PadreTex

My Blog is Moving

2010-09-20T21:05:00.000-04:00

I have decided to move my blog to my own server and domain and use WordPress to give me better moderation tools. Setting up this move has taken several days and because of that and some other tasks, I have not been able to post lately because of it. I apologize for the inconvenience that this may cause but I hope that you will create a new bookmark and follow over there.

The new site is at: PadreTex.com

Thank you for your patience and I'll see you over there!

The "Ground Zero Mosque"

2010-09-10T12:03:00.000-04:00

From a blog that I try to keep up with I reprint this article. There may be some of you at St. George that will not like this, but I happen to agree whole-heartedly with Fr. Zuhlsdorf on this. I don't desire to live under an Islamic rule for an instant, and so I don't respond favorably to any move that would try to promote Sharia law or Islam here. There is freedom of worship in the US, but in spite of it's name, I don't believe that Islam is peaceful or simply about submission to God. I believe it's about submission to Islam. As a Christian, that won't work for me. Prepare a cross, because I won't change my mind or heart on this one.

Ground Zero Mosque: a “Rabat”, not a “Cultural Center”

CATEGORY: The Drill, The future and our choices — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 9:35 am

Some time ago, at the recommendation of the great Fr. Welzbacher of St. Paul, I read Andrew McCarthy’s The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America. It was an excellent preparation, or propaedeutic, for the controversy over the proposal to build the mosque complex at Ground Zero in Manhattan. And, yes, I think 51 Park Place qualifies as "ground zero" in the sense that landing gear from one of the airplanes struck the building.

As I listened and read about the "Cordoba House" proposal something about it sounded familiar. McCarthy described how militant Islamists of the Brotherhood developed centers for young muslim men which included an athletic program component. The nickle dropped. (Cf. Chapter 4. "Eliminating and Destroying the Western Civilization from Within".)

Today over breakfast coffee… I saw in the New York Post an article by Amir Taheri, which you should know about.
Amir Taheri is author of 11 books on the Middle East, Iran and Islam.

Let’s have a look with my emphases and comments.

Islam center’s eerie echo of ancient terror

By AMIR TAHERI

Last Updated: 8:35 AM, September 10, 2010

Should there be a mosque near Ground Zero? In fact, what is pro posed is not a mosque—nor even an "Islamic cultural center."

In Islam, every structure linked to the faith and its rituals has a precise function and character. A mosque is a one-story gallery built around an atrium with a mihrab (a niche pointing to Mecca) and one, or in the case of Shiites two, minarets.

Other Islamic structures, such as harams, zawiyyahs, husseinyiahs and takiyahs, also obey strict architectural rules. Yet the building used for spreading the faith is known as Dar al-Tabligh, or House of Proselytizing.

[NB] This 13-story multifunctional structure couldn’t be any of the above.

The groups fighting for the project know this; this is why they sometimes call it an Islamic cultural center. But there is no such thing as an Islamic culture.

Islam is a religion, not a culture. Each of the 57 Muslim-majority nations has its own distinct culture—and the Bengali culture has little in common with the Nigerian. Then, too, most of those countries have their own cultural offices in the US, especially in New York.

Islam is an ingredient in dozens of cultures, not a culture on its own.

In theory, at least, the culture of American Muslims should be American. Of course, this being America, each ethnic community has its distinct cultural memories—the Iranians in Los Angeles are different from the Arabs in Dearborn.

[Start taking notes if you have to…] In fact, the proposed structure is known in Islamic history as a rabat—literally a connector. The first rabat appeared at the time of the Prophet.

The Prophet imposed his rule on parts of Arabia through a series of ghazvas, or razzias (the origin of the English word "raid"). The ghazva was designed to terrorize the infidels, convince them that their civilization was doomed and force them to submit to Islamic rule. Those who participated in the ghazva were known as the ghazis, or raiders.

After each ghazva, the Prophet ordered the creation of a rabat—or a point of contact at the heart of the infidel territory raided. The rabat consisted of an area for prayer, a section for the raiders to eat and rest and facilities to train and prepare for future razzias. [The "athletic" component I alluded to earlier.] Later Muslim rulers used the tactic of ghazva to conquer territory in the Persian and Byzantine empires. After each raid, they built a rabat to prepare for the next razzia.

[NB:] It is no coincidence that Islamists routinely use the term ghazva to describe the 9/11 attacks against New York and Washington. The terrorists who carried out the attack are referred to as ghazis or shahids (martyrs).

[CONCLUSION:] Thus, building a rabat close to Ground Zero would be in accordance with a tradition started by the Prophet. To all those who believe and hope that the 9/11 ghazva would lead to the destruction of the American "Great Satan," this would be of great symbolic value.

[Shift gears.] Faced with the anger of New Yorkers, the promoters of the project have started calling it the Cordoba House, echoing President Obama’s assertion that it would be used to propagate "moderate" Islam.

The argument is that Cordoba, in southern Spain, was a city where followers of Islam, Christianity and Judaism lived together in peace and produced literature and philosophy.

In fact, Cordoba’s history is full of stories of oppression and massacre, prompted by religious fanaticism. It is true that the Muslim rulers of Cordoba didn’t force their Christian and Jewish subjects to accept Islam. However, non-Muslims could keep their faith and enjoy state protection only as dhimmis (bonded ones) by paying a poll tax in a system of religious apartheid.

If whatever peace and harmony that is supposed to have existed in Cordoba were the fruit of "Muslim rule," [NB:] thesubtext is that the United States would enjoy similar peace and harmony under Islamic rule. [That is why "Cordoba" was chosen: to symbolize the goal of subjugation of the USA to Sharia Law.]

A rabat in the heart of Manhattan would be of great symbolic value to those who want a high-profile, "in your face" projection of Islam in the infidel West.

This thirst for visibility is translated into increasingly provocative forms of hijab, notably the niqab (mask) and the burqa. The same quest mobilized hundreds of Muslims in Paris the other day to close a whole street so that they could have a Ramadan prayer in the middle of the rush hour. [These open demonstrations are escalating.]

One of those taking part in the demonstration told French radio that the aim was to "show we are here." "You used to be in our capitals for centuries," he said. "Now, it is our turn to be in the heart of your cities."

Before deciding whether to support or oppose the "Cordoba" project, New Yorkers should consider what it is that they would be buying.

Sunday School

2010-09-10T11:16:00.000-04:00

Fall is gearing up in parishes now and so is Sunday School. And this will call all of us to some decisions about how time and how we will use it. Let me address the practical first. We should all endeavor to have our children in class every Sunday of the school year. We should also be diligent about being present and on time for the Divine Liturgy every Sunday (starting time is at 10:00am).

Our teachers work very hard to teach our parish children, who are not merely the future of the parish, they are part of the parish right now. Our teachers plan and prepare before every class so that they can give the Faith to our children. It is very little to ask that our parents have the children present so that they can receive a better understanding of this precious Faith.

We must also allow the teachers to keep their children until 12:00pm, or until the class is finished, every Sunday. Parents, don't pull your children out of class because you have made other plans for your Sunday afternoon. There is nothing more important that giving the Faith to these kids. Parents, please keep your children who may have been released from peering in the windows and distracting classes that are still meeting. If we wish to have a faithful community of believers for years to come, then we must allow the teachers their classroom time and get our children to class.

But even more important than Sunday School is the Divine Liturgy. Our Lord gave us a commandment to "do this" regarding the Divine Liturgy, the Holy Eucharist. We are required to offer this Eucharist every week. There is no such command for Sunday School. All of the faithful, and this includes baptized infants, are to be present at the Liturgy every Sunday. This allows us to have all of our young boys take turns serving at the altar, and to have different people read the epistle. But folks need to be present on time for this to happen.

Now, just a little history about Sunday School because it helps to place it in its proper place. Sunday School is a pretty new program in the life of the Church. It was "invented" in the Church of England in the 1800s to teach young Welsh children of coal miners how to read. It was taken up by the Methodists and Non-conformists (other Protestants) to indoctrinate their children in their version of Christianity. The original time to have these classes was not Sunday, but Saturday and they lasted several hours. Soon among various Protestant groups it was moved to Sunday as a way to entice families to come on Sunday (since there was something specifically planned for the children).

Orthodoxy didn't know anything at all about Sunday School until it came to the United States, and then it adopted the program for itself in the early 1900s, but we now tend to think of this as part of "the Tradition." It's not. It's a local custom. There is no such thing in Russia or Greece, I'm not sure about the Middle East. The ideal would be to have a parochial school where the Faith is taught as a serious course and which children receive a grade (requiring their effort) in addition to mandatory periods of catechism. This would give us children who knew their faith but we don't do this. Historically the Church insisted that parents taught the children their faith but parents rarely speak about such things with their children any longer, so we are left with a program that is less than ideal but which we have invested as being our only answer.

So let us not waste it, if that's all we are willing to do to hand over our Faith. Make certain your children are there. Make certain they are in the Liturgy. Give them the Faith so that they can keep it all of their lives. If they say, "I don't like it," make them go anyway. Wouldn't you make them go to public school even if they didn't like it? Isn't the Faith of Christ more important?

Sunday School starts September 19th, so let's get it going full swing with everyone. Let us commit to this work so that we can give the Faith to another generation and thereby spread salvation and joy a little further.

Liturgical Books (Why I work on them)

2010-09-03T21:23:00.001-04:00

This will probably surprise a lot of people, but there is a sense that I don't like spending so many hours typesetting and preparing liturgical books. I say this on the heels of having completed typesetting Bp. Basil's The Liturgikon for the Antiochian Archdiocese and having seen it through the printing. I have worked on other books for the Archdiocese as well.

I have also heard, through a friend who was present, that one of our bishops commented in front of a large group of my brother priests that I am not a good editor. I admit to it wholeheartedly (please forgive me your Grace). I've never claimed any expertise in that area and have always tried to find people who would proof and edit the work I've done (but unfortunately there have been very few who are willing to do this important task). I am a graphic designer. I work very hard to make liturgical books look beautiful and functional. This in itself is a worthy task.

But, as I began, I'd actually rather not have to do it. I'd rather simply focus on parish life. So why do I do it? Because it must be done. There are so many liturgical books that need to be prepared and published for parishes to be able to fully do their work and no one else seems to be stepping up to that task. The Archdiocese certainly has asked me to do that work. And I have done some other work voluntarily because of the great need.

I suppose the ultimate reason that I work so hard to produce beautiful liturgical books, is that I so deeply desire to go to the Altar of God and pray. I desire to have a book that is simple to use, so I don't have to concentrate on certain items, but be entirely free in prayer. Having said this, I am one who just before his ordination to the priesthood spent at least two hours a day for two weeks at my seminary's chapel working on my rubrics, so that I would have them down before my first liturgy. I did the same to learn the rubrics of the Western Rite as a priest--I knew them already for every other part from torchbearer to subdeacon. I'm not referring to being disciplined in ceremonial, but the freedom that comes when the rubrics are internalized and the liturgical books are designed in such a way that they don't create friction. This to me would be freedom to pray, to simply let go of everything and enter into the moment of the Sacrifice of the Altar. I also believe that this would be the greatest work that I could do for my parish--because I could then offer them in that Sacrifice like never before.

The beauty of the book is needful if only because everything associated with the worship of the beautiful God must somehow reflect something of his glory and beauty. As I typeset books, my heart tries to move to the Altar and do my work there. This is a spiritual work of love, mercy and sacrifice.

Would that I could work on other things. But there are so many books left to do before I can rest, before I can be truly free in love with Christ our Lord.

The Holy Dormition

2010-08-14T22:18:00.000-04:00

This is the great feast of the Holy Mother of God. Let us all keep it with joy, giving thanks to our good God for such a kind Mother who is always quite to hear, who is the help of Christians.

Evangelism and Parish Planting

2010-08-09T13:08:00.001-04:00

I have long been very interested in mission work and planting parishes. But I don't think we do it very well, nor do I think that we're terribly serious about it. I have said so to several people privately (hierarchs included) but I thought it might be helpful to say it in a more public venue. I would simply say that there's a problem though, I am going to say what I believe can actually be done about it.

First of all it needs to be understood that establishing missions is a theological imperative. Every Christian is required to be involved in evangelism. Some of that activity will be honed in on one's own parish, and some of it must be for the Church at large. We can't afford to become too myopic and concentrated only on our own parish. This creates an ingrown parish that is concerned only about itself and its own desires (usually called "needs"). It's very unhealthy. The more we embrace the gospel, the more we look out beyond ourselves to others. We move to others because of love. We desire them to receive the fulness of the Faith in Christ, and so we don't simply say, "They go to church already and so we don't need to speak to them about our Faith." Wrong. Do we have the true Faith or not? If we don't, and if ours is only one of many, then I don't care to be part of it. I want the real thing, the genuine article which was established by Jesus Christ on the day of Pentecost. Nothing else will do. My suspicion is that too many parishioners don't really believe that they are members of the Church, but of a Church. Believing oneself to be part of the true Church motivates one to bring others into it because we love them and we want them to have the genuine article. This must be first in our minds.

Secondly, we need to be much wiser about planting parishes. We have been rather lazy about it for some time (this applies to more than just the Orthodox here, but we're standouts in this area). What we have done is wait until some group of nice folks gather and petition to start a parish. Or sometimes we try to see if there are some nice Middle-easterners (or Greeks, or Russians, etc.) and gather them together to start a community. The key here is that we usually wait. This is not evangelism, it's reaction as Fr. Michael Keiser correctly points out. But real evangelism costs money, and I don't mean a permanent staff in the Department of Missions and Evangelism. That doesn't cut it.

Let me share a model that I think does work and can work magnificently if we really wanted to get serious about starting parishes.

We can begin by looking at a map to see where we think there would be a potential place to start a parish. This can be done in a couple of ways. We can look at population sizes of cities that we think can support a community and which is perhaps under served, or we can look at our current demographics and then compare them to places that we don't have parishes to see if there are some common elements. These two ways are not mutually exclusive. This costs a little money. Demographics aren't free, but they can be had relatively inexpensively. We need to be cautious here though. We could easily look at ethnic groups in the demographics, but in the long run there are other far more important indicators such as values. A demographic study can also give the perceived needs and desires of a population which are important as well. It is worth remembering that the US is not homogenous and that one-size does not fit all. The Church must meet people where they really are and not where we want them to be. Knowing these desires allows us to ask if we can answer their desires and remain authentic to who we are. This calls for creativity but it can be a very worthwhile effort.

Once we intelligently and rationally have found a potential target, then we begin doing a little local investigation. There was a time that this was done through the local paper, but fewer and fewer people are reading the papers these days, so it's usefulness may not be as good now. Many of the evangelical communities will have a local focus group study done. This costs about $200-$600, and can give a great deal of information. It can find out what media is the most effective to reach one's target group, thereby saving money in the long run. Radio might be a great tool, but if no one listens to it, then why buy radio time? The same is true of all the various media. It is worth spending a little bit to find out what will be most effective and therefore most cost efficient. These focus groups also help to get a handle on the potential themes that need to be addressed.

I cannot stress too much that a very special website must be developed for this work. It is not a website that gives all of the business end of who we are. It is not the Archdiocesan or Diocesan website that is wanted here, links can be provided to these, but that doesn't help. A central website that sets forth the vision, and ethos of what the Church is what is needed. It is an introduction, not to a lot of polemics (these should be avoided at this stage) but to a life. It should put our best foot forward in only positive terms, not defining ourself by what we are not. It should not compare us to anyone else, nor should it speak poorly of anyone else. Why should it? It should give a very simply overview of what is believed because it is not the inquirer's/catechumens classes and shouldn't try to be. It is not the place to drill down into things deeply. Leave that to the parish. This positive, evangelical website should be the public face of the mission inquiry. It should not be too difficult to create a local site that gives the local contact information with the specialized site "attached" so to speak. This site should be referenced on every card, mailer, advertisement that is produced. Let this site do a lot of the work.

Why is this so important? When a small mission is planted it is almost impossible to give the sense of what a full parish's life is like. What do the services look like? What is the music like? What sort of things can be done in areas of charity? and so forth. Small beginnings need to be able to point to the larger vision and this site can help with that to a great extent. But it is also necessary not to overburden those who are "sniffing around" with too much of the administrative side of things. This is why one should only link to the Archdiocesan pages and such as references.

Mass mailing is a very effective tool. It is known that it produces about a 2% response rate--if one has written the material to a particular focus that really exists (see the reason for demographics and focus groups?). But it may take as many as four mailings to realize that response because people might not notice the mailing until the fourth time. Let's talk about numbers a second. How many are needed to start a self-sustaining community? 25 families? 50 families? Well, that seems to be a target. Let's say you need 50 families. For a 2% response rate, one would need to mail out at least 2,500 pieces four times. But it isn't quite so simple. One may only keep about 50% of those who come to the "big event" that is planned to start the parish. This means that one needs to send out about 5,000 pieces four times. It would be easy to get the cost of such a project. It will cost some money, but the potential of establishing a functional parish makes this modest cost very much worth while.

Before doing the mailing though, one should have a basic core group of about 20-25 people to begin with. They need to know how to sing the services at a basic level and they should be taught how to greet people and get them plugged in. The skeleton of the full parish needs to be planned so that it can quickly be fleshed out. One mistake would be to create a frame that is too small for growth. One should know how Sunday School and youth ministry will be carried out for example. Will there be a Ladies' group? Choir? Chanters? Get this framework ready to build upon.

There are some resources that need to be produced to help the parish get going too. A CD of basic musical settings that can be used by the congregation needs to be made available. Too many CDs give larger choral settings that are not helpful to a small group. We need folks to record a basic traditional setting that can be learned by everyone, for the Eastern Rite the music from the congregational book would serve best, for the Western Rite the de Angelis Mass would be very effective. Missalettes or service books need to be printed and ready to hand. My mentor told me that one of the most important things that must be done by a mission is to look as large and as established as possible. People don't want to get their religion from fly-by-night groups. Publications must look professionally done. Don't skimp on the Sunday bulletins either. They must look right.

Two other things need to be available and here is where the largest cost is. We need to supply mission plants with a basic "kit" to do the services. These can be used censers (thuribles), chalices, etc. But they need to be at least loaned to the mission plants until they can purchase their own. A list can easily be drawn up and a loan kit provided for a specified time. The next item is that we need to fund the mission priest for at least two years. This means his full stipend and package. After two years, the community should be able to take it over if they have started out as I've suggested above.

Mission priests must also be our best priests, what usually happens is that we send priests who don't do well in larger parishes to them. This is wrong and it is why we should pay them. A priest in a mission must give the entire tradition to a new community. He needs to know the nuts and bolts of how parishes work (from experience) and he needs to know the music, the liturgy, the administrative details, the theology… in short, he has to give everything to the new community since are just beginning.

There is more to say, but this should get things started. I love missions and we need to do much better. God willing we can start.

What is Wrong with Politicians?

2010-07-29T15:13:00.007-04:00

It's pretty commonplace to despise politicians and to hate politics. That's not entirely fair. Politics is nothing but the manner in which society strives to live a civil and productive life. It will always be marked by compromises and such, but it should also have some other distinguishing characteristics. For example, it ought to have a primary philosophical outlook which stands as its spring-board to action.

There have been many different base philosophies that have served, and I would certainly say that Christians should expect the basic Christian morality and freedom should be the normative model in the U.S. Surely sharia law would be absolutely incompatible with our cultural worldview and experience. I can see no reason at all to admit of any sharia compliant laws as they are purely based upon Koranic scriptures. It's principle is fundamentally different from what was established in the Anglo-American legal framework. But there must be a foundation. I would also say that it cannot be a socialistic philosophy which robs individuals of the opportunities of freely given generosity and assistance towards others as well as denying them the opportunity of their own personal freedom to make moral choices. This is fundamental, and it is a Christian principal.

But what is broken with politicians? Why do we see such scandalous behavior amongst our elected officials, like John Kerry's tax sheltering of his boat, Charles Rangel's ethical violations, Obama's justice department failing to prosecute overt violations of voting rights perpetrated by the new black panther's? (All of which are outrageous and by no means limited to Democrats.)

To answer this we need to remember that politicians are not outside the problems that beset humanity in general--whether or not one is a believer. Social ills continue and accelerate even in these so-called "enlightened," modern and secular times because man is fallen in action, will, and intellect. He is not broken, but terribly faulted. Since this brokenness has not been healed by the secular model, neither has the attendant social deprivations.

But I would suggest that all political models (and politicians) fail because those in power tend to serve themselves. When the world was ruled by nobility, it was fine when they understood their rule at coming from God and therefore the leaders understood that they too were servants of both God and their charge. (This may well have been honored more in the breach than in the main.) We see that by the time of Henry VIII or Louis XVI things could be altogether different. Even the remarkable Magna Carta was an attempt at limiting the power of the monarch’s self indulgence. So the Monarchies tended to become constitutional monarchies and Parliaments became the effective rulers of countries. Again they took on their own sense of self-serving. The ruling classes changed to that of the merchant rather than landed nobility. The merchant is concerned with the ledger books and accounts, with profit and loss. Soon, because he is running Parliament (or Congress here in the US), things become focused on his own profit. At least the nobility had to keep some care of those who cared for his manor and tilled his fields. The political progressives or none better than the mercantile representatives. They speak of serving the great masses through programs and then it is revealed how well they have been serving their own interests all along.

It strikes me that the only correction to this is for the electorate to select individuals whose desire is actually to serve rather than to be served, who desire to live under authority rather than to wield power. As an aside, this seems also to be one of the greatest faults of the theological progressive as well.

And here we might say that the modern secular state is very much part of the problem because its propaganda promotes each individual’s satiation. It does not seek to model true service and promote service and humility. (The modeling part is not insignificant, after all how many vacations and entertainment events can one President have within a summer? I find it scandalous.) Consider television programs and movies. They all present the great assumption that the purpose of life is to fulfill one’s fantasies, desires and passions. If one is not happy, then something is wrong. Here is the contaminant that stands at the root of the failure of all political systems and the scandals within the Church. So long as one is his own definition of rectitude, rather than a transcendent and objective Truth, then we shall only continue to spiral deeper into the morass.

This is also the view of Plato, who was not particularly a theist, for his God was not a personal being but a theoretical perfection. The myth of the cave illustrates this nicely. And, of course, in this regard perhaps the greatest flaws of modern secularism is the subjection of all values to the relativism of those in power. Indeed it works well for the powerful because they are only reaping what they desire, which is only right as they see it. Meanwhile, in this secular world, the drain is open and pulling the rest of us down into its spiraling grasp.

Why does Cincinnatus stay on his farm in our hour of need? Where is his modern day counterpart? Hurry, Cincinnatus, we are in need of you again to save us from destruction through your self-abdicating service, leadership and virtue.

[If you are unaware of who Cincinnatus was and would like to know a little bit about him, see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus]

What are Ya Feedin' on?

2010-07-28T11:07:00.012-04:00

Cattle Drive in Fort Worth Stockyards, April 2010

Awlright, hang on ya'll. I'm onna open up my Texas a lil' bit--which is earthy and not fit for anyone with any sort of a Puritanical strain. When I was growin' up I learned an amazing skill. My grandparents had a farm (which I lived on for a while). My granddad raised cattle and it affected me more deeply than I can say. I love their big ol' brown eyes set in their white faces (we raised polled herefords). The skill I learned had to do with feed and manure. Ya see you can tell what cattle are eating by the smell of their chips. You don't have to pick one up or bend over one of 'em. You can smell it as the breeze passes over the fresh manure.

Some of you may think that's a pretty nasty image, but it never bothered me. The smell of beef cattle just reminds me of home (the smell of dairy cattle is a different matter). If cattle are grazing in pastures, their dung smells one way and if they're being fattened up for market (being fed grain and such at the feeding pen) it smells another. It's actually sweeter if their feeding on grain or alfalfa from the barn, which we used to supplement.

There's an old Texas expression (I suppose other's use it too) that, "Your poop smells too." Usually the saying is a little more direct, but you get the point. So… how's your poop smell? Chances are it has a lot to do with what you're eatin'. If your eatin' consistently at the altar of God, digesting his Word in the Scriptures and chewing it like an ol' bull chews his cud, and dining on the sweetness of prayer then your poo probably is of the sweeter variety. If you sit at the table with gossip, self-sufficiency, judgmentalism, believing you're fine where ya are… well, I'll bet your manure smells pretty bad.

Trouble is that its pretty darned hard to smell your own while your making it, and the same thing is true of our Christian lives. Unless we try to take time to look at our lives seriously we'll be largely unaware of the smells we leave by our sins and shortcomings until someone points it out to us. But just like raisin' cattle, the focus isn't what's in the draft, it's the feed. So ask yourself. What are you feedin' on? Are you leaving a trail the gives glory to God or one that smells to high heaven? And after you figure that out, maybe you'll need to adjust your feed.

Seven Steps through Difficult Times

2010-07-28T09:48:00.004-04:00

Every person I have every known (and every one whom I expect to know) will have to wade through the muck and mire of life. This is often an entanglement with difficulties from outside ourselves or it may be personal crises. What I know by experience is that we all face these things with tiring frequency. We live for those lovely periods wherein everything seems balance and harmonious. They are remarkably less frequent than we would wish. It also seems to be a law that as soon as we have experienced the peak of that harmony, something will inevitably confront us and drag us back into the mire.

The melancholic personality views his life as running from disaster to disaster with brief moments of light. The sanguine personality views it just the opposite, life goes from joy to joy with the occasional period of struggle. The celtic blood that I carry in my veins tends to make me the former. You know the old rag about the Irish character, "It's bad now, and it's only going to get worse!" It was once observed to me that Daddy could be the voice of gloom.

But the real question is not about personality types, but how do we get through these times since they are universal and we'll all experience them? How do we make it through those difficult nights when we can't sleep because we can't find a resolution to the things that face us? Millions of Americans are facing these questions on a daily basis now because of the economy. I'll share a little bit about what I do--which I think is healthy--in these cases. I assume that one has already cried out to God that one is hurting and it is profitable to do this because God will give us solace, but it is not the way through the muck.

The first thing to do is ask the question what is the worst case scenario? You see, much of the time the fear and dread comes to us because of what we can't see. It is unknown and so it paralyzes us. If it is concern about your job, ask yourself then, "If I lost my job, what would happen?" Certainly one might go bankrupt and lose one's credit. One would not be able to care for one's family as one wishes and it would absolutely cause a strain on family relationships. Perhaps one looses one's house and many possessions. But there would also be things that would still be there even in the darkest moments. God would still love me--even if I was the cause of these things through grave and mortal sin. God would not turn his back on me and always stand ready for me to repent and come back to him. This realization is more important that we might think. Ultimately, we know we can be victorious and that nothing can finally hurt us. "If God is for us, who can be against us?" To know that we are unconditionally loved is the most reassuring thing we can have in times of darkness. We may be able to add that our spouses would still love us. That our children would still love us and our friends would still care for us. The most bitter darkness we could ever face is not so opaque when others bring their light to us through love.

We might ask would I starve to death? No. I would be able to find something to eat. Would I have a place to sleep? Absolutely. We would be able to find a place for our families to reside as we get back on our feet. Could we find work again? We would, but it would be different and the pay and benefits might not be the same. In other words, in the worst case scenario, things would go on. Life would continue for us even if it were uncomfortable for a time.

The second thing to do is to consider all those who have gone through trying times and come out of it. The best art, the best literature, often the most creative ideas, and sometimes even the most successful businesses have come from people who have gone through difficult times. It was as though the darkness forced them to light a fire inside their souls that finally burned brighter than the night about them. I would have about me a company of people who have suffered and become victors. They would inspire me and give me hope and courage that desperate times can be overcome.

The third thing to do is to admit where we have failed. Unless we are honest with ourselves we cannot hope to change our course. This is often uncomfortable for people, especially when they are down. But the purpose of this is not to gravel or beat one's self up about the failures. It is to admit them, to repent of them and to be aware of what they are. Often there is not sin attached to certain failures. Failures can come about when there is an aptitude or personality conflict. This failure might have been painful for many people, it may be grievous and open, but it is not necessarily culpable. The culpability may have been failure to get help or having taken on something that one constitutionally cannot fulfill. This isn't too uncommon and it creates a sense of guilt in oneself and irritation among others. The tasks may possible to complete on a talent or pragmatic level, but virtually impossible on another level. And sometimes it's impossible to understand why it my be so.

I remember my father told me that in business one should always source out tasks that one doesn't like or that one continually puts off. This was from his experience of doing his own accounting/bookkeeping for his photography studio. He would put it off until the taxes were due for the government and he would actually have to close the studio for a couple of days so he could complete his books. It didn't make sense financially because he was loosing billable hours on a task that only took up his time. It would have been cheaper for his to have hired it out in the first place.

This is the sort of thing we look for when we consider our failures. Often when we are able to face them honestly, we find that we can avoid the problems we have had to undergo. But it is worth noting that this cannot be done unless one has reached a certain amount of peace first. There must be a sense of stability and some certainty before one can see this. When one is in the midst of attacks and pressure, it can be very difficult to analyze. Hence, the first two steps are needed.

The fourth thing we must do is make some goals. If we don't know where we wish to go, then we will get nowhere at all. Within groups this can be very difficult because there must be a consensus about the goal. It is too easy for us all to be too dogmatic about both the goals and the plan (which comes later). Goals should be considered on several levels. They should be considered in practical terms, what can actually be accomplished. They should be considered in terms of the ideal too--what is my ultimate goal. Then they should be organized into bite-sized goals.

The fifth thing to do is to make some simple deliberate plans to work towards these goals. The steps we take towards the fulfilling of the short goals must be simple and practical. This is not a triathlon, it is daily life. For example, the long term goal may be to write a book. That's a big task. But one can set a goal to write three to four pages per day. That is something that one can easily accomplish. These pages add up to chapters and a whole book. Then one can begin breaking the editing of the book into small bites, until finally a finished book is produced. Deliberate little tasks are necessary, big ones can never be done.

Next, one would bring all of this to God. Why only pray now? Well, in a sense I have been praying about it all along. Or, one could say that I've been preparing to pray about it. It is impossible to go to God about problems until we see them clearly. Then we can bring this to God for his guidance and correction. Some of what we may need to bring is repentance, some of what we need is his blessing on our tasks. Some of what we need is the courage to act on what we know is right. None of this is really possible unless we have already done this work. There is also a truth that we will not be able to pray completely until we have reached a certain amount of peace and resolution in our hearts already. The cry to God of our pain is important because he helps us to rest for this process, but it must give way so that we can move forward in Christ to truly pray and work.

There are some who might object, then why pray at all? Haven't we already done all of the work? This is a misunderstanding of what prayer is, specifically petitionary prayer. We assume that we are asking God to do things for us and that that is all that's needed, that if we have already worked out a program, then there is no need to ask God to help us. Actually, what we are doing is asking God to fulfill his love and desire in us. We ask him to bless us, to be present in our tasks and to guide us. When we pray for his help, we are asking him to be with us as we struggle because we know our weakness and our inability to fulfill all that we see we need to accomplish. We are not asking for God to work magic. We are asking for his love. Our work will become far simpler when we do it with him.

Finally, we begin to work. We take our first steps towards our little goals and as we accomplish them, we thank God each time. We ask for God's help and presence as we are doing our work, lest we fall--ever mindful of our weakness and past failures. Eventually, the darkness passes and we arrive in peace again. And if we work through our difficulties in this manner, we will find that our dark times never become quite as black as they did before. We will find that our hearts begin to move naturally towards God in good times and in bad. We will know how to keep working and not to fall into magical beliefs or fantasies. In short, we will be working out our salvation in fear and trembling.

What is the Role of Culture in Christianity?

2010-07-23T17:25:00.000-04:00

I have just written an article about culture: local, regional, and universal in the Christian context on my blog, PadreTex Born in the West. If you wish to read it, Here is the link:

http://padretexwest.blogspot.com/2010/07/culture-local-regional-and-universal.html

One Week Break

2010-07-18T06:13:00.001-04:00

I won't be posting anything this week because of some commitments, but I hope to post something new next week.

A New Post on PadreTex West…

2010-07-17T20:26:00.002-04:00

On my other blog I have written what I think is the answer for the western world, the one in which we live. Take a look and feel free to leave your comments.

Cantus mortuit

2010-07-14T14:18:00.002-04:00

It ought to surprise no one that I try to keep up with happenings in England and within Anglicanism. For many years I didn't do that. But in recent months I have been reading and listening to the sad tale of a gangrenous infection taking it's chilling grip on the body called the Church of England. If only there had been an amputation years ago of the infected limb, perhaps there might have been a recovery with a luminous hope that would have been fulfilled in unity with either Rome or Constantinople (of course I hope for unity of these two). But the necrosis has reached the heart now, and there is nothing left for it.
   I write this for a couple of reasons. The first is a natural sadness that I feel for what was once my own mother church. It was there that I began to learn the Christian faith. It was there that I came to love the Sacraments. It was there that I came to know some of the incredible Saints of the Church. It was there that I came to love the liturgical life of the Church. So her death is particularly poignant to me. It hurts me very deeply. But this is the second time that I have experienced this because I remember seeing and feeling this when the American branch of the Church of England, the Episcopal Church, went through the same. And from the history which has unfolded here I can see years of difficulties and absurdities continuing in England. It is as though I saw one of the limbs die to this disease and now it has reached its heart. I can't help but be affected by this because it was very much part of my identity and life for so long. So this is partly personal.
   The second reason I write this is because there are people out there who need our love and concern, who are experiencing this tragedy very deeply. We need to pray for them. They are Christians that we cannot afford to ignore in their hour of hurt. We are told by our Lord that we are to feed those who are hungry, and visit those who are sick. Well, here they are. They ought not to have to go through these sufferings by themselves. Very soon, at least in England, many of them will lose their church buildings, the clergy may well lose their income… everything will seem to be very unstable. They could at least use our empathy and perhaps more.
   Thirdly, I write this because it appears to me that there are countless others--besides Anglicans--who are hurt and seeking. Their churches have left them isolated and alone. The music has changed to rock bands, and emotional owing and awing. Worship has become entirely casual and lost its experience of the transcendent God. Mores and values have shifted and things which once were called sin are now being thought of as alternative lifestyles. The Scriptures have lost their formative power in many churches because one may interpret them as one likes. People are hungry for what they know not, and it is our duty to feed them with real food.
   This means we need to eat what is healthy for us, lest we give sweets and pies to those who need meat. We need to know our faith and know it as authentic and authoritative. There can be no compromising it, for if we should do so, again we would give nothing solid to those in want. The Faith of Christ is the only answer that there is. It is the only food that will truly nourish and we must give it to all who are in need.
   Pray for the Anglicans who are in such difficulty. Look for all those who need to be fed and give them a sip from the fountain of life. It is nothing but an act of mercy and our duty.

Universality

2010-07-10T11:11:00.002-04:00

The topic of universality is thorny for an Orthodox. At least it strikes me that most Orthodox find it so. We're so comfortable in our own little communities. The Turks forced the Orthodox live in their own little ethnic ghettos and forbad them to evangelize. This was of course enforced by execution. The trouble is that it seems Orthodox have become too adapted to this truncated inauthentic life. Is universality really a necessity? And what is it?
   I would say that universality is posited in the Cross itself. As St. Paul said, there is "one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Eph. 4:4-5 The redemptive Cross--and therefore, our entire Faith--is universal. It is for all mankind. Universality is axiomatic with the singular Christ, who is the only lover of mankind. What does this imply? Surely one of the basic premises is that the Gospel is for all and the personal possession of none. The Gospel is the possession of Christ himself and we are simply incorporated into his life, his body, his Church. We become members of the new organic Adam, not the possessors of a subjective thing.
   It is very easy to fall prey to a hidden false notion of universality too. We can easily substitute the notion of a global existence for that of universality. Merely global existence is not universality. It is too small and far too narrow. For example, we can think of corporations that have global markets and offices around the globe. Every office is an extension of the "home office" and they carry--to a very large degree--the culture of the home office. For economic structures this has proven profitable and desirable, but this is not universality. The singular corporate culture of a FedEx is not a good analog of the Christian Faith. Christianity is a radical organic incorporation into the singular body of Christ. Global corporations extend into other markets by hiring of individuals (not incorporating them organically). The corporation receives the financial rewards of this extension, while the employees receive remuneration for their work.
   I am not at all anti-free trade, or mercantilism, or capitalism. It is a financial system that works. And when it has a moral compass, it works magnificently well for all concerned. Those who take the greater risks receive the greater rewards. Those who want more security (and security can never be guaranteed) receive only what they bargain for--their wages and some benefits. That's solid.
  But Christianity is not about putting forward an enterprise wherein the "home office" reaps the majority of benefits because it risked the most. Christ not only risked, he offered himself as a living sacrifice. Then he asks us to sacrifice ourselves in his love even for our enemies. He wants us to become lovers like him. This incorporation into his life is not limited to anyone in the world. They are not required to reflect the culture of a distant office because they are incorporated personally into the very source of the Church's life.
   This gets to the heart of what I think is difficult for us to grasp sometimes in the Church. Every culture is not simply allowed to bring in a couple of items from their heritage, but if they are going to be authentically Christian, they must bring in their entire cultural heritage. Some people get very nervous about this. "But, Father, some of these things came about after the schism!" Or, "Father, some of these things just don't fit!" Well, it seems to me that we can allow God to be God. Let's give him the freedom to be God and get that burden off of ourselves. In the parable of the vinedresser, and in the parable about the wheat and tares, our Lord clearly points out that it will be him who will divide the good and the bad. And he has repeatedly done that throughout the Church's history. There has been constant pruning. We don't need to be frightened or threatened for our goal is not any sort of cultural domination, but union with Christ.
   I have said before that I can't be an Arab. It doesn't mean that I don't love the Arabic culture (I do), it doesn't mean that I don't enjoy it (I do). I simply means that it is not my own and it can never be. To reject my own culture and heritage would be to reject and dishonor my father, my grandparents, and all of my family. They shaped me and made me who I am--for better and worse. I can not be other than who I am and to pretend to be other is to lose my own identity. I would never ask that of anyone.
   But our unity is found in the one Christ and in his one Body. We have the same Faith and everything else is open to us. The Church does the same thing in all places, but she does them differently. The Divine Liturgy is done slightly differently by the Russians compared to us. The Copts do it altogether differently from us. The Latins (and our Western Rite Orthodox) do differently still. But what they are doing is the same (because of the same Lord). It is only how they do it that is different. The Church should rejoice in this incredible diversity because it the sign of Christ's own universality. It is the sign the Christ calls all to unity with him from where they are. He does not call us simply to conform, but to be incorporated.
   The Church must remember her universality and reject a simple global vision. This is actually a dogmatic issue that is supported by the Creed, the Symbol of Faith, for every time we recite the Creed we say, "I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." Catholic is commonly translated universal. It is erroneously thought of as a simply collective term meaning "all christians". It means more than that. It is more than global. It is truly universal, reaching past time, space, and across all cultures. It must be so because Christ himself does so.
   I write this because I have often seen more of a global vision among we Orthodox. We seem pleased that we exist across the world and then we expect everyone coming to us to Hellenize, or Arabacize, or Russianize depending upon where the "home office (patriarchate)" is. This is a perversion of Christianity. We must re-embrace the universal mind again. We must be willing to risk and sacrifice ourselves in love of Christ and our neighbor. What I have been writing of late may well prove to be unpopular among some of my brethren. It may cause some friction for me--in part because I won't say these things anonymously with cowardice. Nevertheless, I believe these things come from the essential foundation of the Faith established by Christ himself. Let us all embrace that one Lord and each other.

Is God at Work Again?

2010-07-05T16:11:00.002-04:00

I returned Saturday evening from the Parish Life Conference (for those of you who are not Antiochian Orthodox, it is our rough equivalent of a Diocesan Conference). At the clergy meeting on Wednesday evening I heard something that I wasn't sure that I had actually heard. I was startled, stunned, and paradoxically thrilled and filled with angst at the same time. His Grace was speaking about the recent National Assembly of Bishops (Orthodox) and their work. Much of this I had already heard, but had not spoken of much because I continued to hear things that are better not the discussion of large groups. After all, the questions that the bishops are discussing really stand solely within the purview of the bishops.
   On Saturday, before I left Perrysburg (the suburb of Toledo, Ohio where the event was hosted), I asked one of my brother priests who seemed to be more "in the know" than myself. He has always been much more active in these areas than myself. Following our conversation I was utterly floored. So what was it that I had heard, first on Wednesday and then reiterated on Saturday? I heard that it is thought within five years there will be only one jurisdiction of Orthodox in the United States. There will no longer be a Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, and an Antiochian Archdiocese, and an Orthodox Church in America... There will only be the Orthodox Church. But this is not simply an American concern alone. In truth it will be a world-wide action effecting Australia, Central America, South America, England, Europe and so on.
   The details will prove to be some of the great hiccups I am sure. Diocesan borders will be redrawn and restructured. There will be a singular guideline for all the priests in the country rather than seeing it vary in every jurisdiction. Admittedly there will be a period of transition that will naturally cause no little tension. What of the calendar? Will that be a source of unity, or will there be old calendar (Julian) and new calendar parishes still? Just the selection of a revised Julian calendar has caused a terrible schism within the Orthodox Church since the 1920s. Only time will be able to tell exactly what will happen, but five years is a very short time indeed.
   One of my personal difficulties, and I have to be frank about this, is that it appears that everything will be under Constantinople. There is some logic to this. After all a recent study states that 80% of the Orthodox in the United States are already in the Greek Archdiocese. If they have those numbers, then naturally they should have the lion's share of say. Of course, it is being handled with a different sense. The natural presvia (or order given clergy and local churches) is being followed. Therefore the Greeks as representing the Ecumenical Patriarch -- who anciently second only to Rome -- is given the seat of honor, followed by Antioch (since Alexandria has no churches here), and on down the line. I said I had personal difficulties with this, and I do, but I'll save those thoughts for another post.
   Having a singular jurisdiction would be a very healthy development in Orthodoxy here and elsewhere. Yet I can't help to think that this is only part of something that is much larger. We are tempted to look only at our own countries, or only at the Orthodox Church in isolation to what seems to be happening in the larger scene. When I view the scene of Christianity on the largest possible scale, I get the distinct intuition that God the Holy Spirit is incredibly active right now. Of course, God is always active, but there are moments that his activity seems more perceptible.
   Consider these things a components or signs of something profound happening:

The Orthodox Church is working on getting her house in order (trying to reconcile the scandal of multiple jurisdictions in many countries).
Both Moscow and Constantinople have had very positive and warm meetings with Rome.
Moscow has publicly given support to Pope Benedict XIV recently in Rome, and has called for greater work together with Rome on commonly held concerns.
The recent agreed statement produced at Ravena (and that which has been leaked from Cyprus) between the Orthodox and Catholics is incredible.
Pope Benedict XVI issue the motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum, which gave very liberal and broad license to priests to celebrate the 1962 Latin Mass. This is a very significant item because it helps to show the Orthodox that the Catholic Church is officially holding in a line of "continuity" rather than of "disruption". Perhaps it doesn't need to be stated that this was one of the things that Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev brought up as important when he met with the Pope.
Pope Benedict XVI's stunning Apostolic Constitution, Anglicanorum Coetibus, which makes it possible in the very near future for Anglicans to enter into communion with the Catholic Church whilst keeping the great treasure of their patrimony shows the genuine sense that the Holy Father has of being the pivot of unity for the universal Church. He seems quite content to allow diversity in unity and is completely unthreatened by it -- provided there is theological unity (recall again the agreements of Ravena and Cyprus here).
The Western world is dying because of many spiritual and moral diseases, but perhaps more than anything else because of the loss of the organic and sacramental unity of the Church: Eastern and Western. The desire to work together would seem to be a hint that maybe we understand this.
The Roman Catholic Church has a nascent recovery of some of her tradition and liturgical beauty at the moment. Although this is still small, one leading priest in this area continually reminds the faithful that this will be brought back together "brick by brick." Deo volunte!
Finally there is the continual disintegration of non-historic Christianity into mere entertainment, leaving many of their faithful looking for something that is stabile, substantial, historic and real.

   Fr. John Richard Neuhaus wrote a marvelous book in the 1980s called "The Catholic Moment." It was, like so much of what he wrote, incredibly insightful. However, I think that the moment that we might be seeing is not simply a moment for the Church of Rome, but for the entire Church Catholic (East and West). I have a suspicion that Orthodox unity is being pressed forward, perhaps unconsciously, to make ready for a reunification of the Church.
   There will be many who would not be able to make a journey to unity and union. Some are liberal Roman Catholics (I'd prefer to say heterodox, or even heretical rather than liberal) who are ably represented by the likes of the Tablet, or the National Catholic Review. Some are the extreme views taken by some monastics referred to by the Archbishop of Cyprus as the Orthodox taliban. Old Calendarists would not enter into reconciliation. Perhaps the inclusion of the Orthodox would make certain of the Society of Saint Pius X refrain from unity.
   Nevertheless, I think that God might well be at work to bring us back together. The reunion would bring more joy to my heart than I could possibly express. I pray for this every day. I hope for it every hour. I dream of it every minute.

Let's get a life…

2010-06-25T11:00:00.000-04:00

I can sometimes be a little shrill in my posts. It is a great temptation to stand in the wilderness of modern life, put on our spiritual camel hair and shout to the sky. This is certainly needed at times. After all the first word of our Lord's public ministry was, "Repent." If we are to follow our Master, then we can not avoid the necessary task of calling our people to repentance. But underneath the call to change our lives and our souls was something deeper. It was not simply a moral adjustment, it was an invitation to something far more sweeping. It was an invitation to life.

Yesterday I felt absolutely awful. My lungs were still filled with plaster dust from working on a local Habitat for Humanity project and consequently my throat hurt and I could speak with difficulty. A burst and open blister in the palm of my right hand pained me, and the soreness of the rest of my body didn't help. And I got a stye on my right eye just to irritate me I suppose. (I would suggest to any younger reader to stop aging now before it's too late! I know a little gray hair is exotic and appealing, but don't do it! You'll regret it!) When I finished praying my final office I lay on my bed under the ceiling fan to try and get a little rest before beginning all over again today.

In spite of my discomfort, I remember having a wonderful warmth of heart. I love life. We can easily get down or irritated about what is going on around us that is wrong, but we ought not to forget how wonderful life is, how magnificent Christian life is. The life I enjoy is not simply to breathe and eat… all of the air I breathe gets burnt, and all that I eat goes out in the draft. That sort of life is simply the mechanics that allow me to continue existing. No, real life is being able to experience God in all that we do. It is to know his intimate presence with us and in us at every moment.

Real life allows me to see the sunrise and know that in it God is greeting me and painting a unique canvas to behold of his life. It allows me to see all creation as a gift and a love poem between Creator and creature. Real life drives all of my external sensual experiences into my heart as internal communion with God the Holy Trinity. Life is joy, because life is no longer divided into compartments and isolation. It makes all discomfort fade into little more than a little irritation because it is no longer central in our hearts.

This is why we repent, that we might have life. Part of repentance is moving ourselves out of our hearts and building a shrine, an altar, to God there, that he might dwell in it and we might receive him there. It is union, communion. It is this inward orientation that allows us to see the truth of the Eucharistic mystery. It is this sense of life that allowed the early martyrs to sing praises to God as they were being brutally tortured to death. They had found life--not as an escape from this world--but as the complete consummation of this world, the integration of things heavenly, earthly and divine. The hearts were filled with what the universe can not contain and it is Life, and Light.

I love Life! Lord, help me to constantly strip off this living death with which I so quickly clothe myself. Open my eyes to your never ending call to you in my heart. Allow me to see your handiwork and praise you. "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me."

Oklahoma and Sharia Law

2010-06-19T09:38:00.001-04:00

Last night I saw an Oklahoma congressman (for their state legislature) who has cosponsored a proposition to amend their state constitution which will prohibit their judicial system from considering precedents or components of international or sharia law. It is admittedly a preemptive strike against Muslims trying to create room for Sharia law in the United States. This is being done against the background of the imam who has written that he desires the US to become more Sharia compliant in its legal system and the sad acceptance of Sharia law in some capacity in the United Kingdom.

I am thrilled with this Oklahoma proposition. The congressman also stated that he believes many states will have similar propositions put forward in the next few months. I trust that my native state will present such very soon as well... at least I hope so. I rather doubt that Michigan will be able to do so with the very large Muslim population in the Detroit area, but I might be surprised.

Why is this an important issue? Well, first of all I believe that when someone immigrates to a country they must acculturate to their new country. If they don't like something there they ought to be reminded that they were not asked to come and they knew what was here.

There is also a very important principle of law itself. The United States is a sovereign nation. She has her own laws which are based upon a very long tradition--reaching back to the Magna Carta in England in the 12th century. Our law, except for Louisiana, is English law and it incorporates English common law. This system was based on two principles. The first principle was that of ancient Rome which was the wonder of the ancient world. Roman law forms the core of all western civilizations and it is an essential component of our culture. The second component is probably more important, and that is Christianity. Our legal system developed within a Christian culture and it has Christian values. This is why Muslims don't want our system. They insist on Islamicizing everywhere they go.

In the last few years I have personally become much more Euro-centric. It is the womb of my own culture and I would suggest that it has been no accident that western culture and society has become the dominant one throughout the world. It's music, its literature, its law are seen everywhere. I have to say honestly, that I believe it is superior. Apart from anthropologists and their views, I think it would be hard to say that our musical tradition (Mozart, Beethoven, Bach…) isn't superior to other music.

Sharia law is an opening shot and we should not let it be rammed into the barrel. If they are unhappy about not being allowed to use a competing legal system in our sovereign nation, then they can pack their bags and get the hell out.

How Rosey it all Seems

2010-06-18T08:43:00.000-04:00

All of the Orthodox bishops of North America met recently and the reports all seem quite rosey. I suppose I'm a bit of a curmudgeon but I have more than a suspicion that not everything is a grand as is being said in official and public statements. I'm told that Archbishop Demitrius (of the Greek Archdiocese) more than ably presided at the Assembly and actually kept to the agenda as published. I admire his ability in this.
   But it still strikes me that it is certainly early days and that a lot is left to do. The local diocesan and archdiocesan practices vary a great deal and this will need to be addressed... the list is actually a long one. But the fly in the ointment seems to be how the OCA (Orthodox Church in America--of Russian background) will be handled. I suspect that it will be a real fight on the administrative council's level which may actually cause the formation of two assemblies. Bismark was right about politics and sausage being something that is best not watched as it's made.
   Orthodox unity is an ugly business and I have to say that it causes me quite a bit of heartburn these days. Unity is one of the absolutely foundational aspects of the Church (we do proclaim after all that we believe in the "ONE, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.") For years I have had to teach my catechumens that unity must exist on three levels when it is perfect: (1) Sacramental unity, (2) Theological unity, and (3) Administrative unity. I have also been forced to admit that we have imperfect unity since we lack the complete administrative unity that the Church should possess. Administrative unity is not a tiny thing either. It is a matter of the very organizational life of the Church. The early church very quickly made canon laws that prescribed particular things to the ordering of church life. We can even say, without too much of a stretch, that the Apostolic council in Jerusalem which dealt with the issue of the Gentiles in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles issued a sort of canon law and ordered the life of the Church. We ought not to trivialize administrative unity.
   We surely have sacramental unity with each other. We also have theological unity, but here I would say that it exists more in the form of consensus rather than as an absolute, like all communities there are some clergy who appropriate this better than others. But it must be admitted that we Orthodox do generally a better job here than most. This is significant too, for it has formed the basis of our unity (along with the sacramental life of the Church) for centuries. It is one of our strengths. But organization or administrative clearness is not one of our strengths at all. One of my favorite lines is "if you don't believe in organized religion, then you need to become Orthodox because we're not organized at all!" A lot of truth there.
   Here I'm probably going to irritate or upset people, but I believe that it is true that the lack of organization is also one of the signs that we need the "other lung" of the historic Church: Rome. Rome is absolutely organized clearly. The boundaries are clearly drawn and they are well known. One might not agree with all of the particulars (I'm not sure what they might be that one would disagree with, but I'm sure some would) but bad rules are better than no rules.
   But Rome has had some troubles too, but they are different than those of the Orthodox. Rome can organize but there has developed over the past forty to fifty years a great decline in unity of belief. How else can one explain a Catholic nun allowing an abortion in a Catholic hospital? or nuns pushing for women's ordination when the pope has said it is a closed matter? or clergy like Fr. Matthew Fox, who is completely immersed in new age religion? or Catholic Universities that do not teach the official faith of the Church? The problems are there and they are real. My admiration of Pope Benedict XIV and his work to correct these things is enormous. He is a virtuous and godly man, as well as a good theologian. But I believe that Pope Benedict XIV needs us to help.
   Where the East lacks, Rome is stable; where Rome is wanting, the East is strong. I believe that we actually need each other. But it ought not be surprising nor scandalous because our Lord himself desired that the Church be one. The Church indeed needs to have both lungs so that it may breathe healthily again. The reunion of the Orthodox and Rome is also the greatest fear of Islam and of those who hate Christianity. A unified Christian Church would be powerful and strong. I pray for this daily. It is one of my greatest desires. I also believe that the only ecumenical discussions that are of any real substantive value for either us or Rome, is the one with each other.
   The new National Assembly of Orthodox bishops is a good step. It all has been described in rosey colors, but my suspicion is that real Orthodox administrative unity is ultimately going to be found with real unity with the West. It is the West's charism, not ours.

Life in the Gray Zone

2010-05-28T14:23:00.000-04:00

Recently, I saw a poll that pointed out where people are regarding moral issues in the US. I wasn't particularly surprised but it got me thinking that about where the root of the problem is and I think I might have stumbled onto something in my reflection. Let me know what you think.
   Our trouble is that we don't really believe in God. I'm not speaking about atheists, but Christians in general. We tend to believe in a great law giver, where everything is black or white, absolutely right or absolutely wrong. That's where our minds are, but our experience is more in the gray. This leads us to great difficulties with what we perceive as an absolutist position on anything, because we tend to experience everything in a haze… life is lived in the gray zone. And we make the gray even more hazy for ourselves because we bring our emotions into it and confuse things even more.
   You see, I think we believe in "right" and "wrong" in the same way we think of criminal law. I would suggest that we don't even have a grasp of criminal law anymore because we have lost what law is an outgrowth of in Christian lands.
   Let me explain. Right, truth, life, light, glory, etc. are personal attributes of God. We usually separate them from him in an abstracted way. They can't really be done that way though. To do right is always to choose to follow Christ as best we can in all circumstances. This requires us to recognize that the world is fallen and that sometimes we don't get to choose absolutes. We have to choose the best choice available and know that it is not perfect. But in doing so we still are choosing God. We are choosing him--although he is obscured from full view. We are trying to love him in all that we do.
   We also have to recognize that our fallenness keeps us from being able to see the truth with absolute clarity. So it is that we need to receive counsel from other Christians who are mature in their faith (not just Joe in the pew over from us, but from one who is spiritually advanced with the fruits of that showing forth). We need to seek to purify our minds and hearts so that we can see God more clearly. If we can't navigate our way through moral questions, then it may not be the issue that is the problem but our perception and understanding that needs enlightening. But repentance requires a complete trust in God. It requires faith because it is throwing oneself off a cliff into God's mercy. Repentance is to fly without the nets of our own comfort. God is a consuming fire... the fire of love.
   We also need to come to understand that all of the commandments that our Lord gives us (in the Old and New Testaments and through his Body the Church) are revelations of himself. God says, "Thou shalt not steal" because he has no avarice or kleptomania in himself. God says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" because he is faithful. He wants us to be like him in all things. "Be ye perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect." Laws are a revelation of the goodness of God and a revelation of what we are to become as well.
   If we truly loved God, we would constantly seek his face in all that we do. We would desire to move towards him at every moment and every decision. Life in the gray zone is our potential to love God or despise him without any coercion at all. We are free to move to the Kingdom of God or away from it. This is why it is gray and not so easily deciphered. It is also why it represents the most critical struggle of our lives. Honestly, very few of our decisions are good vs. evil (though the consequences always are). Mostly we have to decide between two alternative goods and choose which one is the real good. What will be our basis of choice? Will we decide this one looks good because I will enjoy it more, or will we choose the other because there are fewer obstacles placed between it and our love of God?
   In the gray zone we find out if we really believe in God or not. Most of the time, I think we believe in ourselves and our own comfort, or, being compassionate people, we choose to make others comfortable rather than point them towards holiness. But the more I consider it, the more I recognize that the gray zone is a luminous haze that reveals more than it lets on.

The Essential Question: What is Truth?

2010-05-26T13:30:00.001-04:00

While reading one of the blogs I check up on, I read a magnificent piece that describes the essential difference between the Protestant mind and the Catholic mind (we Orthodox think the same way as the Catholics here). It was written by a Roman Catholic priest, Fr. Seán Finnegan, as part of a post regarding the historical discussions between Anglicans and Roman Catholics and what has been at the root of the problem. He says, I think rightly, that it has to do with the essential definition of truth.

The most important issue that should have been examined first is the nature of truth, and how we are to arrive at it. For a Protestant, a Christian himself (or herself) reads the Bible, and, illuminated by the Holy Spirit, and helped by the witness of tradition (for some) and reason, discerns God’s truth for himself. Within this system, there has to be a fair degree of toleration of difference, because Protestants had discovered within a couple of years that two earnest Protestants are going to have two different interpretations of pretty fundamental doctrines, and if they aren’t going to end up killing each other (which some did), they are going to have to accept that there can be room for honest doubt. This, I would contend, has eventually given birth to doctrinal liberalism, though it would be a mistake to conclude from this that all Protestants are liberals, though Protestantism is particularly prone to liberalism on the one hand (for the nice people) and bigotry on the other (‘my privately held opinion is better than your privately held opinion’).

To a Catholic mind, our Lord did not come to write a book, but to found a Church through the wisdom of which, guided by the same Holy Spirit, he would continue to guide his Church into all truth. That Church would, inspired by the Holy Spirit, write a book, (the New Testament) but the Church precedes the book and therefore authoritatively interprets it (as the Bible interprets the tradition). It is the Apostles who are to be listened to as one would listen to Christ (Luke 10:16), and the Church holds that they continue to teach through tradition with scripture and through their successors.

I think Fr. Finnegan clearly describes the foundation of the Church from the viewpoint of truth. It is also a description that we as Orthodox should "read, mark, learn and inwardly digest" as the old collect from the Second Sunday of Advent in the Book of Common Prayer used to say, because it gets to some of the great difficulties that we face as Orthodox Christians too.

There seem to be about three different camps of Orthodox currently: (1) what we might call the "ethnic" camp [sometimes thought of as the "old guard'], (2) the middle camp [which includes converts and cradle Orthodox], and (3) the "fundamentalist" camp. There is a terrible battle occurring between the three groups that is tearing us apart. It is not a healthy place to be right now and if it is not healed, I fear that many will leave the Orthodox Church entirely. I classmate of mine in seminary wisely pointed out that, "sometimes it becomes necessary for some to leave the Church for their salvation." When there is little room for prayer, repentance and conversion of life, then one needs to find a place he can do that. If we aren't very careful, we'll see that day sooner rather than later.

What are the battle lines? The first camp brought the Orthodox Church here from oversees. It struggled and sacrificed to plant the Church here. The vision oft times was not so clear, ranging from the vision of a real parish church to a religious social club for "our people." But this camp has always been in charge and run things. It has been generous and open to freely give the faith to those seeking it (at least in the Antiochian Archdiocese). But the Church has changed in the US now and is no longer populated by purely "ethnic" folks. About three-quarters of the clergy in our Archdiocese are converts (or "non-ethnics"). Some estimate that the number of convert laity is perhaps at least fifty percent to seventy percent. As the converts increase, as they give their money, their time, their lives to the Church, they also want to have a larger voice as well. These two groups represent the first big, and in some ways the most significant, clash going on.

It is tremendously important because these two groups have entirely different values of propriety and rectitude. They have different senses of action as well. The great discomfort that we felt last summer largely comes from this collision of cultures. As long as both sides continue to entrench, we will have no peace and will be cast headlong into either a schism or dissolution, or both. This is the source of my great concern for the bishops' meeting that will begin in a couple of weeks. Will they strive to reinforce the "old guard" as the legitimate mind of the Church here? Will they recognize that the Holy Spirit is giving birth to a new ethnic Orthodox people that just happen to be Americans (which necessarily includes all of the groups of immigrants that have come here)? I'm not sure, but the signs are not promising.

I have spoken to a few people who have traveled across the United States recently and visited several parishes. They have told me that the use of the "mother tongue" of the various groups is up, both liturgically and in the parish hall. Discussions have been much more stridently pro-ethnic across the board. My intuition is that this comes from some folks feeling very uneasy and threatened. Power is slipping away... and it must do so.

The third wheel in this group is what has been characterized by the fundamentalist camp. This group has caused a lot of difficulties in our parishes across the board. There is always a tendency to legalism, but there is something else here that is at the heart of the problem I think. Fundamentalism has two sources. The first source is that many people who come into Orthodoxy have not left the Protestant notion of truth behind. They believe that they can define it themselves through a larger group of writings. Monastics become almost modern Apostles. I have had to work with some folks like this before and they are almost impossible to help. They insist that only a really pure monk can give them advise and counsel. They judge everything themselves, rather than accepting life from the Church. The Protestant mind cannot be brought into the Church if one is to be healthy.

There is another source of fundamentalism though, and it is subtler. Many converts find it distressing to be asked, "What made you become a Greek (or Arab, or Russian, name your flavor)?" They didn't realize they were doing any such thing. After a while of having their own heritage pushed to the side, one of the choices for them is to reject a purely modern ethnicity in favor of one defined by an odd sort of fundamentalism. I don't think it works very well, because one ends up having to be some sort of fundamentalist--Greek or Russian or whatever. Either way, one loses himself.

At the heart of the matter is the question of truth, which is why I think Fr. Finnegan's entry is so important. We must recognize that the Church comes before any of these groups. The Church itself is absolutely universal and that no ethnic group can lord it over the others. If any one group is to have the upper hand, in the long run it must be the local group, whatever that is. Otherwise the Church is nothing but a romantic enclave of what we knew "back there". (To the fundamentalist it would be a romantic enclave of what the Church is like "on Mount Athos" or 19th century Russia, or whatever their foundation is.)

We are at a critical moment. We must pray that the Holy Spirit guides our fathers, the bishops, that they will be inspired and moved according to his will and not theirs. We must hope that the Church embraces the Universal reality with which she was created and not move to a backwards entrenchment--as comfortable as that might be to some.

I don't know what the future will be for us. I can't even honestly say what the future will be for ME. Our salvation is all that matters. Our growth in Christ and in his Church are essential, nothing else is.

I've been a little negligent...

2010-05-21T09:47:00.000-04:00

But I promise this weekend to get back in gear. I'll be posting more generalized content on PadreTex from now on. This will concern the Christian life in general. What I will no longer post here are items related to the Western Rite, not because anyone has been upset with my comments on these things or even said anything in the least bit negative. Rather, I am creating a new blog just for those issues. I am hopeful that this will make this blog more useful and helpful to the faithful of St. George (and others too).

The other blog, "PadreTex Born in the West" will allow me to make even more specific comments about the Western Rite, as well as suggestions and so forth. All who know me, know that I love that Rite and am committed to seeing it thrive, but it seems to be in some difficult times at the moment. Some will say that it has always seemed so, but that surely is an overstatement. Well, much of this is little post is more applicable to the new blog, so I'll cease.

I hope that you will feel welcome to drop in on the other one from time to time. I also hope this will allow me to better wear the right hat at the right time!

I've been in a nostalgic mood lately...

2010-05-06T17:19:00.000-04:00

And so I’ve been thinking about what I truly miss about the sort of Anglicanism that I knew and loved so deeply. It seems obvious that it no longer exists, but that’s not really the point… and I do think that there is a point somewhere that should reveal itself by the end of this post.
   First I suppose I ought to say what sort of Anglican I was since there seem to be a multitude of varieties, especially nowadays. I was an old-fashioned Anglo-Catholic, or perhaps even more pointed, an Anglo-Papalist. I "read, marked, learned and inwardly digested" Rev. Dr. Francis Hall’s ten volume series on Dogmatic Theology (and I still treasure my copy of these volumes). I studied and mastered Ritual Notes, 8th and 11th editions, and later began to learn Fortescue’s Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described and other books that are referenced and footnoted in Ritual Notes. My heart treasured the 1940 Hymnal--which is arguably the best hymnal ever published. The simple Gregorian settings to the propers and ordinary of the Mass still give me great peace. It ought to be clear that I was not the ordinary sort of Episcopalian one finds in the U.S. It is true that as a child the parishes that I attended were certainly more from the mainstream of American Anglicanism, yet it was when I joined St. Timothy’s as a young adult that I was actually “formed” into my current spiritual shape.
   But I've not been particularly nostalgic about being an Episcopalian at all. That holds no attraction to me. It is rather the way the Christian life was lived and experienced in what I think of as my “home parish” that still has a profound and continuing influence on me. This is still my vision of Christian life. I cannot shake it. I will not even attempt to do so because I know that it is absolutely true and godly. So what are these irreducible foundation stones that I carry in my heart. (I know this is personal and perhaps too much so. My friends who know me well already know most of this. My parishioners should probably know more clearly “what makes me tick,” because it does effect them directly)
   First of all, I have to start with what must be called the Catholic vision. As an Anglo-Catholic, the Catholic vision was essential to our life. It focussed us on building authentic communities where we lived. They were often largely mixed groups of people who perhaps would never come together otherwise. My home parish was largely a group of blue-collar Texans. But we also had a few real academics (one whom was fluent in 47 languages, most of which were dead). We had a couple of doctors, maybe one attorney. We had policemen and almost any sort of worker you would care to mention. But we were also from a broad racial and ethnic grouping. We were white, black, hispanic, English, French, Irish, Scot, Slavic… What was critically important to us that when we entered the doors of the church and genuflected to Christ on the altar, we were one. We believed the same Faith. We shared a common liturgical experience. No group was more important than any other. The Catholic vision is that the Christian Faith is for all people, in all places, in all times. Each people will manifest this beautiful treasure in a way that is unique to them, but it will also be so profoundly the same as everywhere else. I long for the deep sense of diversity in (complete theological and sacramental) unity again. I'm not speaking of agreeing to get along. I really do mean complete unity on the essential theological and sacramental core. This is what I would call the Catholic vision, and it one that I learned at St. Timothy’s and that I still hold. It is the Apostolic experience and faith.

   It is natural that worship is another area that would move me to deep nostalgia. (The picture at right was taken at St. Timothy’s when my mentor retired--the late Fr. George M. Acker, S.S.C., he is doing the censing.) It is tragic to say that I'm not sure that I have prayed as deeply, as completely, or as regularly as I did then. I remember saying the offices (the Divine Hours) daily then. They were simple enough to say quietly by myself every day, whereas the Eastern Offices are far too complicated for me to do so. Maybe that’s a personal thing though, I know some who can, I’m just not one of them. I was present at Solemn High Mass every Sunday, every feast of Holy Obligation, and at least once a week in addition. I went to Stations of the Cross and Benediction during Lent, waited in line to make my confession on Saturdays (there really was a waiting line at that time!). There is something so gloriously practicable about the Western liturgical life. It truly can become something that is “daily”. A feast day liturgy in the Eastern rite takes a cast of thousands and it can sometimes mean a priest is busier than a one-armed paper hanger. That' not particularly prayerful for the priest.
   Music was also important to me. The hymns that we sang were solid old-fashioned hymns with the organ shaking the windows. The entire parish would take up their beloved 1940 Hymnal and belt out the hymns. One didn’t just show up at Mass and take a seat. One sang and responded! Oh my how I miss that. The entire congregation would sing the hymns that were assigned as well as the ordinary hymns that were sung week by week (like the Asperges me, the Kyrie, the Creed, etc.). We all largely had it memorized, so a sure sign that you were a visitor was if you picked up the service book. The choir would sing motets and anthems, often in Latin, at various points in the Mass. Our music was not the sort of dodgy, folksy, sentimental, contemporary drivel that one commonly hears nowadays. It was beautiful (often classical), theologically solid stuff. In music we were different from Roman Catholics because we didn't go in for folk masses, and the entire parish sang the music (except for the changing propers which the chanters sang). Worship was offered by us all. I heard it said that Anglicans were an odd mix, at least musically, of Methodists and Catholics. I'm not sure that’s entirely true. There is a unique “Anglican” sound. While reading about music in pre-Reformation England, I found that the English people were a very musical bunch. The parishioners did indeed sing out, and they expected the chant to be sung by the parish clerk and priest. This has been laudably inherited among all Anglicans I think. The Anglo-catholic used the hymnal but also used historic Gregorian chant too. I can't begin to tell you what a rich combination this was: hymns from the common period; Gregorian chant; Classical motets and anthems…
   Another element for me was beautiful language. If you couldn't tell, I love good English. I love elegant, hieratical prose. It is beyond dispute that the most beautiful English prayers ever composed in the English world come from the Book of Common Prayer (BCP). The BCP along with the King James Version of the Bible (or the Authorized Version, if you please) represent the height of liturgical language in English. If one adds the works of Shakespeare to the other two, one would have to acknowledge that these three form the basis of modern English. The graciousness and felicity of the English tongue is fecund in the pen of Cranmer those who translated the Scriptures. Contemporary liturgical language stops my heart cold. Some may not find contemporary language so halting, but surely none would disagree that one of the greatest blessings that Anglicans gave the world was “Prayer Book” English.

   There was also a tremendous love for pomp and ceremony. We were the inheritors of an English culture after all. At St. Timothy’s the greatest procession was on Palm Sunday (that should sound familiar to most of the Arabic Orthodox who find that to be the most wonderful day to show up if they don’t do so at any other time). But it was not a little affair. It started down the street from the church, it had a donkey under a canopy (representing Christ’s presence among us), a Roman soldier on horseback at the head of the procession, Roman soldiers on the roof of the church with pikes and shields, forty to fifty children bearing branches and several hundred faithful. The street had to be closed as the billowing incense of two thuribles (censers) were swung in the lovely “Queen Anne” pattern used for high days. Inside the church was a section of brass playing us down the aisle in our figure-eight procession indoors to the hymn, “All glory, laud and honour, to thee Redeemer King…” Pageant was enjoyed by all not as spectacle (and it was that--after all the local television stations usually came to film the procession each year for the evening news). It was thrilled to because it was our overflowing love for God. We did these things because it was the only way to approximate our joy and belief. The processions were joined by everyone. They weren't simply occasions for pictures as we “oooed and ahhhed” at the children. The children were part of the procession and so were all of the adults. I miss that too.
   But I would be remiss if I didn't point out another thing that is so essential to that life that I loved (and still love). It is silence, quiet. We didn't talk in the church, no, not a word. We didn't speak until we were outside the doors of the church. The church itself was a holy space filled with prayer and the palpable presence of God. We came to be in his presence. Socializing was kept for the church hall down the walk. To quietly enter the church during the week and go to the Mary shrine to pray, light a candle, then genuflect to Christ is so simple a thing that it seems too obvious to write down. But this simple little action personifies in a profound way part of the life we had. It was in fact, it's central core. It is an awareness of the presence of God and our homely approach to him. This makes for a deeply intimate life. But it can never come about without quiet first being developed by the entire community.
   What treasures! What riches: a Catholic vision of life of diversity in theological and sacramental unity; serious and dedicated worship; a “daily and practicable” quality of worship; a rich varied musical heritage wherein everyone participates with whole voice; elevated language that hints at the mystery and beauty of God; ceremonial that can unite the entire parish in pageantry and solemnity; and a quiet, recollected life. This is a tapestry that I'm not sure can ever be bettered… at least for me. It still directs my vision and actions. It still stirs my soul and heart. There are many who are currently asking and trying to figure out what the Anglican patrimony is because of the recent Anglicanorum coetibus promulgated by the Pope. For my part, anything that would diminish any of these elements would seem to miss the mark.

Back from Vacation

2010-04-19T11:38:00.002-04:00

Well, it was a wonderful time. Last week I was able to get back to Texas and visit family and well-visited places: the Botanic Gardens, the Japanese Gardens, the Fort Worth Zoo, the Kimbell Museum… It was wonderful. (And yes, I had bar-b-que brisket, Tex-Mex and all of my “ethnic food.”) I especially loved the Gardens and the Kimbell Museum.
   I can’t begin to say how much I missed the Kimbell. I used to visit it at least once every two or three weeks for years. Many of the pieces in the permanent collection are like old friends to me. How enriching it is to view masterworks of art. The latest acquisition by the Kimbell Museum is the first panel painting of Michaelangelo, The Torment of St. Anthony.
   Michaelangelo painted this at the age of 12, using materials given to him by a friend. At this time Michaelangelo had not even entered a studio to begin his formal education as an artist. It is not a large panel, 18-1/2 x 13-1/4 in, but it is powerfully painted in tempera and oil on a wooden panel. The precision of draughtsmanship is meticulous and exacting. The color is enchanting. I spent some time looking at this work and admiring the artistic skill of the young master. I was also struck by the incredible difference between the young Michaelangelo and those who believe that they are master artists these days. Craftsmanship is the absolutely necessary foundation of any attempt at art. Having been a painting/drawing major originally, I can personally attest to the fact that most of the time in art schools students are now encouraged to be “expressive,” and “creative.” How absurd. An artist cannot be creative until he has mastered his craft. Consider that Michaelangelo--after this work, which is superlative--then entered into years of formal study.
   Does this have any value for us today? I think so. The entire system of education has also fallen into the same lack of discipline as has the art schools. Those of us who are older can remember having to learn how to spell accurately (okay, I admit that I have an inordinate number of typos, but believe me, I can spell though I can't type!). I have seen papers written by high school students and college students and have been dumbfounded at the lack of such essential fundamentals. Their grasp of history and the facts and figures that provide the historian his data for historical interpretation is appalling. And yet, these same students are asked to speak intelligently. How can they possibly do so?
   One of my daughter’s friends was assigned in a journalism class to interview people whom she thought was heroic and making a difference in our world. She decided to interview Mary because Mary is entering the U.S. Navy this summer. The list of questions revealed the orientation of the professor. They were all incredibly liberally biased. When my daughter disagreed with the basic premise of the professor and gave solid, well-thought out responses to the questions, her friend was told that Mary was not an appropriate person to interview. Hmmm. Why? Was it because Mary said she tries to base her life on the Church’s life? Was it because she strongly opposed abortion? Was it because she gave some rather pointed and well-supported rebuttals to liberal political philosophy? I was under the impression that a “liberal” education was one in which one is deliberately exposed to a large breadth of views. Isn't education supposed to be to teach the student the basic craft of critical thinking, rather than indoctrinating them into a particular world view that is emotionally driven?
   Michaelangelo’s first painting reveals so much to us. His skill, the subject of Saint Anthony’s spiritual torment (which is expressed in this physical and visual means) are easy to see. But the very fact of his early skill added to the fact that he then went on to study is perhaps are critical reminder for us today. If we want to have real artists, real scholars, real creativity, we must get back to teaching and encouraging discipline in basic skills. Craftsmanship must be valued. A craftsman may not be “a genius,” but he is infinitely more worthy than the “genius’s” who have no craftsmanship whom we proclaim these days. Imagine how incredible our gifted would be if they were taught the basics.
   It was a nice vacation. It gave me a chance to think some things out. I love taking time to mull things over and look at them from various sides to better grasp their true shape. For me a vacation can never be simply about entertainment. I needs to include a chance for the mind to plow a new field, or to plow an old one a little more deeply. Many thanks to Michaelangelo for giving me only one of the several points I had this last week to do so.

Christ is Risen!

2010-04-05T18:45:00.004-04:00

It has been a wonderful Holy Week here at Saint George’s. The general attendance was much better this year than it has been in the last several years that I have been here. It was only on Monday and Tuesday evening that we had less than 100 people present (86 and 38 respectively). By the time we came to Holy Wednesday we were pretty well full every night from that point on with no fewer than 150 or so. The Vesperal Liturgy on Saturday morning was lovely (and again, quite full).
   I served every morning at Saint Nicholas Church from Monday through Thursday in addition to all of the services at Saint George. I'm pooped and I find that I'm getting a little older every year. Imagine!
   One might be tempted to say that “it’s finally over!” But what a loss that would be. Yes, the fast is over. Yes, the intensity of the Lenten Services and Holy Week is over. But, in reality, we have now finally come to the beginning. Now it starts! Now everything is new! Now this dying world comes face to face with Life himself, risen from the tomb!
   This is what all of our preparation has been about: the celebration of the Lord’s Resurrection from the dead. This is why we sing the Paschal troparion before and at the end of every service and blessing throughout Paschaltide: “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!” The words are powerful and touch the deepest part of our existence. They reach the core of our nightmares.
   The hymn begins in the tomb, the graveyard. Graveyards have come to been seen as spooky and dark places in our modern culture. They are the stuff of horror movies, all dark and foreboding. But surely this is not the historic understanding of a Christian graveyard. Burial practices are tremendously interesting.
   In many places in the Middle East (so I'm told by a former parishioner who came from the Damascus area) and in Greece the places for burial are very small. The faithful are usually buried within the day of death and are unembalmed. It is a very common custom to bury the departed in the grave for very brief time (perhaps only six months to two years) until they have lost their flesh. The bones are then uncovered and placed carefully and reverently in ossuaries. The skulls are often labeled with the person’s name. All of the skulls are placed together, all of the ribs, the femurs, and so forth. There is deep love and reverence for the departed’s remains. It is also interesting to note that this is one of the reason that the incorrupted remains of the faithful have been found in those parts of the world. One wonders how many have we never found due to our practice of embalming and burial customs?
   In the country of my ancestors, the graves are dug in the lawn around the parish church. To get into the church, one walks through the cemetery. It is well known that there was in Medieval England a very strong notion of death. Figures of skulls and skeletons can be seen in carvings inside the church. The black death scarred the soul and psyche of the English (and all the world) in ways that we can scarcely grasp.
   One of the most interesting scenes that was commonly painted on the walls was called the story of the three Princes. It usually featured three young, handsome princes on a hunting party. In the woods they come upon three corpses in varying degrees of decomposition. Scrolls come from the mouths of the departed to bring the punch to the scene. The first says, "What ye are now, we once were.” The second said, “What we are now, ye shall become.” Pretty sobering thought. There is a long tradition of the remembrance of our death as being necessary for our salvation. Without knowing that we shall only have a brief time of this earth to set our souls for eternity, we should probably never repent and live a righteous and holy life.
   But this is not the sense of the “church yard,” as those cemeteries are called. Church yards were places of respect, solemnity and a secret joy. Joy? Absolutely! This is a common Christian notion that has been understood by the Orthodox since the beginning. In Russia, the custom on Pascha (Easter) is to go to the cemeteries, light candles at the graves of their ancestors and have a family feast! Christian cemeteries are not dark places, but they are places of anticipation. They are places that, if we could see them with the eyes of faith, are beginning to shine forth with the light of Christ even now. Isn’t it interesting that it was not until the “Age of Enlightenment” that cemeteries became the places of trepidation? Perhaps, secular “enlightenment” or scientific knowledge (vs. the Church’s “illumination”) knows that the grave remains unanswered and undefeated in their lives.
   Christ’s resurrection has ended that ancient triad of sin, evil and death. Death has been annihilated! The grave has been mocked! We now go into the graves as those who are united to Life himself. We are joined to Life and so we enter the grave “making our funeral dirge the song, alleluia, alleluia alleluia!” (from our funeral service)
   This does not negate the necessity of us continuing to repent our sins throughout our life, for if we sin, we voluntarily join ourselves to death again. If we sin, we brake the love of Christ and lose Life inside our veins. We need to be realistic, because the moral and ascetical struggle are absolutely essential in this life lest we die and are raised unto “the resurrection of condemnation.” The three Princes stand out clearly here… and they should.
   Yet we need to know that because of the Resurrection, Light has dawned and dispelled the darkness which once reigned. Now, because the Lord is Risen, we have the power of Light and Life. We are raised with him, because we are joined to him in our baptisms. Our failures and falls do not necessarily lead to death. The necessity is ended. We now have the possibility of repentance and life. We can now experience forgiveness and restoration.
   Now it begins! Now we can find hope, even when there seems to be none around the corner. It is no surprise that I am gravely concerned and worried about the state of our current politics and financial lives in the US, but it is not to the degree of being depressed or desperate. And the reason is that Christ is Risen, and Life truly reigns! Let us all then celebrate the Feast of feasts, and Season of seasons, the Resurrection of Christ for the full forty days of the season. Don’t lose that joy because it has defeated this world and death.

Holy Week begins...

2010-03-27T22:27:00.000-04:00

Tomorrow morning we will begin the most solemn week of the Christian Year. It is the week wherein we see our Lord voluntarily submit himself to spitting, scourging, slapping, mocking and crucifixion. It is a week that should cause us to give pause in all of our lives. But I think that we don't usually get the Passion anymore. I think it seems too abstract to most of us.
   I recall one person telling me, and being entirely earnest, that his mother suffered worse than our Lord did. He only suffered for several hours, while she died slowly of cancer for a long time. She did suffer and I would not make light of that at all. But is the Passion of Christ's just a grisly scene of physical torture? That is the opinion of many it seems. And that is what has often been thought to be the great defect of Mel Gibson's movie about the Passion. I for one, think that for a while we had become a little too gnostic and had forgotten the reality of Christ's physical suffering, so I thought the movie was a positive thing.
   But the suffering of Christ was far more profound and painful that we can possibly imagine. And I'm not speaking about a psychological suffering—although that was certainly part of his suffering too. The spiritual aspect of his passion is beyond my imagination. We don't think about that usually. So let's give that a little reflection as we come to the beginning of Holy Week.
   Try to recall the hurt that you have felt in relationships that seem to go just a little awry. We don't understand why someone is angry with us, or why they don't like us (gosh, this seems to be the angst of every teenager that I've ever known—including myself). Yet these pains don't end in our youth do they? We have pains and resentments and injuries that are largely caused by the fact that we are not all Saints and we don't live in a world of Saints. We break each other's love and friendship, and the only thing that can grow when we do this is emptiness and pain, resentment and hate. All of these things are sins. I don't know about you, but sometimes I can recall the memory of pains from my past and it still hurts even now. I'm sure we all do this.
   When our Lord suffered, he experienced every single sin in his own soul. He felt the universal alienation of humanity from God and from each other. I can't bear the thought of my own pain, and when I look into the eyes of those who have suffered far more than I have I, then I can't possibly fathom the depths of suffering. But even more dumbfounding is that Christ experienced and suffered the heartbreak of every mother, father, child, brother, and sister. He experienced within himself the untold suffering from sin of millions of people in his Passion.
   Our Lord is absolutely perfect God and perfect man, and he did not have to suffer at all. There was no death, no sin, no separation in himself from God (himself). Yet he voluntarily took all of our death into himself, and allowed himself to die in love for us.
   Let us recognize that we can in no way understand or plumb the depth of our Lord's Passion anymore than we can understand the mystery of his Resurrection. All we can do is try to enter into them both in our experience of his love for us. And that we begin tomorrow on Palm Sunday.

Should the Church be Involved?

2010-03-22T12:25:00.004-04:00

That was a question I was asked yesterday when I made a comment about the insanity of our Congress and its headlong move towards socialism. “Father, should the Church be involved in the affairs of the world? Shouldn’t it really focus on ‘the things of the spirit’?” It was a very sincere question from a very pious and gentle soul. We talked about it and he quickly understood that what I had said truly was part of the very essential of the Gospel when we were finished. But it got me thinking. How many others are confused about this? Shouldn’t I give some sort of picture frame to it so that we can all better understand it? I think so. I also think that the question is much broader than it usually assumed. The question seems like a miniature painting but it is much more on the order of a large landscape.
   Let’s look at some of the background concerned. When I was a young boy the 1960s were in full swing. Churches became wildly involved in social programs and the “social gospel” was the essence of all their works. It was so common that many people began to assume that this was the real purpose of the Church. Everything in the Church became oriented towards man, his needs, his desires, his political concerns. The social agenda was assumed by many to be the sine qua non of the Church. It was made visibly manifest in the Eucharist life of many of the Western churches by having the priest face the people during the Mass. This was a sign that the people were the focus of the worship. It was a community meal.
   There have been many tragic outcomes from this perspective. One of which is that if the Eucharist is a community meal, and if the community is defined as everyone present, then naturally anyone who attends should be free to receive the meal, holy communion. At its most broad use, I recently heard—from a clergy‘person’—that in the Methodist church, everyone is invited to receive communion when they offer it, even if they are not baptized! The unbaptized are not Christians, how could they possibly be admitted? They call this “the open table.” How bizarre.
   One of the other outcomes is that many of these churches have been so re-oriented by the social agenda that they have now completely confused it with the Gospel of Christ. The Gospel is thoroughly identified with their political and social perspectives. Homosexual unions, ordination of women, the ordination of practicing homosexuals, the church as social reformer (in the modern political sense) are all absolutely inextricably bound to their conscience. They believe that all of these things are positive goods.
   I hope that it is needless to say that I have never been attracted to this sort of religion. I recall in the early 70s when the Episcopal Church had the green trial Prayer Book, that my father was absolutely sickened by it. Gone were the lofty and beauty phrase of Elizabethan English (which we Antiochians still enjoy). The majesty of language was substituted for a banal, lack-luster, shallow contemporary idiom. Daddy said, “I joined this church because of the beautiful worship and its love for one another, not this. All you need now are trumpets and a drum set to make it a complete travesty.” Little did he know then what was coming.
   The reaction of many people was to either become completely identified with the social agendas or to withdraw into a liturgical isolation as best they could. You found either a social crusader or a cranky rubricist. The Orthodox Church experienced something similar in her past because of its historic subjections to occupiers, like the Communists in Russia and Eastern Europe, or the Muslims in the Middle East and Greece. Orthodoxy’s life came to be profoundly identified with the liturgical experience that each ethnic group practiced. It is an historical fact that up until the mid-1500s the Eastern liturgical life was continually developing and changing. With the fall of Constantinople that ceased. Orthodoxy was a particular way of worshipping. There were no substantive changes until the mid-1800s following the independence of Greece from Turkey. Social concerns became an object of the ghetto (the community of “Romans” as we were called by the Turks, in Arabic you’ll remember that the Orthodox are called the “Rum Orthodox,” or “Roman Orthodox”).
   We could easily point out that historically this has occurred among the Protestants through state interference as well. There is at the very heart of this fallen world the desire to keep the Church from being involved in two primary spheres: 1) worship of God, the Holy Trinity, and 2) the transfiguration of this world. The prince of this world (Ol’ Nick, or Satan) is happy to have us isolated into either of these spheres. If we only focus on worship, then the world runs amuck. If we focus only on the world, then we have nothing with which to transform it because we adopt the world’s vision. Should we marry the world and this age, then we will indeed be a widow in the next. Where’s the balance?
Well, believe it or not, I think that a proper, godly humanism should be fostered.
   Humanism usually takes a beating from conservative Christians because they see the sort of humanism that has come to the fore in the last one hundred fifty years or so. The sort that says, “Man is continually advancing and becoming better and better.” This kind of optimism fuels a lot of the sympathetic drive of the modern liberal, but it is selectively blind to the horrors of what man does to man. Man has become more brutal and debased in the last two centuries than ever before. Two world wars, the holocaust, lynching blacks in the deep South just because they were black, an explosion of abortions, sexual license and perversions made public and “acceptable” instead of things that need to be repented of, children bringing guns to school and killing classmates and teachers, wide-spread disrespect and virtually the complete loss of civility and manners. Are these the signs of our continual perfection? We can only think so if we are deeply deluded... by the Evil One.
   That is not the sort of humanism that I think we should be concerned with. What I am promoting is what might be called an eschatological humanism. What does that mean, Father? Eschatology is the study of the last things, the second coming of Christ. This sort of humanism takes its vision of humanity not from this world and where we are now, but has as its focus what humanity is created to be in the Kingdom of God. Or perhaps even more simply and clearly our vision of humanity and proper humanism is the Saint. This is an essential point. We cannot take our current state of affairs as normative. They aren’t. Only the Kingdom of God can be considered normative for Christians.
   What then is the nature of this sort of humanism? Well, first of all it is concerned with worship. We know that in the Scriptures—especially in the Book of Revelation (or Apocalypse) that the Church is constantly shown to be in worship of the Lamb who was slain. That worship is not directed towards the community. It is directed only towards Christ. Our orientation in worship is that of common focus beyond ourselves to the One who was, and is, and is to come. From a practical standpoint then, all of our life must be principally founded on our worship. Conservative movements that take up intellectual points that may well be correct, but which are not expressed and fulfilled in the liturgical worship of the Church are, in the last analysis, empty and worthless.
   Humanism that is formed by its vision of the Kingdom of God is also profoundly interested in every one around. Again the Apocalypse shows this by showing the prayer of the Saints for the faithful here on earth in travail. They ask Christ to aid and support us. We should aid and support those around us in many areas. We know we should clothe, feed, and visit those who are in need, prison or sickness. But we must also provide for them in the most elemental way of making it possible for them to be cared for in our country without enslaving anyone else.
   When laws are unjust, then we have not only the right but the obligation to speak out against them. When necessary we must become a political force so that the vision of the Kingdom of God might transform this world. This is very different from the political activism of the 1960s and the modern liberal churches. The foundation and principles are to be found beyond this age. They never contradict what has always been taught and preached and believed within the Church from the beginning of time.
   This is absolutely essential to recognize. We cannot proclaim something “new” or “more enlightened” because we are entrusted with the faith delivered down to us from the Apostles which is the same as that held and enshrined in the Kingdom of God to come. There is no new morality. There is no alteration in the essential worship of the Church. They have not and cannot change. And this is the only thing we can preach, or teach, or act upon.
   But surely this also means that we cannot retreat into a merely “spiritual” world. What does that really mean anyway? Yes the Church is the New Israel, the “Spiritual” Jerusalem, but that is not to say ‘unreal’, or ‘aerial, misty, mystical,or purely other-wordly.’ We have only one life, which has been spiritualized, or put in another way, it has been filled by the Spirit of God. The same life that we live at the altar, we live at work, in the voting booth, at home and in the shower. We truly have only one life. The dualism that many people have regarding the ‘church life’ and their ‘work life’ and their ‘family life’ is not Christian. And Christianity is about life. It is about our life in all of its arenas. So the Church speaks about it, and properly so. For Jesus Christ became a real life human being within a very specific time, place, and political environment.
   The Church first points out that we must pray. Our liturgy is the heart beat of all that we do. This is why I get so irritated when people don’t make it their first priority. If they don’t get to the Church to worship, then they are not behaving like Christians in the least. It is not optional. It is not whether or not we ‘get anything out of it.’ It is not whether or not it is ‘my cup of tea.’ It is the foundation of being a Christian to be at the altar of Christ. This is what makes us a Christian people and community, and it is focused on the Holy Trinity. Notice this, it’s very important. True humanity moves to Christ, and he makes us a genuine community, which is his body in time and space. Without this movement first (which he inaugurates by his condescension towards us and what is often called ‘prevenient grace’) we can never be a community at all.
   Then from this newly reconstituted humanity we strive to love others. We feed them. We shelter them. We care for them. We give them medical help. We visit them in prison. We lobby and vote in such a way that the Kingdom illuminates. We give them the life of the Kingdom. Everything starts at the altar and flows out into the universe from there. And finally, Christians move back to Christ in thanksgiving and adoration again. Everything starts and ends at the altar, but it includes everything that we understand as reality—both visible and invisible.
   So, are Christians to be activists? For the Kingdom of God, absolutely! Might that require political awareness and activity? Absolutely! Can we be quiet about it? Not if we are part of that Kingdom which Christ inaugurated and which will reign through all eternity. And we have guidelines that are seldom spoken. There are real solid foundation stones that we need to be aware of before we act. We cannot just act out of sentiment, but only out of our deep theological understanding which is first and foremost a summation of our prayer.
  As a priest I will not refrain from speaking the truth “in season and out of season.” If it is directly about politics, I will still do it because be assured that I am not speaking as a Republican or a Democrat, but as a Christian priest standing at the altar of Christ our God with a vision of the Kingdom and not of this world. I am not concerned with foreign policies and their intricacies, except to the degree that they reflect the Kingdom of God, the heavenly Jerusalem and new Israel. I could care less about any other social agenda. Everything else is secondary and negotiable, but it must be based on the essential understanding of what that Kingdom is.
   Let us all act and speak in this manner. And may Christ our God fulfill his Kingdom in and among us.

The Incarnation and our World

2010-03-19T18:15:00.006-04:00

Well, I have to be really honest. I am absolutely sickened by what our Congress is doing to us right now concerning the health care bill. It is truly only the tip of the ice-burg. The government desires to take over 1/6 of our national economy and give us a program of socialized medicine. There are a large number of persons who are in favor of this because they are sensitive people with genuine concern and care for those who are less fortunate. That is laudable. But socialism is evil (so is unchecked capitalism for that matter).

I become angry and anxious about how our Congress is trying to pass its revolution (without and up or down vote) and the horrendous bribes and maneuvers and arm-twisting that has been needed. I am even more so by the very plain, bald faced lies that have been told to the American people.

However, I am not surprised that there are unscrupulous politicians who will work their evil on our state. We all tend to take that for granted, because unfortunately we have seen it so often in the past. But there is a silence that is worse than all of this. I have tried to be quiet hoping that some voices might utter some sanity and direction for us, but they have been as quiet as the proverbial church mouse. The silence comes from us, the Orthodox Church. It comes from our hierarchs, our clergy and our faithful. We seem like the mute and blind.

I am not by nature a political activist. I generally don’t talk about politics with my parishioners because I believe that my principle job is to give them the Faith, to teach, to guide,and to confect the Sacraments for their salvation. I don’t wish for temporal concerns to stand as obstacles for their salvation. In other words, I’d rather not have parishioners take offense at my politics—which is probably more likely here in Michigan because I am, after all, a Texan and all that that means—and thereby decide not to listen to the Church’s teachings when it comes from my lips. I am very sensitive to this. But something needs to be said now because we are facing a profoundly theological problem for which the Church does have a word to speak.

Let us first of all say that yes, the Church does believe in caring for those who are in need of medical help. As a matter of fact, Christians founded the very first hospitals to care for the sick. Caring for the sick is one of the seven corporal works of mercy and we should all be involved in this in some way, even if it is only done domestically in our own homes. Although the Church does not say how this has to be done we can look to our past and see how we have done this for centuries. What we will find is that it is primarily done through the free will of the faithful. The faithful built and supported these works of mercy that we call hospitals.

At the very heart of our care for the sick is the doctrine of the Incarnation. Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. Man is created in the image of God, so every one bears that image and should be cared for. There are no throw away persons on the face of the globe. We know that by caring for others, we are giving care to Christ himself, whose image they bear.

Christians are unique in this world because we are incorporated into Jesus Christ himself in our baptisms, we are “divinized”. We are also in this world (though not ‘of this world’). The material world is a responsibility as are all those who bear the image of God around us. The Church, then, must speak out about anything that perverts our image and twists it into a vessel unfit for the Holy Spirit.

There are two scores that I see are tremendously problematic for the Christian in regard to the Senate’s health care bill. The first is that abortion will be funded by tax payers through it. I don’t want to be forced to give one red cent to the murder of innocent children. Why should I be forced to do so? I am a Christian. The second problem is that of creeping socialism.

I saw a bumper sticker in the parking lot the other day that said, “Socialism Works”. I wish I could have met the person who owned the car. I would have liked to ask, “Where? Give me an example of where it has worked.” There are no examples. As Orthodox Christians we know all too well what happens in a secularist (atheistic) socialist country… remember Russia? There were 20 million Orthodox Christians martyred in the span of about 70 years. Socialism (and modern secular liberalism) are both incredibly restrictive and narrow minded systems. They desire tolerance for everyone, unless you disagree with them. Then they bring out the long knives. An Orthodox priest from the former Soviet Yugoslavia said he can remember hearing the exact same description of health care that the Congress is putting forward in Soviet Serbia. It gives one great pause, does it not? Is that where we are headed?

The major media already attacks Christian principles openly because the Church teaches a fundamentally different dogma. We teach love, redemption, salvation and transfiguration. They teach conformity. It’s a short distance from attacking principles to imprisonments. There are currently Catholic priests in prison in Canada because they plainly spoke about the Church’s mind regarding homosexuality (a view we Orthodox share). We already have the “hate crime” laws of the sort that imprisoned these modern North American confessors in the faith being crafted here.

We cannot be silent if we are truly Christian. And while we may legitimately disagree about legislative matters, there can be no disagreement that we must stand up for life, stand against any attempt to establish socialism and curtail the full preaching of the Christian Faith. We need to write and call our congressmen and senators to back away from this impending nightmare. I'm going to make it simple for you.

To contact your congressman, go to: http://www.house.gov/writerep/

To contact your senator, go to: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Let us not be silent. We have responsibilities to act. Let us also ask our hierarchs to speak out too. Christianity is involved with our entire lives not just “churchy things” like Sunday School. To fail to speak out is to become complicit in the sin of others. This is just as true on the larger scale as it is on the personal scale. Failure to act is actually heretical. It is form of the heresy of Nestorianism (perhaps we can call it ecclesiological Nestorianism), which seeks to divide the humanity from the divinity of Christ and by extension to make the Church purely “spiritual” and not involved in our daily activities and lives.

Then, once we have acted, let us pray with fervor and depth of conviction that God can and will save us. We should never be discouraged, nor despondent because Christ has already conquered this world.

We’re at Mid-Lent now...

2010-03-10T15:21:00.001-05:00

We’re half way finished with the Great Fast, so I’m sure that we can get through the rest of it. But just to let you know what we have waiting for us at the end of the Fast—since none of us are eating meat—I thought I’d show you a picture of the all-you-can-eat plate of beef ribs from Risky’s Bar-B-Q in downtown Fort Worth. Hmmmmm. Ribs and lots of sweet iced tea (or cold beer) and life is complete. Golly, I can even smell it now. It's probably a good thing that I'm about 1,200 miles away so I can't really fall into this particular temptation at this particular place. I hope this doesn't tempt you too much!

I just had to share this…

2010-03-10T14:38:00.007-05:00

I saw this on one of the other blogs that I follow. It is written by an Englishman who was able to travel to Texas for the first time. He had titled his entry “USA”, which I’ll forgive. Actually, he visited my area of Texas and everything he did is so familiar to me. It’s nice to see than an Englishman shares my biases. [I have been called the un-official Ambassador of Texas, or of Fort Worth. I take that title with pride!] Enjoy... (The picture is of the Tarrant County Courthouse in downtown Fort Worth, Texas.)

USA

Well, I'm not sure I know much more about the US of A as such. You see, I went for just a few days to stay with Craig and Terry Southard in Arlington and have a look at Texas; thinking that it would be a typical bit of America ... in my ignorance. Now I appreciate that The Lone Star State is really quite different and special; acute, intelligent, and with natural good taste. For example ...

[Now he speaks of Fort Worth—eat your heart out Dallas!] One afternoon we spent a happy couple of hours looking at "the West" ... as seen through the eyes of painters including C M Russel and F Remington, both of whom seemed as miraculously adept in at getting a horse into bronze as into oils. I found myself wondering whether Russell (who just about lived late enough) ever saw the art of the Irish hippophile Jack Butler Yates, and whether he ever saw theirs. Then we strolled down across the lawns (where with my own eyes I SAW A MOCKING-BIRD!!!) to a gallery (the Kimbell) which would be the envy of any city this side of the water ... where Tiepolo and Rubens and the rest of the Big Boys were on show (to the sound of live music); but also a modello by Bernini for his fountain in the Piazza Navona; I could have walked slowly round it for hours. Then ... good heavens ... Michelangelo's first painting, done when he was an adolescent: horribly feely demons surrounding a delightfully indifferent and supercilious S Anthony. And, just round the corner, a late fifteenth century German silver statue of our Lady imperially crowned and standing upon the moon. I wonder if her wearing the Imperial crown was common on the continent at this time; there is a stone carving of Maria Assumpta thus crowned near here at Sandford upon Thames, which I suspect might have come at the Dissolution from the Oxford Whitefriars - but I have been having trouble paralleling the Imperial crown in other Marian iconography in England. I also wonder when the crescent moon (which we of course associate with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception) became a common motif in England.

Then, however, I made a mistake. We went to a nearby Dairy Queen, where I had ... Oh dear, I can't quite recall the name ... a sort of massive Ice Cream and Chocolate and Brownie volcanic eruption. Temptations, temptations. But I disgraced myself. I couldn't finish it. Fortunately, a charming and well-read seven-year-old called (apologies to her if I'm spelling this wrongly: spelling never was my strong point) Mikayla very kindly assisted me by finishing it off.

Texas has got just about everything except that I didn't get to see Boss Hog [Boss Hogg was from Georgia, not Texas.].

A Response from Senator Stabenow...

2010-03-10T13:04:00.005-05:00

As a citizen of this great land, I take it a privilege to write our Congress and Senate and let my voice be heard. As a Christian priest abortion is one of those areas that we are required to stand up and speak. [If you voted for the current administration it is even more necessary lest you be guilty of overtly supporting its policies on abortion.] I received a letter from Congressman Ehler who also condemns abortion. From our Senators I have only received a note from Debbe Stabenow. I reprint it here for you with my emphasis and comments.
++++++++++++++

Thank you for contacting me to express your views on the issue of abortion.

The issue of abortion is unquestionably the most difficult issue I have had to deal with during my years of service. I have struggled with all sides of the issue to determine not only what I personally believe, but, more important, what I should do as a legislator representing a diverse state of people who hold many different religious, moral and personal beliefs.

Abortion is a serious issue that has divided many sincere and honest people. [No one has ever said that those who support abortion are not sincere. What we would say is that they are wrong. Hitler was just as sincere about extinguishing the Jews too.] Many believe that abortion is either absolutely right or absolutely wrong, while others feel it is acceptable only under certain limited conditions. Unfortunately, when the issue of abortion is debated in legislatures and in the Congress, representatives are often forced into choosing an absolute pro-abortion or anti-abortion stand. [There are only two possibilities here. Yes or No. It the real problem here that one must really do some logical reasoning on this to find out what is right?] However, the questions I must decide as your Senator are not whether I am for or against abortion, but rather, what is the appropriate role of the government, [So, if something is logically shown to be wrong, then it is okay for the government to still have a supporting role? Then why the great difficulty in “struggling with all sides”?] and should government be making decisions about this intensely personal family matter. [Here is the code language here, it is an intensely personal matter.]

Because of the diversity of perspectives and the intense personal nature of the abortion issue, I have taken the position that the choice of abortion is not a decision government should make or deny. [Hence she will de facto support abortion.]

I also feel strongly that although it is not the proper role of government to decide whether abortion is right or wrong for individual families, [This is disingenuous. Where does the Senator think our laws come from? It is the purview of the legislative branch to make law. That is what they do. Very often they make law that will be followed more in the breach than in the main simply because the law itself expresses the nations vision of right and wrong.] the government does have some critical and important responsibilities as it relates to this issue. [Indeed!] As a Senator and a mother, [this is not pertinent to the argument, it is a fallacious appeal to emotion. Stay on the topic clearly from a position of reason.] I have a personal and public commitment to those policies that support and sustain children in healthy and loving families. [Do you know how long the waiting line is to adopt children? These parents would given the children a healthy and loving family. Abortion only kills the child. My, doesn't that shown concern for children?]

As a country, we must do everything we can to provide support and encouragement to women who are pregnant and to promote responsible family planning when a woman does not want a child. [Seems as though time for “family planning” is already over once the mother is pregnant. This is not about contraception, it is about abortion. Chronologically the issue regarding contraception has already occurred. But, of course, the problem is that abortion is being used as contraception.] Support services need to be available for pregnant teenagers and single mothers so they do not feel abortion is their only choice. [These things exist but Planned Parenthood fights them greatly.] We also need to provide better prenatal care, nutrition services, childcare, adoption programs, and economic opportunities for women. [Yes, we do. You're right here.] I believe that many women would not choose abortion if other help was available. [I don't believe that at all. It is being presented to our children as a viable option at schools. Why would they not choose it?]

I know that our country will continue to struggle and debate the abortion issue in the years ahead. As this debate goes on, I will continue to listen to and respect the views of others. I am hopeful that those who are divided by this issue can focus on areas of mutual agreement, [then take our federally funded abortion so that we don't have to face these issues and can focus on what we might agree on.] because only by working together can we effectively strengthen and improve the lives of children and their families.

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns with me.

Sincerely,

Debbie Stabenow

United States Senator

+++++++
Please write our representatives. We are not in a dictatorship and it is our civil responsibility to give our Christian values to this fallen world.

Liberty... Freedom... What are they really?

2010-03-06T21:26:00.000-05:00

Okay, we’re Americans. It seems so clear that surely we must know what freedom is, what it means to have liberty. But I really don’t think we have much of a clue and it is killing our society from the inside out. Now this death is not new to the American scene. It’s not new to humanity. In fact, it goes right back to our first parents.

We equate choosing with freedom. That is a freedom in a very limited sense. That kind of freedom get “used up” pretty quickly. The more choices I make, the fewer options there are for me. For example, when I chose to go to seminary in hopes of becoming a priest I willfully gave up many other possibilities. Or again, when I got married I closed the door to becoming a monk. Every choice we make ultimate narrows our options and that doesn't seem like freedom as we usually define it.

One of the difficult components of this sort of freedom is that we are simply picking and choosing, which ends up being a slavery of its own. We’ve all experienced the pain that the slavery of having to choose creates. Haven’t we all had times of angst when we just can decide which course to follow? Choices seem so easy when it’s between a right and a wrong, but what if the choice is between a good and a better good? or a bad and a worse? The later sort of choice can be anguishing to make, but unfortunately necessary. Of course we seem conditioned to always want to choose pleasure over pain. It seems so obvious. But far too often the choice of pleasure reveals itself later as only a different face of pain. Haven’t we all overeaten occasionally? The Thanksgiving Day dinner looks soooo good. And we eat far more than we should and then we feel awful and unable to move. The pleasure becomes pain.

There must be something else. We know that God gave us a free will, but we have just pointed out that picking and choosing limits our freedom rather than increasing it. So what is real freedom that cannot be limited or caught in the pleasure/pain cycle that Saint Maximus the Confessor writes about?

Real freedom and liberty is to be able to move to what completely fulfills me and does not diminish me. What is that then? The answer is the same the one to the question: “What must I do to be saved?” Salvation is becoming a person who is free from dominance of sinful passions, who is filled with the Holy Spirit, of Love himself. It is being what God has truly created me to be. This ought not to be confused with what our passions tell us we are (for example, I am a homosexual, or I am “just that way”—whatever that might be).

Our self-definition must be greater than what we do or what we are impassioned about. It must be our very essence. We are created “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people.” (1 Peter 2:9) We are created in the Image of God, or more accurately, we are images of the Son of God, who is the Image of the Father. True freedom is to freely move to God without hindrance or obstacle, either exterior or interior. That we might have to pause to choose stops our movement, and therefore limits our real freedom of being.

So what does this mean in our daily lives? Well a couple of things. We don’t give anything of real value to our children by giving them lots of options and choices and entertainments. In fact we are enslaving them far more than we ourselves were enslaved. They are taught to choose pleasure and ease, hoping to find satiety only to find that they are more hungry and empty than when they started. We not only learn to limit choices given our children, but to move their hearts to the only thing that will truly fulfill them. As Christian parents if we don’t do this, we are not acting like Christian parents.

It also means that I won’t get too worked up about adding choices for everyone and myself. We write ridiculous laws all of the time in the desperate attempt to give freedom (all the while we are actually taking it away). After all if we passed a law that would allow fish to breathe air, it wouldn’t add one jot or tittle to him being a fish. We should be quick to eliminate things that take away from us our real freedom of moving towards God in all that we do. We should also be quick to move to protect those same freedoms for others.

There are several things that come to mind. Do we add to people’s freedom by creating laws that let them buy homes they cannot afford? Heavens no! We create a dreadful economic problem that we might not see the end of for many years to come. We haven’t help the poor or ourselves. What about the freedom of a woman to choose her reproductive life? She is certainly free, but we believe her choice comes about nine months sooner than a birth. Once there’s a conception, we have to think of a child’s right to live and become a full human being created in the image of God. Availability to abortion does not increase freedom at all. It enslaves the woman and kills a child. And the gentleman responsible (I use the term very loosely) should also experience the loss of some of his ‘freedom’ because of his choice too. I wouldn’t dream of putting the blame for a bad decision solely on one of the two persons involved.

But at the most fundamental and primitive level this means that I must constantly choose to bear the image of God as he has given it me. I must constantly conform my life to the Scriptures (and reading them regularly is absolutely necessary). I must take advantage of the rules of the Church that help me conform my life to the pattern of Christ, because these rules allow me to just live the life of Christ. The less I have to choose, especially in the realm of the Christian life, the more free I am. The more I become a person that joyfully basks in the light of Christ. I become one in whom salvation—true healthfulness of body and soul—lives.

Spring seems to be coming

2010-03-06T16:19:00.000-05:00

There are signs that spring might just be trying to peek through the winter now. Admittedly winter was not that hard here this year, but it was still a land of snow for a little while. Now I can see the grass being revealed from beneath the blanket of white. There is little that is more unattractive than snow that has started to melt along the side of roads, discolored by road grime to a dark patina of gray. It's more depressing that snow itself I think. But spring is trying to come round.

And there is perhaps a spring that might be coming within the Orthodox Church in the United States as well. It would seem that the Ecumenical Patriarch met with the heads of other autocephalous churches (which are also "mother churches" of American jurisdictions) to begin the correction of our canonical anomaly of multiple and overlapping jurisdictions. I have heard rumors that there is now a desire to form an American synod of bishops to govern the Church in the United States.

All of this is good news so far. Multiple jurisdictions with multiple disciples and guidelines have caused great difficulties for us in parishes. The laity are not the only ones to blame for seeking out an answer that the prefer best by comparing different jurisdictions, the clergy have often been just as bad.

No one really knows how such a correction will look in the US. After all we have a very different situation than that which was ever imagined by the ancient Fathers of the Church. They never envisioned immigrants coming from many diverse backgrounds to form a new local church. But, of course, not even the history is so clear. A large number of the Greeks never intended to become Americans originally. Many came the the New World to earn money and then go back to Greece and retire. I have known many Greek clergy who still own homes in Greece for their retreats and future retirement.

Will the bishops have a liberality of spirit and charity of heart to suggest multiple over-lapping jurisdictions for different ethnic groups? This would allow specific oversight by bishops within the cultural norms that are desired and needed. The point of unity would be the American Synod of Bishops. This would necessitate a slight modification of the mindset that we have had heretofore from that of a strictly territorial jurisdiction to a modification of a personal jurisdiction with territorial character. This would be little more than giving structure to the situation in which we find ourselves now, while adding the necessary administrative unity that is so desperately lacking. Our own Archdiocese (the Antiochian) has been publicly calling for Orthodox unity in all of our Conventions for years now. Well, we might see if we really want it. Cynically, I think that many of the jurisdictions and bishops may well love Orthodox unity as long as they are in charge of it personally.

But I hope I can be forgiven if I see a dark lining behind this silver cloud. I fear that the Western Rite Orthodox will be left out in the cold, and perhaps will virtually cease to exist overnight. Let's consider the numbers. There are at least 600 Orthodox parishes in the United States (there may be many more, I just can't remember off-hand), but there are only about 27 or so Western Rite (WR) parishes in the Antiochian Archdiocese. ROCOR has another 5 or so. The number is terribly small. The bishops will come together and necessarily speak about the most pressing problems, and the WR is not one of them. Even more problematically, some of our bishops are not inclined to "go to bat" for the WR because of personal experiences that are not necessarily due to the WR itself, but with some of the surrounding and attending problems that have been forced upon them.

Tragically there was a brief moment in time about one and a half years ago that would have resolved this upcoming problem. There was a movement to get a bishop for the WR. That's what is really needed. And it is needed for a large number of reasons. But when a new Synod is being formed, the WR will be left completely out in the cold if it does not have a bishop. If the US is divided into strictly territorial areas, then I rather doubt the the WR will be able to continue much longer at all, perhaps a couple of years until those parishes adopt the Eastern Rite. The Orthodox bishops' meeting of North and Central America in May will be a watershed moment for all Orthodox, but I think that perhaps more is on the line for WR parishes.

This to me would be an enormous loss. Though the WR is small and has little impact in the wider circle of affairs, it still represents a moment of clarity in the mind of the Orthodox Church. It allows people to be grafted into the Church without having to lose their own ethnic identity. While I love the Middle Eastern culture and people, I can never be one myself. Not with a name like Winfrey. I am of English descent and I treasure that heritage and culture as much as my Arabic parishioners do theirs. That is good and proper.

The very existence of the WR—even though I don't serve a WR parish—is critically important. It says that those of us from European extract are truly welcome as we are. If it ceases to be, it rather says that, “You are welcome so long as you become a Greek, …or an Arab, … or a Russian, …etc.” It can’t happen. How could I turn to my father and say, “Dad, I have to give up our family heritage, our family traditions that have made us who we are and guided us to Christ. I have to somehow learn to be something that I can never really be from the inside, but only be by imitation in external ways.”

The Church can only truly be the Church if it is strictly about Christ, not about our ethnicity (which is how our jurisdictions are variously divided). The only antidote to this is to allow all ethnicities to function in their fulness as authentic expressions of the Church. If the WR is eliminated, by direct action or indifference, then the very catholicity of the Church’s vision will be revealed as fatally flawed and those of us from European ancestry will not really be welcomed.

I hope that our bishops take a broader and more eirenic approach to things. I hope that they will not only allow the WR to flourish, but even give it its own bishop who can grow it and give it stability. As long as it is merely a plaything then it is really a disservice and quite disingenuous. No one should be forced to spend their spiritual life in an ecclesiological sand box. Either the WR is real and true, and therefore must be supported and given the means to grow, or it is false and should be stopped.

If it is considered false then I will have to think long and hard. It will be very painful, but it will be absolutely necessary for me to do so. I became Orthodox in 1991 in a WR parish with every intention of serving the WR for my entire priesthood. I dreamt of planting such a parish and then pouring my life out for it. Well, necessities altered my service but not my love. If the WR is abolished, then I would have to question many, many things. Was I brought into Orthodoxy through a lie? If the Church is willing to lie about something so fundamental as the way in which people pray and offer the Eucharist, then is it still “Church?”, or is it “a church?”

Spring is hopeful… usually. I am hopeful about the Bishops’ meeting. I only hope that we don’t end up with a summer that is so hot that it scorches young plants trying to take root. Let us pray for our hierarchs and for the grace of God to guide their every word and decision.

Do you remember when...

2010-03-01T13:53:00.000-05:00

I was remembering earlier today what it was once like on Sundays throughout America. Folks would get up in the morning and get to church. I can remember a humorous illustration of that done by Norman Rockwell. There was no competition for the Sunday services. Jim Crowe laws made sure of it. But there was more to it than blue laws. What happened?

I think much of the blame for this has to be directed at the Roman Catholic Church’s Saturday evening “Vigil Mass” to fulfill their obligation. No one would have dreamt of scheduling school events on Sunday until after then. Because of the large Baptist presence in Texas it’s still more like it was in the good ole days, but I suspect that that will change too as time rolls on.

The loss of the sacral quality of Sunday is a great loss in our culture. Sunday has been set aside in the secular world since the Emperor Constantine in the early 300s. It was, of course, kept as the principle Christian day from the time of the Apostles. But we don’t live in two different worlds—one Christian and one secular—because we don’t have two different lives. We only have one life and so both arenas will impact each other. I’m rather sad to say that these days the secular is certainly overshadowing the Christian for most folks who call themselves Christian.

It is harder to be a genuine Christian now than it was thirty or forty years ago. At that time our culture generally helped and encouraged our faith. I’m told that here in Grand Rapids there was a time, not so long ago, that if one were to mow one’s lawn on a Sunday a group of neighbors might well come by to talk about it. Manual work on Sunday just wasn’t done. Now it’s all fair game. Schools schedule events at times that Church’s traditionally have services. Yes, it is much harder to live a faithful Christian family life now rather than then.

But there is also a little bit of a silver lining too. When Christians actually live this life with any sort of faithfulness at all to it, then they stand out in stark relief to the rest of the world. It is easy to become a “stand-out Christian” these days. That might not be too comfortable for many folks because it also means that to do so will absolutely make us targets. The world will only love its own. If we are not of this world--and our life truly shows that in its internal rhythm and activities--then the world and those in it will hate us.

Maybe the good ole days weren’t really that good after all. Now we can truly “stand up for Jesus”. We can become confessors for the Faith simply by living it in the ancient ordinary dailiness of it. Maybe this is the good ole days right now because the Kingdom is perhaps a little closer to reach with so simple a life.

Faith and Calendars

2010-02-27T12:02:00.006-05:00

This is the article published in the March Torch, the monthly newsletter for St. George Church, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

It probably seems that the Christian Faith and our calendars don't really have a great connection. This observation becomes more apparent to me as a parish priest with each year that passes, but there is a profound connection between the two. To grasp this we can ask some elementary questions about calendars and Christianity. We’ll take calendars first.

What is a calendar? Yes, of course it’s the little paper product we hang up on our kitchen wall. We keep our appointments on it and we organize our lives with their aid. But calendars are a far more interesting than a mere organization tool. Calendars are really about time. They mark time and cycles of time. Why would man have even created such a thing? Why make a big deal about the passage of time at all? After all, day will always follow day in time’s continuous march.

We know that primitive man (and I tend to think that he was only primitive in a certain technological sense) created incredible monuments to mark time. Stonehenge in the Salisbury plains of England comes to mind. Apart from other things, we know that it marks the winter and summer solstice perfectly. I am a modern man and I honestly have to say that I can’t empirically tell you what day is the longest or shortest through the year. I know that days get longer and shorter, but it would never occur to me to try to calculate when those occur. Then to find a way to mark that using large stones is beyond me. “Primitive man” did it.

The movement of a single year was incredibly important because it marked planting and harvest seasons. The cycle of the year pointed to our nourishment and our full (or empty) bellies. So calendars began to be marked with seasonal changes, and these changes carried with them related festivals and celebrations.

There have been many different higher developments of calendars. The Jews developed one that is based upon lunar cycles. The ancient Greeks and Romans developed one that is based on the solar cycle. Months were created and the Romans, being ever so pragmatically logical, developed a fixed cycle of dates and months which we still use to this day. For the Romans the calculation of the ides (remember the old warning, “beware the ides of March,” which is March 15th?) was very important because it marked festival days as well as market days. Commerce and religion were intimately conjoined.

It was in this world that the Church started her life. She too began very quickly creating a calendar. The first day to mark the Christian calendar was Pascha (Easter). The paschal cycle is still the primary cycle of the Church’s year. Soon other festivals and commemorations filled the Christian calendar, along with their attendant seasons of fasting and preparation. Living according to the Church’s calendar also constantly enriches us and keeps us growing in the essentials of the Faith. We learn about the great heros of the Church, their heroic stands, their teaching, often their martyrdom. We experience the saving work of Christ over and over in the principle feasts and fasts of the Church. Christianity is made real through the Church’s calendar.

At the heart of this is the fundamental necessity of making our Faith organic in our daily lives. Our life will always be lived with a rhythm and cadence because we live in time. Man will always mark his life with events and celebrations that are truly important to him. You can tell a man’s true religion by looking at his calendar. What does he mark it with? What is truly important to him? Let me repeat, we mark our calendars with those things that we truly value and to which we commit ourselves.

So, let us look at our own calendars. Are they Christian? Do they look very different from our contemporaries who are not in the Orthodox Church? I would suspect that they look far too similar to our neighbors. The attendance at the Lenten services, while fair, certainly is not overwhelming or what I would consider ‘acceptable.’ Most folks haven’t darkened the doors of the church once for the evening Lenten services. What takes precedence in our lives will be the focus of our calendars and our actions.

Very soon we will reach the greatest feast of the Church’s entire year. It is the Feast of the Church, the Feast of feasts, the Queen of feasts—Pascha. But there is a conflict this year isn’t there? Spring break will come for many of us that weekend. Our values will be tested pretty hard. What will we do with our calendars? Will we be Christians first, or pleasure lovers? Is Christ’s glorious Resurrection from the dead really important to us, or have we placed our family and entertainment above him? Our Lord speaks painfully direct to this, “If any man comes to me, and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brethren, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

Christians will go through the profound and deep Holy Week. Christians will celebrate the Feast of Pascha. Christians will find this to be the greatest focus of their entire year and of their life. I hope and pray that we have a parish full of Christians.

Baptism and Communion

2010-02-25T12:06:00.003-05:00

Last week I was invited to speak on a panel at Western Theological Seminary (they come from a Calvinist, Reformed Church Tradition) about the Orthodox Church’s understanding of baptism and communion. It was a lot of fun to be in that kind of environment again. This is what I presented. I publish it here in case it might be found worthy or helpful.

The only way to get to the core of the Orthodox understanding of Baptism and Communion, is first to get back to the core problem of human life. Unless we have this firmly in mind, then there is no way to see—much less to understand—their importance.

The problem is death. We no longer live with a sense of it anymore. We have anesthetized our society from it. Children don’t go to funerals for fear of hurting them emotionally. It wasn’t too long ago that the departed were laid out in the front parlors of their homes instead of creating a place to distance it from us. Funeral services don’t even mention death, but now it’s all about canonizing the departed a saint. We try to pretend death doesn’t exist. And yet it doesn’t work, because people still live in it. Our trouble is that we don’t understand death.

It is not essentially corporeal, the separation of the soul from the body. It is ontologically deeper. It is only the manifestation of the ancient triad of sin begetting evil which becomes death. It is separation from God himself.

God is love as St. John points out. We all know this, but we often forget our Lord’s words that he is the life. God is life. Sin is not essentially the breaking of a command but rather the breaking of a relationship of love, which is life. When we no longer have this communion, or unity with God, then we no longer have life, and then power and our passions masquerade as love. We are driven by our sinful passions and believe that to fulfill them is to attain our purpose, only to find that we are more empty than before.

This all began in the garden of course. Adam and Eve, innocent, not perfect, stood in the midst of it and enjoyed God’s presence. They had a certain communion with him that was perfect (without flaw), but not yet complete for God desired to give man even more. Our first parents decided to do it themselves and took the fruit, which they though would nourish them and make them like God, and eating it they tasted of alienation from him. They had not become like God, growing into him, but had made themselves gods of their own lives.

Life only comes from God, we know this from the Old Testament and it’s one of the principle reasons the Jews were given laws not to eat the blood, “for life is in it.” Sin separates us from God, which is an evil, and it is a living death.

So how baptism resolve this? The Orthodox understand baptism as our personal participation in the Paschal mystery. It is death, cleansing and new life. I should point out that for the Orthodox, our baptismal service includes three “mysteries,” or “sacraments”: (1) baptism, or immersion in water three times in “the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” [we do not accept inclusive languages rites as being true in any sense], (2) chrismation, or confirmation, and (3) holy communion. Our baptismal certificates only say “baptism” on them, but they always include all three. It is just understood. So it was in the New Testament.

Water itself has a profound character. All cultures use it for cleansing. All religions have some sort of cleansing rite or bath with water. It is universal. It also carries in it a darkness which is frightening. This was shown beautifully by the movie, “the perfect storm.” Water became a dark and terrifying personification of death. God used water in this way before in the flood. And he used it in the Exodus against the Egyptians. One of the most joyful hymns of the Old Testament is the song of Moses, “the horse and it’s rider hath he hurled into the sea.” But none of us can live without water either. Water carries in it three distinct signs: cleansing, death and life.

In baptism the Church blesses the water of the font, bringing to mind the baptism of Christ. This image to the Orthodox is not a moralistic one. It has nothing to do with following Christ’s example—how tepid. Rather, it is about Christ cleansing water in his baptism so that it no longer brings death but life. “Make this water like the Jordan,” we say. Make this water a new exodus, a new entry into the Kingdom of God, and entry into life and unity with God himself. Water is charged with the action and love of God through Christ’s baptism, no longer merely the agent of death.

But death is there. We enter the front three times. There is a multiple reality here, like so much of the Church’s life. This three is both for the three persons of the Trinity, and it is also for the three days entombment of Christ. We die with Christ. We voluntarily enter the font and set aside our lives. This was beautifully symbolized in the early Church, by the catechumen facing west and shedding his clothes meaning his old life. We still do this with infants. The old man is “hurled into the sea” and utterly drowned. We literally die in the baptismal font.

We are cleansed, our sins are forgiven. The nature of this cleansing is not simply that God over looks our pasts, or cherishes us in our brokenness. That is hardly being forgiven. Rather, God buries our broken, fallen, death-dealing natures and gives us a new flesh which shall not die but instead be transfigured. The past is completely washed away and no longer exists. That is not to say that we don’t still carry with us the consequences of past sins. For example, we will still be overweight if we have been habitually gluttonous, or we will still have the same bad habits that have gotten into our mess, or if we have killed someone through drunken driving he will still be dead and we will still be in prison. But our relationship to Reality himself itself will be altered.

In baptism we are given life. This stems from the very fact that our relationship with God becomes one of communion and unity. We are joined to him as part of our very being. And just as separation from him is death, so too union with him is life. When our bodies repose, we shall still be alive in Christ—provided that we haven’t estranged ourselves from him by our fall into sin and separation. (For that there is another cure, repentance, or confession which restores the rupture between God and us, and the Christian Church and us. Our sins are all personal and communal.)

We might think that Adam and Eve lived on this level, for they were once alive and had communion with God without sin. But the Christian is given more. We are ontologically greater. In fact, a Christian is higher than the Angels, for we are the priests of all creation and members of the Body of Christ. We become, through adoption, what Jesus Christ is by nature. This is not just some sort of a generic expression, it is fundamental because it changes who we are at our deepest core. Ecclesiology is not a secondary issue, it is right up front and center because it flows from Baptism itself.

God is called the “only lover of mankind” by the Orthodox, his is the philanthropos par excellence. He cannot cease to give himself to man. So he pours out his Holy Spirit, (pneuma, his breath) on man, recreating him into a living soul, just as he did when we created Adam. The new man is thus sealed by the Holy Spirit. He is ordained into the new priesthood, he is a part of a holy nation, whose life is God. Therefore the Christian is the only human being that is alive, for he is united to Life himself.

When a child is born, they are immediately given to mother to nurse. In baptism the new born (or born again) Christian is fed by Mother Church with food that no longer brings death. As once Adam and Eve ate of the fruit and they experienced death, now we eat the immaculate Body and drink the precious Blood of Jesus Christ and we have life. We no longer eat food that sustains a living death, but rather we eat food that brings us eternal life.

This Mystical Supper, this unbloody-sacrifice, is the height of Christian experience and worship in this life. In the Eucharist the heavenly banquet is spread for us. It is the marriage feast of the Lamb that is referred to in the Book of Revelation. And it is here right now.

The Church continues this mysterium tremendum as its continual anamnesis of the Paschal mystery. It is the constant un-forgetting of Christ, the constant re-membering or re-constituting the Body of Christ in our midst. It is therefore a solemn banquet of state, the Kingdom of Heaven. And our Lord desires that all mankind should participate in this sacrifice and meal.

Here we need to point out that this does not mean that everyone who comes to the Church on Sunday morning may receive Holy Communion. There are many who may not, and the Church still loves them. Communion really does mean unity with God and the Church. We must truly know that the Sacrament is genuinely the Body and Blood of Christ. It is no mere symbol. Christ said, “This is my Body,” This is my Blood,” not “This is like my Body,” “This is a symbol of my Blood.” The Greek language (in which the New Testament was written) can easily show metaphors and give incredibly subtle images. But the institution narrative is not one of those occasions. Christ makes this abundantly clear when he says, “I am the Bread of life… This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” (John 6:35 passim)

There are some who will have quibbles about the Eucharist being a sacrifice, or as we Orthodox call it, the unbloody-sacrifice. We are experience the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Christ on the altar. Christ here again makes this clear, “this is my Body which is broken,” “this is my Blood which is shed.” The Body and Blood are the broken and crucified Christ. The sacrifice is the sacrifice of Christ himself in which we participate. It is not a new sacrifice, or a recapitulation, but it is the exact same sacrifice.

Christ being God and man exists fully in time, eternity and in “ever-existing,” that realm of “now” that God lives in that is beyond time and eternity and was not created. All of his actions were temporal and eternal springing from ever-existing. In Christian liturgy we are brought into eternity and become participants and contemporaries with the Apostles in the upper room. We are there at Golgotha, for Christ makes it present by his own power. Here is the sacrifice of the priest, to make the eternal sacrifice present in the Eucharistic assembly and join us to that sacrifice which redeems mankind.

But if the Eucharist is truly sacrifice, truly eternal, then we must be extremely careful not to participate in that mystery unworthily. Preparation is required. So we must pray, fast and repent of all things which have injured our relationship with Christ and with each other. Though our Lord wants all to be able to participate in the marriage feast, it will also bring condemnation upon those who approach unworthily (without genuine and specific repentance). The truth must also be held, dogmatic agreement with all that the Church teaches is essential too. John writes in his second epistle, “Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine (didache) of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work.” (2 John 9-11)

In Orthodoxy the terms “open communion” or “closed communion” have no meaning. Reception of the Eucharist is not a subject of hospitality, like a meal. I would not offer my wife to someone in an attempt to be hospitable, remember it is a marriage banquet. Either a state of communion exists, or it doesn’t. It goes without saying, that for the Orthodox, one must be a baptized Orthodox Christian to receive holy communion. The fact that other Christians cannot receive communion with us is painful and uncomfortable—even to us and it should be. It is the pain of schism borne, the scandal of disunity. In this way we are no different than the Roman Catholic Church who also holds that communion is only for those who are united to her.

Baptism, chrismation (confirmation), and eucharist are only the beginnings of God pouring his life into us. We shall go from glory to glory throughout all eternity. His life shall be so ontologically made ours, that we can dare to speak of deification which is the purpose of human life. That is another topic, so I’ll stop there.

The Golfer's Apology

2010-02-22T08:18:00.000-05:00

Did you watch it? It was certainly hyped pretty highly. I didn't watch, but I hear discussions about it on the radio before it happened. Should he do it? Why? The discussion was pretty illumining... not about Tiger Woods and his transgressions, but about where we are as a society.

Most people said that Tiger Woods didn't owe them an apology because he didn't sin against them. He sinned against his wife and children and he should apologize to them. Yes, he break his marriage vows and it immediately impacts his wife and children. There is no debate about that. Relationships are torn apart and sometimes can never recover and heal from such trauma. Some may immediately think that the only way forward is a divorce. But here I can speak for the children since I experienced this as a child, the wounds a divorce creates in a child can sometimes last a lifetime. Divorce may be the lesser of two evils for all involved, but it is still an evil that has a long tail. It is a nightmare that we go through now as casually as we go to the grocery store. Serial monogamy is destructive to all concerned.

Back to Tiger. Did he need to get right with America, with everyone out there? What I heard on the radio was a manifestation of a Protestant notion of sin, that he had only sinned against his wife and children. But that is not true. There is no such thing as a "private sin." Not if we're truly scriptural Christians.

Saint Paul points out that because of the sin of one man, Adam, the entire creation "groaneth in travail." Our sins effect not only those in the immediate vicinity, but the entire cosmos. When I sin, I trouble the stars. There was a time when the absolute connectedness of man was understood and taken for granted. One of the greatest poems in English literature (it has previously been a sermon) was penned by Rev. John Donne (do many remember that he was an Anglican priest?). "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee." In every man's death, we die because we are connected. We have loss even if we never knew him. We are diminished.

The corporate nature of Tiger's sin was acknowledged, but not consciously. It was pointed out that golfers now have a much smaller purse and their endorsement contracts have diminished by at least 30%. This means that the families of other golfers have been directly effected by Tiger's infidelity. Does he owe them an apology? What about their children who will suffer as a result? It doesn't end there. We can take that circle out larger. TV networks are effected financially. Golf fans are effected in their enjoyment. Society is robbed in at least one case of an example of marriage. (Perhaps with the overwhelming failure of marriage in our country this is rather more like a pebble being tossed onto a rock pile, but it still adds its own weight.)

And I think there is more. It is much darker and more difficult. Some of you may think what I am about to say is all too alarmist, but it springs from the core of the Christian faith. When I fall into an impassioned and sinful life, not only do I effect the material aspect of the world as we've just pointed out, but I also effect the spiritual aspect of it. Have you ever experienced being in a room where every one is happy and laughing and having a good time, when some one new comes into the room in a foul mood. He doesn't say any thing. He just sits and glares. What happens to the mood of the room? It begins to fall apart and soon people begin to cease laughing and often begin grousing. We've all experienced it. Sinful lives create an environment of sin, making it easier for us all to fall. It is a chilling reality.

Do you remember in high school how generally good guys could be dragged into picking on others because some one else was already doing it? That in spite of the fact that was is entirely out of character of the good guy? Why does it happen. Sin begets sin.

There is a triad that is an absolute. Sin begets evil which begets death. They are all three always connected. Tiger's transgressions brought about death amongst us all. I'm not a golf fan, and I don't live in Florida, but I felt it. I can see the death that has been created through his actions and it effects me as much as it effecting every one else on the face of the globe because I have been diminished as a human being. The world I live in has become a little more contaminated, a little more inclined to sin, evil and death.

Because his sins became public and notorious also requires a public "confession." Even its publicity was largely caused by our sinful voyeurism, it has become public. (Simply another example of how sin effects us all! Why do we watch such disgusting tabloid reporting? We are creating death through this too.)

I did not watch Mr. Woods' confession. I heard from some that he seemed contrite and from others that it seemed contrived. God knows. I don't mean that flippantly. He does. And I hope that Mr. Woods' words were sincere and that we can soon see him begin to repair what he has broken. Just as sin effects the entire creation, repentance brings healing to the cosmos. The consequences are still there, the pain is still there, but true repentance brings a healing balm to the wound that has been opened. True repentance is a miracle because it partakes of the Resurrection of Christ from the dead. It takes death and gives birth to life. The memory of our Lord's crucifixion is still carried with us, but it is overshadowed by his glorious Resurrection. This is also the case with repentance. I hope that Mr. Woods' has given the gift of repentance to us all for all of our salvation.

There are at least two lessons here for us though. The first is about our own sins. We like to think of our sins as "normal." They are what every one does and are therefore not particularly bad. We tell a few white lies. We occasionally take some office supplies home from work, they didn't cost much and we feel justified in that because of the non-compensated work we are often required to give our companies. (Their sin begets sin.) Trouble is that is it my sin that will send me to hell and for which I am responsible, not some one else's. We need to begin to become consciously aware that there is no such thing as a private sin, that all of our sins infect and poison every one around us. We have brought about evil and death through our sins and we need to repent. (Is it too much to add that the normative and healthiest way of doing so is in the Sacrament of Reconciliation? It is Lent, let us flee in haste that we might be shriven and houselled.)

The second lesson is that instead of gleefully watching tabloid news (perhaps gleeful is too strong a word, perhaps it's more an addiction), we should be shocked and broken hearted because the world has been hurt. We have been hurt. We should reach the point that when we hear such news we hear the tolls of the bell, for truly it tolls for us.

Soul Mates

2010-02-16T16:10:00.000-05:00

I was told about a Carolina Governor who was carrying on with another woman and when it became public justified himself because she was his "soul mate." The term is used constantly now and it is unfortunately assumed that we should be constantly looking for this person whom we identify thusly. Utter rubbish of course. There's no such thing, well not in the sense we use the term now.

My dad taught me a great number of wise things before his untimely death, and one of them was that we don't fall in love with the "one person" who was created for us, what usually happens is that we reach a point in life that we want to have a family and the person who most closely resembles what our vision of a spouse is when we reach that point is the one we zero in on. There is a lot of truth in that. I've seen it over and over as a parish priest.

At one time that wasn't too bad a thing either. We generally kept around folks that had been raised with the same basic values and class that we had. Our families often had known each other for some time. Expectations were shared. Now, we only have four years of college (or a night in a bar) in common and our overwhelming lust. What a foundation. But we say we've met our soul mate.

Real love, the kind that really works and is good for us, requires love. Real love is sacrificial. It is not about self-actualization and self-discovery—that's therapy not love. Real love requires the Cross of Christ because God is love. That last bit is the tough part. We don't want sacrifice, we want romanticism instead. A person who is set on romantic love will never find love. The romantic is ultimately the sad, melancholic figure at the side of a cliff watching the crashing of the sea at his feet.

Love is self offering, and self oblation. Could it be any different? Christ himself, said that a greater love hath no man than to lay down his life. That is the ultimate definition of love. Most people immediately turn to Corinthians, but the Gospel comes first. Yes, love is patient and kind, etc. because that is the way we sacrifice ourselves for the other person on a daily basis. Love is the Cross embraced personally for some one other than myself. That is not an easy task. It is a struggle to do it, but it is actually the true Christian struggle.

Notice the assumption behind having a soul mate is that it is really oriented towards me. It is concerned with my happiness, my fulfillment, my completion. But as fallen human beings we are so fickle that what makes us happy this week will be bland next week. As long as I am the measure of love (my emotions and passions) then I will never find love. That is only found when we move outside of ourself and willfully, deliberately offer ourself to some one else.

The notion of soul mates makes crystal clear why marriage and love seem to be failing left and right. We are celebrating romanticism and narcism. Thank God we don't allow people to write their own marriage vows in the Orthodox Church because the ones I have heard are ghastly things that proclaim the opposite of love. "You are my fulfillment, my joy, my hope..." Yuck. Why not be really honest and talk about the act of the will to commit oneself to one's spouse. "I'm going to die for you everyday in little ways and big ones until God takes away my breath." That wouldn't wow them at Hallmark. How much better the old vows really are because they are about giving and not receiving (seems to me that our Lord might have said something like that).

Sentimentality goes hand in hand with this distorted notion of love and romanticism, because it is simply the syrupy side of self-love. It makes me feel good. To wit if we were honestly Christian we would have to reply, "I'm sure Christ didn't feel to good on the Cross, but he called that love. What do your feelings have to do with it?"

I hinted that there is perhaps a good use of the term soul mate. And I believe that there is. In a perfectly true sense, a soul mate is a person that joins us in the spirituality of sacrifice and oblation. This is done sacramentally and mystically in the Church. These two become true soul mates for their souls are directed together in the Cross which leads to suffering, death and resurrection.

The Governor lost what could have been his soul mate because he opted for romanticism and self fulfillment. He lost the possibility of real love. He traded happiness (something fleeting and undependable) for joy. "Joy cometh in the morning," that is after the dark night of oblation and sacrifice.

A Home for Anglicans

2010-02-16T11:17:00.001-05:00

The critical moment seems to have finally arrived for Anglicans who hold the Catholic faith. They are being shown the door in England as well as in the United States, usually with smiles and expressions of endearment. “We want you to stay,” they say. It seems sadistic, “Please stay and let me torture you some more.”

Anglo-Catholics have been looking for a home for quite some time. One hears of an 1845 moment, referring to John Cardinal Newman, soon to be the Venerable. Some have looked to Rome. Some to the East. I went the latter direction in 1991.

I think it is worth describing a little bit of my personal journey and my experience for those who are looking around just now. This is not necessarily a recruitment article as you will see soon enough, but I hope it will illumine something of the lay of the land.

I came from Saint Timothy Episcopal Church in Fort Worth, Texas, mentored by Fr. George M. Acker, SSC. It set my vision of the Church and her liturgical life. I have never left that original vision behind—except briefly because of a temper tantrum. Saint Timothy was, and largely still is, an old-fashioned missal mass parish. We continued to live in that lovely world of Ritual Notes and the old liturgical dispensation of the West. I still cannot think of anything more beautiful: daily mass, a line for confessions on Saturday, Stations of the Cross and Benediction on Fridays in Lent, Solemn High Mass every Sunday, the All Souls’ Requiem Mass with orchestra and choir in Latin… It gets down deep into your bones. The magnificence of the meter of Elizabethan English for liturgical prayer. As I said, it is still my heart.

When I was soon to go to Nashota House, I found I could no longer call the Episcopal Church home. There was a new Western Rite Antiochian Orthodox parish in Dallas, Texas and I joined it. The vision that I heard for the Western Rite was exactly what I had lived for those years before.

Why Orthodoxy? Very pragmatic answer. I felt I had a vocation to the priesthood, since confirmed by the Church, and I was married with three children. The Catholic Church was not a possibility to me at that time because there was no Anglicanorum Coetibus which could potentially allow for married seminarians to be ordained. And there was the Western Rite. Now that’s not a glowing endorsement I know. But it is certainly where I started. And I think it is often where many an Anglican starts. Where can I find a home that I can live the faith I have received, practiced and cherished?

The necessity of unity with the larger Church is absolutely necessary. Anglicanism can never mature if it remains separated in its own little pond, it must be united to the rest of the Church Catholic (I’m referring Orthodoxy and/or Rome here). We have watched the Oxford movement grow, thrive and now become almost extinct. It’s arguments are increasingly unsupportable because it is connected to those who espouse heresy. There have only been two legitimate directions for Anglo-Catholics to go: (1) Rome, or (2) Orthodoxy.

Let’s take up the Western Rite in Orthodoxy first because I know it personally. I do have to point out that many former Anglicans have become Eastern Rite and absolutely are at home there, but I don’t think that most will find that a fit so I’ll not spend any time with that at all.

Western Rite Orthodoxy, sometimes called Western Orthodoxy, is a disorganized collection. It has been tried in virtually every jurisdiction at one point or another with varying success. In the United States there are primarily two jurisdictions which have a Western Rite, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) and the Antiochian Archdiocese. Between the two are several different visions of what a Western Orthodoxy should be. In ROCOR it seems that each of their five or so parishes have a slightly different take on it and they take shots at one another about which one is truly Orthodox. The same happens to a degree in the Antiochian Archdiocese but it is not as pugilistic. Not being in ROCOR, I won’t spend any time reviewing their experience or expression because I really can’t speak to it with any honesty. God bless them. About the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate, I can speak since I have served it in the past and still support it. It is by far the larger group of the two.

Let me warn you though, my analysis will not be for the weak of stomach because it’s not a pretty picture that I’ll be painting. The picture of incredible potential but very little hope of achieving it. On paper it should be very much like what the Pope has presented in the Anglicanorum Coetibus, but it doesn’t work out that way and here is where this might be instructive to those who are considering either option.

The Western Rite Vicariate (WRV) technically is supposed to be an honest-to-goodness vicariate under the Metropolitan Archbishop, with a Vicar General who administers it on his behalf. Unfortunately there is a tense struggle (I wouldn’t call it an all-out war) going on about whether or not the WRV parishes are of a Vicariate or if they are diocesan. It causes tremendous problems. Bishops receive communities different according to their own requirements—which is appropriate in dioceses, but it divides the witness and consistency of the WRV. Some communities are easily received, others are not and it seems to outsiders as being arbitrary. Furthermore, Eastern diocesan bishops do not know the liturgical life of the WR, so how can they keep the discipline of these parishes? The great temptation is to “byzantinize” the WRV parishes. This has happened occasionally for several reasons. Orthodoxy is not the only one who has suffered such on a minority rite, just ask the Eastern Rite Catholics about their experience of the Latin bishops in the first 50 or so years of the twentieth century in the U.S. I’ve seen pictures of their parishes without iconostasis and the priests wearing surplices. Thankfully, Rome’s Apostolic Constitution is much clearer and more precise on this count, so those who are wanting to go to Rome this will not be an issue. Those who are considering the WRV, know that it really is. The tragedy is that it doesn’t have to be.

In our WRV administration has been absolutely awful if not downright destructive. The previous Vicar General seemed to deliberately thwart the work he was supposed to promote, safeguard and grow. The current Vicar General—a very dear personal friend of mine—is impossible to reach and he doesn’t return phone calls. He has an assistant, wonderful man, who is a full-time teacher and mission priest. Surely Rome will have better administration than this, they seem to be able to organize much better than we.

The starting point of parochial life is its liturgical life. For that to happen there must be liturgical books. I am particularly sensitive to this because I’ve been involved with typesetting and graphic design work for a number of years now. (It is not enough to have the text printed it must be beautifully done.) To produce liturgical books requires complete authorized texts, not just a Canon. The entire liturgical cycle must be determined and authoritatively promulgated. This in turn requires a singular vision about what the liturgy is to be. In the WRV we have a great difficulty here, but I sense there will be something of a struggle ahead for parishes in the Anglican Ordinariates too.

Our trouble stems from an inherent Romophobia of some of our clergy, sad to report but it’s true. “If it’s Roman, it must be wrong ipso facto,” characterizes their assumptions. They are often still trying to fight the battles of the 16th century Reformation which are not categories for the Orthodox. Another temptation is to develop an archeologically pleasing rite. What existed before the Great Schism of 1054? Let’s re-create the Sarum use (this later will be one of the tugs I can see in the Anglican Ordinariates). The essential vision of what the Church is and what her liturgical life is rests at the bottom of the entire difficulty. I personally embrace the 1950s missal mass because that was a living continuous rite that our people have worshipped and prayed. When our WRV was established in 1957, that was still living in the West... it was not a strange use. We ought to simply continue what was authorized and not try to recreate a “more pure” version, something that is essentially a Protestant notion. Prayer is alive and liturgical prayer is received.

Publishing has been a major obstacle for our WRV and it may be one for an Anglican Ordinariate until there are sufficient parishes to fund the work of printing. We have needed altar missals and the one we have relied on, the English Missal, has been out of print for ages. Our Ritual, which contains Baptism and such, is poorly done, without pagination, table of contents or index. There is no Christian education material that takes for granted the different liturgical experience. Parishes need these things not only to grow but to survive.

I have often heard the misinterpretation that the WRV is simply a tool for getting Episcopalians into the Orthodox Church and then force them to become Eastern Rite. That’s not true. I don’t know of a parish that has ever been forced to change rites. The dirty truth is that clergy and laity get demoralized at having to create everything from scratch. They see their ER brethren and say, “it would be so much easier.” There is not a deliberate conspiracy, that would imply far more organizational skills to us than I think can be assumed.

But if Orthodoxy, specifically our Western Rite is tough, there are things that will make Rome difficult too. Obedience is one of them (that will be true with Orthodoxy as well). We can’t just make up our practices and our faith as we jolly well please. Frankly, for me that’s been a liberty, but if you’re in the habit it might be tough. It will impact marriages (more specifically remarriage), female deacons—what will Fort Worth do with them all?—all aspects of our life.

Liberal Catholics, an oxymoron, are well known. Pilosi and her ilk are everywhere. There are many within the Roman Church who are just as liberal as those in TEC, some more. The only difference is that while they might get some traction here, they can't get too high up the food chain of official support. The fights over essential theology will still occur as will fights over women's ordination. Of course, some would bring up the scandals that have rocked the Catholic Church, but I think that unworthy. All ecclesial communities and Churches have had this problem. It is a human problem, not an ecclesial one. The trouble is that we have failed to exercise proper discipline in this regard. It effects the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Baptists, the Methodists... God knows the Anglicans too. Enough said.

How will Anglo-Catholics handle Neo-Con Catholics, whose approach is largely philosophical? The rich traditional of mature Anglo-Catholicism has always been both theological with greats like E. L. Maschal or Francis Hall, and liturgical. The liturgical life has always formed a nucleus from which everything else rightly flows. Lex orandi, lex credendi. This is fundamentally an Orthodox approach, but one which Neo-Cons don't seem to be too interested, some exceptions are due of course. This will be one of the greatest struggles they will have to face and I hope that they can be the leaven in that lump. But it should be honestly pointed out.

I’ve painted a dark picture (at least of the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate) but I don’t think it needs to be. It can be a marvelous flower too. It would take a group of parishes that could come in at the same time. I think as a group they could honestly present the incredible offering of the Pope to Anglicans and ask our Metropolitan if he would be willing to match it. I think if he could see a block of parishes like the former Evangelical Orthodox Mission, he would do so. It would certainly be the salvation of the AWRV. It would be an easier sale to the parishioners regarding the issue of marriages and such too.

Regardless of the direction that Anglicans go, one very difficult question will follow them. What is an Anglo-Catholic? They will not be able to shake that problem because they will need a unified vision of what the Church is and what her worship is for them to find a stable home. I hope they can all find home.

Put some wheels on it...

2010-02-16T10:08:00.000-05:00

I don't like to be negative. I really don't. It's not nearly so fun, but sometimes you've just got to stand up and say the emperor has no clothes.

I have a problem with the Orthodox Church. Yes, I'm an Orthodox priest... but I have a beef and I don't think it's a trivial problem. For what I'm about to say, I will admit that there are some notable exceptions. However, I believe (through experience and living as an Orthodox since 1991) that this is largely true.

Okay. Here's the problem. As Orthodox our theology is magnificent. Our spiritual theology and ascetics are a blessing. Our liturgical life is inspiring (although I must admit that I greatly miss my western liturgical life which is equally true and Orthodox, about this more anon). But we seem too often to be like a marvelous luxury car set up on blocks in the garage. Everything is in working order, gas in the tank, but there are no wheels on the blasted thing.

Theology, spirituality, liturgy are absolutely an essential part of Christianity, but we also need to get up off of our depository muscles and get busy in the society and culture we find ourselves right now. There are countless people who need our guidance and our correction (that's not very popular, but there you have it). We don't speak out. More specifically, our bishops are silent. It chaps me no end.

Why can't we speak out about abortion, homosexuality, pornography, responsibility with our money (and I don't just mean auditing church accounts here, I mean what is the real Christian sense of money and how does that relate to stewardship, economic policies in the government, the banking world and what are our responsibilities as Christians?). Can Orthodox Christians support a government that provides funding for abortions? I don't think so. I think we need to work against that with everything we have. Murder is murder.

I'm told, and this may be one of those editorial rumors that are so common in the Church, but it has the ring of truth, that the Greek bishops won't speak out about this because so many of the very wealthy Greeks support abortion. What ever happened to the courage of Saint John Chrysostom who spoke out against Empress Theodora? The gospel demands more.

And we Antiochians are no better. I'm told that some of our hierarchs gleefully passed out bumper stickers for our current President when people visited them. I was scandalized. He had already publicly stated he would support abortion and proved it by aiding legislation in Illinois that would protect partial birth abortion. Can our bishops support such policies? They may not have approved of McCain (I wasn't overly enamored with him either), but to participate in the campaign of a candidate without even a caveat is morally bankrupt. There have been no statements since about condemning these policies from our hierarchs... any of them, and I love our bishops.

Homosexuality? Seems pretty darned clear in the Scriptures. The Orthodox Church (like abortion) has an absolutely clear and unsullied mind about it. But it took a bill in California to force our hierarchs to say anything about it. Why?

All of this is endemic to a couple of problems. We have lived comfortably in ethnic ghettos for too long, preserving a cultural identity and failing to bring the gospel to all nations. The Gospel is the love of Christ. It is Christ himself. And we must begin to make the light of Christ known in all areas of life. That's the commonest statement about Orthodoxy, it's a way of life. We need to put some wheels on it and let it out of the garage. Let's let Life enter this living death we call life and bring hope, truth, mercy and love.

Now, I'm not a liberal Christian whose notion is the social gospel. I'm familiar with that and too often that goes to far and loses its foundation in Christ becoming little more than social activism. But all of this is not optional stuff. It is essential to the Gospel itself. It is of the essence of the Church, for we are called to be the light of the world, to be in the world but not of it. When we fail to engage the issues of our day with the eternal light of the Gospel, then we fail to be the Church.

Yes, ontologically we are the Church. But our spiritual theology requires synergy with God in all aspects of our lives. There is no separation between the Church and our daily lives. That's functionally the heresy of Nestorianism. If we are not in monasteries, then our work will necessarily involve the world, the culture and politics of where we live. Ironically, the most incarnated priest I know of is a monastic priest who happily went to help organize concern for black gangs and illiteracy among hispanics. He is neither, but the Gospel requires his efforts. I said there are exceptions...

As Orthodox we must be given marching orders by our hierarchs to do the work of Christ in this world in all areas. When Christ said the gates of hell shall not prevail against his Church, it wasn't stated in a defensive attitude as though we would be protected. Rather, it is that hell has no protection against the movement of the Church!

We need to get out of our Cedar's clubs, and our Russian clubs, and Hellenic clubs and get on with being the Church right here and right now. Otherwise, we shall no longer be the Church and what we have shall be taken away from us.

A Lenten Task...

2010-02-16T09:41:00.001-05:00

Well, I thought it was a good idea to begin blogging. I've even read that the Pope has encouraged his priests to blog. So I started and didn't continue. Just two little entries. I've noticed that a lot of clergy start a blog and then take a long break. Well, I was worse. I started very modestly and then very quickly stopped.

I'm going to try to do better now. It's probably good for me (I'm not sure any one has ever even read a word that I've written, so I had to look at it that way). As a Lenten exercise I am going to write on my blog at least four days a week. They may be short pieces, but I'm going to try to do this. Maybe some time later I'll be able to figure out how to develop a readership too!

The New Ecologists

2009-06-25T16:31:00.000-04:00

As I was driving to the church today I had a curious experience. Immediately in front of me was a young man driving in his light blue Toyota Prius. It was politically correct with its hybrid engine whirling away as we drove down the street. I must have seem terribly out of place and out of connection in my Camry with the regular gasoline burning engine.

He drove with the windows rolled down, while I—with a much more sensitive demeanor drove with my windows up and the air conditioner cranked as high as I could get it. I despise arriving with my black shirts dripping in sweat. The young man was admirable in all of his comportment until I spied the chink in his armor. I should have noticed it sooner.

He left arm was flopped out the window with a cigarette clutched between his fingers. There is something so inelegant in the way a young man holds a cigarette in his claws. He usually draws his fingers in close like he's grasping a baseball. A woman, contrariwise, will extend her fingers so that the noxious tube of tobacco seems to float against her hand. This youngster was definitely more of the bear claw type.

Hadn't he heard of the dangers of smoking in school. I'm assured by my children that they are told that by their teachers. Has he not heard the alarm sounded from the media at night warning him of the perils he was entering? He obviously heard the necessity of conserving energy and fuel with the heightened shrieks of the eco-maniacal left drumming their cadences into a religious overture. That did seem to make it past his ears. But smoking? I'm afraid that he probably heard that with the same ears that passed over the sex ed material.

Then I saw the truth. I was dumbfounded. I can't believe that I hadn't realized it before. We pulled up next to the red light and casually… calmly… he tossed his cigarette butt out the window onto the street. Hmmm. He had been bullied into being ecologically wise in his car purchase but when it really boiled down to being consistent in his life, he just tossed it all out the window.

Maybe I'm a cynic. I don't think so. But I found tremendous hope in the future in his little demonstration (as well as a little disgust). I suddenly became hopeful that an entire generation hasn't been lost, that they will be able to see more clearly as the grow up. Maybe they haven't been completely brainwashed with the silliness that the schools teach now.

I even allowed myself the secret pleasure of a new mental image. Someday, when he has learned to think for himself, when he has come to see all of the tomfoolery and buffoonery and preachiness of the left he'll simply come to a stop light and toss it out the window.

Reconnecting

2009-06-24T17:13:00.000-04:00

I recently have been able to reconnect with some of my old friends from high school. Thankfully we're not too old that we can't remember each other any longer, just too old to recognize one another if we walked past each other on the street. None of us look the same. Well, okay there are a couple who look very similar but they're rare.

Reconnecting is an interesting thing. We often pick right back up where we left off years ago in the summer of 1980. Things have certainly changed us but inside we are still the same persons we were.

That, I think, is good news. Too often we tend to think of ourselves as adults who have to have answers and solutions for our daily problems, and tragically we extend that to assuming we have all of the answers all of the time. But late at night when we lay our heads down on the pillow we know that that is simply a mask that we're all too comfortable wearing. We still carry inside us the same wide-eyed kids that saw Star Wars for the first time, or Yellowstone National Park. We aren't completed jaded. It's always a temptation to become so, but even then we occasionally stumble across our feet and find ourselves in awe of something.

That is a profoundly wonderful thing because unless we recognize that we don't know everything, we can never have faith. We have to recognize that God really is above us and bigger than we are. We can't squeeze him into our little noggins and expect him to still be God. We're simply creatures after all, and far from omniscient. As I like to say in my adults' classes, if we have managed to get God all figured out, then our God (in this case it really is god not God) is to small, or our heads are too big.

There's another wonderful thing about reconnection. And that is simply that we can re-connect. We can always move our hearts closer again. This may be in the sense of renewing friendships long neglected, or it may be rekindling the love we once had for God. The intensity of that love can wane and become lukewarm far too quickly in our harried lives. But like the father of the prodigal son (that gospel story is really about the father and not the son), God waits for us to come around the corner and walk home.

Spiritually we all need to reconnect. We need to do it every single day as a matter of fact. That is, in part, what prayer is all about. Prayer isn't simply to ask God for this or that, to forgive this or that, to help this one or that one. At its absolute core it is to reconnect. To weld ourselves to God with such passion and intensity that we experience the burning of that love all through the day.

So, I for one, am thankful for reconnecting. It's essential for us to move forward. I hope we all dust off our kneelers and open our hearts to the deepest reconnection which all connecting and reconnecting is intending to point us to.