The more I hate men individually, the more I love humanity.
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”
123 comments Wednesday 01 Aug 2007 | Jacobse | Quotable quotes |
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…
48)
I don’t see the Judge of All saying, well Chris, I see you admitted you’re a sinner, and I see you stuck by the “right” -ism all your life to keep your RISK of becoming “lost” low and PROBABILITY of repenting high even though most of you’re life you spent in debauch hypocrisy, although you did repent over and over, and fortunately you lucked out and didn’t send for you when you were in the midst of your debauchery….
so come on up and join me!
Or has the scripture about ‘when I was hungry, etc…” and “depart from me…” been changed recently?
If you were living in Turkey and had no vote as a Christian, do you think it would matter which political party -ism you supported there? I’m sure you’ll tell me that’s not a very good example and I’ll be the first to agree with you, but I don’t know how else to say to you that man, you stake a whole lot of importance on something that I don’t think amounts to a hill of beans. If you didn’t, I think you’d be better able to see where you might have some point of commonality with “liberals” as well as “conservatives”, Hindus, Buddhists, aetheists, etc……
Do you belong to a Christian confession? If so, which one? If Orthodox, then for how long? If Orthodox, I don’t see how you’ve picked up such a need for being such a champion of political “conservatism”. There are sooo many more things within Orthodoxy to champion.
What’s the relevance of my age except as info for you to infer that I’m immature or find something else to poke at me about it? You’ve now referred to me as “awfully emotive”, confirming my suspicion, as if emotions must be awful.
And how you get emotive out of nothing more than my analysis of your tactics is beyond me. It’s not like I haven’t seen you be condescending around here or anything like that. So when you go remarking about Trolls …. LOL
I can laugh at myself. Hope you can too (laugh at yourself).
49) Too old to speak fluent forum lingo or know all the ropes, but thanks for teaching an old dog something new. You could have just said that I was being “baited” and I would have understood perfectly. I’m not MR.
Ahem, Christianity is a mass movement! Using the fringes or the radicals of a group to discredit the entire group is intellectually dishonest.
This morally equivalent statement is not only enormously simplistic and wrong, but completely ignores the anti-Christian, anti-freedom, anti-truth, and anti-human fervor of communism and its complete divorce from reality.
“One has to realize what communism is, not merely a power-mad political regime, but an ideological-religious system whose aim is to overthrow and supplant all other systems, most of all Christianity.”
“Communism specifically attacked the lands which had most nearly retained their ancient Christian traditions – Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc. Propaganda portrayed Bolshevism as a political/social uprising, which is what gullible individuals throughout the world still imagine it to have been. But the “revolution” was far more than this -it was actually a battle against Christianity.”
- Father Seraphim Rose
This is exactly what communism, radical secularism, radical environmentalism, (AKA: “liberalism”, “progressives”, etc.) still represent.
Re #50. I would disagree that Christianity is a “mass movement”. It is a charismatic, the charismatic movement. Mass movements are delusional copies. Mass movements are founded upon emotion, the surrender of self identity and freedom of will to a cause, the devotion to a human leader, generally if not specifically utopian and a sense of exceptionalism by the adherents and participants. Cults writ large. Some are more poisonous and destructive than others, but they all end up leaving destruction in their wake.
While there are some mass movements that label themselves Christian, from Marcionism forward all such have been identified as heretical by the Church.
Chris, Michael, Christianity, properly understood, is not a movement at all. The “Way” is Christ crucified, just as the Apostle Paul said.
Having said that, I know where you are trying to go. But be careful with it. It cannot be defined as a movement even though in sociological terms (but only sociological) it shares characteristics with other movements.
By charismatic movement I mean the movement of the Holy Spirit drawing all to Christ, transfiguring us and restoring us to our genuine humanity.
Of course it is quite easy to distort what that means.
note 51:
I don’t see the Judge of All saying…{shortened for brevity, and lack of clarity)…you were in the midst of your debauchery….
so come on up and join me!
What? I think you are trying to be prophetic. Or perhaps you are trying to say I have my priorities wrong – that I should not try to engage/witness to the culture, or talk to others who would help me do that. Perhaps you are saying I should not vote – go live as a monk so to speak – this despite the fact that I live a married life “in the world” (that is, in the economy, both moral and economic, with my American neighbors). Indeed, my married life is recognized as a Sacrament!! Perhaps you should spend more time reading the Fathers. They don’t say what you think they say.
If you were living in Turkey and had no vote as a Christian, do you think it would matter which political party -ism you supported there?
It might, I have no idea. BUT IT MATTERS HERE!! What country are your from? You see, in the USA we have a participatory form of government, where your vote really does count (if only a little). Your implication is that I should lay aside my Christianity and not do vote, or witness to the culture?? Are we talking about the same Christianity here??
you stake a whole lot of importance on something that I don’t think amounts to a hill of beans.
I do? Perhaps you can tell me more about myself…what am I thinking now…:)
If you didn’t, I think you’d be better able to see where you might have some point of commonality with “liberals” as well as “conservatives”, Hindus, Buddhists, aetheists, etc……
What commonality do you speak of? There is lot’s of commonality, from taste in music, the fact that we all like salty foods, to say the Image and Likeness of God found in each of us. So what? This site is about Orthodoxy, and the cultural implications there of. There is lot’s to learn, and lot’s of disagreement in this area. Besides, you make WAY too much of “commonality with liberals and conservatives”. There are deep and profound differences between these two philosophies. One is much more closer to Christianity than the other. You might not like that fact, but it is the truth. What Father have you been reading that tells us to deny the truth. Citation please, I want to read this for myself.
Do you belong to a Christian confession? If so, which one? If Orthodox, then for how long? If Orthodox, I don’t see how you’ve picked up such a need for being such a champion of political “conservatism”. There are sooo many more things within Orthodoxy to champion.
Currently OCA. Been in GOARCH and Antiochian. About 12 years now. There are other things, Christ and His salvation being the most important. How is that in conflict with a witness to the culture, and the political/cultural implications of Dogma? Do you think there are none? For example, do you think you can support Democrats and not be held accountable for their unrepentant, full on support of the holocaust of the unborn? Do you think the GOP’s unrepentant support of say, tax breaks for business, is nearly as important, Christianly speaking, as abortion? How old are you????
What’s the relevance of my age except as info for you to infer that I’m immature or find something else to poke at me about it? You’ve now referred to me as “awfully emotive”, confirming my suspicion, as if emotions must be awful.
No, but you are quick with the emotive, quick to judge, and shallow on substantive argument. All this from someone who plays at (poorly I might add) at trying to sound prophetic. To be blunt – you sound like a bratty teenager.
Hope you can too (laugh at yourself).
Now this is the best thing you have said here. Try to build on it…;)
52)
Materialism is materialistic be it communist or capitalist.
This morally equivalent statement is not only enormously simplistic and wrong, but completely ignores the anti-Christian, anti-freedom, anti-truth, and anti-human fervor of communism and its complete divorce from reality.
There can be no “moral equivalency” in a statement that is about -isms not morals. Any -ism has its “dark side”; capitalism may look like an angel to eastern europeans after having suffered through demons of communism, but it’s an angel of light (demon in disguise) whose subtlety can be deadly. While communism is outright antogonistic to Christianity; capitalism is tolerant of “religious freedom”. Communism seeks to supplant religion with worship of the state system; capitalism entices with “freedom”, enslaving citizens through their passions so as slaves they will fight to the death for the false sense of “freedom”. The height of incitement of passions came through the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s which was predicted as much by G.K.Chesterton as early as 1926 who wrote:
I mean by Capitalism the spirit that is proud of having sold a hundred Paris hats to Spanish peasants without thinking of what it its doing or what it is displacing. But it is not a danger that comes from demagogues but rather from big advertisers;… it will come out of the same big shop as the plutocratic newspapers. …For the NEXT great HERESY is going to be simply an attack on morality; and especially on sexual morality. And it is coming, not from a few Socialists surviving from the Fabian Society, but from the living exultant energy of the rich resolved to enjoy themselves at last, with neither Popery nor Puritanism nor Socialism to hold them back …The madness of tomorrow is not in MOSCOW, but much more in MANHATTEN (i.e. Madison 5th Ave. and Wall Street)
In the anything goes “free” society of capitalism, communistic forces live inside often undetected by the masses, eating away at them like viruses. You may label this phenomenon “liberalism”, but that does not make it foreign to the economic system of capitalism. In fact capitalists have cozied up with communist over business deals for perhaps a century or more. A “good” capitalist loves to make war because he/she knows it’s good for business (see Gen. Dwight Eisenhour, Gen. Smedley Butler, Chuck Spinney). Any religious alignment with capitalism comes with a Faustian price tag as Charles Marsh warns in Wayward Christian Soldiers. Capitalism is opportunistic, and has feathered its nest most recently by aligning itself with the “christian right” with its modern mix of puritanism wherein the Gospel is perverted with “prosperity gospel” whereby riches are a “sign” of God’s favor; and its dash of pietism that lends a highly charged moralistic atomosphere to the mix. Both of these combine well with the American civic religion and sense of American Exceptionalism.
Ref:
Anthony Gramsci
William Roepke
The End of Victory Culture
American Exceptionalism
Piety and Pietism
Civic Religion in America
Religion of the Rich
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler
Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution
The Best Enemy Money Can Buy
Sexual Liberation and Political Control
Behaviorism, Advertising and the Rise of American Empire
Here is where I think the rub is Paradosis: I don’t accept the notion that Orthodoxy is an ideology. You do, at least partially. I see it in your defense of Fr. Kishkovsky. You see an attempt at “balance” in his approach because he references another “culture” apart from the one he critiques. I, on the other hand, don’t think that the other “culture” really exists. (I asked you to define “Orthodox culture” remember? You ignored the question.) Put another way, in my view the culture that really exists is the one we live in.
For the same reason, I do not accept the Tradition vs. tradition paradigm in which Fr. Kishkovsky frames his critique. The paradigm, in my view, is only a polemic device borrowed from internal Protestant debates by Fr. Schmemann in his battles with ROCOR in the earlier days of the OCA and now (mis)appropriated by Fr. Kishkovsky. The paradigm does not exist as a tangible form in Orthodox ecclesiology. Its only function is to marginalize critics.
Consequently, my view of Orthodox engagement with the culture is necessarily dynamic and active. Yours is a degree or two or three removed, because you reference an ideal (”Orthodox culture”) that ostensibly exists apart from the culture in which we live and operate. It’s the only way you can draw the conclusion that Fr. Kishkovsky’s critique is balanced and fair while overlooking his defense of the NCC despite its slavish devotion to leftist causes and ideals. (I’ve never understood why an Orthodox Church leader, with roots in Russia no less, would defend an American organization so transparently manipulated by the Soviet leaders during Communism.)
Note 58:
Chesterton did have a “communitarian” side, his “distributionism”. He went too far in wanting to control others, force them to virtue, by a design on the economy and how people are to relate with each other. That said, Capitalism as an ism, as you describe it, is a really just an excess. This is not the result of freedom of capital, or freedom of association, but the result of human passion, as you yourself describe. Now, how are you going to design our economic lives without resorting to limiting freedom, as in “communism”? In “capitalism” people are free to choose virtue or not, but this is not really a function of the economy (those “advertisers” Chesterton identifies as the culprits), but of sin in each of our hearts. Chesterton here is simply being a pig headed elite, looking down on the “Spanish peasants”. He would, in the name of avoiding a heresy, somehow “save” these poor little peasants from themselves and the unprincipled “advertisers” by, what, “distributionism”…
60)
What you call “force to virtue” I call “curb from excessive vice”. I think Chesterton knew better than to try to force anyone to virtue which is impossible, but he knew he could help buffer the vice of mammon worship. Chesterton was not “snubbing” the Spanish peasants, but trying to protect them from a force they were ill prepared to defend themselves against and about which they were ignorant. He was trying to level the capitalist playing field a bit at a time when more and more wealth was falling into fewer and fewer hands no differently than today. To turn this into a darkness in Chesterton is very uncharitable and judgemental of you. What he called “distributionism” is what we call cooperative. The spirit of capitalism is darwinian, competitive, and it’s god is mammon. No one can serve 2 masters but each must choose between God and mammon. The spirit of Christianity is cooperative as enabled by the Holy Spirit. Chesterton was no elitist in the sense that you try to paint him. I think you’re confusing him with Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Ford or one the “captains of industry”. If you’ve ever spent time in a rural area, you may have heard of a “coop”, or a “food” coop in the city. Imagine an economy where these are much more a norm than an exception. And please don’t rephrase terminology with a commu- prefix in an attempt to color what you hate red. Remember, communicate (as in prayer) and Holy Communion both begin with commu-, and that you too have a choice: God (Christianity) or mammon (economic -ism). If you trust God to provide manna, daily bread, from one day to the next, you may be surprised how independent of capitalism you really can be.
59) Fr.J, I really wish you could refrain from trying to make me an ideologist, a “liberal lover” or whatever box it is you’re trying to put me in. I have not read any of Fr. Kishkovsky’s other work and know nothing else about him or his involvement with the NCC, so I am NOT DEFENDING him. I took what he wrote at face value as a sort of confirmation of what Jaroslav Pelikan said: Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism the dead faith of the living. I think that whenever we allow Christian faith to be compromised with some -ism, no one in particular, then we might say that we have now put our faith, at least in part, in that ideology, and have lessened our trust in God.
I apologize for not answering your question, what is Orthodox Culture, as it’s not easy to do and may result in another long winded post, but I will try. I think that Orthodoxy is in crisis in the west because it has lost it’s identity. In the old world there were abundant Churches with sacred architecture filled with iconography, and prominently placed to remind people of God and of (spiritual) reality. They were reminded of death through Orthodox funeral custom that did not engage in embalming. Life was not desacralized like it is in the modern west. In villages, the Church might even be at the center, if not physically at least at the center of everyone’s life (you, your neighbors, friends, strangers). Everyone’s life revolved around the Feasts of the Church, not civic religious “holidays”. These cultures were evangelized from the grass roots and reared in Orthodoxy. America on the other hand is egalitarian, pluralistic, “liberal”, secular. In many respects America is the Neo-pagan Rome (see OCMC.org-Saving People in a Modern World: Neopagans), so I think somehow we need to think deductively, inductively and creatively, whatever, every way we can, using historical Orthodox Christianity as a starting point, pray and try to find our cultural context with the help of God.
I think we are more like the early Christians than Mid Easterners, Greeks or Eastern Europeans. I do not think the early Christians were culturally Roman, or that the only thing that was distinctive about them was their worship. They lived together communally for one, and worshiped in a mausoleum (catacombs).
We live in a culture that is predominantly neo-pagan oriented, without being persecuted per se. We need to use this time wisely, take advantage and prepare ourselves for a time when that may not be the case. We can do so by practicing a wholly unique and modern form of asceticism, not simply the abstenence from meat, wine, oil, etc. as of old, since we face a beast wholly unheard of in traditional Orthodox culture: consumerism. We can abstain from all kinds of things: debt, from upper and hyper mobility, excessive telecommunication and technology, etc.
We can become more self sufficient, producers instead of consumers, live cooperatively, etc. This may become a forced reality in the day of anti-christ when no one will be allowed to buy or sell without accepting the mark of the beast. It is to our own discredit if we do not have or cannot see how we can live culturally different from the average American Joe in little to no other regard but that we show up at temple at the appointed time.
I think we may have been warned of becoming entangled in economic -isms of “merchants” in Rev 3, 11, 15, 23 At any rate, I am open to trying to live cooperatively with other Orthodox Christians in a cohousing or similar situation. I may end up the owner of 50 acres, which is why I’m “entertaining” and maintaining LiveGivingSpring.INFO
I strive to have sympathy for the poor like Chesterton. My dad grew up in the Great Depression and passed away suddenly this past Sept. I have been cleaning up all the stuff he saved as typical of his generation, see him and his ways in all his things, and miss him TERRIBLY. He grew up plowing with mules with my grandfather, loved to work outdoors, a great gardener. I remember him saying, I plant the seed, God does the rest. We have never been well off much less wealthy or rich, but neither are we envious. My dad always said no matter how much money anyone has it’s never enough, they always want more. He spoke from experience, but strove to be happy with what he was granted, and never lived beyond his means with a “champagne” taste on a “beer” pocketbook, as he would always say.
I am interested in interpreting Orthodoxy into European, Hispanic, and African American cultural forms. This should be obvious in the content at LifeGivingSpring.INFO and StallFamily.NET I hope in some way this has answered your question.
errata: that’s Rev chapter 18: 3, 11, 15 23
note 60:
What you call “force to virtue” I call “curb from excessive vice”.
Right. How do you plan to “curb”? Point of the sword (i.e. governmental regulatory power)? I am all for conversion, just not forced conversion.
Chesterton was not “snubbing” the Spanish peasants, but trying to protect them from a force they were ill prepared to defend themselves against and about which they were ignorant.
Boloney. This sentence IS the definition of elitism. Those Spanish peasants had seen beautiful things before. They were quite aware of what it means to splurge on unnecessary things. This is a common human experience, even in poverty. External “protection” is of limited value in any case. Generally, it fails with adults, who find a way to their vice despite their neighbor.
To turn this into a darkness in Chesterton is very uncharitable and judgemental of you.
Stop being a bratty teenager. I am addressing ideas, not his character. If you can’t tell the difference, perhaps you should go away and grow up a bit. Come back in a year or three when you understand the difference.
The spirit of capitalism is darwinian, competitive, and it’s god is mammon.
Boloney. Look up the definition. It’s simply freedom of capital, freedom of economic association. You are pushing an “ism” that simply does not fit. True, freedom does allow the freedom of vice – but also of virtue.
Remember, communicate (as in prayer) and Holy Communion both begin with commu-, and that you too have a choice: God (Christianity) or mammon (economic -ism). If you trust God to provide manna, daily bread, from one day to the next, you may be surprised how independent of capitalism you really can be.
Your no prophet, and not a good preacher. You should stick with your day job…:)
64) Your post is a bit emotive, to say the least, for someone who thinks that’s awful; or has a “nerve” been touched? I consider Chesterton a fellow Christian, but wonder about your loyalties. They seem to be placed somewhere else. You are not nearly as expressive of being “grown up” and “knowledgeable” of the world as you seem to imagine yourself to be. (BTW you’re is a contraction; your a possessive pronoun).
The context of your latest put down is just another of your “swords”, one of the many things you use to lord it over others, conquer and divide rather than unite in diversity. No wonder you see yourself when you look at Chesterton, instead of who he really is. It’s called psychological projection and Orthodox Christianity wrote the book on its cure. You could avail yourself of it if you so desire.
If you think that “free will” should be the arbiter of socio-economic relations, then you shouldn’t by a one-sided hypocrite and seek to interfere and “govern” people’s “moral” choices regarding their sexuality, marriage, children, etc. then turn around and leave them to fend for themselves in the marketplace. You don’t like the choices you see people making with those aspects of life, but then you turn around and leave them vulnerable to their passions so the “economy” will flourish, shrug your shoulders and say, they should’ve known better, sucker. The sucker is the one that sucks on others, not the on that is sucked. We’re living in America, remember, and Orthodox Christianity is not the “culture” here, so folks have no spiritual weaponry, much less controlling interest (capital) with which to fend off attack.
Every Orthodox Christian is prophet, priest and king, but it seems what matters most to you is being king, your way. Met. John Zizioulas of Pergamon has a lot to say about our role as priest, but I expect you will dismiss ALL of that because you will “find” (judge) him guilty by nothing more than association with someone or something you hate. I find it hard to comprehend the “logic” in that way of “thinking”, especially in someone of such “high” intelligence and learning. I’m beginning to wonder if you aren’t just too “perfect” in your own mind even for Orthodoxy, as no one seems to measure up to your expectation unless they fall into lock step with your ideas.
Chesterton was using “selling of hats to peasants” as a figure of speech, but you may be such an extreme literalist, that as soon as anyone seems to broach something that emotes your personal prejudices, that you interpret as an affront to your reality, you no longer listen, much less give them the benefit of the doubt. You certainly don’t seem to behave as if others have anything worthy of saying or sharing with you.
I’m offering you some more information that is indicative to me of what Chesterton is referencing, but I “prophesy” that you will tear at its bones like a pit bull. Still I hope you prove me wrong.
FYI, you can vote all you want, it’s your prerogative and civic duty, but it won’t amount to anything until there is real lobby reform. That won’t happen because the monied powers that be are not anywhere near as “christian”, altruistic or philanthropic as you would have them to be; and the military-industrial-congressional complex is a self-referencing “Versaille on the Potomac” to quote Chuck Spinney. The only way to “vote” in America in the digital age, is with money, with currency. “Get with” the socio-economic politico lingo, if you think American government is worthy of such deep abiding Christian faith. I happen to think one can be a loyal and law abiding citizen without marching indian file in your manner.
And as far as my being “no prophet” goes; I “prophesied” you would insult my maturity, and sure enough you did, even without knowing my exact age for which you asked several times. So if you want to call me “no prophet” have at it. I certainly won’t insist on taking your “truth” from you, but would prefer that you stay in your “box”, shorten your leash, and give others the same freedom you take for yourself without ripping them to shreds.
Agrarian Justice by Thomas Paine
Seven Deadly Myths and Facts About Hunger
Land Loss, Poverty and Hunger
Center for Peasant Studies and Agrarian Reform
Land Policy Center
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/115/ by Wendell Berry
#61
I used to think and say things like this back when I had no experience with business and knew nothing about economics. Then I spent many years working with businesses of all shapes and sizes in many states and countries. I realized that something was wrong with my understanding and actually took the time to read books on economics for the first time. Everything I read from the defenders of free-market economics corroborated what I had observed with my own eyes. My conclusion:
The spirit of free-market economics is cooperation.
“The spirit of capitalism is darwinian, competitive, and it’s god is mammon.”
Well, it is frequently competitive, and I have no doubt that many successfuly people are driven by a love of money and everything that material wealth offers (including comfort, a sense of security and luxuries).
I’m not so sure all of this is necessarily a bad thing (although these things can lead people down a road of dishonesty and corruption). One person’s success can frequently benefit more than just themselves: consider the vast number of people who have maintained strong careers for over two decades thanks in large part to the innovations and even competitive drive of someone like Bill Gates (who has since then contributed much of that back through his Gates Foundation for charitable causes).
In other words, one person’s utilization of capitalism to acquire for themselves does not necessarily mean it comes at the cost of others, and it often is to the benefit of a multitude of others.
Note 65:
So, how old are you?
66) The spirit of free-market economics is cooperation.
When money is involved it’s amazing what will be done “cooperatively” to increase “market share” and ability to “compete” for that share, or “offer” a “service” or “product” where none was before, and fine tune that “cooperation” to get “consumers” to lap it up to the max. potential.
Thomas Paine – who wrote “Common Sense”, also wrote Agrarian Justice.
Corporatism or Commonweal
Archbishop Lazar Puhalo
A clear and profound doctrine of commonweal permeates the Old Testament. It is made law in the book of Deuteronomy and constantly enjoined by the Holy Prophets. Jesus Christ reaffirms this “law of commonweal” with his great moral imperative, “love your neighbour as yourself.” Elevating it above its original statement in the book of Leviticus, Christ makes this MORAL IMPERATIVE (together with unconditional love of God) the very foundation and essence of the Law and the Prophets. The fulfillment of such a moral imperative certainly requires a direct encounter and interaction with culture and society. Unfortunately, this is an encounter that has been either abandoned, corporatized or reduced to outbursts of moralism by many Christian bodies…..
68) I just finished Kindergarten where I learned everything I need to know!
Tom says:
he spirit of capitalism is darwinian, competitive, and it’s god is mammon.
I used to think and say things like this back when I had no experience with business and knew nothing about economics.
Not only that, it is an erroneous use of “darwinian”. Darwin would be shocked, just shocked I tell you, to learn he has been appropriated in this way…;)
Note 70:
Give it up, I won’t click on any of your links – and neither should anyone else. You have come here with an ‘ill will’. You through around moral explicative and judgments like you have been storing them in your hip pocket, and refuse to engage ideas. You hide behind a pseudonym, asking questions but answering none. Your all about moral posturing, which is part and parcel of the “religious left”.
It’s too bad, I would like to have really talked to a worthy representative of the “agrarian” side of the House…
James says:
In other words, one person’s utilization of capitalism to acquire for themselves does not necessarily mean it comes at the cost of others, and it often is to the benefit of a multitude of others.
continuing note 73:
This is exactly right James. Economics is not a “zero-sum” game, where the “pie” is only so big, and everyone is in a struggle to get a bigger piece at the expense of their neighbor. Economics, our common economic life together, is an open ended “game”, where the wealth “produced” does not eat into the wealth of another, but instead makes the whole pie bigger and bigger. This is why the economy “grows”, and why efficiency (say, in the utilization of an energy source – or the efficiency in business/personal accounting gained from the PC and Bill Gates OS) makes everyone’s piece of the pie bigger.
This is not only basic economics, but basic “life”. Those that reduce our economic life together to a zero sum game do so from a very simplistic, and erroneous, view. Not surprisingly, they usually propose a solution based on the same view – some “ism” that is all about taking pie from one person and giving it to another. They usually call this “charity”. Problem is, Charity has already seen fit to fix the problem – life is not a zero sum game. For that, we can Thank God…
72) Give it up, I won’t click on any of your links
Of course not, your ill will won’t let you open yourself to anything but your own “zero sum” closed thinking so you end up stuck in your own stink. Everyone’s “piece of the pie grows”? That’s a joke. You make the pie sound like humans have the ability to create ex nihilo. That is your error.
And by all means I will give up on you.
Undoubtedly I touched another nerve, the one that didn’t graduate from Kindergarten. In your anger and hatred all you can do is label me “left” as usual. If “moral posturing” is an indicator of the religious “left”, then you better have a look at yourself and your chosen brethren in the “right” in the mirror. If ever there was an “ill” wind, it comes from your blow hard.
Not only have I engaged many ideas, I’ve introduced many that are barely if at all represented here, and have answered plenty of questions, just not the one and only irrelevant one you pester, my age. You have no interest in conversing with any agrarian because you wont find one worthy with your attitude. Furthermore, I don’t consider myself one. If you were interested in such, you would have made use of the link I provided to Thomas Paine, and would have bothered to spell “agrarian” correctly. Even though you’re (not your) spelling needs work, I don’t think it was a typo you threw (not through, or throw) out.
Bill Gates doesn’t even believe your myth. If he did, he wouldn’t have said that digital technology hasn’t REALLY “changed” the world. That’s why on earth he’s spending his “profits” on other things.
Christopher agrees with one of my posts? I hope this is not an omen of an impending apocalypse! LOL
JamesK
em>Christopher agrees with one of my posts? I hope this is not an omen of an impending apocalypse! LOL
Paradosis says:
Everyone’s “piece of the pie grows”? That’s a joke. You make the pie sound like humans have the ability to create ex nihilo. That is your error.
LOL! Yes, we are created in the Image and Likeness – we are creators!! Have you read the Fathers? We of course do not create ex nihilo, but we create out of both the nature, the creation which God has given us to create from, and in a mysterious way along with the Spirit of God, like when we really do Love one another, or when we reflect the beauty of the Infinite (say in a painting) we are “co-creators” as the Fathers would say. This is one of the many things that makes us human – this is basic Christian Anthropology. This is no joke…
The rest of you post is the usual moral vindictive…
78) This is one of the many things that makes us human – this is basic Christian Anthropology. This is no joke…
And your example is that of the Saints who were unmercenaries, not businessmen. You make statements that can be true, but when qualified can also be seen as not so perfect as first presented. I don’t demonize business per se, but there are prevalent business practices that do not fit your shining economic image in which you seem to put your faith.
What you call “moral vindictive”, I call defending oneself.
If you don’t want it served to you, then sheath your sword and stop dishing it out.
BTW – I haven’t seen your personal profile, age, etc., not that I care.
Capitalism is the only economic system that is not “zero-sum” in nature. It is one of the key elements that distinguishes capitalism from every other economic approach. All other things being equal, two capitalisitc coununtries will not often go to war against each other, there is far too much to loose economically.
Of course, when ethnic hatred, religious animosity or other such divisions intrude, problems crop up. Historically, free commerce has fostered tolerance in the long run. Under capitalism, greed frequently self-destructs.
Freedom is a horrible thing. It requires the acceptance of imperfection and often tragedy, but it is God’s way. He allows us to sow what we will and to reap what we sow and loves us through it all. That is why His judgement is perfect. Most of us don’t like God because of that. We want him to “twang his magic twangger” and make everything right. We lost the opportunity to live without sin when we choose to believe the devil’s lies.
paradosis, what did the Incarnation accomplish? What does the Feast of the Transfiguration we just celebrated mean in the our life in this world?
We are not all called to be celibate monks, we are all called to community in Jesus Christ to share of what we produce with one another and those in need. How are we to do that, if we produce nothing?
paradosis -
JamesK’s post #67 was very well put. I don’t know whether or not he has read about free-market economics, but he has grasped some essential truths.
My suggestion to you is that you set aside what seems to be a deep-seated resentment against rich people and read one or two good expositions of free-market economics. You might change your mind like I did.
I spent a lot of time over the course of 3 years working with shoe companies at their plants in China. These plants are the supposed icons of capitalistic exploitation. When the workers there found out that “human rights activists” were on site surreptiously auditing the plant conditions they would chase them out, heaving shoes at them to hasten their flight.
After seeing such things first hand it’s hard to take the anti-globalist stuff seriously. Are there problems with free-market driven globalization? Sure. Nothing is perfect. But when the alternative is bone-grinding poverty it’s an easy choice. It’s your relative comfort that allows you the luxury of railing against “exploitation”.
80) The Incarnation joined human nature to divine nature, so that human nature could descend to the depths of Hades and be brought up out of it by the power of Divine nature to which it had been joined in Christ, thereby overcoming Death in humanity in Christ which until then held All Creation captive. The Transfiguration shows that the condition of the world changed with the coming of the Messiah, and shows humanity its potential for which it was created, its hope while it travels through the Valley of the Shadow of Death. It also points to the Transfiguration of All Creation that “groans” awaiting “the release of the sons of God”.
We are not all called to be celibate monks, we are all called to community in Jesus Christ to share of what we produce with one another and those in need. How are we to do that, if we produce nothing?
I’m sorry, I don’t see the relation of these questions to anything I’ve had to say. You must have me confused with someone else; I never advocated for the abolition of “production”, industrial or otherwise, or said everyone had to be a monk and produce nothing. There are many monks who are productive, in many ways depending on what you mean by ‘productive’ (financially, I presume).
I answered Fr.J (post 62)
We can become more self sufficient, producers instead of consumers, live cooperatively, etc.
When I think of economic “freedom”, I think about how we can eat out, eat processed food, or food cooked from scratch. How we can even grow our own food, wholly or in part.
My folks and I have for years; me not as many as they, and now my Dad can no longer, so it’s Mom and I; she’s 80 with 2 knee replacements. (See slide show at StallFamily.NET, a memorial to my Dad; click on oval image lower right.) Growing up, my mom sewed all her own and my sister’s clothing. She even made shirts for me at my request when I went off to university. I bought all my own clothes in high school with money I made mowing lawns for $3 a lawn.
Take stock of what you produce. Probably you trade your “time” and energy for a paycheck, that if it’s big enough allows you to hire others to do for you what you could do for yourself if you were independent of “economics”, could use your time for other things, and lived modestly. Most likely, you consume more than you actually produce and could not produce everything you consume on your own. If you own an average house today, most likely it’s 3 times the size of the average house from the 50’s, you may have about the same times as many clothes, “things”, etc. In other words, you’re “buying into” the system that makes you think you’re a king in a castle when in fact you may be more of a serf than ever. It’s been shown that the peasantry was better off before the Industrial Revolution, and it took until the 19th century for the standard of living of the peasantry to return to what it once was. Modern “values” are utilitarian. Local “economy” is destroyed when the global economy is given precedence over it; and “mobility” is valued over rootedness in the earth. Everything comes with a “price”. (Picture modernity as Charlie Chaplin amidst all those cogwheels).
And now some questions for you.
What was the earth like before the Fall of mankind? After the Fall, what do you think God meant when he told Adam he now must till the earth to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow amidst thorns and thistles, and Eve that she must bear children amidst pain. If humanity hadn’t “fallen”, would we all have been birthed from a woman’s uterus? Did thorns and thistles exist before the Fall? What is the “Valley of the Shadow of Death”? What is the fate of that “Valley”?
And most importantly, do you think you follow God’s mandate for mankind after the Fall, or are you “pictured” in Brueghel’s “Tower of Babel”?
(Some say it’s a political cartoon of sorts, commentary on the “times” that then were achangin’, laying the foundation for our own times.)
“If you’re really going to (be a) neighbor, you go to them when they need you, and when you need help you call. Two brothers who live up the creek and another friend and I have known each other pretty near always, and we exchange work all the time. We don’t KEEP BOOKS. I do all I can for them. They do all they can for me. And it’s a good thing. Who knows what the record is? I helped one of them put in his crop of tobacco last year. He said, “What do I owe you?” I said, “Nothing.” That’s CEREMONY. He wouldn’t want me to think that I hadn’t worked well enough to deserve to be paid, or that he wouldn’t be willing to pay me if I wanted him to. But when hog-killing time came I had two hogs to kill and he said, “I’ve fattened you a hog, you need three.” He knew I hadn’t had enough bacon the year before. I don’t know whether he overpaid me or I overpaid him or where it stands. And that’s the way I prefer to live. That means our work has ESCAPED FROM ECONOMICS and has value in an altogether DIFFERENT sense, and a much LARGER sense. Our work for each other is valuable beyond its PRACTICAL worth because there’s a deep strong bond of friendship and respect among us. It gives us pleasure to work together.”
- Wendell Berry
paradosis,
We cannot escape economics any more than we can escape politics. Economics is how we value and exchange “stuff”. Politics is how we order our existence with others in groups.
The definition you give of the Incarnation is a good beginning but it is much more. It began the re-sanctification of the creation through us. That means that we are capable, by the grace of God, to live a sacramental life. Many live sacramentally to a degree, very few do so consistently. Nevertheless, the blessing of the fruits of the earth and our labor is part of that. But just remember that St. Paul instructed us not to judge what our brother eats, neither should we judge how our brothers and sisters work and the goods that each has.
Saint John of Kronstadt
St. Cyril of Alexandria commenting on Luke 6:20,
“Blessed are the poor, for yours is the Kingdom of Heaven.”
Living a sacramentally simply life without attachment to the world is the goal of all Christians. But no one has the authority to mandate what that means in each person except Christ alone . Romans Chapter 1 explains quite clearly what stands in our way.
It is my own sinfulness, covetousness and desire. I reap in my body and my soul what I have sown and face the consequences of my rebellion. Obedience given in submission to His love is required, but cannot be forced or coerced or obedience turns into slavery.
Government is instituted among us to restrain where necessary, the worst of our behavior, and allow for freedom. Nothing more. The Preamble to the U.S Constitution says it quite well.
The administration of the ideas gets difficult.
We cannot rely on government to do what we refuse to do. Government is simply a reflection of us. Free and just governments rule over a free and just people. Tryannical governments rule over people who reject freedom and justice. As we become more hedonistic and reject any authority outside our own minds, the more likely it becomes that a tryannical form of government will arise.
82) We cannot escape economics any more than we can escape politics. Economics is how we value and exchange “stuff”. Politics is how we order our existence with others in groups.
Yes economics and politics are “necessary evils”. No one’s “judging” anything but the modern day “systems”.
We cannot escape economics COMPLETELY, but we can create our own system of economics locally that orders the way we interact with each other, and affects society at large as much if not more by what we ABSTAIN from as by what we produce. We can limit our expectations of government by living in a way that limits our involvement with it, thereby minimizing it in our own lives whether politically the government is “shrunken” or not. We don’t have to passively expect government to “handle” economics for us, or march lockstep to the tune of Wall Street’s drummer. Neither must we accept that the current way always was, or is the best that can possibly be. Comparing today to “the way things were” over time helps to put today in perspective.
St. Paul also told us to be wise as serpents and innocent as lambs.
He didn’t tell us to go out and build another tower of babel, then justify our actions politically.
Yes, the jury’s still out on how Christians can best “live in the world without being of the world”. Historically, that’s been split between those who choose to embed themselves in the world while not living for it, and those who have separated themselves more so from it to do the same (and I’m not necessarily making a distinction between monastics and laity). You’re as free to choose that as anyone else. Just see to it that you don’t “mandate” your way for anyone else either. If you meet anyone interested in living cooperatively, please send them my way.
If your reply is what you intended all along, then you could have just spoken your mind to begin with without the questions. I asked some of you, got no answer, and seem to remember being upbraided by you when you thought I’d treated you that way. Besides the fact, that the issue at large began over the labelling of things the way one wants to see them, not listening or embracing what someone else thinks, feels, or experiences, limiting their “freedom” in other words by shutting them out, implying or telling them they’re “wrong” without attempting to understand their point of view, how or why they have come to hold it.
I’ve been familiar with nihilism, materialism, utopianism, and many other -isms and strive to stay free from entanglement with them. I appreciate the fact that you try to do the same. If you genuinely want the “liberality” of faith that you describe, it’s equally important that you extend that to others, especially those with whom you disagree. Labeling, telling them what they are, think, etc., “outing” them for the “principled man-haters” that you may think they are will not build a relationship with them that might even stand the chance of them possibly coming to see things your way. Humility includes acknowledging that one’s understanding of the conservative-liberal debate may not be exactly as it appears in one’s own mind.
Paradosis mentions Wendell Berry. Can’t say I have too much respect for the man. He sits in his valley in Kentucky preaching passivism (contra Christianity) while others protect him, even with their lives. He does not know what sustains him…
Paradosis says:
I’m sorry, I don’t see the relation of these questions to anything I’ve had to say. You must have me confused with someone else; I never advocated for the abolition of “production”
Baloney. You wade into this blog with both barrels firing about “capitalism” and the rest. IF you are not a bratty teenager, you sure act like one…
When are you going to identify yourself, and how old you are?
Paradosis quotes Wendal Berry saying:
That means our work has ESCAPED FROM ECONOMICS and has value in an altogether DIFFERENT sense, and a much LARGER sense. Our work for each other is valuable beyond its PRACTICAL worth because there’s a deep strong bond of friendship and respect among us. It gives us pleasure to work together
I get the same out of my work. Wendell here is being elitist. He thinks he escapes economics – he has not, he’s just done a good job of defining it! His thinking is detached from reality…
“paradosis” says:
that the issue at large began over the labelling of things the way one wants to see them, not listening or embracing what someone else thinks, feels, or experiences, limiting their “freedom” in other words by shutting them out, implying or telling them they’re “wrong” without attempting to understand their point of view
Exactly, which began with your rambling, unfocused, moralizing (without any real substance) posts. The economic tangent started with your strange, unfocused, ramblings against “capitalism”.
Take Fr. Jacobse advice and try to stick with a point or two.
If you genuinely want the “liberality” of faith that you describe, it’s equally important that you extend that to others, especially those with whom you disagree. Labeling, telling them what they are, think, etc., “outing” them for the “principled man-haters” that you may think they are will not build a relationship with them that might even stand the chance of them possibly coming to see things your way. Humility includes acknowledging that one’s understanding of the conservative-liberal debate may not be exactly as it appears in one’s own mind.
What? People really truly are “principled man-haters”. People really truly are liberals, conservatives, Christians, pagans, men, women, etc. This is where you really sound like a bratty teenager. All of us adults understand the difference between a philosophy and a person, a “label” and a human being. This site is about ideas, Orthodoxy, and it’s relation to the culture. Labels are useful tools. Please stick with the articles and the blog discussions – your sophomoric attempts at preaching (e.g. Humility includes acknowledging…) is at best irrelevant, usually it’s just plain silly…
p.s. How old are you?
85-88)
The great irony here is that paradosis is engaged in discussion on the internet. His computer only exists because of an immense chain of production, starting with mined metals, extracted petroleum, refined metals, refined plastics, composites of metals and plastics, etc. Each of these, in turn exists only because there are plants filled with specialized machinery that effect each step of production, each piece of machinery being built at yet another plant and depending on an immensity of components, each of these produced at still other plants.
Are the folks doing this all work dehumanized, or depraved? From my observations over 25 years I have to say no. Some are Christians, some are athiests, some are depressed, some are perpetually buoyant. Can the Christians in these factories be good Christians? Sure, why not? I think Wendell Berry and crew are simply mistaking their aesthetic preferences for morality.
paradosis, There is no such thing as a necessary evil for Christians because, due to the Incarnation, everything that is necessary in our lives can be sanctified and is therefore not evil. Necessary evils are the sanctuary for those who do not wish to confront what it takes to really live a Christian life in a fallen world. Economics and politics are an integral part of living in community in a material world. The fact that you call them “necessary evils” indicates to me that you have not begun to appreciate the profound effect of the Incarnation.
As St. Demetrios of Thesolonika and many other saints show, even the use of the sword can be sanctified so certainly economic and political activity can be.
I missed your questions in the midst of all the other words. Please restate them.
I ask questions because they are generally a better way to get a non-confrontational conversation going and to do what I can to really understand what the other person is saying. Bombast is fun to do, but usually boring and unedifying for others. As far as stating what I really believe, I don’t have too much difficulty with that, its the living part that’s hard.
You’re 85 to 88 years old?
Fr. Stephen Freeman Christ Crucified
There is no political ideology, dogma, or philosophy that adds anything to the life of a Christian whether it is labled “liberal” or “conservative”. To allow them to determine our actions in this world is dangerous especially when we allow them to divide us from our brothers. They should be examined in the shadow of the Cross not the other way around.
90) I think Wendell Berry and crew are simply mistaking their aesthetic preferences for morality.
Wendell Berry addresses the issues of land, industrialization, property ownership, people, food supply and much more.
Tom C
The Agrarian Standard
Reading Comprehension F
Note 90, I also bet paradosis holds his money in a bank that, gasp, pays him interest for use of his money. He must have called and demanded that they stop their capitalistic ways and give the earned interest to the poor.
If he’s got any type of retirement or pension account he again invests in the stock of capitalist corporations and enjoys the benefits of the risks these companies take to insure a return greater than the rate of inflation and provide some cushion for his retirement. Oh the horror of capitalism and freedom! No, let’s follow the “worker utopia” model created and blessed by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ceausescu, Castro, Mugabe, Chavez, etc. etc. that brought and continues to bring us the joys of mass murder, suffering, torture, imprisonment, and the starvation of tens of millions of people. That’s the solution! Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
91)
I agree questions are a great way to open up communication. Christopher seems to think that you are a Troll and bait people with them, but you seem to me to have more character than that.
Questions lost can be found in 82) but never mind.
I’m choosing to live “in the world” differently; choosing to shut off my senses by simplifying and living a rural life so I can better remember God and Death and work on kenosis.
See Christ and CultureProf. Constantine Scouteris, University of Athens
The negative so to speak attitude towards culture is based on the argument that civilization is not the final goal of human destiny. Culture is composed by various values which were produced during the course of human history. However, from a Christian point of view, cultural achievements are not the ultimate values of life; they are even often not necessary presuppositions for salvation. One can even argue that it can be perhaps easier a to be saved, given that he is free from the yoke of civilization and consequently has the possibility for a clear and direct vision of the Christian truth. The accumulations are often obstacles, not allowing the human person to reach the of the Gospel. It is beyond doubt that (1 Cor 3: 19-20).
Christianity and Culture Fr. George Florovsky
“Necessary evils” is a figure of speech; so you have misread me, so your deductions regarding my understanding of the Incarnation are false.
Michael Bauman
English Grammar/Idioms D+
85-88?????
LLLLLLLLOLOLOLOLOLOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Yes, I was born 5-8 years before my mother was conceived,
proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am most certainly prophetic!!!!
Michael Bauman
Reading Comprehension C- (for making me laugh!)
#92
Nice to see that Mr. Berry addresses the issue of, um, people.
95) You would know that had you actually read any of his work before assasinating his character.
Let’s make this simple for paradosis to understand. There are 3 and only 3 ways for anyone in life to have/obtain value (monetary or economic) or acquire any asset to be able to live or sustain oneself or one’s family:
(1) you ethically earn it (by working and providing value to your employer, or risking it in a venture to provide new value to others via a service or product) = Ethical Capitalism
(2) you steal it from others or someone else (individual, institution, or government) steals it on your behalf = Criminals, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, American government (federal, state and local), Robin Hood, the Sopranos, the Mafia, etc..
(3) someone voluntarily gives it to you = Charity (Christian or otherwise) NOTE however, in order for someone (individual, government, church, institution, etc..) to have the money/asset to give it to you they also must attain it via #1 or #2
Notice that the only fair, ethical, and voluntary model that is based fully on freedom and the greatest respect for the individual is #1. (NOTE: I did not include unethical, lying, criminal, or abusive individuals, executives, and companies that do not practice ethical capitalism.)
93) Banescu, I really like the article you wrote on business ethics. God’s blessing on your work in that regard and may He have tremendous effect on the business community through it.
I am so deeply grateful, that I am happy to be the target of your off target communist ridicule. It has brought back a visual memory of my dearly departed Dad telling the sacker at the grocery store on whom everyone picked, “l got picked on too, but I knew that if they’re picking on me then they’re not picking on someone else”. The anniversary of his repose is Sept 25, if you’d like to help me pray for him. He was a WWII vet. You may have found him entertaining as well.
Perhaps we should give Mr. “paradosis” a break. To him, to disagree is to “assassinate someone’s character”. It must be very difficult to believe such things, as you could not disagree on anything (say, what color to paint the kids bedroom this year) without assassinating a character or two. To add insult to injury, as note 97 puts it, he is the quintessential underdog – the proverbial pimply faced kid sacking the caviar and fine French wine of those greedy “Capitalists”. He puts their groceries into the cavernous trunk of their Mercedes Benz, and all they do is throw him a look that says “I hope my daughter does not bring you home one day” when all he was looking for was a quarter…Gosh, I am about all teared up just thinking about it …:)
In all seriousness, I would have really liked to meet your father – perhaps one “day”, God willing, I will. I LOVE talking to WWII vets. In my last parish we had an ace of the pacific theater. It bores my wife, but I can talk to these guys all day. May his memory be Eternal!!
97) Thanks for the instruction in economics 1.
BTW – My dad was the one who taught me everything I know about finances. At 13 I kept a ledger of my income ($3 per lawn mowed) and expenses. I have lived my life debt free, always paying off my cc charges every month. My dad did the same, never owning a credit card, dying at age 84. His annual income topped at $30K. He had a pension from the major oil corporation he worked that he worked at for 35 years that amounted to $700 per month for the 26 years he was able to draw it. It stopped when he died. He was able to send my sister and I to university, and build a retirement home for he and my mom. I’m looking after her now that he’s gone. She is a career housewife and doesn’t drive. He accomplished all this not because he was ethical and did not stand for foolishness.
So again thanks for the instruction.
I’ve had the best teacher money couldn’t buy.
typo: He accomplished all this
notbecause he was ethical and did not stand for foolishness.99) Mr. Chris, I don’t know what dictionary was used in your instruction but you have some strange definitions. Fortunately, I learned from Socrates to define terms, so I shrug you inability to communicate off on your foreign language.
FYI I was a great saker, with clear complexion. There were no Mercedes Benz in our neighborhood. I didn’t know what one was until I went to university and there was a homosexual in my design class who drove a 450SL that belonged to his sugar daddy.
Your poor wife! She must get really frustrated after watching sports with you all the time, only to have to listen to your nonstop ridicule during an occassional Disney family film.
My dad told great stories. He was a mechanic in the Army Air Corps (no Air Force then); his color blindness probably saved his life otherwise he’d have been a gunner in a B52. He was stationed in England and France in the same outfit with a real tall guy named LaPierre from LA. LaPierre dug himself a real BIG foxhole. One night the Natzi’s shelled them and everyone went running for cover. My dad and a buddy jumped into LaPierre’s great BIG one, and LaPierre had to jump into one of their smaller ones. My dad and his buddy both fit into LaPierre’s, but there was poor LaPierre all scrunched up in one of theirs. My dad would start to laugh at the end, but what was most entertaining was the way he would tell stories and his Texas accent. Lah-Pea-Air came out something more like “loppy-ear” and I’d crack up every time I heard it and pictured LaPierre with his knees to his chest (I’m 6-3 so I can relate)!
paradosis,
If your 85 -88, wouldn’t you be the WWII vet? Or are you saying you were born between (19)85-(19) 88? Your figures are not adding up. Your Mother is 80, your father died (presumably w/in a year or two) at 84 and you are 85-88? or maybe that you finished high school between 85-88.
StallFamily.NET brings up nothing on Google, even when you put www in front of it. I am curious though, why are you still here if you disagree so vehemently with the posters? You have your opinion and interpretation of the “Word” as they (and all) have of their’s. Yet you put yours forward as the “correct” interpretation (eerily, you come across as puritanical), why? You don’t know the truth anymore than me and I am not Orthodox .
Nope, I am not Orthodox. I came here (and several other sites) to learn more about Orthodoxy which is in my past. The people here are nice; they disagree, agree, argue, etc. like people do. But you have done nothing since your visit but insult others and wallow in self importance. It is no wonder you are having to look for fellow communalists instead of them seeking you out.
The self reliance stuff is very interesting to me, but I have my suspicions that you are not as interested in that as you are attacking these folks ideals. What exactly do you believe? What makes your (interpretation of) Orthodoxy better than these folks? Why can’t they have their convictions? Why should I (as an admitted outsider) consider or show interest in your form of Orthodoxy?
Sorry for interrupting everyone (as I read more and rarely post) but I am beginning to think pardaosis is not someone who justs sees things differently but is instead a liar.
Regards,
103) Or are you saying you were born between (19)85-(19) 88?
No Cepik, Michael Bauman said/asked if I was 85-88, which is why I gave him a C- in reading comprehension (for making me laugh).
So yes, you’re math is correct and you are absolutely right about Michael’s not adding up, and I’m not a vet.
You’re on the right track, so keep working at reading instead of reading into and you’ll get there if you really want to communicate with me.
If you are genuinely generally interested in the self-reliance “stuff”, what I’ve tried to say here that you have not understood, or anything else (TX weather, etc.) then talk to me one on one via “info at” paradosis.info. I was able to connect to my site the way you say you weren’t by entering in both initial/all caps and all lowercase. Nothing comes up at google for your search because my pages aren’t titled as such.
If you’re only intent is take sides against me like has already been done, then don’t bother and please do not address your post to me, then everyone else but me in your closing within your note. It’s like talking about your child in his/her presence as if they aren’t there.
I apologize for leaving you with a bad impression; I am capable and resolved to do better.
PS: the crux of OrthodoxyToday as always is a life of prayer; “lifestyle” can have a lot to add or subtract from that
Tell Scott kranestew hi for me when you see him
note 104
I’m around, going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.
105
The weather in your neck of the woods is much more conducive toward that than here. I’m sweating it out until fall/winter.
The hills are alive . . .
paradosis:
I’m a little confused as to what you want us to do, so if you will entertain some yes/no questions I would appreciate it. If you are so kind as to respond, feel free to write a few sentences, but please answer yes or no at the beginning of your responses.
Is working in exchange for a paycheck unorthodox?
Is living in a co-housing arrangement more Orthodox than living in a house solely owned by the occupant?
Is living in a small house more Orthodox than living in a large house?
Is growing one’s own food and joining a coop more Orthodox than mining phosphate for fertilizer, producing oil for fuel, or manufacturing circuit boards?
Is the Internet more Orthodox than television?
Is a vegetarian diet more Orthodox than a diet that includes meat?
Is agrarian living more Orthodox than urban or suburban living?
Does a high degree of freedom in society necessarily erode what you would identify as Orthodox culture?
Would our country have a realistic chance of survival if all Americans lived just like you wish to live?
I’m a little confused as to what you want us to do,
define “conservative in a way that is more broadly Orthodox Christian that cannot easily be confused or seen as synonymous with the “christian right” whose ideas/values often can be informed by a michmach of millenarianism, American exceptionalism, puritanism, pietism, “christian” zionism, moralism, American civic religion, etc. Such is no “ally” with Orthodox Christianity; try revealing Orthodox Christianity to someone who holds such ideals and you may quickly find this to be so; instead of being labeled “liberal” you may instead be pigeonholed an “idolator” for “worshipping icons”; and that is only the tip of the iceberg.
so if you will entertain some yes/no questions I would appreciate it. If you are so kind as to respond, feel free to write a few sentences, but please answer yes or no at the beginning of your responses.
Is working in exchange for a paycheck unorthodox?
no
Is living in a co-housing arrangement more Orthodox than living in a house solely owned by the occupant?
no
Is living in a small house more Orthodox than living in a large house?
no
Is growing one’s own food and joining a coop more Orthodox than mining phosphate for fertilizer, producing oil for fuel, or manufacturing circuit boards?
no
Is the Internet more Orthodox than television?
no
Is a vegetarian diet more Orthodox than a diet that includes meat?
no
Is agrarian living more Orthodox than urban or suburban living?
no
Does a high degree of freedom in society necessarily erode what you would identify as Orthodox culture?
no
Would our country have a realistic chance of survival if all Americans lived just like you wish to live?
I don’t wish all Americans to live just alike; they are free to make their own choices; but the choice I’m making should be an option just as well as others. More people might make it if they thought they had a choice, but currently the culture and economy revolves around urbanization.
note 107 D. George, would you be so kind as to answer some questions I have of you?
What do you think is most culturally important: morality, democracy, capitalism or Orthodox Christianity?
How do you think your choice (from above) is conducive to a more free and just society?
What priority do you assign to the following for your life from most to least important: financial income, almsgiving, material possessions, prayer, conservative thinking/action, conservation of nature, living in a “free” society
Is “quality” of society more or less important than the Orthodox Path of Salvation?
What type of society/ social conditioning do you think has produced the greatest depth of Orthodox Christianity, a society that is repressive of Christianity or one that indulges sensual pleasure?
Define “conservative” as you understand the category in American cultural terms.
Do you think it important to reduce American social engagement to two opposing categories of “conservative” and “liberal”. How is doing so helpful? harmful?
note 108:
define “conservative in a way that is more broadly Orthodox Christian that cannot easily be confused or seen as synonymous with the “christian right”
This is your hang-up, not ours. All the regular posters here, all the spirit of this site, is not Calvinistic/protestant. I see no need to make a special effort to distinguish myself from something called “the religious right”, in particular sense I don’t find them particularly threatening – liberalism is a much much bigger problem.
Define “conservative” as you understand the category in American cultural terms.
Do yourself a favor and purchase Russell Kirk’s, “The Conservative Mind”, and read the introduction. Yes, there is much confusion in our society about what it means to be “conservative”. You yourself display much of that confusion. A key is to understand the difference between libertarianism, and conservatism.
Do you think it important to reduce American social engagement to two opposing categories of “conservative” and “liberal”. How is doing so helpful? harmful?
It is very helpful. It is the beginning of the debate, and the beginning of thinking for many many people. Much of the disputes in this society is a simple dichotomy – two ideas that are in many sense the “opposite” of each other. Take the “life issues” for example (i.e. abortion, eugenics, euthanasia, etc.). There really are only two main view’s of anthropology (i.e. what it means to be a human person) in our society: The classical “western” or “Christian” view of man, and the modern utilitarian/materialistic view of man. A conservative holds to the Christian view, the liberal holds to a materialistic view.
I am all for “nuance” and clarification, but in many many cases liberal/conservative are perfectly good words and good shorthand when speaking/thinking about these issues.
What’s your problem with the terms “liberal” and “conservative”? Not preachy/prophetic enough for ya?
define “conservative in a way that is more broadly Orthodox Christian that cannot easily be confused or seen as synonymous with the “christian right”
This is your hang-up, not ours. All the regular posters here, all the spirit of this site, is not Calvinistic/protestant. I see no need to make a special effort to distinguish myself from something called “the religious right”, in particular sense I don’t find them particularly threatening – liberalism is a much much bigger problem.I’m not concerned about that distinction; I think the bigger problem is liberalism.
Define “conservative” as you understand the category in American cultural terms.
Do yourself a favor and purchase Russell Kirk’s, “The Conservative Mind”, and read the introduction. Yes, there is much confusion in our society about what it means to be “conservative”. You yourself display much of that confusion. A key is to understand the difference between libertarianism, and conservatism.I think if you read Russell Kirk’s “The Conservative Mind”, especially the introduction, it would be helpful to your understanding of “conservative” as referenced here at OT. It is also beneficial to distinguish between libertarianism and conservative.
Do you think it important to reduce American social engagement to two opposing categories of “conservative” and “liberal”. How is doing so helpful? harmful?
It is very helpful. It is the beginning of the debate, and the beginning of thinking for many many people. Much of the disputes in this society is a simple dichotomy – two ideas that are in many sense the “opposite” of each other. Take the “life issues” for example (i.e. abortion, eugenics, euthanasia, etc.). There really are only two main view’s of anthropology (i.e. what it means to be a human person) in our society: The classical “western” or “Christian” view of man, and the modern utilitarian/materialistic view of man. A conservative holds to the Christian view, the liberal holds to a materialistic view.
I am all for “nuance” and clarification, but in many many cases liberal/conservative are perfectly good words and good shorthand when speaking/thinking about these issues.
What’s your problem with the terms “liberal” and “conservative”? Not preachy/prophetic enough for ya?
What? Are you editing posts now here at OT??
HOW OLD ARE YOU???
What?Are you editing posts now here at OT??HOW OLD ARE YOU???Chris, we must have a bad connection. Edging? No, I have to mow first. But hey, I installed a filter on my computer because I keep receiving these frightening images from you. I’m sure this is all my fault because I am completely ignorant, never having read anything by Russell Kirk. I didn’t even know who he was. I hope my filter isn’t causing problems for you. Are you still getting distorted reception from me like that pimply face sacker you said you saw? I must confess I got the filter off someone without confirming their moral status. I’m not sure but they might be a principled manhater, not even a hypocrite. I hope the filter works. I should have asked you for help instead.
I’m trying really hard to behave myself like you’ve told me I should. I’m not laughing or winking. I know that’s not allowed at monasteries and have heard it generally discouraged within Orthodoxy as it’s considered to encourage passions and to be counterproductive to attaining dispassion. I should have listened to you elder brother. I’m sorry for crossing you. I keep crossing myself and praying that I can bring my passions under control.
I’m sorry for accusing you of misspelling agarian. My reception of that post from you must have distorted and now it’s miraculously cleared up because I see that you did spell correctly. I am so sorry for all the accusations I made, and hope you will forgive me. I’m running out to get Kirk’s book you recommended right away so I can put a stop to these awful images as soon as possible. I don’t want to wake up tomorrow and find that I have left this undone. I’m even plotting my trip so that I make nothing but right turns, even if it means I have to take the long way home.
Did you ask how cold are you? No, it’s summer here and hot as _, not cold.
Hope the static clears up for you on your end. I’m getting that Kirk book ASAP!
Paradosis, the paragraph containing links you provided making fun of Pat Robertson were removed. I won’t allow it.
Thanks Fr.J, those images of finger pointing, moral heavyweight lifting, emotive outburst and the beast were frightening me! I hope that clears up the bad connection for Chris too.
It’s irresponsible, paradosis. You should know better.
You’re right Fr.J. I apologize and take responsibility for my action. I think everyone should. It’s the right thing to do. A picture’s worth a thousand words, so the point’s been made, albeit irresponsibly. OrthodoxyToday after all is truly about the image that’s being formed in each of us for beauty or beast. We only have control over the image in ourselves, and no one else.
Image is the most powerful means of communication. That’s why art is such a fundamental part of culture, and why advertising has made use of imagery since its earliest days.
paradosis, despite what I can only take as juvenile sarcasm, you actually have a good point. Our culture is the reflection of what we have accepted as our image philosophically and spiritually. Right now it is a culture of rebellion and everything is shattered. What Nietzche called the trans-valution of all values has occured. We each of us stand alone crying defiance to the world and those around us. Finding the sores in each other and doing our best to pick at them rather than heal them.
Sarcasm is an indiscrimately destructive weapon. There are times to use it but they are rare. The worst part about it is that it is quite difficult to use without hardening one’s own heart.
So what is the image of man you see in the liberal politics of the NCC for instance that is in concord with the Orthodox understanding?
Here are the big issues that as Christians we ought to address:
Care for the poor
Care for the earth
Care for the innocent and vulnerable
Creating viable communities
Doing the things that make for peace and freedom
Worshipping the Creator rather than the created thing.
The liberals emote on most of these all the time, but the image of man at the foundation of their thought is anathema to me because it is so at odds with the Orthodox understanding. They deny all of the essentials of what the Church teaches us about ourselves. The conservatives do a little better in some ways but only marginally and fail just as badly in others.
Faith, economics, and politics are the three great building blocks of culture all depend on the answers to two questions: Who is God? Who are we?
Michael,
Don’t forget: “Defend the innocent and vulnerable” as well as care for them.
Michael notes: “The liberals emote on most of these all the time, but the image of man at the foundation of their thought is anathema to me because it is so at odds with the Orthodox understanding.”
So in other words, they’re doing the right things for the wrong reasons? Are you assuming that all liberals are also atheists? I’m not sure what you’re getting at … can you further explain?
It seems like you’re saying that a liberal can do something benevolent like volunteering at Habitat for Humanity but because they view man as ___ their work has no merit?
(I left it blank because I’m not sure what you’re assuming the “liberal” view of man is)
JamesK,
They say they have the right intentions, but their actions often do more harm than good because of a fundamental miss understanding of man in society. I’m talking policy actions here, not individual ones. Even with individual actions though the reasons are important. As the poet said, “To do the right deed for the wrong reason is surely the greatest treason.” But in the case of individual actions, the wrong reason mostly effects the person doing the deed.
But how do you know what is the right deed? If my understanding of humanity is absolutely wrong, or “feelings” and what “ought to be” override reason, or I’m just trying to make myself look good, will I do the right thing? Makes it much more difficult even in the individual area.
Chris, absolutely that is really what I intended to say. To me defense is a big part of caring for.
paradosis 104:
I did visit your site. I enjoyed the article on Dmitri and was unaware that he was originally a Baptist. I found the Holden article interesting and enjoyed the link to “On the Road to Emmaus”. Particularly about the Orthodox Russians who were leading other people to Orthodoxy (family and friends) by setting good examples. I didn’t care for alot of the other stuff, but that is OK since people are entitled to their own opinions. I couldn’t find any self reliance links; only videos about how environmentally concerned Wal Mart is. Perhaps I was looking in the wrong place.
I wanted to respond to you since you responded to me; I am not as diligent on posting. My intent was to try and point out (politely) that you were coming across as rude and evasive. As I said, I am not Orthodox and cannot take “sides” against you. My last paragraph was directed to you alone, and was not calling out anyone else. I sometimes speak in third person to make a point and in retrospect I could have worded it better, my apologies.
I have no axe to grind with you (I don’t even know you) and am not teaming up on you. However, I am asking you (the person behind the keyboard) if the “paradosis” character is setting the example you want him to. This character comes onto another site, insults the host and guests, is offensive,evasive and defensive; expresses his views while not considering others’.
Orthodoxy is in my family history so I would like to learn more about it. What is it that you believe? What style/form/interpretation/brand of Orthodoxy are you portraying? Do you feel you are setting a good example? Do you think you are leading anyone to Orthodoxy (whether it is your style/interpretation/form) by your behavior? Is that even a concern of yours?
Regards,