Thirst for Transcendence: A Response

Dear Parish Faithful,

This week's "Thursday's Theological Thoughts" generated a good deal more response than usual, and I appreciate reading and thinking over those responses, all of which were quite interesting. I thought to choose at least one as representative and also for some of the insights for an evolving dialogue with the contemporary world and the contemporary student.

Fr. Steven

_____


Dear Father Steven,

Father Bless.

This is quite intense, but very typical of my generation, the "Slackers" or "Generation X", and has trickled down to Generation Y.

Ten years ago I was a non-traditional college student. I often had casual conversations with a friend of mine on the meaning of life. It was mostly rhetoric, centered on some of life’s great mysteries. My friend suggested I enroll in a Philosophy class because it introduces the same topics. As it turns out, philosophy was a great beginning to begin to learn what many great thinkers have tackled in answering. It was validating.

I really feel that students today are much like students of the past, who enjoy deep discussions about the meaning of life. So perhaps for many students they have yet to deal with the first question to philosophy: Do you believe in the existence of God? The second question is equally as hard: If God is All-Knowing, All-Loving, and Omnipresent, why does evil exist in the world?

Philosophy, in my opinion, is a gateway into critically thinking about God in a safe environment. If people were required to take a philosophy class and/or through casual discussion groups in place on or off-campus, it would possibly ignite a desire into theology by taking the first step into discovering deeper aspects of their mind. This is the beginning of truly seeking God with all mind, heart, and soul. Could it be required to take a philosophy class before students attend your theology class? Perhaps this is wishful thinking...

I was inspired by the way my professor presented the topic, opened the door into my mind to challenge my thinking. The teacher wouldn't tell us whether she was religious until the last day of class. Looking back, I can see the logic behind it and I admire her for it. At the last day of school, she smiled and shared with us, “I am Catholic.” I will always be grateful for her style. It serves as a model for my approach to people and life to this day.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Haynes

The Seriousness of Worship

Dear Parish Faithful & Friends in Christ,


I am forwarding to everyone a very interesting article that was forwarded to me recently. The article may be too long for a "quick read," but I would highly recommend at least reading the first part. If you find that of interest, than you may want to read further at your own convenience. The author, Monte Wilson, is described as a "noted Reformed writer and speaker." He is describing a particular part of the North American religious landscape that he clearly knows and understands very well from within. And he does not like what he sees! His reflection amounts to something of a lamentation. You may agree with me that perhaps he needs to visit an Orthodox church and experience the Divine Liturgy!

The article is a scathing critique - combined with some good humor - of the vapidness of a great deal of contemporary Christian worship; what I, at least, would equate with the "mega-church" phenomenon. But perhaps it goes even beyond that into more "mainstream" forms of Protestant worship. I am not sending the article so that we can have a good laugh at the expense of other Christians; or so that we can come away with a self-satisfied "feeling" of our own superiority as Orthodox Christians. We can fall into some of the same traps enumerated below within the context of the Divine Liturgy! But I would hope that we may reflect and be profoundly thankful for the depth of the worship that we are invited to participate in on a weekly basis. And that we commit ourselves to a life of genuine worship in which we worship God - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - and not ourselves in the process! That our "needs" when we come to church are met in an encounter with the living God Who makes demands of us on daily basis, and not in some kind of psycho-babble about "finding" our "inner selves" with the help of Jesus. That we will also understand the extraordinary importance of genuine Tradition, realizing the hazards of making it up as we go along; and that was is "contemporary" one day is out-of-date the next, thus perpetuating an unending cycle of seeking an ever-receding "relevance."

As Monte Wilson writes out of the Reformed tradition, he brings to his insights a set of presuppositions and a "mind-set" that I cannot fully relate to - and at times will disagree with. However, his over-all point about the seriousness of worship is one we must never take for granted, but continue to cultivate and deepen as we encounter the living God from liturgy to liturgy.

Please feel free to pass along any of your own reactions to what you read below.

Fr. Steven

_____

Narcissism Goes to Church: Encountering Evangelical Worship

By Monte Wilson

Evangelical Worship

Have you attended any modern evangelical worship services lately? (Question: Is "Evangelical Worship" an oxymoron?) No? Well, let's walk through one, shall we?

"Good Morning!" bellows the greeter, Mr. Rapport. "Why don't we stand and greet one another?" While every-one nervously pretends to happily welcome those around him with body language that says, "I can't believe he made us do this," Mr. Rapport will walk up and down the aisle shaking hands with the members, kissing babies and, in essence, acting as if he were running for office. (Maybe he is.)

What is this? It is the evidence of the modern proof of God's presence: Warmth and Fuzziness. The service must have the correct ambiance. People must feel wanted, even needed--or they will go elsewhere. Not long ago, the normal service would begin with Bible reading and prayer, declaring the congregation's allegiance and submission to Christ. Today, our allegiance is to user-friendliness.

Some churches will open with a cheery choir special or a hap-hap-happy song sung by the musicians. After all, happiness must mark the service. "We are a happy people. We have something to offer you. We are exciting and positive--and you too can be like us if you join our church!" Compare this with the ancient liturgies that began with, "O God the Father of heaven, have mercy on us miserable sinners." Whoa! That won't do. What a downer. This certainly won't work in a church that wishes to make everyone feel good about himself.

Now the music leader steps to the microphone to lead the "worship." He is a combination of Pavarotti (albeit without the training), Dick Clark and Liberace. He stands, sometimes with other singers, at the center of the stage. The sound booth has been instructed to make certain that his voice is always louder than all others combined. He cajoles, he exhorts, he waves his arms, he explains the depth of meaning in the lyrics of each song, he cheerleads, he cries--all on cue. We then sing songs like "Glo-ho-ho-ry-he-he" or some other such ditty that is equally as intellectually and theologically vacuous. By the way, are the people a little dull this morning? No problem. Change keys on each verse, increase the volume and dump all songs in minor keys. What matters is that everyone has a great, happy, ego-renewing experience.

To insure that everyone is engaged, he will choose songs that match the musical tastes of the congregation. (The demands of Scripture are secondary: preferences and tastes of the people are primary.) Who cares that the church sang majestic hymns and chanted the Psalms for century after century, these are now too complicated, too content laden. What we demand are songs that excite, move and gratify without over-taxing the mind or soul.

It is now time for The Reverend Doctor Raconteur. First, he will tell a story. Now this yarn need not have anything to do with the message, but it must assure everyone that he is a) glad they are there; b) capable of wowing them; c) a real master of the pulpit; and d) just plain folk, like all of them. If he fails to accomplish one of these objectives, he is in trouble. If he fails in two, his job is in jeopardy.

It doesn't matter how well educated in theology the minister is because he will rarely deal in theology: the real need is psychology and entertainment. The man must move the audience. He must make them feel loved, needed, wanted, appreciated, cared for and special--reeeeal special--all in one message. Content is secondary, if it is relevant at all. What matters is that the minister is personable and able to make every individual present feel like he is talking just to him.

It is not just the people's ego being stroked here, but the minister's as well. He moves, he cries, he laughs and he woos. The spotlight is his. He is on center stage and loving it. Men revere him, women adore him and children laugh at his jokes: all stand in awe of his skills. What a life! Except, that is, when there is no response from the people. He stands at the back door and receives only the most mundane of compliments. No one is saved. No one spoke to him of his brilliant performance. No one fell down at the altar. Nothing visible, nothing audible, nothing happened, period. And what of his ego, now? It is dashed. He is a failure. No one appreciates him. No one knows his toil, his anguish--his insecurity and the ravenous hunger of his ego for approbation.

Where to Go for Real Worship

Where does the serious believer go to worship? Where do Christians go who do not want a circus but the sacraments? Where does a hungry seeker go to be fed with doctrine deeper than messages that can be boiled down to, "Don't worry, be happy"? Where are the Houses of Prayer? I was taught that, "You get what you fish for." We fished for people who wanted to be entertained. Now, if we pull the plug on the spotlights, they will go elsewhere. We built our services around the tastes of our members and, thereby, told them that their ego's where The Standard for evaluating the worship service is. What happens when we stand and quote Rushdoony, "Worship is not a matter of taste but of obedience"? What will happen is that we will gain the favor of God and all those who fear him. Those serious about their life in Christ will find their way to our worship services; those who prefer smoke and mirrors will go elsewhere. If space permitted we could take a similar walk through the last years' counseling sessions. Here we see a parade of whiners, victims and self-indulgent, self-proclaimed prophets coming to the pastoral staff to let them know of all that is wrong with the church, the officers, the music, the teaching, their spouses, their lives, etc. All of this can be summed up in one brief sentence: "My needs are not being met." Are some of these needs legitimate? Of course they are. But more often than not the needs all center on the gratification of the ego, not the strengthening of faith.

Hear the mantas of modern evangelicals:

I feel, therefore, I am.

I do not feel God; therefore, something or someone is wrong.

I feel God; therefore, whatever is being said and done must be The Truth.

I feel good; therefore, I am good.

I feel needy and my needs are demands on your abilities and possessions.

Is it any wonder that the average Christian is led around by his experiences and feelings rather than by God? The modern church--the place where he was to encounter God and learn of his ways--has told the Christian through symbols, teachings and structures that his needs and feelings are paramount!

Why are ministers shocked when members come in and say that their discontent with their spouse is grounds for divorce? After all, this same pastor told them that they could ignore covenants with past churches if their "felt-needs" were not being met. Why are we surprised when our members convert to Roman Catholicism where they feel-at-home-in-Rome or attend Laughing Revivals because they feel-the-Spirit? Haven't we told them that the gratification of their feelings is of highest import to God? Isn't it amazing how ministers who pandered to experience and emotions all of the sudden want to talk about truth-claims when one of their members decides he can have more intense experiences at another church!

The Quest for Experience

What is going on in Church-O-Rama? Quite simply, it is the exaltation of emotional gratification outside any theological parameters. This shapes our liturgies, dictates the style and content of our message, directs our counseling strategies, produces deformed theologies and severely damages souls and institutions wherever it prevails.

Modern American Christianity is filled with the spirit of narcissism. We are in love with ourselves and evaluate churches, ministers and truth-claims based upon how they make us feel about ourselves. If the church makes me feel wanted, it is a good church. If the minister makes me feel good about myself, he is a terrific guy. If the proffered truth supports my self-esteem, it is, thereby, verified.

Whence does this error spring? What is its source? One source is the belief that salvation is solely due to an experience of conversion, rather than to what happened on the Cross of Christ. Most Christians today define their salvation exclusively in terms of what happened to them subjectively, having no notion whatsoever of the objective basis for their salvation. This in turn focuses all of their attention on anxiously caring for that experience.

I suggest that another source is the common modern presupposition that experience is the foundation for belief. This cannot be so, however, because experiences do not happen in vacuums. People experience something or someone. The question, then, becomes, "What or Who has been experienced?" The "What" or "Who" must be interpreted. And simply because the Who or What was encountered in a religious setting does not mean that the encounter was sent by God.

One of the attractions for basing beliefs and theologies on experience is that it gives various religious groups a common starting point for ecumenical dialogue: "We have all experienced Jesus (or Truth or the transcendent God), have we not?" But this begs the question: who is going to verify exactly Who was experienced and by what standard shall they make their evaluations? How shall we ascertain if we have experienced God or Truth--or have only been experiencing ourselves?

To those who say that experience is The Standard for evaluating truth, goodness, beauty, etc., Luther had an interesting question. On Good Friday, when the disciples stood before the Cross, where was God? Was he not absent? For years they had experienced him on a daily basis; now he was demonstrably absent. Jesus himself cries out that God had forsaken him. Now, what do we believe? Well, as Luther pointed out, we had better believe the theology of the Bible.

When we allow experience or feelings to guide our faith we will end up in a ditch. Our feelings will tell us that God is absent while, all the time, he was right there "present in a hidden manner." What we need, then, is a theology with which to interpret our experiences.

Ignoring the Quest

There is another problem to which we in the Reformed camp do not always give sufficient thought. Some of these experience-based people are truly hungry for more of God in their lives. They may be misguided, they may fall prey to psychological manipulation, they may fall into grievous errors, but their sense of neediness for God is legitimate. Whereas many modern evangelical churches try to satiate this thirst with MTV Christianity, there is--or at least was--in many of these folks a desire to fill the soul with God's presence.

In what I believe is an overreaction to the lust for experiences in Church-O-Rama, some Christians and churches have denied any and all pursuits of experiencing God and his Truth. All that matters to these folks is the cognitive apprehension of doctrine. But the fact is that Biblical truth is to transform the individual. This means by necessity that we must "experience" the Truth of God.

Quite often in the Reformed world there is a lack of any appeal whatsoever to the imagination or the emotions, as if humans were only a "brain." This was one of the reasons why Anglican churches suffered such loss during the Great Awakening. Wesley and Whitefield were speaking to men and women who were semi-illiterate. However, while they may not have been able to read, these people could feel their need for God and forgiveness. Lecturing these people with theological treatises would not work: they needed to be touched where they sensed their (legitimate) need for God. This is not to suggest doctrine should have been secondary or that everything these evangelists did was right. It is to assert that some of their success was because they presented the truth in such a way as to truly communicate to the needs and hunger of the people.

Augustine pointed out that we were made in the image of God. We have, therefore, a capacity to fellowship with God. After the Fall, however, we insisted on trying to fill this need with creation and created things rather than with the Creator. But as Augustine noted, we can fill the void of God only with God. "You have made us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in You."

People long for God: they intellectually and psychologically crave his presence. However, as Augustine wrote, they are constantly trying to fill this need with experiences that will not satiate their desire. Sadly, the church all too often notes the need of the people, takes a survey of what it is they are using to try and fill this void, and then baptizes the chosen avenues with proof texts and Christian jargon. To compound the problem, those churches that react to such an approach often craft their message and worship in utter disregard of the human need to experience God. So, in one church people's emotions and emotional needs are pandered to, while in the other they are ignored. In one church the spirit of narcissism reigns, in the other the human spirit's capacity for and need of God is, for all intents and purposes, ignored.

People "need" a worship service that says, God Is Here. Here God is worshipped, revered, met. This is not entertainment. This is not a lecture hall, and we are not the audience: God is the audience and we are the performers. We recognize God's demand to be glorified and the human need to be filled with his presence. Prepare to meet God.

The poet Annie Dillard captures this spirit when she writes:

On the whole, I do not find Christians, outside of the catacombs, sufficiently sensible of conditions. Does anyone have the foggiest idea of what sort of power we so blithely invoke? Or, as I suspect, does no one believe a word of it? The churches are children playing on the floor with their chemistry sets, mixing up a batch of TNT to kill a Sunday morning. It is madness to wear ladies' straw hats and velvet hats to church; we should all be wearing crash helmets. Ushers should issue life preservers and signal flares; they should lash us to our pews. (Teaching A Stone To Talk: Expeditions and Encounters, p. 40)

Do you think Dillard extreme? Consider: Moses sees God, kicks off his shoes and starts stammering about how God should send Aaron and not him. Isaiah sees God, crawls under a church pew and begins blabbering about needing his foul mouth washed out. Jeremiah hears God and tells the Almighty that he is just a kid and not up for the rough-and-tumble world of a prophet. Paul saw God's presence and is knocked off of his donkey, blinded by the light of glory. While in the spirit on the Lord's Day, John spends a lot of time on his face. These are not pretty pictures. People "see" God and they are struck with terror. "Holy God, plus sinful me, equals dead meat."

When I contemplate gathering to worship the Triune God in the presence of angels, arch-angels and the Cloud of Witnesses--which is exactly what we do when we "gather as the church"--I am struck with the sinful and irreverent nonsense of much of what goes on in our worship services. I am not only speaking of people falling down laughing or of rock bands screaming; I am also thinking of the bored familiarity with which many approach worship. Both services fail to glorify God and invite his presence. Consequently, both services fail to meet the real needs of God's people.

While the primary purpose of worship is to glorify God, we must not discount how worship shapes and molds people for life. "Worship" that panders to narcissism leaves people void of true devotion and of the will to obey. "Worship" that is cold and heartless is a breeding ground for rationalism, leaving people empty of true spiritual power. Both are incapable of meeting the quest for more intimate fellowship with God or for being filled with his presence.

Feelings and experiences are not foundations for beliefs. However, as Jonathan Edwards wrote,

That religion which God requires, and will accept, does not consist in weak, dull, and lifeless wishes, raising us but a little above indifference. God, in his word, greatly insists upon it, that we be in good earnest, fervent in spirit, and our hearts vigorously engaged in religion: (Rom. 12:11; Deut. 10:12; 6:4, 5) ...

As there is no true religion where there is nothing else but affection [feelings/experiences], so there is no true religion where there is no religious affections. As on one hand, there must be light in the understanding, as well as an affected fervent heart; or where there is heat without light, there can be nothing divine or heavenly in the heart: so, on the other hand, where there is a kind of light without heat, a head stored with notions and speculations with a cold and unaffected heart, there can be nothing divine in that light, that knowledge is no true spiritual knowledge of divine things. If the great things of religion are rightly understood, they will affect the heart. (On Religious Affections, Section 2:1; Section 3:1)

I understand and agree with those who ridicule and rebuke the extremes of emotionalism and the theologies that spawned those extremes. However, the solution to the problem of the narcissistic quest for self-gratification in religious experiences is not in denying the soul's legitimate need and desire to encounter God. On the contrary, the solution is in recognizing that such an encounter is possible only where God in all of his glory is exalted and worshipped. This God--the Triune, sovereign God who requires nothing less than worship that engages the whole person--where ever he is proclaimed and honored, will fill the void within true seekers.

Sooner or later, those who have been attending Church-O-Rama who are truly seeking God will discover that what they have been fed is cotton candy for the soul and that all they have to show for years of eating such things is a heart and head filled with cavities. When they show up, do not merely introduce them to correct theology: lead them to an encounter with the Sovereign Lord.

Dr. Monte Wilson is a noted Reformed speaker and writer.

Notes from Q&A Session I

Dear Parish Faithful,

We had an excellent response on Wednesday evening to our scheduled Question & Answer Session I here in the church, following Vespers. Even more importantly, the questions and developed discussions to follow were lively and fruitful. We will definitely keep our next scheduled Q & A Session II on Wednesday evening, August 12. Some of the varied questions the other evening were:

• How do we as Orthodox approach "heroic efforts" toward sustaining life, primarily as related to end-of-life issues.

This led to further discussions of "living wills;" a fuller and more holistic approach to death & dying; the "paschal nature" of the dying process, etc. This further expanded into a discussion about "eschatology" and the presence of the Kingdom of God in the world today, and how the Kingdom is actualized in the Liturgy. In relation to all this, everyone expressed their amazement over the series of photos of the deceased Orthodox monk from Mt. Athos I sent out earlier in the week, entitled "Smile from Eternity."

• The place and meaning of holy relics in the life of the Church and how this phenomenon is understood.

Relics are related to the Incarnation and the sanctification of the whole person, soul and body.

• The Orthodox understanding of the Book of Revelation (The Apocalypse) and the so-called "rapture" taught by various Protestant groups, and which is vigorously rejected in Orthodox theology as an unscriptural innovation of the 19th c.
• The Second Coming of Christ and what this means for Christian believers, etc.

The glorified Christ will come once at the end of the age to gather His flock from the "four corners" of the world, and He will be recognized by all.

I also passed out a list of Contemporary Orthodox Classics that you may want to "file away" somewhere, and have therefore linked to it from this blog entry.

Do you ever have a question about the Orthodox Faith that you always wanted to ask? Is there an area of interest that you want to explore a bit more deeply? Then our Question & Answer Session II will be a good forum for precisely that, on Wednesday evening, August 12.

Fr. Steven

Suffering and Dying as Orthodox Christians

Dear Parish Faithful,

As mentioned earlier, Di Carter and I attended one of the main presentations given at the recent Parish Life Conference of the Antiochian Archdiocese here in Cincinnati. I asked Di to please write up a summary of the presentation by Drs. Dan and Jane Hinshaw on suffering and death from the perspective of being both physicians and Orthodox Christians. Her fine summary is below, together with an addendum to an excellent example of a durable power of attorney concerning end of life issues by Fr. Roman Braga. I believe that we desire to both live and die as Orthodox Christians. Both Drs. Hinshaw and Fr. Roman present, in these two diverse ways, a genuine witness to that desire.

I would like to introduce these two texts that you will hopefully read with care, with a further quote from Dr. Tristram Engleheart, a prominent Orthodox ethicist, that is both provocative and challenging:

"Few individuals will sell all that they have to pursue eternal salvation, while many will sell all they have to receive a few more years of earthly life."

Fr. Steven

~ ~ ~

Doctors Dan and Jane Hinshaw are a husband and wife team from the University of Michigan whose primary concern is to address the issues relating to suffering and death from the perspective of both Orthodoxy and the medical profession. Father Steven and I were privileged to attend a conference at which they spoke. Their talk was excellent and very comprehensive.

The Orthodox Church has much to say about the theological understanding of death. The Hinshaw’s talk translated this theology into a practical response to the current approaches in this country to the care of the dying. Their first talk dealt with suffering at the end of life where they explored the understanding of suffering within the context of the multiple dimensions of ‘Total Pain’. Because a person is not just a physical being but rather a psychosomatic unity, pain needs to be understood in its totality – physical, psychological, social and spiritual – and all of those elements of pain need to addressed when caring for the person. Indeed, Doctor Hinshaw maintained that unresolved spiritual, social or psychological pain can cause physical pain to be unresponsive even to massive amounts of narcotic pain relievers. The integrity in the psychological, social and especially spiritual domains of the person can minimize physical distress. And so the goal of palliative care is the achievement of the best quality of life for patients and their families.

The Hinshaws maintain that access to and delivery of pain treatment and other palliative measures are seriously deficient in the present health care systems in the United States. Rather, the focus is on curative treatment where, at the time of diagnosis, great energy and resources are expended to effect a cure. Often little attention is paid to the patient’s primary concerns unless they coincide with the curative treatment goals. If this treatment fails the patient is told “there is nothing more we can do” and referred for palliative care. Typically this happens very late in the course of the illness leaving little time for addressing the many serious issues the terminally ill need to confront. The Hinshaws recommend an alternative approach which incorporates palliative care at the outset of treatment and, if the prospect of cure diminishes with time, the steady increase in caring for the patient’s total needs continues seamlessly to the end.

The importance of all of this was not seen simply as a more compassionate model, but also from the conviction that the end of life is a critical time for growth and that there is important work to be done as we approach death. In fact, it can be a time of true healing; the healing of relationships, repentance, finding meaning in suffering, and spiritual growth. It is not possible to do these things if we are in too much pain or if we are too medicated.

Doctors Dan and Jane also dealt with the practicalities of the living will, and durable power of attorney for healthcare. They made available a copy of an addendum to a durable power of attorney which was written by an Orthodox priest and which could be used as a model for us (see immediately below this article).

Unfortunately, even with the best of efforts, palliative care can relieve most but not all terminal suffering. In a culture which does not recognize any value or potential good associated with human suffering, this ‘deficiency’ has opened the door for advocates of physician-assisted-suicide (PAS) and euthanasia. We were warned that this slippery slope is real. PAS is legal in Oregon and Washington State. Similar legislation was defeated in Michigan and other states but we will see future attempts to get the law changed.

We then heard from Father Paul of St Elias Antiochian Church in Sylvania Ohio. In response to these deficiencies in the healthcare system this parish is planning to launch St Elizabeth’s Ministry and Home for the Dying. They are going to begin by running a palliative day care centre which would combine the best of adult day care with respite care for individuals enrolled in hospice in a venue provided by the church. Hospice would provide the medical oversight and volunteer training. The parish would provide the volunteers, use of the parish hall, food, recreational activities etc.

The talk was punctuated throughout with quotations from Orthodox theologians and saints, including this one from Father Alexander Schmemann:

“In Christ suffering is not “removed”; it is transformed into victory. The defeat itself becomes victory, a way, an entrance into the kingdom and this is the only true healing.”

~ ~ ~

ADDENDUM TO MY DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR HEALTH CARE

I am an Orthodox Christian and an Orthodox Priest, I make this statement of my wishes a part of my Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care. If 1 am not competent to make my awn health care decisions. 1 state that I want all decisions about my medical care to be made in accordance with this document and my Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care.

Orthodox Christians believe that in death life is transformed by the power of Christ's death and resurrection into eternal life. Because of this belief, it is not always necessary to use every possible means to resist death. I ask that if I become terminally ill that I be fully informed of this fact so that I can prepare myself spiritually and emotionally for my eternal destiny with God.

If I am not competent to make my own health care decisions, I direct that the following be done for me. I direct that my advocate (and any agent, surrogate or health care provider) carry out my wishes expressed here and that I be cared for in accordance with Holy Tradition and the teachings and values of the Orthodox Christian faith.

If I am dying or in an irreversible coma or persistent vegetative state and there is no hope for recovery, I direct that no death delaying treatment be started or continued for the sole purpose of prolonging my life. I direct that I be given medications and treatments to relieve pain even if this results in shortening my life, but not for the purpose of ending my life.

I ask that I be cared for by my Christian community, family, friends and health care providers in a dignified and compassionate manner. Please keep my mouth and lips moist, please touch and comfort me and please read my favorite prayers and passages from the Bible to me. Please ensure that I am given the opportunity to receive the Sacraments. I ask my Christian community, friends and family to join me in prayer as I prepare for death and that they continue to pray for me after my death. Please care for
me in accordance with Holy Tradition and the teachings and values of the Orthodox Christian faith.

I direct that after my death, my body be handled in accordance with Holy Tradition and the teachings and values of the Orthodox Church. If I have donated any of my organs or if there is an autopsy preformed on my body, it should be done in a manner that will best prepare my body for an Orthodox Christian funeral and burial. I ask that I be buried in accordance with Holy Tradition and the teachings and values of the Orthodox Church.

New Journal: SALVO

Dear Parish Faithful and Friends in Christ,

There is a fairly new journal now out called Salvo, published by The Fellowship of St. James (www.fsj.org). This, in turn, is an articulate ecumenical group that seeks to bring together like-minded Christians in defense of traditional Christianity. Some of you may be familiar with their Touchstone journal. Inside the front page of Salvo, the editors clarify the name of the journal by giving us the dictionary definition of salvo (n.): "1) A mental reservation; 2) An expedient for protecting one's reputation; 3) A forceful verbal or written assault; 4) A group of shots fired simultaneously for effect." The editors continue by saying: "We use the language of war, a metaphorical conceit that is as old as literature itself, only to reflect the life-or-death seriousness of the endeavor in which we are engaged. Salvo does not advocate gratuitous violence in any form." And if you continue to read the small print, you will find the following as a further editorial statement: "Salvo is dedicated to debunking the cultural myths that have undercut human dignity, all but destroyed the notions of virtue and morality, and slowly eroded our appetite for transcendence. It also seeks to promote the Christian worldview."

I hope that this is starting to sound interesting to you. Though the journal can be read by a wide variety of readers, it seems primarily geared toward college-age students and high school students who are engaged in the dialogue concerning current cultural, ethical and spiritual issues. Every issue usually has something from the area of science that intelligently questions Darwinian materialism. (Salvo does not promote Creationism, but rather engagingly presents arguments from the Intelligent Design position - controversial as that may be). The current issue, newly-arrived, contains, for example, a lead article entitled "Blindsided Kids," by Marcia Segelstein. The lead into the article tells us: "Thanks to the Internet and the Supreme Court, Pornography is Now Available in Every Home in America." The dreary and obvious results of that reality are set forth and analyzed in her article in a very persuasive manner.

Under Sex, Science, Society there is an interesting article entitled "Born to Split - Is Divorce Simply a Matter of Genes?" by St. T. Karnick. The article strongly critiques a Swedish study that links unfaithfulness and divorce to certain genetic components. Blaming the genes has the effect of severely reducing our moral responsibilities in our relationships. Sweden, by the way, has the highest divorce rate in the world at 54.9! Other countries with a divorce rate above 50% are Belarus and Finland. The rate in the United States is 45.8. This is based on data from 2002.

There is a fascinating interview with a woman - Barbara Nicolosi - entitled "The Sacred Artist - Making Movies With a Religious Imagination." She is working on the screenplay, together with Benedict Fitzgerald, of a film called Mary, the Mother of the Christ. According to the article it is being filmed in Morocco and will be distributed by MGM. It will star Camilla Belle, Al Pacino, Johnathan Rhys Meyers, and Jessica Lange. I found this exchange quite insightful:

Q. What can you tell us about the process of pitching the film? Why do you you think Hollywood bit?

BN: ... I have been saying forever that the problem isn't that Christians don't have distribution for the kinds of movies that we want to make. Rather, the problem is that we have been making garbage. If you make something professional that has a good story with haunting stuff in it that people want to talk or think about, it doesn't matter what your agenda is. What people care about is whether a film is beautiful to watch - whether it is interesting or entertaining.

I think that she is quite right on this point.

Under the department entitled "Shrapnel," the journal provides a Top Ten List of Best Conservative Movies of the last twenty-five years. The emphasis is on films that are morally conservative. In alphabetical order:

1. 13 Conversations About One Thing (2001)
2. The Addiction (1995)
3. Amazing Grace (2006)
4. The Apostle (1998)
5. Babette's Feast (1988)
6. The Big Kahuna (1999)
7. The Constant Gardener (2005)
8. The Minority Report (2002)
9. Sophie Scholl (2006)
10. Wings of Desire (1984)

I have seen all of these films except for #1, 2 & 6. I consider Babette's Feast and Wings of Desire exceptionally fine films that I would highly recommend. Sophie Scholl is also a superb cinematic recreation of the trial of a young woman and her brother who bravely defied the Nazi regime of their own native country. A powerful ending.

We have about four or five issues of Salvo available in the church library area, in case you or your older children may be interested.

Fr. Steven

The Relics of St Paul

Dear Parish Faithful,

A fascinating and appropriate piece on this Feast Day of the Apostles Peter & Paul.

Fr. Steven

_____

Pope: Scientific analysis done on St. Paul's bones

By NICOLE WINFIELD
The Associated Press
Sunday, June 28, 2009; 8:31 PM

ROME -- The first-ever scientific test on what are believed to be the remains of the Apostle Paul "seems to confirm" that they do indeed belong to the Roman Catholic saint, Pope Benedict XVI said Sunday.

It was the second major discovery concerning St. Paul announced by the Vatican in as many days.

On Saturday, the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano announced the June 19 discovery of a fresco inside another tomb depicting St. Paul, which Vatican officials said represented the oldest known icon of the apostle.

Benedict said archaeologists recently unearthed and opened the white marble sarcophagus located under the Basilica of St. Paul's Outside the Walls in Rome, which for some 2,000 years has been believed by the faithful to be the tomb of St. Paul.

Benedict said scientists had conducted carbon dating tests on bone fragments found inside the sarcophagus and confirmed that they date from the first or second century.

"This seems to confirm the unanimous and uncontested tradition that they are the mortal remains of the Apostle Paul," Benedict said, announcing the findings at a service in the basilica to mark the end of the Vatican's Paoline year, in honor of the apostle.

Paul and Peter are the two main figures known for spreading the Christian faith after the death of Christ.

According to tradition, St. Paul, also known as the apostle of the Gentiles, was beheaded in Rome in the 1st century during the persecution of early Christians by Roman emperors. Popular belief holds that bone fragments from his head are in another Rome basilica, St. John Lateran, with his other remains inside the sarcophagus.

The pope said that when archaeologists opened the sarcophagus, they discovered alongside the bone fragments some grains of incense, a "precious" piece of purple linen with gold sequins and a blue fabric with linen filaments.

On Saturday, the Vatican newspaper announced that a round fresco edged in gold featuring the emaciated face of St. Paul had been discovered in excavations of the tombs of St. Tecla in Rome. It was believed to have been dated from the end of the fourth century, making it the oldest known icon of St. Paul, meaning it was an image designed for prayer, not just art, L'Osservatore Romano said.

Monsignor Gianfranco Ravasi, presidente of the Vatican's culture department, said the discovery was an "extraordinary event" that was an "eloquent testimony" to the Christianity of the first centuries, L'Osservatore said.

Vatican archaeologists in 2002 began excavating the 8-foot(2.4-meter)-long tomb of St. Paul, which dates from at least A.D. 390 and was buried under the basilica's main altar. The decision to unearth it was made after pilgrims who came to Rome during the Roman Catholic Church's 2000 Jubilee year expressed disappointment at finding that the saint's tomb - buried under layers of plaster and further hidden by an iron grate - could not be visited or touched.

The top of the coffin has small openings - subsequently covered with mortar - because in ancient times Christians would insert offerings or try to touch the remains.

The basilica stands at the site of two 4th-century churches - including one destroyed by a fire in 1823 that had left the tomb visible, first above ground and later in a crypt. After the fire, the crypt was filled with earth and covered by a new altar. A slab of cracked marble with the words "Paul apostle martyr" in Latin was also found embedded in the floor above the tomb.

A Baptist Minister Visits an Orthodox Church - Pt 3

Dear Parish Faithful,

I am forwarding Terry Morgan's response to the Baptist pastor who wrote an intriguing description about his visit to an Orthodox parish. Most of you have already read that and it was the subject of yesterday's homily. Terry wrote this directly to Pastor Atkinson, and there are many valuable observations in his letter.

Fr. Steven

_____


Dear Pastor Atkinson,

I enjoyed reading your observations on Orthodox worship, especially as I was a convert at age 50 and have a BDiv from Ashland Theological Seminary (Brethren Church.)

I came to Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1967 to work on a PhD in Semitic languages and Old Testament, and although I never finished the degree, we never left. While in Cincinnati we attended a Missouri Lutheran church in the inner city (old group moved out, some stayed to minister), and later a Church of Christ. The Lutherans encouraged a liturgical worship service in me. The Church of Christ didn't, except for one thing: Each Christmas they performed a Boar's Head & Yule Log Pageant. It was a huge production, done three times on one day with a packed house each time. Near the end the entire cast was at the front of the church and sang "Let all mortal flesh keep silent." During one verse, when reference was made to seraphim and cherubim bowing down in worship, the entire cast slowly knealt till our faces were at the floor. Then in the final verse we all rose, and at the very end everyone was standing with arms raised high. It was moving in the extreme, and the most worshipful experience I could imagine. Our music minister used to say "Worship is a verb, not a noun." I often wanted to ask when besides the Boar's Head we were going to do some of it.

During a period of unemployment I had to take a job working on Sundays, and some other things came up that made me lose commitment to that congregation, and I visited Christ the Savior Orthodox Church. It didn't take me long to decide that it was my real home. My wife was much less enthusiastic! It was only after I decided to join that she agreed to come for a visit. Fortunately, she came on a Sunday that celebrated the Cross. During that service the entire congregation sings a beautiful hymn that goes:

Before Thy cross, we fall down in worship, O Master,
And Thy holy resurrection we glorify!

It is sung three times, and each time all those who are able kneel and bow their heads to the floor. My wife's reaction was, "That is beautiful! They actually do what they sing!" (We had both been in Protestant services where the text of the hymn was at total odds with the singing.) My wife was hooked.

A further observation: There is a certain intensity on the part of the worshipers who are focused on prayer and worship which can make them seem to be unfriendly or ignoring the stranger. That is good for the person worshipping, but a problem for the visitor. (I once visited another Orthodox church, and felt totally ignored, even though it was obvious I didn't fit in. However it was not due to the intense worship. Several people were carrying on conversations having nothing to do with the Spirit.) As a result of my wife's observations, and my own experience at the visited church, I vowed that I would always watch for anyone I didn't recognize, and make a real effort to welcome that person and help him/her feel at home. I have several allies in this project, and we are usually successful at meeting all visitors. Needless to say, I have made a fool of myself several times, but better a fool for Christ than a comfortable servant of the enemy!

There are two things that I found very different in Orthodoxy from the Protestant churches in which I had grown up. The first - which you note - is theology. You are right, the liturgy and the hymnology is absolutely loaded with serious doses of theology. And I have found that most of our lay people know and understand what is being said. The worship and the prayers are consciously teaching tools. In contrast, I have found that many Protestant laymen either don't know the theology of their church, or don't care. (I won't get into churches that don't even have a theology that you can pin down.) That at least partly explains why Protestants can so easily church "shop and hop." I'm talking about myself here - we left the Lutheran Church for the Church of Christ mainly because they had a very active Sunday School, even though I was fully aware of all the theological differences.

The other thing I found striking was that Orthodox have a very real, living sense of history, while the Protestants with whom I have resided seemed to act as though there was no church history between the book of Acts and the founding of their particular denominations. With the Lutherans everything started with Luther and company. With Methodists it was John Wesley. In the Church of Christ it was the revival meetings in the 1800's. But the worship and church calendar in the Orthodox Church make the people always conscious of their history. We celebrate the 7 ecumenical councils. (How many Protestants have never even heard of them?) We commemorate saints galore, and each one brings to mind a period of the church's history.

I would also mention one other thing. Being Orthodox does not make us judgemental or exclusivist. (At least, it shouldn't!) Our proper answer when confronted with a different church is that we know where the true church is (Orthodoxy), but we don't know where it is not, so we can't judge. (Unless they are teaching or practicing obvious and serious heresies.) For example, our congregation is cooperating with many other churches - Protestant and Catholic - in a prison ministry. I and another man are among those who spend 2 full weekends each year at a state prison in a program called Kairos. Dan and I also go there most Sunday evenings for prayer and sharing with the inmates, none of whom are likely to ever become Orthodox. Many others in the church are involved in back-up roles such as cooking for the weekend, baking cookies, prayer and financial gifts. We also maintain a food pantry for those in need, Father has some cash available for special needs, and we have often participated in Angel Tree to provide Christmas gifts for children of prisoners. (We are also heavily involved is supporting an orphanage in Guatemala, but since it is Orthodox, that doesn't demonstrate our ecumenicity.)

I would say, in conclusion, that God may indeed be calling you to Orthodoxy, or He may be educating you about us so that you can be used as a bridge between parts of His sadly fragmented body. We desperately need such bridges! We even need them within Orthodoxy in America, where we are broken into several "jurisdictions" that we all know are a scandal, but we can't seem to find ways to heal. I will pray for our Lord to lead you (and your family) in the way He wants you to go. And I most readily admit, it may not be Orthodoxy. But wherever God leads you and your family,

May He bless you with all things good and profitable to your souls,
Keep you strong and faithful in His service,
Make His face shine on you that others will see His glory more clearly,
Be gracious to you so you can be an instrument of His grace to those around you,
And give you that peace that is more wonderful than we can ever imagine. Amen!

4 Him
Terry Morgan
Cincinnati, OH