How could this happen?

NOTE: This is a very old post. I have not had the time or energy to post here for the last year or so. Things have changed and so I wish to continue to post my own opinions and ramblings. I started this post in December 2005. I have not edited from then, except to add a final question. -Seraphim Feb. 20, 2007

I was very saddened to come upon this article. It is about a arts performance taking place in an old Romanian Orthodox Church in Cleveland, Ohio. The article describes scenes from the "revue" like, "...a nebbishy Jesus, bitching to his Jewish mother about his lack of birthday presents..." and other such things. It made me sick to my stomach. I didn't want to believe that it was a former Orthodox Christian church. I decided to look up the address in order to find out.

What I found out made me even more nauseous. Not only was the building a former Orthodox Church, it still had its iconostasis and icons within the nave and apparently the altar and litugical garments as well. This building is being used now for entertainment, and horrendously degrading entertainment at that.

I found a real estate link and had a listing as follows:

Church, Hall and Residence!
Price: $499,900
6203 Detroit Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44102-3007 Neighborhood: Detroit Shoreway

A detailed listing had the following to say:

6203 Detroit Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio

Price: $499,900
Beds: 0
Baths: 0
Year Built: 1907
Floors:
Type: Residential
Status: Active
MLS: 2227925
Neighborhood: Detroit Shoreway

Prime location in Detroit Shoreway neighborhood. Beautiful historic church with new custom made doors. Icons appraised at 45k. 3 level hall space for performances and entertainment. Kitchen and bar on lower level. New bathrooms, new doors, and new interior paint! NO LEASES! House needs renovation.

What I don't understand is how could this happen? I know churches close for a variety of reasons, including loss of parishioners. But couldn't the diocese of the church prevent the sale?

My opinion is that we, as Orthodox Christians in America, should try to figure out how to preserve the churches. Or, the alternative question, should we spend our money on those who need it rather than on buildings that no longer have a purpose?

Free Speech and Opinions

I have written about this in the past, but I am continually amazed that more people do not see a problem with judging one's opinion as wrong.

Case in point: a Muslim leader in Australia make a statement to the effect that that some women invite rape by wearing skimpy clothes. While I do not support this statement at all, the response to it from the general population is interesting.

The Prime Minister said that the leader should be given counselling because of this opinion. People were describing it with all sorts of negative adjectives. The leader later responded by apologizing. The vitriol that this remark produced was surprising in it volume and somewhat strange in its relationship to free speech.

Although, again I do not support such an opinion (am I only saying this so that I don't get referred to/forced into counselling?), however, what is "wrong" with his opinion. Instead of a expressing dissatisfaction with the person's opinion, the media and public officials lambast him for even having such an opinion, and implying that he is mentally defective for it. This person did not (as far as I can tell) attempt to get people to break the law and molest or rape the women he thought were skimpily attired. This type of speech would be easy to condemn, and probably necessary to condemn. But expressing an opinion, as part of his understanding and thought process, that it is more likely that a less covered woman is more likely to get raped, I cannot see as problematic. What I see is a dangerous desire for people to repress other people's opinions that do not line up with their own. Rather a better approach, that is less overtly critcal of a persons mental capacity, would be to site facts that refute such an assertion. Barring such facts, I don't see how anyone can say anything more than that they disagree with such a statement.

Let's look at this statement, but change the object of it. Lets say I make the statement: A person that leaves the door to their house unlocked is inviting someone to steal from their house.

I believe the above statement is not much different than the woman and clothing statement. If you disagree, try to suspend disbelief so that you might understand my conclusion. Between the two statements I am equating the house and women, the lack of door locks with the skimpiness of clothing, and the invitation to steal and the invitation to rape.

Although you may disagree, as I do, with this statement about the unlocked house, I doubt that you would find it particularly offensive. Why is it not offensive if the statement about women is offensive. I believe this is due to an implied, unspoken aspect of morality. Now remember the Muslim leader did not say that men who raped women were justified in the rape because of the woman's attire. To some degree he was making a statement that there are consequences to actions. However, people seem to assume that the expression of consequences implies justification of the consequences. I don't believe he meant that.

Examine the statement about the house. Most people would say to the people who left their house unlocked while away, "What were you thinking? What did you expect to happen if you didn't lock your house while you were away?" At least this is what I thought when this very situation happened to my sister recently. There was no moral judgement about her decision. This statement also does not imply justification to the act of burglary that was purpetrated.

I submit that both statements are very similar in meaning. Why does expressing one statement provoke so much hatred towards a person, while the other one is merely an innocuous statement? And centrally, what does this have to do with Orthodox Christianity?

Lately, I've been harping on my belief that soon, we as Orthodox Christians, will have a very rough time professing and proclaiming our faith. Much of religious thought is about how we change our base, self-serving desires and actions into desires and actions that are beneficial to others. This leader was expressing an opinion that there might be consequences to living in a particular manner. It disproportionally affects a specific group of people, namely women. This was the "sin."

Our Orthodox belief teaches us that there are consequences to living in the world. We have strong beliefs in the various roles of men and women. When will it be against the law to express opinions that may have negative consequences for a particular group of people? When will the Bible be banned because it casts women in a particular role, promotes slavery, or promotes genocide (all these are things that some people say the Bible supports)?

Even though I disagree with the Muslim leader's opinion, it does not mean he was wrong, or that he is "bad." Proving or disproving a statement such as this would be difficult. Vilifing a person over an expressed opinion is the first step in limiting freedom of speech. When will your opinion get you put in prison?

The Church and the church

Some time ago a priest mentioned to me that building churches was not the goal of Orthodox Christianity. Puzzled, I asked him to clarify. He said that building churches (the actual buildings themselves) is far different than building the Church (the Body of Christ).

He asked not to be misunderstood. Building church buildings is important. Having a specific place dedicated to the worship of God is essential. It is not, however, the building that constitutes Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is not about the pursuit of property, but the pursuit of salvation. The actions which Jesus ascribes to the Sheep in Matthew 25 are one example of things for which we should be working.

At first I did not understand, and respectfully disagreed. Churches are like a lighthouse I thought, and there is beauty both within and without. It seemed strange; because as a new convert in a newly established church, we focused a lot on bring people to Orthodoxy. However, when I examine our desires, at least some of the desire to get more people was the desire to have a fuller church, enough money to fully support the priest, and enough money for a building fund. These ideals may not be sinful, but they are not altogether pure. Which one was more important, the salvation of those we brought in or the potential to have a large church? Without a doubt the people’s salvation and sharing our faith with others was the paramount ideal, but there was some payoff in some/most people’s mind.

I have come to the understanding that Orthodoxy, as expressed in a large cross-section of America, is a lot about building churches. Again, this isn’t necessarily bad by itself. It might be, however, an indicator of losing our understanding of what it means to be Orthodox. By this I mean that maybe we are helping ourselves before helping those around us.

I write this not to offend anyone, or cast aspersions. Beauty is an essential part of Orthodox worship, and a church temple is also an essential part of worship. But what I am trying to express, if only to remind myself, is that a church building is not the “end game” of Orthodoxy.

If we concentrate on buildings and property, I believe we will be ill prepared for the time when we will not be allowed to have those building or that property. Don’t think this will ever happen? It is already happening, and has happened many times in the past. A prime example in history is that of the communist revolution in Russia. What happened to many of the churches and monasteries? Many turned into museums, some turned into stables, some destroyed, and some left to deteriorate because the Church was banned.

As for current times, we don’t currently have overt suppression of the Church, but certainly in many predominently Muslim areas is it difficult, if not impossible, to maintain or start a new church. Look at the example of Kosovo. http://www.kosovo.com/news/archive/2005/December_09/2.html

Here a monastery with a very long history and listed as a United Nations World Heritage Site. The monastery’s land is being taken away and its surroundings destroyed. The monks there and in other monasteries in Kosovo are finding life very difficult. Even with UN status in a technically UN administered region and supposedly with UN protection, the monastery is in danger of being taken away or destroyed. This is a very bad thing and should rightly get us upset. It certainly isn’t the end of Orthodoxy. It might also limit the Orthodox witness, both in the immediate area and to the wider world.

The Apostles, many Saints, and others have preached the Gospel and brought non-believers to Christ, often not in the confines of a church building. I worry that we are too content with the status quo of building churches as an indicator of our faith. A church building is an important aspect of Orthodox; a place were we can come together to worship and give thanks to God. But at what point do we save a large sum of money to build a magnificent church, rather than use that money for the support of the poor? It is a challenging question, and not one that I am able to answer. More importantly, are we confusing a building with Orthodox, and if we are, what will we do when there is no more building?

Foreigners in Society

I was reading an item on the BBC website regarding Muslims in Britain. It is an account of how Muslims in this particular area staff and attend a Islamic center that has religious and educational programs and the like.

Their program is a desirable one and one that is lacking in many Orthodox churches. The building opens early for prayers and has community and educational programs designed to promote people of Islamic faith into better societal positions. At least as expressed in the article, their faith is paramount and then everything else is secondary. It is not hard to want something similar for us Orthodox.

They are foreigners in western society and it is easier for them to see the deividing line between society and religion. Christian culture has had a large hand in the formation of this society, so it is harder to see the difference between our religion and society. This is part of our struggle. Although this society is not Orthodox, its roots are sufficiently close to our expression of our religion that we do not see ourselves as we should, as foreigners and merely travellers in this world.

Because of this, we (as Orthodox Christians) melt easily into society. Breaking free from this society is hard for us as it is comfortable and familiar. I desire to break free from this society and do those things necessary for my salvation and for the salvation of those around me. I need to remember I am different from those around me and that I have found the true faith. This difference is not to separate us as people, but to elevate us above common society, and to show our lights so that others may find salvation.

Whenever I tell my daughters name (which is Xenia) to someone new, and I explain to them that it means "foreigner" they look at me with a puzzled look. Foreigner is not considered a positive thing. Why would I name my daughter with a name like foreigner? I did not name her with that in mind. But more importantly I realize this is not a negative word, but an idea to live by.

Freedom and the Future

Freedom is an essential aspect of our current ability to be passive Christians. What I am calling passive Christians are those that claim a belief in Christianity without having to make hard decisions or sacrifices. This is not necessarily an insult and I am not speaking to their piety or holiness. One can be pious and holy but still be a passive Christian.

What I am concerned about for the future is this very freedom, religious freedom, we take for granted now. In most first world countries there is the concept of religious freedom. This is a good concept as it fulfills the "golden rule," to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I would not like to be forced to convert religions or forced to hide my religion, and so I should not want to do that to others. This is different than missioning and teaching about Jesus to those that do not know Him. I do not want my government to dictate my religion, either overtly or covertly.

What is occurring currently in America, a public and caustic debate about religion and science, morals and laws, I see as bringing the end to the freedom of religion. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion very much go together. You cannot have the second without the first. The end of freedom of religion will be because of the limitation of the freedom of expression being put into place in our current society.

Hate speech is the first step in this war against freedom of expression. What is hate speech? Wikipedia defines hate speech as "Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on his/her race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. The term covers written as well as oral communication."

The concept of hate speech is directly in opposition to freedom of expression. Promoting Christianity could be considered hate speech. Expressing Christian values and morals is considered hate speech by those that like to practice values in opposition to Christianity.

People hate me because of what I believe (of course before they get to know me!). I do not expect, nor want, my government to "protect" me from them hating me or hearing their hatred for my beliefs. If their hatred causes them to want to kill me, then yes, I would prefer that my government attempt to protect me from getting killed. However, I want this regardless of that person's opinion of me and my beliefs. Hate is specifically against Christian teaching. I am not promoting the idea that hate is OK, but isn't hate in the realm of thought, and if we ban hate, we are creating a new kind of crime, a thoughtcrime (see Orwell's novel 1984).

We are living in a time when the Supreme Court of the USA ruled in a closely split (5-4) case about the ability of a private organization, the Boy Scouts of America, to deny entry into this organization to anyone it wants. Expand this idea to churches. If the BSofA had lost this case? It is not too much of a leap to imagine the government forcing a church to accept a person it did not want to accept. Freedom of association, or what was called expressive association, was at stake here, and this freedom is not lesser than freedom of religion.

We are living in a time when over 30% of high school students believe that there should be more limitations set on the press. (c.f. USA Today, also a simple Google search). Freedom of the press is a specific implementation of freedom of expression and it is under attack. Freedom of speech in general is under attack. What does that mean for Christians, especially Orthodox Christians which presumably don't bend as easily to prevailing culture?

Soon Christians will no longer be able to be passive. We will soon have to decide whether we will promote Christianity in the face of criminalized speech and thought. Will we end up like Saints Peter and Paul, and Saint Steven the Protomartyr because of our speech? Will we set up secret churches to overcome the ban on religious ideology? Whatever we will do, in the future, it will no longer be easy.

Fear

Merriam-Webster defines fear as "an unpleasant often strong emotion caused by anticipation or awareness of danger." It goes on to say "synonyms FEAR, DREAD, FRIGHT, ALARM, PANIC, TERROR, TREPIDATION mean painful agitation in the presence or anticipation of danger. FEAR is the most general term and implies anxiety and usually loss of courage ."

The fear I want to discuss is not the oft used "fear of God," but fear that many of us have that causes barriers to be thrown up between us and God. I know about this topic, because I live it today, but am trying to work on this aspect of my life (with my spiritual father) so that I can move on.

I did not realize that this fear was in my life. I did not know this aspect of my life had a name. I did not realize until my pastor told me. This fear in me was a hidden snare that caused me grief but I could not clearly see it, but I knew its effects.

What am I afraid of? In short almost everything. Now, I am not talking about fear of the dark, or fear of spiders or anything like that. But I fear bigger things. I fear things like losing my job, losing my wife or children, money concerns, and the like. I fear these things even though I do great work, and I provide for and cherish my family, and I am not in immediate threat of bankruptcy. So why do I fear these and other things?

The bottom line is that I do not trust God. This is a remarkably hard thing for me to say. One, because I do not consciously doubt God, and two because God has given me so much. It seems that a huge part of the worship of God revolves around trust. I know this instinctively and thought I trusted God, but by laying out my problems, I realized that I did not truly trust God.

What are my problems? Basically they revolve around not being about to move forward, in my deeper understanding of God, my pursuit of salvation, and in my work in the Church.

Two major events happened in my life around the same time. I thought that only one of them was the start of my problems. I was wrong. First I lost my job. I had this job for more than 7 years. I had a house, purchased in the previous 2 years. I had two children. I had bills. I also was a member of a church that I loved.

I did not have much savings when I lost my job, much of it taken by the down payment to buy my house. Unemployment insurance was paying me very little, but fortunately I had a sizable (to me) severance equal to about 3 months of salary. The job market was taking a dive because of the "dot-bomb" and new job listings for areas of my expertise when from 40 a week to 3 on a good week.

In the end I found another job, but had to move 350 miles. Finding an affordable house was very difficult. We eventually moved and attended another church. This is where my troubles began. At first I thought it was the church. The organization was different, I was no longer part of the "original group" like I was at my old church. I tend to be shy and not good at starting a conversation (this also has to do with fear, but will have to wait for another post!). Only now (4 years later!) I realize it was not the church or the priest(s) or the people, it was fear that had its origins in losing my job.

I have lost other jobs. Some I quit, some I was fired from. But before this point I didn't have true responsibilities. I did not have a family to care for and I did not have a house, a car, and other bills to pay.

I also was raised with the belief that one does not ask for help, but one should always offer help. This not asking for help idea was more from the point-of-view that you just have to work and provide for yourself because no one else will. This mentality has carried over into my spiritual life (though I am loathe to use the idea of separate "lives"). I am not talking about the idea that achieving salvation requires at least some work. I am talking about achieving salvation specifically through my work/actions. Everyone should see where this is going. The curious thing is that I know I cannot achieve salvation soley through my works. I know this deep down, but somehow this idea keeps popping up.

The cause of my stumbling and failure to progress in every aspect of my life is fear. The aspect of my life I most desire to progress is my relationship with God. But the stumbling block is fear. What do I fear about God? Nothing in the "anticipation of danger" sense of the word. My fears are about physical things. What about the birds of the air for whom God provides, and the flowers of the field whom God clothes with more beauty than Solomon in all his glory? I know about these things. I know intellectually. I have not found the strength to put them to the test.

I want things to be better. My priest tells me that even my work and family life will be better if I let go of the fear. I am working on this, though I have a long way to go. I know that when I get there, I will be who I want to be.

I may get the chance to test this. Several things have transpired lately that are too strange for coincidence. I don't know what the future brings, and I am trying to force myself not to be afraid. I have realized that this is the great battle for me before I can start back on the road to the greater things I need to do.

Faith in God and trust in God are not the same thing (in my understanding). Faith is the belief that God can do. Trust is understanding that God will do, and will do what is good for us. I believe in God. I believe in miracles, I know God acts with and loves mankind. It boils down to the fact that I am unwilling to give up my will for His, precisely because I cannot control it. "Not my will, but Thine."

Stem Cells, Replacement Parts and the Future

(NOTE: I originally started this in May, but never finished it. If it seems a little disjointed and rambling, it is because I just wanted to finish it. I left the original starting date, but I posted this on November 16, 2005).

There was a news item I found regarding stem cells, embronic human clones and essentially replacement body parts: http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,67575,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

Stem cells and cloning and everything related to them seems to bring out the extremists on either side. I am not talking about the moral issues particularly.

What I am taking about is the idea of the viability of a particular medical practice. Cloning for example: can cloning a human work? We generally know the process: remove the nucleus from one cell and replace it with the nucleus of the organism to clone (highly simplified).

We (as a people) have a good idea of the physical (viewable) processes that go on from pre-conception to birth. What we do not understand are the things that are not "visible." Visible in the sense of being able to test via the scientific method. Who was it that said that this life is but a mere shadow of the life to come? (Aristotle?, but I believe it is the position of the Church) We "see" such a small part of what actually exists in God's creation.

Even though we see such a small part of the true creation, we tend to think in very limited view of how things must work. For example cloning. When cloning first was discussed, a lot of people expressed to me that there was no way cloning could work. They made their assertions on the base idea that only God could create life. Life (any life, animal, plant, human) could only exist by following a certain action-effect sequence established by God.

When Dolly the cloned sheep was announced, I found this group of people split into two camps. 1. cloning was a lie used to either obtain money or discredit religion; 2. ok, cloning does work, but it will only work for non-humans. Since humans have a soul and animals/plants do not, cloning will only work for these types of organisms.

Looking just at item group 2, I find a idea that I could accept. I do not usually jump to conclusions, but I was so horrified by the fact of cloning, I gravitated towards an idea of cloning that at least kept the sanctity of human life intact. This group of people, myself included, came to the decision that the granting/creating of a soul for a human happens at conception.

But the question remains, is this how and when a soul is granted to a human? I tend to disagree with the notion of constraining God's operation. I don't mean to say that we cannot know how God works, if even in little ways, but that I am not in a position discern how God works. So I leave this an open question, one that does not matter to my salvation.

Medical ethics is becoming a issue that is drawing much attention lately. Advances in medical technique are starting to encroach on formerly solid beliefs in how God works. But this controversy is not necessarily new. Consider the Christian Scientists. Now I cannot say that I know much about them, except that as a principle they do not accept current medical treatment as a Godly way of treating illness.

I believe that most people who are modern day Christians, including Orthodox Christians, accept modern medical procedures without much concern. Accepting that God gave us the ability to learn and understand the human body and develop remedies to what ails our physical bodies. But in light of stem-cell therapies and cellular cloning, where do we draw the line?

Will we allow into our bodies a new heart, one that was cloned from our own tissue? Is this immoral (immoral in that it is against God's will)? Or is this an extension of the unwritten logic we have used to justify surgeries and other medical treatments?

I foresee a future in which Christians will be torn by this dilemma. Not unlike Christians are now regaring how Christian Scientists view medical treatment. But I what I see is something darker. There will be those Christians that will accept the practices of cloning in exchange for the 150-year life span. They will scoff the those "fools" who think there is a problem with the ethics of these treatments. And there will be those that accept that life is for a time and that those who would try to save their life will lose it...

"Making up" for sins

I have come across an idea when talking to a friend; an idea that I though was my own particular creation. The idea is that upon the commission of a sin or upon failing to fulfill our Christian duty (whatever it may be) that we have some way, of our own power, to make this sin go away.

I put forward this idea using the example of fasting. Now fasting has its own large issues that could be discussed, however, let us take the Orthodox Christian example of Fasting as an obligation for us as Orthodox Christians. The scope of the obligation and the reasons behind it are not something I want to discuss now, but simply that it is a widely accepted obligation within Orthodoxy. You could replace fasting with any other particular obligation and the this essay is still valid.

If on a day that I am to fast, say a Wednesday, and I do not fast, what are my options to remedy this failure to fulfill my obligation? Do I even need a remedy?

The first answer is that yes, I need a remedy. I know in myself and through the teaching that I have received, that fasting is an important part of my spiritual health and growth. Why did I not fast? Why did I have to do something contrary to my own stated and strongly held belief? There are many reasons, and these reasons dovetail with the nature of sin. But there are reasons that I use that make me feel better: I call them rationalizations!

I commit this error because I want to do it and I have a hard time controlling the urge to want to do it. Before I commit this error, I rationalize. I rationalize because I want to placate my guilty feelings for this error. After the commission of the error there are the consequences. Sometimes the only apparent consequence is the guilt. So how do I deal with this guilt? I promise to make up for the error by doing something greater than the error I committed.

In this fasting example, I might think, "I feel bad for breaking the fast. I will make up for breaking the fast by fasting on a day that I am not required to fast." This seems somewhat reasonable. Kind of a fasting day credit exchange program. Something akin to I will give you a dollar tomorrow for a hamburger today (from the old Popeye cartoons).

What I am trying to do is bargain with God. I know I need to fast, God, but I just can't today. I will make it up to you by fasting on Thursday and even Monday just so that I can have a pizza today.

This doesn't seem so bad as I said above, and via my conversation with my friend I realized that a good number of other people use this line of reasoning and bargaining with God. At some point I came to realize that this is not a good idea at all, for a whole host of reasons.

The first question is to deal with the error in general. Why is the error an error? What purpose does it have in our lives that it is something to avoid? In this case fasting (again, a huge topic) is for us, not for God. Fasting is not easy, but it is very useful. Fasting helps our self-control, and self-control is so important for our whole life. Why did I want to break the fast? Mostly because I lacked self-control.

Well, one of the greatest aspects of Orthodox Christianity is that 1. it is a whole lifestyle and 2. few are perfect in this lifestyle, but our love for God is demonstrated by the effort to become more perfect in this lifestyle.

Trying to "make-up" for our errors is a reaction to guilt. I want to do the right thing, and end up doing not the right thing and I feel badly about it. To appease this guilt I try to make it up. We do this in all areas of our life. We do something stupid that affects our spouse, and later we feel badly about it and we try to make it up. But imagine if you didn't have to make it up. Imagine if you thought about the consequences of your actions and didn't do the thing that caused you to have to make up for something.

Making up for sins/errors does not do anything profitable for us. Making up for errors is a manipulative device with which we try to fool others and ourselves.

I have kids and I hate it when they bargain with me. "I will do this if you will give me that." I can't stand that and think it a very bad habit to have. I do not know of anyone that enjoys being bargained with. So why do we think that God would enjoy and accept it?

Making up for errors is not the same as seeking forgiveness. Forgiveness comes through earnest repentance. For example, if in the heat of an argument I say something hurtful to her. She is hurt and I feel badly afterward. By trying to make it up to her by doing the chores she would normally do and/or by buying flowers is more akin to bribing her for forgiveness. The point is that my error caused harm and no amount of making up will remove that harm. Even after she has forgiven me, that harm will still have occurred. However, we fool ourselves by thinking we can hide or eliminate the harm by making-up for it. (Of course I should do these other things if I put her and myself into this position, to try to help restore her, but it will never put us back to the place we were before the incident.)

In the case of fasting, the harm we are doing is two-fold. One is the harm we are doing to ourselves. By not practicing the art of self-control (only one aspect of fasting of course) we are harming ourselves by creating a precident behavior of giving into desire. We are harming our relationship with God because we are knowingly committing an error. These harms cannot be repaired by making up for this breach by fasting twice as hard.

Far worse, however, is that if we think that we can make up for errors committed, we are far more likely to commit the error or sin again. For me, this is the bottom line. We can talk about the harm of not fasting, we can discuss the necessity to fast, we can discuss forgiveness, but the most fallacy of the idea of making-up for errors is that instead of helping to bring us back into "line," it actually relaxes our inhibitions against committing the error in the first place.

Seeking forgiveness, and also the act of Confession within the Orthodox Church are not about making-up for the errors and sins we committed. It is about expressing remorse for the error, pledging to try to stomp out our desire to commit the error again, and bringing ourselves back into communion with God. Penance, if assigned at Confession, is not about making up for sins either. It is used as a method to help remind us of the consequences of sin and enlighten us to the possibilities of life without sin.

So for those that think that they can make up for their sins through another act, it would be better to spend the energy actively combating the error/sin rather than making up for it afterward.