This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
A Witness to Sanity
Several years ago I asked my bishop, Metropolitan Maximos of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, why he participated inecumenical and interfaith discussions. Part of what motivated my question to His Eminence was that his involvement in these matters brought him agreat deal of criticism and even attacks on his character.
These unwarranted assaults came from both those inside and outside the Church. After a moments reflection, His Eminencesaid that as a bishop, and as a Christian, he was morally obliged to be a witness for sanity in an insane world.
The idea of someone being sanitys witness struck me forcefully. At the time I was finishing my doctorate in psychology and religion. I was also working as a mental health counselor. Most of my workday was spent with chronic, institutionalized psychiatric clients. Needlessto say, as a mental health professional I had my own narrow ideas about the nature and causes of insanity.
Typically, the insane person is the one who does not play by our rules, whatever those rules might be. A witness to sanity, at least as His Eminence used the term, is one who calls into question the assumptions of those who rule, of those who are powerful in this world.This is precisely (though not exclusively) what Jesus and the prophets are shown doing throughout the Scriptures.
Unfortunately, in our culture the need tobe a bit skeptical about the rules is the only rule of life that many of us will accept. All too easily skeptics, reformers and revolutionaries can become parasites whose identity comes only through their rejection of others. When a person builds an identity upon rejection, or when a community only knows who it is by whom it refuses to admit, then insanity, both psychological and spiritual, rules in that persons or that community's life.
The truly sane person is the one who, in the words of the Scriptures, welcomes the stranger and cares for widows and orphans. We are all quite easily seduced by a false sense of power and authority. With amazing ease we tell ourselves that we are strong and powerful; that we the captains of our own destinies. As for those who are different or vulnerable, who are sick or suffering, we shun them or, worse, blame them.
At our very core,we are each of us poor; none of us had any decision in the matter of our birth; none of us can even really say that we own our own life. We are each of us absolutely dependent upon the kindness, hospitality and charity of others. No child, for example, is born except by the willingness of a mother to welcome this tiny stranger into the very midst of her body.
The person who bears witness to sanity reminds us of this. A witness to sanity reminds us that we are dependent upon one another and ultimately upon God for our very lives.
But this mutual dependence should not betaken to mean that we are really all the same. Nor does it mean that, deep down, we really all agree. This is simply a cheap and childish way of refusing to love our neighbor. Rather than embrace someone who is different, we simply deny that the differences or disagreements exist. Or if we acknowledge that differences do exist, we say that they do not matter.
But it is not love when we only approveof those who are like us. It is not love when we only welcome those who affirm us or agree with us. The undeniable truth is that we are all different. But it is these differences that make love possible.
In the Orthodox Christian Church wevenerate and call saints those women and men who, among other things, become shining witnesses to sanity and its demands. We can easily forget, because itis convenient for us to do so, that such witnesses have always existed and still exist today. But easier and more convenient still, we can forget that a truly sane life makes demands upon us and upon those around us. This tragic tendency to forgetfulness we call sin.
Against the power of sin there is onlyone response possible: sacrifice. A life can only rightly be described as sane, not to mention loving, when it is a life of sacrifice. Further, this sacrificeis not offered for ones own good. Rather it is offered for the good of others.
Living as a witness to sanity demands that we sacrifice for the sake of those who are different from us. And anything less than this freely offered sacrifice is not worthy of being called sane, much less human or, as His Eminence reminded me, Christian.
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
Celibacy, Sex and the Single Christian
For most contemporary Christians teaching on sexuality outside of marriage means counseling abstinence, but rarely (if ever) the New Testament challenge to celibacy and life-long virginity.Christians must affirm that while human sexuality is good and from God, as with all of human life after the Fall human sexuality is disordered, and wounded by the powers of sin and death. Maintaining a living awareness and practice of celibacy and life-long virginity helps to keep a balanced, Godly view of human sexuality.
Recently, there has been a great deal of discussion, on both the local and national levels, about the Christian teaching on human sexuality in general,and to homosexuality in particular. Both sides of this debate make some very sound, if very different, points that both the Christian communities and the larger society would do well to keep in mind. Quite appropriately, in this debate, Christians on both sides of the discussion appeal to the Scriptures to buttress their own arguments. Nevertheless, I do think that the New Testament’s active encouragement and advocacy of celibacy and life-long celibacy for those Christians who are able to live this way (see for example, Mt 19.11-12; 1 Cor7.7; 17; 35) is often neglected.
Celibacy and life-long virginity have been a part of the Christian life from the beginning. God becomes Man by the power Holy Spirit,and with the consent of the Virgin Mary (Lk 1.26-83). A celibate, John the Baptist, announces the ministry of Christ (Mt 3.1-12). The Gospel is proclaimed and the Church established throughout the Roman Empire by a celibate, the Apostle Paul. And finally, there is Christ Himself, a celibate Who’s only Bride is the Church. Viewed within the context of the New Testament, and the universal Christian practice of the first 1,000 years, celibacy and life-long virginity are (or should be) a normal part of how at least some members of the Christian community express the gift of sexuality in a God pleasing manner.
Christian contributions to a discussion of human sexuality, and here I would include not only homosexuality, but also teenage pregnancy, AIDS prevention, abortion and our growing divorce rate, generally seem to overlook celibacy and life-long virginity as viable options. At best, Christians will typically counsel premarital sexual abstinence, but rarely (if ever) celibacy and life-long virginity. Sadly, when as Christians we only counsel premarital abstinence, we forsake the fullness of the New Testament’s teaching of sexuality and essentially concede that sexual activity must be part of human life. The idea that one may live a sound, wholesome life as a celibate is simply not apart of the discussion.
Christians must affirm that while human sexuality is good and from God, as with all of human life after the Fall human sexuality is disordered, and wounded by the powers of sin and death (see Rms 6.12-12;7.23). Christians understand, or at least should understand, that all of life, including our sexuality, needs to be brought “into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (see 2 Cor 10.5; see also, Mt 11. 29-30). This must mean much more than simply saying: “We love each other and so this makes it right” or for that matter: “We are married and that makes it right.”
Those who have responded positively to God’s call to live a celibate life serve a prophetic function both in the Body of Christ, and for the world. Maintaining a living awareness and practice of celibacy and life-long virginity helps to keep a balanced view of human sexuality. The presence and practice, the positive teaching and encouragement of a life of celibacy and virginity as viable options within the Church reminds us that human sexuality is only a relative good. Presenting celibacy as a viable option means standing prophetically against a sex drenched and obsessed culture, in which seemingly even Christians have forgotten that when the dead arise “they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Mk12:25). More importantly, to hurting men and women, a life of celibacy (which as St. Paul reminds us also includes a life of pray and service to others) can represent a positive, life-affirming alternative to the increasingly confused and destructive messages that our culture gives about human sexuality.
When as Christians we enter into our culture’s debates about any issue, we must in fidelity to Christ, and out of love for our neighbor, present the fullness of the Gospel and not simply those aspects of the Gospel that resonant with our own political or cultural biases. In our current cultural discussions of sexuality, this means more than teaching the merely negative goal of premarital sexual abstinence. Along side of the positive good of Christian marriage, authentic, biblical sound Christian teaching on human sexuality must include a willingness to present a life-long commitment to celibacy and virginity as a legitimate vocation, a true calling from God as relevant today as during the New Testament era. It is in proclaiming the vocational, and ultimately the prophetic dimension of celibacy and life-long virginity, that I think Christians can best make a contribution to our culture’s debates regarding human sexuality.
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
A Thought Experiment: Converts, Reverts and the Need for Pastoral Change (part III)
“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking beautiful pearls, who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had and bought it."
(Mt 13:45-46)
Certainly some Orthodox Christians fall away from laziness or indifference. Some are apostates in the proper sense. But in almost all cases the fact that someone falls away from the Church reflects the failure of other Christians--parents, friends, clergy, etc.--to properly evangelize and/or catechizes the person. Even in those cases where someone has been hurt by a priest or fellow Orthodox Christian, the willingness to walk away from the Church reflects poorly on the pastoral care that person received. While certainly not in all cases, the lapsed Orthodox Christian reason for leaving is in fact the Church herself--or maybe more accurately--the people in Church are the reason he or she has left.
Though it is counter-intuitive to say so, the biggest failing I think is that we who are in the Church do not present the Gospel as valuable. What do I mean by this?
In the parable of the pearl of great price (Mt 13.45-46) , and indeed in the parable of the hidden treasure that we read just before (v. 44), we are told that the Kingdom of God is valuable. It is more valuable then money, it is more valuable then our time, it is more valuable then our labor, it is more valuable even then our reputation in the community--after all, who but a "lunatic" would sell everything he owns in order to buy an empty field?
When the Gospel is presented as just another a part of our cultural heritage (whether that culture is Greek, or Russian, or Arab, or American for that matter) something that we are born into if you will, we do not value it. Why? Because it doesn't cost us anything--we got it for "free" and anything we get for "free" is (literally) of no value since it cost us nothing.
Over the years I have wondered why people join cults--or for that matter, non-canonical, pseudo-Orthodox groups. As a matter of social or religious psychology, people look to these groups for the same reasons they look to the Orthodox Church or the Masons or a bowling league--they are looking for a community. While there are many factors for picking this or that group, I think one very big reason for opting for a cult or a pseudo-Orthodox group is that participating in these organizations carries a (relatively) heavy cost.
Cults will make extraordinary demands on people's time, treasure and talent. Pseudo-Orthodox groups will go so far as to point out that "We are on the margin because we take our faith seriously! We have full services, we fast, we welcome the unwashed and unloved! We are not a social club! Join us and you are a True Orthodox Christian who will be persecuted not simply by the world, but the rest of the Orthodox Church!" Say what you will, but if people are willing to put up with all of that, they most value what they have.
If we wish to encourage lapsed Orthodox Christians to return to the Church, we must demonstrate that the Church is valuable. We do that by (1) making demands of people on their time, treasure and talent and (2) giving a return worth people's investment. Far too many Orthodox Christians approach the Church as if they were "renters" rather then "home owners;" they are "customers," rather then "investors."
If we are serious about encouraging lapsed Orthodox Christians to be reconciled with the Church--to say nothing of encourage non-Orthodox Christians to convert--there must be a cost and a benefit to being Orthodox. If we simply assess cost--that is make demands of people--or of we simply offer a benefit--give them something--we will fail. We have to make the argument that yes, it is good to be Orthodox not only because you get something (salvation), but also because it costs you something (time, treasure, talent, and as I am writing this in the season of the Great Fast, a full stomach--I am hungry all through Lent, even if now and then I "cheat.")
Minimal investment means not only a minimal return, but it is also an acknowledgment that what w are asking people to invest in has very little value either in itself or to us. When we look at what Jesus says in the Gospel about the cost of disciplineship we discover that we cannot follow Jesus unless we are willing to sacrifice everything to follow Him.
Parishes that wish to be successful in reconciling lapsed Orthodox Christians would do well I think to look at mission parishes that are successful in attracting--and retaining--coverts. It is by raising, and not by lowering, the bar for admission or participation that we will be successful. The attendance statistics for Orthodox parishes here in the U.S. would suggest that we must act quickly. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese is a case in point: We claim 2,000,000 members when in fact we have something more in the neighborhood of 144,000 actual (as distinct from nominal) members--and even this second number would suggest a fairly low level of participation (pledging members, though not necessarily tithing; attendance on some Sundays and major feast days rather then weekly reception of Holy Communion; known to the priest, though not necessarily active in the catechetical, evangelistic or philanthropic life of the Church).
What is called for is raising the cost of participation--while there will always be nominal Christians in the Church (as there must be), to accept nominal Christians as parish council members, Church School teachers, to say nothing of seminarians and candidates for holy orders, is killing us by small cuts. When we hold up as leaders and role models those who invest very little in being Christian we announce to all "who have eyes to see or ears to hear" that the Orthodox Faith is not valuable since it cost so little to be a leader. And again, if it not valuable to those who lead, it won't be valuable to those who are outside the Church.
In my next installment, I hope to flesh out a bit more what I mean that by (1) making demands of people on their time, treasure and talent and (2) giving a return worth people's investment.
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
p.s., If you stop by and read this, leave a little note please, it is hard to write without knowing who is reading.
+FrG
Saturday, March 03, 2007
What My Site is Worth
According to dnScoop.com this site is worth (drum roll please) just over $1.2 million!
What does this mean in practice? Not much evidently. Text Link Ads assures me that this means that a link on my blog is worth $5/month to some advertiser. If I can interest 8 advertisers in placing their links on my blog, so I am assured, I could generate $40/month in ad revenues.
"Sell the farm Ma! We're movin' to the Big City!"
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
Friday, March 02, 2007
A Though Experiment: Converts, Reverts and the Need for Pastoral Change (part II)
Reverts set up the same kinds of potential experiences of cognitive dissonances as do the converts. Reverts need to be integrated. And so, like converts, reverts require that the parish as a community change--if for no other reason then because, as with the convert, there is a new person at Liturgy on Sunday morning--and that means all our relationships must change as surely as adding a rock into a stream changes the flow of water.
The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America has approximately 500 parishes and (depending on who you asked) 440,000 to 2,000,000 members. The later number is the official number according to the Archdiocese, the former reflects recent sociological research into the number of Orthodox Christians in America (see "How many Eastern Orthodox are there in the USA?") Using the official number, and assuming an average Sunday attendance at Liturgy 0f 500 faithful/parish what do we see?
On any given Sunday there are roughly 250,000 Greek Orthodox Christians attending Liturgy somewhere in the United States. This means that only 12.5% of the potential Greek Orthodox Christians who could be at Liturgy are actually at Liturgy on any given Sunday. Flip that and we see that some 1.75 MILLION (or 87.5%) of the Greek Orthodox community are, for one reason or another, absent from Sunday Liturgy. If only 10% (175,000) were reconciled with the Church, the Sunday average attendance would increase by 70% (or an average of 350 people added to a Sunday congregation of 500). Drop the number of those reconciled to only 1% and you have 17,500 reverts or 35 new Sunday congregants, or approximately a 7% increase in attendance.
But whether the number is 35 or 350, these new people will make significant demands on the congregation--both clergy and laity. Reverts, like converts, tend to invest significantly more personal resources in the Church--but they also make significantly greater demands for pastoral care (for example, Confession, religious education certainly, but also they have a greater interest in evangelism and philanthropic work). Basically, whether the change is from a non-Orthodox background or from a lapsed background, those who are reconciled what to invest more in the life of the church AND see a greater return on that investment then I suspect is typically the case for the majority of the congregation.
The question that I will address in the next installment is this: Given what I see as the rather middling track record on integrating new members, what would it mean pastoral to reconcile to Christ and His Church even a (relatively) small number of lapsed Orthodox? If the integration of converts represents a pastoral challenge that is often not met (one study of Catholic converts, albeit in Australia, suggest that only one third to one half of Catholic converts remain Catholic. See: Caring for New Catholics), what does it mean to integrate someone who we have failed pastorally or personally?
A Though Experiment: Converts, Reverts and the Need for Pastoral Change (part I)
One of my great concerns as a priest is evangelism. This certainly includes helping people raised outside the Orthodox Church be reconciled to her. But especially since I have left the mission fields of the Pacific Northwest and returned to Western Pennsylvania, I have come to understand how much evangelistic work needs to be done among those who, though baptized as Orthodox Christian, are indifferent and even hostile to the Gospel.
The reconciliation of such lapsed Orthodox Christian presents a number of pastoral challenges. I would ask you to join me in a little pastoral "thought experiment" about one of those challenges: The integration of "reverts" (Orthodox Christians reconciled to the Church) into existing parishes.
My own experience as a convert who came to Orthodox with relatively little emotional baggage relative to the parish or the Church would suggest that the Orthodox Church typically does a rather poor job with integrating new members into existing parishes. In large part I think this is because such integration requires conversion not only on the part of the new Orthodox Christian (whether convert or revert), but also a conversion, or at least change, on the part of the parish.
With converts the challenge is that they embody the idea that the Faith is, legitimately, an object of human decision. Converts become Orthodox because they evaluate the truth claims of Orthodox against their own experience. Granted they may appeal to church history or theological reflection. But this does not take away the fact that, whatever the content, they became Orthodox as an act of reason and will.
But if we can choice Orthodoxy, if we can decide for the Gospel, then we can also choice not to be Orthodox, we can decided to not believe the Gospel. In other words, converts don't simply call into question a taken for granted attitude about being a Orthodox Christian, the flatly contradict such an attitude. To the degree that people understand the faith as simply a part of their cultural or family background, something Eternal and static, this can evoke a fair acute sense of cognitive dissonance: The Orthodox Faith can be evaluated and it can be chosen and affirmed for very human reasons. What was facilely professed is now seen as requiring effort, if for no other reason then because room must be made for the convert who shares the cradle Orthodox faith, but not his or her reasons for believing.
Enough for now about converts. My real concern is with reverts, and I will address these group in part II of this post.
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
Thursday, March 01, 2007
The Emmanuel Community
One of the most glaring pastoral needs in the Orthodox Church is, ironically, solid spiritual formation for the laity. Though we have an immensely rich spiritual tradition, we invest surprisingly little effort in the systematic application of that tradition to the laity. Attendance at Divine Liturgy and an occasional confession with the priest is simply not enough!
We are rather long on inspiration, but short on application. Much as with happens in American schools, we feel quite good about what we think we know about the Orthodox faith and spiritual life, but we actually know and practice very little. One solution I think is found in the Roman Catholic group "The Emmanuel Community." On their homepage they describe themselves in this way:
The Emmanuel Community is a Catholic association of Christians of all states of life: lay people, both married and single; men and womenWhile no doubt an Orthodox version of The Emmanuel Community would require some changes and adaption, I think it would be a great blessing to the Orthodox Church to incorporate much of what TEC does. There are a number of people who, I think, read this blog who might be interested in such a project. If so, please either email me privately or leave your name in the comment box for this post.consecrated in celibacy; and
A layman,
Members share the desire to live out, in a radical way, a call to holiness, which is their vocation as baptized Catholics. They share the certitude that God is present in the life of every person and that He loves us. The mission of the Community is to reveal to every man and woman the presence of the God of Love in their lives, Jesus Christ, who is
Read More: The Emmanuel Community - About
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
Asceticism, Contraception and the East/West Divide
The following is my most resent response to the debate about, well contraception and asceticism on Michael Liccione's blog Sacramentum Vitae. For the complete debate please check the comment box on the post Ooops, I did it again..
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
Ochlophobist has, again, done a much better job of expressing my own views then I do--thank you.
I would not suggest that failure to fast and the use of artificial contraception are moral equivalent. However, I would also point out that the current official Roman position represents a significant departure from not only the Orthodox practice, but even their own historical practice and this for no real reason.
Our response is situated within our adherence to a more rigorous ascetical tradition then what is found in the Roman Catholic Church.
Again while I am aware that, historically, there are differences in these tradition, a commitment to a shared ascetical life is an essential element for any Christian response to the prevailing "culture of death."
Certainly there are Orthodox Christians who are indifferent to our own ascetical tradition. But this negligence simply makes them bad Orthodox Christians. Likewise if in fact an Orthodox bishop or priest were to teach that artificial contraception was a good thing (rather then a tolerable thing) then that bishop or priest would be deviating from the patristic tradition--or if one prefers being a bad Orthodox Christian.
While there is some room for different standards, the lack of these standards among Roman Catholics represents a serious departure from the shared tradition of the early Church and seriously undermines the integrity of the Roman teaching against contraception.
More broadly as I read Catholic--and specifically papal--writings on Orthodox/Catholic relations the theme is that the Church must "breath with both lungs"--Eastern and Western. This means, on the specific issue of contraception, that the East must certainly take more seriously the West's position that contraception is not morally acceptable.
By "serious" I mean not a mere formal acknowledgment, but a willingness to re-appraise our own pastoral praxis (since we have as such no official position equivalent to Humane Vitae) on the question.
I would argue that the West needs to take more serious the Orthodox concerns. And, as it does for the Orthodox, this means not merely a formal acknowledgment, but a willingness to re-appraise your own official position and pastoral praxis on the question. Specifically, this means the lack of rigorous ascetical standards among Roman Catholics.
In my experience at least, very few Roman Catholics--on any level--are willing to entertain the idea that Roman Catholics need to take more seriously their own historical ascetical tradition (which while there are difference, was not unlike the current Orthodox practice).
Just as the Orthodox must seriously question ourselves on our lax position on conjugal sexual morality (and it is often lax on both contraception and the blessing of a second, albeit non-sacramental, union), Roman Catholics I would suggest need to look at their own lax ascetical life and their overemphasis of contraception (arguments by some Catholic theologians that the teaching of Humanae Vitae is infallible is a case in point).
Until both tradition take seriously their own practice, and potential shortcomings, in light of the other tradition, any take of "sister Churches" or the "Church breathing with both lungs" is only ecclesiological sentimentalism.
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
Monday, February 26, 2007
BREITBART.COM - Scholars, Clergy Slam Jesus Documentary
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln
JERUSALEM (AP) -- Archaeologists and clergymen in the Holy Land derided claims in a new documentary produced by James Cameron that contradict major Christian tenets, but the Oscar-winning director said the evidence was based on sound statistics.
"The Lost Tomb of Christ," which the Discovery Channel will run on March 4, argues that 10 ancient ossuaries _ small caskets used to store bones _ discovered in a suburb of Jerusalem in 1980 may have contained the bones of Jesus and his family, according to a press release issued by the Discovery Channel.
Read more: BREITBART.COM - Scholars, Clergy Slam Jesus Documentary
Ben Witherington: THE JESUS TOMB? ‘TITANIC’ TALPIOT TOMB THEORY SUNK FROM THE START
Why do I bring this up? Because in one of the interesting ironies in recent memory, James Cameron the movie director who made the enormously successful film “Titanic”, on the night after the Oscars, will give an Oscar winning performance at a news conference along with Simcha Jacobovici who have now produced a Discovery Channel special on the discovery of Jesus’ tomb, ossuary, bones, and that of his mother, brothers, wife, and his child Jude as well! Who knew! The show will air on March 4th. In addition we are now regaled with a book by Simcha and Charles Pellegrino entitled The Jesus Family Tomb: The Discovery, the Investigation, and the Evidence That Could Change History just released today by Harper-Collins timed to co-ordinate with their news conference and the Discovery Channel special. Why should we be skeptical about this entire enterprise?
Read more: Ben Witherington: THE JESUS TOMB? ‘TITANIC’ TALPIOT TOMB THEORY SUNK FROM THE START
Saturday, February 24, 2007
I Have a Dirty Secret
Though this post is concerned with those who "revert" to the Catholic Church, there is much food for thought for those of us interested in facilitating the reconciliation of lapsed Orthodox Christians to the Church.
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
Amy Wellborn's "Open Book" blog has an interesting post on "Reverts", that is, Catholics who left the Church, then returned (click on the title of this post to go there). The "dirty secret" is a journey of faith (and doubt or disinterest or disdain or disillusionment, etc.) that, believe it or not, everyone seems to have. We Catholics seldom ask for permission of one another to talk about that journey, which is why I'm jokingly calling it a dirty secret. There are quite a few stories of reversion there, but I'd like to make a few observations about what I've seen on that thread. However, I encourage you to go see for yourself!
Read more: Intentional Disciples: I Have a Dirty Secret
Sacramentum Vitae: Does Orthodoxy allow contraception or not?
From Michael Liccione's always thoughtful blog comes the following question: Sacramentum Vitae: Does Orthodoxy allow contraception or not?
He writes:
I'd be interested in reactions, especially from Orthodox believers, to the online article of the above title. At the very least, there appears to have been some backtracking in Orthodoxy on the topic. And as usual, there is the problem that nobody seems to speak for Orthodoxy as such.
My response:
Michael,
Your question is, if I understand it, whether or not barrier method of contraception is acceptable within the tradition of the Orthodox Church.
At least as I read the various authors quoted in Armstrong's essay it is less a matter of Orthodox authors saying "Yes, the barrier method is a good thing," and more that they are responding (albeit not well in my opinion) to pastoral situations.
Ideally married couples should simply follow the ascetical tradition of the Church (abstinence from sexual relations on fast days and the evening before receiving Holy Communion) and entrust themselves to God for whatever child He may grant them. If they are unable (as opposed to unwilling)to do this then, in consultation with their spiritual father (and in the main Orthodox Christians who are serious about their faith will have an intimate and long term relationship with their priest-confessor) MAY use so-called barrier-methods of contraception.
But in saying this, no one is suggesting, to repeat what I said above, that the use of a condom is a good thing--only that it is a tolerably thing for those who still need to mature in Christ.
That said, yes certainly some Orthodox clergy (both priests and bishops) and theologians take a rather more accepting view of barrier-methods of contraception. But to the best of my knowledge no one argues that the use of a condom it is a good thing.
Have the Orthodox Church departed from our own tradition in our pastoral praxis regarding the use of the barrier method of contraception? Again, I would argue that no one is saying that the use of a condom is a good thing--it is a concession to human weakness.
The Orthodox pastoral response is I think not that far away from Paul VI in Humanae Vitae when he encourages couples using contraception to have recourse to the sacraments (especially Confession) to grow in Christ so that they can put aside contraception. Would, for example, a Catholic priest forbid Holy Communion to a couple who--out of weakness--use a condom? I suspect that they he would not--which is quite different from saying he would approve of their behavior.
I will grant that artificial contraception is not a good thing--even an intrinsic evil to use Paul VI's language. And yes, the separation of conjugal relationship from procreation is also evil--even as a separation of love would from conjugal intimacy is.
However the question for me as an Orthodox priest is how do I help married couples remain faithfully and obedient to the ascetical tradition of the Church? At the risk of being overly polemical, I would point out that this asceticism is (to the best of my knowledge) almost wholly ignored in the Catholic Church.
In its place one sees such a focus on contraception that you risk robbing married couples of an important part of their own asceticism and opportunity for spiritual growth.
This call to asceticism is largely absent for most Catholics. I am scandalized by the lack of fasting among almost all Catholics (to take one example). I would be encouraged more if Catholics relearned the ascetical tradition--Armstrong simply criticizes Orthodoxy without any understanding that, just maybe, the is something else going on in confession other than Orthodox priests saying it is okay to use a condom.
The real question for me is how do we answer the question of contraception and Natural Family Planing (NFP) within the context of the shared ascetical tradition--East and West. It is easy to score points off each other on the issue--but in fact neither side really takes serious the question in light of the Christian ascetical tradition.
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
Saturday, February 17, 2007
The Cost to the Church of Receiving Converts
Commenting on the Sundance film festival showing of Save Me, "a film about a young man’s journey through a Christian 'ex-gay' 12-step ministry," Pastor David Sawson of Community Church in Glen Ellyn, IL, that
Even more striking were the numerous men in the theatre who wept during the most poignant moments of the film, usually when the men in the 12-step program described the pain and brokenness in their pasts. How well, I wondered when leaving the theatre, is the church prepared to really understand this type of brokenness and this amount of pain? And how willing are we to acknowledge our own role in much of that painful memory?Pastor Sawson's question is also my own for the Orthodox Church.
Yes, certainly the Orthodox Church welcomes converts. But I can't help but wonder if we are willing and able to welcome to converts who carry the kind of pain that Sawson describes at the Sundance Film Festival. My own experiences as a covert and a priest would lead me to answer in the negative: No, for a variety of reasons we are not in a position as a Church "to really understand" the extraordinary brokenness and pain that many men, women and children carry around.
We certainly like the well-educated, middle class convert who affirms us in our conviction that we are the Historic Christian Church, the True Church. But are we willing to receive in our communities individuals whose pain does not admit relief? Some people, some situations, are so broken that they can't be put back together until the Kingdom of God comes in glory. Do we have room for these people? Do we have room for those who are struggle with burdens of shame and guilt that most of us find unimaginable?
Welcoming people with the kind of brokenness that Swanson saw would require from us a rather wide scale reappraisal of our priorities. I suspect from my own time as a mission priest, that this reappraisal would not be done easily or without significant personal and institutional cost and readjustment.
For example, we would need to train both clergy and lay workers who had the necessary pastoral and professional competence to respond to the needs of the people who came to us. As it is now, we equipped to receive converts with theological questions and (relatively) healthy psychological and social identities. In other words, we do well with relatively well-educated, well-adjusted converts from the middle and upper middle classes.
This makes sense since most of our churches are themselves composed of middle and upper-middle suburbanites. Were we are failing to attract coverts are in those parishes that are in the inner city and communities (like Pittsburgh) were economic factors have lead to economic dislocation. In other words, when the neighbor suffers economically the parish dies.
There certainly is no need for this--there are people who we could evangelize. We simply don't. As I alluded to above, we are not equipped pastorally or personally to build communities with people who are "not like us." But this is not primarily an ethnic reality--but a socio-economic reality. We are able to sustain ethnic parishes precisely because we are relatively wealthy and so can afford to not reach out to those who are not Greek or Russian or Arab or whatever.
So back to the Sundance Festival--do we want parishes filled with broken people? Do we want to make the investment in time, treasure and talent it would require to reach outside the confines of our middle class parishes? I hope that the answer is "yes." If it isn't, if we are not willing to pay the cost of receiving converts, then I think that God will simply take from us what we will not give willingly.
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
Friday, February 16, 2007
Church Evangelism Video
After some prayerful reflection, I am convinced that this is just what is need to get Orthodox Christians out into the mission field in a big way. Too many Orthodox Christians simply take our faith for granted and don't seem to realize that we are all of us called to witness to Christ.
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
Friday, February 02, 2007
Patriarchial Sermon on Liturgy
Patriarch Bartholomew's sermon during the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Constantinople.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Thoughts on the 34th Anniversary of Roe v Wade
The All-Holy God is the fountain of life. Life belongs to him. His love provides life to all living organisms and especially to man, whom He created in His own image and likeness. We live and exist because of the overflowing love of God. As in this sacred overflowing love of God which is life, every person has a right which cannot be taken away. The Son and Word of God became human, was crucified and was resurrected so that all "may have life and abundantly they may have" (John 10:10). God's gift of life is inviolable and murder is forbidden by the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Tradition of the Church (Holy Fathers, Synods and Canons). He who takes away life opposes the work of the Life-giving Lord and joins with the devil, who "was a murderer from the beginning" (John 8:44).
Bishop Joseph of Arianzos
(These words are written on the back of the Icon on the left)
(These words are written on the back of the Icon on the left)
This week marks the 34th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade, that had the practical effect of legalizing abortion in the United States. In the past several weeks, Christians on both sides of the issue have gathered in prayer either to celebrate or to condemn current U.S. policy on abortion. Whatever one may think about the morality, consequences or politics of abortion, it is clearly an issue that has divided Christians.
There are very few voices, religious or secular, that speak to the schism that exists between person and community in our culture. In leaving unexamined and unchallenged this schism, we pass over in silence one of the chief factors that makes abortion a tenable option for so many women. As long as we view our commitments to the people and communities that make up our lives as simply one more form of consumer goods to take off the shelf, to be used and discarded, abortion will continue to be a social problem in American culture.
Roe vs. Wade did nothing to address the underlying social, psychological, and yes, spiritual pathologies that make abortion a realistic (if regrettable) option for too many women. Is a woman really better off when abortion is seen as the only way for her to preserve a relationship with the child's father, or her family or her (legitimate) economic and career hopes? Can we, as men and women of faith in a just and loving God, really say that abortion is a legitimate, not to mention, God-pleasing, solution to the fear of isolation and poverty that comes with so many unplanned pregnancies? How can God be pleased when we sacrifice one life, one relation-ship, in order to preserve another?
And yet, on the other hand, how exactly does a picture of an aborted fetus, or cries of “Murderer!” or “Don't kill your baby!” help allay the twin fears of isolation and rejection that so often motivate a woman's decision to have an abortion? Can we as men and women of faith in a gentle and compassionate God really say that our rhetoric and behavior are compatible with the God we profess? Do we really believe that God is pleased when, whatever our intention and however noble the goal, we intimidate those who are already afraid?
The Apostle Paul says that Christians are co-workers with Christ for the salvation of the world (see 2 Corinthians 6:1). Within the tradition of the Orthodox Church, this idea of being co-workers or co-laborers with Christ is a touchstone of our personal and communal spiritual life. And it is also a basic principle in our witness to the world around us. If God, so our thinking goes, graciously allows us to work together with Him for both our own salvation and for the salvation of the world, how can we do less in our relationships with one another? From an Orthodox point of view, one of the most effective witnesses to the Gospel of Jesus Christ is our willingness to work together with others, to share in their lives and struggles, even as Christ shares in our lives and struggles.
Sadly, it seems that as men and women of faith, we are all too ready, whatever our views of abortion, to take our cues from partisan politics. When we do this, we lose the notion of co-laboring with God and neighbor and unintentionally foster the very social, psychological and spiritual factors that make abortion such a common event in our society. Possibly, what is even more tragic is that we often seem all too willing to sacrifice our obligation to co-labor with God and neighbor to maintain the correct views on abortion. And when having the right views on abortion becomes more important then co-laboring with others, haven't we betrayed ourselves and our own vocation to bear witness to the God in whom we believe?
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Personal, Passionate Relationships
Bernadette over at Intentional Disciples writes:
I think that the distinction she draws, in addition to be a wonderful expression of the Council of Chalcedon (in Christ there are two natures, human and divine, "without division or separation, without confusion or admixture" united in one Person) is right on the mark pastorally. Too often in our preaching in the Orthodox Church we fail to communicate the fact that Jesus actually cares about us not simply as God, but also as a human being.
That God forgives me and blesses me is certainly a good thing--but it is no big thing for God to do this as God. Yes, to draw an analogy, Bill Gates is generous, but it is the widow's mite that Jesus praises. So too with God. For the Uncreated to pour out grace on a creature is no big deal--but for the Creator to become a creature, for God to make Himself poor for our sake, that is extraordinary.
God in Jesus Christ loves and understand us not simply as God from all eternity, but as a man among men. God in Jesus Christ knows us, loves us, blesses us, forgives us, dies and rises for us in His humanity, which is to say, as one of us. How many Orthodox Christians understand that Jesus loves us not simply as God, but as our fellow human being? Far too few I fear.
So thank you Bernadette, you have remind me of an important, and often overlooked, truth.
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
Sunday, January 14, 2007
God-Pleasing Evangelism
For Christians it is certainly easier, and frankly more comforting, to assume that people do not accept the Gospel because of their own pride, indifference, or lack of faith. And while in some cases this may be true, it is an explanation which too easily allows those of us who are Christians to avoid our own responsibility for how we present the Gospel.
This incomprehensible divine respect for human freedom lies at the center of the Gospel. Think for a moment about the Christ's conception. God doesn't manipulate the Virgin Mary or (worse still to imagine) force himself on her. No, God sends the Archangel Gabriel, his best man if you will, to invite Mary to receive Christ into her life, into her body. And once the invitation has been extended, God waits for her consent. It is as if God, the angels and the whole creation hold their collective breath and wait in silent expectation for the consent of this young girl. Then, from the depth of her heart, freely and without reservations, Mary consents to God's invitation and sings out: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it done to me according to thy word.” (Luke 1:38) There was on God's part no force, no manipulation or coercion, He simply made an offer with respect and consideration for Mary's freedom and dignity.
God-pleasing, to say nothing of effective, evangelism begins with an imitation of the respect God extends to each human person. If we are to be faithful imitators of Christ, we must avoid any violation of human freedom and dignity. “We must avoid,” as Evdokimov tells us, “any compelling proof (that) violates human conscience (and) changes faith into mere knowledge.”
Even as I write these words I can hear the objections: Christ proclaimed the Kingdom of God with power and authority, with signs and wonders, with miraculous cures and deliverance from demons! While not wishing to deny God's miracles, or the need for Christian preaching, I think we too easily forget that, relative to what he could have done as God, the All-Powerful Creator of Heaven and Earth, Christ did very little. As Evdokimov reminds us: “God limits his almighty power, encloses himself in the silence of his suffering love, withdraws all signs, suspends every miracle, casts a shadow over the brightness of his face.”
Sometimes we forget, or maybe we've never really heard or understood, that God redeems us not by being God Almighty in Heaven, but becoming a man in Galilee.
n Christ, God enters into human experience and transforms it from within. If we take seriously the Incarnation, we understand that we are redeemed by an act of divine empathy by our great high priest, who has "compassion on our infirmities as one tempted in all things as we are, but without sin." (see Hebrews 4:15)
In Jesus Christ, God sees as we see, he lives as we live, and, to quote Evdokimov again, “it is to the humility and empathy of God, of God emptying himself (on the cross) that faith essentially responds. God can do anything -- except compel us to love him. Often Christians, in our zeal to proclaim the Gospel, forget that God doesn't force us, but woos us.” It is our humble and sincere love that draws people, through us, to Christ Jesus our Lord. Christians must proclaim the Gospel; evangelism is essential to our commitment to Jesus Christ. But if we wish to be faithful to Christ's command to us, if we wish to proclaim the Gospel with power and authority, it might be better if we do so softly, gently and with regard for human freedom and dignity.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
