What's More Interesting for Americans?

Do thank you for this truly interesting question. This is something I have to think about much more. I apologize for not answering earlier. These days isn't easy to concentrate on more, than two things. But I do like how you describe the background of the question. Personally, sometimes I ask question, and ask myself - for what I ask all those questions? For which purposes? Of course, particularly I learned from my past papers I got to publish (in philosophy) that the more sincere and straighter view of the things about which one wants is wondering, the better results he's going to get. Moreover, in the context you've brought 'magical' is not just 'some magic', but something I think I read or dealt with.

First of all, just a brief answer that partially may be given, but only partially. The book I want to recommend about the elements of the orthodoxy - how historically they appeared and why they look like now in that traditional way - is the book of Hugh Wybrew "The Orthodox Liturgy". - I know, this isn't the book of your question, but I just want to say that 'magical' in orthodoxy, for my personal opinion, isn't that, you know, the magic of let's say Pope Rome. Oh, no. Two examples: in Roman Catholics: if you pronounce a certain religion formula and the context is correct, then the ritual is done. For example, the words of baptization has been uttered by a Christian woman, and a dying baby is on her hand, the baby has been baptized. Contrary to it, in the orthodoxy such conditions don't work in this way. You may wonder - in this way they work? - There is no answer. The more probable answer is that: they might work, or not. It depends not on the one who's uttering the words, or the circumstances, but rather on God. And this isn't one 'weird' feature. Usually, such a formal attitude to provoding any rituals is considering to be less pro-God. So, if a person has formal intentions to attempt a ritual, 99% he will fail, even if all the requirements are there. So, it's more personal, or it depends mostly on a person, rather than any formal things. In other words, if a person is good, then he will be successful in providing rituals or in his pray.

And I almost forgot - that author Hugh Wybrew - he wrote indeed in details why all those rituals, architecture, etc are in the orthodox liturgy. So, the answer is absolutely trivial. I can't retell it as easier as the author (now I haven't gotten this book; about 10 years ago I read it in a local library), but he proposes numerous examples as for instance: the Christians of 1-2 century AC went to the place to pray, and during their walking they were praying. Then this element (the walking) became an element of liturgy. The same is about all those clothes, reading the sequences of prayers, elements of architecture, and so on. So, really there are no magical, but rather - too much traditions. Instead of not paying attention to those elements, the orthodoxy 'decided' to absorb all those, or large part of those traditions, and to kept it.

Another author I'd like to recommend is very famous American modern philosopher - Charles Taylor. I haven't read his book - he's got two volumes of tremendous research on why the modernity rejects or attempts to reject Christianity, and what are the reasons or it in past, where it started, etc. As I said, because I haven't read him, I don't remember how the author decided to investigate and what, but in the beginning of this year another American - with whom I spoke via Skype (by the way, do you remember I also offered to the members of Arktos to meet online - so I met a philosophical club, and that is why I proposed somebody to join), so that American - his name was John, - told us (usually, 3-4 members of that philosophical club) about the book. Of course, I heard of Charles Tayolor, but I didn't know how deep his analysis and researches were. Anyway, Taylor noticed, in my opinion, some key points of the othodoxy also, why it became it is. So, it was about social elements, and paricularly, the economy of churches. While the Protestant branch decided to divide work/job and church, Roman church, and mostly the orthodoxy, decided to stay on less socialized elements. Briefly, it was just a wish not to loose a way to control the folks via churches. I mean, it's easy to control group working, instead of separate workers.

Anyway, the element of 'magic' is something I can't say I'm ready to answer quickly, I have to think. But some thoughts I wrote already just to add something about the orthodoxy. That 'magic' element isn't the 'magic' from the fantastic novels. Why I think I am right here, about interpreting this term in this way? - Because as I said earlier even providing a ritual with all the performed things correctly doesn't guarantee anything. Seems like St. Augustine's like about the chosen is working. On the other hand, to work on yourself (somehow) is considered to bring results. But what kind of 'advancing' or 'work on yourself' is here? The most unbeliavable thing one may find is close to Dostoyevsky's (mostly) or Solzhenitsyn's views - that 'the more you suffer, but it doesn't stop you, the better person you are". Bam... :)

Of course, not every the orthodoxy thoughts are like that. But I think that it is something that people like Jordan Peterson would interpret the same way.

My own thought - it's a truly dangerous background - of that orthodoxy. And my personal view - today there's almost no that orthodoxy it was in III-XIII centuries. Why so? - It was diluted: Eastern in their own manner, Middle Eastern (Europe) and similar - were diluted or pressed by Islam, when they conquered in 1243 Constantinople. Since that to ~1878 what orthodoxy that was? Russian way of orthodoxy - is too separated. I don't know are you familiar or not, but about four years ago there was another serious trouble between some othodoxy higher priests. And it wasn't the first. Studying the history of it one can truly say that there is no unity among the orthodox Christians; yeah, in theological interpretations I'd say they in 99% are agree. - And also this is, I don't know, it makes me not even smile, but to laugh: the history is repeating: when the 1st and 2nd cathedrals (or gatherings, or meetings?) of Christians happened in 325-381? years AC somewhere in Constantinople, as many historicals say many people were arguing to each other about religious theological things, but most of their argumentations were not about strictly theological, but more about social or something. The appearance of monasteries as a phaenomenon after 330's AC - I think - can illustrate and tell us more about what preferences were holding or taken at those times. And today isn't the exception. I guess the history repeats, and the modern Orthodoxy is agreed about those primary theological things, but disagree in many social things.

Maybe the orthodoxy is just stuck? Or what is going on with them? Theological problems are seemed to vanish away from them. Since VII AC none serious theological problems were raised, however, during all the history of it hundreds of thousands sociological or political problems arose among them. And personally for me that 'magical' of them - is the question - why are they keep doing what they are doing?

Well, maybe next time I'll be prepared better to answer. That was my rough answer this time.