:: St. Stephen's Musings ::

:: Friday, November 28, 2003 ::

Preparing for the Nativity

I hope all you had a wonderful and blessed Thanksgiving! I will be up at the monastery of St. John the Baptist in Goldendale for part of the weekend and won't be posting again until next week.

As part of an attempt to really seize the Nativity season the wife are starting some new traditions in our family, as well as more fully dedicating ourselves to the more familiar ones (confession, prayer, almsgiving, and fasting).

One new custom is taking turns reading aloud to one another from either St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" or Fr. Thomas Hopko's "The Winter Pascha."

We will also spend time each evening participating in the custom of the Jesse Tree. (I highly recommend this one to families with young children).

Here is my question to you dear reader: Other than the typical Christian disciplines of fasting, increased prayer, and almsgiving, what are some ways you and your family are preparing for the Feast?

:: Karl :: 11:06:00 AM [Link] ::

The One Year Blog-o-versary: A Look Back

Today is the one year "blog-o-versary" of St. Stephen's Musings.

I have really come to enjoy how blogging, interacting with all of my readers and friends, and thinking more deeply about the Faith have all come together in one forum. I was a reader of blogs for many months before I ventured into the fray myself last fall. I think my wife got tired of hearing about all the things I wanted to write in response to other blogs, so she urged me to start my own. Here we are a year later!

As someone who enjoys writing and thinking, blogging has given me a way of sharpening my writing skills and has provided an invaluable way of disciplining my mind and my heart. Thanks to all of you who have made this year one of real growth and insight for me. Pray for me as I pray for you.

My posting with be spotty this weekend with holiday and family festivities coming up. So I offer you the past. Below are a few links to what I consider to be some of my more interesting, memorable, and in some cases, provocative posts. Enjoy!

"Freedom Within Within Structure--Becoming Communal Selves"

"Does Truth = Sincerity?"

"Reflections on Fr. Seraphim Rose and Evangelism"

"What Does it Mean to "Save Someone?"

"Personal and Individual"

"Worship, Evangelism: More on Closed vs. Open Communion"

"Follow the Beaten Path"

"Incarnational Theology, Flannery O'Conner, and Cartesian Dualism"

"Noetic Knowledge: More on Apophaticism and St. Gregory"

"My Barber, the Relativist"

"The Cult of the Nice"

"Conflict in the Blogosphere: Ramifications of the Incarnation "

"A Hymn For The Reformed Child"

"Are You Called?: Brief Thoughts on Women's Ordination"

"Ecumenical Dialogue: The Fallacy of the Temperament Argument"

"Individual vs Personal: What is the Nature of a Christian Spiritual Journey?"

"A Beautiful Dance or a Futile Debate?"

"Bridging the Chasm: Theological Dialogue"

"A Shared Relativistic Worldview"

"The Future of Emerging Church Ecclesiology"

"True Unity vs. 'Belief Systems': Part V (and the Conclusion) of a Response to NeoTheologue"

"Icons and the Emerging Church: A Response to an Anabaptist"

"Sex in Films"

:: Karl :: 9:29:00 AM [Link] ::

Left, Right And Everywhere Else: Questions About Convert Zeal

"Mrs. Musings" wrote an interesting comment over at Huw's blog" that I am tempted to add to and comment on in more depth. For now I'll simply quote it in full and ask you to add your comments. She raises several important issues and questions--ones we converts need to think about more deeply. She writes,

"I think it is important to note that there is One True Faith, and we sinners in our attempts to fit things into the boxes of our own reason sometimes make our camps to the left or to the right of the mark. Warning: I'm about to be really judgemenal and general:"

"'The left' is typically characterized by participation in ecumenical dialogue, shorter services (more generous use of 'ekonomia'), less of the 'trappings' of [19]th century Russian piety. The so-called left also seems more skeptical about 'pious tradition' and sometimes goes out of its way to mention how outlandish the hagiography of a particular saint is...."

"'The right' might be characterized by its tendency to do every troparia in the menaion with all the stychira in the typicon for that particular day. One might judge the right by saying they wear long beards (males), wear skirts and head coverings (females), wear prayer ropes, go by their saint name, adhere to the canons more strictly, etc. The 'right' normally has very strong feelings and opinions against ecumenism."

"The problem with both of the above descriptions is they judge outwardly and put people into camps, and it's totally unfair. It's not fair to judge someone for wearing or not wearing a head covering. It's wrong to feel like you're not really Orthodox if you don't wear a beard.'" [Editorial comment: This hair-etic grinned when he read this sentence!]

"The last thing Orthodoxy needs is Americans forming camps and denominationalizing (did I make that word up?) it! However, I think there is a need to be very discerning because there are some very sketchy ideas out there in seminaryville that the laity need to be careful about."

"My opinion: This is the reason why we need more monasticism (elders, really)in America and not more Orthodox scholars! (OK, both would be fine) But I think it's something that needs to be discussed!"

"As Elder Ephraim of Mt. Athos (memory eternal) once said, when asked about this issue: 'It doesn't matter [whether a church does all of the stichera, etc in a service]. If they are doing it for love of God and love of neighbor, it doesn't matter what they do.'"

"Is it loving to plant the seeds of doubt in peoples' hearts about whether St. Mary of Egypt's life is true? Is it loving to give inquirers dirty looks when they visit your church without a head covering? Is it loving to have 2 hour Vespers services in a parish that has many young children? Is it loving to call someone a "monastophile" or a "maximalist" who's simply trying to be a good steward of the tradition God has given to them?"

Update: MHG has several good questions in the comments here but then tries to get my goat in the comments on the post before this by trying to claim that holding logical thoughts about and defending the truth is, ipso facto, antithical to faith.

Update II: Josh continues the line of thought he posted in the comments.

:: Karl :: 9:23:00 AM [Link] ::

An Orthodox Young Adult Group--Is it a "Home Church"? Part III:

In Part I of this series I described our meetings.

In Part II I pointed to the problem of modern understandings of Matthew 18:20 as well as other key prerequisties for "church."

Now I can expand on the thought that drove me to write about this issue in the first place. Those of us in our gatherings can truly enjoy our time together because we know how our group fits into the bigger picture of the Orthodox Christian life and the communal nature of the Church. [See Update at the end for more....]

Even more important is that, because of the context within which our meetings occur, we know exactly what their limitations are. In other words we know that what we do isn't "church" in the fullest sense of the word.

The frustration and unmet needs especially in regards to discipleship, and teaching frequently expressed by postmodern Christians is due, in part, to the fact that they are expecting their group (whether it be "home church" or what have you) to be what it isn't: The Church.

One of the principle problems with "home churches" is their sense of identity and self-understanding does not have an ecclesial or time-tested spiritual foundation from which to draw from and ground itself. While their intent is good they are not "catholic" in the patristic sense of the word; i.e. they do not live out the faith "according to the whole" has it has been preserved by the Church. In other words, they are trying to create by their own human power that which God already preserved.

This is not to say that there is nothing good going on in them because there certainly is. The Holy Spirit moves where He wills. As I've made clear on this blog, I'm certainly one of the more hopeful observers of the Em-church movement.

But much of the postmodern "home church" movement is man-made, unstable, and prone to excesses. Worst of all it is liable to see itself as having the power to "make up the rules" as it goes along, totally unaware of or sometimes in total defiance to the reality of the historic Church.

It is this point that truly distinguishes our Orthdox home gathering from the postmodern "home church." By submitting ourselves to the incarnate, historic, God-preserved apostolic Church, we are able to be that much more of an expression of the Church.

**Update:** I had a thought after reading comments made by Basil over at Huw's blog about "our brothers who are somewhere behind us on the road and struggling with their beliefs in public." I think it is vitally important to see the fine line between authentic struggle and fortification and continuation of heresy.

Of course we should never rush to "criticize cripples taking their first baby steps in physical therapy for not running" but neither should we congratulate cripples who refuse to complete their therapy and then complain when those who have found the true Hospital try and show them what they are missing.

The only thing worse than a group that has ceased to care about the true faith is one who is half-way there and calls it good.

:: Karl :: 9:03:00 AM [Link] ::

Humility in All the Wrong Places

There is a world of difference between saying "You are wrong, I am right" and saying "You are bad and I am good. You are out and I am in. God loves me, God doesn't even know you."

No doubt we can and should always strive to be more charitable in our discussions. No argument there. But if the world postmodern Christians want to live in is one where we must believe that all of the contradictory things said about Jesus and his Church are equally true....well, I think you'll find that view hard to defend and even more difficult to convince people to die for.

St. Paul and all the Church Fathers and martyrs who suffered to preserve and pass down the truth had a lot of "certainty" about their beliefs. The key is they also had abundant humility; not in regards to the truth but in regards to themselves. They did not invent the truth--they simply received it and lived it and refused to make excuses for falsehood. Why? Because in the end heresy will destroy the soul just as pride will.

G. K. Chesterton, in chapter 3 of his short little masterpiece "Orthodoxy", brilliantly notes that "...what we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert--himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt--the Divine Reason...."

"...Thus we should be wrong if we had said hastily that there is no humility typical of our time. The truth is that there is a real humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it is practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic. The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on."

"For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether."

:: Karl :: 3:44:00 PM [Link] ::

An Orthodox Young Adult Group--Is it a "Home Church"? Part II:

Many modern Christians who fall into our age range would describe our group and our meetings as "church." In fact, for many of them, what we do would be considered the fullness of what it means to be a church.

However, as Jordan Bajis notes in chapter 10 of his brilliant book _Common Ground_, "Bible studies, 'fellowship' nights, prayer meetings, etc. may be *expressions* of the Church, but they are not the Church."

I have long contended that Matthew 18:20 is the most widely misunderstood and misinterpreted "ecclesiastical proof text" in today's Christian culture. There is a subtle but important difference between a necessary and a sufficient cause. "Two or three gathered", while necessary, is not a sufficient ecclesial defining condition. So what else is needed for a gathering to be considered "church"? For starters:

* The centrality of the Bishop/Presybyter
* participation in the Eucharist
* entering into the heavens for worship as given to us by God
* adherence to and continuity with the apostolic deposit of faith

All of these (and many other elements) are also not sufficient, in and of themselves, but are also necessary. As Bajis writes, "To merely gather with Christians is different than to gather in Jesus' name, for to gather in Christ's name is to signify the covenantal and organic understanding of God's bond with His people; � this is the Church.....The experience of Church takes place not at an evangelistic crusade or in a Bible study group (as good as these may be), but when Christians come together as an assembled people [Eucharistically in the historic and apostolic church]."

Part III soon....

:: Karl :: 8:48:00 AM [Link] ::

The Cache, the Blogroll, and other Items

* Today is Thursday and that means the Ortho-blog cache is up at blogs4God! This is the third post, by my first without Dean's help! I try and keep them short and sweet but feel free to email me your ideas and cache-worthy posts.

* Like a fidgety little child, I can't leave things alone. I'm constantly tweaking and organizing things--including my blogroll. I've added a few new links (particularly a whole new category devoted to a few of the PoMo bloggers I keep up with) and I've rearranged the format a bit.

* I know. I know. The commenting feature is horrible. I'm still weighing my options. The worst part is that just as I get to the point of being totally fed up, it works perfectly for a week or two. Sigh. The saga continues....

* Parts II and III of "An Orthodox Young Adult Group--Is it a "Home Church"? are forthcoming....Stay tuned.

:: Karl :: 10:23:00 AM [Link] ::

An Orthodox Young Adult Group--Is it a "Home Church"?: Part I

Earlier this year my wife and I started hosting a bi-monthly gathering of 15-20 local Orthodox Christian "young adults" (I use that term loosely because we have people anywhere from 19 to their mid 30's).

I really look forward to these meetings. We eat dinner together as a group, talking about our lives and getting to know one another better. After dinner Fr. Theodore leads us in a lively and in-depth discussion of various writings of the Church Fathers.

For the last several meetings we have focused on St. Dorotheos' opus "Practical Teachings on the Christian Life." Recent topics from this book that we dived into included: humility, obedience, the role of the conscience in the spiritual life, and the fear of God.

Then we corporately pray/chant the Compline service together in front of the icon corner in our living room, with incense and candles lit.

We conclude the evenings with a potluck dessert, tea, and continued discussion and fellowship for those who wish to stay late. Some people schedule confessions for this time, and go with Father into our bedroom for privacy.

After our last meeting and as I was getting into bed, a thought struck me about the nature of our meetings that I had always known but had never really fleshed out.....

Part II coming soon.....

:: Karl :: 12:49:00 PM [Link] ::

Speaking of Being Denominationally Promiscuous...

Where do you worship?

"On Christmas I went with some friends to the Pretzelterian church out on First Street, because it's so pretty with all the lights. On Easter I went to University Whatever Church, because they did a passion play. When I'm feeling low, I go to the Church of the Gladfest. When I want to hear good music, I go to the Church of the Frozen."

"When I want to meet friendly people, I go to the Church of the Thawed. At least once a month I go to Sam 'n' Alice's Independent Bible Church, because the preaching is good and it reminds me of what I grew up with. And last Sunday," she finished triumphantly, "I went to MacChurch, because they have a great college ministry."

:: Karl :: 12:14:00 PM [Link] ::

The ESOB Meeting of 2003

James has already posted the "minutes" of our meeting but here are some brief and random tidbits on this past weekend's trip up to Seattle when I met up with James, Chance, Aaron, and Basil:

* I am much more eloquent and bold in print than I am in person as I tend to be somewhat reserved in social situations and even downright shy. It was very nice to interact with the folks at St. Paul's (who were very gracious and welcoming) and James' hospitality made for a very relaxing and enjoyable afternoon.

* Aaron, much to my surprise, looks a lot like Luke Jackson of Oregon Duck fame. I got to hear more about his spiritual journey to Orthodoxy which was fascinating. He and his wife and little Basil are darling!

* James isn't kidding when he says his kids are a little crazy! They are very cute but full of energy and spunk--how the 6 of them fit in that tiny house without going insane is beyond me.

* Basil has the bushiest beard I've ever seen; even this "hair-etic" was impressed! And I learned that he is the master of all that is sushi and authentic Russian cuisine.

* Chance arrived later so sadly I didn't get to talk with him as much. He was expecting I would look more like Clifton. Boy, was he disappointed!

* I propose the next ESOB meeting be in Portland. The beer is plentiful and the door is always open!

:: Karl :: 1:37:00 PM [Link] ::

Random Saturday Thoughts

* I'm still working the kinks out with the Ortho-blog Thursday cache at blogs4God. With Dean's help, I should be able to post directly starting next week. I also want to make a correction to the most recent cache which says that I have posted "the Christian response to sex in films." This should read "a Christian response....." I am not trying to imply that my post (or really anything I write for that matter!) is perfectly indicative of the Church's teaching! I'm still tweaking how I want to format and present the cache. Please add your comments or email me your suggestions, worthy post URLs, etc.

* Clifton posts a review of "Revolutions" which, in some ways mirrors my review as well as adds to this in-depth conversation many of us are having.

* It's essays like this one on the nature of baptism that give me great hope that many in the Em-church movement will find their ultimate home in the Orthodox Church. Keep searching guys. You're more Orthodox than you know....

* Speaking of seachers: A very dear family member is coming to Great Vespers tonight for her first experience of Orthodox worship. Glory to God for all things!

* Proto Theo, a group of us from the self-created E.S.O.B. (Ecumenical Synod of Orthodox Bloggers) will be getting together for a first face-to-face meeting this Sunday. Although not quite a quorum (?) it looks to be a great time for Chance, Aaron, James, and me to worship together and spend some quality, non-digital, time together.

* I've got several partial posts in the works on a variety of topics such as the differences between "home church", an Orthodox young adult group, and the Church; as well as a reponse to a claim made to me that the Orthodox "don't take the Eucharist seriously enough."

:: Karl :: 2:04:00 PM [Link] ::

The Link Between Orthopraxis and Orthodoxy

Phil asks, "How do you step outside of modernism or post-modernism theologically? How can we think about God in ways other than through the prism of our own culture/context? Can it be done?"

I wrote--The way in which you frame your last question is a clue..."How can we think about God ..?" The Church Fathers and the Tradition of the Church say that coming to a true knowledge and understanding of God comes, not through thinking (although this is needed) but first and foremost through purification of the soul.

This is accomplished primarily through prayer, participation in the sacraments, and the ascetic life-- not through rational analysis (modernism) nor through "experiences" (postmodernism). This is how the Orthodox Christian "steps out" of his particular culture/philosophy/opinions etc....we allow ourselves to be fully formed by "the mind of Christ" as it has been preserved in the Church's incarnational way of life.--

Jennifer writes on this topic also. I love this line: "In the early days of Christianity, converts weren't immediately subjected to lectures on homoosious and such."

Later, talking about "liberal" churches, she notes that "you might argue you have people behaving like Christians but believing like Unitarians. Well, actually, what you have is people behaving like humanitarians and believing like Unitarians. If we want to make disciples of Christ, we're going to have to reexamine what Christian practices are and why we do them - beyond a 'we feed the poor because Jesus said to.'"

When I was in the process of becoming Orthodox I remember asking a pious, well-educated Protestant friend to give me one concrete, practical, reason how the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity made a difference in his spiritual life. His response was a weak smile, a shrug of the shoulders, and a concession that in many ways "doctrine" and "spiritual practice" had very little to do with each other in the Protestant world. We need this link between praxis and doxa; otherwise our worship becomes misinformed and our praxis becomes self-serving.

Update: Jim quotes some great passages from Bishop Ware's "The Orthodox Way" on some of the practical ways the doctrine of the Trinity informs our praxis.

Update II: Josh doesn't like the way I worded this post because he sees some mysterious dichotomy between "faith" and praxis. He also doesn't care for the idea that purity of soul is a prerequisite to see God. I hate to break this to you, but I didn't make this up!

:: Karl :: 8:12:00 AM [Link] ::

"Hair-acy" Update

John recants of his former position in a radical way. The "hair-etics" rejoice!

:: Karl :: 10:26:00 AM [Link] ::

Gay Activists and the Emerging Church

Try this exercise out:

In the first paragraph of the following quote delete "gay marriage" and "marriage" and substitute the word "Church" in their place. In the second paragraph, replace "marriage" and substitute "Christianity." In both paragraphs replace "gay activists" and "gays" with your local postmodern Christian movement du jour.

"Outwardly, the advocates of gay marriage claim to admire marriage. But to claim the authority to redefine marriage, they must first claim that marriage is a flawed, man-made institution that needs to be reworked, or worse yet, that it is merely a result of the unguided evolutionary process...."

"Gay activists claim to believe marriage is so meaningful that it should be extended to gays, but their case rests on the belief that marriage is so meaningless that it can be claimed by anyone who wants it."

--Quoted from "Defining Marriage Down" by Adam G. Mersereau's article in the November 2003 issue of Touchstone.

:: Karl :: 8:55:00 AM [Link] ::

Sex in Films

A reader brings up an interesting question in regards to my review of "The Matrix Revolutions." It is a question I have debated with numerous family and friends and inevitably I always seem to come out the lecher and the loser. I'm willing to stick my neck out and take another beating. The reader asks: How can Christians in good conscience endorse or recommended films that contain explicit sexual imagery? Here is my *very short* answer to this question:

While I found the Zion party scene in "Reloaded" to be *ridiculously* gratuitous, the "cake" scene with the Merovingian to be a little juvenile, and the brief S&M scene in "Revolutions" to be mildly disturbing, I don't see them (or the other examples of sexuality in either of the later two Matrix films) discrediting or destroying the integrity of the films nor my guarded recommendation.

In many ways elements of violence and sexuality can illumine the greater story and help us understand the motivations and psyche of characters in any film. Sex and violence are, undeniable, part of what it means to live in this world. Even Serpahim Rose believed that there were works of fiction that could be used to lead people to Christ. The "sanctified imagination", as Lewis talked about, is a good thing.

The questions one must ask are these: Does *any* representation of sin or evil reduce the power of the story or truth one is trying to convey? How much is "too much"? Does it drive the plot, develop characters, or is it just eye candy? Etc...

Here's another question: What do you do with much of the Bible? If the Bible was made into a movie, much of it would be rated R if not flat out NC-17 and would contain warnings like "Adult themes, nudity, sexuality, violence, torture, and bloody deaths abound." Any attempt to mute, censor, or sugar-coat those parts would do the text and us a horrible disservice.

While this doesn't excuse or explain explicit and unnecessary sexual and violent images in ANY film, one must see through them to the greater point or story that is trying to be told. If one can't do that, then it is better to not watch films, read books, attend plays, or expose oneself to images, stories, or examples of vice.

With any recommendation of a film or book or work of art comes the implicit assumption that those who, for whatever reason can't handle certain aspects, will do the proper research and abstain if needed. Some of us are tempted or distracted easier than others. Like so many things the "weaker brother" element is crucial.

But frankly, even with all this said, I'll admit that from an Orthodox POV many films and books are better left on the shelf and out of my mind. If I spent as much time in prayer, fasting, and works of mercy as I do watching films and reading books, I'd be saint by now.

:: Karl :: 10:07:00 AM [Link] ::

From the "No Comment" Zone

These are the kinds of classes PSU offers to help us fulfill the Senior Capstone credit requirement:

UNST 421, "The Spirituality of Being Awake" - I, (3 credits)

"Students in this Capstone class will arrive with something they call 'spirituality' or 'spiritual practice,' whatever that is: Christianity, Judaism, Eco-feminism, Native American Spirituality, Buddhism, Islam, Sufism, Witchcraft, etc.

Through direct service with Portland-area social service agencies, students will discover and explore the connections between their direct-service experiences and their spirituality.

How is one's spirituality informed by one's observations and awarenesses? How are one's observations and awarenesses informed by one's spirituality? What is the cost of being wide awake? For their final product, students will utilize their lived experiences and expressed spirituality to develop and facilitate a project that supports the mission of their affiliated agency."

:: Karl :: 1:10:00 PM [Link] ::

The Patron Saint of Blogging

I think I just found the patron saint of blogging and amazingly his feast day is this Sunday.

"In addition to the usual time he spent dealing with the problems of his job, hearing confessions, writing papers and the like, Nektarios was now involved in something new which also demanded his time."

"He gradually got involved in extensive correspondence with clerics, theologians, and religious scholars of other faiths outside Greece, concerning the topic of true belief and how the members of each faith thought that theirs encompassed it."

"So, when Nektarios would receive a letter stating such an argument, he would respond by sending his writings, and in turn, would receive writings responding to what he had sent."

"Nektarios, of course, took the time to study them....'For how can I sit by idly when I know of all the arguments presented against my sweet and invincible Orthodoxy,' he thought to himself."

Quoted from "Saint Nektarios: The Saint of Our Century" by Sotos Chondropoulos, page 143.

:: Karl :: 4:48:00 PM [Link] ::

Matrix Revolutions Review

Very minor spoilers--Overall grade: B minus

I stand by my conviction that the original Matrix film is the greatest Sci-Fi movie ever made (edging out "Blade Runner" "Star Wars" and "Aliens"). From a philosophical, narrative, and visual point of view, the first Matrix film has no equal and is easily one of the most influential and important films of our generation.

Unlike many critics I thought "Reloaded" was a very good film and, while containing several glaring faults, was sufficiently bold and sophisticated enough to make up for its own bloated self-importance. The previous two films made clear that the brothers had the talent to pull off a masterpiece in the final installment, but also had the potential to let the narrative slip away from them. Thus, I went into "Revolutions" with mixed expectations.

It starts with some clever bits of dialogue, especially during the first 20 minutes. The middle part has a series of entertaining action pieces, although not very well edited in spots (At one point, Neo disappears from the plot for about 30 minutes which is a grave mistake, IMO) And as always great special effects abound throughout. The battle for Zion is truly fantastic. From an acting point of view there were some great highlights. Weaving and Bliss (Agent Smith and Bane, respectively ) are magnificent in their roles. I wouldn't be surprised if Weaving is nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar.

The conclusion of the film was somewhat convoluted and murky, as expected. My main beef is that the writers rely *way* too heavily on Sisyphusian-existentialist philosophy at the end, which is very disappointing considering how superb the messianic overtones are in "Reloaded." At one point it seems like the brothers couldn't decide how to end the final confrontation and the sloppiness of the final 8-10 minutes will be a disappointment to many.

However I am glad that the resolution is not quite as neatly tied as one might expect from a Hollywood blockbuster. The "answers" lead to more questions, as they always do in the Matrix. It is truly a postmodern film in this respect.

The flip side is that as "Revolutions" hurls us toward a complicated ending, it leaves several very tantalizing plot lines unresolved (and in some cases, untouched) and fails to more fully develop several of the characters introduced in "Reloaded." This mistake is typical of the third part of most modern trilogies, but for some reason is even more irritating in this case considering the potential.

Bottom line: "Revolutions" doesn't have the enrapturing and coherent narrative aspects of "The Matrix" , nor the sheer grandeur and vision of "Reloaded." It was like a badly edited and sloppy version of "Return of the Jedi." It contains some of the best and worst aspects of the previous two films which makes for a mixed bag.

"Revolutions" is worth seeing and overall I still think it is a good film. All things considered the Matrix trilogy is by far one of the more interesting and intriguing stories in modern cinematic history, even if the third part leaves much to be desired. But you know, it was more fun reading all the articles, predictions, and philosophical essays than actually watching the film!

:: Karl :: 11:27:00 AM [Link] ::

Tough Inquirer Questions

"If Orthodoxy is so great, why haven't I heard of it?"

"If the Orthodox Church has preserved the fullness of the Faith, why are there so many good people not a part of it?"

"If I see so much fruit in other faiths, how can the Orthodox claim to be the true faith?"

These are kinds of questions I've gotten so many times from so many different people, I'm really curious to know how others have dealt with this particular line of thought in conversation and/or come to grips with these questions themselves. Briefly, it is obvious there are several problems with the above questions.

First, they deny the path that God has created for us to follow is a narrow one, and render the implications of Matt. 7:13-14 functionally obsolete. Second, they relegate the truth of Jesus' words in John 21:22 to everyone except the questioner, which is exaclty the opposite of Jesus' point. Third, there is a basic philosophical error embedded within the heart of these questions. I call it the "Peak-a-boo Syndrome." It comes down to this:

--Whatever I do not see does not really exist or is not or can not be really true--

Thus, if I or my loved ones have not found Orthodoxy, it

A. Does not really exist (i.e. "The Church was destroyed by Constantine and can be rebuilt and recreated by [fill in the blank movement du jour]) or
B. Can be defined in terms of whatever I'm doing at the moment. ("I believe in the Nicene Creed, just like the Orthodox, even though I mean someting totaly different by the words. But I'm just as much a Nicean Christian as the Orthodox.")

When confronted with this line of thought, sometimes I try to delve into the false assumptions that the questions are based on (for example, debunking the kind of soteriology that sends people to hell for being innocently ignorant). Some people find the answer of "We know where the Church is, not where it isn't" the perfect way of answering these questions. In other cases I just point out that the answer they want is meaningless if one fails to realize that no matter what was in the past or in other people's lives, the person asking the question is facing Orthodoxy NOW. Each case, each person asking these questions needs to hear different facets of the answer.

I have used a wide variety of approaches in trying to answer these questions in the past, but have always remained ultimately stumped as to why this particular line of thought is so pervasive and important to some people. For me, it is a very foreign way of judging truth claims.

So now I ask you, dear reader: Have you ever been asked any of the first three questions I listed at the start of this post? How did you handle the situation? Have you ever asked these questions yourself? What resolution did you come to?

Update: James has a few answers.

:: Karl :: 8:44:00 AM [Link] ::

U2 and St. Andrew of Crete: A Lenten Reflection

After reading the news from this post, I was inspired to dig up the following meditation on U2's song "Stuck in a Moment" posted on the Evangelical/Orthodox Discussion Group a few years back. Enjoy.

[Begin quoted material] -- This offering's subject line is from U2's most recent album, "All That You Can't Leave Behind." The song is titled "Stuck in a Moment." An excerpt:

I'm not afraid
Of anything in this world
There's nothing you can throw at me
That I haven't already heard

I'm just trying to find
A decent melody
A song that I can sing
In my own company

In some weird sense, this song sometimes sounds to me like God's song to us during Lent. The rest:

I never thought you were a fool
But darling look at you
You gotta stand up straight
Carry your own weight
These tears are going nowhere baby

You've got to get yourself together
You've got stuck in a moment
And now you can't get out of it

Don't say that later will be better
Now you're stuck in a moment
And you can't get out of it

Selfish tears are not what God seeks, but rather tears of real repentance, the tears that aren't "going nowhere." Indeed, with the tears of repentance, we can truly then "stand up straight / Carry [our] own weight," because it is God Himself Who lifts us. More:

I will not forsake
The colors that you bring
The nights you filled with fireworks
They left you with nothing

I am still enchanted
By the light you brought to me
I listen through your ears
Through your eyes I can see

God accepts our offerings to Him, but often our religious pretty falseness(_pseudokalos_) amounts to little more than fireworks which, while pretty, leave us with nothing in the end. What God wants is our souls, ourselves, the "light you brought to me," and in us he can "listen through [our] ears/Through [our] eyes [He] can see." Our gluttonies and addictions fill us...

And you are such a fool
To worry like you do
I know it's tough
And you can never get enough
Of what you don't really need now
My, oh my

...and so, we fast! He calls to us again:

You've got to get yourself together
You've got stuck in a moment
And you can't get out of it

Oh love, look at you now
You've got yourself stuck in a moment
And you can't get out of it

I was unconscious, half asleep
The water is warm 'til you discover how deep

Perhaps here He speaks of the Incarnation and of His rejection by His people:

I wasn't jumping, for me it was a fall
It's a long way down to nothing at all

You've got to get yourself together
You've got stuck in a moment
And you can't get out of it

Don't say that later will be better
Now you're stuck in a moment
And you can't get out of it

"Don't say that later will be better" echoes a centuries previous song by St. Andrew of Crete: "My soul, my soul, arise! Why are you sleeping? The end is drawing near, and you will be confounded. Awake, then, and be watchful, that Christ our God may spare you, Who is everywhere present and fills all things."

But He will be with us always, throughout our Lenten struggle:

And if the night runs over
And if the day won't last
And if our way should falter
Along the stony pass

It's just a moment
This time will pass

One of my favorite Biblical phrases has got to be "This, too, shall pass." Lent is about so many things, but among those things is, I think, getting unstuck from our "moments." We seem to be obsessed with moments here in our culture. If the "moment" has one element missing or fumbled, it's "ruined," and the "mood" is broken.

Lent is about struggle against sin, the struggle against nothingness, the struggle to attain to who we were created to be, our *true selves*. If we stay stuck in our moments, then the dynamic of Creator-Created relationship is disowned. We in fact deny the dynamic of our relationship with the Created, as well, whether it is with the Earth that God made for us or with our fellow persons.

Life is *dynamic* -- I am not the same person I was when I began this little letter. Getting stuck in ruts, in moments -- that is the stuff of sin, to make us believe that the status quo is just dandy, when in reality, we are not "stuck" but really moving *away* from Life Himself. We cannot help but be always moving, always changing, always dynamic -- we can, however, fool ourselves into the static, getting stuck in moments.

In those "moments" in which we find ourselves, the true nature of sin is that self-satisfaction, self-sufficiency, wrong-headed contentment. In that "moment," we do not need any God, because we have our "moment," our lovely, controllable, predictable, safe place of "happiness." In our "moment," we are an idol (_eidolon_, "phantom"), a false god (_pseudotheos_), and in our pseudotheology, we have our moment of pleasure, our moment of power, our moment of self sufficiency.

In Lent, God calls us once again to break out of our moments, to be really ravished by a sweetness and wonder which is entirely beyond all control, beyond all understanding, beyond all prediction, beyond everything that is safe. It is a place which is dangerous, mystical, powerful, and all of it is only possible with true humility, true self-emptying.

*Alone*, we are in our moments, our paltry little self-made "worlds" which are safe, stable, and nice. *With God* and *in His Church*, we are capable of being *true* gods ("I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." Ps. 82:6), moving beyond ourselves, moving into perfect self-transcendence, moving into perfect communion, into true holiness, becoming what we were created to be.

Only through true repentance, struggle, self-emptying, and deep, joyful sorrow, can we enter into the eternal, divine flame, soaking up His radiance and heat, ourselves becoming blindingly brilliant as we radiate the Holy Light.

"He is my Helper and Protector, and has become my salvation. This is my God and I will glorify Him. My father's God and I will exalt Him. For gloriously has He been glorified." (St. Andrew of Crete)"

:: Karl :: 7:59:00 AM [Link] ::