Open Letter to Programming Director at Ancient Faith Radio
[This letter was sent via email to Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick, in January 2022. Like others (see “Orthodox Diary: A Faith Journey from West to East”)I have been disturbed to see the echo chamber that has been formed by “culture warrior” Orthodox personalities, in the last few years. This was a heartfelt attempt to dialogue with someone over the issue, but not surprisingly, and despite general protestations about “willingness to engage”, the attempt was ignored. My sincere hope is that dialogue will permeate these political barriers that have wrongly been erected in our discussions surrounding Orthodoxy.]
Dear Father Andrew:
Listening to this podcast “Story Will Save the World,” makes me very sad, really.
Notwithstanding the disclaimers, it is abundantly clear that so many people (primarily, men) within the Church, like Nicholas Kotar and Jonathan Pageau, feel the need to stray outside it for intellectual satiety. That would be fine, of course, if they were simply looking for creative inspiration. Instead, however, they are trying to be Orthodox culture warriors. In the wilderness of worldviews, they believe they are the heroes who can subdue the postmodernist wizards, social justice tyrants, and neo-marxist beasts — beat them at their own game — with oversimplified epistemological constructs.
As intelligent and artistically able as both men are, neither is trained in philosophy, and it shows. One can name-drop the great philosophers, but philosophy is a discipline that requires education, along with the book-knowledge. I suppose some people mistake confidence with expertise, but that can only go so far. These men are amateurs, and it blows me away that they don’t appear to be concerned about that. This is why Kotar, without even realizing he’s doing so, lapses into relativism in this very podcast! Suggesting that “your” facts and “my” facts are only “real” as our respective “narrative” framework allows them to be, without any acknowledgment of the implications of such a statement, is not only sloppy philosophizing, it’s dangerous to the faithful and those who are seeking.
As to the theme of this podcast — calling our Faith the greatest of all the myths/stories, from which all other good stories emanate — there’s certainly an integral need at an existential level, for story and imagination. (No one really argues that there’s not, so it’s a bit of a straw man.) Call it “myth,” if you want to. The pursuit of something greater than ourselves is obviously a part of this “human condition”. Have myths been inaccurate, and even lies, at times throughout human history? Is there such a thing as propaganda? Yes, and yes. Are we living in “narratives,” yes and no.
One of the best modern Orthodox explanations of our situation that I have come across is from Archimandrite Meletios Weber, whose passage in Bread &Water, Oil & Wine I summarize here. As young children, we form the belief that we are our wants and fears — this is our first concept of “I”. Over time, these “logismoi” organize and become our “story,” or some shape of an outline. As we age, we put a lot of time into “building and defending” this version of “I”. It often fears the “other” as a threat.
The Christian has to experience faith and love for Christ, before successfully conquering this version of “I”. When “oneself’ is experienced through the heart, which neither wants nor fears, the threat of the other is gone. This is an existential climax, not just another story to cast oneself in.
Anthropologists say that there is a “creation story” (often with an eschatology) for every major culture in the last four thousand years. They are a dime a dozen. Faith, on the other hand, is a relationship, not just a story. It presumes two things: understanding who you and others are, in relation to God; and a personal desire to form and continue a trusting and loving relationship with Him. Though stories, and appreciation for them, can definitely till the mental soil, and maybe even the heart as well, to be sown with holy things, they’re also capable of being a distraction. I believe the latter happens when we over-analyze.
Pageau, with his “symbolic meaning” and “parasitic story” theories, borrowing heavily from non-Christian conservative pundit, Jordan Peterson, as well as from selected 20th century philosophers, tries to weave Orthodox teaching into an overarching rational scheme that appeases the desire he and his fans have for something with a more “academic” veneer. He’s not a debater, but he is definitely attracted to the motley crew of armchair intellectuals — generally, Protestant, and agnostic or atheist — that inhabit the YouTube universe.
Don’t get me wrong. Christians should not be afraid to engage in the larger society around us. In order to do this effectively, they should be educated and well-read, as much as possible. Bringing Christ to the world should be the object — always.
Unfortunately, however, the bond that links Pageau to those whom he agrees with (and features as his guests on his podcast), does not appear to be the desire to minister true Christian teaching, but, rather, a common adherence to certain political views. One doesn’t have to rely on my observations for this. Pageau’s own YouTube peers sometimes do not even realize he is a Christian.
Pageau feels quite strongly that he is perfectly able to withstand the pull of syncretism in his current “rationalist” milieu, but that is doubtful, given his priorities. The road through Western rationalism, from Augustine to Anselm, Aquinas to Descartes, is littered with the dead systems of people (the intellectual giants of their times) who tried to “prove” basic Christian tenets. Many of these very smart and ultra-educated people were led into absurdities by their endeavor to prove Faith, in order to outdo the ancient pagans. One cannot prove by reason that which transcends reason and even the bounds of experience, so they failed.
We do not need to be apologists for the Christian faith, in this failed rationalist tradition, which is just a form of self-justification. Instead, we need to be the hearers of Christ who keep his commandments (or, “do” them). Perhaps this is what you were getting at in your recent blog post about what you call “woke Puritanism”.
You use the phrase “woke Puritanism” ironically, to poke at those who equate “belief” with virtue. All legalism reinforces the “I” narrative, whether it be the initial assertion of self-interest or the reaction to it. Legalism promises easy solutions, i.e., easy virtue. Our American culture celebrates the “I” narrative — its rugged individualism has gone rampant — hence, legalism flourishes in America.
Though you’re careful to write that both “sides” of the political divide are guilty of legalism, the conversations about “identity” politics and the generally derisive tone about social justice issues on most of your podcasts, including this one with Nicholas Kotar, suggest that the supporters of these causes are the people that really get under your skin.
If the goal is ending legalism, as laudable as that is, it’s not going to happen any time soon. There would have to be an end to the way we do politics in America. Bickering and revolting is our cultural tradition.
Here’s where we can agree: narratives are very much a part of our political history. Controlling language and criminalizing behaviors are always the legalistic approach to perpetuating a political narrative. However, legalism can also take the form of delegitimizing others’ narratives. Take for example, the common belief among some that acts of racism (this is one example, but it applies to misogyny, too) were bad, but are “in the past,” which is an integral part of a narrative that has been promoted since the 70’s. This narrative, while safely ensconced in the abstract for white people, was never forced to reconcile with the actual lived experiences of many black and brown people over the last 50 years. If the abstract premise was acknowledged as untrue, it would undermine too many assumptions that were integral to certain ideologies within the dominant culture. Thus, the narrative has persisted, even flourished — at least, that is, until recently.
When narratives that justify a certain status quo are blown apart, we shouldn’t be at all surprised that legalism intensifies. In other words, when, even in the face of demonstrative evidence, the adherents to the “status quo” narrative repeatedly dismiss and mock those who seek relief from the status quo, there is no better direct mode of change than legalism. Each side becomes more strident, less tolerant, and the requests become demands, as each group seeks to gain political control — out of fear.
This is not our Christian Faith, of course. Nicholas Kotar acknowledged the need for “empathy,” indirectly, when discussing what he believes is the solution to the nonsense (that’s, I believe, his term, not mine) of identity politics. But how strange it is that someone like Kotar, who places extraordinary value on his “roots” and his own cultural heritage, cannot empathize with an entire people who lost their heritage, and were never accepted into the main narrative of our society. Have his politics blinded him to the empathic understanding, the one that finds solidarity with suffering? How else does one explain this disparity? This solidarity seems to me to be much closer to the co-suffering love we have been commissioned by Christ to have for one another, than the “Benedict Option” of self-preservation (or insert your favorite “run-for-the-hills, or hide-your- women/children” author). And, though I understand that there’s an aversion to the humanist’s “utopian” ambitions, we, as Christians, are told to pray for the Lord’s will “on earth, as it is in heaven,” which indicates that we, too, are not fatalists.
Rationalism can be an idol. Ideologies can be idols. The false dilemmas of “science” versus “faith”, or “traditionalist” versus “progressive” are also idols. Casting ourselves in plots that make us “good,” and the other side “bad” will never save us. They keep us from our true purpose, and allow to us to perpetuate our selfish “I” stories, where humility will never be attained. Chesterton’s quote is apt here — Christians can only meet the mark through humility. Without it, their ideologies [in other words, their Christian principles] are just hobbies. I will put it more bluntly — if we’re not prioritizing true humility by putting an end to the “otherizing,” then we are the problem. We are the Pharisees. Forgive me a sinner. In Christ, Madeleine Nantze
