An interesting article....
From His Grace Bishop TIKHON
I am an Orthodox Fundamentalist
Over the past decade, the volume of “public discourse” among the
Orthodox, mostly but not only in America and Western Europe, has
risen to such high levels as to become what I call “spiritual deafening.”
Our fundamental Gospel teachings, our doctrinal definitions,
our ethics and morality, even our liturgical life are rather straightforward,
edifying, in essence: salvific. Our public discourse should be,
given the vision of the Church that has been passed on to us, the
Holy Tradition, a clear proclamation of the Good Tidings and Beatitude
Commandments, full of the Kingdom and the outpouring of
love based on a life of prayer, fasting, and alms-giving in today’s
terms. Within this discourse, the canons and Church discipline, are
clearly the servants of the Church’s mission, not salvific in themselves,
but insuring the “decency and good order” that makes the
full proclamation of the Gospel possible.
But in the present climate, the discourse falls far short of what it
should be and too often becomes simply ideological combat – a far
cry from spiritual warfare. But in this present climate, ideology is
everything, and for ideology to thrive and flourish there must be
ideologues: those skilled in debate, argument, hurtful combat, even
“school spirit” rather than allegiance to the Holy Spirit the Heavenly
King.
Decades ago, a group of Protestants drew up a list of a certain
minimum fundamentals of doctrine to which one must subscribe in
order to be considered a “real” Christian. These fundamentals included,
among other things, Biblical inerrancy, the Virgin Birth, Bodily
Resurrection of Christ, and seven days of Creation. Those that held
to those fundamentals listed with any degree of strength and tenacity
were termed “Fundamentalists.” That’s the origin of our word
Fundamentalist.
What would a “fundamentalist” be outside that well-defined, traditional
category? It seems to me that a fundamentalist would have to
adhere to some other kind of list of basic teachings by which one
might identify a “real” member of a given group. What then would
an Orthodox Fundamentalist be?
It seems to me that any list of Orthodox Fundamentals would have
to include the Symbol of Faith, the Holy Gospels, the Ten Commandments,
the Doctrinal statements of the Ecumenical and Local
Councils and of the Fathers approved by them. One might find
summaries of these Orthodox Fundamentals in the office of Receiving
Heretics in the Orthodox Church as printed in Hapgood’s Service
Book, and also in the Confession of Faith that are made by
Orthodox hierarchs on the eves of their Consecrations. In that
sense, I believe that any hierarch that is zealously and with tenacity
holding to all those points he confessed, must be an Orthodox Fundamentalist.
However we are not governed so much by such reasonable
definitions as we are governed and defined by the media,
and those that consider anyone at all that is more zealous about
religion or anything else as they are as the Enemy.
Thus an Orthodox monastic
belonging to a community
that eschews fasting
from meat year round would
consider other communities
that do fast from meat year
round to be “Orthodox Fundamentalists,”
and by that
is meant “unreasoning and
unreasonable fanatics,
probably prone to violence.”
That, of course, I am not, but
there is no rationality whatsoever
in any discourse
that labels those who are unreasoning, unreasonable, irrational, fanatical
and violent as “Fundamentalists.” I suppose that, with reference
to Islam and the idea of Holy War or jihad with which the
Western European crusaders infected it, some violent Islamic sects
are fundamentalist, but only with regard to their fundamental confession
of the virtue of violence.
Fundamentalist….this truly innocent term has lost all meaning in
public discourse. It has become a bludgeon with which to beat
down opponents when rational discourse or arguments are wanting.
Only one word is more misused than “Fundamentalist,” and
that is “Uncanonical.” Basically, “canonical” in terms of real usage
now means “I, me, mine, us and ours.” “Uncanonical” in terms of
real usage means “they and theirs.” The canons themselves in such
discourse are missing or irrelevant. Thus, the discourse (or lack of
it) between ROCOR and OCA over the years has been notable for
this peculiarity: both base their “canonicity” not on any canon at
all, but on their own interpretation of an official instruction of the
then Patriarch of Moscow, Saint Tikhon!! (And each very notably
recognizes the canonicity of the others’ ordinations whether to
Diaconate, Presbytery or Episcopate!)
Often the word “canonical” is used to disguise something on which
the canons are completely silent: such as the method of transfer of
laity from parish to parish. I have even read a relatively long “opinion
from the canonical point of view” on that topic that carefully
managed to avoid mentioning any canons at all! This low level of
discourse is not only a matter of hierarchical conversations and
dialogue/dispute; it has now filtered down to the basic parish level.
What young matron or teenage girl that wears a cloth on her head in
Church is not now liable to be labeled a Fundamentalist? What
Priest that tries to do away with pews is not labeled a Fundamentalist
by those holding to congregationalist ideology? What about
Fasting? What about going to spoken Confession before a priest?
What about a priest that prays his rule every Saturday night or
Sunday morning? What about a priest that is never “off-duty” or
never tries to conceal that he is a priest? “To do good and to
communicate forget not, for with such sacrifices, God is wellpleased.”
What sacrifices are we prepared to make with Joy?
Bishop of San Francisco and the West (OCA)
The Orthodox Vision
Summer 1998
