Emotionalism

 

I am trying to get refocused on my work for this blog which is not easy. I said before I do not like having to blog but I think this is necessary even though my feelings say “run”.

What I am struggling with here as I dig and compile is the problem in the church I see the same problem with this country. What do I see?

There is first of all a great deal of emotionalism in both the church and in the US. Perhaps there always has been but it has gotten to the point where it seems that rational disagreement has been totally replaced by double-barrel blasts of invective every time two people do not totally agree. Some people think that the church is all about their emotions, so much so that they are better about telling you how their church makes them feel over what their church makes them think.

It is hard enough to keep emotion out of the reporting of fact but it seems our society considers emotion a fact. This is where the problem lies since people now think that how they feel about something is evidence for the thing itself. This makes ordinary rational people quite irrational. My goal here is to point out the irrational beliefs of some by demonstrating how silly these irrational statements are when extracted from their emotional shell.

At the popular level there is an international phenomenon of emotionalism that is leading to over the top spending and debt. I would say a majority of Americans and citizens of other lands think that someone else must take care of their needs. They see themselves as not being entirely responsible for their own upkeep. Kids these days have it pounded into their heads to the point where I wonder where we are heading. They are told to value their feelings before their thoughts and the most emotional appeal always wins the day.

Our problem now is that this emotionalism has taken root in the churches here in America. Liturgical decisions are made based on how people feel rather than on a rational discussion of the Typicon and the decisions people make about coming to church.

Mark Stokoe tapped into those emotional impulses to build his base. Yes he had a lot of fact but he added a lot of emotional hyperbole to tip the scales in his favor. Now we see that the same technique is being used against him.

This can best be seen in the issue of Bishop Mark Maymon.  I have seen lots of anger and emotion yet no one has really sat down and explained what it is that he is doing. We know people are upset but we never see a logical analysis as to why they are upset to begin with. I have heard snippets here and there but certainly not enough to justify the ‘lynch mob’ as one eyewitness described it.

Maymon is certainly not perfect but neither are the people in the South. They are used to having the same bishop for over forty years who built a diocese in large part around himself. This is the same problem with the Antiochians with another bishop who has stayed in to the point where nobody really remembers life without that one person in charge. The office and the person become inseparable and thus the emotions that the person elicits are synonymous with the office and the role.

The people are not thinking that a bishop might come in and do things differently because they assume that when someone makes different decisions from what Archbishop Dmitri Royster would do then he is being a bad bishop. The only solution would be Royster II. The only problem was that Royster made lots of mistakes but was able to get past them because of how people felt about him.

So he could rehabilitate a gay deacon and allow him to serve on a limited basis
while living with another man, a retired bishop alleged to be also "orientation-challenged", and it is OK because Royster is a good man.

Yes, some like Rod Dreher and others on that sad band wagon will quote chapter and verse were they admitted Royster or Paffhausen were maybe a little mistaken here or there.  Dreher can even call Royster and Paffhausen "wrong" about the deacon thing I just mentioned, but still they are trusted leaders who made mistakes.  And anyone, including the Synod, who wants to address problems with Paffhausen or Fester had better be able to prove off the bat that they are using and using correctly the "nuclear option" of a water tight case for deposition.  For Kondratick, even his "slam dunk" deposition is not enough because the SIC report did not result in civil prosecution.  Despite that fact that some of the most obvious and prosecutable crimes of Kondratick were well past the statute of limitations before the SIC report came out, the lack of a civil conviction gets trumpeted as a virtual acquittal, or even proof of innocence.  Maymon, not a friend of Fester's or Dreher's, gets no such benefit of the doubt.   

Why Maymon is bad because, well, we are not too sure. But he has to go because people there feel he is wrong. At least that is the public argument. Mind you, I am not making a case that Maymon is either acting poorly or a saint.  What I am pointing out is that emotions are running high but no case has been made either way. Replacing someone who is revered is almost a suicide mission.  I have seen several priests go down in flame who were good men but replaced priests who were looked upon as virtually perfect.

Before jumping to any conclusions about Maymon, I really wish that some of those who are crying the loudest for his ouster would actually get around to stating the reasons other than their feelings. Emotions are not enough of a case unto themselves.

This emotionalism also has allowed people to draw direct parallels between the OCA and the Episcopalians to say that gays and women are preparing to board and sink the OCA without any real evidence other than an obituary. Yes the lone piece of solid evidence is an obituary which calls Stokoe’s house-mate and presumed lover an ‘in-law’ to Stokoe’s dead mother.

We need to move away from the emotionalism that is driving people to vote for the person who promises them the most free benefits and believe the person with the narrative that best fits our opinions, and sit down in peace to examine the facts.

The OCA is part of the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ. It is in no danger of being turned into a gay zombie turned against our Lord because He said so. What happened to the Episcopals and Presbyterians has to do largely with the fact that they are not part of the Church. Come on guys. Put your theology where your brain is. The worst that can happen is that we can be purged from the Body. This is either done through the discipline of the Church or our own desire to be separated.

All indications are the emotionalists are winding up for the pitch to leave the Church.  After all you cannot remain angry for very long before acting on it.