The blog Frontier Orthodoxy writes on 'Avoiding Erroneous Assumtions when Speaking of Orthodox “Mission” Work.' Reposted below:
I have been thinking about when and how to type a short history of the Orthodox Church in America, circa 1794-1917. It may well just turn out to be a collaborative SOCHA effort (orthodoxhistory.org). One of the issues that I’ve seen elsewhere on the internet is the definition of “missiony” or “missionary.” Some seem to think that only priests under the Russian Orthodox mission in North America were “missionary.” Or, at least some would argue people to the contrary are exceptions, not the rule. I think we need to jettison this false assumption. It does more harm than good. Here are my reasons:
1) Prior to St. Alexis Toth, the Russian clergy in the lower 48 were pastoring their immigrant flock (mainly San Francisco).
2) In today’s world, many of our mission parishes, including the one to which I am assigned, requires that the priest actively engage those who are already Orthodox. If honest, I think clergy would admit there are three types of parishioners: those who are pious enough to attend and participate with little or no encouragement necessary, those who will rarely, if ever, attend, no matter how much pastoral encouragement is given, and those who are on the fence, who will attend and grow in Christ if there is a clergyman on the ground who is willing to be a pastor to them. Ministering to this third group is “missionary” because not to do so means risking apostates. No, not all in this third group will apostatize, but certainly they are less likely to grow in Christ.
3) Early American Orthodox priests, whether Russian Mission or otherwise had to work to reach out to those around them who were already Orthodox. Fr. Nathaniel Irvine noticed the extent to which this was necessary. It was especially true with regard to the younger generation. If it is true for icons that there are always illiterate members of out parishes, then it is also true that there are always members in need of evangelization. That IS mission work.
One may certainly claim that priests outside the Russian Mission were not reaching out to many around them who were not Orthodox while those in the Russian Mission were, but even then, we need to take care we don’t press it too far for to reasons. One, those outside that mission did sometimes do just that–certainly, at least two Greek priests looked beyond their Philadelphian parish and helped convert Fr. Raphael Morgan. Two, most of the early Russian Mission missionary work in the lower 48 was aimed at Eastern Catholics (indeed, almost exclusively so). This was a continuation of an evangelization in Eastern Europe that was seen as “intra-Slavic” and of bringing the Eastern Catholic Slavs back to their original Orthodoxy. In this way, it parallels the work done by non-Russian Mission priests who were working hard to keep their flock within their original Orthodox faith. I’m not saying it is the same. Nor am I claiming it is not mission work. It most certainly is. What I am saying is that there is a similarity, one that ought to cause some soberness on our part.
So, whatever historical essay we at SOCHA develop, I do hope people will come to it with an open mind and a heart ready to glorify the work Christ has done, even if it was done in a way that does not fit our previous conception exactly. Let us have some humility. Let not denigrate the hard, difficult, indeed missionary work, that was accomplished from 1870-1917 in the lower 48 by clergy from all Old World Orthodox Churches.
1) Prior to St. Alexis Toth, the Russian clergy in the lower 48 were pastoring their immigrant flock (mainly San Francisco).
2) In today’s world, many of our mission parishes, including the one to which I am assigned, requires that the priest actively engage those who are already Orthodox. If honest, I think clergy would admit there are three types of parishioners: those who are pious enough to attend and participate with little or no encouragement necessary, those who will rarely, if ever, attend, no matter how much pastoral encouragement is given, and those who are on the fence, who will attend and grow in Christ if there is a clergyman on the ground who is willing to be a pastor to them. Ministering to this third group is “missionary” because not to do so means risking apostates. No, not all in this third group will apostatize, but certainly they are less likely to grow in Christ.
3) Early American Orthodox priests, whether Russian Mission or otherwise had to work to reach out to those around them who were already Orthodox. Fr. Nathaniel Irvine noticed the extent to which this was necessary. It was especially true with regard to the younger generation. If it is true for icons that there are always illiterate members of out parishes, then it is also true that there are always members in need of evangelization. That IS mission work.
One may certainly claim that priests outside the Russian Mission were not reaching out to many around them who were not Orthodox while those in the Russian Mission were, but even then, we need to take care we don’t press it too far for to reasons. One, those outside that mission did sometimes do just that–certainly, at least two Greek priests looked beyond their Philadelphian parish and helped convert Fr. Raphael Morgan. Two, most of the early Russian Mission missionary work in the lower 48 was aimed at Eastern Catholics (indeed, almost exclusively so). This was a continuation of an evangelization in Eastern Europe that was seen as “intra-Slavic” and of bringing the Eastern Catholic Slavs back to their original Orthodoxy. In this way, it parallels the work done by non-Russian Mission priests who were working hard to keep their flock within their original Orthodox faith. I’m not saying it is the same. Nor am I claiming it is not mission work. It most certainly is. What I am saying is that there is a similarity, one that ought to cause some soberness on our part.
So, whatever historical essay we at SOCHA develop, I do hope people will come to it with an open mind and a heart ready to glorify the work Christ has done, even if it was done in a way that does not fit our previous conception exactly. Let us have some humility. Let not denigrate the hard, difficult, indeed missionary work, that was accomplished from 1870-1917 in the lower 48 by clergy from all Old World Orthodox Churches.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment