The Cross has been banned in school, a sign of the times? [Archive]

Scott Pierson

22-08-2006, 03:04 AM

Sadly the same thing happens here in the United States as well. It is sad that the devil can make his presence so obvious in lands that nominally at least are majority Christian. In the US there are organizations such as the ACLU who would like nothing better then to remove any public display of love or loyalty to Christ. The devil must really love the whole drive to divorce God and the precepts of Christian morality from school, public life, and the government.

I will pray for the Christians at that school, that God might grant them victory. thank you for bringing this up. I think it would be good for a student who isnt Christian say a jew ,muslim, or wiccan to wear one of their religious symbols and see if the same thing happens to them.. if not you would have pretty good proof that it is specifically targeting Christians. Last Christmas a school had a picture of a menorah and star of david and another poster of a Christmass tree and the school made them take down the Christmass tree because it was a "religous symbol" lol. How many people venerate (or consider a holy symbol) the Christmas tree:rolleyes: . Some schools wont even allow "Christmas colors" and snow flakes.

Olga

22-08-2006, 05:56 AM

It is interesting to note that the Christian denominations which voiced their concerns on this ban were Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Uniting churches. (For those who may not know, the Uniting Church was formed in Australia some 30 years ago from a merger between the Methodist, Congregational and Presbyterian churches.) Where were the representatives of the Orthodox Church, of whatever "nationality"? This is particularly ironic, as Melbourne, the capital of the state of Victoria, has the largest population of people of Greek ancestry outside Thessaloniki, if not Athens itself.

Dare I suggest that the girl at the centre of this controversy need not stop wearing her cross, as she can wear it hidden by her clothes, thus bypassing the ban. There is something to be said in wearing one's cross against one's body, it gives a greater feeling of closeness to the cross and all that it represents.

Irene

22-08-2006, 08:08 AM

I saw the girl wearing her Cross on television and it is a small and discreet, most people wouldn't notice that she was wearing it. The girl was neatly dressed and in tears because wearing her Cross is an important part of who she is and what she believes in.

It is probably not a comfort at all, but, before the story reached the media, at the same school that banned the Cross, a Greek Orthodox girl had already applied for and been granted an exemption to wear her Orthodox Cross to school.

In Christ
irene

Chrissi

22-08-2006, 10:15 AM

It is probably not a comfort at all, but, before the story reached the media, at the same school that banned the Cross, a Greek Orthodox girl had already applied for and been granted an exemption to wear her Orthodox Cross to school.

It is sad that an exemption is needed in order to wear a symbol of our faith, and at some schools in Australia kids are asked to remove their crosses for certain classes (sports for example), saying that there is a choking hazard. While in technical terms a chain could get caught and present a choking hazard, part of our faith is the knowledge that that same cross is protecting us, and until others understand that, kids in many countries will be asked to remove their crosses no matter what percent of the country is Orthodox.

It is ironic that they think they're protecting their students when really they're asking people to remove a source of protection.

In Christ,
Christina

Peter

22-08-2006, 10:18 AM

I am aware that the school allows people to wear religious 'jewellry', after applying for, and being granted an exemption. The implication of this is, of course, that wearing the cross is a privilege given by the secular authorities of the day, not a God given right. This smacks of religious discrimination.
Like Olga, I am also wondering why the Orthodox are silent on this issue, perhaps they are not aware of what has transpired?

A poll was conducted today on "the Age" website, a mainstream media outlet, with the question posed being: should religious 'jewellry' be allowed at schools. Interestingly, 52% of the respondents said 'yes' and 48% said 'no'.

Irene

22-08-2006, 12:30 PM

Like Olga, I am also wondering why the Orthodox are silent on this issue, perhaps they are not aware of what has transpired?

It only takes one person to change this, to start making noises, to start getting other Orthodox people to care enough to protest about this religious discrimination. Just on this thread there are people from 3 different states in Australia who are concerned about this issue. Too often we are caught up in feeling small and helpless, hoping for a spiritual giant to come along and lead us, fire us up with the Christian fervour of the Saints of the past.

Our lives are too full of "noise", phones, television, computers, everything takes up so much time and dulls our senses. It is scary how much time is wasted on meaningless tasks. It is scary to me how important issues are forgotten so quickly because of day to day living.

I didn't realise that schools have been making children remove their Crosses before participate in sporting activities. I am very dissapointed, no horrified by this. People who are not Orthodox do not understand how important wearing the Cross is to us.

If we never talk openly about these issues, how are people supposed to know about this about us, about our beliefs? I went to school with, worked with, and had friends who were probably Orthodox, (some were Greek and also I have vague memories of small icons in their possession and homes) but it was years before I learnt that there was such a thing as the Orthodox Church.

In Christ
irene

Peter

22-08-2006, 02:51 PM

To Mister Moore:

You Deny A Young Girl The Right To Profess
Her Faith In Christ - Shame On You

You Encourage Others To Do The Same - Shame On You

You Discriminate On The Basis Of Religion - Shame On You

You Have Learnt Nothing From Mankind's Persecution Of Christianity And Other Faiths Over The Millenia - Shame On You

You Are A Principal In Charge Of Child Students, Yet You Let Them Down Spiritually - Shame On You

We Protest Most Strongly At Your Antagonistic Action,and We Implore You To Reverse Your Decision.

We Do Not Believe That 99.9% Back The Ban, Prove It. If You Cannot, - Shame On You.

Christianity Has Been Around Longer Than Its Persecutors, And Will Continue Long After Your Legacy.

The Precious Life Giving Cross We Will Not Give Up, Not For You Or Anyone.

Consider Your Shame,

Peter Stefanis

Herman Blaydoe

22-08-2006, 04:02 PM

Interesting. I have heard from many sources that wearing crosses prominantly as jewelry is FROWNED upon in Greece by the ORTHODOX! Priests wear crosses on the outside, not laity, who wear their crosses UNDER their clothing. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but it is certainly another perspective.

The pop singer Madonna often wears a cross prominantly. I would rather NOT be associated with her, personally.

Scott Pierson

23-08-2006, 02:03 AM

The pop singer Madonna often wears a cross prominantly. I would rather NOT be associated with her, personally.

lol I heard she ditched the whole Kabbalah thing a while ago.. too many of her friends were getting upset about having to buy magical Kabbalah trinkets from her. I've head that any time someone came over she would hound them to buy Kabbalah bracelets and "kabbalah water" :D
I guess in her new concerts she climbs up on a big mirrored Cross like she is being crucified. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14170747/

John Charmley

28-08-2006, 02:20 PM

Having 'lurked' here for a while, and having been impressed by the tone of this community, I finally decided to join - but posting is another matter! However, a current news item seems relevant to this thread, and so I thought I would brave it.

It might interest members of this community to learn that in Scotland a footballer has been cautioned by the legal authorities for crossing himself before a football match. The reason given was that his action was 'provocative'; the idea being that the Protestant supporters of the other club might have taken offence and rioted.

It might be noted that a Government Minister, Ruth Kelly, who is a member of Opus Dei has questioned the wisdom of the relevant authorities.

Given Our Lord's words about rendering unto Caesar those things that are his, how should Christians respond to such events?

John

Herman Blaydoe

28-08-2006, 03:29 PM

Let your conscience be your guide? I suspect there is probably not ONE way to respond, but each person must consider an appropriate response through prayer and perhaps discussion with one's priest.

Christina Williams

28-08-2006, 06:30 PM

Dear John

I read the headline about the incident but not the whole story..........my hubby and I have been living in Spain for a good few years and this sort of response would have been unthinkable.

It is a rare thing NOT to see a player cross himself as he runs onto the pitch.........just what point they were trying to make eludes me.

John Charmley

28-08-2006, 08:26 PM

Dear Christina,

I note from the evening news that the authorities are now retreating from their previous position and are saying that the footballer made other gestures, and that it was for these that he was censured; a sign, perhaps that they realised that, at the moment, this was a step too far. But given the attempts to use 'winterval' instead of Christmas on the part of some British councils, and the reluctance of state schools to fulfil their obligations under the 1944 Education Act to start the school day with an act of Christian worship, the signs of the times tell us what we in the west already know - that we live in a post-Christian culture. These signs might suggest an anti-Christian element is beginning to predominate?

Compared to what Orthodox Christians have suffered behind the old Iron Curtain, and to what the Coptic Orthodox suffered in Ethiopia and still suffer in Egypt, these things are small beer; but perhaps we should be vigilant, if only on the 'thin end of the wedge' principle?

John

John Charmley

07-09-2006, 10:58 AM

I notice that a British Hospital Trust has decided to get rid of hospital chaplains as part of a 'cost-cutting' exercise; a spokesman explained that they could put the money saved to better use!

I wonder what could be better for hospital patients than to have the comfort of God's word when they need it.

I wonder how much the hospital would save if it got rid of its spokesman; how many chaplains would that pay for?

In Christ,

John

Irene

08-09-2006, 03:25 AM

I notice that a British Hospital Trust has decided to get rid of hospital chaplains as part of a 'cost-cutting' exercise;

How sad John, How much comfort must these chaplains have given to worried and grieving relatives over the years. ...In Christ irene

John Charmley

10-09-2006, 06:49 PM

Dear Irene,

It is very sad. When you consider that in the Middle Ages (and later) hospitals were largely run by the religious orders, and there was then a real sense of looking after the whole person, it is a sad comment on the priorities of the modern world that hospital managers think that chaplains are superfluous to requirements.

We all need spiritual medicine, and to deprive the sick of it just because they are in hospital (and may need it more) borders on the cruel; still, one must be charitable and not attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. It does, though, provide a real sign of the times we are living in here in the UK. I wonder what the practice is elsewhere?

In Christ,

JOhn

Father David Moser

10-09-2006, 08:51 PM

It is very sad. When you consider that in the Middle Ages (and later) hospitals were largely run by the religious orders, and there was then a real sense of looking after the whole person, it is a sad comment on the priorities of the modern world that hospital managers think that chaplains are superfluous to requirements.

I just ran into the head chaplain at one of our local hospitals yesterday He is a trainer certified by ACPE (chaplain training and certification) and I took a course from him long ago and we have kept in touch since then. He told me he is taking anew position at a hospital in another town which was Roman Catholic but which is now a "public" hosptial. He is going there because they know that spiritual care is important but don't know how to do it in this new context. He ran the program here for many years and so now he is going there to help set it up.

Now "spiritual care" in hospitals is pretty "ecumenical" and not even necessarily Christian - but at least there is a recognition of the need to care for the whole person still evident in most institutions in the US.

Fr David Moser

John Charmley

11-09-2006, 07:55 PM

Now "spiritual care" in hospitals is pretty "ecumenical" and not even necessarily Christian - but at least there is a recognition of the need to care for the whole person still evident in most institutions in the US.

Fr David Moser

Father David,

It is, I suppose, another sign of the times that spiritual care is now ecumenical, but that is, at least, better than in some UK hospitals, where there seems to be a hard-edged antipathy to the spiritual dimension.

The UK is, I fear, a post-Christian country. Although Schools still have an obligation under the 1944 Education Act to provide an act of worship for their pupils, it is ignored more often than not. Oddly enough, in areas where there is a large Muslim or Hindu community, Schools seem happy enough to meet their spiritual needs, whilst ignoring those of the host community.

Students I teach at University have, in most cases, no knowledge at all of Christianity or of its role in shaping their country. I find it so sad that many young people turn to 'Eastern religions' when they finally acknowledge their spiritual urges - as though Christianity originated in the West! One of the great advantages Orthodoxy has is its ability to draw such young people - if only they can be exposed to it.

For various reasons Orthodoxy in this country has not has a strong sense of mission, but in these times it needs to acquire it. Although not (yet) Orthodox myself, I have found my life enriched by my encounter with it.

In Christ,

John

Chrissi

12-09-2006, 09:33 AM

The UK is, I fear, a post-Christian country. Although Schools still have an obligation under the 1944 Education Act to provide an act of worship for their pupils, it is ignored more often than not. Oddly enough, in areas where there is a large Muslim or Hindu community, Schools seem happy enough to meet their spiritual needs, whilst ignoring those of the host community.

I thought I'd add to this point as an Australian (recently graduated) student.

When I started high school we had compulsory scripture which taught the very basics from a "standard" view point. I did not attend this scripture, though, because it did not teach things as we see them, and at such a young age my mum did not feel that I needed this influence. I agree. Instead I had to sit in the library and "entertain" myself for the 40 minute class every Monday.

I also remember young Christian groups coming to the school and doing activities that were designed to teach about religion in a round-about sort of way. I found them to be quite radical in their use of technology (especially music), and it was "amusing" to me when they gave out prizes for good answers (ask an obvious question get an obvious answer sort of thing). My friends used to go to these things only to get out of class for a day. It seemed to me that the school only had these sorts of things because it was required for them to do so (I'm not sure if that is actually the case, but most likely it is).

In Christ,
Christina

Kris

12-09-2006, 02:48 PM

Oddly enough, in areas where there is a large Muslim or Hindu community, Schools seem happy enough to meet their spiritual needs, whilst ignoring those of the host community.

I don't find this odd at all. Muslims and Hindus actually have spiritual needs to be met, whilst the majority of those in the host community are completely secular and simply don't care.

Students I teach at University have, in most cases, no knowledge at all of Christianity or of its role in shaping their country. I find it so sad that many young people turn to 'Eastern religions' when they finally acknowledge their spiritual urges - as though Christianity originated in the West! One of the great advantages Orthodoxy has is its ability to draw such young people - if only they can be exposed to it.

I find the same thing. I have spoken to many converts (or "reverts" as they like to be called) to Islam, who claim to have left Christianity. But I have yet to meet a single such convert who had knowledge of even the most basic Christian doctrines, such as the Incarnation or the Most Holy Trinity, etc. The fact of the matter is that such people did not leave Christianity, they simply discovered Islam.

For various reasons Orthodoxy in this country has not has a strong sense of mission, but in these times it needs to acquire it. Although not (yet) Orthodox myself, I have found my life enriched by my encounter with it.

Interestingly enough, it is the ROCOR that has been at the forefront of making Orthodoxy accessible in the UK. What I find refreshing about the ROCOR's approach (as opposed to many other jurisdictions) is that, rather than trying to make itself "relevant" to potential converts by adopting various Western customs that have their origins in Catholicism and Protestantism, it is does not deviate in any way from the Orthodox traditions.

Rather, emphasis is placed on the veneration of English (and other Western) Saints, composing Akathists to them, writing icons of them, etc.; reviving old British places of pilgrimage; and other such things, as well as, of course, adopting the English language for worship.

The result: something that is authentically Orthodox, yet authentically English.

The reason why such a huge amount of British people convert to Islam and other religions is that they are fed up and disillusioned with secular British society. I therefore think the ROCOR's approach (which does not attempt to conform to society) will be the one that will prevail in the long run.

But we have a long way to go; may God help us in getting there.

In XC,
Kris

John Charmley

12-09-2006, 04:35 PM

I have yet to meet a single such convert who had knowledge of even the most basic Christian doctrines, such as the Incarnation or the Most Holy Trinity, etc. The fact of the matter is that such people did not leave Christianity, they simply discovered Islam.

The reason why such a huge amount of British people convert to Islam and other religions is that they are fed up and disillusioned with secular British society. I therefore think the ROCOR's approach (which does not attempt to conform to society) will be the one that will prevail in the long run.

There is so much wisdom here, and its implications bear exploring I suspect.

What you say about 'converts' is so accurate; I have not met anyone who has spent as much time exploring the tradition they say they are leaving as they do investigating the one they wish to join.

But who is responsible for this ignorance? How is it that we are in a society where young people can be exposed to nothing to do with Christianity? Is this a lamentable failure by the Western Churches?

I wonder whether, in trying to become (as they see it) 'relevant', the Western (non-Orthodox) Churches have simply become part of secular society and as such, are unable to fulfil the spiritual needs of their flocks?

It is good to read that ROCOR is providing us with an example of what can be done when the Faith in all its richness is proclaimed.

Another example of the same sense of mission can be found in the British Orthodox Church, which is, of course, Oriental Orthodox, but which also dedicates itself to providing Orthodoxy with a British ethos. It has just launched the British Orthodox Fellowship to provide a forum for the discussion of Orthodoxy (http://www.britishorthodox.org/).

Perhaps ROCOR and the BOC provide rather more encouraging 'signs of the times'?

In Christ,

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

12-09-2006, 07:05 PM

But who is responsible for this ignorance? How is it that we are in a society where young people can be exposed to nothing to do with Christianity? Is this a lamentable failure by the Western Churches?

I wonder whether, in trying to become (as they see it) 'relevant', the Western (non-Orthodox) Churches have simply become part of secular society and as such, are unable to fulfil the spiritual needs of their flocks?

...

Another example of the same sense of mission can be found in the British Orthodox Church, which is, of course, Oriental Orthodox, but which also dedicates itself to providing Orthodoxy with a British ethos. It has just launched the British Orthodox Fellowship to provide a forum for the discussion of Orthodoxy (http://www.britishorthodox.org/).

The struggle of how to be Orthodox in this secular culture is ongoing. For different reasons in the past there was more emphasis on assimilation. Of course society at the time though was more Christian and moral. And there was a concern about being just a church for immigrants. But I agree in all of this the pendulum swung too far on the side of assimilation to values that were destructive to an Orthodox spirit. And in some cases were an almost conscious borrowing from anti-Orthodox sources.

Anyway...not that the struggle is so easy. To 'just be traditional' our generation has also found out is as full of peril and risk. Here zeal not according to godliness is the most obvious- but often fallen into- temptation. Then there is the delicate and never ending balancing act of adjusting to the actual people before you.

But I entirely agree we need something basically traditional in the present circumstances. First off nothing else will save us. We should be able to see this in the present nightmarish conditions of society of which we come from and are affected by. Nothing else will heal us except the real and authentic medicine...of course given with discernment.

I would say though that people not converting is not only due to a failure in our approach. I would suggest that actually many, many people do get it right away that the Church is the place where Christ's Word is found. And many once they sense the intensity of this and - most important of all- the commitment Christ's Word asks of us, consciously turn away from this. I would say that in fact most people who come to the Church are very aware of Her message even if they can't quite put this into clear words.

I think we really need to grapple with this & recognise how this is in fact one of the leading issues before the Church right now. Christ and the Church imply commitment to a way of life that is increasingly selfless. Meanwhile society offers a way of life that is almost immediately gratifying & appears to address what is most fundamental about ourselves: our value as human beings & a way of life that corresponds to every aspect of what we are: spiritual, intellectual or material. How can the Church address this?

In the face of this then it seems we need to come to grips with several basic issues: i) what is it that society offers which is so powerfully appealing? ii) how can we explain why its appeal is so powerful? & iii) what is the proper response of the Church to this?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

John Charmley

12-09-2006, 08:04 PM

I think we really need to grapple with this & recognise how this is in fact one of the leading issues before the Church right now. Christ and the Church imply commitment to a way of life that is increasingly selfless. Meanwhile society offers a way of life that is almost immediately gratifying & appears to address what is most fundamental about ourselves: our value as human beings & a way of life that corresponds to every aspect of what we are: spiritual, intellectual or material. How can the Church address this?

In the face of this then it seems we need to come to grips with several basic issues: i) what is it that society offers which is so powerfully appealing? ii) how can we explain why its appeal is so powerful? & iii) what is the proper response of the Church to this?

Father Raphael,

You have put your finger on key issues.

Western Society seeks, it seems to me, to fill the God-shaped hole in all of us with the Mammon of materialism. Western governments define basic human rights in a way which allows a right to worship, but which seems to exclude the spiritual dimension from what men and women need in order to be happy.

Western societies have elevated materialism into a way of life: science will provide all the answers, we don't need that old-fashioned and unscientific God stuff; scientific medicine will cure us, we don't need hospital chaplains; education does not require God because we have elevated human reason to be the sum of all.

This way we have created a society where the prevailing orthodoxy is a materialist philosophy, and which can, thanks to economic prosperity, provide for many a plethora of goods which, so the media tell us, will make us happy.

What is reassuring in all of this is that our hunger for God cannot be thus assuaged for long. Our young people go off on spiritual journeys towards 'Eastern' religions, but would, if they knew about Holy Orthodoxy, be attracted to its deep mystical treasures; or else they wish to save the world in other material (and worthy) ways, when they would equally be willing to save it, and themselves, in deeper ways revealed through the Church.

In that sense, I suppose I am suggesting, tentatively, that the world's materialism will always ultimately fail, it cannot give the Peace which only the Lord gives.

In a western world which is as hungry for spirituality as the third world is for food, the Church has a mission field that could keep it busy for a millenium. Was it Chesterton who said that when men stopped believing in God they did not believe in nothing, but in anything? We can see that in the popularity of 'new age' notions, spiritualism, etc., etc. There are so many signs that this society knows it lacks the answer to happiness.

What should the Church do? For a start it should make itself known. Most of my friends think of Christianity as either Protestant or Roman Catholic - only when they are aware of Orthodoxy can they discover the road that will lead to real happiness.

Or is that just fatal optimism?

In Christ,

John

Kris

13-09-2006, 01:56 AM

Fr Raphael Vereshack

13-09-2006, 05:41 PM

John Charmley wrote:

What should the Church do? For a start it should make itself known. Most of my friends think of Christianity as either Protestant or Roman Catholic - only when they are aware of Orthodoxy can they discover the road that will lead to real happiness.

Or is that just fatal optimism?

The Church certainly has a responsibility to witness its truth to the world. But in terms of today's world- the world which Kris above describes well I think- there are both great temptations and a reality we need to take fully into account.

First off the temptation among us is to cheapen what we offer to make it more palatable.

The second however which relates to the reality of today's world is that even if God forbid, what we offer is cheapened so that the Pearl of great price is scarcely recognisable anymore, still relatively few come to the Church.

Of course it's easy to fool ourselves. As long as we have 50 or more parishioners the priest and those responsible are so busy the impression is easily given that the whole world has converted. And yet given the population on one city block (let alone a whole city) in proportion to parishioners, we can see the numbers of those within the Church is shockingly low. And this is so even among those who have devoted tremendous energy to attracting people.

I'm not rejecting optimism- or rather as Christ instructs us faith & hope- but rather am suggesting that being aroused by the reality of the situation we focus our faith and hope in the right direction. From what I can see the fact is that growth within the Church is tentative at best or not at all. It could very well be that Christ Himself has called the Church to this measure. But if so then we have a responsibility to recognise God's purpose in this. And from this we need to develop an awareness of how to live as Orthodox Christians in this present age- to develop something almost like a Survival Guide awareness.

Openess to those seeking God's truth is absolutely necessary. We must devote much thought and prayer to continually finding ways to such openess. But yet a fine line needs to be followed so that openess doesn't become an opportunity for living in an illusory world of 'if we build it they will come.' The fact is if we build it maybe few will come. But it's precisely this which we in the Church are called to understand within God's purpose so that we can learn how to properly live in such conditions.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Peter Farrington

13-09-2006, 05:55 PM

I think the churches' attemps to make themselves relevant is exactly the reason they are rejected as irrelevant by many people. If religion can offer me nothing more than the secular society, what relevance does it have for me?

I agree entirely and this is one reason why I am no longer an Evangelical.

But I think that Orthodox communities do need to find ways of communicating which are relevant. Indeed some of the ways the ethnic communities communicate patently fails to communicate the right message.

If the only language I can worship in is Greek or Church Slavonic then this communicates something, perhaps unintended.

So the challenge is to communicate the riches of our faith in a way that really communicates, and is relevant, so that we can gain further opportunities to help people develop and grow into the depths of Orthodoxy that are not so easily grasped from a first or second or tenth encounter.

Unfortunately if our faith is presented in a way that is not relevant then we may not get a second opportunity.

Peter Theodore Farrington

John Charmley

13-09-2006, 07:54 PM

So the challenge is to communicate the riches of our faith in a way that really communicates, and is relevant, so that we can gain further opportunities to help people develop and grow into the depths of Orthodoxy that are not so easily grasped from a first or second or tenth encounter.

Unfortunately if our faith is presented i
in a way that is not relevant then we may not get a second opportunity.

Dear Peter Theodore,

Your argument is a compelling one - provided (and I know it does) it goes with the thrust of Father Raphael's wise words about not cheapening the Faith. The problem, I suppose, is that the Western Churches have fatally devalued that useful word 'relevance', and it now conjures up 'guitar masses' and lady vicars!

Father Raphael's sombre but realistic statement that:

'Openess to those seeking God's truth is absolutely necessary. We must devote much thought and prayer to continually finding ways to such openess. But yet a fine line needs to be followed so that openess doesn't become an opportunity for living in an illusory world of 'if we build it they will come.' The fact is if we build it maybe few will come. But it's precisely this which we in the Church are called to understand within God's purpose so that we can learn how to properly live in such conditions.'

helps ground one, but we are surely commanded by Our Lord to preach His word? And if we do not do so in a language that can be understood (and that does not mean colloquial English) by the host community, we shall, indeed, be sending out the wrong message.

Still, when we reflect that the Church could once be accommodated in an upper room in Jerusalem, we can see what the Holy Ghost has accomplished.

Moreover, as your own work with the BOC shows, there are many out there who will 'come' if they know what they are coming to.

God bless your work,

In Christ,

John

John Charmley

21-09-2006, 11:17 PM

I had not planned to post here, since Pope Benedict's speech has been taken up on another thread, and the reaction to it really is a sign of our times, but I had a conversation today that I would like to share with others on this site.

The Coptic Chaplain at my University (yes, we do have one, as we do a Greek Orthodox - and an Imam) was asked by two students whether he was Osama bin Laden, presumably because of his complexion and beard. As a monk, he was in clerical garb, which, as he pointed out to his interlocutors, included a very large silver pectoral crucifix. The students looked puzzled and very politely asked what it was. He told them, and they asked what it signified. He said 'Christ crucified', to which they seemed none the wiser. He then explained what that meant.

Being a very nice man, he confined himself to asking me how it was that in a Christian country such as the UK, two University students could be so ignorant of the Faith which, in his home country, is held at the risk of persecution.

I would like to have had a decent answer, but could only say that he was mistaken in thinking that the UK was a Christian country.:o

A depresing sign of the times, I fear.

In Christ

John

Irene

22-09-2006, 01:16 AM

The Coptic Chaplain at my University (yes, we do have one, as we do a Greek Orthodox - and an Imam) was asked by two students whether he was Osama bin Laden, presumably because of his complexion and beard. As a monk, he was in clerical garb, which, as he pointed out to his interlocutors, included a very large silver pectoral crucifix. The students looked puzzled and very politely asked what it was. He told them, and they asked what it signified. He said 'Christ crucified', to which they seemed none the wiser. He then explained what that meant.

Being a very nice man, he confined himself to asking me how it was that in a Christian country such as the UK, two University students could be so ignorant of the Faith which, in his home country, is held at the risk of persecution.

I would like to have had a decent answer, but could only say that he was mistaken in thinking that the UK was a Christian country.:o

A depresing sign of the times, I fear.

In Christ

John

I guess Australia is the same. I had, what I thought, was a standard Australian upbringing that included "(Presbyterian) Sunday School" once a week where I learnt about my Christian faith and focused on particular parables from the Bible etc. So I have been really suprised while listening to ABC radio (like the BBC UK I think) where they have daily quizes for the listeners to find caller after caller can't answer the simplest questions about the Bible. Being the ABC, I think that most listeners would be over 40 or at least over 30 yrs.

I also was very surprised a while back when a famous Australian (Marcia Hines) called (St) Mary Magdelene the Mother of God.

I am very saddened by all this. :(

In Christ
irene

ps looking at Marcia's official website, after reading Olga's post no.31, I see that she (Marcia Hines) was brought up in a Church environment singing in gospel choirs, so the comment I heard must have been just a slip of the tongue.

Olga

22-09-2006, 08:28 AM

For those unaware, Marcia Hines is a singer and musical actress, and has performed in various musicals and "rock operas" since arriving in Australia from the US at the age of 16 in 1970. Miss Hines became the first black singer to play the part of Mary Magdalene in the 1972-74 Australian production of Jesus Christ Superstar.

John Charmley

22-09-2006, 06:43 PM

I have been really suprised while listening to ABC radio (like the BBC UK I think) where they have daily quizes for the listeners to find caller after caller can't answer the simplest questions about the Bible. Being the ABC, I think that most listeners would be over 40 or at least over 30 yrs.

I also was very surprised a while back when a famous Australian (Marcia Hines) called (St) Mary Magdelene the Mother of God.

Dear Irene,

The situation here is just the same. What is worrying is that this leaves teenagers wide open to so-called 'new age' practices and cults, some of which are relatively harmless, but some of which are not. Young people do not lack the need to believe in something beyond this material world. Like most of us they have an innate knowledge that this is not enough. But as Christians we have failed to let them know that they do not need to go to esoteric cults for insight and faith.

The fact that UK government ministers have criticised Pope Benedict for his comments on Islam whilst tolerating extremist Islamic preachers here for years, tells its own story.

It seems to be that the mass media are quite happy to undermine Christianity and to mock it in a way they would not dare to with Islam; in that sense the Muslims are doing a better job of defending their faith than we are.

I am not, of course, saying that we should take to streets and burn effigies, but I do wonder how we have reached this stage when, only a couple of generations ago, one could have said that Britain was a Christian country?

I have a sense, from living in the mid-West of the USA for a year, that the Americans are a little better than the British at defending Christianity; how does that seem to our American posters?

In Christ,

John

Irene

23-09-2006, 01:12 AM

Yes John, I long to live in a truly Christian country, does one exist anymore? I have a very romanticized picture in my head where you stroll off to Church with all your neighbours and family........Irene

John Charmley

23-09-2006, 05:10 PM

Dear Irene,

Yes, it is a wonderful vision, and was probably always a little romaticised, but I don't mind that. Unless we have a vision of what we want, a dream if you like, we shall get nowhere, for without vision the people perish - which is what now happens all too often.

On a more positive note, I went to talk last night, deep in the heart of rural Suffolk, and there were two signs of better times which I would like, with your indulgence, to share.

The talk, given by the Metropolitan of the British Orthodox Church (OO), Abba Seraphim, was in an ancient parish church which the Anglican Church sold off and left to rot. It has been restored and brought back to life as an ecumenical centre by a couple, Mark Wright and his wife Faith; it was a wonderful witness. With the help of hundreds of donations from Christians all over the world, this little Suffolk gem has been saved from destruction.

For anyone wanting to see this marvellous example of what can achieved, even in these times, the web link is:

http://www.mickfieldchurch.org.uk/about.htm

The second 'sign' was the witness of a young couple who had come from Norwich. He was a Coptic Orthodox from Egypt and he had brought with him his English wife, and in talking to them, one got a wonderful sense of what devotion to the Faith can do to a couple; they shone as witnesses.

I came away feeling that however evil these times (as so many others have been), there were signs of hope.

In Christ,

John

Irene

25-09-2006, 08:45 AM

I love old Churches, I just wish they'd stop taking the crosses down. Thanks for the happy news and the website :) ...Irene

John Charmley

26-09-2006, 10:40 PM

Dear Irene,

Indeed, why do they keep taking crosses down? Our secular society seems to have a real problem with the Cross. Here we have had schoolgirls being told they cannot wear crucifixes to school because it 'might offend'. Who? I have never come across a believer from another faith who objected. It is hard not to believe that it is the bureaucrats and teachers themselves who cannot cope with this powerful sign.

Still, on a lighter note, I was recently told a story about a friend who wanted to buy a crucifix for his goddaughter and was asked by the shop assistant whether he wanted 'a plain one, or one of those with the little man on it?' No doubt apochryphal, but not, one suspects, far from a deeper truth.

In Christ,

John

John Charmley

03-10-2006, 03:14 PM

Here in the UK the Anglican Church has announced that in future, in any church schools it builds, at least a quarter of the places will be available to those with other beliefs, or with none.

How would people feel on this one?

On the one hand I can see the 'toleration' and 'multicultural' arguments, even if some of them are simple syncretism; on the other, if Muslims are allowed to have their own faith schools, why not Christians? Or is it simpler than this - there aren't enough Anglicans to go round?;)

I suspect it is a principled decision by the C of E, but what exercises me is the nature of the principle; does the C of E not think it should be doing all it can to spread the faith? I know of one woman who, having started going to church in order that her daughter might become eligible to go to a local church school, actually rediscovered her faith and now goes 'for real' as it were.

Is there a best way for the Church to view education in our society? Here in the UK it seems that most schools outside the church sector simply ignore it, or use it to teach secular ethics.

Any views?

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

09-10-2006, 01:05 AM

I recall reading of the courage of St Luke the Blessed Surgeon. The communists removed the icon of the Mother of God from his operating theatre, so he stopped operations. When the wife of a party official needed an operation, St Luke refused unless the icon was replaced - which it was! I have icons in my office at the university where I teach - I'm expecting the day when they tell me I ought to take them down.

John Charmley

09-10-2006, 10:59 AM

Dear Andreas,

A good story, and a heartening one.

Let us know how your icons fare. This western mania for tolerating everything except a Christian Faith that has doctrinal content will, as you suspect, probably result in the relevant authorities asking you to remove your icons.

Am I being too harsh in thinking that this sort of thing is directed at Christianity? In this country we have had local councils celebrating 'winterval' rather than 'Christmas', on the ground that the latter might 'upset' someone. Of course, the only people really liable to be offended at a civic municipality's idea of a Christmas celebration are Christians, who still persist in believing that what is being celebrated is not a consumerist orgy.

A recent survey in the UK revealed that most children think that Easter is a festival to celebrate chocolate; easy to see where they got that one!

Does any one have an explanation for the consuming dislike of Christianity by secular authority in the west?

In Christ,

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

09-10-2006, 03:34 PM

John Charnley wrote:

Does any one have an explanation for the consuming dislike of Christianity by secular authority in the west?

My own sense of this is that this begins from at least the time of the Renaissance where it was said that 'man is the measure of all things'. Of course this effort to put man in a selfish sense at the centre of the universe has only grown through the centuries as a kind of cultural project. From the beginning of this it was understood that the Church (but not necessarily a generic 'christianity') represented a value inimical to this project.

But the values the Church taught are still very deeply woven into who we are in the west. What other explanation is there for the fact that so many secular reforms which consciously reject the active involvement of the Church are based on a humanism that also holds a kind of sacredness to man? Where else except in the west has this appeared in this way?

Putting ourselves in the centre as the measure of all things is something both potentially selfish & selfless with the balance constantly swinging back and forth between the two. Maybe this also explains the peculiar anger in our society that seems to feed on a kind of guilt. We would like to throw Christ out of our lives or at least tame Him; but every positive value we hearken to in our society recalls Him. So there's something masochistic about us in our present state.

On the immediate level of our parishes I also think this can be seen. I believe that most people who visit the Church almost immediately sense that the Church is a place of self-denial & this directs most clearly as to Who Christ is. People sense this intuitively even before they can consciously put this into words. This almost immediately confronts a person with a choice the depth & significance which perhaps they may have never faced before since much of society is dedicated to purposefully avoiding this choice. Due to this and also to how unexpected this choice is to many who come to the Church for the first time acceptance or rejection is part of an intense personal struggle someone may well have not faced before.

So in our present circumstances it would be very helpful to have more clarity about what affects these intense choices. Then we would be able to see where the essential issue is each time someone comes to the Church- for often they themselves are not able to consciously express what most deeply affects their desire to convert. We then by having some clearer idea ourselves may be of help in indicating to others where the doorways and traps are- although ultimately along every step of the way it is the person themselves who must freely choose.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

John Charmley

09-10-2006, 06:22 PM

My own sense of this is that this begins from at least the time of the Renaissance where it was said that 'man is the measure of all things'. Of course this effort to put man in a selfish sense at the centre of the universe has only grown through the centuries as a kind of cultural project. From the beginning of this it was understood that the Church (but not necessarily a generic 'christianity') represented a value inimical to this project.

But the values the Church taught are still very deeply woven into who we are in the west. What other explanation is there for the fact that so many secular reforms which consciously reject the active involvement of the Church are based on a humanism that also holds a kind of sacredness to man? Where else except in the west has this appeared in this way?

Dear Father Raphael,
Very interesting thoughts here. What you write rings true. Certainly from the time of the so-called Enlightenment, western intellectuals have often taken the patronising view that as 'rationality' increased its hold on mankind, religion (rather like the State in Marx's famous prophecy) would decay and die as the need for it passed. 19th century intellectuals like George Elliott assumed that it was possible to take the 'good' elements of religion and to keep them without the 'superstition'; the 20th century has provided an interesting commentary on such hopes.

Far from the influence of religion declining as a factor in world politics, it has, of course, increased, and instead of the narrow anthrocentric view of the nature of man winning universal consent, many people, even in the west, look towards some sort of spiritual practice to get a better understanding of how to be in this world.

If there is anything in this, then I could see why the secularists get angry with Christianity. It is OK to have a syncretic belief system and to pretend it is Christianity - Jesus is a good man, a healer, a shaman, what ever; all of that can be fitted into the teleological structure of the Enlightenment project. Call the syncretic result 'real' Christianity, align it with the secular values of a material society, and Voltaire was right. The problem here, as the Anglican Church has discovered, is that this actually empties Churches very quickly indeed. But men and women, conscious of the need for God, do not stop believing in something beyond this world, and they do not feel spiritually fulfilled by shopping, politics or even sport.

I suppose it must be very frustrating for those who thought they knew where history was going to find Christianity still there, still asking the hard questions, and still offering salvation. The least they can do, where they can, is to make sure that it is lampooned, insulted and marginalised in public discourse. The Soviets and the Nazis, of course, took their dislike of Christianity much further, but like all those who have sought to destroy the Church, it is still here and they are not.

But it is sad when bodies such as the Church of England acquiesce voluntarily in watering down the content of Christianity as it is taught in their own schools. I am all in favour of schools teaching the young about other faiths too - but that implies they also learn about Christianity, which, I fear, many of them do not.

That is why it is so important how we bear witness to this society. Treating the Faith as though it were a pearl of great price which we must not share with others but must keep close to ourselves whilst we wait for better days will not mend these broken times we inhabit.

In its own quiet way, a site like this bears witness to how Christians can be in this society.

In Christ,

John

John Charmley

15-10-2006, 12:26 AM

Just keeping up to date here with the signs of the times. British Airways has suspended one of its employees for refusing to take off a crucifix when order to do so, or at least to hide it. The employee, a committed Christian, is going to sue her employers for discrimination.

No doubt the company will claim they have a no jewelry policy, :rolleyes: and no doubt they ask Jewish employees to remove stars of David.

Is this another sign of the times, or just one of those things?

In Christ,

John

Peter Farrington

15-10-2006, 03:17 PM

Dear John

I wonder if you think that the education system will be next to seek to remove all Christian content outside of RE lessons?

I mean especially if it will become difficult for Further and Higher Education faculty to be Christians in the public space?

As ever

Peter

John Charmley

15-10-2006, 04:45 PM

I wonder if you think that the education system will be next to seek to remove all Christian content outside of RE lessons?

I mean especially if it will become difficult for Further and Higher Education faculty to be Christians in the public space?

As ever

Peter

Dear Peter,
A most interesting question. I should like to know what our Moderator's experience is in a University that has always been a centre of Christian study?

My impression is that in schools Christianity gets taught as one of many world religions, where it gets taught at all, and that undue weight is given to the secularist view of it as the source of many of the world's wars; but I should like it if those with more direct experience of this aspect commented further on this.

The ignorance of English students about the religion that has helped shape their own country is limitless. I have been asked by history students with high A level grades and a good education whether 'Anglicanism' was similar to the 'Church of England', and whether the Catholics were Christians, and, if they were, what that made the 'Protestors'? It makes it harder than it used to be to teach medieval and early modern history in particular, and students studying the 19th century seem to think that his religion is not that relevant in understanding Mr. Gladstone.

If we seem, at times, to be in a post-Christian country, part of the cause is not far to seek. Muslims have set a much better example than Christians in this area; they keep their faith schools for teaching the faith; we in the Church of England let them teach the watered-down, doctrineless amalgam which passes for Christianity in this country.

As for Christians being open about their religious belief, I have certainly heard adverse comments about people who have crucifixes on their office walls, but, as yet, no one from 'Human Resources' has declared that they must be removed. But it would, I suspect, take only a single complaint for that to happen.

Is it, I wonder, different if one lectures in Patristics?

On the other hand, there is no shortage of students interested in Christianity. One of my sons who went to university in Wales regularly attended a Church on Sunday with a congregation that was numbered in the hundreds, most of them young people. As you commented elsewhere, Peter, there is a hunger for God - and that is why we must do our best to feed it.

In Christ,

John

Peter Farrington

16-10-2006, 03:26 PM

Hi John

There was an interview on Radio 2 this lunchtime with someone who sounded like they were from the Secular Society. She wanted all public expression of religion banned as 'silly beliefs' and said that children should not be subject to any form of religious indoctrination until they were old enough to make up their own minds (that it was nonsense!, I guess).

Since secularism is as much a religion as far as I am concerned as any other, it was clear that what she was demanding was the clearance of the public domain so that only her religion was permitted.

As usual she blamed all wars and ills of the world on religion, and quoted vague statistics that showed that religious societies were more violent and had higher levels of social disfunction than non-religous ones.

But as I post elsewhere. Christianity does have to repent of some of its past history, and I am convinced that this woman was not evil, just deluded. She needs to find Christ as much as I do. But perhaps no really attractive and grace-filled examples of Christians have ever been close to her.

How much of the anti-Christian mood is down to our own failures? If Christian discourse is denied a place in the public domain then is that because much Christian discourse is not very Christian and not very filled with the life of Christ? How much are we to blame for that?

Peter

Andreas Moran

17-10-2006, 02:42 AM

Dear All,

It occurs to me that, in the western world, the devil realised that persecution was counter-productive to his aims, and that the thorns of mass materialism were a far better way of choking any seeds of faith and driving people from God. With mass materialism comes the virtual extinguishing of nostalgia for God and He is forgotten. Only a bat's squeak of an echo of remembrance of God remains, if that. How can we hope to combat this ignorance?

There is the well-known (hereabouts, anyway) story that at Tiptree, the village near to Tolleshunt Knights where the monastery founded by Archimandrite Sophrony is located, the vicar was explaining the Holy Trinity to his flock. He finished by saying, 'if you want to know any more, ask the hairy people at Tolleshunt Knights.' One lady then asked, 'do they believe in the Holy Trinity, then?' The vicar retorted, 'believe in it? They invented it!'

Kris

17-10-2006, 12:54 PM

I wonder if you think that the education system will be next to seek to remove all Christian content outside of RE lessons?

I thought they already did that? Certainly seemed that way when I attended Secondary School here in the UK; and R.E. was treated as a pretty insignificant part of the syllabus.

There was, of course, mention of Christmas and we got time off school at Pascha; but no mention was ever made of their significance.

In fact, I remember being told to remove a Cross I was wearing around my neck (like BA, the school had a strict jewellary policy). When I enquired as to why my Muslim friends were allowed to wear hijab (even niqab were allowed) and mosque hats, but I couldn't wear a Cross, I was condescendingly told that "there is nothing in the Christian religion that says you have to wear a Cross."

I had not yet been received into the Church at that time, and so I didn't see wearing a Cross as the obligation I see it as today, but it nevertheless struck me as being very strange.

In XC,
Kris

John Charmley

17-10-2006, 04:17 PM

I thought they already did that? Certainly seemed that way when I attended Secondary School here in the UK; and R.E. was treated as a pretty insignificant part of the syllabus.
In XC,
Kris

Dear Kris,

Yes, you accurately describe the very sad state of affairs to which we have reduced ourselves in the UK.

George Orwell got it right when he wrote that you could not express ideas if you did not have the words to formulate the concept first, and here in the UK secularists have done a very good job in this respect.

Despite having by law an Established Church, we have allowed religion to become entirely privatised. The Bishops in the Lords pronounce on everything except those things we might expect from men of religion; and even when talking about moral issues, they are careful to frame their discourse within the prevailing secular fashions; none of this moral absolutism - anyone might think that something could be defined as 'wrong'.

I don't think the Bishops would accept this as a fair description, but that is because they are so acculturated that I doubt they would understand the perspective from which this critique is being made.

Peter's description of the interview is, alas, all too accurate. Only one dogma is to be tolerated, which is that almost everything is relative.

Peter asks:

How much of the anti-Christian mood is down to our own failures? If Christian discourse is denied a place in the public domain then is that because much Christian discourse is not very Christian and not very filled with the life of Christ? How much are we to blame for that?

I fear that the answer to this has to be that Christians must, indeed, shoulder much of the blame. Our witness has clearly been inadequate. Too many people I know associate Christianity with either a fundamentalist literalism which is closed to thought and intellect, or a clinging to tradition which has the same features; either way, we are not coming across as people who have anything to say that is worth listening to.

At the same time, the young people amongst whom I spend so much time, would be interested if they thought we were approachable, and I see great work being done by men and women of all denominations. There is no doubt that the plethora of denominations gets in the way of effective mission.

In Christ,

John

Peter Farrington

18-10-2006, 05:17 PM

John Charmley

18-10-2006, 07:56 PM

I see that the woman in question is Coptic.

Peter

Dear Peter,

That is interesting. I would guess that BA might find themselves on the business end of a racial and religious discrimination suit?

The BBC newsreader, Fiona Bruce has also been ordered not to wear a cross whilst reading the news.

Are these folk so afraid of the power of the cross that they have to ban it? Alas, probably not, I suspect it is down to some jobsworth who thinks that someone might be offended - which, given a lot of the pernicious rubbish churned out by the BBC, is a trifle ironic.

I fear we must take it for granted that the one minority it is safe to target and to insult is the Christian one. It was, I think, the BBC that sponsored (then failed to run) 'Popetown'; you don't see them offering 'Muhammedtown' -, or 'Jerry Spring meets the Prophet' - I wonder why??;)

In Christ

John

Scott Pierson

19-10-2006, 03:02 AM

Are these folk so afraid of the power of the cross that they have to ban it? Alas, probably not, I suspect it is down to some jobsworth who thinks that someone might be offended

I wouldnt doubt that the cross really does make them afraid or at least uncomfortable. The fact that someone might get offended is probably the main reason for it but why do people get offended.. its because the cross makes them uncomfortable and evokes fear in the enemies of God. When I hated God I was uncomfortable with the cross. I would pretend it didnt bother me and would do things like (God forgive me ) roll a joint with pages from a Bible and hang crosses upside down and such to prove to myself and others that it didnt bother me but at least at one level I was afraid... sort of the feeling that I might get hit with lightning or whatnot. I wouldnt doubt that others feel the same level of uncomfortablness when they see the cross.

John Charmley

19-10-2006, 11:35 PM

A follow up: the BBC have announced that their newsreader, Fiona Bruce, can wear a cross provided it is small and unobtrusive.

Goodness gracious me, we wouldn't want the symbol of our salvation to intrude upon anyone's consciousness, would we now! Not, of course, that there is much chance of anything else the BBC broadcasts contributing to that end either!

On the radio news there was a female atheist opining that since religion was 'an opinion' all signs of religious belief ought to be kept in the private sphere; further proof, were any needed that atheists really do think that their position is normative, and that their 'opinion' is a privileged one which should have precedence. This, I suspect, is the base line for the various bans which we have been tracing in this thread.

All we can do as Christians is to continue to register our profound dissent from such babblings.

In Christ,

John

Scott Pierson

20-10-2006, 02:54 AM

On the radio news there was a female atheist opining that since religion was 'an opinion' all signs of religious belief ought to be kept in the private sphere

That’s funny someone proclaiming in public their opinion that opinions ought to be kept in private and not proclaimed publicly. I wonder if the irony of that ever occurred to her.

Peter Farrington

20-10-2006, 09:26 AM

Dear Scott

I very much doubt it. There are few people more illiberal than those who proclaim their liberal credentials.

Peter

John Charmley

20-10-2006, 11:14 AM

Dear Scott

I very much doubt it. There are few people more illiberal than those who proclaim their liberal credentials.

Peter

Dear Peter,
Indeed. It is hard to remember one's Christian charity at times. It is a mark of an hegemonic mindset that it cannot tolerate any other mode of thought; it sees nothing intolerant in this. Its position would be similar to that of the Spanish Inquisition. Indeed, in their times of wordly triumph, Christians have not always been more tolerant than our new hegemons are proving themselves to be.

J.S. Mill, a century and a half ago, spotted the authoritarian tendencies inherent in secular liberalism; as it has worn down and undermined the place Christianity once had in the intellectual life of the west, it has become more, and not less, intolerant.

All these things on this thread are indeed signs of the times; and we shall continue to bear witness.

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

20-10-2006, 11:34 AM

John Charmley

20-10-2006, 11:04 PM

Dear All,

There is an excellent article on relativism by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (as he then was). I can't recall the site but a Google search would find it. It is very sound and perfectly orthodox. He describes relativism as the new intolerance.

Dear Andreas,
He wrote an excellent book which has just been published - those interested will find an article on it at:
http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006d/100606/ss100606e.php

This is where he was coming from in that address on Islam which created so much controversy.

Say what one will about the Papacy, this Pope and his predecessor are impressive in many ways.

In Christ

John

Andreas Moran

20-10-2006, 11:56 PM

I agree, John. If ever there was hope for reconciliation of the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church, it is under this Pope. I only regret that he felt he had to apologise to the Islamic world and to say that he regarded Islam with deep respect. I am not clear how one can respect a religion which denies that Christ was the Son of God, that He died on the Cross and rose from the dead on the third day.

Scott Pierson

21-10-2006, 01:33 AM

I was listening to the radio (Bob Dutco (spelling?) ) today and heard about elementary school students at a public school in southern California who were required** to take a 3 week course on Islam in which they “became Muslims”. The students made Islamic prayer rugs, took on Islamic names, performed Islamic prayers and rituals and were told they could get “extra credit” if they gave up their lunch as a fast for Ramadan. They also made banners to hang up on the classroom wall with Islamic slogans like Allah is great and such. Someone later called into the show and said her sisters child brought home a prayer rug made in a Michigan public school (in Brighton) and that they are doing the same course there.

One of the parents brought up a law suit but the local court ruled that what the school did was not contrary to the constitution because the children were simply “learning about another culture”. Strangely (or maybe not) the ACLU didn’t rush to the parents defense to protect their children from the “evils” of religion and enforce separation of Church and state.. In fact the ACLU has refused to comment on the case whatsoever. I thought at first the school wining the case might actually work out for the best because Christians could make reference to the decision when formulating and teaching classes on Christian culture, the Bible, etc but the judges made sure the ruling was worded in such a way as to apply only to this specific case. If a similar class was held by the same school in which kids “became Orthodox” for the week the same judges could technically rule that unconstitutional even if it was handled in the exact same way. So the ruling was a loss both ways. Its being appealed to a higher court by the Thomas Moore Law Center though.

If we are not careful we will wake up one day and the whole world will be Islamic. There are billions of Muslims in this world and many of them would like nothing better than to subject the USA and Europe to Islamic law. And despite the constant talk of “religious freedom” by American Muslim “civil rights “ organizations you can bet the religious freedom of Orthodox will be very limited. We have the freedom to be second class citizens and pay a special tax to the Muslims how wonderful!

** The school claims the parents had a right to opt out yet they failed to inform them that the class would take place nor did they tell them they had the right to opt out untill after the class was over and the parents were in court!

John Charmley

21-10-2006, 09:42 AM

Dear Scott,

A shocking, but alas not surprising story. Educators appear to be caught in a trap of their own making. Political correctness dictates that westerners show 'respect' for all 'cultures', and it also leads to the banning of religious symbols from schools; however educators are at a loss when dealing with a 'culture' that is, in itself, religious. However, lacking common sense, they have come up with an answer which is, I suspect, deeply patronising and possibly racist.

They decide to treat Islam as nothing more than a 'culture', hence the sort of nonsense which your post so vividly describes. Most Muslims would, if they realised this thought process was going on, find it offensive; but since it works to their advantage, they don't.

When I lived in the West Midlands of the UK, local children had diwali celebrations at a school where there was official discouragement of the use of the greeting 'happy Christmas' because 'people might find it offensive'; as the young say: 'go figure!'

Personally, I am beginning to find it offensive that so many 'people' are so easily offended - but since I am a white, middle-aged, Anglo-Saxon, male Christian, I would guess that I am one of the few whom officialdom will not mind offending?;)

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

21-10-2006, 09:43 AM

An alarming story, Scott. Last year at the university where I teach, the student Islamic Society organised an 'Islamic Awareness Week' (as though anyone could be unaware of Islam!). Some of these students study human rights courses. My questions were, did they not see the contradiction in taking advantage of rights in England which were brutally denied in their own countries, and could there be a 'Christian Awareness Week' at Riyadh University?

Scott Pierson

21-10-2006, 06:30 PM

shocking, but alas not surprising story. Educators appear to be caught in a trap of their own making. Political correctness dictates that westerners show 'respect' for all 'cultures', and it also leads to the banning of religious symbols from schools; however educators are at a loss when dealing with a 'culture' that is, in itself, religious. However, lacking common sense, they have come up with an answer which is, I suspect, deeply patronising and possibly racist.

They decide to treat Islam as nothing more than a 'culture', hence the sort of nonsense which your post so vividly describes. Most Muslims would, if they realised this thought process was going on, find it offensive; but since it works to their advantage, they don't.

Yeah, they are under the impression that "religion" isnt (or at least shouldnt be) an integrated aspect of life. They consider religion to be nothing mroe then a set of theological theories coupled with a code of behavior. Religion has nothing to do with politics, culture, economics, etc because religion is simply one isolated aspect of the human experience that doesnt overlap any other aspect. When they see a traditional people like the Islamic peoples of the middle east and notice that they connect everything to religion they are unable to understand them in the least and try to reduce the evidence into something more understandable in modern western catagories. The same with the western understanding of traditional Orthodox espcially in Russia, Greece and other Orthodox majority nations that have an integral religious culture.

Father David Moser

23-10-2006, 06:40 AM

** The school claims the parents had a right to opt out yet they failed to inform them that the class would take place nor did they tell them they had the right to opt out untill after the class was over and the parents were in court!

I find this little bit to be the most troubling of all. How in the world could students be participating in a 3 WEEK class but the parents didn't "find out about it" until after the class was over. Do these parents not talk to their children, do they not pay attention to what is taught in school. Surely someone's child might have said something about this "integrated" immersion into Islam somewhere along the line. "Mommy, we made prayer rugs today!" or "Daddy, did you know that Allah means God?" I mean come on, these parents had to be completely out of touch with their children not to notice such a thing. My parents always asked things like "What did you do in school today" at the dinner table - and I made it a point to ask similar questions of my own children, even when they were in university. It is a disturbing situation when parents don't care enough about their children to inform themselves of what is going on in the child's life.

Fr David Moser

Scott Pierson

23-10-2006, 12:46 PM

I find this little bit to be the most troubling of all. How in the world could students be participating in a 3 WEEK class but the parents didn't "find out about it" until after the class was over. Do these parents not talk to their children, do they not pay attention to what is taught in school. Surely someone's child might have said something about this "integrated" immersion into Islam somewhere along the line.

Yeah, that is a sad state of affairs. I didnt even think of that untill you mentioned it.

John Charmley

23-10-2006, 01:40 PM

It would, indeed, seem a sad state of affairs. But some schools do not encourage parents to take much of an interest in what happens on the premises, so to speak.

This is one of the reasons it is sad that in Britain the state is putting pressure on state schools to take at least a quarter of their pupils from 'other faiths'. Given that state schools take 100% of their pupils from any faith and from no faith, it seems a little much to insist that everyone else should dilute their faith content; is the state willing to insist that a quarter of pupils in its schools should come from a faith background? That would be a revelation, but I doubt it will happen any time soon.

As it is, in Church of England schools in this country the Christian content of the education is pretty minimal; indeed all such schools need to do is to take the usual Anglican line, and that ensures minimal religious content.

There is much debate here at the moment as to whether Britain should become formally a 'secular state'; for all the use the C of E has been, one is tempted to say it does not matter; but it still does, I think. Some sign, however vestigial, that the State is not the be all and end all of existence is welcome. On the other hand, America seems to get by quite well - or does it?

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

24-10-2006, 10:06 AM

There was a distressing piece on BBC Radio 4 between 7.30 and 8am this morning about persecution of Christians in Pakistan. People are charged with blasphemy, an offence which, on conviction, carries the death penalty. The report said some people are charged after accusations by 'grudge informers' (a bit like those in the Soviet Union who got at people they didn't like by denouncing them as enemies of the people). Some accused spend years in sordid prisons where they are attacked by inmates and staff alike. Death threats are made against defence lawyers. A senior Pakistani cleric was interviewed and by translation said that blasphemers were lower than animals and didn't deserve to live; they are like the AIDS virus which must be eradicated. Of course, we do not react by gathering in the streets, burning things and jumping up and down waiving Kalashnikovs in the air. It seems, though, that the Constitution of Pakistan guarantees freedom of religion . .

John Charmley

24-10-2006, 12:42 PM

There was a distressing piece on BBC Radio 4 between 7.30 and 8am this morning about persecution of Christians in Pakistan.

Dear Andreas,
I heard this, and it was, as you say, extremely distressing; yet we hear nothing about it on the television, and next to nothing in the newspapers. The British Orthodox Church's Glastonbury Review regularly runs pieces on the persecution suffered by the Copts, about which, again, our government does nothing.

There seems to be an unconscious acceptance of the fact that whilst the 'human rights' of Muslims here, and elsewhere, must be seen to be respected (or else there will be riots), Christians must just suffer and be silent. Writing that seemed a little harsh, but that is how it feels.

The Government's insistence upon Faith Schools taking a quarter of their pupils from non-Faith backgrounds betrays a totally secular attitude to the idea of Faith. There is a good article in the Telegraph by a Roman Catholic on this theme. Unlike the Church of England, other Christian denominations take the view that the Muslims and Jews take, which is that Faith is a holistic matter; Scott got this one spot on.

This seems to me a form of oppression much more subtle than any overt anti-Christian activity; it allows the Faith to be diluted and then subverted all in the name of the values of 'tolerance' and 'diversity'. To protest against these things exposes one to the charge of bigotry, and further weakens the tenuous hold that Christianity has in the UK on the public consciousness. To do nothing seems like a surrender.

Of course one's protests may be in vain, and all of these things may indeed be part of a wider pattern which only He who created us all can perceive - but it is hard at times. We must pray for our Christian brothers and sisters who live under Muslim dominance; they have the really hard lot.

In Christ

John

Andreas Moran

24-10-2006, 02:37 PM

Dear John,

No, not harsh at all. As you say, the silence from our media and from our (Christian) leaders is deafening, as it has been (to switch the focus a second) on the inquest verdict on the death of Terry Lloyd.

I throw in a radical thought - is it better to feel under threat than to be comfortable? I remember that when we and the Americans were on our way to bomb Orthodox Serbia in order to support Moslem rebels, the Orthodox Metropolitan (I think ) in Belgrade said, 'wonderful - we shall suffer!'.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

24-10-2006, 02:54 PM

Here is a sobering article from the BBC site entitled Global ecosystems 'face collapse' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6077798.stm). This also was the first item on our CBC radio news this morning.

Basically we in the west are consuming the resources of the world at a rate that two planet earths will be needed to support the way we live by 2050.

Presently if the whole world lived as in the UK three planet earths would be needed to support itself; if the US then five; I imagine Canada would come in as needing at least 3 or 4.

Perhaps some consolation could be taken by the fact that the WWF report doesn't seem to take into account the possibility of increasing productivity. Perhaps though even this has a limit.

In any case then, the cross is not only something being rejected by others. It is also something first rejected by ourselves and in the most basic way we live.

If we pray, fast and consciously live with a little more self-restraint in both spiritual & material terms then it could be that we will leave a living planet to our children & grandchildren.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Andreas Moran

24-10-2006, 04:50 PM

Fr Raphael - your blessing - you are absolutely right if I may say so. If Christians and those calling themselves Christians had, in all places and at all times, lived in accordance with Christ's commandments and the Tradition of the Church, how different things would be! I often recall the saying of Ghandi: the earth has enough for every man's need but not for every man's greed.

Peter Farrington

24-10-2006, 07:42 PM

I am very wary of all these sort of articles and believe little that is on the BBC website. The BBC has admitted today that it has a bias towards liberal modernism and socialism.

In the UK we see an increasing number of wind turbines, which I find beautiful, and there are plans for large scale tidal energy generation. There will also be efficiency increases as required and as can be sustained by the market. In fact the UK is growing cleaner, quicker than in most other places and is seeking to generate significant renewable energy in the short term.

The problem lies with the developing world which is using old technology. These people quite reasonably want an increase in their standard of living and this is causing problems.

There is plenty of energy available, but technology needs sharing with the third world, and there needs to be limits on population growth.

There are those who have stated that they would like the human population of the world reduced to 10% of the present by force, who hate all motor transport and value the life of a rabbit more than a human being. There are also vast agencies who gain grant funding by painting as bleak a picture as possible. Same as meteor watch agencies and lots of others. No-one gets money saying, well actually technology should continue to find solutions to energy needs and there is not a great problem.

Most African problems, for instance, are not lack of resources, both humanitarian and local, but terrible governments who despise their own people and wasteful warfare between tribal groups.

Peter

John Charmley

25-10-2006, 12:57 PM

I am very wary of all these sort of articles and believe little that is on the BBC website. The BBC has admitted today that it has a bias towards liberal modernism and socialism.

Peter

Dear Peter,
Really! Where can I find this marvellous admission? Of course we know it to be so by observation, but I had not realised that it had ever 'fessed up in this way.

The televisual media have played and continue to play a central part in the denigration of Christianity in western society. With the exception of US t.v. channels devoted to the subject (and some of these seem a little dubious), mainstream t.v., especially in the UK, takes an unhesitatingly negative attitude to Christianity.

I don't watch much t.v., but every time I see a Christian portrayed in any t.v. drama they are either a hypocrite or a creepy nerd or else a bigot. Islam gets a respectful treatment, presumably because t.v. executives don't want their houses burnt down or t.v. directors don't want to end up like Theo van Gogh. Christians seem fair game.

On the rare occasions the BBC deals with Christianity it is either sensationalist, as with the da Vinci code nonsense, or bad old-fashioned 19th century 'Jesus as man' stuff. The whole notion of the Incarnation passes the t.v. people by.

It may be because I don't see much t.v. that I think this, and it may be that I see unrepresentative things (which is probably true in itself), but I have no impression that our t.v.s are full of interviews with the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Archbishop of Westminster, or, indeed, any clergy who actually believe in the traditional teachings of the Faith.

Of course, if you are a vicar who has lost your faith and wants to knock Christianity, or a trendy vicar wishing to hire Elvis impersonators to do Evensong, or even better, a lady vicar who does Elvis impersonations, the media will beat a path to your door!

Or is it just me?;)

In Christ

John

Peter Farrington

25-10-2006, 04:19 PM

John Charmley

26-10-2006, 10:54 PM

Dear John

There was a big piece in the Express (so it must be elsewhere too, just not the BBC website) yesterday I think with interviews with various people. Apparently the senior management had a meeting where they agreed that they were biased against Christianity and in favour of homosexuality, multi-culturalism and liberalism as a matter of policy.

I think it was Marr who also agreed that there was a clear bias in news presentation.

Peter

Dear Peter,
Well, I am surprised - by any admission of their obvious bias by the BBC mandarins.

I see that the Government has backed away from forcing faith schools to take a quarter of their pupils from other faiths or none at all - but only because the Anglicans (who are the main providers) have already volunteered to do this; mind you, were I inclined to be uncharitable, I might say that this was unlikely to make any difference at all - but I shall refrain.;)

In Christ,

John

Scott Pierson

27-10-2006, 03:06 AM

d you, were I inclined to be uncharitable, I might say that this was unlikely to make any difference at all - but I shall refrainWell, if they let in some muslims it might actually make the school a little more orthodox. At least the Muslims believe in the virgin birth, the second coming of Christ, heaven and hell...J/K :rolleyes:

Peter Farrington

27-10-2006, 11:01 AM

John Charmley

27-10-2006, 07:26 PM

I am fortunate that my local church schools are pretty good.

My parish priest is a good man, an Anglo-orthodox as far as is possible, and there are good connections between the schools and the Church. He is entirely orthodox in the things you mention.

The junior school does arrange trips to other places of religious worship as part of the National Curriculum but we always withdraw our children from those visits.

Otherwise they do try as far as is in their own limited means.

Peter

Dear Peter,

That is good to know.

There was rather a good article in today's Times by the Archbishop of Canterbury explaining why it was a very bad idea for the State to assume that it was in a position to forbid signs of faith. Rowan Williams is a force for good - and, of course, a great admirer of Orthodoxy.

The piece can be found at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/uk/

He points out the evil effects which have followed from the notion that the State is the arbiter of morality. His argument could be taken much further, but it is good to have him speaking up for Christianity in this way.:)

In Christ

John

Kris

28-10-2006, 12:06 AM

Well, if they let in some muslims it might actually make the school a little more orthodox. At least the Muslims believe in the virgin birth, the second coming of Christ, heaven and hell...J/K :rolleyes:

I know you were joking, but that is actually very true.

I have never met a Muslim that denied the virgin birth, the miracles of Christ, His ascension into heaven, His second coming at the end of days; but I've lost count of how many Anglicans I've met who deny all of these things. Sad really.

Andreas Moran

28-10-2006, 01:39 AM

John Charmley

28-10-2006, 02:12 PM

This is a vague memory so details may not be exact, but at the time of the fuss about Salmon Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses', the Muslims in England tested whether the blasphemy laws could extend to Islam. In the Court of Appeal, one Lord Justice asked an Imam who was a witness if Muslims believed in the Virgin Birth of Jesus. On hearing the answer, 'yes', the Lord Justice commented, 'Hmm - that's more than some Anglican bishops believe!'

Dear Andreas/Kris,

Alas, only too true I fear. I hope that Orthodox bishops are rather more what their name implies than some of my lot.

That being said, and with all due acknowledgement to my own frustrations with the Anglican Church, not all Anglican bishops and Archbishops should be tarred with the same brush. Rowan Williams seems as Orthodox as it is possible for an Anglican archbishop to be, and in his piece in yesterday's Times wrote sagely about the place of Faith in our society.

How does the Eastern Orthodox Church deal with these matters? Before 1453 there was obviously some identity between the imperial power and the Church, but under the Ottomans the Great Church was in captivity, and under the Romanovs the Church was heavily involved with the State, before, under the Godless Bolsheviks being persecuted for its fidelity to the Faith. As an historian, I am more familiar with these things that with how the EO coexists with the modern Greek and Russian state. Is it in some way better than the way the C of E goes on?

Can I stress, given the difficulty of conveying tone of voice in e mails, that this is a genuine question!:)

In Christ,

John

Peter Farrington

28-10-2006, 02:54 PM

Hi John

And there was a good piece by the Bishop of Gibralatar, +Geoffrey Rowell, about Coptic Orthodox spirituality and Fr Matta el Meskeen in the times just last week.

And the Bishop of Ebbsfleet has joined the British Orthodox Fellowship and encouraged his clergy to do so, and of course the other Provincial Episcopal Visitors are good men, though in my opinion in an untenable position.

I still have some hope that a significant group of Anglicans would chose to come out as a coherent body and unite themselves to Orthodoxy. This happened in a small way about 10-12 years ago, and some of the Anglican clergy joined our British Orthodox Church, but I still hope that a more coherent exodus could take place. There are still plenty of good folk in that communion.

Peter

John Charmley

07-11-2006, 01:58 PM

There is a report in this morning's London Times that a group called Theos supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster has produced a report designed to combat the growing aggressiveness of the secularisers in our society. You can read more at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2440413,00.html

The report declares:

“Many secularist commentators argue that the growing role of faith in society represents a dangerous development,” the archbishops say. “However, they fail to recognise that public atheism is itself an intolerant faith position. If we pay attention to what is actually happening in the United Kingdom and beyond, we will see that religiously inspired public engagement need not be sectarian, and can in fact be radically inclusive.”

Good to see such comments being made. I would be interested to know what others think on this topic.

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

09-11-2006, 09:40 AM

John Charmley

09-11-2006, 12:56 PM

Dear John,

This (Theos) is just the sort of thing the Pope was talking about when (as Cardinal Ratzinger) he wrote about relativism as the new intolerance. We also have Prof Dawkins to contend with. He wrote an article in 'The Times' recently based on his new book. He doesn't even attempt to construct a logical argument but expresses mere prejudice and bigotry. If my students failed so badly to contruct an argument I'd have words with them. It's hardly good scholarship to rail against something you don't know about.

It's important that Christian leaders do this so that we as individuals don't look like zealots or merely crackpots.

Dear Andreas,

Indeed, and it is good to see inter-denominational cooperation on something so important.

Given the excesses of some 'ecumenists', it is easy, sometimes, to forget that inter-denominational cooperation can be a force for good. Neither Archbishop Williams nor Cardinal O'Conor has abated one jot from the ecclesiological positions taken by their respective communions, but in such matters there is no necessity for it. The real adversary is in plain view and is a clear and present danger.

The militant and intolerant atheism represented by the likes of Prof. Dawkins is rampant in our society. It preaches tolerance but practices the opposite. It takes the lazy road of tolerating what it approves of, which turns swiftly into intolerance of what it disapproves of. It uses the rise of what it calls Islamic fundamentalism to berate all 'faiths', and seeks to expunge all traces of religion from society. It uses the idea of political correctness to discriminate against all religion, finding trouble only when its hatred of religious practice collides with its other obsessions, which is why it gets itself into a mess over the issue of Muslim women and veils. Its visceral reaction is 'veils = religion = bad', but its p.c. reaction is 'women from ethnic minority = good = let them do it'.

It is good that an organisation like Theos should be dedicating itself to fighting this insidious secularising attack on our Christian faith and heritage. I would hope that all Christians might feel able to support its aims.

Incidentally, I do so agree with your comments on Dawkins' piece in the Times, it was very shoddy. He may be an excellent scientist, for all I know, but his philosophical and theological thought as expressed in that article would get him a fail in any class I taught.;)

INXC

John

John Charmley

22-11-2006, 07:38 PM

Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

An update for those of you who have noticed the case of the British Airways employee who has been suspended for wearing the Cross at work. She has lost her internal appeal on the ground that the company forbids the wearing of jewellry (one supposes wedding rings are excluded, but these days, who could be sure?)

Her name is Nadia Eweida, and she is Coptic Orthodox. The Metropolitan of Glastonbury, Abba Seraphim, has protested to BA about their decision and has urged his flock to avoid the company if at all possible.

Let us hope that the company will have the same reaction as the BBC and reconsider a policy that discriminates against Christians.

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

23-11-2006, 01:21 AM

John Charmley

23-11-2006, 11:02 PM

As I will be a passenger, the situation will be different, but I'm booked on a BA flight to Moscow on 23 December - I feel like wearing my Reader's robes and a large Cross (which, of course, I won't).

Dear Andreas,

That brought a big smile :)

I suspect that some of these people do not realise what the Cross means to us. To equate it with jewellry is just to show one's ignorance.

I heard Nadia Eweida on the news last night, and she sounded so unlike the 'pressure group' mindset that one so often gets in secular cases of this kind; she spoke respectfully of her employers, refused to bad mouth anyone, but stuck quietly to her conscience. She seemed a very good example of Christian witness, may God bless her.

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

24-11-2006, 02:56 PM

Dear John,

Indeed. My wife was telling the fathers at the Lavra about this and similar things a couple of days ago - they can't believe what is going on here.
(Yesterday's Daily Mail was very good about this, especially on Rowan Cantuar's silence and his business class BA flight to Rome.) And our media screams that it's a dictatorship in Russia! They hear that also with astonishment. Life is rough there because of the degree of criminality but not because of oppression.
Incidentally, the perception of England in Russia is that it is the main centre of freemasonry. When these two Fathers we know returned from their second visit to Essex, their brethren jokingly asked, 'what degree are you now?'!

In Christ,

Andreas.

John Charmley

25-11-2006, 12:01 AM

Dear Andreas,

That is a sad reflection of our society here in the UK.

A good reflection is that it looks as though BA is backing down on this issue of banning the crucifix; of course it is doing so in the usual modern way, by claiming it is not, but we have all become sadly used to such organisations being unable to acknowledge error.

The really good news is that it seems as though Christians may finally have decided to stand up for their Faith. This is not a call to act as though we are a pressure group, or to 'lobby' or anything like that; there are those who believe in that sort of activism, but sometimes it seems that the results of such actions are not what was intended. No, this is a simple Coptic Christian saying she will not be banned from wearing the Cross, and inspiring thousands of others to voice their support. It is good that this secular society should be reminded that there are many in it whose values are not its own.

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

25-11-2006, 09:29 AM

Dear John,

The state of life here in the UK is indeed something about which to be concerned. When I 'phoned my wife last night, she told me very excitedly of how she and her brother had gone to an evening service in one of the dozens of monasteries in central Moscow and how wonderful it had been. She said that she forgot all about the rough world outside. In England, by contrast, yes, we have a settled and ordered way of life but it is characterised by what my wife describes as 'suffocating safety'. There are no threats to our daily life but there is no spirit. Miracles happen in Russia because you can't manage without them.

An ongoing matter here is the secularist pressure which has been put on Christian Unions at English universities. For those unaware of this, CUs on campuses have been told that membership and executive committee membership must be open to anyone whatever their belief or lack of it (so could include satanists). When some refused, they were accused of discrimination and suspended from all privileges. Eight bishops (CofE and RC) have written to 'The Times' to protest about this. Since executive committee members of CUs are charged by their constitutions to proclaim the Gospel, it's hard to see how this could be done by non-believers. The umbrella group, The Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship, has been advised that it has good grounds for legal action. I really can't get my head around the idea that in this so-called free, liberal democracy, you can set up a Christian Society and be told you must allow non-Christians to be members of its governing committee!

Is this kind of nonsense going on in North American and Australian universities, I wonder?

In Christ,

Andreas.

John Charmley

25-11-2006, 09:24 PM

An ongoing matter here is the secularist pressure which has been put on Christian Unions at English universities. For those unaware of this, CUs on campuses have been told that membership and executive committee membership must be open to anyone whatever their belief or lack of it (so could include satanists). When some refused, they were accused of discrimination and suspended from all privileges. Eight bishops (CofE and RC) have written to 'The Times' to protest about this. Since executive committee members of CUs are charged by their constitutions to proclaim the Gospel, it's hard to see how this could be done by non-believers. The umbrella group, The Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship, has been advised that it has good grounds for legal action. I really can't get my head around the idea that in this so-called free, liberal democracy, you can set up a Christian Society and be told you must allow non-Christians to be members of its governing committee!

Is this kind of nonsense going on in North American and Australian universities, I wonder?

In Christ,

Andreas.

Dear Andreas,

I don't know how far this is a result of the unique position in the UK of the National Union of Students, which is the last body to still receive a compulsory tribute from every student union in the UK, and which has always run a left-of-centre secularist agenda; looking after its members comes down the list, I fear.

They have been able to use the climate created by our obsession with political correctness to try to stop Christian Unions from doing their business. Many years ago, when I was a student, my Junior Common Room had a 'no platform for fascists' policy, which they used to prevent anyone who disagreed with the student executive from speaking; this is a development of the same kind. Those of us at UK universities should, perhaps, look to see what is happening in our own institution.

In Christ,

John

Ian Leyda

05-12-2006, 09:48 AM

I remember about a year ago that I was reading the newspaper. There was a story about a large group of Christians that had organized in protest because a monument of the 10-Commandments was ordered to be removed from a public courthouse in Alabama. That story was on the front page.

Then, I read an editorial reporting that the genocide in Darfur had resumed because the international community was no longer paying attention. They projected 100,000 would die each month, if it continued. The reporter in concluding asked readers with urgency to call their political representatives to ask them to stand up and intervene. That story was on the last page.

Christians were outraged over a monument and gathered in three days. But we hadn't said a word about a genocide that had already been over a year old.

My point here is not really intended to speak on the importance of Christian symbols or how we carry them in secular environments. But Christians orgaize very quickly and passionately in defense of our symbols and what we feel is our "turf." Here in America, we like to fight about Christian symbols on public property and about whether there should be Christian prayer in public schools. But we are slow to gather and protest war, poverty, disease.....

And so our brother's blood cries out from the ground in Darfur. Instead, we spend our time being the keepers of our monuments and symbols. Already we have written letters worrying about wearing crosses in schools and on airplanes. Have we written our government about Darfur?

I would say advancing secularism is not a sign of the times. Advancing genocide is a sign of the times. And we fiddle while Rome burns.

Peace,
Ian

Andreas Moran

05-12-2006, 11:10 AM

Dear Ian,

A good point. Of course, we should expect our Christian leaders to intervene, but there's no oil in Sudan, is there?

In Christ,

Andreas.

John Charmley

05-12-2006, 05:03 PM

And so our brother's blood cries out from the ground in Darfur. Instead, we spend our time being the keepers of our monuments and symbols. Already we have written letters worrying about wearing crosses in schools and on airplanes. Have we written our government about Darfur?

I would say advancing secularism is not a sign of the times. Advancing genocide is a sign of the times. And we fiddle while Rome burns.

Peace,
Ian

Dear Ian,

An interesting point, and one well made. It made me think about the wider issue of being a Christian and being active in such protests. From hints in one or two places on this site, I have a sense that Orthodoxy and activism may not always sit side by side in the way Protestants often put them; if that is incorrect (and it is probably over simplistic) I am sure someone will put me on the right path.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has spoken out (mildly) on the issue of renewing the UK's nuclear deterrent, and I have no doubt the usual sources will be saying the usual things about clergymen staying out of politics - which, of course, raises another aspect of the same question.

Part of me has an edgy feeling about the direct engagement with politics, but then I guess that something like Darfur could be said to be beyond politics and to be a humanitarian calamity; does the fact that the Sudanese government refuses to agree turn it into politics?

Is our concern on these issues in itself a sign that we lack the Orthodox mindset?

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

05-12-2006, 06:29 PM

It is sometimes said, and I can understand why, that the Orthodox are not so good at activism. It is not entirely true (there are wonderful examples of energetic hierarchs and priests doing great things, as, indeed, did St John of Kronstadt), but as a generalisation it has to be admitted. But then we can point to the power of prayer. I have a sneaking suspicion that many people will think that prayer is not going to solve practical problems. St Siluoan prayed so hard for all the peoples of the earth that they may find and turn to God. Yet just after his repose, WWII started. What can we say?

I remember the story of St Seraphim remarking to Nikolai Motovilov that the forces of evil have great power; I'm writing from memory, but the saint said something like this, that a single demon by a flick of its claw could cause great destruction in the world, even destroy it. It makes me think that, whilst we see, to paraphrase Father Sophrony, evil walking up and down the world apparently unrestrained, we do not know how much God continuously intervenes to check evil. I seem to remember that during WWII, Father Sophrony prayed for the 'less evil side to win'. May there not be a connection between prayer and God's continuous intervention in the world? Might not the world be much worse without prayer (and, I might add, the Divine Liturgy which is offered 'for the whole world')?

In Christ,

Andreas.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

05-12-2006, 06:33 PM

Is our concern on these issues in itself a sign that we lack the Orthodox mindset?

On the contrary, concern about all these issues is an inseparable part of being Orthodox.

The question however is the way in which we are concerned and how we express our concern.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Andreas Moran

05-12-2006, 07:07 PM

May I offer a fresh apect to this thread? There is some discussion in church and legal circles in England and Wales about new regulations our government is to bring in, probably in April next, deferred from implementation last month. These regulations are called the Sexual Orientation Regulations 2006. They are delegated legislation and so do not get debated like primary legislation. It will be illegal to discriminate against people in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of sexual orientation. It is suggested that this would mean, for example, Christians running guest accommodation, or, I suppose, a retreat centre, could not refuse a booking for a double-bedded room from an actively homosexual couple. Or, a Christian printer could not refuse an order for printing leaflets promoting homosexual conduct. It is further suggested that administering Holy Communion might be the provision of a service. If so, could a priest break these regulations by refusing Holy Communion to one whom he knew was an active homosexual? An interesting legal point for the Church of England because of the Act of Uniformity of 1662 and the rubric that a priest may not administer Holy Communion to certain people. But there is no legal status for the Catholics and the Orthodox in this regard. Of course, these ideas are speculative until we see how the regulations will be interpreted and enforced. That there should not be discrimination as such is clear. But what of the religious conscience of those who simply cannot do that which facilitates and encourages sin? That, as I understand it, is one way of sinning.

We already have the example of a policeman in Wales who was arrested for offering out leaflets at a Gay Pride march, the leaflets simply quoting St Paul on homosexuality and immorality. How, asked the policeman, could he have commited any offence in handing out passages from the Bible on which he had taken his oath on becoming a policeman? He was discharged.

There have been calls for the resignation of Ruth Kelly, the minister for Equality, who has responsibility for these regulations. She is Catholic (and a member of Opus Dei), and it is said that she is therefore unfit for her ministerial position because of the conflict between her duties and her religious beliefs. It is suggested that the delay in implementing the regulations is her deliberate fault.

Are there similar regulations elsewhere?

In Christ,

Andreas.

Ian Leyda

05-12-2006, 11:41 PM

Dear Ian,

An interesting point, and one well made. It made me think about the wider issue of being a Christian and being active in such protests.

Part of me has an edgy feeling about the direct engagement with politics, but then I guess that something like Darfur could be said to be beyond politics and to be a humanitarian calamity; does the fact that the Sudanese government refuses to agree turn it into politics?

Dear John,

I am also very ambivalent about the way Christians participate in politics. In America, Protestants (especially Evangelicals) are far too "aligned" with power and influence.

I am a firm believer in the separation of Church and State, which serves to protect the autonomy of the Church. The Church should insist on this autonomy and promote it. The Church must be an independent voice in the world.

The best example of the Christian loss of independence is the fact that its message in the last 20 years has largely been shaped by conservative political policy. The hallmark issues for Christians in America have become abortion and gay marriage/sex. They call them "Christian values." You can see examples of this quite recently in Mr. Moran's posts on this thread. Abortion and gay marriage, however, are part of a modern political agenda and are not really a biblical agenda. Where does Jesus speak on these two issues? Where do the prophets address them?

Thus, the more urgent prophetic witness on behalf of justice and proper religious practice (two core themes in the prophets) are neglected. These are the two themes Jesus picks up in his prophetic ministry. His first sermon in Luke is a proclamation of justice for the poor and oppressed (Luke 4: 14-21). His first sermon in Matthew is about moral and religous life (Matt. 5-7) and the nature of discipleship.

If Jesus was concerned with justice for the poor, with the moral and religious life, then why do many Christians devote their attention to abortion and gay sex? Because their urgencies are shaped primarily by a political agenda and not by the ministry of Jesus. When Jesus says, "tear down this temple," why do we devote our urgencies to our monuments and symbols?

Regarding the Church and its role in politics, I think the portrayal of the political/prophetic relationship in the OT is a particularly helpful illustration. You see two independent but related offices in the King and Prophet working for the "government" of Israel. King Saul and the prophet Samuel. King David and his prophets Samuel/Nathan. When David sinned and abused his power, it was Nathan who spoke the Word of God to him and held him accountable. When the ruling class abuses the poor, Amos goes to the king and prophesies against him. Amos calls justice to roll down like water and righteousness like a flowing stream. This is the prophetic witness!

In our age, then, the Church must serve as an independent prophetic witness to its government and in the world. I think it is a mistake for Christians to think that they should avoid politics, because the Bible is driven by political situations. In the OT, the prophets are always speaking against the kings, against injustice, and their false religious leadership. And the NT also establishes its political setting immediately (Matt 2). Jesus proclaims the Kingdom of God over against the kingdoms of this world.

But it is important that we keep within the prophetic tradition and within the focus of Jesus. And we must preserve our autonomy from the political arena while we speak to it. How can we worry about gay sex or monuments when genocide is going on?

It is ironic that we fuss over wearing the cross, a symbol of torture and killing, but we do not fuss over real torture and killing. Our urgencies are misplaced.

Peace,
Ian

John Charmley

06-12-2006, 12:01 AM

But it is important that we keep within the prophetic tradition and within the focus of Jesus. And we must preserve our autonomy from the political arena while we speak to it. How can we worry about gay sex or monuments when genocide is going on?

It is ironic that we fuss over wearing the cross, a symbol of torture and killing, but we do not fuss over real torture and killing. Our urgencies are misplaced.

Peace,
Ian

Dear Ian,
A powerful witness indeed - you say so well many of the things that were unexpressed and unexpressable in my hopeless word 'edgy'; I suspect that there may have been much of this in Fr. Raphael's words.

I am unsure whether there is an 'either/or' situation here, and I sense you are making a point about balance and priorities. We are called to repentance, and perhaps in political activism we can lose that focus - which may be why we can note the mote in the eye of others whilst missing the beam in our own.

An elderly Anglican priest whom I knew when I was young and who, as a young man himself, had been what he called a Christian socialist, once reminded me, when I was waxing lyrical about the call to action for the poor, that Christ came to save us all, not to proclaim equal pay for equal work; it pulled me up short when I was 18, but that thought has stayed with me. At the time I fear that I mistook it for a form of quietism as I looked for more moneylenders in more temples, only realising later how the heat and arrogance of youth had made me miss what he was really saying.

Your post, in word and spirit, reminded me of his wisdom. Perhaps the ideal Church/State relationship is that of speaking Truth unto Power. In today's Coptic Liturgy we read from 1 Peter 2:11-17

11 Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, 12 having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation. 13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men-- 16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. 17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king. [NKJV] Do not love the world, nor the things which are in the world. The world shall pass away and all its desires; but he who does the will of God shall abide forever. Amen

You give us much to think on, and it would be interesting to hear from others on this.

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

06-12-2006, 03:14 AM

In response to Ian's post, I do not mean to indicate my own priorities, but just to add to a thread which is about events in the news which give some indication of where our society is going. There may well come moments when what the state requires we as Christians cannot accede to. It happened when Julian the Apostate tried to get Christians to buy food sprinkled with the blood of sacrifices. The like may cause a head-on collision between Christians and the state. Rendering unto Caesar is one thing - being cornered into compromising our faith is quite another.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Ian Leyda

06-12-2006, 06:17 AM

In response to Ian's post, I do not mean to indicate my own priorities, but just to add to a thread which is about events in the news which give some indication of where our society is going. There may well come moments when what the state requires we as Christians cannot accede to.

Andreas, can you give an example of what you mean? What is being done in society today to warrant a comparison to Julian the Apostate?

Peace,
Ian

Andreas Moran

06-12-2006, 11:53 AM

Dear Ian,

Well, I did say 'may well come', but perhaps the example people think of first is the implanting of chips in the right hand or forehead. We do not know when this may happen. Starets Kyrill at the Lavra is not keen on biometric passports but advises people to follow their conscience.

In Christ,

Andreas.

John Charmley

06-12-2006, 01:34 PM

Dear Andreas and Ian,

Some interesting themes are emerging across this thread. I have a sense of a difference between a perception of 'the times' as between the USA and the UK.

Having lived for a while in the US, I am never sure whether Americans appreciate how very secular the UK is? Julian the Apostate would feel bereft were he about today in the UK - Othello's occupation would, indeed, be gone.

Whether theology undergraduates at Oxford are different from the history ones I encounter at my own and other UK Universities I could not say, but most of those I deal with know next to nothing about religion. That little is confined to 'knowing' that 'the Church' tries to 'hush up' discreditable details of its past, that priests 'are paedophiles', and that the CofE 'believes nothing'. All these are things said to me by students. Passing over any judgements on these caricatures, they reflect a profoundly secular mindset.

'Science' has the answers, all of them, and this life is about 'getting on' and becoming prosperous. Indeed, the latest reports from our Government's various 'Think Tanks' are all about how we, as individuals, can become more effective parts of 'UK plc'. It is a materialist's dream: we produce and we consume; the more we do of each of these things, the better it is for society.

In the British context, it is, I fear, profoundly cheering that the Churches have actually been able to speak up about things like the banning of the wearing of the Cross; it marks a change from the endless Anglican acquiescence in adapting to the values of this society. If Anglicanism can see that in performing its usual feat of adapting to the times, this time it is secularising itself, that would be as welcome as it would be surprising.

There is, perhaps for good or evil, who knows, nothing like the Christian Right in British politics; indeed, although our current Prime Minister is a Christian, he had to accept the advice of his spin doctor that 'we don't do religion'.

So, no need for a Julian in the UK, the job is done. A St. Paul would be welcome - most probably on the same terms he encountered in the first century - although this time it would be ridicule rather than a physical threat that he would face.

The question of how to bear a Christian witness in such a society has, of course, at one level the same answer as it always has; we are called to take up the Cross and follow Him. In a post-Christian society such as the UK, this has, however, dimensions which may be new. Of course, they may be new manifestations of old problems, but it is challenging to explore their nature and dimensions; thank Heaven for the power of prayer - and the Holy Ghost.

In Christ,

John

Scott Pierson

06-12-2006, 05:56 PM

First let me say that I'm NOT a republican nor am I big fan of everything the so called “evangelical” or “fundamentalist” right does in the US. I do however think that abortion should be one of the number one issues because it deals with the most fundamental right a person has (to live) and the dignity of the human person. As bad as poverty is at least a poor person has life and at least theoretically ( and if they are in a prosperous nation like the USA more then likely a very real possibility) to find a more economically beneficial line of work or whatnot. And of course a persons worth or their quality of life is not totally or even predominantly based on money many poor people are excellent people and I'm sure have a great reward for themselves in heaven and for that reason could be said to have had an important and meaningful existence (as opposed to having been murdered before they even drew their first breath)...Many of the greatest saints have had little in the way of worldly possessions. The Bible does point out the evil of murder and that is what abortion is so I don't see a strong opposition to abortion being “untraditional” (many of the fathers did specifically reference the evil of abortion as well). . I think its also important to realize that the “evangelical right” is responsible for literally millions of dollars in charity programs, from feeding the homeless to giving medical care to people with aids in Africa , its just that they, being more economically conservative or libertarian don't always consider the government the proper entity to do charity so sometimes they get misperceived as scrooges (which i think their personal donations prove otherwise for a large number of them at least). I would be willing to bet that if you added the millions given by the “evangelical right” and compared it to what was donated by the “evangelical left” the right would be found to more charitable. Think of all the evangelical charity's run by “conservatives” out there.

I can relate to your frustration with the murder of Christians in Darfur and the lack of attention it gets. Though this doesn't excuse it I do think people are more likely to get worked up about the Ten Commandments monument because its something their own government is doing , its in their backyard and people know they have a better chance of actually getting something done in that regards. Christians want to stop the antiChristianism in the USA before it grows into a problem as bad as you see in Africa (I'm not saying it necessarily would but why take the chance ? ) with the persecution of Christians. Hatred always starts out small like that and then it grows and grows and then violence breaks out. You have to stop the antiChristianism at its first appearance. And when you see how its always Christians symbols that are attacked and the vehemence in which its done I don't see how it could be called anything other then hatred. When people wear a star of david (well thats ok) or a school has a “learn about Islam day” and you make prayer rugs thats ok, etc but when its a Christian symbol then the sky is falling.

John Charmley

07-12-2006, 05:22 PM

Andreas Moran

07-12-2006, 06:01 PM

I wonder if we live in a time which might be called a second fall? I'm thinking of the destruction on a scale unimaginable to previous generations of our environment and of human life, coupled with a capacity for promoting to all the bad things of life (through TV, internet, etc) again beyond anything previously imaginable. There have always been horrors but never on the scale we and our parents have witnessed. The harm to the entire earth itself is new. Human kind seems knowingly hell-bent (yes, I use the expression advisedly) on mass moral and spiritual suicide. And the thing is, I find for myself that in my own way, I am caught up in it all to an extent.

Andreas.

Peter Farrington

07-12-2006, 08:16 PM

I'm never completely persuaded by thoughts of a golden age in the past, or our present times being worse than any other.

Let's face it, as a 43 year old from a rural family 200 years ago I would probably be dead from any number of diseases, or just hard-work, a large proportion of my children would have died in infancy, I might be on a second wife because my first wife died in child-birth. I wouldn't be able to read very well, and my children would have little prospect of any education.

If we go back a bit further then we have various marauding armies raping and pillaging up and down the country. Life is cheap, death is everywhere.

Under the Roman Empire we could discover almost the whole Gallic population massacred and sold into slavery. We could go to the local circus to see criminals, christians and any others who don't fit in being killed for other people's pleasure.

I won't labour the point, but I am not convinced this is a necessarily worse time than any other. There are many bad things, and the rate of abortion is one the starkest, but there have been many very bad times before. Indeed we can look back at the way even the Byzantine Empire dealt with dissidents to see that Christians are not exempt from the list of people who do evil.

I am a little concerned, not least for myself, that it is easy to develop a siege mentality and a sectarian outlook. I'd rather look for the good around us, where we find it, and it is still to be found everywhere if we look carefully.

Peter

Ian Leyda

07-12-2006, 10:50 PM

I'm never completely persuaded by thoughts of a golden age in the past, or our present times being worse than any other.

Peter

At the risk of overgeneralizing, I think there are two basic mindsets on "Society:"

One worldview sees that society is in decline, unraveling toward the end of the world. There was once a "Golden Age" as Peter describes, an ideal in the past that has been lost. This view works first to halt the decline of society and second to return to this ideal time if possible. Utopia is in the past, and we move further away from it with each passing generation.

This mindset tries to preserve the better society through laws and morality. But you cannot legislate morality, and Jesus ushers in the Kingdom of God apart from the law.

Dare I say that this is the basic assumption of the "Conservative" mindset.

It is flawed because, of course, there was no ideal time or utopian society. And human beings run amok with their power and lawmaking, even with the best intentions.

The second worldview sees that society is evolving toward Utopia. We become more civilized with every generation. Humanity, through technology and growing knowledge, will figure out peaceful civiliaztion. In a Christian sense, this was the Social Gospel movement of the earlier 20th C, with its vision of the Beloved Community.

This view has its own gross distortions, Nazi Germany being one. Society is not evolving toward utopia.

Dare I say that this is the basic assumption of the "Progressive" mindset.

Neither of these worldviews is correct because they both assume the existance/possibility of Utopia as constructed by human beings.

But it is interesting that the Garden is placed at both the beginning and end of the Bible, as the origin and destiny of humanity. And it is important to note that both are fully the work of God alone. Even God, by himself, must fight the final battle against evil.

Humanity cannot form its utopian society, its own Garden of Eden. It is fully the work of God.

Peace,
Ian

John Charmley

08-12-2006, 01:01 AM

At the risk of overgeneralizing, I think there are two basic mindsets on "Society:"

One worldview sees that society is in decline, unraveling toward the end of the world. There was once a "Golden Age" as Peter describes, an ideal in the past that has been lost. This view works first to halt the decline of society and second to return to this ideal time if possible. Utopia is in the past, and we move further away from it with each passing generation.

This mindset tries to preserve the better society through laws and morality. But you cannot legislate morality, and Jesus ushers in the Kingdom of God apart from the law.

Dare I say that this is the basic assumption of the "Conservative" mindset.

It is flawed because, of course, there was no ideal time or utopian society. And human beings run amok with their power and lawmaking, even with the best intentions.
Humanity cannot form its utopian society, its own Garden of Eden. It is fully the work of God.

Peace,
Ian

Ian/Peter,

Two very interesting posts here. If I did not know Ian lived in the US I would from his description of what he calls the 'Conservative' mindset. It is difficult for conservatism of a traditional English sort to develop in a state founded upon revolution and rebellion, perhaps? In Britain, until fairly recently, the working assumption of many Conservatives was that of the third marquess of Salisbury - which was a religious one. Salisbury took the view that in our fallen state not much could be expected of mankind, including those who governed. 'All change', he once wrote, 'is usually for the worse, therefore it is in our interest that there is as little of it as possible.'

He would have agreed with Peter's view that it is a mistake to romanticise the past; rickets and T.B. and high infant mortality etc. Salisbury's conservatism was based on his religion. Man was fallen, only through faith could he be redeemed. He once said that the fundamental flaw with liberalism was its optimism about man's perfectibility; only Christ could bring redemption. The job of government was, he thought, similar to that of the policeman, no more, no less.

There never was a golden age and there never would be a utopia. If sinful man could bring himself to be obedient to the word of the Incarnate Lord, the world would become a better place, but poverty, disease, and the other ills associated with our disordered will and our arrogance would never vanish. When closely questioned about his faith and this belief that governments would never bring a utopia, he commented: 'God is love and the world is what it is - explain that!'

This pessimistic strain in British conservatism persisted into the twentieth century, but has now all but vanished. It is another example of the Americanisation of British culture that our 'conservatives' do, indeed, tend to match up to Ian's acute description, and he is correct, I suspect, in describing the limitation of that view.

Progressive politics, based as Salisbury saw it on the ideas of the French Revolution, was fundamentally dangerous, because, he predicted, it would treat people as guinea pigs in its utopian experiments; all materialistic philosophies, he thought, contained this danger. He died in 1903, but nothing that happened in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany would have surprised him.

Christianity offers us the means of transformation - all else is, as Salisbury saw it, illusion.

In Christ,

John

Ian Leyda

08-12-2006, 10:01 AM

Christianity offers us the means of transformation - all else is, as Salisbury saw it, illusion.

Generally speaking, I agree with John here. But I think what I left out in my blathering post above was that there is value in both the conservative and progressive worldviews as they compliment one another.

*What is really best is what is worked out in the tension between the two.*

By conservative/progressive here I don't really mean a political point of view but rather the worldview that lies beneath.

In some ways, the progressives have it right. Government and technology can indeed do much good for positive social change. Our doctors have found the cure for polio and the plague and for many diseases. It took time, but slavery was eventually abolished when government finally did the right thing. Good things, transformative things here. Utopia is a distortion of this view, though. Disease and social ills always remain a step ahead.

In other ways, conservatives have it right. This is best seen in tradition, the way the earlier generations pass knowledge onto the future generations. While progressives see knowledge gained in the future, conservatives see it as Wisdom handed on from the past. Good things, things that transform and preserve the good. Utopia is a distortion of this view also. Tradition always remains a step behind.

These two worldviews by themselves cause havoc. When one becomes too dominant, you get Nazism or communism or fascism or some other. But together, they check and balance one another's weaknesses. (I don't mean to say democracy in this argument. But democracy at its best serves these two together well Of course, the Kingdom of God is not a democracy).

Progressives remind the conservatives of the illusion of utopia, as Salisbury would say, and vice versa. What is best is what is worked out in the tension between the two. This is true, just as the person of Jesus is worked out within the tension of his humanity and divinity. When one element is underminded, it just doesn't seem quite right. The truth lies in the mystery, within the tension of the two.

Trouble with the view of Salisbury is that it can be too skeptical. Like the problem of David Hume, when you start believing that you can know nothing with certainy, you end up rather hopeless. Too much illusion is a bummer.

Peace,
Ian

Peter Farrington

08-12-2006, 10:18 AM

Yes, I think that John has understood my position, as an English conservative, never naturally a Tory though, that is, a political conservative. And as John points out, there is now no difference between political socialists and conservatives in the UK. They all have the same lexicon and the same utopian aims.

For myself I think that as Ian describes well, I am in the tension between conservatism and progressivism, although I would not choose to use that latter term. And I think that this is part of what Orthodoxy is called to. We should be asking "How do we live the Tradition (conservatism) in THIS time and place (progressivism)?". And this requires answers that do not diminish the substance of the Tradition or prevent it being lived out in spirit and truth.

Peter

John Charmley

08-12-2006, 12:03 PM

For myself I think that as Ian describes well, I am in the tension between conservatism and progressivism, although I would not choose to use that latter term. And I think that this is part of what Orthodoxy is called to. We should be asking "How do we live the Tradition (conservatism) in THIS time and place (progressivism)?". And this requires answers that do not diminish the substance of the Tradition or prevent it being lived out in spirit and truth.

Peter

Dear Ian and Peter,

Again, two very thoughtful and thought provoking posts with many insights.

We are all, I think, agreed with Ian that

By conservative/progressive here I don't really mean a political point of view but rather the worldview that lies beneath.

For the Christian what 'lies beneath' is the teaching of the Church (in which, of course, I include the Bible); indeed, without the Church we fall prey to a wide variety of readings of the scriptures in which we are unable to distinguish between the urgings of our will and the Will of God; we can even create a 'liberation theology' Jesus who seems more created in the image of man than the other way round. We can do good works and think that is sufficient. By another route, we can find our spiritual pride puffed up until we think that we have the answer. Of course, in a sense we do, but within us, and outside of us.

But Ian is, of course correct when he says that one can push this attitude too far. As we are told in James 2

2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?
2:15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food,
2:16 and one of you says to them, Depart in peace, be warmed and filled, but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?
2:17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
2:18 But someone will say, You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
2:19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble!
2:20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?

But as St. Paul reminds us, works without faith are not sufficient: 1 Corinthians 13:1 'Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.'

This is why all political action is ultimately dust. That does not mean Christians cannot be politicians, although the record is not good here, but it does mean that the Christian politician recognises what Ian and Peter have said, which is that Faith has to be the motive force: works because of faith in the love of God, acknowledging our limitations and our need for Divine help.

At the same time, we know that theosis takes place within each individual, and as men and women we are called to follow His example and to become what we were created to be.

Through these twin processes of personal and societal transformation (and the first leads to the second) is the way forward, in humility and in the knowledge that in this fallen world we can help, through works, deal with the symptoms of sin, but that only through faith can we begin work on its causes.

It is for these reasons that a society which denies the symbols of our salvation is unlikely to be anywhere near being able to accept its own limitations and need for the Incarnate Lord.

In Christ,

John

Scott Pierson

08-12-2006, 01:05 PM

At the risk of overgeneralizing, I think there are two basic mindsets on "Society:"

One worldview sees that society is in decline, unraveling toward the end of the world. There was once a "Golden Age" as Peter describes, an ideal in the past that has been lost. This view works first to halt the decline of society and second to return to this ideal time if possible. Utopia is in the past, and we move further away from it with each passing generation.

This mindset tries to preserve the better society through laws and morality. But you cannot legislate morality, and Jesus ushers in the Kingdom of God apart from the law.

Dare I say that this is the basic assumption of the "Conservative" mindset.

I think the “myth” of the golden age that is universally present among humanity exists because we have a distant memory of the real golden age* (the pre fallen world / Garden of Eden) and also because we know we don't perfectly belong in this fallen world, that we where made for something better. This memory of the pre-fallen world very often gets attached to past historical periods that may not have been 100% paradisaical ( like the Byzantine Empire with Orthodox Christians). I'm not sure thats really such a horrible thing though- that a certain part of history may have been partially “mythologized” in order to express the ideal in a way that people can understand because its the super historical ideal that is important.

* I would go so far as to say that this view is not only “conservative” but the traditional view held by the majority of humanity throughout the majority of history. The Hindus speak of the decline of the ages (Yugas) from the Satya (spelling?) to the current dark age of kali (the Kali Yuga), the Greeks believed we now lived in the darkest age of Iron, and the Norse that we lived in the age of the wolf, etc..

What makes this age a “dark age” is not so much that life is more uncomfortable, that people die at a younger age or anything of that nature. I think the problem is spiritual so many people have lost any connection with the transcendent. Even the most sinful pagan that sacrificed to idols and worshiped golden calf's is infinitely superior to the modern atheist or secularist who has no idea that the transcendent even exists and believes in only what he can see taste touch or smell. It would be better to hate God then to ignore Him at least those who hate Him give thought to the issue. I don't even see it as necessarily stemming from the fact that people commit more evil now** then in the past its just that people are more blind spiritually. And this is a truth attested to by many of the Churches greatest saints.. look at what the Optina elders said about the modern world for example.

** Though in certain cases I think some evils are more prevalent today. Its only in the moder world that hundreds of thousands of people die in a single day through warfare and whole city's are vaporized by nuclear weapons (Hiroshima Nagasaki) , even more people died in the fire bombings of Dresden as well. More Christians have been martyred in the past 100 years then all the Christians martyrs previously throughout all of history. More babies have been murdered via abortion in the USA then all the causality's of every US war combined... etc..

John Charmley

08-12-2006, 02:41 PM

[QUOTE=Scott Pierson;39358].

What makes this age a “dark age” is not so much that life is more uncomfortable, that people die at a younger age or anything of that nature. I think the problem is spiritual so many people have lost any connection with the transcendent. Even the most sinful pagan that sacrificed to idols and worshiped golden calf's is infinitely superior to the modern atheist or secularist who has no idea that the transcendent even exists and believes in only what he can see taste touch or smell. It would be better to hate God then to ignore Him at least those who hate Him give thought to the issue. I don't even see it as necessarily stemming from the fact that people commit more evil now** then in the past its just that people are more blind spiritually. And this is a truth attested to by many of the Churches greatest saints.. look at what the Optina elders said about the modern world for example.

Dear Scott,

Some very interesting thoughts here. I am not sure whether the notion of the 'golden age' is universal, but it is certainly widespread, and the idea that it is the shadow of a memory of the lost Eden is an intriguing one.

You have, I suspect, come close to what Andreas was getting at when you write about the loss of the notion of transcendence; indeed one could go further and write about the rejection of anything beyond the material. Like King Midas, modern man finds that turning things to gold brings no real satisfaction; but our society tells him this is because he has not enough gold; our governments treat us as producer/consumers whose aim is economic growth. Then science tells us what this is doing to the planet. But India and China speak to the west in our accents and say they too want what we have; and the results of that seem unlikely to be cheerful ones.

And so it goes, because the secular, material world finds it difficult to formulate the right questions, let alone find some answers.

The Church stands witness to values that, if adopted, might begin the process of getting the relevant questions asked. In that sense the atheists are correct to see in the Church a great enemy. If this society can manage to create a hegemonic discourse in which Christianity has no part, then, since what cannot be articulated cannot be thought, the Enemy will finally win. But even the gates of hades will not prevail against His Church.

However uncomfortable it is at times being a Christian in this society, we know we were not called to comfort. When we resist the attempts to impose secular values (which are then called universal values) we stand witness to His kingdom, which is not of this world.

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

08-12-2006, 02:57 PM

I had actually thought of including in my post the thought that in the early 1st century, many pagans, even those in the notorious city of Corinth, knew there was something wrong and surely that's why the Christian faith spread as it did (initially, as we know, in competition with other offerings of transcendence) and why St Paul's preaching was so widely accepted at all levels of society. Today is different.

Andreas.

Peter Farrington

08-12-2006, 03:03 PM

Hi Scott

I am still not sure that I agree with the irremediably gloomy picture. I am too much of an optimist. :)

I don't think it can be said that pagans of the past had a rich and fulfilling spirituality and sense of the transcendent. I am sure rather than many Roman citizens, sacrificing to the spirits of the hearth as a matter of course, were no more spiritual than folk nowadays who still sprinkle salt over their left shoulder, don't walk under ladders, and read their horoscopes.

I think people are still hungry for transcendence but they just don't find it in the established churches. Just walk into any UK bookshop and there will be literally hundreds of books about spirituality and transcendence, just not many Christian ones.

I think we do our fellow citizens a dis-service if we count them all as atheists and positivists. The problem is with the Churches not with them. It is our message which has failed to communicate the Gospel of a transcendent God.

A friend of mine, sitting just a few feet from me, and a constant focus for evangelistic prayer, happily attends church services for christenings etc, and is someone like Nathaniel, in whom there is no guile. But up to now the Churches he has attended have not witnessed to a life which resonated with his spirit and met his spiritual needs. If you like he is an accidental agnostic.

So I can't share the gloom, even though there are things to be gloomy about. I am convinced that people are the same, with the same hopes and aspirations, just in a different context and with the demons using slightly different tools of deception.

The problems we face in our human natures are all the same. People are just as proud, just as greedy, just as selfish, just as angry, just as lustful. I am not sure the temptations are worse. In the days when a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking was that temptation less powerful than that of explicit pornography in every grocers shop? I am not convinced. Sin is essentially in our hearts and I don't believe that the hearts of men are worse now.

There is still much that is good in God's world.

Peter

John Charmley

08-12-2006, 05:19 PM

I think people are still hungry for transcendence but they just don't find it in the established churches. Just walk into any UK bookshop and there will be literally hundreds of books about spirituality and transcendence, just not many Christian ones.

I think we do our fellow citizens a dis-service if we count them all as atheists and positivists. The problem is with the Churches not with them. It is our message which has failed to communicate the Gospel of a transcendent God.

Peter

Dear Peter/Scott/Andreas,

There is something profoundly correct here. If I might be allowed a personal illustration of this point.

My wife is not a Christian, and indeed, before she met me had a profound antipathy towards Christianity. This derived from her early experiences of a Pharisaical Christianity which repelled her. At the same time, she is a very spiritually aware person and constantly seeking to find a way and a spiritual practice that will bring her peace and enlightenment. In all the time she has been searching, western forms of Christianity have never spoken to her. She came into the Anglican Church I attend and it spoke nothing to her; she felt that Pharisaical spirit again.

Since I began to know Orthodoxy she has at least become intrigued as to the echoes, as she sees them, of Buddhism and Sufism she finds; and, thanks to Scott, I have even been able to share some good Christian books on these subjects with her.

Unique as she is to me, and to her Maker, she stands representative of the people Peter writes about - those whom the western Churches have failed. I don't know how it is for others in their parts of this world, but here in the UK there is a frightening want of Christian spirituality. When my wife, or some of my students speak the words 'spirituality' and 'mysticism', it is usually prefaced with the adjective 'Eastern'. Through Orthodoxy she now at least sees that Christianity has a mystical and spiritual aspect; that may be no news to the Orthodox - but it is to the vast swathes of this society who are not.

Part of Peter's mission is, I know, to help turn around this situation; I suspect we all have a role here.

In Christ,

John

Scott Pierson

08-12-2006, 05:52 PM

Thats a good point. I think one of the problems is that many in the Churches themselves are actually agnostics, positivists or at best relegate their religion to just one small aspect of their life (certainly something I struggle with myself.). Isn't this just another piece of evidence pointing to the fact that we live in a uniquely dark age though? When even the majority of the self professed Christians are so in name only , the saints are harder and harder to locate, and monasticism is in decline? When Christianity was accepted as the state religion of Rome waves of luke warm “Christians” flooded in but to offset that and regain the purity of the early Church multitudes of devoted Christians left the world for the desert but we don't see that now its like Christians have made peace with the world and accept Christianity as just another doctrine that is relegated to the back burner of their lives. I'm not excepting myself from that indictment either I'm often guilty as well.

Andreas Moran

08-12-2006, 05:56 PM

Peter's post reminded me of Oscar Wilde's comment: 'virtue is insufficient temptation.'

Of course, the practice of the Orthodox faith offers more mysticism and spiritual possibilities than anyone can handle. Just such a pity hardly anyone knows it.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Father David Moser

08-12-2006, 06:18 PM

I think the concept of "transcedence" is a very important one for this discussion. That vision of the universe as having something beyond "me" and all that I can define, touch and control is essential to the well being of man and ultimately of society as a whole.

However, as Peter pointed out, it is not just the vague sense of transcendence that's important, but rather that transcendence have a form and shape that is beneficial to the soul. Just because a pagan had a sense of something else "out there" didn't give him a superior quality of life etc.

I think people are still hungry for transcendence but they just don't find it in the established churches. Just walk into any UK bookshop and there will be literally hundreds of books about spirituality and transcendence, just not many Christian ones.

And I think this is the tragedy of western christianity. The reform confessions eliminated all sense of "mystery" from their faith. There were no sacraments, no communion of the saints (beyond the visible community), no sense of the Church as anything other than the visible administrative structure. (All this was necessary, of course, for to admit any of these things, they would then be driven back to face the reality of their rebellion from Rome and by definition be "outside" the Church) The reformation protestants eventually turned to marketing techniques (because of the emphasis on "missions" and witnessing which is about all that's left to them) and became "successful" in a secular sense, growing in numbers and size and income. This worldly success has had its impact on the "sacramental" confessions to a great extent prompting a drift towards accepting the protestant vision and value as their own. This impact can be seen clearly in the aftermath of Vatican II where the Roman Catholic church tried to "out protestant the protestants" - de-emphasizing the mystical in favor of the mass market strategy. Much of the sense of "transcendence" has been lost from western heterodox christian confessions. And that brings me back to Peter's observation.

There is a difference between the protestant christian devotional writing and the books about spirituality that come from non-Christian or Orthodox Christian sources (as well as some of the spiritual classics of the Western Church). This difference can be defined in a sense as "transcendence" The heterodox devotional books that fill the bookshelves of "Christian Bookstores" (at least in the US) is all about how to be a "Christian" whatever you are. It is not about transcendence or becoming more than what you are - it is limited generally to being a better person within your current world. Thus we have books for Christian mothers and Christian brick layers and Christian teachers and Christian moms and Christian dads. In the US we have this whole "promise keepers" movement about how to be a Christian male. The flaw here is that in all of this there is no transcendence. It brings Christianity down to earth and emphasizes how to be a Christian citizen of the world.

Spiritual writing, otoh, opens the door to a whole new dimension of life. It has the basic premise that this world is only a part of the greater whole, that we, as God's creatures have a more elevated destiny and purpose than just to live and die in the world. The purpose of life is not to be a better "citizen of the world" but rather to become something more than a citizen of the world. In non-Christian literature the goal of what we are striving towards takes many different forms, depending on the teaching of the particular faith, however for Orthodox Christians, this goal is to become a citizen of the Kingdom of God (as opposed to a citizen of the world) and to be transformed into His image and likeness. Somewhere along the western Christianity lost this idea and became "earthbound"

The greater tragedy is that because this kind of "Christianity" is the predominant variety that most people are acquainted with, they then have developed "prejudice" that lumps everything with the label "Christian" into the "non-transcendant" category and so Orthodox Christianity is frequently overlooked and summarily dismissed as just another non-relevant brand of the bland worldly Christianity. And that is a tragedy.

Fr David Moser

John Charmley

08-12-2006, 06:41 PM

The greater tragedy is that because this kind of "Christianity" is the predominant variety that most people are acquainted with, they then have developed "prejudice" that lumps everything with the label "Christian" into the "non-transcendant" category and so Orthodox Christianity is frequently overlooked and summarily dismissed as just another non-relevant brand of the bland worldly Christianity. And that is a tragedy.

Fr David Moser

Dear Fr. David,

Your posts today seem particularly inspired. You put it so pithily and so accurately. Andreas is right to say
'Of course, the practice of the Orthodox faith offers more mysticism and spiritual possibilities than anyone can handle. Just such a pity hardly anyone knows it.

If evidence were needed of where wrong turnings can take us, your sober and frightening portrait of the course taken by western Christianity provides it. You give us much to think on here - including the question how how to ensure that Orthodoxy does not stay a well-kept secret.

For those of us pondering the matter, Peter's comments at http://www.britishorthodox.org/churchplanting.php
are not a bad place to go.

Many thanks, Father, for these words.

In Christ,

John

Peter Farrington

08-12-2006, 07:18 PM

Hi Scott

Don't get too depressed man. :)

I still don't think we live in a uniquely dark age. Even where I work there are so many good people. Not in a ontological sense of being saints, but people who seem to care for others, do no harm to others, and who would be well on the way to sainthood if they discovered the Orthodox Gospel for themselves.

One of my daughters has started playing football (soccer) one night a week. Her coach is an impressively kind and thoughtful man, but not a Christian. He gives up so much of his time and effort with his wife just to help a bunch of teenage girls run around a field in the cold.

And why be surprised that there are hypocrites and the lukewarm in the church. It has always been so. The Revelation describes such people, indeed the whole NT is full of references to such people. And if we look at Church History we will find that every period has elements within the Church which point to the growth of wheat and tares. But this is what Christ spoke of.

Don't despair. If Christ kept His Church till now then He will keep it through our own generations. But we need to concentrate on being wheat rather than tares, sheep rather than goats, wise virgins rather than foolish ones, and not allow the presence of tares, goats and folly, not least in ourselves, to cast a cloud over our lives.

Christ is Risen!

Peter

John Charmley

08-12-2006, 07:48 PM

Don't despair. If Christ kept His Church till now then He will keep it through our own generations. But we need to concentrate on being wheat rather than tares, sheep rather than goats, wise virgins rather than foolish ones, and not allow the presence of tares, goats and folly, not least in ourselves, to cast a cloud over our lives.

Christ is Risen!

Peter

Dear Peter/Scott,

A good reminder of our ultimate reason for being optimists in the gloom!

In all ages there have been those who have thought that the place was going to the dogs - and, of course, were it not for the Incarnation, who knows but that they might be right? But Christ is indeed Risen, and soon we shall be celebrating (at least on some calendars) the nativity of Our Lord and Saviour. We can turn and say that the gross materialism with which this society marks this blessed event is a sign that the times are evil, and we should be correct - they are usually evil and out of joint - or we could focus on what matters, and thank the Lord that amidst the bustle and the noise, there is a still small voice that speaks to us.

In Christ,

John

Tanya Hoadley

08-12-2006, 08:12 PM

Father David Bless!

Dear Father David, John, Peter,

Thank you all for bringing this thread back to a sort of reality check.

There are so many points and concepts and worries in this thread that my mind was spinning!

But, as usual, bringing to mind the joy of the Resurrected Christ brings peace.

Bless Father,

Tanya

Ian Leyda

08-12-2006, 11:02 PM

.
** Though in certain cases I think some evils are more prevalent today. Its only in the moder world that hundreds of thousands of people die in a single day through warfare and whole city's are vaporized by nuclear weapons (Hiroshima Nagasaki) , even more people died in the fire bombings of Dresden as well. More Christians have been martyred in the past 100 years then all the Christians martyrs previously throughout all of history. More babies have been murdered via abortion in the USA then all the causality's of every US war combined... etc..

I'm not sure I agree with Scott, here. I think the desire to kill and dominate is the same. Evil has not changed. In the modern world, however, technology has multiplied the scope of violence. Guns kill more than swords, bombs more than guns, atomic bombs more than conventional bombs. Killing machines are now more advanced, not the evil that uses them.

That was what distinguished Hitler from Ghengis Kahn. And it may yet distinguish Ahmadinejad from Hitler.

And on the issue of abortion, it is false to think that more children are killed in the modern world than in ancient times. It is interesting to note that abortion is also the result of a technological advance, the dark side of the wonderful benefits of medicine.

But instead of "aborting" pregnancy, ancient peoples more commonly gave birth and then put infants out to die from exposure. This was, unfortunately, an exceedingly common practice in ancient Rome among the poor who were unable to feed their families. This issue is conspicuously absent in the New Testament, as some scholars have noted.

Western civilizations did not invent abortion, and the history of abortion is not "abortion on demand" or for the purpose of "freedom." In human history, abortion and infanticide were most often a sad response to limited resources. A poor family could only feed so many.

In fact, unlike the modern West, children in the ancient world were the very lowest of "value" on the social ladder. Children at the table were the last to eat in the family, only before the dogs. (Modern Western society, on the other hand, says feed the children first, and the father eats last. Exactly the opposite was true among the ancients).

Thus, we see the context of Jesus' harsh words to the Syrophoenician woman in Mark 7:27: "Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs." Father eats first and leaves food for mother. Mother eats and leaves food for oldest child.... This is the order of the ancient table. And if there was no food left, the youngest children died first. Indeed, the low social status of children is the context of many of the texts of Jesus in relation to children (Mark 9:33-37, 10:13-16, etc.). To "be like children" was to be lowly and vulnerable, the opposite of the disciples desire to be "the greatest" in the Kindgom of God.

Therefore, Children did not have the elevated social standing and dignity they enjoy in the modern West. The Anti-Abortion argument that more children are killed today is simply wrong. We should note, sadly, that the Church hasn't always been good to her children, either. Armies of children as young as 10 were sent into battle by the Pope and slaughtered during the Crusades. Again, children the fodder of war.

All this is to say that children were far worse off than they are in the modern West. There is simply no comparison. Today's society, in spite of abortion, is far more protective of its children. Socially speaking, abortion today does not even compare with the vulnerability of children in the ancient world.

Peace,

Ian

Scott Pierson

09-12-2006, 03:39 AM

Yeah , certainly infanticide has been going on since the fall. The early Christians often rescued Roman children who had been set out to die from the elements and worked to outlaw the practice. I do think more people die from abortion now if only from the fact that the world population is higher now then it was back then. In Russia 3 out of 5 pregnancy's end in abortion for example. I think the really shocking thing is that abortion is legal in lands that are supposedly majority Christian. As Christianity grew in influence in the Roman world what did the Christians do.. they worked to end the gladiatorial games, outlaw infanticide/ abortion, the acceptance of homosexuality as something positive, etc. Now it seems the old heathen vices have not so much reappeared (they never totally went away) but they have moved from the back alleys to the public arena and have even started to take on the veneer of respectability.

abortion and infanticide were most often a sad response to limited resources. A poor family could only feed so many.

If one has limited resources and "cant afford a kid" then they shouldn't perform the REPRODUCTIVE act. Its the height of selfishness to care more about a pleasurable feeling in the sex organs then the life of ones own child (whom one plans to murder).

I don't think its correct to call the religious body that sent those 10 year olds of to war "the Church".

All this is to say that children were far worse off than they are in the modern West

Do children raised in the modern west have a greater probability of becoming Orthodox saints and is the environment more conducive to creating them? Its true that the average child living in say pre revolutionary Russia may not have lived a life as materially prosperous as someone living in the modern west, they may have been more likely to die at a younger age, had less effective medicine and sanitation, etc... but what about the most important area, the realm of the spirit. Did people tend to have stronger morals a greater attention to the Orthodox faith, love for God and sense of right and wrong? That is the first question that needs to be asked and I would say that the modern west is worse of in that regard. Many of the saints have said the exact same thing- that this is a uniquely dark age we are living in and that the west is uniquely decadent. Certainly I'm not implying that the past was perfect or that people didn't do bad things back then. I'm just saying that I think there are some things (mostly spiritual) that make the modern west different in a negative way.

Ian Leyda

09-12-2006, 09:20 PM

If one has limited resources and "cant afford a kid" then they shouldn't perform the REPRODUCTIVE act. Its the height of selfishness to care more about a pleasurable feeling in the sex organs then the life of ones own child (whom one plans to murder).

Scott, in this statement, you follow the this logic:

1. The poor should not have sex. (You gently call them "ones of limited resources"). This is because they can't afford to raise the children that come from it. Thus, even if they are husband and wife, their sex is immoral?

2. When the poor DO have sex, it is a REPRODUCTIVE act. Intimacy, union, relationship are of course absent in poor sex.

3. When the poor DO have sex, they are heinously sinful. (You say they "have risen to the height of selfishness.")

4. When the poor DO have sex, it is because they care only about feeling good. (You say "pleasurable feeling in their sex organs.") Those with adequate resources care nothing for the pleasurable feeling in their organs. They have the holiest of sex and get a pass. The poor, instead have dirty, selfish sex.

It is far too common that the parents of unintended pregnancy, even husband and wife, are accused of "dirty" sex.

5. When the poor Do have children, then they "plan to murder them."

Surely we think more of sex between a husband and wife than this. And this is extraordinarily disrespectful of the poor. Here, you have declared it sinful and irresponsible for the poor to have sex.

I think in this case, Scott, your vigor in the abortion debate has led to unreasonable and unfair thoughts about sex. When anti-abortion thinking gets taken to its extreme (and I think this quote is an example), compassion for troubled people is lost.

There is a significant problem within the abortion debate, which is formed primarily at the extreme poles:

-For pro-abortion Activists, the child becomes the enemy of the mother. The child is the enemy of her freedom. Activists declare war against the child.

-For anti-abortion Activists, the mother is the enemy of the child. The mother (and father?), thus, are the enemy of the Activist. Activists declare war against the mother.

How does the Christian choose sides in a war that these Activists have declared? Are Christians to be the enemy of the mother or the enemy of the child?

In this quote above, have we not become the enemy of the poor? Have we not called them selfish murderers?

Though Christians should work to end abortion, we should do so without becoming the enemy of mothers. We must maintain our compassion.

Peace,

Ian

Scott Pierson

09-12-2006, 10:01 PM

Its not their poverty that makes the sex act a bad choice its the fact that they plan to abort any child that may result from it. It would be the same with a rich couple if they for some reason (their career , etc. ) planned on doing the same. Obviously poor married people can morally have all the sex they want if they are willing to lovingly accept (and refrain from aborting) the child that results from their sex act. I dont think there is anything immoral with a poor family having a large number of children if that is what they want. Living in poverty certainly doesnt limit a persons power to live in a holy way and have a fullfilling life and if a poor person wants kids they should have sex. If you are not open to the possiblity of children and plan to abort any that may result from the procreative act then dont do it. Yes, the life of a child is more important then having sex. The pro aborts act as if people refrain they will shrivel up and die, as if sex is the equivelent of food , shelter and oxygen.

I had a child out of wedlock with a girl who was in highschool at a time when I worked for minumum wage it would have been simple to make the "problem" go away but I knew that murder wasnt the answer so I never even mentioned abortion to my g/f. Even as a dumb hormone crazed (and atheist as well) teenager I knew that if you have sex you can have a baby and you better be prepared to do what it takes or dont have sex. Certainly I'm not trying to heep abuse on people who have had abortions or say that their situations may not have been very tuff and such I'm just saying as a moral ideal people should refrain from sex if they cant handle a child.

Scott Pierson

09-12-2006, 10:11 PM

The arguments used in favor of abortion are nonsensical. "well the child would grow up unloved, in a drug environment (insert other problems) so it would only be the right thing to do to abort". Guess what though, those same problems would still exist after the baby was born would it be ok to strangle him / her in the crib then ? I mean if you dont strangle the baby in the crib it will be unloved in a bad environment, etc... The arguments also seem strangely like the arguments used in favor of slavery- Its legal , don't tell people what to do with things that belong to them (their slave or body),its not really a person, thats between the slave owner and God, What about the poor old lady who needs slaves in order to keep the plantation running she cant afford to hire people it would be cruel to take her right to a slave away.

Supporting the return of laws prohibiting abortion doesn't make one an enemy of the mother. The mother is her own enemy if she kills her child. thats like saying " If you don't support the right of an estranged husband to kill his x wife so he doesn't have to suffer the indignity of paying alimony then you are an enemy of the father." But your not because the father proves to be his own souls enemy when he kills his ex wife it would do him harm and not good to kill her same thing with abortion.

Kris

09-12-2006, 11:11 PM

Dear Ian,

Although I think Scott's comments were more along the lines of "poverty should not be an excuse for abortion" and perhaps not as unfair as you painted them, I do agree with the general sentiment of your post.

It seems far too much time is spent saying "abortion is evil" than actually tackling the roots of the problem, such as the availability of healthcare or the improvement of education.

So I would question the effectiveness of any strategy that sought to end abortion while ignoring the factors causing this tragic phenomena.

In XC,
Kris

Scott Pierson

10-12-2006, 01:23 AM

It seems far too much time is spent saying "abortion is evil" than actually tackling the roots of the problem, such as the availability of healthcare or the improvement of education.

lack of health care , poverty and lack of education do not cause abortion they are simply factors that contribute towards making abortion seem more attractive. The poor still have free will and are not automatons forced to do things by their environment. The simple fact that millions of poor people DONT abort their children is ample proof of this.

I do however understand what you are saying about the importance of remedying the problems that influence people to make the decision to abort. Many pro life people do work to remedy some of the worlds other problems as well.. There are many problems that need solving but we can chew gum and walk at the same time so to speak. We can outlaw abortion AND work on those other issues. Maybe God is calling you to be especially active in the fight for better health care but He is also calling the Church to fight against legalized abortion. The issue of Abortion is much higher on the scale of importance than health care though. If one lived in in WW2 Germany they wouldn't say “ yeah the holocaust is one issue but what about health care? “. health care is nice it can make life much more bearable and obviously help us live a longer and healthier life but it doesn't rise to the level of outlawing abortion (and thereby significantly lowering the number of abortions).

Abortion being legal is a very real problem that requires attention . It is to this current generation what the holocaust was to our grandparents and slavery was to their grandparents... One of the defining moral problems of this age. It would have been wrong to tell the abolitionists " You guys need to stop worry about slavery so much and focus rather on the things that cause it like the inability of plantation owners to get cheap labor.". In reality though it made sense to outlaw slavery regardless of the progress made at removing the economic problems that helped make slavery look like a wise choice for plantation owners.

You are right I wasn't implying that it was immoral for poor people to have sex. Poor people can have as many children as they want , nothing wrong with that. I'm just opposed to people having sex who plan to abort any child that may result from it because of the excuse of poverty. sex = the possibility of having a child if you cant live with that don't have sex. A person can survive and even thrive without having sex.

Just as a side note if the newer form of "natural family planing" (that the Catholics always talk about ) is over 90% + effective at stopping pregnancy and the condom also has a very high successes rate wouldn't combing the two equal a nearly foolproof means of avoiding pregnancy. If people "cant" have kids but are undisciplined enough to refrain from having sex until they can (and for some reason wouldn't put up their unwanted child for adoption rather than aborting him/her) why don't they simple do the above method? I'm not advocating birth control mind you just saying its better than abortion.

John Charmley

10-12-2006, 12:13 PM

Dear Brothers in Christ,

I don't know what it signifies that it is a group of men going on about abortion in this thread - perhaps just that our sisters in Christ are too wise and forebearing to have their say? Of one thing I am sure, which is that no one has meant to say anything than that our love and compassion must always go out to the mother - and to fathers - in the situation where abortion is in prospect.

Reading through earlier posts, I think that concentrating on the poor in this dilemma, whilst totally justified in its own way, misses one of the points being made; very many children are aborted as a 'life-style' choice. This is one of the signs of the times - when we make choice king. The language is often couched in these terms - 'my body, my choice'. Concentrating on the 'hard' cases where arguments are cast in terms of poverty and destitution, obscures that the mindset is really the same, just tempered, on our part, by compassion for the plight of the poor - a feeling not so easily aroused for the career woman whose choice to abort seems to come from a desire to continue her career. Yet, in reality, we must love and have compassion for both equally; they are our sisters in Christ.

I am sure Scott was not saying that the poor should not have intercourse, even as he would not have been saying that high-flying female executives should only have it if they want babies, but we may need to pause a little here. We might be mindful of the teaching of the Church on intercourse, and we might be mindful of ascetical practice and the need, sometimes, to deny ourselves the object of our will. In short, we might actually say 'yes, it might be better to consider the purposes for which the sexual act was instituted, and yes, amazingly, even in this society, make a choice that involves not indulging yourself'.

Obviously 'everybody' would think we were a bunch of weirdos, but given the extremely disordered state of our society on these subjects, I'm happy not to partake of its value system here. Because there is a value system underlying this part of the debate.

Following our own wills has led, at least in the UK, to hundreds of thousands of abortions a year, to the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe, to the highest divorce rate in Europe, to the commodification of sex and the commercialisation of the bodies of women; the damage to those children who are not aborted is also very great. Hundreds of thousands of children in the UK grow up not knowing their fathers, or the comforts (and strains) of a proper family life, and then find themselves as highly hormonal teenagers exposed to overt sexuality on every opportunity by a media which uses it to sell things.

These things will not be sorted out by spending more money on the health service - as Mr. Brown's massive spending on the NHS over the last decade shows; the same thing applies to social services and almost any other branch of governmental activity. Another sign of the times is this hubris that as we are the measure of all things, we also have the measure of all things and utopia is only a few elections away.

Ian is quite right to say that abortion has been practised for centuries, just as Scott is to point out that doesn't make it right. But it has not often been accompanied by a consumerist/materialist philosophy of life that makes it an almost desirable 'choice' - one of many.

What can we do? Show our love and compassion to those who need it - and that also means bringing to others the knowledge of the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Way, the Truth and the Life. We cannot, and should not, judge - we must remember we too stand under the judgement of the only Just Judge. But we must not turn aside from calling sin what it is - even as we love the sinner.

In Christ,

John

John Charmley

14-12-2006, 05:44 PM

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Reading through this thread I am struck by the thought that there is a suggestions at times of an antithesis between this word and Christians; is this part of our version of gnosticism? Is there really a black and white division such as we sometime, perhaps in a gloomy mood, suppose?

It has always been tempting to dismiss the things of this world as peripheral and unworthy, something intensified by the importance placed on monasticism and the ascetic life; yet most of us are called to be active in this world, which was made by God, and which, therefore, like us, has the potential to be better than it is.

For those of us without a monastic vocation, the question is how we behave in this world to show that we are His, and, thereby, help to make the world a better place. As we are told in James 2:26 'For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.' What are our 'works' in this world through which we show our living faith?

We have often, in this thread, lamented the evils of the times in which we live, and it will be so and has often been so. But reading James 2 I was struck by wondering how I would answer the implied rebuke in the verses 1-4:

1 My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality.
2 For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes,
3 and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, You sit here in a good place, and say to the poor man, You stand there, or, Sit here at my footstool,
4 have you not shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?

Are there times when we become partial judges?

In Christ,

John

Ian Leyda

14-12-2006, 09:39 PM

It has always been tempting to dismiss the things of this world as peripheral and unworthy, something intensified by the importance placed on monasticism and the ascetic life; yet most of us are called to be active in this world, which was made by God, and which, therefore, like us, has the potential to be better than it is.

In Christ,

John

Like John, I have read through the above posts and found them unbalanced in their pessimism regarding the world. As we survey the landscape of the world, we do not deny that there is much evil in it. But we shouldn't fall into despair.

God came into the world proclaiming "The Kingdom of God is near!" And the basis of our hope is that "He is Risen!" The Christian believes that the Kingdom of God has indeed come to the world and is in our midst. It has already been realized.

It is our job as Christians to go out and witness to the Kingdom that already has been realized in Jesus Christ. Evangelism, then, is not the "making so" or advancing of the Kingdom of God. Evangelism is witnessing to the Kingdom of God that already is!

We should and confront the evil that is in this world. And to that evil, we say, "Yes, but the Kindgom of God is near. He is risen!"

John Charmley

15-12-2006, 11:57 AM

We should and confront the evil that is in this world. And to that evil, we say, "Yes, but the Kindgom of God is near. He is risen!"

Dear Ian,
He is risen indeed!

It is, perhaps, one effect of the liberal mindset of our society that we seem to expect continuous 'progress', and when we do not get it, to lament over the evil of the times.

The only 'progress' that matters, I suspect, is our own; 'how are you with God today?' as a Methodist minister I once knew used to say. Do we grow in God with the help of the Church? If we do, we are playing part of our role in bringing about the Kingdom of God; if we have works and faith, then we are playing our full role.

As communities of Christians we are charged with supporting each other as we grow in Faith; that is, of course, why Christian disunity is so tragic, as it has often drawn our minds away from what St. Paul commands in 2 Thessalonians 1:3:

We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is fitting, because your faith grows exceedingly, and the love of every one of you all abounds toward each other,

The 'times' in this world, are always bad, because as sinful man we make them so, and this world, like us, is redeemed only through His sacrifice made once for all upon the Cross made glorious by Him. It is through the Cross that we are saved, and sometimes we have to bear its weight. But His kingdom is not of this world.

That, however, is no excuse for us to sit around like a bunch of Jeremiahs - there is much to be done in His name.

As an historian, it seems to me this time is no better and not much worse than any other - our liberal expectations make pessimists of us - just as Our Incarnate Lord makes optimists of us.

In Christ,

John

Peter Farrington

15-12-2006, 12:40 PM

Dear John

A wise post..

I find in my own heart that I have a great sense of all things being possible through my own effort, and I have had to learn that in fact I am very limited in what I can achieve myself, and that even in a proper synergy with the Holy Spirit I might well not be asked to save the whole world.

So rather like Jane Austen I find myself more content working on my little piece of ivory, hoping that the things God does ask of me I am ready to perform cheerfully.

This is rather liberating since I need not despair at the state of the world - it is not my responsibility, nor try and change everything for the better - it is not what God asks of me. Instead I try to understand His will for me here and now, and do what He asks, here and now. Some things are challenging, exciting and of a wider scope. Most things are being a better husband and father, praying more, fasting more, witnessing whenever I can.

Peter

John Charmley

16-12-2006, 01:21 AM

This is rather liberating since I need not despair at the state of the world - it is not my responsibility, nor try and change everything for the better - it is not what God asks of me. Instead I try to understand His will for me here and now, and do what He asks, here and now. Some things are challenging, exciting and of a wider scope. Most things are being a better husband and father, praying more, fasting more, witnessing whenever I can.

Peter

Dear Peter,

A good piece of advice to us all. After all, as the Incarnate Lord told us in Luke 17: 20-21:

20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, The kingdom of God does not come with observation;
21 nor will they say, `See here!' or `See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.

St. Isaac of Nineveh wrote similarly:

The ladder that leads to the Kingdom
is hidden within your soul...

Dive into yourself and in your soul
and you will discover the stairs
by which to ascend.

The best advice in this world. May we be granted the wisdom to heed it, and the strength to follow it.

In Christ,

John

Scott Pierson

16-12-2006, 02:10 AM

The 'times' in this world, are always bad, because as sinful man we make them so, and this world, like us, is redeemed only through His sacrifice made once for all upon the Cross made glorious by Him. It is through the Cross that we are saved, and sometimes we have to bear its weight. But His kingdom is not of this world.

There is definitely truth to that statement but I still think we are living in a particularly dark time in history. I was just reading a book about Saint Theophane the Recluse and found some of the saints words really relevant to the discussion :

"During the first centuries of Christianity, when the early Christians were aflame with love for our Saviour and their religion was alive and sincere, their pastors could influence the souls of the faithful simply by pointing to the words of the Lord, the Apostles, and the Fathers...

Times change. With the weakening of faith and love, Christian morals have become coarser. Because we now feel these things only weakly, Christian morality seems as if it were imposed on us from outside. This makes it seem like a burden, and seen in this way it is hard to bear. By now , it actually seems foreign to our human nature.. By the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, philosophers began to reject Gods commandments. From the qualities of human nature, they claimed to be able to deduce rules of life and social laws that contradicted Gods laws. They had forgotten that the great strength of Christianity came from the fact that it corresponded to the most deeply rooted aspirations of mankind: 'mans soul is Christian by nature,' although it has been perverted by sin. These 'wise men of the world' then mistook the distortion (which came from the new ideas) for the real nature of mankind, and so they came to the conclusion that 'man is a wolf to other men', is the real character of human life and the whole natural world.

Like a self fulfilling prophecy, this judgment then caused the fact it predicted. The results of this viewpoint become self-evident: bellum omnia contra omnes, (conflict between each person and everyone else); competition restrained only by external force; the egotism of the individual; class struggle; revolution; murder; war, all the shadows that have clouded European history over the last few centuries..

And now, because of the terrible manifestations of the spirit of the time, the despairing cry is heard that : ' the world has fallen into confusion'... Something in the organization of this world has now been shaken, which was previously considered to be perfectly stable. Man must be renewed because his social conscious is dying."

John Charmley

16-12-2006, 05:07 PM

Dear Scott,

I don't disagree with you about the times, but I do think that we are all called to times of trial, as well as a time of trial.

We can too quickly take on a Eurocentric view. You are correct about the pernicious effects of much of the Enlightenment project - but over time the results of trying to live by our own laws without taking account of those of God are becoming clear; I wonder how things will be in a century or so in the west?

In the meantime whole continents which were once almost without God's word, are now powerhouses of Faith - just look at Africa. Whilst the secularists bang on about its poverty and its problems (all of which are real) none of these things stand as obstacles to God's word. ECUSA has a real challenge from the Nigerian Church, which stands as a witness to the traditional values of the Church; here in the UK we have missionaries coming from Africa to lighten our darkness. The new Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, came as a refugee from Uganda, and makes a great impact on this mainly heathen country.

The end of the Godless bolshevik regime in Russia has seen the Church flourish again. Even the Godless Chinese are allowing Christian worship.

So, yes, the times are dark and burdensome - they usually are - but there are signs that the Holy Ghost is not only as busy as ever, but enjoying great success.

In Christ,

John

John Charmley

09-01-2007, 10:11 AM

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I don't know if the Monachos News Feed will pick up the following story, so wanted to share it with you here, just in case.

There is a good piece in today's Daily Telegraph by the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay, on the possible effects of this legislation, and I will just quote one part of it:

Should religious beliefs bow to gay rights?
By James Mackay

Tonight, in the House of Lords, there will be a debate on whether a Humble Address should be presented to Her Majesty praying "that the regulations laid before the House be annulled". The regulations in question are the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006. The purpose of them is to make discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation unlawful in the provision of goods, facilities and services, education and public functions in relation to Northern Ireland. Similar regulations are under consideration for England, Wales and Scotland, but these have not yet been finalised.

The considerations in this field of statutory provision are of far-reaching importance, involving the practical application of a person's faith in the field of morality.

The moral teaching that is part of the faith of many Christians, Jews and Muslims includes the view that the practice of homosexuality is sinful. This is often held along with the view that sexual relations outside marriage are also sinful. These views are not new, but have been included in the teaching of these faiths for a long time.

As I understand these views, they are not concerned with the orientation of the individual, but with the putting into practice of a homosexual orientation by carrying out homosexual acts.

It is also important to remember that those who are true to their faith do not hold views on what is right and wrong as mere theories for debate, but as practical guidance to their way of life. In consequence, their beliefs will impinge on their everyday activities and, in particular, on their interaction with others. It follows that such a person will not wish to undertake any activity that involves participating in or facilitating the carrying out of practices by others which he considers sinful for himself.

This year we celebrate the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade. It represented the lifetime work of William Wilberforce, acting in public life in accordance with his Christian conviction that slavery was wrong in principle. Like Christians today, Wilberforce's faith was the compass that guided the conduct of his daily life.

This raises an initial issue. If the regulations are dealing with orientation only, they cannot have the effect of requiring anyone to do anything in the nature of participation in or facilitating practical acts. The tone of the regulations and of the consultation paper that preceded them suggests that they are intended to outlaw discrimination arising from a wish not to be implicated in homosexual practice where it is the practice, rather than merely the orientation, that is objected to.

If, as I believe, the regulations are intended to make it unlawful to refuse to facilitate homosexual acts, then it is obvious that those who practise a faith that considers homosexual activity to be sinful are being subjected to a law that seeks to over-ride their consciences.

You can read the full article at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessi

There will be demonstrations outside parliament today by various Church-based groups protesting against the legislation - but this government's record suggests it will be passed.

In Christ,

John

Elena

09-01-2007, 06:26 PM

It follows that such a person will not wish to undertake any activity that involves participating in or facilitating the carrying out of practices by others which he considers sinful for himself.

?
What goods or services precisely would any of us refuse to a homosexual person because it means we are participating or facilitating homosexual practices. Furthermore why stop at homosexuality, should we be allowed by British law to refuse to provide goods or services to anyone who disagrees with us as to what practices are sinful?

Scott Pierson

10-01-2007, 01:30 PM

What goods or services precisely would any of us refuse to a homosexual person because it means we are participating or facilitating homosexual practicesNot to long ago on a talk radio program a case was discussed in which a Christian business refused to produce VCR tapes that promoted the homosexual cause here in the US. The owner was sued and lost his court case. I think thats a good example of a time in which a person has a moral duty to refuse services unfortunately it didn't turn out to well for that person.

Personally I value the right of freedom of association and believe that business should be allowed a choice in the matter (when it comes to things they find morally reprehensible .). Its just another sign of government sticking its nose in places its not needed when the state tells people "you have to do business with people supporting causes you don't like". It should be the market* and the business owners personal morality that decides and not the state. Why would one even want to do business with (and therefore enrich) a person who is opposed to ones way of life anyway?

* If people dislike the selling practices of a business they will stop shopping there and cause the place to go out of business.

John Charmley

11-01-2007, 12:01 AM

Dear Elena,

Good questions.

Cited were the example of a Christian guest house owner who might wish not to book a double bedroom to a gay couple, a Christian printer who might wish to refuse to print 'gay pride' leaflets, a photographer who might wish to refuse to take on a 'civil partnership, or a vicar who might wish to refuse to bless a gap partnership in Church.

How valid such fears are I cannot say, but these were the sorts of things mentioned. It is immaterial now since the bill went through. If it means that Church schools have to give equal space to teaching about gay lifestyles in civics classes, that will have to be done.

My own views are not particularly exercised one way or the other - too much like straining at the gnats having swallowed a herd of camels - but I felt it might be of interest to others here.

In Christ,

John

Elena

15-01-2007, 12:16 PM

Dear Scott,

Thank you for the example you gave, I accept that that would be a very difficult situation. However my problem is that we are literally surrounded by people who do not share our views of what is right. Yet it seems that we (Christians in the western world) only object to certain types of 'immorality' and are perfectly willing to turn a blind eye to the rest.

There appears to be much hypocrisy in how one decides what is 'morally reprehensible.' How does one choose, and why is there an apparent obsession with another persons sexual behavior?

In our work, in our life don't we encourage, or aid or at least choose to ignore behavior which we believe to be spiritually and essentially harmful not only to individuals but the whole world. Yet it is only when it comes to another persons sexual behavior that we set up an uproar, and generally in such a way to be easily open to accusations of hysteria or hypocrisy.

Dear John,

I know that the bill under discussion is specifically only applicable to businesses or foundations providing a public service (such as adoption) and does not apply to religion. I don't think it effects church schools, I know that a school that is either grant maintained or privately funded doesn't have to follow state directives on ciriculem. However that is getting off the point somewhat.

At the end of the day I suppose I'm sad because this speaks of Christians refusing to deal with another person because they and their practises are repungent, and I don't find that very Christian. Yet this is our public voice?

Peter Farrington

15-01-2007, 03:10 PM

Dear Elena

It is of course quite possible and sometimes easy for the Christian voice to come across as hysterical.

But it seems to me that this is an important point and one at which Christians should stand up for a wider liberty which is at threat.

I would have no problem at all with welcoming a person who was dealing with homosexual temptations into our worship at Church, or into my home for social and religious events. Likewise if I was running a guesthouse I would have no problem inviting and welcoming a person dealing with homosexual temptations to an event there or a retreat.

But I would not want to accomodate a practicing homosexual couple because this is not loving the sinner, but facilitating the sin.

I might equally want to welcome someone facing other addictive compulsions but if my guesthouse or retreat centre had a bar I would not want to facilitate drunkenness even while I would welcome an alcoholic or someone with less self-control than they might have.

I would not want to facilitate all manner of sinful behaviours from drug-taking, to shouting loudly and aggressively - but all the while I would want to welcome all people as made in the image of God.

What is at issue here is not whether or not we welcome those whose open behaviour we consider to be sinful, but whether a business should be forced to accomodate such practice.

A business may well have to decide how to deal with an unmarried couple who wish to share a room, but I believe that it is entirely up to a business who it does business with and this is an attack on a fundamental freedom.

I was looking for some publishing to be done and I contacted one company that seemed very professional, but as Jehovah's Witnesses they had chosen not to do any printing of Christian material. I commended their principles and was not offended.

This new law will make it hard for a Christian publishing company to refuse to print explicitly homosexual material. That cannot be right and Christians, together with other members of our society should exercise their freedom to object to this law.

Peter

John Charmley

15-01-2007, 03:24 PM

At the end of the day I suppose I'm sad because this speaks of Christians refusing to deal with another person because they and their practises are repungent, and I don't find that very Christian. Yet this is our public voice?

Dear Elena,

I am rather with you. I suspect if our public authorities had not done silly things like allow the prosecution of a couple who distributed 'anti-gay' literature at a 'gay pride' march, there might have been less to be alarmist with.

One grows tired of arguing with Bible-reading atheists who ask why we pick some bits of Leviticus and Deuteronomy and not other bits, and then cite the attitude of the Church towards slavey for so many years. And before anyone tells me that the slave trade was a western phenomenon I'd ask them to read up on what went on in the Eastern Roman Empire in that vein.

Is the real point not one about ascesis and self-restraint? As I have said before here, on the sexual practices front, the Church also condemns fornication and adultery, and isn't exactly keen on divorce (although at least the Orthodox take a humane and sensible view). So, by this route, Scott is probably correct - any business that refused to trade with those who had committed fornication, or adultery, or been divorced, or practiced sodomy, would probably go broke.

If, as we believe, the Church is a spiritual hospital, should it not minister to the sick? Of course, if the sick do not wish to be cured they will not come to hospital, but the question of how the Church deals with such people is very germane to how others perceive us.

I don't pretend to know what the answer should be, and our government daily does things which are even more outrageous on the moral front, so unless one believes (like many westerners) that the Church should be politically engaged, I guess one takes whatever stand one feels appropriate.

I envy those who have certainty on this - at least I think I do.

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

15-01-2007, 03:40 PM

Dear All,

It may seem hypocritical for, for example, a Christian guesthouse owner to accept a booking from a heterosexual unmarried couple to share a bed but object to a booking from a homosexual couple. I suppose any such differentiation would be based on the fact that while the Christian sees both activities (assuming there is activity!) as sinful, homosexual sex is unnatural whereas heterosexual sex is not. Such a differentiation, however, whilst an understandable reaction, may be objected to as untenable: suppose the heterosexual couple engage in unnatural sex? And what if a married couple engage in unnatural sex? The fact remains that homosexual relations are more likely be more offensive than other forms of sexual activity which are sinful according to the Church because they are unnatural and may reasonably be presumed to be practised in the circumstances posited.

In Christ,

Andreas.

John Charmley

15-01-2007, 06:05 PM

Dear Andreas,

I suppose any such differentiation would based on the fact that while the Christian sees both activities (assuming there is activity!) as sinful, homosexual sex is unnatural whereas heterosexual sex is not.

This is indeed at the core of this part of the problem - 'the Christian sees'. In addition to the well-known passages from Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, we have guidance from Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 18-19, Jude 7; 1 Timothy 1:9,10.

In a lecture published in 1993, Pope Shenouda III puts the Orthodox view in a way that would, I suspect, command consent even from those who would not acknowledge the Copts as that in other ways, and I quote:

What rights are there for homosexuals? Their only right is to
be led to repentance. But to live in such defilement of the
body, in such dishonour of the body, in such abomination and
sin, and then ask for their so called human rights unthinkable!
Furthermore, being encouraged and defended by some of the
members of the Church, they ask to be ordained priesthood,

The effect of this in terms of dialogue between Churches is clear. As far back as 1990 at a meeting with the Anglicans, Pope Shenouda declared:

In this way, I want to discuss with you, dear brethren, some points that are very essential to us, especially in the East; and which have caused deep disappointment and had many reactions here. These are: homosexuality, polygamy and ordination of women. These are three specific points which are not accepted by any Church in the East, and which are also not accepted by our brothers of the Orthodox Churches, and I think also not accepted by the Catholic Church.
It was amazing that the topic of homosexuality might be a topic of discussion,
because it is very clear that it is a kind of immorality, fornication, a clear sin against the Holy Bible.

These are clear, scriptural and unequivocal statements, and I am sure that some here will have equally clear ones from Russian and Greek sources. They are easier to make in Egypt than they would be here, but that makes them none the less true expressions of the teaching of the Church.

My point? Well it shows what a wet Anglican I am at heart, I suppose. Because clear as it is, it is clear 'to Christians', and most people in this society are not Christians and would find Pope Shenouda's forthright expressions at odds with their views. So we come up against what we keep coming up against in this thread - the question of how we behave in this society.

In that sense, the protests made were fine - those making them have also made a point about what the teaching of the Church is, and we must now obey the law. But a handsaw to a hawk that someone somewhere will find it incompatible with their faith to let a homosexual couple share a bedroom in their guest house, and the same bet that a silly local authority will prosecute them.

Of course, all this will happen and we can stand aside or not - but my own wooliness bothers me. Why does it matter to me that so many people will have seen the Christian protests as another example proving that we are all narrow-minded bigots more worried about sexual practices than is healthy for those who do not engage in them?

In Christ,

John

Peter Farrington

15-01-2007, 07:14 PM

Hi John

I understand and share your sense of confusion as to how to advance the Gospel in this case and others like it.

I guess that part of the problem is that all of the reporting is published by media which also have their own agenda. When is it reported that Orthodox and Catholic clergy are lobbying and meeting politicians and civil servants on behalf of people with needs? As I know my own bishop does, for instance. This is not good news as far as the news media are concerned, but I would bet that it happens all the time.

Indeed I saw a week or so ago that my own local Catholic MP had been helping a homosexual couple, as she should. But this sort of thing is not widely reported unless some Christians can be dug out of the woodwork to argue against it.

The media choose to make this about Christians and homosexuals, but it is really about the erosion of liberty, and the shame is that those who should be promoting civil liberty are often found conniving with those who wish to restrict it.

The issue is whether a non-monopoly business has the right to choose who and how it conducts its business. If a business wanted to choose not to serve people with beards or people who wear sandles or people who have ginger hair, then as far as I can see the business should have complete freedom to do so. And if a homosexual run printer does not want to print Christian material that is also fine by me. The idea that a business should be told how to conduct itself and who it must serve seems to me to be very dangerous.

I am not so bothered by the example of homosexuality, though businesses have suffered badly simply by applying Christian standards. I am more bothered that any business should be told how to conduct its affairs.

Peter

Andreas Moran

15-01-2007, 08:37 PM

Dear Peter,

As a lawyer (though not a human rights lawyer), I have to and happily do agree with you. The balance between protecting A's human rights at the expense of B's is not always easy to strike but I do see the balance going against those holding to the Christian faith. It's one of the dilemmas of society having lost the cohesion which came from a single moral consensus.

In Christ,

Andreas.

John Charmley

15-01-2007, 09:56 PM

Dear Peter,

I am not so bothered by the example of homosexuality, though businesses have suffered badly simply by applying Christian standards. I am more bothered that any business should be told how to conduct its affairs.

I tend to agree - although that being said, we are so ludicrously over-regulated in the UK that many of my American friends think I must be making it up when I tell them of the red tape that is strangling us here! So, yet again, a herd of camels has already been swallowed, and we strain at a gnat!

And yet I remain uneasy. We are told not to be a cause of scandal, and to be a credit to our Faith, and yet the seeming obsession with the homosexual business seems to do neither of these things - not least since so often Christian comments, as reported, fail to make the distinction between the sin and the sinner. Then, after all our fuss, we get the sorts of scandals that are all too common in the press concerning clergy involved in this sin; it just makes us look like hypocrites.

The Fathers, where they discuss this matter, seem to do so along with other 'sins of the flesh', which is perhaps where it should be discussed, rather than being isolated in the way it often is nowadays.

In Christ,

John

Scott Pierson

16-01-2007, 12:14 AM

The Fathers, where they discuss this matter, seem to do so along with other 'sins of the flesh', which is perhaps where it should be discussed, rather than being isolated in the way it often is nowadays.I think the topic may get more discussion then it would normally demand because there is an organized effort to desensitize the public to homosexuality and legitimize the behavior as something positive. This is taken to such extremes that even our children in public schools are indoctrinated through "cute kids books" like "Daddy's Roommate" and such. The Church is often portrayed as being too worried about "what people do in the bedroom" or with the "gay issue" but in reality its the homosexual revolutionary's who have an undue interest and obsession with the issue. I doubt the issue would even be in the public spotlight if the homosexual advocates would simply refrain from raming it down everyones throat and trying to label as "haters" (and even pass laws to imprison) people who disagree with the practice. Most Christians I know have a live and let live attitude on the subject they are simple upset with the drive to normalize the behavior in the publics mind. Without the whole “gay rights movement” I think the issue would rarely even be discussed by Christians.

Andreas Moran

16-01-2007, 10:15 AM

Dear Scott,

I think you have hit the nail on the head. And we have to remember that to those who are not Christians (or adherents to those faiths with similar tenets as to sexual conduct), our concerns have no relevance whatever.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Rebecca Gabl

16-01-2007, 04:30 PM

I agree with Scott.

I don't really care what people do in their private lives, as long as they don't go around trying to force society to condone it. I've met Christians who seem to have a strong hatred of homosexuality, but I'm quite sympathetic to those who just want to be left alone and practice what to them isn't a sin. You can't go around quoting the Bible to people who don't believe in it in the first place (or to those who refuse to interpret it the same way you do!)

John Charmley

16-01-2007, 05:39 PM

I don't really care what people do in their private lives, as long as they don't go around trying to force society to condone it.

Dear Rebecca,

I am inclined to agree with you and with Scott - but we are way past the point you mention - society has agreed to 'condone' a great many things which Christians find abhorrent, and that agreement has come after very forceful campaigns by secular liberal opinion.

I also agree that by appearing to be obsessed with certain topics, Christians risk becoming objects of popular disdain, if not joke-figures.

The question is, I suppose, how (and whether) we engage with things such as abortion which run against our beliefs. Yes, we can acknowledge that since these are the beliefs of that minority of society who are Christian, we can ignore them unless someone tries to ram them down our throats; but is that not to tacitly accept evil?

I don't have any answer to this dilemma, and doubt there is one, but am interested, as ever, to know whether others have.

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

16-01-2007, 06:09 PM

John Charmley

16-01-2007, 06:29 PM

Dear John,

Perhaps we have to remember how the early Christians and those persecuted in our own times have dealt with sin and evil. St Paul, after all, preached against the very things we are concerned with. Staying silent until he himself was affected was not an option for him. In Russia years ago, many Christians tried to reason with their oppressors, but one new martyr would have none of that: he said simply to his captors and torturers, 'I hate everything you stand for. I will agree to nothing. Do with me as you will.' God forgive me, I'm not the stuff martyrs are made of!

In Christ,

Andreas.

Dear Andreas,

You capture my unease exactly. It seems so comfortable just to stand aside - yet to bring discredit onto the Faith if one joins those who look like bigots. Oh well, I guess I want what can't be had. My own temperament would make me the worst sort of martyr, I suspect - one isn't supposed to to seek it out - and certainly, as a young man, my tendency was in that direction; perhaps age has brought wisdom - or is it cowardice?

In Christ,

John

Elena

16-01-2007, 11:13 PM

The question of how to deal with our society that condones so much that we can not is one we find ourselves facing everyday. It is not just a question of those large scale issues such as abortion but the parading culture of society. Every time when the press encourages us to demonise others, to hate, to be greedy and to care about ourselves more than others. We deal every day with a culture that is inherently contrary to our own.

What is harder and inevitable is that living in such a culture we come to actively love those who belong to that culture. The question of how to deal with our society then becomes far more poignant and personal. How do I deal with society? The same way I deal with my friends. Quietly and consistently I try to hold to my beliefs. When asked or when it is particularly relevant to the conversation I answer as truthfully as I can. I don't always succeed, sometimes I get angry, sometimes I just have to leave the conversation or I know I'll say something I'll regret and sometimes I'm too tiered and betray my beliefs by staying quiet.

Rebecca Gabl

17-01-2007, 03:14 PM

When I said I didn't care what people did, I should have added the disclaimer: 1. as long as they're consenting adults, and 2. as long as they're not hurting anyone else (abortion hurts others).
I mean, in some ways we have to care, because it should pain us when our brothers/sisters fall into sin. But everyone has a free will, and this (the West) is a free society, so there's not much we can do anyway. I think preaching to them will have minimal effect, unless they want to investigate religion, that's another thing...
Did Lot do anything to try to convert the Sodomites?

Andreas Moran

17-01-2007, 04:16 PM

Dear All,

Bishop Eirenaios once explained to me that sin is never a private matter. 'Of course, God always sees our sins, but also sin has an effect on the world - its effect reaches out in a cosmic fashion. As when one throws a stone into a pool and the ripples spread out, so do the effects of sins ripple out into the cosmos. Thus we are not immune from the sins of others, and one reason why we must try to avoid sin is so that we do not harm others as well as ourselves. Indeed, all organic and even inorganic creation is affected by sin. Conversely, all matter is affected by prayer. This is why we bless objects, and it is why even machines work better if we pray when we use them rather than shout at them when they don't work. Food tastes much better when prepared with love and prayer. See how simple food in the monasteries tastes so good - better than gourmet dishes! A local man once passed by the monastery at Essex on his motorcycle. Outside the gate of the monastery, the machine broke down. The man saw Fr Sophrony just inside the gate, and he went up to him. They spoke for some time, and Fr Sophrony invited him to visit again. The man wanted to leave but explained his machine would not work. Fr Sophrony made the sign of the Cross towards it, and it started up and worked perfectly.' (I know that this man later became Orthodox.)

If what the Bishop said is right, we cannot ignore the sin in the world.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Rebecca Gabl

18-01-2007, 03:40 PM

True, but in this day and age, there's nothing we can actually do, beyond praying for the sinners and preaching to those who are receptive to God's Word.

John Charmley

19-01-2007, 01:24 AM

True, but in this day and age, there's nothing we can actually do, beyond praying for the sinners and preaching to those who are receptive to God's Word.

Dear Rebecca,

We can also remember what St. Paul says in Titus 2:11-15:

11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, 12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. 15 Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.

And, as we do that, we might, ourselves, recall Titus 3:2-7:

2 to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men. 3 For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. 4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

19-01-2007, 10:51 AM

Fr Raphael Vereshack

19-01-2007, 03:15 PM

Dear All,

A colleague of mine (a professor of human rights law) is going to a conference tonight on the legal aspects of the wearing of the Cross, the veil, and so forth. I have described the wearing of the Baptismal Cross as a duty for practising Orthodox Christians. I wonder if I am right? We are not juridical and prescriptive in the same way as, say, Sikhism is about men covering their hair. But it does seem to me that it would be negligent wilfully to fail to wear our Crosses, so that it is, at least, a spiritual duty.

In Christ,

Andreas.

I am not sure about the wearing of crosses. But if I recall correctly Clement of Alexandria at quite an early date (late 2nd- c 215 ) testifies to the need for Christians to protect themselves with the sign of the Cross.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

John Charmley

19-01-2007, 05:02 PM

Dear All,

A colleague of mine (a professor of human rights law) is going to a conference tonight on the legal aspects of the wearing of the Cross, the veil, and so forth. I have described the wearing of the Baptismal Cross as a duty for practising Orthodox Christians. I wonder if I am right? We are not juridical and prescriptive in the same way as, say, Sikhism is about men covering their hair. But it does seem to me that it would be negligent wilfully to fail to wear our Crosses, so that it is, at least, a spiritual duty.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Dear Andreas,

It would be interesting to know what happens at the conference.

A skim through Clement of Alexandria does not bring to my eye anything that would quite fit the bill, although he constantly stresses its importance to us.

But if I can go back to the St. Clement of the 1st century, in Chapter 18 of his Epistle to the Corinthians we get:

The cross of Christ is indeed a stumbling-block to those that do not
believe, but to the believing it is salvation and life eternal.

This seemed worth quoting in this thread given one of its main themes.

In Christ,

John

Father David Moser

19-01-2007, 08:22 PM

You know, I think that the "wearing of the cross" is less about "duty" and more about clothing. Is my "duty" to make sure I wear a coat in cold weather or take an umbrella in the rain or wear decent and modest clothing whenever I am in public? One could argue that I suppose, but it seems silly to call it a "duty". My baptismal cross is part of my clothing - to go without it is to go naked. I guess it could be said that it is my "duty" not to go around naked, but again that seems silly. There is no law or canon (that I know) that says an Orthodox Christian must wear a cross or else. It is simply good common sense not to go around naked.

Fr David Moser

John Charmley

20-01-2007, 03:43 PM

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

An update for those who have been following part of this thread. Nadia Eweida, the Coptic Christian who was suspended by British Airways for wearing her Cross has now been told that BA has altered its policy and will allow employees to wear lapel pins or crosses on small chains (so sorry, no big pectoral crosses folks).

Of course, if BA had been sensible in the first place, this is what they would have said from the start. Anyone who is genuinely offended by the sight of a crucifix should practice the sort of toleration they probably spend a lot of time preaching about in other contexts.

I remain baffled by the line that says that such bans are necessary to avoid offending other religions. Has anyone ever come across Muslims, Hindus or Jews complaining about the use of the Cross in the western world? I add the qualifier because the situation is rather different in the non-Christian world, where our brothers and sisters in Christ have to exercise a great deal of care at times, and suffer terrible persecution at times. One of the reasons we feel so strongly about the right to testify to our faith is that it is far from universal.

In Christ,

John

Rebecca Gabl

23-01-2007, 04:54 PM

Does British Airways forbid Muslims from wearing their religious dress, or Jewish men from wearing hats? Or maybe they don't have any strict Muslim or Jewish employees...

John Charmley

23-01-2007, 05:49 PM

Does British Airways forbid Muslims from wearing their religious dress, or Jewish men from wearing hats? Or maybe they don't have any strict Muslim or Jewish employees...

Dear Rebecca,

Excellent questions, which BA answered by saying that they were just forbidding jewellery; which piece of sophistry they have just answered in turn by reversing their policy after a great deal of public pressure.

They would have done better to have thought a little before bringing in this policy, which they initially said was to stop those of other faiths feeling uncomfortable. I still have to come across this person of another faith who feels this way, indeed, some of those more eloquent in support of the right to wear the Cross were Muslims, who respect our faith and revere Jesus in their own way.

As one of the earlier posts in this thread said, it is the devil who feels fear at the sign of the Cross and wishes to ban it; he is right to fear it, as we are to wear it.

In Christ,

John

Scott Pierson

23-01-2007, 08:07 PM

They do allow the Muslim employees to wear head scarfs.

Elena

23-01-2007, 09:34 PM

BA allows Muslims to wear headscarfs and sikhs to wear turbans. The argument with Ms Eweida was because their uniform policy says that no jewelry to be worn on top of their uniforms. If you look at the BA uniform it has a scarf that does up around the throat, so it's not possible to follow their rules and wear a pendent on top of it.
Ms Eweida said that BA was denying her right to demonstrate her faith in the way that they allowed Muslims and Sikhs. She was offered a desk job where she would not have to wear the uniform, however that wasn't what she wanted and held out.

John Charmley

26-01-2007, 04:48 PM

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I notice from today's Times that the Muslims have joined the Anglicans in supporting the stance of the Roman Catholic Church in the issue of placing adoptive children with same sex partners
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2566808,00.html.

How do Orthodox posters here feel on this question? Is there a firm Orthodox view?

In Christ,

John

Rebecca Gabl

26-01-2007, 07:23 PM

That law is very unfair. Anyway, even if Catholic and other religious adoption agencies don't give kids to gay couples, won't there still be plenty of agencies that do?

As for the actual issue of gay adoption, they should at least 1. Let the birth mother specify if she'd be okay with it, and 2. Give preference to heterosexual couples. One could argue that if a single person is allowed to adopt a baby, you never know what his/her private moral/immoral practices are. And that a homosexual's biological child cannot be taken away from him just because he's gay. (Of course I know and agree with what the Orthodox answer to that question is, but I think society is beyond ever accepting that point, and there's nothing left to do but compromise.)

Andreas Moran

26-01-2007, 08:45 PM

This issue can be more difficult than we may suppose. On the one hand, a homosexual couple - and let us remember that 'homosexual' includes male and female (I don't like the word 'gay' being used in this context) - who simply 'want a baby' may be regarded as self-indulgent. But take this case: a married couple have two daughters. The husband has a brother who is homosexual and lives with his partner in a stable, happy, long-term relationship. This uncle and his partner are well known to their nieces. These nieces are now teenagers. Their parents are killed in a car crash. There are no other close relatives. The choice is between the girls going into local authority care or being fostered, or going to live with their uncle and his partner. What to do?

John Charmley

26-01-2007, 09:49 PM

Dear Rebecca,

You make some good points.

As I understand it, the RC adoption agencies will pass on requests from gay couples, they just won't place children there themselves - which might strike some as a little odd, but erring on the side of love, I suppose.

What is worrying is the way in which some politicians are stating so aggressively the priority that has to be given to their secular morality because it has the sanction of parliament; it seems a very bad sign.

I suspect that some political compromise may be attempted, although there seem many politicians who do not want one. The Scottish Roman Catholic Church is reported as saying that it cannot abide by the new law and will, therefore, have to suffer the consequences. Still, since the British prisons seem to be full, I suppose at least no one will go to jail for the moment.

In Christ,

John

Elena

28-01-2007, 05:20 PM

The alteration that the RC church was asking for seems a little odd, but it was the only thing that they could ask for which would be legal. Theoretically even with the proposed alteration if there was no other adoption agency available, a RC adoption agency would still have be obliged to deal with homosexual couples seeking to adopt a child.

The aggressiveness of the press and some politicians is quite unnecessary, the alteration is quite legal and does not contradict what has been condoned by Parliament.

John Charmley

28-01-2007, 11:26 PM

Dear Elena,

Thank you for clearing something up, I hadn't cottoned on to the fact that the odd RC request was, as you rightly point out, the only way they could try to stay within the legislation.

I agree with you, the aggressiveness of the press and some of the politicians is a worrying sign. For a long time in the UK Christians have been able to rely on the historic connection between Church and State to produce a relatively benign climate toward us; this seems to be changing for the worse.

I hope that we will not respond to this aggression in kind; that is not what we are called to do.

In Christ,

John

Angie

01-04-2007, 02:08 PM

This is terribly sad. I live in Australia and there are Scripture Teachers that go and teach the public school children about our faith. One child in a public school told me that her teacher said that she wasn't allowed to wear her komboskini (Prayer beads on the wrist)!

I would hate to think that our children cannot wear and express their faith in whatever way they wish. But as soon as Halloween comes, the schools are the first ones to organise a party.

Another thing I am concerned about is the Bible Society. Some form of Protestant denomination I think. They seem to drag our children in their faith by using guitars and sort of rock music. They say God rocks! Things like that. Has anyone heard of this denomination? They have tried to take Othodox children in their faith with their carefree attitude and fast music!!:mad:

John Charmley

01-04-2007, 04:33 PM

Dear Angela,

It is certainly sad, but also, as we have discussed from time to time in this thread, a sign of the increasingly aggressive tone being taken by parts of the secular media and secular politicians. If it were not uncharitable, one would be tempted to say that Satan is bound to dislike the sign of the Cross.

On the Bible Society, no, never heard of them - but there are numerous such Protestant Evangelical groups with similar tactics. I am tempted to express my own views, which are rather the same as tour own; but I am stopped by two thoughts, which others may have views on that will enlighten my own perplexity.

Although not Orthodox, such Protestant groups are, it seems to me, better than nothing - which is quite often what young people in this society get (not, of course, those in Orthodox communities); and should they save any young person from going wrong, then who am I to question how the Lord moves, His wonders to perform?

Alas, my visceral instinct is a good deal less charitable, but with nearly another week of Lent to go, it is a good time to subject that want of charity to some scrutiny.:)

In Christ,

John

Ian Leyda

02-04-2007, 06:24 AM

Though I am not familiar with this particular group, there are many like them in various Protestant traditions as well as other traditions. The "Bible Society" does not sound like a "denomination" per se, but groups like this one are often run as "para-church" organizations and sponsored or supported by churches.

It is not uncommon for churches to take a "marketing" approach to evangelism where they target certain demographics (like youth, young adults, etc.), figure out what they think they like (certain music genres, comedy, sports, activities), and then try to attract them into churchy programs. It seeks to accomodate Christianity into modern culture so as to maintain its "relevance" in the modern world.

This model is a pretty good example of the Christ and Culture debate most notably described in the book by H. R. Niebuhr. The question is: How does/should the Church relate to the culture in which it finds itself? Should the church work against culture, work within culture, work above culture, etc.?

The Niebuhr book is a classic that I recommend. Very good.

Peace,

Ian

Peter Farrington

02-04-2007, 07:08 PM

The Bible Societies are actually very commendable groups whose historic aim is to translate the Bible into the languages of the world and make the Scriptures widely available.

Indeed many of the copies of the Bible used by Orthodox Christians around the world have been produced by Bible Societies. The first was, I believe, the British and Foreign Bible Society, which is still producing editions in new languages, as well as in the languages used by Christians.

Of course they have a Protestant and Evangelical motivation, but in many places they work in partnership with local Orthodox Churches since they have a great deal of experience of producing translations, and funding print runs.

A local group might well engage in mission from a Protestant point of view, but overall the activities are entirely commendable and valuable, and without their efforts over two centuries or more many people around the world would not have a Bible in their own language, and would not have found Christ at all.

I can add a few commendations from EO hierarchs:

Paying tribute to the work of the Bible Society, the Most Rev Dr Michael Staikos, Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Vienna, highlighted the importance of opening the Word of God to people in today’s world.

Officially opened by Bishop Chrysostomos of Kition – representing the Archbishop of Cyprus – the consultation was put on course by former UBS General Secretary, the Rev Dr Ulrich Fick – who served the United Bible Society from 1973-1988. He spoke on the subject of ‘The Bible Societies – Servant and Partner to the Church’. This opened the way for much discussion that followed on the relationship between the churches and the Bible Society.

Metropolitan Philaret of Belarus spoke of the need for biblical helps for readers and used the example of the new Belarus translation of the Bible. Anatoly Rudenko, Director of the Bible Society in Russia (BSR), and Dr Michael Seleznev, BSR Editor in Chief, outlined the specific material being developed by the BSR to match the needs of the churches.

“A memorable moment was provided by Father Elias Huurinainen, who gave a moving account of the reception of the recently published Udmurt New Testament in the Volga region of Russia,” said Dr Crisp. “Many people had reacted with joy when they discovered that the Scriptures were now available to read in their language.”

As ever

Peter