A Response to the American Gnostic (NOT!)

This past week I was in Chicago for our annual clergy conference for the Diocese of the Mid West. Our presenter was Fr Jonathan Tobias, pastor of St John the Baptist Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church in East Pittsburgh, PA.

Fr Jonathan gave three talks on what he called American gnosticism. While I though the talks were interesting, I do have my points of disagreement with his presentation. My primarily disagree is that, like many Orthodox Christians in America, Father uses Evangelical Christianity as his touchstone for an Orthodox understanding of American Christianity. While an argument can be made for this position, I think our focus on Evangelical Christianity means that we are always responding to what is least substantial in American religious experience. My own view is that while we must be mindful of Evangelical Christianity, we would also do well to attend to the influence of Catholicism, and especially the effect of the Aritotlean-Thomistic natural law tradition in American political philosophy and culture.

But I digress.

You can find Fr Jonathan's talks,

Prospects, part 1: Ebb Tide
Prospects, part 2: Bad News before the Good
Pospects, part 3: the American Genius
Prospects, part 4: the American Gospel -- Orthodoxy at the End of the Sawdust Trail


on his most excellent blog "Second Terrace."

But, since it is Saturday, the day I try and post something fun, I have for your consideration the Bad Vicar Sketch from from episode 3 of the BBC series That Mitchell and Webb Look. (Warning, harsh language.)

I'll be back to regular postings on Monday.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

More on Respect

Previously, I outlined what I would call the anthropological imperative for respect (which I described as "contemplative openness" to the work of God in self and others) as the foundational virtue of leadership. What I will do in this post is sketch out the broad outline of a respectful relationship.

With my own parishioners I am clear (well, I think I'm clear, they are the better judge of my clarity on this issue than am I), I do not want, nor do I deserve, their obedience. What I ask for—and I've discussed this in an earlier post, to read it click here—is deference. By deference I mean that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I want the benefit of the doubt for my views about the direction the parish should take. Of course, in phrasing the matter the way I have, I am also inviting criticism and debate of my views. And why not? I can be—and often am—wrong.

My asking for deference is another way of saying that I wish my parishioners to respect my position as the parish priest. As the pastor, I often have access to information that others in the parish do not. Beyond this, however, even if it is more specialized than is the case with most priests, like most Orthodox priest, I also have a very specialized graduate training that (I think) gives me a particular expertise that most of my parishioners simply do not have.

All that said though, as I think about my own role in the parish, I am mindful of the advice I often give people with critically ill children: Your child's doctor is an expert in all children; you are an expert in your child.

Thought of in this way, pastor and parishioners bring different, and usually complimentary, knowledge sets and skills. While I may be expert in this or that aspect of parish life, I do not have the kind of expertise or depth of knowledge as does someone who has lived his or her whole adult life in the parish. One form of expertise is not necessarily better than another, they are simply different.

What should be clear is that respect cannot simply be a one way street. Clergy must not simply ask for respect, we must also offer it to the laity (and to one another, but that is a topic for another day). But this is difficult if the priest (just to look at one side of the relationship, but what I say is equally applicable to the laity and bishops for that matter) if his relationship with others is not proximately ground a self-respect that finds its more remote ground in appreciative, but critical, self-knowledge that it itself ground in a trust in God and His work in the life of the priest.

More often than not the absence of a healthy sense of self-respect reflects not so much the presence of a psychopathology, but a developmental lack. Self-respect is not spontaneous or natural, but rather learned. Since this learning process necessarily includes moments of failure, it is difficult to grow in a healthy regard for self in a social context that (as I've pointed out earlier) equates leadership with a relatively arbitrary collection of skills.

And again, this doesn't mean the skills are not important, just not primary. And again, no list of skills are exhaustive and any attempt to create one is more likely to foster anxiety and a nagging, but nevertheless debilitating, sense of insufficiency.

How then might we foster respect in self and others?

Developmentally, we come to a sense of our own competency through the twin socialization mechanism of conformity to the expectations of our tradition as mediated by our parents AND the willingness of our parents to affirm us even when our behavior fails to measure up the standards of our tradition.

Between children and parents, this largely happens spontaneously. Where things often go wrong is when the relationship between parent and child grows in complexity and so the possibility of real, substantive, but nevertheless legitimate divergence and disagreements. At this point, the natural, more biologically based relationship, needs to be itself re-oriented through critical reflection.

Put another way, we need to think about why it is acceptable to continue to be affirming and respectful of others even when the exercise of their freedom is an challenge to what was once our undisputed authority in their lives.

Using early childhood development as our model, what we see is just as the parents must continually limit themselves in the face of their child's growing sense of self-mastery and freedom, so too the parish priest needs to see his relationship with his parishioners as an act of kenosis as they become ever more capable of directing their own personal and communal spiritual lives.

At this point I need to introduce the concept of subsidiarity, an idea I am borrowing from Roman Catholic social teaching. I find in subsidiarity a helpful insight in coming to value the different expertise that are brought to the parish. Or as St John the Baptist says of himself relative to Christ, "He must increase, but I must decrease." (Jn 3.30)

While such a program of leadership is personally challenging, I would like turn my attention to a more theoretical justification of such an approach. For this reason I will in my next post try and offer a bit of an apology for the principle of subsidiarity as a useful adjunct to Orthodox theological reflection on Church leadership.

Until then, and as always, your comments, questions and criticism are not only welcome but actively sought.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Related articles by Zemanta

• More Thoughts on Trust and Obedience (palamas.info)

An Open Letter to Frank Schaeffer

In the most recent US presidential election a number of Pro-Life advocates came out in support of the Senator Obama. The argument made then was typically some form of the argument made last November by Frank Schaffer in an open letter to President-elect Obama. As I argue below, while I understand why many Americans voted for Mr Obama, I believe those who argue his policies are compatible with a Pro-Life policy position are simply, tragically, wrong. While my letter is address to Frank Schaeffer, I would invite your own thoughts on the matter.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Dear Frank,

On November 12, 2008 you published an open letter to the then newly elected Barack Obama. You title the piece, "An Open Letter to President-Elect Obama About Abortion: From a Pro-Obama and Pro-Life Leader." While I do not dispute your past contributions to the Pro-Life cause, I must take objection to what seems to me to be the faulty moral analysis that underlies your advice to President Obama. To be direct, your argument is neither a Pro-Life argument nor compatible with the historical, Christian faith nor the teaching of the historical Christian Churches, East and West, Orthodox and Catholic. The Church's teaching aside, however, you cannot be, as you claim to be, "pro-life," and argue "that abortion should remain legal." Your arguments are not pro-life but pro-choice.

Let me explain.

You argue that we must reduce the number of abortions, far enough. But you also argue that there is no need for the Democratic Party (and I'm quoting here from your essay) "to give up principles about reproductive rights. In fact, it means that those principles can better be defended in the long term because you will have claimed the moral high ground." In other words, and please correct me if I am wrong here, you argue that reducing the number of abortions is in the service of defending a so called "right to abortion." I'm sorry but this is simply monstrous. In effect your advice to our new president is that he work to help some mothers bring their children to term so that other mothers can maintain the legal right to kill their children!

You agree with President Obama's own argument on the matter, when you say that abortion (and again I'm quoting) "is a moral issue upon which reasonable and honorable people can disagree." Again, this is monstrous—indeed if it were not for the moral horror of this argument it would be laughable. That people disagree over abortion is clear—but it is neither reasonable nor honorable to accept, even regretfully, the proposition that it is morally licit to take an innocent life. And such acceptance is certainly not a pro-life argument.

Let me be clear: Under no circumstance can one sanction the taking of an innocent life. Those who fail to see this, do so because of a grievous moral blindness and hardness of heart.

What I find more is disturbing than intellectual poverty of your moral analysis is your cynical willingness call yourself pro-life while expressing a willingness to sacrifice the lives of the unborn for the sake of national harmony and an end to the culture wars. You contend that, if your advice is followed, the President "will have taken a giant step towards bringing this country together." Whether this is true or not, I cannot say. What I can say is that the willingness to sacrifice innocent lives for the sake of national unity is not the words of someone I can reasonably call pro-life. Your position is morally unacceptable both in light of natural law and the biblical tradition that informs the pro-life opposition to legal abortion.

We cannot as a country simply agree to disagree about the murder of the unborn. To suggest we can is the essence of the pro-choice argument of convenience: "I am personally opposed but…" And yet this is the very argument of you advance when you assure Mr Obama, that (and again assuming he follows your advice) he "will find . . . some new and unexpected allies rooting for [him] on the issues of the economy, service and sacrifice." Specifically you have in mind "millions of Evangelical young people ready to follow your call." That more of these young Evangelical Christians have voted for Mr Obama "than for any Democratic candidate for the presidency post-Roe" is not doubt true. And that many young people, whether Evangelical Christian or not, are "already believe in your vision of service, responsibility and compassion. " Alas, should the president follow your advice, he (and you) can only betray their idealism and desire for service with a false and deceptive hope, since neither he (nor I fear you) take seriously their "moral concern on the issue of life."

Nowhere is the pro-choice character of your argument made clearer than in the parallel you would between President Nixon and President Obama.

In your view of things, abortion can be for Mr Obama his "'Nixon goes to China' moment." You argue that only "a progressive Democrat" (such as President Obama) can "defuse the situation and heal the culture wars in a way that no Republican president has been able to do." How? By using, as you suggest, the presidency as a "'bully pulpit' for life, and a substantive set of a programs to reduce abortions, while also defending Roe. You can do both!"

No, Frank, he can't. Your argument is simply wrong.

Certainly, President Obama's economic plans is something that reasonable and honorable people can disagree over. And while I am willing to entertain the possibility that Mr Obama's policies may, and I must stress MAY, reduce the number of abortions, this is not the salient moral point. But the moral problem does not lie so much with the number of abortions but with the fact that abortion is not only legal in the US but accorded the status of a right. But how can anyone have the right to kill an innocent human being?

Your willingness to accept the continuation of legalized abortion as the law of the land is not compatible with either the Tradition of the Church or natural law; it is certainly not a pro-life position.

I would go further and say that your letter is scandalous. Not only is it such in the popular sense of shocking, but in the technical, theological sense as well. You present yourself as a Christian and a self-professed pro-life leader and yet you offer a public witness that argues for the moral legitimacy of abortion. In suggesting a course of action that allows not only for the upholding of legalized abortion (or as you refer to the euphemistically, "reproductive rights") but also suggests that such a position can reflects "the moral high ground," you are not only morally wrong, but have caused grievous harm to his readers—you have left them with the false notion that a pro-choice position is consonant with the Gospel. It is not.

By all means let us as Christians support Mr Obama when he proposes policies which, to quote His Beatitude Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America, "extend a hand to those suffering from their sins, what ever they are." We have the confidence to do this, no matter what the personal or political cost because by faith we know and proclaim that "There is no sin that cannot be forgiven, save the one we refuse to accept forgiveness for."

At the same time however, we must remind Mr Obama that we cannot simply work to reduce the number of abortions; we must stop abortion. Why? Because as His Beatitude reminds us "Abortion not only destroys the life of the infant; it rips the soul out of the mother (and the father!)," even as our support of abortion has ripped apart the fabric of our society.

From my own pastoral experience I know that abortion is "a sin for which a woman torments herself for years, sinking deeper into despair and self-condemnation and self-hatred. But there is forgiveness, if only she will ask." Sadly your own letter seems to pass over in silence not only the Church's moral witness on this issue. In doing so you minimize the Church's teaching that in Christ those who commit abortion, those who perform abortion and those who—even passively—support abortion "need . . . to repent and accept forgiveness, so that their souls, their memories, and their lives, might be healed."

However well intentioned you might be—and please understand I do not doubt your good intentions—your willingness to support legal abortion is simply wrong.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory Jensen

Eternal Memory: Michael Dubruiel

Please remember in your prayers Amy Wellborn and her family. Her husband, Michael Dubruiel, died suddenly yesterday morning at the gym. For those that want to help in some way, and honor her husband, she suggested that we purchase: The How To Book of the Mass. All proceeds will go to the children's college funds.

May his memory be eternal!

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Respect & the Complexity of our Social Life

eturning to our earlier conversation of the importance of character to effective leadership, what character trait or traits might we look for in those called to a leadership role in the Church? While an argument can be made for the relative primacy of any number of virtues, I increasingly come to think that a key virtue—if not the key virtue—of pastoral leadership is respect. Let me explain.

Both in administrative matters, and especially as it pertains to fostering the spiritual life of parishioners and the whole community, pastoral leadership is (to again borrow from Friedrich Hayek's essay "The Use of Knowledge in Society") a "complex of interrelated decisions about the allocation of our available resources. " Secular "economic activity" and parish leadership are a mode of "planning," that is they are concerned with the allocation of scarce resources. And, just as "in any society in which many people collaborate, this planning, whoever does it, will in some measure have to be based on knowledge which, in the first instance, is not given to the planner but to somebody else, which somehow will have to be conveyed to the planner."

While a concern for skills much be part of how we select both our clergy and lay leadership, the overemphasis on skills leads to (if I borrow again from Hayek) a governance of the parish by "authority," or by a leadership composed "of suitably chosen experts." Ironically, the approach that (tacitly and sometime explicitly) favors skills over character is one that is (in the short term) likely to prove popular and even effective. Why? Because, and again as Hayek observed, "it is today . . . widely assumed that the latter [i.e., 'the experts'] will be in a better position." The Church finds herself in a cultural context in which "one kind of knowledge, namely, scientific knowledge, occupies [a] prominent a place in public imagination."

The adulation of expert knowledge—whether scientific or theological—is possible only to the degree that we "forget that it is not the only kind that is relevant. It may be admitted that, as far as scientific [or really any expert] knowledge is concerned, a body of suitably chosen experts may be in the best position to command all the best knowledge available—though this is of course merely shifting the difficulty to the problem of selecting the experts." And so Hayek concludes, "What I wish to point out is that, even assuming that this problem can be readily solved, it is only a small part of the wider problem."

That wider problem is not one, I would argue, that can be solved since it pertains not to human ingenuity and creativity, but truth. And, as Chesterton reminds us, "truth is stranger than fiction. Truth, of course, must of necessity be stranger than fiction, for we have made fiction to suit ourselves."

But if the myriad practical problems cannot be solved—since any given solution engenders a new set of challenges—we can respond to the problems in a manner that opens us more fully to divine grace both in our own lives and the lives of those entrusted by Christ to our care. Respect is that practical virtue, I would suggest, that allows us to dwell in the midst of the complexity of life (that Hayek describes so well) with a gentle openness and trust in God.

Etymologically, the word respect literally means to look again (from L. respectus "regard," lit. "act of looking back at one," pp. of respicere "look back at, regard, consider," from re- "back" + specere "look at"). Moving from the literal to the connotative, we can think about being respectful as gazing up or looking at someone or something with appreciation, even admiration.

The respectful person than embodies what Adrian van Kaam calls a "contemplative openness" to the world of persons, events and things. At the heart of this openness is the ability and willingness to see the world not in terms of isolated pieces but as an ever expanding whole that both flows from, returns to, and is sustained by, God.

While Hayek's work might seem itself too theoretical for pastoral ministry, the problem he points to is immediately applicable. We can compare the theoretical posturing of the economist who ignores the practical wisdom of the entrepreneur to the pastoral disrespectful leader. In the latter case we see someone who elevates his own partial vision of the parish at the expense of the whole.
The disrespectful leader is disrespectful because his vision is narrow, static and sectarian rather than holistic, dynamic and catholic. Invariably, if not initially, he will seek to control the life of the parish based upon his own egoic vision of what the community "ought" to be.

Contrast this sense of respect to our typical experience of life as not an ever deepening sense of wholeness and support, but rather increasing fragmentation, isolation and competition. It is this second experience that I would characterize as disrespectful or the tendency to ignore the whole in favor of the part. (It is in this sense that we can talk about the logical priority of charity, but the practical priority of respect. Respect looks beyond itself to charity. A fuller explanation of this will have to wait for another time.)

The respectful leader, on the other hand, understand that—even if he should want to do so—he cannot control the parish in any but the smallest details and only then at the expense of committing an offense against the dignity of the person and the prompting of grace in the person's life.

I will in my next post, look in more detail at the practical virtue of respect. Until then, your comments, questions and criticism are not only welcome, they are actively sought.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Related articles by Zemanta

• Hayek on the use of knowledge in society (knowledgepolicy.com)
• More thoughts on Spiritual Direction & Confession: Trust & Obedience (palamas.info)
• More Thoughts on Trust and Obedience (palamas.info)

Leadership & the Complexity of Planning

All virtues are, necessarily, situational. This does not mean that morality is not objective, far from it. Rather, it is only to say that the moral law most always been embodied and so, necessarily, to some degree situational.

Aristotle's discussion in the Nicomachean Ethics of temperance and courage as the midpoint between extremes illustrates the importance of context for any consideration of virtue:"First, then, let us consider this, that it is the nature of such things to be destroyed by defect and excess, as we see in the case of strength and of health (for to gain light on things imperceptible we must use the evidence of sensible things); both excessive and defective exercise destroys the strength, and similarly drink or food which is above or below a certain amount destroys the health, while that which is proportionate both produces and increases and preserves it."

But while the principle of balance is for Aristotle is absolute on the theoretical level, in practice it must always take context in to consideration. And so "the man who flies from and fears everything and does not stand his ground against anything becomes a coward, and the man who fears nothing at all but goes to meet every danger becomes rash; and similarly the man who indulges in every pleasure and abstains from none becomes self-indulgent, while the man who shuns every pleasure, as boors do, becomes in a way insensible; temperance and courage, then, are destroyed by excess and defect, and preserved by the mean." (Bk II.2)

If, as I have argued earlier, the character of the leader is primary and concrete skills secondary, to understand the virtues needed for leadership we have to first understand the context within which the leader is called to serve. In his defense of the free market, the Nobel Prize laureate Friedrich Hayek offers us the insight we need.

Hayek argues that the practical problem with a planned economy is a poverty of information. Not matter how well researched, social interactions are simply too complex, the variables too, well varied, to lend themselves to the kind of analysis and understanding that makes accurate prediction of causal relationships possible. Or, as he argues in "The Use of Knowledge in Society," (with my emphasis)

the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess. The economic problem of society is thus not merely a problem of how to allocate "given" resources—if "given" is taken to mean given to a single mind which deliberately solves the problem set by these "data." It is rather a problem of how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of society, for ends whose relative importance only these individuals know. Or, to put it briefly, it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge which is not given to anyone in its totality.

Increasingly, I find theoretical work in economics increasingly useful for my own systematic reflections on the pastoral life of the Church since (in both cases) the concern is the practical of how the wealth of the community ought best be used.

And if, as Hayek argues, "This character of the fundamental problem" in economics has "been obscured rather than illuminated by many of the recent refinements of economic theory, particularly by many of the uses made of mathematics," I think the pastoral life of the Church has been harmed by a similar, and equally, unwise use of theology. Just as "many of the current disputes with regard to both economic theory and economic policy have their common origin in a misconception about the nature of the economic problem of society" because economists have narrowed their vision to the mathematical, so too the parish suffers a like harm because often we try and impose on the community our own idiosyncratic, abstract, albeit theologically articulated and justified, vision of human life and society.

For Hayek this epistemological question is central to any consideration of economic planning. I would assert that his insight is more broadly applicable to the actual challenge faced by the leadership of any community. This is especially so with, in the parish where we have not only all the varied factors inherent in any social group, but also the added complexity of attending to the mystery of divine grace in the life of both individual parishioners and the parish as a whole. All of this is captured in "ordinary language . . . by the word 'planning.'" Hayek's view of planning resonates with the challenge of pastoral leadership.

In my next post, I want to look with you a bit more at the complexity of parish leadership in light of Hayek's argument of the complexity of economic planning. As I hope to show, while all the Christian virtues are important to pastoral leadership, it is the virtue of respect that is foundational.

Until then, your comments, questions and criticism are not only welcome, they are actively sought.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Related articles by Zemanta

• Hayek on the use of knowledge in society (knowledgepolicy.com)

Bernard of Clairvaux on the Beauty of the Church (1090-1153)

Bernard of Clairvaux on the Beauty of the Church (1090-1153)

God placed all things under Christ\'s feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who filleth all in all (Ephesians 1:22-23).

“Yet there is one who truthfully and unhesitatingly can glory in this praise. She is the Church, whose fulness is a never-ceasing fount of intoxicating joy, perpetually fragrant. For what she lacks in one member, she possesses in another according to the measure of Christ’s gift and the plan of the Spirit who distributes to each one just as he chooses… although none of us will dare arrogate for his own soul the title of bride of the Lord, nevertheless we are members of the Church which rightly boasts of this title and of the reality which it signifies, and hence may justifiably assume a share in her honor. For what all of us simultaneously possess in a full and perfect manner, that each one of us undoubtedly possesses by participation. Thank you, Lord Jesus, for your kindness in uniting us to the Church you so dearly love, not merely that we may be endowed with the gift of faith, but that like brides we may be one with you in an embrace that is sweet, chaste, and eternal, beholding with unveiled faces that glory which is yours in union with the Father and the Holy Spirit for ever and ever. Amen.” (Conclusion of Sermon 12, Sermons on the Song of Songs)

h/t: Theology of the Body.

The 25 Random Things Michael Steel and the New GOP Leadership Should Know...

Thank you to Chrys, who frequently offers his insights here. He emailed me this morning an interesting post by Hugh Hweitt over at Townhall.com. While the post, "The 25 Random Things Michael Steel and the New GOP Leadership Should Know," as Chrys said is "meant to address political concerns, it seems to me that there is a good deal of insight here that would apply to the Church, as well - or at least specific ministries and/or projects within the Church."

I agree with Chrys and I would invite your own thoughts and comments as well.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

p.s., If anyone else has something you think worth including here, please drop me an email!

+FrG

25 Random Things Michael Steel and the New GOP Leadership Should Know

1. Creating messages that move people to action begins with an understanding of the people you want to move.

2. You cannot control the message. You can only tell your side, and hope to influence the general consensus.

3. Popular culture is, far and away, more powerful than political rhetoric.

4. Popular culture can be created. But only with success by those who understand its nature. And even then, it is equal parts art, science, and chance.

5. People no longer interact with products (or causes) on the basis of top-down information. Communication is omnidirectional, and the world is flat.

6. You can\'t force anyone to listen. You can only work hard to get them to like and trust you. When they do that, they begin to listen, but only on their own terms.

7. They don't just listen. They talk, too. Which means you must listen, if you want to keep interacting with them.

8. Playing catch-up in the digital world is difficult. And because the digital world changes every minute, it\'s a perpetual process.

9. Naive misuse of social media is exactly the same as ignorant misbehavior in real-life social settings, and it comes with the same consequences.

10. Social media is a real-life social setting.

11. There is no on-line and off-line anymore. It's all connected. If you don't understand it all, you don't understand it at all.

12. Successful creation of an online communications campaign depends more on the creativity of the campaign than the technology. It's the same as traditional communication. You don't think "That's a great billboard," because of where the billboard is, or how it's constructed. You think "That's a great billboard," because of the idea and execution.

13. Technology is a tool - a delivery mechanism. In the hands of a technologist, it's an efficient machine. In the hands of an artist, it\'s a powerful canvas. Lots of people understand the internet. Very few people can create a movement on it.

14. People don't interact with websites or Twitter, or Facebook. People interact with people. They use those things to help them do it.

15. People don't act on need. People act on want.

16. Public service is noble. But politics is a business. You're selling a product. The product is an idea or a candidate. Marketed properly, any product will sell. A good product will sell more. A bad product will not see many repeat customers.

17. You need to understand technology. But more than that, you need to understand the market. Because technology has created a vast cultural shift in that market. Just learning the technology won't teach you the shift.

18. Embracing the wishes of everyone, and crafting a message by consensus, guarantees mediocrity.

19. Before you take a message public, run it by your 16-year-old daughter. Not because she won't understand, and you might need to dumb it down for the masses -- but because she's smarter and cooler than you, and you might need to listen to her suggestions.

20. Richard Nixon lost to the "first TV President." But it wasn't TV that did it. Kennedy presented a better image than Nixon in real life, too. Nixon lost to well-crafted (for its day) pop culture in the form of a candidate. And because he had no understanding of that, he had no real defense.

21. John McCain. See item 20.

22. It is a popularity contest.

23. Item 22 is unfortunate, and shouldn't be, and everything you're thinking. But it is what is, and you can't change that. The only option is to win the popularity contest with someone who also embodies and embraces the ideals we believe in.

24. This list is just the beginning of the things you should know. It, like the communications landscape, will change in about an hour.

25. You should know why this list is written and titled the way it is. If you don't, ask your 16-year-old daughter.

Steelers Opera

Carnegie Mellon School of Music students sing the "Steelers Opera" by associate professor of voice Douglas Ahlstedt. Based on the Toreador song from "Carmen."

Song can be downloaded for free on iTunes: Steelers Opera.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Eugenics Are Now On the Table

Whatever else may be said in favor of the new administration, the willingness to embrace eugenics is an unspeakable evil. But this is where I think we have come to--we now propose abortion as a means of cutting the budget.


Gary Graham in a recent post on Big Hollywood has this to say:

Nancy Pelosi tells us yesterday that ‘family planning’ is now a fiscal responsibility to ‘reduce costs.’ Her defenders will say that NO, she’s talking about condoms and sex education. But anyone with a mind who’s been around for a while knows that ‘family planning’ is code for abortion. She is asking for 200 million dollars for Family Planning Services to ‘expand the economy.’ These are taxpayer dollars, dontcha know. Your money. She says states are in terrible fiscal crisis and it’s ‘part of what we do for childrens’ health and education’…” I’m trying to figure out how ripping an unborn child from it’s womb is aiding in it’s health or education, but maybe I’m missing something here.

How have we found ourselve here?

Speaking about his own youth and support of liberal abortion laws, Graham says that "I was only concerned about my selfish convenience of the day. But I didn’t want to know, I didn’t want to think about it. It was inconvenient to think about it."

He concludes by observing the irony "that the ‘Love’ Generation should spawn such a culturally accepted abomination as abortion."

Compare this with the words of His Beatitude Metropolitan at the recent Life for March in Washington, DC:



To read more of Graham's thoughts on abortion, click here: Flashpoint! A Woman’s Right To Choose.

May God have mercy on us for what we have done.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

RT: News : Russia welcomes Kirill as new head of Orthodox Church

Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad has been elected the new head of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Council, which comprised clergymen, monks and laymen, announced on Tuesday the results of the voting for the post of Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia.

Kirill has been temporarily in charge of the church since the death in December of Aleksy the Second.

Kirill had previously been head of the external church relations department. He also hosted a TV programme popular among Russian believers and viewed on one of Russia’s main television channels.

Kirill was an active supporter of the reunification between the two branches of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was completed in May 2007.

Metropolitan Kirill was born in St. Petersburg and is believed to be on friendly terms with many of Russia’s top officials. He has, himself, become a prominent personality throughout the country.

Originally, three Metropolitans - Kirill, Kliment and Filaret - had been short-listed by the Archbishop Council as potential successors to Aleksy II, who died last month. They were elected by secret ballot on Sunday from 145 potential candidates. Filaret later withdrew from the race in favour of Kirill.

For the first time, international candidates were eligible to stand. Patriarchs from Ukraine, Moldova and Germany were in the Russian capital for the voting.

On the Cross

Where can the weak find a place of firm security and peace, except in the wounds of the Savior? Indeed, the more secure is my place there the more he can do to help me. The world rages, the flesh is heavy, and the devil lays his snares, but I do not fall, for my feet are planted on firm rock. I may have sinned gravely. My conscience would be distressed, but it would not be in turmoil, for I would recall the wounds of the the Lord: He was wounded for our iniquities. What sin is there so deadly that it cannot be pardoned by the death of Christ? And so if I bear in mind this strong, effective remedy, I can never again be terrified by the malignancy of sin.

Surely the man who said: My sin is too great to merit pardon, was wrong. He was speaking as though he were not a member of Christ and had no share in his merits, so that he could claim them as his own, as a member of the body can claim what belongs to the head. As for me, what can I appropriate that I lack from the heart of the Lord who abounds in mercy? They pierced his hands and feet and opened his side with a spear. Through the openings of these wounds I may drink honey from the rock and oil from the hardest stone: that is, I may taste and see that the Lord is sweet.

He was thinking thoughts of peace, and I did not know it, for who knows the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? But the piercing nail has become a key to unlock the door, that I may see the good will of the Lord. And what can I see as I look through the hole? Both the nail and the wound cry out that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. The sword pierced his soul and came close to his heart, so that he might be able to feel compassion for me in my weaknesses.

Through these sacred wounds we can see the secret of his heart, the great mystery of love, the sincerity of his mercy with which he visited us from on high. Where have your love, your mercy, your compassion shone out more luminously that in your wounds, sweet, gentle Lord of mercy? More mercy than this no one has than that he lay down his life for those who are doomed to death.

My merit comes from his mercy; for I do not lack merit so long as he does not lack pity. And if the Lord\'s mercies are many, then I am rich in merits. For even if I am aware of many sins, what does it matter? Where sin abounded grace has overflowed. And if the Lord\'s mercies are from all ages for ever, I too will sing of the mercies of the Lord for ever. Will I not sing of my own righteousness? No, Lord, I shall be mindful only of your justice. Yet that too is my own; for God has made you my righteousness.

Saint Bernard, Sermons on the Canticle

h/t: TS Broken Alabaster

The Pop Rocks Steelers Song

Go Steelers!

A New Catholic/Evangelical Site of Note

A new web site, Moralaccountability.com has been started. In their own words, the mission of the site is as follows:

In the course of the 2008 presidential campaign, a small group of Catholic and Evangelical Protestant intellectuals and activists, while saying that they personally support legal protection for the unborn and oppose the redefinition of marriage, promoted the candidacy of Barack Obama, who made no secret of his intention to wipe out the entire range of laws restricting or discouraging abortion and embryo-destructive research, or of his opposition to all state and federal initiatives (such as California Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act) to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman. These men and women assured their fellow Christians and other social conservatives that Obama's economic policies would reduce the incidence of abortion, and they promised that Obama was being honest when he said that he was opposed to "same-sex marriage."

To the list of Catholic and Evangelical supporters of Mr Obama, we must add any number of Orthodox Christians who expressed their support for his election bid. While I do not doubt they sincerity of those who supported then candidate Obama, I am grieved at the outcome of their support.

While as a citizen and a social scientist I have my doubts about President Obama's economic policies, those are prudential matter over which we can disagree. They are also matters that are (strictly speaking) outside my area of responsibility as a priest since they do not touch directly on the moral teaching of the Church.

But public policy that favors abortion and same-sex marriage run contrary not only to the Gospel but also natural law and human nature and on this matter the Orthodox Christians and the Church as a whole cannot remain silent. It is my hope that those in the Church who supported Mr Obama would use some of the good will that support earned them to encourage policies more in keeping with the moral law.

You can read the rest of the letter by Robert P. George here: Moral Accountability: An Open Letter.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Related articles by Zemanta

• Will the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act be somehow formally reversed during 2009?
• More National Anti-Prop 8 Protests Planned for January

New Podcast on Ancient Faith Radio

My friend Steve Robinson has begun a 10- 15 minute weekly solo podcast on Ancient Faith Radio.  (Together with Bill Gould, Steve is the co-host of "Our Life in Christ," also on Ancient Faith Radio) The first two programs are available now at "Steve the Builder: A layman's view of living the Orthodox Christian Faith."  New podcasts will be posted every Friday morning. Why not surf over and have a listen?

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Forgiveness and our Civil Life

As I asked in my last post, how do we move beyond a life of civil engagement informed by resentment? The recently Archpastoral Message of His Beatitude, Metropolitan Jonah for Sanctity of Life Sunday offers us the beginning of an answer. His Beatitude writes:

Our life as human beings is not given to us to live autonomously and independently. This, however, is the great temptation: to deny our personhood, by the depersonalization of those around us, seeing them only as objects that are useful and give us pleasure, or are obstacles to be removed or overcome. This is the essence of our fallenness, our brokenness. With this comes the denial of God, and loss of spiritual consciousness. It has resulted in profound alienation and loneliness, a society plummeting into the abyss of nihilism and despair. There can be no sanctity of life when nothing is sacred, nothing is holy. Nor can there be any respect for persons in a society that accepts only autonomous individualism: there can be no love, only selfish gratification. This, of course, is delusion. We are mutually interdependent.

Rooted as it is in pride and self-aggrandizement, is a symptom of my fallenness, of my futile and self-defeating attempts to live a life of radical autonomy and independence (what Robert Bellah somewhat more precisely calls "ontological individualism"). When I reduce my neighbor to the harm he has done me I also reduce myself to the harm that I have suffered. Resentment is a false ontology by which I only disallow my neighbor to be anything other than my enemy and myself to be anything other than a victim.

Resentment, as with "All the sins against humanity, abortion, euthanasia, war, violence, and victimization of all kinds, are the results of depersonalization" Metropolitan Jonah argues. His Beatitude continues,

Whether it is "the unwanted pregnancy", or worse, "the fetus" rather than "my son" or "my daughter;" whether it is "the enemy" rather than Joe or Harry (maybe Ahmed or Mohammed), the same depersonalization allows us to fulfill our own selfishness against the obstacle to my will. How many of our elderly, our parents and grandparents, live forgotten in isolation and loneliness? How many Afghan, Iraqi, Palestinian and American youths will we sacrifice to agonizing injuries and deaths for the sake of our political will? They are called "soldiers," or "enemy combatants" or "civilian casualties" or any variety of other euphemisms to deny their personhood. But ask their parents or children! Pro-war is NOT pro-life! God weeps for our callousness.

Moving from the spiritual life to our life of civic engagement, I think it is important to understand that the absence of resentment, our own personal struggles against the evils of ontological individualism and the depersonalization of self and others are not policy decisions. They are rather a precondition for our virtuous involvement in the civil realm.

Let me go further, whether we are taking political leadership or a leadership role in the home, the work place, or the Church, all demand from me that I first confront my own bitterness and resentment. Only then are we able to find "forgiveness for those who have hurt us," and live "free from the rage that binds us in despair."Whether we are engaging the social world around us as a citizen, a worker, a parent or a minister of the Gospel of Christ, as Christians we know that our work must begin in repentance. "Repentance is not about beating ourselves up for our errors and feeling guilty; that is a sin in and of itself!" as Metropolitan Jonah remind us. Such an approach only engenders guilt and that "keeps us entombed in self-pity. All sin is some form of self-centeredness, selfishness." Real repentance "is the transformation of our minds and hearts as we turn away from our sin, and turn to God, and to one another."

Repentance means to forgive. Forgiveness does not mean to justify someone's sin against us. When we resent and hold a grudge, we objectify the person who hurt us according to their action, and erect a barrier between us and them. And, we continue to beat ourselves up with their sin. To forgive means to overcome that barrier, and see that there is a person who, just like us, is hurt and broken, and to overlook the sin and embrace him or her in love. When we live in a state of repentance and reconciliation, we live in a communion of love, and overcome all the barriers that prevented us from fulfilling our own personhood.

Reflecting on what I've read these last few days about the new presidential administration I worry that whether or not people agree with the policy of the new president, there seems to be a noticeable absence of forgiveness. Both from the political left and right, even when I hear things that agree with the Gospel, I hear an echo of resentment, of old grudges and remembrances of past injustices committed against the speaker or his or her own cause.

While matters of public policy are important, they are secondary. I need to look first to my own heart and only then, in the measure of my own repentance and willingness to forgive those who have harmed me, proceed in the civil realm.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Resentment and our Civic Life

Needless to say, the inauguration of Barak Obama as the 44^th president of the United States has generated a good amount of interest in both in the US and overseas. Some of what has been said or written about President Obama has been laudatory, other things less so.

Reading through the different viewpoints about our new president, it is difficult for me to escape the sense that—whatever else people think about the new administration—much of what is said is fueled by a sense of resentment.

In the spiritual life, and our civic life as well, resentment is a dangerous emotion to which to give in. This is especially the case when there is some justice, some truth, to our resentment.

The danger of resentment is that it parodies repentance, of the sober self-examination that is at the heart of the spiritual life. When I give in to resentment I see the fault as wholly in you, but not in myself. Resentment is a subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) form of self-aggrandizement. Or, in a word, pride.

St Maximos the Confessor, whose memory the Orthodox Church celebrates today, warns us that whatever we might think, resentment reflects not my neighbor's failure, but my own. My neighbor's fault, he says, is what I use "to justify the evil hatred" that has taken hold of me. The saint continues and tells his monastic readers:

even if you are held by resentment, persist in your praises, and then you will easily return to the same salutary love. Do not, because of your hidden resentment, adulterate your usual praise of your brother in your conversations with the other brethren, surreptitiously intermingling your words with [references to his] shortcomings and condemnation. Instead, make use of unmixed praise and genuinely pray for him, as if you were praying for yourself, and thus you will quickly be delivered from this destructive hatred.

In the context of his own work, Maximos is dealing with gossip and back biting in a monastic community not the life of a citizen in a democracy, much less the increasingly complex world of national and international affairs. Taking his different context into consideration, however, I think that the psychology that underlies St Maximos's teaching is nevertheless applicable not only our spiritual lives, but also the civic realm as well.

Let me explain.

At its core, resentment is not the pain of caused by injustice. Rather, resentment is the unwillingness on my part to see you EXCEPT in terms of how you've hurt me. Not only that, whether the harm is great or small, real or imagined, resentment is also the unwillingness on my part to see myself in any terms other than in the lose I've suffered. The defining characteristic of resent then is the reduction of self and other to the harm done by a moral failure.

None of this is to say that the harm done me is (necessarily) insignificant or unreal. Nor do I mean to imply that the harm should simply be ignored or minimized. But to my resentful heart, the harm becomes if not the whole of the story, the one, indisputable and undeniable fact of my relation with my neighbor, with God and my self.

So what then shall we do? I will attempt an answer in my next post.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Eastern Orthodox New Testament Reading Plan

Image via Wikipedia

This plan was prepared by Esteban Vázquez and is based on the rule for reading the New Testament in the kellia at the Optina Monastery, which prescribed a chapter of the Holy Gospel (89 in all) and two from the Acts, Epistles, and Revelation for every day, with only one chapter from Revelation on the last seven days in order to make up 89 readings.

Column I gives the chapters from the Gospels in succession.

Column II gives the continuous order of Apostolic readings as prescribed by the Optina rule, and according to the order of New Testament books found in the Slavonic Bible. However, this order
sometimes causes the reader to finish the last chapter of a book and then start on the first one of the next, which may confuse some readers acquainting themselves with the subject matter of the
New Testament.

For their benefit, Column III gives a revised order in which the reading of each Apostolic book is completely finished before starting on the next one; the sole exceptions to this are one-chapter
epistles (Jude, Philemon, etc.), which are combined with the last chapter of the previous book.

Column IV also gives this revised format, but according to the order of New Testament books usually found in our English Bibles.

This plan is under continuous revision, and any suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated by Esteban and Kevin P. Edgecomb.

h/t: Kevin P. Edgecomb

Day	I	II	III	IV
Day 1	St Matthew 1	Acts 1-2	Acts 1-2	Acts 1-2
Day 2	St Matthew 2	Acts 3-4	Acts 3-4	Acts 3-4
Day 3	St Matthew 3	Acts 5-6	Acts 5-6	Acts 5-6
Day 4	St Matthew 4	Acts 7-8	Acts 7-8	Acts 7-8
Day 5	St Matthew 5	Acts 9-10	Acts 9-10	Acts 9-10
Day 6	St Matthew 6	Acts 11-12	Acts 11-12	Acts 11-12
Day 7	St Matthew 7	Acts 13-14	Acts 13-14	Acts 13-14
Day 8	St Matthew 8	Acts 15-16	Acts 15-16	Acts 15-16
Day 9	St Matthew 9	Acts 17-18	Acts 17-18	Acts 17-18
Day 10	St Matthew 10	Acts 19-20	Acts 19-20	Acts 19-20
Day 11	St Matthew 11	Acts 21-22	Acts 21-22	Acts 21-22
Day 12	St Matthew 12	Acts 23-24	Acts 23-24	Acts 23-24
Day 13	St Matthew 13	Acts 25-26	Acts 25-26	Acts 25-26
Day 14	St Matthew 14	Acts 27-28	Acts 27-28	Acts 27-28
Day 15	St Matthew 15	James 1-2	James 1-2	Romans 1-2
Day 16	St Matthew 16	James 3-4	James 3-4	Romans 3-4
Day 17	St Matthew 17	James 5; I Peter 1	James 5	Romans 5-6
Day 18	St Matthew 18	I Peter 2-3	I Peter 1-2	Romans 7-8
Day 19	St Matthew 19	I Peter 4-5	I Peter 3-4	Romans 9-10
Day 20	St Matthew 20	II Peter 1-2	I Peter 5	Romans 11-12
Day 21	St Matthew 21	II Peter 3; I John 1	II Peter 1-2	Romans 13-14
Day 22	St Matthew 22	I John 2-3	II Peter 3	Romans 15-16
Day 23	St Matthew 23	I John 4-5	I John 1-2	I Corinthians 1-2
Day 24	St Matthew 24	II John; III John	I John 3-4	I Corinthians 3-4
Day 25	St Matthew 25	Jude; Romans 1	I John 5; II John	I Corinthians 5-6
Day 26	St Matthew 26	Romans 2-3	III John; Jude	I Corinthians 7-8
Day 27	St Matthew 27	Romans 4-5	Romans 1-2	I Corinthians 9-10
Day 28	St Matthew 28	Romans 6-7	Romans 3-4	I Corinthians 11-12
Day 29	St Mark 1	Romans 8-9	Romans 5-6	I Corinthians 13-14
Day 30	St Mark 2	Romans 10-11	Romans 7-8	I Corinthians 15-16
Day 31	St Mark 3	Romans 12-13	Romans 9-10	II Corinthians 1-2
Day 32	St Mark 4	Romans 14-15	Romans 11-12	II Corinthians 3-4
Day 33	St Mark 5	Rom. 16; I Cor. 1	Romans 13-14	II Corinthians 5-6
Day 34	St Mark 6	I Corinthians 2-3	Romans 15-16	II Corinthians 7-8
Day 35	St Mark 7	I Corinthians 4-5	I Corinthians 1-2	II Corinthians 9-10
Day 36	St Mark 8	I Corinthians 6-7	I Corinthians 3-4	II Corinthians 11-12
Day 37	St Mark 9	I Corinthians 8-9	I Corinthians 5-6	II Corinthians 13
Day 38	St Mark 10	I Corinthians 10-11	I Corinthians 7-8	Galatians 1-2
Day 39	St Mark 11	I Corinthians 12-13	I Corinthians 9-10	Galatians 3-4
Day 40	St Mark 12	I Corinthians 14-15	I Corinthians 11-12	Galatians 5-6
Day 41	St Mark 13	I Cor. 16; II Cor. 1	I Corinthians 13-14	Ephesians 1-2
Day 42	St Mark 14	II Corinthians 2-3	I Corinthians 15-16	Ephesians 3-4
Day 43	St Mark 15	II Corinthians 4-5	II Corinthians 1-2	Ephesians 5-6
Day 44	St Mark 16	II Corinthians 6-7	II Corinthians 3-4	Philippians 1-2
Day 45	St Luke 1	II Corinthians 8-9	II Corinthians 5-6	Philippians 3-4
Day 46	St Luke 2	II Corinthians 10-11	II Corinthians 7-8	Colossians 1-2
Day 47	St Luke 3	II Corinthians 12-13	II Corinthians 9-10	Colossians 3-4
Day 48	St Luke 4	Galatians 1-2	II Corinthians 11-12	I Thessalonians 1-2
Day 49	St Luke 5	Galatians 3-4	II Corinthians 13	I Thessalonians 3-4
Day 50	St Luke 6	Galatians 5-6	Galatians 1-2	I Thessalonians 5
Day 51	St Luke 7	Ephesians 1-2	Galatians 3-4	II Thessalonians 1-2
Day 52	St Luke 8	Ephesians 3-4	Galatians 5-6	II Thessalonians 3
Day 53	St Luke 9	Ephesians 5-6	Ephesians 1-2	I Timothy 1-2
Day 54	St Luke 10	Philippians 1-2	Ephesians 3-4	I Timothy 3-4
Day 55	St Luke 11	Philippians 3-4	Ephesians 5-6	I Timothy 5-6
Day 56	St Luke 12	Colossians 1-2	Philippians 1-2	II Timothy 1-2
Day 57	St Luke 13	Colossians 3-4	Philippians 3-4	II Timothy 3-4
Day 58	St Luke 14	I Thessalonians 1-2	Colossians 1-2	Titus 1-2
Day 59	St Luke 15	I Thessalonians 3-4	Colossians 3-4	Titus 3; Philemon
Day 60	St Luke 16	I Thes. 5; II Thes. 1	I Thessalonians 1-2	Hebrews 1-2
Day 61	St Luke 17	II Thessalonians 2-3	I Thessalonians 3-4	Hebrews 3-4
Day 62	St Luke 18	I Timothy 1-2	I Thessalonians 5	Hebrews 5-6
Day 63	St Luke 19	I Timothy 3-4	II Thessalonians 1-2	Hebrews 7-8
Day 64	St Luke 20	I Timothy 5-6	II Thessalonians 3	Hebrews 9-10
Day 65	St Luke 21	II Timothy 1-2	I Timothy 1-2	Hebrews 11-12
Day 66	St Luke 22	II Timothy 3-4	I Timothy 3-4	Hebrews 13
Day 67	St Luke 23	Titus 1-2	I Timothy 5-6	James 1-2
Day 68	St Luke 24	Titus 3; Philemon	II Timothy 1-2	James 3-4
Day 69	St John 1	Hebrews 1-2	II Timothy 3-4	James 5
Day 70	St John 2	Hebrews 3-4	Titus 1-2	I Peter 1-2
Day 71	St John 3	Hebrews 5-6	Titus 3; Philemon	I Peter 3-4
Day 72	St John 4	Hebrews 7-8	Hebrews 1-2	I Peter 5
Day 73	St John 5	Hebrews 9-10	Hebrews 3-4	II Peter 1-2
Day 74	St John 6	Hebrews 11-12	Hebrews 5-6	II Peter 3
Day 75	St John 7	Heb. 13; Rev. 1	Hebrews 7-8	I John 1-2
Day 76	St John 8	Revelation 2-3	Hebrews 9-10	I John 3-4
Day 77	St John 9	Revelation 4-5	Hebrews 11-12	I John 5; II John
Day 78	St John 10	Revelation 6-7	Hebrews 13	III John; Jude
Day 79	St John 11	Revelation 8-9	Revelation 1-2	Revelation 1-2
Day 80	St John 12	Revelation 10-11	Revelation 3-4	Revelation 3-4
Day 81	St John 13	Revelation 12-13	Revelation 5-6	Revelation 5-6
Day 82	St John 14	Revelation 14-15	Revelation 7-8	Revelation 7-8
Day 83	St John 15	Revelation 16	Revelation 9-10	Revelation 9-10
Day 84	St John 16	Revelation 17	Revelation 11-12	Revelation 11-12
Day 85	St John 17	Revelation 18	Revelation 13-14	Revelation 13-14
Day 86	St John 18	Revelation 19	Revelation 15-16	Revelation 15-16
Day 87	St John 19	Revelation 20	Revelation 17-18	Revelation 17-18
Day 88	St John 20	Revelation 21	Revelation 19-20	Revelation 19-20
Day 89	St John 21	Revelation 22	Revelation 21-22	Revelation 21-22

Last updated 17 January 2009