Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: COSC2U2@uhvax1.uh.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Glasnost and the Orthodox Church Message-ID:Date: 24 Sep 89 21:59:42 GMT References: Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Houston Lines: 112 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [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. --ceb