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.
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!
What I'm hearing in your comment is a desire to simply offer testimony and a public witness. That seems to rest more on the "art" side of the spectrum, generally speaking? Not to teach but rather to share personal stories of faith and divine encounter?
Yes! That thought did occur to me that my experience resonates more with your description of an artist than a preacher (I included it in my first draft of the comment, lol).
On a related note, that conversation (distinguishing between preaching and art) is very relevant to an ongoing conversation at the Literary Life Podcast. They’ve identified a strong tendency among contemporary people of all types to not really recognize art, which exists both for its own sake, and to point towards the Truth (even and especially without directly moralizing or allegorizing). Many of us today bring a moralizing sense to all art, whether we are encountering the art of another or while creating our own. (Hence the thinly veiled agendas present in almost all contemporary children’s books.) Why is this? We’ve been taught for generations now that art is frivolous, so we think that only something with a moral is worthwhile. That goes for secular and Christian folks alike. Maybe that’s relevant to this conversation, too — an overeagerness of all kinds of people to moralize on all kinds of issues today? Not just an Orthodox problem?
Maybe (if I can be a bit provocative) we can even push into that observation a bit and say to "propagandize" rather than moralize: to use the superficial semblance of art to advance a particular goal.
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.
It's disheartening. I see so many converts who are dedicated to "debating" people into the Orthodox Church. What happened to hesychia? It's really only Orthodox by name.
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.
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.
Thanks for this, Kenny. I really appreciate the distinction between preaching/teaching and sharing. That's really important: testimony is sort of the punchline of the ministry training that Christian and I developed a few years ago.
And thanks again for the offer, but I need to pass. My work with FOCUS has been such a blessing, and is more than keeping me busy. I've been able to direct my attention to a limited group of cities (where we have Centers and where we're developing Centers), which has allowed me to get to know people, work with them more intentionally, etc. It's allowed me to go a lot smaller, so to speak, and way less abstract. I'm very comfortable continuing to keep my distance from content creation.
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.
I'm certainly tempted by this argument. I think it's another way of expressing the desire to see myself as "not part of the problem" which I outlined in the piece.
(And I didn't want to be too negative in the piece, hence my attempt to focus on critiquing my own work, though I appreciate your honesty and your point is well taken.)
The response that always rests on my heart is "what good is it to be active, even successful, if you can't even be faithful?"
The prospect of remaining silent when there is no blessing to speak is frightening. But what if I'm not the one in control? What if my content isn't what's demanded of me here, but rather my witness?
I don't know if it makes sense. But that's what keeps pushing back within me (to this very temping argument).
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?
I wonder if they didn’t because, historically, books tended to be published by diocesan publishers. Or at least a narrower set of publishers that has diocesan approval.
The rise of self-publishing / popular publishing and wider markets, where theological teaching gets further removed from canonical boundaries, certainly changes things.
Steve, I see the point you're trying to make, sort of. Certainly many "Orthobros'" podcasts fall into that category. And for that type of influencer your warning is more on point. But I think you're painting with too broad of a brush. I've read many books by Orthodox authors over the years who are not part of my jurisdiction, and don't have ecumenical teacher status. Should I not have read Pres. Jeannie's book on Christ's crucifixion? Should I not watch her podcast? She's GOA. I'm OCA. I also read "The Mountain of Silence" when I was newly Orthodox, but Kyriakos Markides, in that book, was still quite influenced by new age stuff. I don't think he'd fully returned to the church at that point (and wasn't OCA either).
How you decide to act upon (or not act upon) this piece is entirely up to you!
I'm making a content-neutral argument. Even granting that the work I did had a positive effect on people, I stopped doing it because that's just now how the Church works.
It's not an easy (or comfortable) argument to process. I ended up quitting my job over it!
I’m trying to find a delicate way of saying this (and failing), but the problem with a book wouldn’t be the book, it would be the content creator behind it.
Books are great because they are a concrete, finished work. If I hand you a book by someone like St. Sophrony of Essex or Jean-Claude Larchet, I’m not inviting you to engage in the influencer experience. The former is dead and the latter is a scholar without a social media presence. You read what’s there, you finish it, that’s it.
If I hand you a book by Father So-and-So, host of XYZ YouTube Channel and ABC Podcast, then things become (I think) different. There’s a person who wrote the book who arguably wants you to continue following them outside of the book as well. They’re potentially trying to sell you on the ideas in the book and on themselves.
You're making a very interesting point about print media affects the reader (note: not consumer) differently. Though, as you also note, the form itself isn't enough to guarantee a healthy source.
I wonder if print was a bit healthier when dioceses and seminaries were the dominant publishing houses. A person trying to "sell you on themselves" likely wouldn't pass editorial muster.
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.
And it's honestly comforting to know you've been wrestling with these questions given your experience. Reading your description of the move from "Our Life in Christ" to "Steve the Builder" is so interesting, and provides a great case study.
But you're right, Pandora's box has been opened and there's no going back. Though the way forward isn't exactly clear, is it?
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.
Indeed, we're called to have some level of discernment. But the shape of that discernment will change depending on the principles we're starting from.
Right now, I think we're starting from the principle of trying to maximize good content (which is a very Secular2 ministry principle, if you've followed some of the other pieces I've written). And I'm not sure that's a good place to start.
"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 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.
This argument works only if we forget basic ecclesiology.
Which we have, as modern Orthodox Christians. I'm suggesting that's a problem: when a Church (ecclesia) drifts from a coherent ecclesiology.
Without that grounding in the Church, what does it mean for "content" to be "good"?
That's something I had to wrestle with. Even assuming the content I made was "good," I don't think I could continue to make it in good conscience as an aspiring Orthodox Christian.
I don't know, man. I live in the diaspora and didn't have weekly services growing up. Your 'Be the bee' series had a huge impact on me. I remember being so inspired by your video in which you talk about Simeon that I tried to learn Greek so that I can read 'Ascetics in the world', as there wasn't an English translation available at the time (full disclosure - I gave up pretty quickly). If you're at a stage where, if you could go back in time, you would stop 2015 Steve from making that video, then I can't help but think there's something wrong, even if your reasoning might be sound on paper.
As far as I'm concerned, content is good when it proclaims the truth and helps people deepen their relationship with Christ. If a canonical orthodox hierarch has blessed and promoted it as theologically sound, then, since the church is universal, surely that gives it some validity in any jurisdiction. I'm not saying we should throw ecclesiological norms out the window or anything, but It just seems to me that it would be a mistake to apply them in the same way to this stuff.
Anyway, very thought provoking article, Steve! Thanks for responding. Keep us posted as you think this through.
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 get your point, but I think Steve trying to be content neutral and rather looking at the question of who has authority to teach on a national or even global stage, regardless of content, length etc. If priest/bishop John can't go over to a church in another jurisdiction across town without an explicit blessing from that parish's bishop, then by what authority do online content creators beam into the computers of Orthodox Christian all over the world across various jurisdictions?
Sure, but I don’t think being content neutral totally makes sense here, because not all content is equal in purpose, harm or benefit. My point here boils down to the idea that there is an important distinction to be made that Steve’s most well known content was short, concise, scripted content that was approved by a specific jurisdiction.
The fact that it was made under the auspices of an actual, canonical jurisdiction gives it validity enough in my opinion. The fact that it was *also* short, concise and scripted is a *crucial* aspect that made it incredibly easy for other jurisdictions to vet themselves. If they liked it, slap a stamp of approval on it. If they hated it, stick it on a list of verboten content on a website or in an encyclical. Easy!
That’s what differentiates a lot of the current crop of Orthodox influencers. They’re making stuff that is A) Under questionable oversight (literally often under NO oversight from any hierarch or even a priest) and B) Unscripted bloviating that makes it nigh impossible to vet.
If I’m a bishop, parish priest, lay catechism assistant or youth teacher, it’s incredibly easy to vet stuff like Steve’s old series because we’re talking about sub-15 minute videos. Many YouTubers/podcasters are putting out more hours of content in a few months than Steve did in a nearly *9 year* series.
Now Steve’s regrets, concerns, etc. about the micro-celebrity status that his work brought him? Totally valid, totally get it, definitely a big problem to wrestle with. But I don’t think there’s anything *theoretically* wrong with GOA, OCA, Antiochians or whoever putting out catechetical video series to be widely consumed. I just fundamentally don’t think that is the same type of “content” as the junk being put out on YouTube by absolute nobodies.
All fair points, and I'd acknowledge agreement that there is a difference in the type of content we're talking about. For example, a particular set of ongoing talks I really enjoy by Bishop Irenei of London and Western Europe should invoke a way higher valuation than say, the very zealous catechumen with his own YT channel who talks about how terrible Protestants and Catholic are for 3 hours a day. I also agree that Be The Bee having a blessing from not just a single priest, but of the archdiocese itself, sets what Steve was doing apart to a certain degree. But I think, if I can venture to extrapolate Steve's point, the issue is that even with the blessing he had from GOARCH, he still couldn't come to my Antiochian parish and teach or give a sermon with out the express blessing of *my* bishop. So by what authority should he be allowed to teach me in my living room (via computer)? I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that understanding, it's just how I'm reading his concerns. I definitely don't have the answers. It may be that our modern situation requires an altered approach?
The answer to that, and as well to some of the other comments is ... FIX THE JURISDICTION ISSUE HERE IN THE UNITED STATES!!! I've been Orthodox Christian since the late 90s and still to this day people are dancing around this. 😤
It is frustrating. I've personally decided to stop being angry about it. It lies clearly outside the boundaries of my control. All I can do is pray for unity (which I admittedly don't do enough) and then continue to go about working out my own salvation and raising my children.
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.
I share this sense of being torn! Lord knows I learned a lot from Fr Tom Hopko over the years, for example.
As for your question, I can't say for sure. I don't know exactly where to draw that line. Having some kind of ecclesial mediation is what I'm pushing towards. We have to figure out what that means.
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.
Glory to God!
This is a perfect example of the piece I wrote about "dogmatic consciousness" a few months ago.
Thank you for sharing this experience. And for your self-awareness and restraint.
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!
Thanks for this comment, Catie!
What I'm hearing in your comment is a desire to simply offer testimony and a public witness. That seems to rest more on the "art" side of the spectrum, generally speaking? Not to teach but rather to share personal stories of faith and divine encounter?
Yes! That thought did occur to me that my experience resonates more with your description of an artist than a preacher (I included it in my first draft of the comment, lol).
On a related note, that conversation (distinguishing between preaching and art) is very relevant to an ongoing conversation at the Literary Life Podcast. They’ve identified a strong tendency among contemporary people of all types to not really recognize art, which exists both for its own sake, and to point towards the Truth (even and especially without directly moralizing or allegorizing). Many of us today bring a moralizing sense to all art, whether we are encountering the art of another or while creating our own. (Hence the thinly veiled agendas present in almost all contemporary children’s books.) Why is this? We’ve been taught for generations now that art is frivolous, so we think that only something with a moral is worthwhile. That goes for secular and Christian folks alike. Maybe that’s relevant to this conversation, too — an overeagerness of all kinds of people to moralize on all kinds of issues today? Not just an Orthodox problem?
Maybe (if I can be a bit provocative) we can even push into that observation a bit and say to "propagandize" rather than moralize: to use the superficial semblance of art to advance a particular goal.
Yes, great distinction!
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.
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.
Oh boy, it was terrible there over a year ago. I shudder to imagine it getting worse!
It's disheartening. I see so many converts who are dedicated to "debating" people into the Orthodox Church. What happened to hesychia? It's really only Orthodox by name.
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.
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.
Thanks for this, Kenny. I really appreciate the distinction between preaching/teaching and sharing. That's really important: testimony is sort of the punchline of the ministry training that Christian and I developed a few years ago.
And thanks again for the offer, but I need to pass. My work with FOCUS has been such a blessing, and is more than keeping me busy. I've been able to direct my attention to a limited group of cities (where we have Centers and where we're developing Centers), which has allowed me to get to know people, work with them more intentionally, etc. It's allowed me to go a lot smaller, so to speak, and way less abstract. I'm very comfortable continuing to keep my distance from content creation.
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.
I'm certainly tempted by this argument. I think it's another way of expressing the desire to see myself as "not part of the problem" which I outlined in the piece.
(And I didn't want to be too negative in the piece, hence my attempt to focus on critiquing my own work, though I appreciate your honesty and your point is well taken.)
The response that always rests on my heart is "what good is it to be active, even successful, if you can't even be faithful?"
The prospect of remaining silent when there is no blessing to speak is frightening. But what if I'm not the one in control? What if my content isn't what's demanded of me here, but rather my witness?
I don't know if it makes sense. But that's what keeps pushing back within me (to this very temping argument).
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?
Books can definitely fall under this argument!
I wonder if they didn’t because, historically, books tended to be published by diocesan publishers. Or at least a narrower set of publishers that has diocesan approval.
The rise of self-publishing / popular publishing and wider markets, where theological teaching gets further removed from canonical boundaries, certainly changes things.
Steve, I see the point you're trying to make, sort of. Certainly many "Orthobros'" podcasts fall into that category. And for that type of influencer your warning is more on point. But I think you're painting with too broad of a brush. I've read many books by Orthodox authors over the years who are not part of my jurisdiction, and don't have ecumenical teacher status. Should I not have read Pres. Jeannie's book on Christ's crucifixion? Should I not watch her podcast? She's GOA. I'm OCA. I also read "The Mountain of Silence" when I was newly Orthodox, but Kyriakos Markides, in that book, was still quite influenced by new age stuff. I don't think he'd fully returned to the church at that point (and wasn't OCA either).
How you decide to act upon (or not act upon) this piece is entirely up to you!
I'm making a content-neutral argument. Even granting that the work I did had a positive effect on people, I stopped doing it because that's just now how the Church works.
It's not an easy (or comfortable) argument to process. I ended up quitting my job over it!
I’m trying to find a delicate way of saying this (and failing), but the problem with a book wouldn’t be the book, it would be the content creator behind it.
Books are great because they are a concrete, finished work. If I hand you a book by someone like St. Sophrony of Essex or Jean-Claude Larchet, I’m not inviting you to engage in the influencer experience. The former is dead and the latter is a scholar without a social media presence. You read what’s there, you finish it, that’s it.
If I hand you a book by Father So-and-So, host of XYZ YouTube Channel and ABC Podcast, then things become (I think) different. There’s a person who wrote the book who arguably wants you to continue following them outside of the book as well. They’re potentially trying to sell you on the ideas in the book and on themselves.
You're making a very interesting point about print media affects the reader (note: not consumer) differently. Though, as you also note, the form itself isn't enough to guarantee a healthy source.
I wonder if print was a bit healthier when dioceses and seminaries were the dominant publishing houses. A person trying to "sell you on themselves" likely wouldn't pass editorial muster.
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.
Thanks for this reflection, Steve!
And it's honestly comforting to know you've been wrestling with these questions given your experience. Reading your description of the move from "Our Life in Christ" to "Steve the Builder" is so interesting, and provides a great case study.
But you're right, Pandora's box has been opened and there's no going back. Though the way forward isn't exactly clear, is it?
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.
Thank you, dear Father!
Good strength to you as well!
I'm hoping work sends me down to your neck of the woods later this year. I hope that'll give us a chance to catch up in person!
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.
I see where you're coming from!
Indeed, we're called to have some level of discernment. But the shape of that discernment will change depending on the principles we're starting from.
Right now, I think we're starting from the principle of trying to maximize good content (which is a very Secular2 ministry principle, if you've followed some of the other pieces I've written). And I'm not sure that's a good place to start.
"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.
God bless your honesty and introspection!
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.
This argument works only if we forget basic ecclesiology.
Which we have, as modern Orthodox Christians. I'm suggesting that's a problem: when a Church (ecclesia) drifts from a coherent ecclesiology.
Without that grounding in the Church, what does it mean for "content" to be "good"?
That's something I had to wrestle with. Even assuming the content I made was "good," I don't think I could continue to make it in good conscience as an aspiring Orthodox Christian.
I don't know, man. I live in the diaspora and didn't have weekly services growing up. Your 'Be the bee' series had a huge impact on me. I remember being so inspired by your video in which you talk about Simeon that I tried to learn Greek so that I can read 'Ascetics in the world', as there wasn't an English translation available at the time (full disclosure - I gave up pretty quickly). If you're at a stage where, if you could go back in time, you would stop 2015 Steve from making that video, then I can't help but think there's something wrong, even if your reasoning might be sound on paper.
As far as I'm concerned, content is good when it proclaims the truth and helps people deepen their relationship with Christ. If a canonical orthodox hierarch has blessed and promoted it as theologically sound, then, since the church is universal, surely that gives it some validity in any jurisdiction. I'm not saying we should throw ecclesiological norms out the window or anything, but It just seems to me that it would be a mistake to apply them in the same way to this stuff.
Anyway, very thought provoking article, Steve! Thanks for responding. Keep us posted as you think this through.
That's a very fair response. I have a similar fondness for some of the podcasts of Fr Tom Hopko, for example, which played a similar role in my life.
I don't know either. That work came from a good, if naïve, place. And God has certainly done something wonderful with it.
I just can't fight this growing sense that we're getting something very, very wrong about (what should be) a very basic bit of ecclesiology.
I appreciate you pushing back on this. And for sharing your story! May blessed Symeon pray for us, in his simplicity and love.
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 get your point, but I think Steve trying to be content neutral and rather looking at the question of who has authority to teach on a national or even global stage, regardless of content, length etc. If priest/bishop John can't go over to a church in another jurisdiction across town without an explicit blessing from that parish's bishop, then by what authority do online content creators beam into the computers of Orthodox Christian all over the world across various jurisdictions?
Sure, but I don’t think being content neutral totally makes sense here, because not all content is equal in purpose, harm or benefit. My point here boils down to the idea that there is an important distinction to be made that Steve’s most well known content was short, concise, scripted content that was approved by a specific jurisdiction.
The fact that it was made under the auspices of an actual, canonical jurisdiction gives it validity enough in my opinion. The fact that it was *also* short, concise and scripted is a *crucial* aspect that made it incredibly easy for other jurisdictions to vet themselves. If they liked it, slap a stamp of approval on it. If they hated it, stick it on a list of verboten content on a website or in an encyclical. Easy!
That’s what differentiates a lot of the current crop of Orthodox influencers. They’re making stuff that is A) Under questionable oversight (literally often under NO oversight from any hierarch or even a priest) and B) Unscripted bloviating that makes it nigh impossible to vet.
If I’m a bishop, parish priest, lay catechism assistant or youth teacher, it’s incredibly easy to vet stuff like Steve’s old series because we’re talking about sub-15 minute videos. Many YouTubers/podcasters are putting out more hours of content in a few months than Steve did in a nearly *9 year* series.
Now Steve’s regrets, concerns, etc. about the micro-celebrity status that his work brought him? Totally valid, totally get it, definitely a big problem to wrestle with. But I don’t think there’s anything *theoretically* wrong with GOA, OCA, Antiochians or whoever putting out catechetical video series to be widely consumed. I just fundamentally don’t think that is the same type of “content” as the junk being put out on YouTube by absolute nobodies.
All fair points, and I'd acknowledge agreement that there is a difference in the type of content we're talking about. For example, a particular set of ongoing talks I really enjoy by Bishop Irenei of London and Western Europe should invoke a way higher valuation than say, the very zealous catechumen with his own YT channel who talks about how terrible Protestants and Catholic are for 3 hours a day. I also agree that Be The Bee having a blessing from not just a single priest, but of the archdiocese itself, sets what Steve was doing apart to a certain degree. But I think, if I can venture to extrapolate Steve's point, the issue is that even with the blessing he had from GOARCH, he still couldn't come to my Antiochian parish and teach or give a sermon with out the express blessing of *my* bishop. So by what authority should he be allowed to teach me in my living room (via computer)? I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that understanding, it's just how I'm reading his concerns. I definitely don't have the answers. It may be that our modern situation requires an altered approach?
The answer to that, and as well to some of the other comments is ... FIX THE JURISDICTION ISSUE HERE IN THE UNITED STATES!!! I've been Orthodox Christian since the late 90s and still to this day people are dancing around this. 😤
It is frustrating. I've personally decided to stop being angry about it. It lies clearly outside the boundaries of my control. All I can do is pray for unity (which I admittedly don't do enough) and then continue to go about working out my own salvation and raising my children.
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.
I share this sense of being torn! Lord knows I learned a lot from Fr Tom Hopko over the years, for example.
As for your question, I can't say for sure. I don't know exactly where to draw that line. Having some kind of ecclesial mediation is what I'm pushing towards. We have to figure out what that means.
Thanks for wrestling with me!