's no need to further beat on the ethnic Church and internal strife dead horses any further. I'll add two of my own:

1) Secular Progressivism: By the time every American youth gets through college, they've been beaten down with presumptions that Christianity is outdated, bigoted, unenlightened, and a barrier to one's personal self fulfillment (read: guiltless, consequence free sex). Christianity has been depicted as unintellectual and in enmity with the principles of modern science. The Church hierarchy is ill-equipped to arm its laity with the tools necessary to engage the "world" and each individual has de-prioritized inherited faith in favor of career, relationship, and the vague and nebulous "college experience."

2) Lukewarmness: It seems that getting a priest in my jurisdiction to say that Christianity is the fullness of Truth requires serious arm twisting. I've learned about ecumenism in my 26 years than I've learned about the Trinity. Gandhi has been mentioned in more sermons by far than St. John Chrysostom. I've come to the conclusion that mentioning Mahatma Gandhi in a sermon is a sure sign that priest has officially run out of ideas. We have lost the courage to confess our faith without fear of offending people of other churches or religions. Note: preaching is usually done in the Church...full of people who are ALREADY Orthodox.

-Steve K.