My view of the West from the West

I think the more you become close with eastern orthodox thinking, you will find a greater distance between yourself and the west - the west being the values that it embraces (which are mostly not good).. at least that was the way I felt... but I grew up near san francisco... that\'s like the twilight zone compared to normal living or orthodox living... I didn\'t even realize how uncomfortable I was in my own hometown, home culture, until I left it for a foreign country

There is a danger when one buys into the modern and post-modern versions of history. First western historical perspective had a general bias against the \\"Greek East\\". This led to the hardening and withering of Western theology through incorrect emphases, leading up to the Great schism. The next metamorphosis which the western view of history underwent was the way Western Christian history itself was re-interpreted by the Reformation, which is the full flowering of these incorrect theological emphases and a human attempt to correct them. The third wave of historical re-interpretation is the one born of anti-christian sentiments during the years of enlighenment and scientific revolution to this very day. So one wonders if Western versions of history can be trusted at all, since they underwent various mutations motivated by differing agendas. It is also easy to forget that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy share the seven ecumenical councils and 1000 years of shared heritage, and that whatever good found in the West, and yes there are many good things, owe its raison d\'etre to the wisdom of the Christian faith. Without Christianity, there could have never been Western civilization. It wasn\'t the writings of the ancients which made the West, because Islam had these writings as well, but could not produce anything comparable to what we see today in the West. All this talk about the glory of Islamic civilization is inflationary claims made by biased scholars and media personnels with anti-christian agenda. But the question is : Why didn\'t the Eastern Christians produce anything comparable to the West ? They would have if they had the same level of political decentralization which the West enjoyed. It wasn\'t Christianity which brought Byzantium down, it was its Romanity: The centralization of power in the person of the Emperor. This suffocated the growth of the East and rendered its people vulnerable to Islam and communism. So to summarize, the culture and ideas of the first 1000 years of Christianity, that shared heritage, is indeed the fountain head of all the wisdom that showed its fruits later on. It\'s those 1000 years of Christian Hellenism, that new culture forged by the Word of God and transfigured by His Light, which made it happen. Yet the West added to this heritage ,by wrong emphases due to isolation, and revived along with it elements of pagan hellenism, that specie which was rejected by the Apostles and Fathers, and was born again in the bosom of the Church. This pagan input, the revival of the obsolete, the progressive rejection of the True and Orthodox, is responsible for the destructive elements of Western culture in Academia and modern life in general. So my friend, you\'re not being drawn to the East, you\'re drawn to Christianity, to Christ, which is blurredly found in the West, and clearly seen in the Mystical Life of Orthodoxy. It\'s not either East or West, or the East and the West, but rather Christ the King of All, the True knowledge and the Only way for life now and ever, both in East and West. He is the Logos, through whom the world was made, and through whom we are saved.

Based on the discussions I\'ve seen on Orthodox Circle and BeliefNet, the hardest thing for converts to shed is the Western legalistic approach to Christian practice. It has been said, with a great deal of truth, the Protestantism trains the intellect, Roman Catholicism trains the will, and Eastern orthodoxy trains the heart.

Robotom, I just don\'t know if I am that uncomfortable with Western thought, and this sort of goes to MariaM\'s thoughts. It seems to me as I think about it that I still find a lot to admire in a sort of strict legalism. Perhaps this will correct as both of you say. This raises a new, perhaps more esoteric concern for me. A lot of my path to the Eastern way has been paved through my own logical thinking about issues of faith and my conception of Christianity as I read about it in the New Testament. I have not, yet had a personal, heart felt sort of experience with God that is so emphasized in Orthodoxy as yet. Does this put my position as a person seeking to join the church in a dire position I did not know about? Is my Orthodox interest considered less valid than it would be if I had arrived in the heartfelt way you guys are talking about? It seems like I have ironically come to Orthodoxy by way of means that were built up by the Western way of looking at the world. Maybe I am wrong in this, maybe it only seems that way because I am disregarding some deeper connection that I feel but am not aware of, however I am not sure that is the case. Thank you for the answer Promise. You seem like you have thought quite a lot about the problem. I hope you don\'t mind if I ask a question of it. Are you saying that all of Rome\'s actions since the split have been a progress away from the true faith of Christianity? I do agree with you on a lot of points. Firstly I do not think Byzantium was brought low by Christianity, though historians like Gibbons disagree with that assessment. Also I do think a lot of Eastern progress was stifled after the fall of the empire at the hands of the Turks. The only real problem I have is that if your answer is correct, and I will have to give it more thought, I am still in the same position. That is that with my being drawn to the East I am abandoning a big chunk of my Western European heritage which is hard even if it does lead to true Christianity. This is not a road block but something I do think about.

if it helps, I used to logically go over the ins and outs of orthodoxy too (from a scientific/atheistic background) the BEST logical reason for \\"choosing\\" orthodoxy, I think, is this: Look at all the goofy churches in america, that nominally make some claim to be about christ (it\'s even goofier in south korea)... so then it must be logical that \\"hey, this is not what christianity is\\" because these are a modern invention... so what happened for 1000 years before? catholics... and what happened 1000 years before that? orthodox. Why change? why start from anywhere but the beginning? I used to worry about orthodoxy being too strict, but then I heard the phrase (I think it was like this) \\"cafeteria catholics\\" that they just pick and choose what they want out of religion, and it seemed ridiculous - that salvation could be like a sandwich - pick all the right parts, and bammo, salvation sandwich! anyway, culturally speaking, what would you lose in a switch to orthodoxy? nothing! what would you gain? everything!... Heck, here I\'m orthodox in a country that was buddhist for over a thousand years - that doesn\'t mean I can\'t go look at a temple, take some pictures and whatnot... although it does mean I can\'t go and prostrate myself before their idols... anyway, food for thought

Some will argue with my semantics here, but there is a difference between rationalism and logic. A good secular text on this topic is \\"Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: an Inquiry into Values\\" by Robert Pirsig. Pirsig explores Greek philosophy, seeking to find an underlying precept which separates it from the western rationalistic viewpoint (especially scientific reasoning). He discovers that true logic has at it\'s core an essential and unarguable assumption of \\"Quality\\", meaning a metaphysical benchmark of sorts upon which our worldview and view of the cosmos must be based. He posits that the western rationalistic manner of scientific observation has as it\'s central flaw the unwillingness to pre-suppose this \\"Quality\\" prior to inquiry. Through his thesis one is easily able to comprehend the metaphysical viewpoint The Apostle Saint John was working within when he wrote to the Greeks about The LOGOS (WORD), which was already a metaphysical concept within their understanding of THE cosmic \\"source\\" or \\"mind\\". The presumptive belief in this cosmic mind (who we know as The Father) and the pre-spoken LOGOS within that mind (The WORD we know as The Son) are at the core of ancient Greek logic and also Orthodox Christian Mystical Dogmatic Theology. Rationalism does not pre-suppose anything, and is instead a sort of celebration of what the human mind can conceive and prove through simple observation. Pirsig (a college professor at age 19) further argued that the rationalistic scientific method was flawed because the scientific process always had at it\'s root a hypothesis which is in fact, a prejudicial presumption of what is and what isn\'t and what has value and what doesn\'t. As Pirsig pointed out, this prejudicial presumption will always lead to skewed results, for the observer is already inclined to proving their presumptions as being true. Who, he would likely ask, would work out a hypothesis in order to prove it wrong? Though the observer may claim impartiality, the very conception of the hypothesis is partial within the mind of the person who conceives it, unless there is first a presumption of \\"Quality\\" as THE fundamental value of the equation. I do not need to disparage the discovery of penicillin in order to find a fundamental flaw within the scientific formula used for such a discovery. How then has this flaw in rationalistic thinking affected the development of Christian theology in the west? First, it is no longer a mystical theology, and must thus have every single mystery of God fully rationalized in order to accept these revealed mysteries. Because of this development of what is known as \\"Augustinian Rationalism\\", the Latin Church has developed clearly heretical doctrines regarding the Holy Spirit (the filioque clause added to The Creed/Symbol of Faith), The doctrine of \\"Transubstantiation\\" (a rationalistic \\"proof\\" of the changing of the elements of the Eucharist/communion from bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ), the birth of The Theotokos/The Blessed Virgin Mary (\\"Immaculate Conception\\"--often erroneously thought to refer to the incarnation of Christ) and the person and works of The Blessed Virgin Mary (in the doctrine of her being a \\"co-redemptress\\" along with Christ). The effects of these heretical doctrines have done huge damage to all jurisdictions and denominations of western Christianity. Because the theology which undergirds the filioque clause was passed along by Rome as a virus of sorts in the teachings of Luther, et al, we now have most western churches either fully emasculating their liturgical and sacramental lives (baptism is simply a symbol, the elements of the Eucharist/communion do not in fact become the body and blood of Christ, The blessed virgin Mary is simply Mary...not blessed...not remembered...not given her due position among the host of saints, and NOT an intercessor for us; basically, erased from our \\"prayer chain\\" and devalued as a \\"prayer warrior\\", The Saints are \\"dead\\" and are less worthy to support us in prayer than our next-door neighbor) OR, the churches are vainly attempting to invoke The Holy Spirit outside of the liturgical and sacramental ways of The Church (charismatics speaking in tongues and healing themselves by being \\"struck by the spirit\\", Evangelicals who insist on something mystical called being \\"born again\\"--which is indeed a true mystery of Christ--yet deny anything else as being mystical in the movement of The Holy Spirit within their liturgical and sacramental life, and those who claim their \\"authority\\" as \\"Sola Scriptura\\"--only the scriptures--which ends up plunging themselves into the worst possible form of Christian Legalism, for of the millions and millions of adherents to this theological justification, each is their own authority based on their individual interpretation of holy scripture, thereby rejecting Apostolic authority and presenting themselves before God as a teacher of themselves. I am reminded of the saying, \\"He who represents himself in court has a fool for a lawyer\\". Second, the western rationalistic viewpoint of God and His Church leads the heterodox Christians of the world to be audacious and offensive enough to believe that they must evangelize the Orthodox Christian lands of The East. How often have you seen a comment by someone who testifies: \\"I was born and baptized Catholic/Orthodox but then became a Christian/born-again Christian\\", thereby denying the mystical work and presence of The Holy Trinity in their lives prior to that point. As many Orthodox theologians and elders will say when asked, \\"when were you saved?\\", the reply will be, \\"I was saved, I am being saved and I will be saved\\". To the unregenerate, rational mind this is gibberish. To the regenerate mind rooted in divine logic, this is a blessed mystery which need not be rationalized to be embraced and trusted. I hope some of this helps you process your angst regarding the Greek East and the Latin West. In Christ, Gordie

Hello my friend, I\'m glad we agree about many points. As for an answer to your question, I believe Gordios described it very well. The post-schism catholicism is the Truth added to and differently emphasized. The Truth lies there, but it cannot be readily and easily enjoyed because of the many wrong emphases. It\'s not all or none, but rather more and less. It\'s not that christianity outside of Orthodoxy is NOT christianity at all but rather less christianity than what Christ is capable of offering us if we are open to Him by arming ourselves with the right Orthodox perspectives. It\'s not unlike the ladder of Divine ascent: Orthodoxy provides you with the mean to come closer to Christ and enjoy the restoration of communion with God broken by sin and death. There will be those among the Orthodox christians who will not use the Orthodox way and benefit from it. There will be those who possess something less but use it to its fullest, they will be closer but never as close had they had access to Orthodoxy, which should not be a secret for it is God\'s way to reconciliation, to an abundant life now and ever, for the person and the community, even the civilization. It amazes me how many years and efforts are lost and wasted in search for what God can offer in Orthodoxy for the person and society. I am positive you\'ll find your way because these stirrings are God\'s work in a seeking person. God\'s blessings to you. Promise.

I\'m reminded of an example given to me once (through reading or hearing, I\'m not sure) which helped to explain to me the Orthodox view of heterodox Christianity: If I want to travel from San Diego to New York, and I want to go by the most direct route, the automobile club can offer me maps which indicate the most direct route. However, should I decide to be my own tour guide, I may find myself passing through Portland, Oregon and El Paso and Chicago and Nashville and Miami and Cleveland before finally arriving at my destination. The point was, one can deviate from the path and still reach their goal eventually, but why would they choose to do so, if their stated goal is to reach their destination most quickly and most directly? So, we are tempted to look back to the west as we convert and want to cling to some of our favorite impromptu itineraries. However, why would we wish to turn from the fullness of The Faith to indulge ourselves in something distracting and less profitable?

historyman, I believe that I understand what you mean when you started the post. Becoming a catachuman I had to wrestle too with these thoughts. Some good books I would recommend are Father Seraphim\'s translation of the Vita Patrum Life of the Saints by St. Georgy of Tours. Father Seraphim believed in his spiritual father St John of San Fransisco who wished to let other Orthodox know of the rich history of the Life of the Saints in the Western lands before the Great Schism. Father Seraphim compares how Gaul France in the 6th century had more in common with the East than than modern Gaul, France today as Roman Catholic. (St. John\'s life by Father Seraphim Rose is an excellent read as well. Also Father Serahim Rose\'s The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church). Second book is For the Life of the World by Alexander Sch. This book was amazing short read on the Sacraments of the Church. Alexander makes the case that the problem is not Intellectualism rather mental. He states that alot of the Church fathers are intellectuals but the difference is that the west started from over thinking, a sort of having to prove the Divine Mysteries. The other two points he makes that I thought was amazing was that the West does not deny God but denies worship. The other is that our view point of how we define symbol affects the the Divine Mysteries. I understand what you mean by saying that in your past churches they helped you on your way to Orthodoxy. My priest said to me never put down where you came from, but understand that that is what helped lead you to Orthodoxy. By coming into Orthodoxy you are not denying the truths that are in protestantism (and there are some truths) rather you are finding the fullness of the faith that we didn\'t know before. There are major differences between the East and the West, but I believe that what Father Seraphim and St. John said that its not East that makes it Christian but Orthodoxy-correct worship of God. I hope this post was not to long, as there are already long posts on this tread.

I forgot to say my Priest also says that a correct reading of Scriptures leads one to the fullness of the Faith-Orthodoxy.

I suppose I can only thank everyone for their answers. It is quite a lot to take in and understand. I will look into the books and podcasts that have been recommended. I would like to give a fuller response, especially to Gordios and Promise, who obviously put quite a lot of time as well as thought into their answers, but again it is quite a lot to take in. I may yet make responses to the people who have said something in this thread, especially as I think deeper into the idea. I just thought I\'d post so everyone knew that I was paying attention and also so I could thank you all for the responses.