I'm confused

[George Australia]

Having said that, I believe the only time to have this type of discussion is when the parties are not taking matters personal; in this case, we are simply creating anamosity and possibly weakening a person in their faith.

Dear in Christ, OOD,
I'm not 'taking things personal', my concern is what we are presenting in these 'adult discussions' to those seeking Orthodoxy.
Here is some 'advice' given to seekers of Orthodoxy on an 'Apologetics' website of one of the "True Orthodox Churches" (ROAC), a link to which is on this forum:

How can a non-Orthodox find Orthodoxy?
If you are looking to be saved, and you are looking for the True Orthodox Church during this time of controversy, it's easy to find one. Simply ask the priest (presbyter) if the Synod of Bishops he is obedient to (all priests are, by ancient custom, obedient to and actually deputies of their Bishops) recognizes Churches that are part of the heretical World Council of Churches. Assuming he isn't lying (and you can easily tell by the attitude) if he says yes, then they aren't True Orthodox. If he says no, they are. If he gives a strange and confusing answer, try him again when he's awake.

So the message is that one can "find Orthodoxy" by discerning the body language, voice inflections and "attitude" of priests. And this, on a site claiming to present 'apologetics'!
And what do they mean by "recognizes Churches that are part of the heretical World Council of Churches." If they are not "Churches", why then does the author call them "Churches"? Does he mean that they are Churches but not Churches? The website goes on to say that:

However, if you don't want to waste your time going the phone book most of the True Orthodox Churches have official websites with directories for their respective countries on them, and a list of them can be found at http://www.trueorthodox.tk

In other words: "Don't bother, we've done the thinking for you."
So, this is Orthodoxy is it?- blatant, 'western-style missionary' proselytism, sectarianism and cultism? No thanks!
Is this the type of 'adult discussion' that you think seekers of Christ will find enlightening OOD?
George

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

In other words: "Don't bother, we've done the thinking for you."
So, this is Orthodoxy is it?- blatant, 'western-style missionary' proselytism, sectarianism and cultism? No thanks!
Is this the type of 'adult discussion' that you think seekers of Christ will find enlightening OOD?

The kind of discussion I may think enlightening would be a very involved and detailed discussion of how the historic church and its saints handled similiar issues as we have today. I have been increaslingly facsinated with certain periods of the Arian controversy for starters. But I don't believe in apologetics per-se; because the kind of conversation I would have would vary greatly with each individual and would only really start at all if it could be a sincere one. In my mind, apologetics is like a blunt instrument when more often than not, delicate surgical tools are needed. Having said that, "apologetics" in the sense of what Joseph's site offers can often be useful to people looking for specific answers.

[George Australia]

The kind of discussion I may think enlightening would be a very involved and detailed discussion of how the historic church and its saints handled similiar issues as we have today.

Dear in Christ OOD,
I would agree that this kind of discussion would not only be enlightening, but also constructive. It is infinitely better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.
And I don't mean to harp on it, but the problem I have is the 'other' type of 'discussion'- the 'cursing of the darkness' - and the damage it does.
So many juristictions in recent history have anathemized, declared heretical and schismatic so many other juristictions that the words 'anathema', 'heresy' and 'schism' have started to lose meaning.....and this meaninglessness, ironically, would serve only to aid the cause of false ecumenism. I really think we would do less of a disservice to the Church (wherever we may believe the boundaries of the Church may lie) if we who believe we are Orthodox Christians were to dialogue with one another over the fences we have built to divide us- rather than just build higher fences.
I think that it is important that we don't react to the heresy of false ecumenism by seeking it's 'exact opposite'- that is, by becoming introverted and cult-like. The Church is not "of the world" but it has a mission to the world. There is no point in claiming to be Orthodox if we are not "catholic".
George

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Yes, and I think this is much more pronounced when two groups have the same beliefs and ecclesiology. I remember in the early summer a few "Mathewites" laying out their beliefs with regard to my synod. I am sure they thought it was innocent enough, but what people most often don't see, or want to see, (myself included) is that nobody in a completley unassailable position. That doesn't mean that I think everyone is on questioanble foundations; but that it is easy enough to bring up plenty of questions and problematic events which could cast enough doubt and make further conclusions.

So it was very very hard for me to bite my lip and eat what these "Mathewites" were serving. But I knew if I responded I would only worsen the public spectacle and give into my passions. Today, there are no differences between us and the "Mathewites".

I have certainly never been one to want to deepen the divides and have always thought of myself as the "greatest excuse maker" for other traditional synods. I do believe it possible there is some division between what God considers His Church here in the world, especially in these confusing times. Now having said all that, it is still important to recognize the limits of what we humans can see as the church in the context of tradition. There are clear-cut schismatics among "us" there is no doubt.

[George Australia]

There are clear-cut schismatics among "us" there is no doubt.

Dear in Christ OOD,
I think there is doubt about who is or isn't schismatic among 'us'.
Suspending Communion due to a doctrinal disagreement is not necessarily a schism. If it were, then Patriarch Joseph's accusation that St. Mark Evgenikos (of Ephesus) was a schismatic because he had suspended Communion with Constantinople would be true.
And where people say there are 'schisms' today are most often not even doctrinal disputes (even though they appear to be). In reality, they are differences in interpreting and applying the Canons. For example, the question of whether the New Calendarists have Grace, I believe, falls into this latter category.
George