I regret to say that I’ve wasted about ten minutes I’ll never get back skimming over a few posts of converts to Orthodoxy opining on what is and isn’t real Orthodoxy in the United States (most of them reacting to what are taken to be “Protestant” techniques and forms imported/infused into “real” Orthodox essences–or something like that). Forgive me, but there’s something that smells slightly of an upwardly-tilted proboscis, and maybe a little former-Prot self-loathing, in the phrases “dumbed-down,” “Ortho-lite,” “the Faith made easy,” and so forth.
Sigh.
Now, full disclosure here: the parish to which I belong, and perhaps certain of its clergy, will get tagged as “not fully Orthodox” because of this or that perceived tendency, association (to *that* magazine) or practice. We do happen to observe two feasts of All Saints each year, after all–though the “western” one is not served with a Divine Liturgy, so maybe we’re square on that, after all.
It’s the third day of the Fast, so perhaps this is why I find myself with so very little patience about these matters. And my first instinct is to remind the critics that if they’d spent the time with the Jesus Prayer that they’d spent in their criticism, they might themselves have come closer to the Orthodoxy of which they claim the objects of their criticism lack a certain measure.
Yes, the canons and a properly served Liturgy, and an apostolically ordained clergy, and so forth are important for the life of any parish. Yes, one ought be thoughtful about the forms one uses. And, heaven help us all, yes, yes, yes, we must do everything in our power to every day acquire that true philosophia that is the way of the Life of the Church, Christ himself.
But forgive me, it is not that complicated, and we need waste not a single instant on eyeballing what’s on someone else’s plate. It is really very simple. We pray morning, noon and evening. We fast with the Church. We do acts of mercy to all around us. We strive hard, some days in an unbearable struggle, to forgive all and every. And we constantly plead God’s mercy, for ourselves and for all around us. If every moment is one of simple, heart-over-head, outstretched hands of trust in Christ; if we can say with simple tears, Panagia’ mou, then we are far likely to be more Orthodox than those who read the footnotes in the Lenten Triodion. I do not of course myself live these things as I should, so this is as much a criticism of myself, and a reminder, as it is an expression of exasperation.
But of course, if we are *doing* these things, our minds will not often wander to the trough of comparison, unless only to compare ourselves with ourselves. We will hopefully embody the nobler heart in that parable of the two men who went up to the temple to pray, that parable with which we prepare for Great and Holy Lent.
One might forget about the rhetoric concerning Orthodoxy-lite, and questions regarding what is and is not some sort of “pure Orthodoxy.” Fair enough.
But the methods I have critiqued, and the subculture that promotes those methods, are given to ideology. It is an ideology that denigrates the human person. It is contrary to the Gospel. It is decadent. It is an expression of the spirit of our age. It is anti-beatitudinal.
One can say a thousand Jesus Prayers a day. But if that is merely an accessory to a typically American boutique expression of bohemian bourgeois religious sentiments, then the whole thing is no more than farce. There are certain quarters within American Orthodoxy that are given to this subtle form of heath&wealthism. The glossified, beautiful people of mass media Orthodoxy who present the American middle class lifestyle as a virtue only mock themselves when they begin to speak about asceticism. I’m sure those clergy golfing at their expensive resort meetings are full of a spirit of prayer. And that Deacon CEO of Thomas Nelson did us proud when his company sold the Orthodox Study Bible that isn’t to Orthodox parishes at a reduced rate, only to have Amazon selling it at a far more reduced price after money had been made on the dependable demographic. I say call the worshippers of Mammon what they are. I don’t want my children to grow up believing that such nonsense has anything to do with their faith. And for every quote that is recited to me from a desert father or contemporary elder that calls for rhetorical pacifism, I will read another page from Chrysostom.
The irony of the “more Orthodox than thou” retort is like that of those who become intolerant of those who are intolerant of the tolerance they demand. The person accusing some other Orthodox fellow of presenting a “more Orthodox than thou” posture is, by correcting him, especially when he offers spiritual admonition in the correction, also presenting a vision which he obviously feels is more Orthodox than the one being corrected. This falls into an epistemological anarchy if we allow it. There are now, as there have always been, different opinions concerning what exactly is the right expression of the Church’s belief and praxis. There is now, as there has always been, debate concerning these things. That tradition of debate within Orthodoxy is venerable. When we give up that debate, that vehicle of critique, we will have nothing left but the ideologically pure glossy saccharine smiley faces peering at us on the cover of *that* magazine.
Och (and Benedict, both of whom have young kids and who want to raise them in faith), 40 years ago I began railing at the suited, perfumed and bejeweled Christian health and wealth Amway and corporate crowds in my congregations and I’ve worked at some high dollar churches). Of course it was hippie-chic to do that back them. I had kids. I too didn’t want my kids to grow up thinking “capitalism=christian” and wealth=God’s favor. My kids are grown and what do they remember about my Christian life before them? The hundreds of Bible studies at our house? My rants about riches, money and economic systems etc.? My books? My podcasts? My blog? No. They talk about the time I gave a homeless guy 50 bucks in the parking lot of a restaurant and we ate cheap(er). The time I tipped an old lady who was a horrible waitress thirty bucks on a 50.00 tab because I told them no one 75 years old should have to work like that. The time I drove them around downtown Phoenix looking for a hooker I knew that was in trouble. The dozens of drunks and cons I hired, and etc. You don’t have to tell your kids anything about anyone else, just BE it. They’ll get it and they’ll be able to discern who is a worshipper of mammon without you having to point them out to them. And in a sense those who have eyes to see don’t need their sins pointed out to them either. It makes for righteous sounding rhetoric, but in the end I’ve yet to see it make much difference to anyone or in anyone to argue political, caste and economic systems and religions, especially Christianity in any form. I can respect debate, but where I’m at now, I’d have more respect for the Rich Young Ruler among us who follows through and doesn’t take it upon himself to call out all those who didn’t or haven’t yet. Of course YMMV. Why do I feel like this is a paraphrase of Cat Steven’s “Father and Son”? sheesh, I AM old.
I’m grateful for Och’s identification of this particular spiritual danger. A description of a particular species of error is useful, so we recognize it, avoid it, and reflect together on whether it has fooled us. If my neighbor is a glutton, I’m well advised to keep my eyes on my own plate. But if my parish considers overeating a Christian virtue, it might be time to discuss St. John Climacus together.
I’ve been Orthodox among formerly-unchurched urban converts in the NW, and now among urban ethnic “cradles” in the NE, so the ideological demons of midwestern Evangelicalism are essentially foreign to me. My parish doesn’t exist in a world of Christian radio, Wednesday night fellowships, etc. — it isn’t there for us to co-opt, or to co-opt us. In a flatly non-Christian environment of tribalism/paganism/consumerism, there has to be a way of boldly proclaiming the Gospel to the city as Paul did, without packaging Christ into a product. Right?
Och:
What we need to do is to discuss this hear-to-heart in person over beers, in the blessed communion of the Holy Spirit, not dianoia-to-dianoia in absentia over the internet. Because the issues and dangers you properly highlight are not primarily dangers of the intellect and if we get those “caught” by such ideologies soundly oriented in their dianoiai all will be well. No, not by a stretch.
Rather the issues you highlight are primarily spiritual, and therefore must primarily be dealt with in the heart by the weapons of the heart.
You see, if I may be more bold than is warranted by my spiritual character (so called), when you post your criticisms of other Orthodox on the internet, you necessarily yourself succumb to a particular ideology with which the internet is rife, the spirits of the air. The internet is a uniquely passionate environment ruled by forces inimical to the pure heart. And it is an inherently deceptive atmosphere.
You see, your criticisms may be true–as an aside, I think you make a logically unwarranted question-begging leap from ideology of form to illegitimacy of practice, but that’s for dianoia not kardia–and your own intentions may be pure, but, even the devil used Scripture to tempt Christ. In my workplace managerial philosophy materials, this is the intent vs. impact phenomenon. God certainly intended his Scriptures for Life, but Satan guilefully used them to impact Christ for death. I offer this only as a thought question not as an actual criticism: are your criticisms of other Orthodox being useful to humanity’s common enemy?
Now, having begun with heart, and recognizing the knife wielded cuts the hand wielding it: Your criticisms of the problematics of Orthodox utilizing particular methods and techniques may be true. I happen to agree with quite a bit of your analysis. But your analysis is only true in the genus and it is not necessarily true in the species. That is to say, I believe you are engaging in the fallacy of division.
Finally, and since I’ve already engaged in wildly inappropriate comments relative to my spiritual maturity, let me further add to my list for the confessional by simply suggesting that for us converts who have not the generations of Orthodox living behind us to shape, mold, form and support us, to opine on what is and isn’t genuine Orthodoxy is just plainly simple pride and ought be repented. We who have not been lifelong Orthodox just need to shut up and get about the business of being Orthodox and let the Spirit guide and protect all of us newbies in the faith from ourselves and the dangers of the religious landscape around us.
And now brother, if only we were sitting face to face over pints, because I would shake your hand, prostrate myself to the image of Christ in you, ask your forgiveness and then suggest we pray the Our Father together.
The Lord bless you and yours.
MichaelR:
In a word, yes. But one must very carefully define what one means by “packaging a product.” Speaking of Christ in a certain intentional way to be as effectively heard as one may be is not necessarily the same thing as “packing a product.” There may be some overlap, but there is not necessarily identity.
This is, if I may, the problem I identify with certain convert Orthodox criticisms of other convert Orthodox: they do not carefully enough investigate and/or articulate that the ideological form that they critique is identical to the essence of the purported ideological practice they condemn.
“Speaking of Christ in a certain intentional way to be as effectively heard as one may be is not necessarily the same thing as “packing a product.” There may be some overlap, but there is not necessarily identity.”
This is what I was getting at also, if I wasn’t clear. There must be a gap between them!
I do accept that some forms inherently carry with them certain dangers. Any kind of personal conversion story, e.g. will invite or assume the errors Och has identified if we aren’t very careful. In a 2-minute version, the form may well be worthless.
But it can’t be that as Orthodox we must only speak when spoken to, or that we can’t speak so as to invite further conversation. There will always be a spiritual danger in this, but last I checked that was true of all kinds of things we’re called to do.
I’d definitely love a face to face over beers too (or a nice Scotch). And maybe even a pipe. That would be way cool.
Benedict Seraphim,
Thank you for your comment. Forgive the length of what follows.
I struggle to find a manner of conversation to be had here, given our differences.
“The internet is a uniquely passionate environment ruled by forces inimical to the pure heart.”
I find that the line of thought that you follow seems self-defeating. This post was a critique of my critique. The manner of criticism you offer in the post and in the comment thread would seem to apply as much to your own criticism of my thought as it does to my criticism of others. Thus an apparent epistemological anarchy that would follow if we played out the hand.
For reasons that MichaelR suggests, I disagree with the notion that there is no place for a public discussion of these issues. I do live my life in a manner consistent with the tone of my criticisms, partly due to matters of blood, my momma grew up a peasant and my father a communist turned Haurwasian Baptist. My children are growing up in an American Orthodox Church that is being more and more influenced by bourgeois values and subtle heath&wealthism. I note that this issue is largely not spoken of in Orthodox circles, and I believe that it is the elephant in the room. We are a boutique religion in this country, and we are becoming increasingly upscale. I think it perfectly appropriate to state as much in a public forum.
“Workplace managerial philosophy materials.” Oh, boy. Please tell me that you are not a disciple of Peter Drucker. I consider his influence upon Christianity to be antichrist.
“The knife wielded cuts the hand wielding it” – this line of thought has been mentioned to me by several. What I do not understand is this: the people I criticize are folks who regularly criticize others and other forms of thought, and what they take to be ideology. Why do my detractors concern themselves with my knife but not these other knives? The cynic in me wonders if it is not because these other knives are used to support pop/glam American Orthodoxy, while mine is not.
I have not directed my criticisms in a manner that concentrates upon notions of what is genuine Orthodoxy. I have used the phrase Byzantine Rite Evangelicalism, but I have also made clear that I consider such folks Orthodox. Their priests are priest, there Divine Services Divine, until proper Orthodox authorities deem them not, and I do not expect that to happen. That is not the question for me. In my writing I generally walk a tight rope. I am sometimes critical of traditionalist Orthodoxy, sometimes critical of modernist Orthodoxy, sometimes I defend both. I have written of the good and the bad in convertdom, in ethnic social club Orthodoxy, and all manner of variance found in between. One thing that I find interesting is this: of the folks who have commented on my blog or sent me emails in support of the thesis I have put forth, there is a wide variety of Orthodox background – cradles, converts, hard core traditionalists, folks who go to Fr. Michael Plekon’s church, folks who attend services at an Ephraimite monastery, ardent defenders of SCOBA, ardent attackers of SCOBA, Antiochian priests, and a priest who is a member of a very small “True Orthodox Church of…” This diversity of Orthodox who agree with me leads me to believe that my posture in the posts in question was not one that associates with any particular ideological camp within Orthodoxy. If I had been adamant about what true Orthodoxy is then this cacophonous variety of Orthodox would not have supported my positions. Further, when I have travelled overseas, and when I have had discussions with recent Orthodox immigrants to the United States, this issue has become a topic of conversation. Even those immigrants who are wealthy are often uncomfortable with the bourgeois packaging and posture increasingly found in American Orthodoxy. Much of what I write about concerning this tendency in the American Orthodox Church is considered a given by Orthodox outside of North America. That does not mean that I am correct, of course.
I do agree with you concerning three things:
The internet is necessarily ideological as a media form. I quoted Marshall McKuen on a thread the other day, “the media is the message,” and I wondered why no one asked me how my blog avoids the message inherent in the media. That is a rather damning question. There is always an element of ideology with a blog, my only caveat would be that this element is present in all blog media, whether critical or passionate or not so. There is also, in blogging, an inherent level of facetiousness that is rather unavoidable. I consider about 10% of any post I write to be facetious, or at least that is the goal. The rhetorical form demands this, and I am a willing observer of the form. Ancient Greek literature was famous for its overstatement. So are blogs. One can learn to appreciate that.
I would say that my analysis is true in the genus and it is not necessarily true in the species. This mitigates culpability in the species. The same should be said, by the way, in contemporary Evangelicalism. One can find a legion of folks in trailer parks and ghettos who listen to pop CCM sung by rich white girls in tight jeans. They spend what gratuitous income they have on trinkets at the local Christian bookstore. They eat up mass Christian media. And they encourage others to do this. This ideological ephemera is, for them, integral to their faith. I see these folks as a species within the genus that is much, much less culpable than the exec at Word Music, or Bethany House Publishers (I mention BHP because I went to the Bible College they used to fund and I knew the execs back then), or the Amy Grant making millions off of them. I am well aware that many folks in Orthodoxy who love AFR and Again Magazine and buy that book about how great +PHILIP is because it is shiny and has nice pictures have virtually no culpability for the growing subculture I describe. This does not mean that there are not folks who are decidedly culpable for it.
Lastly, I very much agree that these matters are best discussed with beer. I began to blog in part to keep up discussions with some friends who moved all over the country. Thus a poverty of beer discussion opportunities. I might only add the warning that in person I don’t hold back my opinions as much as I do online. I cuss a bit more. And, or, so I am told, I am sometimes funny.
Best regards to you and yours.
On this issue, I understand what Clifton is trying to say but I think Och has the stronger argument. His critique is a much needed voice in American Orthodoxy as I think his analysis of Orthodoxy as a “boutique religion” (like his ideas in the “uberfrommity series”) is penetrating and insightful.
I’ve used the phrase “Strategic Retreat” for some time now in various conversations and much of what I mean by that phrase is fleshed out by Och in his various posts on this (and related) issues. We must be in the Church, but not of it. Orthodox life is, as Clifton rightly pointed out, fundamentally a matter of the heart. But the typical Orthodox parish only speaks to the head and the stomach (e.g. arguments for “The Ancient Faith” as a product to sell; sermons on the virtues of a simple existence while squeezing the faithful for a million dollar building; pretty words about repentance while abusing spiritual authority; retreats on the glories of Orthodox asceticism followed by expensive lunches & large plates of baklava).
Living an Orthodox life is more often that not simply incompatible with a post-industrial, corporate, and mass-market approach, especially as it relates to “parish life.” You simply can’t be Orthodox in a crowd and a crowd is what most parishes are and what they are built to service. We would do well to, as Seraphim Rose urged, flee parish councils and that whole corporate way of fleshing out parish life in exchange for organically building a vision that is not dominated by bourgeois ideas of “the good life.”
I second s-p’s idea of pipes and beer and deep conversation. You and yours are all invited to my house anytime!
Och and Karl, I had to chuckle, I ALMOST mentioned McLuhan but thought it would be too esoteric for this age group. LOL!
I can appreciate the universality of Och’s audience and its ratification of the validity of his concerns because they are legitimate concerns and not just “Orthodox concerns”. Being a product of the 60’s I have them too, but they extend beyond “American baptodoxy”. When I go to St. Anthonys and see 7 Churches that cost millions, some used rarely or once a year on a feast day, and the “back 40″ of infrastructure that is millions more in order to put on the air of asceticism to pilgrims, I have to admit sometimes I wonder where the gospel is and is this just another McLuhan example qua Orthodoxy: what IS really being sold to the American Orthodox by the Athonite experience? Is it just an orthodox SCA festival site and a validation of protestant apocalypticism wrapped in black? (And I know Och has written about such things too.) In the dark recesses of my heart no expression of human endeavor in the name of God is too sacred for me to not view with a jaundiced eye. So, yeah, I’m still very much a cynic and it is an ascetical feat for me to not unleash my ascerbic critique of human nature on the blogosphere. Sigh…that’s my confession.
All I can offer to the conversation is this; tomorrow I will pick up a young bulgarian, who was adopted to the U.S., I am not sure how many years it has been since He has set foot inside an Orthodox Church. But, here, I am afforded this opportunity to bring him to our humble mission. A mission entirely of converts (since our dear serb left to another city). I suppose most of us are products of “Orthodox-lite”. Yet, we try to chant, as best we can. We read the prescribed readings and scripture. We offer up, what we have, it may not be much, but it is a piece of this great Church
Since converting, not so long ago, I have come across all sorts of “Orthodox” blogs. They are all, merely blogs written by those who cling to the Orthodox Church. Perhaps I am naive, but none of what I say or do, or blog adds anything to the real narrative. It has been played out; in lion’s dens and coliseums, in caves and monestaries. In the desert and in the city, in gulags and counsels. and it will continue… for the gates of hades will not prevail.
And so I will go and pick this stranger up, and I will bring him back home.
Steve,
Forgive me. I have a personal love for that monastery(as you know).
I thought I should say a few words.
If your mission church was to receive a let’s say, a 3 million dollar donation just for the sake of beautifying it and expanding it to the glory of God, would that invalidate the present love and spirit present there now? If you had censors there, for instance, that were used once a year at times such as Pascha, would that invalidate the necessity for that censor? If you were given vestments that were used during particular times in the liturgical year and these vestments cost alot, is this an extravagance in your mind?
What about service books that are used rarely if at all?
I think it may be perhaps be nothing more than a question of scale. If the monastery receives such donations to have it as it is, simply because someone wants to aid its beautification, are we perhaps not liable to receive the rebuke in the word the Lord said in the parable of the workers when He said that “Why is your eye evil? Am I not free to do with my things that what I wish?”
I think Och’s concerns lie elsewhere in his criticisms.
As for the “Athonite experience in America”, I don’t wish to comment as it seems that perhaps you feel something about that that you didn’t completely divulge in your statement, maybe along the lines of the political intrigue of the Greeks via the EP, but again I’m speculating so perhaps you can specify. Are you against Athos itself or do you feel it has no place here in the US?
And out of curiosity, are you saying there is no genuine asceticism there or are you saying that a deliberate show is being put on to deceive the visitors? Or both?
My last stay there I had the opportunity to spend alot of time with one of the monks during work in the olive fields. I learned alot about some of the reasons for the monastery which I think would help clear up some of your misgivings. But then again, this is your personal struggle. Lord knows I have my own which might strike others in a particular way to offend them too.
I want to say more but have to get ready for meeting with some friends.
In Christ,
Sophocles
Sophocles (and all),
I should have been a bit more explicit and careful in my last comment. Let me say, I love the monasteries, I have no agenda or problem with them based on any “hot button” issue surrounding them (with the EP or anyone else). I’ve spent more time at different monasteries than almost any layman I know and in contexts that let me into areas and relationships that most pilgrims don’t get to go into either (not a brag, I consider it a blessing and a privilege). I work at St. Anthony’s a lot and know several of the monks very well. I love it there. And yes, what Sophocles said is true, people dump a LOT of money there and it is no different than someone at our Mission donating 500.00 for a nice icon for our new Church, it is just a matter of scale and how much “beauty” someone can afford. And no, the recipient is not responsible for the motivation of the donor (though I have some thoughts about that). The point I was making badly is that any spiritual endeavor, even one a “pure” as monasticism is supposed to be, they have to have donations to exist, at some level they are beholden to “marketing” themselves, the monasteries have an element of “show” to them for the benefit of impressing outsiders because that is where donations come from (the monks themselves will tell you this…that is why there are secret monasteries where no pilgrims are allowed to visit), and part of the purpose for St. Anthony’s is to attract and “show” Orthodox monasticism to non-Orthodox. If we totally removed marketing and mammon from the monasteries, take away the bookstores with the cheap icons and keychains and mass produced crosses and prayer ropes and baskets of trinkets that are sold for a 1,000% mark up etc. The facetious reference to “SCA Orthodoxy” is a paraphrase of “kosmoki incense sniffers” -what monks call worldly Orthodox people who visit monasteries, and there is an attraction to the apocalyptically minded people, especially ex-protestants who were into end time scenarios (of which I am not). So, the point was (is), we all come from somewhere with a mindset and culture that can (and does) make us cynical toward certain things. EVERYONE’S sacred cows can be slaughtered by someone depending on where they are coming from. Och may have valid points about AFR, baptodoxy, the what he perceives as the ugly kids spawned from the marriage of old world Orthodoxy with American protestant culture, etc. but if one is inclined to a cynical view of how the Church is engaging America and its relationship to money, even Elder Ephraim’s monasteries are not exempt from such a cynical scrutiny. So, no slam on the monasteries or the monks or elders. It is WE who need to examine ourselves first to see if it is our jaundiced eyes that are not seeing clearly, and even if we are, then discern how do we speak to what we see.
And yes, because of my formation in the culture of the 60’s I have a cynical and jaundiced view of institutional religion and a knee jerk reaction to anything that looks like marketing, posing, facades, fronts, profiteering, salesmanship and merchandising in any Church, including Orthodoxy, and I’ve been trying to get over it for the last 20 years.
s-p,
Rrrr, uhm, well….
I cannot see how your comment does not lead to antinomianism and epistemological anarchy. Everyone has their sacred cows. These need to be eradicated or mitigated through some sort of evaluation which results in each of us letting go of any criticisms we have. My criticisms of Baptidoxy are necessarily equivalent to Baptidoxy’s criticisms of ethnic club Orthodoxy or traditionalist’s criticisms of SCOBAdoxy and everybody’s criticisms of whomever they criticize. All criticism is the same. In the end, if we subscribe to this view, no one ever has a valid criticism of anything.
Your 60’s background is one I have some second-hand knowledge of via my father. Like most intellectuals who left formal Marxism, my father is extremely leery of all ideologies today, and on the constant lookout for ideology. I grew up in an intellectual world that was all about the critique of critique and the supposed dismantling of ideology or a futile play between ideologies. This carries its own intellectual baggage, sure. I admit as much.
That said, in part because I am a Christian, I cannot subscribe to the notion that there is not a discernable right and a discernable wrong. Or that ideology cannot be critiqued in a manner that is fair, or at least approaches fairness, and is accurate.
+Philip has done many things that are unequivocally wrong, and completely ridiculous in the context of the Church hierarchy. Priests golfing at expensive resorts during Church conferences before eating $100 a plate dinners is unequivocally wrong. The OSB selling itself as a translation of the Septuagint when it is not is unequivocally wrong. Clark Carlton’s nonsense about Byzantium being proto-capitalist is unequivocally wrong. Christians who drive luxury cars to Liturgy, subscribe to Orthodox magazines that present images of the good Orthodox life as materially glossy/pretty and financially successful, eat expensive Boca meals during every fasting meal, and then wax on about the importance of asceticism and their gratitude for the Orthodox teaching on the process of theosis is, unequivocally, absurd.
That a monastery markets itself in order to receive donations is one thing. One might ask the model of marketing used. One might question and even discern the intellectual pedigree of the method of marketing used. That is the sort of question at hand here.
One falls into the realm of behavioralist psychologies when, upon encountering a critique of the heath&wealthism embraced by a certain sector of American Orthodoxy, one responds with comments that suggest a necessary relationship between a “jaundiced view of institutional religion and a knee jerk reaction to anything that looks like marketing, posing, facades, fronts, profiteering, salesmanship and merchandising in any Church” and the content of the criticism itself, as if the content of the criticism is somehow only validated or invalidated, or has truth or falsehood, only in relation to the motivation behind it.
For the record, I am not against anything that looks like marketing, posing, facades, fronts, profiteering, salesmanship and merchandising in any Church. I am opposed to specific forms of these things, especially when I have knowledge of their pedigree and the ideological structure behind them.
Yes, I come from a long line of Welsh noncomformists and have a former communist for a father. I know people of similar backgrounds who entirely disagree with me on this issue. My criticism of that which I have critiqued follows my readings on health&wealthisms, the market, the Church, faith, and society in such authors as Ivan Illich, Fr. Alexander Schmemann, Neil Postman, Neal Gabler, Bl. Seraphim Rose, Marshall McKuen, Wendell Berry, C.S. Lewis, Philip Sherrard, Fr. Andrew Louth, a number of Orthodox priests I know, and others. Either their insights on these matters are correct, or they are incorrect. Either my appropriation of their insights is correct, or it is not correct, or it is partly correct and partly incorrect.
Many persons now held as important figures in American Orthodoxy, including both Schmemann and Bl. Seraphim, were, loosely speaking in regard to this term, cynical of some of the very sorts of things I criticize here. If we were to eliminate all criticism of all forms of American Orthodoxy, what would the result be?
Again, I don’t expect to “win” here, I fully expect to “lose.” Fine.
A friend of mine just got back from a long trip. During that trip he stopped in a B&N bookstore in MO. In the Bible section he noticed an OSB between the Newlywed’s Devotional NIV and the 5-Minute a day devotional Bible. Some folks are going to find that OSB and become Orthodox. Heck, they might even some day become Orthodox who recognize that the OSB is not an Orthodox Bible (not really the Septuagint, etc.). Praise God if they convert. But that OSB Bible in that location sold in that manner with that glossy cover and that Evangelical utilitarianspeak found in the notes will have its consequences. Those consequences are things that can be objectively described and discerned. Indeed, if we focus on the precise issue of the OSB, the potential consequences have been discerned and described by Orthodox from many jurisdictions and postures. The issue at hand is not simply a matter of my personal issues.
If you had to take the posture that you do to survive in the Church, then so be it; I think I can understand that.
I will raise my children to follow St. John Chrysostom’s command that we “laugh to scorn” those priests who wear expensive clothing. As far as I am able to understand it, that is the Gospel, and not some notion that we all need to get along because we all have these issues we drag in with us.
We have much the same issue in the Roman church, though its definitely of a different…well, I don’t know the word I want to use for it. I’ll let you all define.
Hi Och, I’m in awe of the nuances you draw out of the comments (seriously, no facetiousness). I’m definitely not one to say there is no objectivity to the gospel, truth or just plain stupidity in the name of God. I’m not saying we could all sing kumbayah (or at least text message it all around) if we just recognized we all have baggage. Nor am I saying that just because I have the knee jerk reactions I have means that the content of what I am reacting to is necessarily good (or bad). My intellectual/psychological (or spiritual) reaction to or opinion of reality does not change reality. (I think) my point was not epistemological anarchy but a caution in painting what we think we observe with too broad a brush. One fr’instance is I know priests who despised having to sit at the 100.00 a plate dinners (and other such extravagances) and who hate sitting at the “head table” but do it in order to keep serving their parishes. If I ran the world all priests would be poor and there would be no banquets for any of them to sit at a head table at. Which is probably why I don’t run the world.
My concern is that what is wrong with ideologies is often defined as what is wrong with individuals whose motives and constraints and yes, baggage we cannot really know. (And I might add just in case, just because things aren’t what they seem to be doesn’t mean ALL things are not what they seem to be…again, no relativistic epistemology here). That said, if an individual says or does something categorically wrong, sure, it can be called out. How, when and in what manner is a pastoral call. So I guess what I’m saying is lets be sure when we read stuff like this that categories don’t define all “persons” or even events without a healthy dose of pastoral compassion and benefit of a doubt that perhaps they too are somewhere along the path of the great struggle we are engaged in to discern where our faith and culture and baggage all intersect.
s-p,
In response to this last series of posts, more than one priest in a certain jurisdiction has emailed me to say that they hate going to the ecclesial meetings I describe for the very reasons you suggest, and they have thanked me for my posts or at least stated an agreement with them. Some of the accounts I have read have been heartbreaking. I certainly in no manner mean to condemn them in any respect. But I am fairly certain that these priests do not seek the head of the table, and, being something of an observer of human nature, I bet I could pick them out of a line-up of golf-loving yuppies used to fine dining.
Categories such as those I suggest do not define all persons. They do define discernable social movements that many recognize. And some persons are all but completely given to certain social movements.
As for pastoral compassion for the rich who would flaunt their wealth and defend that flaunting, I believe we should show the same compassion for such persons that Christ and the fathers show, which is to say, not all that much. They have their reward. Laugh them to scorn, as Chrysostom admonishes.
Och, Finally, a kumbayah moment. LOL! Seriously, yes, there are those who “wish to get rich”, who are trapped in wealth and honor, and indeed embrace the spirit of the age who need admonition, rebuke and reproof. Others do not realize they are trapped and need teaching. I guess I’m just a little more careful about who I laugh to scorn than I used to be lest I extinguish the dimly burning wick or mock someone’s inmost struggle unknowingly. Thanks for all the good discussion.
If I ran the world all priests would be poor and there would be no banquets for any of them to sit at a head table at.
I had the idea yesterday of the proper place of church banquets and coffee hours. It’s along the lines of St. John Chrysostom’s comments regarding marriage feasts: invite the poor.
I would very much like to see coffee hour and church banquets as much about serving those that are hunger as they are currently about parishioners giving a little respite to parishioners (as if Liturgy is really all that hard that one needs a break afterwards – for clergy and perhaps the choir and servers, this may be the case, depending). Why don’t we invite the poor, or at least the working poor, for a little coffee and a couple of bagels, for a little time where they can just talk with people and not think about their want?
In fact, I have heard many a fat bishop complain that parish banquets have made him so. Perhaps turning bishop’s banquets into bishop’s opportunity to serve the poor will be a way to help these bishops drop a few feasting pounds and do the kind of evangelism mentioned above – $50 to a homeless guy over a podcast. Perhaps this will also reinforce to the bishops that such is the work they really should be doing, and that if it is especially tiring for them, then perhaps they should consider creating smaller dioceses led by more bishops than look more like pastors than upper management over pastors. Besides, it seems as if bishops suffer from the fawning service they receive and come to expect as an inalienable part of the episcopacy, which leads to demanding more service, etc. Perhaps some good old fashioned waitering would help to balance out the weight of responsibility over people.
I think this would be a good idea for priests and laity, too, for parishes. Invite the poor to coffee hour, not Liturgy. Invite them to feasts. Invite the pregnancy crisis center, invite the food pantry folks, invite those waiting in line for unemployment and welfare, WIC recipients. Poor doesn’t mean you have to invite the crazy homeless guy drinking his own urine and spouting something about aliens. I think such would do far more in evangelism, I think such would answer on its own the glossy Orthodoxy concerns Och has, I think such will never happen because churches are run like mutual benefit clubs rather than as in trust from God for His purposes.