Herman, thank you for the thoughtful post. I thought Steven Christophorou's article was incorrect in its assumptions. The internet can be abused, no doubt, but does not essentially differ from other means of publishing across the centuries - except that it's cheaper, etc. It violates no more canonical boundaries than a published book. If you read authors who are not writing from within the chain of authority of the Church, then you can't complain about the quality. The same is true of the internet. Your point viz. Arius is excellent. But, since the internet exists, we really have no choice, I think, but to create reliable, well-crafted material (as did St. Athanasius in his time). Thanks for beginning this work.
Many converts to Orthodoxy have grown accustomed to a certain level of electronic input throughout the day. Quietude and prayer are very difficult to achieve (and are given as a gift --). I think it would be helpful if we were given guidance regarding what media we might consume and how we might meet virtually, in an Orthodox way, without discussing theoretical theology. Art viewing, singing, and other types culture, similar to Saint Seraphim Rose's suggestion to read Oliver Twist, would be helpful to round out the day. Internet addiction is a weakness of mine, at least. Respectfully, Michelle Bosma; Jordanville
Thanks for your comment, Michelle! This is, indeed, an important issue (as you may know, Jean-Claude Larchet advocates that the Church include social media/internet use in the fasting guidelines...and this seems like a good idea). And then, of course, finding good things to fill the void...I think you're right, Fr. Seraphim's suggestions are more timely than ever as our culture becomes increasingly detached from its cultural and biological roots.
Thank you for the recommendation! Perhaps the book addresses this, but if the book were in audio form and suitable for children, I would listen to it. My media consumption happens around the house while I'm attending to chores, within earshot of a small child. I think others tend to listen to vlogs/podcasts for similar reasons; they enable us to engage while we're otherwise occupied, we are made for oral instruction and listening. Otherwise, I enjoy interacting with others, which is what social media is for and why I am responding to you. Feel encouraged to share your favorite protocol recommendations from the book, and thank you again for the suggestion! - Michelle
A well balanced response Dr. Middleton. I read Steve’s post and appreciated the questions being raised, even if I couldn’t quite articulate a well reasoned counterpoint. I think this is a discussion very much needed. It’s hard to accept the idea that a hard stop is what’s called for. Virtually every one of the multitude of catechumens we’ve received at our local parish in the last several years, discovered the Orthodox Church via the internet. It has been an extremely powerful tool for evangelization. I was helped in my online ventures (and this over a decade ago) in ultimately entering the Church. There is definitely no small amount of toxicity out there, and a gaggle of unqualified people attempting to represent our Faith (some who aren’t even catechumens, let alone full Orthodox Christians!). The reputation of Orthodox Christians online amongst other traditions is generally abysmal. It would be wonderful to hear some guidance from our hierarchy on this topic. If not a joint statement, then at least in the archdioceses across the various jurisdictions. The genie is indeed out of the bottle, but misuse is no excuse for disuse.
I'd like to add a few assorted thoughts provoked by this piece and the other by Stephen. They are not aimed at anyone, just things I find worth noting:
- every new technology operates on and changes the brain in different ways. The internet changes consciousness (and attention spans) in ways quite different to books. I wish folk like Marshall McLuhan and Walter Ong were better known, and the 'It's just a tool' cliche would end very quickly.
- therefore, there is a vast difference between books and blog posts or Youtube videos at the level of psychological effects. A book also operates on consciousness in a different way to a video or podcast; a book is engaged with in a different way. They are like apples and oranges. This is before one considers matters of quantity, quality and the amount of thought and time that go into producing content in each respective medium.
- On a different note, some new Orthodox commentators (who I actually like and find helpful to some degree) have converted and continued to publish their blogs without skipping a beat. I find this astonishing.
Thanks, Matthew! I'm a great fan of McLuhan (and Postman!)...Walter Ong is a new name to me however (so...again, thanks!) Your point is certainly valid and worth serious consideration (and as you suggest, most folk don't really consider such things). As regards your last point...yes, indeed...alas(!)
Thanks, Herman. I'd forgotten about Postman. He's definitely another sober and articulate voice who understands that what is called progress is not necessarily of itself good or desirable.
Walter Ong was actually a Jesuit. He wrote, among other things, 'On Orality and Literacy', which goes on into how the technologies of writing and different print cultures have shaped thinking. Abstract thought, for example, seems to be a luxury granted by literacy. In non-literate cultures, on the other hand, thinking is situational, and seated in narratives. Ong draws on earlier authorities such as Havelock, for example, his work on the effects of early Greek literacy, also an influence on MacLuhan.
A contemporary successor to MacLuhan and Postman is Nicholas Carr, who wrote 'The Shallows: What the Internet is doing to our Brains.' It was actually this book which introduced me to the others, and essential reading.
It's an interesting thought, that content might be secondary, that the medium is the message. We tend to get distracted by content, but what if it is, MacLuhan argues, in some ways a Trojan horse for the technology to smuggle itself into our consciousness and to alter our thought processes? I love that step back that he takes, the way he blows the frame out to a meta-level in order to ask, in that open, curious way of his, 'What is really going on here?'
Thanks for introducing me to another thinker in this genre, Matthew...I will track down Carr! I think these are a very important topics...and ones that most folk do not properly appreciate.
Thanks for voicing your concerns and remedial suggestions. I like your characterization of the the internet as libertarian, much better than my usual description of it as the wild west. Personally, as soon as I see a young Orthodox millennial or gen zer cross my feed, I automatically pass them by. As far as the huge influx of young men coming into the Church via the usually polemical influencers, the challenge is to help them find solid ground in the local parish and to understand that the externals they love about Orthodoxy are rooted in the tradition of the Church, and not simply a religious embossment for their conservative political ideology.
Thanks for the comment, Burt! Yes, indeed...and it's a much bigger conversation that should also include how we catechize...fwiw, I'm hoping to address many such topics moving forward.
Thank you Herman! It reminds me of many of our conversations, and many of your best conversations online. But don't be afraid. Good Bishops make good priests, and good priests make good parishioners. We don't have to be afraid of bad Orthodox voices online. We just have to be afraid of a heedless death, and who might come to our defense when we stand before God. Many of the voices I've met on the interwebs will come to help me I think. And God will hear them and be merciful. Everything is just as it should be, except of course for my soul. Policing voices on the internet doesn't seem like a high priority for this soul. I'd rather see our Bishops gather up the best of the voices, old and young, and turn those voices loose. Your guidelines seem doomed on some level. Not that they aren't motivated by your good soul. They are. And sharing them is good too. But the answer to the darkness is always more light. Make sure your policemen carry large, robust, flashlights my brother. Their light is all we need. Blessed feast brother!
Christ is Risen! Love you, brother! Don't worry, I don't have any fear...I'm just offering suggestions as to how to make a problematic situation less problematic!
Herman, thank you so much for writing this piece. I found it extremely helpful and agree with everything you said. Like another commenter said, the genie is out of the bottle, so the question is what do we do now? I think your observations and suggestions are pastoral, realistic, grounded in Orthodoxy, helpful and productive. Thanks for adding to the conversation here.
To the question your post asks, no, not really. People coming to the Church with wrong ideas has been happening since the beginning.
There are more weighty problems confronting the Orthodox world today than internet influencers. If the Bishops and Priests are true to Christ, the Saints, and the Holy Fathers, then through their teaching, actions, and serving the divine services of the Church, the laity should be able to recognize online content, or any material for that matter, that is in error and dismiss it, or at the very least, easily receive correction when needed. Proper catechism should help those who come to the Church from 'bad' online sources as well.
God's Providence is sending people to the Orthodox Church from many sources, online and otherwise, both good and bad, so the parish priests simply need to do the work they are called to do and provide for their healing. Sometimes this is challenging. Sometimes people have really odd ideas from living in the secular soup that is the West and that might not have anything to do with online content. Someone can easily find good online content and draw wrong conclusions from it. This is something that the priest is called to correct regardless of how the ideas were formed and spending time worrying about how to 'control or police' online content truly does seem like a 'fool's' errand.
The quote provided by Bertrand Russell is a bit of an odd choice for an article on Orthodox Christianity. Why use such a secular 'influencer' to determine who are the 'fools and fanatics' and who are the 'wiser' people? What would he know about it in the eyes of the Orthodox Church since he publicly denies Christ?
He is quoted as saying,
"I think all the great religions of the world - Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and Communism - both untrue and harmful. It is evident as a matter of logic that, since they disagree, not more than one of them can be true."
At least he's right on that last point. Yet, he finds them all, including Christianity, to be untrue and harmful. So Bertrand's idea of wisdom, foolishness, and fanaticism are likely far different from the Orthodox Church since, at minimum, he reveres worldly wisdom and not the Wisdom of the Christian God. If you're coming online to post about bad influencers while also seeking to be an influencer, because the bad influencers are not doing it right due to a lack of wisdom, perhaps quoting someone like Bertrand Russell in your article is not a good start. I have no doubt you could have found a Church Father or Saint to make a more accurate point regarding wisdom, foolishness, and misplaced zeal.
Christ is Risen! Thanks for your response, Michael! As regards the quote...I'm sure you're correct that I could have found a different quote, the only reason I used the quote was that it provided a certain continuity from the original article to which I'm responding (where it was originally quoted). That said...many truths have been spoken by non-Orthodox. Your argument on this point is an ad hominem...is what Russell said untrue?
As regards the rest of your comment...perhaps you don't consider it a problem when the authority and trust of good priests and bishops are undermined by self-appointed third parties, but I (and all the clergy I know) do.
It's really simple: those who purport to speak as representatives of the Orthodox Church should be under some kind of obedience and should do so with the blessing of the Church. The Church has canons to address exactly these kinds of issues...why shouldn't the Church continue to provide guidance in this regard?
Herman, thank you for the thoughtful post. I thought Steven Christophorou's article was incorrect in its assumptions. The internet can be abused, no doubt, but does not essentially differ from other means of publishing across the centuries - except that it's cheaper, etc. It violates no more canonical boundaries than a published book. If you read authors who are not writing from within the chain of authority of the Church, then you can't complain about the quality. The same is true of the internet. Your point viz. Arius is excellent. But, since the internet exists, we really have no choice, I think, but to create reliable, well-crafted material (as did St. Athanasius in his time). Thanks for beginning this work.
Thanks, Father! Here's another topic for that conversation we've been trying to have(!)
Many converts to Orthodoxy have grown accustomed to a certain level of electronic input throughout the day. Quietude and prayer are very difficult to achieve (and are given as a gift --). I think it would be helpful if we were given guidance regarding what media we might consume and how we might meet virtually, in an Orthodox way, without discussing theoretical theology. Art viewing, singing, and other types culture, similar to Saint Seraphim Rose's suggestion to read Oliver Twist, would be helpful to round out the day. Internet addiction is a weakness of mine, at least. Respectfully, Michelle Bosma; Jordanville
Thanks for your comment, Michelle! This is, indeed, an important issue (as you may know, Jean-Claude Larchet advocates that the Church include social media/internet use in the fasting guidelines...and this seems like a good idea). And then, of course, finding good things to fill the void...I think you're right, Fr. Seraphim's suggestions are more timely than ever as our culture becomes increasingly detached from its cultural and biological roots.
There is a book about this subject that is very good. I recommend it.
https://www.holytrinitypublications.com/the-new-media-epidemic
Thank you for the recommendation! Perhaps the book addresses this, but if the book were in audio form and suitable for children, I would listen to it. My media consumption happens around the house while I'm attending to chores, within earshot of a small child. I think others tend to listen to vlogs/podcasts for similar reasons; they enable us to engage while we're otherwise occupied, we are made for oral instruction and listening. Otherwise, I enjoy interacting with others, which is what social media is for and why I am responding to you. Feel encouraged to share your favorite protocol recommendations from the book, and thank you again for the suggestion! - Michelle
A well balanced response Dr. Middleton. I read Steve’s post and appreciated the questions being raised, even if I couldn’t quite articulate a well reasoned counterpoint. I think this is a discussion very much needed. It’s hard to accept the idea that a hard stop is what’s called for. Virtually every one of the multitude of catechumens we’ve received at our local parish in the last several years, discovered the Orthodox Church via the internet. It has been an extremely powerful tool for evangelization. I was helped in my online ventures (and this over a decade ago) in ultimately entering the Church. There is definitely no small amount of toxicity out there, and a gaggle of unqualified people attempting to represent our Faith (some who aren’t even catechumens, let alone full Orthodox Christians!). The reputation of Orthodox Christians online amongst other traditions is generally abysmal. It would be wonderful to hear some guidance from our hierarchy on this topic. If not a joint statement, then at least in the archdioceses across the various jurisdictions. The genie is indeed out of the bottle, but misuse is no excuse for disuse.
Thanks for the comment...and Amen! God willing these conversations will make their way onto the radars of our hierarchs!
I'd like to add a few assorted thoughts provoked by this piece and the other by Stephen. They are not aimed at anyone, just things I find worth noting:
- every new technology operates on and changes the brain in different ways. The internet changes consciousness (and attention spans) in ways quite different to books. I wish folk like Marshall McLuhan and Walter Ong were better known, and the 'It's just a tool' cliche would end very quickly.
- therefore, there is a vast difference between books and blog posts or Youtube videos at the level of psychological effects. A book also operates on consciousness in a different way to a video or podcast; a book is engaged with in a different way. They are like apples and oranges. This is before one considers matters of quantity, quality and the amount of thought and time that go into producing content in each respective medium.
- On a different note, some new Orthodox commentators (who I actually like and find helpful to some degree) have converted and continued to publish their blogs without skipping a beat. I find this astonishing.
Thanks, Matthew! I'm a great fan of McLuhan (and Postman!)...Walter Ong is a new name to me however (so...again, thanks!) Your point is certainly valid and worth serious consideration (and as you suggest, most folk don't really consider such things). As regards your last point...yes, indeed...alas(!)
Thanks, Herman. I'd forgotten about Postman. He's definitely another sober and articulate voice who understands that what is called progress is not necessarily of itself good or desirable.
Walter Ong was actually a Jesuit. He wrote, among other things, 'On Orality and Literacy', which goes on into how the technologies of writing and different print cultures have shaped thinking. Abstract thought, for example, seems to be a luxury granted by literacy. In non-literate cultures, on the other hand, thinking is situational, and seated in narratives. Ong draws on earlier authorities such as Havelock, for example, his work on the effects of early Greek literacy, also an influence on MacLuhan.
A contemporary successor to MacLuhan and Postman is Nicholas Carr, who wrote 'The Shallows: What the Internet is doing to our Brains.' It was actually this book which introduced me to the others, and essential reading.
It's an interesting thought, that content might be secondary, that the medium is the message. We tend to get distracted by content, but what if it is, MacLuhan argues, in some ways a Trojan horse for the technology to smuggle itself into our consciousness and to alter our thought processes? I love that step back that he takes, the way he blows the frame out to a meta-level in order to ask, in that open, curious way of his, 'What is really going on here?'
Thanks for introducing me to another thinker in this genre, Matthew...I will track down Carr! I think these are a very important topics...and ones that most folk do not properly appreciate.
Thanks for voicing your concerns and remedial suggestions. I like your characterization of the the internet as libertarian, much better than my usual description of it as the wild west. Personally, as soon as I see a young Orthodox millennial or gen zer cross my feed, I automatically pass them by. As far as the huge influx of young men coming into the Church via the usually polemical influencers, the challenge is to help them find solid ground in the local parish and to understand that the externals they love about Orthodoxy are rooted in the tradition of the Church, and not simply a religious embossment for their conservative political ideology.
Thanks for the comment, Burt! Yes, indeed...and it's a much bigger conversation that should also include how we catechize...fwiw, I'm hoping to address many such topics moving forward.
Thank you Herman! It reminds me of many of our conversations, and many of your best conversations online. But don't be afraid. Good Bishops make good priests, and good priests make good parishioners. We don't have to be afraid of bad Orthodox voices online. We just have to be afraid of a heedless death, and who might come to our defense when we stand before God. Many of the voices I've met on the interwebs will come to help me I think. And God will hear them and be merciful. Everything is just as it should be, except of course for my soul. Policing voices on the internet doesn't seem like a high priority for this soul. I'd rather see our Bishops gather up the best of the voices, old and young, and turn those voices loose. Your guidelines seem doomed on some level. Not that they aren't motivated by your good soul. They are. And sharing them is good too. But the answer to the darkness is always more light. Make sure your policemen carry large, robust, flashlights my brother. Their light is all we need. Blessed feast brother!
Christ is Risen! Love you, brother! Don't worry, I don't have any fear...I'm just offering suggestions as to how to make a problematic situation less problematic!
Thanks for the very thoughtful (and thought-provoking) piece!
Thanks for revisiting the conversation, brother...and blessed resurrection!
Whenever I mention to my priest, or ask a question, about something I saw online, he always says: We will follow our bishop on this.”
Herman, thank you so much for writing this piece. I found it extremely helpful and agree with everything you said. Like another commenter said, the genie is out of the bottle, so the question is what do we do now? I think your observations and suggestions are pastoral, realistic, grounded in Orthodoxy, helpful and productive. Thanks for adding to the conversation here.
To the question your post asks, no, not really. People coming to the Church with wrong ideas has been happening since the beginning.
There are more weighty problems confronting the Orthodox world today than internet influencers. If the Bishops and Priests are true to Christ, the Saints, and the Holy Fathers, then through their teaching, actions, and serving the divine services of the Church, the laity should be able to recognize online content, or any material for that matter, that is in error and dismiss it, or at the very least, easily receive correction when needed. Proper catechism should help those who come to the Church from 'bad' online sources as well.
God's Providence is sending people to the Orthodox Church from many sources, online and otherwise, both good and bad, so the parish priests simply need to do the work they are called to do and provide for their healing. Sometimes this is challenging. Sometimes people have really odd ideas from living in the secular soup that is the West and that might not have anything to do with online content. Someone can easily find good online content and draw wrong conclusions from it. This is something that the priest is called to correct regardless of how the ideas were formed and spending time worrying about how to 'control or police' online content truly does seem like a 'fool's' errand.
The quote provided by Bertrand Russell is a bit of an odd choice for an article on Orthodox Christianity. Why use such a secular 'influencer' to determine who are the 'fools and fanatics' and who are the 'wiser' people? What would he know about it in the eyes of the Orthodox Church since he publicly denies Christ?
He is quoted as saying,
"I think all the great religions of the world - Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and Communism - both untrue and harmful. It is evident as a matter of logic that, since they disagree, not more than one of them can be true."
At least he's right on that last point. Yet, he finds them all, including Christianity, to be untrue and harmful. So Bertrand's idea of wisdom, foolishness, and fanaticism are likely far different from the Orthodox Church since, at minimum, he reveres worldly wisdom and not the Wisdom of the Christian God. If you're coming online to post about bad influencers while also seeking to be an influencer, because the bad influencers are not doing it right due to a lack of wisdom, perhaps quoting someone like Bertrand Russell in your article is not a good start. I have no doubt you could have found a Church Father or Saint to make a more accurate point regarding wisdom, foolishness, and misplaced zeal.
Christ is Risen! Thanks for your response, Michael! As regards the quote...I'm sure you're correct that I could have found a different quote, the only reason I used the quote was that it provided a certain continuity from the original article to which I'm responding (where it was originally quoted). That said...many truths have been spoken by non-Orthodox. Your argument on this point is an ad hominem...is what Russell said untrue?
As regards the rest of your comment...perhaps you don't consider it a problem when the authority and trust of good priests and bishops are undermined by self-appointed third parties, but I (and all the clergy I know) do.
It's really simple: those who purport to speak as representatives of the Orthodox Church should be under some kind of obedience and should do so with the blessing of the Church. The Church has canons to address exactly these kinds of issues...why shouldn't the Church continue to provide guidance in this regard?