überfromming at the mouth: an epilogue.

My posts on überfrommity are done, and with them the comment battles here and at a half dozen other blogs. If you, dear reader, have any interest remaining in the whole affair, I offer these loose thoughts in an attempt to bring the subject of überfromm to something which resembles an end, as far as I am concerned.

I have several people to thank. The anon (sometimes called original anon) helped me clarify things and work through some of the rough spots in my posts. This anon was gracious, thoughtful, and helpful. Gabriel came out of his corner swinging, and I swung back. JH Newman says that a gentleman "observes the maxim of the ancient sage, that we should conduct ourselves toward our enemy as if he were one day to be our friend." I must admit that I did not conduct myself in a gentlemanly manner at times during the course of debate, particularly with Gabriel. But sometimes you treat a person like an enemy and they end up becoming a friend. I find in Gabriel someone who shares some of my concerns with regard to Orthodoxy, and having read his blog, I think that he offers insight into the relationship between Orthodoxy and occidental thought which should be considered by others. I am thankful that Gabriel remained in the debate and that we at least found some common ground. Mr. Dalrymple, otherwise known as the Scrivener, is always a gentleman and, though I am sure he disagreed with much of the content of my posts and did not care for the tone, nevertheless defended my character. That comment did not go unnoticed. Thank you Douglas. Many people have offered their thoughts on the überfromm posts, in comments on this blog and on other blogs, as well as in emails to me. Many people loved the posts and offered encouragement; many others hated them and offered, well, not encouragement. A few armchair spiritual directors offered me an analysis of my spiritual condition and diagnosed me with such things as "buyer's remorse." I am thankful for all the comments, even the negative ones, and even those which sought to define my particular spiritual malaise, as I will assume that they were all well intended until otherwise is proven. It certainly seems that a nerve was touched, and perhaps most of us, whatever we thought of the überfromm posts, think that something beneficial came out of the conversation. I thank all those who have taken part in the conversation, on each of the forums in which that conversation took place.

Something close to a tentative definition of überfromm is to be found in my dialogue with original anon in the comments of part IV. The loose definition found there remains incomplete and unsatisfactory. The definitional difficulties are stated in those same comments. I did find it interesting that those who agreed with the content of the überfromm posts, at least with regard to überfrommity, seemed to understand precisely what it was I was referring to. Those who suggest that I should have started with a strict definition of überfromm may be misunderstanding the point of my posts. My überfromm posts do not constitute a formal argument against Orthodoxy, nor were they intended for such a purpose. My posts were meant to be an assessment of the rhetorical, aesthetic, and spiritual state of Orthodoxy, and they were meant to do that in a manner that is not at all comprehensive, but focused instead on a few lines of thought that relate in varying degree to überfrommity. This, of course, happens in a specific context. This is a blog by an Orthodox read by other Orthodox bloggers (along with RCs, Anglicans, and Protestants who share an interest in things Orthodox). Orthodoxy in general, and especially Orthoblogdom, tends to be what one might refer to as anti-definitional. Contemporary Eastern Christianity hates definitions, considers their use to be inherently Western, and associates them with scholasticism and dialectic. Truth be told, this is one aspect of contemporary Orthodoxy that drives me bonkers. Thus, I wholeheartedly agree with those of you who fault me for not beginning with precisely defined terms. But I was trying to write these posts in a manner that was correspondent to the current Orthodox ethos. Had I defined my terms, or so I thought, many Orthodox would have dismissed my posts as another Western attempt to dissect Orthodoxy (which to some extent would have been true had I gone that route). Furthermore, because the forms found within Orthodoxy are intentionally undefined, a spiritual ethos or demeanor which relates to those forms (in this case as the dominant and dominating piety) is going to relate to undefined forms in a manner which is, quite obviously, going to be difficult to define. I can only define überfromm when I have circumscribed various points of Orthodox form, style, and spirituality. Had I chosen to go down that route, I would have written posts that would have been something akin to the Catholic manualist tradition (which I admit I have something of a slight affection for, perhaps now is long past the time to confess that I think that Byzantine scholasticism represents one of the healthier and more robust forms of Orthodoxy, and that I pray for its recovery). But I am not a manualist, and have only flirted with scholasticism in my life, and yet I felt that I had something to say with regard to überfrommity. I should have incorporated a definition into the posts in some fashion, yes, but I hope that I have here adequately described the definitional dilemma.

I should have put a disclaimer before the list of warts found in post IV. It should have gone something like this: These are things which I believe to be true with regard to certain aspects of Orthodoxy. Some of these things are a matter of public knowledge, some have been told to me by persons whom I trust and believe. They do not constitute a formal indictment of Orthodoxy. They are offered primarily for this purpose: to contrast the official rhetoric from Orthodox hierarchies and the popular rhetoric from triumphalist (largely convert) circles. All of the things mentioned in this list I have heard from multiple sources, thus, there is a rhetoric out there which is contrary to the official and popular Orthodox rhetorics. Potential converts to Orthodoxy and the Orthodox faithful should be aware of this contrasting rhetoric, and make it a matter of consideration. Blindly accepting the official rhetoric of the Orthodox hierarchies can lead to disaster, as we now see happening in the OCA. Along with these rhetorical points I add my own opinions, which the reader can take or leave as he or she pleases. Perhaps such a disclaimer would have helped. There is one obvious error in the list, which has been pointed out to me by several folks - the GOArch is under the EP, not the Church in Greece. That was a stupid mistake. However, the point made is still the same. One commenter on another blog chides me because the amount of money sent to the EP by GOArch every year is only in the six figures. Yet if GOArch were to pay the EP one lump sum after which no further yearly payments were required, then that lump sum would likely have to be in the 2-3 million dollar range to justify the EP's loss of GOArch income (in other words a 2-3 million dollar endowment will guarantee low six figures per year in terms of today's dollar value). This sum would be consistent with figures I mentioned.

A Greek man living in Greece chides me for believing media reports concerning fraud in the Greek Church. Another commenter considers the Greek Church's ordinations of women deacons to be a rumor until he reads the actual decree of the October 2004 synod. I detect here a strong anti-media bias, and I respect that, as it is a bias I, more or less, share. On the matter of the Greek Church sex scandals, all I can say is that if the whole affair is a media fabrication it requires at this point a vast media conspiracy. Numerous news agencies, including many outside of Greece, have picked up the stories associated with these scandals. Presumably someone at some point did some fact checking. The Greek Church has itself censured certain prelates for misconduct. Add to that the financial scandals in Greece (which the commenter mentioned above did not deny), and I think we have ample reason to believe that a culture of corruption pervades the Greek Church. Others will disagree. I have never been to Greece; I rely on media, and also on the opinions of those non-Greek friends of mine who have spent time in Greece. Each of my friends who have spent time in Greece has come back with a negative view of the health of the Greek Church. It could be that they are an overly pessimistic lot. Whatever the case, I maintain that it is important that those who have an interest in Orthodoxy be aware that there are some who do not view Greece as a pure Orthodox motherland, and that they have reasons for these views. As for the question of women deacons, I am going to try to get a translation of the pertinent texts in question. But the larger point remains this: feminism is alive and growing among certain corners of Orthodox leadership and intelligentsia worldwide. Enthusiastic converts may wish to ignore this, but feminism is only going to be stopped within Orthodoxy if we acknowledge that it is there, and that it is growing in influence. Many converts in the U.S. look around and see only like-minded converts such as themselves, and ethnic Orthodox who are thrilled to have excited converts in their midst. Add to that some anti-Western comments made by a bishop in Russia and the U.S. convert thinks all is well, that feminism will never take hold in Orthodoxy as it has in the Western churches. Such is a dangerous line of thought. We know that whatever the Greek synod decided, it decided it after listening to a lecture in which feminist propaganda was presented to them. The feminist who presented the material is quite happy with the decision of the Greek synod. Keep your eyes open folks. Many think that Orthodoxy is impervious to the cultural ills of the West. It seems to be only because it has been able, due to forces outside of its own control, to largely ignore the West. To the extent that we see Orthodoxy engage the West we see it begin to assimilate Western ills in varying degrees. This should not come as a surprise, and we ignore this phenomenon to our own detriment.

As for ORU, I concede that I know nothing about the situation there. David made some comments which reminded me of my conversation with the Wheaton apostate some years earlier, which in turn caused me to think about Evangelical conversions to Orthodoxy. I then heard two radio interviews with Protestant converts to Orthodoxy who converted back to Protestantism. If ORU is not at all representative of that phenomenon, then good for them. I was not trying to prove anything with reference to ORU or Wheaton. As for whether or not ORU is Evangelical or Charismatic or both or neither - good Lord I am not going step foot into that rhetorical cockfight.

The one criticism which has been in my thoughts the most since I posted on the überfromm is that criticism made by several of my readers who accused me of essentially being typically American. Some seem to think that I was in some way advocating a consumerist "choose your own adventure" form of Christianity. Those who think this must not have been reading my work for very long. I have been consistently critical of mainstream American Christianity and consumerist Christianity for years now. And I do not think that the überfromm posts merit the charge. Some seem to think that if one offers praise of any aspect of Evangelicalism that one is therefore hopelessly Americanized. I distinguish today between conservative Protestantism and Evangelicalism, and many of the praises of Evangelicalism I offer apply to the Evangelicalism of 20 years ago or more. Evangelicalism is now so fragmented that one can hardly speak of it as a whole or coherent socio-religious entity. Evangelicalism today is a number of loose associations of groups who share the same moniker. These groups are either spiritual cliques or ideological encampments. If one wants three more inches of depth, one can join a conservative Protestant group and be a part of a confessional encampment. Let me assure my readers that I believe that Evangelicalism is dead. Which makes it all the more sad that they sometimes act as Christians better than we do.

But I must admit to being slightly amused by the American accusation. Of course, the first response I should make is: "guilty as charged." But what amuses me is that any American convert to Orthodoxy would ever yield this accusation in argument. Friends, there is nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing more typical in American religion than to seek to find or create or re-create the "true New Testament Church." That religious impulse could be said to be the distinctly American religious impulse. Another cultural and literary impulse typical of Americans is the adoption (and mimicked affectation) of European styles, forms, and vocabularies. Each of us Americans has a little Henry James inside whispering in our ears. There is no religion in the United States today that is more European than Orthodoxy. Roman Catholicism is now an American fast food religion, at least in common practice. And it has the aesthetic sterility of Wal-Mart. In fact, the oft quoted line about Catholicism, "here comes everybody," now applies just much as to Wal-Mart, and in a sense the way it applies to Wal-Mart has become the paradigm in which it should now rightly be applied to Catholicism. With Orthodoxy you get "old country" religion, and with it forms, styles, and European words to your hearts' content. This fits well with the Henry Jamesish fascinations that lie in the hearts of all Americans. Now please, I am not here stating that we who have converted to Orthodoxy have done so because of some social determinism driven by these religious and cultural impulses. Not at all. I am merely stating that a conversion to Orthodoxy is a perfectly American thing to do. As one who believes that Orthodox should be diligent in their evangelism in America, I view this relationship between Orthodoxy and certain particular American impulses as a good and hopeful thing, at least in the long run. If Orthodoxy is the catholic faith, then it should befit Americans to convert to it. Of course, America today is possessed by the demon of flattery. It cares nothing about content and the real, but cares greatly about the sterile styles of mass marketed fantasies. The überfromm posts were in part motivated by a concern that we Orthodox are, in our own quite unique way, playing that same game. Americans do not need a stylized, affected "Orthodoxy", but they desperately need Orthodoxy.

After the fact, I am sure that my überfromm posts failed on many levels. I ask my readers to forgive me for any offense I have caused, and to grant me the benefit of the doubt, as I know many of you have.

It was brought up repeatedly that I gave poor reasons for my own Orthodox faith in post IV. It was not the purpose of the posts, nor was it the proper context, to offer an apologia as a form of benediction. Nonetheless it has always been my intent (for reasons I may explain later) to counterweight the überfromm posts with another series of posts. My next project is a multi-post series entitled Orthodoxy: an ocholophobic apologia. After that I plan to post a series on Orthodoxy and contraception which I hope will offer a perspective on the matter which you will find different from the normal tired debate. I thank all of my readers for their continued support and discussion. May the Name of the God of Jacob protect each of you.

As the last note in these überfromm reflections, I ask that you read this sermon by ++Job of the OCA diocese of the Midwest, who articulates better than I a few of my concerns, but does so as a man who is much, much more holy than I. This sermon deals directly with the OCA scandal, but several comments apply to Orthodoxy at large in the West.