cosplay

‘Masculine’ Orthodox Growth

Standard

I awoke this morning to a message from Fr. Siewers. He shared a NY Post article, “Young men leaving traditional churches for ‘masculine’ Orthodox Christianity in droves,” which I read with my coffee. This is a trend within Orthodoxy, and arguably I’m part of it, where (relatively) young men are leaving the consumerist ‘Big Box’ and the compromised traditional churches for a weird alternative that feels foreign to most Americans.

I know, in past blogs, about Orthodox growth, I’ve done a sort of victory lap about Orthodoxy and in doing so left out valid counterpoints. Yes, indeed, many young men are finding Orthodoxy. But it may not be as big a trend as articles like this NY Post story or the Orthodox faithful make it out to be. The growth from fundamentalist reactionaries is limited—most especially if it is only drawing in males. It is difficult to sustain this if no accompanying young women are willing to procreate with these transplanted men.

The truth is that Orthodox, in the United States of America, only number around 6-7 million. Who knows how many show up on Sunday?  For sake of reference, that is less than the estimates for illegal immigrants who currently live in this country, around 11.7 million, and basically makes the Orthodox contingent a demographic drop in the bucket. Yes, growth is good, but is this sustainable? Or is it just a blip driven by those desperate to do something a little different from everyone else and destined to fade like Hipster fashion after a decade?

My own conversion to Orthodoxy was not the same as the template laid out in the NY Post article. I wasn’t running from a church with a ‘woke’ or social justice agenda that replaced the Gospel. Yes, maybe I was a bit disgruntled with a feminized church culture where marriage and family were sacrificed for impossible ideals and visible missions. But it wasn’t in reaction to liberalization. I had done it from a conservative Mennonite church and was attracted to Orthodoxy as it was different from fundamentalism.

Ironically, this new flow of reactionary men to Orthodoxy may come at the expense of the attitude of the church that had initially drawn me. While adopting the Orthodox worship ritual, some bring their Protestant or Catholic baggage with them, there are too many Ortho-bros or those simply trying to be edgelords and unique. It is part of the Alt-right vibe, those who have rejected the far-left’s absurdity on one hand and yet are still looking for a reaction more than they are serious about their faith.

There will always be that small percentage of people who will buy a Tesla Cybertruck to be strange. Those who do things to piss off everyone else with normal tastes. And the growth of Orthodoxy is as much a rejection of the political mainstream as it is about seeking God. It feels more like cosplay, in my experience, than it is something born of a repentant spirit and desire to truly submit to the authority of Christ vested in the church. It is a bunch of dressed-up Protestants.

Case and point? The parish I left has an old Baptist convert as a priest who offended a couple (very fragile extremely idealistic homeschoolers) and the mom of this union made it her personal mission to pull as many people away as possible through lies and attacks. That’s where much of the new growth in the ROCOR parish down the road has come from and why I’ve been inclined to stay home on Sunday to be away from all of it. Not all growth is good growth.

As a postscript, my wife and I do not share the same perspective as far as worship and what church is ideal. She got along with the folks at Holy Cross. But didn’t get much out of the preaching (which was fundamentalist in flavor more than Orthodox) and practice. We sometimes attend a generic Protestant consumerist church, with a rock band and a coffee shop, because it is what reminds her most of her own generic Evangelicalism in the Philippines. My son and new daughter remain unbaptized.

Two Kinds Of Black

Standard

Identity is fluid, a physical characteristic is not.  I had identified as being “Mennonite” for many years of my life.  It was not much of a choice for me.  Raised in a Mennonite home, participated in a Mennonite church, and had internalized the values, the belief system, etc.  Mennonite was simply what I was and it still remains by ethnic/cultural background.  Leaving the community does not mean I’ll escape the genetic realities of my birth tribe.  

Is an identity surface level or deeper?

There was many of these labels that have to do with our social status, some we pick and others are picked for us.  In school if you’re into sports, hang out with other athletes, it is going to get you a “jock” designation and likely also stereotype applied with that.  Likewise, if were to wear a particular wardrobe to conform with a group of self-described non-conformists then you’re Goth or Emo.  People tend to coagulate into identity group—they find others who are like them and also become more like those whom they identify with.

But there’s a huge difference between these identities built around how we dress or who we associate with and those like eye color, bone structure or genitalia.  Sure, someone can dye their hair purple and claim that they are an astronaut, but that does not change what they were born with nor does it make them qualified to fly a space shuttle.  There are those ‘assigned’ categories that need to be objective facts rather than some kind of self-identity or cosplay act.  Science needs to have clear definitions or the endeavor is impossible.  And society simply can’t let you be a medical doctor because you feel like you should be a Porsche owner while you’re stuck driving a Kia.

Anyhow, getting to the point, a big problem with these conversations is that people are using the same words to mean something different.  For example, Rachel Dolezal, the woman who identified as ‘black’ despite her being born a daughter of European parents and having their biological characteristics, yet she could be ‘black’ for many years.  In my mind she can be both black or not black depending on what the term is describing—is it the genetic inheritance or the adopted culture?

I mean, think of Eminem’s lyrics: “I am the worst thing since Elvis Presley, to do Black music so selfishly and use it to get myself wealthy.”

Technically, if it is a ‘white’ artist doing the writing and performing, what is so ‘black’ about it?  He’s performing in English.  He’s doing naval gazing more common with the self-loathing European culture and his lyrics were about being some weird trailer trash hybrid rather than the themes common with the gangsta rap I knew growing up where it was at least presented as being something to take seriously.  How is a genre of music a skin color?  Asians are quite good at playing instruments and music first developed by the West—is that appropriation?

In many cases ‘black’ is not referring to something truly immutable.  No, rather it is about a lifestyle, a set of values, a certain way of behaving and, by this definition, it is perfectly legitimate for someone to identify as black without African genetics.  In other words, it is more like belonging to political party or religion than something someone is born.  And this is how suddenly the far left can claim work ethic or nuclear families are ‘white’ despite the Africans I know being as hard working and loyal to their spouses as any other person.

It is grotesque, horrendously racist, when a political candidate tells a whole segment of the population that if they don’t vote for him then, “You ain’t black.“

Of course that was to intentionally confuse actual skin color and everything associated with it, with a ideology and perspective.  It is to rob the targets (black people who think differently than him) of their identity and is a form of gaslighting.  An outsider doesn’t get to decide what people should or should not belong.  It is inappropriate and bullying behavior, this truly is the worst kind of manipulation, it reinforces stereotypes and denies the true diversity within a category of color.

So identity is fluid.  We can change our own idea of what we are.  Still, there are also the fixed points determined by birth, a physical characteristic, that even if the surface level manifestations are surgically changed and hormones artificially employed, cannot be chosen or changed.  A man can behave in a feminine way, a woman in a masculine way, yet he doesn’t lose a Y chromosome simply for declaring himself a woman.  Sure, he can have his male anatomy reconstructed to resemble the female sex.  But there is more to being a woman.

Due to chromosomal abnormalities, there may not be a binary of male and female, but there most certainly is between female and not female.  It is one thing for the man once known as Bruce Jenner to reject the typical male role and change his name.  But that does not change the fact that he fathered his children and lacks the real hardware to be a woman.  Again, Rachel Dolezal can act in a manner that is associated with those of African origins, even fool the NAACP with her outward appearance, but she is not truly African American.

We do not need to recognize every claim as being valid.  I can’t just thrash around in the pool, march up to the podium and demand to be recognized as the winner of a swim meet without the necessary qualifications or actual achievement.  Why then is it ever okay for someone with male genitals and body to dominate in a female category for simply changing his name and having the powers that be join him in his psychosis?  

Changing your name and official category doesn’t change the physical reality.

It is a serious threat to civilization to attack the common language in this manner and it cannot be taken lightly.  One person with a delusion is not a problem.  However, when it is a significant portion of society going off the rails together then very quickly becomes dangerous.  Matters of our preference and culture are subjective, what is feminine or masculine is not set in stone, but science and reason must be built on something that is objective.  There must be a wall between identity that is merely social construct and that which is grounded in substance.