Orthodox Opinion

When we are no longer ethnic

2008-06-09T08:56:00.000-07:00

What will happen to our churches when a majority of the membership does not have an ethnic lineage similar to the ethnic jurisdiction to which the church belongs?

I was at a Greek festival yesterday. It was a church to which I had never been, but desired to support it. I am not Greek, but I love all things "ethnic." In reading the program for the festival, it was noted that the ethnic makeup of the parish was 40% Greek, and 60% non-Greek. This made me think about future years. This church has been growing mostly through converts. These converts most likely do not convert because the church was Greek, but because the faith was Orthodoxy. What will happen though if or when this parish becomes Greek in name only? What will happen to the Greek festival when the church has only a token number of Greeks, who may be too old to teach the children the dances, or play in the Greek band?

I was reminded of my though when I came across an article on the internet about this same Greek/non-Greek split in a Greek church in Mississippi. The parish council president said "We have more converts than Greeks." The priest of this church is a new priest and a convert. When will these churches, who are attracting converts and currently have more converts than Greeks, lose their Greek heritage or traditions?

This phenomenon in the Orthodox Church in the USA and other non-traditionally Orthodox countries, may not be new, but it is certainly a issue that will become far more wide spread. As the Orthodox Church gains recognition within the USA, it is inevitable that many churches outside of major metropolitan areas will trend towards fewer first, second or third generation immigrants. The first-wave of Americans that will enter these churches will certainly be indoctrinated in the ways of the ethnic traditions and festivals. But what will happen in two or three generations of Americans? Will these churches be able to maintain traditions when there is not an explicit cultural connection to the tradition?

There is already precedent for this "loss" in the churches in America. How? Language. Now, don't get me wrong, I think it is imperative that the language of the Church is the language of the people. But how many churches started in America with services completely in Greek, Arabic, or Russian? How many still exist? Why this change? Because the Bishops and the priests saw that people who had never spoken Greek or Russian or Arabic were entering the church, and they too needed to be served by the church by teaching about God in the language they understood. To me, this is the great beauty of the feast of Pentecost. Not only did Jesus save me through His death and resurrection, but He desired that all nations be baptized. Speaking the languages people understood was the first step.

There are people in these proud ethnic churches that lament that their children do not know the language of their ancestors. That they do not care for the traditions they have held. This is the first sign. True, there will always be those that greatly love their heritage and will seek to instill at least some aspect of it in their children and neighbors. But will it be enough to keep the Greek festivals?

In the two parishes of which I have been a member, both were under the jurisdiction of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese or North America. Essentially a church of Arabic ethnic heritage. In the first church, it was started by mostly converts, and I was gratefully a member at the founding of the church. There was only one or two "Arabic" families in this church when it was founded. They were overwhelmed by the number of convert families that founded the church. We also had as many Russians and Greeks as Arabs. We had a convert priest that artfully and enthusiastically included as many ethnic traditions as possible, even traditions from cultures that were not part of our church. This was and is a glorious thing! As converts we felt connection through the traditions to the ancient church. The wonderful traditions also had an effect of reinforcing the spiritual understanding that was the catalyst for the tradition.

The second parish of which I became a member and am currently a member, has no ethnic members: 100% convert. There is a sadness for me that I do not get to learn about how people of other cultures approached Orthodoxy, just by participating in their traditions. There is a sadness that we do not celebrate St. Barbara's day with the traditional cookies. Or celebrate St. George Day. Or celebrate St. Nicholas day with a particular tradition.

Our church does have its own traditions, but these traditions, as lovely as they are, are limited to our church (or to the nearby churches). What is great about the Greek or Arabic or Russian traditions, is that they span churches, nations, peoples, and languages.

I hope that as a church in America, we never lose the various ethnic traditions, and never lose sight of the fact that they can be used to bring Orthodoxy to life. Maybe in typical American fashion, our churches, no matter what ethnicity or lack thereof, will investigate and encourage church traditions that we have been given as a gift. In addition, maybe in two or three generations, we will have a set of traditions that are typically American Orthodox, that will reflect our shared heritage.

The "New" Kosovo

2008-02-19T01:26:00.000-08:00

It is with extreme sadness that I learn that Kosovo has been recognized as an independent state. I am not sad that people may get the right to better control their own government. I am not sad that people may get the right to live in peace. In normal circumstances, these would be great achievements. President Bush stated that independance and recognition will bring peace to the Balkans. I am not sure which history book he is reading, but it is not the one I read.

Now granted, I am not a history major, nor do I have a particularly great understanding of the Balkans. I do know that by meddling in another sovereign country's territory is not going to be particularly well thought of. Siding with a relatively modern ethnic majority in a particular piece of land, land occupied for a very long time by another ethnic group is surely not going to bring peace.

And what peace are we talking about anyway? Peace in Kosovo? Who will get peace? Who is making war? Serbian's aren't making war since the NATO bombing. So ethnic Albanian's can't be the one to need peace. How about the ethnic Serbian people that live in Kosovo? Are they committing atrocities? It would be hard to imagine 10% of a particular population committing atrocitites on 90% of the population, at least not for very long. Rather, let us look at the majority of ethnic crimes being committed in the Kosovo region. Hundreds of churches have been destroyed or badly damaged. Ethnic Serbs have been forced through violent intimidation to abandon areas where ethnic Serbs have lived for hundreds of years. Monasteries which have a population of monks that feast on prayer and love for mankind, have been destroyed and the monks have been scattered. Peace for whom? If there was to be a peace, it should have been for the Serbs.

Little does President Bush, and the rest of the major European countries (except Spain) realize what precident has been set. Imaging Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and other states or regions that have a large population of Spanish as the primary language residents. Even more think of those residents that have never wanted to become American citizens, or have been blocked from becoming citizens. Are they people without a country? In 50 years will they resemble the Albanians that fled from their homeland to a country that could house them in relative peace and modest prosperity? If so, what if they demand a homeland. What if they demand a government that understands them, or is representative of their ethnicity? What if a majority or a super-majority of a region of the USA votes for independence from the USA? The precident says that they should be granted that as a right.

Someone may counter that this is not the same thing as in Kosovo. The Serbs lost the "moral authority" to govern Kosovo because of violence against the ethnic population. Does anyone remember the US civil war? That population (the Southern states) may not have differed ethnically from the other, but this argument isn't really about ethnicity. It is about the right of a people to decide who should govern them. The North could be Serbia desiring to keep its territory and protect its ideology. The South could be Kosovo and its people the ethnic Albanians trying to keep their ideology. This precedent would indicate that the North should have let the South govern its affairs and allow them to become independent.

The European powers that supported independence for Kosovo do not themselves have issues with ethnic separatism (at the moment, but just think about the influx of ethno-religious Muslims immigants). Spain, on the other hand, has some issues with this. Will the Basque in Spain see this as their chance to gain autonomy or independence? Spain is understandably reluctant to support another ethnicities independence when that precedent can be used against them sooner or later.

The United States of America is in a little different situation. It has a huge population of people that wish to maintain very strong ethnic ties to their homeland. A desire I certainly understand and in general support. However, I also support the concept of the current territorial integrity of the USA. There are many people who do not. This gives them quite a wonderful wedge against the USA on the world political scene.

The precedent set is not really a precedent, but actually a continuation of a very old axiom, "might makes right." This is also known as the golden rule: "he who has the gold makes the rule." Can anyone guess what happens when these axioms or rules are exercised? War. War of all stripes. Rather than gaining peace, the USA has victimized a people. It has alienated ethnicities, spread distrust, and solidified the necessity of alliances not previously needed.

With all due respect, Mr. President, "peace in the Balkans?", you must be insane! While I would like to be wrong, I am certain that this line will go down as Bush's most foolhearty statement ever made.

Now, when are we going to start bombing our NATO ally, Turkey since I believe that they have lost the moral authority to govern the Kurds?

Historic Churches

2007-12-17T10:45:00.000-08:00

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?

Divine Liturgy and Us

2007-12-15T07:44:00.000-08:00

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.

Re-virginized ?

2007-04-30T14:19:00.000-07:00

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.

Response to a Roman Catholic viewpoint

2007-04-13T16:32:00.000-07:00

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.

Maybe it is just me

2007-02-20T13:43:00.000-08:00

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!

How could this happen?

2005-12-14T16:39:00.000-08:00

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

2005-12-12T17:54:00.000-08:00

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

2005-12-09T17:17:00.000-08:00

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

2005-12-09T08:54:00.000-08:00

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

2005-12-08T11:08:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-16T21:27:00.000-08:00

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

2005-05-20T10:46:00.000-07:00

(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

2005-01-19T17:25:00.000-08:00

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.

Contributing to the sins of others

2004-09-12T20:14:00.000-07:00

This morning I was with my family seeing His Grace Bishop Joseph being Enthroned as the first Bishop of the diocese of Los Angeles and the West. It was a great service and it was finally nice to see Metropolitan Philip close up in person.

However, as always seems to happen when you in a different place among a large group of different people, someone always seems to get bent out of shape. And as happens to me a lot, I was the one to get pushed out of shape.

The setup: three young children, my wife and I, and a church with about 800 people in it. It is a hot day in a church without air conditioning. I'm in a full suit (not my cassock since it isn't my church and I wasn't serving). The church is about 70% full with all pews (I dislike pews, but oh well) having at least two people. We picked a pew that would fit us all even though it meant that we would sit in the middle of the pew, which I hate, because of a minor case of claustophobia. Everything was fine until the rest of the pew filled up, save one seat.

Shortly after a person filled the seat and even though I thought my claustophobia would flare up, it didn't and I was ok. If you know young children, it can be quite hard to control them in confined spaces for very long. This is part of the problem with pews, but that is a different story. Fortunately this day my children truly blessed us with modal behavior. It could have been real ugly, but everyone made the best of the situation.

The problem started with that last space. The person that filled it, left briefly and returned with another person, the spouse. Not to be mysterious, but I am leaving the gender of the person out intentionally. Now pews are quite limiting. If there is no room, there is no more room, period. This being a well attended service, with overflow in the fellowship hall, people were not spread out in the pews, as might normally be the case. Where these people expected to sit was beyond me, but they slide into place anyway. How they managed, I'm not sure. Maybe the people on the other side squeezed more to accommodate them. However, this was only the start of the problem.

The issue involves my children. I am a quite defensive parent and I do not like when my children are not taken into consideration by the people around them. This is the beginning of my sin.

Progressively, the couple seemed to spread out so that one of my children was now forced to sit in the pew behind where I was standing. This obviously was not a great position to be in for any of us. As a family we tried to accommodate them by squeezing more, but by that time I was already pouring with sweat (well maybe not pouring, but quite sweaty). But the couple did not seem to relent.

Now I am somewhat passive-aggressive. I do not like making a fuss and certainly not in a very public place in the middle of a religious service. But I was getting bent out of shape, both for the couple thinking that two people could fit in a space that really was only big enough for a single person. Second, my child was on the receiving end of the big squeeze. This led to my sin of anger directed to these people.

The phrase "misery loves company" comes to mind here. Sometimes it makes us feel better to tell others why we are angry about our problems. I think it has to do with wanting our feelings to be acknowledged and vindicated. Sharing this misery is one of the gifts of marriage... to an extent. Having someone with which to share your feelings and have the acknowledge them and share them is a great gift of marriage. The Orthodox marriage server even talks about the joys being doubled and sorrows halved by our spouses. Being in a Godly place at them time, although it didn't curb my initial sin, it did help me to curb my desire to spread my sin to another person.

My wife is great. She would defend me and defend my feelings and try to assuage my bad feelings. She would validate my feelings and share in my feelings as well. In this case, this would be bad. I was just about to complain to her about the situation and I caught myself and realized that I did need to add to her sin with the sin of my own!

Words and thoughts can be powerful and dangerous things. Complaining is particularly dangerous. To complain starts with discontent and even anger. Anger is most often not righteous. Maybe I could be justified in being upset. But I don't think so. Part of this sin is caused by my low tolerance for frustration. This combined with my social unease in telling people that I need them to do something different than what they are doing, causes an escalating frustration which leads to anger. Since I became Orthodox, I have better learned to control this anger cycle. I have obviously not completed my journey to the solution.

By complaining to another person about other people, is dangerous for both people. For the complainer it is dangerous because they seek to have their complaints, sometimes a sin, validated. Seeking to have a sin validated as normal and right is especially bad for our spiritual health. Spreading this to another person, especially a person whom you know will take your side by default, is spiritually dangerous for them as well. I think this transference of sin is contributing to the sins of the other person.

At the end time, when we are called to account for our sins, we will have enough "explaining" to do for our own sins. What will we say for the sins of someone else. For every sin we contribute, what other sins do those sins create in the other person? Are we willing to take responsibility for those sins? If that person is your loved one and you are not allowed to take responsibility for those sins, how would you feel knowing those sins where on account of you?

My own thoughts are the sins that we contribute to others are more serious then the sin you commit yourself. Both are sins. But if and when you repent for the original sin, how do you recall that sin from the other person? You can't. Your sin has now spread like a virus and could spread further. The further is spreads, the less influence your repentance can have on the situation.

The better course is to try not to contribute your sins to others. I realized this at the right time, just before contributing it to my wife. But in truth, not only did I not contribute my sin, but by realizing the consequences and not propagating my sin, it actually alleviated my anger. I still have to repent for the original sin, but I am much happier that no one else was harmed by that sin.

Memorial and rememberance of the dead

2004-08-24T09:52:00.000-07:00

Today on my way to work, I passed a big-rig (lorry) for a sand and gravel company. On the back of the trailer, someone painted "In memory of Gary ...".

Obviously Gary meant a lot to someone at the company. This person also had the authority or permission from someone of authority to paint this memorial. I wondered who was this person, what did he do, what made him a source of rememberance?

Beyond that, I though about the temporary nature of the memorial. When the company decides to repaint the trailer, will they also repaint the memorial? When the company sells the trailer or it gets destroyed, will they paint the memorial on another trailer or in some other place or form?

Finally, when the person to whom Gary was important leaves the company and the last vestige of any corporate memory of Gary is gone, whom will carry on this rememberance? Who will attest to the importance of Gary.

I don't mean to be overly melodramatic, but this idea of rememberance is important, more than we think about. For instance, your work directly affects the company you work for. They pay you to make that contribution. You can take pride in the contribution. However when you leave the company, how long will people remember your contribution. How long will that fact that you ever worked there be in the company memory? Certainly the amount of time has to do with how important you really were, or how long your contributions actually affect the company after your departure. But my guess for "normal" employees, that it is a couple of years at best.

To me this is sad. I worked long and hard at my last company. But it has been almost 4 years since I left. There are maybe 4 people still at the company that would remember me and maybe only one or two of my pieces of software that are still used... but used by people that never knew me. All of my hard work had no lasting effect. This may seem a little egomaniacal, but I am slightly overstating the idea for emphasis.

A yet sadder circumstance would be that of cemetaries and gravestones. Near where I live, there was a cemetery that had fallen into disrepair. Around 1965, the county decided that it didn't like having a cemetery that was full of weeds and where seemingly nobody cared that it was even there. Instead of fixing up the cemetery or trying to find a caretaker, they removed all headstones (some 5 feet high of rare solid marble) "dumped" them in a nearby dry creekbed, and made the cemetery into a park. Granted most of the bodies were buried their in the 1850's so there would be little if anything to exhume and rebury, but this was quite shocking to me.

Still, when we die and the people that cared for us die, who will remember us? Who will care that we lived. Who will care about us? Likely no one. Harsh as this sounds, it is inescapable that our current society only cares about what is current. I am as guilty as anyone. Some may question, though, why even bother? Beyond our desire to be remembered as important, why does it matter to be remembered?

For us, we can show our love (something that transcends life and death) by rememberance. This is one reason we have cemeteries. My sister's husband died (he was just 34) while an on-duty Califonia Highway Patrol Officer. She and her husband seemed to be utilitarian people, not particularly religious. He wanted to be cremated. I was with her when she made the decision to bury him instead. She said that she would feel better to have a place to "visit" him, than just some vase on the mantle. We supported her decision because knowing him, he would have wanted her to be happy; he would want her to do what is best for her. She and their daughter can physically express their love for him through a visit to the cemetery.

Orthodox Christians pray for those who have died. We do it not because we think we can change how the person lived their life (although time is a funny thing). We do it as an act of love for the person, to tell God that this person meant something to us and to ask mercy for this person at the final judgement. God's mercy is freely offered and unbounded. If we pray for people in this temporary world and expect God's favorable response, why would death seem to limit our prayer. Love is not something created in this world, for God is Love. Love trancends death. Gary was loved by someone and they wanted to show that love to others and made a memorial for him.

The Church is the ultimate organization to remember people. The Church has no end. Though a corporation does not remember you when you leave, the Church does. The Orthodox Church keeps a list of those who have passed away. It remembers them at every Divine Liturgy (Eucharistic service).

Our prayer is more than simply asking for mercy. Our prayer is a sign of respect and love. Our prayer is as much for us as it is for the person for whom we pray. Expressing love we show the true nature for which God created us. If God hears our prayers for those who are still alive, why would he not hear our prayers for those who are alive in Christ?

It is nice to know that someone will remember me when I am dead, and all those that cared for me are gone. That I will matter to people who never knew me. That I will be cared for simple because I finished the race.

May your memory be eternal, Gary.

About my thoughts

2004-08-04T15:51:00.000-07:00

I am always coming up with new ideas and opinions. Some about society, many about Orthodox Christianity. So I decided to publish them via a blog.

I am an Orthodox Christian living in the USA. I am a member of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. I am a member of a minor clergy order called a Subdeacon, but not because I am particularly intelligent or holy. However, I am very opinionated!

As a disclaimer, my opinions may not reflect those of the Church in general, or the Archdiocese in particular. I do not claim to have deep theological knowledge. My opinions stem from a common sense understanding of Orthodox Christianity (herein simply referred to as Orthodoxy) and society in general. I expect that there will be many differences in opinion, and I am always open to hearing them and changing my own opinion if convinced.

If you would like to solicit my opinion about society or Orthodoxy, just post a comment.