An Elephant in the Room

With the scandals rocking the Antiochian Archdiocese over the past year, much discussion is taking place about what the future might hold if things don't improve.

There is no need here to go into the details of "the recent troubles" in Antioch.  But the Ochlophobist wrote something of particular interest to anyone who is a part of the Western Rite:

+Jonah, after a few speeches, has put the OCA in a situation where if they were to start a Western Rite they would get virtually all WR parishes that would have thought of going to the AOANA previously. Perhaps the OCA will not go that route, but I'm told of at least one parish and at least one entire small group of continuing Anglicans that are currently more or less holding out for an OCA option in part because they do not consider the AOANA viable at this time. It could well turn out that neither of those institutions would have become Orthodox anyway, but there is no doubt that the "energy" with regard to WR is going to leave the AOANA if this scandal continues (which virtually everyone expects) and the OCA puts another option on the table. 

The statement above becomes an elephant in the room for those of us in the Western Rite and the Antiochian Archdiocese.  The Diocese of Wichita, which is the diocese I worship in, has a godly bishop, Bishop Basil, but the problems at the national level are causing headaches everywhere.

I'm sure these problems can be outlasted, but in the short run real damage is being done to our witness.  

It seems we have an elephant in the room, and a bull in the china shop doing much damage.  Let's pray God in His mercy intervenes.  God save our Archdiocese!

Columba Silouoan

The Ochlophobist Blows Away Wild at Heart

Over on one of my favorite Orthodox web blogs, the Ochlophobist has taken aim at John Eldredge and the book Wild at Heart. Literally.

Here is what he said about this subject:

Ken Myers, of the Mars Hill Audio Journal, wrote an excellent essay some years ago that was an historical overview of the relationship of Evangelicals to “high” culture. He notes the influence of Francis Schaeffer on a generation of Evangelical college students, and the urgent and hasty embrace of “high” culture right at the very time that “high” culture in the West went into a rather earnest self-destruct mode. Myers then describes and catalogs the complete lack of discernment and lack of wherewithal on the part of culturally liberated Evangelicals now with a fetish for all things cultural.

One sees the result of this trend in the later manifestations of (the new & improved) Christianity Today, Book & Culture, Sojourners, the Emergent Church, and a number of Evangelical and Evangelical offshoot cultural enterprises. The desire, or the base impulse anyway, that started all of this crass and furious cultural engagement was more or a less a good one – the thought that to be an embodied Christian in a world God loved meant to relate, on some meaningful level, with culture. But that good desire went, well, pretty much nowhere, for the most part, because it was awash in unmitigated stupidity and intellectual immaturity. The whole ethos of Evangelical attempts at an engagement with culture is adolescent in the current sense of that term (perpetual and narcissistic), to the core. The few anomalies decidedly stand out. Alan Jacobs.

Wild at Heart may declare that “man is made for the purpose of actively participating in and enjoying the wonder, beauty, and the fruits of God's good creation” but this message is so drowned in a sea of effete emotionalism, and unmitigated self-consciousness, and 14 year oldish masturbative catharsis seeking, that the impulse loses virtually all merit. I would argue that the impulse is itself just a game. It establishes a pretty predictable and obvious crisis to do battle in and with, and the battle then plays out with unreserved affect and exaggerated import.

I have heard, from more than a few, how liberating this book is for those who come from certain, “restrained” backgrounds. I do not think the book actually liberates. I think the book sets up an emotional playground of manipulated catharsis in which the reader or group of readers plays out the (now) very common game of personal liberation. It reminds me of Evangelicals who become Anglicans or Catholics or Orthodox and all of a sudden find themselves allowed to drink alcohol. They (often, usually the males) make a big deal out of it. They sort of take on this new identity as “drinker.” They talk about it a lot, they think about it a lot, they feel a lot about it, they convince themselves of their new ontological status. But after three drinks it is apparent to any serious drinker that joe schmuck cannot handle the slightest buzz. They love the new self-fabricated identity far more than they do the actual act of drinking, and on top of it they are incompetent as a drinker.

This book is an icon of that sort of marketed (to self and others) image falsification. This book will not actually bring the reader, any reader, closer to the fruits of God’s creation. It will not teach one anything of importance with regard to wonder or beauty or a genuine thanksgiving for God’s fruits. It will teach one to posture about these things, but not to actually engage them. For real engagement, read Papadiamandis. Read Archimandrite Sophrony.

I stand by what I said about this book above in the thread. It is a horrible book. It is destructive to the soul. Every copy should be destroyed. It is one of many examples of a man profiting from the selling of trash in a religious context. He profits both in terms of money and in terms of his apparent need for cathartic release. Thus a whip is certainly in order.

As I have argued here before, there is a strong strand of antinomianism running in American Orthodoxy. They like the desert fathers and certain modern elders a whole lot, but their ethos strikes me as having a lot more in common with those popular distortions of Zen one sees about everywhere these days than it does anything particularly Orthodox. What I always chuckle about with regard to these folks is this - they espouse a rhetorical pacifism - their understanding of judging goes beyond not judging the man, and extends to an extreme disinclination to judge what the man does, even though what the man does might be affecting many people, even many Orthodox people. I disagree with this extension of the prohibition against judgment, but I would have a modicum of respect for it were it not for this - these same folks who are so averse to the judging of actions apparently find no problem with publicly passing judgment upon the actions of those who judge in a manner they don't like. It reminds me of those who are tolerant of everyone except those who are not tolerant of the things they are tolerant of, in which case they become quite intolerant. Spirit of the age, methinks.

My first response was as follows:

The Orthodox Tentmaker said...

Dear Ochlophobist,

Tsk, Tsk. On this one, you and I will have to respectfully disagree.

I like JE. I consider him to be a potential Orthodox Convert, and then you go ahead and do this.

I actually taught an adult Sunday School class at Saint Mark's in Denver about an Orthodox perspective on his books.

It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness. I don't think Fr. Stephen Freeman would consider this a laughing matter, and I know you respect him.

Now, if you took a gun to The Purpose Driven Life, I wouldn't bat an eyelash. But Eldredge is a potential ally and I don't think it's a good idea to alienate him.

I have every one of his books, and I'm not about to shoot them up. Kindly reconsider bro.

And of course, I'll remain a faithful reader. Although this one sorely tested my loyalty. AHEM!

Sincerely Yours,

Columba Silouan

To which our dear Ochlophobist said...

Orthotent,

Let me assure you, somethin' got lit up.

Should Fr. Stephen ask me to take this post down, I would.

If shooting JE's book does not encourage him to convert, I don't know what will. If the man actually cares to follow the principles and stylized posture he presents on the surface of his work, then I would think he might be inclined to understand this post. If not, well, he sells enough books to get by with the "good life" - so what does it matter?

But thank you, my friend, for being willing to look past my worrisome idiosyncrasies and prejudices. I need all of the slack I can get.

So now I have a ton of things to write about this evening, 

(and I'm sure, a few subsequent evenings).

I'll start out by saying that later, I did chuckle a bit at the picture. I appreciated the male humor. Nevertheless, as someone who really likes John Eldredge, I feel the need to address some things.

As a convert to Orthodoxy, I try to view all subjects through the prism of my faith. Orthodoxy comes first, and all other beliefs from my past life as a heterodox Christian come second. Nevertheless, I don't reject out of hand all the good things I was exposed to in my life prior to Orthodoxy. I believe God was at work, even before my conversion.

Dr. Francis Schaeffer's influence was one of the stepping stones that led to my conversion. And I know from one of JE's monthly newsletters from Ransomed Heart that he is one of JE's main models.

Ortho made a good point about drinking above. I'm afraid that I, indeed have been guilty of the attitude he describes about that subject, at least.

But there is a danger for us converts. That danger is to hold bitterness in our hearts towards any of the people who might of helped to drive us out of our former church affiliations and into Orthodoxy.

There is also a danger of envying the successes of our heterodox brothers and sisters. Och mentioned that John Eldredge lives "the good life." I don't fault JE for this. He's worked hard for everything he has. Is it his problem if we Orthodox can't get our own acts together and become as influential in this culture as he is?

There are many refugees in Orthodoxy who disagreed as a matter of principle with Charismatics and Evangelicals. Some of us have actually suffered rejection and outright mistreatment and disrespect from these people.   I'm included among that number.

Nevertheless, not everything those who have rejected us or our interests have done in their own attempts to live out their Christianity has been negative.

I've learned many Orthodox things from Charismatics and Evangelicals. I first had to convert away from fundamentalist Baptist theology to Charismatic (with a small "C") theology before I was able to finally convert to Holy Orthodoxy.

We can't return mistreatment for mistreatment. We are certainly free to criticize JE and his work, but in my opinion we must maintain a good attitude when we do so. The Holy Scriptures tell us that when we say "Raca" or "You fool" to our brothers, whether heterodox or Orthodox, we are in danger of the "hell of fire."

I know The Ochlophobist meant well.  I think his views are a tad overboard on this matter, however.  JE has many Orthodox leanings.  Now, if only we could give him a good push all the way into Orthodoxy!

I plan to address this subject in greater detail, as time permits.

Blessings in the Holy Trinity,

Columba Silouan