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.