I am a Romanian orthodox christian that has been a subscriber of your masculinist newsletter since its first episodes. I also write for www.theodosie.ro an orthodox blog focused on national civic subjects.
The point I want to make is that the ortodox christianity in the west is (still) very far away from what those living în orthodox countries tend to recognize as such. I am sure that the Greek word "phronema" is known by those close or interested in EO. It losely translates to "mindset of the Church" and is one of the missing links for the proper understanding of EO. This cannot be obtainded through study or through intelectual effort alone, but through consistent religious practice while suffering for the faith. Until now there has been very little suffering for the orthodox faith in the west, therefore I believe the alure of EO is mostly of cultural nature. I mostly see cultural contagion at work and only few conversions.
The second point I want to make is that orthodoxy in the west will only erupt through its own saints, (people living and practicing in the west) not through religious appropriation. From an orthodox point of view it is a lot more relevant the fact that USA was the (foster) home of Saint Seraphim Rose or John Maximovici and ROCOR, than the fact that orthodox esthetics have gained visibility. One true (local) saint man is a lot more relevant sociologically than any brute increase in the number of those interested in EO.
Last, for the orthodox believer the enchantment many speak of is verry worrying because it points towards great spiritual dangers, described by Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov. It might be better to remain in a deserted spot, spiritually speaking, while prepearing for suffering, than pursuing spiritual endeavors the sort of we witness today.
My 2 cents. Thank you for your great job! Greetings from Romania!
I'm a PCA Presbyterian and have been studying Eastern Orthodoxy for 20 years. It is pretty obvious that it is the continual expression of the historic church from antiquity. Yet, I have no intent to convert. Such a conversion would require laying down convictions and picking up others almost arbitrarily, but also attempting to pick up a whole new ecclesiastical culture that in the end may be life giving, but could also be so disruptive to my family as to do far more harm than good. While I am convinced of the continuity of the East, I don't believe in the slightest that conforming myself to that continuity is necessary to be in communion with the body of Christ. I have yet to experience the Divine Liturgy, but hope to, and desire to see elements of Incarnational worship reintroduced to my own tradition.
My primary interest in Orthodoxy is in the anti-materialist sacred structure and space- the Logos working on us through the physical world. The embracing of mystery. Protestantism, particularly American, is in many respects is so "stripped down" as to be almost entirely disembodied. Having thrown off the symbolic language and structure of the ancient church, calling it superstition (and much of Roman Catholicism at the end of the medieval period, was indeed), we've ended up with a spiritualization of rationalism that drifts through temporary habitations, unable to manifest transcendent meaning from one generation to the next. When we devalue the Eucharist as a mere gesture of good will, rather than as ontological participation in the cross dimensional localization of Christ's energy, working into us, it is no wonder everything else becomes superficial. I understand Orthodox Christianity as embracing a rational mysticism, while Protestantism (heir of the Enlightenment) is largely a mystical rationalism, which is why the tendency of its institutions to devolve to liberalism.
Paul Kingsnorth, Martin Shaw, and others, are interesting, because they are among many post-secular intellectuals returning to faith, and in doing so, seek out the oldest, most peculiar and ritualized, because of the realization that a true encounter of the divine is going to be otherworldly and strange. As the West collapses, I think that is the future of Christianity. My hope is that, at least to some degree, the Reformed churches are able to revert the mystical and the rational, and pursue sacred spaces instead of safe ones.
"I understand Orthodox Christianity as embracing a rational mysticism, while Protestantism (heir of the Enlightenment) is largely a mystical rationalism, which is why the tendency of its institutions to devolve to liberalism."
This is really insightful; thanks very much for this, for the rest of your excellent comment.
I can see the attraction to an old established, even mystical, religion, but can't possibly understand those who would join a church that is so unbiblical. Heck, they pray to dead people. I know one person personally who became orthodox, but it was really based on the feeling it generated to attend their church, and not really their theology.
I am not Orthodox, but having studied their theology I find it far more robust than most Western Protestantism and more Biblical, because their heritage is not cut off. They make a practiced study of the Patristics, whose involvement in the context of the Scriptures gives deeper, truer insights. I've read Ireneus, Cyril, Maximus, Athanasius, John Chrysostom (who wrote the liturgy the EO still use) and their exposition of Scripture far exceeds anything post-enlightenment Protestantism has to offer.
And for someone complaining of it being "unbiblical" how can you come to the conclusion that the departed saints are dead? They are very much alive with Christ in his divine council; the 24 elders- the 12 patriarchs and 12 apostles- are certainly with Christ according to John's Revelation. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8)- are the dead present with Christ? No, they are resurrected eternal and outside of time and space with him- they incorruptible life that far exceeds our own. The veneration of saints is not prayer- it is a request for prayer, as any Christian would ask of any other living saint. It's not in my tradition to practice that, but at the very least, I don't misrepresent their own understanding.
I meant dead in our context. Of course they are still alive, but we are not to pray to them, we are commanded to pray to God the Father in the name of the Son. The Bible is explicit about this. There are a lot of other theological points that could be made (like salvation by works) but I just bring up one of the more odius ones.
Our context is the one in which Christ has ascended and administers his kingdom "on earth as it is in heaven." You presuppose a substantially bifurcated and flattened cosmos, and this presupposition is creating a bad faith assessment of their doctrines. That's easy to do to anybody, but lacks charity.
I see the recent success of the Jonathan Cahn novels amongst evangelicals as one indication of re-enchantment gaining traction. Even in some reformed circles I am familiar with, the idea of Providence at work in global affairs and discussion of spiritual warfare being seen more visibly, are no longer taboo topics reserved for Pentecostals. It will be interesting to see how re-enchantment fits into a Negative world in the coming years. Will “secularists” shift from boomer “new atheist” empiricism to hostile neo-pagan spiritualism (as already seems the case).
I live in New England and I don't know a single person who has converted to EO. I have been connected to the Greek community so I do know several who have left Greek Orthodox for atheism/agnosticism or stayed as ethic community centers. The more interesting trend I see in New England is the move away from the Roman Catholic church. I know dozens of ex Roman Catholics, almost all of which now attend the evangelical mega church in Maine (there is only one here, Eastpoint).
I think this is actually also connected to the idea of intellectual elite within the church as well. In EO and Catholicism your faith is externalized and you participate by attending, not by "really meaning it". This allows for you to focus on other things, such as intellectual advancement. You can assume your faith, receive spirituality from your church and priest, and spend your intellectual energy on science or whatever . However, this also quickly causes reduction in true belief. When a catholic starts to get serious about following Jesus they convert to Evangelicalism.
Evangelicals on the other hand can never assume they faith, they must constantly be spending their intellectual and emotional energy ensuring their faithfulness. This takes away from their ability to pursue intellectual standing. When an evangelical gets exhausted of trying to intellectually excel and keep up their own internal faith (especially when others around them aren't) they convert to a high church or deconstruct.
You paint with quite a broad brush there. Perhaps it is a New England thing. Or maybe the Mid-Atlantic is an outlier. But in my experience, those who convert from Protestantism to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, or from Catholicism to Protestantism or Orthodoxy, *all* have done so because something small-e evangelical has woken up in their soul. They do so because they have found something in their new church that was lacking in their previous one - a pearl of great price. Your dichotomy of high church = lazy in the faith, Evangelical = serious about following Jesus is, frankly, tone deaf. My own subjective observance is that mega church style worship (if it can even be called that) is intentionally designed to give its attendees the warm fuzzies and amounts to the shallowest form of worshiping the Most High. But the objective reality is that the Holy Spirit moves in different people differently. What best draws one to Christ will not necessarily be the same for another. My own faith and relationship with Christ has only grown deeper since my move to Eastern Christianity, and this move for me was specifically causative in that deepened relationship. Personally, I don't get the appeal of Evangelical Protestantism, either in its worship or theology. But for some people, that best draws them to Christ. I have to respect that, even if I don't understand it.
I was intentionally painting with a broad brush, we are talking about trends here. I also think you may have misunderstood my point because your personal story perfectly aligns with what I am saying. I don't mean that all Evangelical's are anti intellectual or that all Catholics/EO are lazy.
However, the trend in my area is that many many Catholics ( I personally know probably about 40) got tired of the dead ritual of the catholic church or disgusted with the sandal, got serious about following Jesus, and converted to evangelicalism. They very often tell me that they had no idea about who Jesus was or what God was like while catholic, they just attended and outsourced their religion to the priest/church because its what they were supposed to do.
It seems to be the opposite trend is that many evangelicals get tired of the dead emotionalism, lack of depth, and intellectual shallowness which can be common in mega churches and convert to a high church. That is part of the reason I don't attend a megachurch and instead go to a small Presbyterian church. This also seems to be the story of many people you know.
My connection to intellectual elite is that the church structures in high church which make it easy to outsource also provide you with a stability, structure, and security which allows for more intellectual pursuit. Evangelicals sermons on the other hand constantly ask their hearers if they 'really mean it', if they really are saved, or if they really take their faith seriously. This constant questioning make it hard to not personally own your faith, but constant self questioning combined with little instructional structure/support means that all your intellectual energy goes into securing your own faith, ensuring you 'really mean it'. Very little is left over for intellectual pursuit.
Of course there are high church people who love Jesus, of course there are low church people who are intellectually rigorous. These are just trends.
I appreciate the clarification. If we're just talking about trends, do you see the trend being stronger in particular denominations? I've been to a number of Protestant churches, evangelical and mainline, where the congregations seemed to be there more for the country club feel than out of a desire for repentance and transformation. Again, maybe it's just my experience, but I don't see a significant difference between denominations on that.
As someone without much connection to evangelism, I'm curious to hear more about how and why the "register" of Dreher's Benedict option book was off-putting to evangelicals.
Now 75, I entered Orthodoxy 26 years ago, from childhood and adolescent generic Evangelicalism, then late-20s Calivinism. Politics had nothing to do with it. What had a lot to do with it was the desire to be in demonstrable continuity with first-century Christianity. I've been immersed in the Church ever since entering, serving as Cantor for my parish.
I'm fairly confident that something like the Orthobro phenomenon is bringing young men to our door for "political" reasons, but I don't think many are making it through catechesis to Baptism (or Chrismation) without shedding most of that. We learned a chastening lesson with Matthew Heimbach (see Wikipedia: In 2016, Heimbach was formally received into the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. Following online circulation of photos exposing him as a provocateur racist, he was excommunicated from the Church mere weeks later.)
Overall, are we growing? I have mostly anecdotes based on my own parish, which definitely is growing. I acknowledge, though, that other parishes under my Bishop are dying. It may be because we're in a University town and converts trend young.
I've read all the earlier comments, including from those stone-cold confident that Orthodoxy is wrong because it doesn't fit some "rational" scheme or other. I won't engage them; I was too wrong about too many things for too long to be too full of myself, and this is a poor forum for such arguments.
But I'll challenge the skeptics to give their local anglophone Orthodox parish a month of Sundays to see what's really going on.
I am cradle Orthodox and work for a large Orthodox parish. We have consistently brought in catechumens for 30 years but our numbers have jumped since 2020 with an average of 15-25 catechumens at a time. Our once very ethnic parish has become solidly split about 50/50 between cradles and converts. Anecdotally, most parishes I hear about are having record numbers of catechumens post-covid. It seems that many come in with a “dissident” attitude learned from the internet, but relax and settle into a more sustainable mindset the more they get involved in real parish life. I firmly believe in the truth of the Orthodox faith and that we will only grow as more and more people seek the Truth.
New to your blog, so a bit behind, I'm afraid. what do you mean when you say"...Just as in the evangelical world, the hot thing shifted from “Presbyterian” to “Anglican, ...,”? Thanks.
Our PCA church had one delightful elderly couple who described themselves as "refugees from the Episcopal Church". I don't understand why anyone would flow in the opposite direction, toward the American Episcopal Church, unless they were pretty liberal.
A decade ago, many highly educated, urban evangelicals would describe themselves as "Presbyterian" - after Tim Keller and his influence, most likely. Today many more of those people identify as "Anglican" (mostly Anglican Church in North America).
Ever since I became an Evangelical there have been claims of rising interest in Orthodoxy by young people. This has never really materialized. The "smells and bells" crowd does have more influence than their numbers would suggest. I think the anti-institutional bent of most low church Evangelicals is the biggest reason for this.
Orthodoxy may gain converts, but to say it will gain traction is to forget that the overall trend among all denominations is decline.
While there is something to reenchantment, I think more people are looking for tradition, ritual, and reverence.
Some people are looking for or experiencing reenchantment, but biologic explanations and materialism still dominate most peoples thinking
I think we are at the beginning or civilizational decline that will be long and slow. Trends we see that cut across the grain are probably small exceptions that we are hopeful about rather than true trends that will reshape society. I am 34 with four children between 0 and 6. Despite weekly church and Sunday achool, nightly bible readings, and trying to follow a liturgical calendar I think it is far more likely I will have to introduce the gospel to my grandkids than them telling me about the real presence of the devil and the holy spirit.
Thinking again about this. Regarding re-enchantment and Eastern Orthodoxy, Paul Kingsnorth and Martin Shaw are doing what Jordan Peterson did with reanimating the Biblical stories with ascetic spiritual practices like fasting, solitude and opening yourself up to God in nature without distractions. To your point they are already having an outsized influence along with Jonathan Pageau. I expect protestant Evangelicalism to adapt rather than fold into EO.
I have doubts about EO becoming a major force of change in America because the average American Christian has never even heard of Eastern Orthodoxy. I live in the Bible Belt and have spoken to many who've been Christian their entire lives and they have no idea what I'm talking about when I mention EO. They know Catholicism, but not EO. I only became aware of Orthodoxy about four or five years ago after doing a lot of online reading.
I had an online discussion once with an EO priest who lives in Wales. He was defending his church as the only/original church, etc., and was shocked when I told him most Americans aren't even aware that his church is "a thing." In this way EOs have done a terrible job at making themselves known and drawing people in.
Bnonn's comment that EO "involves a wholesale rejection of one's existing worldview and religious culture" is spot-on from what I've been able to discover. You basically have to come in and say you were never a Christian before. This will be a really hard sell for many who have had legit experiences along the way.
I understood Bnonn's comment to mean one has to cease being Western culturally and become Eastern. I see a lot of online traditionalist Catholics whose main cultural problem with Orthodoxy is a fear of it not fitting in here. When I was considering becoming Orthodox, my Episcopalian grandmother didn't want me to do it because we're Western. She had no problem with me becoming Roman Catholic - because it's Western. There seems to be this idea that one's culture must match their religion, or vice versa. Why does it have to?
Perhaps it was easier for me to make the jump because I wasn't really raised with anything. But I've never felt like I had to abandon my cultural Westerness in order to become an Eastern Christian. Nor have I felt like anyone was asking me to.
I also don't think it's accurate to say one must reject their culture and worldview wholesale. Christianity is adaptable to all cultures. The ethnic nature of Orthodoxy in the West is due to it's relatively recent immigration here. Give it another generation or two. It probably still won't be a huge force in American culture. But it will be fully Americanized, or Anglicized, or whichever Western culture it has made home. Also keep in mind, Orthodoxy's Easternness is relative - it is still a Western religion. It was formed in the same Greco-Roman milieu that Roman Catholicism was.
I don't know of any Orthodox that would say Protestants were never really Christian before becoming Orthodox. They would say you aren't fully Christian until you're Orthodox, sure. But they recognize other Christian groups as having varying degrees of the Truth.
I am a Romanian orthodox christian that has been a subscriber of your masculinist newsletter since its first episodes. I also write for www.theodosie.ro an orthodox blog focused on national civic subjects.
The point I want to make is that the ortodox christianity in the west is (still) very far away from what those living în orthodox countries tend to recognize as such. I am sure that the Greek word "phronema" is known by those close or interested in EO. It losely translates to "mindset of the Church" and is one of the missing links for the proper understanding of EO. This cannot be obtainded through study or through intelectual effort alone, but through consistent religious practice while suffering for the faith. Until now there has been very little suffering for the orthodox faith in the west, therefore I believe the alure of EO is mostly of cultural nature. I mostly see cultural contagion at work and only few conversions.
The second point I want to make is that orthodoxy in the west will only erupt through its own saints, (people living and practicing in the west) not through religious appropriation. From an orthodox point of view it is a lot more relevant the fact that USA was the (foster) home of Saint Seraphim Rose or John Maximovici and ROCOR, than the fact that orthodox esthetics have gained visibility. One true (local) saint man is a lot more relevant sociologically than any brute increase in the number of those interested in EO.
Last, for the orthodox believer the enchantment many speak of is verry worrying because it points towards great spiritual dangers, described by Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov. It might be better to remain in a deserted spot, spiritually speaking, while prepearing for suffering, than pursuing spiritual endeavors the sort of we witness today.
My 2 cents. Thank you for your great job! Greetings from Romania!
Thanks very much - this is really interesting.
I'm a PCA Presbyterian and have been studying Eastern Orthodoxy for 20 years. It is pretty obvious that it is the continual expression of the historic church from antiquity. Yet, I have no intent to convert. Such a conversion would require laying down convictions and picking up others almost arbitrarily, but also attempting to pick up a whole new ecclesiastical culture that in the end may be life giving, but could also be so disruptive to my family as to do far more harm than good. While I am convinced of the continuity of the East, I don't believe in the slightest that conforming myself to that continuity is necessary to be in communion with the body of Christ. I have yet to experience the Divine Liturgy, but hope to, and desire to see elements of Incarnational worship reintroduced to my own tradition.
My primary interest in Orthodoxy is in the anti-materialist sacred structure and space- the Logos working on us through the physical world. The embracing of mystery. Protestantism, particularly American, is in many respects is so "stripped down" as to be almost entirely disembodied. Having thrown off the symbolic language and structure of the ancient church, calling it superstition (and much of Roman Catholicism at the end of the medieval period, was indeed), we've ended up with a spiritualization of rationalism that drifts through temporary habitations, unable to manifest transcendent meaning from one generation to the next. When we devalue the Eucharist as a mere gesture of good will, rather than as ontological participation in the cross dimensional localization of Christ's energy, working into us, it is no wonder everything else becomes superficial. I understand Orthodox Christianity as embracing a rational mysticism, while Protestantism (heir of the Enlightenment) is largely a mystical rationalism, which is why the tendency of its institutions to devolve to liberalism.
Paul Kingsnorth, Martin Shaw, and others, are interesting, because they are among many post-secular intellectuals returning to faith, and in doing so, seek out the oldest, most peculiar and ritualized, because of the realization that a true encounter of the divine is going to be otherworldly and strange. As the West collapses, I think that is the future of Christianity. My hope is that, at least to some degree, the Reformed churches are able to revert the mystical and the rational, and pursue sacred spaces instead of safe ones.
"I understand Orthodox Christianity as embracing a rational mysticism, while Protestantism (heir of the Enlightenment) is largely a mystical rationalism, which is why the tendency of its institutions to devolve to liberalism."
This is really insightful; thanks very much for this, for the rest of your excellent comment.
Thank you. I'm glad it made sense.
I can see the attraction to an old established, even mystical, religion, but can't possibly understand those who would join a church that is so unbiblical. Heck, they pray to dead people. I know one person personally who became orthodox, but it was really based on the feeling it generated to attend their church, and not really their theology.
I am not Orthodox, but having studied their theology I find it far more robust than most Western Protestantism and more Biblical, because their heritage is not cut off. They make a practiced study of the Patristics, whose involvement in the context of the Scriptures gives deeper, truer insights. I've read Ireneus, Cyril, Maximus, Athanasius, John Chrysostom (who wrote the liturgy the EO still use) and their exposition of Scripture far exceeds anything post-enlightenment Protestantism has to offer.
And for someone complaining of it being "unbiblical" how can you come to the conclusion that the departed saints are dead? They are very much alive with Christ in his divine council; the 24 elders- the 12 patriarchs and 12 apostles- are certainly with Christ according to John's Revelation. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8)- are the dead present with Christ? No, they are resurrected eternal and outside of time and space with him- they incorruptible life that far exceeds our own. The veneration of saints is not prayer- it is a request for prayer, as any Christian would ask of any other living saint. It's not in my tradition to practice that, but at the very least, I don't misrepresent their own understanding.
I meant dead in our context. Of course they are still alive, but we are not to pray to them, we are commanded to pray to God the Father in the name of the Son. The Bible is explicit about this. There are a lot of other theological points that could be made (like salvation by works) but I just bring up one of the more odius ones.
Our context is the one in which Christ has ascended and administers his kingdom "on earth as it is in heaven." You presuppose a substantially bifurcated and flattened cosmos, and this presupposition is creating a bad faith assessment of their doctrines. That's easy to do to anybody, but lacks charity.
Off-topic: LItHub visits Kurt Vonnegut's Indianapolis
https://lithub.com/visiting-vonneguts-indianapolis/
I see the recent success of the Jonathan Cahn novels amongst evangelicals as one indication of re-enchantment gaining traction. Even in some reformed circles I am familiar with, the idea of Providence at work in global affairs and discussion of spiritual warfare being seen more visibly, are no longer taboo topics reserved for Pentecostals. It will be interesting to see how re-enchantment fits into a Negative world in the coming years. Will “secularists” shift from boomer “new atheist” empiricism to hostile neo-pagan spiritualism (as already seems the case).
I live in New England and I don't know a single person who has converted to EO. I have been connected to the Greek community so I do know several who have left Greek Orthodox for atheism/agnosticism or stayed as ethic community centers. The more interesting trend I see in New England is the move away from the Roman Catholic church. I know dozens of ex Roman Catholics, almost all of which now attend the evangelical mega church in Maine (there is only one here, Eastpoint).
I think this is actually also connected to the idea of intellectual elite within the church as well. In EO and Catholicism your faith is externalized and you participate by attending, not by "really meaning it". This allows for you to focus on other things, such as intellectual advancement. You can assume your faith, receive spirituality from your church and priest, and spend your intellectual energy on science or whatever . However, this also quickly causes reduction in true belief. When a catholic starts to get serious about following Jesus they convert to Evangelicalism.
Evangelicals on the other hand can never assume they faith, they must constantly be spending their intellectual and emotional energy ensuring their faithfulness. This takes away from their ability to pursue intellectual standing. When an evangelical gets exhausted of trying to intellectually excel and keep up their own internal faith (especially when others around them aren't) they convert to a high church or deconstruct.
You paint with quite a broad brush there. Perhaps it is a New England thing. Or maybe the Mid-Atlantic is an outlier. But in my experience, those who convert from Protestantism to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, or from Catholicism to Protestantism or Orthodoxy, *all* have done so because something small-e evangelical has woken up in their soul. They do so because they have found something in their new church that was lacking in their previous one - a pearl of great price. Your dichotomy of high church = lazy in the faith, Evangelical = serious about following Jesus is, frankly, tone deaf. My own subjective observance is that mega church style worship (if it can even be called that) is intentionally designed to give its attendees the warm fuzzies and amounts to the shallowest form of worshiping the Most High. But the objective reality is that the Holy Spirit moves in different people differently. What best draws one to Christ will not necessarily be the same for another. My own faith and relationship with Christ has only grown deeper since my move to Eastern Christianity, and this move for me was specifically causative in that deepened relationship. Personally, I don't get the appeal of Evangelical Protestantism, either in its worship or theology. But for some people, that best draws them to Christ. I have to respect that, even if I don't understand it.
I was intentionally painting with a broad brush, we are talking about trends here. I also think you may have misunderstood my point because your personal story perfectly aligns with what I am saying. I don't mean that all Evangelical's are anti intellectual or that all Catholics/EO are lazy.
However, the trend in my area is that many many Catholics ( I personally know probably about 40) got tired of the dead ritual of the catholic church or disgusted with the sandal, got serious about following Jesus, and converted to evangelicalism. They very often tell me that they had no idea about who Jesus was or what God was like while catholic, they just attended and outsourced their religion to the priest/church because its what they were supposed to do.
It seems to be the opposite trend is that many evangelicals get tired of the dead emotionalism, lack of depth, and intellectual shallowness which can be common in mega churches and convert to a high church. That is part of the reason I don't attend a megachurch and instead go to a small Presbyterian church. This also seems to be the story of many people you know.
My connection to intellectual elite is that the church structures in high church which make it easy to outsource also provide you with a stability, structure, and security which allows for more intellectual pursuit. Evangelicals sermons on the other hand constantly ask their hearers if they 'really mean it', if they really are saved, or if they really take their faith seriously. This constant questioning make it hard to not personally own your faith, but constant self questioning combined with little instructional structure/support means that all your intellectual energy goes into securing your own faith, ensuring you 'really mean it'. Very little is left over for intellectual pursuit.
Of course there are high church people who love Jesus, of course there are low church people who are intellectually rigorous. These are just trends.
I appreciate the clarification. If we're just talking about trends, do you see the trend being stronger in particular denominations? I've been to a number of Protestant churches, evangelical and mainline, where the congregations seemed to be there more for the country club feel than out of a desire for repentance and transformation. Again, maybe it's just my experience, but I don't see a significant difference between denominations on that.
As someone without much connection to evangelism, I'm curious to hear more about how and why the "register" of Dreher's Benedict option book was off-putting to evangelicals.
The use of monastic imagery - and an actual monastery - is what I was thinking of.
Now 75, I entered Orthodoxy 26 years ago, from childhood and adolescent generic Evangelicalism, then late-20s Calivinism. Politics had nothing to do with it. What had a lot to do with it was the desire to be in demonstrable continuity with first-century Christianity. I've been immersed in the Church ever since entering, serving as Cantor for my parish.
I'm fairly confident that something like the Orthobro phenomenon is bringing young men to our door for "political" reasons, but I don't think many are making it through catechesis to Baptism (or Chrismation) without shedding most of that. We learned a chastening lesson with Matthew Heimbach (see Wikipedia: In 2016, Heimbach was formally received into the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. Following online circulation of photos exposing him as a provocateur racist, he was excommunicated from the Church mere weeks later.)
Overall, are we growing? I have mostly anecdotes based on my own parish, which definitely is growing. I acknowledge, though, that other parishes under my Bishop are dying. It may be because we're in a University town and converts trend young.
I've read all the earlier comments, including from those stone-cold confident that Orthodoxy is wrong because it doesn't fit some "rational" scheme or other. I won't engage them; I was too wrong about too many things for too long to be too full of myself, and this is a poor forum for such arguments.
But I'll challenge the skeptics to give their local anglophone Orthodox parish a month of Sundays to see what's really going on.
I am cradle Orthodox and work for a large Orthodox parish. We have consistently brought in catechumens for 30 years but our numbers have jumped since 2020 with an average of 15-25 catechumens at a time. Our once very ethnic parish has become solidly split about 50/50 between cradles and converts. Anecdotally, most parishes I hear about are having record numbers of catechumens post-covid. It seems that many come in with a “dissident” attitude learned from the internet, but relax and settle into a more sustainable mindset the more they get involved in real parish life. I firmly believe in the truth of the Orthodox faith and that we will only grow as more and more people seek the Truth.
Nothing wrong with being dissident to "trash world." It's good the Church is there for them then to direct those energies into the right place. :)
New to your blog, so a bit behind, I'm afraid. what do you mean when you say"...Just as in the evangelical world, the hot thing shifted from “Presbyterian” to “Anglican, ...,”? Thanks.
Our PCA church had one delightful elderly couple who described themselves as "refugees from the Episcopal Church". I don't understand why anyone would flow in the opposite direction, toward the American Episcopal Church, unless they were pretty liberal.
A decade ago, many highly educated, urban evangelicals would describe themselves as "Presbyterian" - after Tim Keller and his influence, most likely. Today many more of those people identify as "Anglican" (mostly Anglican Church in North America).
In fact, I know of a PCA congregation that got woke during the George Floyd riot season and lost members directly to a nearby Anglican congregation.
Same.
Ever since I became an Evangelical there have been claims of rising interest in Orthodoxy by young people. This has never really materialized. The "smells and bells" crowd does have more influence than their numbers would suggest. I think the anti-institutional bent of most low church Evangelicals is the biggest reason for this.
Orthodoxy may gain converts, but to say it will gain traction is to forget that the overall trend among all denominations is decline.
While there is something to reenchantment, I think more people are looking for tradition, ritual, and reverence.
Some people are looking for or experiencing reenchantment, but biologic explanations and materialism still dominate most peoples thinking
I think we are at the beginning or civilizational decline that will be long and slow. Trends we see that cut across the grain are probably small exceptions that we are hopeful about rather than true trends that will reshape society. I am 34 with four children between 0 and 6. Despite weekly church and Sunday achool, nightly bible readings, and trying to follow a liturgical calendar I think it is far more likely I will have to introduce the gospel to my grandkids than them telling me about the real presence of the devil and the holy spirit.
Thinking again about this. Regarding re-enchantment and Eastern Orthodoxy, Paul Kingsnorth and Martin Shaw are doing what Jordan Peterson did with reanimating the Biblical stories with ascetic spiritual practices like fasting, solitude and opening yourself up to God in nature without distractions. To your point they are already having an outsized influence along with Jonathan Pageau. I expect protestant Evangelicalism to adapt rather than fold into EO.
https://joshrobinson.substack.com/p/towards-a-protestant-rivendell
I have doubts about EO becoming a major force of change in America because the average American Christian has never even heard of Eastern Orthodoxy. I live in the Bible Belt and have spoken to many who've been Christian their entire lives and they have no idea what I'm talking about when I mention EO. They know Catholicism, but not EO. I only became aware of Orthodoxy about four or five years ago after doing a lot of online reading.
I had an online discussion once with an EO priest who lives in Wales. He was defending his church as the only/original church, etc., and was shocked when I told him most Americans aren't even aware that his church is "a thing." In this way EOs have done a terrible job at making themselves known and drawing people in.
Bnonn's comment that EO "involves a wholesale rejection of one's existing worldview and religious culture" is spot-on from what I've been able to discover. You basically have to come in and say you were never a Christian before. This will be a really hard sell for many who have had legit experiences along the way.
I understood Bnonn's comment to mean one has to cease being Western culturally and become Eastern. I see a lot of online traditionalist Catholics whose main cultural problem with Orthodoxy is a fear of it not fitting in here. When I was considering becoming Orthodox, my Episcopalian grandmother didn't want me to do it because we're Western. She had no problem with me becoming Roman Catholic - because it's Western. There seems to be this idea that one's culture must match their religion, or vice versa. Why does it have to?
Perhaps it was easier for me to make the jump because I wasn't really raised with anything. But I've never felt like I had to abandon my cultural Westerness in order to become an Eastern Christian. Nor have I felt like anyone was asking me to.
I also don't think it's accurate to say one must reject their culture and worldview wholesale. Christianity is adaptable to all cultures. The ethnic nature of Orthodoxy in the West is due to it's relatively recent immigration here. Give it another generation or two. It probably still won't be a huge force in American culture. But it will be fully Americanized, or Anglicized, or whichever Western culture it has made home. Also keep in mind, Orthodoxy's Easternness is relative - it is still a Western religion. It was formed in the same Greco-Roman milieu that Roman Catholicism was.
I don't know of any Orthodox that would say Protestants were never really Christian before becoming Orthodox. They would say you aren't fully Christian until you're Orthodox, sure. But they recognize other Christian groups as having varying degrees of the Truth.
Re re-enchantment, Justin Brierley has a great new podcast all about this topic
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/re-enchanting/id1682867001