Ex occidente ad orientem

Commemoration of the Three Holy Hierarchs

2012-01-30T19:13:00.000-08:00

Today, January 31, the Holy Orthodox Church commemorates the three holy hierarchs: Sts. Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and John Chrysostom.

In contemplating the lives and works of Basil, Gregory and John we realize, more than anything else, how a small group of faithful people can do much for the edification of the Church and the salvation of souls. We see also how no one can live in isolation, how even the greatest of the saints needed other saints to inspire and encourage them, to instruct and support them in their service. We see as well that intelligence and learning are not enough. Peoples' minds must be devoted to God and to divine wisdom and truth, but one must love God not only with all one's mind, but with one's heart, soul and strength as well. The three holy hierarchs were men of ascetic discipline and fervent prayer. They were men of the Church, and not of the academy. Andy they were men who were willing not only to preach, but to practice what they preached; not only to talk but to work and not only to work but to suffer for the Word of God Who came himself into the world not only to preach, but to suffer an die for the sake of the salvation of all.--Fr. Thomas Hopko, The Winter Pascha, p. 168

Let us who love their words come together with hymns,
To honor the three great torch-bearers of the Triune Godhead,
Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom,
These men have enlightened the world with teh rays of their divine doctrines.
They are flowing rivers of wisdom,
Who have filled all creation with the springs of heavenly knowledge.
They ceaselessly intercede for us before the Holy Trinity.--Apolytikion of the Feast

Taking Muslim Sensitivity Way Too Far

2012-01-29T17:52:00.000-08:00

In this post-Christian world there have been numerous attempts to ensure that Muslims or any other non-Christian faith, but particularly Muslims, are shown an excessive amount of deference and sensitivity. We all have seen and know what happens whenever cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad are printed or Korans are burned (or just threatened to be burned). Of course, rather than condemn the Muslims who get offended over just about anything with regards to their religion (FYI: anti-Christian depictions in art, literature and in media far exceed any negativity that is shown to Muslims), the solution is to prevent such acts which trigger the violent responses from Muslims usually be judicial fiat or making such acts criminal.

This is not a piece about liberties in the modern world, though I strongly believe that people should have the right to speak about and think about and write about anything whether in positive or negative terms, no matter how offended people may be. My belief: if you're expecting to go through life and not be offended, you're going to be miserable. And if you're offended because someone believes differently than you, you're going to be in even worse shape.

Now, to the point. The Wycliffe Bible Translators, the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) and Frontiers are all publishing Bibles which excise the terms "Father", "Son" and "Son of God" because those terms would offend Muslims and how they conceive of God.

So, Bibles now have to be sensitive to Muslim theology and their concepts of God? What's the point? If the Scriptures are the witness to the Revelation of God in the Person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and that is all excised, the Trinity, the bedrock of Christian orthodoxy is thrown out. God still retains His essence but not the Hypostases. This opens up the way up to modal-ism or Sabellianism, which has been rightly condemned. But what it really does is try to communicate to Muslims that there is no difference between the God they worship and the God Christians worship. Then, if that's the case, then Christians should be Muslims and Muslims Christian--there's nothing that divides us. Patently ridiculous.

We must be mindful that the struggle to consistently teach God as One Essence in Three Hypostases was vigorously fought for nearly three hundred years. Even the adoption of the Nicaeo-Constantinopolian Creed by the whole church did not bring everyone back into the fold. The Arians who believed that Jesus was a created being continued to thrive, the Nestorians who believe that there are two persons of Jesus Christ are still around and various sects of Monophysites and Miaphysites still can claim adherents. These struggles were bitter, violent and reprehensible in that it caused many to depart from Christian orthodoxy. What is even more ironic is that the passages in Scriptures referring to Jesus as Son of God and any other Trinitarian references, used by all sides to defend their respective positions, are the ones being thrown out. We should be mindful of the painful history in which these passages were argued over again and again, but they should not be replaced. They should be understood in proper context.

The persons behind this effort, I'm sure, have good intentions. But such good intentions will only further divide the divided Christian confessions. And it will do absolutely no good to seek understanding with Muslims. Muslims aren't going to see these efforts as attempts to develop new relations. In fact, I'd wager that the Muslims would probably laugh and say "we've won. The Christians don't even believe in their own theology anymore." Also, if there is some lofty expectation on the side of the translators that the Muslims would reciprocate in some way, don't bet on it.I doubt they will take out the passages about the Muslims' responsibility for killing Christians or Jews or saying that Christ was the product of a rape.

Though Muslim sensitivity may be the "official" reason behind these new translation, I suggest that there are other more clandestine motives. Many Christians, especially post-modern ones, have finally come to the conclusion that their scholarship and research and "insight" into the Scriptures which justify things like ordination of women to the priesthood, making abortion a sacrament, fornication (whether heterosexual or homosexual) cannot be justified by the Scriptures. So, when that fails, the only recourse is to change what the words say. They're not creating a new translation or even interpretation, they're creating a new text. Right now words like Son of God, Father and Son are excised. How soon until whole chapters or even books, especially those of St.Paul, are excised from the canon altogether by such groups. Keep in mind that this is hardly a novel idea: Marcion tried this in the second century and his ideas didn't catch on.

Defending the Truth is a hard thing, but to throw up one's hands for the sake of unity and harmony and everyone getting along leaves one adrift with no anchor. Christ is no longer an anchor, He's not even a plank of wood to grab on to when you're overboard. He only becomes the hope for one of those things.

On Mozart's birthday we do this?

2012-01-27T18:20:00.000-08:00

Some of you may have already seen this commercial recently released by JC Penney:

The music is from selections of Mozart's Requiem Mass, K. 626, the last work he ever wrote which he never completed (It was completed, however, by his pupil Franz Sussmayer; what you see in the movie Amadeus is not fact). It is one of the most famous Requiems of all time. So today, as we celebrate Mozart's birthday which occurred 257 years ago, we are reminded of his great enduring works as they are used to promote sales at JC Penney. Sadly, this is not the first time a requiem mass has been used to promote a particular store or brand. The Dies Irae from Verdi's Requiem has been used in car commercials.

I doubt anyone realizes what the text says. If they understood Latin and their audience understood Latin, maybe they would hesitate. The text of the Dies Irae was written in the middle ages perhaps between 1200 and 1300. The traditional author is Thomas de Celano though others have been suggested such as Bernard of Clairvaux. The Latin Text is a seuquence hymn which is centered around the day of judgment.

The text reads:

Dies irae, dies illa
solvet saeculum in favilla
teste David cum Sibylla.

Quantus tremor est futurus
Quando iudex est venturus
Cuncta stricte discussurus.

The translation:

The Day of Wrath, that day
When the earth is consumed in ash
As David prophesied with the Sibyl.

How great an earthquake there will be
When the judge is seated
about to reveal all hidden things.

I doubt this is the case, but if JC Penney had done any bit of homework, could they conclude that perhaps it is a bit over the top to play a hymn of the last judgment and equivocate it with missing a sale? Again, I doubt it.

One thing I find interesting even more is that as much as many Christian churches are seeking to incorporate the tunes of the world into their version of "heavenly" worship, the advertisement community largely looks to the classical world, and especially its religious music, to sell its wares. I'm sure Mozart would be most relieved to know that his music written for the church was now being used to promote a store. Is it any wonder then that the youth of this country are confused when it comes to "church music?" The church music they are hearing is what they are hearing on TV and hearing on radio.

I really doubt that the persons behind this commercial put any more thought into it than thinking about a work that is, even by today's musically illiterate population, still known and that it is in minor key, conveys the sense of depression that so many people feel whenever they miss a sale. But, does anyone remember when good church music was actually used in the church?

Happy birthday, Mozart. A fine tribute to your great contributions to mankind.

What if this were really done?

2012-01-22T20:15:00.000-08:00

Consider this news story which my wife forwarded to my inbox this morning:

Mega-church downsizes, cuts non-essential members

WINSTON-SALEM — Julie and Bob Clark were stunned to receive a letter from their church in July asking them to “participate in the life of the church” — or worship elsewhere.

“They basically called us freeloaders,” says Julie.

“We were freeloaders,” says Bob.

In a trend that may signal rough times for wallflower Christians, bellwether mega-church Faith Community of Winston-Salem has asked “non-participating members” to stop attending.

“No more Mr. Nice Church,” says the executive pastor, newly hired from Cingular Wireless. “Bigger is not always better. Providing free services indefinitely to complacent Christians is not our mission.”

“Freeloading” Christians were straining the church’s nursery and facility resources and harming the church’s ability to reach the lost, says the pastor.

“When your bottom line is saving souls, you get impatient with people who interfere with that goal,” he says.

Faith Community sent polite but firm letters to families who attend church services and “freebie events” but never volunteer, never tithe and do not belong to a small group or other ministry. The church estimates that of its 8,000 regular attendees, only half have volunteered in the past 3 years, and a third have never given to the church.

“Before now, we made people feel comfortable and welcome, and tried to coax them to give a little something in return,” says a staff member. “That’s changed. We’re done being the community nanny.”

Surprisingly, the move to dis-invite people has drawn positive response from men in the community who like the idea of an in-your-face church.

“I thought, ‘A church that doesn’t allow wussies — that rocks,’” says Bob Clark, who admires the church more since they told him to get lost.

He and Julie are now tithing and volunteering. “We’ve taken our place in church life,” he says. •

Now, before you let out gasps of disbelief or give a cheery "right-on", this is satire. This never happened. I actually had to have my wife tell me that after I read it; so if you fell for it as fact, you're not the only one.

But, what if this were really the case? What if a church decided to tell members who did not show up or tithe or volunteer or any combination of other things that they should go somewhere else where there apathy may be more appreciated? Frankly, I doubt any church really reaches out by saying "Are you apathetic or just lazy? You're welcome here."

Christianity is not a do ut des religion unlike the religions of ancient Rome and Greece. There, the creed was "I give so you give." Tit for tat; quid pro quo. Christ said "Come to me all you who are weary and burdened and I will give you rest." He did NOT say "Come to me all you who are weary and burdened and I will give you rest provided you come to church regularly on Sundays (that's the day of my Resurrection; we'll get to that later) and contribute 10% of your income to the needs of the church all while going out and making disciples of all nations and leading a small group Bible study (what's a Bible? We'll get to that in a few hundred years)." Reductio ad absurdum, I know. We all talk of the need for church workers, but those are few, though many are called.

Instead, I think we have great need for church resters. These are the people that maybe come to church only 2 times a month if not less or maybe only for Nativity and Pascha. They don't participate in many ministries and may contribute significantly less money to the operating costs of the church than anyone else. But, they are there. They hear the Word and receive the Lord Himself in the Eucharist. And rather than work for a church sponsored ministry, they work for the greatest job one can ever have in the spiritual life--working for their own salvation with fear and trembling, as St. Paul wrote.

Yes, we want people who call their church a home to work to maintain it. You don't buy your own house to have guests come and clean it (though some do). What's more important is that the house be filled as Christ reminds us in his parable. Excuses aside, Christ wants his Church, his banquet table to be filled and never at a price save for love of Him. And that never costs a cent.

Commemoration of St. Mark of Ephesus

2012-01-19T16:28:00.000-08:00

In the late 1300s through the mid 1400s, the Eastern Roman Empire (i.e. Byzantine Empire) was under constant threat from the Turks. Year after year, more and more territory was lost, church lands were confiscated by the infidels, hierarchy, priests and monastics were killed on mere suspicion of treachery against their new masters. The promises of the first Crusades were hollow resulting in the sack of Constantinople in 1204 by Western armies under Venetian leadership which set up a Latin Empire and a Latin Patriarchate. Three new Empires were carved out of that: the Nicaean, the Empire of Trebizond and the Despotate of Epirus. Even after the Latins were kicked out, the Nicaean Emperors were legally recognized as the Eastern Emperors but the territories controlled by Trebizond and Epirus were lost forever.

Ecclesiastically and culturally, the Empire was suffering. The Hesychast Controversy was eventually settled and St. Gregory Palamas was vindicated as was doctrine of the distinctions between energies and essence of God as well as the Hesychastic method of prayer. Still, with this triumph, there was cultural loss. Many Greeks, such as Bessarion (who later became a Catholic Cardinal) and Pletho (the foremost Platonist of his day) who were not in the Hesychast camp fled to Western Europe, often taking scholarly positions at Western Universities as well as all sorts of books and manuscripts from the ancient Greeks with them.

The Eastern Emperors, who were the only legitimate Roman Emperors, seeing the sunset of their kingdom did what they could to delay and even prevent the fall of their Empire. In the past, their skilled diplomatic maneuvers and arrangement of marriages had prevented invasions from the West and East. But time was no longer on the Emperors' side. In the past, aid was requested from the Western nations and also the Pope. But there was always a price tag attached: submission to the Pope and acceptance of various Latin doctrines.

Enter St. Mark of Ephesus. In one last ditch effort to gain military aid from the Western nations and have it sanctioned by the Pope, a council was convened at Florence in 1439. It was attended by John VIII Palaelogus, Emperor of New Rome, Pope Eugenius V, Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople, Metropoltian Mark of Ephesus, Bessarion of Nicaea, George Scholarius who would later become Patriarch of Constantinople (with the name Gennadius) amid many others. It was clear from the beginning that the Latins would have the upper hand. John VIII Palaelogus, so eager for military aid to defend his faltering kingdom, forbade the theologians in the Orthodox camp from arguing against the Latins for fear of offending them and, thus, not gaining the military hope he desperately needed. St. Mark would have nothing of it.

Despite being hamstrung, St. Mark consistently and forcibly defended the Holy Orthodox faith and decried all sorts of heresies propagated by the Roman Catholics such as the filioque, purgatory and the supremacy of the Pope. Though he was clearly getting the better of his Latin counterpart, John VIII Palaelogus silenced him and the Latin position was then, by default, proclaimed as the true expression of the faith. A decree of union was crafted. St. Mark, even in the presence of both allies and the schismatic Catholics, was the only one who refused to sign. He returned back to his See of Ephesus where he died in 1444 after a long bout with intestinal illness.

History was to vindicate St. Mark. Many of the Orthodox prelates who signed the decree of union were banished by their own flock because, in their eyes, these prelates had "sold out." For example, Isidore, Metropolitan of Kiev and all Russia, returned home to proclaim the union and commemorate the Pope during the Divine Liturgy. But the clergy and monastics, often who are the real defenders of Orthodoxy, rose up in rebellion against him and forced him into a monastery as a prisoner and had a new Metropolitan elected in his stead. The people even knew their faith was being sold out. The nature of the church being conciliar, the people are often the last defense against heresy and schism.

Thus, St. Mark's stand was the stand of True Orthodoxy. His stances were politically inconvenient and hostile to the Romans as they should have been. St. Mark should be our patron saint in our current world of ecumenism when the Orthodox are routinely called upon by other christian confessions to abandon the faith which Christ has left and has been preserved by us for the sake of unity. There can be no unity without unanimity of the faith. As St. Mark once said, "We seek and we pray for our return to that time when, being united, we spoke the same things and there was no schism between us." To be unified when so much still divides does no glory to Christ or His Church.

Holy Saint Mark, intercede before Christ's dread judgment seat that we may keep the faith as steadfastly as you!

By your profession of faith, O all-praised Mark
The Church has found you to be a zealot for truth.
You fought for the teaching of the Fathers;
You cast down the darkness of boastful pride.
Intercede with Christ God to grant forgiveness to those who honor you!

--Troparion of St. Mark, Tone 4

WARNING! Triodion starts in 3 weeks

2012-01-14T19:36:00.001-08:00

I was looking ahead on the calendar for the next few Sundays and to my surprise and also to my satisfaction, we start Triodion on February 5!

We have just taken leave of Theophany. The Christmas gifts are still being appreciated and though there is no snow right now, the weather has been getting colder again to make it seem like winter! Now, in three weeks time we will begin the preparation for Lent which prepares us for Pascha.

That's what I love about the Church calendar. It keeps you on your toes and does not allow you to be complacent about repentance for too long!

I guess I had better start preparing "Do thou open for me the Gates of Repentance" for Orthros!

New link

2012-01-13T20:15:00.000-08:00

On the left side of the web-page, you will notice the "My Blog List" containing some other blogs that I follow and often read, some more than others. The most recent edition is Roads from Emmaus authored by Fr. Andrew Damick, an Orthodox Priest in Pennsylvania. Fr. Andrew is also author of Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, a book which contrasts the tenets of the Holy Orthodox Church's faith with that of other world religions and the other confessions of Christianity.

I've read Fr. Andrew's book and his blog and I ask you to visit it as you are able for some very good insights. DISCLAIMER: The site is from the Orthodox perspective. Don't say I didn't warn you!

Something I've noticed, but maybe it's nothing

2012-01-12T18:32:00.000-08:00

I've been reading the daily lectionary in the original Greek as one of my New Year's Resolution. So far, so good, but sometimes it has really tested me especially when you get comfortable with one author and style like St. Paul and then move to St. James. But I like having these difficulties because it sometimes does allow me to get insights that an English translation may not be able to give.'

Yesterday's Gospel reading was from that of St. Mark 8:30-34. Christ has just healed the blind man at Bethsaida and like so many other places in the Gospel of Mark he tells the person healed and this disciples NOT to mention the event to anyone. I need not go into the debunked theory of William Wrede's Messianic Secret interpretation. However, it is interesting for all the times in ALL the gospels where Christ heals, he forbids people to speak about it. In addition, when preaching of His Kingdom Christ speaks not straightforwardly but He tells parables to the crowds because the secrets have not been given to them yet, but only to His disciples (cf. Matt 13:10). If there were conspiracy theorists back then, I'm sure they'd wonder "What's He hiding?"

But in this pericope, Christ openly (parresiai)tells that the Son of Man must suffer many things at the hands of scribes and high priests and elders of Israel, to suffer death on the Cross but to rise again after three days. And he tells this not only to his Disciples but also the crowd which had been following him since His healing of the blind man in Bethsaida. So, why the change? Why speak so openly about this yet speak in parables and forbid others to speak of His miracles?

Now, I don't know how consistent this reasoning is across all four canonical Gospels or even within just the Gospel of Mark. It bears some more study on my part. But getting back to the matter at hand, could it be so easy as that the only way to understand the miracles and the parables is to follow Christ to the Cross and partake of His Resurrection? Then will everything else be revealed? I think it is. Too many Christians and fans of Jesus love to talk about how they love Jesus but don't go for that whole crucifixion and Resurrection stuff. But even Christ seems to say that the only way to understand His own miracles and psalms is only by taking up the cross and following Him. He would probably say to such people "You're putting the cart before the horse!"

In the Symbol of Faith, the Nicene Creed, there is no mention of Christ's miracles or parables. Of the actions of Christ recorded there are only His Incarnation, His death, His Resurrection, His Ascension and His Second Coming. The Fathers at Nicaea and Constantinople may not have been thinking of this particular Gospel selection, but I think it is safe to say that the parables of Christ and His miracles cannot be understood unless viewed from the lens of God Incarnate dieing on the Cross and rising in three days.

I don't think this is any great revelation especially to those seasoned theologians and academics who pour over the Greek New Testament like syrup on waffles, but it made me see the spiritual life in a new light.

Another post on women's ordination

2012-01-08T20:19:00.000-08:00

When I wrote about women's ordination in the past, I prefaced it by saying something to the effect that I'm not writing for the purpose of setting off firestorms. There was no real negative fallout from those posts; a few people disagreed but their arguments amounted to little more than "This is just how I feel." Of course, such is the only recourse for the neoliberal who cannot justify anything by any means except with appeals to emotion. Their reasons are not grounded in fact, in reason or argument. The worst part is that you cannot use facts, reason or argument successfully against one's feelings.

Anyway, reading something else I stumbled upon this article. The author is a pastor of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, a christian confession which, currently, does not ordain women to the priesthood. Of course, her reasons for doing so are different in many ways than what has been revealed to and through the Holy Orthodox Church. Nonetheless, I found it intriguing, because he essentially breaks down the "arguments" for women's ordination into four umbrella categories, all of which are build upon emotion and/or holding the ego as the judge for what is God's will. Since the proponents of women's ordination cannot give any "biblical" or "historical" or "systematic" justification, these four steps are what remain. They are as follows (and edited slightly):

Step 1. Adopt Enthusiasm Early On

By this I do not mean what the term as come to mean, i.e., that you are passionate and excited. The Scriptures, the Creed and the Canons are “living documents,” which means you’re totally free to disregard them when you need to. No, this enthusiasm is the one that says God the Holy Spirit tells you stuff apart from and before the Word.

Try this one: “God has given me all these gifts and He wants me to use them to glorify Him.” If you’re one of those stuck-up types, you might be inclined to object that Scripture doesn’t speak this way, but this objection is no problem for the Enthusiast. You know what God said because… well, you just do. And because God’s thoughts just popped into your head, no one can question them! But closely tied to this step is the next…

Step 2. Monasticism is Your Friend

I have to become a nun? Of course not! You want to bypass that entirely and be a priest, or maybe even the bishop. After all, the Kingdom of God is a hierarchy, and the closer you are to God in the organizational chart, the better. Why risk your salvation on staying a laywoman? Everyone knows that being a pastor is, like, a Get-Into-Heaven-Free card. And of course it goes without saying that priests are by their very nature holier than anybody else.

Think of the argument from Step 1. Not only do you have all these swell gifts, and you’d be just as good a priest as any man, but you know the only way to use these gifts is to be a priest. Remember: Only priests are really serving God. Feel free to step on any other vocation in order to make that of priest even higher — that’s what monasticism’s all about, remember? Fair warning: your pesky opponents might force their brainwashed wives into arguing along with them that they are content that they serve God “in their own vocations as wife and mother.” Whatever. No woman really thinks that way. The more you denigrate the vocations of wife and mother, the stronger your argument becomes. Bonus points for throwing stay-at-home mothers and homeschoolers under the bus as well.

One thing to remember: try to avoid too much talk of exactly what pastors are, what they do, and how they get to be priests. Doubly so when engaging biblical texts on the matter (we’ll cover that in Step 3 in greater detail). Your new appreciation for monasticism reminds you that the priest is just the guy in the church that God likes best, so feel free to point out how Jesus seemed to hold women in high regard. Holding women in high regard = He wants them to be priests. Your opponent won’t understand what that argument means, but hey, he’s probably a man. Remember how Yahweh said in the Old Testament, “I like Levi best, so his sons can be priests, but I hold all the other tribes in lower regard, so none of them gets anything special — especially Judah.” It’s somewhere in one of those long boring lists of names.

Step 3. Two Words: Higher Criticism

This step is probably remedial for you, but if it isn’t, you’ll need to understand how higher criticism works. Don’t worry, it’s really easy. You already know what God is like, right? He’s a lot like you. So throw out all the times when God (or Jesus) does or says something you know He wouldn’t, throw out all the commands that you know God wouldn’t really have made, and definitely throw out all the events you just know couldn’t really have happened. When’s the last time you saw a blind man see again without millions of dollars worth of surgery? I thought so.

But what does this have to do with women’s ordination? Well, remember, your opponents are basically knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing fundies with academic credentials only slightly higher than Oral Roberts — so they’re going to be using the Bible as a crutch. They can quote the Bible all day long, but remember they approach it like total simpletons and take it at face value. You know better. You know what Jesus is really like (see Step 1), and He was all about radical inclusion. Again, your opponent will have no idea what that means, but you know it means He totally wants women priests. They might bring up the fact that Jesus didn’t actually bother to make a woman a priest during His earthly ministry, but you can just counter by thinking of the name of a woman in the Bible and claiming she was really a priest.

Oh, and don’t forget the value of the New Perspective on Paul. Jesus was the radical inclusivist who wanted everyone to be happy and get along and never said a mean word to anyone, but then Paul came along and gave the church that nasty mean streak. Learn it well, because your opponents will be quoting Paul. A lot.

Step 4. Argumentum ad Misericordiam

Lastly, never underestimate the power of an argument from your own personal suffering. After all, you have a husband, parents, children, neighbors, coworkers, and fellow citizens, but there’s no one for you to serve until those meanies let you be a priest. Be sure to include as much detail about your own suffering over this as possible. Remind everyone how you feel like you’re on the outside because they won’t let you in. Remind everyone about how many great gifts you have that can only be used if you were wearing a collar. What a burden that must be. Oh, and feel free to inflate the number of fellow sufferers there might be.

Holy Theophany

2012-01-06T21:47:00.000-08:00

When Thou, O Lord, wast baptized in the Jordan, the worship of the Trinity was made manifest, for the voice of the Father bore witness unto Thee, calling Thee His beloved Son and the Spirit in the likeness of dove confirmed the truth of His word. O Christ our God, who hast revealed Thyself and enlightened creation, glory to Thee!--Apolytikion of Nativity, Tone 1

Four verses! All we get for this feast from the Gospel according to St. Matthew is four verses? What great profound theological truth can be found in four small verses? The apolytikion quoted above is more or less a paraphrase of the last two verses from today's Gospel reading. That's it?

Yes. For comparison's sake, Transfiguration isn't a long, drawn-out narrative nor is teh Circumcision of our Lord, nor is the Annunciation to the Theotokos nor Ascension nor Pentecost (which aren't even in the Gospels). There are chapters upon chapters leading up to Great and Holy Friday and our Lord's Pascha, but Nativity barely yields a chapter. The Nativity of the Theotokos, her Presentation and her Dormition are nowhere in the canonical records. Some would argue that this is a deficiency in the Scriptures or that, being conspiratorial, we're not given the whole story. Rubbish!

The profound theological truth revealed to us is Christ Himself, revealed as being truly God and Man, a hypostatic union (to borrow from the Council of Chalcedon) where the two natures exist side by side, unified but not commingled. Scripture confirms the testimony of that revelation much as the Spirit confirmed the testimony of the Father's words to His Son, "This is My beloved Son, Whom I love, in Whom I am well pleased." This was no mere illusion of a man that stood before the Forerunner, John, this was the very Lord Himself. Being the Lord's cousin, he must have known about our Lord's special and different nature for a very long time and still he shuddered at the time appointed for him to baptize the Messiah!

In four short verses, we are made to understand all this. The Gospel writers didn't need to expound upon what had happened, waxing wisely. The Church Fathers and hymnographers certainly did that.

We have the whole story in Theophany, nothing edited, nothing added, nothing subtracted. God came in the flesh to be baptized by John. He was and the heavens opened and God called out to His Son, saying that He loved Him and, by extension, loves us because He sent His Son to His creation. Does this passage need more commentary than that?

Eve of Theophany

2012-01-05T18:45:00.000-08:00

Make ready, Zabulon; prepare thyself, o Nepthalim. River Jordan, stay thy course and skip for gladness to receive the Sovereign Master, Who cometh to be baptized. O Adam, be thou glad with our first mother, Eve; hide not as ye did of old in Paradise. Seeing you naked, He hath appeared now to clothe you in the first robe again. Christ hath appeared for He truly willeth to renew all creation.--Apolytikion for Feast of Theophany, Tone 4 sung to the melody "Joseph was Amazed"

So, what's the reference to Zabulon and Nepthalim? This is from the Prophecy of Isaiah. Zabulon and Nephthalim are metaphors for the northern kingdom which, to Isaiah, was the kingdom of darkness as opposed to the true Kingdom of Judah, the southern. Christ's baptism occurred in the regions of the former northern kingdom. It is from this previous kingdom of darkness that the opening word of both St. John the Forerunner and Christ was proclaimed: Repent!

The location of Christ's saving work is as important as the work itself. Christ does not proclaim to the people to repent in a place filled the righteous. He was not born in a place where everyone was waiting to receive Him with joy. He was not baptized in a land that did not need the Lord's redemption. As Christ Himself said, "I have come not to call the righteous, but sinners." And He does this by going into the very midst of sinners--the house of Simon the Leper, the homes of tax collectors. He associates Himself with harlots and Pharisees. He has revealed Himself so that we can commune with Him in reality, not some mystic metaphorical contemplative way. The only way Christ triumphs over sin is by being in the midst of sin. That is why He had to take flesh and dwell among us and not direct our salvation from the comforts of His heavenly throne.

Circumcision of our Lord, the circumcision of our hearts and resolutions for a new year

2012-01-01T19:07:00.001-08:00

On January 1, the Holy Orthodox Church not only commemorates our Father among the saints, Basil the Great but also the Circumcision of our Lord. Though not one of the seven great feasts of the Lord, its importance cannot be emphasized enough as these days from Nativity to Circumcision through Theophany rightly emphasize that it is God become flesh, flesh that He would take with Him to His Cross on Great and Holy Friday and flesh that would rise again after death and be deified with Christ's Ascension to His Father and our Father. That flesh assumed from the Holy Virgin would be washed and ceremonially cut.

At the Great Vespers of the Feast, we read three Old Testament readings, the first from Genesis saying thus:

God said unto Abraham: Thou shalt keep My covenant, thou and thy seed after thee throughout their generations. And this is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and thy seed after thee throughout their generations. Every male among you shall be circumcised, ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token of a covenant between Me and you. And the child that is eight days old shall be circumcised by you, every male throughout your generations. And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin on the eighth day, that soul shall be cut from his generations, since he hath set at naught My covenant.

At the Gospel of the Liturgy of Circumcision, we read from that of St. Luke, which is one of the shortest pericopes for the feasts of our Lord:

And at the end of eight days, when He was circumcised, He was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.

So, Jesus' parents fulfilled the law as commanded them, even though it was very clear since the revelations of Gabriel to both Mary and to Joseph that the child that they would raise would not be any ordinary child, but the Saviour and the Messiah, even if they couldn't comprehend then as it would be revealed after His Resurrection from the dead. Still, they did as commanded by God for the sake of the covenant.

Despite Jesus' keeping of the Law, St. Paul says that the circumcision that Christians endure is not one of flesh, but one of the spirit. In his letter to the Colossians, which is the Epistle for the day, St. Paul spiritualizes our Lords's circumcision, that we still are circumcised but through the mystery of baptism. He writes:

In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

On great feasts of the Lord, at the Trisagion hymn, we sing St. Paul's words "As many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." Our baptism is the start of our communion with God and is maintained through our participation in the other mysteries such as confession and, of course, the Eucharist. We did not sing that hymn today (a Liturgical oddity, but that's a post for a different time). Still, we have put on Christ in baptism and that baptism initiates us into everything Christ did, from His birth to His Death and Resurrection to His Ascension and to His second, glorious coming. We should also put on his circumcision.

But it should not be a circumcision of the flesh (though many of us here in the US have undergone that. Did you know that only Israel and the United States are the only two countries which mandate circumcision for newborn males? Sorry, I digress...); it should be a circumcision of the heart. As originally the Law was written on tablets of stone, so the new covenant is written on our hearts. As the original circumcision was on the foreskin, now we are called to circumcise the hardness of our own hearts.

In many ways, this feast falls perfectly on the beginning of the civil new year when many of us are planning resolutions for what we want to do differently for 2012. The circumcision of our own hearts should be right up there along with losing weight, paying off debts, reading more, etc. Circumcising the heart can be done in many ways, but it should always be accompanied by prayer. With that in mind, let me offer you how I plan to circumcise the hardness of my heart in the coming year. These are in no particular order.
1) Read the appointed readings of each day in the original Greek and in the Latin translation according to St. Jerome. Not only do I get to read the words which bear witness to the Fountain of Life, but keep my Greek and Latin in some good practice.
2) Every morning, with or after the morning prayers, read the Hexapsalmi. These six psalms are read at every Orthros, and, according to our tradition, these same psalms will be read by our Guardian Angel before the Dread Judgment Seat of Christ. They are psalms of the penitent who knows his sin yet places his hope in God. The psalms are 3, 38 (37), 62 (61), 88 (89), 102 (103) and 142 (143).
3) Small compline every night. It's 15 minutes and it shouldn't be that much of a burden before going to bed.
4) Confession once a month. It's not a requirement, but I think just a good thing to do.
5) Log in less to the discussion boards. Hardening your heart is so easy every time you need to log in and say someone is wrong.

There it is, my planned circumcision(s) for 2012. Like other circumcisions, I mean, resolutions, I'm sure that my consistency will be sorely lacking, but I am thankful that our salvation is never dependent strict adherence to our works.

It was a good year

2011-12-31T11:05:00.000-08:00

Before I get into the egregious planning of resolutions and changes for the New Year (most of which I assume will probably fail), I thought i best to reflect on the year I had. In a few words, it was a good year. Here were the major highlights:

1) I married my lovely wife, Carla on July 23. In the presence of our families and very close friends, I was married according to the practices of the Holy Orthodox Church. I could not have asked for a better manner to enter into this most holy mystery and to do so with the encouragement of my priest, my family and my friends. The service was wonderfully chanted by Rdr. Moses and Holly and I knew that God blessed this union. And I couldn't have asked for a more lovely, charming, beautiful and smart bride!

2) I found out I would be a father. Barely three months into our marriage, my wife tells me I'm going to be a dad. I admit that I'm very nervous and concerned but the only way to look upon this is as a blessing and gift from God. The second I start looking upon this in any manner is to cheapen what He gives.

3) I have a job. Granted, it's not the job I really want. I want to be back in the classroom teaching Latin and Greek. Unfortunately, those jobs are scarce and hard to find and many of them are part time. But this job kept me in Omaha allowing me to develop my relationship with Carla and thus marry her. It allows me to pay my bills and to develop new skills for any future occupation.

4) I love my church. Of course, it's not perfect. The lack of Greek is bad enough, but I'm very grateful to have a priest who helps keep me on track, who is very sincere and prayerful and insists that the church foremost is a place of prayer. My parish family is very kind and I appreciate the opportunities to chant the services of Vespers and Orthros.

5) My family is a very generous group. This includes my biological family and the assumed family of my wife. So many great individuals and all of them have a very strong commitment to what family means and desire to preserve it. I cannot thank them enough for all the great things they have done for me this past year.

6) I have two great cats. I think Araby and Leo were a little unsure of me when I first came here, but they've warmed up to me. They both like attention and love to cuddle early in the morning or when we're just watching TV on the couch.

7) I have a nice home. It's Carla's home technically; I am allowed to "squat" here. Togther we made improvements to the upper level bathroom and are planning some other improvements (mainly for the baby). The house is in unincorporated Sarpy County and so we're not too far from the city proper though we're far away from it that we don't have to worry about the hustle and bustle of traffic. Just a mile to the south of us are cornfields and farms and it is so nice just to take a walk around those areas.

8) Did I mention I have a beautiful wife? Just checking...

9) I'm still in relatively good health. Don't get me wrong; there's much to improve upon, but I hope to keep my body weight at a good level and to get stronger. I want to be fit when my kid arrives so I can play with him/her and not worry about getting tired. I don't have any major conditions, but I need to be vigilant as diabetes and heart disease are in my family history.

10) My brain still works...kind of.

But with all the blessings come also grief. The one negative thing that sticks out in my mind from this past year is the passing of our dog, Jasmine. We had to put her down in early June when she suffered kidney failure. She was a very faithful companion and we miss her terribly. Sunt bona mixta malis.

All in all, it was a good year, a very good year. I don't know if I can top it in 2012, but if I intentionally try to top it, I think I'm only asking for failure. So, I'm going to basque in 2011 for a few more hours and then I'll contemplate about what I will do differently in 2012.

Commemoration of St. Stephen, the 20,000 Martyrs of Nicomedia and the 10,000 Holy Innocents

2011-12-27T17:18:00.000-08:00

Following the Nativity of our Lord, the Church honors His Holy Mother, the Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary on the 26th. For three days following the Synaxis of the Theotokos, the Church commemorates the martyrdoms of St. Stephen, the martyrs of Nicomedia and the 10,000 Holy Innocents. All events happened at disparate times, but the commemoration of these particular saints fits in perfectly with the season of the Nativity.

Christ's coming in the flesh was to rescue His creation from the usurpation of Death and Hades. Of course, the devil and his demons did everything possible to not only prevent Christ's birth (the commemoration of 10,000 Holy Innocents who perished at Herod's hands), but to prevent the faith confirmed in the Resurrection from spreading to the Jews (commemoration of St. Stephen) and also to prevent its spread into the oikoumene of the Roman Emperor during the reigns of the tyrants Diocletian and Maximian (commemoration of the 20,000 martyrs at Nicomedia). So, what have these events to do with Nativity?

The Magi brought gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh to the Incarnate Logos, then a new born babe. Following Christ's triumph over death and His gift of Resurrection to us, we lowly mortals still give gifts to Him. As He suffered and died as a gift to us, so the martyrs suffered and died to give back what Christ has given us. Martyrdom is a calling reserved for very few and they are rewarded with special crowns in the Kingdom of Heaven. Like the Lord who is both the offerer and the offered, so the martyrs. They were offered by God and offered themselves to the persecutors of Christ for the sake of the Gospel.

Such is why we honor the martyrs throughout the year and even in this Nativity season. Fr. Thomas Hopko explains:

More than all others, the martyrs are the friends of Christ [cf. John 15: 14]. In their sufferings, according to the daring words of St. Paul they "complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of His body, that is the Church" (Col. 1:24).--The Winter Pascha, p. 132

Through their prayers, may we be brought to the perfection of the faith.

A solution to a problem (which is probably a pipe dream)

2011-12-26T19:14:00.000-08:00

Nativity has come and gone. It is bittersweet. On the one hand, the hustle and bustle and delusions of Christmas with parties, gifts and family get togethers are finished. But, on the other hand, the solemn feast and the preparing fast only seemed worthy to merit an asterisk.

Though the Nativity Fast is a relaxed one and most Orthodox parishes do not have the rigorous cycle of services that are commonplace in Great Lent or even the Dormition fast, it was very difficult to pray and to stay focused on the coming of our Lord in the flesh. Even when the fast becomes more strict beginning on the 20th, that same day seems to be when every other thing associated with the Christmas season (e.g. parties, shopping, etc.) comes into full swing. Rather than given time for sufficient time to contemplate and meditate on why the Lord is coming in the flesh, I am given to other pursuits.

So, what is the solution? It's not that I didn't make an effort. I attended the weekday services at my parish; I prayed as much as I was able; I observed the fast pretty stringently. But there was always something to take me away from it. Here's my solution--and it's one that I've put forth before and I know will probably be disappointed: Return to the celebration of the Feast of the Nativity on January 7 (December 25, Julian Calendar). That's right, return to the Old Calendar.

Now, one might say: just go to a Russian or a Serbian church since they're on the Old Calendar. No. I'm a Greek Christian. I follow the Typicon of the Great Church of Christ. I read and speak the language and I comprehend the Orthodox faith through that language, the jewel of all philosophical languages. I chant according to the Byzantine method and find the Russian typewriter chant to be both silly and a bore (my opinion only). I have no desire to be a Russian or a Serb. There is no reason that I cannot be a Greek Christian and NOT celebrate the Great Feast of Nativity on January 7. After all, the Greek churches on Mount Athos still celebrate it that way. Why can't the rest of us.

This will solve a lot of issues. The bustle of the "secular" Christmas season will be gone and we can turn our thoughts more purposefully to prayer and worship. Also, and forgive me for being such an anti-ecumenist, but it will also help to destroy the illusion that Orthodox and the heterodox celebrate the same thing on December 25. Besides, why is it so important for us to celebrate our Lord's Pascha with all our Orthodox brethren, but every other movable feast not considered important? I'm sure it has to do with the ecumenical mindset of many of our hierarchs who always seem to beg for scraps from the ecumenical table in return for political and monetary favors.

I'm hopeful that there will be a Great Council convened sometime within the next decade or two. One of the issues that must, absolutely must, be discussed is that of the calendar. We cannot be one Orthodox communion on two calendars. It's schizophrenic. And Orthodox hierarchs should do everything possible to resist the ecumencist pleadings of prelates from the Roman Catholic communion who desire nothing more than us to be subservient to their papacy. Returning to the Old Calendar will help to divorce us from the heresies and schisms propagated by the Western Churches.

It's also been proven, many times over, that the more churches return to their tradition, they bring more people into the fold. For example, when the Pope Benedict XVI allowed for greater freedom of the use of the extraordinary Rite, many former catholics returned home. The development of the Novus Ordo (which is essentially a Protestant service; it was designed by 6 Protestants from Germany) pushed many people away. The evangelical churches are losing people in droves because that awful praise-band, anthropocentric, egocentric "worship" is driving people away and they are slowly recognizing that. Even my former church, the LCMS, Lutheran Church Missouri-Synod, has begun to purge itself of this same thing and people are coming back.

So, if returning to our roots and traditional praxis is good for the sake of the growth and stability of the Church, let's do it. Return to the Old Calendar! And keep us on it. Resist any attempts to find "common dates" of Pascha with the heterodox confessions! Dare to be Orthodox! Orthodoxia i thanatos!

Happy feast of the Nativity

2011-12-25T15:32:00.001-08:00

From the Great Vespers of the Feast at Psalm 140 in tone 2:

Come, let us rejoice in the Lord as we declare this present mystery.
The middle wall of partition is broken asunder; the flaming
sword is turned back, the Cherubim withdraw from the Tree of Life, and
I partake of the Paradise of Delight, whence I was cast out before
through disobedience. For the identical Likeness of the Father, the Express
Image of His eternity, taketh the form of a servant, and without
undergoing change He cometh forth from a Mother that knew not wedlock.
For that which He was, He hath remained, even true God; and that
which He was not, He hath taken upon Himself, becoming man out of
love for man. Unto Him let us cry: O God, Who art born of a Virgin,
have mercy on us.

From a sermon on the Nativity by our father among the saints, St. Peter Chrysologus:

Even if you did not enjoy free access to knowledge of all these marvels, would you think that God was unable at that time to assume from flesh what in the beginning he took from mud? Indeed, since everything is possible to God, and it is impossible for you fully to understand even the least of His works, do not pry too much into this virgin’s conceiving, but believe it. Be reverently aware of the fact that God wishes to be born, because you offer an insult if you examine it too much. Grasp by faith that great mystery of the Lord’s birth, because without faith you cannot comprehend even the least of God’s works. “All his works,” says the Scripture, “are by faith”. But here is a matter which depends completely upon faith, and you want it to stand by reason. It is not, indeed, without reason that this matter holds true; it holds true by the reasoning of God, O man, not yours. What is so much according to reason as the fact that God can do whatever He has willed? He who cannot do what he wills is not God.

Forefeast of the Nativity

2011-12-20T17:48:00.000-08:00

Today, December 20, is the Forefeast of the Nativity of Christ. I can never tire of the apolytikon that accompanies this day. If you want to hear it sung, in English unfortunately, you can go to my post from two years ago complete with a youtube video.

Make ready, O Bethlehem! For Eden has been opened for all.
Prepare, O Ephratha, for the tree of life has blossomed forth in the cave from the Virgin.
For her womb did appear as a super-sensual paradise.
In which is planted, that holy vine.
Whereof eating, we shall live and not die as Adam of old.
Christ shall be born raising the image that fell of old.

This is the message of Christmas. There is a new Adam. There is a restored image of God. It is the restored image of the Image Himself, God's Son and Word, Jesus Christ. In Him humankind has found its fulfillment and perfection. In Him human beings can live. In Him all people can compete themselves as creatures made to be by God's grace that God Himself is by nature. In Him all people can be human.--Fr. Thomas Hopko, The Winter Pascha, p. 84

Man ate the forbidden fruit. The fruit of that one tree, whatever else it may signify, was unlike any other fruit in the Garden: it was not offered as a gift to man. Not given, not blessed by God, it was food whose eating was condemned to be communion with itself alone, and not with God. it s the image of the world loved for itself, and eating it is the image of life understood as an end in itself.--Fr. Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the World, p.16 (qtd in Hopko's Winter Pascha, p. 87)

Patristic Quote of the Day

2011-12-18T19:34:00.000-08:00

As we have already noted, it was unthinkable that God, the Father of Truth, should go back up on His word regarding death in order to ensure our continued existence. He could not falsify Himself; what, then, was God to do? Was He to demand repentance from men for their transgression? You might say that was worthy of God, and argue further that, as through the Transgression they became subject to corruption, so through repentance they might return to incorruption again. But repentance would not guard the Divine consistency, for, i f death did not hold dominion over men, God would still remain untrue. Nor does repentance recall men from what is according to their nature; all that it does is to make them cease from sinning. Had it been a case of a trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well enough; but when once transgression had begun men came under the power of the corruption proper to their nature were bereft of the grace which belonged to them as creatures in the Image of God.--St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 1.2.7

Happy Birthday, Beethoven

2011-12-17T08:52:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, December 16 is the date ascribed to the birth of Ludwig van Beethoven in 1770. The son of a musician at the court of Bonn, Beethoven early in life was marked out for musical greatness. In many ways, a prodigy like Beethoven, though lacking the resources that were available to Mozart in addition to having a father more in exploiting his son for profit, Beethoven nevertheless bloomed and was at the age of 13 given musical composition instruction by the court organist, Christian Gottlieb Neefe.

The rest of Beethoven's life can be read online, if you should choose to go further. Unlike Mozart and Haydn, the two giants who preceded him, Beethoven wrote comparatively little for the church. Mozart and Haydn both had powerful patrons in the church throughout their lives and demanded the composition of sacred music for their courts or name days of their employers. Beethoven wrote two masses, one in C major and the Missa Solemnis in D.

The Missa Solemnis follows in the tradition of Bach's B Minor Mass or Mozart's Great Mass in C minor in that is on a grandiose scale, though not in the "cantata" form. This work was written for his pupil and friend, Archduke Rudolf who later was appointed Prince-Archbishop of Olomouc which is in Moravia. The earlier Mass in C major was written for the name day of the wife of Prince Nicholas of Esterhazy. Haydn was formerly in the employ of the Esterhazy family, but Haydn was now touring the world and Haydn, being a former teacher of Beethoven, had probably secured for him this commission.

The Mass in C major was a huge disappointment. The performance was horrible mainly because the musicians resented to having to take directions from a deaf composer. The court composer, Hummel, was publicly reprimanded by Prince Nicholas for failing to keep the musicians in line for rehearsals.

The failure of the performance probably kept Beethoven from writing other sacred pieces and probably also contributed to its scarce performance today. His only other attempt in the "middle period" was his Oratorio, Christus am Olberge (Christ on the Mount of Olives). Unlike the Oratorios of Handel, Beethoven set a theme from the New Testament. This work,too, has suffered a lack of performance. It has many great gems, but they are not widely known. The Missa Solemnis, despite its greater recognition, is still not performed with any frequency today simply because of the scale of the work and its massive orchestration (the orchestration from the 9th symphony is even smaller).

It is lamentable and sad that the music written for the Western Rite churches have fallen into obscurity. Most churches today lack the necessary musical forces to perform classical works. And today, the only time one may hear a mass of Beethoven or Haydn or Mozart or even Schubert is in a concert hall and not in a church. Of course, many would argue that such music is distracting and does not center on prayer. Of course, such people who make the charge favor the "praise band" style; now THAT IS DISTRACTING!

I would encourage you to listen to the Kyrie from the Mass in C. It starts out slowly and subdued with a plea for mercy. But, as it grows in intensity and dynamics, it never becomes arrogant or haughty. It begins softly; it ends softly. The music never overpowers the plea for mercy, but it serves the text.

I can only wonder at what great works Beethoven may have written for the church had he lived longer and some circumstances in life were different. But what he did leave are gems and should not be cast aside. Though he will continue to be known and praised for his symphonies and his sonatas, his contributions to the sacred should receive due attention as well. Happy birthday, Beethoven, greatest of composers!

Suffering and the Christian

2011-12-13T19:21:00.000-08:00

Has today's modern Christian forgot (or perhaps never learned in the first place) about how to suffer? Every day we are plagued with reports about suffering and yet we do everything we can to insulate ourselves from the very real possibility of suffering ourselves. And then when we do suffer, we cannot lift ourselves from it, but instead entrap ourselves in a never ending cycle of "woe is me!" and self-pity that only exacerbates it and allows the suffering to persist.

As Christians, we should expect to suffer. Christ Himself said that to follow Him was to take up the cross. He also called those who suffer for His sake blessed in the Sermon on the Mount. St. Paul, perhaps the architect of what it means to suffer in the Christian tradition, says in his epistle to the Romans (8:17) that to be heirs of Christ is to be a co-heir in His sufferings. Fortunately, St. Paul doesn't end there but continues, saying that the result of such sufferings is ultimately that we be co-glorified with Him. Suffering leads to salvation and, as such, requires us to have joy in it. But, modern man and particularly, the modern Christian say, "I'll take the joy, but hold the suffering." But when the inevitable suffering comes, the modern Christian has no idea what to do or how to cope.

The assault on suffering comes from both within the Christian community and without. Liberals and statists, in their good intentions to make the world into one that is free of pain, are the first set of culprits. Today's liberals and statists, following precepts like this one uttered by President Kennedy--"man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty"--are only treating the symptoms. For today's liberal, there is no sin, which is the cause of suffering, but there is only an anomaly which can be wiped out by reason and scientific inquiry and social legislation. I've yet to see any social legislation that has eradicated the poverty of the intellect, i.e. stupidity. Like most of the agenda of liberals, the cure is not the concern, only the managing of outbreaks of symptoms. It is like giving aspirin to relieve the pressure in the head caused by a tumor. They will not strike at the tumor, but only the pain.

A second assault on suffering comes from within the Christian churches, who, like today's secular liberals and statists, insist that sin is not the problem, going out of their way to deny it. This group is represented by mainline Protestants who have swapped the Gospel for the leftist agenda while insisting that Christ would approve. Sin never enters the equation. And if there is no sin, there is no need for repentance, a complete change of self. So, for those who subscribe to this "christian" belief system, suffering is also an anomaly, but the solution is to treat the symptoms in the same manner as the statist.

A third assault on suffering comes again from within the Christian churches who teach that suffering is given to you because you don't have enough faith in Jesus Christ. Once you do have faith in Christ, your suffering will end and you will have joy in the form of riches. This is the message of the Prosperity Gospel, peddled by Joel Osteen and Rick Warren. For them, suffering and joy are not complementary but outright opposed and hostile to one another. One moment, you suffer; the next, you rejoice. Never is it both at the same time. But riches are not true happiness and joy. In effect, people who buy into this belief, do not attend to the soul.

(Side note: The acquisition of riches was never a promise to make men happier and to end suffering. True classical liberalism, represented by laissez-faire economist, Adam Smith, would never go that far. Material wealth is good in that it allows some physical miseries like disease and hunger to be dispensed with, but the debilitating psychological and spiritual miseries remain with which to do battle).

To want to do away completely with suffering is egoism at its finest. Misery cannot be abolished by reason or social legislation. Nor can it be blotted out by simply ignoring the root cause of sin. Nor can it be removed by simply acquiring riches since other miseries will still remain. Suffering must remain part of modern man's raison d'etre or sine qua non.

"What earthly joy remains untouched by grief? What glory stands forever on the earth?" writes the church father, St. John Damascene. It is not coincidental that these words are sung at Orthodox funerals. Our sufferings have to go hand in hand with our existence. But, there is the hope of salvation through sufferings in the person of Jesus Christ. It does not necessarily require actually being physically tortured as Christ was, though many martyrs have gone that route. But, for Christians, if our goal in life is to join ourselves to Christ, then we must start imitating Him. Wanting to cast aside sufferings or only treat the symptoms or deny the root cause is nothing more than conceit and arrogance. If we do that, then why celebrate at all the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh?

Conception of the Theotokos

2011-12-10T05:41:00.001-08:00

On December 9, the Holy Orthodox Church, commemorates the conception of the Theotokos by her parents, Sts. Joachim and Anna. The Roman Catholic Church uses this feast to affirm the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary which, in 1854, was officially promulgated as a dogma of the Church, which means that assent to it is a prerequisite to salvation. Needless to say, the Orthodox Church remains opposed to such a dogma, simply because the Roman Church and her progeny from the Reformation erroneously, following St. Augustine, believe that conception of children and, by extension, sexual intercourse is a transmission of the "stain" or guilt of original sin.

Fr. Thomas Hopko replies to this belief and expounds the Orthodox position thus:

The Orthodox Church affirms original sin. Orthodox theology teaches that all human beings, including the Virgin Mary, who is a "mere human" like the rest of us--unlike her Son Jesus who is a "real human" but not a "mere human" because He is the incarnate Son and Word of God-are born into a fallen, death-bound, demon-riddled world whose "form is passing away" (1 Cor 7:31). We are all born mortal and tending toward sin. But we are not born guilty of any personal sin, certainly not one allegedly committed "in Adam." Nor are we born stained because of the manner in which we are conceived by the sexual union of our parents. If sexual union in marriage is any sense sinful, or the cause in itself of any sinfulness or stain, even in the conditions of the "fallen world," then, as even the rigorous Saint John Chrysostom (see On Titus, homily) has taught, God, is the sinner because He made us this way, male and female, from the very beginning.

--The Winter Pascha, pp. 42-3.

Where did Advent (i.e. Nativity Lent) go?

2011-12-09T17:51:00.000-08:00

Ah, the holidays. Everywhere you go, there are Santas and presents and lights and bell ringers and carolers and concerts and parties and food as far as the eye can see. And there's even some more church services, but those are just preludes to more parties. There are even Christmas programs, reenactments of the Nativity (historically inaccurate as they may be). As nice and as these things are, for the Christian, especially liturgical Christians, why is that we celebrate the feast during Advent? Yes, we should be joyful in the feast to come, but you can't just party; you first must prepare.

It would be unthinkable and even repugnant for Christians to have Easter (Pascha) parties or programs during the Great Lent season. Why? Because we are preparing to celebrate the Holy Day of Holy Days. The Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ cannot be fully comprehended and experienced unless there is preparation through increased prayer and fasting. If such is demanded of us at Pascha, why is it not demanded or even expected of us during Nativity Lent?

Of course, a great reason for this is because of the secularization of the season, but even if that were not considered, the churches are contributing to the damage. How many Advent hymns are sung as opposed to Christmas hymns? There is a difference between the two. In the Western Rite, the Advent Latin Hymn "Veni Redemptor Gentium" (Come, Saviour of the Nations) would be considered inappropriate for Nativity Day, just as "Von Himmel Hoch" would be considered inappropriate for the Advent Sundays leading up to Nativity. Even in the Western Rite, the Gloria in Excelsis is to be omitted because this is a fasting/penitential season and the Alleluia is replaced by the Tract. But that even seems seldom done. Even in the churches, Advent and preparation are removed in favor of Nativity and celebration.

Of course, even churches of the Eastern Rite are not exempt from these fads. In churches where there are many converts, it may be commonplace for the choir to sing Christmas (not Advent) songs after the Liturgy is completed. Again, the focus on preparation for the Lord coming in the flesh is substituted as if the liturgical reality has already happened!

The Church calendar has great and noble uses and I cannot believe was put haphazardly together or so that some old guys back thousands of years ago could get their kicks by telling posterity what to do. The Church calendar exists to put the feasts into perspective. That is why a time of fasting and preparation of various durations is prescribed prior to major feasts. Nativity has a 40 day fast; Pascha has a 40+ day fast; Dormition has a 2 week fast; Transfiguration, which occurs during Dormition has a fast; the Forefeast of Theophany is a fast; the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross is itself a fast.

Of course, fast does not mean simply not eating certain foods, but can encompass any number of different acts of preparation with prayer being the most obvious. And fasts should not and should never be periods of looking disfigured and being depressed and sad. As Fr. Alexander Schmemann said of the Great Fast, it is a time of "bright sadness." The Christian vocation is one of joyous living, but nowhere near the point of Epicurean celebration.

It is hard to maintain a stricter rule of prayer and fasting when the world around us gives no heed to what Nativity is--The Lord Himself becoming incarnate, uniting His essence with our own so that everything we possess, hampered as it is by sin, may be healed so that we may grow in Him. But, it is even harder for us to do so when our churches make Advent into pre-Christmas.

This article gave me the inspiration for these thoughts. Enjoy.

Commemoration of our Righteous Father, St. John Damascene

2011-12-04T15:21:00.000-08:00

Today, the Holy Orthodox Church commemorates our Righteous Father, John of Damascus. He shares this feast day with the Great Martyr Barbara. Both saints are children of the See of Antioch. Of course, I have greater affinity towards St. John simply because he is my patron saint and what a wonderful saint and intercessor he is to have on my behalf before the dread judgment seat of Christ, not that I don't believe Barbara or any other saint would do less.

Chanting the services last night and this morning for him, the Orthodox Church owes a huge debt to him. Though there were specific hymns directed towards him, a great many of the hymns for Vespers and Orthros from the Octoechos were his creation. Though we commemorate in the dismissal St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil the Great or St. Gregory, Pope of Rome because we celebrated their liturgies, perhaps we should commemorate St. John Damascene at the end of Vespers and Orthros. Probably not going to happen.

Of all his hymns, probably the ones I enjoy the most are his canons used at Orthros. The scope of both poetry and theological acuity in his hymns are almost unmatched in the Byzantine tradition. As we approach the celebration of the Winter Pascha, we will use his canon as the Second canon for Orthros. The first canon of Nativity was written by his brother, St. Cosmas. I'd like to take some time to examine a few of his hymns and comment on the theological depth contained therein.

Ode 1 (Irmos): Of old the Master that works wonders saved His people,
Making the watery wave of the sea into dry land;
And now of His own will has He been born from a Maiden,
And so He establishes a path for us whereby we may mount to heaven.
We glorify Him Who in essence is equal to the Father and to mortal men.

St. John, of course, composed his canons following the nine Biblical Odes. The irmos of ode 1 hearkens back to the Canticle of Moses from Exodus.

I love how the final verse stresses the consubstantiality of Christ with both the Father and man. If there is one thing that I find lacking in our Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (and Fr. Reardon has pointed this out from time to time) is that the Liturgy is pre-Chalcedonian. It is heavily Trinitarian and we speak much of the consubstantiliaty of the Three Hypostases of the Trinity. We don't spend much time on the consubstantiality of Christ with us, His creation. But St. John Damascene does articulate that very well (and especially in his Pascal Canon) here and that is why Orthodox Christians can never hope to really understand the depths of our faith by simply going to Liturgy, as important as that its.

Ode 5: The Master, by His coming in the flesh, has cut clean through
The harsh enmity of the flesh against Him,
And has destroyed the might of the murderer of our souls,
Uniting the world to the immaterial essences,
He has made the Father merciful to the creation.

The Orthodox doctrine of Theosis, man becoming God-like, is articulated here. God became man that man may become God. These words (erroneously attributed to St. Athanasius, though he probably would not have objected to them) repudiate that our salvation cannot be strictly defined in terms of forensic justification. If the point of the crucifixion was to pronounce a "not guilty" verdict, then why the need for the incarnation? The incarnation was so heaven and earth, God and man, may be united to accomplish what Christ prayed in the garden before His death, namely, that "they may all be one As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us" (John 17:21). Though we are still created beings and less than God, because of His incarnation, the flesh he assumed, which he took up to Heaven after His Resurrection and Ascension has also been deified. Our flesh is no longer a hindrance, but will become the instrument for our salvation.

Ode 8:Thou hast come, O Resurrection of the nations,
To bring back the nature of man from its wanderings,
Leading it from the hills of the wilderness to a pasture rich in flowers.
Do Thou destroy the violent strength of the murderer of man,
O Thou who in Thy providence hast appeared as man and God.

Even at Nativity, our minds are called to our Lord's Pascha, His triumph and our triumph over death. The theme throughout this canon is not juridical nuances, but rebirth, resurrection, renewal, change. Our Lord came to change us, not just give good teachings, but so that He may effect in us an actual, ontological change so that we may do what He taught.

At the end of the stanza, we again are reminded that Christ is consubstantial with both the Father and us. A great and mighty wonder! (BTW, that is a title of a hymn found in the Western Rite).

I could spend many hours on the theological legacy of St. John Damascene. It is unfortunate that his feast day falls on a Sunday once every six years, because most Orthodox would not realize the contributions he has made to the faith. O Guide of Orthodoxy, pray that our souls be saved!

Acting stupidly before the throne of God

2011-12-04T15:17:00.001-08:00

These comments are not my own but from Fr. Peters whose blog I frequent pretty much every day. Just reading these comments, he could have been commenting on what happens at my church on Sundays. Some of these are items I have addressed with my priest but to no avail. I'm glad he said these things and I'm just wondering how common these "distractions" are in churches across the USA regardless of denomination or confession.

* Why do altar servers wear flip flops when they serve at the altar? Why do their parents let them leave the house with flip flops on when they know they are scheduled to serve? For that matter, why wear flip flops to Church at all? Casual shoes are worn because we act casually about the place where we are going. Worship is not casual. Our encounter with God at the font, table, and pulpit is not a casual moment but the same kind of holy ground experience we read about in Exodus 3:5. We are here because God has bidden us but that does not change the fact that we are standing on holy ground when we stand before Him.
* Why do dress so casually when we come to Church? No, there is NO dress code and if that is the best you have, fine and dandy. But why would we choose to wear something so casual when we do have better clothing in the closet or in the dresser? This is not really about the clothing. This is merely an extension of the first point. If you dress to make a statement, what statement are we making when we dress down for God? And again, what does this teach our children?
* Why do we act so surprised when our cell phones go off in Church? It should not be a shock since we did not turn them off (we never do). We do have options. If our accessibility is so important, put the phone on vibrate, when you feel it vibrate, get up and leave BEFORE answering it. But, come on now, are we really that important that we have to have the phone on in Church? Do I really need to talk about texting during the service? Yeah, right, the texts we send are the salient points of the sermon. You betcha!
* Why do we need to be so loud just before the service begins? We have wide hallways, a generous entryway and narthex, and a fellowship hall -- why do we shout half way across the nave to get somebody's attention on Sunday morning? It makes it almost impossible to pray before the start of the service. If we must talk, can we talk quietly? Can we be a bit more discrete?
* Why do we need to talk throughout the whole service? What is so important that it cannot wait until after the service is over? Or do we think that we need to get equal time with Scripture and the sermon? I know of people who move around in the service to get away from the constant talkers. And what does that teach to the children we are trying so hard to quiet down?
* Why do we look so surprised when we go to the altar rail for the Sacrament? If we belong there, we should not have that deer in the headlights look. If we are visitors, we need to talk to somebody (like the Pastor -- or at least read the clear communion statement in the bulletin). If we have guests with us, we need to talk to them beforehand about communing. Even members sometimes look and act if they were not sure what was going on at the rail.
* Why do we seem to be always late for everything at Church? If we cannot avoid being late, could we at least be discrete? Enter and leave only during a hymn or sung part of the liturgy - NEVER during prayers or the reading of Scripture. It is rude to the people who got there on time and it is offensive to be fashionably late and make our entrance into the Church.

* Why do Pastors sometimes act as if they are oblivious to what is going on in the service? What are we doing? Writing the sermon? Making a shopping or to do list? If the Pastor is not paying attention to what is going on, singing the hymns, praying, etc., why should he expect the folks in the pew to be doing these things?
* Why do Pastors act so casual about the chancel area? It is not the clergy family room. Don't use the altar as a side table to put your notes or hymnal or glass of water. Don't lean on the lectern or the pulpit or altar like its job is to hold you up when you are tired of standing?
* Why do Pastors have to comment or direct every part of the service? Do we constantly need to hear the page numbers called out? Do we need to have everything introduced (now let us pray the Lord's Prayer... now the choir will sing... now we will take an offering... now receive the benediction, etc.)? Put it in a well crafted bulletin if it is so difficult to keep up with things. Pastor does not mean MC and the liturgy is not your monologue.
* Why do Pastors act surprised at what is happening in the liturgy? Did the Pastor not plan it out in the first place? This is not like an audition for a part where you get to see the script for the first time. The Pastor knows what is unfolding on Sunday morning. Get with the program.
* Why would a Pastor apologize for his sermon before hand? So you have a dozen funerals, several dozen hospital calls, a wedding, and a thousand other things happen last week. It is Sunday morning and you better be ready. If you are not all that ready, don't warm people ahead of time that you did not have time to prepare adequately -- it is like saying "pay no more attention.... starting NOW."
* If you mess up a reading, don't say "Excuse me" or make a joke about how hard those Hebrew names are to pronounce. Just correct the mistake and keep on reading. It is not your word, it is God's (and it might not hurt to read it before hand just to prepare).

Evangelicals Sign Document Affirming Belief in the Trinity

2011-12-01T18:27:00.001-08:00

There has been some debate, outside of the Evangelical world, which asks whether Evangelicals actually affirm and defend the Christian Dogma of the Trinity in Unity, the Unity in Trinity. A lot of my own personal experience in this debate comes from former Evangelicals who were received into the Orthodox Church. A big reason for a lot of their "swimming the Bosphorus" was because the various Evangelical Churches they left did not teach the Trinity, deeming it heresy, or giving it only lip service.

Now, I don't doubt the sincerity of what these former Evangelicals said but I wouldn't characterize their statements as representative of all Evangelical churches. Evangelical churches are not a monolithic bloc either in doctrine or praxis. They are extremely diverse. However, when I read this article today about prominent Evangelicals signing a document that affirms belief in the Trinity as One God, but in three aspects (their wording, not mine). Seeing that such a document had to be created and signed indicates that perhaps the individual stories I heard from former Evangelicals IS representative of what is going on in Evangelical churches around the United States.

I do have some concerns with words such as "aspects" or "manifestations" to describe the individual persons of the Trinity. The Greek word is hypostasis which is often translated to person (via Latin) but that hardly does the Greek word justice. Hypostasis, like many other Greek words, is just too complex an idea to give a satisfactory one word translation for. But, for our purposes, person will do just fine.

I am happy though that the signers of this document were concerned with possible subordination within the Trinity. The signers of this document might not be aware of this but the Church fought against this doctrine, known as Sabellianism, or modalism in the third and fourth centuries. And they are correct that the doctrine of the Trinity is a Biblical doctrine.

However, many people will shrug their shoulders, within the Evangelical community and without, and wonder what's the big deal. The big deal is that the dogma of the Trinity was one that was fought over and split the Church from a very early age. Such is why the Council of Nicaea had to be called to firmly establish the orthodox belief of who God is and how He has revealed Himself. The Orthodox Church has steadily maintained that the Trinity is a big deal because all of our prayers are directed towards the Trinity. Trinitarian invocations are ever recurring in the Orthodox prayer life.

If there is ever to be healing and a restoration of the fallen to the Great Church of Christ (i.e. the Orthodox Church) then acceptance of the Trinity as a supreme article of a faith is a sine qua non. The fact that the Evangelicals are having problems with this indicates that any rapprochement is a long ways away.

Commemoration of St. Andrew the FIrst Called Apostle

2011-11-30T18:55:00.000-08:00

In the [G]ospel according to St. John, Philip calls his friend Nathanael to "come and see" Jesus, but it is Jesus Himself who invites Andrew to "come and see" where He dwells and to spend the day with Him, together with another disciple of St. John the Baptist, who is probably the evangelist himself.

Come and see! This is the abiding invitation of the Church in her liturgical services. Come with faith and you will be numbered with those to whom "it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven" (Mt. 13:11).

The feast of Saint Andrew, with the chanting of the first of the prefeast hymns of the Nativity, marks the beginning of this paschal journey in a special way.

When He who was proclaimed by the voice of John the Forerunner,
"The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world,"
Came bringing life and salvation to all the earth
You, O Holy Andrew, were the first to follow Him.
You were offered as the first-fruits of the human race.
You proclaimed to Peter your brother,
"We have found the Messiah!"
Pray that He may enlighten and save our souls!--Vespers of the Feast of St. Andrew

--Thomas Hopko, The Winter Pascha pp.29, 30, 31.

. . . And that’s what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown

2011-11-25T06:35:00.000-08:00

One of my all time favorite cartoons, A Charlie Brown Christmas, was given a new four year lease on ABC. Despite the 51 second scene of Linus reading from the Gospel according to St. Luke and the perceived "hostility" it brings to those who want an "all-inclusive" Christmas, the show has continually kept the public rushing to their TVs to watch it. But, like anything else which has a Christian message, the show almost never aired. You can read the history of it here.

Abbot Tryphon on fasting

2011-11-25T06:26:00.000-08:00

From Abbot Tryphon's Morning Offering. Again, I invite anyone to point out any hint of legalism here. NOTE: Italics are mine.

The Nativity Fast is already in progress for those on the Gregorian (New) Calendar, and starts on Monday for those who follow the Julian (Church) Calendar. During this period of prescribed fasting we are to abstain from all meats, dairy, eggs, cheeses, and all animal products. The Church does allow for fish on the weekends during the Nativity Fast.

Fasting is so important for the Orthodox Christian that many of the Fathers tell us we can not consider ourselves to be Orthodox unless we keep the fasts. The spiritual discipline of keeping the fast is invaluable to the Christian life, for it helps make us lighter, and more open to spiritual growth. We enter fasting periods because we want to go deeper into our life in Christ, and gain strength in fighting the passions.

It is important to remember that fasting is not just about foods that we are to abstain from, but also about the quantity of food we eat. It is hardly a true fast if we eat the same amount of food that we would normally eat during a non-fast period. Furthermore, if we hunt for foods that are legally eaten, avoiding simple foods such as vegetables, breads and vegan soups, and eat rich foods that are just as satisfying as non-fasting foods, we miss the point of the fast. It is hardly fasting if we consume a great variety of food and in large amounts.

It's got to be said

2011-11-24T18:31:00.000-08:00

Taking a break from my normal posts, I'd just like to say three things:

1) Happy Thanksgiving. I hope everyone had a great one and that you had not only good company and good eats but also gave honor and thanks to God from Whom all blessings flow!

2) If you are one of those people who condemn the various businesses who have chosen to open on Thanksgiving day (whether all day or at 5:00 pm) because they are denying their employees time to spend with their families and yet, you still choose to go out shopping, you are doing nothing more than enabling those businesses. You can't have it both ways. That is called hypocrisy.

3) As we are now past Thanksgiving Day, it is now acceptable to put up your various obscene and tasteless Christmas decorations for all the neighborhood to see.

Fr. George Papandeas has reposed

2011-11-22T17:15:00.001-08:00

I was saddened to hear of the passing of Fr. George Papadeas. He was 93. You can read about him here.

I had never met the man myself and my only knowledge of him comes from his translation of the Greek (the Greek is on the left page; the English, the right) of the services for Holy Week which I possess and love breaking out for Holy Week. In many ways, Fr. George did much to help Greek Orthodoxy to be less concentrated on the Greek language and more focused on Orthodoxy. I think, without his translation which mainly benefited the young who did not learn the language of their expatriate parents, the Greek Orthodox church would be a mere cultural remnant in the United States than a vibrant church. Granted, much still has to be done, but I think Fr. George left a good blueprint for others to follow, God willing.

Memory eternal, Fr. George.

New Orthodox Passage of the Day

2011-11-20T17:46:00.000-08:00

Jesus Christ, the Son, Word and Image of God, is physically and spiritually formed in the body of Mary so that He might be formed in us as well (see Gal 4:19). This is the meaning of Christmas, which is the meaning of life itself: Christ in us and we in Christ, God with us and we with God.--Fr. Thomas Hopko, The Winter Pascha, p. 22

Patristic Quote of the Day

2011-11-20T17:41:00.000-08:00

It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back upon His word and tat man, having transgressed, should not die; but it was equally monstrous that beings which had once shared the nature of the Word should perish and turn back once again into non-existence through corruption. I twas unworthy of the goodness of God that creatures made by Him should be brought to nothing through the deceit wrought upon man by the devil; and it was supremely unfitting that the work of God in mankind should disappear, either through their own negligence or through the deceit of evil spirits...It was impossible, therefore, that God should leave man to be carried off by corruption, because it would be unfitting and unworthy of Himself.--St. Athanasius the Great, On the Incarnation, 1.2.7

Refuting the Prosperity Gospel

2011-11-20T05:25:00.000-08:00

Mega-church preachers like Joel Osteen and Rick Warren are flat-out wrong about most everything they proclaim from their pulpits. There, I said it. As much as I am proud and grateful to be born and live in America, I find their "civil religion" and "prosperity gospel" to be antithetical to the Christian life. Unfortunately, many millions of evangelical Christians in this country and out of it buy into this on a daily basis.

I've seen Joel Osteen's "church" on TV. It's an auditorium. It is no more a christian building than a city hall. Behind Joel Osteen is the world. I think that is quite significant because Joel Osteen's way is not centered on the way of the cross, but the way of the world. Osteen says, "If you have faith, not only in Jesus but also in the greatness of America, then the riches of this world can be yours." I think he has forgotten Christ's words when He said that "His Kingdom is not of this world."

A friend of mine posted this link on her page. It refutes the Prosperity of Gospel of Joel Osteen very very well, much better than I ever could. I encourage you to read it.

Pastristic Quote of the Day

2011-11-15T18:00:00.000-08:00

We will begin, then, with the creation of the world and with God its Maker, for teh first fact that you must grasp is this: the renewal of creation has been wrought by the Self-name Word Who made it in the beginning. There is thus no inconsistency between creation and salvation; for the One Father has employed the same Agent for both works, effecting the salvation of the world through the same Word Who made it in the beginning.--St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 1.1

New Orthodox Passage of the Day

2011-11-15T17:56:00.000-08:00

The first step on the way of the Winter Pascha is the encounter with the man Jesus. We are invited with Philip and the disciples to "come and see." If we want to come and see, we will. Like the first disciples, we will see "greater things" than we ever expected...But first we must come. For if we do not come, we will never see.--Fr. Thomas Hopko, The Winter Pascha, p. 14

The beginning of the Nativity Fast

2011-11-14T20:04:00.000-08:00

On November 15, the Holy Orthodox Churches on the Revised Julian (i.e. New) Calendar begin the Nativity Fast in preparation for the Incarnation of our Lord and God and Saviour. During this time, for those who have the strength, Orthodox Christians abstain not only from certain foods and other worldly pleasures, but also "add" to their diet increased prayer and giving to the poor.

For those who see fasting as some legalistic thing of the past whose only purpose is to "score points with God," I reprint the following from the website of the Self-Ruled Antiochian Church of North America. If you can find anything "legalistic" about what is here, please let me know, but I can't find it (and it's not because I'm biased towards this discipline).

The Purpose of Fasting

The purpose of fasting is to focus on the things that are above, the Kingdom of God. It is a means of putting on virtue in reality, here and now. Through it we are freed from dependence on worldly things. We fast faithfully and in secret, not judging others, and not holding ourselves up as an example.

*
Fasting in itself is not a means of pleasing God. Fasting is not a punishment for our sins. Nor is fasting a means of suffering and pain to be undertaken as some kind of atonement. Christ already redeemed us on His Cross. Salvation is a gift from God that is not bought by our hunger or thirst.
*
We fast to be delivered from carnal passions so that God’s gift of Salvation may bear fruit in us.
*
We fast and turn our eyes toward God in His Holy Church. Fasting and prayer go together.
*
Fasting is not irrelevant. Fasting is not obsolete, and it is not something for someone else. Fasting is from God, for us, right here and right now.
*
Most of all, we should not devour each other. We ask God to “set a watch and keep the door of our lips.”

Do Not Fast

*
between December 25 and January 5 (even on Wednesdays and Fridays);
*
if you are pregnant or nursing a newborn;
*
during serious illness;
*
without prayer;
*
without alms-giving;
*
according to your own will without guidance from your spiritual father.

Jesus' version of a lawyer joke

2011-11-13T19:11:00.000-08:00

Today's Gospel reading was from that of St. Luke 10:25-37, the parable of the good Samaritan. Though I hear this parable every year at this time in church, I'm always happy to learn something new about it that I didn't know before. My priest, when he brought up this point, even admitted that he had never thought about this until he was reading it to the congregation.

The text says a lawyer wanted to test Jesus about how to inherit eternal life. Christ responds to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read?" Jesus asks him two questions, not one. The first question asks to state a fact, the second question then asks for interpretation. I never noticed this before, no matter how many times I've read it. Jesus doesn't ask the lawyer the same question twice. If He had, the second question would be "What does it say?" "How do you read?" implies that another lawyer could understand it very differently.

Maybe the lawyers in Jesus' day weren't so different from today's legal community. How many times do we hear of lawyers knowing what the law says and then argue that what it means is far different than what is in the text? Jesus probably also heard this from the lawyers in his own day. The law was clear on a certain point, but the Pharisees and scribes and other "learned" people would argue that the text meant exactly the opposite of what it said. What ensued was a legalism that reeked of self-righteousness and self-glorification. No wonder Jesus had to clarify his initial question! Maybe He thought one question wouldn't do? Who says our Lord doesn't have a sense of humor?

Commemoration of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople

2011-11-13T12:29:00.001-08:00

I love it when the feasts of the great saints (not that there's anything wrong with all those other saints) occur on a Sunday. Old Testament lessons are prescribed, there is (usually) a dhoxastichon at BOTH Psalm 140 and the Aposticha, the saint's own dismissal hymn, the chanting of the Great Polyeleos (Psalms 134 and 135), a third poetic Kathisma (Sessional Hymn) and the dhoxastichon at the Ainoi is for this saint. It's regrettable too because most parish churches with the exception who take the saints for their parish protectors do not offer the services of these exemplary men and women who took up their own crosses for the sake of Christ when their commemoration falls on a weekday. These men and women are great examples of what it means to lead the Christ-like life. And St. John Chrysostom was one of the best.

It's easy to catalogue Chrysostom's contributions to the eastern churches. His Liturgy is used most every Sunday and feast day, his sermons, especially his Paschal Sermon, are staples of Church homiletics, his homilies on all the books of the New Testament are seminal reads and his relentless pursuit of "holiness" not only for himself but for his fellow Christians made him popular but also hated and envied. But even if we had no printed record of any of those things, even if his Liturgy were lost, he would still be a great saint and still considered one of the Great Hierarchs along with Sts. Basil and Gregory. Why? Because his life, more than his words, was a witness to God's dispensation to man in the person of Jesus Christ. And this can be seen by how he met his end on this earth.

Though he was not in the strictest sense a martyr, he was condemned to exile by the Empress Eudoxia who hated and envied John because he dared to oppose her self-aggrandizing schemes (like constructing a silver statue of herself in front of the Church of the Holy Wisdom)and hoarding great wealth to herself. St. John was popular with the people not only because of his great sermons, but because of his charity which built hospitals. Such reproaches from St. John, not only in private but also from the pulpit of the Church with the Empress in attendance, only stirred the wrath of Eudoxia. She ordered him deposed with the help of other church hierarchs also jealous of Chrysostom's gifts and popularity with the people. St. John was then ordered to the regions by the Black Sea where modern day Armenia is. Weak from the asceticism and self denial he subjected himself to all his life and unable to go one step further despite the soldiers' pressing him, he uttered his last breath and said "Glory to God for all things!" He died on September 14.

He could have cursed his enemies one last time, he could have made one more theological insight, he could have asked for food or water, but instead, despite the greatness of his suffering, he glorified God for everything. Chrysostom knew, like Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, that God's will, not his, be done.

Hieromartyr St. John Chrysostom, intercede with the Lord in our behalf!

With golden sayings and divinely spoken doctrines, thou hast adorned the Church of God and hast treasured up therein the spiritual riches of thy God-given oracles; wherefore, with songs she plaiteth a laurel of unwithering flowers, and offereth it on thy sacred memory, O divinely-wise John, wholly golden of soul and tongue; and since thou hast boldness, O righteous Father, intercede in behalf of our souls.--Dhoxastichon at the Ainoi of Orthros

Hip hoppin out of bed on Sundays to go to church? Fo shizzle

2011-11-11T22:49:00.001-08:00

I've written several times about the modern worship wars many churches, particularly mainline Protestant but also Roman Catholics, find themselves in. I've also lamented that for the purpose of becoming "culturally relevant" and "pro-growth" many western confessions have abandoned the various western rites in favor of a new paradigm which is hip and fresh and designed to appeal to people's entertainment than the proper worship due to God. The continued insistence by many clergy and leaders of such churches that the only way to reach people is by embracing the pop culture of the world has done nothing to explain why a great many people, who may have been reared in the Christian faith, still prefer to stay home on Sunday.

Reading this article was really no surprise to me. It rehashes the tired old arguments that the church needs to "spice up" its message and make it "relevant" to young people. The article begins:

It's hard enough to get young people out of bed and into the pews on a Sunday morning, but two leading black seminaries think they have found a way to grab the next generation: hip-hop.

"If we're going to take young people seriously, we have no choice," said Alton B. Pollard III, dean of the Howard University School of Divinity.

"When we talk about what's happening in the lives of young people, that's a subterranean culture that some of us just don't know how to get with."

Fo shizzle.

"We have no choice?" Yes, you do. Saying you have no choice is to make yourselves comfortable with the choice you have already made. It's self-justification at its worst.

The article goes on with testimony about how young black people are so connected to hip hop and how traditional religion is so rigid. Hip hop, in its very essence, is not a rigid "art form" but has numerous expressions under its umbrella. Nonetheless, the woman who is quoted says that the hip hop angle is necessary because she doesn't worship the tradition.

And maybe that is part of the problem that those of us who are liturgical traditionalists fail to see in our own objections to those who wish for change. For those of us who want the traditional liturgy, it may come off that we are worshiping the tradition, worshiping the creature rather than the Creator.

I am not saying that one cannot have communion with God through hip hop as opposed to Byzantine chant. It may very well be possible, though I haven't, and will never, try it. But I would challenge anyone who knows the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great, the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, etc. where the Liturgy is not centered around the Theanthropos, the God-Man, Jesus Christ. But, for this one woman, is she not also guilty of worshiping the tradition which is, for her, hip hop?

The problem surrounding the worship wars is not so much about style as it is about direction. Do we worship so that the church becomes more like the earth or more like the heavens? The delegates St. Vladimir sent to Constantinople in the 11th century reported that the worship was such that they knew no longer whether they were in heaven or on earth. They had been translated, mystically, to the heights. But hip hop is of this earth. A church using that as its standard is more likely to separate itself from the heavens to become one with the earth.

Our Lord says that His Reign is not of this earth. Our worship towards Him should not be either. Throwing more of the earth into a church will not help to elevate one towards the heights but constantly keep faces downcast towards what is here. And that should be depressing.

Rehabilitating Pelagius, Part 2

2011-11-10T20:26:00.001-08:00

In the post below, I commented on the Atlanta Diocese of the Episcopal (Anglican) Church USA trying to restore Pelagius from a condemned heretic to perhaps a theologian of the church, if not an outright saint. I just learned that the resolution was defeated even in its amended form. I don't know how close the vote was, but you can see the amended form of the resolution and the fact that it was defeated here.

Frankly, I'm astonished. Considering that the Episcopal Church (ECUSA), both in local synods and as a national body, has done nearly everything else to subvert traditional Christianity in praxis (retaining an old western rite without good doctrine is not retaining praxis), doctrine and dogma, I would have expected this resolution to have carried the day overwhelmingly. I don't know if more conservative elements within Atlanta Synod-ECUSA supported this or most people frankly didn't care, but at least, in this one instance, the ECUSA actually did something right. Good for them.

Rehabilitating Pelagius

2011-11-02T18:00:00.001-07:00

Apparently, the Episcopal (Anglican) Diocese of Atlanta wants to rehabilitate the standing of 5th century arch-heretic, Pelagius. Here's a synopsis of what the Diocesan Convention will be asked to do:

The Diocese of Atlanta has been asked to rehabilitate Pelagius.

Delegates to the diocesan convention will be asked to reverse the condemnation of the Council of Carthage upon Pelagius, and to explore whether the Fifth century heretic may inform the theology of the Episcopal Church.

Resolution R11-7 before the convention states in part:

"Whereas the historical record of Pelagius's contribution to our theological tradition is shrouded in the political ambition of his theological antagonists who sought to discredit what they felt was a threat to the empire, and their ecclesiastical dominance, and whereas an understanding of his life and writings might bring more to bear on his good standing in our tradition;"

"And whereas his restitution as a viable theological voice within our tradition might encourage a deeper understanding of sin, grace, free will, and the goodness of God's creation, and whereas in as much as the history of Pelagius represents to some the struggle for theological exploration that is our birthright as Anglicans, Be it resolved, that this 105th Annual Council of the Diocese of Atlanta appoint a committee of discernment overseen by our Bishop, to consider these matters as a means to honor the contributions of Pelagius and reclaim his voice in our tradition."

Now, the Episcopalians have had a great track record in recent years of abandoning basic church teaching and substituting it for what they want, yet still claiming it's all guided by the Holy Spirit. So this should come as no surprise. A couple of years ago, I saw a satirical add promoting the Episcopal Church which claims: "Don't believe in that crap (i.e. traditional Christianity)? Neither do we."

I read about this happening here and I decided to add my own two cents. Here is my reply:

There is a great tendency in modern theological circles to elevate the arch-heretics of the ancient church to the status of Fathers of the Church, though their views were repudiated by the Fathers of the Church. So, if the Episcopal Diocese of Atalanta has their way, not only Pelagius, but Origen, Severus of Antioch, Theodore of Mopsuetia, Arius, Apollinarius, Sabellius, etc. will now be added to the list of church fathers and maybe venerated as saints.

There is no doubt that many of these heretics were pious men. But before the church could effectively speak on the objective matters of the faith, they first had to turn to the subject matters of faith (e.g. grace vs. works, nature of the Godhead, how many natures Christ had) which required no wiggle room.

Dennis asks if God wants empty vessels returning to God? That’s not what Augustine had in mind. First of all, we must remember that Christ (from st. Paul’s letter to the Philippians) emptied himself of His divinity in his assumption of humanity. But in His humanity, Christ revealed His Divinity at various points in his ministry, notably Theophany and the Transfiguration. For the Christian, he must empty himself of the passions that Christ may live in him. Such cannot be attained rigid asceticism; it must be cooperative. Such synergy is what typifies the orthodox understanding of grace vs. free works. Pelagius said God’s grace was wholly unnecessary; Augustine took a 180 degree turn and insisted it was entirely grace (a thought he later clarified and retracted in this Retractations written at the end of his life in 430 A.D.). Both Pelagius and Augustine (at the time) were monoergistic. Neither system was synergistic. It is only in cooperation with God that we empty ourselves and thus become filled with the Spirit. It’s paradox, like many orthodox Christian teachings.

The Blessed Augustine erred in his insistence on grace and denying of free will. But that does not prove that Pelagius and his followers, like Julianus, were right. It is also important to note that though the eastern churches couldn’t figure out what the problem with Pelagius was, Pelagius and Julianus were still condemned by the Synod of Jerusalem in 416 (if memory serves). Pelagius was not a saint and should not be elevated to that rank nor should he be ranked as a church father. He was just as wrong (if not more so) than Augustine.

One more thing. Augustine should not condemned just because the radical reformers and Lutherans appealed to him alone as their church father, par excellence. Augustine would have been astonished to learn of what they took from his writings to be the basis for their teachings.

Now, I may be wrong with a few dates and spellings of a few names, but I'm pretty sure this is the Orthodox and orthodox view of Pelagius. Augustine, as many know, is a bogeyman for a lot of Orthodox Christians, especially those influenced by the late Fr. John Romanides and Rev. Dr. Michael Azkoul, both of whom were vehemently anti-Augustinian though, as I have said before, I don't think they ever have read Augustine. Augustine is particularly beloved of many Greek Old Calendarists.

I'm going to keep tabs on this story and see what the result is. Of course, no matter how it turns out, I sincerely doubt that any of the Orthodox churches, Oriental Orthodox churches or even the Roman Catholic Church will follow suit. The Episcopalians revel so much in making waves so let them.

Reformation Day 2011

2011-10-31T09:14:00.000-07:00

On October 31, 1517 (old calendar) a young priest by the name of Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the cathedral door of All Saints Church in Wittenberg in the duchy of Saxony. All over the world, Lutheran churches are paying homage to their founder and many other reformed churches which owe their own existence to this act of defiance.

I was raised Lutheran and I admit that I was not spiritually happy in the Lutheran tradition or what has become Lutheran tradition. So I left and I have no regrets about doing so. The only thing that I do regret is that in my own zealousness and desire for self-justification and self-vindication I have been less than charitable many times towards continued adherents and even converts to the various reformed churches. This does not mean that I cannot engage in debates of substantive concern with regards to Christianity.

Reading some articles today about the Reformation and how churches are celebrating, I came upon an article by Paul McCain, who is a Lutheran pastor and has his own blog, Cyberbrethren. I will admit that I have had several confrontations with him and I will further admit that I do not much care for him personally. His destructive rants against anyone who has left the Lutheran church have damaged the reputations of many good people. I also have some qualms with him on academic integrity, but those are not the issues. On his blog, today, McCain writes what it means to be Lutheran. He writes, "To be Lutheran is to be a person who says, 'This [i.e. Lutheranism] is what God’s Word, the Bible, teaches. This and nothing else is true and correct.'"

His description highlights one of the main reasons why I left Lutheranism. As a Lutheran in catechism class I was taught the three solas: sola fide, sola gratia, sola scriptura. As I studied and read more I found that the last, sola scriptura, was not only historically untenable, it is theologically untenable. Sola Scriptura is also the wrong answer to the wrong question. Lutherans ask "what is the Word of God?" They should ask, instead, "Who is the Word of God?"

The Word of God is NOT the Scriptures. The Word of God is Jesus Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity who became man. The Scriptures, or Bible, if you prefer, are the witness to Christ. The Scriptures are an icon, an image, of God, but no one would say that they are God. Such a position would be rightly denounced as ridiculous. But the reformed tradition's insistence on sola scriptura replaces Christ as the head of the Church with a book. Catholics go in the other direction and replace Christ as head with their pope. The Lutherans, and other Protestants, did a 180 but are still in error.

This issue was not the driving force behind my leaving, but it is important. I wanted to engage in a practice that fed my soul. I read my histories carefully about the importance of asceticism, fasting, starving the passions, vigilant prayer, worshiping with the Liturgy and offices in the early church, all things which were considered unnecessary by my Lutheran teachers, even condemned because they were not "prescribed in the Bible." Sola Scriptura threw out such good practices and disciplines which I only found and have applied (though poorly) since I became Greek Orthodox. I think that if Lutherans would examine their own history, they would find that the practices I mentioned above were still retained by the Lutheran churches until Pietism in the eighteenth century reared its ugly head.

Luther made some very necessary demands on the church of the west at the time. They were largely ignored and schism ensued, but I think Luther would even have a hard time identifying the Lutheran Church of today (in its thousands of manifestations)as the heir to what he taught. But I know that I could only have become Orthodox if I was Lutheran first. For that, I am very thankful.

Quote of the day

2011-10-31T09:10:00.000-07:00

There are only two kinds of men: the righteous who think they are sinners and the sinners who think they are righteous.--Blaise Pascal, French mathematician and Catholic philosopher

I think this adequately sums up Christ's parable of the Publican and the Pharisee.

What does it mean to be religious?

2011-10-15T10:58:00.000-07:00

I've never cared for the word "religious." Frankly, I think that as the term is applied specifically to Christians, it really does a disservice. The root of the word religion, lig comes from the Latin ligare which means to bind or fasten to a set of rules or conditions. (As a side note some etymologists have suggested that the root word lig is a corruption of the Latin word lex, legis which means the law). Whatever its proper derivation, the term means almost nothing today. The term is applied to the person who attends services and prays unceasingly and tries to live a holy life as well as to the boastful sinner who still goes to church on occasion, does charitable works, but does almost nothing to live a Christlike life.

Take, for example, Ms. Sara Leal. For whatever reason, Ms. Leal felt it necessary to give a very explicit narrative to the New York Post regarding her night of passion with not-yet-divorced actor Ashton Kutcher (i.e. Kelso from "That 70s Show"). If you do link to the article, you've been warned! In between sex sessions, the conversation with Kelso, I mean, Kutcher, the subject turned to politics and religion. According to Leal, she told Kelso that she was a religious Lutheran from Texas. Following that, they returned to their entertainment. So, to Leal, what does religious mean?

We are all sinners in this fallen world and have fallen waaaaaaaaaay short of the glory and mercy of our Lord, but should any of us be trumpeting ourselves as religious especially in the midst of any kind of debauchery? I'm in the middle of reading Uncle Tom's Cabin and I see the same type of characters who view themselves as good religious men while at the same time perpetuating the cruel and demeaning institution of slavery. For those of you who have seen the Godfather, you remember the scene that as Michael Corleone is sponsoring his nephew's baptism and renouncing the ways of Satan, his men are carrying out his orders to murder his competition. It's hypocrisy at its finest.

Only God can judge but we should still know what sin is when it's readily visible before our very eyes. And yet, despite that, even when we are in the midst of our own sin, we take comfort that we are still "religious." Perhaps the late Fr. Romanides was right when he once remarked that religion is a neurological disease. Religion seems to be the expression of our cognitive dissonance from what we know is right and God-pleasing to our actions otherwise.

Maybe we should just jettison the term "religious" for something else. Or, better yet, we should reclaim it and make sure it has one certain definition: Living as Christ would want us to, getting up once we have fallen, repenting and hating our sins rather than indulging in them. Easier said than done? Of course, but that's why there is always the grace of God.

Mitt Romney's Christianity

2011-10-09T19:15:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of a friend of mine. Thanks, Bill.

Concerning the issue of Mitt Romney's Christianity: there was a time in my life, when I followed Christ in an unorthodox manner, that I would have quickly explained how he couldn't possibly be "a Christian". However, since I have been following Christ in an orthodox fashion, I have had to realize that every moment I spend considering someone else's "Christianity" is a moment I should have spent attending to my own faults!

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner......

Patristic Quote of the Day

2011-10-02T18:31:00.000-07:00

We can know what God is not, but we cannot know what God is.--St. Augustine

I challenge any Orthodox person, lay or clergy, to substantiate that Augustine is not an ardent defender of the apophatic theology of the Eastern Churches. Granted, one quote is not enough to prove anything, but I believe that those among the Orthodox who have labeled him as an extreme Western cataphatic theologian (like Fr. Romanides) have never really read Augustine.

Stop passing the offering plate

2011-09-28T18:01:00.000-07:00

Another blog I frquently read has a tongue-in-cheek diatribe about maybe getting rid of the time honored practice of passing the collection plate during church services. The blogger remarked that doing this every Sunday robs it of how offering our own gifts, meager as they are, like the woman who offered only two mites compared to the lofty sums of gold paid by the wealthy, is a reflection of our love for God. Now, he went on further to say that other "every Sunday" acts like the recitation of the Lord's prayer, a sermon, reading the Scriptures, etc. should also go because if those acts are present every Sunday, they will become "less special." Needless to say, the person who wrote this is NOT an Orthodox.

But, why not stop the practice of passing around the plate? In my parish, only on Sunday Divine Liturgies are the collection plates passed. This is never done at Vespers or on weekday Liturgies or services. And that may be due to the fact that there are few people there in the first place. Still, why not stop this entirely? The collection plate is always passed at my church during the singing of "Axion os estin" (It is truly right). Granted that this hymn is well known and is sung at more than the Divine Liturgy, but how many people are distracted by opening their wallets or purses to find some money to put in there? And how many more people are distracted by wondering when the plate will get to their location? They are not focusing on the words of the hymn, which invariably sums up our Incarnational Theology that God is With Us, but focusing on the money we give to the church.

My question: If this practice were to stop altogether, would people then forget to contribute their pledges and tithes? If it wouldn't, then why continue with it? It's a needless distraction.

I'm probably going to be in the minority on this one and I'm not trying to disparage giving back to our Lord, but why must it be done in a way which not only takes away our attention from the Divine Liturgy, but also could encourage people to judge others (look at that person; he didn't put money in the tray. Sinner!). I'm going to bring this up at the next voters meeting and see how much traction this will gain. I'm sure it will be laughed at or just dismissed, but I've always believed in lost causes!

Just Divorced

2011-09-17T08:35:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the confusing title, but I am not just divorced; it has more to do with the picture I posted which a friend of mine took. Heck, I am still in that zone of "just married."

It is still one of those "traditional" things that married couples, having immediately taken their nuptial vows, immediately speed away in a car with the motto "Just married." People are supposed to see that and honk with approval or give the newly weds a thumbs up or something. I'm grateful that my wife and I decided not to go for that tradition. However, the people who opt to do such a thing probably only do so because they are happy and want everyone to share in their happiness. There is nothing wrong with that but that wasn't for me.

The picture, which a friend of mine posted on her facebook page, shows a car with a "just divorced" slogan painted with various decorations. Now, I do not know the person who put this up on the car (it may well not have been one of the divorcees, but maybe a friend who thought it funny), but why would one exult in something which is not a good thing? Divorce may be necessary, but necessary does not always equal good. I'm thankful the Orthodox Church has not gone the way of the legalistic Roman Catholic Church and prohibited divorce for any reason. But, even in the Orthodox Church, a divorced man or woman is excommunicated for a brief time and repents because even if one party was not really "at fault" for what happened, marriage is a two way street and, hence, both are responsible.

This form of exultation in divorce may be novel but the fact is many celebrate divorce with "divorce showers" and parties. Many consider it to be the "best thing that ever happened to them." I remember when I was a pawn broker for a brief time. If a woman or a man wanted to sell engagement rings and/or wedding bands, I would always ask why. The point of the question wasn't to be nosy or get into their personal business, but if I was taking stolen merchandise, both the store and I could be in big trouble. My probing questions would almost always ascertain the reason for selling was due to divorce and they didn't need the rings anymore. As a form of habit, I would always say "I'm sorry." And they would almost always reply the same way that it was "the best thing that happened to them." After hearing that so many times, I asked myself if they also thought of their marriages as "the best thing that ever happened to them."

We live in a society that is increasingly celebrating bad things. We have contests to see who can eat the much and reward them. We have records for how long your fingernails are. This is not news, but promoting and celebrating divorce in the same way we promote marriage is a far cry from celebrating who can eat the most pies in 10 minutes! Everyone has their own scheme for hitting the snooze button on their 15 minutes of fame.

I have no brilliant insights as to how to curb these trends. And I don't think that if other confessions of Christianity start to regard and treat marriage as a a sacrament will the epidemic of divorce cease. I don't know the statistics but I don't believe that the rate of divorce among Orthodox Christians is any higher or lower than that of Evangelicals, mainline Protestants or Roman Catholics or even among Americans as a whole, regardless of religious conviction or confession.

I do know this though. Marriage is sacrifice of a spouse to the other for the sake of Christ. It is a martyrdom of sorts, which is why the Orthodox sing hymns of the martyrs and why St. Stephen the Protomartyr is invoked at the dismissal. Though divorce may be necessary for abuse, infidelity, and other breaches of trust, divorce is turning inward towards oneself. I-thou is replaced with I, me, mine (apologies to George Harrison). Love is replaced with indifference. But, of course, there is remedy for such inward turning--repentance through Christ our Lord.

Let us rejoice in only what is good. Marriage is right and honorable and blessed and good. Christ Himself was a celebrant of marriage during his earthly travails. It was at the Marriage of Simon the Zealot at Cana where Christ performed His first sign or miracle, the changing of the water into wine. Divorce may be necessary, but never good and never worthy to be praised as such.

The Cross above all shows God's love for His creation

2011-09-14T16:26:00.000-07:00

Today, September 14 (Revised Julian), the Holy Orthodox Church celebrates the Exaltation of the Precious and Life-Giving Cross. We began to celebrate this feast starting this past Sunday with the very familiar Gospel reading of John 3:16 and continues for the next week. In all the hymns sung at the Vesperal Liturgy last night (which I grant I am not a fan of), one theme permeated everything: God's Love for His Creation. Yes, there are other themes there such as the Cross being the weapon which deceived the great deceiver, i.e. Satan and how that Cross trampled down death and how it lifts us from the curse and the wages of our sins. But those lessons are only given weight from the foundation of God's love.

When Orthodox Christians make the sign of the Cross is not the same as why Orthodox Christians make the sign of the Cross? Yes, we do it when the Holy Trinity is invoked but it also confesses St. Cyril's very famous Theopaschite formula, that "God died on the Cross." The actions on the cross were not just completed by Christ but was an act of love within the Trinity and given to the cosmos, the Trinity's creation. The Trinity is unified as an act of love and actions that spring from the Trinity are realities of that love which binds. We make the sign of the cross because we know and confess that God loves us. We also wear crosses around our necks to proclaim that very same message.

Also, look at the iconography of the crucifixion. Notice how Christ is not hanging as if he lacks the strength as is common in Roman Catholic and Protestant art. In Eastern iconography, it appears that Christ is holding up the Cross, that it can only stand because he allows it to stand. Also notice how Christ's arms are stretched across the beam as if he is trying to embrace us or that He loves us this much.

But when the cross is reduced to a mere weapon of torture or the cross is only examined through the lens of penal satisfaction and atonement, then the focus ceases to be on God's love for man, but on man's guilt over his own sins. Yes, each man needs to be repentant of his own sins but not to the point where man fails to see any worth in himself. God certainly found worth in us or else he would not have saved us through Crucifixion and death, let alone even created us! I wonder sometimes that those who are in the various Western traditions only wear the cross around their neck for the same reason the mariner from Coleridge's poem, "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" wore the dead albatross around his neck: to remind them of their crimes and guilt? Such an anthropocentric mindset has no room for the compassion and mercy of God.

There are those who say, mainly Lutherans, that the Orthodox do not follow the Way of the Cross. I'm not going to get into how utterly nonsensical that charge is, but if the Way of the Cross or the Theology of the Cross is to be forever focused on ourselves, our shortcomings, our guilt and not as what God has done for us, then that's the Way of Man.

So, let us cast off our despondency and rejoice in the Cross and rejoice in our God's mercy and compassion for His Creation. For He did not will that His Creation should perish and is not pleased in the perdition of men but that all should be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth. Will all be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth? Sadly, no, but our Lord still desires it and did so with the very sacrifice of Himself on that hill in Jerusalem in 33 A.D.

O Lord, save Thy people and bless Thine inheritance, granting to Thy rulers (people) victory against the barbarians (enemies) and by the power of Thy Cross, preserving Thine estate.

Never forget

2011-09-10T19:44:00.000-07:00

May their memories be eternal! May their souls dwell with the righteous in a place of refreshment where there is no longer any sorrow, evil or pain.

Worship of God is not just with your mind.

2011-09-10T08:02:00.000-07:00

Worship requires your very whole self. Read further here from Abbot Tryphon.

Interfaith Worship on the Rise since 9/11

2011-09-08T15:09:00.000-07:00

Ever since 9/11, whose tenth anniversary is coming up in but a few short days, the number and frequency of interfaith worship has increased significantly. You can read the article from ENI here. What I express here is only my personal opinion and may be construed as most uncharitable. My apologies if you feel this way.

Let me start with a supposition: Interfaith worship can be dangerous. First, let me be very clear about what I mean by interfaith. I am not talking about Chrisians of one confession praying with another (though I will admit and expound upon, at a later time, that such is fraught with a number of traps) but I am talking about christians praying with Buddhists or Moslems with Hindus or animists with Shintos, etc. Now, whatever Shintos, Buddhists, Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Taoists, animists, etc. pray and with whom is their own business and I'm more than content to let them do as they please. But for christians, especially Orthodox Christians, to pray with members of other religious faiths is dangerous.

The reason not so much is because these different religions have a different theism but also their anthropology is significantly different as well. For instance, orthodox christianity (notice, small-o orthodoxy here) contends that man is in a corrupt state because of sin whose humanity can only be realized, recovered and saved through faith in the person and salvaic actions of our Lord, Jesus Christ, the second person of the Triune God (now there are some variations on a theme with that and differences of emphasis within Christianity as a whole). But, contrast this with various other religious beliefs which do not even have a name or concept for sin but also no mediator between God and man and man is left to his own devices and morality to achieve its "salvation" however that is defined. Where and what is the common ground? How can there be interfaith worship of God when both the starting line and finishing line are not the same. They may converge at one point or some points along the way, but that convergence is infrequent and often inconsequential and all religions do not converge at the same point. Several may, but not all.

Interfaith services seek to impose the idea that all religions are the same, just different expressions. Now, again, whatever faith works for another person is fine by me but I know the truth as it has been revealed. What these services promote is the idea of union. Now how can anyone be against union? Isn't that a good thing? Yes, when union or unity occurs on all levels. Unity cannot be accomplished on a surface agreement of a few tenets. Many confuse unity with toleration; they are not one and the same.

But, isn't tolerance a good thing? Of course it is, but why should the avenue for tolerance of others' religions and religious beliefs be only done in the context of an interfaith worship service? There are plenty of other ways of encouraging interfaith dialogue and understanding and tolerance without having to incorporate worship into it.

For an Orthodox Christian, reading the canons about interfaith prayer and worship indicate a very clear answer. Both are forbidden. For example, you may read If any clergymen, or laymen, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated (Canon LXV of the Holy Apostles) or One must not join in prayer with heretics or schismatics (Canon XXXIII of Laodicia). But those canons are not legal sanctions but are principles. They SHOULD NOT be used as an excuse to justify an isolationism or hatred of those who are not Orthodox Christians nor should they be used as a metaphorical 2x4 against anyone who may participate in an interfaith service. The Church is catholic (notice, small "c" catholic), that is, it is meant for everyone, though everyone may not want or desire to be joined to it. There is no black and white answer to this issue, but we should be very cautious, especially in this ecumenical age of ours which holds that every belief and idea is of equal value, not one superior to another, to believe that interfaith services are not potentially harmful.

Prayer is worship and it is communion with God. Christ Himself prayed much during His earthly sojourn. Prayer is an act of love which binds the lover and beloved. Such is why the Trinity is described as a communion of love between its three hypostases or persons. Prayer seeks not only to unite us with the divine but seeks to unite the community. An Orthodox Christian praying the same prayer as a Hindu or Jew or Moslem or Buddhist or Taoist or whomever elevates that heterodox prayer. Though we should be tolerant and forgiving, we should not be engaged in actions which elevate heterodoxy or heresy to the same level as orthodoxy (again, small "o" orthodoxy).

As a corollary, a person of another Christian confession, asked me for some Orthodox prayers he could use in his personal prayer life. I asked him if he wished to become Orthodox. He said no but he just liked to incorporate other confessions' prayers into his own life. I asked him what confession he professed and he said that he was Baptist. Why would you want to pray as an Orthodox if you don't want to be Orthodox, I asked. He had no answer. This is the pitfall. Whatever confession works for you, then you should worship God or Allah or whomever with all your might and your body and your soul. But if you seek to combine prayers, rituals, traditions, dogmas of different confessions, then you are nothing but hopelessly adrift upon a sea of endless theological (and anthropological) possibilities with no anchor or sight of land. This is the danger. The Orthodox Church is a praying church. The prayers which have been handed down from the Scriptures, the Liturgies,the offices, the writings of the Fathers are without measure of theological depth and profound truths. Why do those prayers require supplementation from the Buddhist or the Jew?

Orthodox Christians should err on the side of caution and not be active participants in these interfaith services. We should not pray with them, but absolutely and constantly pray for them.

How to support your priest

2011-09-01T20:33:00.000-07:00

In this competitive world of ours, everything is up for comparisons. From our kids doing well in sports or in academics, to our respective sports teams, everything seems to be built upon competition. We even rank our jobs and vocations against others. I would like to think that one is no better than the other, that all are useful and necessary. We could spend hours of debate as to which profession is most demanding, most rewarding, most beneficial and it would be, in the end, a waste of time. I think a great many people, if so inclined to rank the professions, would probably proffer the usual suspects: doctors, lawyers, teachers, farmers, entrepreneurs. But, what about the parish priest or pastor?

I'm not a priest and I don't plan on being one. For those of us converts to the faith, recent and not so recent, there is this sense of "clinginess" since it is often a priest who brought us into the faith. As such, parishioners try to make the priest their own. I can only imagine what kind of life, outside of Liturgies, baptisms, weddings, catechism classes, parish council meetings, confessions, other meetings, the priest lives. Since I cannot provide that information, maybe this will.

I have added a new blog to the list called "The Morning Offering" by Abbot Tryphon, a Russian Orthodox Priest and Monk. In one of his recent posts, reprinted below, Abbot Tryphon talks about the incredible daily demands put on a priest and how those demands can really take a toll. He also stresses the need for parishioners to understand these demands and not be hasty in judgment but supportive for everything that the priest does. Much of this was extremely informative. I hope it is such for you.

Parish priests feel pressures that are found in no other profession. The type of man that generally is drawn to the holy priesthood is one who has a heart for serving others.

Bishops and priests are often expected to do far more than is humanly possible. Bishops, as fathers to their people, are expected to be superhuman. Judged if they are not.

Over the years I've heard terrible stories of parish priests having to cancel vacations at the last minute because of sudden deaths in their parishes, requiring them to cancel airline tickets, leaving both they and their families without the much needed time away. One priest told me how his young son had been looking forward to a camping trip and cried when his dad had to tell him they couldn't go, because an important family in the parish requested that only he could do the funeral, rejecting having another priest step in.

Countless priests have to put in long hours, missing dinner with their families because of wedding rehearsals, hospital calls, counseling sessions. The average priest gets Monday off, yet is expected to forgo his only day off if someone needs to see him, or a parish council decides to have a meeting that evening. They demand their priest be available whenever they need him, regardless of the time of day, or the needs of his family.

One priest told me about having performed a baptism of a child for a family that rarely came to church, only to have them walk out immediately following the service, leaving him to mop up the spilled water, while they and their friends ran off to celebrate at a restaurant. He was given such a pitiful stipend for his services that he just dropped it in the poor box. They didn't even invite him to join them at the restaurant. He said he wouldn't have had the time to join them, but the invitation to do so would have been nice.

Most clergy receive a very small salary and are expected by their parishioners to be happy with what they have. The stipend is thus very important to the priest, yet I know of countless clergy who travel many miles from their rectory, bless the home and receive nothing for their services (the normal stipend for extra services like this is one hundred dollars).

Like all children, priest's kids need time with their father. Normal jobs allow dads to leave their job at work, giving themselves plenty of time to meet the needs of their children, but not in the case of clergy. Being on call 24/7, the families of priests often have to forgo planned meals, outings and family affairs because of the demands of their people. Most priests have such a strong desire to be in service, they simply can't say no.

The children of priests, as well as their wives, also must suffer the undo scrutiny of the parishioners, expected, as they are, to be perfect. Given all this, is it any wonder the children of priests often wouldn't think of becoming priests themselves? Please, whatever you do, don't criticize your priest in front of his family. How often I've heard priest's wives and children lament having to put up with attacks on their husbands/fathers by people who don't think he's doing enough! People airing their grievances at parish meetings, with the children and wives having to hear it all.

I share all this with my readers because most of you are unaware just how difficult a job your priest has and how much is demanded of his time. Most of you love your priests but are just unaware that he rarely gets his own needs met. I remember one priest in Detroit, would lived in substandard housing, while all his parishioners lived in nice homes. No one made any effort to make sure their priest (single in his case) was living in medium income housing, somewhere in the middle of all his people (the norm for most protestant churches).

How can a priest take care of the education of his children when his salary is at the poverty line? One horror story I remember hearing was of a priest who's parish council gave him an increase in salary that put him just over the line so he'd no longer qualify for food stamps, since this made the parish look bad. The priest and his family ended up with less, rather than more!

All of the above could be said for bishops as well. We really need to start taking care of our bishops, making sure they have adequate compensation, days off for restoration of soul and proper rest, and a whole lot less criticism from their people.

Love your priests and bishops, just as they love you. Give them support. Show them you care by sending them a little gift on their names day, or emailing them on occasion, letting them know you care about them. Tell them when you've liked their homily, invite they and their families to dinner on occasion. Let them know you care. Remember your bishop and priest with a thoughtful little gift, or a check, on Christmas and Pascha. Let them know you care about them. Make sure the parish council knows you think your priest should receive a proper salary. You'd be shocked at the average income of most protestant clergy compared to what most Orthodox priests receive.

The life of your priest can be greatly extended if you don't allow him to work himself to death. Make sure he does take at least one day off. Tell him to turn off his cell phone on those days. Call the rectory before knocking at the door. You have no idea how many priests evenings with their families are derailed with a knock at the door.

I'm sharing all of this with you because I know your priest will not. He loves you and he loves Christ whom he serves. Make him pace himself and you'll have him around to baptize your grandchildren. Don't expect him to be perfect. Most importantly, pray for your bishops and your priests. Honor and love them, and refrain from judging them.

With love in Christ,
Abbot Tryphon

Repose of Bishop DMITRI of the OCA

2011-08-30T17:46:00.000-07:00

Yesterday we celebrated the Beheading of our Lord's Forerunner and Baptizer, John. The apolytikion for his feast begins with "The memory of the just is celebrated with hymns of praise, but the Lord's testimony is sufficient for thee, O Forerunner." While reflecting on those words throughout the day yesterday, I heard the sad news that Bishop DMITRI of the OCA had reposed the day before at his residence. He was 87 years old.

I had the fortune of meeting DMITRI a few years ago when I was in Dallas. I didn't know anything about him. The first time I saw him was when I was chanting Orthros for the Leavetaking of Pentecost. He was wearing his monastic vestments and went to the altar. I didn't know he was even a bishop. At the end of the Divine Liturgy, Bishop BASIL introduced his fellow bishop and colleague to those in attendance.

At the reception following the Liturgy, Bishop DMITRI was sitting by himself in a corner with one of his aides engaged in a conversation with someone else so I thought I would introduce myself. When greeting a bishop, there is always this sense that you may be breaching decorum by talking to him. He's a bishop, I'm a layman. What possible interest could this man have in speaking with me. How shattering wrong this perception was with him.

He saw me first and motioned me to approach. He remained seated and I asked a blessing which he promptly gave. He directed me to sit down next to him and he asked me to lean in closer. His voice was weak at the time. I cannot adequately describe the conversation that took place over the next few minutes, but I could not believe how humble and how gentle this man of God was. He smiled throughout the conversation.

I don't know why I told him that I was a convert (I always felt the need to tell hierarchs that for some reason. Metropolitan ISAIAH of the Greek Archdiocese had the best response: "We are all converts."). Bishop DMITRI just smiled again and said softly, "So am I." Of course, I didn't know this at the time and was taken aback by it. He asked why I was surprised. At the time, I just assumed that converts to Orthodoxy in this country were a new phenomenon. DMITRI and his sister became Orthodox in the 1940s. But I gave no response.

His Grace then had to leave and as I left him, I could tell that God was in this man.

Though not a martyr to the Christian faith, I have no doubt Bishop DMITRI would have been had there been occasion. But like John the Forerunner, DMITRI found more comfort in the Lord's testimony than he would have ever had with songs of praise. May his memory be eternal!

Quote of the day

2011-08-20T14:16:00.000-07:00

"A person with no forgiveness in heart, living is even worse punishment than death."--Mr. Miyagi from The Karate Kid, Part II

Forefeast of the Dormition

2011-08-14T19:59:00.000-07:00

Today, we celebrate the Forefeast of our Lady's Dormition. At all the services we chanted the Apolytikion: In faith, O ye people, leap for joy while clapping your hands; and gather in gladness on this day with longing and shout in radiant jubilance. For the Theotokos cometh nigh to departing from the earth unto the heights; and we glorify her with glory as the Mother of God in our unceasing hymns.

And now, we wait for the glory of our Lord to manifest yet again in the celebration of our Lady's, and indeed even our, falling asleep. It was only by Christ's trampling down death by death that such a falling asleep is possible for it is no longer something to be feared, but to be embraced and expected with gladness. But for now, we wait...

Reality Dating Shows and (No) Discussion of Religion

2011-07-31T10:10:00.001-07:00

I've been married now for a week. So far, so good. I'll admit that this was an event I never thought would happen, mainly because I felt called to a single vocation. But, as we all know, the Lord works in mysterious ways. Now that I am back, I am finally catching up on reading news stories that I was unable to read while on vacation (and frankly didn't want to). One of the stories that caught my eye was about one of the contestants on ABC's The Bachelorette.

I'm no fan of Reality TV shows, especially dating reality TV shows. I will admit that I watched a little Survivor at its inception, but that was it for me. My philosophy is that if you're bored with your own life and need to watch the "life" of someone else, then you really need to get out more. OK, digression done. Anyway, with regards to The Bachelorette, an article I saw indicates that the reason one of the guys, apparently a very strong contender, dropped off of the show was due to religious differences.

Constantine Tzortzis is Greek Orthodox and his family is as adamant about him marrying a Greek Orthodox woman that you would think this was a replay of My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Constantine apparently feels the same--that he cannot marry outside of his faith. According to the article (linked above), Constantine did bring up this issue with Ashley, the bachelorette, but that conversation never made it to the airwaves. Since then, Constantine has been AWOL from the show.

Given the nature of reality TV, I'm not surprised that such a conversation was not aired. People could freak out, call the network and wonder why they were being preached to on a dating show or just change the channel, which could be worse. No viewers=no money from advertisers. This omission succinctly describes why reality TV is a misnomer.

In the course of my relationship with Carla (now my wife), we have had a number of conversations about our respective religious faiths. I'm Orthodox; she is Methodist. There was a time when I wouldn't even consider dating someone who was non-Orthodox. But, over time, I discovered that you love the woman, not the faith she professes or practices. These religious conversations came up all the time especially since we are not of the same faith and they continued even into our premarital counseling sessions, sometimes with the unfortunate result of one or both of us becoming quite upset. In these religious conversations, we found out what it was going to take to ensure that we love one another, remain devoted and dedicated to one another. The religious angle of our conversations fostered our mutual love, devotion and dedication.

However, for modern reality TV, and for a lot of dating and marriages in the real world, the religious angle is given mere lip service, down played or just omitted. Love, dedication and devotion are believed to be separate from the religion that one practices, not tied to it. Au contraire! A friend of mine, who is a divorce attorney, once told me that following adultery and mishaps of finances, the single biggest reason for divorce in this country is a divergence of religious practices and beliefs. And that pattern carries across all mixed marriages, whether Jew-Christian or Moslem-Christian or Buddhist-Hindu or even Presbyterian-Catholic which is why a proper understanding and knowledge and agreement on the importance of religion should always be on the discussion table, not pushed off to the last minute or even ignored in the hopes that it will only be a "minor" thing.

Though I don't know all the details about Constantine and his leaving the show, if the speculation is true, that it was indeed because his religious practices would have been a hindrance to a good relationship, then good for him. If people are looking to ABC to see what dating, especially dating that could lead to marriage is like, they are seriously looking in the wrong place. Religion does, even if the people involved are not particularly religious, come up and can be a stumbling block for future problems and/or a buttress for future success. Unfortunately, many young people's views about dating and marriage are being shaped by reality TV shows such as this one. If discussion of religion and dating is considered a taboo topic for a reality TV show and audience or one that no "modern" person discusses anymore, then how grounded in reality can reality shows possibly be?

At least I didn't...

2011-06-12T15:44:00.000-07:00

The scandal surrounding Rep. Anthony Weiner has been a great boon to late night talk show hosts. Conan, Leno, Letterman, et al. have generated countless laughs at Weiner's indiscretions and won't probably end any time soon. Now, I'm no fan of Anthony Weiner's, not his politics and certainly not his moral character. At the same time, I really couldn't care much less than I do now whether he remains in office or resigns. Politicians, by nature, are less than reputable creatures and if their existence doesn't show everyone else just how tolerant Americans really are, I don't know what will!

Weiner has not exactly had a chorus of defenders. He has had a number of people saying that he should resign, but have come short of actually condemning what he did. That is a non sequitur--if he did nothing wrong, then why resign? Doesn't resigning at least give an impression that what you did was wrong? Of course, everything in Washington is viewed through the myopic and opaque lens of political expediency.

Weiner has generated one supporter, fellow New York Congressman, Charles Rangel. Rangel himself hardly contributes any kind of moral fiber to bolster Weiner's defense as to why he should stay. Many would argue, rightly in my opinion, that Rangel should also have resigned after investigations uncovered that he was a tax cheat. Rangel was censured by Congress but not expelled and there few calls for him to resign by members of his own party. Rangel has now come to Weiner's defense with the resounding "At least he didn't do x" defense. Rangel himself used this defense when under fire to resign so now he's using it for his friend and colleague. Here is precisely what he said: "I know one thing: He wasn't going out with prostitutes, he wasn't going out with little boys, he wasn't going into men's rooms with broad stances."

This is what our society has degenerated to. Nothing we do is to be censured or blamed or deemed wrong and especially not considered sinful because at least we didn't do x. "I'm a good person because I don't murder or steal. All I do is have extramarital affairs but at least it's not murdering or stealing. So, we're cool right?" And this type of justification has entered into how we evaluate our Christian lives. "I'm a gossip and love to spread rumors at church, but at least I don't (insert excuse here)." I'm sure this has even permeated confessions to the priest. "Bless me father for though I did x, y, and z, at least I didn't do a, b and c. So, can I get my absolution and go now?"

The Christian life is not about "at least I didn't." Just recently we concluded the Paschal Season where we almost ad nauseam chanted the troparion: Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death and upon those in the tombs bestowing life." The life bestowed to the ones in the tombs refers to US! Yes, we are in tombs. Our sinfulness has created tombs with us for a very long time. In a sense, we are already dead. The wage of sin is death, so writes the Apostle, St. Paul. It is what we have earned. But, Christ in his munificence and compassion has done great things for us so that though we still will die, life awaits us as true human beings, made God like by Christ's Resurrection and bestowing of life. But if we persist with our sins and justify them by "at least I didn't" then Christ's victory is only symbolic and metaphoric. If Christ's Resurrection is merely a symbol, then there is no point in even believing in Him as the Way, the Road, the Bread of Life, the Resurrection and the Life, etc..

The sad thing is that many churches are actually enabling this track of thought of "at least I didn't." Too many churches, mainline Protestant churches in particular, have long ago abandoned any kind of teaching and preaching about sin and its consequences. There are sins, mainly intolerance and not being an environmental extremist, but the virtues are given mere lip service and any betrayal of those virtues is justified by "at least you didn't murder." Sins are now ranked according to degree, not just mortal or venial. Most sins are considered small trifles, if that. Virtue is a forbidden topic because that would be intolerance towards those who are not virtuous. On the other hand, in the more conservative Protestant/Evangelical denominations exists this phenomenon of "once saved, always saved" which is predestination, an heretical teaching. No matter what you do, your salvation is always assured. Yes, there is sin and yes it is condemned, but this track of thought excises repentance from the Christian life. There is no need to actually do anything about the sins since you are still saved. It makes the Christian into a passive observer. How does one live life, let alone the Christian life passively? Impossible. Let us not forget that the word "repentance", metanoia in Greek means a "change of mind." That requires action. It's not something that comes to you when you sleep. Let us also not forget that both St. John the Forerunner and Christ began their ministries with that same word: REPENT!

Whether Weiner's actions deem him to be expelled from Congress or for him to resign from Congress or even to invite legal action isn't up to me. His defenders coming to his rescue with the justification of "At least he didn't do x" is what really troubles me. Though the existence of such justification is present in the slimy sewer that is Washington D.C. is not surprising, it should be all the more appalling that it has become commonplace in the churches throughout the world.

Dogs as models for the Christian Life? In some respects, at least

2011-06-09T18:59:00.001-07:00

My fiancee, Carla, and I had to make the very sad decision today of putting down our dog, Jasmine. For the last week, Jasmine wasn't herself. Her playfulness and energy had almost totally vanished, as did her appetite and her strength. After taking her to the vet last Friday, we found out she had kidney failure and apparently this condition just completely slipped any notice on our parts or the vet's for the past months and years. And Jazzy, tough as she was, just couldn't fight it any more. We decided to take her home for a day just to say our final good-byes. We couldn't bear to watch her not eating, not drinking, the toxins in her body slowly eating away at her so at 6:15 pm CDT, our Jazzy was put to rest.

Prior to my seeing Carla and, by extension, her dog, I was never a dog person. I liked cats. To me, dogs were too familiar with people, sniffing at them all the time, had bad manners, would go to the bathroom where they pleased and were dirty. I passed that hatred on to my brother's dog, especially since it bit me after I saved her life. But I probably didn't like Queeny to begin with simply because beagles are, in my opinion, loud and obnoxious dogs. But Jasmine was different.

Jasmine was a people dog. She loved other people. Other dogs, not so much. Whenever we would take Jasmine over to Carla's sister's house, where there are two dogs, Jazzy would ignore them and prefer to hang with the adults. Whenever Sheila wanted to play, Jazzy would go to her "home base" of the couch where she could be safe from Sheila's unwanted advances. On walks, Jazzy would ignore other neighborhood dogs who wanted to sniff her and be friends, but loved meeting new people, especially people. I can remember when my godfather's son, Dominic, was up for a visit and I brought Jazzy with me. Every time Dom petted Jazzy, he would laugh and you could tell Jasmine was happy, too.

At home, Jazzy would always show her affection. She knew your routine and would be in the room awaiting your return. How many times I saw her on my bed after I came out of the shower just waiting for me to pet her. Even when I sat at the computer typing, Jazzy would always put her head underneath my arm and try to lift it from the keyboard just so I would pet her, but those incidents were also annoying to me.

After all, sitting at the computer was so that I could do work or do other worthwhile things like check email, look at facebook or read lots of pointless blogs and post my own. No matter how many times I would tell Jazzy "no" or just try to ignore her, she would always come back until my heart melted for her and I would give up my little nothings on the computer to return her affections.

I've committed myself to a lot of thinking today about Jasmine, what good memories she brought to both me and Carla. And one of the things that came to mind was Jasmine's persistence. It didn't matter what you were doing or what you were engaged in while she was in the same room, she wanted to let you know of her affections and have you return them. This reminds me of the story of the Canannite woman from the Gospel according to St. Matthew (with slight variant in the Gospel according to St. Mark).

This woman, a foreigner, whether Cannanite or Greek, implores Christ, calling Him the Son of David, to have mercy on her daughter who was suffering from demon-possession. Her pleas for mercy fall on deaf ears. Christ refuses to listen to her and the disciples say to the Master that He should send her away because "she keeps crying after us." The verb in Greek, krazei, is in the present tense but there is the sense of constant persistent present action. )It is also worth noting that the verb is the same as we see in the psalms, especially Psalm 140 which is sung at Vespers, "Lord, I have cried unto Thee." The verb krazein is specifically used to call unto the Lord.). Her persistence pays off.

Though Christ ignores her at first, He eventually answers but insultingly so. He says that I have not come here for you but for the lost sheep of Israel saying it is not good to cast the bread of children (a reference to Himself as the Bread of Life) and cast it to the dogs. She cleverly responds that though such is the case, even the dogs will still dine on the crumbs that fall from the master's table. The Lord remarks that her faith is great and that her daughter would be healed. Her persistence paid off just as the dogs persistence to get the mere crumbs from the table of the Lord paid off, just as Jazzy's persistence for the attention of her masters.

There can be victory in the spiritual life without persistence. This Gospel is read on the Sunday before the Lenten Triodion begins. It is a Gospel to help prepare us for Lent. Action is required. True worship and praise of the Lord cannot be merely passive or receptive. It requires action, outside of Lent and during Lent, indeed for the whole Christian life.

The Sunday afterwards we read the Gospel of the Publican and the Pharisee which stresses the theme of humility. As much as Jazzy always wanted attention and even demanded it, she knew when it was time to back down and obey. She displayed humility and obedience. There is a prayer, attributed to St. Basil the Great, which reads:

O God, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our brothers the animals to whom Thou gavest the earth as their home in common with us. We remember with shame that in the past we have exercised the high dominion of man with ruthless cruelty so that the voice of the earth, which should have gone up to Thee in song has been a groan of travail. May we realize that they live not for us alone, but for themselves and for Thee and that they love the sweetness of life even as we, and serve Thee better in their place than we in ours.

The last line, in italics, is particularly striking to me. St. Basil says that the animals do show a great degree of humility before the Lord. Perhaps this is due to the animals having no soul (psyche) like us humans but however you parse it, St. Basil appears to write that animals have fulfilled their vocation to the Lord much better than we to whom Christ came in the flesh. Such a humbling perspective.

Though all creation groans (Romans 8:22) and all creation has fallen, both man and beast, the cosmos around us reflects for us what true worship of the Lord is and what it encompasses. From the air and to the sea and to the land and to the beasts and to the Lord Himself incarnate for our sake, examples abound as to what it is to live the Christian life. God himself did not hesitate to use animals in the economy of salvation such as Barlaam's ass or the Holy Spirit appearing in the form of a dove. The psalms abound with animal examples of holy living such as with the bee. So, listen to the animals.

I very much miss Jasmine and I will for a long time, but she has caused me to realize that I need to recapture the virtues of persistence and humility especially as we enter the season of Pentecost. Thank you Jasmine; we love you.

Recquiescat in pace canis nostra--May our dog rest in peace!

Paralyzed

2011-05-14T13:43:00.001-07:00

The fourth Sunday of Pascha is that of the Paralytic where we read from the Gospel according to St. John (5:1-15) about the man who wanted so greatly to be placed in the pool of Bethezda when it was stirred up so that he may be cured of his ailments. I've been told that this Gospel is read, along with that of the sixth Sunday of Pascha, that of the blind man, to remind us that Christ's Resurrection is not strictly a legal matter, but also a matter of healing the body as well from the infirmity we know as sin. Yet, when rereading the account, I have to reply to it as do many students of literature, "Yes...but."

Paralysis does not have to be strictly a bodily condition. Three weeks ago, the Church celebrated our Lord's Pascha, His triumph over death and the evil one and our triumph with Him as He carried our ancestors out of Hades. Since that Sunday, we have chanted, said, prayed the Paschal Troparion, "Christ is Risen from the dead trampling down death by death and upon those in the tombs bestowing life" over and over and over. Every service starts out with the chanting of this hymn three times and every service concludes with it not counting the number of times it is substituted for another hymn. Three weeks later, many of us, and I'm including myself here, are paralyzed by this hymn. It becomes now almost a rote exercise and my enthusiasm which greeted the Pascha morning has ebbed.

Considering the Gospel account, the Paralytic by the pool had great faith. He had been there for 38 years with the great hope that even he could be cured. He waited patiently. But, his bodily ailment, his paralysis, kept him from acting on his faith. I can only speak for myself, but after a few weeks it seems that chanting, praying, saying "Christ is Risen" becomes hollow. I say the words; I know the words; I believe the words but I don't act in accordance with what those words mean. I have become like the paralytic in that I have a great hope, a great faith, but my actions, or lack of action, prevents my faith from being a living faith.

I believe that the fathers of the church were wise men. I think that they too realized that most people would probably be caught up in the joy of Pascha and then, not soon after, that joy would begin to ebb and they would forget. Such is why I think that this particular Gospel is placed here and the Sunday of the Blind Man is the last Sunday of Pascha. We are reminded that though our faith has ebbed or that we have become blind to the realities of what our Lord has done for us, He still calls us back to Himself. He invites us to repentance, invites us to eat and drink of His very self.

Another thing to really consider is that the paralytic says he has no one to help him into the healing waters. After Pascha and Lent, our fasting and vigor and increased prayer often make us believe that we can do it all by ourselves. Then we stumble and fall and then become despondent. But, as Christ came for the Paralytic, He still comes for us. And He knows our faith and will do unto us according to it. Three weeks following Pascha our ego often gets the better of us. Ego is the enemy of love. Ego is stubborn and isolationist. It is paralyzing. But Christ is always there to remind us that we can't do this alone and that we shouldn't do this alone.

So as much as we want to become complacent singing "Christ is risen" for the 100th time this weekend, let us be cured from our paralysis and sing those words with the same exuberance and joy we did three weeks ago. And let us be joyful that we have such a helper to reclaim that joy in our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. We celebrate for forty days, not seven and then take a week off and maybe celebrate halfheartedly for another 26 days. We should celebrate every single day we are alive since death no longer has victory over us. Easier said than done, I realize, but admitting there is a problem or obstacle, that's a beginning to be healed.

One thing I am not particularly keen on for this Pascha

2011-04-25T16:44:00.000-07:00

Xristos anesti! Alithos anesti! Kalo Pascha to all my Orthodox brethren who have journeyed long and waited for the Light and Life to burst forth from the darkness of Hades and destroyed death by death. Let us rejoice and be glad in this day since for 40 days it will be with us (liturgically, that is)!

Despite the problems with Pascha that I had (the Paschal Kanon wasn't pulled off as we had hoped and practiced, but hey, there's always next year), this was a joyous Pascha and it should always be joyous no matter what. This year, however, there's one thing that annoys me. It's that Pascha coincided with Western Easter. Now, what's wrong with that?

Regardless of whether the Eastern Pascha or the Western Easter actually do coincide, modern media always appear to need to point out Christianity's "defects", whether in doctrine, its practices, its clergy, its adherents in general (especially if those adherents take it seriously), its Sacred Scriptures or, in this particular case, its "disunity." Article after article this year remarked about how great it was that Western Easter and Eastern Pascha coincided and then wondered why this wasn't the case. Of course, even a cursory reading of history would yield the answer, but most media outlets can't be trusted to do that. Yet, it goes further. Media outlets for "Christian unity organizations" such as the NCC, the WCC and other ecumenical bodies immediately point out just how lamentable it is that Pascha and Easter coincide once every so many years (the next time we coincide is not until 2018, I think).

The lamentation that the Eastern Christians who celebrate Pascha one week later or, in some cases, a month later, is projected as stubbornness, a failure to get with the times, a failure to acknowledge the Pope as Supreme Overlord of the Church (My copy of Acts has never had the chapter where, following the death of Peter and Paul, the Christians declared that there should be a pope, as some Catholics suggest), etc..

I, for one, rejoice in the fact that the Orthodox celebrate, in general, at least a week later. The reason for lamentation, say the ecumenists, is that the Orthodox churches (and I'm including the Oriental Orthodox in this) by holding on to the calculation of Pascha using the Julian Calendar are giving a divided witness to the world. If we were to be absolutely honest, it is the various flavors of Western Christianity which are providing the divided witness. On Pascha, the Orthodox Church proclaims that death has been destroyed by our incarnate Lord bestowing on us forgiveness and the ability to change, to become like God. This is the message, the kerygma. Contrast Western Christianity.

Western Christian confessions can/will proclaim any one or more of the following:
1) that Christ's Resurrection is a mere metaphor
2) that Christ was punished
3) that Christ's Passion is a rallying cry to do more social work and love your fellow man
4) that Christ justified man kind
5) that Christ atoned for the sins of mankind
7) that Christ's Resurrection is an assurance of our resurrection
8) that Christ destroyed the devil
9) that Christ's Resurrection is so that we can be better people
10) that Christ's death and Resurrection is for everyone, regardless of whether you believe
11) that Christ's death and Resurrection is only juridical in nature and has no ontological value for man.

In of themselves, save for numbers 1 and 2, which I have huge problems with and with numbers 3 and 9 which are the bread and butter for those who preach "liberation problem" and with number 10 which is the heresy known as "universalism", those things listed above are not wrong or a misinterpretation of what Christ has done. The problems lie when one stands as pars pro toto for a certain confession's theology and everything else is thrown out. If anyone is giving divided witness, it is Western Christendom. Eastern Christendom has preached the same thing from day one.

Hence, I rejoice when Pascha and Easter do not coincide--it is a chance for the world to be informed of the whole meaning of Pascha through the teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church. It is Western Christendom that distorts the message. When Pascha follows Easter, it is a chance for the truth to shine out instead of having it drowned out in the cacophany of praise band services and guitar masses when Pascha and Easter are on the same day.

So, unlike the ecumenists, I am a little disheartened that Pascha and Easter coincided. I am though glad to know that there is next to no chance of the Orthodox churches actually agreeing to a universal date of Pascha/Easter which would be tantamount to the Orthodox Church sanctioning of heresy.

Xristos anesti! Let us keep the feast, and its truth, with gladness!

The Delusions of Grandeur surrounding Pan-Orthodoxy Vespers Celebrations

2011-03-14T18:51:00.001-07:00

Yesterday was the first Sunday in Great Lent. That Sunday, historically, is called the Triumph of Orthodoxy because on the first Sunday in Great Lent back in 842 A.D. the Empress Theodora acting for her son, Basileus Michael, restored the icons of our Lord, His mother, and His Saints back to the churches in Constantinople and paved the way for their restoration in other parts of the Empire where their absence had been felt for nearly 150 years. The decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical Council were now finally put into reality and ever since that time, on this first Sunday, the faithful go forward in procession triumphantly displaying their icons which reaffirm the incarnational theology of the Orthodox Church and then read the Synodicon from that Ecumenical Council which firmly declares what our beliefs are.

As is the custom throughout the United States and some other countries, this Sunday is the time for all the local Orthodox churches in a city to come together to celebrate Vespers together. This year the Orthodox faithful of Omaha gathered at historic St. John the Baptist Greek Orthodox Church in downtown Omaha. I was not in attendance though I have attended every one prior for the past six years. But is this con-celebration necessary? I'm not opposed to Orthodox Christians of various jurisdictions worshiping together at all, but there seems to be a delusion as to what this con-celebration actually means. This is only my opinion, but there is no need for it, not because worshiping together is wrong (it isn't) but because it seems that this event is used to promote goals which cannot be realized at this time or shouldn't be realized at all. Let me break them down as I see it.

Argument # 1: Triumph of Orthodoxy Vespers is necessary because Orthodox Christians in America are not united. Not united? Administratively, no. But by faith, absolutely! I ask which is more important? Is it more important that we have one bishop over all of us in Omaha and yet we have 10 different dogmas or that we have 10 bishops, each over 1/10 of us in Omaha, but one common dogma? Yes, I'm demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. But the fact is that we are united. Our faith unites us and it is the same faith. ELCA Lutherans in this country are administratively unified but there respective churches have a myriad of different beliefs differing from pew to pew in the same church, often.

Argument # 2: Triumph of Orthodoxy Vespers is necessary because this will show the mother churches that we should have independence and the right to form an autocephalous American Orthodox Church. Let's be honest. Orthodox Christians in this country, coming together for one service for the entire year from the various jurisdictions, isn't going to show anybody. Yes, the situation here in America of having so many side-by-side jurisdictions is uncanonical. And, for right now, the "mother churches" are not going to grant such a release because America is filling the mother churches' coffers with money, whether in Serbia, Damascus, Romania, Constantinople and Moscow because the wealth is here. Will it happen in time? I believe it will. But let us not delude ourselves that coming together for one hour of worship (again, a great thing) is going to convince the mother churches that there should be an American Church. Such discussions are happening. The Episcopal Assemblies are a great first start and if a great and holy council is ever convened (we are about 900 years overdue), the subject will come up then.

Argument # 3: Triumph of Orthodoxy Vespers is necessary because Orthodox don't all worship the same way. They don't? I can't recall the last time I heard a praise band in an Orthodox Church or an altar call or even a time on Sunday when the Liturgy wasn't celebrated. We do worship the same way; we just express it differently. Why should Byzantine chant be preferred over the Slavic Obihod block chanting style? Why should the Russian tones be preferred over the Byzantine tones? Why should the creed or Lord's prayer be chanted instead of merely said? We do worship the same way. Our Liturgies are the same. Now, a priest here and there may cut portions out, but there is no divergence of rites like what you have with the Episcopalians.

Argument # 4: Triumph of Orthodoxy Vespers is necessary because we all need to worship in English. Now this is probably the argument that no one will actually yell out but is at the forefront of many people's brains--the idea that Orthodox worship in America has to be, must be, should be, will be in English at all times. The proponents of this line of thought are generally converts who don't "get" the ethnic flavorings of Orthodoxy or who are genuinely repulsed by it. The line of thinking generally goes that if our church services are in languages other than English, people won't convert. Well, Orthodoxy is growing due to a huge influx of converts and a great many of Orthodox parishes, especially Antiochian and OCA do use English almost exclusively. Many Greek parishes are now bilingual. Many of the MP churches, Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian, etc. may still use traditional languages but even that is changing. But why begrudge Greeks to worship in Greek or Romanians in Romanian or Russians/Serbs in Slavonic? If a church doesn't meet our language demands, there's usually another one. If not, missions are being built all the time.

Change in the Orthodox Church has always been organic. The canons are in place not because the Church wanted to make praxis and dogma rigid with no wiggle room but were created to affirm what was already practiced and believed. Similarly, the German settlers in this part of the country had their church services in German for the longest period of time until the 1940s. Granted, a World War against Germany helped that cause greatly, but the change didn't come from a bunch of German pastors mandating English; it happened organically. Such will be the same with many Orthodox parishes here in this country especially as more and more second and third generations of Serbs, Romanians, Russians, Arabs and Greeks are born here and use English as their mother tongue. But to insist that all Orthodox churches totally be deprived of their "mother tongues" is hubristic and shows little pastoral concern.

Yes, let us worship together but let's not be hung up on whether or not we have one bishop or 20, or one language or five, or one chant style or seven. The Orthodox Faith is the same faith given to us by Christ once and for all. It is the same the Apostles preached. It is the same the martyrs died for. It is the same the Confessors defended. It is the same preached from our pulpits. Let's not get hung up on the variations on the theme.

Reflections on the first week--The Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete

2011-03-13T19:42:00.001-07:00

We have now entered into the contest, into the struggle, into the fight to repent of our sins and follow Christ's journey to Gologotha where His sacrifice of His very self has brought unto us life. This first week, John the Forerunner and Christ's single word that summed up their ministry--Repent!--is at the head of every liturgical service in the Orthodox Church. And no where else in Orthodox hymnography is the subject of repentance so dominant, so beautifully laid out as to why it is not only necessary but also liberating than in the Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete.

I need not go into the various irmoi or troparia of this particular canon but I want to share an incident that happened in conversation with me during the week. At my parish, during the first week, on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday we chant Great Compline with the Canon of St. Andrew. On Wednesday, we celebrate the presanctified Liturgy. We will not return to the canon again until the fifth week of Great Lent. Great Compline with the Canon (even if only 1/4 of it) along with a Gospel reading appointed during only the first week makes this a very long and involved service. It clocks in regularly at about 2 hours, but what a wonderful two hours it is. Unforunately, not everyone feels the same way and I shouldn't expect them to but I was taken aback by a comment made to me by a parishioner when he remarked that the chanting of the canon was not necessary because it not only made the service too long (a complaint we get from too many parishioners, mostly older ones) and because the Canon can be summed up in seven words: "I have sinned, Jesus. Have mercy upon me." There was no need to have all these Biblical, both Old and New Testament, exempla to demonstrate this very fact. I didn't know how to respond so I just shrugged it off and went about my business. I wanted to say, "If you're going to complain, don't come" but such would not be in the spirit of the season and that would be a retort more for a priest to his flock than a lowly non-tonsured chanter to give.

That night I went home to think about this question. To be honest, the man had a point: if the canon is meant to draw attention to our sin, why do we need the Bible lesson about other sinners? And the answer came to me as I was rereading +Fr. Alexander Schmemann's Great Lent. I read this book every year for Lent and I always discover and rediscover something new. And this was definitely something new. Schmemann says that such a question represents a fundamental misunderstanding of sin.

Sin is not just something that happens to us. Sin is nothing. It is an absence of good. It is an absence of God. Sin is the very mark that we, as a race, are alienated from God. Our individual sins are not new. As Solomon once said, "There is nothing new under the sun." Our sins are those of the harlot, the publican, the pharisee, the persecutor Saul, Lamech, Cain, Adam, Eve, David, Joseph's brothers, the blind man, etc. Now, we may not all be adulterers or thieves or murderers or slave traffickers but it makes no difference. Sin is a contagion that infects the entire human race; it diminishes our health. Our inherited corruption (not guilt) makes us immediate kin to such great sinners as Saul, Adam, Eve, David, the harlot. Their sins are our sins because we are of the same stock.

The question also reveals that we, particularly as Americans, are so self-centered and individualistic that we think that our sins couldn't possibly be connected to anyone or anything else. I'm sure that someone would respond that such an approach reveals Americans' prerogative to take personal responsibility and maybe there is some truth in that. Yes, take responsibility and confess your sins, but don't think for a moment that your humanity is different from everyone else's; it isn't. We may fall individually, but the cause of that fall is universal and our salvation is also universal.

Finally, the question also reveals that so many of us treat sin not as something inherently corrupting or destroying but as an inconvenience that can be soothed over by the church acting more as psychotherapist/life coach than as a physician for people who are ill. Sin is regarded as a weakness to which the cure is to toughen up or mask it so that it doesn't appear to actually affect us. The truth of the matter is that for many people, sin doesn't affect them or they don't actually realize it does. They see it as something perennially there and hopefully a little confession will get them "in order" for Pascha. The cure of repentance will not even be tried.

Keep in mind that this question came not to me from a Protestant or Catholic, but an Orthodox Christian. I don't know much about this particular person but I know he has been Orthodox much longer than I, possibly from birth. However long is irrelevant. What this demonstrates is that the Orthodox churches, her clergy, her teachers, her families, her laity face a huge battle in our own flock. I'm not sure how to address it and to treat it. We should not stop what we are doing liturgically and we cannot force people to attend and we cannot force people to change their mind with regards to what sin really is.

By the waters of Babylon

2011-02-26T12:24:00.000-08:00

we wept when we remembered Sion. Psalm 136 (137)

In the third week, reflecting on our exile from God due to our sin, at Orthros, we chant this psalm before we chant the Evlogetaria which proclaims Christ's trampling down death by death. This is how it is chanted in the churches which use the Typicon of the Great Church of Christ. It is an absolute favorite of mine.

The Third Week of the Triodion--Saturday of Souls

2011-02-26T11:53:00.000-08:00

On the eve of the that day (Meat-Fare Saturday), the Church invites us to a universal commemoration of all those who have "fallen asleep in the hope of resurrection and life eternal." This is indeed the Church's great day of prayer for her departed members. To understand the meaning o this connection between Lent and the prayer for the dead, one must remember that Christianity is the religion of love. Christ left with his disciples not a doctrine of individual salvation but a new commandment "that they love one another," and He added: "By this shall all know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." Love is thus the foundation, the very life of the Church...We ask God to remember them because we love them. Praying for them we meet them in Christ who is Love and who, because He is Love, overcomes death which is the ultimate victory of separation and lovelessness. In Christ there is no difference between living and dead because all are alive in Him...It is truly our love in Christ that keeps them alive because it keeps them alive because it keeps them "in Christ," and how wrong, how hopelessly wrong, are those Western Christians who either reduce prayer for the dead to a judicial doctrine of "merits" and "compensations" or simply reject it as useless.--Fr. Alexander Schmemann, Great Lent, 23-4

A Homily on the Sunday of the Publican and Pharisee

2011-02-21T17:56:00.000-08:00

From my godfather and friend, Fr. Aaron Warwick, pastor of St. Mary Orthodox Church in Wichita, KS, a great sermon on the virtues, humility and sin. Many years, Father!

The Second Sunday of Triodion--Lesson #2: Exile and Repentance

2011-02-20T08:30:00.000-08:00

Of what great blessings in my wretchedness have I deprived myself! From what kingdom in my misery have I fallen! I have wasted the riches that were given to me, I have transgressed the commandment. Alas, unhappy soul! Thou art henceforth condemned to the eternal fire. Therefore, before the end cry out to Christ our God: Receive me as the Prodigal Son, O God, and have mercy upon me. Doxasticon at Psalm 140 at Vespers for the Sunday of the Prodigal Son

Perhaps my favorite parable in the New Testament, the parable of the Prodigal Son makes us to recall why we need Great Lent prior to Pascha. We need Great Lent because we are exiled from God, just as the prodigal exiled himself from his home and became a slave in a foreign land. The prodigal's sin physically exiled him from his father. Our sin exiles us from communion with God, which is why we don't walk with Him in Paradise. This is not some metaphysical metaphor or allegory. This exile is ACTUAL, PHYSICAL and SPIRITUAL! If it weren't then why would we need the Eucharist at all Liturgies or confession or baptism? We wouldn't. Our bodies are physically removed such is why the sacraments are a part of our Christian lives.

The second lesson is repentance, which is the lesson for all of Lent. That very word began John the Baptist's and Christ's ministries. For those who decry Lent and see it as a bunch of legalisms that are incompatible with a modern, enlightened understanding of Christianity, repentance is unnecessary since their Christianity has been replaced by feelings. "To repent is not to feel dissatisfied, but to make a decision and to act upon it." (Lenten Triodion, 44), just as the prodigal says that he will rise and go (verse 18). Repentance is not just about feeling bad, it is admitting that we are alienated from God and that we need to do something about it. Christ has done the work so that we may follow Him; Christianity is not passive which brings us to another reason as to why we need Great Lent.

If repentance is the lesson of this Sunday and the whole of Lent, then Lent is the school to continually teach it, as Fr. Alexander Schmemann says. In school, we are taught and then must apply the teachings. Of course, there are way too many who think that merely showing up to the lesson qualifies for a passing grade. It does not.

So what is repentance? It is literally "a change of mind." The word in Greek is metanoia. The elements are "meta" which talks of change, hence in other words like metamorphosis and metathesis and "noia" from "nous" which is, according to St. John Damascene, the eye of the soul. Repentance is to change us, physically and spiritually. It is no mere lip service, it is not showing up for one or two extra services, it is not saying one more "Our Father" and it is not "going to confession once a year." Lent and repentance are not for us to get things legally in order prior to the next Lenten season. It requires and demands a change! Yes, going to more services, praying more and confessing are all great things to do, but unless they comprise your Christian habit, you will not be any different in substance!

As we come closer to the beginning of Great Lent, let us embark with the knowledge that we are exiled from God and that only by a change of mind, a change of our very selves can we enter into the Kingdom of God, our country and be received once more as God's child.

Salvation: Protestant vs. Orthodox

2011-02-20T07:10:00.000-08:00

Using chairs to illustrate the difference of Protestant and Orthodox soteriology. My thanks to Fr. Joseph Honeycutt for providing the link on his website, Orthodixie. If you do want to contact Steven Robinson (which he encourages you to do), you may do so here.

Losing the young and how not to keep them

2011-02-19T07:54:00.000-08:00

Those of you who know me know that I am a huge fans of "The Simpsons." It can be argued that I am perhaps most annoying whenever I bring one or thirty Simpson anecdotes to any conversation. I do so not because I want to show off my ridiculous recall of Simpsons minutiae but because I genuinely believe that "The Simpsons" is one of the finest satirical comedies (or at least used to be) on television.

Last night, I watched the episode "She of Little Faith" from season 13. In this episode, the local Presbo-Lutheran Church burns down thanks to one of Homer's and Bart's ill conceived plans. Unable to rebuild, the parishioners turn to mega tycoon Montgomery Burns to fund the church and his method is to turn the church into one huge advertisement campaign. Going into the church following the renovations, the Simpsons are aghast that the Christ on the front entrance has a lasso, showing that "He's all man" according to Homer. Upon the walls of the sanctuary are advertisements for various local Springfield shops including "Sportacus", "Let's Get Fiscal Financial Planning" and "Buzz Cola." You can even get your photo taken in a cardboard cutout of Christ during the Last Supper. There's even a money changer! The pews are now comfortable recliners.

Now, we come to Lisa. Lisa is, after Homer and Ned Flanders, my favorite Simpsons character. She's a genuine seeker for truth though I may question where that takes her. Nonetheless, Lisa is the show's embodiment of moral outrage. She laments that all of these nice things have cost this church its soul. In her outrage, she is displayed as a "Pouting Thomas" on the Godcam and once the Noid is introduced to give a sermon on deliciousness, she cries that she's had enough. Reverend Lovejoy says that it's the same basic message but dressed up a bit. Lisa then quips, "Like the whore of Babylon?" She then storms out of the church saying she's never returning and later that night prays to find a church free of corruption.

I believe Lisa is being a little simplistic when she says that the corruption must spread beyond just this one church, but she may not have another choice. Other Simpsons episodes have shown that the Catholics do have a presence in Springfield, but mainly for mockery purposes. But, regardless of whatever other churches are out there to choose from in the mythical land of Springfield, Lisa's leaving is exactly what is going on with today's youth in the church.

For years, evangelicals and church growth movements have insisted that churches ought not to be counter cultural but part of the culture itself. And what has been the result? Even in churches where there are many attempts to give the church "street cred" and a "rock n' roll" image, the youth are leaving in droves. They've been told that church is cool, that it's hip, that it's no different than the other facets of your life. You can come in wearing your backwards or sideways hats, do skits and rap songs, rock out to songs with good beats. But, they still leave and many will not come back. Those who do come back will generally go to a different denomination. Those who leave permanently often become atheists or adherents to other spiritualities or pay lip service to the confession they were brought up in.

But Lisa is different from most other American youth. As I said earlier, she's a genuine seeker, an intellectual, a vocal pro-claimer about the good and the ill in society, not that I agree with her assessments. Lisa's quest lead her to Buddhism. I don't believe that the vast majority of today's American youth would go through the same searching that Lisa does. They may later in life, but more often not. But this episode rightly shows what is wrong with modern American Mainline Christianity. It isn't drawing the lost, it is pushing away the lambs. Rather than admit that such a style of catechesis and worship and theology is only one inch thick, they keep playing to the tired old template. Einstein is said to have remarked that doing the same thing 10,000 times and expecting a different result every time is the very definition of insanity.

Yes, The Simpsons is a TV show. But great satire comes about when there is more than a grain of truth in it. Bravo, Simpsons!

How does one become humble?

2011-02-13T14:24:00.000-08:00

I attempted to answer this question yesterday, but a theologian of much better skill should answer this so I give you the words of the late Fr. Alexander Schmemann. He writes:

How does one become humble? The answer, for a Christian, is simple: by contemplating Christ, the divine humility incarnate, the One in whom Gad has revealed once and for all his glory as humility and His humility as glory. "Today," Christ said on the night of His ultimate self-humiliation, "the Son of Man is glorified and God is glorified in Him." Humility is learned by contemplating Christ who said: "Learn from Me for I am meek and humble in heart." Finally, it is learned by measuring everything by Him, by referring everything to Him. For without Christ, true humility is impossible, while with the Pharisee, even religion becomes pride in human achievements, another form of pharisaic self-glorification.

The lenten season begins then by a quest, a prayer for humility which is the beginning of true repentance.

--Great Lent, 20.

Hymn at Sunday Orthros during Triodion

2011-02-13T14:13:00.000-08:00

These troparia accompany us all through the Triodion and Great Lenten fast. Following the reading of the Gospel of the Sunday Eothinon (these are the 11 Resurrection appearances of Christ in the four Gospels) and the reading of Psalm 50, we chant in the plagal of the fourth tone:

Glory...Open unto me the gates of repentance, O Giver of Life,
For my spirit rises early to pray towards Thy Temple
Bearing the temple of my body all defiled;
But, in Thy Compassion, purify me by the loving kindness of Thy mercy.

Both now...Lead me on the paths of righteousness, O Mother of God,
For I have profaned my soul with shameful sins
and have wasted my life in slothfulness.
But, by thine intercessions, deliver me from all impurity.

Have mercy...When I think of the many evil things I have done, wretch that I am,
I tremble at the fearful day of judgment.
But trusting in Thy loving compassion, like David I cry unto Thee:
Have mercy upon me, O God, according to Thy Great Mercy.

Triodion Begins--Lesson # 1: Humility

2011-02-12T20:41:00.000-08:00

Today was the beginning of the use of the Lenten Triodion. The next four Sundays in the Eastern Rite churches are pre-Lenten but serve as springboards for how we are to enter into the great fast with attention to our spiritual plight, the necessity of our Lord's cross and repentance. Today is the Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee.

I need not go into a full recap of the story since this is probably one of the most familiar parables from the Gospel according to St. Luke. Two very different men, a tax collector loathed by all and a Pharisee, a member of the "holier than thou" religious party both enter into the synagogue to pray. The Pharisee boasts of his own great deeds; the publican can only boast of his sinfulness. The Pharisee exults in his generosity; the publican exults in his meekness. The Pharisee praises his alms-giving; publicans were well known for outright theft. The Pharisee commends his own phsyical fasting from foods; the publican does not fast from his sins. The lesson of this parable can be summed up in one word: HUMILITY.

Our society has a skewed idea as to what is considered humility. Some view humility as the inability to take a complement. "Hey, you're a good singer." "No, I'm not." "Wow, that guy is so humble." Others view humility as not reacting in the same manner when another person attacks or curses you. In most cases, we harbor resentment towards the person that attacks and curses us. Humility is not a passive aggressive trait.

Humility derives from the Latin word, humus which means "earth." To be humble and to possess humility one must be as the earth. Consider what we humans do to the earth. We pollute it, we contaminate it, we treat it as a commodity. But, in spite of all of that, the earth produces wheat, fruit and other great plants in abundance for us. And it keeps doing so year after year, of course helped by man's innovations. To be humble is to not simply shrug off complements or foster a passive aggressive mindset to those who persecute us. Humility and being humble is to be steadfast in the Gospel to bless those who curse, pray for those who persecute, love those who are indifferent or even spiteful. It is to regard ourselves as the lowest so that others may have what is the highest.

To live the Life in Christ, humility must be paramount. Without humility all other virtues we have will be for naught. Such is why that this week is free from all fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays. Fasting, as excellent and necessary it is as a spiritual discipline, is only a diet without humility. Fasting without prayer, without alms giving, without our eyes on Christ is nothing more than a change in diet. Humility must be incorporated.

How do we practice humility? For starters, we must do as the publican does. In our churches, in our icon corners or at any time we pray to God, we must first confess that we are sinners and that only God can forgive our sins. Yes, give thanks to God and entreat Him for what you need, but be mindful of your own sinfulness before the Lord who made you not to be a sinner but to be in His image and likeness.

Let us begin our journey to Golgotha with humility!

Fasting...for Protestants?

2011-01-23T19:34:00.000-08:00

In recent weeks and months, I have noticed a lot of chatter among friends of mine who are Protestant, specifically Lutheran, about the fasting and how this practice of the church should be incorporated into the spiritual lives of these Christians. My boss at work, a Baptist, said that she was going through the 21 day Fast of Daniel. So, what's the deal? Why is fasting, usually immediately condemned by the Protestants as an activity that is done to "earn salvation" becoming more and more embraced by them, both laity and clergy, as a spiritual discipline? There seems to be a number of books recently published by Protestants that have set off a firestorm of inquiry. I wonder, why now? What has happened now to prompt this discussion?

Before I consider the answer to the last question, I should perhaps detail my own perspective when it comes to fasting when I grew up Lutheran.

I knew that modern day Lutheranism was not the Lutheranism that even Luther would be shocked to find. The liturgy, in most places, has been scrapped for emotionally pleasing, theologically thin worship and practice. As a history buff, I always was curious about the early church and especially its praxis. The more I read, the more I found that the religion I grew up with had so divorced itself from its history and tradition that its raison d'etre was to be anything that the Roman Catholics weren't. But this raison d'etre wasn't monolithic, far from it. There were essentially two groups who were antithetically opposed. On the one hand, for one group, there was a great rise in Biblical fundamentalism as opposed to the view by another gourp that Scripture should be looked at organically, casting off what was relevant to one culture vs. another. One group remained "high church" while the other remained "low church." These two groups are best represented, at least here in the states by the ELCA and the LCMS. Jaroslav Pelikan, the great editor of Luther's works who became an Orthodox Christian toward the end of his life, once observed that the ELCA was becoming Methodist and the LCMS was becoming Baptist. But, both groups, despite their differences were unified by one thing: they weren't Catholic. Fasting was a Catholic thing so there was no way a Lutheran should ever do the same. I must say that such a way of thinking is being challenged on both sides, but that's a discussion for a different time.

As to fasting, I wondered why Lutherans shouldn't abstain from meat like the Catholics did on Friday. After all, wasn't Christ crucified on Friday? He gave up His own life, is it that unreasonable that I should give up chicken or red meat? Apparently, it was. I also remember that it was encouraged that Catholics fast during the Triduum, the three Holy Days of Maunday Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday. I remember that I asked my mother if I could do this and I was told no. In her defense, I think she was more concerned about my health than worrying about being stolen away by "Catholic thinking." But once I was out of the house, I found that I could not do it since I had no anchor. No pastor would counsel me on this and found no benefits about this. When I pointed to passages in the Confessions, I was met by the typical response that such things were fine back in the 16th century, but not for us modern and enlightened Americans (no, that's not exactly what they said, but you get the picture). But if one were to examine the Lutheran Confessions, one can find several passages where fasting is specifically mentioned and even lauded.

However, it should be observed that even in the Lutheran Confessions, fasting is not condemned but there is the usual caveat. In the Augsburg Confession, we read:

Therefore, we do not condemn fasting in itself, but the traditions which prescribe certain days and certain meats, with peril of conscience, as though such works were a necessary service.

The wording, like many typical passages of the Augsburg Confession, indicates that fasting is good, but advises the faithful that they don't hold to any rule because that amounts to legalism and the "earning" of salvation. Now, in fairness to the authors of the Augsburg Confession, I'm sure they readily observed, back in the 16th century, a great many of faithful people who were fasting to win points with God, whether the cause was borne from guilt or shame or whatever and that there needed to be a corrective. But holding to a rule is not being legalistic. Why extol the spiritual benefits of such a practice if it is only practiced "when one wants to?" Such is the great peril of the Lutheran position: it is grounded in individuality (a precursor to our own Western sense of individual liberty) to the point that one becomes the sole arbiter as to what is spiritually beneficial. And if there is no difference, spiritually speaking, between fasting and not fasting, why not just jettison the practice all together? It's an untenable position. You can't say that x and the -x amount to the same thing. Do prayer and no prayer amount to the same spiritual benefits? If our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ said that the faith to move mountains comes from prayer and fasting, then surely prayer alone is not enough and fasting alone is not enough, but they should both be incorporated.

Apparently, much of the interest in the subject of fasting can be traced back to a Scott McKnight book entitled Fasting. I have not read it but it has made waves in Lutheran and other Protestant circles. You can find out more information about it here. From what I've read about the author, he is an Anabaptist which puts him in the school of the radical reformers of Zwingli. There are some other books to on fasting including Fasting: Opening the door to a deeper, more intimate, more powerful relationship with God by Jentezen Franklin. I've not read this book either so if anyone has specific insights beyond what the reviewers on Amazon.com can tell me, please post them here. Based on the editorial review on Amazon.com, it looks like it's a book that would appeal to the Joel Osteen crowd.

Now, to address my question as to why fasting is becoming a such a hot topic outside of Orthodox and even Roman Catholic circles. Could it be rooted in the fact that the mainstream Protestant denominations are dying? I'm very serious about this. Recent statistics, even those published by those same Protestant denominations, all indicate that the number of people who are registered faithful members are dwindling? The ELCA, once 10 million strong is now under 5 million in the course of 30 years. Many of the people leaving such churches are not just heading to another Protestant body, but are either leaving the Protestants all together for atheism/agnosticism/do-what-you-feel-like Christianity or for the traditional religions of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is the only Christian confession in the Americas that is growing. Even the Baptists are dwindling in numbers. Those people who have left Protestantism for the Orthodoxy or Catholicism do so because they grow tired of a generic form of Christianity which plays to people's feelings and does little to shepherd a fundamental ontological change. Protestantism now has become more a bastion of entertainment for Sundays then a lifestyle that prescribes repentance. And now, many people have finally caught on and they are leaving the Protestants in droves to seek out the churches which actually demand repentance and change and have spiritual disciplines to effect such repentance. Not only are these people craving disciplines like fasting, they crave the Liturgy, the Church Fathers, the traditional hymns and not the anthropocentric nature of worship in most of America's Protestant Churches.

Thus, and again I haven't read either one of the books mentioned above, could this movement be inspired, conscious or not, to keep people from swimming the Tiber or the Bosphorus? Could the authors be thinking, "We're not Orthodox, but you don't have to be Orthodox to fast so please don't leave us?" What's next? More books by Protestants on the importance and practice of confession or the Divine Liturgy or on the Church Fathers? Now, maybe I'm going out on a ledge here with such a "conspiracy theory" but it's not unreasonable to think that the leaving of many Protestants for Rome or Constantinople because of the spiritual depths they have is connected by the publishing and discussion of church practices particularly esteemed by those two bodies. Just a guess.

Why we SHOULDN'T worry about who's there and who's not

2011-01-23T12:00:00.000-08:00

Omaha got hit with yet another snow storm, this time dumping about 6-9" in the metro area. The storm started last night at around 4:00 and lasted into the early morning hours. Fortunately, by the time I got up to leave for church, the snow had ceased, the sun was shining and the roads were not in really bad shape. You know I have to give credit where credit is due and the men and women who operate the snow snowploughs around here have been doing excellent work these past few weeks!

Last night at Great Vespers, there were only four of us besides the priest (2 of us being chanters). This morning, only about six or seven got to Orthros prior to the Great Doxology and then when the last person arrived, we had about 25 or so parishioners. That's not bad on a Sunday when you consider that most area churches had canceled all or some of their Sunday services and a great many people just decided not to risk the roads when the snow had only stopped a few hours earlier.

Nonetheless, it is very hard to NOT take a headcount of who is there and who is not. Even when weather conditions were optimal, I cannot recall the last time 10 people (besides chanters and the priest) were present at Great Vespers or Orthros prior to the start of the Divine Liturgy. It just never happens anymore and I'm sure that is just due to the fact that many people who have been Orthodox their whole lives were never taught by their parents or priests that Vespers and Orthros were just as integral to their spiritual lives as the Liturgy, the Eucharist and even their own private prayers. Others simply don't come because Saturday is social time and Sunday morning is the only time they can sleep in. I used to care about this a great deal. Now, I don't.

Why the change? Because the church is never empty. Yes, we miss our brother and sister parishioners when they are absent, but even when they are absent, the church is even more full. Too many people worry that more people in the pews automatically translates to greater praise of God. I can assure you that one solitary monk on Athos probably puts more effort into his daily worship and prayer than many of us do for our entire lifetimes! But God is still worshiped and the appropriate honour due Him is given even if done by a quarter of our normal attendance. Because the bodiless powers, i.e. angels are always singing the praises of God. Such is their nature. Such is their job. They sing "Holy, Holy, Holy" 4-7-365. We should be reassured that no matter how many of our fellow Christians are absent from the church that day, the angels will worship with us.

It took me a very long time to come to grips with this. Sometimes, I felt that this excuse existed to let us off the hook for not doing a better job of bringing more people into the church who could be there on any given Sunday. But, it we are to really examine what worship is and what it isn't, the more doesn't equal the better. We have a lot of passive worshipers and I'm not talking about the ones who don't/can't sing (they pray mentally). I'm talking about the ones who come only to see friends and talk during a great part of the service. Usually, it's days like this that weed them out. But even with the absence of our choir and the absence of a great many people, there can be no doubt that what took place at church this morning was the worship of God in purity and in truth with a great many of the heavenly host to help out.

You KNOW you've been married...

2011-01-04T11:21:00.000-08:00

if you were married in an Orthodox Church! Such were the words spoken by a friend of mine when we were at the reception following the wedding of two friends of mine who granted me the honour of chanting the ceremony. Hopefully, my mediocrity as a chanter for the ceremony will not in any way spoil their life together! Preserve them, O Lord!

My friend's words have echoed with me for the past several days. I have chanted many Orthodox weddings and one of the nice things about the Orthodox wedding service is that there is little to no variance. Sure, some people might have some "incidental music" played before the ceremony begins and some afterward, but unlike non-Orthodox weddings which seem to be tailor-made by each couple reflecting their own likes and preferences, the Orthodox service stays the same and is chanted without instrumental accompaniment. The only difference for this particular wedding was that two penitential prayers were substituted for the prayer which invokes the Old Testament exemplars of marriage and prays that the couple be as fruitful and as faithful. The reason for this substitution is that the couple that was married was entering into their second union, thus prayers for fertility and such were omitted.

Despite the variability in this particular wedding, all Orthodox weddings have the same content. We pray, as a community, that their union be fruitful (unlike in Western confessions which treat childbirth not as a pillar of marriage but as an elective that one can opt out of), that they be faithful, that they submit to each other (the epistle reading is from Ephesians not from 1 Corinthians 13, which, in my opinion is so overused), that they die to each other for the sake of Christ as martyrs to Christ (that is why there are many hymns sung in honour of the martyrs; and as martyrs receive crowns of glory, so is the couple crowned, and, above all, that Christ is the center and unwavering focus of their marriage. The Gospel reading is from Christ's miracle at the Wedding of Cana (an icon of this event is a traditional gift) and as Christ transforms the water into wine, into something different, Christ also transforms the couple into one flesh, fulfilling God's covenant to Adam once Eve was formed from his rib.

Every action at the wedding ceremony is done in the name of the trinity, whether it is the betrothal or the crowning. Whenever we invoke the martyrs or the apostles or any of the saints, it is always done in the context that their lives and even their marriages were lived by confessing the Consubstantial Trinity! As the Trinity exists as a perfect example of lover and loved thus we pray such occurs for the newly wedded couple.

Now, I'm not saying that those Christians who were married in a non-Orthodox wedding were married in a non-Christian ceremony. However, all too often, the songs and the blessings are more centered on that the bride and groom be happy in their life together. Vows are written by the couple, which often have some humor. Stories, often funny ones, are told about how the couple met. There is much talk of love (hence the reading from 1 Corinthians 13), but little talk of love as far as what Christ says about love, which is total self-denial and that it is truly expressed by even giving up your very life for the sake of your friends. In short, such weddings as I have seen emphasize the couple and their "special day" as the focus rather than Christ. If that works for you, more power to you.

We lament that our society, by large, has made marriage into a convenience or a mere legal contrivance which can be entered into and left at one's discretion. At this time of year when we lament that Christ has been taken out of Christ-mas, should we not also lament that Christ has been taken out of marriage or just given some lip-service? Orthodox laity go through divorce but the statistics also do share that the Orthodox go through divorce much less than the Protestant or Catholic communities of the United States. I don't think a mere change of ceremony is the remedy just as I don't believe that every Christian using St. John Chrysostom's Liturgy every Sunday will make better Christians. But if the marriage ceremony where Christ is the center and the celebrant of the wedding is the starting line, then perhaps it is more likely that the couple will finish together both in this life and in the age to come.

Many years to Eric and Suzie!

Jesus, Mary, Joseph and Knowledge

2010-12-25T12:34:00.000-08:00

Christ is Born! Glorify Him! I sincerely hope all of you and yours have a wonderful Christmas and a blessed New Year and let us all give thanks and praise to the one who was incarnate for our sakes to break us from the bondage of the evil one!

Last Sunday was the Sunday of Genealogy in the Eastern Rite, where we read Christ's genealogy according to Matthew. The reading serves as proof that the babe that was born in a manger or cave in the city of Bethlehem was not an angel, nor ambassador, nor God in mere appearance of a man, but God AS man. God has human ancestors and a human mother though no human father. Sinners are in this list of genealogy yet God did humble Himself and was born of a virgin and from a line of great murders, adulterers, thieves, traitors and harlots. God comes to dwell among us sinners and has come from a line of sinners. So much for God being a blue blooded, country club member, Republican! (Sorry for the politics!)

And last night, at the Royal Hours of Nativity and the Matins Vigil, we heard the Gospels again about Christ coming into this world as a real human baby. We hear of shepherds and and magi from Persia and angels giving glory to the newborn king. We hear of Mary who gives praise in her Magnificat to God that she would bear a son, though a virgin and then cherishing the gifts of the magi and shepherds. But what do we hear about Joseph? Not a word.

If roles were assigned in a church Christmas Program, I think that the only role worse than that of a shepherd (from the perspective of speaking parts; In a "Charlie Brown Christmas, Shermy resents that every year he has to play a shepherd!) would be Joseph. There is not one single recorded word of St. Joseph in the Scriptures. Make no mistake, he DOES a lot. He is responsible for ensuring that Mary suffers no disgrace and marries her despite being pregnant outside of marriage and for ensuring that Christ is protected from the murdering jealousy of King Herod and raises the Christ as his own though he knows the child is clearly not his. But he is silent. Yet, he does all these things because, as the epistle lesson from the Galatians at the Third Royal Hour proclaims, of his faith. St. Joseph is the epitome of faith.

Despite his overwhelming silence, in the Royal Hours, there are several idiomela hymns where the hymnographers have given Joseph some speeches. Of course, these are elaborations and such is intrinsic to Byzantine hymnography. He laments the shame that he will incur from Mary's pre-marital pregnancy. Still, it his actions and his faith that allow us a glimpse into the whole person of St. Joseph. He takes Mary as his wife and when she gives birth, we read that familiar line that "Joseph did not know Mary until she had given birth to her son." (Matt. 1:24-5).

(Now this verse is often caught in the cross hairs of the debate of Mary as semper virgo. We will not go into that here, though I would point out, very clearly, that those who do not regard Mary as an ever virgin have the onus to prove otherwise. The teaching of Mary as semper virgo has nearly 2000 years of teaching and preaching ascribed to it whereas those who deny it have only been around for 200 years or so and are tainted by a suprarationalism which, in effect, denies that anyone can exist without sexual drives.)

The verb in Greek to know is gignoskein. In the Greek language just as in King James Version English, the word "know" can also be used as a synonym or euphemism to describe sexual intercourse. But why must this verse always be read only in this context? What if we read, in this passage, a journey of Joseph that progresses from faith to knowledge? When Mary gave birth to the Incarnate Word of God, the Emmanuel "God with us", he then realized who she was because of who her Son was. Though ashamed and confused and heartbroken to hear of Mary's pregnant state, he still, by faith, overcame those and protected her and her Son. The knowledge that the Son of God was born from her and confirmed the faithful acts which he had performed. Knowledge is born of the faith.

There is an old Augustinian catchphrase, "Credo ut intellegam" which means "I believe so that I may understand." In the later Middle Ages, some theologians disputed that and reversed it saying "Intellego ut credam" which means "I understand so that I may believe." This was their version of the chicken and the egg! Which comes first--a faith that breeds understanding or a knowledge that allows us to see everything through faith? If St. Joseph is to be used as a type or exemplar, I say that Augustine was right. We believe in order to understand. St. Joseph did all those acts, believed and was lead by his faith and, as a result, truly knew who his wife was from the birth of her Son, our Saviour.

In the forty days of our preparation for the feast of the Nativity, our fast has been supported by our faith in God that He has sent us His Son, the Word, incarnate for our sakes. Last night our faith was confirmed in the Knowledge that only such could be the case. And St. Joseph then knew his wife, intimately, but not sexually as the Theotokos, the "God bearer."

Merry Christmas, everyone!

The Nativity Fast

2010-11-14T18:12:00.000-08:00

On November 15, the Holy Orthodox Church begins its preparation to celebrate our Lord's incarnation. Our Lord's taking on human flesh and the celebration of the Theophany a little more than a week later are but the mere beginning of our Lord's mercy to save us from the passions which consume us every day. But in order to feast and celebrate, we must first fast and prepare. This fasting must never be done in a manner to draw attention to ourselves, nor should we do so with sadness, but with joy. Fasting is a discipline that must be accompanied by prayer. Without prayer our fasting is only dieting. And we should not only fast from food, we should also fast from other pleasures. For me, I'm taking a break from the internet, save for email so I will not be writing anything again (not that I've been writing much lately) until Nativity. I will be using the extra time to devote to more reading and prayer. This is not a meritorious activity. I do it not to earn points with God but because God has done so much for me that a break from certain foods, TV and internet is really but a small recompense.

For those of you who are about to enter the fast, I wish you well. We must remember that most of our fellow Christians, even our fellow Orthodox Christians do not observe the fast. We must remember St. Paul's advice that we are not to judge because one brother eats meat and another doesn't.

Many still believe that in spite of what I just wrote that fasting is nothing more than a legalism. I challenge you to prove that. I also am reprinting these words from antiochian.org which give a brief synopsis on what fasting is and isn't. I shall return on Nativity when I hope you will rejoice with me, chanting: Christos Gennetai! Blessed fast.

The Purpose of Fasting

The purpose of fasting is to focus on the things that are above, the Kingdom of God. It is a means of putting on virtue in reality, here and now. Through it we are freed from dependence on worldly things. We fast faithfully and in secret, not judging others, and not holding ourselves up as an example.

*
Fasting in itself is not a means of pleasing God. Fasting is not a punishment for our sins. Nor is fasting a means of suffering and pain to be undertaken as some kind of atonement. Christ already redeemed us on His Cross. Salvation is a gift from God that is not bought by our hunger or thirst.
*
We fast to be delivered from carnal passions so that God’s gift of Salvation may bear fruit in us.
*
We fast and turn our eyes toward God in His Holy Church. Fasting and prayer go together.
*
Fasting is not irrelevant. Fasting is not obsolete, and it is not something for someone else. Fasting is from God, for us, right here and right now.
*
Most of all, we should not devour each other. We ask God to “set a watch and keep the door of our lips.”

Do Not Fast

*
between December 25 and January 5 (even on Wednesdays and Fridays);
*
if you are pregnant or nursing a newborn;
*
during serious illness;
*
without prayer;
*
without alms-giving;
*
according to your own will without guidance from your spiritual father.

Who are the barbarians?

2010-11-02T20:02:00.000-07:00

The very famous Troparion of the Cross, chanted at every Matins and also on feast days of the Cross as a dismissal hymn (Aug. 1, Sept. 14 and 3rd Sunday of Lent) is known by these words:

O Lord, save Thy people and bless Thine inheritance, granting to Thy people victory over all adversaries and by the power of Thy Cross, preserving thine estate.

Such is what we chant. However, even a basic knowledge of Greek will indicate that the boldfaced words are poor translations (if not politically correct) of the Greek. What should be said is that victory be granted to our "kings" over "barbarians." Granted, kings is probably not going to resonate with our democratic/republican tendencies. And barbarian even less so because who are we to judge? But here's a good take on why barbarian should be the preferred translation and used. In short, it's because there are still barbarians around us. My thanks to Fr. Milovan Katanic for his thoughts on this.

For those of us who have only a superficial knowledge of trends when it comes to social issues, we realize that in about a decade's time the acceptance of homosexual marriage and relations as well as abortion on the demand has gone up amongst people who consider themselves faithful Christians. That is probably due to the fact that many, if not most, of us actually know a person or persons who are gay and know women who have had abortions. I myself can attest to both. I wish I did not know those things, not because I don't like these people, but because I have a terrible tendency to be judgmental and condemnatory and I fear that such would get the best of me. Of course, it's not my business, but somehow that knowledge gets passed along.

Even for Orthodox Christians, the number of the faithful who actually support legislation granting marriage to homosexuals and keeping abortion legal in all situations, is a majority of Orthodox Christians. Though I'm sure many of these faithful people say that they are repulsed by abortion and would never sanction one in their own family, why is it not wrong for everyone else, but wrong for us? A firm, consistent and moral clarity is obviously lacking.

OK. So, what does this have to do with barbarians? Fr. Katanic reprints this incisive critique from Fr. Gregory Jensen of the OCA:

According to the PEW survey, the majority of Orthodox laity agree that abortion and gay marriage should be legal. It may surprise you, then, that the problem isn’t Schaeffer – it’s us; specifically, it’s the clergy. For reasons that are not entirely clear to me, we clergy are not effectively communicating the moral tradition of the Church to the laity. Or, if we are, the laity aren’t listening—which would imply that the clergy are willing to tolerate the laity ignoring the Gospel.

We see the same prevalence of pro-choice, pro-gay marriage positions among Orthodox politicians. This kind of a consistent pattern of belief does not just happen. As in the Catholic Church, we see in the Orthodox Church evidence of a significant pastoral failing. This appears to be more than just a widespread lack of sound moral education for the faithful. It appears to be an embrace of, or at least resignation to, the influence of secularism in our parishes.

This is a very serious problem. This isn’t a debate about the practices of potentially faithful followers—as can be the case when addressing, say, Old Calendar or New Calendar, or the issue of women wearing headscarves, or whether priests should have beards and wear cassocks, or whether we have pews or not, or whether to use an organ to lead the choir. This goes much deeper—to the heart of Christian discipleship. It seems that we have simply lost sight of the beauty and power of Christian virtue; perhaps worse, it seems that we have given over leadership to moral barbarians.

I know that sounds like a harsh judgment, but what else can one call it? A barbarian isn’t a bad person. A barbarian isn’t likely to love his wife and children any less than you or I. He isn’t necessarily an atheist or polytheist. In fact, many barbarians believed—and believe—in Christ, though for the same reason that they believed in the old gods: to secure power for their people.

John Courtney Murray writes in his introduction to The Civilization of the Pluralist Society that “the barbarian need not appear in bearskins with a club in hand.” Instead he…

…may wear a Brooks Brothers suit and carry a ball-point pen with which to write his advertising copy. In fact, even beneath the academic gown there may lurk a child of the wilderness, untutored in the high tradition of civility, who goes busily and happily about his work, a domesticated and law-abiding man, engaged in the construction of a philosophy to put an end to all philosophy, and thus put an end to the possibility of a vital consensus and to civility itself.

In Murray’s view, the perennial “work of the barbarian” is “to undermine rational standards of judgment, to corrupt the inherited intuitive wisdom by which the people have always lived.” He does this not “by spreading new beliefs” but…

…by creating a climate of doubt and bewilderment in which clarity about the larger aims of life is dimmed and the self-confidence of the people is destroyed, so that finally what you have is the impotent nihilism of the “generation of the third eye,” now presently appearing on our university campuses. [This was written in 1958!] (One is, I take it, on the brink of impotence and nihilism when one begins to be aware of one’s own awareness of what one is doing, saying, thinking. This is the paralysis of all serious thought; it is likewise the destruction of all the spontaneities of love.)

In the modern world, then, “the barbarian is the man who makes open and explicit rejection of the traditional role of reason and logic in human affairs. He is the man who reduces all spiritual and moral questions to the test of practical results or to an analysis of language or to decision in terms of individual subjective feeling.” By these criteria, it seems that we live in an increasingly barbarian world—even in our own parishes.

Those of us who are involved heavily in our churches, whether as clergy or laity, know that the war against Christ and the teachings of His Church is wages from within far more than from without. Mainstream Protestant denominations are suffering from a hemorrhage of people because of the "liberal" stances these church bodies take when it comes to social issues of the time. Though the Orthodox have preserved the fullness of the faith, neither adding nor subtracting to it, and though we have preserved the Liturgy and the Offices unlike the Protestants and Catholics, how much longer will it be before Orthodox churches start to look like high church mainstream Protestants? The barbarians are no longer at the gates; they're inside sipping the wine.

Christ in the Psalms--Psalm 6

2010-10-27T09:15:00.000-07:00

O Lord, rebuke me not in Thine anger, nor chasten me in Thy wrath. Have mercy on me, O Lord, for my bones are troubled and my soul is greatly troubled; but Thou, O Lord, how long? Turn to me again, O Lord, deliver my soul; save me for Thy mercy's sake.--Psalm 6: 1-3, HTM translation

The divine wrath is not some sort of irritation; God does not become peeved or annoyed. The wrath of God is infinitely more serious than a temper tantrum. It is a deliberate resolve in response to a specific state of the human soul. In Romans, where the expression appears twelve times, the anger of God describes His activity toward the hard of heart, the unrepentant, those sinners who turn their backs and deliberately refuse His grace, and it is surely in this sense that our psalm asks to be delivered from God's wrath. It is important to make such a prayer, because hardness of heart remains a possibility for all of us to the very day we die...The taking away of sin required the shedding of Christ's blood on the Cross. This fact itself tells us how serious is this whole business of sin.--Fr. Patrick Reardon, Christ in the Psalms, Psalm 6

Christ in the Psalms--Psalm 5

2010-10-25T17:39:00.000-07:00

But as for me, in the multitude of Thy mercy shall I go into Thy house; I shall worship toward Thy holy temple in fear of Thee.--Psalm 5:6, HTM Translation

To pray is to enter the house of God. The context for this worship, nonetheless, is still the life of struggle against evil. When the Christian rises, it is always on the battlefield.--Fr. Patrick Reardon, Christ in the Psalms, Psalm 5

For in their mouth there is no truth; their heart is vain. Their throat is an open sepulchre, with their tongues have they spoken deceitfully; judge them, O God.--Psalm 5:8-9

Sin is abhorrent to God. He not only loves justice; he also hates iniquity...When the psalmist prays for the destruction of the wicked, this is not personal sentiment, so to speak. it is a plea that God vindicate His own moral order. He hates it [sin] vehemently. Jesus on the Cross had not one word to say to the blasphemous, unrepentant thief...

The idea is abroad these days that , whereas the Old Testament God was a no-nonsense Divinity, the God of the New Testament is quite a bit more tolerant.

Such an idea would have surprised the Apostles. Romans 3:8-10, for instance, which is a melange of various psalm verses describing the evil of sin, cites a rather violent line from our present psalm with reference to evildoers: "Their throat is an open sepulcher." Indeed, the descriptions of sin in Romans 1 and 3 make a good commentary on many verses of Psalm 5.--Fr. Patrick Reardon, Christ in the Psalms, Psalm 5

The stench of our sin

2010-10-25T12:00:00.000-07:00

Every morning at Orthros (Matins), the 6 psalms (hexapsalmoi) are prayed. Each of these psalms, according to our tradition, will be ready by our Guardian Angels as we stand before the dread judgment seat of Christ on the last day. These 6 psalms (3, 37, 62, 87, 102 and 142) convict us and yet cause to remember that is only by the mercies and compassion of God that we can be saved. In Psalm 37, we pray "My bruises are become noisome and corrupt in the face of my folly." (HTM translation) Perhaps a better translation for corrupt is foul or putrid, which conveys the sense of rotting flesh. The Greek verb here is esapesan, derived from the Greek verb sepo, hence where we get medical words as sepsis, etc.

In Christianity today, especially in more mainline, liberal christianities, there is less and less talk of sin. But even in churches where sin has not been excised from the pulpit and the teachings, there has been a great tendency to "internalize" sin. Sin is something that only affects your mind and soul, it does not have outward manifestations such as wounds or even flesh.

However, the Scriptures, particularly the Psalms, the hymnography of the Church and many of the patristic writings assert that sin does have physical consequences as spiritual consequences. In our society where privacy is given such sacrosanct status, sin is viewed as a private matter which has no or limited repercussions for society as a whole.

If only we had keen spiritual noses. Could you imagine what the world would smell like if everyone's sin did emit a particular odor? We'd probably be forced like the Roman nobility of old who, when walking down the streets, would hold a rose to their nose to cover the stench of rotting garbage thrown out from the homes, taverns and businesses onto that street. But even alone, our own sins would probably be enough to completely overwhelm us.

But some of the great saints did have a nose for sin. My fellow blogger John Sanidopoulos at MYSTAGOGY relates this tale from St. Nicolai Velimirovich:

The saints were able to discern which passion possessed a man by the kind of stench he emanated. Thus it was that St. Euthymius the Great recognized the stench of the passion of adultery in the monk Emilian of the Lavra of St. Theoctistus. Going to Matins one morning, Euthymius passed by Emilian's cell and smelled the stench of the demon of adultery. Emilian had not committed any physical sin, but had adulterous thoughts that were being forced into his heart by the demon, and the saint already sensed it by its smell.

How different our society would be if we all had such noses? I think it would make us even worse sinners since we could tell what sin someone had committed by their odor. "You smell like you robbed someone today" or "You smell as if you cheated on your wife." Perhaps we should be grateful to lack such a "gift."

Though we may casually dismiss sin as having physical consequences, we should not pretend that such doesn't happen. Someone's cancer may well or may not be due to a person's sinfulness or even holiness. Such is not for us to tell. Yet our Lord Christ tells us that His Body and Blood are for the healing of BOTH soul and body. The Eucharist has cured many from diseases thought untreatable by modern science so has fervent prayer and fasting.

But it is a sad state that as many christian confessions no longer teach that sin has physical consequences are the same ones who say that sin is no longer an issue.

Christ in the Psalms--Psalm 4

2010-10-22T20:48:00.000-07:00

Know also that the Lord hat made wondrous His holy one; the Lord will hearken unto me when I cry unto Him.--Psalm 4, HTM translation

The Hebrew term here, translated as "godly" [i.e. holy one] is hasid(hosios in the Greek, sanctus in the Latin). That is to say, the life in Christ is the life of the "holy ones," the hasidim; it is the "hasidic" life, the life of separation from the sinful standards of the world. The adjective, hasid is used in the Hebrew Old Testament 32 times, of which 21 are found in the Book of Psalms, a proportion strongly suggesting that the prayer and praise of God are a major component of the biblical doctrine of holiness. One cannot live a worldly life and still expect to be able to pray the psalms. The Psalter has nothing to say to the worldly; it is not for the unconverted, the unrepentant. It is, rather, the prayer book of those who strive for holiness of life and the unceasing praise of God.--Fr. Patrick Reardon, Psalm 4, Christ in the Psalms

Christ in the Psalms--Psalm 3

2010-10-21T17:38:00.001-07:00

O Lord, why are they multiplied that afflict me? Many rise up against me...Arise, O Lord, save me, O my God, for Thou hast smitten all who without cause are mine enemies; the teeth of the sinners hast Thou broken.--Psalm 3, HTM translation.

To relinquish any one of the psalms on the excuse that its sentiments are too violent for a Christian is a clear sign that a person has given up the very battle that a Christian is summoned from his bed to fight. The psalms are prayers for those engaged in an ongoing spiritual conflict. No one else need bother opening the book.--Fr. Patrick Reardon, Psalm 3, Christ in the Psalms

Christ in the Psalms--Psalm 2

2010-10-21T17:29:00.000-07:00

Psalm 2 commences: "Why do the heathen rage and the people imagine something vain." The "blessed man" introduced in Psalm 1, Jesus our Lord, is an affront to the wisdom of this world. The powers of this world cannot abide Him. The moral contrast described in Psalm 1 becomes the messianic conflict named in Psalm 2.--Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon, Psalm 2, Christ in the Psalms

On another note, for those of you who are music lovers, you may notice that in Handel's oratorio, Messiah, the text that is sung before the great Hallelujah chorus is from Psalm 2. Charles Jennens, the man who compiled the libretto for Handel's Messiahmust have understood the power of Psalm 2 and the need to resolve it with the majesty of the words of Revelation.

Christ in the Psalms--Psalm 1

2010-10-21T17:18:00.000-07:00

I've undertaken reading Fr. Patrick Reardon's Christ in the Psalms. After his visit to the Omaha area a month ago and hearing the Scriptures really come alive through this man, I was inspired to read one of his books. So I picked up a copy of Christ in the Psalms. I decided that the best way to read it was not to just read it cover to cover but to focus on one psalm every day (no matter how long or how short), read the psalm, read Fr. Reardon's take on it (they are meditations of no more than 1 1/2 pages usually) and then reread the psalm. I will tell you that a whole new world of understanding and praying the psalter has been opened up to me.

As Orthodox Christians, we are privileged and blessed to have such hymnography at our fingertips each day. However, for as much as the psalms are at our ready disposal, we too easily cast them aside for prayers for church fathers (not that the prayers of the fathers of the church are bad or anything) or for nothing at all. The Psalter is the hymnbook of the church. So, let us start treating it that way.

Just who is this "blessed man" of whom the psalmist speaks? It is not man in general. In truth, it really is not simply a "human being." The underlying words, here translated as "man", are emphatically masculine...They are not the Hebrew (adam) and Greek (anthropos) nouns accurate translated as "human being." The "man" of reference here is a particular man. According to the Fathers of the Church, he is the one Mediator between God and man, the Man Jesus Christ. The Law of the Lord, which is to be our delight and meditation day and night, finds its meaning only in Him.--Psalm 1

I need my kids baptized...just in case

2010-10-17T14:48:00.000-07:00

I wish I could say that the vast majority of the reading I do of material on the internet is somehow useful, inspiring and educational. Sadly, probably the vast majority of things that come up in my daily course of readings from various news media are useless, depressing and vapid. And my commenting on such vapid, depressing and useless things only exposes more people to them rather than letting them be ignored. Exposing faulty and ignorant things in our society is a two edged sword. On the one hand, you can refute such ridiculousness but, on the other hand, you make such farces known given more exposure than if you had just let it perish among all of the internet hogwash out there.

I came across this story today in my readings. I'll give you the short version. A person calls his pastor at the church he irregularly attends (denomination doesn't matter) and asks the pastor if he would be available to baptize his two young children (I think they were both under 10) before they go out of town on a trip to Disney World. The man's rationale was that though this looked to be like a safe trip with little chance of anything happening to his children, it was his choice of words that really pinched a nerve with me. He said he wanted his kids baptized "...just in case."

As I said, this man was an irregular attender of his local church. I don't know what is in his heart though you can plainly see that he does have concern for his children's well-being. I don't know what the pastors decision would be after hearing this and I leave it to his judgment. But I'm troubled by this rationalization for baptizing his children.

It is true that we could die at any moment. That is why, as St. Andrew of Crete, tells us in his Great Canon which is chanted through Great Lent, our soul must not be asleep but watchful for the great day of the Lord is coming. Our journey towards theosis must be at the front of our "things to do" list every day. Repentance must not be a mere lingering thought.

But if we do these things for the "just in case" scenario then we are cheapening our Lord's call to repentance. We are even cheapening the very essence of our faith in Christ. Our Lord, before his Ascension into heaven said to His disciples to go forth and preach the Gospel to all nations baptizing them in the name of the +Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We are also told that he who believes and is baptized shall be saved. Notice the juxtaposition there of belief and baptism. If there is no faith, then there can be no baptism.

Though we baptize infants who are expected to grow in the faith, they have sponsors or "godparents" who make the professions of faith for them. We hope that they then grow in the faith and generate the fruits of the Word implanted in them at their baptism. But if a parent wants to have his kids baptized because he is merely fearful of what could happen to them rather than trusting in the compassion of God, then this is profaning baptism.

Our Lord gave us the mysteries (i.e. sacraments) for us so that we can be regenerated. But there must also be faith present in the person who receives. If a person has no faith in God, how can absolution be granted him? If he has no faith, how can he be renewed in soul and in body by the power of the Eucharist? Such is why the mysteries are given only to the faithful and not to everyone.

If there is no faith present here either in the father or in his two children, baptizing them jay be a waste of time. But, for too many in our culture, the sacraments are seen more as "insurance policies" rather than as means for us to become true communicants with God and grow in theosis. There are those who baptize their children because it is part of their "culture" or "tradition" or what have you. As long as such attitudes persist in modern Christianity, then how long will it be until people don't even think they ever need baptism or the Eucharist for themselves or their kids?

If these kids are baptized, I must also say that God's mercy and compassion are beyond whatever faith we can muster in the first place so perhaps what I wrote is a moot point. Double-edged sword indeed.

Even the Saints were "only human"

2010-10-13T23:24:00.000-07:00

I think it is very easy to forget that the great saints whom we commemorate on our Orthodox calendar, day in and day out, were human. Yes, they have been now glorified by God and crowned and they intercede for us sinners daily at Christ's dread judgment seat. They have finished the race in glory, but they started the race in a much different state. But, too often, we forget that.

Even if we are in the presence of a person who just exudes holiness, exudes the grace of God from him or her just being in the room, humbled and awed as we may be, we must never forget that even these people have "human needs" as do the rest of us. Sure, they eat, though they may eat far less. They sleep, though they may sleep much less. They pray, but pray for a lot longer and more fervently than what we can begin to imagine. A fellow blogger at MYSTAGOGY posted this wonderful story.

By Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol

Many years ago when I was at Katounakia [a rugged area in the southeast of the Athonite peninsula] I would often spend time with that great contemporary holy elder Father Ephraim [Katounakiotis], Papa Ephraim, as he was popularly called. I am not sure whether our century will give birth to another great elder like him, a man of continuous prayer who radiated the abundance of God's grace.

When a group of us visited him at his hermitage one day, he complained that he was tired of Katounakia and expressed a wish to go live at Monoxylites for awhile. That's an area near the borders of Mount Athos. It is a valley between two mountains filled with pine-tree forests, vineyards and olive groves. It is a very beautiful area with abundant running waters, an earthly paradise. He said, "I want to go there and rest. Here at Katounakia there is nothing except rocks and prayer, prayer and rocks, day in and day out. I am really tired. I need a change."

I was shocked when I heard him say that. I wondered how it was possible for a great saint like him to have a desire to change his environment, to go to Monoxylites? I could see young monks like ourselves having needs of this sort. But how is it possible that this great saint in whose life God is always present has such needs? It was then that I realized that even saints are human beings subject to the law of alterations.

I heard later that Joseph the Hesychast [d. 1959], the great elder of Papa Ephraim, expressed similar needs during his life. Elder Ephraim himself told us once that his elder underwent a period of deep sorrow and was subjected to many temptations. One day he asked his then disciple Ephraim, "Papa Ephraim, go and bring Pseudo Vasili here to amuse us." Pseudo Vasili was a layman who lived and worked near the Skete of Saint Anna. He was a simple man who was reputed for his outrageous lies. In his presence it was impossible not to roar with laughter. As in my case, Papa Ephraim was scandalized. "How is it possible," he reasoned, "that the elder has a need for a jester like Pseudo Vasili to amuse him? Why can't he do something else, like more prayer?" As you can see, even great saints occasionally have such needs by virtue of their being human.

Growth of Orthodoxy in the USA

2010-10-10T20:57:00.000-07:00

Whitney Jones
October 6, 2010
Huffington Post

America's Eastern Orthodox parishes have grown 16 percent in the past decade, in part because of a settled immigrant community, according to new research.

Alexei Krindatch, research consultant for the Standing Conferences of the Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas, said the 16 percent growth in the number of Orthodox parishes is "a fairly high ratio for religious groups in the United States."

The number of Orthodox parishes has reached 2,370, and the Orthodox community in America consists of more than 1 million adherents across 20 different church bodies, according to the 2010 U.S. Orthodox Census.

The top five largest Orthodox churches in the U.S. are Greek Orthodox (476,900), Orthodox Church in America (84,900), Antiochian Orthodox (74,600), Serbian Orthodox (68,800) and Russian Orthodox (27,700).

Two of these church bodies--the Bulgarian Orthodox Eastern Diocese and the Romanian Orthodox Archdiocese--experienced a growth rate of over 100 percent. Both churches began with a small number of parishes in 2000 and are supported by a community of established Eastern European immigrants.

"It takes immigrant communities a little while to establish a religious community," Krindatch said. "They settle, then begin to think about their religious lives."

Even though the majority of Orthodox church bodies grew, some lost parishes. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA, Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church and Armenian Apostolic Church of America all experienced a slight decrease in the number of parishes.

The study, which was part of the national Religious Congregations and Membership Study 2010, also shows that just 27 percent of members attend Orthodox churches regularly.

Krindatch said the definition of each of the groups affected this statistic. Church "adherents" was the most inclusive category, consisting of anyone who occasionally participated in church life, while "regular attendees" are those who attend church on an almost weekly basis.

More information on the survey can be found at http://www.orthodoxreality.org.

I would strongly encourage you to view the powerpoint at the above website. Though it really only measures responses from GOA laity and clergy, it is still very insightful.

Acquiring the Kingdom of Heaven

2010-10-10T12:57:00.000-07:00

Those of you who know me know that I am a Star Trek fan. No, I'm not a Trekker or a Trekkie and I can honestly say I've never been to a Star Trek convention, but I am a fan of the show, own a lot of DVDs and can quote extensively from episodes of all series except for Voyager and Enterprise which I have dubbed "too lame by Star Trek standards."

One of the species in the Star Trek universe is a race called the Ferengi. I knew I would like them from the start. They are venture capitalists, if not outright thieves, in some cases. Their soel motivation in life is the acquisition of profit. A Ferengi without profit is no Ferengi at all, we are reminded throughout the series. Their guidebook, their Bible, if you will, is the Rules of Acquisition. In place of "See Spot. See Spot Run. Run, Spot, run!" Ferengi youths are taught "See Brack. See Brack aquire. Acquire, Brack, acquire!" When you hear the verb "acquire" in this context, it starts to come off with only negative characteristics.

I was at my girlfriend's church today. The Gospel that was read was from St. Matthew, chapter 13 where Christ speaks in parables to his disciples and the multitudes of the Kingdom of Heaven. In verse 44, the Kingdom of Heaven is compared to a hidden treasure of a field which a man finds, buries it and then sells all his possessions to acquire the field and thus the treasure. In the next verse, the Kingdom of Heaven is compared to a great pearl which a merchant desires and so sells off all his possessions to acquire it.

I am very thankful that whenever I read the Scriptures or have them read to me I find new insights. One of those new insights was that, in the first case, the man doesn't simply take the treasure and run off with it. For the field in which the treasure is found is not his. So he then proceeds to give up everything he has to obtain the place where the treasure is buried and thus acquire it. The merchant who desires the Great Pearl must do the same--sell all his possessions to acquire it. Both parables, though, both speak to the necessity to give up everything you have to truly possess the Kingdom of God. It is not just given to you. It is something that you must work to obtain even to the point of ridding yourself of your very livelihood to obtain it. One question that ran through my head was, "how would both of these men live after they have sold everything to acquire the field or the pearl? They can't and won't sell the treasure and pearl which they have just painstakingly purchased for the basic means of life." And, of course, Christ's parables don't give us an answer to such a question.

When we acquire possessions in this world, we acquire something ephemeral and fleeting. How willing would any of us really be to rid ourselves of those possessions to acquire something much greater? Would we be willing to follow Christ's message of "sell everything and follow Him?"

In this life, acquiring possessions requires a lot of work. We have to find a means to make money and then spend it wisely. With the acquisition of the Kingdom, we have to, in a sense, empty ourselves in order to acquire. Another one of those Christian paradoxes! But that emptying of ourselves requires work behind it as well. It is not simply something that happens.

The spiritual life is warfare and I can think of no other profession, save for farming, where more work and resources go into than that. If we are not prepared to do battle against the evil one and our very selves to empty and rid ourselves of the passions and anything else that bind us to this world, then we can acquire nothing of truly great value, i.e. profit.

Ex tempore prayer--more meaningful?

2010-10-06T23:23:00.000-07:00

I guess I only needed a few days to get some inspiration to write something.

One of the frequent criticisms I hear about Orthodoxy or any so-called "High Church" Christian confession, whether Roman Catholic or Lutheran or Anglican is that the people pray prayers written by other people. In other words, the prayers said during Liturgy or during the offices lack the spontaneity of true devotion and thus are somehow not as well received by God as compared to something that comes from a few seconds' thought. Ridiculous!

I've been to many church services where all the prayers were of the spontaneous variety and, honestly, they all sounded the same. Now, I do not doubt, in any way, the intentions of the persons praying them, but isn't there so much more than just to be "thankful for being in Your presence" etc.? The added over emotionalism of trying to generate tears to go with the spontaneous prayer only makes the person prayer look ridiculous. Again, I do not doubt the intentions of such people, but they will insist that God wants us to pray like that and that it will be more received than some dry prayer written by someone 300, 500, 1000 or even 2500 years ago. Some of these very same people will even refuse to say the Lord's prayer, going so far as to call it a "vain repetition" which is a gross abuse of that passage in Scripture.

Written prayers are not bad nor is their use a sign of spiritual weakness. The key is to move the prayers from the lips to the mind to the heart. Once prayer moves to the heart and the heart prays unceasingly, then it truly becomes your own. Yes, I pray prayers of St. Basil, St. John Damascene, St. John Chyrsostom, St. Ephraim, etc.. I also pray the Psalter, which is God's given prayer-book to us. I also pray the prayer that our Lord gave to us. I didn't author them but they are truly mine because I have fused them to my heart.

There is also humility in praying like this. It demonstrates that I am at a loss at what to say to God, but the words of Scripture and the Fathers of the Church are my guide to communion with God through prayer. For many years I was unable to pray. When I discovered these prayers, I finally found the words I was looking for all along and made them my own.

Ex tempore or spontaneous prayer isn't bad, but what more spiritual benefit does it impart? It doesn't give anything more. I will close with these words from an Anglican from 1649:

No man can assure me that the words of his ex tempore prayer are the words of the holy Spirit: it is not reason nor modesty to expect such immediate assistances to so little purpose, he having supplied us with abilities more then enough to expresse our desires aliundè, otherwise then by immediate dictate; But if we will take David’s Psalter, or the other Hymnes of holy Scripture, or any of the Prayers which are respersed over the Bible, we are sure enough that they are the words of Gods spirit, mediately or immediately, by way of infusion or extasie, by vision, or at least by ordinary assistance. And now then, what greater confidence can any man have for the excellency of his prayers, and the probability of their being accepted, then when he prayes his Psalter, or the Lords Prayer, or any other office which he finds consigned in Scripture? When Gods spirit stirres us up to an actuall devotion, and then we use the matter he hath described and taught, and the very words which Christ & Christs spirit, and the Apostles, and other persons, full of the Holy Ghost did use; If in the world there be any praying with the Spirit (I meane, in vocall prayer) this is it.

Jeremy Taylor, An Apology for authorized and set forms of Liturgy against the Pretence of the Spirit (1649).

Haven't written in a while

2010-10-04T11:10:00.001-07:00

A few people have asked when I'm going to write another piece for my website. And my honest answer is "I don't know." They ask me if I have writer's bloc or some related affliction. I then reply that it is partially due to writer's bloc but has more to do with just how, over the last few weeks, after doing some reading of Scripture and other works and attending faithfully the prayer offices and Liturgy of the Church, I have become all the more acutely aware of how much I do not know and how much more wary I am of exposing my ignorance. I guess, then, it is a matter of pride.

But I often wonder about what do my readings contribute to the Church, our Lord or the saints (both capital "S" and lower-case). I am not writing this to solicit comments of support and empathy and encouragement to write. I remember that I wrote a few months ago, that if you do read my mediocrities here, please don't do it at the expense of reading the Word of God, whether in the psalter, the epistles or the Gospel.

So, for now, I have nothing more to contribute. I have nothing to say. Those of you who know me well know that I rarely am at a loss for words, but there it is. I hope to contribute at least one minor morsel of thought food a month, but I cannot make promises. Expect me when you see me.

Want Chalcedonian Theology? Better come to more than just the Liturgy!

2010-09-20T07:26:00.000-07:00

This past weekend, we were very fortunate to have a visit from Fr. Patrick Reardon, pastor of All Saints Orthodox Church in Chicago. Fr. Patrick is the author of many books (none of which I admit I have read, but will get to eventually) including, Christ in the Psalms, Christ in the Saints, Chronicles of History and Worship, etc.. His talk was on the saints and what that means especially in an age of apostasy in which we now live.

The Q&A session was all over the place with questions ranging from hymnography to dogmatic theology to systematics to hagiography to icons to Scriptural exegesis. In short, there was something for everyone.

I cannot remember exactly how this came up, but Fr. Patrick revealed something that I have never fathomed before: The main liturgies of the Orthodox Church (i.e. the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great) are pre-Chalcedonian. This, of course, refers to the Fourth Ecumenical Council which convened at Chalcedon in 451 to discuss and clarify the doctrine of Christs' Hypostatic Union which was an extension of clarifying Mary as Theotokos at the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431. I never had thought of that before.

The Liturgies of St. John and St. Basil then predate Chalcedon. I should be very clear that despite the clear presence of Chalcedonian theology, there is NOTHING heretical or unorthodox about either of these. The liturgies were in place for a long time, but the hours, such as Vespers and Orthros did not come into their settled format until much later, way after Chalcedon.

My priest makes it very clear that if people want to really know their faith, they should come to Orthros on Sundays. Few do, preferring the Liturgy only. And that's fine because the Liturgy is a great gift to us from God in which we receive the life giving Eucharist of our Lord. Coming to Orthros and not staying to pray Liturgy with the rest of the Christian family is not a good idea.

But the hymnography of Orthros and Vespers is so rooted in the Ecumenical tradition following both Sts. Basil and John. Such great hymnographers as Romanos the Melodist, St. John Damascene, St.Cosma, etc. synthesize and weave such great tapestries of the dogmas of the church together to really proclaim the fullness of the faith. Again, if one really wants to understand their faith, Orthros and Vespers are a must.

Sin and the Dragon

2010-09-19T20:45:00.000-07:00

I was going through some old email and a friend of mine wrote this to me when I was going through some major spiritual warfare which seemed to be coming out in favor of the evil one. These words gave me great hope and encouragement to recommit to the battle. I've still lost many battles, but the war is far from over. Here is what he said:

Remember that the demon who tells you that you should despair over your sin is the same demon who tempted you to sin in the first place. They are playing a game with you. Follow the head of the dragon which is attacking you down to its tail and you will find the lie (falsehood) which he is using to mess with your head. For example:

THE DRAGON'S HEAD:
"You have fallen into the same sin again- how dare you presume on the mercy of God? You are beyond forgiveness!"

THE DRAGON'S NECK:
"You have chosen to give in to your passions and have sinned."

THE DRAGON'S SPINE:
"Your passions are unbridled."

THE DRAGON'S TAIL:
"Salvation depends on your sinlessness."

The dragon's tail is a lie. Salvation does not depend on sinlessness, but on the infinite Mercy of Christ. It doesn't depend on you or your "merits". It depends on Christ.

Thank you, my friend.

The Universal Exaltation of the Life Giving and Precious Tree

2010-09-14T20:10:00.000-07:00

Today, September 14 (Revised Julian Calendar), the Orthodox Church universally exalts and uplifts the Cross of our Lord from which came our salvation, the defeat of the death, the manifestation of the powerless grip of the devil, the weapon against the passions and the ensign of our inheritance as true children of God. Today, we raise the cross but we also bow down before it, venerating it and Him who, of His own free will and good pleasure, ascended it.

To simply categorize the Cross is to miss the point. For it is many things and it does many things. That is why, when piety demands it, we make the sign of the cross upon ourselves. We do it when asking for mercy, asking for protection, glorifying the Trinity, receiving the Eucharist, entering into God's holy temple, etc. But, as I was reminded recently, from reading the all too famous passage from St. John's Gospel about God giving His Only Begotten Son, that He did so not for some satisfaction of legal contracts or jurisprudence, but that He did so simply out of love for His own creation. Now, I don't dismiss that many great saints, including St. Paul himself, use juridical terminology especially in his Epistle to the Romans, but to divorce the Cross from love and make it a symbol of appeasing God's wrath is to render St. John's famous dictum as mere legal sophistry. If love is removed, then there can be no salvation.

When we Orthodox Christians make the sign of the Cross, for whatever reason, I believe, the first and foremost thought on our minds, our hearts and our lips should be "He loves us." Making the sign of the Cross reveals us as God's children, as His possession, thus a stalwart reminder to demons who attempt to ensnare us to do the work of the evil one. The demons are repulsed by love and thus are repulsed by the Cross, the Tree which undid the ancestral curse from the first tree in paradise. God cast us out of Eden for not just violating a rule, but for breaking communion with Him, breaking the covenant of love between Creator and creature, between Father and child, between master and servant.

Let the love of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, through His Precious and Life-Giving Cross, the sign of which we make upon ourselves, endure forever.

Some new pics of the St. Mary Iconostasis

2010-09-12T20:40:00.000-07:00

My church, Dormition of St. Mary Antiochian Orthodox Church (its official name, but, to save time, we'll simply call it St. Mary) has been blessed over the past two years to have some of the white washed away by the additions of icons over the baldachino or canopy. The first addition was a Platytera icon, generously donated by a couple no longer attending our parish and now we have an Annunciation icon boxing the Platytera. The funds were contributed by the faithful and this beautiful icon went up in early August before our patronal feast and the visit of His Grace, Bishop BASIL.

Traditionally, the Annunciation Icon goes on the Royal Doors which guard the Sanctuary along with icons of the Four Evangelists. But, St. Mary is not a traditional Orthodox church. It was originally built by an Assemblies of God congregation and became the property of St. Mary back in the 1970s, I think. There is way too much white space. But we are finally working towards correcting that. Some would say that if you have too much there, it would be distracting. We must remember that the Liturgy and our prayers are not strictly for the uplifting of our hearts and minds, but all of our senses. We believe in a bodily Resurrection, do we not so why should not all parts of the body be stimulated and elevated during the Liturgy? That is why the Orthodox use incense, music, artistry, do things which involve tactile sensation (e.g. making the sign of the cross) and receive the Eucharist. The Psalmist says for us to "taste and see that the Lord is good." He is not directing us to some metaphorical or symbolic tasting, but LITERAL tasting, in this case of our Lord's Immaculate Body and Precious Blood.

With icons, they are more than just pretty pictures. They are theology in color. They are words for the illiterate. They are educational. Even the most unlearned person can be educated and enlightened by an icon. Also, they are gateways to heaven. I remember once hearing a story of a woman, an atheist, who went into a Russian Church just to look at the icons because she was interested in the artwork. She left nearly in terror. Why? She said that she was not only looking at the icons, but they were looking at her! Windows go both ways. The Lord, the saints are all there, mystically and in reality.

Anyway, sorry to preface that, but hope you enjoy the pictures of the Iconstasis and the new icons over the baldachino.

The Nativity of the Theotokos

2010-09-08T19:09:00.000-07:00

Today, September 8 (Revised Julian Calendar), the Holy Orthodox Church celebrates the birth of Mary, the Theotokos.

Friends of mine have been trying to have children for several years now. Each time the pregnancy could not be carried to term. Such times were very hard on them. Thanks be to God, through in vitro fertilization, my friend is pregnant and is now past 15 weeks which is the cut-off point for predicting success. My friends are overjoyed beyond belief and I rejoice with them. I can only imagine, had this pregnancy not happened, how my friends would have looked at themselves if they had gone through the rest of their lives childless. Or, to use a much more sinister and harsh term, to go through the rest of their lives barren.

I'm sure that such thoughts were equally on the minds of Sts. Joachim and Anne. Though today it is more often the case, even fashionable, for married couples to not have children. Sometimes it is out of necessity and sometimes it is out of a desire to not lose the freedom that invariably comes when children come into the picture. But, in classical antiquity, to be childless or, again that bad word, barren was considered to be a great stain. Today, we might laugh at the story of Niobe who bragged because she had more kids than the goddess Leto. Leto then ordered her twins, Apollo and Artemis to take out Niobe's children because of Niobe's haughty boast. But to the Greeks and other civilizations of the Mediterranean world, having children was not considered only a blessing but an obligation. The more, the better. However, Sts. Joachim and Anne had none.

They may well had never thought about it until one year when St. Joachim, already very aged, went to the temple to offer his sacrifice. St. Joachim was turned away by the high priest because Joachim's lack of children made him unworthy. Distraught, Joachim retreated to the desert. Anne heard of Joachim's withdrawal into the wilderness and she began a fast and fervent prayer. The Archangel, Gabriel, appeared to both of them announcing that even in their old age, barren as they appeared to be, they would become parents. And, today, on September 8, we celebrate the result of that announcement--the birth of Mary.

This birth though was certainly unusual because of the age of the parents, but, all and all, it was a normal birth. And Mary entered this world just as the rest of us, inheriting the corruption which we all have because of the ancestral sin. She was not immaculately conceived, as the Roman Catholics say, but she was marked and chosen of God. Today is the beginning of our salvation.

Though the story of Sts. Anne and Joachim is not found in Scripture but in the Protoevangelion of St. James and the Gospel of the Birth of Mary, neither of which are considered canonical Scripture, subscribing to the literal truth should not be at the expense of the theological truth. Even if the Gospels only mentioned Sts. Anne and Joachim and their offspring, the Theotokos, I think the Church would still rightly honor all of them on this day and tomorrow (September 9 is the Feast of the Synaxis of Sts. Joachim and Anne). What is this theological truth?

The epistle for this feast is taken from St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians (2:5-11) where St. Paul reminds us that "...[Christ] made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Christ's perfection is revealed and demonstrated in weakness. The barrenness of Sts. Joachim and Anne is made perfect in giving birth to the Theotokos who carried the One who cannot be contained!

Such knowledge should be a source of great joy for us! Barren as we are because of our sins, because of Christ's rising from the tree of barrenness, can we not also now bear fruit, living the life that Christ has set before us? This feast, though dedicated to Mary, and like every other Marian feast, points us directly to Christ just as she points to Him in our iconography. Mary's Nativity sets the stage for the Incarnation. If her birth was not an ordinary birth, then could Christ really assume all that we really are so that our nature could be wholly healed? No.

The Church places this feast at the start of the New Year. Our Church year ends with the Dormition of the Theotokos. At Vespers at Psalm 140 and the Aposticha and at Orthros at the Praises, there is always a hymn dedicated to Mary, called the Theotokion. Mary is the seal which brings God and Man together and such is the theme of such Theotokia. Without our Lady's birth, there could be no Incarnation and without our Lord's incarnation there could be no Crucifixion and Resurrection and without those, there would be no reason to celebrate Mary's Dormition. All these feasts are tied together.

Mary's birth was a time of joy for St. Joachim and St. Anne, but it should also be a happy and joyous time for all creation. "Thy Nativity, O Theotokos, hath brought joy to the whole universe" says the Apolytikion of the Feast. This is the foreshadowing of the eventual triumph over death and barrenness that our Lord will accomplish at His Pascha. Let us rejoice!

No Excuse Sunday

2010-08-30T15:54:00.000-07:00

From Fr. Milovan Katanic's blog Again and Again:

To make it possible for everyone to attend church this Sunday, we are going to have a special “No Excuse Sunday”:

Cots will be placed in the foyer for those who say, “Sunday is my only day to sleep in.”

There will be a special section with lounge chairs for those who feel that our pews are too hard.

Eye drops will be available for those with tired eyes from watching TV late Saturday night.

We will have steel helmets for those who say, “The roof would cave in if I ever came to church.”

Blankets will be furnished for those who think the church is too cold, and fans for those who say it is too hot.

Scorecards will be available for those who wish to list the hypocrites present.

Relatives and friends will be in attendance for those who can’t go to church and cook dinner, too.

We will distribute “Stamp Out Stewardship” buttons for those that feel the church is always asking for money.

One section will be devoted to trees and grass for those who like to seek God in nature.

Doctors and nurses will be in attendance for those who plan to be sick on Sunday.

The sanctuary will be decorated with both Christmas poinsettias and Easter lilies for those who never have seen the church without them.

We will provide hearing aids for those who can’t hear the preacher and cotton wool for those who think he’s too loud!

Young Christians and "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism"

2010-08-29T19:16:00.000-07:00

No, I did not make that up. My friend on Facebook, Fr. Peter Pappas, posted this article from cnn.com which talks about how a majority, and a growing one at that, of young Christians today view God as a therapist to help boost their self-esteem. Though I don't think that such a view of God, in of itself, is inherently contradictory with the teachings of the Church, when it is made a viewpoint that is totally divorced from our Lord's call to repentance, then this should make all Christians very worried.

Today, the Orthodox Church commemorates the beheading of St. John the Forerunner. From this reading in the Gospel we are taught many things but one teaching stands out above the others, in my opinion--that we must be prepared to sacrifice for our Lord and God and Saviour. Our Lord Jesus Christ said that the servants are not greater than the master. Our Lord says that the world hated Him and it will also hate you. He said that the world persecuted Him and it will persecute you. Christ didn't seem to think it more important that your self-esteem was protected.

Like John the Forerunner, our Lord's ministry to the world began with the same word--REPENT! Where is repentance in the world of the moralistic therapeutic deist? It's not there because your sins (assuming that you believe that anything you do can be considered sinful) are taken away by God, the great giver of self-esteem. I've yet to see that title applied to God in any theological book I've read thus far. But, as we know from St. Paul, we should not sin more so that grace may abound more. "God forbid," he says! Forgiveness of our sins is without doubt freely offered by our Lord, but without repentance, it is like the seed that falls on the path and is eaten up by the birds.

So what's causing this? The article says it is a common trait among more liberal Protestants and Catholics while Evangelicals and Mormons do a great deal more about instilling passion of the faith. The blame lies with both parents and pastors. And there is merit to that. Most liberal Protestant Churches have said that sin no longer exists or that the only great sins are not defending and adhering to leftist political dogma such as endorsement of gay marriage, abortion on demand, radical environmentalism, etc.. Without sin, there is no need for repentance, so what is left except for Christ to be transformed into the Buddy Christ that the Catholics were trying to sell in the movie, Dogma. In these same denominations, the "liturgy" is more a free-form of entertainment, meant to instill in the "worshipers" that God is your friend and chum. People are happy, but are they joyful? There is a difference between the two and that is a post for another time. (In the meantime, I will direct you to my friend's blog at Kyrie Eleison for her excellent insight)

But I believe that instilling passion in youth should not be the guiding criterion for averting viewing God as a new age psychotherapist. You can instill in youth the passion to see God that way! Yes, Evangelical youth are excited about the faith, but I've seen their church services, I've seen them in action. Tell me what the passage of Scripture means and they are at a loss. They know that abortion is wrong, but tell me why God became Man and they'll assume that such is Catholic nonsense. They're passionate about God, no question, but they only know God in a one dimensional manner and such is not a far cry from those who see God as your new best friend to give you a shoulder.

Parents are the problem. They are the problem because parents today generally don't want to parent their kids. They give their kids every luxury item they can, they let them do whatever they wish, even to the point of breaking the law. Their rationale is that as long as they're doing such things in a safe place, it's OK. We are a nation of siblings; hierarchy has gone the way of the dodo. Are there exceptions? Of course. But the exception proves the rule. Why go to a church which preaches a God the opposite of them?

Pastors are also the problem. They have become more like business CEOs than ordained servants of God. They tailor the message to draw in the maximum number of people thinking that as long as more people hear some of the Gospel, the better. Whatever happened to preaching the totality of the Gospel, even if only for the very few? Our Lord even said that many will be called, few will be chosen.

Kids aren't stupid. I've taught high school aged kids for awhile and they're more articulate and thoughtful than what most people give them credit for. They can be articulate and thoughtful, but instead adults pander to them. Parents and pastors want their kids in church but think that they have to dress it up in fake platitudes of what is "cool" and "hip" and "relevant." Kids can spot a fake fifty miles away. They're good at it. What is the result? These kids fall away from Christianity or adopt a warped view of God.

The Evangelical modus operandi of importing Rock n' Roll into church, which has infiltrated even more conservative, liturgical churches, has not worked. It has only contributed to this phenomenon. If kids are taught that God is someone to be there when they need them to comfort them, then why should they thank Him, why should they pray, why should they even sacrifice? If such a viewpoint were practiced 2000 years ago, St. John the Forerunner would have restrained his tongue and left to live, St. Matthew would have stayed in his tax booth, the apostles would never condemn sin and prefer to live and let live, the saints would never endure martyrdom for confessing Christ and great hymns of the church would never have been written because it's all about "me and Jesus." When the Gospel preached includes nothing of repentance, then God's greatest gift to mankind of the incarnation of His Son is the biggest non sequitur of all time. If that were preached from the pulpits, and I don't believe you have to only be Orthodox to believe in the incarnation, perhaps our youth stand a greater chance of staying in the churches, leading decent moral lives in a context that gives glory to Christ our Saviour.