Does the Orthodox Church Have an Influencer Problem?

TL;DR: Yes.

Let me begin by acknowledging the elephant in the room: yes, I do appreciate the irony that in my very first blog post I am addressing the “influencer” problem in the Orthodox Church. I have been meaning to start a blog for years and, for whatever reason, this topic is going to be the first one that I address. (I suppose it’s not too surprising, however, as it’s a topic that I have struggled with as an Orthodox Christian content creator (online and off-line) for over twenty years.)

So…without further ado…I should first thank Steven Christophorou (of “Be the Bee” fame) for the impetus for this post. Christophorou recently posted an article to his Substack with the title, “Is the Orthodox Church Growing?: The modern influencer economy, ‘number go up,’ and a balloon ready to pop.”

Christophorou offers three main critiques of the use of the internet as a tool for evangelism and education, “the internet” he writes:

1. appeals to our baser passions (even at its best),

2. reinforces the hyper-individuality of our Secular3 world,¹ and

3. transgresses even the most basic canonical boundaries.

Christophorou’s emphasis is on the third point: “This is a content-neutral analysis, so I’m not going to defend our work against the first and second points. But I can’t deny the third point.”

And I can’t wholly disagree with him either. It’s true that there “simply can be no blessing to preach and teach universally, without regard to canonical boundaries, as one does on the internet.” Why? Because “The Church, as I’ve noted before, is local and eucharistic. The fullness of the Church is found in the bishop surrounded by his clergy and laity. And it’s the bishop who has ultimate authority to preach to those in his diocese: no other person, not even another bishop, gets to walk into this diocese and start preaching or teaching.”

I agree with much of what Christophorou says, especially regarding the lack of a proper foundation for, as well as the libertarianism (my word, not his) of, Orthodoxy online, “Internet ‘Orthodoxy’ is a place of impatience and shortcuts, where (illusory) short-term growth comes at the expense of long-term transformation in Christ.”

The Canons in Uncharted Waters

While I sympathize with Christophorou’s concerns, his final position is eclipsed by an overly idealistic approach to the canons, and he does not offer any real solutions. To be fair, he recognizes this at the end of his article: “So what now? Honestly, I don’t know. But I hope this post posed a question that’s worth considering. I hope we stop to think deeply and seriously about what (and who) we are.” So, here is my contribution to the conversation.

While Christophorou’s concerns are valid, the problem is that there is a huge gulf between the ideal as described in the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church and the reality (and, truth be told, this gulf has largely always been present). I am not suggesting that we shouldn’t remain as faithful as possible to the canonical tradition, but that we need to recognize that the canons ultimately have a pastoral emphasis and that, as such, their implementation needs to take into consideration not only the ideal, but also the reality of the contemporary situation.

Take for example the jurisdictional mayhem that we experience daily in the Orthodox diaspora that is unfortunately a prime example of the disparity between the canonical ideal and the reality on-the-ground. While there is supposed to be only one bishop in any given location, we find multiple bishops with overlapping dioceses throughout the diaspora. Is the answer to close the churches and to stop having liturgies? Certainly not. The Church needs to continue to do the work of the Church, despite being hampered by jurisdictional confusion, and pray that in time the bishops will address this irregularity. As any student of Orthodox Church history knows, the path of the Church through time has been anything but smooth sailing. One need look no further than the path to autocephaly of the post-Pentarchy Orthodox churches to see the on-the-ground reality of the Church of Christ in the midst of Her imperfect children.

When it comes to the issue Christophorou raises, the realities are different, but they remain pastoral realities that we can’t simply sweep under the rug. What am I referring to in particular? To borrow a quote from Bertrand Russell that Christophorou uses to argue his point: “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

The reality is that if the “wiser people” cease providing a mature and balanced witness of Orthodoxy online, then the “fools and fanatics” will remain the only voice of “Orthodoxy” that people (Orthodox faithful and Orthodox enquirer alike) will find online.²

There are, of course, other problems with his argument: Orthodox “influencers” have been producing problematic media for millennia (Arius was great at this!) Yes, (as with most things) the internet has made the problem worse, but it has always been a problem. Even without the internet, I can produce (and I have produced!) a book that travels around the world, crossing jurisdictional lines. It’s worth remembering that St. John Maximovitch gave his blessing to Fr. Seraphim (Rose) to produce The Orthodox Word and to send it out to whoever requested it (he didn’t limit its distribution to his diocese) There is, of course, no lack of such examples.

The proper way to address the issue is not to retreat from the internet, but to do whatever we can to improve the situation, while recognizing that on the largely libertarian platform that is the internet, there are limited things that the hierarchy is actually able to do. The modern world has thrown the Orthodox Church many curve balls, but there is no reason that we should only take the ill effects of the modern world, and refuse to use (at least some of) the powerful tools that we have been offered. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle, and historically the Church has not responded by completely rejecting new technology (I’m thinking, in particular, of the printing press), but by judiciously using it for good.

So…What Can the Hierarchy Do?

In order to use the internet in the most beneficial manner, there are things that the hierarchy can do to improve the situation. The current position of not providing any ecclesiastical oversight to online influencers purporting to speak for the Orthodox Church is not a responsible path forward. Historically, the Church has developed canons to address pastoral needs in the Church and to provide the faithful with guidance. This issue is a pressing pastoral concern that our hierarchs should take seriously and address through the canonical tradition. There is value in beginning a conversation regarding what guidelines there should be; hopefully a future synod will address this issue and some of the principles that are suggested here can be useful in that process. In the meantime, there is nothing stopping bishops from addressing this issue individually in their diocese.

This post is already getting a bit long, so I’m going to make this part one of three posts: the rest of this post will offer a top-down approach suggesting some basic things our hierarchs might want to address in considering this question, the second post (“How Has the Influencer Problem Affected the Orthodox Church?”) will consider some of the pastoral issues caused by the influencer problem, and the final post will be a bottom-up approach with the title, “Red Flags When Looking for Orthodox Sources Online,” (please subscribe to stay tuned!)

Guidelines for Orthodox Online Content Creation: a Protocol

The main thing the hierarchy can do is to offer basic guidelines (a protocol) for Orthodox content creation (while the focus here is online, there is no reason offline content cannot also be addressed). As it is, many parishes and monasteries offer basic guidelines for how parishioners/pilgrims should dress/act while in church (this was largely unnecessary a hundred years ago as people knew how they were expected to act in an Orthodox church). The hierarchy could provide a protocol for an Orthodox Christian online content creator outlining what is, and what is not acceptable, preconditions for this work, etc. As things currently stand, local priests have no official standard that they can point to; a protocol would give them a valuable tool in their pastoral work.³

There are many things that could be included in such a protocol, here are some suggestions (and please, if you have anything to add to the following / criticisms / suggestions, please do so in the comments!)

1. The Goal of Orthodox Online Content. To begin with, the basic question needs to be posed: what is the purpose of offering Orthodox content online? I would argue that the main goal for Orthodox content online should be the building up of the local Orthodox parish, and as an aid to the local priest in his work. Online content should not be a source of division and discord. If Orthodox online content causes schism in local parishes, then it is no longer serving God, but the evil one (more on this in the next post).

2. Online Para-Ecclesial Organizations. Orthodox online content should not create online para-ecclesial organizations whose authority adherents place above the teaching and authority of their local priest. To this end, Orthodox content creators should constantly remind their listeners that while there may be areas of disagreement in the Church, ultimately Church policy and pastoral decisions are the responsibility of one’s local bishop and priest, whose authority always trumps that of the online content creator.

3. Standards of Etiquette. Just as there are standards of etiquette in the church, there should be standards of etiquette for offering an Orthodox witness outside the church. Simply discussing “Orthodox ideas” does not provide a true witness to the faith, especially if this presentation is not offered in the spirit of Christ, and done in such a way as to belittle anyone. If we are given the blessing to “speak the truth,” we are called to speak it “in love.”

4. “Defending the Church.” It should be emphasized that it is not the job of the laity to unilaterally “defend the Church” from attacks from outside the Church. St. Paul made it very clear that it is not our place to police the world outside of the Church, but to care for the inner life of the Church (“For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges” (1 Cor. 5:12-13)). With respect to “those who are inside,” it is firstly the job of the bishops and priests, not the laity, to address issues inside the Church. (And yes, there have been rare occasions in Church history where it was the laity who stood up to defend the faith against their bishop, but this is the exception that proves the rule - we are not Protestants!) It should also be noted that the Church has a specific method for addressing issues inside the Church: the ecclesiastical court. Admittedly, not all issues will necessarily be able to be addressed by an ecclesiastical court, especially given our jurisdictional fragmentation. That said, there is a canonical method for addressing most issues in the Church and until we have availed ourselves of it, we should be very loathe to simply take the law into our own hands.

5. Everything With a Blessing. We live in a promiscuous and libertarian age, where we are encouraged to do whatever we want. Unfortunately, we often bring this spirit of license with us into the church. Historically, an Orthodox person would not have had a “public ministry” without the explicit blessing of the Church. This impulse comes from Protestantism and has been rejected by the Church (see, for example, the Greek Church’s attitude towards the Protestant-inspired “brotherhoods” of the 19^th century, as well as its official condemnation of someone like Apostolos Makrakis. Faithful Orthodox Christians do not simply do whatever they want, especially when purporting to represent the Orthodox Church.

   Christophorou’s assertion that “questions about whether or not a person has a ‘blessing’ to, for example, start a podcast are silly” is unhelpful. On the contrary, it is absolutely crucial for an Orthodox person to have a blessing from their priest and bishop to represent the Orthodox Church online (or in any public setting). I would also argue that anyone doing this work should publicly state that they have this blessing, as well as who their bishop is (without this, how can there be any accountability?)

6. Minimum Age. There is a canonical minimum age for deacons, priests, and bishops; similarly, before they are given the blessing to represent the Orthodox Church online there should be a minimum amount of time a person has been an Orthodox Christian. When I became Orthodox (nearly 30 years ago) I was advised by an Orthodox nun to wait at least five years before writing anything regarding Orthodoxy. This can be debated, but my intuition is that five is the absolute minimum and that 10 would be considerably better (after all, what’s the rush? Ultimately, the Orthodox Church does not need online Orthodox content creators: better no Orthodox content creators than neophytes who haven’t taken the necessary time to go deeper in their faith). Finally, there is historical precedent for waiting 10 years before having a public Christian ministry: that of St. Paul who after encountering Christ on the road to Damascus spent three years “in Arabia,” likely living as an ascetic in the desert (though, admittedly, we don’t know how he spent his time). After his time in Arabia, St. Paul spent another 7-11 years largely out of the public eye, learning the faith and preparing for his ministry. If St. Paul needed 10+ years to prepare, how can we imagine that we would need any less?

   Someone who has the desire to discuss Orthodox Christianity online needs to honestly ask themselves the question: “as a neophyte, what can I actually offer the Orthodox Church online?” How can someone who has an elementary understanding of Orthodoxy properly represent it to the outside world? And a similarly important question: “will having a public presence as an ‘Orthodox authority’ hinder my spiritual growth by forcing me to focus outside of myself, rather than on the (much harder) internal spiritual work (not to mention the vainglory that can accompany this endeavor)?” What’s a possible pitfall of rushing to share one’s opinions on ecclesiastical matters? Unfortunately, one doesn’t have to look far to find neophyte online Orthodox influencers who have no qualms publicly attacking and slandering Orthodox priests and bishops.

7. Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy. It should be obvious, but anyone purporting to represent the Orthodox Church in any setting should know what the Church actually teaches. That said (and related to point three above), intellectual knowledge of Orthodox doctrine is not enough: Orthodox Christianity is a way of life and as such the way one presents Orthodox doctrine is incredibly important. As St. Maximos the Confessor famously said, “theology without praxis is the theology of demons.”

I’m sure that there are other things that could be beneficially added to this list (so again please, comment below with suggestions!)

I would like to reiterate that I would happily walk away from my online (and offline) work if my priest and bishop asked me to do so. We are not Protestants, we are not our own authority. If we say that we are serving the Church, but are unwilling to begin by working on ourselves, and if we “serve the Church” without oversight or the willingness to obey those whom Christ has appointed as ecclesiastical leaders over us, then we are not serving the Church, but (at best) our own vainglory. Just because the internet exists does not give us a license to act however we want.

I hope that something here is useful and can contribute to an ongoing conversation regarding this important topic. Again, please comment below to share your thoughts, concerns, and especially suggestions as to how to best address the issues I’ve discussed. And, finally, please subscribe and stay tuned for Part Two, “How Has the Influencer Problem Affected the Orthodox Church?”!

1. What is “Secular3”? Here’s the quote from Christophorou’s earlier article: “A society is secular3 insofar as religious belief or belief in God is understood to be one option among others, and thus contestable (and contested).” (How (Not) to be Secular, p. 21-22.

2. N.B.: It may very well be that I am one of these “fools and fanatics,” and if I am told by my priest and bishop to stop creating Orthodox content online (or offline), I will gladly do so! As it currently stands, however, I do have the blessing of both my priest and my bishop for this work.

3. Happily, some Orthodox jurisdictions (such as the OCA) have provided some guidance for interacting online (for its clergy and lay leaders, but not regarding online content creation). If you are aware of similar guidance provided by other jurisdictions, please share links in the comments below!