Paradosis

It's not a religion, it's a relationship

2011-12-30T11:15:00.000-08:00

It's not a religion, it's a relationship

This is an evangelical mantra that many of us know well. But it occurred to me this morning as I posted the homily (see below) that believing in a specific moment of salvation is much more like a contractual relationship rather than a personal one, doesn't it? And yet which group trumpets having a "personal relationship" with God? Doesn't their theology ironically seem to indicate more of a contractual relationship?

Sure, we Orthodox have all the externals of ritual and religion, but at the heart of our theology I'd suggest we have a far more real notion of a personal relationship with God in terms of our salvation which we generally see as a process of growth and maturity. I suppose from an evangelical perspective they might suggest that salvation is a separate component of having a relationship with God and thus would agree that that portion is contractual (i.e. we accept that Christ takes upon Himself the sins and punishment in our place and we are thus saved as we sign the dotted line by praying the sinner's prayer acknowledging all of this). We would not separate any of this, and I think we'd say that the relationship with God is itself salvation and thus is not something we can distill down to being essential a contract anymore that we can say that we have a real marriage simply because we have a state form saying as much.

Just some rambling thoughts I had this morning.

Catching the Christmas Spirit

2011-12-30T10:56:00.000-08:00

"Catching the Christmas Spirit"

On Christmas Day, Fr. C asked me to offer the homily. Here is what I had written down prior to delivery.

Some would say I live two contradictory lives. By day I don a white lab coat and engage in modern scientific inquiry by the UV light of a fluorescent microscope. And on evenings and weekends I don a black cassock and engage in ancient religious rituals by the light of beeswax candles. The supposed dichotomy between religion and science is something I deal with on a daily basis…sometimes there is easy reconciliation and other times it can be more difficult. But very often I am able to find some interesting similarities between the work of science and the spiritual life.

I’d like to mention just one that I think corresponds quite nicely with the feast we celebrate today, but in order to explain it to you I need to give a little scientific background of what I’m working on in the lab…so bear with me:

We work primarily with Killer T-cells, which earn their name by killing cells that are infected or perhaps having other problems with the hopes of stopping the spread of whatever problem is happening. This works because T-cells have receptors on their cell surface that will bind to certain “antigens” that it recognizes as being foreign. An antigen can be anything like a small protein – a piece of virus for example. So, imagine I’m a sick cell. What I’ll do is take a piece of whatever is making me sick and bring it out on my surface - as if holding out the reason for my sickness and saying: “Help, I’m sick.” A T-Cell might come by and recognize this and put me out of my misery in order to stop the spread of the disease.

Cancer, however, usually escapes this system because there is often nothing for the T-Cell to recognize as being “foreign.” But, we seek to harness this system by changing our T-cells in order to recognize the cancer cells as being diseased and in need of being killed. We get the T-cells to express on their surface a new and unique antigen receptor that we design which will allow them to recognize the cancer cells. In order to get them to express this antigen receptor we have to get new genetic material into the cell. We accomplish this using a virus which we are able to design and produce. This virus is very built from portions of HIV and behaves just like HIV which as most of us know is very fond of T-Cells. There is a bit of cosmic irony in that if we’d never discovered the horrific HIV, we might never have been able to harvest this technology which has a great deal of promise to end the scourge of cancer. Ponder that one in your free time. Anyway, this virus goes into the T-cell and its genetic material (our “package”) is incorporated it into and becomes ONE with the natural genetic material of the T-cell. The T-cell will then use that DNA like any other part of its DNA and produce the antigen receptor we designed on its surface. This T-Cell is now changed…it is locked and loaded, ready to start killing cancer cells.

Now, you might consider saying that we are “infecting” these T-cells, but really infection has such a negative connotation because it implies that the virus replicates like wildfire and consequently kills the cells causing disease. On the contrary, our viruses are unable to reproduce and we anticipate (and have shown so experimentally) that they will have a powerful therapeutic effect. Therefore, the scientific community does not use the term infection, and instead has preferred to describe this process as TRANSDUCTION. And so we would say that these newly changed T-cells that are ready to take on Cancer have been “TRANSDUCED.”

One day recently I was walking down from the lab to catch the ferry and I saw a sign in a storefront that read: “Catch the Christmas Spirit.” Now, from the perspective of my field of interest, I of course, immediately thought of a viral infection…..sorry I can’t help it. But a few moments later I did ponder: What does the sign really mean? Of course, I think, catching the Christmas Spirit means that I’m going to shop at that store! ….But there can also be a Christian message in it as well, no?

Oh sure we could simply say here that this message means that amidst all the hustle and bustle of this holiday season we should take the time to rest our hearts and minds in order to remember the real meaning of the season. We should remember the “reason for the season.” Yes, we must remember…but I’m going to go a tad further: remembering is simply NOT enough. Now you’ll recall I initially thought about viruses when I saw the sign, and then I considered a more profound Christian meaning….well yes those two were destined to collide in my crazy head.

When we transduce our T-cells, we expose hundreds of thousands of them to hundreds of thousands of viruses, but not all of them end up being transduced and we know this because they never express on their outside, the receptor that will allow them to recognize the cancer – in other words, some are unchanged. Others will express the antigen receptor for a few days, but then lose it – we call this a transient transduction – it doesn’t stick. These were all exposed to the virus, but not transduced….they didn’t catch it…they missed it. You might say: The seed fell on poor soil. Sound familiar? Remembering isn’t enough as surely as simply being exposed to the “Spirit of Christmas” isn’t enough.

In his epistle to the Romans, St. Paul wrote: “Be ye TRANSFORMED by the RENEWING of your mind…” he did NOT write: “Be ye remembering”…but “Be ye TRANSFORMED.”

How does this transformation and renewing happen? What did our epistle today say: “And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!" 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.” Do you see? He sends forth the Spirit INTO our hearts! And, indeed, what do we perpetually ask of the Holy Spirit? “Come and abide in us, and cleanse us of all impurity…”

The feast of Christmas is of course the feast of our Lord’s Incarnation in which He integrated Himself and became ONE with our human nature in order to save the world from sin. And indeed His Incarnation precedes and makes possible what we heard in the epistle: the sending forth His Spirit into our hearts and lives, to CHANGE us, to TRANSFORM us, to RENEW us….to “TRANSDUCE” us?

Now, there are three important areas where the similarities of transduction and Christian transformation depart from one another:

First, the T-cells, of course, have no say in the matter of their transduction. Quite the opposite for us and our transformation. We must desire and ask for this infilling of the Spirit, we are not inanimate in the process; we must participate.

Second, with God it’s not a one shot deal. In transduction we do not make any second attempts and instead discard any cells that are not transduced on the first attempt. But God’s love for us has Him ever seeking our openness to Him. And it’s never too late. We say that wonderful prayer over and over again, asking the Holy Spirit to “come and abide in us” because it’s NOT a one shot deal. It’s an ongoing process.

Finally, our “Adoptive T-Cell Therapy”, even if wildly successful will not cure everyone who undergoes it. And even those who are cured we know that we have only delayed death in the end. Again, quite the opposite with God’s “therapy.” It is tried and true and requires no FDA approval. The data is in and the babe in the manger and a risen Lord is the evidence of our salvation and the conquering of death. We need only submit ourselves to His “therapy.”

So yes! Catch the Christmas Spirit…and may it infect us…ahem…TRANSDUCE us thoroughly and change us. And may this transformation be evidenced by the expression (like the antigen receptors on our T-cells), by the expression of life-bearing fruit that overcomes the cancer of sins in our lives and in the world around us.
Be ye Transduced…that’s what it means to “Catch the Christmas Spirit.” That we walk away changed. One or two steps further along in our journey towards Him.

Thank you for dying for me

2011-12-03T19:14:00.000-08:00

Thank you for dying for me

I'm mature enough now (I think...maybe) that I comfortably spend less and less time bashing evangelical beliefs and practices, however lately I've been barraged by a series of proselytizing online advertisements that led to THIS website which suggests that there are four easy "steps to God."

I know little or nothing about the website or the folks (and their theology) behind it, but it certainly seems to correspond well with the most common protestant soteriology. I give credit where credit is due: they are reaching out to people and we Orthodox should do as much - perhaps not in an identical fashion - but it's far too easy to sit in our easy chairs and criticize while we do little or nothing to share the Hope that is in us.

That said, our understanding of that Hope is clearly different than that which is communicated on this website. From our perspective, salvation cannot be summed up so simply and it certainly cannot be "achieved" so simply as with the repetition of this simple prayer. A little walk down evangelical memory lane has brought to the forefront of my mind their emphasis on our Lord's death, while contrastingly we tend to emphasize His life - and in particular His victory over death. As most of us know, in general, evangelicals tend to see salvation only through the lenses of substitutionary atonement which is to say that Jesus "died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins." If you read this brief account of salvation, there is no notion at all that His resurrection also saves us. It is glossed over almost as a sort of footnote. That's unfortunate and points to one HUGE difference between Orthodoxy and Protestantism.

I wonder if perhaps we would say that an Orthodox sinner's prayer (were there such a thing) would start something more like this: "Thank you for becoming man, living, teaching, enlightening, dying, destroying death by rising from the dead, ascending, and offering to let us share in a deified life with you." That would be somewhat more comprehensive, but it still doesn't tell the whole story. We might say it tells enough of the story, but I don't think the evangelical prayer only tells a tiny fraction of the story.

The Age of Electronic Isolation.

2011-11-22T19:49:00.001-08:00

Presently taking a late ferry home. Like those around me I am engrossed with the electronic device in my hand. Except for those who are accompanied by someone, everyone is wholly engaged with either a laptop, a smartphone, a pad of somesort or a kindle-like device.

It makes me wonder what we ever did before all of this? Read books I suppose. Or did we actually take the opportunity to meet and converse with new people?

Should we be concerned about this electronic isolation? How strange it must seem to those who came before us.

Relics

2011-11-17T16:45:00.000-08:00

Relics

It's a natural human thing, really.

1st Church of Christ in Facebook

2011-11-02T16:57:00.000-07:00

1st Church of Christ in Facebook
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
Really, isn't as novel as the author leads you to believe. Some folks I know in the PoMo movement have been doing stuff akin to this for quite sometime actually, while others I know in the movement are actually opposed to this - and these would be those typically found in house churches eating organic fair trade granola of somesort. I agree with these latter folks who would suggest that the author is TERRIBLY mistaken to suggest that Facebook is a community. It most certainly is not a community. On the contrary it is a faked community and in fact does a pretty poor job of it.

In my area of science there is what is known as a base pair analogs which are molecules that are similar enough to one of the four real nucleotides as to be mistaken as such by the enzyme polymerase while doing its job of replicating your DNA. When the analog is used, it can stop replication altogether or it leads to a mutation in the DNA sequence that may or may not have very serious consequences downstream - it all depends on where exactly the mutation takes place and whether it changes the Amino Acid and also whether the changed amino acid changes the function of the protein of which it is a part. I'm tempted to call Facebook an analog of community, but only so when people (like Polymerase does a base pair analog) mistake Facebook for community.

Of course to some degree what community is, is up to interpretation and therefore I'm really only stating my opinion and should not phrase that opinion as if it were verifiable fact. That said, I'd like to remind us of two words that share the same root as "community": Commune (the verb) and Communication.

To Commune in the Orthodox sense is obviously intended to reference Holy Communion. Indeed a sacramental life is not one that can be shared in an online "community." For us Orthodox, one can fairly say we are a "touchy-feeling" sort of religion...at least in the sense that physical participation with ALL the senses is required. But even outside of this context to "commune" is to connect with intimately. The word comes from an old French word meaning "to hold in common." It's certainly connected with communication, but seems to take it a step further. One cannot "commune with nature" by watching a screen saver and I'd suggest neither can we commune with one another via Facebook.

Even simple communication is handicapped by Facebook - and not just Facebook but the internet in general. I don't know what it is about people, but it seems when we sit down in fron of our computer screens with the intent of engaging people online we seem to do so with canon fire in mind rather than communing. I've seen people (perhaps even myself) say some of the most rude and obnoxious things online that I sure (or at least hope) they would never have said in a face to face conversation. Facebook and the internet it seems is much better an arena for religious/economic/political arguments than Christian communion of any sort.I've heard studies suggest that a person beyond the wheel of a car becomes 10 times less patient than if he or she were walking. I rather expect that for many people the internet makes them 10 times likely to try to pick and win an argument than if they met someone in a coffee shop.

The other way communication is hampered is that tone of voice, facial expressions, hand and arm movements, and even touching are a critical part of how we communicate and ALL are missing (or at least profoundly hindered) online. ALL. This often allows for wild misinterpretations of what is really trying to be communicated by people sometimes. So not only do you have people being jerks, but other jerks misinterpreting what the other jerk is saying.

How does this communication problem play out in trying to "do" church on Facebook. Well, it should be interesting to say the least.

My advice, FWIW, get up out of bed on Sunday morning and go to church. It will do you good to get out of the house and BE with REAL people.

The Social Gospel Revisited

2011-10-10T13:40:00.000-07:00

The Social Gospel Revisited

While the Left and Right trade rounds over who's worse the Tea Party or the OWS, I have largely avoided the entire nonsense but stubmled upon what I thought was an interesting article. No, there's nothing new here, it's the same old "social gospel" most of us have heard about before - just dressed up amidst the ongoing political marginalization wrecking havoc on our government and even our churches.

Of course I have some very serious "issues" with the author here. First of all can anyone claim to speak for the OWS protests in terms of what PRECISELY they are protesting and what changes PRECISELY they want to see done? If and when that is ever accomplished then how exactly do we decide if what is being protested and what is being called for is in fact Christian? Sure it's easy to say that we Christians are to love and care for the poor, but does that care and concern possibly stop when we are forcing other people to do it for us? Can we vote away our Christian duty? Again, I understand the desire to do what we think is right, but I just don't see Christ giving a great deal of concern to political solutions. The author of this article talks about Jesus hanging out with tax collectors and whores and the down-trodden...yes, yes, and yes. But He wasn't seeking to bureaucratic social services program for them...He was seeking these people's souls.

"Blessed are the poor (in spirit - ahem!)" I'm not entirely sure I understand why the author at once lauds being poor and then apparently seeks to politically end poverty (an utter impossibility if our Lord is to be believed). Christians may be called upon to reject materialism, and consumerism, and even wealth itself...but I do not believe we are called up to utilize the force of law to persuade others to follow "The Way" (However that is defined.)

"The Way" is not a path to social justice. It is a path to Theosis. Miss this truth and you've certainly missed the Chruch - with or without "christianese". Jesus doesn't redeem the poor from their poverty; He redeems the dead from death! Our participation in this New Life will certainly include seeking to help the suffering and to put others before ourselves. But I'm less inclined to think our Christianity plays itself out very well in the political arena. All I see there (on both sides) is idolatry, atheism, quest for power, and desperate searches for a heaven on earth that cannot succeed.

In our Lord's example I see neither Tea Party nor OWS protesters, on the contrary I see God incarnate come to save that which was lost: the lives and souls of His beloved creation. I see Him looking into the hearts of men and women and CHANGING them from the inside-out. Got that? INSIDE-OUT. The most important social justice in the universe is that He conquers death. What room for politics in that? HA! I'd say not much. Politics may be an important hobby for many (and I've my opinions for sure), but let's not mistake where the Church is really to be found.

I recall an old Mike Stand song in which he sings: Forget the bombs that destroy our world; a million times over we kill ourselves, a million times over we need to learn; that in this life we make our choices: serve ourselves or walk in the footsteps of love...

Social Justice? Well how's it working out in that passion filled and storm tossed heart of yours? I won't bother you with that over-quoted saying of St. Seraphim...y'all know it. We can't vote this world into the Kingdom. Left and Right need to get this...so do I. Now, back to killing myself and my neighbors while dreaming of a political savior to make it alright.

Steve Jobs

2011-10-06T12:23:00.000-07:00

Steve Jobs

The Problem of Death: God has an App for that.

Tax us to Death...umm I mean health.

2011-10-05T06:48:00.001-07:00

Tax us to ~~death~~ health

Apparently Denmark has begun taxing saturated fat in what they claim to be an effort to reduce their "obesity epidemic." I say "claim" because I really don't know how anyone can look at the history of sin taxes (or even outright bans) on things people love and actually believe them to be effective at reducing their usage. The cynic in me rather suspects this is just a clever way to raise revenue under the guise of trying to protect people from this "magical food" (as Nick Gillespie puts it so well) that makes us fat. A few thoughts:

First, let us assume that the "obesity epidemic" is real or as bad they claim and not an artifact of sliding scales and labels. (It is actually debatable) Well, what has caused it? We've been given lots of answers, but I think the real issue is far more complex than a simple 6,000 paged bit of legislation can solve. None-the-less we are perpetually given new reasons for the "epidemic."

One famed cause usually given for the "epidemic" is Fast Food. Yes, evil saturated fat robber barons have strapped us to racks and force fed us with greasy foods until we became addicted. So says Morgan Spurlock in his "documentary" and to no small degree the evils of fast food became a part of popular "wisdom" to the point that government HAD to come save us threatening and sometimes implementing legislation of various sorts. Oddly enough I just read an article which demonstrates that despite the fact that due to pressure fast food joints virtually making us sign liability forms telling us exactly how much fat is in the food we ordered and despite the fat that we can opt for apple slices instead of French fries in our kids' happy meals, our eating habits have not changed there at all. In other words when we are asked if we want the evil clown restaurant to serve apple slices we say YES! But when asked if we want apple slices when we order food there we say NO! The lonely apple slices have all turned golden brown almost matching those delicious fries - except in taste. Nobody wants a salad in place of their Whopper! So the public health Nazis who thought the fast food robber barons were to blame need to wake up and realize that they are simply selling us what we WANT!

The other famed cause is a simple one (to the simple-minded): Fat makes us fat. I think we are closing in on about 40 years now of being lectured about the dangers of fat and cholesterol. The government has been educating us about the goodness of their carb rich food pyramid for a very long time. And consider how long we have been marketed to with low fat food alternatives - the demand being so high such that they even went so far as to try sell us some sort of synthetic fat that had the tendency to make us soil ourselves. And we bought it because we feared the evils of fat more than massive skid marks - such is our love for fat. But, ironically research has shown that we as Americans have in fact reduced our overall fat and cholesterol intake, but alas our waistlines do not correlate. Furthermore there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that much of the data we have relied upon for the "fat makes us fat" or "cholesterol gives you heart attacks" memes are terribly unreliable. The fact of the matter is that nutritional studies are notoriously difficult to do and from all I've read I believe the jury is still very much out on just how bad fat (and its various forms) are for you. Please consider spending sometime at Chris Masterjohn's website. Many posit that the shift to carbs (thank you US Government sponsored food pyramid)- especially the refined sort - are just as much to blame for our ongoing epidemic and likely added to it the wonders of adult onset diabetes.

The blame game goes on and on...and I'll mention one more: advertising to kids. You see our kids witness all those cartoon commercials for super deep fried sugar frosty malted corn bomb cereal and they force us parents to buy it for them. Obviously as our kids get fat we MUST blame the advertisers. Surely not the parents who bought such garbage for the kids - and furthermore allows them to eat it while watching TV which only allows them to be fed more advertising. And remember: no one can be expected to resist the evils of advertising. Such is the evil power of such evil. It's irresistible evil I tell you! I think they use the dark side of the force to cloud our judgment. Not unlike the government and their public health lackeys who are bent on being our nannies....the only difference is that we can't shut their taxes or bans off like we can the TV.

They'll tax until their hearts are content. Once they ban bacon I'll be joining the local pork cartel and will render their war on bacon even less successful than their war on drugs! I'll find ways to hide the hogs in my backyard from the night vision helicopters and such. Remember friends, I can supply all your pork needs when the time arrives. They may make vegans out of you, but they'll have to pry the pork rinds out of my cold dead hand!

By the way, as most of you know I'm obese. I think it's due in large part to beer...which is a decidedly ZERO percent fat food...which is why I drink it - it's the liquid version of the top of the food pyramid for crying out loud!

Well that worked out well!

2011-10-04T08:33:00.001-07:00

Well, that worked out well

I had the best of intentions to blog here more often once I left Facadebook, but I'm finding that real life and particularly my new (almost a year now) job is monopolizing my time.

This period of Internet silence on my part has led me to consider what exactly I have to say and why. Is this just like Facadebook in slow motion where I can put up my facade or pontificate with the equivalent of longer forms of Internet bumper stickers stupidly thinking I can change the politics or religion of others? I still have my convictions, I'm just weary of doing fruitless drive-by's on their behalf.

I'd like to think not. Why is it important to me that I get my opinions out in public? Is it important to me? Does having a blog by default imply it is important to me? I'd like to think I've no illusions with regards to my ego or pride, but I probably have a plethora of varied illusions and admitting so makes me no less subject to them. This is what I'm thinking about now:

Does it benefit one to have a clear vision of oneself and yet apparently be utterly unable to do anything about it? I like to think I'm a good person because I am pretty confident (uh-oh) I know my faults, my flaws, my passions, and my failings; whereas "bad" people are seemingly incapable of seeing their real selves. It's a nice and lazy fantasy I like to tell myself.

If I'm not growing and progressing can I really consider myself one of the good guys? In truth I'm worse than the worst of blind sinners, because I can see and yet...

Yeah a few choice scriptures come to mind with regard to knowing the good one ought to do and not doing it.

I still hold out hope that writing my thoughts down here can be redeemed from my online ego. I've come a long way from the person eager to argue religion and politics online...well...there's that ego again.

Television

2011-06-25T10:50:00.001-07:00

Television

I'm down in Southern California collaborating with and training at City of Hope's Cancer Immunotherapeutics & Tumor Immunology group. While here I am staying at a hotel and this affords me the rare opportunity to watch commercial television. I'm not sure how long it's been, but at least two years I'd say, and apparently since that time things have taken a significant turn for the more stupid. I'm sure it's not happened overnight and it's certainly not like stuff on TV wasn't comparatively stupid when I had it piped into my house, but having done some channel surfing this week, I have to say: wow.

I can remember when A&E actually had some programs on it that could be considered "art" in any sense or by anyone's definition. Now the channel is dominated by shows detailing the lives of folks like Gene Simmons' family, a group of people who apparently make a career of bidding on abandoned storage units in the hopes of making a profit, people suffering from a serious malady that has the rest of us feeling good about the messes in our house, and then there is some show called "Parking Wars" which I can only assume is about people trying to argue their way out of parking tickets. Astonishing.

And then there is the station that was a favorite of mine: the History Channel. I was pleased to turn it on one evening and watch a couple of good programs about the civil war. But then these were followed (as we hit prime time) by a show called "Swamp People" which is another of those reality shows that in this case follows the day to day life of people who live or make their living in...yes you guessed it...swamps. It looked to me like it was porn for people who want to maintain all their perceptions and stereotypes of rednecks. Then came "Ice Road Truckers" and "Only in America with Larry the Cable Guy." Sigh. Well at least they have SOME history still left on the "History" Channel.

The take home lesson this week so far with regards to television: I'm not missing much.

What ails us?

2011-06-23T18:12:00.000-07:00

What ails us?

Life online gives us 'Popcorn Brain.' Is it JUST online? Take a look at television today as compared to television 30 years ago...or God forbid...television before there was television.

Am I the only one to think of aspergers when I read this:

Clifford Nass, a social psychologist at Stanford, says studies show multitasking on the Internet can make you forget how to read human emotions. When he showed online multitaskers pictures of faces, they had a hard time identifying the emotions they were showing.

When he read stories to the multitaskers, they had difficulty identifying the emotions of the people in the stories, and saying what they would do to make the person feel better.

Now don't get me wrong, I do understand that aspergers and autism are very serious disorders, but they absolutely present with symptoms like this and it makes me wonder when we start diagnosing people later in life. Does our TV and internet lifestyle LEAD to diseases like this? Before you balk at the idea, keep in mind that MANY environmental things lead to disease...UV light from the sun leads to melanoma for example. And in that youthful stage of brain development, who can say that raising a child on MTV, Facebook, XBOX, iPhone, iPAD, and Windows Messenger etc etc doesn't lead to our youthful inability to concentrate, relate outside the comfort of a screen or keyboard, focus, or be QUIET for any remotely lengthy period of time. Have we reached the very pinnacle of that state the Father's have warned us against? Are we unable to suffer the quiet and solitude of our own thoughts? Must we be perpetually distracted? I think so. I really think so.

Another connection?

Celebrating Diversity

2011-06-21T21:27:00.000-07:00

Celebrating Diversity

A battle in the great culture war is brewing in NYC where they named a street "Seven in Heaven" after seven fire fighters who died on 9/11. As the link indicates, atheists are upset. Here's the fun quote of the day from the atheists:

All memorials for fallen heroes should celebrate the diversity of our country and should be secular in nature.

Ummmm...anyone else see the irony here? The only way to express our diversity is to be secular. Really?!? In other words, we must fully appease the worldview of atheists. I live on a street called Diamond Drive and I find that to be a pretty secular name. And if I had to guess, the odds are YOU who may be reading this probably also live on a street with a completely secular name. So, how does ONE MORE street with a secular name celebrate diversity? Sorry it's a nice appeal to PC by the atheists, but it simply does not fly.

I am personally weary of atheists slamming their religion of secularism down the throats of the rest of us in the United States who do not subscribe to the religion of secularism. Why is a government endorsing nothing but secularism not also an endorsement of religion? I think it is.

Standard Operating Procedures

2011-06-13T10:09:00.001-07:00

Standard Operating Procedures

To give some context: the principle investigator I work for had a fully functioning lab down in California before moving up here to start a whole new Center at SCRI, and my job has been to duplicate here the work that was being done there. Initially we felt that this could be done by simply following the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) that were written down in CA, coupled with visiting a nearby collaborating lab that is doing similar work. This has not worked out so well.

First off, the SOPs were not in standardized format and thus lacked many details. But even if they had been in a proper format, my experience with SOPs has shown that hardly ANYONE who has not had direct experience with the particular method is able to sit down with even the best written SOP and duplicate results. After a fair degree of trial and error the method can usually be worked out, but SOPs I've found cannot replace the much more valuable input of a human training another human. Once that is done, the SOP becomes an invaluable resource. But alone...well...not so much. Thus, I will be going down to the lab in CA in order to receive person to person training on some of the methods we've been struggling with here.

In all of this, I am reminded of parallels with Christianity. Consider Scripture, Tradition, and Discipleship.

Of course the obvious first parallel asks: How is Scripture like an SOP? Well not much at all really, but a huge proportion of Christians today believe it is in fact exactly like an SOP. A long time ago, I wrote a sort of mythical story about a long lost lab that produced a great deal of data and that modern labs today were trying to duplicate that data, but really only had the data itself with precious little information on how that data was produced. Obviously an impossible task. I was contending in this little allegory that Scripture is much more akin to data than an SOP - of course there are aspects of an SOP in Scripture, but it is undeniable that those sacred epistles of the New Testament were never intended to be the end-all informer of how to DO Christianity. And so trying to reconstruct the Christian faith from Scripture alone is not unlike trying to repeat experiments when you do not have a proper SOP. And as I've noted, even if you do have a proper SOP this doesn't mean you are going to be able to do the experiments properly.

St. Paul wrote to the Church in Thessalonica: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). As you well know (if you've been here long), Protestant dominated translations of this verse frequently alter its meaning by changing the word "traditions" to "teachings" when in fact the Greek is clearly paradosis which is defined by Thayer & Smith as "A handing over, which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc." Further St. Paul wrties to St. Timothy describing to him the means by which the great experiment of Christianity was to be duplicated by future generations: "And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).

In a healthy laboratory you will find excellent SOP's, but you will neccesarily find people who have experience and extensive skills in performing the functions of the laboratory. As newcomers enter the lab they are given the SOP to read, but they also OBSERVE the procedure being done by the experienced technicians - perhaps numerous times. And then they will themselves perform the method under close supervision of an experienced technician. In time the new technician will gain the skills and experience that no SOP can provide alone. It is, in a way, the same form in Christian discipleship. In the lab there is in fact an ongoing oral tradition on how to do certain things...details that should perhaps be included in SOP's but in my 15 years of scientific experience never seem to make it therein. Indeed there is always something left out such as some minute detail on a brand to use or a certain media color to look for when a particular cell line is not ready for transduction.

At the end of his Gospel St. John notes that "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" (John 20:25) and I would suggest the same is true of SOP's in a lab. You simply cannot include all the details even though we in the lab certainly try to do so. In Christianity, however, this was never the purpose behind the New Testament. Instead, they banked on an ongoing and living Tradition passed down from generation to generation of new believers, preserved by the Holy Spirit. And in that context, to whatever degree the Bible is an SOP, it fits quite nicely.

I've found in my lab that nothing can replace good old fashioned person to person training. That's the way Jesus ministered as well. One might suggest it's a part of why the Incarnation is so important. Like the Koran, God could have simply dropped a book out of the sky, but chose rather to have a lviving community be His witness and outside of that community His sacred text is largely uninterpretable data.

Finding a Champion

2011-06-07T07:33:00.000-07:00

Finding a Champion

Everyone needs one. Or perhaps I should say that everyone feels their particular ideology/cause needs one. They can be found everywhere. Really it's why we have celebrity product endorsements - advertisers would not waste their dollars if they were not effective. Of course you and I are immune to the appeal of having champions, right? Well, not really.

I was reading through some science blogs recently and (inevitably) stumbled upon another flame war between Darwinists, Creationists, and ID'ers. Now I've done my rounds in that debate, but my opinion on the matter isn't at issue here. What was interesting in the argument I found was that the entire issue focused upon the beliefs of one man who dies in 1975. In scientific circles he is well known: Theodosius Dobzhansky. You can read about him here and from a more Orthodox source, here.

There is no greater champion than one who switches sides...or appears to play on the team not typically played on by such champions. This is particularly the case when the competing sides are in religion or politics...all one needs to do to make a career in speaking and writing is to first gain some degree or prominence (or perhaps even not so much) on one side of the culture war and then switch sides! BANG! You double your star power!

So on this particular blog (I'm not going to link to it because I don't want the argument meandering over here) we have people debating the personal beliefs of this scientist because apparently both sides believe it is critically important to have poor old Dobzhansky on their side. Interestingly the debate centers on that one quote that can be found in the Wikipedia article above about not believing in a personal God. Contrast this with the stories briefly relayed in the other link. It's absurd in the end because who can really say what this man believed? You could go in circles forever digging up obscure quotes and looking at his life: trips to Mt. Athos or the fact that he was cremated. But does it really matter? Is it worth the effort to try and win the argument? I think it speaks to the overall quality that frequently exists in internet arguments.

I do find it interesting that science apparently needs their champions as much as religion. As I often note, there is unfortunately sometimes little difference between the two.

God does not need important people (by worldly definitions) to go to bat for Him. In fact, God in His rich wisdom has a history ridden with having the most unexpected of people go to bat for Him. Of course this is not always the case (we surely have a few Kings and Queens thrown into the mix, right?), but even then...God doesn't NEED these witnesses...we do. Curious that I opt for the word witness, eh? For in truth the greatest champions we Christians have are not those of prominence who have switched sides and go on speaking engagement/book tours to make a living, but rather those who literally lay down their lives as a witness to the faith.

Our true champions almost always suffer, and they stand at odds with the champions most of the world seeks to uphold. Some champions are busy holding out their keyboards to spill electrons online, but ours hold out their arteries to have their blood spilled. Even still today.

The data are what the data are

2011-05-25T14:13:00.000-07:00

The data are what the data are

I once made the mistake on Facebook of challenging the data in a statistic provided that bolstered a position in a very political hot topic. As hard as I tried, it seemed some could not get past the notion that I was actually arguing for one side or the other of the political issue when in fact I was simply criticizing the data. Dare I try again?

Well hopefully THIS isn't too terribly controversial. In the interest of full disclosure (though most of you know already) I am not a big fan of heavy handed public health science in the political arena and additionally I enjoy a cigar and pipe about 3-5 times a year. I'll start off by saying I am not going to enter into an argument about the dangers of secondhand smoke, nor the extent to which the government can or should legislate such bans. But I will posit this:

I do not believe there is any meta-analysis that could possibly convince me that this is accurate: "Secondhand smoke causes close to 50,000 deaths per year." I don't think anyone doubts that secondhand smoke is bad for you, but when people start tossing out "body counts" I start having doubts. It ends up being more emotion than real science. So I followed the rabbit down the hole.

CNN says the data came from the American Lung Association's webpage. I went there and looked and looked and looked. They cite the source as being the California Environmental Protection Agency. A reputable source? I'll let you decide. Still seeking the data. The CEPA cites that its source is an Executive Summary intended to set public policy in California. Hmmm. I kept searching...a Fact Sheet...a report...and finally a good deal of details HERE.

In all honesty I do not have time to plow through this in its entirety...but a couple of points to ponder: Did they pick and choose studies? In my experience with nearly every human behavior/health issue there is conflicting evidence. Proving behavior as a cause of death is exceptionally difficult...unless of course it involves an unopened parachute, a very very long skid mark leading to a tree, or a bullet hole. All of us know people who have smoked all their lives and never got lung cancer and some of us no doubt know people who got lung cancer and never smoked a day in their lives - and no exposure the second hand smoke. The point being: smoking isn't the only thing that causes lung cancer. It may be a prominent risk factor, but we have to ask how this understanding of lung cancer plays into the body count? And remember we are talking about a solid number...not increased risk. Insurance companies are probably a good indicator here...they know well that it is a serious risk factor, but that's different than a politically charged body count.

Heart Disease? They cite a number of studies that offers "estimates of the number of CHD deaths in nonsmokers that could be attributed to ETS exposure" and the keyword here is "COULD." That's different from a "FACT sheet" data point...that sounds more like a "Maybe sheet" data point. Heart Disease is a very complex disease and from all I've read the science leaves many questions unanswered. Given all the evidence out there I think it's fair to conclude that MANY factors may or may not play a role in any one person developing heart disease. I will have to look at the listed papers to see how exactly they decided that secondhand smoke COULD be attributed to the disease. But I have a really sneaky suspicion that my concerns will not be assuaged.

I have colleagues who regularly design human subject studies and they have backed me on this point saying in essence that designing studies that prove causality in human behavior/disease is indeed very difficult. And in addition the numbers are spurious.

Anyway...I'll reiterate I'm not suggesting smoking is safe or that second hand smoke is not bad for you. So please don't engage that route. I just don't believe that a body count can be accurately proposed and only serves to win political fights as opposed to providing real scientific insights.

Science Discovers Idolatry

2011-05-19T20:25:00.000-07:00

Science Discovers Idolatry

I don't think that THIS is any great surprise, is it?

The notion that this is a "new" thing connected with 21st century technology is, of course absurd. Idolatry is nothing new...we all know this, right? Of course there may be some unique aspects to the brand devotion, but is it any different than the frenzy worked up at sports events? U2 concerts? Or even, oddly enough, the hope and change ridden frenzy of politicians? Being "slain in the spirit" before a movies star? Or the dancing round about golden calves?

The interesting thing about all forms of idolatry is that they never seem to demand anything like personal reflection and change. Though, upon further consideration, they often do demand cash...so there is that sense of personal change.

Fairy Stories

2011-05-18T07:41:00.000-07:00

Fairy Stories

Apparently it's time once again for the news media to drag out a new story about some scientist preaching his (always "his" it seems) atheism. This time it's Hawking. And my oh my, he seems to be getting bitter in his old age saying heaven is merely a story to soothe the fears of those afraid of the dark. Maybe he's right. But, so? Does that necessarily make the story untrue?

I certainly used to believe that and rather enjoyed trumpeting such triumphalism and asserting that I wasn't afraid of the dark. But you know what...SHHHH....when it got to be late into the night and the house would be dark...sometimes I'd get a just a little tiny bit scared. Sometimes I'd turn a light off in the basement or garage and then get a sudden urge to RUN out of that room and into the light. And sometimes when I laid in bed alone I would ponder the nothingness of death and it would send a bit of a shiver down my spine and it would drive me to think of something more calming like food or sex. Avoid the subject of death...gird my loins to maintain the facade. So, my guess is, Hawking's bravery is also a bit of a facade...not to his fault of course, for we all have our facades. It's just that his supposed lack of fear of death is no apologetic for atheism I'm afraid.

And really, Dr. hawking, do you think that the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing", is one that science can really answer? I am not a physicist and so I grant that I might be absolutely wrong, but it seems to me that this is clearly a philosophical question. Is there any more or less science and faith involved in his notion of "Spontaneous creation" than in "'Let there be Light...'"? I agree that the question is not an apologetic for God. Really...God needs no apologists anyway. But something from nothing? Takes some faith doesn't it?

And speaking of the religion of atheism (disguised as science), I hear that the folks claiming the rapture will take place this weekend are being capitalized upon by the local congregation of the scientific faithful. It's a very clever little campaign intended to propagate the idea that science answers all of life's questions. Good times!

We Orthodox are of course tempted to laugh along with them. The Lord knows we've no wish to be lumped in with those wacky fringe Christians. But let's pause and keep in mind that these religious atheists would snicker no less at our belief concerning what happens each and every Sunday morning in Orthodox Churches around the world. I'm not trying to suggest an us vs. them decision needs to be made here...just suggesting we keep in mind that if they ever run out of REALLY crazy Christians to mock they'll hammer on us supposedly less crazy ones. So I'll be praying for the REALLY wacky Christians...God grant them MANY YEARS!

Exit question:

When the communion prayer first included this: "I will not speak of Thy mysteries to Thine enemies" was it perhaps in part to protect believers who might have been persecuted at the time? Clearly it stems from the time when the Liturgy of the Faithful was exactly that. Does anyone know how old that prayer is? Or maybe it's a "pearls before swine" thing? Both? It's interestingly linked to Judas' betrayal. Hmmm.

Preparing for winter.

2011-05-14T15:22:00.000-07:00

Preparing for Winter

As I cut each round off the tree they fell just like this. A nice start for next winter.

Farewell Facebook

2011-05-13T15:08:00.000-07:00

Farewell Facebook

A few days ago on a spur of the moment decision I killed my Facebook Account (actually they apparently freeze it in Liquid Nitrogen and are able to revive it anytime I accidentally click on the wrong bookmark of FB, after which I had to go back through the stupid process of explaining my reasons and then being shown pictures of people who will "miss you.") I didn't want to make a big commotion about it because my reasoning (no matter what it may be) will often be taken as a blanket condemnation of FB and all FB'ers. It surely is not! I know many people use FB responsibly and get a lot of good stuff out of it...I just wasn't one of them (at least not enough good to justify staying) and that's certainly a condemnation of ME, but not FB or the good people who use it.

I mentioned when I promised to get back into blogging that I felt like Facebook was getting too noisy for me and that I missed the more simplistic communication we used to have in the blogging world. I compared it to sitting on a front porch and have a leisurely chat whereas Facebook is like Drive By Screaming or sometimes shooting at one another...again that's my feeling...not a fact, every one's mileage varies. I'll also be honest...I got out because as the election season approaches I expect the partisan passions to flare and it just bugs me. Not because I think I stand loftily above the fray, but rather I'm much too tempted to enter the fray. Politics aren't good for the soul...I really believe that and repent of the passion with which I hold and especially have held my political beliefs (this will mesh with a future post about being opinionated). I know some may hold passionate political opinions and not sin, but I know in my heart it was not a force for good. (You'll note I'm not saying I believe I am wrong in those opinions, I'm just gonna hold less dearly to them and I'm gonna be a lot less active in their promotion.)

Also, as I've blogged before, facebook I think is more aptly named "facadebook." I thinks it's very good at simulating community, but I think it might actually deteriorate real community or usurp it. Maybe...that post was really just thinking out loud. Blogging could be similar...but to a lessor degree maybe. If nothing else it gives us a bigger glimpse into people's lives as opposed to the equivalent of 100's of 30 second television commercials.

Anyway, I needed to step away and I'm already finding that it is giving me more time. Will I be productive with that time? Not likely...however much I should. I may write some more (here and also on that darned eternal story I need to finish). I certainly have a ton of summer projects around the farm. And as a supervisor now I can spare no time for FB at work (yeah yeah...we should never spare any time for FB at work! I know!).

So, anyway, I'll visit more blogs and blog myself more. So, grab a fine ale, wine, sweet iced tea, or single malt and sit a spell...that if if you don't mind my ramblings. As before I will promise there won't be too much controversy. And remember I'm not trying to be critical or others who make great use of FB. I'm being critical of myself mostly.

Christ is Risen!
(oops...controversial already!)

"Spiritual Atheists"

2011-05-09T08:35:00.000-07:00

"Spiritual Atheists"

I stumbled upon THIS article late last week and thought it interesting given my last post. I thought the article starts off on the wrong foot right off the bat with this odd statement: "The pursuit of science can be compatible with spirituality." Keeping in mind what I wrote before, this statement is running the red lights in both directions - I think.

I would say that actually a large number of people self-identify as "spiritual" and usually do so to escape the negative image associated these days with being "religious." Similarly many evangelicals will reject being called "religious" in favor of having a "relationship with Jesus." Cynics will of course be quick to tell the evangelical: "Same difference" and they are right. But I'd suggest it's also the same difference for those without a distinct Christian identity who yet call themselves "spiritual." Oddly enough, this article goes on to suggests a big difference between being "spiritual" and being "religious."

According to Ecklund, many of the scientists viewed both science and spirituality as "quests for meaning" that do not invoke faith. Religion, on the other hand, requires belief without empirical evidence, and is thus incompatible with the pursuit of science.

Huh? Ummm....where exactly is the "empirical evidence" people have to support their "spirituality"? I've never seen it and furthermore I'm willing to bet that the 2 out of 5 scientists who are "spiritual" have fairly different ideas of what they actually believe about "spirituality" since as far as I am aware there are no experiments to repeat and no data to be published on the topic. So to suggest that religion is incompatible with the pursuit of science whereas spirituality is not just seems absurd.

And the article isn't done telling us about the differences, but in this example I totally agree:

Another difference between religion and spirituality, according to the atheistic scientists who were interviewed, is that the former is a communal, collective endeavor, while the latter is personal.

Yes indeed. In spirituality you rely solely on yourself. You may look at external data, but you are free to accept or reject it without much consideration - you know, if it doesn't "work" for you. Religion is communal. Amen. But here's something to consider for those seeking to have their "spirituality" be compatible with science:

SCIENCE is also very much communal. I do not go into my lab each day and reinvent the wheel. I build upon centuries (more actually) of experience. And we collaborate. We share ideas and we rest upon the foundation of what we know to be so already. "Standing on the shoulders of giants." Science, in this regard is not all that different from religious tradition...to some degree at least.

To dismiss centuries of spiritual wisdom under the notion that *I* in my own vast wisdom, insight, enlightenment, and knowledge can discern truth (for me?) best is as absurd as me tossing aside the immunology texts and setting out on my own to discern how our bodies manage to fight diseases. I can figure out this truth on my own.

Of course these analogies aren't perfect. But I would simply suggest that neither spirituality nor religion ought to be anymore personal than is science. Discerning truth on your own is a dangerous game. The father and mothers of the Church would agree as much as would all the fathers and mothers of science. If, as the article implies, religion is incompatible with science then I am in big trouble.

:)

The Limits of Proof

2011-05-03T08:28:00.000-07:00

The Limits of Proof

The Sunday of St. Thomas always brings to my mind the intersection between science and religion, an intersection at which I spent no small amount of time since I don a white lab coat during the day and a black cassock on nights and weekends. Popularly, I think people tend to believe that science and religion MUST find some common ground or some construct in which they are reconciled to one another. And in so doing we see two extremes (in my opinion): one person will seek to use science to prove all manner of religious ideas, experiences, and history; Another person will insist that such data be made available before they will believe in said religious ideas, experiences, or history. The problem is, as I see it, that both persons proceed from the assumption that the scientific method of discerning truth or reality not only can be, but must be universally applied to all things. There is nothing a scientific approach cannot discern and no place where science can or should comfortably and peacefully remain silent.

Enter St. Thomas. He wants "Evidence that demands a Verdict." It would initially appear that St. Thomas is that second person above who will not believe until he is shown the "data." Now before anyone gets their science loving minds into a frenzy thinking I am being overly critical of the science please consider how I make my living and this: I do not think it is unreasonable to expect proof of extraordinary claims. Usually. Think back to St. Thomas...

St. Thomas, as we all know, gets his data...in a rather dramatic fashion to say the least. But consider the proof needing mind and what response might we expect? You are presented with a person you were fairly certain was dead, now clearly alive. I think most of us would first rationalize the situation with our gloriously powerful and rational minds: maybe he didn't die at all, but merely passed out? We've all heard the phrase: there's got to be a rational explanation! For St. Thomas though, there is no question. Some might suggest that the power of the evidence (perhaps the wounds were clearly mortal) overwhelmed him, but even if so St. Thomas goes a step further and offers that wonderful proclamation and affirmation of our Lord's divinity: "My Lord and my God." One might say that the evidence proved to him that Jesus was supernaturally brought back to life, but no scientific evidence led him to the conclusion that he stood before the Creator of the universe. That was an altogether bigger step...after all he'd seen miracles before. Jesus being "I am" was something he discerned in some other way...no experiment could regenerate that data - not at least in the same way.

You see, I believe that the intersection of science and religion has a natural traffic light - whether we discern its existence or not. Science is limited to our senses and our natures, it is not something that exists outside of ourselves. If all of human kind were to die, so also would science. It doesn't mean reality changes or is different (all the great constants and laws of nature remain as much as we understood them), but it is important for us to understand that science is a tool and is hinged permanently to our senses. Our limits belong to it as well. And, friends, in our fallen state we are in fact profoundly limited...as most of you know, we are not God.

I find that failing to discern the aforementioned traffic light is a problem for both the religious and the secular. The religious are personified by young earth creationists and the secularists really have no demeaning label that I am aware of, but in my experience most secularists tend to see no red light for science. Either way, one sees the Bible as explaining everything and the other sees science as explaining everything. Both are wrong.

One of the biggest areas that I see the push for science to explain everything is in evolutionary sciences and a great example is specifically "evolutionary psychology." The problem I see here is that evolution has come to be an all-encompassing universal theory for all that exists (biologically) and thus for anything we see in our morphology, what we do, what we feel, how we act, what we believe, and indeed EVERYTHING about us must have some evolutionary explanation and therefore all such things are quickly formulated into an explanation as to how it could have evolved through the standard Darwinian method of natural selection. It's interesting, but I think it's also running a red light and frankly there's not a shred of data to demonstrate how (for example) belief in God evolved in us and their likely never will be...it's largely and ironically an article of faith.

Let us pretend for a moment that science CAN explain how we evolved to love or how we evolved to hate. Once it does so, science is then done with the equation and misses the most important part: ascribing some value to love or to hate. Science simply leaves us in the desert of biological determinism and offers us nothing more. I hate or I love...like an on or off switch. From an evolutionary standpoint (as it explains all) posits only one value: propagate my genes.

And similarly, science could offer nothing to St. Thomas that would convince him that he was touching God. The touching itself surely convinced him that Jesus was alive, but his statement was purely a statement of faith which was supported not by facts, data, or evidence but rather by what I believe was his relationship with Jesus Christ. I think this is the case because for me at least, it is this a similar relationship coupled with the testimony of the Apostles ("these are written that you may believe") through which I may touch the nail prints that affords me the faith to make the same confession today. I was 10-fold the doubter that St. Thomas was, but at some point I came to realize what it meant when Jesus and Pilate debated about truth and our Lord proclaimed that HE was the Truth. When Truth is a person, what does science have to offer about truth? Not much. In that realm, science is as useful as a bag of hammers to a scuba diver. We have exceeded our limits.

"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." No telescope or microscope can help.

God is Dead Rerun

2011-04-22T08:31:00.000-07:00

God is Dead Rerun

2003. I actually do recall this Holy Friday when the sun made this dramatic and timely appearance. The hymns we hear today are really amazing and this captures a small portion of it all...though as always I offer the caveat that I can do it little justice. One must experience it and that doesn't just mean being present. Immersion is necessary I think...and I need to remind myself of that continually.

God is dead

Entering the Nave on Friday morning for the sixth hour prayers, my youngest daughter lets slip out a small gasp at the sight of Jesus hung on the cross and set before the royal doors. We hung Him there last night, I remind her.

Today He who hung the earth upon the waters is hung on the tree.
The King of Angels is decked with a crown of thorns
He who wraps the heavens in clouds is wrapped in the purple of mockery
He who freed Adam in the Jordan is slapped on the face
The Bridegroom of the Church is affixed to the cross with nails

As we enter, we approach the icon of the crucifixion and we prostrate ourselves before it. Then, we move on (awkwardly with the little ones doing the best they can to mimic our bodies' display of reverence) to stand before Jesus - bowing down, we press our lips against his nail pierced feet.

All creation was changed by fear
When it saw you hanging on the cross, O Christ
The sun was darkened, and the foundations of the earth were shaken
All things suffered with the creator of all

As we take our place I notice a bright beam of sunlight (in western washington?!?!?!?!) entering into the Church through a window in the dome. It illumines the icon of the Theotokos, which rests beside our dying God.

Today the blameless virgin saw you suspended on the cross, O Word
She mourned within herself and was sorely pierced in her heart
She groaned in agony from the depth of her soul

Though we stand outside time, the earth continues to spin and the sun moves. I watch as its light crawls across my God's outstretched arm. Jesus is now dead upon the tree. His face is illumined by the sun at the exact moment that His nails are removed. Life's funeral is about to begin.

Joseph of Arimethea took you down from the tree
The Life of all, cold in death

As our Lord is brought to the tomb, I notice the empty cross now fully bathed in the light of the sun. In Hymn we hear the voice of my son's patron Joseph:

O my beloved Jesus
A short while ago, the sun beheld you hanging on the cross...

Our God is in His tomb now, and we keep vigil...watching and waiting...

God's Funeral Rerun

2011-04-22T08:19:00.000-07:00

God's funeral Rerun

From 2004. Our practice is slightly different now, but that is no matter. Today we are in fact having God's funeral. Looking back at old blog posts from some of my early Paschal / Holy Week experiences is a real blessing to me. It's that whole "return to your first love" sorta thing. Again...we need to be MOVED by all this, not just emotionally but in every way. Anyway...flash back 7 years...

God's Funeral

As we enter the Nave of the Church on Holy Friday afternoon, we can prominently see Jesus still hanging on the cross in front of the Iconostasis. We prostrate ourselves before this ominous scene. In short order, whatever Nietzsche might have meant by his famed quote, is now at least literally true.

From where we stand, I crouch down to my eldest son Nicholas and point to the cross, "Jesus is dead."

He ponders this thought for a moment and I notice that his eyes are drawn to the icon of the Theotokos behind and to the left of Jesus' body. "Oh, Mary will be sad!"

"Yes, I am sure she is. Now we will take Jesus down and bury him."

The clergy move solemnly out of the sanctuary and pull the nails from him and wrap him in a fine linen cloth - just as the Noble Joseph did...and in a sense does. They take the shrouded body and lay Him upon the altar, truly the passover lamb slain for us...and we sing:

Joseph together with Nicodemus took Thee down from the tree,
who clothest Thyself with light as with a garment.
He gazed on Thy Body - dead, naked and unburied?
and in grief and tender compassion he lamented:
Woe is me, my sweetest Jesus!
A short while ago, the sun beheld Thee hanging on the cross,
and it hid itself in darkness.
The earth quaked with fear at the sight.
The veil of the temple was torn in two.
Lo, now I see Thee willingly submit to death for my sake.
How shall I bury Thee, O my God?
How can I wrap Thee in a shroud?
How can I touch Thy most pure Body with my hands?
What songs can I sing for Thy Exodus, O Compassionate One?
I magnify Thy Passion.
I glorify Thy burial
and Thy holy Resurrection, crying: O Lord, glory to Thee!

Yes, the Resurrection looms over our bereavement, and I reassure my son who seems mesmerized by the sight of the clergy symbolically carrying Christ's body (now in the form of a large tapestry depicting Him being taken down from the cross) to the beautifully flowered tomb in the center of the church. I tell him that everything will be okay - that grand fib that all parents tell their children. I tell him that Pascha is coming, the reality of which is the only thing that makes my reassurance (or any reassurance) not be a fib.

And so we lay God in His tomb.

Much later that night we begin the lamentation vigil in which throughout the entire night someone will be present at the tomb chanting or reading the Psalms. The entire Church is virtually devoid of light save for the few candles lit to assist the reader in reading. My wife and I must have gone through about 30 psalms during our hour and it was an experience that I have a hard time formulating into words at the moment...I was reminded of my gramdmother's funeral a few months ago. I was reminded of Death and a number of the Psalms warned me that "man is a vapor."

Death reigns for the moment...but I can already hear the stirrings of Holy Saturday.

Not only CAN you take it home, you MUST

2011-04-21T15:47:00.000-07:00

Not only CAN you take it home, you MUST

In the midst of all we are doing, I have been having pressed upon me (perhaps by the Holy Spirit) a nagging sense that this experience we are having should be more than an experience in and of itself. It ought to be something that is changing us. It's far more than a vacation from which we will retain a few fond memories or stories and perhaps create a slide show to entertain friends. Instead, all that we are doing as the pinnacle of our Lenten experience should have lasting effects.

For many of us this "Liturgication" threatens to be indiscernible from a regular vacation filled with pretty sights, warm fuzzy feelings, nice music and some good drink and food. If we allow it to only be this for us, then perhaps we would have been better off just going to work.

Are we growing? Are we climbing the ladder? Are we seeing fruit in our lives? Are we changing? Are we seeing us move, albeit slowly, ever closer to fulfilling our vocation of fully being the Image and Likeness of God? Or are we content to remain as we are and be entertained by the richness of this week?

I think it is fair to suggest that the Resurrection made a rather significant change in the lives of the Disciples. It leaves me wondering, in my seemingly changeless state, whether or not I've allowed my eyes to be opened to see the reality of what we experience this week and through Pascha itself. As we lead up to Pascha and are experiencing the crucifixion and death of our lord, you will hear us praying in the hymns over and over again, asking that our Lord "SHOW us also Thy Resurrection..." Yes, to soothe the pain of experiencing death and torture, but perhaps also we ask in order to have our eyes opened to the reality of it?

Perhaps our personal prayers should also involve us asking: "Make it real to me...not just on an emotional level, but to a degree that shakes me free of myself. SHOW us Thy Resurrection and let us be forever changed."

Lent is not unlike a great revival because throughout it we are exhorted to wake our souls from sleep, to reanimate ourselves into the reality of the Kingdom...a reality to which we are usually utterly oblivious. This week, though no longer technically Lent, is the culmination of all our efforts. And, in the spirit of St. John's Paschal homily, even if we did little in Lent, it's not too late.

I want His Resurrection to be mine as well. His victory over death and sin to be the first fruits of my humble victories (even if just from time to time) over my passions and sins. A Resurrection that leaves me startled into reality and ready to live the day to day life I ought to be living. Not that I seek to walk away from this week ready to be reverenced as a Saint by my new found willingness to live such a life...rather I'd just like to see it awaken me a little from the selfish sleep I'm stuck in. Just a little. Some change. Some progress. Make it REAL! We're not going to see a movie, we're going to have a life-altering experience. We (I) need to orient myself toward this goal.

We worship Thy passion, O Christ. Show us also Thy glorious resurrection.

Comparing and Contrasting

2011-04-20T22:19:00.000-07:00

Comparing and Contrasting

The following is a repost from 2005

Orthodox hymns and prayers love to do it, and tonight was probably one of the most blatant and recurring examples: Judas vs. the Harlot. Here's an excerpt:

As the sinful woman was bringing her offering of myrrh,
The disciple was scheming with lawless men
She rejoiced in pouring out her precious gift;
he hurried to sell the priceless one.
She recognized the Master, but Judas parted from Him.
She was set free, but Judas was enslaved to the enemy.
How terrible his avarice!
How great her repentance!
O Savior, who suffered for our sake,
Grant us also repentence, and save us.

The song goes on for several pages following the same swinging pattern: back and forth, comparing and contrasting the harlot and Judas. And the last couple of lines that I quoted also speak to another recurring theme: putting ourselves into the story and exhorting ourselves to recognize ourselves in the bad example and to seek the better example. If you think about some of the more common Orthodox prayers (i.e. pre-communion) you see this methodology is quite common.

But it isn't new. ["New" is a funny term I used here for obvious reasons.] The Gospel reading from tonight showed us the reasoning for this particular comparison, and the sequence of the two depicted events never really struck me until tonight.

St. Matthew 26
And when Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, a woman came to Him having an alabaster flask of very costly fragrant oil, and she poured it on His head as He sat at the table. But when His disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, "Why this waste? For this fragrant oil might have been sold for much and given to the poor."

But when Jesus was aware of it, He said to them, "Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a good work for Me. For you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always. For in pouring this fragrant oil on My body, she did it for My burial. Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her."

Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, "What are you willing to give me if I deliver Him to you?" And they counted out to him thirty pieces of silver. So from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him.

When I was a big Ron Sider/social gospel kinda guy I might have said something similar to what the disciples said in regards to the perceived "waste" of money. I mean you expect a sage like Ghandi to say something along the lines of "No, my dear, sell that and give the money to the poor if you wish to honor me." But of course, Ghandi was not the incarnate God. That changes things.

It blows me away that RIGHT after dealing with the issue of wasted money, repentance, and his own death, Judas suddenly seeks to betray Jesus for money. Anyone else notice the sort of speed bump we jolted over in the scene change here? While many folks have tried to create sympathy for Judas: to try and understand HIS point of view on why he did what he did...we Orthodox are rather encouraged to flee becoming Judas and rather become the harlot, understanding that our lips are more unclean and more stained than her whose mouth says in the song:

Loose my debt as I have loosed my hair.
Love the woman, who though justly hated, loves You...
Look at me who am engulfed in sin,
in despair because of my evil deeds.
But in Your goodness do not despise me.
Grant me forgiveness of my evil deed, O Lord and save me...
O Son of the Virgin, though I am a prostitute, do not cast me aside.
O Joy of the angels, do not despise my tears.
As You did not reject me as a sinner.
Accept me now as a penitent, in Your great mercy.

The Journey continues...Last Supper tomorrow and then on firday we will answer in tears the old hymnal question: WERE YOU THERE?

Holy Week

2011-04-20T07:49:00.001-07:00

Holy Week

It's difficult to describe Orthodox Holy Week to people of other traditions, particularly those whose faith experience includes no connection to a calendar whatsoever. The details of all that happens during this time would no doubt quickly present a “deer in the headlights” moment. Suffice to say (though it won't and thus I won't) that in a Liturgical setting we relive the last week of our Lord's life, but not only that, the liturgics themselves are perpetually reminding us that we are not mere spectators and neither are we simply remembering past events in a dramatic fashion. No, we are participants, and all of these events present to our personal and communal lives a challenge to consider our potential roles and how that plays out in our lives here and now.

By the end of Holy Week, the average Orthodox Christian ought to be extremely well versed in the scriptures, both Gospels and OT prophecy with regards to our Lord's Passion and Resurrection. In fact, there is a very intense tying together of all the great salvific stories of the OT and how these are fulfilled in the person of Christ...our Passover from the Egypt of sin and death...Pascha, our companion in the furnace, our hope in the valley of dry bones, etc. Overall, Holy Week and Pascha (it seems to me) takes all of what makes up Orthodox theology, worship, and praxis and brings it into a glorious and focused unity...it all becomes clear. It is an epiphany of sorts that I will say many who are not already awash in Orthodoxy may not get at all. I've been Orthodox for almost 10 years and I know I've much more to discover. It's seriously deep water for those willing to dive in. Every year there is some new epiphany...a "wow" moment.

I've been getting mailers throughout the last week from local churches advertising their Easter services. I note that occasionally one might have a “Good Friday” service of some sort, but really nothing for the bulk of Holy Week. A service or two (perhaps at sunrise) on Sunday morning, while most Orthodox are then sleeping having already had Easter at around 2-4am. I've no wish to be critical of other people's traditions, but merely as to compare and contrast I'll briefly look at what would need to be expressed in a Orthodox mailer letting people know what we are doing for Easter.

Throughout Holy Week, one can usually find at least two services each day (much more depending on how you wish to count the Hours and Typica which are often tagged onto the morning Liturgies). The highlight of these first three days is "Bridegroom Matins" in which specific themes are recalled, all with the primary intent of waking us up. All are punctuated by this well know Troparion:

Behold, the bridegroom comes in the middle of the night and blessed is the servant whom he shall find watching, and unworthy the servant whom he shall find heedless. Take care then, 0 my soul, and be not weighed down by sleep that you will not be given over unto death and be excluded from the Kingdom. But rise up and call out: Holy, Holy, Holy art Thou O God, by the Theotokos have mercy on us.

If M-W seems a great deal of services, the rest of the week is amplified (if only by LONGER services) even more. On Thursday night we have a VERY lengthy service in which by we hear 12 gospel readings which recount Jesus' betrayal, arrest, trial and crucifixion. It is a custom for many to carry home with you the flame of the candle you held throughout the evening and mark your doorway with soot from the flame in the form of a cross – hearkening back to the first passover. On Holy Friday we start with Royal Hours and then later we have what I like to describe as God's funeral...more properly called the “Vespers of Entombment.” Here we begin with the crucifixion, death, and burial of Jesus...marveling and weeping at the notion of God dying...we sing with the voice of Joseph and Nicodemus: “How can I bury thee O my God?” The service is nothing short of earth-shattering. From this point on (about mid-afternoon) the tomb at the center of the Church will not be left alone. We will take turns keeping vigil overnight, reading the psalms at the tomb...breaking only to have a another service in the evening in which we sing our Lamentations. In our Parish, a number of people will spend the night at the church filling in for spots where people have not signed up to chant the Psalter. It's truly beautiful to just sit in the relative darkness and listen and contemplate.

Holy Saturday...glorious Holy Saturday. I won't say with absolute certainty, but I am relatively sure we Orthodox are unique (for the most part) in keeping the tradition of this wonderful day – if not theologically then more surely Liturgically. It marks the beginning of the end for death and hell, It recalls what is sometimes referred to as the “Harrowing of Hell” in the service of Vespers and Liturgy which takes place around noon for us. It is the sacred Sabbath...the day of God's rest. But as Fr. Alexander Schmemman puts it, it is an “active” rest in which our Lord goes in search of His lost friend Adam, who represents us all. He brings Life to the realm of death...and death trembles. We hear triumphant stories (sometimes loudly) from the OT which all point to what we know is about to happen: “Let God Arise!” In this service we witness the dark colors of Lent and Holy Week be changed into Brightness...but we don't quite see Christ rise yet...we are given a sneak peak into the spiritual realm in which Christ brings His light to those in the tombs and death and the devil begin to realize their mistake: “ 'I should not have accepted the man born of Mary. He came and destroyed my power.' ” we sing, personalizing death in it's defeat. Sorrow and lamentation is turning to joy. It is time: Pascha comes that night and the Resurrection is fully made known to us. Death is overthrown! At the great, glorious, bright, and festal midnight service of Pascha we hear the more than 1,500 year old homily of St. John Chrysostom in which he reflects upon Christ's victory saying:

He that was taken by death has annihilated it! He descended into hades and took hades captive! He embittered it when it tasted his flesh! And anticipating this Isaiah exclaimed. “Hades was embittered when it encountered thee in the lower regions.” It was embittered, for it was abolished! It was embittered for it was mocked! It was embittered, for it was purged! It was embittered, for it was despoiled! It was embittered, for it was bound in chains! It took a body and, face to face, met God! It took earth and encountered heaven! It took what it saw, but crumbled before what it had not seen!

And at last we proclaim: “Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!” The celebration begins. We feast...but not only on food...the feast is more than food. It is a feasting on Life. New and Triumphant Life in Christ.

Thinking back to church mailers. This entire time of Holy Week is not something invented by a creative mind last month. It is not something we create to express what we feel or believe, but rather it is something into which we enter and something into which we conform ourselves. It is a great teacher, rather than an artistic expression of our current sentiments and sensibilities. It calls us out of those things and demands that we enter into the timeless realm beyond the short-lived fads of the here and now. It demands that we leave behind the baggage and our whims..it calls us out of ourselves.

Now tag onto all of this spiritually intense Holy Week, the innumerable preparations that would go into a big family funeral and then wedding. Odd, eh? I know. But amidst the lengthy and beautiful services, we are BUSY with preparations...both at home and as a community in our Parish. Cooking, cleaning, decorating, dyeing eggs, making gifts, buying gifts, wrapping gifts, preparing Pascha baskets, planning our attire, preparing flowers and their numerous arrangements, preparing the tomb, and many other things. It makes for little time...even little time for things like Facebook (thank God.) On Sunday afternoon we have another Paschal service followed by a great feast and party filled with games, music, dancing, and great fellowship. And not just this day...but also Monday and also Tuesday! All of this said....it occurs to me: how might I create a postcard mailer to send out to the local community that could possibly capture the beauty of all this season is for us? How could I communicate the wonder of it all? It's likely not possible. Orthodoxy is too big. To difficult to communicate without really experiencing it.

People at work ask me what I plan to do during my “vacation” beginning tomorrow. I have trouble answering. It's too beautiful to explain without very seriously demeaning its real profundity. As this post surely demonstrates.

Arise O God!

Meaningless Traditions

2011-04-11T08:56:00.000-07:00

Meaningless Traditions

Inspired by "Spring Spheres."

Some cultures accidentally forget the meaning in their traditions. Not us. We work our butts off in desperate attempts to forget them, as this story demonstrates:

"When I took them out of the bag, the teacher said, 'Oh look, spring spheres' and all the kids were like 'Wow, Easter eggs.' So they knew," Jessica said.

Really, how stupid would you as a teacher feel saying: "Oh look, spring spheres!" And seriously? Even the word eggs is too attached to Christian traditions? This is particularly funny because, let's face it, as a culture we already have largely forgot why eggs have any Christian symbolism! I mean, I was raised in a largely secular household and yet we still "did Easter." And yes, it was largely devoid of meaning. Apparently not enough for our PC age.

It is sad to see us working so hard to remove all meaning from what little cultural traditions we still largely share in this country. The fact is, when devoid of meaning our traditions become stupid - a thing to be mocked ala "Fiddler on the Roof." And so we see that Easter is no longer about the Resurrection, but it is now about baskets with toys and candy. Same with Christmas. People like to complain about how materialistic these holidays have become, but stop and think about it: when you rob from these traditions their original meaning and you seek to make it palatable to ALL people...well...what's left? We like to blame corporations, but I think they are simply, selfishly, and understandably filling the void with the only thing we are allowed to publicly hold in common: stuff. Yes, we paved the road upon which everything we hate today about Christmas readily travels.

It's the same with diversity classes in school. I remember when my kids were in public school and they had a lesson on Judaism. What did my kids get out of it: Matzah balls and dreidels. Stuff.

Is it any wonder that our traditions are reduced down to the lowest common denominators of food and presents? Of course not. And really, I don't think there is much that can be done about it...at least not on the political level. You all know me, as a borderline libertarian, in the culture war, I am a conscientious objector. I think both the religious left AND the religious right are wrong in their approach to legislate Christian morality - let alone tradition. So, for us, I believe the work is AT HOME.

I do not rely on the schools to teach my kids what Easter is all about (of course I don't rely on the schools to teach my kids anything...particularly about shapes). Nor do I need the Port of Seattle to display a Christmas tree to validate my family's beliefs and practices. Far from it. I, as a parent (and in no small part specifically as a father...a little priest of the home church), am responsible for making sure my family is keeping the traditions (and Traditions) in a way that is rooted in rich and full meaning.

This is timely as we approach Pascha. I have little doubt that my kids know why we are doing what we are doing. But, do they also see the reality of the Resurrected Christ living in me? Am I barking at them over their little failings in the midst of joyously singing "Christ is Risen"? Because if they don't see real change and real love in me, then they will join the lowest common denominator culture and go out to greet "Spring Spheres" instead of the empty tomb.

So as we watch the silliness of school districts, let's allow it to call us back home and to be one more Lenten hinge point, encouraging us to make this all very real in our lives and in the lives of those around us.

The Time of Preparation

2011-04-06T06:21:00.000-07:00

The Time of Preparation

We are fast approaching it. Sure, all of Lent is such a time, but as we draw nearer the preparations become overt and tangible. One of my favorite aspects of this time is the profound sense of community that is made manifest and also how our focus is shifted by the work to be done and the length, frequency, and solemnity of services. In my experience it becomes a week or more when earthly cares truly do almost cease...the insanity of the world fades and almost vanishes. This is REALLY timely as everyone gets their passions riled up to fight the government budget battle in the online version of jousting windmills. It should quite a show and I'm not at all unhappy to miss it.

There will be neither time nor desire to hear or comment upon the "latest." In some ways it's as if we are raptured and returned - perhaps changed, renewed, and refocused? For me the upcoming time of preparation calls out for a calibration of myself and to seek that which is needful and not wantfull. Oddly this time of preparation with all it's outward self-denial, feels so wonderfully rich and joyful even to the extent that we actually look forward to the labor it entails. We long for it. God knows we need it.

In the 4th century a Gallic woman by the name of Egeria made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. She documented these travels in a text that partially survives today and can be found here. Her account of Holy Week begins in section 63 and certainly demonstrates with only a focus upon services that being busy is nothing new. And it is overall a wonderful account that sometimes makes us think we have it easy in our "lengthy" services and "busy" week.

Bottling, cooking, egg coloring, gifts, choir practice, floral arrangements, church cleaning, house cleaning, decorations, special clothes, innumerable services ridden with gloriously unique liturgics, and all of it culminating in a funeral for God, all night Lamentations at His tomb, and then the glorious revelation that the deceased could not possibly remain so!

But amidst what may appear to be hustle and bustle there is a very serious degree of quiet and self-reflection. Even brief times of emptiness, it seems, are immediately filled with contemplation of the particular day and it's events we are commemorating. And a bit of emotionalism is not out of order as Egeria notes with regard to Holy Friday:

And when the sixth hour has come, they go before the Cross, whether it be in rain or in heat, the place being open to the air, as it were, a court of great size and of some beauty between the Cross and the Anastasis; here all the people assemble in such great numbers that there is no thoroughfare. The chair is placed for the bishop before the Cross, and from the sixth to the ninth hour nothing else is done, but the reading of lessons, which are read thus: first from the psalms wherever the Passion is spoken of, then from the Apostle, either from the epistles of the Apostles or from their Acts, wherever they have spoken of the Lord's Passion; then the passages from the Gospels, where He suffered, are read. Then the readings from the prophets where they foretold that the Lord should suffer, then from the Gospels where He mentions His Passion. Thus from the sixth to the ninth hours the lessons are so read and the hymns said, that it may be shown to all the people that whatsoever the prophets foretold of the Lord's Passion is proved from the Gospels and from the writings of the Apostles to have been fulfilled. And so through all those three hours the people are taught that nothing was done which had not been foretold, and that nothing was foretold which was not wholly fulfilled. Prayersalso suitable to the day are interspersed throughout. The emotion shown and the mourning by all the people at every lesson and prayer is wonderful; for there is none, either great or small, who, on that day during those three hours, does not lament more than can be conceived, that the Lord had suffered those things for us.

Show us also Thy glorious Resurrection...

The Awe-Full Great Entrance

2011-03-29T18:06:00.000-07:00

The Awe-Full Great Entrance

This originally found in the book previously mentioned, but tracked back through a book by Taft (devoted entirely to the Great Entrance and thus titled) and finally to Theodore of Mopsuestia of the late 4th Century. In it, Theodore is describing the Great Entrance of his time. (It should be noted that Theodore is a somewhat controversial character and you can read a brief account of that here.) However, that seems rather irrelevant if one is interested in the Liturgical topic addressed here, I think.

It is the deacons who bring out this oblation...which they arrange and place on the awe-inspiring altar, a vision...awe-inspiring even to onlookers. By means of the symbols we must see Christ who is now being led out and going forth to His passion, and who, in another moment, is laid out for us on the altar...and when the offering that is about to be presented is brought out in the sacred vessels , the patens and the chalice, you must think that Christ our Lord is coming out, led to His passion...by the invisible host of ministers...who were also present when the passion of salvation was being accomplished...

And when they bring it out, they place it on the holy altar to represent fully the passion. Thus we may think of Him placed on the altar as if henceforth in a sort of sepulcher, and as having already undergone the passion. That is why the deacons who spread linens on the altar represent by this the figure of the linen cloth of the burial...[and afterwards] they stand on both sides and fan the air [aer] above the the Holy Body so that nothing will fall upon it. They show by this ritual the greatness of the Body lying there...which is holy, awe-inspiring, and far from all corruption...a Body that will soon rise to an immortal nature...

It is evident that there were angels beside the tomb seated on the stone...and now too shouldn't one depict as in an image the similitude of this angelic liturgy?...[the deacons] stand around and wave their fans...because the Body lying there is truly Lord by its union with the Divine nature. It is with great fear that it must be laid out, viewed, and guarded. These things take place in complete silence because, although the liturgy has not yet begun, still it is fitting to watch the bringing out and deposing of such a great and wonderful object in recollection and fear and a silent and quiet prayer, without saying anything...and when we see the oblation on the altar as if it were being placed in a kind of sepulchre after death, a great silence falls on those present. Because that which is taking place is awe-inspiring, they must look on it with recollection and fear, since it is suitable that now, by the liturgy...Christ our Lord rise, announcing to all the participation in ineffable benefits.

We remember therefore the death of our Lord in the oblation because it makes manifest the Resurrection and the ineffable benefits.

Awful

2011-03-29T10:35:00.000-07:00

Awful

A blurb I threw up on Facebook:

We climb mountains or go to National Parks to marvel in awe at the sights. We even gasp at the visual trickery Hollywood feeds us. But our eyes are closed to the AWE-FULL mystery which culminates in the Anaphora. St. Cyril's description is poorly translated as "awful" when what he really wrote was ‎"that which makes your hairs stand on end."

This notion came from my readings of the book "The Orthodox Liturgy" by Hugh Wybrew, which us part of my assigned reading for the 4th semester of the DVP. I've actually read this book years ago either while I was a catechumen or shortly thereafter. I find that reading it now, after nearly 10 years of experience with the Divine Liturgy and especially the last few years of both serving and also having my children be of age that remotely allows me to pay greater attention to the service, has given me a much fuller connection to what is being written about in the book.

The subtitle of the book is "The Development of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite" and living up to this, Wybrew (because it's delicious and fun) goes into depth exploring the history of the Liturgy. He does a good deal of comparisons between the Western Liturgy and the Eastern, but these are of little use to me because I simply was not an Episcopalian long enough and the Assembly of God Liturgy is a totally different breed.

The section were he writes a great deal about the "Mystagogical Catecheses" by St. Cyril of Jerusalem we are really giving a fantastic image of 4th century Eucharistic theology which apparently had a good deal of emphasis on the "mystical sacrifice" which instantly (in this Lenten season) called me back to that powerful hymn we sing as the Gifts are processed to the altar in the Pre-Sanctified Liturgy:

Now the pow'rs of heaven
invisibly with us do serve.
Lo, the King of glory enters in.
Lo, the mystical sacrifice is upborne, fulfilled.

But along side the theology was the "practical" application of believing it...and that practical application was for them at the time to stand in awe. Clearly this takes some effort for even in a time when they didn't have all manner of awe-inspiring special effects in movies and such the people needed some reminder of the astonishing sacredness of what they were receiving in the Eucharist. St. Cyril writes:

In approaching therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers spread; but make thy left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest thou lose any portion thereof for whatever thou losest, is evidently a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if any one gave thee grains of gold, wouldest thou not hold them with all carefulness, being on thy guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Wilt thou not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from thee of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?

Then after thou hast partaken of the Body of Christ, draw near also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth thine hands, but bending, not kneeling, but standing in a bowing posture and saying with an air of worship and reverence, "Amen," hallow thyself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ. And while the moisture is still upon thy lips, touch it with thine hands, and hallow thine eyes and brow and the other organs of sense. Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who hath accounted thee worthy of so great mysteries.

Hold fast these traditions undefiled and, keep yourselves free from offence. Sever not yourselves from the Communion; deprive not yourselves, through the pollution of sins, of these Holy and Spiritual Mysteries.

So while the mechanism of communion has changed, the attitude has not...or at least should not. As Wybrew (because it's delicious and fun) points out "St. Cyril uses the language of awe and fear for the sacrament in itself: merely to be in its presence is cause for fear and trembling." And St. Cyril also suggests that through communion we do indeed become, as St. Peter suggests: "partakers of the Divine Nature." We would thus say: Salvific, a word utterly unknown to most people outside of Orthodoxy.

In my old denomination we would have communion once a month and I can vividly recall being greatly excited each time I would come into the sanctuary and see the tall silver coated plastic tray set up on the "altar" engraved with the words: "In Remembrance of Me." I could not put my finger on it at the time, but something about the physical nature of this remembrance worship service was profoundly moving to me. If you think about it, we humans are rather naturally inclined to physical things especially in the context of something we deem to be of the utmost importance: flags, candles, pictures of lost loved ones, objects held dear by loved ones etc. Watch in the face of catastrophe how we tend to cling to "things." Unless we are gnostics we see nothing wrong with this at all. The world is a gift, we are apart of it and our Lord Himself creation upon Himself making all things new. Looking back, what I think I see in my attraction at that time was a sort of embryonic notion of sacramental theology. I was on my way.

In the Pre-Sanctified Liturgy (in particular, but not exclusively) as the gifts are processed I remember the ill-evolved word "awful." As noted above St. Cryil intended it as "AWE full" and not so much "bad." I'm presently sick and inclined to tell people I feel awful...but it feels wrong now. When I feel awe, I feel a certain amount of ecstasy tempered with some fearful self-examination and a pull to change. So that after the entrance we finish the song:

Let us draw near in faith and love,
and become communicants of life eternal.
Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia.

The greatest miracle we'll see in this life happens each and every Sunday. Around us the invisible hosts stand and marvel. Where am I?

My New Gig

2011-03-28T15:24:00.000-07:00

My New Gig

At the end of December last year, after nearly 15 years in the same laboratory, I accepted a position as Research Laboratory Supervisor (Stupivisor) with Dr. Michael Jensen at Seattle Children's Research Institute. It was a big step for me as it entails more responsibility and a much larger array of scientific methods with which I need to familiarize myself.

I'm now 3 months into the new job and I could not be more happy with my decision. There's a real urgency and mission to the work we are doing, which is known in the scientific field as "translational research." What this means is that we aren't doing science for the sake of science (broadening human knowledge), but rather our work has directly in our sights the goal of bringing to patients a viable therapy.

You can learn more about what we are doing HERE.

It's a blessing and an honor to be working at a place where success is largely defined not be received grants or published papers, but rather lives saved. Unfortunately grants and published papers are how we get there so that doesn't change...but they remain the means to an end and not the end.

Has it been this long, really?

2011-03-28T10:54:00.001-07:00

Has it been this long, really?

It's obvious that Facebook has largely consumed my time that I used to spend blogging...I suppose that's okay, but I find I'm growing weary of the machine gun pace on Facebook. It's a great way to stay in touch with people, but it feels like I'm being subjugated by a billion different TV channels that are often largely filled with politically based commercials. It's like listening to an endless stream of soundbytes...and I don't say that in criticism of others, it's just rather the nature of FB. I miss the more leisurely front porch style of Blogging. So, I'm back.

That said, what I don't miss here (or on FB) are online debates and arguing. This isn't to suggest I won't engage in a little comparing and contrasting of attitudes, ideas, or whatever but what I will be trying to consciously avoid topics that tend to engage the passions. Chief among these is politics. Ii once said on Facebook that the only thing that engages people's passions more than politics is pornography and I still think that is largely true. In my own life and experience, if I'd put half the energy and conviction into my faith that I put into my political persuasions then I might see some real progress. I will of course leave others to decide for themselves the extent to which this might be true for them. So, all of that said, they'll be precious little politics to be found here (at least as far as it depends on me...there seems to be no end to the intellectual reach that people will grant to politics).

Instead, I want to return to the roots of this blog which was really all about converting to Orthodoxy, living immersed in ancient Traditions of the Church, and more recently our efforts to live more self-sufficiently and sustainably - closer to God's gift to us...the dirt from which we were formed. (I'm learning to get over my fear of it...honestly). And also, the everyday struggles of fatherhood and family.

Since October I suppose a lot has happened. I've slowly continued with the Diaconal Vocations Program, having recently started the 4th Semester program on Liturgics which has been quite profitable to me personally. This is particularly true as we began Lent...I have felt a very strong pull to "come to my senses"...in the evangelical context one might say I've rededicated my life. If Lent is all about calling us home...well, I'm trying to listen.

Our Mission in Poulsbo has purchased land with a former American Legion Hall on it which we will convert into a Temple. It's an exciting time for us!

On the farm we've fought a vicious battle with rodents this winter and I think we currently have the upper hand. Egg production has been close to ZERO and this has weighed heavily on us financially. Many of the birds are finding their way into the freezer, but that is a slow process. Hopefully as the sun gets higher and more plentiful we'll start seeing more eggs.

The kids are getting rabbits this week and it is expected that this will put more meat on the table for us...though I am apprehensive about killing cute bunny rabbits, but we'll see.

Several high electric bills have made us painfully aware of the need to utilize wood. We were short on wood this year, but thankfully some friends offered some already downed and seasoned timber from their property in Port Townsend and this was truly a Godsend. That wood is now gone and I've been burning some wood that isn't quite seasoned.

Well if anyone happens to stumble by (I'm sure many have given up this blog), I do intend to be back on a fairly regular basis. Not because I feel I have anything particularly grand to say, but would like to sit on this porch and converse with people with similar interests. I'd be happy to have folks join me.

The Theologian Clint Eastwood

2010-10-13T10:36:00.000-07:00

The Theologian Clint Eastwood

An article regarding /interview with (in part) Clint Eastwood who's newest movie apparently will be a theological treatise of sorts. Here's the trailer:

Anytime Hollywood puts out something that addresses in any capacity the numinous, I tend to cringe. Of course, not having seen the film I cannot say anything about it, but a couple of things Eastwood says (directly or otherwise from the article) caught my attention.

"Eastwood was attracted to "Hereafter" because it deals with the afterlife in a spiritual manner without turning religious."

Blech! Give me a break. Am I the only person sick of the "spiritual but not religious" mantra? I'm sorry but it's a steaming pile of BS. Let me spell it out to all "spiritual" people: YOU ARE RELIGIOUS! And odds are you also have all manner of doctrines and dogmas you cling to, the only difference is that YOU made them up. You reject (much like a fundamentalist) aspects of what you call religion with no less vehemence (even if more calmly) than a Bible-Thumper might employ in their rejection of something. And, I might add, perhaps with no less arrogance.

Ok, rant on that point over.

And then this:
"I couldn't believe that God would be a great sadist in the sky, getting pleasure out of, 'If you screw up, I'm going to bust you, boy,'" Eastwood said. "That's a way of keeping people in line, I guess."

He does find Buddhism attractive, "because they don't seem to be as mean-spirited, and their idea of God is sort of a heavyset guy who's got a smile on his face, and I thought, hey, that's nice," Eastwood said.

Some of you have likely read "The River of Fire" and how it lays the blame for attitudes such as expressed by Eastwood here squarely at the feet of "western theology." I do not doubt there is truth to that. Would that I could invite Eastwood to consider the Eastern Christian approach, perhaps he might see God as less a sadist. But then again, if Eastwood is looking for a jolly obese man he may well stick with Santa or Buddha (actually the Buddha rather demands some pretty strict asceticism so maybe Santa is the better choice) rather than any conception of a Holy and Loving God.

Western theology may indeed play a role, but I also do not want to erase people's need to "make religion in their own image." They will often take the title of "spiritual."

Amidst such criticism I will bring this home to ME and consider all the ways I try and make Orthodoxy in my own image. But I'll still not take too seriously the theologian Clint Eastwood of that God-protected city Hollywood.

Nothing Beyond

2010-10-06T07:39:00.000-07:00

Nothing Beyond

I've been tidying up my preparations for the 3rd semester DVP exam and as such it's been all about "Creation" this week starring Lossky, Meyendorff, and Florovsky. Ships of the Line I should think. Anyway, a few ragged (and uncorrected) thoughts while on the boat.

One might be tempted to cruise quickly through the idea of creation - as an evangelical I certainly did - for too many it is a simple tale: God made it, that's the end of it. But, really, that's the milk. There's rich, red fleshy meat to be had therein and I won't hesitate to add that my servings must be cut into safe bite-size pieces. Details of creation speak to the nature (and more importantly the nature vs. will) of God, the essence of mankind, the Fall, and Redemption. It also helps us to come to a proper perception of the created world around us here and now, in everyday life.

I find myself presently pondering this particular thought this AM: There is no eternal reality outside God. "Well Duh!" you may say...but for me I guess I never really gave this much more than a "well duh!" sort of passing thought.

I think this is really a very difficult concept to consider. In my aforementioned readings we are told that Patristic thought really wrestled with the Platonic idea of an eternally existing universe (or perhaps more specifically a sort of cyclical eternally existing universe - coming and going) because that was really fairly hardwired into popular belief. Origen apparently caved to it and mistakenly attributed creation to God's nature and this, Meyendorff tells us, ultimately renders indistinguishable the eternal universe and the eternal Logos. The Fathers would conceive of the idea of creation such that God's will and His nature are not one and the same. Thus God's nature eternally begets the Son and from God's nature eternally proceeds the Holy Spirit, but it is by God's will that the universe is created and along with it time. Quite distinct from begetting and processing.

Platonic notions of creation, I think, still abide in popular perception. I'm not entirely sure why, but I myself often struggle with NOT comprehending something in which God exists. Think about that for a moment (some of you will no doubt smile at my baby steps philosophy here, but bear with me). To no small degree I think modern christian apologetics tends to grant that God does in fact exist (and has always existed) amidst something other than Himself. Maybe you might, in juvenile fashion, perceive it to be a great throne room or if you are more astute maybe a vast realm of darkness pierced only by His light. But to consider that there is NOTHING other than God I think tends to render arguing through human reason for His existence an altogether absurd endeavor.

Atheists demand PROOF. Evidence! As if some external criteria can possibly or definitively identify He who is. (period). To engage such need for evidence with some notion that it can be provided seems to me almost crazy if indeed there is nothing outside of God (save creation). He IS the Absolute. We are like protozoa trying to prove that there is a man far above us staring at us with a giant microscope. We simply do not have the intellectual capacity or tools to prove any such thing. The question of God's existence itself becomes an absurd question. We cannot study God as if there were some context outside of Him to do so. As if He were an antelope on the plains of Africa which we might tag with a radio collar.

Now, that said, there IS of course something other than God. Creation. We do not confuse God and creation, nor do we make the mistake of Origen and perceive nature/creation to be an outpouring of God's nature. Creation exists as an act of God's will. And while there may be some degree of evidence for God's existence in the study of creation, we must I think, be extremely aware of the folly of putting too much faith in proof for God by scientific criteria. God is absolutely OTHER than creation and I'm inclined (strongly) to think that studying the "laws of nature" or employing the scientific method are not proper means of meeting Him.

The additional paradox to this idea of God as Absolute is that unlike some concepts found in eastern religions wherein such an Absolute is more a force or energy, our God is PERSONAL. He LOVES. And of course the most astonishing thing is that He unites Himself with His creation in order to restore and save it.

In any event...from my perspective it is an AWE-full (it really is a shame the word came to mean only negative and thus I clarify) thing to try and contemplate God with no context. The Great I am. God as God...beyond any setting...Absolute. Nothing other. Until He speaks. And even then, He remains completely transcendent. And yet very near.

I'm inspired to worship all the more.

What's the Problem?

2010-09-28T07:46:00.001-07:00

What's the Problem?

A post ridden with “”'s

Is it the “Institution” that is the problem? Whether it is the standardized “I'm spiritual, not religious” or “I don't like organized religion”, people seem to believe almost instinctively that there is something wrong with “Institution.” The most organized or dare I say “Institutionalized” breed of such thinking is of course expressed amidst the “pomo” or “reimagine church” movement. They've all seeming decided that the Institution is the problem and that if they simply alter the structure of church, that suddenly Christianity will be something other than whatever bad thing I assume they believe it is now. While using hip contemporary words like “organic” and such, I think in the end many are simply looking to “reimage” the church into something more palatable both to their own tastes and to the taste of one or more various breeds of pop-culture.

However, I don't wish to outright deride their motivations because I know a number of people involved in such endeavors and they all have very good points about the sad state of many aspects of “church.” Seeking something different ('new”?) seemingly makes a good deal of sense. Of course, I am a minor order clergyman in what is likely the most traditional and oldest expression of Christianity and as such some may argue I am representing all that is wrong with the church: hierarchy, out of date customs/practices, “traditions of men”, and frozen-in-time liturgics. Most, if not all, of the offered “solutions” to the problems of the church suggests we do away with such stuff. And thus you end up with leaderless house churches perpetually experimenting with “new” means of expressing worship and in general “doing” Christianity. So, how can I, of all people, suggest their complaints are valid? Well put simply: because I think their solutions aren't.

The problem isn't the “Instituion” per se but rather the people themselves. The old adage regarding the baby and the bathwater is very much applicable to the tossing out of the “Institution” in order to solve all the “problems” in modern Christianity. As most of you know we Orthodox believe that the many demonized aspects of our “Institution” are, beside being beautiful and very much a part of the earliest Church, are also guarantors of our “o”rthodoxy. For you see a “generous orthodoxy” that embraces heterodoxy isn't an “o”rthodoxy at all. What we believe isn't important because what's in our head saves us, it's important because it ends up speaking to what we do and who we are a human persons and that's the key to salvation.

People will no doubt argue about what it means to be “authentic” or “organic” or whatever post modern-esque term you wish to apply to the new images of what the church should be, but I would submit that ultimately what people are looking for is a greater sense of community. I can think of nothing that is more natural, more organic, and more authentic than community – which is to say simply: people being together, being honest and open with one another, and caring for one another. This cannot happen by changing externals, it happens by changing internals. I grant that the “new church” folks have some degree of advantage because in essence they are all largely like-minded people seeking these things to begin with and thus a sense of community and honesty is going to be there – however I would suggest some caution in that people are people and I'll leave it at that.

Yes, in more traditional settings you will find people “going through the motions”, but does this condemn the motions or the person? Will there not also be people just “going through the new motions”? Even if the motions are perpetually being changed and reinvented?

If I REALLY take my Orthodox faith seriously...if I let the rich traditions flood over my everyday life and infuse my home with the aroma of its teachings and practice then I would submit that nothing could be more organic, more authentic, more manifesting of community, and more in keeping with the Apostolic Faith, I'm not here to change Christianity, Christianity – or rather Christ and His Church – are here to change me. Nothing outside needs to be reinvented, it's the inside that needs to be reinvented and for that we have a tried and true ancient path. If I may steal from Chesterton: that path has not be tried and found lacking, but has been found difficult and not tried.

A Flesh-Loving Crew

2010-09-10T12:52:00.000-07:00

A Flesh-Loving Crew

In my experience, save a few heretics, Orthodox Christians love meat and given this general truth, there is I suppose a large degree of sense to the fasts. However, this is not the context of the reference in the title. Rather the title is the derogatory label given to Christians by the pagan Celsus in his 2nd century anti-Christian work “The True Word.” Derogatory because at that time, Christian anthropology and the belief in the general resurrection just did not make sense to the presiding Hellenistic mind – more than that, it was downright perceived as yucky (if I may use academic terminology.)

Now, this derision had nothing to do with diet, nor Christians being worldly hedonists and indulging all their fleshly desires. No, the early Church had a pretty good understanding of asceticism I should think. No, this insult arises from the prevailing cultural mind which retained a great deal of hope and aspiration for a future disincarnation; a freeing of the soul from the prison of the body. This being the case, one can understand how gnosticism infected Christianity – it was simply an attempt to make the new faith more palatable to the popular culture of the time.

Some things never change. Yes, some are still trying to flavor their Christianity to make it palatable to all (I liken it to fast food which no one can deny tastes great, but it absolutely of horrific quality), but I'm more interested here in the full circle we've seemingly come around and returned to a popular culture which seems more gnostic than Christian. What I mean, is that the old Greek ideal of disincarnation maintains a great deal of acceptance amongst people these days – even people who would otherwise be quite devout Christians. For to suggest that the soul, through death, is being “freed” from the body is a decidedly unchristian thing to propose.

In my DVP reading I've been treading water happily through Florovsky's “Creation and Redemption” and in it he reminds us that human beings are neither merely a corpse nor a ghost. Death is the unnatural separation of a natural unity of body and soul and only united together is the whole human person truly present. To suggest that the soul possesses an individual's true personhood is just as wrong as saying the corpse obviously doesn't. Yes, the body, having been taken and formed from creation itself, is indeed that part of us that literally tastes of corruption, but we cannot successfully categorize body and soul as separate and expect that when so done we can identify a portion that retains the personhood over and above the other.

Resurrection is the restoration of the natural order. But to the Greek mind at the time of Celsus, it was a ridiculous notion. More and more I think people today would side with Celsus and his generation, even some who would be called Christians. However, I might suggest (without any large degree of perceived certainty) that maybe the subtle (or not so) gnosticism that has crept back into Christianity has perhaps rendered it now impossible for Christians to ever again be called “a flesh-loving crew.” Perhaps over the past few centuries we have so demonized the “flesh” and the “world” that we are popularly perceived more as doceticists: gnostics bent on hating the world and the flesh? In other words, our distaste of sin became a distaste for the world and this in turn became too much even for the spirit-trapped-in-the-body believing world to handle.

And while we might askew the title today for its potential negative connotation (after all “flesh” is too often ONLY seen in terms of sinful passions), I do think we – particularly those of us of the Orthodox persuasion – need to make clear our anthropological beliefs which translate also into our beliefs regarding creation in general, redemption, and of course the Person of our flesh-loving and bearing God.

Fakers

2010-08-30T16:19:00.000-07:00

Fakers

A very good article about teens and their Christianity.

I'll first say that I am apprehensive about referring to anyone as a "'fake' Christian" (except perhaps myself), however I think I do understand what the author's point is with regards to "moralistic therapeutic deism." Of course, everyone has an opinion about what Christianity ought to look like and as such therefore have a view on what a "mutant" form of it would look like. I would say that another mutant form of Christianity would be a sort of "social justice deism" and concerning that I think we can say that just because Mom and Dad went to Bolivia doesn't mean they practice authentic Christianity anymore than does a Buddhist who goes to help Bolivians. In other words, good deeds will not alone make you a Christian.

Don't get me wrong, though, sitting on your sofa all day and watching TBN while voting Republican won't make you any less of a faker than me either. Heck you might even hold all the right doctrines (despite TBN) and alas it too will not earn you the title.

So what makes one a Christian? Well, all theological complexities aside, I think it is simply that you have a living relationship with Jesus Christ. Yes, I know...all evangelicals claim this for themselves and in turn, most Orthodox get nervous over such terminology - rightfully terrified of the absurd "Jesus is my best bud" mentality. But I think there is a deeper reality to the idea that we develop a relationship with God. If, for the Orthodox, hell is being in God's presence and not wishing to be, then avoiding hell is a process by which we acclimate ourselves to God. We commune with Him. We work on getting used to the bright light that would otherwise blind and burn us. We change via our relationship with Him and in so doing grow even closer to Him.

The article ends with the author suggesting that we must show our children a radical life devoted to our faith. I agree, I guess, but I have to ask: how radical is radical enough? Does one have to turn down a particularly amazing job for a selfless cause? Or is it perhaps enough to regularly demonstrate self-control in areas of anger or other passions? I mean if your children see you filled with a spirit of love, peace, and joy will this not speak to them about the reality of your faith? Will it not overflow into other areas of life and thus give even more evidence of a living relationship with God? Sure a trip to aid Bolivians says a great deal, but is that level of radical action necessary? For certain I think an otherwise unchanged life that occasionally goes to do charity work really won't help in the long run.

Parents: taking our faith (God) seriously and letting it (Him) seriously change us will.

This part is particularly important:
In "Almost Christian," Dean talks to the teens who are articulate about their faith. Most come from Mormon and evangelical churches, which tend to do a better job of instilling religious passion in teens, she says.Most come from Mormon and evangelical churches, which tend to do a better job of instilling religious passion in teens, she says."

I do not doubt that this is true. So, for my Orthodox brothers and sisters out there: what are we doing wrong and what can we do to change this?

Touchy-Feely

2010-08-24T12:39:00.000-07:00

Touchy-Feely

We are beings of two different worlds, but I do not think they are as separated as might be popularly believed. As we all know the gnostics were predisposed to hate the material world, envisioning that some evil demi-god had created it - this indeed was the teaching of Marcion who rejected the God of the Old Testament. But Orthodox Christians stood up for the goodness of the created and material world - seeing ourselves as a part of it as well as a part of the invisible spiritual world (no less created, by the way).

Modern gnostics (of which there are many) will often try and convince us that the body is merely a shell, or that the physical world is of little or no value. They will scoff at our kissing icons or venerating the deceased, the True Cross, or other relics. Yet these same will very likely have cherished mementos of their own such as their grandfather's broken old watch, or their grandmothers torn and ragged old quilt - items of no real value except that which cannot be seen or measured). In reality, I think all do actually recognize our attraction to the world. And I do not mean in a negative way.

Last weekend, a couple of old rusted and twisted metal beams toured Kitsap county and drew fairly large crowds. People came to look upon them and to reverently lay their hands upon them, caress them, and hold them in their grasp. Just ordinary steel and yet we have ascribed to them some notion of sanctity. Simply because these beams came from the ruin of the World Trade Center buildings, we see in them a certain sacredness that is lacking in ordinary steel beams. It would seem that these mementos are a sort of touch-point for us; a physical connection or a bridge between our own horror at watching the death and destruction from thousands of miles away and the people who actually lived and died amidst it.

As I see pictures of people bowing their heads and reaching out to the metal, I am reminded that we humans are sacramental beings. We inherently GET sacramental theology (at least to some degree), even if we cannot find the words to describe it. We surround ourselves with material keepsakes and we recognize an inherent value is such things which without our ascribed significance would likely otherwise be of no value at all.

I think Orthodoxy really meshes with this natural inclination. Orthodoxy is a religion that engages the senses and readily agrees in the values (even to the level of the mystical) of material objects that have had extraordinary surroundings or happenings. And of course, God in His energies often meets us in the context of material things, the most preeminent (and far-exceeding my description) example of course is the great mystery of Holy Communion.

In some way, our touchy-feely inclination I think is an expression of our sense of loneliness in this universe and our desire to be connected with one another and ultimately to our Creator.

Abstinence vs. indulgence

2010-08-20T13:49:00.000-07:00

Abstinence vs. indulgence

My wife and kids are in Minnesota visiting family and my godson has graciously come to stay on the farm to help with the chores – particularly the morning chores. He has spent a fair amount of time at a variety of monasteries and has/is considering the monastic vocation. He and I were talking last night and he told me about his boss (who I presume is in no way a Christian) who knows about his consideration of the monastic life who claimed that he believed any argument someone could make about homosexual behavior being unnatural, could also be made in regards to those living the monastic life. It's an interesting point and led me to deeper consideration of the matter.

First and foremost, I think one is hard pressed to find many secular reasoning for saying that homosexual behavior is “unnatural.” If for no other reason than the heavily opinion dependent definition of the word “natural.” Now one could argue that the principle sexual activity itself is inherently risky and more prone to damage and disease; that it itself is logically unnatural, but I suspect this is not quite enough.

So, then, what is natural? Well, I suspect many people would suggest that being born a certain way renders that state “natural.” In other words, anything you really have no say over is apparently considered “natural.” Thus whatever sexuality you may feel inclined toward is “natural” for you. Alas, this also means the litany of genetic diseases, malformations, and other decidedly unpleasant inclinations (which may well be just as beyond our personal autonomy as our sexual identity) must also be considered “natural.” But in the end, I think that in order to argue about whether something is “normal” or “natural” requires a great deal of shared foundational beliefs about the world.

For example, I have met or come across many an atheist and evolutionary biologist who will readily tell you that human males are programmed genetically for multiple sex partners – a “natural” inclination to plant his “selfish genes” in as much fertile soil as possible. Therefore it is absolutely “natural” for men to “cheat” on their spouses or to avoid marriage altogether. So then the question is turned back to my godson's boss (who I'm told is a devoted husband): why is it right for him to abstain from his “natural” inclinations and remain faithful to his spouse? Why not indulge himself – especially if he has means of doing so without being caught by his spouse so that he is able to retain that security which may also be a “natural” inclination. The question plays off of the notion that we should never deny ourselves anything and that we should indulge our every desire - throwing off our "hang ups" as they used to say.

So I think that the issue may be distilled down to this: abstinence vs. indulgence. I can think of very little things in life from which we may abstain that would offer up negative consequences, whereas I can think of many many things in which we may indulge that will eventually lead us to a state of brokenness or even ruin. I believe there is an inherent virtue in “curbing” our natural appetites and one needn't be religious to perceive this. Alcohol, food, and sex are but a few examples of things where curbing our appetites – as opposed to throwing all caution to the wind and diving in – are absolutely and incontestably in our “natural” self-interest in the long run, and yet curiously if we did not practice some degree of abstinence we would often "naturally" destroy ourselves with them. Therefore anytime someone abstains from something, it may indeed be perceived as “unnatural” (take for instance abstaining from meat – how insanely unnatural is that?!?!) but the act of self-discipline is something I think is also uniquely natural to humans and is the key to all the virtues and even from a strictly secular standpoint it has given us a profound advantage in this world of genetic competition.

And of course the fact is, no one ever dies or suffers pain from abstaining from sex, but many have died or otherwise suffered for overindulging in it.

Epic Fail?

2010-08-17T07:44:00.001-07:00

Epic Fail?

I read THIS article while at my doctor's office yesterday and it raised a great many questions. Some of the photos are startling and seem absolutely foreign - evil even - to my own experience with saints, relics, and veneration of them. It is comforting to hear the RC clergy speaking out against the devotions depicted here, but I have to wonder about what has gone wrong here in the handing down of tradition such that people would think St. Jude would deem machine gun toting druglords worthy of his prayers for their vision of success (a "narco-saint")? Or that they could possibly see "La Santa Muerte" as anything other than the devil? No "holy death" comes from a hail of machine gun fire over drug territories...how is this simple truth being missed here?

I really do see this at some level as a "paradosis" failure. Somehow and somewhere the handing down of the faith has been inhibited or polluted. I make no judgments here on the RC faith, I have no doubts than some paganism has also worked its way into some Orthodox cultural enclaves here and there. But I've never seen anything quite this bad...though one never knows. I'm sure there are some strange things afoot amidst the Russian mafia where they may see no contradiction in their lifestyle and their patronage of their local Orthodox church.

I suppose that we all do this to some degree...but when you start inventing skeletal "death saints" to put up in your living room...well, that seems to me to be a whole new level.

Begetting and Processing

2010-08-13T11:05:00.000-07:00

Begetting and Processing

I am finishing up the readings from the third semester of the Diaconal Vocations Program and the topic is theology. As such we are swimming in Lossky and Florovsky amongst others. Deep waters for sure and I think that is why my reading has been so slow.

The Kitsap Regional Library got me (through inter-library loan) a copy of Florovsky's "Creation and Redemption." Wow, what a book! I'm barely managing to keep my head above water (though admittedly I think Lossky is more difficult) but I'm not in danger of drowning yet. Yes, even on the internet I'm not gonna pretend to be a profound theological scholar.

One thing struck me yesterday that I'd like to share and I think it helps people (me) wrap my head around precisely why the councils were so deliberate in their choice of words with regard to the begetting of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit. As you know, they are quite overt in making sure that these terms are not to be confused with creation: "begotten, not made."

Here's is the paraphrase: Creation is an act of will; Divine generation (i.e. begetting, processing)is an act of nature.

While this analogy obviously fails at many levels, I cannot say that I "created" my children. Their existence was always in a state of potentiality and is a part of my nature. Of course the Trinity is different, for at no time was the Son or Holy Spirit's existence in a potential state. Yes, as usual, the Trinity very swiftly transcends our understanding.

In any event, I thought the distinction makes sense.

Has it really been 3 months?

2010-08-13T10:52:00.000-07:00

Has it really been 3 months?

Really, my only excuse is that I have been terribly busy this summer and what little "net" time I've had has been given to Facadebook. Man, that thing is GREAT for keeping in touch with people, but otherwise it's a quantum time vacuum - blogging was much more relaxed, leisurely, and perhaps even intimate in a certain sense. Facadebook sometimes feels like a crowded room filled with people shouting and having a billion different conversations - often about farms that do not exist.

Anyway, I'm not closing up this shop...not yet anyway. I've no illusions that I have anything great or profound that needs saying in public, but none-the-less if one might interested in discussing (more leisurely and perhaps in more detail) something that was on my mind, then come on back, have seat and a fine ale.

Sugar

2010-05-14T14:26:00.000-07:00

Sugar

Here is Dr. Lustig's full 1.5 hour lecture.

If you want an excellent 11 minute synopsis which hits all the big points, this gentleman does a great job (and he admits he used to believe that metabolism is simply math - who of us were not taught that?)

Slowly but surely the mainstream media are catching on to the latest research...at least to some degree.

I think Dr. Lustig is right, however he drives me nuts with his government regulatory solutions. It is absurd and his own lecture demonstrates why this is so. He well notes that over the last few decades without ANY significant government regulation, Americans have by and large reduced our fat intake as we were told to do. In other words, education was enough to do the job and as people sought out low fat foods, the industry responded. Sadly, our listening to the government led to increased heart disease, increased high blood pressure, increased rates of diabetes, and of course increased rates of obesity. But by golly we certainly didn't need government to regulate us into the ailments...we simply do what they tell us.

The other issue that bothered me is how he somewhat glosses over the issue of government's role in his "fructose perfect storm." There is only ONE reason why HFCS is cheaper than sugar and that's because of government regulation. If I may quote from "Wikinvest": "The primary driver of sugar prices is government regulation. Many governments heavily subsidize their sugar manufacturers, to "dump" cheaply-priced sugar in the market, while the United States government has tried to elevate prices within its borders by imposing import restrictions." And voila, HFCS is cheap in comparison.

Now, Dr. Lustig doesn't seem to think there is anything particularly MORE wrong with HFCS than sugar and I'm in no position to argue with him - though others likely are so.

Science can answer moral questions?

2010-05-12T12:46:00.000-07:00

Science can answer moral questions?

I am NOT a philosopher and I realize this can lead to pretty heady stuff. But as someone whose atheism was shattered by his inability to reconcile his inexplicable moral values with his secular worldview, I think I might have a little something to offer this conversation.

While I appreciate his effort to suggest that there ARE absolute moral values (albeit often flexible)...I don't think he makes the case here. His vision of a scientific morality is based on "facts about the well being of conscious creatures" and he suggests that there is "no notion, no version of human morality and human values that I have ever come across that is not at some point reducible to a concern about conscious experience and its possible changes." He claims this is also true of religious foundations in which we concern ourselves with conscious experience in an "after-life." Is this true? I rather think not. Of course, I cannot speak for all people or belief systems, but I do think the Orthodox perspective of morality is NOT simply about escaping suffering in hell. On the contrary, morality is founded on our perception of personhood and the notion of humanity being created in the image of a perfect and loving God. We look to morality not as a legal issue, as much as a relationship issue.

Harris seems to suggest that "THE" moral absolute is founded upon our ideas of human suffering and that this is something with which we almost always agree. Well, not so fast, we Christians often DO see some value in suffering. Increasing levels of comfort is not a sign of ascending moral behavior, not by a long shot. Nor is descending levels of discomfort necessarily signs of something immoral. This is of course largely true because our perceptions of what is good or bad are likely skewed. Harris seems to believe that "normal" can only be defined by what most people apparently believe or behave at a given point and time.

By the way, the absurd exaggeration about Spanking and the derogatory remark about the south and Midwest? It betrays much and I am unimpressed.

Now, the video title suggests that science can answer moral questions, and yet, honestly I do not see much appeal to science and the scientific method in this lecture. It seems more often than not he is appealing to our shared values. But he offers no evidence from science, no data, to suggest our shared values are true. Of course, I do not believe that that could possibly be accomplished. It seems to me that moral values cannot be, in any way, shape, or form tested in the context of the scientific method. How does one determine the value of life...what hypothesis could you test that would suggest certain moral obligations? He suggests "conscious experience or changes to it" as the ground for moral values, but on what basis does he come to that conclusion except by means of a majority opinion? And speaking of which, I am a little apprehensive of the term "conscious"...how are defining that? And once defined can we therefore abuse unconscious people or experiment upon people whose consciousness is deemed "gone."

Mr. Harris' example of the Dalai Lama and Ted Bundy sealed the deal for me. He claims that Bundy's moral opinions need to be excluded as surely as his own opinions on Physics would need to be excluded in the face of people who actually KNOW something about physics. But what he fails to note is that his erroneous opinions on physics are not erroneous because they are in the extreme minority, but rather they are erroneous because we can DEMONSTRATE via the scientific method that they are erroneous. With that in mind, WHAT experiment can we run, what data can we display to prove that the Dalai Lama is right about morality and Ted Bundy is wrong. Plus...oddly enough...the Dalai Lama is a demagogue just like the other religious leaders he clearly does not like, and the Dalai Lama's morality comes from the teachings of the Buddha...not science.

In the end, he says that we have to admit that moral questions have answers, but he offers NO means by which we can find them...least of all via the scientific method.

Jesus said that "Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends." But I cannot see any way (from a purely scientific point of view) in which one life given for another, makes any logical sense at all. Unless you begin valuing lives based on arbitrary calculations. I would argue that the ONLY personal morality one can truly gleam from science is often found touted by evolutionary biologists, wherein "survival of the fittest" rules the day. No, not anarchy, because often times cooperation and giving can be mutually beneficial. I call it intelligent hedonism. Evolutionary Biologists love to offer complex explanations as to how "love" and our sense of "beauty" might have evolved, but I don't sense much beauty or love in them, not at least as I understand the terms.

"The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it."

I don't know that I understand it either, but I'm sure trying. I use the scientific method everyday, but not in trying to seek the Light...nor in how I love (or fail to love) my family and friends.

Science has limits...and I do worry as it seems more and more people fail to discern this fact. I ardently disagree with Harris: Science has a great deal to say about what is, but precious little to say about what OUGHT to be. And in my mind he gave me no scientific reasoning to believe otherwise.

Cutting Back and Turning Off

2010-05-03T15:12:00.001-07:00

Cutting Back and Turning Off

I realize I'm probably the only person in the world to have this issue, but I have to admit that I have self-control problems. Pretty much in every area of my life and I count it a pretty fair indicator of my spiritual progress. In some areas the issue may be trivial, but in others this is not the case at all.

Money is one of the more important areas. I have a tendency to spend money without thinking...often on frivolous and unnecessary things - it leads to my inability to stick to a budget. It's not like I run out and buy big screen TV's, but it's numerous little and daily things that pile up over time. What should have been $25 spent at the grocery store ends up being $75...this is quite a common occurrence for me.

I should add that we are also staring down the barrel of a VERY serious budget shortfall come July when the UW forcefully withholds 7.5% of my income to put into a retirement account. Great for me if I ever make it to retirement age - my guess is that will be about 115 at the rate things are going - but NOT so great for us now...downright BAD actually! Retirement is important, but so is eating right now.)

Another area is regarding my time spent online. Susan and I have both come to the conclusion that something needed to be done about the time we were both wasting. We have a million things that need to be done around the farm and far too often we find ourselves wasting tons of time on Facebook or whatever. And so we began to consider what we ought to do about what we both perceived to be a problem.

As a partial solution to both of the aforementioned "issues" (wasting time online and the coming budget shortfall) we decided to turn off our internet at home. This now leaves us without any TV or Internet (except for our phone plan which allows us to clumsily check our emails, but its so burdensome we know we won't spend too much time with it.) Who knows, after July we may have to dump the phones too!

And so we spent this last weekend without Internet. We survived. And I think we got a lot done...on Saturday I hauled in 2 yards of Emu poo (when you don't get enough from chickens, go with bigger birds), made a massive foraging run to Silverdale, while Susan got busy in the garden getting the poo unloaded and things planted. That afternoon I cooked dinner, then we went to Vespers and afterwards while I was brewing my beer I also got my Church school lesson done (this normally takes a LONG time because I get so distracted by...well...by Facebook). Sunday afternoon I fixed the lawnmower, cleaned up the brewery, grilled up a real nice dinner and Susan continued her work in the garden. Then we made our own homemade laundry detergent - Susan really did that, I just offered encouragement. Hopefully it works well...it is certainly a money saver. In all honesty, I hardly missed the internet.

In our lives, time is the only commodity of which we really have plenty. And we know that there is MUCH we can do to not only live more simply, but to provide for ourselves - thus helping us to save money. And the wonderful thing about this is that I FEEL better after having such a productive weekend. Far better than when I waste my time in leisure. Yeah, my body might hurt, but it's a good hurt.

As you can clearly see I am still maintaining the blog and I will still be on Facebook, I just won't be there as often. (Actually blogging may increase since that can easily be done during my commute and then just posting quickly at work). Now, I know, how these sorts of things can come across: as a blanket condemnation of Facebook or the Internet or whatever and it will make those who are actually able to discipline themselves think we may be judging their online activities. That is certainly NOT the case.

Cutting back and turning off is our decision because for US (and I mean us alone) it had become a problem - an impediment to our plans and goals and needs. Like alcohol, for many people the Internet and Facebook is NO problem at all, but for us...well we simply don't trust our ability to discipline ourselves. That's OUR issue. Wish we didn't have it...but there it is for all the world to see...well 50 or so of you anyway.

I am hoping that a request to my higher-ups for a salary increase will help to buffer the coming fiscal storm in July. But being an employee of the state makes such requests a bureaucratic nightmare. If only I could be like the state itself, which when it has a budget shortfall they just do away with laws standing in their way and vote themselves a raise (more taxes). We shall see what happens.

I have more thoughts on this matter and how it all connects with something I've been reading about the disconnect between the mind and the heart (heart being defined NOT as the seat of emotions.) This, I think, is the core problem with self-control. But I'm FAR more a patient rather than a doctor.

More to come...

No Surprise here

2010-04-28T13:20:00.000-07:00

No Surprise here

Carbs worse than Fat.

Burning Down the Church

2010-04-28T07:33:00.000-07:00

Burning Down the Church

Adventures of a clumsy Subdeacon

While everyone else outside were busily preparing themselves for communion, I was trying to keep my clumsiness from destroying the temple. It was a last minute decision because of overall poor timing, that the remaining charcoal in the censer would not be sufficient for the final censing of the remaining Gifts, and so while they were going through their final preparation for the faithful and the young gentlemen were preparing the antidoron and wine, I lit a round of charcoal and was just about to place it in the censer when it fell from the grip of my tongs and rolled across the floor and down underneath the altar servers' table.

Now, you have to visualize how we've put together our temple. Our temporary home being a business park, we have none the less managed a wonderful job (mostly done by our Reader and Priest) in creating a heavenly environment. The floor around our altar and ambo is made of wood and supported by pallets. But the footing of the young gentlemen's table sits on the concrete floor as opposed to the wooden floor above the pallets, and thus leaves a handy little hole where my wayward burning disc of charcoal managed to roll.

As I looked under the table it was nowhere to be found...but I could feel the heat coming from it. Yes, unimaginably, it had managed to roll INTO the inner regions of the pallet directly beneath me. I knew it could not have gone far, but the positioning was such that I could not see it. Unsuccessful in blindly grasping for it, and worrying that I would push it further into the nether regions of our floor, I began to panic a little.

I knew it was resting on wood and was surrounded by wood...nice and DRY wood at that. I had visions of ripping up the flooring and/or running to get the fire extinguisher (would that douse a burning coal???). At what point does one decide that the likelihood of burning the place down outweighs the interruption of such a solemn and sacred moment? Finally the young gentlemen noticed my dilemma and began to lend a hand. They helped hold up the floor length table cloth and move the baptismal font (which rested under the table) such that I was able to bend my head down far enough to see the coal. It glowed a bright orange in the wooden darkness and I could feel the heat on my face. Yikes!

I reached the tongs into the small space, praying that I would grab it and hold onto it as opposed to pushing it deeper into the confines of the floor. Thankfully I got it out and placed it into the censer. But I still worried about the amount of time it spent on the wood and so I dumped some water in the vicinity and informed one of the young gentlemen that while we were distributing the Gifts if they were to see or smell any smoke (wood smoke that is) that they were to come and tell me.

Thankfully that didn't happen. Whew! So, let that be a lesson to me.

The Greatest thing we can do for our country

2010-04-27T14:40:00.000-07:00

The Greatest thing we can do for our country

I was introduced to the Front Porch Republic by the Priest formally known as FDR. I have found myself particularly following the contributions made by John Willson who is the former professor of history at Hillsdale College (you may know it as the conservative college that accepts no federal money).

Anyway, Prof. Willson writes some great stuff...some I agree with and some I don't. But I when I read it, I knew I had to share this one article entitled "It's the Family, Stupid" from last year.

His primary proposition is simply that the very greatest thing we could do for this republic is NOT protesting, or making political contributions, voting or even (believe it or not) arguing politics online. But instead, the greatest thing we could do for our country is to nurture, love, and take care of our families.

I personally believe the we as fathers have a very particular, critical and sacred role to play in this organization called the family. We must maintain it's importance. I was particularly convicted on this point:

...if we neglect or dishonor or treat badly or disrespect our parents and wives and children, or fail to love them except with sentimental emotional ejaculations (“O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom!) our neighborhoods and kingdoms will come apart.

We look to much to government to be glue of our social fabric, as one adamantly opposed to this notion and who believes very strongly in family and local communities first, I need to live up to my values and see that doing so is far more beneficial to the future of family and community than what I do in the absurd political realm. For we will raise up sons and daughters who will share and live our values, as opposed to those espoused by the fickle world around them.

The drug called media

2010-04-27T08:09:00.000-07:00

The Drug called Media

Well now HERE'S a little experiment that hits close to home. While I know for a fact that I can go a day and NOT check my email or FB or blogs...a couple of days or more may be tough. I KNOW I waste far too much time with media (internet, movies, tv shows, video games etc), but in looking at the coming generation, well, I really worry for them.

When after ONE day, one of the participants can say: Honestly, this experience was probably the single worst experience I have ever had. Seriously? My goodness what a pampered breed we are offering forth to the real world. Too much time in the virtual world I guess...how on earth will these pansies ever handle REAL tragedy??? My guess is, amidst - let's say - a flood of lava approaching their house they will text the "Whitehouse.gov" and ask for a helicopter maybe? Or get online to seek advice from FEMA?

I sometimes get odd looks with regard to the extent to which my wife and I police my kids' media time. Some no doubt think us cruel or maybe brand us luddites (hypocritical ones that is), or think we cripple our kids electronic future by denying them a Facebook account (seriously!?!)...but my thinking is that the REAL world is never going away, whereas the virtual one will die in one way or another. Much of my parenting is geared toward steering my kids away from being ME. I fail on many fronts, but not on this ONE point.

Withdrawal symptoms...wow...not a good sign people.

What will we do if the power ever goes out? How much confidence do we really have that the future will be ever be "connected" and "wired"?

I am once again reminded of "The Machine Stops" by E.M. Forster. Is it becoming less and less difficult to imagine this vision from 1909 coming true? A time when we are all connected to one another through "the Machine" and it provides for all our needs?

Brightly Celebrating 16 years

2010-04-08T11:38:00.000-07:00

Brightly Celebrating 16 years

Today is our anniversary. There is little doubt that I am a lucky man...Grandma will be graciously watching the kids tonight while we head out for dinner and, well, just some time alone doing anything out of the normal (like a nice meal out).

Marriage and family life is the vocation where we(meaning non-monastics) most potently work out our salvation (with fear and trembling)...our relationships with our spouses and our children are (in my experience) pretty fair indicators of my own progress. I fail on MANY fronts, and frankly until I have that whole branch of holiness nailed down I'm going to try and utilize that glaring imperfection as a compass directing me to my own required efforts whenever I am tempted to judge others - which I am so often tempted and easily able to do.

I beseech your prayers on my wife's, our children's, and my own behalf that we may have many more years together filled with even deeper love, commitment, repentance, mutual support, and communion with one another and with our Lord through His Holy Church. Life is, alas, not all figured out in the half-hour time span of a sitcom...therefore we need each others support and prayers. I do will take for granted God's blessings, nor the hard work my wife must engage in to put up with me :)

It's not all about Friday

2010-04-07T13:22:00.000-07:00

It's not all about Friday

A few recent Facebook postings from some folks I know has reminded me of something I'd not thought about much lately, and though I'm sure I've blogged about it before I think it bears repeating – if for no other reason than for my own sake and who knows maybe after the past few years I'll have a different perspective. I make no pretensions to suggest I have anything terribly unique or profound to say here, but here it goes anyway.

There is, I think, a very simple reason why in the west Easter as a holiday has in general and in comparison to Christmas, shriveled over time. Now I cannot say precisely when in the west the season of Christmas began to eclipsed Easter, but I do operate under the assumption that at one time (as it is now in Eastern Christendom)this was not the case. I don't think there can be any argument that we, as a nominally Christian society, have pumped steroids into the Winter holy day and largely have watched from a distance as the Spring holy day slowly atrophied. Now please keep in mind I am not making an moral claims about the superiority of traditionally Orthodox cultures - I've no doubt there are huge swaths of people there who really believe that (e.g.) Christos Anesti actually can be translated as "Happy Easter!"

Now, some will no doubt wish to believe that the atrophy in the west happened because Christmas is so much easier to commercialize and I don't fully doubt that that plays a role in the matter, but I suspect it is completely secondary and that something deeper has allowed that to happen to begin with. Could theology play a part?

First, if I were to compare and contrast the FB postings of my Orthodox (admittedly mostly convert) vs. Non-Orthodox friends, it quickly becomes evident that Easter (or as we prefer to call it: Pascha) really was not comparatively that big of a deal to my Non-Orthodox friends...I do not mean that in a negative way, I'm simply comparing the volume of postings that related to Easter/Pascha. And, if you consider the volume of postings related specifically to “Resurrection” then the contrast becomes even more stark. And I would suggest this might reveal the theological difference that leads the west to find celebrating Christmas far more easy than Easter.

Let me give a generic example of the sort of FB post I am talking about: “Happy Easter! Thank you Jesus for dying for us!” This struck me as odd when I read it, but it reminded me that in my past I really didn't know what to do with the Resurrection of Christ. If Christ's work on Friday assuaged the righteous anger and judgment of God, then what did Sunday have to do with it? (“It” being salvation.) So what did the Resurrection mean to me? It's hard for me to remember...I cannot recall ever preaching a sermon that focused on the Resurrection, but there were plenty on the crucifixion, in fact I recall the fad of preaching at length about the horrific medical implications of being crucified. Please keep in mind I am speaking solely of my experience here...but I do wonder if my perception was remotely unusual. I think I saw the Resurrection as simply being an apologetic point, proving that Jesus was God incarnate.

Easter in the west is intimately and perpetually connected to a man being cursed, beaten, and nailed to a cross in order to kill him, and then that being devoid of hell harrowed and death defeated as was necessary for our salvation then it's difficult to get past it being a holiday about death. In contrast, Christmas is about a little baby being born: God with us! What's not to celebrate!?

Of course, salvation isn't just about Friday. As you may recall in Mel Gibson's movie, the minute Jesus dies on the cross, Satan (who had up until that time worked hard to get Him to avoid the cross) screams in apparent agony and defeat. I'm sure that 15 years ago I would not have thought twice about this depiction, but now I'm aware of the Eastern tradition in which Satan sought to kill Him and that death “took a mortal body, and met God...it took earth and met heaven.” In other words, the devil (and death personified) rejoice in Christ's death, but later find they've bitten off more than they can chew. Like a Trojan Horse virus of devastating proportions, the operating system of death and the devil is irrevocably corrupted. Death is trampled down by death and this I think changes the perception of Easter – radically. At least it certainly did for me and for my family. Over the years we have watched Easter/Pascha begin to grow in our lives, becoming bigger and bigger and more and more important to us. In time we've watched it – to some degree – eclipse Christmas in order to take it's proper place as the “Feast of Feasts” and “Holy Day of holy days.”

Without Sunday, Friday has no meaning. In fact, without last Sunday none of this crazy thing we call life has any meaning.

Christ is Risen!
Indeed He is Risen!

Behold the Bridegroom...

2010-03-29T15:31:00.000-07:00

Behold the Bridegroom...

Behold! the Bridegroom comes at midnight, and blessed is the servant whom He shall
find watching; and again, unworthy is the servant whom He shall find heedless.
Beware, therefore, O my soul, do not be weighed down with sleep, lest you be given up
to death, and lest you be shut out of the Kingdom.
But rouse yourself, crying:
"Holy! Holy! Holy! art Thou, O our God. Through the Theotokos, have mercy on us!"

Also, a brief but lovely explanation of the services this week up through Holy Thursday. (PDF)

Holy Week

2010-03-29T13:22:00.000-07:00

Holy Week

Grant me to see my own transgressions, and not to judge my brother...

Being judged sucks...even if the judgment is correct. But sitting in the judgment seat is FAR worse and FAR more dangerous.

It's all too tempting to sit in that seat...it's terribly comfortable and can recline...even has a built in fridge and TV remote. I've nearly worn out the upholstery however.

Look at how they love one another

2010-03-26T12:38:00.001-07:00

Look at how they love one another!

Once upon a time, the Christian community was what could only be described as radical such that pagans of that time marveled. Tetullian once quoted a pagan author writing about the early Christians saying "See how they love one another...and how they are ready to die for one another." Clearly, the way in which these believers expressed their faith was altogether unusual for the culture of the time. Thinking about this in today's context, it leads me to consider a number of things: was the culture back then decidedly uncharitable, are the Christians of today uncharitable and lacking the same flame of love, or is something altogether different? Because today, I don't think our culture perceives of Christians as being remarkably or unusually expressive of love for anyone let alone one another.

Now, some would happily lay blame for this at the feet at their perception of evangelicals – particularly the politically active sorts who they would say are more interested in banning all manner of things than in either personal of social transformation, but I think this is too simple an explanation. Many have theorized that over the past two thousand years, the notion of Christian charity and love has become ingrained in nearly all cultures it has ever had contact with, such that even while the religious beliefs have faded, many of the once unique values have not – even to the point of being codified into law. And that codification continues to this very day, but whose true lineage is not really acknowledged.

I think there is truth to this, and so we have to some degree witnessed the triumph of many Christian values, but so slow was the triumph that they are being seen more and more as normative to secular life. And I must pause to wonder if this “triumph” is really a good thing? Or at the very least if it doesn't bear with it a certain negative aspect. First and foremost I wonder if we do anyone any favors in transforming society without any transformation of individuals? Without such, have we really transformed society? But that's not the question I want to ponder at the moment. What I wonder is what role does Christian charity and love play in a society that is more and more actively willing to express secular political charity and "love"? Let me try to iron our my thoughts here...

I've heard debate amongst Christians over the political hot topic of abortion and what will often come up in these arguments is that the Church or other pro-life organizations should spend more time actively assisting women who are having a "crisis" pregnancy, rather than focusing so much on criminalizing abortion. Some make this point because they believe that the political fight is a lost cause, though I personally have a hard time fully giving up on the possibility that at some point down the road, societal values will shift to such an extent that abortion will be largely seen for what it is: murder. So, from my perspective our task in this regard is to change hearts more than laws. However, the argumentative blade which suggests that we ought to DO more and legislate less cuts both ways in the sense that we also ought to seek to DO more for the poor rather than legislate on their behalf.

That said, some of a more utilitarian point of view may suggest that we are far more likely to pass legislation that will provide for the poor than we are to restrict abortion. I don't know if that's true or not, but let me suggest that for every person who votes against abortion and does little to help pregnant women, there is someone who votes for "progressive" values but does little else to help the poor. Now there can be a huge debate about whether big government programs can really help people (or at least *I* think there can be a debate), but there is NO debate about what we as Christians are tasked to do by our Lord.

And I don't believe we EVER fulfill those tasks by the act of filling out and mailing slips of paper to our government in early November. Expressions of such "charity" and love are not at ALL unusual or radical in any way, shape or form - far from it. They are mundane and common, but worse still I think they have begun to be seen as the only real way to effect positive change in society. Well, I think I disagree.

Here, I write principally for my own behalf...I'm "preaching" to myself. If we are to recapture the radical nature of Christianity such as that which led Tertullian's contemporaries to marvel, I think we need to readjust our perceptions and priorities. First, we must understand that it begins IN us, not outside of us. We must allow Christ to transform us. Many protestant denominations believe this happens instantaneously, whereas in the Orthodox tradition we believe it is an eternal progression. But be aware that sometimes we can mistake stagnation as being eternally ongoing transformation.

I think I'm stagnating.

As we are transformed and our minds renewed, I believe there are HUGE areas in everyday life where we can see Christ shining through us and enlightening others - even in the most mundane of daily activities. Even just a minuscule amount of change that looks a little more towards the well-being of others and a little less towards our own well-being. In my own life at home with my children I see hundreds of lost opportunities for this everyday. So, it starts in us, it grows and fills our homes, it rubs off on our children (who will then take it with them into the future), and it also follows us into the world. Look, I can still remember as a non-believer meeting Christians who clearly had something...there was an infectious joy and peace about them and they would allow this to guide their everyday lives. They would go far out of their way to help people and to engage people and to seemingly (at least) care deeply about them. The cynic would claim it was all a facade, but to them I would simply ask: So? What are we if not actors on a stage, wearing our masks? If we do good whether we felt like doing it or not doesn't seem to matter in my mind. We can choose and slowly develop our habits.

As Orthodox Christians, looking at our recognition and honor rightfully paid to the saints, we ought to be able to comprehend the power of transformed lives. Given the VERY rich traditions we have available to us, we ought to be seeing very profound transformation, not stagnation. If we see stagnation I think we should be quick to look inward to find the problem - the stumbling block preventing progress.

Our Lord told us not to look for the Kingdom "out there", but to look for it within ourselves. That's where we need to foster REAL change. People, particularly in the so called "post-modern Christian" movement who are more and more trying to bring "Kingdom values" into the polling place, I think are espousing heresy. Jim Wallis talks about "God's Politics", whereas I really don't think God cares much for politics at all! Some, it would seem are still looking for a messiah who will overthrow Rome and reestablish the throne of David. I don't suggest heresy because of how anyone votes, but because of the idolatry to be found in it. Make no mistake though, the other side of the political spectrum is equally willing to make idols of the political process...I have personally worshiped at both altars which may at once condemn me or give me a right to say something about it - I dunno. Of course, this isn't to say I'm suddenly apolitical...I'm just trying to put it into the proper context in my life which I expect will become more and more difficult as government seemingly continues to become more and more apart of everyday life. (Well, there now I've made a political point haven't I? Sorry)

In my contacts with the secular world, I perceive that people really don't see much point in going to Church and they certainly see no practical use for the Church. Schools, Universities, hospitals, "poor houses" and the like were once upon a time all the domain of Christianity in one form or another. Christianity made such things normative and today these things and other noble ventures are as likely as not official bureaucracies of the state. And I see that more and more people are looking to the state for their needs and as secularization marches on this will only continue: the state replacing the Church as a supposed force for doing good. In no small way, Lenin would be proud.

But, the state can no more manifest REAL love and REAL charity than can a bag of hammers. It can send loaded debit cards in the mail to poor people but it cannot love them. It cannot pass the heavenly spark of personal transformation from itself to a person who may even perhaps have filled out all the proper forms and waited in the correct lines. There is still much that needs to be done that would allow for the world to look at us and marvel at our love for one another, but it begins in this stubborn and selfish heart of mine.

Of course it's not about impressing the world nor is it even about feeding the world. It's about being transformed into the image of God. It's about rebirth. It's about shaking off death and coming out of the blinding tomb. "Come Forth!"

Not sure if there is anything cohesive or intelligent in these rambling thoughts while cruising across Puget Sound this AM.

Sausage Fodder

2010-03-25T15:32:00.000-07:00

Sausage Fodder

Raw Milk

2010-03-24T08:16:00.000-07:00

Raw Milk

The Seattle Times ran a HUGE article (front page of the Sunday paper) about the dangers of raw milk. Obviously it was of interest to us since for over three years now we've been pretty much drinking NOTHING but raw milk, whether it be from our own goats or the Dungeness Creamery mentioned in the story.

Now, I've a bit of scientific background - specifically in terms of infectious diseases. Thus, I know full well that pasteurized products are always going to be safer than unpasteurized products...however, how much safer? And are unpasteurized products such as raw milk so unsafe that they ought to be branded akin to a combat enemy in the drug war? (This is one of numerous stories about raw milk farms being raided like crack houses.) See also this article where raw milk drinkers in Canada and marijuana users in California have to rely on similar practices in order to obtain their contraband.)

While I think the "God made this naturally good for us" argument doesn't really make a case, I would suggest a couple of points. The first being precisely HOW unsafe is raw milk? Well the ST article notes that between 1993 and 2006 there have a grand total of 2 deaths linked to raw milk consumption. GASP! Well this begs the question...so ummm...how many deaths in general are linked to food-borne illness? Well according to CDC data we lose about 5,200 people PER YEAR to food-borne disease. Thus in that 13 year period, while 2 people's death were blamed on raw milk consumption, somewhere around 67,598 people's deaths were linked to some OTHER food. Of course, one will then think to consider the number of people who actually drink raw milk as compared to the number of people who were eating other foods and that's a fair question, but alas one we probably cannot answer. From my point of view, given the number of people using raw milk (again whether they milk it themselves or they buy from the ever expanding number of local sources) I think the risk is NOT really that great. Many of us (myself included) can remember buying raw milk from farmers...some even taking straight out of a holding tank with a ladle. Good stuff...many uses...OH the CREAM! Anecdotal, yes, but we all survived.

Now, it should not surprise us that the CSPI is chiming in on this issue. They seemingly have a desire to chime in on everything that revolves around protecting you from yourself. They play themselves off as being some sort of non-profit advocacy group, but in reality they are an activist organization bent on growing massive government policies regulating pretty much everything you might actually enjoy.

CPSI was responsible for terrifying us out of eating popcorn during our movies:

But here is where the rubber meets the road: freedom. Yes, that much forgotten word. I do not believe the government (nor it's manipulator the CSPI) has any business telling us what we can eat or drink....NONE. There's no reason that the FDA should be raiding farms and taking away our freedom simply because 2 people have died in 13 years. If that were justification, my guess is a WHOLE HECK of a lot of things ought to also be made illegal (e.g. automobiles, alcohol, electricity, skydiving, bungee jumping, carnival rides, airplanes, swimming pools - which are particularly dangerous to children - a surefire political win....you get the point.) No we don't have precise statistics, but how many deaths per users warrants illegality? And is this a rule to be taken to apply to all things? And is it REALLY the government's job to do this?

The Seattle Times article is clearly written to start a discussion that they expect (and want to) end up in Olympia where legislators will tell us sob stories regarding the two people that died and demand that government take action to prevent it from EVER happening again. And then we can all rest easy knowing that once again the state has saved us from ourselves. We are ever pushing in this direction...#2 on the CSPI's list of "dangerous foods" happens to be eggs - curiously raw milk doesn't make the top 10 - and thus I expect that they are quite happy to seek heavy regulations on eggs sales.

Thinking about eggs...every time you cook or order one over-easy (liquid yoke) you are choosing to increase your risk of food-borne illness. Anytime you eat sushi you are increasing your risk for food-borne illness. You like that super juicy burger? So does E.Coli. You like a little red in your steak? Guess who else does? Did you REALLY wash that lettuce enough? (I always laugh - knowing my microbiology - when people rinse lettuce with water and think that helps with microorganisms...they ought to be bleaching it. Maybe CPSI should seek to mandate the bleaching of our lettuce?

Of course I will say this...use of raw milk has been shown to lead to heavier drug use like meth.

Fix

2010-03-03T14:40:00.000-08:00

Fix

Still looking for that 1/2 hour sitcom solution to all my problems. Heck, I'd even take a 2.5 hour hollywood one. The parent who for years was a miserable one is suddenly redeemed with a simple acknowledgment of their failures and suddenly all is well. Or the spouses who reconcile all manner of complex matters in a single sitting. They never seem to show that real battle in the inner kingdom that is not often redeemed in a moment.

As it is...it's ongoing...seemingly perpetual struggle, fight, fail, retreat, give up, return, struggle, fight....etc etc. Must see and celebrate every millimeter of progress.

"The land of the free..."

2010-03-02T14:17:00.000-08:00

"The land of the free..."

This news story gives a little tinge of patriotic warmth - a rarity. That we may STILL be looked upon as a small beacon of freedom throughout the world is encouraging - even to many living in parts of what we are often assured is the much more highly enlightened Europe.

I say welcome to the Romeikes! May God grant you many years of freedom as YOU (and NOT your government)decide how best to raise and educate your children.

FYI

2010-02-26T15:39:00.000-08:00

FYI

C6 H12 O6 → 2C H3 CH2 OH + 2CO2

Bringing balance to the force.

Who's smarter Liberal Atheists or Conservative Theists?

2010-02-26T15:18:00.000-08:00

Who's smarter: Liberal Atheists or Conservative Theists?

Oh the things I could say about this little "gem."

The amount of biological determinism expressed here is pretty darn hefty...though not surprising. It's all the rage in sociology today to find evolutionary answers to explain what we see around us...after all (they poorly assume) everything we are is a result of natural selection in one way or another.

Post-hoc explanation?...See this from Orrologion.

CNN Poll: Majority says government a threat to citizens' rights

2010-02-26T12:52:00.001-08:00

CNN Poll: Majority says government a threat to citizens' rights

Interesting poll results. Of course we don't know exactly how the question was phrased, but really this concept (that government is a threat to individual liberty) OUGHT to be BASIC EDUCATION delved out in any and all US Civics courses. Taking a poll on it ought to be akin to asking: should the government operate via a system of checks and balances and thus be composed of an executive, legislative, and judicial branch? Duh!

The Atheist Community is worried

2010-02-26T07:47:00.000-08:00

The "Atheist Community" is worried

Obama aides to meet with atheists. Article here.

The irony here is that - as I've always said - Atheists (like all of us) are a bit afraid of WHO has the government's ear. We shouldn't have to be.

Think how odd it is that people with particular viewpoints on the existence of a supreme being are concerned about what the government is going to do and how it is going to act with regard to their beliefs.

The Diaconate

2010-02-24T21:30:00.000-08:00

The Diaconate

The Och offers some good words about the Diaconate...challenging words I might add as well.

And indeed AXIOS! to Fr. Dn. Matthew - I was blessed to meet him at last years Liturgical Practicum.

Orthodox Fatherhood

2010-02-24T12:59:00.000-08:00

Orthodox Fatherhood

Like that old Foreigner song, I seriously want to know what love is. I talk about it a great deal and I tell people that I feel it in regards to them...but I don't think I really have a grasp on the PRACTICE of love. I am simply FAR FAR FAR too self-involved. Reaching beyond myself to love others sometimes feels as difficult as a drowning man who cannot swim trying to stay on the surface of the water.

I know what love LOOKS like. But day in and day out, do I practice it? Once in a great while, the cold selfish heart is stirred to warmth and love for others...but it doesn't happen enough.

I found this quote today:

God is a fire that warms and kindles the heart and inward parts.
Hence, if we feel in our hearts the cold which comes from the
devil - for the devil is cold - let us call on the Lord. He will
come to warm our hearts with perfect love, not only for Him but
also for our neighbor, and the cold of him who hates the good will
flee before the heat of His countenance.

St. Seraphim of Sarov

Without a doubt, I do NOT call on the Lord enough. So, should I expect anything to change given this?

10,136 beads left

2010-02-23T15:18:00.000-08:00

10,136 beads left

Go now and read this article.

How many days do I have left to truly learn to love, value, affirm, bless, and appreciate my wife and my kids? I must redeem the time.

Being an Orthodox father

2010-02-22T15:52:00.000-08:00

Being an Orthodox father

I am giving time to contemplating the ways in which my Orthodox faith OUGHT to be informing me about being a dad. More thoughts will come as I am considering this a part of my Lenten journey....

This from Fr. Stephen to start off.

...of whom I am first

2010-02-15T14:00:00.000-08:00

...of whom I am first

If you are like me, you may find a certain weariness in all the online "forgiveness sundays" whether on facebook or blogs or whatever, and yet here I go perpetuating the internet Orthodox tradition. To some degree it is fitting that we do virtual prostrations to one another because this venue is such that we may readily offend one another - both in that we cannot see our facial expressions or hear our tones of voice that might soothe what would otherwise be taken as very harsh words, but also because for some reason we tend to say things that we would not say in person.

Having blogged now for almost 8 years, it's no surprise that in that time I have offended some people, though I should be careful to say that I could have just started yesterday and I likely would have offended people. There's no question that as I look back at those 8 years, I have definitely evolved (or perhaps devolved depending on who you may ask) as a person...there are more than a few posts I would certainly not write today, and many more I would write differently. Most of these revolve around themes of politics which I know some would have had me avoid to begin with...and I admit there is wisdom in that opinion. It grieves me that politics are seemingly so divisive, perhaps they have always been that way and I just happen to notice it more now as an adult. I'm not sure. But, what I AM sure of is that I am really saddened by offenses I have given through my self-righteousness, my condescending tone (both real and imagined), my arrogance, and my lack of charity...my failings grieve me and I ask for forgiveness.

But, starting Lent off isn't just about seeking forgiveness for offenses given, but it is also about ALL of ours sins we commit - even those which no one but us and God know about. Even these sins are offenses to all of creation. So for these as well...I also grieve over these (though likely less...if I am to be honest).

I truly am seeking to have some fundamental changes in my heart during this season of the fast. I pray that I may be a good student at the "school of repentance."

Orthodox Veterans?

2010-02-12T20:10:00.000-08:00

Orthodox Veterans?

That you know of...

Make sure you check this out.

Atlas shrugged, and we argued about it

2010-02-12T15:40:00.001-08:00

Atlas shrugged, and we argued about it

Last summer I began reading Ayn Rand's book “Atlas Shrugged” and just recently I was watching an episode of John Stossel's new program which was discussing the book, its renewed popularity, and its is apparent prophetic coming to life today. In fact, mention was made that at the time of its first publication, one of the chief complaints about the book was that it was too unrealistic; too far fetched to be taken seriously. No one is saying that now.

Rand was a rather rabid atheist and a huge proponent of “rational self-interest.” Criticisms, particularly from a Christian perspective, of her personal philosophy are absolutely warranted, however, as an atheist she is certainly living out the logical ends of her worldview (She herself of course would suggest that her personal philosophy is the absolute most effective way for any notions of a practical “Christian” social justice to be realized). In any event, someone once asked me, with a certain degree incredulity, if I'd “gotten anything out of the book?”

It's a good question, and I'd say my answer is yes. Applying Rand's philosophy personally is, I find, an ugly proposition. How we as individuals interact with other individuals is a foundational component of community and I simply cannot abide by Rand's notion of “rational self-interest” when dealing personally with other people. There is no better way to wreck havoc in your life than to live solely with yourself in mind, indeed this is the cornerstone of the Fall. But, that being said, I do not believe that government is a personal entity, however much it may be made up of individuals...no more than a corporation is a person. Therefore, when it comes to how the state ought to oversee and navigate itself through our dealings, I think Rand's general philosophy of individual self-interest and responsibility ought to be the assumed natural and right way of being for people. This is individualism (much dreaded in many Orthodox circles I am familiar with), but only in as much as it applies to how the secular authorities view and treat us; it has no bearing on our personal or even our community lives. It seems to me that philosophically, morally, and literally with regard to our particular government's founding that the principle function of government is to protect individual liberty and NOT to seek to foster community. In other words, the state should make little to no effort in forcing grander perceptions of “Christian” community or social justice upon us. For you see, I believe real community can only exist when free peoples freely associate themselves with one another. Threat of punishment is by no means any way to foster community...it must be organic and the state has no notion of such things. Thus, while I see little application of Rand's philosophy in my personal life, I do see a great deal of application for how the government should view us as free persons.

But, some will ask of me, what of the Gospel commandments to love one another? And I would simply say that that is precisely why I reject living my life personally by the Randian “Objectivist” code. However, I do not believe the Beatitudes were ever intended to, nor should they be, set into motion by force of law. I believe the best of intentions when passed on to the megalith of government oversight and enforcement will almost always inevitably fail in seeing truly positive results, and I believe this is especially true of the teachings of Christ. The government cannot love, it cannot express true Christian charity, and any attempts it may make at doing so will be treading upon very thin ice – balancing precariously between fulfilling moral obligations it never had to begin with and tyranny. An ever recharging welfare debit card does more to build dependence than to free a person via charity that comes quite naturally when delivered incarnationally. Community isn't expressed through our government, I believe that very firmly, though I know this may put me in minority status for it would seem that more and more we as a society look less and less to one another and more and more to the state as the source of...well...as the source of nearly everything if you stop and think about it. And therein lies the entire crux of the reasoning for the ongoing culture war and the divisiveness that not only haunts this land, but as I've personally seen, ends friendships that should have been able to weather such debate.

Watch and listen. I've recently been witness to Christians raising up their ramparts and manning the war towers at the very hint of something with even a slight political feel to it. And I wondered, from where does this passion come from? Why are we so committed...DEEPLY committed to fretting over who has our government's ears and eyes? And it's not as if I've not been equally devoted to these fears in the past, but I think there is something in “Atlas Shrugged” that has helped me to see a more clear picture of this situation. I believe the strife and even anger (Christians angry at one another because of how they cast their votes!?!?!) arises from the fact that we have charged government (both in our minds and in reality) with the task of manufacturing community. Both sides of the popular political spectrum do this, albeit in different ways. So much so that, in the end we all wring our hands nervously worrying over what government may do to wreck havoc in our lives. The examples are endless: Homosexuals worry they will not be allowed to be themselves and marry one another; conservative Christian parents worry that the state schools will teach their kids that it's wonderful that “Johnny has two dads!” Another group worries the tax code will destroy their small business. Another worries that that the tax code will not raise enough to provide for the needs of the poor or uninsured. In essence, we truly believe that the government will be the deciding factor on what our community is like and thus we have gone miles and miles away from “free persons freely associating” and have arrived at something altogether different which we all ironically fear and yet continue to try and redeem. And such attempts at redeeming the problem only makes it worse, because we simply invest MORE community-making authority in the body we fear and while one side may gain temporary victories, they ought to realize that the very power they have vested in the government today which actualizes one vision of community, may tomorrow be used to smash that vision and rebuild another far less desirable to those who first bestowed the authority upon Washington DC to begin with. We perpetuate the fear and the war.

The dissolution of friendships – and God forbid even Christian fellowship – because of an inability to “agree to disagree” on political matters says perhaps something specific of the people involved, but I think it also says something about the broader socio-political culture we have grown here. It does not speak kindly of it, I think. I’m under no illusions that my somewhat apolitical libertarian stance on the matter doesn’t divide me from both of the standard sides of the fence (I have sympathies on both sides…perhaps more one than the other), but I really believe that as things get worse, the divisiveness more unbearable, and culture war rages on…perhaps people will begin to ask why we argue so much.

I don’t know what would happen if we were to actually see Atlas shrug. But I think the passions that politics raises up in us is of bigger concern. Controlling or even snuffing them out is probably the only thing for which we can manage to have hope for change.

The People's Liquor Store

2010-02-09T15:21:00.000-08:00

The People's Liquor Store

Yes, here in Washington we must go to state run liquor stores in order to purchase our spirits. LAME. (Yes cue the MUSIC.) Nothing irks me more than a monopoly (i.e. how many choices do I have for phone service or cable?) except a monopoly run by the government, for reasons that ought to be obvious: in the case of liquor stores, I break a law by having spirits shipped to me, while I'm yet free from corporate police who might rush in when I cancel my land line and use a cell provider alone for my phone service. In any event, a while back I found this:

And then THIS bit of hopeful news. Well...hopeful for a second or two anyway, since no sooner had the bill come into existence than it was shelved. Gregoire dodges the issue by claiming it doesn't immediately answer the budget crisis...well duh who cares about that! This is an issue of FREEDOM, not your screwed up budget. I mean if you want to use that as a point of leverage with those who don;t care about freedom, then fine...but the fact is I should be able to go to Walmart and buy a case of beef jerky, some spanish peanuts, a new Wii game, some lemons, and a bottle of Single Barrel Evan Williams Bourbon ON SALE in order to compete with the same product down the road at Albertson's supermarket. I should not have to go to the booze equivalent of the DMV where there is NO competition, terrible inventory selection, and never a decent sale.

Ironically, they do actually have sales each month ("temporary price reductions") and I always laugh because it's sorta like they are pretending to be a real store than needs to have sales to COMPETE. I always tend to think about trapped rodents being given a sedative to get them not to panic about being trapped..."just pretend it's a real store!"

And the horrors of underage liquor sales! GASP! The populations in states where private companies can sell must be destitute suffering under such dangers. Drunken teens (which are never found in Washington) are no doubt rampant in the streets of California...pillaging and causing mayhem (because, as we all know, only the state can truly oversee our children.)

Okay...rant finished. I wish I lived near a border to a FREE ~~country~~ state, but as you can see on the map in the video, the entire PacNW is a bastion of liquor controlled statism...at least we can feel safe.

Gonna ask my wife to stock up while she's down south in March.

Are you in there?

2010-02-09T13:49:00.001-08:00

Are you in there?

THIS bit of news, which is all over the net and I even noted it on FB, stands to be exceptionally emotional...upsetting, terrifying, or perhaps hopeful. I have noticed that a number of articles have been quick to point and imply that this revelation does not apply to those with cerebral hypoxia such as in the controversial Shiavo case. However, I took the time to read the actual study paper as published, and the devil is certainly in the details: the study specifically excluded victims of hypoxia. Thus we cannot say it is not possible that this applies to them, in fact anytime I hear someone make some dogmatic statement such as: "In some cases, the damage to the brain is so severe that it is simply inconceivable they could produce any responses." I tend to wish to say: Wait and see.

Anyway...in looking at some of these brain scans I'm certainly amazed.

But what does this say about personhood? In a state where "experts" tell us "they aren't there anymore" and yet they live...where did they go?

The implications here are not easy to deal with, particularly for the poor family (Lord have mercy) who must deal with a loved one in a persistent vegetative state. But one can well imagine a time when such loved ones (even if just a lucky...or is it unlucky few?) may be able to have means of communicating their wishes and more importantly their love. Don't tell a grieving loved one they are wasting their time in spending time with someone in a coma or a PVS...there ARE in there and it would seem they may well be listening and comprehending. Love is easy to know...harder to show.

Darwin and Christianity

2010-01-22T11:45:00.000-08:00

Darwin and Christianity

Fr. Thomas Hopko has begun a fascinating series on Darwinism. It appears to be off to an intriguing start.

Ban High Fructose Corn Syrup?

2010-01-21T09:44:00.000-08:00

Ban High Fructose Corn Syrup?

I recently noted people on Facebook becoming "fans of" banning High Fructose Corn Syrup. While I appreciate the sentiment (I don't particularly trust the stuff myself), I think we may be missing something here. Government meddling is precisely WHY you find the stuff in everything to begin with! The price of sugar is kept artificially high by the Feds and thus it is largely unused and replaced with the much cheaper HFCS being substituted. So don't demonize the corporations, they are simply trying to give you the product you want for a price you are willing to pay. And as we know, more and more companies are seeing a market of people willing to pay extra for real sugar. See Here for details on why sugar is so expensive.

A quick and easy solution is to read labels and pay the extra for real sugar. Or, if you want to pay a fair price for it, don't ask the government to do MORE (like a ban), ask it to do LESS and the problem is solved. Hmmmm...

Me and my corn

Nanny of the Year steps up to do a 2010 REPEAT!

2010-01-11T14:12:00.000-08:00

2009 Nanny of the Year steps up to do a 2010 REPEAT!

Not content with winning in 2009, NYC is up for taking care of its people again! What ever would New Yorkers do without the state???

Salt is evil and an enemy to the collective...ahem...I mean state.

I generally support freedom of information laws, such as food labeling, but give me a break. We do not need the state to read the label for us and then go about seeing that high salt food not even be offered to us...ever. What on earth does that say about us? Do we really need THIS MUCH OVERSIGHT!! Then they go on to give us this line:

"High blood pressure, heart attacks and stroke kill 23,000 New Yorkers and 800,000 Americans per year, costing untold billions in healthcare expenses, the Health Department said."

Well there you have it. We must FORCE "good health" upon people because we are all sharing the expense - really? Like in health insurance? Hey, here's a free market solution - allow insurance companies (if they so wish) to deny coverage to people who were not using reasonable safety devices. And besides, I'd like to know what untold billions of dollars is involved in funding public health policy bureaucrats. In my mind they are like the vast majority of human resources employees such as those who write the questions and tally results for things like "Diversity" quizzes. The other issue is the extent to which public health policy makers really know what is healthy for you. Remember kids, this is the government we are talking about and they are busily being lobbied by all manner of interests - whether corporate profiteers or non-profit ideologues.

I'm presently reading a book called "Good Calories / Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes (here's a NYT review) and in it the author presents extensive evidence to suggest that the whole government/science/media complex that brings to us public policy and "conventional wisdom" is as flawed as...well...as flawed as any of us...or a large crowd of us. In my experience, once they get it wrong, they largely expect/hope that by simply being more quiet about the issue people will forget the extent to which they trumpeted it in the beginning. After a decade or two we'll probably forget and while they'll call HUGE press conferences to tell us what we ought to eat when the "research is settled" (it often isn't), they don't do anything nearly as loud to say something like: "Well, gee, turns out eggs aren't so bad after all." (In point of fact it was egg farmer associations and corporate agribusinesses who made the announcement on the behalf...I still remember the TV commercial of the egg being freed from chains.)

Of course, we don't ever want people to lose faith in the government's ability to protect you, preserve you, and keep you. We've made gods of them with our expectations of safety and health...not stopping to think whether our faith is either well-placed or needed at all.

I say poo-poo to you Bloomberg. Public health science's job should be to educate us (which they have not done well - see Taubes' book), not shackle us. I say assert your freedom people and protest by eating a spoonful of salt and follow it with a McNugget fried in Transfats. Then have a beer and a nice bit of pipeweed in a church warden amidst a smoke-friendly pub, pausing to sing a few rousing choruses of freedom and death to tyrants.

Post-Avatar Depression

2010-01-11T07:35:00.000-08:00

Post-Avatar Depression

Apparently, after seeing "Avatar" you might wake up the next day to realize that your world doesn't glow in the dark, that you cannot connect your ponytail to your dog and ride him as ONE, and that the cedar tree in your frontyard doesn't act as a communication God-hub to the rest of the universes life forms and after such revelations, suffer severe depression.

I suspect young teen girls may suffer similar pain to realize that neither Vampires nor Edward are real.

The Road we are all on

2010-01-04T10:57:00.000-08:00

The Road we are all on

Over this Christmas season my brother-in-law let me borrow a copy of a book he heartily recommended entitled "The Road" written by Cormac McCarthy. All I knew about it was that it was in the "post-apocalyptic" genre and I'd been warned it was "very dark." For all I knew this was going to be a very gruesome "Mad Max." But by the time I started reading and had adjusted to McCarthy's style, I was hooked and had the 280 or so pages read in a day and a half. At first I was unsure what to think, but after a few days of thought...haunted by it...I've come to the conclusion that this book is absolutely fantastic.

We are never told what caused the end of the world as we know it, but as McCarthy describes it, it would appear to me that this is a nuclear winter. Some no doubt will wish to see this as some vision of the future after man-made climate change takes full-effect, but McCarthy doesn't seen to care much about WHAT caused the situation, on the contrary his novel is fundamentally about being truly human amidst absolutely inhuman conditions and also it is a beautiful love story. A love story between a father and his son.

I will not give too much of the plot away, but I will tell you how this book moves me. I saw in "The Road" an analogy of our lives today...right now.

For most of us, this life is so easy, so rich and comfortable that it is often difficult to see the hell that surrounds us...and is in us. Some people suffer it to varying degrees and surely we all die...but some others sadly (or perhaps more blessedly?) have a truer vision of the horrors of which we humans are capable.
Some people suffer through a reality that is not unlike "The Road" where there seems to be NO hope at all and people visit all manner of hell upon one another.

But if it is sometimes hard to see the "post-apocalyptic" state we do live in already, it is even harder to see that state manifested in our own hearts. "The Road" exists invisibly amongst us everyday. In the "The Road" the sun has been blotted out and ash is continually falling, thus all plant life has died and by the time the story-line of the book takes place (years after the beginning of the end), there remains no life other than human...and thus nothing to eat, except old and difficult to find canned goods, and each other. Cannibalism has frighteningly become to some the only way to survive and the horrors of it are not hidden in the book. Yet, the man and the boy (neither of whom are ever named) refuse to let go of their humanity and they see themselves as "the good guys" and those who are "carrying the fire" of humanity. And with all this cannibalism I was reminded of this from St. John Chrysostom:

Let the mouth too fast from disgraceful speeches and railing. For what doth it profit if we abstain from birds and fishes; and yet bite and devour our brethren? The evil speaker eateth the flesh of his brother, and biteth the body of his neighbor.

Because of this Paul utters the fearful saying, “If ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.” Gal. v. 15. Thou hast not fixed thy teeth in the flesh, but thou hast fixed the slander in the soul, and inflicted the wound of evil suspicion; thou hast harmed, in a thousand ways, thyself and him, and many others, for in slandering a neighbor thou hast made him who listens to the slander worse…

One need not think too hard to see that our sins are often like cannibalism, so much of the base of our sinfulness is manifested in objectifying others and devouring them for our own benefit. Surely subtle in most cases, but not always. So I kept asking myself about the cannibalism in my own life and wondering how well I am protecting those I claim to love from it in the same way that the man in "The Road" struggles to protect his boy from the more overt cannibals.

"The Road" we all walk is right here in front of us. The dangers real. We struggle to protect ourselves and we struggle to protect those we love. But we must recognize that many of the dangers we face on the road are created from our own hearts and souls. It is astonishingly perilous and these notions of "being the good guys" and "carrying the fire" become perhaps more difficult to reconcile in my analogy, but I see a place for them. The book would seem to have no hope, but if you read closely I think you will see that the hope is found in the love between the boy and the man. Indeed their love sustains them and McCarthy describes them as "each the others world entire."

In the book, the man's wife (and of course the boy's mother) - who we only read about in flashbacks - decides that traveling "The Road" is too much for her to bear. She despairs completely and will not carrying on the struggle. She surrenders. I found her final conversation with the man to be heart rending and almost too difficult to read. For you see, there is no axe wielding warrior hero in this book who would come and rescue her from the jaws of death...the victory on "The Road" is won more subtly.

When we surrender and refuse to tread "The Road" that is real, we surrender to all the passions of cannibalism. We do not escape these passions, not even through death. Death is the wages of these passions and despair the surest way of yielding fully to them. There is always hope and we must learn to see that. Love. I was saddened that the man could not verbalize this hope more clearly...but it is sometimes hard to do so, especially while we ourselves are in the midst of tremendous struggle. And indeed sometimes despair is so deep, so beyond reach...
it would seem no mercy can soothe it.

Anyway, I could go on and on about this analogy and the power of this book - there is much more to be found in it. I think what most struck me was the fact that this story challenged me. It challenged me because I see the reality of "The Road" in my life. I am aware of at least SOME of the passions that lead me to devour my wife, my children, my loved ones and my friends and I am encouraged to fight to protect them from the cannibals in my heart. Perhaps that sounds cheesy, but the end of the book had me weeping from the beauty of the love between that unnamed man and boy. Weeping also for my failure to recognize and engage my job properly amidst this life; "The Road" we are all on.

In an interview McCarthy said simply that he hoped his book would help people appreciate their lives and the lives of those around us. It surely does that, but I would add that I hope it will also encourage readers to continue the struggle to be fully human no matter how bad and hopeless things appear. To love and to live in the fullness of that Love no matter what. Which is Christ. Therein is the clearing skies lacking in the book.

ADDENDUM: A film by the same title was released last month. I've not seen it, but it has received positive reviews and I'm told it is very faithful to the book. McCarthy is an excellent writer and I worry that much of what so moved me was his prose, but we shall see. Some scenes might be unbearable and I hate to cry like a baby in a theater, so perhaps it would be best to wait for Netflix? A writer at Hollywood Jesus offers a very good review of the film in which she sees some of the same themes I mentioned.

Why sign the Manhatten Declaration?

2009-12-30T08:19:00.000-08:00

Why sign the Manhattan Declaration?

Being collected by THIS website (which I know nothing about), but these interviews are worth watching.

Igumen Sergius, Abbot of St Tikhon of Zadonsk Orthodox Monastery

Fr Valery Shemchuk, Assistant Priest at St Nicholas Cathedral, Washington DC

Metropolitan Jonah

Fr. Alexander Webster

He hates the stars! Stay away from the stars!

2009-12-23T18:56:00.001-08:00

He hates the stars! Stay away from the stars!

The ever-occurring, seemingly increasing Atheist wants to sterilize all public evidence of Christmas story. Not content to let our broader culture and society make a mockery of the season through less overt secularization and commercialization, this guy (as do many more) would have us whitewash all public places of all religious notions...including, it would seem "stars." I wonder what legislation this man would like to see introduced to blot out the nighttime skies which it would seem have [carl sagan]BILLIONS AND BILLIONS[/carl sagan] of religious references. (Psalm 19:1) This really is almost laughable, were it not so sad.

The irony in all this is that while Atheists fight to whitewash our public places of all religious signs, we are not left with a neutral-to-religion environment, but rather we are left solely with a place demonstrating overt signs of the religion of atheism! The more and more we make religion devoid in our public life, the happier atheists become...in no small way we are not fulfilling the establishment clause, in fact we are establishing a state religion of secularism.

I've no solutions or suggestions to offer...it's just sad that we have reached this point. Thankfully Mr. Sutley cannot blot out the skies.

And I love the portion of the story where the county caves and has all religious symbols removed (HOW ON EARTH DID THEY DECIDE WHAT WAS A RELIGIOUS SYMBOL AND WHAT WASN'T??? I'd be half tempted to go through and bitch about candy canes being a religious symbol!) "so that we can celebrate the season yet not appear to endorse Christian or other religious doctrines."

What, pray tell then, are we celebrating?!??! Let's stop pretending...sometimes I seriously see a powerful advantage to celebrating Christmas on the old calendar.

Well I'm not going to dwell too much on this sad direction our culture is heading - I've a nasty head cold that has left me a tad curmudgeonly. I will instead consider this: a house along the road that I have traveled to the park and ride for the last three years has always had a large sign displayed during the Christmas/Advent season that read simply "Bah Humbug!" It always made me a little sad to see it. But, I noticed this year that the sign is gone and the home is thoroughly wrapped in bright lights. I never saw a "for rent/sale" sign, so I'm operating under the happy assumption that someone had a Scrooge-like experience and is now filled with the joy of the Nativity...and they've brilliantly displayed thousands of little stars...reminding me Mr. Sutley-grumpy-pants of the star of Bethlehem (10,000x)!

Dances with blue wolves

2009-12-20T15:53:00.000-08:00

Dances with Blue Wolves

I'd heard that James Cameron's decade-in-the-making movie "Avatar" is an exotic fantasy principally geared to stimulate the jolly-glands of persons with a decidedly left-leaning persuasion. And yep, that's pretty much true. Good night, what a waste of time this film is...it's about as realistic as floating mountains, which in fact, the film ironically includes. Yes, it's "Dances with Wolves" but on some powerful progressive amphetamines. Cameron's not even shy about perpetuating the ~~myth~~ LIE of the noble savage...he's downright blatant and quite over-the-top with the liberal utopia of the Na'vi people. And seriously, when they whoop and hollar, I'm fairly certain he just ripped some audio from "Dances with Wolves." Sure, I can imagine that humanoids who evolved on another planet would sound exactly like Native Americans on earth...and then when speaking English, they would equally strangely have an African-sounding accent. The Na'vi are the perfect "in harmony with nature" people...and they live in a glow in the dark utopia where it would seem everything harbors some degree of bioluminescence. While visually appealing...it's patently absurd and is clearly being used as a tool to show just how beautiful it all is in comparison with the evil, money hungry, corporate humans....sigh...how stereotypical. Seriously, Mr. Cameron, "Unobtainium?" How can you get away with that!

The movie is trumpeted as being in 3-D, but its characters and plot are completely one dimensional. There was a time when we'd complain about one dimensional characters, but Cameron appears to be totally getting away with astonishing one dimensional stereotypes all over the place. The Na'vi are PERFECT, the military and corporate types are evil (the former just want to kill Na'vi while the latter just want money at all costs), and the scientists can read the situation precisely...and gosh darn it they mean well - we even get the obligatory scientist vs. military/corporate showdown. You'd have to be brain dead not to see where this film is headed and were it not for its visual appeal I seriously would have walked out on it.

It's so simplistic, I'm quite sure my 13 year old could see the shallowness of it all...but I suspect if the plotline measures up to your Chomsky flavored interpretation of Earth's history then you'll love it. Maybe that's how it is seeing good reviews? At least "Dances with Wolves" at least showed Native American tribes fighting one another...though I've always wondered how the Pawnees feel about being the "bad" tribe in that film. The Sioux get to be the noble savages! NO FAIR!

Look, can we please have some reality? I don't think anyone doubts that the wiping out of Native American tribes is lamentable...but in the grand history of life it is not an unusual thing done solely by Europeans. People have displaced others for as long as people have lived on earth, and if they haven't displaced people, they have certainly displaced "pristine" (i.e. "peopleless") environments - which I think would also be deemed as lamentable by the environmental folk. Yes, once North America was invaded by "native" Americans. So there is nothing unusual about this behavior, what IS unusual is that we look back and feel bad about it. In fact we make movies to remind us of how bad we are..."Avatar" is perhaps an example. And please can we dispense with the "perfection" of native peoples? It's so trite, really. Cameron's movie is, ultimately, naive, simplistic, overly idealistic, and preachy and were it's message not so agreeable to most people and its effects so amazing, it would be an utter flop.

Addendum: I had meant to also mention one more intriguing part of the film, which is in regards to the Na'Vi's pantheistic religion. Not unusual for Hollywood for sure, but the funny part that struck me is how the well-meaning scientists "prove" that the Na'Vi religion has a scientific basis: the whole of Pandora (the world they live on) is literally interconnected and the Na'Vi can tap into that "network" (aka consciousness)...blah blah blah.

An interesting NYT Op-Ed on the rise of Pantheism, particularly displayed in "Avatar".

Mystery Solved

2009-12-12T21:57:00.000-08:00

Mystery Solved

Susan was out and about the chicken's playground while I was loading up for a dump run, when she came upon the original plastic stake which identified the cones in this picture as "Northern Brewers Hops." And having had my first experience of brewing without "hop pellets" I am totally ready to make use of these bad boys next summer. Here's what Beer Advocate has to say about em:

Northern Brewer is a bittering-type cultivar, bred in 1934 in England from a Canterbury Golding female plant and the male plant OB21. Northern Brewer has been used in the breeding process of many newer varieties. This cultivar http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3544035is grown in England, Belgium, Germany and the USA.

A strong fragrant hop with a rich rough-hewn flavor and aroma, ideal for steam-style beers and ales. Northern Brewer has a unique mint-like evergreen flavor. (alpha acid: 8.0-10.0%/ beta acid: 3.0-5.0%)

If I have any left, I'll let Susan use them for their medicinal use. I'm going to have to see if my Mom (who lives in the middle of HOPS country) would grown me a few vines.

:)

Atheist Christmas

2009-12-09T22:29:00.000-08:00

Atheist Christmas

Story HERE.

I'm not exactly buying the persecuted atheist bit. Yes, being an intolerant loudmouth ("she 'believes all that crap'") will buy you all manner of ostracization, simply saying: "I don't believe in God" is a whole other matter. My favorite line of personal intellectual betrayal is when self-professed atheists defend their use of a home "Christmas" tree:

"Sacred trees are an ancient custom. It's pretty, it smells nice and it's pagan."

LOL! Yes, as long as as it isn't "Christian" it's fine. The "tree god" is perfectly cool for us atheists, but not the God-Man Jesus. Please, people, you are making my hemorrhoids flare from laughing so hard.

Call for Help

2009-12-09T10:08:00.000-08:00

Call for help

Many moons ago I posted a link to a series of lectures by Fr. Michael Oleksa HERE. Somehow one of the copies I saved ages ago was corrupted and now seems to contain two overlapping recordings slightly offset and are not listenable. Unfortunately these files are no longer available on the website. Did anyone else happen to save them? I am particularly looking for Lecture 2 Tape 2.

Let me know ASAP
james[dot]ferrenberg[at]gmail[dot]com

Fathead Part II

2009-12-08T14:52:00.000-08:00

Fathead Part II

I noted earlier that I may add a bit more on the topic once I finished the latter half of the movie "Fathead." While the first half is a breath of free and fresh air filled with wit and UNcommon sense wisdom, the latter half left me with a great many questions. The first half tells us how the "obesity" epidemic is, at least in part, contrived by a sliding scale slid too far; that neither McDonald's nor any other corporate identity is responsible for your poor health - YOU are; that there is no conspiracy of Fast Food profiteers bent on addicting you to their food. The latter half takes on the popular (aka "consensus") science of our health and in particular our cardiovascular health. One is inclined to think that the filmmaker and those he interviews are akin to "global warming deniers" (who, by the way, lately seem to be seeming less and less crazy don't we they?).

The one BIG load of "bologna" (but certainly not the only one) he claims we've been fed is that a diet high in saturated fat is a leading cause of heart disease. In fact, he claims that There’s never been a single study that proves saturated fat causes heart disease.

This, to me, seemed a rather amazing claim. And so I set out on a literature search and found myself rather surprised. Tom Naughton is not entirely wrong...far from it actually. One big trial I stumbled upon was the WHI Dietary Modification Trial which happened to be the most ambitious and expensive long term study on the effect of diet and some specific diseases such as Cancer, Heart Disease, and Stroke. Started in the 90's during the height of our "low fat" government marching orders, they focused on the belief (hope?) that those in the study following a lower fat diet would demonstrate a marked decrease in risk...but they didn't. Not at all. Read about the study here. Now of course, with all studies, this one has its flaws. And despite the findings the summary article linked above still finds need to remind us that fats really are bad for us...specifically mentioning the need to get away from "saturated fats", claiming that replacing them with "natural vegetable oils can greatly reduce the risk of heart disease and diabetes." Really? Citations please?

I ask because just prior to reading about this study I found the little treasure I was looking for: a review article. In the scientific world a review article is one that surveys as many published articles on a given subject as is possible and tries to formulate them into a concise conclusion. This one happened to be titled: "A Systematic Review of the Evidence Supporting a Casual Link Between Dietary Factors and Coronary Heart Disease" published in the Archives of Internal Medicine 2009; 169(7):659-669. Let me quote and summarize the relative portions of their conclusions:

We found strong evidence that trans–fatty acids are associated with CHD risk, but weak evidence implicating saturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids and total fat intake...Our results support an association between foods with higher glycemic index values and CHD outcomes. Metabolic studies have shown that higher glycemic index scores are associated with coronary risk factors, such as higher fasting triglycerides and lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels.

I am going to continue investigating, but clearly there is a great more at play here than I was led to believe. Notions that fat (or at least some kinds of fats) are okay and that certain carbs are bad is contrary to what I was always told. Though, as the Harvard review noted, we HAVE in fact been hearing about good fats vs. bad fats lately. I suspect there is more to learn.

So, I do suggest seeing "Fathhead" and taking some time to check out the information that's out there. Many thanks to my wife who no doubt grew tired of my poo-pooing things she's told me about this. But that doesn't mean my dear that the flood gates are open...as I've always said I will make an honest effort to look into the science on such issues and in this case I think you were largely right. So...in lieu of toast or oatmeal, we'll have bacon and eggs for breakfast, right?

Ahem...after the fast.
:)

Tolerant Orthodoxy

2009-12-07T07:54:00.000-08:00

Tolerant Orthodoxy

The following is a quote from "A History of Christianity" by Donald Treadgold. The underline portion is a section that I believe has an error - it doesn't seem correct to me. The text I have is a 1979 edition and it comes from the chapter entitled "The Christian contest with Rome" (P. 45). I'd be interested to know if anyone has a different edition and might check if a correction was made. But, mainly I would be interested in commentary and discussion on this passage. In particular, what do you think Treadgold meant in the last sentence?

Heresy may be defined as separation from the Church in belief, as contrasted with schism, which is separation in organization (without separation of belief). Mere challenge, dispute, or even error does not establish heresy or schism, but rather persistence in a deviant path after it has been clearly explained to be such. “Heresy” nowadays is a term apt to be used to imply that the ideas in question are original or innovative. In fact, however, heresy usually originated not in a new idea or practice, but in exaggerated and excessive attachment to an old one – to a valid element of the faith; the overemphasis often tended to lead to a distortion of the part which might eventually distort the meaning of the whole. It was thus characteristically the orthodox (those who followed “the true teaching” of the church) Christians who were concerned about the whole spectrum of thought and action of the faithful and for whom any single issue needed above all to be kept in proper perspective, whereas the potential or actual heretics were much more apt to be passionately interested in a small number of issues or in one alone. There followed from this circumstance that have led to the use of the aphorism, “the more orthodox, the more tolerant.” The history of Christianity is a long and complex one, and situations can be found in which that aphorism seems inapplicable, even radically so. The twentieth-century reader, however, probably needs to realize that the widely received doctrine of our time may gravely mislead him in considering the issue.

Thoughts?

Fathead: Policy vs. Education

2009-12-03T08:00:00.000-08:00

Fathead: Policy vs. Education

My wife had me watching this editorial film (recall from a previous post that I do not believe these sorts of films should be called “documentaries”) entitled “Fathead” last night, which I am looking forward to finishing SOON. In initially it was going to be an expose' on how public health agencies are largely erroneous about the dangers of high fat diets, but instead this film is for the most part a reasoned answer to Morgan Spurlock's “Super Size Me.”

Now, similar to what I had to say about “Food, Inc” I felt that Spurlock's film had SOME good points, but also some bad points...some VERY bad points. Such as the not quite overt proposition that evil tyrannical food corporations are systematically killing their customer base and therefore there is a great need for government (Our savior!) to come and rescue the helpless victims of the obestiy/fast food genocide. (Or something like that.) On it's face this is absurd and Tom Naughton's answers Spurlock on point by point, handily. (In my mind of course, this is like shooting fish in a barrel...but others may find themselves enlightened by “Fathead”'s message.)

Now “Fathead” was obviously made on a VERY tight budget, but what it lacks in media sophistication, it easily makes up for with it's IDEAS and well-reasoned points. (Thus far...I'm about half-way through the film.) Look, there are PLENTY of good reasons to generally avoid fast food, but “evil corporations bent on killing you to make a profit” isn't one of them. I think we all know that fast food is cheap precisely because of how it is produced and it's overall quality and as Naughton aptly demonstrates, no one is really being fooled with regard to the extent with which these foods are calorie rich. I thought the brief little (poorly made) animation of the CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest - an absolute tyrannical organization wholly devoted to regulating you into "health." I even noticed they have an article at top of their website claiming that "'self-regulation proving insufficient'") superhero sweeping in to save a hapless consumer of fast food was a perfect example, because it demonstrated how regulation and taxation can be used to absolutely steal YOUR personal liberty.

Public Health Science is an interesting field in which more and more people are earning their advanced degrees. However, I am concerned with the extent to which people are exiting these programs with a sense of mission. A mission, not to educate the public with their research findings, but rather to set public (i.e. GOVERNMENT) policy. The difference between these two missions is that the former treats humans as individuals capable of ingesting (pun intended) information and deciding for themselves, while the latter mission treats humans as a herd in need of management. Just like the CPSI guy, PHS superheros will lobby the government to intervene on our hapless behalf and protect us from the evils inflicted upon us, since we have absolutely no means of protecting ourselves (e.g. with our “fully functioning brains.”). So the government, responding to the “emergency” of the obesity “crisis” jacks up the price of McNuggets via a “fatty food tax” (they'll have a far more clever name) and then they'll regulate (i.e. FORCE) the fast food corporation to carry a government subsidized product they will call McCarrots, which will cost a fraction of their actual value. And viola! We've cured the obesity epidemic, because as “Food Inc” told us: most people who are fat, are fat because they cannot afford healthy food and now that they can get cheap subsidized McCarrots and can no longer afford highly taxed McNuggets, their previous lack of freewill and common sense will mysteriously return to them and they will suddenly make the RIGHT dietary choice out of necessity. Thank God the government was there to save us poor people!

“Fathead” also does a great job of explaining the rather sudden arrival of the “obesity” epidemic. Instead of the shrill voices that warn of impending doom, they rationally explain how the “sudden” rise of obesity can be easily explained simply by how public health agencies have decided to define “overweight” and “obese.” This is not, of course, suggesting that there's nothing wrong with obesity, but rather simply to suggest that many people considered to be obese by PHS folk probably shouldn't be losing any sleep over the matter. I write as one who absolutely is obese, but hardly EVER passes through the doors of a fast food restaurant. So, alas, my lawsuit against them won't go far.

I may say more about the film after I finish it, but thus far I heartily recommend it. Have some buttered and salted popcorn while you watch.

AMA Porn

2009-11-24T07:35:00.000-08:00

AMA Porn

1,500 complaints to ABC

I have absolutely NO idea who this "performer" is, and I don't care. More and more I find myself unsympathetic who are offended by what they see on such programs. I mean I guess I don't understand how Timothy Winters of the PTC can suggest that the concert performances ought to be toned down for the audience "given the amount of economic support that children and teenagers bring to the industry today." Have parents bothered to LISTEN to the crap their kids are apparently consuming??? And would you then expect anything but equivalent garbage from their performances? This is absurd.

Stop buying their filth and they will wither and return to the dark crevices from which they came and were truly appreciated. If you want to complain...complain to your kids. Or maybe take some time to talk to them about the values being espoused in the art they consume. I really don't know why people bother with prime time television for their kids anymore...I long ago gave up any hope for "family" television. That's a profound oxymoron.

I'm alive!

2009-11-23T08:26:00.000-08:00

I'm Alive!

Story of man who was told he was in a "persistent vegetative state"

Thankfully he was not starved to death.

Copper the bunny

2009-11-23T08:05:00.000-08:00

Copper the bunny

Seriously?

Here's my solution to the Copper the bunny problem:

Furniture

2009-11-22T20:40:00.000-08:00

Furniture

Not being one of great means, I've spent most of my life "inheriting" 2nd or 3rd hand furniture or just buying cheap "assemble yourself" particle board veneered disposable crud. My wife and I have long wished for a good quality dining room set that included a HUGE table and BENCHES instead of chairs. We like a rustic feel, but ironically, rustic is expensive. Unless you do it yourself.

I must preface all of this with the warning that I am as much a carpenter as I am a neurosurgeon. But I found a pretty cool and SIMPLE bench design (Leopold - typically intended for outdoor use, but hey, I LIKE it) that uses just standard lumber. Noting the nearly dangerous state of our chairs, I decided I'd do it. Today, after Church, I completed the assembly of the benches with my daughters' help and we put on the first coat of stain/polyurethane. They don't look half bad, and I suspect a guy my size could do gymnastics on them and they wouldn't even hint at a possible failure. And if and when they do fail...their design and my familiarity will allow for a quick and easy repair.

Yeah, they will not meet up to the standards of some accustomed to butlers or some equivalent thereof...but I reckon they'll work just fine for our standard "buffet counter and find your own seat" style of entertaining. I'll take some pics once they get one more coat of stain. They should make their debut for T-day.

Next up: a table.

I was an Atheist Child

2009-11-19T20:12:00.000-08:00

I was an Atheist Child

I'm still trying to wrap my head around THIS. In the great ongoing culture war in which everyone seems to think the government needs to bless and oversee everything in our lives, the freedom of the parent-child relationship has always been in danger. But there is something different here, because this is really about children potentially being labeled as "abused" for the indoctrination they receive at home. In government schools, they are of course fully exposed to secularism, but apparently religious schools are making UK Atheists nervous and uneasy. They are, they claim, worried about the freedom of the child.

They seek to change "public perception" as opposed to "campaigning politically", but of course in this time of everyone's personal beliefs and whims translating immediately into government action, I think there is cause to be concerned. Of course, I expect (hope?) that the vast majority of people think this is bogus, but then again, I myself was raised in a home in which - largely because of my father's wishes - I was raised to "decide for myself." Ironically I adopted the staunch atheism of my father, which of course points to the strange irony of the atheists' goal. How on earth does a parent fail to influence a child's faith under any circumstances? No matter what belief a parent may have, it will be imprinted upon the child! So if they truly "free" the child to believe whatever they like, no doubt that child will readily join Mom and Dad at the Unitarian, Episcopal, or NFL Church on Sunday morning. Really, it's laughable.

Also, suppose public perception does change (yes, government regulation WILL follow, don't you doubt it) what on earth sort of family life are these people wishing to design for us?

"Now kids, Mommy and Daddy are going to ask a blessing for our food, will you all please step outside for a few moments and do what feels right while we pray?"

And where does it end? What morality shall we teach our children? If not informed by our faith, will the government provide us with a "code of ethics" to assist our children in being moral citizens of some sort?

Oh dear, I could go on and on about this.

Addendum: The child models in the ad are members of a devout Christian family. We might even call them CHRISTIAN Children. Suffer the little children to come unto me...and all that sort of thing! LOL!

A Mixed Review of "Food Inc."

2009-11-18T15:25:00.001-08:00

A Mixed Review of Food Inc.

The current rage of “non-fiction” or “documentary” films ought not to bear such labels, because the terms both have too much association with vague notions of a sort of textbook “truth.” Fact is, these newer breed of films are better termed audio-visual editorials...or in worse case scenarios blatantly misleading propaganda. If you’ve ever had to sit through one in which you held contradictory opinions, then you know what torture they can inflict – there’s never a contrary view provided and there’s never any real debate. Of course if you subscribe to the filmmakers worldview then these films are the self-indulging great hope for mankind...or something.

As it so happens I agree with about 51.89% of the opinions (give or take) expressed in the editorial film “Food Inc.” and I would encourage everyone to see it. Now, I will nail my current intellectual colors to the mast and say that I do indeed believe in the value of organic, sustainable farming and I also believe in the importance of buying locally. We don’t always practice what I "preach", but we usually go out of our way to live these values, but by the same token I do NOT judge or condemn those who do not share these values. I hate it when people lift up such issues to the level of religious truth and meander about evangelizing and wiping the dust from their feet as they leave the homes of non-believers. I’m happy to share WHY I think these things are important to me, but I’m a big proponent of individual liberty and responsibility. And that’s where I find myself parting company with a significant proposition in the film: that the government must protect me and through intense regulation, taxation and oversight support my values with regard food/farming.

Food Safety and our need for protection
It’s decidedly reasonable, I think, for there to be some regulation here. But let’s be realistic: you can also build an indestructible airplane, but you’ll never get it off the ground. The fact is, if you eat food you will always be risking food borne illness and there is a TREMENDOUS amount that you – PERSONALLY – can do to help prevent it. We (us) are the final line of defense and if we are busily living our lives expecting that the government will save us from everything bad in the world, whether it be a financial crisis, a hurricane, or food poisoning then I’m afraid we are deceiving ourselves with fairy tales. It’s like a Police officer I know who once told me: “99% of the time we arrive at a crime scene, not a crime in progress.” And yet somehow we really think we have some assurance of real safety through prayers offered to 911.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not against food safety regulations - I'm going to have to keep saying that because inevitably someone is going to comment as if I suggested there be NO food safety oversight. But by the same token, just because a bit of legislation is a food regulation doesn’t mean it makes sense, is reasonable, effective, or necessary. For instance, in many states it is ILLEGAL to purchase raw milk from a farmer. This is a “food safety” regulation. Hey! Who is so stupid to fail to know that the pasteurization of milk will reduce the SLIGHT chance of a food borne illness and that buying raw milk is a SLIGHTLY greater risk? I certainly don’t need any government regulation to protect me from my own freedom in this regard! Fact is, raw milk has far more nutrients (lost in the pasteurization process) and obtaining it from its source affords you the ability to directly support a local dairy farmer who would ordinarily get far less for his product than it’s worth. Such regulation robs you the consumer of your freedom and greatly favors huge factory milk operations against who small family dairy farmers cannot compete.

Consider how much the average consumer is willing to pay for a gallon of milk? Regulations will inevitably cost the farmer and this doubly hurts the small farmer who must suffer the cost of a "middle-man" processor and whose mega-factory competitors can often afford the new regulation easily. But in the end, regulation costs will be passed down to the consumer until such a time that the government steps in the “regulate” costs because of the public outcry which adds makes it even more impossible to survive and compete if you are a small family farmer.

In the film, we hear about how terrible the various E.Coli outbreaks have been over the last decade or two. And truly there were awful, I remember them well - particularly the Jack-in-the-box fast food fiasco. We follow in the legal footsteps of the mother of one of the victims around she lobbies the government for greater food safety regulations. As I recall, we never really hear many specifics about the specific legislation they are trying to pass, but there is this sort of underlying tone that we should all readily agree that government should do everything possible to insure our safety...and I frankly think that statement is absurd. We should do that, but not the government. Think about it, by this logic you should be insisting that the city provide a Police Officer at the door of every home 24hrs a day. There is a limit to what government can do, and there’s a great deal that we as families CAN do, but don’t. Where should our emphasis be? I think one excellent aspect of the film is that it makes clear that mass- production of food is inherently more dangerous to the consumer. But what the film fails to note is that IF to government were to overly regulate the industry you would very quickly lose any of the "benefits" of incredibly inexpensive food...and you'd very quickly crush the small local food providers. Once again I will pause and say that I am NOT against all government food regulation.

Another area where we are apparently helpless is, according to the film, related to our poverty levels and our evolutionary lineage. Now anyone who has read my blog before knows I am vehemently opposed to the very notion of Darwinian determinism and so when the film even briefly suggests that evil food corporations are deliberately targeting our irresistible evolutionary food triggers, I immediately begin to tune out. Give me a break! There’s no conspiracy here, they are selling their products the same way all products are sold and if we are powerless to resist them why bother making the film? Hello? Freewill? Look, I’m fat, so I know it isn’t easy, but I’m not going to sue the pork manufacturers of the world for my fondness for pork. I make my choices (period).

So, if you are “poor”. The odds are (we are told) you will be fat because you are unable to buy anything but Twinkies and Doritos. Puhlease! Watch me get fat on organic rice, cheese, pasture raised beef and bean burritos. Yeah Twinkies and Doritos are awful for you, but you can totally get fat eating healthy food...just as soon as your caloric intake exceeds your output. Don't get me wrong, I realize that Doritos and Twinkies are patently awful for you and play havoc with your body in ways healthy food doesn't, but I think my point stands none-the-less. And besides, I don’t believe for a second that anyone is forced by economics to eat like crap. The example in the film of the family whose kids won’t chose the apples at the store because they can’t get “enough” of them is really too much. Are we seriously supposed to believe that they have NO CHOICE but to eat at fast food restaurants? That’s astonishingly expensive compared to what you can make quickly and easily at home. If I haul my family out to Taco Bell, we can expect to pay at least $30 for that meal, while even the very best of meals we make quickly and easily at home coast a fraction of that. And yes, the VAST majority of us do have time and if we really care about what we eat we should make that time. Obviously I cannot speak for every family on the planet, but what on earth is the film proposing here? That for that rare family that truly has NO TIME AT ALL to prepare their own food at home we should legislate that healthy and cheap fast food exist? Through planning and careful budgeting you CAN eat healthy food without paying more...yes, you can. But if your idea of healthy food is prepackaged organic or all natural microwavable –instant foods, then yes, you will pay more. Michael Pollan says in the film:

“To eat well in this country costs more than to eat badly. It will take more money and some people simply don't have it. That's one of the reasons we need changes at the policy level so that the carrots are a better deal than the chips.”

Well I don’t believe his premise is necessarily true, as I said. People who take the time to educate themselves, to plan and prepare, and investigate, I think will find they do not need policy changes to make sure “carrots are a better deal than chips.” I suspect for the vast majority of people, it’s just easier to buy the chips than listen to the kids scream about what a rotten deal carrots are compared to chips! I say this from my own experience, both in taking the easy way our AND in having to keep a fairly small monthly food budget. Just google "eat healthy cheaply" and start exploring. I get really nervous about seeking some means by which the government will make chips more expensive or carrots less so. The devil is definitely in those details and as I said I absolutely believe such regulation is wholly unnecessary.

By this point in the film, I was starving (pun intended) for a healthy and encouraging story of personal empowerment in the face of “food inc” and to some degree we were provided that with Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms and Gary Hirshberg of Stonyfield Farm, an organic yogurt company. Many of you no doubt know Mr. Salatin, and believe me, his perspective...or even his mere presence in the film...was like a breath of fresh air. Up to this point one would think our only food choices were coming from horrific, over-crowded, borg-like beef feedlots measured in square miles and chicken factories where birds have never seen the sun. It seemed as if we were being told we had no choice but to appeal to the government, and now here is Joel showing us the glorious world outside of the cave in that we have a great many options. One of my favorite parts of the film is where Joel is shown with his farm hands butchering chickens and he tells us about how the GOVERNMENT tried to shut him down because his slaughter house had no walls. He goes on to relate that scientific testing proved that his chickens had significantly less bacterial contamination than the heavily regulated chicken factory processing plants! (Please do keep in mind what I said above about government regulation that doesn’t help.) Later, we see people shopping at the Polyface Farm store...people making a choice. Now, are Mr. Salatin’s free range, pasture raised chickens going to cost more than the stacked-on-top-of-one-another, hormone-treated, never-set-foot- outside, mass produced chicken? Of course. The latter is produced quickly, cheaply, “efficiently” and on a massive assembly line like scale which ends with the consumer getting a decidedly unnatural price and a much reduced quality product. But hey! Fifty cents a pound! At that price I can go and buy 3-4 bags of Doritos for dinner and Twinkies for desert instead of a using that bag of brown rice that I bought a month ago ( and is STILL providing for us) for the same price as the aforementioned “treats.” So while you spend more on the chicken, by making intelligent choices elsewhere you can actually save money.

And, in actuality, you have even MORE choices than you likely realize. While at the local County Fair (a great place to meet food producers) a few years ago, we met a breeder of miniature Hereford cattle. They do not make their living as beef producers, but by the nature of their business do produce beef as a by-product of their breeding business. As such, they often try to network with people interested in buying beef right off of the farm and their prices are quite competitive with the beef of unknown origin found in the local supermarket. He is completely upfront about how his cows are raised: some are grain fed, but most are grass fed, and we’ve even been able to visit his farm. There is, in my humble opinion, an inherent value in knowing who produces your food and you can meet them in ways you may not expect and then come to find out they can feed you for surprisingly low prices.

Now, Gary Hirshberg is a fascinating man. He’s what I suppose could be called a serious “green” guy, one who you'd expect would also tow the left-leaning line of heavy handed government protections and social engineering. But he has come to believe, apparently, that the best way to effect change for the good of the planet and the sake of healthy, sustainable food is to utilize the free market. The film has Gary dealing with what most of his associates admittedly consider to be the absolute pinnacle of evil: Wal-Mart. But Gary sees opportunity for market forces to do good and not unexpectedly he gets results - in the film we learn about how WalMart stopped carrying milk with growth hormone and readily began to carry Gary’s Organic Yogurt. Why? Because, quite simply, it made good business sense to change. Clearly, consumers have far more power than they think, and WalMart will carry whatever it may be that enough of us demand. If we educate the public, demand will shift, and then sit back and watch the companies provide for it. I think Gary himself said it best:

“The irony is that the average consumer does not feel very powerful, they think that they are the recipients of whatever industry has put out there for them to consume. Trust me, it's the exact opposite. When we run an item past the supermarket scanner we're voting...individual consumers changed the biggest company on earth."

The “regulators” try to use smoking as an example of their ability to crush a bad thing with the heavy hand of government. I would argue that this is highly debatable. What role did an educated public play in the decline of smoking? I would be willing to bet that it is far more significant than the government making every legislative and legal effort (and now even so with regard to the individual smoker) to crush big tobacco. Were this not the case, the outcry against government's heavy hand would have been massive.

I believe in people. I don’t believe people are defenseless ignoramuses in desperate need of government protection. Given a bit of education, they can wield their marketing power to make healthy food choices even MORE readily available. If people care enough, they will do it. I’m willing to be convinced about the need for some specific legislation (I’m not an anarchist after all), but, education is where the real power is to be found. The powers-that-be will bow down far more quickly when we begin to take our dollars elsewhere.

For example, have you noticed exactly how the mega-breweries are struggling to regain their market shares lost to Micro-breweries? They are desperately trying to re-image their brands or even produce more competitive products as small craft brewers all over the United States have successfully appealed to the tastes of the people. And those people are demanding MORE from the ale products they consume. No doubt the “big boys” have thrown their weight around, but in the end WE the consumers will decide. I think the big corporations are going to have to get used to sharing the playing board with the small guys. And so will “Food Inc"...to an even greater degree than it does now. There are options, let’s grow them by voting when we buy.

In any event, this was a thoughtful editorial film and I recommend it, but clearly I don’t buy everything in it.

How about a little Advent?

2009-11-13T12:56:00.000-08:00

How about a little Advent?

Advent

Many of us Christians wring our hands over the ongoing secularization and commercialization of Christmas. We write letters to the editors of our local papers, we wear T-shirts or bumper stickers declaring the real “reason for the season,” and we even contact our elected representatives. For some reason we think we can stem the tide of secularization by explicitly eliminating the process amidst our government, as if to suggest the government is the litmus test for our cultural-religious morality whether it be in the expression of huge government social programs or if the tree in the White House is referred to as a “Christmas” Tree or a “Holiday” Tree. I find myself weary of the process...to some degree it is just another front of the culture war that I used to be willing to fight but will not anymore. In fact, I will protest against that war by suggesting both sides invest too much in government and that if they would STOP doing that no one would care what President Obama chooses to call the tree in his White House. For all I care he can call it “Spanky the Light Conifer!”

But seriously, here's a thought for all of us Christians worried about the secularization and commercialization of Christmas: Don't secularize and commercialize YOUR Christmas. One simple (though not easy) way you can accomplish this is to participate in Advent and the traditional 12 days of Christmas. “Spanky the Light-Holiday” may begin On November 1st, but despite what you may be witnessing at the City Hall, the WalMart, or the Home Depot, Christmas doesn't actually begin until December 25th! I know that's hard to believe, but it's true. Additionally Christmas is not something that lasts a single day! It does not simply end after a furious unwrapping of gifts, a trash run for Dad, and a meal. It’s supposed to last for TWELVE DAYS! How cool is that! (Addendum: As Fr. C notes in the comments: for the Orthodox the Feast of Christmas lasts through the 31st of December, not up until Epiphany/Theophany as in the Western Church. So you westerners get 12, we get 7 days...figures!)

Advent, which begins shortly (November 15th for Orthodox Christians), has always in the past been a time for Christians to prepare - NOT by shopping or cooking but by personal discipline: fasting prayer, and almsgiving. Christians of all breeds, I think, need to return to this venerable tradition – especially if they bemoan what has become of Christmas in America.

Now, let me shut up, and leave you with these words from an unusual source. Maria Von Trapp, after she and her famous singing family escaped the Nazis and landed in America, was taken aback by the lack of Advent in America. I remind you that this would have been in the 1940's.

From “Around the Year with the Trapp Family:

The events that come to mind when we say "Christmas," "Easter," "Pentecost," are so tremendous that their commemoration cannot be celebrated in a single day each. Weeks are needed. First, weeks of preparation, of becoming attuned in body and soul, and then weeks of celebration. This goes back to an age when people still had time--time to live, time to enjoy. In our own day, we face the puzzling fact that the more time-saving gadgets we invent, the more new buttons to push in order to "save hours of work"--the less time we actually have. We have no more time to read books; we can only afford digests. We have no time to walk a quarter of a mile; we have to hop into a car. We have no time to make things by hand; we buy them ready made in the five-and-ten or in the supermarket. This atmosphere of "hurry up, let's go" does not provide the necessary leisure in which to anticipate and celebrate a feast. But as soon as people stop celebrating they really do not live any more--they are being lived, as it were. The alarming question arises: what is being done with all the time that is constantly being saved? We invent more machines and more gadgets, which will relieve us more and more from the work formerly done by our hands, our feet, our brain, and which will carry us in feverishly increasing speed--where? Perhaps to the moon and other planets, but more probably to our final destruction.

Only the Church throws light onto the gloomy prospects of modern man--Holy Mother Church--for she belongs, herself, to a realm that has its past and present in Time, but its future in the World Without End.

It was fall when we arrived in the United States. The first weeks passed rapidly, filled with new discoveries every day, and soon we came across a beautiful feast, which we had never celebrated before: Thanksgiving Day, an exclusively American feast. With great enthusiasm we included it in the calendar of our family feasts.

Who can describe our astonishment, however, when a few days after our first Thanksgiving Day we heard from a loudspeaker in a large department store the unmistakable melody of "Silent Night"! Upon our excited inquiry, someone said, rather surprised: "What is the matter? Nothing is the matter. Time for Christmas shopping!"

It took several Christmas seasons before we understood the connection between Christmas shopping and "Silent Night" and the other carols blaring from loudspeakers in these pre-Christmas weeks. And even now that we do understand, it still disturbs us greatly. These weeks before Christmas, known as the weeks of Advent, are meant to be spent in expectation and waiting. This is the season for Advent songs--those age-old hymns of longing and waiting; "Silent Night" should be sung for the first time on Christmas Eve. We found that hardly anybody knows any Advent songs. And we were startled by something else soon after Christmas, Christmas trees and decorations vanish from the show windows to be replaced by New Year's advertisements. On our concert trips across the country we also saw that the lighted Christmas trees disappear from homes and front yards and no one thinks to sing a carol as late as January 2nd. This was all very strange to us, for we were used to the old-world Christmas, which was altogether different but which we determined to celebrate now in our new country.

The atheist convention

2009-11-08T08:33:00.000-08:00

The atheist convention

Hundreds flock to Seattle atheists' convention Wow, hundreds! And 16,000 nationwide...well heck even we minuscule Orthodox outnumber them, so there's some comfort in that. Angry "Origin of Species" thumping atheists are as intolerable as those who thump Bibles...perhaps worse - I can say that because to some degree I've been both, especially the former. But here's the line that really cracked me up:

Freedom from Religion wants to "keep religion out of law-making." Haha! Good luck with that, for as long as religious people VOTE, religion will be involved in lawmaking! How many do you suppose presently support the health care reform on religious grounds?

And then this: With less religion, less God, less belief, there's more opportunity for morality, more opportunity for knowledge, more opportunity for true human value.

Now I have no idea what he means by "true human value", but I have my suspicions. And therein lies the problem, it's up to personal interpretation. The very fabric of the atheist moral construct is held together by subjective personal opinion. Whereas "true human value" in the Christian world view is incalculable. It is not something you can quantify, because if you could then "true human value" implies that it varies from person to person just as surely as math equations do. A child with down syndrome as compared to a child prodigy?

Human value is derived NOT from personal interpretation, but by the very nature of the fact than humans are created in the Image and Likeness of God and are loved by Him. Everyone of them.

"more opportunity for morality" really means (for the secular person) that you have greater ability to add variable to morality. It isn't set in stone, it's written on a chalkboard and YOU wrote it and YOU have the eraser. I have my moral values and Ted Bundy has his own. I cannot say mine are "right" and his are "wrong" because morality is FULLY subjective. This moral bankruptcy and disconnect caused for me - as an atheist - a profound worldview crisis that eventually led me to consider that I could not fathom a world in which Darwinism was the only moral foundation. That moral code (the very thing that brought us humans into being and into dominance) is quite simply competition and victory at the expense of others. Dominate and subjugate is the rule it teaches.

I ended up having to ask: Could there be more? Because if there isn't, then who am I to criticize an Adolf Hitler as anything other than someone doing what his evolutionary inclinations led him to do. He died and lost in the end...end of story. No morality tale here, except to say one ought to consider being more discreet with their hedonism if they wish to be truly successful. That's just plain common Darwinian sense.

But if there is more to life. Something transcendent. A greater good. A a Creator and "Lover of mankind." It changes everything. Everything suddenly has a real objective value.

So, I suppose I can agree with the atheists' idea that without God that have "more opportunity" for morality and human value. Indeed, the are thereby freed to have opportunity to believe whatever they may choose about them. Say hello to the cattle cars, those of you with less human value.

FacadeBook

2009-11-04T21:08:00.000-08:00

FacadeBook

Look, don't get me wrong on this point, while I rather like and regularly participate at “Face”book, I recognize that it is just one more very particular way of bolstering the great facade of life. In fact I would argue that the internet in general from a social standpoint is the WORSE for allowing us to deceive one another.

Yes, we deceive one another. We do it all the time, though it isn't necessarily (for the vast majority of us) some grand overt effort to lie. It may be as subtle and even appropriate as making your house immaculate before guests arrive, or as potentially dangerous as hiding a truth about ourselves from our spouse. But no matter what, I think – at least in my personal experience – it stems in part from wishing to project an image of who we wish we were to others. I think if we are honest with ourselves we'd see this...or maybe I'm just crazy. But wouldn't we LOVE it if we were so on top of our lives that the house was always immaculate, that needed repairs were immediately accomplished, that projects were tackled and completed in a timely manner? Or that we are good people, perpetually full of love and compassion. Or that we are good parents who are devoted and hardworking, raising PERFECT kids. On and on it goes...in the end we just want people to think the best of us and for many of us it is very painful to learn that someone has seen through the facade and perhaps knows us better than we like. Sometimes they are right in what they see, and sometimes they are wrong and simply replace our facade with a different one of their own making...but when our facade is broken (either way) we must deal with reality. In some ways we are like politicians in that we seek to control or “spin” the news to our benefit – limiting or even eliminating the bad and proclaiming from the rooftops the glories and triumphs of our lives.

There is a rather gruesome TV series called Dexter, which I never...NEVER watch because a part of my facade is that I do not pollute my mind with trashy television. But if I had ever seen an episode of Dexter I would tell you it is about a serial killer (who via an ongoing policy of self-discipline, only kills bad people) and who then struggles to blend in with humanity and hide the truth about his inner self, The intriguing portion of the show, to me, is that we are all like Dexter in our efforts to hide our true selves. Dexter is forced to try and maintain his facade at ALL times, and thus struggles terribly, as you might imagine, with intimacy. (If Dexter could live his life entirely on Facadebook he'd have it easy!)

Intimacy I believe, to some degree is a term we may use to describe a place where we can begin to let the rigorous efforts of maintaining our facade rest. At least it should be. And I think we should struggle to build more intimate relationships...and I don't anticipate that happening on Facadebook. The internet is like a foundation which invites or even beckons us to build our facades upon it. Nobody posts pictures of themselves losing their temper and yelling at their kids. No one posts a blurb about how they are seriously struggling with anger. Instead we all present our facades...again, not like a deliberate deception...but just showing as much of our lives as we are comfortable showing, knowing that nobody really WANTS to hear that we had a crappy day and that worse yet it was of our own doing. (Sure we'll sometimes note having a rough go of it, or having a bad day...but I don't think it's the same as SEEING someone having a bad day, free from the filters we will naturally strain the news as it finds its way into Facadebook.)

At Facadebook we present the immaculate house: smart quotes, wise insights, pictures demonstrating our idyllic life, and other things that generally demonstrate that we are not nearly the damaged goods that reality might reveal. This isn't wrong and it isn't bad...but we must remember it isn't reality. How often have we looked at others' Facadebook accounts and thought: “Wow, how is that they have their crap so together! They are perfect! My life is so dysfunctional in comparison.” And will we make these determinations from Facadebook postings? Yes, many of us will...knowing full well it's absurd. That said, I won't even mention the insanity that may exist amongst people who really believe they have their crap together, are perfect, and have no failings. To them I would simply say: Please write a book and let the rest of us know how to do it! (It, being, the unfathomable depths of self-deception.)

I'm not going to settle now on being a curmudgeon who will sit in judgment on Facadebook and refuse to use it any longer. Nor will I shake my head at postings of idyllic pictures (or even stop posting them myself – even if I manage to find some). Facadebook may maximize our ability to maintain our facades, but our facades won't go away simply because we stop using the internet...facades are a very long human tradition that began when Cain told God he had no idea where to find Able. But I do want to pause more often and consider reality, which is much harder than most of us realize.

The serial killer Dexter may be like us in many ways, but one thing never occurs to Dexter: to share who he really is and then to seek to CHANGE it. This is the ultimate danger of our facades, in that we live them so well (Or God forbid we live on Facadebook so much) that we begin to ignore who we are as real people. We neglect intimacy (as I defined it above) and in so doing we neglect the glorious opportunity to change.

Let our “facade” be that of the image we see in the Icon of Christ...and let us pursue it believing that through Him we can in fact make our facade real. Let us do it in real community and intimacy, sharing our failings, leaning on, and loving one another with all our many faults not seen on Facadebook.

Sad, but not unexpected

2009-10-29T11:20:00.000-07:00

Sad, but not unexpected

I've heard many times the pro-life folks who like to condemn both sides of the political aisle saying that they are morally equally in their practical ability to do anything with regard to abortions. I do not buy the argument. While obviously Roe v. Wade has not been overturned (and let's face the fact that it likely never will), there are innumerable other life issues for which the sides DO differ. Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell research is a biggie.

Lawsuit dismissed.

Sadly not surprising. This part is difficult to hear officially pronounced by a US court: “embryos lack standing because they are not persons under the law,” and continued to say that the unborn have no right to life as protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution

How long did we (meaning HUMANITY) justify slavery and genocide with the exact same reasoning? Of course this isn't new...this is the focus of the debate...but for us on the side of human life, it is tragic to hear it so pronounced. So, with the new administration we have our tax dollars at work and if you've followed my blog then you know that I've closely followed the issues surrounding stem cells and I have blogged about HUGE advances in ADULT stem cell research that embryonic stem cell proponents said could not be done.

And as if this weren't bad enough, could this possibly be true? It astonishing that I should even have to ask, how far back in time would we have to go for pretty much every American to be aghast at the idea of something like this?

Maybe someday...maybe...a future society will look back at us and marvel at our self indulgent lifestyle that led us to kill our most vulnerable to appease our ills or even our frivolous aesthetic failings.

Sometimes I'm right...but only sometimes

2009-10-22T22:15:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I'm right...but only sometimes

Back in May, THIS story came out. I'd SWEAR that back in May there was no "?" in the title. Anyway, I sent this link to the LOG and offered the following comment:

"It's making many news rounds...but far too much noise and not much science. Fact is...for all we know these little critter were an evolutionary dead end. We have NO way of knowing if it was the early simian equivalent of the Do Do bird or our ancestor."

And now this today:
"Fossil hailed as Man's ancestor is 'not even close relative'"

My favorite part: "Far from being an ancestor to humans, the lemur-like creature from 47 million years ago belongs to an entirely different branch of the primate family tree that has left no known descendants, research has indicated."

Doah!

"Bone Collectors"

2009-10-22T12:46:00.000-07:00

"Bone Collectors"

H/T: Mike W

A bit of a lunchtime babble here.

A curiously written article about Relics in the context of the Roman Catholic Tradition. I say "curiously" because it seems the author at once REALLY likes Relics - decrying their falling out of the spotlight in the RCC - and yet he seems to treat them with some degree of levity and what I hope is skewed popular perceptions regarding the practice. I cannot help but a few words.

First, the notion that the "cult of relics" began with Polycarp is simply not true. It is one of the first extant and definitive examples of the early Church ascribing great care for the body of a martyr, but that by no means implies that we are here witnessing its birth. Also, the impression I got from these few lines in the article just don't seem to do justice to the actual account. Compare and contrast:

"Polycarp's followers scurried over and scooped up his remains and ran off with them. With that, the cult of relics was born."

From Martyrdom of Polycarp:

"And so we afterwards took up his bones which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place; where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves together, as we are able, in gladness and joy, and to celebrate the birth-day of his martyrdom for the commemoration of those that have already fought in the contest, and for the training and preparation of those that shall do so hereafter."

I see a difference of perspective here. This is NOT a "macabre culture" that "yearned to see bones and other pieces of sanctified stiffs encased in glass." This is a holistic and an o(O)rthodox Christian honoring of God's Image in our flesh. There's a world of difference between honor and veneration and an odd interest in the macabre.

The Church has ALWAYS revered the body as a "temple" and unlike some Christians today, we do not dabble in gnosticism! We, like the most ancient Church, believe the body is sacred and is not merely a shell to be freed from upon death. We preach the Resurrection...our Lord's and our own!

I really did like this line from the article though:
"...the faithful are hungering for a less sterile form of religion."

This, I believe is absolutely true...it reminded me (somewhat) of this old post of mine. But let's face it, most Christians who are unfamiliar with the idea of relics are extremely put off by it. I cannot tell you how many people I meet these days who intend to be cremated and additionally cannot stand the notion of seeing a "corpse" (I just don't like this word...sounds too...well...too clinical) at an open casket funeral. So the honor given to relics is profoundly foreign to most Americans (at least). And, well, I wouldn't exactly offer this article as a means of encouraging anyone to start looking positively upon the venerable custom. You might start with some lengthy excerpts Clifton collected some four years ago.

We Orthodox (and I suspect the RCC as well) are a faith that believes in STUFF. By "stuff" I mean that our faith is not simply in our hearts or spirits or mental constructs...we believe it is in our hands, our feet, our lips, our ears, our noses, our EVERYTHING. AND, it's in this world too! A sacramental faith believes that our interactions with God need not only take place in a mental encounter alone.

A few more things to say:

"For the faithful, praying to a saint's relic..."

Blech! We do not pray TO a saint's relics. Nonsense.

"Prince Albrecht of Brandenburg had a stock of saintly remains so huge that a tireless pilgrim could have accrued a remission from purgatory of 39,245,120 years."

Funny...but the teaching represented in the joke is NOT. We've never believed it and I think the Catholics are no longer doing purgatory math, are they?

I do, however, appreciate the author's interest in seeing relics be revived in RC parish life. We should all be well aware of whose Holy Relics call our various parishes home.

The NIH problem

2009-10-09T15:04:00.000-07:00

The NIH problem

Dr. Francis Collins was President Obama's appointee to be director of the NIH. He's a scientist who also happens to have a religious side. Not necessarily a big news maker, except that he's not a sort of episcopalian who attends his local parish on Sunday mornings and little else, no, he's a full blown evangelical who even dares to write and talk openly about his faith. Believe me, if Bush had appointed this guy he would have been rubbed in fish chum and tossed into the waiting media waters filled with great whites. The fact that Obama has appointed him, I think, has left some who'd normally be vehement in their criticisms to pause...think of a deer staring dumbfounded into approaching headlights. Huh? There is a popular internet three word vernacular abbreviation that would fit the context here, but I'll refrain.

But of course even being an Obama appointee will not completely insulate you. The magisterium of the scientific world is unforgiving and Dr. Collins has heretical tendencies. This NYT article notes the problem thus:

First, there is the God issue. Dr. Collins believes in him. Passionately. And he preaches about his belief in churches and a best-selling book. For some presidential appointees, that might not be a problem, but many scientists view such outspoken religious commitment as a sign of mild dementia.

That's funny because I am beginning to view outspoken political commitment as a sign of ~~mild~~ dementia. I would perhaps argue that ANY politician these days who holds to a traditional religious faith and is remotely outspoken about it will indeed have problems. There is little doubt that this attitude (religion=dementia) is not uncommon amidst the scientific magesterium. We, the demented, just keep largely quiet.

The result of the article and the visceral condemnations heaped on the traditionally religious is typical of strict religious materialists. (e.g. Dr. Park's criticism of Dr. Collins' emotional religious experience claiming it was obviously nothing more than "hormones" and that any good scientists should know this...SHEESH...how'd you like to be that guy's wife when he offers a Valentine's Day greeting: "the chemical interactions in my body tell me I wish to mate with you!")

But most concerning for me is the criticism of Dr. Weissman who worries about Dr. Collins allowing his moral formation to get in the way of his science. Why is this concerning? Well my regular readers will know, because I have made it an ongoing point to note how science is more and more developing it's own sense of morality founded upon principals derived from a strict materialistic and darwinian worldview. This sort of moral formation is apparently fine (though skewed because a strict materialistic and Darwinian worldview rather insists upon absolute hedonism), but any other moral formation is heretical and violates the sacred teachings of the scientific magesterium.

People, we WANT our scientists to be informed by their religions in areas of morality and it deeply concerns me that we seem to be moving away from what had been a fundamental principle. There has been in the past a huge genre of books, art, and films which wrung its hand about the fears we should have if science were to develop and operate outside of the bounds of more fundamental (i.e. religious) principles. I still hear some scientifically oriented people give lip service to the notion that science does not tell us anything about morality, but at the same time one need only pick up a copy of "SciAm" or "Discover" to read about a whole litany of moral issues they refuse to be lectured about by the non-scientific. This should be very concerning.

I don't envy Dr. Collins. He's brave. The president is a big shield for him right now, but I don't think it will last. There's already an official website bent on seeing that he is fired...because, as an evangelical, he's clearly nuts.

Wonder what they'd say about me if they knew I was heading over to Vashon Island in order to pray before an ancient and wonderworking icon? Dementia.

"It's your fault people are dropping dead."

2009-10-08T12:42:00.000-07:00

"It's your fault people are dropping dead."

I cannot decide if this story should make me laugh or cry. It seems to me that more and more "public health professionals" are presenting themselves as government policy lobbyists rather than scientists. Apparently many see their jobs as being not just coming to conclusions about public health, but determining what the government must do to oversee people and their individual health habits. Apparently in today's ethic classes students are taught nothing about individual liberty and responsibility. Did Glantz really mean to suggest that the government is to blame for people killing themselves from smoking?

REALLY? Think about that for a moment. What does it say about government and what does it say about the individual? This is what an upper level education will get for you...utter brilliance? And people laugh when I tell them that some of the smartest people I've met were farmers who barely finished high school. Case and point.

I'm going home and lighting up my pipe and it'll be Greogoire's fault if I drop dead. Honey, please get the lawsuit ready.