My reflection on the Acton – St. Vladimir’s Poverty Conference was published on the Acton Institute website. From Acton:

Rev. Johannes L. Jacobse looks at what was behind the criticism of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary’s partnership with the Acton Institute on a recent poverty conference. He points out that some who adhere to the “ancient faith” of Eastern Orthodoxy have very left-leaning ideas about economics and politics. The poverty conference, Fr. Hans writes, reveals to Orthodox Christians that their thinking on poverty issues is underdeveloped and that those who objected “relied solely on ideas drawn from Progressive ideology.”

Source: Acton Institute | Rev. Johannes L. Jacobse

Most Christians who are received into the Eastern Orthodox Church as adults do so for the same reasons that others embrace the Roman Catholic Church: They are tired of the moral relativism or the shallow theological traditions of their former communions. These great historical Churches offer an oasis of clarity where the first questions are settled and the foundations do not have to be laid again in every generation. At least that’s the idea.

Alas, it is not always so. Orthodoxy and Catholicism have their share of dissenters but this is nothing new to anyone who knows their history. Yet this realization often comes as a surprise – even a shock — to many Orthodox converts. They assume that the precepts of the moral tradition will be taught in our generation as well. Sometimes they aren’t.

Analyzing the present culture and discerning how the moral tradition speaks to it is always a complex business because people are dynamic beings. Truth is relational because Truth is a person – Jesus Christ. As such, any self-revelation of Christ whether it be Him directly or through the words and work of His followers requires much more than an outline of propositions. If it were that easy we would all be fundamentalists.

This relational dimension however, is where it gets dicey. Christianity’s secular counterpart – Progressive morality – has impressive fluency in the language of human compassion in which ideas that are inimical to the Christian moral tradition are hidden. It confuses believers and convinces secularists and lies at the root of much internal dissent in the historic Christian churches.

This problem exists in some quarters of the Orthodox Churches in the United States today. Take for example Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew’s statement on abortion (see: A Patriarch who ‘Generally Speaking Respects Human Rights’). He leads the largest, by far, Orthodox jurisdiction in America, the Greek Orthodox. Here the patriarch appeals to personal humility to avoid restating what the Fathers of the Church make clear: Aborting a child is a grave moral crime. Appeals to humility might be morally compelling, but in this case it is misplaced.

Consider instead the teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church where the sanctity of all human life is unequivocally affirmed (see: The Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church). Or read the statement on this same problem issued in Belgrade by the Serbian Orthodox bishops earlier this month. They spoke of “a deep moral degradation, a great crisis of family life and lack of true faith in God among many people, though many of our people declare themselves as faithful Orthodox Christians at least in the elementary sense of that word.”

When human dignity ceases to be the source and focus of thought on cultural issues the moral foundations of culture are undermined. One reason why the Church Fathers were clear on the moral status of the unborn child (today they would be branded as “haters”) is that they understood if the unborn child was seen as a commodity, any kind of cruelty could be justified in the end. They fought for the elevation of human morality. Today we fight against its devolution.

Sadly, this type of confusion often exists when American Orthodox Christians encounter other profoundly moral questions. Recently the Acton Institute co-sponsored a conference on poverty at St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, the flagship of Orthodox seminaries in the United States. To its credit St. Vladimir’s, located in Yonkers, N.Y., resisted considerable behind the scenes pressure aimed at shutting it down. From whom did the pressure come? Orthodox Progressives.

Acton’s approach to poverty places the native creativity of the poor at the center of any program to alleviate poverty. People have natural dynamism because they are created in the image and likeness of God – an insight that can only be grasped and responsibly applied if one first believes that all people have inherent value and dignity. This moral vision is the legacy of the Christian moral tradition comprehensively understood.

This understanding is a threat to the Progressive vision however, because it lays bare the materialist vision of man (man is a biological machine, a better society is achieved by manipulating the mechanisms of state) that lies at its center. The reason for the confusion between the materialist (Progressive) and Christian vision is that the materialist vision borrows the language of the Christian tradition thereby making it appear that the ideas it champions are indeed Christian and thus in accord with cultural history.

Ecumenical discourse between the churches (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant) that hold fast to the moral tradition will be fruitful if it stimulates internal reflection and prompts necessary corrections in our respective communions. The Acton-St. Vladimir’s conference reveals to the Orthodox that 1) thinking on poverty issues is underdeveloped and 2) the objections to the conference relied solely on ideas drawn from Progressive ideology.

This fact is not lost on Orthodox moral conservatives and traditionalists. We call it the Progressive Captivity of the Orthodox Churches in America. There are historical reasons why we are late to the discussion (Turkish captivity, Communist tyranny, etc.).  It led to some missteps along the way such as joining the National Council of Churches (the NCC functions primarily as the amen corner of the secular left) but they are being corrected.

The hour has passed however, when we can excuse participation with those who misappropriate the Christian moral vocabulary in order to cloak ideas and policies inimical to the Christian moral tradition. The moral confusion in the larger culture should not become our own.

Acton grants permission to republish this commentary without restriction.

I am publishing this essay even though it is long because it the first serious discussion of the culture of the Millenials (20-30 Somethings) written by an Orthodox that I have come across. I know that author John Anderson hits some important points. I have been talking to Millenials over the last year and how they approach truth and authenticity is far different than what Boomers and even Gen-X’ers think.

I also agree with his central thesis that post-modernism provides a doorway to the recovery of sacramentalism.

It’s worth a read. Hopefully it will spur some beneficial discussion.

Source: Orthodox Ruminations | John Anderson

Preface: This is just a simple paper assigned after an introductory study of postmodernity and the current cultural shifts and a reading of “The Younger Evangelicals” by Robert Webber. This paper is not designed to be very formal containing a thesis and points. It is merely a personal reflection upon 5 cultural shifts that are opportunities for the Church, 5 cultural shifts that are a danger to the Church, and 5 ways I want to create ministry in this cultural context or how to carry out ministry. I believe the ways these younger evangelicals, who come from multiple Christian Traditions, have some solid ways of engaging the culture that we Orthodox Christians can implement and learn from as we wrestle with the context in which God has placed us. I hope this will be of benefit as you continue to wrestle and to struggle in these anxious times.

LIVING IN THE HINGEWAY: A REFLECTION ON CHURCH AND CULTURE

Dr. Carlus Gupton writes, “Our time is best described as transitional, a very fluid moment where previous ways of understanding the world and functioning within it are increasingly abandoned, yet without clear definition of what will replace it. Something has ended, but the new beginning has not yet taken shape, thus we are in the uncomfortable wilderness, the neutral zone.” The Church is living in a day and age where absolutes are being denied and truth is relative. This day and age of Postmodernism can present to the Church opportunities to ministry and dangers to the Church’s ministry to preach the Gospel and be a hospital for the sick sinners.

Five Opportunities the Cultural Shifts Present

Robert Webber writes:

The younger evangelicals are conscious that they grew up in a postmodern world. One younger evangelical writes of ways postmodern thinking differs from modern thought. Postmoderns ‘no longer feel a need to bow the knee to the modern God of rationality.’ Postmoderns, he argues, ‘have a much broader conception of what counts as reason’ because they acknowledge that ‘all rationality (religious, scientific, or whatever) is laden with faith.’ Postmodern young people recognize that ‘thinking is highly indebted to others.’ Therefore, the younger evangelical rejects the modern notion of individualism and embraces community. And to be postmodern in a Christian way is ‘to embrace the kingdom of God and renounce the values of the world.’”

This is the first opportunity presented to us to witness to people. This opens the door that much of Protestantism, with its emphasis on the rational, had closed and that is the door to sacramentalism or a sacramental world-view. For too long reason has dominated the Church in the Western societies. We, as Orthodox Christians, must not let reason dominate the life of the Church too much.

The Enlightenment with the emphasis on reason and scientific method stole all the mystery from the Christian faith ranging from throwing out the sacraments and calling them “ordnances” to the rejection of Christian mysticism. This shift away from reason allows for the Church to restore a sacramental world-view for it allows for a restoration of mystery, the Mysterium tremendum et fascinans (fearful and fascinating mystery). This shift opens the door for the Numinous to be once again believed, for there to be transcendence beyond our reason. This is not to say reason is invalid. The Church would be wise to follow the words of Blasé Pascal, “If one subjects everything to reason our religion will lose its mystery and its supernatural character. If one offends the principles of reason our religion will be absurd and ridiculous …There are two equally dangerous extremes, to shut reason out and let nothing else in.”

“The postmodern September 11, 2001, world has led to the recovery of the biblical understanding of human nature. The language of sin, evil, evildoers, and a reaffirmation of the deceit and wickedness of the human heart has once again emerged in our common vocabulary,” writes Robert Webber, “The liberal notion of the inherent goodness of humankind and the more recent evangelical neglect of the language of sin and depravity have failed to plumb the depths of the wickedness that lurks in the human heart. The younger evangelical approaches humanity with a more realistic and biblical assessment of our estrangement from God.” This presents the Churches second opportunity to present the Christian meta-narrative of the Creation, the Fall, Israel, and Jesus Christ. This allows for the Church to tell Her story of redemption and how She has been made a part of the re-creation attempts of God.

Pragmatic Evangelicals, seeking to draw in seekers (no pun intended), neglected to preach about the wickedness of men and the depths of humanity’s depravity. David Crowder, of The David Crowder*Band, put it this way: “When our depravity meets His divinity it is a beautiful collision.” This cultural shift allows for a sacramental understanding of the Cross and Resurrection to take place. The shift allows for the preaching of humanity’s depravity coming into collision with God’s divinity, which overcomes the wickedness and clothes the redeemed in the Divine Nature (II Peter 1:4-5).

The Church can present the story of the Fall, but that there is more to life. That there is a door for humanity to be ontologically changed, transformed back into an original state of glory. David Horseman writes, “”Theosis is neither a mere psychological change nor a simple behavioral change. It is both, but not in a superficial sense. These changes of thought and behavior are but the indices of a deeper, ontological change, in our nature, a sharing of the divine nature, in which we become more and more like God, changed from glory into glory, until the day of our final redemption…” This could be the story we tell with this change in culture.

The third opportunity presented by this cultural shift is in the context of evangelism. The Next-Wave web magazine states of younger evangelicals’ desire “is to see people enter a relationship with Jesus Christ. Receive His forgiveness, enter His community with the saints, worship in ways that are meaningful to them, and reach out to others in their world.” Robert Webber believes that the new landscape of the culture will provide a new type of evangelism that is ancient-future evangelism. The old is that the Church must emphasis a personal regenerative relationship with the Triune God via Christ, but the new is the context in which the Church worships and facilitates community that is missional.

This aura creates an opportunity for the Church to fashion a community focused on relationships of reconciliation: relationships with humanity and with God. The Gospel is presented through relationship primarily. A good model of evangelism in the postmodern world would be: dialogue, demonstration, declaration, and defense all lived out incarnationally in the context of our greater society but also within our communities.

The Church’s fourth opportunity within this cultural shift is to begin to see Christianity as more than a world view. Robert Webber writes, “Today the younger evangelical questions the priority given to Christianity as a worldview. Younger evangelical Charles Moore writes, ‘The idea of Christianity as a worldview is essentially Gnostic. It makes Christianity an idea, a philosophical viewpoint, and a construct. Christianity is primarily a kingdom, an embodied reality and is more about a faithful discipleship than affirming an intellectual construct.’ Moore argues that making Christianity a worldview ‘abstracts reason from history and pits the existing, choosing subject against the object. It reduces Christianity to metaphysics.’”

This part of the cultural shift is very important to the life of Christianity because seeing the faith as something to be believed, rationed, and defended can leave it shallow and empty for there is no living it out. Christianity is primarily relational and has to be incarnational in this world. The Church can benefit with this ideological shift because it allows the Church to embody Christ and be formed to His image and live as He lives.

“The Christianity Today articles reported that ‘postmodern Christians are trying to redefine the relation of faith and knowledge, that instead of coming to the faith rationally, true knowledge requires the Holy Spirit to work an ontological change in the human heart,’” writes Robert Webber. He goes on to clarify that this is not a new approach, but that younger Christians are deconstructing in order “to reconstruct an historic life of the mind”. The road to the future lies in the past. The Church has an opportunity today to revisit the past with the Creeds, the Church Fathers, St. Aquinas, and St. Augustine and let that ancient wisdom shape and mold the way the Church carries out faith and practice. Many young Christians are even reverting to the ancient Orthodox Church and becoming one with Her and Her Mysteries. This is a good thing!

Five Dangers the Cultural Shifts Present

The number one thing for the Church to distinguish in the cultural shift of postmodernity is that there are two schools of postmodernity: soft postmodernity and hard postmodernity. Milliard Erickson, in Postmodernizing the Faith, writes:

Hard postmodernism, best represented by deconstruction, rejects the idea of any sort of objectivity and rationality. It maintains that all theories are simply worked out to justify and empower those who hold them, rather than being based on facts. It not only rejects the limitation of meaning of language to empirical reference; it rejects the idea that language has any sort of objective or extra linguistic reference at all. It moves from relativism to pluralism to truth. Not only is all knowing and all speaking done from a particular perspective, but each perspective is equally true or valuable. The meaning of a statement is not to be found objectively in the meaning intended by the speaker or writer, but is the meaning that the hearer or reader finds in it. ‘Whatever it means to me’ even if it is quite different from what it says to you.”

The Church has to remember that wonderful idea by Blasé Pascal that there are two dangerous extremes shutting reason out or letting nothing else but reason in. The pluralism of today’s society is dangerous to the truth of the Gospel. The Church must defend and live the truth of the Gospel and learn to evangelize to a pluralistic society instead of assimilating into society.

Religious tolerance is the second danger. Dr. Gupton writes about what postmodern thinkers believe, “No religion should be thought of as superior to another. Indeed, this belief in superiority is the major roadblock to religious unity.” This hard postmodernism belief is very dangerous to the truth of the Gospel. The Church believes that She has an exclusive claim on the Truth, which She must stand by and defend.

The third danger of hard postmodernism found in this cultural shift is in the area of evangelism. Dr. Gupton writes about postmodern thought, “Proselytizing is bigotry, pure and simple. The idea of winning converts is based on the antiquated notion that one religion has more to offer than another. Our task is to help others discover the hidden inner meaning of their religions, rather than convert them to our own.” This is something the Church must absolutely reject to defend the Gospel. Only through Christ is forgiveness of sin offered and deification began. Other religions contain some universal truths, but do not contain the Truth found in the Gospel presented by the Church.

The fourth danger the Church must be careful to be aware of moral relativism or moral pragmatism. Easum writes, “In the new emerging society right and wrong will not exist. Whatever benefits the individual will form the basis for ethics.” The Church has to come to the defense of morals and ethics. The problem with hard postmodernism is that it deconstructs to the point of chaos, which cannot be upheld. This is no accountability of ethics, but the Church can account for its ethics, which stem from God and absolute truths. Society and individuals are dangerous grounds upon which to build what is moral, right, or just.

The fifth danger to the Church is privatization. The Church must be careful to fight against this idea that faith, too, can be privatized and individualized. The Church must maintain a strong emphasis on communal living both at home and in ecclesiastical settings. Easum writes, “People are preoccupied with themselves. Whatever is done behind closed doors is considered acceptable conduct. Privacy is the ultimate price…The majority of people will tend to withdraw physically and psychologically.” This is the danger to an incarnational people called to be God’s hands and feet in the world. We must do well to remember that our faith is personal, but it is not private! The rampant individualism of Western culture is an extreme heresy that we must be aware of and reject thoroughly.

Five Ways to Interface with the Culture

As a young man who feels called to the priesthood, I am feeling lead more and more lately to plant a church from the ground up. There is a great outline of postmodern churches compared to pragmatic Evangelistic churches and how they function within the postmodern culture, by Eric Stanford, found on pages 116 and 117 of “The Younger Evangelicals” that I think fits perfectly how I would like to approach ministry in this postmodern society:

1. Even though I would be the priest and carry out all the sacramental duties I want to approach leadership as a team effort with all the members of the parish helping to carry out the duties of the church. Ministries may not always come from the leadership team, but from within the congregation who feels lead to start up a ministry. Christ is the head of the Church, and I am a part of that thus He moves mysteriously and powerfully in all our lives in the parish.

2. Life is about relationships. My life motto is “I am a person of worth created in the Image of God the Father, the Almighty, to live, to love, and to commune with fellow humankind and with the Blessed Trinity.” This is how I want to carry out ministry in the church. Programs, as Eric says, “are means not ends.” Everything thing we do ought to be to foster community and relationship and not just to learn and do. Developing close, healthy relationships is the focus within the postmodern context I want to employ.

3. Eric writes, “Be authentic. Don’t pretend you’ve got it all together, spiritually or otherwise. Admit your mistakes and struggles, for then we can work on them together. No posers allowed.” I believe this is core to who I am. I strive to be real and authentic. I am drawn to real and authentic people, so I want to be a part of a community that emphasizes that over excellence or perfection, but wants to strive towards those together.

4. I want to help create a community that honors “intellect and emotions, doctrine and intuition,” as Eric states. I want to take a holistic approach to faith and life. I want to focus on the power of the story that Christianity tells: Creation, Fall, Israel, Jesus. I see it often as a five act Shakespeare play that has last the fifth act thus we are left to write the fifth act on our own according to the authority of the other four acts. Our stories should come inside of this grand story.

5. I want to create dialogue and relationship between Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, and Orthodox. There is no us vs. them in regards to other Christians or in regards to non-Christians. After all, our Lord told His disciples when they told Him someone was casting out demons in His name that was not a part of their group, “whoever is not against us is for us.” Christians and non-Christians often face the same issues and have the same questions. It is about cooperation and not competition or condemnation. I want to clarify that I do not propose a false sense of unity or ecumenism either. The Orthodox Church is the one true Church, and I firmly believe this. We have made our conditions for unity known, but I think that dialogue is a good thing that promotes healthy conversations and understanding among those who profess Christ. I want to help foster this healthy conversation.

John Anderson has a B.S. in Bible and Preaching/Church Leadership from Johnson University and is a member of Saint Anne Orthodox Church in Oak Ridge, TN, where he resides with his wife, Courtney, and their Chihauhau, Charlie. He is very passionate about preaching, church leadership, missiology, and preaching the Gospel to a lost and hurting society. He aspires to become a priest in the Orthodox Church. He is the editor-in-chief for Orthodox Ruminations.

Fr. Alexander Schmemann

– Father Alexander Schmemann, The Journals of Father Alexander Schmemann, 1973-1983, page 330-331.

Challenging the Progressive Captivity of Orthodoxy in America

The St. Vladimir’s Seminary Conference on Poverty held during the last weekend of May, 2013 may portend a loosening of the Progressive grip on Orthodox thinking about morality and culture in America. Let’s face it: the Orthodox contribution to American cultural discourse has been meager, often swept along by shallow bromides that conform to popular notions of the common good rather than substantive engagement of the moral tradition within the dominant cultural ethos.

The Progressive Captivity leads to all sorts of mischief — from weakening the teachings of the Orthodox moral tradition (see: A Patriarch who ‘Generally Speaking, Respects Human Life’), to lending the imprimatur of Orthodox moral authority to marginal groups like the National Council of Churches (see: NCC EXIT POLL: Why One Orthodox Church Left the National Council of Churches).

St. Vladimir’s Seminary, to their credit (and to the consternation of some faculty and ecclesiastical higher-ups), challenged Progressive Orthodoxy and the easy platitudes that characterize so much Orthodox reflection on cultural questions. The invitation to the Acton Institute (Acton is known for its rigorous thinking on economics and culture) was sure to raise hackles. It did — but hackles need to be raised.

Progressive ideology is seductive. We must care for the poor the scriptures teach and often Progressive thinkers (including Orthodox Progressives) wrap their ideas in the language of moral tradition in order to present them as cultural imperatives and bypass critical engagement with the ideas themselves. It’s a crude but effective technique. Who can argue against helping the poor?

Yet many of the policies that deal with poverty at home and the developing world are predicated on making the donor feel good about his contribution rather than concern for the poor themselves. As a result the policies fail. Instead, policies that address poverty have to both draw from and affirm the inherent dignity of the person.

Human dignity is the ground of human flourishing. Remove the barriers that allow people to flourish and the poor themselves will establish systems and markets by which their poverty can be alleviated. One only has to look to S. Korea, or Malaysia, or other countries to see how this works.

How do we know that this is true? We examine the ideas. We listen to the rationale. Most important we test results. Listen to the audio below and see for yourself if the ideas are 1) compelling, 2) confirmed by real world examples, and 3) economically, morally and theologically sound.

Audio courtesy of Ancient Faith Radio: Voices From St Vladimir’s Seminary

Conference background

Discovery Institute Senior Fellow and noted author Jay Richards was the keynote speaker. Co-hosted by the Acton Institute, the event featured speakers from diverse backgrounds and disciplines who offered fresh ideas for Orthodox Christians on how to effectively minister to the poor. Other speakers and panelists included Dr. Antionios Kiriopoulos, St. Vlad’s alumnus and officer in the National Council of Churches; Seminary Trustee Dr. Nicholas Pandelidis; Fr Phililp LeMaster, Dean of Social Sciences and Religion at McMurry University in Abilene, TX; Michael Miller of the Poverty Cure at Acton; John Couretas of Acton; and director of FOCUS North America in Pittsburgh, Subdeacon Paul Abernathy.

Introduction — Welcome by SVS Chancellor Fr. Chad Hatfield

Fr. Chad Hatfield explains the purpose of the conference and how the “ugliness” of Christian charity in the Third World and developing countries needs to be reexamined and addressed. The SVS conferences are designed to examine different perspectives on thorny issues. Fr. Hatfield explained that he finds it “perplexing and puzzling” that people objected to the conference and affirmed that SVS “believes in free speech.”

Download audio file (vsv_2013-05-24.mp3)

Session #1 — KEYNOTE: Jay Richards

Jay Richards, Ph.D., is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute where he directs the Center on Wealth, Poverty and Morality, and is a Visiting Scholar at the Institute for Faith, Work & Economics. Most recently he is the co-author with James Robison of the best-selling Indivisible: Restoring Faith, Family, and Freedom Before It’s Too Late.

Jay Richards discusses the abject failure of poverty programs from the Great Society forward and asks how do we create the prosperity that alleviates poverty? What is the difference between localized poverty and widespread poverty?

Download audio file (vsv_2013-06-05-1.mp3)

Session #2 — Rev. Fr. Philip LeMasters, Ph.D.

The Rev. Fr. Philip LeMasters, Ph.D., is the pastor of St. Luke Orthodox Church. He also serves as Dean of the School of Social Sciences and Religion, Professor of Religion, and Director of the Honors Program at McMurry University. In addition, Fr. Philip is the Corporate Secretary of the Board of Trustees of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary in New York.

Fr. LeMasters discusses “Fasting and the Poor.” Giving to the poor imitates God’s generosity to mankind. Giving to the poor by the rich (those who have a sufficient amount of the world’s goods) requires to the rich to give up things they don’t need. The moral dimension of taking care of the poor.

Download audio file (vsv_2013-06-05-2.mp3)

Session #3 — Michael Matheson Miller

Michael Matheson Miller is Research Fellow and Director of Acton Media at the Acton Institute. He is the Director and Host of the PovertyCure DVD Series and has appeared in various video curricula including Doing the Right Thing, Effective Stewardship, and the Birth of Freedom. Visit the Michael Matheson Miller website.

Michael Matheson Miller discusses re-framing the discussion about poverty around the centrality of the human person created in the image of God. Too often our first response to poverty is to ask what we can do, but the better is question is “How can people in the developing world create prosperity for the families and communities?”  Miller develops this theme throughout the talk. One warning:  At about 3 minutes in Miller showed a trailer for the PovertyCure DVD Series and you will only be able to hear the audio, so skip forward to around 7 min or so for the rest of the lecture.

Download audio file (vsv_2013-06-05-3.mp3)

Session #4 — What is Social Justice in an Orthodox Christian Context?

Four speakers with Q & A. Dr. Antonios Kiriopoulos, National Council of Churches; Dr. Nicholas Pandelidis, Board of Trustees, St. Vladimir’s Seminary; John Couretas, Acton Institute, Director of Communications, Executive Editor, Religion & Liberty Quarterly; Subdeacon Paul Abernathy, local director of FOCUS North America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Public discussion begins at: 38:57.

Download audio file (vsv_2013-06-05-4.mp3)

St. Vladimir’s Conference on Poverty, May 31-June 1, 2013
Get details | Download flyer (pdf)

As iron sharpens iron, says the book of Proverbs, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend. Remember that advice as the conference on poverty begins on May 31, 2013 at St. Vladimir’s Seminary. The conference is led by the Acton Institute, arguably one of the most influential think tanks on religion and economics in the English speaking world. The conference is sponsored by the Zarras Foundation in honor of the late Dn. John Zarras, a devoted churchman, successful businessman, and member of the St. Vladimir’s Board of Trustees.

Speakers at the conference include Jay Richards, author of Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem and Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute; Michael Matheson Miller, Acton Institute Research Fellow; and a Trustee of the Seminary, The Rev. Dr. Philip LeMasters, professor of Religion and Dean of the School of Social Sciences and Religion, McMurry University.

Rounding out a concluding panel discussion with the above speakers will be Dr. Antionios Kiriopoulos, SVOTS alumnus and officer in the National Council of Churches, along with SVOTS Trustee Dr. Nicholas Pandelidis and Subdeacon Paul Abernathy, local director of FOCUS North America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, representing FOCUS North America.

The Acton scholars research the causes and cures of poverty in America and other parts of the world (see Poverty Cure). Acton roundly critiques big-government solutions (Great Society programs, foreign aid cash grants, etc.). Big government solutions can address short-term symptoms but they usually destroy the underlying economic infrastructure as well. Government largesse does not eliminate poverty. It merely institutionalizes poverty by eliminating the possibility for economic growth and mobility — a form of 21st century colonization in the Third World.

These ideas are compelling but the religious left resists them like Dracula avoids the cross. Progressive thinkers justify their economic ideas by drawing from the moral vocabulary of the Christian tradition but facts on the ground show that their ideas don’t work. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Create a market where a man can sell his extra fish and he can build a home and send his children to school.

St. Vladimir’s deserves credit for hosting the conference given that a preponderance of Orthodox thinking on political and economic issues tends to drift leftward. This is one reason why the Orthodox contribution to contemporary culture has been relatively meager. Orthodox voices seldom rise above the amen chorus for the cultural left as we see with Orthodox involvement in the (dying) National Council of Churches for example. (Also see John Lomperis’ article: Why Do Eastern Orthodox Churches Continue Enabling Opposition to Orthodox Values on Abortion, Sexual Morality?.)

Very often representatives from the religious left attempt to shut down rather than engage debate. Fortunately that has not happened here since an NCC representative has been invited to respond. As iron sharpens iron. . .

Russell Kirk said years ago that religion is the ground of culture. We are grateful to St. Vladimir’s for its commitment to rigorous and open inquiry on these pressing cultural questions.

Acton Poverty Cure Video

Why Study Atheism with Conor Cunningham

Atheists, if they are true to their premises, embrace nihilism.* Conor Cunningham looks at what is involved in the claims of ‘atheism’ and why those claims can be useful to the studies of the theologian.

*Nihilism

Source: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history.

In the 20th century, nihilistic themes–epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness–have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Mid-century, for example, the existentialists helped popularize tenets of nihilism in their attempts to blunt its destructive potential. By the end of the century, existential despair as a response to nihilism gave way to an attitude of indifference, often associated with antifoundationalism.

The complaint below about non-responsive priests and laity is accurate. But how do the non-responsives think people reach out to them? How do they think people react when their requests are ignored or rebuffed?

What is so hard about returning a phone call or setting up even a one page website?

Hint to priests who feel overwhelmed by the demands of their ministry and let items fall through the cracks: 1) Start reading Dn. Michael Hyatt’s blog and implement his suggestions; and 2) read “Getting Things Done” by David Allen.

Productive work is a matter of good organization, and good organization helps you separate the wheat from the chaff in your ministry. Nurture the wheat, discard the chaff.

Source: Byzantine, TX

It is a surprise to few that priests don’t answer emails. They also don’t answer the phone. If you go to a church during the week they might well not answer the door. This is not true of all clergy, but it’s true enough about many of them for me to be able to bring this up in Orthodox company and receive knowing nods of agreement.

This morning I read a comment from a priest that said:

Evangelistic methodology submitted for your consideration: Orthodoxy in America could be a lot bigger if all parishes would answer their phone, return phone and email messages within a day, and install doorbells prominently on the church.

I answered in the affirmative. When I travel, I often use the phone number and email provided by a parish’s website to confirm service times. Having experienced the East Coast predisposition to change the Divine Liturgy time to “Summer Hours” without reflecting such on their website or diocesan directory listing, I always check first. Parishes move to new buildings (happened to me in Georgia), unmarked side doors are opened instead of the main doors for weekday services (in Philadelphia), being in-between priests allows for only monthly services (in Seattle), no one will open a locked door for you unless they know you’re coming in advance to Matins (in Brooklyn). In short: check first.

The problem is that confirmations are hard to get. A few months back I emailed 2 weeks before a trip to confirm service times. I received an answer two months after I had returned from the conference. This is not an isolated incident, it might well be common enough to be considered the norm.

Leaving voicemails is not much more efficacious. For as often as I have had someone pick up the phone or call me back, I have had twice as many calls fade into the ether. It should also not be forgotten that not talking with some Slavic parish priests beforehand will ensure you will not be communed. I have visited parishes where such a requirement is in place and it doesn’t take much imagination to grasp how disheartening it would be to be turned away from the chalice for want of a returned phone call.

[...]

A woman called a parish I used to attend to get some scheduling information:

Woman: “Father, what time will you be blessing the baskets?”

Priest: “Directly after the liturgy or maybe 15 minutes after.”

Woman: “What time will that be? What time will you be done?”

The priest, knowing the woman was of the ilk to pop in to have some tradition fulfilled, but never actually came to the Liturgy, responded, “My dear, the Liturgy is eternal!”

My recollection is that she did not show up for the Paschal service or the basket blessing. The story, though, is a good cautionary tale regardless.

Read the entire article on the Byzantine, TX website (new window will open).

Source: The Catholic World Report | Christopher B. Warner

The April 22nd kidnapping of Syrian archbishops Mar Gregorios Ibrahim of the Syriac Orthodox Church and Paul Yazigi of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch, and the killing of their driver, has reminded us once again of the vulnerability of ancient Christian peoples living in the Middle East. More than 1,000 Christians have been killed to date in the Syrian conflict and more than 80 churches have been destroyed. The majority of Christians in Syria are Greek or Syriac Orthodox or Melkite Greek Catholic. This recent violence in Syria can remind us to pray for suffering Christians in the Middle East and afford us the opportunity to practice solidarity with our Greek Catholic and Orthodox Christian brothers and sisters.

Catholic World Report had the recent privilege of asking Archimandrite Robert Taft, SJ for his perspective on current Orthodox-Catholic relations. Father Taft has been the leading scholar in Byzantine liturgical studies for decades. Taft has devoted his life to preserving the liturgical treasury of the East and building bridges between Orthodox and Catholic Christians. As a young Jesuit, Taft first became interested in the liturgical traditions of the Christian East while teaching at the Baghdad Jesuit College in Iraq (1956-1959).

In 1963, Taft was ordained a Catholic priest of the Byzantine Slavonic (Russian) Rite. He is Professor-emeritus of Oriental Liturgy at the Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome, where he received his doctorate in 1970 and remained to teach for 38 years. The Oriental Institute is the most prestigious institute in the world for Eastern Christian studies.

A prolific writer, his bibliography comprises more than 800 articles and 26 books, including A History of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (vols. II-VI), Orientalia Christiana Analecta, Rome, 1978-2013. Several of his writings have been translated into other languages.

Taft is the personal friend of many prominent Orthodox scholars, living and deceased, like Father Alexander Schmemann and Father John Meyendorff. He has many friends in and ties to the Russian Orthodox community, where he is admired and respected. For example, he directed the doctoral studies for both of St. Vladimir Seminary’s liturgical professors: Paul Meyendorff and Father Alexander Rentel.

CWR: Father Robert, thank you very much for your willingness to share with us some of your recent thoughts on Eastern Christian ecumenism.

Many people who are sensitive to Orthodox-Catholic dialogue noticed that when Pope Francis appeared on the balcony a month ago, he was not only very humble, but spoke of the Church of Rome as the Church “which presides in love” and referred to himself as the bishop of Rome concerned for the Christians of Rome. These past few weeks he has definitely set the tone for his pontificate.

This quotation from the second-century letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Roman Church, “which presides in love,” could not have been coincidence considering Pope Francis’ noteworthy sensitivities to Eastern Christian ecclesiology. Plus, the historically unprecedented response to Francis’ election in the form of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew’s attendance at the papal installation Mass seems to mark Pope Francis as another welcomed bridge-builder between East and West. As an aside, I think it is beautiful that pontifex means “bridge-builder” in Latin. Perhaps Pope Francis will bring a new understanding of that title through his ecumenical dialogue and his local focus on the duties of the bishop of Rome? Could you comment on how you think Pope Francis’ humble “style” will be viewed by Orthodox Christians?

Taft: Pope Francesco is making a wonderful impression on most of the world by just being himself, the self of a real Christian in love, not with himself or his image, but with what real Christians love…God and all His creatures He died to save, especially the poor and needy and downtrodden. This has come across clearly to all of us, including Orthodox I know, who as real Christians can spot a fellow-Christian a mile away.

In addition, even more interesting from the ecumenical perspective is Francesco’s emphasis on his primary title, “Bishop of Rome.” Because a prelate’s title to his primacy comes from his local primatial see, not from some personal or super-imposed ecclesiological distinction. I can’t imagine that any of our attentive Orthodox observers have missed that!

CWR: Most Catholics probably envision future unity between the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church as a re-installment of one world Church organization with the pope of Rome at the top of the governing pyramid. A look at history shows that such a model never existed, so what could Orthodox-Catholic communion actually look like if it were achieved? A renewal of Eucharistic communion? The possibility of an eighth ecumenical council? A resolution for the dating of Pascha/Easter?

Taft: What it would look like is not a “reunion” with them “returning to Rome,” to which they never belonged anyway; nor us being incorporated by them, since we are all ancient apostolic “Sister Churches” with a valid episcopate and priesthood and the full panoply of sacraments needed to minister salvation to our respective faithful, as is proclaimed in the renewed Catholic ecclesiology since Vatican II and enshrined in numerous papal documents from Paul VI on, as well as in the wonderful Catechism of the Catholic Church. So we just need to restore our broken communion and the rest of the problems you mention can be addressed one by one and resolved by common accord.

CWR: According to the most recent joint statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation (2010), future communion would include several key elements:

Mutual recognition: The numerous Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church would have to “explicitly recognize each other as authentic embodiments of the one Church of Christ, founded on the apostles”;

A common confession of faith: The “Filioque” ought to be dropped in order to reflect the common Confession of Faith “canonized at the Council of Constantinople in 381”;

Accepted diversity: Orthodox-Catholic Christians would “live in full ecclesial communion with each other without requiring any of the parts to forego its own traditions and practices”;

Liturgical sharing: “Members of all the Churches in communion would be able to receive the sacraments in the other Churches”;

Synodality/conciliarity: “Bishops of all the Churches would be invited to participate fully in any ecumenical councils that might be summoned.

Synodality would operate at various levels of ecclesial institutions: local, regional, and worldwide”;

Mission: “As sister Churches, they would also engage in common efforts to promote the realization of a Christian moral vision in the world”;

Subsidiarity: “Those elected to major episcopal or primatial offices would present themselves to other Church leaders at their level”;

Renewal and reform. They would “commit themselves to continuing [Christian] renewal and growth—together.”

The statement goes on to say, “Conscience holds us back from celebrating our unity as complete in sacramental terms, until it is complete in faith, Church structure, and common action.” Can you clarify what you mean by “restoring our broken communion” so that the other existing problems “can be addressed one by one and resolved by common accord”? It seems like we already have “mutual recognition,” “accepted diversity,” and “mission”; what is the next step and how many steps will it take before we get to “liturgical sharing” which is what I think of when you say “broken communion?”

Taft: Yes, much that is put forward in this excellent historic document is already a reality or on the way to being so. For instance there is no “Filioque” in the Creed Russian Catholics chant in our Slavonic liturgy, and some years ago Rome issued a clarification of its Trinitarian belief about which the late French Orthodox theologian Olivier Clément said if that is the Catholic teaching on the issue then the problem has been resolved. As for “ecumenical councils,” the Catholic Church might specify more clearly its list of those, which as far as I know we have never defined. Are the purely Roman Catholic post-schism councils to be considered ecumenical councils of the undivided Church? If so, says who?

CWR: How could the papal claims of Rome be modified in a way that would be both acceptable to the Orthodox Churches and faithful to the tradition of the Catholic Church? Do you think the jurisdiction issue really is a hang-up for the Orthodox since they also practice cross-jurisdiction throughout Western Europe, the Americas, Australia, and East Asia?

Taft: The new Catholic “Sister Churches” ecclesiology describes not only how the Catholic Church views the Orthodox Churches. It also represents a startling revolution in how the Catholic Church views itself: we are no longer the only kid on the block, the whole Church of Christ, but one Sister Church among others. Previously, the Catholic Church saw itself as the original one and only true Church of Christ from which all other Christians had separated for one reason or another in the course of history, and Catholics held, simplistically, that the solution to divided Christendom consisted in all other Christians returning to Rome’s maternal bosom.

Vatican II, with an assist from those Council Fathers with a less naïve Disney-World view of their own Church’s past, managed to put aside this historically ludicrous, self-centered, self-congratulatory perception of reality. In doing so they had a strong assist from the Council Fathers of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church whose concrete experience of the realities of the Christian East made them spokesmen and defenders of that reality.

In this context I would recommend the excellent new book by Robert Louis Wilken, The First Thousand Years: A Global History of Christianity (New Haven & London: Yale U. Press 2012). Professor Wilken, a convert to Catholicism who is a recognized expert on Early Christianity and its history and literature, shows that Early Christianity developed not out of some Roman cradle but as a federation of local Churches, Western and Eastern, each one under the authority of a chief hierarch who would come to be called Archbishop, Pope, Patriarch, or Catholicos, each with its own independent governing synod and polity, all of them initially in communion with one another until the vicissitudes of history led to lasting divisions.

CWR: Many Orthodox theologians claim that even if the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople or the Patriarch of Moscow were to unite with Rome tomorrow, the lay faithful and the monastics would probably not accept it and therefore there would be no actual union. Given the history of Lyons and Florence do you think this is true, or has the Orthodox mood changed recently?

Taft: Part of the problem is that some Orthodox do not instruct their people adequately and update them, so ecumenical progress on the upper level often does not filter down to the ordinary faithful. In addition of course, there is the problem of the bigotry of many of the monastics and others towards anyone who is not Orthodox. On how they square this with what Christianity is supposed to be according to Jesus’ explicit teaching in the New Testament, we still await their explanation. One Catholic remedy for this—its usefulness proven by the rage it provokes in the exposed bigots—is the factual diffusion of their views, objectively and without editorial comment, in publications like Irénikon in French, or in English Father Ronald Roberson’s highly informative monthly SEIA Newsletter on the Eastern Churches and Ecumenism, distributed gratis to subscribers via email and eventually preserved for permanent reference in the Eastern Churches Journal. These publications just give the news without comment, including quotations from the bigots permanently recorded for posterity, thereby exposing them to the public embarrassment they merit. This is especially important for some representatives of Orthodoxy who speak out of both sides of their mouth, saying one thing at international ecumenical venues, and quite another for the consumption of Orthodox audiences or in publications they do not expect the non-Orthodox to read.

CWR: You mentioned the fact that documenting statements from Orthodox representatives has the potential to nail down the real arguments and eradicate equivocation. How has modern technology, especially the Internet, helped (or hindered) ecumenical dialogue?

Taft: Anything that helps spread the news and the flood of ever-new documentation on inter-church relations can only be viewed positively. And it is a mistake to think that this is not true in countries of the less-developed so-called “third world,” where those interested in the rest of the world are often more computer-literate than those of us in the West. Some of my Orthodox friends in far away countries are computer whizzes compared to me!

CWR: It seems as though Western Catholic theologians have been interested in Eastern theology for the past 1,500 years and have generally sought to integrate it into their own theology. On the other hand, many modern Eastern Orthodox theologians are very leery about anything Western and have furthermore severed themselves from their roots in Hellenic philosophy. Is this statement accurate? Is this a recent phenomenon? And are there any schools of Eastern Orthodox theology that do not see the integration of Western theology and philosophical inquiry as a threat to Eastern theology?

Taft: First of all, the roots of ALL of us include a Neo-Platonic heritage that no one has abandoned in East or West since it is part of Christianity’s DNA, so drop that notion. As for Orthodox theologians, we must distinguish the second-stringers from the best ones. Lest my list be endless, let me mention just a few in each Orthodox Church who are fully conversant with present western Catholic theology. Among the Greeks: Metropolitans Kallistos Ware and Ioannes Zizioulas, Archpriest Stefanos Alexopoulos, Prof. Pantelas Kalaitzidis of Volos, and the professors of Holy Cross Hellenic Greek College in Brighton, Massachusetts. Among the Russian Orthodox: Metropolitan Ilarion Alfayev, Sr. Dr. Vassa Larin, Protoierej Mixail Zheltov, and numerous others. Then in the USA we have the Professors of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary of the OCA, and on and on. So there are in fact plenty of top Orthodox theologians au courant in modern non-Orthodox theological thought.

– Source: Assembly of Bishops

The Honorable John Kerry
United States Secretary of State

Dear Secretary Kerry,

We, the Members of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America, kindly bring to your attention the urgent and very serious plight of the Greek Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox Archbishops of Aleppo, Paul Yazigi and Yohanna Ibrahim, who were abducted this past week by “a terrorist group” in the village of Kfar Dael as they were carrying out humanitarian work.

Since the outbreak of the civil war in Syria, religious minorities have not only come under increasing attacks by Islamic fundamentalist rebels, but also have been caught in the crossfire of the opposing factions. As you well know, on April 22, 2013, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom released a report entitled Protecting and Promoting Religious Freedom in Syria. Religious minorities, including the Christian population, have been targeted for extinction in an attempt to create an Islamic State in Syria and to impose Sharia Law as the law of the land. To that end, Christian clerics have been kidnapped and murdered, even as they tried to bring aid and comfort to their people in this war torn country, while others are still missing, taken captive by rebel forces.

We fervently beseech you to immediately call for and actively work towards the immediate release of Archbishops Paul Yazigi and Yohanna Ibrahim, especially as Orthodox Christians around the globe are preparing to celebrate the Resurrection of OurLord and Savior Jesus Christ on May 5th. We would further hope that the United States government, which has always been a champion of civil rights and religious freedom and defends the dignity and safety of every individual, would exert pressure on all parties in Syria to stop the killing of innocent people and restore freedom of religion and respect for all religious minorities.

We are indebted to you and others within the administration for your tireless efforts. As Orthodox Christians, the most appropriate way to express this appreciation is to continue to pray for all our civil authorities. May the Lord bless and keep you: The Lord make His face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you: The Lord lift up His countenance upon you, and give you peace. (OT Book of Numbers 6:24-26).

Archbishop Demetrios, Chairman of the Assembly of Bishops
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

Metropolitan Philip, 1st Vice Chairman of the Assembly of Bishops
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of New York and all North America

Archbishop Justinian, 2nd Vice Chairman of the Assembly of Bishops
Russian Orthodox Church in the USA

Bishop Basil, Secretary of the Assembly of Bishops
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Diocese of Wichita and Mid-America

Metropolitan Antony, Treasurer of the Assembly of Bishops
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA Eastern Eparchy

Metropolitan Iakovos
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Chicago

Metropolitan Methodios
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston

Metropolitan Isaiah
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Denver

Metropolitan Alexios
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Atlanta

Metropolitan Nicholas
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Detroit

Metropolitan Savas
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh

Metropolitan Gerasimos
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco

Metropolitan Evangelos
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of New Jersey

Bishop Andonios
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

Bishop Demetrios
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Chicago

Bishop Sevastianos
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

Metropolitan Athenagoras
Holy Metropolis of Mexico

Metropolitan Nikitas
Patriarch Athenagoras Orthodox Institute in Berkley, CA

Bishop Gregory
American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese of the USA

Bishop Daniel
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA Western Eparchy

Bishop Ilia
Albanian Orthodox Diocese

Archbishop Joseph
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Diocese of Los Angeles and the West

Bishop Antoun
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Diocese of Miami and the Southeast

Bishop Thomas
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Diocese of Charleston, Oakland and the Mid-Atlantic

Bishop Alexander
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Diocese of Ottawa, Eastern Canada & Upstate New York

Bishop John
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Diocese of Worcester and New England

Bishop Anthony
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Diocese of Toledo and the Midwest

Bishop Nicholas
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese, Bishop of Brooklyn and Assistant to the Metropolitan

Metropolitan Hilarion
Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Eastern America and New York Diocese

Archbishop Alypy
Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Chicago and Mid-America Diocese

Archbishop Kyrill
Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, San Francisco and Western America Diocese

Bishop Peter
Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Administrator of Chicago and Mid-America
Diocese

Bishop Theodosy
Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Vicar – San Francisco and Western America Diocese

Bishop George
Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Vicar – Eastern America Diocese

Bishop Jerome
Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

Bishop John
Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Bishop-in-Charge of Old Ritualist Parishes

Bishop Longin
Serbian Orthodox Church, Chicago and Mid-America Diocese

Bishop Mitrophan
Serbian Orthodox Church, Eastern American Diocese

Bishop Maxim
Serbian Orthodox Church, Western American Diocese

Archbishop Nicolae
Romanian Orthodox Archdiocese in the Americas

Bishop Ioan Casian
Romanian Orthodox Archdiocese in the Americas

Metropolitan Joseph
Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Church of the USA, Canada, and Australia

Bishop Daniil
Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Church of the USA, Canada, and Australia

Metropolitan Dimitri
Georgian Orthodox Church, Dioceses of Batumi & Lazeti and America

Metropolitan Tikhon
Orthodox Church in America, Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.

Archbishop Nathaniel
Orthodox Church in America, Romanian Orthodox Episcopate

Archbishop Nikon
Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of New England and Albanian Archdiocese

Archbishop Benjamin
Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of San Francisco and the West

Bishop Melchisedek
Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania

Bishop Michael
Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of New York and New Jersey

Bishop Alexander
Orthodox Church in America, Bulgarian Diocese

Bishop Irineu
Orthodox Church in America, Romanian Orthodox Episcopate

Bishop Mark
Orthodox Church in America

Metropolitan Sotirios
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto

Bishop Christoforos
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto

Metropolitan Yurij
Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada

Bishop Ilarion
Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada

Bishop Andriy
Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada

Archbishop Gabriel
Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

Bishop Iov
Russian Orthodox Church

Bishop Georgije
Serbian Orthodox Church

Bishop Irénée
Orthodox Church in America, Archdiocese of Ottawa and Canada

Bishop Pankratij
Holy Metropolis of Mexico

Metropolitan Antonio
Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Mexico, Venezuela, Central America & the Caribbean

Bishop Ignatius
Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Mexico, Venezuela, Central America & the Caribbean

Archbishop Alejo
Exarchate of Mexico Orthodox Church in America

Source: St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminay

“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you feed him for life!”

How may we re–think our response to issues of poverty, and how may we offer positive solutions to address the needs of the poor? This conference, co-hosted by the Seminary and the Acton Institute—a body dedicated to researching principles that link economics with virtue—will offer some fresh ideas for Orthodox Christians. 

Jay Richards

Susan R. Holman

View Acton Institute’s engaging videos from “PovertyCure,” an international coalition of organizations and individuals committed to entrepreneurial solutions to poverty that challenge the status quo and champion the creative potential of the human person. Acton Institute manages PovertyCure’s efforts in the USA.

This conference is offered as a tribute to Dn. John Zarras (+ 2012 ), an alumnus (’06) who earned his M.Div. degree over a period of several years as a late–vocations student. Deacon John also served as a member of the Board of Trustees and the president of the St. Vladimir’s Seminary Foundation.

REGISTER ONLINE TODAY!! $50 registration fee is WAIVED until May 15!

• Registration and Workshop—$50  
• Room & Board—$70
• Total—$120.00 

On–Campus Accommodations

On-campus housing is in non-smoking, non-air conditioned, dormitory rooms with shared bathrooms. Because there are a limited number of single rooms, they will be given to the first registrants. Staying on-campus includes meals at the refectory, which are catered, without individual meal options. The seminary staff will provide sheets and towels. Please bring your own personal items (such as soap, shampoo, toothpaste, and small fans.) Wireless access to the Internet for personal laptops will be available in the Library when the Reading Room is open, but wireless access in dormitory rooms cannot be guaranteed.

For questions about this event, please contact Tanya Penkrat, Special Events Coordinator, at tpenkrat@svots.edu, or 914.961.8313, x351  

(Updated: March 14, 2013. Check back for revisions and additional information.)

It’s biting criticism folks — but all true. From the essay:

What I have observed rather consistently (and had this confirmed by other trustworthy observers) is that Eastern Orthodox leaders participating in NCC meetings have shown little to no interest in openly defending Christian values (particularly on life and sexuality) when confronted by the aggressively secular values of Liberalprotestantism, instead choosing to remain meekly passive. This includes what I have observed of those few Eastern Orthodox individuals who have obtained staff or leadership positions in the council.

My response to the full essay (published on Juicy Ecumenicism) blog is reprinted below. The essay is excerpted. Read the full essay on the Juicy Ecumencism blog.

Source: Juicy Ecumenicism | John Lomperis

Christian churches of any sort are right to be careful and thoughtful about the specific causes and organizations to which they do and do not give their public support, as such decisions are important part of what they tell a watching world about their faith and about the triune God. And if a church cannot or will not take the time to examine what a given organization actually does, it makes little sense to bestow a blank-check ecclesial endorsement on the organization’s activities.

So what exactly is accomplished by most of Eastern Orthodoxy in the United States being affiliated with the National Council of Churches (NCC)?

First, we must ask what the effective purpose of the NCC is today.  Its member communions include neither the Roman Catholic Church nor more than an increasingly narrow fraction of American Protestants.  Given its growing narrowness, penchant for divisive rhetoric, and the rather unloving, disdainful ways in which NCC leaders take pains to distance themselves from other Christians, especially evangelicals, it is clear that the NCC’s noble founding goal of Christian unity is not much of a priority for current NCC leaders.

The NCC has served a purpose in the past with its New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) Bible translation and its annual Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches. But the former is a fait accompli while the latter represents only a tiny fraction of the NCC’s work. So neither of these is the council’s raison d’être.

No, the first and foremost effective purpose of the modern NCC is to promote the values of theologically liberal/heterodox Protestantism and to use the name and resources of churches as a politically convenient tool to promote partisan public-policy agendas, including ones that directly oppose clear Scriptural teachings.

Devout Eastern Orthodox prize their church’s identity as the bearer of what they see as unbroken Christian tradition. Of course, important parts of this tradition’s moral teachings are the basic Christian moral values of valuing the lives of unborn children and honoring the God-given boundaries of sex only within man-woman marriage.

Yet over the years, IRD has documented numerous instances of the NCC defending abortion and/or homosexual practice while demonizing those who stand up for Christian values (at least nominally shared by Eastern Orthodox leaders) on such issues. To say nothing of the over-the-top interpersonal rudeness that NCC staffers have been known to aim at Christians who do not share their liberal Protestant values.

[. . .]

Do Eastern Orthodox leaders really have no problem with the direction and values of a church council of which they are a part being shaped by the input of people who deny the divinity of Christ, while Protestants who actually believe in the Nicene Creed are often disproportionately excluded from such discussions in the NCC? Do Eastern Orthodox leaders really have no problem with their name, through the NCC, being associated with a radical group’s work to promote religious support for abortion and sexual immorality?

If Eastern Orthodox leaders choose to remain silent, this would tragically be consistent with their past behavior.

[. . .]

As any Greek readers may discern from my last name, Eastern Orthodoxy is part of my own family heritage. So I really do sympathize with how important it must have been decades ago for religious leaders of struggling new immigrant communities in an often very intolerant America to be invited to have a seat at the table with leaders of the cultural mainstream. But after a century of an established presence of Eastern Orthodoxy in America, shouldn’t such church leaders want more than merely being seen but not heard?

Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and other Eastern Orthodox members of the NCC could follow the example of their Antiochian Orthodox brethren by withdrawing their membership in the NCC and pursuing other areas of ecumenical engagement, a move that would be enthusiastically cheered by countless conservative Protestants within and beyond NCC member communions (including this United Methodist writer). Or they could try to use their seats at the table to seek genuinely meaningful dialogue by respectfully yet firmly challenging tablemates who have recently strayed from biblical moral values. At the very least, they could pro-actively make sure that as long as the council uses their names, the NCC will not say or do anything against Eastern Orthodox moral teaching.

[. . .]

But America’s NCC-endorsing Eastern Orthodox leaders (with the notable exception of the Antiochian Orthodox) have, by and large , chosen none of these things. Instead, they choose to continue their path of having no discernible moderating influence on the council (and having little to no apparent interest in doing so) while offering a blank-check endorsement of the NCC’s work, which the NCC’s Liberalprotestant staffers are all too eager to tout as a tool to shield the council from being dismissed as the decaying, ideologically narrow, Liberalprotestant dinosaur that it is.

[. . .]

Of course, I understand that Eastern Orthodox polity is fundamentally different from any Protestant body, and that, to the disappointment of the NCC and its allies like the Unitarian-led Religious Institute, no official Eastern Orthodox body is going to formally vote to, say, endorse abortion. And for what it’s worth, it is now widely agreed that the United Methodist Church is unlikely to change our official, conservative position on homosexuality for at least the foreseeable future.

But in both cases, there is a huge crisis of integrity when the church leadership chooses to shrink back from defending the very church values their offices charge them with promoting, and even passively allow their church’s name to be used to promote agendas directly contrary to the church’s own teachings.

Among U.S. leaders of both the United Methodist Church and Eastern Orthodoxy, there appear to be a number of leaders who love the Lord and accept the authority of Scripture, to whom God has given great opportunities to be witnesses for Christ and Christian truths affirmed in the on-paper position statements of both churches, but who inexplicably choose to bury their talents in the ground.

Read the entire article on the Juicy Ecumenicism blog.

My response:

This is a very fair critique of Orthodox involvement in the NCC. I would only add this clarification: most lay Orthodox simply have no knowledge of the NCC. They wouldn’t know what you were talking about if you mentioned it to them.

Nevertheless, it is still irresponsible for Orthodox leaders to lend the imprimatur of legitimacy to an organization that aggressively champions policies that violate the Orthodox moral tradition. The NCC’s love affair with tyrants is well known to anyone who has followed them over the years. In fact, after Communism fell then NCC General Secretary Joan Campbell Brown issued a collective apology for not doing enough to help the persecuted under Communist oppression.

Lomperis is also correct in his claim that the Orthodox who remained on the NCC have no moderating influence on NCC leadership. There were historical reasons* for Orthodox involvement in the NCC but they have long faded from relevance. The only reasonable explanation for continued involvement is that the leaders don’t mind being used (they trade the Orthodox imprimatur for the false patina of constructive cultural engagement) or they are simply clueless about the contribution that the Orthodox Church could and should make to the renewal of Christendom’s cultural foundations especially in America.

*I wrote an essay for Touchstone Magazine a while back that explains some of the historical reasons for early NCC involement that fits well with Lomperis’ fair and informed critique:

NCC Exit Poll: Why One Orthodox Church Left the National Council of Churches

Edith and Francis Schaeffer

She possessed grace and a generosity of the heart and spirit. Years ago on a cold day in Rochester, Minnesota I was privileged to experience her warmth. One of my closest friends married Edith Schaeffer’s secretary. When I heard that her son Frank was converting to the Orthodox faith I called Keith and offered to drive down from Minneapolis and explain to her what this Orthodox faith was.

She accepted the offer and it turned out to be a blessing more for me than her I think. I was a young priest at the time and just learning the ropes. She had prescient insight into the difficulties of clergy life and was especially kind to my wife who was dealing with the demands that clergy life imposes on the family. That day was a gift from God and the more it recedes into the past, the more I see how precious it was.

Now she is with her Savior whom she loved. May her memory be eternal.

Edith Schaeffer’s Rich Life

By Udo W. Middlemann

Edith Rachel Merritt Seville Schaeffer died on March 30, 2013 in her home in Gryon, Switzerland, where she had moved 13 years ago to be surrounded by memories, her music, her son’s paintings and the detailed care organized daily by her daughter Deborah Middelmann. She was born on November 3, 1914 as the third daughter of Dr. George Hugh and Jessie Maude Seville in Wenchau, China, where her parents ran a school for girls and taught the Bible in Mandarin.

Edith Schaeffer marked her life with the expression of rich ideas, often rebellious against the staid and superficial life she saw among Christians. The oldest sister became a communist in New York of the 30ies, the second eloped. Edith Seville married Francis August Schaeffer in 1935 and in no way was she the typical pastor’s or missionary wife. She turned her active mind to work with her husband, teaching first seminary wives to think and to question, to create and make of life something of integrity, as her husband so wanted her to do.

To put her husband through 3 years of seminary she tailored men’s suits, made ball room gowns and wedding dresses for private clients. From whole cow skins she made belts sold in New York stores. With very little money she prepared tasteful and varied meals. She painted a fresco on the ceiling of the vestibule in the little church her husband pastored in Grove City, while he attached a steeple to it with the elders’ help. They lectured together and encouraged many to use their minds to understand what they believed and how to respond to the intellectual and cultural ideas around them. Together they travelled and taught in churches and university halls from Finland to Portugal, helping people understand Christianity as the truth of the universe, not a personal faith, and pointing out the cultural and philosophical pitfalls in everyone’s way.

She lived her life as a work of art, an exhibition of true significance and a portrait of a generous, stunning and creative personality. She always sought ways to draw on life’s opportunities to show that human beings are made for the enrichment of everyone’s life, for the encouragement of people. This was a central part of the work she and her husband engaged in from the very start of their life together. She was in all things generous. When books provided royalties she used all of it to give her four children and their families annual reunions for the cousins to know each other.

When she left the work of L’Abri after her husband’s death she started the Francis A Schaeffer Foundation with Udo and Deborah Middelmann to safeguard his papers and the ideas that underline their life, to make them available for a wider audience. She found people interesting anywhere, engaged in conversation and so met the most amazing individuals. She talked, for instance, with the author Andre Aciman, standing in line for tickets to Carnegie Hall in NY and found out that he had had our village doctor, Dr. Gandur, as his pediatrician in Alexandria, Egypt. He was so grateful to be in touch through her with his old doctor.

She enjoyed people in the streets, in airplanes and over the phone, wherever she found them or when they could reach her. She stayed up nights to help someone out of their distress or need. With much imagination she served her meals with stunning decorations made from twigs and moss, field flowers and stones. Duncan from Kenya once remarked: “This is the first place where I see the beauty of the truth of the Bible consistently carried over into all areas of life.”

After the death of her husband in 1984 Edith Schaeffer added a whole new chapter to her life. She continued to write books, lectured widely and returned twice to her place of birth in China. She investigated the making the Baby Grand Piano she had received as a gift at the Steinway factory in New York and presented “Forever Music” in a concert at Alice Tully Hall in New York with the Guarneri Quartet. Through Franz Mohr, the chief piano voicer at Steinway she came to know musicians like Rostropovich, the pianists Horowitz and Rudoph Serkin, the Cellists YoYo Ma and Ya Ya Ling, and also the guitarist Christopher Parkening. She organized concerts and elaborate receptions for musicians and friends in her home in Rochester, MN. When she met B. B. King at the International Jazz Festival in Montreux he gave her his pass to the evening’s concert. Once on vacations on the island of Elba, Sonny Rollins noticed her beauty and rhythm in the audience as she danced during his concert, came off the stage and danced with her.

Today she “slipped into the nearer presence of Jesus”, her Lord, from whom she awaits the promised resurrection to continue her life on earth and to dance once again with a body restored to wholeness.

If you wish to honor Edith Schaeffer’s life you can support her intense commitment to the work of the Francis Schaeffer Foundation, Jermintin 3, CH -1882 Gryon, Switzerland

Udo W. Middelmann
The Francis A Schaeffer Foundation
313 East 92nd Apt 5E
New York, NY 10128

Fr. John Tanveer

On Saturday, March 9, 2013 a crowd of Muslim Pakistanis attached a small Christian neighborhood known as the St. Joseph Colony in the city of Lahore, Pakistan. This was shortly after an incident earlier in the week, when one Muslim resident had accused another Christian resident of blasphemy against Muhammed after the two had engaged in a dispute. The police arrested the Christian accused of blasphemy on Friday, and the mob action took place the next day.

The secular press (including the New York Times) reported this incident, using Pakistani government supplied figures of 178 houses, 18 shops, and 2 churches damaged by the fires that the mob started. Some news reports carried estimates of the mob size as approximately 2,000 to 3,000. What they failed to report – obviously because the government did not supply these figures – is much more disturbing.

Fr. John Tanveer, a native of Lahore, is an Eastern Orthodox priest who lives in Lahore. While he does not live in the St. Joseph Colony, a few of his parishioners do, and they lost their houses. He visited the area the next day, and has been returning almost daily to try to bring some comfort and aid to those affected. His reports are based on his own personal observation, as well as many interviews with the residents of the Colony about what they experienced. Here are some of the facts that he has reported.

• The number of homes destroyed is at least 350, or twice the size of the government estimate.
• The residents estimated the crowd at over 5,000, again approximately double the numbers used by the press.
• Residents stated that the entire operation was very well planned and deliberate, not a case of a peaceful demonstration getting out of hand.
• Residents report that chemicals of some sort (perhaps gasoline?) were used to start and fuel the fires. If you look at the photos, you will notice that the structures in the Colony are all brick and stone. Thus, a single fire or a few fires would not have spread to decimate hundreds of buildings without the widespread use of artificial accelerants.
• The police told residents in the Colony the previous day (Friday) that they should leave the area. This clearly indicates that the government was aware of the planned mob action, and wanted to minimize the loss of life.
• During the mob violence, the police were present in small numbers, and took no action to stop the rampage.
• The St. Joseph Colony is located on land near a number of industrial sites including steel and iron-making plants. It is well-known that these industries would like more land to expand their operations, and many residents believe that is why the entire incident took place – to force the Colony residents to abandon their homes leave the area.

Fr. John states that neither the government nor any of the large international humanitarian NGO’s have responded with any significant aid. He has been preparing and bringing food to the Joseph Colony every day, but his parish does not have the funds and resources to give the sort of aid that will be needed to care for these displaced residents and help them rebuild.

Please take a look at some photos taken by Fr. John on the website of the Pakistani Orthodox Church (www.orthodoxpakistan.org) and consider making a contribution to help. This is a volunteer effort, and there are no administrative costs. Every dollar sent goes straight to Fr. John who will use it to provide food and other assistance to the St. George Colony residents. Donations may be made by mail or Paypal as stated on the website. Please pray for these displaced fellow Christians, and please pray for Fr. John, his wife Rosy, and their four children as they minister in the name of Christ. And PLEASE forward this email to as many Christians as you can.

Pictures from Fr. John

Click to enlarge

Read more: Muslims Desecrate and Burn Christian Holy Bibles in Lahore

Source: Patheos | Terry Mattingly

So, let’s assume that you are a Catholic leader and you pick up your morning newspaper and it contains a story in which Pope Francis is described as “a leader” of the world’s Catholic Christians.

What would you think? Is the phrase “a leader” — implying one among many equals — an accurate way to describe the unique, singular, authoritative role played in global Catholicism by the occupant of St. Peter’s throne? The answer, of course, is “no.”

So, let’s assume that you are an Anglican Christian, perhaps a leader in one of the rapidly growing churches of Africa, and you pick up your paper and it contains a story in which the Archbishop of Canterbury is described as “the leader of the world’s Anglican Christians.” Note the singular nature of the word “the.”

What would you think? Is the phrase “the leader” — implying a unique, singular, authoritative role over Anglicans around the world — an accurate way to describe the symbolic “first among equals (primus inter pares)” role that the Archbishop of Canterbury has historically played in Anglicanism? The answer, of course, is “no.”

[...]

Read the entire article on the Patheos website.

Dylan Pahman

At Ethika Politika today, I examine the recent critique by David Bentley Hart in the most recent issue of First Things of the use of natural law in public discourse in my article, “Natural Law, Public Policy, and the Uncanny Voice of Conscience.” Ultimately, I offer a measured critique—somewhat agreeing with, but mostly critical of Hart’s position—pointing out Hart’s oversight of the vital role of conscience in classic natural law theory.

What I find so bizarre, and have for some time now, is the relative ambivalence, at best, of many contemporary Orthodox writers when it comes to natural law. Hart, for example, hints that he might approve of natural law reasoning so long as all parties involved hold to a metaphysic that acknowledges “a harmony between cosmic and moral order, sustained by the divine goodness in which both participate.” However, even then he is not clear. Indeed, he begins his article by writing,

There is a long, rich, varied, and subtle tradition of natural law theory, almost none of which I find especially convincing, but most of which I acknowledge to be—according to the presuppositions of the intellectual world in which it was gestated—perfectly coherent. (emphasis mine)

Hart is not alone among Orthodox writers in this regard. With the notable exceptions of Stanley Harakas, Tristram Engelhardt, and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow (if there are others I apologize for my ignorance), contemporary Orthodox writers scarcely have employed natural law in their social ethics, if they even endorse it at all. Often it gets thrown under the bus in ill-advised false dichotomizing between all that is Eastern and therefore wonderful and all that is Western and therefore overly rationalistic.

The reason I find this all bizarre is that even looking only to the Greek fathers one can very easily find widespread endorsement of some form of natural law reasoning. The most prominent, perhaps, would be St. John Chrysostom, who I quote from his Homilies on the Statues 12.9 in my Ethika Politika piece. One can find him speaking of the law of nature in his Homilies on Romans quite extensively as well. Furthermore, St. John of Damascus writes that “evil is not any essence nor a property of essence, but an accident, that is, a voluntary deviation from what is natural into what is unnatural, which is sin” (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.20). And a text attributed to St. Maximos the Confessor in the Philokalia states that the function “of the natural law is to grant equal rights to all men in accordance with natural justice” (Various Texts 2.41). I could, in fact, go on and on ad nausium, but I will stop at this point.

While it may be that there are important differences between a Thomist understanding of natural law and an Orthodox understanding of natural law, the historic difference is most assuredly not that Thomists accept it while the Orthodox do not. Furthermore, there often seems to be little care in differentiating between Enlightenment versions of the natural law, which may in fact be overly rationalistic, and other Western versions, such as the Thomist articulation, rooted in Christian convictions and augmented by faith.

All this, I suspect, has led to the relative cacophony among Orthodox writers with regards to social thought more generally. For example, without natural law, what basis do we have for the rule of law in political matters? Or, without natural law, what basis do we have for declaiming fraud, exploitation, and other forms of theft in economic matters? If, according to Hart, what the fathers assumed to be basic dictates of conscience actually require “an apocalyptic interruption” for anyone to grasp, public engagement in our pluralistic society without the natural law would, itself, be “a hopeless cause” … but perhaps that explains the current cacophony, at least in part.