yeah, and that’s a sad thing about the WSJ. Watch how they handle immigration: if they keep up with the old “open borders” track then they’ll eventually be indistinguishable from the New York Times and the other Bolshie dailies that are folding daily (pun intended).

Western Catholic parishes do it differently: traditionally one RC immigrant group makes way for the next, and (territorial**) parishes founded in Irish or German neighborhoods become Italian or Hispanic, and then become Chinese or African-American, in step with the waves of RC (im)migrations. It’s harder for smaller denominations like us to do it that way, especially if real estate stays splintered “parochially” with single, self-isolated ethnicities who keep moving to nicer housing/jobs farther out, and then to the suburbs. All Latin-Rite RC parishes in the 5 counties of SE Penna. are “under” the Cardinal of Phila., no matter their ethnic or geographic provenance. RC migration to the Rust Belt big cities seems to be dwindling now, leading to the closures/mergers of parishes and/or parochial schools you might have heard about in the news, as well as *new* parishes and schools farther out in the ‘Burbs where Catholics didn’t used to live so much.

(**–They still also have “personal parishes,” what we call ethnic, but alot fewer than in their heyday 70-100 years ago. Sometimes a parish will offer multiple Masses on a weekend in different languages, serving different communities that way rather than separate parishes. Of course, Orthodox altars normally can have only one Liturgy on any given day.)

Some non-Orthodox “regional congregations” still try to reach out to the downtown neighbors (“these people”) with evangelizing and/or service. Actually a largely-convert AOA parish way out in Souderton takes a vanload of sandwiches etc. downtown each week … actually brought over from when the catalyst of that particular ministry was a Protestant.

I was disappointed O’Reilly, the Inquirer’s usually adequate religion reporter, didn’t report how generalized the “regional” phenomenon is, as he would’ve if he’d wanted more people to actually read the story. It was nice to see an Orthodox Liturgy in full color, above the fold, front page, on a Sunday morning … but irresponsibly placed under a headline screaming the word “schism” (see http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/80521627.html?viewAll=y. ), the only way many Westerners think of Orthodoxy (nevermind the 35,000 and counting, in the West!). Evolving ‘denominational geography,’ usually nonviolent!, is nothing new in a country that has been dominated by the wanderings of settlers for four centuries … more than three centuries in Philly.

At least, 3 nights later, our No. 1 TV news outfit covered Old Calendar Nativity services at one of these ‘poor, schismatic, dying, closed-off’ churches: WPVI-TV 6 (ABC) visited St. Michael’s Russian Patriarchal (even if it wasn’t “the BIG story tonight on Action News!!”), whose website touts its friendliness, hospitality, and English language(!).

You are expressing a deep intuition, IMO. Too often we Orthodox would rather rest in our communal triumphalism (a kind of lethargy actually) and blame others for our failings while comforting ourselves with self-talk about our theological purity. I know people will listen. I’ve experienced it too often to see it any other way. My problem was that some of the parishes I pastored would never have accepted the people who otherwise would have come in. Sad commentary, but also true unfortunately.

Ignoring Fr. John’s excellent and correct note below (#10) for the moment (will get to it in a second), yup, I think you are right Christopher.

The WSJ also suffers in that it’s first commitment is to big business interests, who in turn follow the trends closely because it’s good for business. With the ever increasing size of government (last year it grew past 40% of GDP) the business interests are increasingly tied to government (which is left in politics/culture). Look for the WSJ editorial page to decline in relevance in the coming years.

When Noonan is on, she is really on but she is also afflicted with the WSJ attitude of playing it safe that hampers any cutting edge stuff until the larger media culture is forced to deal with critiques they would rather dismiss (tea parties for example). The WSJ has one of the best editorial pages in the country, but its value is always delayed until other periodicals (mostly political/cultural journals) first beat back mainstream recalcitrance. Put another way, they still take a lot of their cues from the old-media establishment.

Brooks will always move in ways that ensure his dinner party invitations don’t get canceled. If the country goes more conservative, so will he. If it appears the cultural conservatives have been trounced (which happens when conservativism and Republican Party politics are viewed as one and the same), Brooks goes wobbly.

The same is true of Powell, although what drives him was being point man at the UN for Bush’s argument that war was necessary because Iraq had nukes. He is trying to live this down.

Buckley suffers from the affliction of wanting to be liked, which, truth be told, also bothered his dad to a certain degree. It is one reason why the new breed at NR, while good writers and often right in their ideas, still can’t shake off that air of prep-school privilege.

GOA bishops? I don’t think they understand American culture and rely on others to explain it to them — if they even have any interest in it at all. When they do, they seem to be getting bad advice. Looking back on some of the EP’s statements, it appears that the advisers don’t see any deeper into cultural dynamics than, say, Time, Newsweek, or the NYT.

Of course the major embarrassment for Orthodox Christians is not Frank who with his fervor can be excused as being sincere, but boot-licking GOA bishops who dilute their Christian witness when they grovel before the best and the brightest.

The only TV time he gets is Rachel Maddow and hardly anyone watches her. It’s basically preaching to the choir over at MSNBC. (I watch it occasionally and its the same thing over and over. No really analysis but a lot of moral posturing.)

Schaeffer isn’t a pacifist. I think the error he made was that with the Bush collapse he assumed the left was the place to go. I actually am sympathetic to some of his claims against the Republicans, but the notion that the left is sympathetic to any moral critique grounded in religion is just naive. And is was clear early on, to some of anyway, that Obama is captive to the ideas of the Far Left, despite running as a Left Centrist.

Frank said on national TV that the greatest miracle of his life is the election of Barack Obama. He is not going to abandon ship and reinvent himself again until the Obama express gives him no choice. The left is giving him way too much TV time and buying his books.