Thank you for this thoughtful article. The implications of your insights could be significant if people truly heed the wise cautions you raise. When I became Orthodox in 2010, after serving 19 years as a Protestant pastor, I encountered many people who assumed that I should quickly become a priest, and also use technology to develop internet content. I didn't have many people encouraging me to be quiet and still, but I knew that was what I needed most. My parish priest allowed and encouraged this. When I once told another mentor and friend, Fr Tom Hopko, that "I just want to be an Orthodox Christian. It's enough. I don't aspire to a 'career change'" - he affirmed and encouraged me. I had spent 19 years developing content - words, words, words, and I needed to not just become Orthodox formally, but learn to be still and quiet (truly Orthodox inwardly). During the last 14 years, I've also grown more and more concerned about how technology is shaping us (not merely content, but the medium itself). I am so appreciative of your honest writing, and I'm grateful for your humility in this journey.
As someone converting from Protestantism largely because of the addiction to celebrity and influence seeking, I find your reflections on this so comforting. Thank you.
I think this is a good contribution to the conversation about Orthodox content online, but I wonder to what degree it is really actualizable in the life of the Church. I think the cat's out of the bag when it comes to content creators making content online. I think we need to start asking ourselves, what role does the Church play in forming that conversation online. We all know about how toxic internet Orthodoxy can be, but I do get concerned when our only answer seems to be to simply get off of the internet. Again, the cat's out of the bag. People are and will be making Orthodox content online. So I think the question is, how can we make content that points beyond itself and encourages people to be united to a real community rather than a discord server?
If good content creators abandon platforms then all we're left with is the noise of those who already never cared about the canonical and pastoral concerns their work raises and they only further shape the conversation online to be even worse than it is. Over the past five years, any time I ask an inquirer where they heard about Orthodoxy they have always said from online sources. If good content creators leave then the most forward facing aspect of the Church to society, that is her presence online, will exclusively look grotesque, violent, toxic, and vindictive. Let's not mince words, Jay Dyer, OE, and the Patristic Faith cabal are at the very heart of the catastrophic internet presence we are experiencing in the anglophone world, and I for one would be disturbed if Ancient Faith, and other diocesan online ministries, shuttered their doors in favor of the kind of engagement you seem to be proposing. The internet is, for better or worse, a permanent fixture of our lives. Like the saints of old we need to start working on how we are going to use this tool, because there are already people that are using it and are shaping a corrosive image of what the Church really is (while also not denying the real people who may have come to the faith because of or in spite of their work). The internet is the printing press x1000. It's reach is vast and instantaneous, but that also means that the works of some, like the live recordings of Fr. Alexander Schmemman, Fr. Seraphim Rose, Met Anthony Bloom, Elder Ephraim of Arizona also live on forever. I imagine that in 500 years the immortalization of these works digitally will be how people encounter saints, rather than through the physical medium of books which was revolutionized at the advent of the printing press.
All this to say, a creative and dynamic engagement with internet content seems to be the only way forward. I think retreating away from it because of some of its inherent dangers, while certainly necessary for some, perhaps all of us from time to time, cannot be the long-term strategy for the Church. The internet will function, and already the conversation is moving that way, where people publish content and one is allowed to follow or ignore it at their leisure. Canonically, we are only bound by what our priest and bishop have to say on matters of faith. So if you pick up a book or listen to a podcast that says something you don't jive with, well you don't _need_ to follow it. Pray, go to church, and listen to your priest. That's the brass tacks.
Ha! I just typed a really long comment and then the page refreshed and it disappeared.
We can’t just silence people. People write about what they love and sometimes that is their faith. They don’t need to be perfect. We don’t need to get riled up because of their actions. We need to pursue our own repentance.
My recently started journey of writing publicly about Orthodoxy has been very good for me. I’ve been wrestling deeply with things, come face to face with my own misconceptions about the faith, become more aware and curious, and exercised the divine gift of creativity that is given to me. I’m not fooling myself into thinking that I’m saving anyone. I’m just living, publicly, same as people have always done.
Thankful for you Steve and everything you’ve taught me over the years!
Great analysis. Strong agreement. Perhaps much of the problem with online content could be remedied by adding a disclaimer to the effect of: This is only my opinion, I have no authority, and nothing I have said here binds your conscience. For authoritative teaching, go to your local Eucharistic assembly.
Dear Steve, thank you for writing this article. I wish we had more time to discuss this subject matter when we met face to face in Ohio. Much of this was on my mind.
I appreciate that your post focuses specifically on your content instead of broadly critiquing random topics across the Orthodox Internet. It’s clear you've thought deeply about the complexities of what you're doing here on Substack and the content you've created. It’s a complicated issue, and I see you’re earnestly seeking a solution.
While I disagree with the notion that your role in the solution was a “lie”, I acknowledge that it inadvertently contributed to the problem. Sometimes, "it's complicated" can also mean "it's beautiful." Your involvement may have been part of a messy situation, but it also brought some light into the darker corners of the Internet. On some days, even a little light is preferable to constant darkness.
Regarding the critique you've chosen to focus on, particularly the third point, I will do the same.
“The idea that one can universally preach and teach without regard to canonical boundaries, as is done on the internet, is problematic.”
This is the statement I find most challenging, mainly due to my lack of understanding of the terms 'preach' and 'teach.' There are likely formal definitions, but I admit my ignorance. If I were to hazard a guess, I might equate preaching and teaching with the duties traditionally performed by a priest at the pulpit.
When laypeople discuss their faith and answer questions about it, this activity is often referred to as "witnessing" or "sharing" their faith, rather than preaching or teaching. The distinction typically hinges on the intent and the setting. "Preaching" and "teaching" often imply a more formal, authoritative declaration or instruction, usually associated with clergy. In contrast, "sharing" suggests a more informal, conversational exchange of personal beliefs and experiences.
If someone asks you about heaven and hell and you offer your understanding, you are sharing your knowledge, not formally preaching or teaching. This distinction is important because it acknowledges that while not everyone is authorized to teach formally, everyone can share their personal insights and experiences.
Suggesting that you refrain from sharing and direct all questions to a religious authority could undermine the power of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the laity. It's understood that the Spirit can work through all people, not just through clergy. This is evident in the stories of many saints, such as Saint Photini, who met Jesus at the well and shared her transformative encounter with others. The narrative of her life demonstrates the value of the laity sharing their faith. Is this not what the internet allows us to do?
Regarding your reflections on internet discourse, it’s true that the anonymity and reach of the web can lead to both misuse and fruitful exchanges of religious thought. While some may speak with undue authority, others share genuinely and humbly from their experiences and understanding. Perhaps, adopting a stance of sharing, rather than asserting authority, can facilitate healthier discussions.
Christ’s command to "go and share" what believers have received encourages this approach. The early disciples themselves often shared their faith through personal stories of encounters with Jesus, which were compelling and relatable. While not all sharing will be perfect—some may succeed, others may fail—it's the act of sharing itself that is important.
I've noticed how people from various backgrounds come to our small parish, influenced by both positive and negative forces. Once they engage with our church's catechism process, they really begin to transform, adapting to what the church expects from them, and they emerge differently from how they started. This growth is genuine. Should we only accept those influenced negatively, or should the church itself offer a positive foundational starting point? I think you've managed to provide that with your work, and I truly hope to see more of it. You have a role, amidst light and dark, and I hope you find the balance within yourself to keep spreading that light, despite the complex darkness that we all know exists in the Orthodox internet world.
We need more voices like Paul's at Mars Hill in today's world. Your voice is crucial, and I hope you find the humility to use it effectively. If you don't speak up, and those like you, many will only find dragons and we already have more than enough dragons to face.
FYI, that podcast opportunity I mentioned when we met face-to-face is still available. It is already in development with St Athanasius College and is scheduled to happen in the next few months. I would love for you to lead it. Reading between the lines in regards to Pop Culture Coffee Hour, it seems like it might be something that would be a good fit for you.
I am sure it would be complicated. I am sure it would be beautiful.
Couldn’t the same set of criticisms be applied to books? There are a growing number of publishers of books on Orthodox topics, much of which involve teaching. Books are limited, perhaps, by the language they are published in, but those areas can be much larger than an ecclesial boundary. But are books art or education, or both? Don’t we all fundamentally choose books for our own little ecosystem of interest in the same way we consume digital media, even if we consult a priest about what we’re reading?
Never considered this before, sadly enough. A VERY good point about priestly blessings not being sufficient for an online ministry:
"That’s why questions about whether or not a person has a “blessing” to, for example, start a podcast are silly. Your parish presbyter has no authority to let you preach anywhere outside that parish. And your bishop has no authority to let you preach anywhere outside his diocese.
It’s maddening that I have to hammer this point, but alas:
No hierarch—and certainly no presbyter—can bless someone to preach anywhere and everywhere."
Hey Everybody... THIS is Steve! ....well, the OTHER Steve. But, hey Steve, wow. You have articulated something I've been wrestling with for about a decade now. (I've read all the comments so I'm going to try to not re-plow a field here). But, when Bill and I were doing the live broadcast of Our Life in Christ on our local Christian radio station it was purely an evangelistic outreach under the authority of a priest who had actually started the program but handed it off to us. We were kind of giddy when we met John Maddex who was starting an Orthodox internet radio station and he started broadcasting the recordings of our show... we were the first "Orthodox podcast" on AFR and maybe in the world 23 years ago. We got correspondence/email from people all over the world. "Internet Orthodoxy" was glorious..... until it wasn't. I look back now, like you, and wonder "what have I participated in creating?!"... even though our content was vetted and meticulously written so it represented "just Orthodoxy" and not agendas, controversial topics and culture war issues. We stopped doing OLiC deliberately because we ran out of "merely Orthodox evangelistic/inquirer issues" topics and were getting lots of requests for us to deal with hot button INTRA-Orthodox controversies and issues, and we didn't want to go there, it was not the "mission statement" of the program. I started "Steve the Builder" as more of a "witness": how I live Orthodoxy and how Orthodoxy informs the struggles of real life rather than how I "understand" the doctrines and my positions on controversial issues and people (which also has been my approach on my blogs.) But..... seeing the fruit of "internet apostleship" and everyone with a cell phone, microphone and webcam can broadcast to the entire world "what is right in their own eyes" within seconds of creating content, I've begun questioning whether I'm as "proud" of my legacy as an Orthodox internet pioneer as I used to be. I get the ecclesiological issue you bring up (and have thought of many of the "push back" ideas and discussions). As much as I would like to pull it ALL back and say "if we adhere to our ecclesiology, this/that medium, website, person, content....whatever is not to be read, forwarded, linked or used outside of XYZ", that (as others have noted) just isn't going to happen no matter what A Bishop or even an ecumenical council decrees about internet content. People come to the Church and a parish already formed by internet influencers and usually with an agenda and pre-conceived notion of what political, cultural, theological and opinionological kind of "Orthodoxy" they are looking for and if they don't find it, they shop (if there's local options available), and if not the priest/parish has to figure out how to re-form this person and keep them in the fold if they are not wreaking havoc in the parish over issues. I feel like my angst is kind of like Pandora's Box: It's opened and there's no going back, and now what is ahead of us is not fighting to restore "Paradise" by force, but now, how do we tend our garden planted East of Eden (to mix a metaphor) and raise good crops in the fallen world we've created by eating the Apple (or Microsoft). No solution will bring the Church back to 7th Century Ecclesial Order (as if we really know what that looked like even under the Canons), but we need to get our Bishops and clergy talking to one another about how we are going to canonically try to have even the internet express Orthodoxy that is a witness of the unity of the faith in the bond of peace to a factious, contentious, polarized world. Good stuff, Steve. This conversation has to happen. Thanks for bringing it up.
Steve, thanks for this. I'm using it in a mentor's group I have with several other men who meet to discuss just how to serve the church. Good strength, brother.
I think another more “basic” way to reply to your argument is just saying (I’m def paraphrasing it) “well, that may be the case then, but nowadays error is so widespread that sound doctrine must be stated via the internet”. If you are really deep into that sort of thought, you basically distrust local parishes, and think everyone else really should be skeptical of them. And honestly, from personal experience? I can relate to that. Ultimately, we definitely wouldn’t encourage anyone to stay in an orthodox parish that, say theoretically, a priest denies the Holy Trinity. Not staying without caring or denouncing it to the bishop at least. What I’m trying to say is: is the concept of “picking and choosing” that you tried to denounce really avoidable? Aren’t we called in Scriptures to have discernment towards false teacher? Hope that didn’t go to off-tracks, but I think it should make some sense haha.
"Or are we being consumed by an extremely online, extremely self-directed and self-serving influencer culture that transforms everything it touches?"
I came to the conclusion that I was, and ended up deleting my Orthodox Twittersphere account about a year and a half ago. I've never regretted the decision. Like you, I felt weird and conflicted about how I'd set myself up - quite unintentionally, at least at first - as some sort of teacher or rhetorician. In a weird way it felt like the nature of Twitter tricked me into doing it, and I didn't become aware of it until I was in deep.
Platforms aren't neutral, and technology changes how we behave, often - probably usually - beneath our conscious notice.
Something I love about my parish is that we don't record sermons and post videos or podcasts online. It's sometimes inconvenient, but I think this post makes a good argument for why that may be a good thing. The only stuff that does make it online tends to be guest speakers during Lent and that sort of thing, and it's really done mostly for the benefit of people who couldn't be there in person.
I don’t think you’re totally wrong to critique your time in content creation Steve, but I’m going to push back a little. Be the Bee has at least some aspects that differentiate it from the current crowd that many of us were thankful for:
It was short, concise and scripted.
At one time you could expect someone to ask a priest about a topic or maybe about a book they were suggested on the topic BY the priest. Now priests have someone ask “Hey can you explain what So-and-so was saying in Episode 42 of their YouTube podcast series?” So the priest opens the video, it’s three hours long, it has no timestamps, it has a 30 minute introduction which is a bunch of in-jokes, there are random 15 minute tangents scattered throughout, the meat of the video often references videos as far back as ten episodes ago, there’s no transcript and there’s no citations/references offered to verify anything being said.
Put another way, if you transcribed the entire audio/video output of some of these creators, it probably surpasses the combined, surviving works we have from various Church Fathers. A given YouTuber that has 1-3 hour podcasts every week has probably put more “stuff” out into the world than the combined works of St. Basil the Great.
Be the Bee wasn’t that. In fact, you don’t reflect on it quite as negatively, but Be the Bee’s total runtime is like 1/8th the total runtime of Pop Culture Coffee Hour!
If people were making scripted videos like Be the Bee or writing books, I think our content creation issues would be far diminished and at least much more manageable. The scourges that are causing problems are social media and unscripted content, both of which invite parasocial relationships to the content.
I understand your concerns but do you not think you might be a tad overthinking this, Steve? If someone has been given a blessing to teach or preach, then I think the only thing they should be worried about is whether or not what they're producing is good, orthodox content.
You mentioned about how the fathers only taught those they were in charge of; that's true, but what they wrote were copied and widely shared and this played a part in them being made ecumenical teachers, right? Good content should be shared.
Everyone is free to post their thoughts and musings, and like you said, the line between this and teaching/preaching is sometimes hard to distinguish. It's not practical to require people to get permission to post anything remotely theological.
When I come across a 'Be the Bee' episode and see that it's approved by GOARCH, I will expect the content to be fully orthodox and give it more weight than say, a tweet or post from a random orthodox "influencer". I think as long as there are individuals / organisations with blessings to teach, and they highlight the importance of being a part of an orthodox parish (not just reading / watching content online) and warn about dodgy content, there shouldn't be a problem.
I'm a thousand miles away from you and GOARCH, but I would be less off without your work on AFR and Y2AM. You seem to even regret your public content, which is precisely why I can't help but feel that the line of thinking in this article would just result in less good content and not necessarily reduce the bad - making the whole situation (I do agree that there are issues in online orthodoxy) worse. Maybe I've missed what you're trying to get across.
I suspect this will ruffle some feathers (heck, it's ruffling mine!) I confess I'm torn. I feel like I've learned and benefited from online Orthodox content over the years, but I am also a communing member in a local parish first and foremost. It's undeniable that this content has brought people into contact with Orthodoxy and several all the way into the arms of Church. The means may be questionable - perhaps even problematic, but the results seem to be real. God seems to regularly use broken means and broken people to accomplish His will and, ideally, people coming into the Church by means of this online content are then moving on to be truly formed in a local parish under the guidance of a priest. I think of St. Paul talking about people preaching Christ out of selfish ambition and he was like, "either way, Christ is preached!" as if to say, it may not be ideal but it's still accomplishing something. I think of this with regards to our jurisdictional mess in North America. There seems to be a clear and present problem - indeed a canonically forbidden state of affairs! - but it doesn't appear to heading towards a resolution in the near future. But life continues, the Holy Spirit is still present in this mess and guiding and protecting us. People are still coming to the Church and receiving the Mysteries.
Your 3rd point definitely poses a challenge and it's one I've wondered about. How would you say this extends to books written by people who are not canonized Saints? Think priests, bishops and lay people alive today or in the recent past who've written several works. I see you allude to this in footnote 3. If it's directed reading by one's priest of spiritual father, then all good but otherwise, we should steer clear?
I can definitely relate with being a content consumer of all things Orthodox and have struggled with whether it's always actually meaningfully forming/benefiting me or if it's just distraction with an Orthodox label on it? Just thinking out loud here with these questions and observations. I'm glad you shared your reflections and I think, even for those who may end up disagreeing, this is an important subject to talk about and wrestle with.
Thank you for this thoughtful article. The implications of your insights could be significant if people truly heed the wise cautions you raise. When I became Orthodox in 2010, after serving 19 years as a Protestant pastor, I encountered many people who assumed that I should quickly become a priest, and also use technology to develop internet content. I didn't have many people encouraging me to be quiet and still, but I knew that was what I needed most. My parish priest allowed and encouraged this. When I once told another mentor and friend, Fr Tom Hopko, that "I just want to be an Orthodox Christian. It's enough. I don't aspire to a 'career change'" - he affirmed and encouraged me. I had spent 19 years developing content - words, words, words, and I needed to not just become Orthodox formally, but learn to be still and quiet (truly Orthodox inwardly). During the last 14 years, I've also grown more and more concerned about how technology is shaping us (not merely content, but the medium itself). I am so appreciative of your honest writing, and I'm grateful for your humility in this journey.
This speaks to the ugliness I've seen proliferate on Orthodox X (formerly Twitter) in the past year.
"The Life in Christ is one spent in reckless pursuit of Christ, knowing the Lord not just academically or theoretically but intimately."
May we all look inwardly. Blessings.
As someone converting from Protestantism largely because of the addiction to celebrity and influence seeking, I find your reflections on this so comforting. Thank you.
I think this is a good contribution to the conversation about Orthodox content online, but I wonder to what degree it is really actualizable in the life of the Church. I think the cat's out of the bag when it comes to content creators making content online. I think we need to start asking ourselves, what role does the Church play in forming that conversation online. We all know about how toxic internet Orthodoxy can be, but I do get concerned when our only answer seems to be to simply get off of the internet. Again, the cat's out of the bag. People are and will be making Orthodox content online. So I think the question is, how can we make content that points beyond itself and encourages people to be united to a real community rather than a discord server?
If good content creators abandon platforms then all we're left with is the noise of those who already never cared about the canonical and pastoral concerns their work raises and they only further shape the conversation online to be even worse than it is. Over the past five years, any time I ask an inquirer where they heard about Orthodoxy they have always said from online sources. If good content creators leave then the most forward facing aspect of the Church to society, that is her presence online, will exclusively look grotesque, violent, toxic, and vindictive. Let's not mince words, Jay Dyer, OE, and the Patristic Faith cabal are at the very heart of the catastrophic internet presence we are experiencing in the anglophone world, and I for one would be disturbed if Ancient Faith, and other diocesan online ministries, shuttered their doors in favor of the kind of engagement you seem to be proposing. The internet is, for better or worse, a permanent fixture of our lives. Like the saints of old we need to start working on how we are going to use this tool, because there are already people that are using it and are shaping a corrosive image of what the Church really is (while also not denying the real people who may have come to the faith because of or in spite of their work). The internet is the printing press x1000. It's reach is vast and instantaneous, but that also means that the works of some, like the live recordings of Fr. Alexander Schmemman, Fr. Seraphim Rose, Met Anthony Bloom, Elder Ephraim of Arizona also live on forever. I imagine that in 500 years the immortalization of these works digitally will be how people encounter saints, rather than through the physical medium of books which was revolutionized at the advent of the printing press.
All this to say, a creative and dynamic engagement with internet content seems to be the only way forward. I think retreating away from it because of some of its inherent dangers, while certainly necessary for some, perhaps all of us from time to time, cannot be the long-term strategy for the Church. The internet will function, and already the conversation is moving that way, where people publish content and one is allowed to follow or ignore it at their leisure. Canonically, we are only bound by what our priest and bishop have to say on matters of faith. So if you pick up a book or listen to a podcast that says something you don't jive with, well you don't _need_ to follow it. Pray, go to church, and listen to your priest. That's the brass tacks.
Ha! I just typed a really long comment and then the page refreshed and it disappeared.
We can’t just silence people. People write about what they love and sometimes that is their faith. They don’t need to be perfect. We don’t need to get riled up because of their actions. We need to pursue our own repentance.
My recently started journey of writing publicly about Orthodoxy has been very good for me. I’ve been wrestling deeply with things, come face to face with my own misconceptions about the faith, become more aware and curious, and exercised the divine gift of creativity that is given to me. I’m not fooling myself into thinking that I’m saving anyone. I’m just living, publicly, same as people have always done.
Thankful for you Steve and everything you’ve taught me over the years!
Great analysis. Strong agreement. Perhaps much of the problem with online content could be remedied by adding a disclaimer to the effect of: This is only my opinion, I have no authority, and nothing I have said here binds your conscience. For authoritative teaching, go to your local Eucharistic assembly.
Dear Steve, thank you for writing this article. I wish we had more time to discuss this subject matter when we met face to face in Ohio. Much of this was on my mind.
I appreciate that your post focuses specifically on your content instead of broadly critiquing random topics across the Orthodox Internet. It’s clear you've thought deeply about the complexities of what you're doing here on Substack and the content you've created. It’s a complicated issue, and I see you’re earnestly seeking a solution.
While I disagree with the notion that your role in the solution was a “lie”, I acknowledge that it inadvertently contributed to the problem. Sometimes, "it's complicated" can also mean "it's beautiful." Your involvement may have been part of a messy situation, but it also brought some light into the darker corners of the Internet. On some days, even a little light is preferable to constant darkness.
Regarding the critique you've chosen to focus on, particularly the third point, I will do the same.
“The idea that one can universally preach and teach without regard to canonical boundaries, as is done on the internet, is problematic.”
This is the statement I find most challenging, mainly due to my lack of understanding of the terms 'preach' and 'teach.' There are likely formal definitions, but I admit my ignorance. If I were to hazard a guess, I might equate preaching and teaching with the duties traditionally performed by a priest at the pulpit.
When laypeople discuss their faith and answer questions about it, this activity is often referred to as "witnessing" or "sharing" their faith, rather than preaching or teaching. The distinction typically hinges on the intent and the setting. "Preaching" and "teaching" often imply a more formal, authoritative declaration or instruction, usually associated with clergy. In contrast, "sharing" suggests a more informal, conversational exchange of personal beliefs and experiences.
If someone asks you about heaven and hell and you offer your understanding, you are sharing your knowledge, not formally preaching or teaching. This distinction is important because it acknowledges that while not everyone is authorized to teach formally, everyone can share their personal insights and experiences.
Suggesting that you refrain from sharing and direct all questions to a religious authority could undermine the power of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the laity. It's understood that the Spirit can work through all people, not just through clergy. This is evident in the stories of many saints, such as Saint Photini, who met Jesus at the well and shared her transformative encounter with others. The narrative of her life demonstrates the value of the laity sharing their faith. Is this not what the internet allows us to do?
Regarding your reflections on internet discourse, it’s true that the anonymity and reach of the web can lead to both misuse and fruitful exchanges of religious thought. While some may speak with undue authority, others share genuinely and humbly from their experiences and understanding. Perhaps, adopting a stance of sharing, rather than asserting authority, can facilitate healthier discussions.
Christ’s command to "go and share" what believers have received encourages this approach. The early disciples themselves often shared their faith through personal stories of encounters with Jesus, which were compelling and relatable. While not all sharing will be perfect—some may succeed, others may fail—it's the act of sharing itself that is important.
I've noticed how people from various backgrounds come to our small parish, influenced by both positive and negative forces. Once they engage with our church's catechism process, they really begin to transform, adapting to what the church expects from them, and they emerge differently from how they started. This growth is genuine. Should we only accept those influenced negatively, or should the church itself offer a positive foundational starting point? I think you've managed to provide that with your work, and I truly hope to see more of it. You have a role, amidst light and dark, and I hope you find the balance within yourself to keep spreading that light, despite the complex darkness that we all know exists in the Orthodox internet world.
We need more voices like Paul's at Mars Hill in today's world. Your voice is crucial, and I hope you find the humility to use it effectively. If you don't speak up, and those like you, many will only find dragons and we already have more than enough dragons to face.
FYI, that podcast opportunity I mentioned when we met face-to-face is still available. It is already in development with St Athanasius College and is scheduled to happen in the next few months. I would love for you to lead it. Reading between the lines in regards to Pop Culture Coffee Hour, it seems like it might be something that would be a good fit for you.
I am sure it would be complicated. I am sure it would be beautiful.
Couldn’t the same set of criticisms be applied to books? There are a growing number of publishers of books on Orthodox topics, much of which involve teaching. Books are limited, perhaps, by the language they are published in, but those areas can be much larger than an ecclesial boundary. But are books art or education, or both? Don’t we all fundamentally choose books for our own little ecosystem of interest in the same way we consume digital media, even if we consult a priest about what we’re reading?
Never considered this before, sadly enough. A VERY good point about priestly blessings not being sufficient for an online ministry:
"That’s why questions about whether or not a person has a “blessing” to, for example, start a podcast are silly. Your parish presbyter has no authority to let you preach anywhere outside that parish. And your bishop has no authority to let you preach anywhere outside his diocese.
It’s maddening that I have to hammer this point, but alas:
No hierarch—and certainly no presbyter—can bless someone to preach anywhere and everywhere."
Hey Everybody... THIS is Steve! ....well, the OTHER Steve. But, hey Steve, wow. You have articulated something I've been wrestling with for about a decade now. (I've read all the comments so I'm going to try to not re-plow a field here). But, when Bill and I were doing the live broadcast of Our Life in Christ on our local Christian radio station it was purely an evangelistic outreach under the authority of a priest who had actually started the program but handed it off to us. We were kind of giddy when we met John Maddex who was starting an Orthodox internet radio station and he started broadcasting the recordings of our show... we were the first "Orthodox podcast" on AFR and maybe in the world 23 years ago. We got correspondence/email from people all over the world. "Internet Orthodoxy" was glorious..... until it wasn't. I look back now, like you, and wonder "what have I participated in creating?!"... even though our content was vetted and meticulously written so it represented "just Orthodoxy" and not agendas, controversial topics and culture war issues. We stopped doing OLiC deliberately because we ran out of "merely Orthodox evangelistic/inquirer issues" topics and were getting lots of requests for us to deal with hot button INTRA-Orthodox controversies and issues, and we didn't want to go there, it was not the "mission statement" of the program. I started "Steve the Builder" as more of a "witness": how I live Orthodoxy and how Orthodoxy informs the struggles of real life rather than how I "understand" the doctrines and my positions on controversial issues and people (which also has been my approach on my blogs.) But..... seeing the fruit of "internet apostleship" and everyone with a cell phone, microphone and webcam can broadcast to the entire world "what is right in their own eyes" within seconds of creating content, I've begun questioning whether I'm as "proud" of my legacy as an Orthodox internet pioneer as I used to be. I get the ecclesiological issue you bring up (and have thought of many of the "push back" ideas and discussions). As much as I would like to pull it ALL back and say "if we adhere to our ecclesiology, this/that medium, website, person, content....whatever is not to be read, forwarded, linked or used outside of XYZ", that (as others have noted) just isn't going to happen no matter what A Bishop or even an ecumenical council decrees about internet content. People come to the Church and a parish already formed by internet influencers and usually with an agenda and pre-conceived notion of what political, cultural, theological and opinionological kind of "Orthodoxy" they are looking for and if they don't find it, they shop (if there's local options available), and if not the priest/parish has to figure out how to re-form this person and keep them in the fold if they are not wreaking havoc in the parish over issues. I feel like my angst is kind of like Pandora's Box: It's opened and there's no going back, and now what is ahead of us is not fighting to restore "Paradise" by force, but now, how do we tend our garden planted East of Eden (to mix a metaphor) and raise good crops in the fallen world we've created by eating the Apple (or Microsoft). No solution will bring the Church back to 7th Century Ecclesial Order (as if we really know what that looked like even under the Canons), but we need to get our Bishops and clergy talking to one another about how we are going to canonically try to have even the internet express Orthodoxy that is a witness of the unity of the faith in the bond of peace to a factious, contentious, polarized world. Good stuff, Steve. This conversation has to happen. Thanks for bringing it up.
Steve, thanks for this. I'm using it in a mentor's group I have with several other men who meet to discuss just how to serve the church. Good strength, brother.
I think another more “basic” way to reply to your argument is just saying (I’m def paraphrasing it) “well, that may be the case then, but nowadays error is so widespread that sound doctrine must be stated via the internet”. If you are really deep into that sort of thought, you basically distrust local parishes, and think everyone else really should be skeptical of them. And honestly, from personal experience? I can relate to that. Ultimately, we definitely wouldn’t encourage anyone to stay in an orthodox parish that, say theoretically, a priest denies the Holy Trinity. Not staying without caring or denouncing it to the bishop at least. What I’m trying to say is: is the concept of “picking and choosing” that you tried to denounce really avoidable? Aren’t we called in Scriptures to have discernment towards false teacher? Hope that didn’t go to off-tracks, but I think it should make some sense haha.
"Or are we being consumed by an extremely online, extremely self-directed and self-serving influencer culture that transforms everything it touches?"
I came to the conclusion that I was, and ended up deleting my Orthodox Twittersphere account about a year and a half ago. I've never regretted the decision. Like you, I felt weird and conflicted about how I'd set myself up - quite unintentionally, at least at first - as some sort of teacher or rhetorician. In a weird way it felt like the nature of Twitter tricked me into doing it, and I didn't become aware of it until I was in deep.
Platforms aren't neutral, and technology changes how we behave, often - probably usually - beneath our conscious notice.
Something I love about my parish is that we don't record sermons and post videos or podcasts online. It's sometimes inconvenient, but I think this post makes a good argument for why that may be a good thing. The only stuff that does make it online tends to be guest speakers during Lent and that sort of thing, and it's really done mostly for the benefit of people who couldn't be there in person.
I don’t think you’re totally wrong to critique your time in content creation Steve, but I’m going to push back a little. Be the Bee has at least some aspects that differentiate it from the current crowd that many of us were thankful for:
It was short, concise and scripted.
At one time you could expect someone to ask a priest about a topic or maybe about a book they were suggested on the topic BY the priest. Now priests have someone ask “Hey can you explain what So-and-so was saying in Episode 42 of their YouTube podcast series?” So the priest opens the video, it’s three hours long, it has no timestamps, it has a 30 minute introduction which is a bunch of in-jokes, there are random 15 minute tangents scattered throughout, the meat of the video often references videos as far back as ten episodes ago, there’s no transcript and there’s no citations/references offered to verify anything being said.
Put another way, if you transcribed the entire audio/video output of some of these creators, it probably surpasses the combined, surviving works we have from various Church Fathers. A given YouTuber that has 1-3 hour podcasts every week has probably put more “stuff” out into the world than the combined works of St. Basil the Great.
Be the Bee wasn’t that. In fact, you don’t reflect on it quite as negatively, but Be the Bee’s total runtime is like 1/8th the total runtime of Pop Culture Coffee Hour!
If people were making scripted videos like Be the Bee or writing books, I think our content creation issues would be far diminished and at least much more manageable. The scourges that are causing problems are social media and unscripted content, both of which invite parasocial relationships to the content.
I understand your concerns but do you not think you might be a tad overthinking this, Steve? If someone has been given a blessing to teach or preach, then I think the only thing they should be worried about is whether or not what they're producing is good, orthodox content.
You mentioned about how the fathers only taught those they were in charge of; that's true, but what they wrote were copied and widely shared and this played a part in them being made ecumenical teachers, right? Good content should be shared.
Everyone is free to post their thoughts and musings, and like you said, the line between this and teaching/preaching is sometimes hard to distinguish. It's not practical to require people to get permission to post anything remotely theological.
When I come across a 'Be the Bee' episode and see that it's approved by GOARCH, I will expect the content to be fully orthodox and give it more weight than say, a tweet or post from a random orthodox "influencer". I think as long as there are individuals / organisations with blessings to teach, and they highlight the importance of being a part of an orthodox parish (not just reading / watching content online) and warn about dodgy content, there shouldn't be a problem.
I'm a thousand miles away from you and GOARCH, but I would be less off without your work on AFR and Y2AM. You seem to even regret your public content, which is precisely why I can't help but feel that the line of thinking in this article would just result in less good content and not necessarily reduce the bad - making the whole situation (I do agree that there are issues in online orthodoxy) worse. Maybe I've missed what you're trying to get across.
I suspect this will ruffle some feathers (heck, it's ruffling mine!) I confess I'm torn. I feel like I've learned and benefited from online Orthodox content over the years, but I am also a communing member in a local parish first and foremost. It's undeniable that this content has brought people into contact with Orthodoxy and several all the way into the arms of Church. The means may be questionable - perhaps even problematic, but the results seem to be real. God seems to regularly use broken means and broken people to accomplish His will and, ideally, people coming into the Church by means of this online content are then moving on to be truly formed in a local parish under the guidance of a priest. I think of St. Paul talking about people preaching Christ out of selfish ambition and he was like, "either way, Christ is preached!" as if to say, it may not be ideal but it's still accomplishing something. I think of this with regards to our jurisdictional mess in North America. There seems to be a clear and present problem - indeed a canonically forbidden state of affairs! - but it doesn't appear to heading towards a resolution in the near future. But life continues, the Holy Spirit is still present in this mess and guiding and protecting us. People are still coming to the Church and receiving the Mysteries.
Your 3rd point definitely poses a challenge and it's one I've wondered about. How would you say this extends to books written by people who are not canonized Saints? Think priests, bishops and lay people alive today or in the recent past who've written several works. I see you allude to this in footnote 3. If it's directed reading by one's priest of spiritual father, then all good but otherwise, we should steer clear?
I can definitely relate with being a content consumer of all things Orthodox and have struggled with whether it's always actually meaningfully forming/benefiting me or if it's just distraction with an Orthodox label on it? Just thinking out loud here with these questions and observations. I'm glad you shared your reflections and I think, even for those who may end up disagreeing, this is an important subject to talk about and wrestle with.