tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35440352024-03-17T18:03:30.956-07:00Paradosisfdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.comBlogger2406125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-23378603592112877772024-03-17T06:11:00.000-07:002024-03-17T18:02:41.613-07:00Forgiveness and Mercy in a world devoid of both<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Forgiveness and
Mercy in a world utterly devoid of both<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">I can still vividly recall the first
time we experienced Forgiveness Vespers and the rite of forgiveness that
followed…at the time we were still very much still working through whether we
wished to convert as a couple or not – I was convinced fairly early on, but as
a couple and a family we were still working it out. The Rite of Forgiveness
really struck us. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We really had no words
to express what we experienced that evening – except to perhaps say: Wow, that
was really amazing, we were deeply moved by it. As I recall, when we sat down
into our car to leave we almost simultaneously asked each other: “Okay so when
are we going to convert?”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The Church, in her wisdom – guided by
the Holy Spirit – insists that we begin Lent with forgiveness. We must not
discount the importance of this, just as surely as we must not discount the
various other themes given to us on the other Sundays leading towards Lent.
Now, it may seem initially that the service makes little sense: after all, many
of us may feel we have not committed some offense against anyone else here at
Holy Resurrection, why do I need to ask forgiveness? Or I hold no grudge
against someone here for what they did or said to me – why do they need my
forgiveness? Well, we’ll consider this as we go. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Forgiveness is a tough one, however as
we heard in the Gospel this morning, we are commanded to forgive. And NOT just
in today’s Gospel, but in many other places, our Lord makes it clear that your
salvation is wrapped up with your ability to forgive. We’re told simply that if
God can forgive, so can….so must you. Do we not affirm this each time we say
the Lord’s Prayer: “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass
against us.” In other words, if you don’t forgive; you aren’t forgiven. They go
hand in hand. It’s plainly stated. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">These days, in order for us Americans (with
our sense of rugged individualism) to make sense of forgiveness, we turn to psychological
health to suggest that only through forgiveness can we find freedom from the
hurt someone has done to us….if we do not forgive, we go on suffering and
hurting ourselves. And so you see, forgiveness frees YOU from a burden, it
makes YOU feel better, it liberates YOU from the power of the bad person who
wronged and who goes on wronging you as long as you let unforgiveness fester in
your heart. There is truth to this, for sure, but is that really the motivation
behind or the understanding of forgiveness as taught by our Lord? Is this what
our Lord meant when He said to forgive our enemies…nay to LOVE our enemies, and
to do good to those who wish us ill? Is this what our Lord meant when He prayed
from the cross: “Forgive them, for they know not what they do?”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Now think about that for a moment – on
the surface, it doesn’t even make sense: those people who spat on Him, who
cursed Him, who scourged Him, beat Him, who killed Him – they knew they were
torturing a man. And they weren’t stupid, they knew that this execution was largely
political and unjust. So when Jesus asks the Father to forgive them because
they don’t know what they are doing, I think this goes to something far deeper
than that they just didn’t know who Jesus truly was. Rather, even us here and
now likely have no idea how vast and weighted our actions are – even the
smallest of them. A word spoken in anger, a simple kind gesture, an act of
charity, offering forgiveness, withholding forgiveness – we cannot say what far
reaching effects these may have, not only on other individuals but even the
universe. On that Holy Friday 2000 years ago, those people who were crucifying
our Lord: Could they have known the incredible and paradoxical role that they
were playing in the salvation of the universe?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">I liken it to “chaos theory” which is
the concept that extremely complex systems can be radically influenced by very
minor – seemingly insignificant – inputs. We popularly hear of the “Butterfly
effect” which is drawn from a mathematician’s paper titled: “Does the Flap of a
Butterfly's Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?” It may seem absurd,
but we know there is truth to the idea and indeed I believe this is also true
of our own actions and their role in the world around us. Fr. Stephen Freeman –
whose blog I read regularly and I highly recommend - <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>wrote this: “ ‘You don’t know what you have or
have not done. But it is commonly understood in Orthodoxy that “each person is
responsible for the sins of the whole world.” Our lives are deeply connected—we
are never uninvolved in the lives of others. What I have done and what I have
not done both effect the lives of the whole world. A child dies on the other
side of the world. I may have had no direct hand in the death, and yet I cannot
excuse myself as if I have no share in what happens everywhere. The world is as
we make it.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">And we bring either light or darkness
into the world by our actions. We either contribute to the refuse that festers here
and manifests all manner of horrors and suffering throughout the world, or by
God’s grace, our acts serve to purify the refuse in this world and to manifest instead
love and forgiveness. Joy, even. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">In the same article Fr. Stephen
writes: “Forgiveness and unforgiveness are not private matters….My refusal to
forgive is a force for evil in this world – binding both myself and others
around me. It may not be an intentional binding – but bind it will. In the same
manner, forgiveness is the introduction of Paradise into this world – both for
myself and for others around me. Whether I intend it or not, Paradise comes as
a fruit of such love.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Now beware – everything in this modern
world is bent of dissuading you from this outlook, this mindset of forgiveness.
I am reminded of CS Lewis’ Screwtape Letters:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And I can almost hear the voice of Uncle Screwtape advising the demon in
charge of your demise: “Yes, keep them looking outward….out at all the evil in
the world. Keep them focused on all the media and internet content that
perpetually parades the evils of ‘those people out there’ who we need to be
diligently aware of and who we need to warn the rest of the world about…our
family….our friends...keep them focused on all of those people who are trying to
pervert the world….America…whatever you do, do not allow them time to
contemplate their own interior life….their own failings….keep them convinced
that all the evil to be worried about is ‘out there.’” But I must WAKE UP –
it’s ME, it’s ME who is polluting this world….with every little snap of anger,
with every little act of selfishness, with every failure to love and…. with
every ignored opportunity to forgive and to ask for forgiveness….for every
opportunity to show mercy that is left undone…we create a cascade of darkness
that are like ripples in a pond, we do not know what tornado it may unleash.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">As Fr. Stephen notes, forgiveness is
the means of loosening the knot, of untangling the web, the snuffing out of at
least one chain reaction of darkness cascading in the world around us. <i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The rite of forgiveness that we will
be doing tonight is an opportunity for me to stand before all of you….opened
arms…and to say: ”It’s me, here I am broken and sinful and *I* am responsible
for darkness in this world….not “them” out there, but me.” And I NEED your
forgiveness. Just as you need mine. Indeed, the whole world needs forgiveness.
It is desperate for it, but unable to find it. For you see:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">When the world is offended by whatever
transgression it may consider as such, we have unending ways to cancel, to
elicit “justice”, to exact revenge…to finger point and blame, but we have nothing….NOTHING
in the public spehere that offers forgiveness and mercy There is no rite, no
ceremony, no venue, no pathway for a person to find their way back into a
culture, community or society whose moral principles have been transgressed. Further,
in this world there is no sense of the deeper truth of our failings….of our
sins…of our connectedness and the affects that both good and evil have upon all
of creation. Put simply the world is a tyrant and has little to no mercy and
healing to offer – only judgement. Isn’t that ironic. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Tonight’s vespers and the rite of forgiveness
that follows is an absolute treasure, brothers and sisters. It is a healing
balm for this world which we have made so sick and infirm. It is a small lit
candle in an oblivious darkness. It is a sliver of hope amid hopelessness. I
would beg that we all make every effort to participate…to experience this taste
of paradise. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">In Dostevksy’s wonderful novel “The
Brothers Karamazov” , he includes a portion in which the Elder Zosima tells a
story about his brother Markel who is dying of tuberculosis as a teenager. His
brother was an insufferable atheist, but as the elder relates, something
changed in him and I wish to read it for you this morning:</span> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Three days passed
and Holy Week had come. And on Tuesday morning my brother began going to
church. “I am doing this simply for your sake, mother, to please and comfort
you,” he said. My mother wept with joy and grief. “His end must be near,” she
thought, “if there's such a change in him.” But he was not able to go to church
long, he took to his bed, so he had to confess and take the sacrament at home.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">It was a late
Easter, and the days were bright, fine, and full of fragrance. I remember he
used to cough all night and sleep badly, but in the morning he dressed and
tried to sit up in an arm-chair. That's how I remember him sitting, sweet and
gentle, smiling, his face bright and joyous, in spite of his illness. A
marvelous change passed over him, his spirit seemed transformed. The old nurse
would come in and say, “Let me light the lamp before the holy image, my dear.”
And once he would not have allowed it and would have blown it out.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“Light it, light
it, dear, I was a wretch to have prevented you doing it. You are praying when
you light the lamp, and I am praying when I rejoice seeing you. So we are
praying to the same God.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Those words
seemed strange to us, and mother would go to her room and weep, but when she
went in to him she wiped her eyes and looked cheerful. “Mother, don't weep,
darling,” he would say, “I've long to live yet, long to rejoice with you, and
life is glad and joyful.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“Ah, dear boy,
how can you talk of joy when you lie feverish at night, coughing as though you
would tear yourself to pieces.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“Don't cry,
mother,” he would answer, “life is paradise, and we are all in paradise, but
refuse to see it, if we would, we should have heaven on earth the next day.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Every one
wondered at his words, he spoke so strangely and positively; we were all
touched and wept. Friends came to see us. “Dear ones,” he would say to them,
“what have I done that you should love me so, how can you love any one like me,
and how was it I did not know, I did not appreciate it before?”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">When the servants
came in to him he would say continually, “Dear, kind people, why are you doing
so much for me, do I deserve to be waited on? If it were God's will for me to
live, I would wait on you, for all men should wait on one another.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Mother shook her
head as she listened. “My darling, it's your illness makes you talk like that.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“Mother,
darling,” he would say, “there must be servants and masters, but if so I will
be the servant of my servants, the same as they are to me. And another thing,
mother, every one of us has sinned against all men, and I more than any.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Mother positively
smiled at that, smiled through her tears. “Why, how could you have sinned
against all men, more than all? Robbers and murderers have done that, but what
sin have you committed yet, that you hold yourself more guilty than all?”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“Mother, little
heart of mine,” he said (he had begun using such strange caressing words at
that time), “little heart of mine, my joy, believe me, every one is really
responsible to all men for all men and for everything. I don't know how to
explain it to you, but I feel it is so, painfully even. And how is it we went
on then living, getting angry and not knowing?”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">So he would get
up every day, more and more sweet and joyous and full of love. When the doctor,
an old German called Eisenschmidt, came:<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“Well, doctor,
have I another day in this world?” he would ask, joking.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“You'll live many
days yet,” the doctor would answer, “and months and years too.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“Months and
years!” he would exclaim. “Why reckon the days? One day is enough for a man to
know all happiness. My dear ones, why do we quarrel, try to outshine each other
and keep grudges against each other? Let's go straight into the garden, walk
and play there, love, appreciate, and kiss each other, and glorify life.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“Your son cannot
last long,” the doctor told my mother, as she accompanied him to the door. “The
disease is affecting his brain.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The windows of
his room looked out into the garden, and our garden was a shady one, with old
trees in it which were coming into bud. The first birds of spring were flitting
in the branches, chirruping and singing at the windows. And looking at them and
admiring them, he began suddenly begging their forgiveness too: “Birds of
heaven, happy birds, forgive me, for I have sinned against you too.” None of us
could understand that at the time, but he shed tears of joy. “Yes,” he said,
“there was such a glory of God all about me: birds, trees, meadows, sky; only I
lived in shame and dishonored it all and did not notice the beauty and glory.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“You take too
many sins on yourself,” mother used to say, weeping.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“Mother, darling,
it's for joy, not for grief I am crying. Though I can't explain it to you, I
like to humble myself before them, for I don't know how to love them enough. If
I have sinned against every one, yet all forgive me, too, and that's heaven. Am
I not in heaven now?”</span></i> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Later Elder
Zosima would explain further:<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“My brother asked
the birds to forgive him; that sounds senseless, but it is right; for all is
like an ocean, all is flowing and blending; a touch in one place sets up
movement at the other end of the earth. It may be senseless to beg forgiveness
of the birds, but birds would be happier at your side -- a little happier,
anyway -- and children and all animals, if you were nobler than you are now.
It's all like an ocean, I tell you. Then you would pray to the birds too,
consumed by an all-embracing love, in a sort of transport, and pray that they
too will forgive you your sin. Treasure this ecstasy, however senseless it may
seem to men.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Whether you able or unable to be here
for the rite of forgiveness tonight, for the Christian, forgiveness is more
than just a single act….no….it is a way of life. A way of being. It is the
recognition of our role in the spiritual pollution of this world. Markel’s
mother told him that he took too much of the sins upon himself – and yes, let
us be clear, we cannot allow this to result in despair – but the exact
opposite. Markel is filled with joy, not grief. Yes, an awareness of our own
sinfulness, but also a profound awareness of God’s incalculable mercy and that
we too can participate in that mercy for ourselves and for the world around us.
And it should fill us with joy – giving and receiving forgiveness….even the
forgiveness of the birds who we do not know how to love enough. This madness,
this act of rebellion, this revolution is what this world so desperately needs.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Glory to Jesus Christ. <o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-50165500378292268142023-02-22T10:59:00.012-08:002023-03-01T11:04:19.798-08:00Distractions and Obsessions<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiusEk0_KoQbv87JMd3HM_0RLdP6STc4jFJc4IUkEZ-Enzfr3q60lZfyW4bWO3UUuLK1zrXBP7d_39b1ekVtBviJMx99G3Y7yNFE9qpAB8rw4WIVCVhP26RGoXeKTxwnnliljPzgnPyDLD_aRZhDUJUvZNjSCZKUsPmKjKys9X_xDs9Xbg7wZw/s290/download.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="174" data-original-width="290" height="174" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiusEk0_KoQbv87JMd3HM_0RLdP6STc4jFJc4IUkEZ-Enzfr3q60lZfyW4bWO3UUuLK1zrXBP7d_39b1ekVtBviJMx99G3Y7yNFE9qpAB8rw4WIVCVhP26RGoXeKTxwnnliljPzgnPyDLD_aRZhDUJUvZNjSCZKUsPmKjKys9X_xDs9Xbg7wZw/s1600/download.jpg" width="290" /></a></div><br /> <p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Almost anything, into which we begin to regularly pump our
intellectual and emotional energy and time, can become a distraction and an
obsession.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have had and continue to
have my fair share of such things. The Socio-Political Culture War (SPCW) is one
such example, one that is unusual and particularly devious in that it is well-organized
and funded, and deliberately designed for this exact purpose. But fret not,
this won’t be just another rant against the SPCW – or at least I do not intend
it to be. We can become obsessed and distracted by nearly anything: the masons, the mormons, the alt-right, the illuminati, big pharma, fad-diets, the military-industrial complex, the new age, the lavender mafia etcetera.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Obsessive distractions in my own life are rarely discerned
as such, but time and time again, I eventually find them draining my time, energy, and viable productivity away. Perpetually following my phone or laptop down the rabbit holes of my preferred content
providers, who craftily bolster my own perception of reality in the context of my current obsession. They will once again shout (in 36-point font) that my deepest and darkest
suspicions about our world are about to become manifest. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is always something new to be outraged
about, and to ruminate upon and to allow to sit, festering within our hearts
and minds. Nothing good and fruitful ever springs from such soil. I would spend far
more time perusing the latest content, sharing/posting the latest finds online
and then arguing about it, than I would in prayer, reading a spiritually
profitable text, or considering any sort of a personal moral inventory. Not that
I am particularly well-practiced in any of those things, but there was no doubt - in hindsight - that these obsessions would supplant my relationship with God – in fact I often convinced myself that by engaging them, I was doing God’s work, because I was doing something in response to the evil “out there." Many of the sources feeding (selling) me their content convinced me of this and they did so through highly manipulative means. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The pandemic really opened my eyes to how content creators can skew information (never mind the insanity of
viruses becoming a pawn in the SPCW to begin with – the fact that one’s preferred trench in the war generally and very strangely predicted their position on the matter). In a
previous blogpost during the pandemic, I discussed at length how anti-vaccine
content creators (again motivated by click-revenue) kindled the flames of
passion by telling us half-truths, untruths, amplifying anecdotal stories
ridden with emotional appeal, and bringing in fringe “experts” whose credentials were...questionable if not outright inapplicable to the questions at hand. It would take the
popularized exploration of specific topics – such as clinical trials, vaccines,
and virology – with which I am well familiar, to really show me how effectively
information can be manipulated to stir up our passions. More and more we can see these same tools being used by online content creators and it's not just about the SPCW or politics and it's not just ONE side employing the tactic. Hindsight being what it is, now when I read an
article that seems to have an overt stance on a potentially controversial subject, I am immediately suspicious of
it. Even if it fully supports my perception of reality, I ask myself: am I
really getting the whole story? I generally and cynically suspect not, because
getting the WHOLE story and the truth of an issue or subject takes time and
requires extensive and careful investigation, suspension of bias, consideration
of counterarguments and interpretations of data etc. This of course – more
likely than not – leads to a long and BORING article. Few shares; few clicks. Little to no revenue. If not an extinct animal, it is surely endangered. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I believe that most online content is not presented to inform, but
rather to see money change hands and to keep us distracted from most everything except their issue dejour. Content creators produce their wares with
their target audience/demographic fully in mind and they are quite deliberately
designing their content to keep us angry, passionate, and worried. Why? Because
THAT is what triggers innumerable shares and vast amounts of click-revenue. And
why does it so successful in doing that? I believe that it provides the much desired opportunity for distraction from our inner lives - an area where it seems we modern folk prefer not to trespass. And it truly becomes a sort of feedback loop in that the more distracted we are; the more their revenue multiplies and the better we feel about ourselves since we needn't engage our inner issues. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">These distractions have us looking outward at the
world’s problems. How does that make us feel better? Well, the vast majority of those
problems are issues that we really cannot do much of anything about, precisely because they
are so far removed from us. Our fretting over them can be, and often is done at
the expense of what is really the only thing we CAN do something about: our inner lives’ problems. When we see what we perceive to be evil “out there”, it
provides a very convenient opportunity to avoid dealing with our own sin. In
essence we say to ourselves: “Oh sure, I know I’m a sinner….but sheesh look at
what those evil <u> </u> (i.e., liberal, conservative, fascist, communist, mason, woke) maniacs are doing to the world!” And thus is usurped the proper role of anger towards our own sins and is instead directed towards a nebulous “enemy” – an “enemy” against
whom we are, for all practical purposes, impotent and thus we are forgiven any responsibility
for the state of the world: it’s THEIR fault. It’s providing the same
comforting satiation that explains the popularity of dramatic reality TV shows. It seems to me, such shows allow us to feel better about ourselves so that we can say:
“At least my house is cleaner than that hoarder’s house” or “At least I’m not as
petty as that rich hedonist.” Similarly, by focusing on all the evil "out there" we subconsciously give ourselves permission to forget that 1) Our own sins pollute the
world as much as any others and 2) Those sins are pretty much the only ones for
which I have any say in the matter of their existence.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Looking at issues on a gross (sometimes conspiratorial) scale,
de-personalizes individuals and creates what can only be little more than an
intellectual exercise – there is virtually nothing that can practically be done
except to be angry, afraid, rant on social media, and finally vote. Fewer and
fewer of us actually believe that the latter can accomplish much of a genuine cultural
shift – and it certainly won’t enlighten a single soul to the Life found in Christ.
And surely we all know that NO ONE from the “enemy’s”
trenches has ever been convinced by your oppositional social media posts and
shares. And yet, we rinse and repeat: sharing over and over again those things
we believe people “NEED” to read. Of course, they never read them. I'm not advocating for a head-in-the-sand approach to the world's problems, but I am suggesting that during this Lenten period we reassess the use of our time and energies and objectively discern if the division of their labor is appropriately divided between those things we absolutely can change and those things we probably cannot. Or those things we KNOW need to change, and those things our online sources are telling us need to change. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One way to discern the distribution of our time and energies, is simply examining our social media output. If by straining, we manage to find objectivity (never easy to do), and we see a near constant stream of ranting posts on the same
themes (whether that is about the SPCW or not), we might pause and seriously
examine the amount of time, energy and passion we are pouring into that
subject. (Yeah, yeah...maybe I should cut down on red meat!) Consider how often you think upon the subject. Consider how often you find yourself identifying the object of your obsession in areas that it would otherwise seem wholly unrelated. Is our relationship with whatever this topic/issue might be really healthy? To what degree am I
allowing this to be a distraction from the “one thing needful”? I offer this
suggestion because I am one who is very much prone to such obsessions and distractions,
and I am still tempted by them – in fact this post is arguably an out-pouring
of my possible obsession with SPCW obsession. I recognize that potential, and
I’ve worked hard in the last couple of years to very deliberately keep my mouth
shut and my fingers off the keyboard and mostly just post pictures of smoking
meats – with no ill-intent towards any of my vegetarian friends. Many an email, social media post, or a share has tempted me to engage...but I know that simply becomes a time vacuum with little fruit borne. <br />
<br />
But as Lent is here, I was reminded of my own propensity for this obsession and
distraction, and it occurred to me that two out of three of the traditional practices
emphasized during Lent (prayer and fasting) are solely about looking inward. And only
the third is about looking outward, but it restricts our scope to only seeing
what others lack, and then to provide exactly that for them. The Sunday of Meatfare's gospel could not have made this any clearer. The only place we are told to look for sin, is presently thumping away (hopefully) within your rib cage. We need to make use of that time, instead of allowing our fretting about the evils "out there" to lull us into a slumber that leads to our own death. </p><p class="MsoNormal">"My soul, my soul, arise! Why are you sleeping? The end is drawing near, and you will be confounded. Awake, then, and be watchful, that Christ our God may spare you, Who is everywhere present and fills all things." </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><span> -Kontakion, Tone 6 (Canon of St. Andrew)</span><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><br /></blockquote><p></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><br /></i></span></span></p>fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-85815010243091364092022-11-04T07:16:00.005-07:002022-11-04T08:36:21.252-07:00A different sort of Oppositional Defiant Disorder<p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbQ6yY4-Y1JFHQcuA_ImDaURLZX3CqUI08Qh8iC3deRnHGTQe4F7rMvDASPx4D7lXwtmx3j9U40twbWrnuJ0Mj6cHe4f0UzG_ZRUR_bt82e1swIJ2-yW47vU0yPbs-IA8GkTSA8aTAbQ_0lqip8SGGyTb-E_cGtfcacSyr7sQqsBaOcV8YHUw/s1528/angry_computer_guy.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="1528" height="241" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbQ6yY4-Y1JFHQcuA_ImDaURLZX3CqUI08Qh8iC3deRnHGTQe4F7rMvDASPx4D7lXwtmx3j9U40twbWrnuJ0Mj6cHe4f0UzG_ZRUR_bt82e1swIJ2-yW47vU0yPbs-IA8GkTSA8aTAbQ_0lqip8SGGyTb-E_cGtfcacSyr7sQqsBaOcV8YHUw/w459-h241/angry_computer_guy.jpg" width="459" /></a><br />Being against something is remarkably easy. Being critical
is remarkably easy. Therefore so much of what we see online fully engages this
antithetical approach. Many podcasts/videos spend most of their time and energy
in the fine art of criticism – including many Orthodox content producers who, without
fail, select the very easy target of modern culture to express over and over
again (ad nauseam) how much they are opposed to it. It is not at all dissimilar
to the outrage feedback loop, which so dominates our culture today. The socio-political
culture war is largely fueled and fought with this weapon – a firearm with no
trigger pull resistance and an endless supply of ammunition.</p><p class="MsoNormal">
<br />
I wonder if we shouldn't employ caution in spending too much time in such echo-chambers of
negativity and criticism. It may indeed speak the truth with regards to
Orthodox moral teachings, but it inevitably becomes an instigator and a vacuum
of your negative energy that was intended by God to direct antagonism towards
your own sins and failings. It seems to me that it perpetuates the deadly error of believing that the
most egregious evil is “out there.” <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think I've discovered this to be a serious issue
of concern in my life by simply considering what things I would regularly ingest via
my online persona? Is it a perpetual series of antithetical expressions towards
the evil around (and outside of) us? What opinions do I myself predominantly
share online – have my own passions been stirred under the guise of
righteousness? What monopolizes my thoughts and expressions…what themes
dominate my conversations? How much time do I spend fretting about the
state of the corrupt world around me, as compared to fretting over the corruption in my own heart? And more importantly: how much of my time is spent in engaging the
positive? How much time is spent in embracing the beauty of my faith and the world
and people around me? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Does my answer to the question of WHY I am an Orthodox Christian begin with all that I believe Orthodoxy stands against? Or with all that
Orthodoxy embraces? It matters a very great deal. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Opposition, negativity, and criticism directed outwardly are
all stupidly easy. Directing them towards the desires of our own hearts is FAR
more difficult – but is in fact their very purpose. The former use of them almost
always robs us of the energy needed for the latter application. Acquiescence, positivity,
and praise contrastingly takes a great deal of work but are often far less…exciting,
alas. And the difference is like a lampada filled with olive oil or gasoline. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think St. Paul captures the essence of the positivity that
I am suggesting in his epistle to the Philippians:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><i>“Rejoice in the Lord always. Again I will say, rejoice! Let your gentleness be known to all men. The Lord is at hand. Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you.”</i></p><p class="MsoNormal">
I would just ask: does your preferred content provider lead you to meditate on
such things? Or are you just being led towards bitterness and anger for your “enemies”?
<o:p></o:p></p>fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-50894407443941359332022-05-11T22:02:00.002-07:002022-05-12T05:46:20.587-07:00That Insidious Noise<p> </p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2EptVgVkNyeQd-MLichLWZ1Kvq-Xok46ny1h9xT5e2PZsOWD3tesYN7_M0vcLOc4wXvsCfxxBsndleQAyZMIPXr6f8qZ14kM_nYojBXwWvoqRbp7nIT0DwotoR72d7vSyQxZ2q-XscEixBlnNKpKADCugOQywwQqPECc5vVMCIZX3d0ivcms/s640/Sisoes.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="465" data-original-width="640" height="291" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2EptVgVkNyeQd-MLichLWZ1Kvq-Xok46ny1h9xT5e2PZsOWD3tesYN7_M0vcLOc4wXvsCfxxBsndleQAyZMIPXr6f8qZ14kM_nYojBXwWvoqRbp7nIT0DwotoR72d7vSyQxZ2q-XscEixBlnNKpKADCugOQywwQqPECc5vVMCIZX3d0ivcms/w400-h291/Sisoes.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>St. Sisoes the Great over the bones of Alexander "the great."</i></span><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p></p><p>An article/story published by NPR about far-right extremists becoming Orthodox is making the rounds, and it meshes with a context that many of you know I've decried for several years now: the violent contorting of the Orthodox Church - her way of life and teachings - in order to render her a combatant in the socio-political culture war (SPCW). It is difficult for me to express the extent to which this strikes me as a futile effort akin to trying to bring oil into solution with water. </p><p>There is nothing at all wrong with having political opinions, voting your conscience, and considering political matters. However, the SPCW is something more insidious. It has a way of becoming a near constant in our lives as it infects every aspect of our day to day living. It almost seems to mindlessly WANT to become the very context by which we interpret everything: what we hear in the news, what we hear people say, what we see people do, what we witness in movies, videos, and TV Shows. Worse still we even allow it to color what we THINK people mean by what they say and do. </p><p>We awake in the morning and fire up our phones or laptops or tablets and delve into the echo chambers of our preferred sources anxious to find what evil has been committed by the "enemy" while we slept. Those immoral liberals or those fascist conservatives! As we meet new people, whether by reading their writings or listening to their words, without even thinking about it, we wait to see/hear those trigger words which will betray their alliance in the SPCW. As the knee-jerks, once we do, we have them in a box...we believe we understand them completely. They are either one of US or one of THEM. </p><p>And indeed, we do precisely the same with churches. The article by NPR suggests that some people who identify as one particularly radical partisan group in the SPCW, believe they've found a home in the Orthodox Church. What this means is that they think they have a found a sort of spiritual forward operating base from which they can continue their fight. But, what I hope and pray they will find - in time - is that the SPCW is largely a grand distraction from the principal way of life as taught in the Orthodox Church. As I wrote in <a href="http://paradosis.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-rutted-road.html" target="_blank">"The Rutted Road"</a>, the Church functions within and celebrates an extremely and radically different context, so much so that the very rationale for the SPCW literally ceases to make sense. How one can seriously engage the Church, for example, in her admonitions of Lent and NOT understand this is beyond me. The great distraction of the SPCW is simply this: it posits that evil is principally OUT THERE and it must be dealt with...or else. </p><p>The evil that the Church exhorts us to confront is decidedly not OUT THERE. The fear you feel of it, is wildly misplaced and should you ever defeat it by violent force of law, you will accomplish nothing of eternal consequence. The SPCW is deeply concerned with the context of the 21st century, one might pause to ask to what extent any of us pay much mind to the everyday arguments of 6th century Byzantium? It all ends up in the same tomb of Alexander "the great." </p><p>The SPCW is a battle over abstracts...the generic unborn babies or young women in crisis pregnancies. And it seeks solutions that are OUT THERE. It's easy to love and serve abstract humanity, but much harder to love and serve a particular human person. The SPCW would be a very different thing if a particular person of one side housed and cared for a young mother choosing not to kill her baby and if a particular person from the other side housed and cared for an immigrant family. But that's not really what the SPCW is about and it's also why it is so easy to be a combatant in it. Christ calls us NOT to love abstractly, but particularly. </p><p>The article is not wrong - though it may itself be a weapon in an effort to bring the SPCW into the Church (yes, both sides do it). We've likely all heard a few folks answer the question of why they became Orthodox with an expression that they believe her to be an allie in the SPCW. It is my profound hope and prayer that perhaps after a few Lenten cycles, their answer will mature and be polished with the centuries old balm of stillness and prayer, which is intended more to change our hearts and minds than God's. </p><p>*I AM* the source of the evil that MUST be dealt with. It is NOT elsewhere - at least not to any degree that I will ever be able to change. We do not argue, fight, or force people into righteousness and the Kingdom. Rather we LOVE them, particularly. And we focus on the one thing that we can play a direct role in healing: our own hearts. That's not easy, because it forces us to embrace our shame, which is more easily assuaged by looking OUTWARD.<br /><br />Fr. Steven Freeman, always a source of spiritual wisdom for me, expressed it better than I just did when he posted about the Capital Riots over a year ago. In part he says: <br /></p><p>"If Orthodoxy is nothing more than an anxious voice among many, begging to be heard and believed because its description of its fears are persuasive, then it will, in the main, disappear. Alasdair MacIntyre, in a paragraph on modernity that has become famous, said that the world is waiting for a new St. Benedict. He is wrong. God is already sustaining the world by his hidden saints, and holds all things in existence through their prayers. The Orthodox faith bears witness to this and invites her children into that great reality."<br /><br />Our work, our battle is to enter into that "great reality" more and more fully. I would exhort us all to either <a href="https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2021/01/13/into-the-heart-of-the-capitol/" target="_blank">READ</a> or <a href="https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/freeman/at_the_heart_of_the_capitol" target="_blank">LISTEN</a> to what he suggests. <br /><br /><br /><br /></p>fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-71777081173022766172021-09-14T08:49:00.013-07:002021-09-14T09:18:32.295-07:00The Madness of the Cross<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEp1lVvPr10tabdwZROK6J4gMd5jnLI39tdizQmP8VyDyNQVmGOFWQ0EJmmse9Nkr5Oac_FehF0Kqu66HE-aMEadq1i0-QxW7xQOlFKKoQNsN19bXPVQqdUQhy0W-r3vXPy_Oq-Q/s450/madness+of+the+cross.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="394" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEp1lVvPr10tabdwZROK6J4gMd5jnLI39tdizQmP8VyDyNQVmGOFWQ0EJmmse9Nkr5Oac_FehF0Kqu66HE-aMEadq1i0-QxW7xQOlFKKoQNsN19bXPVQqdUQhy0W-r3vXPy_Oq-Q/s320/madness+of+the+cross.jpg" width="280" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">One of the earliest depiction of the crucifixion, a work of graffiti from sometime between the 1st and early 3rd century attesting to the madness of the cross. Intended to mock, the inscription reads: "Alexamenos worships [his] god."</td></tr></tbody></table><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span><p style="text-align: left;"></p><div style="text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;"></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The Exaltation of the Cross is one of my favorites – I think it’s okay to have a few favorite feasts. Last night’s vigil was wonderful. And I was reminded: You know who preaches FAR more in the Orthodox Church than a priest, don’t you? The choir. And last night, such preaching was magnificent. That singing was lovely, of course, but the words communicated to us were what really struck me last night. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">What an odd people we are to be singing about an instrument of extreme torture and death. The cross as a Christian symbol is so ubiquitous today, I don’t think we stop to think about how radical a thing it was and is. A contemporary example would be to have a hangman’s noose or an electric chair around our necks as jewelry and we write hymns about their beauty. Dark stuff. And yet here we are and there they were as the infant Church considering that humiliating and horrific and shameful means of death being an instrument of beauty, life, and joy. They must have seen us as mad. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">But of course, we go further than that in our madness, because we don’t just sing ABOUT the Cross, we sing TO the Cross – throughout Vespers and Matins:</span></p><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">“Moses prefigured thee, O precious Cross…”<br /></span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">“O most venerable Cross…as thou art exalted today…”<br /></span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">“O three-branched Cross of Christ, thou art my strong protection…”<br /></span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">“Thou, O Cross, a sign radiant with light…”<br /></span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">“Rejoice, O life-bearing Cross…”<br /></span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">“Thou, O Cross, a sign radiant with light, formed of stars…”</span></div><p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Imagine us singing as such about the electric chair? With the cruciform wood of a tree, arguably one of the worse means that humankind has ever managed to dream up for killing one another, God has used - upon Himself at our hands - as a means of restoration, healing, the granting of Life, redemption, salvation, and the making of all things anew. There is a deep poetic wisdom in this madness…this beautiful, life-bearing, love-ridden, and salvific madness. </span></p><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">“The Tree of true Life was planted in the place of the skull,<br /></span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">and upon it hast Thou, the eternal King, worked salvation in the midst of the earth.<br /></span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Exalted today, it sanctifies the ends of the world,<br /></span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">and the church of the Resurrection celebrates its dedication.<br /></span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Angels in heaven rejoice,<br /></span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">and men upon earth make glad,<br /></span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">crying aloud with David and saying:<br /></span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">“Exalt the Lord our God and worship at His footstool,<br /></span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">for He is holy, granting the world great mercy!”</span></div><p><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;">- Tone</span><span style="font-family: helvetica; white-space: pre;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">1 Idiomela (by Andrew of Jerusalem) at Litya.</span></i></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">We are a religion rooted in the earth, by which I mean the literal and material earth. The dirt, the rocks, the water, the air, the trees, the plants, and the flesh. Through it we have been made and redeemed. That wood, that torture tool, that execution platform is what sustains this world. I believe St. John of Damascus wrote it best: "I do not worship matter, I worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake and deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation through matter…I will not cease from honoring that matter which works for my salvation. I venerate it, though not as God.”</span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">A blessed feast to all of you mad people who celebrate today. </span></p><div><br /></div></div>fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-72318984720087677202021-05-22T09:07:00.005-07:002021-05-22T09:07:48.031-07:00Dragging Jesus onto the Rutted Road<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigRsEWrHEj64ZYZTPR1swjgiqvQFLLjWM0M5FbI-IzcSpYNPuhQzZk-jEqdNAFC0JzDO-1GOft6I-onDZnDLFdygMIGZoGo6nXYILp17B2zHJNrqg_Myvqq5SwXJ-7jZynk7pJTQ/s828/conservative+jesus+vs+liberal+jesus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="828" data-original-width="828" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigRsEWrHEj64ZYZTPR1swjgiqvQFLLjWM0M5FbI-IzcSpYNPuhQzZk-jEqdNAFC0JzDO-1GOft6I-onDZnDLFdygMIGZoGo6nXYILp17B2zHJNrqg_Myvqq5SwXJ-7jZynk7pJTQ/s320/conservative+jesus+vs+liberal+jesus.jpg" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span> </span>This meme, which has been on a social media tour lately, is by no means expressing a new idea. This notion of contrasting a supposed "conservative" caucasian Jesus against an "historical" (i.e. "liberal") Jesus was something I'd seen expressed long before there were memes - and I myself recall utilizing similar sorts of arguments, even putting up signs (pre-memes) on my dormitory door at an evangelical bible college to irk my more conservative fellow students. But this is a perfect example of what I'd mentioned previously about <a href="http://paradosis.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-rutted-road.html#more" target="_blank">dragging Jesus onto the rutted road</a> and trying to cram Him into one of our ruts. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia;">The act of dragging Jesus onto the road isn't something that is done with any thought at all, rather it is assumed. This is because we unconsciously perceive the world through the lenses of our 21st century American socio-political and cultural narratives - this is something we cannot easily escape. Everything we experience, see, hear, read, or even think about is filtered through these lenses. Even the ancient religion of Christianity itself which was born in a radically different socio-political and cultural narrative is filtered through our modern lenses and frequently distorted in ways that pretty much anyone prior to 1500 A.D. would hardly recognize our thousands of modern versions of it. Using modernity's materialist lenses leads to profound misunderstandings of Christ's personhood, nature, teachings, and actions and this meme shows them quite well. (e.g. pitting "died for your sins" against "killed by church and state" ) </span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia;">So, in this meme we have one rut laying claim to Jesus as being present in their trench by creating a strawman "conservative" Jesus and contrasting it with a supposed "historical" Jesus (i.e. "liberal" Jesus) who is - we are to presume - the REAL Jesus who sides with one rut over the other "bad" rut. They've picked Jesus up and crammed Him, whether He wants it or not, into our perception of reality and made Him to fit into a box that we can hold and keep safe, much like a tamed emotional support animal. As I read the meme, I can imagine Job's whirlwind off in the distance, coming to change our hearts and minds from wishing to fit Jesus into our perception of reality and instead shattering our illusions and freeing our minds from the prison of modernity's materialism. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">One could very easily pick apart this meme in dozens of ways, for example I've never even heard of a "conservative" Christian claiming that Jesus is a caucasian. And then there is the wearisome and simplistic trope of Jesus being "friends of sinners" that is trumpeted by "liberal" Christians which lacks a fuller and deeper context (e.g. Jesus says to the woman caught in adultery: "Go and sin no more."), but I won't bother with that. The bigger problem is the mindset in which this meme makes ANY sense at all.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">Jesus isn't our argument support pet. He is God incarnate. If you believe you can make sense of His life and teachings by filtering them through the lenses of the modern socio-political culture war (whether on the right or the left), I would do all that I can to dissuade you of this notion. Who Jesus Christ is and what He teaches can only by fully comprehended by escaping the Matrix of the current narrative we live in. One side claims to be woke and the other side makes fun of this, but in Christ...well, we're not just talking about waking after sleep, we're talking about becoming alive after death. Now. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia;">Jesus reduced to a meme in order to support a side in the socio-political culture war, is staggeringly short-sighted. He who hung the earth upon the waters, the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, He who clothes Himself with light as with a garment, t</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">he Alpha and the Omega, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">He who wraps the heavens in clouds, t</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">he Beginning and the End, the great I AM, the Conqueror of death and hades is now turned into a cartoon-like meme for use as ammunition in social media arguments of a particular time about particular issues. Throughout history, for as long as there has been civilization of one sort or another, there have been similarly styled arguments, and the people in that time and place no doubt thought them exceptionally important. Indeed, even in our Lord's time, these socio-political culture wars existed and were often brought to our Lord in an effort to get Him to take a side (e.g. "Should we pay taxes to Ceasar?") I don't believe He ever did take a side...His mission transcended these concerns. It still does. <br /> </span></p>fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-27155599141553637192021-05-08T10:07:00.003-07:002021-05-08T10:07:44.030-07:00The Rutted Road<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2iS-UzH04j9khjA8Eo8QE-Gi1GRy0TjvsqdOTq2pY5hY3OIhNrIA4f2CduyY89gJESiDiYiI7xsikexk3n-geUJr802s_l-UaKOpNRtVptGiRBkHjsQaUDQOGhlnt2h-9jMIaPg/s1126/ruts.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="845" data-original-width="1126" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2iS-UzH04j9khjA8Eo8QE-Gi1GRy0TjvsqdOTq2pY5hY3OIhNrIA4f2CduyY89gJESiDiYiI7xsikexk3n-geUJr802s_l-UaKOpNRtVptGiRBkHjsQaUDQOGhlnt2h-9jMIaPg/s320/ruts.jpeg" width="440" /></a></div><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span>Imagine trying to ride a bicycle along a road that is deeply scarred by two very sizable ruts carved out from centuries of use. The overall shape of the road, were you to transect it from left to right, is subtly convex with the highest point of the convex surface being directly in the middle between the two deeply cut ruts in the road. As you travel, you might try and remain in between the two ruts, but you would find the effort challenging because the slightly rounded shape of the road in between the ruts creates a tendency to pull you towards one rut or the other depending on your relative position on the road between them. You may notice the tracks of bicycles that have passed before you with each telling a slightly different story: some slide into one of the ruts and seemingly remain there forever. Others fall into one for a while and then pop back out to meander the difficult-to-navigate middle ground before slipping slowly over and into the rut on the other side. All the while, you yourself sense the same struggle to remain in between the ruts while it seems gravity itself wills you into one or the other ruts. And now let us imagine that it begins to rain, and you notice that as water collects on the road that it too – though bearing no will of its own – flows into one or the other ruts depending on where it first fell. At last, you yourself tire and slip into one of the ruts and quite suddenly you find the tiresome labor required to remain outside of the ruts is relieved. Your travel is now easy, smooth, and feels altogether natural and comfortable. Indeed, it seems that all things flow naturally into one rut or the other. <br /><br />And what is the point of this illustration or allegory? As I perceive it, we all travel like a bicyclist upon a road that is deeply rutted. The road could generally be understood as the prevailing socio-cultural mindset which, while it has slowly changed over the centuries, is so deeply ingrained in us, that we can hardly distinguish it as something we created rather than something that is perfectly normal and natural. Thus the road becomes the means by which we actually filter our perception of reality. You might call it the common ground upon which we all agree is the accurate perception of the world in which we exist. It is the very context in which we believe we live our lives and it provides the compass by which we direct our every action: what we do, what we think, what we say, how we work, how we make our decisions, how we entertain ourselves, and how we interact and discuss and debate issues. It is an agreed upon sense of what is real. <br /><br />Now, we should recognize that this road is nothing new, rather it is as old as our own humanity and like all old roads, it has been laid down, layer after layer, upon past socio-cultural mindsets, slightly altering and yet maintaining the general underlying forms, like modern asphalt over ancient stone roads. Over many centuries, the road’s shape has indeed morphed, albeit as imperceptible to the human eye as is biological evolution over many millennia. Thus, all the more reason for us to so easily mistake it for reality, rather than merely a 21st century American narrative of reality. And so, the road itself is our present great common denominator - our shared partial-illusion of reality. Ultimately, we believe that everything is a part of the road as surely as grass is green and the sky is blue and only by strained effort can we conceive otherwise. <br /><br />So, what are the ruts? Just like ruts in actual roads, they are two different paths most frequently traversed – they are the two different dominant routes by which people seek to traverse the road. The ruts that presently are formed in the shared road of our mindsets are of course the familiar polarities by which we currently organize our socio-cultural and political perceptions and understandings. We call them – conveniently enough for my analogy here – the left and the right. The liberal rut of the left-hand side of the road and the conservative rut on the right-hand side of the road. The vast majority of people – whether they would admit it or not – travel within a preferred rut and generally believe that the travelers in the other rut are going the wrong way. <br /><br />Given the intent of all roads, it is altogether logical for us to ask: where we think this road goes? Utopia comes to mind, though it is more likely paraphrased as simply someplace better than the past. The modern mindset has, since the o-called “enlightenment” moved more and more towards an almost unconscious surrender to philosophical materialism, which has fueled an increasing inclination towards believing that we alone are the force which drives history and change. As such we have a tendency to judge the value of our lives (and the lives of others) as being the degree to which we are able to help push society further down our road. We alone can do this – we convince ourselves– and so we must progress towards a utopia that we envision lies at the end of the road. And while some would doubtless couch the concept in deistic language so as to at least include God in some way, the practical effect is the same: prayer accomplishes nothing, only human action drives history. It is the same mindset which affirms the demonstrably false claim that “those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it.” The reality, it seems to me, is that we learn from history, and then repeat it with fervor and better technology). In times of deep reflection, we may pause and ask ourselves, “Are we really sure we know where this road leads?” This is a moment of doubt in the religion whose creed states that we humans are better now (in just about every way) than ever before and this convenient and chronological narcissistic religious belief convinces us that we are ever headed towards bigger and better things - some sort of grand pinnacle or great crescendo humanity - as long as we follow the path of OUR rut. In so doing, we celebrate ourselves as being “on the right side of history.” <br /><br />I am going to suggest, however, that the road leads to precisely nowhere. It literally traverses us around in one great big circle for the simple reason that despite our many advances, human nature has never changed – at least not by the force of our own wills. The scenery has changed over the centuries just enough to fool us into believing that we are making progress towards something better, but we are essentially no different than our most distant human ancestors and we’ve no reason to believe we shall ever be any different. We’ve just become more efficient at being the very same human beings we’ve always been and we’ve managed to produce a very thin veneer of advanced civilization which provides us with a semblance of order, comforts and degrees of luxury unheard of in previous cycles along the road. I suppose if one were indeed a strict materialist, then for what more could one possibly wish? <br /><br />But, the thin veneer of civilization with all of its perceived gifts of rights, justice, and comfort is profoundly fragile, not found everywhere, and collapses with the slightest degree of applied force. And at such times the lesser angels of our nature are no less present now than we imagine them being present in the “dark” ages. The only difference being that today they are readily able to deal violence and horrors on a scale unheard of in previous cycles along the road. Such horrors are often resuscitated in the name of progress or conservation for the greater good as demonstrated by the modern era which has seen violence on a scale that dwarfs the entire sum of history’s efforts towards the same utopia. Violence which has originated from both the left and the right ruts in the form of Stalinist death camps or Hitler’s racist equivalents and two world-wide wars which killed nearly 100 million people. Death and the desire for power still holds as much authority over us as it always has, though we may have delayed the former’s final victory by way of our technological advances and the latter’s overt display by our fragile system of checks and balances. Both are still very much present in our humanity and always will be so. <br /><br />To be clear, however, my assertions here do not render efforts towards developing a better world useless, the problem that arises is that the road is remarkably successful in seducing us into believing that we are ourselves Atlas supporting the universe upon our shoulders. Modernity’s principle religion of materialist secularism espouses the dogma that we are to move society towards a utopia in which health and wealth will be readily available to all. And this is precisely what cheats us into believing that we MUST frame and devote our minds, time, passion and energies into the important work of trying to push everything into or out of our preferred ruts for the greater good of humanity. We believe with great and almost religious fervor that OUR rut on this road is the one true path to utopia, so much so that even our faith in a Creator and His Kingdom is wrapped up into the fray. We even begin to believe that our religion’s moral teachings are the foundation and fuel for the ruts which we have dug and continue to dig. <br /><br />So, let us consider our religious faith in this analogy. How does the life and teachings of Christ intersect with and operate on our rutted road? Well, it is simple really: it is the same with ALL THINGS which fall upon the road. As is our “natural” inclination because of our undying belief in the rutted road as the fabric of reality, we take the Church, Christ’s teachings, and even Christ Himself and without even knowing we are doing it, we push them all onto the rutted road – after all, this is the road we travel – should they not also be on this rutted road? How else are we to understand or relate to them, if they are not on our rutted road? For surely, it is imperative that Christianity and the Church be relevant! And as with all things that are placed onto the road, we then push and pull them by the force of our own will to fall distortedly into one or the other ruts: “Where they rightly belong,” we will say. And, of course, the competing ruts each lay claim to being the appropriate rut for Jesus – and sometimes they more boldly claim that the ruts are themselves the fulfillment of Jesus’ teachings - the natural expression of Christian “morality” and “ethics.” But, I suspect that in order for His teachings to more easily fit into either of the ruts, those teachings undergo a metamorphosis of sorts; some teachings fit rather nicely it seems, while others are largely out of place in one rut or the other and are thus either ignored or interpreted through the lens of the road such that they become merely personal or private matters and not something to be expressed as a necessary part of the ruts’ pathways. Both defenders of their respective ruts fight to keep Jesus in theirs…like a tamed pet. This is the making of many an internet meme involving “liberal Jesus” vs. “conservative Jesus” both of which are figments of the modern Americans’ imaginations. <br /><br />I sometimes wonder if Christianity is not actually far too easily misunderstood because of our perceived reality and belief in the universality of our rutted road. The only way to fit Christianity onto the road to begin with is to secularize it and make it amenable to modernity. It is turned into a philosophy, a moral teaching to be applied to all those on the road, or a manifesto for social reform. We, as proponents of the left rut or the right rut need this to happen in order to make our religion of choice a part of our journey on the road. This is done subtly and without conscious or deliberate effort….it seems a natural course of action. To many of us, it just “is.” <br /><br />The primary means of modernizing Christianity is to boil it down to one or the other of two simple things: 1) moral rules and regulations. Or 2) Moral rules and regulations sprinkled with miracles. By so doing, Christianity becomes a religion that we can easily grasp and understand and as such it can “function” on the road and thus can more easily fit into our ruts. Having accomplished this simplification of the religion, the Kingdom of which Jesus spoke will then mesh quite nicely with our journey towards utopia and we can more easily argue about the moral rules and regulations of Christ and how to use and apply them to reach that goal. Put simply, this then becomes the sort of religion that is “fit-for-purpose.” Christianity becomes merely another type of bicycle to navigate the constraints, potholes, and ruts of the road we created– in other words, Christianity is made into the image and likeness of our road. And many a modern Christian denomination has constructed their faith in precisely this way, whether it be an evangelical church trumpeting the GOP platform, or a liberal church which erases all traces of the supernatural and trumpets a gospel of social justice. <br /> <br /> The forcing of Christianity onto the road and then into our respective ruts, is a necessary product of the juridical mind (a key ingredient in the road’s asphalt), which manifests a very simplistic “right versus wrong” perception. This vision makes “common sense” to those of us on, and fully invested in the truth and reality of the rutted road. Consequently, Christianity becomes ensnared in this mindset such that its expression of morality can only be understood in the context of rules and laws. Do this and don’t do that. Each rut particularly emphasizes certain facets of Christian “morality” and then mangles or abandons the rest to fit into their ruts. For the rut dwellers, Christianity can only be about law and lawlessness. After all, what else could there be in the secularized and material world of the rutted road? If it is not somehow aiding us in our movement down the road, what good is it? <br /><br />Christians who call one of the two ruts home, are thus able to find common ground with others - who may be strict materialists – in their devotion to the concepts of morality being framed in the context of lawfulness and lawlessness. In this way, those people who claim no religious faith are able to make sense of religion and so Christianity becomes nothing more than an ethical system. In the end what REALLY matters is the rut we share, the differences in our worldviews otherwise are inconsequential – and relegated to our personal business as if it were a fashion decision. Many, however, do not realize - both the Christian and non-Christian alike - the extent to which popular understandings of Christian morality have shaped the road and the ruts over the past many centuries. Christian anthropology was revolutionary when it was first proclaimed and it now forms a significant portion of our road, so much so that it is taken for granted as something that is itself self-evident. Indeed, anyone can be highly moral and follow the rules on the road, Jesus need not play a role at all. And so we reside in our ruts and rather easily find common ground and shared values with people who neither know, nor care a wit about Christ – they and we are happy just to be in the same rut. Subsequently, Christian morality as understood on the road, becomes something that may be forced upon people in order to progressively move us towards, or conservatively bring us back to utopia. Doing so suddenly becomes the focus and in some cases the only “work” of Christianity on the rutted road. This, then, is the Christianity of the ruts and it is most easily identified in Christians who reside in opposite ruts and eschew one anothers’ company in favor of fellow rut dwellers who loathe the very idea of Christianity but will suffer its existence in anyone as long as they share the same rut-values. <br /><br />I would be so bold as to assert that the Christianity of the ruts, isn’t Christianity at all – in either it’s left or right rut versions. It is what I would term Christian Moralism which is a religion loosely informed by Jesus’s teachings and warped by modernity – the rutted road - in which Jesus is comprehended only through the road’s composition, contours, and ruts. It is truly akin to a cult and a heresy. The ruts – trenches really - are the great divider and those therein are at “war” with one another. Those in the left rut are headed in one direction and those in the right rut are moving the opposite direction. And their so-called “culture war” is being dragged into every aspect of our lives…even our sacred spaces. We’ve watched it happen in many religious denominations and it still continues to happen as people, so committed to their ruts/trenches in the socio-political culture war, that they force this battle into the subject of every single matter that may befall or be dragged onto the road. Anyone remotely active on social media sees this happen time after time. Some issue will arise and in short order the two ruts will develop opposing narratives on it. No subject matter seems to be immune from it – even pandemics are weapons in the hands of the socio-political culture warriors! And, their church communities are fair game as well. And the results are catastrophic. Nothing so easily divides people than their commitment to their ruts and no religion in history has ever demanded such obedience to their dogmas as does the secular materialism of the ruts. <br /><br />In recent decades, we are witnessing that war being brought into the naves of the Orthodox Church as both sides try desperately to claim her as their own. And this should not surprise us because this war has become so ingrained in the fabric of our imagined reality. And so we rationalize: “Well, shouldn’t this fight be fought? Shouldn’t this war be won? It’s important for the sake of gaining the Kingdom….it’s what Jesus would want….He’s obviously in *MY* rut.” This should grieve us to no end, because not only is Jesus NOT in either rut, He isn’t on the rutted road at all! And we cannot, by all the sheer mental force of our collective minds, push Him onto it. The minute we try to do so, we’ve lost Him. Anything we call God that we pull onto our road and into our preferred ruts ends up being nothing but a façade of Him…a cheap knock-off copy which has some semblance of the original, but utterly lacks substance. It’s imaginary. It’s idolatry. Just like our road which is itself a sort of collective delusion – it isn’t real. Like starved savages we who are in the ruts are fighting over Jesus as if He were a pot of stew, but unrealized by us, the pot is filled only with air – in the midst of our fighting Jesus has slipped through our fingers. For surely, the message of the New Testament is not about obedience to rules and laws, but rather communion. Obedience has its role to play, but it is not the goal – without the end goal being union, obedience is pointless. The Christian message is about transformation and renewal of the heart and mind as St. Paul mentions time and time again. These are not just clever words suggesting a very temporary changing of one’s mind or of perpetually bending of the self-will: It is truly about dying and being reborn. The road and it’s ruts have no means of dealing with this. It has no means of actualizing or even understanding it. It’s only mantra is to create endless laws to govern human kind believing that somehow this will actually change human hearts, turning bad people into good. Christianity, as has been said many times before, is not about making bad people good; it is about making dead people alive again. And living people don’t hole up in ruts or trenches…those are the graves of modernity. <br /><br />Further, we confuse the Kingdom with the utopia we seek to build by traversing our rutted road, despite our Lord being VERY clear that His Kingdom is NOT of this world. When the Pharisees asked Him when the Kingdom would appear, He answered, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Lo, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” (Luke 17:20-21 RSV) Our goal in “obtaining the Kingdom” is not to pull Christ onto our road to help us get “there”, but to allow ourselves to be pulled off our road altogether and realize that the Kingdom is already in our midst – we don’t look down the road for it, we look inward. This doesn’t mean we turn our backs on society or refuse to travel with our fellow companions – but rather to recognize that the road isn’t “natural”, its existence is completely artificial – a construct of our collective minds; it isn’t the framework of reality through which we must understand all things. Instead we must find the means to escape this construct and St. Paul puts it very well when he wrote to the Church in Rome: “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Romans 12:2 RSV). The Kingdom is already here…in our midst and in our hearts. We manifest it not through laws or regulations, but by dying to ourselves and allowing Christ to live in and through us. Again St. Paul says: “For I through the law, died to the law, that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.” (Galatians 2:19-20). <br /><br />When one is received into the Orthodox Church they are not asked: “Do you promise to obey and keep all the moral and ethical commands of Christianity?” Or “Do you promise to join the right (or left) rut and fight the good fight of the socio-political culture wars?” Rather, one is asked, not once, not twice, but THREE times: “Do you UNITE yourself to Christ?” And after Baptism we sing the words of St. Paul: “As many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:27) And what follows this verse from the Epistle to the Galatians? “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” In other words, we leave all notions of our self-identity (the primary fuel in the socio-political culture war) at the door of the Church. My identity is “hidden” in Christ as St. Paul told the Colossians: “If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.” (Colossians 3:1-3). So whether you are a gun-loving republican capitalist from the deep south or a hemp-wearing socialism-touting activist from New York City, that is all left at the door of the Kingdom. It is all for naught…the ugly narratives that propel us in the socio-political culture war dissolve into noise that echo briefly and then fade into the appropriate silence of awe at the witness of profound and unspeakable beauty like Job’s whirlwind which cannot be contained in any rut. <br /><br />For holiness is not found in the rote obedience to rules. Holiness and the goodness of which Christianity speaks is not hinged to legality, but rather ontology. It references our being (nature, essence) rather than the acts of a being. Sin is not being “bad” or simply breaking the law of God, it is literally the movement away from Life towards death and but for God’s intervention it leads to eternal death. A rich man once approached Jesus and asked Him: “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus begins by responding: “Why do you call me good, No one is good but God alone” (Luke 18 RSV) and then our Lord says that the rich man knows the commandments, and so he should keep them. Astonishingly enough, the man boasts that he has kept them all since his youth. Our Lord then asks the seemingly impossible: “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Literally he is being asked to give up everything he owns, his business/career, his home and presumably his family… give up everything and become the impoverished disciple of an itinerant Jewish preacher. Who of us would have said yes? If you answer too quickly I will assume you have not fully considered the matter. Jesus does not let such hard teachings end there, I’m afraid. In Matthew 5 he tells the people gathered during the Sermon on the Mount a long series of difficult teachings, much like what was offered to the rich man. He recalls the old law about killing and piles on: you must not even be angry with another person. He recalls the law against adultery and again, piles on: you cannot even LOOK at another person lustfully. On and on it goes: you cannot divorce; you cannot resist evil people – let them rob, beat and kidnap unfathomably He commands: you must LOVE your enemy. Were that enough, He ends His teachings with this: “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.” These moral teachings conceived of as laws on the road are simply incomprehensible: No law and no rule can properly account for such as these…when our Lord says “Do not resist an evil person”, what on earth does He mean? What about our rights? What about racists cops? What about drug-crazed maniacs? What about justice? <br /><br />On the road and particularly in the ruts, people are obsessed with the concepts of rights and justice, they often reside at the heart of all their battles. The two ruts fiercely disagree with one another regarding which rights exist or are the most important, and while there is general agreement on the idea of justice, they often vehemently disagree on the specifics of its application. Concepts of rights and justice provide context for the moral indignation each rut feels for those in the opposite rut, they are the twin drums both sides beat upon in a never-ending cacophonic competition of who can be the loudest. We often hear about “God-given rights” (aka “human rights” by the non-religious) which are – we are to suppose – rights that exist in and of themselves, and the concept of justice often is understood as being reflective of the Kingdom and the enshrinement of one rut or the others’ perception of rights. However, what do rights and justice really look like in the Kingdom? Are the ruts’ perception of what justice looks like really a reflection of the justice found in the Kingdom? Well, we have already shown that both sides are going to have problems reconciling their concepts of rights in the Kingdom. For neither rut would ever suggest that justice is letting evil people have their way with the innocent. What are we to make of this perplexing idea? Should we not then ignore the abuse some law enforcement officers visit upon minorities? If you think Jesus’ call for the rich man to give up everything he owns to the poor is applicable to American tax law, why not His command to NOT resist evil? To turn the other cheek? And if you believe that Christ’s commands for sexual purity are enforceable by marriage laws, why then should his commands not be enforced by law with regards to charity? And yet we argue with our brothers and sisters that our side of the socio-political war is the more Christian side while such inconsistencies stare us in the face.<br /> <br /> In the 4th century, a monastic we know as St. Macarius was accused by a young woman of being the father of her unborn baby. One can easily imagine in our world today how such a story would play out on the rutted road: those in one rut would kneejerk and decry him and shout: “Believe her!” While the other side would kneejerk and support him crying out: “there’s no proof!” And the meme war for which we are all too familiar would light up the pixels on social media as each side argued pointlessly. Well as the story happened, there was apparently only one rut on the road and it seems nearly everyone believed her and all manner of insults, slander, and jeering were heaped upon him by the people who lived around him – he had become a horrific scandal. And how did St. Macarius respond to being the focal point of this scandal? How would he have responded while traveling upon today’s rutted road after becoming a lightning rod of the socio-political culture war? Surely he would join the one side supporting him and make the regular media circuits which would allow him to voice his indignation at the charges he deemed false. Social media would fact check articles, people would argue, and Macarius would vigorously defend his innocence. But that’s not what he did at all, in fact he uttered not a single word in his own defense and instead took it upon himself to support the young woman financially by the work of his own hands – seemingly an admission of guilt. In today’s world one rut would celebrate their perceived victory in the ongoing culture war for having sided with the young woman, thumbing their noses at the other side for having the audacity to suggest he was innocent. Throughout the woman’s pregnancy, St. Macarius supported the woman and endured the humiliation and disdain of the people. And in the end, miraculously, it was revealed that Macarius was NOT the father and that the young woman was simply covering for her and her boyfriend’s indiscretion. <br /><br />With this revelation, there would be an outcry for justice. The woman MUST be held accountable. She and her boyfriend MUST pay the monk back. Macarius would be upheld as a martyr and the tables would turn as the other side in the culture war suddenly obtained the upper hand and a battle which seemed lost was now suddenly won. And what did St. Macarius do as the people came to him on their knees begging forgiveness for not believing him, and for hating him, and abusing him? What did he do as people realized the quality of his character? Did he write a book? Do speaking engagements for money? Join the fray of the culture war as a victor for one side? Undoubtedly frustrating everyone on all sides, St. Macarius packed up and quietly left. He left because he feared that the people’s praise of him would distract him from his monastic and Christian vocation of seeking union with Christ. St. Macarius was never walking in either of the ruts (however they might have existed in the 4th century) and he may not have ever been on the road at all. His actions mirror a type of justice for which the road can make no sense. <br /><br />From the world’s perspective there is no justice here and were it made into a film, the audience would likely leave very dissatisfied with the lack of justice. There is however beauty and goodness in the story which isn’t the same as justice. As for justice – it remains a mystery. Christ speaks of God rewarding one group of workers who labored only at the end of the day in a manner that was equal to those who had labored the entire day. The principle at work seems to be something other than a concern for justice and St. Isaac the Syrian says as much in speaking of this parable along with the Parable of the Prodigal Son:<br /><i><br />How can you call God just when you come across the Scriptural passage on the wage given to the workers? “Friend, I do thee no wrong: I choose to give unto this last even as unto thee. Or is thine eye evil because I am good?” How can a man call God just when he comes across the passage on the prodigal son who wasted his wealth with riotous living, how for the compunction alone which he showed the father ran and fell upon his neck and gave him authority over his wealth? None other but His very Son said these things concerning Him, lest we doubt it, and thus bore witness concerning Him. Where, then, is God’s justice?—for while we are sinners Christ died for us! But if here He is merciful, we may believe that He will not change. (I.51, p. 387)</i><br /><br />Love your enemies, turn the other cheeks, help thieves to steal from you etc. This is a radical sense of “justice” that begins with love and mercy above all else – utterly foreign to the secular understanding of justice. It is impossible to legislate love and mercy. The only justice we can legislate is wrapped up in some form of violence to one degree or another: whether that be forcing you to give your valuables to another, imprisonment, or killing you. I’m not suggesting we should have no system of justice, but I *AM* saying we cannot confuse it as being the fulfilment of God’s justice. The justice of the Kingdom turns our secular system of justice on its head and our attempts to “weaponize” Christian morality into forces of secular law are wholly misguided. <br /><br />Justice in the Kingdom (such as described in the Beatitudes) is not something we can manifest by the laws of men. Indeed, the Beatitudes are not commandments at all - read them and see. They are not battle cries for social justice; they are statements about REALITY in the Kingdom, which our Lord assures us is HERE and NOW. God’s ultimate justice isn’t reparations, or revenge, or punishment for evils done. Impossible though it may seem, justice in the Kingdom is evil itself being undone. Christ did not come to teach us new laws with the goal of making a more just and equitable society, he never uttered a word against “systemic injustice” or “institutionalized sins”, even while living in a slave-making/trading colonial empire that was arguably one of the most unjust, cruel, and oppressive to exist on the planet. He lived His life in the midst of a homeland occupied by unjust forces and yet He would not raise His voice against them and even – to the dismay of zealots – showed them love and kindness. At one point He even chastens the lack of faith in His fellow Jews by contrasting it to the faith shown by a pagan centurion! It is obvious that Jesus did not come to give us a new political philosophy. He did not come to bring a socialist utopia, nor did He come to give us a capitalist democratic republic. He did not argue over which economic system would create “justice.” He did not come to liberate the economically oppressed, nor to give us a puritanical code of behavior that would yield a conservative utopia. He did not come to establish either fantasies of a God-fearing 1950’s America, nor a liberal money-free society of perfect equality. And even when the cruelty of the Roman Empire was heaped upon His followers in the infant Church, there was never talk of revolution, in fact our Lord even warned His followers that they would and must accept injustice as they were to suffer and die at the hands of the Empire. The ONLY revolution Christ came to wage would come in a much more radical and unexpected way. <br /><br />The only real tyrant who reigns over all of creation is death. And Christ came to topple its empire through His own death and then mystically uniting Himself to us once we have surrendered ourselves to “death” and allowed Him to live in and through us. This is a life-long – or rather eternal - process of transformation. The rutted road and its materialism has no idea what to do with this concept because Jesus escapes their grasp to use Him as a weapon in their trench war of progressives vs. conservatives whose preferred revolutions are primarily fueled by fear of each other. But in the Kingdom, we are not each other’s enemies. There is only one enemy. And that enemy has been trampled down and the joyous light of this revelation offers us the way of stepping off the rutted road. <br /><br />A 1987 Soviet film (which ended up being banned in its country of origin) called “Repentance” is a satirical portrayal of a Stalin-like leader in Georgia. It is thought provoking and sometimes comical. Keeping in mind the materialism-fueled communist goal of finding utopia, the film ends with an old woman asking another if the road she is on leads to the church and she is informed that it does not, whereby the film then ends with her replying: "What good is a road if it doesn't lead to a church?" Indeed. fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-56154268664550155982021-03-13T12:57:00.004-08:002021-03-16T14:38:49.060-07:00When the Homily is about Immunology<span style="font-family: helvetica;"> <span> A couple of weeks ago,</span> I was forwarded a link to a blog post by an Orthodox priest in which he effectively tells his parishioners (and the world) that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are dangerous and immoral. This is concerning for two reasons, the first being that this priest is in a jurisdiction in which his own Metropolitan had just a few weeks earlier signed his name to a <a href="https://www.goarch.org/-/vaccine-statement" target="_blank">joint letter</a> with 8 other hierarchs from various jurisdictions offering this advice regarding vaccines: “consult your physicians in order to determine the appropriate course of action for you…while your own bishop, priest, or spiritual father remains prepared to assist you with spiritual matters, your personal doctor will guide your individual medical decisions.” But secondly, I think this advice is concerning because the author is sourcing the vast majority of his information from notorious anti-vaccine websites whose presentation of facts is demonstrably unreliable (I will provide a few examples) and thus the author is using his position of authority to potentially put the lives of his parishioners at risk by giving credence to unreliable and confusingly incomplete information. I do not intend to link to the article, nor to publicly identify the author because I’ve no desire to light the virtual torches and hand out pitchforks for the outrage mob to utilize the all too often opted-for personalized “nuclear option.” My argument is NOT against a person (how easily we forget that!) but against the claims made which really do not originate with him in any event. I write this for my friends who’ve forwarded the blog post to me and who’ve honestly asked me about it. While others may also appreciate the information, I don’t expect to convince anyone who has already committed to affirming the author’s and his sources’ perspective. <br /><br /> <span> </span>I want to say from the start that I know many people choose to ask honest questions about these and other vaccines – because there is so much drummed up of controversy lately and because many of us are naturally leery of whatever is being sold to them – especially if it is being offered by the establishment. While most people are content to “trust the experts” and that is their choice to do so, I think it is admirable for these others to want to really understand the issues in depth and to make an honest effort to educate themselves. However, having said that, the ridiculous abundance of online sources marketing erroneous information creates a very difficult hurdle for them. Such sources literally prey upon the complexity of the topic (immunology was amongst some of the hardest coursework I engaged) and their audience’s inclination to distrust the “powers-that-be.” Indeed, the internet is ridden with sources that are either creating or parroting anti-vaccine narratives, and they do so in ways that I believe are manipulative and deceptive such that the average person having little scientific or laboratory experience or background really would not have any means of easily discerning that what they are being told may not be at all true. The people who read these blogs and websites are not to be blamed, rather it’s the people selling them on these erroneous ideas who are ultimately to blame. I believe the clerical author of this blog I mentioned at the start is clearly reproducing such narratives from deceptive sources, and so I will try and offer some balance on the four major claims to be found in his blog post. <br /><br /> <span> </span>The author claims up front “I’m not anti-vaccine” and yet, he references over and over again RFK Jr’s organization’s website as a source, which has a long history of misinformation regarding vaccines and is using all the very same arguments we have likely all heard time and time again in Facebook memes and other social media posts. These include (quoting from the blog post):<br /></span><br /><span style="font-family: helvetica;">1. “the current vaccines were rushed and moreover utilize untested technologies” <br /> <br />2. “the effects that may well be only revealed in coming years? Effects, in the long term, which are unknown in their scope. Effects that could be terrible.” <br /> <br />3. “In a very real sense the current C-19 vaccines are not traditional vaccines at all. In fact, they may be classified as a type of gene therapy” <br /> <br />4. “Both current ‘vaccines’ in use (in American), Pfizer and Moderna, have utilized at some point in their research and development processes aborted baby cells.”</span><div><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Now, before I write about these claims in detail, I think that since this priest has so extensively made use of two anti-vaccine websites and mimicked their modus operandi quite nicely, we should discuss four distinct devices or tools that I have noticed being consistently utilized to communicate erroneous scientific information by sources which consistently claim that vaccines are dangerous, ineffective, and/or not needed. This will also help us to ask the right sorts of questions when presented with such information which isn’t going away anytime soon. I’ll also say, that these tools/devices are not the sole property of anti-vaccine websites – for example, in all likelihood some socio-political culture war website that fights on your side (left or right) uses similar devices to drive their narratives (but that’s a different blog post – but no less one need not work hard to find parallels throughout).</span><br /><br /><br /><u style="font-family: helvetica;">Half-truths</u><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Let’s face it, we all have agendas. Websites and Facebook Groups devoted to “telling you the truth about Vaccines” (such as RFK Jr’s “Children’s Health Defense” ), have their own agenda which is to dissuade people from utilizing vaccines because they are devoted to the idea that they are dangerous, ineffective, and/or not needed. As such, when they do offer you accurate and not completely misinterpreted information, they will only ever tell you PART of any given story. I’ve had many claims forwarded to me by such sources and without fail I have been able to discern problems with how such information was presented such that the fear it intended to inspire was remarkably well mitigated by the full and complete story. For example, as in the case of this priest’s blog, these sources will make blanket statements such as the notion that mRNA vaccines “utilize untested technologies” but they will not balance this with the FULL truth of just how much testing has been done and is being done with these technologies. They will tell you that the approval process was rushed, but they will not seek to educate you on precisely what IS involved in that process, nor will they detail what was “skipped” or “rushed” and what was completed, and more importantly WHY. They are using incomplete and one-sided facts couched in fear-based language and then allowing your imagination to do the rest. They will cite numbers that look terrifying but that biostatisticians could explain and thus rather easily talk you off the proverbial ledge for a host of reasons not offered by the website. One great example is from RFK Jr’s website (cited by the priest – </span><a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaers-injuries-covid-vaccine-cdc-data/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=e6b37aec-89c0-44b5-be90-d2376c84bfcb" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">I take their data at face value</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> – though it is outdated at this point) in which they use the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Data noting that 653 people have died “following the vaccine” and while they are honest enough to mention that such deaths “require further investigation before confirmation can be made that the reported adverse event was caused by the vaccine” they spend the rest of the article claiming that the system of reporting adverse events is unreliable and detailing anecdotal cases of deaths (which is another issue I’ll mention later). They at least did better than the priest who wrote that “over 600 deaths have been reported and over 12,000 injuries as a result of vaccination” which is NOT true because no causation has been established in any of these events. In fact, just the opposite is true: the FDA requires that ANY deaths after receiving a vaccine are reported to the CDC which is then required to investigate each and every case to verify the cause of death. And to date, </span><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">none of the deaths have shown ANY causal link to the vaccines</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> (also note this link has the most current data). Also, what isn’t compared (because it makes it less frightening) are the two numbers side by side: the 653 deaths out of about 45 million doses given to people (given that most folks at this time in mid-February were getting their first dose, lets assume this number translates into about 30 million individuals having received at least one dose – this percentage agrees with the percentage of people vaccinated vs. total doses administered in </span><a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/01/28/960901166/how-is-the-covid-19-vaccination-campaign-going-in-your-state" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">current stats</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;">) and that ends up with a “death rate” of 0.000022%. Now, let’s assume that every one of those deaths were directly caused by the vaccine (which we can’t, and as I’ve noted it is absolutely NOT the case), if these same people people actually got COVID-19 instead of the vaccine, we would expect, by the most conservative of estimates, that 360,000 of those people would have died (I DOUBLED the number of actual reported cases – to account for undiagnosed cases - as compared to deaths giving us a CFR of 0.8%). And even if you take the most healthy and robust young people, COVID-19 would absolutely kill far more of them than this vaccine – again keep in mind we have ZERO evidence that the vaccine has killed ANYBODY yet. So nonsense about the vaccine being worse than the disease is precisely that: nonsense. In actuality given that elderly people are disproportionately represented in that 30 million who received the vaccine, we would expect a death rate to be far higher if they’d gotten the disease rather than the vaccine. Now, RFK Jr. and this priest won’t give you these sorts of details or encourage you to examine these sorts of data side by side. In fact, the deaths of vaccinated people noted here, is actually less than the average death rate of the unvaccinated control group (all of you who have not been vaccinated yet) – in other words if you took an average slice of 30 million Americans, how many could we expect to die from natural causes in an average month? Significantly more – given that the number of Americans who died of natural causes in 2019 was upwards of 1.7 million. One can easily do the math from </span><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">THIS</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> website and see that 653 deaths is WELL within the range of deaths we’d expect naturally from an average selection of 30 million Americans in an average month. In other words, these vaccinated people dying are not outside the norm of an average 30 million unvaccinated people in the same time frame. This is clear and supports the likelihood that none or extremely few of these 653 deaths can be attributed to the vaccine. Why aren’t these sources giving you this sort of information?</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Because, they aren’t seeking to inform or educate you, they are seeking to cause fear by laying out in bold 36-point font everything they can find that seems potentially frightening. They take very complex collections of data and draw erroneous conclusion for you, knowing that the complexity of it bars most of us from challenging their conclusions. When balanced with ALL the information, their narratives are almost always declawed.</span><br /><br /><br /><u style="font-family: helvetica;">Unrtuths</u><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">This is one is particularly difficult for me to understand except in cases where I believe the source simply does not understand the science they are claiming to explain to people. One example is the case which I mentioned in a Facebook post that noted numerous sources claiming that the CDC was admitting the virus actually doesn’t exist, and they made this claim by citing a single sentence quote from the CDC’s 80 page validation report on the PCR assay for SARS-CoV-2. Because it involved an aspect of science with which I am extremely familiar, I knew immediately that they had either completely misinterpreted it, or they were deliberately lying about it. There is no way that an average layperson could have read what the anti-vaccine websites claimed and been able to discern that it was obviously not true. I spoke to numerous people and asked if the sentence provided by the websites made sense to them except in how it was described by the website and they all said “No.” I then showed them the validation paper and the relevant section and asked if it made any sense now, and again the answer was “No.” Indeed, their erroneous claim had ALL the air of authenticity because they cited the reference and offered </span><a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">a link</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> knowing full well that people generally would not be able to devise a contrary interpretation of the sentence. I see this all the time when people cite peer-reviewed journal articles (which are written by scientists in a specific field for scientists in a specific field) knowing precious few people can actually read it an understand it. It’s akin to asking me to read and understand a professional article about computers programming languages – I’d be lost and you’d pretty much be able to tell me anything you wanted. I’d have no means of saying you were wrong. See my more detailed explanation of this example in the post </span><a href="https://www.facebook.com/susan.ferrenberg/posts/10159074554883270" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">HERE.</a><br /> <br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Another example comes from Dr. Mercola and others who claimed that the mRNA vaccine can alter your DNA (Mercola implied this was the beginning of a push towards “transhumanism”). However there is no possible mechanism for the terribly unstable molecule of mRNA (this is why it must be stored at such cold temps) to end up in the nucleus of your cells, and even if they could, it could not be integrated into your DNA. It’s simply, a biological impossibility and innumerable sources have fact checked this repeatedly (</span><a href="https://apnews.com/article/9340521654" style="font-family: helvetica;">HERE</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;">, </span><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/victoriaforster/2021/01/11/covid-19-vaccines-cant-alter-your-dna-heres-why/" style="font-family: helvetica;">HERE</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;">, and </span><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-viral-post/fact-check-covid-19-vaccines-wont-alter-recipient-dna-frontline-workers-have-suffered-directly-from-the-virus-idUSKBN28S2V1" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">HERE</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> are but a few examples), but undeterred by facts, folks like Dr. Mercola play on the understandable unawareness of the general population who likely long ago forgot how mRNA works. It’s very easy to hold up complex systems which your audience doesn’t know much about, and punch apparent holes in them. One could take a similar approach and convince many to never again fly on a 737MAX.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">And here is another example: In discussing the case of one of the adverse events associated with the Pfizer vaccine in which a Florida doctor who died of a syndrome called Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), RFK Jr’s website (noted </span><a href="https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-efforts-of-antivaxxers-to-portray-covid-19-vaccines-as-harmful-or-even-deadly-continues-apace/" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">HERE</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;">) cites their own organization’s president claiming “that ITP has been reported to occur following exposure to drugs containing polyethylene glycol (PEG), a compound used in both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines” referencing a journal article published in the World Journal of Hepatology as evidence. The problem with this is that in the actual article they cite, the drug was not just PEG, but actually peg-interferon-alpha2a. ITP is a known issue with interferon treatment and so the PEG connection is almost certainly incidental. Again, the average person reading this misdirection would never realize the article doesn’t actually say what RFK Jr’s website claims it is saying.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Bottom line: these sources frequently misinterpret or deliberately skew information to further their narrative. If some claim is shown to be false, they simply move on to the next one. And if a person ONLY gets their information about vaccines from such sources, they will never hear a correction or a balanced representation of the data. It becomes like many things in our online lives: a massive echo chamber from which we can conceive of no other perception of reality. </span><br /><br /><u style="font-family: helvetica;"><br />Anecdotal Evidence with Emotional Appeal</u><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The anecdotal argument coaxed with understandable emotional appeal is pervasive and not just in the realm of conspiracy theories about vaccines. We rarely recognize that we are being manipulated by their use, especially when the issue at hand is one with which we already vehemently agree. In the realm of our current topic, we are presented with stories of vaccine injuries, sometimes definitive and sometimes not so definitive. Sometimes names are given and other times it is a friend of a friend. But looking through the lens of a microscope to study astronomy is really not an effective means of understanding the universe as a whole. In mid-February we had 653 possible stories of people (of course, we know we don’t) who’ve had loved ones die after getting the mRNA vaccines and no doubt, we’ll eventually see some of their stories on anti-vaccine websites. What such sites won’t do, however, is balance these stories with definitive evidence of causation from the vaccine nor will they offer accounts from those 30 million other people (now over 60 million) who got the vaccine and had zero serious adverse effects. With those numbers, I think you can see which way the balance swings in reality, but if ALL you read about are accounts filled with GREAT emotional intensity of the few people who truly had an adverse reaction leading to death, this will understandably skew your perception of reality. Our emotions are far greater arbiters in our decision making than we tend to realize, and the fresh memory of a loved one weeping over their deceased family member after a covid-19 vaccine (especially when paraded before you eyes over and over again) will stick more firmly in our mind than the sober reality of the actual numbers of millions who did just fine. It is the same sort of mindset that literally kept people out of the water after seeing “Jaws” despite knowing that the actual likelihood of being attacked by a shark were infinitesimal.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">No one is hiding the truth that there ARE a certain number of people who will be injured or killed by vaccines. There is no “Da Vinci Code” that reveals this – the data is readily available. Where do you think all the anti-vaccine sources get their information? The FDA and the CDC provide it readily to the public. That some very small subset of people may die from these vaccines should be no more of a surprise to us than learning that some people will die after eating peanuts. Or the reality that some people die from all sorts of medications that are commonly prescribed. The balance to this is that the whole point of clinical trials is to discern the relative safety and efficacy of our medical products. These trials are designed to offer statistically significant data from which we can reasonably say that the product is safe for the general public and that the efficacy and need for the product outweighs the extremely rare cases in which someone can be harmed from them. We devour peanuts in massive quantities, and we do so simply because we enjoy the taste and in so doing we own the risk to others who must take sometimes extraordinary measures to avoid them and then sometimes still fail to succeed in doing so. Given that vaccines save millions of lives every single year, perhaps anti-vaccine activists would be more morally grounded in seeing that peanuts be banned – they don’t save any lives. Where are the emotional horror stories of people who lost their loved ones simply because you “needed” your peanut sauce? I’ve no wish to downplay any of these deaths, but the reality is that in this fallen world there are NO perfect solutions to diseases. Some therapies work for some people and not for others. Some therapies save millions but harm a very few. We should not allow the perfect to be the mortal enemy of the good and this is precisely what anti-vaccine sources are doing by focusing solely on existing or imaginary imperfections, and in so doing they erase the astonishing good that vaccines have done and continue to do.</span><br /><u style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /><br />Expert Opinions</u><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">I’ll be the first to admit that just because someone has letters behind their name doesn’t necessarily mean that they have all the right answers – even if the letters indicate training that is specifically applicable to the question at hand. No doubt, someone with a PhD in molecular biology is in a reasonably better position to correctly interpret data regarding mRNA vaccines than would be someone with a PhD in economics. However, having an advanced degree in an applicable subject isn’t necessarily a guarantee that the individual will be providing accurate information or interpretations of data. A great example of this is Dr. Judy Mikovits (PhD in biochemistry) who is a major figure in the conspiracy video series “Plandemic.” Her career started just as many do who enter into academic research, however, she ended up coming under intense scrutiny after a paper she published which asserted that a virus called XMRV was the cause behind Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). The paper ended up being retracted after no one was able to duplicate her data – while not common, it’s normally not a big deal and is just the way that science is supposed to work – however it was also shown that she almost certainly had falsified aspects of her data. She has since dedicated much of her work towards a number of different conspiracy theories (including anti-vaccine conspiracies, COVID-19, and blaming “big pharma” for her failures), and she makes baseless claims about the very same XMRV virus as being a cause for autism, cancer, Parkinsons, and MS. You can read a Wikipedia article about her </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Mikovits" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">here</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> which I think fairly tells the story of how she ended up on the fringes of science. We have here, someone who despite having completely appropriate educational credentials (though a decidedly less stellar work history in science), has opted to make a career of pandering conspiracy theories and does so to people who understandably have no readily available means to dismiss her claims. She has letters behind her name and so we assume she ought to know what she is talking about. However, time and time again her assertions and claims have been shown to be absolutely baseless. See </span><a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/fact-checking-judy-mikovits-controversial-virologist-attacking-anthony-fauci-viral" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">HERE</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;">, </span><a href="https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/AID.2020.0095" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">HERE</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;">, and </span><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/08/plandemic-judy-mikovits-coronavirus/" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">HERE</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> for examples.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">In some other instances, they mislead the readers or audience on the credentials of their expert. An example is found in the podcast I </span><a href="https://www.facebook.com/susan.ferrenberg/posts/10159074554883270" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">mentioned previously</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;">, where they deliberately hide the fact that the “medical expert” Dr. David Martin is actually an expert in patents and finance/economics, and they list his degrees, but not their subject matter. Or in the case of another video I was sent (also written about in the previously linked Facebook post), in which they appealed to an Orthopedic Surgeon named Dr. Lee Meritt to tell us that the mRNA Vaccines aren’t vaccines at all – though in the video she doesn’t really elaborate in any way that would lead me to believe that she knew what she was talking about. Now, one shouldn’t marvel that an Orthopedic Surgeon really doesn’t know all that much about mRNA Vaccines, because medicine and biological sciences are astonishingly specialized these days and this trend of specialization only gets more and more diverse. When I worked in the UW clinical virology lab, we FREQUENTLY had primary care physicians and others call to ask us what the results of our tests meant, and this should surprise no one. This is precisely why we always had an Infectious Disease specialist on call and available to answer questions and consult on a case. Doctors cannot know everything. So, while I think Dr. Merritt is being profoundly irresponsible, I do not think she has some special knowledge of insight that the rest of the scientific community who are specialized in the areas of virology and immunology apparently lack – quite the opposite.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Finally in regard to this issue of “experts”, consider this analogy: let’s say you live out in the country (like me) and you find that your toilets and sinks and tubs will no longer drain. You are unable to discern the source of the problem, because – after all – you’ve no idea how septic systems work in any great detail. And so you start googling, and let’s say you really want to be sure about what the problem is so that you are not ripped off and therefore you call 100 different septic companies to come and do a free diagnosis. And let’s say 99 of them tell you that the drain fields is failing and will need to be replaced. While ONE septic expert tells you that the other 99 are simply trying to rip you off and are stooges of “big plastic” who just want to sell you new pipes that you don’t need. Rather, this ONE septic expert is suggesting that all you need to do is drop a pouch of some natural remedy into the septic tank and your problems will be solved. Common sense, no matter how much we’d love a simple solution, would tell us that the 99 other Septic experts are likely right and that it seems terribly implausible that all of them would be deceiving you. This is the same for the field of science in which there are MILLIONS of us working day in and day out, and it is difficult to imagine how ALL of us are on the payroll of “big pharma” to tell you that vaccines are safe and effective when in fact we all know they are dangerous and ineffective. Or, as per our analogy, the 99 other septic experts are just plain dumb and do not understand the truth as understood by the one.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">As I see it, these four devices are frequently used by anti-vaccine and other COVID-19 conspiracy websites. And keeping these in mind, let me go back to the main points brought up in the priest’s blog post: I’m not really going to address the role of theology in determining whether or not vaccines are safe and effective, because frankly, nothing in theology can possibly address such a thing. When we get to the issue of using fetal cell lines, then there is certainly a moral component to that, but as to the three other major claims: no theology involved whatsoever in determining whether what this priest and other anti-vaccine sources claim is true.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Now, with regards to the four important claims made in the blog post, let’s start by asking about the first claim: is it true that the emergency use authorization (EUA) means that “the usual requirements for safety testing and trials have been waved” and “that the general public is to a large degree the testing ground for the novel vaccines”? Well, no, this is neither a fair nor an accurate representation of the situation. This claim is a perfect example of a “half-truth” because it seems to imply that NO testing was done at all (or very little). And along with many anti-vaccine sources utilizing half-truths, the priest here provides ZERO information about what testing HAS been done and what sort of data was or was not required before granting the EUA and then of course nothing is provided as to why the FDA would feel it appropriate to grant the emergency use authorization with the data that they had in hand. So, readers of the blog post and MANY anti-vaccine websites are only getting half of the story, coupled with a clearly implied untruth that little or no safety testing was done and that all of us who are currently getting the vaccine represent the testing that SHOULD have been done – none of which is true at all. To help provide the FULL contex, you can read about the EUA for Pfizer </span><a href="https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-key-action-fight-against-covid-19-issuing-emergency-use-authorization-first-covid-19" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">HERE</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> and Moderna </span><a href="https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-additional-action-fight-against-covid-19-issuing-emergency-use-authorization-second-covid" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">HERE</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;">. And you can read about many of the details of what the FDA expects in order to grant an EUA </span><a href="https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">HERE</span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">.</span></a><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Anti-vaccine websites will pick out choice sentences from such sources as the FDA or CDC and skew their meaning or neglect their greater context, but one should read them in their entirety and seek answers from a variety of sources to questions that might and probably will arise. For example, I’ve seen some sources make much ado about some of the numbers in the efficacy sections of the FDA’s explanation about granting EUA for the vaccines linked above. They’ll claim that out of those many people vaccinated (placebo or product) in the clinical trials that only a tiny fraction of them provide the data leading to a conclusion of efficacy – this again is a half-truth. Take the Moderna vaccine, which thus far in the Phase 3 trial (remember there were two previous phases of trials as well) has included 30,351 participants, approximately half of which got placebo and the other half got the mRNA Vaccine. Now, in placebo controlled clinical trials, scientists and researchers closely follow all the participants in order to identify those who actually end up getting the disease in question and then, of those who end up getting the disease, they compare the placebo control group to the vaccinated group. So, of these volunteers, so far 196 of them ended up getting COVID-19 disease (185 of whom were in the placebo group and 11 were in the vaccine group). This is THE most important data for determining efficacy – and those numbers despite seeming small are no less statistically significant. But, anti-vaccine sources will emphasize that this number (N=196) is concerningly small…but again, this simply is not telling you the entire story. Now I am NOT a biostatistician, but the bottom line is that after seeing literally generations worth of data on vaccine clinical trials, there comes a point in looking at incoming data when a threshold is reached and it is clear both statistically and experientially that the trend is clear and will continue in a predictable trajectory. And so, these data showing that out of 196 individuals with cases of disease, 185 of them had received placebo and only 11 had received the vaccine reliably demonstrates efficacy. (Other aspects of this data also include severity of disease and at the time, the placebo group had 30 severe cases of disease and the vaccinated group had none.)</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">But, wait, that’s not all: this isn’t the only information that is important, indeed the number of people who develop disease in this trial is NOT the only means by which we can draw strong conclusions. We also utilize a wide array of immunogenicity assays on multiple blood draws over time on ALL of the participants, and in the lab we measure various antibodies’ response levels, B-Cell activation, T-Cell response etc. In other words we are able to get a complete profile of what your immune system is doing in response to the vaccines as compared to those who received placebo. By so doing we can compare the responses of everyone to the responses of those 11 people who were vaccinated and did develop disease to establish excellent thresholds for determining the overall efficacy of the vaccine amongst the entire population of those who participated in the trial – even if they were never exposed to the virus. Not to mention the fact that we have millions of reams of research and trial data on immunity from historical trials for other diseases which informs us as well, such that seeing these lab results from this trial we can reasonably deduce that they are reliable in determining efficacy. So while the slice of the pie of those people who developed disease is a gold standard, that is NOT the sole source of data for determining efficacy – but anti-vaccine resources will not give you all this information, they will give you half-truths (“they are basing their efficacy data on ONLY 196 people!!!!”) which communicate fear rather than the entire context which for all its complexity, communicates confidence when you know the details of the entire story.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">I’ve worked with the FDA for years on IND related clinical trials and I have the utmost respect for their being thorough and cautious – so much so that I have felt emotionally that they were a royal pain in my boat as a lab manager. Are they perfect? Of course, not…again we cannot make the perfect be the enemy of the good. The data we have for BOTH of these vaccines thus far, given the excellent data coming from the trials and the extensive experience we (the scientific community) and the FDA have in seeing millions of reams of data for other vaccines, look outstanding: safe and effective. These trials are ongoing and there is more information we still need to gain (which the FDA does require for a full approval and explains why the EUA was granted as opposed to a full approval – again something anti-vaccine resources will use to instill fear) and this includes important components like immunological duration and post-vaccination viral shedding. But as for safety and immediate efficacy, there is really very little question, except in the realm of a very few scientists/doctors (or not) on the fringe. (i.e. the 1 septic expert out of 100).</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Next, the author of the blog post takes on the issue of long term side effects, saying that such effects “may well be only revealed in coming years? Effects, in the long term, which are unknown in their scope. Effects that could be terrible.” So, let’s be honest here, no matter what the medical intervention or drug, there could ALWAYS be undetermined long term side effects. Innumerable new drugs and therapies have arisen in the last 10-15 years and one could easily claim that there could be long term effects not yet discerned in ANY of them. You will ALWAYS be able to challenge human ingenuity with the obvious reality of human failure in the realm of foresight. We are not omniscient and conspiracy theorists in the realm of vaccines will always be able to use our inability to see the future as a means to instill fear. But again, we are only getting a half-truth here and the question becomes: how many years before formal FDA approval would be sufficient to end all concerns about long term possible side-effects? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? No matter what number of years you may select, the anti-vaccine sources can simply appeal to ONE more year beyond it as a possible pivotal point when all biological hell could break loose. Now, I suspect I know what you are thinking (as is overtly implied in the already shown erroneous claim that these vaccines are “untested”): these vaccines only began being tested in people last year, surely a longer observance time is warranted! Yes, you can make that argument fairly, however, keep in mind you are not being given the complete picture. This technology is not as novel as some would wish you to believe. </span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">In truth mRNA as possible vaccines have been widely researched and developed for over 30 years and we don’t have a shred of data to indicate that they harbor any long-term unseen safety issues. We’ve done extensive testing both in-vitro (i.e. test tube) and in-vivo (animal and human models). </span><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">This</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> article does a good job of laying out the history of this technology. Long before a clinical trial in humans is granted, labs must provide a ridiculous amount of data primarily demonstrating safety and efficacy (if you saw the stack of papers we have to send to the FDA as one submits an Investigational New Drug application, you’d agree – they are comparable to a bill in congress, except that they all have application to the specific subject matter). A big part of that testing is actually using the technology in-vitro on human cells such as the HEK-293 cell line which I will discuss later regarding the use of such fetal cell lines. These cells – because they have been immortalized – have been and can be followed for a VERY VERY long time after being inoculated with an mRNA Vaccine (normal cells would eventually “run out of steam” and die). And then of course there are the in-vivo studies that have been done at great length in animal models. A simple search of mRNA vaccines in </span><a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=mrna+vaccines" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">PubMed</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> reveals over 6,000 peer reviewed journal articles on that specific subject and a search of mRNA alone yields nearly 700,000 articles. We, as a scientific community, are very well informed about this molecule in general and specifically about it being used as a therapeutic or prophylactic product. We are not “flying by the seat of our pants”, but rather have a great deal of data upon which to base the perfectly rational claim that the technology is safe. From the aforementioned and linked article in the Journal Nature: “First, safety: as mRNA is a non-infectious, non-integrating platform, there is no potential risk of infection or insertional mutagenesis. Additionally, mRNA is degraded by normal cellular processes, and its in-vivo half-life can be regulated through the use of various modifications and delivery methods. The inherent immunogenicity of the mRNA can be down-modulated to further increase the safety profile” (feel free to follow their footnotes). One such safety experiment involved having the mRNA code for a fluorescent protein and then vaccinating mice. Because the protein produced by the mRNA fluoresces, they can be visualized with specialized cameras and this allowed them to see how long the protein expression continued after vaccination and as noted in the article, they were even able to regulate the expression by changing aspects of the mRNA’s code. From this they could see that the mRNA degrades naturally as expected, does not integrate into the hosts genome (confirming what we knew already was not possible), and it does not morph into producing rogue or dangerous proteins. Such experiments are repeated ad nauseum which I can personally attest to in my experience in the lab. This is but one example among thousands over the last 30 years in which we’ve been studying this “novel” technology. Also not mentioned by fear mongering websites is the fact that this technology HAS been tested in humans since 2011. </span><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243/tables/3" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">THIS</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> is a list of currently ACTIVE clinical trials testing mRNA Vaccines (this is from 2017…a current search of clinical trials involving mRNA indicate over 1,600 human clinical trials). Despite all this work that has been done, the ONLY means of suggesting that anything could go wrong is based solely on broad non-evidence based speculation appealing to the grand scientific principle of Murphy’s Law. Fair enough. All the evidence and data that we have – and there is a great amount of it – points towards both safety and efficacy.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The blog author links to two articles (both from RFK Jr’s anti-vaccine website) about possible adverse events, one of which suggests the possibility of Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) from the vaccines. ADE is a fairly complex condition that happens when antibodies generated by a vaccine are sub-optimal and end up actually helping the virus and advancing disease. It’s complex enough that anti-vaccines websites will post such information, link to reliable resources (pubmed), and then bet that the average person will simply walk away believing that the vaccine can make things worse because they simply cannot wade through the many details of what we’ve done to investigate this potential. And indeed this strategy works…I’ve had numerous people tell me they have heard the vaccines can make COVID-19 worse. </span><a href="https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/02/12/antibody-dependent-enhancement-and-the-coronavirus-vaccines" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">HERE</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> is a great article that addresses this issue and demonstrates that scientists did NOT just ignore this potential, but rather anticipated it and have been testing for it and in so doing have found no indication that ADE is a problem. </span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The second linked article from RFK’s website regards the immunologist J Bart Classen who has a history of promoting his anti-vaccination beliefs. He’s widely quoted and referenced on anti-vaccination websites and has made a name for himself in claiming that vaccines cause diabetes – </span><a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11731639/" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">a claim that has been shown to be baseless.</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> His current claim is that the vaccine could cause the development of prions (an extremely rare disease in which a rogue protein called a prion causes misfolding of proteins in the body) , and again this is a completely speculative claim without any solid evidence and </span><a href="https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/can-mrna-based-covid-19-vaccines-cause-prion-disease/" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">this article</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> does a great job of demonstrating why no one takes his fears seriously. What immediately becomes clear is that in his paper on the subject, he does not provide any details on his methodology which is a massive problem. When we publish a peer-reviewed scientific paper we include VERY detailed descriptions of our methods so that 1) the process may be repeated and tested in other labs and 2) peers can deduce problems in your experimental method. Without these, one really cannot be expected to be taken seriously.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Okay, but why not wait a little while longer? Surely it couldn’t hurt? Well, you better believe it could hurt…we are talking about millions of people dying. Now, when this outbreak first began, many of us in the infectious disease world (me included) were initially underwhelmed by it’s case fatality rate (CFR), which really is not terribly frightening – certainly nothing compared to bugs such as Ebola. And so early last year I was encouraging people that this bug really did not look to be that bad. However, back then many other specialists saw that the danger of this virus isn’t in its overall capacity to kill, but its overall capacity to infect ALL of us and to do so quickly. It became clear that this virus was going to easily outpace it’s fellow family members SARS-1 and MERS, so much so that despite the fact that SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t kill as readily as some of its family members, it’s overall death toll would still dwarf the others two – and indeed it has done so on a logarithmic scale. So, the vast majority of people who get COVID-19 survive (with or without long last effects from pulmonary damage), but this fact has unfortunately given us a false sense of security because we aren’t looking at the big picture. Again, like many memes I’ve seen, just quoting the current estimated CFR is a half-truth. If we were to take a “wait and see” approach regarding possible long-term effects of the vaccine, then even if you take the most conservative overall CFR for this disease we’d be talking about millions of deaths of Americans – not to mention world-wide – in a matter of a year or two. And this would be the case on top of the social restrictions we have remaining in place which I am sure everyone is enjoying. But…and this is critical….there is an even more insidious likelihood which we are already beginning to see: mutation into new and possibly much more dangerous strains. The fact of the matter is that the more this virus replicates, the more opportunity there is for it to mutate. Were we to wait, believing (wrongly) that we don’t have enough data on the safety of the vaccines, we are inviting disaster. I believe it won’t be a question of IF it will happen, but WHEN. Every single copy of the millions of virus made by just one of your infected cells is a purchased lottery ticket with the grand prize being a bug for which the vaccines are no longer effective and quite possibly a bug that has a significantly higher CFR such as SARS-1 and MERS. As noted, we’ve already seen THREE new and seemingly more infectious variants and like it or not, we ARE dealing with a ticking time bomb. If you want to know what keeps epidemiologists and virologists up at night right now? It’s this.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">In light of all the data we have showing safety and efficacy, coupled with the fact that throughout the world people are dying and the threat of this virus mutating looms, granting an EUA was the right thing for the FDA to do. We can never eliminate all possibility of unforeseen problems arising in anything that we humans do. Just this morning I read about one of the first 737MAX flights since its grounding and one of the passengers was quoted as saying “I believe it is 100% safe.” This of course is absolutely not true, but we humans are constantly making decisions about things that we deem are “safe enough.” Each time we get into our cars and drive somewhere we are playing the odds knowing full well that people die in car accidents all the time. It is impossible to eliminate ALL risk, but as I look at the safety data we have so far on these vaccines I had no problem rolling up my sleeve. The arguments put forth by anti-vaccine sources could be made about ANY medication and ANY mode of transportation we regularly take.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Next the author makes use of a common scare tactic I see a lot today: “In a very real sense the current C-19 vaccines are not traditional vaccines at all. In fact, they may be classified as a type of gene therapy.” While the first half of this sentence is true, the use of the phrase “gene therapy” is intended to frighten readers and it obviously worked because the author opts to parrot this information because, well, “gene therapy” sounds scary for folks who know nothing about it. But, first and foremost, I must vehemently disagree: it is NOT gene therapy. I’ve done gene therapy in-vitro and gene therapy involves the alteration, repair, or addition of DNA into the genome of your cells in one way or another. However, as I noted above, mRNA vaccines do no such thing and indeed CANNOT do such a thing….we know this both theoretically AND experimentally from all the in-vitro and in-vivo work that has been done with the technology. No less, he goes on to say that it is “deceptive by the powers that be to call it [a vaccine].” Now, in my </span><a href="https://www.facebook.com/susan.ferrenberg/posts/10159074554883270" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">post</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> on Facebook awhile I ago I went into detail on how mRNA works and the bottom line is this: this product is intended to produce a protein in your body which elicits an immune response in order to protect the recipient from a specific disease. That is precisely the very definition of a vaccine, the fact that it does this in a unique way does not make it less a vaccine than injecting a disabled virus or a protein manufactured in a lab (aka “traditional” vaccine).</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The author continues by quoting a “forthright medical professional”: “The problem is that in the case of Moderna and Pfizer, this is not a vaccine. This is gene therapy… The Moderna and Pfizer creations send ‘a strand of synthetic RNA into the human being and is invoking within the human being the creation of the S1 spike protein, which is a pathogen.” So, who is this “forthright medical professional” erroneously calling it gene therapy? Well it is none other than Dr. David Martin, who many of you may remember from my previously linked </span><a href="https://www.facebook.com/susan.ferrenberg/posts/10159074554883270" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">post</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;">. Dr. Martin, makes a career as a financial analyst and a “patent researcher.” How exactly he is described as a “medical professional” (note the lack of specifics?) is a complete mystery to me. But it is perhaps because he has no scientific background that he can be forgiven for calling the S1 Spike protein a “pathogen” (another scary word). A simple google search will tell you that a pathogen is any organism that can produce disease, so how exactly does a portion (note, it is not even the entire amino acid sequence) of the S1 spike protein produce disease? This protein is the means by which the virus (a necessary component to the production of disease) is able to “connect” to our cells and then enter into it, infecting it and pirating your own cells’ natural mechanism to begin reproducing itself. Then, after replicating within the cell many times over, they are released out of the cell to go on and infect other cells to repeat the process all over again and THAT is what is causing disease. The virus is a pathogen, but it’s spike protein alone (even if it was fully present, which it wouldn’t be) will do nothing but elicit an immune response as intended – like any other vaccine. His deciding to call it a pathogen is either offered in ignorance or as a ridiculous and seemingly deliberate scare tactic.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">And then the author asks a question that seems very odd to me: “Does Christianity have nothing to say about tampering with human RNA?” (Nevermind that nothing in this vaccine tampers with your RNA). Since he asks the question without answering it, I will ask as well because I don’t have the slightest idea what Jesus Christ thinks about “tampering with human RNA.” I presume he asks the question rhetorically, but I’d actually like to know his answer. Is there something sacred about RNA that is somehow less sacred in human biology on a macro scale? For example, should we not do bypass surgery on cardiac patients because that is “tampering” with the human heart? What about artificial heart valves? But putting aside the theological question, what is meant precisely by “tampering with human RNA?” The synthetic mRNA in the vaccine doesn’t “tamper” with human RNA, it simply gets transcribed into a protein in the same way that your body makes proteins all the time from its own mRNA. It doesn’t change or alter or interfere with any aspect of your body’s natural occurring mRNA and its protein production. Doubling down, he lays out the ominous claim that the mRNA “opens the possibility to dangerously altering DNA expression.” I think we have covered this claim already – it’s simply not possible and we have plenty of data showing this to be the case. Really, we cannot be emphatic enough: the mRNA vaccines cannot alter anything about your DNA and its expression because it cannot get inside the nucleus of the cells where such expression happens. A simple google search on this subject will give you an unending supply of reputable sources that will tell you the same thing: it cannot happen. The only places telling you it MIGHT do these scary things are those propagating an anti-vaccine narrative employing all the deceptive methods and arguments mentioned above. In this case, they are telling you an outright untruth (See the three articles provided in the “Untruths” section for reference or just simply google “Can mRNA vaccine change your DNA.”)</span><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">“What will be the results of opening the door – even a tiny crack – to tampering with human genes and related systems?” he asks. Again a rhetorical question which I presume the author expects will send a shiver down our spines, but the reality is that we already know the answer: lives are being saved by “tampering with human genes and related systems.” Right now. Today. Possibly someone you know and love. The truth is that we’ve been using a wide range of “tampering with human genes” to produce all manner of therapies and products that are saving human lives. Do you know someone who uses insulin? That’s an artificial protein produced by synthetic “tampered” human genes. Do you know any cancer patients whose lives have been saved because of ANY drug whose name ends in “ab” – well that’s a monoclonal antibody which is again an artificial protein produced by synthetic “tampered” human genes. Or one of the most hopeful and successful new tools in the fight against cancer is Adoptive T-Cell therapy which alters the DNA of your T-Cells using a synthetic virus which then “programs” your T-Cells to hunt down and kill cancer cells. <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8D6_xWYlLy4" width="560"></iframe></span></div> </div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>Genetically modified T-Cells attacking and destroying cancer cells (the tiny cells are the T-Cells and the larger ones are glioblastoma cells - a deadly brain cancer).</i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: helvetica;">What’s my point? The door this priest is trying to scare us into not opening “even a tiny crack” has been wide open for decades. There are very serious bioethics issues involved in all aspects of this sort of work, but let’s not paint with a roller what arguably ought to be painted using a fine brush. Lives are being saved and more can be saved, but this doesn’t mean there aren’t some areas of this work that deserve a very serious and thorough evaluation on moral and scientific grounds. But you cannot just make broad, sweeping, black and white assertions about it. Like everything we are discussing here: it’s MUCH more complex than naysayers would have you believe.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Which brings us to what is unquestionably the most challenging aspect of the issues brought up by the priest and I will state upfront my conviction that Christians in good conscience can agree to disagree over the use of fetal cell lines in research and in the manufacturing of therapeutic agents. I will argue in favor of using these cells lines - specifically the HEK-293 cells which were used in early safety and efficacy experiments for these two vaccines (which I mentioned earlier) - and by doing so, I hope I can shed some light on this heated subject and perhaps help some who struggle to understand why their hierarchs are not taking stands against the utilization of these vaccines, despite the involvement of fetal cell lines – however remotely.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Anti-vaccine organizations have deliberately targeted the issue of fetal cell lines in their efforts to build alliances in conservative religious communities. I’ve no reason to doubt their sincerity in doing so, but having seen their habits of spoon-feeding untruths, half-truths, anecdotal evidence with strong emotional appeal, and fringe or false expert opinions with regards to other scientific areas regarding vaccines, it is not surprising to see them doing the same with regards to the role of abortion and fetal cell lines. The author of the blog post unfortunately mirrors a number of outright falsehoods with regards to this subject which I’ll mention shortly, but first I think it is critical that we all understand what precisely we are discussing. Thus I will start with the some basic information about cell culture and fetal cell lines.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Cell culture (sometimes called tissue culture) is a means by which we are able to grow, test, and observe human or animal cells outside of their natural habitat and instead in a laboratory setting. All sorts of different types of cells can be grown in dishes or flasks bathed in a specially made liquid media which provides them with all the specific nutrients they need to survive. One needn’t be a genius to understand the incredible value of being able to do this, indeed, it has provided an incalculably massive volume of knowledge and therapeutic development since the late 19th century when the techniques began to first be developed.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">As I mentioned, many different cells types can be grown in culture: skin, heart, lung, spleen, or just about any other human cell. The process by which we obtain these cells from the organs isn’t terribly complex as can be seen in the </span><a href="https://www.stemcell.com/how-to-prepare-a-single-cell-suspension-from-mouse-spleen.html" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">video on this website</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> showing the production of a “single cell suspension” (individual cells largely detached from one another) from a mouse spleen. Using a similar method, back in 1973, a cell suspension was made using the kidneys taken from a legally aborted baby in the Netherlands (at the time, abortion was only legal there if mother’s life was at risk.) Using these kidneys, scientists were able to create a cell suspension and then expand their numbers in culture from which they did further experiments in an attempt to learn more about how adenoviruses played a role in the development of cancer. To do this, they sought to “transform” the cells by attempting to incorporate specific adenovirus related genes into the cells. Once they succeeded in doing this, they had effectively “immortalized” the cells such that unlike normal kidney cells, HEK-293’s seemingly will go on dividing happily forever (which explains why these 50 year old cells are still readily available today) and thus was born what we call a “cell line” – a vast numbers of cells which are derived ultimately from one single source (its not unlike the means by which you can use a sourdough starter that your grandmother began.) You can read the scientists’ originally published paper </span><a href="https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/docserver/fulltext/jgv/36/1/JV0360010059.pdf?expires=1614450828&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=3D60BA2536D23E5E25F8C214B33F0C3F" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">here</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;">. It is important to understand that these cells are NOT each human embryos, they are kidney cells and are no more a human person than are the cells in a blood sample you might have recently given to a doctor for a lab test. </span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">These cells came to be known as HEK-293 cells, and these same cells (albeit daughter cells of the original) from that very same abortion in 1973 are now the second most common cell line to be found in labs around the world. Their use has become so ubiquitous that we could not possibly document all that we have learned and how many different drugs and therapies have arisen because of them. The name origin is quite simple: the HEK stands for Human Embryonic Kidney and the number 293 came from the habit of one of the original scientists to number his experiments, with these cells’ successful transformation being his 293rd experiment. Now the author quotes a woman named Pamela Acker (mistakenly called “Dr.” – she actually holds a masters degree in biology) claiming that the 293rd experiment MUST translate into “probably hundreds of abortions.” I mean no disrespect to Acker, but the reality is that she has absolutely no idea how many abortions were involved. Given that cell culture was readily being done in the 1970’s and that cryopreserving (freezing) cells was being done </span><a href="https://www.me.washington.edu/news/article/2020-09-01/life-suspended-past-and-future-cryopreservation" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">since 1949</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;">, it is absolutely feasible that all 293 of these experiments were done with the same cells harvested from the baby’s kidneys. Even though not transformed and immortalized yet, you can still simply grow them to very large numbers in culture and cryopreserve them for future use – though eventually this would cease to work. If you read Graham’s </span><a href="https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/docserver/fulltext/jgv/36/1/JV0360010059.pdf?expires=1614452793&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=A794702632EDDEF77110864C6872DF60" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">paper</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> you’ll read that “a total of 8 transformation experiments have been carried out with, on average 20 cultures of HEK cells per experiment” and considering this, we really do not know if the 293 refers to the transformation experiments as a whole, or if each culture received their own unique identifier. To speculate “hundreds of abortions” is purely that: speculation for the sake of sensation and shock. In the end, does it really matter – except if you have a vested interest in creating as horrible a narrative as possible?</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">One note regarding Acker, while keeping in mind the subject of experts I wrote about earlier, </span><a href="https://catholicism.org/interview-with-biologist-author-pamela-acker.html" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">this website’s</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> introduction of her states that she is “one of the most knowledgeable people in the world on vaccines and on what goes into them” and then qualifies this by adding “Acker actually spent time in a vaccine research lab for nine months.” I’m not sure that spending 9 months working on anything can make an individual one of the most “knowledgeable people in the world” about it. I really do not wish to belittle this individual, but I once worked in a molecular virology lab for 15 years and I am not remotely “one of the most knowledgeable people in the world” on viruses. But, what she goes on to say next leaves me decidedly perturbed and a bit angry – and speaks to why I challenge her supposed lofty “insider” credentials. The blog authors writes on her behalf: “Dr. Acker in the quoted article also points out that when cell tissues are harvested the babies are still alive.” This, I am confident, is a vicious and horrible lie.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The implication here is that we have but seconds to retrieve viable cells and thus they supposedly had to rip the organs out of living babies born alive (I guess?). I have personally seen the harvesting of mouse organs for use in developing primary cell suspensions and I can assure the reader that the mouse is humanely euthanized prior to it happening. And during my work in T-Cell therapy, we would frequently culture human blood cells (PBMC’s), and we would have no problem obtaining viable cells even if the vials or bags had sat out at room temperature for hours. Further, we’re even able to culture live cells taken from previously cryopreserved (frozen) organs and have been doing so at least since the 1970’s – see </span><a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/669737/" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">this paper</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> as an example. So how on earth Acker is of the horrific opinion that one must pull the organs from a living baby is simply beyond my comprehension and having worked with scientists, laboratorians, and medical professionals for more than 25 years, I cannot fathom any of them being able to perform such an atrocity (of course, I mean on mice and rats – in my many years working in labs I’ve never even heard of a need for any new fetal tissue save for those lines already LONG established). Frankly, it is an insult to all of these hardworking individuals to even fantasize that they would and do engage in such horrible Mengele-esque experiments. These are the sorts of untruths that are deliberately designed to hit one over the head with an emotional brick of revulsion, and it is a lie. And you will forgive me, if in my personal offense as a lab worker myself, that I answer another of the priests many rhetorical questions honestly: “I wonder if Christianity has anything to say about such barbaric practices?” Yes, Christianity teaches that Acker shouldn’t lie about it to scare and horrify people.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Now, back to the HEK-293 cells. A person recently forwarded me another document making circles in the Orthodox world which states that “all COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States at this time continue the promotion of abortion in their development and research.” I would like to focus on the use of that word “promotion” and I would ask how exactly is it promoting abortion to use HEK-293 cells which all originated from a single abortion 50 years ago? I simply cannot follow the logic being offered here. Do the author(s) believe women are running into abortion clinics because they think medical science requires their sacrifice? I think many people mistakenly believe that vaccine manufacturing requires a steady stream of newly aborted babies, but this simply is not the case at all. You could put a legal ban on ALL fetal cell lines today and you would reduce the number of abortions by precisely zero. Something drives the need for abortions, but it isn’t vaccines or any of the other many medical therapeutics which use these cell lines. You are absolutely not “promoting” abortion by utilizing these mRNA vaccines.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">As has been made clear, there are no new abortions needed in order to make more HEK-293 cells, ever since Graham immortalized these cells, we’ve no need. This specific cell line was used in the development of these mRNA vaccines to assess their efficacy and safety in the laboratory prior to being rolled out in clinical trials with humans. Use of the HEK cells are particularly ideal because they are quite possibly the single most highly characterized, understood, and studied cell line on the planet. Because we know so much about these cells, they have become a sort of “gold standard” for in-vitro testing involving a WIDE range of potential medical products and therapies. This is why I think the anti-vaccine sources are selling a bill of goods with regards to their moral indignation on the use of these cell lines. If these groups were so worried about fetal cell lines in general, then why are they focused solely on vaccines? In </span><a href="https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/12/the-covid-vaccine-and-the-pro-life-movement" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">this excellent bioethics article</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> written by Melissa Moschella, she writes:</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">"HEK 293 has become a staple for biological research; its use is so ubiquitous—and so many other basic research materials like recombinant proteins and molecular reagents have been produced from it—that conducting research without relying on it in some form is practically impossible. Anyone who wants to completely avoid benefiting from the use of HEK 293 would effectively have to eschew the use of any medical treatments or biological knowledge developed or updated within the past forty years."</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Dr. Moschella is absolutely right (as an example, a search of HEK-293 in pubmed </span><a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=HEK-293" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">yields over 7,000 articles</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;">) and I would encourage folks to read her article because she even addresses the blog author’s comparison to Nazi death camps (a twist of sort on Godwin’s Law), her grasp of the scientific principles are accurate and sound and she’s clearly qualified – as a Christian philosopher – to address the issue of bioethics. The blog post author asks “Morally, is there a qualitative difference between an abortion 40 years ago as opposed to yesterday?” I do not believe that the moral question of using these cells is really this simple. We can ask a similar question: is it morally acceptable to use the heart of a murdered individual to transplant into another human person in order to save their life, presuming the murder victim was not murdered in order to utilize his/her heart? I would think the answer is a resounding yes. And how different is this from the case of the abortion that took place in 1973 which would have happened regardless of whether this child’s kidneys were donated? The scope of the good that has come from this child’s death is almost impossible to measure, as alluded to by Dr. Moschella, but this good was NOT the goal of this child being aborted – no one knows the reason for why the baby was aborted, except that it had to involve the need to save the mother’s life (the only legal option at the time). We don’t know how much the mother and father wrestled with this decision – but we do know that the decision was not reached for the purpose of using the child’s kidneys for research. But because of this tragedy – however it played out – I believe it is safe to say that millions of lives have been saved and these cells have established a foundation of knowledge that will continue to be built upon for generations. You likely know people who are alive today and you yourself have almost certainly benefitted because these cells were used at some point in what ultimately ended up being a product or therapy or just basic scientific insight that led to new products and therapies. It’s messy and decidedly not clean cut. But it’s real life. One does not need to say that the original abortion was a “good” thing, in order to recognize the good that has ultimately come from it. It is very easy to pontificate online about the morality of this issue (even if you yourself do not take the time to learn about how much you personally have already benefited from research on these cells – were it possible), but what does one do if </span><a href="https://pulse.seattlechildrens.org/tiniest-cancer-immunotherapy-trial-participant/" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">their baby girl is dying</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> after her leukemia relapses and a doctor tells you her prognosis is hopeless. And then the doctor suggests an experimental procedure called Adoptive T-Cell Therapy (a type of immunotherapy) that might provide a means of curing her, a therapy that remotely involves using cultured kidney cells taken and modified from a baby aborted 50 years ago? Shall we proceed? Who can fathom deciding to let their little girl die instead? What would that accomplish? It isn’t going to bring back that Dutch baby from 50 years ago, anymore than it would bring back the murder victim by refusing to accept their heart for transplant. This isn’t just a random anecdotal situation, I’ve personally worked in the lab that helped develop this technology – recently FDA approved - and it is saving MANY lives. It is one small example of the knowledge and use we have gained in utilizing these cells and immunotherapy which has been built upon the foundation of these cells in one way or another, is widely seen as the future hope for many who are dying of cancer today. A few articles on immunotherapy </span><a href="https://www.franciscanhealth.org/community/blog/immunotherapy-the-future-of-cancer-care" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">HERE</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;">, </span><a href="https://www.journalofclinicalpathways.com/article/immunotherapies-and-future-cancer-care" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">HERE</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;">, </span><a href="https://www.immunology.org/publications/bsi-reports/60-years-immunology-past-present-and-future/immunotherapy-the-next-era" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">HERE</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> and </span><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0337-2" style="font-family: helvetica;" target="_blank">HERE</a><span style="font-family: helvetica;">. If you are a close friend of mine, then I can guarantee that you know someone whose life was saved via immunotherapy.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">No less, I understand that some people will absolutely disagree with me. I accept that. What I don’t accept is the insinuation that the moral equation in this case is simple and straight forward. Moral equations presented as such rarely are as mathematically certain as we would like, and this one is particularly convoluted if for no other reason than that people who are adamantly opposed from any benefit coming from these cells have virtually no choice but to be ignorantly hypocritical – so extensive has been the use of them. The efforts of anti-vaccines sources have brought this all into the limelight in the case of vaccines, but if people really want to nail their moral colors to the mast on this issue, then they’d better be prepared to dive deep into the rabbit’s hole. And even then, it would be next to impossible to discern what knowledge or product you might medicinally benefit from because at some point and time a lab worker was culturing and studying these HEK-293 cells. I suppose I should apologize for the burden I’ve given them with this news. But it’s true….it’s messy. It’s real life in a complex world.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Another thing to consider, that often is not and that is I’ve noticed in most anti-vaccine related sources (including the priest’s blog post), they always make hints towards some conspiracy that is suppressing the truth. Sometimes its government (they’ll use the FDA or CDC statistics until the numbers can’t be construed as being bad, and then they’ll say the numbers can’t be trusted) and sometimes it’s “big pharma” (who would lie through their teeth to create a profit) but no matter what, one really has to affirm some sort of conspiracy in believing that these vaccines are ACTUALLY dangerous, because how else does one come to believe that a very small handful of fringe scientists and a horde of internet sleuths have deduced the danger, whereas the rest of scientific community has somehow failed to see it. We are talking about millions of lab workers from lab aides, research associates, lab techs, lab managers, lab QA managers, biostatisticians and principal investigators who are all just somehow missing what is obvious on the internet. How can we explain that the FDA and their numerous external review boards made up of some of the top minds in the field and who know the science better than anyone else, are also somehow missing the critical information that anti-vaccine web orgs are able to dig up online? You’ve seen it on their website and even this priest writes things such as: “Even the FDA admits…” implying that they know the truth but are burying it. Imagine how vast a conspiracy would need to in order to help but fall apart. I’ve worked in labs most of my adult life and I’ve collaborated with hundreds, perhaps thousands of people throughout the fields of infectious disease, oncology, immunology, vaccine development and clinical trials. I cannot fathom how some massive secret is so well kept by so many people – except of course that it is apparently readily discerned online by anti-vaccine websites. And here is where the conspiracy REALLY breaks down: all of these virologists, immunologist, molecular biologists, and other scientists who are telling us that the vaccines (by all available data from the 1990’s to the present) are almost certainly safe, are themselves ready to roll up their own sleeves and the sleeves of their loved ones. If the fears are legitimate, they too are gambling their lives right along with the rest of us. And that just doesn’t seem to make sense to me to think that the overwhelming and vast majority of those doing the work at every level are somehow involved in a conspiracy that is hiding the danger of a product that they themselves plan to use.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">As clergy, I believe we tread upon very dangerous ground in using our position of authority as a soapbox to champion the beliefs propagated by sources which make it their mission to undermine the use of ALL vaccines – not just those using mRNA as their mechanism. Such sources’ use half-truths, untruths, emotionally charged anecdotal “data”, and fringe or false experts to build a monument of confusion and fear such that we could very seriously compromise the health of our parishioners. If one were to step away from the endless stream of subterfuges played by such sources, one could find that in truth the mRNA vaccines and their “new” technology have been through 30 years of laboratory testing and 10 years of testing in human clinical trials – a far cry from the frightening image painted by anti-vaccine sources of us all being human “guinea pigs.” Well, here’s the truth: we’ve already tested the “guinea pigs” in incalculable numbers and…they all lived, which is to say the safety data is extensive and robust. And because of all that data, we have a great deal of confidence that the unforeseen horrific long-term effects postulated by these sources are extremely unlikely to happen. Are we 100% certain? Of course not, but my friends, life is full of risks and we weigh them with ease each time we sit down into an automobile, climb onto an airplane, or take any of the plethora of other equally arguably “novel” drugs prescribed by our physicians. And so I’m hopeful that a thoughtful individual who reads up on how these vaccines actually work will see how their emotions are being played by these sources when they breathlessly cry out that these aren’t vaccines, but gene therapy! They are grasping at straws in their efforts to frighten you.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Finally, I’m hopeful that I’ve been able to illuminate some of the issues surrounding the use of fetal cell lines and in so doing, shown that the issue isn’t nearly as black and white as it is often portrayed. If a person is against any benefit coming from that 50 year old abortion which produced the HEK-293’s, then they have a great deal of work to do in order to remain faithful to the stringent delineation of morality they are applying to this vaccine – so much so that they really don’t have time to be telling their friends and neighbors (and parishioners) about how terrible this vaccine, but rather should be wondering about the insulin they are taking, or the monoclonal antibody therapy that is saving their brother’s life, or the adoptive T-Cell therapy that is giving hope to the hopeless fighting lymphoma, or any of a host of therapeutics in use for rheumatoid arthritis, cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, Parkinson’s, Huntington’s, pretty much ANY antibody therapy (drugs ending in “-ab”) including the Regeneron’s antibody treatment used on President Trump. While I can understand and appreciate their hard stance on this issue, I do not think they have fully investigated the matter because if the threshold of moral outrage is reached by these mRNA vaccines, then I think there is likely no end to the products that also cross that very same threshold.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">My advice (for whatever value it may have): if for whatever reason – despite official statements from hierarchs and synods – you feel you must ask your priest about whether or not you should get the vaccine and he is telling you not to do so, then consult your Bishop directly. But above all, talk to your primary care physician - if you are under some specialty care, talk to your specialist about your unique case. This is the advice we should be offering our parishioners, precisely as has been recommended by our hierarchs. Hopefully the distribution and use of these vaccines will prevent that one rogue mutation in the virus that will evade the immunity granted by them and perhaps make it far more lethal – setting us back to day one, in much worse shape.</span><div><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"></span><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="background: white; color: #111111; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]--></span><span style="color: red; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #111111; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"></span><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="background: white; color: #111111; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="background: white; color: #111111; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"></span></p>
</div></div>fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-51247129800957206092021-03-02T17:48:00.003-08:002021-03-02T17:50:33.189-08:00The Goal is to be Healed<span style="font-family: georgia;"> "For Christians above all men are not permitted forcibly to correct the failings of those who sin. Secular judges indeed, when they have captured malefactors under the law, show their authority to be great, and prevent them even against their will from following their own devices: but in our case the wrong-doer must be made better, not by force, but by persuasion. For neither has authority of this kind for the restraint of sinners been given us by law, nor, if it had been given, should we have any field for the exercise of our power, inasmuch as God rewards those who abstain from evil by their own choice, not of necessity. Consequently much skill is required that our patients may be induced to submit willingly to the treatment prescribed by the physicians, and not only this, but that they may be grateful also for the cure. For if any one when he is bound becomes restive (which it is in his power to be), he makes the mischief worse; and if he should pay no heed to the words which cut like steel, he inflicts another wound by means of this contempt, and the intention to heal only becomes the occasion of a worse disorder. For it is not possible for any one to cure a man by compulsion against his will." </span><div><span style="font-family: georgia;"> -St. John Chrysostom "On the Priesthood (Book II)"</span></div>fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-33968395523222443332014-07-06T04:13:00.003-07:002021-04-27T13:47:00.855-07:00All Things, Seen and Unseen<p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span>Having read Francis Spufford’s “Unapologetic” and now recently
finished Fr. Stephen Freeman’s “Everywhere Present”, I am finding a lot of
complimentary aspects. Spufford does both a fantastic and beautiful job of
portraying faith as being altogether reasonable, albeit it not in the sense
with which a secular materialist would necessarily agree, principally because
of how he or she would choose to define reason. And Fr. Stephen opens our eyes
to an ancient way of discerning Christianity which suggests that there is more
to the world than any understanding of reason alone can comprehend and this
rather neuters the whole point of the popular arguments between atheists and
theists in which science, and science alone is the canvas upon which they both
paint.</span></span><br />
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;">Science comes from the latin <i>scientia</i>
which means “knowledge” and a simple definition from Webster tells us that
science is a “systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the
form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.” From this
already you should at least be sympathetic to Spufford when he writes: “I don’t
know if there is [a God]. And neither do you, and neither does Richard bloody
Dawkins…” You may also note, that much of what comes to us with the full
blessing of the pop-culture magisterium of science, is decidedly not coming
from tested or even testable “explanations and predictions about the universe.”
And no, I’m not talking about the old and worn out “evolution is a theory only”
debate – please let us move past that: it doesn’t matter and in my mind is a
distraction from the bigger issue, though it does often play a role and I do
personally believe (not know) that there is great deal more at work than what
we presently think we know (or believe) about the “origin of species.” No, what
I’m talking about is less specific and more generalized in the application of
science and our human approach to how we perceive the universe. Another way to
put it: how do we know what is true? Or better yet, the question posed to our
beaten and abused God: “What is truth?”</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;">But before I proceed, I always feel that I need to say
upfront that I am a scientist. I do so not as an attempt to tout my credentials,
for that would be absurd given that I really don’t have them in the popularly
known sense - the letters behind my name are not terribly impressive – but because
it may seem to some that I’m on course here to dismiss “science” (or point out that
I have not in the past EVER “facebook liked” the “I F*&#ing love science”
page – which I will say I will never do because I F*&#ing hate the F-word
especially when used in place of a perfectly good English word which actually
communicates more than the presence of a poorly rounded education.) Further
rant: why claim adoration for and assumedly an understanding of an important
scholarly discipline while at the same time overtly displaying a level of
ignorance of another important scholarly discipline - language - more fitting for an MTV
reality star?)…sorry…rant sidetrack. So I should make clear that I am more a
scientist by trade, experience, and training than by formal educational.
Lacking a PhD, I no less make my living by doing science: attending and giving
talks, designing experiments, helping to author peer reviewed papers, wet bench
work, managing labs, and helping to design clinical trial studies etc . I have
as much appreciation and understanding of science as a carpenter would have for
his or her trade and tools. So, I’m not here writing like a carpenter
ignorantly suggesting hammers are ridiculous. With what credentials I do have,
I feel that I am a little qualified and able to discern when the tools I am
quite familiar with are being misused. Imagine, if you will, the horror a
finish carpenter would experience watching someone try to pound finish nails
through ornately carved molding with a 24oz waffle-stamped ripping hammer! So
my point is that science has today grown into far more than a tool or, as the
dictionary states: “a systematic enterprise”, but rather it has grown into a
worldview, or a “way of life.”</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;">I love my place of employment, and I still recall its old motto
being one of the few offered by any organization which I have ever thought
decent: “Advancing knowledge; saving lives.” However, some years back they
changed it to something altogether different and strange: “A life of science.” It
does not bode well for an organizational motto when it raises more questions
than it answers! What on earth does it mean? Am I, as an employee, now said to
be living a “life of science?” What does that look like? Does that mean that on
my trip home I devise and plan experiments that I can test at home to try and
definitively prove that my wife does in fact love me as she claims? Or maybe
all of our lives together are a running experiment and I just need to develop a
database to keep track of all the massive and ever accumulating number of data points?
And then hope she too isn’t living “a life of science” by which she would seek definitive proof of my love! Do marriage
certificates need to be redesigned to be more like Informed Consents for study
participants? Anyway, it’s an absurd motto but it speaks to the very point I’m
making: more and more people are looking to science (and it’s misapplication)
as the matrix through which we perceive what is “real” and what is “true” about
<i>EVERYTHING.</i> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;">You have perhaps heard attempts to generate popular interest
for science in people (usually kids) whereby the details of respiration will be
explained and then say: “So, you see, every time you breathe, science is at
work inside you!” What blathering nonsense! Science is not doing ANYTHING to
make respiration happen – it just happens! Science is the tool by which we may
understand a great many details about respiration, but science itself is not
the arbiter, the energy, or the driving force behind anything! Of course this
is just a lingual bit of trickery and no science teacher or professor or
practitioner would ever suggest, when pressed, that science is a driving force
in nature. But, it is often how we speak these days. I’ve seen it contextually
in “I F$#@ing Love Science” posts such as those times when they will show some
picture of a lovely and appealing aspect of nature - one of my favorites
being a picture of some really beautiful clouds and then they’ll offer some
brief meteorological explanation for the clouds’ existence. But stop and think
for a moment as to what is really causing us a sense of awe: the amazing beauty
of the sight or the meteorological explanation? So why not just offer the
explanation alone and allow THAT to awe us and lead us to cry out obscenities
about how much we love science? The reasons are obvious, but the fact remains:
Science is not a force that drives those clouds into those formations that we
find so appealing, and in no way should we ever reasonably see a wonder in
nature and think: Wow, isn’t science cool! So sometimes when I see those posts
I think to myself that it is in a way replacing God, because we used to look at
nature’s wonders and say : Isn’t God’s creation glorious!” and now instead we
say: “I F$#@ing Love Science!” Wonderful. I liken it to reading an absolutely
amazing and even life-changing and inspiring piece of literature and afterwards
expressing praise for the Latin-based English alphabet as opposed to the well
done expression of human experience which transcend ANY language! Sure English
is a fine language that allows us to communicate, but it is the content of the
communication, the beauty of what happened that is truly meaningful to us human
persons, though the words and their particular and creative ordering might communicate
it more effectively, there is a beauty that remains which warrants our
appreciation in words and language that try desperately and sometimes
fruitlessly to communicate some modicum of beauty. </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;">That aside, “science” is now an authority on par with the
very worst of visions one may have of the Church in the middle ages. Do a
google search on this term: “What science tells us about…” and you will find no
end to the rabbit hole. Science can tell you everything about everything: your
personal relationships, your parenting, your fashion preferences, your
feelings, and even your religious faith. We see this magisterium of authority
at work in nearly every level of our everyday lives: if you want to convince
anyone of anything then you need to have “science” readily at hand and ready to
back you up with statistics and “facts” – and they needn’t be generated from
very good data, so long as it has impressive numbers and looks scientific, very
few will question what they perceive to be the nearly sacred operation of
science. Sometimes it really does feel like the same power some claim the
Church wielded in the Middle Ages over people’s minds - it’s as absurd as
dispensing religious dogma upon fancily decorated parchments to ignorant
peasants and they lap it up for its apparent authority. Political hacks love to
appear to be scientific in their positions and I still recall one glaring
example during the healthcare debate in which an article purported to have
nailed statistics on EXACTLY how many people have died because they lacked
health insurance. It was one of the most absurd “studies” I’d ever read about
and not a single conclusion it offered could possibly be supported by ANY available
data. Just stop and think about how you could EVER investigate enough to prove
that any given individual necessarily died because they lacked insurance? The
variables are innumerable and when *I* personally wield the hammer that is
science, if I have more than a couple of variables in any suggested study, I am
laughed out of the PI’s offices - and that doesn’t even begin to address the
funding no one would ever give me for such an ill-designed study. But this
particular piece threw caution to the wind, tossed aside the importance of
innumerable variables, got funded by who knows who, and regurgitated the
desired conclusions from what data they had available. It looked
authoritatively scientific and so it made its rounds on Facebook and the media
mainly fueled by political opinions that believed these “facts” to begin with
and they could now – thanks to science - not only “believe”, but also “know.” (I was of
course accused of dismissing this study for political reasons of my own, but
whether that is true or not, I stand by my assertion that the study enlightened
nothing and nobody.) The bigger point is that if you want to discern reality,
no matter the context, if you intend to do so and be taken with any degree of
seriousness then you need to at least pretend that science was done in the
process of discerning that reality. And science becomes a stamp of
approval…people will believe you if folks with the letters P, h, and D after
their names claims they did some study that supports your truth claim.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;">Health studies, and particularly public health studies, are
notorious in my mind: again, too many variables. Since the internet, our
“scientific” health fads have begun moving at lightspeed and I was recently
subjected to a talk by a PHS student that made me shudder to know that these
people are using such data to try and alter public POLICY! But you see, again,
science is being done – just very badly, and with a great deal of faith and I
think it’s exactly that faith which empowers it. Shooting all too often before really
aiming, because after all, everything is a potential target for science. How else can we know what is real and what is
true?</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;">This modern need to have science in your intellectual
opinion corner is what drives many Christians to the debating table with the
secular materialist atheist, and there they do “scientific” battle amidst the
agreed upon context that science, can indeed be used to demystify the mystery
of God’s existence. But as both Mr. Spufford and Fr. Freeman have made clear to
me in rather different ways: both participants of the debate are urinating in
their neighbors’ pools. </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;">Obviously the materialist is beginning with a simple
foundational assumption and belief: the universe is material only and all that
is, can be discerned and understood by the application of human science
(tools). Now of course, we now know better today than 500 years ago, that much
more exists than could be imagined, and the materialist rightly knows that we
have developed greater and greater tools to help us see what was once unseen.
Therefore the materialist has no qualms in saying that surely much more exists
about which we do not yet know. And “yet” is the key word. We will know
eventually, he or she will claim, with all the confidence of a bible thumper
expecting Jesus’ return. But if what the materialist believes is true about the
nature of the universe, from where comes this faith that humans have the
capacity for unlimited knowledge? One need only look to our evolutionary
brothers and sisters in the animal world around us to note that without fail,
all creatures have clear limitations in their comprehension abilities: pond
water organisms have no concept of the origins of or the reasoning for the
bright light suddenly blinding them as they are being peered at through a
microscope by Mrs. Crabapple’s 4<sup>th</sup> period junior high school biology
students. Nor does the cheetah have any notion of living on a sphere. And
neither does the whale or chimpanzee comprehend the role of Deoxyribonucleic
Acid in their reproduction. Why is it so hard to believe that we human animals
also have a ceiling of consciousness or awareness through which we are simply
not evolved to get or even see beyond? Having no survival need to do so, we’d
never evolve anything to deal with it…whatever it may be. It may not be at all,
but considering that all other animals have a limited capacity, and the
materialists are so desirous of likening us to them, it seems self-absorbedly
absurd on the level of the “earth is the center of the universe” absurd, to
think we do not also have limits. Is there perhaps a real construct beyond our
own, whereby we are like the pond water organisms trying to comprehend
ourselves with utter ignorance to the reality that will perhaps always escape
us – something utterly beyond our comprehension? Maybe, but we’ll never “know”
because science cannot answer this question because it cannot reach beyond our
own limit in the same way as a hammer can only strike with as much force as a
human can muster – pneumatically assisted or not.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;">And of course, the argumentative believer will gaze into the
gaps of scientific knowledge and find there evidence of God. And the
materialist will desperately seek (perhaps by way of a proton accelerator)
something of a decidedly material nature to fill them and thwart the gap
filling theist. On and on they will go, arguing and debating hoping that “reason”
usually as defined by the materialist will bring the other to enlightenment and
to their side. But it is all a waste of
time – I’m convinced. Because we believe, or at least ought to believe, in a
God who has told us that the “pure in heart…shall see God” not those running
assays. </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;">And so, meanwhile, all over the world humans sometimes experience
something that can only be described as transcendence – it might begin simply as
a sense that there MUST be something more that exists, is at work, or is holding
all things together. Or it might be something that one interprets to be a
direct experience with that “thing.” Frequently it results in something that
spills over into our biology. Materialists will hook up electrodes to our
brains and try to mimic the sensations associated with such experiences and
will tell us simply that we’ve experienced chemicals in the brain not unlike what
might be experienced during drug use or other decidedly “natural” things that
cause some degree of euphoria which we are stupidly mistaking for something
which goes beyond the materialist worldview. Spufford does a fantastic job of
linguistically capturing just such an experience, and I simply cannot do it
justice, it needs to be taken at full dosage and not this small excerpt to
fully appreciate, but here is a taste none-the-less:</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<p style="text-align: left;"><span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span><i><span class="highlight" style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;">It feels as if everything is
backed with light, everything floats on a sea of light, everything is just a
surface feature of the light. And that includes me. Every tricky thing I am, my
sprawling piles of memories and secrets and misunderstandings, float on the
sea; are local corrugations and whorls with the limitless light just behind.
And now I’ve forgotten to breathe, because the shining something, an
infinitesimal distance away out of the universe, is breathing in me and through
me, and though the experience is grand beyond my powers to convey, it’s not
impersonal. Someone, not something, is here. Though it’s on a scale that
defeats imagining and exists without location (or exists in all locations at
once) I feel what I feel when there’s someone beside me. I am being looked at.
I am being known; known in some wholly accurate and complete way that is only
possible when the point of view is not another local self in the world but
glows in the whole medium in which I live and move. I am being seen from inside,
but without any of my own illusions. I am being seen from behind, beneath,
beyond. I am being read by what I am made of.</span></i></span></span></p>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;">Spufford continues at length, and I
again commend you to read it. I suspect many believers have experienced
something similar and I can vividly remember a very similar experience, though
more powerful – at least in the sense that it drove from me all notions of
atheism to which I had previously been a devout adherent. And as I noted, the
materialist will simply say that such experiences are easily explained away by
the wonders of brain biochemistry, and that in reality Spufford and I are
simply deceiving ourselves into thinking more was happening that was actually
happening. But, no one is claiming that the feelings and sensations were not
biological in origin but rather that such feelings and sensation don’t
typically happen spontaneously without something leading up to them. Spufford puts
it this way after affirming the existence of all the chemical explanations that
would explain these sensations:</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><i>But so what? These are
explanations of how my feelings might have arisen, physically, but they don’t
explain my feelings away. They don’t prove that my feelings were not really my
feelings. They certainly don’t prove that there was nobody there for me to be
feeling them about. If God does exist, then from my point of view it’s hard to
see how a physical creature like myself could ever register His presence except
through some series or other of physically determined bodily states.</i></span></span></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;">Now, laying aside the issue of our
dual nature (physical and spiritual) because I do think we Christians tend to
set up a false dichotomy between the two and we must keep in mind that we are a
unified being and that death is the UNNATURAL separation of body and spirit,
there is a really good point being made here. He goes on to describe the
feelings one might feel in the context of romantic love. It would be decidedly
odd and perhaps insane if one were to develop such “warm fuzzies” spontaneously
or over an imagined lover (though it may well be possible, it certainly isn’t “normal”),
but the larger point is that by simply offering a biochemical explanation for
the feelings you have, it does not explain away the existence of the object of
your romantic love! But additionally it must be noted that this itself is NOT
an apologetic for God’s existence, it is instead a suggestion that science
cannot properly be used to tell me I did NOT have an experience with Him who
holds all things together. They will ask if I can prove that these emotions
were being caused ultimately by an experience with the Creator and I will say –
laughing – of course I cannot. But as Spufford puts it:</span></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><i> I am not in the habit of
entertaining only the emotions I can prove. I’d be an unrecognizable oddity if
I did. Emotions can certainly be misleading: they can fool you into believing
stuff that is definitely, demonstrably untrue. But emotions are also our
indispensable tool for navigating, for feeling our way through, the much larger
domain of stuff that isn’t susceptible to proof or disproof, that isn’t
checkable against the physical universe.</i></span></span></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;">In Fr. Stephen Freeman’s book “Everywhere
Present” he describes how many Christians have come to engage their
Christianity in a context of a two story universe. Things material are down here,
and God, his angels and associated spiritual stuff reside upstairs – and occasionally
the upstairs world will invade down here and cause things like miracles to happen. But
otherwise, the downstairs world is all perfectly explainable by science and
self-existing. Fr. Stephen believes that this context is absolutely foreign to historic
Christianity and he believes it evolved as a product of growing secularism and the
triumph of science as the new magisterium of authority:</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><i>The world may be known
according to the laws of physics, but in the modern understanding, there is
nothing more to be known about the world than what can be known through
physics. There is nothing within, between, or behind the world. There is just
the world. It is this very literal character of the modern world that forces
modern Christians into a two-storey worldview. If there is nothing within,
between, or behind the world, then we must place God and all that we call
“spiritual” somewhere outside the world.</i></span></span></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;">Fr. Stephen is suggesting that the
modern world is basically ascribing to a form of nominalism (he notes that this was
a philosophical belief system which in the Middle Ages was ironically described as “the
modern way.”). In essence, nominalism says that the world is nothing more than what
it is. And I would add: as identified by science. It is nothing more,
there is nothing profound or deep, there is no transcendent meaning which doesn’t
originate from human imagination which of course is not at all real. It may
also be described as “literalism” and one can also see that it played a role in
the Protestant Reformation and certainly in the scholastic approach of western
theology in general which led to absurdly complex explanations of the
sacraments such as the Eucharist. Naturally we had to find complex explanations as to how the bread and wine become Body and Blood while looking like bread and
wine – which according to nominalism should be all that they are! Something
unheard of, nor indeed needed in the East, where it is was perfectly acceptable for
the bread and wine to have “two realities.”(Fr. Stephen quotes St. Irenaios
from <i>Against Heresies</i>). But once we have agreed that the
materialists are right and everything we believe must be subjugated to the
power of the scientific magisterium, we paint ourselves into a difficult corner. No
one should know that better than those who’ve taken the literalism and
nominalism they’ve been indoctrinated with and applied it to the Scriptures. </span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;">Secular materialists LOVE Christians who
adhere to a young earth creationist worldview, because given the presently
existing magisterium of science they are able to “shoot fish in a barrel” as it
were. Also recognizing the authority of science, the young earth creationists
first adopted their point of view (literalism and nominalism) and then
desperately seek to use whatever science and reason they can find to poke holes
in the surety of the materialists “facts.” And yes, oh how the battle rages! It
will rage over the bloodied fields of evolution, historicity of the book of
Genesis, angels sleeping with women and producing a race of giants, dinosaurs
and humans coexisting, great fish swallowing people, whether there is archeological
evidence for the _________(fill in the blank), the reliability of carbon
dating, the big bang theory, what a theory is to begin with and whether
evolution should be called one, mist before the flood and rain afterwards, etc
etc. It’s all very wearisome and both sides bore me. Don’t get me wrong, I’m
not trying to dodge the subject; rather I’m suggesting both sides are wrong if they
are seeking the truth - at least as defined by the traditional Christian perspective -
because they think that “truth” can be described simply by what really and
literally happened as discerned from a proper scientific evaluation of all
available data. </span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><span class="highlight">Christianity does not see truth in
this way, and I believe it’s why our beaten and abused God did not answer
Pilate’s question. For Christianity has unveiled the Old Testament (2 Cor 3), and
it is in Christ that the truth of Old Testament is known. The truth is <b><i>not</i></b></span> that you can count generations backwards and reach an accurate determination
for the age of the earth (what nonsense!), but that Christ Himself is the truth
revealed in, by, and through those generations. But for the Christian
nominalist and literalist, what is most important is that the texts of the Old
Testaments MUST be historically true and the fight rages…and in the process the
truth is sacrificed at least as we Christians have traditionally seen it. Fr.
Stephen writes: </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><i>The meaning of the text has been lost in its
“facticity.” What is important about the text is that it is reliable. Its
meaning has been collapsed by the historical argument and the secular model of
the nature of truth.</i></span></span></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><span class="highlight">When talking to the religious leaders
of His time, our Lord said: “</span><span class="woj">You search the Scriptures,
for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify
of Me.</span><span class="text"><sup> </sup></span><span class="woj">But you
are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.</span>” (John 5:39-40).
In other words, they are profoundly missing the point. Whether every jot and
tittle in the Old Testament is absolutely historically and scientifically true
is beside the point. The point is Christ. These stories testify of Him! </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span><span class="woj" style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;">Fr. Stephen furthers his point by
referencing our Orthodox Iconography. There is a reason I am not terribly fond
of the “western” style of iconography in which the images take on a more photorealistic
appearance and they are arguably a condescension to nominalism and literalism.
For the importance of an icon is not to show how our Lord or a particular saint
might have appeared, but rather to show you truth – which as we’d argue is
different from what a news reporter might report with regards to a person or
event. It is my opinion that the classical Byzantine style does this far
better. Fr. Stephen describes why and then also ties it to Scripture:</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><br />
</span><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><i>The
traditional Byzantine form of iconography makes use of inverse perspective, a
technique that makes the icon “open out” as we look deeper into it, rather than
disappearing at some point of perspective in the background. For the modern
eye, this can make the picture appear flat or somehow disproportionate. It is a
technique developed by highly skilled artists who were no strangers to the
realistic perspective of painting with which we are more familiar. Their
technique was an effort to develop an artistic grammar that would have
expression in line and color and that would speak in the same manner as
Scripture does in word and letter. The resulting iconographic technique gives
insight into the character of icons as well as the character of Scripture. The
Seventh Council was able to declare that “icons do with color what Scripture
does with words” precisely because both speak in an “iconic” manner—or we could
say that icons speak in a “Scriptural manner.” They are revelatory of one
another—however, literalism is descriptive of neither.</i></span></span></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;">Consider the icon of the Crucifixion:
while it contains components of the historical events, it also has numerous
aspects that had you been there personally, you would not have seen or been able to
document with a camera. Again, it is communicating truth, something that is far
bigger than something than can be recorded and put on YouTube. The same is true
for the Icon of the Resurrection which in the Eastern tradition does not show
Christ coming out of the tomb alive, but rather mystically raising up Adam and
Eve from amidst the crashed down gates of Hell – again something a camera
could neither capture nor communicate. </span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: medium;">Ultimately, the irony of Pilate’s
question is that he was staring Truth in His face, and asking: “What is truth?”
For you see there is no assay I can discern that would produce data to answer
the question of whether or not God is in fact “everywhere present and fillest
all things.” Sometimes I’ve heard people who tend to like to mock the
fundamentalist Christian who they think stupidly adheres to his or her ridiculous
beliefs against all common magisterium approved scientific sense, but then offer a modicum of respect to the atheist scientist who equally
adheres to his or her faith because after all, he or she must have utilized some
science to get to that opinion. No they didn’t. They are as arrogant, ignorant and
obnoxious as any bible thumper. I believe that it is a sad reality that more and
more we are affirming the notion that science has no bounds and no frontiers that
it may not colonize. And stranger still, we forget it is a tool and construct of our minds. It
does not create, it does not manifest, it does not amaze us. Yes, it can produce tools to reveal the presence of
magnificent pictures of faraway worlds and astonishingly magnificent molecular structures,
but it brought neither into being. Really, It just takes pictures, which can never fully reveal the truth that causes us to be awestruck. </span></span></span></div>
<i></i>fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-47901660269491723272014-03-07T08:44:00.000-08:002014-03-07T08:57:59.233-08:00Lent is the Red Pill, the escape from the "Matrix of Self"<p><span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Lent is the Red Pill, the escape from the "Matrix of Self"</span></b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For Orthodox Christians, Lent isn't a buffet line of choices where we get to decide what "thing" we will give up. Rather the Lenten Fast is <i>prescribed, </i>and while most modern expressions of Christianity have abandoned or profoundly modified the Fast, in the Orthodox custom it remains in keeping with the oldest traditions. It involves abstaining generally from all meat, dairy products, olive oil, and wine. However the time of Lent isn't JUST about food, it is also focused very intensely on Prayer and Almsgiving. All of which is ultimately intended to get our minds off of ourselves - that may seem simple, but it isn't.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Of course, it is no grand revelation or profound insight to claim that we spend most of our lives wholly focused on ourselves. Most of us all know that we do, but the problem here isn't as straightforward as it may seem. Here is the deeper issue (at least as I see it in my life): we are also wholly blind to ourselves. What we perceive isn't necessarily real at all, instead we have invented a sort of false reality like the Matrix in which we operate and if that weren't bad enough, our culture and society is totally in on the deception. I think we tend to look at the world around us, necessarily (or so it seems) assume that our senses are perceiving what is real, but only <i>after</i> we've run it through the interpretive center of our noggin which is, in my case at least, an untrustworthy and profoundly biased source. So in other words, we as individuals are the sole reference for what is real - is it any wonder we have developed beliefs in such things which are "true <i>for you</i>" and not so for me, along with other relativistic nonsense. But before we absolutists became too cocky, the fact (I think) remains that most of our construed absolutes are equally a part of the Matrix or our collective self-deception and in that context, the relativists are often more right than absolutists would like to admit. Now I say all this as a scientist who by the very nature of my job must believe in absolute truth and our ability to discern it to some degree, and so I should note that the analogy of the Matrix does break down at some point. Clearly everything around us (such as these computers we are using) is real, as is the rest of the world presently surrounding us. However, <i>HOW</i> we perceive and interact with that world is where the "Matrix of Self" obscures things for us. We are in a constant state of collecting data and interpreting it and then deciding how to process and respond to it. That entire mechanism is flawed and for the most part we do not care. On the contrary we reinforce, often quite unintentionally, the many flaws that uphold the Matrix. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A simple illustration of the role that the "Matrix of Self" plays in our lives is to consider death. Consider how we fail to consider it! We avoid it, we shun it, we hide it and we don't like to talk about it. Indeed we often live our lives as if it in fact doesn't even exist! And we in the modern world, even when faced with it, sanitize it, sterilize it and keep it at a distance....desperate to avoid this invasion of reality and return to the great deception of the "Matrix of Self."</span> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Have you ever felt this strange sensation that reality is escaping you - I like to take a cue from the movie and call it a glitch in the Matrix, whereas more likely it is God's Grace peaking in on my little facade. Let me try and explain: For brief moments I think or feel that I can see past myself and can even see myself as I OUGHT to be, but am not. It sometimes feels like those frustrating dreams in which you keep trying to accomplish some task and yet no matter how much progress you think you are making, you suddenly realize that you are making none whatsoever! Or another way I envision it: reality becomes present just to the extent that I can perceive its existence from time to time, but its only for a fleeting second or two before I am yanked back away from it - or more to the point <i>I yank myself away from it.</i> Well then, what do I mean by reality? I guess the best way I might describe it is to suggest that reality is a state of being which exists beyond myself. It transcends me and allows me to see with a degree of what could be called pure objectivity....well...not quite....more specifically and simply: purity, no longer being obscured by the "Matrix of Self." Don't kid yourselves, this is no easy task. One will often hear talk in Orthodox circles (and for certain amongst the writings of the Fathers) about the <i>nous</i> - sometimes described as that part of us which is able to relate to or connect with God. It is a Greek word which is often translated as "mind" or "heart" but not without debate. While I will avoid trying to define it precisely, I will say that I do believe the Beatitude which states "the pure in heart...shall see God." (St. Matthew 5:8) is related to it. And so in that context, one might refer to the nous as being equivalent to a purified heart and the means by which we can find reality.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now, the surest way to send these fleeting moments of reality into oblivion, is to turn on the TV, radio, or internet and simply float away amidst the shallow muck of our collective deception. For it is here where we are most easily able to avoid the most important issue of our lives (the purity of our hearts) and focus on innumerable issues that will not shake us free from the "Matrix of Self". Sadly some of these things might be very good, important, and praiseworthy: maybe it's Facebook posts on some atrocity in the world or some political issue you feel strongly about. In this context, from the comfort of our lounge chairs we can "like" such posts, engage in heated debate about them, and walk away having gained NO greater sense of reality and usually quite the opposite: only the upholding of the facade. The more mundane things are obvious: who won the best actor Oscar and how upset are we that so and so didn't? What did Ellen DeGeneres wear when she opened the ceremony? On and on it goes...step back and read your Facebook feed, or look at the news streams, or consider what you watch on TV: what is the real value of any of this to your REAL life, to the purity of your heart? It seems colossally important to our lives in the "Matrix of Self", but none of it will get us any closer to reality. 99% of what we listen to, read, watch, or do is probably ultimately just distracting us and making us feel comfortable, content, and happy, which ironically might very likely be the key to our ultimate destruction. For some of us, pop culture and those things that are "trending" online (maybe a funny cat video, or "fail" videos, or the latest nearly pornographic music video) are sufficient to keep us trapped in the deception. Consider even further: maybe food is enough to keep us comfortable and this is not just a quantity issue (remember the gentlemen in the movie who longed to go back into the Matrix to escape the pain of reality and as he spoke about why he dreamed outloud of eating a delicious simulated steak), or maybe our hobbies keep us entertained and comfortably numb. Maybe it's video games or movies or _______. What thing in YOUR life do you go to, like a drug, in order to remain comfortable and to avoid confronting the reality of self? What keeps you trapped in the "Matrix of Self?" I have heard that the surest way to see a person grow irritable is to remove from them all electronics and place them in a room utterly free of distractions and simply ask them to sit in silence for 10 minutes. Arguably it would be the longest 10 minutes of most people's lives because the fact is that we YEARN for distraction so as to avoid the reality of self. We are inclined to want to stay in the Matrix of self-deception. And who can argue with the fact that we live in an age that is overflowing with distractions. Every time we see people's faces glued to their phones, do we not consider that they are being distracted from reality? Not just the reality of a spouse or child trying to gain their attention (no less problematic and a serious warning to us), but that deeper reality that we are talking about here!</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now, please, don't think I'm suggesting any of these things that can distract us are inherently bad. Rather I'm suggesting there is a massive influx of things hitting our senses, all of which have the potential to reinforce the "Matrix of Self" - and render us profoundly comfortable...stagnant. As I stop and look at my life, sometimes I feel a profound yearning to break away from all the nonsense that is keeping me imprisoned in my Matrix and I can see all these things keeping me there...conveniently distracted and appealing to all my various passions. I sense for brief moments some invisible barrier that is paper thin and yet no less keeping me imprisoned in the Matrix of Self...I want to take the red pill and break through to other side. Unfortunately, as with much in life, there is no simple pill to take to solve all of our problems.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The process by which we "take the red pill" is three fold in the Orthodox Tradition: purification, illumination, and theosis. This is nothing less than salvation. It is a pathway available to us which would not otherwise be so were it not for the saving work of Christ...but it is just that: a pathway and not a judicial proclamation of innocence despite guilt. It is instead a real and ontological change that must occur. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Lent is, in this way, the red pill. A prescription offered to us by over 2000 years of collective holy wisdom as a tried and true means to help us escape the "Matrix of Self". Alas, it is not as simple as taking a pill and going back to YouTube to watch videos expecting you'll magically be purified and enlightened. No, the Lenten prescription is: fasting (the belly and tongue's yearning for it is the very foundation of our passions), prayer (accomplishes quite the opposite of those things which make us comfortable in the Matrix...and the odds are our local Orthodox Churches provide seemingly unlimited opportunities), and Almsigiving (takes from ourselves and recognizes the other...it tears down the very fabirc of the "Matrix of Self"). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Canon of St. Andrew is typically served during the first week of Lent, and it was the Kontakion in this service which got me thinking about this idea. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><i>My soul, my soul, arise! Why are you sleeping? The end is drawing
near, and you will be confounded. Awake, then, and be watchful, that
Christ our God may spare you, Who is everywhere present and fills all
things.</i></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One of the most overt effects of the "Matrix of Self" is that we completely lose the ability to discern the reality that He is in fact "everywhere present and fills all things." </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Knowing this and sensing this reality is a sure sign that we are tearing through the veil that hinders us.</span></span></p>fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-50264531318356267812014-02-15T06:42:00.001-08:002014-02-15T06:56:07.054-08:00The Liturgy in Africa<b><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span></b><br />
<h2>
<b><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Liturgy in Africa</span></b></h2>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">Last Sunday, I was honored and blessed to serve for the Divine Liturgy with Fr. Stephen at St. George Orthodox Church in Bbira district, Kampala. I had little idea of what to expect in terms of what a Deacon would do because of obvious reasons: the Ugandan expression of the Liturgy as well as the fact that the Ugandan Church derives most of its traditions from Greek practice. The Georges' were kind enough to give me some specific clues as to what to expect, but the little details could not all be communicated. Plus Fr. Stephen does not typically serve with a Deacon. </span><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5j-H2sxDAEZ4vk4DVygjobaFO82DXo5zXdk8UGDUS4VS2OqWNGyMLuqMye0LrKDeVlkmqcJtseBwrzC_0P5Mma899m8952o1aJUcxV-cqnHT574xFCUB-vlWZlCcx34FBBiwwOA/s1600/IMG_3480.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5j-H2sxDAEZ4vk4DVygjobaFO82DXo5zXdk8UGDUS4VS2OqWNGyMLuqMye0LrKDeVlkmqcJtseBwrzC_0P5Mma899m8952o1aJUcxV-cqnHT574xFCUB-vlWZlCcx34FBBiwwOA/s1600/IMG_3480.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Trying to figure out what I was going to do</i></span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">But I found that it flowed quite naturally for the most part. There certainly were differences, for instance they completely skipped the Litany of Fervent Supplication which I had gone out to do, but Fr. Stephen very kindly called me back in to the Sanctuary without much disruption. I suppose that might have confused the choir, but luckily it was being led by Photios who has had extensive theological and muscial training both in America and Greece and therefore likely knew this portion would confuse me. </span><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijgZFpgK81IsYyMJ7Jc0WDbtCxFGPbkXypNMmy8U2-q8p5I5mjgwyDArkKRyuSulqQTpkF3scGeEdzNvrUWnVi3CnczAe_tuh7fji0BQmOa6Lzk7qpbS1RncX-GDEyObVcvRpHHQ/s1600/IMG_3483.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijgZFpgK81IsYyMJ7Jc0WDbtCxFGPbkXypNMmy8U2-q8p5I5mjgwyDArkKRyuSulqQTpkF3scGeEdzNvrUWnVi3CnczAe_tuh7fji0BQmOa6Lzk7qpbS1RncX-GDEyObVcvRpHHQ/s1600/IMG_3483.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">"Commemorating our All Holy Immaculate..."</span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">I found that I was easily able to blend with the choir to the point that I thought it sounded quite nice, and as I really began to "get into" the service, I began to feel comfortable and being able to relax, became aware of God's presence there with us. And as I did, the possibility of making mistakes became less and less important. The thought that I was in Uganda Africa became less of a primary thought, and instead was becoming more aware of the reality that we were participating in the Kingdom. This <i>was indeed </i>the Liturgy I knew and loved, despite all the differences. And the fact that I would offer the litanies in English and some of the responses were in Lugandan made little difference, we were united in our worship. </span><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp07WnEc7bw1SE2pscLiiTBhTo7g7uiTCWcqVr288hF5wFxYjaSS4LrhSSi2M5Jf4XYtI61HeIVnjZ3pnK4WIF4miKPrjHZX4YDAtQM-8YPE3PwQiW-DXAMP3QmvWbCrhJ3rlCHA/s1600/IMG_3484.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp07WnEc7bw1SE2pscLiiTBhTo7g7uiTCWcqVr288hF5wFxYjaSS4LrhSSi2M5Jf4XYtI61HeIVnjZ3pnK4WIF4miKPrjHZX4YDAtQM-8YPE3PwQiW-DXAMP3QmvWbCrhJ3rlCHA/s1600/IMG_3484.JPG" height="478" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Gospel reading, I did the English and Fr. Stephen did the Lugandan. I forgot to ask why he wore blue...given the minimal salary he earns, I am sure he is unable to own anything but what is gifted to him.</span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The reading of the Holy Gospel was much different than I was used to doing, but I simply followed Fr. Stephen's lead. I was handed a copy of the very familiar Orthodox Study Bible from which I read. There is no fancy gold cover for the Altar version Fr. Stephen used - it was clearly a very well used and old book which was completely in Lugandan. It was the Sunday and Publican and the Pharisee. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">When the time came for the Great Entrance, I was a little worried because I had no remembrance from previous attendances of where we were going, let alone what a deacon's role was in their custom. I was fairly sure I was to offer the commemoration of their hierarch, but beyond that very little else</span><span style="font-size: small;"> (<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">e.g. when to begin the proclamation, whether to stop and face the people while saying it etc.). I did go into "auto-pilot" and nearly moved their Metropolitan Jonah to America, but caught myself and corrected: "of all Amer....of all Uganda." I later learned from Peter that he is commemorated as "Archbishop of Kampala, Metropolitan of all Uganda." But, otherwise it all went fairly smoothly none-the-less as we brought our offerings to the Lord's Table. </span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7TBrRivy5O0sbWuZpuAIBV0AOSuQIzUTojJZXdS5YPm9O5C-FtQHf69oV-QxRt80-LXnCipvtfTWPEGYCla-a2F7eH7lYKOwMoqrdR6MQSg_u_K5k3PBFZJmsyVgX98OgXEyUAA/s1600/IMG_3485.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Note the simple candle our very capable young altar server was using</span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Towards the end, Fr. Stephen leaned over to me and asked if I would deliver the homily. I told him I was not prepared to do so, and he then said: "Next week, then?" and I agreed. The homily is offered just after the clergy commune and before the people are offered the Gifts. And while Fr. Stephen was kind enough to give it in English, I had to confess that I struggled to understand all that he said mostly because, as I've often found with Ugandans, he was so soft-spoken and quick that I could not hear him very well. But he did speak very kindly of me, welcoming me to their Parish and committing me to speaking next Sunday by announcing that I would. Hmmm... :)</span><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHIz_pxL8ppSEHI62taoJEHPtlbiOsoDCaX2Jg7T2Nd5_jbxJEc2r0mHx_ThwqwR8EqwmSBxFPpNvRDJ83BjFUh-85_2Ty3htHDO3QGtjQtj9UMEkH8TWelfTYE1GupBAb8wu5ng/s1600/IMG_3488.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHIz_pxL8ppSEHI62taoJEHPtlbiOsoDCaX2Jg7T2Nd5_jbxJEc2r0mHx_ThwqwR8EqwmSBxFPpNvRDJ83BjFUh-85_2Ty3htHDO3QGtjQtj9UMEkH8TWelfTYE1GupBAb8wu5ng/s1600/IMG_3488.JPG" height="640" width="476" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I have no idea if it is common practice for Deacons to commune the faithful, but once he again he asked me to do so. </span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">St. George Parish is a very small community. I would guess we only had perhaps 15-20 people present. I'm told many of the young people who'd normally be there were now at boarding school (a relatively common practice in Uganda). I really do enjoy the music they sing, which as I've described before maintains a distinctly African feel to it, despite being commonly known Greek tones. There was a particularly beautiful song they sang as I was finishing the Gifts and cleaning the Chalice which Photios told me was a psalm and was a piece they had gotten from their cathedral in Namungoona: St. Nicholas. It was lovely and I suspect it was a local original work - though I cannot be sure. Some of the tones are only reminiscent of how I recall them, because of the uniqueness they add to them. I have not the musical skills to discern the exact difference and can only describe it as African harmonies as I only hear that lovely sound in that context. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">It was a rich blessing to be there and I look forward to serving again tomorrow and in the future. Perhaps in time I will be able to memorize the Little Litany in Lugandan, but we shall see. In the end, I was reminded that despite our vast differences in so many ways, we are united via the Divine Liturgy in Christ and in His Kingdom:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><i>We have seen the True Light! We have received the Heavenly Spirit! We
have found the True Faith! Worshiping the Undivided Trinity, Who has
saved us. Amen.</i></span><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVmML19vy11UeSWzSSL-o4mHnUqo4P0_9GinSzLHUvj9llYOlSDpOKDUAyvtdJDTjwjGGc-no48YiPF8sYZaZNvMELma3QXT2rZUgb56uUeLX3j_hm_tcIIC13hhMgkq8KN69ZhA/s1600/IMG_3491.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVmML19vy11UeSWzSSL-o4mHnUqo4P0_9GinSzLHUvj9llYOlSDpOKDUAyvtdJDTjwjGGc-no48YiPF8sYZaZNvMELma3QXT2rZUgb56uUeLX3j_hm_tcIIC13hhMgkq8KN69ZhA/s1600/IMG_3491.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">After Litrugy speaking (or at least trying to - I don't think she speaks much English) to the Priest's mother who is the matriarch of the Parish.</span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Many thanks to Peter and Sharon Georges for the pictures of my first time serving the Divine Liturgy in Uganda. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i> </i> </span>fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-44480853001088913772014-02-09T10:50:00.003-08:002014-09-29T10:17:06.941-07:00"Am I my brother's keeper?"<h2>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><b>"Am I my brother's keeper?"</b></span></span></h2>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><b> </b> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">This is, of course, the answer Cain offers to God when he is asked: "Where is your brother Abel?" It came to mind after I was blessed to be able to spend some time on Saturday at the offices of <a href="http://ugandachildrensfund.org/" target="_blank">St. Nicholas Uganda Children's Fund</a> in Kampala Uganda. Cain's answering in the form of a rhetorical question which we can assume he thought should be answered with an obvious "No" is ominous because not only had he just killed his brother, but the REAL answer to the question is of course a resounding: <b>"YES!"</b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I only spent a few hours with Peter and Sharon Georges at their offices, but in that time I saw a constant flow of people coming into and out of their facility with a variety of issues, problems, or concerns. It very quickly became apparent to me that their ministry is <i>FAR</i> more than simply handing over cash in order to pay for the education of children. No, Peter and Sharon are mentoring, challenging, encouraging, and advocating for these kids, providing food and services of all kinds to their families, and also holding them accountable. At least two conversations I overheard involved them talking to parents or guardians of students </span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">who had truancy issues of one sort or another from school, others involved medical needs for a young girl who was running into road blocks from the convoluted system in Uganda. I can only imagine the long, long list of needs that Peter and Sharon address over the course of any given year. Put quite simply, <i>they are being their brothers' and sisters' keepers</i>. I did not realize how much of themselves they pour into this work and I could not be more honored to be playing a very small part in supporting their efforts. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />They have somewhere between 260-280 children in their program (I can't recall the exact number) and this coming week they will be hiring buses to take 82 of them up to the Orthodox Boarding School in Monde. It must be a monumental effort, which they undertake with joy. If you spend some time on their website and follow the links, particularly in the <a href="http://ugandachildrensfund.org/ministries.html" target="_blank">"What we do"</a> section, you will see some of the evidence of the work they undertake, but I'm quite certain it cannot fully bring across to readers in the States the full scope of the GOOD they are doing here. I was somewhat sad to learn that only a small proportion of their kids are sponsored, luckily they have generous donors who give significantly without connecting through their sponsorship program and this, combined with a few grants from some charitable foundations, allows them to care for so many. But it gave me pause to think of how many people there are out there who cannot offer large lumps of cash but could perhaps commit to $20 or $50 (or more) a month - it would make a tremendous difference. I really encourage anyone who has a desire to see their money used in an incredibly responsible and effectively beneficial way for the helping of the desperately poor: seriously consider them. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In addition to getting to witness first hand the work they do, they had arranged for me to be able to meet the young man that we sponsor and to share some gifts of clothing we brought for his family. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAGCF86tN87RqTr3YsJW_Nvq04Et9guSBu61e_EDDxxuy5v6LL6CEyLFsTBJjouLvu6hm7ccG6UGBkmUnHiHP5L4i_sCh_j5GA9QEun_NTtutHyr7Tp0ecmSxI50-J-ZMVoztWpQ/s1600/IMG_3471.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAGCF86tN87RqTr3YsJW_Nvq04Et9guSBu61e_EDDxxuy5v6LL6CEyLFsTBJjouLvu6hm7ccG6UGBkmUnHiHP5L4i_sCh_j5GA9QEun_NTtutHyr7Tp0ecmSxI50-J-ZMVoztWpQ/s1600/IMG_3471.JPG" height="300" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Henry, his sister Sharon, and I chatting</span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQxXETTG08zCmk1IO9_HiD0cufRZH5vttXktdRtQWpA5jftPiL3wEAEKY5075HjC5EE6MW9JKC0MA4k3w-uLKqCrN1OANSxi9-uL5JRQWLqP70sTmvOYFxJKH68fQDygrgGJkVAw/s1600/IMG_3475.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQxXETTG08zCmk1IO9_HiD0cufRZH5vttXktdRtQWpA5jftPiL3wEAEKY5075HjC5EE6MW9JKC0MA4k3w-uLKqCrN1OANSxi9-uL5JRQWLqP70sTmvOYFxJKH68fQDygrgGJkVAw/s1600/IMG_3475.JPG" height="400" width="300" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Henry's got a couple of inches on me. He's 18, but missed several years of school and is now one of the highest achieving students in the program.</span></span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">And then, I was able to meet a couple of gentlemen from the program who had just begun studying at Makerere University and are study Biomedical Laboratory Technology. They were clearly eager to talk and I invited them to come to our facilities to see the work that we do at the Hutchinson Centre Research Institute - Uganda. We also agreed to stay in touch and I offered to help them and offer advice anytime they might need it. These young men are living lives they could not have dreamed possible until the St. Nicholas Uganda Children's Fund stepped into their lives. </span></span><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3Wx2lTJ6wOuu3viu4aomyiHU53jGXIA2MPa27CcUBdt25mZnwb99tLkxaqEmHEwuN9YRCjBU6jK5w6d60kzzi22O78M3ki1YDghyEaA4_YjKu-7xHtLztMncN4d7oxpT1RyQqQQ/s1600/IMG_3478.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3Wx2lTJ6wOuu3viu4aomyiHU53jGXIA2MPa27CcUBdt25mZnwb99tLkxaqEmHEwuN9YRCjBU6jK5w6d60kzzi22O78M3ki1YDghyEaA4_YjKu-7xHtLztMncN4d7oxpT1RyQqQQ/s1600/IMG_3478.JPG" height="300" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I guess I get somewhat animated and excited talking about Real-Time Quantitative PCR</span></span></i>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Finally, seeing all these people coming in and out of the offices there also made me think of something that I know will embarrass the Georges, but I'm going to say it anyway: I have no doubt that when the end of the ages comes, they will be standing on the right and will hear our Lord say: "Come you, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me."</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-73327955833450604412013-11-21T10:16:00.005-08:002013-11-21T10:23:07.609-08:00<b><p>Theology - the inner, silent faith of the Church</b>
<br /><p>
<i>"The Gospel is not about Mary. But, Mary is definitely about the Gospel."</i> - Fr. Thomas Hopko<br />
<br /><p>
Today is the feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple. But really, it isn't something the Church would have normally made any sort of big public deal about - particularly in the age when or place where Christianity was decidedly a minority faith. And the reason being is that Mary (and indeed the rest of the Saints) really are not part of the public message of the Gospel. I was reminded of this as I listened to <a href="http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/the_entrance_of_the_theotokos_into_the_temple">Fr. Thomas Hopko's podcast about this feast.</a> Instead, the Theotokos is part of the inner Tradition of the Church.<br />
<br /><p>
Fr. Thomas notes that Vladimir Lossky, following St. Basil the Great and St. Ignatios of Antioch wrote that the Theotokos is not part of the Kerygma (public preaching) of the Church; she is not part of the Public Preaching of the Gospel which is Christ, Him crucified, and Risen. The Theotokos, among other teachings and traditions, belong to the inner mystery - the "silence of faith" and it is here where our understanding of the Theotokos is to be nurtured and properly understod. Only those who are part of the inner life of the Church can really understand her role and importance.
<br />
<br /><p>
Now, if you are like me, your mind will wander immediately to gnosticism and the secret wisdom which they deemed necessary for salvation. And therein lies the difference. Understanding of these inner mysteries of the Church is not necessary for salvation, they are not in and of themselves the Truth. Truth is a person, and that is Christ - you must know <i>Him</i>. Far more than an intellectual asset, knowing Him and living the inner life of the Church becomes the foundation upon which the inner mysteries can be built. St. Paul hints to this idea when writing to the Church in Corinth noting the difference between milk and meat (1 Cor. 3:2)
<br />
<br /><p>
None of this should surprise anyone. Consider that Catechumens were not allowed to be present for the latter half of the Divine Liturgy and were dismissed - and as many of you know this remnant of the service remains, though we do not shuffle anyone out anymore. Additionally Catechumen's would only hear the Gospel of John for the first time at the Paschal Liturgy as it was deemed to not be the Kerygma, but the Theology of the Church. One could say: it is meat.
<br />
<br /><p>
It's not about keeping secrets like the Mason's (God forbid), it's really about common sense. You don't take Caluculus until you have taken Pre-Algebra, otherwise you'd think Calculus to be the work of a mad man. (maybe it is!) Last night at Great Vespers we read three Old Testament Readings which spoke of The Tabernacle, the Temple, the Ark of the Covenant, and the Closed Gate of the Sanctuary. All of them prophesying and referring to Mary who in turn, as ever, points to Christ. But comprehending that and not seeing it as absurdity cannot come easily without some grounding in Truth first.
<br />
<br /><p>
Listen to Fr. Thomas' podcast - it is worth your time. A blessed feast everyone!<br />
<br />
<br />fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-40674601918194872662013-11-14T10:29:00.003-08:002013-11-14T10:34:06.013-08:00Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe<p><b>Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe</b><br />
<br />
I recently saw a CS Lewis quote with regard to human sexuality that had me digging out his book "Mere Christianity" to try and find the exact passage. While doing so, I fell upon reading it from the beginning which I've not done in probably over a decade or more. Lewis divides his relatively small work into "books" and the first one shares the title I've given to this post. I've made it no secret that a huge portion of my conversion to Theism arose from an internal conflict with the issue of "right and wrong" and this entire section in the book demonstrates that Lewis clearly sees the issue as paramount as well. I'd like to elaborate later (perhaps in a different post) the details of this "internal conflict", for while it certainly was in part a conflict of logic and reason, it was far more a conflict involving something deeper that is not easily explained in such terms. But, first, back to Lewis.<br />
<br />
He begins by referring to an imaginary argument between two people in which they both clearly agree upon and accept a certain set of external premises about right and wrong and it is really only this mutual assent to some "standard of behavior" that allows them to argue (intellectually) at all. That failing, or one party rejecting the "standard of behavior" (usually rarely done - depending on the issue), then the argument becomes either an exercise in absurdity or an issue of physical domination. In Lewis' example two men are arguing over a seat and who gets to sit in it, which every child knows mysteriously hinges on the notion of whip was sitting there first, but if the intellect fails to resolve the issue then brute force will decide who gets the chair...or the food...or the sex - a highly Darwinian solution that certainly does happen, though we like it little.<br />
<br />
But the main issue is with regards to the "standards of behavior" and where it originates. No one can possibly deny that morals, values, and ethics exist, but what is less considered by most people is whether these "standards of behavior" have a subjective or objective reality. We <i>live</i> our lives with a sort of default belief that they are in fact objective: e.g. killing someone is wrong PERIOD...no need to explain why...and any person or society that says otherwise is WRONG. And though we largely live this way (it's what allows us to feel good about ideas of justice or more importantly argue on the internet), we rarely stop to think about the reality of these values. Do they have an ontological existence in and of themselves or are they solely a social or personal construct? There are huge implications to our answer here.<br />
<br />
Most secularists would argue for a subjective origin of morality and that it is actually a sort of
genetic deception played upon us, that allows us to debate moral issues as if they actually had an objective existence in and of themselves. In fact, they would say, by way of a million years or more of natural selection people who shared certain moral inclinations were favored such that
in some way it allowed for their genes to be propagated at the expense of others. In other
words, we the inheritors of this evolutionarily successful genetic line are molecularly programmed to "feel" that murder is wrong -
at least most of us. Let me offer a few thoughts (and Lewis' as well) to this idea.<br />
<br />
First, the belief that this "scientifically" explains the origin of morality is simply wrong. I do not mean to imply that it is necessarily untrue, however. What I am suggesting here is that there is hardly a shred of hard data to suggest we know that morality is genetically hard-wired in us. Rather we assume it because we have no other means of understanding it as secularists. We cannot begin to offer up a molecular level theory to explain why we largely tend to think - on a very deep level - murder is wrong. No gene to point to, no protein to act on our neurological cell receptors. This explanation is really only an idea solely based on two massive assumptions about the universe: 1) That it is wholly material and thus only material explanations as discerned by human senses can account for everything that exists and 2) Evolution and genetics can explain every aspect of our being. These two assumptions made (quite incorrectly by the way), then one MUST find a rational argument to explain why we feel the way we do about morality. And they have done so - in both a logical and reasonable way. However, there is no hard science to be found in this argument (by which I mean that no means of properly executing the scientific method to verify a hypothesis can be conducted here). I think that point is critical because too often this particular explanation for the origin of morality is billed as being the rational and intelligent man's explanation as opposed to the superstitious nonsense of the religious man. So, my point is simply that one must exercise no small degree of <i>FAITH</i> to affirm this explanation, and like my own faith, it is not made blindly.<br />
<br />
A second point with regards to this explanation for the origin of morality: it opens up some very uncomfortable cans of worms. Lewis explains when referring to the world's recent (to him at the time of writing) experience with World War II:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<p>What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at the bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practiced? If they had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed for that then for the colour of their hair.</blockquote>
</blockquote><p>
<p>I think it very interesting that Lewis references hair color, because in this time we really had no notion at all that a theory espousing a genetic origin for morality would come into being - at least not to the extent that it has today, and yet he rather addresses it here, albeit somewhat accidentally. What could we say were we to find a racial group who have a less well developed or perhaps even have lost the "thou shall not murder" genetic inclination? As a side, no such race has been found that I know of and to suggest any racial group which might have a slightly different genetic lineage might be more violent than others because of their genetics could get one charged with hate speech crimes! And yet, does not a genetic understanding for the origin of morality lead us precisely to this point of...well...I would say intellectual/moral distress for most of us who are horrified by ideas of eugenics or genetic superiority?<br />
<br />
But for the sake of argument, lets us assume that the "thou shall not murder" genetic inclination is universal, but that it perhaps ebbs and flows based upon many complex factors we find in our biological makeup. I think this is an exceptionally reasonable explanation and is certainly utilized by proponents of the theory. Thus, these other factors (none of which - even though unnamed - are any less "scientific"...or so we are told) would allow a person to temporarily ignore the moral genetic inclinations in order to commit atrocities. And yet, Lewis' point stands: how can we call the act of Nazis murdering Jews wrong, if their genetic ebb and flow simply allowed them to do it...surely we cannot say they acted against their own genetic moral code and therefore are WRONG, can we? Indeed not reasonably, for how could one act against their own biological determinism? Where on earth could such a thing originate? It almost sounds like one may next appeal to a "soul", this is of course nonsense, but to call the Nazis "wrong" we must show that somehow they have acted out of alignment with humanity's genetic moral code - an impossibility for the materialist to do. We are forced to limit our argument to: "You did what your genetic make up allowed you to do and I just don't like what you did because mine forbids it." There is no weight to be wielded to notions of right and wrong when we are all biological machines. <br />
<p><br />
But hair color still is not the closest that Lewis gets to addressing a genetic notion, for further on he comments at length in regards to what a questioner asks of him about "herd instinct" (which we would of course now understand 60 years later as an evolutionary genetic development). And so Lewis goes in depth to show the difference between herd instinct and what he calls "Moral Law" and he principally does so by examining our own curious internal debate over strangely contradictory instincts:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<p>If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably WANT to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same. And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is? I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so as if to get up enough steam for doing the right thing. But clearly we are not acting from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it is. The thing that says to you "your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up," cannot itself BE the herd instinct. The thing which tells you which note on the piano needs playing louder cannot itself be that note.</blockquote>
</blockquote><p>
<br />
In a sense, he is effectively arguing against what I have termed biological determinism. He is suggesting that we, as humans - perhaps unique in a universe of matter that has very VERY strangely becoming self-aware (please consider this for some length of time) - are not slaves to our instincts (or at least we'd like to think we are not) and then questions how this could be possible (if it is possible). One could argue that the immense complexity of the human genome might possibly have evolved to the point of giving us a wide range of moral choices, but it still leaves the question unanswered as to how exactly a DECISION is ultimately arrived at. If we have some number of moral freedom genes and additionally something or some process that chooses between which genetic inclination, then we must also assume that that "choosing mechanism" has a genetic origin. And then we are back to biological determinism and left reeling because of our desire to blame and hold accountable as IF people have a real choice as opposed to simply following genetic "herd instinct."<br />
<br />
The very essence of the idea of morality hinges upon an absolute affirmation of human freedom. Biological determinism demolishes this notion and changes what is right and what is wrong into the moral void of simply what is and what isn't. Biological morality or Darwinistic Evolutionary morality really can only say this: the strong survive and thrive; the weak either die or serve the former. THIS is the process by which a herd is strengthened, survives, and evolves to loftier manifestations. If evolution were to select for a gene that somehow convinces the strong to serve the weak, then the whole system is ruined and the evolutionary viability of the heard is undone and thus it cannot be so that such a gene would ever be "selected." And yet, I know of no human who fails to see beauty in the idea of the strong protecting the weak, though it makes no evolutionary sense, if the secularist is right we should see it as nothing less than evolutionary stupidity.<br />
<br />
Lewis points to ideas of right and wrong as signposts within us that direct us to a deeper meaning for which science can offer no justification and no reasoning - not at least any that will not themselves render what we FEEL as being ultimately illusion because what we feel, what we believe, how we behave and how we expect others to behave assumes we are freely acting agents and NOT biological agents acting upon genetic programming.Our understanding of right and wrong is dependent on some degree of belief in our autonomy. However, the idea of morality existing as a set of external rules that through our autonomy we need to chose to follow is something not largely affirmed in the Eastern Christian tradition. In Eastern Christian thought, morality (like salvation itself) is hinged ontologically to personhood and the fact that we do not simply struggle to eventually have the ability to follow rules, but rather we are transformed in our personhood into a state of being that is united with Christ. We become who and what we are supposed to be. It's not about the law, it's about ACTUAL change and transformation of our personhood. It's about personhood fulfilled. This begs more explanation later, but draws a critical difference between eastern and western understanding of sin and soteriology. But, whether one adheres to an Eastern or Western Christian understanding of morality, they both stand in stark contrast to what the secularist understanding of reality offers in terms of rationalizing why we tend to think there is a right and a wrong and I would suggest our affinity...or our yearning for morality's absolute existence is a sign that Carl Sagan was wrong: we are made up of FAR more than "star-stuff." </p>fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-90516714212685792612013-07-24T11:37:00.001-07:002013-07-24T11:39:16.405-07:00Healthcare in Uganda<p><b>Healthcare</b>
<br />
<br />
The mere mention of the word tends to raise the political hackles and typically would begin a debate between those fear-mongering about an Armageddon of socialism ripping away personal choice and quality and those believing that an impossible utopia of high quality healthcare can and should be freely available to all. I've no desire to enter that debate because like all political debates they are so rarely fruitful or uplifting. Rather, as I am leaving Uganda, I am reflecting upon my experience of having seen healthcare here, and it brings me home not armed for debate, but armed (or disarmed) with two things: gratefulness and shame. I don't really have much commentary about what I have seen at least with regards to any notion of solutions or of what SHOULD happen to fix things. The ONLY thing that I can piece together in my head at the moment is that I ( not “rich” people, not people with more time on their hands, and certainly NOT the US government – I cannot vote my way into fulfilling the command to “love my neighbor”)...I need to change and I need to do something – the theme that keeps playing in my head. I suspect it might be the Holy Spirit.
<br />
<br />
There is a time and a need to look for solutions to both our own healthcare issues and the rest of the world’s healthcare issues – which I can assure you, the majority of which are FAR worse than our own. So much so, that at this moment I feel ashamed to think about what we take to be our healthcare problems. This is a gut-level reaction, because like many things in Uganda, seeing the quality and availability of healthcare here will hit you HARD in the gut. I don't think I can write or show pictures well enough or extensively enough to make my point - though I will try. One MUST experience it for it to have its full effect. As anyone will tell you who has been to a missions trip or something akin to it in a third world country, you can coach, train, and educate all you like beforehand, but once the boots are on the ground then all bets are off. Now you see, feel, smell, and taste...imagination is no longer required and some will find it unbearable - especially so when you see what is to be seen in healthcare. <br />
<br />
Even the poorest of US health clinics or hospitals cannot come anywhere near comparing to what I have seen. If they did, they would be shut down immediately. I kept thinking about times in the US when I have heard patients requesting private hospital rooms as I see the crowded wards around here – patients often on floors for lack of beds (beds were mostly ancient, by the way and I saw more than one patient without a mattress of any kind. More to the point, while I observed some surgeries and wandered about the various wards of Mulago Hospital and the UCI, I kept asking myself to imagine what I would feel if one of my kids were a patient here. It is VERY hard to fathom being able to bear it...I'm ashamed to admit. Because, how can I call these people my friends (which I do) and yet say to myself: “Goodness, I’d NEVER allow my child to be treated here, it’s deplorable. Sub-par. Dirty. Old equipment. Gross. Unsafe. Cracked and dirty walls. Broken windows. Lights not working. Exposed wiring. Is that mold? Bugs. Shabby construction. Over-crowded. Loud. Screaming children with impossibly large tumors deforming their faces. Repairs done with cardboard and duct tape, Nurse to patient ratios: God only knows.” And yet, I’d know, for my Ugandan friends their children have no other options. And really, for many of them such an experience isn't MUCH different than their daily lives at home, which for a family my size might well be a single room shanty with nothing but mats on the floor for beds. It’s the sort of stuff that one can imagine Sally Struthers wandering through making appeals on behalf of the people around her...amidst the mire of poverty.
<br />
<br />
Many of us know the happiness of coming home to comfort after being out camping for a while...for most Ugandans, there is no “going home” because they are “roughing it” everyday at home. I suppose this is why they really don't recoil at the sight of things in the hospital like I do. Some areas of the hospital look more like scenes from a zombie apocalypse movie rather than a functioning hospital. And I must say I was a little taken aback by the quality of sterility that was being maintained which was wholly behavioral and had nothing whatsoever to do with lack of money. I'm still processing that little concern – is it ignorance (I don't think so), is it apathy (perhaps), or is it a generally lower level of expectations? Whatever the reasons, it certainly added to what would be my apprehension of having my kids be treated here – probably a much bigger concern than the general discomfort a rich man (like me) experiences when being amidst a profoundly resource poor environment and not having an immediate escape route.
<br />
<br />
The Project House is always our escape. It is a akin to the sort of place the superwealthy of Uganda live, and there we can kick off our shoes, sit on the veranda in comfort and ease and marvel at all we've seen and witnessed. One colleague who was in a different surgical theatre than I, told me as we reflected on the day's experiences, that she had to leave the place because the whole wing reeked of feces, urine, and blood. It was overwhelming she said.<br />
<br />
<br />
<p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1QyrrbJe4Nc__CJ76GdtoVL9TvAS2QAqfifbz-FTjgiefEGkpKmvyuAJ-nY0jbdMNxa7Ysw429yxrSVCVwSQ1_1FB_3CyaHgv2CGJ8pQ7jkuKjedmYWdCx5mOkXSeHP18V5fFOA/s1600/20130717_094213.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1QyrrbJe4Nc__CJ76GdtoVL9TvAS2QAqfifbz-FTjgiefEGkpKmvyuAJ-nY0jbdMNxa7Ysw429yxrSVCVwSQ1_1FB_3CyaHgv2CGJ8pQ7jkuKjedmYWdCx5mOkXSeHP18V5fFOA/s400/20130717_094213.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This is the main entrance to the surgical theaters where staff obtain
their scrubs, change and then enter the doorway in the picture to go to
the room where the patient will be arriving shortly. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhL3cB7BpP-fIIcld2qy-SylQD7aBUWzQvfhEAlZdR3Kmbu94CVAwAl4mhk1Jp27aUEsqDY8F7_39shQxJqmHIDDEKDC6SWvrH30I7kb_rH_7gBjB2WwHZGX2ARcl_GyBHqnrsMHw/s1600/20130717_100541.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhL3cB7BpP-fIIcld2qy-SylQD7aBUWzQvfhEAlZdR3Kmbu94CVAwAl4mhk1Jp27aUEsqDY8F7_39shQxJqmHIDDEKDC6SWvrH30I7kb_rH_7gBjB2WwHZGX2ARcl_GyBHqnrsMHw/s400/20130717_100541.jpg" width="300" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">One of the many transport beds for patients. I've seen them look worse than this by far.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZ0n8_G8CgUgIc9Y76-ckAIAKev-z2ag_xiOmPqyMceJrj2RJVlaudGlycelPAfUfuLnN6nmIGLft1AlQGVg6wkfl8h0s_bx4z4LBNEfXwtjM_CPNjfJXoZzC8K9JJG1iD-EuqUQ/s1600/exam+room+3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZ0n8_G8CgUgIc9Y76-ckAIAKev-z2ag_xiOmPqyMceJrj2RJVlaudGlycelPAfUfuLnN6nmIGLft1AlQGVg6wkfl8h0s_bx4z4LBNEfXwtjM_CPNjfJXoZzC8K9JJG1iD-EuqUQ/s400/exam+room+3.jpg" width="300" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">An examine Room</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMyofAEmCdfCaTzQCjQTxdI9XYg7btdwmSRR_CxYgIx2KpsRROQ0I3LBYb10OqftARdeVa24EthyFyMwtsIPPBEGR-_VlOR9JwS5_YdrgdzoPmrZIFycC7Al6C9DlKd3X-YZIYNA/s1600/exam+room+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMyofAEmCdfCaTzQCjQTxdI9XYg7btdwmSRR_CxYgIx2KpsRROQ0I3LBYb10OqftARdeVa24EthyFyMwtsIPPBEGR-_VlOR9JwS5_YdrgdzoPmrZIFycC7Al6C9DlKd3X-YZIYNA/s400/exam+room+2.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A ward at the cancer institute - soon to be in use.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxd-eMYAd_sXgBL523zSiMMv7BlCd83No2h_97nsvch_poFTITxkT-HVCqtnrILo6hSRazEmHJxgoyOTIuPLCZFM74NcSvybOmpFA6pBsWZxaYRXUEI5dAqrk5xIjFQB_J50n0Ag/s1600/20130717_100541.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div><p>
The last two pictures were from my first series of trips - the crowds were too much to take more pictures at Mulago. As I've said before, I do not like to photograph people without permission and so avoided doing so - not to mention how bad would I look snapping pictures in a place full of sick people....REALLY sick people.<br />
<br />
Near the last day of my most recent trip, I noticed an elderly man who was obviously in very bad shape, propped up against a younger man who I took to be his son. They were sitting in the dirt out in front of our main clinic offices, as do many people - although some are lucky enough to have a mat, a blanket or some cardboard. The younger man was embracing his elder and was allowing him to lean fully against him...almost as if in his lap. He spoke to him in Lugandan, but the man did not respond - he was not doing well. As he shifted some, the younger man gingerly covered the older man with a blanket so as to give him some privacy because he had a urinary catheter in place and his pants were unbuttoned. As with many other patients who could be seen lying about, he also had an IV line setup, but was receiving no drugs at the moment...no pain killers...no fluids. And they sat on the ground in the hot sun amidst the dirt.<br />
<br />
I was told the old man was terminal and nothing could be done for him. There were no beds available for him in which to die with some relative comfort as many of us would expect to see when such a scene is enacted in America. No, he died on the red Ugandan dirt, held up and embraced in his son's arms. Not a few times are the roles reversed and parents hold their children as they die here...of what in America would have been a largely curable cancer. This hard fact gut punches you: your child is far more likely to die here than the same child were he or she born in America. More parents weep here than at home. <br />
<br />
Now, what have I got to complain about today....hmmm...<br />
<br /></p>fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-41420053036325606512013-07-10T07:58:00.001-07:002013-07-10T08:07:42.246-07:00What to do with what I'm seeing<b>What to do with what I'm seeing</b>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOqGdz0obMy7E8fIHpydLx7ga5-fqafXEv6mf9hyphenhyphenR_YLtNSxXt23X1v93629H314amMFg-7IADKOHKwj-K2HPUl44V6U6OeFkoKXrpiyWT8kcFtyEtixi_3JPz4TqjZgJ5cXUWDQ/s1600/camping+families.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOqGdz0obMy7E8fIHpydLx7ga5-fqafXEv6mf9hyphenhyphenR_YLtNSxXt23X1v93629H314amMFg-7IADKOHKwj-K2HPUl44V6U6OeFkoKXrpiyWT8kcFtyEtixi_3JPz4TqjZgJ5cXUWDQ/s1600/camping+families.jpg" /></a></div>
<br><br>
<p>As many of you know, I am back in Uganda again - quite unexpectedly up until a couple of months ago. I'm now working with the Uganda Program Full-time and I could not be happier about it. However, today was an emotionally difficult day. I've talked and blogged many times about how hard it can be to see so many people suffering the effects of their cancer (and treatment) in conditions most Americans would find deplorable. I've talked about how the patients and families often just camp around the facility grounds because it is really their only option. You can meander the campus and see people with IV's for their chemo lying on the ground in obvious and profound discomfort. No fancy beds, no attending nurses...sometimes there is family to help. Conditions have improved since our program started working with the Uganda Cancer Institute, but it is still painful to see how much further we have to go. <a href="http://hutchinsoncenter.smugmug.com/Global-Health/Uganda-Cancer-Institute/10064803_JD79SV/690241858_CBPbmqh#!i=690241718&k=mmFmLRK">HERE</a> are a few pics that will give some perspective.
<br><br>
There are a thousand scenarios here everyday that could readily lead one to just break down into tears. For me today it was young boy laying on the sidewalk - about my eldest son's age. He had had his right leg amputated at the knee and was here for chemo. I saw him and his mother walking to their appointment earlier in the day with the boy on handmade tree-branch crutches. But now, I found him lying on the sidewalk atop a small mat, vomiting into a bucket and crying. His mother was holding him and trying to comfort him. What can one do? Perhaps foolishly I paused and asked if I could do anything to help. I felt awful. I still feel awful. Receiving assurance from the mother that her boy would be okay, I slipped quickly away because I was losing my composure.
<br><br>
It is so easy for me to get wrapped up in the "awfulness" of my "trials" and my "suffering." But, OBVIOUSLY, I am utterly unfamiliar with suffering. I have NO right to complain. I have NO right to be depressed. Suffering is a NATURAL part of life for so many other people in the world, and for some ridiculous reason I feel the need to express my complaints in terms of "rights." As I type little children are dying of curable cancers in their mothers' and fathers' arms just up the road from here. I have seen them first-hand and I am wholly undone. I repent. I repent. I repent. God forgive me for the blind and stupid magnitude I ascribe to my "suffering" in the first world.
<br><br>
This job may just save my soul.
<p/>
fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-61129044589093149232013-04-13T12:35:00.001-07:002013-04-13T12:37:01.558-07:00Bible based defense of Abortion?<p><b>Bible based defense of Abortion?</b><br />
<br />
Yes, I know it seems a little absurd, but <a href="http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/1/post/2012/10/the-bible-tells-us-when-a-fetus-becomes-a-living-being.html">someone has made a go of it.</a><br />
<br />
Now before I get into this, I want to be sure I restate my own distaste for the great American "culture war" of which I am a conscientious objector. As I've said many times before, I believe the whole affair stems from <i>BOTH</i> sides putting <i>FAR</i> too much faith and hope in the "princes and sons of men." However, I affirm very strongly the notion that human life is sacred and deserves protection from the moment of conception and having been directed to the aforementioned article and asked to offer a few thoughts, I'll happily do so...from an <i>ORTHODOX</i> Christian perspective.
<br />
<br />
I emphasize that this will be an Orthodox Christian perspective because it is quite clear that both the article and the website in general is intended to engage and argue with right-leaning evangelical Christians. Clearly, the article is principally armed for battle in a "proof-text" war. And while I have no doubt that an evangelical could engage this particular battle (and probably win - at least to the degree that any "proof-text" battle can be won), the Orthodox Church doesn't fight such battles because the overall field or context makes no sense to us, for it is situated and completely dependent upon a foundation that we don't affirm to begin with: Sola Scriptura. In fact, the existence of the article itself speaks to the basic problem of Sola Scriptura. But, That's another topic.<br />
<br />
It has always been my impression that self-proclaimed Christian Liberals are usually NOT fans of literalist interpretations of the Bible, and yet this author is determined to prove (right off the bat) that the Scripture's various renderings of man taking in breath demonstrates that we do not "receive" a soul until our lungs are flooded with a gas, composed of 78% Nitrogen and 21% Oxygen (plus a number of other less fun and exciting gasses), called air. And, we are lead to believe that this is what is intended when, for example, God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" and made Adam a living being with a soul. The author overtly states that this act of God is exactly synonymous with Adam taking his first literal breath and thus the same for all of Adam's progeny. Of course, this is not at all what the text is intended to convey and the author carries the mistake even furthering completely forgetting that the word for breath and Spirit is the same in Hebrew. God does not need an infant to receive a bit of Nitrogen and Oxygen into his or her lungs in order for His Spirit to breath Life into them and create in them a soul. And even if He did, we should not have to remind anyone that an unborn child is flooded with these gasses via their mother who is regularly respiring the gasses on their child's behalf. If a baby's soul is somehow carried to them through the aforementioned gasses, then surely God could deliver it through his or hers mothers lungs, no? And if those calling themselves "the Christian left" wish to be literalists then we should note uniqueness of Adam in that he had
no means of receiving breath from the womb of an already living mother
and thus the analogy is rather lacking, isn't it? Additionally, if we <i>MUST</i> be literalists, there is no mention of God needing to pump air into Adam's rib to make Eve a living being! Are we seriously going to argue that God's Spirit of Life requires that the biological function of gas exchange in a baby's lungs must take place before a child can be considered to have a soul? Really? <br />
<br />
The author goes on further to put forth other verses in which "breath" is required for "life." And again I would suggest we are talking about more than simple biological respiration and that God is not limited to this biological function in order to somehow create a soul in a human being. I'd suggest that this act of creation is a profound mystery that we know little about and likely we should take great caution when approaching God's mysteries. Hopefully, this only amuses the bodiless hosts immensely by our speculating and suggesting this mystery only happens when we engage in respiration. So, really, the whole point of the article ("When a fetus becomes a living being") seems an exercise in futility when taken to its logical conclusion.<br />
<br />
The article then dabbles in Old Testament Laws a bit, but I'd advise ALL Christians and especially liberal ones to tread carefully when trying to build a case on the authority of Old Testament Law and certainly when trying to prove on ontological reality based on extrapolating the meaning or purpose of said laws. I'd suggest we end up painting ourselves into a very uncomfortable corner.<br />
<br />
The author ends by simply saying that Jesus never specifically mentioned abortion and therefore, the author concludes that it must not have been considered a sin. Saying that if abortion were such a terrible sin, then surely Jesus would have said <i>something</i>, instead: "He [Jesus] said nothing." Wow, that's a huge leap of faith, isn't it? Are we sure of this inclusion that apparant silence in Gospel records implies absolute consent? Let's quote St. John from his Gospel: "<span class="text John-21-25" id="en-NKJV-26924">And there are also many
other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I
suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that
would be written. Amen."</span><span class="text John-21-25" id="en-NKJV-26924"> Again, Sola Scriptura is befuddling us here. </span><span class="text John-21-25" id="en-NKJV-26924"> </span> <br />
<br />
For the most part, as I said before, the author is seeking to argue with evangelicals. For the Orthodox Church, the stance against abortion is not derived from proof-texts, but rather from a much broader and all encompassing understanding of the Christian Faith. Beginning first with Holy Tradition and then extending into the inner depths of our understanding of God's nature, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Life of the Holy Spirit in us, and all aspects of what it means to live a life in dedication to God. We rely not on an individual interpretation of Holy Scripture, but rather on the whole body of Holy Tradition - a living and breathing Tradition handed down to us from the very beginning.<br />
<br />
There is virtually no end to the quotes from Church Mothers and Fathers, or Canons of the Church throughout her 2,000 year history which speak out against abortion as a grievous sin. Even as far back as the Didache (aka "The Teaching of the Twelve" often dated as early as some parts of the New Testament itself) which speaks without confusion: "<b></b>thou shalt not murder a child by
abortion nor kill them when born." And so while the Christian right and left can continue the proof-text battle, I would simply suggest the weight of history, tradition, and common sense outweighs the notion that God requires our lungs to respire in order for us to obtain our souls. <br />
<br />
Abortion is a political hot button issue. I do not know how or if we can ever get to the point where abortion is illegal again. It's a complex topic, but this complexity does not change the reality. War is also a complex issue, but it does not change it's ugliness. Having worked in a pathology lab for a couple of years I've personally seen the torn apart bodies of aborted "fetuses" which horrifically and very clearly looked to me like tiny murdered babies. It changed my opinion on the matter, for at the time I was in the camp of those calling themselves the "Christian Left." However, I do not now consider myself in the camp of the "Christian Right," but I do believe very firmly that abortion is an act that ends the life of a human being. I do not, however, believe that we are in place where laws can instantly fix this ugly situation where our culture has perverted the notion of sex to an act of personal gratification and that the natural "consequence" (aka: blessing) of this act (a new human person) is an unbearable burden that can be dealt with through a simple medical act no different (so we are told) than removing a cyst. To be unable to see that selfishness is the root of all that leads us to this place, is a spiritual blindness than no law of man can address. This is not to say that I think we should not engage in the political discussion, but I think we might consider a different strategy than holding signs and "screaming" at one another on the internet. Abortion is something that rather than being angry about and painting signs with slogans that convince no one, I think we should be weeping over and filling the skies with our prayers, and additionally reaching out with physical acts of love to those around us to show the true value of human.<br />
<br />
I have always appreciated Frederica Mathewes-Green's <a href="http://www.frederica.com/writings/seeking-abortions-middle-ground.html" target="_blank">perspective on this.</a>fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-90927599101965640932013-02-16T20:51:00.001-08:002013-02-16T20:56:52.426-08:00"Ideal" Altar<p><b>"Ideal" Altar</b>
<br />
<br />
I had intended initially to post this little note in Facadebook, but I quickly realized that I had many more thoughts about it than really befits the "drive-by" environment of Facadebook. And it has been months since I added anything to Paradosis - I find my two new jobs (one involving a lab coat and the other a cassock) have been keeping me too busy to post much of anything beyond an occasional drive-by on Facadebook.<br />
<br />
On September 23rd of last year I was ordained to the Holy Diaconate. Much I could say about that and probably should, if for no other reason than to help me solidify my own marveling and wonderment at this privilege and responsibility. I see my duties as an answer to the call to live out the meaning of the title which is to serve Christ and His community especially around His Holy Table. There is a great deal written about the role of a Deacon, but, I will leave those thoughts to another time.<br />
<br /><br />
Since my ordination, I have found myself especially enamored with the Divine Liturgy. I don't know how else to describe it. Suddenly, it seems to have new and rich layers of meaning to me - despite the stark raving terror of worrying about screwing something up or doing something wrong. Becoming a Deacon, of course, doesn't magically (or gnostically?)make one aware of anything special with regards to the Divine and so, it is, no doubt, to my great discredit that it required my ordination to wake me up to some of these things. No matter, I will receive God's grace in any way in which I am able.
<br /><br />
If you are like me, the Litanies offered by the Deacon (or priest, if serving alone) are heard, but not <i>really</i> heard. I suspect that I am not alone in having largely assumed they basically offer the same prayers over and over again. To some degree this is true: there is a great deal of repetition in each of them. However, by paying close attention one can hear the uniqueness of each, especially by taking time to consider their particular placement within the Divine Liturgy because that provides important contextual meaning to them.
<br /><br />
One example that really struck me is found in the Litany of Preparation which should not be confused as having anything to do with the Liturgy of Preparation or Proskomedia/Prothesis. This Litany takes place after the Epiklesis in which the Gifts are consecrated. Much of this litany is a reaffirmation of all the previous litanies, but with special emphasis in the context of the Holy Spirit coming down upon the Gifts <i>and upon us!</i> It is also intended for us the faithful to offer them coupled closely with our inner preparation to receive the Mysteries. I want to specifically look at the first two petitions as they set the stage for the Litany as a whole (I should mention that this is almost always the case for all the Litanies in the Divine Liturgy, so one can often pay close attention to them for some contextual reminders.)
<br /><br />
<i>For the precious Gifts offered and consecrated, let us pray to the Lord....That our God, the Lover of man, having accepted them upon His holy and most heavenly and ideal altar as an odor of spiritual sweetness, will send down upon us Divine Grace and the gift of the Holy Spirit, let us pray.</i>
<br /><br />
So the first petition reminds us of progress amidst the work of the people: the Gifts have been offered(the previous Litany began by asking God to receive the Gifts we just brought and set upon His Altar via the Great Entrance) and now consecrated. We then affirm in faith that God has accepted the Gifts, because He is the "Lover of mankind." It is His nature as affirmed in the aforementioned title that gives us the boldness of our assumption, the same boldness that will allow us to "dare to call upon Thee, the Heavenly God, as Father."
<br /><br />
I often like to think of these Gifts that we offer as being not unlike a gift offered by a very young child to his/her mother or father such as a painted rock or something else that really fills any need. The gift, being of such a heartfelt nature, is graciously accepted and the Mom or Dad will take the child up into their arms and inundate the child with words and kisses of love and adoration, filling him or her with joy. And so we also look to our Heavenly Father to "send down upon us Divine Grace and the gift of the Holy Spirit." We all know of the astonishing miracle that takes place here and the extent of the LIFE God offers to us through His Gifts now returned to us.
<br /><br />
The prayer states that God accepts our Gifts upon His altar, which is described as being "holy, and most heavenly, and ideal." The word "ideal" intrigued me and in doing a bit of research found that this word is translated from the Greek in a lot of different ways in other copies of the Divine Liturgy. For example, one can find these terms being used instead: invisible, spiritual, mystical, supersensual, or even supersenduous (huh?!?). And of course, there is one more of note: "noetic."
<br /><br />
I was intent on diving into the use of this term and what I think it means to us in the context of this Litany, but after doing a little research I found that someone has already done it and without question with more knowledge and skill than I could have mustered. Thus I will simply recommend <a href="http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/highdesert/the_noetic_altar" target="_blank">Fr. Gabriel's podcast (or transcript).</a><br />
<br />fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-32671398195359477812012-08-10T12:25:00.000-07:002012-08-10T12:27:51.965-07:00Controversy in the Church<p><b>Controversy in the Church</b><br /></p>
<br />
<p>I suspect some may be tempted to consider the recent controversies - specifically in the OCA - as perhaps showing evidence that the ecclesiological claims made by the Orthodox Church are untrue. One would have to be utterly ignorant of the Church's history to suggest such an absurd thing. From the very beginning, people have been a part of the Church and as such we can expect human failings to be overtly expressed in the day to day life of the Church. Saints are few and far between and we recognize then as such for a <i>REASON</i>!
<br></br>
Can you imagine the blogs and Facebook back when the Ecumenical Patriarch John Chrysostom was exiled and it gave way to riots in the streets and the burning down of the Hagia Sophia? Fun times, I'm sure.
<br></br>
We really should get used to controversy, as we humans are good at it. So good in fact that we can speak it literally into existence.</p>fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-45403308398231443702012-08-10T10:22:00.000-07:002012-08-10T10:23:31.029-07:00Authority in the Church<div>
<div>
<h3 style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<p><b>Authority in the Church</b></h3></P>
<b><p> </b><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Many Years ago, my friend and youth ministry mentor had me read a book called <a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_344238649">"A Tale of Three Kings."</a></span> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In essence, it is a story intended to speak to the brokenhearted Christian who has been hurt by fellow Christians - specifically in the context of authority. It's forward mentions the "authoritarian movement" as being the inspiration for the books existence. I was never overtly a part of such a movement, as an evangelical, but none-the-less I think anytime you end up in an environment where there is a highly charismatic pastor and an adoring fan base, you have the potential for authoritarian-like leadership. And for people to get hurt...deeply.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">For us Orthodox Christians, in a hierarchical Church, things function somewhat differently than in evangelical circles in that our authorities are <i>overtly</i> identified as such. One could fairly easily say that we <i>ARE</i> an authoritarian Church and make no apologies for it - but don't think things are quite that simple as we will see. We do not guess who is God's anointed, nor do we elect our leaders (at least not from the general membership). Our Church's organization is ancient, and it exists now in radically different times than it has existed in the first say 1600+ years of the Church. In these modern "enlightened" times, the notion of excluding women from official ecclesiastic authority is one example where we are considered "out of step." (I say official because we all know better than to assume that women do not act as leaders albeit without cool "official" headgear.) And of course, the other way in which we find ourselves at odds with contemporary sentiments can be seen in the title we give our Bishops observed principally (though surely not exclusively) in song: "despota." </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">This of course brings up images of our modern understanding of the term despot or despotism which is a form of government in which all power is concentrated into the hands of one person (or a small group of people.) It is a profound mistake to confuse this modern understanding of the term with its usage for our Orthodox Bishops. The Greek term </span> <span lang="el">δεσπότης <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">was commonly used in ancient times as a sign of profound respect and could be alternatively translated as either Lord or Master. Still, two terms we modern folks are apt to want to refrain from using - when is the last time you have heard anyone call someone else "master" outside of the context of the Orthodox Church? (This actually reminds me of a funny story Archbishop BENJAMIN once told me in which he was with my friend Subdeacon Elias from Uganda running errands in San Francisco and the subdeacon kept referring to him as "Master" and the Archbishop had to beg him to stop because, as one might imagine, it simply did not look good to have an African man referring to a white man as such.) </span></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="el"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In general, we are not big fans of such honorifics - especially us Americans. I, personally, admire that about us, but only so in the context of the secular world and in the context of secular authority. Inside the Church and in the context of Christianity, I believes things are different. Protestants, I believe, have mistakenly taken the widely recognized modern belief that "all men are created equal" and expanded it to also mean that all men remain so forever and that . Simple common sense (much lost these days) has taught the ancient Church, of the rightness of honoring our Saints who have through great labor (and often suffering) conformed themselves to the image of Christ. We honor them as examples and in so doing we are actually honoring Christ in them. Additionally, in keeping with ancient traditions, we also offer honor to our leaders - whether they <i>personally</i> deserve that honor or not. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="el"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">We use the various titles (often lengthy) and we kiss the hands NOT because the individual has necessarily garnered such respect, but because of the office they hold and our understanding of the roles they play in our lives. This office and the roles they are supposed to play comes with a tremendous amount of responsibility that extends far beyond what we see or what one may expect from secular leaders. In pious tradition, a lay person's last judgement is often portrayed with their father confessor being present and acting as an advocate and being judged themselves for their role in our lives. In other words, priests and bishops bear a responsibility for the salvation of the flock they oversee...they are not simply sacramental vending machines in a social club and those that behave as such imperil their own souls. And because of this tremendous burden they bear, it is absolutely right to honor those who undertake the task given to them. Furthermore, one need only look at our hymnography, iconography, hagiography, and other writings of the fathers and mothers of the Church to see that we understand the dangers of the burden and the honorifics and the very real potential for the unworthy to hold these noble offices. In those writings, songs, and icons we can frequently see hell populated or being populated (e.g. the Ladder of Divine Ascent) by monks, priests, and bishops...but <i>never</i> deacons...ahem....</span></span><br />
<br />
<span lang="el"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In his <a href="http://ancientfaith.com/specials/oca15aac/bishop_jonah_addresses_questions#transcript">monumental speech</a> at the 15th All American Council November 12th of 2008, then Bishop JONAH referenced something Archbishop BENJAMIN apparently often said about the effects the office may have on a person when he rhetorically asked: "</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">What happens to a guy— you put him on a stand in the middle of the
church, you dress him up like the Byzantine emperor, and you tell him to
live forever?" It's a fair question indeed....but the individuals who should be MOST frightened of the answer are the ones wearing the mitres., St. John Chrysostom is popularly believed to have said that </span><span class="st" style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">the road to Hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lamp posts that guide the way, and while no one knows for sure if he actually did say or write this, the sentiment is surely not foreign to Orthodoxy.</span><br />
<span class="st" style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Now, back to the book I mentioned. The author, Gene Edwards, expels no ink criticizing the evangelical authoritarian movement itself, but instead retells to us the story of King David through which he focuses on three major time points in David's life: his experiences in the court of King Saul, as a King himself, and finally his experiences with his son Absalom. But in reality, the story is entirely dedicated to the examination of the heart of YOU the reader and proposes an overarching theme that a leader may be after the order of King Saul or of the order of King David and that no one can ever know who is who except God, and "He never tells." Wasting your time trying to figure out who is a good King after God's own heart and who is a bad king serving their own heart's interests is completely missing the point.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Now, I will say this: if one is involved in a truly abusive sort of mind-cult, then the message of this book is fuel on a fire. It's intended for the context of a truly Christian environment - though naturally imperfect. The message is genuinely Christian, albeit very difficult to swallow...ummm....as if that is something novel for us and our understanding of the teachings of our Lord.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">David served a mad King, but he was the King none-the-less. The mad King threw spears at David and yet despite every inclination to do otherwise, David refused to throw spears in return. He was eventually banished and lived in hiding for fear of his life. Through it all, he learned the way of a broken heart. This is the <i>ONLY</i> way one can become a man after God's own heart. We cannot begin to comprehend God's ways, until our own are utterly undone. David learned this and additionally never learned to throw spears. Yes, he would sin profoundly, but he also repent profoundly. He would be a King. A good King; God's anointed. And sometimes in our own lives we will be blessed to have leaders who are also brokenhearted and as such are readily able to be seekers of God's own heart.</span><br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">God has a university. It's a small school. Few enroll; even fewer graduate. Very, very few indeed.</span></i><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>God has this school because he does not have broken men and women. Instead he has several other types of people, He has people who claim to have God's authority...and don't - people who claim to be broken...and aren't. And people who </i>do have<i> God's authority, but who are mad </i>and<i> unbroken. And He has, regretfully, a great mixture of everything in between. All of these He has in abundance, but broken men and women, hardly at all.</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>In God's sacred school of submission and brokenness, why are there so few students? Because all the students in this school must suffer much pain. And as you might guess, it is often the unbroken ruler (whom God sovereignly picks) who metes out the pain. David was once a student in this school, and Saul was God's chosen way to crush David. </i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Unfortunately, we can never know for sure if our leaders are Kings after the order of Saul or David. We may guess and we may assume and we may gossip, but we will probably never know for sure (barring overt behavior such as actual crimes or immoral behavior). As this treasure of a book makes clear: only God knows, and He never tells. It really is no different than the judgment we are so profoundly warned about passing on our brothers and sisters in Christ. Put a mitre or a cassock on a man and this suddenly changes?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">For evangelicals, this unknowing is a tough road to travel. For us Orthodox it may even be harder, but I think as we maintain our belief in the Church as an article of Faith and we consider the grand scheme and our connectedness to history and to the future then we may realize that our road is surely different. Protestants may always second guess the "election" of their leaders, but for us Orthodox I suspect it ought to be a very different approach. In my mind, it renders the message of the book even more applicable. Will we cry out "AXIOS!" to unworthy men? Of course we will. Not being omniscient, we cannot ever know the true worthiness of a man. We cannot know if a Bishop (or a priest or a deacon) will be a "king" after the order David or Saul, but what we can know is how we must properly respond to or deal with any given situation. Maybe the Bishop will throw spears at us...maybe we <i>NEED</i> to have spears thrown at us? Maybe not. Who can be sure?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Our history is replete with Bishops and Priests failing very profoundly. We rarely hear of their smaller scale personal failures, being of little account in the great playing out of history no matter how devastating to those present at the time, but we do have plenty of examples of heretics (or worse) wearing mitres. One thing that differentiates us from Roman Catholics is that we have no qualms with <i>any</i> of our leaders falling into heresy, whereas the Roman's cannot abide the notion of there ever having been a heretical pope - though we know there was at least one. But that is neither here nor there, what do we Orthodox make of our leaders' failures? Do we assume that their elevation to the priesthood or episcopacy was a mistake? Were we wrong in allowing this person into the ranks of clergy? My answer is simple: I believe "mistakes" in ordaining some men are
certainly possible, since I am one presently being considered for
ordination to the diaconate and I am presently undergoing a fairly
extensive psychological evaluation that did not exist for clergy as
little as a decade ago (perhaps less). This tells me that the Church
feels that mistakes <i>HAVE</i> been made in the past and that they are
now trying to avoid that. But are all such mistakes indicative of God's
will being thwarted? That's a much deeper question which channels into some serious theology where human freewill meets up with God's providence.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Do we truly believe that the
Holy Spirit guides every decision a bishop or a synod makes? Does
history give us cause to believe that?</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> When they announced Metropolitan JONAH's election they began the announcement by saying: "It seemed good to us <i>AND TO THE HOLY SPIRIT</i>..." and I assume this is standard protocol originating with the account given to us in the Acts of Holy Apostles. The statement assumes the Holy Spirit is guiding the decisions made by the council and the Holy Synod. Whatever the reality of the situation, we know that human freewill somehow interweaves itself into the greater will of God...day to day or even year to year may be shrouded in mystery; in the greater scope we can see how God has clearly guided His Church.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I'm not one to advocate for a "don't touch God's anointed" attitude. Far too many crimes have been ignored or left undisturbed because of this. Clearly there are examples of leaders who we may rightly judge, such as pedophiles or thieves. But others we may be less sure about, such as those who some may perceive as being more like arrogant tyrants than loving fathers. I have never personally experienced an overtly "mean" Bishop, but I have had heard stories about them. Stories of poor clergy shivering in their vestments for fear of what the Bishop may do or say to them next. I must confess, I have a VERY difficult time understanding these stories and the behaviors described...but then I can see in my own life many times when my kids no doubt perceived <i>me</i> more as an arrogant tyrant than a loving father.</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Overall, I think God's lessons to us are surely less about learning how to throw spears and righting perceived wrongs (like Bishop's losing their temper because a </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Dikirion was misplaced)</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">, and more about never learning to throw spears at all and seeking to have our hearts shattered and rebuilt so as to be a people whose goal is God's own heart. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Sauls in our lives (though we cannot always clearly identify them) may be there for the express purpose of destroying the Saul in us. You see, we spend all of our time looking for Saul in those around us - particularly our leaders - but God is FAR more interested in us looking for the Saul that hides in the marrow of our own bones. David, we are told in the "Tale of Three Kings" book, might well have become Saul the second, if Saul the first had not thrown spears at him and driven him into the wilderness where David learned the songs of the brokenhearted. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I've been writing this post now for about a month or more...adding bits and pieces as I have had time. Much has happened in that time. Metropolitan JONAH has resigned and accusations are flying in all directions. I want to clarify that nothing I've said here means we should ignore overt wrongs committed by our leaders, not at all. However, I would urge extreme caution in coming to such determinations without a great deal of REAL evidence. And by that I mean at least as much evidence as would be required in a court of law.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I've experienced a great deal of local scandal and controversy in the last few months (which originally inspired this post) and if I've learned anything, it is this: the "truth" is out there, but good luck finding it. When you are dealing with human emotions and motivations as the primary "truth" needing to be discovered then I think you <i>MUST</i> confess that omniscience may be required to really ascertain that truth. Sure we can look at what someone literally did and easily grasp the facts of that act, but to discern <i>WHY</i> they did something is a different matter entirely. I mean let's be totally honest with ourselves here and admit that half the time we have trouble discerning our own rationale for what we do, let alone the rationale of others for what they do. Furthermore, we are <i>REALLY </i>adept at deceiving ourselves in not only what our motivations are, but even for what we have factually done. There are instances where a criminal will actually convince themselves of their innocence to such an extent that even after being show video evidence of their crime they will maintain their innocence. They've completely convinced themselves of a reality that simply is not so. It is <i>NOT</i> an uncommon experience for us to conveniently forget facts about ourselves that we find unpleasant. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Beyond this, even "facts" with regards to acts themselves can evolve. We've all played the "telephone" game of whispering a phrase and watching it evolve into something utterly different as the phrase is passed along from person to person. It's a lesson about gossip of course and we all know it...and yet gossip remains a sin into which it is terribly easy for us all to fall. These partial truths, half truths, or outright falsehoods evolve in order to bolster a particular meme and once it does that, it becomes nearly impossible for any of us to resist it. At that point, it explodes and spreads uncontrollably. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Naturally some will take what I have written above about authority and gossip and assume that I mean we should all submissively accept whatever we are told by those in authority as both fact and truth. I've communicated no such thing. Instead I'll reiterate what I've said (and I quote): "</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">When you are dealing with human emotions and motivations as the primary 'truth' needing to be discovered, then I think you <i>MUST</i> confess that omniscience may be required to really ascertain the truth."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">There is a time and place for justice to be sought. The OCA recently came through a time of patently awful fiscal mismanagement (the extent of which I simply do not know...I've seen enough nonsense come from some websites to have a healthy degree of doubt about all the chatter and about anything any one person may offer up as the ultimate truth of all those events - but it was obviously extensive enough to rightly end some careers. Math says enough sometimes), and we looked to +JONAH to be a new dawning day for our little jurisdiction. Alas, it clearly was not to be so. Why?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Well, read the official announcements, read the now increasing news articles, read the remainders of the now-defunct OCAnews.org, read OCAtruth.org, read Facebook, read all the other blogs and listservs, and when you have done all of that (and your soul has managed to survived intact) you will <i>finally</i> know the truth. It will all be clear. Right? Clear as mud. Again, I am drawn back to the book's repeating phrase: "God knows, and He never tells."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">For me, I take this to mean that I am not going to enter the fray where there is far more heat than light. The internet in particular is like a magnifying lens for opinionated passions to run wild and be amplified. There's something about it that (perhaps it's viral and airborne) infects us all and encourages us to become trolls causing injury to our brothers and sisters and to the truth (wherever it - or should I say He - may be found). I say this as one who has allowed himself to be sucked into it time and time again and have found myself causing pain to myself and others because of my loud typing. I <i>might</i> have even learned my lesson.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I originally wrote this as a very personal reflection while wrestling with the difficulties we have faced in our Parish community and the controversy surrounding that event - the details of which I will in no way discuss here. It has been (and perhaps continues to be) one of the hardest things I have had to deal with in the context of church life. Gossip abounded and many were readily questioning the emotions and motivations of all parties involved and this eventually and naturally leads to the question of authority in the Church and what could possibly be offered to those who feel their Bishop might be a "king after the order of Saul?" I can say this much with certainty: if I had ever been a true student of brokenness, I would be spending far more time with tears in my eyes before my icons than I would with anger in my heart before the keyboard of a computer posting on Blogger or Facebook.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I guess I'm not really offering much in the way of answers, except to suggest that it is very likely that no one but God has the answers to the many questions we may have regarding people's motivations, their emotions, and their true "leadership worthiness." Anyone still reading this convoluted post?</span></p>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-2041980903067259842012-06-26T13:44:00.001-07:002012-06-27T08:34:20.031-07:00Conversion<p><b>Conversion</b><br />
<br />
There's always much to do about famous people converting. I'll admit, I had no idea who <a href="http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/22/prominent-atheist-blogger-converts-to-catholicism/">this young convert to Christianity</a> was, but being a rather prominent atheist blogger, I suppose her conversion is indeed a big deal.
You can read here final "atheist" blog post <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked/2012/06/this-is-my-last-post-for-the-patheos-atheist-portal.html">here.</a>
While she clearly has a more advanced background in philosophy than I do/did, her conversion was accomplished in a not a too terribly different way than did mine. She wrestled with her worldview as it warred against her perception of moral truths. But here's where she departs from my conversion. When pressed to try and explain the origin of her sense of morality she fumbled at length and then blurted out:
<i> </i><br />
<br />
<i>“I don’t know. I’ve got nothing. I guess Morality just <b>loves</b> me or something.”</i>
And then she writes: <i>I believed that the Moral Law wasn’t just a Platonic truth, abstract and distant. It turns out I actually believed it was some kind of Person, as well as Truth.</i><br />
<br />
I would simply add to this beautiful statement that "Truth" is not separate from this "Person." Not at all...it is not in addition to the Person, it IS the Person as surely as Moral Law is the Person. (As I reread, I think her statement could be taken in two different ways. I note now that she capitalized Truth and so perhaps she intended to communicate that she believed Truth was also a Person as opposed to Moral Law being a Person and truth.)
It's a radical concept. I hope Leah finds what she is looking for in her Roman Catholicism, she may find that the theologically legal disposition of that faith doesn't fit nearly as well with the Personhood of Truth and Moral Law as does Orthodox theological thinking. But, no less do I rejoice for this conversion.</p>fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-81737403849051234032012-05-22T07:32:00.003-07:002012-06-05T08:15:12.864-07:00"If you want to make God laugh, tell Him about your plans."<b><i><p>If you want to make God laugh, tell Him about your plans.</i></b></p><br />
<b><i> </i></b>
<br />
<br />
<div>
<p>This quote is apparently attributed to Woody Allen, at least so says the internet. Allen is also a confessed atheist (again, so says the internet), and as such I think we can assume the quote in Allen's context has a somewhat malicious sense to it. In my experience, most atheists have the absolute worse image of God that one could imagine: an angry old man ready to smite you at every turn for his own entertainment. But ironically this quote, or one very much like it was also used in the beautiful and tender-hearted film called "Bella."<br />
<br />
In "Bella," God does not appear, nor has He any unseen yet overt role in the film. The quote is rendered true but not as some angry God thwarting your plans, but rather with the sense that God redeems human decisions that result in pain and tragedy. We make plans - often good and wholesome plans, but they are undermined and often by our own doing, what we intended for good is rendered bad. So God does not laugh at our failure, he "laughs" at our audacity knowing the bigger picture and that He will redeem the pain and suffering we don't see coming. The key being that we be willing to seek that redemption.<br />
<br />
In our lives, we have very explicitly seen God "laugh" at our plans. The pain at such extensive plans being thwarted, however is such that perceiving God laughing at them is more than a little too much to bear. No. A LOT too much to bear. The anthropomorphism here is wrong. I believe He shares in our pain, but the quote rings true when we realize our plans had perhaps put more faith in ourselves than in Him. And as imperfect human decisions bring so much to nought, we are hopefully taught a lesson. No...I speak for myself: I am hopefully taught a lesson.<br />
<br />
God will redeem this mess. He will heal it, He will turn refuse into gold. He will take all sinful human decisions (ALL of them) and he will redirect their ill-motivations (whatever they may be) and instead of more pain and suffering, there will be life and joy. It likely will not look anything like what we planned, but when we look back we will see God's redemption. I do believe that.<br />
<br />
Believing it, though, is not enough. I must seek that redemption. Belay that....I must seek <i>Christ Himself. </i>Like Job in the whirlwind, I must let go of my perceived wisdom, my biases, my preconceived notions, and my faith in myself and then admit - repenting in dust and ashes - that it is ALL about Christ. "In Him we live and move and have our being."<br />
<br />
There are no human solutions; Only Christ. There is no length or depth of dialogue that can heal; Only Christ. There is no peace to be snatched by our own effort; Only Christ. There is no hope in human institution or organization; Only Christ. On and on it goes...there is only Christ. <br />
<br />
The extent to which I seek Him, will be the extent to which I will see His redemption. The extent to which I engage my anger, my self will to fix everything, to argue my way to peace....I will only perpetuate chaos.<br />
<br />
It begs the question: have I prayed about it more than I have talked about it? Have I prayed about it more than I have posted online or emailed about it? Have I prayed about it more than I have worried or wrung my hands about it? No, I confess I have not.<br />
<br />
Someday, if we continually seek Christ, we will see our thwarted plans redeemed. It will no longer be about who wins or who loses, but only Christ. It's a saintly goal, perhaps even impossible to conceive, but I truly believe Christ can heal all wounds and LITERALLY bring life from death. Someday, we will hear God laugh, and we will laugh with Him as He wipes away every tear. </div></p>fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-17459843652498954792012-05-05T13:09:00.001-07:002012-05-05T13:12:28.940-07:00What is Religion?<p><B><Br>What is Religion</b></br>
<br>
Having a degree in it, one would think I could easily define it. However, I think it may be harder than you imagine. I will say it need not involve metaphysics or the numinous or the supernatural, but I would agree it must involve faith. That said, I think faith is FAR more common than people think - even amongst the most devout (yes I use the word very deliberately) atheist, a great deal of faith is employed. Indeed, they BELIEVE they have the universe quite figured out, or at least anything that isn't yet figured out, will eventually fall neatly into place in their tidy worldview. I'm not being insulting here, generally speaking I think this is a part of our human vocation. It's quite natural to want to have a grasp on these things - what the world is all about; the big questions. One way I would be inclined to define religion is that it is a system of interpretations of our perceptions that "ties it all together" and is the lens through which we make sense of most everything.</BR>
<br>
You may remember the MTV VJ Kennedy? Well she recently got in some hot water by claiming that atheism was a religion on the Bill Maher show (Why she'd go on that show I do not know, as it is my decided opinion that Maher is a condescending, arrogant jerk). But, anyway, she recently wrote an article about <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/10/atheism-is-a-religion">this experience</a> (warning: there are naughty words). Curiously enough, she <span style="color: black;">happens to be an</span> Orthodox Christian (didn't know that) and I wondered about that when she humorously states that she didn't know what fire and brimstone was until she insulted atheism. </br>
<br>
Not surprisingly, much of the heat she got was provided by that very common vector of passions: Facebook. I can't imagine what her thread must have looked like...oh my! </br>
<br>
Anyway, the argument over whether atheism is a religion stems from the issue of whether or not the definition of religion must involve the "supernatural." Of course then we run into the problem of what exactly is supernatural, because quite frankly many of the things being discovered in the realm of quantum physics certainly bucks the title of what we used to call "natural." In other words, we keep on finding out that the universe is far more complex and full of wonders than we imagined and I'm not at all hesitant in suggesting that we have only begun to scratch the surface. Therefore what might have been supernatural yesterday may be decidedly natural today. "Supernatural" was often seen as some mysterious force breaking the "laws of nature", however what we are learning is that the "laws of nature" make congressional laws made complex by thousands of pages long look like child's play.</br>
<br>
Despite what Penn says in the article, I think atheists MUST employ some degree of faith in order to suggest that all of the big questions of the universe are answered by their secular, "naturalistic" perception of the world. In this sense, I personally believe that the agnostic is the intellectually honest person who is NOT employing any faith by saying they don't know the answer to the big question. I need to be clear and say that the many unanswered big questions about the universe are not an apologetic for God's existence ("God in the gaps" as they say), but we must also consider that an atheist employs as much faith filling the gaps with their worldview as any theist claiming to do the same. </br>
<br>
If you've ever read the works of Richard Dawkins or talked much with any of his <s>disciples</s>...ummm...<s>followers</s>...ummm...fellow atheists of like mindedness, you'd quickly ascertain that these folks see all of the universe through the lens of Darwinism / natural selection. They do not hesitate to make highly debatable claims without a shred of scientific evidence to suggest that evolutionary theory explains everything about us - this is particularly evident in the realm of evolutionary psychology. In essence, these atheists wander about the world, taking it all in and then filtering it through their faith in Darwinism as <i>THE</i> all encompassing theory of everything. I've heard them working it out in their head as it spills out verbally asking how it is that such and such a thing evolved - often positing an explanation and as long as it has some degree of possibility to it, it's largely taken as fact, for what other arbiter of the universe brings things into being?. Really, not terribly unlike a theist looking at a mountain range and in his / her mind marveling at God's handiwork.</br>
<br>
All of that aside, I wonder if the better approach to the main issue at hand is instead of saying that atheism is a religion, that we say that atheists are quite religious in the practice of their atheism.</br>
<br>
Kennedy notes one study that tends to suggest than humans are "naturally" inclined to be religious. In actuality there have been numerous studies that demonstrate this, and even the likes of Richard Dawkins and his entourage have not surprisingly offered an evolutionary explanation for our inclination to be religious. As I noted earlier, we all want to understand the big picture and we all have a natural sense of the numinous and awe at profound beauty (That we even recognize profound beauty as being distinct from beauty that fulfills our various desire, I think speaks volumes). Such things are tickling our religious inclination.</br>
<br>
But what Kennedy discovered is that all of the same passions theists pour into their religion, atheists pour into theirs! No one likes to have their tidy worldview tinkered with or made light of. Atheists have enjoyed making of fun of theists (e.g. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster">Flying Spaghetti Monster</a>) and have claimed utter contempt and superiority in the face of the angry response they get at such insults. Well, as Kennedy has found, turn the tables and call their faith as faithful as any faith and the response rather proves the point. Insulting a person's religion gives rise to passionate responses, whether the supernatural is involved or not. Bill Maher has made an entire movie ridiculing religious belief in order to propagate and build up his own. I'd suggest that if one were inclined they could make a movie about the religions of atheism and pull out of the woodwork all manner on insane atheists to paint a rather ugly picture of that faith.</br>
<br>
I'll go a step further and suggest that politics is also a religion unto itself - even if we believe that the only religion we have is the one that we think only informs our politics. Sometimes the line between the two is very difficult to discern and all of the same passions are quick to be employed. Atheists, having no church, will often seek one in the political arena. Or...perhaps they will just give up and <a href="http://nymag.com/news/features/46214/">admit that they ascribe to a religion.</a> </br>
</p>fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3544035.post-42865889937599742902012-04-28T10:12:00.002-07:002012-04-28T10:18:43.207-07:00Translation is theology<p><b>Translation is theology</b>
<br />
<a href="http://%20http//www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/us-bible-translator-agrees-to-review-after-criticism-over-substitutions-for-son-and-father/2012/04/26/gIQAVoT9iT_story.html">Here</a> is a fascinating article.<br />
<br />
In my experience, as a former member of the Assemblies of God (AG), they have always gotten along sportingly with Wycliffe. But the AG is especially sensitive to issues of the Trinity because in their midst at their own birth during the much lauded Asuza Street Revival of 1914 were heretics who preached the "oneness" doctrine of Jesus which ultimately rejects the traditional understanding of the Trinity. I've never heard any word on whether the AG believe that the heretics' glossolalia was faked at Asuza Street. Anyway, two years later at their 4th General Council, the AG officially adopted the historic and traditional understanding (for the most part) of the Trinity. It does give me pause to chuckle a bit about a council in 1916 coming to the conclusion that they should affirm the Trinity. I've no idea if they gave any attention to our councils held more than a millennium before their own...might have saved them the trouble. Regardless, their council - as councils often do - led to what was no doubt a painful schism. Henceforth, the AG is REALLY sensitive about being mixed up with or confused as having some ongoing relationship with the United Pentecostal Church whose only otherwise contrary doctrine is on the Trinity. So, all of that to say I'm not surprised the AG is at the forefront of criticizing the translation.<br />
<br />
There's a great deal of red meat in this article, but I'm really sad that the reddest of meat is lacking. For example: They don't tells us exactly how they translated "Holy Spirit." Or the absolutely critical phrase "only begotten Son." It would be great to see how they dealt with this because I think the importance of the traditional terms is not so much that they inform us about what they are or how we relate to them, but how <i>they</i> relate to <i>one another</i>! <br />
<br />
Father and Son are terms we can relate to which help us to understand the Holy Trinity, which is itself ultimately something that will always be beyond our comprehension. All of the terms God gives us in relation to Himself are going to be a condescension. Indeed, even the early councils of the Church had to elaborate upon them because the terms alone in Scripture were too open to interpretation and they did not properly frame the great mystery. I should clarify: nothing is going to fully frame this mystery, the councils were simply setting boundaries. I think we all understand the apophatic approach toward theology of the Church was such that the only ever made positive statements about the nature of God or the Trinity when there was a trend toward moving outside established boundaries.<br />
<br />
I recently had a woman very deliberately correct me when I referred to God with the masculine pronoun, which she did by promptly replying and calling Him a She. Okay, fine, I get that God is ultimately beyond our definitions but the point of not also calling Him "She" is because He did not reveal Himself as such, and we Orthodox, as huge proponents of apophatic theology would just as surely not call Him "He" if He Himself hadn't done it first. Not to mention that whole incarnation thing and how that played out. Again, I think the issue isn't about us making sure God is a man, but it's about God relating to us the means by which we can even begin to understand Him and the relational dynamics of the Holy Trinity...again as much as we are able. We get very quickly into presumptuous arenas when we use terms for Him which were not given to us from Him and this is precisely because He is so beyond our definitions. And so abandoning the relationship of Father and Son, I should think, is very precarious.<br />
<br />
Now, Wycliffe is claiming that some cultures need to have these terms changed because they would not understand the concepts of "father" and "son" and thus in the spirit of "dynamic equivalent translation" they believe they need to find something that they would understand. Ummm...wait a minute...is there really a culture in the world that doesn't have any concept of a father and a son? Let's be clear here, the issue is NOT that these cultures don't understand the idea of "Father" and "Son" in the same way that some cultures might not know what sheep are, but that specifically <i>Islamic</i> culture not only doesn't understand the notion of God "begetting" or of God incarnating, but they find the very idea to be <i>PROFOUNDLY</i> offensive to their understanding of God. Let me be even more frank: show a devout Muslim an icon of the Bridegroom-Extreme Humility and explain to them that we believe that image is of God, and the odds are your evangelistic efforts are over. The god of Islam is NOT one of extreme humility and he certainly isn't Triune.<br />
<br />
To be fair to Wycliffe, the orthodox concept of the Trinity is, I'm sorry to say, not overtly spelled out in Scripture. I know many protestants would find that statement absurd, but I've spent my fair share of time listening to and participating in Trinitarian Christians and non-Trinitarian "christians" lobbing textual grenades at one another to no avail. And while I of course as a Trinitarian find the former more convincing, I do so mainly because I believe that there is a context of Tradition in which the Scriptures have their being. Take that context away and I'm afraid the Trinitarian Christians have a harder time of it. Sure the vast majority of Christians are Trinitarians, but if you could, just ask those present at the Asuza Street Revival where "bible-believing" brothers and sisters could not come to agreement on this basic Christian tenant. I've heard all the proof texts that lay supposedly lay out the traditional christian doctrine of the Trinity and I'm sorry to say that there is nothing that overtly spells it out for us beyond question - far from it. And, quite simply, the reason for this is that the Bible was never intended to function in such a capacity as it currently does for most protestant Christian. This being the opinion of the Orthodox Church, one can understand why Wycliffe is not consulting us about their translation.<br />
<br />
<i>The importance of translation springs from the early centuries of Christianity, when the books of the New Testament, originally written in Greek, were translated by believers in places where that language wasn’t spoken, said Ray Van Neste, director of the R.C. Ryan Center for Biblical Studies at Union University.</i><br />
<br />
Ummm....what are they talking about here? Which early centuries? The <i>early</i> centuries (quite a few of them actually) were spent to one degree or another just trying to figure out which texts would be included in the canon of Scripture at all and how to translate and evangelize with them wasn't an issue about which I've ever heard of in the "early centuries." I should add that in those centuries the argument about the content of the New Testament was always specifically about which texts were worthy of being read <i>in the Liturg</i>y; the debate was not couched in terms of which texts were to become the sole authority of Christian doctrine. Furthermore, please remember that the existence of theses texts were RARE and EXPENSIVE. Christian communities that had copies of letters from St. Paul guarded them with their very lives and indeed pagan persecutions often involved their destruction precisely because of their inherent value and difficulty in reproducing. Early missionaries didn't head out to places like Britain with wagons full of Gideon New Testaments to pass out on street corners, rather they went out with a <i>Tradition</i> to pass on...you know, that whole paradosis thing which Protestants have no problems perpetually mistranslating in the Scriptures when it more definitvely supports their understanding of Christian doctrinal authority. This leads us to this great statement:<br />
<br />
<i>“Translation is theology,” Beal said. “You cannot translate without doing theology. Any time we translate a text, we’re really creating something new.”</i>
<br />
<br />
Brilliant. It could not have been better said. But this becomes heavily buffered when Scripture is retained in its proper setting: Holy Tradition. Scripture cannot exist in vacuum as much as people might think that it does, there is always going to be a context we bring to it and the issues becomes what theology that context ultimately produces. This explains why there are so many thousands of bible-believing Christian denominations - each had their own context which they brought to the Scriptures and out popped a new theology and a new way of "doing church." Translation no doubt followed.<br />
<br />
Seeing the Bible as the principal means of evangelizing, Wycliffe is trying to make it more palatable to Muslim ears. Good luck with that.
</p>fdjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12893021768746737673noreply@blogger.com0