Humility and the Worship of God

I served Liturgy this morning with Fr John Steffaro, the pastor of St John the Baptist Russian Orthodox Church in Campbell, OH (about a 20 minute drive from our apartment in Poland, OH). St John's is beautiful church and the congregation both last night after Vespers and this morning after Liturgy was very warm and welcoming.

Before Liturgy this morning I was thinking about how the right worship of God requires humility. As Chesterton points out in the contemporary understanding of humility, humility “has moved from the organ of ambition. . . [and] settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be.” Rather humility is,

largely meant as a restraint upon the arrogance and infinity of the appetite of man. He was always outstripping his mercies with his own newly invented needs. His very power of enjoyment destroyed half his joys. By asking for pleasure, he lost the chief pleasure; for the chief pleasure is surprise. Hence it became evident that if a man would make his world large, he must be always making himself small. Even the haughty visions, the tall cities, and the toppling pinnacles are the creations of humility. Giants that tread down forests like grass are the creations of humility. Towers that vanish upwards above the loneliest star are the creations of humility. For towers are not tall unless we look up at them; and giants are not giants unless they are larger than we. All this gigantesque imagination, which is, perhaps, the mightiest of the pleasures of man, is at bottom entirely humble. It is impossible without humility to enjoy anything -- even pride.

To really worship God, to really have a sense of the enormity and significance of the Christian vocation to send and offer worship to God requires just this willingness to make ourselves small, but in a very particular way. Again Chesterton:

The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether.

The fact is that no matter how hard I try, my worship of God will always fall short of the honor that is His due. This should, or at least isn't meant to, undermine my trying to worship Him, but spur me to try harder, to do more. The poverty of my efforts is meant to be like the experience of thirst or hunger—the poverty of my attempts should increase my desire to worship God like hunger makes me desire food and thirst makes me desire, move towards, water.

For this to happen though, we need to foster in our lives a sense of gratitude not just for the opportunity to worship God, or for our salvation, or our spiritual life, but for life and all the things and people in our lives. Again, Chesterton:

When we were children we were grateful to those who filled our stockings at Christmas time. Why are we not grateful to God for filling our stockings with legs?

Gratitude is happiness doubled by wonder.

You say grace before meals. All right. But I say grace before the concert and the opera, and grace before the play and pantomime, and grace before I open a book, and grace before sketching, painting, swimming, fencing, boxing, walking, playing, dancing and grace before I dip the pen in the ink.

In this, Chesterton is simply repeating the advice of St Paul, “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor 10.31). Real humility, a real sense of my inadequacies, doesn't cause me to turn inward on myself—but outward toward God and toward my neighbor.

We get a taste of this wholesome taste of humility in the Akathist Hymn, “Glory to God for All Things” when we sing in the first ikos:

I was born a weak, defenseless child, but Your angel spread his wings
over my cradle to defend me. From birth until now, Your love has
illumined my path, and has wondrously guided me towards the light of
eternity. From birth until now the generous gifts of Your Providence
have been marvelously showered upon me. I give You thanks, with all
who have come to know You, who call upon Your Name:
Glory to You for calling me into being.
Glory to You, showing me the beauty of the universe.
Glory to You, spreading out before me heaven and earth,
like the pages in a book of eternal wisdom.
Glory to You for Your eternity in this fleeting world.
Glory to You for Your mercies, seen and unseen.
Glory to You, through every sigh of my sorrow.
Glory to You for every step of my life's journey,
for every moment of glory.
Glory to You, O God, from age to age.

Humility and the right worship of God are all facets of the experiencing our own contingency, our own absolute dependence on God and our relative dependence on our neighbor, as fundamentally a good thing. In effect, humility and the right worship of God grow out of, and foster, a sense of gratitude, wonder at the gift of our humanity.

The man who cannot embrace with gratitude and wonder his own humanity, his own status as a creature whose life comes to him as a free gift from God, will always lack humility and for this reason never quite rightly worship God.

Because I'm tired, but mostly because he said it better than I could (and he ALWAYS says it better than I could), I'll give Chesterton the last word:

The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful. For example, Mr. Blatchford attacks Christianity because he is mad on one Christian virtue: the merely mystical and almost irrational virtue of charity. He has a strange idea that he will make it easier to forgive sins by saying that there are no sins to forgive. Mr. Blatchford is not only an early Christian, he is the only early Christian who ought really to have been eaten by lions. For in his case the pagan accusation is really true: his mercy would mean mere anarchy. He really is the enemy of the human race—because he is so human. As the other extreme, we may take the acrid realist, who has deliberately killed in himself all human pleasure in happy tales or in the healing of the heart. Torquemada tortured people physically for the sake of moral truth. Zola tortured people morally for the sake of physical truth. But in Torquemada's time there was at least a system that could to some extent make righteousness and peace kiss each other. Now they do not even bow. But a much stronger case than these two of truth and pity can be found in the remarkable case of the dislocation of humility.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Limits, Freedom and this Blog

When I served as a mission priest in northern California, I would often plan out my Sunday sermons several weeks at a time. So, for example, when I was first assigned to St George Greek Orthodox Church in Redding,CA I decided that in the first few months, the Sunday sermons would focus on the basics of an Orthodox Christian spiritual life: Daily & liturgical prayer, fasting, almsgiving and stewardship. After this I focused on the sacraments, the daily & yearly liturgical cycle and, finally, the Creed.

The sermons themselves always followed the same basic structure: (1) Dogmatic: What is it that we believe as Orthodox Christians about the topic at hand? (2) Illustrative: What does this topic look like in practice? This was usually where I would refer back either to the Scripture readings at Liturgy and/or the lives of the saints. (3) Applicative: How can we, practically, live out the Church’s faith embodied in this topic? Especially important here was brief consideration of the obstacles and facilitating conditions for people’s spiritual lives; what do we do that gets in the way of our living out the Church’s faith and what can we do to foster living out the Church’s faith.

Some people simply didn’t like my preaching in this way. As one person put it, “I come to church for inspiration not a lecture. I want a positive thought to carry away with me for the week.” In the main, however, most people where open to this type of preaching and eventually began to find it profitable for their own spiritual lives.

The key to preaching successfully this way was planning out the course of the sermons over several successive Sundays. This was especially important not only as the congregation grew, but also as I was asked to take on responsibilities for communities in Crescent City (also St George, a small mission station on the far northern coast of California a 4½ drive away) and later for St Nectarios parish in Pasco, WA (which was a 6 hour trip by air that required me to stop over at 4 airports).

Let me change focus here to blogging.

One of the challenges of keeping a blog is writing on a regular, and, ideally even a daily basis. To do that with new material (rather than merely linking to what others have published), I need a structure, a general sense of topics that I want to cover on any given day of the week. And, as with preaching, not only will this serve to keep me on track, it will give readers a sense of what I’ll be looking at each day and so they can keep an eye out for the days when there is likely to be something of particular interest to them.

So, here’s my weekly schedule with a brief summary of that day’s theme:

· Monday will look at the Sunday Gospel reading for the following Sunday. I think it helps us in our spiritual lives if we reflect on the Gospel reading throughout the week and, even if as it is likely, the sermon you hear on Sunday doesn’t pick out the same themes that I focus on, bring the two together is a good thing.

· Tuesday is devoted to Current Events. Our spiritual life can’t be separated from what is going on around us so this post will be a general interest essay about something in the local, national or international news during the last week and how it might pertain to the Christian life.

· Wednesday is for Church News. Like Tuesday’s post, this is a general interest essay about what has happened in the Orthodox Church during the last week and how it might pertain to the Christian life.

· Thursday is my day to wax (or is it wane?) poetic on Ecumenism. Especially important here are topics & events in Orthodox/Catholic relations.

· Friday I’ll write about Spiritual Formation. As with my preaching, these will be theoretical and practical reflections on discovering and incarnating our identity in Jesus Christ in light of the tradition of the Orthodox Church.

· Saturday is a day without an established theme (and so this post), my Free Topic day in which any & everything that has struck my fancy in the last week might make an appearance. This is also the day in which I would very much like to address at length questions or topics that readers submit to me. While the comment box has its value many people have raised issue that simply don’t lend themselves to quick answers. So, what do you think I ought to address? Drop me an email through the “About Me” link.

· Sunday is devoted to my great delight, Liturgy. My doctoral dissertation looked at the psychological structures and dynamics of communion in Liturgy and though it has been better than 10 years since I finished it and got my degree, I am still interested in the relationship between Liturgy and our psychological, spiritual and community lives. Since I often travel on weekends, in addition to a general essay on Liturgy, I will occasionally offer my thoughts on serving Liturgy in different communities.

One of the great paradoxes of the spiritual life is that we need limits to grow in freedom. In fact as we grow in the spiritual life, or at least as I have, I experience not only more freedom, but also a greater appreciation for limits. One of my professors in graduate school, the Roman Catholic priest-psychologist Adrian van Kaam, would say that human freedom is never absolute; our freedom is always a situated freedom. As I said earlier, this means that we realize our freedom not by leaving behind or denying or minimizing the empirical structures that limit our life, but by going ever deeper into those structures.

The fathers of the Church say that the human person is both a microcosm and a macrocosm. By this they mean we are both a “miniature” of the creation AND that we give expression to the whole of creation. Or, to use another phrase, our personality is meant to be a catholic personality—a unique expression of the whole of what it means to be human.

However we describe it, the realization of our identity requires a structure that makes transcendence possible and which roots us firmly in our own life. My hope is that by structuring somewhat my essays here, I can provide that experience of “going beyond” and “going deeper” for myself and you dear reader.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

What the Beatitudes Teach

The Hoover Institution has an interesting summary of the Beatitudes that expands on what I wrote earlier on the relationship of justice and joy. Take a look.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Hoover Institution - Policy Review - What the Beatitudes Teach:
By Tod Lindberg

Jesus’s community of goodwill The sermon on the mount has long been rightly understood as both a starting-point and a summation of Jesus ’s teaching. It begins with the Beatitudes (Mt. 5:3-12), in which Jesus delineates the categories of people he says enjoy special favor. The Beatitudes are all familiar to us as sayings, the best known being blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. But what, really, are they? Is Jesus merely pronouncing a blessing, offering good wishes to those whom he chooses to single out? In fact, there ’s more to the story than that. The Beatitudes provide a dizzying commentary designed to turn upside down the political and social world of the Roman Empire of Caesar Augustus and of the Jewish religious elite of Judea and Jerusalem. This is the opening move of a more drastic and fundamental reassessment of political and social affairs, applying not only to its own time but to all future times, down to our day. More still: It points to the increasing fulfillment in this world of the promise of the human condition as such — and of the struggle against vast and daunting but not insurmountable obstacles that such fulfillment will require.

************************

Here Jesus proposes a different hierarchy. To see whom he elevates in the Beatitudes, it may be helpful to conjure a list of qualities opposite to the ones he lists. Cumulatively, what emerges from this collection of "anti-Beatitudes" is a portrait of a privileged class, one that sees those below as essentially inferior. For "the poor in spirit," the opposite number might be someone arrogant in his righteousness and sense of superiority. For "those who mourn," we can substitute those whom the world has given cause for rejoicing. For "the gentle," the overbearing. For "those who hunger and thirst for righteousness," we may find a contrast in those who are complacent on account of their privileges and defend them vigorously. For "the merciful," the unforgiving, perhaps the cruel: those who, when they have an advantage over another, even a temporary one, don 't hesitate to exploit it.

************************

The beatitudes are organized according to a scale running from passivity and paralysis in this world, through increasing levels of engagement with it in accordance with what Jesus is teaching, up to a pinnacle of earthly conduct Jesus describes. The categories he delineates describe people we can recognize in our own day, from homeless shelters and nursing homes to the halls of power, at least on those occasions when people rise above their private ambitions and work for the public good.

We begin with the "poor in spirit." It is an ambiguous phrase, but one that evokes a sense of those incapable of taking care of themselves at all: the dejected, the demoralized, those in whom the spark has gone out. They have given up, resigning themselves to their lonely place at the bottom, beyond reach of all others.

Next come the mourners, whom we may think of as the temporarily incapacitated. For now, they are overwhelmed by a sense of grief and loss. They are perhaps unable to take care of themselves or to fulfill their responsibilities toward others. They once felt a connection to another or others — strongly enough to be reduced to incapacity by the loss. The loss of that connection in turn imperils all their other connections. Because they were once more robust, however, now there is at least the possibility that one day they will again be so, having recovered from their mourning.

Then there are the gentle, or meek or humble. They walk softly upon the earth, seeking to impose themselves on others as little as possible. They see to their obligations as best they can, but they take nothing from others and ask for nothing from them for themselves. They are satisfied with what they have, however meager it may be. They do not strive, but accept their circumstances.

The gentle are followed by those who desire righteousness. They, unlike the gentle and still less the poor in spirit, have surveyed the world around them and are dissatisfied with it, wishing instead for a world in which their desire for righteousness is fulfilled. Here, Jesus uses metaphorical language: He speaks of those who "hunger and thirst" for righteousness. All people get hungry, all people get thirsty. Hunger and thirst are primordial and universal bodily desires.

************************

Similarly, what if I satisfy myself at the expense of others and the others either don 't see it or don't object? What if they are, for example, so poor in spirit, so ground down by oppression, that they cannot imagine anything different? Does this acquiescence somehow vindicate my claim to righteousness in satisfying myself at their expense? Can I say that I am in the right because of my natural or otherwise-given superiority over them, as demonstrated by their acceptance of my position of privilege? Jesus 's answer is clearly "no." And the reason is simply this: They may not be able to speak up for themselves, but others can speak up for them — starting, of course, with Jesus. No overlord's sense of his own vindicated righteousness stands unchallenged. Such supposed righteousness is wrong-headed. A true desire for righteousness is of the kind that can be satisfied along with everyone else 's true desire for righteousness.

************************

Mercy is a quality within reach of everyone at one time or another. All mercy requires is a position of the barest advantage over another, even for the most fleeting of moments. When someone is down — whether physically, psychologically, or emotionally — do you kick him or not? To show mercy is an action that doesn't necessarily require activity: In certain cases, no more than the refusal to press an advantage one has is an act of mercy.

************************

In some instances, peacemaking of the sort Jesus endorses here will be an exercise in reaching even further beyond oneself, interposing between others in conflict to help them remove the sources of discord between them. With such peacemaking attempts, the presupposition is that such a peacemaker is already at peace with each of the two parties in conflict (otherwise the type of peacemaking described in the preceding paragraph would have to come first). But this suggests that my peace with each of them must not come at the expense of the continuation of their conflict with each other. If I perceive the conflict between them as a benefit to me, then I am failing to uphold peacemaking in its broadest, Jesusian sense. Making one 's personal peace, whatever it entails, does not fulfill the Jesusian prescription. Such a peace is insufficient if others remain in conflict, and it is incumbent upon one who is at peace with others to make peace among the others as well. As we will see later, Jesus regards the obligations of those who enjoy the benefits of living in a world shaped by his political teaching to be especially high with respect to those who are not so fortunate.

************************

At first glance, the main purpose of the Beatitudes seems to be to offer various consolations to the downtrodden. But while Jesus does this, he also propounds a stern standard of judgment and offers strict guidance for good behavior for those who find themselves in a position of privilege. This injunction takes the form of a warning: The days of abusive privilege are numbered. Jesus 's is not merely an ethereal threat, bound up in the afterlife and a world to come, which the nonbeliever can spurn with contempt in favor of worldly enjoyment. It is a threat based on changes coming to this world. It is a threat dangerous to ignore in the here-and-now.

Nevertheless the question remains: Is this all to be taken literally? Come the revolution, of course, heads may roll, but surely Jesus cannot be saying that all those who enjoy privilege without righteousness are going to suffer for it in this world. Surely he is aware that some will hear all of what he has to say, spurn it — and get away with it scot-free for the rest of their earthly lives. Moreover, there is a potential for large-scale contradiction based on misreading here: If the point is to show mercy, even those who have themselves been unmerciful should be shown mercy, should they not?

True. Jesus says that what is right, according to the Beatitudes, "shall" come to pass; he does not say when. However, the cumulative effect of the positive, stated promises of the Beatitudes and the negative, unstated repercussions for those who oppose righteousness point to a question that will be asked in this world about those who have come before: What side were you on? Did you defend your privileges at the expense of others or work to uplift those who found themselves downtrodden? Did you act only for yourself, or did you think of others as best you could, whenever you could? Did you run risks for what 's right, or was the risk you ran that the righteous would prevail? The merciless, the persecutors, the purveyors of conflict, the defenders of privilege — Jesus's point is that they live in a world governed by fear, and he invites them to reflect on what might happen if the world turned on them and they suddenly became the ones with cause to fear.

But that world is not the world Jesus is promoting. In a world ordered according to Jesusian principles, there will be no persecution, even for those who have made a transition from a world in which they were persecutors. Even those who have been unmerciful will be shown mercy. Their fear of a world in which the tables are turned on them is in fact displaced fear of a more primordial — one might say existential — kind: a world that has no place for them. A world in which the attributes of privilege that they believe are essential to their being have been obliterated. A world in which they, in their conception of themselves, cannot continue to be. A world in which they must change if they are to remain. Jesus confronts the "bad person" not with something so simple — and easy to reject — as a competing model of how to live a better life. Rather, he forces a radical confrontation within the "bad person" over the very possibility of his or her continued existence.

To read the whole essay: What the Beatitudes Teach.

Intentional Disciples: "This is Not Us": Muslim anti-terrorist video

Intentional Disciples: "This is Not Us": Muslim anti-terrorist video: "'This is Not Us': Muslim anti-terrorist video Take a look at this Muslim anti-terrorist You tube video made by 8 of the top musicians in Pakistan. 'This is Not Us' hat tip: Julianne Wiley"

Clip Joint - Times Online - WBLG: It was twenty years ago today...

Clip Joint - Times Online - WBLG: It was twenty years ago today...: "It was twenty years ago today... Today we have a song that will touch the heart of every gentleman (and many gentlewomen) of a certain age: It’s a tribute to that golden age of television when every other programme seemed to be an implausible Glen Larson action show. If you ever watched The A-Team, Airwolf, MacGyver, or Knight Rider, this one’s for you!

Justice & Joy

A continuation of earlier, abbreviated, post on joy.

In the Prophet Isaiah (56.1-2) we read,

Thus says the Lord:

“Keep justice, and do righteousness,

For soon my salvation will come, and my deliverance be revealed.

Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who holds fast,

Who keeps the Sabbath, not profaning it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil.”

Later in the same chapter, Isaiah articulates more fully the demands of justice, righteousness and the right worship of God. Included here is an active concern for the welfare of the stranger in our midst (v.3) and the man who has been maimed in the service of false gods. All can, and should, find a home among God’s Chosen People (v. 5):

For thus says the Lord:

“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,

Who choose the things that please me

And hold fast to my covenant,

I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters;

I will give them an everlasting name which shall not be cut off.

As the strangers, the outsiders who has left their own people and has come to live with the People of God, if we all (like the eunuchs) can find our shame lifted if we “join [our]selves to the Lord, . . . minister to him, . . . love the name of the Lord, and . . . be his servants, . . . [keep] the Sabbath and not profane it, and hold fast [God’s] covenant” (v. 6). Like Israel, the stranger and the eunuch—the outsider and the maimed—we can all find a place on God’s “holy mountain” and they will be “joyful.”

Isaiah concludes his consideration of God’s promise in this way (v. 8):

Thus says the Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel,

I will gather yet others to him besides those already gathered.

The prophet then contrasts the character of the powers of this world with God’s. The powers of this world, are “beasts” who “come to devour” their neighbor (v 9); they are blind watchmen “without knowledge” and “dumb dogs” that “cannot bark” and who neglect their duties in favor of “slumber” (v. 10).

They are ravenous dogs who “never have enough;” “shepherds” who “have no understanding” and who have departed from the ways of divine justice and righteousness in favor “of their own way” (v. 11). They are drunken fools whose lives lead nowhere because they are blinded to the proper goal of human life (v.12):

“Come,” they say, “let us get wine, let us fill ourselves with strong drink;

And tomorrow will be like this day, great beyond measure.”

Taking Isaiah, and God, at his word, it is our commitment to the works of justice that is a key to a life of joy. Justice, giving to each that which is his/her due, is the starting point not only for joy, but also for the spirit of hospitality that characterizes our communion with Christ and our neighbor.

For most of us, and by us I mean those of us who have lived in the West since the usually cultural upheaval that of the last century, when we think of justice we think largely of "procedural justice" or "fairness" of process. For us justice, for good and ill, is a question of law.

One the one hand, justice understood in this way, as procedural justice, is an insufficient basis for a life of joyful hospitality and human flourishing that Isaiah describes and which we are promised in Christ. Too often, process and procedures become an end in themselves and detached, and even antithetical, to any higher human purpose. Certainly this kind of procedural justice is not enough for a dynamic Christian life.

But, on the other hand, the lack of justice, and especially procedural justice, is not a good thing either since its absence undermines a life of Christian joy. Why is this?

Procedural justice helps us create a life that is constant and predictable; in this sense, the false leaders that Isaiah castigate are on to something, though like all heretics they error not so much in content as emphasis. It is important for human beings that today look like yesterday and that tomorrow look like today. This is way, humanly speaking, the God Who transcends all our understanding, Who is Himself in St Augustine’s words, “ever ancient, ever new,” says of Himself, not only that He is the “Alpha and the Omega,” (Rev 1:8, 21:6, and 22:13), but “the same yesterday, today and forever” (Heb 13.8).

A sound anthropology understands that the constancy and predictability that procedural justice secures, are the psychological and social foundation of faith in both its developmental (i.e., basic trust) and religious (I trust God, Christ, the Church--I depend upon them because they are dependable, i.e., predictable) senses.

When in the Church’s life procedural justice, or a basic fairness of process as the hallmark of our relationships with one another, is absent, the Church is seen as unpredictable, untrustworthy, literally unbelievable--no longer a credible object of faith. In the Creed we profess faith not only in God, but in the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.” If the Church’s internal life is not characterized by procedural justice, if we do not live in a way that seeks to secure the good of each other, then we undermine the very cooperation that a joyful life requires. If our relationships our not cooperative, collaborative and order toward the good of each, then they become contrary, secretive, and ultimately predatory in ways great, and more frequently, small.

It is easy to say minimize the significance of administrative matters in the life of the Church. Indeed, as I have pointed out, there are even some in the Church who would take satisfaction in saying that the shortcomings of the Orthodox Church are merely administrative or procedural in nature. But would St Paul agree with this view? Good Jew that he was, I think he would forcefully disagree. In fact he does go so far as to list administration (kubernesis) as one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12.28).

The spiritual life is an act of transcendence that not only moves us beyond our current form of life toward God, it also a movement within, to the foundations of our life in God. Joy, hospitality, communion with God and neighbor, our own and other people’s flourishing are all transcendent realities and as such cannot be chosen. They are, as it were, the “surplus of meaning” that we encounter in a personal and communal life well and properly lived. The great irony of the spiritual life is that a life of transcendence requires a basis—a foundation or starting point—that the person and community must always move beyond, but never leave behind.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Intentional Disciples: Mapping Transformation

The following post from Sherry W at Intentional Disciples is very good. I have placed in bold those section I think are of special interest to Orthodox Christians, my own comments are in red.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

There has been a goodly bit of discussion around St. Blog's about Robert George's passionate plea at First Things: Danger and Opportunity: A Plea to Catholics I'd like to use a few of his comments as a chance to pull out some realities that are not usually mentioned in a discussion of this sort:

Robert George:

What is in need of transformation is not the teaching of the Church but the human mind and heart to which these teachings are addressed. Christianity is a religion of transformation. No one is literally born into it; even infants at baptism are converted to it. There is not a Catholic on the planet or in the history of the Church who is not a convert.

Sherry's comments:

Thank God, someone is saying this loud and clear! Absolutely.

One huge evangelical gap for Catholics is our failure to give serious attention to the development stage when our children, who were baptized as infants, must become "converts", that is, they must enter intentionally into the process of conversion which is required of all (this is also the case for Orthodox CHristians; do we, for example, devote the attention to conversion that goes into folk dance practice?). We've tried to use Confirmation prep to do this in a half-hearted way but now that many dioceses are lowering the age of Confirmation, even this is being taken away from us.

Our catechetical practice is much more informative than transformative. We are much likely to offer concepts than Christ but it is the encounter with Christ that sets transformation in motion (yup!).

Robert George:
Conversion is effected, by God's grace, by transformative acts of the intellect and will.

Sherry's comments:

George is using a sort of Thomistic short-hand here because he presumes that his theologically literate First Things audience can fill in the blanks.

But our experience is that many, many Catholics who are literate in other areas of the faith can't fill in the blanks when it comes to understanding or describing how God's grace that flows from Christ's self-giving love and our personal faith and assent work together to produce personal transformation. They can't fill in the blanks because no one has ever described the process to them in a meaningful way and especially because they have not seen it lived out in a compelling way.

The phrase "transformative acts of the intellect and will" actually falls far short of conveying all that the Council of Trent taught about the process of coming to faith for those who have reached the age of reason. And in a post-modern era, in which almost all the theological underpinnings presumed by George are missing, talking about the process of salvation in this way can be profoundly misleading.

Post-modern Catholics can and will readily assume that we are describing a completely impersonal and mechanical process - a sort of salvation by the "triumph of the will". No wonder when Peter Kreeft asked his Catholic students at Boston College why they should go to heaven, nearly all of them responded that they were saved because they were basically good people who did good things and hardly any of them mentioned Jesus Christ at all.

In the Decree on Justification, the council taught that there was a progression of spiritual "movements" on the journey to salvific faith for adults and those children who have reached the age of reason. And we must remember that what the Church is describing below is non-negotiable pre-baptismal faith, not Christian maturity.

The adult ready for baptism is described in this way:

1) Moved to initial faith by hearing the kerygma (the basic summary of the saving purposes and work of Christ in which initial faith is placed)

2) Moves freely toward God as a result of #1

3) Believes all that God has revealed to humanity through the Church
a.Especially that we are justified by God's grace through the redemption in Jesus Christ

4) Knows themselves to be a sinner

5) Trusts in the mercy and love of God for Christ's sake

6) Repents of our sins

7) Resolves to receive baptism

8) Begins a new life by seeking to obey the commandments of God (the obedience of faith) (How frequently, I wonder, do we expects this of those who are becoming Orthodox? Yes, converts are convinced we are the true Church, but have they really heard and accepted the kerygma?)

If we mentally and verbally collapse this journey to "acts of the intellect and will", we effectively render points 1, 2, 3a, 4, 5, 6 invisible to ourselves and to those we seek to evangelize.

Robert George:
And the process of conversion is lifelong, whether one begins it a few days or weeks after birth or on one's eighty-fifth birthday. Christ is constantly calling us to conversion and making available to us the divine graces that are its fundamental resources. We falter and fail; he lifts us up and puts us back on track. We grow in him, so long as we are faithful in responding to his acts of love for us by our acts of love of God and neighbor.

Sherry's comments:

I would agree with George absolutely. With one caveat. The journey of lived conversion that George describes so clearly here begins when we say an intentional, personal "yes" to the Lord who bestowed upon us the baptismal and other sacramental graces that most of us received as infants. Our strong tendency is to presume that this intentional "yes" has been given because we were baptized even when the evidence of millions of lapsed Catholics tells us otherwise. (And likewise for Orthodox Christians, baptism AND repentance--the order of these two is, in a sense anyway, of secondary importance--but neither is really lifegiving apart from the other.)

http://blog.siena.org/2007/08/mapping-transformation.html

http://tinyurl.com/2var6q

Pope & Patriarch to Meet?

Reuters recently reported (August 7) that a meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexii II looks likely in the not too distant future. In the article of Cardinal Roger Etchegary, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and Vice-Dean of the College of Cardinals, is quoted as saying to the Russian news agencies that: “We [Roman Catholics and Russian Orthodox Christians] are moving towards” a meeting between Pope and Patriarch. Cardinal Etchegary points out however that though steps toward such a meeting “are speeding “no one can say “exactly when it will happen.” The article concludes by pointing out that according to a comment made this past June by “another [unnamed] high-ranking cardinal” the hoped for “meeting between the heads of the two churches would happen within a year.”

When I first became interested in Orthodoxy, I was told (and received with great enthusiasm) that the problems facing the Orthodox Church were of an administrative, but not dogmatic, nature. Recent events, and my own experiences, would suggest that our “administrative” difficulties are rather more severe then poor filing or uncompleted paper work. As I look at what is going on around me in the Orthodox world, I come to the conclusion that we need, as a Church, to take a rather hard, critical look at ourselves and our shortcoming. And I think our attention needs to be focused especially on issues of anthropology, as well as the catechetical and spiritual formation of the laity and the clergy. In a meeting after meeting, in one conversation after another, I have heard clergy and laity alike ask how can recent events happen and we not respond. We fail to respond, I think, because we fail to believe.

We have concluded, and Fr Schmemann pointed this out decades ago, that a formal adherence to the dogmatic and liturgical tradition of the Church is sufficient. Clearly it isn’t, and in the absence of any systematic catechetical and spiritual formation especially for the laity, such a purely formal adherence is not only insufficient, it serves to dull our spiritual senses to the difficulties that we face as a Church.

So, what has this to do with the report from Reuters?

God, and man, willing any future meeting between Rome and Moscow will at least bear fruit in a closer working relationship between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches both in Russia, and across the globe. Over and above what is the will of God for His People, I think that even a partial, working, reconciliation that falls short of full Eucharistic communion is in the best interest of both Churches.

Especially for the Orthodox Church, such a closer working relationship offers us a need point of comparison for the health of our own Church. Granted not everything is as it ought to be in the Catholic Church, but still a conversation with our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters might very well help us see with new eyes our own strengths and weaknesses. It might also offer us new practical insights that get out of the mess we’re in before we do ourselves, and those entrusted to our care, even more harm.

It is worth noting as we think about that the current crop of scandals and relatively low moral and spiritual level of the Orthodox Church here in America, that this is the social context out of which arose the “uniate” Churches over which the Orthodox make such an issue. It seems to me that we need to be careful and make sure that our own house is in order and that we have done away with those conditions that have in the past made the departure of some Orthodox for Rome an inviting option. Ironically it is spiritual apathy among the Orthodox that plays a central role in undermining the very relationship with Rome that the Orthodox call for.

Let us all pray for Pope Benedict and Patriarch Alexii, and for all Orthodox and Catholic bishops, clergy and laity, that we find away to do together what each of us seems incapable, or dare I say, unwilling, to do on our own.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

What is Joy?

What follows is based on my last conversation with the Orthodox Christian Fellowship group I worked with while my wife and I were still in Pittsburgh. If you are interested in learning you can take a pick at their website: Pitt/CMU OCF. I will expend this in a later essay.


A hallmark of the Christian life is joy. I realize that we often think of faith, or hope, or love as the sign of a Christian life lived with integrity. And while I would not in anyway wish to contradict St Paul--we can all of us think of people, or times in our lives, when our loving, or hoping, or believing have been devoid of joy. While I think joy is lesser virtue then faith, hope and love, as I've pointed out before, we cannot dismiss a lesser good in favor of a greater one.

Joy is just that, it is a lesser good in our lives and yet without it, the greater virtues ring hollow not only to us, but to the world around us. Joy, I would suggest, is the evidence that our loving, our hoping and our believing really are rooted in Christ and not simply a reflection of our own wishful thinking, neurotic strivings or our ego.

Joy is different from pleasure. Pleasure, where physical, psychological, social, or spiritual, isn't wrong--but it is transitory. Pleasure, and Aristotle knew this well before the coming of Christ, is fleeting.

So what is joy? Joy is that which remains after pleasure has died and withered away. St John Climacus suggest that joy is the experience we have when "our pleasure-loving dispositions and unfeeling hearts attain to love of God and chastity by manifest sorrow (Ladder of Divine Ascent, 1.8) While this sounds rather fearsome, and can be at times, what the saint is getting at I think is that joy transcends our bodily and psychological experiences--or better, joy is the experience of redirecting our life toward God and only in God taking pleasure from the creation.

On Disappointment

Recently I was disappointed by someone I respect. While the particulars--the how's & why's--of my being disappointed are certainly important, their importance is nevertheless secondary. As an aside, I think that it is essential in the spiritual life that we be on guard so that we do not to confuse what is of primary and secondary importance. By the same token, we should also be careful that we not dismiss or minimize those matters of secondary importance in a misguided allegiance to what is primary.

And this gets me to the matter at hand: Being disappointed.

On the one hand, anything that I suffer or lose in this life pales in comparison to what I have received, and one day hope to receive, from Christ. "More than that, I count all things to be loss" St Paul says, "in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ" (Philippians 3.8). In one sense, my feelings of being disappointed, let down, or betrayed come flow not so much from what someone does, or doesn't, do as they do my indifference to or forgetfulness of the surpassing value of gaining Christ.

Ultimately, whatever I lose, whatever is taken from me, whatever I give up, I will receive back a hundredfold in the Kingdom of God: "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name's sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life" (Matthew 19.29).

But on the other hand, there is a real danger in minimizing or dismissing lesser goods in favor of greater goods. Our daily life is constituted by a whole of host of secondary and even tertiary goods that we cannot ignore without seriously deforming our relationship with God, our neighbor, the creation and ourselves.

Think for a moment about the husband who is always faithful, always loving, but indifferent to the myriad little things that go into actually being a husband. While he may never cheat on his wife or treat her rudely, these things are very different then treating her with warmth and affection. And even if he is warm and affectionate with his wife, what is this worth if it never takes concrete, practical form?

This, in a more exalted form to be sure, is the point the Apostle James makes in his epistle:

What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder (James 2.14-19)

For better and worse, I live my life in the realm of those things that are of secondary importance. The great paradox of the Christian life is just this: In Christ, what is of secondary importance, what in fact seems trivial and transitory, has become of primary and even eternal significance. Human life, for all of its mundane and passing significance, has been taken up into the life of the Most Holy Trinity and has become, again in Christ and the Church, the sacrament of that divine life.

So what does this mean?

Yes, I am often disappointed because my expectations are not met. And while often my expectations are self-centered and unreasonable, they are not wholly that. In fact, they are often a rather complicated mix of "wheats and weeds," of good and bad desires. I can use disappointment to become more aware of my self-aggrandizing motivations and desires.

But I can also use disappointment to discover what is, at least provisionally, of significance for my own spiritual life. More importantly, and armed with this knowledge of what is of real importance, I can respond to others and become for them the kind of person who my experiences of being disappointed, let down, and betrayed, tell me I want in my own life.

Seen in this way, I can by my own effort and God's grace, transform disappointment into something life-giving both for myself and my neighbor. I can't think of one aspect of my life that has lasting value that didn't come through the experience of being let down or betrayed. This really is the power of the grace of repentance, it helps us see the gift that is hidden in the disappointment, and it does so without shaming us for being disappointed.

In the end of course, disappointment, being let down, or being betrayed, is simply my own share in the Cross of Jesus Christ. And in these moments, I also get to take up my own cross. Yes, it hurts, yes I would prefer to let the Cross (and the cross) pass--but as I look at the good that can come from these experiences, I have to ask myself, what good in my life, or in the lives of others, that has come through disappointment am I willing to surrender to avoid a bit (or more than a bit) of pain?

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Inwardness

Looking over both the comment box, and especially my private emails, the idea of Christians of different traditions cooperating to support and sustain each others' spiritual formation work with their respective laity has struck a cord. What is especially interesting to me are the positive responses I have gotten from Orthodox Christian clergy who are otherwise not supportive of the official dialog that exists between the different Christian communities.

As I was reflecting on this I came upon the following post from Gil Bailie's blog, "Reflection of Faith and Culture":

"No discipline can survive the loss of inwardness."

Philip Rieff again:

Here we now see, with startling clarity, how little our established political distinctions between left and right, conservative and radical, revolutionary and reactionary, matter nowadays. Rather, any remaking of political distinctions will have to ask, first, whether there is in fact a discipline of inwardness, a mobilization for fresh renunciations of instinct; or whether there is only the discipline of outwardness, a mobilizing for fresh satisfactions of instinct. Such a distinction will divide contemporary men and movements more accurately; then we shall find fashionable liberals and fascists on the same side, where they really belong.

Rieff and Bailie are right on target. The reconciliation of Christians with ourselves is not primarily an outward movement, but an inward one. We able to reach out towards one another only if we move inward and deeper into our own traditions and ultimately into our own hearts.

When I was in Toronto last month, I found that the people I felt most connected to were not those with whom I would have necessarily agreed theologically, or politically, or morally. Rather, it was those who seemed to value and foster inwardness with whom I felt most connected.

This doesn't mean that we could or should move toward theological or political or ethical agreement--only that this agreement is the fruit of an inward turn and our willingness to foster stillness and listening. I suspect that much of the activity that characterize ministry and ecumenical work is a fleeing from inwardness, an implicit refusal, or at least fear, of communion.
We need, I need, no so much to still my desires, but rightly order them so that they serve my communion with God, my neighbor, creation and myself. We are made to be desiring, and desirable, beings--but when our desires are improperly ordered, when I desire lesser goods in place of greater goods for example, then I am in turmoil.

While it is good to desire unity among Christians, as many have pointed out, this unity must be a unity in faith and not simply an ability to find a mutually acceptable doctrinal or moral statement. But this shared faith is itself the fruit of silence--of a real inward turn that allows us to recognize the work of God's grace in ourselves and in each other.

To make this inward turn means we need to risk all the things that we are so attached to--our tradition, our positions, the prestige we have in our respective communities. Does this mean that, for example, everything is up for grabs? No. But it does mean, as our phenomenologist friends are found of saying, that our approach to those things which are essential and lasting will necessarily be sacrificed.

The divisions that afflict us run not between us, but through us--the source of schism and heresy, as well as the triumphalism and religious indifference that aids and abets our estrangements, our rooted in the human heart and so it is to our hearts we have to look for the solution.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

A Hiatius

Next Tuesday and Wednesday my wife sits for the bar exam for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. After Liturgy that Sunday afternoon we load up the truck and move to Youngstown, OH where my sweetie begins her new job as a law clerk for a federal judge (go MARY!).

For these reasons, my blog for the next 10 days or so will be intermittent at best. I ask for your prayers for my wife and our move.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

NEW LINK: Anastasis Dialogue

You will notice a new link under my blog list, Anastasis Dialogue. What is this, you ask? Well let the blog's author, Byzantine Catholic priestmonk Fr. Maximos, speak for his own work:

Welcome to the latest ecumenical endeavour of Holy Resurrection Monastery. We have always been convinced that Eastern Catholic monastics have a special responsibility to work for the re-union of the Churches, especially those Churches with which they share their tradition of prayer, theological reflection and ascetic practices. Not only is this idea one we hold firmly, it is actually a demand made of us by our own Church, and made with special forcefulness by the late Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter, Orientale Lumen.

There are a number of monastic ventures around dedicated to building bridges between ecclesiasial communities and faiths. The Benedictine and Cistercian families in particular have institutionalized this work in such important organizations as the Dialogue Interreligieux Monastique and in the special vocation of the monastery of Chevetogne in Belgium. The monastic family of Holy Resurrection Monastery (including the sisterhood of Holy Theophany Monastery in Olympia, Washington) with the blessing of our hierarch, His Grace Bishop John Michael (Botean), and the encouragement of a number of other prelates both Catholic and Orthodox, is now beginning to embark on our own, more humble, version of these ministries.

Hence, The Anastasis Dialogue, a way to bring together Catholics and Orthodox, especially in the English-speaking world, to explore their common monastic heritage with a view to finding common ecumenical ground.

This latest addition to what Fr Maximos (following Walter Cardinal Kasper) calls "spiritual ecumenicism" is right in line with the different projects that have come my way in the last few weeks.

To give you a bit of the flavor of this most interesting site, let me quote again from Fr Maximos' work. Referring the the recent document of the Roman Church that communion with the Pope of Rome "is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles," our intrepid priestmonk writes:

Yes. That makes sense to me. But should it not also be one of the "internal constitutive principles" of a particular Church that it should also maintain itself in communion with all other particular Churches? And if this is so with any particular Church, should it not especially be so with respect to that particular Church, namely the Roman Church, to which is granted the special charism of maintaining the universality of the whole Church?

In other words, aren't all the Churches today, whether Catholic or Orthodox, "lacking something"? Perhaps rather than claim for itself sole proprietorial rights to be the visible Church professed in the Creed, we Catholics should begin to reclaim a more patristic kind of language, speaking of a "wounded" Church on the level of history. This disunity between the Churches is nothing knew. The fathers saw plenty of it: the Meletian schism, for example, or the quite long breach between Rome and Constantinople after the deposition of St. John Chrysostom. What makes the current schism different is not, I think, the seriousness of the disagreement, but that it has gone on for so long that it has begun to seem like business as usual. The danger of that is that we no longer feel any urgency to heal it.

Fr Maximos' response is not only irenic, but it demonstrates a deep appreciation of how insensitive we have all become, Orthodox and Catholic, to the schism that now almost 1,000 years old! While we can argue back and forth as to who is or isn't the truest, True Church, both Catholics and Orthodox would do well, I think, to ask themselves if they are really better off without the other and if our side is committed to reconciliation as we are to, oh I don't know, justifying or excusing the rather bad behavior of some of our own clergy? Why is it that we don't invest at least as much energy and resources in reconciliation that we squander on triumphalism?

Any way, Axios! Dear Fr Maximos! May God grant you and your brother monks many years!

I would commend The Anastasis Dialogue to all of you who read this blog.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

New Blog: Orthophile

I have been neglect in giving credit where credit is due to the different blogs I read on a regular basis. To this list (down and on the right) I have added Orthophile a blog I have recently discovered.

The author, Cheryl, describes her blog this way:

Depending on the issue, I may be "Lutheran" or "R. Catholic" or E. Orthodox", even Reformed. Which leads me to the reason I decided to retain the title, "Orthophile" for this blog. In the beginning, it was meant to reflect my primary interest in E. Orthodoxy, but from a Lutheran perspective (I was not planning on converting). Now, it simply reflects my desire to "stay orthodox" as I wade through the various theological opinions, and hopefully come to peace with God (a peace I haven't had for any great length of time, since my childhood).

So do surf over and take a look. In the coming weeks, I hope to add a bit about the other blogs I link to, but for now, go take a look at what's being said at Orthophile.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

So, What Is Character?

We are often think of morality in objective terms--as if morality was something like physics. While I would not wish to suggest that morality is purely subjective or relative to the situation, I also think that too much an emphasis on the objective quality of what is morally right and wrong risks overlook, or at least minimizing, the moral character of the actor. I cannot do good unless I am good; likewise it is only by doing the good that I become good. Whatever else it might be

As Orthodox Christians, however, we tend to on dogmatics, liturgics and Church history in a way that tends to shortchange questions of character and character formation. While all these other areas are important, character is the most important element of our spiritual lives since everything passes through character. As Socrates says somewhere, good laws in the hands of evil me make us worse then slaves, they make us fools since by our good laws evil mean are able to rob us of our freedoms.

So what is character?

When I think of character I think of that relatively enduring constellations of thoughts and actions that form my life. If these habits are in the service of personal excellence (another question I know) they are called virtues; if these habits are not in the service of excellence, or worse cause me to be ground down, then they are called vices. Looked at this way, I would say that character refers to whole pattern of virtue and vice in the person (or community for that matter).

In my experience as an Orthodox Christian I have found (and I am willing to be corrected) a rather distressing lack of emphasis in the intentional formation of character. This is especially the case in our seminaries which seem more focused on training men in the academic content of Orthodox theology, chant and liturgics--and sadly the priests imitate this pattern in the parish.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

To Read More: Moral Character, Moral and Character Development, Ethics and Authentic Transformational Leadership, Search Institute's 40 Developmental Assets^®, Journal of College & Character, and Values in Action (VIA).

New Discussion Group

I have started a discussion group for those interested in having a more free flowing conversation about many of the issues I touch on here. The group (currently hosted on Yahoo, but I will probably move it to Google after it get up and running) is titled Eastern Orthodoxy & Character Formation and can be found on the web here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/characterformation

I describe the group this way:

This group is dedicated to examining questions of character and character formation in light of the tradition of the Orthodox Church. It is open to all interested Orthodox Christians (clergy and laity) as well as those friends of Orthodoxy from other religious traditions (or no religious tradition) who are supportive of the basic aim of the group.

Given the checkered history of online discussion groups, polemics, rudeness or insulting language will not be allowed. After two warnings violators will be suspended; after two suspensions, they will be permanently banned.

If you are interested and moved to do so, please surf over, take a look and sign up.

My hope is that, by generating conversation and awareness of issue of character, we can begin to bring about the real renewal that is necessary in the Orthodox Church here in this country and overseas.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

O God, how long shall the adversary reproach? shall the enemy blaspheme thy name for ever?

The following is a copy of my recent post on the Orthodox-Forum on Yahoo. I believe the content of the post makes clear both the immediate and more generally contexts that moved me to write what I wrote.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Dear Father James,

Thank you for your post regarding the recent statement by the Church of Rome of various questions of ecclesiology. Why people, and especially Orthodox Christians, are upset about this statement is simply beyond me. I think Metropolitan Kyrill of the MP said it best when (and I'm paraphrasing here) he observed that what Rome says of herself, the Orthodox Church would say of herself. What the Church of Rome would say of the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church would say of her. And both the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches hold to the same view of those communities that arose as a consequence of the Reformation: they are not Churches in the patristic understanding of the word.

I am uncertain what concerns me more about the posts on this thread: the bad manners of the Orthodox authors or the general poverty of their theological reflection. For the former I apologize (and certainly if Orthodox clergy and laity can speak for me without my permission, I can return the favor); for the later, well, I am simply sad.

If recent events in the GOA and the OCA have demonstrated anything it is that we in the Orthodox Church are failing in our mission to evangelize, catechize and reconcile to Christ not just the world, but even our own faithful (clergy and laity). While there have been notable, and ill-received exceptions, we have for years turned a blind eye to our own spiritual, pastoral and administrative shortcomings and flat out failures. And even when the fruits of our lapses are splashed all over the media, we still point fingers at each other rather than call for repentance and beg God with hymns and prayers for the renewal of His Church. Our internal scandals and divisions here in America, our triumphalism relative the the rest of Christendom, our bad manners both among ourselves and with visitors, all point to the fundamental lack of faith in Jesus Christ not only in our laity, but among our clergy and our hierarchs.

My brothers and sisters! Are we not able to be better than this? We lack nothing from God. All that is missing is our repentance, our tears. Why do we call others to repentance and ignore the call among ourselves?

People who believe in Jesus Christ simply do not behave as we behave and do not (as has been pointed out by many on this list) tolerate the malfeasance that is seen among us. While my own sinfulness does not compromise the integrity of Holy Tradition, it does compromise the integrity of my understanding of the Faith and it compromises, possibly, the integrity of my witness.

I think in the main, the Orthodox liked, but did not respect, Pope John Paul II. We were suspicious of his irenicism and jealous of his popularity. With Pope Benedict XVI, I think we do not (in the main) like him, but we (and especially the MP) respect him. While neither man could be called a fool, the current pope is tough and will in fact call us on our foolishness.

So again, my dear brother, Fr James, thank you for your posts and your patience.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Some Ecumenical Possibilities

In the past several weeks I've had conversations with both Roman Catholics and Evangelical Christians about the possibility of working collaboratively with them. Stated broadly, the goal of these projects would be for each partner to help the other in their respective spiritual formation ministry. So for example, Orthodox Christians would come together with Evangelical Christians and each offer to the other their gifts and insights to help strength the other's pastoral care; so rather then proselytizing, we want to help each other minister more effectively to their own members. Why would we do this?

The awful little secret in the Christian world is that surprising few Christians--of whatever tradition--are intentional disciples of Jesus Christ. This is not to say that people aren't convinced of the integrity or truthfulness of our own tradition's understanding of the Gospel. In fact, I think the less committed I am to being a disciple of Jesus Christ, the more likely I am to be very committed to my tradition.

We all know, among the Orthodox, fervent defenders of Holy Tradition and all things Eastern against all things Western, Protestant and Roman; among the Catholics we have strident proponents of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction; among Evangelical Christians, we have aggressive soul winners who don't even bother to learn your name before they "share" the Gospel. Unfortunately, many of the loudest and most active among us have not, as the old song says, "decided to follow Jesus." Instead, we have allowed substituted a tradition, an institution, a program, for a living relationship with Jesus Christ.

In my informal conversations with people this is a fairly widespread phenomenon that cuts across not only traditional and denominational lines and is seen in clergy and lay leaders alike. Orthodox Christian, Roman Catholic, and Evangelical Christian congregations are filled with that most curious of creatures, the professing, even active, Christian (whether a lay person or a member of the clergy) who has never been evangelized, much less reconciled, to Jesus Christ.

As I have said before in these essays, I think that formal, theological ecumenical dialog is essential. But, and again as I've said before, the vast majority of Christians have neither the competency, nor the authority, to engage in such discussions.

Instead of focusing of these theological and dogmatic issues, the proposed projects reflect a pastoral mode of ecumenical dialog. What can we learn from other Christian traditions that will serve the pastoral care of the people that Christ has entrusted to our care? What can I as an Orthodox Christian learn from Roman Catholics and Evangelical Christians to make me a more effective priest? What can I learn from my Roman Catholic and Evangelical Christian brothers and sisters to help me bring myself and other Orthodox Christians into an intimate, life-giving and dynamic (in the sense of growing, not emotionally charged) relationship with Jesus Christ? And, in all humility, what can I as an Orthodox Christian and a priest offer in return?

I think that Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholics and Evangelical Christians need to see each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. Yes because of our respective historical and doctrinal commitments, there are painful divisions among us that undermine the very unity we might experience personally. So until our differences are resolved we must bear the pain of these divisions precisely because we are called by Christ not only to respect not only each others' consciences, but the consciences of the different Christian communities within which we stand.

At the same time, we can, and should, look to find the areas where our personal and communal consciences overlap. It may be a very small area. We might be able to have only a brief conversation or offer only minimal suggestions or assistance to one and other. But so what? As St Dionysius the Aeropagite says somewhere, Christians are all vessels of difference sizes, but whatever the size of the vessel, we are filled to overflowing with divine love.

As I tell my own spiritual children, this means that some of us our oceans of divine love, others lakes or swimming pools. Me? I'm a quarter teaspoon--but that's okay, because some time you need a quarter teaspoon. Try and bake a cake with only a swimming pool to measure out the ingredients.

Granted very little may come of these common projects--indeed beyond the idea, nothing may come at all. But in Christ, very little, or even nothing at all, can become an encounter with God's grace. After all, what do we sing in the hymns of the Feast of the Transfiguration?

Troparion
Tone 7

Thou wast transfigured on the mount, O Christ God,/ revealing Thy glory to Thy disciples as far as they could bear it./ Let Thine everlasting light shine upon us sinners/ through the prayers of the Theotokos, O Giver of Light, glory to Thee.

Kontakion
Tone 7

Thou wast transfigured on the mountain, O Christ our God,/ and Thy disciples beheld Thy glory as far as they were capable,/ that when they should see Thee crucified,/ they might know that Thy suffering was voluntary/ and might proclaim to the world/ that Thou art indeed the reflection of the Father.

In both hymns we are reminded that God conforms His Self-revelation to our, rather minimal, ability to receive what He is offering. This it seems, from the Orthodox side of the conversation at least, is the way such a collaborative, ecumenical project should go. In imitation of Jesus Christ, let us offer to one another no more than what each can bear. And let us do so in the service of bring people to a deep and personal commitment to live as disciples of Jesus Christ.

I welcome your comments, thoughts, criticism, questions, suggestions and offers of help.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory