COSC2U2@uhvax1.uh.edu (09/20/89)
Speculations on what Glasnost will mean to the future of U.S. Christianity
[Definitely Controversial]
As you know, Russia is gradually relaxing their totalitarian grip due
to Economic Pressures. The process has started even during the Stalin years,
when Stalin needed every friend he could find to beat the Nazis. The
Russian Orthodox Church was not actively persecuted with the same zeal, and
was looked upon as a needed internal ally. Khruschev, a man that Americans
now LOVE & HATE simultaneously, started the reforms of the fifties cautiously,
to get Russia out of its backward state. True, the purges were gone as well
as the nastier aspects of Soviet Politics (in the preson of Beria). Still,
religious persecution persisted. The somewhat harsher Kosygen-Breshnev-Andropov
-Chernenko regiem built up the pressure that Gorbachev is now reacting to.
The Russian Orthodox Church, the second largest Christain denomination,
stands to gain greatly from these developments. The persecution has made the
faithfull strong. Glasnost will make them bold. A GIANT WILL BE UNLEASHED!!!
The Russian Orthodox Church (henceforth called ROC) has been the most agressive
evangelizers of the Orthodox Churches. They propogated their church in Alaska
in 1792, and later in California. Since then, their direction of spread has
been from West to East (All other denominations spread from East to West.)
Other Orthodox peoples came to the U.S., but the ROC was more or less in
charge. The Russian Revolution caused a few splits. Some started the ROC
Outside of Russia, which is now the American Orthodox Church. Other groups
preserved their autonomy by reverting their alleigance back to their home
church, like the Greeks or Copts. Though generally left out of the Great
Revival, they recruited from imigrants, . . . till NOW ! ! !
With the advent of Glassnost, Russians will not be detested with the
same zeal as they were in the fifties. Some of the more adventurous Americans
will venture out to their Church Festivals ( I've already attended the Egyptian
Festival in Houston this year. I am planning to visit the Greek, Mediterranean,
and Armenian Festivals. I will buy some icons, books, and gain a few pounds),
and will become exposed to the various forms of Orthodoxy. With the home church
now able to agressively back the ROC, you can expect changes in the U.S.
religious landscape.
In the eighties, the Eastern Orthodox were able to make gains from two
different sources. The more Conservative Episcopaleans (High Church) saw Eastern
Orthodoxy as viable alternative to the excesses of their liberalized Low
Church. Second, the recent Fundamentalist scandals of Bakker, Roberts, et. al.
have caused a fallout. Since the Eastern Orthodox Church is a Conservative
Church, they were able to corral some maverick lambs.
What do they have to offer Americans?
* Hymnology - with composers like Tchaikovsky, Borodin, Mussorgsky,
and Rimsky-Korsakov, they are going to make a big splash
in this area. Check out RK's Russian Easter Overture and
Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition, segments of which
often occur in religious services. Of course, God the
Omnipotent by Lvov is in most of the U.S. Hymnals, and also
occurs at the end of the 1812 Overture.
* Art - Icons are regarded to be Windows into Heavan. The saints are
painted in their humility, usually with much red and gold.
This art is dydactic, and not a "realistic" portrayal.
Saints have long noses to express their dignity, small
mouths and open ears to express their hearing of the Word.
- Architectecture is Byzantine. Domes contain religious
paintings (and windows to Heavan). More symbols. All
Churches face East, towards the Resurrection. The altitude
of the church rises toward the East, like a ship pointed
eastward. Churches are Arks to carry believers. All aspects
are modeled after the Holy of Holies. Let's not forget that
Russian Churches use Cupolas instead of domes to keep the
weight of the snow from colapsing their domes (surely
everyone has seen a picture of St. Basils in the Kremlin,
that church that resembles an ornate Banana Split).
* Theology - The Orthodox Church observes all Councils up to the time of
the Photian Schism. They hold the Nicene Creed to be
special, the Pronouncement of the Church as a whole on the
beliefs necessary for salvation.
* Tradition - They hold that each generation of believers is the successor
to the previous one, inheriting certain privileges. They
have Apostolic Ordination. Each Priest can trace his
ordination through a line of ordinations to one of the
Apostles. Spritual kinship is recognized. The best man/maid
of honor at an Orthodox Wedding has de facto consented to
be the Godparents of the children of that union. The Sponsor
of a new member is also the Godparent of that new member.
Godparents have claim to the right of civil adoption in the
event of demise of all suitable blood relatives. No marriage
between spiritual relatives.
* History - The Eastern Orthodox Church considers themselves to be the
Mother Church of Christendom, the Historical Church, and
the Trinity to be the God of History. There seems to be a
a higher percentage of Historians in this Church. This
Church has an emphasis on Patristic Literature that is not
usually present in Protestant Denominations.
Their sole weakness seems to be in their religious service. It consists of
liturgy (often in Greek) and a 5 minute sermon. Everyone stands during the
service. Man is the only errect animal, therefore he worships errect. People
come and go to service as they please. There are no chairs or benches in the
Russian Churches. However, some reform in this area should go a long way.
ORIGIN
St. Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, an ethnic Khazar, saw that an
opportunity was lost when the Khazars converted to Judaism, a few centuries
before. The Khazars were the #1 World Power at this time, but were at least
on good terms with the #2 Power, the Byzantine Empire. The Khazars were trade
partners with the Jews scattered throughout Asia Minor. When the Khazar King
went to decide the matter of what the official Khazar Religion would be, the
Rabii at Court suggested a test: Ask the Catholic and the Turk who erred the
least. Both chose the Jew, and as a result, Russia became Jewish for a time.
The Popes, in St. Photius'es mind, were too domineering. A break was made when
St. Photius noted that the Popes unilaterally inserted the "Filioque" clause
into the Nicene Creed without ratification from a Church Council, that is,
"The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son". A new power in from the North was
prevailing over the Khazars. When it became time to select a new religion,
Eastern Orthodoxy was chosen. Islam was ruled out for their hypocricy. The
Popes were considered too domineering. The Khazeer Jews were "Under a Curse"
that the Tsar wanted no part of. As a result of St. Photius'es daring move,
the Eastern Orthodox Church was founded, as well as the eventual conversion
of Russia.
Effect on the U.S. Religious Landscape:
Undoubtably, Reformed Protestantism will wane as a result of the
expected competition from Orthodox beliefs. Interest will be spurred in
Patristic Literature. Hymnology, Architecture, and Religious Art stand to
gain greatly as these art forms become more stylistic among Catholics and
Protestants. Emphasis on Separation of Church and State will become more
pronounced, as some recent Orthodox writers have expressed laments about
what happened under the Tsars. The Eastern Orthodox will insist upon
using "Divine Grace" instead of "Predestination" where the meanings coincide.
Although they have been missed by the Great Revival, it will be interesting
to see if the Great Revival resumes in an Orthodox Phase during the 90s,
spurred on by Glasnost.
Although I am a Protestant by membership, I have undergone an Eastern
Orthodox Confirmation Class as part of my amateur studies in Byzantinology.
I learn much by reading THEIR books which is where I prognosticated the
direction their Church is heading. IN THE EVENT OF GORBACHEV'S SUDDEN REMOVAL
FROM POWER --- ALL BETS ARE OFF !!!!!
--cebmark@drd.com (Mark Lawrence) (09/23/89)
COSC2U2@uhvax1.uh.edu wrote: } } [Exposition of the Russian Orthodox Church] } ...Second, the recent Fundamentalist scandals of Bakker, Roberts, et. al. } have caused a fallout. Since the Eastern Orthodox Church is a Conservative } Church, they were able to corral some maverick lambs. } } What do they have to offer Americans? } ... I appreciated the insights gained about a group of the brethren that I hadn't known a lot about until this article, but I have to admit being put off a bit by some of the presentation, e.g. the excerpt above. The enumerated list of "What the ROC offers" reminded me of a marketing presentation. The crucial issue is: should a segment of the Body with which we choose to be filial be selected on the basis of hymnology (I can see the arguments now: "you may have Tchaikovsky, but *we've* got Crosby, Watts and Wesley..."), church architecture and so on? Granted, mode of worship (liturgy, no benches?!) probably enter into it on a practical level. Perhaps I'm just hopelessly out of touch and uneducated in these matters, but the thing that is most important to me with regard to "church selection" is whether or not one has the confidence that the Lord has placed one *there*. The lack of sensitivity in the article in this regard, frankly, disturbs me. One might hawk the attributes of a particular secular organization (country clubs, health clubs, altruistic enterprises, etc.) in such a manner, but certainly God's elect deserve better. -- mark@DRD.Com (918) 743-3013 Jer. 9:23,24 {uunet,rutgers}!drd!mark [A couple of comments: (1) there is no question that realistically denominations are in competition, and they do compete on matters such as style. This may not be good, but it's not entirely bad either. In my view it's perfectly OK to have several denominations that preach the gospel with equal faithfulness but have different styles of worship. My worship would be seriously impeded by music that a younger generation may find helpful. (2) I think at least some of his point was that the Orthodox Church would bring these things as a contribution to the Church as a whole. I think he's overly optimistic about the Orthodox Church converting Southern Baptists. However a more vigorous Orthodox Church might still have an impact on all of us. --clh]
COSC2U2@uhvax1.uh.edu (09/25/89)
[COSC2U2 (whose name I still haven't figured out) wrote a posting predicting
an "unleashing" of the Russian Orthodox Church. In it he commented that
the scandals of Bakker, Roberts, etc., allowed the Eastern Orthodox Church
to corral some maverick lambs (presumably disillusioned). Mark
Lawrence (mark@drd.com), although appreciating the insights into the
Orthodox faith, was somewhat put off by "marketing" orientation of the
original posting. --clh]
A true Christain will always want to be in communion with other Christains.
But if the test of "By their works ye shall know them . . . " indicates that
it is time to find greener pastures, then it is time to find a new church home.
By the way, Orthodox do not proslytize. They are perfectly willing to make a
(for example) a good Baptist into a better Baptist. In the case of
Televangelists, or even burnout, and if a new Church is an indicated solution
to the faithfuls religious problems, they will accept a new member.
> The enumerated list of "What the ROC offers" reminded me of a marketing
> presentation. The crucial issue is: should a segment of the Body with
> which we choose to be filial be selected on the basis of hymnology
> (I can see the arguments now: "you may have Tchaikovsky, but *we've* got
> Crosby, Watts and Wesley..."), church architecture and so on? Granted,
> mode of worship (liturgy, no benches?!) probably enter into it on a practical
> level.
You misunderstand. I am a Protestant whose hobby is Byzantinology. I am saying
that because of Glasnost, the ROC will operate with a much freer hand. They
must first take the oportunity that Glasnost offers them to reform. Then they
can spearhead their Crusade in America (still a figment of my imagination,
but a very real possibility). The Great Revival has missed them so far. The
initiative of the Great Revival has fizzled out in most of the other
denominations except the baptists. All it takes is a spark in a group to
start a new phase of the Great Revival. The ROC has one called Glasnost.
Although its a wait and see game, I don't think that the Orthodox will
be left out. (My judgement as a Christain Historian)
>
> Perhaps I'm just hopelessly out of touch and uneducated in these matters, but
> the thing that is most important to me with regard to "church selection" is
> whether or not one has the confidence that the Lord has placed one *there*.
> The lack of sensitivity in the article in this regard, frankly, disturbs me.
I was objectively stating the factors of their worship that would affect the
U.S. Religious Landscape. I thought that describing their icons as "Windows
into Heaven" very sensitive. It has been said that their icons are
comprehensible to only believers. As for the music, it is as fine a spiritual
music as ever heard. Would you rather have your hymnology based upon Wagner?
> One might hawk
I didn't hawk anything. Would I call their liturgy a weak point if I did?
Five minute sermons, at least in my opinion, are much too short. Thirty
minutes, however, is reasonable time for a good short sermon.
> the attributes of a particular secular organization (country
> clubs, health clubs, altruistic enterprises, etc.) in such a manner, but
> certainly God's elect deserve better.
After all the discussion on Predestination & Free Will, you still use
the term "elect". I believe in Christ as an act of my Will, though
God made it possible for me as a UNIVERSAL Act of Divine Grace.
One point I made before (in different words) was that if and when the Russians
finally come, the American attitude toward Predestination will shift AWAY
from Calvinist and Reformed thought.
>
>
> --
> mark@DRD.Com (918) 743-3013 Jer. 9:23,24
> {uunet,rutgers}!drd!mark
>
> [A couple of comments: (1) there is no question that realistically
> denominations are in competition, and they do compete on matters such
> as style. This may not be good, but it's not entirely bad either. In
> my view it's perfectly OK to have several denominations that preach
> the gospel with equal faithfulness but have different styles of
> worship. My worship would be seriously impeded by music that a
> younger generation may find helpful.
My point was to prognosticate the effects of what this competition would
have upon the American Religious Landscape. I found music important to my
worship. Musical pablum bores me. Rock would grate my nerves. Church music
must have a Spiritual Quality about it so that I can remember what I came
to church for.
>(2) I think at least some of his
> point was that the Orthodox Church would bring these things as a
> contribution to the Church as a whole. I think he's overly optimistic
> about the Orthodox Church converting Southern Baptists.
I don't think I said that they would convert the Southern Baptists either.
Further, I do not think it would be a good move. The two denominations have
much to learn about each other. Merging or converting does not necessarily
make a Church better. You can be big in 2 way, by muscle or by fat. Two
hunks of muscle are better than one blob of fat.
> However a
> more vigorous Orthodox Church might still have an impact on all of us.
> --clh]
Exactly my point! If and when they get out of their lethargy, which I think
is highly probably (I did not say it was a certainty), you will see plenty
of impact. I have probably overemphasized that it will be a continuation of
the Great Revival (and the U.S. needs it). The purpose of my previous article
was to expound upon what to expect.
--cebromain@pyramid.pyramid.com (Romain Kang) (09/27/89)
Off on a tangent, about a year ago, I saw a sermon where a priest talked about the Orthodox millenium, and told a story of visiting a Russian Orthodox church at their Easter in 1988: The common Orthodox practice on Easter used to be that at the end of the liturgy, the priest would go to the open great doors of the church and proclaim to the world, "Hallelujah! The Lord is Risen!" To this, the people waiting outside would answer, "He is risen indeed! Hallelujah!" This had not been done for over 30 years, because the local police would arrange for "hooligans" to wait outside, and when the doors opened, these scoundrels would rush in and vandalize the church. With the beginning of Glasnost, however, the church thought it might be safe to return to the old practice. So, on Orthodox Easter morning of that year, the old priest, clad in his splendid feast-day vestments, went to the doors at the end of the service and opened the doors. Awaiting him, sure enough, was a noisy crowd of people. Oh no, not again, sighed the priest to himself. Then, collecting his courage, he cried, "Hallelujah! The Lord is risen!" and waited for the worst possible thing to happen. The crowd yelled back, "Hurrah!"