I’m still reading Ross Douthat’s Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics. As noted before, I’m enjoying it, but, as an Orthodox Christian, I’m struggling.

One of the most wonderful parts of the Catholicism offered by the current occupant of the Chair of St Peter is a return to the patristic pleroma: instead of quoting a couple of Latin writers as read by Aquinas, Pope Benedict XVI loves to cite as many of the fathers as possible in support of which ever theological point he’s making. In this Benedict seems to return Catholicism to a mental (at least) reunion with the rest of the Church.

Douthat seems to revert back to that older school: Augustine wrote, Aquinas Read. It is precisely this reliance on Sola Augustina that creates “the Western Problem” as defined not only by the Pious Nutcases among the Orthodox, but also the more sane ones. In addition to his Augustine over ice with a dash of Aquinas, Douthat prefers to include Protestants by adding a Calvin olive on a toothpick so that he can take it out of the mix, now and then, to be “really Catholic” again.

St Augustine of Hippo is on the Orthodox Calendar of Saints: but most of his writings, while valued for their metanoina, are not read as theologically orthodox on their own. His bizarre, nearly-gnostic ideas about the flesh and original sin are not accepted at all in the East. As an old internet hack once said: 100% of the Fathers are 85% Orthodox. Augustine less-so, when taken by himself.

And dude: the only thing Orthodox about Calvin is his first name.

Barely done with the first chapter and while I agree with the writer’s cultural points – I think Mid-Century Mayberry, RFD, was much more comfortable and blessed than the post-9/11 world crafted by Bush and Obama – I disagree with where I think he’s taking the argument: the solution is (seemingly) a Christianist Taliban that allows in the name of Christian Charity for everyone else be happy here, too.

In counterpoint to the idea of biblical literalism (which assumed the bible dropped whole-cloth from the sky) the Church has offered a typological or iconographic reading of marriage, a sacramental idea: that the marriage is an “outward and visible sign of an inward and visible grace”, but in the west we are used to assuming that “outward sign” is the wedding itself and that, somehow, the “inward grace” has to do with permission to have sex. In the East, however, that is not the case. There are no vows and, in no way, it the marriage “done” by the priest or the ceremony involved. Read the prayers: in a sense the western-style “wedding” – vowing of love, etc – is done by the couple at some point in their relationship, before or after the ceremony. The gathered community is there only to pray God’s blessing on what is being done. Why?

Read on…

I’m so very used to hearing – over and over – about the HUGE difference between our Orthodox understanding of the nature of Humanity after our Fallen First Parents’ sin. Pious Orthodox prefer to refer to something called “Ancestral Sin” The OCA draws the line thusly:

With regard to original sin, the difference between Orthodox Christianity and the West may be outlined as follows:

In the Orthodox Faith, the term “original sin” refers to the “first” sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the “consequences” of sin, the chief of which is death. Here the word “original” may be seen as synonymous with “first.” Hence, the “original sin” refers to the “first sin” in much the same way as “original chair” refers to the “first chair.”

In the West, humanity likewise bears the “consequences” of the “original sin” of Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise “guilty” of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term “Original Sin” here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as consequence is involved.

In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death.

Read on…

I’ve just finished reading the Introduction to Ross Douthat’s Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics. I’m enjoying it, but, as an Orthodox Christian, I’m struggling with a bit of unintended irony in the text. As he talks about the difference between orthodox and heretical Christianity he keeps citing as orthodox things that Orthodoxy considers heretical or, at least, not really Orthodox. At worst they are non-Christian.

His fixation on a Calvinist (rather than Orthodox-Catholic) reading of “Original Sin” and humanity’s depravity, and the idea of a “Christian Consensus” that doesn’t include the East seems, at best, myopic.

At times he switches from a secular, political justification for Traditional Religion, to a religious justification for Conservative, Right Wing Politics. He does so willy-nilly without apology so it feels rather bait-and-switch.

Again, just the first pages of reading. I may be proved wrong…

The argument for “Biblical marriage” by those opposed to gay marriage is often subverted by supporters of the same by pointing out the ideas in the above graphic: that marriage in the Bible is a multi-faceted idea, at best. All of the Patriarchs – Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – as well as, sundry others, engaged in Polygamy for cultural reasons, etc. So, to counteract the idea of “Biblical marriage” the response is often “Which Biblical one do you want to emulate?”

This is not, however, the best response as it is not a theologically engaged response and it draws (I think wrongly) on the prime idea of biblical fundamentalists: that the Bible, whole cloth, dropped from the sky and is equally and literally true in all cases and texts. Church history and Biblical criticism refute this claim and it is important not to buy into it as one attempts to refute it at the same time.

Contrary to Biblical literalists, the Bible presents an evolutionary view of marriage: a revelation of “What God Wants™” as one-man-one-woman and the slow weaving of that desire into the Hebrew Culture despite the fact that adjoining cultures were often polygamous. The slow and eventual acceptance by the Hebrews of this new system of monogamy is a triumph of a new morality over an older one. One cultural ideal of “what’s normal” was changed into a “new normal” and that claiming divine support.

In other words, the “Polygamy” argument is not the best way to react to the supporters of “biblical marriage” because what a good, historical read of the Bible shows is: Yes, there were some folks who were polygamous and no, they were not punished for it. But the one-man-one-woman model won out in the end, as more people came to believe and support the divine-revelation of God’s approved model. In later years, falling back into Polygamy was seen as abandoning God’s plan; backwards evolution, as it were, must be avoided. So we must continue to fight for that, even today.

If one is a believer, what we see is that God takes what we offer and uses it for our salvation – moving ever towards a higher ideal. But more on that in a later post.

Even if one is not a believer in divine revelation, what the Bible shows is a culture evolving to acceptance of a new and different morality despite serious peer-cultural pressure to hold on to a different, older morality. Eventually, the Heterosexual Mongamy of the Hebrews becomes as much a cultural hallmark of being in the tribe as circumcision: He must be Jewish, he only has one wife. The Bible and Polygamy is a red herring here. Failure to treat it as such puts supporters of different family models into an odd position of Biblical Literalism from whence the other side has already won.

So I went to the Doctor: first time since 1994, the year I had back surgery and met Ally Sheedy. I keep pushing that date back, it may be, in fact, spring of 1993 or even earlier: I was laid off in 1991, and I think I had the surgery before getting laid off. But, all that aside, I’ve not been to the Doctor since.

So I went.

Yeah, I had a lot of fear, but I kinda braced for all the possible bad news and screwed my courage to the sticking place and tried not to be sick and pale with fear.

Good thing I didn’t chicken out.

The only thing wrong is my weight – and a couple of dependent problems like pre-diabetes and moderately annoying blood pressure (which is kind of serious because my family tends to low BP). Both of these are manageable through my weight. Exercise and healthy eating. No HIV, no cancer, no long-dormant STDs or genetic bombs.

I was nearly crying when I told Fr John that I felt like I’d been given a chance to start over, do it right. It was Holy Week: he said I was being give the joy of Pascha early, but I had the same experience when I met with my Health Educator to go over my diet. He asked why now? What would make me stick to this? And I nearly sobbed as I told him how happy I was to start over and try to be healthy.

So I need to manage my weight better, well, in fact, I need to get rid of a lot of it: 50lbs or more. I’ve set a goal of 60, actually – by next March. I’ve started tracking my calories an my exercise and also moving the intake around. I was surprised to learn that I take more than half of my daily calories at suppertime. I rarely eat enough calories to, in theory, even maintain my weight: but I do so in such a very unhealthy way. So management and some exercise.

And some prayers.

But right now mostly prayers of thanksgiving.

There’s an old hymn, one of my favourites, actually:

In Christ there is no East or West,
in him no South or North,
but one great fellowship of love
throughout the whole wide earth.

In him shall true hearts everywhere
their high communion find,
his service is the golden cord
close-binding all mankind.

Join hands, disciples of the faith,
whate’er your race may be!
Who serves my Father as a son
is surely kin to me.

In Christ now meet both East and West,
in him meet South and North,
all Christly souls are one in him,
throughout the whole wide earth.

It misses the point by a longshot, however. Written at a time when there was a need for national reconciliation, it talks about the “Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man” rather than what the Orthodox would say is salvation of humanity in God.

Read on…

This is a post from the “WayBack” machine… it includes a post (in the blockquotes) from even way-er back. This is on my mind again, so I’ve also slightly edited it to bring it up to date. I’ve posted this in SF and in Asheville, but here I am again, in SF, thinking about it. The original post is here, along with a very good discussion.

Fr. Peter was talking about Urban Monks who actually have jobs, do work in the community and get out and about doing things. This called to mind an old post of mine, posted below, where I talked about the same things.

Read on…

This is a bleg – a blog post asking for money.

My friend Karen challenged me to celebrate birthday #50 in full style. So: I want to stay at a nice pensione for a couple of weeks. I want food. I want church services. I want gregorian chant. Three coins in the Fountain.

In short: I want Rome in August, 2014, for my 50th.

A centurian or two would be nice too, any Titus Pullo free that month?

You can contribute to the party fund using my SmartyPig account. I am 11% of the way to my goal…