Relating to the Broader Right
Over the past year I have been looking into an ecclesiastical debate within the Orthodox Church, that can be summarized, in short, by asking “how are we to relate to the heterodox, and how do we relate to those who join themselves to the heterodox?” Each time I delve into the issue, I cannot help but think of the dissident right’s relationship to the broader right. Recently I read a position paper by the late Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili, which I think, if translated, can serve our purposes quite well. Before quoting from it, I want to make two (fairly big) admissions:
First, for my Orthodox brothers and sisters, I am not a “Cyprianite”, and my use of his position paper, though I might find some points salient, does not imply my total endorsement. Months ago I used Father Alexander Schmemann’s reply to Metropolitan Philaret’s Sorrowful Epistles1, in a similar exercise, and my usage of men who were on opposite sides of the debate should clarify my non-endorsement, underscoring that what I am trying to do is rectify a problem I see in the right, by bringing in outside sources. This is not a theology article, keep in mind, but a way of addressing problems of the right from a different angle.
Second, this paper is speaking of an organism, the Church, which is attempting to reestablish unity, a unity established by Christ. The political right has never been united, and the boundaries of what constitute the right are in constant dispute. Additionally, outside the most fanatical partisans, nobody claims, or could claim, that the political right was established by Christ. Taken together, the applicability of this paper to the political situation of today is not a one-for-one, and if there is to be any pushback to what I will be arguing, this is weak spot where you would want to push.
Having said that, the other necessary piece of context is that in the quotes to follow Cyprian is outlining how the faithful Orthodox should relate to those who are drifting away from the Faith, or have even departed from it. Any further context would only interest a fraction of you gremlins who are Orthodox, so without further chatter:
“The theological and practical meaning of Orthodox resistance and walling-off is anything other than reassuring, since it has the capacity literally to wake people up:
a) Orthodox resistance requires “the healthy part” of the Church, that is, the “anti-innovationist plentitude”, to wall itself off, not to have communion with the “diseased,” the ailing, part; this rupture of communion already lays the foundation for weighty complexity and relentless uneasiness among our brothers who are caught up in innovation and heresy.
b) This rupture of communion and walling-off initiates a series of actions with the following goals:
-That we should not become diseased or contaminated ourselves;
-That we should exhort the rest of the members of the Body to break communion, too, lest they likewise become diseased or contaminated;
-That we should aid in the repentance and cure of the ailing member with brotherly love, so as to avoid the worsening of his illness and his final excision from the Body;
-That we should contribute, finally, to the convocation of a Synod, which would take measures to prevent the disease from spreading to the entire Body.
These synodal measures define the therapeutic treatment of the Church, and they are as follows:
First: the excision of a member, if he does not repent;
Second: the proclamation of “sound doctrine”, the remedy for the disease;
Third: encouragement for the Orthodox to live, as St. Ignatios of Antioch says, “only om Christian fare, and to refrain from strange food, which is heresy.”
In the wake of all we have demonstrated and summarized up to now, we draw the conclusion that the consistent application of the standards of Orthodox resistance and walling-off keeps the anti-innovationist plentitude in resistance within the boundaries of anti-ecumenism and averts the danger of our becoming—according to St. Theodore the Studite—“more lawful than the law” and “straighter than the rule.”
In the case of the opposite,
-Ecclesiological alertness is diminished;
-The sanctity of the unificationist vision is obfuscated by other priorities;
-The steady planning and coordination of a general unifying Synod is neglected;
-Quietism and an unhealthy ecclesiological introversion and self-sufficiency prevail, with all their tragic and painful consequences on the theological, pastoral, and spiritual levels.”2
Breaking down Cyprian’s argument, we can summarize his position as follows:
First, there must be a walling-off whereby the faithful are protected from error, which can, like the medical analogy suggests, can be spread through prolonged, unprotected, contact. After this walling-off occurs, the faithful should encourage others to join in, and also wall-off. During this second phase, if we can call it that (these steps likely take place at the same time in practice), the faithful are encouraging those in error to repent, and return to the truth, and as repentance is preached, the truth must be clearly defined. Finally, a Synod, or assembly of all bishops, must be called to make an official, binding, statement on the crisis.
Translating this into the context of the right, we can say:
First, the dissident right must break from the conservative mainstream, lest its members begin to accept, through prolonged, unprotected, exposure, the premises of mainstream conservatism. After this break occurs, which has happened, the members of the dissident right must reach out to those in mainstream conservatism, and try to convince them of their errors, and get them to join the body of the DR. Simultaneous with this must be a clarification of the DR’s positions, and a robust defense thereof. Each position should be defensible with academic precision, and rhetorically honed to meet the criterions of the great orators of old. Those who do not adhere must be excised, lest our witness become confused, and we look like a mere collection of online anons, or what would be worse, trolls. To some extent this has occurred, but accidently. Tucker Carlson has accepted many of our positions on his own, and The Blaze has brought on Auron MacIntyre, to name another example, but this has not been the result of a systematic effort. Our people should be reaching out to conservatives, and speak the truth in love. Bullying, though effective for a time, and for a few, is not as effective as showing someone the truth. It is very easy to show a conservative that to be pro-life, you must also be an immigration restrictionist, because those who immigrate from south of the border tend to vote for pro-abortion candidates, regardless of their personal beliefs. Patiently pointing this out, all the while showing ourself to be more educated, more composed, and more charitable, is how we speak the truth in love.
Finally, as more of the mainstream begins to join us, we can begin to initiate a formal process whereby those who refused to join us are excised from the right as such. If we were farther along this path, a GOP debate that did not include Tucker as moderator, for example, would be labeled as “rogue”, and every effort would be made to minimize its impact, and pull money from it, or even denying them their venue.
Simply proclaiming ourselves right, and refusing to engage the broader right, is what Cyprian calls “quietism” and “introversion”, and is how a subculture, or, God forbid, a political cult, is made. The truth is not something to be hoarded away from the “unwashed masses”, but something for all. Politics is the science of the polis, and if we are engaged in politics, it means that our concern has to be for the entire polis, not just we few who “got it all figured out.” Quietism and introversion, which makes a perversion of truth, often masquerades as righteousness, and keeps converts to our cause at arms distance through the use of foul language, mockery, and attaching global labels to a class of persons. The world is filled with delusion, and love has grown cold, which makes anyone talking common sense, and warm with love, like an oasis in an arid desert. People are tired of falsehood, but they are just equally tired of polemics and drama.
At the same time we open our arms, and patiently speak the truth in love, our walling-off must be real. There can be no endorsement of anyone who teaches falsehood. Despite the right’s obsession with having our own LGBT+ commentators, we cannot teach healthy sexuality while also giving those who openly, and unrepentantly, practice unhealthy sexuality a platform. This applies equally, if not more so, to someone like Andrew Tate, who makes a mockery of heterosexuality, has exploited women, and cultivate “sigma male mentality.” We also cannot give a platform to anyone who advocates policies that would hurt young families. Those who oppose school-choice, endorse cutting corporate taxes at the expense of the working class, or who would send billions of dollars overseas when a young American couple can barely afford a home, must be excised, and let back into the right only after they have a change of heart. Either we practice what we preach, or we are engaged in nothing more than idle chatter, and deserve to be ignored.
There will inevitably be a challenge in spelling out exactly what the DR’s message is, as there are many who currently fall under that label, yet disagree on a whole host of issues, and no amount of writing will solve that. What will be required, will be a meeting of the main voices in the American scene, and a drafting of a core document. This core document will be a statement of our essential message, adherence to which constitutes being on the DR, with those points not mentioned being up for personal opinion. A meeting of this kind will be necessary should outreach to the broader right become possible, and the quietist, introverted, mentality be avoided.
After a decade since the Alt-Right first emerged, the process of formalization, and professionalization, must begin.
You can read that article, with its many typos, here: https://theamericansun.com/2023/04/19/engineered-infighting-and-a-canonical-way-of-addressing-wrongs/
Cyprian of Fili. Translated by Chrysostomos of Etna. The Heresy of Ecumenism and the Patristic Stand of the Orthodox. Center for Orthodox Traditionalist Studies. Etna, California. 1998. 48, 49