There appears to be some room right now for myself and others to say how tired we are of the "discussions" which spring up around certain contemporary American Orthodox evangelistic forms which are present in certain broadcasts and publicans produced by Orthodox Christians. That would be a bit self-serving, I think. It would also open us up to the charge that our "tiredness" is a "clear indication" of our collective "wrongheadedness." Yes, some of us could be truly tired, but then it seems that we should simply drop the subject altogether and move on. Most of us have not. Even if we're disinclined from making much of it in the future, the odds are that the issue will resurface in some way, shape, or form. Then the whole rigmarole recommences. If there is any value to it, I suspect it is found in the fact that blog readers come and go; even old debates have a way of taking on relevance when examined by fresh eyes. Perhaps it would be easier if instead of engaging in a new round of banter, people would just go back and cut n' paste their old posts and comments before seeing whether or not there is anything new to be said. I know (blogging) life doesn't work that way, but from an efficiency standpoint, it really would be the best course of action.
Speaking only for myself, I can't say that I am tired. Perhaps I am a bit bored, but only because I'm still waiting for the most fundamental criticisms advanced by myself and others against certain contemporary American Orthodox evangelistic forms to be met with a concrete defense (or a good offense--which is the best defense...or is it the other way around?). I'd really rather not be personally attacked, mocked, parodied, or psychologized, though I like to think of myself as pretty thick skinned and not apt to get too bent out of shape by such things.
I could, I suppose, let all of this stuff go and just take satisfaction that most of my criticisms and the criticisms of others against the aforementioned forms are on target. That is, I could revel in my rightness. But why? Again, speaking only for myself, I never set out to show how "right" I am when I've criticized anything on the Internet. My criticisms, and the criticisms of others, are set out because we see concrete problems which ought to be addressed. At times I have been told to take my problems to "the source." I confess that I have failed to do this on multiple occasions. On the other hand, I have taken these admonishments to heart and have opted to voice my views to some in private. All the same, I'm not daft. I have very little confidence that what I say to certain individuals or groups of individuals will have a transformative effect. Matters rarely work out so simply and I only have so much time to give to any issues--and this goes well beyond Orthodoxy--which I take up in my daily life. Oftentimes I have to resign myself to the fact that if I want to make any impact at all, I have to try and air my views in the open to see if I might persuade others with their truthfulness while at the same time risking exposure of my falsehoods. This is why, when I was 19 years old, I took it upon myself to write in to the op-ed page of the Grand Rapids Press my views on Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace rather than pen a personal letter to George Lucas himself. I surmised that Mr. Lucas was too busy counting his money to read a note from yours truly. I also suspected that any man who wrote dialog like someone who had never had an actual conversation with another human being in his life probably wouldn't be able to understand my criticisms in the first place.
But, back to the topic at hand...
I have never suffered under the delusion that anything I wrote online or to people personally will magically transform reality. That's not "the point." The point is to air my criticisms in public and let those who choose to read them do with them as they will. If they find them beyond the pale, they can simply drop this web-log from their RSS feeds and add it to their web browser's list of blocked sites. Since this is a web-log with an open combox, they can offer concurring or dissenting points of view. The responses are posted instantly and, unlike letters to the editor to newspapers or magazines, remain unedited. Perhaps people will reference them at a later date or perhaps they'll be lost in cyberspace for all time. I really don't have any control over it. Like many others, this is the "best" I have and if it fails, it fails.
Now, maybe I shouldn't do this at all. The classic question remains: "Who are you to do/say/think X?" Such questions, whether or not they're intended rhetorically, used to generate a fairly spirited defense from me. But why? I don't have any "credentials" and I never will. And even the "credentials" I do have to write, speak, and instruct on certain topics means very little if the substance of what I say is lacking or my logic has derailed. The one thing I will not do is try to use a certain set of "credentials" in one area to prop-up my "legitimacy" in others. (For an outstanding discussion of how this practice has become ubiquitous amongst our society's intelligentsia, see Richard Posner's Public Intellectuals: A Study in Decline.) So, if you believe that a trained lawyer who works in academia is a priori incapable of rendering meaningful criticism about, say, certain contemporary American Orthodox evangelistic forms, then so be it. My feelings won't be hurt. I promise.
All the same, it's the (New Calendar) Nativity Fast and I should take my own priest's recent sermon to heart--even on a web-log. Surely I can find other things to write about. The problems in American Orthodoxy aren't going to cure themselves in the next 40 days (though I pray they would). I can return to these topics later. So can others. They'll still be here and so too our brother and sister despisers. But given the season, I'll let Tiny Tim have the last word: "God Bless Us, Every One!"