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

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

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 women consecrated in celibacy; and priests. Today, there are over 6,000 committed members of the Community in nearly 50 different countries. These include 140 priests, 120 seminarians, 15 permanent deacons, 150 sisters and 15 brothers consecrated in celibacy.

A layman, Pierre Goursat founded the community in Paris, France, in 1976. In 1998, the Vatican officially recognized the community statutes.

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 "Emmanuel", "God with us".

While 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.

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

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

Remember the tale of the Titanic? How it was supposed to be impregnable, and nothing could poke holes in it? How it would never be sunk? Well all I can say is that human hubris knows no bounds, and that hasn’t changed in the last century. On April 15^th 1912 the supposedly leak proof Titanic rammed into an iceberg and sank—sank like a giant stone. Sank quickly, with great loss of life.

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 4^th. 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

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

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

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

Patriarchial Sermon on Liturgy

Patriarch Bartholomew's sermon during the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Constantinople.

The Orthodox Church-A Visual Presentation

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)

This week marks the 34^th 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.

From my point of view, the key issue concerning abortion is not whether the unborn child is in fact a human being; to the best of my knowledge, no one denies the humanity of the child. The real question is why do women choose abortion? What makes abortion a regrettable, but nevertheless tenable, option for so many women?

Psychological studies that have examined the motivation of women seeking abortions report that often women have abortion because they are afraid of losing an important relationship (usually the baby's father or her own family) if she carries the baby to term. The concern is more than simply a matter of censure; if the woman carries the baby to term she fears (rightly or wrongly) that a significant relationship will be destroyed. In effect, one primary factor in abortion is how strong the bond is between the woman and family and friends. In situations where the woman's relationship to the community is fragile, abortion is relatively common; if that relationship is strong and thus not easily ruptured, abortion is relatively rare.

Because American religious leaders are divided about the politics and morality of abortion, we often fail to address the more basic issue of the fragile relationship between people that seems to be increasingly the norm in our culture. Our acrimonious debates about abortion prevent us from speaking with one voice to a culture that is increasingly willing to see human relationships, even important relationships that we would assume to be lifelong, as disposable.

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

Personal, Passionate Relationships

Bernadette over at Intentional Disciples writes:

After reading the magazine article, the NYT articles on the Ark of Salvation church and Pentecostalism and the various posts here, it seems to me that the critical issues in determining whether one responds to Jesus and the Holy Spirit in a Catholic context or in a Evangelical or Pentecostal setting are (1) does the person have an encounter with the person of Jesus, as both human (someone who cares about what's happening to them) and divine (someone who can do something about what is happening to them), and (2) do they encounter and develop a relationship with someone who they know is 100% human but operating with divine power, in the Spirit, with a charism operative.

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

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.

Creation, Creativity and Humility

An interesting observation from Finnish theologian Patrik Hagman's blog God in a Shrinking Universe. In his reflection on the systematic theological work of Panneberg, Hagman writes:

It is my firm belief that to be a Christian involves cultivating one's creativity. We believe in a God who created heaven and earth out of the ouk on. Divine creativity, according to Christian doctrine, is not about systemizing pre-existent ideas, it is bringing into being that which previously was not.

Obviously, as creations we cannot create ex nihilo, but we are still called to be the likeness of God. Creativity is what we are called to.

The gnostic notion of creation is stable. It is perfect (and thus evil, even the gnostic recognized that). This is not the case of the Christian notion. Even when God creates the result is not perfect, but it is good. God's creation has this element of insecurity in it, something that makes it alive. Maybe this is a way of understanding evil - it has to be to make creation able to move. (I know, this is metaphysics, don't use this in counseling...) Anyway, this, too is the case of human creativity - its goal is not to make something perfect, it is to make something that is alive.

What immediately comes to mind for me in Hagman's comments is that theological creativity is not a matter so much of doing something new for newness sake. Instead we are called to bringing life to something that is dead. Or maybe I should say we are called by Christ to enliven modes of speaking about the Christian faith that have grown stale and dull. How much, for example, of today passes for theology and theological scholarship is not only intellectually rigorous and challenging, but able to lift the heart and mind to God in prayer and contemplation?

A lively theology, because it aims at being "good" and even "beautiful" rather than "perfect," is "easy to criticize." This is inescapably the case if, in imitation of God, our theological scholarship--and really any scholarship worthy of the name Christian--has the same open-end quality that God gives to His creation. Again, Hagman's point is well taken, creation is not "perfect," but "good," and even "very good." As a result "God's creation has this element of insecurity in it." But it is creations' " very insecurity that makes it alive."

As creatures we cannot be alive without also being dynamic. God has created us to be ever changing, ever growing not only relative to the creation and ourselves and , but above all in our relationship with Him. If there is one word that does not describe a healthy relationship with Christ it is static. While Jesus Christ is "the same yesterday, today, and forever," I am not. To dismiss the changeability of the human as a defect, or worse a consequence of sin, shows a profound lack of gratitude to my Creator.

We are not God, but human beings; we are not Infinite, but finite; we are not Eternal, but temporal. And it is the latter qualities (qualities that a gnostic theology would dismiss) that make it possible for us to grow in holiness, to grow in love, and the knowledge of the truth.

Christian scholarship rightly understood is dynamic and life-giving. Yes this means a certain degree of insecurity, but it is the insecurity that is our lot as sinners in rebellion from our Creator. To flee that insecurity and take refugee in a static theological system--no matter how doctrinally orthodox--is no solution.

We should rather take up in faith the task of reflecting on reality. If this is done in a faith-filled manner it will demand of us the humility of a creature in the face of his Creator. Humility, as G.K. Chesterton reminds us, is a matter of "holding. . . ourselves lightly and yet ready for an infinity of unmerited triumphs." The world, and this includes "Christian" scholars, holds humility in contempt. For all its sophistication and valuing of success and practicality, the world (and "Christian" scholarship) cannot understand that

Humility is so practical a virtue that men think it must be a vice. Humility is so successful that it is mistaken for pride. It is mistaken for it all the more easily because it generally goes with a certain simple love of splendour which amounts to vanity. Humility will always, by preference, go clad in scarlet and gold; pride is that which refuses to let gold and scarlet impress it or please it too much. In a word, the failure of this virtue actually lies in its success; it is too successful as an investment to be believed in as a virtue. Humility is not merely too good for this world; it is too practical for this world; I had almost said it is too worldly for this world.

The lively scholarship that Christians are called to engage in is nothing more or less than a life of intellectual humility. Again Chesterton:

It will indeed be difficult, in the present condition of current thought about such things as pride and humility, to answer the query of how a man can be humble who does such big things and such bold things. For the only answer is the answer which I gave at the beginning of this essay. It is the humble man who does the big things. It is the humble man who does the bold things. It is the humble man who has the sensational sights vouchsafed to him, and this for three obvious reasons: first, that he strains his eyes more than any other men to see them; second, that he is more overwhelmed and uplifted with them when they come; third, that he records them more exactly and sincerely and with less adulteration from his more commonplace and more conceited everyday self. Adventures are to those to whom they are most unexpected--that is, most romantic. Adventures are to the shy: in this sense adventures are to the unadventurous.

Life is so much more than we deserve. But again as Chesterton observes, the "truth is that there are no things for which men will make such herculean efforts as the things of which they know they are unworthy." After all there "never was a man in love who did not declare that, if he strained every nerve to breaking, he was going to have his desire. And there never was a man in love who did not declare also that he ought not to have it. The whole secret of the practical success of Christendom lies in the Christian humility, however imperfectly fulfilled."

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Is this Your Jesus?

With much thanks to Andy at Think Christian:



For too many of us Jesus comes and brings not a word of liberation and new life, but petty condemnation. While the video does a good job of poking fun at some typical Evangelical Christian misconceptions about Jesus the insight is just as applicable to Orthodox Christians.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Faith that Overcomes the World

In a speech given in London (June 2, 2005) Fr. Raniero Cantalamess, OFM Cap, Preacher to the Papal Household said that Christianity is first and foremost about the Person of Jesus Christ. If we forget this, if he says we make doctrine and moral obligations primary and Jesus secondary, we distort the Gospel. He continues by observing that :

In connection with this [tendency to make tradition primary and Jesus secondary], a serious pastoral problem now exists. Churches with a strong dogmatic and theological tradition (as the traditional Churches and especially the Catholic Church are) sometimes find themselves at a disadvantage, owing to their very wealth and complexity of doctrine and institutions, when dealing with a society that has in large degree lost its Christian faith and that consequently needs to start again at the beginning, that is to say, by rediscovering Jesus Christ.

Friar Raniero's observation is as applicable to the situation of the Orthodox Church as they are to his own Roman Catholic Church. For too many Orthodox Christians, the Gospel is not about a life-changing encounter with Jesus Christ, but (at best) a matter of being faithful to the tradition or of being faithful to one own cultural inheritance. In the worse cases, the Gospel in met with indifference and even hostility, as something that gets in the way of life instead of the Gospel being the Way of Life.

Commenting on Fr Raniero's words, Fr Mike Fones O.P., in his blog Intentional Discipleship writes that:

In the preaching, catechesis, sacramental preparation, service projects, and community-building events that take place in our parishes, perhaps we've forgotten or obscured the 'primordial nucleus' of the Gospel message that awakens faith. It is the transforming power of a personal relationship with Jesus, made possible by his grace and the hearing of the basic message of the Gospel, that sets hearts on fire with faith and love. It is intentional discipleship that compels people to desire to encounter Christ in the Mass and other sacraments and to rely on that encounter to continue as his disciples. It is intentional discipleship kept alive by a daily reliance on grace that fuels the Catholic Christian's desire to learn more about Christ in the Scriptures, and to seek the teaching of the Church as a guide for daily life. Dare I say it - it is intentional discipleship in our clergy that leads to inspiring, challenging, creative, passionate, orthodox homilies.

While the tradition of the Orthodox Church is profoundly rich, the sad fact is that for the majority of Orthodox Christians here in the U.S. at least, that tradition doesn't make a bit of difference. And while the clergy are often more knowledgeable about the tradition, the tradition, if not a dead letter, is a tool that they often don't know how to use because, like the laity the serve, they have never really been formed as disciples of Jesus Christ.

As I have had the opportunity over the last 10 years, first in the Pacific Northwest and now in Western Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio, to get to know more and more people, Orthodox Christians or not, I have become more convinced then every that there is power in the tradition of the Orthodox Church. This power is a power to transform lives, to lift people out of the effects of sin--both their own and other people's. This power is there for the taking--the grace is there, it isn't lack. What is lack, however, is our freedom.

We rather worry about jurisdictional, hierarchical and clerical prerogatives then the Gospel. We are more concerned with fund raising to build buildings, than evangelism and spiritual direction to build the Church. This has to come to an end now.

Rightly, I think, Fr Mike observes that new programs are not going to work. What is needed is "preaching the heart of the Gospel and inviting people into a lived relationship with Christ." He continues that "Unless we identify our intentional disciples in our midst, support them, hold them up as the norm for Christian living, and give them tools with which to evangelize others, we will continue to see the seed of faith planted in the hearts of baptized Catholics bloom in Evangelical churches."

But for this to work, we must foster trust in all levels of the Church. Trust is the psychological foundation of faith--without a trusting relationship faith simply will not grow. If anything the lack of committed Orthodox Christians (and committed Roman Catholics for that matter) suggests that--for all our rich patrimony--there is a painful absence of trust in the Orthodox (and Catholic) Church (-es).

I have seen the faith of the Orthodox Church overcome the world--what we must now do is allow that same faith to overcome the Church.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Catholic/Orthodox Relations

From my comment at Amy Welborn's blog, "Open Book":

First, I thank everyone for their kind responses.

Yes there are serious theological disagreements that separate Catholics and Orthodox, but (as the posters all suggest) there is also a rather serious lack of grass roots sympathy between the two communities as well. And this lack of sympathy while it my often take the form of Catholic vs. Orthodox is probably at least as much a result of a lack of understanding between Eastern and Western Christians.

Having followed these discussions for a while now (20+ years), I find that unless we can avoid the temptation to point out the injustices one side has committed against the other we get no where.

Fr Elijah's comments are quite sobering. If we continue we continue as we have, we will very soon have lived most of our lives apart from one another and this is not only a sad commentary, it is an offense against Christ.

Speaking only for myself, I do not see much hope of grass roots movement towards reconciliation of Catholics and Orthodox happening in Europe. Humanly speaking, I believe that the best hope for this type of reconciliation is in the United States where Catholics and Orthodox, as well as Eastern and Western Christians, share a common language and culture.

This is not to suggest theological dialog in the US or in Europe shouldn't continue--it certainly should.

As a practical matter though I think that the personal and pastoral relations we need to build are best built in America. Don't underestimate the importance, as TM Lutas's words suggest, that in the US we are physically safe in our pursuit of reconciliation with each other.

I am sorry for the harshness that Catholics have reported in their encounters with Orthodox clergy and laity. Alas we have our bullies. For what it might be worth, I've encounter my own share of Orthodox bullies as well.

After such encounters I find myself tempted to dwell on the offense. But, at least in my more lucid moments, I avoid that temptation (thank God). If for no other reason then my own peace of soul, I find it best to seek out those with whom I can be friends and go from there.

Catholic (Latin or Eastern) and Orthodox who can, and want, to work together are I think in the majority. Speaking for the Orthodox side of the conversation, we are often insecure and have not learned how to keep our bullies in check. Maybe it is because are communities are often still very much immigrant communities, but we need help and encouragement in learning how to stand up to the bullies in our midst.

Sadly,we have people who would (for their own self-aggrandizement) stop the work of reconciliation and we need help in respectfully, but effectively, calling these people to repentance or (failing their willingness to repent) moving forward regardless of their complaints.

Finally, as reluctant penitent points out, recent encounters are miraculous. That being the case, I think it is good to be on guard least we fall prey to our old, bad habits of hostility, suspicion and contempt for each other (and thereby Christ and the Gospel).

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

p.s., I have also posted this on my own blog Koinonia (http://palamas.blogspot.com)