For He is Good and Loves Mankind

Another stop in my ever-evolving tour of Orthodox Churches around the southeast...

2012-02-13T07:29:00.000-08:00

I had occasion yesterday to visit St. Philothea Orthodox Church in Athens, Georgia. Thanks to Father Anthony and my friend Rose Lieffring, along with the rest of the parish, for being so welcoming!

I love Greek Churches. I really do. The beauty of liturgical Greek combined with the hospitality of the people who comprise such parishes is unparalleled. This was no different. The food isn't bad either, but unfortunately I was unable to stay for lunch.

I arrived blessedly in time for Orthros and that and the Liturgy were both beautiful. As I've noted before, different from what we do each Sunday, but utterly the same. I've written before that the scandal of jurisdictionalism has a positive side effect, in that we can see different ethnic and jurisdictional perspectives on the One Church. While I pray that scandal is remedied, I also hope (and believe) that it will be remedied while leaving these varied ethnic expressions of the Faith intact. While visiting a parish is not like being home, and while the slight differences in wording of the Creed and the pre-communion prayers and other portions of the Liturgy are a challenge for a visitor, it is great comfort knowing that the same Faith is preserved. Father Anthony's homily was outstanding, dealing of course with the Parable of the Prodigal Son. He did a wonderful job articulating the great comfort we have in knowing that we cannot earn heaven, that the prodigal was celebrated by his father precisely because he came home after having been lost, and of warning us not to adopt the attitude of the brother who chose to criticize his father's welcoming of his lost brother. He also did a fantastic job of articulating how we do not make a radical distinction between faith and works, instead relying upon grace for both.

I miss my home parish when I am away. But what great comfort to know that regardless of where I go, the ancient Faith is usually accessible. Thanks be to God for that.

Gospel of righteousness means justification by works? From the Energetic Procession blog....

2012-02-04T18:45:00.000-08:00

The folks over at Energetic Procession have hit another home run with this post entitled "Gospel of Righteousness Means Justification By Works?"

My favorite quote:

Thus, it is impossible to be justified by our works. Obedience to the Law in itself is incapable of saving us. Rather to transcend our condition we must be helped by God, He must give us to share in His energies that we may live as He does. That is we are saved by the grace of God, which sets us free from our limits to participate in His free eternal life. We are not saved by grace to escape from works but to participate in eternal works that transcend our own works. Why does not God just do this for us all and why must we still obey? Because to participate in the life of God means that we must both be unique persons and free. God cannot make us good only of Himself else it would deny our freedom and unique personhood and we would no longer be the ones participating nor would we be living as He lives freely. This is why we must have faith because in this we express our free will to live as God lives. Through faith we own God’s life as our life by obedience and doing His will. This means that we truly share in His life freely of our own will and living His life with Him. He is the only one who is truly free and only by sharing in His freedom, by uniting to His will through obedience, do we also become truly free.

I am again reminded how Orthodoxy is truly the fullness of the Christian Faith

2012-01-22T17:38:00.000-08:00

I am reading "Victory in the Unseen Warfare" in preparation for Great Lent. I will also endeavor to read "Virtues in the Unseen Warfare" and "Prayer in the Unseen Warfare," by the same author, in the next several weeks, and "The Lenten Spring" and probably "The Ladder of Divine Ascents" during Lent. In reading the first two chapters of this fine work by Father Jack Sparks, something struck me.

The first chapter read almost like a "name it and claim it" book to my recovering Protestant sensibilities. It sounded very much like some of the theology I grew up with and rejected later in life. It tells us what is required of the Christian (perfection), how we must struggle to achieve it, and how this must be our chief goal. It reads, put simply, like works-righteous pietist Protestantism. Then comes the second chapter, which starts as follows:

Avoid self reliance in spiritual warfare. The nature of our struggle requires that we learn not to rely on ourselves. This requirement, beloved brothers and sisters, is absolutely essential to the victory. You must be certain of this: if you rely on yourself, you will be unable to resist the smallest attack of the enemy. Engrave this truth deeply in your spirit and heart.
Despite the weakening of our spiritual and moral powers that resulted from the transgression of our forefather Adam, we are inclined to think very highly of ourselves. Even though our daily experience proves to us very effectively that this opinion of ourselves is false, we continue to believe that we are something and, indeed, something very important.

Father Jack then goes on to say:

While God abhors this sinful charade and foolishness on our part, there is nothing He loves and desires to see in us more than a sincere consciousness of our insignificance and inability, together with a firm and deeply felt conviction that any good we may have in our life comes from Him alone, since He is the source of all good.

Indeed. And so it is that every time I begin to see in Orthodox theology something that appears to beckon me to think every so highly of myself and my ability to be ascetical, to achieve virtue, to work toward perfection, I also find the spiritual counter to that hubris -- the realization that nothing I do is good in and of itself, but my good deeds, good thoughts, good intentions are good only because of God, Who is the source of all that is good.

And it is precisely due to this grounding that we are free to discuss asceticism in the first place. Free to discuss struggle to begin with. Orthodox Christians are free to actually work toward our salvation, because we are grounded in the knowledge that this work is itself grace, that we have been given that freedom by God in His infinite mercy. In large part, I am still hampered and hung up by my late-in-life rejection of my Arminian Protestant roots. I have to learn to stop looking for the boogeyman under the bed. Orthodoxy may be superficially similar to Arminianism, but it is not and never will be Arminian in its theology (if for no other reason than that she precedes Jacobus Arminius by roughly 15 centuries).

And with that, I'm looking forward to the rest of this book.

A few final musings on person, nature and free will

2012-01-20T07:52:00.000-08:00

This isn’t exactly tying a bow on the discussion, buthopefully wrapping up some of my thoughts on this issue. I’ll also add that these are more musingsrather than any hard/fast theological propositions – I am not speaking onbehalf of the Orthodox Christian Church at this point, only trying to put mythoughts in a more coherent format to hopefully address the issues I’ve raisedrecently in a more structured, conclusory format. Which is to say, these are my thoughts on what the Orthodox Church teaches, but they may not accurately convey that teaching. Some of this delves into synergy, which is tobe expected. As always, correction iswelcome and coveted.

1) Salvation is notpredominately a legal transaction where we are saved from the demands of theLaw by the application of the Gospel. Nor is the Gospel merely the forgiveness of sins.

2) Grace is notmerely the “unmerited favor of God,” but in fact is the operation of God,through His divine energies, in the life of the Christian.

3) In this light, weas Orthodox Christians are not primarily concerned with forgiveness of sins,but rather in the defeating of sin, death and the devil by Christ, throughre-union with the divine energies of God in the person of Christ. We do not effect the defeat of sin, death andthe devil. We receive it, and weparticipate in it.

4) Forgiveness ofsins is absolutely a part of that salvation, but not the whole of it.

5) Thinking of the Church as the Ark of Salvation, a modelemerges that, like most analogies, is imperfect, but which hopefully willassist in understanding how we view soteriology:

a. The Arkis the “thing” in salvation. Salvation is applied to humanity, notmerely to me as an individual. Salvation, in that sense, occurs at the level of nature, as will be saidin more detail immediately below.

b. Salvation asapplied to me, on the other hand, is personal. That, in my opinion, is where most Protestants tend to start andstop. The Church, by contrast, firstviews salvation as something Christ has done at the level of nature. Salvation is the life-line to the Ark and the life on the Ark, not merely God declaring me as a personrighteous or speaking my personal sins away.

c. In thislight, Adam and Eve started life “on the boat.” They then jumped off. Willingly. Of their own volition. They were not, at this point, “dead,” butrather “dying.” They were drowning. Further, there was no way for them to getback on the boat through their own efforts. Even if they did the will of God perfectly, and lets be clear, none ofus do, they are still drowning in the water. Further, the boat is moving on without them as they flail about trying to figure out how to get back (lets say it was dark when they jumped in if it helps the analogy, and the Ark is not lighted).

d. Christ, as trueGod, “jumped in after us.” In doing so,He took on our humanity – he became one of us. This is nature, not person. But rather than drowning as we do, Christ established a life-line backto the boat. In becoming us, Here-established communion with God – He reconnected humanity to the Ark. He did this with our nature in His person. While we as persons do not “swim to the Ark” to earn or effect oursalvation, neither can we lie in the water refusing to enter the boat, orworse, swim away from Christ, and expect to be saved.

e. As a humanperson, I am free to accept or reject that life-line. Thatdoes not argue that my acceptance of the life-line is what effects my salvation. We are not, in any sense, saying that our“yes” to salvation is the efficient cause of our salvation. This is an error some Protestants make thatother Protestants rightly speak against. We are, rather, merely stating a fact – we remain able andtoo-often willing to swim away from Christ, Who is in the water with usbeckoning us to the boat and willing to take us there. If we (as persons) wish to die, He will let us. But He has already saved us (as pertains to our nature), and it would be a tragedy if that salvation were to be left unrealized because we (as persons) refuse it. This is what free will means to the OrthodoxChristian. Not that we must meet Christhalfway and do our part, but that we must not refuse His gift to us. We can and often do fight against thesalvation he offers. This is a problemfor both the unregenerate and the regenerate. When the Orthodox Christian insists on free will, he is not insisting on us "doing our part" to earn salvation, but rather insisting against salvation being something that is indiscriminately applied to the person such that the individual person bears no personal responsibility in his own damnation. We are concerned not with protecting God's sovereignty or His majesty, but rather with preserving the Scriptural truth that God wants all to be saved.

f. Noris our participation in our own rescue and, more to the point, ourparticipation in life on the Arkas it has been set forth for us meritorious or efficient to bring aboutsalvation. Grabbing a life-line (or,probably more accurate in this case, not refusing a life-line) does not fairlyimply that the one being saved has thereby saved himself and can take creditfor being saved. Again, salvation is notprimarily God’s unmerited favor, but in fact, it is God’s unmerited provisionof a life-line and restoration to life on the Ark. None of this is merited. It is all, 100%, a free gift that Godprovides without any merit or action on our part. Our action is involved in receiving that giftand not leaving the gift-giver standing (or swimming) with the gift in Hishands, useless to us. That has absolutelynothing to do with merit, credit or “earning” anything. In this sense, we have no need to protect against works-righteousness or any notion that man can effect his own salvation by doing good works or believing or praying or fasting (all of which are usually chalked up as Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism), because we do not believe that is possible to begin with. These are things we do not to earn salvation, but because they are what salvation is. This is the life God has saved us for, in order that we might live it.

g. We therefore believe we have been called not merely to repentand believe (though we are certainly called to repent and believe), but also to a particular life inChrist. We are called to do those goodworks God has set before us to do. If itis helpful (and it may not be, forgive me if the analogy breaks down here), wemight say good works occur on the Ark ratherthan on the way to the Arkor in the water. This is more in linewith how most Protestants view the sharp division they make betweenjustification and sanctification. Wedon’t break things down that way. Forus, Christ jumping in the water, establishing the life-line, taking us to theboat, and providing us life on the boat – all of that is gift.

h. It is worth repeating – even life onthe Ark (repentance, fasting, prayer, goodworks) is gift, for we could not have that life if not for His workre-establishing the way back to the Arkand taking us and our nature there in His person. These things are not things we do to earnfavor with God, but rather are things we do as undeserving, unworthy fools whoChrist has nonetheless seen fit in His mercy to save. They are the life Christ calls us to live. Rather than being “works” that “merit”salvation, they are in fact what salvation looks like. They are how salvation is lived. They are what salvation is meant to be.

I hope this is helpful, and I hopeeven more it is accurate. Please providecorrection and please forgive me where I have erred.

A couple of absolute gems from Father Andrew Stephen Damick

2012-01-19T19:38:00.000-08:00

On his wonderful "Roads from Emmaus" blog, Father Andrew wrote this blog post recently about the YouTube phenomenon entitled "Why I Hate Religion, but Love Jesus." I write this post not to speak about that YouTube video or Father Andrew's well-stated refutations of it (there is another, perhaps even better one here). Rather, in the commentary, he had two comments that were absolutely wonderful that touch on and, in my opinion, state far better than I did the theology and anthropology behind one of my recent posts on person and nature.

Father Andrew wrote:

"Monergism is a heresy because it requires a heretical Christology, which is monoenergism. It makes Christ into something less than human, because He thereby does not have human energies."

"Monergism is simply the soteriology of monoenergism. Salvation is to become by grace what Christ is by nature. If, therefore, the actual model of our salvation eliminates human energies from the picture, then we can only conclude that Christ does not have them."

Well said, Father.

St. Augustine on the "certainty" of salvation.....

2012-01-19T19:28:00.000-08:00

"Two criminals were crucified with Christ. One was saved - do not despair. One was not - do not presume."

Person and nature and the freedom of the human will

2012-01-07T07:08:00.000-08:00

After a short year and a half of exposure to Orthodox theology, I'm hardly fit to delve into weighty issues such as this one, but since it was a rather important issue to us as Lutherans converting to Orthodoxy, I pray I am able to do it at least some justice. The impetus for me to write this was actually a very nice discussion several of us had on a Lutheran forum recently, where someone took a very hard position that (paraphrasing) "the will is bound to sin, and Scripture teaches this clearly." Since it was a Lutheran forum, I did not want to wear out my welcome as a guest, so rather than dive neck deep into the issue I merely pointed out that if it was so clear, we would all agree on that point, and since we do not agree, perhaps the issue is more complex than it was being presented as being. I also pointed out -- and this is more the point I am trying to make -- that the Orthodox view of "free will" and the Lutheran notion of a "bound will" are not as far apart as most Lutherans seem to believe when we Orthodox say we believe in "free will." That is not to say they are identical or even similar, but they are not the polar opposites most Lutherans, unfamiliar with Orthodox theology, think they are. In that light, I do not mean to be polemical, though I will discuss differences and compare and contrast. As always, this is written from the point of view of a layman, and a very young one in the faith at that. I welcome correction from Orthodox readers, as well as from Lutheran readers since I will be discussing some points of Lutheran theology as well.

Lutherans hold that the human will is bound to sin. By this, they mean that before conversion, the human will is incapable of willing and doing the good and can only sin. Lutherans do make a distinction between freedom of the will in "things above" (i.e., pertaining to God) versus "civil righteousness" or "things below" (i.e., whether to give to charity, what color shirt to wear, etc.). But the basic understanding is that before conversion, the human will is bound to sin and can do no good in the eyes of God. Luther's "Bondage of the Will" is the seminal text on this issue, and while it is a very difficult read (my copy is well worn and has notes and underlines all over it), it is well worth the effort for any serious Lutheran. Luther was, in my estimation, a master theologian in many respects. While I disagree with a lot of what he wrote over the years, and while I further disagree with some of the dogmatic points in the Book of Concord including those based on Luther's understanding of the human will, sin and how these apply in salvation, I want to say up front I remain an admirer of his work and in particular this text. It has been a while since I read "Bondage of the Will," so I will not delve into it in great depth. Rather, as noted above, my focus will be on the Orthodox understanding of the human will, the human person, the human nature and how the three concepts interact with one another. This will be contrasted in part against the Lutheran understanding as I understand it, but only to demonstrate my belief that the Orthodox understanding of the freedom of the human will and the Lutheran understanding of the bondage of the human will are not as incompatible or mutually exclusive as might appear at first blush.

To be clear, we do not agree on this issue. My point here is not to pretend we do, but rather to point out that I do not think the disagreement is what most Lutherans think it is. We Orthodox do not have a problem with the Lutheran understanding that we cannot "work our way to heaven," nor do we have a problem with the Lutheran understanding that the human person, bound as we are in our mortal flesh, is inevitably prone to sin. The disagreement is in large part based upon how one categorizes person and nature, and how the will relates to those two philosophical categories. Since I am at best a hack philosopher, I also welcome correction on any points of philosophy I raise here.

For the Orthodox, the issue of the human will and its relation to the human nature revolves around the questions of Who is God and who are we. God, we would say, is eternal, He is life itself. Put another way, there is no life without God, for there is no existence without God. Thus, God's nature is eternal, life-giving, and good. We are, by contrast, naturally dependent on God for our existence. Any life we have, whether mortal (i.e., subject to death) or eternal is from Him. "For in him we live and move and have our being." Our nature as created is good, even "very good" (see Genesis 1:31), but cannot subsist in and of itself without God sustaining it. This brings up a second distinction in Orthodox theology -- essence and energies. We can never communicate with God in His essence. In this sense, "essence" is roughly synonymous with "nature." We can never be as God in our essence/nature, for we are created and not by nature eternal. But we can communicate with God's energies, and in that communion we can have eternal life through Him. This is the state of Adam and Eve before the Fall -- they were in communion with God's divine and life-giving energies. Note: they were not naturally immortal, because they were not divine. Rather, they were creatures with the ability to live eternally through communion with God. What Adam and Eve lost in the fall was this communion, not the ontological properties of the nature itself.

The Holy Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council

So with that as a very simple and rudimentary background, I'll turn to the human will. Most Lutherans are familiar with the heresies of Nestorianism and Monophysitism. The former was the heresy that the human and divine natures of Christ are disunited from one another. The latter was the heresy that Christ only had one nature -- a human/divine nature. Less familiar, in my experience at least, is the heresy of Monothelitism. Monothelitism is a middle ground between these two heresies, and it held that Christ had two distinct natures that communicated with one another, but only one will, which was a divine/human will. The Monothelites held that because Christ was one divine person, He had only one will, and His human will was essentially subsumed by His divine will. The 6th Ecumenical Council at Constantinople rejected this heresy, holding that the human will pertains not to the person, but the nature. The Council stated it thusly:

"Following the five holy Ecumenical Councils and the holy and approvedFathers, with one voice defining that our Lord Jesus Christ must beconfessed to be very God and very man, one of the holy andconsubstantial and life-giving Trinity, perfect in Deity and perfect inhumanity, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and human bodysubsisting; consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead andconsubstantial with us as touching his manhood; in all things like untous, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before all ages accordingto his Godhead, but in these last days for us men and for our salvationmade man of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, strictly andproperly the Mother of God according to the flesh; one and the sameChrist our Lord the only-begotten Son of two natures unconfusedly,unchangeably, inseparably indivisibly to be recognized, thepeculiarities of neither nature being lost by the union but rather theproprieties of each nature being preserved, concurring in one Personand in one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons but oneand the same only-begotten Son of God, the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ,according as the Prophets of old have taught us and as our Lord JesusChrist himself hath instructed us, and the Creed of the holy Fathershath delivered to us; defining all this we likewise declare that in himare two natural wills and two natural operations indivisibly,inconvertibly, inseparably, inconfusedly, according to the teaching ofthe holy Fathers. And these two natural wills are not contrarythe one to the other (God forbid!) as the impious heretics assert, buthis human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, butrather as subject to his divine and omnipotent will. For it wasright that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will,according to the most wise Athanasius. For as his flesh is calledand is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his fleshis called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himselfsays: 'I came down from heaven, not that I might do mineown will but the will of the Father which sent me!' where hecalls his own will the will of his flesh, inasmuch as his flesh wasalso his own. For as his most holy and immaculate animated fleshwas not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own stateand nature (ὄρῳτε καὶ λόγῳ), soalso his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but wasrather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: 'His will [i.e., the Saviour’s] is not contrary to God butaltogether deified.'

We glorify two natural operations indivisibly,immutably, inconfusedly, inseparably in the same our Lord Jesus Christour true God, that is to say a divine operation and a human operation,according to the divine preacher Leo, who most distinctly asserts asfollows: “For each form (μορφὴ) does in communion withthe other what pertains properly to it, the Word, namely, doing thatwhich pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to theflesh.”

(emphasis mine, parenthetical Greek in original).

If this is true -- if the will is natural and not personal -- this leaves us in a bit of a quandary when examining the Lutheran position that the will itself is bound. Lutherans typically hold that the nature in man is not destroyed, but totally corrupted such that it is unable to will and do the good. If this is understood as a corruption by virtue of the broken communion with the divine energies, I believe we Orthodox would agree to a point. But if this corruption is natural -- if the nature itself is marred and ontologically changed such that it has lost the natural will as it was created and cannot be used by a human person to either will or do the good -- then we have a Christological problem. St. Gregory the Theologian wrote "what is not assumed is not healed." Therefore, Christ either assumed a human nature that was ontologically corrupted and could not be used to do anything but sin, or Christ assumed a different nature than Lutherans holding to this view would say we as human persons share, such that our nature is not actually healed. I should note here that some Lutherans who are friends of mine do not go as far as to say the will itself is corrupted in an ontological sense. I should also note that the Formula of Concord seems to reject that view as well, holding that the nature itself is not sin (but, in my opinion, being quite unclear on that point when read in context). But that is the problem we see and that is the view we reject, to the extent any Lutherans or anyone else holds to it (and it is my experience that many Christians do). To the extent the will is seen as existentially corrupted, we would say there is an irreconcilable Christological problem.

St. Maximus the Confessor

Having thus described the Lutheran and Orthodox views, I would say at this point that I don't think the two positions end up all that far apart at the end of the road. We Orthodox would say that in our person, insofar as the natural will remains disconnected from the divine energies, we are inevitably bound to sin. We can will the good on occasion, and we can even do it in part (the natural will remains, but is obscured by what St. Maximus the Confesser referred to as the "gnomic will," which is a mortal use of the will that deliberates between good and evil rather than knowing and doing the good and knowing and rejecting the evil). But we cannot consistently will the good or do it. We are typically confused and blinded, trying to decide what is good and evil, and we are usually wrong -- even our choices to do what might otherwise be called "good" are marred by our self-interested, inwardly focused narcissism that is a result of our mortality. In addition, while we don't hold to the primarily forensic notion of salvation that many Lutherans do, we would agree that our good works do not "please God" in the sense that they cannot attain our salvation (we, of course, would say salvation is not about "pleasing God" in the first place -- regardless of how many "good works" we do, we still "miss the mark" -- we are still sinners). So the same problem of sin Lutherans see is also present in Orthodoxy. It is just present in a different philosophical and theological framework. When we say our will is free, we are not saying that our ability to use the will apart from the grace of God is free, only that the will is by nature free and capable of being used by a person to choose between good and evil. What we as individual human persons enslaved by our mortal flesh and focused on ourselves and putting our needs above all others are actually capable of accomplishing with this natural will is a different matter entirely.

As should be obvious, we maintain a sharp division between person and nature. Because of this, we would say that natures do not sin, people do. Which is to say, we cannot attribute our sinfulness to the nature, which is and remains good, but rather the nature is "sinful" only insofar as it is bound up in a specific person who uses it to sin. There is no unhyposticized nature. There is no such thing as a nature that is disconnected from a person. It is my observation that when some Lutherans discuss the bondage of the will, they often use words like "our will" or "my will," and the possessive indicates that this is a conflation of person and nature. No one has a nature that belongs to them, except inasmuch as that nature is hyposticized -- bound to their person. As one example, I have heard it said frequently among Lutherans that "our will is bound to sin unless and until Christ converts us, after which our will is free to will and do the good." My reading of the Book of Concord would agree with this view as being representative of Lutheran theology. But in this sense, if we are to reconcile the Orthodox and Lutheran views, it must be that the use of the will is what is at issue, not the natural will itself. If that is not the case, we would reject the Lutheran view because if it is true, the regenerate man has a different nature than the unregenerate man, and we have a category error. If the regenerate man has a different nature than the unregenerate man,one of them is no longer truly human ("nature" means the essential properties of being for any given thing, in this case, humans).

We would say, by way of contrast, that the natural will remains free, but we as persons are bound, imprisoned, obscured, blinded, etc. We are so bound because we are disconnected from the divine energies of God, not because our nature is ontologically changed. We see the contrary claim as a confusion of person and nature. A frequently used Lutheran liturgical confession says "I confess that I am by nature sinful and unclean." We reject this out of hand. But what we would agree with is that if, when one says "my nature" that is understood to mean the human nature as I possess it in my person, then that nature is inevitably used by me (as a person) to sin.

The Annunciation

How Christ rectifies this situation is perhaps another distinction between Orthodox and Lutheran beliefs. We would say that Christ assumed our human nature, and in His person, He reunited that nature with the divine and life-giving energies (which subsist in His person because He is a divine person and He eternally has a divine nature). In this sense, Christ did not assume a "glorified" nature, but rather He glorified the same nature you and I share in His divine person. Glorification in this sense is not primarily forensic, as if Christ assumed a nature that is without sin in order that He might meet the demands of the Law, while we have a "sinful nature" that cannot possibly meet the demands of the Law. This, again, would mean that Christ assumed a nature that was not fully human (or, alternatively, that we are not fully human). Rather, we would say the nature itself is not sinful, but Christ, in His Person, did not put it to use to sin as we do. He assumed our nature, albeit without sin. We, then, are able to put the will to good use through union with Christ. In that union, we are able now to both will and do the good. This is, in a sense, similar to Lutheran theology which holds in the Formula of Concord that "before conversion" we cannot cooperate with God, but "after conversion" we can and must cooperate with God, albeit in weakness. The primary difference being that we see this as being part of the ongoing and never-ending process of Theosis, whereas Lutherans would tend to sort out justification and sanctification, and keeping our cooperation in the latter category. As a side note, I was surprised to learn recently that some Lutherans deny that we can cooperate even in sanctification, which is not how I was taught when I was a Lutheran, and is certainly not how I read the Lutheran Confessions.

For the Orthodox, union with Christ is not obtained either by not sinning or by having our will (and thus our nature) ontologically changed in some sense. We obtain union with Christ by communion with Him, i.e., by communion with the divine energies of God, i.e., through the Sacraments, i.e., through the Church. God saves us by reuniting our nature to His divine energies in the person of His Son, and by uniting us as persons to His Son in the Sacramental life of the Church. Our nature remains as it was before, but illumined, having abilities and power that it lacked before. This union is ongoing -- it is a process rather than an event. But it is the union that we see as salvific, not merely the juridical status before the Law (though, we would say, that is certainly part of salvation, and an ongoing part at that). The Lutheran Confessions use the iron/fire analogy to discuss the two natures of Christ in the Formula of Concord. We would use the same analogy (and the Fathers did as well) to describe not only proper Christology, but also our union with the Godhead. Our nature (typified by iron) is not ontologically changed. But once illumined, as the analogy goes, the iron can heat, give light, burn, etc. Without illumination, it can do none of those things. It is cold, dark, lifeless. This is analogous to how the human nature is healed according to the Orthodox. Not by being changed in an existential sense, but by being illumined by the divine energies of God.

I am certain this does not do justice to the topic, and I am sure I have erred somewhere in all of this, but I do hope it offers a basic framework of understanding and perhaps a springboard for further discussion. I have also not dealt with the Orthodox understanding of synergy, which is the next logical step in this discussion. But I do hope I have given at least a simplistic understanding of what the differences are and, more to my point, what the similarities are, between the two views. Please forgive me where I have erred.

Holy Theophany and the Blessing of the Waters

2012-01-06T03:53:00.000-08:00

Today marks the end of the Nativity season with the celebration of Theophany, which celebrates the baptism of Christ by St. John the Forerunner. This feast is notable for us as new Orthodox Christians for two reasons. First, it returns us to the practice of celebrating all 12 days of Christmas instead of just the first of those 12. Second, it also marks the blessing of the waters, where the priest commemorates the Lord's baptism by blessing water by saying prayers over it, making the sign of the cross over it, and submerging a hand cross in it. One of the prayers is as follows:

"And grant [this water] the grace of redemption and the blessing of the Jordan. Make it a fount of incorruptibility, a gift for sanctification, a redemption for sins, a elixir for maladies, a destroyer of demons, unapproachable by the adverse powers and full of angelic powers; so that to all who drink there from and receive thereof it may be for the sanctification of their souls and bodies, for the healing of sufferings, for the sanctification of homes and for every befitting benefit. For Thou art our God Who with water and the Spirit renewed our nature made old by sin. Thou art our God Who didst drown sin in the water at the time of Noah. Thou art our God Who in the sea didst deliver the Hebrews from the bondage of Pharaoh at the hands of Moses. Thou art our God Who didst cleave the rock in the wilderness, so that the waters gushed out and the valleys overflowed, thus satisfying Thy thirsty people. Thou art our God Who with fire and water didst deliver Israel from the error of Baal at the hands of Elisha."

What a beautiful demonstration that all of Scripture is a seamless whole! In this way, the Feast carries with it the understanding that in Christ's baptism, there was not merely a sign or symbol of salvation, but something very real happening. In this act, Christ, Who knew no sin, went into the water meant for sinners and redeemed it, literally made it holy with it all of creation. Therefore, some priests will also hold a service at a local river where a cross is submerged in the river, another demonstration that all of creation was redeemed by Christ. Therefore, water for us is an instrument not only of earthly life, but spiritual life as well.

The holy water is sprinkled around the entire parish, including on every member of the parish, a small amount is drank by each member of the parish, and if they wish, parishioners may bring bottles to take some home for devotional use. We use it (mostly by drinking it) during prayers, before travel, during times of distress or ill health, or at any other time when we feel we need a particular blessing. It is not "Sacramental" in a strict, Western sense. But in Orthodoxy, life itself is Sacramental, and this is an extension of that belief.

Troparion (Tone 1)

When Thou, O Lord were baptized in the river Jordan

The worship of the Trinity was made manifest

For the voice of the Father bore witness to Thee

And called Thee His beloved Son.

And the Spirit, in the form of a dove,

Confirmed the truthfulness of His word.

O Christ, our God, Thou has revealed Thyself

And have enlightened the world, glory to Thee!

Kontakion (Tone 4)

Today Thou has shown forth to the world, O Lord,

and the light of Thy countenance has been marked on us.

Knowing Thee, we sing Thy praises.

You have come and revealed Thyself,

O unapproachable Light.

Circumcision of our Lord

2011-12-31T16:44:00.000-08:00

In submitting to the Law of Circumcision, Our Lord signifies that He is the fullness and the completion of the Old Covenant. St. Paul says, in the Epistle Lesson read on the Feast: For in [Jesus] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have come to fullness of life in Him, Who is the head of all rule and authority. In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ (Col. 2:9-11).
The Church Fathers explain that the Lord, the Creator of the Law, underwent circumcision in order to give people an example of how faithfully the divine ordinances ought to be fulfilled. The Lord was circumcised so that later no one would doubt that he had truly assumed human flesh, and that his Incarnation was not merely an illusion, as certain heretics (Docetists) taught.

Additionally, he received the name Jesus (Savior) on this day. These two events, the Lord's Circumcision and Naming, remind Christians that they have entered into a New Covenant with God.

Troparion (Tone 1)

Enthroned on high with the Eternal Father and Your divine Spirit,

O Jesus, You willed to be born on earth of the unwedded handmaid, your Mother.

Therefore You were circumcised as an eight-day old Child.

Glory to Your most gracious counsel;

Glory to Your dispensation;

Glory to Your condescension, O only Lover of mankind.

Kontakion (Tone 3)

The Lord of all accepts to be circumcised,

Thus, as He is good, excises the sins of mortal men.

Today He grants the world salvation,

While light-bearing Basil, high priest of our Creator,

Rejoices in heaven as a divine initiate of Christ.

from http://orthodoxwiki.org/Circumcision_of_our_Lord

Holy Innocents

2011-12-29T22:40:00.000-08:00

With apologies for posting this a day late -- I got in after midnight tonight. On December 29, the Church commemorates the Holy Innocents.

December 29: Commemoration of the 14,000 Holy Innocents

Today we commemorate the 14,000 infants killed by Herod as St. Matthew recounts, "Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men." (Matthew 2:16 NKJV)

"When the King was born in Bethlehem, the Magi arrived from the East with gifts guided by a Star on high, but Herod was troubled and mowed down the children like wheat; for he lamented that his power would soon be destroyed." Kontakion

Read the account from The Protoevangelium of James (see verses 22-23).

from http://www.antiochian.org/node/16892

20,000 Martyrs of Nicomedia

2011-12-27T17:09:00.000-08:00

20,000 Martyrs of Nicomedia

Commemorated on December 28
At the beginning of the fourth century, Emperor Maximian (284-305) gave orders to destroy Christian churches, to burn service books, and to deprive all Christians of rights and privileges of citizenship. At this time, the bishop of the city of Nicomedia was St. Cyril, who by his preaching and life contributed to the spread of Christianity, so that many members of the emperor’s court secretly became Christians.

The pagan priestess, Domna, was living in the palace at that time, but was able to obtain a copy of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St. Paul. Her heart burned with the desire to learn more about Christianity. With the help of a young Christian girl, Domna secretly went to Bishop Anthimus with her faithful servant, the eunuch Indes. St. Anthimus catechized them, and both received holy Baptism.

Domna began to help the poor – she gave away her valuables with the assistance of Indes, and she also distributed food from the imperial kitchen. The chief eunuch, who was in charge of provisions for the imperial household, discovered that Domna and Indes were not eating the food sent them from the emperor’s table. He had them beaten in order to find out why they did not partake of the food, but they remained silent. Another eunuch informed him that the saints were distributing all the emperor’s gifts to the poor. He locked them up in prison to exhaust them with hunger, but an angel supported them and they did not suffer. St. Domna feigned insanity so she wouldn’t have to live among the pagans. Then she and Indes managed to leave the court, and she went to a women’s monastery. The abbess of the monastery, Agatha, quickly dressed Domna in men’s clothing, cut her hair and sent her off from the monastery.

During this time, the emperor returned from battle and ordered that a search be made for the former pagan priestess Domna. The soldiers found the monastery where Domna had stayed and destroyed it. The sisters were thrown into prison and subjected to torture and abuse, but none o them suffered defilement. Sent to a house of iniquity, St. Theophila was able to preserve her virginity with the help of an angel of the Lord. The angel led her from the brothel and brought her to the cathedral.

Shortly thereafter, the emperor cleared the city square to offer sacrifice to the pagan gods. When they began sprinkling the crowd with the blood of the sacrificial animals, the Christians started to leave the square. Seeing this, the emperor became enraged, but in the middle of his ranting, a great thunderstorm sprang up. People fled in panic, and the emperor had to hide in his palace for his own safety.

Later, the emperor went to the cathedral with his soldiers and told the faithful that they could escape punishment if they renounced Christ. Otherwise, he promised to burn the church and those in it. The presbyter Glycerius told the emperor that the Christians would never renounce their faith, even under the threat of torture. Hiding his anger, the emperor left the church, but commanded that Glycerius be arrested. The executioners tortured the martyr, who did not cease to pray and to call on the Name of the Lord. Unable to force St. Glycerius to renounce Christ, Maximian ordered that he be burned to death.

In 302, on the Feast of the Nativity of Christ, about 20,000 Christians assembled at the cathedral in Nicomedia. The emperor sent a herald into the church, told the faithful that soldiers were surrounding the building, and that those who wished to leave had to offer sacrifice to the pagan gods. Anyone who defied the emperor would perish when the soldiers set fire to the church. All those present refused to renounce Christ.

As the pagans prepared to set fire to the church, Bishop Anthimus baptized all the catechumens and communed everyone with the Holy Mysteries. All 20,000 died in the fire. Among them were the abbess Agatha and St. Theophila. Bishop Anthimus, however, managed to escape.

Emperor Maximian thought that he had exterminated the Christians of Nicomedia. However, he soon learned that there were many more, and that they were willing to confess their faith and die for Christ. The emperor commanded that the regimental commander, Zeno, be arrested, as he was openly criticizing the emperor for his impiety and cruelty. Zeno was fiercely beaten and finally beheaded.
They also jailed the eunuch Indes for refusing to participate in a pagan festival.

The persecution against the Christians continued. Dorotheus, Mardonius, Deacon Migdonius, and others were thrown into prison. Bishop Anthimus sent them encouraging letters, but one of the messengers, the Deacon Theophilus, was captured. They tortured him, trying to learn where the bishop was hiding, but the holy martyr endured everything, while revealing nothing. They executed him and also those whom the bishop had addressed in his letters. Though they were executed in different ways, they all showed the same courage and received their martyr’s crowns from God.

For weeks, St. Domna concealed herself within a cave and sustained herself by eating plants. When she returned to the city, she wept before the ruins of the cathedral, regretting that she was not found worthy to die with the others. That night she went to the seashore, and, at that moment, fishermen pulled the bodies of the martyrs Indes, Gorgonius and Peter from the water in their nets.
St. Domna was still dressed in men’s clothing, and she helped the fishermen to draw in their nets. They left the bodies of the martyrs with her, and, with reverence, she looked after the holy relics and wept over them, especially over the body of her spiritual friend, the Martyr Indes.

After giving them an honorable burial, she refused to leave the graves so dear to her heart. Each day she burned incense before them, sprinkling them with fragrant oils. When the emperor was told of an unknown youth who offered incense at the graves of executed Christians, he gave orders to behead him. The Martyr Euthymius was also executed along with Domna.

Troparion (Tone 2) –
Blessed is the earth that received your blood, Agape, passion-bearer of the Lord,
and holy is the dwelling place which received your spirits.
You triumphed over the enemy in the stadium
and you preached Christ with boldness.
Since He is good, we pray that you beseech Him to save our souls.

Kontakion (Tone 1) –
Their souls strengthened by faith, the twenty thousand martyrs accepted their suffering by fire,
and cried out to You, the One born of the Virgin:
“Like gold, myrrh, and frankincense, the gifts of the Persian kings,
receive our whole burnt offering, O Eternal God.”

By permission of the Orthodox Church in America (www.oca.org)

From http://www.antiochian.org/node/17203

St. Stephen the Protomartyr

2011-12-26T11:47:00.000-08:00

St. Stephen is the Patron Saint of our parish. The first Christian martyr, he was stoned to death as described in the Book of Acts for confessing Christ. He is commemorated on December 27, 2011, and we will celebrate his Feast day this evening.

Troparion of St. Stephen, Tone 4
Thou art crowned with a royal diadem for contests endured in Christ's name, O First and holy Martyr; thou didst put to shame thy persecutors and see thy Saviour at the right hand of the Father. Ever pray to Him for our souls.

Kontakion of St. Stephen, Tone 3
Yesterday the Master came to us in the flesh, today His servant departs in the flesh; yesterday the King was born in the flesh; today His servant is stoned to death for His sake. Hence the divine and first Martyr Stephen is made perfect.

Mount Athos special on 60 Minutes

2011-12-25T19:16:00.000-08:00

This was awesome when I watched it earlier this year at Pascha. How awesome to have it repeated at the Nativity.

Christ is born! Glorify Him!

2011-12-24T17:45:00.000-08:00

Troparion (Tone 4)

Your Nativity, O Christ our God,

Has shone to the world the Light of wisdom!

For by it, those who worshipped the stars,

Were taught by a Star to adore You,

The Sun of Righteousness,

And to know You, the Orient from on High.

O Lord, glory to You!

Kontakion (Tone 3)

Today the Virgin gives birth to the Transcendent One,
And the earth offers a cave to the Unapproachable One!
Angels with shepherds glorify Him!
The wise men journey with a star!
Since for our sake the Eternal God was born as a Little Child!

A reminder this Christmas

2011-12-21T07:12:00.000-08:00

Father Nathan Monk is the pastor of St. Benedict Orthodox mission in Pensacola, Florida. My family and I have visited one of the sister parishes in Pensacola, St. Andrew the Apostle Antiochian Orthodox Church, but have never had the honor of visiting Father Nathan's parish. We may have to rectify that the next time we are down that way. Father Nathan is fighting against local ordinances in Pensacola dealing with the homeless, which would, if implemented, prevent homeless people from camping in public areas and some private areas within the city limits. He is also quite notorious for an incident where he offered to purchase a homeless man some food, and the man sent his family to eat but told Father Nathan he would have to stay behind and hold the sign because the family would be evicted if he did not get another $50 before the day was over. Father Nathan told him to go eat while he held the sign for the man. The treatment he described by people passing by -- yelling, cursing, throwing things -- was so deplorable that it moved him to do something about it.

I chose this video instead of the numerous others on Youtube, because Father Nathan's message to the City Council is so powerful. In my opinion, the money quotes are:

"This council would have arrested Mary and Joseph around this time of year for being vagrants. And maybe would have called the DCF and had the Christ child taken off."

.....and.....

"I think it's funny that so many people worship a homeless man on Sunday, and then you want to arrest him on Monday. We actually did. We crucified him, and I would consider it the exact same thing if this council goes forward with this."

Thanks be to God for the work this man is doing. As we feast at the Nativity this year, please be sure to remember the poor.

What the media is doing to Ron Paul is criminal.

2011-12-20T06:31:00.001-08:00

I apologize in advance for discussing politics on this blog -- it was not and is not my intention to speak on political matters except as they pertain to the Orthodox Christian Church. I make an exception today because I just witnessed one of the most ridiculous and biased "news" stories I have ever seen. This morning, George Stephanopoulos was doing a segment on the Presidential race, and the topic of discussion was Newt Gingrich's slide in the polls. That's all well and good, but then they began talking specifically about Iowa and how Gingrich was sliding and Romney was gaining.

What they failed to mention was that in the last 2 polls out of Iowa, Dr. Ron Paul is leading. He has a very good shot at winning. They talked quite a bit about Sarah Palin, who isn't even running. But they did not so much as mention Dr. Paul's name. So why would that be?

I've heard people talk for quite a while about "liberal media bias." I am going to posit that no such thing exists. Rather, we have a corporatist plutocracy in this country that wishes to control our economy, our government and our media. The notion that we have a free press is a cute story from a bygone era. We now have a bought and paid for press pimping a bought and paid for government staffed by bought and paid for politicians. Call this what you will, it is neither a Constitutional Republic nor a Democracy.

Dr. Paul believes in limited government. Depending on your particular worldview, you may like that or dislike it. But the one thing he believes in over all else is that in questions of whether the federal government ought to do something, the Constitution should control. That separates him from every other candidate in the race and makes him a very, very dangerous man to the interests that currently wield the most influence in our country. He will not prop up corporations with tax dollars. He will not support the current military-industrial and prison-industrial complexes. He will not support laws -- even if he agrees with them -- that exceed the role of the federal government outlined in our Constitution as he understands it. And even if you disagree with where he draws those lines (as I do in more than a few instances), it is my opinion that this is a national discussion worth having.

I make no bones about my support for Dr. Paul. I voted for him last time and I will vote for him again. But I do not write to endorse Dr. Paul nor to encourage others to do the same. I write to ask whether a system of government, economics and information that would ignore a candidate who is leading in the polls is a truly free society. I write to suggest that unless and until we as Americans are willing to vote for someone other than whomever the media trots out and the two major parties endorse, we will continue to devolve into a banana republic with no real freedom and no real choice. Please consider that when you make your vote in the upcoming primaries.

I close with this now dated statement from Jon Stewart about the media ignoring Dr. Paul. Please note the language is colorful, so watch it at your own discretion. But the message Stewart gives is worth hearing.

A week shy of a full year.....a reflection.

2011-12-18T20:03:00.000-08:00

What a blessing to have been received into the Church at the Nativity. A week from today (last night, to be specific) will be our one-year anniversary as Orthodox Christians. It has been a year of learning, wonder, and joy. Given that it is a season of joy that brought us into the Church, it's fitting.

A year has brought time for reflection, and I have to say that the decision to enter the Eastern Church has not been questioned. Not once. That is remarkable, because we were pretty much dyed-in-the-wool Lutherans, and while we were certain at the time we were making the right decision, I expected to have some lingering doubts. I haven't, and I doubt at this point I ever will. I firmly believe the reason for that is that the similarity between our very first Lutheran parish and this one is so striking in most particulars. It is absolutely remarkable, to be honest. A secondary reason is the things that are not similar are things that we really did not have great stumbling blocks with in the first place. Orthodox understandings of the intercession of the departed Saints and the ever-virginity of the Theotokos were either close enough or functionally identical (respectively) to what we believed as Lutherans. Regarding the former, I have always believed the Saints pray for us. The only real difference is now I am bold to ask them to.

It is stunning to us how quickly this parish became "home." The first Great Vespers service we attended was beautiful, but quite a bit of a culture shock. I now cannot imagine having a service an other way. The Eastern Liturgy is truly a thing of beauty. Another wonderful byproduct of this consistent liturgical practice is the familiar rhythm of the Church year. After going nearly 5 years without celebrating a Saint's feast, without celebrating a major festival with a communion service, without having the rhythm of life broken by mid-week services that were not your typical "Wednesday night" fare we get in the South, but rather an announced-the-Sunday-before "the Church will gather tomorrow night to celebrate the Feast of St. Ignatius," without being the only people in the entire parish to make the sign of the cross or bow during Christ's humiliation in the Creed -- after all of that we are finally at a place of peace again. A place where the piety of the parish squares with the piety of the Church throughout time. That is no small blessing.

The issues that divide Orthodox and Lutherans (as well as Orthodox and most Western Christians, to be fair) are still very real. Nothing has deluded us into thinking those have gone away or that this is just some sort of "real Lutheranism," the sort of thing Dr. Luther might have come up with if he hadn't been hampered by circumstance and historical accident. No, this is not Lutheranism and never will be. But often, the differences are not what the Lutherans think they are, and I'm sure that's true vice versa in a lot of respects. I do have to say, after spending 10 years as Lutherans, and now a year as communing members of an Orthodox parish, we are far closer than either side realizes. I doubt the gap will be bridged, because the Orthodox will never let go of our ecclesiology without ceasing to be the Church and the Lutherans will never truly buy into it without ceasing to be Lutheran (the Lutheran Confessions speak directly against our understanding of ecclesiology). Further, we tend to talk past each other a lot. The Orthodox view of salvation is quite different from the Lutheran understanding, and different use of the same words compounds that problem. Behind most accusations that the Orthodox are semi-Pelagian or the Lutherans are Manichean lies a simple word-concept fallacy. That doesn't mean we believe the same things. It just means we typically think the other party believes something they really don't, based on the other side using words differently than we do. As I have told a good friend a few times, the road to salvation for Lutherans diverges widely from the road to salvation for Orthodox at many points. But the gap at the end of that road is very narrow indeed. The major differences I see now, a year down the road, are in the Orthodox understanding of the essence/energies and person/nature distinctions and in the Lutheran understanding of anthropology and the mechanism of the human will. And these are related -- we would say Lutherans get anthropology and the human will wrong because they do not maintain these distinctions (Lutherans would say we get justification wrong because we adhere to free will -- I would say that's another word-concept fallacy in large part, and so it goes).

Our children continue to grow in the Faith, and that is perhaps the greatest blessing of all. All three children understand the Faith better than they did a year ago. All three have a piety they never had before. And we are constantly reminded of the influence of the Church's piety on children as, for example, when our niece this morning began to make the sign of the cross every time our eldest did it. We neither asked nor encouraged her to do it -- she is not Orthodox so it is expected that she participate in the service only in the most basic and polite terms -- standing and sitting where appropriate, not talking over the readings, etc. And yet she picked up the piety on her own. The Church sets a good example that children naturally follow. Our children also have a better appreciation for poverty and human suffering, since the Church's fasting and prayer disciplines constantly remind them that we are to care for the poor and suffering, and their Patron Saints (two of whom are martyrs) remind them they could quite easily find themselves among them if they are given the grace to suffer for Christ.

There is a grounding in the life of an Orthodox Christian that keeps a certain balance. Selfishness and greed are still passions we all struggle with, and yet it is in the struggling that we are reminded of how grievous these sins really are. In Orthodoxy, we take sin seriously and strive to eradicate it from our lives. That does not mean that we believe we actually accomplish that. In fact, the greatest Saints in the Church are often quoted on their deathbeds as praying for more time to repent. It seems the closer one gets to God, the more one realizes they aren't really close to God. Not in any sense that one might feel safe or secure. Sinners in the presence of God are always terrified. The preaching of the Law in Orthodoxy is usually geared more to this eradication of sin than toward the "you're a sinner, you're forgiven" Law/Gospel model. It would sound semi-Pelagian to a good Lutheran or Calvinist. This is likely not the only place we Orthodox come across as Pelagian (or superficially Arminian). But we are not. We do not believe our lawkeeping is the cause of our salvation. We believe, rather, that this is how salvation is played out. Put another way, God does not save us because we keep the Law, but rather He saves us in order that we might keep the Law. As Ephesians 2:8-10 states so expressly, "by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." Or, as an Orthodox Christian once told me "you are not saved by your good works, but you will not be saved without them either."

I could go on and on. The purpose of this post is to mark the approach of one year in the Church and to express our absolute delight at having found her. What absolute joy to be in the Church, surrounded by our Holy Fathers, the martyrs and all the Saints and heavenly host. What wonder to find ourselves looking back 2000 years and seeing our own Church's founding referenced specifically in Acts. We are blessed. As I write this in the evening, I will close with our evening prayer, which contains a slight variation of the wonderful and comforting phrase that I chose as this blog's title.

O Lord our God, if during this day I have sinned, whether in word or deed or thought, forgive me all, for thou art good and lovest mankind. Grant me peaceful and undisturbed sleep, and deliver me from all influence and temptation of the evil one. Raise me up again in proper time that I may glorify thee; for thou art blessed: with thine Only-begotten Son and thine All-holy Spirit: now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.

Good night, and a blessed Nativity to all.

Penal Substitution quote from OrthodoxChristianity.net

2011-12-04T18:00:00.001-08:00

On a thread over at www.orthodoxchristianity.net, it was asked whether Collossians 2 teaches penal substitutionary atonement (that Jesus was "punished" on the cross for our sins), which then led to a wider discussion of the nature of atonement period. It was asserted that not only Collossians 2, but also Isaiah 52 - 53 and others, teach this concept.

Someone asserted:

He is the good shepherd, who lays down His life for His sheep.

He redeems us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.

The righteous suffered for the unrighteous.

Which prompted this absolutely awesome reply by Alveus Lacuna:

You're missing the subtlety.

Yes, there is substitution. He takes the place for us. He is the sacrificial lamb. His perfection and righteousness goes in place of our sinfulness.

What is in dispute is whether or not there is a penal satisfaction, meaning that somehow God had to be healed of His anger. We can speak of God's anger against us in a sense, but not absolutely, as God requires no healing. He is complete and perfect. Rather we are the ones that require healing, and as we are healed, then our position towards God is rectified. Instead of moving against God's presence in a way that destroys us, like something coming into the earth's atmosphere can burn it up if the resistance is too great, we move seamlessly into His infinite presence. Also think of diving into the water versus doing a belly-flop. I hope you get my meaning.

Anyway, God is unchanging. So properly speaking, there is a change in us, not in God. That's the whole difference in the way we talk about it versus many Reformed thinkers. The Son didn't die to help the Father stop being pissed off at us. Then it's the Son saving us from the Father instead of from sin, death, and the Accuser.

There's too much of a confusion of terms here: penal, satisfaction, substitution, atonement, blah blah blah. Here is something very specific that Orthodoxy teaches against, and that is the teaching that the Son somehow affects a change in the Father; that we must be saved from the Father.

Indeed. You may view the thread HERE.

Holy Great Martyr St. Katherine of Alexandria

2011-11-25T07:20:00.001-08:00

"The Holy Great MartyrKatherine was the daughter of Constus, the governor of Alexandriain Egypt,during the reign of the emperor Maximian (305-313). Living in the capital,Katherine received a most splendid education, having studied the works of thefinest philosophers and teachers. Young men from the most worthy families ofthe empire sought the hand of the beautiful Katherine, but none of them waschosen. She declared to her parents that she would only enter into marriagewith someone who surpassed her in reputation, wealth, beauty and wisdom.

Katherine's mother, a secret Christian, sent her for advice to her ownspiritual father -- a saintly elder pursuing prayerful deeds in solitude in acave not far from the city. Having listened to Katherine, the elder said thathe knew of a youth, who surpassed her in everything, such that "His beautywas more radiant than the shining of the sun, His wisdom governed all creation,His riches were spread throughout all the world ". The image of the Christproduced in the soul of the holy maiden an ardent desire to see Him. Inparting, the elder handed Katherine an icon of the Mother of God with theGod-Child Jesus on Her arm and bid her to pray with faith to Mary to show her avision of Her Son.

Katherine prayed all nightand was able to see the Most Holy Virgin who told Her Divine Son to look uponthe kneeling of Katherine before Them. But the Child turned His face away fromher saying that He was not able to look at her because she was ugly, of shabbylineage, beggarly and mindless like every person -- not washed with the watersof holy Baptism and not sealed with the seal of the Holy Spirit. Katherinereturned again to the elder deeply saddened. He lovingly received her,instructed her in the faith of Christ, admonished her to preserve her purityand integrity and to pray unceasingly; he then performed over her the sacramentof holy Baptism. And again Saint Katherine had a vision of the Most Holy Motherof God with Her Child. Now the Lord looked tenderly at her and gave her a ring-- a wondrous gift of the Heavenly Bridegroom.

At this time the emperorMaximian was himself in Alexandriafor a pagan feast day. Because of this, the feast was especially splendid andcrowded. The cries of the sacrificial animals, the smoke and the smell of thesacrifices, the endless blazing of fires, and the bustling crowds at the arenasfilled Alexandria.Human victims also were brought -- because they chose to die in the fire ratherthan deny Christ under torture. The Saint's love for the Christian martyrs andher fervent desire to lighten their fate impelled Katherine to go to theemperor-persecutor Maximian.

Introducing herself, thesaint confessed her Christian faith and with wisdom denounced the errors of thepagans. The beauty of the maiden captivated the emperor. In order to convinceher and show the superiority of pagan wisdom, the emperor gave orders to gather50 of the most learned men of the empire, but the Saint got the better of thewise men, such that they themselves came to believe in Christ. Saint Katherineshielded them with the sign of the cross, and they bravely accepted death forChrist and were burnt by order of the emperor.

Maximian, no longer hopingto convince the saint, tried to entice her with the promise of riches and fame.Having received an angry refusal, the emperor gave orders to subject the saintto terrible tortures and then throw her in prison. The Empress Augusta, who hadheard much about Katherine, wanted to see her. Having succeeded in convincingthe military-commander Porphyry to accompany her with a detachment of soldiers,Augusta went to the prison. The strong spirit of Saint Katherine, whose faceglowed with Divine grace, impressed the empress. The holy martyr explained theteachings of the Christians to the people and they believed and were convertedto Christ.

On the following day theyagain brought the her to the judgment court where, under the threat of beingtortured on a wheel of spikes and nails, they urged that she recant from theChristian faith and offer sacrifice to the pagan gods. The saint steadfastlyconfessed Christ and she herself approached the wheel; but an Angel smashed thesharp tools, which broke up into pieces that hit pagans who were passingby. Having beheld this wonder, the empress Augusta and the imperialcourtier Porphyry with 200 soldiers confessed their faith in Christ in front ofeveryone, and they were beheaded. Maximian again tried to entice SaintKatherine, proposing marriage to her, and again he received a refusal. Sheconfessed her fidelity to the Heavenly Bridegroom Christ, and with a prayer toHim she herself put her head on the block under the sword of the executionerand was beheaded."

From http://www.antiochian.org/saint_katherine

St. Katherine is the Patron Saint of our daughter, Abigail (Katharina). May her intercessions ever be with us.

Let us praise Katherine the radiant bride of Christ, guardian of Sinai, our helper and supporter. By the power of the Spirit, she silenced the arrogance of the ungodly. Crowned as a martyr, she now implores great mercy for all.

Troparion (tone 5).

St. Raphael of Brooklyn

2011-11-04T19:24:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow marks the feast day of Saint Raphael of Brooklyn. He was born in Beirut, Lebanon to Syrian refugee parents, and his route to America was somewhat circuitous in that he spent some time in Russia prior to being sent here -- by Czar Nicholas, II -- in 1895 in order to minister to the local Syrian Orthodox communities. In 1904 he became the first Orthodox bishop to be consecrated in North America. He was bishop of Brooklyn, New York until his death on February 27, 1915. He was glorified by the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America in March of 2000, and is commemorated by the Church of Antioch on the first Saturday in November.

Troparion (Tone 3)

Rejoice, O Father Raphael, Adornment of the Holy Church! Thou art Champion of the true Faith, Seeker of the lost, Consolation of the oppressed, Father to orphans, and Friend of the poor, Peacemaker and Good Shepherd, Joy of all the Orthodox, Son of Antioch, Boast of America: Intercede with Christ God for us and for all who honor thee.

Kontakion (Tone 3)

Today the memory of blessed Raphael hath shone on us; For having received Christ’s call, he faithfully took up his cross and followed Him becoming a fisher of men. Let us cry aloud to him saying: Rejoice O Father Raphael!

Repose of St. John the Theologian

2011-09-26T19:11:00.000-07:00

St. John is my patron Saint, chosen both because my first name is John and because I have always had an affinity for his writing and felt a particular closeness to him. Though I chose him to be my patron, in a more realistic sense he chose me long before. Tonight's service, as with all of the feast days which commemorate St. John, was therefore particularly special for me.

Pray unto God for me, O holy Saint John, well pleasing to God, for I turn unto thee, who art the speedy helper and intercessor for my soul.

"O Apostle John, speaker of divinity, the beloved of Christ God, hasten and deliver thy people powerless in argument; for He on Whose bosom thou didst lean accepteth thee as an intercessor. Beseech Him, therefore, to disperse the cloud of the stubborn nations, asking for us safety and the Great Mercy."

-- Apolytikion of St. John the Theologian

Guilt and innocence

2011-09-22T05:03:00.000-07:00

Troy Anthony Davis was executed by the State of Georgia last night. His crime was murder. To the very end, he proclaimed his innocence. An uncomfortable number of witnesses retracted their prior statements implicating him in the crime. His case has garnered national attention as an example of either justice being served or an innocent man being put to death.

My view on the death penalty has soured quite a bit due to the fine work of the Innocence Project. It seems to me that if we put as many innocent people on death row as we undeniably do, then we at least run the risk of putting innocent people to death but for the work of anti death penalty advocates. And even given their work, we cannot say that everyone who receives the death penalty is guilty of their crimes.

Troy Davis, however, is somewhat of an exception to this view in my mind. While I do think there is enough reasonable doubt in his case to at least commute the sentence, I am also aware that evidence was excluded by the exclusionary rule (and rightly so) which directly implicated him in the crime. Mr. Davis' last words to the family of the man he killed were "The incident that night was not my fault. I did not have a gun....I did not personally kill your son." Given what we have seen from the remaining evidence, I think this statement is probably true on a technical level. And yet Mr. Davis was there while a homeless man was pistol whipped and an officer intervened to stop it and was shot for his troubles. In a legal sense, whether Mr. Davis pulled the trigger or not is immaterial. If he is not a murderer in a direct sense, he is likely guilty of felony murder at the very least.

My problem with the Troy Davis case is not that I believe he is "innocent." I think nothing of the sort. My problem is we just executed a man where a lot of evidence indicates he wasn't the trigger man, and the trigger man is apparently still running around in society. Some may think Mr. Davis' mere presence warrants the death penalty, and I suppose if we are going to have a death penalty, that is a reasonable position to take. But I am unconvinced. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and even being too morally bankrupt or cowardly to intervene to stop a beating and murder, should not be a capital offense. Putting my view simply, I am convinced Troy Davis is innocent of a capital offense. But I do not think he is innocent. He should be in jail.

But he's not. He's now dead, killed at the hands of our justice system. And the more I learn of how that system metes out its "justice," the less I think the death penalty is a good idea. I don't have a particular moral or philosophical objection to it. I just think we do it poorly in this country. Thomas Jefferson once said "better that ten guilty men go free than for one innocent man to languish in prison." If that is true, how much more is it true that it is better for an innocent man, or even a man who is guilty of something but not of the crime he is accused of, to languish in prison than to be put to death?

May God have mercy on Troy Davis' soul, and ours. Lord have mercy.

New icon - St. Catherine of Alexandria

2011-09-15T16:48:00.000-07:00

Abigail (Katharina)'s patron saint. We got her this one for an early birthday present, since the previous one was tiny in comparison to the others. We put the smaller one over her bed at her request.

Let us praise the all-lauded and noble bride of Christ, the godly Catherine, the guardian of Sinai and its defense, who is also our support and succour and our help; for with the Holy Spirit's sword she hath silenced brilliantly the clever among the godless;and being crowned as a martyr, she now doth ask great mercy for us all.

-- Troparion for the Feast of St. Catherine

Elevation of the Holy Cross

2011-09-13T18:24:00.000-07:00

This Sunday, our priest mentioned something that I found fascinating. As most people know, on September 13, 2001, workers at Ground Zero found a crossbeam from the World Trade Center in the shape of a cross. It just so happens that the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America celebrates the Feast of the Elevation of the Cross on the evening of September 13 each year, although the Feast day is appointed as September 14. The reason for this is perhaps a little controversial within the Church, but it amounts to this -- if a parish wishes to celebrate a Feast day in the evening, we do it with a Vesperal Divine Liturgy the night before, since Vespers is the first service of the following day (and Vespers the night of the Feast would be the first service for the day after the Feast).

As we celebrated this Feast tonight, it occurred to me how fitting it is that we celebrate the Elevation of the Cross on the same day the Cross was raised from the rubble at Ground Zero. How absolutely appropriate that as we remember the 10th anniversary of the horrific events of September 11, 2011, we can only 2 days later remember the hope that sprang forth from the ashes this day 10 years prior.

The Feast of the Elevation of the Cross marks 2 events. First, the finding of the Cross by the right-believing Empress Helena, Equal to the Apostles, and second the return of that Cross to Jerusalem from Persia by the Emperor Heraclius in 628.

By the mere planting of thy Cross, O Christ, the foundation of death did shake; for him whom Hades did swallow eagerly, it delivered up with trembling; for verily, thou didst reveal to us thy salvation, O holy One. Wherefore, do we glorify thee, O Son of God. Have mercy upon us.

Memory Eternal

2011-09-11T17:35:00.000-07:00

Like most, I remember exactly where I was when I heard the news. I was at the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission, getting a settlement approved. I don't remember which case it was. I don't remember which commissioner I met with to approve the settlement. I only remember the secretary coming out and telling me and the other lawyers present that New York had suffered a terrorist attack. Two planes had been flown into the World Trade Center.

The memories of that day and the days that followed are clear, but eerily distant. I remember the oddness of going outside and hearing no planes overhead. At all. I remember the anger and the disgust, and my own personal sin -- the desire to see the people who planned this dead. Their families dead. Their countries destroyed. I doubt I've ever been as resolute in wishing harm on other human beings as I was that day and in the weeks and months that followed. These people were evil, and they deserved to die. I conveniently overlooked the fact that if I was to measure myself by God's standard, I am evil too, and I also deserve to die. I still pray for the grace to overcome my self-righteousness and forgive my neighbor.

The country has moved on in large measure, and we have returned to the polarizing bickering and senseless partisan fighting we had in the years prior to 9/11. But it changed everything for me. I am no longer content to speak of political "opponents" as if they were as evil as the terrorists, enemies who need to be stopped at all cost. I am no longer inclined to view politics as a game where there are good guys and bad guys. I am still critical of our government and the politicians who run it, but I refused from that day forward to engage in the kind of politics that views politicians as either moral giants trying to save the country (if they agree with me) or as despots bent on the destruction of our Republic (if they don't). I fail in that quite frequently, but it is the standard to which I now hold myself. I have refused to vote for more than one politician I otherwise intended to vote for on the sole basis that they lied about their opponent and painted them as an enemy of the Republic. That includes the last two gubernatorial elections here in Georgia.

I also have a different appreciation for world politics. I was ambivalent about Middle East politics on 9/10/11. The only thing I knew about it was how we went over and mopped the floor with Iraq in the early 1990s, and before that how we bombed Libya into the stone age back in the mid '80s. America! **** yeah! By 9/12/11 I was very much interested, and humbled. I was no longer so arrogant to think we could afford to overlook both the radicals in the Middle East and, more to the point, our own policies that breed radicalism. I became a much greater proponent of green energy and ending our dependence on foreign oil. I also learned quite a lot in the years since about not only Islamic radicalism in the Middle East, but Christianity as well. One thing I learned is that Islamic countries aren't the only ones that persecute Christians. Another is that even under persecution, Christian communities still survive and do quite well in Islamic countries. Our Patriarchate, for example, is currently located in Damascus, Syria.

Our parish today did not have a "9/11 Service." The Orthodox Church doesn't really operate that way. We celebrated the appointed feast of the day, which is the Leavetaking of the Nativity of the Theotokos. We did, however, include those who lost their lives on 9/11/01 in the prayers of the Church, and at the request of our Metropolitan we prayed the Trisagion Service for the departed. May their memory be eternal.

Nativity of the Theotokos

2011-09-07T17:53:00.000-07:00

This is the day of the Lord; wherefore, rejoice ye nations; for behold the chamber of Light, the scroll of the Word of life hath come forth from the womb; the gate facing the east hath been born. Wherefore, she awaiteth the entrance of the High Priest. And she alone admitted Christ into the universe for salvation of our souls.

+ Doxastikon of the Feast, Tone 6

http://www.antiochian.org/node/20441

Reading list...

2011-09-03T08:57:00.000-07:00

Just a few books I'm planning to tackle over the next few months, starting with the one I'm currently reading:

Dormition of the Theotokos

2011-08-15T19:57:00.000-07:00

Troparion:

In giving birth you preserved your virginity,

In falling asleep you did not forsake the world, O Theotokos.

You were translated to life, O Mother of Life,

And by your prayers, you deliver our souls from death.

Kontakion:

Neither the tomb, nor death could hold the Theotokos,

Who is constant in prayer and our firm hope in her intercessions.

For being the Mother of Life,

She was translated to life by the One who dwelt in her virginal womb.

Transfiguration

2011-08-06T07:58:00.000-07:00

Troparion (Tone 4)

Come, you faithful, let us welcome the Transfiguration of Christ,

And let us joyfully cry as we celebrate the prefeast:

"The day of holy gladness has come;

The Lord has ascended Mount Tabor

To radiate the beauty of His divinity."

Kontakion (Tone 4)

Podoben: “Today You have shown forth...”

Today all mortal nature shines with the divine Transfiguration

And cries with exultation:

"Christ the Savior is transfigured to save us all!"

Source: http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Transfiguration

Of dogs and salvation

2011-08-01T17:45:00.000-07:00

“A dog is better than I because he loves and does not judge.”

-- Abba Xanthios

A Conversion Story (but not the one you think).....

2011-07-18T10:56:00.000-07:00

A telephone call from a friend today prompted me to write this post. He asked me if I would mind sharing our story of how we became Orthodox in more detail. We'll eventually do that over lunch. But it occurred to me that while I have shared that story from the standpoint of a dissatisfied WELS Lutheran HERE, the WELS to Orthodox story doesn't really tell the whole story, or even most of it. Which is to say, by the time we became WELS Lutherans, my wife and I were probably 90% Orthodox already, though many of our fellow Lutherans, particularly in that WELS parish, were not even close to that number. The purpose of this post is to detail our conversion over 10 years ago to Lutheranism and how the 10 years that followed ultimately led us to Orthodoxy. While I have touched on the former very briefly HERE, what follows is a fuller explanation of that conversion and how it ultimately led us to the Orthodox Church.

My wife and I were both raised Southern Baptist. We were married in a small Baptist Church in Bremen, Georgia, the same one in which I was raised. We were both nominally Baptist at best -- we essentially went to Church on rare occasion and did not particularly pay attention to what our Church taught. You could say we were "Baptist by birth" but not really by doctrine. This was especially true when it came to such things as moderate drinking or listening to certain secular music. But it was what we knew, and it was where we were raised, and so we stayed Baptist for a time. While I was in law school, we attended a large Baptist Church in Jackson, Mississippi, and two things really bothered us. First, we seemed to only hear about what a great person the Pastor was -- liquor had never passed his lips (yes, that exact phrase was actually used from the pulpit), he didn't go out on the gambling boats, etc. Second, related to the first, we kept hearing how we just had to believe more and we too could eradicate terrible sins such as moderate drinking and recreational but non habitual gambling from our lives. It wasn't long before we became tired of hearing this week in and week out, and we quit going to Church altogether. It turns out Church with a bunch of Law and not much Gospel is not very edifying for sinners. Especially when the "Law" in question is made up out of pietist wholecloth.

This was not how we were raised, mind you. There are plenty of Baptist Churches out there that will speak the Gospel in some sense or another. The Church my parents attend is a good example of this. It is a non-sacramental Gospel. It lacks historicity and Patristic understandings of salvation. But at the very minimum you will usually get an acknowledgement that the Pastor and parishioners are sinners in need of salvation. The alter call is for people to not only dedicate their lives to Christ, but in fact to confess their sinfulness and need for the Savior. We just never got that where we attended.

After I graduated law school and began practicing law, a friend of mine went with me to New Orleans for the SHOT show. This is a firearms trade show, and my friend and I knew each other from the shooting community. He was a Lutheran pastor. We talked about Church while we were there, but on the way back he asked some hard questions. He was also a former Baptist, so he knew the language. We discussed infant baptism, the Lord's Supper, and all the other typical areas of distinction between Lutherans and Baptists, but two stuck out to me particularly. First, he asked me if I was a good person. I told him I try to be. He asked how often I went to Church, whether I truly loved God and kept His Commandments, etc. I had to confess I did not do any of these things nearly well enough to please God. Then, second, he told me about John Chapter 20, where Jesus said "receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." Then he absolved me. I had been told I was forgiven before. But that day, I believed it.

We ended up at a fine LCMS parish just around the corner from our house, and the Pastor literally lived in our neighborhood. I attended a Vespers service, and to be honest I was creeped out at first. The people were nice, but everyone chanted the service a capella, and the music was weird and medieval. But then they dove right into a Bible study (it was kind of a hybrid Vespers where we sang the first part of Vespers, had a Bible study, then sang the end of Vespers). I spoke to the Pastor for a long time that night, then went home and told my wife about it. She wanted to go the following Sunday.

Sunday was a different story. The Liturgy hooked us from the get go. There was an organ, and a choir, and the building was full, and the loudest people there were the ones who could sing. It was amazing. Very early in the service was a corporate confession of sins. The entire congregation spoke a general confession, and the Pastor faced the altar saying it with us. Then he turned around and pronounced the Absolution. I looked at my wife and we nodded. Here was a place for sinners like us. The Liturgy itself was beautiful, if still a bit off putting -- keep in mind we were raised on the very "Protestant light" worship style we eventually came to dislike. But the real key was how much Scripture there was in the service. It seemed as if every single portion of the Liturgy was pulled directly from the Scriptures, and then when you'd had enough of that, there were readings -- 3 of them -- and a sermon that focused on the readings! We began attending a Sunday School class on the Liturgy, and we attended Wednesday night Vespers and began to learn the Lutheran Confessions and the Scriptures that were so richly cited therein. We attended that Church for nearly 5 years before deciding we needed to move closer to family.

When we arrived in Georgia, we began attending an LCMS Church near our home. That parish used TLH as the hymnal, so it was by appearance more traditional than the one we came from (which used Lutheran Worship at the time). But our very first meeting with the Pastor raised red flags. We were told they were trying out contemporary worship there. My wife and I probably did not react as charitably as we should have. We had left this type of freestyle worship to become Lutheran. And we had been taught, rightly I still believe, that Lutherans maintain the historic forms of the Western Mass. But this Pastor had determined, for whatever reason, that guitar based, upbeat songs should be used, and began incorporating them in the Liturgy more and more frequently. This, in and of itself, is not so bad, but the songs used a more lightweight Protestant theology -- a lot about us and what we do, and very little about Jesus and what He has done. I once remarked to him that this use went against the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi (as we pray, so we believe), and he said "I don't believe that (lex orandi, lex credendi) is true." This came to a head when he started a Liturgy shortly after Easter with a "hymn" called "Let Our Hearts Burn Within Us." The LCMS has blessedly removed it from their website, but you can listen to it HERE. Suffice it to say, it was sappy, emotion-driven and hardly weighty in theology. It reminded me of THIS FINE QUOTE by Hank Hill. It was the embodiment of everything we thought was wrong with where this parish was headed. We never went back to that Church. It shut its doors a couple of years later after declining attendance took its toll. I'm convinced to this day that they had a vibrant Lutheran Church that they turned into a generic evangelical Protestant Church, and in the process ran off all the Lutherans. And as I've said a million times, Lutherans are horrible at doing evangelical style worship. It's like watching a polka band cover a hip hop song. It just doesn't work.

So from there, we joined a great WELS parish, and made a ton of good friends and generally had a very nice time. But there were gnawing issues. We missed the higher view of the Liturgy at our old parish, and we didn't like the fact that the Sacrament was only offered every other week, and never on Christmas or Easter or any other time visitors were likely to be present. The lectionary was sometimes eschewed, and more often when it was not, the sermon text was not from the day's readings, so we were getting a lot of sermons that did not deal with the readings of the day even when those readings were used. The piety of that parish was somewhat more "low Church" than what we were used to, so our oldest daughter fell out of the habit of making the sign of the cross and paying attention during the Liturgy. We still said our nightly prayers, but beyond that there was very little real catechesis going on that they couldn't get at a local Methodist or Baptist Church. A large part of that is my fault -- I was not particularly excited about the more Protestantized nature of the parish and did not take great pleasure in teaching my kids a historic catholic faith that wasn't really reflected outwardly in that parish. So I didn't. I take full responsibility for that. Another issue was that my wife no longer wanted to go to Church. Whereas I was content to "just go" and receive the Sacraments, she was concerned about herself and our children and how the lack of a strong piety and historic catholicity were affecting her and them. Eventually, she prompted me to look elsewhere.

She wanted another Lutheran parish. Unfortunately, pickins' are slim in these parts, and we had exhausted the best we had. If this parish where we loved the Pastor and had a lot of good friends who loved us and our children, and which was conservative and not too "evangelical" in style -- if this wasn't what we were looking for, any other Lutheran parish in the area was realistically going to be less so. I began considering our options and I saw three: Roman Catholicism, High Church Anglicanism, or Orthodoxy. High Church Anglicanism wasn't a real option. There were no parishes near us that fit that bill. That left two, and while as Lutherans, Rome was not as good an option as Orthodoxy, in the end there was an Antiochian Orthodox Church near our home, so we visited there first out of sheer convenience.

The rest, as they say, is history. We saw in that parish exactly the living, dynamic, historic, Gospel-centered Sacramental faith being lived out by the parishioners that caused us to become Lutheran to begin with. While no one would enter our parish and confuse it with a Lutheran parish, I have to say that the similarities are far greater than the differences. And the differences have turned out to be great blessings.

Holy Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council

2011-07-17T16:56:00.000-07:00

"On this Sunday, in the Holy Orthodox Church, we commemorate the 630 holy and God-bearing Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which convened in Chalcedon in 451 against the Monophysites.

The Holy Fathers were, once again, concerned with the nature of Jesus Christ. The false teaching arose that Christ’s human nature (considered by heretics as less perfect) dissolved itself in His divine nature (considered by heretics as more perfect): like a cube of sugar in a parcel of water. Thus, in that scenario, Christ had only one nature, the Divine. These false preachers were called Monophysites (“mono”, meaning “one” and “physis”, meaning “nature”), and they were led by Eutyches and Dioscorus. Monophysitism overemphasized the divine nature of Christ, at the expense of the human. The Fourth Ecumenical Council condemned Monophysitism and proclaimed that Christ has two complete natures: the divine and the human, as defined by previous Councils. These two natures function as equally perfect, without confusion, and are neither divided nor separate. The Fathers declared that at no time did they undergo any change.

By the intercessions of Thy Saints, O Christ God, have mercy upon us. Amen."

-- from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and the West: http://www.antiochianladiocese.org/news_110709_1.html

July 4, 1776

2011-07-04T11:16:00.000-07:00

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Home, sweet home! Otherwise known as "the other side of catholicity"

2011-07-03T19:02:00.000-07:00

My last post, like a few before it, was about the great benefit of catholicity in the Church. The idea that when we travel (or, God forbid, move) we pretty much know what to expect in whatever Orthodox Church we end up visiting.

Having said that, after two weeks away from our home parish, it was awfully nice to be back. Catholicity is wonderful, but home is home. I've mentioned before how our parish "smells like a Church." We had visitors to our parish today, and one of them walked into the narthex and the first thing he said was "it smells good in here!"

Yes, yes it does.

Familiarity is an interesting thing. Everything about this parish was foreign to us when we arrived for the first visit over a year ago. And yet, then and now, it felt like home. Orthodoxy has been wonderful to us, and I don't mean this at all to suggest other parishes would not suffice. In fact, if pushed to the wall, I could suggest several areas I actually prefer the piety and practice of other parishes I've visited, though they would be few (getting rid of the pews would be my first suggestion -- Lent was nice without them). But at the end of the day, this one is home and likely always will be. We cannot imagine being anywhere else.

Orthodoxy is one big family, and without a doubt the relation is visible in other parishes we visit. But they are still distant cousins and step-siblings. It's nice to be back home with the immediate family again. We missed y'all.

My broken record - different, yet the same

2011-06-26T19:45:00.000-07:00

I've blogged about this before and I doubtless will again, but it is a great joy to belong to a Church where the basic form of the Liturgy is the same no matter where I go. We visited St. John the Theologian Orthodox Church in Panama City, Florida, and we plan to return on Wednesday for the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul.

St. John is my Patron Saint, so it was a particular blessing to have his icon prominently displayed for veneration. St. John's is a small Greek parish in Panama City, and meets in what was obviously at one point a Protestant Church. It is quite small -- smaller even than our little parish in Hiram, Georgia, both in attendance and in the size of the parish building itself. Most of the service was in English, but most of the hymnody was in Greek, and prominent portions such as the Lord's Prayer and the Trisagion Hymn were sung in both English and Greek. As was the practice at the last Greek parish I attended, the priest at the end handed out the antidiron and offered a blessing in lieu of having the parish venerate the cross. Unlike the last Greek parish I attended, the sermon was after the Gospel reading, as it is in our home parish. We communed, and the priest and parishioners could not have been nicer. We look forward to returning.

When I visit other Orthodox parishes, I am constantly struck by how trivial the differences seem and how utterly familiar the Liturgy is even when it is not done the same way we do it. I shouldn't be, but I am. One reason we left the Lutheran Church was the "to each his own" form of liturgical practice that is not at all what we were raised with, but was in fact prominent in our area. There was no catholicity, there was no sense of oneness to the Church. There was only what we do here, which was sorta-kinda like what they do down the road, but not in any real fundamental sense. This is not to denigrate this -- certainly Lutherans are not alone in this typically Protestant worship mindset. But it is not what we understood the Church to be. It is not catholic.

This is also not to say the Orthodox Church walks in lockstep. As melxiopp kindly pointed out the last time I blogged on this topic, there are in fact material differences in how some Orthodox parishes celebrate the Liturgy. And without question, there is freedom for that in Orthodoxy, and there is also concern about an overuse of that freedom. We are, in that, no different than anyone else. The devil is in the details. Other Christians have worship wars over whether to add a rock band, or a keyboard, or modern lighting and video screens. We bicker over whether the curtain and the Royal Doors are shut, or how loud the prayers are spoken. That is not to make light of these concerns, nor to be triumphalistic about the failings of others. It is, rather, to say it is refreshing to have such uniformity, even as we could always do better. As Lutherans, we were raised in the faith on liturgy, catholicity and tradition. It's good to have all three again.

St. John of Kronstadt on Good Works and Sin

2011-06-22T17:41:00.000-07:00

"When the foolish thought of counting up any of your good works enters into your head, immediately correct your fault and rather count up your sins, your continual and innumerable offenses against the All-merciful and Righteous Master, and you will find that their number is as the sand of the sea, whilst your virtues in comparison with them are as nothing."

-- St. John of Kronstadt

Pentecost

2011-06-12T09:51:00.000-07:00

O heavenly King, O Comforter, the Spirit of truth, who art in all places and fillest all things; Treasury of good things and Giver of life: Come and abide in us and cleanse us from every stain, and save our souls, O gracious Lord.

--from the Trisagion prayer

Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council

2011-06-05T15:40:00.000-07:00

The Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council are commemorated today. The primary impetus for the council, held in the city of Nicea in 325 AD, was to address the errors of the heretic Arius. Arius is best known for promulgating the heresy that there was a time when the Father was but the Son was not, a heresy continued to this very day by modern Jehovah's Witnesses.

Among the Holy Fathers at this council were Saint Athanasius, who was a young Deacon at the time attending the Council with his hierarch, Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria, and Saint Nicholas, the famed Bishop of Myra who is more commonly known for his connection with the Nativity. Saint Nicholas is reputed to have punched Arius in the face, so angered was he at the heretic's teachings. Since he called the Council, the Emperor, Saint Constantine the Great, was also present.

It is after this council that the Nicene Creed is named (though it is more properly known as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, since the Creed in its present form was not finalized until the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 359, which greatly expounded upon the Third Article dealing with the Holy Spirit). The Faith as articulated at this Council and at Constantinople has, in large measure, united all of Christianity since, with the only real division being the filioque controversy wherein the Western Church added the phrase "and the son" to the Third Article provision dealing with procession of the Holy Spirit. Leaving this controversy aside, the great uniting feature of the Creed as comprised at Nicea was in the Second Article, where the Council confessed that Christ is "of one essence with the Father. . . ." The Greek word in the Creed for "essence," homoousion, has become a rallying point for all of Christendom over and against those who would make the Son to be something less than the Father.

318 bishops convened at Nicea, along with incalculable numbers of attending presbyters and deacons. No small number of these arrived bearing the marks of their persecution, wounds inflicted prior to the Edict of Milan. It was said at the time that "all the world follows after Arius." These great men quelled the heresy and preserved the Apostolic Faith from one of the most pervasive heresies in the history of the Church. It is fitting, then, to close this post with the Creed by which they did so (in its current, Niceno-Constantinopolitan form):

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets; and I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the Resurrection of the dead, and the Life of the world to come. Amen.

Icon corner -- 2 new additions

2011-05-22T19:36:00.000-07:00

For those of you who are not Orthodox, we like to put a prayer corner up in the house with icons and other devotional materials (you can see the cross, the palm branches from Palm Sunday, holy water and our Bible, Service Book and prayer books in this one). It is a devotional aid and a space that is set aside in the home to pray our daily prayers and to venerate God and His Saints (for example, we should always face the icon corner and make the sign of the cross when we pass it, et cetera).

We recently got Emily a new icon of the Guardian Angel (top row, 2nd from left), and we also got Stephanie's Patron Saint, Saint Stephanie of Spain (top left). Now to get Abigail a new (larger and nicer) icon of Saint Catherine -- we bought the one we have now for her birthday the Fall before we were Chrismated. The photo is a bit misleading in focus -- standing before it in our home, the icons on the bottom row are slightly below eye level, and the other four are perhaps a foot or two above eye level. Eventually we'd also like to move everything to an East-facing wall, since it faces South now due to space restrictions, and we'd like to get a vigil candle instead of the overhead lightbulb. But as things stand right now, we feel quite blessed to have the icons we have and a nice space to put them in.

The Sacrament of Holy Repentance

2011-05-20T19:36:00.000-07:00

Confession and absolution. It's something I didn't realize how much I missed until I found it again.

In the Orthodox Church, as with most historic traditions, private confession to a priest is considered part of life. It's not something my wife and I were raised with, and not something that was initially comfortable to us when we first practiced it as Lutherans 10 years ago, but over time it became something we cherished. We fell out of the habit when we ended up in a parish that did not really emphasize confession, but that is to my shame, for my Pastor at the time assured me he would hear my confession and pronounce absolution any time I wished. I was simply too lazy and slothful to do that which my soul needed me to do.

In the Orthodox Church confession is not "mandatory" in the sense that you don't have to go every so often, or whenever this or that happens -- there are guidelines but no real strict rules about when to confess. But it is certainly "mandatory" in the sense that it is expected. We were expected to confess before our Chrismation. We also confess in preparation for communion (not weekly, but frequently), whenever we have particular sins that burden our consciences, or whenever we have committed some serious sin that needs to be dealt with before God in a more formal way than prayer and the Sacramental life. In short, no one tells us we have to go, but we are encouraged to go, and go often. In our parish, it's easy -- after Vespers on Saturday, we can ask our priest if he will hear our confession that evening. Or we can call him and show up early. Or during any weekday liturgy, or really at any time he is available.

Before we began making use of confession about 10 years ago, I remember feeling awkward and self conscious at the thought of telling someone else the bad stuff I've done. Truth be told, I still am to an extent -- I definitely do not color my sins in confession as the people I've sinned against might were they to know the extent of my wrongs. That's something for me to repent of -- I should trust my spiritual father more. But the beauty of confession is precisely in the absolution, and whatever self-consciousness I might have while laying my sins before my priest departs when he prays over me and announces the absolution.

The rite is relatively simple. We petition the Lord to forgive us and be merciful to us, we recite a standard confession, and add whatever particular sins are troubling us. Then, while we kneel, the priest lays the end of his Stole over our head as in the pictures above and below, and prays the following:

O Lord God of the salvation of Thy servants, gracious, bountiful, and long-suffering, Who repentest Thee concerning our evil deeds, and desirest not the death of the sinner, but rather that he should turn away from his wickedness and live; show Thy mercy now upon Thy servant, John [my communion name, after my Patron Saint John the Apostle], and grant unto him an image of repentance, forgiveness of sins, and deliverance, pardoning his every transgression, whether voluntary or involuntary. Reconcile and unite him unto Thy holy Church, through Jesus Christ our Lord, with Whom are due unto Thee dominion and majesty, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.

Then, he places his right hand on the Stole, makes the sign of the cross on our head, and pronounces the Absolution:

God it was who forgave David through Nathan the Prophet, when he confessed his sins, and Peter weeping bitterly for his denial, and the sinful woman in tears at his feet, and the Publican, and the Prodigal Son: May that same God forgive thee all things, through me a sinner, both in this present world, and in that which is to come, and set thee uncondemned before His dread Judgment Seat.

Then, the priest says:

And now, having no further care for the sins which thou hast declared, depart in peace.

Finally, the priest prays:

May Christ, our true God, through the intercessions of his most Holy Mother, and of all the Saints, have mercy upon us and save us, forasmuch as He is good, and loves mankind.

The sense of comfort, the sense of having weight lifted from your shoulders after this Sacrament is indescribable. It is so wonderful that I feel for those who don't have the benefit of this Sacrament to comfort them when they are burdened by sin (though, truth be told, not nearly to the extent I pity those who have deluded themselves into thinking they have no sins worth confessing). And I wonder why more do not make use of private confession. It is one of Protestantism's great weaknesses in my estimation (I exclude confessional Lutherans and high Church Anglicans from this, since both have the rite in their tradition and make use of it in practice, and besides, neither really considers themselves "Protestant" to begin with).

The most frequent objection I hear regarding private confession is "man cannot forgive sins, only God can!" I find this interesting, since there are only two places in the Scriptures this approximate phrase occurs -- Mark chapter 2 and Luke chapter 5. I'll use Luke as the example since the language is closer to this oft-repeated objection. Saint Luke records that after the absolution of the paralytic, "[t]he Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, 'Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?'"And what did Jesus do? He said "I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins," and then He said to the paralyzed man, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." And that's exactly what the paralytic did.

So Jesus has authority to forgive sins, but that doesn't mean the priest does, right? Well, Jesus passes this authority on to His disciples expressly in John chapter 20. He said "[p]eace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you,” and then He breathed on them and said “[r]eceive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” Jesus demonstrated His authority to forgive sins in Luke Chapter 5, and He passed on this authority to the Church in John chapter 20.

Perhaps one reason the particular practice of individual confession and absolution finds such disfavor among most Protestants is the fact that it undisputedly developed a bit later in time. It is, essentially, a 3rd to 4th century development that began as a result of people who apostatized in periods of persecution and wanted to be reconciled to the Church. So what did the bishops do? They heard their confession, absolved them and imposed penance. I would argue late development is an insufficient basis for discarding the practice. After all, the practice of using hymnody in bar and verse format is quite a late development, but no one seems to have a problem with that. Further, the Sacrament of Holy Repentance has both Apostolic and Scriptural warrant. It's not as if it is a development that obscures the Gospel. Rather, like a beautiful setting for a precious stone, it displays the Gospel in all its glory!

It is a shame to see such a beautiful and comforting practice fall into disuse. It is my prayer that it will be rediscovered among those who are encouraging the disuse.

Anniversary. Sort of.

2011-05-13T21:03:00.000-07:00

We are rapidly approaching a full year of faithful attendance in the Orthodox Christian Church. Hence, the title of this post -- "anniversary." Unfortunately, I don't remember the exact date we began visiting. Hence the qualifier -- "sort of."

I do know we began visiting in May. And I recall it was during Pascha. On our first visit, Khouria told us the Holy Doors were open because they remain open during Pascha. I didn't know what that meant at the time. Looking back, it strikes me how cute it is that she thought I would.

We've been immeasurably blessed by our time here, and as I've said before, we are most definitely home. There is no doubt at all this is where we belong. I've also said before that the most striking thing about our conversion is the impact it has had on our children. All of them, from our oldest who is 7 to our youngest who is 3, have grown immensely since that fateful day last Spring. They love the Church, they practice her piety, and they radiate the love of Christ that is embodied there. Oh, they're still the same kids. Lauren is still the sweet, smart one who wants to please everyone. Abby is still the shy, quiet one who has a mischievous bent. And Emily is still the wild free spirit who loves to talk at the wrong times, but thankfully has stopped yelling "can we go get bread?" before communion every Sunday. But they are quite obviously becoming Christians, living out their baptisms in the Sacramental life of the Church and growing in Christ day by day. If for no other reason, we are where we belong because of what it has done for their spiritual growth.

Memories are obviously still fresh. The first time we attended, we had been researching local parishes that we were "targeting" to visit. St. Stephens was close by, so we decided to drop in for Vespers on Saturday evening. It's a small parish, so when we arrived, no one was there except one man who was working in the yard with a garden hoe. He was wearing blue coveralls and could have easily been a landscaper hired by the parish. I introduced myself. He said "I'm Father Andrew." Our first contact with our soon-to-be priest was watching him lovingly care for the parish grounds by the sweat of his brow. Khouria Dannie came outside and took us into the Church to show us around. She introduced us to her daughter and granddaughters and Deacon Ray, and we took a seat at the back. The service began, and we were in awe of the sheer beauty of the piety and prayer life of the Orthodox Church, though a bit put off by the Arabic chant that is slightly more prominent in the Vespers service. They held nothing back on our account -- "most Holy Theotokos, save us" and "through the prayers of our holy fathers" rang in our Protestant ears. We had questions, we were given pamphlets and encouraged to come back.

We visited for a Divine Liturgy shortly thereafter, and the experience was somewhat different. We knew through reading about the Orthodox Church that the services "run together" -- if you don't know when the Divine Liturgy begins, you'll miss it because they aren't going to stop and tell you when it's coming. At the end of Matins, the priest intones "blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, both now and ever, and unto ages of ages!" That's the beginning of the Divine Liturgy. It was somewhat different than the Vespers service. At Vespers, the Church was nearly empty. At the Liturgy, it was packed. The Liturgy was quite a bit more familiar than Vespers. We knew the basic structure, and we knew most of the verbiage, and the tones used for the Liturgy itself were easier on our Western ears. But there were new things there as well. The Trisagion hymn and the Cherubic hymn were new to us. Hymns to the Theotokos and the saints were as well. And yet there was something familiar about both services that drew us to come back. Before communion the Church confessed:

I believe, O Lord, and I confess that thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who didst come into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. And I believe that this is truly thine own immaculate Body, and that this is truly thine own precious Blood. Wherefore I pray thee, have mercy upon me and forgive my transgressions both voluntary and involuntary, of word and of deed, of knowledge and of ignorance; and make me worthy to partake without condemnation of thine immaculate Mysteries, unto remission of my sins and unto life everlasting. Amen. Of thy Mystical Supper, O Son of God, accept me today as a communicant; for I will not speak of thy Mystery to thine enemies, neither will I give thee a kiss as did Judas; but like the thief will I confess thee: Remember me, O Lord, in thy Kingdom. Not unto judgement nor unto condemnation be my partaking of thy Holy Mysteries, O Lord, but unto the healing of soul and body.

I looked at my wife with wide eyes and quietly said "wow!" It was one of the most penitential prayers I had ever heard. When the Church sang the now-familiar post-communion hymn:

We have seen the true light, we have received the heavenly Spirit, we have found the true faith, worshipping the undivided Trinity, Who has saved us.

.....we began to believe it. A year later, that belief has only grown stronger.

We have now observed essentially a full Church year -- a full cycle of Liturgies. A full cycle of readings. A full cycle of Feasts and fasts. When we first entered the door, we weren't sure if we would like it. Now, a year later, we can't imagine life without it.

That first night we heard, for the first time, the hymn we sing at every Vespers service. It seems appropriate here.

Preserve O God, the holy Orthodox Faith, and all Orthodox Christians unto ages of ages. Amen.

Naval Special Forces DEVGRU, on the other hand....

2011-05-03T18:52:00.000-07:00

On the other hand, it does fall to government to bear the sword in order to preserve good order, prevent evil and ensure tranquility. When it comes to bearing that sword, nobody -- and I mean nobody -- does it better than the Naval Special Warfare's DEVGRU, colloquially (and formerly, officially) known as SEAL Team Six. The training for DEVGRU is so rigorous serious injuries and deaths in training are not uncommon. These brave men have been from their very inception experts in counterterrorism. They deserve our respect, honor, admiration and gratitude.

I have been a fan of SEAL Team Six since reading "Rogue Warrior" for the first time. Some current DEVGRU members may bristle at that suggestion, since its author, Richard Marcinko, is at the same time a true American hero and a convicted felon, and therefore somewhat controversial among the Teams. Count me among those -- unworthy to hold an opinion on the matter though I be -- who consider Cmdr. Marcinko's service to his country to far outweigh whatever his shortcomings. The fact that his legacy endures to this day and was on display over the past weekend means we owe him a great debt of honor. DEVGRU was drawn up by him, designed from the ground up to do exactly what they just did and do it efficiently and successfully. The culmination of this is the Team he founded just brought down one of the most vile terrorists the world has ever known, and made us all safer in the process.

It is also worth noting that not only did someone have to have the Team in place and draw up the operation that brought down bin Laden, but someone had to make the call to execute that operation. Our President this weekend made what is to my mind one of the gutsiest and most politically dangerous calls of any President in recent memory when he gave the go-ahead to proceed with a SEAL insertion rather than a drone or missile attack. If things had gone wrong, he was a guaranteed one-termer. And they could have easily gone wrong. We flew 2 helicoptors into sovereign airspace of a foreign nation, dropped 25 SEALS into a fortified compound, and had a long and hairy firefight with hostile forces bent on our destruction. One can easily imagine the bodies of dead SEALs dragged through the streets of Islamabad. Instead, we emerged with what is by all reports invaluable intel and assets (not to mention Geronimo, EKIA) and we didn't lose a single man in the process. The jury is still out on a second term. But President Obama has earned my respect and admiration. Our nation is safer today for his courage in making that call. When we recite the petition in the Liturgy this weekend "for the President of the United States and all civil authorities, and for our Armed Forces everywhere, let us pray to the Lord," God help me to remember to cross myself. In addition to our admiration, respect, honor and gratitude, all of these men deserve our prayers.

I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

-- John Stuart Mill

Thanks be to God for our armed forces, and particularly DEVGRU, and for the President of the United States, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA and all of those involved in executing this operation. We have been kept free by the exertions of better men than ourselves. May God preserve each and every one of them.

Osama bin Laden

2011-05-02T18:44:00.000-07:00

I debated a bit whether to post anything on this. That is because in large part I'm tempted to write something along the lines of "may he rest in pieces" or some such, and that is not really a healthy expression of what the world just witnessed. The baser expressions of my own human frailty simply are not appropriate here.

The world suffers -- humanity suffers -- when we lose one of our own. It really matters not that Osama bin Laden was, by our measure, a despicable human being, a mass murderer who took life without cause and without remorse. In the end, Osama bin Laden is our brother. This is the difficult expression of the Christian faith -- that we are all one, for we were all created by One and in His image. The tragedy is we have lost His likeness, and that is no less true of me than of bin Laden. One of my former Pastors used to say "the only difference between me and Osama bin Laden in the sight of God is Christ." This is most certainly true.

We rejoice, in a sense, that his personal reign of terror is ended. And yet, someone will pick it up again and we will all move on. We will continue to kill each other and we will continue to pretend that our killing is better than that of whoever it is we killed. Ultimately, the reason I am uncomfortable with the death of Osama bin Laden is he reminds me of my own sin, the depth of my own sickness and frailty. In the end, he is a gross hyper-expression of what deep down inside infects all of us.

I told my friend Anastasia over on her excellent blog that I find it striking that I can confess every week "I believe that Thou Art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, who didst come into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief." And yet at a time like this, my inclination is to be triumphalistic. I want to say "God, I thank you, that I am not like the rest of men, extortioners, unrighteous, adulterers, or even like this tax collector," when I should instead say "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!"

Saint Paul, back when he was simply Saul of Tarsus, was a horrible persecutor of Christians, a murderous wretch of a man who severely abused and martyred Christians. The Patron Saint of our parish, Saint Stephen, became the protomartyr while Saul held his clothing and watched him stoned to death. This man -- this murderous terrorist -- went on to become one of the greatest Saints in the history of the Church. So while I am thankful that bin Laden is now unable to do any more harm, I also must remind myself to mourn the fact that he did not have more time to repent. I also must remind myself that it is not ours to judge. My own salvation is my concern. Osama bin Laden's salvation is in the Lord's hands.

So it is that I struggle to keep the death of this man in its proper place. In the end, all we can rightly do is commend his soul to God. I will one day face death, and looking in the mirror I have no basis to be confident I will fare better than he. My confidence is in Christ. Would that Osama bin Laden had that same confidence. Would that he had more time to repent. May God have mercy on his soul, and ours. It's later than we think.

Sunday of St. Thomas

2011-05-01T12:15:00.000-07:00

"Thomas touched Your life-giving side with an eager hand, O Christ God, when You did come to Your apostles through closed doors. He cried out with all: You are my Lord and my God!"

-- Kontakion for the Sunday of St. Thomas

Pascha in our Parish - Come and See part III

2011-04-25T18:55:00.000-07:00

If you are not Orthodox and you haven't read this post, you should probably read it before this one. It gives the explanation for what you will see in pictures in this post. Thanks to Cindy Ralston for the beautiful pictures, which, though absolutely wonderful, still do not do justice to actually being there -- come and see!

The Resurrection Service begins. Father Andrew brings out the Paschal candle to light the darkness (note the Royal Doors are closed).

"Come ye, take light from the Light, that is never overtaken by night....."

The congregation gathers at the front doors in anticipation.

"Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!" Note the open doors -- the tomb has been rent! Throughout Bright Week, both the Royal Doors and the Deacon doors will remain open at all times signifying the empty tomb.

The little entrance....

Venerating the Gospel book.

Divine Liturgy of Holy Pascha -- a/k/a "Come and See, part II"

2011-04-24T00:26:00.000-07:00

Wow. Just wow. Demonstrative pictures are included in this post, but as with the previous post, there is no way at all to describe the Divine Liturgy of Holy Pascha to someone who has never seen one. It's funny, because it is in a lot of ways the same observation we've had about the Orthodox Church all along, just writ a bit larger. Pascha is a lot like the first Lutheran Easter we ever celebrated, only different. Different in scope and different in style, but at the same time very similar. What follows is our explanation, but by all means -- come and see! Words do not describe this. You have to experience it. You'll just have to wait until next year (the good news is those of you who are not Orthodox can come to "Orthodox Easter" next year with a clean conscience -- it will be a different week from "Western Easter").

We began attending our first Lutheran parish during the Epiphany in 2001. We got Ash Wednesday, Lent, Holy Week and the first half of the Easter Vigil out of the way before we were confirmed. I can say that what struck us then was the rhythm of the Church year, how we went from kind of cruising along easily during Epiphany, to being very somber and quiet and dark during Lent, to turning everything up full volume for Easter. The Lutheran Church had a sense of keeping things in their proper perspective. Great Lent, Holy Week and Holy Pascha in the Orthodox Church is like that. Only different.

In Orthodoxy, Great Lent is treated as a time of quiet and dark reflection as well. But Sundays during Lent are not considered part of Lent, though they are not yet Pascha either. The fast isn't lifted for the weekend services, but the darkness, prostrations and typical mourning, penitential feel are removed. And yet, there is still a sense of anticipation. The biggest difference is Holy Week itself. In Orthodoxy, Holy Week is a time of mourning, lamentation, knowledge of one's own sin, repentance, etc. But there is also a prefigurement -- Palm Sunday is always preceded by and in remembrance of Lazarus Saturday (if I'm not mistaken, Lutherans have the story of Lazarus earlier in Lent). We have in Lazarus a picture of what is coming at Pascha. So Holy Week doesn't have the sense of foreboding it does in the Western liturgy, though it is certainly penitential and somber. Christ's death during Holy Week in the Orthodox Church is already prefigured by the preceding resurrection of Lazarus, so we have a bit more of a sense of what is coming than was our experience in the Western liturgy.

Pascha itself is very much like a good Lutheran Easter mass, only different. One thing we loved about Easter in the Lutheran Church is that on Good Friday, we left the Church in total darkness, with the altar stripped and the crosses veiled -- a reminder that Christ was in the tomb. Yet we were left with a reminder that the tomb had been rent -- the "strepitus," which was a loud noise at the very end of the Liturgy. On Holy Saturday evening, when we celebrated the Easter Vigil (which like Holy Pascha is quite a bit longer than a normal Lutheran mass), the entire parish began inside the same room, lights darkened, and candles were lit from the Paschal candle. Then, the congregation processed outside the Church with lit candles (I think I'm remembering this correctly -- it's been over 5 years since we had this particular service). Then the entire congregation processed back inside loudly singing a resurrection hymn -- "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" is the one that sticks out to me as I remember this. As the congregation moved into the nave, the lights were brought up to announce the resurrection. It was utterly beautiful and extremely powerful.

In the Orthodox Church, on the evening of Holy Saturday as we begin the Paschal celebration, we begin inside the nave with the Rush Service followed by the Resurrection Service. At the beginning of the Resurrection Service, the lights are all off and the parish candles which usually illumine the nave even during Great Lent remaining unlit. Then the priest comes to the ambon holding a lit Paschal candle and announces "come ye, take light from the Light, that is never overtaken by night. Come, glorify the Christ, risen from the dead." Each lights his candle from the Paschal candle and spreads the light around the room until the entire parish is lit only by the vast array of candles. The entire congregation then processes outside and around the Church grounds, ending at the parish doors. The Gospel is read at the door of the parish, which is unlit and dark, and then following the Gospel reading, the priest knocks on the door of the parish saying "lift up your gates, O ye princes, and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting gates, and the King of glory shall enter in." The reply comes from inside, "Who is the King of glory," at which the priest says "the Lord strong and mighty, the Lord, mighty in war." This continues three times until the third time, when the priest responds "the Lord of hosts, he is the King of glory," and the doors to the parish are opened and light comes pouring out. The choir follows the priest in singing "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death and upon those in the tomb bestowing life!" When the congregation reaches the inside of the nave, all of the lights are on, candles lit and the parish is very much "alive." If Great Lent is the Church at a quiet, elevator volume, Pascha is the Church on full blast.

After this, Orthros continues, and then the Divine Liturgy begins. Not much is different about it from a typical Orthodox Liturgy. Except it is SOOOO different. The tone of the service, the feel of the Liturgy -- everything is louder, brighter, happier, bouncier. Not that Great Lent is sad, or depressing -- it's not. In fact, Great Lent is extremely hopeful. But Pascha is something else entirely. It's the Church without benefit of a volume knob. But it's not noise -- it's joy!

Two things were confirmed for us as we sat in Church for Holy Pascha. First, this is what we've been missing -- we did in fact find in this parish essentially that which we first found 10 years ago in another communion, in another state. Second, we were right to become Orthodox. It's like the Lutheran Church we were raised in. Only different. I looked at my wife during the early part of the Divine Liturgy, and she just smiled and nodded. We're home.

Great and Holy Saturday -- Lamentations and Procession of the Bier

2011-04-23T14:18:00.000-07:00

If there is anything that a person relatively new to Orthodoxy can say to someone who is not Orthodox that is almost guaranteed to irritate the non-Orthodox, it is "I can't really describe it for you -- you have to come and see." The fact that this is a true statement doesn't help much. It is something to which most non-Orthodox cannot fully relate.

Such it is with Holy Saturday services (celebrated on the eve of Holy Friday by anticipation). It had been explained to me what would happen (and I will explain it to you), but words simply are inadequate to describe this service. First, a funeral bier is decorated with flowers by the children in the congregation. The bier is then set up in the middle of the nave, front and center of the solea. Then there is the Service of the Taking Down from the Cross, where Christ's corpus, having been nailed (yes, nailed) to the cross the evening prior, is now taken down off the cross. The corpus is wrapped in burial cloths and taken behind the altar, and the Epitaphios (a cloth icon of the burial of Christ) is placed on the bier. The now-empty cross is set up behind the bier and (in our case) to the right.

The Service of the Lamentations begins Friday evening. I had been told what would happen, so nothing particularly was a surprise except for the great beauty and reverence of this Service. The Canon is chanted, and the Lamentations are sung, but the really amazing part was when the bier was picked up and elevated as with any other funeral procession, the entire parish lit candles and the Priest led the bier, followed by the choir and congregation, on a procession around the parish grounds singing the Trisagion hymn:

Holy God
Holy Mighty
Holy Immortal
have mercy on us

Then, when we arrived again at the parish entrance, the bier was elevated, and each and every member of the parish re-entered the parish by walking in under the bier and Epitaphios. We enter the Church through the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Christ, and this act symbolizes that it is our grave -- our death -- which Christ has now entered.

Even with this level of detail, words cannot describe, and frankly what I've written above does not do justice to, what we experienced. The Lamentations themselves are simply beautiful. Likewise the Canon. As my friend and Chrismation sponsor told me before the service, "anyone who leaves this service not understanding why we hold the Mother of God in such high esteem doesn't have a soul." The weight of my own sin, the price that was paid for that sin, the great love that was demonstrated by the act of laying down His own life that by His death, Hades might swallow a man and choke on God Almighty -- and yet the words above are insufficient to explain. It must be experienced.

Following the Service of the Lamentations, members of the parish stayed behind for an all night vigil. So in addition to watching the beauty of the Service of the Lamentations, I was able to participate (in a small way) in the reading of the entire Psalter and most of the four Gospels. We got more than halfway through the Gospel According to Saint John before it was time for the Vesperal Divine Liturgy this morning. Like the Apostles before me, I fell asleep and missed a fair amount of the readings. But that's one of the beautiful things about the Church -- she was praying even as I was unable in my weakness to do so myself. Sitting in the darkened Church, with the Psalter and the Gospels being read and only candles to light the room was quite peaceful. Silence and stillness, broken only by the Word of God. Again, something that words cannot describe -- this too must be experienced.

Everyone is telling me that if I thought last night was beautiful, tonight will be even better. We therefore anticipate all the more Christ's Holy Resurrection.

Great and Holy Saturday

2011-04-22T14:51:00.000-07:00

"Come, let us see our Life lying in the tomb, that He may give life to those that in their tombs lie dead. Come, let us look today on the Son of Judah as He sleeps, and with the prophet let us cry aloud to Him: Thou hast lain down, Thou hast slept as a lion; who shall awaken Thee, O King? But of Thine own free will do Thou rise up, who willingly dost give Thyself for us. O Lord, glory to Thee."

"Today a tomb holds Him who holds the creation in the hollow of His hand; a stone covers Him who covered the heavens with glory. Life sleeps and hell trembles, and Adam is set free from his bonds. Glory to Thy dispensation, whereby Thou hast accomplished all things, granting us an eternal Sabbath, Thy most holy Resurrection from the dead."

Great and Holy Friday

2011-04-22T14:49:00.000-07:00

Today He who hung the earth upon the waters is hung upon the Cross. He who is King of the angels is arrayed in a crown of thorns. He who wraps the heavens in clouds is wrapped in the purple of mockery. He who in Jordan set Adam free receives blows upon His face. The Bridegroom of the Church is transfixed with nails. The Son of the Virgin is pierced with a spear. We venerate Thy Passion, O Christ. Show us also Thy glorious Resurrection.

Great and Holy Thursday

2011-04-22T14:48:00.000-07:00

When the glorious disciples were enlightened at the washing of their feet before the supper, the impious Judas was darkened by the disease of avarice, and to the lawless judges he betrayed You, the Righteous Judge. Behold, this man because of avarice hanged himself. Flee from the insatiable desire which dared such things against the Master! O Lord Who deals righteously with all, glory to You!

Great and Holy Wednesday

2011-04-19T19:00:00.000-07:00

O Lord, the woman who had fallen into many sins perceived thy divinity and received the rank of the ointment-bearing women; and with mourning she brought myrrh to thee before thy burial. She said: “Woe is me, for I am surrounded with a gloomy and moonless night, full of lustful passion. Accept the fountains of my tears, for thou gatherest into clouds the water of the sea. Incline to the groaning of my heart, for in thine inexpressible self-abasement thou hast bowed the heavens. I will kiss thy most pure feet and wipe them with the locks of my hair, those feet whose sound Eve heard at dusk in Paradise, and hid herself in fear. Who can search out the multitude of my sins and the depth of thy judgments, O Savior of my soul? In thy boundless mercy despise me not, thy handmaid.”

Great and Holy Tuesday

2011-04-18T20:00:00.000-07:00

Behold! The bridegroom comes at midnight, and blessed is he whom He shall find watching; but unworthy is he whom He shall find careless. Beware, therefore, O my soul. Be not overcome with sleep, lest thou be given over to death and shut outside the kingdom. But arise and cry: "Holy, holy, holy art Thou, O God!" Through the Theotokos have mercy on us!

Great and Holy Monday

2011-04-17T19:30:00.000-07:00

I see thy bridal chamber adorned, O my Savior, and I have no wedding garment that I may enter therein. O Giver of Light, make radiant the vesture of my soul, and save me!

-- Exapostilarion for the Service of the Bridegroom

Palm Sunday

2011-04-17T04:50:00.000-07:00

By raising Lazarus from the dead before Your passion, You did confirm the universal resurrection, O Christ God! Like the children with the palms of victory, we cry out to You, O Vanquisher of death: Hosanna in the highest! Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord!

-- Troparion for Palm Sunday

Lazarus Saturday

2011-04-16T06:07:00.000-07:00

By Your word, O Word of God, Lazarus now leaps out of death, having returned to this life. Therefore the peoples honor You with their branches, O Mighty One; for You shall destroy Hades utterly by Your own death.

By means of Lazarus has Christ already plundered you, O death. Where is your victory, O Hades? For the lament of Bethany is handed over now to you. Let us all wave against it our branches of victory.

Thank God for Lutherans!

2011-04-14T03:51:00.000-07:00

Please don't take this as me being snide, or some kind of bad joke -- I could not be more sincere about this post. It was 10 years ago today that my wife and I were received into the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, myself by Holy Baptism and confirmation and my wife by confirmation. Some recollections of that day are fuzzy, but others are crystal clear. The young twin girls who were confirmed with us seemed like little kids then (they are now beautiful young ladies, both in college, and their baby sister who was about the age of our oldest daughter then is a teenager). At the altar rail beside them, we felt like Gulliver must have felt with the Lilliputians. Our Pastor -- who has quite a mischievous sense of humor -- poured a small amount of water on my head for "in the name of the Father, and of the Son....." but gave me quite an extra dose of the Holy Spirit right down the back of my shirt. Then joked about it afterward. While Lutherans, like Orthodox, tend to eschew subjective feelings as untrustworthy, the feeling at our first communion that the heavens had been opened was overwhelming.

We also have a lot of good memories since then. When I hear a good Lutheran hymn, I still hear a certain parishioner's voice booming above the choir. When I read a good Lutheran sermon, I still hear in my head our first Pastor's unmistakable preaching cadence. When I read someone making a profound point dealing with Law and Gospel or sin and grace or Sacraments and liturgy or (especially) feminism in the Church, I hear our Deaconess' voice. It was in the Lutheran Church that I learned to love liturgy, Church history, the value of good hymnody, good preaching and the Sacramental life. I also learned more theology over cigars and Scotch or beer on the porch than I ever learned in a Church building. Having a Pastor who is both a spiritual Father and a good friend is an asset I probably took for granted at the time, but appreciate very much in hindsight. I acquired an appreciation for the depth of human sin and the incredible gift of grace by living out the Sacramental life as a Lutheran. I learned to live as a beggar before God, despite God's rich gifts to me and to never take those gifts for granted as if they were deserved or earned.

We were childless back then -- we have three children now, all baptized in the Lutheran Church, by three different Pastors. The first half of our 10 years as Lutherans was wonderful, rich, and comforting. And while the second half of our Lutheran journey was quite a bit more of a struggle, we made a lot of good friends and were shepherded by a wonderful (by then, WELS) Pastor who cared deeply for us and our family. We worshiped in a community center before building a parish building, and so in addition to our appreciation for sacred space and giving our best to God, we also learned that God is present wherever two or three are gathered in His name, and wherever that may occur. While in the end we decided to leave that same parish, it was not for lack of love, support and friendship by everyone who occupied the building, all of whom we still consider friends today.

It is interesting what one remembers and how powerful the senses are. Orthodoxy is not Lutheranism, nor will it ever be. Yet the first time Stephanie and I attended an Orthodox Church, the aroma when we walked into the nave hit me hard. When we left, my wife had lots of good things to say -- "I like that it's not about us," "their liturgy is beautiful," etc. The only thing I could think to say was "I like that it smells like a Church." That sounds ridiculous, but what I meant was "it smells like that first Lutheran Church." I'm quite certain that's a coincidence of no particular import, but for the record, it still does. So it was that in the 20/20 vision of hindsight, we also were reminded that the Church worships with all five senses. That may be one small reason we feel so at home there. Another, for the record, is the "feel" of the parish -- going to midweek prayer services, feast day liturgies and the like I am reminded of the same weekly "rhythm" at that first LCMS parish we attended 10 years ago. Yet another is the strong piety and sense of sacred space -- the sense that something awe-inspiring and transcendent is going on in this special place where God's people are gathered. Small tightly knit parishes in humble buildings filled with faithful Christians maintaining the liturgical traditions of the Church are certainly not necessary, but they are a blessing beyond words. We left one to be closer to family. After 5 years we finally found another.

I still owe a great debt of gratitude to too many Lutherans to enumerate here. To all of our former Pastors, parishioners, friends and acquaintances, thank you from the bottom of our hearts. We have been blessed beyond our wildest imagination because of you. And to those we have let down or disappointed, please forgive us. It's probably cliche to say "we wouldn't be Orthodox if it weren't for all the good things you taught us." It might even sound like a backhanded compliment (it isn't intended to be). But the simple truth is we wouldn't be Christian if it weren't for all the good things you taught us. One more dose of pietistic self-righteous nonsense would have ran us out of the Church, and I doubt we'd have ever returned. For that, we are ever grateful.

Saint Mary of Egypt

2011-04-09T17:03:00.000-07:00

She began her life as a young woman who followed the passions of the body, running away from her parents at age twelve for Alexandria. There she lived as a harlot for seventeen years, refusing money from the men that she copulated with, instead living by begging and spinning flax.

One day, however, she met a group of young men heading toward the sea to sail to Jerusalem for the veneration of the Holy Cross. Mary went along for the ride, seducing the men as they traveled for the fun of it. But when the group reached Jerusalem and actually went towards the church, Mary was prohibited from entering by an unseen force. After three such attempts, she remained outside on the church patio, where she looked up and saw an icon of the Theotokos. She began to weep and prayed with all her might that the Theotokos might allow her to see the True Cross; afterwards, she promised, she would renounce her worldly desires and go wherever the Theotokos may lead her.

After this heart-felt conversion at the doors of the church, she fled into the desert to live as an ascetic. She survived for years on only three loaves of bread and thereafter on scarce herbs of the land. For another seventeen years, Mary was tormented by "wild beasts—mad desires and passions." After these years of temptation, however, she overcame the passions and was led by the Theotokos in all things.

Following 47 years in solitude, she met the priest St. Zosima in the desert, who pleaded with her to tell him of her life. She recounted her story with great humility while also demonstrating her gift of clairvoyance; she knew who Zosima was and his life story despite never having met him before. Finally, she asked Zosima to meet her again the following year at sunset on Holy Thursday by the banks of the Jordan.

Zosima did exactly this, though he began to doubt his experience as the sun began to go that night. Then Mary appeared on the opposite side of the Jordan; crossing herself, she miraculously walked across the water and met Zosima. When he attempted to bow, she rebuked him, saying that as a priest he was far superior, and furthermore, he was holding the Holy Mysteries. Mary then received communion and walked back across the Jordan after giving Zosima instructions about his monastery and that he should return to where they first met exactly a year later. When he did so, he found Mary's body with a message written on the sand asking him for burial and revealing that she had died immediately after receiving the Holy Mysteries the year before (and thus had been miraculously transported to the spot where she now lay). So Zosima, amazed, began to dig, but soon tired; then a lion approached and began to help him, that is, after Zosima had recovered from his fear of the creature. Thus St. Mary of Egypt was buried. Zosima returned to the monastery, told all he had seen, and improved the faults of the monks and abbot there. He died at almost a hundred years old in the same monastery.

Later, the story of Mary's life was written down by St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (cf. "External links").

The Life of St. Mary of Egypt is read during Great Lent along with the Great Canon of St. Andrew.

From Orthodox Wiki: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Mary_of_Egypt

We Orthodox take sin seriously.....

2011-04-06T19:02:00.000-07:00

......really we do......

I only point it out because I've heard some folks say otherwise. Please note that the following is edited for brevity -- this could go on for quite a while if I posted all of it:

I have wasted my whole life with harlots and publicans.

Will I be able to repent of my many sins even when I grow old?

I cry to You, the Creator of all and Healer of the sick:

“Before I utterly perish, save me O Lord!”

I cry to Thee, O Lord; I say: “You are my hope, my portion in the land of

the living.”

Weighed down with indifference, I wallow in sin.

Pierced by the devil’s darts, I have defiled Your image in me.

Yet You convert the heedless and save the sinful.

Before I utterly perish, save me O Lord!

Give heed to my cry, for I am brought very low!

I have become a stumbling block.

Born of earth, I have remained attached to earthly things.

Wed to Your commandments, I transgressed them and defiled my bed.

Yet do not despise the creature whom You formed of earth,

but before I utterly perish, save me O Lord!

Deliver me from my persecutors, for they are too strong for me!

Obsessed with the flesh, I have murdered my soul.

I have become the demons’ toy, the slave of lusts.

In Your compassion, spare me! Put the demons to flight!

Before I utterly perish, save me O Lord!

Bring my soul out of prison, that I may give thanks to Your name!

More than all men I have willfully sinned,

and this has left me helpless and forsaken.

As the enemy of my own soul, I have carnal thoughts that darken it.

O Light of those in darkness, Guide of all who go astray:

“Before I utterly perish, save me O Lord!”

The righteous will surround me; for You will deal bountifully with me.

-- from the Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, 5th Sunday in Lent

Father Alexander Schmemann on the meaning of communion

2011-04-05T20:44:00.000-07:00

But then the first and essential fruit of all Christian life and spirituality, so manifest in the Saints, is the feeling and the awareness not of any "worthiness," but of un-worthiness. The closer one is to God the more conscious he becomes of the ontological unworthiness of all creatures before God, of the totally free gift of God. Such genuine spirituality is absolutely incompatible with any idea of "merit," of anything that could make us, in itself and by itself, "worthy" of that gift. For, as St. Paul writes: "...while we were yet helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. Why one will hardly die for a righteous man . . . . But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us . . ." (Rom. 5:6-8). To "measure" that gift with our merits and worthiness is the beginning of that spiritual pride which is the very essence of sin.

-- from "Great Lent: Journey to Pascha"

St. John Climacus

2011-03-31T08:05:00.000-07:00

St. John Climacus, also known as St. John of the Ladder, is a sixth century monastic best known for his work "The Ladder of Divine Ascent." He is commemorated the 4th Sunday of Great Lent in the Orthodox Church.

Very little is known about St. John's life prior to becoming a monastic. He was tonsured as a monk at Sinai, and remained so until the death of Abba Martyrius, who tonsured him, after which he lived a solitary life of prayer, fasting and repentance before finally returning as the Abbot of the monastery.

As someone from the Western Christian tradition, who is still encumbered by notions of merit and works and a desire to ensure that God is not "robbed" of His glory in salvation by my own claiming of the same, St. John is an interesting figure, and his work is more interesting still. It is easy for me to look at a work called "The Ladder of Divine Ascent" and determine that St. John is teaching that I must do this, that or the other in order to work my way to God so that God will find me worthy of saving. Indeed, an initial careless glance at the icon of the Ladder of Divine Ascent would seem to confirm this view.

In the icon, Monks are depicted at various places on the ladder, climbing up to Jesus with the angels praying for them, but with some monks being dragged off by demons, and one falling into the mouth of a dragon. The dragon symbolizes hell. Christ is seen at the top of a ladder, blessing the monk at the top of the ladder. St. John is seen at the lower right, standing in front of a monastery. The icon is intended to mirror Jacob's ladder.

However, as I have learned, there are several things that should be remembered about this work and particularly the icon which depicts the Ladder. First, "The Ladder of Divine Ascent" is meant for monastics. This in no way inhibits its use for those of us who are not monastics, but context is important. St. John's work is meant first and foremost as a guide for monastics to achieve theosis. Its ascetical discipline is not to be undertaken lightly. Second, the Ladder is not intended to depict ultimate salvation or damnation as most Protestants might understand it. Put another way, the Ladder does not intend to say that those at the top get into heaven, and those at the bottom will go to hell, so you'd better climb higher while you still can. Rather, monks at all stages of the ladder are being dragged off by demons. The purpose of this depiction is to demonstrate that no matter how spiritually developed one is, demons will attack and tempt. Even the most holy are in danger of attack from the accuser.

Third, the Ladder is intended to serve as an image of theosis, the Orthodox idea that we are to grow in Christ, through the Sacramental life, prayer, fasting and almsgiving, to become closer and closer to God. This is most often expressed among Orthodox as "we become by grace what He is by nature." Protestants typically separate this out from "justification" and refer to it as "sanctification," and it might help to look at the icon in that light. In the depiction at left, the ladder goes at a 45 degree angle for the first portion of the ascent, and then nearly straight up for the second portion, indicating the farther along one is in their spiritual journey, the more difficult the ascent becomes (this depiction also has the beautiful imagery of showing the angels helping the monks along the way). But while the Ladder in either depiction involves human effort, synergia, it is also intended to depict God's effort helping us along the way. The angels praying and assisting the monks make this clear, as does the depiction of Christ blessing the monks from heaven. This squares with St. Paul's instruction to the Corinthians that we are Theou synergoi -- "co-workers with God." Fourth, it is important to remember that while the icon itself depicts a ladder ascending to heaven, the book is often described as an "ascent" which is actually a descent into humility. Meaning that far from the Western idea of merits earning us heaven, those at the top of the ladder would be best understood according to St. John's writing as being the most humble, self-emptying and lacking in any understanding of their own worth or merit. As St. John wrote in "The Ladder":

A man who takes pride in natural abilities - I mean cleverness, the ability to learn, skill in reading, good diction, quick grasp, and all such skills as we possess without having to work for them -- this man, I say, will never receive the blessings of heaven, since the man who is unfaithful in little is unfaithful and vainglorious in much. And there are men who wear out their bodies to no purpose in the pursuit of total dispassion, heavenly treasures, miracle working, and prophetic ability, and the poor fools do not realize that humility, not hard work, is the mother of such things. The man who seeks a reward from God in return for his labors builds on uncertainty, whereas the man who considers himself a debtor will receive sudden and unexpected riches.

....and again....

While it is disgraceful to be puffed up over the adornments of others, it is sheer lunacy to imagine that one has deserved the gifts of God. You may be proud only of the achievements you had before the time of your birth. But anything after that, indeed the birth itself, is a gift from God. You may claim only those virtues in you that are there independently of your mind, for your mind was bestowed on you by God. And you may claim only those victories you achieved independently of the body, for the body too is not yours but a work of God.

As we continue our journey through Great Lent, we remember St. John Climacus this Sunday.

Dweller of the desert and angel in the body,
You were shown to be a wonder-worker, our God-bearing Father John.
You received heavenly gifts through fasting, vigil, and prayer:
Healing the sick and the souls of those drawn to you by faith.
Glory to Him who gave you strength!
Glory to Him who granted you a crown!
Glory to Him who through you grants healing to all!

-- Troparion for the Sunday of St. John Climacus

Orthodoxy, different, but still the same....

2011-03-28T07:44:00.000-07:00

I've blogged about this before, but it always strikes me when I visit another Orthodox parish that in all of the differences between Orthodox jurisdictions, there is an utter sameness that predominates. Yesterday evening, I attended St. John the Wonderworker, an OCA parish in Atlanta, for a Vespers service. As with this post detailing my visit to St. Paul Greek Orthodox Church, a Greek parish in Savannah, the differences were immediately apparent. The piety was somewhat "stronger" than in our home parish -- most of the ladies had their heads covered (several in our parish do this, but the majority at St. John wore a headcovering of some sort), almost everyone was very reverent when venerating icons, with the minimal level of piety displayed being a series of three metanias, and (a first for me!) there were no pews in the parish except a couple of benches around the perimeter of the nave. The tones were distinctly Russian (which is to say, more "western" sounding than I am used to).

And yet, as with the Divine Liturgy at St. Paul, I was never lost. I never had to wonder what was going on in the service. I never had to guess what came next. The words to some of the hymnody and prayers were slightly different, more modern. But the essence of the hymns and prayers were the same.

At some point after our conversion, I quit waiting for the other shoe to drop. I've seen scandals rock not only our archdiocese but the OCA as well since we came on board. I've seen criticism of various positions taken by various Church leaders. I've seen some of the ugly side of Orthodoxy (which is no different than the ugly side of any tradition, honestly). But the one thing I don't have to worry about in Orthodoxy is the rank liturgical wonkery that is present in other traditions. Maybe I'm still working off of too small a sample size, but I've visited a handful of Orthodox parishes separated by hundreds of miles and across three different jurisdictions at this point. It's all the same. It's all Orthodox. And rather than having to look for a parish that maintains the traditional forms and ancient faith, I expect any Orthodox parish I enter to do that. I expect it because that's what the Orthodox do, and that's who we are. Rather than being merely disappointed, I would be stunned if I found anything other than a solid, liturgical service at any Orthodox Church anywhere.

The liturgical offices are the one constant in the Orthodox Christian Church. They have maintained our faith through oppression, martyrdom and tyranny. And they maintain my children today in a way low church Protestantism never could. The Church in its collective wisdom has held this same faith together in the same way for nearly 2000 years. It is a great comfort that our Church takes that responsibility very seriously.

Kontakion for the Feast of the Exaltation of the Precous and Life Giving Cross

2011-03-26T06:23:00.000-07:00

You who were lifted upon the Cross of Your own will, O Christ our God, bestow Your compassions upon the commonwealth that bears Your Name. By Your power, gladden our faithful rulers, giving them victory over their adversaries. May your alliance be for them a weapon for peace, an invincible standard.

-- Kontakion for the Feast of the Universal Exaltation of the Precious and Life-Giving Cross

Good stuff from my friend Anastasia.....

2011-03-22T10:11:00.000-07:00

A poem on happy clappy postmodern worship practices.....

Why are People Forsaking Church in Droves?

One reason for people’s churchly severance
Is, they miss good old-fashioned reverence,
Which doesn’t fit well at services
With balloons and whirling dervishes.

To fix your soul you must face what’s wrong,
Which is hard to do to a happy-clappy song.
You won’t even see where you’re not so great
If all you do is celebrate, celebrate.

Celebrations will draw them for the short run,
For people love playing and music and fun.
But you need ever more to keep getting those highs,
Inevitably you crash, and what’s left but sighs?

Entertainment grows wearisome, feelings go flat,
You have to give people much more than that.
Sentiment sours and pleasures aren’t joys,
And church-going folk are not all girls and boys.

Adults want substance and not just feeling,
But wisdom and truth and meaning and healing
In short, they’re searching for things profound
That have little to do with clowning around.

Fun is for picnics, church camps, and youth meets,
Ditto, dancing and movies and magical feats.
In church, theoretically, God is right here;
If so, then with love, awe, and reverence draw near.

If not, there’s your trouble; go back to square one.
You’ve but ethics to offer, and feelings and fun,
And people will seek the deep Mystery elsewhere,
Or give up and pretend they no longer care.

The secret attraction is Himself, Jesus Christ,
By Whom, more than anything, folks are enticed.
Dearer than all else, all our Hope, all our Heart,
With decorum receive Him, before more depart!

St. Gregory Palamas

2011-03-19T10:28:00.000-07:00

Let us continue in oneness of mind, bound together by peace one towards the other, and abstaining from that rage which delivers bodies and souls unto destruction. I beseech you brethren, if anyone has a complaint against another, let us forgive one another as Christ forgave us, that we may be always peaceful, not only in God's churches but at home and in the market place, and with one mind and one mouth glorify our Father in heaven. Apart from this evil catalog of deadly passions associated with pleasure and pain, there are others, which are neither painless nor pleasant, but have their origin in a coming together of opposites. They include sarcasm, flattery, deceit and hypocrisy.

Do you see how subtly misleading and treacherous this world is, with how many evils it encompasses us, and by how many means it separates us from God? It makes us subject to countless passions and removes us in a variety of ways from Him Who is above all passion. That is why the Lord Himself said, "The whole world lieth in wickedness" (cf. 1 John 5: 19), and called the devil the prince of this world (John 12:31), because he is the ruler of the darkness of this age. Do not imagine that the evil one holds sway over heaven and earth and all Creation in between, and is given the name of prince of this world on that account - perish the thought! This is not the world that lies in wickedness. Only He Who has measured heaven with a span, according to the Prophet, and held the earth in a measure (cf. Isa. 40: 12), is the Creator of all. However, the misuse of Creation, the impassioned abuse of our free will, the world of unrighteousness, evil desire and pride, as the beloved disciple of Christ says, are not of the Father (cf. 1 John 2: 16). This is the world that is subject to wickedness, because of our misuse and mismanagement. It is over this world that Satan rules, over the many passions we have listed, which are brought about by our sin-loving will with the evil one's cooperation, and unless we free ourselves from this evil inclination, we shall make him our own absolute master.

-- St. Gregory Palamas - Homily 33

Father Alexander Schmemann on the Eucharistic Gifts

2011-03-15T20:26:00.000-07:00

"[T]he purpose of the Church and of her sacraments is not to "sacralize" portions and elements of matter and by making them sacred or holy to oppose them to the profane ones. Instead her purpose is to make man's life communion with God, knowledge of God, ascension toward God's Kingdom; the Eucharistic Gifts are the means of that communion, the food of that new life, but they are not an end in themselves. For the Kingdom of God is "not food and drink but joy and peace in the Holy Spirit."

-- from "Great Lent: Journey to Pascha"

Triumph of Orthodoxy

2011-03-13T14:08:00.000-07:00

As the prophets beheld, as the Apostles have taught,...as the Church has received... as the teachers have dogmatized,...as the Universe has agreed,... as Grace has shown forth,...as Truth has revealed,...as falsehood has been dissolved,...as Wisdom has presented,...as Christ Awarded,...thus we declare,...thus we assert,...thus we preach Christ our true God, and honor as Saints in words, in writings, in thoughts, in sacrifices, in churches, in Holy Icons; on the one hand worshipping and reverencing Christ as God and Lord; and on the other hand honoring as true servants of the same Lord of all and accordingly offering them veneration.

This is the Faith of the Apostles, this is the Faith of the Fathers, this is the Faith of the Orthodox, this is the Faith which has established the Universe.

-- Confession of faith of the Day of Orthodoxy

Prayer to the Theotokos

2011-03-12T07:42:00.000-08:00

Spotless, undefiled, immaculate, unstained, pure Virgin, Lady, and Bride of God, by your wondrous conception you united God the Word with human beings and joined the fallen nature of our race to heavenly things. You are the only, hope of the hopeless, and the help of those oppressed. You are the ready protection of those who flee to you and the refuge of all Christians. Do not spurn me an accused sinner, though I have made myself completely useless by my shameful thoughts, words, and deeds and through indolence have become a slave to the pleasures of life. But as the Mother of God who loves all people, mercifully have compassion upon me a sinner and a prodigal and receive my prayer though it be offered to you by unclean lips. Entreat your Son and our Lord and Master, using your boldness as a mother, so that he may open to me the loving mercy of his goodness, overlook my numberless transgressions, turn me to repentance, and make me an acceptable doer of his commandments.

Always be near me, for you are merciful, compassionate, and loving. Be my ardent help and protection in this present life, defending me from the assaults of adversaries, and lead me to salvation. At the hour of my death, care for my miserable soul and drive the dark faces of evil spirits far from it. On the awesome day of judgment, save me from eternal punishment and make me an inheritor of the ineffable glory of your Son, our God. May this be my lot, my Lady, all holy Theotokos, through your intercession and help, by the grace and love of your only begotten Son, our Lord and God and Savior Jesus to whom belong all glory, honor, and worship with his eternal Father, and his all holy, righteous, and life giving Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen.

-- From Little Compline with Akathist to the Theotokos

Father Alexander Schmemann on Christian Love

2011-03-11T13:27:00.000-08:00

"Christian love is sometimes the opposite of 'social activism' with which one so often identifies Christianity today. To a 'social activist' the object of love is not 'person' but man, an abstract unit of a not less abstract 'humanity.' But for Christianity, man is 'lovable' because he is person. There person is reduced to man; here man is seen only as person. The 'social activist' has no interest for the personal, and easily sacrifices it to the 'common interest.' Christianity may seem to be, and in some ways actually is, rather sceptical about that abstract 'humanity,' but it commits a mortal sin against itself each time it gives up its concern and love for the person. Social activism is always futuristic in its approach; it always acts in the name of justice, order, happiness to come, to be achieved. Christianity cares little about that problematic future but puts the whole emphasis on the now -- the only decisive time for love. The two attitudes are not mutually exclusive, but they must not be confused. Christians, to be sure, have responsibilities toward 'this world' and they must fulfill them. This is the area of 'social activism' which belongs entirely to 'this world.' Christian love, however, aims beyond 'this world.' It is itself a ray, a manifestation of the Kingdom of God; it transcends and overcomes all limitations, all 'conditions' of this world because its motivation as well as its goals and consummation is in God. And we know that even in this world, which 'lies in evil,' the only lasting and transforming victories are those of love. To remind man of this personal love and vocation to fill the sinful world with this love -- this is the true mission of the Church."

-- from "Great Lent: Journey to Pascha"

I have seen the Christian Church....

2011-03-05T09:15:00.000-08:00

.....and it DOESN'T look like this.....

The Supreme Court was right -- they have a right to express their views. They may even have a right to do it near funerals, though in my heart I don't want to accept that. But they do not have a right to co-opt Christ and His Church. Their view of Christ and His Church should be spoken against and soundly refuted by every Christian who values decency, honor and love.

I could write for 20 pages on what is wrong with their view of Christ, but the simplest explanation is this: God doesn't hate. Not in the sense these people mean it. Hate is an anthropomorphism, something we apply to our understanding of God. But even when we experience God's presence in ways that frighten and chastise us, God loves us. Each and every one of us. We may place ourselves outside that love, but that doesn't change Who God is nor does it say anything about Who God is. It says something about who WE are. If I condemn others for their sins and judge them as these people do, what of MY sin? If "those people" are condemned, what am I? This is Pharisaical self-righteousness in its ugliest form, and at its most logical end.

The "pastor" and "parishioners" of Westboro "Baptist" "Church" (quotes added to make a point, let the reader understand) should work on that plank in their own eye before they decide to remove the specks from the eyes of others. I won't judge them -- Christ will do that. I do know that on that day, Christ will not ask them how many "fags" they condemned, but whether they have fed Him, clothed Him, visited Him in prison and taken him in. He will ask whether they did this for Him by doing it for the least of these, His brethren. I pray the people in the pictures above will one day learn to see Christ in their neighbor rather than Satan. For just as God doesn't hate, neither will hate bring anyone into the Church. Only love can do that.

Kyrie Eleison. Come quickly, Lord.

On justification....part deux....

2011-02-23T16:50:00.000-08:00

Joel in GA wrote a couple of interesting questions in the comment section of my post on justification. His comment was:

David,

Thanks for at least bringing up the subject. I had been wondering. I think that, for Lutherans, limiting the discussion of justification to the question of God's forgiveness will satisfy Lutherans. Otherwise the discussion is apt to drift into other areas.

Does or may an Orthodox Christian believe his sins are forgiven? If so, on what basis are they forgiven--God's mercy in Christ, his own good deeds, or both?

My impression from reading Orthodox literature--and in terms of spirituality I lean more Orthodox than Lutheran in some respects--is that in general Orthodox are like Roman Catholics: always in a state of uncertainty about whether they are forgiven and in a state of grace. Is that impression mistaken?

As I referenced in the comment box on that post, the short answers are "yes, we believe our sins are forgiven, and that is based on God's mercy in Christ -- God's love for mankind and His desire that our sins be forgiven." However, as I also referenced, both the questions and the last paragraph deserve a bit more fleshing out than a combox allows.

I try to avoid deeper theological issues here. I am just too new to Orthodoxy to go about teaching anyone else. I have so much to learn myself. I will try to keep things simple to avoid getting in over my head, but by attempting a response at all, I'm delving into water a bit too deep for my swimming ability. I therefore welcome and appreciate any commentary any Orthodox readers of this blog wish to add.

With that disclaimer, here goes.

1) Salvation is not merely forgiveness of sins

For the Orthodox, forgiveness of sins is part of salvation, but it is not the whole of salvation. And I'm not sure it's entirely accurate that Lutherans view justification as predominately forgiveness of sins so much as God turning us to Himself, giving us faith, etc. There is a distinction between Lutheran and Orthodox views of salvation, I'm just not sure that's it. As with the Orthodox, for Lutherans forgiveness of sins is part of salvation, but as I understand it, it's not the whole of it. Regardless of the Lutheran view, as to the Orthodox salvation is a much bigger, ontological whole than just the forgiveness of our sins. God forgives our sins, and He does so freely. But He does not stop there.

2) Salvation is not caused by our merits, worth or obedience

To answer the second question directly, there is no sense in which our good deeds earn salvation, whether this is defined as forgiveness of sins or something greater than that. Salvation is freely given by God because He loves us. Because He desires to save us. Even limiting the issue to forgiveness of sins, God forgives us ultimately because He wants to. In no sense does He forgive us on account of the fact that we believe, or repent, or do good works, or anything else He sees in us that would cause Him to look upon us with favor. God wishes all to be saved. He saves us because that is His will.

3) Yet obedience is required for salvation

I know, I know. "I see what you did there, Garner. You gave with one hand and took away with the other." But hear me out, because what I said and what I did not say is very important. We do not view salvation as solely a juridical transaction, or a declaration of unmerited favor. It certainly is those things -- God does forgive us, declare us righteous, give us His favor with no credit to us at all. But it is not solely that. In Orthodoxy, salvation is best defined as union with Christ. This is an existential reality, not a judicial one. We are not saved just because God considers us saved, but because God saves us. Really saves us. In Christ and through Him, He changes us from something we were into something He created us to be.

The traditional wording of the Nicene Creed (and the one found in my Service Book and my Prayer Book) is "I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins." Remission and forgiveness can in a sense mean the same thing. Many popular Bible verses referencing "forgiveness" in newer translations are translated as "remission" by the King James Version, the American Standard Version, etc. These include Matthew 26:28, Acts 2:38, and Acts 10:43. The ASV also translates Acts 5:31 as "remission of sins" rather than "forgive." I raise this not to question the accuracy of the later translations, but rather to make a point. If "forgive" and "remit" are synonymous, then "forgiveness" in this sense means a bit more than being declared righteous. When an oncologist announces his patient's cancer is in remission, he does not mean he has declared the cancer to be abating. He means the cancer is actually abating. God's forgiveness does not merely claim that we are not sinners on account of His Son, but rather it actually cleanses our sins, and like cancer in remission, He continues this process through the Sacramental life. When Orthodox refer to the Sacraments as "the medicine of immortality," we really mean it. God is making us to be by grace what He is by nature.

When I first encountered this notion in Orthodoxy that "obedience is required for salvation," immediately my anti-Protestant meter started to peg. It sounded like the same pietistic American Protestant notion that we offer our obedience to God, and that we should grow in Christ to the point that we no longer sin. In certain sects of Protestantism, this typically reveals itself as a Pharisaic self-righteousness, where you have the "Christians" in Church and the "sinners" out there to show us how bad things could be for us if we weren't such good believers. Before I became Lutheran, this translated for me as despair -- I couldn't keep the Law well enough to please God, so I figured I probably wasn't saved. This is not what obedience means in Orthodoxy, and it's not how obedience operates in Orthodoxy.

4) Obedience is not lawkeeping in order to earn favor

Obedience in the sense Orthodox use the term is not merely keeping the Law to try and earn favor with God. Since salvation is not primarily favor with God but rather being made by grace what He is by nature, part of that salvation is being conformed to the likeness of Christ. This means living the life Christ has given us to live. We are obedient not because we hope by our obedience God will find us worthy of salvation, but rather we are obedient because obedience is what salvation looks like. Good works are what we are saved to do.

Every Lutheran worth his salt knows Ephesians 2:8-9:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

But what about Ephesians 2:10?

For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

We are saved, not just so that God may call us sinless, but in order to be conformed to Christ -- to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

But our obedience is not meritorious -- even if we were to be perfectly obedient (and none of us are), we are but unworthy servants. Nor is our obedience due to some autocratic nature in God, as if He tells us what to do in order to boss us around. Obedience in this sense is doing that which God prescribes for us to do, because it is good for us. By way of example, I make my children eat their vegetables and I limit the amount of snacks they are allowed. I don't do this because I enjoy watching my children make faces as they eat or because I want to lord over them to show them who's boss. Nor do I do it in order to make them worthy of their allowances, or their meals, or their clothing, or their shelter, all of which I give them freely as their father. Rather, I do it because it is what is good for them. Because I love them and want them to be healthy and whole. In the same sense, our obedience is required not because God needs it, but because ultimately we need it.

Lutherans believe this too, at least if properly understood. They just place all of this under the category of "sanctification" rather than "justification." Lutherans also tend to equate, in words even if not in actual theology, "justification" with "salvation" and "sanctification" with "the Christian life." But since for the Orthodox, being justified isn't the whole of salvation, we view the organic whole as being part and parcel of what we refer to as "salvation." Viewing salvation as predominately an ontological reality rather than a declared righteousness, it doesn't make sense to the Orthodox to separate the two. A typical Lutheran objection to having to "do something" in order to be saved is that whatever it is that we must "do" we cannot do perfectly enough to please God. But remember -- for the Orthodox, we are not trying to "please God." Rather, we are trying to be whole, to be that which we were created to be. And not because we think it will attain God's favor, but because that is what is good for us. So it doesn't depend on how perfectly we do anything, because we are not talking about merit or worth, but life.

For the same reason, obedience need not lead to self-righteousness in Orthodoxy, nor to despair. We keep fasts, we have prayer rules, we attend Church as faithfully as we convince ourselves we are able. We strive to keep the Commandments and love our neighbor. So we should be in pretty good shape, right? Actually, what ends up happening is in trying to maintain even the slimmest measure of obedience, we learn quickly how inadequate we really are. I can't even keep a simple fast properly. We don't fast from all food -- just meat, dairy, fish, oil and wine. And we can still eat shellfish -- lobster fast anyone? I can't even do that right. It's not that I intentionally cheat so much as even where I keep the letter of the fast, I know in my heart I haven't kept the spirit of it. One can eat the "right" foods and still eat pretty well. Similarly, one can say the "right" prayers and still rush them, or be inattentive, or pay more attention to correcting the kids than to the prayers themselves. In Lutheranism, in our experience, the Law is preached to show us our sin, and the Gospel is preached to declare our forgiveness. In Orthodoxy, this same precept is at work, except in Orthodoxy, obedience is lived and manifestly shows us our sin, and the Gospel is given in the Liturgy and the Sacramental life and unites us to Christ. Again, not necessarily a foreign concept to Lutheranism (for one, Lutherans have a strong sacramental theology), but a difference in approach to be sure.

5) Certainty of salvation versus certainty of Christ and His promises

I can see why this is an issue. When we became Orthodox, something that was a bit of a stumbling block for us is the typical Orthodox understanding that "we cannot know ultimately if we will be saved." This is not, to my understanding, a declaration of our lack of assurance in God, but rather a simple statement of fact. The Orthodox view salvation as threefold -- we have been saved (by Christ on the cross, trampling down death by death), we are being saved (in the Sacramental life of the Church), and we hope to be saved (on the last and final day). Our Lord says "all men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved." Matthew 10:22. We trust in God's promises. We trust in Christ's work for our salvation. We trust in Christ's gifts. What we don't trust is us. I can know that as I stand here today, God forgives my sins, and I am living within the Sacramental life of the Church and therefore being united to Christ day by day. That much is sure and certain. What I cannot know is my future. What I cannot know is what I will do tomorrow, or next year, or in 20 years. And as with obedience, this is not a matter of how perfectly I am living the Sacramental life, but a matter of whether I will continue in it at all.

In addition, it is not ours to judge. While I have assurance of my salvation based on the promises of God, it is still Christ's to judge. Matthew 25. So I cannot judge my ultimate salvation, nor anyone else's, because it is not given to me to judge. That doesn't mean I am uncertain about my salvation. It simply means that ultimately, I have to live with the fact that judgment is given to the Son, not to me. My hope is in Christ's Word, His promises, His gifts. Those are sure and certain. But my judgment is in His hands, not my own. And thanks be to God for that!

I hope this answers the questions adequately. And again, I welcome and humbly request correction from Orthodox readers of this blog who may wish to comment. Please forgive me where I have erred.

Saved in Community

2011-02-04T19:33:00.000-08:00

One of the truly rich things about Orthodoxy is the idea of community. By this, I do not mean coffee hour, or potlucks, or Bingo night, or adult social night. I mean there is a firm belief among the Orthodox that we are not saved in isolation, but rather we are saved in community.

This sense is also present in other communions as well, particularly those who still maintain the historic Western Mass, which notably says in the Preface "....with angels, and archangels, and all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify your glorious Name, evermore praising You and saying, Holy, Holy, Holy......" (the Roman Mass is quite a bit longer than this, but has essentially the same idea at work). I humbly suggest, however, even in those communions it is still not present to the degree it is in Orthodoxy. We view salvation not as an intellectual construct or a declaration of our worthiness to be received into heaven, but rather as union with Christ. We view the Church not just as a gathering of believers, or those who maintain a certain intellectual assent to core doctrines, but as those who are in union with Christ through His Body, the Church. In this sense, when we say "the Church is Christ's Body," we are not saying it is His Body in a merely symbolic or intellectual sense, but in a very real, physical, tangible sense. Again, this is not something entirely lost on the non-Orthodox -- I don't mean to say it is. But in my experience it is uniquely vivid and perceptible in the Orthodox Christian Church. The iconography, the way the Liturgy is done -- never in isolation, always with at least the smallest of congregation present, and the very real and, in Orthodoxy, visible connection with the departed Saints all demonstrate this view that we are saved not by ourselves, but in community with the Church writ large. Looking at an iconostasis and the multitude of iconography in the Church, one is struck by how large this cloud of witnesses really is.

It is also a great comfort. The knowledge that I am not alone, that the Church is there, and will strengthen me where I am weak, that the Saints are not separated by some veil or firmament way up in heaven, but are actually with us, pray for us and strengthen us means I do not have to rely on myself. It is for this reason, in part, that the too-often repeated charge of Pelagianism against the Orthodox falls flat. For what is typically meant by "Pelagian" is "you believe you can save yourself." Rather, I believe the Church can save me, which is no less than to say I believe Christ can save me, for the Church is His Body. The fact that I am a small, insignificant part of that is therefore no credit to me. It is a credit to Christ. Viewed in this sense, I can no more save myself than my thumb can cause the rest of me to live.

I suppose it was inevitable....

2011-01-24T21:45:00.000-08:00

This evening, I posted what must be my 20th or 30th Facebook post related to the Orthodox Church, after having announced our conversion and Chrismation on that very forum nearly 2 months ago. A Lutheran e-friend who didn't get the memo responded and pointedly corrected my comment about enjoying the service for the Feast of St. Gregory the Theologian by kindly informing me today was St. Timothy's feast day. When I mentioned that St. Gregory is in fact the correct feast on the Eastern calendar, he asked why we were on the Eastern calendar. When I told him we had converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and indicated we were Chrismated at the Nativity, this was the response:

"That's too bad. I'm going to unfriend you. Vows are serious to me."

He did, too. He didn't even hang around long enough to read my response. C'est la vie.

Now, don't get me wrong -- I don't really get upset if anyone wants to unfriend me for whatever reason. I've never even met this particular person, so it's not like a childhood friend deciding to never speak to me again. But really? "Vows are serious to me?" This is your hill to die on?

Making a vow....

Let's examine that for a minute. Leaving aside the quite obvious fact that this man's church was begun by a man who violated his own vow of celibacy by getting married to a nun (who, obviously, was also violating her own vow of celibacy with his encouragement), there is another irony here. When I converted to the Lutheran confession, having been Southern Baptist all my life, no one said squat about vows, commitment, promises made to honor God. No one questioned my conversion then. No one wondered if I was committing some grievous sin against my prior promises to God and man then. To be fair, none of the people who were actually there have accused me of breaking my vows now -- that accusation belongs solely to my former e-friend. Further, since this person is a convert to Lutheranism himself (from his Facebook profile -- "formerly a NonDenominational Pentecostal-YWAMer"), I can only assume he has a bit of a double standard when it comes to vows.

The implication, of course, is that by supposedly breaking my confirmation vow, I have lied. If that's how my actions must be viewed, I can live with that. I certainly have worse sins to confess. But before I concede the point and brand myself a liar, lets examine briefly what those vows were.

At my confirmation in the Lutheran Church, I confessed the Apostles Creed. I was asked "Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?" I responded "yes....." and recited the First Article. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son?" "Yes...." Second Article. "Do you believe in the Holy Spirit?" "Yes...." Third Article. "Do you intend to hold steadfast in this confession and Church and to suffer all, even death, rather than fall away from it?" "I do so intend with the help of God." I was asked whether I held the Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God, confessed the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as expressed in the Book of Concord and held the same to be faithful and true, and I responded "I do." I was asked if I desired to become a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and I responded "I do."

Then I was asked if I intend faithfully to conform all my life to the divine Word, to be faithful in the use of God's Word and Sacraments, and in faith, word and action to remain true to God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, even to death. I said "I do."

So here is where the rubber meets the road. When convinced, as I am, that the Lutheran confession is not the fullness of the Faith of Christ, when convinced that the true Church is found in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and when my conscience is bound that "remaining true to God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, even to death" means becoming Orthodox, what am I to do? I have not renounced the Apostles Creed. I have not renounced the Word nor the Sacraments. So exactly which portion of these vows have I broken? Answer: only that portion which binds me to the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Which brings us to the real question: to whom was this vow given and to whom is fidelity owed?

I was asked at my confirmation whether I confessed the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, as taught in the Small Catechism and the Book of Concord. I responded "I do" because I did. I don't anymore. I have been convinced otherwise. And lets be clear -- this is not the same as breaking the "I do" of a marriage vow, because the portion of the vow in question is not directed to God, but to a particular understanding of God. Just as my marriage vows are given to my wife and not my best man or groomsman or even the Pastor, my confirmation vow is given to God, not the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Am I keeping that vow by remaining in a confession I no longer share fully, that I now believe does not fully express His Church? Would I be keeping it by refusing to unite myself to what I now believe is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church merely to avoid stepping on someone's feelings? Should I have remained Lutheran and believed and spoken as if I were Eastern Orthodox? Or should I have just remained Lutheran and lied to everyone about what I believe?

More to the point, by leaving the Lutheran confession and becoming Orthodox, have I somehow disunited myself from Him Who received the promise? If the marriage vow is the parallel here (and I think it is), to whom did I promise myself at my confirmation? I fully understand my former "friend" considers his tradition to be equal to the pure and Holy Word of God, but you know what? So does everyone else. If I determine that is not the case, to whom should I remain faithful? To whom is my fidelity owed? The guy to whom I made no vow, but who nevertheless feels jilted because I disagree with his view of the Christian Faith, or the One to Whom the vow was made?

Martin Luther and Katharina Von Bora

Given these questions, lets take another look at Luther. Did he not take his vows seriously? Does Luther get the same flippant condemnation I received because he married a nun, vows be damned? Or did Luther honestly believe his word was given to a higher authority than the people who criticized him for violating his celibacy vow? Which raises the question - to whom did Luther give his vow? Notably, it was not to Rome, despite the fact his ordination vows required him to be obedient to Rome (another vow he quite obviously broke when he was asked to recant his writings and refused to do so). I contend Luther, bound as he was by his conscience, had no choice but to break these vows. To remain celibate when convinced marriage of priests is an honorable and holy estate sanctioned by the Church Catholic and the Holy Scriptures would make Luther a hypocrite and a liar. To remain faithful to the Bishop of Rome when asked to recant what Luther thought was a clear and accurate exposition of the Word of God would make him, in his own eyes, a heretic. Since Luther's vow was made to God, and since Luther remained in the clergy, he could either break the vows of celibacy and obedience or be truly unfauthful to God by pretending to believe something he thought was contrary to God's Word and Christ's Church. Since my former e-friend is a Lutheran, I'm guessing he would agree with those sentiments. So why is Luther's vow-breaking honorable and mine abhorrent?

At the end of the day, consistency requires us to treat vows into our own tradition the same as vows away from our own tradition. If the person who so indignantly unfriended me takes vows so seriously, he should be consistent and tell all who will listen that they should never convert to the Lutheran confession from another tradition. After all, he wouldn't want to be complicit in someone breaking their vows. Then again, being a convert to Lutheranism himself, maybe not.

I don't mind being "unfriended." I do wish those doing the unfriending would put a half ounce of thought into their reasons for doing so. Kyrie eleison.

Catholicity - finding a silver lining in the cloud of jurisdictionalism

2011-01-18T15:01:00.000-08:00

Because I was away on business, I was unable to attend the feast of Saints Athanasius and Cyril at our home parish Monday night. Instead, I visited St. Paul Greek Orthodox parish in Savannah, where my business had taken me. It was a wonderful service, and the experience struck me as a good example of the Catholicity of Orthodox Christianity.

One of the true clouds hanging over the Orthodox Church in this country is the scandal of jurisdictionalism. Put in simple terms, this is the uncanonical situation where various Orthodox jurisdictions will have Bishops in the same City or geographic area. Canonically, there is supposed to be only one Bishop for each city or geographic area, but in America, we literally have various Orthodox jurisdictions tripping over each other. In Atlanta alone, there are eighteen Orthodox parishes, but those eighteen parishes are spread over eight separate canonical jurisdictions. While I wish to state I am not defending jurisdictionalism, it is in part because of jurisdictionalism that I was able to observe the Catholicity of the Church in practice.

Being recent converts, and having never darkened the doors of an Orthodox Church before the late Spring of 2010, Stephanie and I have limited exposure to various jurisdictional and cultural differences in Orthodoxy. Besides our home parish, we have visited only one other, and that was another Antiochian parish. Rather than a separate parish in our Archdiocese, St. Paul Greek Orthodox Church was a parish not only from another Archdiocese, but in fact a different Antimension from a different Bishop under a different Archbishop within a different Patriarchate.

I confess I harbored a small amount of anticipation as I entered the Church. It is a beautiful parish, as the photographs attest, but I am a new convert and I am rather comfortable with the particulars of the Church of Antioch. Our home parish utilizes familiar translations, almost exclusively uses English in the Liturgy and prayer services, and has the beautiful sing-songy tones that are the hallmark of Arabic Christian liturgy. Going outside that comfort zone, I did not quite know what to expect.

At St. Paul, the Liturgy was mostly in English, but Father Vasile used more Greek that I am accustomed to. That's fine -- I actually understand more Greek than I do Arabic (which is to say "next to none" rather than "almost literally none"), so I was able to follow along without too much problem. The English in use was more modernized -- more "yous and yours" and less "thees and thous." The homily was at the end of the Liturgy rather than in the middle as I am used to seeing. Instead of venerating the cross at the end of the Liturgy, the faithful were invited after the homily to receive the antidiron (blessed bread) and receive a blessing from Father Vasile.

And yet, in the differences, what struck me was the utter sameness. The Liturgy was different in the particulars, but it was still the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in all its fullness. The piety was different in the particulars, but the piety was strong and uniquely Orthodox nonetheless. The Church was laid out differently, but it was still the same iconostasis, the same essential order of icons -- Christ to the right of the Royal Doors, the Theotokos to the left, St. John the Forerunner to Christ's right, the patron Saint of the Church, St. Paul to Mary's left, and so on. If we were all members of one "American Orthodox Church," under the same Metropolitan or Archbishop, with all parishes in the same geographic area under the same Bishop, it would be difficult to observe how the cultural distinctions not only between parishes, but in fact between Patriarchates, still result in fundamentally the same Church. So while I grieve over the jurisdictional problem, and pray it is resolved quickly, I have to confess there is great comfort in actually being able to see with my own eyes that regardless of her local peculiarities, the Church remains truly whole, complete, and full.

I hope my non-Orthodox friends will forgive me this observation, but as I departed St. Paul, a thought occurred to me: "so this is what it means to be One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic!"

On Justification....

2011-01-12T14:53:00.000-08:00

Snow days make you stir crazy. I spent much of my third one going through some old bookmarks, and one of them was Dan Woodring's conversion story (to Roman Catholicism). In it, he reminisced about reading Father John Neuhaus' conversion story (also to Roman Catholicism) years ago, and a complaint resonated a bit with me. Woodring recalled that when he first heard the story, he lamented that Father Neuhaus did not spend enough time talking about justification.

This is a common complaint among Lutherans (Woodring was a Lutheran when he first voiced the complaint), and one I used to frequently voice when I heard conversion stories -- why don't they ever address justification? After all, it's the chief article of the Christian faith, the article on which the entire Gospel rises or falls! I recall wondering whether these new converts had just abandoned this important article of faith and didn't want to talk about it.

So it is that I begin this latest post. I have no intention here to try to espouse an Orthodox understanding of justification, nor to try to write a polemic against a Lutheran understanding of justification. For one, I'm not so convinced the two traditions are that far apart -- I'll say directly that I have not embraced a doctrine of justification that can fairly be viewed as "salvation by works." For another, that's just not the purpose of this blog. For a third, as you will see by reading on, I think it would be impossible to do. What I would like to talk about, however, is my opinion about why this topic comes up so seldom in conversion stories, particularly to the Orthodox Church.

First, the Orthodox Church doesn't really view the article of justification as the "chief article of the Christian faith." That's probably not something that hits converts immediately, but it was pretty apparent to me up front. It's not that justification is not important -- it is. It's more that it's not any more important than, say, the incarnation, or the sacraments, or ecclesiology. The Orthodox tend to view salvation as a more organic whole. Instead of saying "well, if you get this wrong, you get all the rest wrong, too," we tend to see it as "if you get ANY of it wrong, you get it all wrong." We view all of doctrine in a very interdependent way. There is no article of faith that can be segregated out and set above all others. There can be starting points, but there can be no heirarchy of importance. It's all important.

Second, and this is probably more pertinent, the view of justification held by the Orthodox relies upon other Orthodox views that are largely foreign to Protestants. One cannot understand an Orthodox view of salvation without also understanding the Orthodox view of anthropology, person and nature, essence and energies, and numerous other understandings of the person, nature and work of Christ and the nature of humanity and what it means to live out salvation as a human person. Trying to explain Orthodox soteriology to Protestants without first laying this groundwork is fruitless. It will result in the Protestant believing the Orthodox has "abandoned the Gospel," and the Orthodox being hopelessly frustrated with the discussion since the Protestant will be hearing Orthodox words with "Protestant ears." And laying this groundwork takes time, and, more than that, patience on the part of the one hearing the conversion story.

Finally, newly chrismated Orthodox are rarely in a position to be espousing doctrines they themselves have just learned. We can say why we believe what we believe, and we can usually say why we left, what the differences are, etc. But it is neither wise nor appropriate for a student to put himself in a position as teacher. We are still learning. That is one reason I try to avoid polemics on this blog. I am very comfortable discussing Christian "issues." I am less comfortable getting into deep theological discussions, since I have so much yet to learn myself.

For a more in-depth treatment of Orthodox-Lutheran discussions on justification and sanctification, I recommend to your attention this excellent post from my friends at "Orthodoxy for Lutherans."

Good thing we made it to Church yesterday......

2011-01-10T08:02:00.000-08:00

......because in the vernacular of the South in which I grew up and live, ain't nobody goin' nowhere today......

.....and just to let you know it's not just our neighborhood, courtesy of Rachel here is a picture of the Church parking lot and cemetery.......

......and the Church itself......

On Sacred Space and the sanctification of time.....

2011-01-04T08:22:00.000-08:00

From the Energetic Procession blog:

The Divine Liturgy entails sacred acts and sacred words done within a sacred space. Outside of this space, those looking in are just voyeurs. What is the Divine Liturgy if I can fold laundry or pop a cold one while watching it, and do so in my pajamas, or pause it to answer the phone?

My friends at Energetic Procession make a much wider point than I wish to make here, and I refer you to their excellent blogsite for the full post, which is well recommended. My reason for posting this beautiful snippet is to highlight that in the Divine Liturgy and the prayer services of the Church, something truly extraordinary, beautiful and yes, sacred is going on. While it occurs in space that is set aside for the purpose of pointing us to the sacred, it occurs outside of time and space. In short, the Divine Liturgy is a cosmic event, not a local event. The current trend toward de-sanctifying the Church service either ignores that reality or, more likely, confesses the absence of that reality in the place doing the de-sanctifying.

There is a billboard near my parents' home that says "Church for people who don't do Church." How sad that it is not enough to merely "do Church." Similarly, the sign for the Baptist Church next door to the first Lutheran Church we attended said "It's not just church, it's Life" (note the capitalization). I once joked to our then-Pastor we should make our sign read "It's not life, it's just Church."

Food for thought.

We interrupt this Orthodox Christian blog.......

2011-01-02T17:53:00.001-08:00

.......to congratulate the NFC South Champion Atlanta Falcons. Rise up!

Let the little children come to Me, and forbid them not.....

2010-12-28T08:00:00.000-08:00

One of the most amazing things about our journey to the Eastern Church is the impact it has had on our children. It has become somewhat in vogue in Protestant churches of late to exclude or limit participation of children to varying degrees. It is, unfortunately, becoming more and more in vogue in more historic communions as well. Some (in our experience, few) still have the old-fashioned "cry room," where parents are encouraged to take their children if they are unruly for a short time, then return them to the service. Our current parish fits this mold, though the "cry room" is seldom used since most merely remove their children to the Narthex or the front porch for a short period before returning them to the Liturgy. Others have "children's sermonettes" that allow the children to have a portion of the service that is "just for them." Still others have a staffed nursery to allow parents to "drop off" their kids in lieu of having them in the service, if the kids are unruly or if the parents just want a break. And others, in our experience an increasingly alarming number, have "Children's Church" where the kids are excluded from the service entirely.

Now, it is not my wish to criticize those who engage in such practices for their intentions. I firmly believe that those who practice varying degrees of seclusion of children from the worship service have good intentions. Having said that, I believe that the use of the historic Divine Liturgy of the Church is the single best environment for raising children in the Christian Faith and eliminates or minimizes any concerns that may arise about having children present during the worship service.

First, the Liturgy is repetitive. That may seem "boring" to some in theory, but in practice it is anything but. For one, the readings and, for the most part, the hymnody change weekly (actually, daily, but that's another topic for another day). But the more interesting thing is that with the change of seasons, there is change of emphasis. And without going into the movement of the daily, weekly and yearly cycles of the Church year (yet another topic for another day), that change is well thought out and instructive. The repetitive nature of the Liturgy involves things that should be repetitive. Which is to say, the bulk of the Divine Liturgy is drawn directly from Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition of the Church. How many times can one pray the Lord's Prayer, or say the Creed, or sing the Trisagion hymn or the Cherubic hymn, before one gets bored with them and needs to spice things up? To even ask the question is a fool's errand.

Second, the Liturgy is interactive. Put in a crass, materialistic sense, it gives children something to do. But it is not mere crass materialism at work here. Rather, the Liturgy teaches a proper Christian piety, a sense that what is going on is important and worthy of our attention and reverence. Because it is. Even the youngest child can have some level of participation in the Liturgy. All of our children are encouraged to make the sign of the cross, bow, orient themselves properly (i.e., toward the icon of the Theotokos, or the censer, or the priest or deacon), and so forth. They are encouraged to participate in veneration of icons and the Holy Cross. In the Eastern Church, they are blessed to participate in Holy Communion. This level of personal piety has the added benefit of maintaining a child's attention, helping them to behave properly. That is not to say our children are particularly well behaved in Church compared with others -- with three young ones, it is always a struggle to maintain proper behavior by all. But they are better behaved when they are engaged in the Liturgy than when they are not.

Third, the Liturgy has roots. Which is to say, the Liturgy gives children something concrete, unchanging and reliable. The Liturgy in primary use in the Orthodox Church has not materially changed in nearly two millennia, and one could argue has not changed significantly in the entire life of the New Testament Church. Children need structure, and there is no structure better than one which has withstood the test of time. The Liturgy provides them something in their life that is always there, always the same, always comfortable, always familiar. It is reassuring and gives a sense of solidity and security.

If you have noticed the benefits of the Liturgy to children I reference above are also benefits to adults, well, that's probably not a coincidence.

A good example of the practical effect of liturgical worship is our youngest daughter, pictured above. Emily has never "done Church" well. She is a very sweet child, but she is a free spirit, and in a quiet setting is typically loud, unruly, boisterous and bullheaded. And she is still all of those things. At our prior parish, we had an unhistoric form of liturgy (which is to say the liturgy was basically comprised of several portions of the prayer services and Common Service in the hymnal), but the settings were frequently changed and, more to the point, there was no sense of piety such as making the sign of the cross, and other than the Lord's Prayer and the Creed, there was little about the Divine Service in which Emily was expected to participate. While my wife and I still made the sign of the cross, bowed in appropriate places, etc., the example of the parish was a bit more "low church," to use an oft-repeated cliche. Lauren, who always made the sign of the cross before, fell out of the habit, and Abigail and Emily never acquired the habit in the first place. In the Orthodox Church, all three are now engaged and motivated. They want to go to Church, and they practice the piety of the Church. They still need to be reminded, but they are learning more and more where and why this reverence is shown.

When we first began attending the Orthodox Church, after maybe 2 or 3 visits, Stephanie and I were not yet comfortable with a lot of the local piety of the Eastern Church. In particular, we did not venerate icons, the Gospel book or the cross, and while we would make the sign of the cross at appropriate places, we were not particularly comfortable doing metanias, etc. But Emily always wanted to go venerate the cross at the end of the liturgy, so Khouria was kind enough to take her and Lauren and Abby for a blessing at communion and down the aisle to venerate the cross after the Liturgy. After the 2nd time Emily had done this, our priest was talking to us at a table in the parish hall, and as he leaned over the table, his pectoral cross was swinging back and forth. Emily loudly interrupted the conversation by yelling "ah, a cross!" and grabbing it and kissing it. She knew very little about the Christian faith in general apart from her "night night prayers" and the Lord's Prayer, and nearly nothing about the Orthodox Church, but she knew that cross was made to be venerated, and so she venerated it.

What message is being sent here, and what message is being received? What is taught to a 2 year old when she is given the opportunity to venerate icons, the cross, the Gospel? When she is taught to make the sign of the cross when the Name of God is spoken? When she is taught to pray -- even as young as two and a half -- "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us?" When every week she has the Creed and the hymnody of the Church and the prayers of the Church hammered in her ears over and over and over? She is simply being taught the Christian Faith. That Jesus Christ is true God and true man, that He is one of the Holy Trinity, that He is immortal, that He will have mercy on us, that He has given us His Gospel to teach us His Faith, that He lives in His Saints and they in Him. And though she cannot articulate it, these things will stick with her throughout her life and when she is taught them in a more formal manner, she will understand them because she will have lived them for the bulk of her life. She will be able to point to the places in the Liturgy where the concepts she is being taught are lived out.

Conversely, what message is sent when children are excused from the service their parents attend? When they are given a "special" sermon that is "just for them?" When they are absented from the piety of the Church (or worse, when that piety is excluded from the Church entirely)? They are taught that the service is not for them. That the Christian Faith is something that will have to wait until they are older. That nothing particularly important (to them, at least) is going on here. And by the absence of basic piety, the things listed in the preceding paragraph that they are now not taught are possibly more significant than the things that are.

Exclude children from the Divine Liturgy, or alter or remove the Divine Liturgy from the Church entirely, and is it any wonder that when children grow up, they voluntarily absent themselves from something they have been clearly taught is not for them in the first place? But include them in the historic Divine Liturgy of the Church, teach them the Faith by having them live it out, and let them know from the earliest age that this Faith is for them -- as Saint Peter said, "the promise is for you and your children" -- and it is my firm belief that they will be more likely to remain in that Faith throughout their lives. They may not remember, and they may not even know why, but the lessons taught to them in the Liturgy will stick with them long after we forget how cute it was that time they kissed the priest's pectoral cross.

"Let the little children come to Me and forbid them not, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." May it ever be so.

The Seal of the Gift of the Holy Spirit

2010-12-25T07:49:00.001-08:00

Thanks to Joseph, Bridget, Rachel, Ruthie and Danna for sponsoring us.
What a blessed day!

The Divine Liturgy is Relevant

2010-12-17T05:58:00.000-08:00

Call me a lawyer. My appellate practice professor in law school told me once that "every damn thing is argument," and so it is I title this post with a declaratory statement -- an argument -- rather than a question. The Divine Liturgy is relevant. It "meets people where they are." It is sufficient and appropriate to feed Christians Word and Sacrament.

What brings this topic to bear? I am still on a handful of Lutheran e-mail lists, and one of them currently has a quite interesting discussion going on now about worship practices. As is typical among Lutherans, the split is between those who want to maintain the historic liturgy, practice and confession of the Lutheran Church versus those who wish to introduce novel worship practices in order to "meet people where they are" and make the "worship experience" more "relevant." These statements are in quotes not to mock those who made them, but rather to highlight that these are direct quotes -- they are in fact the argument of those proposing novelty.

If I seem to be picking on Lutherans, rest assured that is not the case. For one, most Lutherans I know (i.e., those who might read this) will likely agree with what I say here. For another, while it is a Lutheran e-mail list under discussion, the mindset that says we have to introduce novelty in order to "meet people where they are" is, to be blunt, not Lutheran. To the contrary, it is anti-Lutheran, and I would argue further, outside the unified tradition of the Christian Church.

What struck me about these claims initially is that they epitomize the logical fallacy of question begging. They are not made as questions (hence, I will not respond to them as questions), but rather as assertions. "I am just trying to meet people where they are." "Why is it a problem to try to make the worship experience more relevant to our modern culture?" The question at issue -- whether the Divine Liturgy DOES in fact meet people where they are, and whether it IS in fact, relevant to our modern culture -- is assumed in the negative. The Divine Liturgy, claim the novelists, is not relevant, and does not meet people where they are. I reject both claims. A further assumption is made that the purpose of the Sunday morning worship service is to "meet people where they are" and to be "relevant" to modern culture. I reject this claim as well.

For 2000 years, the Holy Orthodox Church has used the same basic form of liturgy. Has it changed? In small measure, yes. And we, like many more modern liturgical traditions, have different settings. The main setting for the Divine Liturgy is the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which dates back nearly 1700 years. On certain days, we will also celebrate the Liturgy of St. Basil or the Liturgy of St. James, the latter being the most ancient form currently in use. Western Rite Orthodox Churches celebrate the Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great. The Lutheran Common Service is a variation of the Liturgy of St. Gregory. All of these liturgies have commonality. They all can be divided into the Service of the Word and the Service of the Eucharist. They have basic elements in common. And the Christian Church has used this same base form of liturgy for 2000 years to feed the faithful. Are those who would introduce novelty into the Church seriously suggesting that what was presumably "effective" for 1900 years suddenly became "ineffective" in the late 20th and early 21st centuries?

In addition, the purpose of the Divine Liturgy on Sunday morning is not to be "seeker friendly," nor is it primarily to evangelize. The purpose of the Divine Liturgy is to feed. To comfort. To provide. To serve those in need of salvation. My participation in the Divine Liturgy is not to measure relevance, nor to be entertained, nor to convince friends and guests who may visit on Sunday Morning that the Christian faith is the One True Faith. Certainly, the Divine Liturgy may assist in those things, but that is not its purpose. My participation in the Divine Liturgy is to receive God's gifts and return thanks for those gifts. Put another way, it is the purpose of outreach and catechesis to explain the relevance of the Divine Liturgy, but it is not the purpose of the Divine Liturgy to do outreach.

The Church certainly has a mission to spread the Gospel. And this mission may well be overlooked among many Christians of all stripes. To the extent that is a problem, we ought to be about fixing it. But this mission is not predominately centered in the Sunday morning services of the Church nor in the various prayer services of the Church. The Church seeks unbelievers in the world, and invites them to the Church to receive the gifts of God. The means of distributing those gifts have not changed for 2000 years. They should not change now merely because we, in our modern sensibilities, think we have found a better way.

....Entering the Holy Catholic Church....

2010-12-06T09:57:00.000-08:00

After much deliberation, soul searching, prayer, fasting, reading and study, my family and I will become members of the Orthodox Christian Church. This has been a long process, and certainly the "decision" (if it can even be called that) was not made today, or yesterday, or a month ago. Which is to say, this is an announcement of intent, but of an intent that has slowly formed and matured over the last six to seven months or so and which has been present for some time now to a varying (and increasing) degree. We are catechumens at present, and will be received into the Church by Holy Chrismation at the Nativity.

We have been attending St. Stephens Orthodox Church in Hiram, Georgia for the period referenced above. Our lives have been innumerably blessed by being among God's people at St. Stephens, but obviously, enriched lives are no basis for choosing a place of worship. One can make new friends and have good experiences in a heterodox tradition. And leaving old friends is not something lightly done, much less leaving a faith to which we swore ourselves at our confirmation and devoted nearly 10 years of our lives, and into which we baptized all three of our children. So what was it that made us leave?

Put simply, we left our (WELS) Lutheran parish because we became convinced that it, and with it American Lutheranism writ large, is not representative of the Church in her fullest sense. Not, mind you, that no semblance of the Church is ever present among Lutherans, nor among that parish -- we certainly rejoice in the Gospel and Sacraments we were fed there for nearly 5 years, and we rejoice even more for our time with her Pastor and parishioners, who also enriched our lives immeasurably. But as we witnessed continued and ongoing departures from the tradition of the Western Catholic Church (which the Lutheran Confessors sought to maintain rather than destroy), both among this parish and in Lutheranism writ large, we became convinced that the Lutheran tradition -- particularly in America -- has in large measure lost what it means to be the Church. Some are unfortunately throwing it away with both hands.

This is not to say that Lutherans in America are a homogeneous bunch. There are certainly degrees of striving to "be the Church" among Lutherans. Our first (LCMS) Lutheran parish still desires and works earnestly to maintain the doctrine and practice outlined in the Lutheran Confessions, and to maintain the catholicity of the Western Church. It is that desire and the authentic Christian Gospel and Sacramental life that flows from it, in fact, that made us want to be Lutherans to begin with. Authenticity in Christianity is something sorely missing in this country. But at the end of the day, our observation and experience teaches us that this parish is the exception rather than the rule. This is not to denigrate our last parish nor their doctrine and practice. Rather, it is to say that in our observation, our last Lutheran parish represents the rule among Lutherans. It is normative, so much so that out of 29 LCMS congregations and 10 WELS congregations in the metro Atlanta area, one cannot find even one Lutheran parish that closely squares with what we were taught at our first parish in either doctrine or practice, but one can easily find any number of congregations that teach and preach what we received in our last parish (unfortunately for the LCMS, all of those are other WELS congregations -- LCMS congregations in our area are too far gone to be realistically considered "Lutheran" in any real sense). So in the end, the lesson we learned over the last 5 years is we are not Lutheran as normatively defined among American Lutherans, and likely never were. We came to recognize this in observing departures from the Book of Concord and the unified tradition of the Holy Catholic Church among our own parish and Synod, which we enumerate, though not exhaustively, as follows:

- a weakened appreciation for and practice of individual confession and absolution
- a departure from the practice of celebrating the Eucharist weekly and on feast days (for example, my wife mourned that over 5 consecutive Easter Sundays at our last parish, we never celebrated the Eucharist once)
- use of an altered liturgy and too-frequent (though, to be fair, still probably infrequent) departure from the appointed lectionary
- use of individual disposable cups for the Eucharist which were thrown in the trash after reception
- a weakened view of the Office of the Ministry

I should note that none of these issues came about recently -- we knew most of these were issues when we joined the parish, and probably naively thought we could start with what we had and work toward greater Confessional soundness. I would further note none of this explains why we have decided to join the Orthodox Church. Being dissatisfied with Lutheranism is not a good reason to join another tradition. Initially, what drew us to Orthodoxy was honestly mere proximity -- the closest Church that we thought would maintain catholicity in a manner reasonably close to what we believed as Lutherans was St. Stephens. After attending a Great Vespers in the late Spring of this year, the familiarity of the traditional liturgy was comforting -- it was, in short, what we had been missing for 5 years. Over time, what we have seen in our months among the people of St. Stephens and what we have come to believe (or, rather, to recognize) is that she has a rightful claim to be the historic Church of the Apostles, the New Testament Church founded by Christ. We have therefore come to believe that the Orthodox Christian Church maintains the faith of the Apostles in the fullest, most authentic sense. We have also come to recognize in her teachings errors we held to as Lutherans as measured by the Book of Concord, among which include, again not exhaustively:

- a weakened understanding of the role and intercession of the departed Saints
- an amended and, we believe, wrongly altered Nicene Creed
- a weaker ecclesiology that damages the unity of the Church
- a fundamental confusion of person and nature in the doctrines of Original Sin and Justification
- a false dichotomy between faith and works

Having said that, I should also note that we have much to appreciate from our time as Lutherans and our study of the Book of Concord, again not exhaustively:

- a strong understanding of the Means of Grace and the sacramental life
- a strong appreciation for the Liturgy of the Church as the best manner to distribute those Means
- a strong appreciation for Church History and patristics
- a strong appreciation for the cycle of the Church year
- a strong appreciation for the Christian life, prayer, fasting and almsgiving
- a strong appreciation for the Scriptures rightly read in their historical context rather than "me and my Bible"

So while it is with sadness that we announce our departure from Lutheranism, it is not with animosity. We have certainly learned much in and loved much about our nearly 10 years in this fine tradition. At the end of the day, it is conscience that binds us, out of concern for the spiritual well-being of ourselves and our children. As Martin Luther famously noted, "to go against conscience is neither right nor safe." We do not leave angry or embittered, but certainly sad in that we leave many friends behind and have surely disappointed no small number of them. And yet it is with great anticipation and joy that we seek to enter the Holy Orthodox Church, for in the end, we are where we belong. We are home. There is much to be thankful for in that.

Your prayers are appreciated as we approach the date of our Chrismation.

From Lutheran to Orthodox in only Six Short Months

2010-12-03T20:31:00.000-08:00

Well, sort of....(closer to eight by the time our Chrismation rolls around, if we're counting)....

I begin this blog to chronicle our journey from the Lutheran tradition to the Holy Orthodox Church. After much prayer and consideration, we made the decision to leave the Lutheran Church we had been attending, and we have spent the last six to seven months attending an Orthodox Church, struggling with the Faith and learning way more than we ever expected to learn about theology, anthropology, philosophy and history. We are now catechumens, and will be Chrismated soon. While this has been a six month journey, the full story is much longer than that, and will be outlined in greater detail in later posts.

At the outset, I wish to note that I do not intend to engage in a polemical defense of Orthodoxy versus Lutheranism, nor do I wish to in any way denigrate those who remain Lutheran, no small number of whom are among my closest friends. I will likely compose an initial explanation of why we made our decision to leave Lutheranism and, after that, to join the Orthodox Christian Church. That will, of necessity, involve some degree of polemics, statements of belief and confession of the Orthodox faith as contrasted with Lutheran theology. Even then, I hope to do so without any unnecessary offense being given. After that, I intend to speak more to issues that we have seen not only in Lutheranism, but in American Protestantism writ large, as well as our ongoing thoughts and experiences from within the Church.

Any and all comments are welcome on this blog, so long as they are respectful and polite. I look forward to sharing our journey with you.