:: St. Stephen's Musings ::

:: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 ::

Where Nobody Needs a Savior

Michael Spencer writes against a phenomenon I once called "the cult of the nice"; the peculiarly Huxlian/postmodern Christian culture too many of us live in where displaying anything less than "happiness" is verboten. Spencer sums up the problem thusly:

"[Contemporary Christians are] merely human, but their church says they must be more than human to be good Christians. They cannot speak of or even acknowledge their troubled lives. Their marriages are wounded. Their children are hurting. They are filled with fear and the sins of the flesh. They are depressed and addicted, yet they can only approach the church with the lie that all is well, and if it becomes apparent that all is not well, they avoid the church."

Or, what is even more disturbing, we turn church into a place of empty emotions, slick facades, and plastic relationships to dumb the pain. If only we'd simply avoid the church instead of corrupting it!

Bill, who struggles with depression, has found a place where he doesn't have to lie about his need for healing.

"The little crumbs of love I have tasted have fallen from the table of Orthodoxy. I may be depressed, but I'm not stupid. I'm staying put. If I starve to death, I might as well starve to death surrounded by beauty and peace."

People don't understand Orthodoxy, in part, because of what the cult of the nice does to one's perception of an authentic Christian life. In this post, Grace notes that contemporary Christians "are uncomfortable with us Orthodox sometimes because we don't smile more and, I don't know, cheer up. I get uncomfortable with them because they do. There's something a little brittle, a little shiny about all that. It's good stuff in small quantities, but it's sugar-water -- all zip and no substance. No wonder their hearts are hurting."

If there is one thing that needs to be said here it is this: A Christianity without a proper and vibrant asceticism, a way of life that promotes and encourages us to be open about our battle against the passions and our need for constant repentance, isn't Christianity at all. It is pop psychology and false spiritualism masquerading as the Gospel.

The cult of the nice is the shameful joy of a mock resurrection which was never preceded by dying to oneself to being with. Sugar water, indeed.

:: Karl :: 7:53:00 AM [Link] ::

An Orthodox Web Development Forum

Fr. John from Chicago, has started an Orthodox Web Development Community.

He writes, "Over the past couple years, I've had conversations with Orthodox folks from all over the world interested in using the internet or web-based technologies to serve the Church in some way. Many were interested putting their skills to work as volunteers, but lacked any community to aide, coordinate or direct their efforts."

"I notice, too, that many people have been duplicating each other's work -- in database work, script programming, and so on. I hope this can be a place where we can share what we've done and learn from each other."

:: Karl :: 8:02:00 AM [Link] ::

Who Really Benefits From the Upcoming Presidential Election?

This is an amusing example of why a popular rumor--that both parties wouldn't mind all that much losing this presidential election--has a lot of merit. Let's take a peek into the crystal ball ourselves, shall we?

It is clear now that Bush has dug himself into a massive hole in Iraq and will find it difficult to climb out unscathed and scandal-free in the next 9-12 months. His second term will be filled with continued trouble abroad (Iran? North Korea?) and he will make a series of decisions that will certainly not be popular and quite likely not helpful for the nation's long term battle against terrorism.

This might not be so bad for the Republicans unless the Bush Administration continues to ignore both their fiscally conservative base and the "9/11 Democrats" regarding taxes, the deficit, Social Security and Medicare---which, given the the tunnel vision displayed thus far by Rove, Card et al., seems quite likely. With scandals and failure abroad mixed with negligence at home, a second Bush term will inexorably lead to huge Democratic Congressional wins in 2006 for sure and most likely in 2008 as well. President Hillary Clinton is not far away.

Not an attractive long term picture for conservatives to consider.

Kerry, if he wins, will inherit the very volatile situation in Iraq he clearly doesn't have the wisdom nor the resources to handle. His approval rating will stay well below 50% for much of 2005 and 2006. Exhausted by the whole ordeal in Iraq, voters will hammer him for any lack of resolve or arrogant shortsightedness so typical of Democratic presidents when they try their hand at foreign policy.

(Can anyone say Jimmy Carter in Iran and Afghanistan and Bill Clinton in....well, goodness, take your pick from one of the dozen or so foreign policy debacles of the 90's!).

Kerry will also make the devastating error every liberal in office seems destined to repeat when it comes to domestic issues; presenting a "centrist" face on the campaign trail and later infuriating a large section of the electorate when it becomes clear to all that his policy decisions are made solely by a combination of: a) increasing capitulation to his radical leftist base and b) the natural consequences of having a near total absence of anything resembling a coherent and moral worldview.

In a backlash for spinelessness abroad and moral vacuity at home, the voters will quickly wrest control of the House and Senate away from the DNC and give it back to the Republicans in 2006. After a series of scandals that will further weaken the Kerry Administration, Republicans will find another young, popular governor (if the Constitution is amended, could it be "Auwnuld"?) to crush him in 2008.

Not an attractive long term picture for liberals to consider.

So, all in all, I'm not sure which is worse: having one's candidate win or not come this November.

:: Karl :: 7:53:00 AM [Link] ::

Do You Have St. Paul's Bible?

While reading through the Greek Psalter and King James Version side-by-side, I noticed something you can mention to the next Protestant who asks you why the Orthodox Church uses the LXX:

In Romans 3:10ff St Paul quotes from Psalm 13 (14 MT):

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes." `

In the Septuagint Psalter we can see where St Paul is quoting from:

"...The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men: to see if there were any that would understand, and seek after God. But they are all gone out of the way, they are altogether become abominable: there is none that doeth good, no not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre, with their tongues have they deceived: the poison of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and unhappiness is in their ways, and the way of peace have they not known; there is no fear of God before their eyes. Have they no knowledge..."

But in the Psalms of the KJV most of St Paul's quote is missing:

"...The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did [understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.] Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge..."

The extra material that St Paul quotes from the Septuagint Psalter is missing from the Hebrew Masoretic Text - that's why the King James and many other Bibles are missing those verses. But they weren't missing from Saint Paul's Bible - because the Hebrew or Greek text he used was from the LXX text tradition.

* Props to Silouan from the Orthodox Convert Discussion Group for this.

:: Karl :: 8:01:00 AM [Link] ::

The Home as the Little Church: More on "Ministries"

Tripp (the "AngloBaptist") made a comment on last Friday's post that deserves a longer reply. He writes,

"I am Baptist and in seminary the general line of teaching is that if you want people to stay in your church (church growth yada yada) you have to get them involved. Otherwise they do not feel appreciated or a part of the community....we seem to be saying that the opposite edifies us. Certainly it is a both/and thing and the introvert/extrovert thing may play a small part. Still, I think it is a misunderstanding of the function of that building called church. What do y'all think?"

That is a great question and an important issue. Let me throw out some thoughts:

I liked something RC priest Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus (of First Things fame) said at a lecture the other day. He quipped, "The Church isn't an institution like the Rotary or the Elks--it is first of all a family."

I think when people say they want to be involved, they mean something more psychological and spiritual than organizational. IOW, they want to be part of an adventure bigger than themselves, they want to be loved and feel that not only what they do *but who they are* matters and can be made whole. It isn't so much the activities we crave but the community, relationships, and healing that sometimes (but rarely) comes to life from the myriad of activities most churches peddle as "God's work."

Here is where the Orthodox concept, coined by St. John Chrysostom, really shows itself as part of the answer: the home as "the Little Church."

I think one of the reasons for the disconnect many of us feel is that most of us do not have a Christian praxis in our daily home life that resonates and draws from the Church's liturgical and sacramental life.

There is something powerful about having a rule of prayer, using an icon corner, following the fasts, working as a family to do acts of mercy for our immediate neighbors, teaching our children about the history of the Church, reading Scripture and the Lives of the Saints, etc .... and then doing this again in the larger context of the liturgy and fellowship of the Church. The active life grows organically from the inner; it rarely works in reverse.

Justin correctly notes that his ministry "is to be the presbyter and episkopos of my home- the elder and the overseer of my family, carrying the baton and leading them into the unchanging and ancient faith by example."

It is when we have a synergy between church and home that we understand several important truths, three of which being:

1) The Church as it manifests itself as an institution and our "ministries" derive their existence and worth from the ontological reality of God's presence in the Church's sacramental and liturgical experience and our participation in that life, rather than the other way around.

2) The Christian life is for the healing of our souls and for fostering the fruits of the Spirit in our daily lives and from this can all outward/extroverted "activities" and "ministries" also bear fruit.

3) What Ann said in a previous comment: that the Church exists for us, not us for it. In Orthodoxy this is hard to miss since we are not the creators of the Church, but the recipients.

:: Karl :: 7:46:00 AM [Link] ::

Adding Our Contributions to the Church

Everyone seems to want their own ministry these days.

Growing up in an evangelical culture meant that if one wasn't: fundraising to be a missionary in a foreign country (apparently one's immediate surroundings were already part of the Kingdom), working towards being hired as a youth pastor (the only "cool" pastoral role) or playing in, or better yet, leading a "worship team," than one wasn't *really* a Christian.

Daily prayer, confession, fasting, participation in the sacraments, communal living, scripture and patristic study, meditation, serving one's family; that which makes for the foundation of the Christian life seemed a bit out of place in an extroverted Christian world eager to pit the contemplative against the active as if the latter trumped the former.

The hidden assumption many us have about our life in the Church, ISTM, is that one must be contributing something of visible "worth" to the community or that outward "activities" and trademarked "ministries" are the goals one strives for as a Christian. A Pragmatic Pelagianism, of sorts. Holiness, purity of heart, victory over passions, union with God....all take a back seat to the particulars of the "purpose driven life."

Timothy Copple warns inquirers when he notes that "the idea that the Church is going to be hurt if I don't join or that my contribution has some importance to the Church overall is a matter of pride and runs counter to the ethos of humility and contentment which is at the core of Orthodoxy spirituality."

"Will we add something? Sure, but we don't come in with that as a central goal or purpose. Rather, we come in to submit to what the Church is and be formed by [her way of life]. Only when we have been formed by the Church can our own contributions, whatever those might be, have any impact and value beyond our own prideful heart."

Now, we know St. Paul certainly encourages us to "strive to excel in building up the church" (1 Cor 14:12) and that each are given gifts "to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ" (Eph 4:12). There isn't anything wrong with the ministries and activities that any healthy Christian community must endeavor to do.

So the question isn't so much whether or not ministry/activity/work is good, but rather a) is it what I'm called to do b) does it distract me from the "one thing needful" c) is it being done at the right time and place d) are the motivations coming from a desire to serve God and love my neighbor or from something else; whether an attempt to heal a deep psychological wound or fulfill a warped theology of Christian praxis?

As St. Seraphim of Sarov says, "Note well that it is only good works done in the name of Christ that bring us the fruits of the Spirit."

:: Karl :: 7:57:00 AM [Link] ::

Educational Choices

Robert and Gideon both have thought-provoking posts about the issues parents must face when thinking about whether to send their children to government schools or homeschool.

Of course, there are other excellent options as well!

I like this point by Robert: "Our mission as parents is not to make sure our children are attractive, athletic, popular, socially skilled, smart, well educated, or financially prosperous. It is to raise them to be godly."

Now, if one discerns the government schools are the only option for one's children there are many things one can do to make the most of the situation. It is also true that some children will thrive in it. But, frankly, I just can't fathom putting my children in government schools; certainly not until high school and hopefully never.

:: Karl :: 8:28:00 AM [Link] ::

The Ducks, First Day, Advice, and Beauty: Random Monday Musings

* I lost my voice amidst 57,000+ loyal and rabid fans at this heartbreaker on Saturday. Seven turnovers absolutely killed us, yet we still could have won the game in the final minutes. Now I have to figure out a way of teaching this week with a very raspy voice!

* I had my first full day of teaching Latin last Friday. The kids are respectful and sharp, the facilities are excellent, the curriculum superb. Now, if only the teacher wasn't so green....

* Simon has a great post for new bloggers to check out. One of my favorites is #30: "Just like in life, extremism beats moderation and emotion beats logic. If you want reasoned discourse prepare to dwell in oblivion. If you want invective and ill-considered responses, watch the hits come in."

* Liturgical prayer of the week: "Sanctify those who love the beauty of your house." Appreciating and co-creating heavenly architecture, music, iconography, design, and sense of space are part of what it means to be an Orthodox Christian. As Dostoevsky said, "Beauty will save the world." The world certainly needs it.

Update: My voice held up pretty well today in class and three of the students said they love Latin and are glad I'm one of their teachers!

:: Karl :: 7:46:00 AM [Link] ::

Is "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs" Orthodox?

A reader sent this email:

An interesting topic came up in my Human Development class. We were discussing different theories of development including Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs... just a brief review and it was viewed as "pretty common sensical" and discussion was about to close, and I raised my hand. I've always viewed Maslow's model as very fair, and again, as making sense. But I had to ask: then how do the Saints fit into this model?

They didn't have all of their basic necessities met such as food, shelter, and belonging, but they were/are more "self actualized" then the highest functioning therapist/clergyman/doctor...

I believe that [the saints'] basic needs were met and so they were able to climb the ladder of needs to self actualization, but their needs were not met by mere material provision, they allowed God to intervene and provide miraculously outside the confines of Maslow's model. What would be a more accurate model? I am interested in making a truer pyramid (if you will) but still within the vocabulary of modern psychology.

Here was my response (slightly edited):

There are many scholars who agree that Maslow's Hierarchy doesn't answer some fundamental questions about human nature.

"There are people who are willing to suffer hunger and thirst ... even to die for values Maslow assumed are less potent than the physiological needs."
Richard M. Ryckman, "Theories of Personality" (pg362)

As Paul Vitz notes in his well known book "Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship", Maslow's theory assumes a linear progression of human development rather than an interdependence of needs.

"Love is inextricably linked to bodily health", and it does not follow that the needs of the body must be fulfilled before one can either love or "self-actualize." Of the Maslow pyramid Vitz states categorically, "there is no such reliable order" when we consider human beings as communal rather than simply physiological. (pg38)

This leads us to a simple observation: Like most of our models, theories and systems (whether they be legal, psychological, sociological etc), Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a useful, albeit limited and ultimately flawed, way of understanding fallen man and society. It does not describe human nature as it was and is intended to become with God's grace.

I think this is key because much contemporary Christian philosophy and educational theory make the often hidden assumption that "what you see is what you get"; i.e. that man is not to "partake of the divine nature" and be divinized but simply to be "self-actualized." He is not to "become god by grace", as St. Athansius and St. Gregory note, but simply to be "a good person."

Thus, the way the modern world looks at human life is seen within the closed system of fallen man's capabilities and vision rather than that of the God-Man, Jesus Christ. It is, in the end, atheistic because it does not allow for the miracles of God; whether they be physical, psychological or whatnot.

In one of the hymns for Nativity we proclaim that the Theotokos, through God, "overcame nature" by giving birth to Christ. So I think you are correct--the saints, while fully human and fallen, work with God to transfigure fallen nature; including what we consider to be the "natural" or "normal" processes of life.

:: Karl :: 8:05:00 AM [Link] ::

Intentional Community, WWII, and Imperfect Communion: Random Tuesday Musings

* Some of you have asked for a progress report on the intentional community. I'm sad to say that, for the time being, the project is being put on hold due to a combination of timing issues, changes in vision, and finances.

* How the WWII D-Day Invasion would be reported by the media today. Oh, how true this is!

* It seems I'm not the only one who realizes that English just hasn't yet developed the linguistic dexterity necessary to express the depth, tenderness, and beauty of Orthodoxy.

* Courageous and truthful statements like this, made at international ecumenical gatherings, give one hope that some good may still come from Orthodox involvement in bodies such as the WCC. Clifton notes, "It's strong medicine, but it's medicine we so desperately need."

:: Karl :: 8:42:00 AM [Link] ::

Obedience: The Neglected Virtue

A reader sent me an email the other day asking, in part, about a situation that inevitably comes up in the Orthodox life:

"What does a person do when his priest gives him advice he thinks is wrong or questionable?"

This was my reply (slightly edited):

Well, if the advice or counsel *clearly* violates the canons or moral teachings of the Church then you take it up with him privately. If he refuses to repent, you take it to the parish counsel. If you still can't resolve the problem, then you contact the ruling bishop of the diocese (following the pattern set in Matthew 18).

However, if the advice doesn't violate Church teaching but simply seems strict, unfair, uninformed, or just flat out strange, the witness of the saints says one thing and says it with gusto: obey with humility and pray for enlightenment and holiness to come *through that obedience.*

St. John Climacus, as always, perfectly expresses the paradox and beauty of this long forgotten virtue in today's Christian culture. He says, "Obedience is absolute renunciation of our own life, clearly expressed in our bodily actions. Or, conversely, obedience is the mortification of the limbs while the mind remains alive. Obedience is unquestioning movement, voluntary death, a life free of curiosity, carefree danger, unprepared defense before God, fearlessness of death, a safe voyage, a sleeper's progress."

"Obedience is the tomb of the will and the resurrection of humility. A corpse does not argue or reason as to what is good or what seems to be bad. For he who has devoutly put the soul of the novice to death will answer for everything. Obedience is an abandonment of discernment in a wealth of discernment."

I love the paradox of that last line.

Remember, the spiritual father is like a doctor and he guides us as we incarnate the faith in our lives by helping us to diagnose our spiritual ills....What he tells others is really of no use for you. You aren't anyone else but yourself so the counsel you receive is going to be unique to you and your situation. What may seem "legalistic" or strict may be what one needs.

This is the glory of Orthodox relationships in the Church--the standards never change yet are applied pastorally and lived out personally. Would we have it any other way?

We also need to take responsibility for our part in this relationship. We must make sure our spiritual father gets a chance to know us so he can get a good grasp of where we are at in the spiritual life and what virtues we need to work on.

We tell small children "Don't touch that" or "Stay here" because we know that they need boundaries. The child may not fully understand but trusts that the advice will protect him in his weakness.

We need the same trust, faith, and obedience in the life of the Church. We can start exercising the virtue of obedience within the relationship with our spiritual father.

Update: Huw writes about this issue as well. "So I pray to be humble - which means, obedient, but also taking things as they are and not demanding them to be otherwise."

:: Karl :: 8:25:00 AM [Link] ::

Open House at Agia Sophia

Last night Agia Sophia Academy held an open house to formally introduce the staff to the parents.

As the only teacher without a Bachelor's or a Master's Degree or previous teaching experience in the elementary grades, I have felt a little out of place. Of course, as my wife reminded me, Jesus didn't choose the Ph.D.'s and experts of the day to be his disciples and future teachers in the faith; he choose people who loved Him, prepared to do His work and ready to accept the challenge. Let it true in this case as well.

After the opening introductions and speeches, I spent the evening answering questions about the Latin curriculum and getting to know the parents. I echoed sentiments expressed by Dorothy Sayers when she wrote,

"I will say at once, quite firmly, that the best grounding for education is Latin grammar. I say this not because Latin is traditional and medieval, but simply because even a rudimentary knowledge of Latin cuts down the labor and pains of learning almost any other subject by at least 50 percent."

The benefits of studying Latin are well documented. Even if the students have trouble retaining the language itself, the skills they learn should serve them well and should provide the foundation they need for language work they will do in future stages of the Trivium.

:: Karl :: 7:41:00 AM [Link] ::