Thinking about God, Religion, Life, and Love

navigating the holidays(holy days?)

2010-11-22T13:49:00.002-05:00

Thanksgiving(marginally a holy day, but certainly a holiday) is upon us, then Chanukah is right after, then Christmas.

My son is Jewish, or rather, my wife asserts his Jewishness. I am nominally Christian, though I haven't been to church or made any outward signs of my faith in a while. The holidays are always difficult for a variety of reasons. In some ways Christmas means a lot more to me than it does to others in my family, though my sister may say that is untrue. My faith is tied up in feelings about my Dad, in what I think it means to be a good person, my thoughts about God, and about the whole story that we call Christianity. I feel very sentimental about Judaism, but I am not Jewish, and it is hard for me to assent to calling my son Jewish, at least exclusively.

I had a talk with him the other night when he was asking who was Jewish in our family. He would ask "Is Uncle G. Jewish" and I would say yes, then "Is Nana Jewish", and I would say "No, she is Jewish". We got through all the relatives that he has met in person and I think he got the idea that my side of the family is Christian and mommy's side is Jewish. He then asked if Bashful Lamb was Jewish or Christian, so I asked if he was from Mommy's side or Daddy's side. We decided that Bashful was Jewish and Hans Bear was Christian.

I don't want him to choose sides, but I want him to appreciate what each religion and each heritage has to give.

I know this post isn't really a revelation or an answer to any question, but I felt like letting it out.

Happy Holidays, or Holy Days if you prefer.

A warm day

2010-10-28T21:18:00.004-04:00

I was inside most of the day, but when I had a chance to go out I recalled many of the beautiful moments I have experienced on campus. I remembered girls I had had crushes on, and some I had the fortune of dating and fun times with friends. It was a perfect day for nostalgia.

The sun was warm and you could feel the golden hue it cast on every face, every leaf, every smile, every step. When I was young we had HBO and I remember an intro where a camera descended into a model town. Every individual thing was in its place, the colors were surreal and carefully planned. On a day like today when the breeze and the colors seem so perfect I am reminded of that model town perfectly arranged, cars moving exactly on cue, a single bicycle riding down a suburban street, and every shadow cast at the same angle. That nostalgic feeling of comfort mixed with the disconcerting calm of an overly planned existence both pleased and panicked me as I walked through a perfect fall day.

when I leave this place

2010-07-21T14:33:00.002-04:00

When I go, waste no time in putting me in the ground, don't put any chemicals in me, but leave me for the earth. Plant a tree on my grave, something I would remember from my youth, maybe a pecan tree. If someone needs a marker to remember where I lay, then wait until the tree is grown and mark the tree.

my semi-annual post.

2010-01-14T10:54:00.002-05:00

It is a new year, and about 5 months since I posted last. I am not particularly diligent about finding topics to discuss here, but today I have two. They both regard frustrations I have run into in the last week, but the first is less academic than the second. Happy new year everyone. Enjoy.

Firstly, fatherhood is a difficult road to travel. I don't really understand those men that do not find it challenging. It seems to me that there one suddenly has to be ultraconscious of how their actions are interpreted by a growing, learning little child that doesn't have the perspective to understand personal fallibility, task prioritization, or depressive lethargy. I end up doing things I do not desire or wish to do, because I care about my son. I cannot let loose with my emotions because I know he would not understand that sometimes a person just needs to let go. This last weekend I really didn't feel like being a dad. I didn't want to answer all the questions or play or deal with little toys on the floor or any of the other things that go along with fatherhood to a toddler. At the same time, he doesn't understand that I was not in the "mood" for such things. I had to put myself in a time out so I could let my frustration dissipate and then continue with the day. Fortunately, I was able to get over my momentary pissyness and the next day was much better.

Secondly, why are discussions of faith taboo? I saw an article about Brit Hume's comment about suggesting Tiger Woods consider Christianity since it has a framework for forgiveness that he could use to move past his transgressions and try to figure out his life. Apparently Brit was lambasted over the advice, but why? Is religion just a market place where things are supposed to be neatly packaged and we just choose the one that is prettier or cheaper? Can we not get recommendations or discuss the differences between religions? Supposedly Tiger is a buddhist, which means he should have recognized his actions as a source of suffering for both himself and his family and used that knowledge to avoid those actions or else endure the karmic repercussions. Okay, but what is wrong with acknowledging that people have personal failures, introducing a concept of forgiveness and then allowing them to use that experience to change future actions, is that not the idea behind Christian forgiveness? I know that the supermarket Christianity would profess that forgiveness is so abundant and flowing that it seems like one need not even think about personal effort as a part of forgiveness, but that is naive. In reality, Chrisitanity recognizes that change is hard, and extends divine forgiveness as a way to recognize that one has committed an act that is wrong, but also that one can recover from such failings. It is not easy to recover, and it may require more forgiveness down the line. However, that Grace is not cheap, one should not use it like a disposable kleenex. Self-reflection and self-determination are required so that one might change their character over time, indeed over a lifetime. I present this concept of Christian forgiveness with out the list of what is regarded as sin, since I personally believe that sin and what is wrong is circumstantial.(brief, potentially heretical diatribe about sin to follow) Sure there are things that are almost always wrong, but somehow we find ways to justify almost everything in someway, so when evaluating what is wrong and right I claim no special authority there. I mean really, in the Judeo-Christian holy books we have plenty of instances where God condones and/or requests acts that are in conflict with the big Ten that Moses brought down to the people. What that tells me is that God is more elusive and flexible than a set of commandments etched in stone, and more permanent. Jesus, in an effort to summarize the commandments said that there are only two commandments, to love God with your heart, soul and mind and then to love your neighbor as much as yourself. He said the entire Judaic Law hinged on those two commandments. In presenting the commandments in this way he reveals the spirit behind the Ten Commandments and at the same time gives a way of trying to understand why God would ask someone like Abraham to sacrifice their son. Anyway, my point was originally, that I find it a little annoying that in America, it is considered low-brow and inappropriate to truly discuss the merits and differences of religions. The dialogue almost always devolves into a discussion about the actions of adherents to particular faiths, which in some ways is irrelevant to the concept of religion, since religion is meant to transcend human failings and present an ideal to strive for, not to embody the failings of those who follow that religion. If anything those human failings serve to show how well the adherents of a particular religion pay attention to the tenets of their faith.

looking up

2009-08-19T02:36:00.002-04:00

It is almost the end of my birthday. My 32nd celebration of my inauguration into this world.

I just came in from a few minutes of staring at the stars from my mom's back porch. It has been a while since I have seen so many stars. You can only see the brightest ones from the city so it seems that your focus in drawn downward, rather than upward.

It is easy to loose hold of oneself in a place where you feel rushed, and pressured and torn in many different ways. Looking up sometimes gives one some perspective, a realization that there is so much more in the universe than waking up, working, coming home and sleeping.

Judaism, Christianity, Islam all tell us that there is something flawed about humanity. That we tend to "sin" or in more familiar language, make mistakes. For some of us, that is our character, we constantly make the same mistakes over and over, these are the black sheep, the family members we don't talk about, the guy that everyone knows as a living example of how not to be. Then there are some of us who are generally on the straight and narrow, but they make a mistake, and it is not something you would expect. Those people react in different ways, usually based on how they view themselves.

They can either hide their mistakes or make them known. Hiding is a function of not acknowledging that one has made a mistake. It is the action of trying to erase the mistake by making it fade with time. But that mistake will always live with whoever committed it and it will shape their future actions. Owning up to one's mistakes allows them to be put to rest however, acknowledging that one has erred allows that person to call on help from others to help prevent that error in the future.

Since I don't profess to know a significant amount about Judaism or Islam, I can't say I know how they deal with the idea of sin. In Christianity(at least in Orthodoxy), sin is dealt with as a disease, something that infects a healthy organism and that organism tries to fight it off. One characteristic of Orthodoxy is that sin is not transmitted at birth, meaning that a baby is sinless and has the possibility of staying sinless. What is transmitted is the potential, even the propensity toward sin. Think of this as analogous to someone that is very fair being born in the desert. They have the possibility of avoiding sunburn and eventually sun cancer, but they are far more likely to get a sunburn and eventually a complication because of it. The tools of the church are supposed to be like sunscreen, in a way. You confess to prevent yourself from hiding and letting your mistakes and errors fester in secrecy, you pray for forgiveness to attempt to unburden yourself so that you can have the strength to avoid those mistakes in the future. This is a long, and arduous process of self-perfection that tries to account for the fact that humans aren't perfect.

I suppose in some ways I find that process beautiful and simple and incredibly hard to put into practice for myself. I come from a family and background, where emotions are bottled up and one tried to fix stuff on their own. My heart is full of misdirected pride and the tendency to hide my mistakes because I don't want others to know that I make mistakes. But, trust me, I do, in spades. Whenever I do something that is really out of character for me, I hide that more. I convince myself that it will be better off if I hide it and just focus on avoiding that behavior in the future. This routine never works and I end up disclosing my mistakes at a time when the consequences of those errors in action and judgement have been compounded by the secrecy and hiding. In general, I am not very good at being a Christian. Thankfully, I am not asked to be good at it, but rather to not give up and be honest with myself.

This last year has been hard, and I have to work on being better about acknowledging that I make mistakes. I have made more mistakes than there are stars in the sky. Perhaps my vision of myself has just been blurred the way the light of the city obscures the billions of little stars shining above me. Sometimes I just have to be in a dark place to see things more clearly.

Lost time

2009-06-29T22:09:00.003-04:00

I haven't posted in a while, but that doesn't mean my mind hasn't been active and processing the relationship between day to day life and the eternal. Eternity is an interested word, many people conflate the idea of eternity with time unending, or a continuation of time with out end. I prefer to think of eternity as an alternative to temporality, living outside of time and its constant forward motion. Some religions believe that there is an immutable soul that passes from the temporal to the atemporal, or from this world to eternity at the time of death. There are lots of wonderful ways to express this poetically, but for the most part our knowledge of life after death is either divinely inspired, raw/cold observation or comforting suppositions. I do not claim to be divinely inspired, and I have a hard time saying there is nothing after this life, so I usually grasp at ways to comfort myself when a loved one passes.

Recently my mother-in-law, passed away. I used to call her Mama Ro. She was funny, and lively and as my wife and I come to find out she seems to have lived many lives. We took on the task of cleaning out her apartment and saw the types of things she collected, pictures of herself, family and friends, clothes, shoes, and lots of memories. As we continued this work over the last month or so, I had a chance to get to know more about Mama Ro before I met her. To see some of the back story in her life and to fix a picture of her in my mind. I have been trying to understand her more so that I have stories to tell my son about his grandmother. In this way, she has passed from this world to eternity for me. She has fixed herself, outside of the turbulences of the constant march of time and become a whole person, from start to finish.

One time I was describing to a friend the impact a person has on the world, and history and the future. I described each person as a stone thrown into the lake of human history. As the stone enters the lake, ripples vibrate outward, affecting firstly the immediate surroundings of that person, but eventually the entire lake is somehow affected by that one person, and the ripples, while they diminish, never actually end. This is another way that a person achieves eternity, as they affect others, even in the smallest way. Sometimes this affect is good, sometimes it is bad.

I will miss Mama Ro, I am glad I got to do the work of cleaning out her home and hope that I can help share her impact on the world with my son.

Walking

2009-03-19T23:02:00.002-04:00

In Boston, Spring is tantalizingly close. The plants look a little more perky, the sky promises warmth, the wind has a little less bite, and there is light out when I get home from work. I can feel my spirits rising. My desire to be outside is getting stronger. Soon the trees on Bay State Road will blossom and the street will be fragrant and colorful.

Boston in the Spring is like awakening from a black and white dream to be reminded that the world is in color. You can almost feel the pulse of the city quickening.

On Wednesday, I went to a client downtown before work. It was early and the T wasn't packed. The air still had a chill, but it wasn't the same as a month ago. I did my work and left, and walked toward BU through Boston Commons, and the Gardens. The pigeons weaved in and out of my path. There were people hustling to work, homeless people sleeping in tattered lumps, new flowers planted so they will bloom early in the spring, and a sense of relief that winter might just be over. But as any good Bostonian knows, saying winter is over in Mid-March is just madness. But maybe, the winter that clouds up our minds is lifting and we can start to dream in color again.

Tired

2009-02-26T10:10:00.002-05:00

I just feel tired, stagnant. I spend my days fixing things when I want to explore. I thought this morning about how the day felt like Scotland did so many years ago. I tried looking at the street I was walking down in a new way. But all I saw was my memories. Fourteen years of memories. I have spent nearly half my life in Boston. I remember how when I was a freshman here for undergrad I just wanted to finish school and leave. I felt like the place, the tenor of the place was hostile to me. I was an invader in a new town and it desired me gone. Now I go other places and I miss Boston. But when I am at home I miss the feeling of seeing the world as a big place for me to learn about. I am itching to see new things, and I want to be able to see new things here, for convenience sake, but every where I look it is something I know. The neighborhood I live in now is the first neighborhood I saw in Boston. Sometimes I hear my senior year AP Lit teacher saying, "it is the circularity of the novel". Is my life some novel with a circular narrative. Am I just a living version of "Light in August". Where is the burning house? Where is my mixed heritage, my outsiderness. I fear getting old sometimes, not because of death but because I feel like I am getting farther and farther from greatness. Perhaps it was profound hubris, but when I was young I thought I really could be or do anything. It wasn't just that my mom told me that, I actually thought I had the capacity to be as great, in an epic sense, as I wanted to be. As I get older that feeling is fading. I feel myself edging towards complacency and normalcy. It is all just making me tired.

Why Christians should read Nietzsche

2009-02-03T09:01:00.004-05:00

I consider myself a Christian. I can't really identify which denomination or say that I agree with church doctrines one by one. I am even skeptical about parts of the Bible as historical truth(that doesn't mean there isn't value there however). But still, through all my imperfections, misguided notions, bad decisions, hypocritical actions and thought, etc. I am Christian.

I had a number of years where I knew that I was Christian, in that I believe Jesus was the Son of God, become man, to proclaim the kingdom of Heaven and then die as a subsitute for our own deaths, but I didn't say that I was a Christian. If someone asked I would say "I didn't know", or "maybe". This period of doubt was in many ways inspired and instigated by a philosopher named Frederich Nietzsche. Nietzsche is pretty famous and very maligned. Many call him anti-semitic, but I think they are wrong. Many say he hated religion, which may be true but was not his point. The essence of Nietzsche is to force one to live their lives because they have chosen to live it.

Complacency, blind acceptance, the meaningless sway of fad and mindless obedience was disgusting to him. It is ironic that the Nazi's justified their horrible campaign of suffering and conquest using his words, he would have found the mindless mobs committing the atrocities to be like sheep, subhuman, and would have been offended that they used him to do it.

What Nietzsche did to me was make me choose to be a Christian. He made me look at what I was and make a choice about my identity that I would either accept or reject. I didn't want to call myself something because I felt like my friends thought I should be, or my family had always been, or I was born that way. I have a natural tendency towards analyzing my beliefs and behavior anyway, but this particular philosopher, challenged me to believe in Christianity because that is what I believe, not because someone else wanted me to believe it.

I am attracted to Christianity for the same reason I like reading Nietzsche or even Plato. It is a challenge. I am challenged to identify myself, to make choices about who I want to be, what I want to do, how I want to think. I will admit, I do not make the same choices as the churches I have attended, I will never. But I will consider why those churches make those choices and choose my own actions accordingly.

Even if you aren't a Christian or don't believe in God, I would recommend reading Nietzsche. Start with something like "Twilight of the Idols", it is short and it was written late in his career when he had started to more clearly form his worldview. Read it once quickly, don't worry about the meaning, then read it again and think. Don't be literal, consider what the words mean and then think about your life. By the way, this is the way I read the Bible as well. I try do away with the preconceptions about the text like that it must be historical fact, but I read it to see what it might mean, or what it might have meant at the time.

Coming home

2008-11-03T18:56:00.002-05:00

Asher always has this great look for me when I get home. It is like he is so happy he can't contain it in his little face. He smiles really big and I see his baby teeth speckling his gums. It is a great feeling and sometimes it makes me forget work and lack of sleep and such.

about national health care

2008-10-31T12:09:00.003-04:00

I am removing this post because I think the explanation here is better, BTW, my cousin susan pointed out that my hyperbole was incorrect because the 15,400 charge was for a family, not per person. What it basically means is that if you take the figures I used(very reserved assumptions) that healthcare would add at least 1.2tn to the federal operating budget.

Anyway, go here for more info. http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

BTW, I am not against national healthcare, but I think that people are not conscious of how much it will cost and the fact that the money will come from us(the middle class) even though many politicians want to make you believe it is being paid for by some anonymous group called the super-rich.

Another blast from the past, Gen. 6.6

2008-10-23T23:24:00.003-04:00

Here is another thought from a 19 year old Brent.

8/31 Genesis 6.6

I don't understand how it says that he Lord was sorry that He had made mankind. Why did He make us if it would grieve Him. He must have known that the world would go down this path.

Blast from the past, notes on Genesis 3.1-14

2008-10-23T23:12:00.003-04:00

I was sorting through old papers and I ran across this old journal entry and thought I would post it, I am not going to edit it though I could think of a few modifications I would make if I wrote on the same subject today, for now you get to see the way I was thinking when I was 19:

From 8/12/1996

In this chapter we have the fall of mankind. The serpent knew what he was saying as he told Eve that she would know "good and evil". As she ate the fruit, she obtained a whole new view of the world, the moral view. However, this view compromised the most important part of her existence, her innocence. The rush/high of the experience overcame her and she shared that sin with her husband. Adam could have refused the fruit and saved his future, but he took of the fruit, and he too was changed. (This situation is much like a child that is told not to touch fire. The child sees the flames dance and is drawn by the light and the warmth, and he touches it. He is then burned.) The first indication of sin's burn was the realization of their nakedness. Then there is the fear of God as He approaches the couple.

Both Adam and Eve knew God was great, and they feared Him after they shared the knowledge of Good and Evil. They lost their innocence, and they found themselves separated from God... They also lost their trust in God, and God cannot talk to those who don't trust Him.

My son is one

2008-10-23T23:05:00.002-04:00

A year ago today, my little Asher was brought into the world. It was a tough day, or rather week. My wife tried to have a natural birth, but my little boy was too big and she had to have a C-section after 72 hours of labor. He was having trouble breathing when he came out and my wife was exhausted and in serious pain after an emergency surgery. At that moment I became a father. I realized that day that I no longer belong to myself. I stayed with my son and talked to him as he laid under an oxygen hood with and IV in one arm and an oxygen sensor on his toe. He didn't have the strength to move and I just told him to breathe. I would go to my wife and report on the status of our new little man. I was a bridge between my wife who was constrained to her bed and my son who could not leave the nursery. He overcame those tense few hours and now he is a strong little man. I got past those first days of sleeplessness and I cannot imagine a world without my little boy.

Not really a comment about God

2008-10-16T11:14:00.003-04:00

My gov't is buying banks.

WHAT!!!

I am disgusted with the bailout plan. There was a cabal of financial executives that developed a complex plan to create value when there was none and that plan collapsed. Now, rather than closing those companies and imprisoning those people that understood how bad this would be and still signed off on it, we are propping up their business with tax dollars. But, not even tax dollars. We are doing it by issuing treasury bonds which means that we are mortgaging the future of our children to bailout people that defrauded us because they ran organizations that were "too big to fail". McCain and Obama have coddled this bailout as a measure to stop the downslide of our economy. I have news for them. The economy will rid itself of non-value regardless of how much money we pump into fraudulent companies. It will just take longer and we will suffer for a longer amount of time. Someone needs to read some Machiavelli and realize that if you have to do distasteful things, get them all done at once and then work on rebuilding. People can forget a single disastrous blow but long drawn out suffering breeds contempt and resentment. Just ask Bush. There is a reason that he is the least favored president in US history.

Back to the bank thing. Paulson rounded up execs from the top banks and extorted them to sign the agreement to allow the treasury to purchase their stock. The CEO of Wells Fargo objected to the plan(probably because his bank managed to steer clear of the tempting ponzi scheme which was being peddled on Wall St.) and the response given was something like "if you don't sign now, the Gov't may not be so generous later". Why didn't Paulson just tell Rocco to take them out for a walk by the pier? Hopefully, I will be proven wrong, but I am not happy about the way this bailout plan is shaking out. It seems more like a shakedown to me.

Happy Pascha

2008-04-27T22:02:00.001-04:00

This year I observed Lent, as much as I could, and I attended the Paschal Liturgy at my church. Pascha is the Orthodox name for Easter and their calculation of the date for Easter is different than the Western tradition largely because of a continued use of the Julian calendar (and they rely on a real full moon, rather than a calculated one). The result of the calculation difference means that Pascha is always after the Western Easter, and it usually falls on the close of Passover(since the calculation for the two is essentially the same).

I arrived at Holy Resurrection at about midnight just as the paschal flame was being passed to the congregation. The church was dark except for a small light in the Holy Sanctuary where the Priests performed the rites of the service. I then saw those lights multiply as the priests lit candles and emerged from the sanctuary to light the candles of the parishioners. The paschal light was spread backwards through the church until it found me, in the very back, just outside of the door to the nave(where the parishioners are during the service). There was no artificial light and the room was filled with little candle lights. It was a beautiful sight. Chanting begun and the Paschal Hymn was sung. I like the Paschal Hymn a lot, and have since I first heard it. The English of the hymn is as follows: "Christ is risen, from the dead. Trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life" – then repeat. This short verse is full of theological depth and captures the crux of Christian belief, I like it very much and I tend to say it in my head often.

As I was in the back of the church, I watched my candle, protecting its light. We processed around the church, all of us holding our candles. I thought about how the candle must be protected from the wind and how sometimes it is blown out and you have to ask someone if you can use their candle to light yours. It seems like this is a perfect analogy for Christian life, or life in general. We cultivate what we believe, but there are sometimes doubts and having a community to fall back on allows our "flames" to be relit. Pascha is the annual resurrection of our(Orthodox Christians) faith and reminds us that life is a process that requires nurturing and care for growth to occur.

The rest of the service was good as well, after the procession, the lights are turned on in the church and liturgy continues with interjected bouts of "Christ is risen" and "Indeed, He is risen" in many languages. There are a number of different hymns sung which make the service longer than usual. Many of the children in the congregation were asleep by 2ish. I saw some kids on the pews sleeping and two others in sleeping bags under the pews. My friend Aaron's baby seemed determined to stay awake though looking at her little face; I could tell she was tired. She didn't cry during the service even though at one point I looked over and she seemed to be making grumpy-mouth – it was pretty cute.

When the service concluded with communion and blessed bread we gathered downstairs for the Paschal Feast. There was a ton of food, mostly the stuff that one could not eat if they had been fasting. Many of the kids, and adults, were walking around with hard boiled eggs and playing a game where they crack eggs with another to see whose egg will break. One thing I noticed that was different from the other time I had attended Pascha at Holy Resurrection is that the food tables were in a straight line. When I had attended in college, the tables were laid out in the shape of a cross. I suppose the linear shape facilitates getting food easier, but I enjoy the little symbolic details sometimes.

I talked with a few people and met some people that I didn't know before. I spoke with Fr. Patrick briefly and then came home. I managed to sneak in the door around 4am. I was tired, but I am really glad that I went to service.

thinking about the beginning of time

2008-04-09T18:15:00.002-04:00

In the beginning there was a ball of massive incomprehensible stuff that got bored and became the universe. Okay, I will take that, I mean it is the closest thing to an acknowledgement of a beginning of the universe one can expect from a scientific establishment that is bent on eliminating metaphysical references when talking about the universe. The problem is that scientists have run into a physical wall, a no man's land of sorts with regards to physical laws. All of the explanations for the Big Bang must abandon physics. I should acknowledge that I am reading a book by David Berlinski right now talking about the scientific consensus that God does not exist, or at least God should not exist. That being said I have been pondering the Big Bang and its paradoxes for quite a while. Hawking purports to be able to tunnel through the Big Bang to a prior state using a mathematical tool know as imaginary or complex numbers(remember the square root of -1 from high school math?). But that is still a technique and not a description of measurable science. Even with his little imaginary tunnel, he is brought to a place which just exists, until it decided to come out, there is nothing significant that can be said about that space and nothing can be said about the cause for its existence. If you think about the cosmological situation we see a return to a fundamental problem in scientific inquiry. Science uses conjecture then experiment to form statements about the physical world. Scientists, however, feel that they should be able to say things about non-physical events, and claim that to be a physical observation. Talking about events prior to the Big Bang is metaphysical, the laws of physics admittedly break down at the Big Bang, it is a singularity where no meaningful data can be assessed. To say that the universe had a state prior to the Big Bang is not within the realm of science. Maybe it is in the realm of advanced mathematics, but at that point the system described is not our universe but a logical entity, essentially a metaphysical system.

What astounds me is that many will fight vehemently to say that science has proved there is no God. It seems to me that it is not within the realm of scientific inquiry to prove such a claim. Perhaps science can assert that a physical reality which was purportedly caused by God has a physical cause, but it cannot prove God to not exist.

So what is it that pushes God-deniers forward? If their methods are not really scientific, why do they push the point? Because they believe it. The same reason that Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God, or Jews believe Abraham talked to God, or the Greeks believed the gods to have lived on Olympus. Believing in the assertion that God does not exist is just as much(if not more of) a matter of faith as believing God does exist. When one asks what caused the universe, one can say nothing, or one can say God (one can say other things, but logically they amount to nothing). It is the expedient answer to say God caused the universe, for there is no perceivable physical cause and our experience is that things do not come from nothing.

Reconciling Differences

2008-03-28T00:55:00.001-04:00

I have a habit of running through a line of thought, trying to understand it completely. Sometimes that can mean that I sound like I am espousing something that I don't really believe. What is really going on is that I assemble information about a subject by talking about it, thinking about it and trying to understand the paradigm where that information was generated. One such instance came back to haunt me recently as I managed to estrange a friend of mine converting to Catholicism. I respect this friend very much and my comments about the Pope and the Orthodox view of the Great Schism left my friend thinking that I regard Catholicism very unfavorably. I originally didn't know what to do about this so I just decided to come out and talk to her about it.

The Orthodox contention with the Catholic Church has to do with two major issues, Papal authority and the Nicean Creed. In the creed the words "and the Son" were added in an attempt to strengthen the creed against heresy. The major issue was that this addition was done in the West and the bishops of the east didn't approve it and claimed that an Ecumenical Council was necessary to change the creed. No such council was called and several Popes in Rome(and in Avignon) tried to force the usage of their modified creed using Papal authority. The Orthodox in the East did not recognize the Papal See as having the authority to change the creed and resisted those Popes who pressed the issue. It was not simply a theological split however that isolated the Roman Catholics from the Eastern Churches. Geography and politics drove larger wedges between the two churches. The Catholics were not so pleased about getting minimal help from the East to defend against attacking barbarians and the Orthodox didn't really enjoy the Crusades being used to ransack and steal from Orthodox churches in the East. The two sides of the former Roman Empire drifted apart and the Catholic West and Orthodox East began to develop Christendom in isolation of each other. I am probably sympathetic to the Orthodox view of things because being raised in the West I tend to look at my own roots more critically. I am sure that the Catholic understanding of the Schism is more favorably to their side -- such is the nature of polemic historical accounts.

I used to have a poor image of what Catholicism was, partially through ignorance, but also because of an iconoclastic Protestant tradition which viewed Mariology and the veneration of icons as idol worship. If anything, my encounter with Orthodoxy has given me a greater appreciation for Catholicism and a genuine interest in how Christianity is expressed in that church. I don't pretend that all Christians in Orthodoxy are doing it right and I would expect that there are Catholics, Protestants, Jews and others who have found a right relationship with God. I have no way of knowing the souls and inner thoughts of others, I leave that for God. I can only work on myself and hope, God willing, that my life is a true representation of my faith.

So friends, if I offend you, I apologize. I don't mean to call you out or offend. If I am brash, it is probably for poor reason. If I am wrong, correct me. If you disagree, tell me. I am open to what others have to say. That doesn't mean I will change my mind if I feel I am right, but most likely I am just expressing my thoughts poorly and I should be more careful.

On humility...

2008-03-26T09:38:00.002-04:00

On Humility was the title of the passage I read today from "Dorotheos of Gaza: Discourses and Sayings". Dorotheos uses many examples of both pride and humility to show humility as a virtue worth striving towards. It should be noted that when one reads a book like this one assumes that the audience for the book is one interested in pursuing Christianity. I would not expect that someone who cares nothing for the Christian way of life to find Dorotheos's teachings on humility to be useful. Anyway, Dorotheos talks about different types of pride. One can be proud of their status in society, their wealth and material possessions, their ability to eschew wealth and possessions and also any other ability that a person can possess or exercise. The danger in this is a tendency to exalt oneself over others. When one becomes proud they change their view of the world, they reorder it. Dorotheos speaks of a man who being a Christian began to espouse a certain view and because of that view he began to question the worthiness of Christians in authority above him. After having dismissed the authority of those above him he dismissed the usefulness of many saints who were revered at that time. Having dismissed the saints he also questioned the teachings of Peter and Paul and other Apostles. And then after discarding the teachings of the Apostles he abandoned his faith in God. I don't believe this passage says we should blindly accept what we are taught and blindly follow those teachings, but rather we should not be so proud as to believe we can just discard what is taught because we know better.

I have fallen into the same morass as Dorotheos describes many times. I let my pride sometimes lead me into believing things, not because they are right, but because I think they are right. I am reminded of Socrates a lot as I try to become a better Christian. He was both proud and humble. He enjoyed argument and debate, he loved to catch someone in a web of words, but he was quick to temper his enthusiasm for knowledge with the fact that he only knew one thing -- that he knew nothing. I know nothing, despite my desire to know everything I can -- I know nothing. When this is applied to my spiritual life I have to concede to God that all that I have is His. My life, my breath, my words are just borrowed.

For Carrie

2008-03-25T04:17:00.005-04:00

My wife told me that her friend was asking if I was feeling more spiritual as I try to fast for Lent. My first thought is that it is a little boastful for me to claim some greater spirituality from anything I do. If anything trying to observe Lent just tells me all the ways I manage to not observe the fast, and how if I wanted I could be more strict in my observance. I read recently that Orthodox spiritual practice exists in a continuum (I think this was in the Mathewes-Green book I am reading). What she means is that as you practice you take on new ways to express your spirituality and that is okay in orthodoxy. I was talking with a couple people at my Church recently about how some people make the sign of the Cross and bow touching the ground, while others just sweep their hands low. I have not seen anyone go up to any other person at a service and tell them that they need to do it another way however.

This kinda reminds me of when I first attended Holy Resurrection around 10 years ago. I remember being in the Church and watching everyone. I would sit and write in my journal during service because I didn't know what to do. The way the service was conducted, the way people moved, the attitude of the parishioners was completely foreign to me. I felt standoffish toward the icons and I was stuck in my protestant mindset that these images were somehow devilish. I felt compelled by an expression of Christianity that was completely strange to me and at the same time my familiar expectations of spiritual expression were challenged. For me that experience of being challenged and compelled attracts me to Orthodoxy and that mode of Christian practice.

A more direct, but still obtuse, answer to Carrie's question is this: When I graduated from college I didn't feel like I knew more than when I had begun, but I did have a realization of the scope of knowledge there is to be learned. So as Socrates might say, I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance[in ways of spirituality and wisdom].

Keeping something for yourself

2008-03-25T03:58:00.007-04:00

Paula, Fr. Patrick's wife, lead the Orthodoxy class I attend last Saturday. She said something that struck me. She mentioned that we should keep part of our spiritual life private, that we should not leave it open for all. I don't think I had thought about that before. Her analogy, which she borrowed, was that of a rich man who doesn't carry all of his riches with him but rather a portion so that if he is robbed everything is not taken from him. I don't know how far that analogy will stretch, but I think it is a good one.

As I struggle to work out my spiritual path, and try to describe what I feel and believe, it does not compare to my spiritual experience. I don't believe I can do justice to personal moments of spiritual clarity and simpleness and I fear trying to do so will tarnish those experiences which iI desire to keep close to me, in their full ineffable glory. We all have individual experiences of spirituality, whether it be small or large, and those experiences are for us alone. I do believe there is a community experience of faith as well however. I think that is the purpose of the Church, and in other religions the Synagogue, and temples. We, as Christians, are told that when two or more of us gather together, Christ is with us. This is not a magic trick, but rather a divine revelation. In this formula, the Bible talks about the power of Community, the need for others as you strengthen your faith. Christ is made manifest through the interactions of those who believe in him.

So with these two ideas, the closeting of ones spirituality and the community expression of it, one has two modes of experiencing God. One mode is the hidden way, the secret expression of God where we approach him with silence and awe. Think of Moses on Sinai, as he removed his sandals in reverence and pleaded to see God, his eyes slowly lifting to catch a glimpse of the Almighty as He passed. This sight was for Moses alone. None of those waiting at the base of the mountain had this experience, and it would not have benefited them. But for Moses, he desired it and God allowed Moses' that glimpse into His Glory and as a consequence Moses face shone like the sun. The tribes of Israel could not even look at Moses' face as he came down from the mountain because it shone so brightly after his experience of God. One's personal revelation of God is incomprehensible to others. But the other mode allows us common ground. The public revelation of God is recounted in the Torah as well. Moses brought down the Law for the community. God gave the Law to the people of Israel, as a gift, for all of them. The Law was the revealed Word of God, telling them how to live that they might assemble themselves into a priestly nation, an example for all nations not of the might of the Israelites, but of the God who had chosen them. This revelation was for all who would accept it, while the Israelites didn't proselytize, one could choose to be bound to the Law and be counted with the Israelite nation. When God revealed Himself, He chose those to whom the revelation was made, but He made His Law open for all who would accept it. And accepting the Word of God would be the foundation of a personal and secret revelation of God.

Diffusing stupidity

2008-03-11T14:46:00.002-04:00

A few days ago, Nicole and I had a pretty big fight. Looking back it was about stupid stuff. What snapped me out of the anger was looking at my son. As his parents gave each other the silent treatment, he needed someone to hold him. I picked him up, still feeling the tension and obstinance of my fight with my wife.

Almost instantly, my bad feelings, my anger, my self-righteous need to win were wiped from me. I apologized to Asher for acting the way I did and then I apologized to Nicole.

Had Asher not been around, I may have stormed around in my upset mood for the rest of the night. I thank God that my son was there to help me diffuse my stupidity.

Do we want happiness?

2008-03-08T23:07:00.003-05:00

Let me first say that I have no intention of developing this thought fully in this post. I think it is sort of naive to think that I ever could develop it fully. That being said...

Aristotle talks about how to be happy; self-help plans talk about how to be happy; apparently(according to my friend Vlad) Bhutan has a happiness index to measure their "national" happiness. Tons of people claim to be able to help you become happy. A lot of people complain about how they are not happy. Many just think we don't understand happiness.

My question is really, "Do we want happiness?"

Is it worthwhile to pursue? If we pursue happiness, will we ever find it?

I think that in some ways, we have a poor cultural definition of what happiness is. I mean really, for americans the standard definition of happiness is, in a word, MORE. More what? Anything, anything that our culture has devised as worth pursuing. Maybe that means new shoes or a better car or a bigger house. The point is there is always something else to be acquired. The American culture (and probably others) have attempted to monetize happiness. But then what about poor people? Can that just not afford happiness. What sort of goal for humanity would rest upon the development of economic institutions in order to be fulfilled?

I am not saying that communism makes people any happier. In order to make communism work in large societies you have to eliminate differences between people so that they can be treated "equally". In the Soviet Union those eliminations were just that, eliminations of people. I daresay that happiness is hardly worth having if it means that a few million others must die so that you might be happy.

So maybe happiness is not a goal, maybe it is a byproduct. Maybe happiness should not be a goal. Happiness is an ephemeral little bird which when you try to catch it, it flies away. But, when you have something better to do, it lands on your shoulder. I know, that description is trite, but I don't think it is too far off the mark. Think to yourself, what makes you happier, trying to be happy or doing something else well.

I wholly admit that I can't "make" anyone happy. I don't believe you make yourself happy either. I do believe you can make yourself miserable however by trying to become happier.

Lent Is coming, and so is Passover, etc.

2008-03-05T09:02:00.004-05:00

This morning on the train I read regarding the Lenten fast:

We don't even get to feel self-righteous about his discipline. Orthodoxy is clear that salvation can't be bought; any good deed we do are just tools to bring us in to deeper yieldedness, repentance and gratitude.

I think this typifies the spirit of the fast. As one observing, we use the fast to become closer to God, we deny ourselves a physical pleasure as a sacrifice. Though we know that no sacrifice is complete, we cannot attain the perfection God desires, except by His Grace.

Passover is coming as well. In fact, it falls during Holy Week, which is the last week of the fast. I was struggling with this last night. My wife would like to celebrate Passover this year, for Asher. She wants to celebrate the Jewish holidays to give him a sense of Judaism. She, though Jewish, has not practiced and doesn't have a lot of ideas as to where to start. My struggle is that I am Christian, not Jewish. How can the Jewish holy days be valuable for me, when I am not Jewish? This morning I thought, Jesus was a Jew. He celebrated Passover, his last meal with His disciples was a Passover meal.

The Orthodox Church transformed the Last Supper into the Eucharist. I suppose an Orthodox person would say that Christ transformed it; we simply observe that ritual. I know that Israel, as a people, went before us Christians. They laid the framework for my faith. I believe that the God I bow to is the same God that spoke with Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Elijah, David, and all the other great people of Israelite history. I also believe that many Jews followed Jesus because they saw in him a fulfillment of prophecies about a coming Messiah.

I realize that I can help my wife celebrate Passover, but for me it is a remembrance of Christ and those before Him who listened to God and broke with their own personal Egypt in search of a promise, a promise that in my faith leads to Christ.

Is this syncretistic? I dunno, I don't think so. I don't believe Judaism and Christianity are that far apart. I understand that an Orthodox Priest would say that Judaism has no Grace, that the Spirit of God inhabits the Church. Even if that is true, which my Church claims, the beliefs are not so much at odds. It is true that Judaism now, does not recognize Jesus as Messiah, but the values of Judaism are similar to Christianity. They cherish one God, as I do. And as I said, Jesus was Jewish. Many 1st century Christians were Jewish. When people study the 1st century they name Christianity as a Jewish sect. The Christians of the time still worshipped in synagogues and until the destruction of the Temple they honored God there. Had it not been for the Diaspora, there may have been more Jewish Christians. As for Christianity, Orthodoxy seems to me to be the most Jewish of the denominations. There is even a menorah in the sanctuary. The Orthodox concept of sin is more Jewish than Catholic. The idea that what we know of God is what He has revealed to us is both Jewish and Orthodox. Really, the significant schism between the Orthodox and Jews is that the Orthodox believe that Jesus was revealed as God, a hypostasis of the Godhead to use the technical term. And as God, Jesus revealed the person of the Holy Spirit. With these two revelations the doctrine of the Trinity has been formed. It is important to know that no Orthodox believe there are three Gods, there is One, who exists in three persons. One can try to understand it all they want, but that was what was revealed. Humans are not intended to understand the Trinity, but to know it is there.

The Great Lent

2008-03-04T08:48:00.003-05:00

Lent for the Orthodox Church begins on Monday the 10th. Traditionally, the two weeks prior to Lent are called Meatfare and Cheesefare weeks. These weeks you use up all the meat and cheese you have in your home so that it is out of the house by the beginning of Lent. I did not do this, I only figured this custom out this year, and I managed to miss that last 3 successive Sundays at Church. Either way, I plan on observing Lent so I am starting to modify my diet now so that my body will not be shocked as the fast begins. I have never observed the fast in the past. I remember when I was at KCC I would think about Lent, setting aside a week or so to challenge my self spiritually, but I didn't fast, I didn't observe the fullness of Lent. As such, I didn't understand the purpose of Lent. Now I think I am beginning to see its value.

Lent is a time of pulling oneself back to basics. You cut out all the extraneous parts of your life so that you can direct your heart and mind to God. But not just that, you offer your fast as a living sacrifice. The Church asks us to refrain from eating meat(eggs included), dairy, oil(specifically olive oil), and wine. Some places generalize olive oil to all cooking oils and some make wine mean all alcohol. For any given day sticking to this fast might not be so difficult, but the Great Lent Fast is 40 days, plus the 8 of Holy Week.

Many years ago, my friend Julian and I decided to find out what it is like to be vegetarian, so we had Veguary. In that month, we did not eat meet and in the middle of the month we went vegan for a week. The rest of the month was fine, I could always fall back on cheese, but that week trying to be vegan was hard. I just always felt hungry. Looking back I didn't prepare properly. I didn't think about what I could actually eat, so I just ate what was nearby, and that was sparse. I intend to prepare for my Lenten fast more appropriately. I will bring fruit and vegetables to work with me and I will have to think up some meals for home that Nicole will like and will fit my fast. Of course I will probably still cook normally for her.

During the fast I plan on focusing my spirit toward God. I am going to be reading "Facing East" which talks of a woman who converted to Orthodoxy as an adult. If I finish that I may move to something more austere, like "Dorotheos of Gaza". My goal is to overcome my dependence on food to fill my time or alter my mood. I have clearly enjoyed food more than I should and have used it for comfort rather than sustenance. I am praying that God will help me during my fast to change my eating habits in the long term. I have become unhealthy bodily, and it has been affecting me emotionally, mentally and spiritually. I wish to become a better steward of what God has blessed me with, and perhaps become a strong role model for my son who can learn the role of will and resolution in meeting one's goals. But also to learn that one can ask for help from others, God included, to achieve one's goals

Time and God

2008-02-13T14:11:00.005-05:00

Time is a very interesting thing. Humans experience time in a linear directed fashion. That is we progress into the future having experienced the past and existing in the present. We have a sense of causality which gives us a short glimpse into what MAY happen, and we have memory which gives us access to what COULD HAVE happened. In the category of memory, I include books, video, songs, stories, and all the things that give us access to what could have happened in places and times which we could not directly experience.

For any one person, the only bit of time for which we can attempt to verify is that of the present and even the present moment is not well defined. I might say, it is NOW, but now has passed and it is a different NOW a few moments later than the first. -- BTW, notice my use of "later", this is really an expression of direction which allows us to sequence moments in time. It is very hard to make statements about time without refering to how we experience it, but I will try.

God... How does God experience time? The implication of the Bible is that God created time, in Genesis he created the Sun and the Moon, Light and Darkness and hence the first Day. God is not said to have sprung into being as he created the first day, but rather he authored it, having existed before it. "Before" in this sense is a misnomer, because "before" is a reference to something happening before another, i.e. it is a marker in time, as "later" is. And this begins the problem we have in understanding perspectives outside of the limits of time.

I have thought a lot about this problem and the best thing I can come up with is this:

The creation, all of it, from the first evolving microbe to the last celestial body consumed by a black hole and the black hole itself are like a gigantic, multidimensional tapestry. In the way we look at a painting and see its height and width or the depth of the panter`s brush strokes and all the subjects of the painting at once, so God sees everything at once. All of creation can be surveyed as a whole. We experience this tapestry as a sense of becoming, we are miniscule bugs moving through this tapestry from one side to another, and what we experience of time is the sequential encounters with different partsof this celestial tapestry. God sees every possibility, every choice, every thing and every moment. He does not decide for us, but can see the consequences of our decisions; He does not choose our fate, but He knows its outcome no matter what we could possibly choose.

The Christian God, and to some extent the Jewish God, put his divine finger in the middle of this tapestry, he inserted himself into time, in the same way that a painter touches his brush to a painting. He didnt do this to remove our will but to exemplify His(or Her if you prefer) will. He gave us examples of what He does that we may emulate Him and be able to guess at what to do when no situation for emulation is possible. In the Old Testament we are taught to avoid defilement. We are told to set aside what we make as an offering to God, a thanks, a repentence, an acknowledgement that nothing we have is our own. He made it know that humanity, and all of creation is His In the New Testament we are told that God is Love, and that Love is this, that a man lay down his life for a friend. And Christ, the incarnate God laid down his life for those who would accept him, those who he would make his friends.

The Cross

2008-02-10T23:53:00.000-05:00

In Christianity, as with all religions there are many symbols of faith. Today in Church, I was looking up at the icons and the menorah and the different objects adorning the walls of the sanctuary and I looked at the Cross. Instantly, I began to think about the Lossky book I have been reading. The last chapter I had read talked about Orthodoxy as a process of aligning one's will with God's will. In that description, sin was anything against God's will, even if that action was "moral" in the conventional sense. As I looked at the Cross I saw two wills, the will of God, standing upright and the will of humanity laying across it. Then Christ's body nailed to the Cross, bringing the will of man, which is at cross-purposes to the will of God, into union with God. I felt like I had stumbled on something profound, but alas, I am sure it is not such an uncommon observation.

Objectivity...

2008-01-22T22:31:00.000-05:00

There are parts of me that lean toward fervent acts of faith and other parts of me that learn toward hard, rational and objective study and critique of religion.

I mean to an outside observer religion can look like lots of things, a tool for establishing community, a system of rules and paradigmatic stances which are designed to "enslave" a people, or just plain ludicrousness. But to one who believes it is all encompassing. History, life, choices, the future, everything can be interpreted through ones beliefs. The Objective/Critical view and the Subjective/Interpretive view are at odds, at least for me. I do not hope to justify my faith with a rational explanation of what I believe. If anything, I am more likely to use rationality as a tool to serve my faith rather than a tool to verify it. If rational thought were more fundamental, and capable of explaining faith, then faith would not be needed, we would have a clear explanation through reason. Reason then becomes not a power in itself, but a method subject to use by Faith.

Anyway, before I spiral too far into non-sense. I am taking a class about the Dead Sea Scrolls. I am trying to understand the sect that created the scrolls in an objective sense. I am trying to look at them as themselves, not with the baggage of history that followed them. As I do so I cannot help but see some of the thoughts of their theology born forth into Christianity. I end up seeing them as a precursor, or at least a stepping stone toward what I believe. In the lens of history there are two ways to view this. One is to say that God, in his wisdom was paving the way for Jesus, his Christ. These sects in the desert were mere foreshadowing of what was to come. This is a highly subjective view, where I view history with a purpose, and see the work of a personality which is steering history. The other view is that intellectually the DSS sect probably affected the development of Christian thought either directly through interaction of members of the sect with the founders of Christianity or indirectly through associations and coincidence. The objective view might see the link between the two belief systems, but would not see the link as part of a direction in History.

So which is right? I would say neither is wrong, or right. The second view describes what we can physically ascertain. We can verify the tenets of a sects beliefs and compare them with another sect. We can find textual similarities that point to similar religious idioms and thought. We can not proximity and draw conclusions about sectarian interactions. All these things are verifiable, and clear. When we start to see the workings of a guiding hand on historical events, it is not objective, it is an act of faith. To assign purpose to history is faith, faith in something which is capable of shaping history, i.e. God.

To stop short of proclaiming God's hand in history is safe. It is verifiable(in a shallow sense). It is not blind or daring. It is a commitment to a fragmented understanding of life, and humanity. I don't mean "fragmented", in a derogatory sense, but if there is no purpose in history, then it is just an amalgam of events strung together in a weakly causal sense over a spanse of time. While later events depend on the occurrence of earier events, those earlier events did not occur in order for the later events to happen. There is no "telos" to time for an objective viewer.

So here I am, beginning to formulate thoughts regarding our first papers for this class and I find that I need to be careful to keep my tendency of reading history in an inspired sense and to stick to what can be documented/explained using the evidence at hand.

Faith Not Magic

2008-01-07T08:33:00.000-05:00

Christianity is not magic. There are many that talk of a belief in Christ as if it is a mystical/magical experience. It is not. It is about faith. Magic implies that one has a certain power to "conjure" or affect change on some unseen power not yet documented by science. There are formulas, incantations, techniques and manuals for performing magic. Christianity is not about having the right words to say or doing a sacrifice on the right day. There is something called Orthopraxis, or right practice, but that is wholly different from magical ritual. If anything the practice of the Christian faith is necessarily flawed, not that we should not attempt to practice, but rather it is not humanly possible to acheive the totality of Christian practice, hence the need for Christ.

Really Christianity is about relationships. First and foremost is one's relationship with God. Any acts that God chooses to perform are expressly of his will, it is not the perfection of ones prayer which binds God into a certain action. It is not explicitly the taking of Communion that restores ones soul to its natural place. God gives us what he does because he wills it to be so. Now that being said, God makes promises. He promised Abraham that he would be a father of nations, Abraham had faith AND God accounted that faith to him as righteousness. I think the last part is important. Abraham was not a particularly great man, he was not someone which special spiritual powers, he just believed what God said. It was God that made Abraham righteous because of Abraham's belief. I want to qualify the word "because" in that last sentence, it is not a strictly causal relationship. God chose to honor Abraham's faith, for God's own reasons. This is a personal relationship that typified by one party honoring something from the other side. I think of the way that I want to do things for my child, I see him smile and I want to talk to him, even baby-talk to him. My infatuation with my little boy is exacerbated by his cuteness, but his cuteness is not the cause of my attention to him. I still choose to attend to him and there are times when I must focus my attention elsewhere, like now when I am not in the same place as my child. He can be as cute as he wants to be right now, but I will not be able to attend to him -- so his actions aren't causal. In the same way, Abrahams actions are not causal, God and Abraham had a relationship, and God chose to honor Abraham.

In the same way that God honored Abraham, he honors us as Christians. We are told to break bread in remembrance of Him, and we do. There is nothing magical about the act, but God honors our symbol of faith, because he said he would. It is not the preist that makes the bread and wine into Christ's body, it was Christ when he said, "This is my body... This is my blood", he honors us through out time because we keep his imperative, "Do this in remembrance of me". When one takes Communion in a disorderly way(without preparation of ones heart and mind) they are not fulfilling the command(and I say command in a qualified sense, like mitzvah, a command which should be followed through with joy) "Do this in remembrance of me." Rather they condemn themselves through delusion, they profane the Eucharist by treating it like magic, like the act of taking the bread and wine is what matters, not like they should be actively reaching out to God, seeking to change, and become closer to God. That delusion while it may seem like it has no consequence is dangerous, it is what removes the soul from Christianity. It is a reduction of a relationship with God, to a practice of religion. This is what Jesus rebuked the Pharisees about, they performed all the rituals, but not because of their faith in God, not because they wanted to understand and become closer to God, but because they thought that if they kept the commandments that they were righteous. This brings us back to Abraham, he was not called righteous for his actions, but his faith. Granted his faith affected his action and as James wrote in his epistle, "faith without works is dead", but it is not the place of humans to judge the works of others. We can advise or try to correct others, but we should not judge others unworthy or worthy because of their actions. There are many people that do good things for the wrong reasons and while that does not taint the quality of their works, it does not mean that they are good people. Conversely, there are many who cannot help but do bad things, or at least undesirable things, though they have the best of intentions. There may not be excuses for their actions, and every person should bear the consequences of what they do, but one should exhort those who do bad things to do good things and also to bear the consequences of their poor choices.

Anyway, I reached a little beyond my intended scope. My point is that Christianity is not meant to be a secret religion where one advances to levels of greater understanding or power. It is the development of self-knowledge and knowledge of God, through a life long working relationship with God. If God grants us a blessing it is his will, but not a result of some set of prescribed actions we take. Rebuke those who say things like "tithe and you will become rich", "Just pray and you will be healed". Those things may happen, but only if God sees to do so. God is not our genie, or our servant, if he serves us it is out of his compassion for us, not because we have said the right prayer 50 times. For our part, imagine us as the child in a parent-child relationship. A good parent is not going to abandon their child for being bad, but they aren't going to be happy about it. A good child works to please their parent, and while the standards of what a child might be able to do don't meet up with what a parent could do themselves(like a mishapen arts and crafts project or a poorly drawn picture), a parent enjoys gifts from their children, they enjoy seeing their child help out around the house, or try to do chores despite what they might have missed along the way. A good parent enjoys those things AND they work with the child to do those things more perfectly. God is working with use to do everything more perfectly but He finds great joy in seeing us try to do good, emulating His example.

The only thing

2008-01-06T14:02:00.000-05:00

It struck me today as I thought about the phrase "vanity of vanities" about how much of life is actually worth something(very little, and I was spurred to this blog-thought because of Fr. Patricks Christmas address at the HROC site). I think about everything I have done, everything I have gained and the only thing that I feel is a truly creative, beautiful thing is my son. My wife and I have produced a beautiful little boy. How will I be able to communicate to him that nothing in the world(by world I mean, cars, houses, money, etc) really matters. I want him to know that his purpose as a human is to search for love, for life, for God and all those things converge.

I like my car, my house, my laptop, but they do very little to make me a better person. I do not love God more because of my car. I do not feel invigorated and alive because of my laptop. I do not feel complete and fulfilled because of my house. Those things satisfy a baser desire for comfort, for status, or in the vernacular -- bling. They are vanities in a world of vanities. My wife and my son are what I thank God for, they invigorate me, they make me feel loved and fulfilled. My friends complete that circle, my family makes me stronger. Every "thing" I have is just that, a thing and just as my body will some day be buried and decompose, so will all those things. I believe however my friendships, my love for my son and wife, my search and desire for God are eternal. Those relationships will reverberate through the people I meet and keep in contact with, I pray that I make a positive impact and that I will represent what it is to be human in a good way.

BTW, when I first read Ecclesiastes and saw the phrase "vanity of vanities" I read it as a superlative, that somehow it was the vainest of all vain things, but I see a different meaning now. Vanity of vanities can also be read as cherishing that which is vain, or taking vanity in vain things. I think both ideas are worth pursuing and perhaps the phrase was constructed with both meanings in mind.

Friday Nights

2008-01-06T13:44:00.000-05:00

After my case was adjudicated in a juvenile hearing, I was sentenced to do community service. I did some of that service with the person whose house I broke into. I helped her at a soup kitchen in downtown Seattle. Most of the community service was done at KCC however. I was never an outgoing person and never really developed into one, so I didn't have a huge social life at the time. This community service arrangement at my church was very convenient since it meant that I could do the community service very quickly and for a place that I was invested in. At the time I used to clean and setup for a Friday night youth hangout at the church. I would vacuum, and stock the fridge and candy counter. I would put out the sign and basically get everything ready for what was at times 80 or 90 teenagers who would hang out in the basement of a house on church grounds. The purpose of the place was to give kids a place to be where there was adult supervision, fun stuff to do, and no drugs or alcohol. There were opportunities to talk about God and the night usually began with a prayer for the people that helped out. There wasn't a lot of pushing though. We weren't there to tell every teenager about how they needed Jesus or they would burn. For something like 2 years I helped run that hang out. Eventually attendance fizzled and I think they wanted to use the space for something else.

I thought about this today as I spoke to my friend Aaron. I met Aaron something like 9 or 10 years ago when I used to go a coffee house held at Holy Resurrection. I went there with Katrina and it was one of the first encounters I had with Orthodoxy. I remember encountering people that had clearly spent a lot of time thinking about what it meant to be Christian and I found that inviting. I wanted to learn more and it sparked my interest in this Ancient form of my faith. As I spoke with Aaron today I remembered helping setup or teardown some nights at Holy Resurrection's coffee house. Maybe it was just familiar for me to serve in that way. I kinda miss it and I feel a little out of place sometimes when I have nothing to do in a social setting. I went to the Christmas Coffee house held this year at Holy Resurrection. It was definitely cool, but I just felt old and out of place. I wanted to help setup or do something but I got there after most of the work was already done and there were plenty of people already doing stuff. There was also a significantly different tone to the purpose of the event. Maybe it was just that particular coffee house, but I remember the purpose of the old coffee houses were to open the church up to the community. There would be college students, drunks, random people passing by who would stop in, have a free cup of coffee. Some would ask questions, some would look around and leave. The Christmas coffee house seemed more like a performance designed for the OCF audience, not for anyone who wanted to stop by.

A new year

2008-01-02T11:22:00.000-05:00

New Years is always a time of reflection, planning, and self evaluation for me. Here in the Northern Hemisphere we celebrate our new year with the cold of winter. I feel like the weather sets my mood as I look back on what the previous year brought and I prepare for the upcoming year.

This last year was dedicated to transitioning from a couple to a family. Nicole and I got pregnant last January and spent the first 10 months of 2007 figuring out what we wanted for our new baby. We talked about how we want to raise him, about his religious identity, about whether he would be turn out to be a boy or a girl. It was a hard and exciting process that I feel only barely prepared me for fatherhood. In those moments as our son Asher was born something happened inside me that changed my identity forever. I saw his bluish little body, gasping for breath and I could barely contain myself. In that room I had a foretaste of what my future would be. I was the happiest and most fearful I can every remember being in my entire life. That little baby was my son, and I can't imagine ever not caring about him.

After he was born I realized that parenthood is work. It is not something that just happens. At 3 in the morning you don't want to change diapers, but you have to. I have a habit of sleeping through Asher's cries, so my wife takes the brunt of the work. I try to help her out, letting her sleep early while I stay up with Asher to feed him, but in the grand scheme of things I am getting off easy. The other thing is that you never have a day off from being a parent. Even if you manage to get a babysitter and schedule a date with your wife, you can't help but think about whether he is ok. I am forever changed, I believe for the better.

This coming year I want to focus on growing up. I need to regain some self-control, and discipline myself to accomplish the tasks I set out to do. My ability to execute something that takes a lot of time has been shoddy in the past. I have a habit of focussing on things that are right in front of me and not planning out what is to come. I want to change that and I am going to start by choosing my goals and breaking them down into manageable chunks. Even God didn't create everything in a day.

I want to be a better father. I want to be able to teach my child how to be a boy and then a man. I believe that also means that I need to focus on my spiritual life. I know that many people these days think spirituality is just what you believe and religions are bogus. I tend to think that religion has developed in order to focus one's spiritual life. Religious practice forces us to see beyond ourselves, back in time at all those who have gone before use and laterally to those who practice now. It also helps develop self-discipline by asking one to give up small things, maybe just one thing at a time, but to replace that lost thing with God. This is like exercise for the soul. I aim to inch my way back into religious practice so that I can begin to control my own desires and grow as a human being.

We will see how 2008 plays out. I am looking forward to it.

Christmas morning

2007-12-25T01:35:00.000-05:00

I grew up in the USA, that means for me, Christmas has always been on December 25th, or rather December 25th on the Gregorian calendar. I believe I am going to celebrate Christmas on Jan. 7th(of the new year), that would be December 25th of the Julian calendar. This screws up a lot of stuff and it does not mean that I intend to correct everyone that wishes me a merry Christmas or deny all presents until Jan. 7th. My Church, in the temporal sense, celebrates the nativity of Christ on Jan. 7th. I am not a member yet, nor have I been baptized, but I feel right there and I feel proud to celebrate Christ's life, teachings, resurrection and ascension in that community. I feel at home there and I feel like this is the Church I have always searched for. I had glimpses of this Church(the eternal one), in the Bible, in truly blessed services, in reading about the early Church. I feel proud to celebrate Christ at the same time as those who have gone before me.

On another note, I just watched the midnight mass televised from St. Peter's basilica. I enjoyed it, though I must admit that I didn't feel enthralled with it the way I am with services at Holy Resurrection. I really feel like while watching on TV might be nice, it does not substitute for being in service. God flows through people and He desires that we would interact with others. I also thought as I watched the service, about the office of the Pope. I heard the narrator refer to Peter as the "Prince of the Apostles". I feel like the hierarchy of the Catholic church is not very Christian. I see no evidence in the Gospels that Peter was in authority over the other Apostles, but that seems to be what Catholicism claims. Peter also was not the most prolific of the Apostles. Paul clearly wrote much more and his credentials are given to him post resurrection. The papal claim seems to be something which has been generated through historical happenstance, not divine appointment. In Orthodox history it was common to defer to the Church in Rome not because of Peter's authority but because it was the seat of the empire. When the seat of the empire moved to Constantinople that deference was also shifted. In fact, there were decrees that Rome was where the emperor was, so if the emperor was in Constantinople then that was Rome. It would seem that it serves the Catholic West to assume Papal authority in order to legitimize the denigration of those Churches that believe that Church authority is centered in Christ, not the Pope, and that on earth we confer with other believers to make decisions about the Church and its actions. That process was in place long before the split and it generated such revered treasures as the Nicean Creed and the Doctrine of the Trinity. It was the opinion of the united Church that while one mans hand might be flawed, a synod of the Holy Apostolic Church was infallible. So as I watch Pope Benedict escort the baby Jesus to his place in the crib scene, I watch him be treated like a pop star. Heads of state, nuns, preists, random people, throwing there arms out to touch him. I see him celebrated as an Icon of the One True God, and I think it is wrong. Many of these people celebrate this man, not what he professes. I think Peter would find that sort of adoration apalling and with zeal he would reject the people who would fawn over him so that he could direct them towards Christ. Christ humbled Peter because Peter believed he was best, and Christ showed him that every man can fail, every man hides. However, with Christ's Spirit inside him, he came to profess the gospel of the Lord, that God became Man so that man, lost in the world could be turned toward God and God might perfect humanity in the way he originally intended. Perhaps our dear Pope was tired, but I think it would have been appropriate for him to stop and yell at the crowd something like "Why do you look at me, Why? You are hear to seek God, turn your eyes inward." I might just ask too much.

Reflecting on the life of a man

2007-12-21T11:16:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, my wife and I attended the funeral of Charlie Sposato. I found out he passed this last Monday and I had a lot of mixed feelings. Charlie was a devout Christian and Catholic by practice. He was one of the few people I know who was always sincere and humble, even when he was telling you that he was more handsome than yourself.

By vocation Charlie was a teacher. I actually met him when I worked at the MATCH School where he was the principal. By the time I knew him he already had a long fruitful career that I only barely knew of even after working with him for 5 years. I pieced together the breadth of his impact through conversations and seeing some of the newspaper clippings he used to keep in his office. As a colleague attested to recently in an email about him, he had an amazing repertoire of knowledge, both academic, and human. He had a truly God-given gift of connecting with people and teaching them in a way that they understood and appreciated.

**I feel like I need to qualify the words "teaching" and "teacher" here. Charlie was everyone's teacher, and he was everyone's pupil. I never sat in on a class with him, but I felt like every time I talked to him, there was something to learn from the interaction. He was a teacher in the specific sense that he taught classes for a long time, but he was a teacher in a more profound sense -- he taught everyone.

Charlie was dedicated to making a difference in the lives of his students better. He gave every student the benefit of the doubt, he was always their friend and always their mentor. He exuded the qualities that I believe are exemplary of Christian life. If there was anyone that I could point to and say, "That man knows God!" it would be Charlie. I say that, not because he was constantly preaching - which he didn't do, but because he truly cared for everyone he met. He did not seem to waste a single moment in his life, constantly trying to help others. He was not a proud man either, he had no illusions of being better than anyone else which prompted him to work incessantly to correct his own faults so that they would not hinder others. Perhaps Ayn Rand would call his self-sacrifice selfish in some way, but I don't think it matters. Even if someone wants to say that he did those things so he would feel better about himself, he still did them and that is more than I can often say for myself. Is it wrong to do good things if you enjoy them? I think not, I think it should be a joy to do the will of God, and for Charlie it was.

I like to think that he is with his Maker now. I hope that he can see how much we all appreciated his presence on this earth. We will miss you Charlie and in this moment I hope sincerely there is an afterlife just so I can give you a hug and you can say I have a big nose.

2007-12-18T13:40:00.000-05:00

I drove in to work today. The commute was not bad, hopefully parking will be as easy when I get back.

As I drove down Mass. Ave. I looked forward to see a beautiful blue sky. It slowly graduated from a rich deep sky blue to a lighter milky blue as it intersected with the crisp lines of the buildings surrounding me. Seeing that sky reminded me of reading a science book my parents gave me when I was young. The book had all sorts of things in it, like experiments with bubbles and water tension, how to suspend an egg in a glass of water by putting in the right amount of salt. I remembered as I looked at that milky blue about the book explaining light diffraction in the atmosphere and it had an experiment involving a flashlight and a glass of water with some milk in it to demonstrate how the light is affected when it goes through a medium with particulates in it. That reminded me of how young children always ask "Why?"

My point is that children ask "Why?", and we train them to ask "How?". If you think about it science is designed to describe causal events, or document phenomena, but that does not involve causation or intentionality. For centuries science has reformulated "Why?" into "How?" some times there is little that is lost, but often, the essence of the answer sought is completely ignored. There is no purpose found in scientific inquiry. What then can tell us "Why?" Why is the sky blue? What is the answer to a question like that?

Let me approach this from a different perspective. Let's say I stack two books on top of each other, the book on the bottom is authored by Newton, and the book on the top by Marquez. Another person comes along and asks "Why did you stack these books this way?" I can answer a multitude of ways, either "they are alphabetical by author" or "I had not particular reason" or even "so that you might ask why I did it that way." The point of this example is that I could give intentionality to that act. The question "Why?" could be answered properly because I as the one who stacked them could give insight as to the reasoning I used when stacking the books. I may also have had some future purpose for having the books stacked which I could enlighten the observer about. Understand, science is not designed to ask the one who caused an action about it's purpose. A scientific inquiry as to why the books are stacked in such a way would work something like this:

Observation: The books are stacked
Hypothesis: They may have fallen into place as such
Observation: The book by Newton happens to be heavier than the book by Marquez
Hypothesis: If the books fell from a significant distance then air resistance might disproportionately affect the book by Marquez making it more likely to land on top of the book by Newton.
Observation: The author of the lower book is Newton and the upper book is Marquez
Observation: Newton comes after Marquez in the alphabet
Hypothesis: The books were intentionally stack in an order
Problem: Since there are two books, the order of their placement is not significant to prove intent.

Now a scientist may make the hypothesis that the books were stacked intentionally, but that is not a provable hypothesis. How can they prove intent without access to the one who exercised intent initially. Furthermore, science is fundamentally focused on experimental verification. A scientist can take those two books and drop them multiple times and record the results to see if the falling on each other hypothesis would work.

I think that much the way Plato used the structure of his dialogues to illustrate that often people are speaking at cross purposes, we still today answer things like "Why?" with "How?" And why shouldn't we, science, and the exploration of how to do things had been enormously successful. Or has it? What is fundamentally different about Humans now versus 1000 years ago? On average we live longer? Okay, but do we live better? We can't tell, that is a qualitative question which is not answerable. I would contend that since we still read the ancient books and find value in them, that we are not so different now. We still love, live, eat, cry, die, etc. So has focusing on answering "How?" instead of "Why?" helped us appreciably?

I don't know. Socrates said that the only thing he knew was that he knew nothing. Every day that I live I feel those words. I think of how true they are. But Socrates meant them in a specific way I believe.

Aristotle was the great systematizer. In the West he was often called "The Philosopher"(I take offense at that title). I don't remember who said it, but once Aristotle was referred to as Plato's worst student. Why? Clearly, Aristotle's mental fortitude was amazing. I think the problem with Aristotle is that he was too willing to give up on the "Why?" and try to explain the "How?". Have you read about his idea of a First Cause? That is an elegant solution to the issue of how a dynamic system begins. I mean it is essentially the Ancient Greek philosophical version of the Big Bang. There is one problem though,(in both theories), the problem is "Why?" Why did the first cause need to start, and the corresponding question, why does a super symmetric unmeasurable speck of nothing need to burst into a universe? The scientific inquiry can move no further. Once you move all the way back to a singularity, there is no prior evidence to consider, every thing you can examine is after that "First Cause" or "Singularity" and so the inquiry stops. At that moment the conversation is nothing but guesses, but that is hardly science. It is however, religion, in a way.

I remember reading Kierkegaard for an ethics class in college. The book we were reading was "Fear and Trembling". The book is largely an examination of the scene in the Old Testament, or Torah where Abraham is told by God to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abraham prepares for the sacrifice, and climbs the mountain with Isaac to go to where they sacrifice to God. Remember, at this point, Isaac is old enough to ask questions and he asks of his father something like "Where is the sacrifice?" Abraham's response is that God will provide the sacrifice. Abraham had his son gather together the branches to make the fire, he then binds his son(If I were Isaac I would be freaking out) and places him on the brush on the altar. The knife is raised and the angel of the Lord stops Abraham, an animal is provided and they sacrifice that instead.

Abraham knew what was right, and it was not something which would be condoned by ANY ethical code. Abraham knew, by faith, that God would not ask him to do something wrong. In this instance I don't even feel qualified to say what right and wrong are. The point is that Kierkegaard wants you to understand that ethics is not limited to reasonable action, or sentimental action codified through rational inquiry. There are actions which are right for wholly inexplicable reasons, and in those moments we just know they are right. In Abraham's case he knew what was right was what God had asked him to do.

By the way, if I were Isaac, I don't think I would like God much at that point. I also question a lot about how Abraham never told people that Sarah was his wife, and this always got him in sticky situations which God essentially finagled him out of. God didn't seem too happy about the whole calling Sarah his sister thing, but still Abraham did it. So why is it that Abraham who does not have the guts to tell people Sarah is his wife, is fine with sacrificing the child promised to him by God Himself.

Anyway, I went a little farther with this that I had planned. Time to turn in for the night.

First Thought

2007-12-17T10:37:00.000-05:00

Today on the train, I was reading a book about the Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church(specifically, the Eastern Orthodox Church). I have really been taking my time reading this book, I checked it out last spring and here it is December and I am only halfway through.

The book is dense and sometimes I need to reread passages, this may have something to do with being translated from Russian. That is not the reason I have been slow to read it though. Really, I have just been putting it off. The book itself amazes me every time I pick it up. I find something that confirms my beliefs about God and humanity whenever I read it. It is really making me more fond of Orthodoxy as a whole.

I was raised in a Presbyterian church, until my parents divorced. Then I don't remember going to services again until I was about 15, well after we had moved to Washington State from Texas. That was the summer after 9th grade. I had broken into a neighbor's house during my 9th grade year and I was eventually caught. The guilt of having done what I did was too great and I confessed when I was brought in to the police station. My "friend" who committed these crimes with me, did his best to not be incriminated. I remember him coming to me in the hall at school and talking about how his dad was going to hire some lawyer and I should just not say anything else to the cops. I don't remember what I said, but I remember feeling like we were already caught, we should just face the consequences of our actions. I was freaking pissed at him for wanting to try to continue to get away with our crime and in reality that was probably where our friendship ended.

Anyway, maybe I was motivated by guilt or maybe I just needed guidance, or maybe I was divinely inspired(who knows, it is possible), but I did seek out a church that summer. My mom and I had recently moved, largely because my mom's boyfriend at that time said something like "I don't want that f'ing thief in my home", and we lived near a few churches. I originally went to the Presbyterian church about two blocks away and tried to talk to some one in the office, I think I scared the woman there to death and I got a bad read off the situation. She couldn't speak English well and my general impression of the place was that it was dead. Not really dead, but empty -- for me at least. At that moment the faith I was raised with was lost to me, and I had to find my own(oh, the drama!!! ;-).

On my way back I walked by a church which I will call by it's acronym, KCC, it was an Assemblies of God church and I will get into what that means at some other time. There was a college student named Chris K. changing the sign and I remember asking to speak to the Reverend(being from the south and going to a Presbyterian church I was not familiar with the term Pastor). He introduced me to the youth pastor at the church, Mark. Mark was friendly, full of energy and had a moment to talk. As a result I felt good about the place and I started going to KCC pretty regularly, at least once a week but more often twice a week.

That was my church all through high school, it was one of the few places I felt like I belonged when I was that age and I felt good being there. If anything it kept me out of a lot of trouble and I think I learned a lot while attending service there.

When I came to Boston for school, I tried attending the AG college group and even tried going to a couple of churches, but they were never right. I always felt like I was not in sync with them and I didn't belong. As a result I stopped going to service. I also started to do a lot of soul searching which along with some other soul scouring events in my life, left me a long way from church, and only marginally on a path leading to God.

My Junior year I dated a girl named Kat. She was "interesting", we have not talked in years and I have plenty of memories both good and bad. I loved her at the time however and I am grateful for at least one thing she gave me. When we were dating she brought me to her church in Allston. It is a Bulgarian Orthodox Church, though there are not many Bulgarians and the service is usually in English. The name of the church is Holy Resurrection and it's website is www.hrocboston.org. I attended services and functions there sporadically for a year or so, until I felt like I should convert or leave. I still felt pretty scarred religiously from the extended time I had taken away from church and I didn't know if I felt right embracing Christianity so fervently again. I had a lot of doubts and let questions and confusion get in the way of me pursuing God. I left the church and lived a while without thinking too much about it.

Recently, I have been wanting to be involved in church again, probably because of my new son. It is funny how having a child makes you want to do things like go to church. Anyway, while my wife was pregnant I reacquainted myself with Holy Resurrection in Allston. I came to realize that many of the issues I had were not actually problems, they were just issues I had with other churches. I also have a different perspective on religion now and I have been working out my issues with the acquisition of knowledge by faith and being able to believe in something despite doubt.

There is my first thought. I will hopefully have many more which may or may not be correct, or interesting. I thought on the train today as I was reading, "if more people stopped and thought about God, maybe they wouldn't have time to fight in His name".