Look, I have some big problems with many things Rod Dreher says (mostly around ecclesiology and so-called "small-o orthodoxy" or "mere Christianity") - so much so, that I can effectively no longer post on his blog. But this "Anti-Gnostic" fellow strikes me as a typical "keyboard commando" who uses Internet anonymity to perform hit-and-run slander while avoiding personal accountability for his behavior.
The Orthodox lay theologian Jean-Claude Larchet has given a lecture about this subject:
People say the same about me, and yet, despite my penchant for fire and brimstone, my writing has influenced a modest few in a positive way. I've always found The Anti-Gnostic's views challenging and unique, and certainly worthy of serious consideration. I just regret that he has recently abandoned his blog for the liberal mob called Twitter.
His views may be worthy of consideration (I have found them so in the past), but his rhetoric is execrable. Intellectual dishonesty (viz. critiquing a book he hadn't read) is very damaging to his position, and resort to vulgar ad hominems (and toleration of them on his comment threads) don't help either.
Yes, some of that commentary is over the top and of a nature that I find disturbing. I will have to consider things. To be honest I am growing weary of the constant warfare and have been thinking of retiring the blog for a couple of years now.
@John: "To be honest I am growing weary of the constant warfare and have been thinking of retiring the blog for a couple of years now."
Do you mean retiring HIS blog or YOUR own blog?
If the former - good riddance! If the latter, I understand, but will still regret such.
A good blog, with good commentary, requires moderation with an iron fist. Not everyone has the time, the inclination, the resources or the energy for such. Indeed, a number of popular bloggers actually hire moderators on "shifts" to cull out "troll-foonery."
If that is more than you wish to deal with, I cannot and will not blame you for this, but I will (again) regret such.
The Benedict Option foresees Christians going to ground in co-operatives of like-minded families. Thus my first issue with the "Benedict Option" is its inapt naming. When Benedict of Nursia founded monasteries, the last pagan emperor had been dead for two centuries.
What Dreher is really talking about is the Church's Apostolic Age. (I have called this a permanently juvenile view of the Church, with Protestant converts hearkening back to 35 A.D. and imagining themselves as St. Paul preaching truth to Herod Agrippa).
We don't have a pagan empire but a secular democracy with innumerable Christian sects. Due to numerous political, pdemographic, economic, and social factors, I don't think hunkering down in the catacombs will save us. The contrast of the Christian Church with pagan or atheistic brutality no longer persists. Indeed, much of the hierarchy actively welcome secular values into the Church. In a fight between the prosperous, tolerant, and secular democratic State and the orthodox Faith, most Christians will side with the State.
If the holy catholic and apostolic Church survives, it will be because she is too powerful and too enmeshed into whatever local polity to be messed with by rival polities. That calls for an altogether different strategy.
worth reading
ReplyDeleteNot so much. See my comments on the thread.
But he freely admits he hasn't even read the book. It's hard to see how that gives him a strong platform to argue from.
ReplyDeleteAnd the name-calling. Apparently he knows all about me, a "cuckservative," whatever that is.
ReplyDeleteJohn, do you really want to include him on your blogroll?
I agree with Deacon Nicholas.
ReplyDeleteLook, I have some big problems with many things Rod Dreher says (mostly around ecclesiology and so-called "small-o orthodoxy" or "mere Christianity") - so much so, that I can effectively no longer post on his blog. But this "Anti-Gnostic" fellow strikes me as a typical "keyboard commando" who uses Internet anonymity to perform hit-and-run slander while avoiding personal accountability for his behavior.
The Orthodox lay theologian Jean-Claude Larchet has given a lecture about this subject:
"Ethical and spiritual issues related to the use of pseudonyms in Orthodox Internet forums"
It's your blog, and your call as to who is and is not on your blog-roll. But, honestly, what do you see in this man, anyway?
People say the same about me, and yet, despite my penchant for fire and brimstone, my writing has influenced a modest few in a positive way. I've always found The Anti-Gnostic's views challenging and unique, and certainly worthy of serious consideration. I just regret that he has recently abandoned his blog for the liberal mob called Twitter.
DeleteHis views may be worthy of consideration (I have found them so in the past), but his rhetoric is execrable. Intellectual dishonesty (viz. critiquing a book he hadn't read) is very damaging to his position, and resort to vulgar ad hominems (and toleration of them on his comment threads) don't help either.
DeleteYes, some of that commentary is over the top and of a nature that I find disturbing. I will have to consider things. To be honest I am growing weary of the constant warfare and have been thinking of retiring the blog for a couple of years now.
ReplyDelete@John: "To be honest I am growing weary of the constant warfare and have been thinking of retiring the blog for a couple of years now."
ReplyDeleteDo you mean retiring HIS blog or YOUR own blog?
If the former - good riddance! If the latter, I understand, but will still regret such.
A good blog, with good commentary, requires moderation with an iron fist. Not everyone has the time, the inclination, the resources or the energy for such. Indeed, a number of popular bloggers actually hire moderators on "shifts" to cull out "troll-foonery."
If that is more than you wish to deal with, I cannot and will not blame you for this, but I will (again) regret such.
The Benedict Option foresees Christians going to ground in co-operatives of like-minded families. Thus my first issue with the "Benedict Option" is its inapt naming. When Benedict of Nursia founded monasteries, the last pagan emperor had been dead for two centuries.
ReplyDeleteWhat Dreher is really talking about is the Church's Apostolic Age. (I have called this a permanently juvenile view of the Church, with Protestant converts hearkening back to 35 A.D. and imagining themselves as St. Paul preaching truth to Herod Agrippa).
We don't have a pagan empire but a secular democracy with innumerable Christian sects. Due to numerous political, pdemographic, economic, and social factors, I don't think hunkering down in the catacombs will save us. The contrast of the Christian Church with pagan or atheistic brutality no longer persists. Indeed, much of the hierarchy actively welcome secular values into the Church. In a fight between the prosperous, tolerant, and secular democratic State and the orthodox Faith, most Christians will side with the State.
If the holy catholic and apostolic Church survives, it will be because she is too powerful and too enmeshed into whatever local polity to be messed with by rival polities. That calls for an altogether different strategy.