Yesterday I talked about the subject of generalizations. And, I also mentioned the fallacy of a faulty generalization, also called a hasty generalization. Let me remind you of what I quoted yesterday:

Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence — essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables. … Hasty generalization can also be a basis for racist beliefs and prejudices, in which inferences regarding a large group is based upon knowledge of only a small sample size of that group.

The wording of that last sentence is strong, but true. The problem with that last sentence is that it is itself a bit narrow. I would prefer to say that a hasty generalization, in its broadest sense, often leads to a stereotype. Not all stereotypes are toxic. What do I mean? Well, racism is an example of a toxic stereotype. But, not all stereotypes are necessarily toxic. Some can be misleading, but essentially harmless. For instance, there is the popular stereotype that white men cannot really dance well. It is obviously not true if you think about it, but everyone tends to laugh about it. I do not really know white men who are going around upset about that cute stereotype or leading protests against that stereotype. It does not appear to be harming anyone, nor have I heard of a white man claiming discrimination over that stereotype. But, it is a stereotype and not true! The opposite of that is that Latin men are great dancers. As a Latino, I would love for that one to be true, but sadly it is not.

Nevertheless, it is a good practice to learn to spot the difference between a generalization and a hasty generalization. Remember what I pointed out yesterday when I quoted a couple of definitions of what generalizations are. Generalizations are actually good and necessary, in social studies, in history, in science, etc. Generalizations come from inductive reasoning and allow things like hypotheses to be formulated. Generalizations are actually necessary in this world because we are not omniscient. But, sometimes we get in a hurry, or simply get lazy in our reasoning. That is when a hasty generalization is developed. It is no longer inductive reasoning, but faulty reasoning.

Now, to return to the quote above, there is a further danger, and that is the danger that a hasty generalization may devolve into a stereotype that is toxic. A toxic stereotype is almost always based on some type of reasonable-sounding argument that enables the person to deceive himself/herself that they are not engaging in a prejudice but simply reaching a logical conclusion. That is actually prevalent today over various subject matters. The opposite danger is equally prevalent today, and that is the danger of accusing someone of using a hasty generalization in order to not have to logical rebut their argument. That is called an argumentum ad hominem, that is, an argument against the man. Rather than deconstructing someone’s argument to show how it is illogical, the person is attacked rather than the argument. One of the forms of attack is to simply claim that they are engaging in hasty generalization.

Regardless, it is important for Christians to learn to be rigorous in their arguments and to avoid the perils of either a hasty generalization or arguments against people rather than against their claims. We need to deal with Truth in a rigorous manner while at the same time admitting that we are not omniscient and that, therefore, many of our arguments and/or conclusions may very well contain necessary generalizations. Generalizations are part of our life, let’s learn to handle them correctly and formulate them appropriately.

Recently someone commented that he felt that I was making a generalization. I assume that he meant a hasty generalization. But, it does bring up the subject of what is a generalization? You see, we must first ask whether making generalizations is itself bad. So, what is a generalization? Well, there are two meanings, one from scientific studies and one from social studies and philosophy. In science a typical definition of a generalization is:

Generalization (or generalisation) is an essential component of the wider scientific process. In an ideal world, to test a hypothesis, you would sample an entire population. You would use every possible variation of an independent variable. In the vast majority of cases, this is not feasible, so a representative group is chosen to reflect the whole population.

 For any experiment, you may be criticized for your generalizations about sample, time and size.

 You must ensure that the sample group is as truly representative of the whole population as possible.

For many experiments, time is critical as the behaviors can change yearly, monthly or even by the hour.

The size of the group must allow the statistics to be safely extrapolated to an entire population.

In social studies, there is a variation on the definition, since in social studies and philosophy it is not really possible to exactly repeat everything in a scientific way:

A generalization (or generalisation) of a concept is an extension of the concept to less-specific criteria. It is a foundational element of logic and human reasoning.[citation needed] Generalizations posit the existence of a domain or set of elements, as well as one or more common characteristics shared by those elements. As such, it is the essential basis of all valid deductive inferences. The process of verification is necessary to determine whether a generalization holds true for any given situation.

The concept of generalization has broad application in many related disciplines, sometimes having a specialized context-meaning.

Of any two related concepts, such as A and B, A is considered a “generalization” of concept B if and only if:

every instance of concept B is also an instance of concept A; and

there are instances of concept A which are not instances of concept B.

Wow! Now there is a complex definition of a generalization. But, I want you to catch the drift. A generalization is part and parcel of both logic (philosophy) and science. As part of logic it participates in social studies, historical studies, etc. Is is a vital part of analysis. Without generalizations it becomes impossible to posit theorems, to see patterns in history or archeology or social studies, etc. Generalizations are a vital part of our human existence, for we are not omnipotent. We cannot know everything thus the best we can do is to generalize.

This creates the problem of knowing when you have made an accurate generalization and when you have not. We have a saying about hasty generalizations. What is a hasty generalization?

Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence — essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables. In statistics, it may involve basing broad conclusions regarding the statistics of a survey from a small sample group that fails to sufficiently represent an entire population. Its opposite fallacy is called slothful induction, or denying the logical conclusion of an inductive argument (e.g. “it was just a coincidence”).

Context is also relevant; in mathematics, the Pólya conjecture is true for numbers less than 906,150,257, but fails for this number. Assuming something to be true for all numbers when it has been shown for over 906 million cases would not generally be considered hasty, but in mathematics a statement remains a conjecture until it is shown to be universally true.

Hasty generalization can also be a basis for racist beliefs and prejudices, in which inferences regarding a large group is based upon knowledge of only a small sample size of that group.

So, here is the problem that we have as humans. On the one hand, we must reach our generalizations often from a sample that is less than 50% of the existing population. On the other hand, any sample that is too small and not representative leaves us with the danger that any conclusions that we reach will not be accurate. That is the human condition. We are not omnipotent.

Having said that, I have taken graduate level statistics. There are many statistical ways to try to ensure that a sample is representative and accurate. But, when all is said and done, our generalizations are proofs that we are not omnipotent. They are proofs that we are not omnipotent because of the various examples of generalizations that have been inaccurate despite the use of the best statistical methods.

But, here is a final thought. Can we simply accuse everyone of hasty generalization based on the fact that we are not like the generalization and we have friends that are not like the generalization? The answer is no. You see, we also commit the hasty generalization error when we cite ourselves and a couple of friends and claim that this disproves someone else’s generalization.

Let me give you one example. In the 2008 election, 9 out of 10 African-Americans voted for President Obama. It is utterly useless to claim that you know several African-Americans who are Republicans and that this–therefore–disproves the “myth” that African-Americans vote mostly Democrat (at least in prior elections). The data set of African-Americans who regularly vote Democrat is a data set that includes all African-Americans who vote. In this case the generalization is not really a generalization because the sample set is equal to the population set.

The question becomes more difficult as the sample set decreases in size to less than 50% of the sample population. But, the bottom line is that we cannot claim that someone else’s generalization is false simply by saying that I (you) and a couple of friends are not like that. The question is not whether I (you) can find a couple of friends who do not fit the generalization. The question is whether the majority of the target population fits the generalization.

I know that this has been a philosophical / mathematical posting. But, I hope it helps you think through what a generalization is, and–more important–when to decide that someone else is engaging in a hasty generalization.

More from OrthoCuban

• Hesychasm and Pentecostalism
• Patriarch of Constantinople, culture, and tolerance
• The Bible and penology

OrthoCuban Suggests

• F.U.B.A.R. and Teshuvah  (The Divine Crash)
• Discipline and the Church | FrJody.com  (Fr. Jody)

Ask OrthoCuban To Recommend Your Posts

I must admit that I could not resist this photo. And when I saw it, I promptly thought of the blogger Pithless Thoughts. May he see this picture, and use it and derive great merriment from it.

Nevertheless, this doctored photograph does remind me of what Saint Paul said, “And take . . . the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” May God always grant our bishops the Holy Spirit so that they may use the word of God correctly.

More from OrthoCuban

• Spring and the creativity of God
• What wondrous love — YouTube
• So, what is this comic about?

OrthoCuban Suggests

• I Can’t Live Without Her-Is There Anything I Can Do About This?  (dhmercer)
• Where Else is the Cross True? Part 2  (The Divine Crash)

Ask OrthoCuban To Recommend Your Posts

On 8 May 2012, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops sent out a letter to the representatives of the United States House of Representatives making certain comments on the proposed reconciliation package for the fiscal year 2013. The letter is well worth reading, let me quote it for you:

Dear Representative,

As you vote on a reconciliation package for the fiscal year 2013 budget, I would like to affirm the principle contained in the Committee Report that the “budget starts with the proposition that first, Congress must do no harm.” In this light, I urge you to ensure all policies meet the moral criteria established by the Catholic bishops of the United States to create a circle of protection around programs that serve poor and vulnerable people and communities:

1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity.

2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects the lives and dignity of “the least of these” (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first.

3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times.

A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons; it requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly.

I reiterate our strong opposition to an unfair proposal that would alter the Child Tax Credit to exclude children of hard-working, immigrant families. The bishops’ conference has long supported the Child Tax Credit because it is pro-work, pro-family, and one of the most effective antipoverty programs in our nation. Denying the credit to children of working poor immigrant families–the large majority of whom are American citizens–would hurt vulnerable kids, increase poverty, and would not advance the common good.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), provides vital food security to families during tough economic times. It is estimated that cuts proposed in this bill would deny assistance to two million families, and cut the benefit for everyone else. No poor family that receives food assistance would be unaffected, constituting a direct threat to their human dignity. If savings in agricultural programs need to be achieved, subsidies and direct payments can be reduced and targeted to small and moderate-sized farms.

The Social Services Block Grant is an important source of funding for programs throughout the country that serve vulnerable members of our communities–the homeless, the elderly, people with disabilities, children living in poverty, and abuse victims. We should prioritize programs that serve “the least of these,” not eliminate them.

The Catholic bishops of the United States recognize the serious deficits our country faces, and we acknowledge that Congress must make difficult decisions about how to allocate burdens and sacrifices and balance resources and needs. However, deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility efforts must protect and not undermine the needs of poor and vulnerable people. The proposed cuts to programs in the budget reconciliation fail this basic moral test. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states it is the proper role of government to “make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on” (no. 1908). Poor and vulnerable people do not have powerful lobbyists to advocate their interests, but they have the most compelling needs.

As you pursue responsible deficit reduction, the Catholic bishops join other faith leaders and people of good will urging you to protect the lives and dignity of poor and vulnerable families by putting a circle of protection around these essential programs and to refrain from cutting programs that serve them.

Please note that, once again, the Roman Catholic bishops have taken the strong stance that being pro-life is much more than simply being anti-abortion. Sadly, the letter received no play in the national media. Conservatives do not wish it known that there is more to pro-life than being anti-abortion, nor do they wish it known that the Church stands against draconian measures against undocumented immigrants and against any economic theory that treats those in need as expendable and not worthy of help. Please note that the letter does not address undocumented immigrants as illegal immigrants, which is another blow to conservatives. But, liberals also do not wish it known that the Church stands for more than anti-abortion. It suits their narrative to picture the Church as an out-of-touch medieval institution whose pronouncements should be ignored. To acknowledge that the Church agrees with them that many of the current conservative fiscal policies are actually anti-Judeo/Christian would be to acknowledge that the Church is not simply an out-of-touch institution.

Thus, neither side was in any hurry to disseminate the letter above. But, the letter above is a good solid example of what Patriarch Bartholomew has said in the past.

There has never been a greater need for spiritual leaders to engage themselves in the affairs of this world.

Please read the bishops’ letter again and see whether your political/economic views are in accord. If they are not, I would suggest that you change them. In particular, if you are Roman Catholic or Orthodox, I call you to be fully pro-life, even if that means that you end up with a position that is neither purely conservative nor purely liberal. Moral purity is significantly more important than political purity.

More from OrthoCuban

• On the “Greeking” of the Church
• Update on Catholic bishops, healthcare, and Obama
• Fetal cells, vaccines, and Roman Catholic bishops

OrthoCuban Suggests

• The Real Face of the Gay Agenda  (The National Report)
• Cologne – Drinking Kolsh on the Banks of the Rhine #2  (The World According to Dave)

Ask OrthoCuban To Recommend Your Posts

As Orthodox, we need to be cautious. If we are not careful, we might miss something that God is trying to tell us. One case of that are some similarities between hesychasm and the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. Look at the video above and ask yourself, what is hesychasm or hesychastic theology? The Wikipedia says:

Hesychasm is an eremitic tradition of prayer in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and some of the Eastern Catholic Churches, such as the Byzantine Rite, practised by the hesychast .

Based on Christ’s injunction in the Gospel of Matthew to “go into your closet to pray”, hesychasm in tradition has been the process of retiring inward by ceasing to register the senses, in order to achieve an experiential knowledge of God.

I want to you hang on to the words, “… of retiring inward by ceasing to register the senses, in order to achieve an experiential knowledge of God.” Because, in much of Pentecostal / Charismatic singing, the very aim of the singing is to so lose yourself that you “cease to register the senses, in order to achieve and experiential knowledge of God.” Look at the video above and you can see a clear example of that. What the hesychast accomplishes by long silences and prayer, the Pentecostal / Charismatic accomplishes by singing. Saint Augustine says that, “he who sings prays twice.” In the Book of the Kings, it is well recorded, more than once, that singing opened people to the Spirit of God. So it was that when King Saul was troubled, it was the future King David’s songs on the psalter that brought peace to King Saul. It was in the midst of the singing of the choir that Solomon’s Temple was consecrated, and it was during that same chanting by the choir that the presence of God made itself both obvious and felt to the entire congregation.

Which of you have not been chanting the Trisagion Hymn and suddenly realized that you were shaken by the presence of God? When the Kievan representatives came to visit Constantinople near the end of the first millennium, they said that they did not know whether they were on heaven or on earth. They were not simply talking about seeing rich vestments or a complex liturgy. These were embassadors from a country which had a king and knew about rich dress and ceremonial. No, it was not simply vestments and liturgy that attracted them. Rather, it was precisely what they said, they did not know whether they were in heaven or on earth. It was the presence of God in the midst of the liturgy, as the choirs sang, as the priests chanted, as the incense flowed, as the faith of the fathers was kept in liturgical worship, but it was the presence of God that hit them with power. We need to be cautious that we do not make it seem as though the reason the Kievans “liked” what they saw was simply because they saw a well a “well-performed” rich liturgy. If we say that, we are in deep danger of depreciating any liturgy celebrated in a small parish, with a poor choir, as though the Kievans would not have assented to Orthodoxy in that setting. Do we really wish to say that?

It is the experience of that presence of God that Pentecostals / Charismatics, along with the hesychasts, desire. Do not miss that desire. It is a holy desire. It is a right desire. And, it is a desire which God has answered over and over from the times of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, etc., all the way through today. It is a desire which God used in this country, and in many others, to call the Church back to itself, to its duties, to its responsibilities, to its call to reach outwards in missions and social care, to realize that it is poor, weak, and in need of cleansing.

So, let us be very cautious when we speak of Pentecostals and Charismatics. Many of us who are Orthodox today came through the cleansing fire of the Charismatic Movement which called us back to the experience of God. It was that perceived presence of God that broke us out of our molds and forced us to realize that what we had taken for granted about God was not fully true. Yes, it is true that there were some terrific lacks in theology. It is true that some weirdos sprang up and caused problems. But, it was that very movement, with its not-Apostles that first taught us that there was an apostolic succession. It was that movement that first said to us that we could so lose ourselves that in the silence that had been occupied by us, we could experience God. In fact, many of us would not be open to hesychasm and the Orthodox Church had it not been for that experience.

So, let those of us who are Orthodox and were Pentecostal / Charismatic thank the Lord that in his grace he saw fit to work through that movement to reach ever so many of us, who were sunk in ever so many wrong directions. And let us freely honor those movements, even while we must say that they were ever so mistaken in so many ways. They were mistaken in so many ways, but they opened the doors to the Kingdom to ever so many. So, thank you Lord God for what you have done in so many countries in so many ways.

More from OrthoCuban

• Generalizations, blogs, and accuracy
• On Vampires and Christianity
• Lemons and lemonade

OrthoCuban Suggests

• F.U.B.A.R. and Teshuvah  (The Divine Crash)
• Jesus and Jonah  (The Divine Crash)

Ask OrthoCuban To Recommend Your Posts

We are in the midst of some heated debate in this country on issues of culture, religion, morality, etc. It might be good to look back at some of what previous Ecumenical Patriarchs have said on some of these issues. Back in 1568 there was mistreatment of the Jews on the island of Crete. Patriarch Metrophanes III of Constantinople wrote the following concerning that mistreatment:

Injustices, therefore, and slander, regardless whomever acted upon or performed against, is still injustice. The unjust person is never relieved of responsibility for these acts under the pretext that the injustice is done against a heterodox and not against a believer.

Sadly, all too many Orthodox did not follow the admonition in his encyclical. The movie Fiddler on the Roof records at least one of the Russian pogroms against the Jews, even though such were forbidden by Ecumenical Patriarchs. But, in the same way we must be cautious how we treat those among us who are not of our faith. We cannot commit injustices against them on the grounds that their faith is to not be trusted in any way. Back in the 1500′s, Jews were classified as Christ-killers and were persecuted under that justification. Today all too many classify Muslims as proto-jihadists and justify any violation of their civil rights as justified. “It is not wrongful profiling. It simply makes sense.” But, as Patriarch Metrophanes III said, “Injustices … and slander … is still injustice.”

Does that mean that we have to accept anything that a non-believer says and allow it into society? No! The current Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew, has written:

We stand firmly against those who violate the sanctity of human life and pursue policies in defiance of moral values. We reject the concept that it is possible to justify one’s actions in any armed conflicts in the name of God.

Oops, wait! Guess what Patriarch Bartholomew did. He connected killing babies and killing adult humans in war. I have previously mentioned that the Orthodox view of war is that it can never be justified per se. And I did so quoting from an OCA statement back then. Both of the major strains of Eastern Orthodoxy agree. War is never justifiable. But, both sides say that given the current sinful state of the world, States may choose to fight wars as the lesser of two evils. But note this very carefully. Patriarch Bartholomew connects believing in the sanctity of human life with a very pro-life view that includes matters such as war and other pro-life matters. But, he is not the only one. The Standing Conference of the Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas (SCOBA) made the following statement way back 30 years ago:

It is true that the Christian community’s concern has recently seemed to be selective and disproportionate in this regard, e.g., in the anti-abortion campaign. Too often human life has been threatened or even destroyed, especially during times of war, internal strife, and violence, with little or no protestation from the Christian leadership. Unfortunately, the impression has frequently been given that churchmen are more concerned with establishing the legitimacy of war or capital punishment than with the preservation of human life. We know that this has been a scandal for many, both believers and unbelievers. We feel constrained at this point in history to affirm that the “right to life” implies a right to a decent life and to full human development, not merely to a marginal existence.

You see, when we are anti-abortion, but then go out of our way to justify capital punishment, when we cheer over the killing of an enemy, when we claim that enhanced interrogation is not bad, when we are more concerned with justifying any war than with the preservation of adult human life in both quantity and quality, then, as the statement says, “this has been a scandal for many, both believers and unbelievers.” Note that the right to life includes the right, ”… to a decent life and to full human development, not merely to a marginal existence.” Orthodox believers need to make sure that their attitudes towards the poor are correct attitudes, so say our bishops.

This is not to say that we have to put up with every bit of radical violence and craziness. Patriarch Bartholomew goes on to say:

We, however, most categorically condemn every kind of fanaticism, transgression and use of violence regardless of where they come from. …

Religious extremists and terrorists may be the most false prophets of all, for not only do they commit horrible crimes against humanity – they do so in the name of a lie.

And ultimately Patriarch Bartholomew calls us who are consecrated to God to a special involvement:

There has never been a greater need for spiritual leaders to engage themselves in the affairs of this world. We must take a visible place on the stage, especially because too many crimes today are taking place in the name of faith.

Let me give you this final quote about tolerance:

The reconciliation role of Christianity can only be initiated and sustained by and through the voice and ear of genuine tolerance. The virtues of tolerance, together with its twin virtue of diversity, reflect the divine attributes of love which God maintains in His essence perfectly, infinitely, indescribably, and inexhaustibly.

Tolerance and diversity. If you are an Orthodox Christian, you need to look at the quotes above and think through how the above applies to practical issues, not just abortion, but also healthcare, welfare, war, enhanced interrogation, etc. The Orthodox pro-life position, like the Roman Catholic position is much more than simply being anti-abortion. Are we against elective abortion? YES. But we are much more than against elective abortion. We are truly pro-life. So, make a choice. Become fully and truly Orthodox pro-life!

More from OrthoCuban

• Jurisprudence, penology, culture, and religion
• Culture of honor, the South, and understanding
• Christians, Rudeness, and lack of witness

OrthoCuban Suggests

• Discipline and the Church | FrJody.com  (Fr. Jody)
• Christianity and the public conception of contraception | FrJody.com  (Fr. Jody)

Ask OrthoCuban To Recommend Your Posts

And grant rest, O Master, to our souls and bodies as we sleep; preserve us from the gloomy slumber of sin and from the dark passions of the night. Calm the impulses of carnal desires, quench the fiery darts of the evil one which are craftily directed against us. Still the rebellions of the flesh, and put far from us all anxiety and worldly cares.Grant us, O God, a watchful mind, pure thoughts, a sober heart and a quiet rest free from every vision of the devil. Raise us up again at the hour of prayer, strengthened in Your precepts and holding within us steadfastly the thought of Your commandments.Grant that we may sing praises to You through the night and that we may hymn, bless and glorify Your all-honorable and majestic Name, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.

Many times all of us either repeat ancient prayers without thinking of what they are saying, or we go to the other extreme and just sigh whenever we see an ancient prayer and do not say it. Few of us ever stop and really read them to see what they are saying to us. But, look at the prayer above. It is a quite realistic prayer, and one that takes into account what happens when we sleep. So, take a moment and read the prayer above  again. It is part of daily Compline, so it is a prayer that is prayed daily across the Orthodox world.

Notice that the prayer acknowledges the reality of night slumbers. All of us have had nightmares. All of us have had dreams that leave us gasping when we wake up. They may leave us gasping in fear. But, they may also leave us gasping in guilt. How could we ever imagine the things that we dreamed? What type of people are we that we have dreamed those dreams? Obviously not all dreams are negative dreams. But, all of us know that negative dreams are part of the current human reality. The prayer above covers any of several type of dreams that we might have. What impressed me was the honesty about what types of dreams people have at night.

But, more than that, all of us have had the experience of going to sleep while we are stressed and worried about some event in our life. That often leads to some very odd dreams. “Put far from us all anxiety and worldly cares,” says the prayer. “Grant us . . . a quiet rest,” we pray. Let our rest be truly rest. I find it interesting that the prayer assumes that we are going to dream. Modern understanding says that all of us dream every night. We may not remember that we have dreamed, but we have indeed dreamed. And that is what the prayer assumes. And so the prayer goes on to ask that our dreams may be restful dreams, dreams of singing praises to God throughout the night, dreams that exalt us and raise us up to the throne of God.

Dreaming has been found to be a necessary part of our achieving rest. This prayer assumes that we will dream and simply asks that our dreams be dreams that glorify God. It asks that as we dream, we dream in such a way that we awake rested and ready to undertake the tasks of the next day. More than that, it asks God to keep Satan from interfering in our dreams and asks that God intervene so that even our “natural” dreams not veer into area that will cause us to wake up tired and not ready to face the next day.

So, are you ready to pray that prayer now? “Grant rest, O Master, to our souls and bodies as we sleep . . .” Let this be our prayer this, and every, night.

More from OrthoCuban

• On those who are happy to be Protestant
• How not to argue for the Church
• Hmm, what are we supposed to do again?

OrthoCuban Suggests

• Why are comfortable churches dying?  (The Divine Crash)
• Where Else is the Cross True? Part 2  (The Divine Crash)

Ask OrthoCuban To Recommend Your Posts

There is an old saying, “When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.” What I have found in my life, is that God is an expert in making lemonade out of lemons. Saint Paul says, in his Epistle to the Romans, chapter 8, “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.” I could write theological commentary, but rather let me give you a couple of stories from when my wife and I were missionaries in Perú. They will do a better job of illustrating that verse in Romans 8.

When we were first sent to Arequipa, Perú, I was sent as Regional Director for that area, equivalent to an Archpriest who was Dean of the region. During that time I had to make decisions, many decisions. But, I learned that what I often needed to do was to try to figure out what in the world God was up to, and then simply agree with him. Many of you will say that there is no way that I could ever figure out what God is up to. But, every deacon, every priest, every hierarch knows that if we are truly to be faithful leaders in God’s Church that we have no choice but to try to figure out what God is telling us in order to faithfully serve our people. No, this does not mean that we are always correct, but it does mean that if we are to be faithful leaders, we have to try to make decisions that are in accord with what God wants. I admit that often what God wants he has already spelled out in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. But, often that provides only those boundaries within which the decisions must be made. Saint Seraphim of Sarov, my personal saint, was correct when he said that the true aim of our Christian life consists of the acquisition of the Holy Spirit of God. He never said it would be easy. Nor did he say that God would wait to act until you had acquired the Holy Spirit.

When we arrived in Arequipa, we found that one of the parishes had a child care center associated with it. The child care center was also approved as a pre-kinder and a kindergarten, but that is as far as it went. We used to periodically receive short-term missionaries who would give temporary help. One of them was a sweet English gal of about 25 at that time. She had been an English schoolteacher, but, for various personal reasons, had decided to spend a year in short-term missions work in order to have time to reflect. Because of her teaching credentials, she was slated to work at the child care center/kindergarten.

When she arrived, she was short, blonde, blue-eyed, and quite shy, a shyness partly due to her life experiences. But, she learned her Spanish quickly and worked with the children. They fell in love with her and the couple of teachers thought that she was a wonderful resource and person. She came out of her shyness and began to bloom. Near the end of the year, her parents visited. They were incredibly impressed with the changes in their daughter and with the work that was being done. Their daughter had a dream of seeing that child care center become a school. So, they decided to donate several thousand pounds with the stipulation that it be used to make that child care center into a school. I prayed and decided to agree with God. That school began as a full elementary school. I had the opportunity to preside over its building and opening. Today, that school is on its own property and goes all the way through high school.

I have other stories like that, but every one of them testify to how God is able to take people who are questioning themselves, and situations that are not all they could be and turn them into something that truly glorifies him. The teacher I mentioned found her love in Arequipa and is now married to a Peruvian and happily serving at the school. As the American saying goes, “God is good … all the time.”

More from OrthoCuban

• Evangelism and the Orthodox
• Morning people and monks
• Hesychasm and Pentecostalism

OrthoCuban Suggests

• Making Whips and Cleansing Temples | FrJody.com  (Fr. Jody)
• Walking and Inviting  (The Divine Crash)

Ask OrthoCuban To Recommend Your Posts

One of the favorite American complaints (conspiracy theory) is that Emperor Constantine ruined the Christian Church by bringing it into the government. For instance, Stanley Hauerwas claims:

This change in status of what it meant to be Christian, according to Yoder, called forth a new theological development, “namely the doctrine of the invisibility of the church.” Before Constantine, Christians assumed as a matter of faith that God was governing history even in the person of the emperor, but they knew that God was present in the church. After the Constantinian establishment, Christians knew that God was governing the world in Constantine, but they had to take it on faith that within the nominally Christian mass there was a community of true believers. No longer could being a Christian be identified with church membership, since many “Christians” in the church had not chosen to follow Christ. Now to be a Christian is transmuted to “inwardness.”

On another website, the following claim is made:

The devil still wanted to destroy the Church, but persecution was not the way to do it. Instead he came up with a much better plan. Instead of attacking the Church from the outside he would corrupt the church and destroy it FROM THE INSIDE. The devil’s new strategy was very simple: “IF YOU CAN’T BEAT THEM, JOIN THEM!” Don’t fight them, just shake hands with them and JOIN THEIR TEAM! Infiltrate their ranks! Let’s see how this strategy worked! …

What was the result of Constantine’s new approach to Christianity? Since being a Christian was the popular thing to do, MANY JOINED THE BANDWAGON! Thousands of heathen joined the church! Suddenly it seemed like the whole world was crowding into the church. Many of these people were Christians in name only. Can a person “name the name of Christ” but not really be a true Christian (see 2 Timothy 2:19)? …

As you can well imagine, many heathen customs and practices crept into the church. The pagan images and statues were still honored, but they were given “Christian” names such as Peter or Mary. Artemis (Diana) worship was changed to Mary worship. Also Isis, the Egyptian goddess was easily transformed into Mary. Worshippers of Isis called her “the Great Virgin” and “Mother of the God”. Some surviving images of Isis holding the child Horus are in a pose very similar to that of some early Christian Madonnas (showing Mary holding the infant Jesus). Heathen temples were consecrated and changed into churches. Heathen feasts were given Christian names. It was just the same old paganism or heathenism under a new name! The church had not conquered the world. THE WORLD HAD CONQUERED THE CHURCH! Paganism had put on new clothes but it was the same old paganism.

But, here is the problem. All too many American Evangelical Protestants would quickly subscribe to some version of the above views. They look at Church history and quickly use every negative item of history to show how damaged the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church became. Church history becomes the proving ground for how evil it is to connect Church and State. More than that, Church history becomes a convenient excuse for doing away with whatever doctrines and/or practices you disagree with. After all, it was Emperor Constantine who forced “those” doctrines upon the Church.  I have always been amazed at how a Church that defied persecution up until Emperor Constantine so quickly gave up all its moral and theological stances in order to gain governmental advantages.

So what is the problem? We are in a time in American Church history when American Evangelicals are doing just what they complained led to the downfall of the Church. Notice that now there is an emphasis on the necessity of approving laws that will establish Christian morals as part of the nation’s legal code. (Note that these morals happen to agree with only one certain conservative political viewpoint, but they are labeled as THE true Biblical viewpoint.) What troubles me is that the same people who are insisting that these laws must be passed are still blindly insisting that Constantine ruined the Church. That is, while they are arguing that the mixture of Church and State is necessary because this is a Christian nation, they are also arguing that the mixture of Church and State is completely wrong when it supposedly happened back in Constantine’s time.

What they are not acknowledging is that whenever any group of believers in a particular religion achieve a certain mass, they have the political power to mold the society so that it will reflect their beliefs, both by forbidding what they find objectionable (abortion) and promoting what they find acceptable (the care of widows and orphans). Modern American society is in conflict. And, just like in Constantine’s time, there is a strong, and overt, pressure for the government to approve laws that support the morality of what politically conservative Christians claim is the predominant view of the majority of the citizens of this country.

I actually have no problem with that. That is the natural course of development that happens when a minority religion becomes the majority religion. But, here is that to which I object. I am fully and totally tired of those politically conservative American Evangelical Protestants who will still rail against Constantine and preach on Sundays about how what Orthodox Christians cherish is simply the result of some type of pagan conspiracy led by the devil. Frankly, they are in the process of repeating what they claim happened in Constantine’s time. So, why do they continue to claim that Constantine (and the devil) changed the Church without acknowledging that if that is true, then they must also claim that their own movement is a movement which also allows the world (the flesh, and the devil) to mold the Church? Somehow everything that happened in the years after Constantine is the world (and the devil) molding the Church. But, nothing that has been happening over the last 30 years in the USA is American political conservatism (and the devil) molding the American Church (both Catholic and Protestant).

Do you see the contradiction?

More from OrthoCuban

• The American Revolution and morality, part 02
• So, what else do the Orthodox believe about the Theotokos
• An aside about servicepeople supporting freedom

OrthoCuban Suggests

• The spread of the English Standard Version | FrJody.com  (Fr. Jody)
• Making Whips and Cleansing Temples | FrJody.com  (Fr. Jody)

Ask OrthoCuban To Recommend Your Posts

For those of you who are Orthodox, the oldest icons show monks wearing hoods. The modern veil that a monk wears in Orthodoxy is a direct descendant of the hood.

More from OrthoCuban

• Latinos and Romney
• Peace and good will
• Whose birthday is it?

OrthoCuban Suggests

• Good night. . . | FrJody.com  (Fr. Jody)
• Good news… | FrJody.com  (Fr. Jody)

Ask OrthoCuban To Recommend Your Posts