"Worship has now been basically reduced to entertainment," he explains. "That carries people for two years, and then they start looking for something with more depth. Those are the people who we pick up: serious Christians who are hungry for more."

This meshes with my experience, though I fled for the simplicity of the Quakers, which are more in keeping with my theology than Catholicism or Orthodoxy. We attended an evangelical-ish United Methodist Church for a few years a while back, but I got really disillusioned with the entertainment aspect of the contemporary service. It seemed so contrived after a while, especially the more involved I got with the church and saw first hand how "staged" everything was. Don't get me wrong -- the people involved were totally sincere in their faith and truly desired to serve God with their work in the worship service. But to me, it seemed all backwards somehow to me. I have found the unprogrammed silent worship among Friends to be both more fulfilling and more challenging than the constant sensory bombardment of a "contemporary" protestant worship service.

The late Orthodox priest Alexander Schmemann wrote critically in his diaries about the Orthodox Church's aloofness from the world. This he did not like. But how does a church manage to stay engaged in the world without getting overcome by worldly concerns? This is a mystery.

Good question. This is one area I wish the Quakers did better with. I think keeping the politics out of the the worship service would be a good start. Christian engagement with the world should be an outgrowth of inward spiritual engagement. Perhaps if churches did a better job attending to the spiritual growth of it's members, they wouldn't feel the need to push political or worldly concerns? Or perhaps we should stop thinking that being in "right" relationship to God will always lead to the same conclusions regarding worldly concerns. I wonder how much of the political activity in church is a misplaced way to cement a sense community. I think this is true in our Quaker meeting sometimes.

Posted by: naturalmom | August 24, 2007 9:38 AM

Certainly, one of the startling emphases within Orthodoxy is the transformation of the person through asceticism - prayer, fasting, almsgiving, works of mercy. It's not isolated "personal growth," but rather the struggle to become, by grace, a person in communion with God in the Church.

That's one thing I've noticed too. Self-help language and concepts don't really exist in Orthodoxy, not that I've found. But it does focus intensely on personal transformation, and in turn the transformation of society through your own self-abnegatory example. "Acquire the Holy Spirit and thousands around you will be saved." -- St. Seraphim of Sarov.

Posted by: Rod Dreher | August 24, 2007 9:54 AM

"with that Eastern mindset that's just so ancient, those questions haven't really arisen."

I think this confuses two different aspects of the "mindset." One is that yes, there are modern issues looming which haven't been addressed (response to clerical corruption, perhaps; and getting past ethnic tribes). But, more important to my conversion, Orthodoxy pronounces on less rather than more. For instance, the Creationist/ ID/ evolutionist wars are over at this address. The settled interpretation of the Creeds is plenty. There is a blessed "God only knows" answer to so much.

And it really is about the means of transformation of the fallen, wounded human being. Transforming into holiness by seemingly indirect practices (no claims here as to progress!), vs. adopting the conceptual positions declared holy or righteous by factions in the culture, often by selective Biblical proofing.

As a Less-Crunchy-Though-Besandalled, I'm immensely relieved there is very little even covert political emphasis. A the regularly-scheduled generic sermon swipe at "consumerism" is plenty. I can guess how a large number vote, from bumper stickers in the parking lot. Truly, no need to finalize the blueprint for an earthly utopia. It's much easier in community for the social justice people to go work for Amnesty, the market system people to maximize other kinds of support, the busy young parents to raise their families, the suffering to suffer patiently. Signalling identity by political affiliations is blessedly rare in juxtaposition to "laying aside all earthly cares" and "singing the thrice-holy hymn" -- foci that in my observation prove plenty transformative to society in even the shorter long run.

Posted by: who, me? | August 24, 2007 10:02 AM

I've spent all of my life in evangelical churches and graduated from an evangelical college. The constant, "What are you doing for God?" drove me nuts, knowing that I was a wretched sinner who could do very little for the God of the universe. I spent ten years in a Presbyterian Church of America church (conservative, evangelical Presbyterian) and now, due to a move, four years in a reformed Baptist (Calvinistic) church. There has been a strong theological bent in both of these churches, and the emphasis has been on law and gospel. (We are sinners deserving God's wrath, but Christ has redeemed us from the curse of sin, and the Holy Spirit is changing us. We can accomplish nothing apart from Christ and His grace.) There is a strong emphasis on glorifying God in the worship, and less on Jesus as my cosmic boyfriend, or on the grand and glorious things I will do for God.

However, there is also the idea of vocation. God has called us, as His very human creation, to do things in the world that He has gifted us to do. Through the power of the Holy Spirit in our lives, we live out our faith in our vocation and in our relationships with others. Christ as redeemer is still the main emphasis in our worship, but living the Christian life flows out of our gratitude to Christ. This can mean engaging in the culture wars, but it's not what we talk about at church every week. This emphasis has given me a great deal of emotional and spiritual stability and much joy in living out my faith.

Posted by: Debra | August 24, 2007 11:49 AM

All,

As an FYI (and shameless plug) for the folks here who are often interested in the sometimes hard to find online Orthodox resources, Fr. Ellsworth has a wonderful podcast series available via the Orthodox Christian audio ministry Ancient Faith Radio:

http://ancientfaithradio.com/

Fr. Peter is the publisher of AGAIN Magazine, the Orthodox Christian quarterly which I edit, and works on a wide variety of Orthodox media and evangelism projects:

http://conciliarpress.pinnaclecart.com/index.php?p=page&page_id=Author_PeterGillquist

Bless,
Doug

Posted by: Douglas Cramer | August 24, 2007 12:24 PM

Osvaldo: I'm not Catholic or Orthodox, so I don't have a personal stake in your abandonment of Catholicism and your switch to Orthodoxy, but this frequent Orthodoxy touting gets tiresome.

Well, don't read these posts, then. How hard is that? I usually put up between four and 10 new posts a day. It can get tiresome to read Andrew Sullivan on Christianists and gay marriage, but there's plenty else on his blog that make it worth reading.

Anyway, I'm not so much "touting" Orthodoxy as trying to talk about how my own movement into it raises broader questions about how all of us relate to religion and society. Much of the time I intend these posts less to be definitive statements than conversation-starters.

Simon: On the other hand, a friend of mine is a cradle Orthodox from Eastern Europe who converted to Catholicism precisely because (he says) the Orthodox Church in his native country was concerned only with liturgy and mysticism and shows little interest in the helping the poor or even evangelizing the unchurched.

A friend of mine in NYC left the Greek Orthodox church of his youth for Evangelicalism for very similar reasons.

Posted by: Rod Dreher | August 24, 2007 12:29 PM

All,

I wish I had more time today to reflect on this fascinating article from The New Republic, since it's right in my sweet spot. But I'll post a shorter (for me!) response. I'm a regular here, but as a refresher I'm managing editor of the primary Orthodox Christian magazine in this country that deals with these kinds of fundamental issues, AGAIN (www.conciliarpress.com). We've been publishing for 30 years, since Fr. Peter Gillquist and his fellow evangelicals founded the magazine as they began their journey to canonical Orthodox Christianity.

There's quite a bit in the TNR piece, and in Rod's commentary, with which I'd take issue, but I want to focus on one theme. Yes, their is without a doubt within Orthodoxy a constant emphasis on what we always call Holy Tradition (which includes Holy Scripture), that which we believe was formed by Christ and passed on through the continuing lineage of, as the Nicene Creed states, the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church." And there is a savor to what is within this Tradition called "the mind of the Fathers" - the saints of the Church who embodied and articulated this stance towards the world in its first centuries, from the Apostles themselves through figures like St. Ignatius and St. Gregory of Nyssa and the monastic desert fathers. It is something that can be accessed through the Scriptures and the Liturgy and the sacraments, all of which have been essentially unchanged in both words and in underlying theological understanding for close on two millenia.

At the same time, Orthodox Christians today are obligated to apply that "mind of the Fathers" within a contemporary context. If they are indeed the true Church, as they maintain, they are obligated to be leaders within our society, not just in terms of their own prayer and worship and spiritual intercession, but through an active engagement with society and culture motivated by a deep calling to charity, to the fulfillment of the Beatitudes. While it is not as heated as in other Christian confessions, and perhaps not as apparent to outsiders and newcomers, there is very much so a significant debate within the Orthodox Church over Orthodox Christian engagement with social and cultural issues in general and over individual issues like same-sex attraction, science and technology, popular art, childrearing, environmental stewardship, economics, war and so on, in particular.

The position of the Orthodox Church is not clear cut. The detached Orthodox mindset to which Rod and TNR refer is not only the result of the legacy of ancient Christianity. It is also the result of centuries of formation within oppressed societies. The vast majority of Orthodox Christians trace their roots - even those in America only a couple of generations back - to Muslim and Communist societies in which the full expression of faith was brutally oppressed, and in which constant accommodations with powerful regimes was necessary for bare survival. Many Orthodox leaders in America have for years called Orthodox Americans to stick their heads up out of their foxholes, to step out from their ethnic enclaves and ghettos, to stop acting like battered wives, and find the courage to be a greater influence within our society, even if it is just as examples of another approach to the challenges of the 21st century. Metropolitan Philip of the Antiochian Archdiocese has been one leader in this regard.

I could link to many articles online that capture the state of this conflict within the Orthodox Christian Church today. In general, Conciliar Press (www.conciliarpress.com), Ancient Faith Radio (www.ancientfaithradio.com), and www.orthodoxytoday.org are great places to start. But picking just two short articles among many, here's one from the head of Ancient Faith Radio, John Maddex:

http://conciliarpress.pinnaclecart.com/index.php?p=page&page_id=again_maddex_invisible_church

"We Orthodox have found the true Faith and have seen the true Light. Our hair smells of incense and our clothes are stained with oil. Our bookshelves are lined with the Church Fathers and our walls are about to collapse from the weight of our iconography. Yet, how is our divorce rate compared with the average? How much do we tithe compared to non-Orthodox Christians? How is our church attendance? Our mission fields should be filled with trained and well-supported servants. Our treatment of each other should be filled with love and grace. Our submission to our priests and bishops should reflect humility and deference. ... Our liturgy is intact, the feasts are celebrated, the hymns are chanted. But are the faithful trapped in their own sense of individualism and personal gratification? Is it all about “my own needs” and “my own comforts”? Is the coffee hour a gossip session? Do families go home to a war zone of arguments and disrespect? We did not “forsake the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some” (Hebrews 10:25)."

And one from Brad Nassif:

http://conciliarpress.pinnaclecart.com/index.php?p=page&page_id=again_nassif_orthodox_opportunity

"The extent to which the Orthodox Church can acquire and keep its converts will depend in large measure on how clear and how central we make the Gospel to those who are our own. ...

"The Church in America has an unprecedented opportunity to speak meaningfully to the evangelical community today. Non-Orthodox theologians and lay people alike are discovering the continuing relevance of the early church fathers, mothers, ascetics, councils, creeds, art, music, worship, and spirituality. Many are rediscovering the creative relevance of the Christian East and packaging it for their people far more attractively than we have been doing for ourselves. In one way or another, nearly all evangelicals who value classical faith borrow a flame from the fires of the Eastern Orthodox tradition.

"But most of these people see the Great Tradition of our Church as if it were a library—a place you go to pick out the books you find most helpful while discarding the ones that no longer seem relevant. Thus, there are gaps and inconsistencies in their retrieval efforts. They are not making the connections between the Great Tradition and the Great Church (the Orthodox Church) to which that tradition belongs. They don’t recognize the vital relationship between the major movements and themes of Christian antiquity and the organic life of the Orthodox Church from which many of those themes came."

Thanks for giving me the chance to sketch out some of my own thoughts!

Christ Bless,
Doug

Posted by: Douglas Cramer | August 24, 2007 12:58 PM

I'm interested in Douglas's post, because it recalls concerns I've heard from my Orthodox friends about the converts in their midsts. One friend describes the experience of converts--primarilly in the Antiochian church--as "fetishized Orthodoxy" that has little relationship to the history of how Orthodoxy has been practiced and the "organic life" of the church. While they welcome the new life, they wonder whether trying so hard to attract disaffected evangelicals and Catholics and Anglicans will result in a church that is unrecognizable to cradle Orthodox. Because so many "public" Orthodox are converts who appear to have an agenda beyond the church itself, they worry about the public face of Orthodoxy.

Posted by: Daniel | August 24, 2007 1:37 PM

Daniel: OK, I really need to stop being a thread hog and get to other projects, but here's a Nassif quote from the article I linked above about just this, that takes a different stance on the question:

"Converts are leaving our Church in increasing numbers. Not because of a disagreement with Orthodox doctrine, but because of the distortions of Orthodox practice. They or their families are simply not being fed the Gospel, despite all the liturgical celebrations that go on. They are finding our Church to be more about Orthodoxy as a religion than about the life-changing power of Jesus Christ risen from the dead."

Bless,
Doug

Posted by: Douglas Cramer | August 24, 2007 1:43 PM

quoted from the Nassif article:

"Converts are leaving our Church in increasing numbers. Not because of a disagreement with Orthodox doctrine, but because of the distortions of Orthodox practice. They or their families are simply not being fed the Gospel, despite all the liturgical celebrations that go on. They are finding our Church to be more about Orthodoxy as a religion than about the life-changing power of Jesus Christ risen from the dead."

So, where do these ex-converts go: Back to Evangelical Protestantism? To Catholicism? To Anglicanism? Can they really return to a non-Eucharistic communion if they had come to believe in the Real Presence/Transformation of the bread and wine, or to a non-Creedal "Solo" (sic) Scriptura church lacking nearly all historical roots? Do they engage in the so-called "Emergent" movement, since they must have decided Evangelicalism was wanting?

Having said that, though, I can see that a lack of good and in-depth Biblical teaching/preaching and focus on the same could eventually cause a convert from Evangelical/Charismatic Protestantism to long for his/her former Bible-soaked environment to the point where he/she might revert.

Posted by: Eric W | August 24, 2007 2:50 PM

It is deeply ironic that John Chrysostom's liturgy, once the context for John's fiery social criticism and denunciations of imperial corruption, is now praised for its otherworldliness. Orthodoxy's distance from contemporary life just shows how far removed it is from its ancient foundation.

BTW, it's worth noting that the contrast between a traditional Lutheran liturgy or a Scottish Presbyterian service and contemporary evangelicalism is pretty stark as well.

Posted by: Russ | August 24, 2007 5:03 PM

"Converts are leaving our Church in increasing numbers. Not because of a disagreement with Orthodox doctrine, but because of the distortions of Orthodox practice. They or their families are simply not being fed the Gospel, despite all the liturgical celebrations that go on. They are finding our Church to be more about Orthodoxy as a religion than about the life-changing power of Jesus Christ risen from the dead."

I must say, I was brought into the Orthodox Church 6 years ago, and I have never had this experience, thank God! It is *all* about the Gospel of Christ, and becoming Christ-like in the here and now.

Mary

Posted by: Mary | August 25, 2007 11:16 AM

Glad to see that some are challenging Prof. Nassif's assertions. Surely his heart is in the right place, but for an Orthodox Christian, he seems to spend an awful lot of time apologizing to Protestants for what Orthodoxy is and for not being more like them. I wish I had a better understanding of why.

Richard

Posted by: Richard Barrett | August 25, 2007 5:16 PM

About Orthodoxy and Politics----In most of Russia,Greece and other mostly Orthodox countries the go Hand in Hand !!!

Posted by: Milton | August 25, 2007 9:15 PM

Maybe it's because he is a cradle Orthodox, not a convert or a seeker. Since Orhotodoxy is in his bones and has been a constant in his faith life, he doesn't ideoloize it like any new convert is likely to do. He has no need to defend Orhthodoxy as if his life depends on it, because there was no choice that risks being invalidated by acknowledging criticism.

I have sometimes wondered why I didn't get as upset by the way the Catholic hierarchy handled clerical sexual abusers as Rod did. Other than the fact that I don't have children, perhaps this is a reason why. As a cradle Catholic, I never had to try to persuade myself of the rightness of Catholicism, at least in the same way that Rod did, so the situation hasn't challenged my faith in the same way that did his. I'm certainly *not* claiming that this makes my Catholic faith in any way "better" or "stronger" than Rod's was! If anything, perhaps it's an indication that mine has been more reflexive and unthinking, which is probably *not* a good thing in the long run.

Posted by: David J. White | August 26, 2007 11:29 AM

is the ad hominem really necessary, Daniel? I had not noticed that Rod has any trouble admitting when he thinks he has been wrong, or changing his position on major issues if he thinks that is necessary. In fact he is among the most self critical voices on the blogosphere, which is what makes him so attractive. I eagerly await the day when we stop using the language of therapy and identity to dismiss people we disagree with. It sounds sophisticated, but it is not...

Posted by: william | August 26, 2007 1:17 PM

William, I think Rod has sort of put his personal struggle out on the table for public comment. My point was merely that Rod's investment in being Catholic went beyond those of us who are "regular Catholics" because he marketed himself as a public Catholic (or at least religious) intellectual. When you make your Catholicism a core to your public identity, the crisis with the church is no longer just personal but also professional. It runs the risk of undermining your professional perception.

I think he has been very self critical, but he created a public persona--he even wrote a book about it, for heaven's sake--about being a certain kind of Catholic and religious person. That takes ones struggles with the faith from the personal realm to the public realm.

Posted by: Daniel | August 26, 2007 3:36 PM

All the people you mentioned write almost exclusively about religion and in the religious press. You have been a pundit in the mainstream and ideological press talking about religion and politics andthe personal. You wrote a book about combining faith, politics, and the personal. Your niche is quite different from theirs and given you wrote a book about it--and have a blog about--it's hard not to see that your professional identity is linked to politics, the personal, and your faith. It's what sets you apart from Jonah Goldberg or Kate O'Beirne, but also separate you from Shea or Welborn.

Posted by: Daniel | August 26, 2007 10:37 PM

"On the other hand, a friend of mine is a cradle Orthodox from Eastern Europe who converted to Catholicism precisely because (he says) the Orthodox Church in his native country was concerned only with liturgy and mysticism and shows little interest in the helping the poor or even evangelizing the unchurched."

"The detached Orthodox mindset to which Rod and TNR refer is not only the result of the legacy of ancient Christianity. It is also the result of centuries of formation within oppressed societies. The vast majority of Orthodox Christians trace their roots - even those in America only a couple of generations back - to Muslim and Communist societies in which the full expression of faith was brutally oppressed, and in which constant accommodations with powerful regimes was necessary for bare survival."
Perhaps it' s true, but only partly. For example russia has just about 60 years history of building of communism and what it is to compare with 1000 years of christianity not opressed by state? It was an official and welcomed religion, the one who wasn't orthodox wasn't considered as real russian. That is just notabene. As for not helping poor and evangelizing the unchurched, from my own experience - i see that the church often organises help to the poor, but it views help to the poor as organising visitors of church to come to hospitals or to houses of left children to bring them money or clothes, not as giving church's money, although i don't doubt that rich parishes might be sponsors of poor families .

Posted by: masha | August 27, 2007 3:24 AM

Book by Leskov is "On the edge of the world" http://store.goarch.org/product.php?productid=17111

Posted by: masha | August 27, 2007 3:34 AM