Look at the orginal context of the straining at gnats quote. It wasn't the law in and of itself that was the problem is was how the pharisees were applying it. Same case here.
Official OCA position
-
Nektarios14
- Member
- Posts: 231
- Joined: Fri 10 January 2003 7:48 pm
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
-
Seraphim Reeves
- Member
- Posts: 493
- Joined: Sun 27 October 2002 2:10 pm
- Location: Canada
Nektarios
Look at the orginal context of the straining at gnats quote. It wasn't the law in and of itself that was the problem is was how the pharisees were applying it. Same case here.
I would agree with you wholeheartedly Nektarios, if this was simply a "pew thing." While one could list all of the reasons why it is regretable whenever pews are put into an Orthodox Temple, that one particular thing would seem to be a pretty flimsy reason to get all worked up (though I do respect the fact there are some who would disagree with this assessment.)
However, it's the whole "widdling down" effect of these things that is really upsetting. Sure, a beard doesn't make the priest (in fact there are some priests, because of their racial background, who simply cannot grow full beards anyway). Of course, long hair and a traditional cassock do not make the priest. And of course, a lack of pews does not legitimize or put over a given Temple. But when one see's all of these things together, cumulatively it starts to be a problem - if only because such things (particularly if there is a large number of them) are symptoms of more profound problems.
While my own love of the Orthodox Church, and the fullness of the faith which is only found therein, is my overwhelming reason for moving towards Her and leaving behind my Roman Catholic past, I can say from experience in the RCC what this "widdling down" does, if only on a psychological/natural level. The one great lie of the RC liturgical "reform", was that you could make a clean distinction between the dogmatic dimension of faith and praxis - that you could profoundly alter the latter, while still upholding the former. There's a great arrogance involved in such an outlook, and sadly it is "justly" rewarded when pursued. Of course, I know quite a few "traditionalist Roman Catholics" who would argue that it was precisely the doctrinal dimension of the RC religion that the big pushers for "liturgical reform" were after to begin with, under the guise of doing Catholic laypersons a favour (I'm inclined to agree with them - and I'm also inclined to think, if in a less conscious/systematic way, it's the same with those in Orthodoxy who want to "update" things.)
As G.K. Chesterton (one of my favourite non-Orthodox authors/pundits) put it (paraphrased), only tradition is truly representative and democratic, since zealous reformist tendancies deny a "say" to those who have gone before us - it's the tyranny of the living, versus the democracy of the living and the dead (and obviously, our ancestors amount to far more votes than we living in this valley of tears do!) This is true not only in religion, but of society in general.
Chesterton also realized (in a similar vein) that men who itch for reform have little common sense, nor do they have much in the way of understanding when it comes to that which they wish to alter/destroy. How much better, he pointed out, were the reformer to first understand why a given custom exists...then once they understand, ask whether or not it is still relevent (since obviously a given practice or custom exists for a reason - it did not come into being on it's own!). Only then, would any talk of "reform" be reasonable. Reform can be needed, but more often than not, most reforms (historically speaking) go bad, precisely because it's not clear they really were needed.
With that in mind, perhaps even the "little things" taken individually become even more grave than most people (including myself) are usually prepared to grant. Clergy with long hair and beards...from what I've read, it started primarily as a monastic practice, to strike out against vanity, and to more clearly show the priest to be a shepherd of souls like the True Shepherd, Christ our Lord. Has vanity ceased to be a problem? Is there any less need for priests to resemble the High Priest Whose Name they act in? The same with all of these other "modernizing" things "world Orthodoxy" indulges in - why were their typically no pews/seating in ancient Christian Temples, or Temples up until relatively recently? Etc., etc.
The most vain thing of all perhaps, is modern man's belief that he is fundamentally that different than his ancestors...but I guess that is to be expected in a culture which has so thoroughly imbibed "evolutionary" thinking (the idea that it's inevitable that with time we're getting better and better, and somehow "modern man" is an inestimably higher, more advanced being than his ancestors were.)
Seraphim
Nektarios
I was only making a comment...thank you for taking it out of context. The way I intended my other post to read was that when I visited a Greek Orthodox Church for the first time I thought it was strange that we sat so much (strange for me because I have NEVER known anything but the ROC), so could you imagine how confused I would have been if I encountered organs. Sheezzz..
as far as the OCA being a "slavic church" you would have a difficult time getting anyone to admit that in this day and age...
I just wanted to clarify that I was quoting from your text. I hate it when I can't tell what post the person is referring to, then I have to scan all the messages.-
Gregory2
RE:
That is not "jurisdiction bashing"
that is cold, hard fact.
The OCA wants to be an "American" Orthodox Church
and clearly wants to be cut from its slavic roots. Although there was a great surge of Russian nationalism in this church in the early 1900's because of the events in Russia and the arrival in America of many refugees, displaced persons and political emigres, the church always held to its traditional conviction of being a church in and for America with a strictly American vocation and destiny.
The OCA today has nearly 200 parishes (out of over 600) that are of no ethnic background -- many of these were formed after the granting of autocephaly in 1970.
It is inaccurate to refer to the OCA as the "Russian Church" since a good percentage of its constituency is not Russian. Further, within the past two decades the OCA has established some 125 new parishes, almost exclusively non-ethnic in origin and employing only the English language in worship.
-
Justin Kissel
stgregory,
I didn't take it as jurisdiction bashing (though there has been a lot of bashing of other jurisdictions and other Christian groups around here of late). I understood things in the same way that Natasha did. I live in a very "ethnic area" (Western PA), so things are probably as ethnic as you can get here. Still, the main tendency seems to be "American" unless a festival is going on, at which point the churches morph into slavic communities for a week. If they're an American Church, how come I don't see any hamburgers, french fries, hot dogs, or bbq chicken? 
(not that I'm dissin' Chicken Kiev... mmm)