I wonder why so many decent people still attend Arc, am I missing something? It honestly does feel a bit anti-Christy, I can't shake this awful feeling I have about it!
Though we are not of this world, we must live in it. I think that is why. Paul and Jonathan’s conversation gets at the conflict. I’ve listened to it multiple times. It’s still gnawing at me which is a good thing, as is the fact that my “ahah” moments are different each time, sometimes after Paul, then Jonathan. I find myself confused in the best of ways.
I wonder if you’re subscribed to Rod Dreher’s substack? His piece just from today addresses this very question. Even subscribing for free should get you that email
It's so weird. He talks the talk on spiritual matters and then walks the absolute opposite of what he's just said! I get a case of serious cognitive dissonance with this.
Curious - can you cite a specific example where Rod does this? (Not a challenge to your point of view - genuine question to help me understand it.) I often can’t keep up with Rod’s volume of content. But on most things I find him somewhat balanced.
If Rod dropped the politics, what would be left for him to write about? UFOs and Christianity? See I read Rod's Substack like it's my morning paper (and it arrives just as often). Some people like me really enjoy his political commentary. I only pay for two Substacks - yours and Rod's. They're different, but both are enjoyable!
Me also. I lean more towards Paul’s take in general, but I read Dreher to stay up on things happening that I think we should be aware of. I think of the analogy of the body for the church. Not all are head, not all are hands, not all are feet etc. I’ve lately come to think that much of the trouble we face in the world and in the church - often can be ascribed to clashes of personality, communication styles and differences in emphases - with everyone feeling their own way is the ‘right’ way. ‘They’re doing it wrong!’ Exaggerated to make the point. Not saying Rod or Paul are that strident. I guess I just find it isn’t usually ‘either / or’ but ‘both / and’. Perhaps that makes me wishy washy but I tend towards trying to find the right ‘moderate’ balance in most things by temperament and discipline I guess.
I have often thought this very thing. Part of the body includes journalist, government workers, psychologist that have written books etc... They are going to bring their faith to their work in some manner.
One of my spiritual teachers in my youth was Fr. Benedict Groeschel who wrote many books on growing in the Spiritual life and the spiritual journey. He always said his work was not original, but reflected the teachings of St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Paul, St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. He spoke of the Three Ways of the Spiritual Life. The fist way, after conversion, is the Purgative way, where one works to bring ones life in general in line with Christ teachings. The next is the Illuminative Way which is marked by trust in God in all things (or at least working on this) and the third way is the Unitive way - which is the life of the saints. His book Spiritual Passages explains this in depth, but he felt that the health of the Church depended on how many of its members were in the Illuminative Way. I think this demonstrates how our churches and then further up the scale, our communities and countries, function properly or not in large part by the spiritual place the people are at. This obviously can be affected by a tyrannical government or gaslighting elites from top down, but the place we can start is in our own lives and within our families and churches to create communities truly growing in the spiritual life.
Same. I subscribed back when he was still writing for TAC, and the political stuff stayed there while the Substack was for all other content (most of it spirituality-related and/or positive). I read both and enjoyed the Substack a lot more than TAC. I understand why the politics stuff had to get included after he left TAC, but I still really miss the old version. I thoroughly enjoy Rod's writing, but I think he is at his best when writing about things other than politics (especially now, post-election, as I personally believe his Trump enthusiasm is getting the better of him in ways he may regret later).
I don't know Rod Dreher (going to have to find his Substack now out of curiosity) but I'm reading his 'Live Not by Lies' at the moment, oddly. I have a degree in politics from 50 years ago! I used to pay attention. I liked Bernard Crick's definition of politics as 'the public actions of free men' (with the corollary that freedom is 'privacy from public actions'). By those definitions neither politics nor freedom exists any more, certainly in the west. Even 'politicians' (aka puppeticians) don't do politics any more. They ultimately take their orders from the Bank for International Settlements. Anything above the BIS is 'behind the curtain'. I reckon Agustin Carstens does his annual appraisal with Satan, who is probably roughly two managerial levels above him.
I often feel the same way. On the other hand, I found Paul by way of Rod, and then Paul’s reading list on Orthodoxy, and am now contemplating (admittedly with some degree of dread) becoming a catechumen after 20 years of what is best described as post-Calvinist agnosticism.
What exactly bothers you about ARC? I haven’t followed much of it since their first gathering, I’ve thought about it as something becoming another elitist gathering. Or as just another group that’s trying to bring world order.
I think it comes down to a perception of a deep and blatent hypocrisy. The movement claims to be 'Christian', or that at least 'Christian values' are the only way to day the West, but in reality this is an elitist, extremely well funded, politically motivated, power hungry movement that seems to me the absolute opposite of Christ's teaching. I see that Iain McGilChrist is also there, yet to me Arc is an excellent example of Left brain 'grasping' mindset he speaks so eloquently against! So I think....what am I missing?
A lot of awful things are being done in the name of "Christian values" today. Yet, I bet, if one were to ask the people who do these awful things, to define Christian values, they would come up with something that is neither Christian nor very valuable to most people outside their circle.
I agree....the last straw with all of this alt-rightery, and I actually know a lot of the organisers of Arc in person, the absolute and utter lack of compassion for a balanced view on the Isreal/Gaza war, compassion for one side only. The wrong side under the rubble have zero compassion, I find this repulsive, it is the opposite of 'love your enemy'
I think this gets at the whole "Christian Civilization" that Paul keeps talking about. If a civilization were to be Christian, then the naked would be clothed, hungry would be fed, strangers showed hospitality that would rival that of Abraham, widows and orphans would be protected and well-cared for, first would be last, last would be first, and there would be no (human*) enemy because they all would be loved and prayed for.
*spiritual enemies will be always be there, though, till Kingdom come.
Not everyone who attends something like that is in 100% lockstep. Guys like McGilchrist and Pageau apparently see some value in being there or they wouldn't go. I see no reason to fault them for that, necessarily.
Ha, yes, me too .. there are some false prophets there alright. Rod Dreher actually wrote about it today and quoted my recent criticism, and there was some good discussion in the comments. I weighed in myself.
Would you say that about people who listen to the BBC or send their kids to universities (like mine)....both feel very anti-Christy to me. I think you can choose to disengage entirely, or get your hands dirty. Politics does involve balancing means and ends....whatever the theological precepts. What if 'not attending ARC' [which I take it is shorthand for messing around in the 'what comes after liberalism' domain on the conservative right]....so what if not thinking hard about citizenship, obligation, laws, enforcement - as well as culture change in that Gramscian war of position sense; what if keeping clear of all that, leads to the kind of civil conflict - and perhaps even genocidal tribalism - down the road. The civil peace of a society of individuals was only achieved with generations of pretty coercive state enforcement and innovation. It was only in the 20th century that French people started identifying as 'French'.
@louiseperry's guest David Betz - professor at UCL....which I'm guessing many people on here heard (because I think there is probably a large Kingsnorth/Perry crossover - is hardly a wild-eyed pepper type. Pretty sure he wears a tie and tweed jacket and has a Beagle who sits in an armchair smoking Hamlets in supervisions....But he didn't pull his punches about how close the UK is to serious sectarian violence (5 years) and with enough time, civil war and balkans-like wars of elimination. My greatest fear (I have a few)...is that my sons will live to be forced into that kind of conflict and into doing/seeing things from which you can't recover. What Gad Saad calls suicidal empathy might well lead us there.
I think I know Paul's response would be something like.... good consequences can't justify morally corrupt means; that wild Christianity should avoid the corruption of Caesar in any form. The trouble is that the only reason that so many millions of people in Britain and elsewhere DO feel squeamish in the way that you (quite reasonably) do....is not because of wild unvarnished uncorrupted Christianity, but hundreds of years of sinful Christians interacting with the state, making many wrong turns, enacting laws which always come with trade offs, and accepting high levels of coercion....[external controls that eventually became internalized - at least according to Norbert Elias - On The Process of Civilization]
Konstantin Kisin seems a thoroughly decent person; as does Douglas Murray. I can't square them with 'anti-Christy' - whereas transhumananism, transgenderism, some of the crazier forms of eco-modernism...???
Joseph Sax a law professor of my brother, wrote a book on ethics titled Mountains Without Handrails. Basic thesis was that the basis for ethics in the post-modern epoch would be “the voluntary reduction of technology”. Your new book title reminds me of this idea- much of your work in fact though I like that you are thinking more about what we say “yes” to rather than what we “no”. We need more yes-men of this sort.
Yes... mountains without handrails addresses what I feel to be one of the biggest problems, the virility ? one, or what it means to be a man, upright, with integrity, authority. A man proud to be a man, not slinking around in shame. Yes... to voluntary reduction of technology while knowing that it is not really something that it is easy or popular to.. convert people to ?
A lot of the fighting that is going on is over just what a man is/should be (and of course, what he is not). And why I constantly come back to the "Macbeth" play as one of the most potent explorations of this problem/question.
YES ! I saw that line too, and it really hit me as something powerful to think about. My son who has a far away garden that is ENORMOUS has a chain saw, and lots of other mechanical devices that manage his garden in a way that enables him to have a full time job and do a lot of the cooking and childrearing at home, but sometimes I see that look in his eyes that comes from having one of those chainsaws (and I'm not talking about a form of divine madness that could get him carried away), and his eyes look a little bit... empty. That makes me sad.
I guess I'll start? Anyway just wanted to say that I'm gratified to see that your perspectives have remained clear-eyed on world events (especially US events) even as the right at large celebrates the (perhaps invisible to them) Musk-led advance of the Machine.
FYI, Stihl makes an electric, rechargeable battery, chainsaw that is much more enjoyable to operate, without the messy fuel bit, and with the added advantage of enforcing the time spent buzzing by conveniently running out of juice :)
Not quite, but probably plenty powerful enough for the work you described…find out if you can because it made a world of difference for us, and it greatly reduces the adversity factor of doing the job…which obviously needs to be done one way or another…if we are going to rely on machines, they should at least be friendly ones!
Some of them are actually better. More torque. Electric motors are amazingly strong. I have cut down thirty of the mightiest trees in the forest with them motors. I did.
The trouble with battery-operated tools is that you have to take on board the children mining lithium and the poisoned land they live in, so that spoiled children like Greta Thunberg can shout 'you stole my childhood!'
Instead of 'spoiled', with regard to Greta, I should have said 'groomed and abused' by the Machine, including her own parents. I believe she's related to Svante Arrhenius, who was one of those who started the CO2 insanity that the Machine is using to imprison us in the global digital gulag.
Question for my fellow American readers: Are there any of you who attend an Anglican church? Specifically, one that's a part of the Anglican Churches in North America?
I've attended an Orthodox parish pretty regularly for the past couple of years, but I'd like to at least explore an Anglican one, so I'm curious if there's anyone who can speak to the differences and/or their experiences in an Anglican church.
My husband and I came to an ACNA church about 10 years ago from an evangelical church and have never looked back. The reverent liturgical worship, excellent preaching and weekly Eucharist was what drew us. I’d encourage you to check us out.
I've been an evangelical church attendee for a long time, but a few years ago got so fed up I couldn't go anymore. I find I need the reverence and sense of tradition in a church, and I've loved the Orthodox church I've attended, but as a lifelong Protestant, I feel like I should at least explore an Anglican church. Thank you!
Curiously, my interest in the Anglican Church was sparked quite recently by an Anglican friend who explained to me that the Church's theological claims go all the way back to the Patristic era. Until then, my "depth" of understanding was limited to Henry VIII and his shenanigans, of course. It sort of makes sense. After all, Irenaeus (2nd century AD) was a bishop in Gallia and if my history learned from Asterix and Obelix serves me well, there used to be a lot of traffic between Gallia and Britannia.
Nate Marshall (The Blue Scholar) could give you a helpful perspective - I'm sure he'd love to connect if you send him a direct message via Substack.
Also, if you (like me) hail from a Protestant background but appreciate the liturgical aspect, you may also want to explore the Lutheran church (Missouri Sinod) , which has a very similar liturgy to the Orthodox tradition.
Fair warning, from a former-LCMS member, would be that calling the LCMS liturgical is true in some areas and not in others. Here in my part of the midwest, you're more likely to find LCMS churches that can be best described as "Evangelicals with a hymnal" or "Baptists with a little bit of liturgy and communion once a month," with the occasional small oasis of high church here and there and not necessarily within driving distance. Further east, absolutely, you're not unlikely to find an LCMS church that has a more reverent service than the average Catholic parish.
Meant less as a criticism and more as an advance explanation if anyone goes to an LCMS church expecting the Mass and runs into contemporary worship music and words on a screen.
Though I'm not sure I'd agree with describing the LCMS Divine Service settings as "very similar" to the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, even if we limit the discussion to Setting Three.
Thanks for adding that perspective. The church that I am familiar with is very liturgical and not contemporary at all, but as you point out, this may be a rarer find.
I'm glad you found one of those congregations. While I'm obviously no longer Lutheran (nor a Protestant of any stripe), I do hope to see Protestant churches preserving and rediscovering their liturgical heritage. I struggled a lot as a Lutheran/Anglican trying to find liturgical worship and it's always good to be reminded that's not the case everywhere.
I live in France, on the outskirts of a big city with a very industrial identity, historically. My husband and I are people who love, and are interested and knowledgeable about the theater. Both of us act, and my husband also writes for our local company of very good amateurs. Last night, we went to a one man performance by an actor/director for whom we have much respect, as he has a great deal of experience, and competence in the productions of his that I have seen, that go way back. In our area, he used to be someone who had a big following, and could get state money for his work. And at the end of his performance, we were discussing, and I told him that the theater, in our big industrial city, was dead, and that that was a very evil sign for the health of the "cité", to use the French word in its political sense. Not "city", but "cité", in the way that Rome and Athens were "cités"...
The contemporary scene, and way of thinking about the world has no respect for the theater, any more than it has respect for liturgy...
I used to attend an Anglican Province of America church - it was beautiful 1928 reverent liturgy, beautiful icons, gorgeous choir, "small-o orthodox." I loved it and was home like I have never been before or since. Unfortunately, being in a university town, they were blessed (?) with an overabundance of PhDs and were very very afraid of covid, and folded like a lawnchair, at least for many months. I finally left in search of an Orthodox parish (one that didn't fold). Now having been several years Orthodox, there is a Western Rite mission parish opening not prohibitively far from me, so I get to be Orthodox AND keep the gorgeous Western patrimony that is in my bones; I will go to bed every night praying "Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee, O Lord...."
I will say this about ACNA: I believe they ordain, or retain previously ordained priestesses. For me that was a no-go, but I believe there are only a handful of said priestesses, so it may not affect your parish, although it is worth noting about the jurisdiction if that matters to you.
I've been to some Anglican churches. They're a very new congregation here and well...they may not always vet their leadership very well because they're so excited to be growing. Proceed with caution. It's a case by case situation.
Totally! There is an Anglican church near me and I hesitate to go given my past experiences with other Anglican churches I've attended, but I shouldn't judge a place just by it's denomination - it might actually be really great!
You know, with all we've done to hand over to organized institutions lots of important areas of our lives, the truth is that transmission when it happens is a person to person experience. The test of an institution is in its capacity to ALLOW transmission to happen... or not. So... maybe that Anglican church near you will have somebody really special in it who will change your world. Or even a group of people ? Who knows ?
Anyone have plans for particular Lenten fasts? I've previously followed what was pitched to me as the "tradcath" rule (two small not-meals, one normal meal per day) and am planning to attempt a fast from all solid food this year, like the monks of old. Though the wallet will not permit endless Paulaner doppelbock, sadly...
We'll be following the traditional Orthodox fast (no meat, dairy, eggs) and as a way to curb personal vices I'll give up coffee and sugar as well. My husband and I will also be leading a "Communal Digital Fast", as what we feed our minds seems to hold much greater temptations today than the foods we consume.
Great to hear Ruth! Y'all's Substack is largely responsible for my wife and I kicking the digital from our lives (flip phones, no TV, no personal computers) which leaves us in the odd position of having little digital left to fast from! Haha! Thanks for all you do.
Ha... that's what I call a good form of updating on fasting. How long is the digital fast supposed to last ?
But then again, thinking about it, I think about the sparrows of the fields, and what happens when you feed them or don't feed them. When you feed them, they are happy to get it, but they seem to manage to forage on their own if you don't feed them. Maybe this is the idea behind all of this ? To remind us that we need to be able to behave like the sparrows when they are no longer fed ?
Debra, the Fast follows alongside Lent, so it ends on Easter. However, the goal is develop habits that carry over to our daily lives throughout the year. We'll be posting the details for the Communal Digital Fast next week :)
If you are not part of a Church that follows any sort of traditional fasting practice, one rule to keep in mind is what fast was meant to do - simplify your diet, so that you think of and spend less on food. This way freeing up your time for prayer and beefing :) up your wallet for alms-giving.
Thanks for the reminder Father. I attend a Protestant church which follows the liturgical calendar in some ways but, sadly, does not have any fasting practice to speak of. During last year's fast, I remember describing the hunger pangs to my wife as a constant reminder to "pray without ceasing," and being grateful for it. Funnily enough, your post is not the first I've seen this year reminding me to put any money saved towards God, something I hadn't considered before. I am now thinking that I will do so.
I do not cook, but my wife does. And every fast she complains that it is a lot harder to spend less time and money on food, because, in general, meat is less expensive than fish or sea food, and preparing meat is easier than the other food. Unfortunately, it's hard to survive Lent on greens alone, especially if one has kids of various ages.
As someone once told me, we are not meant to "succeed" at fasting (whatever succeeding might mean here). We are *meant* to fail. And this "failure" will show that (1) we are weak and sinful; (2) we depend on food; (3) God provides our sustenance; (4) we depend on God for all things. And this "failure" might also illumine some of the areas in our life, outside of food and drink, that we need to work on to improve, through repentance (a proper turning around and finding the right path).
I like that, the idea that we are not meant to succeed... in my... opinion, without our Christian faith in the Western World, we are getting too much pressure to believe that we CAN succeed in areas where we can only fail, and that is very... depressing.
Success and comfort is something that is being sold to us with every product. People who buy into this fairytale, struggle when they encounter discomfort and failure. In its wisdom, the Church prescribes fasting periods as periods of intentional discomfort and failure. It's like in exercising in the gym. We don't go there to succeed, at least not initially. We are meant to push ourselves in the gym to our limits, so that we expand those limits with time. Lent is the time of intentional discomfort and failure, to build up our spiritual strength, to push our limits, so that we would know what to do and be able to withstand the discomfort from the outside and the inevitable periods of failure. We eat less and abstain from certain foods, we abstain from certain behaviors (not because any of them are bad; we are supposed to abstain from bad behavior, i.e. sins, as it is). And we pray more, at home and in church. In the Orthodox Church, during Lent, we have more services and they are a bit longer. None of it is easy or comfortable, and if we do it right, we end up failing. Which is the point. We need to know how to fail (and face that failure - with repentance) and how to be uncomfortable.
I have sometimes wondered, at my ROCOR parish, if we're just doing things this way to make it less comfortable/practical/accessible and more difficult. I believe you've answered my question ;-)
You have put together a lot of things here that maybe need to be nuanced.
Material success and comfort have been sold to us as goals in life for millenia now. But it seems universally true to me that a society whose members attain a high degree of material success, wealth, and comfort over a short period of time is at great spiritual and social risk, for the simple reason that material success, wealth and comfort all have hidden drawbacks that sap the vital energy of society itself, and contribute to unraveling it.
Pulling out a credit card to pay to have somebody do work that you don't know how to do enables you to bypass learning how to do things. Taking the time to learn. MAKING THE EFFORT TO LEARN, even learning how to learn, to think, for example. It is really not all that easy to think, and particularly with basic problems. Taking time away from other things to learn what you need to know, for example. But not knowing how to do things, sometimes vital things, makes us dependent on people, or machines that do them in our place, with a certain cost, in terms of money, but not only. It also keeps us from being aware of what we CAN do, and it is precious to have the feeling of what we can do. Priceless, even.
Discomfort and failure are not exactly the same thing, and maybe should be differentiated. There is a certain amount of discomfort involved in keeping our thermostat low during the winter, for example. There is discomfort involved in hauling our buckets of shower water to flush our toilets with, for example, although I do not fast. But when I haul the buckets to flush my toilet, I am not only dealing with my discomfort, I am definitely thinking about what I am doing. No automatic pilot there. So... hauling my buckets, doing heavy duty kitchen cleaning, all of that equates in my mind with what you're talking about.
Failure is on a different level for me though. I have known it, and still know it intimately, and have survived it.
At this point in time, I am striking out... rather alone, trying to feel my way, with the help of the Bible, which I have been reading with others for a long time, and my personal reflexions and observations, in the knowledge that I will obviously... miss the mark in my desire to experiment. But maybe I will be able to learn when I miss the mark, although I am not sure just how much we can prevent ourselves from making the same mistakes over and over again. Failure, huh ?
I also think that Jesus was particularly critical about religious customs where people lost perspective on what they were called to do, and got caught up in materialist ? legalistic tangles. There is always the danger in every aspect of religion of getting caught up in legalistic tangles.
But right now, I feel that "we", in the Western world have totally lost any sense of perspective on what we should be eating and drinking, and that goes way beyond the problem or practice of fasting. We are... lost. Is fasting a way of giving us a sense of necessary limits, here ? Maybe. I notice that the fasting practices involve not eating meat ALL THE TIME, for example...circumscribing the practice of eating meat, which is an act with serious implications in it, IF WE TAKE THE TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT.
Extra Church Services are also an important part of Lent. In the Orthodox Church most parishes will begin with the Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete the evenings of the first week. They will continue with Pre-Sanctifed Liturgies twice per week. Often Catholic parishes will have a weekday service for The Stations of the Cross. Try to avail yourself of what is available, even if it means attending a Church you are not familiar with.
I approach Lent in relation to the living seasons. It's the end of Winter, beginning of Spring - not a lot of food around - a natural time of scarcity. The grass hasn't quit popped up, the larder empties, and there's little hay in the barn to feed the pregnant ewe. We await anxiously for life to return and for Christ to sprout up out of the grave too. I think the timing of Lent is the natural historical time to fast. In decades past, it may not have been a choice to fast in early spring/late winter. I wonder if this is how/why the tradition of Lenten fasting began. I try to eat the winter stores, make dandelion salads, chickweed pesto, fish, and this year I'm going to fast on spring equinox to purge out all the heavy foods I ate all winter.
I like your approach, basically because I feel that it anchors a religious practice in something that is also practical in the natural world, and that... makes sense to me. Which is not to say that I am a religious fanatic about everything having to make sense all the time, but occasionally it is comforting to feel that something might make sense. In our family, I feel great tension between the desire ? need to eat (a lot), and the need to control our appetites. It is not necessarily easy to control appetite... But it is good, essential, to have it. No appetite also means... no appetite for life, in my opinion.
The cold is good for my soul, even as it causes my bones to ache. It keeps me still, keeps me silent, keeps me looking inward, towards the warm heart of things. The extremities all come back towards the center a bit. We got more snow that we deserved this year. Being out in it makes me feel more alive than any summer torpor, but also probably brings me closer to death. We buried two victims of the plane crash on Friday, a daughter and her mother. I have never seen a more beautiful funeral, never seen grief as a lifetime's love unspent, poured out on the bones of dead. I wish we had been able to venerate, but there was no standing room left in the church and they had time enough for the family. I think great lent aligns both calendars, but I could be mistaken.
Paul, I have a question about your Lent. I am Catholic, in our Church we don't really fast anymore (in my opinion). And what is it like for the Orthodox? Do you follow all these rules? And what does your family say about it?
Yes, the Orthodox have stuck to the traditional fasting rule, which, alas the Western churches have abandoned. We fast twice a week, on Wednesdays and Fridays, and for forty days at Lent and before Christmas. It consists of giving up meat, fish, dairy products, eggs and alcohol: essentially going vegan. As much as possible we are encouraged to forgo some meals: say lunch or breakfast. For the last week of the fast some people, if they are feeling brave, take nothing but water and a bit of fruit. I am usually not able to do that. But I find the whole process to be really invigorating and challenging.
It's less legalistic than that. The Fast is less a set of rules and more a spiritual exercise regimen, and like any physical fitness plan it can be tailored to each individual (under the guidance of a priest or other spiritual father/mother). We don't do it because we have to or because "or else" but, similar to physical exercise, because it's good for us and necessary for us to grow.
Thanks, the struggle between legalism and grace is real. It seems the Orthodox have a good balance. I’m interested in the Orthodox Church. I do love the traditions that have been held and still taught in the Orthodox Church in an unmoored world.
It's especially difficult when there are so many points where East and West use the same word but it means something totally different - "fast" is just one example. "Sin" and even "grace" and "mercy" are others. I've been Orthodox for over five years now and I have yet to really internalize the new (to me) definitions and approaches.
And yes, the stability is huge. Knowing the teachings and practices of the Church will be the same tomorrow regardless of what happens to the rest of the world is a real comfort, and one I certainly didn't get to enjoy as a high church Protestant.
I attend a reformed Protestant church now. Would you be willing to share your reasons for leaving the Protestant faith? I recently found out the Bible Answer Man left the Protestant church and is in the Orthodox Church now. He left in 2017. I find it that surprising because of all he lost in terms of sponsorship and his whole ministry. To me, that’s powerful.
I like your answer... not often do I see things framed in terms of the struggle between legalism and grace, which is one of my major considerations in interpreting my world, even outside of a strictly religious context, moreover.
I’m Catholic not Orthodox but try to follow traditional (pre Vatican II) rules for Lent. However I think it’s important to do something that directly addresses a personal foible or crutch. For me that would be wasting time on YouTube and other social media. However, no-one relishes restricting food so it’s worth doing if you can!
In Orthodoxy, your spiritual father (normally your regular confessor) will adjust the fast to your circumstances. Many people have different sorts of accommodations depending on their personal circumstances. Nobody should fear that the fast will be more than they can handle.
Not completely abandoned. Catholics are still obliged to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. The parish priest here does remind everyone, but I don't think it's all that widely observed.
Thank you! In the Catholic Church used to be similar, but after the Second Vatican Council, they limited the fasting to two days (Ash Wednesday and Good Friday). In my country (Poland), we don't eat meat every Friday either, but other countries have given up on that. I'm a traditionalist, so I try to fast more often, but it's not easy when my family has a different approach. I don't want to make two dinners or force my family to accept my rules.
Fasting like this is great. It pushes the body into a hormetic state whereby cells that are no longer performing optimally go through apoptosis - a sort of programmed cell death. It basically clears out the dead wood and revitalises you. I just hope you're getting lots of plant protein when you fast from animal products 🙏🏻
All my Exodus90 fraternity fast Wednesdays and Fridays. I think this may come back, and is a route for the orthodox trinitarian churches to come back to life
Looking forward to having a listen to your conversation with Russel Brand! I wanted to let other readers know about our upcoming "Pilgrimage out of the Machine" this June on the Camino. My husband Peco (author of Exogenesis and Pilgrims in the Machine) and I, along with Dixie Dillon Lane (editor of Hearth and Field and Front Proch Republic), will be walking the final 100 km of the Camino. This ancient route along the northern part of Spain that has been travelled by pilgrims for more than a thousand years. We will visit ancient Cathedrals along the way, walk along Roman roads and through Eucalyptus forests, venerate the relics of Saint James in Santiago de Compostela, and end at Finesterre, literally "the end of the world".
We would love for you to join us on this pilgrimage as we grow deeper in faith and connection with people, place, and God. If you resonate with Paul's writing on the Machine, our pilgrimage is part of a living experiment to help unmachine our minds throuhg walking and spiritual practice. For more details see https://schooloftheunconformed.substack.com/p/a-pilgrimage-out-of-the-machine. Feel free to message me directly for any questions :)
There is definitely something inherent in technology that welds itself to our psyche—or perhaps it is the inverse that's true? I've noticed this in my own life, with my phone in particular. The more I have it around, the more I seem to find myself using it, even for no real purpose at all. Contrawise, when I make a deliberate point to put it out of sight (and out of mind) for an extended period, I find myself more attuned to the world around me, and considerably more tranquil. I told my wife that, God willing, when I'm able to retire and no longer need it for work, I'm going to cast it off a bridge somewhere and never look back.
I also find that when I put my phone away from myself, in a different part of my house say, it doesn’t take very long at all before I feel more present to real life. It’s like when it is near you it has this incredible pull to get you to look at it.
Exactly that! Pull is a great word for it—almost gravitationally so. I also find my two young sons behave better when there's no technology around. Sure, they gripe and whine for a bit when they find out they're not getting to watch TV. But once they realize it's not in the cards for the day, suddenly they discover the ability to play with themselves and their toys and—gasp!—even come to me with books in hand!
The inducement to use technology is built into the products. My early business career was centered on Silicon Valley and I watched tech go through the changes. At first the tech bros were interested in selling product but that ran out as the market became saturated, then the shift started to interfacing people with tech, which was possible as machines became more powerful and software made them easier to use. The phone was the ultimate in that evolution and the designers of the phones tested tones and noises to induce dopamine production. The bing of a text on an IPhone has the same dopamine effect as an alarm clock, it makes you want to look.
This is all part of getting you to consume and generate data. The more you use it the more data google and apple get on you that they can sell and resell to advertisers and others.
You feel better when tech is turned off because it is not stimulating you. I have stopped watching TV or using a computer including a kindle two hours before bed and I find I sleep far better. The blue light of computers has long been known to be a stimulant.
There is a reason more and more schools are requiring students to be absent from their phones while in class. There is nothing created by humankind that is unalloyed, everything has good and bad parts, tech is just one more. We pay for the ease and access with social distancing, sadness, depression and loss of contact with what is real and truly important.
Are you familiar with Philip Rieff? The Law and Liberty site just hosted a podcast with a couple of academics who have published a collection of essays about Rieff. That got me rereading sections of “Charisma” and “Deathworks”. Formidable stuff—dense and intricate and hermetic, all but daring the reader to understand. But Rieff’s core insight on the “interdicts”—the moral No’s of Judaism and Christianity— as the life- and law-bringers, in effect the essence—of Western civilization seems to me a profoundly deep one. Modernity as an ultimately suicidal project to rip the self from culture and celebrate the destruction of all restraint and all traditions (in liberation-think, a redundancy, I suppose) has never been made more powerfully by anyone. Again, it’s probably the fiendish difficulty of Rieff’s writing and the purposeful idiosyncrasy of his later works that explains his relative obscurity—alas, not to our or anyone’s intellectual and spiritual benefit.
Boy, I am glad someone mentioned the difficulty one runs into when reading Rieff. I thought it was just me. It's been a long time since I read him, but I could only get the jist of what he was saying, never a deep understanding.
I don't know Rieff, and may probably not know him, but I know Theodore Roszak, if anybody is interested... "Where the Wasteland Ends", for example, a beautifully written book that came out in the 70's ? maybe somewhat later. A good, prophetic writer.
In Denmark, at least where I live, this last part of February has been full of crisp cold, sunshine and a layer of snow to really make the sun “pop”! Had my 9 month old daughter strapped to me as I trimmed the apple tree just before it turned cold. I’ve also seen “easter lilies” as we call them - spring is coming soon don’t worry! The whole green world will rise again from its cold sleep in sync with the pascha resurrection!
Wondering if anyone in here has happened to have read the new book ‘super bloom’ by Nicholas Carr? It is about the ways communication technology has become such a problem for humanity. Very interesting book
I see some (very understandable) remarks about remaining out of politics in the comments. I try to keep my mind free from the distraction that it provides. At the same time, I can't help but wondering if those who would seek union with God would be the best leaders. The monks from Mt. Athos are often called upon, against their wishes, to be leaders.
Is there room for the most virtuous aspects of Christianity in politics?
Or wil they get stamped out?
I have considered politics myself. My wife is even more positioned to do so. Neither of us feel strong desire to do so. I feel a slight pull of responsibility, though.
I often wonder--is it corrupt people that feel the ambition to be in politics, or does politics corrupt normal people?
Your "slight pull of responsibility" is a healthy thing, I think. It definitely does not seem like you are hungry for power and influence, or anything like that. I feel like the higher up you try to go with politics, it likely does have that corrupting influence. You'd have to pretty rigorous about guarding yourself spiritually! So many Christians have turned into turds when they've gotten political.
Not to sit here and give you advice, lol. These are just things I've thought about before.
I respect your caution when it comes to politics. In my mind, faithful Christians would make the best leaders. The Bible says a lot in the OT about the character that makes for good kings. In practice, though, things get tricky. Not sure where you are in the world. Here in American evangelicalism, I find that once a particular position or, ahem, personality becomes popular with churchgoing folks it’s assumed to be the will of God. At that point, even meaningful conversation becomes difficult unless you’re 100% on board. Maybe it’s because I didn’t grow up in the church or maybe I just have a contrarian streak, but I just don’t find myself on board with some of American evangelical politics.
What you're talking about is everywhere, and not just in churches. There is great pressure on us for everyone to agree...all the time. I think it is one of the by-products of a terminal case of positivism, as in refusing to accept the negative... IN OURSELVES, but pinning it outside, on convenient scapegoats, for example, in order to remain good.. PHARISEES in our own eyes.
But being in power is an insoluble thing, because how can people in power NOT be confronted with seeing individual human beings as abstractions, numbers, generalizations ? Don't the greatest dangers come from something that is inevitable ?
I think politics is given far too much importance in our age. At this point, the best political statement seems to be to think about things besides politics.
even the saintly priests in our church, they run away when the people elect them. then, literally, the people drag them out of hiding and they are consecrated unto God alone.
there has never been a holy Christian politician who sought out the office...
there have been Christians who sought out the office, and then our Lord allowed them to be crucified (in their hearts), and continue in their office while also holy.
But- since God is creator of the heavens *and* the earth, every Christian virtue can be manifest in any circumstances one is given in this life, by the LORD and author of our lives.
I admit, I did cringe when I saw you were on Russell Brand's show. However, I was confident you'd have some good commentary to offer, so I watched (the free part), and you did. Thanks for that.
Your last points about Orthodoxy changing you slowly--like water dropping on a rock--were great. It's so slow. It can happen faster, I think, but it involves a lot more discomfort and pain. Not everyone can stand up to that (definitely not me), and God knows how much we can all handle. I have been Orthodox for 7 years now and I can also see how I've slowly grown into a different person, and I can also see more clearly how much more I have left to go.
Yes, I understand that. A lot of what he does makes me cringe. It's a mixed bag. But I think his search is genuine, so I decided to talk to him and see what happened. In the end I quite enjoyed it.
Do the numerous accusations of sexual predation not bother you? I love your writing, and though I think we would differ on many things, your lens on the world (stupid phrase probably, I can't think of a better one.) But Russell Brand... okay, accusations are not a conviction, but I believe many of the women who have spoken out about him. Even if I didn't, a lot of his "comedy" back in the day was just mean-spirited and gross. As a younger woman I didn't like it but it was more normal back then. I don't feel the need to laugh along with stuff like that any more. Joking or not, I think his work says plenty about who he was and is. I haven't watched the full show so can't speak to whether his search is genuine or not, not that I'm qualified to anyway. But I DO know he is an inveterate attention seeker who was on the left when it got him the attention he craves, the right when that worked better, then it was conspiracy theories, now Christianity? I am sceptical as to whether he can be genuine about anything much. But maybe that's my ignorance speaking. I hate the concept of condemning people by association, and I think we all need to listen to each other more, but it's hard for me to be on board with condoning the behaviour of someone who comports himself the way RB has.
"February is the grimmest month [...]". It was good of them to lop a couple of days off it then!
February is the most settled and warmest summer month here in New Zealand. We would appreciate a few more days of it.
I have a daughter over there right now on holiday and for a wedding - she loves it! Enjoy the rest of Feb. and I hope it carries on into March.
I wonder why so many decent people still attend Arc, am I missing something? It honestly does feel a bit anti-Christy, I can't shake this awful feeling I have about it!
Though we are not of this world, we must live in it. I think that is why. Paul and Jonathan’s conversation gets at the conflict. I’ve listened to it multiple times. It’s still gnawing at me which is a good thing, as is the fact that my “ahah” moments are different each time, sometimes after Paul, then Jonathan. I find myself confused in the best of ways.
I wonder if you’re subscribed to Rod Dreher’s substack? His piece just from today addresses this very question. Even subscribing for free should get you that email
I find Rod's obsession with politics so problematic I can't face his substack.
I have told him this myself several times but he's not having it.
It's so weird. He talks the talk on spiritual matters and then walks the absolute opposite of what he's just said! I get a case of serious cognitive dissonance with this.
By the way, I love the feel of the phrase 'a bit anti-Christy.' It's so English it warms my heart ;-)
Heh heh, high praise indeed, it's my Yorkshire upbringing
It's downright Dickensian.
Curious - can you cite a specific example where Rod does this? (Not a challenge to your point of view - genuine question to help me understand it.) I often can’t keep up with Rod’s volume of content. But on most things I find him somewhat balanced.
@anna hardings - NM. I just saw your example re Gaza. I get so lost in SS nested comments. Lol
Rod has also been very open about the fact that he has started therapy.
If Rod dropped the politics, what would be left for him to write about? UFOs and Christianity? See I read Rod's Substack like it's my morning paper (and it arrives just as often). Some people like me really enjoy his political commentary. I only pay for two Substacks - yours and Rod's. They're different, but both are enjoyable!
Me also. I lean more towards Paul’s take in general, but I read Dreher to stay up on things happening that I think we should be aware of. I think of the analogy of the body for the church. Not all are head, not all are hands, not all are feet etc. I’ve lately come to think that much of the trouble we face in the world and in the church - often can be ascribed to clashes of personality, communication styles and differences in emphases - with everyone feeling their own way is the ‘right’ way. ‘They’re doing it wrong!’ Exaggerated to make the point. Not saying Rod or Paul are that strident. I guess I just find it isn’t usually ‘either / or’ but ‘both / and’. Perhaps that makes me wishy washy but I tend towards trying to find the right ‘moderate’ balance in most things by temperament and discipline I guess.
I have often thought this very thing. Part of the body includes journalist, government workers, psychologist that have written books etc... They are going to bring their faith to their work in some manner.
One of my spiritual teachers in my youth was Fr. Benedict Groeschel who wrote many books on growing in the Spiritual life and the spiritual journey. He always said his work was not original, but reflected the teachings of St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Paul, St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. He spoke of the Three Ways of the Spiritual Life. The fist way, after conversion, is the Purgative way, where one works to bring ones life in general in line with Christ teachings. The next is the Illuminative Way which is marked by trust in God in all things (or at least working on this) and the third way is the Unitive way - which is the life of the saints. His book Spiritual Passages explains this in depth, but he felt that the health of the Church depended on how many of its members were in the Illuminative Way. I think this demonstrates how our churches and then further up the scale, our communities and countries, function properly or not in large part by the spiritual place the people are at. This obviously can be affected by a tyrannical government or gaslighting elites from top down, but the place we can start is in our own lives and within our families and churches to create communities truly growing in the spiritual life.
I subscribe, but I skip most of the political stuff. Just not interested. I read it for the rest.
Same. I subscribed back when he was still writing for TAC, and the political stuff stayed there while the Substack was for all other content (most of it spirituality-related and/or positive). I read both and enjoyed the Substack a lot more than TAC. I understand why the politics stuff had to get included after he left TAC, but I still really miss the old version. I thoroughly enjoy Rod's writing, but I think he is at his best when writing about things other than politics (especially now, post-election, as I personally believe his Trump enthusiasm is getting the better of him in ways he may regret later).
I don't know Rod Dreher (going to have to find his Substack now out of curiosity) but I'm reading his 'Live Not by Lies' at the moment, oddly. I have a degree in politics from 50 years ago! I used to pay attention. I liked Bernard Crick's definition of politics as 'the public actions of free men' (with the corollary that freedom is 'privacy from public actions'). By those definitions neither politics nor freedom exists any more, certainly in the west. Even 'politicians' (aka puppeticians) don't do politics any more. They ultimately take their orders from the Bank for International Settlements. Anything above the BIS is 'behind the curtain'. I reckon Agustin Carstens does his annual appraisal with Satan, who is probably roughly two managerial levels above him.
I often feel the same way. On the other hand, I found Paul by way of Rod, and then Paul’s reading list on Orthodoxy, and am now contemplating (admittedly with some degree of dread) becoming a catechumen after 20 years of what is best described as post-Calvinist agnosticism.
Yes it does, I read it this morning too.
What exactly bothers you about ARC? I haven’t followed much of it since their first gathering, I’ve thought about it as something becoming another elitist gathering. Or as just another group that’s trying to bring world order.
I think it comes down to a perception of a deep and blatent hypocrisy. The movement claims to be 'Christian', or that at least 'Christian values' are the only way to day the West, but in reality this is an elitist, extremely well funded, politically motivated, power hungry movement that seems to me the absolute opposite of Christ's teaching. I see that Iain McGilChrist is also there, yet to me Arc is an excellent example of Left brain 'grasping' mindset he speaks so eloquently against! So I think....what am I missing?
A lot of awful things are being done in the name of "Christian values" today. Yet, I bet, if one were to ask the people who do these awful things, to define Christian values, they would come up with something that is neither Christian nor very valuable to most people outside their circle.
I agree....the last straw with all of this alt-rightery, and I actually know a lot of the organisers of Arc in person, the absolute and utter lack of compassion for a balanced view on the Isreal/Gaza war, compassion for one side only. The wrong side under the rubble have zero compassion, I find this repulsive, it is the opposite of 'love your enemy'
I agree with every word of this. It's exactly what my Erasmus lecture was about.
That lecture made me feel much less alone!!! It was awesome
I think this gets at the whole "Christian Civilization" that Paul keeps talking about. If a civilization were to be Christian, then the naked would be clothed, hungry would be fed, strangers showed hospitality that would rival that of Abraham, widows and orphans would be protected and well-cared for, first would be last, last would be first, and there would be no (human*) enemy because they all would be loved and prayed for.
*spiritual enemies will be always be there, though, till Kingdom come.
But the question is - are these things actually possible in today's world, in any society?
Not everyone who attends something like that is in 100% lockstep. Guys like McGilchrist and Pageau apparently see some value in being there or they wouldn't go. I see no reason to fault them for that, necessarily.
Ha, yes, me too .. there are some false prophets there alright. Rod Dreher actually wrote about it today and quoted my recent criticism, and there was some good discussion in the comments. I weighed in myself.
I am glad it is being discussed! Its like everyone has been blinded by the glitz and glamour...
Would you say that about people who listen to the BBC or send their kids to universities (like mine)....both feel very anti-Christy to me. I think you can choose to disengage entirely, or get your hands dirty. Politics does involve balancing means and ends....whatever the theological precepts. What if 'not attending ARC' [which I take it is shorthand for messing around in the 'what comes after liberalism' domain on the conservative right]....so what if not thinking hard about citizenship, obligation, laws, enforcement - as well as culture change in that Gramscian war of position sense; what if keeping clear of all that, leads to the kind of civil conflict - and perhaps even genocidal tribalism - down the road. The civil peace of a society of individuals was only achieved with generations of pretty coercive state enforcement and innovation. It was only in the 20th century that French people started identifying as 'French'.
@louiseperry's guest David Betz - professor at UCL....which I'm guessing many people on here heard (because I think there is probably a large Kingsnorth/Perry crossover - is hardly a wild-eyed pepper type. Pretty sure he wears a tie and tweed jacket and has a Beagle who sits in an armchair smoking Hamlets in supervisions....But he didn't pull his punches about how close the UK is to serious sectarian violence (5 years) and with enough time, civil war and balkans-like wars of elimination. My greatest fear (I have a few)...is that my sons will live to be forced into that kind of conflict and into doing/seeing things from which you can't recover. What Gad Saad calls suicidal empathy might well lead us there.
I think I know Paul's response would be something like.... good consequences can't justify morally corrupt means; that wild Christianity should avoid the corruption of Caesar in any form. The trouble is that the only reason that so many millions of people in Britain and elsewhere DO feel squeamish in the way that you (quite reasonably) do....is not because of wild unvarnished uncorrupted Christianity, but hundreds of years of sinful Christians interacting with the state, making many wrong turns, enacting laws which always come with trade offs, and accepting high levels of coercion....[external controls that eventually became internalized - at least according to Norbert Elias - On The Process of Civilization]
Konstantin Kisin seems a thoroughly decent person; as does Douglas Murray. I can't square them with 'anti-Christy' - whereas transhumananism, transgenderism, some of the crazier forms of eco-modernism...???
“When you have a chainsaw, everything looks like firewood”. I nominate this as your best line of 2025 thus far. A lot to unpack there.
Now I need to write a book that I can use that line for the title of!
Consider me a witness to your copyright
Joseph Sax a law professor of my brother, wrote a book on ethics titled Mountains Without Handrails. Basic thesis was that the basis for ethics in the post-modern epoch would be “the voluntary reduction of technology”. Your new book title reminds me of this idea- much of your work in fact though I like that you are thinking more about what we say “yes” to rather than what we “no”. We need more yes-men of this sort.
Yes... mountains without handrails addresses what I feel to be one of the biggest problems, the virility ? one, or what it means to be a man, upright, with integrity, authority. A man proud to be a man, not slinking around in shame. Yes... to voluntary reduction of technology while knowing that it is not really something that it is easy or popular to.. convert people to ?
A lot of the fighting that is going on is over just what a man is/should be (and of course, what he is not). And why I constantly come back to the "Macbeth" play as one of the most potent explorations of this problem/question.
YES ! I saw that line too, and it really hit me as something powerful to think about. My son who has a far away garden that is ENORMOUS has a chain saw, and lots of other mechanical devices that manage his garden in a way that enables him to have a full time job and do a lot of the cooking and childrearing at home, but sometimes I see that look in his eyes that comes from having one of those chainsaws (and I'm not talking about a form of divine madness that could get him carried away), and his eyes look a little bit... empty. That makes me sad.
I guess I'll start? Anyway just wanted to say that I'm gratified to see that your perspectives have remained clear-eyed on world events (especially US events) even as the right at large celebrates the (perhaps invisible to them) Musk-led advance of the Machine.
FYI, Stihl makes an electric, rechargeable battery, chainsaw that is much more enjoyable to operate, without the messy fuel bit, and with the added advantage of enforcing the time spent buzzing by conveniently running out of juice :)
I have seen them. Are they actually as powerful as the petrol versions?
Not quite, but probably plenty powerful enough for the work you described…find out if you can because it made a world of difference for us, and it greatly reduces the adversity factor of doing the job…which obviously needs to be done one way or another…if we are going to rely on machines, they should at least be friendly ones!
I would certainly prefer it. I will root around. Thanks.
I find them less satisfying yet relatively equitable in their capabilities.
16" Greenworks with two batteries. Very happy with it. But yes, not as much manly man's man fun as a roaring Husqvarna.
Ha ! See my reply in this thread above...Cordially.
Some of them are actually better. More torque. Electric motors are amazingly strong. I have cut down thirty of the mightiest trees in the forest with them motors. I did.
The old Stihl saws are the best in terms of power. They are harder to find now.
The trouble with battery-operated tools is that you have to take on board the children mining lithium and the poisoned land they live in, so that spoiled children like Greta Thunberg can shout 'you stole my childhood!'
Instead of 'spoiled', with regard to Greta, I should have said 'groomed and abused' by the Machine, including her own parents. I believe she's related to Svante Arrhenius, who was one of those who started the CO2 insanity that the Machine is using to imprison us in the global digital gulag.
Question for my fellow American readers: Are there any of you who attend an Anglican church? Specifically, one that's a part of the Anglican Churches in North America?
I've attended an Orthodox parish pretty regularly for the past couple of years, but I'd like to at least explore an Anglican one, so I'm curious if there's anyone who can speak to the differences and/or their experiences in an Anglican church.
My husband and I came to an ACNA church about 10 years ago from an evangelical church and have never looked back. The reverent liturgical worship, excellent preaching and weekly Eucharist was what drew us. I’d encourage you to check us out.
I've been an evangelical church attendee for a long time, but a few years ago got so fed up I couldn't go anymore. I find I need the reverence and sense of tradition in a church, and I've loved the Orthodox church I've attended, but as a lifelong Protestant, I feel like I should at least explore an Anglican church. Thank you!
Curiously, my interest in the Anglican Church was sparked quite recently by an Anglican friend who explained to me that the Church's theological claims go all the way back to the Patristic era. Until then, my "depth" of understanding was limited to Henry VIII and his shenanigans, of course. It sort of makes sense. After all, Irenaeus (2nd century AD) was a bishop in Gallia and if my history learned from Asterix and Obelix serves me well, there used to be a lot of traffic between Gallia and Britannia.
Nate Marshall (The Blue Scholar) could give you a helpful perspective - I'm sure he'd love to connect if you send him a direct message via Substack.
Also, if you (like me) hail from a Protestant background but appreciate the liturgical aspect, you may also want to explore the Lutheran church (Missouri Sinod) , which has a very similar liturgy to the Orthodox tradition.
Fair warning, from a former-LCMS member, would be that calling the LCMS liturgical is true in some areas and not in others. Here in my part of the midwest, you're more likely to find LCMS churches that can be best described as "Evangelicals with a hymnal" or "Baptists with a little bit of liturgy and communion once a month," with the occasional small oasis of high church here and there and not necessarily within driving distance. Further east, absolutely, you're not unlikely to find an LCMS church that has a more reverent service than the average Catholic parish.
Meant less as a criticism and more as an advance explanation if anyone goes to an LCMS church expecting the Mass and runs into contemporary worship music and words on a screen.
Though I'm not sure I'd agree with describing the LCMS Divine Service settings as "very similar" to the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, even if we limit the discussion to Setting Three.
Thanks for adding that perspective. The church that I am familiar with is very liturgical and not contemporary at all, but as you point out, this may be a rarer find.
I'm glad you found one of those congregations. While I'm obviously no longer Lutheran (nor a Protestant of any stripe), I do hope to see Protestant churches preserving and rediscovering their liturgical heritage. I struggled a lot as a Lutheran/Anglican trying to find liturgical worship and it's always good to be reminded that's not the case everywhere.
You may think this is off topic, but I don't...
I live in France, on the outskirts of a big city with a very industrial identity, historically. My husband and I are people who love, and are interested and knowledgeable about the theater. Both of us act, and my husband also writes for our local company of very good amateurs. Last night, we went to a one man performance by an actor/director for whom we have much respect, as he has a great deal of experience, and competence in the productions of his that I have seen, that go way back. In our area, he used to be someone who had a big following, and could get state money for his work. And at the end of his performance, we were discussing, and I told him that the theater, in our big industrial city, was dead, and that that was a very evil sign for the health of the "cité", to use the French word in its political sense. Not "city", but "cité", in the way that Rome and Athens were "cités"...
The contemporary scene, and way of thinking about the world has no respect for the theater, any more than it has respect for liturgy...
Thank you! I’ll reach out to him.
I used to attend an Anglican Province of America church - it was beautiful 1928 reverent liturgy, beautiful icons, gorgeous choir, "small-o orthodox." I loved it and was home like I have never been before or since. Unfortunately, being in a university town, they were blessed (?) with an overabundance of PhDs and were very very afraid of covid, and folded like a lawnchair, at least for many months. I finally left in search of an Orthodox parish (one that didn't fold). Now having been several years Orthodox, there is a Western Rite mission parish opening not prohibitively far from me, so I get to be Orthodox AND keep the gorgeous Western patrimony that is in my bones; I will go to bed every night praying "Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee, O Lord...."
I will say this about ACNA: I believe they ordain, or retain previously ordained priestesses. For me that was a no-go, but I believe there are only a handful of said priestesses, so it may not affect your parish, although it is worth noting about the jurisdiction if that matters to you.
Thank you! This is really helpful!
Not all dioceses permit women as priests.
The one nearest my house has a female deacon, but not a priest.
I've been to some Anglican churches. They're a very new congregation here and well...they may not always vet their leadership very well because they're so excited to be growing. Proceed with caution. It's a case by case situation.
Almost everything in our world is a case by case situation anyway. What is surprising is that we keep looking for generalized experience...
Totally! There is an Anglican church near me and I hesitate to go given my past experiences with other Anglican churches I've attended, but I shouldn't judge a place just by it's denomination - it might actually be really great!
You know, with all we've done to hand over to organized institutions lots of important areas of our lives, the truth is that transmission when it happens is a person to person experience. The test of an institution is in its capacity to ALLOW transmission to happen... or not. So... maybe that Anglican church near you will have somebody really special in it who will change your world. Or even a group of people ? Who knows ?
Anyone have plans for particular Lenten fasts? I've previously followed what was pitched to me as the "tradcath" rule (two small not-meals, one normal meal per day) and am planning to attempt a fast from all solid food this year, like the monks of old. Though the wallet will not permit endless Paulaner doppelbock, sadly...
We'll be following the traditional Orthodox fast (no meat, dairy, eggs) and as a way to curb personal vices I'll give up coffee and sugar as well. My husband and I will also be leading a "Communal Digital Fast", as what we feed our minds seems to hold much greater temptations today than the foods we consume.
Great to hear Ruth! Y'all's Substack is largely responsible for my wife and I kicking the digital from our lives (flip phones, no TV, no personal computers) which leaves us in the odd position of having little digital left to fast from! Haha! Thanks for all you do.
Ha... that's what I call a good form of updating on fasting. How long is the digital fast supposed to last ?
But then again, thinking about it, I think about the sparrows of the fields, and what happens when you feed them or don't feed them. When you feed them, they are happy to get it, but they seem to manage to forage on their own if you don't feed them. Maybe this is the idea behind all of this ? To remind us that we need to be able to behave like the sparrows when they are no longer fed ?
Debra, the Fast follows alongside Lent, so it ends on Easter. However, the goal is develop habits that carry over to our daily lives throughout the year. We'll be posting the details for the Communal Digital Fast next week :)
If you are not part of a Church that follows any sort of traditional fasting practice, one rule to keep in mind is what fast was meant to do - simplify your diet, so that you think of and spend less on food. This way freeing up your time for prayer and beefing :) up your wallet for alms-giving.
Thanks for the reminder Father. I attend a Protestant church which follows the liturgical calendar in some ways but, sadly, does not have any fasting practice to speak of. During last year's fast, I remember describing the hunger pangs to my wife as a constant reminder to "pray without ceasing," and being grateful for it. Funnily enough, your post is not the first I've seen this year reminding me to put any money saved towards God, something I hadn't considered before. I am now thinking that I will do so.
I do not cook, but my wife does. And every fast she complains that it is a lot harder to spend less time and money on food, because, in general, meat is less expensive than fish or sea food, and preparing meat is easier than the other food. Unfortunately, it's hard to survive Lent on greens alone, especially if one has kids of various ages.
As someone once told me, we are not meant to "succeed" at fasting (whatever succeeding might mean here). We are *meant* to fail. And this "failure" will show that (1) we are weak and sinful; (2) we depend on food; (3) God provides our sustenance; (4) we depend on God for all things. And this "failure" might also illumine some of the areas in our life, outside of food and drink, that we need to work on to improve, through repentance (a proper turning around and finding the right path).
I like that, the idea that we are not meant to succeed... in my... opinion, without our Christian faith in the Western World, we are getting too much pressure to believe that we CAN succeed in areas where we can only fail, and that is very... depressing.
Success and comfort is something that is being sold to us with every product. People who buy into this fairytale, struggle when they encounter discomfort and failure. In its wisdom, the Church prescribes fasting periods as periods of intentional discomfort and failure. It's like in exercising in the gym. We don't go there to succeed, at least not initially. We are meant to push ourselves in the gym to our limits, so that we expand those limits with time. Lent is the time of intentional discomfort and failure, to build up our spiritual strength, to push our limits, so that we would know what to do and be able to withstand the discomfort from the outside and the inevitable periods of failure. We eat less and abstain from certain foods, we abstain from certain behaviors (not because any of them are bad; we are supposed to abstain from bad behavior, i.e. sins, as it is). And we pray more, at home and in church. In the Orthodox Church, during Lent, we have more services and they are a bit longer. None of it is easy or comfortable, and if we do it right, we end up failing. Which is the point. We need to know how to fail (and face that failure - with repentance) and how to be uncomfortable.
I have sometimes wondered, at my ROCOR parish, if we're just doing things this way to make it less comfortable/practical/accessible and more difficult. I believe you've answered my question ;-)
You have put together a lot of things here that maybe need to be nuanced.
Material success and comfort have been sold to us as goals in life for millenia now. But it seems universally true to me that a society whose members attain a high degree of material success, wealth, and comfort over a short period of time is at great spiritual and social risk, for the simple reason that material success, wealth and comfort all have hidden drawbacks that sap the vital energy of society itself, and contribute to unraveling it.
Pulling out a credit card to pay to have somebody do work that you don't know how to do enables you to bypass learning how to do things. Taking the time to learn. MAKING THE EFFORT TO LEARN, even learning how to learn, to think, for example. It is really not all that easy to think, and particularly with basic problems. Taking time away from other things to learn what you need to know, for example. But not knowing how to do things, sometimes vital things, makes us dependent on people, or machines that do them in our place, with a certain cost, in terms of money, but not only. It also keeps us from being aware of what we CAN do, and it is precious to have the feeling of what we can do. Priceless, even.
Discomfort and failure are not exactly the same thing, and maybe should be differentiated. There is a certain amount of discomfort involved in keeping our thermostat low during the winter, for example. There is discomfort involved in hauling our buckets of shower water to flush our toilets with, for example, although I do not fast. But when I haul the buckets to flush my toilet, I am not only dealing with my discomfort, I am definitely thinking about what I am doing. No automatic pilot there. So... hauling my buckets, doing heavy duty kitchen cleaning, all of that equates in my mind with what you're talking about.
Failure is on a different level for me though. I have known it, and still know it intimately, and have survived it.
At this point in time, I am striking out... rather alone, trying to feel my way, with the help of the Bible, which I have been reading with others for a long time, and my personal reflexions and observations, in the knowledge that I will obviously... miss the mark in my desire to experiment. But maybe I will be able to learn when I miss the mark, although I am not sure just how much we can prevent ourselves from making the same mistakes over and over again. Failure, huh ?
I also think that Jesus was particularly critical about religious customs where people lost perspective on what they were called to do, and got caught up in materialist ? legalistic tangles. There is always the danger in every aspect of religion of getting caught up in legalistic tangles.
But right now, I feel that "we", in the Western world have totally lost any sense of perspective on what we should be eating and drinking, and that goes way beyond the problem or practice of fasting. We are... lost. Is fasting a way of giving us a sense of necessary limits, here ? Maybe. I notice that the fasting practices involve not eating meat ALL THE TIME, for example...circumscribing the practice of eating meat, which is an act with serious implications in it, IF WE TAKE THE TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT.
Extra Church Services are also an important part of Lent. In the Orthodox Church most parishes will begin with the Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete the evenings of the first week. They will continue with Pre-Sanctifed Liturgies twice per week. Often Catholic parishes will have a weekday service for The Stations of the Cross. Try to avail yourself of what is available, even if it means attending a Church you are not familiar with.
I approach Lent in relation to the living seasons. It's the end of Winter, beginning of Spring - not a lot of food around - a natural time of scarcity. The grass hasn't quit popped up, the larder empties, and there's little hay in the barn to feed the pregnant ewe. We await anxiously for life to return and for Christ to sprout up out of the grave too. I think the timing of Lent is the natural historical time to fast. In decades past, it may not have been a choice to fast in early spring/late winter. I wonder if this is how/why the tradition of Lenten fasting began. I try to eat the winter stores, make dandelion salads, chickweed pesto, fish, and this year I'm going to fast on spring equinox to purge out all the heavy foods I ate all winter.
I like your approach, basically because I feel that it anchors a religious practice in something that is also practical in the natural world, and that... makes sense to me. Which is not to say that I am a religious fanatic about everything having to make sense all the time, but occasionally it is comforting to feel that something might make sense. In our family, I feel great tension between the desire ? need to eat (a lot), and the need to control our appetites. It is not necessarily easy to control appetite... But it is good, essential, to have it. No appetite also means... no appetite for life, in my opinion.
The cold is good for my soul, even as it causes my bones to ache. It keeps me still, keeps me silent, keeps me looking inward, towards the warm heart of things. The extremities all come back towards the center a bit. We got more snow that we deserved this year. Being out in it makes me feel more alive than any summer torpor, but also probably brings me closer to death. We buried two victims of the plane crash on Friday, a daughter and her mother. I have never seen a more beautiful funeral, never seen grief as a lifetime's love unspent, poured out on the bones of dead. I wish we had been able to venerate, but there was no standing room left in the church and they had time enough for the family. I think great lent aligns both calendars, but I could be mistaken.
Paul, I have a question about your Lent. I am Catholic, in our Church we don't really fast anymore (in my opinion). And what is it like for the Orthodox? Do you follow all these rules? And what does your family say about it?
Yes, the Orthodox have stuck to the traditional fasting rule, which, alas the Western churches have abandoned. We fast twice a week, on Wednesdays and Fridays, and for forty days at Lent and before Christmas. It consists of giving up meat, fish, dairy products, eggs and alcohol: essentially going vegan. As much as possible we are encouraged to forgo some meals: say lunch or breakfast. For the last week of the fast some people, if they are feeling brave, take nothing but water and a bit of fruit. I am usually not able to do that. But I find the whole process to be really invigorating and challenging.
Is fasting mandatory for an Orthodox? I don’t mean necessarily to fast perfectly, but is one to be held account if they don’t fast?
Well, nobody will force you to do it! I know Orthodox people who don't really fast. You do what you can. But it's an important part of the package.
It's less legalistic than that. The Fast is less a set of rules and more a spiritual exercise regimen, and like any physical fitness plan it can be tailored to each individual (under the guidance of a priest or other spiritual father/mother). We don't do it because we have to or because "or else" but, similar to physical exercise, because it's good for us and necessary for us to grow.
Thanks, the struggle between legalism and grace is real. It seems the Orthodox have a good balance. I’m interested in the Orthodox Church. I do love the traditions that have been held and still taught in the Orthodox Church in an unmoored world.
It's especially difficult when there are so many points where East and West use the same word but it means something totally different - "fast" is just one example. "Sin" and even "grace" and "mercy" are others. I've been Orthodox for over five years now and I have yet to really internalize the new (to me) definitions and approaches.
And yes, the stability is huge. Knowing the teachings and practices of the Church will be the same tomorrow regardless of what happens to the rest of the world is a real comfort, and one I certainly didn't get to enjoy as a high church Protestant.
I attend a reformed Protestant church now. Would you be willing to share your reasons for leaving the Protestant faith? I recently found out the Bible Answer Man left the Protestant church and is in the Orthodox Church now. He left in 2017. I find it that surprising because of all he lost in terms of sponsorship and his whole ministry. To me, that’s powerful.
I like your answer... not often do I see things framed in terms of the struggle between legalism and grace, which is one of my major considerations in interpreting my world, even outside of a strictly religious context, moreover.
I’m Catholic not Orthodox but try to follow traditional (pre Vatican II) rules for Lent. However I think it’s important to do something that directly addresses a personal foible or crutch. For me that would be wasting time on YouTube and other social media. However, no-one relishes restricting food so it’s worth doing if you can!
In Orthodoxy, your spiritual father (normally your regular confessor) will adjust the fast to your circumstances. Many people have different sorts of accommodations depending on their personal circumstances. Nobody should fear that the fast will be more than they can handle.
Thank you father.
Not completely abandoned. Catholics are still obliged to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. The parish priest here does remind everyone, but I don't think it's all that widely observed.
Thank you! In the Catholic Church used to be similar, but after the Second Vatican Council, they limited the fasting to two days (Ash Wednesday and Good Friday). In my country (Poland), we don't eat meat every Friday either, but other countries have given up on that. I'm a traditionalist, so I try to fast more often, but it's not easy when my family has a different approach. I don't want to make two dinners or force my family to accept my rules.
Fasting like this is great. It pushes the body into a hormetic state whereby cells that are no longer performing optimally go through apoptosis - a sort of programmed cell death. It basically clears out the dead wood and revitalises you. I just hope you're getting lots of plant protein when you fast from animal products 🙏🏻
All my Exodus90 fraternity fast Wednesdays and Fridays. I think this may come back, and is a route for the orthodox trinitarian churches to come back to life
There no doubt are Catholic dioceses that don’t emphasize fasting. I have been lucky to always find one that does.
Looking forward to having a listen to your conversation with Russel Brand! I wanted to let other readers know about our upcoming "Pilgrimage out of the Machine" this June on the Camino. My husband Peco (author of Exogenesis and Pilgrims in the Machine) and I, along with Dixie Dillon Lane (editor of Hearth and Field and Front Proch Republic), will be walking the final 100 km of the Camino. This ancient route along the northern part of Spain that has been travelled by pilgrims for more than a thousand years. We will visit ancient Cathedrals along the way, walk along Roman roads and through Eucalyptus forests, venerate the relics of Saint James in Santiago de Compostela, and end at Finesterre, literally "the end of the world".
We would love for you to join us on this pilgrimage as we grow deeper in faith and connection with people, place, and God. If you resonate with Paul's writing on the Machine, our pilgrimage is part of a living experiment to help unmachine our minds throuhg walking and spiritual practice. For more details see https://schooloftheunconformed.substack.com/p/a-pilgrimage-out-of-the-machine. Feel free to message me directly for any questions :)
There is definitely something inherent in technology that welds itself to our psyche—or perhaps it is the inverse that's true? I've noticed this in my own life, with my phone in particular. The more I have it around, the more I seem to find myself using it, even for no real purpose at all. Contrawise, when I make a deliberate point to put it out of sight (and out of mind) for an extended period, I find myself more attuned to the world around me, and considerably more tranquil. I told my wife that, God willing, when I'm able to retire and no longer need it for work, I'm going to cast it off a bridge somewhere and never look back.
I also find that when I put my phone away from myself, in a different part of my house say, it doesn’t take very long at all before I feel more present to real life. It’s like when it is near you it has this incredible pull to get you to look at it.
Exactly that! Pull is a great word for it—almost gravitationally so. I also find my two young sons behave better when there's no technology around. Sure, they gripe and whine for a bit when they find out they're not getting to watch TV. But once they realize it's not in the cards for the day, suddenly they discover the ability to play with themselves and their toys and—gasp!—even come to me with books in hand!
The inducement to use technology is built into the products. My early business career was centered on Silicon Valley and I watched tech go through the changes. At first the tech bros were interested in selling product but that ran out as the market became saturated, then the shift started to interfacing people with tech, which was possible as machines became more powerful and software made them easier to use. The phone was the ultimate in that evolution and the designers of the phones tested tones and noises to induce dopamine production. The bing of a text on an IPhone has the same dopamine effect as an alarm clock, it makes you want to look.
This is all part of getting you to consume and generate data. The more you use it the more data google and apple get on you that they can sell and resell to advertisers and others.
You feel better when tech is turned off because it is not stimulating you. I have stopped watching TV or using a computer including a kindle two hours before bed and I find I sleep far better. The blue light of computers has long been known to be a stimulant.
There is a reason more and more schools are requiring students to be absent from their phones while in class. There is nothing created by humankind that is unalloyed, everything has good and bad parts, tech is just one more. We pay for the ease and access with social distancing, sadness, depression and loss of contact with what is real and truly important.
Are you familiar with Philip Rieff? The Law and Liberty site just hosted a podcast with a couple of academics who have published a collection of essays about Rieff. That got me rereading sections of “Charisma” and “Deathworks”. Formidable stuff—dense and intricate and hermetic, all but daring the reader to understand. But Rieff’s core insight on the “interdicts”—the moral No’s of Judaism and Christianity— as the life- and law-bringers, in effect the essence—of Western civilization seems to me a profoundly deep one. Modernity as an ultimately suicidal project to rip the self from culture and celebrate the destruction of all restraint and all traditions (in liberation-think, a redundancy, I suppose) has never been made more powerfully by anyone. Again, it’s probably the fiendish difficulty of Rieff’s writing and the purposeful idiosyncrasy of his later works that explains his relative obscurity—alas, not to our or anyone’s intellectual and spiritual benefit.
Rod Dreher mentions Philip Rieff in his writing. It interesting stuff from an anthropological perspective.
Rieff's writing got more complex as he got older. His earlier work, while still occasionally difficult, is far less "esoteric."
Boy, I am glad someone mentioned the difficulty one runs into when reading Rieff. I thought it was just me. It's been a long time since I read him, but I could only get the jist of what he was saying, never a deep understanding.
I don't know Rieff, and may probably not know him, but I know Theodore Roszak, if anybody is interested... "Where the Wasteland Ends", for example, a beautifully written book that came out in the 70's ? maybe somewhat later. A good, prophetic writer.
In Denmark, at least where I live, this last part of February has been full of crisp cold, sunshine and a layer of snow to really make the sun “pop”! Had my 9 month old daughter strapped to me as I trimmed the apple tree just before it turned cold. I’ve also seen “easter lilies” as we call them - spring is coming soon don’t worry! The whole green world will rise again from its cold sleep in sync with the pascha resurrection!
Wondering if anyone in here has happened to have read the new book ‘super bloom’ by Nicholas Carr? It is about the ways communication technology has become such a problem for humanity. Very interesting book
Read it last week and thought it was very good -- highly recommended.
I see some (very understandable) remarks about remaining out of politics in the comments. I try to keep my mind free from the distraction that it provides. At the same time, I can't help but wondering if those who would seek union with God would be the best leaders. The monks from Mt. Athos are often called upon, against their wishes, to be leaders.
Is there room for the most virtuous aspects of Christianity in politics?
Or wil they get stamped out?
I have considered politics myself. My wife is even more positioned to do so. Neither of us feel strong desire to do so. I feel a slight pull of responsibility, though.
I often wonder--is it corrupt people that feel the ambition to be in politics, or does politics corrupt normal people?
Your "slight pull of responsibility" is a healthy thing, I think. It definitely does not seem like you are hungry for power and influence, or anything like that. I feel like the higher up you try to go with politics, it likely does have that corrupting influence. You'd have to pretty rigorous about guarding yourself spiritually! So many Christians have turned into turds when they've gotten political.
Not to sit here and give you advice, lol. These are just things I've thought about before.
I respect your caution when it comes to politics. In my mind, faithful Christians would make the best leaders. The Bible says a lot in the OT about the character that makes for good kings. In practice, though, things get tricky. Not sure where you are in the world. Here in American evangelicalism, I find that once a particular position or, ahem, personality becomes popular with churchgoing folks it’s assumed to be the will of God. At that point, even meaningful conversation becomes difficult unless you’re 100% on board. Maybe it’s because I didn’t grow up in the church or maybe I just have a contrarian streak, but I just don’t find myself on board with some of American evangelical politics.
What you're talking about is everywhere, and not just in churches. There is great pressure on us for everyone to agree...all the time. I think it is one of the by-products of a terminal case of positivism, as in refusing to accept the negative... IN OURSELVES, but pinning it outside, on convenient scapegoats, for example, in order to remain good.. PHARISEES in our own eyes.
But being in power is an insoluble thing, because how can people in power NOT be confronted with seeing individual human beings as abstractions, numbers, generalizations ? Don't the greatest dangers come from something that is inevitable ?
I think politics is given far too much importance in our age. At this point, the best political statement seems to be to think about things besides politics.
yes it can be done.
but only if the saint is anointed.
even the saintly priests in our church, they run away when the people elect them. then, literally, the people drag them out of hiding and they are consecrated unto God alone.
there has never been a holy Christian politician who sought out the office...
there have been Christians who sought out the office, and then our Lord allowed them to be crucified (in their hearts), and continue in their office while also holy.
But- since God is creator of the heavens *and* the earth, every Christian virtue can be manifest in any circumstances one is given in this life, by the LORD and author of our lives.
May this LORD God bless you, Mansal!
I admit, I did cringe when I saw you were on Russell Brand's show. However, I was confident you'd have some good commentary to offer, so I watched (the free part), and you did. Thanks for that.
Your last points about Orthodoxy changing you slowly--like water dropping on a rock--were great. It's so slow. It can happen faster, I think, but it involves a lot more discomfort and pain. Not everyone can stand up to that (definitely not me), and God knows how much we can all handle. I have been Orthodox for 7 years now and I can also see how I've slowly grown into a different person, and I can also see more clearly how much more I have left to go.
Yes, I understand that. A lot of what he does makes me cringe. It's a mixed bag. But I think his search is genuine, so I decided to talk to him and see what happened. In the end I quite enjoyed it.
For what it's worth, I approve of your open mindedness, Paul. Being sectarian can only encourage more fighting, and we don't need that right now.
Do the numerous accusations of sexual predation not bother you? I love your writing, and though I think we would differ on many things, your lens on the world (stupid phrase probably, I can't think of a better one.) But Russell Brand... okay, accusations are not a conviction, but I believe many of the women who have spoken out about him. Even if I didn't, a lot of his "comedy" back in the day was just mean-spirited and gross. As a younger woman I didn't like it but it was more normal back then. I don't feel the need to laugh along with stuff like that any more. Joking or not, I think his work says plenty about who he was and is. I haven't watched the full show so can't speak to whether his search is genuine or not, not that I'm qualified to anyway. But I DO know he is an inveterate attention seeker who was on the left when it got him the attention he craves, the right when that worked better, then it was conspiracy theories, now Christianity? I am sceptical as to whether he can be genuine about anything much. But maybe that's my ignorance speaking. I hate the concept of condemning people by association, and I think we all need to listen to each other more, but it's hard for me to be on board with condoning the behaviour of someone who comports himself the way RB has.
I'm no fan of Russell Brand either. But... it gives Paul a huge exposure and, hopefully, brings people to Paul's writing and podcasts.