George Macdonald said, "The Son of God suffered onto the death, not that men might not suffer, but that their sufferings might be like his." (Unspoken Sermons, First Series)
The above quote I found in the preface of C.S. Lewis' "The Problem of Pain." I was struck by the profound truth in this saying. I found myself reflecting on it throughout the whole day.
I thought about how we presently view death and suffering and how we are supposed to view it according to the teaching of the Gospel. When dealing with pain and suffering, it seems that today's society offers us one of two options; 1. We attempt to avoid the subject all together and concentrate on health, vitality, superficial beauty and youth, or 2. Many religions (even those professing to be Christian) attempt to pass off their "spirituality" as a way to somehow magically escape from pain. Not one of these attempts to deal with the problem head on.
Perhaps the reason for this is that we are all afraid of pain; and rightfully so. We are human and it is natural to attempt to avoid pain at all costs. Physically, our bodies gain nothing from experiencing it (except discomfort) and, without the proper spiritually training, psychologically, we are many times damaged by it. All in all pain is something to be avoided.
It is this great misconception that leads people to question why God allows pain to exist. This questioning is exceptionally poignant in those purported believers who have been duped into believing that Christianity would deliver them from all pain and sorrow. What they fail to realize, and indeed what most of the world fails to realize, is that deliverance from sorrow is very much different from deliverance from pain and suffering.
This is evident throughout scripture. If we pay attention, we will notice that Christ deals with pain in a very different way than most of us would picture Him doing. Although Christ does heal the sick and the suffering, we notice that he first inquires as to the state of their souls and then remedies their bodily ailments. In many instances, Christ continues to give spiritual advice even after the bodily illness is cured. This tells us two things; 1. Christ is more concerned about the well being of the soul, 2. Healing is only a by-product of a strong and healthy soul. However, the healing itself is not the object of the lesson, repentance is.
Did it not ever strike anyone that Christ deliberately waited for Lazarus to die before raising him. The scripture says that he waited in the place where he was for two more days before even setting out to heal his friend! If God was only interested in relieving his friend Lazarus from his pain, he would have hastened to spare him the torment of dying. However, when asked about Lazarus, Christ told His disciples that Lazarus was dead and that He was glad for their sakes that he wasn't there, so that the grace of God could be manifest. This is the true teaching that the gospel account conveys. There is a deliverance that can only be found at the other end of suffering. Just as Christ endured crucifixion, so pain has it's medicinal properties as well.
As Bishop Kallistos once said, "Never did Christ promise that he would deliver us from pain and suffering. However, He did promise to walk by our side as we go through it." This is accomplished in Him suffering and dying as we do. The cross exists not so we do not suffer, but so that we do not suffer needlessly! The difference between a true Christian and a none believer is that the Christian sees pain and suffering as a source of learning and spiritual enlightenment, while the non-believer sees it as a source of sorrow. Christ's death and resurrection gives our death purpose just as the Martyrs' deaths gave them joy in emulating their Lord. It is this faith that delivers us from sorrow in the face of pain and suffering!
In today's world, such a message is not a popular one. Humility does not sell and patience, fortitude, perseverance and hope are in short supply. To deny the reality of pain is to deny our own capacity to move past that pain. In essence, we deny our potential to face and overcome our own mortality and in doing so, we deny the hope of the resurrection.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Friday, October 05, 2007
Those Who Are Lost
In "The Problem of Pain" C.S. Lewis writes,
It may be that salvation consists not in the cancelling of these eternal moments [moments of sin] but in the perfected humanity that bears the shame forever, rejoicing in the occasion which is furnished to God's compassion and glad that it should be common knoweledge to the universe. Perhaps in that eternal moment [even] St. Peter - forever denies his Master. If so, it would indeed be true that the joys of Heaven are for most of us, in our present condition, 'an acquired taste' - and certain ways of life [sins committed] may render that taste impossible of acquisition. Perhaps the lost are those who dare not go to such a public place.
I find this view of heaven and hell quite insightful because in emphsizes "our" choice in whether we experience eternal bliss or eternal torment. It is true that both heaven and hell are filled with sinners. However, as Lewis points out, those in heaven are the ones who are not afraid to face their sins. They are glad to have them exposed so that they may learn from them and move beyond them.
The alternative is for those who attempt to cover their sins. In essence, they deny their wrongdoings and attempt to hide their shame. They cannot come to terms with the evil they have done and fear that they will be exposed. In this way, they hide in the darkness where even more evil can grow. It is no wonder that when faced with a future in a place of pure light and love, such people prefer the outer darkness.
It may be that salvation consists not in the cancelling of these eternal moments [moments of sin] but in the perfected humanity that bears the shame forever, rejoicing in the occasion which is furnished to God's compassion and glad that it should be common knoweledge to the universe. Perhaps in that eternal moment [even] St. Peter - forever denies his Master. If so, it would indeed be true that the joys of Heaven are for most of us, in our present condition, 'an acquired taste' - and certain ways of life [sins committed] may render that taste impossible of acquisition. Perhaps the lost are those who dare not go to such a public place.
I find this view of heaven and hell quite insightful because in emphsizes "our" choice in whether we experience eternal bliss or eternal torment. It is true that both heaven and hell are filled with sinners. However, as Lewis points out, those in heaven are the ones who are not afraid to face their sins. They are glad to have them exposed so that they may learn from them and move beyond them.
The alternative is for those who attempt to cover their sins. In essence, they deny their wrongdoings and attempt to hide their shame. They cannot come to terms with the evil they have done and fear that they will be exposed. In this way, they hide in the darkness where even more evil can grow. It is no wonder that when faced with a future in a place of pure light and love, such people prefer the outer darkness.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Building the Building
A good friend of mine and fellow seminarian recently said to me, "The generation of priests before us built buildings, but our generation has to build Churches."
This struck me as very wise and insightful. Actually it is one of the most insightful things I have heard in a long time. Although it may sound derogatory to the older generation, implying that the churches they built were not really "churches," I do not believe it is meant in this way. However, I do believe that the statement is a very accurate observation of the cultural divide between the "old" and "new" generations of priests in Canada.
This mainly stems from the fact the we, the "new" generation do not respond to the type of ministry that previous generations responded to. Now, I am not talking about cultural conditioning, new world mentalities, or even language barriers. I am talking about a very different understanding of how the Church should be proceeding into the new millennium. What we are seeing is a shift in the most fundamental beliefs of progress and ministry within the clerical ranks.
This is happening for two reasons: 1. The "new" generation did not grow up in a village type environment where religion was not questioned and the social norm was being Greek Orthodox. 2. We are neither illiterate nor stupid, and this is a dangerous combination in a multicultural society like Canada, where we are bombarded by multiple philosophies, religions, and the latest trends.
The "old" generation comes from an experience of the church that is much out dated for today's society, and ironically out dated for even the Byzantine times. I say this because the type of Orthodoxy that many of the "old" generation know and love, is the type that is fit only for peasant Greece under Turkish occupation. By this I mean simple, sometimes blind, faith based mostly on the sayings of monastic writers (who were the main influence during that time) with little regard for high theology or an ecumenical attitude. Namely, they are in many ways as far from Byzantine Orthodoxy and Zoroastrianism is from Christianity.
Again, let me repeat that I do not say these things to belittle our older generation. I have the highest respect for them and their traditions. It's just that they have great difficulty realizing that many of "their" traditions are not "our" traditions, and furthermore, they are not the "churches" traditions either. This is because during Turkish occupation the Greek nation lost most of its literacy and understanding of high theology by descending into a world of fear, oppression and superstition. It is only in the past century, and really the last 60-80 years that we have the patristic writers at our disposal again! They were lost to us for nearly half a millennium and yet we believe that what our grandparents practised only 60 years ago is the most important witness to authentic Orthodoxy.
Chrysostom said that "bad traditions, even if they have existed for many years, should be disregarded if they are found to contradict the faith." This is the situation we are in now. The "old" generation is set in its ways. It has a vision of what the Church is and where it should be heading. This vision mostly revolves around building large churches, filling them with expensive iconography, establishing Greek schools and dance groups, and having Sunday schools running during Liturgy to keep those pesky children out of the way of the real adults who want to do the real praying.
Conversely, the "new" generation is a seeking culture. It wants to know and learn and be engaged in its faith. It is well educated and willing to participate in worship. It does not want to accept things "just because" or on "blind faith." It demands more from it's teachers, it's clergy and parish councils. It does not want to be tucked away in some church basement, colouring icons and reciting the Creed until it is blue in the face. It does not take hypocrisy well, nor does it simply accept explanations that are not only shallow, but illogical.
To minister to such a generation, priests must turn their attention away from the fundraising, the gold plate dinners and the enormous preoccupation with having the biggest dome in Canada. They must begin devoting resources to the Church's most precious commodity; its people. They should not be wasting 95% of the their time on buildings that will be empty in 20 years because they were too busy to write a sermon on Sundays. It is time to stop building buildings and start building Churches! We must focus on congregations, knowledge and spirituality, not icons, domes and paving parking lots. Those will come in due time. Seek ye first the Kingdom of heaven and everything will be added to you.
This struck me as very wise and insightful. Actually it is one of the most insightful things I have heard in a long time. Although it may sound derogatory to the older generation, implying that the churches they built were not really "churches," I do not believe it is meant in this way. However, I do believe that the statement is a very accurate observation of the cultural divide between the "old" and "new" generations of priests in Canada.
This mainly stems from the fact the we, the "new" generation do not respond to the type of ministry that previous generations responded to. Now, I am not talking about cultural conditioning, new world mentalities, or even language barriers. I am talking about a very different understanding of how the Church should be proceeding into the new millennium. What we are seeing is a shift in the most fundamental beliefs of progress and ministry within the clerical ranks.
This is happening for two reasons: 1. The "new" generation did not grow up in a village type environment where religion was not questioned and the social norm was being Greek Orthodox. 2. We are neither illiterate nor stupid, and this is a dangerous combination in a multicultural society like Canada, where we are bombarded by multiple philosophies, religions, and the latest trends.
The "old" generation comes from an experience of the church that is much out dated for today's society, and ironically out dated for even the Byzantine times. I say this because the type of Orthodoxy that many of the "old" generation know and love, is the type that is fit only for peasant Greece under Turkish occupation. By this I mean simple, sometimes blind, faith based mostly on the sayings of monastic writers (who were the main influence during that time) with little regard for high theology or an ecumenical attitude. Namely, they are in many ways as far from Byzantine Orthodoxy and Zoroastrianism is from Christianity.
Again, let me repeat that I do not say these things to belittle our older generation. I have the highest respect for them and their traditions. It's just that they have great difficulty realizing that many of "their" traditions are not "our" traditions, and furthermore, they are not the "churches" traditions either. This is because during Turkish occupation the Greek nation lost most of its literacy and understanding of high theology by descending into a world of fear, oppression and superstition. It is only in the past century, and really the last 60-80 years that we have the patristic writers at our disposal again! They were lost to us for nearly half a millennium and yet we believe that what our grandparents practised only 60 years ago is the most important witness to authentic Orthodoxy.
Chrysostom said that "bad traditions, even if they have existed for many years, should be disregarded if they are found to contradict the faith." This is the situation we are in now. The "old" generation is set in its ways. It has a vision of what the Church is and where it should be heading. This vision mostly revolves around building large churches, filling them with expensive iconography, establishing Greek schools and dance groups, and having Sunday schools running during Liturgy to keep those pesky children out of the way of the real adults who want to do the real praying.
Conversely, the "new" generation is a seeking culture. It wants to know and learn and be engaged in its faith. It is well educated and willing to participate in worship. It does not want to accept things "just because" or on "blind faith." It demands more from it's teachers, it's clergy and parish councils. It does not want to be tucked away in some church basement, colouring icons and reciting the Creed until it is blue in the face. It does not take hypocrisy well, nor does it simply accept explanations that are not only shallow, but illogical.
To minister to such a generation, priests must turn their attention away from the fundraising, the gold plate dinners and the enormous preoccupation with having the biggest dome in Canada. They must begin devoting resources to the Church's most precious commodity; its people. They should not be wasting 95% of the their time on buildings that will be empty in 20 years because they were too busy to write a sermon on Sundays. It is time to stop building buildings and start building Churches! We must focus on congregations, knowledge and spirituality, not icons, domes and paving parking lots. Those will come in due time. Seek ye first the Kingdom of heaven and everything will be added to you.
Monday, September 17, 2007
A Whole Lot of Nothing
I just finished a very gruelling weekend of sacraments. We actually had 11 weddings and baptisms over two days! Very tiring and definitely a good example of the "Burger King Parish" phenomenon. Still, through all these events, in which people have come to the church to either become Orthodox Christians through baptism or to be married in the eyes of God, I cannot help but worry about the future.
Over the years I have participated in hundreds of weddings and baptisms and in over 95% of the cases (this is NOT an exaggeration) the participants did not know the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, or even how to Cross themselves. It is very disconcerting to see young couples, their wedding parties, and even their parents, come to the church and not even know the basic elements of their faith.
In Baptisms we can gleam the reason for this spiritual bankruptcy that is infiltrating our church. In the last 5 years, I do believe I can recall only one Godmother who knew and could recite the Creed by heart. Only one among hundreds that I witnessed! We have gotten to the point where the Godparents not only read the Creed out of the priest's book, but they cannot even pronounce the words properly, which indicates this is their first time reading it!
If we ask ourselves why young adults do not know the basics of the faith, it is easy to accept this knowing that they had no guidance or spiritual education when they were young. These days, the role of the Godparents is seen as a honorary role that only requires one to buy nice gifts for the child on special occasions. Most believe that such things are left up to the parents, to raise their children in the Orthodox Faith. However, the parents know even less.
Now, in many parishes across Canada, these kinds of situations can easily be avoided. How? Education, education, education! We get angry at parents who choose unsuitable Godparents or unsuitable "koumbaroi" for their weddings, but we do not do a good enough job in educating our people as to what type of people they should be selecting for these roles. In most parishes there are no wedding counselling or marriage preparation courses, no baptism pamphlet given out or catechism held for those coming into the faith! There is virtually no preparation or education whatsoever!
The most common excuse that most priests give is that they have no time and no man power to perform all these ministries. Although being shorthanded is partly true, it is not a good enough excuse to neglect the spiritual education of the people. What can be more important? What is more crucial to the future generations of our church? Are our people less important that putting icons on the wall? Are our people less important than community centres and banquet halls? Are our people less important than all the materials things we put before them?
We spend so much time, effort, and money on all the material needs of the church and we forget that the spiritual needs are the most important. If parishes do not have a significant budget for religious education in their community, then it won't matter how many community centres they build, or how beautiful the icons are. In 20 years there won't be anyone left to look at them; the community centres will be empty. We boast about or buildings while our people do not know the Creed. We boast about our nice tiles and double headed eagle mosaic on the floor, but our people do not know the Lord's Prayer. We boast about the latest trip to the Holy Land, Greece, or any other European locale; whatever distracts us from God's calling to preach the Word, while our people do not even know what time Liturgy starts on Sunday!
And for some reason, we priests do not even mention this from the pulpit! We do not preach against this situation! We do not educate! We have learned the magic word; ACCOMMODATION! We accommodate our people. We accommodate their likes. We accommodate their dislikes. We accommodate their spiritual laziness. We accommodate their ignorance of the faith. We accommodate so much that we start confusing accommodation with LOVE! We start saying that we have to "love" people as they are and not push them too much because they "don't know" and cannot be faulted. It is out of so-called "love" that we intentionally avoid painful yet critical topics in our sermons. It is out of this so-called "love" that we offer "drive-thru" Communion out of the context of the Liturgy because we want those who "work" to be able to receive. Where were they the rest of the year!
Last time I checked, true Love is not letting your children do whatever they want! Parents discipline and guide their children so that they can grow to be well rounded adults. Is not the priest the father of his congregation? Where is it written that the father must spoil his children so that they will not cry or act up? I do believe that God did not do this in the Old Testament and we definitely should not be doing it now. Christ came to preach Love as the true spirit of the Law. This does not mean that he abolished the law altogether! The law remains, but the guiding force behind it is Love.
In the same way, the church must still teach what is right and even discipline when necessary. However, it must be done with love so it will always lead people towards God. If we do not stand firm and teach and guide with a firm hand, we are not practicing Love at all. We are really practicing self love because we look for the praise of our congregations instead of doing the right thing in the face of ridicule. We worry that if we do not offer "drive-thru" Communion, the people will go down the street to the other Orthodox Church and get it. Then we will lose business! Why not start thinking about what is good for our people spiritually and not what is only good for their worldly desires, because it seems to me that we worry much more about our quantity instead of our quality. However, if we keep going down this path, we will end up with a whole lot of nothing!
End of rant.
Over the years I have participated in hundreds of weddings and baptisms and in over 95% of the cases (this is NOT an exaggeration) the participants did not know the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, or even how to Cross themselves. It is very disconcerting to see young couples, their wedding parties, and even their parents, come to the church and not even know the basic elements of their faith.
In Baptisms we can gleam the reason for this spiritual bankruptcy that is infiltrating our church. In the last 5 years, I do believe I can recall only one Godmother who knew and could recite the Creed by heart. Only one among hundreds that I witnessed! We have gotten to the point where the Godparents not only read the Creed out of the priest's book, but they cannot even pronounce the words properly, which indicates this is their first time reading it!
If we ask ourselves why young adults do not know the basics of the faith, it is easy to accept this knowing that they had no guidance or spiritual education when they were young. These days, the role of the Godparents is seen as a honorary role that only requires one to buy nice gifts for the child on special occasions. Most believe that such things are left up to the parents, to raise their children in the Orthodox Faith. However, the parents know even less.
Now, in many parishes across Canada, these kinds of situations can easily be avoided. How? Education, education, education! We get angry at parents who choose unsuitable Godparents or unsuitable "koumbaroi" for their weddings, but we do not do a good enough job in educating our people as to what type of people they should be selecting for these roles. In most parishes there are no wedding counselling or marriage preparation courses, no baptism pamphlet given out or catechism held for those coming into the faith! There is virtually no preparation or education whatsoever!
The most common excuse that most priests give is that they have no time and no man power to perform all these ministries. Although being shorthanded is partly true, it is not a good enough excuse to neglect the spiritual education of the people. What can be more important? What is more crucial to the future generations of our church? Are our people less important that putting icons on the wall? Are our people less important than community centres and banquet halls? Are our people less important than all the materials things we put before them?
We spend so much time, effort, and money on all the material needs of the church and we forget that the spiritual needs are the most important. If parishes do not have a significant budget for religious education in their community, then it won't matter how many community centres they build, or how beautiful the icons are. In 20 years there won't be anyone left to look at them; the community centres will be empty. We boast about or buildings while our people do not know the Creed. We boast about our nice tiles and double headed eagle mosaic on the floor, but our people do not know the Lord's Prayer. We boast about the latest trip to the Holy Land, Greece, or any other European locale; whatever distracts us from God's calling to preach the Word, while our people do not even know what time Liturgy starts on Sunday!
And for some reason, we priests do not even mention this from the pulpit! We do not preach against this situation! We do not educate! We have learned the magic word; ACCOMMODATION! We accommodate our people. We accommodate their likes. We accommodate their dislikes. We accommodate their spiritual laziness. We accommodate their ignorance of the faith. We accommodate so much that we start confusing accommodation with LOVE! We start saying that we have to "love" people as they are and not push them too much because they "don't know" and cannot be faulted. It is out of so-called "love" that we intentionally avoid painful yet critical topics in our sermons. It is out of this so-called "love" that we offer "drive-thru" Communion out of the context of the Liturgy because we want those who "work" to be able to receive. Where were they the rest of the year!
Last time I checked, true Love is not letting your children do whatever they want! Parents discipline and guide their children so that they can grow to be well rounded adults. Is not the priest the father of his congregation? Where is it written that the father must spoil his children so that they will not cry or act up? I do believe that God did not do this in the Old Testament and we definitely should not be doing it now. Christ came to preach Love as the true spirit of the Law. This does not mean that he abolished the law altogether! The law remains, but the guiding force behind it is Love.
In the same way, the church must still teach what is right and even discipline when necessary. However, it must be done with love so it will always lead people towards God. If we do not stand firm and teach and guide with a firm hand, we are not practicing Love at all. We are really practicing self love because we look for the praise of our congregations instead of doing the right thing in the face of ridicule. We worry that if we do not offer "drive-thru" Communion, the people will go down the street to the other Orthodox Church and get it. Then we will lose business! Why not start thinking about what is good for our people spiritually and not what is only good for their worldly desires, because it seems to me that we worry much more about our quantity instead of our quality. However, if we keep going down this path, we will end up with a whole lot of nothing!
End of rant.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Truer Words Were Never Spoken
The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary. I think it is a wonderful response to the so called "politically correct" movement in North America. Enjoy!
My confession:
I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejewelled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees.It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, "Merry Christmas" to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year.
It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a crche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.
I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.
Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to.
In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (Regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response.She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"
In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbour as yourself. And we said OK.
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell.
Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.
Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.Are you laughing?
Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.
My Best Regards.
Honestly and respectfully,
Ben Stein
My confession:
I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejewelled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees.It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, "Merry Christmas" to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year.
It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a crche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.
I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.
Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to.
In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (Regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response.She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"
In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbour as yourself. And we said OK.
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell.
Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.
Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.Are you laughing?
Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.
My Best Regards.
Honestly and respectfully,
Ben Stein
Thursday, September 13, 2007
The "Otherness" of Worship
Recently I was having a conversation with my wife and it came up that statistically, most people pray in their "native" or "cultural" tongue. This is curious since this may not even be their first and most fluent language, and yet they instinctively use it when they pray and also when they count.
Further reflecting on this, I instantly remember a statement that Frank Schaeffer made in his last book, "Letters to Fr. Aristotle." In it, he defends the traditional use of Greek in Orthodox liturgical services and cautions against the conversion to modern English or even modern Greek translations. Although he does cite the most common problems associated with such a switch (issues with translations and politically correct influences), he does make an additional point. He mentions that it is important to have a "sacred" language. By sacred, he means one that is set apart from everyday speech and reserved only for the worship of God.
Now, at first sight, this point may seem rather insignificant compared to the enormous benefits that would arise from adopting the vernacular in our liturgical services. However, I do believer that Schaeffer is on to something here. And this is where I connect the earlier statistic, that most people instinctively pray and count in their "native" tongues. Perhaps there is a connection between this phenomenon and Schaeffer's statement.
Some may say that the practice of using the "cultural" language is a result of familial and societal conditioning. I would have to agree with this theory. Our sense of ethnicity largely stems from a sense of family and belonging. For me, speaking Greek is very comforting because it unites me to a much larger community of "Greeks" who share the same culture, history, and mannerisms as I do. It fulfills a sense of belonging.
Now let us look at the church. It too is a family which has many members. Furthermore, it's membership crosses gender, cultural and even political lines. The demographic is much more diverse. This means that there arises a great need for a common church "culture" to unite all these different types of people. Some would say that this is the gospel, however we know that this is sometimes not enough. In an age where one can find a church on every street corner (and no two are alike), how is one to distinguish one community from the other? Furthermore, how is the church to be a true family if it does not possess it's own unique traditions which identifies and differentiates it from all the others? The issue of language is interwoven into this complex matrix of communal identity.
Statistics show that most youth in our generation actually want more ritual in their lives. They are seeking it in large numbers. This is due to the human need to experience the sacred, the divine. For most, this means that such an experience must be beyond that which they experience in their daily lives. This is why we see such an interest in eastern mysticism (Buddhism, Hinduism, Kabala, etc.) in our current generation. It is of paramount importance to create a form of worship that is sacred, something separated from the everyday, and something dedicated wholly to God. This is why the Orthodox Church has maintained its traditional outlook throughout the centuries and has remained quite impervious to outer influence and trends of the time. It is because the truth which it preaches is eternal, and is so emphasized in the consistent form of worship it employs.
Getting back to language. The tendency to use our "native"tongue in prayer testifies to this need for all people to experience the "otherness" of spirituality. They unconsciously reserve their native language as something "sacred" and "set apart." They believe that they have to do this in order to give the holy event of prayer the respect and reverence it deserves.
Furthermore, in step with Frank Schaeffer, worshipping in an language one does not fully understand, forces the faithful to engage their faith in new ways. It demands one to dig deeper into their worship and it requires effort on our part. It is not an "easy" faith. In an age of "burger king" parishes that are known for their new, hip services, it is easy to see how this sort of traditional worship would be very unpopular. It is because it does not cater to people's spiritual laziness, but demands higher thinking and greater effort. It forces the congregation to take interest in what it is doing and how it is expressing it's faith.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to advocate abolishing the use of English in our churches. What I am saying is that we should take very small steps when considering the use of liturgical language because it may have the adverse affect on our congregations. In the states, Greeks are 3rd and 4th generation Hellenes who barely speak a word of Greek. They mostly use English in their worship. However, their churches are not devoid of problems. In reality, they face the same problems we face here in Canada; poor attendance, lax participation, low spiritual education, etc etc. The Roman Catholic Church, with the advent of the second Vatican Council, changed all worship services to the vernacular and actually dropped in numbers!
What does this tell us?" Does it mean that we should only use Greek in our services? No. What it does do is serve as a caution as to how quickly we embrace the cultural and political trends of the time. It could be that through our quest to "modernize" the church, we may inadvertently lose that sense of "otherness" and experience of the "divine " and "sacred" that the Orthodox Church has maintained since the time of the Apostles. In essence, we risk turning the spiritual Body of Christ into just another night out at the theatre.
Further reflecting on this, I instantly remember a statement that Frank Schaeffer made in his last book, "Letters to Fr. Aristotle." In it, he defends the traditional use of Greek in Orthodox liturgical services and cautions against the conversion to modern English or even modern Greek translations. Although he does cite the most common problems associated with such a switch (issues with translations and politically correct influences), he does make an additional point. He mentions that it is important to have a "sacred" language. By sacred, he means one that is set apart from everyday speech and reserved only for the worship of God.
Now, at first sight, this point may seem rather insignificant compared to the enormous benefits that would arise from adopting the vernacular in our liturgical services. However, I do believer that Schaeffer is on to something here. And this is where I connect the earlier statistic, that most people instinctively pray and count in their "native" tongues. Perhaps there is a connection between this phenomenon and Schaeffer's statement.
Some may say that the practice of using the "cultural" language is a result of familial and societal conditioning. I would have to agree with this theory. Our sense of ethnicity largely stems from a sense of family and belonging. For me, speaking Greek is very comforting because it unites me to a much larger community of "Greeks" who share the same culture, history, and mannerisms as I do. It fulfills a sense of belonging.
Now let us look at the church. It too is a family which has many members. Furthermore, it's membership crosses gender, cultural and even political lines. The demographic is much more diverse. This means that there arises a great need for a common church "culture" to unite all these different types of people. Some would say that this is the gospel, however we know that this is sometimes not enough. In an age where one can find a church on every street corner (and no two are alike), how is one to distinguish one community from the other? Furthermore, how is the church to be a true family if it does not possess it's own unique traditions which identifies and differentiates it from all the others? The issue of language is interwoven into this complex matrix of communal identity.
Statistics show that most youth in our generation actually want more ritual in their lives. They are seeking it in large numbers. This is due to the human need to experience the sacred, the divine. For most, this means that such an experience must be beyond that which they experience in their daily lives. This is why we see such an interest in eastern mysticism (Buddhism, Hinduism, Kabala, etc.) in our current generation. It is of paramount importance to create a form of worship that is sacred, something separated from the everyday, and something dedicated wholly to God. This is why the Orthodox Church has maintained its traditional outlook throughout the centuries and has remained quite impervious to outer influence and trends of the time. It is because the truth which it preaches is eternal, and is so emphasized in the consistent form of worship it employs.
Getting back to language. The tendency to use our "native"tongue in prayer testifies to this need for all people to experience the "otherness" of spirituality. They unconsciously reserve their native language as something "sacred" and "set apart." They believe that they have to do this in order to give the holy event of prayer the respect and reverence it deserves.
Furthermore, in step with Frank Schaeffer, worshipping in an language one does not fully understand, forces the faithful to engage their faith in new ways. It demands one to dig deeper into their worship and it requires effort on our part. It is not an "easy" faith. In an age of "burger king" parishes that are known for their new, hip services, it is easy to see how this sort of traditional worship would be very unpopular. It is because it does not cater to people's spiritual laziness, but demands higher thinking and greater effort. It forces the congregation to take interest in what it is doing and how it is expressing it's faith.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to advocate abolishing the use of English in our churches. What I am saying is that we should take very small steps when considering the use of liturgical language because it may have the adverse affect on our congregations. In the states, Greeks are 3rd and 4th generation Hellenes who barely speak a word of Greek. They mostly use English in their worship. However, their churches are not devoid of problems. In reality, they face the same problems we face here in Canada; poor attendance, lax participation, low spiritual education, etc etc. The Roman Catholic Church, with the advent of the second Vatican Council, changed all worship services to the vernacular and actually dropped in numbers!
What does this tell us?" Does it mean that we should only use Greek in our services? No. What it does do is serve as a caution as to how quickly we embrace the cultural and political trends of the time. It could be that through our quest to "modernize" the church, we may inadvertently lose that sense of "otherness" and experience of the "divine " and "sacred" that the Orthodox Church has maintained since the time of the Apostles. In essence, we risk turning the spiritual Body of Christ into just another night out at the theatre.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Judge By True Standards
Someone recently told me, "judge not lest ye be judged."
Truly, we Christians are commanded not to judge others, but is this commandment so black and white? While it is true that Matthew 7:1 states, ""Do not judge, or you too will be judged," immediately after that Matthew 7:2 says, "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Therefore we see that Christ does not merely tell us to not judge. He feels the need to clarify what this means. We are not to judge hypocritically because whatever judgment we proclaim on others, it will be applied to us as well.
Having said this, the question must be asked, "what if the judgment is just?" If the one who is judging is himself/herself innocent of the offence he is judging others on, then when the judgement is applied to him/her, will he not be found innocent? This is something to truly ponder about. Is Jesus really saying to us never to raise a judgement against anyone or is He telling us to be careful how we judge as not to be hypocrites?
Let us think of it another way; If no one ever judges the actions of another, how can an administration run efficiently? Organizations are based on a hierarchy; a system which sets certain people above others to judge their actions and lead them to right behaviour for the good of all. If this type of judgement did not exist, there would be chaos. If the Holy fathers of the church did not justly judge the heretics, where would we be today?
I think that it is too simple to say "do not judge" without qualifying what we mean by it. Too often we, in the church, use this quote as a scapegoat to avoid the real difficult questions of correcting our brother. 2 Timothy 4:2 states, "Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction." We have the obligation to judge with righteousness those who attack the body of Christ. Truly, we must judge the sin and not the sinner, and always with love, however there must be checks and balances in the system.
In today's day and age we tend to confuse forgiveness and compassion with righteous judgement. For example, a clergy member may commit an act that, according to the canons of the church, expels him from the priesthood. However, in many cases, and this happens in many different religions, such individuals are allowed to remain as clergy under the guise that "the Church is forgiving." I think that one has nothing to do with the other. It is possible to love and forgive someone, while at the same time allowing them to face the consequences of their actions. Indeed, true love should insist on facing the consequences of one's actions and learning from them. Since when did the canons of the church state that if we forgive you, you get to stay in the priesthood? Never. One was always deposed for serious offences, but still remained a member of the church.
The protection of the laity from those who are incapable of leading them, should be the primary task of the administration. One can love and forgive someone, but at the same time demand that they are expelled from a position in which they continually hurt their congregation. Nice feelings and sentimentality should not get in the way of the proper order of the church or society. Compassion and forgiveness come in many different forms and it could be that we do more damage allowing our brethren to "get away" with certain offences just because we do not want to hurt their feelings. Let us not delude ourselves. Spiritually, we cripple them, the community, and the church.
Back to judgement...It seems that besides not holding others accountable, we tend not to hold ourselves accountable either. We always like to rationalize our faults and usually end up patting ourselves on the back for our "much greater" accomplishments that far outweigh our faults. This occurs because their is no one to correct or rebuke us either. And so the circle keeps on going and the community keeps on deluding itself.
Every once in a while there comes a person who is not afraid to speak out against corruption, injustice, and other forms of evil within society or even the church. Such individuals, because of their pure intentions and usual lack of tact, are usually mocked and laughed at by the majority. However, regardless of the method of delivery, what they are actually saying is true. It is we, as a society, who tend to focus on ridiculing the delivery and the way it is said because we cannot bear to listen to the content itself. Yet, it is the content that is important. If the content is just, then let us accept our brother's rebuke as a righteous judgement because God works through such people. If it is hypocritical judgement, let us ignore it and forgive our brother of his arrogance. Either way, let us not be black and white in our opinions. Let us see, and judge, things are they truly are and let us not be afraid to speak the truth. Jesus wasn't.
I will leave you with a quote from an author who I greatly respect; M. Scott Peck, M.D. Here he is speaking about the courage to "rock the boat" and be different than the rest of society; the ability to speak one's mind:
"Indeed, it takes great courage to be different, to dare to be oneself [Christian]. If we choose to think for ourselves, we must be braced for the backlash. We risk being seen as eccentrics or malcontents. We may be presumed to be on the fringes of mainstream society, regarded as different and abnormal in the worst sense of the word."
Are we prepared to be go "against the tide" even when it means disagreeing with others and proclaiming "judgements" that are perceived as arrogance instead of wisdom? It is a difficult question. The difficulty of the answer depends on the individual.
Truly, we Christians are commanded not to judge others, but is this commandment so black and white? While it is true that Matthew 7:1 states, ""Do not judge, or you too will be judged," immediately after that Matthew 7:2 says, "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Therefore we see that Christ does not merely tell us to not judge. He feels the need to clarify what this means. We are not to judge hypocritically because whatever judgment we proclaim on others, it will be applied to us as well.
Having said this, the question must be asked, "what if the judgment is just?" If the one who is judging is himself/herself innocent of the offence he is judging others on, then when the judgement is applied to him/her, will he not be found innocent? This is something to truly ponder about. Is Jesus really saying to us never to raise a judgement against anyone or is He telling us to be careful how we judge as not to be hypocrites?
Let us think of it another way; If no one ever judges the actions of another, how can an administration run efficiently? Organizations are based on a hierarchy; a system which sets certain people above others to judge their actions and lead them to right behaviour for the good of all. If this type of judgement did not exist, there would be chaos. If the Holy fathers of the church did not justly judge the heretics, where would we be today?
I think that it is too simple to say "do not judge" without qualifying what we mean by it. Too often we, in the church, use this quote as a scapegoat to avoid the real difficult questions of correcting our brother. 2 Timothy 4:2 states, "Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction." We have the obligation to judge with righteousness those who attack the body of Christ. Truly, we must judge the sin and not the sinner, and always with love, however there must be checks and balances in the system.
In today's day and age we tend to confuse forgiveness and compassion with righteous judgement. For example, a clergy member may commit an act that, according to the canons of the church, expels him from the priesthood. However, in many cases, and this happens in many different religions, such individuals are allowed to remain as clergy under the guise that "the Church is forgiving." I think that one has nothing to do with the other. It is possible to love and forgive someone, while at the same time allowing them to face the consequences of their actions. Indeed, true love should insist on facing the consequences of one's actions and learning from them. Since when did the canons of the church state that if we forgive you, you get to stay in the priesthood? Never. One was always deposed for serious offences, but still remained a member of the church.
The protection of the laity from those who are incapable of leading them, should be the primary task of the administration. One can love and forgive someone, but at the same time demand that they are expelled from a position in which they continually hurt their congregation. Nice feelings and sentimentality should not get in the way of the proper order of the church or society. Compassion and forgiveness come in many different forms and it could be that we do more damage allowing our brethren to "get away" with certain offences just because we do not want to hurt their feelings. Let us not delude ourselves. Spiritually, we cripple them, the community, and the church.
Back to judgement...It seems that besides not holding others accountable, we tend not to hold ourselves accountable either. We always like to rationalize our faults and usually end up patting ourselves on the back for our "much greater" accomplishments that far outweigh our faults. This occurs because their is no one to correct or rebuke us either. And so the circle keeps on going and the community keeps on deluding itself.
Every once in a while there comes a person who is not afraid to speak out against corruption, injustice, and other forms of evil within society or even the church. Such individuals, because of their pure intentions and usual lack of tact, are usually mocked and laughed at by the majority. However, regardless of the method of delivery, what they are actually saying is true. It is we, as a society, who tend to focus on ridiculing the delivery and the way it is said because we cannot bear to listen to the content itself. Yet, it is the content that is important. If the content is just, then let us accept our brother's rebuke as a righteous judgement because God works through such people. If it is hypocritical judgement, let us ignore it and forgive our brother of his arrogance. Either way, let us not be black and white in our opinions. Let us see, and judge, things are they truly are and let us not be afraid to speak the truth. Jesus wasn't.
I will leave you with a quote from an author who I greatly respect; M. Scott Peck, M.D. Here he is speaking about the courage to "rock the boat" and be different than the rest of society; the ability to speak one's mind:
"Indeed, it takes great courage to be different, to dare to be oneself [Christian]. If we choose to think for ourselves, we must be braced for the backlash. We risk being seen as eccentrics or malcontents. We may be presumed to be on the fringes of mainstream society, regarded as different and abnormal in the worst sense of the word."
Are we prepared to be go "against the tide" even when it means disagreeing with others and proclaiming "judgements" that are perceived as arrogance instead of wisdom? It is a difficult question. The difficulty of the answer depends on the individual.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Misquoting Truth
I just finished an excellent read; "Misquoting Truth: A guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus" by Timothy Paul Jones. In this book, Jones attempts to answer the many erroneous hypotheses of Bart Ehrman's work. Bart Ehrman believes that the N.T. writings are not reliable because they were not written by the actual evangelists they are attributed to. Furthermore, he believes that the texts have been corrupted by multiple scribes over the centuries, adding, subtracting and making errors in the copying of text.
Jones responds to this criticism by a close analysis of Ehrman's biblical examples, stating that if we examine all the differences in the manuscripts and all the so-called changes, we will find that none of these differences or changes augement or change the fundamental teachings of Christianity. Jones goes even further and states that even in the cases when scribes have added theological asides to the text, the material added is not in contradiction, but actaually supports the theology already present in the rest of the text. In this way, he claims that the text, although having undergone revisions, still proclaims the same basic truth as was orginally preached by the apostles.
In addition to this argument, Jones also spends a great deal of time providing evidence for the authenticity of the gospel authorship and for the process by which the books of the N.T. were selected. Although he raises some very good points as to why he thinks the books were really authored by the four evangelists, I do believe that he somewhat misses the point. While he does mention "oral tradition," does not place enough emphasis on the most important point of all; Holy Tradition.
To be sure, Jones does speak in depth about the oral tradition that was passed down through the apostles and so forth through all their successors. However, he uses this point to illustrate that the eye witness accounts were preserved in a largely vocal culture that was prone to memorizing much more than reading. I believe that the "oral tradition" that he mentions is part of a much larger phenomenon of what we Orthodox call "Holy Tradition." This is the belief that, beyond only the eye witness accounts, the true understanding and experience of Christ's ministry was passed down through the collective consciousness of the one true church. This means that it was this one true body that possessed the authority to decide which books were God-inspired and which were not. Jones claimes that the church made this selection soley on criteria of whether the accounts were eye witness or secondary. While this is partly true, the more important criterion was whether the text in question revealed who Christ was in the collective memory of the one true church. As Fr. John Behr always liked to say, "The Canon is Christ." This is the ultimate rule by which the early church accepted certain books and not others. It was not whether they could prove historically that an account was first hand, but whether the text in question described what was passed down first hand. I think that is where Jones lacks in his analysis. Otherwise, he has written a great rebuttle and has provided all Christians with a very powerful apologetic tool to face the growing tide of atheism.
Jones responds to this criticism by a close analysis of Ehrman's biblical examples, stating that if we examine all the differences in the manuscripts and all the so-called changes, we will find that none of these differences or changes augement or change the fundamental teachings of Christianity. Jones goes even further and states that even in the cases when scribes have added theological asides to the text, the material added is not in contradiction, but actaually supports the theology already present in the rest of the text. In this way, he claims that the text, although having undergone revisions, still proclaims the same basic truth as was orginally preached by the apostles.
In addition to this argument, Jones also spends a great deal of time providing evidence for the authenticity of the gospel authorship and for the process by which the books of the N.T. were selected. Although he raises some very good points as to why he thinks the books were really authored by the four evangelists, I do believe that he somewhat misses the point. While he does mention "oral tradition," does not place enough emphasis on the most important point of all; Holy Tradition.
To be sure, Jones does speak in depth about the oral tradition that was passed down through the apostles and so forth through all their successors. However, he uses this point to illustrate that the eye witness accounts were preserved in a largely vocal culture that was prone to memorizing much more than reading. I believe that the "oral tradition" that he mentions is part of a much larger phenomenon of what we Orthodox call "Holy Tradition." This is the belief that, beyond only the eye witness accounts, the true understanding and experience of Christ's ministry was passed down through the collective consciousness of the one true church. This means that it was this one true body that possessed the authority to decide which books were God-inspired and which were not. Jones claimes that the church made this selection soley on criteria of whether the accounts were eye witness or secondary. While this is partly true, the more important criterion was whether the text in question revealed who Christ was in the collective memory of the one true church. As Fr. John Behr always liked to say, "The Canon is Christ." This is the ultimate rule by which the early church accepted certain books and not others. It was not whether they could prove historically that an account was first hand, but whether the text in question described what was passed down first hand. I think that is where Jones lacks in his analysis. Otherwise, he has written a great rebuttle and has provided all Christians with a very powerful apologetic tool to face the growing tide of atheism.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
The Path Before Us Darkens
I'm sure many have written about the fires that have engulfed Greece and have caused the deaths of at least 64 human beings. I am not going to write a long speach about why I think this happened or why it is such a catastrophe for Greece. I would just like to say that both my grandfathers are from the village of Matesi near Andritsaina. This was the village featured on TV where the flames have encircled the village and have jumped the river Alphaio into Arcadia.
My great grandfather was the priest of Matesi and his father-in-law before him. Their family tomb is buried in front of the church and the house has stood for 4 generations. Although I have no family living in the village at this moment, the whole male history of my family is located in those homes, in that land. If they burn, I feel that I will lose a part of myself and a part of my forefathers as well. Perhaps some may not consider this a big deal. However, I am a firm believer that one cannot know where they are going if they do not know where they come from. In that, I fear that when all this is over, the path before me may be a bit more difficult to find than I anticipated.
My great grandfather was the priest of Matesi and his father-in-law before him. Their family tomb is buried in front of the church and the house has stood for 4 generations. Although I have no family living in the village at this moment, the whole male history of my family is located in those homes, in that land. If they burn, I feel that I will lose a part of myself and a part of my forefathers as well. Perhaps some may not consider this a big deal. However, I am a firm believer that one cannot know where they are going if they do not know where they come from. In that, I fear that when all this is over, the path before me may be a bit more difficult to find than I anticipated.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Authentic Ministry
I just returned from a week-long Orthodox summer camp that I help run for our Metropolis. As always, I was impressed and truly moved by the amount of character and sincerity displayed by the children, and counsellors, who attended. Indeed, every year I am reminded just what a precious resource our youth truly are.
These children, who deal with prejudices, peer pressures, and mass media brain washing, still make the conscious choice to come to camp and experience the communion which they only find in the secluded woods of northern Ontario. Truly, Camp is the most important youth ministry we have today; a truth that too few parents and elders in our communities realize or support. Furthermore, beyond being just important, it is authentic.
Authenticity usually describes something that is "genuine or known to be true" (Webster's Dictionary). In this sense, Camp fulfills both such adjectives, as it consists of genuine people, volunteering their time, money and talents to teach our future generations. It is known to be true because the fruits of the last 10 years of Camp Metamorphosis can been seen in the character and virtue exhibited by those youth who have passed through the program.
I point this out because, if we think about it, few Church programs today can really boast to be practicing "Authentic Ministry." This is why we usually never ask the questions; 1. Is what we are doing genuine and true to the Word of God? 2. Are our volunteers genuine in their motives for helping, or are they simply there to gossip, socialize, or to satisfy their ego in some way? 3. Are the fruits of our labours known to be true? 4. Is there a positive effect on those involved? 5. Is there consistent success in quality, regardless of the numbers? It is these questions, and subsequent answers, that should be compared to the truth contained in the Scriptures.
At Camp this year campers tackled such practical issues as outsourcing pregnancy, homosexuality and same sex marriage, rising atheism, and the pursuit of happiness for the average citizen. These are issues that were not only discussed with senior campers, but with junior youth as young as 12 years old. Camp does not look to "sugar coat" the issues confronting our children today. It seeks to teach them how to think critically about everyday issues they face, and will face in their lives. Furthermore, it provides them with a solid understanding of Orthodox Spirituality to be the guiding star in such future deliberations.
It is camp's unique ability to not only educate, but also engage our youth, in an environment free from mass media influence and of non-orthodox peer pressure, that makes it invaluable in the battle against nominal Christianity in North America. It is also its ability to truly teach the truth, without any parish "Politics" or "Obstacles" that makes camp a truly "Authentic Ministry." The rest of the Church should heed this warning; learn from such an approach, instead of treating camp as simply another past-time for our children, pushed into the "back burner" of parish life because we are too busy re-building the stairs of the church, or the banquet hall, or the iconography, or any other such thing that will have no use to us in 20 years when our church buildings are empty due to lack of Authentic Ministry.
These children, who deal with prejudices, peer pressures, and mass media brain washing, still make the conscious choice to come to camp and experience the communion which they only find in the secluded woods of northern Ontario. Truly, Camp is the most important youth ministry we have today; a truth that too few parents and elders in our communities realize or support. Furthermore, beyond being just important, it is authentic.
Authenticity usually describes something that is "genuine or known to be true" (Webster's Dictionary). In this sense, Camp fulfills both such adjectives, as it consists of genuine people, volunteering their time, money and talents to teach our future generations. It is known to be true because the fruits of the last 10 years of Camp Metamorphosis can been seen in the character and virtue exhibited by those youth who have passed through the program.
I point this out because, if we think about it, few Church programs today can really boast to be practicing "Authentic Ministry." This is why we usually never ask the questions; 1. Is what we are doing genuine and true to the Word of God? 2. Are our volunteers genuine in their motives for helping, or are they simply there to gossip, socialize, or to satisfy their ego in some way? 3. Are the fruits of our labours known to be true? 4. Is there a positive effect on those involved? 5. Is there consistent success in quality, regardless of the numbers? It is these questions, and subsequent answers, that should be compared to the truth contained in the Scriptures.
At Camp this year campers tackled such practical issues as outsourcing pregnancy, homosexuality and same sex marriage, rising atheism, and the pursuit of happiness for the average citizen. These are issues that were not only discussed with senior campers, but with junior youth as young as 12 years old. Camp does not look to "sugar coat" the issues confronting our children today. It seeks to teach them how to think critically about everyday issues they face, and will face in their lives. Furthermore, it provides them with a solid understanding of Orthodox Spirituality to be the guiding star in such future deliberations.
It is camp's unique ability to not only educate, but also engage our youth, in an environment free from mass media influence and of non-orthodox peer pressure, that makes it invaluable in the battle against nominal Christianity in North America. It is also its ability to truly teach the truth, without any parish "Politics" or "Obstacles" that makes camp a truly "Authentic Ministry." The rest of the Church should heed this warning; learn from such an approach, instead of treating camp as simply another past-time for our children, pushed into the "back burner" of parish life because we are too busy re-building the stairs of the church, or the banquet hall, or the iconography, or any other such thing that will have no use to us in 20 years when our church buildings are empty due to lack of Authentic Ministry.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Simple Thinking
I am currently reading a book called "The Road Less Travelled By, and Beyond" by M. Scott Peck, M.D. It is very good. In the current chapter I am reading, Dr. Peck is speaking about the epidemic of simplistic thinking. He claims, and I agree with him, that most people deliberately shy away from doing any real thinking in their lives. They prefer to live with simple, straight forward beliefs, even if those beliefs are based on lies.
We see this rampant in racist as well as religious fundamentalist groups of today. People en mass choose to believe simple lies because they are easier to live with than a complicated truth. This stems from mental as well as spiritual laziness. It is the sin of indifference that we are speaking about here. The belief that the world can be black and white because that is the most convenient answer for me.
The problem with this way of thinking, or lack of, is that it allows large groups of people to be easily manipulated by media, government, and charismatic individuals. This is why fashion and fashion icons have such a hold on our population. People are content in simply aping whatever they see on TV as opposed to actually exploring who they are and what they like. It is harder to be original than to be conformist; harder to lead than to follow; harder to do the right thing than the wrong.
Dr. Peck is telling us that we need to begin to think critically again. We need to wake ourselves out of the sleep of mental and spiritual laziness and observe the world for ourselves, instead of allowing others to do it for us. Only in this way can we ever hope to reach our full potential as human beings. One statement in this chapter that really struck me is, "Our laziness, our natural idolatry of ease and comfort, makes us co-conspirators with the mass media." This sums up our complacency in the events around us that we complain about everyday but never do anything about. We complain about government but we forget that the government is run by people. We complain about the Church but are not willing to change ourselves so that we may change others. We want others to change first so that we can follow, or worse yet, hide in the shadow of their accomplishments and ride the coat tails of those who are braver than we.
I think that we need to take our lives by the reigns and begin bettering ourselves. We must read more, converse more, question more, and love more. Only in this way will we ever escape Plato's cave, in which we willfully remain chained, veiwing life only as shadows on a wall cast by those who would like nothing more than to manipulate us.
We see this rampant in racist as well as religious fundamentalist groups of today. People en mass choose to believe simple lies because they are easier to live with than a complicated truth. This stems from mental as well as spiritual laziness. It is the sin of indifference that we are speaking about here. The belief that the world can be black and white because that is the most convenient answer for me.
The problem with this way of thinking, or lack of, is that it allows large groups of people to be easily manipulated by media, government, and charismatic individuals. This is why fashion and fashion icons have such a hold on our population. People are content in simply aping whatever they see on TV as opposed to actually exploring who they are and what they like. It is harder to be original than to be conformist; harder to lead than to follow; harder to do the right thing than the wrong.
Dr. Peck is telling us that we need to begin to think critically again. We need to wake ourselves out of the sleep of mental and spiritual laziness and observe the world for ourselves, instead of allowing others to do it for us. Only in this way can we ever hope to reach our full potential as human beings. One statement in this chapter that really struck me is, "Our laziness, our natural idolatry of ease and comfort, makes us co-conspirators with the mass media." This sums up our complacency in the events around us that we complain about everyday but never do anything about. We complain about government but we forget that the government is run by people. We complain about the Church but are not willing to change ourselves so that we may change others. We want others to change first so that we can follow, or worse yet, hide in the shadow of their accomplishments and ride the coat tails of those who are braver than we.
I think that we need to take our lives by the reigns and begin bettering ourselves. We must read more, converse more, question more, and love more. Only in this way will we ever escape Plato's cave, in which we willfully remain chained, veiwing life only as shadows on a wall cast by those who would like nothing more than to manipulate us.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
8 Months in the Deaconate
Well, it's been 8 months since my ordination to the Holy Deaconate and what an 8 months it has been! I have not had anytime to get back on to this blog since I have been adjusting to working full time and being a deacon.
I am currently posted at St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church in Scarborough, Ontario. It has been a blessing having been able to spend my first months at the church in which I grew up. I have learned much from my parish priest and from the parishioners who attend on a regular basis. I know realize the daunting task that we face in ministry today and wish I could find a community willing to take on a deacon full time, because the reality is that we desperately need it! One priest in a parish of 300 families cannot do the job. There are only SO many hours in the day and a deacon in every major church would be a great improvement. However, until that day comes, we will have to do our best with the resources we have.
The Metropolitan has recently announced that I will be moved to a new church. Although I do not know which yet, I pray it is a full time position so that I can fully contribute to the life of the church that which I have been prohibited in doing to this point because of my part-time status. I look to the future months with enthusiasm and hope that wherever I am placed, I will be able to help to the best of my ability. That is all I can pray for and that God will give me strength to do His will.
That's it for now. Hopefully I will be back very soon. Till then, take care and God Bless!
I am currently posted at St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church in Scarborough, Ontario. It has been a blessing having been able to spend my first months at the church in which I grew up. I have learned much from my parish priest and from the parishioners who attend on a regular basis. I know realize the daunting task that we face in ministry today and wish I could find a community willing to take on a deacon full time, because the reality is that we desperately need it! One priest in a parish of 300 families cannot do the job. There are only SO many hours in the day and a deacon in every major church would be a great improvement. However, until that day comes, we will have to do our best with the resources we have.
The Metropolitan has recently announced that I will be moved to a new church. Although I do not know which yet, I pray it is a full time position so that I can fully contribute to the life of the church that which I have been prohibited in doing to this point because of my part-time status. I look to the future months with enthusiasm and hope that wherever I am placed, I will be able to help to the best of my ability. That is all I can pray for and that God will give me strength to do His will.
That's it for now. Hopefully I will be back very soon. Till then, take care and God Bless!
Friday, December 22, 2006
My Ordination Speech
Your Eminence, Your Grace, Reverend Fathers, family and friends.
I thank the almighty God for blessing me to stand before all of you today, humbly beseeching you to acknowledge me as a servant in Christ’s Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Although there are many things that may be said on such an occasion, many truths and lessons one can learn and take away from such an experience, I believe that the most important of these is to understand the significance of the deacon within the context of church life.
Living in the Canadian Diaspora, we seldom encounter the office of the deacon and it may be that we understand his role even less. Yet, the deacon is an integral part of our understanding of Orthodox Communion. We often hear that the Church is a living organism; the mystical body of Christ. In this body, we tend to think of the priest as the head, the leader, and the shepherd. We accept him in the place of Christ and learn from his example how to lead others in the faith. It is through the priestly office that we learn how to preach the Christian faith and how to inspire Christ in our fellow man. The priest inspires all of us to fulfill the priestly vocation that all Orthodox faithful possess through baptism.
However, it is possible that sometimes we may be so eager to lead that we forget that there always must be those who follow. In the Gospel of Matthew chapter 20:26-27, Jesus reminds us, “but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave.” It is these words of Christ that I turn to today; words exhorting us all to be servants to one another; to put our neighbor before ourselves. In our Orthodox family every one of us plays a specific role, fulfills a specific function. Not one is greater than the other. We are reminded of this truth through the office and example of the deacon, whose life should not be one of honour, distinction, or renown, but humility, servitude, and obedience. The first deacons served tables and fed widows, distributed alms and helped with daily tasks. Where the apostles inspired leadership, the deacons inspired obedience to that leadership. Where the apostles inspired power through the Word, they inspired strength through weakness. Where the apostles inspired faith through preaching and signs, they inspired it through good works. So it must be for the deacons of today.
I say these things to remind myself and all of us that ordination to the deaconate is not a simple honour bestowed as a reward upon those who have lived a just and moral life. If that were the case, I would be the last to be recommended for such a position. The role is not one of honour but one of servitude. Understood in this way, the deacon’s office is not one that many should aspire to, but one undertaken by the few who feel called to do so. It is not an affirmation of holiness, nor a song of praise. It is not a prize to be won through any efforts of our own. Like the Holy Eucharist, it is a gift which we are called to participate in, unworthy as we are. It is a grave commitment made by those who are called despite their mountains of imperfections.
For as long as I can remember, I have heard this call within my heart. Despite my sinfulness and multiple shortcomings, the call remains. I have answered it throughout my youth and young adult life. Today I pledge to continue answering this call to the best of my ability, knowing that nothing is possible without God who makes the priest, the deacon, the teacher, and the doctor. Not all can be priests, not all deacons, not all teachers, or doctors. Yet we are all children of God struggling to do His will in the role we have been given. We are all created with a purpose and to know one’s self is to understand and come to terms with our individual calling. Once discovered, we must have the humility to accept this calling and fulfill that which is required of us. The deacon reminds us of this ultimate truth and he must be the embodiment of this humility so that the Body of Christ is never deprived of any of its members. As for myself, there are many in my life who have helped me realize my place in the Holy Body of the Church; those who have guided me by their words, deeds, and examples. It is to them that I owe who I have become and they deserve my everlasting gratitude.
First and foremost are my parents, George and Akrivi. If I were to speak of love, I must think immediately of them; for there is no greater example of selflessness that I have witnessed in this world than that of my parents. They have inspired me to give as they give; to sacrifice as they sacrifice; to devote myself as they devote themselves to all that is good. I thank them for teaching me the art of self-giving and may God Bless them always.
Along with my parents, I would also like to thank my two sisters. Throughout my youth Stamatia and Maria have always been by my side to support me, encourage me, laugh with me, and love me. It is their love that sustains me and unites our family. They are my examples of how we are to love one another as brothers and sisters. One could not ask for better siblings. I thank them for teaching me through their devotion.
I also would like to thank my grandparents, aunts, uncles, and extended family for the love they have shown me through the years. Each in their own way, with their own strengths, experiences and advice, have taught me about life, sacrifice, commitment and responsibility. I thank them for their role in my upbringing.
Still, I cannot forget those who nurtured my spiritual thirst and were responsible for my theological education. These are the clergy, professors, and fellow seminarians who accompanied me and were my guides throughout my religious education. To my professors at the Toronto Orthodox Theological Academy I thank you all for being my first guides in my exploration of Orthodoxy. You gave freely of yourselves to instill in us, the seminarians, the Word of God as it is found in the multi-faceted life of the Church; a special thank you to His Grace Bishop Christoforos of Andidon, who was truly a father to us all at the academy. He taught us how to live the faith instead of just talking about it. I thank him from the bottom of my heart for his living example. I would also like to thank my professors at St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary in New York for the excellence of their instruction and their example of how to truly live within a Christian community. I would like to especially thank Professor Richard Schneider for his mentorship, his guidance, his instruction, and his faith in me. He is an inspiration to all who pursue theology and is truly one of the shining stars of the Orthodox Church today.
To my fellow seminarians, both here in Toronto, and in New York: you will never know your importance in my life. We are truly a brotherhood of the few who are willing to follow this great and holy vocation. It is a hard path, especially in this secular and cynical world. At times when I have felt the weight too great to bear, our brotherhood has always been there to remind me that I am not alone. Thank you all for standing by me whenever I needed you and thank you even more for your friendship and love.
Of course, my spiritual education would have never happened if I did not have excellent spiritual guides to keep me on a straight and level path. Here I would like to thank three individuals: Firstly, Fr. Odysseus Drossos and Fr. Panagiotis Avgeropoulos, for their spiritual guidance over the years and for their faith in me as a person and as a future clergyman of Christ’s Holy Church, and secondly my brother-in-law Fr. Constantine Hatzis, who has been a brother to me in every way and whose character has always been an example for me to emulate; a special thank you to Fr. Constantine and Fr. Panagiotis for their help in my liturgical preparation for my ordination today.
Last, but not least, I would like to thank my beloved wife Joanna. Having known me before I entered seminary, she has been by my side throughout the last 7 years of my life. She has been devoted to the Church all her life she has shown me this same devotion throughout our time together. She embodies love and sacrifice, tolerance and patience. She is my co-worker in the vineyard of our Lord and I could not have asked for a better counterpart for this great task. With her I would also like to thank her parents George and Angeliki, as well as her brother and sister, Nick and Christina, for all they have done for me. They have all loved me like a son and brother and have supported me in my vocation from the moment I met them.
In closing I would like to thank His Eminence Metropolitan Archbishop Sotirios. Your eminence: you have always believed in me and guided me; respected my opinions and ideas; nurtured my strengths and steered me away from my weaknesses. I thank you for all you have done, not just for me, but for all of us; for your unceasing efforts to better the Church in Canada. I offer myself as a servant in this, Christ’s vineyard that has been entrusted to you. May he continue to bless and guide you, as you continue to guide us. May God give me strength to lift the cross which He is has given me. With your blessing, I approach His Holy altar with faith and reverence.
I thank the almighty God for blessing me to stand before all of you today, humbly beseeching you to acknowledge me as a servant in Christ’s Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Although there are many things that may be said on such an occasion, many truths and lessons one can learn and take away from such an experience, I believe that the most important of these is to understand the significance of the deacon within the context of church life.
Living in the Canadian Diaspora, we seldom encounter the office of the deacon and it may be that we understand his role even less. Yet, the deacon is an integral part of our understanding of Orthodox Communion. We often hear that the Church is a living organism; the mystical body of Christ. In this body, we tend to think of the priest as the head, the leader, and the shepherd. We accept him in the place of Christ and learn from his example how to lead others in the faith. It is through the priestly office that we learn how to preach the Christian faith and how to inspire Christ in our fellow man. The priest inspires all of us to fulfill the priestly vocation that all Orthodox faithful possess through baptism.
However, it is possible that sometimes we may be so eager to lead that we forget that there always must be those who follow. In the Gospel of Matthew chapter 20:26-27, Jesus reminds us, “but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave.” It is these words of Christ that I turn to today; words exhorting us all to be servants to one another; to put our neighbor before ourselves. In our Orthodox family every one of us plays a specific role, fulfills a specific function. Not one is greater than the other. We are reminded of this truth through the office and example of the deacon, whose life should not be one of honour, distinction, or renown, but humility, servitude, and obedience. The first deacons served tables and fed widows, distributed alms and helped with daily tasks. Where the apostles inspired leadership, the deacons inspired obedience to that leadership. Where the apostles inspired power through the Word, they inspired strength through weakness. Where the apostles inspired faith through preaching and signs, they inspired it through good works. So it must be for the deacons of today.
I say these things to remind myself and all of us that ordination to the deaconate is not a simple honour bestowed as a reward upon those who have lived a just and moral life. If that were the case, I would be the last to be recommended for such a position. The role is not one of honour but one of servitude. Understood in this way, the deacon’s office is not one that many should aspire to, but one undertaken by the few who feel called to do so. It is not an affirmation of holiness, nor a song of praise. It is not a prize to be won through any efforts of our own. Like the Holy Eucharist, it is a gift which we are called to participate in, unworthy as we are. It is a grave commitment made by those who are called despite their mountains of imperfections.
For as long as I can remember, I have heard this call within my heart. Despite my sinfulness and multiple shortcomings, the call remains. I have answered it throughout my youth and young adult life. Today I pledge to continue answering this call to the best of my ability, knowing that nothing is possible without God who makes the priest, the deacon, the teacher, and the doctor. Not all can be priests, not all deacons, not all teachers, or doctors. Yet we are all children of God struggling to do His will in the role we have been given. We are all created with a purpose and to know one’s self is to understand and come to terms with our individual calling. Once discovered, we must have the humility to accept this calling and fulfill that which is required of us. The deacon reminds us of this ultimate truth and he must be the embodiment of this humility so that the Body of Christ is never deprived of any of its members. As for myself, there are many in my life who have helped me realize my place in the Holy Body of the Church; those who have guided me by their words, deeds, and examples. It is to them that I owe who I have become and they deserve my everlasting gratitude.
First and foremost are my parents, George and Akrivi. If I were to speak of love, I must think immediately of them; for there is no greater example of selflessness that I have witnessed in this world than that of my parents. They have inspired me to give as they give; to sacrifice as they sacrifice; to devote myself as they devote themselves to all that is good. I thank them for teaching me the art of self-giving and may God Bless them always.
Along with my parents, I would also like to thank my two sisters. Throughout my youth Stamatia and Maria have always been by my side to support me, encourage me, laugh with me, and love me. It is their love that sustains me and unites our family. They are my examples of how we are to love one another as brothers and sisters. One could not ask for better siblings. I thank them for teaching me through their devotion.
I also would like to thank my grandparents, aunts, uncles, and extended family for the love they have shown me through the years. Each in their own way, with their own strengths, experiences and advice, have taught me about life, sacrifice, commitment and responsibility. I thank them for their role in my upbringing.
Still, I cannot forget those who nurtured my spiritual thirst and were responsible for my theological education. These are the clergy, professors, and fellow seminarians who accompanied me and were my guides throughout my religious education. To my professors at the Toronto Orthodox Theological Academy I thank you all for being my first guides in my exploration of Orthodoxy. You gave freely of yourselves to instill in us, the seminarians, the Word of God as it is found in the multi-faceted life of the Church; a special thank you to His Grace Bishop Christoforos of Andidon, who was truly a father to us all at the academy. He taught us how to live the faith instead of just talking about it. I thank him from the bottom of my heart for his living example. I would also like to thank my professors at St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary in New York for the excellence of their instruction and their example of how to truly live within a Christian community. I would like to especially thank Professor Richard Schneider for his mentorship, his guidance, his instruction, and his faith in me. He is an inspiration to all who pursue theology and is truly one of the shining stars of the Orthodox Church today.
To my fellow seminarians, both here in Toronto, and in New York: you will never know your importance in my life. We are truly a brotherhood of the few who are willing to follow this great and holy vocation. It is a hard path, especially in this secular and cynical world. At times when I have felt the weight too great to bear, our brotherhood has always been there to remind me that I am not alone. Thank you all for standing by me whenever I needed you and thank you even more for your friendship and love.
Of course, my spiritual education would have never happened if I did not have excellent spiritual guides to keep me on a straight and level path. Here I would like to thank three individuals: Firstly, Fr. Odysseus Drossos and Fr. Panagiotis Avgeropoulos, for their spiritual guidance over the years and for their faith in me as a person and as a future clergyman of Christ’s Holy Church, and secondly my brother-in-law Fr. Constantine Hatzis, who has been a brother to me in every way and whose character has always been an example for me to emulate; a special thank you to Fr. Constantine and Fr. Panagiotis for their help in my liturgical preparation for my ordination today.
Last, but not least, I would like to thank my beloved wife Joanna. Having known me before I entered seminary, she has been by my side throughout the last 7 years of my life. She has been devoted to the Church all her life she has shown me this same devotion throughout our time together. She embodies love and sacrifice, tolerance and patience. She is my co-worker in the vineyard of our Lord and I could not have asked for a better counterpart for this great task. With her I would also like to thank her parents George and Angeliki, as well as her brother and sister, Nick and Christina, for all they have done for me. They have all loved me like a son and brother and have supported me in my vocation from the moment I met them.
In closing I would like to thank His Eminence Metropolitan Archbishop Sotirios. Your eminence: you have always believed in me and guided me; respected my opinions and ideas; nurtured my strengths and steered me away from my weaknesses. I thank you for all you have done, not just for me, but for all of us; for your unceasing efforts to better the Church in Canada. I offer myself as a servant in this, Christ’s vineyard that has been entrusted to you. May he continue to bless and guide you, as you continue to guide us. May God give me strength to lift the cross which He is has given me. With your blessing, I approach His Holy altar with faith and reverence.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Ordination
I recently had a meeting with my metropolitan and I have been scheduled for ordination to the Holy Diaconate sometime at the end of November/early December. I new this day would come and I have been preparing for it a long time, however, now that I have a definate idea of when and where, it seems even more a serious matter. Already so many warnings and teachings come to mind. Namely the words of Chrysostom, Basil, Ignatius, Timothy, and Paul. All offer words of wisdom as to what a Deacon, Priest, or Bishop should be; how they must act, how they must live, how they must believe. An especially poignant verse is one that my lovely wife emailed to me today. It's an excerpt from the epistle of Timothy. Chapter 3:1-16
Reflecting on these words, I realize, now more than ever, how important it is for priestly candidates to live pure and blameless lives. Now, by "pure" I don't mean perfect. I mean that they should not have committed any of the "Big" sins; those sins that will attack the credibility of their ministry. Sins such as fornication, backstabbing, lying, cheating, stealing, etc. Namely, sins that have public as well as personal consequences. I'm not saying that it is therefore OK to sin privately, however, it is much harder to minister when your name is not clean. For example, how will people seek advice about marriage from a priest who is divorced, advice about chastidy from one who fornicated before marriage, advice about fidelity from one who cheated on his girlfriends in his youth. It just doesn't work.1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth
a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,
vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not
given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a
brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children
in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own
house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being
lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he
must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach
and the snare of the devil. 8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not
doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 9 Holding the
mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be
proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 11 Even
so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 12
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own
houses well. 13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to
themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ
Jesus. 14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: 15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself
in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and
ground of the truth. 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of
godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of
angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into
glory.
It is for this reason that throughout all of our Holy Tradition we constantly find warnings that a priestly candidate must be free from all public blame. He must be an example to all so that his ministry can be effective. The sheep will not follow a sheppherd who acts like a wolf. And it does no good for someone to be a wolf all their lives and then suddenly attempt to play the sheppherd. Many think in this way; that they can engage in all types of immoral behaviour in their youth and then change when they get ordained. This is absolute nonesense. If we have learned anything from studying 2000 years of Church history, it is that sanctity and holiness take years to master and is a constant process. Furthermore, ordination is not some magical event, as some would think, that suddenly makes someone a holy leader of a community. In essence, I believe that ordination should confirm that which one already is. If one is to become a priest, one must possess the characteristics way before his actual ordination. This is why the canons outline, as does Timothy above, the type of person a priest must be before he is ordained.
Many of us believe that the past will be forgotten and that youth is meant for experiencing all types of things, good and bad. They believe that their past sins will not affect their future lives. This is our greatest dillusion. Spiritually, we are the sum of our moral decisions, with very few exceptions. What we do everyday of our lives affects the next day, just as every step in a climb determines which way we are heading on the mountain; up or down. Those who would seek ordination, including myself, must always remember this truth. The truth that if we want to be sheppherds of the flock of Christ, then we should be living that lifestyle way before our odination. Skeletons in the closet always come out, just as evil cannot evade the light forever.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Dare to be Truthful, Dare to be Real!
Now, I know that everyone has gone ga ga over what the Pope said about the poor Muslims. Everyone, on both sides, has an opinion on either why he was incredibly insensitive to Muslims or whether he should have said more. Yes, there are fanatics on both sides of the line. Personally, I don't care so much as to the content of his speech. What concerns me is the fact that "Political Correctness" has gone so far as to eliminate the freedom of speech. Furthermore, this so-called "correctness" is somehow always in favor of all religions except Christianity.
Really, am I the only one that has noticed that Christians are repeatedly getting the short end of the "politically correct" stick? Why is it that no one can say anything about Muslims, or Jews, but when television, news papers, books, commentators, comedians, and actors speak out against, and slander Christianity, nobody seems to care much? Bill Maher continuously bashes Christian institutions in his comedy show but no one makes a protest. The pope says one thing about Islam, and they're burning his effigy in the streets! How many Christians have we ever seen burning Mohammed effigies?
The point is that this so-called "Politically Correct" world is yet another mask for our intolerance of each other; what we stand for, and what we believe. We do not live in a society of free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of ideas. We can't even say Merry Christmas out loud for fear of offending someone not of the Christian persuasion. I mean c'mon people. If a Jew puts a star of David on his door in my apartment building, why should it bother me? And yet I am not allowed to hang a Christmas Sign on my door for fear offending others. Indeed, in some buildings it is prohibited.
Our western society has this delusion that we can all live in this perfect "Politically Correct" bubble in which everyone can live in peace and harmony as long as they never express their true belief system. This is oppression at its worst! At least in 3rd world countries, places we consider to be uncivilized, they are not so fake. They may be killing each other over their beliefs, but at least they have them! Here, we seem content with a bland, no-confrontational, let's all get-a-long Protestant mentality that seems to be eroding the very foundations of our faith.
So Big Deal, the Pope said he disagreed with Islam. He stated a historical fact that Islam has brought much more war than peace. This is a historical observation that even the most novice of historians could make. Who cares. He is entitled to his opinion. I, for one, am proud of him. Proud because he dared to say that, which most Christians are thinking! We all belong to a faith of some sort. And by belonging exclusively to a faith, we imply that what we believe is right, while others are wrong. If we didn't believe this, be it Christian, Jew, or Muslim, than what is the point of following anything exclusively? If a religion does not claim absolute truth, how can it maintain any kind of following or offer any kind of ontological teaching?
Therefore, if we believe in our respective religions, than why pretend like we don't? Muslims have no problem damning the whole world according to their belief system. That's fine, it's their right. That's why they're Muslims. When will we, as Christians, wake up and realize that we have religious rights too. We have the right to say that we have the truth, that we are right. That's what being in a true multicultural society is; accepting different points of view, even if they disagree with yours. "political Correctness" is just a way of stifling such freedoms so that we can all live peacefully in denial of our most fundamental beliefs. This is because most westerners do not have the stomach for the alternative: actually discussing our differences openly. They do not have the religious conviction in most cases. And we Orthodox often fall into the same group.
The Pope attempted to tell the truth in a global society that reprimanded him because it hurt its ears. It didn't want to hear because accepting such criticisms makes things a whole lot harder. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Muslims exist in most countries, far and wide. Therefore, it is too painful to consider the consequences of actually having to theologically debate them in every society. Just as it is hard to debate with any other religion. We simply are not up to the task and furthermore, we are afraid. Don't get me wrong; I'm not a hater of Muslims, Jews, or any other people. I have friends in both these circles. And because I am there friend, and I respect them and their freedom, I believe that they can say anything they want about Christianity. I will not retaliate because I love my fellow man and allow him to disagree with my faith; a policy practiced by most Christians today. However, is it too much to ask that we Christians actually demand the same respect from those who burn papal effigies? Can we not live in a world where we disagree, but at least have the freedom to dare to be truthful about our beliefs? Dare we be real?
Really, am I the only one that has noticed that Christians are repeatedly getting the short end of the "politically correct" stick? Why is it that no one can say anything about Muslims, or Jews, but when television, news papers, books, commentators, comedians, and actors speak out against, and slander Christianity, nobody seems to care much? Bill Maher continuously bashes Christian institutions in his comedy show but no one makes a protest. The pope says one thing about Islam, and they're burning his effigy in the streets! How many Christians have we ever seen burning Mohammed effigies?
The point is that this so-called "Politically Correct" world is yet another mask for our intolerance of each other; what we stand for, and what we believe. We do not live in a society of free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of ideas. We can't even say Merry Christmas out loud for fear of offending someone not of the Christian persuasion. I mean c'mon people. If a Jew puts a star of David on his door in my apartment building, why should it bother me? And yet I am not allowed to hang a Christmas Sign on my door for fear offending others. Indeed, in some buildings it is prohibited.
Our western society has this delusion that we can all live in this perfect "Politically Correct" bubble in which everyone can live in peace and harmony as long as they never express their true belief system. This is oppression at its worst! At least in 3rd world countries, places we consider to be uncivilized, they are not so fake. They may be killing each other over their beliefs, but at least they have them! Here, we seem content with a bland, no-confrontational, let's all get-a-long Protestant mentality that seems to be eroding the very foundations of our faith.
So Big Deal, the Pope said he disagreed with Islam. He stated a historical fact that Islam has brought much more war than peace. This is a historical observation that even the most novice of historians could make. Who cares. He is entitled to his opinion. I, for one, am proud of him. Proud because he dared to say that, which most Christians are thinking! We all belong to a faith of some sort. And by belonging exclusively to a faith, we imply that what we believe is right, while others are wrong. If we didn't believe this, be it Christian, Jew, or Muslim, than what is the point of following anything exclusively? If a religion does not claim absolute truth, how can it maintain any kind of following or offer any kind of ontological teaching?
Therefore, if we believe in our respective religions, than why pretend like we don't? Muslims have no problem damning the whole world according to their belief system. That's fine, it's their right. That's why they're Muslims. When will we, as Christians, wake up and realize that we have religious rights too. We have the right to say that we have the truth, that we are right. That's what being in a true multicultural society is; accepting different points of view, even if they disagree with yours. "political Correctness" is just a way of stifling such freedoms so that we can all live peacefully in denial of our most fundamental beliefs. This is because most westerners do not have the stomach for the alternative: actually discussing our differences openly. They do not have the religious conviction in most cases. And we Orthodox often fall into the same group.
The Pope attempted to tell the truth in a global society that reprimanded him because it hurt its ears. It didn't want to hear because accepting such criticisms makes things a whole lot harder. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Muslims exist in most countries, far and wide. Therefore, it is too painful to consider the consequences of actually having to theologically debate them in every society. Just as it is hard to debate with any other religion. We simply are not up to the task and furthermore, we are afraid. Don't get me wrong; I'm not a hater of Muslims, Jews, or any other people. I have friends in both these circles. And because I am there friend, and I respect them and their freedom, I believe that they can say anything they want about Christianity. I will not retaliate because I love my fellow man and allow him to disagree with my faith; a policy practiced by most Christians today. However, is it too much to ask that we Christians actually demand the same respect from those who burn papal effigies? Can we not live in a world where we disagree, but at least have the freedom to dare to be truthful about our beliefs? Dare we be real?
Monday, September 04, 2006
The Contemplative Man
I am currently reading the book "The Wounded Healer" by Henri Nouwen and one of the chapters caught my attention. It's called "The Contemplative Man." Here Nouwen speaks of the characteristics of a minister who is able to contemplate his present age with clarity and compassion. He states,
"The contemplative is not needy or greedy for human contacts, but is guided by a vision of what he has seen beyond the trivial concerns of a possessive world. He does not bounce up and down with the fashions of the moment, because he is in contact with what is basic, central and ultimate. He does not allow anybody to worship idols, and he constantly invites his fellow man to ask real, often painful and upsetting questions, to look behind the surface of smooth behaviour, and to take away all the obstacles that prevent him from getting to the heart of the matter. The contemplative critic takes away the illusionary mask of the manipulative world and has the courage to show what the true situation is. He knows that he is considered by many as a fool, a madman, a danger to society and a threat to mankind. But he is not afraid to die, since his vision makes him transcend the difference between life and death and makes him free to do what has to be done here and now, notwithstanding the risks involved."
The above quote (especially the bolded passages) really hit home with me during recent events in my life where I was put in particular situations that I felt were inappropriate and which everyone else believed to be acceptable. Furthermore, when asked why I was not thrilled about the situation, I was chastised for being too radical, too fanatic, and being a "party pooper."
I am finding more and more, as priesthood approaches, that many of the so-called "social norms" of our society are not for me and more and more I am realizing the extreme clericalism that our people impose on their relationships with priests. They believe that priests are the one's who are supposed to be holy and mature, while at the same time exempting themselves from such behaviour as if they were not Orthodox. I found myself recently contemplating why in certain situations (Eg. in the club) it is considered inappropriate for a priest to be present and yet totally acceptable for all other Orthodox Christians to attend. It is inappropriate because what the priest stands for is ultimately incongruent with what the "club life" stands for. And if we are all attempting to be "Christ-like," and the priest is our spiritual leader in that quest, why do we separate our behaviour from his? Why is it OK for us to do things he cannot?
It is truly a daunting task attempting to preach a message that no one wants to listen to. It is even more disheartening when even your closest friends and family don't understand the message either; when they are part of "the illusionary mask of a manipulative world" and they are unable to take that mask off because they have been conditioned to wear it for as long as they can remember. And even when they dare to remove it, their friends make sure to put it back on them immediately.
Henri Nouwen says that such a ministry can only be done with support and never alone. Yet, I see that in our day an age, in many cases, it will have to be done alone because there is no one else to lean on for support. I find the task sometimes too daunting, too disheartening, too difficult , having no one I can turn to except my fellow priests, among who, only a handful understand the true nature of things. The only solace is Christ's words "with man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." May He give me the courage to bear the inevitable ostracization that will ensue in my upcoming journey.
"The contemplative is not needy or greedy for human contacts, but is guided by a vision of what he has seen beyond the trivial concerns of a possessive world. He does not bounce up and down with the fashions of the moment, because he is in contact with what is basic, central and ultimate. He does not allow anybody to worship idols, and he constantly invites his fellow man to ask real, often painful and upsetting questions, to look behind the surface of smooth behaviour, and to take away all the obstacles that prevent him from getting to the heart of the matter. The contemplative critic takes away the illusionary mask of the manipulative world and has the courage to show what the true situation is. He knows that he is considered by many as a fool, a madman, a danger to society and a threat to mankind. But he is not afraid to die, since his vision makes him transcend the difference between life and death and makes him free to do what has to be done here and now, notwithstanding the risks involved."
The above quote (especially the bolded passages) really hit home with me during recent events in my life where I was put in particular situations that I felt were inappropriate and which everyone else believed to be acceptable. Furthermore, when asked why I was not thrilled about the situation, I was chastised for being too radical, too fanatic, and being a "party pooper."
I am finding more and more, as priesthood approaches, that many of the so-called "social norms" of our society are not for me and more and more I am realizing the extreme clericalism that our people impose on their relationships with priests. They believe that priests are the one's who are supposed to be holy and mature, while at the same time exempting themselves from such behaviour as if they were not Orthodox. I found myself recently contemplating why in certain situations (Eg. in the club) it is considered inappropriate for a priest to be present and yet totally acceptable for all other Orthodox Christians to attend. It is inappropriate because what the priest stands for is ultimately incongruent with what the "club life" stands for. And if we are all attempting to be "Christ-like," and the priest is our spiritual leader in that quest, why do we separate our behaviour from his? Why is it OK for us to do things he cannot?
It is truly a daunting task attempting to preach a message that no one wants to listen to. It is even more disheartening when even your closest friends and family don't understand the message either; when they are part of "the illusionary mask of a manipulative world" and they are unable to take that mask off because they have been conditioned to wear it for as long as they can remember. And even when they dare to remove it, their friends make sure to put it back on them immediately.
Henri Nouwen says that such a ministry can only be done with support and never alone. Yet, I see that in our day an age, in many cases, it will have to be done alone because there is no one else to lean on for support. I find the task sometimes too daunting, too disheartening, too difficult , having no one I can turn to except my fellow priests, among who, only a handful understand the true nature of things. The only solace is Christ's words "with man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." May He give me the courage to bear the inevitable ostracization that will ensue in my upcoming journey.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Monasteries, Monasteries, Rama Lama Ding Dong!
Now I know most people will curcify me for what I'm about to say, but I truly believe that we Orthodox, as a whole, are definately going down the wrong path when it comes to monasteries.
I was recently in Greece, which I can tell you is not the best place to find spirituality these days. I liken it to the Byzantine Empire at the height of its decadence. Because it's a an Orthodox nation, everyone takes for granted that they are Orthodox and hardly anyone takes the faith seriously. However, the monasteries are flourishing in a way never before seen. Everywhere one goes it can be observed that people are flocking to the monasteries for spiritual enlightenment, solace, direction, and advice. Now this is all good and dandy if the monasteries were not using this opportunity to make a fortune off the faith of the populace.
Now I know these words seem harsh and many will tell me, "The monasteries need to make money to survive." Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with monasteries making money to feed themselves and others, but I do have a problem with the thousands (and sometimes millions) that they are making from entrance fees, prescribed candle prices, bookstores, etc, etc, etc. One monastery would not even allow us to take pictures because they had sold the rights to a publisher for their next upcoming book that will feature a more "professional" look at the monastery, sold at a premium price, at all bookstores across the country and abroad. I mean, com'on, I can't even take a picture of the places I worship at? That's a little extreme.
When I go to Mt. Athos and the monks pick me and my bishop up in 2005 Land Rovers with leather interiors, that's a little excessive. Where is the the asceticism that people are flocking to the monasteries for? And yet people insist that this is the true path for an Orthodox Christian and that the city parishes are somehow "not holy enough" for them.
Then I returned to Canada, where I believed that we had not progressed soo much in this spiritual downfall. We have two Greek Monasteries here and to my knowledge, they were still fairly moderate in their quest for money. Boy was I wrong. On the vespers of the feast of the monastery her in my town, I was shocked at what I saw. Not only did they build a beautiful gate, pave the road, build a new parking lot, and build a brand new outdoor stage fore big events, I also had to pass through the daunting gauntlet of "Stations" that were all designed to extract money from me. And each time I passed by one of these "stations," either trying to sell me candles, trinkets, stickers, or multiple collection trays, the council members would give me a rude smirk when I didn't drop some money in the tray. "I'm sorry sir, I didn't budget for having to pay for the holy unction at the back of the chapel!" And last time I checked, monks didn't need expensive gates and state-of-the-art stages. What's wrong with the old stage, the dirt road, and parking on the grass? Isn't that all part of "escaping from the world?"
Truly, it seems to me that the quiet, ascetic life that people have always been drawn to at monasteries has been lost for a more commercial, and hate to say more luxurious, way of living. People will always flock to the monasteries and will always give money, however it's what the monks do with that situation that makes the difference. Do they use their excess $ to feed the poor, create programs for the needy and downtrodden, donate to hospitals, etc etc etc? I've never seen our monastery do such a thing. While at the same time, they jack up their prices soo much that it's actually cheaper for me to order clerical vestments from Greece than to buy them from our local nuns.
Going back to my earlier point of people abandoning their local parishes for the "Holier" environment of the monastery. Even if this were so, I still see a huge problem with it. Not only should people understand that their local parish is their number 1 priority, but they should also understand the difference between living a monastic life and living a life "in the world." Yet furthermore, the problem is twofold because now, not only are people flocking to the monasteries with this misconception, but they are not finding such peace and solace anymore, they are finding yet another form of commercialism. This reality will force them to view the monastery in a way it's never been seen before; a clique for "super Orthodox" to congregate in so that they can believe that they are holier than the rest of us. Furthermore, due to the loss of the spirtual innocence of such holy places, this clique is sure to be founded more on popular culture than on authetic spirituality and humility. Perhaps the monasteries found that the latter just doesn't sell as well as the first. Who knows. Frankly, I weep for our future generations.
I was recently in Greece, which I can tell you is not the best place to find spirituality these days. I liken it to the Byzantine Empire at the height of its decadence. Because it's a an Orthodox nation, everyone takes for granted that they are Orthodox and hardly anyone takes the faith seriously. However, the monasteries are flourishing in a way never before seen. Everywhere one goes it can be observed that people are flocking to the monasteries for spiritual enlightenment, solace, direction, and advice. Now this is all good and dandy if the monasteries were not using this opportunity to make a fortune off the faith of the populace.
Now I know these words seem harsh and many will tell me, "The monasteries need to make money to survive." Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with monasteries making money to feed themselves and others, but I do have a problem with the thousands (and sometimes millions) that they are making from entrance fees, prescribed candle prices, bookstores, etc, etc, etc. One monastery would not even allow us to take pictures because they had sold the rights to a publisher for their next upcoming book that will feature a more "professional" look at the monastery, sold at a premium price, at all bookstores across the country and abroad. I mean, com'on, I can't even take a picture of the places I worship at? That's a little extreme.
When I go to Mt. Athos and the monks pick me and my bishop up in 2005 Land Rovers with leather interiors, that's a little excessive. Where is the the asceticism that people are flocking to the monasteries for? And yet people insist that this is the true path for an Orthodox Christian and that the city parishes are somehow "not holy enough" for them.
Then I returned to Canada, where I believed that we had not progressed soo much in this spiritual downfall. We have two Greek Monasteries here and to my knowledge, they were still fairly moderate in their quest for money. Boy was I wrong. On the vespers of the feast of the monastery her in my town, I was shocked at what I saw. Not only did they build a beautiful gate, pave the road, build a new parking lot, and build a brand new outdoor stage fore big events, I also had to pass through the daunting gauntlet of "Stations" that were all designed to extract money from me. And each time I passed by one of these "stations," either trying to sell me candles, trinkets, stickers, or multiple collection trays, the council members would give me a rude smirk when I didn't drop some money in the tray. "I'm sorry sir, I didn't budget for having to pay for the holy unction at the back of the chapel!" And last time I checked, monks didn't need expensive gates and state-of-the-art stages. What's wrong with the old stage, the dirt road, and parking on the grass? Isn't that all part of "escaping from the world?"
Truly, it seems to me that the quiet, ascetic life that people have always been drawn to at monasteries has been lost for a more commercial, and hate to say more luxurious, way of living. People will always flock to the monasteries and will always give money, however it's what the monks do with that situation that makes the difference. Do they use their excess $ to feed the poor, create programs for the needy and downtrodden, donate to hospitals, etc etc etc? I've never seen our monastery do such a thing. While at the same time, they jack up their prices soo much that it's actually cheaper for me to order clerical vestments from Greece than to buy them from our local nuns.
Going back to my earlier point of people abandoning their local parishes for the "Holier" environment of the monastery. Even if this were so, I still see a huge problem with it. Not only should people understand that their local parish is their number 1 priority, but they should also understand the difference between living a monastic life and living a life "in the world." Yet furthermore, the problem is twofold because now, not only are people flocking to the monasteries with this misconception, but they are not finding such peace and solace anymore, they are finding yet another form of commercialism. This reality will force them to view the monastery in a way it's never been seen before; a clique for "super Orthodox" to congregate in so that they can believe that they are holier than the rest of us. Furthermore, due to the loss of the spirtual innocence of such holy places, this clique is sure to be founded more on popular culture than on authetic spirituality and humility. Perhaps the monasteries found that the latter just doesn't sell as well as the first. Who knows. Frankly, I weep for our future generations.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
It's Been A While
Well, it's been a while since I've been here. It feels like soo much longer. Perhaps this is because soo much has happened in my life since last time I was here. Firstly, I graduated from St. Vladimir's Seminary with my masters degree. After that I got married to my beautiful wife Joanna, moved into a new apartment, and went on a five week tour of Greece with my dance company. So as you can see, it's been a very eventful summer for me. Life has comepletely changed. I live on my own with my wife, I have bills to pay, apartment to clean, and many more responsabilities. Not to mention the contemplation of ordination in the next few years. Yes, my life is upside down, and yet very good. Thank God for His Guidance and my wife for her love and patience. And since I have finally connected to the internet, here at my new apartment, I now hope to get a little more writing done. So here's to many more rants on the faith, the church, and life in general. God Bless you all who read this and pray for me, as I pray for all of you. Take care and God Bless!
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Paschal Voodoo: Piety or Idolatry?
Thursday night we celebrated the service of the twelve gospels. Being the head chanter at my church, I have to say that this service is the most beautiful (from a hymnographic point of view), although also the most strenuous.
However, as usual, certain "traditions," that we have as Greeks, really make me wonder whether we truly understand the great and Holy Mystery of Pascha, or whether we have missed the point altogether. For example, when people begin hanging their crosses on the large liturgical cross used in the procession on Holy Thursday, in order that they may obtain a "special" blessing, I think we've gone off the proverbial deep end. Furthermore, it's not only crosses, but also scarves, trinkets, and even underwear and socks! Such things have no place on the cross of Christ! And yet not only do we see such things, but even worse, we allow and tolerate them.
Now, some may think that this particular issue is not one to get upset about. Most of our people think that this is a nice tradition that does no harm to the general believers, however, let us look at the source of the tradition. The cross, like all icons, is a symbol that reminds us of the original cross that bore Christ, just like an icon of a saint reminds us of Christ who the saint attempted to emulate. The symbol itself has no power except that of invoking our belief. This is why we do not worship icons, we venerate them.
If we follow this logic, than we can understand that all crosses are the same symbol of the prototype. No one cross is holier than the other and even those icons and crosses that perform miracles, are chosen by God and work signs at particular times for particular reasons. It is not because they are inherently holy in themselves. However, we see on Holy Thursday the utter idiocy of people taking their own crosses and hanging them on another cross because they feel that that cross is somehow holier than theirs'. What we are seeing here is a comparison of holiness between two objects which symbolize the same thing. People believe that because the liturgical cross is kept in the altar, it is somehow special and "holier" than other crosses.
Now stop me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this kind of thinking the reason for iconoclasm? Isn't this so-called harmless "tradition" really a form of idolatry? We are literally believing in some kind of Cross "Mojo" that will make everything ok if we touch it. The cross of Christ has become, for many, the magical Orthodox talisman. And what makes it worse, is that the priests do nothing to stop this behaviour. Even when this mentality extends to the candles that are burying on the cross, which people wait for all night just to receive a piece, and of which the priests do nothing about. By not dealing with the issue, we help perpetuate it. Silence, in many instances, is equivalent to consent. But it seems that no one is up to the task.
Most of us are content in viewing many of the traditions in our church as a type of magic or voodoo. The Eucharist is one of the main examples of this, where people see it as a special gift that we receive after we have done a certain amount of prescribed actions to justify the taking of it. It is not seen as an expression of who we are as the people of God because such an understanding requires everyone of us to accept that we must change our whole outlook on life; that we must live Orthodoxy every day, not just on Sundays; that we must love our neighbor and give to the poor; that we must pray and actually take time to learn our faith. Yes, such an understanding is much harder to accept and much more unpopular to the status quo. And so, what do we do? We fall back on what is easiest; Magic. We keep it simple: I do A so I can be entitled to B. That's it! However, that usually breeds idolatry and fanaticism; two of the most prominent occurrences within our church.
I guess I'm just tired of our people lying to themselves about who they are and what they believe, while the clergy are content to simply pacify the people for their own convenience.
However, as usual, certain "traditions," that we have as Greeks, really make me wonder whether we truly understand the great and Holy Mystery of Pascha, or whether we have missed the point altogether. For example, when people begin hanging their crosses on the large liturgical cross used in the procession on Holy Thursday, in order that they may obtain a "special" blessing, I think we've gone off the proverbial deep end. Furthermore, it's not only crosses, but also scarves, trinkets, and even underwear and socks! Such things have no place on the cross of Christ! And yet not only do we see such things, but even worse, we allow and tolerate them.
Now, some may think that this particular issue is not one to get upset about. Most of our people think that this is a nice tradition that does no harm to the general believers, however, let us look at the source of the tradition. The cross, like all icons, is a symbol that reminds us of the original cross that bore Christ, just like an icon of a saint reminds us of Christ who the saint attempted to emulate. The symbol itself has no power except that of invoking our belief. This is why we do not worship icons, we venerate them.
If we follow this logic, than we can understand that all crosses are the same symbol of the prototype. No one cross is holier than the other and even those icons and crosses that perform miracles, are chosen by God and work signs at particular times for particular reasons. It is not because they are inherently holy in themselves. However, we see on Holy Thursday the utter idiocy of people taking their own crosses and hanging them on another cross because they feel that that cross is somehow holier than theirs'. What we are seeing here is a comparison of holiness between two objects which symbolize the same thing. People believe that because the liturgical cross is kept in the altar, it is somehow special and "holier" than other crosses.
Now stop me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this kind of thinking the reason for iconoclasm? Isn't this so-called harmless "tradition" really a form of idolatry? We are literally believing in some kind of Cross "Mojo" that will make everything ok if we touch it. The cross of Christ has become, for many, the magical Orthodox talisman. And what makes it worse, is that the priests do nothing to stop this behaviour. Even when this mentality extends to the candles that are burying on the cross, which people wait for all night just to receive a piece, and of which the priests do nothing about. By not dealing with the issue, we help perpetuate it. Silence, in many instances, is equivalent to consent. But it seems that no one is up to the task.
Most of us are content in viewing many of the traditions in our church as a type of magic or voodoo. The Eucharist is one of the main examples of this, where people see it as a special gift that we receive after we have done a certain amount of prescribed actions to justify the taking of it. It is not seen as an expression of who we are as the people of God because such an understanding requires everyone of us to accept that we must change our whole outlook on life; that we must live Orthodoxy every day, not just on Sundays; that we must love our neighbor and give to the poor; that we must pray and actually take time to learn our faith. Yes, such an understanding is much harder to accept and much more unpopular to the status quo. And so, what do we do? We fall back on what is easiest; Magic. We keep it simple: I do A so I can be entitled to B. That's it! However, that usually breeds idolatry and fanaticism; two of the most prominent occurrences within our church.
I guess I'm just tired of our people lying to themselves about who they are and what they believe, while the clergy are content to simply pacify the people for their own convenience.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Ahh Pascha...My Love Hate Relationship
Well, it's that time of year again. The annual commemoration of Christ's death and resurrection. Personally, I find this the most joyous and upsetting time in my life.
Joy...
The reasons for joy should be apparent to my long time readers. It is the single event in history which reforms everything in the past, present, and future into a new understanding, a new life, a new creation. It is both God and man's victory over death and sin. It is the hope in which we place all our trust as Christians; the hope of resurrection...the hope of salvation. It is for this reason that Lent, Holy week, and the Resurrection are such pontent spiritual events in our lives. From the very devout to the most nominalist Christians, Pascha marks an important time. This is why Holy Saturday night is always marked with an overabundance of people in our churches. They are all drawn to the power of the resurrection, even though many do not quite understand it.
Upset...
It is these same masses of people that, while at the same time give me a great sense of family when assembled together, greatly upset me. I guess the number one reason for this frustration actually stems from this same overwhelming feeling of family that I feel only once a year. The fact that this is the only time when most of our baptized Christians actually show up to church is both hopeful and discouraging. I mean, I am glad to see them here at least once a year, and yet what a shame, what a discouragement, what a failure for the church, that these are not seen more often.
In this season, I find myself pondering the "what if's"of church life. "What if" these people could be reached on a more personal level? "What if" they could understand and truly live their faith? "What if" even half of them would contribute to the family of the church on a weekly basis. I guess Pascha always inevitably reminds me of the potential we have as Orthodox Christians and how far we have yet to go. The potential can be seen on Anastasi night; thousands lined up outside every church, waiting to the recieve the light of resurrection. However, the fact that 90% of leave before the actual Paschal Liturgy starts, thus missing the whole point of the resurrection, shows me how far we have yet to go.
Having said this, the subsequent question that most often follows such a statement is usually the one of blame. Who is to blame for this sad situation? Who can we turn to when searching for answers? Is it the priests, who sometimes have become accustomed to treating the divine services as a routine that they must simply get through in order to appease the expectations of the people? Is it the unruly youth, who simply do not care about church or God in this faithless generation? Or is it the parents who neglected to raise them properly? Is it the self-imposing bishops, or is it the fanatic extremists who seek to cleanse Orthodoxy from all the above mentioned types of people?
While asking all these questions, it has become abundantly clear that, just as the church is a living body (one that is affected by all its members), the problem of spiritual laxity rests with all its members. ALL are to blame and ALL are responsible for this situation. Pointing fingers at one or the other is simply a waste of time. The church will only grow and heal itself through a communal co-operation of all its members.
However, there is somewhat of a greater onus on the priest to set this co-operation in motion. The reality is that the body needs to have a brain from which it is to receive its direction. Now, it is true that many times, the hand or the foot do not want to listen to the brain, just as many groups of people do not want to listen to their priest. However, it is also imperative that the brain is functioning correctly, not sending the wrong signals to it members. In like manner, when the priests do not have a vision of where the church must go, and in addition, lack both the knowledge, wisdom, and personal spirituality to achieve such a vision, then how can we expect the members of the body to listen? The hard reality is that the Church is a communion, and as such, the actions of everyone affect everyone else. I repeat, the church cannot function without the co-operation of all its members.
This is the reality of our lives, the truth of our existence. However, it is this truth that most peopel do not want to accept. They simply can't be bothered with the problems of other people. And so, the ultimate enemy is us, ourselves. Our inability to think and act in a selfless manner is our greatest obstacle. In short, we lack the ability to Love. And it is this lack of Love, during the season of absolute Love, that makes me both joyful and sad at the same time.
May we all have a blessed and life-changing Pascha.
Joy...
The reasons for joy should be apparent to my long time readers. It is the single event in history which reforms everything in the past, present, and future into a new understanding, a new life, a new creation. It is both God and man's victory over death and sin. It is the hope in which we place all our trust as Christians; the hope of resurrection...the hope of salvation. It is for this reason that Lent, Holy week, and the Resurrection are such pontent spiritual events in our lives. From the very devout to the most nominalist Christians, Pascha marks an important time. This is why Holy Saturday night is always marked with an overabundance of people in our churches. They are all drawn to the power of the resurrection, even though many do not quite understand it.
Upset...
It is these same masses of people that, while at the same time give me a great sense of family when assembled together, greatly upset me. I guess the number one reason for this frustration actually stems from this same overwhelming feeling of family that I feel only once a year. The fact that this is the only time when most of our baptized Christians actually show up to church is both hopeful and discouraging. I mean, I am glad to see them here at least once a year, and yet what a shame, what a discouragement, what a failure for the church, that these are not seen more often.
In this season, I find myself pondering the "what if's"of church life. "What if" these people could be reached on a more personal level? "What if" they could understand and truly live their faith? "What if" even half of them would contribute to the family of the church on a weekly basis. I guess Pascha always inevitably reminds me of the potential we have as Orthodox Christians and how far we have yet to go. The potential can be seen on Anastasi night; thousands lined up outside every church, waiting to the recieve the light of resurrection. However, the fact that 90% of leave before the actual Paschal Liturgy starts, thus missing the whole point of the resurrection, shows me how far we have yet to go.
Having said this, the subsequent question that most often follows such a statement is usually the one of blame. Who is to blame for this sad situation? Who can we turn to when searching for answers? Is it the priests, who sometimes have become accustomed to treating the divine services as a routine that they must simply get through in order to appease the expectations of the people? Is it the unruly youth, who simply do not care about church or God in this faithless generation? Or is it the parents who neglected to raise them properly? Is it the self-imposing bishops, or is it the fanatic extremists who seek to cleanse Orthodoxy from all the above mentioned types of people?
While asking all these questions, it has become abundantly clear that, just as the church is a living body (one that is affected by all its members), the problem of spiritual laxity rests with all its members. ALL are to blame and ALL are responsible for this situation. Pointing fingers at one or the other is simply a waste of time. The church will only grow and heal itself through a communal co-operation of all its members.
However, there is somewhat of a greater onus on the priest to set this co-operation in motion. The reality is that the body needs to have a brain from which it is to receive its direction. Now, it is true that many times, the hand or the foot do not want to listen to the brain, just as many groups of people do not want to listen to their priest. However, it is also imperative that the brain is functioning correctly, not sending the wrong signals to it members. In like manner, when the priests do not have a vision of where the church must go, and in addition, lack both the knowledge, wisdom, and personal spirituality to achieve such a vision, then how can we expect the members of the body to listen? The hard reality is that the Church is a communion, and as such, the actions of everyone affect everyone else. I repeat, the church cannot function without the co-operation of all its members.
This is the reality of our lives, the truth of our existence. However, it is this truth that most peopel do not want to accept. They simply can't be bothered with the problems of other people. And so, the ultimate enemy is us, ourselves. Our inability to think and act in a selfless manner is our greatest obstacle. In short, we lack the ability to Love. And it is this lack of Love, during the season of absolute Love, that makes me both joyful and sad at the same time.
May we all have a blessed and life-changing Pascha.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
