SI.com - MLB - Rangers first team in 110 years to score 30 runs - Thursday August 23, 2007 1:48AM

I usually don't post sports stories--but this one I couldn't let pass. I'm going to bookmark this story and, when I'm having a bad day and feelin' sorry for myself, come at remind myself: It Could Be Worse! O So Much Worse!!!!

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

BALTIMORE (AP) -- Five runs in the fourth inning.

Nine runs in the sixth.

Ten in the eighth.

Six more in the ninth.

The Texas Rangers rounded the bases at a dizzying pace and became the first team in 110 years to score 30 runs in a game, setting an American League record Wednesday in a 30-3 rout of the Baltimore Orioles.

"This is something freaky. You won't see anything like this again for a long, long time. I am glad I was on this end of it," said Marlon Byrd, who hit one of two Texas grand slams.

Trailing 3-0 in the opener of a doubleheader, Texas couldn't be stopped. Finally, the last-place Rangers did something right.

"We set a record for something on the good side of baseball," manager Ron Washington said.

Texas kept right on hitting in the second game, too, although at a decidedly tamer pace. Travis Metcalf drove in four runs and the Rangers used a three-run eighth for a 9-7 victory and a sweep.

Texas set an AL record for runs in a doubleheader, surpassing the 36 scored by Detroit in 1937.

"Tonight there were some balls thrown across the plate and we put them in play," Washington said. "Everybody was part of it. It was a total team effort."

The Rangers had 11 hits in the second game, including three by Michael Young. The nightcap, however, will forever be regarded as a postscript to the incredible opener.

It was the ninth time a major league team scored 30 runs, the first since the Chicago Colts set the major league mark in a 36-7 rout of Louisville in a National League game on June 28, 1897, according to the Elias Sports Bureau.

"It was AMAZING in capital letters," said Metcalf, who hit a grand slam after being called up from Triple-A Oklahoma earlier in the day.

To read the rest: Rangers first team in 110 years to score 30 runs

EWTN.com - Don't Rush Pope-Patriarch Summit, Cardinal Says

EWTN.com - Don't Rush Pope-Patriarch Summit, Cardinal Says:

"17-August-2007 -- Catholic World News Brief Don't Rush Pope-Patriarch Summit, Cardinal Says Moscow, Aug. 17, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Speaking to reporters in Moscow, a senior Vatican official has urged reporters not to place undue stress on the prospects for a 'summit meeting' between Pope Benedict XVI and Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexei II. Cardinal Roger Etchegaray said that careful preparations should be made before a summit meeting takes place. He explained that 'all the circumstances should be favorable,' to ensure that the meeting is not merely a matter of 'posing for the camera.' 'Only God knows when it will happen,' the cardinal told Vesti-24 television in Moscow. When the world's two most influential Christian leaders do meet, he said, the event will be a powerful testimony to the unity of the faith. Cardinal Etchegaray, the vice-dean of the College of Cardinals, conceded that it is only natural to focus attention on the prospect of a meeting between the Pope and the Patriarch. But the French-born cardinal, who met with Patriarch Alexei during his trip to Moscow this week, explained that other contacts between Moscow and Rome are helping to prepare the way for the summit. The Catholic and Orthodox churches, he said, are finding many different ways to collaborate in promoting the Christian culture"

But Why Can't You Just Pray Like Me?!?

Upper left: Statue of Our Lady of Fatima.
Lower right: Icon, Theotokos of Kazan

So, I'm preparing a paper for a conference in honor of the 90th anniversary of the appearance of the Theotokos at Fatima Portugal. While I'm honored to asked to make a presentation, I have to be honest, much of the piety that surrounds Fatima just doesn't appeal to me. And this just isn't because I'm Orthodox, if I were a Roman Catholic (and I was), I wouldn't be inclined to the piety that I see when I look at Fatima.

At the same time, however, when I put the differences in style to one side, when I put on hold for a moment the desire to engage in theological polemics, I also have to admit that I see the evidence of grace in the lives of those men, women and children for whom Fatima is an important part of their spiritual lives.

And this brings to my point for this essay:

Ecumenicism is not simply, or even simply, a question of theological agreement, but also an ability to recognize the work of grace in life of the other Church.

Unfortunately, the lack of a stylistic sympathy with another tradition's piety not only makes theological agreement difficult, if not impossible, but can also (and more importantly) blinds us to the shortcomings in how we live our own spiritual lives.

Let me explain that last point.

The things I find troubling in much of the devotion of Roman Catholics and Anglicans to our Lady of Fatima, are what I see as a tendency toward sentimentality and over-rationalization of the faith. In both cases, the problem as I see it, is an overemphasis on the psychological dimension of the Christian life.

But, if I'm honest with myself, I must admit that this is hardly a Western problem. There is a fair amount of Orthodox Christian piety that is just as sentimental and rationalistic as anything one sees among the devotees of Fatima. For an Orthodox Christian to reject or criticize or minimize the importance of Fatima, at least in the lives of those for whom it is important, is not only a sin against charity, but short sighted for the health of our own Church as well.

I say short sighted because it reflects the all too common, and simplistically, habit among some Orthodox Christians to make Western forms of Christianity, and Western Christians, the source of all ills in the Christian world. When, for example, we talk about the "western captivity" of Orthodox theology, we make it sound as if the Jesuits came along and kidnapped us! That's not what happened--and in fact, Orthodox Christians were attracted to Western theological forms and spiritual practices because of a perceived lack in the life of the Orthodox Church.

We need to take seriously the piety of Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians. As part of that, we should ask ourselves if there isn't something in these Western forms of piety that fulfills a lack among Orthodox Christians?

Asking this question, and more importantly giving an affirmative answer to it, doesn't mean that we are embracing the "branch theory" or that we are rejecting the conviction that the Orthodox Church is the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. It does mean that we are humbling acknowledging that while we see Orthodox Christianity as normative, we don't see it as exhausting the mystery of God's saving grace for His people.

We need to take seriously forms of piety outside the Orthodox Church especially when the offend us or (as in my case with piety), "turn us off." We need to carefully and prayerfully ask ourselves, why am I uncomfortable with another person's piety? More often then not, the discomfort reflects something in my own heart that needs to be corrected.

Maybe, in my own case, Fatima reminds me that I need to be a bit more willing to listen to my feelings and the contribution they make to my spiritual life. Or maybe, I need to re-evaluate the role of the intellect in my life. Or maybe, as I said in an earlier post, I simply need to remember and acknowledge that, while it isn't my piety, it was--and is--the piety of many of the people who were responsible for helping me become the person and priest I am.

In the final analysis, we need to permit each other as much freedom as we can in matters of piety. Granted, with the Apostle Paul, we need to see that everything is done in an orderly fashion--but part of orderly, is respecting each other and making room for each other's piety.

Outside of the Liturgy, very few of us pray in a manner that would pass strict theological muster. And, truth be told, if we examine not simply the words we sing at Liturgy, but the hearts out of which those words arise, how many of us would be saved?

In the Roman rite, the celebrant asks that God look not on our personal sin (I'm paraphrasing, anyone with the exact text is most welcome to post it), but on the faith of His Church. We are none of saved by our piety, and I dare say most of us are saved in spite of it. What saves us is God's grace and our incorporation into the Body of Christ through the sacraments and our ongoing repentance. Personal piety and devotions have their role for sure, but it they are secondary and we must never make them primary either for ourselves or for other people.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Inside Baseball vs. Evangelization

This just in (and with a hat tip to Sherry W at Intentional Disciples):

From Oswald Sorbino's blog, Catholic Analysis:

When you blog on Catholic topics, the natural and understandable tendency is to spend a lot of time on what one could call "inside baseball"--arguments about liturgy, Catholic problems, charisms, etc. But, once in a while, it is good to set forth the Good News so that non-Catholic or non-Christian visitors can see what is surely most important: Jesus Saves.

Jesus not only saves; but, as I have heard others say, Jesus loves to save. And "saving" includes healing of all kinds, not just spiritual but also emotional, psychological, and physical. Saving includes healing all wounds, even those from a very long time ago. Saving also includes forgiveness so that one can start again and be born anew from above (if you have already received the Sacrament of Baptism, then it is a matter of activating again the new birth you have already received).

Saving also includes empowering to live in the Holy Spirit in joy and peace. Saving includes the power to do the right thing, not to be crushed by impossible moral ideals that we, on our own, can never meet. Saving also means making us part of the Body of Christ where we can be refreshed with the sacraments, the prayers, and the communion of our fellow Catholics. Saving means we enter a new family united in the joy of praising the Lord Jesus and bound together by a bond that can surpass even biological ties to others.

The formula is basic: repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. But notice that repent is not just regretting this sin or that sin. The Gospel call to repentance, in the original New Testament Greek, has the sense of turning ourselves around, of changing our hearts and minds, of surrendering control to the true Sovereign and Lord. If you are non-Christian, you hand over your life to Jesus and begin instruction for receiving the Sacraments of Initiation (Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist). If you are a non-Catholic baptized Christian, you receive instruction to receive the Sacraments of Penance, Confirmation, and the Eucharist. If you are already Catholic, you rededicate your life to Jesus and seek out the Sacrament of Penance, also called the "Sacrament of Conversion." The end result is the happiness that never dies.

Yes, sometimes we have to take a break from all the "inside baseball" and talk about the crucial arena of our lives because the stakes are too high for all of us and because we may forget that many are desperately seeking Je

sus.

The Whole Russian Orthodox Church Officially Honours the Saints of the Isles

This was posted yesterday by Fr Andrew at Orthodox England:

Today, Tuesday 21 August 2007, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church has officially recognized the Feast of the Saints of the Isles. (See our Service to these Saints on this website under 'Hisperica Liturgica' – Western Liturgica). This Feast is in honour of the Saints who lived in Great Britain and Ireland before the Western Schism of 1054. This was when most of Western Europe tragically split off from the Church, thus founding Roman Catholicism and later the myriad of sects which grew up from this.

The Feast will be observed, as it already has been for many years in parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia and elsewhere, on the third Sunday after Pentecost. The Synod has also decided that these Saints' names should be included in the Church Menologion, once their lives and exploits have been studied.

The Synod's decision follows the appeal of 3 March 2007, when the Russian Orthodox Church in Great Britain and Ireland of the Diocese of Sourozh, petitioned His Holiness Patriarch Alexis II and the Holy Synod of the Russian Church to give official recognition to the Feast of the Saints of the Isles.

Once again, we see how the work begun by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) in New York is being completed in Moscow. First, in 2000, His Holiness and the Synod in Moscow recognized and completed the ROCOR canonization of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia of 1981. Now it is recognizing the Local Saints of the Western Lands, who previously had not been known or venerated in Russia, but had been venerated since the 1970s in ROCOR.

This decision is clearly a historic turning-point. The Local Saints of the Western Lands now begin their entry into the calendar of the whole Russian Orthodox Church. This is a sign of the universalism or catholicity of the Russian Church. It is also, we must add, the recognition of our thirty-three years of unceasing struggle against both the forces of ecumenistic modernism and ritualistic conservatism. We well remember how the persecution and mockery that we faced from both extremes in the 1970s, when there was virtually no sympathy for our cause. Later we recall how our writings on them had to be published at personal sacrifice, in order to make these Saints of God known. This is once more the victory of the royal path of moderation, victory over the spiritual death of extremes. We pray and hope that the Local Saints of other Western Lands will now also make their entry into the consciousness and calendar of the whole Church of Rus.

God is wonderful in His Saints! Glory to Thee, our God, Glory to Thee!

Indeed, God is wonderful in His Saints!

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Sometimes, I really miss Texas

From Rod Dreher's Crunchy Con blog:

Texas is Texas

The European Union has asked the state government of Texas to implement a death penalty moratorium. This just came via e-mail from Gov. Rick Perry's office, in response:

"230 years ago, our forefathers fought a war to throw off the yoke of a European monarch and gain the freedom of self-determination. Texans long ago decided that the death penalty is a just and appropriate punishment for the most horrible crimes committed against our citizens. While we respect our friends in Europe, welcome their investment in our state and appreciate their interest in our laws, Texans are doing just fine governing Texas."

That's not gonna cost Ol' Rick many votes, just so you know.

Thoughts in a coffee shop

As is my custom, I have found a coffee shop with free wifi near our new house so that I can write in the early morning before returning to my own research (I'm currently writing a paper to be presented at the October meeting of the Ecumenical Society of the Blessed Virgin Mary-USA, but more on that another day). One of the interesting things about where I am writing is that it is a gathering spot for area school teachers. This means that, if I "very, very quiet," (to borrow from Elmer Fudd), I can hear bits and pieces of conversations about how classroom teachers see education in America--or at least here in eastern Ohio.

What is most interesting is that the teachers speak about their students with real affection and concern. Certainly there is the expected complaints about the students, and more frequently about the higher ups in the school's administration, but in the main the teachers speak about their students with warmth and love for the children entrusted to their care.

As I have been listening, I have begun to think a bit about not only my own life, but the larger society in which we live.

Very early on in my counseling career, I discovered two things almost simultaneously. First, I was very good at counseling and therapy, I had a gift, a vocation, if you will, to the work that transcended mere technical mastery. Second, very few people around me had a vocation to the work. Absent from their work was the warmth, affection and love that I hear in the voices of the teachers around me.

This sense of vocation--or more precisely the absence of a vocational commitment--is one of the things that I think causes us the greatest difficulties in our society. Not to romanticize, but when our work becomes purely a question of economics, work becomes increasingly eroding both of our own dignity and of the dignity of those with whom we interact.

The lack of a higher purpose, a higher vision, to our work means that work becomes merely a means to fulfilling our own , often transitory, desires. Think for example of the current collection of presidential hopefuls--how many communicate a sense of vocation to public service? Precious few I think. And likewise for most of us our interest in this or that candidate reflects our own desires for at least the semblance of power through our support of them.

I can't help but think of the men in Utah who lost their lives trying to rescue trapped miners who were themselves in all likelihood already dead. Who I wonder is really is more fit for leadership, profession politicians who see public office as a means of acquiring personal power at public expense, or teachers who love their students or miners who willingly risk their lives to honor the memory of their co-workers?

As I reflect on current events (both those that do and don't make the news), I am struck that the best of what is done here in America is done by the teachers here in the coffee shop, or the miners in Utah.

David Bentley Hart in his book The Beauty of the Infinite, points out that when as Christians we point to the Empty Tomb and say that "Christ is Risen!" we are issuing a challenge to the rulers of this world. We are not simply criticizing them, we are challenging their dominion. This is inherently a political act and one that will inevitably bring the Church into conflict with the world that has rejected Christ and the Gospel.

As a priest, some of my role models are those men and women I met when I first started working in mental health back, well back longer ago then I care to admit (where have 30 years gone?). I don't mean those whose commitment to the profession was merely technical, but those men and women whose work reflected their own sense of vocation. It was their vocational commitment to care for those suffering from mental illness that made them courageous, generous and even sacrificial, in their work with people most of us would cross the street to avoid. And it was their deep personal commitment, that made it possible for me to recognize a like possibility in myself.

What is so disheartening when we read the newspaper, or watch the news on television, is not bad news--not shootings and wars and starving children and disasters natural and man made. All of this, and more, is real and tragic to be sure. But what does us in, is the absence of any evidence of higher calling in the voices, actions and policies of those who we have entrusted to lead us and to guide us through the periods of "bad news" and "hard times."

It should not be such with those of us who carry that Name which is above every other name.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

From Monasic Musings: The Dialogue of the Mother and the Zygote

The a wonderful brief essay by Sr Edith OSB, a Benedictine nun and sociologist at the College of St Scholastica in Minnesota. Sister offers a summary on a recent Roman Catholic document on the journey of the human egg from fertilization to implantation. She writes:

When I took human genetics in the 1970s, we heard general, mechanical sounding statements: "The fertilized egg continues down the Fallopian tube and implants." It sounds like an assembly line carrying an inert lump, the zygote, into place. The reality I was reading last night was MUCH different!

The report is written for lay people, not scientists - but it assumes the reader is willing to pay attention and follow along. The sperm don't just stumble upon the egg - there are receptors and chemicals that help them find it. It doesn't just crash into the egg like a torpedo: there's a sequence of chemical exchanges that open the door of the egg to one sperm and, just as quickly, firmly close it to all others.

Her conclusion is very encouraging and one that I wish more Orthodox Christians would embrace as the emblem for how the relationship between their own work and spiritual lives. Again Sr Edith:

I came across this as part of my reading for a short Catholic Bioethics Seminar online - but I'm finding that the beauty and detail of the science makes it spiritual reading.

To read the report her essay is based on click here: The Human Embryo in its Preimplantation Phase. To read her whole essay, and the other wonderful things on her blog, click here: The Dialogue of the Mother and the Zygote.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

13th Sunday of Matthew

On Sunday, August 26th, we hear the parable of the vineyard owner and the wicked tenants from the Gospel according to St Matthew (21:33-42). St John Chrysostom is quite taken with opening verses of the parable:

There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country. Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers, that they might receive its fruit (vv. 33-34).

In his homily (Homily 68) on the passages Chrysostom asks his listen to "[o]bserve the great care that the owner took with this place and the extraordinary recalcitrance of the people." The saint goes on to say that the owner of the vineyard "did the work the tenants should have done." It was the owner who "planted" the vineyard, "set a hedge around it" to protect the crops, "dug a wine press" to crush the grapes in order to make wine. The owner even "built a tower" so that the works could observe the whole vineyard and see to its well being. For their part all the tenants had to to "was taken care of what there was there and to preserve what had been given to them."

Though nothing "was left undone" and all things necessary were "accomplished" by the owner, the tenants sadly "made little effort to be productive." When the time for the harvest came the tenants "not only failed to give the fruit, after having enjoyed so much care," they flaunted "their laziness" and "were angry with the servants who came" to collect what was due the owner.

The owner first sends his servants and then finally his son to collect what is his due. And each time the tenants "add even more to their previous pollutions" each new offense surpassing "their former offenses" until finally their greed drives them mad and they kill the owner's son.

Just as the tenants profited by the owner's labor, humanity is "honored" St John says by God becoming human for our sakes and working "countless miracles." At His own cost, "He pardoned" our sins and calls us into His Kingdom. And for our part, we are asked only be productive--to tend to what God has given us by His labor.

The fact of the matter is, whatever we do, we do so only as a return on the investment that God has made in us. No one succeeds except because of the labor of others, and ultimately no one succeeds who tries (as the ungrateful tenants did) to succeed apart from being of profit to others.

Too often I fail to cultivate in my life a spirit of gratitude to God and my neighbor for who their labor has made it for me to be successful in my life. And I forget, that my success is not only dependent upon my neighbor's, but, in imitation of the example of Christ, I am only successful to the degree that I labor on my neighbor's behalf. I cannot develop the gifts God has given me if I am indifferent, much less hostile, to helping you develop the gifts God has given you.

Sometimes I am asked, "How do you build a parish?" or "What's the secret to being a successful evangelist or missionary?" The answer is simply: Guided by the Tradition of the Church, I need to us all the resources at my disposal, personal, professional, pastoral, for the good of the person right in front of me. And as part of that work, as I have suggested before, I need to respect not only the conscience of the Church (as expressed in Holy Tradition), but also the conscience of the person I am caring for, as well my own conscience. In the latter two instances this more often then not means not only respecting the person's (and my own) limitations, but seeing these limitations as a positive invitation to become co-labor's for each other's well-being and for the life of the world.

To do less then this is to repeat the sin of the ungrateful tenants and assume (wrongly as it turns out) that if we "kill" the son "the inheritance shall be ours" (v. 38). It is this, more than anything else, that keeps our parishes from growing not only numerically, but spiritually.

And yet, at the same time, God is patient and waits for our repentance. What does this repentance look like? Simply put, we cultivate gratitude in our lives for the work of God and neighbor on our behalf, and we in turn work not simply for our own good, but for our neighbors' well-being also.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Why Boring Liturgy is Good--Or At Least Not Bad

Debra Dean Murphy at the Ekkelsia Project has some interesting things to say about Liturgy and human emotions. Her main point is that, in a certain sense, Liturgy is "supposed to be boring, or at least seriously underwhelming."

This I think is a serious challenge to what is sometimes overdone approach to Liturgy in some Orthodox parishes. The parish is not Hagia Sophia during the time of the Emperor Justinian or Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow.

If boring isn't quite right, maybe a bit of simplicity. For example in some smaller communities, especially missions, Vespers & Orthros are often simply intoned and the Divine Liturgy is sung simply by the congregation lead by a chanter.

Anyway, if you are interested in Debra Murphy's thought you can read more here: Just There.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Doug Giles: Imprecatory Prayer: The Intercessor's Elephant Gun

Doug Giles at Townhall.com has an interesting essay on imprecatory prayer or

prayer asking God to crush a clear enemy of His, an enemy which is an aggressive adversary of freedom and peace loving people. Yes, Mr. and Mrs. Precious Moments Figurine Collector, the Bible is filled with maledictions prayed by saints and speedily answered by God against violently impenitent enemies of liberty and righteousness.

While I'm not sure I agree with everything he says, it is an essay worth reading.

He concludes his essay with this:

Of the 150 psalms contained in the Bible's prayer book, i.e., the Psalms, 104 are imprecations. Hello! Also, these psalms are to be sung and read, unedited, during the worship service (Ephesians 5.19). For an irrefutable book on this hot topic, check out James Adams?s work War Psalms of the Prince of Peace. In the mean time, here?s a short list of imprecatory psalms: Psalm 5, 7, 9, 10, 17, 25, 28, 31, 35, 40, 41, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 63, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 79, 83, 94, 104, and 109.

Take a look at the whole essay over at Townhall.com.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

What Kind of Sandwhich Am I?

You Are a Ham Sandwich

You are quiet, understated, and a great comfort to all of your friends. Over time, you have proven yourself as loyal and steadfast. And you are by no means boring. You do well in any situation - from fancy to laid back. Your best friend: The Turkey Sandwich Your mortal enemy: The Grilled Cheese Sandwich

What Kind of Sandwich Are You?

Moving Beyond Zero Sum

BBC News reports this morning that "The international aid group, Care, has rejected a [food] donation of $45m (£22.7m) from the United States government." The story continues:

Care criticised the way US food aid is distributed, saying it harms local farmers, especially in Africa.

It said wheat donated by the US government and distributed by charities introduced low prices that local farmers are unable to compete with.

But USAid says assessments are carried out to try to ensure that commodities do not disrupt local production.

Correspondents says disagreements have emerged in the US aid community on the best way to use food aid.

"We came to the realisation that if we wanted to do what was in the best interest of poor people and efficiency in aid, that this wasn't it," Care President Helene Gayle told Reuters news agency.

Care said it did not oppose emergency food aid during periods of drought or famine.

But the group said the US government's method of food aid did not help communities which were permanently in need.

I'm struck by this story because it calls in to question are naive thought that simply "intending good" is the same as "doing good." But in fact, as the above news report suggests, sometimes doing what we think is good--and might even be good in the short term--has negative consequences in the long term.

Likewise we often discover that doing this or that particular good thing, precludes are doing other, equally good things. For example, if I give $5.00 to a homeless man on the street I don't have that money to say, give to the Church to spend on mission work. Granted the example is simplistic, but it is offered for illustrative purposes only.

In the background of all of this is what we might call a "zero sum" approach to the various good works of the Church. What is zero sum? Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, describes it this way:

In game theory, zero-sum describes a situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s). It is so named because when the total gains of the participants are added up, and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero. Chess and Go are examples of a zero-sum game: it is impossible for both players to win. Zero-sum can be thought of more generally as constant sum where the benefits and losses to all players sum to the same value. Cutting a cake is zero- or constant-sum because taking a larger piece reduces the amount of cake available for others. In contrast, non-zero-sum describes a situation in which the interacting parties' aggregate gains and losses is either less than or more than zero.

While there is much in the tradition of the Church--East and West--that is incalculably value for our spiritual lives, we need to exercise a bit of prudence that we not uncritically take over the zero-sum world view that is common in many pre-modern (i.e., pre-capitalist) cultures.

Often in our conversation about the spiritual life and the life of the Church we in fact do fall into looking at reality as a zero-sum game. We think there is only one way to be good and when that happens we hold on to this one good thing even in the face of evidence to the contrary (like in the BBC story above).

Take for example the resistance we often encounter in parishes when they begin to add new members either through transfer from other parishes or by conversion. The concern is often raised by the established members that the "new people" are changing everything.

In a sense of course they are. A parish is a fairly complex social group. New members invariably change the relational dynamics in the community much the same way as adding rocks to a stream can change not only the flow of water within the stream, but even cause the stream to over flow its banks. Adding rocks doesn't just change the internal dynamics of the stream, it makes a "new" stream, that is, it changes how the stream interacts with the larger environment.

When we added new people to a parish, yes, things change and sometime, as when the circumstances of our personal lives change, new situations bring new stresses. But new people in a parish also allow us to discover new understandings of ourselves as a community, new insights into what God would call us to do, and even new opportunities for service. If we allow ourselves to welcome new people into our lives, they, like new situations, make it possible for us to discover new gifts in ourselves. And all of this is possible because the Christian life is not a zero-sum game. Life in Christ, St Paul tells us, means moving "from glory to glory" (2 Cor 3.18).

This phrase, "from glory to glory," was a special favorite of St Gregory Nyssa. He writes:

[Let] no one be grieved if he sees in his nature a penchant for change. Changing in everything for the better, let him exchange "glory for glory," becoming greater through daily increase, ever perfecting himself and never arriving too quickly at the limit of perfection. For this is truly perfection: never to stop growing toward what is better and never placing any limits to perfection.

Taken up in faith, hope and love, change in ourselves, our communities and the world around us isn't to be feared, but raced towards--a passage from "glory to glory." But this requires from us not only detachment in a spiritual sense, but also a basic sense of trust and a relaxed psychological openness to the world around us. This trusting openness, this detachment, is not possible however, if we allow ourselves to become run down trying to manage and control every element of our lives.

Again we see this in parishes that simply won't change. Eventually the desire to not change, to remain the same, takes over and soon not only are new people, new ideas and new ways of doing thing threatening, even the same old people, ideas and ways of doing things become a source of anxiety. Why? Because like it or not, things and people simply change--we can't remain static in our spiritual lives or our community lives without doing violence to others and ultimately ourselves.

In the end a zero-sum approach to life fosters in us fear and suspicion. Paradoxically, the harder we hold on to "the way things have always been," the less secure they become. Like trying to hold tightly on to water, it just doesn't work.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

The Role of the Theotokos in the Catholic/Orthodox Dialog

Fr Maximos, a hieromonk at Holy Resurrection Monastery (Byzantine Catholic) and the lead voice behind the blog The Anastasis Dialogue, this morning posted an audio file of a sermon by the abbot of the monastery Fr Nicholas. If you have a moment, I would encourage you to listen to the sermon here: Dormition Sermon.

In his sermon, Fr Nicholas argues, not convincingly to my mind, that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches share the same basic faith about the Mother of God. I have heard that before and, like arguments that advance the notion that Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same God, I wish it were so, but it just isn't or to be fairer about it, it isn't true without qualifications.

Yes, Catholics and Orthodox Christians give Mary the first place in the communion of saints. And yes, we both see the Virgin as the Mother of God, the icon of the Church and the exemplar of Christian discipleship. And while both Churches would refer to Mary as "sinless" (Panagia, "All-holy" in Greek), the Orthodox see the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception (Mary being conceived in the womb of St Anna without stain of original sin) as at best theologumena (theological opinion, albeit not necessarily an opinion without value), if not outright innovation.

We also both hold to the virgin birth and her perpetual, lifelong, virginity. And while we both celebrate liturgically her birth, her presentation in the Temple, and her conception of the Christ, we diverge somewhat about the facts pertaining to the beginning and the end of her earthly life, specifically her conception (see above) and her death.

For the Orthodox, Mary dies, she "falls asleep," and so we celebrate her "Dormition." Roman Catholic celebrate Mary's Assumption. For me at least (and I am more than willing to be corrected) the question of her death is not as clear in the Roman Catholic teaching that only says "when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory." To my reading the fact of her death is left open to interpretation.

So yes, there is much convergence--but also some divergence. Whether this divergence is minor enough for us to say we hold to the same faith about the Theotokos is for the Orthodox Church, at least, an open question.

Where I agree with, or at least am intrigued by, Fr Nicholas is his contention that rather then looking to the icon of SS Peter and Paul as the icon of Catholic/Orthodox relations, we should look instead to the icon of the Dormition. In his reworking of the icon, he envisions Latin priests on one side of Mary and Orthodox priests on the other. And slowly, the two sides slowly come together in the regard for the Theotokos. Leaving aside the absence of the laity in his sermon, I think there is some merit to Fr Nicholas's image.

Ecumenical dialog is often undertaken in a masculine key--it is as if Peter and Paul are still arguing. Might not there be something to be said for taking a more Marian key in our conversation? Might it not advance the cause of reconciliation if we focused not simply on doctrine, but also on how can we help each conceive and give birth to God the Word?

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

To Which Church Do You Belong?

So to which Christian communities do the readers of Koinonia belong?

1. Eastern Orthodox (67)
2. Oriental Orthodox (3)
3. Roman Catholic (54)
4. Eastern Catholic (10)
5. Mainline Protestant (9)
6. Evangelical Christian (10)
7. Nondeminational (1)
8. Not Christian (0)
9. None (1)

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

The Dormition of our Most Holy Lady the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary

Apolytikion in the First Tone

In birth, you preserved your virginity; in death, you did not abandon the world, O Theotokos. As mother of life, you departed to the source of life, delivering our souls from death by your intercessions.

Kontakion in the Second Tone

Neither the grave nor death could contain the Theotokos, the unshakable hope, ever vigilant in intercession and protection. As Mother of life, He who dwelt in the ever-virginal womb transposed her to life.

Reading:

Concerning the Dormition of the Theotokos, this is what the Church has received from ancient times from the tradition of the Fathers. When the time drew nigh that our Savior was well-pleased to take His Mother to Himself, He declared unto her through an Angel that three days hence, He would translate her from this temporal life to eternity and bliss. On hearing this, she went up with haste to the Mount of Olives, where she prayed continuously. Giving thanks to God, she returned to her house and prepared whatever was necessary for her burial. While these things were taking place, clouds caught up the Apostles from the ends of the earth, where each one happened to be preaching, and brought them at once to the house of the Mother of God, who informed them of the cause of their sudden gathering. As a mother, she consoled them in their affliction as was meet, and then raised her hands to Heaven and prayed for the peace of the world. She blessed the Apostles, and, reclining upon her bed with seemliness, gave up her all-holy spirit into the hands of her Son and God.

With reverence and many lights, and chanting burial hymns, the Apostles took up that God-receiving body and brought it to the sepulchre, while the Angels from Heaven chanted with them, and sent forth her who is higher than the Cherubim. But one Jew, moved by malice, audaciously stretched forth his hand upon the bed and immediately received from divine judgment the wages of his audacity. Those daring hands were severed by an invisible blow. But when he repented and asked forgiveness, his hands were restored. When they had reached the place called Gethsemane, they buried there with honor the all-immaculate body of the Theotokos, which was the source of Life. But on the third day after the burial, when they were eating together, and raised up the artos (bread) in Jesus' Name, as was their custom, the Theotokos appeared in the air, saying "Rejoice" to them. From this they learned concerning the bodily translation of the Theotokos into the Heavens.

These things has the Church received from the traditions of the Fathers, who have composed many hymns out of reverence, to the glory of the Mother of our God (see Oct. 3 and 4).

Reading courtesy of Holy Transfiguration Monastery
Apolytikion courtesy of Narthex Press
Kontakion courtesy of Narthex Press
Icon courtesy of Theologic Systems

Would you like to receive the daily saints and feasts via email? Sign up here.

There Will Be Wars...

I woke up this morning to Garrison Keller's radio program on National Public Radio The Writer's Almanac. He began by reminds us that,

Today is the anniversary of the day on which President Harry Truman announced that the Second World War had come to an end. You might argue that more human beings were happy on this day in 1945 than on any other day in history.

It was the worst war in history. An estimated 60 million people died; about two-thirds of them were civilians. In the United States, the war had been going on for three years and eight months. About one in every eight Americans served in the war—more than 16 million American soldiers. Virtually every American family had at least one member overseas. With 400,000 Americans killed, most families knew somebody who had died in the war, and the most American casualties had come in the last year of the war.

He goes on to recount that until President Truman's announcements most Americans "believed that the war was far from over" and so were taken by complete surprise at its end. "There were," he says, "spontaneous celebrations and parades in every major city in America." In New York City alone, "more than a million people filled the streets, overflowing Times Square, the crowd stretching from 40th all the way up to 52nd street. Factories blew their whistles. Air raid sirens went off. Ships and trains and cars honked their horns. Churches tolled their bells."

But what was most noteworthy was not what people did or said, but what was not said. According to "commentators . . . at the time . . . nobody shouted, 'We've won the war!' or anything about triumph. They simply shouted, 'The war is over!'"

While wars are sometimes, often in fact, necessary, there are from the Christian viewpoint no victors. It is easy to forget that, as Jesus reminds us in the Gospel, until the final coming of the Kingdom of God

And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom (Mt 24.6-7).

The conflict that rages between nations, in the war in Iraq for example, is rooted ultimately reflects not politics or economics, but in the conflict that divides each human heart. We are at war with each other because we are each of us at war with ourself and ultimately God. Even if in this fallen world war is sometimes necessary, and even a relatively good thing, it also represent the depth to which we have fallen

Jesus situates His comments about war between a warning of the coming of the anti-Christs (v. 4: ""And Jesus answered and said to them: "Take heed that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many." and of natural disasters (v. 7: "And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places"). The conflict that infects the human heart and human relationships, then, extends beyond us to include nature as well.

The task of Christians is twofold.

One the one hand, certainly we are to work for peace and the justice that brings peace. And this not only on the political level, but especially on the personal level. Above all the Church is meant to be the living sign of the peaceable Kingdom that the human heart longs for, even if we often give expression to that desire in less then peaceful ways.

But on the other hand, we must also maintain a certain reserve and even skepticism relative to the work of peacemaking, No matter how hard we work, and we should work hard, conflict will remain in the human community until Christ returns in Glory.

Garrison Keller's poem for this morning was "The Worriers' Guild," by Philip F. Deaver, from How Men Pray ©. Anhinga Press (buy now).

Today there is a meeting of the

Worriers' Guild,
and I'll be there.
The problems of Earth are
to be discussed
at length
end to end
for five days
end to end
with 1100 countries represented
all with an equal voice
some wearing turbans and smocks
and all the men will speak
and the women
with or without notes
in 38 languages
and nine different species of logic.
Outside in the autumn
the squirrels will be
chattering and scampering
directionless throughout the town
because
they aren't organized yet.

If there is something to be said for working to end the "problems of Earth," there is also something to be said for remembering that, no matter how hard we work, the "squirrels wil be chattering and scampering directionless" indifferent to our best efforts.

"Work as if everything depended upon you," St Augustine counsels, "but pray as if everything depended upon God."

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Who Will Be Saved?

In the Gospel for August 19th, the Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost (Mt 19.16-26), we hear about the encounter between Jesus and the rich young man. After being told that perfection requires that he sell all he have, give the proceeds to the poor, and become himself a disciple of Jesus, the young man "went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions" (v. 22). As the young man turns and leaves, Jesus says "to His disciples, 'Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God'" (vv. 23-24). In response to this teaching of Jesus the disciples " were greatly astonished, saying, 'Who then can be saved?'" (v. 25).

This question of the disciples is key to our understanding of the Gospel: Who can be saved?

Certainly not the rich young man, at least not at the moment in his life when we meet him. When he is offered salvation he simply walks away. St John Chrysostom in his homily (Homily 63) on this passage cautions us that while the young man is "avaricious and greedy since Christ showed him up as such" we ought not to think him "a dissembler," who was simply trying to trick Jesus. We know that the young man was sincere in his question to Jesus for two reason.

First, Chrysostom tells us, we have the testimony of the Apostle Mark. In Mark's Gospel (1o.17, 21) the man is shown running up to Jesus "and kneeling before him" asks what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus, for his part according to Mark, looks at the young man with love. So both the young man's own behavior in asking the question as well as Jesus' gentle, even affection, response suggests that whatever his other faults he wasn't trying to trick Jesus.

But Chrysostom offers us a second reason for not doubt the sincerity of the young man. St John tells us that the young man "seems ready to do what he would be told." The young man was well disposed toward obedience. Had his heart been otherwise, had his intent been "to put Jesus to the test, the Evangelist would have give some indication of this as he does in other cases." And so

If the young man had come to test him, he would not have retreated downcast at what he heard. This never happened to any of the Pharisees. When refuted they were all the more angry. This man was not angry. He went away in sorrow, which is no little signal that he did not come t0him with evil intent.

Well, if the young man did not come with evil intent, what was the problem, why didn't he follow Jesus? Chrysostom says though he did not come withe evil intent, the young man "did come with too weak a will." St John continues:

Truly he did desire life but was held in the grip of a serious moral infirmity. When therefore Christ said, "If you would enter life, keep the commandments," he said "Which?" not putting him to the test--far from it--but because he thought that there were some other ones beside those in the law which could bring him life. So he seems quite earnest.

Though he is sincere, the young man is weak willed. St Jerome in his Commentary on Matthew points of that divine grace is never lacking and so for this reason it "is in our power whether we wish to be perfect." But perfection demands not simply that we "sell . . . in part, . . . but sell . . . all." And even this is insufficient Jerome says

unless after despising riches [we follow] the Savior, that is, abandon evil and [do] good. For easily is a little purse despised than one's will. Many abandon their wealth but do not follow the Savior. To follow the Savior is to be an imitator if him and walk in his steps, Anyone who says that he believes in Christ must himself also walk in the steps he walked in.

It is this last thing that the young man lacked. It was less that he was unwilling to follow Jesus and more that he was unwilling to imitate him. But again, we ought not to judge him harshly for this since. Yes, "he put great trust in wealth" but because he "was a young man." He was, in St Hilary of Poiters' phrase trapped in "an arrested adolescence."

Here I think developmental psychology can help us. The difference between and adolescent and an adult is not that one loves and the other doesn't. Rather it is that the adult is willing to love sacrificially and do so for the good of others. The young man was willing to keep the law for his own sake--but unwilling to go beyond the law for the sake of others. He would not use his wealth for the salvation of others.

St Cyril of Alexandria tells us that while the law isn't perfect, it "is a kind of introduction to the eternal life, briefly acquainting trainees to the things above." How can the law do this? Because it "is the starting point for social justice." He continues, "For the beginning of good is to act justly, . . . [and just] action . . . is shown by the law, . . . [even as] goodness is shown by Christ." The young man in refusing to imitate Christ showed himself unwilling to become perfect. Like adolescents everywhere, he preferred the lesser good of justice, but refused to go beyond justice and commit himself to the greater good of sacrificial love which in the end brings the only lasting justice since love reconciles us not only to God, but to one another and to ourselves.

So, who then can be saved?

St John Chrysostom says that Christ promises "a significant reward for the wealthy who can practice self-denial." But this ascetical exertion isn't meant to be an end in itself, but rather is in the service of the salvation of others. Think about the disciples at the very end of the Gospel reading. When they heard how hard salvation is they were clearly upset. "But why were they upset," Chrysostom asks, "since they were poor, very poor in fact?"

They were upset for others' salvation and because they possessed great love towards them all. Already they were taking on the tenderness of teachers. At least they were in such trembling and fear for the whole world from Jesus declaration as to need much comfort.

So what about us? What are we to do in response to the teaching the Gospel reading puts in front of us? Again, from Chrysostom's homily:

If you want also to learn the way and how the impossible becomes possible, listen. He did not make this statement that what is impossible for man is possible for God merely so you could relax and do nothing and leave it all to God. No, he said this so you could understand the importance of calling upon God to give you help in this rigorous contest and that you might ready approach his grace.

Like the disciples in the Gospel, all of us who are in Christ have been called to be witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We are each of us called personally by Christ to evangelize the world around. We are each of us called to put the salvation of others at the center of our lives and to prefer nothing else to obedience to our great calling.

So who will be saved?

Only those who make the salvation of others their concern. For most of us our spiritual lives never seem to ever quite get started, or if we start we quickly run out of energy, we stall out. I would suggest that, like the rich young man in the Gospel, this happens because we fail to imitate Christ, we fail to be concerned for the salvation of others. But when we work to advance the Gospel, to bring others not simply to Church, but to Christ in and through the things His Church offers (prayer, fasting, Scripture, the Fathers and above all the sacraments), growth in the spiritual life, peace, love and joy really do become ours even if the circumstances of our lives are not what we would hope.

At the end of Matthew's Gospel (28.19-20), Jesus tells us

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

St John Chrysostom says in his homily (Homily 90) that Jesus "does not scold Peter for his denial or anyone of the others for their flight." Rather, after putting "into their hands a summary of Christian teaching, which is expressed in the form of baptism, he commands them to go out into the whole world."

If we would be saved then, like the disciples and unlike the rich young man, we must be faithful to this final command of Christ.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

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!