Hi everyone could we also address what a Protestant Model of mission might be and why that is contrary to Orthodox life?
Is there anyone who has gone on missions or experienced in this who can speak on what the difference is too?
Other questions: Is trying to repay God an Orthodox or Protestant idea? Is trying to expand our Church today more Protestant, Imperial or Orthodox? Is our mission work influced by Latin models (ie setup global Churches under one mother Church instead of local autonomous Churches)?
Hi Cyril. A Protestant model of mission that is certainly contrary to Orthodox life is viewing the Church as a product to be marketed to the people, thinking that we have to make church "cool" and "trendy" and "give the people what they want". This is contrary to Orthodoxy because our job is not to bring the Church to the world, but to bring the world to the Church. In other words, our job is not to transform the Church to suit that which is worldly, but rather to transform ourselves and transform society to be more in line with what God wants us to be. You asked about experience: my father is an Orthodox priest and as a kid and a young adult I was involved in the establishment of two Orthodox missions in the USA. As an adult, I've had a great deal of experience with the Ethiopian Orthodox mission churches in the USA and have visited our Coptic mission in Bermuda a few times. Orthodox mission in the West is something that is very, very important to me.
As for your other questions: I don't think that we can ever repay God and this is not why we should engage in mission. We should engage in mission because we want to obey God's commandments (go into all the world...) and because we love our brothers and sisters who don't know Christ and His only True Church (the Orthodox Church) and we want them to have what we have: a life lived in the Holy Mysteries and the fullness of the Faith. Trying to expand our Church (that is, the Orthodox Church, not an ethnic jurisdiction) is Orthodox. That's what we're supposed to do. A small minority of Christians transformed the evil Roman Empire - where abortion and slavery ruled and human life was regarded as cheap - into a Christian state. Our goal should be to evangelize America; to bring the whole nation to Orthodoxy. In terms of ecclesiological structure, I think you're right. Our goal should be to set up local autonomous churches which might one day be autocephalous, not to keep everyone beholden to a centralized mother church. That said, that will take time, and we have to be sure that the local church is mature enough and firm enough in Orthodoxy to be granted such.
P.S. - Mina & Everyone. I went back and reformatted my original posts in this thread to make them easier to read. Thanks for your patience. I hope that this will be of benefit to those interested in this discussion.
These are very nice videos. It is good that our Patriarchs agree with the idea of mission. The question becomes, do we share their definition of what that term means. People love to post this video of His Holiness Pope Shenouda III speaking for mission:
It is beautiful, and in fact, I was sitting in the Maqar on the floor in front of His Holiness's throne on the day he gave this talk. But this does not mean that His Holiness accepted the idea of what some churches call mission - that is Protestant songs and books, et cetera. I love what His Holiness says in this video:
AntoniousNIkolas wasn't that second video when Sayedna was younger? The first video is more recent and maybe Sayedna reassessed the benefit of the materials you're discussing. The simple materials bring people and converts to the Church and the proof is in the numbers. Look at the CTV video of HH Pope Tawadros II and it looks like the Church is very successful in growing our Coptic Church in America and Canada. Also some converts may have come from a Protestant background so the materials are a middle ground for them to understand things. Songs are also familiar and easy to sing and also our youth in the Church like it because the songs are Biblical.
Also the second video you linked is speaking about teaching wrong doctrine, the mission Church priests defend and teach the teaching of the Coptic Church today. They also pray the liturgy and also sing Coptic hymns (just choosing to pray only in English instead of only in Arabic or mostly Coptic). They study St Athanasius and the Fathers. Also the Bishops visit often and have found no fault and have in fact blessed what is being done for mission.
Shouldn't people have a chance to have a personal relationship with Jesus? Shouldn't they know Christ in our Church?
If they're in the Orthodox Church they'll eventually find the deeper things. Why confuse them and reinvent the wheel when there's so many materials already made by other Christians which can be baptized to teach what our Coptic Orthodox Church teaches?
I doubt HH Pope Shenouda III changed his mind. From my experience, he was pretty clear that he wanted nothing to do with charismatic, evangelical worship.
I think it is counterproductive to have Protestant songs for converts who left a Protestant background. You don't leave poverty to live in the divine palace, only to live as you did in poverty. And just because their songs are biblical, it doesn't mean they are not heretical.
Finally, using Protestant material "already made by other Christians" will cause the confusion when used in an Orthodox Church. It is the evangelical, charismatic material that reinvented the wheel. Strict adherence to Orthodox materials that is nothing new. It was around before Protestant material and Protestantism itself. It has worked fine for over a thousand years. Do you now see how charismatic, evangelical-like missionary is confusing?
Just to clarify it more. SMSV's testimonials (and their mission statement) are another sign of confusion. The testimonials imply that non-missionary Coptic Churches are non-missionary in nature, non-loving, judgmental and SMSV is the opposite of all of that. Non-missionary Coptic Churches are by nature missionary and aim to preach Christ to the whole world.
"What some churches call mission" is either Protestant charismatic and evangelically disguised heresy or a complete misrepresentation of Orthodox missionary that ALL Orthodox Churches live by.
Remnkemi already adequately addressed most of what you've written here Cyril, and I'd encourage you to carefully consider his reply, but since you addressed your post to me, please allow me to reply:
AntoniousNIkolas wasn't that second video when Sayedna was younger? The first video is more recent and maybe Sayedna reassessed the benefit of the materials you're discussing.
No, that's not the case. There's nothing in the first video to indicate that His Holiness reassessed his thoughts as stated in the second video. That only makes sense if one equates mission with Protestantism. That shouldn't be the case for any Orthodox Christian and it was not the case for His Holiness. His Holiness was consistent on both of these points:
1. He was an advocate for mission
2. He was opposed to Protestant influence in the Church
Until the end of his earthly life. In fact, His Holiness led the Holy Synod to condemn Protestant teachings and songs in our Church:
The simple materials bring people and converts to the Church and the proof is in the numbers.
His Grace Anba David remarked at my church that this idea of chasing numbers is antithetical to Orthodoxy and that Our Lord said "Fear not little flock". According to His Grace, the Lord is not interested in numbers but rather that we truly lead those we convert to live our Orthodoxia.
Further, as Rem said, you can't lead people out of falsehood with more falsehood. The songs and materials aren't merely "simple", they are wrong and heretical. Besides, most of the people in the churches that use stuff aren't converts, but disaffected Coptic youth who want to be associated with what they see as "cool American culture" rather than "embarrassing FOB culture".
Look at the CTV video of HH Pope Tawadros II and it looks like the Church is very successful in growing our Coptic Church in America and Canada.
Glory to God, but this is not because of accepting heterodox materials, faith, and practice.
Also some converts may have come from a Protestant background so the materials are a middle ground for them to understand things.
I know lots of converts from Protestantism. They don't want stuff from their former church. As one woman I know very well put it, "If I wanted that stuff, I could have stayed in the African-American Protestant church where we did a much better version of it". She is right. If she really wanted Christian pop, she'd want the good stuff. Not some lame American-Coptic imitation. And don't fool yourself, that's exactly what the stuff in our churches is.
Songs are also familiar and easy to sing and also our youth in the Church like it because the songs are Biblical.
Even if the words are right from the Bible, the melody itself can be a manifestation of heterodox theology and an approach to worship incompatible with Orthodoxy.
But now you're getting closer to the mark. It's not really about mission to those outside. It's about disaffected Coptic youth who were never taught to appreciate the depth of their tradition and who confuse Orthodoxy with "Egyptian Christianity" and Protestantism with "American Christianity".
Also the second video you linked is speaking about teaching wrong doctrine, the mission Church priests defend and teach the teaching of the Coptic Church today.
Lex orandi lex credendi. Praise and worship is doctrine. Ortho Doxa doesn't just mean "right doctrine" it also means "right glorification" that is "right worship" (as in Doxa Patri...). Protestant songs are Protestant doctrine in and of themselves. And Rick Warren books are clearly filled with Rick Warren's (i.e. Protestant) teaching.
They also pray the liturgy and also sing Coptic hymns (just choosing to pray only in English instead of only in Arabic or mostly Coptic). They study St Athanasius and the Fathers.
If that's all they were doing, there would be no issue. But light and darkness can't walk together. We can't study St. Athanasius AND Rick Warren. One is our Father in the Faith, the other teaches heresy.
Also the Bishops visit often and have found no fault and have in fact blessed what is being done for mission.
No, the bishops - when they have a clear idea of what's going on - do find fault in the incorporation of Protestant songs and teachings into the churches.
Very nice. But this doesn't mean there isn't room for correction. No one is saying shut these churches down. Just correct the areas in which there might be errors.
Shouldn't people have a chance to have a personal relationship with Jesus? Shouldn't they know Christ in our Church?
Of course. They know Him most fully in the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments) and in a life lived in Orthodoxy.
If they're in the Orthodox Church they'll eventually find the deeper things. Why confuse them and reinvent the wheel when there's so many materials already made by other Christians which can be baptized to teach what our Coptic Orthodox Church teaches?
It's not a matter of moving from shallow to deep but from wrong to right. Protestant music and books aren't just simple, they're wrong. We can't teach people error and later move them to what is right. We have to teach them what is right from the beginning. Of course we can do that in a simple way. We can also do it without trying to Baptize that which is unbaptizable - that is to say, heresy and error. If we don't have our own materials, there are many simple materials that teach Orthodoxy from the other, more American Orthodox Churches like the OCA and the Antiochians:
We don't have to reinvent the wheel, but we don't have to pick up a poisonous snake and call it a wheel either. What would "confuse the people" wouldn't be teaching them the simple truth of Orthodoxy from the beginning, but teaching them the errors of Protestantism and then expecting them to be Orthodox.
How can we claim that Protestant songs are impoverished when so many people (including many Copts in Egypt and outside Egypt) have benefited and also grown closer to God through singing and hearing them? Is BetterLife choir impoverished? They sing both Coptic Hymns and Modern Christian Songs and their concerts are sold out.
What research or evidence is there that Modern Christian Songs are "Heresy"? They don't even use complex theological words just simple words that affect people's hearts. Aren't we judging instead of trying to preach and build?
Popular Evangelical books don't write against the teachings of the Church (for example where do they say Communion or our sacraments are bad?). What books and materials did our Church have on missions when we were persecuted? Is it not a benefit for us to use and learn from Christians who have more experience in missioning and converting people to Christ? If it benefits people why is it bad? What evidence is there that it confuses? Many Copts read the books and still live Orthodox lives.
Also concerning materials: Is what this video showing somehow "impoverished" mission work just because Protestants are managing it? Indonesian Tribe receives Bible for the First Time:
If it were Abounas or our Church doing the same it would be considered Orthodox Mission for many.
it is 6 years now since i joined the church, and i put up with the lack of catchy tunes and feel good lyrics in order to see what orthodox Christians really believed.
i wanted to see why they were peaceful and how they could love their enemies so well in the absence of the catchy tunes!
if i had gone to a church with a lot of protestant songs, i would have been confused.
there are subtle differences in orthodox theology (compared with other churches) and those differences are VERY important.
we are focused on God and on those we need to pray for and help.
we don't have a consumerist theology.
we do need the intercession of the saints and angels.
we really value free will, which it is why it is such a big deal that saint mary said 'yes' to God.
those differences help us to base our faith on accepting God's will even in the hard times,
instead of being buffeted by our emotions.
i spent about half my protestant life in charismatic churches (ok, not as crazy as some modern ones are) so i can testify that the charismatic church's idea about spiritual gifts and exciting life is NOT what we need as humans.
this leads to superficiality and depending too much on our emotions.
our saints (historical ones and some 'living saints') did / do miracles and have prophecies.
we DON'T talk about any miracles done by holy people today because they are fallible and can fall into pride, and we don't want them to have any extra temptation because of us.
this is a big and important difference.
we RUN from pride as we see that it is the most dangerous thing for any of us,
so if we then start singing songs with smug triumphalist words, this will not help us to run from pride.
we focus on being sinners who are saved by God in our songs, because it is this humility and total dependance on God that is the basis for our theology.
we repent and thank God continually as it is this which keeps us close to God through the storms of life.
ok, we certainly should not make a big thing of preaching against other churches' songs in the church (i didn't stop singing them in the shower instantly after becoming orthodox!) but we should not actively include them.
you can welcome people from other churches (don't go on about 'protestant heresy', it does not help!) without also implicitly teaching wrong things in the songs and the tunes.
those people who use those songs generally have good intentions, so please don't push them away with harsh arguments, but they need to learn that we have been sharing our faith for 2000 years without being catchy and superficial, so now is not the time to start!
cyril, this explanation is for you and all like you who question this.
i really admire your enthusiasm to bring people into the church and your love, but don't change the church doctrine.
Cyril YOU ARE REALLY NOT BEING FAIR! All of the questions you are asking in this post have already been answered but you ignore the answers. You just continue to repeat yourself. It's no way to carry on a dialogue.
Mabsoota gave you a beautiful explanation below. Will you answer her? Will you consider what she wrote? Remnkemi, minasoliman, me, and others have given you answers to these questions in previous posts. Now you're repeating the same questions.
How can we claim that Protestant songs are impoverished when so many people (including many Copts in Egypt and outside Egypt) have benefited and also grown closer to God through singing and hearing them?
I linked to this article the last time you wrote something like this and posted a quote. Did you read it? I'll post it again, with another quote. Please read it and respond.
"I would certainly think that anything that draws thoughts toward God is good, but that doesn’t make it worship. Worship actually has an objective meaning in both Jewish and Christian tradition—one primarily centered on human sanctification through identification with a sacrifice (in Judaism, repeated sacrifices, but in Christianity, with the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ).
There is a difference between good thoughts, praise, etc., and worship. To worship God is to be united to Him through the sanctification from sacrifice. In Judaism, sacrificed/sanctified blood was sprinkled on worshipers, while in the Church, worshipers partake of the sanctifying Body and Blood of Christ.” What research or evidence is there that Modern Christian Songs are "Heresy"? They don't even use complex theological words just simple words that affect people's hearts. Aren't we judging instead of trying to preach and build?
This has also been answered, but I'll post it again.
Even if the words are right from the Bible, the melody itself can be a manifestation of heterodox theology and an approach to worship incompatible with Orthodoxy.
Lex orandi lex credendi. Praise and worship is doctrine. Ortho Doxa doesn't just mean "right doctrine" it also means "right glorification" that is "right worship" (as in Doxa Patri...). Protestant songs are Protestant doctrine in and of themselves. And Rick Warren books are clearly filled with Rick Warren's (i.e. Protestant) teaching. Popular Evangelical books don't write against the teachings of the Church (for example where do they say Communion or our sacraments are bad?).
They don't have to attack our Church specifically in order to be filled with the heterodox theology of their authors. Rick Warren's books are rooted in the prosperity gospel. That is alien to our Church. His Daniel Fast book does not advance the Orthodox idea of fasting, but an alien one. What books and materials did our Church have on missions when we were persecuted?
This is a cop out. We can't say "we were persecuted so we couldn't produce anything". What about all of the books His Holiness Pope Shenouda wrote? What about all of the other books our Church produced?
WHAT ABOUT H.G. ANBA ANTONIOUS MARCOS' BOOKS ON MISSION? There is not a trace of Protestant theology in any of them. Here they all are for free.
Is it not a benefit for us to use and learn from Christians who have more experience in missioning and converting people to Christ?
Not if their theology of mission conflicts with our own, Please consider the words of Fr. Irinei from the Russian Orthodox Church:
"Often, when we hear these terms (mission, evangelism) we instinctively, automatically, begin to think in the framework provided for us by outside influences. There are many religions that engage in what they call ‘missionary work’, and they are often quite visible in this; and so our understanding of what it means to be missionary, and what mission itself might mean, is regularly influenced by what we see and hear in these others. And in their examples, ‘mission’ often means ‘telling other people what we believe’, and ‘trying to get them to believe as we do’. In effect, the idea of ‘mission’ is combined with another, that of proselytism, which is the technical term for the work of drawing other people into one’s own religion or belief system.
But is this what we mean, as Orthodox Christians? Can it be that our ‘mission’ is, as such examples would suggest, to create more Orthodox Christians—to cause more people to convert?
As tempting as such a vision might be, the true testimony of the Church is that the answer must be ‘no’"
Please read the rest of the article to find out what Fr. Irinei says is our missionary ethos and how it conflicts with those of heterodox Christians.
Or if you won't do that, at least watch the video:
Further, if we really don't have Coptic Orthodox missionary role models (which I dispute) why not look to the other Orthodox? The Ethiopians have been successful in the Caribbean, the Antiochians and the OCA in North America, et cetera. Why not look to them when they share our same missionary ethos?
If it benefits people why is it bad? What evidence is there that it confuses?
This has already been answered too. In fact, the arguments you are advancing here are evidence of the confusion. Did you even read the article about the investigation the Pope launched and its findings as to how people were being confused by this stuff?
You watched the video of His Holiness Pope Shenouda condemning this stuff and you tried to explain that away. It's like you are addicted to this spiritual poison and you won't give it up no matter what our Fathers say.
Also concerning materials: Is what this video showing somehow "impoverished" mission work just because Protestants are managing it? If it were Abounas or our Church doing the same it would be considered Orthodox Mission for many.
Handing out Bibles is good. There is a difference between that and handing out the poisonous Purpose Driven Life.
Please, brother. Let me know. Are you reading what we're spending all this time writing and considering it, or just ignoring it? :(
One last thing, please read this article by a young scholar who used to be a Protestant and even write "praise & worship" music but then converted to Orthodoxy. It is beautiful.
Can there be said to be an Orthodox philosophy of music? What is the purpose of music in the life of the Orthodox Church? What would make one form of music appropriate for worship in an Orthodox context and another inappropriate? Orthodox seminarian and musicology student Daniel Marchant tackles these and other related questions relative to his studies and personal experiences in this fascinating essay.
Adapted from A Commencement Speech St. Stephen’s Program Byzantine Musicology Track Antiochian House of Studies 28 August 2014
Daniel L. Marchant
Music has played an important role in my life and in the story of my journey into Orthodoxy. Having grown up in various Evangelical Protestant denominations, I have seen almost every style of music imaginable used in churches: from classical music and traditional hymns, to country music, and even rock and roll—complete with smoke machines and flashing strobe lights. I sang in choirs, played the guitar (both acoustic and electric) on various worship teams, listened to the latest CCM (Contemporary Christian Music), and frequented Christian music festivals. My first exposure to the music of the Orthodox Church came when I was a teenager. A family friend who had recently converted to Orthodoxy invited us to a concert. My father and I went, even though at the time, I had very little interest. I didn’t think the music would be “relevant” or “speak to me.” After all, it was just a small choir from some monastery in Russia called Valaam…
From the moment the choir started singing, I found myself transported to a different place. Even though I couldn’t understand the words being sung, I was struck by the reverence and prayerfulness of the hymns and knew that what I was experiencing was something otherworldly. It was as if the presence of God was manifested through the beauty of the music. I couldn’t explain it at the time, but there was something special about the music I heard that night, and I will never forget that experience.
Several years later, while a student at Liberty University (the world’s largest Evangelical Christian university), I found myself attending a weekday Matins service at Holy Trinity Orthodox Church in Lynchburg, VA (after an encounter with Fr. Peter Gillquist, of blessed memory). My wife and I were at the time still Evangelical Protestants on a long journey that eventually led us into the fold of the Orthodox Church. We were struck by the beauty and reverence of the services and found in them a fulfilment of something we had been searching for our entire lives. After Matins concluded, we went to a required weekday chapel service at the University. The difference was day and night. After the order and reverence of the Matins service, our eyes were opened to the disorder, laxity, and casualness of what we had come to accept as normal as Evangelical Protestants. The lack of order, beauty, and reverence, stood in stark contrast to what we had just witnessed at the Orthodox Church. That experience did much to hasten our journey towards Orthodoxy.
Over the course of my time in the Orthodox Church, I have come to gain not just more knowledge about the liturgical music of the Church but also an understanding of my previous life experiences as an Evangelical Protestant. In worship, there was a sense in which I approached God on my own terms, a notion that I should have found disturbing, since I grew up reading the Scriptures. The New Testament has plenty to say about orderly and reverent worship of God, but reading the Old Testament in particular should leave little doubt as to the propriety of approaching God on one’s own terms. To confidently reject millennia of Christian practice and tradition—which has been guided by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit—in favor of “contemporary” music pleasing to modern tastes seems prideful to me. It is an attitude in stark contrast to humbly receiving the Church’s sacred tradition and allowing it to develop and evolve within the Church over time, as the Holy Spirit works and inspires.
The problem as I now understand it is that as an Evangelical Protestant, I had no developed “philosophy of music.” I viewed music as a fundamentally neutral medium, used only to accompany the text of a song and attract the listener. Having seen the true light and having found the true faith, I have now come to understand that the music of the Church’s worship is capable of so much more. It can affect the emotional and spiritual state of a person, bringing him or her into an attitude of reverent worship. Further, it can reflect to the Church the unceasing worship of the heavenly hosts and elevate the worshipper into heaven itself to join in song with the bodiless powers. Finally, its beauty can transmit the glory of the Divine to those who await His great and rich mercy. This philosophy of music is the theoretical basis for the entire Byzantine principle of musical composition, which patterns new hymns not just on existing scriptural and hymnographic texts but also on their archetypical melodic patterns. It is the reason that we have automela and prosomia. It is not only the texts of the Church’s hymns that are inspired by God or the heavenly powers and therefore reflections of the divine glory but also their melodies.
The conservatism of Orthodox liturgical music is not evidence of traditionalism—the lifeless repetition of elements from an older and irrelevant age—but the operation of this philosophy of music in the life of the Church. The Church does not preserve its ancient chant forms out of a desire to reject interacting with the modern age but rather because its music is in some sense inspired by God and has a redemptive and deifying purpose that transcends aesthetic pleasure. This of course does not imply that the Church’s musical tradition will never evolve or change over time. The Church in modern times admits the legitimate use of various forms of liturgical chant: Byzantine, Russian, Georgian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and even Gregorian (in the Western Rite tradition). It can be documented that outside influence exerted itself on several of these forms. Turkish music almost certainly contributed to an increased use of chromaticism in Byzantine chant. Western polyphonic music heavily influenced the development of Russian chant. Even native folk singing played a role in the evolution of Russian, Bulgarian, and Georgian chant. These influences external to the Church’s liturgical tradition, coupled with natural internal and local development, led to the appearance of diverse chant traditions within the Church. None of these developments, however, constituted a sudden or radical break with the previous tradition. Their evolution was slow and gradual, within the bounds of the Church’s tradition, guided by the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, these chant traditions retained a stylistic unity with one another and with the past and were all shaped around this principle of conservatism—this philosophy of music.
In conclusion, the Orthodox liturgical tradition includes a philosophy of music absent from much of contemporary heterodox Christianity. Among many outside of the Orthodox Church, the purpose of liturgical/worship music is purely aesthetic. Its function is to mimic popular styles of secular music in the hope of attracting the “lost” and to appeal to the musical tastes of the worshipper. Worship thus becomes centered on the aesthetic preferences of the worshipper, and the worshipper in some sense approaches God in worship on his or her own terms. Music is at best, therefore, a fundamentally neutral medium. It is neither good nor bad but is judged based on its effectiveness at attracting worshippers and replicating their favorite styles of music. By contrast, the liturgical tradition of the Orthodox Church preserves a well-developed philosophy of music, one which acknowledges the influence of music on the emotional and even spiritual state of the worshipper and the heavenly source of the Church’s hymnography. The Church’s hymns can be therapeutic and sanctifying through their melodies in addition to didactic in their texts. Liturgical music can transport the worshipper to heaven and join him or her in worship with the ranks of the angels and saints. It can also reflect the beauty and glory of the Divine. Orthodox worship manifests the Kingdom of God on earth, and this is tied in an important way to the Church’s music. Having received such a rich and purposeful living tradition, let us humbly seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit as we learn how to live out the ancient Christian faith in the midst of the modern world.
This is a lot of information to digest :s and it is a challenging because it may mean a reassessment of what mission is...
I don't know what that means for so many of my brothers and sisters in the Church who have grown up with Modern Christian music and Evangelical books...
I appreciate that Cyril. I really do, and I'll be praying for you and all of our youth. This is our (the Church's) fault.
Have you ever heard the saying "A fence at the top of a cliff is better than a hospital at the bottom"?
Well, we never set up a fence. We never educated the priests and servants we sent into the "mission" field. They didn't have proper episcopal oversight. They were just sent out without training, education, guidance, or a foundation in the Orthodox concept of mission. They didn't even have a proper foundation in Orthodox ecclesiology. That's why they thought the Protestants were fit to emulate in the first place.
Now the "hospital" has to work overtime. We have to correct the damage that's been done, and as gentle as we try to be, it is going to be painful for some people. It's painful for me. God have mercy on us all, help us, and comfort us.
Glory to God. Father Peter and the British Orthodox Church have been a huge blessing to our communion. They should serve as our primary example for mission in the English-speaking world and the West in general. Thanks for this, Cyril.
Forgive me but what is so different in Fr Peter's missionary experience described in this blog that is not found in every Coptic Church throughout the world? Fr Peter describes the hospitality of Fr Daoud as a blessed fruit of missionary work. I don't think has anything to do with missionary work. Missionary conferences that have no Protestant influences are done in many Coptic dioceses, not to mention non-Coptic Orthodox dioceses. Even the missionary attitude Fr Peter attributes to the work of Fr Dawood Lamie is not exclusive to a subset of Orthodoxy. I can't help but think we are making such a big thing about missionary work as a separate entity from traditional Orthodox worship and it is not. I don't think it ever has been.
I think the difference is that being in contact with many hundreds of Coptic Orthodox around the world I did not realise that there was a true missionary movement slowly developing in Egypt over only the last 5 years. I have never seen such commitment to real mission in any other place and time in the Coptic Church and had despaired of seeing it beyond a few isolated souls.
I didn't describe the conference in detail. The report does not give any indication of what is actually being done and the solid structure for mission that has been established. I am not aware of anything similar at all in other dioceses, and those participants from the UK were also aware that nothing similar exists in the Coptic community here.
The British Orthodox Church was received entirely as an Orthodox Church, and our bishop was elevated to the rank of Metropolitan not consecrated as a bishop. Losing touch with people is not the same as losing Apostolic Succession.
I agree with you. Our first mission is the salvation of our souls and bodies and to lead others into that salvation with us. "Attain the Spirit of Peace and a thousand around you will be saved". Mission is about living our Orthodoxy, not about helping people lead more fulfilling lives, et cetera, as Fr. Irinei said in the talk I linked to.
That said, what makes Fr. Peter in particular and the BOC in general especially relevant as far as I'm concerned is that they are an integrally Western Orthodox Church seeking to evangelize the British Isles. As such, they are a living, breathing example of what an authentically Western Orthodox Church looks like, sounds like, and behaves like often ignored by Coptic youth in the West with pipe dreams of a Western "Orthodox" Church that resembles bastions of heresy like Hillsong or Saddleback.
Edit: My post was addressed to Rem. I didn't realize that Fr. Peter was typing at the same time I was or that he was even posting here again. Glad to have you back, Father.
Comments
Is there anyone who has gone on missions or experienced in this who can speak on what the difference is too?
Other questions: Is trying to repay God an Orthodox or Protestant idea? Is trying to expand our Church today more Protestant, Imperial or Orthodox? Is our mission work influced by Latin models (ie setup global Churches under one mother Church instead of local autonomous Churches)?
Hi Cyril. A Protestant model of mission that is certainly contrary to Orthodox life is viewing the Church as a product to be marketed to the people, thinking that we have to make church "cool" and "trendy" and "give the people what they want". This is contrary to Orthodoxy because our job is not to bring the Church to the world, but to bring the world to the Church. In other words, our job is not to transform the Church to suit that which is worldly, but rather to transform ourselves and transform society to be more in line with what God wants us to be. You asked about experience: my father is an Orthodox priest and as a kid and a young adult I was involved in the establishment of two Orthodox missions in the USA. As an adult, I've had a great deal of experience with the Ethiopian Orthodox mission churches in the USA and have visited our Coptic mission in Bermuda a few times. Orthodox mission in the West is something that is very, very important to me.
As for your other questions: I don't think that we can ever repay God and this is not why we should engage in mission. We should engage in mission because we want to obey God's commandments (go into all the world...) and because we love our brothers and sisters who don't know Christ and His only True Church (the Orthodox Church) and we want them to have what we have: a life lived in the Holy Mysteries and the fullness of the Faith. Trying to expand our Church (that is, the Orthodox Church, not an ethnic jurisdiction) is Orthodox. That's what we're supposed to do. A small minority of Christians transformed the evil Roman Empire - where abortion and slavery ruled and human life was regarded as cheap - into a Christian state. Our goal should be to evangelize America; to bring the whole nation to Orthodoxy. In terms of ecclesiological structure, I think you're right. Our goal should be to set up local autonomous churches which might one day be autocephalous, not to keep everyone beholden to a centralized mother church. That said, that will take time, and we have to be sure that the local church is mature enough and firm enough in Orthodoxy to be granted such.
These are very nice videos. It is good that our Patriarchs agree with the idea of mission. The question becomes, do we share their definition of what that term means. People love to post this video of His Holiness Pope Shenouda III speaking for mission:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvJkkmvByBw
It is beautiful, and in fact, I was sitting in the Maqar on the floor in front of His Holiness's throne on the day he gave this talk. But this does not mean that His Holiness accepted the idea of what some churches call mission - that is Protestant songs and books, et cetera. I love what His Holiness says in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpA3T2xFabw
Also the second video you linked is speaking about teaching wrong doctrine, the mission Church priests defend and teach the teaching of the Coptic Church today. They also pray the liturgy and also sing Coptic hymns (just choosing to pray only in English instead of only in Arabic or mostly Coptic). They study St Athanasius and the Fathers. Also the Bishops visit often and have found no fault and have in fact blessed what is being done for mission.
Also look at the testimonials people have at one mission church:
http://smsv.ca/category/testimonials/
Shouldn't people have a chance to have a personal relationship with Jesus? Shouldn't they know Christ in our Church?
If they're in the Orthodox Church they'll eventually find the deeper things. Why confuse them and reinvent the wheel when there's so many materials already made by other Christians which can be baptized to teach what our Coptic Orthodox Church teaches?
Remnkemi already adequately addressed most of what you've written here Cyril, and I'd encourage you to carefully consider his reply, but since you addressed your post to me, please allow me to reply:
AntoniousNIkolas wasn't that second video when Sayedna was younger? The first video is more recent and maybe Sayedna reassessed the benefit of the materials you're discussing.
No, that's not the case. There's nothing in the first video to indicate that His Holiness reassessed his thoughts as stated in the second video. That only makes sense if one equates mission with Protestantism. That shouldn't be the case for any Orthodox Christian and it was not the case for His Holiness. His Holiness was consistent on both of these points:
1. He was an advocate for mission
2. He was opposed to Protestant influence in the Church
Until the end of his earthly life. In fact, His Holiness led the Holy Synod to condemn Protestant teachings and songs in our Church:
http://returntoorthodoxy.com/formal-measures/
The simple materials bring people and converts to the Church and the proof is in the numbers.
His Grace Anba David remarked at my church that this idea of chasing numbers is antithetical to Orthodoxy and that Our Lord said "Fear not little flock". According to His Grace, the Lord is not interested in numbers but rather that we truly lead those we convert to live our Orthodoxia.
Further, as Rem said, you can't lead people out of falsehood with more falsehood. The songs and materials aren't merely "simple", they are wrong and heretical. Besides, most of the people in the churches that use stuff aren't converts, but disaffected Coptic youth who want to be associated with what they see as "cool American culture" rather than "embarrassing FOB culture".
Look at the CTV video of HH Pope Tawadros II and it looks like the Church is very successful in growing our Coptic Church in America and Canada.
Glory to God, but this is not because of accepting heterodox materials, faith, and practice.
Also some converts may have come from a Protestant background so the materials are a middle ground for them to understand things.
I know lots of converts from Protestantism. They don't want stuff from their former church. As one woman I know very well put it, "If I wanted that stuff, I could have stayed in the African-American Protestant church where we did a much better version of it". She is right. If she really wanted Christian pop, she'd want the good stuff. Not some lame American-Coptic imitation. And don't fool yourself, that's exactly what the stuff in our churches is.
Songs are also familiar and easy to sing and also our youth in the Church like it because the songs are Biblical.
Even if the words are right from the Bible, the melody itself can be a manifestation of heterodox theology and an approach to worship incompatible with Orthodoxy.
http://returntoorthodoxy.com/orthodox-church-america-orthodox-worship-vs-contemporary-worship/
But now you're getting closer to the mark. It's not really about mission to those outside. It's about disaffected Coptic youth who were never taught to appreciate the depth of their tradition and who confuse Orthodoxy with "Egyptian Christianity" and Protestantism with "American Christianity".
Also the second video you linked is speaking about teaching wrong doctrine, the mission Church priests defend and teach the teaching of the Coptic Church today.
Lex orandi lex credendi. Praise and worship is doctrine. Ortho Doxa doesn't just mean "right doctrine" it also means "right glorification" that is "right worship" (as in Doxa Patri...). Protestant songs are Protestant doctrine in and of themselves. And Rick Warren books are clearly filled with Rick Warren's (i.e. Protestant) teaching.
They also pray the liturgy and also sing Coptic hymns (just choosing to pray only in English instead of only in Arabic or mostly Coptic). They study St Athanasius and the Fathers.
If that's all they were doing, there would be no issue. But light and darkness can't walk together. We can't study St. Athanasius AND Rick Warren. One is our Father in the Faith, the other teaches heresy.
Also the Bishops visit often and have found no fault and have in fact blessed what is being done for mission.
No, the bishops - when they have a clear idea of what's going on - do find fault in the incorporation of Protestant songs and teachings into the churches.
http://returntoorthodoxy.com/pope-tawadros-takes-stand-for-orthodoxy/
Also look at the testimonials people have at one mission church:
http://smsv.ca/category/testimonials/
Very nice. But this doesn't mean there isn't room for correction. No one is saying shut these churches down. Just correct the areas in which there might be errors.
Shouldn't people have a chance to have a personal relationship with Jesus? Shouldn't they know Christ in our Church?
Of course. They know Him most fully in the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments) and in a life lived in Orthodoxy.
If they're in the Orthodox Church they'll eventually find the deeper things. Why confuse them and reinvent the wheel when there's so many materials already made by other Christians which can be baptized to teach what our Coptic Orthodox Church teaches?
It's not a matter of moving from shallow to deep but from wrong to right. Protestant music and books aren't just simple, they're wrong. We can't teach people error and later move them to what is right. We have to teach them what is right from the beginning. Of course we can do that in a simple way. We can also do it without trying to Baptize that which is unbaptizable - that is to say, heresy and error. If we don't have our own materials, there are many simple materials that teach Orthodoxy from the other, more American Orthodox Churches like the OCA and the Antiochians:
http://www.archangelsbooks.com/products.asp?cat=Children's+Orthodox+Catechetical+Books
http://store.ancientfaith.com/
We don't have to reinvent the wheel, but we don't have to pick up a poisonous snake and call it a wheel either. What would "confuse the people" wouldn't be teaching them the simple truth of Orthodoxy from the beginning, but teaching them the errors of Protestantism and then expecting them to be Orthodox.
What research or evidence is there that Modern Christian Songs are "Heresy"? They don't even use complex theological words just simple words that affect people's hearts. Aren't we judging instead of trying to preach and build?
Popular Evangelical books don't write against the teachings of the Church (for example where do they say Communion or our sacraments are bad?). What books and materials did our Church have on missions when we were persecuted? Is it not a benefit for us to use and learn from Christians who have more experience in missioning and converting people to Christ? If it benefits people why is it bad? What evidence is there that it confuses? Many Copts read the books and still live Orthodox lives.
Also concerning materials: Is what this video showing somehow "impoverished" mission work just because Protestants are managing it?
Indonesian Tribe receives Bible for the First Time:
If it were Abounas or our Church doing the same it would be considered Orthodox Mission for many.
Mabsoota gave you a beautiful explanation below. Will you answer her? Will you consider what she wrote? Remnkemi, minasoliman, me, and others have given you answers to these questions in previous posts. Now you're repeating the same questions.
How can we claim that Protestant songs are impoverished when so many
people (including many Copts in Egypt and outside Egypt) have benefited
and also grown closer to God through singing and hearing them?
I linked to this article the last time you wrote something like this and posted a quote. Did you read it? I'll post it again, with another quote. Please read it and respond.
http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/02/26/god-is-much-bigger-than-your-style-of-worship-or-mine/
"I would certainly think that anything that draws thoughts toward God is good, but that doesn’t make it worship. Worship actually has an objective meaning in both Jewish and Christian tradition—one primarily centered on human sanctification through identification with a sacrifice (in Judaism, repeated sacrifices, but in Christianity, with the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ).
There is a difference between good thoughts, praise, etc., and worship. To worship God is to be united to Him through the sanctification from sacrifice. In Judaism, sacrificed/sanctified blood was sprinkled on worshipers, while in the Church, worshipers partake of the sanctifying Body and Blood of Christ.”
What research or evidence is there that Modern Christian Songs are
"Heresy"? They don't even use complex theological words just simple
words that affect people's hearts. Aren't we judging instead of trying
to preach and build?
This has also been answered, but I'll post it again.
Even if the words are right from the Bible, the melody itself can be a
manifestation of heterodox theology and an approach to worship
incompatible with Orthodoxy.
http://returntoorthodoxy.com/orthodox-church-america-orthodox-worship-vs-contemporary-worship/
Lex orandi lex credendi. Praise and worship is doctrine. Ortho Doxa doesn't just mean "right doctrine" it also means "right glorification" that is "right worship" (as in Doxa Patri...). Protestant songs are Protestant doctrine in and of themselves. And Rick Warren books are clearly filled with Rick Warren's (i.e. Protestant) teaching.Popular Evangelical books don't write against the teachings of the
Church (for example where do they say Communion or our sacraments are
bad?).
They don't have to attack our Church specifically in order to be filled with the heterodox theology of their authors. Rick Warren's books are rooted in the prosperity gospel. That is alien to our Church. His Daniel Fast book does not advance the Orthodox idea of fasting, but an alien one.
What books and materials did our Church have on missions when we were
persecuted?
This is a cop out. We can't say "we were persecuted so we couldn't produce anything". What about all of the books His Holiness Pope Shenouda wrote? What about all of the other books our Church produced?
WHAT ABOUT H.G. ANBA ANTONIOUS MARCOS' BOOKS ON MISSION? There is not a trace of Protestant theology in any of them. Here they all are for free.
http://www.copticafrica.org/book-downloads.html
Is it not a benefit for us to use and learn from Christians
who have more experience in missioning and converting people to Christ?
Not if their theology of mission conflicts with our own, Please consider the words of Fr. Irinei from the Russian Orthodox Church:
"Often, when we hear these terms (mission, evangelism) we instinctively, automatically, begin to think in the framework provided for us by outside influences. There are many religions that engage in what they call ‘missionary work’, and they are often quite visible in this; and so our understanding of what it means to be missionary, and what mission itself might mean, is regularly influenced by what we see and hear in these others. And in their examples, ‘mission’ often means ‘telling other people what we believe’, and ‘trying to get them to believe as we do’. In effect, the idea of ‘mission’ is combined with another, that of proselytism, which is the technical term for the work of drawing other people into one’s own religion or belief system.
But is this what we mean, as Orthodox Christians? Can it be that our ‘mission’
is, as such examples would suggest, to create more Orthodox Christians—to cause more
people to convert?
As tempting as such a vision might be, the true testimony of the Church is that the
answer must be ‘no’"
Please read the rest of the article to find out what Fr. Irinei says is our missionary ethos and how it conflicts with those of heterodox Christians.
http://orthodoxyinrolla.org/the-orthodox-approach-to-mission/
Or if you won't do that, at least watch the video:
Further, if we really don't have Coptic Orthodox missionary role models (which I dispute) why not look to the other Orthodox? The Ethiopians have been successful in the Caribbean, the Antiochians and the OCA in North America, et cetera. Why not look to them when they share our same missionary ethos?
If it benefits people why is it bad? What evidence is there that it confuses?This
has already been answered too. In fact, the arguments you are
advancing here are evidence of the confusion. Did you even read the
article about the investigation the Pope launched and its findings as to
how people were being confused by this stuff?
I'll post it again:
http://returntoorthodoxy.com/pope-tawadros-takes-stand-for-orthodoxy/
You watched the video of His Holiness Pope Shenouda condemning this stuff and you tried to explain that away. It's like you are addicted to this spiritual poison and you won't give it up no matter what our Fathers say.
Also concerning materials: Is what this video showing somehow
"impoverished" mission work just because Protestants are managing it?
If it were Abounas or our Church doing the same it would be considered Orthodox Mission for many.
Handing out Bibles is good. There is a difference between that and handing out the poisonous Purpose Driven Life.
Please, brother. Let me know. Are you reading what we're spending all this time writing and considering it, or just ignoring it?
:(
An Orthodox Philosophy of Music by Daniel Merchant
Can there be said to be an Orthodox philosophy of music? What is the purpose of music in the life of the Orthodox Church? What would make one form of music appropriate for worship in an Orthodox context and another inappropriate? Orthodox seminarian and musicology student Daniel Marchant tackles these and other related questions relative to his studies and personal experiences in this fascinating essay.
A Commencement Speech
St. Stephen’s Program
Byzantine Musicology Track
Antiochian House of Studies
28 August 2014
Daniel L. Marchant
Music has played an important role in my life and in the story of my journey into Orthodoxy. Having grown up in various Evangelical Protestant denominations, I have seen almost every style of music imaginable used in churches: from classical music and traditional hymns, to country music, and even rock and roll—complete with smoke machines and flashing strobe lights. I sang in choirs, played the guitar (both acoustic and electric) on various worship teams, listened to the latest CCM (Contemporary Christian Music), and frequented Christian music festivals. My first exposure to the music of the Orthodox Church came when I was a teenager. A family friend who had recently converted to Orthodoxy invited us to a concert. My father and I went, even though at the time, I had very little interest. I didn’t think the music would be “relevant” or “speak to me.” After all, it was just a small choir from some monastery in Russia called Valaam…
From the moment the choir started singing, I found myself transported to a different place. Even though I couldn’t understand the words being sung, I was struck by the reverence and prayerfulness of the hymns and knew that what I was experiencing was something otherworldly. It was as if the presence of God was manifested through the beauty of the music. I couldn’t explain it at the time, but there was something special about the music I heard that night, and I will never forget that experience.
Several years later, while a student at Liberty University (the world’s largest Evangelical Christian university), I found myself attending a weekday Matins service at Holy Trinity Orthodox Church in Lynchburg, VA (after an encounter with Fr. Peter Gillquist, of blessed memory). My wife and I were at the time still Evangelical Protestants on a long journey that eventually led us into the fold of the Orthodox Church. We were struck by the beauty and reverence of the services and found in them a fulfilment of something we had been searching for our entire lives. After Matins concluded, we went to a required weekday chapel service at the University. The difference was day and night. After the order and reverence of the Matins service, our eyes were opened to the disorder, laxity, and casualness of what we had come to accept as normal as Evangelical Protestants. The lack of order, beauty, and reverence, stood in stark contrast to what we had just witnessed at the Orthodox Church. That experience did much to hasten our journey towards Orthodoxy.
Over the course of my time in the Orthodox Church, I have come to gain not just more knowledge about the liturgical music of the Church but also an understanding of my previous life experiences as an Evangelical Protestant. In worship, there was a sense in which I approached God on my own terms, a notion that I should have found disturbing, since I grew up reading the Scriptures. The New Testament has plenty to say about orderly and reverent worship of God, but reading the Old Testament in particular should leave little doubt as to the propriety of approaching God on one’s own terms. To confidently reject millennia of Christian practice and tradition—which has been guided by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit—in favor of “contemporary” music pleasing to modern tastes seems prideful to me. It is an attitude in stark contrast to humbly receiving the Church’s sacred tradition and allowing it to develop and evolve within the Church over time, as the Holy Spirit works and inspires.
The conservatism of Orthodox liturgical music is not evidence of traditionalism—the lifeless repetition of elements from an older and irrelevant age—but the operation of this philosophy of music in the life of the Church. The Church does not preserve its ancient chant forms out of a desire to reject interacting with the modern age but rather because its music is in some sense inspired by God and has a redemptive and deifying purpose that transcends aesthetic pleasure. This of course does not imply that the Church’s musical tradition will never evolve or change over time. The Church in modern times admits the legitimate use of various forms of liturgical chant: Byzantine, Russian, Georgian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and even Gregorian (in the Western Rite tradition). It can be documented that outside influence exerted itself on several of these forms. Turkish music almost certainly contributed to an increased use of chromaticism in Byzantine chant. Western polyphonic music heavily influenced the development of Russian chant. Even native folk singing played a role in the evolution of Russian, Bulgarian, and Georgian chant. These influences external to the Church’s liturgical tradition, coupled with natural internal and local development, led to the appearance of diverse chant traditions within the Church. None of these developments, however, constituted a sudden or radical break with the previous tradition. Their evolution was slow and gradual, within the bounds of the Church’s tradition, guided by the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, these chant traditions retained a stylistic unity with one another and with the past and were all shaped around this principle of conservatism—this philosophy of music.
In conclusion, the Orthodox liturgical tradition includes a philosophy of music absent from much of contemporary heterodox Christianity. Among many outside of the Orthodox Church, the purpose of liturgical/worship music is purely aesthetic. Its function is to mimic popular styles of secular music in the hope of attracting the “lost” and to appeal to the musical tastes of the worshipper. Worship thus becomes centered on the aesthetic preferences of the worshipper, and the worshipper in some sense approaches God in worship on his or her own terms. Music is at best, therefore, a fundamentally neutral medium. It is neither good nor bad but is judged based on its effectiveness at attracting worshippers and replicating their favorite styles of music. By contrast, the liturgical tradition of the Orthodox Church preserves a well-developed philosophy of music, one which acknowledges the influence of music on the emotional and even spiritual state of the worshipper and the heavenly source of the Church’s hymnography. The Church’s hymns can be therapeutic and sanctifying through their melodies in addition to didactic in their texts. Liturgical music can transport the worshipper to heaven and join him or her in worship with the ranks of the angels and saints. It can also reflect the beauty and glory of the Divine. Orthodox worship manifests the Kingdom of God on earth, and this is tied in an important way to the Church’s music. Having received such a rich and purposeful living tradition, let us humbly seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit as we learn how to live out the ancient Christian faith in the midst of the modern world.
http://returntoorthodoxy.com/orthodox-philosophy-music-daniel-merchant/
I don't know what that means for so many of my brothers and sisters in the Church who have grown up with Modern Christian music and Evangelical books...
Have you ever heard the saying "A fence at the top of a cliff is better than a hospital at the bottom"?
Well, we never set up a fence. We never educated the priests and servants we sent into the "mission" field. They didn't have proper episcopal oversight. They were just sent out without training, education, guidance, or a foundation in the Orthodox concept of mission. They didn't even have a proper foundation in Orthodox ecclesiology. That's why they thought the Protestants were fit to emulate in the first place.
Now the "hospital" has to work overtime. We have to correct the damage that's been done, and as gentle as we try to be, it is going to be painful for some people. It's painful for me. God have mercy on us all, help us, and comfort us.
http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/orthodox-mission-conference-venice-2014.html
I didn't describe the conference in detail. The report does not give any indication of what is actually being done and the solid structure for mission that has been established. I am not aware of anything similar at all in other dioceses, and those participants from the UK were also aware that nothing similar exists in the Coptic community here.
I agree with you. Our first mission is the salvation of our souls and bodies and to lead others into that salvation with us. "Attain the Spirit of Peace and a thousand around you will be saved". Mission is about living our Orthodoxy, not about helping people lead more fulfilling lives, et cetera, as Fr. Irinei said in the talk I linked to.
That said, what makes Fr. Peter in particular and the BOC in general especially relevant as far as I'm concerned is that they are an integrally Western Orthodox Church seeking to evangelize the British Isles. As such, they are a living, breathing example of what an authentically Western Orthodox Church looks like, sounds like, and behaves like often ignored by Coptic youth in the West with pipe dreams of a Western "Orthodox" Church that resembles bastions of heresy like Hillsong or Saddleback.
Edit: My post was addressed to Rem. I didn't realize that Fr. Peter was typing at the same time I was or that he was even posting here again. Glad to have you back, Father.