tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5132886771906557432024-03-14T02:00:27.911-07:00For He is Good and Loves Mankindan Orthodox Christian blog under the patronage of St. John the TheologianDavid Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.comBlogger206125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-74700868166142567782023-11-08T12:42:00.004-08:002023-11-08T12:49:21.937-08:00Kat Von D<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="384" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZLfIjbOXgY0" width="462" youtube-src-id="ZLfIjbOXgY0"></iframe></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>Kat Von D is a famous tattoo artist, entrepreneur, and musician, a lady whose fame began on the show "Miami Ink," and later spawned her own show, "LA Ink." I've always found her a fascinating person for a lot of reasons. She dresses like a goth princess, but one of her subspecialties is tattooing religious art (usually Catholic, but others as well). She is a well known alcoholic and drug abuser, though thankfully recovering. She has dabbled in New Age religious practices, and has been vocal about that. <p></p><p>She was also baptized as a Christian not very long ago, and posted it on social media. I found this largely unsurprising. Despite her appearance and previous lifestyle, she has always struck me as having a kind and loving heart and a real passion for helping people. She loves her parents and she loves her clients and co-workers and friends. She was "living the life" before her conversion, despite her many sins, in many ways more so than some who bore the name of Christ long before she did. She, at least, wore her sins on her sleeve. We tend to hide ours with pretense and self-righteousness, and then lecture to others based on superficial nonsense.</p><p>I generally dislike pop-culture Christianity, and I don't like the practice of taking popular figures and blowing their conversion stories out of proportion. In general, I wouldn't write about a Baptist Christian's conversion on an Orthodox Christian blog, not because I have anything against Baptists (most of my family is still Baptist), but because it doesn't really fit here. In this case, however, there are several things about her story that I find compelling.</p><p>Kat, whose actual name is Katherine von Drachenberg, was raised by Christian missionaries, but left the faith, more or less, as a teenager, around the time she began tattooing and also drinking. She ran away from home and then was sent to a couple of homes that were sort of "scared straight" type places. She did not have kind words for them in this interview. In fact, she suggested they should be illegal, and that she witnessed abuse there. She talked a lot about her upbringing and the fact that she abandoned the faith not because she was driven away, but rather because she had questions and her parents and other authority figures did not have answers for her. But it was obvious being sent to a couple of group homes to "straighten her out" really did more harm than good.</p><p>She talked about the impact of fame on her life, of seeking out tattooing because it was a way to meld her artistic talent with her love of helping people. She talked about the negative impact of addiction and her lifestyle on her personal life, overcoming addiction, and then eventually making her way back to God.</p><p>Some of the most fascinating parts of the interview dealt with her conversion story itself, and how it was received not only by her non-Christian fans, but also by Christians who responded to her. Her strongest criticism was of the Christians, and hearing her tell her story, I can see why. She talked about self-righteousness, smugness, and the holier-than-thou attitudes of some of the respondents. Many of them criticized her for being insincere and engaging in a publicity stunt. Some criticized those who celebrated her baptism -- in the church building -- as looking like witches. She spoke specifically about people who commented that they will not believe in the sincerity of her conversion until it "bore fruit," which apparently should include a change in her appearance. And on the opposite side, she spoke of how her journey back to Christ included the influence of two men -- Marilyn Manson and Alice Cooper -- who a lot of Christians might think demonic, simply because of the way they look. This even though Alice Cooper has been a Christian for a long, long time at this point.</p><p>Another interesting line of discussion was the fact that she appreciates the concept of sacred space, and does not want to go to church to see a concert or performance. She thinks the music in church ought to be set aside for that purpose. She doesn't judge those who think differently, but it's interesting to see someone so new to the faith embrace the idea that worship ought to be worshipful. She also spoke about this from the opposite perspective. She said she doesn't think being a Christian means she has to stop listening to The Cure or Depeche Mode, although she did say her faith now influences the type of music she makes and listens to, and has also influenced her husband, a musician, in a similar way.</p><p>She talked a lot about the difference between New Age "seekers" and truly demonic practices, emphasizing that while she wanted to get rid of her books on Tarot and spells and meditation and the like, it was more because she saw them as crutches, or as she later put it, "band aids on a sinking ship." They gave her some temporary relief, but were never life-changing in the way her conversion to Christ was.</p><p>There were a few main points of emphasis that I took away from this interview, which I think are pertinent to the Christian faith in general, and to Orthodox Christianity in particular. </p><p>She spoke a lot about not being a stumbling block to people who are different, or struggling. One can easily see someone who looks like her walking into a church and being received coldly. Thankfully, she was not. But she spoke a lot about the fact that we cannot know where someone is in their journey, and that superficial judgment can drive people away from the faith. She emphasized that outward appearance, or even just being different, tends to invite judgment, and she specifically spoke about instances where Christians had spoke about her poorly or treated her poorly.</p><p>She talked about how despite her departure from the faith for a long time, the seeds were sown in her childhood, and it was those seeds that brought her back. Her parents' lack of judgment, and obvious love for her, ultimately allowed her to return to the faith of her childhood. As parents, we never know how our children will fare once we let them loose into the world. But we can teach them well, and pray for them, and love them. And sometimes, it is that faith and love that ends up paving the way for their return to Christ. </p><p>She discussed how she deals with people who attack her, and this was perhaps the most interesting part. She sees a cultural sickness, especially on social media, where people have a zeal to try to "pick apart" (her words) others, to criticize them and drag them down. And she said at one point, instead of doing that "I wish people would just pray for them." She also mentioned having friends who are still addicts and prostitutes and have troubled marriages and so forth, and how she will not abandon them now that she is a Christian. She simply loves and prays for them. </p><p>She talked about the historical proofs for Christianity, and the fact that there were, in fact, answers to the questions she had. I found this particularly fascinating since it is Christian history that ultimately led me to the Orthodox Church. </p><p>She seemed perturbed that some people called her a "baby Christian." I think this is because it was given to her as a pejorative. And that is tragic. Everyone was at some point a "baby Christian." And many Christians who have been Christians for decades have a superficial understanding of the faith. Kat Von D is a baby Christian, for sure, but there is no shame in that. She said in this interview she did not see her zeal ever waning (the byline in the video is "I'm on fire for Jesus" after all). But it might. As baby Christians, everything is new and exciting and there is so much to learn and explore. Christianity on the ground is messier than that, and it can be discouraging, overwhelming, and depressing at times. So while I hope her zeal never wanes, if it does, it will be the encouragement and love of her fellow Christians that will bring her through it. More to the point, if it does, having a bunch of online Christian nannies saying "I told you so" will only drive her away, maybe for good this time. This is one reason I tend to dislike overinflating the conversion stories of the famous. They might disappoint us, and in our disappointment, we might be tempted to forget that it was love that drew her in, and only love that will see her through tough times.</p><p>And that is probably the main takeaway from this interview that I think is instructive to us Orthodox Christians today. Kat Von D is the opposite of a poster child for what most people think a Christian should look like, or even be like. But despite that, she has love, and she seeks only love. There is a lot of talk of late about the newly coined concept of "othering." Meaning, we treat people like they are not one of us, often superficially. But this has no place in the Christian Church. I recently ran across a quote from Fr. Thomas Hopko that is on point here:</p><p>"Now some kinda fancy thinkers like to think things, and say: 'Oh, well, people are sinners, but you love <i>Christ</i> in that person, you love the <i>Image of God</i> in that person.' Well baloney! Jesus didn't say 'love the Image of God in that person.' He didn't say 'love <i>Me</i> in that person.' He said: 'love that person, and you will be loving Me. Because I have identified with every human being on the face of the earth. Everyone, whoever they are.'"</p><p>Father Tom was the Dean Emeritus of St. Vladimir Orthodox seminary, a learned man, well credentialed, who looked exactly like you would expect a Christian to look, and who is beloved of Orthodox Christians the world over. It is worth noting that a "baby Christian" covered in tattoos who dresses in black and wears white makeup on her face and wears bright red lipstick and has lived a hard and at times overtly sinful life came to the same conclusion he did. Glory to God.</p>David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-68800586335840522332023-10-30T08:29:00.004-07:002023-10-30T08:29:51.298-07:00It's Simple, Part 2<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKUoacOwqTosZEzC8iRKpGuYnD1fOTGAqXbiOUKdQKWXtAXIZWfxyOg4u4-KxzXTEav2J8Uc3lCi7VCtfkv5QAIrV8gBUoIvov-Hl8MqLyc9-WjpUarc2ClKrzOWYC6T6qrzu7CzPhG1TzDxc8VObQwRJZE9B8Dw97DmAm21sxfx5xnenFCGSURVU2QRKZ/s1600/Holy%20Friday%20Cross.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1085" data-original-width="1600" height="271" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKUoacOwqTosZEzC8iRKpGuYnD1fOTGAqXbiOUKdQKWXtAXIZWfxyOg4u4-KxzXTEav2J8Uc3lCi7VCtfkv5QAIrV8gBUoIvov-Hl8MqLyc9-WjpUarc2ClKrzOWYC6T6qrzu7CzPhG1TzDxc8VObQwRJZE9B8Dw97DmAm21sxfx5xnenFCGSURVU2QRKZ/w400-h271/Holy%20Friday%20Cross.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>I wrote a while back on the simplicity of the Orthodox Christian life, and I return to it because of a conversation some friends and I had about mutual friends who were raised in a non-Chalcedonean church but made their way to our little parish and are the most delightful people. The conversation centered around things like reception and worthiness.<p></p><p>Now, people who know me know I am not some wild-eyed ecumenist, looking to paper over real differences and just get along despite very serious doctrinal errors. I take the truth of the Orthodox Church seriously. It's one reason why I am an Orthodox Christian.</p><p>But there are a lot more people in the world who are not, as the comedian Brother Dave Gardner once said, "educated beyond their capacity," than those who are. And a seminary degree, or a St. Stephen Certificate (as I hold), is not a sufficient condition for salvation. These things are nice to have, and it's interesting to study the faith and Church history, but knowledge does not save. Belief does not save. And certainly, ideology does not save.</p><p>The people we were talking about have no seminary education. They likely do not know precisely why the church they grew up in believes differently than the one they found themselves in, halfway around the world. To the extent they do, it obviously does not matter enough to them to maintain the division (with apologies to our non-Chalcedonean friends). But they pray, and they love, and they enter into the Christian life far more deeply than I do, to my shame. And they have done this, simply, their entire lives. They are model Christians.</p><p>So I'm not writing this to suggest our differences do not matter. They do. I am writing this to suggest that perhaps those differences, once they are sorted out and identified sufficiently to warn the faithful of error, ought take a backseat to the simple, faithful, loving act of living within the Church and praying for the salvation of all. I don't know how precise the theological constructs of our Oriental Orthodox turned Eastern Orthodox friends are. I could not tell you what the depth of their knowledge about God is. But knowing about God is not our aim. <i><b>Knowing </b></i>God is our aim. And I can tell you with certainty, these folks know God. Because knowing God is simple, and we tend to complicate it.</p>David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-63041830410639936782023-08-07T13:56:00.003-07:002023-08-07T13:56:48.708-07:00Truth, Error, Ecclesiology, and Unity<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://commons.orthodoxwiki.org/images/1/15/Fr_Seraphim_Rose.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="369" data-original-width="233" height="369" src="https://commons.orthodoxwiki.org/images/1/15/Fr_Seraphim_Rose.jpg" width="233" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>"We who wish to remain in the true tradition of Orthodoxy will have to be zealous and firm in our Orthodoxy without being fanatics, and without presuming to teach our bishops what they should do. Above all, we must strive to preserve the true fragrance of Orthodoxy, being at least a little 'not of this world,' detached from all the cares and politics even of the Church, nourishing ourselves in the otherworldly food the Church gives us in such abundance."<br /><br /><br />-- Fr. Seraphim Rose<div><br /></div><div>"An Orthodoxy, even an eschatologically motivated Orthodoxy, that prioritizes self-will, prelest-ridden certainty, and fanaticism about every jot and tittle, over charity, unity, and obedience to rightful episcopal authority is not Orthodoxy at all. History is littered with the detritus of sectarians who thought their own issue de jour worth disobedience and schism. They lie in unconsecrated ground, forgotten by all but historians, while the Body of Christ remains."<div><br /></div><div>-- Fr. Cassian Sibley</div><div><br /></div><br />The second quote above is a comment Fr. Cassian Sibley, a ROCOR priest, made to someone who implied, through a series of disjointed quotes from various Fathers and saints, that Fr. Seraphim's quote did not teach what it says. The first is the quote from Fr. Seraphim Rose, who was a ROCOR priestmonk before his untimely passing, that was the subject of Fr. Cassian's post. I am in agreement with what Fr. Cassian writes, and obviously also with what Fr. Seraphim wrote. But I think Fr. Cassian's response deserves some unpacking to demonstrate why he is correct, particularly in these times.<div><br /></div><div>Fr. Cassian's main point was that Fr. Seraphim is often misquoted, and is done a disservice by his fans and critics alike. I also agree with this point, having dove into Fr. Seraphim's writings of late and discovered they do not really resemble either the rigorist Phariseeism of some of his more vocal fans, nor the disjointed novelty of some of his more vocal critics. But leaving that aside for the moment, it seems to me what he says above is properly basic Orthodox doctrine, as is what Fr. Cassian writes. </div><div><br /></div><div>I wrote recently about the anti-ecumenist movement, a movement with which I share some sympathies, but cannot fully embrace because in my estimation it, or at least certain corners of it, has metastasized into an ideological purity cult rather than a healthy desire to keep the Church and her teaching pure. The Orthodox Church cannot dilute her dogma in order to appease those who might join us and increase our numbers. Nor can we afford to pretend differences in dogma don't exist, or perhaps worse, don't matter. But what I tend to see from this camp, which to be fair is mostly on the internet, is a movement that repeats the false teachings of schismatics, but still operates from within the Church, eating apart the Church from the inside out. This is seen in some of the replies to Fr. Cassian, which draw from the words and thinking of actual schismatics (and in some cases in this particular post were actually written by actual schismatics), and also from the reply of the person to whom Fr. Cassian replied.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Church, if it is anything, is the communion of Orthodox bishops, preserving the faith from the Apostles through the present day. To hear some tell it, the bishops today are all (or mostly) in error, having given into the ecumenical movement in 1965 and ever since having watered down the true faith. And yet, if this is true, why do those same people remain in communion with those bishops? Rather than staying behind and attempting to strong-arm the bishops to repentance, and in some cases encouraging disobedience to them if they say something "uncanonical" (which tends to be in the eye of the beholder in these discussions), why not join one of the schismatic groups that are no longer in communion with the supposedly erring bishops? Or why not utilize the process one can go through to escalate concerns above one's bishop? I have only contacted my bishop one time to complain about anything, and not having received a response I found satisfactory, I could have elevated that to the Metropolitan and, if need be, higher. Everyone in the Orthodox Church is in obedience to someone else, after all. I elected not to do that for reasons that are mine, mostly because I did not think it worth any greater breach of peace and my family and I, with the express blessing of both our former priest and our new priest, had already moved on to another parish under another bishop. So in the end, I elected to move on in peace rather than continue to quarrel and cause more discord. And yet, for some reason, some folks stay within the Church, remain under canonically Orthodox bishops and priests (or not, in at least one case), and refuse to work within that organizational structure, opting instead to encourage disobedience and open rebellion. </div><div><br /></div><div>I think the reason why is pretty simple -- incrementalism, which is a fundamentally dishonest pursuit, at least as applied here. Rather than do the honorable thing and leave, or stay and openly confess against the supposedly erring hierarchs, they wish to change the teaching of the Church to suit their narrow view of it, and are willing to wait things out in order to do it, taking ground where they can. They know they cannot change the teaching of the Church by consensus. If they could, they would not resort to dishonesty and encourage disobedience, but rather would enter into dialogue with the bishops and others in order to reach fraternal agreement in love. Instead, they apply outside influence on the Episcopacy, sort of a pressure campaign, which on the internet tends to overstate the reach and influence they actually wield, and lacking a similarly coordinated and organized effort in support of the bishops on whatever issue is being pushed, it is hoped the bishops will cave. And in some cases, they have, and I assume over time, more will. It is, then, up to the bishops to maintain proper Orthodox teaching and practice and refuse to give in to pressure groups, whether they come from within or without the Church. And it is my prayer and belief that while some have caved and more will cave, most have not, and most will not.</div><div><br /></div><div>Ironically, this incrementalist approach is not at all unlike the approach taken by others who wish to change the teachings of the Church in the other direction. Birds of a feather might not see eye to eye on what the problems are, but they sure seem to flock together when it comes to how to achieve their ends. It is an uncomfortable irony, then, that the Church's "right wing" and "left wing" (I acknowledge these political terms don't fit neatly in this context) seem to share the same playbook.</div><div><br /></div><div>In my limited experience, the line for "canonical" or "Patristic" Orthodoxy is narrowly drawn by these pseudo-schismatics. In the case of the insistence of baptizing converts, as just one example among many, it is drawn directly from St. Cyprian through a handful of his contemporaries, and then through the Kollyvades Fathers and current Athonite factions. The history of the Church is long and varied and not nearly as neat and clean as they pretend it to be. In addition, Mount Athos is hardly one conglomerate of Orthodox thinking, but rather is a group of 20 monasteries with at least some variance in their stances on issues of importance in the Orthodox Church. More, the Athonite monasteries and their associated Sketes are not independent communities, but are themselves under the authority of a bishop. When they disagree with their bishop, they tend to do so directly, not behind the scenes, and certainly not by merely ignoring the bishop, or worse, by lying to him. Saint Maximus the Confessor did not have his tongue cut out and his hand cut off because he snuck around behind the backs of the hierarchs. He was mutilated and tortured precisely because he stood firm and resolute, defying those bishops (including debating the Patriarch of Constantinople and winning him over to the Orthodox position!) and ultimately dying in exile. Confessors confess, and they do so directly, not in secret.</div><div><br /></div><div>So what Fr. Cassian writes is both on the nose and directly relatable to what we see in the world of internet "Orthodoxy" today. Fr. Cassian is no shrinking violet. He tends to speak his mind and speak it well, and I have always valued his insights. More, as a ROCOR priest, it is at least possible, perhaps likely (though I have not asked him), that he receives converts from heterodox traditions by baptism. So one would not necessarily assume he is "against" the position I use as an example in the preceding paragraph. Nor am I, as my current priest receives converts typically by baptism. But Fr. Cassian knows, and says forthrightly here, that whatever his preference, it does not allow him to disobey his bishop. Persuasion is how consensus has historically been reached in the Church. People encouraging priests and laity to be disobedient to their bishops refuse to let their "yes" be yes and their "no" be no. And it is not limited to them -- their incitement and encouragement lead others to do likewise. </div><div><br /></div><div>As I posted on my Facebook page recently, you have as one example this person who literally lied to his priest about whether he was baptized in order to get the reception into the Church that he wants, rather than that which the Church has prescribed him:</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1cX4aj0T2coYnj-PtDu1xKxwK32c2UzOs_kDuJ6BH7XVq6N6wIWL9GC7_jhZC8laY1ApCuZ8JiDMWCjDuuHq1S0OtN_fQZ5_U8YRsx5JWSxRfDLzNYhgAOPN9JVS2SFcOK5I7e7e159iEKwLYXreRS0cKYlbY0tz7MNib0Oo_F-Wf0ejVwB5XyOSxEjke/s439/363413154_10224477529062784_7936857950486314684_n.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="264" data-original-width="439" height="192" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1cX4aj0T2coYnj-PtDu1xKxwK32c2UzOs_kDuJ6BH7XVq6N6wIWL9GC7_jhZC8laY1ApCuZ8JiDMWCjDuuHq1S0OtN_fQZ5_U8YRsx5JWSxRfDLzNYhgAOPN9JVS2SFcOK5I7e7e159iEKwLYXreRS0cKYlbY0tz7MNib0Oo_F-Wf0ejVwB5XyOSxEjke/s320/363413154_10224477529062784_7936857950486314684_n.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div>And this person, who suggests that lying is somehow both a Scriptural and Patristic behavior, and a virtue among the Fathers (rather than a gross exception, and probably one worthy of a confession at that):</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM7-xHWdHStSTxd0zFyJOMo4EUlxMwk3eAiHnLjZZNnZAl2YImcm29QoY9XEMOckw4i-J4t2rEUPF842qN0HW5nDF7UWisGUc-G9rggfw_GA66GFP1YP5enH8nBp7wVZgEhPkLDb1lYArtXqLUGMK52UI7P7bcVtX-DKa_4LJWI2G5ECgR0YyWCPB6K1VT/s439/363406757_10224477530622823_2057895400916998769_n.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="376" data-original-width="439" height="274" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM7-xHWdHStSTxd0zFyJOMo4EUlxMwk3eAiHnLjZZNnZAl2YImcm29QoY9XEMOckw4i-J4t2rEUPF842qN0HW5nDF7UWisGUc-G9rggfw_GA66GFP1YP5enH8nBp7wVZgEhPkLDb1lYArtXqLUGMK52UI7P7bcVtX-DKa_4LJWI2G5ECgR0YyWCPB6K1VT/s320/363406757_10224477530622823_2057895400916998769_n.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div>False witness is not a virtue. Lying to your priests and hierarchs to manipulate them is not a Christian behavior. And leaving aside the issue of baptizing converts, we could as easily discuss the Church's response to COVID, and the varying ways in which hierarchs tried to balance public safety and political concerns (such as the threat that their parishes would be shut down entirely rather than being allowed by the government to remain open partially), over and against the sacred Mysteries of the Church, and how best to ensure the faithful are able to receive them in proper abundance. I am not so bold to suggest that any hierarch or jurisdiction got that exactly correct. They, on the other hand, have a tendency to suggest they mostly got it incorrect, and that their failure to navigate an unprecedented circumstance with precision and purity amounts to the bishops being "wolves," "heretics," and the like. So I ask again, if you think your priest and bishop are "ecumenists," and that "ecumenism" is a grave sin (both of which seem apparent from the comment to which Fr. Cassian replied), or if you think they are "wolves" ravaging the flock openly, why are you joining them to begin with? Why not go to a communion that will receive you as you wish to be received? They exist, both within and without the Church. Why not fraternally and lovingly exhort them to greater faithfulness, instead of amplifying their supposed faithlessness?</div><div><br /></div><div>The answer is some of these folks want what they want, and they are willing to sacrifice fraternal consensus and unity to get it. In the end, this is all self will and pride, neither of which leads to salvation. It is dangerous to the unity of the Church. And it is wrong. The bishops are not always right. But they at least have the Episcopal grace to make those calls. Where we disagree, we are to do so openly in love and in the spirit of truth, not by backbiting, slander and rebellion. God help us if we forget that.</div><div><br /></div></div>David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-76239061500481664282023-06-29T07:17:00.001-07:002023-06-29T07:17:04.741-07:00Orthodox Cosplay<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41YnMEFTh6L._AC_UX569_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="733" data-original-width="569" height="400" src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41YnMEFTh6L._AC_UX569_.jpg" width="311" /></a></div><br />I feel like I'm writing a lot about authenticity, and to a great extent that's because I'm still gathering my thoughts on several trends I've observed in the Church. I saw an older (several years ago) discussion online yesterday that I thought hit the nail on the head regarding some of the issues that have concerned me of late. The issue was what I have termed "monastic fetishism," and what others have observed as laity seeking a monastic type of life while not being monastics.<p></p><p>There is a sense in which this is perfectly healthy and not at all a concern. Without more, wanting a fuller service schedule, wanting to live near a monastery to have access to such a service schedule, wanting a deeper spiritual life, greater asceticism, etc., are all good and worthy goals. Burnout is real, and I do fear too many young Orthodox converts try to do too much too fast. But absent other motivations, it is well and good to enter as deeply into the life of the Church as one is able, and certainly the fullest expression of the liturgical life of the Church is found in monasteries. Being close to a monastery, or visiting one as a retreat, or adopting some of the prayer life and liturgical life of monastics, is generally a good thing, and ought to be encouraged.</p><p>But there seems to me to be a secondary motivation that sometimes enters the picture. In America, we do not have a well-formed spirituality that is common to the people. We see this reflected in faddish pop-Christianity in such things as the Prayer of Jabez book and 40 Days of Purpose and so forth. American Christians without access to the full treasury of the Church tend to grasp for meaning. We do not take Holy Week off of work. Stores don't close on feast days. We are not, obviously, an Orthodox society, culturally speaking. And so we seek out deeper spiritual meaning because our culture is so utterly banal and spiritually impoverished.</p><p>This temptation to attempt a deeper spiritual life within a culture that doesn't really make room for it is worsened, it seems to me, when laypeople want to live as monastics, without taking the monastic tonsure and without entering into that life fully and completely. That is, the danger is not wishing for a fuller spiritual life, but putting on the dressings of a fuller spiritual life without actually doing the work. It is, as the person in the discussion I referenced above called it, "Orthodox LARPing." Instead of actually living out the Orthodox life in humility and reverence where God has placed us (in the world), the temptation is to play dress-up and attempt to monasticize our little portion of the world because we think it makes us more holy. And as I note above and have noted a lot of late, the problem with this is it is inauthentic. Which is not to say it is utterly inauthentic. Certainly people who attempt to live this way have good intentions and deeply desire holiness. It is only to say that without taking the tonsure and entering into the life of a monk or nun, it is not fully authentic. There is some degree of self-deception involved. And the problem with that is it tempts us to think we are holier simply by putting on the appearance of monasticism, when in fact, holiness for laypeople is more often found in service to those around us, loving, forgiving, and carrying the very same holiness that monks aspire to into the world and using it to serve Christ through our neighbor in the most mundane of ways. </p><p>A former priest once told me "everyone wants to go to the chanter stand or the choir or serve on a committee before the chrism is even dry, but nobody ever wants the 'ministry' of taking out the trash or cleaning the toilets." That same priest's son-in-law did those chores, faithfully, and literally for decades. Most people never noticed, but things just got done and everyone sort of assumed it was someone's responsibility and it always got taken care of. There is no glory in such a role in the eyes of men. But there is much glory in God's eyes in simply serving the Church in such fashion, neither seeking recognition nor puffing one's self up over it. </p><p>It is obviously a great thing if those things are done while saying the Jesus Prayer or after having done 30 prostrations during morning prayers or while attending every service every time the Church doors are open and while wearing a cassock and serving in the Church. But it is no less a good work and no less spiritual to do them wearing khakis and still having dirt on one's hands from working in the yard or coming home from a hard day's work. </p>David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-7400534892924707032023-06-15T08:52:00.005-07:002023-06-15T08:52:44.826-07:00It's simple<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.pravmir.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/about-prayers-775x518-600x401.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="401" data-original-width="600" height="267" src="https://www.pravmir.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/about-prayers-775x518-600x401.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>Orthodoxy is complicated, for sure. There is a lot to learn, and with a 2000 plus year history, you will never learn all of it. The theological formulations are such that converts have to "un-learn" as much as they have to learn, because we carry so many presuppositions into the Church with us, it often takes time to let go of them and let the Church speak to us and through us.<p></p><p>But in a very real sense, Orthodoxy is simple. Simple to the point that the very word "Orthodoxy" is not really accurate. "Orthodoxy" might be bound up in a set of beliefs, an ideology, things we think about Christ and His Church. The truth is, the Orthodox faith is not simply believed, it is lived. And the simple fact is, being Orthodox means living life as an Orthodox Christian, simply.</p><p>When I was about to be chrismated, an internet "friend" gave me some great advice. He said "don't be a weirdo." He didn't mean "don't act like an Orthodox Christian," because most people think we are weird enough as it is and he was aware of that. What he meant was don't wear a cassock to cut the grass and swing a censer as you walk around the house. That is, be as normal as an Orthodox Christian can be and still authentically live the faith.</p><p>As Orthodox Christians, many of the habits we have, the things we do, the things we wear, how we pray -- the "externals" to use a word my priest tends to disfavor because it carries some baggage with it -- ARE weird. Objectively. The world sees us doing them and wearing them and saying them and thinks "well, that's odd." Or, too often, "they're odd." But there is a balance between being a "normal" Orthodox Christian (which is to say, to be a baseline level of weirdo), and being what one famous Orthodox meme-maker refers to as "hyperdox." I teach my children that the world already thinks we're weirdos. And yet, I also teach them, by word and example, to take the faith seriously. They often cover their heads in Church. They own and use prayer ropes. They attend the services. They say their prayers. And they live out the faith and identify in the world as Orthodox Christians. And that is more than enough. </p><p>Something the Orthodox Church offers that too many other traditions lack is authenticity. So it seems to me that we ought to own the things that are of the Church and not shy away from them. Wear your cross. Own, use, and, if you wish, wear your prayer rope. Go to the services. Keep the fasts. Keep the feasts. Say your prayers. Have your priest come and bless your house and your automobiles and your office and whatever else you would like to have blessed. But own it. Live it authentically. We should neither shy away from the things of the Church, nor try to amplify them beyond the norm. Having an Orthodox identity is a good thing. But the faith is not merely something to which we assent, much less put on as a costume. It is something we live. We should live it authentically, humbly, and simply.</p>David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-75510201576316656182023-05-03T10:11:00.002-07:002023-06-15T08:06:28.607-07:00In the World, but not Of the World<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.orthodoxprayer.org/Images/Prayer%20Rope.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="239" data-original-width="306" height="312" src="https://www.orthodoxprayer.org/Images/Prayer%20Rope.jpg" width="400" /></a></div> As Orthodox Christians, we are called to be in the world, but not of the world. In discussions with some close friends recently, we had occasion to ponder some of the hyper-ascetical movements in modern Orthodoxy, primarily on the internet. I will decline to discuss the particulars of those movements or the persons who are part of them, as I am not trying to slander anyone or hurt any feelings, and I also have no desire to draw further attention to that sort of thing nor draw their attention to me. I would like to focus instead on some of the issues we discussed. <p></p><p>One thing we all noticed was a very narrow focus on canonical rigidity and what they perceive as a "return" to a very strict and vigorous liturgical life. One bemoaned the loss of daily Orthros and Vespers, claiming these used to be commanded, but then citing to a 6th century decree by the Emperor Justinian. The concern here is not with the offering of daily offices, obviously. It is with the denigration of those who either do not or cannot offer them, or attend them. But even that is not the issue. To all of us in the discussion, this rigorist insistence on what strikes us as something closer to a monastic-type Christian life came across not as a desire for greater and deeper spirituality, but as a self-righteous means to judge others as insufficiently ascetic. </p><p>We did not conclude this lightly. One particular comment claimed that the very use of words like "rigorist" or "legalism" is itself indicative of a desire to eschew ANY spiritual work. When the truth is, I own and use a prayer rope, I try to keep up with my daily prayers, I try to read the Scriptures daily, and I try to read something from the life of the saints or other works from prominent Orthodox authors. Somewhat ironically, given the stereotypes surrounding certain internet personalities, I am currently reading "The Soul After Death" by Father Seraphim Rose. There are certainly those who are able to draw nearer to the Church, doing far more than I do, and they are to be commended for their labors. But to make those efforts normative over others, to insist that we "approximate monastics" as one fellow did, and to denigrate those who are unable or unwilling to adopt such strict asceticism, is not a deeper Christian spirituality. It is Pharisaical. If you wish others to follow your example, you should start by humbly doing your own labors and not judging others.</p><p>In addition, it seemed to all of us in the discussion that there was an implicit desire to withdraw from the world, not as monastics <i>per se</i>, but as those who are emphatically not monastics and yet endeavoring to live as if they were. This struck us as a sort of monastic fetishism, a covetous desiring of that to which one has not been called. Part of that is what I note above -- the judgment of others who do not follow suit. But part of it is that there also seems to be a spirit at work here that suggests that the world taints us, as if the world is itself unclean. And while I agree that Orthodox Christians ought not embrace the world and all its worldly temptations, we are explicitly called by our Lord to go out into the world, taking the light of Christ with us. In the High Priestly Prayer, Christ said:</p><i>I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. <b>I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one</b>. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them by Your truth.</i><p>So it is not that we are to withdraw from the world and all its temptations. Certainly those temptations existed during our Lord's time on this earth, as St. Paul's letters to the Corinthians, the story of St. Photini, and other Scriptures attest. No, we are called to go into the world with all its temptations (as our Lord Himself did), and we pray that the Father would "keep us from the evil one" as we go. In this way, Christ sanctifies the world not because of us, but through Himself working in us. As my priest said in a homily a while back, "even pumping gas becomes a holy act." So the desire to withdraw from the world and its temptations comes across at least like a fantasy, something that goes against that which our Lord Himself called us to do. And that is not to mention, if anything monastics face far greater temptation than those of us in the world. They have chosen a life of constant spiritual warfare, and they withdraw out of the world precisely to focus on that battle. Their prayer for the life of the world allows us to enter into the world, girded in battle, to face worldly temptations. But their life is not ours, and ours is not theirs. And one ought not pine after the other.</p><p>As we were discussing all of this, it occurred to me that what is missing from those who would seek the deepest possible ascetical life and withdraw from all earthly temptation, as best they are able, while simultaneously judging others who live a more normal parish life, is virtue. And while there is good to be found in limiting temptation within reason, especially those temptations we know ourselves to be most susceptible to, trying to withdraw from the world in order to avoid temptation strikes me as folly. First, it is impossible. Even if you try to live in a Christian commune, venturing into the world only to do as little as possible while shielding your eyes, temptation will find you. Second, it is not truly virtuous. There is no virtue in never being tempted. We are called to change our habituation to sin by habituating ourselves to the virtues instead. And that is done not by avoiding all temptation, but by actively rejecting temptation when it finds us and striving to make the good habitual.</p><p>As normal, everyday Orthodox Christians, then, we are to follow the sacramental life of the Church as best we are able, keep the fasts to the best of our ability, pray, read spiritually edifying works, and do good works. But we are to take those actions into the world, normalizing them, and thereby showing forth Christ, and seeing Christ in our neighbor. We are not to hide away from the world, nor make a show of our piety as the Pharisees did. Which is not to say we do not carry our Christian lives into the world. By all means, wear your cross. Wear your prayer rope. Say your prayers. Carry your well worn copy of Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Read it on the bus or at lunch. But wear them and say them and carry them and read them because you make use of them, authentically. And above all, try to see your own sin and not judge your brother. </p><p>It is the authentic Christian life that sanctifies the world. And for most of us, it is enough of a struggle to simply try and live that life authentically. That is where you will find virtue. In the world, but not of the world.</p>David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-6154374517033143772023-04-10T12:31:00.000-07:002023-04-10T12:31:06.005-07:00Executing Death<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1Xzkkwm91Cn_o-LfZNuMm6t1mn7mqKDFWvuALkwLeRn5QXmlT6klFgxvCE7CnTlFJKNp7SHr_zhhJwPLJcsc_2lGiTUxNj34RCXNIVrijFrxDKLjbS944VaDcp4J_ftKVgDVe1IYjPL3h0mw4Bg4-n4XEV9zNWXFs53i448oeRS6mX5U2lJMCi1osrQ/s500/Fr.%20Paul.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="261" data-original-width="500" height="209" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1Xzkkwm91Cn_o-LfZNuMm6t1mn7mqKDFWvuALkwLeRn5QXmlT6klFgxvCE7CnTlFJKNp7SHr_zhhJwPLJcsc_2lGiTUxNj34RCXNIVrijFrxDKLjbS944VaDcp4J_ftKVgDVe1IYjPL3h0mw4Bg4-n4XEV9zNWXFs53i448oeRS6mX5U2lJMCi1osrQ/w400-h209/Fr.%20Paul.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>Father Paul is the sort of priest people gather around when he speaks. Part of this may be his British accent, hearkening back to his place of birth. This means he sounds smarter than everyone else in the room every time he speaks. Part of it is he is a seasoned homilist, able to distill complex theological thoughts into easily understandable statements. And part of it is, well, we love him and enjoy listening to him speak.<p></p><p>I think most of it, though, is that he tends to see the obvious things about Orthodox theology that are easy for most of us to miss. Such was the case this past Sunday, Palm Sunday for us in the Eastern Church. </p><p>The homily was really amazing from top to bottom. The topic, of course, was our Lord's entrance into Jerusalem, where He will, this coming Friday (liturgically speaking), meet His death. Father Paul dealt with the abandonment of Christ on the cross, by the same followers that were cheering Him as He entered the city. He dealt with the palm branches as symbols of victory, and how those waving them had no idea what sort of victory that entailed. But there was one thing he said that really struck me. He said that Jesus' entrance into Jerusalem would not end in the execution of some barbarian king, as was common in ancient Rome, but "in the execution of death itself."</p><p>The Christian life is so easy to distill into the wrong sorts of quips and pithy sayings. "Jesus loves me." Well, sure. He loves those who are not united to Him as well. Or "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life." That one is a bit more dangerous. He loved the martyrs too. He loves those stricken with illness or injury too. He loves the poor, certainly as much as any. He loves the imprisoned. God is not a self-help director. God loving you is no guarantee that you will not suffer. In fact, for the Christian, quite the opposite. It is often in our suffering that we most vividly meet Christ, as He warned us would be the case.</p><p>Which brings us to this beautiful statement: Christ entered Jerusalem to "execute death itself" </p><p>That one says a mouthful. And in so few words. Christ did not come to end our suffering, but to <span style="font-weight: bold;"><u>enter it</u></span>, and by so doing, end the hold that death and suffering would otherwise have over us. It isn't that it is such an original thought. The Church, as you will see below, sings about it quite a lot. But I certainly have never articulated it in word or thought as neatly as that. The Christian suffers. The Christian mourns. The Christian doubts. But the Christian has hope. Because Christ has gone to the tomb before us to pave the way to eternity. Death to the Orthodox Christian is not the end. It is not even a new beginning. It is a transformation, for Christ has transformed death. Death cannot hold the author of life. And so He entered it, and as the Resurrectional Troparion in Tone 7 reminds us, "shattered" it. </p><p><i>Thou didst shatter death by Thy cross, Thou hast opened paradise to the thief! Thou didst turn the sadness of the myrhhbearing women into joy!</i></p><p>Death is no longer what it was. It is now something new, a passage into eternity that is welcomed by the Christian. Not something to be sought after in a nihilistic or suicidal fashion, but neither something to fear and avoid at all costs. Death is our eternal rest. And we rest in the arms of a God Who, as Father Paul reminded us at the close of his homily, and as the Church reminds us at every dismissal "is good and loves mankind." It is that statement, obviously, that inspired the title of this blog way back in 2010.</p><p>Similarly, in the Paschal Canon, we sing:</p><i>Thou didst descend into the deepest parts of the earth, </i><div><i>and didst shatter the ever-lasting bars that held fast those that were fettered, O Christ. </i><div><i>And on the third day, like Jonah from the sea monster, Thou didst arise from the grave.</i></div><div><br /></div><div>Death is shattered. It could not hold the author of life, and it can no longer hold us. And in a few short days, the Church will sing "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!" This is the Gospel, distilled into the shortest of sentences. In a few short days, Christ will take up His cross, and execute death itself. Glory to God.</div></div>David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-7481021881827794422023-03-25T06:23:00.002-07:002023-03-25T06:23:53.595-07:00To my single Orthodox friends.....it's okay......<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.ocf.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/whatislove.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="542" data-original-width="800" height="271" src="https://www.ocf.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/whatislove.png" width="400" /></a></div>There seems to be a lot of discussion on the internet recently about "marriage or monasticism." Some of this is healthy and good, and some of it is destructive and dangerous. In particular, the rigorist approach that suggests there are <i style="font-weight: bold;">only</i> these two paths to salvation is, in my opinion, anachronistic, narrow and wrong. This post, I pray, will detail the short version of why that is.<p></p><p>First, let us be clear, monasticism and marriage are two paths to salvation that are specifically and liturgically blessed by the Church. That much is true. One might say they are the norms. That is, what we tend to expect is that those who have no plans to get married because they have chosen not to be married should probably, and normally, seek out a monastic community. So far, so good.</p><p>The reasons for this are multitude, but briefly include the idea that we are to seek out our salvation in community with others, learning to give to others of ourselves. Marriage in this sense is neither a sex-based nor power-based institution as it perhaps was in medieval times, but a true martyrdom where we die to our spouse every day of our lives. In a monastery, the brothers do the same to each other, and obviously a monastic community thrives neither on sex nor power. So there are some obvious parallels. And a person who is open to neither marriage nor monastic life <i style="font-weight: bold;">may</i> have legitimate spiritual issues that raise concerns and ought to be addressed. </p><p>It is also true that the so-called "single life" is not something that was known in Christian antiquity, or even until recently. So searching the Fathers for quotes on how to be a chaste single person is not as likely to bear fruit as quote mining them for thoughts on monasticism versus marriage. That is not to say the Scriptures do not speak of this, because monasticism was unknown to the Apostles, and yet St. Paul has much to say about the celibate life. The point is, a person who is single and not open to marriage, and also single and not open to a monastic life, <b><i>may</i></b> struggle with selfishness, self-centeredness, inability to give of himself to others, etc. </p><p>The key word in both of these statements above is "may." Because as we know, there are those who are open to marriage, but simply waiting for God to present them a proper spouse. There are those who are open to marriage who, for various reasons, may struggle to find a partner. And there are those who fall into other categories for whom marriage may be undesirable at present or unlikely for whatever reason. That does not mean those people should become monastics, and it certainly does not mean they must become monastics.</p><p>Despite this, of late, I have seen multiple internet personalities (I will not name them because I do not wish to draw attention to what I think is their error), who suggest that marriage and monasticism are not merely two paths to salvation blessed by the Church, but in fact they are the <b><i>only</i></b> paths blessed by the Church, such that unmarried, non-monastics must be seeking to either get married or join a monastery. It is my opinion that this is a flawed understanding of the history of the Church, the Holy Scriptures, the writings of the Fathers and the Orthodox life.</p><p>As a matter of history, monasticism developed in the late 3rd century. It grew out of the peasant class and was based on a desire to separate from society. The movement was concerning to bishops, who felt it threatened the unity of the Church; however, over time a greater appreciation for monasticism began to develop as the bishops witnessed the fruits of this life. Early monasticism was eremitic (the word "monastic" derives from the Greek word μόναρχος, meaning "solitary." That is, early monastics were not living in monastic communities, but were hermits. So right away we can see that this notion that one must be married or monastic because salvation requires community ignores the very history of monasticism itself. St. Anthony of Egypt went into solitude in the desert, and came out able to heal and reconcile enemies, which showed forth the fruits of his solitary engagement in the spiritual warfare. Around the same time, cenobitic monasticism began to develop. When people say "there are two paths," they typically mean marriage versus cenobitic monasticism. They do not typically mean wandering off into the desert without a tonsure, as St. Anthony did (or as St. Mary of Egypt, as another example, did). So the attempt to limit the Christian life to these two narrow forms is historically flawed.</p><p>Moreover, as noted, monasticism developed in the late 3rd century. This means for more than a quarter millennium, there was no Christian monasticism. There were earlier Christian ascetics, but none who lived a formal monastic life, either eremitic or cenobitic. There was an actual order of widows in the early Church, but they did not live as a monastic community as we think of today. There were almost certainly unmarried Christians who were not widows. What to make of this? Well, for starters, unless we are willing to say those people are damned because God had not yet created the monastic life, we must assume there is at least one other path to salvation. So it is hard to suggest that monasticism is required by our God, but for nearly 300 years He hid that path from His people so that those who preceded the advent of monasticism are outside salvation.</p><p>Perhaps the biggest problem with this approach, however, is that not all are called to the monastic life, and you do not discern that calling merely in opposition to marriage. That is, just because you are not married, and not likely to become married, does not mean you have been called to live out your days in a monastery. For one, nobody is entitled to live in a monastery. One must be blessed by the Abbot or Abbess, and one must be received. One who joins a monastery and is deemed unfit for monastic life may be asked to leave. So what are people who are unable to find a marriage partner and also unable to find a monastery that will have them to do? </p><p>I hope I have made clear above, I have no issue whatsoever with marriage (I am, after all, married) or monasticism. I do think it is worth noting that this notion that there are only two paths, and that single Orthodox Christians who are open to marriage but for whatever reason find it unlikely they will find a spouse must rush off to be tonsured or lower their standards drastically to find a spouse, is nonsense. If you are Orthodox and single, it's okay. If you want to join a monastery, you should. But you don't have to, nor do you have to rush into marriage simply to "pick a path." There are two paths that are liturgically blessed, but those who are not on a liturgically blessed path are still on a path to salvation. Please don't let anyone tell you otherwise.</p>David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-56841891517031097542023-03-22T07:19:00.000-07:002023-03-22T07:19:00.349-07:00Standing in the Light<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.pravoslavie.ru/sas/image/102325/232535.p.jpg?mtime=1459151760" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="372" data-original-width="700" height="213" src="http://www.pravoslavie.ru/sas/image/102325/232535.p.jpg?mtime=1459151760" width="400" /></a></div>In the Orthodox Church, we speak a lot about "light." We refer to those received into the Church as having been "illumined" in baptism and/or chrismation. We sing about the "Gladsome Light" during the Vespers service. During the Presanctified Liturgy during Great Lent the priest intones "the light of Christ illumines all," and at Pascha we sing "come ye, take light, that is never overtaken by night, glorify the Christ, risen from the dead." Monastics speak a lot about the "uncreated light," which we and they long to experience.<p></p><p>The significance of this light is sometimes misunderstood, both within and without the Church. When we stand in the light of Christ, we are illumined, this is true. But what does that illumination achieve? Why is it that the saints, on their deathbeds, so often pray for more time to repent. And like the goats, their faithful followers ask "what do you have to repent of?" And the saints so often respond, "I have not yet begun to repent." Why do those closest to God become so utterly aware of their own unworthiness and frailty, and seemingly unaware of their own glorification?</p><p>I would submit that it is because when we say "the light of Christ illumines all," as a dear friend once said, we begin to see ourselves for who we really are. That is, the light of Christ illumines us in the same way we are illumined in His eyes. We see all of the things we hide away from the world. We see how very dark and sinful we really are. And it is because of that illumination that we can begin to heal, as He would have us healed. Remembrance of sin is prolific in the Fathers. St. John Climacus devotes large portions of The Ladder to discussing it. The Prayer of St. Ephraim, which we pray at pretty much every Lenten service, is along these lines as well. "Grant me to see my own sin, and not to judge my brother . . . ." This is not to say that we should sulk around mourning our sins all the time and be joyless self-scolds or, worse, bask in a prideful false humility. It is to say that a proper Orthodox outlook on standing in the light of Christ is one of mortification, not glorification. We are not to bathe in this light as if it speaks anything good of us. Rather, we are to show it forth as we see our own sin clearly and learn to show humility and deference and temperance and forgiveness toward all others, who are sinners, yes, but no worse than we are. The light does not belong to us. It is not of us. It is ours only in the sense it is given to us by Him in Whose possession it properly resides. And so we have no right to claim it as ours, and pridefully stand in it as if we have no sin.</p><p>We fail at this, obviously. Yet we struggle, because in the end, to stand in the light means being willing to face our own iniquities and renounce our own pride and embrace the virtues of selflessness, humility and meekness. Being illumined is not being set above. It is, in a very real sense, becoming truly self-aware, truly human, and learning slowly to take on the light of Him Who gives it, and in that way, learning to view humanity as He does, with perfect love, submission, and self-sacrifice. The light does not show us forth as we would like to be seen. It shows us forth as we really are. That we might see our own sin and not judge our brother.</p>David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-42627391177873550122023-03-18T11:07:00.001-07:002023-03-18T11:40:32.750-07:00Encountering God<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.ststefanos.org/assets/images/big-images/og-holy-communion.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="420" data-original-width="800" height="210" src="https://www.ststefanos.org/assets/images/big-images/og-holy-communion.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>I've had a lot of thoughts lately about Orthodox distinctives, and what qualifies as such, and what such distinctives are foundationally Orthodox versus what distinctives qualify more as <i>theologoumena</i> or pious opinion. And in terms of Orthodox distinctives, I think one that escapes most people, including certain Orthodox Christians, is the idea that in Orthodox Christianity, we are not merely trying to do the right things to get reward or avoid punishment. Rather, the point of the Orthodox Christian life is to encounter God.<p></p><p>I suppose in some sense every Christian could say this. After all, if you believe God forgives your transgressions for the sake of His Son, and this is the goal of the Christian life, to receive that forgiveness, in a sense you have "encountered God." And obviously, more sacramental communions (Lutherans, Anglicans and, obviously, Catholics) have a more tangible understanding of encountering God, even if all they believe they receive from the sacraments is forgiveness through some direct or indirect connection with God. But that is not what we mean in the Orthodox Church. </p><p>As Orthodox Christians, when we receive any sacrament, and in fact in the Sacramental Life (which is not limited to a strict numbering of sacraments), we believe God works in and through us. For the Orthodox Christian, grace is not, as some of our Protestant friends suggest, merely "God's unmerited favor." Part of this is, for us, merit doesn't really enter into the equation formally. Rather, for us, grace is the operation of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian. We receive this first and foremost in our baptism, then we receive the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit in chrismation, then we receive God's Divine Energies through His Body and Blood in the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the central act of the Christian Church for this reason -- it is the Sacrament to which the others point. We are baptized so that we might be chrismated, and chrismated so that we might commune. We are married so that we might receive the Eucharist together, strengthening the bonds of love between us. We are ordained so that we might assist in serving or even ourselves serve the Eucharist. We are given repentance that we might return to the Eucharist. And we are given Holy Unction that we might be restored to full bodily and spiritual health, that we might receive the Eucharist to the greatest benefit. This is the point of the Christian life. All else leads us to this moment where we receive Christ's own immaculate Body, and His own precious Blood. This encounter with God is tangible. It is real. And it is powerful.</p><p>This is why mere Christian ideologies are so vapid and empty. What we believe about God is not nearly as important as how we encounter Him. That is not to say what we believe about God is unimportant. Only that our beliefs about God ought to point us to union with Christ, Who is God for us. God with us. God in us. Belief about God that does not lead to an encounter with God is a belief that cannot save. The Orthodox Church is not an ideology, or a set of beliefs about the Holy Trinity. The Orthodox Church is a pathway to encounter the Holy Trinity. More, belief in an intellectual sense does not really capture what the Church means by "faith." Faith, in a Christian sense, is more akin to trust, as a child trusts his parent. It is not merely saying the words, or even believing them truly, really in your heart. Rather, it is clinging to the object of faith. Faith is not something we do, or even something we try to attain. Faith is something we live by, trusting in the Creator, the promise-giver, the life-giver. This is true even when our faith is shaken. As I've said here before, I don't trust me. I trust Christ.</p><p>This is why efforts to narrow the Orthodox faith to a particular set of beliefs, especially in those areas where the Church has not dogmatized those beliefs, is doomed to fail. It isn't just that those beliefs are not exclusive or required or dogmatized. It's that belief itself is not salvific. Faith is, but belief is not. What you believe cannot save you. But trusting in the One Who saves? That is where salvation lies. And while this trust requires a certain set of beliefs, that requirement is not found in the particularities of Orthodox little "t" tradition. It is found in the Scriptures and the Ecumenical Councils and the big "T" Holy Tradition of the Church, and not beyond those. </p><p>This is not to say that pious opinions are invalid or improper. It is only to say they are no more than what the word suggests -- opinions. Orthodox Christians are free to believe them or reject them. Orthodoxy is not found in the tightening of the noose around the neck of believers. The faith is not a yoke. The Orthodox faith is trusting in the One Who removes the yoke, freeing us from all worldly opinion and imprisonment. Belief doesn't save. Christ does. We believe in Him, not in our own believing. And we believe in Him, that we might encounter Him.</p>David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-25507942523156826532023-03-15T12:29:00.001-07:002023-03-15T12:40:16.287-07:00Fear and Self-Righteousness<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Augustine_and_donatists.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="572" data-original-width="800" height="286" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Augustine_and_donatists.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>Something occurred to me today while having lunch with a friend. Christian rigorists tend to have two things in common. First, a desire to be set apart from others, which inevitably tends to lead to self-righteousness. Second, operating predominately from a position of fear. <p></p><p>As to the first of these observations, at least in my own experience, those who embrace theological rigorism tend to have a very inflated view of their own group, at least those who are sufficiently rigorist as they are, and a very low view of those outside their group, and often even those within their group who they view as insufficiently serious or devoted or correct. It seems to me that this stems from a Pharisaical desire for certainty, which will be discussed more below, and the remedy for this desire is to ensure that one's self is set apart, distinguished, separated from those for whom such certainty is absent. This, it seems to me, has the commensurate effect of leading the rigorist to believe he is more righteous than he really is. The desire to define Orthodoxy not by what we believe, nor even apophatically by what we cannot know, but predominately in opposition to others we deem to be inadequate, ends up putting us in the place of judgement over our brother's perceived failings. And as we know, judgment stems from pride, and pride is mother of all the passions. So rather than ending up in a place that authentically satisfies the rigorist's desire for certainty, we end up in a place that has us committing the greater sin in order to separate ourselves from those who would never judge us in return. Such self-righteousness damages not only our neighbor and the Church, it also damages us.</p><p>As to the second observation, it seems to me that this desire for certainty stems from a position of fear before God. Not the healthy fear of God that every Christian should have, but rather a fear-centered Christian life that results from a misunderstanding of Who God is and how God relates to His creation. The Pharisees were not unholy people, at least to the extent externals allow one to claim to be holy. The Pharisees, to the contrary, were the most holy people in terms of law keeping and rule keeping. The Pharisees did not simply build a fence, but like Eve in the Garden, built a fence around the fence. They were not satisfied with "do not eat of the fruit." No, they had to go a step further -- "do not eat of the fruit, nor touch it." In this way, their fear of punishment was allayed by the certainty that they had kept the rules, because the rules they kept were stricter than those God had given them. Our Lord had harsh words for them. They kept the Law, often perfectly, as far as anyone observing could tell. But God said "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." And thus they did not keep the Law in their hearts. Instead, they wielded the Law as a sword against their neighbor, and even against their Savior.</p><p>This approach does not produce mature Christians. If I tell you you must do this thing or else, then you will do only the minimum required to assuage me and no more. That is, you will do only that which is needed to get "past the post" and avoid the punishment. Even if the rules are made by setting fences around fences, as the Pharisees did, you still will not do more than required to stay on the correct side of the second fence. Because your goal is not to seek the good, but rather to avoid the punishment. As a former pastor once told me, "those who live by the Law are always looking for loopholes." This is not a proper Christian outlook toward God. God does not desire us to obey rules to avoid punishment. He does not desire to punish us at all. God desires that we enter into His life, encounter Him, and find Him in our neighbor. That is not to say rules are unimportant, or canons ought to be disregarded, or that prayer and fasting disciplines are bad in and of themselves. None of those things is true. Rather, we keep the Law because it is good for us to do so. We forgive because it is good for us. We pray and fast because those things are good for us. We follow the canons because the Church has put them in place for our benefit. But that obedience, that desire to do good and follow the rules, must come first from a place of love and trust in the One Who gave them to us to begin with. We obey because He is good, and just, and merciful, as the Psalmist said, "I follow the thing that good is." We love because He first loved us.</p><p>The Christian lives to encounter God. God is not found in fear and despair, nor in self-glorification and self-righteousness. God is found first and foremost on the cross, and through the cross, we find God in our neighbor and our selves. And so we pray not because we fear God will abandon us if we do not, but rather because we desire to encounter Him. We fast and attend services and do good not to avoid His punishment, but to live in His glory. God forgives. He does not need us to keep His rules for His benefit. We need to keep them simply because they are good. Not because the end is worth the means, but because the means are an end in themselves. </p>David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-15323247703498468892023-01-06T10:29:00.003-08:002023-01-24T19:35:47.103-08:00Holy Theophany<p> </p><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://wehco.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/img/photos/2016/01/01/resized_99263-theophany4-0102_7-20523_t800.jpg?90232451fbcadccc64a17de7521d859a8f88077d"><img border="0" data-original-height="532" data-original-width="800" height="426" src="https://wehco.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/img/photos/2016/01/01/resized_99263-theophany4-0102_7-20523_t800.jpg?90232451fbcadccc64a17de7521d859a8f88077d" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p>Holy Theophany is a celebration somewhat unique to the Eastern Church. Some Western churches do celebrate it in conjunction with Epiphany (also on January 6), but others do not. The distinction among us comes from the emphasis placed on the baptism of our Lord.</p><p>Epiphany is a Greek word meaning "to manifest" or "to appear." Usually, in the Western traditions, it celebrates the visitation of the Magi in addition to the baptism of Christ. In the East, however, it is bound up in Christ's baptism, which is why it is called "Theophany," meaning "appearance of God." </p><p>At Christ's baptism, the first earthly manifestation of the entire Trinity was revealed. As the Troparion of Theophany tells us:</p><p><i></i></p><blockquote><p><i>O Christ our God, when Thou was baptized in the river Jordan</i></p><p><i>Worship of the Trinity was revealed</i></p><p><i>For the voice of the Father came forth to testify and name Thee His beloved Son</i></p><p><i>And the Spirit in the form of a dove, confirmed the truth of His Word</i></p><p><i>Wherefore, O Thou Who didst appear, and didst enlighten the world, Glory to Thee</i></p></blockquote><p>The baptism of Christ has deep meaning for Christians. First, He bowed His head to receive from John the Forerunner, His unworthy servant, the baptism of remission of sins. Christ took on our sin so that we might take on His righteousness. Second, in doing so, He cleansed the waters, calling down the Holy Spirit and hearing the voice of the Father "this is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased." Third, He changes the water from a mere washing of dirt from the flesh, into a baptism of rebirth and regeneration, as St. Peter tells us. </p><p>This is not to say that Jesus became "a sinner," but rather, as St. Paul says, the Father "made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." That is, Christ in entering the waters meant for our cleansing, cleansed the water Himself, taking on the form of a servant, that in entering the same water in baptism, we too might live in His righteousness. Baptism saves us not by mere symbolism or some transactional occurrence, but by the power of the Holy Spirit granted to us in baptism and chrismation, changing us as He changed the water. This is why the water that is blessed at Theophany is reserved -- set aside -- for our use as Christians. It is, truly, holy water.</p><p><i></i></p>David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-41513229884627764292023-01-03T08:33:00.000-08:002023-01-03T08:33:04.645-08:00"That baby boy was circumcised..."<p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUxMXfswdUHZqrdDxZ7XV7lEs-hwi4glC4B0mqXoh5pGag2NlabMoP-g060GZ2xL74TV2Wg5-g4p9Dc8oaLJgrWaLq7sXd5Ge8DSF9db9HHdzJQPWm7LvRTWikncjKtRB0JSiv3WsyloM65DGXOYXFIveBMBNz92XxeXvEksuVzJr9E6FNnSIaa2QIsQ/s4032/IMG_8936.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Feast of the Circumcision of Our Lord" border="0" data-original-height="3024" data-original-width="4032" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUxMXfswdUHZqrdDxZ7XV7lEs-hwi4glC4B0mqXoh5pGag2NlabMoP-g060GZ2xL74TV2Wg5-g4p9Dc8oaLJgrWaLq7sXd5Ge8DSF9db9HHdzJQPWm7LvRTWikncjKtRB0JSiv3WsyloM65DGXOYXFIveBMBNz92XxeXvEksuVzJr9E6FNnSIaa2QIsQ/w400-h300/IMG_8936.jpg" title="Feast of the Circumcision of Our Lord" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Feast of the Circumcision of Our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ</td></tr></tbody></table><div style="text-align: left;"></div><br /><div>January 1 has the Church celebrating the circumcision of our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ, along with the feast of St. Basil. I had the good fortune of celebrating both in a parish that claims St. Basil as its patron. What moves me to write this however, is a comment a dear friend, Emily, made years back about the circumcision of our Lord in connection to the oft-repeated claim, "God is neither male nor female -- God is spirit."<p></p><p>Obviously, God the Father is a spirit, and yet the Church, following our Lord, His Son, calls Him "Father." Obviously, the Holy Spirit is, as the name suggests, spirit as well. Both are incorporeal. Both lack human sexual genetics. Both could as easily be called by any number of self-chosen pronouns in fashion these days.</p><p>And yet our Lord became incarnate as a man. And not "man" in the generic sense used in the Creed, but as a male human. How do we know this? Because, as Emily wisely noted, "that baby boy was circumcised."</p><p>Granted, we do not want to get into the weeds of looking up God's skirts. That is, we do not want to make too much of anthropomorphisms. It's why we're careful about ascribing words like "anger" to God, and even why we suggest God is not merely love, but is in fact beyond love. We cannot fathom God's existence, because He is divine and we are created and contingent. </p><p>And yet in the case of Jesus Christ, we know He is male. He was born that way. In the parlance of the day He identified that way. And no small detail -- that baby boy was circumcised.</p><p>There is, of course, a sense in which this doesn't matter much. There is no ontological reason why Christ being born as a man impacts our salvation any more than if He had been born a woman. But the mystery of the incarnation is that He was born at all. In order to save us, He entered into our human frailty and sanctified it with His divine presence. More, in order to fulfill the Law, He entered into the Law fully, submitting Himself not only to the moral commands of God, but even to circumcision, the entrance into the Jewish religion. That circumcision is fulfilled, as we will soon celebrate at Theophany, in the Baptism of our Lord. So it matters first and foremost as a matter of historical fact, and secondarily as a matter of proper fulfillment and keeping of the Law. </p><p>The other thing notable about Jesus being born a man is that we do not stop there. Jesus was born of a woman. And not just any woman, but the <i>Theotokos</i>, the Mother of God. We hold her as the greatest saint in all of the Church. We reverence her and fervently request her intercessions before the Throne of God. It is often said (typically by Protestants) that the Orthodox pay "too much attention" to Mary. My own observation, having been an Orthodox Christian for 12 years and counting now, is this perception exists because most Protestants pay almost no attention to Mary beyond the recitation of the Nativity story and perhaps the Wedding at Cana. So when attending an Orthodox liturgy, perhaps it seems she is all we talk about. The truth is, she is only referenced very occasionally, in the litanies and at the dismissal, as well as in a handful of hymns. But I would also argue it is this emphasis on the Mother of our Lord that gives balance to the maleness of God, particularly in the Person of His Son. Because in a very real way, the Incarnation points not merely to the sanctification of Jesus' flesh, but also to His mother's flesh, and through Him (and her), ours. He enters our flesh and makes it holy with His presence. He entered her womb and made it (and her) holy with His presence. And He gives us His flesh and blood to make us holy with His presence as well.</p><p>It is fashionable of late to discuss what is inaccurately called "gender" as no more than a social construct. The Christian Church has never spoken this way, and never will. Jesus was true man, born of a woman. That baby boy was circumcised. And thanks be to God, for in His circumcision, we find the first steps of our own salvation.</p></div>David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-31497158205475517922022-12-18T18:13:00.003-08:002022-12-18T18:15:03.161-08:00God is Merciful<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAtf73kgDPAcYW6H9qgr-vBVIkUbXMR1qqj3UbJq1puYbKorym-bwffToexEH2oeCypVRcxrxMbP1c_OYuYFdGUUCndeXvnCGJb54hAjercNyj_2RYaGe28L7S7RDpI2tJdj7j2szlVcDU-m2vBSUPFcEJ5xJ__wn7rvqv0kiOXpRlQUPt1h64BbcHFQ/s470/F43lg.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="470" data-original-width="360" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAtf73kgDPAcYW6H9qgr-vBVIkUbXMR1qqj3UbJq1puYbKorym-bwffToexEH2oeCypVRcxrxMbP1c_OYuYFdGUUCndeXvnCGJb54hAjercNyj_2RYaGe28L7S7RDpI2tJdj7j2szlVcDU-m2vBSUPFcEJ5xJ__wn7rvqv0kiOXpRlQUPt1h64BbcHFQ/w306-h400/F43lg.jpg" width="306" /></a></div>Such a simple truth. A truism even. But today as we approach the Nativity, it weighs particularly heavy on me how great a truth it is.<p></p><p>I think two passages of Scripture put things in their proper place:</p><p>"We love because He first loved us." 1 John 4:19<br /><br />"In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven . . ." Matthew 6:9</p><p>God is our Father. We -- men and women -- are sons of the Father. What this means is our faith -- which is properly understood not as mere belief, but as <i>trust </i>-- flows not from our obedience, or our fear, or our desire to avoid punishment, but from our love of God. And that love is only rightly expressed as a return of His love to us. Anything less and it is not true love. We love God in the same way a child loves his father. Not because he fears his father's wrath or punishment, but precisely because when that child was at his lowest, his weakest, his most helpless, his father took him in his loving arms and cared for him. A father sacrifices his own comfort and happiness to see his children thrive.</p><p>This Nativity season, we remember when God sent His only begotten Son to us. Not so we might avoid punishment, but so that we might <i>live.</i> This is how we rightly understand our obligations as Christians. It is why we love our neighbor, it is why we are obedient to bishops and priests and parents and earthly authorities. It is why we avoid sin, go to confession, attend the services of the Church, and pray often. Not because God needs us to do it in order to save us, but because it is <i><b>good for us</b></i>, and God loves us and wants us to be healthy and whole.</p><p>Too often, Christians find themselves mired in a moralistic, legalistic pseudo-Christian faith where God is the judge and we are the accused, and therefore the basis of our obedience, faith and law keeping is to avoid punishment. But the Scriptures do not speak this way. God does not accuse us. Satan does. "Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, 'Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down.'" Revelation 12:10. And while certainly there is a Patristic thread that indicates we ought to self-accuse in order to see our own sin, for example, St. John Chrysostom's Three Homilies on the Devil, we also see in that same Patristic thread the notion that accusing others is of the devil:</p><p></p><blockquote>For that ye partake of the divine oracles insatiably, that day particularly showed: whereon I discoursed about the unlawfulness of speaking ill one of another, when I furnished you with a sure subject for self accusation, suggesting that you should speak ill of your own sins, but should not busy yourselves about those of other people: when I brought forward the Saints as accusing themselves indeed, but sparing others: Paul saying I am the chief of sinners, and that God had compassion on him who was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious, and calling himself one born out of due time, and not even thinking himself worthy of the title of Apostle: Peter saying Depart from me because I am a sinful man: Matthew styling himself a publican even in the days of his Apostleship: David crying out and saying My iniquities have gone over my head, and as a heavy burden have been burdensome to me: and Isaiah lamenting and bewailing I am unclean, and have unclean lips: The three children in the furnace of fire, confessing and saying that they have sinned and transgressed, and have not kept the commandments of God. Daniel again makes the same lamentation. <b><i>When after the enumeration of these Saints, I called their accusers flies, and introduced the right reason for the comparison, saying, that just as they fasten themselves upon the wounds of others, so also the accusers bite at other people's sins, collecting disease therefrom for their acquaintance</i></b>, and those who do the opposite, I designated bees, not gathering together diseases, but building honeycombs with the greatest devotion, and so flying to the meadow of the virtue of the Saint: Then accordingly—then ye showed your insatiable longing.</blockquote><p>When I first visited an Orthodox Church, the thing that struck me most was the line from the dismissal that is the title of this blog. The entire dismissal is:</p><p></p><blockquote>May he who rose again from the dead, Christ our true God, through the intercessions of His all-immaculate and all-blameless holy Mother; by the might of the precious and life-giving cross; by the protection of the honorable bodiless powers of heaven; at the supplication of the honorable, glorious Prophet, Forerunner and Baptist John; of the holy, glorious and all-laudable apostles; of our father among the saints, John Chrysostom, archbishop of Constantinople; of the holy, glorious and right-victorious martyrs; of our venerable and God-bearing fathers; of (saint to whom the temple is dedicated); of the holy and righteous ancestors of God, Joachim and Anna; of the (saint(s) of the day) and of all the saints: have mercy on us, and save us, <b><i>forasmuch as He is good and loveth mankind</i></b>.</blockquote><div>As we approach the Divine Nativity of Our Lord, let us remember that the Father sent His only begotten Son, our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, not to accuse us, but to unite us to Himself. And as we continue the fast, increase our prayer and devotion, and celebrate the coming Feast, let us recall that great love, that our longing, too, might increase. God is merciful. We love because He first loved us.</div>David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-92169025824306702612021-12-31T06:27:00.012-08:002021-12-31T07:17:20.150-08:00Jason Isbell, Morgan Wallen, and Redemption<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.nme.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/jasonisbell-morganwallen-2000x1270-1.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="508" data-original-width="800" height="254" src="https://www.nme.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/jasonisbell-morganwallen-2000x1270-1.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>This is one of those stories I'd ordinarily not talk about here. I do so mainly because it illustrates the failure of our modern culture to appreciate the value of redemption.<p></p><p>For those who are unaware of the story, Morgan Wallen is a country music artist. I have never purchased one of his albums, nor seen him in concert, and for the most part he is not the sort of fellow I'd give much of my attention to. This was made all the more so when, in February of this year, a video of Wallen circulated wherein he was highly intoxicated and used the n-word to refer to a friend of his. The friend is apparently not black, though I'm not sure which would be worse. This sort of colloquial use of that word is one for which I have little use; however, suffice it to say, there is not a white person in this country who ought to use that word in any context. It was bad.</p><p>Wallen was rightly, and quickly, criticized by nearly everyone. He was also remorseful and apologetic. You can read (or watch) his complete statement here:</p><p><a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-country/morgan-wallen-apology-video-1126831/">https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-country/morgan-wallen-apology-video-1126831/</a></p><p>He also pledged $500,000 to black-led groups, earmarking part of it in $15,000 chunks in the names of 20 people who counseled him following this incident, and leaving with them the option of donating to the charity of their choice or keeping it within the BMAC, the organization to whom he donated the money. </p><p>Is that sufficient remorse? It's not for me to say. Ultimately, those he has harmed must answer that question, as must his fans and the country music industry. The latter, at least, have answered that question by continuing to purchase his albums and go to his shows. In droves.</p><p>Enter Jason Isbell. Jason Isbell, by contrast to Morgan Wallen, is one of my favorite songwriters and recording artists. I love his work with the Drive-by Truckers, and I love his solo work, especially his 2013 masterpiece, Southeastern. Jason Isbell writes songs about redemption. His redemption. In a particularly strange twist of irony, perhaps the greatest of these songs is a song off of Southeastern entitled "Cover Me Up." "Cover Me Up" was covered by Morgan Wallen. This embarrasses Jason Isbell, in the bright light of 20/20 hindsight.<br /><br />"Cover Me Up" is a song about a drunk, high, stoned, arguably abusive Jason Isbell, and how his now-wife, then-girlfriend Amanda Shires helped him through that period in his life to become a better man. The lyrics include masterpieces such as these:</p><p><span style="text-align: center;"><span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> <span> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br /></p><div style="text-align: center;"> Days when we raged, we flew off the page</div><div style="text-align: center;">Such damage was done</div><div style="text-align: center;">But I made it through, 'cause somebody knew</div><div style="text-align: center;">I was meant for someone</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">* * *</div><div style="text-align: center;">Put your faith to the test </div><div style="text-align: center;">When I tore off your dress</div><div style="text-align: center;">In Richmond on high</div><div style="text-align: center;">But I sobered up, I swore off that stuff</div><div style="text-align: center;">Forever this time</div><div style="text-align: center;">The old lovers sing</div><div style="text-align: center;">"I thought it'd be me who helped him get home"</div><div style="text-align: center;">But home was a dream</div><div style="text-align: center;">One I'd never seen 'til you came along</div><br /><br />It is a particularly beautiful song, one that sounds themes of weakness, pride, hurt and ultimately humility, humiliation and eventual redemption. It is a song about brokenness, recovery and hope.<br /><br />Because Morgan Wallen covered "Cover Me Up," Isbell thought it right to condemn Wallen's words when they were initially made public. He called them "disgusting and horrifying." He was right. They were. And he was also right that Wallen owed an apology and much, much more. For his part, Isbell donated the songwriting royalties for the Wallen version of "Cover Me Up" to the NAACP. This, too, was a noble act. After announcing the donation of the Wallen royalties to the NAACP on Twitter, Isbell's manager said he does not plan to comment beyond the tweet. This month, Isbell broke that promise.<br /><br />This is, in part, because Wallen's redemption has been more than expected, certainly by Isbell at least. Morgan Wallen had the best selling album of 2021. Not the best-selling country album, the best selling album in any genre. His tour has played to sold-out venues all summer. One can imagine lots of reasons why, but two seem readily apparent. First, the attempt by people like Isbell to "cancel" Wallen generated a backlash. Second, people love a good redemption story.<br /><br />Isbell talks about the second of those in a recent interview. Referencing George Jones, he says "excuses have been made over and over to try to craft that same white male narrative. It’s just part of the story. It’s like, ‘yes, sometimes, as white men who’ve been put upon, we slip and we make mistakes, but we can rise again! And that’s country music, folks.'" So to the extent country music fans, and Americans in general, believe in rising above your mistakes, Isbell thinks this is a terrible thing. Well, except for the success of his own version of "Cover Me Up," which is ironically about that very thing. Isbell sounds the themes, reaps the rewards, and then refuses to acknowledge that the same impetus that made his fans love "Cover Me Up" is the one that sends Morgan Wallen's fans to buy his album and attend his shows. The irony in this is hard to miss.<br /><br />However, there is a greater issue, and it's the one Isbell doesn't talk about, except in an ironic sense because he's making it worse. Again referencing George Jones, he says "there’s a lot of shit that George did that was not cool, shit that you really should not be able to be completely redeemed from." Well, who is Jason Isbell to decide what one ought to be "completely redeemed from?" Does he want to live by those rules? The guy who "tore off (her) dress in Richmond on high?" Listening to Isbell's music, it is apparent that the very themes he sounds himself are the ones he cries against most loudly when others reap the benefit. This is a textbook example of why the phrase "virtue signaling" was invented.<br /><br />This isn't the first time Isbell has done this either. In June of 2020, Mike Fuller, who makes Fulltone guitar pedals, made a comment on his own website about the rioting in Los Angeles, where Fulltone is based. He decried the looting "with 100% impunity," and said the mayor and governor don't care about small businesses. For this, Isbell took to Twitter to tar Fuller as a racist. He said "Check out black-owned pedal company Dogman Devices. <a href="https://www.blogger.com/#">http://Dogmandevices.com</a> I’ve not used them but they seem to be good and fulltone has always made overpriced junk." So Isbell doesn't purchase Dogman Devices pedals, he calls Fulltone Pedals "overpriced junk" (which is nonsense -- I own two of them and they are fantastic pedals, whatever one thinks of Mike Fuller's politics), and he gets in his Twitter virtue signal and his shot at Fuller. But what has he actually done? Maybe he began purchasing Dogman Devices pedals? Even assuming so, before that he had ignored them in favor of other manufacturers. He wasn't promoting that pedal company except in an attempt to tear down Mike Fuller's pedal company. So what makes him better than Mike Fuller? Mike Fuller never trashed Isbell's music publicly, after all.<br /><br />All of this highlights the real issue. Isbell is not speaking now because Morgan Wallen's apology, donations and remorse are insufficient. And being honest, he's not speaking now because Morgan Wallen did "shit that you really should not be able to be completely redeemed from." That's not his call to make. He's speaking now because he has a large following on Twitter, and he has made a name for himself in large part by calling for the cancellation of people he disagrees with. And let's be even more honest -- that desire to destroy Wallen is precisely why Wallen's fans flock to him all the more. It's why Wallen's albums outsell Isbell's by multiples, and why Wallen sells out bigger venues routinely. Granted, part of this is the different way they make music -- Isbell is and has always been a smaller operation, and as a songwriter he is not willing to make the compromises people like Wallen make to be a bigger artist. That is commendable. But after that video surfaced, Wallen's career could easily have been over. Instead, people like Isbell unwittingly encourage his fans to embrace the redemption story. And that is a good thing, if only Isbell could see it.<br /><br />The prideful impetus that makes Isbell feel he has to speak out against Wallen is not based in a desire for Wallen's redemption. Far from it. Isbell seeks Wallen's destruction in order to appease his fans. And ironically ends up helping him to be bigger than ever. It is an indictment on our society that this is encouraged by anyone, or seen as virtuous. And while I doubt I will ever buy a Morgan Wallen record or concert ticket, I have not yet lost so much of my humanity that I don't appreciate the value of redemption. It is the core of what the Christian Church teaches us. We are all rotten. But there is hope, and that hope is in Christ, Who calls us to become by grace what He is by nature. Who, yes, redeems us.<br /><br />It is, I suppose, a great irony that if I did not believe so much in the value of redemption, I wouldn't like Jason Isbell's music as much as I do. And it is a great tragedy that he fails to see that.<p></p>David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-25045138142020375862021-07-17T07:00:00.003-07:002021-12-31T05:37:24.878-08:00Vaccine Skepticism, Vaccine Skepticism Disguised as Vaccine Promotion, and Love of God and Neighbor<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><span style="font-family: trebuchet;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://c.files.bbci.co.uk/D505/production/_115033545_gettyimages-1226314512.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="180" src="https://c.files.bbci.co.uk/D505/production/_115033545_gettyimages-1226314512.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>This little speck has caused untold damage to our world. The damage I write about today, however, is the damage it has done to our souls. </span><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">I still frequent a handful of internet discussion boards that discuss theology and theological matters. On one in particular, I was saddened to see the politics of COVID override Christian love of neighbor. In this case, it dealt with those who were fearful of their unmasked and unvaccinated neighbors. Such people were called "crazed," and at least one person said he "lacked sympathy" for anyone who would not get vaccinated. Today, in a comment that caused me to reconsider my hesitance to publish this, one of them said that healthcare workers' lives were "endangered" by the unvaccinated. </span><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">I also, in contraindication of the health of my own soul, still frequent social media sites. On one of those (likely the one you received this link from), another person suggested that anyone who vaccinates their minor child is guilty of "child abuse." I'll elaborate on my thoughts about both downstream. I'll say at the outset, this is not intended to be a condemnation of the people who took these positions. It is, rather, a case study in how we as Christians actually deal with each other (all involved are professing and practicing Christians), and an encouragement as to how we should. The people who said these things are not mentioned for that reason. It isn't about them, it's about us and how we treat one another.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">Part of the problem, no doubt, is the general polarization and ugliness of our politics. We are not a tolerant people. We were not a tolerant people when the self-styled champions of what they called "tolerance" (but which was actually authoritarian thought policing) still pretended to believe in it. So it is to be expected, I suppose, that it is not enough to disagree. We must also tear down, ridicule, lampoon, demean, and seek to control and conform. We spring to hyperbole as if it were the most persuasive way to discourse -- there is a reason this moment in time has required the coining of Godwin's Law. We blame social media for this, but the truth is it is who we are, what we allow ourselves to be. B</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">ut the problem also stems from fear and a desire to control others, and therefore the natural outcome of man's fall into sin. These are the points I want to drill down on. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">We know from the Scriptures and the Church Fathers that the problem of man is the problem of mortality. Stripped bare of our communion with God, and therefore imprisoned in this body of death, we turn inward, and seek to protect ourselves first. We seek to do so often by attempting to control the behavior of others. Lacking trust in God and love of neighbor, we put our needs above our neighbor and seek to survive. This is why, some Fathers suggest, all sins ultimately trace back to pride and love of self. It is why the great ascetics, and monastics like St. John Climacus, make such a great deal of denying the self. It is why we fast. It is why we do prostrations. We teach ourselves to deny the self and live for God and neighbor.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">So returning to these two objections in this light. The first, that those who will not get vaccinated (or wear masks if they are vaccinated) are in essence bad people, is obviously about fear and control. One person who took that approach suggested that absent a doctor's excuse, anyone who refuses to be vaccinated should be forbidden from going in public spaces. Forbidden from holding certain jobs. Forbidden from using public transportation. (Whether these are good or bad policy provisions is beyond the scope of my point -- I am speaking about how we as Christians view our neighbor). When pressed, he said they should not be allowed to use the public accommodates he uses. Since he was the fearful one, I asked why he did not stay home. I did not receive an answer. Today, as noted, this same person suggested that the mere presence of the unvaccinated threatens the lives of healthcare workers. Even though healthcare workers were the very first in this country to receive the vaccines, this person thinks unvaccinated people are a threat to their lives when they come to the hospital for treatment. Who is the real vaccine skeptic here? Most of the people in the discussion -- even those of us opposed to vaccine mandates, but still in favor of vaccine promotion and encouragement -- at least believe the vaccines <i>work</i>.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">This person is vaccinated, as am I, and as was, best I was able to tell, everyone else in the discussion. Yet his fear of being around those who are unvaccinated was practically palpable, and it was highlighted best in the comment today. This fear and skepticism caused him to suggest his neighbor should essentially be imprisoned in his own home for the crime of endangering people who took steps to mitigate the danger, as if those steps are insufficient. It didn't matter that the unvaccinated neighbor actually poses very little real public health threat at the moment, much less a threat to this man in particular or vaccinated healthcare workers. No, he thought everyone should get a vaccine, and therefore he was willing to take away the freedom of his neighbor in order that he might travel freely and without his own irrational fear of illness or death. He and a couple of others said expressly they could conceive of no good reason why anyone might want to avoid being the first in line to take a vaccine that is not FDA approved, and the long-term efficacy of which is still undetermined. I can articulate many good reasons why I got the vaccine as soon as it was available (and I do so below). But these men could think of no reasons why anyone else might have taken a different approach than they, and I, did. For those of you who are similarly unable to conceive of why anyone would not want to get a vaccine, I offer this:</span></p><p>https://www.npr.org/2020/12/20/948614857/race-and-the-roots-of-vaccine-skepticism</p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">At any rate, lacking trust in God and love for neighbor, these folks are willing to harm their neighbors to make themselves feel better.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">On the other side of the aisle, so to speak, is the man who proclaimed it "child abuse" to vaccinate minor children. He also commented recently, demonstrating his pride that he would not be getting vaccinated. The reasoning is sound enough for him to make that decision for himself and his kids -- minor children are generally unaffected by the COVID virus and therefore for him the risks of the vaccine outweigh the risks of the virus. If he doesn't want the vaccine for a variety of good reasons, as noted above, that's certainly rational, even if I would (and did) disagree. So far, so good. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">For our family, I disagreed for several reasons. First, I don't want my children to be a danger to others. It was love of neighbor that prompted me to get the vaccine myself, and to encourage my wife and oldest child to get it, and that same love prompts me to encourage my youngest two to go now that they are able (both received their first dose of Pfizer yesterday and are doing well). I understand there are risks associated with this vaccine, and others, but I also understand that the best way to defeat the virus, best we know, is to have more people inoculated. It will not go away, we understand that. But being able to fight it off will return us to a post-pandemic world with less sickness, less death, and less pain than simply waiting it out and hoping enough of our loved ones survive to obtain herd immunity. Second, the newer COVID variants, especially the currently prevalent Delta variant, affect younger people differently than the initial outbreak. So we don't really know that minors are unaffected by mutations of the COVID-19 virus. That's my reasoning, and it is at worst equally sound. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">Yet, despite the fact that my children are not his children, not his to raise, and not his to influence, this person decided to announce publicly that I am abusing them by my decision to vaccinate. No, he did not direct those words at me personally. Rather, he directed them at everyone thoughtlessly (I do not think he was being malicious). Why? Because he holds a very strong distrust toward the vaccines, and so lacking fear of God and trust in neighbor, he wrote to discredit the vaccines rather than simply trust that others could engage in good decision making without his judgment. As part of that, he engaged in hyperbole that puts me and others like me on equal footing with people who beat their children or deprive them of food.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">I'll repeat here that I don't write this to condemn any of these men. For one, I am hardly innocent of the charges of fear and desire to control others to conform to my way of thinking. I'm sure my words could as easily be used in someone else's blog post. And I am hardly innocent of being judgmental of others and lacking in love for my neighbor, both before and since the word "COVID-19" came into our common lexicon. I write because both are such good illustrations of how this pandemic illuminates our spiritual illness. We fear disease of body, and we end up ignoring our diseased souls. Often, the very basic dignities and freedoms of humanity are the first to go out the window. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">St. John Climacus wrote: “The blessed living corpse grows sick at heart when he finds himself acting on his own behalf, and he is frightened by the burden of using his own personal judgment.” John Climacus, The Ladder of Divine Ascent (New York: The Missionary Society of St. Paul, 1983), 92. He also wrote: "Repentance goes shopping for humility and is ever distrustful of bodily comfort," and "the penitent stands guilty – but undisgraced.” <i>Ibid</i>, 121. Finally, he wrote: “The first stage of blessed patience is to accept dishonor with bitterness and anguish of soul,” while “[t]he perfect stage, if that is attainable, is to think of dishonor as praise.” <i>Ibid</i>, 149. As Christians, this is our calling. We don't often like it, and I for one frequently rebel against it. But we are called to put ourselves behind our neighbor, most especially in terms of offense, bodily comfort and pride. We are to put our neighbor's ease ahead of our own. As noted above, for good or ill, whether I was right or wrong, this is one reason I chose to get vaccinated early. I knew that in order to ask my family and friends to be vaccinated themselves, I had to step up to the plate. I knew that if there were any ill effects (there were, all temporary, but all miserable in the short term), I could not ask others to withstand them if I was unwilling to do so myself. I don't say this to suggest I am such a good person -- again, I judge, I mock, I scorn, I fear. It is to say I hope I repent, and I hope others do as well. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">We are truly all in this together. Until you have seen someone you care about out of work due to the pandemic, or been there yourself, you have no call to suggest people be deprived of their livelihoods. Until you have seen someone you care about suffer, perhaps even die, or been there yourself, you have no call to suggest people who attempt to avoid the ill effects of this disease by getting vaccinated are evil. I hope that as we move forward, we can take another look at how we deal with one another, and apply a healthy dose of charity and grace to our neighbor. Especially as Christians, we have a holy obligation to put the best construction on our neighbor's words and actions. I write to ask that everyone get in line behind me to repent of those many times we fail in that obligation.</span></p>David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-69897473997671304942020-12-27T05:00:00.001-08:002020-12-27T05:01:32.348-08:00Decade<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MSW6ZuFJNnI/X-iA8Dx6LzI/AAAAAAAAFL0/nTGXh3505Og1j3zoFrDdOnv-tv52Dh1OACLcBGAsYHQ/s720/165598_1654320394904_858041_n.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="539" data-original-width="720" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MSW6ZuFJNnI/X-iA8Dx6LzI/AAAAAAAAFL0/nTGXh3505Og1j3zoFrDdOnv-tv52Dh1OACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/165598_1654320394904_858041_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Ten years ago at Nativity, my family and I were chrismated as newly illumined Orthodox Christians. In that ten years, my life has changed in immeasurable ways. I was tonsured a reader fairly early on -- about two years in. I managed to complete the St. Stephen Course in Applied Orthodox Theology this past year, a goal I set for myself when we became Orthodox. I have attended two Sacred Music Institutes and hope to attend more still. I have visited the Antiochian Village, venerated the relics there, and prayed at the resting place of the saints buried there. I have met many of our bishops and priests and deacons, and more, subdeacons who eventually became deacons, then priests. I have watched as the priestly ranks grew from the elevation of my friends.</span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4pHj9VrGPDc/X-iDfpFJwLI/AAAAAAAAFMM/udWhI848xx8DJwOF_91YwKbArk2j01pBQCLcBGAsYHQ/s2045/58543326_10218491230935067_7805121523013910528_o.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1520" data-original-width="2045" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4pHj9VrGPDc/X-iDfpFJwLI/AAAAAAAAFMM/udWhI848xx8DJwOF_91YwKbArk2j01pBQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/58543326_10218491230935067_7805121523013910528_o.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">I have learned that the Orthodox Church is not perfect. This is something we knew going in, or said we knew. We now know for sure. The Church is populated by sinners, of whom I am chief. We make messes of things, and fail to love one another as Christ has loved us. I have learned, notwithstanding this, that the Orthodox Church is herself perfect, in that her sinners are being saved, and we seek forgiveness where we err, and strive to love one another despite our many faults. We are being conformed to our Lord, Who is perfect. I have learned more than I care to know about church politics and governance, and I have learned far less than I care to know about Byzantine chant, Church history, theology, ecclesiology, and a host of other topics about which the St. Stephen Course has barely whetted my appetite. Mostly, I have made many great and lifelong friends, who share this journey with us, who learn the same lessons we learn, and strive to serve Christ in the same way we do.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Ten years really marks nothing of significance. The road is to eternity. Still, it seemed fitting to take a moment and reflect. We have been Orthodox Christians a decade now. We remain, still, home.</span></p>David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-37703203805601662202019-12-29T04:51:00.003-08:002019-12-29T04:52:34.812-08:00Nine years in.......<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/82122547_10158418494184311_6372809277656006656_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ohc=zEV3hKPNTRcAQnpW5jkfciwyIooMPsfwP6di2yHly-duICyOmSBx_OLsQ&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-1.xx&oh=eaba098416b173e8d54ba85709f825e1&oe=5EAD143C" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="600" height="320" src="https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/82122547_10158418494184311_6372809277656006656_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ohc=zEV3hKPNTRcAQnpW5jkfciwyIooMPsfwP6di2yHly-duICyOmSBx_OLsQ&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-1.xx&oh=eaba098416b173e8d54ba85709f825e1&oe=5EAD143C" width="240" /></a></div>
.......zero regrets. This journey has led me from despair as a late-stage Baptist, to some semblance of solidity as a nascent Lutheran, to shaken foundations as a relocating Lutheran, and finally back to true solidity in the Orthodox Church. <br />
<br />
We are in the Church. And that is enough.<br />
<br />
Blessed Nativity, 2019!David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-82688008265040980092019-10-31T08:13:00.001-07:002019-10-31T09:22:33.903-07:00Lutherans, step into my office for a moment please.....<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iGVh_M4SoC4/Xbr7dn2bu3I/AAAAAAAAECM/Z4-xZycxD_EoyO1roA0Ny2VYLA5hs8a3ACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Der_Anschlag_von_Luthers_95_Thesen-400x285.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="285" data-original-width="400" height="228" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iGVh_M4SoC4/Xbr7dn2bu3I/AAAAAAAAECM/Z4-xZycxD_EoyO1roA0Ny2VYLA5hs8a3ACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Der_Anschlag_von_Luthers_95_Thesen-400x285.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
An interesting, if misguided, article has been making the rounds among some of you that I would like to address this Reformation Day. Why Reformation Day? Not to be inflammatory, but to remind us all of why we ended up here, and why some of the premises in this article are so badly wrong.<br />
<br />
The article, from Real Clear Religion, is well intentioned. I won't link to it, mostly because those of you who are interested have already read it and I'm not inclined to give it wider distribution. It notes, correctly, that some evangelicals are leaving evangelicalism for ancient faiths, and it posits that a viable alternative is the ancient faith, as Lutherans see it, that is Lutheranism. So far, no harm no foul. I don't begrudge Lutherans their distinctives nor their outreach. In fact, one reason I became Lutheran was the insistence on grounding doctrine not only in "the Bible" as any single individual may see it, but in the Bible as understood by the Fathers of the Church, the Councils, etc. Lutherans believe that "Popes and councils can err," a broad statement that we Orthodox could agree with in part, but which I think overstates the case. After all, Lutherans do not profess to believe that, for example, the Ecumenical Councils erred. Your confessions cite to them often. It is this citation that drew me to Lutheranism in the first place. Here is a faith that is not grounded in subjectivity. It has roots.<br />
<br />
But here is my issue. The article also states the following, regarding the proverbial "swimming" of the Tiber or Bosporos (shorthand for becoming Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, respectively -- forgive me the presumption that readers will understand the references or at least consult a map and figure them out):<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Reasons for their aquatic activities vary. Some like the art and architecture associated with the ancient faiths. Some like the ceremonial aspects–the liturgies, the veneration of icons, the Eucharist. Some like the history that oozes from Catholicism and Orthodoxy, a history that travels through great saints of yesteryear–through Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Gregory of Nazianzus–but goes largely forgotten in contemporary evangelicalism.</blockquote>
The latter, Church history, is the ground on which I became Lutheran and eventually left to become Orthodox. I will address that point in a bit, but I certainly respect that Lutherans have a valid claim to hold to at least a substantial volume of the dogmatic proclamations of the pre-schism Church. But the notion that people leave any tradition because they are enamored with externals like "ceremonial aspects" or "art and literature" is a common Lutheran trope, and a silly one. I know a lot of former Lutherans, most of whom are Eastern Orthodox, some of whom are Roman Catholic. Of those, I don't know a single one who would say "our liturgies are prettier" or "I really like the aesthetics of icons (or statutes)" as the reason why they left.<br />
<br />
Were that my only complaint, I probably wouldn't write this at all. But the article goes on to address, or more accurately gloss past, the real reason most of us left -- ecclesiology.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
But Jesus does not lay out a proper form for his church. A true church, as limned in the New Testament, is one whose ministers teach the gospel purely and administer baptism and the Lord’s Supper rightly, according to Christ’s institution and mandate. That’s all. If your church does that–and the Missouri Synod hangs its hat on this directive–you belong to the true church.</blockquote>
Now, this is certainly the Lutheran view, and I do not take issue with it as a Lutheran view. What I take issue with is the begging of the question in favor of the Lutheran understanding of the Church, and the glossing past history which shows that view to have some holes in it. That is, I object that the very historical and Apostolic foundation being appealed to here is treated as if it can be reduced to locating the Church where the Gospel is rightly preached and the Sacraments administered in accordance with their institution, over and against those communions who maintain the Apostolic structure. As we all know, Jesus never said "the Church is found where the Gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments administered in accordance with their institution" either. So to understand either view -- the view of the historic communions such as Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, some Anglicans, etc., versus the Lutheran view -- one must look past the Scriptures and get deep into that very history the author appeals to here, but fails to adequately address.<br />
<br />
It is true that Jesus does not "lay out a proper form for His Church," inasmuch as Jesus does not say "these are the things which constitute the Church" in so many words. But Jesus did appoint men to carry on His ministry. John chapter 20 is one of numerous places we see this. "Receive the Holy Spirit," said Jesus. "Whoever's sins you forgive, they are forgiven. Whoever's sins you retain, they are retained." We both share that Apostolic foundation. The Bible, after all, is the Apostolic record. <br />
<br />
The view Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, among a few others, share is that the Apostles then passed on their ministry to the episcopacy. That is, bishops were appointed to head the various sees established by the Apostles. Over time, those bishops had their territories expand such that they could not effectively act as pastor and overseer, and so the office of presbyter developed, with the presbyter being responsible for being the bishop's representative in a parish. The diaconate came about much earlier, as recorded in Acts. So it is the office of the parish pastor that developed over time, not the office of the bishop. In the nascent Church, the parish pastor was the bishop. <br />
<br />
This is the basic structure of the Church in history. It is attested to as early as the late 1st to early 2nd century, with no objection to the structure itself being raised. It is utterly uncontroversial. St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of an Apostolic see first headed by St. Peter, wrote:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
— Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1</blockquote>
<br />
He also wrote:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
— Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8</blockquote>
<br />
Now, this clearly sets forth not simply a loose, "wherever" standard for the Church, but rather a tight, "where the bishop is, there the Church is" standard for governance. Nor is this historical truth controversial in the slightest. Nearly everyone agrees this is what St. Ignatius said about the Church save those radical "Age of Apostasy" Protestants and ahistorical atheists, some of whom deny that Ignatius was even a real person. And this is not only the same structure for the Church we see in Ignatius' late 1st century to early 2nd century writings. It is the same structure we see, for example, in Acts 15. <br />
<br />
So leaving aside the trope that people become Catholic or Orthodox because they want more pretty shiny stuff, we are left with the idea that they seek out these communions because they appreciate Church history. And the very same history that leads one to appreciate Lutheranism, if plumbed to its depths, leads in a straight line back to the historic communions. The article even notes that Luther did not seek to leave the Church, only to restore it. <br />
<br />
Of course, the problem with that premise is Luther did not simply restore. In many ways, he did in fact leave. Some of that I account to historical accident. If the bishops are corrupt, and if the bishops will not ordain or recognize your pastors, there is not much to be done, if one believes one's view to be correct, but to leave the bishops. The problem is, that true history is glossed past in favor of a question-begging narrative that pretends the 16th century Lutheran conception of the Church is just the way things always were until everything got corrupted. When the corruption entered is not stated by the author, and in fact the very notion that it was corrupted is hinted at only vaguely, but I have shown above that it would have to be in the very first generation of Christians. Ignatius, after all, was born in 35 AD or thereabouts. His episcopacy was before any of the councils or Popes Lutherans believe erred. His writings were widely disseminated. Antioch was one of the five pre-eminent Sees in the early Church, along with Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Jerusalem. In order to claim the current Lutheran understanding of what the Church is was the "early Church" view, one has to also adopt the view that the entire ecclesiology of the Church was corrupted right about the time the last Apostle died. And yet, I don't know a single Lutheran who believes that.<br />
<br />
There is a proper Lutheran view of history that accounts for this. Many of my friends in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod hold the view, for example, that the parish pastor fulfills properly the role of the bishop in the ancient Church. That is, as they see it, their ecclesiology has been reformed to a more proper model consistent with that of the early Church, where there were no overseers, only pastors. Again, that is well and good and I don't quarrel with it, though I do disagree with it. The problem is, in disseminating articles like this one which fails to make that case, or even attempt to, one invites prospective evangelical converts to delve into the history behind the claims. When they do, they will inevitably find that the claims are inadequate, and frankly, wrong. That does no one any good.<br />
<br />
I don't write often on Lutheran distinctives. I look back with fondness at my time in your midst, and I was formed by the teaching of theologians whose views I value to this very day. I do not write this as an attack on you or your tradition. But I do wish some of you would consider how this comes across, not only to those of us who left, but perhaps chiefly to those the article addresses -- potential converts. Because the honest truth is, I believe it tends to come from a position of weakness and ignorance. Too many of you cannot understand why we do not see what you see. And instead of questioning us about it, or trying to figure out why we reject Lutheran theology in the end, assumptions are made. Assumptions such as no one would reject Lutheran theology if they understood it, therefore, it must be something else. This article grasps blindly for "something else." It attributes it, in the first and second instances, to a superficial love for shiny pretty things, and in the third, for an appreciation of history that is marred by the very claims the article attempts, weakly, to make.<br />
<br />
An anecdote to make the point further. When I was still firmly a Lutheran, in June of 2009, Pastor David Jay Webber did a 3-part series on the Lutheran radio show, Issues, Etc., on Eastern Orthodoxy. Even then, having no interest in the Orthodox Church, but having read volumes of Church history, I knew it was badly wrong. For example, rather than placing the genesis of the Great Schism properly at the extent and scope of Papal jurisdiction and authority, culminating in the <i>Filioque </i>controversy, Webber's view was that the West went with Augustine and the East went with Pelagius on the central article (as Lutherans see it) of justification. Pelagius, that great Protestant boogeyman, was thus presented as the central figure in a schism that occurred over 600 years after he died. Augustine, that great Protestant hero (when he isn't talking about imitating the lives of the martyrs, sharing in their merits and being aided by their prayers), is posited as the hero of a schism that occurred nearly 600 years after he died. This sort of ahistorical, anachronistic nonsense does not win people to your cause, at least not after they learn they have been lied to. <br />
<br />
When we were exploring Orthodoxy, in mid-2010, well-meaning Lutheran friends sent me articles written by Lutherans who said things like "the Orthodox don't take sin seriously" and "the Orthodox don't believe in original sin." The first of those statements is laughable, as I wrote about <a href="https://forheisgoodandlovesmankind.blogspot.com/2011/04/we-take-sin-seriously.html">here</a>. The second is true only in a word-concept fallacy sense -- we believe in a concept called "ancestral sin," and the differences are beyond the scope of my point here. Suffice it to say, at the level of theology, both statements are horrifically wrong. And things like that naturally made me ask a question: "if they're wrong about that, what else are they wrong about?" <br />
<br />
It turned out the answer was "quite a lot." Most Lutherans, even most Lutheran pastors and theologians, do not understand Eastern Orthodoxy. I've written about some of the differences here before, but the conceptual framework is so vastly different that one really must spend a lot of time defining terms and understanding basics before one can even have a conversation. <br />
<br />
My advice, then, is stop trying to tell us why we left and what we believe, and start trying to understand. That begins with listening, and I am happy to offer my thoughts anytime any of you would like to discuss it.David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-20204507060635021352019-03-16T11:50:00.002-07:002019-03-16T11:58:11.737-07:00Christchurch New Zealand: the Church and Islam<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://jenniferleclaire.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Webp.net-resizeimage-8-2-1080x600.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="444" data-original-width="800" height="221" src="https://jenniferleclaire.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Webp.net-resizeimage-8-2-1080x600.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Last week in Christchurch, New Zealand, a terrorist attacked two mosques, killing 49 people and injuring at least 48 others. The shooter -- who I will not name in order to deny him the notoriety he coveted -- was an Australian born white supremacist and nativist. The manifesto he left behind indicates a desire to preserve a future for "his people," that is, white people, and to create a climate of fear for Muslims.<br />
<br />
I don't write here as much as I used to, but those who follow this blog know that I have written an unfortunate number of such posts over the last couple of years. I have addressed varying forms of bigotry, hatred and sectarianism <a href="https://forheisgoodandlovesmankind.blogspot.com/2017/06/we-have-choice.html">here</a>, <a href="https://forheisgoodandlovesmankind.blogspot.com/2017/08/we-have-choice-part-2.html">here</a>, <a href="https://forheisgoodandlovesmankind.blogspot.com/2018/08/anger-narcissism-politics-social-media.html">here</a> and <a href="https://forheisgoodandlovesmankind.blogspot.com/2018/10/anti-semitism-is-un-christian.html">here</a>. That's just since 2017. I'm frankly weary of it, yet it appears this sort of attitude toward one another is all too prevalent, and so I speak.<br />
<br />
The shooter, who had something of an obsession with the history of the rise of Islam, so much so that he visited historic sites of battles between Christians and Muslims, does not seem to be any sort of practicing Christian, but he does place great value on the perceived decline of Christianity, presumably mostly as a white ethnic identity instead of as a faith and life God gives us to live. This is at once heartening and terrifying. Heartening because he did not know Christ and therefore his actions do not speak to the Christian faith at all. Terrifying because he was apparently willing to nonetheless commit unspeakable acts in protest of his perceived loss of Christian (that is, white) identity in the world. <br />
<br />
The horror present in this atrocity is appallingly simple. The shooter, in doing what he did, became precisely that which he claimed to despise. He did so because he reduced people to the most superficial attributes -- mostly racial -- while simultaneously failing to give any nuance to the most complex attributes, their religious faith. To the shooter, Christian = European = white. Muslim = non-European = non-white. I'm sure there are other, equally superficial, distinctions he made, but I honestly lack interest in trying to find them. It is enough to say he had a very reductionist view of humanity.<br />
<br />
Of course, anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Christian history knows that this view is not simply false, it is laughably false. Middle Eastern Muslims are of similar racial stock to our Lord Himself, and His mother, our Lady the Theotokos. And before Christianity was much of a thing in Europe, it spread first in the Middle East and North Africa. The early patriarchates were located in Rome, yes, but also Alexandria, Antioch (in modern-day Turkey, though the Patriarchate is now located in Damascus), Jerusalem and Constantinople. The main theological disputations in the earliest centuries were between the schools of Antioch and Alexandria. Christianity is, first and foremost, an Eastern religion. European Christianity comes to the game somewhat later in time -- even Rome was more culturally Eastern than what most people imagine "European" (that is, mostly medieval Roman Catholic) Christianity to be. <br />
<br />
This misunderstanding goes beyond the Christian faith, but to Christian and Muslim persons. Our bishop, who is visiting us this week, was born in Damascus, and has a still-thick accent even though he has lived here since 1981. Those who overvalue the superficial might mistake him for a Muslim. My brother has spent quite a lot of time in Indonesia. I suppose one can make distinctions between Middle Eastern Muslims and Asian Muslims, but isn't that sort of the point? Besides, Indonesia is the single largest Muslim nation in the world. My brother encountered no difficulty there. On more than one occasion, the kindness of local Muslims -- because of their faith, not in spite of it -- was very comforting to him. <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://ocl.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Metropolitan-paul-aleppo-191x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="191" src="https://ocl.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Metropolitan-paul-aleppo-191x300.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Metropolitan Paul of Aleppo</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I do not say these things lightly. I am aware of the atrocities of Muslim fanatics in this world. I remember, as do all of us over a certain age, September 11, 2001. In 2013, one of our Metropolitans, Paul of Aleppo, was kidnapped along with a Syriac Orthodox bishop, John, with whom he was traveling, by Islamists. Bad people commit bad acts. And yet our former bishop of blessed memory, Antoun, once told our parish that in Syria, Muslims and Christians get along well. Being hyper-focused on the superficial, therefore, is not the proper approach. We condemn actions, not races, faiths or ethnicities. And we praise actions, not perceived cultures based on skin color or other superficial differences.<br />
<br />
I am also aware, as I noted in <a href="https://forheisgoodandlovesmankind.blogspot.com/2018/10/anti-semitism-is-un-christian.html">my last post</a>, that the Orthodox Church has those within it (and others who wish to be within it but are not allowed) who espouse such superficial distinctions between humans. The simple point I would like to make is this -- those who commit such atrocities, like those who would try to use the Orthodox Church as justification for their racism and hatred, do not do so because of their faith, but in spite of it. There will be many <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman">true Scotsmen</a> eager to point out, rightly, that the Christchurch shooter does not represent Christianity. I hope they will seek out a mirror, and realize that this is also true of the 9/11 terrorists and those who kidnapped our beloved Metropolitan. They do not represent Islam.<br />
<br />
As I noted a while back in 2 separate posts, we have a choice. We can choose to see others, even those of different faiths, as brothers and special creations of the Father, or we can choose to see them as evil, as (ironically) infidels, as irredeemable. The former path is the Christian path. Christianity is an exclusive faith, in that we truly believe Christ is the only way to reunification with God. But Christianity does not value superficial distinctions. Racism is sin. Xenophobia is sin. Which is only to say, false witness is sin. A person is no more or less a Christian because of the color of their skin or their national origin. A person is no more or less representative of Islam based on the same superficialities. We are not universalists. We do believe some will be damned, but we do not get to choose who. It is not ours to judge.<br />
<br />
Bishop Nicholas told us yesterday evening that there are 613 total commandments in the Old Testament, and that our Lord summed them all up in two -- love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. We have a choice. Choose to love your neighbor as yourself. And pray for those who lost loved ones, and those loved ones lost, when someone who felt very strongly about the loss of Christian identity missed the entire point of the Christian faith. Lord have mercy.David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-66284546028416852822018-10-29T12:35:00.003-07:002018-10-29T12:35:41.202-07:00Anti-Semitism is un-Christian<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqjZf_TWwAQj4rB.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="794" data-original-width="800" height="317" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqjZf_TWwAQj4rB.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Sadly, I feel I only write after tragedies these days. I find myself writing today, just two days after a man shot up a synagogue in Pittsburgh for the sole reason that its inhabitants were Jewish.<br />
<br />
Pittsburgh is a city close to my heart. For the past three years (and for at least the next two) I have traveled through her borders in order to attend the Sacred Music Institute (the past two years) and the St. Stephen Course residency (this past year and for the next two). I have gotten to know her people, including several I consider personal friends. And Pittsburgh is a city of fine people, people who love, who work, who treat others with respect. She is the best of what our country has to offer.<br />
<br />
But this was not an attack on Pittsburgh. Nor was it an attack on some vacuous notion of "religion." It was an attack on Jews. Ethnic Jews. People who were targeted not because they had done something wrong, but because they are part of a group who was wrongly considered by the shooter to have done something wrong. To call this an act of terrorism is to understate the problem. Because it is not the terroristic act that moved him to do it, but the false association of ethnic Jews with all manner of evil. This was an act of terrorism, but it was a sin of the heart.<br />
<br />
The Orthodox Church has recently had some serious issues with anti-semitism. Fortunately the worst of the worst -- the high profile so-called "white nationalists" who infected certain of our parishes -- have been excommunicated. That is not to say there are not others. I'm certain there are. It is to say our hierarchs appear to be dealing with the problem appropriately. I pray they continue to do so. Those who bring hatred into Christ's Church must repent or be expelled. Their beliefs are an infectious invader upon the Body of Christ.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure what attracts such types to the Church. Perhaps it is the "old world" manner in which our troparia speak. Our parish patron's troparion, for example, includes the phrase "for when thou hast censured the Jews' madness thou sawest Christ Thy Savior standing at the right hand of the Father....." We do not intend such to be a condemnation of modern Judaism, nor of modern Jews, nor even of ancient Judaism or ancient Jews. It is a simple historical statement. But maybe that is misunderstood by people looking for justification for their anti-Christian views. And, per the title, anti-semitism is anti-Christian. Perhaps, instead, it is our roots in traditionalism. The Orthodox Church cares little whether she is perceived as backwards, old fashioned, stuck in old ways. Often, we revel in it. And perhaps those who wish to look to a previous time which they perceive as "better," a time when Jews and others were persecuted, see us as refuge for the idea that any old idea is a good idea. Perhaps, yet again, it is our own phyletism -- our own ethnic enclaves that seek to exclude and remain exclusive. Perhaps, that is, it is our own sin that draws such people in.<br />
<br />
In any of these events, or in any other, we must repent. We must repent of our failure to explain our hymnody and writings in a way that makes clear we may speak archaically, but we do not speak bigotry. We must repent of our elevation of tradition to something higher than Christ and His Church, that is, we must repent of valuing tradition for its own sake rather than valuing Holy Tradition for Christ's sake. We must surely repent of our own sins and sweep around our own back doors in regards to how we treat our fellow man.<br />
<br />
As Christians, we have a duty to reject the false divisions of this world. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28). We are to see our neighbor as our brother, as one redeemed by Christ the Crucified. This is true, perhaps especially true, of our brethren who do not claim Him. For our Lord did not say to judge and persecute those who reject Him, but to love even our enemies. And Jews, Muslims and other religious groups are not our enemies, certainly not by the loosest of associations. How much more are we to love them?<br />
<br />
On the subject of loose associations, we have a corresponding duty to refuse to view our neighbor by association with some larger group, the better to tar him with. Our Jewish friends are not "Jews" (or any of the current code-word associations for people of Jewish ethnicity or identity). They are the creation of the Father. They are beloved of God. Without getting too far into the thorny issues of the exclusivity of the Christian faith and the salvation of those outside the Church, because that is a far longer and more intensive topic than may be dealt with here, suffice it to say that God's earnest wish is that everyone come to know the truth and be saved. And without reciting the various Christian heresies that lead to a belief that those outside the canonical walls of the Christian Church are our enemies, it should be sufficient for any Orthodox Christian to understand the properly basic Christian belief that judgment is not ours to render. We are to love our neighbor. Christ will judge us all. And who is to say He will judge my self-defined exclusivity and hatred less severely than another's unbelief, weak belief or uncertain belief? We are not universalists. Some will be damned. But it is not for me to say who. <br />
<br />
All of which is a long way of saying this: If you want to know how to be saved, I point you to the Church, to Christ and His Mysteries. If you want to know who is damned, I can only say that is not for me to say. And if you want to know who you are called to love, simply look around you. Love your neighbor as yourself. That is, love everyone.<br />
<br />
So it is that we offer prayers to those who lost lives, health, security, friends and family this past Saturday. We pray for all of our Jewish friends, and for those who suffer under the weight of such tragedy. We pray for all who are persecuted, hated and reviled. We pray for those who persecute, hate and revile, that they might repent. We pray for he shooter, who I will not further enshrine in infamy by repeating his name here, that his heart may be softened and his hatred be quelled. And we pray for ourselves, that we may do better. Lord have mercy on me, a sinner.David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-21773932346712296112018-08-24T11:13:00.002-07:002018-08-24T11:13:21.856-07:00Anger, Narcissism, Politics, Social Media and Personhood<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/11/03/voter.anger/t1larg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="640" height="225" src="https://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/11/03/voter.anger/t1larg.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Like many, I have become dismayed at the breakdown of our social discourse. I had occasion to consider it recently in listening to a podcast I've come to enjoy -- the Joe Rogan Experience.<br />
<br />
Most people know Rogan as the spokesman for the UFC, the somewhat sophomoric comedian, and from way back, the host of the 2nd iteration of "The Man Show" (the first iteration of which included misogynist-turned-feminist Jimmy Kimmel). Most people -- until recently present company included -- do not consider Joe Rogan an intellectual.<br />
<br />
Perhaps he is not. However, in avoiding overstatement, we should be careful not to swing the pendulum too far the other direction. What Joe Rogan is, is intellectually curious. He challenges without being a jerk. He asks good questions. And he has interesting guests to interview in long-form format, which obviously gives a better picture of the person than a shorter interview, much less Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c9/db/4d/c9db4d13580b890290c2f6ce99907b92.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="646" data-original-width="453" height="320" src="https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c9/db/4d/c9db4d13580b890290c2f6ce99907b92.jpg" width="224" /></a></div>
The interviewee that got me thinking along these lines was Ted Nugent. Yes, that Ted Nugent. Some people love Ted Nugent, for his music or his politics. Others hate Ted Nugent, for the exact same reasons. I've never quite known what to make of Ted Nugent. On the one hand, he's a fantastic guitar player and upholds some of the ideals I cherish too -- family, the lifestyle of an outdoorsman, hunting, fishing, shooting, etc. On the other, he's got a quick tongue which often seems to be ahead of his mind. Put bluntly, he says things that make me cringe.<br />
<br />
This interview gave me a glimpse of him I haven't seen before, either in shorter interviews or even on his hunting show, "Spirit of the Wild." And one of the things I realized was that for all of his wackier political ideas, for all of his lack of couth and vulgarity, and for all the times "overstatement" was a kind way of saying he'd gone off the deep end, Ted Nugent also has a wealth of knowledge and wisdom about bowhunting.<br />
<br />
This might seem out of sorts so far -- this is after all an Orthodox Christian blog, not a blog about politics or hunting or music. Bear with me.<br />
<br />
The thing that really stuck out to me was this guy who I'd put in a box with others I perceived to be like him -- Alex Jones, maybe Ann Coulter or Ben Shapiro -- this guy who at times says things that made me want to turn the channel, had another side to him. A side that interested and intrigued me. A side that was honestly fascinating. Ted Nugent is an historian of the bow and arrow. How the compound bow came to be. How bowhunting became legal in various states. How the bow and arrow began as a primitive tool used by primitive people, but became refined and perfected over the years as archers learned better and better ways to apply it, even as its use as a primary weapon for defense or obtaining food was greatly diminished. As a beginning archer I was fascinated by this. I listened to the entire interview.<br />
<br />
And that got me thinking -- how often do we simply put people in boxes? I think social media, Twitter in particular, but there are others, tends to bring out that tendency in us. We see others through the lens of their politics, or their religious affiliation, or their race, sexual orientation, or other abstract classifications. And if we don't like the box we put them in (perhaps that is precisely why we put them there), we write them off as having no value to add to us as persons or to society as a whole.<br />
<br />
Yet we as Christians are to see others in Christ, and more, to see Christ in them. Part of this problem is social media and its limitations encourage some of our worst traits. Narcissism is chief among them. We think we are so very important that our opinions matter more than other considerations (like someone else's feelings). Sarcasm is another. I speak it fluently, so <i>mea culpa</i> (more on that below). Still, when you only have so much space, points are sometimes easier to make by using rhetorical tools that mock and deride instead of explain and build up. Having these tendencies encouraged seems to me to make them habitual. And as with any other passion, becoming habituated to sin necessarily means losing habituation to virtue. <br />
<br />
I had occasion to witness this earlier this year. I posted an <a href="https://babylonbee.com/news/planned-parenthood-defends-bill-cosby-sexual-assault-is-only-3-of-what-he-does/">article</a> by the <a href="https://babylonbee.com/">Babylon Bee</a>, a satire site, on Facebook. The article poked fun of Planned Parenthood by claiming they defended Bill Cosby because "sexual assault is only 3% of what he does." I found it funny, and also insightful. Several friends found it offensive. Some made that known in very polite terms. Some did not. But one thing that struck me was the desire on the part of those whose views had been mocked to virtue signal in the other direction. Instead of refraining from comment, comments were made. Publicly. The purpose was clear -- to let others know which side the commenter was on. In one instance, the respect for boundaries broke down entirely, resulting in that person's comments being deleted from my page.<br />
<br />
On the one hand, I certainly bear some responsibility for that. I posted an article I knew was intended to make a point with sharp, biting sarcasm. And it quite clearly made that point. On the other hand, others felt it necessary to respond, with the responses nearly all polite save that one responder I mention above. And it makes me wonder -- why? Why did I want to post that article? Clearly, I thought it made a good and valid point, but I knew it was inflammatory. I knew people who felt a certain way about abortion would be challenged by it. And certainly those challenges are necessary in a world where the mainstream media works so hard to pretend opposition to abortion is some lunatic fringe in our society. But then, I posted it in a place where the only possible responses were combox responses. And I got exactly that which the forum gives best -- mostly gentle commentary that served the purpose of showing opposition to the article, and in one case mocking and sarcasm in return (directed, unfortunately, at my wife). And why did they feel the need to respond to it? What is it about social media that encourages us to draw battle lines in this way? To show everyone which side we are on? <br />
<br />
One thing that should be stated is that I know all of the people who commented -- including the one whose comments were deleted -- personally. These are not merely virtual acquaintances. I've met them. I know they are more than their comments on social media. They know I am more than mine. And yet one felt comfortable attacking my wife in that forum because he disagreed with her politics. Mocking her and deriding her. And when that happens, it tells me a polite society (such as we were ever polite) is broken. And I wonder what we can do about it.<br />
<br />
I think part of the answer comes down to how we view each other as persons. We as persons are defined first as being created in the image of God. Those we disagree with, even vehemently, are created in God's image. Those whose comments might cause strong offense are ultimately there for our salvation because they are sons of the Father. They are our brothers and sisters. They are not our enemies. I fall short of this, often. It is too easy to reduce people to arbitrary classifications. And we know the evils that are borne of this -- racism, antisemitism, etc. Every mass murderer in history has first reduced their targets to the level of subhuman. The great irony of the example I chose is this is exactly how people who wish to see abortion continue in our society treat the unborn. But it starts with me, and for you it starts with you. <br />
<br />
As persons, we are more than our politics. We are more than our prejudices. We are more than the lowest common denominator we share with some larger group. I am not in any way calling for us to stop using social media. I do think we ought to consider how we use it, and why. David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-84244194685317070372017-11-10T05:15:00.000-08:002017-11-10T06:41:26.654-08:00Tradition Matters: On the Ever Virginity of the Most Holy Theotokos as pertains to Senate Candidate Roy Moore<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/jNWmIOr7G7qMFzuKzhAeydZ7D6Q=/0x0:3000x2000/1200x800/filters:focal(1260x760:1740x1240)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/56870335/853873550.1506475805.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="266" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/jNWmIOr7G7qMFzuKzhAeydZ7D6Q=/0x0:3000x2000/1200x800/filters:focal(1260x760:1740x1240)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/56870335/853873550.1506475805.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/woman-says-roy-moore-initiated-sexual-encounter-when-she-was-14-he-was-32/2017/11/09/1f495878-c293-11e7-afe9-4f60b5a6c4a0_story.html?utm_term=.f5c1bad50796">Allegations recently surfaced</a> that Alabama U.S. Senate candidate and former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore had romantic involvement with four teenage girls, including one 14-year old, when he was in his 30s. Moore's defense to these allegations is that they never happened. For a variety of reasons, including the well-sourced Washington Post story that broke the allegations, I believe they did. Some Republicans, including <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/roy-moore/545471/">several prominent Senators</a>, have said that if the allegations are true he must step down from the Senate race. However, a litany of other prominent supporters have given.......let's say, less satisfactory responses. <br />
<br />
Among those is Alabama state auditor Jim Ziegler. Ziegler has given two main defenses of Moore. The first, while still grotesque, is by far the better of the two. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/us/politics/mcconnell-roy-moore-sex-teenagers.html">Ziegler said</a> “[t]here’s nothing to see here. Single man, early 30s, never been married, dating teenage girls. Never been married and he liked younger girls. According to The Washington Post account he never had sexual intercourse with any of them.” Now, one can certainly argue that cultural norms change, but suffice it to say, if a 30 year old man comes a courting my soon-to-be 14 year old daughter, that man is taking his health and safety, not to mention his freedom, into his own hands. This defense also glosses past the fact that even in the 1970s, the conduct alleged by the 14-year old (though not with the other three girls who alleged Moore pursued them, who were all over the age of consent of 16, and all of whom said their contact with him was limited to kissing), was illegal in Alabama. It also seems to miss the obvious fact that his conduct with 4 separate girls was limited to kissing with the older girls, but progressed to fondling with the youngest of the four, which implies predation beyond that which the law imposes simply by virtue of her age. Meaning -- Moore apparently felt more comfortable pushing the envelope with the youngest of the four. So Ziegler is just being obnoxiously disgusting here.<br />
<br />
Not content to be merely disgusting, however, Ziegler then came out with what might be <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/alabama-state-auditor-defends-roy-moore-against-sexual-allegations-invokes-mary-and-joseph/article/2640217">the oddest defense of allegations of child molestation I have ever heard</a>. Ziegler said “[t]ake the Bible. Zachariah and Elizabeth for instance. Zachariah was extremely old to marry Elizabeth and they became the parents of John the Baptist." He then said "[a]lso take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus.”<br />
<br />
Zechariah and Elizabeth is the easier nut to crack here. Ziegler is simply wrong. Both Zechariah and Elizabeth were older, past childbearing years, when St. John was born. "But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years." (Luke 1:7).<br />
<br />
However, the argument about Joseph and the Theotokos is odder still. Here, Ziegler has no Biblical support, because the Bible does not tell us Joseph's age, nor Mary's. Rather than following the Bible, Ziegler is conflating two variant traditions about Mary and Joseph.<br />
<br />
The Bible tells us "[i]n the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary." (Luke 1:24). Was<br />
<br />
Saint Matthew elaborates. <br />
<br />
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”<br />
<br />
So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 'Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,' which is translated, 'God with us.'<br />
<br />
Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus."<br />
<br />
The Bible does not tell us how old Mary was. It does not tell us how old Joseph was.<br />
<br />
Where Ziegler gets this information about Mary and Joseph's ages is not from the Bible, but from the classical Christian tradition that says that Mary was a young teenager and Joseph was betrothed to her to be her caretaker. The problem for Ziegler is this same classical tradition also holds that Mary remained ever-virgin, that is, she and Joseph never had sexual contact. The reasons for this are varied, but mostly center around the classical Church's view that Mary, having borne the Christ in her womb, was sanctified -- set apart and made holy by His indwelling within her. And Joseph, being a chaste and God-fearing man and, not for nothing, much older than Mary, would never wish to reduce Mary's body to a secular purpose after she had borne God Himself in her womb.<br />
<br />
While it is true that Moore also never had sexual intercourse with the girls who raised these allegations, one can hardly imagine on this account Joseph and Mary engaging in the conduct Moore is accused of. Suffice it to say, if true, Moore was feeling up a 14 year old girl. To suggest Joseph did roughly the same is to do violence to the Christian tradition. <br />
<br />
The other main tradition about Mary and Joseph is that they did have other children after Jesus was born. The main support for this view does come from the Bible, though the implication that Joseph was "an adult carpenter" and Mary "a teenager" is still nowhere to be found in the Bible. The Gospels of Mark and Matthew reference brothers and sisters of Jesus. This tradition stems from Protestantism, and late Protestantism at that. It is based on the principle of <i>Sola Scriptura </i>and assumes that "brothers and sisters of Jesus" also means "sons and daughters of Mary by birth." Based on this reading, Protestants who hold this view tend to reject the May-December betrothal tradition and assume Joseph and Mary were both closer to the same age. Why? Because the Bible doesn't tell us their ages. The classical tradition holds that these "brothers and sisters" were either cousins of Jesus or, as we in the Orthodox Church contend, step-siblings, children of Joseph from a prior marriage. Notably, Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli all held to the classical view, so the later tradition is also not something all Protestants adhere to. <br />
<br />
However, no tradition, certainly not one that claims as Ziegler does to be based on "the Bible" holds <i style="font-weight: bold;">both </i>that Mary was a teenager and Joseph a much older man <i style="font-weight: bold;">and </i>that they had sex with each other and bore children. Leaving aside the patently obvious problem with invoking Mary, Joseph and Jesus as examples of why sexual contact with adults and young teenagers is not wrong -- even if one assumes Joseph and Mary later had sexual intercourse and bore other children after Jesus, literally nobody has ever suggested Joseph was robbing the cradle. <br />
<br />
Ziegler's problem, it seems to me, stems from his desire to defend his politician friend, not any desire to be faithful to the Bible. And his bungling of this narrative demonstrates the value of tradition very clearly. Everybody follows somebody's tradition. Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics and many tradition-minded Protestants follow the classical tradition. Joseph was much older than Mary and betrothed to her as a caretaker. Joseph and Mary never had any sort of sexual relationship. Mary remained and still remains ever-virgin. This is encapsulated in our Divine Liturgy, where during litanies we "remember[] especially our all holy, most pure and blessed and glorious Lady, Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary." Those who do not follow this tradition have assumed another tradition -- that Joseph and Mary did have marital relations and Mary bore other children, and also that Joseph was not that much older than Mary at the time they were married, and certainly not at the time Jesus was born. <br />
<br />
Ziegler, of course, invents his own tradition out of whole cloth, conflating the two main traditions while invoking the Bible to defend his politician friend from allegations of child molestation. In so doing, he slanders Saint Joseph the Betrothed and the Mother of God, all for the ignoble purpose of defending an accused child molester. Tradition matters. Choose yours wisely.David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-65594530541951661132017-08-12T20:02:00.002-07:002017-08-12T21:09:26.209-07:00We have a choice, part 2<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/richmond.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/2/83/283c9537-9f43-584c-b2ae-8031b1932677/598f5afda93f2.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C810" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="540" data-original-width="800" height="270" src="https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/richmond.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/2/83/283c9537-9f43-584c-b2ae-8031b1932677/598f5afda93f2.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C810" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
This is Charlottesville, Virginia, August 12, 2017. The photograph, as you all likely know, is a car driven by what by all accounts is a white nationalist protestor into a crowd of counter-protestors. Eyewitness reports are that he drove it into the crowd from around 50 feet away, backed up, and did it again before fleeing.<br />
<br />
I am tempted to write something hyperbolic such as "this is the face of political discourse in America today." But the reality is that it is not. The reality is that while our discourse is assuredly bleak, and too many hearts assuredly hardened, the people who do things like this, much like the person who shot Steve Scalise and prompted me to write <a href="https://forheisgoodandlovesmankind.blogspot.com/2017/06/we-have-choice.html">the first installment to bear this title</a>, are in the minority. The problem is, such people are still a mirror to our society.<br />
<br />
Too much of our public discourse is centered on othering our perceived "enemies." We just elected a president who has mastered the art of othering, so this is a reflection of us every bit as much as it is an awful terrorist act committed by, well, the other. We have to do better. We can do better.<br />
<br />
In my previous blog post on this topic, I wrote about Derek Black, the former white nationalist whose parents founded Stormfront, an alt-right website with white supremacist goals. Derek's heart was changed from being an ardent white nationalist to being an ardent opponent of white nationalism. How? Because he was invited to play cards by a Jewish friend. Derek is a story of what can happen when we talk to each other instead of at or past each other.<br />
<br />
And yet when one crosses the line from othering people to harming people, the time for making friends has passed. Since this story broke, I have seen claims that the entire episode was engineered by George Soros. I have seen claims that the driver was merely defending himself from an angry mob. I have seen the "yeah, but" defense ("yeah, but Antifa commits violent acts all the time and...."). Not only from alt-right people, but also from some Christians who are politically conservative. Instead of a quick and clear condemnation of an act of domestic terrorism by someone who, by all accounts, is part of a movement that views non-white people as culturally inferior to whites, and that views "Western Civilization" (read: white people) as the source of all that is good in the world, some have chosen this time to be defensive. To make excuses. To pretend this is something other than what it is. And all over partisan politics. This is unacceptable.<br />
<br />
Racism is heresy and it is sin. Period. And while it is true that Western Civilization has at times been a shining light in world history, it is hardly the only civilization that has been so. Not for nothing, it is not good chiefly because white people were behind it, but rather because Western Civilization is inextricably bound up with Christian values. Lose the Christian values, and you lose everything good about Western Civilization. Which is to say, inject racism into the equation, and what is left of Western Civilization is not worth discussing. That is not, of course, to suggest that Western Civilization never knew racism. We knew it well in this country. It is only to say that romantic views of Western Civilization as embodying the best and brightest tend to rightly gloss past those portions of Western Civilization where we, for example, enslaved black people as chattel or colonized Africa to extract natural resources without regard to the well being of the native people there. To the extent Western Civilization is good, and I think it mostly is, it is not good because of white people. It is good because it espoused such values as temperance, charity, tolerance, chastity, justice, mercy and so forth. That the people who espoused those virtues happened to be white is as insignificant as if they had blonde hair or green eyes or a hitchhiker's thumb. Race is a fiction anyway.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/40/a3/c6/40a3c679a8a8c232f2bfaf15d6698bdf--orthodox-christianity-the-black.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="611" height="200" src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/40/a3/c6/40a3c679a8a8c232f2bfaf15d6698bdf--orthodox-christianity-the-black.jpg" width="152" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">St. Moses the Black</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Icon_of_Saint_Raphael_of_Brooklyn.jpg/220px-Icon_of_Saint_Raphael_of_Brooklyn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="285" data-original-width="220" height="200" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Icon_of_Saint_Raphael_of_Brooklyn.jpg/220px-Icon_of_Saint_Raphael_of_Brooklyn.jpg" width="154" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">St. Raphael of Brooklyn</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It should also be noted that racism is not only anti-Christian in the relatively narrow slice of history since the American Civil War. Among the very first communities to receive Christianity was North Africa. Alexandria is one of the Pentarchy, after all. Churches that were founded from the very beginning of Christianity are still active in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and numerous other countries in Africa. Leave aside that Jesus and the Theotokos are ethnic Jews (white supremacists hate them too) -- we also have black saints in the Church. Saint Moses the Black is probably the most well known, but Saints Perpetua and Felicity were martyred in Carthage as well, and there are numerous others -- too numerous to list. St. Mary of Egypt was hardly a white European. Obviously, the Arabic Church, of which I am a member, has a notable share of saints and martyrs, most of whom would be considered non-white (especially by white supremacists in America). My bishop was born in Damascus, and so was my former bishop, recently retired. Our Metropolitan was also born in Damascus, and his predecessor, Metropolitan Philip of blessed memory was born in Lebanon. The first Orthodox bishop consecrated in North America and one of the many Saints of North America, Saint Raphael of Brooklyn, was born in Beirut. I had the honor of visiting the tombs of Metropolitan Philip and Bishop Raphael this summer and last summer. These aren't just unknown people in history who are easily dismissed -- these are actually the pastors of the very Church I attend! Are the saints an inferior race? Are the primates of our churches? Our bishops, deacons and pastors? Dare we measure the lives of, say, Richard Spencer or David Duke against theirs?<br />
<br />
We have a choice. We can make excuses or we can condemn heresy and sin and the atrocity it spawns. Which type of person do we wish to be?David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-513288677190655743.post-37095491961414490692017-08-12T18:45:00.001-07:002017-08-12T20:04:36.715-07:00The Early ChurchOne of the most interesting observations one can make about Christians is most, regardless of tradition, wish to claim "the early Church" as authority for why they do what they do and believe what they believe. I am presently reading "A History of the Christian Church" by Walker, Norris, Lotz and Handy, and I have to say, some folks would be really surprised at what "the early Church" actually did:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"There was, in short, general assent to the belief that the churches' teaching and practice had to be consistent with its origins in the work of Christ and of the first generation of his disciples. The seriousness with which this conviction was held is demonstrated by nothing better than the tireless regularity with which early Christian writings are attributed to one or another of the Twelve -- or, like <i>Didache </i>or<i> Epistula Apostolorum</i>, to the entire college of the church's founders.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The common life of the churches, moreover, was shaped by shared institutions which functioned as instruments of unity and continuity. The disciple was admitted to the church by the rite of baptism. This involved not only washing but also the making of a traditional confession of faith, and it presupposed instruction in the meaning of that faith and in the style of life that it demanded. The regular assemblies of the community, which took place on the Lord's Day (Sunday) in celebration of Jesus' resurrection, involved not only prayer, praise and the reading of the Scriptures, but also preaching, prophecy, and the celebration of the Lord's Supper or eucharist. These regular common actions were occasions which both shaped and interpreted the life and identity of the community, and they provided a matrix in which a common symbolic language was preserved and developed. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Of equal importance int he life of the second-century church was the discipline of the community. The church was a 'separated' body whose members were expected to conduct their lives in a certain style. There were disciplines of fasting and prayer. It was understood that Christians did not enter into second marriages, put unwanted babies to death by exposure, or practice abortion. They were to have nothing to do with pagan festivals or with any occupation which could be construed as them putting them in the service of the 'demons' they understood the pagan gods to be. All of this meant, of course, that they could have little to do with the public life of any city in which they dwelt, since pagan religion was inevitably a part of the very fabric of that life. Above all, however, they were to love the brethren and to practice almsgiving and charity. 'Fasting is better than prayer, but almsgiving than both.' Ignatius' most eloquent condemnation of heretics comes in his allegation that 'For love they have no care, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the distressed, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, or for him released from prison, none for the hungry or thirsty.' <i>I Clement</i> knows of believers who have sold themselves into slavery to support the needy. Christian communities not only lived by a discipline, but they also functioned as close associations in which systemic mutual assistance was organized and practiced. This fact, too, no doubt contributed to a sense of cohesiveness and to a low threshold of toleration for fundamental disagreement or conflict."</blockquote>
(citations omitted). So to recap, the early Church:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Took doctrine very, very seriously, to the point of writing letters of support and/or rebuke to sister churches or fellow Christians</li>
<li>Was sacramental, centering its initiation around baptism and its worship life around the regular celebration of the Eucharist</li>
<li>Practiced regular fasting and prayer</li>
<li>Was anti-divorce and pro-life</li>
<li>Was anti-syncretism (unionism was not yet a "thing" among Christians)</li>
<li>Centered the life of the Christian outside the liturgy around prayer, fasting and almsgiving</li>
<li>In particular, took almsgiving much more seriously than most American Christians do today</li>
<li>Considered unity to not merely be outward unity, but unity of belief, faith, the Sacraments and the Christian life</li>
</ul>
<div>
One claiming to mirror one's doctrine and practice around the early Church should take note. And this list should concern everyone reading it, though to be fair, some will have more concern than others.</div>
David Garnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com0