tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-278980962024-03-21T17:22:40.365-05:00the œcumenical panheresyThe more public musings of Mr. G. Z. T, "A man of mickle name, Renowned much in armes and derring doe."Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.comBlogger438125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-69234840934512648662016-09-21T23:29:00.001-05:002016-09-21T23:29:34.064-05:00Black Lives Matter.There are few Orthodox voices on the matter of racism in America and specifically Black Lives Matter. So, here I am, affirming that black lives matter. Hope that helps. Have a nice day.Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-6270242135014191932016-01-23T16:12:00.000-05:002016-01-23T16:12:30.064-05:00Fasting, converts, Jesus, etc.I once made a bad joke, "How can you tell if somebody's a convert? They start talking about fasting." This can come off as mildly mean-spirited, but I don't mean it that way. There's a perverse focus on that matter in a lot of discussions. I spend some time on the internet in places where there are a lot of people who are having their first exposure to Orthodoxy or are starting their inquiry or catechumenate, and it seems like the focus of Orthodoxy in their mind is fasting, prayer ropes, and prayer rules. This is bad marketing: the first three things that pop to mind should be Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, or maybe Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or something else more basic, not these little external things that are helpful perhaps but not central. <br />
<br />
Perhaps once they start hanging around a parish a little more some of that sanity is going to get through to them, that the point of our religion isn't to think about whether "tree-oil" is synecdoche for all oil or really just means olive oil, it's about the gospel of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.<br />
<br />
So I try to do my part to reorient their questions to "the one thing needful" rather than reciting the party line (which, if you're interested, is explained well in the front matter of the edition of The Lenten Triodion translated by Mother Mary and now-Metropolitan Kallistos - but this is the least important part of the book, much more valuable is te liturgical material, which is generally about our life in exile and the salvation we have in Christ's passion and resurrection). I can't however give them real guidance (I'm not qualified to give spiritual advice nor am I disposed to be) nor can I really concretely tell them the various ways in which the disciplines of fasting actually play out (I don't want to scandalize people who have a more rigorous rule, worry people who have a less rigorous rule, give people the wrong impressions, etc). So I generally tell them something along the lines of the above and noting that advice about these things generally comes in a pastoral context from your priest, and that generally you do what you can and then forget about it rather than taking on a hard task and failing and worrying about it. That's a distraction and it's not healthy in any sense. It's better to start with a more minimal rule that you keep without fail than something you fail at all the time and spend a lot of "noetic energy" fretting about. So that's what I say to them.<br />
<br />
But here is what I would say when it comes to how we advertise ourselves: we should not emphasize fasting and prayer rules and big long ropes, and discussion of the fasting discipline should primarily be done in pastoral settings rather than bruited through the village. Web-log posts about Lent should be more about repentance than that, gosh, we don't eat cheese right now but maybe shellfish is okay. And when these things do come up, they should primarily be discussed in terms of the Good News of Jesus Christ (rather than even discussing Orthodoxy <i>qua</i> Orthodoxy). Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-48416353855657760422015-10-26T10:25:00.002-05:002015-10-26T21:05:42.527-05:00Is it a witch?First, my apologies about evolution: I put off the second installment for a while and then I forgot what, exactly, I was going to say. But the real point is that this isn't what it's all about, that isn't what faith is, that's just an easy answer. <br />
<br />
Here's another easy answer: wouldn't it just be so nice if all our physical problems were really spiritual? There is an unfortunate line of thought in Christianity in general that tells people with chronic illnesses or mental illnesses that perhaps the real answer is God. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://i.imgur.com/zGk7HSv.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://i.imgur.com/zGk7HSv.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
For somebody who is completely closed to spiritual explanations, perhaps some minor consideration of whether there is a spiritual aspect to sickness is warranted. But, generally, this sentiment is expressed at religious people by religious people. Most of the religious people it is expressed at know all too well that there is a spiritual aspect to sickness and may have come from an environment where that is expressed to a fault. Honestly, if you have somebody who's coming to church on a regular basis, they're probably not in need of a spiritualizing explanation of illness. That is a tactic also used in spiritually abusive environments, by the way, and one should probably avoid the resemblance.<br />
<br />
Wouldn't it be nice, though, if it were true? Oh, you have a chronic illness of some sort? Perhaps you sinned, or don't have enough faith, or a witch cast a spell on you. Those are horrible or tragic things, but, you know, they can be fixed directly. Confess your sins or visit a monastery or eat the witch or something and, BAM, you're fixed. All those doctors don't know anything. There is nothing in the world that cannot be fixed. <br />
<br />
Somebody who is suffering constantly and for years has already thought of this and tried it. There isn't some special prayer that they were missing. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://i.imgur.com/DUwWyn7.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://i.imgur.com/DUwWyn7.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
I don't mean to deny that there are people with chronic illnesses healed by holy people - it's in the Bible and it definitely happens in the post-biblical era. However, those are exceptions rather than the rule and most of those were <i>physical ailments</i> rather than demons, witches, etc. And demons are real and do afflict people and holy people do cast them out and rebuke them, but it's not the normal order of things and Christians are not under the power of demons.<br />
<br />
The short story here is that most people don't know how to be anything other than Job's comforters. And it is horrible. This is not faith and this is not from God. They are pious platitudes that may as well be atheism. It also seems to be all a certain brand of Orthodoxy - an ascendant one - offers people.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://i.imgur.com/slecuJB.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://i.imgur.com/slecuJB.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
In short, no, we're not under a witch's spell, but thank you for your concern. We wish some malevolent corn witch were behind it, though.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://i.imgur.com/nSdmSJN.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://i.imgur.com/nSdmSJN.jpg" /></a>Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-47455748276755282812015-08-10T01:06:00.002-05:002015-08-10T01:06:31.752-05:00In the interests of parity...I mentioned a few days ago a resolution about spiritual abuse that I saw when looking at the documents from the All American Council. There is, of course, a flip side to that: congregations can also abuse their clergy (or other staff, but most Orthodox parishes don't actually pay anybody else), and sometimes they can make things go pear-shaped rather quickly. It can get ugly. There is a fairly good book on the phenomenon and how to avoid it: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/When-Sheep-Attack-Dennis-Maynard/dp/1451513917">When Sheep Attack</a>. Indeed, they often go after people who make successful changes and are doing good things. Just because they don't like them or don't like change.Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-60407301356258874852015-08-09T22:49:00.001-05:002015-08-10T16:22:18.981-05:00Serious question about the prayer of intercession at litiya or at matinsThat is to say, at litiya at vespers, the prayer that starts something like, "Save, O God, Your people..." and includes a rather long litany of saints. If litiya is not said, it is after the gospel reading at matins.<br />
<br />
In your parish practice, how many women are in it besides the obligatory Theotokos and Anna (of "Joachim and Anna")? The exact text used varies considerably - at least among the Russians. The Antiochians and Greeks have more of a tendency to textual uniformity. <br />
<br />
Here are some examples:<br />
<br />
<ul><li><a href="http://dowoca.org/files/docs/At_the_Litiya.pdf">Diocese of the West, OCA</a>: <b>4</b><br />
<li><a href="http://documents.ocanwa.org/documents/PDFFiles/Vespers/Great%20Vespers/Litya%20-%20Prayers%20-%20Great%20Vespers.pdf">Some parish is Arkansas</a>: <b>2</b><br />
<li><a href="http://www.orthodox.net/services/save-o-god.html">A ROCOR parish in TX</a> - very "new royal passion-bearers and martyrs" focus. <b>10</b><br />
<li><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=fBk9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=save+o+god+litiya&source=bl&ots=liV4QBmYEW&sig=GdRukP8W7-D0CbPVVGIXSNofpyk&hl=en&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBmoVChMI3rS348adxwIVhmw-Ch2_lAFa#v=onepage&q=save%20o%20god%20litiya&f=false">A very minimal old one</a> 0, but it has almost nobody.<br />
<li><a href="http://dce.oca.org/assets/files/resources/litiya-saints.pdf">A book about the saints commemorated</a> <b>4</b> are discussed, but this prayer should be considered as a composite.<br />
<li><a href="http://www.antiochian.org/sites/default/files/liturgical_guides/aug-15-orthros.pdf">In here you can find an Antiochian usage</a> - this list of female martyrs is one I'm quite used to. <b>9</b><br />
<li><a href="http://www.goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/sundayorthros">This Greek text only has one but it's also short in general.</a><br />
</ul><br />
EDIT: I added numbers. I'm not going to moralize this, it's merely information to consider.Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-84211025653966233292015-08-09T22:30:00.001-05:002015-08-09T23:06:59.643-05:00Sets of facts and evolution, part 1.<i>EDIT: this is a quickly dashed out sketch of thoughts - this needs a lot of elaboration, but I thought it was interesting enough to put out even in an unfinished form in case people have comments. This touches on a couple things mentioned <a href="http://panheresy.blogspot.com/2014/10/is-teaching-young-earth-creationism-in.html">earlier in another post.</a></i><br />
<br />
Some parts of the church are perhaps rightly skeptical about "modern philosophy", including the modern philosophy of science, so one should attempt to make arguments about evolution in a manner that respects a broad variety of philosophies of science rather than presuming a specific epistemology or, for instance, the correspondence theory of truth. There are certainly some positions that I think Christians are required to take (namely, that real knowledge of the material world is possible), but those are fairly minimal, as are their implications. Though even that one can be dispensed with if, as some do, one points out that we have "fallen" faculties of perception and therefore can't wholly trust them to ever give us knowledge of the material world (but see St Augustine's anti-skeptical argument). <br />
<br />
In that case, then, and since the crowd I am most interested in dealing with is the YEC "Rose" crowd whose position implies that there is no death prior to perhaps around 10,000 years ago, we can deal with the "fact" of evolution rather than the "theory" of evolution. That is to say, dealing with the complex of facts that include a 4.5 billion year old earth, hundreds of millions of years of complex multicellular life, and a succession of organisms that slowly look more and more like the plants and animals we have today. But no "theorizing" yet, not even a consideration for, say, methodological naturalism. Somebody constructing a theory - whether it is naturalistic in methodology or not - has this pile of facts to contend with. If we come up with a new theory that is seriously at odds with this set of facts, we're not going to be very happy with that new theory. <br />
<br />
The YEC will of course have some objections. First, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old is not a <i>fact</i>, it is a conclusion based on a theory plus some other facts. The <i>facts</i> are the instrument readings and astronomical observations and such that, when plugged into the model, spit out that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. This is certainly a fair objection. Another objection is that we are attempting to apply human reason beyond the "Fall of Man". This is less satisfactory for reasons that will become clearer later in my exposition.<br />
<br />
The set of facts, then, that we have is the list of oscilloscope readings, dates of astronomical observations, etc that we have compiled. It is a giant list of facts. Let's call this set of facts <b>Set A</b>. With a rather small set of assumptions, we can then generate a rather minimal theory that gets us to an interpretation of <b>Set A</b> that suggests "the fact of evolution". This answers objection 1: we now have a set of facts and a theory accounting for those facts. The second objection, though is met with the following reply: "Great, provide your own accounting for the facts in <b>Set A</b>." They need not use the same assumptions as above. They just need to provide something that explains the facts as well and do so even if we withhold portions of the facts and then see how well the theory fitted without those facts still explains them. Or generate new facts and see how well those fit. The unfortunate thing here is that, even with the claim that knowledge of the world prior to the Fall is inaccessible to naturalistic methods or human reason absent divine revelation, they can't come up with theories that work as well to explain the facts. They are handwaving them away.<br />
<br />
Now, of course, as Orthodox believers, we assent to all the truths that the Orthodox Church teaches. There is then a new strategy: we have a second set of facts, namely, the dogmatic assertions of the Orthodox Church. They say all the holy elders and all the Fathers of the Church taught young earth creationism. My point here, though, is that this is not, it turns out, a fact. It is an interpretation in light of a theory that requires certain assumptions and then into which they insert the facts, just as the 4.5 billion year old earth is not a fact. We can take as the atomic facts, perhaps, the manuscripts we have of Genesis, the writings of the Holy Fathers (and Mothers) of the Church, and the manuscripts of the pronouncements of church synods. And whatever other facts of this type that you may think of. We can call that <b>Set B</b>. The YEC "Rose" crowd, then, notes that, while they do not have a satisfactory model for <b>A</b>, they do have a satisfactory model for <b>B</b> and it is the only acceptable model for <b>B</b>. As such, they do not need to account for <b>set A</b>. <br />
<br />
So far, I should not be saying anything controversial. Sure, there are thing to quibble with, like what I mean by "explaining" the facts. However, I hope we can pass over those quibbling details, because what matters here is the big picture about the two different stances. One group says that they have a set of assumptions and theories that gives a consistent explanation of <b>set A</b>. The other group says that they have a set of assumptions and theories that gives a consistent explanation of <b>set B</b>.<br />
<br />
Here is my problem: I think the first group, the one that has a reasonable explanation for <b>Set A</b> can have a reasonable enough explanation for <b>Set B</b> - it doesn't catch all of the nuances, but it does not go outside the borders that we cannot go outside of, though it has to admit that many things are still left unknown. Fortunately, the Church itself strongly suggests that these issues of origins are somewhat shrouded in mystery, so that suggests a perfect explanation of <b>B</b> is not really obligatory.<br />
<br />
Here is my other problem: the second group has immense difficulties with <b>set A</b> and I don't think the Church warrants sufficient confidence in their assumptions for <b>set B</b> to swallow the difficulties with <b>A</b>. It only really works well if you're going to deny that any knowledge of the physical world by naturalistic means is possible - which is a line of argument that has been used. This is already getting fairly long, so that will have to be part 2.Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-66905150486900791562015-08-07T13:28:00.001-05:002015-08-07T13:28:08.859-05:00On Spiritual AbuseI haven't personally been in a spiritually abusive environment, or at least not experienced one as such, but I do talk to a lot of people about their experiences with church and churches, good and bad. There's a somewhat serious/not-serious term: "Post-Traumatic Church Syndrome". There was a <a href="http://18aac.oca.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/18thaac-statuteresolution2.pdf">resolution about spiritual abuse</a> at the All-American Council this year that was approved by the Synod. It's short, but reading it definitely helped me to make sense of a lot of the bad experiences people had told me about. Take a look at it!<br />
<br />
But what strikes me is that there seems to be an entire movement, at least on the internet, which seems bent on glorifying some of the bad behaviors outlined in the document and presenting them as the Tradition (Canonical). Particularly the rigidity and legalism and the aspects of shaming people who don't follow all the unwritten rules. Those people are, of course, mostly laity, so it's not such a big deal, but it is still a problem.Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-89836844200711996112015-08-05T13:31:00.001-05:002015-08-05T22:07:04.907-05:00The risk of anti-vaccination ideology in the ChurchAny place where a large number of people assemble, particularly children, risks spreading infectious disease. While we certainly spend less time at church with children than we do at schools or day care centers or whatever, it is still a gathering, and it often bridges communities that don't necessarily regularly interact (ie, the children are not all at the same school). It is also one of the few places that, for instance, a newborn infant who is not old enough for vaccines will be brought. And then there are all the old people there, too. <br />
<br />
Unfortunately, in some parts of Orthodoxy, they are infected with absurd magical thinking about vaccines. In fact, I have heard it reported that a substantial number of seminarians, even, are opposed to vaccines, and as the leader goes, so goes the community. The risk involved is very concrete: an infant too young to be immunized or an adult with a compromised immune system will catch some vaccine-preventable disease - in the case of infants, say, pertussis - and die. Pertussis is especially risky because the current vaccine is not effective for as long as the previous formulation and adults typically don't stay current on their shots. <br />
<br />
There is little that can be done. This is a major public health issue, but it is not any particular individual's right to butt into another family's business. Epidemiology and public health are not within the clergy's responsibilities or competencies, and, as mentioned before, it seems a number of rising young clergy are opposed to vaccines. It is thoroughly unsatisfying to say, "Well, if you're worried that other people are not vaccinated and you or your family are at risk, I guess you should forego church." This is not really a good option.<br />
<br />
We are living in a society, and we should be aware of how our decisions make a difference in the lives of others. Anti-vaccination ideology is foolish, but foolishness isn't a sin. However, it is also selfish because, while there is no general warrant for refusal (hence why it is foolish), it is exposing others who are helpless to risks you are not exposed to. While an unvaccinated 12-year-old Timmy or Tammy is not substantially at risk of death if they catch pertussis, an infant too young to be vaccinated is. The resurgence of pertussis is a direct result of the rise of anti-vaccine ideology and is causing the deaths of infants. Humans are poor at risk management and prevention is undervalued. The only way things will change is if there is some major outbreak which causes massive harm. Indeed, some will think what they are doing is not immoral unless and until there is some direct harm that comes about (not just when it comes to vaccines). This faulty method of thinking is perhaps where pastoral responsibility can come into play. <br />
<br />
Another place that may help is to talk about the harms that have already happened elsewhere. Vaccine preventable diseases have surely struck the church before. Parishes where they have should discuss it so that people can realize these are not theoretical consequences, but rather that refusal to vaccinate can cause disease to spread through vulnerable populations. I have heard a couple anecdotes of parishes where, say, pertussis has made the rounds. But one need not even look to current examples: the older generations remember the horrors of polio and other such diseases now all but eradicated by vaccines. Their testimony can be persuasive, and perhaps the church could give them a forum to address it.<br />
<br />
In short: vaccinate your children or they may harm others when they come to church.<br />
<br />
EDIT: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Honour a physician with the honour due unto him for the uses which ye may have of him: for the Lord hath created him. For of the most High cometh healing, and he shall receive honour of the king. The skill of the physician shall lift up his head: and in the sight of great men he shall be in admiration. The Lord hath created medicines out of the earth; and he that is wise will not abhor them. Was not the water made sweet with wood, that the virtue thereof might be known? And he hath given men skill, that he might be honoured in his marvellous works. With such doth he heal men, and taketh away their pains. Of such doth the apothecary make a confection; and of his works there is no end; and from him is peace over all the earth, My son, in thy sickness be not negligent: but pray unto the Lord, and he will make thee whole. Leave off from sin, and order thine hands aright, and cleanse thy heart from all wickedness. Give a sweet savour, and a memorial of fine flour; and make a fat offering, as not being. Then give place to the physician, for the Lord hath created him: let him not go from thee, for thou hast need of him. There is a time when in their hands there is good success. For they shall also pray unto the Lord, that he would prosper that, which they give for ease and remedy to prolong life. He that sinneth before his Maker, let him fall into the hand of the physician.<br />
<br />
<b>Wisdom of Sirach 38:1-15</b><br />
<br />
</blockquote>Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-19684489672737677812015-07-30T12:24:00.000-05:002015-07-30T12:24:57.565-05:00The new Sheehan Divine Liturgy Book: a brief reviewMost English-language church music in the Russian tradition is written in 4 parts and often doesn’t sound good without four parts. However, a common problem in Orthodox parishes is that there are not enough singers to fill all four parts. It’s one thing in a congregation of 200 to find the people, but in a congregation of, say, 20-50 regular attendees, things can get hairy. This volume attempts to fill that gap by providing two-part arrangements of some traditional Russian music (with instructions for how to create a third part where possible for those who can manage one) and usually trying to make the music sound good even with only one of the parts.<br />
<br />
The prefatory materials, a foreword by Vlad Morosan discussing some historical aspects of the development of Russian chant and an instructional introduction by the author on how to use the book, are very useful. The first provides some context and understanding for how the music came about. The second not only tells the reader how to use the book, but also helps the reader understand better how music is arranged in general and particularly how 4-part Russian music is arranged as typically performed in a parish setting. This knowledge is helpful for singers even if not singing out of this book.<br />
<br />
A lot of the musical content of the book should already be familiar to people who have sung a wide variety of Russian liturgical music, which is a good thing. Much of the melodic material is “standard”, so one does not have to learn dozens and dozens of new melodies. The pieces are also almost universally carried by the melody rather than relying on chordal movement (because how can you do that with two voices?). Some of the options presented can be rather demanding, but there are always feasible options presented.<br />
<br />
The litanies, antiphons, troparia/kontakia, Trisagion, and prokeimena are about what one would expect. Several of the pieces are standards with two parts knocked out, so this material is not terribly essential if you already have that music and know how to do it, but it is useful and nice. The real value of the book, to my mind, at least, is the liturgy of the faithful.<br />
<br />
The Cherubikon is often a place where it is hard to find an adequate setting for a small choir. The melody is often passed between parts or, if it stays in one part, the harmonization often doesn’t work without a full complement, or sometimes the piece relies on harmonic movement rather than melody. However, the pieces are often working off of standard, memorable chant melodies (eg, Sophronievskaya, Staro-Simonovskaya). This volume takes a number of commonly used chant melodies, at least a couple of which are bound to be familiar, and provides reasonable bass lines for them. To my mind, this alone justifies the book, as it is very common to have a couple voices who know a number of traditional melodies, but the 4-part versions on hand don’t reduce well to melody + bass. This volume, with only a few minutes of practice, will add several Cherubika to our repertoire. <br />
<br />
The same is true of the “It is truly meet”. For instance, there is the Bulgarian melody which should be familiar from <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inxEai48IRA">Yaichkov’s arrangement</a> – the melody is quite memorable, but pulling it out of the piece is nontrivial. The arrangement provided in the book is very singable and memorable. <br />
<br />
There is some redundancy in the Anaphora section, since the first two pieces are apparently a one-voice and two-voice version of the same melody (a standard Znamenny melody that others have <a href="http://www.dowoca.org/files/music/Anaphora_Znamenny.pdf">harmonized before</a>) – one can surely recognize that the bass line can be left off the second one? But it is otherwise very good – there are some standard pieces and some are rather difficult, but one can find something that fits one’s level.<br />
<br />
I would strongly recommend the book for any parish that is interested in performing Russian-style music but does not always have all four parts, especially if they only have two parts or even only one part. There are several pieces even choirs that usually have four parts may be interested in if they want some additional variety. A larger and more consistent choir, however, would probably be better off, eg, with the SVS Press Divine Liturgy book and not find much of use beyond a couple pieces that could be interesting for, say, a smaller ensemble to do. I believe the draft edition is sold out, but when the final edition comes out, you should be on the lookout for it.<br />
Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-76956702967306205552015-07-30T12:06:00.002-05:002015-07-30T12:06:39.409-05:00Other things that disappoint me:Let's talk about a few other things that disappoint me about religious discourse lately! While some of the things I have in mind here are clerical errors, I want to make clear that I don't intend to be disrespectful of clergy exercising their pastoral ministry. <br />
<ul><li><i>Argumentum ad hitlerum</i>. I think it is in singularly poor taste to compare things to Nazis and it is a rather poor rhetorical move, as well, since it will only serve to annoy readers rather than illuminate your point. It also makes you sound weird. This is, of course, a standard internet trick.<br />
<li>I don't have a short name for this, but have you ever noticed that when, say, there's a discussion of women's issues and somebody wants to have anything other than the "easy" "traditionalist" perspective, particularly if they are a woman, they have to very carefully distance themselves from the more "radical" positions, be extremely polite, and play up their "orthodox" bona fides? At least in some quarters. I noticed a recent conversation where people were discussing women's ordination and there was one woman in the conversation who wanted to know more about deaconesses, the opposition to the modern reinstitution of them, and anything else about the issue. <br />
<br />
She had to be extremely polite, unfailingly orthodox, and make great pains to clarify that she had no interest in ordaining women to further orders and probably no interest in agitating for the restoration of deaconesses. Meanwhile, people responded at times impolitely, "mansplained" at points, and often treated her discourse as if it were coming from some past life of theirs in the Episcopal Church or from some radical advocate of women's ordination (which she had previously had to indicate she was not). Their behavior, of course, was perfectly acceptable, since they were, after all, On The Right Side. This kind of behavior comes up regularly in discussions of sexual issues, but it also comes up occasionally in a few other contexts, but particularly when it is a woman in the conversation.<br />
<br />
A related problem is how abortion gets brought up by men every time a woman tries to discuss just about any issue of sex, gender, sexuality, etc. <br />
<li>An undue preoccupation with the details of private lives of private individuals. At the merest, slimmest hint of scandal over the last few years, certain quarters of the church have called for (or released) an open discussion of the private lives of private individuals. To do what? Prove a point, or ruin a churchman, or silence a voice in whatever nonsensical ecclesiastical controversy is bubbling up. Mind you, the private lives of private individuals (with perhaps named names on public internet fora) were <i>not</i> churchmen, they're simply used to question the exercise of pastoral ministry by certain clerics. Or something. It's okay because they're protecting the Church.<br />
<li><i>You can always go further right. Any step to the left is death.</i> Essentially, anything up to explicit race realism, overt pick-up artist nonsense, or literal Nazi-ism (sorry about transgressing the first point) is given a free pass. However conservative one's theology, however, one cannot be a feminist or even say things that sound feminist. One cannot discuss "white privilege". Indeed, these will often be criticized using terminology and methods from the above three groups.<br />
</ul>Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-88601503490846840672015-07-29T15:45:00.002-05:002015-07-29T15:45:52.992-05:00Rebukes I've received.HUMBLE YOURSELF.<br />
<br />
At various times and diverse places, I have been warned off the path of evil, generally because my views are seen as departing from the narrow way. Here is an incomplete catalog of things people have said to me. These are provided as a warning that, according to some, I may be a dangerous thinker. Caveat lector.<br />
<br />
<ul><li>[E]ver since you drank deep from the feminist well of delusion, interacting with you has become increasingly fruitless. ... You are in the wrong. Your church condemns feminism, and you should probably confess and repent. <br />
<br />
<i>NB: I had just told him this was actually good news for Bitcoin </i><br />
<li>Really, BECOME ORTHODOX BEFORE you presume to write or speak about ORTHODOXY. Your smugness only alludes to your hubris and your lack of Orthodox formation. Your attitude is precisely YOUR PROBLEM and WHY YOU ARE HETERODOX. HUMBLE YOURSELF AND BECOME ORTHODOX ON ORTHODOXY's TERMS. <br />
<br />
<i>NB: this was after saying I trusted the Synod about the Met. Jonah affair. </i><br />
<li> 3). In piety, outlook and discipline, rather than advancing fidelity to and observance of the Holy Fathers, the Holy Canons expressing the Mind of CHRIST, you smugly are content with an outlook in opposition to them, having the audacity to all such fidelity, outlook and discipline even "poisonous." That is most certainly heterodox, Protestant. <br />
<br />
Get an Orthodox formation before you write in smugness again. <br />
<br />
<i>Same source</i><br />
<li>Psalm 118:8.Satan is decieving you <br />
<br />
<i>NB: This one was some unbalanced Protestant on why global warming was false</i><br />
<br />
<li>If that's what you're doing, you should talk to your priest and connect more deeply with Orthodox IRL.<br />
<br />
<i>NB: If I recall, this was in response to a comment that noted the Orthodox Church is a conservative institution, which should be uncontroversial</i><br />
<li>Racism in America is just a marxist social assumption that our culture has adopted and now uses.<br />
<br />
<i>Okay, this one isn't really a rebuke to me, but it's friggin' nuts</i><br />
<li>This article seems to be a perfect example of how sin (Marxism, this is Marxist class theory applied to race) perverts what is good.<br />
<br />
<i>A response to my posting <a href="http://myocn.net/beyond-ferguson/">this banal article</a></i><br />
<li>You are looking far too much towards modern re-interpretations and into modern "scholarship" on the matter and you are not looking enough to the pure and holy church for guidance. Do not look to the sinful, fallen world that is guided by demonic influence. Look towards the church for she is guided by the Holy Spirit.<br />
<br />
<i>lollerskates - I believe this one was for saying that homosexual attraction is not, in itself, a sin</i><br />
</ul>That's all I have at my fingertips. I'm sure I've been called worse. Alas, some places are either hard to search and some have rules of civility meaning posts get deleted if they are insulting, otherwise I would have more of a list.Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-37989955957982676972015-06-12T13:10:00.002-05:002015-06-12T13:10:57.958-05:00Is feminism a sin?No, don't be silly. However, some unbalanced fellow made the following statement to me, perhaps thinking he was "speaking the truth in love":<br />
<br />
<blockquote>I have to say, I used to listen to what you would post, but ever since you drank deep from the feminist well of delusion, interacting with you has become increasingly fruitless. So let me say it clearly:<br />
<br />
You are in the wrong. Your church condemns feminism, and you should probably confess and repent - but I am not your priest.<br />
</blockquote>First, it is blatantly false to claim that the Church condemns "feminism". Feminism is a rather broad movement, and while the Church disagrees with aspects of some strands of feminism, it cannot be said to condemn it as a whole. Show me the anathema! <br />
<br />
Second, I would be surprised if he could find any public comment where I identify as a feminist. This is intentional for a couple reasons: one of them is to avoid having to deal with people like this.<br />
<br />
Third, it is not possible to find any public statement where I dissent in any way from the revealed dogmas on sex, gender, etc. This is intentional for one reason: I do not.<br />
<br />
Anyway, so I asked for substantiation of his grave accusations. He brought out a couple of comments. The first quoted from an article that was being discussed, the quote basically asked people to consider how privilege makes a difference in their lives, the history of their communities, and how diverse their everyday life is. The second was telling somebody who is not one of those anti-feminists/anti-"SJW"s to avoid feeding into that negativity even if he doesn't identify as a feminist and opposes some things about feminism as well as explaining that feminism is not a dirty word. Therefore, even if he disagrees, he should be careful about playing along with those are, in essence, crapping on the term. The justification provided for how this dissented from church dogma was the following:<br />
<ol><li>"Privilege" is a neo-Marxist concept and is a common tactic used by feminists. (therefore I am a feminist, or at least a Marxist, and therefore dissenting from the Church?)<br />
<li>Discussing racial and gender differences goes against the Apostle Paul who says there is neither male nor female, neither Jew nor Greek. <br />
<li>Discussing privilege is intrinsically, in the end, about envy, which is a sin.<br />
</ol>The first point is simply laughable. The second is exactly the opposite of the intent: we are to be one in Christ, so our failure to be one is a sin. Noticing the ways in which we fail to eliminate these differences is then a mandatory exercise. This is also then the context of the third point. Also, I am a member of the privileged class trying to listen to other voices - I am not envying anybody in this exercise and the people I hear don't sound like they envy me. They are tired of being ground up in this system and tired of being ignored (among other things). <br />
<br />
I am well aware of my many failings, but trying to treat women like human beings isn't one of my sins. My failures to do so are.Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-51750324700624500402015-04-24T00:22:00.001-05:002015-04-24T00:22:30.491-05:00Babies, you've got to be kindOr: on the need for humble love in discourse.<br />
<br />
I have, of course, been guilty of this as well. I have noticed lately a certain rigidity in online discourse that is most troubling. Most recently, Frederica Mathewes-Green, who isn't really one of my favorites, mentioned that she did not think legalizing gay marriage was a big deal (“I was asked why I don’t oppose gay marriage, and I’ll try to make this brief. It’s because I don’t agree that gay marriage harms society, or harms marriage."). She got completely raked over the coals for it until she wrote a longer article explaining her position. I imagine some people are still raking her over the coals, but some people realized, oh, wait, there is some nuance here and a charitable way her position could be conceived as something other than abandonment of the Church's teaching. But, wait: shouldn't we be <i>starting</i> from that place of charity? Especially with a well-known somebody who is probably, like, not a panheretical liberalist ecumenist bent on redefining the entirety of church teaching?<br />
<br />
I also have been in a number of conversations about things that completely turn people off when they visit parishes (esp Orthodox, since that's the circle I run in). One of the big ones is the polemic urge. eg badmouthing Protestantism, the West, the liberals, the gays, the Obama, the Catholics, the Ukraine (using the article because they believe it's just one of their regions), etc. Apart from the immediate effect of perhaps alienating the visitor who is coming in that is perhaps the very thing you are vilifying, I think this style displays a definite lack of necessary charity in discourse: they are not hearing the people they are excoriating. <br />
<br />
Now, I admit, there are at times people attracted by polemics, sarcasm, joking, etc, but it's a very dangerous thing to pull out for the general public and must be used very carefully: you have to show that you're listening to the people you are talking to and have some basic respect for them. And it should be very different from, "I heard you say this, you have departed from the teaching of the Church, repent and sin no more." It also has to be done in a way that you're not plowing over the weak, vulnerable, downtrodden, etc - such as any of the usual "whipping boys" for the possessors of white male privilege. <br />
<br />
People who are committed to a place already can be willing to endure it to make it better, because if all the good people flee, you're leaving behind a hellhole. But if there are people that aren't committed, it's a lot to ask of them to tell them they should join and fight against the flow to make this corner of the Church a better place. America is a big place - lots of wide open space - and we're used to self-segregating with the like-minded rather than confronting this kind of impolite and uncharitable behavior. So if pretty much everybody around you will nod in agreement that, sure, environmentalism is an anti-Christian religion, then you might say it as part of your performative Orthodox conservative shtick. You will get some brownie points and nobody will contradict you because it's <i>not done</i>. The people who would rightly call you out on that nonsense have little to gain by doing so because you wouldn't say it if you weren't supported. So, then what?Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-17519526620407307822015-03-15T19:52:00.002-05:002015-03-16T11:19:40.023-05:00More music I will never use: a Georgian Polyeleos put into EnglishI found a nice Georgian Polyeleos and thought to myself, you know, this could be in English. <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B50vlgWcCB-7cFFmTWVwUGZuejg/view?usp=sharing">So I did it</a>. Some phrasing still needs work - particularly the last bit - and I haven't taken the time to pretty up the score itself yet (I'm sure there's a better way to mark refrains in Lilypond), but the notes should be accurate. The dissonances are supposed to be there, I swear. Please let me know if you have suggestions - note in the original there were a couple different variations of the melody and a couple different ways of dividing up the notes, so other solutions are possible without having to come up with "new" music (also, other translations, other word orders, etc can solve problems). I have picked the verses that match the original text, but, really, you can take whatever ones you want. In the original, it seemed that they did the rising "b c d" beginning for verses that were the beginnings of sentences and "d d d" for continuations of a sentence, so you may want to continue that if you change the text. <br />
<br />
Here is the original video: <br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="344" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0cUisQ6d4X8" width="459"></iframe><br />
<br />
EDIT: if interested, I have transposed for SSA, SAT, and SA-Baritone arrangements. They are up an octave (could go higher - the alto is low), up an octave, and up a 7th. Note that the bottom staff intentionally has one of the accidentals flatted out, it's a feature of Georgian music. The problem with mixed arrangements is that the tessitura is all wrong. Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-38816789939214463602015-03-13T20:33:00.001-05:002015-03-14T11:34:52.760-05:00What is the worst of all possible Orthodox music?Mind you, I mean actually Orthodox music, so none of the old Evangelical Orthodox stuff slipping under the radar. To me, it is a tight competition between aspects of the Lvov-Bakhmetev project and the Karam project. The stichera in the latter, however, can possibly be defended as being really more a type of recitative for the propers than "real" music. I think that is wrong, but it is some kind of defense. Karam's 4-part harmonizations of Byzantine chant, though, are really almost indefensible, and as done in America with the most horribly stilted translations ever conceived, are truly horrid. <br />
<br />
EDIT: It has been brought to my attention there are a few pieces of Karam that do sound nice and aren't too heavy-handed, to be sure. What brought this up, however, is the "To thee, our champion leader," as arranged for the Antiochians. The project as a whole is problematic.Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-41540536992035498192015-03-07T21:48:00.003-05:002015-03-07T21:48:30.096-05:00Modesty as politenessI think one important matter about modesty that people do not bring up much is that a breach of modesty (if it does really occur, I have my doubts) is not immoral, it is a breach of etiquette. That is, in almost all cases, at <i>worst</i>, impolite. Unfortunately, and I say this as a big fan of Miss Manners and etiquette in general even if I may at times ignore it, the dictates of polite society weigh more heavily on women than on men. Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-22224910640689535642015-03-02T20:50:00.001-05:002015-03-02T20:50:51.955-05:00The panheretic's guide to dealing with womenSomebody asked a modesty-related question on some web board and, though it turned out the guy was not Orthodox and possibly a troll, it did raise some questions about why some guys think it's their responsibility or at least prerogative in relationships to tell women how to dress. One of the reasons, of course, is patriarchy. However, not everybody who reads this web-log is as much of a misandrist as I am, so that may not go down well. Another reason, of course, is narcissism. Unfortunately, I don't really have the cure for the soul. However, another reason is that a lot of these guys are well-meaning, nice guys who just haven't had much experience dealing with women and realizing the sort of crap they have to deal with. Therefore, they think they're being helpful. With that in mind, I will offer you some helpful things I have learned (and I am very willing to add more things to this list - I'm just banging this out quickly) in the hopes that well-meaning young men don't do something utterly stupid and self-absorbed like try to control how their female friends dress and otherwise interact with women appropriately.<br />
<br />
1. Women are people, too. The fundamental axiom here is that women are human beings. You do not know better than them simply by virtue of being male. Since they are human beings (just like you!), they have probably thought about things before, have their own unique perspective and opinions, and generally are in charge of their own lives.<br />
<br />
2. I really don't have a #2.Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-90541539428847497722015-02-24T00:14:00.001-05:002015-02-24T00:14:17.871-05:00Two worthwhile posts about the craft of Orthodox church musicI've had to, over the past 18 months, put in a fair bit of thought about doing Orthodox church music. The last 18 months has been having to deal in various ways with the musical situation at a new OCA mission, with the first 15 months of it having nobody nominally in charge and the last 3 or so months with me as the "choir director". Prior to this, I had spent the last 10 years in a couple missions which, while they may had had, at times, a difficult musical situation, they always had somebody else in charge and, I would like to think, some vision of musical excellence in mind that somebody else was thinking of. Generally, I flitted in and out of the choir as needed, generally being in the choir (or being the choir) for ferial services and not in it on Sundays. And then a year in a Greek church which had its own set of challenges, but I didn't think about them at all: it's Greek music, I have no idea what's going on, and there were a load of difficulties there that I didn't want to deal with at all. Namely, they were, as far as I can tell, trying to get the choir running and encourage more congregational participation. For my part, I sung in the choir.<br />
<br />
Anyway, there are two articles, the first from Richard Barrett about how to <a href="http://leitourgeia.com/2014/12/16/how-you-get-better-as-an-orthodox-musician/">improve as an Orthodox church musician</a>. Perhaps the first and most important point is that Orthodox musicians need to exist, as music is an important and primary part of our worship rather than an afterthought. Further, they need to work on getting better. To do that, parishes need to invest in making it happen. There surely is a question about what and how much they need to invest, and there are plenty of other things they may be underinvesting in, but if they're making cuts, they need to be done consciously with a plan to rectify them.<br />
<br />
Another along that theme, on the need to <a href="http://myocn.net/dont-pay-church-musicians/">pay choir directors and church musicians in general</a> from Benedict Sheehan. Now, mind you, I'm not agitating to be paid here, as I'm not a real musician, and I don't even really conduct - I suggest music that gets rejected by the priest and I suggest pitches that get rejected by the sopranos. We're a small mission and not really paying for anything right now. But it is something to be mindful of as things grow: investment in music is necessary, as necessary as investing in icons and in paying the priest. <br />
<br />
A third article as a bonus, also from Barrett (can you guess one of the people I've been relying on to help guide my thought on church music? not exclusively, though, as I'm emphatically not a Byzantine chant guy): <a href="http://www.ancientfaith.com/specials/orthodox_church_music/psalterion_as_pulpit">Psalterion as Pulpit</a>.Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-70396494019467376362015-02-07T00:26:00.002-05:002015-02-07T00:26:54.707-05:00Pros and cons of real English vs Hieratic EnglishI have at time written about the "Thou (Hieratic English)" vs "You (actual English)" distinction. Here I summarize what, exactly, is at stake.<br />
<br />
<b>Pros of Hieratic English</b><br />
<ul><li>Saying, "Do Thou Thyself," makes you sound wicked awesome.<br />
<li>Fits better with the LARPodox theme.<br />
<li>It was good enough for Moses.<br />
<li>Retains at least a little bit of the unintelligibility of the original languages.<br />
</ul>
<b>Cons of Hieratic English</b>
<ul><li> <iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="344" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/m_mDTLphIVY" width="459"></iframe><br />
<li> Harder to read with a fake Russian accent.<br />
<li> Holpen the conies.<br />
<li>Have to remember the "ye" vs "you" distinction.<br />
</ul>
<b>Pros of Actual English</b>
<ul><li> Easier to improvise your own versions of the Psalms.<br />
<li> Can still have the complete awkwardness if desired by Yoda-fying the text. "Swallowed up near by the rock have their judges been!"<br />
<li> Annoys "traditionalists".<br />
<li> Modern translations of the Bible include references to pogs.<br />
</ul>
<b>Cons of Actual English</b>
<ul><li> People might actually understand the Bible and therefore become Protestant.<br />
<li>It is a sure sign of Renovationism, Panheretical Ecumenism, the Feminist Intention, and the Homosexual Agenda, all bound in fine leather. This might need to be a "Pro" because of the leather binding.<br />
<li>Nobody has ever translated anything into actual English.<br />
<li>Using "you" forces the translator to use swears, colloquialisms, and the word "ain't".<br />
</ul>Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-24773588037830717292015-02-04T00:57:00.001-05:002015-02-04T20:15:25.343-05:00Pros and cons of pews vs open floor plans.<b>Pros of pews:</b><br />
<ul><li>Imparts a rigid, ordered structure on the temple like the celestial hierarchy in Pseudo-Dionysius.<br />
<li>Awkward, sideways prostrations are very humbling.<br />
<li>Children more completely confined so church not mistaken for fun.<br />
<li>Annoy "traditionalists".<br />
</ul><b>Cons of pews:</b> <ul><li>Are you ready for a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2icovOk0bY">toaca</a> solo?<br />
<li><strike>Hard to catch a good nap.</strike><br />
<li>Can't be sure the church still doesn't belong to Protestants.<br />
<li>Might have to sit next to somebody some day.<br />
<li><i>EDIT</i>: No escape from the Holy Handshake (not that there's anything wrong with that).<br />
</ul><b>Pros of an open floor plan:</b> <ul><li>Accentuates how utterly empty the space is.<br />
<li>Children can get a good running start for the Royal Doors or at least the candle stands.<br />
<li>Less wood-polishing.<br />
<li>Services 16% more holy.<br />
</ul><b>Cons of an open floor plan:</b> <ul><li>Extremely awkward to pick out a place to stand with no reference to anchor to.<br />
<li>The "getting out of the way of the censer" dance demeans us both.<br />
<li>"Traditionalists" like it.<br />
<li>Some other unfortunate church bought your pews.<br />
</ul>Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-9852500920509913052015-01-28T22:15:00.001-05:002015-01-28T22:15:19.575-05:002015 predictionsI made some predictions last year. I should make some this year. It's a little late, but I will do it.<br />
<br />
<ol><li>Cubs: between 75 and 80 wins. Not sure why.<br />
<li>Bitcoin: will become more of a joke. Prices frequently below $200.<br />
<li>Keystone won't get through.<br />
<li>Congress and the American people still won't believe in global warming. I am not going to varnish this: they are idiots. <br />
<li>We've already had that measles outbreak. Maybe one more major vaccine-preventable disease outbreak. Alas, I don't think it will change minds. More idiots. I realize that is a harsh word to use, but it fits.<br />
<li>Saudi Arabia will continue to pump oil at least until July, therefore continued gas prices of near $2 at least until July. No guesses longer term than that. I'll say less than $2.50 at year-end. <br />
<li>Conservatives won't be happy, but gay marriage is going to win when it comes up in the Supreme Court. I don't think it'll make the other side completely happy, though, not being a law-talking guy, I'm not capable of having an intelligent made-up guess about how they're going to get mucked up.<br />
</ol><br />
In conclusion, the evidence is overwhelming: the climate is changing and the world is getting warmer because of human activity and this is going to have a lot of bad consequences that we should work to prevent and mitigate now, and vaccination is a very good thing and you should do it and encourage others to do it.Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-54706119567027560332015-01-28T21:20:00.000-05:002015-01-28T21:20:42.567-05:00My church has bought a building and started having services in it.Our mission started a little over 1.5 years ago. We started out in a basement classroom of a Catholic church for a few months, and this was very kind of them, but the place was definitely less than ideal: it was a classroom. We then moved to the basement of a Lutheran church, which was very nice, as it was not really underground and they were being exceedingly kind to let us stay there. Anyway, there was an old Lutheran church with a rectory, it needed a lot of work, and we bought it. After intensive mold remediation and such, we've moved in and started having services there. It's really quite perfect. It's a church built to work like a church. It reminds me a lot of my old parish in that way, except that was a little wider and less long, as well as having a much larger altar area. This is more of a long, not terribly wide church with a slight transept and a small altar. The wings of the transept have slightly elevated areas, so you could, if you had the staff and really wanted to, do antiphonal choirs on special occasions. Anyway, it's great news.Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-80230896273406002092015-01-10T15:53:00.000-05:002015-01-10T18:43:06.778-05:00Performative Traditionalist Orthodoxy<i>Dashing out a few unformed thoughts about some trends I have seen.</i><br />
<br />
There are some aspects of "traditionalist"-minded Orthodox that strike me - and some others - as performing the role of "traditional Orthodox Christian" rather than <i>being</i> an Orthodox Christian, with all the difficulties entailed. It's certainly very easy to shut off your mind and spout platitudes. I'm reminded of a Thomas Merton footnote: “I had a pious thought, but I am not going to write it down." It is always very possible and very easy to come up with a more rigid, more conservative position than the last one given, and then you can very easily find somebody to support it. And there is a certain attraction to this - rigidity and conservatism for their own sake are seductive. <br />
<br />
I'm not trying to impugn the motives of self-identified traditionalists or treat their discourse as behavior. But there are some odd things that often pop up:<br />
<ul><li>Beards.<br />
<li>Enthusiasm for the tsar, Putin, Russia, Putin's Russia, etc.<br />
<li>Decrying things as feminized, or other examples of performative masculinity/femininity.<br />
<li>Susceptibility to conspiracy theories and anti-vax ideology.<br />
<li>Neo-Confederate and Monarchist sympathies.<br />
<li>Reflexive anti-Islamic, anti-homosexual, or broadly anti-liberal responses.<br />
<li>EDIT: Scarves.<br />
</ul>With the exception of possibly beards, there is no particular reason why all or some of these should go along with a commitment to being a "traditional" "Orthodox Christian". But demonstrating some of these becomes a de rigueur method of displaying that you are a "traditionalist" and speaking out against some of these, while possibly acceptable, can be very much a matter of swimming against the tide. Then there are various theological questions where some nuance is perhaps required and permissible as an <i>actually</i> traditional position, but the "traditionalist" pose is performed by taking some specific rigid viewpoint or acting in a particular way about an issue. Consider the following list: <ul><li>Talking to other Christian denominations.<br />
<li>The Hebrew Bible or the Vulgate.<br />
<li>Young Earth Creationism.<br />
<li>Not really theological, but goes here: "Thou/Thee" vs "You" language. This really the one that made me write this list. There is no particularly good or truly "traditional" reason to insist on "Thou" or to claim "You" is deficient. <br />
<li>Anything to do with sex or gender.<br />
<li>Constant referral to Patristic quotes.<br />
<li>"Piety".<br />
<li>Another big one: using words like nous, phronema, panheresy, prelest, logismoi, etc.<br />
<li>EDIT: denouncing the New Calendar.<br />
</ul>I'm not saying any of these are bad and wrong or that self-styled "traditionalists" should stop doing them. Some of the things on the last can be good in some way. Young Earth Creationists who insist on saying "Thou" aren't bad people doing Orthodoxy wrong and aren't even necessarily incorrect.
I welcome other thoughts, criticisms, examples, etc, as these are unformed reflections.<br><br>
EDIT: I want to note that being "performative" is not a criticism per se. Crossing yourself at the invocation of the Trinity is "performative Orthodoxy". Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-46454315472092558622015-01-08T18:18:00.003-05:002015-01-08T18:18:51.451-05:00Where, indeed, should Your light have shone, save upon those that sit in darkness?This is one of my new favorite liturgical lines. It's from the troparia after the sixth reading at the vesperal liturgy on the eve of Theophany. Where, indeed?Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27898096.post-42071871500388409692015-01-08T16:32:00.000-05:002015-01-08T16:38:54.801-05:00Thoughts on religion, politics, climate change, science, etc.<i>Disclaimer: This post has nothing to do with the priest at my own parish.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Another disclaimer: this is somewhat disjointed, as I'm typing out a quick unpolished reflection. I may revisit it later to polish it up as a separate post. </i><br />
<br />
I was recently greatly disappointed by a recent foray into political commentary by a prominent priest, specifically on the issue of climate change, so I am going to offer some of my thoughts on a few of these issues. The rhetoric used was bland and predictable movement conservative tripe: climate change is a political matter rather than scientific, there is not any science or scientific discussion about the matter currently (it is all now politics), the scientists are not trustworthy on the issue, and that discussing efforts to mitigate the coming harms in any kind of moral terms is mistaken because the real evil is in the human heart. My main problem with this is the deeply and personally insulting view he takes of scientists performing climate research and the profoundly and intentionally ignorant view of the science he has which he pushes from his personal pulpit. There is a lot I could take issue with in regard to the politics, but that is not going to be my main concern - it's not insulting and informed people of good will can come to different conclusions.<br />
<br />
I would strongly suggest that anybody who wants to comment on the science of climate change, the motivations of climate scientists, or other scientific issues in general, consider answering a few of these questions before opining. Below, "paper" should be understood to be a peer reviewed scientific paper published in a science journal, and conference is a scientific conference. <br />
<ol><li>Do you have a degree in a science?<br />
<li>Are you a scientist?<br />
<li>Have you ever taken a course on the climate or climate change in particular?<br />
<li>Have you ever read a paper on climate change?<br />
<li>Have you read more than a dozen papers on climate change?<br />
<li>Do you make an effort to keep abreast of the literature in some aspect of climate science?<br />
<li>Have you ever attended a conference on the science of climate change, or a session dedicated to the science of climate change at some scientific conference?<br />
<li>Have you ever published a paper on climate change?<br />
<li>Do you know any climate scientists? (merely making acquaintance counts)<br />
<li>Do you know more than 5 climate scientists?<br />
</ol>Frankly, if people don't answer "yes" to at least the reading papers at all, if not at least a dozen papers, questions they have no right to an opinion on the science of climate change and should defer completely to experts. FWIW, I answer yes to questions 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10 and I don't even consider myself capable of having an opinion. Instead, I defer to the overwhelming consensus view. But one thing that is clear from my engagement is that there is quite a lot of very good science being done by honest people, and immediately dismissing that because of our politics or theology is uncharitable at best, and often very insulting. <br><br> What makes this more problematic to me is that priests are, for whatever reason, seen as somehow trustworthy on "moral" matters, and this trust carries an undue influence even when speaking outside their expertise. Therefore, this Know-Nothing and baseless discourse on the science of climate change and its intersection with morality carries a weight that it ought not to with his not-inconsiderable following. This is a problem. <br><br>This is also a problem when they comment on politics without taking much care, as there are definitely a wide number of issues in politics that are a matter on which Christians of good will can disagree, and careless discussion of these things can imply to others that the Church teaches one specific thing and that to go against it is to go against God, whether or not that is what you intended to get out. This is true even if you take a "Dostoevskian" perspective. <br><br>This sort of spiritualizing arrogance pops up in many other places. Clergy have been irrationally dismissive at times of scholarship in several areas (though I would note that not all of these are equal and some are definitely more "political" than others): evolution, archaeology, paleontology, textual criticism, psychology, economics... In some of these, they may have the training to engage critically with the scholarship, whereas in others they may not. There are real harms to this in that clergy are given more credence in areas outside of their expertise, especially when they put a moral or spiritual flavor on it, than they otherwise should be. Therefore, their suggestions are going to poison other discourse on those issues with their mistaken notions. <br><br> Even worse, these kinds of digressions can alienate people from the Church - either people within the Church who are now under the impression that their perfectly reasonable and even true views are somehow opposed by the Church or those outside the Church who get the impression that the Church is opposed to truth. As I have mentioned before, there is a a strain of discourse within modern movement conservatism that opposes "Science" and "Religion", as if science is intrinsically hostile to the faith. There is a counterpart movement among liberalists that also tries to use "Science" as a bludgeon against "Religion", as if investigations into natural phenomena can somehow debunk Christianity. <br><br> Disappointingly, many in the Church have taken up that conservative rhetoric and lump all the scientists - or even those who simply value scientific contributions to knowledge about the world - in with the liberalists. This kind of rhetoric may score points with movement conservatives and feel good (after all, you're defending Religion against those New Atheists), at comes at the expense of truth and those in the "middle ground" that the Church needs to be courting: those who are faithful to the Church while investigating the natural world. We cannot have a Christian approach to science if we actively alienate Christians doing science. As long as we do that, the New Atheists and liberalists are right: the Church <i>is</i> hostile to reasoned inquiry into the world. <br />
<br />
There are some further things to say about the moral content of politics (namely, that there is some and it should not be dismissed entirely, especially as people doing that are typically, despite their protestations, doing it in a rather one-sided way, namely, to quash "liberal" discourse), but I will leave it out of this post, in accordance with my statements above.Mr. G. Z. T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09921024148049682188noreply@blogger.com1