Ancient Faith

Smells and Bells

2011-12-02T09:25:00.000-08:00

A friend was recently discussing a man who had a spiritual experience which resulted in his becoming Orthodox. She said she was still waiting for her children to have such an experience. She has very fine children - all of whom are Orthodox - but in her opinion, they have not all really embraced their Orthodoxy. That may be true, but my point in relating this is that I have similar concerns about my children, and many of us have a similar question about the youth at our parish and throughout the Church.

Typically the response to this concern is to immediately start developing programs that will keep the kids affiliated with the Church. Not necessarily make them deepen their Orthodoxy, but that is a different topic. The quest is to try to make the bells go off for them - to generate the spiritual experience. I do think that their is value in this, especially with children whose parents are functionally not Orthodox ( the ones who drop the children off for Sunday school on their way to Starbucks). However, for those whose parents strive to lead an Orthodox life, I think perhaps we need to be more concerned with smells rather than bells.

Fr. Josiah Trenham in one of his talks on the Divine Liturgy, told the story of an Elder to whom a certain priest wanted to speak. The Elder refused to speak to the priest because "he smelled.". The smell was not a physical smell, but the stench of some grave sin. At that point nobody knew about the sin, but the Elder clearly perceived it. Ultimately, the priest was defrocked. Of course, there are many other similar stories throughout the history of the Church. Similarly, there are numerous stories about these who are more spiritually developed perceiving holiness, the presence of angels, and the like. Young children, interestingly, seem to have the same ability to perceive reality. It is only over time that this capability seems to wane.

I suspect that it is this ability, or the residual ability in older children, that stands at the heart of the challenge to develop children into strong Christians. If their parents, as well as other adults involved in their formation, do not carry the sweet smell of a righteous life, but rather carry, perhaps not the stench of some grave sin, but even so much as the bad smell of a life lived too enthralled to the passions, or perhaps just a bit too hypocritically.

So, while there is much to be said for developing strong programs for our youth, the first place we need to look is to ourselves. Perhaps the person in need of a spiritual experience is us, not our children.

Reading the Old Testament

2011-06-21T09:43:00.000-07:00

One of great things about becoming part of the Orthodox Church has been learning how the early Church read the Old Testament. During my time in Protestant Bible Studies, there were typically two approaches used to read the Old Testament. One either read the Old Testament by itself, to see what things you could learn from it, or one read it to gain insights into the New Testament. Typically, both were used, and they seem reasonable.

Interestingly, though, the Church never approached the Old Testament in that manner. The Old Testament, instead, is filled with “types” pointing to Christ and our ultimate salvation. This was brought to mind yesterday when flipping the channel and I ran across Joyce Meyer. Now, I realize that she is not well received among all Protestants, and she has more serious issues in her preaching than this one -but I think her prosperity gospel approach to things may be fed, to some extent, by her lack of understanding about how to read the Old Testament.

In the course of her talk, she referred to Moses and the parting of the Red Sea. She stated (I’m paraphrasing a bit here) that she didn’t know why God asked Moses to stretch his arms out over the Red Sea to help part it. She stated that it was an act of faith on Moses’ part, but that there was no purpose other than that.

Unfortunately, she is unfamiliar with the way the Church read the Old Testament. God did not ask Moses to do it as an act of faith, but rather that we might see the saving power of the cross. We know this from the first Katavasia of the Holy Cross:

Inscribing the invincible weapon of the Cross upon the waters,

Moses marked a straight line before him with his staff and divided the Red Sea,

opening a path for Israel who went over dry-shod.

Then he marked a second line across the waters and united them in one,

overwhelming the chariots of Pharaoh.

Therefore let us sing to Christ our God,

for He hath been glorified.

If she read the rest of the Old Testament in light of the New, as the Church does, I think she would have a different theology than what she has developed.

Discerning the Will of God

2011-05-25T08:45:00.000-07:00

Recently, especially since the layoffs at work, I’ve been more concerned than usual about discerning God’s will. That in itself is problematic - I should have been more concerned about God’s will long before that, but that’s a different discussion for a different day. What I’m concerned with is how do we know what God’s will is for any given situation? Most people I know who consider themselves Christian, and who take this seriously, are concerned about the same.

Typically, the standard response is pray, and God will reveal his will to you. That is sound advice. Decisions taken without thought to prayer are likely misguided. Orthodox elders will tell you the same. An Abbess at a skete in northern California related the need for prayer in a talk she gave on this subject. However, that really only addresses the asking of God. How is it that I am supposed to hear Him? Mother Dorothea continues and shares the wisdom of various Orthodox saints and elders on that topic.

Before getting to that, though, I think it worth pondering a couple of stories in Scripture that relate to hearing and speaking with God. These stories provide the backdrop, really, to the counsel we hear from the spiritual giants of Christianity. The first is the famous story of Elijah and the “still small voice”. While God is powerful and creates the winds, and causes the earthquakes, etc., He is not in those. Rather, He comes in a still, small, voice. How, then, can we hear God when our lives are filled with noise, and activity, and even more importantly, the maelstrom that is our passions. Blown this way and that by our desires and our will, how can we stand still long enough to even be aware of God? Mother Xenia cites St. Pimen the Great who said that our will is like a wall of brass that stands between us and God. She then quotes, at length, St. Silouan as to the need for great humility to submit our will to God. So, not only can we not hear God, it may be as much that we truly don’t want to. For to do so, requires humility.

The second story is that of Moses bringing the Israelites before God in the wilderness. In order for them to even come near to God (and at that not very near), they must prepare. Moses is required to sanctify them. They must wash their clothes, and abstain from women. They must purify themselves. In the New Testament, we see the Apostles fasting and praying prior to great undertakings, just like the Israelites.

Mother Xenia says the following: “Arguing and judging come from pride, and pride immediately cuts us off from remembrance of and communion with God. St. Silouan said, ‘A cloud blows over and hides the sun, making everything dark. In the same way, one prideful thought causes the soul to lose grace, and she is left in darkness. But, equally, a single impulse of humility—and grace returns. This I have experienced and proved in myself.’” The Church has always taught that the ascetical practices of prayer, and fasting help us to learn humility and to not allow pride and our desires to rule our lives. The purpose, then, of these practices is to allow us to draw nearer to God. It is only then that we can hear that still, small voice.

The Church has also directed us to seek the counsel of a spiritual father, someone who has spent much time growing closer to God. The reason for that is all of what is stated above. These individuals have humbled themselves (one has to go find a spiritual father, they don’t advertise, that’s why St. Theophan was known as the recluse), and by that humility, they allow themselves to hear that still, small voice. Thankfully such people exist, to help keep us from the delusion of our pride.

This is a great wake up call for me.

The False Prophet

2011-05-25T08:15:00.000-07:00

I, like many of my friends and fellow Orthodox, had mixed reactions to Harold Camping and his prediction about the impending rapture. We were amused that anyone would be so bold as to claim that which is not to be known, we joined in the myriad jokes after the prediction failed, and we were all saddened by the heart break of those who followed this man. Tragically, as we all imagined would happen, there has already been reported one suicide related to this man.

I find myself wondering why this man and his prediction captured this Orthodox Christian’s attention so much, as well as that of others. I know that one story that really struck me was that of the people who had basically given up their life savings due to this man’s teachings. Is that really what was most important, though? Or, does it reflect my still worldly mindedness. As an Orthodox, we have a fairly narrow definition of what the true faith is, and thus followers of other faiths are, to some degree or another, following false prophets. Yes, Harold Camping is a false prophet, but so are John Calvin, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, Rick Warren, and Joel Osteen. However, these other people won’t lead one to bankruptcy. Looking at Rick Warren and Joel Osteen, one imagines quite the opposite to be the case. I don’t mean this offend my many dear friends of different faiths - most of whom are sincere and loving people - more so than I have ever been. However, these other prophets are laying out a path that is different than the path to salvation that our Lord established with His Church. How much more dangerous is that than simply losing your money? As a result, do I pray as I should for all of my friends? Do I try to follow the teachings myself, and follow the path with the urgency that I should?

I take this event, and my reaction, as a stark warning to myself that my priorities are still not aligned correctly. Thankfully, the end has not come yet, for I am afraid I am like the servant who shall be found heedless:

Behold, the Bridegroom comes at midnight,

And blessed is that servant whom He shall find watching,

And again, unworthy is the servant whom He shall find heedless.

Beware, therefore, O my soul, do not be weighed down with sleep,

Lest you be given up to death, and lest you be shut out of the Kingdom.

But rouse yourself crying: Holy, Holy, Holy, art Thou, O our God,

Through the Theotokos have mercy on us.

Troparion of Bridegroom Matins

Why We Worship the Way We Do

2011-02-19T18:54:00.000-08:00

Orthodox are known for not changing much. The most modern hymn that I can think of that we ever do is around 100 years old. The oldest go back so far, that I’m not sure anyone is really certain of the age. Our worship service, itself, has undergone very little change over the last 2000 years. If a Christian in the second century were to wander into our Church, except for his inability to understand the English portions of the service (or Slavonic if he were to go to a Russian parish), I think his only comment would be to wonder how come we’ve made it so short (Orthros through Liturgy on a Sunday morning is, at best 2 1/2 hours, vs. all night which used to be the case in the early days of the Church).

I found a great article at a parish in Arizona, that explains the Orthodox understanding of what Worship is supposed to be about. I only would like to add a few thoughts to the great information there. There is one element of worship, arguably a less important element, so I can understand why Dr. DeVyver didn’t really address it. That is the element of Catechesis. Although not so much the case within the Divine Liturgy, there is a strong element of Catechesis in some of the other services, most notably that of Orthros. Although the structure is largely the same from day to day and week to week (Sunday Orthros is longer, as it has a predominant focus on the Resurrection, and additional hymns were developed for that), the text of many of the hymns change in order to express teaching about the Saints or feast being celebrated on that given day.

The wealth of teaching in these services is not to be missed. Unfortunately, in this day and age, most Orthodox do miss Orthros, and thus miss the edification that comes from this service. Given the lack of knowledge of the faith among the Orthodox laity as witnessed by recent surveys, one part of the solution would certainly be attending and listening to the hymns and readings of Orthros. I only hope to see more priests pushing this among their flock.

So what?

2011-01-09T15:49:00.000-08:00

Okay, now that I’ve stressed the need to teach our children about the Incarnation, how the Incarnation figures so prominently in Orthodox theology, and that its unfortunate that it doesn’t figure so prominently in other Christian groups, the question remains, “so what?” Yes, we can see from the hymnography of the Orthodox church that the Incarnation is very important, but why is that? That isn’t made clear at the feast of the Nativity. However, everything in Orthodoxy is connected, in particular to Pascha. In that feast, the ultimate meaning of everything is revealed. However, shortly after the feast of the Nativity is one of the other great feasts of the Church. This feast is so closely connected to the Nativity that they used to be the same feast. Even now, the hymns of Theophany begin not very long after the feast of the Nativity, and Theophany is foretold in some hymns of the Nativity.

Although there is a lot of very deep theology associated with Theophany, there is something that we see with one of the activities associated with Theophany that speaks, I think, to the one aspect of the Incarnation. At Theophany we perform the Blessing of the Waters. In this, we celebrate the Baptism of Christ, and the fact that by his act, he sanctified the waters - all of the waters, not just the River Jordan (which experiences an annual reversal of flow during the Theophany Blessing of the Water). Every year, we repeat this process through the Blessing of the Waters. At Christ’s Baptism, therefore, we see the beginning of the restoration of creation. It starts with the sanctification of the water, and ends, at Pascha, with our own restoration.

This then, points us to what is important about the Incarnation. Christ takes on human nature to heal and restore it, and begin the restoration of all of creation. In fact, it is the teaching of the Church that this assumption of humanity is absolutely necessary in order to heal our humanity. As St. Gregory Nazianzus’ famously said, “that which is not assumed is not healed.” This restoration of creation is then seen throughout the life of the church, most notably with our many incorrupt Saints, such as St. John Maximovitch, or St. Athanasios, for instance. We act on this, but treating holy objects with profound reverence, in part because we know that God has begun the process of the restoration of all.

The Incarnation is the Reason for the Season

2010-12-10T11:13:00.000-08:00

November 21st, 2010

I’m sitting here on a Sunday morning during the Nativity Fast, getting the book cart ready for business. Up on the stage in the hall, the Sunday School children are preparing for the annual Christmas pageant and practicing carols. Unfortunately, that is not where they should be, nor is it what they should be doing.

Today is one of the 12 feasts of the Church. As such, the children should be in class (or in the Church for a sermon), learning about the feast. In most parishes, this would be the case, thankfully, but for those that are most interested in looking like Western churches, this time is spent learning predominantly Protestant carols in preparation for the annual Christmas pageant.

So, what could possibly be wrong with Protestant/Western Christmas carols? Many (especially the older ones) range from simply cheerful to majestic. The lyrics are generally devoid of theological error. Of course, I’m not talking about Rudolph or Frosty, but rather O Come All Ye Faithful, and What Child is This.

A couple of years ago, 9.West blogged on the subject of Protestant Christmas carols. He was responding to an episode of Issues, etc., that found fault with many Christmas carols for not focusing sufficiently on the cross. At the time, I responded with a criticism that Protestant, and, in particular, Lutheran, theology is too focused on the cross. As a result, their understanding of other aspects of God, and His relationship with us, have become atrophied. My focus was on the resurrection, but as I sat there listening to the Protestant carols, I realized another aspect of Protestant theology which was weak, and this weakness is the reason I have a problem with spending time teaching Orthodox children Protestant carols. This is especially true when this time is spent during time that would otherwise be devoted to teaching them about Orthodoxy. Protestant carols generally do a bad job of expressing the incarnation. Frequently it isn’t mentioned, and when it is, no attempt is made to engage the mystery of the incarnation at any level.

Let’s look at some of the hymns the kids were practicing the morning that I first started working on this entry. The selection of carols is “O Come All Ye Faithful,” then there is “Silent Night,” “Joy to the World,” “Little Drummer Boy”, “Hark the Herald Angels Sing”, “O Little Town of Bethlehem”, “The First Noel”, and “Angels We Have Heard on High”. There is one question I think we should ask in two different ways. The question is, “is there anything about singing this that would cause an Arian to feel he has gone against his faith?”. The two ways in which this should be asked is first with regard to the first verse (which is pretty much all that will be sung at this pageant), and secondly with regard to the entire carol.

For Silent Night, I’m not sure anything, anywhere in the song demands an understanding that we’re discussing God when we’re discussing Jesus. The closest might be the third verse, but that really doesn’t pass muster. For Joy to the World, the Little Drummer Boy, Angels We Heave Heard on High (one of my all time favorites, I’ll add), and The First Noel, you have the same problem. Again, the last verse of The First Noel can be argued, but its not terribly clear. O Little Town of Bethlehem gets pretty close, if you’re willing to wait until the last verse. The phrase, “o come to us, abide with us, Our Lord Emmanuel” makes it relatively clear that this song might be addressed to God. Which is good for the song, but in the children’s case, they won’t learn this verse because they never go that far. Hark, the Herald Angels Sing hits the nail right on the head, no question about it, in the second verse, “Offspring of a Virgin’s womb, veiled in flesh the Godhead see, hail the incarnate Deity.” Finally, after all of these carols, we get to one which unambiguously proclaims the incarnation, which is, after all, the point of the holiday.

Compare this to a couple of Orthodox hymns, or carols from Orthodox countries:

Thy Nativity, O Christ our God,
hath shone forth the light of wisdom upon the world;
for therein those who worship the stars
have been taught by a star
to worship Thee, the Sun of Righteousness,
and to know Thee, the Dayspring from on

high.

O Lord, glory be to Thee! (Troparion of the Nativity, Tone 4)

Today the Virgin giveth birth to the Transcendent One,
and the earth offereth a cave to the Unapproachable One.
Angels with shepherds give glory,
the magi journey with a star,
for our sakes, a young Child is born, Who is Pre-eternal God! (Kontakion of the Nativity, Tone 3).

One of my favorites, from the Royal Hours on Christmas Eve:

Today He Who holds the whole creation in His hand is born of a Virgin.
He Whose essence none can touch is bound in swaddling-clothes as a
mortal man.
God, Who in the beginning fashioned the heavens, lies in a manger.
He who rained manna on His people in the wilderness is fed on milk from
His mother’s breast.
The Bridegroom of the Church summons the wise men;
the Son of the Virgin accepts their gifts.
We worship Your birth, O Christ.
We worship Your birth, O Christ.
We worship Your birth, O Christ.
Show us also Your Holy Theophany!

Finally, the following, a traditional Greek carol:

Good evening noblemen,
may i sing at your mansion,
this day celebrating Jesus’ holy birth,

that Jesus is being born today
in the town of Bethlehem
The skies rejoice
the whole nature is happy

In the cave he is being born
in the horses’ trough
the king of the skies
and maker of everything

Again, I don’t have anything against Protestant/Western Christmas carols. Many are very pretty, and I’m sure they serve Protestant/Western theology just fine. However, the Orthodox think the Incarnation is extremely important, hence our hymnography. As Orthodox, I don’t think we should be wasting the limited amount of time available to us to instruct our youth in the Orthodox faith with hymns that are not designed to do that at all.

Why We Don't "Do" Santa

2010-11-14T21:11:00.000-08:00

Discussing the Polar Express, I felt compelled to republish this.

I mentioned in an earlier entry that we don’t do Santa at our house. I thought it would be worthwhile explaining why. My intent is not to cast a bah humbug over the day, but rather to provide one person’s view.

Initially, our intent behind not doing the Santa myth was two fold. The first was that we really wanted to focus on Christ, and things that the Church felt was important for us around the Nativity. Even more important was a concern we had that creating this make believe semi spiritual character and working hard to convince the children that he is real, only to have them ultimately learn otherwise, could have unintended consequences in other aspects of their spiritual lives.

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of trouble people go through to convince their children that Santa is real. From the simpler things, like leaving out a plate of cookies that are ultimately consumed, to the more elaborate of leaving footprints outside and people coming in the house dressed as Santa, it becomes of utmost importance to lead the children to believe in this make believe character. When the children ultimately learn otherwise, they can be heartbroken.

While I realize that not every child, maybe not even most, will be terribly bothered by the revelation, I propose that something much more serious could affect all of them. If mom and dad have been so dishonest over this never seen figure, how are children supposed to accept that they are being honest about God? Children will go through enough significant struggles as they grow older. Will they automatically turn to God and the Church for help, or will they think of God as merely some nice make believe character that their parents pretend exist in the interest of getting their children to behave?

I find it interesting that most Santa related movies that I’m aware of have to do with a loss of faith. People, who, for a variety of reasons don’t believe in Santa anymore. If you think I’m wrong that most Santa movies have that as a theme, name me one that doesn’t. Miracle on 34th Street, Polar Express, Elf, The Santa Clause, The Santa Clause 2 (where one character hates things Christmas because she was lied to about Santa), etc., all have loss of faith as a theme. I think the reason is that the film makers understand that it is the Santa myth that causes people to lose faith. All of these movies feel like a desperate cry for something to believe in. I remember an incident with one of our children when they asked a teacher if Santa Claus was real. When told that he was, there was confusion. Were mom and dad wrong? Worse, did their beloved teacher lie to them?

What’s interesting, I suppose, is that I find myself in interesting company. Googling on the whole notion of Santa Claus, I found an atheist website, and then this Op-Ed piece. An interesting quote appears part of the way through the article:

I've amassed recollections of "finding out the truth about Santa," and many were stories of genuine embarrassment and resentment. The systematic deception makes children feel taken advantage of or like the butt of a joke.

If all of this isn’t a good enough reason, as we became Orthodox, it occurred to me that Santa represents a somewhat misguided theology. If Santa ultimately reflects a Christian world view, then in that world God punishes us if we’re bad and rewards us if we are good. On the one hand, a sort of Pelagianism, and on the other hand a Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God scenario. Neither is really consistent with Orthodox theology.

I think it would be far better for Santa to simply fade away. After all, he is mostly a marketing gimmick, if not created by Coke, exploited by them and most everyone else. Instead let’s spend December 6th learning about St. Nicholas, and celebrating him with Church services (<self serving> like this concert that was performed after our Pan-Orthodox St. Nicholas Vespers </self serving>). Let’s leave the feast of the Nativity for focus on Christ and his incarnation, and what that means to us. You can read some hymns that might be beneficial in that study.

Anglocatholicism

2010-10-19T08:56:00.000-07:00

One of the greatest difficulties in discussing Anglicanism is in understanding what the beliefs actually are. I recall when I briefly attempted to do an “Ask the Catechist” page on our website, that often I would get a question of the sort, what does the Episcopal Church belief about...? The answer needed a caveat about the challenges of defining doctrine in the Episcopal Church. Anglocatholicism, as a subset of Anglicanism, suffers from the same problem, although to a lesser degree.

When I first returned to the church, I had never heard of the term Anglocatholicism. Over time, of course, that changed. What I came to learn, both by reading what would become the core text of our adult formation (to be renamed the Catechumenate later on), and by simple observation, was that we were basically very Roman, both in practice and in belief. In fact, outside of Papal infallibility, and perhaps indulgences, there is nothing I can recall that would separate us from Rome. We had a Mary altar, occasionally the benediction of the sacrament, including the annual vigil before the sacrament on Maundy Thursday, and many other practices that would remind one of being in a Roman Catholic parish. In fact, in the post Vatican II era, we could be described as more Catholic than many Roman parishes. We sold rosaries in the gift shop (we never had a formal rosary recitation, although it was discussed). Even at that, we weren’t as bad as some parishes. One that I attended in London, still had significant portions of the service in Latin.

I would come to adopt the Anglican Breviary - the book of hours companion to the Anglican Missal. Both books could be found amongst more “hardcore” AngloCatholics and AngloCatholic parishes. The breviary celebrated all of the Roman Catholic Saints and Feast Days established prior to the start of the 20th century. I struggled at times with some of this - for instance the Immaculate Conception, and some of the teaching on transubstantiation which appeared in the Breviary.

My point in describing all of this, is in order to compare this information against the writings of the Oxford Movement. It is interesting to note, especially when compared to Tract 38, which 9.West quoted, the degree to which this sort of Anglicanism would have been objectionable to the early Tractarians. Of course, by the time Tract 90 came along, some of these beliefs would have been less problematic, as John Henry Newman was actively trying to make excuse for his beilefs in light of the 39 Articles, which, until the 20th century, had been binding upon Anglicans. Just a few years later, of course, he would write “On the Development of Christian Doctrine,” which would effectively justify every Roman Catholic Doctrine (and any other innovation they would seek to introduce).

John Henry Newman’s point in Tract 38 was to seek to return Anglicanism to its roots in the reformation, In 1834, at the time of the writing of Tract 38, that seemed reasonable. By 1841, at the writing of Tract 90, the contradictions both between Newman’s beliefs and the writers of the 39 articles were becoming apparent, and the contradictions between ancient Christianity and the English reformation were becoming apparent, as well.

It is interesting to note that in the late 19th century, a series of books was published called the Library of AngoCatholic Theology. In it was much of the material of the early Anglican Divines. According to the John Henry Newman of 1834, this was the stuff of authentic AngloCatholicism. When I decided that the near Roman Catholicism of 20th century AngloCatholicism wasn’t really the right path, I decided to go the way of the early Anglican Divines, and was able to locate one of these volumes vs. bookfinder (perhaps the most dangerous websites for bibliophiles). It was a book called Hammond’s Practical Catechism. I figured a Catechism was a good place to start.

Unfortunately, Hammond’s Practical Catechism, while holding a lot of “catholic” views, wasn’t entirely that way. Nor was it entirely in agreement with AngloCatholicism of any stripe. It took me all of a minute to discover that. I couldn’t remember when I was thinking about it the other day, what i ran across that convinced me of that. A review of Hammond’s work quickly led me to at least one such disagreement. Hammond, like Zwingli, believes that the Eucharist is merely symbolic. In no manner is Christ present in the Sacrament. That is in stark contrast to both Tract 38 and 90, and most certainly to 20th Century AngloCatholicism. My recollection is that there are other problems, as well.

The question in all of this, then, is, what is AngloCatholicism? Is it the nearly Roman Catholic views of 20th Century AngloCatholicism? Is it the Via Media that John Henry Newman espoused in 1834? The version he espoused in 1841? Or is it the Anglicanism of the Reformation?

It is not enough to simply assert that all of these are valid positions, as they are, at times, opposed to one another. For example, according to Tract 38, invocation of Saints and veneration of Icons is idolatry. By Tract 90, not so much, by the 20th Century , not at all. The problem is that if something is truly idolatrous, then to engage in it is quite simply not permissible as a Christian. If you attempt to take a position that is in the middle, you are still saying that those holding the Reformation view have to be wrong. So the middle position isn’t really quite in the middle. That is the situation with most of the conflicting views between Protestantism and Romanism that AngloCatholics, at least those of the Tractarian stripe, find themselves in.

9.West holds out hope that Anglicanism, specifically AngloCatholicism, might be the mechanism for ultimate reunification of Rome and the East. In other words, the Via Media of AngloCatholicism might actually be the Via Media between Rome and the East. This is a familiar view - I used to believe that myself. The assumption was that AngloCatholicism was Orthodox in much of what it believed, but of a Western flavor. I’ll look at that notion in a future entry.

Attitude Toward the Ancient Church

2010-10-18T17:01:00.000-07:00

Virtually all religious groups that align themselves with Christianity make claims about their connection to the early Church. These claims can generally be divided into types - those that claim continuation with the early Church, and those who claim to be restoring the faith to it's early roots.

The first question is, what is meant by the early roots. Almost always this refers to the Church of the New Testament era, and generally not a day later. Some have asserted that the Church began to fall away almost immediately after the death of St. John the Evangelist. The Anglican Church, however, has tended to make the argument that the Church continued on for a period after the repose of St. John, but later fell into error. More recently, I’ve seen writings by modern groups (most notably Reformed Baptists) that seem to imply that they, too, see the Fathers of the post-apostolic age as continuing on in the doctrine to which these groups adhere. The one thing that all of these groups have in common is that doctrine is the entire definition of the Church. That is, any group holding to the same doctrines as the early Church, are thereby members of that same Church.

Of course, “holding to the same doctrines” is a bit of a tricky question. One has to determine what those doctrines are. To some, all doctrines are contained within the covers of their 66 book Bible. Others, as I mentioned, believe that these doctrines are contained both in Scripture and in the writings of the early Church. There is little effective difference between these two views. In both cases, one needs to come to the text with an interpretive framework that helps you understand the text, and deal with those parts which are either unclear or appear to be contradictory. In both cases, as well, there is no foundation in either Scripture or the writings of the Fathers to hold to the belief. St. Paul, himself, clearly refers to teachings that are not contained solely in his letters, but that were transmitted orally. These teachings are part of the παραδοσισ of the Church. The word, often translated as tradition, refers to that which is handed down. So, the teachings of the Church are part of a larger body of knowledge that has been transmitted, or handed down, throughout the history of the Church. Yes, this includes Scripture, and the Church Fathers, but it also includes the prayers, the hymns, and also an oral tradition.

However, the Church has a much different view of itself. We find that view in St. Paul’s epistles, where the Church is described as the very body of Christ. This is not simply some rhetorical device, its a statement of fact. There is an organic wholeness to the Church. It is certainly the case that holding the same beliefs is a key component to what unites us, but there is also something more. That something more is Baptism and Chrismation. It is through this mystery (the two are done together in the ancient Church, and Orthodoxy has preserved this), that we are united to Christ, and therefore united to the Church. In the traditional forms of the Baptism service, either the Godparent or the new member are asked to state three times that they unite themselves to Christ. This, then, points to another aspect of being united to the Church. It is through our will (or those appointed to speak for us), and therefore we must have the capacity to depart as well. Historically, this, of course, has happened, and the Church has had to decide how to bring those who have left back in, if they so desire. Frequently, this is through Chrismation, as the Church has always been very concerned to not baptize anyone more than once.

So, the only way to be truly connected to the early Church is doctrinally and temporally - that is, being physically and spiritually part of that body which has existed since Christ established it. Realistically, any other approach is simply man made.

This Looks Familiar

2010-10-13T09:32:00.000-07:00

9.West published an entry on his blog, that in many respects, I think I could have written 7 or 8 years ago. I experienced many of the same thoughts on my way to the Orthodox Church, so I thought it would be interesting to use his entry as a foundation for a series of my own..

For the sake of background, I should recount a bit of my history. Like 9.West, I was raised in a “high church” parish - my case for the first half of my life. When we moved to California, we ended up in a much lower church parish (as opposed to a Presbyterian church). If I had looked at my Dad’s library back in Illinois, I would have seen a book by Bishop Pike, but the book while hinting at his later descent into heresy, would have held nothing terribly surprising. When we moved to California, that is when we became aware of some of the strangeness in the Episcopal Church. Women entering the priesthood was just the beginning. The parish we landed at hired a new assistant and his then wife, a deacon on the way to becoming a priest. He is now the Bishop of Los Angeles, and one of the most extreme of the “modernist” ECUSA bishops.

During college, I left Christianity altogether. Except for showing up at Christmas with the family, I had little use for it. Several years after college, I returned to the Episcopal Church. Providence would have it that my closest parish was a so-called “AngloCatholic” parish. When I met my future wife, she inspired me to start examining my faith. It led to a couple years in an intensive, very evangelical, bible study. Then it led me to get involved in the then burgeoning adult catechumenate program at my parish. It was then that I began to explore the history of the Church.

Because a previous priest had introduced the parish to the Orthodox Church, and because a current priest was an expert in Russian iconography, as I began my exploration of history, I found myself drawn to one of the earliest Orthodox websites on the internet, as well as one of the earlier Catholic sites. It was interesting that to learn of history, I had to go there. The Episcopal Church was already so confused that there really wasn’t a good site dedicated to exploring how Anglicanism can truly consider itself part of the historic church. I’m not terribly sure that there is now, either. For many years, I not only believed that it was (largely because that is what I had been taught), but I, in turn, taught that to others. It wasn’t until I began truly examining the roots of my AngloCatholic faith, that problems began.

Over the next several weeks, I plan on exploring the following topics:

What Is AngloCatholicism, and where does it fit in the spectrum of belief systems?

Attitudes about the Ancient Church

Apostolic Succession

The Filioque

Anglicanism and Orthodoxy, Facts and Mythology

All of these, of course, subject to significant change!

What did Jesus do?

2010-10-10T16:07:00.000-07:00

For all of my Christian life, which is to say everything except for college and a few years after that, I limited my church involvement to within parish activities. Things like financial support, reading, teaching and the like. I thought at the time, and still think, that such things are important. There are a lot of jobs that need to get done (many that get almost no recognition) to help the Church get its job done. St. Paul speaks of the necessity of all of the parts of the body working together, with none being esteemed above the others.

In St. Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians, he also tells us to imitate him, as he imitates Christ. Of course, this passage spawned the somewhat notorious “What Would Jesus Do” fad. Regardless of how annoying the fad was, we do need to ask, at least, what did Jesus do? Probably the second most important “event” in history is the Incarnation. Jesus taking on human nature so that he could ultimately heal that nature and restore us to the state we should be in. He became one of us, interacted directly with us, communed with us. And not just “us” as in, the believers, but he interacted with everybody.

If we take that rather simplistic view of the Incarnation as a starting point, then it isn’t much of a stretch to suggest that perhaps we should consider getting more directly involved with people beyond the comfort of our parish. Of course, the New Testament is filled with just such commands and examples, and the Church has carried this tradition on throughout the ages. Feed the hungry, give to the poor, visit those in prison, the sick, etc. I’ve long supported such ministries financially, and indirectly by teaching about them when I was responsible for teaching. I assumed that supporting such efforts was, more or less, the same as directly doing those things. As far as the objective outcome of caring for those needs, it probably is the same. However, I was missing one key component, one I should have clued in to since becoming Orthodox. Perhaps there is some even greater benefit that would come from getting directly involved.

The Fathers of the Church teach us that the degree to which we are truly human is dictated by the degree to which we relate to God. The closer the relationship, the more human we are. How, then, do we develop a deeper relationship with God? Clearly the first answer is by prayer. In Orthodoxy, the hesychast tradition has, at its root, a pursuit of St. Paul’s command to “pray without ceasing.” We see this lived out by the great Saints of the Church, many of which were monastics. Monastics, however, are known for something else, even if that may not be the intent of anyone seeking out the monastic life. All monasteries, for the most part (I don’t know of any exceptions) routinely host large numbers of pilgrims, generally providing food, a place to stay, and spiritual guidance, meanwhile asking nothing in return.

The act of caring for others, of course, is commanded by our Lord, as mentioned above. The question is why? The incarnation gives us a clue, as do the words of our Lord when he was describing the last judgement. It is because when we take care of the poor, we are, in fact, deepening our relationship with Christ. This is not merely in a manner of speaking, but it is real. It is tangible.

Recently, I’ve had the opportunity to participate in ministry outside of the Church, to people who are not necessarily members of any Church, let alone ours. FOCUS North America has launched a program in San Diego to work with a local Rescue Mission to provide dinner to homeless in the downtown part of San Diego. Every Wednesday, groups of Orthodox, representing various parishes in the area, cook a meal, serve it to about 100 people, clean up and head on home. We get the opportunity to talk with and eat with these people who live on the streets of downtown San Diego. Young and old, single, and yes, even families (which is, I have to say, more heartbreaking than anything else we run into).

The feeling that I get by participating in this is rather hard to describe. It's not pride, nor is it a sense of self satisfaction, even though I’m as susceptible to these feelings as anyone else - maybe even more so. It's somehow deeper and more fulfilling. I am reminded of the experience of Merry and Pippen when they drank of Ent draught:

The drink was like water, indeed very like the taste of the draughts they had drunk from the Entwash near the borders of the forest, and yet there was some scent or savour in it which they could not describe: it was faint, but it reminded them of the smell of a distant wood borne from afar by a cool breeze at night. The effect of the draught began at the toes, and rose steadily through every limb, bringing refreshment and vigour as it coursed upwards, right to the tips of the hair. - The Two Towers

Perhaps it's but a small taste of what it is like to really relate to God.

TEST

2010-10-01T09:07:00.000-07:00

Just a test article to check facebook rss feeds.

Knowledge of Religion

2010-09-28T11:44:00.000-07:00

A recent Pew Forum survey demonstrates what appears, at first blush, to be an embarrassing lack of knowledge of things religious by Americans who claim to be religious. There are a few problems with the way this is being reported, not the least of which is the fact that believers appear to be more knowledgeable about their beliefs than non-believers, although they know less about other religions. It is this latter realization that I think may prove to be quite dangerous.

In general, for the living out of life as an Orthodox Christian, knowing that the Dalai Lama is Buddhist, or that most people in Pakistan are Muslim, serves little purpose. Surprisingly, knowing the order of books in the Bible isn’t very important either. Knowing who Moses is, or Job, and being familiar with the ten commandments, those are all very important. More importantly, knowing that Christ died for us, and rose again is important. That Martin Luther triggered the Reformation isn’t.

As I blogged about recently, there has been a growing tendency, as a result of the ecumenical movement, to believe that all religions are essentially the same. Certainly many act that way. I think there is a relationship between both the stated tendency, and this demonstration of the lack of religious knowledge. If someone, particularly someone who acts as if they are knowledgeable, that a certain item is fact, in the absence of any independent knowledge of my own, I am likely to believe them. In general, it is the job of our shepherds to guide us in these issues, much as St. Theophan the Recluse did in this work. Unfortunately, these days it is frequently the hierarchs that are engaged in much of the ecumenical behavior. So, instead of protecting the faithful, they are leading them astray. It is only a strong knowledge of our own faith, and faith of others, that will allow us to see the truth.

At our recent Greek Festival, we had a lot of great conversations with folks from other faiths at our booth. Frequently, though, we would have someone who was Roman (or in some cases Eastern) Catholic come and tell us how we were basically the same. The problem is, that we really aren’t. Superficially that may appear to be the case, but Rome has established doctrines that are at odds with the historic faith, and declared key elements of historic Orthodoxy to be, themselves, heresy. Unfortunately, many people are not sufficiently knowledgeable about their own faith to know this. They certainly aren’t knowledgeable enough about other faiths in most cases to know what the teachings actually are.

If this is truly the case, which is what the Pew survey suggests, and if the shepherds will not guide the flock any longer, how can they continue to follow the Way? Thankfully, not all of the shepherds have given up their responsibilities. There are still many holy bishops and priests to guide the faithful, and we have the tradition as found in our prayers and hymns and liturgies. We have the Monks and Nuns who have long been a source of nourishment for the Church. Finally, and most importantly, we have Christ as our head, and the Holy Spirit to guide us.

However, in this modern era, when the teachings of our Church are so readily available to those seeking them, we shouldn’t merely be content that God will protect the Church over time. As in everything else, we must be ready and willing to assist. We do this first and foremost by looking after our own education.

Interfaith Interest

2010-09-27T15:55:00.000-07:00

One of the biggest phenomena on the religious scene in the past century has been the ecumenical movement. The goals of the movement are certainly laudable. People who know each other, and understand each other (to some extent) are less likely to kill each other. I suppose that presupposition warrants some exploration (given that one set of data indicates that 77% of people murdered are murdered by someone they know, with 30% being murdered by family members), but it does seem reasonable.

Now the question that needs to ask is, what is the point of the various religious groups in question? For the Christian, the point is salvation, although the definition of salvation varies a bit. For a more detailed understanding of the Orthodox view of salvation, you can visit the “Glory to God for All Things” blog. Other religions have somewhat similar goals. The hallmark of most of these, and certainly most forms of Christianity is that these groups feel that they have the means to achieve salvation (or nirvana, or entrance into heaven, etc.). Orthodoxy, for instance, believes that salvation comes from Christ, and via the Church that he established. It is important to remember that what we now call Orthodoxy or Orthodox Christianity, was originally called “The Way”. It was a process, not merely a set of doctrines. Since we firmly hold to this, and further hold that salvation is the most important issue facing humanity, it stands to reason that we would not want to do anything that causes confusion about salvation, and that may lead people - either our faithful, or others, to no longer seek out Christ and his Church.

The Ecumenical movement has, in my opinion, resulted in just this sort of confusion. Meetings where different representatives discuss their faith are fine. However, these turned into joint prayer services - in other words, joint worship. The Orthodox Church has long had canons against those activities, largely because we understand that worship is done by a community that is of “one essence” - in fact we state in the liturgy that our ability to recite the same creed somehow reflects our love for one another. I think that there remains that sense among most people, although it is beginning to fade, that of course you wouldn’t worship with folks who hold beliefs significantly different than yours.

I was recently provided with a copy of an article in the Chicago Tribune about an “interfaith” seminary being started up by the Unitarian Church. Given that the Unitarians do not believe that any one religion is necessarily true, one has to believe that this belief is part of what the program will be attempting to teach. Therefore, they will effectively be sowing the very confusion I was speaking of. In addition, I think that such teaching actually serves to denigrate the very religions they claim to be supporting. For instance, Christianity makes some very serious claims - that Christ is the Son of God, that he is the truth and the way. Islam makes similar claims about being the one true way, while at the same time claiming that those who believe that God had a Son are foolish, and that to hold that Christ is God, and that God is a trinity, is blasphemy. Maintaining that both religions are true really means that neither one is. Rather, some generic form of spirituality is true. So, instead of the intended goal of supporting all religions, this interfaith program demeans most of them.

Perhaps getting different religious groups together for a purely social gathering, in the interest of promoting peace, would be a good idea. Certainly there is nothing in Orthodoxy that supports harming members of other faiths. Similarly, if one group is interested in learning about what another group believes, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the one group to make a presentation to the other. It is when ecumenism drifts into either acting or teaching that all religions are basically the same, that the trouble begins.

The best example of the manner in which Orthodox should handle ecumenism, is to provide the kind of loving feedback that this priest provided at the National Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. That is, love everyone, and tell them the truth, in love.

Fundamentalist Christianity - Producer of the Finest Anti-Christians

2010-06-22T08:22:00.000-07:00

Over the past 30 years or so, two of the most effective opponents of Christianity have been former fundamentalists. The first is the somewhat infamous John Shelby Spong, now the retired Episcopal Bishop of Newark. The other is Bart Ehrman, professor of Religious Studies at UNC, Chapel Hill.

Both men would certainly declare themselves Christian, but, since most of their work is focused on removing the Divine nature of Christ, its hard to agree with their description of themselves. I find myself wondering how it is they arrived at their current positions. Is it because of their fundamentalist backgrounds that they have become such ardent non-believers? How many other people, born fundamentalist, have arrived in the same place? Spong and Ehrman, of course, are somewhat unique as they hold positions as Christian educators. Spong, as a retired bishop, is still a bishop of the Episcopal Church, and thus is responsible for teaching Christians. Ehrman, as professor of religion holds a similar responsibility. I won’t make any arguments about the appropriateness of them holding their current positions, but it is because of their positions that they have such an impact on the Christian world.

Let’s begin by a brief description of fundamentalism. I am referring to the specific Christian movement of the early 20th Century, not to the overuse of the term to apply to anyone of a conservative religious bent (with violent overtones, I might add). You can read something about the movement at Wikipedia, with the caveat that the article has been flagged as not being sufficiently neutral, and lacking sufficient citations. I think the background material in the article is pretty solid, but it probably goes astray as it begins discussing the rise of the Christian Right in the U.S. As an aside, that probably doesn’t belong in the article other than as a passing reference to a separate article. Christian Fundamentalism came about as a reaction to a number of factors, but most notably to 19th century scholarly developments - most notably Darwinism and so-called “Higher Criticism” of Scripture which developed in Germany. The movement developed 5 “fundamentals” which all orthodox (note the small o) Christians must adhere to in order to properly be considered Christians: Inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth and divinity of Christ, the second coming, the vicarious atonement, and the resurrection.

Unfortunately, the movement came to have a reputation as being anti-intellectual. Although I have not read the 12 volumes of “fundamentals,” which may, indeed, not have been anti-intellectual, the movement clearly became that over time. It is fine to have a basic formulary which describes the faith, the Orthodox Church, in part, relies on the Nicene Creed for this. However, at the same time, we are required to be able to give a defense, an apologia, for our faith. Fundamentalism largely failed to do that, and many groups that adhered to the fundamentals became known as churches that required one to check their brain at the door.

I think it was this phenomenon that produced Ehrman and Spong. The excessive reaction to liberalism, which certainly challenged basic precepts of traditional Christianity, itself caused the pendulum to swing even farther away and we end up with those who don’t believe in anything that would resemble Christianity. In fact, I would argue that the views of Ehrman and Spong are not so much liberal as anti-fundamentalist. In an odd twist, they have adopted an essentially religious dedication to 19th century scholarship that results in them holding those opposed to such views in disdain in much the same way that their fundamentalist forebearers held liberal theologians in disdain.

Spong relies very heavily on his somewhat limited knowledge of Darwinism ( a view of evolution that is not universally held, even by the most atheistic evolutionists in academia), Newtonian physics absent any knowledge of quantum mechanics, and, of course German higher criticism. The problem is that all of these schools have since gone their way. While Newtonian mechanics are still valid, they are only valid within certain limited contexts. Quantum mechanics and subsequent developments have made it obvious that the universe is much more complex than previously understood. Whereas Newtonian physics would not allow for things like the warp engines of Star Trek, modern physics tells us that such things are not so impossible. I recall once reading an article by Spong dismissing the accounts of the Ascension simply because its absurd, in a purely Newtonian world, to posit that heaven is up in space somewhere. It completely escaped him that Christ’s rising into the sky and disappearing into a cloud could have been an essentially sacramental act. That is, a physical act describing a spiritual reality. Could it have indicated his moving into a higher state (such terminology being commonly used in Quantum physics)?

Ehrman, similarly, relies on 19th century scholarship, apparently unaffected by modern developments. I ran across a very interesting review of one of his books at this site. He and Spong have much in common.

Unfortunately, Ehrman and Spong have trapped themselves in a very limited view of the world. They, too, appear to have come to place where in order to visit, one has to check their brain at the door. I wonder if their arrival in that place is merely because after a youth spent among fundamentalists, they sought out a different place that looked pretty much the same as the place they came from.

The lesson to Orthodox is that, while we have a well established definition of the faith, we need to not be afraid of engaging new trends in academia. While a purely intellectual approach to life leaves one open to spiritual delusion, we do not need to automatically dismiss such endeavors. For sure, we need to evaluate new developments in the context of our faith. Sometimes, in fact probably frequently, we’ll find such developments consistent with the faith. Where it is not, we need to (as a Church - I don’t think every Christian needs to become some sort of scholar who is an expert on everything) examine it closely and see where it has gone astray. Once we know that, we can make intelligent arguments and hopefully lovingly lead people closer to God. I fear that the back and forth between Fundamentalism and the followers of Spong and Ehrman has not resulted in anyone growing closer to God. I think the example we need to look to is St. Catherine of Alexandria, not the Spanish Inquisition.

The Beatitudes

2010-06-18T09:39:00.000-07:00

On an Evangelical but seeking blog that I follow, the topic came up recently about how to interpret the Beatitudes. This, like many sections of the New Testament, is hard for Protestants, especially Evangelicals, to deal with as they eschew anything that smacks of a works salvation. The blogger asserted that what Christ is saying is that anyone can come and receive Christ’s blessings, regardless of their state and how society views them. He says that the other way to phrase what Christ is saying is, “even if you are poor, come and receive my blessing, even if your mourn...” etc. The weakness in this argument is Christ is clearly not, then, saying “even if you are merciful come” as if being merciful is a bad thing, or even viewed as being bad by society.

So, I decided to look at what the Fathers of the Church have to say about the Beatitudes, and found that St. John Chrysostom interprets the first beatitude in this manner:

“What is meant by “the poor in spirit?” The humble and contrite in mind. For by “spirit” He hath here designated the soul, and the faculty of choice. That is, since many are humble not willingly, but compelled by stress of circumstances; letting these pass (for this were no matter of praise), He blesses them first, who by choice humble and contract themselves.

But why said he not, “the humble,” but rather “the poor?” Because this is more than that. For He means here them who are awestruck, and tremble at the commandments of God. Whom also by His prophet Isaiah God earnestly accepting said, “To whom will I look, but to him who is meek and quiet, and trembleth at My words?” For indeed there are many kinds of humility: one is humble in his own measure, another with all excess of lowliness. It is this last lowliness of mind which that blessed prophet commends, picturing to us the temper that is not merely subdued, but utterly broken, when he saith, “The sacrifice for God is a contrite spirit, a contrite and an humble heart God will not despise.” [Psalm 50 (51):7] And the Three Children also offer this unto God as a great sacrifice, saying, “Nevertheless, in a contrite soul, and in a spirit of lowliness, may we be accepted.” This Christ also now blesses.”

The blogger went on to assert that the parallel passage in St. Luke’s Gospel supports his view. It supports it more, because that passage lacks the “blessed are the merciful, etc.” verses, but it in no way demands his interpretation. I decided to check Blessed Theophylact and discovered that his interpretation of the parallel passage is in agreement (as I expected it would) with St. John’s interpretation of Matthew:

“These words of the Lord are directed to the disciples. After ordaining them, the Lord uses these beatitudes and teachings to guide them into a more spiritual life. He first blesses the poor, whom you may understand to mean either those who are humble or those who live without greed for money. Simply put, all the beatitudes teach us lowliness, humility, self-effacement, and self-reproach. And accordingly woe awaits those who are rich and propserous now, in this life, those who the Lord says have received their consolation, meaning that in this life they have enjoyed revelry, laughter, feasting, and the praise of men. Let us tremble, brothers, to hear that Woe! awaits those who are praised by men. First we ought to live such a life that will draw down upon us the praise of God, and then others will indeed speak well of us.”

This view of the Beatitudes finds support throughout Scripture, but there are a couple of places that merit pointing out. The first is the 50th psalm (51st in Western numbering), where we learn that “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, A broken and a contrite heart— These, O God, You will not despise.” In the 108th Psalm (109 in the Western numbering), we see King David, ruler of Judea refer to himself being “poor and needy,” and that he is weak from fasting. Clearly King David was not really poor, but rather this reflected a state of mind and spirit he had acquired. That his action was involved is clear from the fact that fasting is involved in all of this (among other things).

So, the Orthodox understanding is clearly that we must humble ourselves - make ourselves lowly, in order to be blessed by God. This interpretation agrees with all of Scripture. I fear that the blogger in question is guilty of looking for an interpretation that fit his preconceived theology, then forced it into the text.

Christian Judaism

2010-06-10T09:12:00.000-07:00

One of the unfortunate outcomes of the Reformation, is the number of groups who have taken the notion of Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusions. Frequently, these groups rediscover heresies that were addressed by the Church many years ago. We recently became aware of such a group. Calling it a group may acknowledge more cohesiveness than exists. Perhaps the phrase movement is a bit more exact. At any rate, the movement seems set on returning Judaism to Christianity. In other words, they are the Judaizers of old, simply returned. It would appear that the first major attack of the movement was to assert that Christians are to observe Jewish Old Covenant holidays. They actually published book addressing this. Apparently, this book is having some small influence among home church and emergent church groups. At this point I would definitely argue a small influence as googling the topic yields little of interest.

The group has also moved on to suggest that Christians should also adhere to the Old Covenant dietary laws. From a purely sola scriptura perspective this is a little problematic. The Apostles and Fathers of the Church ruled on that issue at the Council of Jerusalem. It is of note that the only passage from Acts that they engage with is one that most Christians agree does not directly apply to the discussion(it does apply, but only in a broader context of the issue of clean vs. unclean). The real key to understanding Christian requirements regarding Jewish dietary laws is found in Acts 15.

The question of whether or not Christians need to basically become Jews first had risen to great prominence in the early church. In fact, one could argue that the entire letter to the Romans was written in response to those who believed that being Jewish was a requirement of the Christian faith. In response to the issue, the apostles and elders of the church gathered at the Council of Jerusalem. This council provides us with two key lessons. The first is that questions regarding the faith that had once been delivered need to be addressed by a council. The second is that essentially no Jewish ceremonial laws apply to Christians. To assert otherwise today is to ignore this entire section in the Acts. It amazes me that there are groups today still arguing otherwise. On the other hand, given the number of heresies still being taught by various groups, maybe I shouldn't be so surprised.

So what about the question of Jewish feast days? Certainly, this question was not directly addressed by the Council. While this is true, there is an underlying principle in view that speaks to this, as well. That principle is that we are now part of a new covenant and the old covenant has been fulfilled in Christ. A quick examination of three Old Testament feasts should serve to illustrate the point.

Let's start with the feast of Yom Kipur. Known in English translations as the Feast of the Atonement, it is the annual day on which the High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies and offer a sacrifice for the sins of the nation of Israel. This seems like a good thing, and, in fact, most Christians around the world celebrate this feast. However, it is celebrated in a different way. Our High Priest entered into the true Holy of Holies, of which the earthly one was merely a type, and offered a sacrifice, himself, once for all. This event is also celebrated once a year. It is the feast of the Ascension. Celebrating the events recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, where Christ ascended into heaven, and where St. Paul tells us that Christ made his offering and then sat down at the right hand of God. Now, this feast is not typically celebrated with the focus on the Atonement per se, much of that takes place with the feast of Pascha, as we shall see, but this is the event alluded to in Hebrews 10. The question in this, is, if Christ completed that which was signified by the annual offering for atonement, why would we think to celebrate the annual feast any longer?

Another major feast is that of Chanukah. At least it has become major feast on the modern era. Our school children even celebrate it along with what passes for Christmas( really Santafest) This feast celebrates the restoration of the second temple. At first glance there doesn't seem to be any problem with Christians celebrating this feast. After all, it is remembering one of God's acts in history. I'm not going to try to argue that it is wrong per se, but rather not really appropriate.

There are two key things to think about with regard to this discussion. The first is, what is the temple for the Christian, and the second is, what happened to the Jewish temple and why.

The first question may be the most important. Although the Church building can itself rightly (and scripturally) be referred to as a temple, that is not, I think, the key point. There are two other, closely related items, which are referred to as temples. One is the temple that is our body. The second, and key point, is Christ’s body, which he refers to as a temple, and which is further defined as “the” temple in Revelation. An important point to make here is that one of the key aspects of the Orthodox understanding of the Incarnation is that it serves as a mean to heal our fallen humanity. In other words, Christ the Temple restores our temple to its rightful state. So, if we are going to celebrate the restoration or dedication of the Temple, we should properly celebrate the Incarnation. In fact, we do, by celebrating the Feast of the Nativity, known in the West as Christmas.

Finally, we should look at what is the pre-eminent feast for Jews, the feast of Passover (Pesach). This feast, of course, commemorates the rescue of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. The events surrounding that first passover, the escape from slavery, being led by a somewhat unexpected savior (the son of an Egyptian princess), being led through the Red Sea to salvation, are all well known and prefigure the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Christ is referred to as our Passover by St. Paul, and as the Lamb that has been slain in the Revelation of St. John. The Church, therefore, has always understood the celebration of Christ’s resurrection to be the celebration of Passover itself. In fact, the name of the feast in most countries is just that. It is only in Germany and the English speaking countries that the feast came to be known as Easter, derived from Germanic god of the East according to the Venerable Bede. So, in fact, Christians do celebrate Passover every year. We just do not celebrate the Jewish Passover. Rather than celebrate the event that prefigured the greatest event in history, we celebrate that event. St. Paul states, in his first letter to the Corinthians, that we shouldn’t celebrate the Jewish Passover anymore, although the phrasing can be construed to speak of spiritual principles rather than practical. The service books of the Church, however, take that phrase to clearly mean that we are not to celebrate the old Passover any longer. Again, not that there is anything wrong with the old feast, but why would one celebrate the type and not the fulfillment?

When we seek to celebrate the Jewish feasts, we are, intentionally or not, failing to live entirely in the New Covenant. Its as if we don’t really believe that the Old Covenant really has been fulfilled, and we are hedging our bets. In the modern era, of course, much of the impetus for celebrating Jewish feasts is coming from Protestant groups that have long been separated from the Church that Christ founded, and thus are without the guidance and wisdom of the “Pillar of Truth.” These groups largely don’t celebrate the feasts of the Church, and. given their frequently erroneous theology, when they do (“Resurrection Day” and “Christmas”), they miss the underlying themes that connect these to the Old Testament types. However, even Western liturgical churches have aided in this resurgence of Judaizing. What began as a practice of discussing the Jewish Passover in some detail as a didactic method to teach about Christ’s death and resurrection, has increasingly become a practice of celebrating a full Seder meal.

While this may be educational, it leads people down a path that the Church long ago realized we shouldn’t travel on any longer.

Good Works in Galatians

2010-04-23T20:01:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine posted a passage from Galatians earlier today:

“Galatians 5:13: For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.”

A great passage, which reminds us of the importance of serving one another, and in a loving manner. That is, serve one another by love, not out of some sense of necessity. Of course, this makes it a part of the greater teaching we find throughout Scripture, but in particular in Paul’s letters about the danger of “empty” works, or works done in the interest of attaining salvation.

However, another question arises. What happens if you don’t comply with this line? What is the risk? There are some groups who would teach that the doing of works is utterly irrelevant. Most notably, various strains of protestantism. So, is this the case? Is there anything we can take from this passage to address this question? For those that don’t have a problem with the importance of works in our salvation, we still must ask the question of how we can learn to serve others by love. What is the key?

As it turns out, both the answer to what it means to not have works and the key exists a bit further on. St. Paul continues with the famous passage about the works of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit. He basically sets a stage for the conclusion that comes in verse 24, “And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.” From this we learn two things, the first is that crucifying our flesh is the means by which we establish ourselves as Christ’s (there would be some, I suppose, who would argue that after Christ makes us his, then we automatically crucify our flesh, but that is both a fairly tortured reading, and inconsistent with experience). The second thing is that it is by this crucifying of our flesh that we learn to love others. That is the crux of Orthodox spirituality. We are to serve other’s by love, that happens when we are walking in the Spirit, and that can only happen when we crucify our flesh of the passions. That is why asceticism figures so prominently. If you think about it, how can we truly love other’s if we are focused on our desires? Christ, who is not only the ultimate example of love, but is, in fact, love itself, demonstrates this for us.

A Challenge from the Canons

2010-01-03T19:04:00.000-08:00

I need to more frequently catch up on available podcasts over at Ancient Faith radio. I hadn’t realized what a treasure a series by Deacon Michael Hyatt is. The information is all good, but there is the occasional special gem that you hear. While listening to his series on the Council of Nicea, I was struck by one of the Canons of the Council of Nicea that deals with people who fell away from the faith, but not by compulsion (basically, who sacrificed to idols with only the social pressure to do so). Here is the Canon:

CONCERNING those who have fallen without compulsion, without the spoiling of their property, without danger or the like, as happened during the tyranny of Licinius, the Synod declares that, though they have deserved no clemency, they shall be dealt with mercifully. As many as were communicants, if they heartily repent, shall pass three years among the hearers; for seven years they shall be prostrators; and for two years they shall communicate with the people in prayers, but without oblation.

The hearers were basically like the catechumens. They could attend the liturgy until the deacon called to close the doors, then they had to leave. As prostrators, they had to kneel outside the church, begging the faithful to forgive them. Notice they had to do this for seven years. Not seven weeks, not seven months, but seven years! I’m not sure how many people would be willing to do this these days (especially me). Most would probably wander down the road to the local non-denominational where a quick sinner’s prayer would do the job.

Metropolitan Encyclical on the Feast of the Nativity

2009-12-20T23:42:00.000-08:00

"What shall we bring you, O Christ, Who for our sake,  was born on earth as man? Every creature brings  thanks to You: Angels their songs; the heavens a star; Wise Men gifts; Shepherds amazement;  the earth a cave; the wilderness a Manger;  but we – a Virgin Mother." Troparion from the Great Vespers of the Nativity

  Dearly Beloved In The Lord,  During this Holy Season of Our Lord's Incarnation we are invited to join the Magi on their journey to Bethlehem of Judea where we will find the King of Heaven and Earth. These three Wise Men traveled with the guidance of one star from the heavens which illumined their road to the place where the Christ was born: "and lo, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came to rest over the place where the Christ was." Matthew 2:8 – 9
For us, our guiding star is the Word of God, the Holy Gospel and all the Scriptures, in which the prophet wrote: “Your law is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my path." Psalm 119:105 A lamp to our feet so that we may walk in the light of righteousness all of our lives; a light upon the road which we are traveling in life so that we may not lose focus or let worldly cares take over.

Upon arriving at Bethlehem, the Magi came before the Holy Child and His Mother and knelt down to worship the Savior; they opened their treasures and offered gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Holy Communion and Confession are the means by which we, too, become "wise" by offering three gifts to the Christ Child. We offer Him as gold – the purity of our heart and our intentions to avoid every evil thought and weakness; instead of frankincense we offer Him a soul that burns with love for God and all humanity; and instead of myrrh we present Him with a lifestyle that is worthy of Christian Orthodox living; a lifestyle that is replete with His love and our acceptance of this gift through our deeds, prayers and repentance.

The Magi, having worshiped Christ, did not return on the same road which brought them to the Savior. They changed their route and returned "to their country by another way." Matthew 2:12
It is very important that we, too, change our direction. As we celebrate these Holy Days with our families and loved ones, we should not return to the same path we have taken for so long. "By another way" let us change our lives. These days are full of grief, uncertainty and dispute; let us bring the spirit of the Lord which is full of peace, reconciliation and mercy for everyone. "By another way" let us not repeat our previous mistakes. "By another way" let us follow the true path of Christian virtues.

As we celebrate the Birth of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, my prayer is that we look deeply into our lives and flee all the bad habits that may be distracting us from a life in Christ, actions that may lead to spiritual death, and that we begin a new journey "by another way" that will bring us to life eternal.  CHRIST IS BORN! GLORIFY HIM!  With Love in the Incarnate Logos,

+ G E R A S I M O S Metropolitan of San Francisco

Encyclical on the Feast of the Nativity

2009-12-20T23:40:00.000-08:00

We have beheld His glory, glory as of the
only begotten Son of the Father.
John 1:14


To the Most Reverend Hierarchs, the Reverend Priests and Deacons, the Monks and Nuns, the Presidents and Members of the Parish Councils of the Greek Orthodox Communities, the Distinguished Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Day, Afternoon, and Church Schools, the Philoptochos Sisterhoods, the Youth, the Hellenic Organizations, and the entire Greek Orthodox Family in America

Beloved Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

            On this holy feast of the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, we gather in joyous celebration of the One who gives us rebirth and new life. We offer praise to God for His abundant grace and for His divine plan for our redemption and salvation. We do this in a manner that is filled with beauty, honor and glory, as this is what is due to the commemoration of a uniquely miraculous and wonderful event by which God became man and dwelt among us.

            Through our celebration of the Nativity of Christ, our souls and minds are directed to contemplate the glory of His Incarnation. We hear and sing of this in the hymns of the feast. We read the passages from the Holy Scriptures that tell of the angels giving glory to God in the highest and of the shepherds returning to their flocks glorifying and praising God for all that they had heard and seen (Luke 2:14, 20).

This glory of the Incarnation revealed in the Nativity of Christ continued throughout His life and ministry as He took upon himself the challenges of our human condition. His life in communion with God and humanity was an exaltation of what human life was intended to be. Christ by word and deed showed that the chains of sin could be broken and the permanency of death overcome. Through faith in Him and the salvation offered, we could know and experience a blessed life of peace and joy forever.

            Further, the glory of the Incarnation was revealed through our Lord’s message of grace and truth. This was not a message that was dependent on the glory and might of military victory. It was not associated with the earthly glory of political power. The glory of the Incarnation was revealed through His love for us and through the Gospel of truth. He proclaimed, “I have come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” (John 10:10). In grace and truth He offered to us the love of God. Into a world that was marred by animosity, greed, and pride, He brought a beautiful and enduring witness of divine love; and into a world burdened by deceit and vain pursuits, He proclaimed the truth and nature of our creation, our being, and our relationship with God.

            Finally, the glory of the Incarnation is revealed in the transforming power of Jesus’ presence. What was lost in the Fall of Adam and Eve is found in His Incarnation and its amazing consequences. Through His appearance among us, our Lord leads us out of the darkness of evil and into the uncreated light of eternal truth. As He dwells with us, He effects our transformation from sin to holiness. As the Good Shepherd, He guides us from despair to hope. As the Incarnate Word of God, He shows us the way to overcome our alienation so that we might live in full and eternal communion with Him. As our Master, He leads us out of the wilderness and into paradise.

Beloved Brothers and Sisters,

            On the day of our Lord’s birth, the glory of His Incarnation was revealed to all of those who were blessed to witness this unique and transcendent act of God’s love. In our commemoration of this holy day, may we all bear witness to the glory of the Incarnation through the witness of what our Lord has done for us and by His loving and saving presence in our midst. May our thoughts and words express the glory and honor that belongs to the One who became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). And may our experience of the glory of His Incarnation lead us to tell everyone of what we have seen and heard so that all will come and worship Him.

With paternal love in Christ,


† DEMETRIOS
Archbishop of America

Do We Celebrate Christmas?

2009-12-16T08:49:00.000-08:00

One of the frustrations we’ve had as parents over the years is with the issue of holidays at school. Claudia has written letters and/or spoken to teachers at the elementary schools every year. Mostly the conversations are around Halloween, but we do also mention that we don’t do the Santa Claus thing. Why we don’t do Santa is a different subject, we just don’t. These notes and conversations don’t do any good. The kids have still spent time coloring pictures of Jack O’ Lantern’s, black cats, and the like. They have learned a variety of secular Christmas songs, and learned about Santa and some of the way’s in which Christmas is celebrated in other cultures (as well as Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, etc.). The biggest problem has been that what they are taught about Christmas is entirely secular. In other words, it has nothing to do with the actual Nativity of our Lord.

During the same time frame as our older children were experiencing this, we grew increasingly irritated with the fact that so many people around us were busily celebrating Christmas before Christmas even arrived. As AngloCatholics at the time, we knew full well that we were in Advent - a penitential season. By the time Christmas actually arrived, most people would remark that they were glad that Christmas was finally over. In actual fact, Christmas had only just arrived, and would be around for the next 12 days. This, too, was very irritating. Once we became Orthodox, with the Orthodox Church experiencing a 40 day fasting period known as the Winter Lent, the frustration only grew.

Finally, this year, in part after reading a blog entry by Molly Sabourin, it dawned on me that we were actually talking about two different holidays. One was the Christmas of the secular America. This holiday was frankly rooted in the Evangelical/Protestant side of America. Especially with Evangelicalism, the loss of any sense of penitential behavior, meant that Advent itself was lost. No longer did people prepare for the incarnation of God, and that allowed for the introduction of parties throughout the preparation period.

Over time, market forces took control of the “season,” spending massive amounts of dollars to convince people to do likewise. With the advent of “Santa Claus,” the Coca Cola marketing ploy, the new holiday began to take its final shape. The point of the holiday had become the giving and receiving of presents. What had been the giving of a few gifts in recognition of the gift that God gave us (or the gifts of the Magi, depending on how one views it), became a holiday to celebrate the giving of presents in and of itself. It has become a holiday that completes a month or more of over indulgence. It has, in many ways, become fairly Bacchanalian, which is antithetical to the Christian life.

The other holiday, our holiday, is known in the east as the Feast of the Nativity (Christmas being a Latin construct, the name doesn’t exist in the east). This is the feast of the ancient Church. Marked by a period of fasting beforehand, and followed by 12 days of feasting, we celebrate the great and awesome mystery of the Incarnation. Western Christianity has, in many ways, forgotten that the incarnation is more than a means of providing someone to hang on a cross. I could be mistaken, but I think it is this loss that has ultimately led to Christmas (vs. the Nativity) becoming a secular holiday.

So, from our perspective, we can just let this secular holiday continue on being a secular holiday. We’ll celebrate ours in our way. I think at times, that it would be better if we were on the old calendar, in which case Christmas would be on January 7th. It would drive the kids a bit nuts, but it would make things abundantly clear that we are, in fact, celebrating a different holiday.

The Flesh Profiteth Nothing...

2009-12-07T14:45:00.000-08:00

One of the most controversial chapters in the whole of Scripture, when it comes to conversations between Evangelicals and any form of liturgical Christian - most notably Roman Catholics and Orthodox, is John 6. The chapter, while lengthy, larges relates Christ’s explaining to the gathering that in order to have eternal life one needs to eat his flesh and drink his blood. When this causes a great deal of scandal amongst his listeners, he merely reiterates the statement. This failure to clarify his statement has been understood throughout most of the history of the Church to be consistent with the received Tradition that the bread and wine of the Eucharist, in some way unknown to us, becomes the body and blood of our Lord during the Eucharist.

Since the time of the Reformation, and the advent of the notion of Sola Scriptura, this chapter came under scrutiny. Evangelical interpreters do not see this passage as clearly teaching the real presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. For the most part, it has never appeared that the Evangelical belief in a purely symbolic Eucharist was ever based on this chapter. Rather, this chapter has stood in the way of a symbolic interpretation. For the most part, the only defense against the historic interpretation of this passage has been reliance on passages elsewhere in the Gospels where Christ uses metaphoric language, and arguing that the same is going on here. Unfortunately, that is not terribly convincing, especially if you don’t accept the premise of Sola Scriptura. From a Sola Scriptura perspective, to be honest, the chapter is somewhat equivocal. If you couple the chapter with the accounts of the Last Supper (“take, eat, this is my body...”), then I would argue the evidence swings in favor of the real presence.

Needing one argument to close the books, if you will, what people turn to is one particular verse, where Jesus tells his disciples that the flesh profiteth nothing (John 6:63). They then take this to mean that Jesus’ flesh profits nothing, so clearly no reference to the real presence can be read into this passage. In fact, so the argument goes, this statement clearly contradicts a doctrine of the real presence.

There are some problems with this assertion, though. The first is that the teaching about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist dates back literally to the earliest days of the Church (For instance, in the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch in 110, Justin Martyr in the 160’s, and, of course, St. Paul. A fuller list can be found here). Although I realize this does little to satisfy someone looking for Scriptural guidance, it speaks to the fact that an interpretation of Scripture that says the Eucharist is not the truly the body and blood of Christ is fairly novel, and not in the mainstream of Christian thought over the past 2,000 years. The only historical group I could find that denied the real presence before the reformation were the docetists that St. Ignatius of Antioch was referring to, who believed that Christ’s body was an illusion. It also testifies to the fact that John 6:63 has never been interpreted, prior to the recent past, in the way mentioned above. As a matter of fact, we can look to the Blessed Theophylact, and his interpretation of this passage:

As we have pointed out before, the false disciples are offended because they understand Jesus’ words in a fleshly, superficial manner. Therefore the Lord now explains: “If you wish to profit from My words, understand them in a spiritual manner. The flesh - that is understanding My words in a fleshly manner - profiteth nothing and is a stumbling block. But the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit - meaning, they are spiritual - and they are life, conveying nothing carnal and bestowing everlasting life.”

Blessed Theophylact was an 11th century bishop who summarized the Patristic understanding of the Gospels, St Paul’s Epistles, and the minor prophets. Much of his work is drawn on the writings of St. John Chrysostom, but not excluively so.

The other major problem with the interpretation noted above is that it frankly represents poor exegesis. Frequently when the flesh is mentioned in the New Testament, it is mentioned in a negative light. We read about how the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. We understand that to walk according to the flesh is to walk after sinful passions. On and on, throughout the New Testament, this message comes through loud and clear. When people, then, come upon John 6:63, it is no wonder they believe that Christ is teaching in the same vein. However, it is important to stop and ask to whose flesh is he referring? If he is referring to the unsanctified flesh of the crowd, then he is being consistent with the rest of the New Testament. If, on the other hand, he is referring to his flesh, would he be consistent with the rest of the New Testament?

In St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, we see a very different picture. It is through Christ’s flesh that the wall of hostility between the Children of God and the Gentiles is broken down. It is through his flesh that God and mankind are reconciled. To assert that in John 6, Christ is stating that his own flesh is of no profit asserts that St. Paul is incorrect. In fact, it raises a significant question about what the point of the Incarnation really was. In addition, it raises some significant questions about the resurrection, both Christ’s and ours. If the flesh is and remains always unprofitable, why would we ever want to be in the flesh again after our death?

One of the challenges of Protestantism is the avoidance of lapsing into heresy. The road of Christianity over the past 2,000 years is littered with much heresy that came from people seeking to divine the will of God separate from the very Church that is the pillar and ground of truth. In this case, as I noted above, certain evangelicals appear to be approaching some form of docetism, or at the least, gnosticism.

Evil and Delusion

2009-11-27T14:59:00.000-08:00

It is understood within Orthodoxy that the fundamental problem with mankind is that our nous has been darkened.

I am, it is important to state, not a theologian. When I was an Anglican, I fancied myself sort of an armchair theologian. In Orthodoxy, the only real theologians are those who have truly come to know God. In the 2,000 year history of the Church, only three have been granted that title. So, what I have to say here will be my best effort to describe Orthodox theology a little bit. Forgive me for any errors.

The fall of mankind, contrary to Western views, did not result in an angry God punishing us. Rather, it resulted in our separation, by our own actions, from the grace of God. This separation, leads to our death, and the fear of death drives everything we do. Our greed, lust, and enslavement to the passions is driven by the knowledge of an impending death.

At the same time, due to our separation, our nous, that “organ” with man that allows us to apprehend God (different than the two words it is translated into in English, mind and heart), grew darkened by all of the sin and continued separation we strive for in our lives. This increased darkening through our lives is why you often hear of children having visions of angels and other things during the Divine Liturgy, but seldom hear of such among adults (except for people on their way to sainthood).

As a result of this darkening, our ability to perceive all around us is severely limited. Frequently, it is entirely wrong. We perceive ourselves as being really nice people, we perceive other people as having wronged us, when it is more likely that we are the ones who are guilty of wrong. At the same time, our inability to perceive God, to perceive truth and righteousness, means that our ability to perceive falsehood and evil has become greatly limited.

I came to ponder this after reading an article in Oprah magazine by the mother of Dylan Klebold, one of the boys responsible for the Columbine massacre over 10 years ago. In the article, she tends to focus on two things: that the killings were part of Dylan’s desire to commit suicide, and that she had no idea that he was depressed.

At first, feeling very judgmental and self-righteous, I was rather annoyed with the article. After all, I would clearly have seen this evil living within my household. Planning a major assault on a school, killing a bunch of innocent children, ultimately blowing up the school (their plan, which thankfully failed in that regard). One thing that I disagreed with was the notion that this was simply a suicide, one of the rare ones that involved the taking of other lives, but a suicide nonetheless. Those usually involve the killing of loved ones to protect them from whatever pain the perpetrator was suffering from. The only other variation is a suicide after a murder, which this may be similar to, but the scale was clearly beyond anything previously experienced. I had reached the conclusion that this was an act of evil. How else can one describe it? That realization on my part, however, changed everything.

I began to wonder, in light of the fall and the darkening of our nous, how, exactly would I do at seeing the evil. If I have a difficult time seeing the God that is everywhere present, seeing the eternal Truth, would I be able to see what is in front of me as evil? It takes few examples from recent times, even current events to throw doubt on the notion.

On a more subtle level, although maybe it isn’t that much more subtle, how much evil do we overlook or ignore in our own lives and our own behaviors. How much hatred do we permit ourselves. Christ tells us that the mere thought of hatred toward another is equivalent to murder. I think that this clues us in to how far away we are from the sort of love God has for us, that actual physical murder, and a measure of hatred in our heart, are basically equivalent. I think about how so many people can support abortion, under the guise of “choice.”

So, I am left thinking that maybe I wouldn’t have been any better. Perhaps, my own blindness to my own evil behaviors would allow me to be similarly blind to this sort of evil. The thought makes me shudder, but then maybe that is a good thing.

Who Left Whom

2009-11-14T15:18:00.000-08:00

News today that two San Diego County parishes have failed in the legal battle to retain their property was truly sad. Holy Trinity, Ocean Beach, and St. Anne’s, Oceanside, both former parishes in the Episcopal Church, chose to leave the ECUSA over a variety of issues, not the least of which was the the ECUSA’s embrace of both modernism, and of homosexuality as an acceptable, if not even honored, lifestyle.

The oft cited argument is that the Episcopal Church, itself, left the “orthodox” behind, and not the other way around. Although I am unsure if this had any bearing on the courtroom arguments, I found myself wondering if this was really the case. A while ago, in the wake of the GAFCON meetings, I had questioned whether what was being accomplished was much more than simply hitting a reset button that would lead the program back to the current state of affairs, but just a little bit further in the future. In exploring this question, my assertion was that Anglicanism, itself, was from nearly the outset, designed to tolerate mutually exlusive positions. Catholic and Reformed are really contradictory. The repetition of the phrase from certain members of Anglicanism doesn’t make it otherwise.

Anglicanism, at its heart, is an attempt to create the first Unitarian denomination within Christianity. Although, early on, it would not tolerate truly Catholic ideas within its fold, the day would come when it would. While Newman and Pusey, et al., would receive challenges, they would ultimately be tolerated, then welcomed, within the Anglican fold. Roman Catholicism is distinctly contradictory to Protestantism (regardless of which one may be wrong or right with regard to historic Christianity). One cannot maintain a belief that confession is necessary and unnecessary, that a prepared reception of the the Body and Blood of Christ is required and that the ceremony is simply a memorial of something that happened 2,000 years ago, and so grape juice and crackers work just fine. This only scratches the surface of all of the contradictions that are tolerated within Anglicanism. St. Paul exhorts us 5 different times in his epistles, to be of one mind, yet the Anglican response is not to ensure a uniformity of belief, but rather to expand the definition of what that uniformity entails. 400 years ago, that meant dismantling loyalty to ecclesiastical authority in lieu of loyalty to secular authority. It meant the addition of human reason to God’s revelation, it ultimately meant that a day would come when one parish in the ECUSA was telling us in their newsletter how evil the “apocrypha” was, while another, literally 5 miles away, was teaching how they were part of Scripture.

When modernism started to creep into the world, it could find no more fertile ground than that of Anglicanism. By that time, every contradiction within the vast milieu of those who called themselves Christian was tolerated. Now a moral relativism, a doubting of the divinity of Christ, and a tolerance of behaviors previously understood to be condemned by God Himself would need to find a home. They became part of what reasonable Christians could be understood to believe. That meant they needed to be accepted within Anglicanism.

So, if finding a way to tolerate all views is traditional Anglicanism, then who is not being traditional when the assert the need to conform to a particular subset of beliefs? Isn’t it the so-called orthodox? I think that it is.

So, if the court cases ever turn on who is actually being more “Anglican,” then I think it is the ECUSA that would win that argument. Those who have decided that it is the early 20th century collection of beliefs that define the boundaries of Anglicanism are being dishonest. Those who would assert that such a broad range of beliefs has always been acceptable within the bounds of historic Christianity are, quite frankly, delusional.

The meaning of Salvation: Within the fires of God's divine love

2009-09-21T13:47:00.000-07:00

The following article does a splendid job of exploring the Orthodox view of these matters, and provides one of the starkest contrasts between the Western Church and the teachings of the ancient Church:

Heaven & Hell in the Afterlife According to the Bible

By Peter Chopelas
Arlington, WA, USA
pac@premier1.net

The idea that God is an angry figure who sends those He condemns to a place called Hell, where they spend eternity in torment separated from His presence, is missing from the Bible and unknown in the early church. While Heaven and Hell are decidedly real, they are experiential conditions rather than physical places, and both exist in the presence of God. In fact, nothing exists outside the presence of God.

This is not the way traditional Western Christianity, Roman Catholic or Protestant, has envisioned the afterlife. In Western thought Hell is a location, a place where God punishes the wicked, where they are cut off from God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet this concept occurs nowhere in the Bible, and does not exist in the original languages of the Bible.

While there is no question that according to the scriptures there is torment and “gnashing of teeth” for the wicked, and glorification for the righteous, and that this judgment comes from God, these destinies are not separate destinations. The Bible indicates that everyone comes before God in the next life, and it is because of being in God’s presence that they either suffer eternally, or experience eternal joy. In other words, both the joy of heaven, and the torment of judgment, is caused by being eternally in the presence of the Almighty, the perfect and unchanging God.

This is not a new interpretation or a secret truth. It has been there all along, held by the Church from the beginning, revealed in the languages of the Scriptures, which were spoken by the Christians of the early church era. This understanding was held by nearly all Christians everywhere for the first 1000 years of the Church’s existence, and, except where influence by western theologies, continued to be held by Christians beyond Western Europe and America even up to this day (including the roughly 350 million Orthodox Christians worldwide).

When you examine in context the source words which are translated as “hell” in English language Bibles the original understanding becomes clear. You will find that “hell” is translated from four different Greek and Hebrew words. These words are not interchangeable in the original language, yet, incredibly, in English-language bibles these words are translated differently in different places to fit the translators’ theology (rather than allow the words of scripture to determine their theology). Not only did English translators dump these four very different words into one meaning, they were not even consistent with it and chose to translate these same words with different meanings in different places. It is no wonder that English readers of the Bible are confused.

If one examines what the early Church Fathers wrote about “hell” and the afterlife, it will be seen that they too understood that there is no place called hell, and that both paradise and torment came from being in God’s presence in the afterlife.

When you examine what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and what most Protestants believe about the afterlife, and compare that with the scriptures and early Church beliefs, you find large disparities. You will also find their innovative doctrines were not drawn from the Bible or historic Church doctrine, but rather from the mythology of the Middle Ages, juridical concepts, and enlightenment rationalizations, all alien to early Christian thought.

The Afterlife according to the Hebrew Scriptures

Sheol is one word sometimes translated as “Hell” in the Old Testament. In Hebrew, this word is a proper noun, that is a name or title, so properly it should not have been translated but simply transliterated, as is done with other names. The literal meaning of this Hebrew word is simply “subterranean retreat”. Sheol was not understood as a physical place since it exists in the spirit world, but it is a spiritual “place” associated with dead people. It was understood that when a person dies, their body is buried, and their soul goes to reside in Sheol. That is the fate for all people who die, both the righteous and the wicked. According to Hebrew scholars, anything more detailed is conjecture and speculation.

Sheol was translated as “hell” in a number of places where it was indicating a place for the wicked, which is consistent with western thought. But it was also translated as “grave” and as “pit” in a number of other places where it was clearly not a place of the wicked. Yet there are other Hebrew words for grave and pit, so why did it not occur to the translators that if the author wanted to mean pit or grave they would have used them? It can been seen that where Sheol fit the translators’ idea of hell as a place of torment, they interpreted it one way, as hell, and simply used the word another way if it did not, confusing those who are trying to understand the Scriptures in translation.

In historic Jewish understanding, it is the perception of the individual in Sheol that makes the difference. This same “place” called Sheol is experienced by the righteous as “gen eiden”, the Garden of Eden or Paradise, i.e. “heaven”. Moreover, Sheol is experienced by the wicked as the “fires of gehennom”, i.e. punishment or “hell”.

What is it that causes this same place to be experienced differently by the righteous and the wicked? According to the Jews (and by inheritance, the Christians as well) it is the very presence of God. Since God fills all things and dwells everywhere in the spirit world, there is nowhere apart from Him. Moreover, evil sinners, the enemies of God, experience His presence, His Shechinah glory, as punishment. Yet the righteous bask in that same glory, and experience it as the love and joy of God, as Paradise.

Consider Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who refused to worship the idol in Babylon (Daniel 3). They were thrown by King Nebuchadnezzer into the “fiery furnace” which was heated “seven times more”. The significance of “seven” is a number symbolic of the “furnace” of Heaven, the place where God dwells. The three Jews were unharmed by the fire where one “like the Son of God” was among them. However, the same flames of fire killed the king’s “most mighty” soldiers. This is an analogy to how the presence of God is light and warmth to those who love Him, and pain and destruction to those who oppose him, yet it is the same “fire.”

It’s also useful to consider the ancient Greco-Roman pagan understanding of the heavens and Hades. Though it was not fundamental to Hebrew theology, the Greek view was still sometimes referenced or borrowed, because these ideas were familiar and prevalent in the culture.

The ancient pagan Greek view, later adopted by the Romans, was that heaven was a physical place up in the sky. The word for heaven is used interchangeably with the location of the objects of the sky, as in “heavenly bodies”, and for the dwelling place of the gods. That is why the Greek word for heaven and sky is the same; there was no distinction made between them in the earliest writings, but eventually they were also understood to be more as a metaphor for the spiritual heaven.

For the ancient pagan Greeks, Hades was a place, but was sometimes also personified in folk mythology. The physical place was where all humans go when they die, a site located at the center of the earth. The Greek word literally means “unseen place”. Like Sheol, it was the final abode of all humans, but unlike Sheol, it was taken to be a geographic site, the literal “underworld” in folk mythology. It was also taken as a metaphor for the place of final rest. Hades was also sometimes taken as the name of the ruler of this place, the pagan god Hades, also known as Pluton by the Romans (after which the plant Pluto was named, the ruler of the dark).

In Greco-Roman mythology Heaven was reserved only for the gods, and after death mere mortals could only hope to find a safe place in Hades to spend eternity. The early Greco-Roman Hades was a very literal and even primitive concept, compared to the Jews’ more spiritual Sheol. If a person was dead, they were in Hades, and there was no other option; only a very rare few heroes challenged the gods of the heavens and were immortalized in the stars.

The pre-Christian Greek language had thus developed in this kind of world view, both heaven and Hades as a physical and literal existence up in the sky, or down under the ground. Although these later became more metaphorical in more developed pagan writings, from this is where the universal concept of “up” for heaven or Paradise, and “down” for the place of the dead came. It is used metaphorically by both the Jews and pagans to describe mankind’s relationship with God, and so became a universal cultural concept. This is why there are so many Biblical references to God being “up” in heaven, and Sheol being “down” in the “under parts of the earth”. However, neither the Jews nor the early Christians took these ideas literally as the ancient Greeks and Romans may have, but understood “up” and “down” as spiritual rather than physical realities.

For the Jews and early Christians, even Sheol was not separated from God. Translating directly from the Greek of the Septuagint Palms 139:7 and 8 “Where can I go away from your spirit? And away from your presence, where can I flee? If I go up into heaven, you are there. If I go down into Hades, there is your presence.”

When Jewish scholars translated their scriptures into Greek in the third century BC, they used the Greek word Hades interchangeably for the Hebrew Sheol in the Septuagint. Strictly speaking, the pagan understanding was very different, but Jewish scholars adapted “Hades” for their use. It is one of many examples of changed, allegorical, or metaphorical non-Hebrew words used in the Bible borrowed from Greek pagan mythology. In the New Testament, Hades is used in a number of places as the Greek equivalent to Sheol as well.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, or Old Testament, Sheol is translated 31 times as Hell in the King James Bible, and similarly in the Revised Standard and NRSV. In a number of other places it is translated as “grave” or “pit” and once even as “dust”. It appears the translators did not have a very consistent understanding as to what Sheol means, translating the same word differently in different places. The idea of “Hell” as a physical place of torment, apart from the presence of God, had already taken root, and the translation fit the preconception rather than the original meaning of the word.

Gehennah is another word translated as “hell”. It was known to the Jews as a physical place, a valley outside to the south of Jerusalem. It literally means in Hebrew “valley of the sons of Hennah”. Here child sacrifices were once made to the pagan god Molech. Gehennah is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 28:3 and 33:6, and Jeremiah 7:31, 19:2-6, and appears in many traditional extra-Biblical Jewish writings. After this area came under Jewish control a memorial fire was kept burning there. Later it became a dumping place for refuse, dead animals, and eventually prisoners’ bodies, or the bodies of the poor that were not claimed by any family. Trash fires were kept continually burning there for sanitary reasons. It was like many landfills: a smoky, foul-smelling place with carrion-eating birds circling overhead, and with maggot infested carcasses.

By the time of Jesus this place became a well known metaphor for the fate of those condemned and judged by God. Expressions like “the fiery pit” or the “fires of Gehennah” and “where the worm turns” were equivalent to the unrighteous’ experience of God’s presence. Gehennah was the place where evil and sinful people ended up. In Jewish mystical writings it was believed that this place is where the final destruction of the wicked would occur at Messiah’s arrival. Because this is when the resurrection would occur, all the evil lawbreakers would be resurrected and standing in Gehennah when God reclaims the earth. In the final battle, God’s enemies, the evil ones, would be burned up, “As wax melts before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God” as it says in Psalm 68. Jesus affirmed and clarified this teaching and Christians now believe this will occur on Messiah’s return.

This experience of Gehennah was used as an analogy to express what happens to those who oppose the God of the Jews. Yet even it was not a place God “sends” people. The fire itself was understood to be how the wicked experienced the Shechinah glory of God, as a burning judgment fire.

Therefore, usage of this word is interchangeable with “judgment”, and quite different than Sheol. To be forgiven of your offenses was to be rescued from “the fiery pit”, or rescued from judgment. You would still go to Sheol until the resurrection, but in glory rather than in torment.

Notice however that in English, the translators rendered Gehennah as the “valley the sons of Hennah” in some places in the scriptures and in other places as “hell,” rather than just making a direct translation of the words wherever it appears. This confuses the reader, who could get a more consistent understanding of the meaning of the word if it was rendered accurately as “Gehennah” every time, or more properly as “the Valley of the Sons of Hennah”.

There are numerous references to God’s presence being like fire in the Hebrew Scriptures. And before the invention of the electric light, any reference to “light” meant “fire” in one form or another. For example, “The Lord thy God is a consuming fire” (Numbers); God “…appeared to [Moses] in a flame of fire out of the midst of the bush,” (Exodus); “The fire of the Lord burns among them” (Numbers); “the Lord descends upon it in fire” (Exodus); “You have refined us as silver in a fire” (Psalms); and “Who makes His angels spirits, His ministers a flame of fire” (Psalms). These are a few of the many Old Testament references to God being perceived as fire; it was how the Jews understood humans experience God’s Shechinah glory.

No human could bear to look at the blazing holy presence of God: not Moses, who hid his face, not Abraham, not Adam or Eve after they fell from Grace. No human could look at the face of God and live to tell about it.

God is described as fire in the following verses; Gen 19:24, Ex 3:2, 9:23, 13;21-22, 19:18, Num 11:1-3, 4:24, Ne 9:12, Ps 66:10, 104:4, Is 66:15, among others places.

Another interesting word study to examine is the Hebrew words used in the Old Testament when describing how God “punishes” people in the English bibles. Ten different Hebrew words are translated as “punish” in this context, yet none carries our meaning of punishment in English. The most common word “paqad” rendered 31 times as punish, simply means “to visit” or “to remember.” The word “anash” [used 5 times] simply means “to urge” or “compel”, “chasak” [occurs 3 times] means to restrain, “avown” [used 12 times] means sin. This also implies the cost or penalty for being evil or causing offence. One interesting word translated as punish, “yakar” means to chastise, but also means “to add value” as in chastising a child makes him more valuable. There are a few others words rendered as punish, but they occur only once each. As can be seen, none of these words clearly indicates that God does the punishing. Apparently for the translators, every time God visits or remembers His people, he is “punishing” them, but that is not how Jews understand this word. Nor would Jews automatically assume that a visit from God was a bad thing, either.

This kind of translation seems attributable to a presupposition of what these words mean, and intrinsically changes the meanings of these words from the original intent. The translators’ own incorrect ideas have clouded their objectivity, an all-too-frequent occurrence with virtually all western language Bibles.

The Afterlife according to the New Testament 

Jesus and the Apostles were all Jews of course, as were nearly all the members of the first Christian Church. The first Christians saw themselves as inheritors of the covenant of Abraham, and the early Church of course had no New Testament, so they naturally understood the afterlife in the terms of the Old Testament. The Gospels and all of the epistles affirm this understanding as well, when read in the original Greek.

During the New Testament and Patristic times some of the Church Fathers clearly held that everyone went to the same place, to Hades. Within Hades they held there was a separating of the unjust, who were experiencing a foretaste of the sufferings of judgment, from the just who were in "Abraham's bosom" or Paradise - experiencing a foretaste of heaven (Hippolytus -2nd cen,, Tertullian - 2nd cen. Andrew of Crete 7th cen.). "Abraham's bosom" is understood to be within, but separated or “walled off”, from Hades. The departed righteous and the unrighteous experience that which is appropriate to each. The word “paradise” comes from an ancient Persian word that means a walled garden or courtyard, implying a separation from the area around the garden. In Xenophon’s economics, Socrates said that the king of Persia took particular care, wherever he was, to have gardens or enclosures full of every beautiful and good thing the earth could produce. In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT) this word is used to refer to the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:8). Abraham’s Bosom implies being in an intimate embrace, being in the hollow formed by the doubling of a robe between the arms of the wearer of the robe, and being covered and protected by the embrace.

In the Gospel story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, they both are able to see Abraham. The Rich Man and Lazarus can see and talk to one another though they are far off from each other and both see Abraham. “And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.” (Luke 16:23). The grammar implies both the rich man and Lazarus are in Hades. The bosom of Abraham represents God's bosom. All of them are in God's presence, but one is in torment, the other is in a state of comfort. The immediate application of the story concerns the state of the departed prior to the resurrection of Christ. This is why it is said "…neither will they (the Jewish People that have Moses and the prophets) be persuaded though one rises from the dead".
Lazarus, who did not care for personal pleasure or possessions, spent his life pursuing God, and then in the afterlife basks in God’s glory when in His Presence. The Rich Man, on the other hand, pursued his own selfish desires during his life, and in doing so ended up in pain when in God’s Presence, because of the sin in his heart. Abraham says to the Rich man in Luke 16:25 “Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things, but now he is comforted, and you are tormented”. See how he contrasts “but now” (in death), one is comforted, the other in torment. In the Greek, it does not say that God is punishing him, he is simply "in torment" while there. They were separated by a large gulf, which is primarily spiritual, not physical. The Rich Man does not have a physical tongue to cool with physical water from Lazarus’ physical finger. It is a gulf that exists in the heart, a spiritual gulf that causes us to experience God’s loving presence as Paradise or torment. A gulf that was not placed there by God, but rather created by the choices, actions and state of the sinner.

In The Complete WordStudy Dictionary Edited by Sprios Zodhiates Th.D and Dr. George Hadjiantoniou Ph.D., the authors describe Hades as:

“The region of departed spirits of the lost…It corresponds to Sheol in the OT…in the story of the rich man and Lazarus…[it has] been taken to put our Lord’s confirmation on the Jewish idea of two compartments in Hades, distinct from and yet near one another...Hades is associated with death. It expresses the general concept of the invisible world or abode into which the spirits of men are ushered immediately after death…In none of the passages in which the word itself occurs have we any disclosures or even hints of purgatorial fires, purifying processes, or extended operations of grace. The state of human beings in Hades is immediate and irreversible after death… Our Lord conclusively teaches in the story of the rich man and Lazarus that there is no possibility of repentance after death….Unfortunately, both the OT and NT words have been translate in the KJV as “hell” (Ps. 16:10) or the “grave” (Gen. 37:35) or the “pit” (Num. 16:30, 33). Hades never denotes the physical grave nor is it the permanent region of the lost. It is the intermediate state between death and the ultimate hell, Gehennah”

The same inconsistency in translation of the Old Testament can also be seen in the New Testament. Hades is translated as hell ten times in the New Testament, but it is also translated as “grave” in 1 Cor 15:55.

In Revelation Chapter 20, it states that Death and Hades gave up their dead, and Death and Hades are placed in the lake of fire when God reclaims the world. If the ones in Hades were judged and will be in torment for eternity “far from the Lord” as so many think, why would these same ones be released from Hades when God returns? It is because all who have died reside in “Death and Hades” until that moment, when Death and Hades can no longer exist because God, the author of Life, is present. The “lake of fire and brimstone” into which Death and Hades is placed, in the Greek would be grammatically correct to translate as the “lake of fire and divinity”, or even “the lake of divine fire”. When Death and Hades is placed in the fiery presence of God, in the “lake of divine fire”, it is destroyed. It is in the very presence of God, where death can not exist when God is present.

It is interesting to examine the Greek word for “divine”, it is from the Greek “theion”, which could also mean “divine being”, but also means “sulfur’, or in Old English “brimstone” [lit. ‘burning stone’]. As strange as that sounds to us, it is because of the ancient understanding of the cosmic order of the nature of all things. All people in all cultures from the Near East to the West understood that there were four ‘elements’, these were: Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. Their nature was that Earth and Water tended to go down toward Hades, and Air and Fire tended to go up toward heaven. This could plainly be seen when the heavenly fire, lighting, would hit a living tree and burn the “life” out of it. Anyone could see that the heat from the tree would go back to heaven in the fire, and the ash that remained would go down into the ground. But there was this mysterious yellowish earth substance that behaved very differently, when placed in a fire it burn so brightly that your eyes could not bear to look at it. As it burned, it would release the heavenly substance that was trapped inside and it would rise back to heaven. Clearly, this “burning stone” was a divine substance, and as such, it was simply called “divinity”. It was burned within a new temple to “purify” it before consecration, presumably when this burning stone released it’s divinity, it causes all evil things to flee from the temple, and thus was the temple readied for worship.

Yet the word ‘theion’ is translated as “brimstone” or “sulfur” in Luke 17:29, Rev. 9:17, 14:10, 20:10, 21:8, which is where ‘fire and brimstone’ comes out of heaven, but it is equally interchange with the words “divine fire”. Since this did not fit the translators’ preconceived ideas, it is rendered always as brimstone in this context.

Elsewhere in Revelation it states that the “heat comes out of heaven” and burns the enemies of God, yet does not harm the ones with God’s seal on their foreheads. So the same heat, the heat that is the very life and light that comes from God, burns the sinners, and does not harm the ones that love God.

Again, in many places God’s presence and appearance is described as fire in the New Testament as well as in the Old. Examine for example, Matt 31:10-12, 25:41, Mark 9:49, Luke 12:49, Act 7:30, 1Cor 3:15, Heb 1:7, 12:29, Rev 3:18 and in numerous other places.

Typical is the verse where John the Baptist says “I baptize you with water, but the One that comes after me will baptize you with fire”. The author of Hebrews writes that God is a consuming fire. Jesus Himself states the he brings “fire” to the earth. That is, “divine fire”.

Everywhere in the New Testament when humans come face to face with the Transfigured Jesus they cannot look at Him: Peter, James and John on Mt. Tabor, Paul on the road to Damascus-- humans hid their face and fell down in fear and trembling when confronted with the revelation of Jesus as Almighty God. Old Testament figures did the same, but now, in the New Testament, it is revealed that this “holy” fire is present when Jesus reveals his nature. This is because Jesus is the incarnate God of the Old Testament.

A couple of these descriptions of the fire of God’s presence are worth examining closely. Paul writes in 1 Cor 3:13 “Every man’s work shall be made manifest…because it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.” In Mark 9:49 Jesus says “For everyone will be salted with fire” (interestingly, in Greek this sentence has the grammatical structure of an obvious statement of fact, similar to “for [everyone knows that] everyone will be salted with fire”). Peter repeats this idea in 2Peter 3:7 “but now, by the same Word [that is Jesus], heaven and earth are saved and kept for fire on the day of judgment, and the destruction of impious men.”

So clearly everyone experiences this fire caused by the presence of God. The Bible tells us there is no place apart from God, that he is everywhere and fills all things, so how can He create a place apart from Him? Moreover, why would He create a place just to punish the ones He says He loves unconditionally? That is not the nature of a loving God.

Since God is everywhere and fills all things, in the spirit world there is nowhere to escape from God even if you wanted to [Ps 139:7-8].

Translating 2 Thess 1:7-8 from the Greek literally, St. Paul tells the persecuted Thessalonians that they will “get relief at the revelation of the Lord Jesus coming out from heaven with His powerful angels in flames of fire”. [notice He comes with “flames of fire”]. Yet this same presence of Jesus causes the ones persecuting them to “…be punished with everlasting destruction BECAUSE OF [Gr. “apo”] the presence of the Lord, and BECAUSE OF his mighty glory” (2 Thess 1:9). Further on Paul writes in 2Thess 2:8 that “the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy by the breath [or “spirit”] of his mouth and make ineffective by the fantastic appearance of his presence”. So the mere presence of Jesus makes the “lawless one” ineffective, yet gives relief and comfort to the Thessalonians.

Unfortunately many English translations insert a word that is not there in the Greek in verse 1:9, adding the idea that the wicked will be “separated” or “cut off” from the Lord’s presence. This is a totally different meaning, and if Paul had wanted to say this he would have used the word “schizo,” which is where we get the word for “scissors” and “schizophrenia” [lit. divided-mind]. The Greek word “apo” that Paul uses here is a preposition that indicates cause or direction: “because of,” “out of,” “caused by,” “from,” etc. The word “apo” appears 442 times in the New Testament, and it is NEVER used to indicate separation, location or position. For example “Apostles” in Greek “apo-stolon” literally means “those sent out from the fleet.” The word “Apocalypse” literally means “out from cover,” i.e. to reveal, hence the Book of Revelation. Also interesting is the word “apostate” which in Greek literally means “out from standing”. If you where once in a condition to stand in God’s presence, then “fell” away, you would not be able to stand any longer; you would be “out from standing,” cowering and trying to hide from His presence.

The history of the English word “hell” is also revealing. The Old English word from which hell is derived is “helan”, which means to hide or cover, and is a verb. The noun form means “hidden place”, not unlike the literal meaning of Hades “unseen place”. So at one time the English church understood that to be judged a sinner meant one would cower and want to hide in fear when in God’s presence. Unfortunately, because of the political expedience of controlling an often rebellious population, corrupt rules in the West, in collusion with corrupt clergy, and adopting ideas from non-Biblical yet popular fantasy novels such as Dante’s Inferno, corrupted the use of this word during the middle ages. Eventually turning a verb into a noun by popular usage, even if theologically insupportable from the Bible.

It is tragic that modern translators would insert the word “far from” or “cut off from” into 2 Thess 1:9, apparently because they had a preconception about what Paul was trying to say so they altered the text to fit. They added this little “clarifying” word that is not in the Greek text at all, changing the meaning and inserting their own ideas. If your preconceived idea is that Hell is a “place” that an angry God sends people away from his presence, in order to punish and hurt them, you would expect and look for ways that Scripture would support your idea.

Clearly, when you read the Bible in the original languages you learn that there is no place apart from God, and there is no place that God put you to punish you. What scripture reveals is that all eventually will be in the fiery presence of the Lord, and this presence will be either “eternal torment” or “comfort and glory”. Judgment and paradise both come from being in God’s presence.

Another word translated incorrectly as Hell appears in 2 Peter 2:4. Saint Peter is warning about the swift destruction of false prophets and false teachers. In the Greek grammar he uses an obvious statement of fact by stating “For if God did not spare the sinning angles, but rather places them down in Tartarus, reserved for [a future] judgment…..the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of trials, and to reserve the unjust until the day of judgment.” [2:9].

The word Tartarus is also a proper noun, that is a name of a place, and accordingly should not be changed into a different word, and certainly not the same word that used for Hades and Gehennah.

Tartarus originally came from Greek mythology and popular folk tales. It is the name of a prison in Hades that Zeus, after triumphing over the Titans, placed them, bound in chains to hold them for future punishment for crimes against humans. It was metaphorically seen as the place where justice was metered out in the spirit world, and this metaphor often found it’s way into Jewish apocryphal writings about the end times. Saint Peter borrows this term and uses it in exactly the same way as it was used in popular contemporary writings by both Greeks and Jews; it is a place where “sinning angles” are bound and imprisoned, awaiting a future punishment. They are bound by God to prevent them from doing further harm, and they are judged for crimes against humanity. This image is seen in the ancient icon of the Resurrection, metaphorically depicted are “dark” angels, or demons, being bound in chains under the feet of the resurrected Christ, who broke the bonds of death and rendered powerless the “sinning angles”. Remember from 2 Thessalonians, where Saint Paul writes that the power of the presence of Christ made the “lawless One” powerless, and gave comfort to the Christians, which is exactly the same idea that Saint Peter is writing about in 2 Peter 2:4 through 9.

Again the translators made an improper interpretation of this passage because of preconceived ideas about the afterlife, changing the meaning and only adding to the confusion for English speaking Christians.

Also totally absent from the scriptures is any hint that demons are tormenting sinners. This again comes from Dante’s Inferno and other pagan concepts, not from the Bible. Because any “sinning angels” in the presence of God, are also in torment, and their power is made ineffective.

The Afterlife According to the Church Fathers

After the Gospels and Epistles were composed, in the centuries before Christians decided exactly which books would be in the New Testament, many gifted believers wrote books of commentary, sermons, apologetics, and stories of martyrdom. These eloquent early Christian writers confirm the Biblical view of the afterlife and add some clarifying details.

"St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. John Chrystosum (4th century) and St. John of Damascus (6th century) and many others made extensive use of the allegory of iron or a sword place within the “energies” of a fire. This is reminiscent of Hebrews 4:12, and therefor a common allegory used in the early Church. On the joining of the divine and the human in Christ, God is like the furnace that a craftsman uses to temper a sword. When a properly prepared sword is placed within the fire, the fire makes it stronger and the sword takes on the properties of the fire, it gives off heat and light. The sword then has two natures, one that cuts and one that burns, joined together and inseparable, yet distinctly different. This is the two natures of Christ, and by extension all of humanity when we become "Christ-like". However, to carry this allegory further, this same fire will melt and destroy a sword that was not properly prepared.

St. Isaac the Syrian in the sixth century writes "Paradise is the love of God" and he also writes "...those who are punished in Gehannah, are scourged by the scourge of love". So the “fire” is the love of God, and we experience His love as either divine love, or as painful “scourge”.

St. Basil the Great (fourth century) points out that the Three Children thrown into the fiery furnace were unharmed by the fire, yet the same fire burned and killed the servants at the entrance to the furnace.

According to St Gregory the Theologian, God Himself is Paradise and punishment for man, since each man tastes God's “energies” (His perceptible presence) according to the condition of his soul. St. Gregory further advises the next life will be "light for those whose mind is purified... in proportion to their degree of purity" and darkness "to those who have blinded their ruling organ [meaning the “eyes of the heart”]...in proportion to their blindness..."

St. Gregory of Nyssa says, "Hades…is not intended to signify a place... it is some invisible and incorporeal condition of life, in which the soul lives." (On the Soul and the Resurrection, SVS p.73).

St. Cyril of Jerusalem writes about the Second Coming of Christ, “the sign of the Cross [at His returning] will be terror to His foes, but joy to His friends who have believed in Him”.

Lactantius (AD 260-330) wrote that on His return “there comes before Him an unquenchable fire”.

St. John Chrysostom (AD 344-407) wrote [in homily LXXVI] “let us clothe ourselves with spiritual fire, let us gird ourselves with its flame. No man who bears flame fears those who meet him; be it wild beast, be it man, be it snares innumerable, so long as he is armed with fire, all things stand out of his way, all things retire. The flame is intolerable, the fire can not be endured, it consumes all. With this fire let us clothe ourselves, offering up glory to our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom the Father, together with the Holy Spirit, be glory, might, honor, now and ever and world without end. Amen.”

A prayer of St. Simeon the Translator goes: “...Thou who art a fire consuming the unworthy, consume me not, O my Creator, but rather pass through all my body parts, into all my joints, my reins, my heart. Burn Thou the thorns of all my transgressions, Cleanse my soul and hallow Thou my thoughts [etc.] ...that from me, every evil deed and every passion may flee as from fire…”

The Holy Orthodox Church, in keeping with Scripture and the most ancient Christian doctrine, teaches that all people come into the presence of God in the afterlife. Some will bask in joy because of that infinite love, glory, light, power, and truth that is Almighty God. Others will cower in fear and be in torment DUE TO THAT SAME PRESENCE. All the same, there will be some kind of separation or "great gulf".

"Life" in the Orthodox Church as defined by the Fathers, is experiencing the perfect, pure and infinite love of God in ultimate harmony and intimacy for eternity, and "death" is experiencing God's energies in torment, darkness and disharmony for eternity. It is only through Christ that we come to that place of perfect harmony, in this life, in this world. The goal of the Christian is not to get to "heaven" in the after life, but rather to come to a state of constant communion with the Holy Spirit, beginning in this life. We may bask in the presence of God’s glory here and now, and in the afterlife for eternity.

Accordingly, from ancient times icons have shown the Saints dwelling in a place filled with the golden, uncreated divine light of God. With the icon we symbolically peer through this "window" into the spirit realm infused with God's energies. In the icon of the Heavenly Kingdom, we see Christ enthroned in the center as God Almighty, surround with the host of angels, His mother the Theotokos, and all the saints. However, at His feet you see others, also in His presence, who are being burned and tormented due to just being there, and have no escape. The larger more elaborate icons of the Resurrection show the Old Testament saints with halos looking on with joy, and others without halos on the other side of the gulf, looking on in fear and confusion, as Christ frees the captives of Death. He rescues all of humanity (represented by Adam and Eve being pulled from the tomb) and all of creation with them, from the beginning of time to the end of time.

It is not God's intention that his love will torment us, but that will be the inevitable result of pursuing our own selfish desires instead of seeking God. When we are in harmony with God, we will bask in that presence. Yet, if we desire our own will and are in disharmony with God, we suffer in His presence. Satan is evil not just because he harms others, but because he is an angel of light who stands in the presence of God yet chooses to pursue his own selfish desires, which causes him to tremble in fear. Satan and his fallen angels, the demons, were thrown to the earth and he became the ‘god of this world’. It can be speculated that Satan and his demons are on the earth because it is the only place they can escape God's presence, if only temporarily. This is why they will suffer for eternity after God reclaims the world at the end of this age, filling It with his presence. Then there will be nowhere to escape God, for both demons and evildoers. 
So "hell" is not a "place" but rather a condition we allow ourselves to be in, not because of God's "justice" but because of our own selfish and sinful disobedience. In other words, we put ourselves in "hell" when we do anything other than seeking God's will. It is not that God wants to harm us; He loves us unconditionally, but torment is the result of coming into His pure presence when we are in an impure condition. 
It is like spending your whole life in a cave or basement in darkness, never seeing the sun, then suddenly being thrust into bright sunshine. Your skin will burn, your eyes will burn, you will want to bury yourself under the rocks to try and escape this terrible thing pouring down on you, but there is no escape, just as described in Revelation. However, if you expose yourself to the sun regularly and often, eventually you will want nothing but to bask it the warmth and light of the sunshine. The same sunshine that torments one person brings warmth and pleasure to another. Similarly, if you get too close to the sun, you will be burned, not because the sun wants to burn you, because it is the sun's nature.

Roman Catholic and Protestant Understanding

It is clear from the Scriptures and the Church Fathers there is no room in the afterlife for Purgatory, limbo, or any place apart from God, nor for Calvin’s idea of predestination and “divine justice”.

Neither in scripture, nor in the writings of the Saints do we see any such innovation as Purgatory or even of Hell as a place of torment apart from God.

Purgatory, according to the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” article 1030-1031, is defined as the place of “All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified…after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.” The more purging that is necessary, the longer one must spend in purgatory. Further, in article 1032, “The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead…” presumably to hasten how quickly one may complete this purging.

Built into this uniquely Roman Catholic doctrine is the assumption that in the afterlife we would experience time passing the same way we do in the physical world. This is a mistake because there are enough hints in Scripture that time as we know it does not exist in the spirit world. For example: “… one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”. (2 Peter 3:8). Also the idea that the return of Christ is immanent, in addition to the prevalent use of the word ‘eternal’ throughout the Old and New Testaments. In the Revelation of St. John many scholars believe that St. John is not describing sequential events (which would be nonsensical, since the narrative jumps around so much) but the Saint is rather seeing all the events occurring simultaneously. It is like he is in a room with all this activity happening at once, and he says "then I turned and I saw…". He is describing the sequence in which he sees the visions, but that is not necessarily in the order that the events occurred.

Even modern science tells us that time and space are connected. Without physical space [i.e. creation], there is no time. Without a physical body you can not experience time. Without time, you can not change. This would also preclude the ancient heresy of Origin that speculated that in eternity eventually everyone will be saved. This “restoration” of all, know by theologians as Apokatastasis [meaning “out from your previous standing”], also called Universal Salvation in modern times, presumes that those in “hell” will eventually change their minds and come to salvation in the next life. This is not only unbiblical, it presumes the ability to change when in the presence of an unchanging Almighty God. The same Greek word for “eternal life” is also used for “eternal torment”. You can not argue that the word really means “age” (a fixed period of time) when there is no time, and since it means “eternal life” would also only be for a fixed period of time.

So it is very speculative to assume that time passes outside of creation the same way it does here. No sound doctrine can be built based on this assumption.

The Orthodox believe, from Scripture and the writings of the saints, that because God is perfect he does not change. However, imperfect humanity continues to change. So when someone in an imperfect “forever changing” condition comes into God’s pure unchanging presence, it is experienced as darkness and torment. Presumably, at the time of death we lose the ability to change, since our condition will be “consolidated” by being “caught” in the pure, unchanging presence of God, which will also occur to the living at the Apocalypse. The idea of changing in Purgatory is incompatible with the timeless, changeless nature of the afterlife.

Furthermore, nowhere in the original language of the Bible does the Calvinistic idea occur of a place of “hellfire” torment, created especially by God so He can punish those he judges for eternity. Why would a God who loves us unconditionally torment us for eternity, because of an equally unbiblical notion of Divine Justice? In fact nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly state that it is God that punishes the sinners. If you put your hand in the fireplace, is it the fire’s intention to punish you? Or is the torment you experience caused by your own foolish action? It is merely the nature of the fire to burn your unprotected skin.

Uncreated Energies

The understanding of heaven and “punishment” [hell] in historic Christianity is inextricably linked to the biblical concept of the Uncreated Light of God. The Uncreated Energies (or “Light” the purest form of energy) are understood by the Orthodox to be the Energies of God. This Energy is the "consuming fire", the Shechinah glory, the fire that burns silver to purify it, as it says in Malachi. It is the fire that burns the weeds left in the field, the fire that burns the pruned branches, it is the lake of divine fire, and the thirst and burning that torments the Rich Man is this same Uncreated Energy. Yet, the same fire that torments the impure gives warmth and comfort to the pure of heart.

In fact the Greek word “energeia”, and it’s various forms, appears over 30 times in the new Testament, yet it is not translated as “energy” even once in most popular English translations. It is variously rendered as operation, strong, do, in-working, effectual, be mighty in, shew forth self, and even simply dropped out of the sentence; everything except what it means. Yet, this word was well established in the Greek language in the first century. It was first used by Aristotle, some three centuries before Christ, as a noun, as “energy” in the metaphysical sense— which was borrowed in recent years in English as an engineering term. But even in a modern metaphysical sense, it is exactly as the ancient Greeks use the word, because it is the same word. Yet the translators insisted on ignoring how this word is actually used by Greek speakers and distorted it into a number of verbs and adjectives (or simply drop it from the verse), which leaves only confusion and misunderstanding for English readers.

When we are energized by the Divine Energies, we will radiate the pure Light of God. Translating directly from the Greek, Saint Paul writes to the Philippians [2:13] “For it is God who is energizing in you, according to His will and to energize for the sake of His being well-pleased.” In verse 3:21 he further writes “[Christ] who will change the appearance of our humble bodies to take on the form of the body of His glory, through the energization of his Power…” And to the Ephesians in verse 1:19 “and what exceeding greatness of his power, in us who believe, through the energization of His mighty strength, energized in Christ, raising him from the dead and seating him in the right hand of Him in the heavens.” So this energy “in us” changes our bodies to glory, and was the same energy that raised Christ from the dead. This energy is in fact, the Grace of God, in Eph 3:7 St. Paul writes “That I was made an attendant through the gift of the Grace of God, granted to me by the energization of his Power”.

This same Energy also has the power to heal, as St. James writes [5:16] “Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed, prayers given energy by a righteous one are very powerful”. This same energy comes from the “one” that restrains evil, in II Thess 2:7 St. Paul writes “For already the mysterious lawless one is only restrained now by the Energies, until he comes out of the midst of it”

Receiving this Divine Energy is the results of faith in the true God, as St. Paul tells the Thessalonians in I Thess 2:12 “…[you received] …the true Logos of God, which also energizes in you believers”. Moreover, to the Galatians he asks a rhetorical question with an obvious answer [3:5] “Indeed, would it not be in vain, if the One providing you the Spirit and the powerful Energies in you, were by works of the law, or rather by hearing in faith?”

There are many stories in the historic tradition, both ancient and relatively modern, that tell of the saints radiating light when they pray (for example St. Mary of Egypt, St. Sava, St. Mathew of Ethiopia, and others). The Light that Christ radiated on mount Tabor during the Transfiguration is this Uncreated Light, seen in Christ revealing his true nature. The halos in icons are not rings or crowns (as often wrongly represented in western religious art) but rather a sphere of light, like the sphere of light around a candle in a dark room. This light that Christ, his mother the Theotokos, the angels and saints radiate in the icon is this Uncreated Light of God.

This is the Transforming Light that “makes all things new”. Salvation is in fact this Energy assimilating us to God, “divinizing” the believers, making us “Christ-like”, through the Energization of the Power of God. When we are in perfect harmony with God, the Holy Spirit energizes within us, and we too radiate this Uncreated Light. All of the saints radiate this Light of Christ. Interestingly, in properly rendered icons none of the Apostles have halos until after Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was poured out into the Church. This event, the Pentecost, is when the Apostles were “assimilated” into divination, transforming them [literally in the Greek “metamorphoses”] into Holy beings, into “non-earthy ones” (lit. in the Greek), and when, according to Tradition, the Holy Church had begun.

The Energy is Uncreated because it existed before creation, it is the Light and Truth and the Love and the Life that IS God. When we have that Truth, Love and Life of God, than we too will radiate this Divine Light.

The ancients understood that light was the purest form of energy. This is why there are so many biblical allusions to the sun for God. The sun was the source of “pure” light, life and heat, and this created light was likened to the Uncreated Light of God, the source of Everlasting “Zoe” and “Zesty”, spiritual “life” and “heat” or more properly “vitality”. This is why the term “illuminated” is used to describe the saints who saw these “divinizing” Visions in Heaven. In fact, it is impossible to properly understand the role of Light in theology if you do not understand it from the Light-Energy perspective.

Yet, Saint Paul also cautions the Roman about this Energy in 7:5 “for when we were in the flesh, passionate for sins according to the law, the Energy in our members brings fourth the fruit of death”. And likewise he warns the Corinthians [II Cor 4:12] “For this reason it energizes death in us, though it is Life in you”. And in Hebrews 4:12 another sober warning “For the living Logos of God, and [the living] Energies, also sharper than a two edged sword, passing through, dividing both soul and spirit, joints from marrows, judging the thought and intents of the heart”. Note in this last verse in English bibles, the word “Energies” is just dropped from the text, yet the clear implication in the Greek is that the “logos” is one edge, and the “energy” is the other edge of the sword. Implying quite literally, without this Energy, one is not fully armed.

When we come face to face with this powerful Uncreated Light in an impure and sinful condition, we cower in fear and pain, for our impurities are revealed and "burned" by this illuminating Energy. Yet those who love God and want nothing but to be in constant communion with God, will strive towards purity and will bask in glory in this same Light. The same Energy that causes eternal death in the sinful, purifies and strengthens the faithful.

This is at the root of difference between the Eastern Orthodox and Western Christianity, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, this biblical concept of the Uncreated Energies of God. In the west, the mystery of the Divine Energies was abandoned because it could not be understood outside of the metaphysical perspective, and therefore juridical socialistic rationalism was adopted. The west continues to flounder in darkness and is unarmed against the influence of the enemies of God, and therefore continues to innovate false theologies.

Tragically, in the west a few centuries after the Great Schism (1054 AD) an innovation (i.e. heresy) developed as a result of an attempt to rationalize God’s purifying fires. Latin theologians surmised that God created a place called purgatory with purging fires to "purify" those that die with imperfect atonement, and they further rationalized that paying indulgences could buy your loved ones out of these painful purging fires faster. This rationalization also helped keep the church prosperous and coffers full.

The western ideas had its roots in Augustinian theology (who was influenced by the Greek pagan philosophers). Unfortunately Augustine could not read Greek and had to devise his own theology from imperfect Latin translations. Late in his life he recanted much of his earlier writings, an act which was ignored in the West. Both Luther and Calvin developed their own theologies from Augustine's erroneous writings, and ignoring Augustine’s later retraction. This is how the pagan notion of a God that both punishes and rewards made its way into western Christian theologies. Another major influence was the 13th century fantasy novelist Dante, who’s political satire known as the Inferno borrowed heavily from pagan mythology and bears little resemblance to Biblical eschatology.

Some Orthodox would contend that the western God, who both claims to love us, but also would condemn us to eternal punishment, is a schizophrenic God. It is reminiscent of the abusive groom who claims to love his bride but can not stop punishing her.

Calvin further rationalized if God is all knowing, then He knows who will be saved and who will not even before they are born, so therefore He must have created some people just so He can torment them in Hell for eternity. This is the infamous "predestination" of Calvin, which makes God the author of evil. This is not Biblical and certainly not Christian. Ultimately this doctrine denies free will, the choice that all humans have to either pursue righteousness, or selfishness. The key error is that Calvin presumed that because God knew who would be saved and who would not, that he caused them to be saved or judged.

Therefore the difference in the understanding of the Uncreated Energies is not just a difference between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, it is a difference between almost all of the heterodox and the Orthodox.

In Conclusion

There is no "place" of torment, or even a "place" apart from God, because there is no "place" at all; you are outside of time and space. The “place” is actually a condition of either punishment (“hell”) or paradise (“heaven”) depending on how you experience the presence of God and His Uncreated Engergies.

Consider a person who hates God, and anything to do with religion, and has done nothing but pursued his own self-centered desires all his life. It would be far more terrifying, and painful, to spend eternity in the fiery embrace of God’s almighty and divine love with no escape, than to be far from Him.

Experiencing God’s presence and His in-filling transforming Energies in glory or in torment, as Paradise or as Punishment, is the heaven and hell of the Bible. Not something God did to us, but rather something we did to ourselves. God unconditionally pours out His love on all, WHETHER WE WANT IT OR NOT, whether we are ready for it or not, when we enter the afterlife. This is why the Gospel or “good news” of Jesus Christ should be shared with all people, of all nations, in all tongues. For there is nothing to fear from God’s perfect love, since love casts out all fear.

However, it is not totally wrong to understand the after life as “type” of Heaven and Hell. Because from each individual’s perspective, it will not be perceived as the same “place”, but rather as either torment and darkness you can not escape, or as the paradise you have always longed for. For those judged, they will experience God’s presence as eternal darkness and torment. Though it is very important to keep in mind what is the cause of either of these conditions, or one could reach very wrong conclusions about the nature of God, as they have in western theologies. To misrepresent the nature of a loving God would cause one to conclude that it was God’s intention to punish his creation. Indeed, one blasphemes the reputation of the God of the Bible when you make him into an angry vengeful god that punishes His creation. The cause of the torment is the poor choices that we make, not God. If one thinks of these two different “places” as conditions that we choose to be in, rather than “compartments” God puts us in, it would be more accurate.

And it will certainly be “paradise” to finally experience His Divine Love up close and in person for those who seek it. It is all in the perception. Such is the nature of a loving God. For God is God.

On the Move

2009-09-21T10:17:00.000-07:00

At long last, I’ve given up on iBlog, a very enjoyable tool, but one which appears to be close to death. It has been in release candidate status for a very long time (witness the fact that part of its selling point is that it is Tiger ready (Mac OS 10.4), while the current Mac OS is Snow Leopard (10.6)).

At the same time, I discovered MacJournal. This can be used to create personal (non-blog) type journals, as well as blogs. It also has the one feature that I most liked in iBlog - the ability to work offline, then publish. Hopefully this works out well.

As an interesting aside, I attempted to get ancientfaith.blogspot.com as the URL for this new blog (apologies to John Maddex for hijacking the name of his web radio station.) However, I discovered it was already taken. Thinking it must be another Orthodox blog, I thought I’d check it out - only to discover that its an Evangelical Pastor who appears to have stopped blogging. Maybe he discovered that evangelical Christianity isn’t exactly ancient. So, I had to settle for this URL. Yes, I realize that Buddhism, Judaism, and a host of other religions can lay claim to being ancient, so theancientfaith is a bit much. However theancientchristianfaith seemed a bit long, so humor me.

The other thing that is motivating the move is that I sent my mac out for a complete checkup before its out of warranty, and they replaced the hard drive. While I backed up all of the most critical stuff, I forgot to backup the iBlog files. Since I had been frustrated with iBlog for a while, it seemed like a perfect time to make the break. I will likely republish some of my favorite old posts over time, but most of my stuff will remain “archived” on our website.