This is Life!: Revolutions Around the Cruciform Axis

I certainly understand the way you (and HR) mean conversion. And, of course, I don't disagree. My only point, which you seem to agree with, is the wrong impressions that the common use of the word generates.

What we're talking about in terms of "real" conversion is, I think, the way of repentance, the prayer at the litany that we may "live our whole lives in peace and repentance."

When the definition of repentance is, roughly, "change of mind (and heart)" then I think that gets at what I think we're trying to describe and isn't confused with the other meaning of convert.

Semantics? To a degree, yes. What I believe we've found is the "cohesive system" that supports this desire to live a life of repentance. It's not that no one else wants to live it and we're the special ones, but that we want all the "resources" for support that Orthodoxy offers a person. That's the common denominator I see in all of us who become Orthodox.

Or something like that.

If we are speaking of St Benedict and a life of conversion, then I am completely with you, brotherman. Preach on!

Christopher:

I think we're on the same page. The only quibble I have is the distinction, as Orthodox, that it is necessary to make between Orthodox Christians and other Christians on the basis of ecclesiology. Orthodox believe that there is only one true Church, and that Church is visible in the Orthodox Church. I know we also emphasize that we cannot speak definitively in terms of salvation of the Christians outside of Orthodoxy both because of the ecclesiology we come from as well as the simple fact that we can never speak definitively of anyone else's salvation, let alone our own. God will judge. We have enough to worry about today.

On the other hand, we cannot say that ecclesiology doesn't matter, or that what matters is that person's salvation as opposed to their church membership. We cannot because for Orthodox there can be no substantive distinction between membership in the Church and salvation in the Church. It's not a matter of having a fire insurance policy, as though being Orthodox automatically gets you into heaven. But it is a matter of truth, which is to say, it is a matter of right relation to Jesus the Truth. Having come to the truth about Orthodoxy, I now have an obligation to live in concert with that truth. I cannot at the same time believe--really believe--that the Orthodox Church is the one and only Church Jesus founded, and go on living as though that truth didn't matter. That's not to say that if I died before becoming Orthodox I'd be guaranteed a spot in hell. I might get that spot being Orthodox just as well. But it is to say that I have a responsibility to act in accordance with the truth.

I am, dear brother Tripp--but as your fave prof might say, "It's a bit more complicated than just that."

I'm not sure I follow you, Clifton. If this is about making distinctions between Orthodox and non-Orthodox, I think the fact that one gets "received" makes it clear enough that Orthodoxy understands her uniqueness. If there were no uniqueness, then everyone could just come to communion with a smile and a handshake.

I think there are other ways in which the distinctions, the emphasis on Orthodoxy as the Church, are clear enough. I mean, even if I don't use the word "convert," I'm pretty sure that the claims Orthodoxy makes for itself are fairly well known.

Or am I missing something here?

"I think there are other ways in which the distinctions, the emphasis on Orthodoxy as the Church, are clear enough..."

Well, I think this isn't perfectly clear at all, at least not in current practice. I've been around enough 40-something Orthodox who wish they could still be Protestants and in fact still are in their ethos, lifestyle, and worldview, that I understand exactly what Clifton is getting at.

Grossly stated, there are the two extremes in America today when in comes to "converts": the Ortho-fundies on one hand and the "Protestants who love the Byzantine liturgy" on the other.

Both groups see part of the truth--the latter understand that there is real good to be had outside the Church and former understand that there really is and must be a sense that we really do become Christians when we become Orthodox.

The paradox is quite complex.

Christopher:

No, I don't think you're missing anything, and it seems clear, at least to me, that you and I are in agreeement on the specifics. I am, for the purposes of this post and as a response to the convertitis post, simply wishing to emphasize the besetting temptations to which Protestant "converts" to Orthodox are subject, and then suggesting, in this post, what the balance looks like.

In other words, the consensus from anecdotal experience, and that of Blessed Hieromonk Seraphim, is that these dangers of "ortho-fundamenatlism" and "byzantine protestantism" are reactions stemming precisely from the Protestant ethos. If Protestantism is wrong, then it's really wrong and only the most conservative of nineteenth century Russian Orthodoxy is the "true church." Or, if Orthodoxy is merely the fullest expression of Christianity, then all we need do is add to our Protestant toolbox.

What I'm suggesting, in this post, is the paradox of both extremes: Protestantism is, indeed, wrong, and Protestants are Christians, too. Or, perhaps more correctly, only Orthodoxy is the Church and God will save whom he will.

Of course... there are those who say there is no salvation outside the Church. I'm not one of those: I am not, however, willing or able to bend as far as you.

I'm willing to avoid saying those outside of the Church are not Christian. But I'm also very willing to avoid saying those outside the Church are Christian. In otherwords I'm willing to leave that up to God.

Having come from out there to in here, there are so many threads - to use the analogy in the later post - missing from their cloth (the fullness of the scriptures and their understanding, the Theotokos, the Saints, the Mysteries, the Church herself...) and so many additional threads ("original sin", Thomism, etc...) and some threads that seem rather odd - like many of them say they accept the councils, but they really only accept them a la carte. It not only *seemed* like a conversion to me when I came in, it really was: I entered a new religion.

Now, your restoration movement may be different, But Metropolitan Philip (or so I've been told) says anyone coming from ECUSA into Antioch has to be baptized because ECUSA just ain't Kosher. And I know a lot of religious groups that are equally off base - just on other topics as listed above.

None of this is to say God won't save whom He will. Orthodoxy (even of the fundie stripe) saying "We're the True Church" has never been the same thing as "We're the only saved ones". All I'm saying is, short of a council to say one way or the other, we don't need to decide *for certain* that those outside the Church are - or are not - Christians. It's the same paradox, but in reverse. It's a judgement my history leaves me unprepared to make - so I'll leave it to the Judge.

Could the idea of "fullness", meaning the Fullness of the Holy Spirit found in the Church overcome this tension? To put it another way, any non-Orthodox Christian, whether through schism, or heresy, or ignorance by reason of historical circumstances, does not "posses" (that term does not satisfy) the "Fullness of the Holy Spirit" because of his church (though perhaps he does in spite of it). On the one hand, God is not absent. On the other, His Fullness can not simply be added (and that protestant eclectic sort of way - for the Way is one) without a real and full repentance and return to His Church.

I meant to say "in that protestant eclectic sort of way - for the Way is on"...

Do we need to define it?

Seems it should be enough to say "It's in God's hands, not ours - come home".

And where is home? I ask that rhetorically because it is exactly there that the protestant (and here let us admit only the "orthodox" or "conservative" protestant that is in any way Christian) in some way needs an answer. So yes, in some sense I believe a definition or reasonable defense is called for. I hope a council is not needed for this!

To my mind, a council is needed, or, at the very least, someone better able to answer *for the entire Church* than me - or any one bishop or one jurisdiction or one theologian.

I'm not certain why you may want any of us to say something the Church, herself, has not really said. Just to be nice? Just so some other folks feel comfortable? Why should one prioritize whole batches of their religion out in ways contrary to what the Church has taught? Would you have me say, "Yes, I was told that to be a Christian I had to do X Y and Z... but you? No, that's not important for you."

Sorry, ain't gonna play that. That seems an insult not only to those who taught me the faith, but equally an insult to you (or whomever) who comes to me to "dialogue". If I'm not honest, to whom do I do a disservice?

I would certainly not want to say anything the Church has not said, or any untruth. Perhaps you would expand on "prioritize whole batches of their religion out in ways contrary to what the Church has taught" because I am not following you there.

Personally, I would be a little surprised that the Church, the Fathers, has not already spoken to this in a more direct way - perhaps I am assuming too much. Schism, Heresy, etc is nothing new, and most certainly did not arrive on the theological and ecclesiastical scene with the Protestants. Not having made a study of it myself, perhaps I am exhibiting a bit of naiveté in assuming that a rational explanation, that is fully in keeping with Tradition and the Fathers, can be made to the situation we find ourselves in.

I think Karl misunderstood me when he said, "Well, I think this isn't perfectly clear at all, at least not in current practice."

I'm not talking about "current practice." We're just as susceptible to criticism by that standard as any other confession. The quote from Luther keeps bouncing around in my head: "Life is the same with us as it is with the papists." If we always define things on "current practice," we may as well all stay home. I'm talking about identifiable teaching and belief of the Orthodox Church on a) it's self-understanding and b) it's understanding of those outside her canonical boundaries.

I don't feel that one can claim to understand A without also having something to say about B. IOW, I don't hold to the "apophatic" Khomiakovian approach that seems to be "current practice," especially in America among converts. Khomiakov may have been right and he may have been wrong. But he wasn't a father of the Church and even if he was, no father is infallible. It's always more complex than that.

I have no doubt that many, especially those coming from liberal Episcopalianism, are, in fact, converts to the Christian religion. But that gets back to my point about these converts seeing all of Protestantism only through their own particular eyes. Such people can certainly speak for themselves, but I'm still not clear where they derive the right to speak for others whose experience may have been very different.

It has to be admitted, as I've said elsewhere, that there is not, in fact, consensus in the Orthodox Church on the status of those outside the Orthodox Church.

But I don't think we help the cause of expressing the Orthodox Church as Church if we give the impression that we say "we don't know," while simultaneously asserting things that cause others to believe that we're not being honest. In many cases, folks suspect that we Really believe that they're not Christians, but are just being polite.

If one wants to find polemic to support one's desire to distance oneself from western Christianity as far as possible, there's certainly no shortage of that in Orthodoxy. Many great saints have said some really, really harsh things about all western Christians, not just the liberal Episcopalians who dress paganism up in Christian garb. But I think that the days (centuries) in which every confession can just sit comfortably in its bunker and toss polemical grenades at everyone outside are over. We live in a "pluralistic" society and that's not going to change. We have to not only understand ourselves, but express ourselves, in terms that allow us to live peacably with one another, even if they never see our side. What I'm looking for is the kind of sober and balanced ecclesiology as written about by Fr Georges Florovsky in his The Limits of the Church. Why not take him into consideration along with the St Tikhons and St Nikolais who made every effort to missionize the west by integrating and promoting the best of it? And both Fr Seraphim and St John, for all their perceived "anti-westernism," went to great lengths to do the same. I could definitely be wrong, but it sure smacks of the Royal Way to me. I don't see that in all the Orthodox converts on the internet running around talking about how St Augustine isn't really a saint and whatnot. If these folks logic is taken to its conclusion, the western Chuch went off the rails and ran out of grace somewhere in the early fifth century, long before liberal Episcopalianism became an issue. If that's the case, the Church should have been baptizing everyone long before the 17th century. I don't buy it. But I'm rambling now. Sorry.

Personally, I would be a little surprised that the Church, the Fathers, has not already spoken to this in a more direct way - perhaps I am assuming too much. Schism, Heresy, etc is nothing new, and most certainly did not arrive on the theological and ecclesiastical scene with the Protestants. Not having made a study of it myself, perhaps I am exhibiting a bit of naiveté in assuming that a rational explanation, that is fully in keeping with Tradition and the Fathers, can be made to the situation we find ourselves in.

Christopher, if I understand you, I agree. Others may disagree, but I think the path is outlined in the link I provide in the above post.

"I'm talking about identifiable teaching and belief of the Orthodox Church on a) it's self-understanding and b) it's understanding of those outside her canonical boundaries."

But the point being made is that identifiable teaching (synodal statements, books, public preaching etc) and what the laity are actually doing and thinking are often quite different. As Clifton said, "beliefs are not exactly the same thing as a way of life."

"Such people can certainly speak for themselves, but I'm still not clear where they derive the right to speak for others whose experience may have been very different."

But doesn't this apply to every single one of us? IOW, just because you feel that you "didn't be come a Christian when you became Orthodox" doesn't mean that others (even former Lutherans, Catholics and other "almost Orthodox" ecclesial groups) aren't allowed to know they did really "convert" and that therefore there really *is* a sense in which becoming Orthodox means a real conversion no matter where one comes from?

"But I don't think we help the cause of expressing the Orthodox Church as Church if we give the impression that we say 'we don't know,' while simultaneously asserting things that cause others to believe that we're not being honest..."

I think the paradox will always seem "dishonest" to those who won't accept it. Our task is to continue asseting the truth that "Protestantism is, indeed, wrong, and Protestants are Christians, too" while making sure we don't run with either statement without taking along the other.

It is the fact that converts refuse to accept and fully assert all facets of this paradox that presenting the world with a schizophrenic face. Of course, the world will believe whatever justifies itself in the end anyway, regardless....

But the point being made is that identifiable teaching (synodal statements, books, public preaching etc) and what the laity are actually doing and thinking are often quite different.

I've already agreed with that and stated that I think the problem is that there are conflicting teachings in Orthodoxy on the topic. This, I believe, is the source of the confusion.

But doesn't this apply to every single one of us? IOW, just because you feel that you "didn't be come a Christian when you became Orthodox" doesn't mean that others (even former Lutherans, Catholics and other "almost Orthodox" ecclesial groups) aren't allowed to know they did really "convert" and that therefore there really *is* a sense in which becoming Orthodox means a real conversion no matter where one comes from?

Let's not go backwards, Karl. I think we've all already agreed on the various senses of conversion and what we mean by them.

I think the paradox will always seem "dishonest" to those who won't accept it. Our task is to continue asseting the truth that "Protestantism is, indeed, wrong, and Protestants are Christians, too" while making sure we don't run with either statement without taking along the other.

I don't disagree at all.

"Let's not go backwards, Karl. I think we've all already agreed on the various senses of conversion and what we mean by them."

It isn't backwards at all. In fact, I think it highlights the problem you noted. "That there are conflicting teachings in Orthodoxy on the topic" is certainly true. Otherwise you wouldn't have one person saying "I became a Christian" and another saying "I didn't become a Christian" when both are talking about being Orthodox.

My point is that these views are not conflicting at all but are the various sides of the paradox.

Each one of us did in fact become Christian when we became Orthodox. And each of were Christians before we became Orthdox. Both are true at the same time and both are true for each one of us. To assert one without the other (or one a little bit more than the other) is the problem too many laity suffer from and why the term "convert" is both appropriate and not at the same time.

I guess we'll have to disagree. I think the source of it is conflicting approaches to the non-Orthodox within Orthodoxy and you think it's paradox. I don't think conflict necessarily equates with paradox. Sometimes it does, to be sure, but I don't think it does in this case.

I think some interaction with Florovsky's essay would clarify some of these things, if anyone chooses to do that.

That is, "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree...."

I suppose we will! :)

But I'm curious: If it really is a conflict at the core (IOW, someone is actually wrong, or at least less right) than how do we know who is right? By what standard do we listen more to Florovsky than say, St. Arsenios?

(I love Florovsky, btw. In fact, his works are one reason why I think this is a paradox more than a black and white issue!)

Karl wrote:
"Both are true at the same time and both are true for each one of us. To assert one without the other (or one a little bit more than the other) is the problem too many laity suffer from and why the term 'convert' is both appropriate and not at the same time."

Which, if I'm not mistaken, though it may not have been obvious, was the whole point of this post, especially as it has followed in the line of thought of the posts of the last week or more.

Let me echo ChrisP's exhortation to read Florovsky's "Limits." Stout stuff.

I think this is a paradox more than a black and white issue!

I never said it was black and white. That's the idea I'm objecting to. Obviously, it's very messy.

If it really is a conflict at the core (IOW, someone is actually wrong, or at least less right) than how do we know who is right?

Well, that's why I posted the link. Florovsky makes a particular case and I'd like to see more discussion of it. Well, any discussion of it.

ChrisP:

Don't tempt me, man!

I've corrected the link above that CP gives to Florovsky's "The Limits of the Church." The essay can also be found here. Readers may also be interested in Florovsky's The Catholicity of the Church

Sorry, I didn't realize I'd punted the link....

an essay that i think is very helpful in this conversation, from esteemed philosopher/theologian christos yannaras:

at:
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/yannaras_new_ecumenism.htm

an excerpt or two:

"Today we need a new ecumenism, an ecumenism which will not have as its goal a "dialogue" between traditions and confessions, but rather will manifest a new "coming together" through the encounter of people of any and every tradition and confession. It would be the ecumenism of concrete encounter between those who share a thirst for the life which can conquer death, people who are looking for real answers to the "dead ends" of the civilization in which we live today.

This kind of ecumenism is of great importance for us because we Christians are responsible for these dead ends...

The Church calls us to realize our existence not on the basis of our created and mortal nature, but on an immediate relationship with him who called us from non-being into being. This is the definition of the person: the person is found in that freedom of immediate, existential relationship with God. There is no question here of abstract notions or psychological feelings. What we have here is something real, it is a reality. We exist according to the mode of ecclesial existence when we are able to walk on water, and the whole life of the Church is an ascetic struggle designed to teach us to walk on water. At times one gets the impression that the life of the Church has been changed into an attempt to improve people's behavior, their character, to enable them to control their passions, etc. Of course, this is all part of the ascetic struggle. But the goal of the struggle is freedom with regard to nature, an ability to live our existence as a realization of love, so as to reach the truth of the person...

"...I dream of an ecumenism which will begin with a confession of sins on the part of each Church. If we begin with this confession of our historic sins, perhaps we can manage to give ourselves to each other in the end. We are full of faults, full of weaknesses which distort our human nature. But Saint Paul says that from our weakness can be born a life which will triumph over death. I dream of an ecumenism that begins with the voluntary acceptance of that weakness..."

Guess not. lol

cparks and all,

I too am a bit disappointed more was not said about the linke you posted. I will post my comments in the "Tradition" blog from Sunday...

If you left the Restoration Movement and ended up in Orthodoxy, you never really understood the Restoration Movement, respectfully.

I would be interested in hearing more about your exodus.