Well, since everyone else is all up in arms about Hank Hanegraafs conversion to Orthodoxy, I guess I will be too.
There have been some pretty good articles and other stuff written about the protestant hysteria over it, and these are my favorites so far:
And this totally hilarious meme in response to the Jeff Maples Pulpit and pen article:
I was listening to Hank Hanegraaf way back in the days when I was an obsequious, blue-pill, married, wife-pedestalizer when I heard Stu Webber come on and talk about his woman-worshipping book “Tender Warrior.” But that was a long time ago. I haven’t really listened to much Christian radio since.
And this brings me to my first random thought on the matter. Since I have made the case that Orthodoxy is nearly 100% compatible with red-pill thinking here and here, I started hopefully wondering, “could Hanegraafs conversion signal a mainstreaming of the Christian manosphere?”
Probably not, but to borrow from my favorite character in “Dazed and Confused,” it would be way cooler if it did. However, in order for that to happen, we would have to assume a lot of stuff about how he will proceed from here, which is entirely wrapped up in his own internal experience. The guy is an outlier among outliers, so he doesn’t need “game,” about which I have expressed great ambivalence in the past. He’s probably a millionaire, with multiple books sold, a nationally syndicated radio program and all. It’s one of the great conundrums of what I think being an “alpha” male really means, if there is such a thing. Here–listen to Jack Nicholson as he channels the empathy of a thousand Mother Theresas in an attempt to relate to the average frustrated chump:
Maybe because it’s always been so easy for me to get c@*&, that I never understood jacking off in a theater.
Next scattered thought: Holy crap this post went viral! 500 comments, multiple reblogs and ping backs, tweets, etc. And its related to the above. I am still trying to sift through my own thoughts on what happened there. I (and my co-writer) were merely asking a question about how realistic it is to assume what we have been assuming about the “traditionalist” Christian marriage market place.
One take away I have really been struck with is that the bright line of distinction between a Christian MMP (which by definition must have the SMP be a subset of it) and the big, worldy SMP is pretty much obliterated. My readers know my own situation testifies to this. I have no room to talk, except in the abstract on this matter. Before my first marriage and in between that one and meeting Mychael, I “dated” a number of girls who I had no intention of marrying. And I even met some of them in church!
So I guess my point is, don’t hold out hope that Hank Hanegraaf is going to suddenly go all “married game” on us and all that would entail.
Still–I thought some of the points Fr. Andrew made in his article require a response. He has some videos also and appears to be a very friendly, kind man and a great apologist for Orthodoxy:
He unfortunately doesn’t mention that apostolic succession was the early Church’s way of proving that something came from the Apostles. He also doesn’t mention that Orthodox apostolic succession doesn’t depend on Constantinopolitan claims about St. Andrew. Those claims might be dubious, but no one questions, for instance, the Petrine origins of the Churches of Antioch or Alexandria nor the apostolic origin of the Church of Jerusalem, etc.
Comparing those churches’ historical succession to Baptist Landmarkism, which is essentially an attempt to trace anti-Catholicism through a long succession of various heretics, is really a stretch. And comparing it to Restorationism is almost a non sequitur. It’s not a quest for a “denominational grail.” History really does record a continuous succession of bishops and their flocks in various ancient apostolic sees, most of which are still occupied by Orthodox bishops.
And to conclude that “no one has it completely right” basically means that you can never really know if what you teach and practice aligns with what Jesus taught His disciples or not. Agnosticism about church authority means that you really aren’t accountable to anyone, because, hey, no one has it completely right.
Everyone appeals to tradition! It’s just, how far back and which one do you agree with? (And upon what grounds?).
In my case, the issue came down to the matter of scripture itself–and who collated it. If the Apostles and their successors had the authority to decide what was canonical, then why did their authority stop there? And on precisely what date did that happen?
The two largest groups of Christians (Catholics and Orthodox) account for the vast majority of the faith worldwide. And they have had a liturgical tradition centered around the Eucharist for 2000 years across all cultures. That’s what Christians DID, and continue to do, en masse. In the larger context of the world and world history only western societies with their orgasmic obsession with individual “rights” have rejected this form of worship.
I’m a simple man, really. I’m no theologian. It is glorious that Hank Hanegraaf converted and I have no idea what his journey looked like. But its nice to have such intellectually weighty company.