Why Orthodoxy? Part III

[I've moved this up to the top due to the interesting discussion in the comments.]

Initially, as I discussed previously, my interest in Orthodoxy sprang from a frustration with the hollowness of the worship I experienced at church and the weak teaching. It also came from the gradual dissolution of friendships that had cemented me to my church regardless of its failings. Once those bonds faded, the restlessness I was experiencing was able to push me forwad to look for something else, something more.

I was a religious studies major at a state university and one of my classes was "Formation of the Christian Tradition." It was a fascinating class for someone who had never looked into the history of his faith. The teacher was dynamic, friendly and a member of the Jesus Seminar. He was challenging, but not atagonistic and his lectures frequently left a fair portion of the class (mostly evangelicals or devout Catholics) sputteringly mad. I enjoyed the class as a kind of mental joust, pushing myself to counter his arguments as best I could. I adamantly refused to just learn it, regurgitate it on the test and then forget it as happens with so many classes. From this class, I had gained the perspective that much of modern, Protestant Christianity is actually a significant departure from the faith & practice of the early church. At the time, I did not see the questions this should have produced. As I began to explore Orthodoxy, however, the tensions this reality creates started coming to the fore.

What is the significance of this departure from the historic form of Christianity?

It is entirely possible to answer this with "nothing." It is possible that the early church's form & praxis were merely the results of convention, culture and pragmatism and have no significance for our forms & praxis which are, similarly, the results of a different set of convention, culture and pragmatism. However, this answer glosses over some very important matters. First, the early church, and by that I typically mean the church of the first 2 centuries, saw neither its theology nor its ecclesiology as arbitrary. An exploration of the role of the bishop will serve as an example. St Ignatius, in his epistle to the Ephesians:

Hence it is fitting for you to set yourselves in harmony with the mind of the bishop, as indeed you do. For your noble presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted to the bishop, as the strings to a harp. And thus by means of your accord and harmonious love Jesus Christ is sung.

And:

The bishop then we ought plainly to regard as the Lord Himself.

There are 2 typical Protestant responses to this. One is that this is the result of an error that crept in to the church. The other, that this view represents only that of St Ignatius' community. Other local church communities did not hold similar views of the bishop. The former raises some difficult problems that I will address shortly, while the latter is demonstrably false.

From the 1st Epistle of Clement, ch 42:

The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe. And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith.

From Clement we see the orderly appointment flow of authority. God sent Christ, Christ sent the Apostles, the Apostles appointed their bishops. The bishops represent, and derive their authority from, the Apostles. The Apostles represent, and derive their authority from, Christ. While the language does not match precisely, the deep similiarity is readily apparent.

I believe this brief exploration shows that the early church did not regard its form as arbitrary responses dictated by culture and their immediate needs. Indeed, how could this be the case if the bishop is representative of Christ and the office was foretold in scripture? This leaves modern Protestants with the duty of presenting a compelling case as to why it is permissible to abandon these forms and I have yet to see any such thing. (Though I'd definitely be interested in hearing one.) Which brings me back to the charge of error.

What other questions and problems does the view that error crept into the church prior to the close of the 1st century raise?

In my mind, this view is untenable for orthodox Christianity for several reasons, but let me start by quoting Jaroslav Pelikan:

For the doctrine of the Trinity was not as such a teaching of the New Testament, but it emerged from the life and worship, the reflection and controversy, of the church as, in the judgment of Christian orthodoxy, the only way the church could be faithful to the teaching of the New Testament. It did so after centuries of study and speculation, during which many solutions to the dilemma of the Three and the One had surfaced, each with some passage or theme of Scripture to commend it. The final normative formulation of the dogma of the Trinity by the first ecumenical council of the church, held at Nicaea in 325, took as its basic outline the biblical outline of the so-called great commission of Christ to the disciples just before his ascension. . . But into the framework of that New Testament formula the Nicene Creed had packed many other biblical motifs, as well as the portentous and non-biblical technical term for which it became known. . . . “one in being with the Father [homoousios toi patri].”...If the Protestant churches acknowledged the validity of the development of doctrine when it moved from the great commission of the Gospel of Matthew to produce the Nicene Creed, as all of the mainline Protestant churches did and do, on what grounds could they reject development as it had moved from other lapidary passages of the Bible to lead to other doctrines? (emphasis mine - read the entire passage here)

Though definitions vary, I believe orthodox Christianity would likely coincide with what CS Lewis called "mere Christianity." To me, this is Trinitarian, holds scripture to be inspired & authoritative and exclusivist in terms of salvation. This is not meant to be a precise definition, but from it, one can produce some useful analyses - Mormons aren't Christian because they aren't Trinitarian and don't hold to the authority of the Bible; various forms of universalism aren't Christian because they aren't exclusivist - you get my drift. Evangelical Christianity is orthodox by this definition and can only remain in some degree of continuity with the church established by Christ in the New Testament as long as it stays this way. However, it is clear that modern Protestantism in general, and evangelicalism in particular, does not match the form & belief of the early church. It is not hierarchical (as I explored above) and it positively rejects liturgy, sacrament and the authority of Apostolic tradition. As I said before, some dismiss these differences as meaningless, but I hope I have shown that this really is not possible. Or, at the very least, requires a great deal of justification and explanation. Others, however, dismiss these forms of the early church as error. Some would go so far as to say they were errors introduced by the devil, others only that they were wrong but not evil. There seems to be a tacit assumption amont most evangelical and conservative Christians that the church went seriously astray at some point and was only recovered at the Reformation. I don't think there is a universally agreed upon date for the church's falling away, but in my experience, it would appear most don't think the church survived past the end of the 2nd century. Some go later, some much earlier, but that is the average as I've encountered it. And however it is dated, most seem to assume the church started stumbling badly long before finally hitting the ground. But if this is the case, modern Christians are left with 2 glaring problems; the doctrine of the Trinity and the canon.

(cont)

New job - Opportunity to follow...

I started my new job today. Actually, I started a new job on Friday - just orientation and paperwork - but was offered a better job on Monday afternoon, which I accepted. I started that job today; I quitted the other job, though I don't think they know that yet. I tried calling them yesterday afternoon but they don't have voicemail. So I tried emailing them last night; I found it returned in my inbox today after getting home from work. I will have to call them again tomorrow morning as they are already closed today.

So my second new job in as many days started today. I'm working as a nursing assistant in a long-term respirator care facility. These patients are all on respirators or are in the process of being weened. Some will successfully make the transition to breathing on their own and some, perhaps most, will not. Most of the patients I saw today were older and were afflicted by any number of diseases requiring isolation protocols (gown and gloves, and a mask in some cases). One man had lost his lower legs, presumably from diabetes. Another had been in a severe motorcycle accident and had significant scarring on the side of his face. On the other side, his head is caved in - its a crater about 3 inches across and probably an inch deep starting a little below the hairline. Any desire I had to get a motorcycle took a steep dive at that sight.

Though it pays fairly well, this job is not going to be easy. Its taking care of the most basic, physical needs of these people. I need to keep saying that - people, not just "patients." The woman who training me today confided that she "doesn't know names, only room numbers." I never want to get like that, though I'm sure it will be something I have to fight. I'm sure its all too easy to slip into that mentality, especially given the good chance that some of them will die while in our care. Its a defense mechanism that I can understand, but don't want to emulate. If their deaths will hurt, I want it to hurt, I want to feel that pain, not run from it. I want to mourn their passing and pray for their souls. While they're under my care, I want to heap the love of Christ on them and to see them as Christ does - I cannot do that if I refuse to feel that pain, as well. So this will not be a glamorous job, but like the Holy Unmercenaries, I hope to undertake it with dedication and with the love of Christ firmly planted in my heart. I have their holy example to follow and I can take comfort in the knowledge that no matter how hard it gets for me, it was much, much harder for them and that they dealt with people in far worse shape. And that without the modern medical technology that relieves so much of the caregivers burden! I am not yet to the point where I feel comfortable asking for their intercession but at least I have their well-trodden path to guide me.


Christ is in our midst!

Orthodox-catholic? Ironically, its neither.

My in-laws' neighborhood had a subdivision wide yard sale today. Since I'm always well overstocked on books, we had a few boxes full of 'em out on the tables so I could sell enough to buy yet more books. Many were old books on theology & ministry that I no longer want. While I was upstairs carefully crafting a response to my unresponsive psych professor, we had a customer who bought several of those books. This older woman asked my wife if someone in the house was a theology major. My wife said no, but that I was a big reader and a religious studies major. The woman then told my wife that she is a member of the Orthodox-Catholic Church and is about to be ordained. She basically said the OCC is just like Orthodoxy or Catholocism, except that they ordain women. Looking on their website, I also see they bless gay unions and seem to think the Bible is only the word of God "when spoken and heard heartfully by believers and beyond." Yup, almost exactly alike.

Miscellany

PSY 101 - The teacher has a doctorate and yet can't seem to write a clear test question or to read the text that she assigns. We have to take an online chapter test every week, and of the 6 we've had so far, 4 have had questions that don't make sense, are misleading or which have answers that do not correspond to what the textbook says. Today's adventure in testing had 4 such instances. So I've taken the gamble of ticking her off and sent her an email disputing the questions - let's hope it doesn't come back to bite me.

[Update] I've exchanged a few emails with the teacher and they've amounted to little more than her saying "you're wrong" while not actually responding to any of my points. If this happens on the midterm or on the final - "Hello, is this the psych department chair?"

Microsoft Updates - I spent the better part of the day yesterday attempting to successfully download and install a Windows update. From the instructions in MS' website, this required me to download a gig+ platform to get one little utility to clean up a registry. But they didn't include the commands to get that little utility to do its job, so yeah, didn't happen. I managed to work around it and finally get the upgrade done after only 5 hours or so. Good thing I've got the time.

Jobs - Speaking of which, I am happy to say that my time will soon be significantly more limited, praise God. I've had 3 job offers in the last week, 2 of which I'm very interested in. Both are in patient care positions; one is in a specialty hospital and the other is at a dialysis clinic. I'm expecting a call today from the hospital about what schedule they'd be able to offer, and that will likely be the final factor in deciding which to take. I'd prefer the hospital since its closer to home & my wife's work and will probably pay a little more salary-wise, but the clinic is only open days and has really good benefits, including a very generous tuition reimbursement program. With the reimbursement, the true salaries are probably even. The clinic has 3 months of full-time training and right now, they can only guarantee me .8 after that period, which is another reason I'm hoping for the hospital.

Gas & Rita - I just saw on the news that Rita has the potential to hit 21 refineries in Texas. All together, they refine 25% of the gas produced in America. Even if they aren't damaged, it will take about a week to get them back online after shutting them down during the storm. A few have already been turned off, so expect an increase in gas prices pretty soon. On a related note, my chemistry professor's primary position is as a materials scientist with a major defense contractor. Last week, he got an industry alert that America's largest producer of ethylene glycol, aka antifreeze, was severely damaged by Katrina and will likely not be back on production for this winter. This could lead to a shortage of antifreeze in the later winter months, or at the very least, a sharp rise in prices. It might be a good idea to pick up a jug or two of antifreeze now, while the weather is still warm.

Why Orthodoxy? (Final)

I had hoped my previous posts on why I'm drawn to Orthodoxy would have resulted in some good dialogue with those people I had engaged in some intense dialogue a couple of weeks back - no such luck, unfortunately. I always enjoy a good debate/discussion, particularly over matters passionately believed and dedicatedly defended. You may not ever change anyone else's mind, or have your own changed in turn, but you learn so darn much! So this will be my final post in this little series, which I hope you have enjoyed.

First, I have to say that the last 2 posts on "why Orthodoxy?" were not meant to be an airtight case against Protestantism. I know my arguments are not immune to critique and there are probably several points on which my understanding of Protestant theology/ecclesiology is insufficient. I do not regard my arguments and conclusions as the final, authoritative word on these matters, but I think my explorations have raised enough questions for me to have serious doubts about Protestantism's claims. This doesn't "prove" Orthodoxy to be correct but it makes looking outside the Protestant box a perfectly rational & reasonable thing to do. I guess, in essence, I've only really been arguing for this; that other Protestants would recognize the legitimacy of looking elsewhere due to internal faults within Protestantism. No amount of debate is going to totally prove one side or the other is correct - I can only hope that I am able to get other Christians to crack open their door to this wide, new realm of possibilities.

Thus far, I've explained my personal background and why I initially started searching for something else or something more than what I was used to. I also briefly explored that initial aesthetic draw to Orthodoxy and the subsequent challenges my search uncovered to my former way of thinking. Now I'll finish with why I feel the need to settle my "question of Orthodoxy", as I put it, that lingering draw that compels me to use Orthodoxy as the point of comparison for so many things.

The subtle pull I feel towards Orthodoxy is composed of many smaller, but interwoven, strands. Some I have already touched on - the reverence, non-emotional worship, intense focus on God - so I will talk about those that I haven't discussed yet. One of the primary things I appreciate in Orthodoxy is its completeness. Not that it has plumbed the depths of God or of faith. By no means! But it has spent almost 2000 years putting the daily nitty-gritty of the Christian life through the ringer. The faith it presents today has been tested in the fires of the temptations of the desert, the trials of the persecutions and the mundane struggle of plain, ordinary folks going about their lives. In many ways, it reminds me of a stone tumbler, which I became familiar with in grade school. You put an unassuming, jagged, rough piece of stone into a drum with a bunch of other stones and set it spinning. After a few days, that rough, unassuming stone has become a polished piece of marbled beauty, with color, depth and a smooth perfection. That is what Orthodoxy feels like to me - the rough edges have been knocked off over the centuries of trial & error in the lives of holy men and ordinary men, holy women and ordinary women, and what is presented to us today is that polished thing of beauty. It says "here it is, this is the faith you need and these are the things you need to do to strengthen it and grow closer to God. Trust me; I've guided tens of thousands of people through their lives, through their temptations, failures, victories and successes." But it doesn't do so in a dictatorial way! It offers the freedom that can only come through submission. A musician that can improvise pieces of incredible beauty or brilliance can only do so because they have first spent years mastering the basic techniques and applying them in ever more complex fashions. Only when they've accomplished that does the freedom to simply sit and play manifest itself. And we would never claim that those music teachers who force their students to go through those basics are being heavy-handed or restricting the freedom of their students. No, it is precisely for the sake of their musical freedom that students must be put through those exercises. In the same way, Orthodoxy provides those "music lessons" on the basics so that we may obtain that greater freedom. It gives us the basic techniques and exercises we need in order to die to self, take up our cross and move ever closer to God and the freedom of unity with Him. I don't feel that same completeness in any other Christian system and certainly no Protestant system has that same authority and experience.

Orthodoxy's completeness is really the result of 2 complementary aspects of the Christian life - the life of the head and the life of the heart. What I described above is really the life of the heart, and by that I mean the life of feeling, struggle, emotion and the daily search to find meaning and direction. It is also the life of the gut - the daily struggle for survival. These things don't always require a great deal of thought and, indeed, are often spoiled by too much reflection. When I look at my wife and feel the tugs of love and the appreciation of her beauty, putting those emotions through an intellectual analysis will rob them of their depth and meaning. There are some things that should simply be left to the experience of them, without feeling the need to route them through the intelligence for too much examination. But Orthodoxy does not just serve the life of the heart. It is a rich tradition, full of intellectual rigor and debates that lasted (literally) centuries. I can't imagine any modern person being satisfied with a discussion that will outlive them, and yet, that is what many of the saints had to do. Orthodoxy is deeply philosophical, tackling incredibly hard, and some would say obscure, problems and questions with gusto. It accepted no quarrel about the "practicality" of these debates; they were about the very person of God and the nature of his Church, and were thus by definition vastly important. Where so much of modern Christianity is focused on 'how-to' books and therapeutic approaches to theology, Orthodox maintains that tradition of hard, demanding theological reflection. It offers what we need to sustain us both in our hearts and in our heads, providing a life-time of material for thought, discussion, debate and exploration. As someone who values education and learning, such a cornucopia cannot be easily passed over. And yet there are those that would say I could appreciate and study those things without actually becoming Orthodox. To a certain extent I would agree with them, but ultimately, I think it is impossible to truly grasp and understand what these saints are saying if I am not apart of the same ecclesial stream that nourished them. How can I truly understand what they say about the bishop if I have none? How can I appreciate the totality of the Eucharist if I cannot celebrate it with them?

Which brings me to the final reason I will discuss; the comprehensiveness of the church. I still struggle with the idea of prayer to the saints and the Theotokos, as any Protestant likely does. It is an alien concept and one hard to accept on its own terms. For me, it is probably the greatest hurdle I will face to becoming Orthodox. Most of the other differences with Protestantism - liturgy, sacrament, hieararchy - I can understand and submit to without problem, but this is much harder. But even for that difficulty, the idea is so intrinsically appealing that I cannot quite get away from it. When I worship on Earth, I am joined by Heaven! And not just angels, but all the saints, all those who have walked this path before me. It brings the idea of the Church as the Body of Christ into critical focus and makes unity all the more important. If we're separated here, how can we joined There? The more I search, the more I explore, the more convinced I become that unity, true unity, should be one of the strongest critiques we offer to the world because unity is really about love. A love that cannot separate us from Christ, nor from the other members of His body.

The end is nigh?

Depending on who you listen to, the end of the world in the form of vast ecological devastation, massive societal upheaval after we run out of oil, or perhaps a new bird-flu variant that will wipe out a few billion people. Whichever flavor you prefer, many claim the outlook is dire and that such calamities are only a matter of (very brief) time. These predictions are used to push a variety of reforms or countermeasures, some of which I agree with and some of which seem to be little more than wishful thinking that will do more harm than good. For instance, the "hydrogen economy" is still going to leave us reliant on oil to provide said hydrogen. And while it may reduce pollution, I for one am not favorably disposed to riding around with a tank of highly explosive gas just to the rear of my rear. However, the evaluation of such proposals is not my point with this post.

No, I have a confession to make; when reading these various outlines of how the world will implode, I actually find myself looking forward to that time in some perverse way. I realize that these upheavals, should they come to pass, will cause untold deaths and suffering on a scale to make Katrina or the tsunami a bit of golden-hued nostalgia. I do not look forward to them with the expectation that such catastrophes will either prompt, accompany or immediately precede Christ's return. I look forward to them the same way I think I would have enjoyed witnessing the destruction of the Tower of Babel - the ultimate come-uppance, the proof of man's folly and self-worship. You might be properly aghast that I could positively anticipate such a time, but I ask you, what kind of human suffering did the fall of the Tower of Bable create? If we take the account seriously, and I do, then surely in the immediate aftermath of such a catclysmic event, many thousands of people died or were forced to live lives of deprivation and poverty. Looking at the impact of the event across time, we can see the millions upon millions of deaths that have resulted from the war & conflict this confusion of the human race has resulted in. But that was a necessary and unavoidable result of man's hubris and I think the collapse of civilization is similarly required. We have forgotten the lesson impressed upon humanity, and it is time for it to be written on our collective souls again. What is that lesson? Honestly, I'm not entirely certain. In part, it is the fatal folly of our own self-reliance, our worship of self, our putting politics before love, economics before the Cross. If we cannot be brought to repentance by so-called natural disasters, perhaps the disasters we are making for ourselves through our exorbinant and mindless consumption will do it for us.

Why Orthodoxy? Part IV

Of course, everyone knows that modern Protestantism holds to sola scriptura (SS), the idea that the Bible alone is the final and ultimate source of authority for right belief and right practice; orthodoxy and orthopraxy, respectively. Part of the problem of intelligently debating SS is that there are so many different flavors of it. There are those who hold that everything we say we believe or do in worship must be explicitly sanctioned by Scripture. There are others who believe that as long as something isn't explicitly prohibited, then its fine. Diverse groups have diverse understanding of the specific content of this doctrine, but ultimately I think it is safe to say that, for a Protestant, if it can't be proven from the Bible, then it must be rejected.

You can't prove sola scriptura from the Bible!

Which brings me to my first problem with SS; it is internally inconsistent. The Bible does not say that the Bible alone is to be our ultimate source of authority. There are verses that support the authority of the Bible - like Hebrews 4:12 or 2 Timothy 3:16 - but these do not preclude other sources of authority. No verse says "scripture alone" and if we examine the historical evidence, it is clear the early church was not SS. First, the Judaism from which Christianity sprang was not SS as it regards the Torah and prophetic writings. They accepted and eventually codified in writing the oral tradition which authoritatively interpreted the text. That is not to say there wasn't ongoing debate, but it is clear that the rabbinic intepretations were considered normative. The church of the first few decades continued to meet in the synagogues & Temple, followed the Jewish liturgical calendar and pattern of worship (excepting only the Eucharist, which was held in people's homes at first) and the Jewish pattern of thinking. Second, the history of the first 2 centuries shows that the church functioned quite well without a defined canon. Instead, it relied on the Apostolic Tradition which was supplemented by various writings. Some of these writings were eventually put in the canon and some weren't. No matter what texts they were using, the Tradition still functioned as a legitimate and normative authority upon which they relied. Thus, the early church was not SS, and indeed could not have been without a canon. And if those closest to the Apostles did not adhere to what would have obviously been a very important (if impossible) principle, then one can safely conclude that the Apostles did not intend the church to follow it.

Which brings me to a second major inconsistency - the Bible never gives us a definitive list of the canon (most scholars agree the "table of contents" section in the earliest manuscripts were later additions). Protestantism would hold that our faith rests solely on the Bible; B=>F, if you will. But the reality is that with no definitive, self-contained canonical descriptions, the Bible rests on the authority that declared it to be the canon, A=>B. This puts Protestantism in the implicit position of affirming A=>B=>F, or A=>F. 'A' is by definition external to the Bible, and cannot be proven from it in violation of SS. The matter is further complicated by the New Testament's internal references to the Old Testament - they largely quote the Septuagint, which raises the question of which version of the OT the Apostles regarded as authoritative. Can the Protestants sole reliance on the Masoretic text be justified in light of this? And what about NT citation of an apocryphal work - what is the status of that work? Those questions can only be answered from outside the Bible. Regardless if the authority is history, a church council or personal judgment, those questions require an authority quite apart from the Bible to determine what the Bible is. That authority then becomes the ultimate arbiter of faith because it is what delimited the content of the canon.

So how was the canon formulated? The specifics are not as important to this discussion as the general ideas behind what are really the only 2 possibilities; the canon was formulated under the guidance of the Spirit or it relied solely on human judgment. The obvious problem with reliance on human judgment is that it is fallible. I have seen some courageous souls who will allow that they have a "fallible collection of infallible books", but they can't really say that and mean it. If it is a "fallible collection", then it is entirely possible that something 'uninspired' made it in and something 'inspired' was left out, and there is no way for us to ever know if this is the case. One cannot prove that James is uninspired, as some of the Reformers thought, and that the Epistles of Clement are inspired, as some of the Church Fathers thought. This, of course, throws SS into some murky waters - how can you consider a fallible canon to be the ultimate authority for matters of faith? What if you're relying on an uninspired work for some key pieces of your theology or praxis? Here, the authority the faith is really resting on is the mental acuity and historical awareness of a group of very fallible men, which does not strike me as a very strong foundation. Moreover, when you consider that, as I've pointed out previously, Protestantism largely considers these men to have slipped into the serious failures of monepiscopacy, sacramentalism, Traditionalism, etc, I fail to see how anyone could NOT question their wisdom and judgment in this matter. Especially when you consider they came to these positions while reading these texts! If they got it all so wrong in other important areas, why should we think they'd do any better here? This position has to inject some doubt into the validity and completeness of the canon.

But what if the formulatoin of the canon was directed, in some way, by the Holy Spirit? This would give us great assurance that our canon is valid and complete, but once again, it is a violation of SS; you cannot prove from the Bible that the canon was inspired by the Spirit. Another problem also arises, in that if the Protestant accepts the Spirit's guidance here then he must give an account as to why the Spirit did not similarly act to prevent the fledgling church from falling into these heretical, unbiblical forms.

The doctrine of the Trinity came first.

Things are further complicated for the Protestant SS position by the doctrine of the Trinity. First, the Trinitarian formulation of the first Ecumenical Council significantly predates the official formulation of the canon. With no set canon, one cannot affirmatively say that the doctrine of the Trinity is solely based on the Bible as we know it. It is possible that other works influenced the Council's thinking and the unbiblical word "homoousion" surely prevents a SS understanding of this key doctrine. Second, in the Church's battle with the Arian heresy, as happened with many heresies in the first millenia, it was clear that the heretics were reading the same texts as the Trinitarians. The Council was not able to simply dismiss Arius out of hand as relying on false sources or documents, as they could with some of the gnostic sects. In order to confront and overcome the Arian heresy about Christ, they had to prove that Arius was misinterpreting those texts. The significance of this fact is immense for Protestantism. If it accepts the Trinitarian formulation of Nicea, then it must, in fact, rely upon the exegetical skills of the council members. It must look to the quality of their minds, their theology and their adherence to the historic deposit of faith and hold them above reproach. But this the Protestant cannot do! To do this would require a radical rethinking of Protestant theology, ecclesiology, worship and praxis, because once you allow the superiority of their intellects in producing such a key doctrine, you have no basis to reject their thinking in other matters. This does not mean that one would have to accept modern Catholicism or Orthodoxy, but it would mean having to seriously engage the early church's thinking with the intention of being conformed to it. Further, the Protestant cannot do this because it sets up yet another authority outside the Bible. The validity of their interpretation cannot be proven from the Bible, because Arius was reading the same works! His interpretation, which was actually more popular for a while, is just as legitimate a reading unless one accepts an external authority to contradict it. If one denies that source, then one must reject Nicea and simply say that they choose to accept the doctrine of the Trinity based on their own reading of the text. This kicks the legs out from under any orthodox understanding of the faith. For instance, a Calvinist can look at an Arminian and say they think the Arminian's theology is wrong. But that Calvinist cannot deny their Christianity because they are both orthodox and the matters upon which they differ are, to some extent, optional. However, once you reject Nicea, being Trinitarian must similarly become optional because it is based on some school of thought and not some objective reality.

(cont)

Peter Singer eats my post

Earlier today, I had written an incisive, witty and publish-quality analysis of Peter Singer's article in the latest issue of Foreign Policy magazine. I browse through FP when the new issues hit the stands at Border's, though I frequently don't read a single article all the way through. I went yesterday afternoon and read all of 3 articles - The Sanctity of Life by Peter Singer, Monogamy by Jacues Attali and "Religious Hierarchy" by Harvey Cox (not available online). As I said, I had written this amazing piece of blogalism, but when I hit "Publish Post" my browser crapped out on me, thus killing my post. I can only think that Singer, in league with the devil, fouled my wireless connection at just the right moment. Alas, you will have to read Singer's article and analyze it on your own. You'll either laugh so hard you'll cry, or your blood will freeze in your veins at the thought this guy might be right...just FYI.

Why Orthodoxy? Part II

Getting married further separated me from my friends. Most were a couple of years younger than I, and only a couple had done anything college-wise - so I was in the "real world", with a corporate job and a wife, and they still had no direction, working just to get by and hanging out till all hours of the night. I'm not knocking them, since there are times when I miss that sense of freedom and limitless possibilities. I realize, too, that I would not be happy living like that. I need my work and my everyday life to mean something; I need to have direction. So my friends and I drifted apart, which only made fitting back into my old church even harder, what with the emotion-driven worship and shallow teaching. We still went some, though, mostly out of habit and some because those people were still my friends, even if we weren't close. We tried out a few other churches over the course of the winter of 02/03, but never really felt at home. Nothing clicked for us and we got rather apathetic about church.

I had read some on the emerging church movement and it was stirring up some excitement in me. One of the things that had stirred me in Bishop Ware's book was the connection to the past that was present in Orthodoxy. Even a cursory look at the emerging church will show that they are very interested in reacquiring the forms & practices of the ancient church, and I liked it. To me, the emerging church seemed like a good via media between my Protestant ideals and the history of my faith. Via an emerging blog or two, I wound up landing on Karl Thienes' blog and from there, branching out to more Orthodox bloggers. This piqued my curiosity, so one day at work (on my lunch break, I tell you!) I decided to see if there were any Orthodox churches in Phoenix. I found several, one of which was right along the route I took home from work, so I swung by one afternoon that week. I checked out the church's website and emailed the priest, who invited me to come to a service some time. I ended up going on a Saturday the week before Easter. My wife had to work, so I went alone and stood in the back the entire time, not knowing if I was allowed to go into the church proper.

I was blown away by it. This was an entirely God-centered worship! There were no praise choruses about how great and wonder I feel, or how great and wonderful I'm supposed to feel. It was unemotional, focused. The only time self-referential words came up were in conjunction with asking God's mercy, but they rarely focused on "me." The prayers were offered corporately for the Body - it was "have mercy on us". And after the forced, me-focused, emotion-driven worship I had grown to abhor, this was a most welcome and keenly felt change. The smell of the incense lingered in my nose, the sounds of the chants echoed in my mind. The reverence present was also a huge change. Everybody was dressed nicely and there was no coffee in the sanctuary. It was a place where people came to meet the creator of the universe and they did so with serious intent, not frivolity, not looking for comfort. There were no gimmicks. The sermon was short, but good. The priest spoke to the reality of sin and our constant need for God's mercy. I met him briefly after the Liturgy and went home to talk to my wife about it.

We started going fairly regularly at that point and continued to do so for a few months. I think we were both moved by it and found the changes refreshing. Looking back at it, I can't really pin down any specific reason why we stopped going. I think we just weren't ready at that point. We definitely stopped going completely after I started talking to the church in Illinois about their youth pastor position. But I carried that experience with me - the God-focused worship, the almost total disregard for emotion, the depth & richness of the theology & praxis and the rootedness in history. Its probably the biggest reason things didn't work out at that church; I wanted to make disciples in the manner of the earliest Christians. I wanted to teach the kids something real, to help them make their faith their own and something that would survive the challenges of college, which are immense. The church, on the other hand, wanted little more than a program that would get big, fast. They also wanted a program that was more about pleasing the adults of the church than it was reaching the kids. Anyone familiar with my blog knows how it ended.

So now that we are here, I think we are ready. Not ready to convert just yet, just ready to really explore it, to give Orthodoxy a chance to pull us in. I, for one, need this time. That brief experience of Orthodoxy has stayed with me, haunting my ministry. It became the measuring stick by which I judged my ministry and the ministry of my church - are we that reverential? Are we pointing people to God like that? Are we producing disciples and not just converts? Are we equipping people to live their faith and not just understand it? My experience at that church in Illinois only served to heighten the tension I feel, amply demonstrating the failures of Protestant thinking & doctrine. For me, I need to settled the Orthodoxy question once and for all, whether that is yes or no. I know I will never be able to be happy at a church until I do.

Next post, the theological, philosophical and historical reasons behind the lure of Orthodoxy.

Why Orthodoxy?

In recent debate over on another Baptist blog, the blog's author - Jeff Wright - asked me why Orthodoxy? Why not Catholicism or some other tradition? Since I haven't previously explained why I'm drawn to Orthodoxy in any systematic way, I figured I'd turn my response to him into a post. I didn't think this would be that hard to right out, but I realized after starting it that there is actually quite a lot that is going into it. Some of it is why I am dissatisfied with Protestantism and some of it is why I'm drawn to Orthodoxy, quite apart from my feelings about Protestantism in general. This is probably going to take a few posts to get through.

My first brush with Orthodoxy had nothing to do with either disillusionment or a certain sense of spiritual hollowness. It was due to far more mundane matters. In the early spring of 2000, I learned that I was to be deployed to Bosnia for a little under 7 months. Thanks to the well established Army presence over there, I was able to find out exactly where I'd be stationed and who I'd be working with on my team. It turns out, my unit was going to be stationed in the city of Doboj (pronounced doe-boy) on a base run by the NORDPOL Battle Group. The NBG is a mish-mash of Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Lithuanian and Polish forces, who were responsible for the security in our little corner of the US sector. As it happens, the boundary between the Serb Republic and the Bosnian Federation runs right through Doboj. The former, which contained my team's territory, was about 90% Serb at that point, and the latter was a similar percentage of Croats & Muslims. In preparation for my deployment, I ordered a variety of books on the history of Bosnia, the war and a few books on Orthodoxy since I figured it would help me understand Serb culture. I ended up buying Bishop Ware's "The Orthodox Church", Vladimir Lossky's "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church" and a small prayer book. I only picked these books because they were on the first search page that popped up for "Orthodox church" and had gotten good reviews. Ware's book was an easy, straightforward read and I found it interesting - some very different but attractive perspectives that resonated with me, if only a little. Lossky's work, on the other hand, seemed impenetrable for someone not familiar with the Church, and I only made it through the first chapter or so. While in Bosnia, I was able to tour the ancient Orthodox church in Sarajevo, and bought a few souvenirs while there - some small icon-cards of Christ Pantocrator, a few prayer ropes (at the time, I thought they were just hand-made bracelets), a little incense holder and an incense burner. Nothing life changing happened through this time or study, at least not right then. I thought it would be interesting to visit an Orthodox church when I got back to the states in April 2001. I didn't end up going, though, until 2 years later.

Before I get into that, though, I want to tell you about a college-aged Bible study I led for a few years. It started sometime in 1998 or 1999 - I knew the people who had started it but wasn't part of the initial group. It met in our church, but wasn't just for people who went there and wasn't just for college students, either. Our church was a large-ish, upscale church in one of Phoenix's wealthier sections. It's a seeker-sensitive church, so its hard to pin down hard numbers but attendance on any given Sunday was probably around 2000, with a roster of regular attendees approaching 3000 on the adult side. By the time I left, the youth ministry had exploded and was up over 800 at 2 services on Sunday mornings. This was the church that had brought me back to the faith, so to speak. I had given my life to Christ after my freshmen year of high school at a Younglife camp but never really got involved at a church after my return. It was towards the end of my senior year that I started attending and ended up getting pretty involved in the youth group as a volunteer leader after I graduated. Within a couple of years, I had started to form some pretty solid friendships and it was a few of these people that started the college-aged Bible study. It had been meeting for several months before I finally started attending. After I a while, they asked me to join the roster of the rotating leadership position. Not too long after that, I became pretty much the only leader and that lasted for probably a year or so. In that time, the group expanded from 8 to around 30 people, most of whom were very serious about their faith and serious about the relationships in the group. At that point, we made some changes, but I was still in a leadership role and most of them probably thought of me as the top guy. For me, this was really the only time in my life where I've felt like I was really accepted by more than a few people. I was looked up to, I was respected, my gifts were honored and people genuinely cared about me. It was a very happy time for me.

But then I left for Bosnia and hardly heard from them. When I came back, I was more than a little messed up by what I had experienced over there. No combat, thank God, but we had uncovered new information on war crimes and it left a lasting impression. In my absence, the group had kind of faltered but was reconstituted within a few months and grew a little more. But for me, the bloom was off the rose, in more ways then one. The friendships had not been what I had thought & hoped they were and no one there could understand how Bosnia had affected me, which only served to drive the wedge deeper. Added to that, the church that I had loved and that had spurred me forward in my faith now felt increasingly hollow. Its style was all flash & show and the teaching lacked depth. It didn't provide me what I needed in the wake of the spiritual trauma of discovering new instances of mass murder. It didn't speak to the reality of the human condition outside the cozy little realm of upper-middle-class Phoenix, Arizona with its cookie-cutter homes, new cars and suburban apathy.

I continued on, though, much as I had. I met my wife in September of 2001 and thank God for that. Her love healed me of so much of the badness that had seeped into me. We had only dated for a few months before I got deployed again, this time to Alaska and with far less notice. Aside from getting married and growing to pretty much loathe Army life, this period passed quickly and with little excitement. She had moved up to Alaska, so the first part of our married life happened completely separated from friends and family - which I think was a good thing. It gave us time to just be with each other without distraction. We found a church up there that was better than my Phoenix church in terms of teaching - which it offered with some pretty significant depth - but I still found it lacking. I had come to find emotion-focused worship, with its constant emphasis on "me" to be extremely toxic to my faith. I would sit and calculate what I call the Me:You ratio - how many times does a given verse say I-me-my as compared to you-yours-name/title of God. Disturbingly, most songs had at least a 2:1 ratio, sometimes more. Which meant that I was singing about me, instead of God, the majority of the time. Unsurprisingly, this trend continued after we came back to Phoenix.

A new definition of heretical fundamentalism

In case you hadn't noticed, things have gotten a little busy around here of late. The author of my post on Christian fundamentalism found his way here and we entered into a little debate out the usage of emails. Well, the debate still rages over on his blog though things have taken a bit of an odd turn. No longer are we merely debating views of scripture, hermeneutics and the role of tradition. Thanks to a few different posters*, we have moved into truly debating with heretics. And that's not a term I use lightly. There are a great many people with whom I would disagree on some pretty fundamental things, but I still honor them as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Like Calvinists, for instance. I think its an erroneous teaching, clearly unbiblical and ahistorical, but at the very least they are Trinitarian and that provides a good basis for dialogue.

The same cannot be said for Keith, who has brought his own particular flavor of non-Trinitarian "Christianity" to the table. Keith takes an extremely high view of scripture, as you can see:

To me, inerrancy means that the Bible is perfect. It has no errors or blemishes, but is complete and whole like God is complete and whole. But what is perfect can only be divine, right? How could something be “perfect” and not be God, because only God is perfect. If you truly believe in inerrancy, then you must believe that the Bible is divine. If something is divine, it must be worshipped. Thus, to me, we worship the Bible as much as we would worship God...

Another poster** said:

What else can we place our trust in? Are you claiming that I need place my faith in some ethereal notion of the Son of God? The Son is only made known throw the Word….the Word was made flesh. Ergo: Bible = Jesus.

As you can imagine, dialogue with these 2 has been rather (ahem) difficult since there is no middle ground, no common foundation on which to build. And, surprisingly, for a group that, literally, idolizes the Bible, they don't quote from scripture much and don't respond to correction from it, either. Keith has said repeatedly that the Bible is the only way to know anything about God and has persisted in this error even though Romans 1 has been pointed out to him a couple times. The debate has largely fallen apart since Keith won't really respond to any logical arguments and tends to rely solely on emotional appeals and calling people "liberal" when you disagree with him.

For me, this debate has only served to further demonstrate the insufficiency of sola scriptura. Without a thoroughly Trinitarian understanding of God as expressed in the Nicene Creed, anything is possible. I had unreflectedly assumed that this error would only go in the more liberalizing direction. I see now that I was very wrong.

*I suspect that at least a few of them are the same guy using different handles.
** I'm pretty sure he and Keith are one and the same, or at the very least, go to the same church.

Nil Sorsky on Temptation

So this weekend we went back to our house in Bloomington to pack up the remainder of our things and move them here to Fort Wayne. We got up early on Saturday and got on the road. We spent the majority of the day packing things up and moving things out into the garage so it'd be easier to load them directly onto the truck on Sunday. We had brought our TV with us when we first went out to Ft Wayne, leaving us entertainment-less at the house. So after grabbing a bite to eat at one of our favorite restaurants (a little Irish pub called "Maggie Miley's" - if you're ever in Normal, IL, eat there), we went to Borders for a little while. But we were tired after the day of moving and didn't stay too long. So we headed home and sat out on the porch talking - about the church we left, Orthodoxy, jobs, moving, the future, you name it. We've been busy of late, so it was the first time in a while we've had a chance to just talk without interruption - all I have to say is that I love my wife. It seems there are many who would dread several uninterrupted hours of conversation with their spouses - me, I enjoyed every minute of it.

Our time together was punctuated by a fireworks display over a golf course about 1/2 a block from our house. It was right about the time we were talking about some of the frustration and anger we still feel for the church, and as we watched this beautiful display, I felt like God was tapping me on the shoulder and saying "See, everything is going to be fine" - this also in response to my frustrating job search. Later that evening, I lay in bed reading an excerpt in Touchstone of the writings of a Russian saint named Nil Sorsky. One passage in particular stuck out to me - it was written in response to a young man's question about fear:

"When such thoughts occur, fight manfully so that they do not overcome you and make your heart resolute in a deep trust in God, saying the following: 'I have a God who is watching over me. Without his will, nobody can harm me in anything. Even if he allows something to happen to me which would make me suffer, I would not take that for evil, because I do not wish to make his will ineffective, because the Lord knows much more than I and wishes only my profit. So I am thankful for all because of his clemency.'"

I went to sleep thinking about this and praying about it.

And very quickly forgot all about it.

When we arrived at the U-Haul location bright and early Sunday morning, we were told our reservation had been transferred to another location. When we got to the other location, thankfully not to far away, we are told that 1) their computers are down, 2) they don't know how to do a manual contract and 3) it will take a long time to get on the phone with a company official to figure out how to remedy either one. After an (embarassingly) angry exchange, they took our number and said they'd call us back when they had something worked out. We got a call a few hours later, telling us that the first location had a truck for us. It was bigger than we had reserved, but they would give it to us at the original rate. So we get it, more than a little angry about the whole thing.

And as it turns out, the original truck would not have been anywhere near enough room to accomodate our stuff. We even had to leave some stuff behind for my in-laws to pick up when they're out that way later this week. If things had gone according to our plan, many more problems and delays would have unfolded during the course of the day. So I sit here chagrined over my childish antics, the frustration and anger that I let creep into my heart, even after seeing those fireworks and reading the words of that godly man. I can only shake my head and laugh at myself, because I truly am a fool. Maybe someday I'll finally figure out how to trust God!

New definition of Christian fundamentalism

[Due to some engaging comments from the author of the post I link in this entry, I thought I'd move it up to the top of the stack.]
____________________________________________________

Going from link to link, I came across a blog by a Southern Baptist youth pastor named Jared. This post is about a recent experience he had with his youth group at a camp. Basically, the camp ran the kids through a "prayer excercise" as found in Tony Jones' book Soul Shaper, wherein you meditate upon a word that communicates God love for you and shows your desire to surrender to him. Jared thought this was a bit of new-age/pagan wickedness and fired off a few emails to various authorities within the SBC. He posted the email exchange in his post, which has generated over 100 comments so far. One commenter asked if Jared had gotten permission from the authors of those emails to post them on his blog, suggesting it was wrong to post them if he had not at least notified the authors. Jared's response? And I quote: [WARNING: Swallow your coffee and put down the mug prior to continuing]

"Can you give me any reason biblically why I should have?"

So, ladies and gentlemen, I proffer a new definition of Christian fundamentalism for your review & comment: The Bible speaks definitively on web & email etiquette such that we should not use any html tags, publishing software or internet connections not explicitly enumerated in Scripture. Further, we should not succumb to the spirit of this age by following worldly ideas on web usage. To argue that the Bible is silent on such issues is pagan tomfoolery and endangers your very soul. REPENT!

Tomorrow we'll explore what the Bible has to say about proper blog formatting: Links on the left? Only if you want to rot in hell.

Gays in the media

In the local paper a couple mornings back, I ran across this article about the "scant" number of gay leads on network television. From the article:

Sixteen homosexual characters are depicted in network TV series scheduled for the 2005-06 season, a small increase over last year but still inadequate, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said Monday.

Out of 710 characters appearing on a regular or recurring basis on the six major broadcast networks in the new season, about 2 percent are gay, lesbian or bisexual, according to the group’s annual study.
...
“This is a shocking misrepresentation of reality and of the audience watching these programs,” Romine added in the report of the group’s findings.

From that, one might assume that GLAAD has some hard & fast numbers on the percentage of gays in America to demonstrate this "shocking" inadequacy. Ummm, no:

Although there is no definitive figure available for the U.S. gay and lesbian population, GLAAD believes the number is “certainly higher” than that represented on network television, spokesman Damon Romine said Monday.

What evidence do we have that it is "certainly higher"? How high is "certainly higher"? 5%? 10? And at what point does this discrepancy become of the non-shocking variety? What if the actual gay population is only 2%? Or better yet, what if its only 1%? Would GLAAD then start agitating for fewer gay leads on TV? The answer is, of course, no. And for a very simple reason - GLAAD isn't advocating for reality on TV. If it were, it would be pushing for:

Several HIV+ gay male characters. I can't say a majority because there is no total to compare it against, but the large majority of the total HIV cases in the US are found in gay and bisexual men. I can't think of a single recurring gay character on network television that is HIV+.

Several gay characters that are, or were, severely depressed and suicidal. Gays are far more likely to both attempt and complete suicide. Again, I can't think of a single recurring gay character that was depressed or admitted to ever having attempted suicide.

Drug use among some of the gay characters on television. The use of illegal drugs is particularly prevalent among the homosexual population - any gay drug addicts shown? Any overdoses? How about the connection between drug use and casual sex that contributes to the spread of AIDS among the gay population? None, none and none.

What GLAAD is pushing for is the candy-coated reality of "Cheers". Yes, I said "Cheers". Good old Norm, Woody, Sam, Diane - the whole gang. Arguably, several of the characters were alcoholics, yet none ever suffered from liver disease or other complications. None were ever shown being abusive towards their families, losing their jobs due to their drinking, or passing out in a gutter. No, they all drank to their hearts content but never got drunk and never experienced any harmful consequences for spending every night of their lives in a bar. Heck, there wasn't even any second-hand smoke!

Of course, the primary difference is that there weren't any political organizations pushing for more alcoholics on TV. The deleterious effects of alcoholism are well-known and well-publicized. The same cannot be said of the many negative consequences of being gay. I don't like putting it like that, but the bare, statistical facts show that being gay is likely to be hazardous to your health on many levels. Yet the prevalence of drug abuse, STD's, depression and suicide are not well known by the general population, in part because of the political activism of GLAAD and other like-minded organizations. Which puts their spin on the "shocking" TV numbers in a new light, because it is aimed at an active deception. They want more gay characters, but apart from the occassional pointed story about harassment and those darn judgmental Christians, they don't want the reality of their lives depicted. This deception is aimed at creating more widespread social acceptance and equal rights for things like marriage and legal protections.

By itself, any minority group pushing to gain broader acceptance so it will experience less prejudice is a good thing. Dispelling myths, breaking down stereotypes, creating greater awareness - all very good things. But what should we do if this drive is based on deception? What should we do if it is based on presenting a false reality to the general population? I, for one, think we, as Christians need to start advocating for more sex, drugs & violence on TV, not less. I think TV needs to be a much more startling depiction of reality than it currently is. Why can Rachel from "Friends" sleep with over 30 guys and never once catch anything, experience any serious depression, get pregnant, talk about birth control, or express any serious regrets about her activity? Why, on teen shows like "The OC" (never actually watched it, but the kids in my youth group talked about it), can sex, drugs and drinking be portrayed without any significant consequences? Why is adultery on shows like "Desperate Housewives" portrayed in a sympathetic light? What we need is a far better and more accurate portrayal of reality across the board - not just with gay characters, but every character that involves themself with immoral behavior. Because, quite frankly, we are involved in our own deception when we let those kinds of shows go by without comment. We deceive ourselves, we let our children be deceived, and we let those around us persist in this non-reality, when we let the lie live on.

Second Sunday

We headed back to St Nick's again this morning. No baptism today, and we got there early enough to sit on the other side (where we can hear the chanters better) and to grab a couple of liturgy books so we could follow along. We did much better in that regard this morning, but it still seemed like they were skipping some large sections, particularly as the Eucharist approaches. Their liturgy book is published by a monastery, so I'm wondering if St Nick's is actually following an abridged liturgy. The wording the priest & choir used were different, as well. Just translation differences - nothing too big. I had intended to ask the priest if there might be a better book that we could buy for ourselves, but plum forgot. (Or is it "plumb forgot"? Weird expression, anyway you spell it.)

Just as last week, Fr Schmemann's wonderful "For the Life of the World" became immediately relevant to me. We were in the Liturgy and I think I started to ask myself "how much longer is this going to be?" But before I could finish the thought, his lengthy discussion on our perception of time came into my mind. And I had almost a vision of my week - the job search, going to class, studying, and all the rest of my activities - as a big Spanish galleon or a Ship-of-the-Line, crashing into the shoals of this time at church, and foundering. But not to its destruction; it merely stopped and could go no further. Whatever mission it was on, whatever deadlines it felt compelled to keep, made no difference to the mission of those rocks. Their mission, I think is, in large part, to stop those very ships, to keep them in their proper place. Those rocks announce the Kingdom and everything else is diminished to its true size. What is one week in eternity? After that, the service simply flowed - easily, peacefully and without major distraction or discomfort.

We stayed for the coffee hour and had a delightful conversation with a grandmotherly woman. She made sure to tell us several times she hopes she sees us next week. A few minutes later, Fr David came in and when he saw us, immediately came over to talk. We discussed our relative backgrounds a bit - turns out he's a convert. He had about 6 months left on his seminary ecuation at Concordia (a Lutheran school) here in Fort Wayne when he really started reading about & exploring Orthodoxy. He finished his MDiv, but was still unresolved on where he was headed, so went back into another degree program. A few months later, he and his wife decided to convert and they joined St Nick's. He did some time as a deacon before heading out to St Vladimir's for a year's worth of classes to get ordained as a priest. He pastored at a church in Michigan for a bit, but was able to come back to St Nick's a few years ago. It was encouraging to hear that he would know from first-hand experience the kinds of things the wife and I are going through - our questions, our concerns, our problems, as well as our hopes and desires. He even knows what its like to have resistant parents - both his dad and father-in-law are Lutheran clergy. He said he met a lot of resistance from both of their families at first, but things have changed over the last few years. He said they've seen the truth of it lived out in his and his wife's lives. We talked a little more about other stuff - he was in the Army as well, the deacon is from my wife's home-town, the inquirer's class, etc. It was a good conversation, one that made us feel very much at ease.

After church we went out to lunch with some family members - including uncles Bob and Brad from my justice post a couple of weeks ago. Bob, ever the inquisitor, started up with the questions after he heard we'd gone to St Nick's the last 2 weeks. No hostility or anything, but you can tell there's definitely a lack of understanding, both about Orthodoxy and why we would want to go. It'll be interesting to see how things play out with family in the coming months. I don't for one moment think there will be any hint of judgment or condemnation, but I'm certain there are going to be some rather long conversations about it.

The hits just keep on coming

First Robertson's idiotic comments, and now this. Hopefully this won't receive widespread coverage and add more ammo to the anti-Christian crowd.

First week of school

This marks the last day of my first week back to school. I was always pretty sure I'd end up back in school someday, but I generally thought it would be in a master's program - not an associates, and certainly not in nursing. God sometimes takes us on a wild ride. Anyways, I'm back to reading 100 level textbooks and I had forgotten how insipid these works can be. I've only briefly skimmed my chemistry book, but have read the first chapters of both my psych and communications books and, oh my. Surprisingly, the communications book is worse than the psych; much more oddly used relationship words. For instance, they use the word "partner" much more often than "spouse" or "boyfriend/girlfriend." I don't know of many heterosexual couples that refer to each other as "partners", so at this point I'm assuming that most of the communication to which they refer is between a gay couple of one kind or another. The first example of "partners" that uses names refers to 'Paul' and 'Pat,' and we all know - thanks to Saturday Night Live - that the latter is an androgynous name. "Its time for androgyny...its just Pat!" So three cheers for political correctness! Huzzah!

Of course, that's not the worst of it. I've always enjoyed being talked down to, but I reeeeaaaaallllllly like it when its assumed I have next to no intelligence whatsoever. At least I can look forward to a relatively easy slate of tests & assignments, though I'm already embroiled in a debate with my psych prof about a quiz question. Its almost a Zen koan - if none of the possible answers is ever discussed in the text, can any of them be right?

No School Left Unfunded

From the CS Monitor, an article about the growing discontent with Bush's No Child Left Behind act. From the article:

In a separate survey, teachers cite compliance with new federal testing requirements as the most serious problem they face - more serious than lack of resources, incompetent administrators, student discipline, and personal safety issues.

"If they do not change that law, it's not if every urban school in Indiana will fail, it's when they'll fail," says Dr. Rose, who is also a consultant to the Indiana Urban Schools Association.

Eight-one [sic] percent of teachers surveyed say that compliance with NCLB is the most serious problem facing them....They also strongly oppose using academic progress of students as measured by test scores to determine whether a teacher is qualified to teach.

My mom has been an elementary school teacher for 25 years and, just this summer, decided to move up to teach 7th grade due to incredibly poor leadership at her old school. From her, I've learned about the impact NCLB has had on her and her classroom, so nothing in this article surprises me. I would highly suggest that if you have young children in public school, or if you know a teacher, ask them what they think of NCLB. Ask them what they think of an unfunded mandate that is costing local schools millions of dollars they don't have in order to meet goals that, in many cases, are all but impossible.

To highlight a point from the last quote: Many of my mom's students in her old school were from what used to be (and likely is still very close to the bottom of the list if not), literally, the poorest community in the US. Many of her students had one parent (or both) and an older sibling(s) in jail, had witnessed violent crime, had parents or guardians that never graduated high school and were involved in minor crime. My mom is a great teacher and she helped a lot of these kis improve, but by the time they reach her in the 5th grade, they've already had 5 years to fall behind their peers in the state and the rest of the nation. It matters little in the eyes of NLCB if she moved them from a 1st grade reading level up to a 3rd grade level in the year she has them. Or, in the case of one kid in the recent past, that she provides the necessary structure and discipline to normalize a kid who the 4th grade teachers described as "the next Jeffrey Dahmer." Based on NCLB, the 45 hours she has past her masters are worthless. Her skill and dedication are worthless. Its all about the points, but frankly, the points don't reflect her ability, or the abilities of many thousands of teachers working in impoverished areas. NCLB needs to be repealed, and a realistic, funded piece of education reform needs to be implemented.

First Sunday back...

Yesterday morning, the wife and I went back to an Orthodox church for the first time in probably about 2 years. I was actually somewhat surprised that we did it. The wife's brother and his new girlfriend were staying here for the weekend, and after church, we were all going to meet up with an aunt & uncle for lunch. But we decided, at around midnight, to get up earlier and go to St Nicholas'. So, arising earlier than the rest of the house, we went and managed to get there a little early. We drove around the block so as to arrive fashionably late, and to not betray our lack of knowledge by not having mobs of people realize that we weren't crossing ourselves, lighting candles, kissing the icons and such. We made it in, scooted off to the side and grabbed a seat.

The church is pretty big. Not quite as big as the church we attended in Phoenix, but its laid out differently so its actually a little hard to judge. Its basically square, with two rows of pews running down a central aisle and stained glass on the side walls. The iconostasis was quite tall and ran all the way across the front (different than St George's in Phoenix, which had its altar area kind of recessed into the east wall with the iconostasis running only a little wider than the recess). The ceiling and most of the walls were sky blue, and the dome was right over the doors into the altar and was apparently punctured by several large sky-lights given the sunlight that was streaming in. We were too far back for me to see the icon in it. There was a choir loft, but the choir was up front on the left on Sunday and the chanters were across from them in an alcove. This made them a bit hard to hear at times from our seats. The congregation was large - probably in the 150 to 200 range and well mixed - young and old, male and female. It was largely white, but there were a fair number of non-whites - mostly black, with a few people of possibly Arabic or Egyptian descent.

It is harder to describe my impressions of the morning. In some ways, it was disappointing - but only because we have St George's to compare it with. That was a beautiful church with an amazing choir. The building was wonderfully acoustic, which allowed the music and the chanting to just wash over you, permeating the entire space. Probably due to where the choir was, and I suspect its there because of a lighter summer schedule for choir members, the music didn't reach that same quality. St George's was also built on something of a slant, which gave everyone a nice, clear view of the iconostasis, altar and what was happening down front. St Nick's is flat, and because there wasn't a liturgy book anywhere handy (and because it started with a baptism of a beautiful little baby girl instead of matins), it made things little hard to follow. So in terms of those purely aesthetic things, and only in comparison to St George's, it wasn't quite what we were expecting.

But in other ways, it was deeply satisfying and later in the day, I found myself rather subtly ensnared by the experience. The baptism was a beautiful event, although I must admit it was a bit shocking to see a naked baby butt held aloft in church. It was done so lovingly and with such a sweet spirit, though, I couldn't help but be moved by it. The priest gave a short homily after the baptism, talking about the importance of striving to see the spiritual reality behind what we see & experience. He focused on the spiritual reality of baptism, of its participation in Christ's death & resurrection and likened it to the Eucharist. It was a brief sermon, but powerful and passionately delivered. And though it only came to mind later, Fr Schmemmann's words in "For the Life of the World" about how true worship ascends us into heaven, how it transforms our little patch of earth from the mundane into the joyous eternal, seemed rather appropriate. The feeling of peace I left the church with radiated throughout the day for me.

After the Liturgy, my wife and I got in line for the blessed bread - a first for us, actually. I'm not sure why we never did at St George's, but we didn't. I think it was probably because Fr David had emailed me to tell me to make sure to introduce ourselves to him if we came. He was very nice and said he had a meeting to attend, but would make sure that someone came to talk to us. And within a few minutes, someone did, which was nice. Oh, and during the Liturgy, when the others were going up for communion, a woman sitting behind us brought us some of the bread as well. I'm sure it was easy to tell we were visitors and it was a nice gesture - very welcoming. We left soon after that. We both felt we needed to process things a bit and to talk about our experience, so we figured we'd stay for coffee hour next week. So we headed over to Starbuck's to grab a cup of coffee and talk. I think we're pretty much on the same page - we enjoyed it and definitely want to go back, but had a few disappointments. And we still have some major theological issues to work through, but all in all, it was good to be back.

Justice

We went to church with my in-laws on Sunday and afterwards we met up with my wife's two uncles and their wives. One of her uncles, "Bob", is a former senior pastor and former president of our former denomination. He and his wife never had children. The other is "Brad", a very humble, soft-spoken man who works in insurance. He and his wife had kids and their son, "Todd", is currently in law school after having already completed a masters in another field before figuring out he really didn't want to work in that field after all. (I know the feeling.) Todd recently emailed both Bob and Brad and posed a question about grace and prison sentences. He said that as he works his way through school, he has become increasingly convinced of the necessity of a sentencing mandate for our courts. Tough, but appropriate, sentencing is a good thing for our society, or so he has come to believe. But, he said, as a Christian, he also believes in grace and realizes that he isn't getting what he deserves because of it. So how should he reconcile these two, apparently conflicting, thoughts? Bob and Brad posed this same question to me.

I had already been thinking about this, to some extent, after reading Joseph Bottum's latest article in First Things; "Christians and the Death Penalty." I think you would be hard pressed to label Bottum's article as either pro- or anti-death penalty. Rather, he calls into question the way we think about it and the underlying assumptions that silently inform our discourse on the matter. I think a good summary of his thesis is this:

Christians would have to engage in national idolatry to suppose that all the acts allowed in ancient Israel are permitted in Connecticut...Without constant pressure from the New Testament's revelation of Christ's death and resurrection, the state always threatens to rise back up as an idol. And one sign of a government's overreaching is its claim of power to balance the books of the universe - to repay blood with blood.

Bottum believes the modern, secular state does not have the power to dispense the ultimate justice of the death penalty. It may dispense it as a punishment or as a deterrent, but it is not justice. It does not restore the lost loved ones to their families. It does not erase their pain or dry their tears. No such justice will exist, or even can exist, on this side of heaven.

So what about grace and tough sentences? Well, grace is about justice. It is about the ultimate reality of the divine (what we call justice here on earth is nothing but a pale and obscure shadow of the real thing). And criminal sentences in our courts, be they tough or minimal, are not. Where is the justice in putting a child molester in jail? How does his jail time restore his victim? How does it heal his or her pain? How does it make things right? Is the molester getting what he deserves, really & truly deserves? No, and he wouldn't be getting it even if he were killed - at least not by our hands. What he faces after death is another story entirely. He would not be getting justice because no punishment we can concoct will ever either match the pain he caused or close the wound he inflicted. So his jail time is not justice - it is punishment, it is protection of society. Perhaps for other crimes, jail, community service, heavy fines, etc, are rehabilitative. Even if they are, though, they still aren't justice. So grace and criminal sentencing exist on two entirely different spheres.

But those spheres do touch & overlap, so grace must inform a Christian's thinking about such things. So one could argue against mandatory minimum sentences, believing that the judge should be able to offer mercy in those instances when it is warranted and could offer a benefit to society. But what if the judge is not Christian? That is an important question, because it is precisely Christian thought that keeps us from seeing any punishment meted out by our courts as justice. We as Christians know where justice resides, and brother, it ain't living on the bench. And if our courts are not dispensing justice, then our thinking about our entire legal system should change. A crime damages society. Regardless of the victim or what was done to them, it is a crime against society, against a community, and should be punished as such without being confused with justice.

(cont)

The power of music

(I wrote this Monday night, but couldn't get blogger to load to post it.)

Sometimes I struggle, as I’m sure many people do, with getting frustrated that things don’t work out more easily. That sometimes the challenges that present themselves seem almost insurmountable based solely on the circumstances I find myself in. What’s bringing this on right now is that I just got back from an information session about the nursing program I’m trying to get into. Admission is based solely on combined points of your general education classes (science & math classes count for more), stuff like anatomy and psych, and a skills test, which is worth 100 points. An ‘A’ is worth between 12 and 32 points, depending on the class and with total possible score of 188. Between the two, they said you’d need approximately 200 points to be competitive and the cutoff is the end of this semester. Don’t make the cut and you have to wait another year to try again. As my schedule & transfer credits stand right now, I’m at about 170, assuming I get all A’s and do very well on the test. That ain’t cutting it, obviously. So I’m left with having to add another science class (24 points possible), which bumps be up into the 190’s. Or, I can drop my psych class (12 points possible) and add 2 science classes, which would jump me up over 200. I’m not real keen on doing that, particularly since I’d be taking Anatomy & Physiology 101 & 102 at the same time, as well as either Microbiology or Chemistry on Saturday mornings. If I was really masochistic (or God opted to bail us out with a miracle of some kind so I didn’t have to work full time as well), I’d add the 2 science classes and keep the psych, which is an online class. That could make my total possible points 220 and would give me a very good chance of getting into the program for next fall.

So I get frustrated, pessimistic and a little angry. But then I remember – God has been good to us. My wife has already found a job that pays better than any other job she’s had in the past and has benefits. Our house just sold last night, right in the range we were hoping for so we’re actually coming out ahead on it. And since we’ve been in it less than year, that in and of itself is something of a minor miracle. We’ve also got free lodging for the immediate future at my in-laws and enough savings to last us several months – so what am I complaining about? Nothing. My mind keeps returning to this song on a CD of Orthodox chant I picked up last week – “First Fruits” by the Byzantine Choir of Boston – Psalm 33:10 of the Artoclasia Service of the Five Loaves:

“Rich men have turned poor and gone hungry,
But they that seek the Lord
Shall not be deprived of any good thing.” (thrice)

It is amazing to me how the simple refrain of a short song can be used by the Lord to encourage me in a time like this. A simple melody sung in a rich, human voice can give hope and sustain my soul.

Lord have mercy.

Vanity Fair contest

My wife was flipping through a Vanity Fair the other day and came across an ad for a writing contest the magazine is sponsoring to answer the question "what is on the mind of America's youth today?" The ad juxtaposed a picture of college-aged Vietnam war protestors with one of a host of swimsuit clad spring-breakers on a beach, and asked why the youth of the last generation became passionately involved in their society while today's youth seem to be perfectly happy to sit on the side lines. Its a reasonable question, even allowing that the editors may be overestimating the involvement of America's youth in the civil rights and anti-war movements of their day. Today's youth are definitely less involved, less politically and socially aware and less likely to have thought deeply on any of the major issues facing our society & nation today. My wife suggested that I submit an essay to the contest, given that I just came off a job that had me intimately involved with youth and because I'm clearly passionate on the issue. The deadline is September 30th and I think I'm going to submit something, so over the next few weeks I might be working out some of my thoughts here - please comment and critique on what I write. If what I'm writing stinks or doesn't make sense, by all means, tell me; I certainly don't want to embarass myself! These may be considered rough drafts, or perhaps merely a mental sorting before starting a rough draft, but your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

So what do I think is on the minds of America's youth? The same things that's on everyone elses mind, past & present - joy. But I mean that in the Christian sense of the word; a deep, abiding feeling of security, fulfillment, belonging, of rightness with the world, trust, justice, love...and it goes on. I mean it in a sense that is infinitely deeper than our modern usage - a meaning rippling with subtle nuance and lingering impressions. I use joy in its eternal, active tense - not the pale noun we use to up-sell mere, fleeting "happiness."

But it is precisely this paucity of meaning that makes the lack of joy both so acute and so damnably difficult for us to define against the backdrop of our lives. Our minds are structured by language, shaped by it. We think in language, and if we are thinking in hollow words then we are thinking hollow thoughts. A language bereft of meaning, of poetry, of the eternal, cannot provide us with the tools to grasp the meaning of our lives, the poetry of our existence, the eternal dimension we all share. Thus, we lose the ability to articulate what we want and what we need. We become mute, though maddeningly, we can still hear the siren song of joy, but are now powerless to direct our course there. This generation, however, has gone a step further - they have lost the ability to even determine the general direction from which this haunting melody is coming, leading them to jump to every point of the compass to find it.

Today's youth are addicts through and through. They seem to constantly seek the next hit, the next high - whatever their "drug" of choice. And like an addict, what did it for them last time doesn't offer the same thrill this time, and so they seek after more. This is why there is so much excess and dissolution in today's youth culture. It is why celebrities are worshiped and wealth & fame are considered the highest calling. (Maybe joy is found in money and being loved by countless fans?) It is why sex and debauchery reign supreme. (Maybe joy will be found in sleeping with that hot guy/girl, by being the object of attention, by throwing myself into "love"?) It is why drugs are used so casually and yet so feverishly. (Maybe joy will be found in that high?) It is why the neverending cycle of consumption only spins faster and faster. (Maybe joy will be found in having the latest thing, in having better style than other people, in being the trend-setter?)

Even now, I am hesitant to use the word "joy" for this essay because it has become trite. People will take on look at the word "joy" and dismiss what I'm writing as, perhaps, an emotional appeal. Or worse, as a religious one. Thankfully, though, I think so many of today's youth, and hopefully the editors of Vanity Fair, are so divorced from any real spiritual heritage that they will likely not link "joy" with faith and therefore will not dismiss it as quickly.

Pray tell, what is a "hoosier"?

So we've successfully made it to Fort Wayne and unloaded the van. We've dropped the price on the house $2000 in hopes it will move things along and I got registered for school this morning. Which was an interesting experience. The school is a community college, formerly a "state college" - a distinction that is lost on me, I must say - and offers a pretty wide range of classes, from nursing (which I am pursuing) to business & accounting and a healthy host of industrial programs. I think after having gone to a 4 year school, I have utterly taken for granted the fact that most folks don't go to college and many really aren't cut out for higher education at all. I had to sit through a 30 minute advising orientation and from the near baby-talk level of instruction coming from the front of the room, I had some doubts about my choice of schools. Thankfully, though, my wife was told the nursing program is actually quite competitive while interviewing for an admissions position at another (and apparently rival) school. That school apparently gets a lot of the dropouts from my school - I felt marginally better.

I am hoping to get past this transitional period rather quickly and move into blogging about some actual, real-life stuff; like our first try at an Orthodox church here. I emailed the priests from the 2 churches we're considering - St Nicholas - OCA and St John Chrysostom - Antiochian. I was hoping to try the Antiochian church first, but the email got sent back to me as undeliverable. I tried another address on the site, but haven't heard anything back yet. The priest from the other church, though, immediately sent me a rather lengthy reply answering all of my questions and providing lots of information. Plus, while lost in the freakish thunderstorm we got yesterday, I drove right by St Nick's and it is very close to my school and to my in-law's house (where we're staying for the time being), so St Nick's it is. We still may head over to St John's at some point, though.

The wife and I got into a conversation on the drive out about the way Orthodox views people not yet accepted into the church and it was something I really wan't sure about. How would the Orthodox church view those who had converted, ie, repented, turned to Christ and declared their desire to join the church, but who die while still catechumens? Assume they've come from a pagan/irreligious background and were never baptized - are they in heaven/hell/limbo? And what about those who were baptized but not chrismated - what would their status be?

Template change

Been blogging for over a year and I finally got around to chaning the template! And now that I've found a free image-hosting service (yes, I know they've been around for a very long time - I just never bothered to check into it until now), I might actually post a few pictures now and then.

One word of advice to blogger - move the "clear edits" button to an entirely different location on the template editor screen; heck if I didn't accidentally click that a couple of times, eliciting more than a few grumbled curses.

Serbs & Palestinians

Adam over at Pomomusings has spent the last several weeks in Palestine as part of an Encounter team (not sure what organization they are affiliated with). He has blogged on his summer experience here. I posted on this about a month ago, and lamented the one-sidedness of his views. This trend has continued, which is readily apparent from a scanning of his blog - though I do recommend Meeting With a Zionist for a particularly good presentation of the bias.

Normally, this kind of unbalance raises my ire because it smacks of intellectual dishonesty. If one cannot even try to appreciate the other side of the story, to see both sides in tension with each other and neither as perfect, then I cannot help but feel such ignorance is either intentional or due to some actual defect in the other person's mind. What I've come to realize, though, is that I have done the same thing in my past. I have shaken off the stigma the world has attached to a group and replaced it with my own rosy gloss after getting to know "them." I did it with the Serbs.

While serving in Bosnia, my group operated entirely within the Serb Republic and though we met with Croats and Bosnian Muslaims as well, our main dealings were with Serbs. My interpreter was a Serb. The people who worked on our base were Serbs. The people who owned and worked at our favorite restaurants were Serbs. We were surrounded by Serbs and I fell in love with them as a people. Their plight in post-war Bosnia is horrific - little or no international aid goes to Serb areas while Croat/Muslim areas are thick with it; displaced Croats & Muslims are returning to Serb areas and kicking Serb squatters out of their homes, but many Serbs are still not able to return to their homes in the Federation. Serbs are consistently vilified in the international press, as evidenced by recently discovered tapes of some of the atrocities that were committed in Srebrenica by Serb forces.

And that's the thing: Serbs really did these things. Serbs really did siege Sarajevo, they really did murder thousands in Srebrenica and elsewhere, they really did start the war. But I had a hard time dealing with that because I could not reconcile the kind, welcoming people who surrounded me with those events. They did not fit. Undoubtedly, many of them did not actively participate in the war, never picking up a weapon or directly contributing to the violence in any way. However, many Serbs deny that atrocities occurred and turned (and continue to turn) a blind eye to any evidence. They are, in essence, Holocaust deniers. It was easy, though, to forget this fact, to forget that the people with whom I interacted every day largely regarded Mladic and Karadzic as falsely accused patriots if not outright heroes. It was easy to think of the people around me as innocent and that these horrible crimes had been committed by "other people" or people who weren't really Serb. The picture of the people I met everyday was too far removed from the butchery and barbarity that marked the Bosnian war. But no - they were Serbs and Serbs had committed these crimes. I cannot deny this. I cannot deny that many Serbs felt and continue to feel as if the war was justified and do not believe such things happened. I cannot deny the victims their pain, nor the Serbs their aggression.

I think, in a way, that I am a Serb at heart. I was there when I was young enough to be formed by the experience, to be formed by the people who defined it for me. Thankfully, though, I have not been dominated by it. I can look and see the beauty and dignity of the Serbian people, as well as the festering sore of ethnic hatred & conflict. I can see both the good and the bad, but it is a view only gained by time and doing the painful work of scrutinizing that which I love. I can only hope that Adam will be able to do the same for his experience with Palestinians, and that we as Americans, will be able to do it with our own country. In this time of war and terror, it is too easy by far to fall into the Serbian pattern of denying our own failings and trumpeting our virtues instead.

House

Still nothing has popped on the house. We've had a couple of parties express significant interest, both bringing their respective parents back for a second look but no offers thus far. We're getting a little anxious, but have decided to go ahead and move to Fort Wayne even if the house has not sold yet. My wife gave her 2 weeks on Wednesday, so we'll be heading out in about a week and a half. We're hoping and praying the house will sell by then, but we'll be able to move in with her parents so (once we find jobs) we should be able to maintain the payment without too much trouble. For those of you nothing the record heat-wave sweeping through the Mid-West, know that I spent all day Thursday, Friday and Saturday, and a goodly portion of Sunday morning, engaged in painting the front & back of the house, as well as the trim, and taking care of the lawn, so yes, I can attest that it was indeed quite toasty outside. Well, that's actually not accurate - toast is dry and this was more like going through the hot-wax setting in a car wash. Or so I would assume, having never experienced a car wash on my person.

Please keep praying for the sale, for our move & finding jobs and our spirits during this time.