This is Life!: Revolutions Around the Cruciform Axis

Amen. You've spoken for many of us.

Hey.

I sorta skimmed this, but I have been pondering some of your other posts and have this thought to toss in the mix: Where I come from (rural VA), the "Tradionalists" have power. They are financially better off and are in positions of influence. Those of opposing viewpoints are shunned, fired, kicked out of housing developments etc (See the SBC in the mid-eighties, public schools etc). It is the same dynamic with the parties in reversed roles. That is all. Welcome to power politics.

So, um, it goes both ways, as you say. Knee-jerk reactions where one forgets that there are people behind the beliefs are the norm. Whenever we react out of anger or fear, that is the tendancy. We all do it. That does not make it right.

It just makes us all sinners.

I will be honest, Jerry Falwell, as an example of one kind of Traditionalist, frightens me. I mean that I am honestly scared of him as one is scared of, I dunno, whatever it is that renders you weak-kneed and useless. He brings me to tears. Honestly. Do I think he is a bad person? I really cannot say. I find his brand of Christianity and his implementation of it as political power terrifying. I do not even have time to consider whether or not he means well. I just have a visceral reaction to him.

It is problematic on many levels. It is clear to me that Rev Falwell and I live in different realities, have differing experiences of the universe and different expectations of God...and we both can affirm the Creed.

All I can do about that is pray.

Ah, Tripp, dear friend.

Here's where either I have so miserably failed to communicate or you have so clearly failed to understand.

To us "traditionalists"--and I've only used this label out of convenience, since it's easier than keeping on typing "those of us who accept, affirm and try to live by the Holy Tradition"--Falwell and SBC politicos are not, strictly speaking, "traditionalists."

That you would confuse the two of us is, to me, symptomatic of how you and others who share your faith commitments, invariably misunderstand who we are and what we're about. Although my home parish is probably more politically active than most Orthodox parishes, no one in the parish, to my knowledge, was out knocking on doors for Bush. And contrary to Falwell and the SBC folks, we actually do care about Palestinian Christians--vis a vis some of the Israel-centric concerns of evangelicals--since our heritage as an archdiocese is distinctly Arabic.

While Falwell and the SBC might share certain specific commitments with us, they reject, for the most part, the parts of the Tradition that suits them: episcopal polity, the "Apocrypha," the bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood of Christ, the doctrine of theosis, veneration of icons, and . . . well, do I really need to go on? In a lot of ways, and I mean no insult by this, you are more like Falwell, on opposite sociopolitical sides surely, than those of us who reverence the Tradition.

You know me well, brother, but perhaps not well enough.

clifton, well said. bravo. however i have lived on both sides of the conservative v. liberal spectrum. i've been deeply wounded by "traditionalists" who kill life with a moral legalism that is more about control and power and fear than about what lies on on the other side of repentance. i am referring mostly to my protestant past. but i suppose there are father ferapont's (bros. karamazov) in orthodoxy as well. i think it is crucial to have this conversation, liberal vs. conservative, but to have it acknowledging the limits of those two categories. in some ways, and i cant say this very well, but my experience of orthodoxy is that there is a beautiful paradox of stern, rigorous, seriously hard-core commitment not only to Tradition, but also to a lifestyle of personal repentance... but there is also this beautiful Light, freedom, compassion intermixed. the Faith can't be reduced to liberal vs conservative categories. and i understand that i am not entirely addressing your points. you're talking about the gap that exists between those who reject Tradition and those who appeal to Tradition. perhaps you've addressed this in a previous post that i have not read, but how does this gap exists IN denominations? i mean, do you feel there are more "atraditionalist" orthodox? do you feel more aligned with "traditionalists" in protestant faiths that super-"liberal" orthodox?

regarding Tratiotion, i wonder if the problem many atraditionalists have is that they haven't encountered the charisma of Tradition?:

"Tradition is not a principle striving to restore the past, using the past as a criterion for the present. Such a conception of tradition is rejected by history itself and by the consciousness of the Orthodox Church... Tradition is the constant abiding of the Spirit and not only the memory of words. Tradition is a charismatic, not a historical event"
- Father Georges Florovsky

Something of related interest is what I've encounted several times in person and on internet lists/discussion boards:

You get those folks who are social liberals (pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, pro-promiscuity), but for whatever reason they are attracted to Orthodoxy. They expect to come into Orthodoxy and CHANGE THE CHURCH to fit their beliefs. As I've told them, Orthodoxy is anti-any type of sexual behavior outside of marriage, very anti-abortion and otherwise pretty conservative. You do NOT come into my Church and expect to change it to fit your little agendas that are so popular, in ECUSA, for example.

The other folks on the list always got very peeved at me. The one or two people I've told this to in person didn't get quite so offended, but I think I got my message through.

Sorry, Cliff. I do understand you. It was my miscommunication. I do not lump you and Falwell together. I brought the Good Reverend into the fray in order to avoid talking about you in particular. I was trying to avoid any further hury. So, I redirected the inquiry. It would seem that I did not do it well.

But the redirection also illuminates something important. And I know you know this, but I always struggle with what you address. I know you. I know you ain't like Jerry. I know your love as a friend. I know your love as a father and husband. I get it. I really do.

But there is always this dissonance for me. I see how you live and I hear what you say and mostly get it, but there is always this flinch. I think of Pavlov. Ring the bell and hit me. Ring the bell and hit me. Ring the bell and love me...I will expect to be hit and flinch.

You witness to somewhat similar notions re: ordination of women and homosexuality that Jerry does. No, it is not the same. My response has a lot to do with my fear and experience of hatred from other fronts. I cannot erase that. I try to put it to the side when we deal with this stuff, but it is always a struggle.

When I posted the other day and then deleted that same post, I knew that my reaction was not against you, per se, but to others who have hurt me in the past. The bell rang and I flinched, expecting to be hit. I am sorry. I know that you experience the same thing. I do. You experience it from the other side, but you experience it.

You have my sincere apologies.

And I would encourage you and your Orthodox brethren to remember that as old as your Tradition is, it is still new to me.

"it is still new to me."

Well said Tripp. Frankly, it is new to all of us. Tradition is a deep well we never exhaust. Every day, we can enter into its life which is full of vigor, drama, and freshness. Just another paradox of the "traditionalist" life.