One thing I like to do is find stories around the web talking about Orthodox goings on. Some items are good, exciting, and have positive sentiments. Others are not so happy.
This article is kind of sad. It talks about the "oldest Russian Orthodox Church in North Carolina" that has only 4 members left (4 rather old members). One of my personality traits is that I am (overly?) sentimental. A church with a history from 1932 will soon have no one to care about it.
There is an organization that is mentioned in the article called "Partners for Sacred Places." While I don't know anything about this organization, it would be nice if there was something especially for Orthodox places of worship in the US and maybe more importantly other countries.
I find it immensely sad that centuries old churches in countries that may no longer have an thriving Orthodox population are in great disrepair. One one hand I see that times change, populations move, politics of a land change and so churches are abandoned. On the other hand, these churches are holy temples, consecrated to the service of God. Faithful people put great effort into building the community, both physical temple and spiritual life, only to have the community no longer with faithful members.
I suppose the ultimate questions are: should we put money into buildings that would not benefit the spiritual development of anyone? Or is the beauty of the physical manifestations of faith of universal support to the faithful throughout the generations?
Monday, December 17, 2007
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Divine Liturgy and Us
Wow, two posts in one year! Lets just say that its been a hard year all over.
This morning I happened to find a notebook on my desk. My wife was not up at the time and the notebook had my handwriting in it. I investigated the notebook and the first few pages were just throw-away notes. Then I got to a section that I had written more than 10 years ago.
These were notes I took when I went to the first clergy seminar that Bishop JOSEPH holds each year in his diocese. The first one was held 10 or 11 years ago, and although I am not major order clergy, I was allowed to attend (as are several other people who are not priests or deacons). The first pages of these notes were very sparse, and I was disappointed that I did not write more details. But then I got to pages that had more filled in. The notes were still sketchy, but at least they had some information that I could apply directly to my life. I thought I'd share a few of them here (if only in case I lose this notebook again).
1) We must transform ourselves from reading service books to praying the prayer.
2) Unless we become the subject of the prayer, it becomes a ritual. I f we pray ritualistically we have no salvation.
3) Because the service is holdy, we must perform the service in good spiritual mind and in seriousness.
4) Faith without knowledge may lead us into superstition. Knowledge without faith will lead us into secularism.
5) Our salvation is most important to His Grace (Bishop JOSEPH).
These points were made by a well-respected priest of the Antiochian Archdiocese to priests and deacons of the Los Angeles Diocese (well this talk actually pre-dates the formation of the diocese).
As a current choir director, though a very poor choir director, I have realized how hard it is to be the "responsible party" for some aspect of the service. I try hard to have the choir's parts of the service go well, well enough that people could forget about the choir. This doesn't happen often enough for me, but I try. The problem with all of this effort, is that I am concentrating on the rubrics or the ordo, but I am not concentrating the service itself. Certainly there is grace in being part of the workings of the liturgy, but at the end I am exhausted and left feeling I have missed the liturgy. I feel I am not fulfilling point 1 above.
Another interesting statement is point 5. Remembering that these statements were directed to priests, I think that statement that surounded this point was that priests need to work towards salvation so that they can lead others to find salvation.
This morning I happened to find a notebook on my desk. My wife was not up at the time and the notebook had my handwriting in it. I investigated the notebook and the first few pages were just throw-away notes. Then I got to a section that I had written more than 10 years ago.
These were notes I took when I went to the first clergy seminar that Bishop JOSEPH holds each year in his diocese. The first one was held 10 or 11 years ago, and although I am not major order clergy, I was allowed to attend (as are several other people who are not priests or deacons). The first pages of these notes were very sparse, and I was disappointed that I did not write more details. But then I got to pages that had more filled in. The notes were still sketchy, but at least they had some information that I could apply directly to my life. I thought I'd share a few of them here (if only in case I lose this notebook again).
1) We must transform ourselves from reading service books to praying the prayer.
2) Unless we become the subject of the prayer, it becomes a ritual. I f we pray ritualistically we have no salvation.
3) Because the service is holdy, we must perform the service in good spiritual mind and in seriousness.
4) Faith without knowledge may lead us into superstition. Knowledge without faith will lead us into secularism.
5) Our salvation is most important to His Grace (Bishop JOSEPH).
These points were made by a well-respected priest of the Antiochian Archdiocese to priests and deacons of the Los Angeles Diocese (well this talk actually pre-dates the formation of the diocese).
As a current choir director, though a very poor choir director, I have realized how hard it is to be the "responsible party" for some aspect of the service. I try hard to have the choir's parts of the service go well, well enough that people could forget about the choir. This doesn't happen often enough for me, but I try. The problem with all of this effort, is that I am concentrating on the rubrics or the ordo, but I am not concentrating the service itself. Certainly there is grace in being part of the workings of the liturgy, but at the end I am exhausted and left feeling I have missed the liturgy. I feel I am not fulfilling point 1 above.
Another interesting statement is point 5. Remembering that these statements were directed to priests, I think that statement that surounded this point was that priests need to work towards salvation so that they can lead others to find salvation.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Re-virginized ?
There is an article from Reuters that I saw on Yahoo today: "Muslim women in France regain virginity in clinics"
There are such quotes as: "She had her hymen re-sewn, technically making her a virgin again." And, "They have had sex already but are expected to be virgins at marriage..."
It is understandable the pressure that these women and girls have placed on them to conform to a certain cultural expectation. But this entire idea is disingenous at best and spiritually deformed at worst. I do not claim to know the understanding of Muslims regarding viriginity in Islam. However, my guess would be that it has something to do with the spiritual benefits of chastity. Hopefully I am not naive and that it does not have something more to do with possessiveness.
What I'd like to know is when the idea was formed that "intact hymen = virgin." Physiologically, it could be used to test if a woman has had intercourse in the past. But this test is highly flawed to begin with as there are a variety of reasons a hymen may not be intact unrelated to sexual intercourse. I pity the poor women in the past (and today) that were falsely accused of loose living simply because her hymen was not intact.
Being a virgin is like having never seen a movie. Once you have gone to a theatre and seen a movie, you can never again truthfully say that you have not seen a movie. Once you step out of the movie theatre, there is little that anyone can do to prove that you have seen a movie, but the fact still remains. Hymenoplasty may perfectly conceal the fact that a woman has had sex, but it can't change the fact that she has had sex.
Again, I can understand that a woman feels the need to conform to her culture's expectations. But let us not confuse terminology regarding a physical manifestation with one that is metaphysical or experiential. So the first quote is plain wrong. The only way you can technically be a virgin is if you are actually a virgin. Having a hymen or not does not change that, technically, physically or otherwise.
Thus clearing up the confusion, and having some idea of a definition of virginity, that is not related to some physical manifestation, I'd like to address the second quote. If someone is expected to be a virgin and are not, how is surgery going to change that fact. What is the purpose? To trick an unsuspecting husband? To "protect" unsuspecting parents and the family? What is the real purpose of virginity and why it is so essential the Muslims culture? If it is so important, what are the stumbling blocks for women retaining their true virginity?
Now I don't write about Islam, I write about my understand of Orthodox Christianity. We can learn about our own issues by seeing how others deal with the similar issues. In my 13 odd years of being a convert to Orthodoxy, I have come across a variety of understandings of chastity and virginity. It is a remarkable large topic for something that seems to simple in its definition. I'll summarize them below:
Complete, unconditional: This understanding is that all sex before marriage is unacceptable, both for males and females.
Boys will be boys: This understanding relates that it is hard to control boys' "hormones." It proscribes little if anything for males, but that sex before marriage is completely unacceptable for females. This could also be called "sowing the wild oats" and other euphamisms. But as a friend so crudely noted, "Who do you think they are screwing?" Apparently not someone of marriage material.
You can't fight it: This understanding is that teenagers and young adults are so sexually excited that we, as parents, aren't able to keep them from having sex. So we might as well not stigmatize them.
Now these three understandings are generalizations, but not by much. And also remember I have heard these positions by practicing Orthodox Christians. Now it is my understanding, belief that total, complete chastity was the only acceptable practice. That is, virginity until marriage. Unfortunately the reasons behind virginity are not clearly taught to the faithful. All we get is this strange "heaven" or "hell" understanding. If you're a virgin your "good," if not your "bad." This is a strange simplification of the truth reasonings behind virginity and chastity. So much more could be written, but I've already vered off my original post. So I'll save it for another post, hopefully soon.
There are such quotes as: "She had her hymen re-sewn, technically making her a virgin again." And, "They have had sex already but are expected to be virgins at marriage..."
It is understandable the pressure that these women and girls have placed on them to conform to a certain cultural expectation. But this entire idea is disingenous at best and spiritually deformed at worst. I do not claim to know the understanding of Muslims regarding viriginity in Islam. However, my guess would be that it has something to do with the spiritual benefits of chastity. Hopefully I am not naive and that it does not have something more to do with possessiveness.
What I'd like to know is when the idea was formed that "intact hymen = virgin." Physiologically, it could be used to test if a woman has had intercourse in the past. But this test is highly flawed to begin with as there are a variety of reasons a hymen may not be intact unrelated to sexual intercourse. I pity the poor women in the past (and today) that were falsely accused of loose living simply because her hymen was not intact.
Being a virgin is like having never seen a movie. Once you have gone to a theatre and seen a movie, you can never again truthfully say that you have not seen a movie. Once you step out of the movie theatre, there is little that anyone can do to prove that you have seen a movie, but the fact still remains. Hymenoplasty may perfectly conceal the fact that a woman has had sex, but it can't change the fact that she has had sex.
Again, I can understand that a woman feels the need to conform to her culture's expectations. But let us not confuse terminology regarding a physical manifestation with one that is metaphysical or experiential. So the first quote is plain wrong. The only way you can technically be a virgin is if you are actually a virgin. Having a hymen or not does not change that, technically, physically or otherwise.
Thus clearing up the confusion, and having some idea of a definition of virginity, that is not related to some physical manifestation, I'd like to address the second quote. If someone is expected to be a virgin and are not, how is surgery going to change that fact. What is the purpose? To trick an unsuspecting husband? To "protect" unsuspecting parents and the family? What is the real purpose of virginity and why it is so essential the Muslims culture? If it is so important, what are the stumbling blocks for women retaining their true virginity?
Now I don't write about Islam, I write about my understand of Orthodox Christianity. We can learn about our own issues by seeing how others deal with the similar issues. In my 13 odd years of being a convert to Orthodoxy, I have come across a variety of understandings of chastity and virginity. It is a remarkable large topic for something that seems to simple in its definition. I'll summarize them below:
Complete, unconditional: This understanding is that all sex before marriage is unacceptable, both for males and females.
Boys will be boys: This understanding relates that it is hard to control boys' "hormones." It proscribes little if anything for males, but that sex before marriage is completely unacceptable for females. This could also be called "sowing the wild oats" and other euphamisms. But as a friend so crudely noted, "Who do you think they are screwing?" Apparently not someone of marriage material.
You can't fight it: This understanding is that teenagers and young adults are so sexually excited that we, as parents, aren't able to keep them from having sex. So we might as well not stigmatize them.
Now these three understandings are generalizations, but not by much. And also remember I have heard these positions by practicing Orthodox Christians. Now it is my understanding, belief that total, complete chastity was the only acceptable practice. That is, virginity until marriage. Unfortunately the reasons behind virginity are not clearly taught to the faithful. All we get is this strange "heaven" or "hell" understanding. If you're a virgin your "good," if not your "bad." This is a strange simplification of the truth reasonings behind virginity and chastity. So much more could be written, but I've already vered off my original post. So I'll save it for another post, hopefully soon.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Response to a Roman Catholic viewpoint
I tried to post feedback to a Roman Catholic oriented website, but their feedback mechanism was broken, so I thought I'd post it here. Not some of my better writing, but be that as it may...
In regards to: "Mount Athos objects
to ecumenical openness"
Although certainly from the Roman Catholic perspective, this article fails to understand the true issues within the Orthodox Church regarding the Roman Catholic church. I am a convert from Roman Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy. To say that there is a prerequisite acknowledgement that if you are Orthodox you specifically are not in communion with the Roman Pope, is quite correct, and not at all strange. If the Orthodox were in communion with Rome, we would be Roman Catholic. Conversely to intimate that Roman Catholics are in some way in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople (let alone other Patriarchs and Metropolitans), is quite strange indeed. The issue of communion is that communion means two or more parties share a common understanding and agreement to a set of ideas. This simply isn't the case between the RC and the Orthodox.
The person that espouses ecumenical dialogue always assumes the "other" side will see the error of their ways and join them. This is the unspoken understanding of both sides. A Roman Catholic would most likely expect the Orthodox to join in the Roman understanding of hierarchy (i.e. monarchy in the Pope). The Orthodox also think of the result of ecumenism as the Catholics joining the Orthodox both in hierarchy and in theology (Catholics abandoning that which the Orthodox find foreign, strange, and/or evil). You can say your are an ecumenist and want communion only if you are willing to abandon what you know now and accept what others teach (i.e. the Orthodox). Otherwise you are an imperialist. It is for this reason the Orthodox do not hold out much hope in ecumenical dialogue and bilateral relations. We do not think that Rome will ever change. Unfortunately Rome thinks (and has always thought and acted that) the Orthodox will change. There is a distinct possibility that the only reason for the Patriarch of Constantinople to act in the manner he acted is to try to garner favor for something else. Mt. Athos might fear a situation not unlike the Byzantine emperor asking for the West's help against invading Muslim armies, only to have Constantinople sacked, and Orthodox churches looted.
In addition, because of the writers lack understanding of the tenents of Orthodoxy, he thinks the monks at Mt. Athos are part of some kooky ultra-religious sect of Orthodoxy. There is no Islamic-style Wahabi school of thought to which they adhere. They are simplying seeing bad intentions followed through with bad practice (on the part of the Patriarch of Constantinople) and which to correct his understanding. To welcome a schismatic or heretic (and such schisms and heresies all Roman Catholic converts to Orthodoxy must renounce) as a canonical bishop is indeed shocking to most Orthodox.
In most of Orthodoxy, including the monks at Mt. Athos, communion with Rome can only mean that Roman Catholics renounce erroneous teachings and be rejoined to the traditional Orthodox faith, Christology, eccesiology, etc.
This shouldn't be shocking to a Roman Catholic, as they should think the Orthodox should become RC.
In regards to: "Mount Athos objects
to ecumenical openness"
Although certainly from the Roman Catholic perspective, this article fails to understand the true issues within the Orthodox Church regarding the Roman Catholic church. I am a convert from Roman Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy. To say that there is a prerequisite acknowledgement that if you are Orthodox you specifically are not in communion with the Roman Pope, is quite correct, and not at all strange. If the Orthodox were in communion with Rome, we would be Roman Catholic. Conversely to intimate that Roman Catholics are in some way in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople (let alone other Patriarchs and Metropolitans), is quite strange indeed. The issue of communion is that communion means two or more parties share a common understanding and agreement to a set of ideas. This simply isn't the case between the RC and the Orthodox.
The person that espouses ecumenical dialogue always assumes the "other" side will see the error of their ways and join them. This is the unspoken understanding of both sides. A Roman Catholic would most likely expect the Orthodox to join in the Roman understanding of hierarchy (i.e. monarchy in the Pope). The Orthodox also think of the result of ecumenism as the Catholics joining the Orthodox both in hierarchy and in theology (Catholics abandoning that which the Orthodox find foreign, strange, and/or evil). You can say your are an ecumenist and want communion only if you are willing to abandon what you know now and accept what others teach (i.e. the Orthodox). Otherwise you are an imperialist. It is for this reason the Orthodox do not hold out much hope in ecumenical dialogue and bilateral relations. We do not think that Rome will ever change. Unfortunately Rome thinks (and has always thought and acted that) the Orthodox will change. There is a distinct possibility that the only reason for the Patriarch of Constantinople to act in the manner he acted is to try to garner favor for something else. Mt. Athos might fear a situation not unlike the Byzantine emperor asking for the West's help against invading Muslim armies, only to have Constantinople sacked, and Orthodox churches looted.
In addition, because of the writers lack understanding of the tenents of Orthodoxy, he thinks the monks at Mt. Athos are part of some kooky ultra-religious sect of Orthodoxy. There is no Islamic-style Wahabi school of thought to which they adhere. They are simplying seeing bad intentions followed through with bad practice (on the part of the Patriarch of Constantinople) and which to correct his understanding. To welcome a schismatic or heretic (and such schisms and heresies all Roman Catholic converts to Orthodoxy must renounce) as a canonical bishop is indeed shocking to most Orthodox.
In most of Orthodoxy, including the monks at Mt. Athos, communion with Rome can only mean that Roman Catholics renounce erroneous teachings and be rejoined to the traditional Orthodox faith, Christology, eccesiology, etc.
This shouldn't be shocking to a Roman Catholic, as they should think the Orthodox should become RC.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Maybe it is just me
A long time ago, my sister-in-law developed Bell's Palsy. Some years later, my wife developed Bell's Palsy. Soon after that my boss developed Bell's Palsy. When relating this to my then current boss, who, like most people, had never heard of it before he developed it, he said jokingly: "Maybe there is something about you that makes the people in your life get Bell's Palsy!"
Now compare this to my life in the Orthodox Church. The priest that christmated me when converting to the Orthodox Church, left the Church a couple of years later. The priest that married me, left the Church, and then shortly after died of brain cancer. The deacon that served at my wedding, left the Church, and then died of a massive heart attack.
Now the priest that that brought me to Orthodoxy, homilized at my wedding, baptized my first-born, has now recently left the Church.
I don't know, but I'm beginning to believe that my former boss was on to something. Maybe there is something about me that causes Orthodox clergy to leave the Church!
Now compare this to my life in the Orthodox Church. The priest that christmated me when converting to the Orthodox Church, left the Church a couple of years later. The priest that married me, left the Church, and then shortly after died of brain cancer. The deacon that served at my wedding, left the Church, and then died of a massive heart attack.
Now the priest that that brought me to Orthodoxy, homilized at my wedding, baptized my first-born, has now recently left the Church.
I don't know, but I'm beginning to believe that my former boss was on to something. Maybe there is something about me that causes Orthodox clergy to leave the Church!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)