[Note: This is a response to a comment from my Orthodox brother, Gabe, on my "How to Not be Very Orthodox" video. I thought I'd make a post for it so the discussion might continue here--if anyone wishes to do so.]
Gabe:
Well, brother, one of the dangers of satire is that the point will be missed for the form.
My criticism–which I had hoped to have been clear–was not on whether or not there were legitimate criticisms of the items mentioned, but, rather, that in a large swath of the overall criticisms there was a rather large failure: to focus on externals.
Even Fr Seraphim–who, you rightly point out, would insist on the highest quality of publication output–was quite willing to encourage convert efforts at publishing, including efforts which would appeal to Protestants, just so long as those things retained the savor of Orthodoxy. Indeed, Fr Ambrose (ne Fr Alexey) was brought quite to task for writing a favorable article on the Shroud of Turin–especially because he used “Roman Catholic” terminology. And while Fr Seraphim did regret some of the terminology, he did not criticize the effort or the article. The same sort of thing happened when Fr Ambrose printed an article on evolution–after all, what did that have to do with Orthodoxy? But Fr Seraphim rightly knew that this was an important cultural and spiritual matter, and did not balk at all at such an article.
In other words, much, though not all, of the criticisms focus on easy (and easily distorted) external matters. Very little is focusing on the more difficult internal matters, what Blessed Seraphim would call the “savor of Orthodoxy.”
If we look at externals, yes, of course, we could say that Fr Ambrose’s newspaper is much different in form than, say, Again magazine. But can we really say that it does not have the savor of Orthodoxy?
Furthermore, Fr Seraphim himself would agree that American Orthodoxy has to seek its own incarnated form. For decades it has been kept in its ethnic forms–and nothing wrong with that–but because of it, it hasn’t had a chance to permeate the American culture. We are only now beginning to see some of the efforts at that–and there are light years to go.
So what if a bunch of crazy evangelism minded former Protestants are leading the way and using Moody Bible and pop evangelical forms to infiltrate the culture? Are we so fearful of the paper thin weakness of our Orthodox Faith that we think the forms will overwhelm its divine substance?
I, for one, am not.
Yes, we should be constantly mindful, but I have no fear that the Orthodox Faith we hold will correct the forms with which it is being communicated. After all, the conversion of a nation has to start somewhere. I somehow don’t think the Rus’ were instantly conformed to Orthodox forms upon the nation’s conversion. Yet, somehow, they became Orthodox and Orthodoxy molded the forms of their culture and not the other way ’round.
I am in basic agreement with your position on this. However, I think a few points which still need to be considered are…
First, to what extent does form constrain or, rather, dictate the amount of substance offered. This is a very old debate and not one I expect to be answered definitively here. To bring the matter closer to home in Orthodoxy, recall the still ongoing (though not nearly as relevant) debate concerning Russia’s “Latin Captivity” from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century. (Some might say it even continues today in certain circles.) Quite a bit which came out of Russia, especially West Russia, was colored in “Latinisms.” The theological commentary on the Trebnik (Book of Needs) of Peter Moghila was taken straight out of Latin texts—so much so that the Rite of Confession in the Slavic churches still maintains a decidedly Roman Catholic form. Seminary students learned, wrote, and spoke in Latin. What is argued, of course, is that the substance, what you refer to as the “savor of Orthodoxy,” continued despite the foreign linguistic and theological interpretations which meshed with Slavic Orthodoxy. For the most part, I agree with the defenders over the critics; some of the choices concerning language may have been unfortunate and even obscuring, but the Church maintained her savor.
One might be inclined to extend this defense to the contemporary American context. Instead of “Latinisms,” we get “Evangelicisms” or, more simply, “Americanisms” in the publication and evangelism efforts in the U.S. This is to some extent expected since a great majority of converts to Orthodoxy are former Evangelicals and, regardless of the Catholic Church’s longstanding place in the United States, it has always been culturally peripheral when compared to Protestantism. But this seems to me like a false comparison since we very well know that a great gulf exists between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. It cannot be assumed outright that they share an equal footing when it comes to transmitting Christianity and, by extension, to transmitting Orthodoxy when their forms are adapted (or wholesale appropriated) for that purpose. Without trying to open up a side debate over to what extent Catholicism is “like” Orthodoxy enough to where its obscuring or limiting effects are minimalized, maybe it would be best to reflect on how Protestantism—specifically mainline American Evangelicism—is unlike Orthodoxy and what that means to contemporary efforts modeled (or, again, lifted wholesale) from that camp and put to service for the Orthodox Church. To do so seems to me to be quite simple (though a bit time consuming): Look at what areas Orthodoxy specifically refutes Evangelicism, discount such areas as wholly inappropriate within Orthodoxy, and then see what is left. If what is “left” can be of some reasonable use, then go for it. What I am left wondering is: Has this been done? My suspicion is the question was never asked to begin with.
Second, while I agree that efforts which seem Protestant may not indeed be Protestant, they do raise a flag; further inquiry is therefore warranted. What are the outcomes of these inquiries? Well, they vary. The end result may be that the initial fear over Protestant infusion may be unwarranted, that looks can be deceiving, and that people are simply too quick to judge a book by its cover. Fine. On the other hand, closer inspection may reveal other, deeper, flaws which demand further inquiry and, perhaps, more impacting criticism. Whether one wants to go round n’ round over how “Protestant” the OSB appears is a side matter when compared to the deeper realities that the notes are insufficient, parts of the translation have been called-out as unintelligible or, at least, unclear, and that the book simply failed to live up to the hype (hype which some of its editors and its publisher played into over the last year or so). Similarly, AFR may seem very Protestant. In fact, it may seem just like Moody Radio. That is far less troubling on its face than the fact an aesthetic of kitsch is routinely embraced and some of the views espoused on the programming are ridiculous at best and fundamentally erroneous at worst. Maybe one can demonstrate how the insufficiencies of the OSB or AFR or, heck, Conciliar Press, root back to a Protestant influence. I, for one, would prefer the content be corrected, that the “savor of Orthodoxy” be maintained, and then concern myself with grand theories over adverse influence. Right or wrong, the Protestant accusation fails to correct the problems on the surface which, truly, is the heart of the matter.
Last, let me be clear that alternatives exist. There is no excuse for trying to pass off chaff as wheat. Orthodox publishing in English may be fairly new, but it’s not that new. I invite someone to try and take me to ask for this, but can one honestly compare the books published by Holy Transfiguration Monaster, St. John of Kronstadt’s Press, St. Herman’s Press, or Holy Trinity Monastery (Jordanville) with what comes out of Conciliar Press and excuse the latter for having its “heart in the right place”? How is it that a relatively small, underfunded, “fringe” group like Holy Apostles Convent can produce a two-volume new translation of the New Testament with copious endnotes which includes real citations from the Church Fathers and a pool of experts can’t? As for Orthodox radio, it does indeed exist in other countries—both on the air and online. Why weren’t those models consulted first and then modifications made for our apparently culturally retarded, simpleminded, “give me some warm fuzzy comfort” American milieu? (If we’re anything but that, then perhaps outlets—Orthodox or otherwise—should stop playing into that template as its “core audience.”) I confess these are all troubling questions. Should someone wish to proffer a few answers, I’d be most grateful.
Gabe:
Relative to your second paragraph of your first point–you move from form to substance as though the appropriated forms equal the substance. That is to say, you assume, though you do not prove, that somehow a wholesale appropriation of evangelical forms is equivalent to the assumption of mainstream evangelical substance. Surely that’s an assertion that needs some backing.
Yes, there is no doubt that mainstream evangelicalism is very much “unlike Orthodoxy,” but this is the substance, and I do not think an appropriation of forms is the same as the appropriation of substance.
You admit–as do I–that the question of how much form carries over substance will not be answered here. The media of print and radio are definitely not inextricably bound by evangelical substance, since there are other uses, even religious uses, of these media than by evangelicals. So it’s not clear to me where the objection precisely lies.
Near as I can figure it’s in the marketing–adjectives critical of the OSB use such slurs as “slick”–but now we’re in to a different arena.
You also ask how much theoretical analysis went in to the ventures before the pragmatics unfolded? Do you have evidence that there is a proper “Orthodox” amount of such analysis? Do you further have evidence that these various ventures failed to achieve the proper amount of “Orthodox” analysis?
In your second point you note the superficial reactions should warrant deeper looks. I agree. I happen to subscribe to and listen to a great number of the podcasts on AFR. Yes, there’s an unevenness in the programs. As there should be. We’re dealing with fallen human beings. Some are uniformly excellent. Others are hit and miss. But I hardly think that’s because they’re being broadcast within a subcategory of a medium that resembles evangelical forms. Isn’t it more reasonable to suppose that it’s due to human weakness and sins?
In other words, I fail to see how what you’re describing is a unique failing of so-called Protestant media forms.
In your third note, you make a huge leap: that the publishing ventures you note are apples to apples comparisons. Take a look at what Holy Apostles produces. Then compare to St John of Kronstradt. Then compare to Conciliar Press. We are not talking about the same missions, the same goals, the same thing. Yes, they’re all Orthodox, but it’s apples to oranges. And thank God!
I have the Holy Apostles New Testament. I happen to love the quirky translation and being the book geek that I am, love the copious footnotes. But I’m sure not going to lug the two large volumes to Liturgy and Sunday School. Or carry it in my book bag. I’d be at the chiropractor every other week. (Disclaimer: I do have the small pocket edition of the NT, so the previous was for illustrative purposes only.)
No, if I want to carry around the *entire Bible* I’ll bring my OSB. And I’ll be well aware that the footnotes are, well, what they are. And, quite frankly, the footnotes in the Holy Apostles NT aren’t as exhaustive or as copious as one might be led to believe. There’s been more than one time I’ve gone to the footnotes to check on a controversial verse and come up empty: there was no footnote on it.
Yes, I’m very glad to have the Life of the Theotokos, and the Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy from Holy Apostles. And I wouldn’t go to Conciliar for that stuff. Different mission. Different market. (Though Conciliar does have books on saints lives.)
Similarly, if I want inexpensive and reader-friendly liturgies and service booklets, I’ll go to St. John of Kronstadt. If I want extremely nice hard cover service books, I’ll go to Holy Transfiguration.
You get the point.
I get the feeling that if a publishing company doesn’t put out thick, hardcover, two-color texts, with every sentence footnoted to the holy fathers, that some of the AFR/CP/OSB critics just won’t be happy.
Didn’t God give to his people a diversity of gifts and service?
I’m still not seein’ it, Gabe.
I love it- Only on an orthodox website would a very hilarious “youtube” post turn into a full scale philosophical discussion on the ins and outs of American Orthodoxy. Not Very Orthodox I’m afraid, actually very Amero-orthodox. I really question, not the zeal of the pious converts, but the almost automatic (not very orthodox-that is the word automatic-) argumentation.
Perhaps we should refer to certain things as biblical and non-biblical- oh my that is the least orthodox thing to say-
But, seriously, and somewhat humorously, while I was reading the- by the way very enjoyable- back and forth banter, i imagined St. Paul and Sts Aquila and Priscilla having a lively discussion on whether or not the writings of Aristotle are an apropriate form to use, when conveying the most holy gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Or questioning St Paul on his use of an inscription on a pagan ritualistic site to affirm the truth of THe God.
And now for the sake of you all being able to laugh at all my orthodox imperfections I will add my two centsa— and with the falling dollar, that ain’t worth much- ahem:
I am a very recent convert ( Thanks be to God- yikes, there’s my RC baptism shining through), and I absolutely treasure Holy Orthodoxy, it is to be kept, with all diligence, but are we to bury that talent, or hide that light under a bushel- NO( vbs, I am so sorry!). Benedict and Gabe, Heart and Zeal, Spirit and Letter, Ebony and Ivory, we need you both.
I own a Christian Bookstore, which is not even close to being Orthodox. And from a bookstore perspective, there are so many books written, and I have picked up some that have a great introduction, or even first chapter, and then they go caput. Or, and really worse yet, are very intriguing and almost convincing all the way through, and yet are full of all sorts of nuances and half truths to put it bluntly. And honestly I have seen the first example on AFR, but I guess the second is the one that should scare us, and yet imagine, truly, someone in Orthodoxy writing something nuanced and or even slightly off the mark. Do you think noone would confront him, question him, even correct him.
You see, there in lies the beauty of what we have found, or rather what has found us (I’m sure I picked up that phrasology from some CCM somewheres) Is that it, or rather she, has Checks and balances( very western theme) . THese best selling protestant authors ( some making the NYT best sellers list) go back to their home church, sometimes the church they founded by maxing out their credit card, and what does everyone say. well let us listen in:
” That is such a good teaching. You are so wise, and that chapter on Jesus being your best bud , and the one on the holy spirit talking to you after you pulled over to the side of the road, and your vision of heaven and how you totally opened up the book of revelation and removed any and all of its mystery. ANd the whole time you used only one verse of scripture, . I mean, I never new you could systematically lay out our entire christian belief system using “jesus wept” and your use of the other translations, really opened my eyes, especially your very own paraphrase w/ amplification “Jesus (THe Son of God, Little big G) wept (remember in that movie and…. yeah it was like that)”. Yeah, that really spoke to me.”
Trust me, we are in a much better position, even to make mistakes, not that we shouldn’t be mindful of our lack of knowledge of all things Orthodox. Look, I don’t have to pull over to the side of the road to listen to God, but I do have to go to Church , and participate in the services that The Church is able to provide, and read the prayers of “righteous men [now] made perfect”. I don’t have to have a lofty vision to see heaven, I see it ( at least in part ) when I step into Liturgy. I don’t have to “speak with the tongues of angels” to experience the Holy Spirit, I just enter into the life that is The Church. I, unworthy that I am, partake of the cup(’oh terrifyiing mystery’). I confess, I weep, I pray, I stumble, I get back up, or rather am pulled back up, by those who are the body, not a book, though it be printed by St Kronstadt press, but perhaps by St John himself through his prayers, or through remembering the life he led, or maybe my good friend Benedict pulls me up and says ” that wasn’t very orthodox, but you know what… God Forgives.”
Christopher
‘How is it that a relatively small, underfunded, “fringe” group like Holy Apostles Convent can produce a two-volume new translation of the New Testament with copious endnotes which includes real citations from the Church Fathers and a pool of experts can’t?’
Where can this be found?
A very good post/discussion. As someone who has a podcast on AFR and who has been accused of “not being very Orthodox” because we laugh on the program, I wonder where people get the idea of “what IS very Orthodox”? Outside of the services (which are often “tainted” with the personality of the priest, readers, choir and congregation), and a limited exposure to ethnic parishes which have their own peculiarities of expressions, and the monastic communities, which often are populated by converts and are not a model for parish life, as converts we pretty much have to make something up according to our sensibilities that have been slightly informed by a limited and shortly lived experience with the Church. How long do we wait until we think we “got it” in order to begin expressing our faith in various modes? I don’t know. I began doing radio nine years ago, a year after my conversion. I put on the “humble monkabee voice” when broadcasting, but it was a sham, not “me”. Now I’m “me”, I broadcast like I talk in real life. I’m “more Orthodox” than I was, but now I’m viewed by some as being not very Orthodox because I don’t talk with a fake accent which SOUNDS more Orthodox to some people (just listen to converts trying on voices). I think the bottom line is something like God uses the foolish things to shame the wise and the scandalous to save the world. Maybe a publishing company or a podcast is low quality, rife with kitzch, and not very Orthodox, but if it is but one stepping stone to becoming very Orthodox, then let’s litter the path with them. God gives the increase no matter who or what does the sowing and watering anyway. I know I’m grateful for that.
To the individual who posted two comments on my blog, a.k.a. Mr. Wood:
Sir,
Even if your claims were/are true, this is not the forum in which to make them. Surely you are aware that, if your claims were/are true, the proper venue for promoting them is via legal representation and the courts and not by comments posted on an internet blog.
I cannot, of course, nor can any of my readers, avail ourselves of any means by which to determine the veracity of your claims–nor is it our responsibility to do so.
Since, then, from our vantage point, your comments are wholly unsubstantiated, and since this is not the venue in which to substantiate them, I have deleted your comments and will not allow you to post such things here again.
I regret that I did not catch them quickly enough and that they were viewed by some of my readers. I trust that my readers will remember the essential necessity of circumspection about things on the internet–including and especially my own blog.
Cliff,
With respect to form/substance, I do nothing of the sort. I am simply opening up the possibility that the appropriation of evangelical forms means the appropriation of evangelical substance. It—as I say later—raises a red flag that there is a real possibility there and that it should therefore be explored. This, of course, has to be conducted on a case-by-case basis; I am suspicious of broad generalizations even if I have been prone to make them myself in less circumspect moments.
As for form, there is the issue of whether or not evangelical forms are just plain bad. Call me a snot if you will, but the packaging of most mainline evangelical books, music, and video never fails to strike me as repulsive. Why would I or anyone want to see that imported into the Orthodox Church? Maybe you will say this is a question of my aesthetic taste or perhaps rooted in a deeper antipathy towards mass commercialized anything. And, perhaps, it is just my hang-up and therefore it is out of line for me to castigate on a wide scale the use of these forms when most of the population doesn’t share my nausea. Fine. On the other hand, I could still point to that bounty of Orthodox literature which doesn’t rely on evangelical forms and again pose the question about why other Orthodox publishers and media outlets don’t simply take their lead and avoid the problem of trying to make American-style schlock a vehicle for the Truth.
As for your point about analysis, it has nothing to do with an “Orthodox” analysis distinct from the analysis a reasonable human being might engage in before conceiving, beginning, and finishing any endeavor. If I am going to publish a Bible—a new translation of the Bible at that!—I might spend some time with other efforts in the English tongue (say, a 400+ year survey). Then, as I started to near what type of Bible I wanted to produce, what audience I wanted to produce it for, and then reflect on the practical realities of my situation (e.g., financial resources, expertise, time commitments, etc.), I would have to make some concrete decisions—perhaps even the decision to terminate the project entirely due to an absence of feasibility and/or the potential that what I produce won’t “cut the mustard.” I can’t say whether that type of analysis occurred n the part of the editors of the OSB or if it even occurs regularly within ongoing ventures like AFR or CP. I suspect that it doesn’t occur nearly enough in most endeavors for the simple fact that whether we’re talking about producing a book, writing a song, building a house, etc., there’s far more bad or, at least, sub-par than good (and far less of all than great). Your appendage of the word “Orthodox” to this—in fact, your frequent appendage of that word—is simply subterfuge. It’s meant to distract from the substance of criticisms and concerns offered by placing them under a blanket category which, presumably, encompasses people whose analytical angle is directed solely by the “Orthodoxy” of the subject at hand.
I strongly disagree that we’re not talking about the same missions, the same goals, etc. when we compare the publishing efforts of those sources to CP. Notice, first, that I didn’t mention St. Vladimir’s Press which clearly has different, more academic, goals in mind. But examining only the ones I mentioned, on what basis do you make your assertion? You killed your own point on the HAC NT, and again, my point isn’t that the HAC NT is a substitute for the OSB; it is that the OSB could have been more like the HAC NT and, perhaps, even better given the fact that its resource pool was much greater. Clearly, the HAC NT is not the “be all, end all”; it is one example of what can be done and has been done. That improvements could or should be made is not a controversial point; it’s certainly not one I am going to resist. What I can certainly ask is if the OSB actually did improve upon it and I am in the camp of, “No, it did not.” But it does have more pages and color icons…
I really do want to know what the different mission/market is between CP and HAC or SJKP or HTM, etc. HTM has very nice service books, but they also have quite a bit of general literature on Sains’ lives, icons, Church history, etc. Could it be that CP’s market is ex-evangelicals who need something “closer to home” because the “real deal” is just “too much”? (Please keep in mind I am exaggerating here, but I do wonder if your defense doesn’t play into the sort of criticisms which you have no tolerance for.)
Your standard for what a publishing company needs to put out isn’t my standard. This is particularly true since all of the presses I mentioned put out books distinctly different than what you mentioned, even if they do indeed have very nice volumes as well. I’d certainly prefer that cheaper, more monetarily accessible, versions of some of the books from, say, HTM existed. There’re a few volumes from SJKP I would say that about as well. ($30+ for the Spiritual Psalter of St. Ephraim is a really unfortunate price tag.) The mission is still the same and that is to give lay Orthodox Christians instruction in the Faith at all levels. Even if we could warp ourselves into a world where all of the presses used the same printing paper and nice, cheap, softcovers, we’re still back to wondering if what is between those affordable covers is the same. We’re still left with the question of whether or not some have done it better—far better—and why it is that others cannot follow suit. Yes, God gave people different gifts, but if you think that means I should be up leading the choir because I can “sort of” sight read music just as some people can “sort of” produce good content in their books and media, then be prepared for a headache come Sunday.
Andrew,
The book(s) in question is the Orthodox New Testament published by Holy Apostles Convent. You can find it on their website: http://www.holyapostlesconvent.com
The two-volume edition contains quite a few endnotes, icons, and some other explanatory material. There is also a single-volume version without the notes. Personally, I’d invest in the two-volume since their translation is a bit quirky (as Cliff mentioned) and I tend not to use it as a standard “reading Bible.”
s-p,
This is a repeat of what I said to Cliff, but I should make clear that “not very Orthodox” is one standard; “not very good” is something else. The latter can be applied to all sorts of things, such as french fries from McDonalds and the performance of the Detroit Tigers in the first three weeks of the baseball season. It can also–surprise, surprise–be applied to ventures claiming to be Orthodox or, at least, set to spread Orthodoxy. One need not ever appeal to “not very Orthodox” since “not very good” more than does the trick. With that said, I am all for applying “not very good” to a lot of things claiming to be Orthodox, regardless of the source. Lest I be accused of picking on CP/AFR/OSB, I can certainly offer a very long list of publications from St. Vladimir’s which are simply “not very good” even if they are, in the final analysis, fairly Orthodox (e.g., Fr. John Breck’s Scripture in Tradition). On the other hand, there are some very good books published which are “not very Orthodox” but still outstanding reads (e.g., David B. Hart’s The Beauty of the Infinite). I suppose you could take the two evaluations and say one is more general and one is more particular. I’d prefer to think that “not very good” simply has universal purchase and greater clarity than “not very Orthodox” which, truth be told, has to be clarified in detail on a case-by-case basis lest the more sensitive out there find grounds to decry one as an extremist.
Also, I would add, your questions have already been answered. Ventures have been undertaken to do what you discuss and some have been better than others. Cliff rightly pointed out that God gave people different talents and I believe he is right. Under no circumstances, however, does it follow that different talents which invariably lead to different outcomes ought to distract from the more fundamental question of whether a certain enterprise should be undertaken in the first place. It is a reality that not every zealous person is capable of spreading the Word of God, writing a book, or producing a podcast. Not very pious man should be a priest, either. I get the impression that some believe if the “spirit is right” (or the “heart” or whatever fine metaphor you want to use), all standards drop and we should cheer on their efforts, no matter how misguided or erroneous.
Hi Gabriel,
Again, good discussion. Thanks.
Actually, I think you and I are on the same page. I FULLY agree with your statement: “It is a reality that not every zealous person is capable of spreading the Word of God, writing a book, or producing a podcast. Not very pious man should be a priest, either.” (As a former artist/writer/minister) I am the first to judge something/someone on the basis of aesthetics, competence, erudition and “stage presence” for lack of a better word off the top of my tired head. Absolutely not should we cheer on incompetence, badly operationalized “good intentions” and zeal without knowledge. On the other hand, (I hate to keep using the OSB as an example, but…) when something sells far beyond ANYONE’S wildest dreams, and a bit of marketing research goes into the next iteration, it seems that CP made a decision based on the “sure thing”. After all they are a self funded, self sufficient publisher with no Archdiocesan support; ergo, they HAVE to sell books and a lot of them. The NT OSB was an Orthodox best seller, the formula that created that went into the OT OSB. We can criticize it all we want, but at the end of the day they knew they could sell a similar product to the same 250,000 people that bought the first one. So we could put partial blame on the market. That’s why people keep producing refrigerator magnet icons, keychains with the picture of your Bishop on them, and… well, you get the idea. I’m not sure how the HAC NT is selling, but it didn’t live up to my expectations. I wouldn’t recommend it to a newbie protestant inquirer simply because it doesn’t have notes for a ton of “hot button passages” that Protestants will turn to immediately to get an “Orthodox view”. So, like all things, I think many things are as you note, a targeted audience and if you don’t have a bullseye on your forehead, the product won’t hit you.
Wow.