faq

I am porting this over verbatim from the website of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops. The date on the release is January 20th, but the bill has been submitted only in the last week. Please read the news release carefully, then support Senate Bill 1467, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011.

The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America, which is comprised of the 65 canonical Orthodox bishops in the United States, Canada and Mexico, join their voices with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and all those who adamantly protest the recent decision by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and call upon all the Orthodox Christian faithful to contact their elected representatives today to voice their concern in the face of this threat to the sanctity of the Church’s conscience.

In this ruling by HHS, religious hospitals, educational institutions, and other organizations will be required to pay for the full cost of contraceptives (including some abortion-inducing drugs) and sterilizations for their employees, regardless of the religious convictions of the employers.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. This freedom is transgressed when a religious institution is required to pay for “contraceptive services” including abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization services that directly violate their religious convictions. Providing such services should not be regarded as mandated medical care. We, the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops, call upon HHS Secretary Sebelius and the Obama Administration to rescind this unjust ruling and to respect the religious freedom guaranteed all Americans by the First Amendment.

Look at the two comics below:

 The two comics above let me make a quick comment. Back when I took philosophy, post-modernism had not yet come into its strength. At that time, the traditional response of the modernist was that reason could figure out all the answers if it simply had enough data. I can remember American Episcopalians making a big deal of the fact that they relied on Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. In reality all too many modern Episcopalians simply made Reason the top part of that triad. That is, if they read anything in Scripture or Tradition that they thought was not consonant with Reason, or at least with their reasoning, then they discarded it. And that was the point that got them in trouble, “with their reasoning.”

Over two thousand years ago there were already Greek comedies being written that showed the limitations of reason. For instance, Aristophanes used one of his comedies to poke fun at Socrates. He used Socratic style of argumentation to show in one hilarious scene in one of his comedies that children should beat their parents since they were responsible for the behavior of their children. Ultimately, Episcopalians ran into the same problem. Ancient Greeks already knew that one could play with words to make them say anything that one wished them to say. In that sense, they anticipated some of the post-modernist critiques–not all of them, just some of them.

But, the Greeks did not give up on logic. As an aside, neither did the Indians nor the Chinese, who also did much study in the area of logic. Hmm, as an aside to philosophy majors, yes, I am aware that there are different types of logic, but that is not precisely what is under discussion here. What happened is that over the centuries all three cultures tried to find ways to better express concepts and to determine the limits of logical statements so that what was said was truly what should be understood. When I say all three cultures, I also mean their philosophical descendants, whether in the West or in the East. At the bottom of the search was the desire to know when arguments were valid and when they were not.

That type of thinking all began to be overthrown in the early 19th century by a German philologist named Wilhelm von Humboldt. He began to show that language and worldview are inseparable. This idea did not fully take fruit until the 20th century. But, when the idea took hold, it had some unexpected side effects. You see the side effects in the second comic. Let me set up a contrast for you.

Up until about two-thirds of the way through the 20th century, modernism was in strong control. Logic and science were everything. Humboldt’s ideas had not yet really borne fruit, despite the paradigm shifts caused by Einstein and quantum mechanics. It was still thought that pure logic and science could answer the mysteries of the universe. Post-modernism took care of that idea. It still lingers in some folks such as Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, but in practice it is largely gone. But post-modernism had unexpected side effects in popular thinking. You see, it was all too easy to conclude that all truth is merely and nothing more than matters of opinion.

In the second comic above, the little girl expresses what has become an all too common way to answer any argument with which you disagree or which you do not want to answer. Why, “that is just your opinion,” is the answer that is often given, as though everything the other person has just said has no meaning. That is the populist legacy of post-modernism. It is the misuse of arguments about worldview to intimate that there is no meaning, no truth, in anyone who disagrees with you. Ahem, did you note what I just said. “… no meaning, no truth, in anyone who disagrees with you?” Oddly enough, the post-modernist argument is used to justify YOUR continued beliefs in your assertion. That is, THEIR arguments are tainted with their beliefs, while–AGAINST ALL LOGIC–your beliefs are not anywhere near as tainted!

This is why you often find a Republican saying that someone believes that just because they are a Democrat, or Democrat saying the exact opposite. It is a twisted form of post-modernism, a way of silencing your opponent without having to expend much energy countering their arguments. All you do is simply ignore another’s logic and simply re-state your arguments again as though you had the true perspective on the situation. This is what leads to the talking and shouting heads on the various cable networks. If you notice, they will do some countering of arguments, but mostly they rely on sarcasm and implications of bias and not on logic. This is why TV political debates are often of so little use. TV debates by political candidates are mostly about the ability to react rapidly and to turn a quick phrase, and not about clear argumentative technique. The most modern development, of allowing the audience to chime in with cheers and jeers only goes to point out how much of a non-logical show this is. It is all about gaining emotional support, not simply about gaining reasoned support.

But, that type of attitude has its danger for us Christians. Because once we adopt that attitude, we are in an extreme danger of denying truth, and thereby indirectly denying the One who is the Truth, and beginning to agree with the Father of Lies. No, I am not suggesting that we return to the false certainty of modernism. That has problems of its own, to say the least. But, I am suggesting that we not too easily drop into the attitude of the little girl in the comic. That is the attitude of denying any accuracy in what the other person is saying and going into the post-modernist babble about there being no patterns, etc.

contact

There is an old southern gospel song that has the lyrics:

Sing the wondrous love of Jesus,
Sing His mercy and His grace;
In the mansions bright and blessed
He’ll prepare for us a place.

Refrain:
When we all get to heaven,
What a day of rejoicing that will be!
When we all see Jesus,
We’ll sing and shout the victory!

While we walk the pilgrim pathway,
Clouds will overspread the sky;
But when trav’ling days are over,
Not a shadow, not a sigh.

Let us then be true and faithful,
Trusting, serving every day;
Just one glimpse of Him in glory
Will the toils of life repay.

Onward to the prize before us!
Soon His beauty we’ll behold;
Soon the pearly gates will open;
We shall tread the streets of gold.

So, why am I listening to an old southern gospel song? Well, we had a grand old family reunion today with four generations of people, from great-grandma down to the newest baby, just 14 days old. The kids were running around, the adults were reminiscing, and joy was in the air. We also, of course, shared stories of those whom we love but are no longer with us. Actually, those of us who are Orthodox had the opportunity to explain to those of us who are Baptist that icons are our family photographs that call to us in love and remind us that those who have gone before us, our family, are not dead but alive.

What struck me in the midst of our joy was that old southern gospel song. What a day of rejoicing it will be when we all get together again. At 60, I have both family and friends that I miss and that I look forward to seeing again. Even in the midst of our family reunion, I looked at the generations present remembering the generations not there, as all of us older ones did. That was when that old southern gospel song hit my heart. But, I would say to the songwriters that it is not just the seeing Jesus and the singing and shouting the victory. It will be seeing the Body of Christ, the Family of God, those whom we personally knew and those whom we did not, our family, that will also make it a day of rejoicing and celebration. It will not just be the victory, but also the reunion.

Someday we shall be united with God. Someday we shall see the uncreated light. Someday we shall be reunited with our family and with the rest of the family whom we do not yet know. Meanwhile, these gatherings here, these gatherings now, whether at the Divine Liturgy or even our family gatherings, give us but a small foretaste of the joy that shall be ours someday.

suggest

Okay, I must confess something. I often feel completely inept when hearing the confessions of children. Once they reach the age of early adolescence, I know how to talk with them and how to counsel them. From then on I am comfortable in fulfilling my priestly duties. But, when I hear the confessions of children in elementary school, I am often at a loss.

Perhaps it is because the confessions are so standard at that age. You know, “I disobeyed my parents,” or, “I was mean to my [brother or sister],” etc. I know that there are priests who have had the sad experience of having a child of that age reveal some terrible event. But, I have had the experience that I think is probably more typical of most priests, which is that of children coming to confess the “standard” sins typical of a child that age.

I think part of my problem is that I want to pat them on the head and tell them that it is OK. Except that it really is not OK. A sin is a sin, and I do not want the children to begin building up a  mind habit of thinking that some sins are OK, or even cute. Though it probably sounds petty to some, it is not. Most sins are learned habits that begin with a small violation that is the crack that eventually leads to a big violation. And, becoming careless about certain small sins begins to ever-so-slightly sear the soul which allows one to become careless about bigger sins, in a progression that can slowly lead to mortal sin.

And yet, they are so cute at that age. Yes, I am a doting grandfather to our grandchildren. And, I admit that this carries over to my view of all children of that age range. So, it is difficult for me to find a balance in the way that I speak to those children so that I will neither excuse their sin nor unduly burden them with future possibilities. So, as I said at the begining, I often feel completely inept when hearing the confessions of children. And now you have heard MY confession to you.

This is the second year in which this area of Alabama has been hit by strongly destructive tornadoes. Yesterday tornadoes swept through the Birmingham area and destroyed hundreds of home. For the second year, a tornado passed near where we live. Yesterday, as I was driving in to the VA Medical Center I again saw the damage. A large manufacturing complex now looks like a WWII bombing photograph. The barber shop where I would normally go for haircuts is now gone. I hope that the barber can find a new shop. As I drove in to the Medical Center yesterday, I saw the rescue vehicles and the K-9 cars. They will still be at work today.

The city has been fortunate this year. It appears that only two people have been killed so far. But yet again there will be massive rebuilding costs, yet again families are left without belongings.

Do pray for the people in what used to be housing subdivisions, for the dead, the injured, for those who lost the place where they worked and are now unemployed, for the rescue crews that they might not be injured.

For this city, and for every city and land, and for the faithful who dwell therein, let us pray to the Lord.

For travelers by sea, by land, and by air; for the sick and the suffering; for captives and their salvation, let us pray to the Lord.

For our deliverance from all tribulation, wrath, danger, and necessity, let us pray to the Lord.

Help us; save us; have mercy on us; and keep us, O God, by thy grace.

Calling to remembrance our all-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, with all the Saints, let us commend ourselves and each other, and all our life unto Christ our God.

For unto thee are due all glory, honor, and worship: to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages.

AMEN

I remember in seminary discussing the issue of slavery. No, no one was in favor of slavery. Rather, the discussion was a Biblical and historical one. First was Saint Paul really against slavery, or was it something that he tolerated as part of the existing social order and part of Israel’s history? For those of you who are not aware, among the laws found in the Old Testament are a whole set of laws dealing with the care and treatment of slaves. So, since there is no set of Scriptures actually calling for slaves to be freed, was the Early Church against slavery?

The discussion would go on through the Letter of Saint Paul to Philemon, and various other passages, to try to show that though the Apostles did not call for slaves to be freed, yet they were philosophically against it. It is commonly argued, by almost all Christians, that for the Apostolic Church to have been openly against slavery would have been for that Church to have been proscribed and wiped from the Empire. But, the problem was that after all the analyses were done, there is no overt condemnation of slavery in the New Testament. One need only read some of the most famous pro-slavery writings from 19th century USA to see that there were various pastors who openly quoted Scripture to show that God did not forbid slavery, he only regulated it. Some of the more audacious writings even claimed that physical slavery could have a teaching purpose in God’s plan just like the Law held us slaves to sin in order that we might learn an important lesson.

But, what was never discussed in our seminary classes was what happened after Constantine. Like most Protestant seminaries (excluding the Lutherans) there was this large blind spot that, with a few exceptions like Saint Anselm, etc., stretched from the third century AD to the 15th century AD. That is, the history was most certainly covered, as well as the main theological developments favorable to the Reformation. But, there was little concern to actually understand how various issues were addressed. And, there was most certainly a massive blind spot towards the Eastern side of the Roman Empire, that survived for many centuries after the fall of the Western side of the Roman Empire. I cannot remember any theological developments being presented from the East much after St. Augustine. And, frankly, I cannot remember any coherent presentation of the Church and its beliefs after Constantine. Rather, events and theologians were picked as needed, with the hidden implication that the Church had so fallen that there was little worthy of study. It was admitted that the Great Ecumenical Councils were highlights, but they were as highlights in a landscape shrouded with gloom, dirt, and decay.

As a result, liberal and progressive theologians have used the issue of slavery to support their argument for a developing understanding of Christianity, one that relies on the continuing revelation of the Holy Spirit to lead us ever into new truth. It is no surprise that the issue of slavery is often used, in various ways, to buttress any argument for change away from what has been received. The argument by liberals and progressives goes: neither Jesus nor the Apostles nor the Apostolic Church ever condemned slavery openly; the condemnation of slavery waited until after the Protestant Reformation; the Church learned that condemnation as it was inspired by new revelation from the Holy Spirit; therefore this shows that you should not be against the new revelation that we have received; in fact your opposition to our desired change proves that you are not led of the Holy Spirit!

Thus it was with pleasure that I became aware of a post within the last couple of days that gave a very brief sampler from the post-Constantine Fathers on the issue of slavery. It was there that I finally had the opportunity to read what various of them had to say, once they had the freedom to speak out. That is, these Fathers that had received a deposit of faith, what did they consider that deposit to be regarding slavery? I think you will be pleased with what they said, for it does bear out the argument that the correct theological stance is to be against slavery (not that I had any doubt).

I received permission to port the post over so that you can all read it. So, read below and enjoy! If you click on the title you will be taken to the website as well.

=============

The Church Fathers and Slavery

By Demetrios Constantelos

Many monks contributed much toward a more just and moral society. From the ranks of the monks emerged the earliest condemnation of slavery. Gregory the Theologian, bishop of Nazianzus first, and later Patriarch of Constantinople, denounced the practice of holding slaves. His friend Basil of Ceasarea did not favor it but tolerated the institution as an established evil. Their contemporary Eustathios of Sebasteia condemned slavery and even advocated revolts by slaves. Later in the eighth and early ninth centuries, Theodore the Studite denounced slavery and forbade monks to possess, and the monastery to employ, slaves. In his rules for the hegoumenos of the Studios Monastery, Theodore advised: “You shall not possess a slave either for your own use or for your monastery or for the fields, since man was created in the image of God.” Eustathios, the twelfth century monk, archbishop of Thessaloniki, and critic and reformer of monasticism, condemned slavery as an evil and unnatural institution and advocated manumission.

- Christian Faith and Cultural Heritage: Essays from a Greek Orthodox Perspective, p. 162.

Symeon of Thessaloniki (+ 1429), in various questions set forth by the bishop of Pentapoleos Gregory, was asked the following question: “Which is more important and valuable, to help in the release of a captive or to distribute an amount to ten poor people?” Symeon’s position indicates the care of the Church which often emphasized the duty of Christians to liberate captives and slaves.

…

Generally the Byzantine community did not simply pray for “the captives and for their salvation” as one of the petitions of the Divine Liturgy says, but it offered what it could towards purchasing their release by often paying large sums.

- Poverty, Society, and Philanthropy in the Late Mediaeval Greek World

international contact

I am not only a priest, I am also a citizen of this country. As such I feel it my civic duty to listen to at least some of the debates going on during the primary season. This primary season that has meant only the Republican debates since there is no opposition to President Obama on the Democratic side. As I have listened, some of the candidates have dropped out of any possible contention in my mind. But, it has not only been in my mind only, but obviously also in the mind of many others since the field is now down to five people as of yesterday’s debate.

There are other candidates that are obviously riding the tide of Republican popularity. Right now Romney is trying to seal the Republican nomination. Santorum and Gingrich are now tied but steadily dropping behind Romney, but Ron Paul is almost even with them though technically in fourth place. As I listened to them, I found myself with a grudging respect for Ron Paul in several areas, though I doubt that he has any chance for the Republican nomination.

I found that he is the one who most would use the phrase that those who are really conservative must hold views that are consistent with the claims of free market conservatism. To that end he chastised his fellow conservatives on a couple of points that I found to be interesting. He said that the country’s approach toward the military needs to be as consistent as the conservatives’ approach toward economic policy. That is, he said that if conservatives say that it makes no sense to simply throw tax money at the economy then it makes no more sense to simply throw tax money at the military. He quoted President Eisenhower who warned about the military-industrial complex and warned that there is a difference between spending money on the military and spending money on defense. I found that to be an interesting distinction. He then pointed out that it makes no sense to have military scattered around the world in over 100 bases, many of them bases that no longer meet a military need, but rather are there for political purposes. He said that if conservatives would be against economic programs being kept for political purposes then conservatives should be against bases being kept open for political purposes.

Ron Paul was also the only one who argued that we cannot find peace in Afghanistan until we understand the difference between the Taliban and Al-Quaeda. His point was that Al-Quaeda is the party who wants to come here and hurt us while the Taliban are folks who simply want any foreigner out of their country and have little intention of going outside the Afghanistan/Pakistan area. He was also concerned that the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes has taken us dangerously out into the arena in which we become the aggressor rather than the defender. That is, as he pointed out, a pre-emptive strike is a strike that takes place BEFORE we have been attacked, based simply on someone’s fear that a foreigner might attack. As Christians we ought to be very concerned about this change in just-war doctrine, a doctrine whose beginnings date back to the days of the united Church, long before the Great Schism.

Let me point out that on financial issues Ron Paul is considered to be on the “far right” of the spectrum. But, what I noticed was not whether he was on the “far right.” Rather, what I noticed was his insistence that our policies must be consequent with our beliefs in each and every area of our policies. More than that, he consistently denounced a simplistic approach toward the problems that beset us, but argued that there needs to be an accurate understanding and not a stereotypical understanding.

Do I agree with everything he says? No, I do not agree with him on many issues. And I was certainly horrified with the quotes from the 1980′s and 1990′s in one of the magazines to which his name was attached. But, I can have a grudging respect for someone who strives to be consistent in carrying out what he says he believes in every area of his political platform. More than that, he was openly booed several times, but stuck to his guns, which showed a certain degree of courage. Consistency is something that is normally sorely lacking among politicians. In fact, I wish that many more politicians–on both sides of the spectrum–would be as consistent and consequent in their politics as Ron Paul appears to be.

Interestingly enough, Saint James tells us to let our “yes” be yes and our “no” be no. We most definitely need to pray that our politicians, of whatever stripe, learn to be men and women who learn to say what they believe and then behave in a consequent way. Frankly, we need to pray the same thing for ourselves.

One thing did bother me about the debate, and that was the audience. It has not improved our political campaigns that it is now considered normal to interrupt a speaker with boos and even drown him out to the point that he must pause before he continues. I am not for either side engaging in the stifling of viewpoints with which you do not agree. There was entirely too much of that going on.

help

suggest

When one spends several years as a missionary, one does not always realize what one picks up from another culture until some time has passed back in the home culture. In my case, I just saw something one of our daughters picked up during our years in mission. You see, we went to missions as adults. But, our daughters went overseas during their formative years. Thus, while we learned many customs and learned how to adjust to them, it was a little different for our daughters. Our daughters did not precisely learn foreign customs. For them, they learned two sets of customs as part of their formation.

One set of customs were the customs used around the house and when we were on furlough. They were the customs of the “home” country, a place which they remembered and in which they actually lived less than they did in overseas locations, until we returned permanently to the USA. The other were the “street” customs, the customs of the country in which we lived. Those customs could be and were, at times, quite different from the customs of the home. Thus, we were much more egalitarian at home than in some of the cultures to which we ministered. But when we went on vacation down to the beach, we were a bit more conservative than some of the “European” culture swimsuits that we would see.

But, as I commented earlier, customs were mixed and matched, so that both we and our daughters will often tend to follow the custom which makes it easier or is more comfortable. So, today we are visiting our oldest daughter and our newest grandchild, who was just born this past week. Since this is the second child, she is faced with both taking care of a two-year old and keeping tabs on a newborn. So, she is using the same solution as generations of Altiplano Quechua women. (Note: the Altiplano are the high plains of the Andes Mountains of South America, around 10,000 ft. altitude). She took a blanket, folded it correctly (as per Quechua usage), and slung it around her shoulder and waist to form a sling that allows her to carry her baby safely, while walking around the house, doing chores, and keeping track of her oldest child.

Of course, the Orthodox love Holy Tradition, but this is not that. Yet, it is a loving tradition that has been passed down by generations of mothers, so that baby can be with them, slung in such a way that they can keep track of baby, and in such a way that baby can be easily fed “naturally.” I guess, in that sense, one could say that it is a tradition that is holy, a tradition that strengthens the bond between mother and child, and one that allows for a mother’s constant watchcare. We need more of that type of tradition being passed down in the Church and in society, from mother to daughter, from father to son.

A recent attack advert came out against Romney. Sadly, the attack advert points out yet again what many of us feared, particularly those of us who have lived in more than one country. You can see the attack advert above. [Note: what Romney is saying in French on the top advert is NOT what is being printed below him on the screen. That is a false translation.] Xenophobia is now such a strong part of the American landscape that such an advert against Romney has a significant chance of getting people to not vote for him. Please note, this has nothing to do with whether I support Romney or not. This has to do with the rising tide of xenophobia that those of us who have been born in other countries can see growing and growing.

It started with the argument that we need to enforce the law against those who have come here illegally. And then there was the argument that only English should be spoken in the USA, despite the fact that Puerto Ricans have never had to speak English, and those in Guam and Micronesia have other languages, and Native Americans do as well. But, finally the xenophobia has grown enough that even someone born in the USA and who dares to know a different language can be the target of an evil attack advert.

But, this brings up an interesting problem for many of us who are Orthodox. When I am at a Greek Orthodox Church, I do some of the litanies in Greek. Am I then not fully American? What about those who are Antiochian Orthodox and use some Arabic? They are using the language of the enemies of the USA. Are they to be chastised with attack adverts because they use a foreign language in some of our worship?

But, here is what should make every Christian, Orthodox or not, ashamed of that attack advert. Do you know why Romney knows French? Because he was a missionary to France in the 1960′s! I am not in favor of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. But, when did being a missionary who learns another language become transformed into an opportunity to degrade a person?

For those of us who are Christians, we should be ashamed of any advert that degrades someone who served as a missionary, based on the language they learned in order to fulfill their mission, even those who served in a group that is considered to be heretical.

service

From ABC News:

Somali pirates may be terrorizing the waters off of East Africa, but maybe they should pick their targets a little more carefully and stop targeting European warships.

Earlier today, some Somali pirates got a little too greedy and attacked the Spanish warship serving as the flagship for the European Union’s fleet of ships carrying out a counter-piracy mission off of Somalia.

Needless to say, it wasn’t a fair fight.

At first light Thursday, the Spanish warship ESPS Patino had just completed escorting a ship carrying food aid into the Somali capital of Mogadishu. In addition to a counter-piracy effort, the EU’s main mission is to escort freighters carrying food from the World Food Programme.

That’s when a skiff carrying six pirates sped towards the warship and the pirates began to fire their light-caliber weapons at the ship in an attemp to board it.

The Patino’s crew immediately began to fire back in self-defense and launched the ship’s helicopter.

The pirates realized they were outgunned and broke away from the attack, but eventually surrendered to the helicopter. But only after first throwing their weapons, ladder and fuel barrels overboard. …

Hmm, somehow this appears to be something closer to Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean that any real life pirate tale. I must wonder at what sort of logic convinces six people to attack a warship with light weapons!

international