Pillar and Ground of the Truth

Homily on the Canaanite Woman

2012-01-29T12:40:00.000-08:00

Which of us here wouldn’t welcome a deeper, more abiding faith? With all the problems in our broader world, and the troubles in our own hearts and lives, a strong and vibrant faith could help us cope with life’s twists and turns.
All of us want it. The question is, how do we get it? We need not buy lots of books. We don’t have to travel on distant pilgrimages. We don’t have to change our address, or our job, or even our parish.
No; for each and every one of us, the answer’s much closer to home. Take a look at the woman in today’s Gospel. She had a daughter, every mother’s dream…but her dream had become a nightmare. Her daughter was demon possessed.
When she heard that Jesus had come to her neighborhood, she went to ask his help. “Lord, have mercy; my daughter is demon possessed.” And how did he respond?
First he gave her silence. But she wouldn’t quit.
Then he told her he was sent only to Israel. But still she begged.
Finally he said, “It isn’t right to give the children’s bread to the dogs.”
She took him at his word and said, “Yes, Lord—yet even dogs get the crumbs.”

To us, it may seem as if the Lord is being cruel. We get so caught up in the coldness of his words, that we miss the warmth of his heart. And that’s because, I’m convinced, our experience of him is so different from hers.
We want to have deeper faith, but we don’t realize that the troubles, and problems, and sins we face in ourselves and in those we love are all the means God uses to strengthen our faith. We’re like a man who goes to the gym, and sees all the equipment, and says, “How will I ever get fit?”
Think about that problem you’ve been struggling with. Perhaps you told it to the priest in confession. Perhaps you’ve kept it bottled up inside. Then late at night, it all comes rushing in…a sinful habit you struggle to break…a relationship all in tatters… the loneliness of someone who’s single but doesn’t want to be…or the heartbreak of those who want to be parents, but can’t quite seem to conceive.
What’s the problem? What is it you carry around inside? Beloved, that’s the thing God means to strengthen your faith. For the woman, it was her daughter. For you—well, only you can say.
We must learn to tie the Gospel together with the pains and struggles we face—not only the little ones, but also the big ones, the ones we’ve gotten used to, the ones we think nothing can help.
“But I’ve tried to do that,” you say, “and it didn’t make a difference.”
When I taught at seminary, I met a most remarkable man. Cliff Lloyd was a Welshman who served in World War II. After the war, he helped in training troops. When he emigrated to Canada, he earned a PhD and was founding president of a university. But then he got a very bad stroke. It affected his speech and his mobility. He retired.
One day he phoned me. He was 76 year old, and wanted to get a theological degree. At first I tried to discourage him. But he wouldn’t take “no” for an answer. The last time I saw Cliff—and he got his degree, by the way—he told me, “I have something for you.” Then he gave me a paper with a drawing on it. A large bird has just swallowed a frog. But the frog’s two arms are coming out of the bird’s mouth and grabbing the bird by the throat. Below the picture, the caption reads, “Never give up.”
Take a look this morning at your deepest hurts and heartaches—the things you just can’t wrap your mind around. Don’t just learn to live with them. See them for what they are—the parts and places of your life where God is working, calling you To call on him…
To exercise your faith…
To learn to persevere, like this Canaanite woman…
To say, with Jacob of old, “I will not let you go until you bless me.”
Our greatest problems are really our greatest opportunities, to learn with this woman to pursue God: to ask, and seek, and knock, and not be turned away until we have touched his very heart.
For his heart towards us is good, just as it was towards her. “Oh woman,” he said, “your faith is great. Let it be done as you ask.” And her daughter was healed instantly. The Lord is not cruel; how could he be? He died for us. The Lord is not apathetic; he came from heaven to seek and save us. The Lord is not powerless; he who made everything from nothing can give you what you need. He who raises the dead can surely bring new life to your heart and home. He who forgives sinners can cleanse you, and make you white as wool.
So keep on asking…keep on seeking…keep on knocking. He promises that everyone who asks, receives; everyone who seeks, finds; and to everyone who keeps knocking, the door will be opened. Let us try his words and prove that he is faithful!

Homily on Zacchaeus

2012-01-22T11:42:00.000-08:00

They say that curiosity killed the cat, but curiosity brought Zacchaeus life. He was curious about Christ, and when he heard that the Lord was coming to his town, he did a very cat-like thing: he climbed a tree.
Why the tree? For one thing, he was short. But that wasn’t all. For him to get in the midst of a crowd could be dangerous. After all, he wasn’t the favorite man in town. He was a chief tax collector, and he was very good at his work.
He must have thought things through, too—like a cat planning to catch its prey. Jericho was a big, busy city with lots of streets and lanes. Which street would Christ come down? Which tree on that street would be best to climb?
So there he was, perched in his tree like a cat. But when the Lord passed by, the game of cat-and-mouse was reversed. Christ stopped in his tracks, looked up, and caught Zacchaeus where he was…he caught him with love.
He called Zacchaeus by name. “Zaccchaeus,” he said, “come down. I must stay today at your house!” When we hear it, we might miss the word “must.” “I must stay today at your house.” It wasn’t an option. It was part of his plan, all along.
Quickly Zacchaeus scooted down the tree. He didn’t worry what others thought. He didn’t think about what other plans he might have had for the day. He was completely captured by Christ’s love.
The crowd complained…they always do, don’t they? So Zacchaeus said to Christ, “Look, Lord! I give half my goods to the poor; and if I’ve taken anything from anyone by false accusation, I restore it four-fold!” Think what this meant: Zacchaeus was sold out for Christ. He was choosing to go from riches to rags. He was choosing poverty; or rather, he was making friends by means of mammon.
Today, in the midst of winter, the smell of Spring is in the air—the Lenten Spring, that is…the light of repentance. It’s only a few short weeks till we begin our journey to Christ’s cross and tomb—and then, the joy of Pascha.
For on that day when Christ called Zacchaeus down from the tree, he was very near the time when his journey took him to another tree—the cross. There he hung between heaven and earth as the noblest fruit. By being raised on that tree, he overcame the fall that resulted from another tree. He put death to death by death, and brought our life to light.
Today the Lord Jesus passes by again. He calls us by name. He bids us come down from the trees we’ve put ourselves in…to come to him for salvation—healing and wholeness.
So let us loose our grip on the things that hold us back: our pleasures and possessions, our sin and selfishness. Let us, like Zacchaeus, find our pleasure in giving away possessions. Let us who receive Christ’s very life in the Eucharist, learn to share that life. He who gave himself into death for us, will provide the things we need to live with him, and bring us at last to his heavenly Kingdom, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

A homily by Bishop Nikolai Velimirovich

2012-01-21T10:47:00.000-08:00

About God's omniscience and providence

"Even all the hairs of your headare counted" (St. Matthew 10:30).

Brethren, "the hairs of your head are counted" much less the days of your life! Do not be afraid, therefore, that you will die before your appointed time nor yet hope that you will somehow be able to extend your life for one day against the will of Him Who counts and measures. Let this knowledge teach you meekness and fear of God.

"The hairs of your head are counted" much less your sufferings on earth! Do not be afraid, therefore, that you will suffer more beyond measure. Fear even less that your sufferings will remain forgotten and unaccounted for by Him Who sees all. This knowledge will teach you patience and confidence toward your Creator and Provider.

"The hairs of your head are counted" much less your friends and enemies on earth! Do not be afraid, therefore, that you will have either too many friends or too many enemies. Neither be afraid that your enemies will overcome you nor be assured that your friends will defend you. Concern yourself only that you have God for a friend and do not be afraid of anything. Behold, He is your only friend Who loves you without change.

O Good Lord, Wise Provider Who knows the number, measure and time of all, banish from us every fear, except the fear of You. That through fear of You, we may arrive to the pure and holy love toward You, our Creator and Benefactor.

To You be glory and thanks always. Amen.

An insight from MacIntyre

2012-01-01T19:02:00.000-08:00

"...the adherents of a tradition which is now in this state of fundamental and radical crisis [in context, a 'a state of epistemological crisis'] may at this point encounter in a new way the claims of some particular rival tradition, perhaps one with which they have for some time coexisted, perhaps one which they are now encountering for the first time. They now come or had already come to understand the beliefs and way of life of this other alien tradition, and to do so they have or have had to learn...the language of the alien tradition as a new and second first language.

When they have understood the beliefs of the alien tradition, they may find themselves compelled to recognize that within this other tradition it is possible to construct from the concepts and theories peculiar to it what they were unable to provide from their own conceptual and theoretical resources, a cogent and illuminating explanation--cogent and illuminating, that is, by their own standards--of why their own intellectual tradition had been unable to solve its problems or restore its coherence...

In this kind of situation the rationality of tradition requires an acknowledgement by those who have hitherto inhabited and given their allegiance to the tradition in crisis that the alien tradition is superior in rationality and in respect of its claims to truth to their own."

Alasdair MacIntyre, "Whose Justice? Which Rationality?" pp. 364f

MacIntyre succinctly captures my journey from Lutheranism to the Orthodox Church.

From a hot summer day in 1984 when layfolk participated in an ordination, to the 2004 convention of the LCMS when, for the first time, the non-ecclesial nature of the Synod was clearly visible to me...from the Good Friday afternoon in 1987 to the afternoon of July 23, 2005 when I was chrismated--I gradually came to see that things in Lutheranism which initially annoyed were, rather, signs of systemic brokenness and decay; and that things in the Church which initially struck me as fragments of truth and beauty were, in fact, part of a consistent and complete whole which could no longer be denied.

All this I write, not to offend Lutheran friends, but to serve as a monument for my own memory.

You never know what you'll find...

2011-12-17T18:22:00.000-08:00

...when you look through computer files. In a search for something else, I came across a letter I penned to the Lutheran Witness in 2001, after an article there claimed that the harrowing of hell was a "false doctrine."

Here's the letter:

Thank you for the recent article and Bible study on Christ’s descent into hell. It’s a topic full of comfort and worth considering. In two places, however, the doctrine that Christ’s descent into hell was also for the purpose of freeing Old Testament believers was labeled as a “false teaching.” We wish to dispute that claim.
First, neither Scripture nor our Confessions nor Dr. Luther explicitly or implictly reject this historic Christian teaching. The passages cited in the Bible study do not show its falsity either. Acts 2:21 says that those who call on the Lord’s name will be saved; no one is disputing that fact. Hebrews 11:13-16 speaks of the Old Testament saints having died in faith—without receiving the promises! Indeed, Hebrews 11:39-40 says that they, “having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they should not be made perfect.” Furthermore, in his Two Natures in Christ, the great Lutheran theologian Martin Chemnitz refers twice to this teaching without condemning it.
Second, there are several passages of Scripture which suggest that such a freeing was a part of Jesus’ descent into hell. For example, Matthew mentions that at Jesus’ death, many bodies of the saints were raised, and that after His resurrection they entered the holy city. And what of Paul’s saying that in Jesus’ ascension, “he led captive a host of captives”—in the same context that he speaks of Jesus’ having “descended into the lower parts of the earth”? Christ’s descent into hell is reason for all believers to rejoice. The strong man has been bound, his power broken, and his possessions plundered.
As heirs of those who took pains to say that “among us nothing in doctrine or ceremonies has been accepted that would contradict either Holy Scripture or the universal Christian church” (Augsburg Confession, conclusion), we must reject any attempt to label this historic Christian doctrine as “false teaching.”

What's interesting about the letter is something I won't post--the names of the other ten LC-MS clergy at the time who co-signed it with me. The then-editor of the Witness, David Mahsman, took the unusual step of having a letter to the editor sent to doctrinal review. The letter failed. Naturally.

I'm posting it now because it marks a stage in my journey to the Church.

The problem...

2011-11-29T05:37:00.000-08:00

...with Protestantism is not so much in the predicates--its words or works--as it is in the subject doing the predicates. To use an analogy: speaking the words or doing the works of a husband does not make one a husband. One must be husband first, truly to say husbandly words or do husbandly things.

If a Protestant were able to offer quotations from hundreds of their writers on every conceivable topic, and if (impossible as it is) all of them were found to be completely Orthodox...if Protestants were able even to demonstrate Orthodox worship (whether of the Western or Eastern rite, it matters not)...none of those things would fix the root problem.

What's lacking is ecclesiality.

Whatever it is--a school of thought, a religious assembly of like-minded people--it isn't Church.

That is the tragedy of Protestantism.

Homily on the Entrance of the Theotokos

2011-11-20T13:54:00.000-08:00

Today we mark the feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple, to the Holy of Holies. There are some who would say that the Scriptures are silent about this Feast; but that is because they read the Scriptures in the way of the Sadducees, who read the book of Exodus again and again and never saw, in the story of the burning bush, a proof of the resurrection.
The Theotokos is the ark of God, foreshadowed by the Old Testament Ark of the Covenant. Just as the Ark contained the tables of the Law of God, so she held within her womb the God who gave the Law. Just as the Ark was most holy, so also she is most holy.
In last evening’s Vespers service we heard three Old Testament readings. The first marked the setting up of the tabernacle, the tent of meeting. When Moses put the ark of the covenant into the tabernacle, the Lord’s glory filled the place and Moses himself could not enter. The second reading marked the completion of Solomon’s temple. We read, “And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the Lord unto his place…and when the priests had come out of the holy place, the cloud filled the house, and the priests were not able to minister.” The final reading is Ezekiel’s prophecy of the Theotokos as the new and final Temple. But in Ezekiel, no ark is mentioned! Why? Because in the New Covenant, the Theotokos is both the Temple and the ark of God. She contains God within her womb.
What more natural place for the Ark of the New Covenant, then, but the Holy of Holies of the Old Covenant’s Temple? There, we are taught, the Mother of Light was led by the lights of the temple virgins up the steps of the Temple. She entered the Most Holy Place, as was fitting; and there she lived until the time she was given to Joseph.
And so in this feast, we mark the beginning of the end of the Old Covenant, and the beginning of the beginning of the New Covenant. The Old Testament types find their fulfillment in her: The Tabernacle of the Word enters the tabernacle; the Ark of the Word enters the most holy place. The Book of Life, who would receive the imprint of the living Word, comes to the place where the tables of the Law had been kept. And so we sing:
Today the Virgin is the foreshadowing of the pleasure of God,
and the beginning of the preaching of the salvation of mankind.
Thou hast appeared in the Temple of God openly and hast gone before,
preaching Christ to all.
Let us shout with one thrilling voice, saying:
Rejoice, O thou who art the fulfillment of the Creator’s dispensation.
What does this mean for us, then, beloved? For you young people, who ask yourselves, “Why am I here? What is the purpose of my life?”—follow the Theotokos and learn to seek your fulfillment, not in the distractions and deceitfulness of the world, but in the holy place of God. You will not find God’s will for you in amusement and distraction, but by sitting quietly in his holy place. “Blessed are those who hear the Word of God and keep it,” just as did Mary.
And for us who are older, let us beware of wandering too far from the Temple. Let us occupy our minds and hearts with the Word of God and with prayer. Let us prepare a place within ourselves, that He whose first coming we remember in this season may find a fitting home when he returns in the glory of his Father with all the holy angels. Amen.

Sermon on the Good Samaritan 2011

2011-11-14T07:17:00.000-08:00

“Desiring to justify himself, the lawyer asked, ‘But who is my neighbor’?” We can understand that question. It’s one we ask each and every day. If that person is my neighbor, I have a responsibility for him. God tells me to love him as I love myself…and that means to care for him in practical ways, to remain open to him, to forgive him.
But if I can truly say he’s not my neighbor, then I’m off the hook. When God asked Cain, “Where is your brother?” and Cain answered, “Am I my brother’s keeper?,” Cain was really saying, “He’s not my neighbor.” Cain was trying to justify himself.
The problem the lawyer in today’s text had, was that he thought of the word “neighbor” as a noun. A neighbor is someone I have. When the priest and then the Levite pass by the half-dead man on the road, it’s because they had learned not to see him as neighbor. It’s a survival strategy. When I see someone as neighbor, I see his plight as mine. I enter his experience. I run the risk of harming myself to help him. “How can I stop to help that guy?” the priest and Levite must have thought. “For all I know, the robbers are waiting for me.”
Who is my neighbor? Is it the man on the road? Is it the revolutionaries in Libya? Is it Quadaffi? Is it the Occupy Wall Street protesters? The Tea Party? The victims of child abuse? The abuser? The ones who covered it up? The Israelies, or the Iranians? Who’s wrong, and who’s right? Who is my neighbor? I suppose if you were to sum up the whole course of human history, from Cain and Abel to this morning’s headlines, it’s nothing but a constant posing and answering of that question. How’s that workin’ for us?

There is another way…a way Christ gives us in our Gospel. That’s to see the word “neighbor” not as a noun, but as a verb. Neighbor isn’t something I have; neighbor is something I do. See how Christ concludes our text: “Which of these showed himself to be neighbor?” When the lawyer answered, “The one who showed mercy,” Christ responded, “Go and do the same.”
This view, that neighbor is a verb, is stressed in The Brothers Karamazov. Listen to just one excerpt:
Do not say, "Sin is mighty, wickedness is mighty, evil environment is mighty, and we are lonely and helpless, and evil environment is wearing us away and hindering our good work from being done." Fly from that dejection, children! There is only one means of salvation, then take yourself and make yourself responsible for all men's sins, that is the truth, you know, friends, for as soon as you sincerely make yourself responsible for everything and for all men, you will see at once that it is really so, and that you are to blame for everyone and for all things. But throwing your own indolence and impotence on others you will end by sharing the pride of Satan and murmuring against God.
Everyone we see, everyone we hear, everyone we hear about—each of them is my neighbor. Love makes no distinction of persons. And I am responsible for them, to do whatever I can to serve—not their passions, but them.
Only when I see my responsibility, can I learn my inability, my unworthiness. I can see myself as broken and battered, lying by the side of the road, wounded not so much by others as by my own self-centeredness.

But then it is that I see the Samaritan who came for me…who entered my reality and life and joined it with his own. Only then can I see how great a gift he gives me in this inn, this church, this hospital for sinners. He is my neighbor, who showed himself my neighbor by bearing all my sin and by dying my death. He is my neighbor, who washed me clean in Baptism, anointed me with his Holy Spirit, feeds me with his life-giving body and blood.

I am responsible for all; I am guilty before all of you; and therefore I am justified—not by anything I have done, but by him who justifies the ungodly and shows mercy to sinners.

A poem from Alexei Khomiakov

2011-09-19T10:01:00.001-07:00

A mes enfants

Souvent, à l'heure de la profonde nuit,
Chers petits, j'allais vous contempler avec amour;
Souvent, j'aimais vous marquer du Signe de la Croix,
Prier pour que sur vous demeurât la Grâce
Et l'amour du Dieu tout-puissant.

Veiller avec attendrissement sur votre repos enfantin,
penser combien vos âmes étaient pures,
Espérer de longs et heureux jours,
Pour vous, charmants enfants sans souci,
Quelle douceur et quelle joie c'était!

Quand j'entre maintenant, partout l'obscurité :
Plus de vie dans la chambre : le petit lit est vide;
Dans la lampe, devant l'Icône, la lumière est éteinte :
Je suis triste : mes enfants ne sont plus,
Et le coeur se serre si douloureusement!

Enfants, à l'heure de la profonde nuit,
Priez pour celui qui priait pour vous,
Pour celui qui aimait vous marquer du Signe de la Croix;
Priez pour qu'avec lui demeure aussi la Grâce
Et l'amour du Dieu tout-puissant.

Aksana Belle Sterk

2011-08-24T05:44:00.000-07:00

I am now the grandfather of three wonderful kids. Our daughter Marina gave birth to her firstborn, Aksana Belle Sterk, yesterday morning at 10:12 am. Proud father is her husband Nathan. Aksana was 7 lb 8 oz and 21" long.

In other news, our other two grandkids are coming for a brief visit starting tomorrow. Hooray!

Each time...

2011-08-24T05:43:00.000-07:00

...I come to campus for the first time in the Fall, I find a new lilt in my step and a song in my heart. To work at what one loves is one of the chiefest delights given us while we are able to see the sun.

Sermon on the feeding of the 5,000

2011-08-07T12:13:00.000-07:00

Put yourself in the disciples’ place. They had followed the Lord to a desert place for renewal. But then the crowds came, and Christ in his compassion healed them. Now it was getting late.
The disciples took note of the time, and place. They saw the peoples’ need, and were concerned. “We need to let them go,” they thought. “They’ll need time to find food.” So they came to Christ, and asked him to release the crowd.
Now come those shocking words. The Lord responded, “They don’t have to go away. You give them something to eat.” Catch the weight of those words. “YOU give them something to eat!” Here they were, twelve men more or less—poor men, with little or nothing to their name. There was the crowd, thousands and thousands of them. And now, their Lord says to them, in essence, “Feeding that crowd is your responsibility.”
I wonder, sometimes, if we ever see the needs around us as our responsibility. Most of us have learned the survival skill of looking the other way, of not paying attention to the needs around us. The homeless guy at the entrance ramp, the lonely people in the nursing home, the single mother who’s trying to figure out how to feed her kids: there’s just so much need that if we thought about it, we’d be overwhelmed. And so we ask ourselves, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” and move on, never thinking that it was Cain, the first murderer, who first posed that question.
Politically, both the left and the right have ways of avoiding these needs. The man on the right, the conservative, may say “Those folks have needs because of bad choices they made. Let them figure it out for themselves.” The people in our text, for example, should have thought about how they’d provide for themselves in a desert area.
And those on the left, the liberals, likewise avoid the needs. “We should tax the wealthy, so that society can take care of these needs.” In other words, there is a problem. But it’s not my problem. It’s the other guy’s problem.
But Christ calls us to see the problems around us, as our problem. Maybe some folks made bad decisions to get them where they are. But that doesn’t mean we can ignore them. And if we wait for the government to fix the problem, we’ll be waiting a long time. The needs around us are here and now, and they’re our responsibility.
Only when we see the greatness of our responsibility, will we learn the greatness of our Lord. The disciples answer Christ, “We have only five loaves and two small fish.” That was barely a snack for a couple of people, let alone thousands. But Christ says, “Bring them to me.”
“Bring them to me.” Here’s stewardship in a nutshell: that we take whatever little we have, and bring it to Christ. You know, for every age there’s always an excuse for not giving. The young person says, “I don’t make enough, and I have lots to buy.” Then when college is done, it’s “I have to pay off my loans.” Then comes a family—“I have to buy a house…I have to take care of my kids.” And then comes retirement—“But I don’t have enough saved, and what will come of me?”
Bring your resources to Christ. When we give that tithe, that 10% of our income, it represents giving all that we have. Indeed, the most important thing we give is our very bodies. St. Paul says, “I beseech you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies as living sacrifices, wholly acceptable to God.”
The needs before our parish are daunting indeed. We have been given this little building, on this little piece of land. We’d like to do so much more: to build a permanent temple, with a cemetery, a school or old folks’ home. We’d like to help our neighbors in practical, useful ways. How can we do it? Well, we can’t, in our own strength.
We must learn, rather, to bring what we have, to Christ. Let it be our business to be faithful in giving, faithful in serving our neighbors. And let it be his business to give us what we need to serve those in need: whether it be a permanent temple and a school to teach his word, or food pantry to feed the hungry—or whatever else he has in mind.
You know the rest of the story—how that the disciples brought their food to Christ, and he blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to them to give to the crowd…how everyone ate his fill and still there were twelve baskets left behind.
Still today the Lord multiplies the loaves. We offer him bread and wine, his gifts mingled with our labor. And he gives it back to us as his own life-giving body and precious blood. He feeds our bodies, he forgives our sins, he fills us with his own indestructible life. Give as much as we can, we can never outgive our merciful and man-befriending God.
So let us rise from this place, filled with his gifts, ready to embrace the needs we see around us—to make them our responsibility. Let us bring to him the little we have, with grateful hearts, and learn in our own lives how good the Lord is. Let us be faithful with the things of this passing life, so that we may receive a rich reward in his kingdom, which has no end. Amen.

Sermon on the dumb demoniac, the crowd and the Pharisees

2011-08-06T18:50:00.001-07:00

Hall-of-famer Yogi Berra once said, “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.” That saying makes us smile because, while it seems to make sense, it really doesn’t. A fork in the road is an either/or, not a both/and. You go one way, or the other. You can’t go both ways.
Today’s gospel shows us that the same is true in our encounter with Christ. The Lord heals a dumb man, casting out a demon. The crowd responds with praise, saying “This has never been done in Israel.” And that was true! Every kind of miracle the Lord did in his earthly ministry had been done already in the Old Testament: lepers cleansed, sick people healed, dead people raised—even feeding many with a little food. Only one kind of miracle was new. And that was the casting out of demons.
Why does the Lord repeat the same kind of miracles that happen in the Old Testament? It was to show that he was the fulfillment of the Old Testament, the one who, in himself, brought together all those things that had been done piecemeal before him. But why, then, does he cast out demons? In this way he shows his greatness, and the purpose of his coming. As St. John writes, “The Son of God came to destroy the works of the devil.”
The crowd praises Christ. But the Pharisees harden their hearts and say, “He casts out demons by the prince of demons.” They could not deny what he had done, and so they serve as unwilling witnesses of Christ’s power. Admitting the work, they still reject Christ—in the only way left to them. They attribute his power itself to the devil. But that’s irrational…it’s madness. Why would Satan fight against himself? They showed that same irrationality later, when the Lord rose from the dead and they told the guards to say that while the guards slept, the disciples stole the body. But such is the fate of all those who reject the love of God in Christ. Such “wisdom” becomes folly.
The crowd praises Christ; the Pharisees reject him. But nobody stays the way they were before. That’s because every time we encounter Christ, it is a fork in the road, a moment of crisis, a time of decision.
Where do we encounter him? We encounter him here in this time, when his word is proclaimed, his promise given, his body and blood offered to the faithful. Our hearts are changed, for good or for ill: for good, when we embrace him in repentance and draw near in love; for ill, when we put off repentance or draw near outwardly while hardening our hearts inwardly.
We encounter him, too, in dealing with others and especially the least of his brothers and sisters, day after day. When we see someone in need and turn away, it hardens us ever so slightly. When we open ourselves to serve them, and to receive them, we open ourselves to him.
Let us learn to see our lives for what they are. Our life doesn’t consist in the “stuff” we accumulate, in the things we have; for in the end, all that will be given to someone else. All those things are but the wax in the candle. But the candle’s life consists in its burning; and our life consists in the decisions we make, moment by moment—to receive the forgiveness and life Christ extends to us, or to turn from him to our own way, seeking pleasure and power.
Let us then beware, lest we think “Tomorrow I will repent, tomorrow I will believe, tomorrow I will follow Christ.” For that “tomorrow” doesn’t exist, and we may wake up to find ourselves far from him. This is the time of crisis, the fulcrum of our life, the fork in our road. So let us say “This is the day that the Lord has made; we will rejoice and be glad in it. We will seek him, we will serve him, we will praise him right now, in the only time and place and people he gives us.”

Raskolnikov's dream

2011-08-03T05:09:00.000-07:00

I've been listening to Dostoyevsky's novels on my mp3 player. I want to post a few excerpts that have struck me as interesting. Here's one: Raskolnikov's dream from near the end of Crime and Punishment. It strikes me as prescient:

He was in the hospital from the middle of Lent till after Easter.
When he was better, he remembered the dreams he had had while he was
feverish and delirious. He dreamt that the whole world was condemned
to a terrible new strange plague that had come to Europe from the
depths of Asia. All were to be destroyed except a very few chosen.
Some new sorts of microbes were attacking the bodies of men, but these
microbes were endowed with intelligence and will. Men attacked by them
became at once mad and furious. But never had men considered
themselves so intellectual and so completely in possession of the
truth as these sufferers, never had they considered their decisions,
their scientific conclusions, their moral convictions so infallible.
Whole villages, whole towns and peoples went mad from the infection.
All were excited and did not understand one another. Each thought that
he alone had the truth and was wretched looking at the others, beat
himself on the breast, wept, and wrung his hands. They did not know
how to judge and could not agree what to consider evil and what
good; they did not know whom to blame, whom to justify. Men killed
each other in a sort of senseless spite. They gathered together in
armies against one another, but even on the march the armies would
begin attacking each other, the ranks would be broken and the soldiers
would fall on each other, stabbing and cutting, biting and devouring
each other. The alarm bell was ringing all day long in the towns;
men rushed together, but why they were summoned and who was
summoning them no one knew. The most ordinary trades were abandoned,
because every one proposed his own ideas, his own improvements, and
they could not agree. The land too was abandoned. Men met in groups,
agreed on something, swore to keep together, but at once began on
something quite different from what they had proposed. They accused
one another, fought and killed each other. There were conflagrations
and famine. All men and all things were involved in destruction. The
plague spread and moved further and further. Only a few men could be
saved in the whole world. They were a pure chosen people, destined
to found a new race and a new life, to renew and purify the earth, but
no one had seen these men, no one had heard their words and their
voices.

Sermon on the paralytic, 2011

2011-07-24T13:53:00.000-07:00

Today’s text presents a challenge to the preacher. It’s the account of the paralyzed man whose friends bring him to Christ. What makes it a challenge is that we read about this same event more than once a year. The gospels record lots of events from the Lord’s life; why would the church choose to repeat this same one, but from different evangelists?
I can think of two reasons. In the first place, the events that get repeated speak to deep needs of our human condition. We need to hear some things again and again. That’s why couples who’ve been married fifty years still say “I love you” to each other. As St. Paul told the Philippians, “To say the same thing again is not burdensome for me, and it is necessary for you.”
In the second place, each evangelist looks at the same event through a slightly different lens. If you read the parallel accounts closely, you find that different evangelists mention different things. Sometimes the differences can be slight. But the life of our Lord Jesus is a jewel, and turning it ever so slightly brings new light to us.
That’s the case with today’s text. Matthew’s version is very similar to the other evangelists in many respects. Other people bring the paralytic to Christ. Seeing their faith, he speaks pardon to the man. The scribes murmur, and the Lord silences their grumbling by healing the man.
All these things we need to hear again and again: that sometimes we are sick because of sin; that we need each other (Christianity is a team sport); that Christ’s word really brings about changes in our life.
But today I want to focus on something unique to St. Matthew’s account. Look how the text ends. “When the crowds saw this, they were amazed and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.” Did you catch that? “To men.”
It’s not at all what we would expect. Jesus is the one who heals—not the enemies, not the crowd, not the apostles. So why would St. Matthew say that God gave such authority to men? What can this mean?
Recall, first, the words of the Lord. Before he healed the man, he told the scribes, “So that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Here he calls himself the Son of Man. And that in itself would fry our circuits. For it’s an expression that harkens back to Prophet Daniel. In a night vision, Daniel saw one like a Son of Man, being presented to the Ancient of Days. This Son of Man receives an everlasting dominion, an indestructible kingdom. When Jesus calls himself the “Son of Man,” he’s claiming precisely that for himself—a divine title.
But here’s what fries our circuits. That title is Son of Man—a word that speaks clearly to the Lord’s humanity. And to drive the point home even more, he says, “The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” In other words, this isn’t just for night visions of far-distant spiritual events. This authority is for here and now—for life as we live it, with all its warts.
When God the Son took on our flesh, and became incarnate of the Virgin, all the fullness of his divinity was poured out on his humanity. So now, both according to his divinity and his humanity he knows all things, he has all authority, he is everywhere present. His deity does not destroy his humanity, but fills it. All this is his by virtue of the Incarnation. “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory.”
When Matthew says the crowd glorified God who had given such authority to men, it means first and foremost that God gave such authority to this Man, his Son made flesh for us. The divine essence cannot be communicated to his humanity, for that would destroy it. But the divine energies, in all their fullness, are given to his humanity so that, by the nature of the Incarnation, they belong to Christ’s humanity.
That still doesn’t explain the words “to men,” however. And here’s where it gets really marvelous. The crowd understood that in principle, if such authority was given to this man, then God meant it to be shared among humanity in all its persons. In other words, what belonged to Christ’s humanity by virtue of the Incarnation, is given through that humanity to others who share his humanity. What is his by nature, becomes our by grace.
We see that played out in the rest of Matthew’s gospel. To cite but two examples: When our Lord comes to the apostles, walking on the water, Peter says, “Lord, if it is you, command that I come out on the water too.” The Lord gives the word, and Peter walks on the water. Now Christ walks on the water because in the union of his Person, the divine energies are poured out on his humanity, in all their fullness. But why does Peter walk on the water? Because what is Christ’s by nature, becomes others' by grace.
Again, the Lord tells his apostles, “Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.” The divine authority to forgive sins is communicated through Christ’s humanity, to his apostles.
We mustn’t misunderstand. This doesn’t mean that any Christian can do everything Christ did, at any time of our choosing. The divine energies are divided in the Church. The Panagia receives their fullness by grace--"Rejoice, full of grace!" Gabriel told her-- but as St. Paul says, the Spirit divides the gifts among the people of God. We need each other, and the divine energy of God’s love binds us all in one body.
Further, the divine energies benefit us only when we receive them in humble, repentant faith. When Edison was developing the light bulb, he had a problem. As soon as the electricity passed through the filament, it would glow, briefly, then burn up. Only when he removed all the air, and put the filament inside a vaccuum bulb, would it continue to glow. So too the energies of the Spirit only work savingly in those emptied of themselves in the fear of God, in repentance and faith.
In the Eucharist, for example, Christ himself shares his true, life-giving body and blood with us, and thereby shares his life with us. But if we receive him without faith, without repentance, we receive them to our judgment. That’s why we call out “With the fear of God, in faith and love draw near!”
This gift of the divine energies is not just a theory. It’s a practical, daily reality, as we see in the lives of the saints. What enabled Christina, a teenaged girl, to endure unspeakable tortures? What gave strength to Boris and Gleb to give up their royal thrones and even their lives, rather than raise a hand against their unjust brother? It was this divine energy, working in them.
Beloved, God has great things in mind for us. We cannot accomplish them with our wealth, wisdom or power. He doesn’t need those things. He needs humble, open hearts. Let us receive him as he comes to us in faith and fear, loving him who so loved us that he gave himself into death for us. Then we will be able to say with Paul, “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.” Then, too, like that crowd so long ago, we will give glory to God, who has given such authority to men.

Odd...

2011-06-27T14:08:00.000-07:00

Our country now subjects 95 year old women, and young children--American citizens-- to invasive searches.

At the same time, it wanted to try terrorists in civilian courts.

Why do we treat citizens like terrorists, and terrorists like citizens?

Sermon on Matthew 4:18f--second Sunday after Pentecost 2011

2011-06-27T05:56:00.000-07:00

When we first hear today’s gospel, we’re struck by how abrupt the call of Christ seems to be. He walks by the side of the sea and calls 4 fishermen: Peter and Andrew, James and John. Without question, without hesitation, they leave their nets and follow him.

But St. Matthew gives us, in fact, the second call of the apostles. Already they knew of Christ, already they followed him, as we learn in St. John. They followed him, but remained at their work. Now Christ meets them where they work, and calls them once more: this time, to be “fishers of men.”

See how Christ has dealt with them. When he had first called them and they went back to fishing, he didn’t forbid them. But neither did he let them go altogether. He gave them slack, but drew them back—the very point of fishing itself! In other words, first he fishes for them, then he calls them to fish for others.

Christ caught them, by his words; so they followed, convinced that those words would catch others too. We must be careful, beloved. We call others to believe: do we believe? We urge them to pray; do we call on God? The stakes are high. What will it profit someone to gain the whole world-even for Christ-and lose his own soul?

To be a leader, we must first follow. To be a teacher, we must first be a student. And to be a “fisher of men,” to do evangelism rightly, we must first be evangelized ourselves.

Let us take care to hear the good news for ourselves! This one who calls Peter and Andrew, James and John is the one who first called them—and you—from nothingness into being. He who invites them to be fishers of men is he who made fish, and water, and men in the beginning. God became man to seek and to save us in all the places we have hidden ourselves. He did not cease being what he was—God—in order to become what he was not—man. He took on himself all that we are, apart from sin, then bore our sin, in order to make us partakers of all that he is.

No wonder their response is radical. For though they were in the midst of their work (and fishing demands a lot of time and energy) when they heard His command, they didn’t delay, they didn’t procrastinate, they didn’t say, “let’s go home and talk with our families first,” but “they forsook all and followed,” even as Elisha did to Elijah.

They forsook all—they left everything. That doesn’t mean they never fished again. Even after Christ rose, Peter and the others went fishing. But they no longer viewed their time and possessions as their own. Now all that belonged to Christ, the Lord, and they were his slaves and stewards.

I’ve often wondered at the words in Hebrews, where St. Paul reminds them, “You gladly suffered the loss of your possessions.” How could that be—unless they had already decided they owned nothing, that all belonged to Christ. Like the song says, “When you’ve got nothing, you’ve got nothing to lose!”

Only after he catches the disciples does the Lord Jesus begin his public ministry in earnest. Then it was he went about all Galilee teaching, preaching, and healing all disease and infirmity. Why so many miracles then? Because each time the Lord introduces a new covenant, he accomplishes miracles to give credibility to what he says. In the time of Abraham He gave many signs; as his victory in the war, the plague upon Pharaoh, his deliverance from dangers. And when about to legislate for the Jews, He showed forth those marvelous and great prodigies, and then gave the law. So also here, at the beginning of the new covenant, he works wonders.

But why so few miracles now? In the first place, because the new covenant has been firmly established. It’s two thousand years since Christ’s death and rising, since the first preaching of the apostles.

In the second place, because unless and until we are fully and completely “caught,” such signs would actually be harmful. We are ever prone to change Christ from our Lord to our “buddy,” to serve our own drive for power and pleasure. “A faithless and perverse generation seeks signs,” he told the Jews, “but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Well does Chrysostom say, “If you change from inhumanity to almsgiving, you have stretched forth the hand that was withered. If you withdraw from theaters and go to church, you have cured the lame foot. If you draw back your eyes from a harlot, you have opened them when they were blind. These are the greatest miracles.”

Let us take care then, beloved, that we be caught ourselves by Christ. Let us not be content to have him as an element in our life, a piece of the puzzle, but the heart and core and center of everything we think, do and say. Let us receive him as he comes to us. In short, let us get out of the water and into his net. It will mean death for our life in this passing world; but it will mean resurrection and life for the world that never ends—the life in his Kingdom, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

(Note: Many of the underlying thoughts derive from Chrysostom's homily ad loc)

Seeds of God

2011-04-21T05:52:00.001-07:00

A woman once had a dream in which she went into a shop and saw the Lord God standing behind the counter.

“Lord, it’s you!” she exclaimed with joy

“Yes, it’s Me”, answered God.

“But what can I buy from you?” asked the woman.

“You can buy everything from me”, came the answer.

“Then please give me health, happiness, love, success, and lots of money”.

God smiled kindly and went into the back room for the goods she had ordered. After a while He returned with a small paper box.

“Is that it?” exclaimed the disappointed woman in amazement.

“Yes, that’s it”, answered God, adding: “Surely you knew that I only sell seeds in my shop?”

From Pramvir.com

Sermon on the demon-possessed boy

2011-04-05T03:53:00.000-07:00

Throughout the Gospels there are many accounts of people bringing someone else to Jesus, for him to heal.
➢ A few Sundays ago, we heard of the paralytic being let down through the roof
➢ Yesterday’s Gospel told of them bringing a deaf and dumb man to Jesus

Today we hear of a man bringing his demon-possessed son to the Lord’s disciples. “I brought him to you,” the man says to Jesus, “and your disciples could not heal him.”

Note, beloved—in this the man spoke truly. To bring someone to the disciples, is to bring someone to Christ. It’s no small matter for our day. A seeker asks the right question when he says, “Where is the Church?” And we are here today because we asked that question.

But why couldn’t the disciples heal the boy? And why do our prayers sometimes seem to go unanswered? We learn the answer in the man’s dialogue with the Lord. “If you can do anything,” the man says, “take pity and help us.” Christ responds, “If you can believe, all things are possible to him who has faith.”

It all gets down to faith.

The father in our Gospel had a very weak faith. The text is plain; Christ said, “O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I put up with you?” And the man himself said, “I believe; help my unbelief.”

Rarely does Christ work in the Gospel without faith. When he went to his hometown, we are told, “And he did few miracles there, because they did not believe.” Note: he did few. He works sometimes without faith, to teach us that his power does not depend on us; he works rarely without faith, to teach us that faith is the way we connect with him.

But what does Christ mean by saying “All things are possible for him who has faith”? Some TV preachers would have you believe this is a “name it and claim it” game. If you want a new car, believe that it will happen and it will. If you don’t get what you named, it’s because you don’t believe enough.

That’s a perversion of what Christ says here.

Faith isn’t a coin, and God isn’t a cosmic vending machine. If someone prays to be healed from cancer, and it doesn’t happen, that doesn’t mean they didn’t believe enough. For sometimes God says “no,” even to his beloved children.
Once when I was little, one of my uncles wanted to give me a handgun. (He was a few cards short of a full deck, as they say.) I thought it would be neat—when we played army, or cowboys and Indians, I could have a real gun. But my parents said, “No.” At the time it seemed strange. Now I understand.

What, then, does Christ mean when he says, “All things are possible for him who has faith”?

Faith, beloved, puts us in contact with the Pantocrator, the maker and ruler of all things, by whose will the universe exists. What we call “the laws of nature” are, as C.S. Lewis noted, but a shorthand expression for God’s ongoing will.

When we pray in faith, we seek God’s will for what we ask. And he invites us, as beloved children, to ask whatever we want—recognizing that he, our Father, might say “no” if he knows what we ask would harm us.

At our best, we cry out with the father, “I believe—help my unbelief.” And how does he help?

➢ By our reading the Scriptures. It was Christ’s promise “All things are possible to him who believes,” that led the man to say, “I believe; help my unbelief.”
➢ By our prayer and fasting. When the disciples ask the Lord, “Why couldn’t we cast this demon out?” the Lord told them, “This one only comes out by prayer and fasting.” All our Lenten discipline exists for one purpose only—to strengthen our faith in Christ.

Let us, then, renew our efforts in prayer. Does something worry or discourage you? Bring it to the Lord in prayer. Lay it before him. Cling to his promises.

Don’t give up, if it seems long; he is exercising your faith, he is drawing you nearer.

Don’t ask for little things; he able to do far above all we could ever ask or think.

And don’t be upset if you don’t get what you want. Learn, through prayer and fasting and reading the Scriptures, what he wants.

For in the end, the point of prayer is not that we get this-or-that. The point of prayer is that we commune with him who, for love of us, came to share our life…that by his death, we might share his life.

Sermon on Zacchaeus

2011-01-30T04:39:00.000-08:00

“Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold.” Do you realize what those words mean? Zacchaeus was giving up practically all that he owned…he was moving from the top to the bottom of the income-tax brackets in one fell swoop.
This was a big move! Most of us work as hard as we can to earn as much as we’re able. We measure success by the “bottom line.”
Why is this? In itself, money is nothing—just pretty paper with pictures on it. But money represents power and freedom: the ability to do what I want. When I have it, I can take care of the necessities like food and shelter. When I have enough of it, I can get some ‘toys’ and maybe even be generous to others.
Money also represents life, and labor. We earn our living by the sweat of our brow. St. Paul said that those who do not work, should not eat. Money is not the root of all evil; the love of money is the root of all evil. Wealth is no vice, and poverty no virtue. What matters is not money, but how we relate to it.
Zacchaeus had measured his life by money. He was a little man, but he had big ambitions. So he worked the system, and he worked it hard. He became a chief tax collector. Nobody liked him, but he didn’t care. Why should he? He was rich.
And yet, with all his money, he wasn’t happy. He was restless…he was lost. He knew there was something missing. That something was a someone.
So when he heard that Jesus was coming to town, Zacchaeus made a plan. He wanted to see the Lord. But he was too short. So he abandoned all his pride, and acted like a little boy. He climbed a tree, and perched up there as the Lord walked by.
All at once, the parade stopped. Jesus looked up in the tree. “Come down, Zacchaeus,” he said; “I must eat at your house today!” These words are shocking on three levels. First, the Lord called Zacchaeus by name. For us, names are no big deal. But back then, to know a name was to know the person whose name it was. How did Jesus know Zacchaeus by name? How indeed…unless he were enfleshed God!
Second, the Lord invites himself to dinner. Can you imagine someone saying to you, “I’m coming to your house today for lunch.” At the very least, it would be a breach of etiquette. Normally the host invites the guest, but here the guest invites himself.
And third, of all the houses in Jericho, of all the places Jesus could stop for lunch, he chose the most notorious resident of the city. Zacchaeus’ house was the last place you’d expect him to go.
Ever since our first parents fell, we’ve been covering ourselves with foliage. Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves. We hide our bodies with clothes, and our souls with words and works. The unhappy person paints a smile…the weak person bellows and blusters. We cover our fear of death with money. And what is make-up, but an effort to change and cover what’s there?
That day in Jericho, the God who called “Adam, where are you?” called out to this son of Adam, “Zacchaeus! Come down!” And he calls to you and me this morning. Where are you? How are you covering yourself? You can hide from others…you can even hide from yourself…but you can’t hide from Christ. He is here, now.
He invites himself to your home and your life. He doesn’t want to be on the fringes. He doesn’t want you to simply watch him pass by. He wants to come in…to all those places that most folks don’t go. It doesn’t matter what others think of you. It doesn’t matter what you’ve done. He is calling.
To have him in our hearts and homes, is to have all that we need. He forgives our sins, he heals our diseases, he redeems our life from the pit. He perfects his power in our weakness. He came from heaven and shared our life in every way but sin, all the way to death; and even our death and sin he took on himself, to give us his own indestructible life and light. As St. Athanasius said, “He became man, that we might become God.” No wonder Zacchaeus could give up all that he had, to welcome Christ and follow him.
I love this Sunday’s gospel lesson, because with today the Church year takes a turn. We are leaving behind the splendor of Christmas and Theophany. Now, in the middle of winter, we hear the first stirrings of the Lenten spring. Once again we prepare ourselves for the season of repentance, and making ready for Christ’s holy resurrection.
But each day can be a little Lent, every moment a time of Paschal joy. When for the love of Christ we give us the pleasures and passions and power of the world, then we are in Lent. When we receive the Lord who calls us by name, who died and rose for us, into our homes and hearts—then, beloved, it is Pascha for us. So let us loose our grip on the things that hold so tightly: our money, our time, and our talents; yes, and even our sins. Let us be generous with ourselves in the little time we have left, that having received Christ here and now, he may welcome us into his heavenly Kingdom: to which may we all attain, through his grace and love for mankind, always, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.

Subterranean scribbling: this needs unpacking

2011-01-08T08:44:00.000-08:00

In a recent post on Weedon's blog, Pr. Weedon said:

Third, that Moses is instructed to put the ten words into the ark (Deut. 10), suggests that the fulfillment of the ten words, how they will come to realization, will only be through His work in the incarnate Lord, who is like unto the ark of the living God, tabernacling among us (John 1:14). It is only through union with Christ that the "ten words," which are God's plan and purpose for our lives, come to their true fulfillment. The words are hidden within the Ark - the will of God for our lives to be wholly love is similarly hidden within His Son, who is the perfect embodiment of the will of God for the race of men and to whom the commandments are never condemnatory for His heart and His life are wholly congruent with them - love enfleshed - to love His Father with His all, to love His neighbor as Himself - you and me - that is the very ache, joy, and content of His being. He perfectly lives them and so He is our perfect righteousness given to us; and He will bring about the perfect fulfillment of them which He begins to work within us in this life and brings to consummation at the Day of His appearing (accomplishing what Jeremiah foretold in his 31st chapter - that the Torah would be written on our hearts - that is, that it would be our DESIRE to fulfill it).

I quote the entire passage so as to be fair. What's intriguing here, for an Orthodox Christian, is that Pr. Weedon equates the ark of the covenant to Christ. For the Orthodox, Mary--not Christ--is the ark.

Still, it is difficult to articulate the comparison Pr. Weedon is making here. First, he refers to "the incarnate Lord, who is like unto the ark of the living God, tabernacling among us (John 1:14)." Then later he says "The words are hidden within the Ark - the will of God for our lives to be wholly love is similarly hidden within His Son, who is the perfect embodiment of the will of God for the race of men and to whom the commandments are never condemnatory..."

Something funny is going on here, and someone with more ability than I have (are you reading this, Perry Robinson?) might have fun contrasting the Orthodox Mary-as-ark with the Weedonian Christ-as-ark positions. I have a hunch that somewhere in the Christ-as-ark view will be a Nestorianizing Christology. But the semester has begun once again, alas!

Thoughts?

Subterranean scribbling: What does this mean?

2011-01-06T05:00:00.000-08:00

"In order to have canon law, you have to have a church. The LCMS is congregational in structure and congregationalist in practice. Since congregation is the only church there is, there can be no canon law.

When the Confessions say "We do... keep... observe..." they are not merely descriptive. They had no conception of something other than this. It was not even possible much less permissible. Our current circumstances in Missouri and wider Lutheranism present perspectives which were foreign and alien to the framers of the Confessions."

--Pr. Larry Peters, in a combox on Weedon's blog

The Orthodox Church and the modern world

2010-12-30T05:04:00.000-08:00

Recently I came across a paper by Pantelis Kalaitzidis, the Director of the Volos Academy for Theological Studies. I don't have the time or inclination to address the entire paper. I would like to address, briefly, the interrelationship between Church and world that Kalaitzidis discusses. One brief quote may suffice:

"

the Church and its theology cannot move forward in the world while ignoring or devaluing the world that surrounds them, just because this world is not ‘Christian,’ or because it is not as they would like it. Similarly, the Church and its theology cannot motivate the people of today, the people of modernity and late modernity, so long as the modern world continues to be scorned and disparaged by the Church, and ignored as revelatory material and flesh to be assumed."

In the Holy Scriptures and the rest of the Church's tradition, "world" has two sense. In one of those senses, "world" is the object of God's creation, redemption and sanctification--e.g. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son." But in the other sense, it is the fallen system whose head is the devil and whose internal ally is our sinful flesh (another word with two main senses). Thus, St. John says, "Do not love the world, or the things in the world. Whoever loves the world is at enmity with God."

The real contrast that Orthodox theologians have to address is not the contrast between the ancient and modern worlds. The real contrast is that between the world in the two biblical senses.

In which of those two senses does the world "function as revelatory material and flesh to be assumed?"

Homily on the Rich Ruler

2010-11-28T13:24:00.000-08:00

I was struck, when reflecting on our Gospel for today, with its connection to what comes immediately before. Some people brought little babies to Jesus, that he might touch them, but the disciples tried to prevent it. The Lord responds by saying, "Let the little children come to me, and don't forbid them, for of such is the Kingdom of God." And then he adds, "Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it."

Then follows our text, at the end of which the Lord says "How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!" There's a common thread here, between these two: entering the Kingdom of God. And what do we learn? Little ones, babies, get it. Rich people have lots of trouble.

You see, beloved, the Lord Jesus stands all the values of this world on their head. Elsewhere he says, "I praise thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and intelligent, and hast revealed them to babies. Yes, O Father, for such was your gracious will."

From the time we are small, we want to grow, to gain: in wisdom...in strength...in popularity...in financial security. We work out in the gym. We go to school. We friend others on facebook. We try to increase our bottom line. We do all that we can to stop being babies.

And in a certain sense, that's good. It's ok to work out...to learn and study...to be sociable...even to have a healthy bank balance. Wealth is not morally wrong. It's better to be Solomon than a fool...to be strong...to have friends. The trouble comes when we hold those things with a clenched fist, instead of in an open hand...when we try to make them ours...when they enter our inmost heart. Then the things that are relatively good, become absolutely bad. For they come between us and Christ.

In our text, the Lord tells this ruler, "You lack one thing." But that one thing was everything. This rich ruler's heart had grown attached to his wealth. It is not the wealth, but the attachment, that the Lord rejects. I cannot open my hands to receive from Christ, when they clutch my wealth, my wisdom and strength. I cannot be justified by God when I try to justify myself. I cannot receive the Kingdom as a gift, when I think it's something owed to me.

Nor can I be saved without works. The Lord does not condemn the ruler for his striving to keep the commandments. Christ does not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. Real faith shows itself in action. St. James says, "Faith without works...is dead." And St. Mark the Ascetic says, "Some without fulfilling the commandments think that they possess true faith. Others fulfil the commandments and then expect the kingdom as a reward due to them. Both are mistaken."

The Lord Jesus stands all the values of this world on their head. Nowhere is that seen more clearly than at his cross, where he dies weak, and friendless, looking foolish, utterly bereft of anything good. If you would see true wealth, see the Lord of heaven and earth suspended on the tree, giving himself completely for those who hated him. If you would know wisdom, see God himself hanging there, becoming a curse for us, that we might be blessed. If you would know strength, you must know it in his broken body--as he later told St. Paul, "My power is perfected in weakness."

We understand the Lord's words rightly only when we can say, with Christ's disciples, "Who, then, can be saved?"...when we take with complete seriousness his reply:"the things that are impossible with men are possible with God." He doesn't say "necessary'; he doesn't say "certain"; he doesn't say "actual." He says "possible." I cannot presume on salvation, because it is impossible for me. I do not despair of salvation, because it is possible with God.

So in this life, I must be content to plead for mercy, like the publican...to detach myself from following after wealth, and wisdom and strength that I might follow after Christ...to be a little child, a nursing baby, who entrusts himself completely to the goodness of the crucified God and risen man. He who led his people Israel through the Red Sea as on dry land...he who passed through the womb of his mother without disturbing her virginity...who rose from the dead without breaking the seal of the tomb...is able also to bring me through the eye of a needle to the joys of his heavenly Kingdom: to which may we all attain, through his grace and love for mankind, always, now and ever, and unto ages of ages.

Nicholas Cabasilas on the ancestral sin

2010-10-05T05:21:00.000-07:00

"...each man's soul inherited the wickedness of the first Adam. It spread from his soul to his body, and from his body to the bodies which derived from his, and from those bodies to the souls.

This, then, is the old man whom we have received as a seed of evil from our ancestors as we came into existence. We have not seen even one day pure from sin, nor have we ever breathed apart from wickedness, but, as the psalmist says, 'we have gone astray from the womb, we err from our birth.' We did not even stand still in this unhappy lot of the sin of our ancestors, nor were we content with the evils which we had inherited. So greatly have we added to the wickedness and increased the abundance of evil that the primal sin has been covered over by that which came later and the imitators have shown themselves to be worse by far than the examples."

The Life in Christ, Bk. 2 section 7 (English translation pp.76-77)

Subterranean Scribble: I'm glad to see he finally recognizes it

2010-09-29T07:35:00.000-07:00

Title of a post on Rev. McCain's blog:

Leading Sheep Out of Danger is Not Sheep Stealing

A cracked quia?

2010-09-20T18:35:00.000-07:00

The "semper virgo" issue is, once again, making the rounds on Lutheran blogdom; the chief post is found on Gottesdienst Online. Written by my friend and former colleague, John Stephenson, it incisively shows the problem inherent for someone wishing to maintain a "quia" subscription to the Lutheran Confessions and, at the same time, to reject the teaching that Mary is perpetually virgin.

What is at stake in this issue, for Lutherans? Nothing less than the continued existence of Lutheranism itself, as Lutheranism! In order to see that, we have to understand the notion of what I call an "organizing principle."

Each of the western confessions of faith has an organizing principle--a fixed point around which everything else revolves, the loss of which would mean the implosion of the confession itself.

For Rome, this principle is the papacy. This explains why Rome allows the Byzantine Catholics not to use the filioque in the Creed, and even, as some tell me, not to have to assent to it (or the Immaculate Conception) as dogma. All that is necessary to be Catholic is that one yield supremacy to the Pope. Ideally one also subscribes to the views of the pope, and not to do so may make one a "bad Catholic"--but the operating word is the noun, not the adjective.

For the Pentecostals, this principle is the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking with tongues. While I still taught in Canada, word got out of a high-level delegation of the Assemblies of God paying a visit to the Toronto Vineyard church (home of the so-called "Toronto blessing"). Those leaders wanted to see what was happening in Toronto because over half of the AoG young people could not claim the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" or "speaking with tongues." The problem was critical, because when the organizing principle of a body is broken, its death is inevitable.

For Lutherans, this organizing principle is a "quia" subscription to the Lutheran Confessions. That means that Lutherans, especially pastors, are to subscribe to the entire doctrinal content of the Lutheran confessional writings because (Latin "quia") those writings agree with the Scriptures. It is contrasted to a "quatenus" (Latin for "insofar as") subscription to those texts.

Issues like the semper Virgo strike at the heart of this organizing principle. Although many early Lutherans, like Luther himself and Johann Gerhard, believed in the semper Virgo, Lutherans on the whole since Gerhard's time have rejected it as dogma. (There are, of course, many exceptions to this rule. But the Lutheranism of the ordinary pastor and layperson has no room for it.)

Here is the problem: The Lutheran confessions assume and teach the semper Virgo. Stephenson documents well the fact that the formulators of the Formula of Concord, including Chemnitz himself, held to this dogma. Even Herman Sasse recognized that they teach it, although he himself rejected it.

Writing forty or fifty years after the Lutheran confessional writings were drafted, Johann Gerhard formulated the so-called 'sola Scriptura' principle--the notion that all dogmas must be traced from clear passages of Scripture. Because Gerhard's exegetical method allowed for typological exegesis, he had no trouble affirming both the "sola Scriptura" principle AND the semper Virgo.

But many Lutheran theologians after Gerhard reject the typological approach to the Sciptures. This puts otherwise faithful Lutherans in the unenviable position of admitting that the Confessions teach, as dogma, something that to them seems to have no biblical foundation. What to do?

Some of them deny that the Confessions teach it as dogma. But articles such as Stephenson's certainly seem to shut that door.

Others return to Gerhard's typological approach to the Scriptures. But this approach seems deeply suspicious to many, who wonder how far the interpreter's cleverness can be allowed to go. Certainly as a Lutheran one cannot use the Church or her teachers as a check, because all that the Church and her teachers say and do must be normed by the Scriptures. To allow those teachers to guide authoritatively on what the Scriptures mean is to reverse the roles of the Scripture and traditon.

Still others stare at the problem "like a cow at a new gate," to use Luther's expression.

Pr. Weedon proposes a solution to the dilemma: a "cracked quia" subscription to the Confessional writings. He comments:

"The discomfort that arises for those who hold a quia subscription to the Symbols is not eased by lying to one's conscience that the Symbol cannot say what it plainly does simply because I do not believe it. One can take the Sasse route and have a bit of a cracked quia but at least honestly admit that it says what it does."

But a "cracked quia" is, eo ipso, an admission of failure with regard to the organizing principle of Lutheranism. When that which serves as organizing principle is, in principle, broken, disorganization and decay must inevitably follow. If Rev'd Weedon and his ilk can remain in communion fellowship with those who hold a different notion of the dogmas to which they are committed, then in principle the LCMS has become the unionistic fellowship that Franz Pieper warned about.

The recent election of Matthew Harrison as President of the LCMS has brought a lot of hope to those who subscribe to the Lutheran confessional writings. Confessional Lutherans got nearly everything they wanted, from the presidency on down, as well as greater centralization of authority in the president's office.

The institutional crisis, however, will trump any personal good will that Rev'd. Harrison is able to bring to bear on the problems facing the LCMS and confessional Lutheranism in general. Time will tell whether Rev. Weedon's crack is in fact the breakdown of the dyke which held Lutheranism together.

Recent developments

2010-08-27T08:16:00.001-07:00

Not a little electronic ink has been spilled over recent developments in the Antiochian Archdiocese—first by Orthodox, and now also by Lutherans of the Missouri stripe.

The recent LC-MS convention went the “confessional” way. Up and down the ticket, those aligned with traditional Lutheran worship and doctrine were elected to office. The Antiochian Archdiocese, on the other hand, appears to be going through some serious difficulties. It now seems that the Holy Synod in Antioch has designated all diocesan bishops as mere auxiliaries, and further that the much-vaunted self-rule of the North American archdiocese no longer applies.

In other words, things appear to be as good as they can get for confessional Lutherans, and (apparently) not too good at all for Antiochians.

Maybe this is the best time, then, to note:

1. The nature of the problem.
The least well-functioning family is better than the best corporate governance. The problems that face Orthodoxy are, as always, personal in nature; the problems that face Lutherans and other Protestants are structural.

2. The infallibility of the Church
When we teach that the Church is perfect and infallible, we do not teach that each individual in it—be he leader or follower—is perfect and infallible. We are in the midst of something here, and we do well to remember that God writes straight with crooked lines. If he were to remove all imperfect people from the Church, I would be the first to go.

3. The continuity of the liturgy
The liturgy we celebrate—apart, perhaps, from a change in the commemorations—will still be the same next Sunday, and next century.

4. To whom the Church belongs
Some well-meaning Orthodox blogs are calling for action and condemning priests for remaining silent. I remain convinced of two things: a) the Church is the body of Christ; b) the Orthodox Church is the Church. Christ will heal his body with gentleness, and in the proper time. My task is to pray for my leaders, to honor them, to follow them as they follow Christ. Even when Christians were put to the sword by pagan emperors, they did not cease respecting the emperors’ legitimate authority. How much more should we respect our fathers in Christ!

Subterranean scribbling

2010-08-10T05:11:00.000-07:00

Any argument against the intercession of the saints is founded on a pagan notion of death and, at its root, is an argument against all intercessory prayer.

Zernikav blog begun

2010-06-09T05:58:00.000-07:00

I've begun work on a major project, a translation of Zernikav's work on the Holy Spirit. Those who are interested may like to consult my other blog, devoted to the Zernikav project.

Cleaning house: Lutheran books available

2010-05-22T04:09:00.000-07:00

I'm going through my library to cull it. I'll list books for sale in this space; from time to time I'll add more. (Note: Buyer pays shipping too--usually < $4.00)

Lindemann, Fred H. "The Sermon and the Propers" 4 vols, hardcover, 1959. Some minor underlining, otherwise in good condition. $40.00

Koestlin, Julius. "The theology of Martin Luther." Philadelphia, Lutheran Publication Society, 1897. Hardcover, mint condition. $25.00

Kirchenagende fuer Ev-Luth Gemeinden ungeaenderter Augsburgischer Konfession. St. Louis: Concordia, 1922. 329 pp. *Mint* condition. $20.00

Luther, Martin. Kirchen-postille (2 vols). Stuttgart, 1845. Available on Abe Books for $79; I'm asking $50 plus shipping.

Schmucker, S.S. American Lutheranism Vindicated. Baltimore: T. Newton Kurtz, 1856. $40

Various authors. Various old LC-MS writings--including "Die heutigen Arbeiterverbindungen und die christliche Ortsgemeinde" (Graebner), "Fuenf Thesen ueber die Ehe mit der Schwester der verstorbenen Frau" (Hoenecke), "Captain William Morgan: Ein geschichtlicher Beitrag zur Beleuchtung des Logenwesens" (Krafft), "Ich glaube, darum rede ich" (Pieper) etc. Binding poor. Make an offer.

Die Bekenntnissschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche. Berlin 1868. Binding needs work. $20.

Die unveränderte Augsburgische Konfession, deutsch und lateinisch, nach den besten Handschriften aus dem Besitze der Unterzeichner, Text-Ausgabe von Paul Tschackert, von Paul Tschackert. Good condition. $25

Pieper, F. "What is Christianity? And Other Essays..." St. Louis: Concordia 1933. $60.

LCMS. "Another Fraternal Endeavor". ?1950's? $5.00

Reinboth. "Calls and Vacancies". St. Louis: Concordia 1967. $5.00

Gerhard. "Sacred Meditations" Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1896. 2 copies: one (good binding) $60, another (poor binding) $25.

Jacobs. "The Book of Concord." Vol 1 only. Good shape. $25.

Lilje, Hanns. "Luther" (in German). Some spotting inside front cover; otherwise fine shape. $5.00

Subterranean scribbling: the meaning of "espouse"

2010-05-04T07:09:00.000-07:00

Pr. Weedon has quoted the following words of AC Piepkorn on his blog:

Because of the confessional position of the Lutheran Church, there is no reason why Lutherans should not still be Lutheran. Espousing the catholic and apostolic faith with Christ as center and Scripture as source, Lutherans are part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Therefore, they do not have to ask whether they should be part of a church body with a name other than Lutheran. They do, of course, need to be concerned about the barriers that divide Christians from each other and must listen to other Christians for what the Holy Spirit may have to say through them. But they do not need to be concerned, as some other Christians have insisted they should be concerned, that they are somehow not the true church of Christ. -- A. C. Piepkorn, *The Sacred Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions* pp. 195, 196.

The argument beneath this paragraph seems to be as follows (I welcome any correction):

Lutherans espouse the catholic and apostolic faith with Christ as center and Scripture as source.
Therefore, they are part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

I note at least three things about the quotation and its underlying argument:

1. What does Piepkorn mean by "Church"? How does his "Church" (whether "Lutheran" or "one, holy, catholic and apostolic") relate to actually existing bodies (e.g. the LCMS, WELS etc)? How do the members of those bodies relate to it?

2. Does the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church have "parts"? There are, to be sure, jurisdictions in the Church. But are those jurisdictions "parts"? And how is that unity demonstrated, if not in the sharing of one font and one cup?

3. What does "espouse" mean? Is espousing a matter of mere words? Or does it also require actions in accord with those words? There is a move among some Lutherans, for example, to moralize their confessional position--i.e. "We are trying/we strive to be the Church described in the Confessions." But when confessions are moralized, they show themselves to be vacuous. Imagine, for example, someone saying "I try my best to believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth" etc. It just doesn't ring true as a statement of faith.

I welcome thoughts and responses from either of my readers.

Subterranean scribbling: Two rites, one wrong

2010-05-03T16:07:00.000-07:00

"I would argue that when the documents comprising the Lutheran Symbols, the Christian Book of Concord, are no longer permitted to critique and challenge current teaching or practice; when instead our Church's Confession is relegated to the museum as an interesting artifact of what was once the case, then we have lost the right to the name 'Lutheran.'" Rev'd. William Weedon

Some six or seven years ago, when I was still an LCMS pastor, I was a doctrinal reviewer for the hymnal--specifically, for the rite of baptism. I rejected the proposed rite, because it didn't include exorcisms. When I argued that the baptismal rite should include exorcisms, since Luther's rite (which is found in the Book of Concord) had them, I was told that Luther's rite exercised 'no normative role' in regard to current Lutheran baptismal practice.

Someone may note that the agenda has the exorcisms included. What's relevant, however, is the reasoning for not including them in the hymnal's rite.

Let the reader draw his conclusion.

Sermon from the Sunday of the Samaritan Woman

2010-05-02T14:11:00.001-07:00

One of the many ways the Lord proved himself to be alive after his passion, was all the different places and occasions he appeared. He showed himself to the women at the tomb…the disciples on the road to Emmaus…the apostles in the Upper Room, and at the Sea of Galilee, and on the Mount of Olives. He came at morning and at evening; he came not just when they gathered for prayer, but also when they went fishing. When God the Son who fills all things became incarnate, he made his humanity to share in his divine omnipresence. To put it in simple terms, any place, any time can be the occasion for an encounter with the crucified and risen Lord.

We get a foretaste of that in today’s gospel, the account of St. Photini. She went to the well at midday for water, to slake her thirst; but she met Christ, who gave her the spring of water welling up to eternal life.

Did you notice that in the middle of the conversation she brings up “our father Jacob”? Jacob was Isaac’s son, the one who had dug that well so many years before…who left it to his son Joseph and his heirs. How much this woman shows herself to be a child of Jacob, who met the pre-incarnate Christ in a wrestling match!

Like Jacob, when she met God she was on the run.
Jacob, from Esau…had stolen Esau’s blessing…lived by taking.
She, from the townspeople…married five times, now with another.

Like Jacob, she wrestles with God.
Jacob, literally, as he struggled against the Angel of the Lord.
She, figuratively, as she enters a discussion with Christ.
“Where should we worship? I know that Messiah comes…”

Like Jacob, she is wounded in the encounter.
Jacob had his hip thrown out of joint…for the rest of his life he limped.
She, when Christ reveals her source of deepest pain: 5 husbands.

And like Jacob, she receives a new name.
Jacob becomes “Israel,” the one who wrestles against God and man.
She becomes “Photini,” the enlightened one.

Enlightened, she bears witness of Christ to the people of Samaria.
Later, she even bore witness to Nero, and ended her life as a martyr by being thrown down a well.

Let us learn from Photini, beloved.
* We can meet the true, Triune God in any and every situation of life. Western thought began to fall when men made a distinction between the “sacred” and the “secular.” And now the secular has taken over the sacred. A week ago, a school board in Rhode Island was sued because they held their commencement in a mega-church. The head of the school board, a minister, argued that the suit was without merit because the mega-church building looked nothing like a church!
But that’s not the Christian view! All of life belongs to God, and our call as Christians is to sacralize the world—not by political action, but by constant prayer and acts of love
* He uncovers our deepest hurts and pain, not to humiliate us but to heal us. Christians always walk with a limp: the glory belongs to him, and he shares it with us.
* He leads us to worship the Holy Trinity: the Father, the Truth and the Spirit.

(Note: the audio of this sermon is available on our website: holycross-aoc.org)

Sermon from the Sunday of the Paralytic

2010-04-27T04:55:00.000-07:00

One Russian priest says that today is the feast-day for all us paralytics. That’s what we are, isn’t it?

Beside our mortality, which leads us to fear, and bondage to sin…
Beneath our sin, which leads us to put ourselves at the center…
There’s also our weakness, which leads us to despair.

Weakness was the paralytic’s problem. Thirty eight years he lay near the pool. Throughout that time, he saw the waters stir, and others enter, and come out healed. But he himself could only watch: so close, and yet so far. No wonder that when the Lord said, “Do you want to be made well?” he answered “I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up.”

Do you know your weakness? I’m often struck by the words of Isaiah, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way.” Weakness isn’t the same as sin. Weakness refers to those parts of our nature which have become exposed because of our ancestral sin. Weakness was no problem before the Fall, because we were covered with the glory of God. But when we fell, we lost the glory and so became weak. That’s why the Scripture says that the first thing our first parents noticed after the Fall was that they were naked…vulnerable…weak.

We are, all of us, weak. Some of our weaknesses are natural, common to us all: we all hunger and thirst, we all grow tired, we all die. And some of our weaknesses are personal, unique to each individual. Some struggle with physical limitations; others deal with depression. These things aren’t sin. But they remind us of our death, and can lead us to sin.

How do we deal with our weakness?
Some folks deny it. “Everything’s fine!” they’ll tell you…even when it’s not.
Others cover it. The schoolyard bully…the brash business man…the politician who says he’s retiring ‘to spend more time with his family’ when the polls go down…
Still others sink under its weight. “That’s just the way I am,” they’ll say, and thereby excuse themselves from ever growing, or changing.

Not so with the paralytic. He didn’t deny his weakness, or cover it up: how could he? Nor did he sink under its weight, and despair. He persevered. He waited patiently for the Lord. St. John Chrysostom says, “Astonishing was the perseverance of the paralytic, he was of thirty and eight years standing, and each year hoping to be freed from his disease, he continued in attendance, and withdrew not.”

Let us learn from the paralytic, beloved.
Let us not cover our weakness. Let us not deny it, or despair of it.

But let us learn to wait for the Lord…to bring it before him in prayer, as did St. Paul. He wrote the Corinthians: “lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And He said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness." Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.”

It may be that the Lord will heal us by his word, as he did with this paralytic. “Take up your pallet and walk,” he said, and at once the man went home.

It may be that the Lord will tell us, with Paul, “My grace is sufficient for you; my power is perfected in weakness.” Indeed, may God deliver us from thinking we have no weakness! We must all be afflicted with some weakness in this life, and even when we are healed of one, we will have still others until the work of Christ is completely finished, and we see him in glory.

And let us beware, lest our weakness become a cause of sin. When the Lord encountered the paralytic after the healing, he said, “See, you have been made well. Go and sin no more, lest something worse befall you!”

No matter what, let weakness teach us humility…let it teach us to trust Christ who can sympathize with our weakness, because, being God, he became man, and bore our common weakness—he hungered, and thirsted, and grew tired. He even embraced our death, not because he had to, but willingly, freely, and full of love. Let us look to Christ, risen from the dead, who trampled down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowed life.

If it looks like a...

2010-04-26T14:35:00.000-07:00

Interesting article in USA Today, 26 April 2010 on using church buildings for commencement ceremonies. The ACLU is threatening to sue a school board in Enfield, Connecticut for using an area megachurch as the location for the Enfield commencement. Here's the relevant quote:

"Greg Stokes, a pastor who chairs the Enfield school board, says The First Cathedral, a Baptist megachurch in nearby Bloomfield, Conn., is a generic space. 'If you...walked into the main auditorium, you would not recognize yourself as being in a church.'"

I was reminded of the Orthodox cathedral in Almaty, Kazakhstan--the second-tallest wooden building in the world. When the Bolsheviks took over, they couldn't figure out what to do with the space. They tried it as an art gallery...a lecture hall...but it was made to be a church, and is useless for any other purpose.

What does architecture confess about theology?

Things I was reminded of...

2010-04-06T04:02:00.000-07:00

...during our Paschal celebration.

First, how I feel or think at a given time isn't the most important thing. The fact is that the tomb is empty and Christ is risen. Everything else, all our spirituality and singing, our ascetic labors--all is founded on Christ's actual resurrection or it is worthless.

Second, we need each other. When you walk around the outside of the church, and a breeze blows out one's candle it's not so bad when there's someone else around from whose candle one's own can be relit. "We are damned by ourselves. We are saved in community."

Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!

2010-02-21T17:36:00.000-08:00

Who found whom?

Jesus decided to go into Galilee.
He had a plan…a purpose…and that purpose and plan was to find Philip.
So John tells us, “He found Philip and said to him, ‘Follow me!’”
Jesus found Philip. He called him.

When Philip heard the Lord’s call, we’re told, Philip found his friend Nathaniel and said,
“We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote—
Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph!”

So who found whom? Did Jesus find Philip, or did Philip find Jesus?

The answer, of course, is “Yes--both.”

Our text is a delightful example of synergy: of God’s will coming together with ours.

A few years ago, there was an evangelistic campaign called “I found it!”
Those words appeared on billboards, along with a phone number.
Those who called the number received a gospel presentation.

At the time I criticized it; I said, “We shouldn’t say ‘I found it,’ but rather, “He found me.”
Like many, I thought that the relation between God’s will and mine was a “zero-sum game.”
I was wrong.

When you play poker with your friends, that’s a “zero sum game.”
If you win money, they lose money; if they win, you lose.
There’s only so much money involved.
But if you play poker with Bill Gates, that’s a “non-zero sum game.”
If you win some of his money, he’s lost nothing,
Because in the time it took you to win, he already made more.

The relationship between our will and God’s will is a non-zero sum game.
If I say, “We have found him,”
It doesn’t take away from his glory, his honor or his might.
It doesn’t mean that he didn’t find me.
Both are true: He found me, and I found him.

But how can that be?

How can God, the one who made everything, including me, from nothing—
How can God let himself become an object of my will, my creaturely will?

The answer gets to the heart of our Christian faith:
The incarnation of God the Son.
Without ceasing to be who he is,
He became what he was not.
He who is the Son of God, forever blessed,
Became the Son of Man, and took our curse.

He made himself an object of our senses, our mind,
And yes, our will.

That’s why St. Mark the Ascetic could say,

"Wishing to show that to fulfil every commandment is a duty, whereas sonship is a gift given to men through His own Blood, the Lord said: "When you have done all that is commanded you, say: 'We are useless servants: we have only done what was our duty'" (Luke 17: 10). Thus the kingdom of heaven is not a reward for works, but a gift of grace prepared by the Master for his faithful servants. A slave does not demand his freedom as a reward; but he gives satisfaction as one who is in debt, and he receives freedom as a gift."

We work, but we receive freedom as a gift. We find him, and he finds us.

That’s also why we reverence the holy icons. St. John of Damascus says, “Of old, God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was never depicted. Now, however, when God is seen clothed in flesh, and conversing with men, (Bar. 3.38) I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter, I [16] worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake, and deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation through matter. I will not cease from honouring that matter which works my salvation. I venerate it, though not as God.”

The Christian life is simply a life of hide and seek:

He seeks us, and knows us before we know him, and finds us in his holy Church;
We seek him, and find him where he wills to be found—
In his holy Church,
And in the bodies of the poor.

So let us seek him, beloved; let us not become proud when we see him wrapped in lowliness.
Let us not stumble at the lowly appearance, but honor the hidden majesty.
Let us honor him in the images,
Let us honor him in each other,
And let us honor him in the poor.

"When He is hungry, let us feed Him; when He is thirsty, let us give Him drink: though thou give Him but a cup of cold water, He receives it; for He loves thee, and to one who loves, the offerings of the beloved, though they be small, appear great. …
One who is beloved desires love to be shown, not by words only, but by deeds also. For to say that we love, and not to act like lovers, is ridiculous, not only before God, but even in the sight of men. Since then to confess Him in word only, while in deeds we oppose Him, is not only unprofitable, but also hurtful to us; let us, I entreat you, also make confession by our works; that we also may obtain a confession from Him in that day, when before His Father He shall confess those who are worthy in Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom, to the Father and the Holy Ghost be glory, now and ever, and world without end. Amen."

Sermon from 14 February: Forgiveness Sunday

2010-02-15T11:36:00.000-08:00

The root of the word “disciple” is “discipline.”
And to be a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ is to take his yoke upon ourselves:
the disciplines of prayer, and fasting and almsgiving.

But why these three disciplines?
Why prayer, and fasting, and almsgiving?

There are two reasons, beloved:
First, because they call us back to the life of paradise.
Adam prayed…he spoke with the Lord on a daily basis. He was not surprised, after the Fall, that the Lord would come to walk in the Garden in the cool of the day.

Adam fasted…or at least, he was called to fast from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, to show his obedience and love for the One who made him in his image. When he broke that fast, he lost Paradise for himself and for us.

And what of almsgiving? There were no poor in the Garden, only Adam and Eve, supplied with everything they needed. But almsgiving is precisely the confession that God provides and has provided us with all we need to love and serve him.

So when we pray, when we fast, when we give alms,
We remember the life of Paradise, the life from which we have fallen.

The second reason we pray, and fast, and give alms, is because they draw us to the Second Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ.

All his life is a life of prayer
He prayed in the Temple…before choosing the disciples…in his time of deepest woe in Gethsemane—yes, and on the rough wood of the Cross, where he prayed “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” At all times and place, he prayed.
Even after he rose again, St. Paul tells us that Christ “lives to make intercession for us.”

He fasted.
When Christ came to redeem us and restore us to Paradise,
The first act of his ministry for us
Was to fast for forty days and nights.
“My food is to do the will of him who sent me,” he told his disciples.

And he gave alms. Though he had no place to lay his head, he freely gave of his time and his life, to help those in deepest need. He taught the poor, he healed the sick, he raised the dead, he cast out demons.

By his prayers, by his fasting, he gave to us the alms we need the most:
Not this life, extended out longer, with a little more comfort;
But his own indestructible life, a life in union with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Today, this Forgiveness Sunday, we take those disciplines on ourselves in a deeper way.

In a few moments, we mark Forgiveness Vespers.
Each of us asks every other one for forgiveness;
Each of us responds, in return: “God forgives, and I forgive.”
We cannot soar to the heights of discipline, if our leg is fettered with bitterness.
And how we respond to others’ faults will determine how our Father deals with ours. Freed from resentment, we can devote ourselves to prayer.

For the next number of weeks, we will fast from meat, and fish, and dairy.
Not to “earn points” with God—he doesn’t need our fasting
Not to show ourselves better—remember, the Devil is the best fast-er of all—
But to raise in ourselves a hunger for God,
A remembrance how totally we depend on him for our daily bread.
Beware of self-chosen fasting: “I’ll fast from this, or from that.” Let us rather submit ourselves to the mind of the Church, the mind of Christ, and take his yoke on ourselves.

And we give alms: maybe through “Food for Hungry People,” or “OCMC”, or even more local avenues of ministry—God grant us an Orthodox “Project Hope” some day! We give up things that will perish, to gain things that last forever. We lay up for ourselves treasures in heaven.

During this Lent we enter into spiritual combat with principalities and powers—
Or rather, we remind ourselves of the never-ending battle
which began when we were washed in the waters of Holy Baptism
and anointed with Holy Chrism,
and first tasted the life-giving flesh and blood of the Son of God.

We embrace the way of the Cross, the Holy Passion of Christ our God for us,
So that we might rejoice in his glorious Resurrection.

So come, beloved of God,

Let us lay aside the cares of this life
Let us take on ourselves the gentle yoke of Christ
And let us journey with him to Jerusalem, where he must suffer.

Let us see, as he suffers for us with outstretched arms on the Tree,
His gracious invitation for us to return to Paradise.
Let us go with the women to his empty tomb,
and awaken from our normal slumber of doubt and laziness,
to the great glad tidings that the Son is risen!

As St. Paul tells us in today’s epistle: “Brethren, salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed; the night is far gone, the day is at hand. Let us then cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light; let us conduct ourselves becomingly as in the day, not in reveling and drunkenness, not in debauchery and licentiousness, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.”

It gives no joy...

2010-01-18T12:58:00.000-08:00

...to read this thread over at Weedon's blog--especially the comments. The tune sounds familiar.

The Church's purpose

2010-01-18T10:28:00.001-08:00

"The Church's purpose is to lead man to deification. When we release the Church from this purpose, we will make it more an ideology, a religious and human organisation. And we know very well that there is a great difference. I would say a chaotic one, between ideology and Church. The former has ideas, while the Church has life, a life which is an overcoming of death."
Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, "The Mind of the Orthodox Church," p. 45

Sermon for 15 Nov 2009

2009-11-15T18:38:00.000-08:00

(Text: Parable of the Good Samaritan)

"Who is my neighbor?"
He says this "wishing to justify himself."
To love God was one thing.
There's only one God, and
he gives all that we have.
But to love the neighbor!
There's too many of them, and,
often they're annoying or inconvenient.
If only the field could be narrowed,
the task might be fulfilled.

So the Lord tells a story.
It's the story of a nameless man,
of a priest, a Levite,and a Samaritan;
but it's also our story.

"A man was going down" from Jerusalem to Jericho.
Jerusalem was God's city;
Jericho a city of sin,
the great city whose walls fell down at Joshua's trumpet.
That is the story of our race:
We left God behind in the Garden,
and have journeyed away, going down, since then.

And what of the robbers that beat the man?
They are the demons, who delight in tormenting man,
and leaving him half-dead.
We are to blame for this, of course.
The man would not have been beaten if he stayed in Jerusalem.
The demons would not have tormented us if we hadn't first left God behind.
But we are wounded by the passions,half-dead:
living and breathing in this world,
but in agony when we remember what we've lost.

The priest and the Levite, too, journey down that same road.
Religious men, men of God,
but they pass by. They cannot help. They are afraid.

Then comes the Samaritan.
It doesn't say of him that he was on that same road,
but rather that he was on a journey.

He saw the man, just as the priest and Levite did.
But he felt compassion,
and came to him,
and bandaged his wounds with oil and wine.
He brought the man to an inn,
and gave the innkeeper money,
and told him to care for the man till his return.

The Samaritan is our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ.
Despised, like a Samaritan, by those he came to save.
Being God, he became man,
and journeyed down this road our race had taken.
He saw us in our plight and was moved with compassion.
He wrapped us in bandages when we were baptized,
covering us with his own righteousness.
He poured out the oil of compassion on us in chrismation,
and gives us the wine of his blood.
He brought us to this inn, his church,
where he heals us through his mysteries.

And what is the sign that this healing is ours?
How do we know we've been living in the hospital?

Only this:
That we stop trying to justify ourselves,
and leave that to the Master.
That we cease walking to Jericho
and learn to see our life as a journey--his journey,
That we serve the ones we find along the way,
and serve them in their wretchedness,
and help them to the inn where we too find healing.

"Who is my neighbor?"
God is my neighbor, who proved himself to be my neighbor
by helping and healing me in my distress.
That God calls us to "go and do likewise"--
to copy him as beloved children copy their father.

Lord Jesus, open my eyes to see my neighbor;
do not let fear turn me away,
but let me serve him,
and so come to see, from the inside,
a fragment, a tiny share, of the love you have shown to me.

I don't commemorate the Reformation any more...

2009-10-31T11:12:00.001-07:00

...because I have come to see that I, not the Church, am the one in need of reformation.

Huh...

2009-09-30T13:20:00.000-07:00

I may have noted elsewhere that our small Orthodox parish has four former Lutheran (LCMS) clergy in it.

I just discovered that the philosophy department in which I teach also has four former Lutherans in it.

Interesting....

Subterranean scribbling: A little child...

2009-09-07T18:37:00.000-07:00

...approaches the Eucharist in the arms of his mother. He has been baptized in the name of the Triune God and, theologically, he is said to possess the faith in its fullness. "The Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these," and unless we who are older become like him, we cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven. He has even had the "confirmation prayer" prayed over him at the end of the rite.

To each person near him come the words, "Given for you, for the forgiveness of sins."

But when the host and chalice come to him, he is passed over.

The words are Jacob's: "he is a member of the body of Christ."

But the hands are Esau's: he is not communed.

And it is useless to talk about "earlier" communion. Does baptism give what it says, or not? If it does, there is no reason to refuse what is said to be the body of Christ to those who are his members. Such communion is not 'open,' since such recipients are equally members of the parish in question as their older fellows.

This is the kind of problem that's led many away from Lutheranism, for all its good, to the Church. One can destroy forests with the trees sacrificed to books and articles on various points of theology. But such arguments arise from faith; they rarely lead to faith. What leads one to reflect and to reexamine are these crushingly existential problems. "How can I refuse one whom I say that the Lord himself has received?"

The Kingdom of God does not consist in talk, but in power.

2009-09-03T02:49:00.000-07:00

There is little profit in engaging Lutheran bloggers in logomachy.

It's not our turf.

Lutheranism was born and bred in words. Ninety five theses, Heidelberg Disputations, Visitation Articles, Confessions, etc. From the womb it was quarreling, and it exists by defining itself over against 'the other'--whether that be Rome, the Reformed, or even other Lutherans.

The Church was born in power: the power of God the Word incarnate--and she lives by the divine energies, received in font and chrism, Body and Blood, and revealed in the blood of the martyrs. Less than a year after Luther died, St. Michael the breadseller was covered in sulpher by the Turks and burned alive, singing hymns till the end. While Walther was disputing about predestination, St. Joseph of Damascus was being ripped limb-from-limb by an angry unbelieving mob. While Pieper was writing his Dogmatics, St. Elizabeth was singing the Cherubimic hymn and tending the wounds of her fellow-martyrs in a mineshaft.

It's not the nature of the problem, either:

It's not the problem with Lutheranism. Most or all of us who were Lutherans and became Orthodox didn't do so because a certain formula came to be recognized as heretical. "Find me an error in the Book of Concord" is beside the point. Are there errors there? Of course there are. But one does not see that at once. "The renewing of the mind" takes years. Old patterns of thought cling to most of us, in my case doubtless till I die (though I find hope in St. Elizabeth the New Martyr). We left Lutheranism for the sake of our children.

The problem with Lutheranism is existential. It is not the Church. And that is not a judgment based on Orthodox sources. It is based on the words of the Lutheran Confessions.

The fact that some cars in that train called Lutheranism have not yet gone off the edge of the bridge can, in the end, provide but cold comfort for those further back in the train who realize that they are joined historically and confessionally to those whose cars have gone off the edge. "How can the church of Krauth have come to what it now is?" Indeed! Let every Lutheran ponder that.

It is not the problem with certain Lutheran bloggers, either.

They did not turn away from Orthodoxy because they were troubled by ambiguous truth, or unambiguous error. They turned away for, shall we say, personal reasons. They heard the Truth but walked away sorrowful because of their great possessions--or perhaps, family connections.

What do you suppose the rich young ruler did for the rest of his life?

For all this, I am sad and weep. Kyrie eleison!

The ELCA decision...

2009-08-24T04:06:00.000-07:00

...has produced some thoughtful commentary in the Lutheran blogosphere--most notably on Weedon's blog and on Father Hollywood. Pr. Weedon poses the question of what happened to the church of Krauth, Jacobs, Tappert and Reed--a question well worth pondering. Fr. Beane writes a nice piece on tradition, in which he says, in part:

"The Lutheran Reformation got rid of some traditions, such as the prayers to the saints, the withholding of the cup to the laity, indulgences, and the liturgical language of the canon of the Mass that refers to a propitious (sin-forgiving) sacrifice, offered ex opera operato (by the work itself apart from faith) for the living and the dead.

But the Lutherans kept a whole lot more than they got rid of. "We keep traditional liturgical forms, such as the order of the lessons, prayers, vestments, etc." (Ap 24:1)...

Tradition that "nullifies" the Word of God is a bad thing, and must go. Tradition that upholds the Word of God is a good thing that ought to be retained. This was a very important principle guiding the Lutheran reformers, and it continues to guide Traditionalist Lutherans today.

Those who cut themselves off from the apostolic tradition cut themselves off from the Lord Jesus Christ and the Word of God, and are left with nothing more than their own imaginings and the sorts of "traditions" of the Pharisees that our Lord condemns."

(Note the ellipsis after the second paragraph; I've excerpted the text I want to comment on, but you should read the whole entry--it's well worthwhile.)

First, note the list of traditions rejected by the Lutherans:

prayers to the saints
the withholding of the cup to the laity
indulgences
liturgical language of the canon of the Mass that refers to a propitious (sin-forgiving) sacrifice, offered ex opera operato (by the work itself apart from faith) for the living and the dead

The last three were late mediaeval Roman practices, rejected also by the Orthodox. But the first is different. It was practiced universally by all Christians as far back as archaeological and historical evidence can be found, and there was no controversy over it. Mediaeval Rome linked it to its unique theology of merit, of course, and changed the theological underpinnings; but the practice itself is both ancient and universal. I would argue further that it is one of those traditions that "upholds the Word of God," to use Fr. Beane's terms.

(1) The Word of God teaches that those Christians whose hearts have ceased beating are not dead, but alive. The normal New Testament way of speaking of them is as "asleep in Christ," not "dead." And the Word of God enfleshed tells us that "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him."
(2) The Word of God teaches that Christians ought to pray for each other, and to ask for each other's prayers.
(3) Finally, unlike the late Roman system, our motive for asking is not utility, but love.

It is understandable that the Lutheran reformers would reject asking for the intercessions of the saints (though the reason they offer, "How can we know that they hear us?", is an example of early-modern skepticism); after all, they only knew the practice in its late-mediaeval Roman guise. Nonetheless, they tossed out the baby with the bathwater here.

The intercession of the saints is, I would argue, an apostolic tradition. It upholds the apostolic words; it is both ancient and universal. So Fr. Beane's last words cited above are worth pondering:

"Those who cut themselves off from the apostolic tradition cut themselves off from the Lord Jesus Christ and the Word of God, and are left with nothing more than their own imaginings and the sorts of "traditions" of the Pharisees that our Lord condemns."

Can you identify this photo?

2009-08-22T11:08:00.000-07:00

Subterranean scribbling; On patrology and the fathers

2009-08-18T14:15:00.000-07:00

Many people are aware that it was Protestants--Lutherans, specifically--who first came up with patrology as a field of study. In the Tao te Ching, Lao Tzu says,

"When the great Tao is forgotten,
goodness and piety appear.
When the body's intelligence declines,
cleverness and knowledge step forth.
When there is no peace in the family,
filial piety begins.
When the country falls into chaos,
patriotism is born."

Could we not add to his words:

"When the fathers were lost to the west,
then Patrology came into being."

On consensus, claimed and actual

2009-08-11T05:26:00.000-07:00

Over on Weedon's blog, the discussion of the Compline prayer has returned to familiar ground: the Jerome reference concerning church government. Note this exchange between Rdr. Christopher Orr and Rev. Weedon. Reader Christopher wrote:

'The only difference between dogma (δογμα) and kirigma (κηρυγμα) was in the manner of their transmission: dogma is kept "in silence" and kerygmata are "publicized".' (Fr. Georges Florovsky, 'The Function of Tradition in the Ancient Church')

The doctrines concerning the Mother of God were examples of dogma. They were revealed 'in mysteries', in the sacraments, of which the sub tuum praesidium is a surviving example - as is the consensus of all the ancient liturgies.

The consensus of the Church is pretty clear on the place of Mary and requests to her for her assistance - unless one believes in some form of a DaVinci Code theory of early, mass apostasy (or, least indelible taint) across the vast expanses and boundaries of Christendom from the true faith. It's OK to believe that, it's just that it is what it is.

Of course, if this is cherry picking, then so is referring St. Jerome for patristic verification of one's doctrine of Holy Orders. Then again, the consensus of the Church is pretty clear on that, too.
To which Rev. Weedon replied:: Christopher,

The point with St. Jerome is that he claims to present what is the teaching of the Apostles as witnessed from their writings. It's a worthwhile endeavor for all who claim to speak for the Church.

There is, of course, all the difference in the world between an author, however venerable, claiming to present the teaching of the apostles and an author actually presenting the teaching of the apostles. Arius, Nestorios and their ilk claimed to be presenting the teaching of the apostles; so such a claim is not sufficient.

What is sufficient is that said claim be received by the Church. The veneration of Mary and intercession of the saints passes that test; for over 1,000 years in East and West alike both have been practiced, and this in itself should give opponents pause.

Despite the appeal to Jerome, the equality of presbyters and bishops does not pass that test. For the faithful, this fact is enough. For opponents, nothing would be enough.

Think of it as a sibling thing...

2009-08-07T14:19:00.000-07:00

If you had brothers or sisters, this phenomenon is easily recognized. One sibling knows what will get the other one going. S/he will do it, then when the other one reacts/responds, the one who pushed the buttons will feign innocence/ignorance--and sometimes even be praised by others for the patience and forbearance they display.

It happens on blogs, too. When we realize that, it can help us to shape the amount and character of our replies.

In a nutshell...

2009-08-06T02:00:00.000-07:00

A protestant looks at the ecclesial life he experiences and thinks, "How can I improve it?"

An Orthodox looks at the ecclesial life he experiences and thinks, "How can it improve me?"

In this lies the difference between the two, in a nutshell.

Subterranean scribbling: Marian prayer

2009-08-03T17:01:00.000-07:00

Over on Pr. Weedon's blog, he's done a re-write of an Orthodox compline prayer to the Theotokos. "Why?" you ask. Listen to his own words:

I couldn't help but think as I listened that precisely the things that are being asked of the Blessed Virgin in this prayer are the things that I would ask of our Lord. Remembering how the 16th century Lutherans did a similar rewrite to the Marian antiphons after Western Compline (which I posted a few weeks ago), I wondered if it were possible to do the same thing with this prayer, shifting the address to our Lord Jesus Christ, who (after all) has said: Come unto me all you who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest. And it is He who promised to be with us always, to the end of the age. It is He whom the Father has set forth to be the Propitiation of our sins and our eternal hope. It is He who ever lives to intercede for us at the Father's right hand.

The thought underlying his discomfort seems to be that it is not proper to ask others to do things that we would ask our Lord to do. (It would seem, I take it, either unnecessary or blasphemous: unnecessary if we can ask those things of our Lord directly, and blasphemous if we ascribe to others what belongs to him alone.)

That got me to thinking.

So I went through the Bible, and corrected some troublesome passages that ascribe what Christ does, to others as well. For example, we read in Matthew's gospel:

Matthew 19:28 Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Clearly this must be a scribal error. As it stands, the text says that others will sit on thrones at the same time as Christ, and will do the work that he says elsewhere belongs completely to him (John 5:22ff).

So fix your Bibles, folks. It should say:

Matthew 19:28 Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will get to stand there while I judge the twelve tribes of Israel.

Then there are those puzzling passages in Acts--for example:

Acts 19:11-12 And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: 12 So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.

Now here's another early scribal error. Whoever copied this, obviously was thinking of the woman who touched the hem of Jesus' garment. That in itself is a little superstitious, but he makes it worse here by ascribing a similar work to Paul's handkerchiefs or aprons.

We can fix this one if we supply one detail: obviously Paul had obtained the garment that Jesus was wearing when the woman had touched him. It was pieces of that garment that were made into "handkerchiefs or aprons," that did the work.

"When you put Christ at the center of anything, it makes it better."

+ + + + + + +

What Pr. Weedon and other Lutherans are missing, of course, is that all that is true of Christ by nature in the Second Article of the Creed becomes true of the Church (and the Theotokos herself as type of the Church) by grace. Since Christ himself (who is the Light of the World) calls all Christians the Light of the world, it cannot be wrong to speak of his Mother as "Light of my darkened soul."

In memoriam: Frisket (11/11/1996-7/22/2009)

2009-07-22T19:16:00.000-07:00

This afternoon we took Frisket, our faithful dog, to the vet to be put to sleep. (In the photo at left, he's the larger, white dog; Lucy is the black-and-white puppy.) Because of allergies, he's been on steroids for three years. The last few months have not been pleasant for him. He's become increasingly confused, lost bladder control and, over the last weeks, simply begun to whine and cry.
St. Paul says, "The whole creation groans in travail until now," and that is seen most personally and poignantly when we see the sufferings of those animals who come to share our lives as pets. I have hope because, just as the effects of Adam's disobedience had cosmic effects, so also the work of our Lord Jesus Christ is equally far-reaching. And I am reminded of these words of Dostoyevsky:

Love all God's creation, the whole and every grain of sand in
it. Love every leaf, every ray of God's light. Love the animals,
love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will
perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you
will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at
last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love. Love the
animals: God has given them the rudiments of thought and joy
untroubled. Do not trouble it, don't harass them, don't deprive them
of their happiness, don't work against God's intent. Man, do not pride
yourself on superiority to the animals; they are without sin, and you,
with your greatness, defile the earth by your appearance on it, and
leave the traces of your foulness after you- alas, it is true of
almost every one of us!... My brother asked the birds to forgive him; that sounds
senseless, but it is right; for all is like an ocean, all is flowing
and blending; a touch in one place sets up movement at the other end
of the earth. It may be senseless to beg forgiveness of the birds, but
birds would be happier at your side- a little happier, anyway- and
children and all animals, if you were nobler than you are now. It's
all like an ocean, I tell you. Then you would pray to the birds too,
consumed by an all-embracing love, in a sort of transport, and pray
that they too will forgive you your sin. Treasure this ecstasy,
however senseless it may seem to men.
  My friends, pray to God for gladness. Be glad as children, as
the birds of heaven. And let not the sin of men confound you in your
doings. Fear not that it will wear away your work and hinder its being
accomplished. Do not say, "Sin is mighty, wickedness is mighty, evil
environment is mighty, and we are lonely and helpless, and evil
environment is wearing us away and hindering our good work from
being done." Fly from that dejection, children! There is only one
means of salvation, then take yourself and make yourself responsible
for all men's sins, that is the truth, you know, friends, for as
soon as you sincerely make yourself responsible for everything and for
all men, you will see at once that it is really so, and that you are
to blame for everyone and for all things. But throwing your own
indolence and impotence on others you will end by sharing the pride of
Satan and murmuring against God.

On the bright side, he probably knows how to spell "potato"

2009-07-17T08:19:00.001-07:00

“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’ The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”
--Vice President Joe Biden, July 2009

Short, but sweet

2009-07-16T05:01:00.000-07:00

Wie ein Wort verstanden wird, das sagen Worte allein nicht. (Theologie.)
How words are understood is not told by words alone. (Theology)

--Ludwig Wittgenstein, Zettel p. 26

The morning is wiser than the evening.

--Russian proverb

Grandmothers' wisdom

2009-06-18T04:28:00.000-07:00

I grew up in the same home town my family had lived in for generations. So it was that both sets of grandparents lived there, within walking distance from our house. For years I had a ritual of going to each of their houses once a week for dinner: a hamburger and mashed potatoes.

Perhaps another time I'll write something about my grandfathers; now I want to say something about my grandmothers.

Every kid should have one grandparent who thinks the world revolves around them. For me, that was Grandma Schultz. She and Grandpap Schultz had two children, both of them girls. She told me, again and again, "You're my favorite boy." ("But Grandma," I'd object, "I'm your only boy." "Never mind," she answered. "You're still my favorite boy.") Each year she would take me to downtown Pittsburgh on my birthday. We ate at Stouffer's, a very fancy restaurant. Then she would take me to Gimbels or Kaufmans or Hornes and let me get any one thing I wanted. Sometimes it would be a toy. Sometimes it would be a Hardy Boys book. She never fussed about the cost. She let me feel completely free to choose.

Grandma loved to bowl, and she took me and my sisters bowling from time to time. She wasn't the best cook: her hamburgers might be a bit burned, sometimes I ate TV dinners, and she would serve instant mashed potatoes ("Ersazt Kartoffeln!" my grandfather would protest). But I always knew she loved me. She didn't have to say it. I could tell.

Grandma Schultz taught me how to deal with people. When I was little, each day after lunch my mother and I had a ritual. She would want me to take a nap. And I wouldn't want to. So she would try to reason with me, or compel me. Sometimes she won, and sometimes I did. But on those days I was at Grandma's house for lunch, after lunch she'd say, "Would you like to go to a party?" "Sure!" I'd answer. So she said, "Let's go upstairs." I went up the steps with her and she led me to the spare bedroom. "You can go to Lily White's party," she'd say. "How?" I replied. "Just lie down on this bed--it's magic--close your eyes and breath very slowly, and you'll be right there." It worked like a charm, every time--even though she'd done it many times before.

Grandma Hogg loved me, too. She cooked better hamburgers than Grandma Schultz, and she always made real mashed potatoes--you could tell by the lumps. She was rather strong-willed, which was a necessity in dealing with my Grandpap Hogg. When she was a little girl, she used to walk outside her house and stand in the streetcar tracks as a streetcar was coming. She would hold up her hand and stop the streetcar till the driver had to come out and move her on to the sidewalk.

Her life hadn't been easy. But she kept on keeping on, she endured.

Both grandmothers had words of wisdom I remember to this day.

Grandma Schultz used to say, when something bad happened, "It will get better before you get married." She was right; her words worked like magic--right up to the day, 31 years ago yesterday, that I got married.

Grandma Hogg's advice for bad times kicked in at that point, and remains true today. "You'll live to suffer more." So last year, when a lady hit-and-ran my car, I thought of Grandma Hogg's words. When I wonder what will happen about this or that issue that faces me, I remember.

Grandma Schultz died about a year after I was married--June of 1979. I went to see her in the hospital with my new bride, and she said, "You were made for each other." She was right.

Grandma Hogg endured till 1994. She was 90 1/2 years old when she died. I saw her in the hospital, and to this day I remember her brown eyes looking intensely at me from her bed. I remember thinking, "This is the last time I'll see her in this life." And it was.

Thank God I have a wonderful wife, and kids--I've never needed Grandma Hogg's words for her, or for them. But those are other stories, for other times. I share both grandmothers' words of wisdom with them from time to time. And now I've shared them with you!

Marina and Nathan Sterk

2009-06-09T14:38:00.000-07:00

This past Saturday at 2 pm, my daughter Marina was married to Nathan Sterk. The photo shows the crowning service. What a joy it was to see so much family and so many friends! The liturgy was held at St. Nicholas in Grand Rapids, our mission's mother parish.

Now life begins to return to normal--whatever that is... :-)

Suberranean scribbling: creative memories

2009-06-04T02:52:00.000-07:00

"Creative Memories" is the name of a scrapbooking company. It's also something we're all prone to. Under the influence of strongly-held views, events and stories can change to become nearly unrecognizable.

Such is the case with Luther's recollection of a story from the fathers about St. Anthony. Luther loved the lives of the desert fathers, and on more than one occasion makes reference to them. But over time, his memory of those stories begins to change them subtly, to bring them in line with the views he developed in the Reformation.

I had quoted this story a little while ago in the context of another post. Here it is again:

"When blessed Antony was praying in his cell, a voice spoke to him, saying, "Antony, you have not yet come to the measure of the tanner who is in Alexandria." When he heard this, the old man arose and took his stick and hurried into the city. When he had found the tanner...he said to him, "Tell me about your work, for today I have left the desert and come here to see you."
He replied, "I am not aware that I have done anything good. When I get up in the morning, before I sit down to work, I say that the whole of this city, small and great, will go into the Kingdom of God because of their good deeds, while I alone will go into eternal punishment because of my evil deeds. Every evening I repeat the same words and believe them in my heart."
When blessed Antony heard this he said, "My son, you sit in your own house and work well, and you have the peace of the Kingdom of God; but I spend all my time in solitude with no distractions, and I have not come near the measure of such words."

Now here is that same story, as told by Luther (ht to Pr. Weedon on his blog):

"Anthony is amazed at the comparison and goes to Alexandria with the intention of seeing the man who is his equal in sanctity. I do not know what grand things he promises himself from that cobbler; but when he came to him, he found that he gained his livelihood by working with his hands and in this manner supported himself, his wife, and his children. So he said: “Please, my dear cobbler, I know that you worship God faithfully and serve Him truly. Tell me, therefore, what you do, what you eat, what you drink, how or when you pray. You do not spend entire nights without sleep when you devote yourself to prayer, do you?” “Not at all,” said the cobbler. “In the morning and in the evening I give thanks to God for His faithful protection and guidance. I ask for forgiveness of all my sins for Christ’s sake, and I humbly pray that He would guide me with His Spirit and not lead me into temptation. After this prayer I get busy with my leather and provide sustenance for myself and those who are mine. Besides this I do nothing except to beware lest anywhere I do something against my conscience.”
When Anthony hears this, he is amazed, and he realizes that self-chosen forms of worship are no worship and that therefore no trust at all should be put in them. This blessing not only happened to Anthony himself but is also a warning to all posterity—a warning by which God wanted to help His church, lest it indulge in self-chosen forms of worship, which always bring with them this pernicious pest of self-reliance, which must be crushed."

Some of the differences are minor; Anthony's tanner has become a cobbler, and has apparently acquired a family. Anthony's tanner mentions only his morning and evening prayer; in Luther's version the tanner's prayer is explicitly contrasted with the monastic hours.

But others are major. Can anyone imagine the mature Luther urging this form of prayer: "...before I sit down to work, I say that the whole of this city, small and great, will go into the Kingdom of God because of their good deeds, while I alone will go into eternal punishment because of my evil deeds. Every evening I repeat the same words and believe them in my heart"?

For Luther, Anthony is the proto-monastic, who is yet capable of recognizing the superiority of the peasant's Small-catechism faith and life. Luther claims that the peasant teaches Anthony the uselessness of self-chosen forms of worship (a key criticism Luther makes elsewhere against monasticism); but the historical Anthony never forswore the monastic life. The Lutheran peasant has a measure of certainty; Anthony's peasant has what we might call the "monstrum certitudinis": he is certain of himself that he is going into eternal punishment, yet keeps working. It would be much more accurate to say that he anticipates the words of St. Silhouan: "Keep your mind in hell, and do not despair."

Here already in the great Reformer we see the tendency so commonly found in his followers: to take the patristic witness and filter it through Lutheran dogma. Rdr. Christopher Orr has pointed out this selective reading on many occasions. Perhaps the only cure for this malady is to read the fathers by themselves, on their own terms.

Appraising the state of Reformed denominations

2009-05-30T14:03:00.000-07:00

Yesterday morning we had our house appraised (we're refinancing for 15 years at a lower rate). I got to chatting with the appraiser, a woman raised in the CRC (Christian Reformed Church, for those of you not from Grand Rapids). :-)

She mentioned that she and her husband now attend a parish of the R.C.A. (Reformed Church in America). He was raised Baptist, and they have a 2 year old daughter.

I asked her if her daughter had been baptised, and was surprised to hear her say "No, she was dedicated." Apparently their parish allows parents to decide which of the two they would like: baptism or dedication.

This, I think, is significant slippage in an historically Reformed denomination, where infant baptism was the norm for 500 years. It also serves to highlight why increasingly, in years to come, those who come to the Orthodox Church will likely need to be received by baptism and not simply chrismation. For when baptism becomes optional, it's clear that we are no longer working with an historic Christian notion of baptism.

Books for sale

2009-05-29T15:51:00.000-07:00

I am, once again, culling my collection and am selling the following books (Since I can't seem to post an entire table, I'm only listing the titles.) If anyone's interested, let me know via email (pastor_hoggAThotmailDOTcom) and I can offer more information.

TITLE
Strange Altars
Die Reformatoren : Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Calvin : mit einem Nachwort zur Reformationsgeschichte
Studies in the Lutheran Confessions
Does the Bible contradict itself?
The church of the Lutheran Reformation; a historical survey of Lutheranism [by] Conrad Bergendoff
Manual on the Pastor's chant
Die Bekenntnissschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche
Examination of the Council of Trent: Part I
Luther; An Introduction to His Thought.
The structure of Lutheranism
A New Look at the Lutheran Confessions (1529-1537)
German gospel sermons with English outlines
We condemn; how Luther and 16 th-century Lutheranism condemned false doctrine
Pastor: A Day and a Week in the Life of a Parish Clergyman
An Explanation of the History of the Suffering and Death of our Lord Jesus Christ
Gerhard's sacred meditations
Sacred Meditations
1998 Hymnal Supplement
St Germanus of Constantinople on the Divine Liturgy
Thomasius Gospels Outlines
Lenten Outlines and Sermons
A handbook of organizations
Letters to a Masonic Friend
Notes on doctrinal theology
The pastor as student and literary worker
The problem of Lutheran union and other essays
The secret empire
The Book of Concord
American church history. Vol 4: Lutherans
Common service music
A compend of Luther's theology
Confirmation and first communion
Confirmation and first communion: Leader's Guide
Genes, genesis, and evolution
The theology of Luther in its historical development and inner harmony
Andreae and the Formula of concord : six sermons on the way to Lutheran unity
Sources and Contexts of the Book of Concord
Why are you a Lutheran?
Eisenach Gospel Selections
The sermon: its homiletical construction
Martin Luther. In Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten.
The sermon and the Propers, by Fred H. Lindemann
The daily office
An Den Christlichen Adel Deutscher Natio
Der kleine Katechismus Doktor Martin Luthers
Luther for the busy man
Luther's Large Catechism: A Contemporary Translation With Study Questions
Luther's prayers
Luther's Small Catechism With Explanation
Luther's two catechisms explained by himself
Works of Martin Luther: With Introduction and Notes, the Philadelphia Edition
Occasional services : a companion to Lutheran book of worship
Another fraternal endeavor
The Lutheran hymnal
The Lutheran liturgy
Worship Supplement (1969)
Glaube und Bildung. Texte zum christlichen Humanismus.
Melanchthon on Christian doctrine: Loci communes, 1555
Theology of the Lutheran Confessions
Theologians' convocation: Formula for Concord
Discord, dialogue, and concord : studies in the Lutheran Reformation's Formula of concord
What is Christianity? And Other Essays
The survival of the historic vestments in the Lutheran Church after 1555
The handbook to the Lutheran Hymnal
Matthias Flacius Illyricus
Spiritus Creator
The communion of saints
Getting into the Theology of Concord
The Inspiration of Scripture
The Lutheran liturgy
The Flood in the light of the Bible, geology and archaeology
Calls and vacancies
Homiletics
Jesus in the church's gospels
Ministries Examined: Laity, Clergy, Women, and Bishops in a Time of Change
Lutheran worship workbook
Why should a Lutheran not join any sectarian church?
Here we stand. nature and character of the Lutheran Faith
Scripture and the church: Selected essays of Hermann Sasse
This Is My Body: Luther's Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar
We Confess: The Church (We Confess Series)
Theology of the Lutheran confessions
The confessional principle and the confessions of the Lutheran Church
American Lutheranism Vindicated
Martin Luther
A summary of Lutheran hermeneutical principles
Accents in Luther's theology; essays in commemoration of the 450th anniversary of the Reformation. Heino O. Kadai, editor
The Protestant Reformation. Edited by Lewis W. Spitz
Various LC-MS Writings
Walther speaks to the church;: Selected letters
God's no and God's yes; the proper distinction between law and gospel
The proper distinction between law and gospel
The word of His Grace : occasional and festival sermons
Walther and the church
The zeal of His house; five generations of Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod history (1847-1972)
Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom of God
Darwin, evolution, and creation [by] Paul A. Zimmerman, editor [and others]

Subterranean scribbling #2

2009-05-19T07:46:00.000-07:00

The Protestant reads the Bible as addressed to him; he makes his understanding of the text the criterion of truth, and then seeks others who share a similar understanding: thus is born his ‘church.’ But the church is always, for him, an article of faith and not a visible reality.

The Orthodox reads the Bible as addressed to the Church; he recognizes her understanding of the text as the criterion of truth, and then seeks to join that body, that community: thus is he born as an Orthodox believer. But his status as Orthodox is always, for him, an article of faith. That is why he is not scandalized by these words from the desert fathers:

When blessed Antony was praying in his cell, a voice spoke to him, saying, "Antony, you have not yet come to the measure of the tanner who is in Alexandria." When he heard this, the old man arose and took his stick and hurried into the city. When he had found the tanner...he said to him, "Tell me about your work, for today I have left the desert and come here to see you."

He replied, "I am not aware that I have done anything good. When I get up in the morning, before I sit down to work, I say that the whole of this city, small and great, will go into the Kingdom of God because of their good deeds, while I alone will go into eternal punishment because of my evil deeds. Every evening I repeat the same words and believe them in my heart."

When blessed Antony heard this he said, "My son, you sit in your own house and work well, and you have the peace of the Kingdom of God; but I spend all my time in solitude with no distractions, and I have not come near the measure of such words."

Three stages in the destruction of a society

2009-05-14T05:42:00.000-07:00

Taken from the introduction to Demons, by Fyodor Dostoyevsky:

"The 'seed of the idea of destruction' is the revolt against God; but that is over and done with, it is already forgotten, no one is concerned with it anymore. What follows is man's replacement of God and the correction of His creation. This amounts to a declaration of the absurdity and meaninglessness of history, of historical reality as the unfolding of God's will in time, but also as the lived life of mankind--that is, to a separation from the historical body of mankind. Reality itself, physical reality, begins to drain out of this radical 'idea,' leaving only the drab abstraction of materialism. This Dostoyevsky felt and realized, and it is one reason why his heroes, when they begin to save themselves, kiss the earth and 'water it with their tears.' The third stage of the revolt in the name of unlimited freedom is destruction and anarchism, represented by Pyotr Verkhovensky. This whole 'development' is a continuous fall, and its thrust is towards sheer fantasy, which our century has witnessed in its bloodiest and most senseless forms. Dostoyevsky explored, tested, represented these three stages with extraordinary prescience in Demons.

Subterranean scribblings

2009-05-01T03:06:00.000-07:00

Protestant: "We do not pray to dead people."
Orthodox: "Neither do we."
P: "How can we know that the saints hear us?"
O: "How can I know that Christ hears me?"
P: "He has promised to hear me!"
O: "And he is not a bodiless head."
P: "Orat pro nobis."
O: "Homoiousion, too, added but one letter to the Church's faith. But one letter changes everything. What is lost when one changes a personal request to a theoretical statement? And how do such changes arise? Only when living relationships have turned to dim memories."

Christos anesti!

2009-04-30T02:41:00.000-07:00

Given the events of the past few weeks (Holy Week and Pascha preparations, last week of class and finals, the repose of my father-in-law and our trip to Cleveland for his funeral, and now a touch of bronchitis), I feel a little like St. Thomas the Monday after Pascha. Let me wish to one and all a belated but blessed Pascha: "Christos anesti!"

John Carson Howard, 23 June 1923-14 April 2009

2009-04-15T03:41:00.000-07:00

I just received word from my wife in New Mexico that my father-in-law reposed last night.
Words fail.
May his memory be eternal!

A bit of "The Brothers Karamazov"

2009-04-14T21:13:00.001-07:00

Beloved fathers and teachers, I was born in a distant province in the north, in the town of V. My father was a gentleman by birth, but of no great consequence or position. He died when I was only two years old, and I don’t remember him at all. He left my mother a small house built of wood, and a fortune, not large, but sufficient to keep her and her children in comfort. There were two of us, my elder brother Markel and I. He was eight years older than I was, of hasty, irritable temperament, but kind-hearted and never ironical. He was remarkably silent, especially at home with me, his mother, and the servants. He did well at school, but did not get on with his school-fellows, though he never quarrelled, at least so my mother has told me. Six months before his death, when he was seventeen, he made friends with a political exile who had been banished from Moscow to our town for freethinking, and led a solitary existence there. He was a good scholar who had gained distinction in philosophy in the university. Something made him take a fancy to Markel, and he used to ask him to see him. The young man would spend whole evenings with him during that winter, till the exile was summoned to Petersburg to take up his post again at his own request, as he had powerful friends.

It was the beginning of Lent, and Markel would not fast, he was rude and laughed at it. “That’s all silly twaddle, and there is no God,” he said, horrifying my mother, the servants, and me too. For though I was only nine, I too was aghast at hearing such words. We had four servants, all serfs. I remember my mother selling one of the four, the cook Afimya, who was lame and elderly, for sixty paper roubles, and hiring a free servant to take her place.

In the sixth week in Lent, my brother, who was never strong and had a tendency to consumption, was taken ill. He was tall but thin and delicate-looking, and of very pleasing countenance. I suppose he caught cold, anyway the doctor, who came, soon whispered to my mother that it was galloping consumption, that he would not live through the spring. My mother began weeping, and, careful not to alarm my brother, she entreated him to go to church, to confess and take the sacrament, as he was still able to move about. This made him angry, and he said something profane about the church. He grew thoughtful, however; he guessed at once that he was seriously ill, and that that was why his mother was begging him to confess and take the sacrament. He had been aware, indeed, for a long time past, that he was far from well, and had a year before coolly observed at dinner to your mother and me, “My life won’t be long among you, I may not live another year,” which seemed now like a prophecy.

Three days passed and Holy Week had come. And on Tuesday morning my brother began going to church. “I am doing this simply for your sake, mother, to please and comfort you,” he said. My mother wept with joy and grief. “His end must be near,” she thought, “if there’s such a change in him.” But he was not able to go to church long, he took to his bed, so he had to confess and take the sacrament at home.

It was a late Easter, and the days were bright, fine, and full of fragrance. I remember he used to cough all night and sleep badly, but in the morning he dressed and tried to sit up in an arm-chair. That’s how I remember him sitting, sweet and gentle, smiling, his face bright and joyous, in spite of his illness. A marvellous change passed over him, his spirit seemed transformed. The old nurse would come in and say, “Let me light the lamp before the holy image, my dear.” And once he would not have allowed it and would have blown it out.

“Light it, light it, dear, I was a wretch to have prevented you doing it. You are praying when you light the lamp, and I am praying when I rejoice seeing you. So we are praying to the same God.”

Those words seemed strange to us, and mother would go to her room and weep, but when she went in to him she wiped her eyes and looked cheerful. “Mother, don’t weep, darling,” he would say, “I’ve long to live yet, long to rejoice with you, and life is glad and joyful.”

“Ah, dear boy, how can you talk of joy when you lie feverish at night, coughing as though you would tear yourself to pieces.”

“Don’t cry, mother,” he would answer, “life is paradise, and we are all in paradise, but we won’t see it; if we would, we should have heaven on earth the next day.”

Everyone wondered at his words, he spoke so strangely and positively; we were all touched and wept. Friends came to see us. “Dear ones,” he would say to them, “what have I done that you should love me so, how can you love anyone like me, and how was it I did not know, I did not appreciate it before?”

When the servants came in to him he would say continually, “Dear, kind people, why are you doing so much for me, do I deserve to be waited on? If it were God’s will for me to live, I would wait on you, for all men should wait on one another.”

Mother shook her head as she listened. “My darling, it’s your illness makes you talk like that.”

“Mother darling,” he would say, “there must be servants and masters, but if so I will be the servant of my servants, the same as they are to me. And another thing, mother, every one of us has sinned against all men, and I more than any.”

Mother positively smiled at that, smiled through her tears. “Why, how could you have sinned against all men, more than all? Robbers and murderers have done that, but what sin have you committed yet, that you hold yourself more guilty than all?”

“Mother, little heart of mine,” he said (he had begun using such strange caressing words at that time), “little heart of mine, my joy, believe me, everyone is really responsible to all men for all men and for everything. I don’t know how to explain it to you, but I feel it is so, painfully even. And how is it we went on then living, getting angry and not knowing?”

So he would get up every day, more and more sweet and joyous and full of love. When the doctor, an old German called Eisenschmidt, came:

“Well, doctor, have I another day in this world?” he would ask, joking.

“You’ll live many days yet,” the doctor would answer, “and months and years too.”

“Months and years!” he would exclaim. “Why reckon the days? One day is enough for a man to know all happiness. My dear ones, why do we quarrel, try to outshine each other and keep grudges against each other? Let’s go straight into the garden, walk and play there, love, appreciate, and kiss each other, and glorify life.”

“Your son cannot last long,” the doctor told my mother, as she accompanied him the door. “The disease is affecting his brain.”

The windows of his room looked out into the garden, and our garden was a shady one, with old trees in it which were coming into bud. The first birds of spring were flitting in the branches, chirruping and singing at the windows. And looking at them and admiring them, he began suddenly begging their forgiveness too: “Birds of heaven, happy birds, forgive me, for I have sinned against you too.” None of us could understand that at the time, but he shed tears of joy. “Yes,” he said, “there was such a glory of God all about me: birds, trees, meadows, sky; only I lived in shame and dishonoured it all and did not notice the beauty and glory.”

“You take too many sins on yourself,” mother used to say, weeping.

“Mother, darling, it’s for joy, not for grief I am crying. Though I can’t explain it to you, I like to humble myself before them, for I don’t know how to love them enough. If I have sinned against everyone, yet all forgive me, too, and that’s heaven. Am I not in heaven now?”

And there was a great deal more I don’t remember. I remember I went once into his room when there was no one else there. It was a bright evening, the sun was setting, and the whole room was lighted up. He beckoned me, and I went up to him. He put his hands on my shoulders and looked into my face tenderly, lovingly; he said nothing for a minute, only looked at me like that.

“Well,” he said, “run and play now, enjoy life for me too.”

I went out then and ran to play. And many times in my life afterwards I remembered even with tears how he told me to enjoy life for him too. There were many other marvellous and beautiful sayings of his, though we did not understand them at the time. He died the third week after Easter. He was fully conscious though he could not talk; up to his last hour he did not change. He looked happy, his eyes beamed and sought us, he smiled at us, beckoned us. There was a great deal of talk even in the town about his death. I was impressed by all this at the time, but not too much so, though I cried a good deal at his funeral. I was young then, a child, but a lasting impression, a hidden feeling of it all, remained in my heart, ready to rise up and respond when the time came. So indeed it happened.

Joy and sorrow...and joy

2009-04-14T05:36:00.000-07:00

The press of academic work has kept me from posting recently. Meanwhile, life goes on:

The joy of Holy Week services. Last Friday evening's Lazarus canon...Saturday morning's divine liturgy (I love the services of Lazarus Saturday; they put the events of Holy Week into perspective. Christ goes willingly to the Cross, as the Lord of life whom death cannot hold.)...Sunday morning's Palm Sunday liturgy with our procession around the church building...Sunday and Monday evening's Bridegroom Matins services ("I see thy bridal chamber adorned, O my Savior; but I have no wedding garment..."). This evening, again, we will have Bridegroom Matins.

The sorrow of marking the last few days and hours of my father-in-law's earthly pilgrimage. He was diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease about a year ago, and has gone steadily downhill. Now he's having multiple organ failure. My bride went out to New Mexico to be with him. I used to joke that his only fault was his rooting for the Cleveland Browns. Remember the servant of God John in your prayers, please. Our sorrow is deep...

...and yet our joy is even deeper. For we face his repose in the full knowledge that death does not have the last word. Allow me to say, in anticipation: "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!"

Skeptical of Orthodoxy?

2009-04-01T04:56:00.000-07:00

"The human mind is a frail instrument, easily deluded, and most capable of building brilliant systems of thought and life that have no correspondence to reality whatsoever." So says a blogger, in explaining why his "Orthodox adventure" is over.

There's no disputing that many people have been deluded by various systems of thought. But since delusion, like stupidity, is an equal opportunity employer, we have not yet successfully escaped delusion until we are skeptical of skepticism too. To err, after all, is Humean.

One might further ask the young man, "Have you come to this conclusion by means of your mind?" If so, and if conclusions are no stronger than the instrument by which they are attained, he has further reason to be skeptical of his skepticism.

We do not argue that gold is worthless because some or many are deluded by fool's gold. No one counterfeits the currency of Zimbabwe (and soon, sadly, no one will counterfeit dollars either). That is not to say that some given miraculous story is true; only that it is not necessarily false. To rule out all stories of the miraculous is no less an error than admitting them all. If Satan gives "lying signs and wonders," are there not also true ones?

A more profitable way to consider claims of the miraculous in Orthodoxy, and to compare them to other claims of the miraculous, is to ask what theological underpinnings support them. This would be to follow the instructions God gave through Moses (Deut. 13:1ff).

I am not Orthodox because of signs and wonders, but because the Orthodox Church continues to teach the fullness of the Christian faith now, as it has for the past 2,000 years. I rejoice that the living Christ continues to work with his divine energies through his body, and I acknowledge Nektarios of Pentapolis no less than Spyridon of Trimythous as wonderworkers.

Said blogger, by a felicitous inconsistency, does not apply his skepticism to the words and works of Christ, noting that "Jesus doesn't lie. Jesus can't be tricked. . . Jesus doesn't pass off speculation as fact. All of those are things that humans are very, very prone to." Here at last we reach the logical conclusion of the semi-Manichean anthropology which some forms of protestantism so easily fall into: Jesus isn't human.

Revisited: "There is no Lutheran Church"

2009-03-23T10:33:00.001-07:00

A recent poster on Gene Veith's excellent blog made oblique reference to the theses I composed some time ago, that "There is no Lutheran Church." I thought it fitting, for those who care to read, to have them available on this blog, fwiw.

THERE IS NO LUTHERAN CHURCH

Propositions concerning the Lutheran Church
1. The Augsburg Confession and those other writings assembled in the Book of Concord (1580) were initially the confession of a group of territorial churches in northern Germany.
2. These territorial churches were not merely congregations, but trans-parish entities, each united by the same administration and the same liturgy within itself, and all alike were trans-parish entities.
3. These territorial churches did not understand themselves as a new denomination, but as the continuation of the catholic Church in the west.
4. They intended their writings to be understood as an unalterable confession of faith, with which they would stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
5. These confessional writings constituted them not merely as a corporation, but as a living, organic entity, as “the churches of the Augsburg Confession.”
6. The principle of unity of the churches of the Augsburg Confession is the quia subscription to, and confession of, the articles of the Book of Concord. (To develop this point a bit: the principle of unity in Rome is the papacy. The principle of unity in the Pentecostal churches is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Other features may change, but the principle of unity is essential to each body and may not be changed without the body's being essentially changed. Remove the papacy, and Rome is no longer Rome. Remove the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and pentecostalism is no longer Pentecostalism.)
7. This act of subscription and confession is not mere intellectual assent, but the ordering of the lives of congregations according to this principle of unity.

Propositions concerning change
8. There are two sorts of change: accidental and essential.
9. Accidental change occurs when a thing is modified, yet remains what it was before. For example, when someone paints a blue chair red, it changes (color), yet it remains what it was (a chair).
10. Accidental change occurs to living entities when they grow, move, or alter in any way which still allows one to say, "It remains what it was."
11. Essential change occurs when a thing is modified in such a way that it no longer is what it was before. For example, when a chair is run over by a steamroller, it is no longer a chair, but a pile of wood, or metal, or plastic.
12. Essential change occurs to living entities when they change in such a way that one can no longer say, "It remains what it was." For example, a human being changes into a corpse at death, or (if it were possible) the humans making up Frankenstein's monster were essentially changed when they were sewn together to make the monster.
13. It is not necessary fully to know or to understand the circumstances of a substantial change in order to affirm that such a change has taken place. All that needs to happen is to show that what was essential to the being of a thing has altered.
14. In the case of a living being which appears to have undergone substantial change (i.e. death), charity requires us to make efforts to restore quickly what was lost.
15. There comes a time when those making such efforts recognize that the patient has died.

Propositions applying the latter to the former
16. The churches of the Augsburg Confession have changed since the Book of Concord was adopted.
17. Some of those changes have been accidental: they grew, they moved etc.
18. Some of those changes have been essential--i.e. the principle of unity (the Lutheran Confessions) no longer describes any existing trans-parish entity.

Examples:

a. Then: "Churches" of the Augsburg Confession refers to trans-parish entities, i.e. territorial churches.
Now: "Churches" refers to congregations, but not to trans-parish entities.

b. Then: The true body and blood of Christ are present under the bread and wine.
Now: Grape juice is offered in many places as an alternative.

c. Then: Luther excommunicates a pastor who mixes consecrated wine with unconsecrated following the service.
Now: Plastic disposable cups are used widely, tossed out unwashed after the service.

d. Then: Private confession ought to be retained. Practiced as the norm. No one is admitted to the Sacrament unless he is first examined and absolved.
Now: Private confession scarcely exists; in most parishes, not at all, in some parishes, just barely. Open communion the norm.

e. Then: Only those rightly/ritely called should administer the sacraments and preach.
Now: Unordained laity do both.

f. Then: The traditional usages of the Church *ought* to be observed, which may be observed without sin. Uniformity of liturgy within territorial churches (i.e. not merely a parish-by-parish decision).
Now: The traditional usages of the Church *need not* be observed (NB: "ought" and "need not" are logically contradictory).

g. Then: The Mass (i.e. the historic liturgy) is maintained, observed with greatest reverence, and ceremonies exist to teach the unlearned.
Now: The Mass is not maintained, reverence is discouraged by creative services (See, for example, http://www.thefellowship.com /ow/outreachworship.html), and ceremonies are instituted to entertain the bored.

h. Then: The right to excommunicate belongs by divine right (a very strong phrase!) to the pastoral office, and the people are bound by divine right to follow them. (AC 28)
Now: The right to excommunicate belongs by divine right to the congregation, and the pastors are bound by divine right to announce such excommunications. (Blue Catechism)

i. Then: Mary is and remains a virgin after Christ's birth (FCSD 8.24, added by Chemnitz to reject the Reformed Peter Martyr Vermigli's denial of the semper virgo).
Now: The semper virgo is at best a pious opinion.

j. Then: Prayers for the dead are not forbidden, and are not useless. (Ap)
Now: We must not pray for the souls of the dead (Blue Catechism).

k. Then: The Scripture principle ("The Word of God alone shall establish articles of faith") is maintained in tension with the catholic principle ("In doctrine and ceremonies, we have received nothing new against Scripture OR the catholic church"). These two principles are not, of course, two "sources" of doctrine.
Now: The catholic principle is gone.

Let me add another, from my own experience. I was a doctrinal reviewer for the new hymnal (now I won't be one much longer, when this gets to the eyes of others--but I digress). In reviewing the baptismal rite, I suggested that we ought to use Luther's 1526 baptismal rite as a paradigm of what constitutes a baptism from a Lutheran point of view. No-brainer, right? After all, that rite is even included in some editions of the BOC. I was overruled, and it was said that the 1526 rite carries NO normative significance for the Lutheran Church.

19. In some cases, these aberrations can be dated, and the scope of their acceptance be fixed--e.g. the abandonment of AC 14 happened in the LCMS in 1989. In other cases, these aberrations cannot be dated, and the scope of their acceptance cannot be fixed. But it is not necessary to explain *how* a thing dies in order to affirm *that* it died. We bury people without autopsies all the time.
20. Efforts to change these aberrations and return to the teaching of the Confessions have proved fruitless. The time has come to check the clock, note the time, and call the morgue.

Conclusion:
21. The quia subscription to, and confession of, the doctrine of the Lutheran Confessions in its fulness is the principle of unity for the churches of the Augsburg Confession, and hence is essential for their existence.
22. There exists no trans-parish Lutheran entity which maintains a quia subscription to, and confession of, the doctrine of the Lutheran Confessions in its fulness.
23. In the sense that the Confessors understood themselves as 'church'--i.e. a trans-parish entity united by a common confession--There is no Lutheran Church.

Revised April 22, 2005

Who's a Pelagian?

2009-03-22T11:04:00.001-07:00

We Orthodox have been accused of being Pelagian because of our teaching on ancestral sin.

One of St. Augustine's arguments against Pelagius was from the practice of infant communion. If infants are not sinful, why are they communed? (We, of course, would answer that infants are baptised and communed because they have ancestral sin--i.e. they are born mortal, separated from the life of God which is communicated via the mysteries: Baptism, Chrismation and Eucharist.)

This morning at our altar and at Orthodox altars all around the world, baptised Orthodox infants were communed. This morning at Lutheran altars, their baptised infants were not communed.

Turn down the volume of the words that have poured forth, and judge by what you see: At Orthodox altars, baptised infants are communed. At Lutheran altars, they are turned away. Who's a Pelagian?

Book meme (from Christopher Hall and Byzantine Dixie)

2009-03-08T18:46:00.000-07:00

1. To mark your page you: use a bookmark, bend the page corner, leave the book open face down?
I've done all of them--usually I mark my place with a piece of paper.

2. Do you lend your books?
And never see many of them again... :-(

3. You find an interesting passage: you write in your book or NO WRITING IN BOOKS!
Usually I'll highlight margins. I put a star by a good passage. A few books have a few 5-star passages. Sometimes I write brief notes. I find it interesting to read annotations I wrote 10-20 years ago.

4. Dust jackets - leave it on or take it off.
When possible, I cover dust jackets with Contac paper. It keeps the books nicer longer.

5. Hard cover, paperback, skip it and get the audio book?
Hardcover is preferred; I enjoy audio too.

6. Do you shelve your books by subject, author, or size and color of the book spines?
Dewey decimal, thank you very much! (My mom was a librarian.)

7. Buy it or borrow it from the library later?
I do both; the local library will have a wing someday with my name on it.

8. Do you put your name on your books - scribble your name in the cover, fancy bookplate, or stamp?
I write my name on the first sheet.

9. Most of the books you own are rare and out of print books or recent publications?
Most are more recent, though I have some old gems. (I have Herman Sasse's copy of the Reformed Confessions.) :-)

10. Page edges - deckled or straight?
Straight, please.

11. How many books do you read at one time?
Oh, dear. More than I should.

12. Be honest, ever tear a page from a book?
I don't remember doing that. But I have torn articles from periodicals.

13. (An added question) What subject matters do you have the most books in?

Philosophy, especially ancient.
Theology, especially dogmatics
Languages
History, especially Byzantine & American Civil War/War between the states
Russian literature

14. (Another added question) What do you have none of?

Cookbooks.

And while I'm at it, I have a few books to sell: most especially a Philadelphia edition of Luther's Works, a volume or two of Sasse and some other things like that from a former life.

Why do Lutherans go east?

2009-03-03T13:31:00.000-08:00

I notice a rise in Orthodoxy-related posts on Lutheran blogs of late. The Revds. Weedon and McCain both have some. Perhaps it's due to the recent ordination of Daniel Hackney to the holy priesthood; or perhaps they are vaguely aware of other developments. It doesn't really matter.

Why are Lutherans looking east?

Rev'd. McCain seems to think it's a 'bug,' an infection whose aetiology he does not disclose, choosing only to focus on its symptoms. For its 'cure,' in part, he endorses a reading of the church fathers--whose views, he says, are closer to Lutheranism than to Orthodoxy.

Rev'd. Weedon opines that the antidote is a good read of C.P. Krauth, the magesterial representative of another American branch of Lutheranism whose magnum opus was "The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology."

One of my former colleagues used to speak of men who esteemed preaching above the sacraments. He called such a person a "word bird" (or "avis verbalis"). It is natural for such creatures to look at problems and solutions in terms of words.

But I, for one, did not leave Lutheranism chiefly because I found some faulty formulations of dogma. Nor do I sense that to be the case with others who have left. (There are, of course, faulty formulations: the filioque comes to mind. Original guilt is another. The denial of the essence/energy distinction is still a third.)

No; what was missing in Lutheranism for me and, I suspect, for those others who have become and are becoming Orthodox is what Florensky called "Tserkovnost" or "ecclesiality." It was the recognition that Lutheranism is not Church, but a school of thought which is incarnated in various corporations. The problem is not first and foremost verbal, but existential.

St. Gregory Palamas, on the divine energies

2009-03-03T13:25:00.000-08:00

68. The divine transcendent being is never named in the plural. But the divine and uncreated grace and energy of God is divided indivisibly according to the image of the sun's ray (Cf. Basil, De spiritu sancta 9.22.35) which gives warmth, light, life and increase, and sends its own radiance to those who are illuminated and manifests itself to the eyes of those who see. In this way, in the manner of an obscure image, the divine energy of God is called not only one but also many by the theologians. For example, Basil the Great says, "As for the energies of the Spirit, what are they? Ineffable in their grandeur, they are innumerable in their multitude. How are we to conceive what is beyond the ages? What were his energies before intelligible creation?" (Idem, 19.49.1-4) Prior to intelligible creation and beyond the ages (for also the ages are intelligible creations) no one has ever spoken or conceived of anything created. Therefore, the powers and energies of the divine Spirit are uncreated and because theology speaks of them in the plural they are indivisibly distinct from the one and altogether indivisible substance of the Spirit.

69. As it has been made clear above by Basil the Great, the theologians treat the uncreated energy of God as multiple in that it is indivisibly divided. Since therefore the divine and divinizing illumination and grace is not the substance but the energy of God, for this reason it is treated not only in the singular but also in the plural. It is bestowed proportionately upon those who participate and, according to the capacity of those who receive it, it instills the divinizing radiance to a greater or lesser degree.

70. Isaias named these divine energies as seven, but among the Hebrew the word seven indicates many: he says, "There shall come forth a rod from the root of Jesse and a flower shall come forth from it. And seven spirits shall rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom, understanding, knowledge, piety counsel, might, fear." Those who hold the opinions of Barlaam and Akindynos foolishly contend that these seven spirits are created. This opinion we examined and refuted with clarity in our extensive Antirrhetic Against Akindynos. But Gregory the Theologian, when he called to mind these divine energies of the Spirit, said, "Isaias was fond of calling the energies of the Spirit spirits." And this most distinguished voice among the prophets clearly demonstrated through this number not only the distinction with respect to the divine substance but also indicated the uncreated character of these divine energies by means of the word `rested upon,' for `resting upon' belongs to a pre-eminent dignity. As for those spirits that rested upon the Lord's human nature which he assumed from us, how could they be creatures?

71. According to Luke, our Lord Jesus Christ says he casts out demon by the finger of God, but according to Matthew it is by the Spirit of God." Basil the Great says that the finger of God is one of the energies of Spirit. If then one of these is the Holy Spirit, the others too certainly are, since Basil has also taught us this. But on this account there are not many Gods or many Spirits, for these realities are processions, manifestations and natural energies of the one Spirit and in each case the agent is one. When the heterodox call these creatures, they degrade the Spirit of God to creature sevenfold. But let their shame be sevenfold, for the prophet again says of the energies, "These seven are the eyes of the Lord that range over the whole earth." And when he writes in Revelation, "Grace to you t peace from God and from the seven spirits which are before the throne of God, and from Christ," he demonstrates clearly to the faithful that these are the Holy Spirit.

72. Through Micah the prophet our God and Father foretold the birth the Only-Begotten in the flesh and wishing to show as well the inoriginate character of his divinity said, "His goings forth have been from the beginning from an eternity of days." The divine Fathers explained that these 'goings forth' are the energies of the Godhead, as the powers and energies are identical for the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Yet word is being passed around about their being created by those who eagerly hold and defend the opinions of Barlaam and Akindynos. But let those who have lately come to their senses understand who is the one from the beginning, who it was to whom David said, "From eternity (which is the same as saying from an eternity of days') and unto eternity you are." And let them consider intelligently, if they will, that God, in saying through the prophet that these goings forth are from the beginning, in no way said they came into being were made or were created. And Basil, when, in the Spirit of God, he made the theological statement, "The energies of the Spirit existed before intelligible creation and beyond the ages," did not say `they came into being.' God alone, therefore, is active and all-powerful from eternity since he possesses pre-eternal powers and energies.

73. In outright opposition to the saints, those who advocate the opinion of Akindynos say, "The uncreated is unique, namely, the divine nature, and anything whatsoever distinct from this is created." Thus do they make into a creature the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, for there is one and the same energy for the three, and that of which the energy is created cannot itself be uncreated. For this reason it is not the energy of God that is a creature—certainly not!—but rather the effect and the product of the energy. Thus, the holy Damascene taught that the energy which is distinct from the divine nature is an essential, that is, a natural movement (Cf. John Damascene, Expositio fidei 37 and 59.7-9). And since the divine Cyril said that creating belongs to the divine energy,( Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus 18) how can this be a created reality, unless it shall have been effected through another energy, and that in turn through another, and so on ad infinitum; and the uncreated cause of the energy is always being sought after and proclaimed?

74. Because the divine substance and the divine energy are inseparably present everywhere, the energy of God is accessible also to us creatures, for according to the theologians it is indivisibly divided, whereas the divine nature remains utterly indivisible according to them. Thus, the Church Father, Chrysostom, says, "A drop of grace filled all things with knowledge; through it wonders took place, sins were loosed (John Chrysostom, Expositiones in Psalmos 44.3)." When he indicated that this drop of grace was uncreated, he then hastened to show that it was an energy and not the substance; and, further, he added the distinction of the divine energy with respect to the divine substance and the hypostasis of the Spirit when he wrote: "I am speaking of this part of the operation for indeed the Paraclete is not divided." The divine grace and energy at least is accessible to each of us since it is itself divided indivisibly, but since the substance of God is utterly indivisible in itself how could it be accessible to any creature?

75. There are three realities in God, namely, substance, energy and a Trinity of divine hypostases. Since it has been shown above that those deemed worthy of union with God so as to become one spirit with him (even as the great Paul has said, "He who clings to the Lord is one spirit with him.") are not united to God in substance, and since all theologians bear witness in their statements to the fact that God is imparticipable in substance and the hypostatic union happens to be predicated of the Word and God-man alone, it follows that those deemed worthy of union with God are united to God in energy and that the spirit whereby he who clings to God is one with God is called and is indeed the uncreated energy of the Spirit and not the substance of God, even though Barlaam and Akindynos may disagree. For God foretold through the prophet not `My Spirit', but rather, "Of my Spirit I will pour out upon those who believe."

76. Maximus says, "Moses and David and those who have become fit for the divine energy by laying aside their carnal properties were moved at a sign from God"; and, "They became living icons of Christ and the same as he is, more by grace than by assimilation"; and, "The purity in Christ and in the saints is one"; and, "The radiance of our God is upon us," sings the most divine of melodists. For according to Basil the Great, "As souls that bear the Spirit are illumined by the Spirit they become spiritual themselves and send forth grace to others. Thence comes foreknowledge of the future understanding of mysteries, apprehension of things hidden, distribution o spiritual gifts, citizenship in heaven, the dance with the angels, joy without end, divine distribution, likeness to God, and the summit of our longings, namely, to become God.”

---from The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters, translated by Robert E. Sinkewicz (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies) Note: I've omitted some footnotes, and put others in parentheses next to the words they refer to.

That prayer, again

2009-03-03T04:16:00.000-08:00

On his blog "Cyberbrethren" the Rev'd. Paul McCain has cited another unnamed Lutheran blogger discussing the post-communion prayer to the Theotokos. The unnamed blogger refers to it as an "idolatrous prayer."

For those Lutherans bitten by the "Orthodox bug," as he puts it, who want to see an exegesis of that prayer, I posted a detailed explanation of it some time ago. The exegesis begins with a post of 28 August 2008.

If any Lutheran would like to discuss it, or any Orthodox for that matter, feel free to comment here.

Forgive me,

2009-03-02T14:10:00.000-08:00

dear brothers and sisters of our Lord Jesus Christ, for the many ways I have offended God and you:

willingly and unwillingly,
known and unknown,
by action and omission,
by word and deed and thought.

And beseech God for me that he may have mercy on me.

The unworthy priest and fool,

Fr. Gregory

What a wonderful day...

2009-02-24T16:09:00.000-08:00

...this past Sunday. My wife and I traveled to Sylvania, Ohio for the elevation of Dcn. Daniel Hackney to the holy priesthood, and my son John's elevation to the subdiaconate. Naturally, his first litany was in Slavonic! :-)

I'm second from the left; John is next to me; Fr. Daniel is fourth from the right and Fr. Steven Salaris is third from the right. Bishop MARK stands in the center, of course, and next to him stands a 90-year-old priest from Syria, Fr. Gabriel.

One picture is worth a thousand words...

2009-02-07T06:26:00.000-08:00

...or so goes the saying. Consider this icon of the Lord's baptism.

This icon is used for the feast of Theophany, or "God's revelation." Based on the gospel accounts, the Church sings,

"When thou, O Lord, wast baptised in the Jordan,
worship of the Trinity was made manifest.
For the voice of the Father bore witness to thee,
calling thee his beloved Son.
And the Spirit in the likeness of a dove confirmed the truth of his word..."

Note the Persons of the Holy Trinity in this icon. The voice of the Father is heard from on high. The Son is baptised in the Jordan. And the Spirit proceeds from the Father and rests on the Son--just as the Church confesses.

To those visitors from the West, I ask you: What icon could depict the filioque?

Holy water?

2009-02-05T18:38:00.000-08:00

An anonymous poster on Pr. Weedon's blog who calls himself "Michigan J. Frog" (what is it about Lutherans and anonymous posting?) has tried to poke fun at the Orthodox use of holy water, and the customs of Theophany.

On Pr. Eckardt's blog, there's discussion about the use of a tabernacle and the dreadful practice in many Lutheran circles of tossing the used disposable cups in the trash after communion. (I learned there for the first time of some consecrated wafers being tossed as well.)

These two things are connected.

Material things aren't neutral. Either the Church sacralizes the 'secular' (though, in truth, there is nothing 'secular'), or the world profanes the sacred. The Orthodox Church has chosen the former...

Can you spot the incoherence here?

2009-02-05T18:28:00.000-08:00

The Lord has given the Sacred Scriptures to the Church to be the rule and judge of all doctrines and teachers.
Whenever she teaches according to them, she speaks a certain and joyful truth, and is to be obeyed.
Whenever she teaches contrary to them, or insists on a teaching or practice for which they give no grounds, she should not be heeded but rather called to repentance.

Hypocrisy

2009-02-04T05:03:00.000-08:00

"Not to live according to one's faith is worse than to live according to one's unbelief. No atheist can do the Church of Christ so much damage and bring so much devastation into its fold as an evil, money-loving priest who received, and has not been deprived of, the awe-inspiring grace of performing sacraments and wearing sacred vestments."

--from The Orthodox Pastor by Archbishop John Shahovskoy, pp. 16-17

Number 6!

2009-02-01T19:55:00.000-08:00

Steelers 27 Cardinals 23

Late drive wins sixth Super Bowl

Peter Diana/Post-Gazette

Santonio Holmes, Super Bowl XLIII's MVP, celebrates after a game-winning reception.

2009-01-31T19:01:00.000-08:00

Check out this video.

HT: Protonamesnik Milovan Katanic

Issues etc. on the filioque

2009-01-29T20:28:00.001-08:00

The Lutheran radio program "Issues Etc." featured a discussion of the filioque--the western addition "and the Son" to the Creed of Constantinople. Speaking on behalf of Lutherans was Pr. Peter Bender, well known in LCMS circles for his catechetical work. I will try to summarize his main points and respond to them.

1. A key point of his defense of the filioque is the notion that in the eastern church, Jesus and his atoning work does not have center stage as it does in the western church. They are diminished, according to Pr. Bender, in the Eastern church.

It is difficult to respond to a charge of this sort, because it is painted with so broad a brush. Pointing out the numerous feasts of the Holy Cross, the fact that (unlike most Lutheran parishes today) the Eucharist is the center of our liturgical life, every Sunday we read a resurrection gospel etc. would be met with "those are exceptions." Perhaps the best response is to point Pr. Bender and others to the liturgy of Great and Holy Friday, with its sparkling-clear presentation of Christ's work for us.

2. Pr. Bender conflates the economic and immanent Trinity, claiming that because Jesus gives the Spirit in time to the Church, therefore the Spirit proceeds from him in eternity.

Those who make this claim would do well to ponder our Lord's baptism--a revelation in time of the eternal Trinity. There the Spirit proceeds from the Father and rests on the Son, just as the Orthodox faithfully teach.

3. When an email pointed out that the Bible speaks of the Spirit as proceeding from the Father (Jn 14:26), Pr. Bender replied that the whole of John 14-17 has to be taken together.

For someone so sensitive to the words of Holy Scripture, there remains this question: why do the Spirit-inspired Scriptures never speak of the Spirit as proceeding from the Son, but only speak of him proceeding from the Father? In the context of John 14:26, it would have been simple for the Lord to speak of the Spirit "who proceeds from the Father and from me." John 14-17 as a whole is plainly speaking of the economic work of the Trinity. Is the Holy Spirit the "Spirit of the Son"? Of course he is, because the Son sends to the Church in time the One who proceeds from the Father in eternity.

4. Pr. Bender says that the third ecumenical council, the council of Toledo in Spain (589 AD), added the word filioque to the Creed.

It is true that the Council of Toledo added "filioque". But Toledo was not an ecumenical council, it was a local council. The Third Ecumenical Council was Ephesus, in 431 AD. I would have passed over this point in silence, because it betrays an embarrassing lack of knowledge of the Church's history; but it was no misspeaking, since Pr. Bender first alluded to it and then spoke of it explicitly. Nor, by the way, is the Nicene Creed an expansion of the Apostles' Creed.

Here and now

2009-01-24T18:41:00.000-08:00

When God speaks of himself in the book of Revelation, he says, "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

But when that same book speaks of the beast, notice what it says: "...it was and is not and is to come."

The battle we fight in prayer is to meet the Holy Trinity in the present moment...not to let our minds drift to things past which oppress us, or things yet to come, which make us worry. Strictly speaking, neither the past nor the future exist. There is only the present, which God gives us to receive from his gracious hand as his creation...as redeemed by his blood...as filled by him who is everywhere present and fillest all things. It is false to say that the finite is not capable of the infinite; indeed, we find God here, and now, in this radically finite thing we call the present moment, or we find him nowhere. Here, too, we find the Theotokos and the saints: God is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him who says, "I am the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob."

The power of the Word

2009-01-20T05:16:00.000-08:00

It was Pascha of the first year after the Communist October Revolution. In front of the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg, Lunaciarski was holding an atheist conference. This founder of the "bezbojnik" (without God) movement had declared openly a couple of months earlier that God should disappear completely from the vast Soviet territories. He had made a solemn commitment in the presence of the Soviet Communist party. On that day the meeting was of great size. Country people and workmen from surrounding areas and from far away had been brought forcibly to attend...There were thousands of Bolsheviks applauding and thundering slogans against God. The orator was in his glory.
To make the argument more powerful, an inflamed group of Communists surprised an old priest on the street; they beat him, spat upon him, pulled his beard and brought him on the stage. Lunaciarski looked at him and said, "Do you see these multitudes? from now on, they do not believe in God; they believe in me, in what I tell them. Look, I give you the floor. If in five minutes, you do not convince them that God exists, I will execute you." The priest turned to the people, and, this being Pascha, he felt in his heart a flow of warm love and compassion for these people. He cleared his voice and cried out with a supernatural force, "BRETHREN, CHRIST IS RISEN!" There were a few seconds of dead silence, and then as if from the depths or even from heaven, the answer of tens of thousands of Bolsheviks reverberated through the air: "HE IS RISEN INDEED!" The old man made the sign of the cross in the presence of the speaker and said, "Your Excellency, my demonstration is finished." Then he slipped away through the crowd and disappeared. The writer Nicholas Arseniev, who was an eyewitness, later related the facts of this event in his memoirs when he was in exile.

---from "On the Way of Faith", by Archimandrite Roman Braga

"I am a Protestant who..."

2009-01-03T18:26:00.001-08:00

Over at his blog, Pr. William Weedon talks about the word 'Protestant' as it applies to him. He says, in part, "I am an original Protestant. That means, I am one who believes that Baptism is for infants and adults and through it the Blessed Trinity saves us; I am a Protestant who believes that in the Eucharist Christ gives me to eat and drink His most holy body and blood beneath the appearance of bread and wine; I am a Protestant who believes that the words of Christ's called servants release me from sin, forgive me, and open wide the gates of heaven; I am a Protestant who believes that the Eucharist is the beating heart of the Church's life; I am a Protestant who rejoices in the liturgy of the Mass and the Daily Office; I am a Protestant who acknowledges the Office of the Holy Ministry as divinely established and ordained for the salvation of our souls. Please don't call me 'high church' or 'hyper confessional.' Just call me Lutheran. For that's what I am."

It is worth reflecting on these words. Here the term "Protestant" functions as a genus-term (like homo in homo sapiens), and the clauses beginning with "who believes..." set forth the differences (like sapiens in homo sapiens) that mark his sort of Protestant (as he says, Lutheran).

What makes him as Protestant as the most ardent Baptist, or the most 'Spirit-filled' Pentecostal? "Lutherans most certainly ARE Protestants vis a vis the papal claims." In other words, for Pr. Weedon the term "Protestant" is, at its heart, a negative description--it tells what he and the Baptist and Pentecostal are not.

The list of what makes Pr. Weedon the kind of Protestant he is, serves to distinguish him from other Protestants--even some who use the term "Lutheran" to describe themselves (including Luther himself--didn't he give thanks somewhere that people were free from the "vain babbling" of the daily hours?)

Pr. Weedon's statement is an excellent example of what Florensky calls the confessional formula as guarantor of ecclesiality, which I cited in my previous post. But there is no oneness of mind in Protestantism--only a shared revulsion of papal claims. And there is no oneness of mind in Lutheran bodies--only a likeminded holding to certain positions and tendencies, while allowing freedom to understand those positions in vastly different ways. The vastly different practices and beliefs concerning lay absolution, grape juice and disposable cups all serve to demonstrate that we are dealing on the level of abstract concepts, not on the level of flesh-and-blood concrete reality.

As a thought-experiment, imagine someone saying "I am an Orthodox who...", in order to distingish himself from some other Orthodox. Some may argue that there are a few differences within contemporary Orthdoxy--e.g. old vs. new calendar--but none of these rise to the level of a doctrinal dispute. "Orthodox" is not a genus-term, like "Protestant." It's a corporate term, an organic term describing a living reality: the bride and body of Christ.

Let it be noted: in no way do I mean these words as a personal attack or criticism of Pr. Weedon, whom I consider to be one of the best representatives of contemporary Lutheranism in its attempt to be catholic. My argument is, rather, that if Florensky's analysis captures so refined a statement as Pr. Weedon's, how much more does it capture more generic protestant views!

Florensky on ecclesiality

2009-01-03T17:52:00.000-08:00

"Ecclesiality (tserkovnost)--that is the name of the refuge where the heart's anxiety finds peace, where the pretensions of the rational mind are tamed, where great tranquillity descends into our reason. Let it be the case that neither I nor anyone else can define what ecclesiality is! Let those who attempt such a definition dispute one another and mutually refute one another's formulas of ecclesiality. Indeed, do not its very indefinability, its ungraspableness by logical terms, its ineffability prove that ecclesiality is life, a special, new life, which is given to man, but which, like all life, is inaccesible to the rational mind?...

Where there is no spiritual life, something external must exist as an assurance of ecclesiality. A specific function, the pope, or a system of functions, a hierarchy--that is the criterion of ecclesiality for Roman Catholics. On the other hand, a specific confessional formula, the creed, or a system of formulas, the text of the Scripture, is the criterion of ecclesiality for Protestants. In the final analysis, in both cases what is decisive is a concept, an ecclesiastical-juridical concept for Catholics and an ecclesiastical-scientific concept for Protestants. But by becoming the supreme criterion, a concept makes all manifestation of life unnecessary...

The indefinability of Orthodox ecclesiality, I repeat, is the best proof of its vitality. Of course, we Orthodox cannot point to any one ecclesial function about which it can be said that it sums up all of ecclesiality, for what would be the sense of all the other functions and activities of the Church? Likewise, we cannot point to any one formula or book which could be taken as the fullness of ecclesial life. And if such a formula or book did exist, what would be the sense of other formulas or books, of all other activities of the Church? There is no concept of ecclesiality, but ecclesiality itself is, and for every living member of the Church, the life of the Church is the most definite and tangible thing that he knows. But the life of the Church is assimilated and known only through life--not in the abstract, not in a rational way."--Fr. Pavel Florensky

In this lull...

2008-12-22T05:31:00.000-08:00

...between the end of grading and the joyous Christmas liturgy, I have the time to re-organize my office and indulge in a little non-necessary reading. Currently I'm enjoying Miguel de Unamuno's The Tragic Sense of Life. I don't endorse all its contents, but Unamuno is delightful in his expression, and thought-provoking in his views.

Sermon outline from 14 December

2008-12-15T02:37:00.000-08:00

Note: I'm up to my eyeballs in finals grading. Here's the rough outline of my sermon from yesterday. The text was Luke 14:16-24.

The whole chapter has dealt with dining

> It begins with our Lord healing a man in the house of a Pharisee where he had gone to eat.

> Then Christ tells two parables:

o how to act as guest when you’re invited;

o who to invite when you’re the host

> Now comes our text.

A man prepares a great banquet. He invites many. Then he sends out his servant to let them know: “All is now ready.”

This man is our Lord himself. The banquet is his Kingdom; the servants are those who call and invite us. Hear the words: “All is now ready”—sheer gift to those who would come.

But those who were invited make excuses. “I have bought a field. I have bought five yoke of oxen. I have married a wife.”

Each of these represent reasons why people refuse. The field is the necessities of this life; the oxen are the useful things of this life; the wife is the relationships of this life.

So the master tells the servants to invite others: the poor and maimed, the blind and the lame. This is done, but still there’s room.

The Jews were first-invited. When they refused, the Master turned to us, the Gentiles.

Think of the implication. If the banquet is the Kingdom, then we must learn to think of ourselves in a new way: poor, maimed, blind and lame. All is of God’s mercy. None is of our merit.

“Still there is room”—so there is room for me too.

Yet the man is not done. The banquet must be filled, so he sends the servants out.

Each person they met was someone for the Master’s banquet. And so it is with us, when we go forth. Each one we meet is someone for his banquet. Let us so live a life of gratitude and service, that we "compel" them to come and find what we have received.

Attention Lutheran pastors

2008-11-25T18:58:00.000-08:00

If you're happy where you are, please ignore this.

If you're upset at a parish council or Voters' meeting, this isn't for you.

If you think that Lutheranism is just going through a bad patch now and will, sooner or later, get back on track, forget about this.

But if you think that Lutheranism has a genetic flaw, from which it cannot recover...
If you are coming to the persuasion that Lutheranism is not Church, and you want to find the Church...
If you are looking for somewhere to talk about the concerns you have, with folks who have gone through it before...
If you are even looking for practical help, to make the transition from life as a pastor to life as a layman of the Orthodox Church,

then please contact me about a Yahoo! group I have started. Just drop a line to pastor_hogg[at]hotmail[dot]com. Be sure to include your phone number, and a good time to reach you.

Does anyone else find this ironic?

2008-11-22T18:34:00.000-08:00

As Will Rogers said, "There is no credit to being a comedian, when you have the whole Government working for you. All you have to do is report the facts. I don't even have to exaggerate."

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic leaders ordered Detroit's Big Three automakers Friday to submit what amounts to a detailed loan application to Congress so lawmakers can decide whether to give the beleaguered industry an emergency $25 billion lifeline.
In a letter to the auto executives released Friday afternoon, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid demanded a detailed accounting by Dec. 2 of the companies' financial condition and short-term cash needs, as well as how they would achieve long-term viability.
"The auto companies' shareholders, business partners and prospective benefactors - the American people - deserve to see a plan that is accountable to taxpayers and that is viable for the long-term," Pelosi, D-Calif., and Reid, D-Nev., wrote.

Hummus rap

2008-11-19T18:05:00.000-08:00

For all those Orthodox who've begun the Nativity fast, check out this rap on Hummus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIybz6axr1Q

HT: Fr. Shenork Souin

A poem: John 21

2008-11-19T06:04:00.000-08:00

When you were young, your hands were free
and where you willed, you went;
In old age you will follow me
suspended head-down on a tree
you'll go where you are sent."

We conjure fates we could not bear
and run to get away;
With fervent hope and patient care,
with cry and shout "It is not fair!"
We hold our fear at bay.

Until at last our hands are bound,
our face is turned to see
What we feared most, like some dread hound
is but the means by which we're crowned
And find true liberty.

Sermon notes from 9 Nov 2008: Jairus' daughter

2008-11-09T19:47:00.000-08:00

Text: Jairus’ daughter and the woman with the issue of blood
(Standard disclaimer--these are the notes from which I preached this morning--not the full text.)

Prayer isn’t just one topic among others, for Christians. It’s the point of the Christian life. The holy fathers teach us that prayer is the fruit, and works are the leaves, of the Christian life. Prayer is not one of the virtues; it’s the mother of them all, as St. Isaac the Syrian says, “Catch the mother (prayer) and the children (the virtues) will come to you.” And St. Paul says, First of all, then, I exhort that prayers be made…”

So let’s ask ourselves,

How is our prayer life?

Do we pray at all?

Do we pray mechanically?

Is prayer simply another thing on our daily to-do list?

Today’s text gives us lessons in prayer.

1. It doesn’t matter what kind of need.

a. Girl: alive for 12 years, now dying;

b. Woman: a living death for 12 years.

2. It doesn’t matter what your status is.

a. Girl: daughter of a prominent man;

b. Woman: nameless, one in a crowd.

3. It doesn’t matter whose is the need.

a. Girl: Another asked Jesus on her behalf;

b. Woman: She went to Christ on her own behalf.

4. Even the quality of your faith doesn’t matter.

a. Girl: Jairus, her father, had little faith;

b. Woman: wanted to keep her faith anonymous.

Note: Christ does not rebuke her touching his garment. Nor is this an exception—many later do the same, both w/Christ and w/ his apostles. It still happens today—story of St. Nektarios of Pentapolis.

5. What matters?

a. That we come to Christ in need.

“Cast all your cares on him, for he cares for you.”

b. That we come to Christ without fear.

“Let us come boldly before the throne of grace, that we may receive grace and mercy to help us in time of need.”

c. That we come to Christ in faith.

“He who would come to God must believe that He is, and that He rewards those who diligently seek him.”

So let us call on him in our time of need, our day of trouble. He will answer us, and we will glorify him, both here and in his Kingdom, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

On January 21,

2008-11-05T05:29:00.000-08:00

...we will still pray, in our eucharistic petitions, for the President of the United States and all civil authorities, and for our armed forces everywhere.

We face some serious challenges, as Church:

to promote, in practical ways, a culture of life when our culture has embraced choice;
to practice repentance and self-control, at a time when indulgence is everywhere;
to love and serve the poor from our own resources, when more than ever people will think "That's the government's job."

I think that Senator Obama has a very hard road ahead of him. I think he will end up disappointing his own supporters (because their expectations are so high) more than those who opposed him. (I've heard no one reflect on what it means that a Congress with lower approval ratings than the President's has been reaffirmed in this election. If they try to push an agenda that was unapproved before, it should be interesting.)

His election does represent a new step in making our culture color-blind, and that is good.

I hope he is less likely to want to meddle in other parts of the world (like Iraq and the Russia/Georgia conflict), and have a more balanced view of the Middle East; time will tell. God give him wisdom, and protect him, and save our nation.

We are moving ever more rapidly to the situation the Church faced before the edict of Milan. Now, on with the work of repentance...

Another experiment

2008-10-28T03:34:00.000-07:00

I don't write my sermons out in full any more. I've taken to jotting down notes and preaching from them. So I thought I'd share with you (both?) the notes from last week's sermon. It's an unsatisfactory way of doing things, I know, because a lot of the 'meat' is left out. But it's what I have time for now. So here goes. If it's helpful to anyone, let me know; if not, let me know that as well. The text is the healing of the demoniac in Luke 8...

1.”Return to your home and declare how much God has done for you.”

Why home? Hadn’t those people seen him

…in his shame and nakedness?

…in the demon-inspired violence and torment?

He wanted to go with Jesus. But Jesus had something else in mind.

2. Christ and the apostles had traveled across the lake, it seems, for one purpose: to heal this man. They left the west shore the night before, and when this man is healed they return again. (Tell story, through “Return to your home.” Stress Christ's power over the demonic--the ultimate conquest being in the cross.)

3. The people of the town had begged Jesus to leave. He did. But he left behind a witness, one of their own, a living reminder of God’s mercy. It was because those people knew what he had been, that they above all might continue to marvel at what he had become through Christ.

4.The holy fathers teach us, “Remain in your cell, and your cell will teach you everything.” Here they echo the words of St. Paul, “Remain in that situation where you were called.” It’s happened to me on more than one occasion: as I stay in a place, and get to know people, they see my shame and faults. I have, in the past, sometimes changed my location instead of changing my heart. It feels good for a while—a new adventure. But when I journey, I bring myself along with me. I must learn repentance where I am, or I will learn it nowhere.

5. “But Father,” you say, “I want to journey with Jesus.” Thanks be to God, we have an option that man did not have. We can remain where we are and journey with the Lord as well. For he has promised that we can find him in two places, neither of which requires a move:

* here in the liturgical life of the Church—that’s why, after all, we come (“where two or three are gathered; lo, I am with you always)

*and out there in the lives of his precious ones, the poor and the needy (I was hungry, and you fed me…)

6. Let us therefore stay where we are: let us cultivate not a change of scenery, but a change of heart. And let us seek Christ where he wills to be found: here in his Temple, and out there among the poor and the needy. For so our cell will prove the entrance to his Kingdom, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Thank God...

2008-10-28T03:33:00.000-07:00

...my wife arrived safely back home last night at around midnight. And yesterday was the 31st anniversary of our engagement. Hooray!

This may be a stupid question...

2008-10-21T02:50:00.000-07:00

...since I don't sleep well when my wife is away (she's visiting her father in New Mexico; he's ill).

Once upon a time, years ago, I was in discussions to write the Preus dogmatics volume on justification. (By that time, my thinking had become far more eastern than western.) As I considered the connection between justification and the sacraments, I saw a problem.

1. Forgiveness of sins, and justification, are imputational, not imparted, according to Lutherans and other protestants. That is, they consist essentially in the reckoning of our sins to Christ, and the reckoning of his righteousness to us--not in the sharing of the divine energies. Hence the strong Lutheran emphasis on the extra nos (outside us) aspect of salvation.*

2. The sacraments of baptism and the eucharist are explicitly said to be for the forgiveness of sins.

3. The sacraments are said to be "visible words"--that is, they show what the Gospel says.

4. Why, then, would it not be more fitting for those who hold #1 above to baptise by pouring water next to the person being baptised--i.e. avoiding contact with the body? Why would it not be more fitting for the eucharist, if offered, not to be consumed but viewed with faith?**

* Protestants grant some sort of mystical union between Christ and the believer, but they teach this mystical union as a consequence of imputation, an effect of forgiveness and neither the cause nor the essence of forgiveness. Rome recognizes the need for an imparting, but lest the Creator/creature distinction be destroyed, what is imparted (grace) is not God's energies (which for them are identical to God's essence) but rather a created substance or habit.

** Certain streams of evangelicalism are being consistent to the Reformational emphasis on imputation when they abandon water baptism altogether; likewise, when the last remnants of what was once communion consist in a little side table with little glasses of grape juice and a cracker, for those who wish it to serve themselves after the benediction has been pronounced (within a generation it will disappear entirely), this is consistent with an imputational view of grace and forgiveness.

Once again, forgive me if I'm missing something obvious; I am tired. But I'd be interested in others' thoughts on this issue.

Remember yesterday's date

2008-10-15T03:24:00.000-07:00

It represents the fact that more than our economy is bankrupt. The Secretary of the Treasury appointed by a "conservative Republican" President said, "Government owning a stake in any private US company is objectionable to most Americans, me included. Yet the alternative of leaving businesses and consumers without access to financing is totally unacceptable."

In my view, it was a Chamberlain-like moment. To paraphrase Churchill, "He had a choice of abandoning his principles or economic disaster. He chose to abandon his principles; he shall have economic disaster also."