I am porting this over verbatim from the website of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops. The date on the release is January 20th, but the bill has been submitted only in the last week. Please read the news release carefully, then support Senate Bill 1467, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011.

The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America, which is comprised of the 65 canonical Orthodox bishops in the United States, Canada and Mexico, join their voices with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and all those who adamantly protest the recent decision by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and call upon all the Orthodox Christian faithful to contact their elected representatives today to voice their concern in the face of this threat to the sanctity of the Church’s conscience.

In this ruling by HHS, religious hospitals, educational institutions, and other organizations will be required to pay for the full cost of contraceptives (including some abortion-inducing drugs) and sterilizations for their employees, regardless of the religious convictions of the employers.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. This freedom is transgressed when a religious institution is required to pay for “contraceptive services” including abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization services that directly violate their religious convictions. Providing such services should not be regarded as mandated medical care. We, the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops, call upon HHS Secretary Sebelius and the Obama Administration to rescind this unjust ruling and to respect the religious freedom guaranteed all Americans by the First Amendment.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Look at the two comics below:

 The two comics above let me make a quick comment. Back when I took philosophy, post-modernism had not yet come into its strength. At that time, the traditional response of the modernist was that reason could figure out all the answers if it simply had enough data. I can remember American Episcopalians making a big deal of the fact that they relied on Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. In reality all too many modern Episcopalians simply made Reason the top part of that triad. That is, if they read anything in Scripture or Tradition that they thought was not consonant with Reason, or at least with their reasoning, then they discarded it. And that was the point that got them in trouble, “with their reasoning.”

Over two thousand years ago there were already Greek comedies being written that showed the limitations of reason. For instance, Aristophanes used one of his comedies to poke fun at Socrates. He used Socratic style of argumentation to show in one hilarious scene in one of his comedies that children should beat their parents since they were responsible for the behavior of their children. Ultimately, Episcopalians ran into the same problem. Ancient Greeks already knew that one could play with words to make them say anything that one wished them to say. In that sense, they anticipated some of the post-modernist critiques–not all of them, just some of them.

But, the Greeks did not give up on logic. As an aside, neither did the Indians nor the Chinese, who also did much study in the area of logic. Hmm, as an aside to philosophy majors, yes, I am aware that there are different types of logic, but that is not precisely what is under discussion here. What happened is that over the centuries all three cultures tried to find ways to better express concepts and to determine the limits of logical statements so that what was said was truly what should be understood. When I say all three cultures, I also mean their philosophical descendants, whether in the West or in the East. At the bottom of the search was the desire to know when arguments were valid and when they were not.

That type of thinking all began to be overthrown in the early 19th century by a German philologist named Wilhelm von Humboldt. He began to show that language and worldview are inseparable. This idea did not fully take fruit until the 20th century. But, when the idea took hold, it had some unexpected side effects. You see the side effects in the second comic. Let me set up a contrast for you.

Up until about two-thirds of the way through the 20th century, modernism was in strong control. Logic and science were everything. Humboldt’s ideas had not yet really borne fruit, despite the paradigm shifts caused by Einstein and quantum mechanics. It was still thought that pure logic and science could answer the mysteries of the universe. Post-modernism took care of that idea. It still lingers in some folks such as Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, but in practice it is largely gone. But post-modernism had unexpected side effects in popular thinking. You see, it was all too easy to conclude that all truth is merely and nothing more than matters of opinion.

In the second comic above, the little girl expresses what has become an all too common way to answer any argument with which you disagree or which you do not want to answer. Why, “that is just your opinion,” is the answer that is often given, as though everything the other person has just said has no meaning. That is the populist legacy of post-modernism. It is the misuse of arguments about worldview to intimate that there is no meaning, no truth, in anyone who disagrees with you. Ahem, did you note what I just said. “… no meaning, no truth, in anyone who disagrees with you?” Oddly enough, the post-modernist argument is used to justify YOUR continued beliefs in your assertion. That is, THEIR arguments are tainted with their beliefs, while–AGAINST ALL LOGIC–your beliefs are not anywhere near as tainted!

This is why you often find a Republican saying that someone believes that just because they are a Democrat, or Democrat saying the exact opposite. It is a twisted form of post-modernism, a way of silencing your opponent without having to expend much energy countering their arguments. All you do is simply ignore another’s logic and simply re-state your arguments again as though you had the true perspective on the situation. This is what leads to the talking and shouting heads on the various cable networks. If you notice, they will do some countering of arguments, but mostly they rely on sarcasm and implications of bias and not on logic. This is why TV political debates are often of so little use. TV debates by political candidates are mostly about the ability to react rapidly and to turn a quick phrase, and not about clear argumentative technique. The most modern development, of allowing the audience to chime in with cheers and jeers only goes to point out how much of a non-logical show this is. It is all about gaining emotional support, not simply about gaining reasoned support.

But, that type of attitude has its danger for us Christians. Because once we adopt that attitude, we are in an extreme danger of denying truth, and thereby indirectly denying the One who is the Truth, and beginning to agree with the Father of Lies. No, I am not suggesting that we return to the false certainty of modernism. That has problems of its own, to say the least. But, I am suggesting that we not too easily drop into the attitude of the little girl in the comic. That is the attitude of denying any accuracy in what the other person is saying and going into the post-modernist babble about there being no patterns, etc.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

There is an old southern gospel song that has the lyrics:

Sing the wondrous love of Jesus,
Sing His mercy and His grace;
In the mansions bright and blessed
He’ll prepare for us a place.

Refrain:
When we all get to heaven,
What a day of rejoicing that will be!
When we all see Jesus,
We’ll sing and shout the victory!

While we walk the pilgrim pathway,
Clouds will overspread the sky;
But when trav’ling days are over,
Not a shadow, not a sigh.

Let us then be true and faithful,
Trusting, serving every day;
Just one glimpse of Him in glory
Will the toils of life repay.

Onward to the prize before us!
Soon His beauty we’ll behold;
Soon the pearly gates will open;
We shall tread the streets of gold.

So, why am I listening to an old southern gospel song? Well, we had a grand old family reunion today with four generations of people, from great-grandma down to the newest baby, just 14 days old. The kids were running around, the adults were reminiscing, and joy was in the air. We also, of course, shared stories of those whom we love but are no longer with us. Actually, those of us who are Orthodox had the opportunity to explain to those of us who are Baptist that icons are our family photographs that call to us in love and remind us that those who have gone before us, our family, are not dead but alive.

What struck me in the midst of our joy was that old southern gospel song. What a day of rejoicing it will be when we all get together again. At 60, I have both family and friends that I miss and that I look forward to seeing again. Even in the midst of our family reunion, I looked at the generations present remembering the generations not there, as all of us older ones did. That was when that old southern gospel song hit my heart. But, I would say to the songwriters that it is not just the seeing Jesus and the singing and shouting the victory. It will be seeing the Body of Christ, the Family of God, those whom we personally knew and those whom we did not, our family, that will also make it a day of rejoicing and celebration. It will not just be the victory, but also the reunion.

Someday we shall be united with God. Someday we shall see the uncreated light. Someday we shall be reunited with our family and with the rest of the family whom we do not yet know. Meanwhile, these gatherings here, these gatherings now, whether at the Divine Liturgy or even our family gatherings, give us but a small foretaste of the joy that shall be ours someday.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Okay, I must confess something. I often feel completely inept when hearing the confessions of children. Once they reach the age of early adolescence, I know how to talk with them and how to counsel them. From then on I am comfortable in fulfilling my priestly duties. But, when I hear the confessions of children in elementary school, I am often at a loss.

Perhaps it is because the confessions are so standard at that age. You know, “I disobeyed my parents,” or, “I was mean to my [brother or sister],” etc. I know that there are priests who have had the sad experience of having a child of that age reveal some terrible event. But, I have had the experience that I think is probably more typical of most priests, which is that of children coming to confess the “standard” sins typical of a child that age.

I think part of my problem is that I want to pat them on the head and tell them that it is OK. Except that it really is not OK. A sin is a sin, and I do not want the children to begin building up a  mind habit of thinking that some sins are OK, or even cute. Though it probably sounds petty to some, it is not. Most sins are learned habits that begin with a small violation that is the crack that eventually leads to a big violation. And, becoming careless about certain small sins begins to ever-so-slightly sear the soul which allows one to become careless about bigger sins, in a progression that can slowly lead to mortal sin.

And yet, they are so cute at that age. Yes, I am a doting grandfather to our grandchildren. And, I admit that this carries over to my view of all children of that age range. So, it is difficult for me to find a balance in the way that I speak to those children so that I will neither excuse their sin nor unduly burden them with future possibilities. So, as I said at the begining, I often feel completely inept when hearing the confessions of children. And now you have heard MY confession to you.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The following story has been published every news service. Let me give you just a few excerpts below:

U.S. Special Forces parachuted overnight into Somalia from fixed-wing planes, then advanced on foot to a compound holding two kidnapped international aid workers and freed them, U.S. officials said Wednesday. …

The Navy SEAL unit that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden last year in Pakistan participated in the mission, a U.S. official said, without specifying whether any of the same individuals were on both assaults. …

The special forces troops took fire as they fought their way into a compound where the hostages were held, the official said, adding the troops believed that the kidnappers were shooting. The official is not authorized to speak to the media and asked not to be named.

Nine gunmen were killed in the strike, Little said, adding that they had explosives nearby. There were no known survivors among the kidnappers, he added.

The American assault team did not suffer any casualties, the Pentagon said. …

Obama, who had given the go-ahead at 9 p.m. Monday, was updated on its progress throughout Tuesday, Carney said. …

The story is quite worth reading. However, Father Orthoduck finds himself thinking that he would not wish to ever get the President of the United States so angry that he would send out Seal Team Six against his person. Look at the story, they took fire and had no casualties and no wounded. I am glad they did not, as the Somali pirates are not “nice” people. But, uhm, Father Orthoduck is beginning to wonder whether the members of Team Six are fully human or whether they are today’s version of the Terminator?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This is the second year in which this area of Alabama has been hit by strongly destructive tornadoes. Yesterday tornadoes swept through the Birmingham area and destroyed hundreds of home. For the second year, a tornado passed near where we live. Yesterday, as I was driving in to the VA Medical Center I again saw the damage. A large manufacturing complex now looks like a WWII bombing photograph. The barber shop where I would normally go for haircuts is now gone. I hope that the barber can find a new shop. As I drove in to the Medical Center yesterday, I saw the rescue vehicles and the K-9 cars. They will still be at work today.

The city has been fortunate this year. It appears that only two people have been killed so far. But yet again there will be massive rebuilding costs, yet again families are left without belongings.

Do pray for the people in what used to be housing subdivisions, for the dead, the injured, for those who lost the place where they worked and are now unemployed, for the rescue crews that they might not be injured.

For this city, and for every city and land, and for the faithful who dwell therein, let us pray to the Lord.

For travelers by sea, by land, and by air; for the sick and the suffering; for captives and their salvation, let us pray to the Lord.

For our deliverance from all tribulation, wrath, danger, and necessity, let us pray to the Lord.

Help us; save us; have mercy on us; and keep us, O God, by thy grace.

Calling to remembrance our all-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, with all the Saints, let us commend ourselves and each other, and all our life unto Christ our God.

For unto thee are due all glory, honor, and worship: to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages.

AMEN

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

There is a sad story from the New York Times that speaks to business ethics and what is considered acceptable and ethical business practices. It will also speak to you about what the expected future is for USA workers. Here are a few quotes with commentaries.

Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas. …

… It isn’t just that workers are cheaper abroad. Rather, Apple’s executives believe the vast scale of overseas factories as well as the flexibility, diligence and industrial skills of foreign workers have so outpaced their American counterparts that “Made in the U.S.A.” is no longer a viable option for most Apple products.

Now to this point this sounds like a typical industrial argument. The USA has indeed been much too focused on the short term. For decades both conservative and liberal commentators have been warning that our failure to set aside capital for infrastructure upgrades has been damaging our ability to be competitive. And that is completely true. However, what no comentator expected was the globalization that was going to be coming. The increased efficiency in global travel and the ability to ship goods cheaply from country to country has made it possible to produce goods and parts in various countries and ship them to almost any other country in a cost-efficient manner. This has meant that revamping infrastructure is not as cost-efficient as building new infrastructrue in another country. In fact, that was a realization that struck decades ago when companies realized that it was cheaper to build a new plant in the USA than to revamp existing infrastructure. So, factories began to move out of the old industrialized parts of this country to non-industrialized parts of this country. It was a plus for industrialists in the USA that they were able to blame unions for their moves rather than admitting that this was but one factor in the decisions to move factories. Eventually, however, even the wages that the poorest-paying parts of the USA pay are considered to be too high. You see, the story continues:

Apple executives say that going overseas, at this point, is their only option. One former executive described how the company relied upon a Chinese factory to revamp iPhone manufacturing just weeks before the device was due on shelves. Apple had redesigned the iPhone’s screen at the last minute, forcing an assembly line overhaul. New screens began arriving at the plant near midnight.

A foreman immediately roused 8,000 workers inside the company’s dormitories, according to the executive. Each employee was given a biscuit and a cup of tea, guided to a workstation and within half an hour started a 12-hour shift fitting glass screens into beveled frames. Within 96 hours, the plant was producing over 10,000 iPhones a day.

“The speed and flexibility is breathtaking,” the executive said. “There’s no American plant that can match that.”

Now, read the last three paragraphs again and think about what it implies for the future of the American worker. Please do read the whole article. It is important that you do, because this is Tea Party future. This is the future if the only emphasis is on jobs and maximizing profits, with little emphasis on caring for others. Look again carefully at the last three paragraphs. Workers at a Chinese factory were living in company dormitories. They were roused and given but little food. They were told to work 12 hour shifts. By the way, this is in a Communist country, which means that when you buy Apple, you are supporting not just socialism, but Marxist socialism. Oops, did you notice that there is no family emphasis? The workers were in dormitories, not in family housing. Oh, and should Father Orthoduck mention that when we buy cheap goods from China (not Taiwan) we are buying goods from a country with forced abortions?  More than that, many supporters of the Tea Party are busily running campaigns against anyone who supports abortion in an even indirect way while they have no trouble buying goods from a country which openly forces abortions upon people. Hmm, Father Orthoduck guesses that economic policy trumps pro-life policy because Father Orthoduck certainly does not see pro-life organizations running campaigns to stop us from buying from communist China. That is, Tea Party supporters are against what they call socialism in the USA while strongly supporting it with their economic policies and buying habits.

Yes, this is a rant by Father Orthoduck about both the Tea Party and those who say they are against socialism while inappropriately supporting employee mistreatment in Marxist and socialist countries such as China and other countries that have oppressive child labor, etc. This is what it means to be a Tea Party supporter. It means that in the USA they hoist signs that claim that Obama is leading us to socialism at the same time that they have no problems with worker wages being lowered or with products being sold in the USA that are produced by Marxist-oppressed overseas workers. It means that Tea Party supporters have no problem with a slow return to workers having to live in company housing and buying at the company store. For those of you who do not know history, I would suggest that you read the history of company towns and company stores, particularly in mining regions in the Appalachian areas of the USA, and what it took to have a decent life as a miner in the USA.

All too many Tea Party supporters claim the moral high ground while they are in fact supporting Marxism and socialism (by their buying habits) and having no problem with wages being cut and families being torn apart so that the husbands (or single women) are available 24/7 in worker dormitories to do whatever is necessary so that profits might be maximized. When profits become all that is important, then families take a much lower place. When profits become all important, then even life (whether infant or adult) takes a much lower place. This is what it means to be a supporter of laissez faire capitalism. This is what it means to be a secular Tea Party supporter. Let Father Orthoduck strongly state that if one is a Christian Tea Party supporter, then while one may support conservative economic policies, one ought to also support boycotts of any country that has strongly anti-life policies. To say that one is against President Obama for socialism while buying Marxist Chinese goods without a protest is a contradiction. One must, as a Christian Tea Party member, be concerned not simply about profits but about any working conditions that will be destructive to families (such as worker dormitories). To say that one is a Christian Tea Party member without making any mention of boycotts against China is only to show either a total uneducated ignorance of reality or to show just how shallow one’s understanding is, or to broadcast to the world that profits are more important than babies. Sadly, most Christian Tea Party members are all about slogans rather than about consequent stances. Most Christian Tea Party supporters do not even think about who their buying policies are supporting and what their policies mean to employee wages and benefits.

People ask why Father Orthoduck cannot give an unequivocal support to the Republican or to the Democratic party. The reason is that neither party is truly pro-life, pro-family. Being pro-life and pro-family means that you must be pro-life and pro-family in every country in the world, not just simply in this country and in a very limited set of circumstances. It means that one ought to support pro-life family policies, even if those policies do not maximize profits. Being a Christian is more than just tallying up the number of abortions while ignoring matters such as worker dormitories and child labor. Being a Christian is realizing that both parties have an awful lot of areas which are not fully Christian. You see, neither party is pro-life and pro-family. On the other hand, both parties have some pro-life, pro-family platform policies.

So, Father Orthoduck’s rant is finished. But, he hopes that you will rethink what it means to be pro-life and pro-family and realize that this subject means more than just economic slogans and anti-socialism slogans. It means being consequent in your thinking and in your actions. Next time a Tea Party member tells you that the only Christian option is the party they support, please educate them.

Let Father Orthoduck leave you with the words to “Sixteen Tons” so that some of you might even try to understand why we cannot have an unregulated free market economy:

Some people say a man is made outta mud
A poor man’s made outta muscle and blood
Muscle and blood and skin and bones
A mind that’s a-weak and a back that’s strong

You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call me ’cause I can’t go
I owe my soul to the company store

I was born one mornin’ when the sun didn’t shine
I picked up my shovel and I walked to the mine
I loaded sixteen tons of number nine coal
And the straw boss said “Well, a-bless my soul”

You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call me ’cause I can’t go
I owe my soul to the company store

I was born one mornin’, it was drizzlin’ rain
Fightin’ and trouble are my middle name
I was raised in the canebrake by an ol’ mama lion
Cain’t no-a high-toned woman make me walk the line

You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call me ’cause I can’t go
I owe my soul to the company store

If you see me comin’, better step aside
A lotta men didn’t, a lotta men died
One fist of iron, the other of steel
If the right one don’t a-get you
Then the left one will

You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call me ’cause I can’t go
I owe my soul to the company store

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I remember in seminary discussing the issue of slavery. No, no one was in favor of slavery. Rather, the discussion was a Biblical and historical one. First was Saint Paul really against slavery, or was it something that he tolerated as part of the existing social order and part of Israel’s history? For those of you who are not aware, among the laws found in the Old Testament are a whole set of laws dealing with the care and treatment of slaves. So, since there is no set of Scriptures actually calling for slaves to be freed, was the Early Church against slavery?

The discussion would go on through the Letter of Saint Paul to Philemon, and various other passages, to try to show that though the Apostles did not call for slaves to be freed, yet they were philosophically against it. It is commonly argued, by almost all Christians, that for the Apostolic Church to have been openly against slavery would have been for that Church to have been proscribed and wiped from the Empire. But, the problem was that after all the analyses were done, there is no overt condemnation of slavery in the New Testament. One need only read some of the most famous pro-slavery writings from 19th century USA to see that there were various pastors who openly quoted Scripture to show that God did not forbid slavery, he only regulated it. Some of the more audacious writings even claimed that physical slavery could have a teaching purpose in God’s plan just like the Law held us slaves to sin in order that we might learn an important lesson.

But, what was never discussed in our seminary classes was what happened after Constantine. Like most Protestant seminaries (excluding the Lutherans) there was this large blind spot that, with a few exceptions like Saint Anselm, etc., stretched from the third century AD to the 15th century AD. That is, the history was most certainly covered, as well as the main theological developments favorable to the Reformation. But, there was little concern to actually understand how various issues were addressed. And, there was most certainly a massive blind spot towards the Eastern side of the Roman Empire, that survived for many centuries after the fall of the Western side of the Roman Empire. I cannot remember any theological developments being presented from the East much after St. Augustine. And, frankly, I cannot remember any coherent presentation of the Church and its beliefs after Constantine. Rather, events and theologians were picked as needed, with the hidden implication that the Church had so fallen that there was little worthy of study. It was admitted that the Great Ecumenical Councils were highlights, but they were as highlights in a landscape shrouded with gloom, dirt, and decay.

As a result, liberal and progressive theologians have used the issue of slavery to support their argument for a developing understanding of Christianity, one that relies on the continuing revelation of the Holy Spirit to lead us ever into new truth. It is no surprise that the issue of slavery is often used, in various ways, to buttress any argument for change away from what has been received. The argument by liberals and progressives goes: neither Jesus nor the Apostles nor the Apostolic Church ever condemned slavery openly; the condemnation of slavery waited until after the Protestant Reformation; the Church learned that condemnation as it was inspired by new revelation from the Holy Spirit; therefore this shows that you should not be against the new revelation that we have received; in fact your opposition to our desired change proves that you are not led of the Holy Spirit!

Thus it was with pleasure that I became aware of a post within the last couple of days that gave a very brief sampler from the post-Constantine Fathers on the issue of slavery. It was there that I finally had the opportunity to read what various of them had to say, once they had the freedom to speak out. That is, these Fathers that had received a deposit of faith, what did they consider that deposit to be regarding slavery? I think you will be pleased with what they said, for it does bear out the argument that the correct theological stance is to be against slavery (not that I had any doubt).

I received permission to port the post over so that you can all read it. So, read below and enjoy! If you click on the title you will be taken to the website as well.

=============

The Church Fathers and Slavery

By Demetrios Constantelos

Many monks contributed much toward a more just and moral society. From the ranks of the monks emerged the earliest condemnation of slavery. Gregory the Theologian, bishop of Nazianzus first, and later Patriarch of Constantinople, denounced the practice of holding slaves. His friend Basil of Ceasarea did not favor it but tolerated the institution as an established evil. Their contemporary Eustathios of Sebasteia condemned slavery and even advocated revolts by slaves. Later in the eighth and early ninth centuries, Theodore the Studite denounced slavery and forbade monks to possess, and the monastery to employ, slaves. In his rules for the hegoumenos of the Studios Monastery, Theodore advised: “You shall not possess a slave either for your own use or for your monastery or for the fields, since man was created in the image of God.” Eustathios, the twelfth century monk, archbishop of Thessaloniki, and critic and reformer of monasticism, condemned slavery as an evil and unnatural institution and advocated manumission.

- Christian Faith and Cultural Heritage: Essays from a Greek Orthodox Perspective, p. 162.

Symeon of Thessaloniki (+ 1429), in various questions set forth by the bishop of Pentapoleos Gregory, was asked the following question: “Which is more important and valuable, to help in the release of a captive or to distribute an amount to ten poor people?” Symeon’s position indicates the care of the Church which often emphasized the duty of Christians to liberate captives and slaves.

…

Generally the Byzantine community did not simply pray for “the captives and for their salvation” as one of the petitions of the Divine Liturgy says, but it offered what it could towards purchasing their release by often paying large sums.

- Poverty, Society, and Philanthropy in the Late Mediaeval Greek World

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I found out today just how angry a cat can become.

My wife and I are currently visiting our daughter, who has just delivered her second child, our fourth grandchild. I am staying at a hotel. Tonight my wife washed our clothes at our daughter and son-in-law’s house. After they were done, they were ironed and carefully folded into the suitcase. Eventually, the suitcase was zipped shut. It was the eventually that got us in trouble! We did not check the suitcase before we zipped it shut.

So, we zipped it shut, put it sideways in the car, and I drove to the hotel. I slung the suitcase out and carried it up the elevator to my room. Then I opened the suitcase. AND A CAT JUMPED OUT AND STARTED YOWLING. Yes, one of our daughter’s cats had snuck into the suitcase and, surprisingly, stayed quiet during the whole process of zipping the suitcase, carrying it to the car, slinging it into the back seat, driving to the hotel, etc.

Unfortunately, the cat was fully freaked out. I had to put on my winter coat and my winter lined leather gloves in order to chase the cat. And, it is a good thing I did! The cat tried to scratch me, bite me, and otherwise cause severe damage to me. Fortunately, nothing quite made it through, though I had a throbbing thumb for a while. The throbbing thumb would have required medical attention if it had not been covered with a lined leather glove. The cat bit down on it with a significant amount of power.

The cat was behaving so badly that I had no choice but to lock it in the trunk during my drive back to our daughter and son-in-law’s house. By now it was after 10:30 pm. Of course, this was not calculated to settle the cat down! When I arrived, my son-in-law was waiting. To my surprise, when I opened the trunk, the cat was crouched in the back. Because the cat knows our son-in-law, he was able to coax it out and into his arms. I swear that I heard a sigh of relief as the cat allowed our son-in-law to take him into his arms.

This whole episode certainly made for an interesting night! The moral of the story: in a cat owner’s house make sure to check your bags before you leave the house.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Yesterday Father Orthoduck quoted Carl Sagan who himself was quoting another scientist. Carl Sagan said:

“Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary levels of evidence if they are to be believed.” – Carl Sagan

Father Orthoduck agreed with Carl Sagan, and at the end of yesterday’s post suggested that God appears to hold the same opinion!

When Father Orthoduck was but a duckling seminarian nearly 40 years ago, he was taught that God indeed backed up his major claims with major actions. That is, he did not leave humans to completely wonder what an action meant. Rather, before the major action he sent prophets saying that God was about to act, then he acted, then after he acted he sent more prophets to interpret the action in order to make sure that people understood what had happened. Note that the professor was not saying that God only sent prophets when he was about to act, rather he was saying that when one reads the Bible, it appears that no major salvation action would take place without warning from God and then follow-up interpretation by God. As examples, think of the Exodus, the Great Exile (particularly the Books of Daniel and Esther), and the Resurrection.

Years later, scholars such as Dr. Peter Wagner, and Charismatic teachers such as Pr. John Wimber developed the theology of power encounters. This was a variation that spoke more to missionary and local situations rather than major actions by God. The theology basically claims that wherever the Gospel is expanding, there is a special outburst of God’s power whose purpose it is to support the missionary effort by both providing proof that what the evangelist is preaching is real and that the existing spiritual powers are no match for God. There are also special outpourings of God’s grace in order to break the power of evil that has been holding the peoples captive. As an ex-missionary, Father Orthoduck can guarantee you that there is some significant truth behind that statement, as he experienced some events that would be difficult to explain without a special outpouring of God’s power. As examples, look at even the modern history of Orthodoxy as it expanded out of its European, Medittarranean, Arabic, etc., patriarchates. God raised up saints, such as Saint John the Wonderworker, Saint Herman of Alaska, etc., who were called Wonderworkers because of the way in which God used them to pour out his power. Note, however, that Orthodox theology equally holds as outpouring of God’s power those who received the power to die faithfully as martyrs, holding fast to the faith. Such a person was Saint Peter the Aleut.

Actually, variations of this type of theology have been around for centuries, but they have usually been used in a negating fashion. One can go to some Orthodox (and Presbyterian, and Reformed) websites to see how they classify gifts such as tongues and interpretations of tongues, etc., as being “sign” gifts that were only meant to be for a time and in order to prove the reality of the Resurrection. Father Orthoduck has severe problems with such claims. First, as he mentioned in the last paragraph, the Orthodox Church still experiences the outpouring of God’s grace to the whole Church, and especially to certain saints who express God’s grace in powerful ways. More than that, it is the claim that God did this in the Early Church, but now will never do that again. This appears to be a most dangerous claim with regard to God. It is one thing to say that blood sacrifices will never return again. That is clearly stated in both Scripture and Holy Tradition.  It is another to claim that certain gifts mentioned in both Scripture and Holy Tradition will never return again. That is a most dangerous claim. The hesychast tradition is itself quite close in many of its expression to the expression of the ecstatic gifts.

But, this is all to say that Carl Sagan actually had a point. Extraordinary claims are much more easily accepted when there is extraordinary evidence. Frankly, it is a neat summary of the human condition. Our God has met us at our human condition. The main place at which he has met us in our human condition is in the Incarnation. God became one of us so that we might become one with him. More than that, in the Resurrection, and in the expressions of God’s grace and power that is found in the Apostolic witness, and in the continuing witness of God’s grace and power that is found in many of the saints throughout history, God has continued to provide the extraordinary evidence that helps us to believe that his extraordinary claims are true.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.