You would probably like Paul Kingsnorth, I think his recent First Things lecture questioning the glory of "western civilization" would resonate with you, as it did with me. (Among other things, he is an Orthodox convert with a deep love of the earth and environmental issues, and helped me see the value in this after a lifetime of parroting the Western industrialist corporate line.)
There is in some converts certainly a type of "culture war" mindset - in the sense that "we have to fight to change the culture/make American Christian again!/establish an Orthodox state!" or whatever. This is in many ways the same thing as in early 2000s Bush-era Evangelical politics led by Jerry Falwell, just in a fresh set of clothes.
I think that you are right that many of the reactionary young men converting right now tend to come into Orthodoxy with a fundamentally similar fundamentalism, so to speak, just with some knobs tweaked to different settings - for instance, the common talk about having a monarchy, which ranges from meme culture to serious suggestion, in place of enthusiasm for American imperialism. I can't say I'm not entirely sympathetic toward such ideas, but it seems (as you'd find in Kingsnorth's writings) that this fundamentalist approach is putting the cart before the horse. When the Roman Empire became Christian, this wasn't the fruit of centuries of political activism, and especially not revolutionary activity, but a miraculous event in the conversion of the emperor, as Christians lived their faith and endured centuries of persecution and were ready when God did the work - much like how Ananias was ready when God sent him to Saul.
On the other hand, the "culture war" is quite real in the sense of Western culture assaulting traditional Christian values and ethics, and this is what Fr. Josiah Trenham is engaged in. It seems unavoidable that we have to wrestle with it to some degree, since the "culture" is always coming for us and few are in any position to avoid the various negative currents flowing in it. I'm not all that familiar with Dreher, having read little of his work, but I suspect his vitriol (which very well may be inappropriate or lacking nuance), is being directed toward those who use things like transgender ideology, homosexuality, and so on as a cultural weapon, indicated by his hostility toward educators imposing these ideas in classrooms. This seems quite distinct from showing hatred toward ordinary people who may identify with these things (and, as I would argue, suffer from them) but aren't trying to impose them on everybody else, and are much more like victims of it. You can hate the tobacco companies, pornographers, and so on, while being sympathetic toward those addicted to their products, so to speak, and it's much the same with the sexual ideologies that are often manufactured through entertainment, social media, and public education. Again, perhaps Dreher articulates this poorly or fails to nuance it or shows unrighteous judgment of others, but I suspect this is what he is attempting to convey, however clumsily.
About five years from my first visit to an Orthodox parish, I went from being all gung-ho reactionary to having most of my views tempered, political issues not seeming very important anymore or occupying much of my consciousness. This has been a common theme with a lot of us - we went from being aggressive consumers of Jay Dyer, etc. content to largely outgrowing it and the reactionary culture. But that can take time. I think many of the new converts are still in this early phase, and it's just going to take a bit more experience and life in the Church for them to grow out of it. In the meantime, we can nudge them in the right direction, and show patience. Let your life be an example, and show love and friendship toward people at your parish even if you don't see eye to eye on political issues. If Mvh Glorious Western Civilization is the real motivator, they're drop out when they realize, through experience, that Orthodoxy is about transformation of the heart, not a tool for pursuing a socio-political agenda, and there are far easier and more comfortable ways for them to do that.
I attend a large ROCOR parish in the South with many "orthobro" types, but I know at least one young convert who describes himself as an unabashed Marxist. There all manner of perspectives on various hot-button cultural issues, and a shockingly diverse congregation including many black people, and ladies converting as well. We were the only parish in the area that didn't close during Covid (one of the reasons I visited the parish in the first place), but neither was anybody shamed for being cautious about the situation. The head priest has always encouraged us to forsake political squabbling and pursue repentance and focus on Christ, and trust in Him rather than any fickle politician, leader, or ideologue. His approach has always seemed quite authentically Orthodox and Christian, and always helps me get back to what really matters.
The AAE you describe is a real thing, even if I'd dispute the boundaries of it somewhat, but I don't think it's "infiltrating" the Church. It's just a present trend that will cool off as converts grow spiritually, or don't grow spiritually and leave. If Islam, Communism, paganism, and other such powerful forces failed to destroy the Church, I don't think some over-enthusiastic converts in need of growing up will either, and I don't think some popular but invective figures necessarily speak for the Church, and certainly aren't steering anything other than popular-level online discourse.
I am praying that the Lord blesses you with a fruitful and edifying Lent, and grants you good relations with those at your parish.
I would just say three things—1. yes evangelicals/ conservative Protestantism has leaked into Orthodoxy. 2. They are often too much the face of Orthodoxy for much of this generation. Three they are not Orthodoxy. I’ve always said if you want to make the church better then it’s our job to do it. Arguments get nowhere. I too grew up conservative evangelical reformed. It was terrible. I too cringe at what some at my church say. But I always have learned the liberal mentality is just as dangerous and found a wonderful spiritual father at a monastery. The major problem here isn’t Orthodoxy, it is American Orthodoxy. We bring all our own bs in. But I have seen people grow much. And also personally I couldn’t send my kids to public school. Thankfully we have been given generous funding to send them to a school that does classical education but at some point we might homeschool. The world is both better and worse than either side of America thinks.
I think many of us feel like sojourners through our Christian communities. I still wander the evangelical track, and like you, keep many of my thoughts to myself (except in my anonymous writing here). I'm not sure what to do about it, aside from pray.
…”Helen tells me that she and James are hoping to make The Moorings into something more formal — something that struck me as exactly the kind of thing I envisioned when I wrote The Benedict Option. As you readers well know, I do not call for total withdrawal from the world, but rather for the forming of various kinds of Christian communities within which we can deepen our faith, via study, spiritual discipline, and fellowship, so that when we go out into the world, we can think and act as authentic small-o orthodox Christians.”
Well, the nuance here is appreciated. I also appreciate your highlighting of the civilizational and hyper-institutional bent which Orthodoxy on American soil is contending with, for it is a reality. Thank you.
Amen. I have been pondering this article much, Pierce. I saw something recently, which had a similar disruptive and enlightening impact as your article, amidst these reactionary, pendulum-like responses to culture. ARC later shared this video community-announcement format, commenting that it was the singular presentation they would have a viewer attend to, if he or she viewed any of the published speeches at all. Rightfully so.
The entirety of Joshua Luke Smith's 9 minutes is just a hailstorm of soulful linguistics and full-bodied craftsmanship. It is a vibrant clarion call to be the "Seeds". To be a part of the growth of gardens, rather than building and imposing into oblivion. I also personally felt his offering was a highlight of the all recordings published, thus far. It is beyond pertinent to the story of Orthodoxy on this soil.
Please attend if you will. Blessings, for lending your eyes.
Wherever there are human beings, we will find imperfection. So too in the Orthodox faith. I hear your struggles and frustrations and share them with you. I keep my faith by focusing on our rich theology. I keep my faith by embracing its Truth. The Church is a hospital, so we enter its doors with others who need healed in one way or another. Do not lose your faith. Do not let the devil take that from you. Thank you for your writings and insight. I look forward to reading more and following your unique journey as a faithful servant of Christ.
You're latching onto a single imprecise sentence. Funny how you don't seem to care about the other, more important, gross statements of his I am referring to.
I probably have not been fully charitable to Dreher in that sentence. I do not think he literally says to go withdraw to the country and form insular, closed off communities. But the way his political and cultural commentary works will essentially produce that kind of insular culture. He is a vitriolic man who deepens the divide between Christians and the broader culture. He has very little power in engaging people who do not already buy into his way of seeing the world. He drives people away. And so, pairing that with creating a counter culture that takes Christians and forms communities and institutions that are inherently Christian, WILL result in weird homeschooling communities that I grew up in.
No. I am not doing or thinking of what you are stating. I have read the book(s), read his newsletters, seen the YouTube videos, and spoken to the man. I am correct.
Precision writing is writing worth reading. It’s sad that you attack the man (vitriolic … deepens the divide … very little power in engaging people … drives people away); your assaults are reflective on you, not him.
I provide links to multiple articles in this post where Rod Dreher calls trans people horrible names and focuses on crude sexual deviancy as if it represents entire groups of people.
The point is, that I do not want his way of thinking to become associated with and dogmatic within Orthodoxy. That is a precise claim and I have given you multiple sources. I don't care what his intentions are, and I do not know the man personally. But his public persona and writing reinforces a very negative and harmful view of certain groups of people. His behavior over the last few years that is public also calls his integrity into question. WORSE, he is primarily reactionary, and does not advocate, in his public work that most people read at least, for love. He sees what is happening in culture as a corrupting force we must fight, rather than as a disorder to be lovingly healed. He lumps all the ideologies he doesn't like into one big category, "progressive." He has multiple times discussed "sissy porn" as some sort of progressive force turning our sons into gay trans women, and not just as another stupid fetish. He thinks these things are real demonic forces attacking us, and we must run from them or be prepared to defend ourselves. He does not see our current state and confusions in need of healing, but divine judgement. READ THE ARTICLES I LINK TO. He is an expert at stirring up anger and reactionary tendencies in people by pretending that certain issues are bigger than they are. He makes parents scared of the outside world. THE PROGRESSIVES ARE COMING TO TURN YOUR KIDS TRANS! This can be used by dangerous people to do dangerous things, and it already has been. Conveniently, he doesn't seem to advocate against corporate greed and power, which is actually a major problem...
He's being given so much attention, and has influenced countless Orthodox families to change their lives, which I can personally attest to. You, as a priest, will be responsible to Christ for the culture you create within your parish, the figures you choose to promote, the overall mindset you instill into your people, and the image of Christianity you manufacture and show to the public. That is all I have to say to you.
I read with interest until you completely misrepresented the words of Rod Dreher. Then I stopped. It tainted whatever good points you were trying to make. A shame.
I have no respect for his work, I'm sorry. We could have a long discussion about this back and forth if you want. Or we could just move on, and agree that, even if I made a mistake or am imperfect, it does not discredit my other points.
Literally complains about being in the rare parish where masking wasn't strictly enforced, meanwhile more were excluded from services for being conscientious objectors... meanwhile while Ancient Faith only allowed the dominant position to be broadcast without moderation or debate... and bringing on morons who didn't understand the basic reasons for dissent opinions, nor basic ethics, but instead ran consistently with misrepresentations.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I was told it was BAD to mask, and that my political opinions were evil, and was threatened by a parishioner with no support from my priest. Your perception of things are skewed, I think. I have seen many extremes and don't fall into them, generally.
Look, I agree with 95% of what you say in this article. But we clearly had different experiences with Covid, I was unable to attend my parish for more than a year because I refused to mask. To receive communion (when offered to me) I had to stand outside the church and the priest would come out to me. I have a variety of parishes in the area around me and all of them followed this similar policy and there is only one parish (several hours north) that I know of that didn't require this. This was a traumatic experience for me that I still haven't found forgiveness in my heart for. I was slandered as a 'Heerite' when I probably have the same opinion of Heers that you do and I've never listened to him. I had a list of more than three dozen of my own reasons for conscientious objection which nobody at all would care to address, nor provide even basic justifications against. Meanwhile being threatened with losing a livlihood. Ancient Faith Radio never released anything that wasn't wholey in favor of the government propaganda and bringing on Dr. Nash for a discussion on the policies was a mistake - for Dr. Nash and Fr. John were clearly ignorant of reasons for objection that went beyond whatever the hell Heers was saying - clearly aimed at strawmen or the lowest possible denominator of objection. OCAMPR - the Orthodox Conference for Medical and Psychological issues - ran an entire conference which opened up with Bishop Daniel slandering anyone who dissented as being "Heerites" which I found highly offensive. Would you like being called a 'Heerite' simply because of singular stance of dissent which was held for widely disparate reasons. Similarly, that conference went on to attempt to psychoanalyze dissent in a way similar to the old American south's psychoanalysis of Drapetomania or the Third Reich's Gestalt analysis of the Gegentyp (to mass diagnose Jews & others as being sociopathic in order to justify the holocaust under scientific pretexts.) So, OCAMPR (notably a ministry of the Assembly of Bishops) not only supported the government narrative, but also (like in the historical precursors I've cited) went ahead to create elaborate theories on why difference in opinion was merely psychotic and that these people must be treated somehow to forcibly change their opinion (and having their psycho-existential validity thrown into question dismisses everything anyone could say a priori instead of being willing to listen or dialogue) - doesn't that sound like a variation of AAE If you are not in the majority - on a national level, if not local level - then why were these major national ministries lacking any plurality of voices and singularly of the government propaganda?
Clearly we really did have a different experience! I was, at the time, in the very republican South and Midwest, and many there refused to believe that COVID was real, even in Churches. Many defied the orders of their bishops. As an immunocompromised person, I was unable to attend liturgy for two years because basically no one was willing to mask. In the parishes I was in, I was slandered as not ENOUGH of a Heerite, and a big fat liberal! It's the inverse of what you're describing for me, so your comment is interesting and appreciated.
I don't know enough about what OCAMPR said during this to comment. If you're accurately stating what they did, then yes, this is very problematic. If your objections are theologically grounded and not clearly irrational, then even if I disagree, I would not want to censor you or make you suffer and not be able to attend Church. I lean towards the "better safe than sorry," "masking might suck but the alternative is worse," thinking myself. Though, thank God, that time has mostly passed.
Assuming that you have understandable and rational objections, I think that what saddens me most, and which some of my posts and videos point out, is that deeper thinking that allows for a plurality of opinions within one, unified community is rare and silenced by both the internet algorithms and many leaders in the Church(es). The people who get the most visible, public attention are those like Jay Dyer and Peter Heers, and anyone with opinions anywhere remotely similar to theirs will be considered "one of them." For myself, I do not like those figures at all and find many of their followers to be fanatics with stupid opinions, but I would hope to be in a local parish where coffee hour and meetings are not just times for small talk, but safe places where those with differing opinions can come and discuss freely without being threatened OR ostracized, officially or unofficially through social pressure. There are certain boundaries and limits to what is tolerable, but those are pretty wide within these discussions.
Again, I really don't know what your objections to masking were (you're welcome to share if you'd like), and you sound much more reasonable than many, so who am I to reach a verdict on your case? I'd just hope that we could both embrace in love, have real passionate disagreements and maybe even get angry with each other, but never lose communion or a sense of care for one another. This is possible so long as we don't preach our views as dogma or the "official orthodox position." But sadly many do not wish to do that, whatever "side" they fall on.
On a practical note, Churches and schools and the government all failed to actually address the pandemic in ways everyone could agree on that were scientifically affective. Here's an example. Instead of closing schools, federal funding to install air filtration systems and get air circulating would have reduced spread substantially even without masks. The CDC and WHO and Dept. of Ed. recommended this but refused to actually help do it. Instead the government chose the least expensive and least caring option. And as a result I am not teaching functionally illiterate 18 year olds how to read and write. The same goes for Churches. Many closed, and many also refused to believe anything about the pandemic was real. They could have found other solutions. Outdoor services for those who were afraid? Adding an additional liturgy, one masking, one no masking required? There were so many possibilities for love and care that this nation and our institutions could have chosen to pursue, but instead it simplistic, black and white thinking and division were the norm. Will we learn for the next crisis? Nope! Doesn't seem like it.
I'm sorry for your suffering and experience. I love you and, even if I were to find some of your views reprehensible, I would still want the best for you and to be in a continuing dialogue of good faith and charity with you.
Thank you for your response. I continue to agree with most of what you are saying! I will admit on my first reading through your article I hit the mention of Covid and found myself triggered into belligerence and wrote several belligerent and hateful comments which I then repented of and deleted all except the one you commented on. I am sorry and ask to be forgiven for leaving such comments anyway and I'm glad to have left one to have this interaction. Online discourse has the failure of not being face-to-face and a screen is dehumanizing to the point where it is easier to be lead by antisocial passions - at least for me. I had to go back and reread when my fight response subsided. And I think that 'triggering' is the problem on both sides. Both sides of so many issues have been algorithmically captured with trauma-inducing fearmongering. Why should I fear a brother in Christ? Because something fearful has been placed in my heart. And the harshness of fundamentalist positions are also usually compensations for fear. I love you too and I hope your anxieties are healed. I think, maybe, what we need is not to have Covid traumas unexpressed, but open dialogue with willingness of both sides to admit faults, repent, and extend an open hand of communion. I need that. I think you need that. We might not get that. Half of the trauma is not being listened to when the injury to our spirits was occurring. And I think that is true of other injuries in a community. I recognize how nearly identical, despite being opposite, our experiences were. I'm reciprocally sorry for your suffering and experience. I'd like to continue this discussion with direct messages - if you are willing.
I became Orthodox back in 2018 before the AAE really kicked into full swing (which, to your point, I think happened or at least was amplified during COVID). Thanks for articulating something I’ve been wondering for a while, which is why things feel so different (aggressive?) in parishes than they used to
I am a recent catechumen in the Orthodox Church. I may very well fall into the AAE division of orthodoxy, myself coming from a similar evangelical background as yourself. If at all possible, I'd love to get in touch, hear your story in more detail, and have a conversation if you are willing. I am currently studying in Belfast, so I doubt we share the same time zone but hopefully we can figure something out if you are willing!
I’m not fully through this article but you pretty much described my child hood and thought patterns word for word, I’m truly in shock right now.
You would probably like Paul Kingsnorth, I think his recent First Things lecture questioning the glory of "western civilization" would resonate with you, as it did with me. (Among other things, he is an Orthodox convert with a deep love of the earth and environmental issues, and helped me see the value in this after a lifetime of parroting the Western industrialist corporate line.)
There is in some converts certainly a type of "culture war" mindset - in the sense that "we have to fight to change the culture/make American Christian again!/establish an Orthodox state!" or whatever. This is in many ways the same thing as in early 2000s Bush-era Evangelical politics led by Jerry Falwell, just in a fresh set of clothes.
I think that you are right that many of the reactionary young men converting right now tend to come into Orthodoxy with a fundamentally similar fundamentalism, so to speak, just with some knobs tweaked to different settings - for instance, the common talk about having a monarchy, which ranges from meme culture to serious suggestion, in place of enthusiasm for American imperialism. I can't say I'm not entirely sympathetic toward such ideas, but it seems (as you'd find in Kingsnorth's writings) that this fundamentalist approach is putting the cart before the horse. When the Roman Empire became Christian, this wasn't the fruit of centuries of political activism, and especially not revolutionary activity, but a miraculous event in the conversion of the emperor, as Christians lived their faith and endured centuries of persecution and were ready when God did the work - much like how Ananias was ready when God sent him to Saul.
On the other hand, the "culture war" is quite real in the sense of Western culture assaulting traditional Christian values and ethics, and this is what Fr. Josiah Trenham is engaged in. It seems unavoidable that we have to wrestle with it to some degree, since the "culture" is always coming for us and few are in any position to avoid the various negative currents flowing in it. I'm not all that familiar with Dreher, having read little of his work, but I suspect his vitriol (which very well may be inappropriate or lacking nuance), is being directed toward those who use things like transgender ideology, homosexuality, and so on as a cultural weapon, indicated by his hostility toward educators imposing these ideas in classrooms. This seems quite distinct from showing hatred toward ordinary people who may identify with these things (and, as I would argue, suffer from them) but aren't trying to impose them on everybody else, and are much more like victims of it. You can hate the tobacco companies, pornographers, and so on, while being sympathetic toward those addicted to their products, so to speak, and it's much the same with the sexual ideologies that are often manufactured through entertainment, social media, and public education. Again, perhaps Dreher articulates this poorly or fails to nuance it or shows unrighteous judgment of others, but I suspect this is what he is attempting to convey, however clumsily.
About five years from my first visit to an Orthodox parish, I went from being all gung-ho reactionary to having most of my views tempered, political issues not seeming very important anymore or occupying much of my consciousness. This has been a common theme with a lot of us - we went from being aggressive consumers of Jay Dyer, etc. content to largely outgrowing it and the reactionary culture. But that can take time. I think many of the new converts are still in this early phase, and it's just going to take a bit more experience and life in the Church for them to grow out of it. In the meantime, we can nudge them in the right direction, and show patience. Let your life be an example, and show love and friendship toward people at your parish even if you don't see eye to eye on political issues. If Mvh Glorious Western Civilization is the real motivator, they're drop out when they realize, through experience, that Orthodoxy is about transformation of the heart, not a tool for pursuing a socio-political agenda, and there are far easier and more comfortable ways for them to do that.
I attend a large ROCOR parish in the South with many "orthobro" types, but I know at least one young convert who describes himself as an unabashed Marxist. There all manner of perspectives on various hot-button cultural issues, and a shockingly diverse congregation including many black people, and ladies converting as well. We were the only parish in the area that didn't close during Covid (one of the reasons I visited the parish in the first place), but neither was anybody shamed for being cautious about the situation. The head priest has always encouraged us to forsake political squabbling and pursue repentance and focus on Christ, and trust in Him rather than any fickle politician, leader, or ideologue. His approach has always seemed quite authentically Orthodox and Christian, and always helps me get back to what really matters.
The AAE you describe is a real thing, even if I'd dispute the boundaries of it somewhat, but I don't think it's "infiltrating" the Church. It's just a present trend that will cool off as converts grow spiritually, or don't grow spiritually and leave. If Islam, Communism, paganism, and other such powerful forces failed to destroy the Church, I don't think some over-enthusiastic converts in need of growing up will either, and I don't think some popular but invective figures necessarily speak for the Church, and certainly aren't steering anything other than popular-level online discourse.
I am praying that the Lord blesses you with a fruitful and edifying Lent, and grants you good relations with those at your parish.
I would just say three things—1. yes evangelicals/ conservative Protestantism has leaked into Orthodoxy. 2. They are often too much the face of Orthodoxy for much of this generation. Three they are not Orthodoxy. I’ve always said if you want to make the church better then it’s our job to do it. Arguments get nowhere. I too grew up conservative evangelical reformed. It was terrible. I too cringe at what some at my church say. But I always have learned the liberal mentality is just as dangerous and found a wonderful spiritual father at a monastery. The major problem here isn’t Orthodoxy, it is American Orthodoxy. We bring all our own bs in. But I have seen people grow much. And also personally I couldn’t send my kids to public school. Thankfully we have been given generous funding to send them to a school that does classical education but at some point we might homeschool. The world is both better and worse than either side of America thinks.
You seem to be conflating 'AAE' with 'pre-1939 actually-existing Orthodox Christianity'.
The American is a fish, demanding we all swim in his water.
You hit the nail on the head.
I think many of us feel like sojourners through our Christian communities. I still wander the evangelical track, and like you, keep many of my thoughts to myself (except in my anonymous writing here). I'm not sure what to do about it, aside from pray.
Yes, I agree go to liturgy…where you should have been this morning, should be at tonight’s service, and tomorrow morning. Pray for people.
…”Helen tells me that she and James are hoping to make The Moorings into something more formal — something that struck me as exactly the kind of thing I envisioned when I wrote The Benedict Option. As you readers well know, I do not call for total withdrawal from the world, but rather for the forming of various kinds of Christian communities within which we can deepen our faith, via study, spiritual discipline, and fellowship, so that when we go out into the world, we can think and act as authentic small-o orthodox Christians.”
When an author begins his work with a lie, then all that remains is in question. From today, in Dreher’s Diary: “
Love is the Way.
Well, the nuance here is appreciated. I also appreciate your highlighting of the civilizational and hyper-institutional bent which Orthodoxy on American soil is contending with, for it is a reality. Thank you.
Amen. I have been pondering this article much, Pierce. I saw something recently, which had a similar disruptive and enlightening impact as your article, amidst these reactionary, pendulum-like responses to culture. ARC later shared this video community-announcement format, commenting that it was the singular presentation they would have a viewer attend to, if he or she viewed any of the published speeches at all. Rightfully so.
The entirety of Joshua Luke Smith's 9 minutes is just a hailstorm of soulful linguistics and full-bodied craftsmanship. It is a vibrant clarion call to be the "Seeds". To be a part of the growth of gardens, rather than building and imposing into oblivion. I also personally felt his offering was a highlight of the all recordings published, thus far. It is beyond pertinent to the story of Orthodoxy on this soil.
Please attend if you will. Blessings, for lending your eyes.
https://youtu.be/fsiB9uCMZ68?si=uQRiI0InsOKEArx8
Amen! Love is the way! Love is all, and all is contained within love.
Wherever there are human beings, we will find imperfection. So too in the Orthodox faith. I hear your struggles and frustrations and share them with you. I keep my faith by focusing on our rich theology. I keep my faith by embracing its Truth. The Church is a hospital, so we enter its doors with others who need healed in one way or another. Do not lose your faith. Do not let the devil take that from you. Thank you for your writings and insight. I look forward to reading more and following your unique journey as a faithful servant of Christ.
“Dreher . . . encourages a withdrawal from society in his The Benedict Option.” You obviously have NOT read the book. Dreher states no such thing.
You're latching onto a single imprecise sentence. Funny how you don't seem to care about the other, more important, gross statements of his I am referring to.
I probably have not been fully charitable to Dreher in that sentence. I do not think he literally says to go withdraw to the country and form insular, closed off communities. But the way his political and cultural commentary works will essentially produce that kind of insular culture. He is a vitriolic man who deepens the divide between Christians and the broader culture. He has very little power in engaging people who do not already buy into his way of seeing the world. He drives people away. And so, pairing that with creating a counter culture that takes Christians and forms communities and institutions that are inherently Christian, WILL result in weird homeschooling communities that I grew up in.
No. I am not doing or thinking of what you are stating. I have read the book(s), read his newsletters, seen the YouTube videos, and spoken to the man. I am correct.
Precision writing is writing worth reading. It’s sad that you attack the man (vitriolic … deepens the divide … very little power in engaging people … drives people away); your assaults are reflective on you, not him.
I provide links to multiple articles in this post where Rod Dreher calls trans people horrible names and focuses on crude sexual deviancy as if it represents entire groups of people.
The point is, that I do not want his way of thinking to become associated with and dogmatic within Orthodoxy. That is a precise claim and I have given you multiple sources. I don't care what his intentions are, and I do not know the man personally. But his public persona and writing reinforces a very negative and harmful view of certain groups of people. His behavior over the last few years that is public also calls his integrity into question. WORSE, he is primarily reactionary, and does not advocate, in his public work that most people read at least, for love. He sees what is happening in culture as a corrupting force we must fight, rather than as a disorder to be lovingly healed. He lumps all the ideologies he doesn't like into one big category, "progressive." He has multiple times discussed "sissy porn" as some sort of progressive force turning our sons into gay trans women, and not just as another stupid fetish. He thinks these things are real demonic forces attacking us, and we must run from them or be prepared to defend ourselves. He does not see our current state and confusions in need of healing, but divine judgement. READ THE ARTICLES I LINK TO. He is an expert at stirring up anger and reactionary tendencies in people by pretending that certain issues are bigger than they are. He makes parents scared of the outside world. THE PROGRESSIVES ARE COMING TO TURN YOUR KIDS TRANS! This can be used by dangerous people to do dangerous things, and it already has been. Conveniently, he doesn't seem to advocate against corporate greed and power, which is actually a major problem...
He's being given so much attention, and has influenced countless Orthodox families to change their lives, which I can personally attest to. You, as a priest, will be responsible to Christ for the culture you create within your parish, the figures you choose to promote, the overall mindset you instill into your people, and the image of Christianity you manufacture and show to the public. That is all I have to say to you.
And what, pray tell, does "advocating for love" mean?
And now you attack me. Have a blessed life.
This is a ridiculous comment. You're actually interpreting 'you will be responsible to Christ...' as a personal attack? Ridiculous.
I read with interest until you completely misrepresented the words of Rod Dreher. Then I stopped. It tainted whatever good points you were trying to make. A shame.
I have no respect for his work, I'm sorry. We could have a long discussion about this back and forth if you want. Or we could just move on, and agree that, even if I made a mistake or am imperfect, it does not discredit my other points.
Ha! There is no world in which I want a long discussion about this. Let's carry on.
Literally complains about being in the rare parish where masking wasn't strictly enforced, meanwhile more were excluded from services for being conscientious objectors... meanwhile while Ancient Faith only allowed the dominant position to be broadcast without moderation or debate... and bringing on morons who didn't understand the basic reasons for dissent opinions, nor basic ethics, but instead ran consistently with misrepresentations.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I was told it was BAD to mask, and that my political opinions were evil, and was threatened by a parishioner with no support from my priest. Your perception of things are skewed, I think. I have seen many extremes and don't fall into them, generally.
Look, I agree with 95% of what you say in this article. But we clearly had different experiences with Covid, I was unable to attend my parish for more than a year because I refused to mask. To receive communion (when offered to me) I had to stand outside the church and the priest would come out to me. I have a variety of parishes in the area around me and all of them followed this similar policy and there is only one parish (several hours north) that I know of that didn't require this. This was a traumatic experience for me that I still haven't found forgiveness in my heart for. I was slandered as a 'Heerite' when I probably have the same opinion of Heers that you do and I've never listened to him. I had a list of more than three dozen of my own reasons for conscientious objection which nobody at all would care to address, nor provide even basic justifications against. Meanwhile being threatened with losing a livlihood. Ancient Faith Radio never released anything that wasn't wholey in favor of the government propaganda and bringing on Dr. Nash for a discussion on the policies was a mistake - for Dr. Nash and Fr. John were clearly ignorant of reasons for objection that went beyond whatever the hell Heers was saying - clearly aimed at strawmen or the lowest possible denominator of objection. OCAMPR - the Orthodox Conference for Medical and Psychological issues - ran an entire conference which opened up with Bishop Daniel slandering anyone who dissented as being "Heerites" which I found highly offensive. Would you like being called a 'Heerite' simply because of singular stance of dissent which was held for widely disparate reasons. Similarly, that conference went on to attempt to psychoanalyze dissent in a way similar to the old American south's psychoanalysis of Drapetomania or the Third Reich's Gestalt analysis of the Gegentyp (to mass diagnose Jews & others as being sociopathic in order to justify the holocaust under scientific pretexts.) So, OCAMPR (notably a ministry of the Assembly of Bishops) not only supported the government narrative, but also (like in the historical precursors I've cited) went ahead to create elaborate theories on why difference in opinion was merely psychotic and that these people must be treated somehow to forcibly change their opinion (and having their psycho-existential validity thrown into question dismisses everything anyone could say a priori instead of being willing to listen or dialogue) - doesn't that sound like a variation of AAE If you are not in the majority - on a national level, if not local level - then why were these major national ministries lacking any plurality of voices and singularly of the government propaganda?
Clearly we really did have a different experience! I was, at the time, in the very republican South and Midwest, and many there refused to believe that COVID was real, even in Churches. Many defied the orders of their bishops. As an immunocompromised person, I was unable to attend liturgy for two years because basically no one was willing to mask. In the parishes I was in, I was slandered as not ENOUGH of a Heerite, and a big fat liberal! It's the inverse of what you're describing for me, so your comment is interesting and appreciated.
I don't know enough about what OCAMPR said during this to comment. If you're accurately stating what they did, then yes, this is very problematic. If your objections are theologically grounded and not clearly irrational, then even if I disagree, I would not want to censor you or make you suffer and not be able to attend Church. I lean towards the "better safe than sorry," "masking might suck but the alternative is worse," thinking myself. Though, thank God, that time has mostly passed.
Assuming that you have understandable and rational objections, I think that what saddens me most, and which some of my posts and videos point out, is that deeper thinking that allows for a plurality of opinions within one, unified community is rare and silenced by both the internet algorithms and many leaders in the Church(es). The people who get the most visible, public attention are those like Jay Dyer and Peter Heers, and anyone with opinions anywhere remotely similar to theirs will be considered "one of them." For myself, I do not like those figures at all and find many of their followers to be fanatics with stupid opinions, but I would hope to be in a local parish where coffee hour and meetings are not just times for small talk, but safe places where those with differing opinions can come and discuss freely without being threatened OR ostracized, officially or unofficially through social pressure. There are certain boundaries and limits to what is tolerable, but those are pretty wide within these discussions.
Again, I really don't know what your objections to masking were (you're welcome to share if you'd like), and you sound much more reasonable than many, so who am I to reach a verdict on your case? I'd just hope that we could both embrace in love, have real passionate disagreements and maybe even get angry with each other, but never lose communion or a sense of care for one another. This is possible so long as we don't preach our views as dogma or the "official orthodox position." But sadly many do not wish to do that, whatever "side" they fall on.
On a practical note, Churches and schools and the government all failed to actually address the pandemic in ways everyone could agree on that were scientifically affective. Here's an example. Instead of closing schools, federal funding to install air filtration systems and get air circulating would have reduced spread substantially even without masks. The CDC and WHO and Dept. of Ed. recommended this but refused to actually help do it. Instead the government chose the least expensive and least caring option. And as a result I am not teaching functionally illiterate 18 year olds how to read and write. The same goes for Churches. Many closed, and many also refused to believe anything about the pandemic was real. They could have found other solutions. Outdoor services for those who were afraid? Adding an additional liturgy, one masking, one no masking required? There were so many possibilities for love and care that this nation and our institutions could have chosen to pursue, but instead it simplistic, black and white thinking and division were the norm. Will we learn for the next crisis? Nope! Doesn't seem like it.
I'm sorry for your suffering and experience. I love you and, even if I were to find some of your views reprehensible, I would still want the best for you and to be in a continuing dialogue of good faith and charity with you.
Thank you for your response. I continue to agree with most of what you are saying! I will admit on my first reading through your article I hit the mention of Covid and found myself triggered into belligerence and wrote several belligerent and hateful comments which I then repented of and deleted all except the one you commented on. I am sorry and ask to be forgiven for leaving such comments anyway and I'm glad to have left one to have this interaction. Online discourse has the failure of not being face-to-face and a screen is dehumanizing to the point where it is easier to be lead by antisocial passions - at least for me. I had to go back and reread when my fight response subsided. And I think that 'triggering' is the problem on both sides. Both sides of so many issues have been algorithmically captured with trauma-inducing fearmongering. Why should I fear a brother in Christ? Because something fearful has been placed in my heart. And the harshness of fundamentalist positions are also usually compensations for fear. I love you too and I hope your anxieties are healed. I think, maybe, what we need is not to have Covid traumas unexpressed, but open dialogue with willingness of both sides to admit faults, repent, and extend an open hand of communion. I need that. I think you need that. We might not get that. Half of the trauma is not being listened to when the injury to our spirits was occurring. And I think that is true of other injuries in a community. I recognize how nearly identical, despite being opposite, our experiences were. I'm reciprocally sorry for your suffering and experience. I'd like to continue this discussion with direct messages - if you are willing.
Yes! Exactly. All if forgiven, and I ask for any forgiveness as well. Feel free to message me :)
I became Orthodox back in 2018 before the AAE really kicked into full swing (which, to your point, I think happened or at least was amplified during COVID). Thanks for articulating something I’ve been wondering for a while, which is why things feel so different (aggressive?) in parishes than they used to
me when I’m hungry
Hello Mr. Marks,
I am a recent catechumen in the Orthodox Church. I may very well fall into the AAE division of orthodoxy, myself coming from a similar evangelical background as yourself. If at all possible, I'd love to get in touch, hear your story in more detail, and have a conversation if you are willing. I am currently studying in Belfast, so I doubt we share the same time zone but hopefully we can figure something out if you are willing!
Sure thing, I'll shoot you a message!