Dormition Fast and the HHS Mandate

Today, August 1, the celebration of the Procession of the Cross, begins our two week fast to celebrate the falling asleep of the Temple of God:  Mary, the Theotokos and ever-virgin.  In these two weeks, Orthodox Christians are expected to increase their prayers, their tithes while removing meat and dairy from their diets so that when the feast comes, we may embrace it with joy and the fulness may replace our imposed emptiness.

Today is also a very dark day for religious freedom in this country.  Today is the day the HHS Mandate that all employers who provide health insurance, including religious institutions, must provide birth control, sterilization drugs and services as well as abortifacients to its women employees free of charge, regardless of whether the women want/need such services and regardless of whether that violates the religious institution's conscience.  Churches will be exempted, but hospitals and other charities, specifically those affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church will be expected and forced to comply.

I could go into a long post and rehash what most of us already know about how this does trample religious liberty, that nothing like this can be found ANYWHERE in the history of jurisprudence in this country and that the progressives show their true colors where they believe the state is the supreme arbiter of everything and that religion, particularly traditional religion, is a threat to that supremacy.  But I won't.

And the reason that I won't is because, as Christians, we have failed to really make our faith important both in our family life and in our public life.  Yes, this mandate is still wrong and the people who favor it are wrong to impose it on those who disagree (these are the same people who want to impose their beliefs on Chik-Fil-A because its owner won't endorse same-sex marriage, but that's OK to do).  I am not suggesting that we trot around time trumpeting our fasting and alms giving.  I seem to remember Jesus rallying against those very things back in His day.  But, it seems, many of us only take our faith and its practice seriously only when something like this assault comes around.

Dormition fast has been around for a long time and it has been practiced in this country ever since Russian missions established the first Orthodox churches here in the late 18th century.  Orthodox Christians continue to make up a very very small fraction of the Christian population of the United States, but in efforts to not make ourselves too different from the Protestants and Catholics around us, our praxis has been pushed aside.  Yes, we may believe all of what our faith teaches, but as St. James says, a faith without works is a dead faith.

I know I have very few readers, but I would like to issue this challenge for this Dormition Fast to any Orthodox Chrisitan:  Show that your faith matters to you!  Go to one of the Paraklesis services during these two weeks, go to the Liturgy on Transfiguration, go to Dormition Liturgy. If your parish doesn't offer those services, make the extra effort to pray at home and with your family.  If you are able, fast.  If you can't do it for two weeks, then do it for what time you can.  If you have some leftover change, give it to a charity.  At the same time, don't trumpet it about.  Don't post on facebook that you gave $10 to the local homeless shelter!  Pray in silence.  And don't just do it for this Dormition Fast.  Do it for the Nativity Fast, do it for Great Lent. Do this ALL YEAR ROUND!  And, be joyful in it.

My point is that perhaps if we actually showed that our faith mattered in the practice of it, perhaps such things like this HHS Mandate might never have come into being.  We have become schismatics in our faith--acknowledging and believing on the one hand, but failing to practice it on the other.  If we hold such a cavalier and unserious attitude towards something that was enshrined into the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, namely the free exercise of religion, then perhaps we deserve to allow the state to dictate to us in these matters.

As disheartened as we may be, let us cry out with joy, this our Orthodox Battle Hymn:

Σῶσον Κύριε τὸν λαόν σου καὶ εὐλόγησον τὴν κληρονομίαν σου, νίκας τοῖς Βασιλεῦσι κατὰ βαρβάρων δωρούμενος καὶ τὸ σὸν φυλάττων διὰ τοῦ Σταυροῦ σου πολίτευμα.

Oh Lord, save Thy people and bless Thine inheritance, granting to Thy Sovereigns victory over the barbarians and by Thy Cross preserving Thine Estate.--Apolytikion for August 1, The Processiono f the Cross, Tone 1

The Printing Press Killed the Church?

Back in 1980, an event occurred that changed how a generation would experience and think about music.  1980 saw the birth of MTV, a channel where rock n' roll, heard only on the radio or on cassette, vinyl or 8 track (the CD was out, but nowhere near the prominence of later years), would now have a distinct visual characteristic to it.  The inaugural video was the Buggles' "Video Killed the Radio Star."  The channel was an instant smash and a younger generation of music lovers would be able to not only listen to their favorite music but see it as well.  Radio's days, it looked like, were numbered.

Of course, such proved not to be the case.  MTV has moved away from its music roots to become a channel that hosts news, sitcoms, game shows, reality shows, award shows for movies, etc.  It has ceased to be a purely musical-visual entity.  I think it is rare to actually find an actual video on MTV any more unless you're an insomniac.  Radio survived, but only barely.  Radio became more and more a recycling center for the same current hits over and over.  Now, specialty radio stations have come into the mix like what you have on Sirius XM.

The title for this post came from a sermon I was listening to online by Fr. Patrick Reardon of All Saints Orthodox Church in Chicago, Ill.  I cannot remember the context of his sermon in general, but that one little phrase stuck with me.  As I listened to him defend it, I had to conclude that he was mostly right.  I don't think the printing press killed the Church, but it has inflicted some serious wounds which will not be easy to recover from.

Of course, the printing press has been hailed as the most important invention of the last 1000 years. Johann Gutenberg was named as the person of the millennium for his invention of moveable type.  Indeed, if it were not for the printing press, the dissemination of the Reformation's ideas could not have taken place throughout Europe and the pamphlets which stirred the colonies to rebel against Britain would not have had such an impact among other things.  But the printing press has caused a specific harm to the church and to her members, especially when it comes to prayer.

The Liturgy of the Church has always been sung aloud.  Her Scriptures and prayers were read and proclaimed for everyone to hear, regardless of literacy.  Even in private study, the Scriptures were read aloud (St. Augustine, in his Confessions marvels that St. Ambrose reads "with his eyes", i.e. silently).  Words and more specifically, the Word, is meant to be proclaimed, not read silently.  We would never, I hope, have a liturgy where everyone just read silently their own parts. It wouldn't be a liturgy, just a big group reading session.

But as more and more of the liturgy becomes internalized or silent, the less likely people are to remember.  I am amazed, simply amazed, week in and week out how many people in my parish still require the books to navigate the service.  Even cradle Orthodox have difficulties with this. I am even more shocked and appalled that even the creed requires the aid of a printed version.  When special services are held during the week for a great feast, the people come to me (because I'm chanting the service) and ask "where's the book?"  I often want to ask (I never do) why they cannot listen.

I'm sure if I did ask why listening would not be enough they would respond that they want to participate.  Participation is something I have touched on several times before and I won't do it here again suffice it to say that participation is not guaranteed by having texts right in front of you.  I would say that it makes you less likely to participate as you are not praying, you are reading. The two are not one and the same.

For today's world, reading is the first step towards making the prayers of the church one's own so that they cease to be words on a page, but expressions of the heart.  As long as Orthodox churches continue to put out service books which are readily available, the less the prayers will be internalized.

Another problem with equipping the congregation with text is that one thing that has not happened in the English language is a standardization of the prayer offices and Liturgy.  That's a bad idea for an number of reasons, but the primary reason I'm opposed to it is because someone at the end of the Liturgy or Vespers or Orthros can come up and ask why I chanted something a little different than the way it's in the book.  My response is often that melodies are prescribed for certain hymns and I prefer to use the hymn translations that are metered to those melodies such as the HTM translations.  So, rather than praying and listening to what is proclaimed, having a text in front of someone can often cause them to be the police for conformity, making an idol out of text.

In a perfect world, there would be no service books.  I also hate when I hear the entire congregation at the same time turning the page of a book. It's loud and distracting.  We need to get away from text because it's making Orthodox Christians excellent readers, but not good prayers.  The latter should be the aim.

Texts, of course, are necessary for the priests, deacons, servers and the chanters.  But that does not mean they should be universally available.

Ecumenism done right

Fr. Z has a great post on ecumenism on his blog. I encourage you to read it.  I've never been one for ecumenism simply because, as Fr. Z shows, it would require Orthodox and traditional Catholics to concede to mainline Protestants and renegade Catholics validity to innovations in the catholic tradition which we simply cannot concede.

For instance, ecumenical dialogues between Orthodox/Catholics and Protestants always have to bring up the issue of women's ordination.  Orthodox and Catholic participants are more or less required to concede that such "is just the way they do things" and we should move on.  Never are the Orthodox and Catholic participants allowed to insist that the Protestants stop their practice or insist that Protestants stop using their properties and churches to insult what Catholics and Orthodox hold dear.  The double standard is obvious--Protestants can tell Orthodox and Catholics what to do about Catholic and Orthodox theology and rites, but should an Orthodox or Catholic prelate tell the Protestant to stop meddling in our affairs, that prelate is dubbed "anti-ecumenical" and someone is sought out with a "cooler head."

Fr. Z would like modern ecumenism to start out by his criteria.  I like that, but it will never happen. I believe that modern ecumenism is dangerous and it really serves no purpose.  For that reason, I believe that none of the Orthodox Churches should be involved in it on any level.  I've said it before and I'll say it again but true and faithful ecumenism is NOT about uniting the churches; it is about having the confessions of Christianity unite themselves to the una Sancta Ecclesia.  Those are two entirely different approaches. The former is more about administrative unity and agreeing to disagree while the latter requires a rejection of heresy and all other errors and being obedient to Christ and His Church.  This is not to say that I am for cutting off all contact with other confessions of Christianity, but like Patriarch JEREMIAS II said to the Lutheran theologians at Tuebingen, with whom he had dialogue, we should be in contact for the sake of friendship and nothing else.

Behold, my son

I became a proud father today.  My son came into this world at 1:55 pm and weighs 8 lbs, 15 ozs and is 21 inches long.  Wife and I have yet to decide on a name but will do so soon.  Prayers are requested for my wife who went through a C-section and is still recovering.  Thanks.

The Evangelical Guidebook for Witnessing (i.e. converting) Orthodox Christians

One of the most unfair accusations Orthodox Christians face on the various internet discussion boards is that we are engaged in "sheep-stealing."  In other words, our purpose on being on the internet is to lure people away from the church they were raised in or to which they converted later in life to embrace Holy Orthodoxy.  LCMS blogger, Pr. McCain, frequently accuses the Orthodox of this.  I will certainly grant that there are some who do engage in this, but it is hardly a one way street.  LCMS Lutherans do it to, not only to ELCA Lutherans, but also to Roman Catholics, Baptists and, you guessed it, Orthodox.  (Don't try to deny it; again, it's not everyone, but it does happen).  Evangelical Christians even engage in this and there is a manual which specifically is designed for Evangelicals to convert Orthodox. This guide is many things--funny, ludicrous, misinformed, vague, etc.  

Guidelines for Witnessing to Your Orthodox Friends

1. Remember that salvation does not depend on works or on your association with a church. It depends on a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. This relationship comes through faith (see Eph. 2:8-9).
2. Pray and trust the Holy Spirit to reach the hearts and minds of those who are lost with the gospel message.
3. Share your testimony. Many Orthodox have never experienced a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Your testimony of what Jesus has accomplished in your life could have a great impact on them. Keep your testimony short. Avoid using terms that are unfamiliar to Orthodox, such as: "walked the aisle," "got saved," and "born again."
4. Explain that you are certain of your salvation because of God's grace. Make sure that you communicate that your assurance is derived from God's grace and not from good works or your ability to remain faithful (see 1 John 5:13).
5. Give them a copy of the New Testament. Lead them to texts that explain salvation.
6. Avoid issues that are not central to salvation.
7. Keep the gospel presentation Christ-centered.

Of these, my favorite is number three which says that many Orthodox have never had a personal relationship with Jesus.  That may be true, but the author here mistakes "personal" for "individual" or "individualistic."  Evangelicals do not seek a personal relationship with Christ, but an individual one rooted in their own ideas, visions, hopes, dreams, conclusions, etc.

Every Orthodox who receives the mysteries is engaged in a personal relationship with our Lord and God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.  Christ Himself comes mystically to us in the Eucharist, in Penance, in Baptism, in Chrismation, in Marriage, in Ordination, in Holy Orders.  Those mysteries give us direct, unfettered contact with Christ to fulfill the prayer in the Garden of Gethsamane before His Willing Crucifixion and Death, namely, that they be One in Us.  Through those mysteries and through Christ's incarnation in the flesh, Christ can be in communion with us on a personal level, not some transcendent abstraction rooted in ideas.  Orthodox theology is rooted in the person, man and the God-man (Θεαντυθροπος) Jesus Christ.  Communion, the joining of the two, creature and created, centered in Christ--nothing is more personal than that.

The author here then obviously confuses the personal with evangelical.  Considering that Evangelicals have no or have very little of  a sacramental heritage, I can see why there may be confusion.  Evangelicalism is fragmented and splintered into any number of sub denominations which are all founded based on someone's individual interpretation of Holy Tradition and Scripture, which flies in the face of 2000 years of unbroken Christian belief as represented by the Holy Orthodox Church.

What is more is that the individualism aspect of Evangelicalism is rooted largely in American civil religion. They use their Christianity to promote truth, justice and the American way. I remember a story a Greek friend once told me about a few American Evangelical teens who came to his home in Salonica, wanting to preach the Gospel.  He stopped them from their rehearsed script and asked them why they had come to Greece a country where  95% of its population is baptized Greek Orthodox Christian (whether they're practicing or not is a debate for another time, but the point is Greece is not like Iran).  They stopped, not knowing how to respond, but eventually, after several minutes of pushing, it finally came out--the problem with the Greek Orthodox is not that they're Greek Orthodox but they're not American.  The teens were using their Evangelicalism as the door to introduce Americanism to the Greeks so that they become like us.  Don't get me wrong--I love being an American, but other places in the world simply are not America and that's fine.

To my Evangelical friends, don't proselytize.  There's no need for it and will probably only end up causing major friction with people you hold to be friends and family. The same goes for Orthodox, especially zealous converts.  It is fine to debate the finer points of Christian doctrine, but when it is done in an interventionist style, then there are only going to be problems.

As far as the other six points go, I think I will refute those in the future.



 

Commemoration of St. Peter and St. Paul, the Foremost of the Apostles

Οἱ τῶν Ἀποστόλων πρωτόθρονοι, καὶ τῆς Οἰκουμένης διδάσκαλοι, τῷ Δεσπότῃ τῶν ὅλων πρεσβεύσατε, εἰρήνην τῇ οἰκουμένῃ δωρήσασθαι, καὶ ταῖς ψυχαῖς ἡμῶν τὸ μέγα ἔλεος.

O foremost of the Apostles and teachers of the world, intercede unto the Master of all that peace be granted to the world and the Great Mercy to our souls.--Apolytikion of the Feast, Tone 4

Have a blessed feast, at least those of you on the New Calendar.

A political post: Obamacare, the Silver Linings

Yes, I'm disappointed.  But, as there is no point in whining and complaining about this decision or getting into debates with Facebook friends or unknown persons on other online fora (as wrong as they are), I'm going to focus on what good things can be garnered from it.  Here they are in no particular order.

1)  The Commerce Clause does have limitations.  Even though Roberts conceded that the mandate can still be  mandated by Congress' taxing power (yes, I know that it was never defended as a tax and yes, this screams of judicial activism since the court invented a way for it to be implemented rather than rely on how the law was written), Roberts concurred with the dissenters that the commerce clause cannot be used as the justification for any government intrusion into the private sector.  Of course, all this does is give Congress the hint that if they do want to regulate anything, just make it a tax instead.  But considering that taxes now, especially in this state of the economy, are a non-starter, I don't think I will see Congress in the future mandating a broccoli tax on people who don't purchase and eat broccoli.

2)  The base is energized.  Republicans were always lukewarm on Romney.  Now, they're all in behind him.  Forget the divisive Republican primary--it's history.  Romney has promised repeal.  Every single Congressional and Senate candidate who wants to save his job come November had better come out in favor of repeal or at least consider it.  People do not like this bill.  Most people couldn't care less if the mandate is enforced via the commerce clause or the taxation authority of Congress. They don't want to purchase something they may not need.

3)  There is a revival of interest in the Constitution and what it actually says.  Can anyone remember the last time the Constitution was talked about by non politicians and non constitutional lawyers at any time prior to an election?  I can't.  Who has ever recalled the commerce clause or the general welfare clause or the elasticity clause being talked about at dinner conversations or by people sharing a beer at a baseball game?  Obamacare has been an impetus for learning about what it is in the Constitution.  Granted, many people are being duped by liberals who actually think the Constitution only means what it says in certain parts when it agrees with their utopian vision, but at least that's a base to work from. 

4)  Roberts is not quite the boogeyman in all of this.  It's easy (and fun) to hate Roberts for his role in all of this, but consider these:  First, he essentially told the Republicans what to run on and gave them a winning issue.  He said that it isn't for the court to decide what's good policy and what's not.  We've made our decision. Grow a pair and get out to repeal it yourselves instead of trusting us with that job.  Poll after poll reveals that Obamacare is unpopular and that 2/3 want it repealed in full or in part.

Secondly, Roberts did trumpet originalism.  Though his ruling seems to be a far cry from originalism, notice how he dresses down Ginsburg who is one of those justices who feels the Constitution means only what she wants it to mean at any given time.  In this case (footnote 4), Roberts is addressing Ginsburg's ridiculous contention that regulation pertains to activity and inactivity.  Here's more:

JUSTICE GINSBURG suggests that “at the time the Constitution was framed, to ‘regulate’ meant, among other things, to require action.” But to reach this conclusion, the case cited by JUSTICE GINSBURG relied on a dictionary in which “[t]o order; to command” was the fifth-alternative definition of “to direct,” which was itself the second-alternative definition of “to regulate.” It is unlikely that the Framers had such an obscure meaning in mind when they used the word “regulate.”  Far more commonly, “[t]o regulate” meant “[t]o adjust by rule or method,” which presupposes something to adjust. [Citations omitted.]

I think that's a triumph (a small one, granted) for originalism.


5)  Though not explicitly stated, the 10th amendment was upheld.  States cannot be forced, i.e. blackmailed or extorted, into expanding Medicaid at the risk of the funding that currently exists.  It was interesting to hear Sen. Ben Nelson claim credit for that (remember the famous Cornhusker kickback?) although his kickback was not in the final bill.  Nelson must think that SCOTUS was looking to him and his opposition as the source for their ruling.  What a tool!


6)  Obamacare is an economic disaster.  The math speaks for itself.  Once it goes into full effect, we will see the results immediately.  We are currently in the throes of the spending debate in Washington.  The American people do not want more spending, especially since there is no supply to fund it.  Even on its most generous scoring, the CBO says that Obamacare will add billions, if not trillions to the already out of control debt.

On the private side of things, medical device companies are going to be hard hit with new taxes.  Guess who ultimately pays that price? The people who purchase them.  Whenever  the government increases the cost of doing business, the business has to recoup the costs from somewhere.  And when those businesses can't, they go out of business.  Fewer businesses, fewer jobs, less of a tax base.  Of course, liberals can't see that in their warped view.


There you go:  My six silver linings.  Let Obamacare go into effect.  Maybe, just maybe, it will serve as the impetus to return us to some sense of fiscal sanity.