Charlottesville and the End of Reason: A Critical Virtue Signal

The belief that one race or ethnicity is "better" than another was once couched in scientific terminology and spread around as the cancer known as eugenics.  Despite what most people tend to think "positive eugenics" is still alive and well even in biological thought, though whether or not it is tied to races is another story.  Indeed what frankly constitutes "better" in these scenarios is sketchy at best and tends towards the view either that one race is smarter or better behaved and another is either not intelligent or behaves as animals.

The modern world has many myths that we still desperately cling to yet know that all or most of these myths bear as much truth as what Belial peddles on a regular basis.  For instance, as stated above, eugenics ties ethnicity to genetics and in turn ties these ethnic distinctions to other traits such as intelligence.  The problem of course is that culture is left out and frankly different cultures can and do select for different traits which get passed on to the next generation.  Does this involve intelligence?  Does this involve violent tendencies?  I sincerely doubt it, or at least doubt that it bears any real weight on the surviving phenotypes.  But left out of this whole discussion is this, namely, culture and genetics.

Culture and genetics:  Two things you cannot change (well almost) and so this rides the mechanistic predestination gravy train.  You are genetically lower in melanin or higher, you are genetically predisposed to a higher intelligence, you may even be genetically predisposed to heart disease as well.  But notice that I said "predisposition."  Determinism is wrong and antithetical to what we would deem western liberal society.  Why is that?  Because the myth the United States for instance was founded on is not collectivism but individualism.  Voluntarism of the individual to choose association freely - "liberty."  Liberty of course is a buzz word which is actually uncomfortably used by either the right wing in politics or the Libertarians.  Indeed "freedom" is such a slippery word while liberty is not that many politicians and pundits I believe are afraid to use it to describe freedom...because they peddle something else.

Charlottesville, VA is a case in diametrically opposed ideologies coming into intense, violent, and deadly conflict.  But both radical sides have some things in common...they simply don't know it.  So let's lay some myths out on the table, or what Michael Polanyi might call "premises" and move into the realm of analysis and talk about the danger of both sides and why it is deadly important to be careful of our rhetoric and our action while taking, frankly, a good look in the mirror.

The lesson from this national tragedy are going to be many, but among them let us believe truth to be real, to be able to be attained by rational argumentation, and to call things out whether we like them or not in a spirit of humility and self-examination.

MYTH 1:  All men are created equal.  This is flat out nonsense and the far right wing denies it, if by far right you mean white supremacists.  They do not believe that the human being of other ethnicities is created equal but rather some are created better than others.  This much is obvious.  The only problem is the far left agrees with the far right.  While the far right touts purity on the basis of ethnicity in scientific terms, enter the cultural Marxists who argue the same thing on the basis of culture, money, and power.  All men are not created equal...in fact that phrase is offensive because it is misogynistic.  White men are often lumped into one collectivist category, blamed for a sin they have no control over by who they are or where they are born, and by their cultural dispositions.  This sounds markedly similar to what the far right wing might say about, I don't know, young black men.  This is not "equivocation" this is an outright reality - and this is why there is polarization:  Two sides of a coin calling the other not just wrong but blaming the other camp for things outside of their control in most cases.

TRUTH 1:  All men are created equal in dignity, fallen in sin, subject to death and corruption, and called to something greater in the love of God brought about by Jesus Christ.  The hermeneutical circle of the left and right are closed forever to this option - the right still clinging to elements of science and certainty from the Modernist period that gave tremendous suffering in Europe, and the left clinging desperately to a narrative in the midst of no truth.  Both are atheistic and Nietzschian in character even if both have a theological underpinning (more on this later).  In the absence of truth and rationality there is nothing but power plays and strength for what one believes or thinks is right...and since Christianity to Nietzsche was a slave mentality God forbid you examine yourself and find you are in error.  Being critical of one's self is only for losers who need psychotherapy or something apparently.

MYTH 2:  There are bad guys and good guys and we know who they are.  Both sides believe this myth with such fervor that both either seek to violently silence the opposition or use political means to strip them of their rights protected under free speech.  The use of words to silence conversation or to call out someone who disagrees with you as "bigot," "sexist," "homophobe," etc. might as well be "commie" or "pinko" from the McCarthy era.  The shoe is apparently on the other foot now and rather than learn from the battle to be a Marxist even in politics or private life as protected speech, we go after racists and any other who oppose us in the same way - blacklisting, firing, publicly ridiculing, etc.  McCarthy would be proud of the left.

TRUTH 2:  There are good and bad guys and very often we have no clue about who is who because this thing called "gray areas" exist.  There is a common mistake in reading the Bible and it is when someone reads it and immediately says who they identify with and who they think they are in the story.  Helpful hint, it is rarely Judas Iscariot or Simon Peter in the midst of their failings, or perhaps even St. Paul being an unforgiving fellow with regard to John Mark.  We could all at times use the prophet Nathan to set us on the path of reading Psalm 51...we are the man.  Of course the right believes God is on their side just because (a form of Christendom based on who we are) and the left ultimately believes God is on their side because they channel their inner 60's hippie theologians and "speak truth to power" prophetically...because being self-righteous and heavily political isn't dangerous at all.  The fact is both believe they are the good guys and are always the good guys, and if they are not, say, if they are white they are exonerated because they noticed or cared and that was enough.  We all have within us good and evil and frankly we can see our neighbor's speck so much easier than our own plank.  Again - quoting Jesus only partially or for our political benefit and narrative is the cool thing to do in the west.

MYTH 3:  All are taught the same thing and what we were taught was correct.  Conversely - everything we were taught is wrong, a lie, and we see the truth.  Both sides hold to this in some way...in fact both premises.  Matthew Hale, a white supremacist from my high school (several years prior to me), could bring up Nazis and WW2 Germany positively even if you were talking about toast.  It was an insane fascination that led to him forming the World Church of the Creator.  He later learned that threatening to kill a federal judge wasn't the best life decision and went to prison (Chelsea Handler I'm kind of looking in your direction).  Some of what we were taught is correct, some isn't.  When I teach elements of literary and historical criticism I use the Civil War as a perfect example (this is apropos because Charlottesville began as a White Supremacist rally to fight against removing Civil War Confederate monuments).  I say, "can you spot which document was written by a Confederate soldier vs. a Union one?"  I then make up a bit of text but pepper it with words like "yank," "Johnny Reb," "the Union," "Northern Aggression," etc.  The fact is you learn, particularly about history, what your government wants you to learn.

TRUTH 3:  We are taught different things and some are true, some are false.  The Civil War is by far more complicated than simply slavery was cool vs. slavery was wrong.  That thinking is flipping insane yet almost every public school kid in the north thinks it's true to the point where removing Confederate monuments and even defacing them was given official sanction (in say, New Orleans).  I know people who firmly hold (and there is some reality to it) that the Civil War was about states' rights over the federal government.  There is truth to this - the Civil War ended up being the natural outgrowth of the Federalism vs. Antifederalism debate after the Articles of Confederation failed (note the last term of that document when you see "Confederacy").  At the same time slavery was quite a big and important issue because the law that was being forced as policy for new states directly involved slavery.  While the south lost, they were given the same pay by the Union following the war as northern veterans.  They were granted the right to have monuments because they are called "rebels" not "traitors."  They lost in a violent political battle but believed they were upholding the proper element of the United States ("these" United States prior to the Civil War...after "THE").  They have been continuously humiliated by the North, misunderstood to the point where people think the Confederate Battle Flag was the actual country's flag, make jokes about their intelligence, inbred families, etc.  Frankly the North is and has been obnoxious and narrow minded towards the Civil War because "we won."  There's your narrative.  Try fitting Robert E. Lee's views of slavery into that narrow view because you can't do it...he believed in state's rights yet opposed slavery.  Welcome to the gray area.

These are just three myths that both sides either hold to or deny in spectacularly similar fashion - from the all or nothing view regarding the Civil War and slavery, to the incorrectness of all men being created equal, to the absolutist view that they are right and they have God on their side (or the arc of history) giving them full reign to bring down righteous judgment on their enemies.

The United States especially has to live within a dialogue between two realities - we are free to associate in politics/we are automatically signed up for the social contract, we are bound by our genes/we are free to choose, we are blessed by God/we have done immense evil.  Everyone has a theology for their politics but most people seem to think only the right does - this is wrong.  The liberal theology has had way more effect on American culture than the right...it just couches its theology better.  Bear in mind as well...for 1930's Germany made use of liberal theology and Barth was only once again, a flipside of the fascist coin.  He could just as easily fall into the trap.  George Orwell is an important figure because he saw the danger of his own side's extremism.  Would all public intellectuals be that honest.

For our society to exist, both far left and far right must be wrong on several myths - if we have no freedom, we are lost.  If we have no way of talking to each other based in reason, we are lost.  If we cannot recognize the essential equal dignity of a human being, we are lost.  If we cannot spot bad thinking, we are lost.  If we cannot be free to disagree politically without losing our jobs/loved ones/lives, we are lost.

Here is my estimation of what is the case today.  You are free to disagree and I don't care if you want to march against me as the antichrist I will fight for your right to do that.

CHARLOTTESVILLE - Started because some wanted to protest the removal of Confederate memorials and the rally was done by a White Supremacist.  If you aren't racist but agree that the memorials should be kept you are just screwed because there is nothing you can do.  Like Trump, you could fart wrong and offend everyone.  You have no place because you have bought neither narrative and for you, God help you.  The news media blew it out of proportion causing a larger riot and a large counter-riot.  Those who went against the main protesting group had every right to do so and I have sympathy for them.  Again, if you disagree with the racists but agree that the memorials be kept, do you avoid the march or march in the counter-demonstration?  This of course blew up to bad levels as the white supremacists came armed and the anti-protesters blocked the streets.  I have never defended hitting pedestrians on roads but I will also say they should be arrested - there have been cases where people needed to get to the hospital and could not, leading to further injury or death.  I understand you want to inconvenience other people but if it was your relative or you in a similar situation you would have no room to complain.  You do not win friends over to your side like that and you are a public health hazard - because you also will not move for emergency vehicles.  You are an absolute danger.

That being said, the man who ran over the woman should also be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law - it appears he was a supporter of the demonstration and this absolutely could be interpreted as him lashing out.  However - if you decry the car hitting the person you MUST also decry the violent rhetoric and actions of the anti-Trump riots and the BLM riots (again, BLM being the Marxist opposite of groups like the KKK and other fascist groups - they tend to act similarly).  Any calls or action for violence politically cannot be tolerated...from right or left.  When either side is stuck they red herring their way out of the issue, like BLM violence makes it ok for fascist violence or something, and vice versa.  That's absolute bullshit.  Both are wrong.

As of today I have read calls to assassinate Trump, all supporters of Trump called racists, calls for the prevention of such speech at the rally, and other thugish tendencies from the left.  This is not ok.  This is how you become the next Hitler.  I know you think he was only about killing Jews but he also was about seizing power by any means because he was...wait for it...a Nietzschean!  You and he have that both in common politically.  Besides, in addition to being a felony how stupid are you people!?  Yes, we will be free after we rid ourselves of such and such a tyrant...like what you think this is a Disney movie with a clear good/bad guy and happy ending?!  That's how you get a police state morons!  Gee, assassination of a populist candidate (Bernie was equally a populist btw...but people can't think consistently)...sounds a lot like what happened at the end of the Roman Republic with Julius Caesar - worked out real well for them...really cemented that democratic spirit.  In addition populists are often assassinated by the establishment - so Soros and other globalists who don't like Trump or who wouldn't like Bernie would eventually do it or try and get public support for it.  Learn history and stop being a sheeple.

Censorship of speech because you don't like it is EXACTLY what the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent - tyranny of the majority.  The protection of your..."liberty."  It is possible to disagree with someone and yet respect them and fight for their right to do and say what they do...so long as you don't encourage and promote violence for political ends.  Far right racists - you are wrong and sinful in your opinions.  Those who have joined you because they feel their culture threatened should not be seduced to an extreme side where you simply "hurt back."  There are other ways of being proud of your white culture be it southern US, German, Irish, etc. and not be a racist - don't listen to the far left's bullshit on that and become fanatics.  Far left whackos - you are wrong and sinful in your lies and constant self-righteous fear mongering.  You are outright dangerous to a level even the far right is not and you scare me far more because while they are reacting you are acting - you are pushing them with your nonsensical myth and narrative.  Stop seeing everyone as morally tied to their opinions unless it is the foundation of their opinion (as with the racists).  No one likes to be considered far right of anyone I know...I know plenty who espouse radical leftist thought and frankly if they get their way I'll be next just because I disagree with them.  These are my rights to you psychos.  I have right and left friends who aren't guilty of this - and to them I thank them that they would be willing to fight and die for the ideal to protect my and each others' rights to disagree peacefully.

Finally - news media - you should be abolished.  I know of nothing going on in the world except for what Trump may or may not have done with Russia, that he picked a fight with Kim Jong Un (actually if people paid attention KJU has been being quite forceful recently - but of course starting something with him is war mongering...and he's Communist so he's ok comrade - eyes roll), or that Charlottesville is blowing up.  That's all I know and have known.  You make me sick because you feed off of human misery promising news and information yet painting it for our consumption as a good because you are equally large corporations who see dollar as the bottom line.  CNN, your feeds to my phone have literally included the headlines, "click here to find out how" like you studied at the school of Buzzfeed journalism and clickbaiting.  If you all want the respect of people start earning it and be honest about your reporting...stop trying to mind control people to your political ends.  ANTIFA - you are guilty of violent crimes against the state just as the far right...the police should deal with you.  Trump - stop being an idiot - stop being an internet troll.  It was funny during the campaign and early on but now we have to get some things done...stop being overtly political with a martyr complex and get shit done.

So there is my "critical virtue signal" - one borne with much thought over the past few days and as little moral outrage as I can muster.  We have lost our way and unless we start to see how both sides are playing us...a house divided amongst itself cannot stand.

Hank Hanegraaff and Eastern Orthodoxy - Conversion or Apostasy?

This is my first post in just over 4 months and a lot has happened both within my own life and the world at large.  Donald Trump has become the 45th president of the United States, Brexit was passed, Bill O'Reilly was fired from Fox News, and most mentally stable leader of North Korea has indicated he is willing to use nuclear weapons on the west if they should attempt aggressive action.  For myself, I was diagnosed in January with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and have been undergoing chemotherapy for the last 2.5 months with 3 more treatments to go.  I have, yet again, been denied access to several PhD programs at prestigious institutions, and I have endeavored to both review my biblical languages while also working on several articles for publication.

In addition, the most important holiday has occurred just this last Sunday (and no I'm not referring to income taxes being due several days after the usual April 15th) - Christ is Risen!  Truly He is Risen!  This year both Eastern and Western churches celebrated Holy Week and the Resurrection of Jesus on the same day.  This was a time allowing both churches to recognize the truth upon which our salvation is built, namely the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.  We no longer have to be dead in our sins, we no longer have to fear the grave and its gaping maw, and we no longer have to fear the one who controlled death with his satanic schemes.

The Orthodox Church has traditionally reserved this time, from the earliest days of the church, to baptize new members.  While this is no longer the only time the Church baptizes, nonetheless Holy Saturday or Palm Sunday become a major time for such a joyous sacramental event.  As a convert from Lutheranism myself, I was not rebaptized but received into the Church by means of Chrismation.  I was welcomed as a brother...as one who now was truly home.  Others have experienced the same joy and truth that the Church can bring to one who is seeking.  This last year one Evangelical figure was received into the Church as well - Hank Hanegraaff, also known as the "Bible Answer Man."  His conversion has caused quite a stir in the Evangelical community.  Some have said he is wrong and in this there is no harm even if they and I disagree.  After all, if they agreed with Hank and me they would be Orthodox.  Others however have taken a more, shall we say, sectarian approach and decidedly saying Hank has left the Christian faith.  This is not simply a conversion from one confession or body to another for them...it is outright apostasy from the religion of the Apostles.

The Orthodox rarely engage in debate and this is unfortunate, because it is one of the reasons many misunderstand the Church and her rich heritage.  They are left to refer to books and generalities, not fully understanding that which they approach from the outside.  James White recently talked about this on his radio program the Dividing Line, and it is sad that many in the "old country" do not partake of debate with Protestants and even worse that many who are cradle Orthodox have very little idea how diverse Protestantism really is.  If we speak the truth in love...indeed, if we claim to have the FULLNESS of this Truth, how can we not engage those who seek to engage us.  The Orthodox Church is the church of Justin Martyr, of St. Augustine, of St. Maximus the Confessor, St. John of Damascus, St. Gregory Palamas, and so many others who engaged in debate with both Christians and non-Christians regarding the Truth the Church teaches...how can we NOT do the same after their example.  We are called to engage those in our surroundings and not to simply retreat back to a safe corner of mystical obscurity - a type of disinterested disdain for more rational arguments as if God did not include a brain in our created form.  With that said, I wish to respond to several points in the article published by Pulpit and Pen regarding their recent visit to Hank's Greek Orthodox Church.

The article is written by Jeff Maples.  Right off the bat one thing is apparent...he's never been to an Orthodox church before, much less any of the liturgies of the Church.  One must wonder where he gets his sources from as well...let's analyze his points as he presents them.  To bear in mind, he attended the Matins and Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom that starts roughly at 11:30pm on Holy Saturday and goes until probably close to 2am on Easter morning.  This is indeed a long service, though not the longest in the church year.

The points below match Mr. Maples' points from his article:

1) Immediately he comments on his personal experience in the Roman Catholic Church and then indicates that the Greek Orthodox Mass (even lower-cased it) was long and tedious.  Hopefully Mr. Maples never hears complaints about services in his church being too long...sorry the most important holiday service took so long.  In addition, most Orthodox do not refer to the service as "Mass" - this is a Latin word and would not, especially in a Greek church replace the Greek word "Liturgy."  What did he find tedious about it?  No details, just another complaint about the length and how it "showed no signs of slowing down" - yes, that's it.  Don't get me wrong...sometimes it can get repetitive and I get tired standing a lot (I do often chant so I rarely get to sit during these services...imagine how the clergy and altar servers feel), but we aren't there for what we want...this isn't an American "I choose what I like" situation...this is the work of the people - the LITURGY - and has been given to us to humble us and bring us back to what we have put ourselves under.  The liturgy is not meant to stifle emotion (during Holy Week especially I find this impossible to believe) nor even spontaneity, but it is meant to help direct us and guide us...keep us honest and frankly to make worshiping God something that flows form our being and joins with other people.

2) At this point I'm simply picking up bigotry and distaste for what is "different."  "Smells and bells" being likened to toking up in the dorm room?  Sorry do you need a Lay-Z-Boy and nachos???  I don't think the Old Testament church heard your disdain for incense and bells...and I'm sure the descriptions and images of worship in St. John's Revelation would equally make you reel in disgust.  At least we don't have dried blood dripping down the altar while everyone mills about like at the Temple.  I truly cannot take this complaint seriously as a reason Hank is not saved...this is just distaste.  Revelation 8:4 specifically uses imagery of a bowl of incense mixed with the prayers of the saints...does that not sound like what you SAW during the liturgy Mr. Maples?   But the Orthodox Church has apparently muddied and distorted the Gospel...we worship "too long" and are too "ceremonial."  Mr. Maples I hope is aware that liturgies were not only similar in use of incense but also could take 6-12 hours...and that was when people were being killed for the faith.

3) The Liturgy was vain and repetitious...for starters "vain" has more to do with the mindset of the people doing the praying, not the prayer itself.  When Jesus is warning against it He even explains this as "they think they will be heard because of their many words."  We are heard by God even when we simply pray in need "Lord have mercy."  That is not the point of all the repetition you recognize.  While you're at it...yet again, I don't think the Psalmist heard you - how often does "the mercy of the Lord endure forever" in Psalm 136?  Hey...that sounds a lot like the response to the LITANY!?  Holy cow more Scripture in the Divine Liturgy...wild huh?!  It could also be that the Godman was unaware of Psalm 136 and will either recant His statement or we should strike the Psalm from the canon.

"Every prayer included an invocation of Mary and the saints." - Yes...why not?  And don't give me this "it's not in Scripture nonsense" as neither are computers, modern instruments, English, sound systems, etc.  That principle among the more Radical Reformers that affected Christian worship is followed by about 0.1% of all American Protestants.  We are to pray for one another and unless you want to go at your life alone you often ask for prayers from others...and not one word of Scripture says those who await the resurrection with Jesus are unaware of us or stop praying for us.  The body of Christ is joined in Him and has the same Holy Spirit...that this is forbidden is merely an argument from silence in the Scriptures and using a principle that itself isn't even followed.  Indeed, angels are around us as well, am I not able to ask them to pray for me or reflect on the scandal my sin causes them?!  It is STRONGLY indicated in Scripture that at the very least the angels are aware of us (Matthew 18:10).  Also...Christ alone is the mediator to the Father...all prayers, including the Mother of God go through Him because He is also the HIGH PRIEST.

In addition the scriptural elements of this practice could fill a post in and of themselves...needless to say, as is typical with THIS brand of Protestant rhetoric, a rush to interpret Scripture AGAINST a perceived heresy or falsehood often ignores other passages that call the interpretation into extreme question...keep this in mind for "graven images."

4) Very little teaching - so that homily of St. John Chrysostom that welcomed all regardless of whether they worked from the 1st or the 11th hour...i.e., salvation as a gift given to the laborers by the Ruler...not good enough?  Were you expecting 1 hour of some dude talking?  Unfortunately preaching had fallen by the wayside in the Byzantine tradition but this has been coming back into vogue - hopefully as will apologetics.  To not have preaching, especially GOOD preaching is indeed a travesty in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the very golden-mouthed preacher and one of the Three Holy Hierarchs.  If there is one thing I will give most Baptists...they are excellent preachers.  As for the eerie chant...again, not really going to defend it because I'm not scandalized by it.

5) MR. MAPLES NOTED THE ICONS!!!  I was wondering when this point would come up and frankly I thought it would be point 1!!!  He only at this point comments on their expressions as emotionless and lifeless.  Yes, Byzantine iconography not only tells the biblical stories or shows the saints but emphasizes their DISPASSION - they also are in heaven which is why they are "floating" often in a golden background (sometimes this can be green and the Romanians often use a deep blue for the background).  Icons are not senior pictures they are theological ideals showing that which is more "true" than even the physical appearance (though more recent saints do look like they appeared in life and St. Paul for instance does appear as he is described...balding) - icons have rules...this is why we can recognize a given saint in Russia, Lebanon, Ethiopia, the US, etc.  Finally, there is sometimes the appearance of a twinge of sorrow in their eyes...they look out and see us who still suffer under the cross and the world that is lost - that is another reason they pray for us.  A further discussion of Orthodox icons and their dispassion can be found here.  The only icon that shows extreme emotion is Christ the Bridegroom (sometimes portrayed as "Extreme Humility") which is often displayed during the start of Holy Week for veneration.

6) The clergy and the people seemed low energy and unenthusiastic...there are 2 reasons for this that are unrelated.  The first is that, like many churches, there are those who are Chreasters...they show up for Christmas and Easter often as a cultural thing - not often would I expect much energy from them.  As for the others...Mr. Maples should be aware that the people and the clergy (especially the latter) have been in MANY services this week...including the very long service on Thursday evening, the Holy Saturday Liturgy, and now this liturgy that goes into 2am...they are TIRED...and yet they keep going.  This doesn't show lack of enthusiasm it shows devotion and WORK.  In addition to the services many do other devotional acts during Lent and Holy Week...the priest most likely visits shutins and adds a large amount of confessions to his week...and many churches that are smaller also have many who volunteer (can't afford secretaries or other staff) and even clergy who are worker-priests (though these are usually the secondary clergy).  Face it...it's a lot of physical work and this is when a lot of it occurs.  And I'm shocked that at midnight not one person was smiling as they were shouting CHRIST IS RISEN!  I've yet to be at an Orthodox church for this service where that did not occur.

7) This point I have noticed and it is something that angers me a lot as well - especially from the clergy who should be setting examples.  I don't like the smoke breaks I don't like the idle chat in service, and I don't like checking cell phones for texting purposes...that said, jumping from bad behavior of some to the whole church is absolutely unfair both to the church body and the individuals like Hank.  How many churches has Mr. Maples been in or been a part of that he would call "holy" that have bad apples?  While this is a problem (it's also more of a cultural thing than an Orthodox thing - many in the Mediterranean world do this...in fact I've talked to Muslims who confirm this happens at mosques even in the US with people from "the old country").  I tend to see it less in some Orthodox cultures (more in Middle Eastern and Greek, less in Russian) so while it isn't good it also isn't a reflection on the Church's teachings or those who pursue holiness within the Church...it is sin and as I said...really upset at the clergy for this.  It is a problem.

8) I don't understand this point at all - we ask God to do things...and in fact Scripture is filled with examples where God expects us to ask Him to act.  When Jesus walks on the water he means to walk past (Mark 6:48) and He only addresses them when they cry out thinking He is a ghost.  Yes God already knows what we want and need...but if what Mr. Maples here observes is true one wonders why he prays for anything.  We ask, we pray, we implore God for His mercy, grace, forgiveness, etc.  Why WOULDN'T we?!  This is supposed to be the God who hears us, who promises to be with us, to have known our temptations yet be without sin.  This is why the congregation answers "AMEN" to the prayers - if we thought we were "activating God" we would not be able to confidently answer such.

9) This is a bold claim for 2 hours of observation and no background - he clearly talked to no one, walked in with an agenda, and had so many misunderstandings it was insane.  There was no Gospel - depends on how he's defining it...I don't know what else to call the Catechetical Homily of St. John Chrysostom, the singing of "Christ has risen from the dead trampling down death by death and upon those in the tombs bestowing life," the singing of the Hymn of Justinian, the recitation of the Nicene Creed, the repetition of the Words of Institution after declaring that Christ "gave Himself up for the life of the world," etc.  So much of the Gospel is crammed into this from Scripture itself that you would have to think Mr. Maples doesn't accept the perspicuity or sufficiency of Scripture to make this claim!!!  What would change a lost man Mr. Maples?  An hour of moralizing preaching that taught him the evils or errors of this church, or that church, or what have you?  

"It was literally a Pagan practice"...I just don't know how to politely respond to this so I'll move on.  "Pure witchcraft was going on in this place" - as opposed to???  From your complaints I would imagine you sit around watching a sermon (not too long mind you) not praying because God has already known what you will need from eternity...that's what I've gotten from your complaints.  You are clearly not studying Scripture closely or half your arguments wouldn't have been phrased as they were...it is pure, unquestioned dogmatism from certain repristinating theologians in your tradition (literally...you are following a tradition here yourself).  

Mr. Maples' understanding of the Orthodox stance on deification is conflating us with the Mormons...I also know he did not get this from the liturgy he attended as this is not mentioned as far as I can recall...and if you can pick this up there and not "the Gospel" then that's both sad and speaks more for what you're looking for.  

What is theosis/deification?  While there are many subtle interpretations of it, it is not a strange doctrine in the history of the church, including the Latin and even Protestant ones (scholarship regarding deification in the works of Luther, Calvin, and the Wesleys is a current fad).  Often it is associated with the passage in St. Athanasius who in "On the Incarnation" says, "God became man so that man might become god."  St. Irenaeus says the following regarding the incarnation itself and what it gives to humanity through the life, death, and resurrection of the human nature that has been joined to the divine Logos:

Therefore, as I have already said, He caused man (human nature) to cleave to and to become, one with God.  For unless man had overcome the enemy of man, the enemy would not have been legitimately vanquished.  And again: unless it had been God who had freely given salvation, we could never have possessed it securely.  And unless man had been joined to God, he could never have become a partaker of incorruptibility.  For it was incumbent upon the Mediator between God and men, by His relationship to both, to bring both to friendship and concord and present man to God, while He revealed God to man.  For, in what way could we be partaken of the adoption of sons, unless we had received from Him through the Son that fellowship which refers to Himself, unless His Word, having been made flesh, had entered into communion with us? - St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies III:18 (from Schaff's ANF and newadvent.org).

But I hear what Mr. Maples might say here...this isn't the Bible - well the Bible teaches the same.  Psalm 82:6 is repeated and interpreted by Jesus Himself in John 10:35 that those whom the Word of God came were also called "gods."  Those of us who have laid our hope on Jesus Christ have indeed received this Word of God who came in the flesh.  It is through Him we receive adoption as sons (Rom. 8:15, 23; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5), partake of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4), receive the justification He won for us (Rom. 3:24, 5:1; Gal. 2:16-17, etc.), and have been made temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19-20).

Our nature is perfected through this union...it is not transformed to the divine nature...this would be heresy and blasphemy!  Yet at the same time we are "in Christ" and have Christ "in us."  We are united to His body with Him as the Head...this is the union mentioned.  What good is Christ's "imputation" and "substitution" if we reject repentance?  If we are not united with Him?  What purpose apart from the debt does the incarnation play?!  Mr. Maples seems to be suggesting a pure "exitus/reditus" understanding of the Gospel which is not sufficient nor biblical.  It is the rising of us to life from the tomb on Easter morning which is where justification is found...for it is HIS justification...the recognition of His sacrifice by the Father who raises Him to life (Rom. 4:25, 5:16 and 18).

I call the misrepresentations and seemingly willful ignorance in Mr. Maples' post more wicked than what he heard in the liturgy.

As an aside I would say that Mr. Maples includes in addition to numerous biblical and factual errors...a bit of logical problems.  He complains about the length and deadness of the service...how it cannot change anyone.  Yet at the END of his post he says, "It would have been easy for one to let their guard down and become entranced by the production."  Which is it...boring, repetitive, long, tedious, or seductive???

I challenge Mr. Maples to a true discussion and exchange - perhaps a discussion of biblical doctrine and the faith of the Apostles...as we have seen, his interpretations are lacking and can be, just as the Tempter's use of Scripture itself in the desert, dismissed with a proper understanding of Scripture.

To end this post - let me quote St. Mark the Ascetic and his 22nd point from On Those Who Think They are Made Righteous by Works:  "When Scripture says 'He will reward every man according to his works' (Mt. 16:27), do not imagine that works in themselves merit either hell or the kingdom.  On the contrary, Christ rewards each man according to whether his works are done with faith or without faith in Himself; and He is not a dealer bound by contract, but God our Creator and Redeemer."

And to repeat (but not in vain) once more that which demons hate and despise...CHRIS IS RISEN! TRULY HE IS RISEN!

End of Semester Musings - or - How I Stay in Friday Nights Because Adjuncts Be Broke Yo!

Welcome back to the blog!  I'm mostly saying this for myself since the cave here is quite dusty from disuse.  As it happens though, being December of 2016 hibernation might be the order of the day.

Where to start?  Let's start with a career...start.  Beginning in Spring of this year I began teaching as an adjunct instructor in philosophy at Illinois Central College (more on the oddities of this later).  Frankly, I was somewhat surprised to be hired but not at all upset.  I had attended the school for my AA in Philosophy years ago and the department head was my old Philosophy of Religion professor.  Finishing now two semesters has allowed me to gauge some elements that carry over from other areas relevant to this post and year.

Additionally, just before Spring semester, I managed to acquire my substitute teaching certificate and once again entered East Peoria Community High School to substitute teach for the time period when I could figure out what I was doing and what doors would open in this transitional period of my life.  How was it?  I will never again enter that school to teach unless I happen to be at gunpoint.  Ten years ago the students could be troublesome but overall were good kids.  Many were concerned with their education and future and many struggled to fit into their social niches.

This year I have seen the transition from high school to college in East Peoria...yes it's a small sample size but it doesn't sound too far afield from the vast majority of the country (dear God I hope not the world).  The issue is not fully the students either...many are still good kids who want to succeed in life and go places with their careers.  The real problem is that there is no leadership, no role models, no discipline, and too much of that damned cell phone.  The cell phone has in my mind created a generation of addicts.  Remove their phone because they aren't to have it in class and they react like a drunk who has had their booze taken away.  This is also the first time I have directly observed a student cheating in college using the cell phone after I asked the students to put them on the floor.

What's missing and what has changed?  I'm not fully sure, but what I can say is that students who took a break of about 5 years between high school and college or who reentered college to change careers were absolutely incredible.  They knew what it was like to pay for their own education.  They understood what was on the line if they didn't do well.  They also even understood many of the references I made in Comparative Religions, including Greco-Roman mythology.  My understanding and experience (which I discovered was in error) was that learning about that subject specifically was required in high school.  This is actually not the case, with that section of world literature being optional in many locations.  In addition, many of the books I had read 15 years ago were no longer read...and they have been replaced by books that I have never even heard of (to be fair, this is not SO bad as each generation produces great literature).

Teaching during the daytime this last semester made sure I had less "second career students" and more direct pipe-liners.  I discovered how even the heavy emphasis on STEM fields in high school is a joke.  Most of the students in math classes I subbed in were upset themselves.  Most had no idea how to do basic algebra problems.  It is awe inspiring to watch students ask to take out phones to take pictures of you demonstrating the FOIL method of multiplying polynomials in order to build off of that and factor them out in reverse.  You'd think I gave them the Gospel with how intensely they studied a simple FOIL problem...unreal.  The students at that level DO seem to want to learn in general, but the new methods in math are failing them.  No, this is not a slam on Common Core...ok that's a lie, I think it's total garbage with semi-recycled New Math from the 1960s...but even in science this has left students dumbfounded by simple questions.  I spend time in my last lecture series focusing on the future of religion as per the textbook, but I emphasize the development of both natural science and the philosophical schools growing out of Kant in the Enlightenment.  When I asked then a simple question about what is the first step in the scientific method...I had answers all over the place, but only after a very long silence.  We did finally get to "observations" so that a hypothesis could be generated, but this also led to a discussion of how fundamental theories and assumptions shape how you see the information and ask questions...no one asks questions in a vacuum...well, maybe unless you're Guy Pearce's character in "Memento" and even then he knew what a restaurant was when his short term memory reset.

Solutions?  Please, don't expect them from the DOE.  As it is they made getting your teaching license in IL take 5 years, teach you how not to properly educate children, and you can get a job for only about $30k a year to pay back all those loans as the schools increasingly suffer due to poor behavior and drug use.  Way to win DOE...I'm assuming it's them, but of course I tend to blame the state for being idiotic...which brings up one of the "oddities" I brought up earlier...why I might have been hired.

I had barely finished filling out the adjunct app when I received a call to teach and I think it might be due to the state's budget issues - such as no budget for over a year.  In other words...adjuncts were hired because they are part time and full time profs have a hiring freeze on them...if your state economy sucks and you don't have only a masters degree...or love living on state aid...apply for adjunct work!  Anyway, so I'm in the Philosophy Department...ish.  I guess I don't have "18 credit hours in philosophy" (even though theology HEAVILY uses philosophy), so I'm in the "Religion Department" which of course does not exist.  I'm in limbo XD.

Oh, and even with the local politics if you're expecting an update on the national elections between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton...no...you don't deserve that yet.  Besides, I like science and theology...not politics and theology.  Only bit of meat I'll give is that I'm not the biggest fan of America and it's greatness in the past few years ;-).

The Relation of Science and "Religion" in Popular Society

"What is the motivation for trying to take a religious philosophy and influence what goes on in science?"

Let's answer this question.  For one, I want to say I agree with quite a bit about what Neil Degrasse Tyson thinks about science education.  Science education should be well-funded for the public school system in order to have educated and literate generations.  This is the functional purpose for the common good that public schools offer us.  Now for a point of disagreement...yes, "even atheists" do what he said they don't, and a cursory examination of history will show that for being a non-religion, atheism can be violent, extreme, very ANTI-religion.  One popular example of organized atheism violently against Christianity in particular comes in the form of the Reign of Terror in France.

 

Where do I agree with Tyson?  Having been in the science classroom and dealt with science education, I would definitely say that while state standards are high, often it is individuals' standards which are low.  I made due with what I had during my brief stint as a long-term substitute and even had to rewrite a portion of the textbook on evolution and history of life because it was just so bad!  I also had high standards, helping Chemistry students move from balancing chemical equations (somehow they had been told to do so WITHOUT using ratios) to the Combined Gas Law.  I even had students in freshman biology understand Punnet Squares and genetics enough to do a 3 trait square.  Furthermore, I am not a happy camper when it has come to the defunding of space travel and the taking of resources from scientific research in that area.  I am also very interested not just in technology, but in the work being done in green technology and ways to make such moves sustainable.  So something needs to be gotten out of the way right now...I'm not suggesting any move in science curricula right now.  In fact, I'd say that the real issue here is metaphysics and its confusion with science and religion.  Let me explain.

Let's point out the elephant in the room (at least to me):  Other fields of study in science.  Clearly Tyson allows for his love of economic growth in this country (a form of Nationalism) drive why he believes science should be done properly.  Of course he believes in science for other reasons personally, but he conveys it pragmatically.  That's the first.  The other, he doesn't bring up how mad he is at math, English, and sociology in the science classroom.  Clearly these are not necessarily science proper and should be abandoned.  Of course, Tyson would never suggest that.  This actually makes science a sort of medieval philosophy stand-in, being as it were, the "Queen of the Sciences" in its own right.  The modern mythology is one of pure scientific progress (listen to how many scientists talk about the scientific endeavor) that operates only from reason and evidence.  But let's be real...it doesn't.  And on top of the fact that any progress in science is only particular for the given time period until it is shown to be false.  Surely evidence would tell the ancients that the earth was the geometric center of the universe...point of view, common experience of moving objects, etc.  Science of the day would clearly favor an Earth-centered system...period.  Hell, it matched the senses too!  But reality was, eventually it was overturned by further investigation...and here is where this idea of science as pure reason and evidence runs into problems.  What is evidence?  How much evidence do we have?  The main reason science can speak with such authority has to do with its privileged place (and not unjustly earned) in society.  Religion used to do this as well, then philosophy, and finally science.  All have had their time in the sun, and it would be foolish to not think that new discoveries will constantly overturn many things we have known.  Thought Absolute Zero was the lowest we could get things?  Sorry, wrong!  Thought human anatomy was most likely finished with its work?  Sorry, wrong again!  The list can truly go on and on.  But here is the problem...many people including Tyson are confused about what science does.

Does science tell us how the world works?  No...it tells us about an event being tested. Don't believe me?  Did you see the sun rise yesterday?  Ok, did you see the sun rise the day before?  Now, this doesn't seem too big of a deal until I get to before you were born.  Did you see the sun rise then?  No you didn't!  Aw snap!  How do you know it did?  You were told it by an authority and/or you took it for granted as happening in the past as it happened today.  Usually a good assumption.  How old is the world according to modern geology?  4.53 billion years you say!!!  Well I can safely say I've only been able to directly observe the sun rising 6.84 x 10^-9 of the time, or 0.000000684% of the life of the Earth.  Those aren't good odds to base a probability on...but we ALWAYS do.  But wait, you might say this is a reasonable assumption, but I want to ask why?  Why not think the earth has always existed and the sun always risen as happens even when we don't see it?  You postulate a beginning to our planet, but there are also different competing theories about that...and the fact is not one of them needs to be correct.  Think about that.  It's not just the nebular hypothesis vs some other theory of our planet's formation, it could be a ton of different hypotheses and yet there is only one reality.  And even if this is true that we know this in a progressive way, what is to stop us from having a different revolution in understanding?  Newton rocked the universe of physics, and was concurrently rocked by Einstein...who knows what rocking will be done in the future?  The truth of the matter is that science is an induction of particular events to a universal statement of the world, and it is never absolute.  This is why we need to put explanations derived from science into theories.  Theories are models to explain the different observations and experiments we have drawn from science.  This is awesome and needs to be done, but first and foremost, Dr. Tyson and many others who have this view of religion and science are absolutely in error about how science really works and its relation to the world.  At this point, atheistic apologists will add "but that's what makes science so much better than religion, it can change based on evidence."  Frankly, that just means science is eternally ignorant and this argument is arrogant about its ignorance.  And its willingness to change about certain things that touch on fundamental aspects of the methodological turned metaphysical naturalism of science leaves me in doubt.  

Moral superiority cannot be based on knowledge of ignorance alone.  Even the willingness to change means you'll change at the first hint of evidence or rather how strong it is based on your own idea of what is "strong."  The same can be said for many people and their belief or non-belief in God.  Whenever I hear an atheist or agnostic talk about "there's no evidence for God" I'm always taken aback at the statement...if I could put God into a test tube and show Him to you, you'd doubt His being truly God...same thing if I put God to another test...this would destroy His personhood and make Him just a natural law or something.  What evidence are you talking about?  Seriously, think about what evidence you are talking about.  If you are purely a materialist who uses materialistic methods of epistemology, you have de facto written out supernatural entities or causes...no amount of evidence can overthrow that starting point save direct address, and even this might lead you to consult a psychologist or psychiatrist first...maybe with good reason depending on how often that actually does NOT happen.  Although, perhaps it can be done, but the threshold at which this occurs is fuzzy.

Also, "religion" or even that "dead philosophy" can actually give grounding reason for the drive and study of the world with science.  I love science because I believe not only that a rational being designed and made the world, but that He made it intelligible and that my being the image of God involves the deification of nature by our rational investigation of it using our logos.  I also have a view to the future, both involving stewardship and a fuller vision of the world and its future, one based more solidly than on some ethical empathy for a person I don't know either across the world or in the future.  On top of that, the practical element still is at the forefront of this thought.  The idea of technological (not necessarily scientific) progress is integral to our being human beings who are told to be fruitful.  This is reason enough to not simply discard religious thought from the scientific enterprise...and if you're lucky, we could include math and linguistics in this discussion to.  But no history, oh God help you if I find history in my science class...DANGIT!  Geology!!!  

POSTSCRIPT:  In the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham a little while ago, Nye said there was no distinction between operational and historic science.  Please refer to ATHEIST Arthur Strahler's book Understanding Science from Prometheus Books for your thorough education about the philosophy of science and the necessity of the distinction.

Subcultures - or Why the Rhetoric of One Often Sounds Like the Opposite Group

Of course one can read the above picture and disagree with what it says about either subculture you belong to (or of course, if you belong to neither it doesn't apply to you).  Of course Christianity views the resurrection of the dead as being something totally different than zombies.  Of course most Atheists don't believe that nothing existed before the big bang because energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed according to our understanding of physics.

Now let's get real...this is bumper sticker stuff...it sells but doesn't communicate anything other than, "we're part of the same subculture, HIGH FIVE!!!"  Rarely does this mentality lead to unbiased discussion and dialogue, regardless of how rational we might view ourselves (sorry Free Thinkers) or how enlightened we view ourselves (sorry, well...all groups actually).  The same stupid rhetoric sneaks its way into EVERY subculture that finds itself at odds with either the larger culture or another subculture...look on Youtube comments if you don't believe me.  I've seen ad hominems attacking people on the right or left politically regardless of whatever country you are in.  This is a failure of logic, and really represents an inability for a given subculture to have honest discussion outside of their own group...and we ALL do this.  My response, "get out more."  For example, I've watched a Youtube video that claims one possible reason most game show hosts are conservative is that they are rich, old, white guys.  What is being implicitly stated here is that rich, old, white guys have more of a chance of being conservative.  While I think this is a thinly veiled modus ponens fallacy (or Affirming the Consequent)...or at best he's reaching for a correlation/causation thing which I don't think can be demonstrated with mathematical accuracy.  Of course in the interest of fairness, one can find conservative examples of logical fallacies.  That being said, look at the comments of his video?  They are mostly logical fallacies!  Very few people respond back who disagree for several reasons.  Typically, what will happen is what I like to call, the "atom bomb accusations," or a list of ad hominems targeted NOT TO THE PERSON who is being disagreed with necessarily, but meant to evoke an emotion of detestation and distrust of the message through name-calling and show-stopping.  These often take these words in the modern era:

1) zealot

2) racist

3) bigot

4) homophobic

5) socialist

6) fascist

7) extremist

8) intolerant

And the list goes on.  Sometimes of course, someone truly is one of these labels, but if you're going to call someone that, truly demonstrate it before you drop it.  And to those who read and follow these, do us all a favor...learn some logic and don't be swayed by these labels before you make up your mind.on a given issue.

Now, I'm off to a dog and pony show (not literally).  here's a video of logical fallacies and examples to keep you busy!!!

  

Philosophy is Dead...I'd Like a Second Opinion!

This is an interesting video regarding the relationship of philosophy to science.  I want to respond eventually with an in-depth analysis of the main issue.  The simple fact is that modern Scientism can't seem to be self-critical of its own methods or even whether it does or does not "progress."

And a Cloud Took Him Out of Their Sight

It's that time again...40 days after Pascha/Easter - The Feast of Ascension.  

"Raised to the glory and authority of God, the Man-Christ still remains man in the truest sense of the word and also the man-model to be attained by all who believe in Him.  By believing in His co-suffering with us, which at the same time is His power that permeates and elevates our being, the believers ask Him for His 'mercy,' according Him all the glory: 'Lord have mercy.'  In this expression one finds also the acknowledgement of Him as our Master and that this Master is infinitely merciful and loving, and therefore approachable for us" (Staniloae, Dumitru. The Experience of God III:152).

"It shall come to pass in the latter days
    that the mountain of the house of the Lord
shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
    and shall be lifted up above the hills;
and all the nations shall flow to it,
    and many peoples shall come, and say:
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
    to the house of the God of Jacob,
that he may teach us his ways
    and that we may walk in his paths.”
For out of Zion shall go the law,
    and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." - Is. 2:2-3 ESV (Vesperal reading).

Troparion: O Christ God, You have ascended in Glory, / Granting joy to Your disciples by the promise of the Holy Spirit. / Through the blessing they were assured / That You are the Son of God, / The Redeemer of the world! 

Great talk on the Ascension by Fr. Thomas Hopko.

Duons - A "Second" Genetic Code

This is already old news, but I did find this discovery fascinating...and potentially game-changing in how we understand cellular activity and regulation.  No commentary, but it's getting a little harder to not see the genetic code (now codes) as having no analog to "information" science.

God's Not Dead - Faith and Skepticism Podcast Addendum

Never have I found such peace to think about the past few days than a scummy motel in a very small town in Northern Illinois.  I'm alone, and I feel great to be so.  The world can be so demanding, and I don't have my thoughts organized, my heart stilled, and I end up worrying and stressing about things I either cannot fix or are outside of my control...and this is deadly, for can we add any hour to our life by worrying?

To start with, I sit here rather than with my friend who is awaiting his marriage in several days.  Currently he sits with his fiance who is in the hospital.  True love consists not in how we handle the good times and sexual desires that accompany them, but in how we bear the cross that the one we love suffers and carries.

One might wonder why I put a video to several selections from the desert fathers of Egypt (and some non-Egyptian) about prayer and the heart/mind.  The reason will show itself as this discussion continues.  On Tuesday night of this week, I was privileged to again partake of good discussion with Nathan Reese and Jason Ramey on the Faith and Skepticism Podcast.  They had invited me to do a podcast a few weeks earlier on the development of the Christian canon of Scripture along with another Christian named Sam who lives in the Twin Cities, and Dr. Robert Price.  The discussion was good, albeit short, but was civil, respectful, and genuinely communicated as best as scholars sometimes can given the breadth of a topic.  The most recent podcast however was dealing with "Christian pop-culture" generally, and the film "God's Not Dead" (see earlier review).

The podcast could have been better, but some things were brought up which would best be answered in another medium.  The philosophical arguments of the film were not really covered, and that is fine.  I would much rather have talked about a stronger argument for theism being the intelligibility of the created world through abstract and reasoned concepts such as numbers and shapes apart from and applied to physical reality with precision and accuracy that involves both "real numbers" and "irrational numbers."  This is one of the most pivotal questions in my opinion for the operation of a science that has a grounding in true reason and reality (through both the Logos and our being created His image and thus given the gift of reason).

Among two issues that arose, both during the podcast, and after (not recorded) revolved around how youth in a conservative Christian culture come to terms with being gay.  There were also discussions involving how a conservative Muslim family is portrayed in the movie and what the intention was on the part of the filmmakers.

One of the speakers suggested that it was in the movie as fear-mongering.  Perhaps, but I think a more accurate and full view of the characters should involve the young Chinese student.  Obviously the movie at the end shows all of them, the Muslim girl, Josh, and the Chinese student at a Newsboys concert singing about God. This is a message in my opinion that the message of the Gospel transcends cultural boundaries.  It is meant for the whole world and can be liberating (the message itself, not necessarily how it is practiced) which is also why the pastor had an African friend present with him.  All ethnic groups were represented in a Christian light.  At the same time, perhaps it was not the best choice to portray the father beating and casting out his daughter, but I will still defend that the movie shows him as a figure to have compassion on. His world with regard to his daughter is ending.  She converted and left the faith which was an anchor for him.  Many immigrant cultures understand that apart from religion, language is the key to holding onto an identity of where they came from, and sadly this cultural influence is often severely diminished if not wiped out in 2-3 generations, regardless of how strict the family is.  The father is attempting to hold onto the truth and culture he brought with him...he SAYS AS MUCH at the beginning of the film to his daughter.  He also weeps for her, which humanizes him.  He is not following Sharia like a terrorist...he isn't honor killing her.  He is reacting I would argue more from a minority group who feels threatened in this country and culture rather than that it is meant to draw hate mongering from the viewers.  Islam, while I believe it to be incorrect, has a tremendous intellectual and philosophical tradition, and this should be respected for anyone who ever delves into such a topic.  The situation with these characters was actually more nuanced in my opinion than originally appears.

The second however was with regard to whether or not Christians do this, and it was reapplied to both atheists and/or homosexuals.  I will unabashedly say that this happens...it is a fact.  Christians can be sinful and do immense harm just like any other sinful human being (contrary to what the film seems to show about them).  At the same time, understanding homosexuality in youth and atheism or religious conversion/deconversion in general is highly complex and cannot simply be boiled down to either "they should be like they were born to be or are" (which runs a fine line to saying I should continue to be a codependent because it is who I am either genetically, epigenetically, or behaviorally) or "they are just into drugs and rebellion."  The prior argument is often given with little thought to the insanity of it being applied to other factors of life consistently, and the latter argument ignores that it is often just a sign of something else much deeper and personal.  Many factors such as abuse, early experimentation, societal or peer influence, hormone imbalance, etc. could lead to such a decision, lifestyle, or predilection.  In fact, there could be the shock and horror that they are "convinced(!)" of another way or disagree with yours or their parents.  There is simply not enough known about it to predict or explain it.  Nevertheless, my point in the podcast was, and still is, that these are human beings created in the image of God.  Truly if we saw them as struggling with and "choosing" a sin at this age, they would be considered "the least of these" and deserving of love and mercy.  On this point, Dan was spot-on.  But the problem is by saying "the church does this" or even Christians saying "the other side does it too! ("they" do it as well), this is the equivalent of complaining about how to build a bridge without realizing that people need to cross it anyway to get the the hospital on the other side.  Our children are our children, regardless of what they choose...this is mercy and forgiveness more in keeping with the father of the parable of the Prodigal Son.  When the son asks for his inheritance, he asks for his father's bios, what was HIS to take.  He's telling his father he really would be happy if he would just feed the worms already (btw, the older son does this as well).  When the son goes off to a far-off land...the father doesn't chase after him...he lets him do what he believes he needs to do.  The father has done his due diligence to teach his son right from wrong, but the final decision is the son's.  There is a point where, victim or not, born this way or not, we are ALL accountable for our choices and actions....and this is where the desert fathers come in.

Many might be surprised that there are homosexual bishops and monks...but it makes sense.  Marriage is not about who we love in terms of either sex or friendship...it is about complimentary companionship and bearing one anothers' cross so we can learn to die to ourselves.  Marriage and monasticism (that "curse" of celibacy) are two paths to the same goal.  The monks and the bishops (chosen from the monks) have both the highest control over the church, and help to illuminate us and support us through prayer.  The idea or thought that "we are just now discovering that homosexuality is lifelong" is thoroughly refuted by any study of the desert fathers and their view of temptation, addiction, and the logoi of the human heart/mind.  Ask ANY priest worth his weight who has been at his job for a while and I will be willing to bet a dollar to a donut hole that he understands life-long temptation better than anyone...and not just the ones dealing with sex.  In fact, the fact that homosexuality was struggled with is present in the early desert fathers.  There are sayings with regard to spending the night in a brother's cell, or not growing a beard (thus appearing more feminine), and even the story of St. Anthony the Great's temptation of a young Nubian/Ethiopian boy in his bed, which communicate that the desert fathers were intimately familiar with struggles.  Sex and sexual temptation is just one aspect of the passion of concupiscence or lust.  There are also the sins of anger (irascibility) and also vainglory.  The fact is not that the youth are sinful because they have such desires...this is their cross to bear, just as for another, extreme anger is theirs, another might be bereft of homeland and parents, or not having limbs is another's.  We are ALL sinful, for there is no one who is without sin, even the Mother of God herself had original sin!  But we are loved by God and shown a way that is to true love of both God and neighbor, and ultimately ourselves, for we are to find humility in the fact that we are equally if not more sinful than any other human being.  Our sin and its depth however can drive us to despair, this is true...but Christ entered into our humanity to experience our temptations and touch all of our essence, thus restoring His image in us.  There is no sin beyond forgiveness, save "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit," which is the rejection of the very gift that can save and heal.  It is not forgiven, because God will not force this salvation on us...for love cannot be forced.

How can we seek such humility?  How can Christ save others through this very humility?  Because the image of God pointed to Christ in our minds reflects His love to all from out of us.  As St. Seraphim of Sarov said, "acquire a peaceful spirit, and around you thousands will be saved."  Perhaps in this we find the strongest evidence for the existence and LOVE of God (and this is something which Dostoyevsky portrayed with Elder Zossima), by the fact that in a world of selfishness, destruction, sin, hate, etc...there is genuine love for those who not only cannot return it, but who don't because they hate...that is a genuine miracle.  The sad fact is that we look at all the bad in the world, saying "God cannot exist," or "God cannot be a God of love and mercy," and yet when we see a genuine saint or person who gives love to one in need, we feel the need to rob this answer from God and make it simply a humanistic endeavor.  Job wasn't given an answer that he wanted, but he did get an answer...and while it was not in his desired way...it was the right answer to his question.

Sixty Minutes Special on Mount Athos

This was made a few years ago, and it always catches me about how beautiful the island is.  On top of the book (Mountain of Silence) by Kyriakos Markides which was written while he was still a secularist, Mount Athos has come alive to a level that makes me want so much to visit it.

Why Being a Theologian Means I Can't Enjoy Movies

Three movies hit theaters this year that deal with religious or theological material; Son of God, God's Not Dead, and Noah.  I've seen all three, and only one has my vote as a truly good movie...and it isn't what many of you might expect.  

1) Son of God:

First of all, let me say that I'm not against making movies about Jesus, and in fact there are even movies that play with interesting ideas and topics.  I love the Gospel of John with the guy who played Desmond from Lost as Jesus (sorry, he's Desmond to me).  It was the Gospel of John in video form, and was very well done.  I similarly actually enjoyed and thought about The Last Temptation of Christ (HEAR ME OUT!).  I thought it tried hard to deal with Jesus as a human being and it didn't necessarily deny His divinity.  In fact, what bothered people I think the most about it was that He married Mary Magdalene, but it portrayed a man in his 30's who may very well have wanted to follow the command of God to "be fruitful and multiply."  It showed that the last temptation was actually like the first...come down from there, you don't have to go through the suffering.  In the end, He actually didn't, but it was truly the "last temptation."  

But as for Son of God, I'm sorry, I know the Bible series it is taken from has done very well, but I thought I couldn't connect with Him as an actor, I thought some of the interpretive moves were both unnecessary and cost interpretation at other times.  I also wasn't impressed with Mary Magdalene being "one of the guys."  And not just one of the guys, but pretty much enough to tell Thomas to shut up at one point while they were getting the boat ready to go across the lake...wow, that's 1st century Jewish feminism :-x.  At least with the Gospel of John she learned and tagged along only at the very end...with Son of God, you'd think all the disciples were celibate and didn't have wives who tagged along, but they did and should have featured more prominently if they were going to include her in all the scenes.  Overall, bad...I really didn't feel it even gave me something to find that was new in a good way, or old in a faithful way to the text or the culture.

2) God's Not Dead:

Wow.  I don't know what to say about this one.  Highly simplistic with pretty much every character becoming a Christian by the end, and one of the lamest "text someone God's not dead" at the end of the movie.  A friend who is a pastor had that texted to him, and he responded back rightly, "well, He was for at least 3 days."  The movie came across as mean spirited at times, including killing the main atheist character (of course spoilers...pansies!) after he converts.  Yes, this shows Providence at work, but it was very forced. 

Unlike Son of God however, there were a few glimmers of redeemability (word?...eh, I'm a theologian, we make up words all the time!) in it.  For starters, the movie did hit at a good point, which was that the problem of evil is one of the strongest arguments against God's existence.  It is!  However, the movie didn't really address the reality of WHY it is such a powerful argument - namely it is existential.  The problem of evil is always presented with something akin to a bystander who asks the question of evil and the goodness of God, but let's be real, you ask it not because you necessarily care about nameless and faceless hypothetical humans...you care about your friend who lost their child, your mother who has cancer, your child who was killed in a car accident, the thousands of people who die in an earthquake and who move us to emotional response!  These are things that happen "in the body" and "to the body."  The movie hits on that, but neglects to mention that the God who allows for that Himself enters it and asks the SAME THING at the cross - "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"  Because the movie spent so much time in the mental or emotional realm it didn't really solve this problem in a true way.  I also disagree with showing every atheist as a jerk...there are many who are yes, but there are also honest and moral atheists and Christians who act like the back-end of Mr. Ed!  This was also not dealt with, as THAT is also an argument used against Christianity.  The second scene I loved actually was the grandmother who had advanced dementia who answered Dean Caine's character...the Devil doesn't make us suffer sometimes to hide that we are in a prison...until it is too late.  This was actually a very philosophically profound statement without EVEN MEANING TO BE!  In fact my jaw dropped when I heard this part of the movie!  Other than that...I could have left it and been just as well off.  The philosophical arguments were "meh," and pretty much just ended up in being general arguments for God, not necessarily Christianity...and btw, at the end of the movie, not everyone stood up....the ugliest kid was still an atheist...yes, I noticed that movie.

3) Noah:

Alright, I know people are probably wondering why I actually loved this movie...so here goes.  This movie received an INSANE amount of criticism early on (see for example Answers in Genesis' review which actually misses so much of the point of the movie).  Yes, Tubal-Cain wasn't on the Ark.  Yes, Lamech isn't killed by him.  Yes, Ham and Japheth's wives are on the ark with them (technically they are already conceived when they enter the ark...or at least will be in almost no time).  Yes, the Watchers are not in the biblical text, but really pay attention to the theology of the movie...for being made by an atheist...he gets it!  Here's what I am referring to:

Creation via evolution?  Maybe - that is one part of the movie, but other parts show a possible difference in that narrative...indeed, if it was true, then the view of humanity being guilty and animals not would make very little sense, because "man" ate meat and blood of animals, not Noah or his family - yes, that IS in the text...humanity is not allowed to eat meat until AFTER the flood in the biblical text.  The movie also points out that man's technology is not inherently evil, man is!  They turned the gifts of the watchers (Kaballah or Enoch as far as text goes could be what was being referred to here) into weapons to kill each other and decimate creation.  Rather than care for it as caretakers, they just flat out raped the land!  Man is portrayed as full of passions!  And yet there are two takes to it.  The children of Cain, and Tubal-Cain himself says "I am in Your image!"  He is correct!  And Noah who feels that the flood is to wipe out the wicked and that he and his family is to be left because they are helping the animals and are "good," finds out when he visits the camp at one point, that HE is also in their image...they share a common fallen humanity!

And what of the fall?  Was the movie Gnostic because it portrayed Adam and Eve as glowing?  NO!  This is actually an OLD tradition, even in Christianity!  "Before he dressed himself in the garments of skin man wore a 'divinely woven' attire, his psychosomatic dress which had been woven with grace, with the light and glory of God" (Panyiotis Nellas, Deification in Christ, 52).  This is found in St. John Chrysostom's homilies on Genesis with regard to the prelapsarian state.  Similarly, Nellas says based on the thought of St. Maximus the Confessor, "if we understand the 'nakedness' as transparency, we can say that the body of Adam was so simple that it was in reality transparent, open to the material creation without resisting it in any way, and without the world offering any resistance to the body - the world had been surrendered to it.  The human body, while maintaining its own peculiar constitution and separate identity with regard to the world, was nevertheless not divided from it at all" (ibid., 52-53).  St. Gregory the Theologian, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Maximus the Confessor all say this.  They have a body, but they reflect the glory of the very image they are created in!

So we have humans in Eden reflecting the glory of God in innocence, eat of the fruit, are cast out and need to eat by the sweat of their brow, are called evil for raping the land and eating meat, using the gifts of technology for violence against the creation and their fellow man...how is this "anti-Christian?"  That is biblical through and through!  When Ham picks the flower in the beginning of the movie, he is told by Noah that by picking it, it can't fulfill its function - in fact, the idea is that creation has a full goal that man is to help in seeing through!  It anchors environmentalism in a vein that allows for a deified way of seeing creation that an atheistic mentality just cannot fully appreciate without becoming a dead paganistic materialism.  We as Christians are to care for the Earth because it is a trust given to us, and the resurrected Christ didn't recreate His body, but rose in it...so any view of the end of the world that thinks that fire is only that which destroys doesn't understand the purifying role of fire (good lecture by Fr. Thomas Hopko on the meaning of Christianity and the Apocalypse btw).  In fact, when Tubal-Cain kills animals on the ark, I pulled back almost in horror!  It was said that if one died, a piece of creation was lost forever...and you see it happening!  It should horrify us to know about the extinction of animals or plants...but it should equally horrify us at the death of a human created in the image of God!  The death of any human person is a tragedy...without the resurrection of course!  

I even like how Noah experienced the "dark night of the soul," where he was confused as to his role...and he became a king douche!  Even a man of God is not perfect, and God does test often by NOT talking or revealing things to a prophet.  At one point, Noah points out the bad in his family to his wife who saw only the good...but he left out his judgmental and unmerciful self.  It wasn't until he spared his grandchildren at the end where his role as the Christ figure was fulfilled.  God smiled on that in the movie...and it was one of the most "Christian" moments...it is mercy and forgiveness which Noah forgot.  Tubal-Cain was the man who makes his way into the wedding without the garment.  He hasn't washed himself of his former ways...he revels in them, and sullies his host's home as a result.  One of the odes of the Canon of Holy Saturday Matins in referring to the type of the resurrection with Jonah has him say to those of Ninevah, "by observing vanities and lies you have forsaken your own mercy."  No one in the world is perfect or good apart from God...this is stated in the Gospel, when Christ says, "no one is good but God alone."  The ark is meant to house the "innocent," but it was lack of mercy that cost "niel" (or Nile?) her life in the movie.  Ham even showed more mercy and forgiveness for his father for that...those of us who claim to be in the Church should not hold it over others or judge them...that judgement belongs to God alone.  We are to be judged by what we have done "to the least of these" for in doing so, we do it to Him.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon me a sinner.  Let us call brothers even those who hate us, and forgive each other by the Resurrection.