Why not a united Orthodox parish in Namur?

[anglomedved]

Victor­­_vlad, in response to yesterday’s posting, asked the question: “Why not a united Orthodox parishes in Namur" (and by extension, elsewhere in the Orthodox diaspora)”

Let me make a couple of quick and rather disjointed comments:

1)      A church has to be cognate with the society it lives in. It does not have to agree with it (“in the world, but not of it”), but it does have to live in reference to it, as does any individual Christian, in order to have any relevant witness. I fear that much of the Russian Church in Belgium lives in a sort of no-man’s land, neither in Russia (whom most of its current population chose to leave, and yes, Europe, unless you are a particularly strong character, is simply a more comfortable place to live than Russia), nor in Europe (whose language its flock has been slow to learn – but whose generous social security it has been quick to grasp …).

2)      A ‘united Orthodoxy’, presumably more or less in the local language, is a step in the right direction and forces people out of the ghetto. But once you have made this jump, horror horrorum, there is the question of why not make the one extra jump and join up with the Roman Catholics, who are the traditional church of this country (‘Forget also thine own people and thy father’s house’ Psalm 44). I do ask at times whether this is not the more honest solution for second generation refugees. It is certainly better than leaving the Church altogether, which is generally what happens – not helped by a certain ‘Orthodoxy or die’ attitude in certain Orthodox parishes.

3)      This forces of course the real question of the ‘Orthodox particularity’. Where does it lie (and, pace Professors Koslov and Vasechko) I am pretty sure it lies elsewhere than in the traditional doctrinal differences trapsed out in comparative theology lessons in every seminary)?  If it lies, as I believe, in a particular type of spirituality, are we effectively expressing it in Europe? And does it not effectively already exist, perhaps with rather different vocabulary and mutated forms, in other Christian confessions, or at least parts of them?

Comments

[victor-vlad.livejournal.com]

I think the "Orthodox particularity" does exist (although at this moment I'm not ready to discuss it). That is why joining, in the second generation, the other Christian confessions predominating in Europe doesn't seem me a proper offer. The Orthodoxy in local language, overcoming ethnical boundaries and melting different ethnical traditions, is, in my opinion, a more attractive and correct option. The viability of it has been proven by the history of the "splinters" of the Russian pre-revoluounary Church that found itself abroad. I mean the OCA and the Russian Archbishopric within the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate. True, this way is not without its difficulties.

The modern ROC is of course not ready to go this way. Its policy of maintaning its own jurisdictions elsewhere abroad is probably explicable by the peculiarities of new Russian flock in those parts of the world but contradicts the local nature of the Church and, in long run, is destructive.

[ursusanglicanus.livejournal.com]

Thank you for your considered answer. Yes, your “Orthodoxy in local language, overcoming ethnical boundaries and melting different ethnical traditions” would theoretically seem to be the correct solution. But I am less sure than you are that its viability has been proven. Speaking from my own experience of the Russian-speaking Exarchate within the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Belgium and France, also the two ROC and one Ecumenical Patriarchate French-speaking parishes in Belgium:
- Local Orthodoxy is largely culture-less, in sharp contrast to ethnic Orthodoxy. Local Western Orthodoxy cannot link into the local cultural background like the indigenous church does, and is too small and insufficiently educated to have a cultural identity of its own. There are times when I fight and kick and scream with the Russian cultural background, but at least it’s there as a reference.
- Just too much time and effort is spent on Orthodox identity building and maintenance. With an accompanying rigidity and lack of creativity.
- Too much plain silliness and at times plain crankiness. Like the pretence that all went religiously dead in western Europe in 1054 and miraculously revived with the first wave of post-revolutionary Russian exiles. And a lot of stupidity about icons (and a total inability to produce decent ones).
- Parish instability. Local Orthodoxy parishes are terribly dependent on the perceived quality of the particular priest. (An ethnic church survives incompetent clergy better.)
- Local Orthodoxy is unable to attract young men into the priesthood.

My own feeling is to move towards mixed ethnic+local parishes, in a dual-language setting (like the ROC in London), and having good informal relations with the indigenous Christian church where this is possible (basically, no women and practising gay bishops). For Belgium (a traditionally Roman Catholic country) I could see the Orthodox Church playing a similar role vis-à-vis the mainline church as does the Pius X movement: a witness to other emphases, which can feed and help determine the direction, of the mainstream church.

[victor-vlad.livejournal.com]

Of course my “Orthodoxy in local language, overcoming ethnical boundaries and melting different ethnical traditions” is not an instant goal. It's rather a direction to move to. Anyway it's not a thing to introduce violently. In this sense, it well may be that it does not contradict to your "mixed ethnic+local parishes, in a dual-language setting", which is a less distant aim.

As a more successfull pattern of the Orthodoxy in local language, melting different ethnical traditions but not free of them and not cultureless, you should probably look at the OCA. The parallel between OCA, steadily growing from roughly the 1960s, and the ROCA, rather ethnical, fading and existing primarily due to the influx of the Russian emigrants, is a good indication of the advantages of the flexible local-language Orthodoxy open to the surrounding environment. The OCA is also a good pattern of having strong and stable parishes. By the way, now the ROC itself has to face the problem of parishes, the problem it has never cared for due to peculiarities of Russian and Soviet history.