A Generous Orthodoxy

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick,

I now see that I actually touched on more of your initial points than I thought; I fear that in so doing I may have scratched the surface rather than anything more profound; but it provides an opening, I hope.

Here I want to try to take on board some of what you write here:

Quote:And, we can consider developments in Church Tradition over the years as it relates to changes in church polity. We can examine the reasons why. We can split hairs over the difference between words such as evolving and emerging. But, in the end, as it relates to all of this and a genuine Christian unity, just as I and probably almost every reader and contributor of this thread will never participate in a divine liturgy together because of geography . . . how ludicrous is it really to just subscribe to a "transcending" of all divisions in Christ? Sure this is abstract. This is up in the clouds in most folks view. But, Dear John, lest we are insincere when we call each other brother in Christ in our posts . . . are you, the OO, and me, the EO, not concrete examples of moving beyond what would divide us? I think of you Peter, in practice, do you and I not also practice a generous Orthodoxy, in the here and now, which does in deed transcend all divisions in Christ?

Yes, I like to think that we are moving beyond what divides us; but I think we are doing that because we know what does divide us and we are not afraid to take the conclusions of the various ecumenical discussions and subscribe to the conclusion that Chalcedonian definitions need not, in the light of what followed, divide us; that does not mean that a whole host of historical differences do not divide us - but that does not touch on salvation - just our pride.

Much of what passes for 'Tradition' in Orthodox theology is not very traditional at all I suspect. Many of the issues raised on dear old Monachos are actually nineteenth or twentieth century reactions to the western influences on Orthodox theology after the reforms of Peter the Great. 'Tradition', as historians have acknowledged for some time, is often of recent invention - and is therefore held all the more fiercely. I am often struck by the comments of a colleagues who came from Cambridge and commented that it was far more difficult to reform something at my University than in his old one; my response was that was because the people who had invented the traditions were still there!

I see our new friend, Danage, has commented upon the atmosphere here; his words are kind, and I hope reflect this site and its spirit. The worst thing we do is to go on at length - and no one has to read us!

But how do 'we' transcend divisions? If that 'we' is the Church gathered around the bishop, the answer is relatively clear; if the 'we' is the wider Church, then we do indeed enter troubled waters - and unless the bishops act as bridges, there is no way across.

This is perhaps why the current moves towards dialogue being made by Pope Benedict XVI are something to be encouraged; but they also present a problem. The Catholic Church is happy to have unity in diversity. The Uniate Catholic Churches are, in practice, Orthodox in much of their theology; but they acknowledge the primacy of Rome. Sometimes it almost seems that for Rome schism is worse than heresy; or perhaps the Roman definition of this last is more elastic? For the Orthodox disunity seems a price we are willing to pay; but what is it we gain in return?

How far are the OCs so enmeshed in their ethnic obsessions that they miss the bigger picture? What can learn from other Christians in this respect?

In Christ,

John