The more I love humanity in general the less I love man in particular. In my dreams, I often make plans for the service of humanity, and perhaps I might actually face crucifixion if it were suddenly necessary. Yet I am incapable of living in the same room with anyone for two days together. I know from experience. As soon as anyone is near me, his personality disturbs me and restricts my freedom. In twenty-four hours I begin to hate the best of men: one because he’s too long over his dinner, another because he has a cold and keeps on blowing his nose. I become hostile to people the moment they come close to me. But it has always happened that the more I hate men individually the more I love humanity.
Fyodor Dostoevsky “The Brothers Karamazov”
Is this supposed to be a satire of a religious conservative or a religious liberal?
A liberal
Jonathan Swift (in a letter, I believe) expressed precisely the opposite problem.
#1 JamesK
I’m a bit amazed that you had to ask this question.
Note 4: True, I should have known better than to ask. Unfortunately, this generalization has no basis in reality. Such attitudes can be held by either a conservative or a liberal: it’s not a specifically “liberal” problem to be unable to abide petty differences within one’s family. The divorce rate among evangelical Christians confirms this.
it’s not a specifically “liberal” problem to be unable to abide petty differences within one’s family. The divorce rate among evangelical Christians confirms this.
Yes, but in this case the “conservatives” are acting against their principles. The “liberal” is acting on his principles. Better to be a hypocrite than a principled man hater…
To me that quote has always spoken for itself. Whenever we seek mass solutions for the greater good, we dehumanize ourselves and everyone else. It is the difference between the personal in the Christian sense and the de-sacralized view of man and nature that all of us suffer from. It is neither “liberal” nor “conservative” nor any of those other convienient but irrelevant boxes we like to substitute for thought.
It is not satire, it is not political…it is a description of human nature. We cannot serve two masters…..
#7 Michael
Your analysis is largely correct, but who, in regard to politics, seeks “mass solutions for the greater good”?
James, ultimately the statement is an indictment of utopian ideologies such as Marxism which claim to serve man but in fact end up killing millions. Dostoevsky foresaw the tyranny and warned against it. Solzhenitsyn, who suffered under the Marxist tyranny, affirmed it. Returning to the Christian vision, he located the line of good and evil not in systems, but the human heart. Read: Book Review: Solzhenitsyn and Russia’s Golgotha.
To understand the point better, read Paul Johnson’s “The Intellectuals.”
Note 6. Christopher writes:
Yup. Hypocrisy still tips the hat to virtue. More dangerous is the elevation of hypocrisy as the highest vice. (Hypocrisy is not the worst vice; according to the Church Fathers the most debilitating vice is pride — because it remains unrecognized as sin.) Usually the elevation occurs to deflect recognition away from real evil.
Note 5. James writes:
James, shake off the belief that a neutral moral ground exists. It doesn’t. I’ve pointed this out before. You stake out one side of the fence, then immediately invalidate it by pointing out some hypocrisy that exists there. You move to the other side and do the same thing. You think you end up in the middle when in fact there is no middle. In reality you have conflated morality into politics. You’ve bought into the 1960’s nostrum: the personal is political.
This is why you have trouble understanding the Dostoevsky quote. He is making a moral point, not a political one, even though he points to politics and culture to make it.
Tom, RE #8: lots of folks. Is not Bush’s Wilsonian approach to the middle east along those lines? Isn’t Islam similar? The politically conservative protestants who really do want to inforce their idea of Christian morality on everybody (as opposed to opening the way to a communion with Jesus Christ). Certainly the advocates of global capitalism often are that way. The “homeschool movement” started out as an alternative way of raising children that each family pursued by their own lights. It is beginning to morph into an international business and political entity in some of its manifestations. All “mass movements” are divorced from the reality of what it means to be human. That is why they kill so many. When Christianity devolved into a politically motivated pair of “mass movements” in western Europe the “religious wars” followed. Secularism thought it could put a stop to that by removing God from the equation. All that did was to further de-humanize us and lead to the horribly destructive ideologies of the late 19th and 20th century. Materialism has all sorts of political manifestations both “liberal” and “conservative”. They are all nihilistic in content.
I think the folks on what we describe as the “left” tend to fall into the utilitarian nihilism more fequently, but the temptation is there for all of us even in our private life.
Personally, I think it is more instructive to think in terms of tryanny, license, and freedom than in conventional political terms such as conservative, liberal, left and right. It is certainly more Christian to attempt to approach other human beings as Jesus Christ does, to free us from whatever binds us be it spiritual or physical than to impose the same “solution” on everybody.
At the same time the individulist trap has to be avoided. There are truths that we are all meant to conform to, but that conformation process cannot be required of anyone and can only be accomplished in cooperation with God. Jesus gave Himself up for the life of the world, indeed the cosmos. Each of us individually have to decide to partake of that gift or not. Jesus is both the “only lover of mankind”, and also the Bridegroom who invites us each into the bridal chamber to be with Him alone.
Is this supposed to be a satire of a religious conservative or a religious liberal?
JamesK seems to sublimely grasp the overriding blog theme correctly, “us vs. them”.
Counterpoints that begin with “Yes, but…” are surely a telltale indicator of picking at the spec in others eyes while ignoring the beam in one’s own.
Such as:
Yes, but in this case the “conservatives” are acting against their principles. The “liberal” is acting on his principles. BETTER to be a hypocrite than a principled man hater…
And is it better to be a Pharisee than a Publican, a “conservative” and RE-publican, than a “liberal” sinner? I thought it was better to know oneSELF as sinner and BE repentant than to be a hypocrite and “justify” oneself. I suppose it can at least be said that the above comment is an accurate and “good” example of a hypocrite:
Never own up to one’s own sin, always deflect it on others as if theirs is worse than one’s own in a pathetic attempt to justify oneself.
So much for non-judgmentalism, or is that something else that receives a mere “hat tipping” in OrthodoxyToday?
Yup. Hypocrisy still tips the hat to virtue. More dangerous is the elevation of hypocrisy as the highest vice. (Hypocrisy is not the worst vice; according to the Church Fathers the most debilitating vice is pride — because it remains unrecognized as sin.) Usually the elevation occurs to deflect recognition away from real evil.
Comment 10 should have quit at 9. Yup, more straining at gnats while swallowing camels and deflecting repentance for one’s own sin away from oneself by use of moral relativism; my hypocrisy’s not as “bad” as your “principled man-hating”. I find no support for the above rationalization as representative of OrthodoxyYesterday; what tries to pass as OrthodoxyToday maybe, but not the faith of the fathers. If what is being purported here as “Truth” were really such indeed, then why did the Lord Jesus Christ refer to the Pharisees (lawyers, priests and politicians of the political party of the day) as “hypocrites”, not as “proud ones”? I don’t see any constructive need for a distinction between hypocrisy and pride for any other reason than sophistry that reveals the stripes and true color of what is really being said. The parable of the Pharisee and Publican clearly shows (as consistently taught annually in the Orthodox Church) that pride is the ROOT of hypocrisy, of prelest and demonic deception, while repentance is the road to humility and communion with God and fellowman.
So where is the humility in whitewashing hypocrisy, a favorite past-time of politicians? Since when is one sin worse than another? Vice is vice and pride is only worse in that it can cause more loss of virtue. So if pride is “bad” then so is hypocrisy, the Progeny of Pride. As taught by the parable, there can be, in fact, far more hope in the out and out “principled man hater” repenting than the hypocrite ever seeing the light of day, so assured are the latter of their self “right”-eousness. The principled man hater is at least so far from God that he/she runs the risk of running up against the Truth.
This discussion (and many others on this site) cannot be normative of the Communion of Saints. There is nothing here that admonishes much less edifies the Body of Christ, only finger pointing at persons outside the Church (abortionists, homosexuals, “liberals”, etc.). I don’t see the Church Fathers doing that. Instead, they are critical of those INside the Church out of concern for salvation of all, including the rest of the non-Christian world whose only knowledge of Christianity may be those who openly “profess” to be of Christ. The test of Truth is whether or not the ICON being written in flesh of such emissaries is of God or none other than a millstone around their neck.
RE 8 & 12: Yes, I agree that politicians are the ones most likely to make out like they seek “mass solutions for the greater good”, but history bears out otherwise. Utopianism is hubris and Truth always comes to light. History shows the loss of statesmanship and the rise of “career” politics as precursor to rampant modern addiction to ulterior motivation and hidden agenda. The making of a “killing” that ensues from “mass movements” only shows that there is no real concern for “greater good”, only for furtherance of ideology of choice (the point that rhetorical question 8 seems to be making), or more often today, the back patting of “good ‘ole boys” lining each other’s pockets. Post 12 starts out “good” and remains so in most part for sticking to the weightier matters of truth and justice, over tithing of mint and cumin, until …:
I think the folks on what we describe as the “LEFT” tend to fall into the utilitarian nihilism MORE frequently, but the temptation is there for all of us even in our private life.
Why the qualification? Do you really think that “liberal” Americans are any “more” prone to temptation than “conservative” Americans? After all, both are just “right” and “left” forms of the same rationalistic Enlightenment “liberalism”. Sort of like arguing over who’s “whitest” a Dutchman or a German. Maybe we should pray, I so thank God that I am not a rePublican, nor a “liberal” sinner.
For God’s sake and humanity’s, stop the labeling or be a man-hater, be that principled or un-principled. Such behavior is not becoming of Christ, and serves only to divide and polarize rather than build up the Communion and Unity of His Body. Let’s each focus on our own sins, instead of the sins of others. Isn’t that one of the main thing’s that Orthodoxy is really all about? After all, not one of us can save anyone else without first working on and out our own salvation. Any progress that might be made in that direction is all too easily lost, digressed in the virtual reality of such blog “discussion”. Remember, we will all be called to account for every idle word we allowed to be uttered from out our mouths.
#12 Michael –
What Dostoevsky describes applies to all men and it has served to motivate many disasterous movements throughout the ages. My only claim is that at present, the belief is more endemic on the left than on the right.
Tom, I’m not disputing that, I just don’t find that of any particular importance. What is important is that we not give into where ever it presents itself.
Note 13. Paradosis writes:
Who is whitewashing hypocrisy? The only point was that hypocrisy still acknowledges the authority of virtue. This is not the same thing as saying hypocrisy should be lauded. This point was made in contradistinction to the elevation of vice as virtue — a reversal of values where good is called evil, and evil good.
The focus of the sentence was the seduction of nihilism, not temptation — unless you mean a temptation toward nihilism (you are unclear here) in which case I would argue that cultural liberalism is closer to nihilism than cultural conservatism. See: Michael Novak, Awakening from Nihilism.
I agree with your underlying premise (if I understand it correctly) that temptation afflicts all men. I don’t agree with the implied conclusion (again, if I understand it correctly) that because it does, the cultural distinctions discussed here don’t matter. They do. Dostoevsky or Solzhenitsyn discussed just such things in their writings as well.
I don’t see any point in “hypocrisy acknowledging virtue”, or any benefit to the hypocrite or anyone else in it. If someone is demonically deluded in hypocrisy, then they tip the hat to virtue in no way but a moralistic one, the way the Pharisees did; always splitting hairs (e.g. hypocrisy vs. revelling in vice, trying to trip someone up in order to gotcha, power trip in other words). What better way to satisfy appetite for power than to fool oneself into thinking submission to God is being achieved, and now am privy to God’s will for others? The Philokalia expounds on such folly over and over again.
In hypocritically tipping the hat to virtue, hypocrites only sully virtue rather than magnify it so such ‘tipping’ is pointless, instead making of virtue a dirty word by giving it the context and connotation of hypocrisy. In just such way of hypocrisy, devotion to Jesus has become so loaded with all manner of double standard in the west to the point that aetheism has become attractive to many who don’t know any better and reject Christianity thinking it a hateful religion based in hypocrisy.
How close any aspect of modern culture is to nihilism is of little to no importance, except relativistically. It’s not how close or how far from nihilism anyone is that saves them. If it’s utopianism that is in question, then there is just as much to fear from right in that regard, as there is from left. Materialism is materialistic be it communist or capitalist.
A lot of discussion here seems to center around American/western “culture” as if it is/was, or should be Orthodox Christian culture. It’s my understanding that human cultures became Orthodox Christian not through rationalistic “discussions” but because there were monks who settled among non-Christian peoples and lived lives of humility and repentance, caring and compassion. Words, especially hair splitting intellectualizations have rarely if ever converted anyone.
If mission outreach is the goal as should be, then I wouldn’t expect silk from a sow’s ear. Meeting people where they are means remembering we are all on a spiritual journey that is not in unison, and most importantly remembering to pray for them, not argue with them. I expect nothing from American/western culture but what has gone into it’s creation, mostly Puritanism multiformus, with a hefty dose of Pietism, understandably leading to hedonism, individualism and rebelliousness. At one point historically, Puritanism with it’s protestant work ethic warped, turning Christianity on it’s head and proclaiming poverty a sign of ungodliness and monetary wealth a sign of “salvation”, leaving US culturally with its outgrowth, backlash and backwash like the hogwash we’ve had to witness in the public forum over recent years.
Such pietistic, puritannical undercurrents are the dark side of “conservative” America and are just as ungodly and deadly to souls as the socialistic, communistic, secularist vice elevating of “liberal” America. Two wrongs don’t make right. Two wrongs are simply two wrongs. As Fr. Kishkovsky says in “Orthodoxy Today: Tradition or Traditionalism”:
“In the public policy causes of the Christian Right in the United States there are some which can find support among Orthodox Christians. Yet we can be sure that those who formulate the positions of the Christian Right in our country there is no sympathy for Orthodox Christianity and its theology, worldview, and history.
The above considerations illustrate that the caution of Orthodox “traditionalists” about Christian liberalism in the United States is not matched by a caution about the Christian Right. Yet both of these Christian options on the American scene fully deserve a discriminating and critical approach by Orthodox Christians. The point is that on a spectrum of moral, cultural, and social issues which are of concern to Orthodox Christians it is possible to find some affinities with Christian liberals, and some affinities with Christian conservatives. Discernment, rooted in the freedom Orthodox Tradition gives us, is needed.
Orthodox Tradition’s role in the life of the Church is primarily the Holy Spirit’s witness to Christ. As a sign and expression of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church, Tradition gives to us freedom in Christ’s Truth. It liberates Orthodox Christians from ideological or intellectual or spiritual captivity. It equips us as Orthodox Christians to resist co-optation by any narrow perspective, way of life, or ideology. It gives the freedom to engage some philosophies and world views in dialogue, to identify the poison contained in some world views, and to acquire learning and knowledge in order to bring this knowledge to the service of the Gospel.”
If you are sincerely interested in engaging modernity in dialog with Orthodoxy, not simply in whitewashing ideological slavery, then prove it. Discern Orthodox Christianity in both sides, left and right. You don’t have to “laud” hypocrisy” (as you say you haven’t) to make of the right’s hypocrisy something less than and “not quite so bad” as the vice elevating of the left.
Note 17. Paradosis writes:
There’s a boatload of assertions (and assumptions) in your post Paradosis. Let’s try and keep it manageable.
First of all, I did not say “hypocrisy acknowledging virtue”, I said “hypocrisy acknowledging the authority of virtue” — a small but important distinction. Hypocrisy, while a lie, still is aware that a lie is being said. No, this does not justify the lie, but awareness of the lie is far and away better than believing that a lie is the truth.
In the former, no one is fooling himself into thinking submission to God is being accomplished. If one did, there would be no reason to hide the sin; there would be no reason to behave hypocritically. In the latter, hypocrisy is abandoned because the lie is exalted as the truth; there is just no need for hypocrisy here. Fear of God, consciousness of sin, psychological shame, etc. are abandoned alongside it.
Now, this is not splitting hairs. There is a wide chasm between the two in spiritual terms, which is to say in the orientation of the soul towards God. The person ashamed of his sin is closer to repentance than the person who thinks his sin is no sin at all, or that his lie is the truth.
You don’t really understand the ground of atheism. Atheism is driven either by scorn towards God, or by rejection of a false conception of God. Further, one must be careful not to put all atheists in the same bag. Remember Simone Weil’s observation: if one is running from God in search of Truth, he will end up in God’s arms.
Secondly, you seem to think that by drawing a distinction between hypocrisy and outright delusion, hypocrisy is somehow diminished as a sin. It isn’t.
In my view, you collapse moral distinctions in places where they should actually be sharpened. This mirrors the thinking of the cultural left, although you provide a religious, rather than political, rationale to justify it.
I’ll be the judge of if and when I’m making assumptions or whether or not I accurately understand atheism.
You needn’t lecture me on Simone Weil. I wrote in 13):
As taught by the parable (Pharisee and Publican), there can be, in fact, far more hope in the out and out “principled man hater” repenting than the hypocrite ever seeing the light of day, so assured are the latter of their self “right”-eousness. The principled man hater is at least so far from God that he/she runs the risk of running up against the Truth.
Ditto. Same as Weil’s ending up in God’s arms
(aka G.K.Chesterton, C.S.Lewis, et.al.)
Secondly, you seem to think that by drawing a distinction between hypocrisy and outright delusion, hypocrisy is somehow diminished as a sin. It isn’t.
Then why do you argue that hypocrisy isn’t as “bad” as delusion (believing a lie for “truth”) simply because it “tips its hat to authority”?
Hat tipping accomplishes nothing and is ever bit as far from virtuous as “principled man-hating”. I think hypocrisy’s worse in that it makes a mockery of virtue by tipping its hat to it. The last thing virtue needs or wants is to be “admired”, co-opted by hypocrisy’s pretense.
Yet you make out like this is “better” than “liberal” “nihilistic” “principled man-hating” that believes a lie for truth.
To know the Truth and pretend to follow Truth all the while willfully covering up not following of Truth, is ever bit as tragic if not more so than being under delusion of thinking a lie is truth. (See Hebrews 10:26, 1 Corinthians 3)
Furthermore, hypocrisy CAN be a form of delusion, believing a lie for truth.
The Pharisees fully believed they were following the truth, but it was their idea of truth not Truth itself. They weren’t willfully trying to “cover up” anything, but weren’t above using sophistry and ever trick in the book to try and trick and trip up the Lord Jesus Christ over words and technicalities of their “law”ful truth. They saw him as a threat to their idea of “truth” and ulterior motive of revolution for physical “kingdom” (theocracy with themselves in position of god), so Jesus simply had to be done away with.
In other words, a common symptom of hypocrisy is the manifestation of the proverbial power trip.
The Pharisees twisted the law to serve their own ends, domination of others; twisted the law in a spiritless fashion just as is done today, but of course they didn’t see it that way. They simply saw themselves as “right”, no differently than “conservative” as well as “liberal” political pundits see themselves as “right” today.
In my view, you collapse moral distinctions in places where they should actually be sharpened. This mirrors the thinking of the cultural left, although you provide a religious, rather than political, rationale to justify it.
I’ll also be the judge of when I “collapse moral distinctions”.
And if you can’t help yourself from pidgeonholing anyone and everyone who questions you or doesn’t agree with you into your “liberal” (i.e.”bad”) box (be it by way of “religous” or “political” rationale) and yourself and those who agree with you into your “conservative” (i.e. “good”) box, then you have a real problem that perhaps you should discuss with your bishop.
The crux of what I have to say is best said by Fr. Kishkovsky:
The point is that on a spectrum of moral, cultural, and social issues which are of concern to Orthodox Christians it is possible to find SOME affinities with Christian liberals, and SOME affinities with Christian conservatives.
OrthodoxyToday: Tradition or Traditionalism
Hypocrisy with its power trip is alive and well today just as much as 2000 years ago. American culture seems to breed Elmer Gantrys and Dr. Flockshorns like rabbits, who aren’t the least bit hesitant to pride themselves on any myriad of deluded things. Regardless of what “spiritual distinctions” you may think need to be made about hypocrisy, it manifests itself in many “churches”. Unfortunately, the Orthodox Church (and online “community”) isn’t immune, forcing sheep to “think” for themselves like Berean Lionel.
TheSheepComics – Episode 1: Berean Lionel
I’d walk hundreds of miles to confess to a priest capable of making real distinctions as does Fr. Kishkovsky, but you couldn’t pay me to attend at a pigeonholing parish even if all I had to do was roll out of bed.
The reason that many today believe a lie for truth, is simply that the Truth has been so sordidly coopted by hypocrisy, that the believers of lies, uncapable of making proper distinction between hypocrisy’s masquerade and Truth, have rejected all of it.
You would do far more good if you made that distinction, as well as elaborated the distinctions of Orthodoxy from heterodoxy, especially Puritanism’s and Pietism’s influence on western/American “cultural” “conservatism”.
Note 19. Paradosis, again, a lot of assumptions, a lot of assertions. I am going to manage it by responding only to a few points relating to the original discussion.
Because of the nature of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy still recognizes the authority of virtue. Delusion sees evil as good, and good as evil; it elevates the unlawful as lawful.
Hypocrisy then, is closer to truth. Or put more simply, the hypocrite is closer to truth, because he still acknowledges its authority. The delusioned does not.
I’ve read it. Frankly, I find the central thesis functionally useless. The warning against aligning oneself too close to political movements is good (although I wish Fr. Kishkovsky would take his own advice concerning the NCC). Overall, I think it was written because many of the assumptions held about cultural involvement and response are being questioned and challenged — developments I welcome but others apparently do not.
paradosis writes: “In just such way of hypocrisy, devotion to Jesus has become so loaded with all manner of double standard in the west to the point that aetheism has become attractive to many who don’t know any better and reject Christianity thinking it a hateful religion based in hypocrisy.”
I think it’s even worse than that. What happens is not so much that Christianity is rejected, but that it simply becomes irrelevant. A lot of people I know don’t think about Christianity any more than they do about Zeus or Odin. Conservative Christianity is not so much rejected as bypassed. It is seen as an ideology that defines itself by what it is against, most notably homosexuality, abortion, and “liberals” (whatever those are). It encourages that perception when it allies itself with non-Christians who have the same enemies. To the extent that Christians openly embrace non-Christian social conservatives, it’s fair to ask if there is actually a significant difference between Christians and those people.
Not all that many years ago theological differences between Christian groups were thought to be important. Today, specific social and political issues have replaced theological issues as the main focus and litmus test. In a real sense, social and political issues have BECOME religious issues for many people. For example, Michael Savage supports Christian fundamentalists, and many fundamentalists suspect that when the rapture comes, Michael Savage is going with them.
For non-Christians this creates a confusing situation in which it is no longer clear what Christianity is even about. If Michael Savage is going up in the rapture, then what’s all this stuff about Jesus and church and all that other evangelical stuff? If Rush Limbaugh posted here under a pseudonym, he would be embraced as a valued member of the home team. In that sense, what is Orthodoxy about? And I suspect the situation is the same in liberal Christianity. Noam Chomsky could post under a different name on a liberal Christian blog, and probably no one would bat an eye.
When social and political issues replace theology as the touchstone, then Christianity becomes irrelevant, or more precisely, it makes itself irrelevant. In a great irony, Christianity becomes an atheistic religion. It becomes a-theistic — literally “without God” — not because it rejects God, but because God is no longer really necessary. Because if the main thing is to have the right social and political beliefs, and you can do that either with or without religion, then God becomes an option — the main thing is the ideology, and then if you want you can choose the “God option” to go along with that.
One of the reasons that some people look upon Christianity as against certain behaviors only is because they have rejected the underlyng principals of virtue. They do not see virtue as being “for” anything merely a negtion of what they want to do.
Pro-abortionists have abandoned the fundamental principal that all life is sacred and must be treated that way (so have Christian hypocrites)
Homosexual advocates have abandoned the idea that sex is procreative in nature (a procreation that goes beyond just the conception of children)
Obedience is a vice
Humility is a weakness
Love is sentimenalized and perverted into being entirely sexual
Chastity is insane
Patience is scorned
Faith is considered irrational
Confession of sins is laughable.
Of course hypocrisy is the first step in that direction.
These ideas gain acceptance, in large part, because of the rejection of sacred dimension of being. Once the scared is rejected as integral to our nature, the virtues are sentimentalized and moralized, hypocrisy follows, then delusion–spiritual pride. According to what I have read spiritual pride can manifiest in many ways. It can masquerade as piety in legalists and those who proclaim greater righteousness for a select few. It can manifest in tremendous worldly activity that produces remarkable achievements in the worldly sense but denies the soul. It can also, of course, be recognized in the out-right deniers of God who openly exalt themselves above God.
Those who still profess Christ and His Church must be wary of judgemental legalism for it is no more than a sophisticated hypocrisy.
Who is closer to God? None of the above. All lack the essential ingediant of humility.
At the last World Council of Churches meeting, Kishkovsky read a statement from the US delegates “apologizing” for the evil that the US visits upon the world – enslaving poor people, starting wars, ruining the environment, etc. The rhetoric was hard-core leftist. He has not, to my knowledge, ever said a word defending church teachings that might be construed as “conservative”. All the while offering his support and services to this 100% left-wing political organization that specializes in trashing traditional Christian teaching, not – pace Jim Holman – concerning social issues, but concerning core dogma like the understanding of God and the Trinity.
Then there is Bartholomew, who says that there would be no floods in eastern Europe if Americans didn’t drive SUVs, and that environmental degradation leads to earthquakes.
Left-wing churchmen relentlessly politicize the faith, often on highly dubious grounds, and usually because they can’t understand economics. But merely point out that a nine-month old fetus ought not to have her brains sucked out and they cry “don’t be so political”.
Overall, I think it was written because many of the assumptions held about cultural involvement and response are being questioned and challenged — developments I welcome but others apparently do not.
And overall, your presumptuous defense, not of the Faith – of Orthodoxy or Orthodox Culture, but of “conservatism”, shows that you consider yourself above assumption, while continually leveling accusations at others of not measuring up to your standard. You only welcome question and challenge so you can show off what you must think is your superior intelligence, discernment and morality, as you never admit mistake or show weakness, much less humility.
In heterodox fashion, instead of seeing morality as a byproduct of Holy Communion, you seem to think that “moral issues” and secular culture are of primary importance. That is your obsession. You consistently consider your responses to others to be perfectly logical and sensible while predictably deeming others as flawed, except those that concur, or you construe as concurring with your “conservative” agenda.
There is not ONE cultural issue that you defend or choose to triumph on this site that would fall within what is secularly categorized as “liberal”, which only shows how biased you are since there are at least several that stem directly from Orthodox theology as much as “conservative” issues do, on which you choose instead to narrowly focus. Coincidentally, you only choose to triumph the same “conservative” issues that are predictably beaten to death in the secular public forum.
What’s worse is that you cloak your contentious opinion with the authority of Orthodox Christianity, by one-sidedly “tipping your hat” to that authority while vested in priesthood. No “better” example of hypocrisy could possibly be needed in order to accurately make “moral distinctions” without them “collapsing”. No wonder you make of hypocrisy in all it’s sin a moral relativism that you prefer to delusion.
Again, Paradosis, a lot of assumptions and assertions all devolving into an attack on my character.
Look, you can challenge my ideas (or the others who post here) all you want. Plenty of people do. There is no restriction on this whatsoever. But moralistic finger wagging is not a real challenge. Its function is to intimidate. It substitutes moral posturing for real engagement with real ideas.
Well, sure, but isn’t this the way it works? If I didn’t believe my responses were logical and sensible, why would I take the time to explain them to others? Don’t you believe the same thing, albeit from another direction? Otherwise, why make the effort to challenge me?
I think though what bothers you is that I challenge the assumption that liberal cultural values and Orthodox Christian moral values fit hand in glove. I don’t believe that obviously. Frankly, I think the Christian moral lexicon has been usurped, and if you stick around you will hear me make that point in a handful of different ways.
To a mind conditioned by those culturally liberal moral assumptions, my criticisms sound like unequivocal support of political conservativism. I am certainly more politically conservative than liberal, but most critiques deal with the culture, not politics, and again, if you stick around, you will hear this affirmed over and over, i.e.: politics follows culture. As for the conditioned reaction, I don’t think there is any way around it given the politicized cultural climate.
Actually, I’ve been praising pro-life Democrats a lot lately. It’s a development I strongly support.
As for “secular public forum”; a lot of debate in the public square (not sure what you mean precisely by “secular” — do you mean non-Orthodox?) is proundly moral (and theological) in nature. Why wouldn’t Christians have something to say on these matters? Fr. Kishkovsky (you brought him up, remember?) believes this kind of engagement is legitimate as well or he wouldn’t involve himself with the NCC and WCC.
One final point:
Actually, I believe that Orthodox Christianity has a lot to give American culture, which also means that there is much worth preserving in the American experience. Alerting people to the value that remains (and needs to be protected and nurtured) is one of the reasons for this website. I am not sure what you mean by “Orthodox culture”. In my view, Orthodox Christianity in America requires a dynamic engagement with culture, and not (if I understand you correctly) a rhetorical recourse to idealized forms that don’t seem to exist anywhere. In fact, the more the latter is advocated, the more actual engagement drifts leftward, which is to say accomodating towards secular values in, say, the NCC and elsewhere.
In #13 paradosis quotes on one of my statements: I think the folks on what we describe as the “LEFT” tend to fall into the utilitarian nihilism MORE frequently, but the temptation is there for all of us even in our private life.
Then asks: Why the qualification? Do you really think that “liberal” Americans are any “more” prone to temptation than “conservative” Americans? After all, both are just “right” and “left” forms of the same rationalistic Enlightenment “liberalism”.
1.While you are correct that nihilism is at the foundation of all current political thought, the expression of that nihilism from current political movements (not individuals) identified as “leftist” seems more pronounced to me. That may be my bias however.
2.I said nothing about liberals as individuals (my use of the word “folks” is purely as a collective, not as a reference to individuals).
3.You are quite correct in pointing out that both the “right” and the “left” share a common ancestor in the rationalism of the so-called “Enlightenment”
4. Fascism failed to take hold as an open political movement in the United States only because Hitler attacked us. There is a much greater affinity for fascism in the United States than there is for socialism and communism. (Although ultimately they end in the same horror). That affinity comes in large part from theology propagated by “conservative Christians” here in the United States.
5.Capitalism as an ideology is just as de-humanizing and horrific as any other ism. It is better at hiding the horror because it is more seductive than overtly coercive. As an economic approach however, it can be more friendly to traditional Christianity than Marxism even though it is not inherently so.
6.So I accept your critique in the sense that political distinctions such as liberal vs conservative, left vs right only serve to perpetuate ideology and all ideology is incompatible with traditional Christianity because all ideology is formed with the express purpose of eliminating the need for God.
Paradosis, now that we know you dislike Fr. Hans I have a few questions:
I agree with your premise that both “liberal” and “conservative” Christians are at odds with Orthodox Christianity. Therefore:
What affinity do you see with “liberal” Christians? What affinity do you see with “conservative” Christians?
Can you give an example of how we, as Orthodox Christians, can act on our affinity with “liberal” Christians without falling into the ideological trap they have set for us?
Do you perceive any way that the Church can act in concert with either “liberals” or “conservatives” that will allow us to remain free of the ideological taint?
In general, how would you approach moral issues, i.e, can we do so in our culture in a way that is apolitical?
#25 Fr. Hans
I think “co-opted” would be a better word than usurped.
Tom, the key difference between the words usurp and co-opt is the use of force. Usurpation always involves force. Given our cultural environment, I think usurpation is correct. Unfortunately, surrendered is not inappropriate in many cases, but co-opted is not strong enough for what has happened.
Morals are not just rules of behavior. Properly construed, they are statements founded on a particular understanding of our nature and what is best in us. As such, morals have both an ontological and cosmological foundation. What has happened over the last 400 to 500 years is a concerted effort by those opposed to traditional Christianity to forge a different cosmology and a different ontology. The objective is to force out traditional Christian understanding and take its place. In the process, the very concepts of morality are captured and the words used to describe them redefined. Some words and concepts are trans-valued such as sin. It is no longer sin that is bad; the very idea of sin is what is bad. Other words and concepts are debased and sentimentalized such as love, which has become and expression of sexual desire and emotional wish fulfillment rather than the kenotic commitment.
We have an obligation as Christians to engage the ideas in the public forum, however, if we are to succeed, our rhetoric must be founded upon genuine spiritual struggle in obedience to Christ. Prayer, fasting, repentance, forgiveness and almsgiving must be the hallmark of our witness, not just our words. (There are those who would take even these actions away from us and politicize and sentimentalize them). As a priest on another blog recently remarked, “Others will believe in Christ when they see his crucifixion displayed in the lives of his followers. Until they see his crucifixion displayed in His followers, they have not yet heard the Gospel.” Christ Crucified.
21) Jim I appreciate your thoughtful post and agree with what you have to say.
In all fairness, I have to admit to “the rest of the story”, and acknowledge the point that Tom makes too 23) , that there can be “trashing of traditional church teachings…concerning core dogma like the understanding of God and the Trinity”, typical of the left that is also proliferated under religious guise. However, I think that is an outgrowth from the false “types” inherent in western forms of christianity, rather than the modern form of Enlightenment Liberal “liberalism” per se.
On Types and Icons
“False types in theology often lead to false models of living and this results in collective false traditions being inserted into our communities. The final result is an anti-Christian image of the meaning of our life and of the world. Thus, the process of moulding one’s life according to the image of the life of the Holy Trinity is obscured and even obliterated. Then, secular types of living prevail and Christians are little by little identified with the rest of the world. The light is extinguished, the witness of our hope is weakened and our expectation, the expectation of the redemption of the whole universe, according to the apostle, is deformed and neglected. Then, people call themselves Christians but in truth they are no more. The whole orientation of their communities, even of their own personal lives is set according to anti-Christian standards. This is what happened in the historical West, where the wrongful theology adopted in the years before the schism evolved into a clearly anti-Christian culture during the Middle Ages and eventually in the pagan-oriented, humanistic and utilitarian civilization of the Enlightenment, that is still present to this day and defines the goals of our modern society.”
I think that this foundation of “false types” is why we see atheism birthed from within western culture and not elsewhere. I think that the description of the development of the atheist phenomenon in River of Fire is as accurate as can be found.
23)Left-wing churchmen relentlessly politicize the faith, often on highly dubious grounds, and usually because they can’t understand economics. But merely point out that a nine-month old fetus ought not to have her brains sucked out and they cry “don’t be so political”.
What you describe Tom is the same bias that I have already pointed out from another angle, and I have the same to say about it as I have about the bias from that opposite side of the coin. It seems suspect, however that you stand not just against abortion, hypocrisy of bias of “liberal churchman” and Orthodox involvement in the NCC, but against everything that Fr. Kishkovsky might have happened to speak up about, given that you consider him a hypocrite from the left. I don’t agree with you on that, and unless you provide documentation, I doubt that Fr. Kishkovsky or Patriarch Bartholomew would stand for things they do and against you by making light of abortion as you imply. It seems more likely that you don’t like anything said that is critical of your chosen ideological “side” and want tit for tat against the other side (I know you are so what am I? kind of foolishness).
I happen to agree with you on the abortion issue and the NCC, but beyond that we may part ways. I prefer to have the freedom of discretion to not agree on all counts with any ideological side unless it can be warranted, which currently is dubious that it can.
You might try exercising some discretion of your own. Since you seem to think that the faith is politicized on the left from a lack of understanding of economics, than try refraining from politicizing it on the right from a lack of understanding of organic chemistry and ecology, or simply because you consider any such issues involving those disciplines “liberal” ones to be opposed on that ground alone. I think it blasphemous and an indication of the descralization (desecration) of western culture to torture any creature, not only to “suck the brains from a human fetus”, but that doesn’t mean I think humans are equal to animals, only that I accept that God so loved the world, without limiting His love to human creatures only.
At the risk of stirring your abortion pot: FYI – a nine month fetus is the same as a full term baby; if you think brain sucking of such is legal in this country, then the burden of proof rests on you. If it’s being done, all that proves is criminal activity. If you think that’s what every pro-choice political pundit advocates, you’re mistaken.
I’m not drawing shades of gray here in support of abortionists of any stripe, as I don’t approve of fetal brain sucking at any stage. But let’s not misrepresent or truncate facts. Doing so only adds more to similarity with ideological pundits masquerading as religious zealots and to discrediting of Orthodox Christian Culture through confusion with heterodox utopian ideals.
Remember, socialists and communists aren’t the only idealogues who instigate mass movements to try and create “heaven on earth”. Puritan theology incorporates its own framework of thought for embarking on that path, and we have to face up to the fact that “conservatism” in America is deeply rooted in such heterodox Puritanism, and Pietism with its obsession with morality, with an unhealthy mix of American civic “religion” and American “exceptionalism”. I think that fact as much if not more so than some others is what gives “conservatism” in America its distinctive “coloration”, and that it is crucial to the survival of Orthodoxy in America that it be distinguished as a flag of a different color.
25) Jacobse, you’ll have to do more than praise pro-life Democrats to convince me of your impartiality. Find something else to extol on the “liberal” side of the cultural agenda fence that meshes with Orthodox Christian culture and sanctified relation to the world, besides the stuff you already extol from the right. I don’t mean do a flip-flop on your stance on any “conservative” issues, just broaden your horizon and “think” about focusing in on something other than sexuality, marriage, and “liberalism” in your usual way, or pro-life in strictly human terms.
22) 26) 27) I appreciate your thoughtful posts Michael. Brueghel’s art is a great resource for deepening understanding of the development and impact of capitalism on western culture. You have posed some good questions. I suppose a starting place might be Paradosis.INFO, where I have posted a sketch of what OrthodoxyToday might look like if more cultural issues were addressed than those that are redundant to contemporary American “conservatism”.
Wayward Christian Soldiers
I have watched in horror as the name of Jesus has been used to serve national ambitions, strengthen middle-class values and justify war. …We have recast the faith according to our cultural preferences and baptized our prejudices, along with our will to power, in the shallow waters of civic piety.
– Charles Marsh
#30 paradosis
You wrote:
Can you point to something I have written that indicates I don’t understand organic chemistry or ecology? I have an MS in biochemical engineering and spent 7 years working in environmental biotechnology. What are your qualifications?
When Kishkovsky says America is destroying the environment or when Bartholomew says that earthquakes result from environmental degradation they are either ignorant or being purposefully deceptive for political reasons. Either way they are staking out political positions that do not follow from Orthodox theology, which is what they are supposed to be preaching.
You don’t understand what I said. I said that Kishkovsky’s devotion to the WCC is deplorable because the group traduces orthodox dogma, not because they are pro-abortion.
Um…apparently you haven’t followed the partial birth abortion debate.
I grind my teeth whenever I hear an Orthodox cleric say something like “Oh, America is just as bad as the Soviet Union ever was”, or “capitalism is just as bad as communism”. These are profoundly ignorant claims made from the safety and comfort of a country that allows the clerics to worship and talk freely. Maybe a few months in a gulag would be good therapy for such attitudes.
Note 30. Paradosis writes:
For the record, I am not really concerned whether or not you think I am impartial — that should be clear from my earlier response. You really ought to hold back on the personal attacks though because it detracts from your credibility.
Look, obviously some ox has been gored. I don’t know of any other way to interpret this attempt to smash the discussion. Further, I can’t respond to undefined terms like “Orthodox Christian culture”, cliches like “broaden your horizon”, or assertions like “…focusing in on something other than sexuality, marriage, and ‘liberalism’ in your usual way, or pro-life in strictly human terms” without some effort on your part to explain what you mean. These are emotive statements. They say nothing about how you think, only how you feel.
You are going to have to turn down the volume, lower the condescension a notch or two, and quit posting tomes if you want to contribute to the discussion. It is not going to work otherwise. It’s a limitation of the medium.
I am going to let the link stand. It will raise your Google standings and drive traffic to your site. Consider it a gesture of good will.
paradosis, I visited your site and I am sure there is much worthwhile reading there but my overall impression is not positive. You hide behind a “theological” name, specifically deny responsibility for the content of any of material to which you link and give no information as to your place within the Orthodox communion. Despite your lack of transparency to accountability you proclaim that you speak for the true faith. The two do not go hand in hand.
I have intentionally revealed a great deal about myself, precisely so that I can be held accountable if I should stray.
You, on the other hand, evade. By posting A link instead of answering even one of my questions you have evaded my questions. Neither the content of your posts, the ad hominum attitude, nor the evasion of direct questions leads me to believe that you speak in the Tradition of the Church but rather from some “super” Orthodox twisting of the Tradition. Your statement in post #19 “I’d walk hundreds of miles to confess to a priest capable of making real distinctions as does Fr. Kishkovsky, but you couldn’t pay me to attend at a pigeonholing parish even if all I had to do was roll out of bed.” is indicative of such a stance. The grace of the priesthood and the sacraments is the same regradless of who administers them as long as the priest is under legitmate apostolic authority.
One big fallacy you promote is the idea of an “Orthodox culture.” There is no such entity. There is only human culture which has been Christianized. The Orthodox missionaries to Alaska and elsewhere have taken the Paul Harvey approch to evangelism. “That is what you believe and practice? Well, let me tell you the rest of the story”. Despite my profound disagreement with western culture as it now exists and the theology of western Christanity, I am frequently strengthened in my faith by the simple joy of many Protestants in the person of Jesus Christ as Savior. That joyful personal faith and the willingness to serve others that flows from that faith is Christian. They recognize, as did Peter, that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God. It is part of the fabric of the United States that the Church can strengthen and build upon. To denigrate that faith is destructive and stupid.
Whatever you think of Fr. Hans, he has the courage to say exactly who he is and who his bishop is. You attack his character and his priesthood without the courage to show yourself. That is a dispicable act. Since Fr. Hans is a far more charitable man than I am, he may well not allow this to be posted, but I hope he does. And, just in case you missed it and want to have a talk with my bishop: I am a member of St. George Antiochian Orthodox Cathedral in Wichita, KS, a part of the Antiochian Diocese of Wichita and Mid-America overseen by his Grace Bishop BASIL. Who are you?
Words, especially hair splitting intellectualizations have rarely if ever converted anyone.
They converted me. I know of many many converts who were “converted through words”, or rather words were part of the tool set the Holy Spirit used. I agree that they are not the end-all-be-all of “conversion”, even perhaps a minor player – but still part of the play.
I also think they can be counter productive to some. The “Trolls” here (Jim, Dean, maybe others) are negatively affected by what is said here IMO.
So, like peace, war, rain, drought, everything else under the sun – words have their place…
Paradosis says:
The crux of what I have to say is best said by Fr. Kishkovsky:
The point is that on a spectrum of moral, cultural, and social issues which are of concern to Orthodox Christians it is possible to find SOME affinities with Christian liberals, and SOME affinities with Christian conservatives.
OrthodoxyToday: Tradition or Traditionalism
Fr. Kishkovsky, as a principled supporter of the WCC/NCC, is trying a bit too hard here. Why the statement “concern to Orthodox Christians it is possible to find SOME affinities with Christian liberals, and SOME affinities with Christian conservatives.” is true in an isolated context, in the reality, there are many more, in both quantity and quality, affinities to the “Christian conservatives” than “Christian liberals”.
Tom says:
Then there is Bartholomew, who says that there would be no floods in eastern Europe if Americans didn’t drive SUVs, and that environmental degradation leads to earthquakes.
Left-wing churchmen relentlessly politicize the faith…”
Too true. Bartholomew and Kishkovsky are typical liberals, who often as not, seem to be trying to “paste” Christianity into political/cultural liberalism. It’s hard to see their Christianity through the fog of their left wing assumptions about reality – sort of like Dean…:)
27)
What affinity do you see with “liberal” Christians? What affinity do you see with “conservative” Christians?
Being pro-life means being pro-life without limit, it means loving human creatures born and unborn (as on the right) and striving to be good stewards of all creatures and creation, like is more supported on the left than the right.
Be supportive of economic endeavor and business opportunity as on the right, and in a way that genuinely helps laborers and the poor. (See Anthony C. Sutton how Wall Street could use some reform. Take stock in Pres. Eisenhour, Gen. Smedley Butler, and Chuck Spinney’s experience; contemplate the art of Brueghel, especially the Tower of Babel).
Can you give an example of how we, as Orthodox Christians, can act on our affinity with “liberal” Christians without falling into the ideological trap they have set for us?
Stop focusing on ideological traps, and/or stop to consider that you may have already fallen into one on the right by way of false “types”, puritanism, pietism, American civic religion and American exceptionalism. Take stock of history and consider how your “faith” has been coopted, ursurped, tainted or whatever by having grown up in American culture. There’s not only fluoride in the water, and toxic chemicals in the air, the culture is the median of some strange ideas, not only “liberalism” with a lowercase l. Study up on American civic religion, American exceptionalism, puritanism and its devolution into unitarianism, etc., and pietism. No one need “hate” America, American culture, and Americans in order to understand these for what they are, and no one will be able to have a positive effect upon America until they are honest about the extent and content of its cultural influence in all its multifarious forms, right and left. I just spoke with a protestant friend last night who told me she had never heard of Christian icons until she met me and now she keeps running into them. She also made the statement that James was the “brother” of Jesus and we discussed that. Until then I don’t think she had ever considered the Virgin Mary might be “ever-virgin” much less what effect that “type” has on human culture. I agree, there is much positive in the way of individual protestant believers, but that belies the fact that protestant theology contributed a lions share to development of American culture and operates from the basis of false “types”, which have contributed to the rise of “liberal” protestantism, something to which you seem opposed. You can’t argue against tradition for 500 years, then suddenly want to stand for a “tradition” of another making that is being lost in the same current that produced that false “tradition” to begin with.
Do you perceive any way that the Church can act in concert with either “liberals” or “conservatives” that will allow us to remain free of the ideological taint?
Don’t put Orthodox Christian eggs all in one political basket, or perhaps any political basket.
In general, how would you approach moral issues, i.e, can we do so in our culture in a way that is apolitical?
1) abortion: refrain from it oneself; get involved with public information service organization; better yet, form a volunteer charity to fund prenatal care and adoption proceedings for women who are willing to carry their baby full term and put it up for adoption as alternative to abortion. In other words, be proactive and positive, humble, self-sacrificing and eschew all the negative posturing.
We won’t be asked or commended come Judgement Day on how “outspoken” we were on the “right” or “left”.
2) marriage/sexuality: stick to Orthodox understanding of spiritual significance of marriage and sexuality, and promote nothing else from within the Church; pray for anyone and everyone who does not know, understand, accept or practice that understanding; place all that in God’s hands and know that you have done all that can and should be done; if the uncivil “civil””world” redefines marriage and sexuality, then the world will answer for that; pop cultural ideas about sexuality and “civil” marriage do not validate nor invalidate Orthodox Christian marriage and sexuality; see to it that you personally and the Church never define them as the world does; hold fast to Tradition and the faith of the apostles without adding to the political fray of yet another political issue.
3)Take responsibility for creating Orthodox Culture locally instead of trying to influence or “reform” American culture globally. American culture is what it is and a LOT has gone into that stew. If you get caught up in it, it will consume your life. Be a producer instead of a consumer; join forces with other Orthodox Christians and build your own physical cohousing community, with supporting businesses, agriculture, solar/wind energy, temple, homeschool, etc. Make sure it’s an “open” community that embraces and welcomes the world. Be a light to the world that outshines even Cuba today with its low tech agricultural “revolution”/ organiponicos. Walk to Divine Liturgy; raise children in the midst of nature in a rural area; dare to get out of the urban environment even if it means a salary reduction and spread Orthodoxy into the American heartland. Open your community to the public with outreach activities so others are exposed to Orthodox Christianity in a positive way. That way there is no misunderstanding or mistaking Orthodox Christians/Christianity for something else. Tap the power of Orthodox iconography, architecture, culture to attract non-christians; its truly an amazing thing. Focus on Orthodox Christian roots of Europe to show European Americans, and even Hispanics, and African Americans their Christian “heritage”. There are so many roads that can lead to Orthodoxy; work to visibly open them not stifle them in blogging. See “culture” at LifeGivingSpring.INFO You will have no problem making “news” in that way. The world just might beat a path to your door.
4) I’m sure there are many more suggestions unlimited by the creativity of Orthodox Christians who are open minded and generous enough to investigate ideas outside polarized political boxes.
31) Then use your intelligent “degrees” to divulge a more balanced scientific and less truncated discussion of the ins and outs of environmental problems than the political posturing you accuse in Patriarch Bartholomew et. al. Provide the links to posts in this blog where you have done so, AND where that informational content has not simply been a redundant ditto of something that could be found anywhere else on a “conservative” political blog.
I wonder what St. Clement would think about your “economic” interest, stance, understanding and expertise.
America needn’t be compared to anyone else, but it does have it’s own dark side in need of reform so that we can live up to our own propaganda.
As far as understanding economics, I find more of interest that could be put to good use in G.K. Chesterton’s views on distributionism and Thorstein Veblen’s economics than I do in Adam Smith or Alan Greenspan.
32) Since you are enamored by pro-life Democrats, you may also be taken with those who are doing billionaires’ bidding as well. (I’m not.)
BTW (re: 34) : OK for me to refer to you or anyone else as “Troll”, or is that permission granted only to a select few? Since you don’t have any published guidelines and rules for posting, seem to make up “rules” as you go and “moderate” them as you see fit, I thought it best to ask.
I think the ox that you gore is anyone outside of your way of thinking. You accuse me of making assumptions, emotive statements that are unclear and personal attacks, while blessing what you have to say as your entitled “opinion”. When doing so it’s unclear whether you do this in the role of an individual, or of a priest. Personally, I think it’s a conflict of interest, and by nature of your being vested in the priesthood, you cease to have such “liberty”.
I don’t know how else to communicate to you that your labeling of someone’s thinking as “liberal” or being influenced by “liberal” culture is all it takes on this blog to be dismissed, but then it’s your “party”.
I agree, your lack of concern for impartiality was already apparant as you said, long ago, and now you’ve put that in writing much more explicitly and succinctly. Trying to be generous when it comes to understanding cultural issues from some vantage point besides modern day “conservatism” means discussing something ELSE than the usual “problems” with liberalism on topics such as: abortion, sexuality, marriage, etc. (you know the drill as well if not better than I) I’m sure you can find other “problems” with western culture other than those that are so easily and conveniently labeled “liberal”. You must find those on your own; if I or anyone else suggest anything you will most likely only tear it to shreds, strip us down and show your superiority but putting us in our box (in a polite way of course that follows your rules but is still pointless). If you commit this to prayer, you just may be granted an “awakening” and eyeopening, growth experience. And I don’t think that’s a moral tome. Seems you are really hung up over moral issues.
Michael says:
While you are correct that nihilism is at the foundation of all current political thought
Almost true. Real conservatives, as opposed to the libertarianism, recognizes God as the ground of “life in the polis”. Our problem here in the USA is that libertarian’s have usurped the conservative voice in the public square, and there is a general confusion between the two (i.e. libertarian & conservative). I am sympathetic toward those who would criticize a conflation of Christianity with libertarianism, however they are crying wolf when it comes to conservativism…
33) Since you are so close to Bishop Basil, I would appreciate if you would ask HIM if HE thinks Pride is a higher vice than hypocrisy, and if hypocrisy makes the political “right” closer to Truth than the political “left” (since the “left” makes a lie of truth), because hypocrisy at least “tips its hat” to virtue. (Reading what I just wrote, I can’t help but think of the disciples jockeying for position and hear Jesus tell them the first will be last.)
I have never heard of such hypocrisy/Pride wrangling, consider it another false teaching and have gauged my responses accordingly. I do know Pride to be the root of hypocrisy, and hypocrisy to be one of the children of Pride, and that Pride can blind (delude) one into thinking they stand in Truth while delving into any number of destructive behaviors.
I suggest you print out all your OT commentary from over the years for Bishop Basil to review, correct and “bless”. I am interested in how much of it he may concur with, and what he might add/subtract from it. Also, whether you have a blessing from him or your priest to participate on this or any other blog.
Why don’t you ASK HIM if he thinks it’s the highest and best use of the time and talents you have been loaned.
Since you think I am so despicable, then please also see if he thinks you should pray for me.
I do respect the Orthodox priesthood, but do also know that no priest is infallable; when Fr.J stands in Orthodox Tradition I magnify that and have no beef with what he says or does, but do oppose him over goring ox and bullocks otherwise. As far as where I attend, it’s not anywhere I have to suffer participation in theSheepComics.com, Episode 1 or any similar drama; there are other options available.
I interpret your comment about me “twisting” tradition as yet another in the vein of “I know you are so what am I” defense which has nothing other thoughtful or meaningfull to say, so I will ignore it.
A higher and better use of OT blogging could be constructive criticism of American/western culture that finds points of commonality on which to initiate a relationship with heterodox and nonChristians and build (not argue) from there. Cultural heritage is one such point of commonality. Many people are interested in their cultural heritage. Showing them the Orthodox Christian root of that heritage, the purpose, beauty and “how to” of praying for the repose of their ancestors just might provide them with a path that helps them find their way into the Church. After all, we all have a common ancestor, a reason for Festlichkeit.
OCMC.org has some good guidelines for finding those points of commonality in Saving People in a Modern World.
Secularism
This way of life has been described in various ways. However, perhaps Fr. Alexander Schmemann said it best when he described secularism as a loss of worship and as a loss of the experience of God in our lives. In other words, we become so consumed with the affairs of this world that we fail to appreciate and CELEBRATE the Divine Presence in our lives.
It is here that Orthodoxy’s SACRAMENTAL view of the world needs to be emphasized, and that the grace and power of God permeate ALL of CREATION. Secular-minded people need to be told that the energies of God are so much a part of us that it is easy to overlook their presence. In a similar vein, we cannot LIVE without the oxygen that is breathed into our body thousands of times per day and yet we are usually unaware of this process.
For starters, begin practicing some of these pointers (at OCMC link) on this blog so the Unity of the Faith becomes visible instead of more contentious cacophony of WORDS. I’ve visited here many times over the years only to witness SOStuff.
There isn’t any other information I can give you that will enable you to “know” any better “who” I am than what I have already, especially if you have no “ganas” (desire) to be open to the possibility that God just might be showing you something through me you don’t already “know”.
You can reach me anytime day or night via. “info at” Pardosis.INFO, LifeGivingSpring.INFO, iResale.INFO or StallFamily.NET. It’s been “fun” but I’m all blahgged out and off to eat weeds, garden, pray, care for Mother, spend time with dog, find others interested in cohousing, voluntary simplicity, cultural creativity, etc. ….
paradosis says:
It seems suspect, however that you stand not just against abortion, hypocrisy of bias of “liberal churchman” and Orthodox involvement in the NCC, but against everything that Fr. Kishkovsky might have happened to speak up about
How about you document where Tom said “everything”? You have a strong tendency to collapse distinctions, and assume a personal “attack”. What Tom and I) reject is Kishkovsky’s and Bartholomew’s erroneous liberalism (Kishkovsky on cultural issues, and Bartholomew on “global warming”). You ask for links; try the NCC statement read at that WCC meeting in Brazil – you can Google it.
Then use your intelligent “degrees” to divulge a more balanced scientific and less truncated discussion of the ins and outs of environmental problems
Fr. Jacobse has posted several learned articles on why the “global warming scare” is a political movement, not a scientific one. You can find this information everywhere. A blog is not the place to go over every detail. Thus, we end up talking more about the moral/cultural implications of this scare movement than the science. Even so, Missourian and others have gone tit for tat on the “science” of it all with Dean and others. What exactly are you complaining about here? Don’t like the fact that we don’t discuss this scare in liberal terms? Don’t like the fact that we don’t buy into a Rawlsian/Kantian “neutral” ground where cultural and moral disputes can allegedly be adjudicated? How is THAT “Orthodox” or “Christian”??
Paradosis
hypocrisy makes the political “right” closer to Truth than the political “left” (since the “left” makes a lie of truth), because hypocrisy at least “tips its hat” to virtue.
This is what you are really hung up about. Go back and read what Fr. Jacobse said. A hypocrite knows what he is doing is wrong, and has a bases to begin the turn (repentance). A principled evil doer does not, in that he really believes wrong is right. This is not to say a hypocrite is not a hypocrite, just that he is not a principled evil doer
Not sure why you are fighting that little bit of truth so hard. How old are you?
Note 39. Paradosis writes:
Well, since you asked. Try to use consistent paragraph breaks. Avoid stream of consciousness thinking. Reason instead of emote. Stay focused on one or two items per post. Answer the questions posed to you. Don’t assume finger wagging is substantive argument.
Finally, stop hiding behind a pseudonym.
Every so often we get a contributor like yourself, a boatload of sound and fury but never courageous enough to use their real name. They roll in, type out six to ten frantic missives (usually way too long, often disjointed), decide that the regular contributors are beyond redemption, and then move on. They seem to use the site as an emotional disposal tank.
42)”Tipping the hat” says to me that hypocrisy makes a mockery of virtue by superficially acknowledging it from the outside, instead of genuinely being virtuous. There is nothing in disobeying what one holds as authority that makes repentance any more “probable” for such person than one who outright rejects that authority.
In fact, it could be far worse for a person who falls into hypocrisy enough, or persists in it long enough (Hebrews 10:26) In that case, there’s more a chance in hell of the principled “evil doer” running into the arms of God (ala Weil) than the hypocrite repenting.
The hypocrite may very likely also become deluded into think that his disobedience is acceptable or doesn’t matter, or into rationalizing it in a myriad of ways.
So you see, you don’t have to insult my maturity by asking my age. I already “know” you by such tactics.
The “hat tipping” commentary is just another point in a long line of defense of the “conservativism’s better than liberalism”, nah nah nah theme that plays on and on on this blog
43) I’m not sure that a majority of priests or bishops, English professors, or citizens at large would agree with your negative criticism of my posts, writing style, or clarity of expression, so I’ll keep my skin thick.
You can dismiss criticisms of your opinions and tactics on your own grounds of “emotional outburst” but that doesn’t make it Truth, only makes you judge and jury. When you make of “the blog” a one-sided sewer, I suppose that might encourage some “drop ins” to use it as a “disposal tank”. I’d be interested in what Metropolitan Alexios thinks about “the blog”.
Oh, and you didn’t answer if I could have permission (like someone else must have) to refer to you or others as “Trolls”.
Jacobse wrote:
paradosis wrote:
Trust us, paradosis, Fr. Jacobse nailed your style!
You have given me no reason to “trust” you.
I place my trust elsewhere.
Note 45
”Tipping the hat” says to me that hypocrisy makes a mockery of virtue by superficially acknowledging it from the outside, instead of genuinely being virtuous.
Well yes, a hypocrite is a hypocrite, hypocrisy is hypocrisy. That said, a hypocrite is usually not “superficially acknowledging” virtue – he is usually in a deep struggle with it, which is one reason why hypocrisy rightly looks so convoluted and painful from the outside. Perhaps your reading too much into the phrase “tipping the hat”. Still, I believe your missing the central point: A hypocrite is in a struggle with virtue, even if he is at the time losing. A principled evil doer, on the other hand, has gone further – he is actively promoting evil. The hypocrite “acknowledges” virtue as you say. To acknowledge something is to be close to it, in a sense…
The hypocrite may very likely also become deluded into think that his disobedience is acceptable or doesn’t matter, or into rationalizing it in a myriad of ways.
Exactly, which is why he is in a struggle with virtue, which means he is closer to it than the principled evil doer.
So you see, you don’t have to insult my maturity by asking my age. I already “know” you by such tactics.
So how old are you? You are awfully emotive
The “hat tipping” commentary is just another point in a long line of defense of the “conservativism’s better than liberalism”, nah nah nah theme that plays on and on on this blog
That’s because conservativism IS better than liberalism. Conservativism has a much higher content of Christianity than liberalism, even with conservativism current high content of libertarianism. Conservativism has a more or less correct understanding of the human person, for example. Liberalism is dead wrong – which is why it is so dehumanizing. To collapse the distinctions between liberalism and conservativism, to say they are somehow equally “good” or “bad”, is plain wrong. Shoot, even liberals don’t really argue that – except rhetorically.
Oh, and you didn’t answer if I could have permission (like someone else must have) to refer to you or others as “Trolls”.
Really, how old are you? 🙂
Go to wikipedia and look up the definition of an internet Troll. I argue that the definition fits Dean and Jim participation here. If you want to disagree, then lay out your argument. You don’t seem to understand what the term means…