Observations from an Empty Well

The Climate Change Confessional

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 15:37:00 +0000

NBC News, that hallmark of morality, has established a site asking, "Even those who care deeply about the planet's future can slip up now and then. Tell us: Where do you fall short in preventing climate change?"

I confess that, when "climate change" - formerly, "global warming," and, before that, "global cooling" - is the "sin," I am an unrepentant heretic. 

First of all, this makes a mockery of the mystery (aka, "sacrament") of confession. Second, it moves the question of what is, or is not, taking place with regard to the climate from the realm of science, establishing a dogma from which dissent cannot, and will not, be permitted. (The figurative burning at the stake of those who question the dogma of AGW - anthropogenic global warming - is already underway.) 

AGW - global warming caused by human activities - is flawed in so many ways. It drives and is in turn driven by, a political agenda which perverts science to achieve its own ends. There have been repeated instances of data being ignored or "smoothed" or, in some instances, invented in order to "demonstrate" the essentiality of radically changing (and taxing) our use of fossil fuels in order to "save" the planet. The truth is that the climate is constantly changing: climate, the accumulated pattern of the moment-by-moment weather, expresses the continual operation of the tendency of nature to seek a balance it can never achieve because of the complexity and size of the various subsystems in operation above and around the world. This, to call it "climate change" is a disingenuous attempt to disguise the fact that, despite predictions going back to the 1970's, every prediction about a coming climate catastrophe caused by human activities has been flat-out wrong. Why would anyone believe the forecasts which have such a track record? Perhaps that is why the proponents of AGW are now refusing to consider the possibility that they are in error, and seek instead to silence those who dare to continue to point out that the available data (which goes back thousands of years) demonstrates that it is highly, even extremely, unlikely that humans are capable of inducing so-called "climate change."

"Climate Change" is a New Age religion. Don't be deceived.

"Political Science": Grand Solar Cycles, CO2, and Mischievous Agendas

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Thu, 15 Aug 2019 16:36:00 +0000

More interesting climate science. A very, very brief teaser derived from the video, guaranteed to mess with your mind: The change in the level of carbon dioxide lags the change in temperature. Yes, I know: that's the opposite of what we are being told by our governments and the scientists who are paid by them. There's more; but you would do well to watch the video. Apart from being a subscriber to the channel, I have no connection with the person or persons responsible for the channel or its content. I have yet to find anything in these videos which gives me pause, or with which I disagree, apart from some typographical errors in some of the captions. We're all prone to those from time to time! Thanks again, David, for catching one of mine from yesterday! 👍))

Now, why am I taking the time to highlight this topic? I mean, aren't there better ways to use my time as a priest? Yes, there are, but, hopefully, I am not neglecting my other responsibilities to share my perspective with you on what would appear to be "merely" a temporal manner. Or is it?

When I was teaching history, I gave my students three "rules" I think are useful in studying history. These are:

1) Follow the money.

1A) Watch the wars. They tell you where the money is.

2) Ask yourself, "What's the agenda?"

Expanding upon the third rule, in part because that's a factor in this conversation, I would say that *everyone* has an agenda. The person or persons who wrote the history book you're reading have an agenda. *I* have an agenda. Now, I would say that mine is a benign agenda. Above all, I want you to be able to think for yourself! As you accumulate knowledge and experience, you will develop your own agenda. This becomes the lens through which you view information and events. Your agenda will determine what information you will accept, what you will reject, and what you decide should be pondered before accepting or rejecting it. Question the sources of what is being presented to you, and reach your own conclusions as to the reliability of that source. Make sure to go to opposing sources, always screening every source by evaluating the agenda, whether open or hidden, and then decide for yourself. This includes questioning yourself! Don't accept something uncritically simply because it supports your own beliefs or opinions. That is usually the most difficult exercise of all.

So: what's the agenda here? We are not being given the information usually presented about global warming/climate change for objective reasons. (Yes, this is a conclusion on my part. You are free to disagree, and we can certainly have a conversation about this point. The ability to reason is a God-given one!) Consider: Would your thinking on climate change be affected if you were told that only four percent of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere each year came as the result of human activity? Can you imagine how profound the changes would have to be to make any meaningful change to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? It isn't possible.

Nor is it necessary. "Global warming" is not a new phenomenon. The single greatest cause is a nuclear reactor operating in Earth's neighborhood. The reactor's name is, "Sol." This does not mean that we have no responsibility in terms of the environment when we act. Do you waste energy? (You're paying for that already, of course. Make a spreadsheet of your utility bills over time. It's right there...) Do something about it! There are more examples I could offer than anyone would want to read in a post such as this, so I will let you consider your lifestyle for yourself. I want to emphasize this point: we are given dominion over the earth by God, but it is not the dominion which comes from ownership ("This is mine, and I can do whatever I want with it."), but rather the dominion which comes from being the STEWARDS of what belongs to God. Perhaps an example drawn from "The Lord of the Rings?" When the High Kings left Gondor, they appointed stewards to administer the kingdom on their behalf. Many were faithful to this responsibility, for which they possessed the authority (power) to act, derived from the rightful (lawful) authority of the kings, in order to fulfill their duties. However, by the time just prior to the return of the king, the steward at that time decided that the kings were never coming back, and so usurped the throne to seize it for himself and his heirs. The parallel is that the King of this world is Jesus Christ the Lord, Who we believe will return and will establish His kingdom on earth as well as in heaven; but we all too often live as if the only ruler in our life is... us. We usurp His throne. (This is why, in His mercy, He has given us the Mystery of Confession.) If we were to live as stewards rather than as monarchs, the world would be a much different, and better, place - including the environment.

One last word. Governments possess power. Sometimes it is the power of the sword. In the United States of America, we have been blessed in that the basis for government is in the rule of law, and not that of an absolute, and sometimes arbitrary, monarch. Fundamental to the operation of our government is the understanding that the power possessed by the government is ceded to it by the people in order for the government to have the ability to act to protect the people and otherwise provide for the common good. Governments are part of what God has provided for us, and, in his epistle to the Church in Rome, Saint Paul instructs us to be obedient to the government because it is God's instrument for the administration of His justice. But, because governments are also human institutions, they are not always benign; and I believe it is true that governments which owe no allegiance to God always become tyrannical, seeking ever more power over its subjects. The myth of global warming is, in my opinion, one tool being utilized to subjugate us for its own ends, not for our benefit. But we cannot be complacent, nor can we wait for someone else, short of "The Return of the King," our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver us. So be informed! Then be brave, and speak up, even should your words defy the powers-that-be, subject only to being faithful servants of the King. He is, unlike anyone or anything else, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Governments lie. He will not; and He has promised that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. (This is true even if I am completely off base on climate change.) Glory to God in all things!

See: "Political Science": Grand Solar Cycles, CO2, and Mischievous Agendas

The Grand Solar Minimum: Act Now!

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Wed, 14 Aug 2019 22:54:00 +0000

At the risk of sounding like an alarmist (or like someone who is wearing a tin-foil hat), I want to bring to your attention a development which is not receiving any attention at all from the usual suspects who provide us with "information." It involves the apparent advent of a term I suggest you search for: "grand solar minimum (GSM)." (For the record, I no longer use Google's search engine. Instead, I use the search engine at duckduckgo.com, which is easy to install and just as easy to use as Google - with their promise that, unlike Google, users are not grist for the data mill. I have to say that I haven't noticed any products or services I've searched via duckduckgo appearing in display ads at sites such as, well, Facebook; but I digress...) (Disclosure: I have no official connection to the search provider I've mentioned, nor do I receive any remuneration for my mentioning them - although I'm open to the possibility, hah hah hah.)

Why do I bring this topic before you? If the science behind the observations regarding Solar Cycle 25 and the GSM is correct - and I believe that the data is credible, and that the scientists interpreting it, whose company includes NASA experts - we are entering a period of time which is projected to last for approximately half a century, during which the sun's activity, measured primarily by a decline in the number of sunspots, will be significantly reduced. One result of this decrease is that the earth will receive a reduced amount of sunlight, leading to cooling on a scale not seen since the "Little Ice Age" and possibly as intense as the Maunder Minimum which is typically dated as having started in or about AD 1645 and which lasted until roughly AD 1715.

Now we come to the boundaries of the tin-foil hat region, but prudence suggests that maybe being a wee bit crazy isn't necessarily a bad thing. If there is a significant shift in the earth's climate, and if the projections of researchers such as Dr. Valentina Zharkova are correct, the cooling associated with a GSM will significantly affect - as in, "reduce" - food production in areas on which we depend for a substantial portion of what we eat, including the American Midwest. The ripple effects will mean there will be less food available in every form. (Remember that a substantial portion of the corn and soybeans grown each year in the USA are not directly consumed by human beings, but are instead fed to cattle and pigs.) Food scarcity will result in higher prices for what is available; and it is within the realm of possibility that social disorder, which could devolve into a state in which the laws which protect us can no longer be enforced, will follow. Hungry people are desperate, and desperate people will do (almost) anything to survive. It's not a pretty picture.

Will this happen? I hope it does not. We should pray it does not. Ironically, the phenomenon of "global warming" may, in fact, ameliorate some degree of the impacts of a GSM. But at the same time, is there any reason why we should not take whatever steps we can to be ready if it *does* come to pass. So, what can be done?

At a minimum, begin by establishing a stockpile of food for your family. It can be as easy as buying two, rather than one, of the items you are going to purchase anyway when doing your grocery shopping, especially purchases of things which have a longer shelf life: dry beans, rice, pasta, and even canned fruit and vegetable (although these aren't the greatest from a nutritional point of view). Have enough food to feed yourself and your family for three days to start. Then expand it to enough for one week; then two weeks; and so on. Make sure you have access to water from sources other than your water company or municipal utility, with a two gallons per person per day minimum. Expand that, as well. This is simply good practice for any disaster scenario: major storm, earthquake, and so on - and remember that, when your neighbor loses his or her job, that's unfortunate, but if it happens to you it's a disaster. If the worst happens, you're ready; and if nothing happens, hey, you eat what you've stored - and since it's likely that prices will go up, your preparations mean that you're saving money on today's meal (even though the replacement in your stored foods will cost more at the time of purchase). If you live in a place which experiences a winter season (which we call "not summer" here in the desert southwest), think about how you can heat your home should the usual source of heat be interrupted. Do you have a wood stove? Can you retrofit one? Are there other things you can do?

Deeper into tinfoil-hat land: Consider moving to a warmer climate. There are some scientists who are predicting that regions above the 30-degree latitude line may very well experience dramatic changes in seasonal weather, including much colder winters. (As a point of reference, the line for the 30-degrees north latitude runs through northern Mexico. At La Casa McCuen, we're at about 35-degrees north latitude. Our youngest won't complain about the snow...) Plant your own garden so you can grow some food for yourself and your family. Create a greenhouse if you can't move. Again, if the worst thing that happens is that nothing happens, consider that, over time, what you will save by growing your own food - which can only be healthier than what you find at your local mega-mart - is still going to be worth making the effort. Win-win, right?

Okay. If you've read this far, thank you! (If you didn't, why not? 😎) I will close with this quotation from an abstract for a paper entitled, "Reinforcing a Double Dynamo Model with Solar-Terrestrial Activity in the Past Three Millennia" by Dr. Zharkova and others, as published in the July 2017 issue of, "Symposium S335 (Space Weather of the Heliosphere: Processes and Forecasts)":

In this paper we extrapolate backwards three millennia the summary curve describing solar activity and compare it with the relevant historic data. The extrapolated summary curve shows a remarkable resemblance to the sunspot and terrestrial activity reported in the past millennia: the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715), Wolf minimum (1200), Oort minimum (1010-1050), Homer minimum (800-900 BC), the medieval warm period (900-1200), the Roman warm period (400-10BC).

Please also remember Joseph in Egypt, who correctly interpreted Pharoah's dream of seven skinny cows devouring seven fat cows. Until now, we've been living during the period of the well-fed cows. If we are on the threshold of a period symbolized by the starving cows, we could do worse than follow the instructions Joseph gave to ensure that there would be food for the people of Egypt - don't you agree?
__________________________________________________________________________________

More food for thought, along the lines of what I've written above. (See what I did there? 😛) The following are headlines for reports appearing with today's dateline at the agroinsurance.com/en/ website - another site with whom I have no official connection, and from whom I receive only information, although if they want to make a donation... Here we go!

USA - Ohio had the worst planting season in the country

Canada - How climate change could impact agriculture

Note that this involves projections of global warming-related impacts. For this discussion, global warming and/or the GSM is irrelevant. The focus is on reduced crop production and the food shortages which will have a profound impact on our people and culture.

Peru - Drop in temperatures could affect grape production in Piura

Philippines - Dry spell and typhoons cut banana production by 2.83%
Putting this in perspective: a 2.83% reduction equates to 127,000 metric TONS of bananas below the forecasted harvest. A metric ton equals one thousand kilograms; or 2,204.6 pounds. In other words, this is a shortfall of 279,984,200 pounds of bananas; a pound of bananas for almost everyone in the United States.

Forewarned is forearmed. What are you waiting for?

Evangelism and the Orthodox Church

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Thu, 20 Dec 2018 22:57:00 +0000

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you..." (Matthew 28:19-20a)

This commandment of our Lord Jesus Christ, given to His disciples after His resurrection from the dead and His ascension into heaven, is known by some as the "Great Commission." It serves as the basis for evangelism today as it has served the Church since the Day of Pentecost. Insofar as I am representative of my brother clergy in the Orthodox Church, it is something with which I wrestle from time to time. It is a rare gathering of priests for a clergy conference or retreat which does not produce at least some brief discussion, among those clergymen who are converts to the Orthodox Church and Faith, usually from one of the Protestant churches, about how we could be more effective in sharing the Good News - which is to say, "doing evangelism" - on behalf of the Church in which we serve, and very much that others would also embrace. Notably absent from such conversations, with a few exceptions, are those among the "cradle" clergy. Their answer is inarguably correct: "Pray, do the services, and leave the evangelism to God." I can't argue with that logic, but, all the same, it makes me feel uneasy. It can't be that simple - can it? A hint of "things to come": much of what I am thinking about now, and so expressing here, comes after reflecting upon the life and ministry of the holy prophet Zephaniah, commemorated by the Church on the 3rd day of December (new style; 16 November old style).

If I had to guess, I'd say that most of us, when we hear the word, "evangelism," think of people going door-to-door to tell people about Jesus Christ. Does that really happen anymore, apart from groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Latter-Day Saints? I'm sure that, somewhere, there are Christians participating in this type of activity, although they've never come to my door, unlike the aforementioned groups. It was popular for a time to discuss approaches such as "Evangelism Explosion" (I still have the book on my bookshelf), "Lifestyle Evangelism," and even the use of, at the time, "advanced" technology to reach out effectively into the community. Once upon a time, a congregation (not in the Orthodox Church) which I was assigned to pastor used an auto dialer with a recorded message asking two simple questions with the recipient of the call to enter a tone from their telephone in response. We even filled our worship area with those who were interested enough to come and see what we were up to, and two families joined as a result. Did I mention that the equipment cost $1100? I'm not sure two families were enough to justify the expense to the diocese. When we were finished our campaign, we passed the equipment along to another congregation. I don't know whether they had any success. But in the end, using the telephone as telemarketers was really nothing more than going door-to-door anonymously.

Christianity is not alone in possessing the concept of proselytization. Although it is not mainstream among Muslims, the last few decades have seen an increased number of Christians who convert to Islam, with many responding to techniques which are sometimes similar to those utilized by Christians. One of these is the use of the internet to answer basic questions about what Muslims believe and how they put their beliefs into practice, as well as to provide basic instruction about how to become a Muslim. A powerful element could be described as an Islamic version of "lifestyle evangelism." It can have a powerful impact when a Christian whose life is more immersed in the ways of western culture than in a life of discipleship observes the fervor evident when visiting a mosque, or when invited to a Muslim home. (Indeed, the same is true when a nominal Christian visits a "seeker's service" at an LDS center, or learns of the practices of a devout LDS family, and especially of their concentration on the family.) The Christian who has never experienced or been taught will often think or say, "That's the way it should be!" They aren't wrong. However, they are misinformed as to the true and deep meaning of Christianity and have not been given a proper example. Orthodox Christians are not exempt. Where we have not been diligent in teaching and demonstrating the Orthodox way of life, or if Orthodoxy is more of an aspect of our (larger) culture than the life-transforming faith it is meant to be, we can be left feeling as vacant and hungry for more as any other Christian might be, and so become drawn to embrace a different religion.

Apart from these two of the three world monotheistic religions, there isn't much evangelism taking place. Buddhists and Hindus may, to cite two examples among many, invite those who are curious to learn more, and those who act on this invitation may come to follow these teachings, as opposed to those of Christ and His Church. Most striking (to me) in reflecting on the question of evangelism concerns the third of the Abrahamic traditions, the one to which Christianity is most closely related: Judaism. There is no evangelistic "mission" in Judaism - at least, not in any form which remotely resembles that of Protestant Christianity. Yes, there are converts to Judaism - for example, the Roman official who is named as a friend of the Jews, having contributed to their synagogue; but Judaism does not have a "Great Commission," and so, by and large, lacks a missionary perspective which arises from the same. Judaism is determined by descent from Abraham: if you are his descendant, you are Jewish. Practicing the teachings and precepts of Judaism does not transform the non-descendent into a Jew, even if he is circumcised, and failure to practice the "essentials" of Judaism does not make a descendent a non-Jew. (By the way, when you hear of the "land of Israel" or the "people of Israel," don't hear it as being a reference to a specific geographical location, such as the "nation of Israel" as a citation of a political jurisdiction in the Middle East. The people making up the nation are the children of Israel, in the house (that is, "household") of Israel: that is, the man Israel, who was given the name "Jacob" at his birth, the son of Isaac, the grandson of Abraham, father of the twelve tribes of Israel, heir to the first covenant, ancestor of our Lord Jesus Christ.)

Enter the prophet Zephaniah. He was the great-great-grandson of Hezekiah, a righteous King of Judah, whose efforts to guide the people of Israel in accordance with the ways of the covenant were reversed by his son, Manasseh, whose wickedness was unparalleled among the descendants of King David. (Among other things, Manasseh is "credited" with ordering the death of the prophet Isaiah.) Zephaniah prophesied in Jerusalem and was a contemporary of Jeremiah the prophet, as well as of Nahum, and perhaps Habbakuk, as well. His ministry could be summed up by saying that he declared to the people of Israel the coming judgment of God upon those who had departed from the way of holiness and lived according to the ways of the world, rather than according to the requirements of the covenant with God. Those who repented and took up once more the way of holiness would be spared, and in this would find the Lord's salvation. Those who did not repent would be destroyed.

Zephaniah's prophetic message is consistent with all of the prophets who spoke on God's behalf, whether counted among the major prophets, such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, or among the minor prophets, including Zephaniah. All of these prophets were sent to urge the people of Israel to repent of their departure from the covenant with God. Here's an interesting note: none of them were sent to any of the nations or peoples in whose midst the people of Israel lived. God did not send a prophet to Pharaoh in Egypt after Moses led His people from that land into the land of Canaan. God did not send a prophet to the king of Assyria, or to the King of Babylon, or to any other ruler. The prophets spoke to Israel, and only to Israel. But why might that be of any importance to evangelism in the Orthodox Church?

The answer is found in the first Covenant. Summing it up as best I can, God has promised that He will be the God of Israel (through Abraham), protecting them and providing for them for as long as they walk in the way of holiness and righteousness. The history of the people of Israel shows that when they chose to live in a manner pleasing to God, they were blessed with peace and prosperity; but when they departed from doing so, their blessings were taken away, and at times they became the captives of the pagan kingdoms around them; most notably being conquered by Assyria and then Babylon.

Digging deeper, the sending of the prophets to speak only to Israel suggests that a part of God's purpose in establishing a covenant with Israel was to place in the midst of the pagans, amid those dwelling in darkness and in the shadow of death a light to guide others to a holy way of living. The Jews were meant to be missionaries, not by knocking on doors, but by turning away from the ways of the world to follow instead the precepts of the kingdom of heaven. The Ten Commandments were, and are, instrumental in guiding God's people. In the midst of the multitude of idols worshipped as gods, His people were to declare and to worship the one true God. They were to show to others the mercy God showed to them in setting them free from slavery in Egypt. They were to lie together in peace, respecting the persons and property of others. In all these things (and more), they were to be an example of the life pleasing to God, and, in this way to draw all those of the other nations and peoples to emulate the same, and so entering into the covenant by the faith and virtues coming through the people of God.

Christians are also people of the covenant, and especially of the New Covenant in Christ. The guiding principle is stated by our Lord Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 22:37-40: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is like it: you shall love your neighbor as you love yourself. Everything in the Law and in the prophets depends on these two commandments. Sometimes we say that Christians are the new Israel. As such, we are heirs of the promise, and we are also inheritors of the obligation to do our part in keeping the covenant, living as lights to a world where many people are still held captive. They are held captive by their passions. They are held captive by those who use and oppress them for their own purposes. (In this, their captors also need to be set free, and the way of the covenant is there for them every bit as much as it is for any of us.) They are held captive by false teachings. They are held captive by ignorance of holiness and righteousness, and their ignorance of the love of God, and the mercy and grace which flow from that love. If we do not tell them, how will they know? If we do not show them, how will they follow?

Whether we like it or not, we have the Great Commission entrusted to us. We, therefore, cannot be silent; we must tell of the things God has done for us, and, above all, what has been done for us by our Lord Jesus Christ. Yes, we are to be evangelists, even knocking on doors, if we must. But the message of the Good News will be far more powerful if we are living according to what we say we believe. As so many who were touched by our Lord in the time of His ministry among us in the flesh, even when told to be silent, we must speak. But, as the saying goes, "Actions speak louder than words." If we say we are Christians, let us live as Christians: humble, gentle of heart, forgiving, generous, loving, and doing all in our power to turn away from the world and do what is pleasing to God. As Israel of old was set in the midst of pagans and idolaters to show them there is a better, higher, way of living, we, the new Israel, must do the same. When this happens, when our words are consistent with our belief in Christ in action, then we will be true evangelists.

Why Does the Orthodox Church Pray for the Dead?

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 19:59:00 +0000

Yesterday, someone of my acquaintance who is curious about the Eastern Orthodox Church asked me, "Why does the Eastern Orthodox Church pray for the dead?" I thought I'd share my response to this person here. (It's published verbatim.)

Short answer: They're not dead. (Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38)

Longer answer: What happens when we depart this life? The Orthodox Church believes that some will find themselves in the paradise of which our Lord Jesus spoke when He said to the repentant thief on the cross, "Today you shall be with me in paradise." These are not in need of our prayers; but other than those who have been recognized by the Church as saints, we do not know who they are, and so we offer prayers for them. As for the rest of the departed, they find themselves in a state of suffering as they await the time when the Lord will "come again to judge both the living and the dead" (as we recite in the "Symbol of Faith," as the Nicaean Creed is called). On that great and terrible Day of Judgment, the final disposition of every human soul will take place: some (those on the Lord's right hand) will enter into the Kingdom, while others (those on His left hand) will depart into torment without end. Some of those entering the Kingdom at that time will be those who are now enjoying paradise; but some will be from the group of those now undergoing torment: and these are the people for whom we offer prayers, both privately and as the Church. Part of the reason for this arises from visions which several saints were given, showing that the prayers offered in this life are effective on behalf of those who departed this life, either in reducing the level of suffering, or its duration, with some even being set free to enter paradise from hades (the name generally given to the temporary place of torment). Another part of the reason for this practice rests on the biblical statements such as the ones cited above, and the understanding that "God desires not the death of a sinner, but that he turn from his ways, and live." (Ezekiel 33:11, as quoted in the Prayer of Absolution at the end of one's confession.) Just as we pray for one another in this, the land of the living, trusting that such prayers are often helpful for those mentioned in these prayers (such as for healing, or for deliverance from difficult circumstances), so we believe that our prayers can also be helpful to those who have departed this life who are not yet in "a place of light, a place of green pasture, a place of repose, from which all sickness, sorrow, and sighing are fled away," as we pray in the Funeral Service and in the memorial services offered for the departed.

Chicago, Free Speech, and the Silencing of the Trump Campaign Event

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Sat, 12 Mar 2016 04:11:00 +0000

There will be those among you reading this who may be celebrating the cancellation of the appearance by candidate Donald J. Trump, which had been scheduled for this evening at the University of Illinois at Chicago Pavilion. This is unfortunate, and it does not bode well for the future of this country. Please allow me to tell you my reasons for making such a statement. There are, as well, some of you who are celebrating who have made the accusation that Mr. Trump is little more than a fascist, even going so far as to equate him as being on a par with Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. You are wrong; and I have replied to some of you, on another forum, by asking, "Where are Mr. Trump's Brown Shirts?" That is not an idle question, and the silencing of his speech tonight may mark a step in a direction I know none of us wants to see our country take, but which may be taking place all the same, unless things change. Again, please allow me to elaborate.

Those of you who know me know that I "came of age" politically during the late 1960's and early 1970's, as part of the time when the struggle for Civil Rights was taking place, and especially during the protests against the war in Vietnam. I voted for the first time in the presidential election of 1972 for Senator George McGovern, who lost in a landslide to President Richard M. Nixon. Four years later, I voted for the candidate of the Socialist Workers Party, Peter Camejo, who was later the Green Party candidate for governor in California, and, in 2004, was Ralph Nader's vice-presidential running mate in his independent bid for election as President. I mention all of this simply as a way of saying that I am no stranger to the politics of protest, to the need for free speech, and for a desire to reform our society for the better. That my personal political position has moved toward the center is more the result of my recognition that genuine change cannot truly be accomplished by imposition from without; it must be the result of an inner regeneration, by the laying aside of who we were before and by being renewed in the spirit of our mind, as St. Paul writes to the Church in Ephesus. Put another way, you cannot legislate morality; at least, not to the depths of one's being.

Civil society rests upon civility: upon respect for the other person, even when we disagree. Once upon a time, and that not so very long ago, this went without saying. Across the political spectrum, there was an almost-universally shared respect for the rights accorded by the Constitution, including the right to the freedom of speech accorded by the First Amendment. In a quotation sometimes attributed to Voltaire, to Patrick Henry, and to Evelyn Beatrice Hall, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," we expressed something that approached the sacred in political discourse: the right to be allowed to speak our mind, even in the face of opposition, even when the message was massively unpopular. Indeed, sometimes the more unpopular the message, the more important it was to express it - at least, that's how it seemed to its proponents. Even when protests were met with counter-protests, there was an expectation of civility, and that the law was meant to protect both sides of the argument - both sides had a right to be heard. There were exceptions; there are always exceptions - but it was unthinkable to "infiltrate" a rally being held by one side by opponents with the express purpose of disrupting the event, with the goal of effectively silencing those whose point of view was one with which we disagreed. We might be noisy and disruptive outside; we might silently protest inside; but it was a "given" that those who acted disruptively to silence the speaker or speakers with whom we disagreed could just as easily do the same to us; and how could we know how to refute their arguments if they were not given the opportunity to state their case? Alas, the silencing of Mr.Trump at the rally tonight, as was the case earlier in the campaign season when "activists" from the "Black Lives Matter" organization disrupted a rally for candidate Bernie Sanders, ultimately preventing him from addressing his supporters, shows that the earlier civility is no longer operative in the political arena today. That is, as I have said, unfortunate, and does not bode well for us as a country. How can we reason together and find a way forward together if we cannot state our positions to each other? We have to be willing to listen to each other, even if we do not agree.

If that was all, however, I probably wouldn't be writing at this time. Far more troubling, although definitely related, is the reality that the disruption achieved at the Trump event tonight is due, in part, to the efforts of organizations opposed to the candidacy of Mr. Trump to deliberately and intentionally disrupt the event. These include paid "community organizers" on the left - I won't dignify their organizations by naming names, but if you pay any attention at all, you don't need me to point them out for you - and it is part of my duty to point out just how dangerous this activity can be for us as a society and people. Remember my question earlier, "Where are the Brown Shirts?" As I was back then, I have continued to be a student of history, something many of you, my fellow Americans, either have forgotten or were never really taught. As such, you might not know how the Brown Shirts in Germany or the Black Shirts, their counterparts in Italy, came into being. Do you know what functions they were formed to serve? Initially, they had two roles to fulfill: to protect the meetings held by their party (the National Socialist German Worker's Party, in the case of the Brown Shirts) against efforts by the leftists to disrupt their meetings; and to break up the meetings and rallies held by the parties on the left. Now, the turmoil in post-World War One Germany was such that it is probably impossible to say who came first: the thugs on the left, or the thugs on the right; and it's most likely that the two more or less came into being simultaneously, in response to the general unrest in which the politics and economy of Weimar Germany operated. The same cannot be said for the situation we are faced with today. There are no Brown Shirts operating openly - at least, not yet. However, the same cannot be said for the disruptive forces and organizations on the left - the "evil twins" of any nascent Brown Shirts of today. I am not a prophet; but at a certain point it takes no special talent to read the signs of the times. As a watchman on the wall, I must say that, unless there are changes made to the way things are taking place, we are heading for troubles that will lead us away from civility and freedom, and into the fires of hatred and repression unthinkable for America even fifty years ago, when Freedom Riders were facing off with hooded Klansmen and antiwar protesters were shot and killed by the National Guard. Let us hope and pray that all the candidates, Mr. Trump included, will urgently call upon their followers for mutual respect and restraint; and that each of us will do our part in laboring to restrain our baser instincts, consider others as being better than ourselves, and renew our commitment to loving our neighbors, even when we do not agree with their choice of candidate. Otherwise, may the Lord have mercy on us, for we are lost...

What to Do If Syrian Refugees Relocate Into Your Neighborhood

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 16:15:00 +0000

If you have a Facebook page, the chances are good that you've seen this meme; probably more than once, and perhaps more than you'd care to see it - not because you object to what it says, necessarily, but simply because seeing it over and over again begins to feel as if you're being bludgeoned. Other than acute overexposure, however, there really isn't anything objectionable to the message being conveyed here. The small print sets out the crux of the matter, at least for those of us who profess the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, as it urges us, as Christians, to follow the example of the Good Samaritan, and to not be like, "the other guy"; a misnomer, given that, in the parable as our Lord taught it involves two other "guys" - a priest of the Temple and a Levite. But before this becomes a Bible study or a commentary, let's agree that the meme encourages us, rightly, not to panic in the event that we find ourselves living in the vicinity of refugees from Syria (or elsewhere in the Middle East); and to react to them as neighbors should when encountering people in need: by reaching out to them to meet their needs, beginning at the practical level, and continuing to the higher levels of friendship and community, insofar as all are willing to partake and receive.

Now, if this was all there was to the matter, I wouldn't be writing, as the meme is quite clear on its own. But part of the conversation that has taken place in response to this idea appearing on various timelines speaks of a fear that the act of reaching out to a refugee family will put the person showing the hospitality of a neighbor to a refugee at risk of harm, or even of death. Sometimes the recent tragedy in San Bernardino, California, in which fourteen people were killed and twenty-two were injured when two self-professed jihadis attacked a Christmas party attended by coworkers and their families, many of whom had done for one of the shooters what the meme calls for us to do as neighbors, is mentioned as a reason for caution, or even for the rejection of showing the kindness the meme suggests. Friends have expressed their concern for the "good people" they know, not wanting them to put themselves in harm's way - an understandable sentiment, to be sure. How, then, should we respond?

To me, the answer to this question is twofold. The first approach is by analogy, and considers the act of giving, especially (but not exclusively) in its charitable sense. Usually, when you give someone a gift, it's theirs, and no longer yours. You don't own it any more, and they can do what they want with it - no strings attached. A common example - and a common dilemma - is the person on the street corner with a cardboard sign, asking for help. We have a tendency, first of all, to want to keep what we have for ourselves, don't we? "After all," we say to ourselves, "I've worked too hard to just throw my money away!" Of course, when we throw our money away on ourselves, well, that's different, isn't it? So we must begin by overcoming this selfishness, in which we are assisted by recalling our Lord's teaching, as summarized by the statement, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." (Acts 20:35) The next obstacle is the thought that the recipient of our charity will not use what we intend to give for the stated purpose - usually, for something to eat. We think, "They'll just use it to buy drugs, or booze! Why should I give them money when they'll only use it for their destruction?" Having talked ourselves into giving, we can just as easily talk ourselves out of it again, unless we also grasp this aspect, which is also the relevant point when it comes to our discussion about the risk of helping Muslim refugees: our part is not to decide what the recipient of our alms might do with them; our part is to decide to give, We will not be held accountable if the recipient takes the money we had given them to buy food and uses it for some other purpose; they will be the ones who answer for their actions, as we will be for ours. If we had the opportunity to give alms to a beggar and did nothing, because our hearts were hardened, we shall suffer the consequences for our failure to show compassion; and, in the same way, if we have the opportunity to show compassion to a refugee because our hearts were fearful, we will bear the consequences for our failure to love our neighbor as we love ourselves - another commandment given to us by our Lord.

The second approach is more direct. Christians have been at risk of torture and death since the day our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified. From the Day of Pentecost, when the Church was established by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles and disciples gathered together, until the Edict of Milan was issued in the year of our Lord 313 by the Emperor Constantine the Great, Christians were persecuted by various emperors, governors, and other imperial officials. As the Gospel was brought to new lands by missionaries, many more were martyred for their faith: some upon encountering pagan peoples, and, as Islam began to spread, when Christians and Muslims came into contention. Persecutions and martyrdom continue to this very day and hour - the Syrian refugees whom some people say we should fear might very well be Syrian Christians fleeing the persecution that has driven the Church from the place where it has been for almost two thousand years. Hundreds of thousands of Christians suffered at the hands of the Bolsheviks, with uncounted numbers of martyrs within the last one hundred years in every land where the yoke of Communist oppression has fallen. Dying for the sake of Christ is not new; and it is not old. Those of us in the western world have been blessed with safety and prosperity - and perhaps we have grown soft, and have forgotten, even as we are aware of the history of the martyrs, that to be a Christian has been, and is supposed to be, at some level, a dangerous thing. Our adversary, the devil, does not need to attack us with any intensity if we are only going through the motions when it comes to living our faith in Christ; but when we begin to take it seriously, we threaten his dominion, and we should not be surprised if the attacks and temptations we experience begin to increase. Perhaps how we respond to the danger of the refugees is part of that temptation. Is our fear of death greater than our love?

Which brings us to this: If we know who we are as Christians, we should not fear death, except to the extent that we are not ready to stand before God to give an account for our lives. Apart from being judged, however, death is not the end: it is simply the doorway by which we depart from this life and enter into the life to come. Let me put it another way: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS DEATH. Granted, at some point, for some reason, our bodies cease to function, and the person we are, as a combination of immortal soul and mortal body, is no longer present as such in this material world. We describe that state as, "death"; but such a death is not the end. As Christians, we know that we do not cease to exist, for Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death. Death is no longer something to fear, but rather something for which we need to prepare, so that we might be ready to meet our God. So, if our lives in this world are cut short as were the lives of those fourteen who died at the hands of a coworker whom they had befriended in San Bernardino, what have we lost? NOTHING. It would be better, I think, to reach out with the love of Christ to meet the needs of the refugee family next door, or down the street, even if that causes my death at their hands, because of their hatred, than to do nothing because of my fear. Who knows whether our showing them Christ's love - even if we never get the chance to speak of Him to them - might be a step toward overcoming their hatred - or their fears? Let us do the right thing, and trust in the Lord, being fearless in the grace of God; and let us love our neighbor, no matter where he, or she, or they, may be from, as we love ourselves.

Politicians and Character

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:03:00 +0000

Anyone who knows me knows that I am a political junkie. I don't know when it started; it could have been as early as junior high. By the time I was in high school, politics seemed unavoidable - and I don't mean the student council level kind, although I was elected to serve on what was called the, "Council of Twenty-Five." (Ours was an experimental school at the time, and we did a lot of things that were, well, unusual.) The Vietnam War was raging on, with over half a million men fighting for... what? We were given all sorts of reasons - and that's not the purpose of this post, so it's

Richard Nixon was elected as President
in the 1968 election in part because he
told the American people that he had
"a secret plan to end the war."

probably best not to go there right now! (Maybe another time...) But I know I couldn't wait to vote, and if I recall correctly, the voting age was lowered from twenty-one to eighteen years of age around that time. That meant that I was able to vote in the 1972 election, and I still remember waiting in line for hours to cast my vote for... well, it wasn't the winner, I'll say that much, anyway. But since that election, I have only failed to vote one time: in 1996. We were living in California - San Francisco, to be exact - and I knew that every candidate I would have supported and every ballot proposition option I would have selected was a lost cause, a moderate drop that would be quickly swallowed up and lost in the midst of a sea of progressivism. Even so, that never prevented me from being vocal. I still recall a letter I received from the member of Congress who represented the district in which we lived, to whom I had written to express my views on a particular issue, asking that the vote to be cast soon take my stance into consideration. I think the word, "snotty" is all I want to say of the tone of what was expressed in the reply. Probably best to move on. Anyway, if you go back a ways in the archive of this blog, you'll find a sample or two of some political thoughts. On election day, my family knows that I'll be glued to the television set, up all night watching the returns as the votes are tallied. Want to know how serious it can be? Remember the referendum in Scotland in September, 2014? I stayed up all night and into the early hours of the morning, counting votes, until every last district had reported in. Scotland! Okay, our family is Scots-Irish, so there's a bit of a connection; but while a sane and sensible person would have been content to go to bed at a normal hour and get up in the morning to find that a majority of those voting had opted to remain in union with the rest of Great Britain, that wasn't how it was for me...

So far in this campaign cycle, I've seen (or heard) the majority of both Republican debates (the main events, that is: I missed the "matinee" event which preceded the first major debate), and the majority of the Democrat debate, which took place just a bit over a week ago. Frankly, the Republican debates are still too much of a circus - there are too many participants to take them all seriously. We need someone like Gordon Ramsey to choose at least one, or maybe two, at the end of each debate, and have them turn in their microphones, and get off of the stage, and not return. Cut the

"Right. Your poll numbers are lower than
a sheep's bollocks. Hand over your
microphone and leave Hell's Stage."

number down to five. That's still too many, but it's at least on the fringe of being manageable. As for the Democrat debate, they started with five, but there's already been some sorting out done there, as well, with former Senator Webb withdrawing earlier this week from the contest. That's too bad. He brought a great deal of integrity, and more than a few good ideas, in my opinion, to the discussion - when he could get a word in edgewise. I know some commentators have dismissed him as a "whiner" for objecting to how much time was being given to others, but I thought he had a point. As I was listening, it was clear that the moderator, Mr. Cooper, was either unwilling or unable to restrain Mrs. Clinton, who repeatedly blew down the verbal "stop signs" he attempted to give her, time after time. It was hard not to conclude that, to some degree, this was not so much a debate as a showcase, with the other four there to serve as "window dressing" against which to display Mrs. Clinton at her finest.

The "highlight" of the debate for many was the moment when Senator Sanders gallantly sprang to Mrs. Clinton's defense regarding the email server issue, saying that the American people have had enough of the matter, and that it is time to move on. I remember distinctly saying (I talk back to the radio or television from time to time, especially during moments such as these), "You don't speak for me, Bernie! I haven't had enough!" Mind you, it's not that I want the details: but the entire issue is of concern to me, because it speaks to the character of the former Secretary of State as a candidate for the office of President of the United States. Did she break the law? Even if she did not, did she act as if she was above the law, or as if the law did not apply to her? Did she at any time treat sensitive information in a casual or even careless manner? If she did any of these things as the Secretary of State, would she feel in any way constrained from doing the same, or worse, if she became the President? Did she lie about what she did? Why did the story that she told change over time? Why did she say at first that she didn't, and then later admit that she did? How did she not know about the second server? Who ordered the first server to be erased? Why wasn't the second server erased? I mean, the list could go on, and on, and on; and that's just about the email issue. There are others, perhaps even more important, such as what happened in Benghazi, where four Americans, including our Ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, died in a violent attack by Islamic militants on the American diplomatic compound and at another nearby location on September 11, 2012. Ten others were injured by the attacks, which occurred after requests for increased security had been denied by the U.S. Department of State, led by Secretary Clinton at that time.
My point is not to examine the particulars of these or other criticisms made by the moderator during the debate, or by other candidates for the Democrat nomination, or by Republican candidates, or by pundits in the media. Obviously, I have been giving this a good deal of thought, trying to decide, first of all, whether to even say anything at all. Now, having decided that I want to make a statement that the issue is one of character, more than of content, I have to say that my thought process took a most unexpected turn this past Sunday morning. Quite often, I will wake up before my alarm goes off to start the day, rising to get dressed and do the preparation prayers for Holy Communion - the "yellow book" and the "blue book," for those familiar with the Jordanville booklets containing the "Canons for Holy Communion" with its yellow cover, and the "Order of Preparation for Holy Communion," with its pale blue cover. Usually, I will use the time to reflect on the theme of the sermon that will be delivered after the Gospel has been read during the Divine Liturgy. This past Sunday ran pretty much true to form, until, all of a sudden - and with no discernible connection to the sermon that I could ascertain - I realized that my focus on the character of candidate Clinton was entirely misplaced. Has she done things that were foolish? I have done worse. Has she done things that were dangerous, if only potentially? I have done worse. Has she been wicked, a servant of evil? There is no way I can answer that question for her or about her; but for myself, the answer, I am ashamed to say, has to be, "yes." How, then, can I presume to question or challenge her character, when my sins are undoubtedly greater, more wicked, more vile?
Anyone who knows me knows that I am a political junkie. However, they also know - at least, they should know - that I do not endorse candidates, or parties, or ballot propositions. It is not my place to use the pulpit, or the teaching authority entrusted to me, to tell you what to do in such situations. The Church is not, and should not be, a political agent. Certainly, we have a duty and a responsibility to proclaim what is moral and acceptable and pleasing to God, and to warn of what is immoral, and therefore not pleasing to God. The Church should be active in shaping your conscience; and, as Jiminy Cricket famously advised Pinocchio, "Let your conscience be your guide." That's good advice, as long as you are doing your best to bring your heart and mind and soul closer to knowing and doing the will of God; and if you are regular in your attendance in the worship services of the Church, are attentive to your prayers both in the worship services and in your home, if you are giving from the bounty God has entrusted to you for the needs of others, and laboring to turn away from the sins that always seem to trip you up, your conscience will not fail to give you the advice you need when it comes to knowing how to vote on any particular issue, or how to choose between the candidates for the office for which you are about to cast your vote. Does the person support or oppose the positions you hold on matters which are of the greatest importance, or not? Can the person be trusted to keep their word, or not? Find out all you can, pray all the while, and then make the best decision you can make. I will be doing my best to do the same. We may not always arrive at the same conclusions! But we can't go wrong if we do it that way, if we fulfill our duties as citizens in this way. It's complicated at times: are we citizens of this world, or of the world to come? Sometimes, the answer to that question is simply, "yes"; and in holding dual citizenship, if only for a brief while, we are called upon to carry out our duties in both realms, rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's. May the God Who calls us and gives us grace to respond to His love with love grant to each of us, as the time for the crucial decisions to choose our leaders for the years ahead, and especially for the President of our nation, the remembrance that those who are seeking our support are also sinners, just like us - and that we are called to be merciful, as we hope to receive mercy. May no harsh words pass our lips, may no anger, dismay, fear or despair trouble us in heart, mind or spirit, and may God raise up a person worthy of His blessing and our support when the time comes for us to cast our votes.
Oh, and, don't worry. I'm sure this isn't the last time I'll have something to say before Election Day arrives in November, 2016!

Should Christians Support the State of Israel?

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 19:23:00 +0000

As Americans, we are often told that our country should support the state of Israel, if only because it is the only democracy in the Middle East (which ignores Egypt, Lebanon, and, at least ostensibly, Syria). We are also told that Israel is our only ally in the region; and when it is pointed out that we have, or have had, other allies in the Middle East, then Israel becomes our only "reliable" ally. For the moment, let's pretend that no American military personnel were killed by Israeli air strikes in Egyptian waters; friends don't attack friends, after all. Similarly, we will pretend that the Israeli government has never spied on our government; because allies don't do that to each other - right? So let's accept as valid the premise that it is in our country's best interests to support the state of Israel.

But it has to be said that much of the unspoken argument for this support comes, not from a geopolitical perspective, but rather from one based in religion. Now, no one will be surprised if a majority of Americans who are Jewish favor American support for Israel. (It would be more surprising to find Jewish-Americans who are opposed to support for Israel, although there are surely some who hold this position.) Likewise, few will be surprised to find that there is widespread support for Israel among American Protestants, and especially Evangelicals. Why? And is this support warranted?

Part of the story has to be told from the time immediately after the end of the Second World War. The attempt by the Nazis to exterminate the "undesirables" they found in Germany and in the regions of Europe and Asia which they conquered - Communists, homosexuals, those found to be physically crippled or mentally incompetent, and, of course, the Jews - led to the deaths of millions of people. Add to this the utter destruction of countless cities, towns, and villages, and there were hundreds of thousands of displaced peoples with no homes to which they might return; and, in the case of the Jews, even if their homes were still intact, the treatment they had received at the hands of their "neighbors" was itself an incentive to find a new place to live. As such, many Jews sought to emigrate to Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jewish people. Centuries before, Palestine had been incorporated into the Ottoman Empire, having been a battleground between Christians and Muslims who both sought to control Jerusalem and the surrounding area, each religious group asserting its own claims to the Holy Land, in addition to the claims made by the Jews, as the heirs of Abraham, to whom the land had been given by God. The Jewish refugees were welcomed by some of the Arab residents of Palestine, but while the Arab Christians might not have objected, and perhaps some of the Muslims might even have been willing to accept some Jewish settlement, many other Arabs did not, and tensions rose. In time, the difficulty of maintaining order in the region led the British, who had taken charge in Palestine according to a mandate from the League of Nations in 1920 after the end of the First World War, and who had been confirmed in the same mandate by the United Nations after the Second World War, to announce on February 7, 1947, that it would terminate its participation in the mandate, returning it to the United Nations to administer. An eleven-nation Special Committee appointed by the United Nations to study the question reported on August 31, 1947, that the mandate should be terminated and that Palestine should be granted independence at the earliest possible date, with the territory being partitioned between the Arabs and the Jews. The vote for independence was unanimous; but the motion for partition received only seven votes in favor. On November 29, 1947, U.N. Resolution 181, which called for an end to the mandate by no later than August 1, 1948, and which created three zones - one under Arab control, one under Jewish control, and an internationally-controlled zone containing Jerusalem - was approved with thirty-three votes in favor, thirteen votes opposed, and ten abstentions. The representatives of the Palestinian Jews accepted the partition; the leaders of the neighboring Arab states, all of whom voted against partition, obviously, did not. The United States voted in favor of partition, as did the Soviet Union, and the vast majority of its allies. On May 14, 1948, hours before the mandate was to come to an end, David Ben-Gurion, Prime Minister-elect of the nascent State of Israel, issued a declaration of the existence of that state's existence, effective as of midnight on May 15, 1948, when the U.N. mandate expired and British authority in Palestine was no longer in effect. Eleven minutes after midnight on the fifteenth of May President Truman recognized the provisional Jewish authority as the de facto authority of the new Jewish state. After the first Arab-

Israeli War, which began on May 15th with the invasion of Palestine by armies from Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, and Iraq, supported by contingents from Yemen, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan, and ended March 10, 1949 (the ceasefire being ratified on July 20, 1949), the new state found itself in control of all the areas set aside for the Jews under the partition plan, plus almost sixty percent of the Arab areas, including West Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank of the Jordan River. In the midst of the war, the provisional government was replaced by a government elected on January 25, 1949; and the United States formally recognized the State of Israel on January 31, 1949.
There is no denying the horrific experience of the Holocaust, or the need for a safe refuge for the Jewish refugees in the postwar world, or the logic which concludes that the best, and perhaps only, way to protect the Jews against any recurrence of any acts of antisemitism as was displayed by the Nazis is a Jewish state which has the power to act to protect its people against any enemies who might seek their annihilation. There is also no denying that the uphill battles against seemingly overwhelming odds fought time and again by the armed forces and people of Israel against those who sought their destruction is worthy of some admiration. The stunning victories of the Six Day War in 1967, and the hard-fought battles of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, for example, might well be described as legendary. But the history and the reasons so far are all geopolitical and secular. Is there any outstanding reason for deliberate Christian support for the state of Israel?
As best as I can determine, Christian support for the state of Israel has as much, or more, to do with Christian eschatology as it has to do with any secular reasons, as good as these reasons may (or may not) be. As I follow this line of reasoning, in order for our Lord Jesus Christ to return - the "Second Coming," as it is sometimes described - it is necessary for the following "pieces," among others (the list is not exhaustive) to be in place:

Israel had to exist as a state. Thus, for many, the declaration of May 14/15, 1947, started the "countdown clock" for the initiation of the "end times," setting the stage for our Lord's return.
The Temple in Jerusalem had to be rebuilt. There are some additional cultic requirements associated with the reconsecration of a rebuilt Temple, if and when that happens, steps toward the fulfilling of which are reportedly being pursued by certain American protestants; but central to this is that Israel must, obviously, continue to exist, and continue to remain in control of the Temple Mount and the City of Jerusalem.

Additionally, there may, or may not, be an invasion of Israel from the north by the forces of "Gog and Magog," sometimes associated with Russia and its allies; there may or may not have been a restoration of the Roman Empire in the form of a European union of some sort, although the current European Union is larger than the ten states usually identified as constituting the renewed Roman Empire; and there may, or may not, have been a battle fought at "Armageddon," although the exact location is unknown, and subject to speculation.

Are they right? Who knows? I know I don't. But we've certainly had more than our share lately of the "end of the world" prophecies that have fallen flat on their faces: the "end"of the Mayan calendar on December 21, 2012, and the "blood moon" last month; these sorts of predictions have been going on, and influencing people for generation after generation. Now, when I was asked about the Mayan calendar, and the blood moon, and this prediction, and that prophecy, I would give the same reply: "You know, when the disciples asked, 'What is the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?' He said to them, 'But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.' So if our Lord didn't know, or wouldn't tell, we aren't meant to know anything more than that we are to focus our attention on doing what we are supposed to be doing. That way, if we depart this life before He returns, no worries; and if we're doing what we're supposed to be doing when He returns, no worries. It's win-win either way." I think the same is true for these concerns for the "need" for there to be a state, in the man-made, secular sense, of Israel: we're worrying about something over which we have no control, when God can, and will, make what needs to happen happen, when it needs to happen. It's not as if our Lord is lurking anxiously somewhere overhead in the clouds, waiting for us to somehow make all the arrangements in order for Him to return. Rather, if He tarries, it is to give us the time we need to repent of our sins, and to confess them, and to take the steps needed to transform our lives, to turn away from the ways of the world and embrace instead the ways of the kingdom of heaven. He delays as an act of mercy and compassion, and not because we've yet to rebuild the Temple of Solomon, or breed a perfect red heifer, or meet any other condition someone thinks humans have to do in order for our Lord to return.

So, should Christians support the state of Israel? That's a question each of us will have to decide on its merits: but I think we can do so without having to be concerned about whether or not our support will have any influence on whether, or when, our Lord will return. Rest easy, brethren! God will make that decision on His own; and all we need to do is to decide what is right in terms of how our friends and allies in Israel are doing in relation to us, to their neighbors, and to the people who live within their borders: Jews and non-Jews alike. Let us also remember that, when we cast things in terms of Jews and Arabs, it is all too easy to fall into the false assumption that "Arab" means "Muslim." In many instances, especially in many places in the Holy Land, that "Arab" or "Palestinian" is a Christian; quite often, an Orthodox Christian. Sadly, the recent turmoil has caused many of our Christian brothers to flee their ancestral homes - an aspect of the tragedy in the Middle East all too often overlooked; and one which the policies of the Israeli government should more often be held accountable, but is not. May the Lord God have mercy on us all.

"How Doth the Little Busy Bee..."

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 08:01:00 +0000

Yesterday, in the early evening, as I was getting out of our pool (yes, it's still warm enough for us to enjoy a swim: the water was a perfect seventy-eight degrees, and the air temperature was just a few degrees warmer as the sun was just a few minutes from setting), I happened to notice a bee struggling against the surface of the water. It's not unusual to find a bee which has perished in the pool, as well as any number of other insects which have, for whatever reason, strayed too close to the water, and become trapped as a result of the surface tension exerted by the water. It's surface tension which helps hold a drop of water together; and it is that same force which can cling to an object, or an organism, making it impossible for it to escape. Whenever I'm able to do so, I try to rescue these helpless creatures, whether a bee, or a beetle, or a spider, or an ant, lifting them out of the water and placing them onto the ground. Sometimes I have to think long and hard about it! There are some bugs and beasties I'd just as soon not save, although I generally do, anyway. I've never come across a black widow spider or a scorpion in need of being saved from drowning. I don't know what I would do if I did encounter one in the pool, as these are two critters where the policy around the property is, basically, "stomp first, ask questions later."

Having placed the bee on the cool deck, I then watched from the edge of the water, wondering whether it had been pulled from the water in time. At first, it seemed that my efforts had been in vain: the bee was trapped on its back, as if even the surface tension of the water around it on the decking was such that it could not break free and right itself. I nudged it gently (and carefully!) to set it upright, and then resumed my vigil. The bee alternated between grooming itself - which wasn't an unexpected reaction - and staggering about in a manner which almost suggested that it was intoxicated, or, I feared, had been poisoned; perhaps by the chlorine present in the pool as a

disinfectant. Chlorine, after all, is a component of many insecticides. In particular, I couldn't help but notice how the bee kept elevating its abdomen, while at the same time dragging its hindmost legs, with their prominent pollen pouches. It wandered about erratically, at times heading directly toward the pool. I was prepared to deflect it from such a path, but it never became necessary to do so. It moved in fits and starts, sometimes looking as if it was improving, and other times looking as if it was getting worse. I lost count of the number of times it staggered and fell into one of the cracks that separates one segment of the pavement from the next, like a drunken sailor who keeps falling off a curb - a very high curb - and then stepping back up, only to fall off again. As I watched it, I couldn't help but wonder: was it in pain? Was it aware that something was wrong? Was it confused, as we might be, finding ourselves unable to control our bodies in a normal fashion?

This went on for quite a while, and I realized that I was more than a little concerned for the well-being of this little bee; so much so that I started to pray, asking the Lord to heal the bee. Almost immediately I felt more than a little embarrassed, and, still having a sense of being in the presence of the Lord, I said, "Is it wrong, or foolish, to pray for a bee? After all, it is one of Thy creatures; and we were to be the stewards of Thy creation, which would include the bee..." To be honest, I felt more than a little guilty, given that we are the ones who established and maintain an "attractive nuisance" that has lured many a bee to its demise...

Now, please understand that I take no credit whatsoever for what happened next: the glory is God's, and God's alone. The bee ceased its staggering, and began moving both normally and purposefully along the deck. I could see its proboscis was extended into the shallow irregular indentations which are the effective features of a cool deck, and I knew, without exactly knowing how I knew (although this isn't rocket science) that the bee was in search of water, and was probably finding some; the deck was damp, but only just. Slowly and carefully, coming as close to the bee as I could without disturbing it, I let drops of water fall from my fingertips to the deck, and then waited, hoping the bee would find them. Finally - it seemed to take forever - the bee came to one of the resulting puddles, stopped there for a long pause, and then, suddenly and unexpectedly flew straight up into the air about ten feet before moving off to the southwest, and out of sight.

Is there a point to this story? If there is, I think it is this: Every time we hear the accounts of saints living in harmony with various animals - St. Zosimas and the lion, who helps him bury St. Mary of Egypt; St. Seraphim of Sarov and the bear who was his companion - and every time we see the many

photographs that make their way to places such as FaceBook these days of monastics in peaceful scenes with wild animals, we should recall that, at one time, the animals lived without fear of us, and were obedient to us, until we ceased to be obedient to God. Now, they have reason to fear us, separated from God as we are, even after we have been baptized into Christ's death, and raised to new life in Him Who, having risen from the dead, has broken the power of death, which can no longer exert any hold upon Him. We still have so far to go before we are transformed into His likeness; and yet, when we love, when we reach out to help, when we remember what might have been, and mourn for what we have lost, and give thanks to God for not abandoning us, but rather establishing a way for us to return to Him, what peace, what joy, what awe, what wonder is ours! The bee will not remember what was done for it; it would be foolish to think otherwise. That is not in the bee's nature. But I will remember - at least, I hope I will remember - what it might have been like to be able to reach out with the power and the authority of God to heal, if only for a fleeting moment, one tiny, tiny part of a world which groans as it awaits its deliverance, and the incredible sense of being a servant of the saving love of God for a tiny creature in His world.

Islamic Violence, Biblical Inerrancy, and the Old Testament

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 19:29:00 +0000

Recently, I was asked on FaceBook to respond to a blog post by Benjamin L. Corey, entitled, Why Standing Against Islamic Violence Forces You To Rethink Biblical Inerrancy. I have chosen to respond here because I am certain that the length of my reply would test the limits of one's patience when reading it on FaceBook, if not an actual word limitation itself! The plan is to write it here, and post a link to it there. In part, Father Deacon James Ferrenberg has given a response much as I have intended to write; I will be expanding upon his comments here. (I also reserve the right to edit and amend my comments should I find myself having misstated the teachings of the Orthodox Church out of my ignorance and misunderstanding, which I freely acknowledge.)

First, a preliminary comment. "Inerrancy" isn't really a term used, to the best of my knowledge, in the Orthodox Church. If saying that the Bible is, "inerrant," what is meant is that the Bible is without error in what it teaches, then I don't think an Orthodox Christian would disagree. However, we must then establish what the Bible is meant to teach. For the Orthodox Church, the Bible is not a science textbook, although it contains scientific truths; nor is it a "history" textbook as we understand "history" today, although it contains historical truths. Rather, the Bible is a record of God's revelation of Himself, as well as a revelation of truths about of ourselves, and of the relationships established between God, His creation, and human beings, the pinnacle or "crown" of creation. The Bible - which is the Church's Book, and which cannot be properly understood nor correctly interpreted outside the Church, which, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, gave it to us - contains all that we need to know in order to be saved, and to be transformed from who we are into the fullness of the image of God, and unto the likeness of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is our Savior and Redeemer.

Like Mr. Corey, I abhor the violence being practiced by the Islamic extremists of ISIS; and, like Mr. Corey, I am uncomfortable with the similar instances of violence found in the accounts of the Old Testament, in which the people of God are commanded to slaughter the populations of entire cities, men, women, children, and even cattle. Perhaps Mr. Corey also abhors the notion which he raises in his blog: not only did God command these things; He "approved of them." Unless I've missed something, this is why he has chosen to reject the inerrancy of the Bible. That would be where he and I would part company. Instead, I would cite what we called in seminary (based on a very popular commercial at the time) the "Prego Spaghetti Sauce Theory of Scripture": it's in there. In other words, we may not always like what we read, but that doesn't mean we are free to dismiss it. Instead, we have to dig deeper, and seek to understand the lesson we are to learn from what we have read - and accept that what has been recorded in the accounts of Scripture is part of God's revelation of Himself to us, given for a specific and definite purpose. We are free to accept or reject what God has revealed, but not to dismiss it, unless, of course, we elect to practice a sort of "cafeteria style" approach to the Bible, in which we pick and choose which parts of the Bible we will accept and follow, and which parts we want nothing to do with, and so we don't bother to put on our tray.

Mr. Corey's examples are drawn from the giving of the Law of God by Moses prior to the entry of the people of Israel into the land which God had promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; what we would come to know as the "land of Israel." The instructions given in the books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy would include a great many elements pertaining to the necessity for maintaining holiness, and avoiding what was unclean, so that the people with whom God had made a covenant to accept them as His own would not break that covenant, and so remove themselves from the blessed relationship God desired to share with them. After this, led now by Joshua, the people of God entered into the Holy Land, which was not vacant: it was inhabited by many different peoples, many of whom, if not most (or all) the people of God were commanded to destroy, in what Mr. Corey has labeled a "jihad," or a holy war. From the little I know of Islam, that is not, in fact, what "jihad" actually means; but it has come to have that meaning in the larger context, and so we will use it in that way here.

In addition to jihad, Mr. Corey cites instances of burning people alive (as ISIS did to a Jordanian pilot they had captured), putting people to death by stoning (as a crowd did to St. Stephen the first martyr, presumably for blasphemy, while a young man named Saul stood by and held the coats of those who did the stoning), and even sexual slavery and trafficking:

Sex slaves? Yup. The Bible says that after they conquer a city they can take the women, force them to come home and live as their wives. Straight up an endorsement of sex trafficking.

Here I'll take issue with Mr. Corey. Although there are some who interpret passages such as Deuteronomy 21:10-14 and Numbers 31:18 as God condoning, or even commanding, sexual slavery and rape, Mr. Corey is not among them; at least, not as far as the post in question is concerned. But does God command, or even approve of, sexual slavery or rape? Not so! In fact, a rapist was to be executed (by stoning). Now, I will certainly concede that, from our understanding today, the passage from Deuteronomy 21, in which combatants are allowed to take women they find appealing with them and make them their wives, does not describe acceptable behavior, and that the women who experienced this type of treatment might well have described it as rape; but there are differences, and those differences make a difference. Let me try to explain. A woman taken after a battle was not at all an unusual practice in those days - or in this day, as women around the world in war zones without number could recount, and as is happening now at the hands of entities such as ISIS and their ally, Boku Haram. What is unusual is how such captives were to be treated by the Israelites. They were not put up on the auction block, nor were they given as trophies to be used for the pleasure of the troops. Rather, they were given a month to mourn: presumably, for their fathers, brothers, and husbands; and then they became the wives of the men who had taken them. If the man found no pleasure, she was set free; it was forbidden for them to be sold. This by itself is a major departure from every other nation and people who practiced what we might call "captive slavery." But it should also be noted that, in becoming a wife, the woman gained all the rights, privileges, and protections of being a wife, on the same basis as if she had been born an Israelite. There is a reason for this, and it is related to the larger question of the "barbaric practices" we find during the time of the conquest of Canaan, and authorized in the Law God gave through Moses.

But let's back up for a moment; in fact, let's go to the beginning of the story. God, having brought all of creation into existence, decides to complete His work by creating a creature made in His image, and after His likeness. Unlike everything else, which came into being through the power of His Word - God said, "Let there be..." and there was... - when it comes to creating human being, we are told that God formed him from the dust of the earth, and then breathed into his nostrils, and man became a living soul. Adam - whose name comes from the earth, adamah - and Eve, whom God fashions from a rib taken from Adam's side, live in the presence of God in the Paradise God has established, the Garden of Eden. The Genesis narrative suggests that Adam and Eve walked and talked with God; we are told that Adam named all the animals, and was given dominion over all the earth. Everything was permitted to them, except for the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That was forbidden to them; and God told them that, on the day they ate of it, they would surely die. This, in turn, suggests that Adam and Eve were, by nature, good, and that their will, while free to choose, was, perhaps inherently, in alignment with God's. That would be put to the test when the serpent tempted Eve, and she ate the forbidden fruit; and then took the fruit to Adam, who ate it, as well. At this, God cast them out of the Garden, for they had sinned; and, from that time forward, God sought to establish a way back for us from our state of sin and death, while we found ourselves having to struggle to bring our will back into alignment with God's. Among other things, we lost the state of righteousness in which we had been living; and it was, and remains, necessary for that righteousness to be restored in order for us to once more live in harmony with God.

Things didn't go well. The sons of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, soon came into conflict, which came about as the result of God's rejection of a sacrifice offered by Cain, while favoring a sacrifice offered by Abel. Cain murdered Abel, and became an outcast. Ultimately, humanity became so corrupt, so unrighteous, that God determined to destroy all life on the earth, except for one man and his family, whom He commanded to build an ark to hold two animals of every kind from the face of the earth and the birds of the air. When this was completed, God closed Noah, his family, and the animals in the ark, and caused a great flood, which drowned all those who had given themselves over to wickedness, rather than righteousness. When the floodwaters receded, Noah and his family set out to repopulate the world. Now, you would think that the descendants of Noah would have remembered what had happened when people gave themselves over to their animal desires and became wicked; but, once again, sin increased, and righteousness decreased. God, having promised that He would never again destroy all the world with a flood, set to work to bring about the salvation of the human race, making a covenant with Abraham, a righteous man who was obedient to God. The land to which Moses brought the people of Israel (a term we need to clarify) after their time of purification in the desert following the Exodus from Egypt and the renewal of the covenant with God at Mount Sinai, from which Moses descended with the tablets containing the Ten Commandments, was the land God had promised to Abraham, to his son, Isaac, and to his son, Jacob: the "Holy Land"; another term fraught with great significance. This was the land Moses beheld but did not enter; this was the land into which Joshua led God's people; and this was the land where Mr. Corey's "jihad" took place.

Today, I think, when we hear the term, "the people of Israel," we think of a place: as in the "state" or "nation" or "country" of Israel. But that is not its original meaning. Let's remember that "Israel" is the name the angel of the Lord gave to Jacob after the two spent the night engaged in wrestling at the ford of Jabbok, in which neither could prevail, until the "man" touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh, putting it out of joint. Jacob would not relinquish his hold on the man until he had been blessed, and, when the man asked him his name, he replied, "Jacob." In reply, he was told, "Your name will no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have fought with God, and with men, and have prevailed." (Gen. 32:8) As such, the "people of Israel" are not the people of a place, but the descendants of the heir to the covenant with Abraham. As such, the land into which Joshua is leading them is theirs, because it is the land given to them by the promise of God. This is the source of the phrase for the region being the "Promised Land."

The terms of the covenant required the people to adhere to the holy way of life set out for them in the "Holiness Code" contained in the books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; essentially, to remove any uncleanness from their midst. As distasteful as it may be to us today, this included the removal - the extermination - of those peoples whose practices were an abomination to the Lord. Now, we might ask, was this right? Should they have been given the opportunity first to repent, and submit themselves to the terms of the covenant, and so become part of the people of God, and participants with the house (another term for "descendants") of Israel? The only answer we can give to these questions is that we do not, and cannot, in this life, know. Moreover, who are we to question God? Do we know better than He Who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent? Can we possibly know what is better for another person than the One Who knows the very depths of our hearts?

Now, it has to be said that the perpetrators of the current acts of violence in the name of the god whom the people making up the Islamic State follow would undoubtedly give similar answers to the same questions, and justify the violence in much the same way. They would say that they have a divine mandate to cleanse the unclean and pagan practices from the land, and put to death the unbelievers. All we can offer in response is that, while the requirement to be holy that God gave to humanity remains unchanged, what has been revealed since the time when Adam and Eve were cast out of Paradise into this world, and since the time when the world was cleansed by God by means of the Great Flood, and since the time God commanded the extermination of the unclean nations in the Promised Land at the time His people entered it is that the "holy war" moved from being one fought against external enemies to being one fought internally: from cleansing the land of its uncleanness to cleansing one's heart from what is unclean. The battle remains the same: but the battlefield and the weapons are different; and in that difference, which the Jews understand in the Law, and Christians understand in the life of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, risen from the dead and given to us in baptism, we find ourselves with a different understanding than that of the butchers of ISIS. We do not, and cannot, deny our inheritance, found in the pages of the history of the people of God recorded, accurately - inerrantly, if you will - in the Old Testament. Rather, we accept it, learn from it, and, even if we do not embrace it, we recognize that, above all, it calls us to understand we must strive to be a holy nation, so that we can fulfill our calling to be as well a royal priesthood, fit to be empowered to proclaim the good news of our salvation in our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom be all glory, honor, and worship, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Preparation for Martyrdom

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 15:53:00 +0000

The holy martyr Julian of Tarsus was a young man when he suffered and died for the Christian faith. Born into a family of wealth and influence, from his youth, he was taught the Faith; and so, when the time of his suffering came, he was ready, and despite being taken from town to town and being out to torture in each one, he would not deny that Jesus Christ is Lord. After a year of enduring torments, he was sewn into a sack filled with sand, snakes, and scorpions, and thrown into the sea. He was eighteen years old when he departed this life.

Our holy father John of Shanghai and San Francisco, whose feast we celebrated yesterday, was also born into a noble family; and he also, from his youth, learned the Christian faith, embracing the Orthodox way of life, inspired by the asceticism of the monks he saw living near to his village. His family fled from his homeland during the Russian Civil War for Serbia. He left Serbia for Shanghai when he became a Bishop. Forced to flee from Shanghai once again ahead of the Communists, he led his flock to the Philippines, from where they were resettled, some in Australia, some in South America, and some in the United States. He knew of his impending repose some four days before it happened, and foretold as well the place where he would die. He was seventy years old when he departed this life.

Both of the holy fathers whom we celebrate this weekend experienced what our Lord spoke of in the reading today from the holy Gospel according to St. Luke. Both experienced persecution; both knew that a martyr's death was a very real possibility, and one achieved a martyr's crown.

What about us? Although none of us has been born to a family of power and influence, we live in a time and place with riches and conveniences that we take for granted, which not even emperors had of old – and they could have almost anything they wanted. In addition to the prosperity we enjoy, we also live in a time of relative peace, and in a place where we are not suffering for our faith – at least, not yet. But the words our Lord spoke to warn and to encourage His disciples remain as true today as when He first uttered them. The apostles saw the armies of Rome arrayed against Jerusalem, and their defeat of that city. The faithful were persecuted again and again across time and space – and there are places around the world today where Christians suffer for the Faith, and martyrs are killed all the time. We don't see it happening on the evening news; we don't see it happening in our neighborhoods – but it is taking place all the same, and we are naïve if we think that it will never happen here.

What, then should we do? We must be instructed by what our Lord tells His disciples – and we are His disciples if we follow His teachings, and His example. By enduring, we will win our lives. Not in this world, to be sure – but this world, this age, this life will not endure. Only that which is established in heaven will endure. If we will embrace and live the life of our Lord Jesus Christ given to us in baptism, fed in us by His Body and Blood, taught to us by the holy Fathers and Mothers, shown to us in the lives of the saints, then our lives, too, will be established in heaven. Above all, it is by so pursuing the life of Christ being expressed in our own that we can endure even betrayal by friends or family, to say with our Lord, "Father, forgive them," even as we are being put to death.

Brothers and sisters, let us ask God for the grace and mercy He gives to us from His love for us, that we may not love our lives in this world, but rather desire the life to come, so that we will not fail in the time of trial, but may also come, with our holy father Julian and our holy father John, to a blessed repose, and a place in His kingdom that shall never end.

Are Your Doors Locked?

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 01:22:00 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

2nd Sunday of Pascha: Thomas Sunday
John20:19-31

We are all familiar with the story of “Doubting Thomas,” the disciple of our Lord Jesus Christ who was not with the others on the day of our Lord’s Resurrection from the dead, and so would not accept the testimony of the others that they had seen the Lord. No, Thomas wanted proof; and, of course, as we have heard in the reading today from the holy Gospel according to St. John the Theologian, it was on the Sunday following Pascha when Thomas himself saw the risen Christ, and knelt before Him, saying, “My Lord and my God!” But today, let’s look instead at the other disciples of our Lord.

Probably one of the most notable things said about them in this account is that on both occasions when our Lord appeared to them, the doors to the room in which they were gathered were locked. Why? We are told that the doors were locked “for fear of the Jews.” Their fear was the same fear that caused Peter to deny that he knew the Lord at the time of the arrest and trial of our Lord Jesus Christ. They feared that they, too, would be arrested by the Jews, would be accused before the Romans, and would be put to death as criminals and rebels. For this reason, they hid themselves, and locked the doors. Locked doors, of course, did not prevent our Lord Jesus from coming into their midst.

The disciples did not remain in a state of fear. Indeed, they went forth in boldness to proclaim in word and in activity that Christ is risen from the dead, that He has trampled down death by death, and has given life to those who were in the tomb. All of them except one, St. John the Theologian, came to suffer the very death that was the initial source of their fear; all of them except one were martyred because of their faith. If they had not overcome their fear, we would not have today the testimony to the life, death, and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ; we would not have the knowledge of the good news of our salvation, of the forgiveness of sins, and the hope of life without end in the presence of God, if they had remained behind those locked doors.

What about us, who claim to be followers of the risen Lord? What about us who, in our baptism and chrismation, have received the Holy Spirit, as the disciples present in that locked room received from our Lord? Like them, we have been given the mission to tell the world that Jesus Christ is the Son of God Who died to set us free from death; that Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of lords, and that those who follow the way of life He has given us have the hope of a place of rejoicing in His kingdom. Are we going about our lives in the world making this good news known in what we say and in what we do? Or do we kept it to ourselves, locked in our hearts, because we are afraid of what people around us may say or do if we take the chance, and open our hearts to them, and tell them of the hope in us, the life of Christ?

Brothers and sisters, let us not allow fear of what others may think of us, or say to us, or do to us, keep us from doing what we are called to do. May God grant us grace and strength to go forth each day with the love of Christ in our hearts, so that we may show Him risen from the dead and living in us, so that others may come to know Him through us, and sing with us the triumphal hymn, “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tomb bestowing life!”

The Situation in Haiti: How You Can Help

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:19:00 +0000

Nicholas Ohotin, who oversees the Fund for Assistance (FFA) for our Synod of Bishops, reports:

ROCOR donors have collected over $50,000 and more donations are coming in daily.
We hereby remind our faithful and other potential donors that every dollar allocated by donors to a specific project goes to that particular cause. This has been the trademark distinction of the FFA since its inception. A donor could designate funds for a particular church, monk or nun and they would be sent. FFA overall expenses are kept to a minimum and are funded out of general contributions. The ROCOR provides the office and equipment. We remind all of you of this history and renew our pledge to you that your contribution to Haiti will go fully to Haiti. Please feel free to contact us by email atinfo@fundforassistance.org or at 917-817-2925 with any further questions.

Our efforts are being coordinated with the IOCC outreach to Haiti, as well.

Please take a moment and consider what you might be able to give to help our Orthodox brothers and sisters, and all those in need, at this time of crisis in Haiti.

Report From Earthquake-Ravaged Haiti

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:11:00 +0000

Today, I'd like to share with you a report from Deacon Matthew Williams, who is now in Haiti to assist our parishes there. I received this as an email; but thought it worth sharing with you all.

Dear Fr. Victor,

Bless!

I arrived in the Dominican Republic on Friday, Jan 15, determined to provide as much aid to Haiti as possible. At the time that I left the US, we had received no word from the clergy in Haiti. Thank God, while I was en route to Haiti, we received word that the clergy were alive and in good health and that there were no confirmed fatalities among the parishioners.

Due to many complications, it was only Monday when I arrived in Port-au-prince, by which time I had been joined by a German medical officer, Lars Stuewe, who practices medicine in Belfast Ireland. After some discussion of the obvious need, he decided that he would like to work with our Mission to provide medical attention to our parishioners and the surrounding communities.
We arrived late Monday night, driving through large areas that had been destroyed to such an extent that no one remained in those places. Other places, large groups of people would be gathered in outdoor camps, sleeping on the ground without shelter.

On Tuesday, the feast of Theophany, we opened a small clinic near Fr. Gregoire`s home, where we were able to treat 42 patients with medical supplies purchased by FFA that we brought with us from the DR. A few patients were treated after dark, with stitches being performed by flashlight. Careful records were kept for every patient and health cards were issued to help reduce the risk of duplicated health care. Twenty patients were referred to the hospital due to injuries that we did not have materials or equipment to treat. Unfortunately, the situation with the hospitals appears dire, as we were finding that patients with complicated fractures were being turned away from the hospitals due to lack of space. However, the need for a more significant clinic at Fr. Gregoire`s home in Fontamara appeared limited, and we determined to assess the situation in other areas, including Jacmel. At that time there was news that no aid had yet arrived in Jacmel, a city of 110,000.

While Lars was treating the patients, I made initial contacts at the United Nations and the World Health Organization (WHO) and learned that the UN assessment of public health would only begin assessments of the situation on the ground on Friday, Jan. 22.

On Wednesday morning we were awakened by a second quake measured at 6.1. The house we were in was undamaged, but other houses in the area were seriously damaged. After resolving numerous logistical issues, we began the long and arduous task of locating the WHO medical supply warehouse. The medical director and pharmacist were very supportive and issued the required drugs and medications after verifying our charity status and practitioners license. We received adequate medical supplies to treat 1000 patients. Further medical supplies can be obtained now as needed. Immediately we headed toward Jacmel from whence we had received word that 30 members of the parish of St Augustine were sick and wounded. By this time we had also learned that the Canadian military was on site in Jacmel, but were unable to determine what, if any, aid they were providing. Arriving in Jacmel late in the evening, we immediately began the task of assessing the situation here. Everywhere we went, we received contradictory reports or even total lack of knowledge of the situation. On the one hand, we repeatedly heard report of 2,000 fatalities, yet at the hospital there were only 83 patients. The senior house officer (SHO) there reports that he is the medical officer in charge and has 17 more medical staff. However, they have no X-Ray film and no orthopedic surgeon. Therefore they cannot provide any bone surgery at that hospital. They were assessed several times by various organizations, but have received no medical supplies and is running short of antibiotics and pain relieve such as morphine, etc. They have received food and water from the World Food Program (WFP). At the Police station no useful information could be obtained at all -- not even the population of the city. At the Canadian base, the situation was similar -- they were not even aware of whether they were providing any medical care to the area. Our last visit on Wednesday was to the football field where an IDP camp has been set up and appears to be housing approximately 800 families. There we learned that medical treatment was being provided by Canadian doctors. Which organization they are from and what type of treatment they are providing is yet to be determined, as the local representative of the United Nations did not know the answers to these questions.

Today, Thursday, Jan 21, we will be completing the assessment of Jacmel and meeting with the mayor and other personell whose contact information we received from the hotel. We will also meet with the faithful at the church for prayer. After this we will make a decision as to whether the parish and others in the area are in fact in need of our medical care. This decision will determine whether we move on now to other parishes or stay here.

We have the opportunity, with sufficient funding, to establish a permanent clinic with Lars as the directing medical officer. Here is a brief note from Lars:

I have experience in Emergency Medicine and Pre-Hospital Care. I graduated in 2003 in Germany with a BSc in Medicine and Anaesthesia. After my internship I served as an Officer to the Olympic Games in Athens as a Teamleader in the HOC and OLV. After the Tsunami I was deployed by the German Medical NGO EMT International Aid to Sri Lanka (Trincomalee) in the early days with a response team. We provided Emergency Response in affiliation with the catholic church. We treated more than 5000 patients initially. For the long term we built a Medical Centre in the Holy Cross Grounds (caritas funding), During the building period I provided Medical Aid to the public and the international community. In the rising violence and full scale of war, I was appointed UN-MEDEVAC leader. I was acting Chief for the Field Hospital in Kantale during the defense action on Mutur district. I have the expertise to deal on all kinds of Trauma and Tropical diseases. I am familiar with Primary Care and Minor surgical procedures in difficult environments.

The situation in Haiti is worse than expected. Due to no coordination, lack in communication and planning, the situation is extremely difficult to find the right location to set up treatment to avoid duplication. I recommend a long term project. In what way it has to be determined. Initially I see importance to help the suffering and injured people wherever help is needed.

I will attempt to prepare a rough proposal as to the cost of such a project as soon as possible.

A brief summary of the situation in each parish follows:

In Port-au-prince, the Church of the Nativity of the Virgin is still standing but damaged. One reader, Vladimir, is missing and cannot be located. There are no confirmed casualties in the parish. The school operated by Fr. Jean was completely destroyed, along with his home and vehicle.

At Fontamara, Fr Gregoire`s home withstood both quakes, but the chapel of St Moses sustained some damage. The school operated by Fr Gregoire is damages as well.

At Jacmel the house where services are held is standing without damage. About 30 of the parishioners are injured, with three admitted to the hospital.

At Leogogne, the Church of Sts Peter and Paul and many houses were destroyed, but no details regarding the situation of the faithful is available.

The parishes in Cayes, Cap Haitien, and Maissade were unaffected.

Later today I will meet with an organization (I don`t have the exact name) that is working with IOCC. They are receiving a container today from IOCC with aid for the parishes.

In summary, the situation is very complicated and chaotic. Even within our parishes, We are determined to provide aid to the faithful and to the population at large. I will continue to report on our activity.

Please pray for all of us here.

In Christ,
Dcn Matthew

An Excellent Article About Church and Family

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:44:00 +0000

I want to bring to your attention an excellent article entitled, "On Consumerism in Church." It was written by Fr. Sergei Sveshnikov, who is the priest at the church of New Martyrs of Russia, in Mulino, Oregon (just outside Portland). Fr. Sergei writes very well! He has said clearly some things that need to be said and understood; and I hope you will take a moment and read the article referenced above.

Osama bin Laden and "1984"

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:43:00 +0000

There's been some buzz over the weekend about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. One member of the Obama Administration, National Security Advisor General James L. Jones, was recently quoted saying that bin Laden, the "mastermind" of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, and on the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C., has been moving across the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan; while Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that we don't know where he is -- and haven't known for years. In my opinion - my highly uninformed opinion - both are correct.

What strikes me most about these news reports is not so much the farce of the hunt for bin Laden as how he continues to be brought out from time to time by the media. For some reason, he strikes me as the modern-day equivalent of the character Emmanuel Goldstein, from George Orwell's novel, 1984. Goldstein is the novel's Leon Trotsky to Bib Brother's Josef Stalin: once a member of the highest level within the Party that rules Oceania who broke with Big Brother and formed "The Brotherhood" for the purpose of bringing down the Party. Consequently, every failure that is acknowledged by the Party is blamed on Goldstein and the Brotherhood; and Goldstein features prominently in an exercise known as the "Two Minute Hate"; with his image being replaced by that of Big Brother, whose appearance brings calm and peace and joy to the rank and file at the end of the Two Minute Hate.

Now, I'm not saying that bin Laden fits the mold of Goldstein as an analogue of the "Goldstein equals Trotsky" element of the novel; but I can see that he is very definitely "in play" in a toned down version of the Two Minute Hate. To see the picture of bin Laden is to see again the Twin Towers on fire, and then collapsing; to recall the horror of that day, and its aftermath; to be moved once more by the deaths of thousands of people; and ultimately to respond with revulsion, and a continued dedication to tracking him down and bringing him to justice.

Please don't misunderstand: I am not a supporter of bin Laden or of Al-Qaeda. I utterly reject the use of terror and murder; and yes, I would not be opposed to his being brought before the bar of justice should he actually be captured. My point is a larger one, and one that I have written about before, on August 8th and 10th back in 2006. In these posts, I mentioned how the "War on Terror" - in which the hunt for bin Laden plays a major theme - touches on aspects of life as experienced in the world of Orwell's novel: especially how the state of "permanent warfare" that transformed the United States and Great Britain into "Oceania" (with Great Britain becoming "Airstrip One") parallels the "War on Terror" whose end cannot be seen. In order to inflame the passions, and so to keep the support of the people for this war without end, the symbol of Osama bin Laden as the agent of destruction serves a very useful purpose, indeed: all the more so in that there really is a good reason to pursue him. Yet we must always be aware, and vigilant - for this very real and worthwhile pursuit also can serve a deeper, and more sinister, purpose...

The Degradation of the English Language: A Rant

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:57:00 +0000

Dear friends, we are gathered here today to commemorate the untimely passing of the word, "fewer." Once a well-accepted term to describe the frequency of matters, "fewer" became the victim of a decline in the English language, being usurped by its cousin, "less." This disturbing trend, increasingly found in the media, ultimately led to the passing from the scene of this once-valuable term.

OK, so, maybe that's a bit extreme; but anyone who lives in our household has probably gotten used to hearing me growl, "fewer!" when some talking head -- especially on the news -- uses "less" when the proper term would be, well, "fewer." For example, a report on the state of the U.S. economy that aired not too long ago mentioned that the economic stimulus plan had generated less jobs than expected. (It's painful even to type that...) No, no, NO!!! The plan has created FEWER jobs!!! Sigh. Generations of English teachers must be spinning in their graves...

Speaking of the degradation of the English language... One phrase that I hear on the news all the time lately is, "Take a listen." Now, for whatever reason, "take a look at this" doesn't bother me at all; but "take a listen to this" sets my teeth on edge. I hear it, and I want to SCREAM! Why does anyone want to say, "Take a listen" when "Listen to this" is every bit as effective without being offensive? Or am I being too sensitive?

Image via Wikipedia

Years ago, a well-respected newspaper columnist, William Safire, regularly wrote, in addition to his comments on the larger issues of politics, the economy, world affairs, and the like, a column in which he tried valiantly to hold the line against the erosion of the English language. I miss those columns... I don't know the language well enough to try to emulate him -- grammar was never my strength; it's all based on what "sounds good" to me -- but that doesn't mean that there is not a need for someone to take up the burden...

The Prisoner

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:06:00 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

The three-night run of AMC's remake of The Prisoner concluded this evening; and I have to say that I don't understand this version any better than I did the original series, which starred Patrick McGoohan. On some levels, the original was easier to understand, in that it "played" in a fairly straightforward manner; at least, on the surface. However, while I have watched The Prisoner many times over the years -- I even own a few episodes on DVD -- I remain frustrated in my efforts to get deeper into the story, to discern what its underlying message may be. The 17th (and final) episode is completely baffling. There is, in that episode (if I remember correctly) a moment when No. 6 get to meet the person in charge, and finds a gorilla -- or, at least, a gorilla mask; which, when he removes it, reveals his own face. The unmasked leader then leaps up, hooting insanely, and runs about the room in which he was found; a prelude to other baffling events.

In that regard, the remake's ending makes more sense -- even if I can't say what that sense is. We find, at the end, No. 6 -- or simply, "Six," as he is called; I have to admit that I didn't appreciate that initially, although over the next two nights it faded somewhat -- has become, in the words of the introduction sequence to the original, "the new No. 2." This calls to mind a bit of (potential) insight into the original series, again drawn from that introductory series of questions and responses between No. 6 and the new No. 2. Toward the end, the Prisoner asks, "Who are you?" He is told, "The new No. 2." Then the Prisoner asks, "Who is No. 1?" The answer is, "You are No. 6." This gives us the conclusion: "I am not a number! I am a free man!"; followed by a loud burst of laughter from the new No. 2.

Who is No. 1? Here's the insight (and I have to say this is not mine; I read it somewhere): Instead of the question being avoided, with the Prisoner being given his number, if one punctuates the reply in a slightly different way, it changes from a declarative that the Prisoner's number is six, and becomes, "Who is No. 1? You are, No. 6." Seeing the Prisoner in the remake take on the role of the new No. 2 at the conclusion seems drawn from that same source -- and sets up another line of questions about the overall meaning of the series in both its iterations.

Who is the Prisoner? Someone with something to hide: the reason for leaving behind a way of life that finally prompted that person to withdraw -- resign, if you will -- to change their way of life. Those who are challenged or threatened by this action want to know why the change has taken place; and there is the clear sense that if the Prisoner reveals the why, not only is the threat removed, but that the Prisoner will, in some way, have betrayed himself, and the very morals or ethics that prompted the decision to resign.

Who are the jailers? They represent the powers that are threatened by the knowledge that the Prisoner has obtained; and who act to preserve their power, even as they seek to co-opt the Prisoner to return him to their service. This is much more clear in the original; but is present in an altered, and intriguing, form in the remake. There is no "turnover" of Number 2's in the remake, perhaps because there were 17 episodes in the original, and only... 6... in the remake. (I just noticed that!) One result is that this very clearly reduces the conflict to make it explicitly between No. 2 and No. 6; and less about the overall system. Anyway, that's how it looks from where I see it...

In a way, I suppose, we are all prisoners. We have something to hide: our sins. We have reasons for wanting to withdraw from the way of life that leaves us helpless before sin, and victims of our passions. When we try to justify our transgressions, we betray ourselves, and become ever more deeply trapped, imprisoned, by our very being. Similarly, we are all participants in seeking the control of others, and so become members of the Village -- even, perhaps, becoming the new No. 2 in someone's life. After all, it is easier for us to give in to sin when we are doing it with others...

I'm going to try to spend some time looking at the additional information that can be found at the website for AMC. Perhaps then I might understand the story a bit more. What are your thoughts?

Love and The Shipping News

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:17:00 +0000

Just finished watching The Shipping News, a 2001 film (yes, I'm a bit slow) starring Kevin Spacey, Julianne Moore, and Judi Dench. I missed the first few minutes of the film, which will give me an excuse to look for it at the local library, and so to watch it again. One aspect of the film that helped draw me in was that the music playing in the film was clearly Celtic in origin and influence; and many of the characters spoke with a faint Irish accent. I find myself growing increasingly more interested in the Celtic (and especially the Irish) background of our family -- but that's probably better left for another time.

More compelling were scenes in which small acts of kindness, not terribly significant in and of themselves, were, at a deeper level, profound acts of love. As the story unfolded, it also became abundantly clear how deeply human beings can be hurt -- especially by those who are closest to us, who should be foremost in love, not in wounding us. Spacey's character was wounded by death; Moore's by being deserted by an adulterous husband; Dench by a barbarous act she suffered as a twelve year old girl at the hands of her older brother, who was Spacey's character's father. By the end of the film, Spacey's character, known only by his family name (Quoyle), discovers that it is possible for a wounded man to heal.

The movie is far more profound and moving than I am able to convey. So, too, is its deeper message of love, betrayal, bereavement, and healing. I suppose that a part of what I am trying to say -- and maybe this will become more clear after I've had some time to process the film -- is that I was particularly struck by the power of the small acts of kindness to spread love to those who were in great need of being loved. Given that the message of our salvation arises from the love of God in Jesus Christ, and how we are to be ministers of the same, it would seem to me to merit some consideration each day: How may I/did I share God's love with someone else today?

30 (40) Days of Blogging; Calendars, Old and New

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:07:00 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

Some of you may have come across the website for The Preacher's Institute, started by Arizona's own Fr. John Peck, the priest serving the Orthodox mission church in Prescott. Fr. John is a genuinely good person, and his "challenge" to blog daily for a period of 30 to 40 days during the time of the Nativity Fast is one that I know will be good for me, so I will do my best to take part and to keep up! Now, those of us on the old calendar haven't entered the Nativity Fast just yet, and won't do so until November 28th -- but for those on the new calendar, the Fast begins today, and thus, so does the blogging challenge.

I suppose that this first entry in the challenge would be a good place to express myself on the calendar question, which is not usually a topic of much interest or concern to me on a personal basis. I do respect that the question is much more serious for many people, and do not, in any way, mean to suggest that they are incorrect in their concerns. I have friends who attend churches that follow the new calendar, as well as our Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR), in which we follow the traditional calendar of the Orthodox Church. I've heard the arguments of some who feel that it is important that the calendar be more closely synchronized with the movements of the heavens on which calendars are based, and so support the new calendar, and I understand their position. For myself, I am sympathetic to the argument that there is no compelling need for the calendar of the Church to be in harmony with the secular calendar; and, without surprising anyone who knows my sense of humor, I particularly enjoy tossing out wry comments such as, "When the Lord sets the date for the end of the world and the Last Judgment, those of us on the old calendar will have 13 more days to prepare than those on the new calendar."

Of far more concern, especially given the responsibility of being a pastor that is incumbent upon every priest, at least in the parish ministry, are those whose view of the calendar question leads them to take the stance that this is a question that borders on heresy, or, at least, schism. Yes, I will concede that the adoption of the new calendar by some, but not all, of the Orthodox Churches has produced an unfortunate division in our Orthodox "family." It is perhaps even tragic that we do not keep the same feasts on the same days. One example was in my email inbox this morning. Our parish will be blessed this coming Friday and Saturday with a visit of the Kursk Root Icon, and we have heard from many Orthodox Christians across the state who would like to come and venerate this miraculous icon. One such email observed that the icon will be at our parish for the Divine Liturgy on the Feast of the Entry of the Theotokos, which falls on the 21st of November. Now, it is true that the icon will be there for the 21st, but it isn't REALLY the 21st (and so it is not the Feast of the Entry of the Theotokos) -- it's the 8th of November according to the calendar of the Church, and so it is the feast of the Synaxis of St. Michael and All the Bodiless Powers, and the feast day of our parish.

However unfortunate it may be that we do not celebrate the same saints on the same days (at least we all keep the same season of Great Lent and Pascha, even if the specifics of the days are different), this does not, in my mind, justify those who, on either side of the question (but especially adherents to the old calendar) who consider those who disagree with their position as having ceased to be Orthodox. There are instances where Orthodox Christians will have no contact with others who follow the same teachings and practices and worship, who learn from the same patristic sources, who revere the same saints, and differ only on the calendar used. To me -- not that I am in any way an expert, or a paragon of virtue, for I am anything but, being chief among sinners -- to hold this extreme a view means that the essence of the Orthodox faith has been lost, or, at least, misplaced. If we do not love those who differ with us on the calendar question, but are otherwise one with us in proclaiming that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, our Savior and Lord, and that the most complete source of the Christian faith is found in the Orthodox Church, are we truly Orthodox?

A Lesson in Devotion and Obedience

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:53:00 +0000

Usually, I'm the first person to get out of bed in the mornings -- and that is definitely the case on Sunday mornings. After all, there are prayers to be said in preparation for receiving the Holy Mysteries of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and, truth be told, a sermon to be written. Yes, I always intend to do that earlier in the week, but it seldom, if ever, happens that way.

The family dog is "family" in name only. She's my dog -- by her choice. Her name might as well be "Shadow," because when I'm home, she's my shadow, following me just about everywhere I go. One significant exception to this is when it's time for her to eat. If I don't put out her food bowl fast enough to suit her, she'll go around the house and awaken one of our daughters, who know that the only way to get any peace (and any chance of going back to sleep) is to feed the dog.

This morning, as I sat at the kitchen table, setting aside my medication and vitamins for the day (an every-day event), she started to head down the hallway in search of someone to feed her. I called her back -- and learned a valuable lesson. I called her to my side, and told her, "Down." She didn't want to listen -- I could tell from her body language -- but she did as she was told, and remained there until I left the table on the way to my office, with her following me there, as she usually does. Once in my office, the door being closed, those sleeping are no longer in danger of being on the receiving end of a cold wet dog nose in search of its breakfast.

This isn't the first time we've been through this scenario; indeed, during the week, it's my practice to close the doors to the bedrooms so that our daughters can sleep, while I'm fixing breakfast for my wife, so that she can sleep a few extra minuted before heading to work. But as I watched the dog struggle with her desire for food on the one hand (or paw, as it were), and obedience to me as the "leader of the pack/alpha male" (which isn't difficult when you're the only male in the household -- the fish don't count, nor do the birds), it dawned on me that she was modeling for me the way I should be in relationship with God: wanting to be near Him as often as possible, following wherever He goes -- and obedient to what He commands, even when my appetite tells me otherwise.

I have a lot to learn. But isn't it funny how the D-O-G has taught me something about myself and G-O-D...

Scorpions...

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:42:00 +0000

A few weeks ago, having just risen from our bed to get dressed and start the day, I looked down at my feet, and was shocked to be a few inches away from a scorpion, whose body was over an inch long, and whose tail added another inch to the overall length. Being barefooted, I couldn’t just step on it, so I grabbed a stick that was nearby the bed, and tried to squash it. I missed; and it scurried under the bed. We spent quite a bit of time moving the bed and other furniture, but never saw the scorpion after it disappeared under the bed. The next few days were a bit anxious at times, and everyone was wearing shoes in the house – just in case. About three days later, as I was fixing breakfast, I turned to the sink, and found a scorpion – perhaps even the same one – perched on the lid from a container we use to make iced tea. I was able to pick up the lid on the side opposite the scorpion, maneuver it over the sink, and, with the garbage disposal unit switched on, used the faucet to knock the critter off the lid and into the disposal. We haven’t seen a scorpion in the house since that morning.

I’ve spent a lot of time pondering the scorpion. I’m pretty sure that one of the reasons we had at least one scorpion in the house was because of a billing dispute with the pest control company that had resulted in an eight-month suspension of spraying – and a greatly increased number of crickets both inside and outside the house as a result. Crickets are more than just a meal, apparently, to scorpions – crickets are fine dining, the "filet mignon" of the scorpion’s menu. Fortunately, we had resolved the dispute, and were scheduled for a visit from the pest control company the very same morning that we saw, and lost, the scorpion in our bedroom. The hope is that, with the crickets gone, the scorpions have moved to a new territory where the hunting will be easier. I’ve also wondered whether the feeling I had in one big toe that morning – a feeling that I can only describe as being like the “buzz” you get when you touch your tongue across the terminals of a nine-volt battery – might have been the result of having been stung, although there was no redness, or any other sign of having been stung. I don’t recall, however, having every felt anything like that in my toe before; nor since, once it had faded away about a day later.

At the doctor’s office, I asked about first aid for a scorpion sting, only to learn that there really isn’t anything you can do. On the other hand, when I asked about how many people die here in Arizona from a scorpion sting, I was told that one person is known to have died as a result of being stung by a scorpion in Arizona since 1965. In other words, unless you’re allergic to the venom, or are stung in a particularly vulnerable spot, such as at the base of the neck, where the spinal cord meets the medulla oblongata, a scorpion’s sting isn’t going to be anything really serious, but rather just an annoyance. There are, of course, different scorpion species, at least one of which has a venom that is far more potent, and so far more dangerous; but these aren’t found in Arizona.

In the beginning of the tenth chapter of the Gospel according to St. Luke, our Lord is sending the seventy, two by two, on a missionary journey to every city and village to which He will be visiting. They are to proclaim the coming of the kingdom of heaven, and are given authority to heal the sick and cast out demons to support their proclamation. We read of their journey,

10:17 The seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” 10:18 He said to them, “I saw Satan having fallen like lightning from heaven. 10:19 Behold, I give you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy. Nothing will in any way hurt you. 10:20 Nevertheless, don’t rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

Other passages of Scripture make reference to scorpions, but as a way of speaking descriptively, rather than literally, being illustrations of how wicked mankind can be, and of the suffering that can be inflicted by one person upon another. But the passage from St. Luke’s Gospel, very similar to the passage at the end of the Gospel according to St. Mark, which refers to the handling of snakes and the drinking of poisons as actions that will not harm the believers, certainly appears to be stated very literally; and it is certainly possible, here in the desert, to come across a snake or a scorpion while walking – even in your own bedroom!

I haven’t decided yet whether the possibility of having been stung by that scorpion, evidenced by the “buzzing” sensation in my toe, means that I do not possess the faith that our Lord spoke of with the seventy at the conclusion of their journey…

Woodstock: Forty Years Later

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 09:21:00 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

Well, I came upon a child of God
He was walking along the road
And I asked him, Tell me, where are you going?
This he told me

Said, I'm going down to Yasgur's Farm,
Gonna join in a rock and roll band.
Got to get back to the land and set my soul free.

We are stardust, we are golden,
We are billion year old carbon,
And we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden.

I wasn’t at Woodstock.

It’s not because I didn’t want to go. Being 15 years old, without transportation – and, although I don’t know for sure, I’d have been stunned if my parents would have given their permission, going to the event was impossible. I’m still fascinated by the event today; all the more so because the 40th anniversary of the final day of the “three days of peace, love and music” will have started by the time I have finished this reflection.

Well, then can I roam beside you?
I have come to lose the smog,
And I feel myself a cog in somethin' turning.
And maybe it's the time of year,
Yes, and maybe it's the time of man.
And I don't know who I am,
But life is for learning.

We are stardust, we are golden,
We are billion year old carbon,
And we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden.

What is it about that time that triggers so strong a response in me, even today? First of all, I know it isn’t the music – although, to be sure, it was the music of my youth, and the songs I enjoyed back then are still enjoyable today. The best I can determine, it is the fact that, for a period of three days, some four hundred thousand people lived side-by-side, sharing an experience, with virtually no friction arising: no fights; only two deaths – one as the result of an overdose of heroin, the other a young man killed while sleeping in a field when a tractor ran over him in his sleeping bag. People were hungry, as the organizers, who had planned for a maximum of fifty thousand people, were overwhelmed. People got soaked as a storm on the second day dropped over an inch of rain in about an hour’s time. People got sick; some "freaked out" as a result of taking drugs. With all of this, almost everyone who attended and has gone on record about the event comments about the peace and the smiles that were shared; how people responded to calls by the organizers to share what food they had with their “brothers and sisters” – who were identified as, “the people on your right, and the people on your left” – in other words, your neighbors. This has always been a point of focus as I reflect on the event: the Biblical connections that arise. There are echoes of the feeding of the five thousand in the call to share food; and there is the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ about who is our neighbor. For me, in part, at least, what I have seen and heard of what took place at Woodstock has a mystical component, and is a metaphor for so much of what seemed possible for us at that time. Even as wars raged around the world – the one looming largest at that time was the war in Vietnam, with its very real connections (and potential threat) to the larger, more ominous, if less immediate, “Cold War” – even as our culture seemed doomed to become spiritually dead through the pursuit of material possessions, status and power, the young people who gathered on Max Yasgur’s farm, and those who, like me, wanted to be there, yearned for a different world, a different culture; and we thought, for a time, that the power to achieve a new society of peace and love was within our grasp; a new world was a very real possibility, if only we could work together to achieve it.

That yearning stayed with me into the decade of the 1970’s. Among other things, I immersed myself in the various movements that grew out of the festival at Woodstock, as well as the tragedies that followed, not the least of which was the death of four students at Kent State University, shot by the Ohio National Guard during an anti-war protest. One of the four killed had graduated the year before from the high school I was attending. I didn’t know her; but I knew, and cared for, people who did, people who lost a friend that day – and their grief touched me, and ignited an anger in me. I was involved in a number of anti-war protests in downtown Washington, D.C., and resolved to go to Canada rather than be drafted, if necessary. I also was drawn to the beginnings of the environmental movement, and the “back to the land” movement that was spurred on when I discovered the teachings and philosophy in The Mother Earth News, and especially its reports on the Twin Oaks commune in Louisa, Virginia, not far from where we lived and worked and went to college. When an “outreach team” from Twin Oaks made a visit to our college campus, I was there to hear every word, and always wanted – but could never quite manage – to make a visit to the commune. I wouldn’t say that I did anything consequential. My protesting the war didn’t bring it to an end; and while I would never negate the importance of each person doing what they can to conserve energy and water, and to recycle, and so on, I doubt that my contribution, even to this day, has really made the kind of difference my heart has always yearned to make. As much as I’d hoped otherwise, this is the only honest assessment I can make.

By the time we got to Woodstock,
We were half a million strong
And everywhere was a song and a celebration.
And I dreamed I saw the bomber death planes
Riding shotgun in the sky,
Turning into butterflies
Above our nation.

We are stardust, we are golden,
We are caught in the devil’s bargain,
And we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden.

By the time I finished seminary, over twenty years distant from the Woodstock festival, I had started to figure out why we hadn’t been able to change the world, and why the communal life exerted such an attraction. The two are related; and Joni Mitchell’s song about the festival, which was a monster hit for Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, gave me valuable clues. My thoughts along these lines were triggered in part by an invitation a group of us received on the eve of graduation from seminary to consider becoming part of an ecumenical community of Roman Catholics and Episcopalians living and working and worshipping together in rural Maryland, not far from our campus; and by a chance event that took place a few years later while driving along California Highway 99 near Merced, while on my way to a youth ministry event. I happened to look up, and was shocked to see a B-52 flying at a relatively low level overhead. My thoughts immediately flashed to the line in the song: And I dreamed I saw the bomber death planes riding shotgun in the sky… There it was – but it didn’t turn into a butterfly. Within a year’s time, I was the vicar of the mission in Atwater, at the time the home of Castle Air Force Base – closed a few years later. Castle Air Force Bases was home to a squadron of bombers; and one of the lay leaders of the mission, and a good friend, was a B-52 pilot.

The song begins: I came upon a child of God, he was walkin’ along the road… There are hints of the road to Emmaus, being traveled by two of the disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ, who are traveling from Jerusalem after His passion and death on the Cross. They are not aware that He has risen from the dead, even when they meet Him walkin’ along the road. It is not until He accepts their invitation to stay with them for the evening, and reveals Himself when He blesses and breaks the bread, that they realize what has happened. This is what is missing in the song. This is what Twin Oaks didn’t have; and this is why our hopes and dreams for a better world did not, and could not, materialize. Can you hear it? It’s in the last line of the chorus: And we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden… What garden? Why, the Garden of Eden, of course! The Garden, the place of Paradise, where we lived in the immediate and intimate presence of God, Who would walk with us and talk with us, and we could, presumably, see Him face to face. We lost our place there by our disobedience – as the song says, We are caught in the devil’s bargain… An angel with a fiery sword was set to guard the entryway to prevent us from trying to get back; and the only way a return is possible is through our Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing else will work; our strength alone is not sufficient; nor are we permitted to enter, unless we are joined to the Son of God Who gave Himself to make this possible, because of His great and unfathomable love for us; and Who, having risen from the dead and ascended into heaven, sitting at the right hand of God the Father, has done so with our human nature still joined to His divine nature – restoring us to living once more in the immediate and intimate presence of God.

Can we change the world? Maybe. The task of doing so begins by changing ourselves; by grasping what has been done for us by our Lord Jesus Christ. By His incarnation, our humanity has been united with His divinity. By His death, the power of death has been brought to an end. By His resurrection, we, too, are raised from death to life. We have been buried with Him in baptism, and raised by Him to a life that will not end. When we accept this incredible gift of God’s love, and yield ourselves to Him in love, and take responsibility for how we live, with the intention of allowing the life of Christ in us be seen in us, through what we say and what we do, in who we are – the hope and the dream of a better life is possible. Woodstock is only the beginning; and the joy of the kingdom of heaven awaits!

We are stardust, we are golden,
We are caught in the devil’s bargain,
And we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden.

What Welshmen Do for Fun

noreply@blogger.com (Fr. John McCuen) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:30:00 +0000

I laughed so hard I cried!