Weekend Fisher at Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength has in the last week been running a series on spiritual resources for the terminally ill and their caregivers. Now, where I’m placed in my life’s journey has not found me interacting closely with the terminally ill and I’m not naturally very emotive/empathic anyhow. However, it so happens that this Sunday afternoon our choir visited a terminally ill member of our congregation who is (had been) a member of the choir. I hadn’t gotten to know at all over the past year so we haven’t been visiting until now. But … to the point. When we visited we sang a few songs.

As our final song, our choir sang St. Simeon’s prayer (in the west the Nunc Dimittis) :

??? ???????? ??? ?????? ???, ???????, ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??????,

??? ????? ?? ???????? ??? ?? ???????? ???,

? ????????? ???? ???????? ?????? ??? ????,

??? ??? ?????????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??????.

or more usefully, i.e., in English (which is actually how we sang it but some Greek was sung, i.e., the Paschal Toparion)

Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:
For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

This is a song well known in Orthodox liturgy as it is part of the Great Vespers service, which in the States is sung every Saturday night.

On the drive home, we were discussing in our family whether this was appropriate to sing in the presence of the dying. I think it is, for that is the precise context of St. Simeon’s urge to speak these words. He has now seen the Christ child and is, as an elderly and likely infirm man … ready to depart … life. The common usage of this song is at the end of a service, and often “now let thy servant depart” is taken as to depart from this place of worship and return to secular life. However, that is now what was meant in the original context. So in that regard, as a song for the dying … it both is appropriate and may provide some comfort.

Comments?

My three eldest kids are going to each be doing a short-term missions/ministry trip this summer.  One is going to Costa Rica later in the summer, which will be the subject of "Part 2" later.  The other two are going to Waveland, Mississippi to work with the Christian Life Center, a relief ministry of our church, the Christian and Missionary Alliance.  The CLC’s focus is on the reconstruction of homes post-Katrina and development programs for the needy.  A joint effort by two nearby churches, the CLC was one of the first relief groups into Waveland after Katrina hit.  (Their history page is here.)

In addition to bringing clothing to donate to the CLC’s thrift store (and thus clearing out a bit of space in our garage), the kids from our youth group are going to be working for a week on service projects in the area and helping with gospel outreach as well. 

Please pray for their safety, their witness, their work and their personal spiritual lives.  Thanks.

[tags]religion,Christianity,missions,Waveland,Mississippi,Christian Life Center,Christian and Missionary Alliance,Katrina[/tags]

In chapter 19 of the first conferences of St. John Cassian, it is noted that our thoughts have three origins. That the thoughts we perceive come from God, Satan, or ourselves. Discernment is then of crucial importance. What does Abba Moses (the desert ascetic whom St. John is interviewing in the Conferences) say about discretion? Well, he says quite a bit, for he finds that one of the most important virtue for a Christian. One of the things he says is (chapter 10 of the 2nd conference):

The answer how true discretion may be gained.

THEN Moses: True discretion, said he, is only secured by true humility. And of this humility the first proof is given by reserving everything (not only what you do but also what you think), for the scrutiny of the elders, so as not to trust at all in your own judgment but to acquiesce in their decisions in all points, and to acknowledge what ought to be considered good or bad by their traditions. And this habit will not only teach a young man to walk in the right path through the true way of discretion, but will also keep him unhurt by all the crafts and deceits of the enemy. For a man cannot possibly be deceived, who lives not by his own judgment but according to the example of the elders, nor will our crafty foe be able to abuse the ignorance of one who is not accustomed from false modesty to conceal all the thoughts which rise in his heart, but either checks them or suffers them to remain, in accordance with the ripened judgment of the elders. For a wrong thought is enfeebled at the moment that it is discovered: and even before the sentence of discretion has been given, the foul serpent is by the power of confession dragged out, so to speak, from his dark under-ground cavern, and in some sense shown up and sent away in disgrace. For evil thoughts will hold sway in us just so long as they are hidden in the heart: and that you may gather still more effectually the power of this judgment I will tell you what Abbot Serapion did, and what he used often to tell to the younger brethren for their edification.

This is counter to much of protestant praxis, which relies heavily on trusting in your own personal abilities of discernment. The practice of confession, of the spiritual guide/father is one largely lost in the modern Roman church and in even more in the American protestant with the Yankee tradition of self-reliance. Even in Orthodoxy there is a lot of latitude regarding confession and spirtual guidance and traditions widely vary. For myself, I have discovered that the sacrament of confession to be a great joy and help in feeding and strengthening my spirtual life and journey.

My question for my readers is this. Take as granted that discretion is of crucial importance. Then is Abba Moses wrong in what he says about discretion? Is the virtue of humility a prerequisite for discretion? If not, where is Abba Moses error?  And if so … does how your tradition seeks and strengthen your personal virtue of true humility?

Historically, in the Christian church there were “eight grevious or deadly sins” … which Pope Gregory (the Great) the the 6th century dropped the 7th to prune the list to 7. The one dropped ironically can be translated as “self-esteem.” This is ironic in view of the public school’s emphasis on self-esteem as a virtue. It should, I would think, give us today pause to consider that what was for 600 years in the Christian tradition one of the cardinal sins is in the “wisdom”  of our age thought a virtue. Who do you think more Godly, the Coptic ascetics or the modern west?

Commenter Don Trabue had remarked earlier that he had never heard of St. John Chrysostom. It’s likely he, and many other protestant readers, are not aware of St. John Cassian either. His writings, life, and works. Wikipedia has this to say. In part it was the writings of St. John Cassian as excerpted in the Philokalia (and the pdf linked above) that cemented my sojourn from my Western Protestant roots and into Eastern Orthodoxy. Unless I am discouraged by comments or email  I will (sporadically) post entries like this in an attempt to educate and inform readers in the West of Eastern traditions and their Patristic roots.

In the discussions following my ethics post on SCO, I finally realized (comment #17):

You are not arguing for traditional conservative morality, you are arguing for Kantian (moral absolute) deontology. I don’t think Christian meta-ethics are either deontological or teleogical … or absolutist. I think, if pressed, I’d define Christian ethics is pneumatological … but that just occurred to me so I’m going to have to think that through in my next essay.

Modern ethics, wiki tells us, is divided today into deontological and teleological camps, or roughly speaking rule based ethics vs consequence based ethics with some variations. Christian ethics is neither. But then, what is it?

What does my claim that Christian ethics is pneumatological mean. That means, our ethical choices should be inspired by the Spirit (of God). St. Siluan (of St. Siluan the Athonite) suggests that this is, in part, accomplished by striving take  first choice  that springs unbidden to our mind as he believes that is, more often that not, is not from yourself but from the Spirit. Likely as well, one’s prayer life, ascetic struggle, and liturgical/sacramental participation play into that ability of the Spirit to influence you in this way. As well, Scripture and the traditions passed from the Fathers can be a guide for us … when we lack personal inspiration.

Prayer for the Terminally Ill

Lord Jesus Christ our Savior: You were born for us; You hungered and thirsted for us; You suffered and gave Your life over to death for us. You have caused Your servant, Theodore Kennedy, to share in Your sufferings: Now cause him to share in Your grace. Let Your precious blood wash away the stains of his sins; let Your righteousness wash away his unrighteousness. Look upon his faith rather than upon his works when he stands before You as the Judge. As his life draws to a close, surround him with Your grace. Do not let his faith waver, nor his hope fail, or his  love grow cold. Do not let the fear of death cause him  to lose his  faith in You, or trust in anything other than You. Let him look to You steadfastly, so that saying “Into Your hands, Lord, I commend my spirit,” he may enter into Your everlasting Kingdom where You reign with Your Father Who is from everlasting, and Your all-holy, good and life-giving Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.

a second prayer

Lord and Master, Ruler of all and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: You do not desire the death of sinners, but rather that they may turn from their wickedness and live, willing that all should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. We pray that You will loose the soul of Your servant Theodore Kennedy from every bond and free him from every unfulfilled pledge which he has given, granting him forgiveness of all the sins he has committed from his youth until now, in word and in deed, knowingly and unknowingly, both that that he has confessed and those which he has concealed through forgetfulness or shame.

For You alone loose the bonds and restore the oppressed; You alone are the hope of those in despair, with the strength to forgive the sins of every creature that puts its trust in You. Lord and Lover of mankind, bid him to be released from all bonds of sin and of the flesh. Receive in peace the soul of Your servant Theodore Kennedy and give him rest in Your eternal dwelling with all Your saints, by the grace of Your only Son our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, with Whom You are blessed together with Your all-holy, gracious and life-giving Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.

A group of evangelical Christians is trying to get the point across that the science isn’t settled on global warming, and indeed that the “cure” may be worse than the disease.

While it may seem like everyone believes in global warming and the impending catastrophe it will bring, a group of conservative Christians countered that message Thursday by launching a national campaign to gather one million signatures for a statement that says Christians must not believe in all the hype about global warming.

The “We Get It!” declaration, which currently has nearly 100 signers, is backed by prominent Christians including Tony Perkins of Family Research Council, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, award-winning radio host Janet Parshall, and U.S. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma.

What supporters of the statement seek is to inform Christians about the biblical perspective on the environment and the poor, and to encourage them to look at the hard evidence, which they say does not support the devastating degree of climate change claimed by mainstream society.

The point is that there’s more to global warming than carbon offsets and fluorescent light bulbs. There are people to be considered.

Read the rest of this entry

In a discussion, I can’t locate right now, I accused Dan Trabue of equating Jesus message with class warfare. Now we have some disagreements, but that accusation was and is unfair and wrong … and I apologize.

Mr Trabue is far more comfortable with Marxist Liberation theology than is healthy for anyone, err, than I. Particularly seeing as how I think, and I think I can support, the idea that Marxism is inextricably linked with genocide. But that is no reason to connect Mr Trabue to a line of thinking that link  Jesus teachings on charity to the poor, via Liberation theology to Marxism and thereby conclude that Mr Trabue thinks that Jesus commends class warfare. So, no I don’t believe that Mr Trabue thinks that the outworking of Jesus theology is Holodomor.

Mr Traube holds his beliefs out (see comment 10 in the above linked item) for us all to review so we might examine our differences. I’m going to list these items and remark on some of them in the hopes of exploring in a gracious way, our differences.

1. We are saved by God’s grace, through faith in Jesus. Not by works.

Now a lot of theological fire is held in abeyance in this statement. Catholics affirm it, yet they continue by noting that faith without works is dead … so by logical inference works are required as well, but the works don’t save us, Christ does. Works are the evidence of our faith. Paul also notes works without faith avail us not in Romans.

2. We are not saved merely by believing in Jesus (”yeah, he was a good guy, son of God, that’s all cool”) – even the demons believe, we’re told – but by believing in Jesus and his teachings, the Way he told us to live. By embracing that as the Right and Good Way, by asking for forgiveness when we get it wrong and trusting in God to help us follow in those steps.

Sacramental efficacy? Baptism into life, “all who are Baptized into Christ have put on Christ” is sung at times in Orthodox liturgy. Fasting, prayer, confession, repentance, charity, and the liturgy are the ways in which we follow that way. We don’t ask forgiveness “when we get it wrong” because we always get it wrong. We must pray continually, ask forgiveness continually, etc.

4. Because we’re flawed humans, we don’t always get it right. Sometimes we misunderstand the Bible. Sometimes, our reasoning is off. Thankfully, we are saved by God’s Grace.

What has been accepted by Ecumenical council and received by the Church catholic are how we judge the correctness of our interpretation. See also St. John Cassian on discernment transmitting the wisdom of the Desert.

5. The Bible has clear teachings – consistently throughout the whole of the Bible – about wealth and poverty. To ignore them is foolishness

I agree. I just think the teachings on our attitude toward God, our repentance are more important. That is the crux of our argument.

6. One of the consistent gists of biblical teachings on wealth and poverty is that God is especially concerned for the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized. God clearly loves us all, but consistently throughout the Bible, God says, “woe to those who’d mistreat the poor.” God never in all of the Bible says such about the rich, the powerful and the mainstream. There are lessons to be learned there.

“woe to those who’d mistreat the poor”? Where? Just curious. On the “never says that about the rich” I don’t know what is meant by that. St. John Chrysostom taught that the rich should help the poor as part of charity and the poor for their part in charity should pray for the rich. I think that is right.

7. The lesson, though, isn’t that God is a class warrior or a mere marxist – playing the rich against the poor. Again, God loves us all. Rich and poor. God wants what’s best for us all.

“God wants what’s best for us all.” Which is that we are holy, priestly, God-fearing people.

8. This world is a world of abundance and plenty, with plenty for all – providing that some don’t overconsume resources and especially that they don’t do so by “false scales,” “buying land upon land,” etc. i.e., providing that people don’t oppress others by systems or methods that are designed to take advantage of people to one’s own benefit.

?! See my prior post.

9. Both Marxism and capitalism are flawed human constructs – ways of dealing with matters of economy. Neither is perfect and, in fact, both have quite potentially large flaws. My personal inclination is towards a regulated capitalism. I think Marxism is difficult to pull off well on the large scale.

Marxism is evil incarnate. Slavoj Zizek writes that Lenin is to Marx and Marxism and Paul is to Christ and Christianity. You cannot have one without the other. Marxism implies genocide. Marxism was “pulled off” just fine by Mao and Lenin. The result speaks for itself.

10. Because I recognize the reality of the large number of verses dealing with wealth and poverty, because I point out that James said, “Is it not the rich who are exploiting you?” or that Jesus said, “it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom,” doesn’t mean much beyond that I’m pointing them out and that I believe that what Jesus and James and the prophets and all the other writers of the Bible had to say is important.

I’m not disputing that. I’m disputing your comfort level with Marxism and your theological elevation of poverty/charity in the Gospel.

Back in March / April, I had a lengthy discussion with commenter Psi regarding my post on Mindless-process Design, with regards to evolutionary theory and intelligent design. Towards the end of the discussion Psi brought up the topic of ethics and morality, to which I responded,

…how does a purely naturalistic methodology, in a purely natural realm, produce an abstract notion (e.g., evil)? And further beyond that, how does one’s mind, built purely by mechanistic forces, not only comprehend that something is evil, but that evil is wrong? For that matter, why would something – anything – be considered wrong? On who’s authority?

Psi responded by referring me to a couple of posts he’s prepared under the subject “Being good without god”. Although I promised to respond to Psi’s posts within “a few days”, it’s been over a month… sigh. Well, here is my lengthy response, albeit passed the “few days” boundary. (note: I encourage you to read this comment in our thread, as well as Psi’s posts, to get a groundwork for my text) Also, I have mined posts that I previously wrote, at New Covenant, which pertain to this topic, although in some cases I have rewritten my original commentary for clarity towards this discussion.

There are quite a few issues that Psi writes on in his posts. Rather than simply address them one by one, I will attempt to comment on them topically. Essentially, I think that Psi is positing that religious belief is inherently irrational, that humans can behave in morally upright ways without the need of adhering to religion or belief in a deity, and that ethical thought and standards for humans came about through the strictly natural processes of evolution.

If you want to skip my lengthy post, and simply get to gist of my point, then here it is: It is my assertion that while humans can be good without [the existence of] god, they have no basis with which to justify why they should be.
Read the rest of this entry

Frequent commenter in these here parts, Dan Trabue and others brought up the discussion of homosexuality and Scripture. It is said, where two or three or gathered there will be four or five opinions on theological matters and that seemed to be the case. As this conversation too often brings up lots of heat and little light, I’m going to put most of it below the fold. Read the rest of this entry

Would a documentary about Bigfoot, the Bermuda Triangle, or Area 51 ever, ever get time on ABC’s Nightline?  You wouldn’t think so.  And yet, Bruce Burgess, who’s done all three, got his own segment on the nighttime news show.

Inconceivable?  Well, when you find out the topic of his most recent movie, it all makes sense.

Over a three day stretch, ABC devoted almost 15 minutes of air-time to a documentary filmmaker who asserts in his movie "Bloodline" that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a massive hoax perpetrated on humanity. Additionally, on Friday’s "Nightline," reporter Elizabeth Vargas left out any mention of the bizarre interests of the film’s director, Bruce Burgess. He’s directed and written documentaries on Bigfoot, the Bermuda Triangle, Area 51 and a secretive look at a U.S. government’s supposed cover-up of the alien landings at Roswell.

Are you a conspiracy theorist concerned citizen looking for some face time on the mainstream media?  You, too, can grab the coattails of major news organization and soak in some of their reputation for yourself.  Simple; just trash Christianity.  Trashing Islam may get you killed, but trashing Christianity will get you an audience.

Those coattails are looking pretty tattered.

[tags]ABC News,Nightline,Elizabeth Vargas,Bruce Burgess,Bloodline,Christianity,religion,Bigfoot,Bermuda Triangle,Area 51,Islam,media[/tags]

Dan Trabue, in a comment thread at Stones Cry Out on Black Liberation Theology and liberation theology in general, held that Jesus message (and more generally the main thrust of Scripture) was one of class warfare and providing assistance to the poor and oppressed. I disagreed. Mr Trabue asked for my interpretation on the verses of Luke noted above. I’ll quote the ESV as it’s popular with many bloggers (and online and easily accessible):

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”And all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” And he said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘Physician, heal yourself.’ What we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.” And he said, “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown. But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land,and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow.And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.” When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff. But passing through their midst, he went away.

I had previously noted that Matthew (and as it turns out Mark as well) both when noting “Jesus first preaching” or “Jesus begins to preach/teach” his call was for repentance, which I was arguing was at the heart of Biblical teaching not social issues. It is interesting as well, via Luke, to note the first teaching of the Apostles noted in Acts after Jesus leaves them, “Repent … ” is their theme as well. Mr Trabue keys on the quoted verses from Isaiah and notes connects this with the idea that Jesus mission. The key question then is who are the “poor”, the blind and the captives (oppressed). I think that neither Jesus nor his hearers took “the poor” not to mean the poor (blind and oppressed) dwelling among those in Israel, but instead the common notion was that all of Israel itself was poor, blind and oppressed. In noting that Jesus mission is one to help the literally poor and oppressed is to get his point exactly backwards.

The major themes of Old Testament are one of exile/slavery and redemption. Israel is enslaved in Egypt and is redeemed by Moses. Then, later, they are enslaved in Babylon. In the first century, they have returned … but are still enslaved (now by Rome, but that only replaced Greek/Alexandrian rule). All of Israel hopes for redemption and a release from bondage. They yearn for a second Moses, the Christ to return and redeem them materially and politically with fire and the sword (or other dramatic acts like the parting of the Red Sea) as God had done for them the first time. This is exactly the same sort of redemption that Mr Trabue hopes for the poor and takes as the message of the Gospels. This is exactly the notion which Jesus rejects however. Jesus countered the peoples expectations (of the liberation theologians) and the 1st century Hebrew people. Jesus didn’t give the expected response (John 18:36) “Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.'” Specifically, Jesus came and offered a healing of Adam’s fall, emptying the tombs, and healing creation. The “poor” are all of the Israel. The “blind” are those hoping for political redemption. The liberty that is promised is, in Dostoevsky’s/Zizioulas’ terms the “ontological freedom” made available to either the person willing to die (Dostoevsky) or Baptized into Eternal life (Al of Christianity via Zizioulas).

At The View from Her, Jan has an interesting post titled, WORDS HAVE MEANING(S) (HT: Intellectuelle). She makes the very good point that we, as Christians, must make the effort to insure that the words we communicate are being understood as intended (which is always a good thing when one is making an argument).

However, I was a bit bemused by a reference to what a New York Times reporter said, at the conference Jan had recently attended. From Jan’s post,

The assumption is that because we’re all speaking English, we’re speaking the same language. Michael Luo, a reporter at the New York Times, and a believer, spoke at one of the sessions and inadvertently clarified one fundamental, doctrinal issue between the two camps. Asked if he had any advice for church people invited to comment on a situation by the news media, Michael said, “Well, be careful about using too much church language. Like… well ‘sin’ is a good example. That word doesn’t mean what you think it means to people outside church. ‘Sin’ is actually, like… good.” And everyone chuckled.

The word “sin” is one of the most divisive words in the heresy battle between the generations. The modernists rail that “sin” only has one meaning, and that the post-moderns don’t like it because it makes them uncomfortable. The word “sin” is black and white. It has an absolute meaning in Christian doctrine.

…Except when it doesn’t. If the world thinks “Sin” now stands for all the fun things people like to do that used to be forbidden, using that word is just a bad translation… like saying, “Jesus died for the good stuff.” It fails to convey the correct meaning across cultural divides. Yes, words do still have specific meaning. But it’s clear that we have to work harder, ask more questions, actively seek to understand, and define our terms to make sure we really understand what the other person is really saying.

On the one hand, I agree that we need to make sure our words – our terms – are understood. On the other hand, I think we need to make every effort to fight against the unwarranted hijacking of the definition of words by a lazy culture.

For example, the implication that Michael Luo seems to be making is that when the world thinks of the word “sin,” they think of “good” (and, I suppose, “fun”). Yet, this is new? Hardly. The writer of the book of Hebrews wrote about the fleeting pleasures of sin (to which Steve Taylor wrote a CCM song, back in the 80s). And one can hardly get through the first section of the book of Proverbs without noticing that the admonitions to get wisdom are laced with the acknowledgment that sin has its pleasures.

Simply put: “sin” is “fun”, and pretty much always has been.

Of course, now we need to define “fun”…

I’ve recommended audio from the Acton Institute before, and they just keep cranking out great commentary.  Today’s recommendation is for Jay Richard’s "Is it Hot In Here? What Should Christians Think About Global Warming?"  At an hour and 20 minutes, it’s a bit to take in, but it goes in depth into 4 questions that Jay considers the main issues.

1. Is the globe warming?
2. Is man causing it?
3. Is it a bad thing?
4. What can / should government do about it?

You’ll find that Jay does believe that we’re in a warming trend if you only look back to the mid-1800s, but there have been times when the Earth has been much warmer, and Jay mentions something I’ve touched on before; that Greenland used to be farmland before SUVs, and yet the polar bears survived. 

He’s clear about what is his opinion and what is fact, so I think this is a balanced assessment of the situation. 

[tags]environment,global warming,Acton Institute,Jay Richardson,Christianity[/tags]

Rebecca (blogging wonderfully here) and other Christian bloggers often cite their favorite hymns. This isn’t exactly “my favorite” but it was exemplary of the Bridegroom service tonight. Tonight’s service focused on the woman, a prostitute “a filthy woman” who poured expensive perfume on Jesus’ feet and then washed them clean with her hair and tears. Judas, planning his betrayal and who watched (and stole?) from the communal funds for Jesus and his followers, was mostly affected/mindful of the expense of the myrrh being poured out. This is then put into the context of our lives during the hymn. The prostitute herself is exalted in hymn and liturgy as “equal to the Myrrh bearing women” who first discover the empty tomb during the Paschal dawn.

Oddly enough tonight’s service is actually Wednesday morning’s Matin service. So the readings are “screwed up”, as it were. We read the Tuesday gospel, but the Wednesday morning matins (morning service) on Wednesday night. Apparently this was done to get the “meat” and the best of the Holy week services translated from the Monastic tradition into the lay busy schedule of work and life. Monks devote substantially more time to their services … these services are somewhat shortened … and the Matins services are read/chanted/sung in the slot normally assigned to Vespers (evening) services because they are better attended. The “Chant” in the below is done by readers (Cantors in the West) and is Psalm 150 just preceding this the chanters have read/sung 148 and 149. In the following the choir leads the people in singing the “sung” portion.

Chanted:

Praise God in His saints,
praise Him in the expanse of His power.

Praise Him for His mighty acts,
praise Him for His infinite greatness.

Sung (Actually a sort of melodic chant to one of 8 the “standard” melodies):

A harlot recognized you as God, O Son of the virgin.
With tears equal to her past deeds, she besought You weeping:
loose my debt as I have loosed my hair.
Love the woman who, though justly hated, loves You.
Then with the publicans will I proclaim You,
benefactor and Lover of mankind.

Chanted:

Praise Him with the sound of the trumpet,
praise Him with psaltery and harp.

Sung:

The harlot mingled precious myrrh with her tears.
She poured it on Your most pure feet and kissed them. At once You justified her.
You suffered for our sakes:
forgive us also, and save us.

Chanted:

Praise Him with drum and dancing,
praise Him with strings and bells.

Sung:

As the sinful woman was bringing her offering of myrrh,
the disciple was scheming with lawless men.
She rejoiced in pouring out her precious gift.
He hastened to sell the precious One.
She recognized the Master, but Judas parted from Him.
She was set free, but Judas was enslaved to the enemy.
How terrible is slothfulnessl
How great her repentance! O Savior,
You suffered for our sakes:
grant us also repentance, and save us.

Chanted:

Praise Him with well-tuned cymbals,
praise Him with cymbals of victory!
Let everything that breathes praise the Lord!

Sung:

O, the wretchedness of Judas!
He saw the harlot kiss the footsteps of Christ,
but deceitfully he contemplated the kiss of betrayal.
She loosed her hair while he bound himself with wrath.
He offered the stench of wickedness instead of myrrh,
for envy cannot distinguish value.
O, the wretchedness of Judas!
Deliver our souls from this, 0 God.

Chanted:

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,

Sung:

The sinful woman ran to buy the precious myrrh with which to anoint her Savior.
She cried to the merchant: Give me myrrh,
that I may anoint Him who has cleansed all my sins.
The woman who was engulfed in sin found in You a haven of salvation.
She poured out myrrh with her tears and cried to You:
Behold the One who brings repentance to sinners!
Rescue me from the tempest of sin,
O Master, through Your great mercy.

Chanted:

To You, 0 Lord our God, belongs glory, and to You we ascribe glory: to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.

Should a painter be allowed to decide what he or she paints?  Should a musician be allowed to decide what music to play or write?  Should a photographer be allowed to decide what pictures to take? 

In New Mexico, the answer to that last question is a resounding, "No."

The New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled on Wednesday that an evangelical Christian photographer discriminated against a lesbian couple by refusing a job to photograph the couple’s same-sex commitment ceremony. Religious rights attorneys plan to appeal.

The commission ordered Elaine and Jon Huenins, owners of Elane Photography in Albuquerque, N.M., to pay the lesbian couple $6,600 in attorney fees.

"It is just a stunning disregard for the First Amendment," said Jordan Lorence, a senior legal counsel for the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the photographer couple in court.

Canada’s Human Right Commission has been, at the same time, busy accusing Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and others of thought crimes (covered by the Shire Network News podcast here and here with many more details at FreeMarkSteyn.com), with the idea of "free speech" being considered foreign.

In fact, for an organization that is supposed to promote "human rights," the HRC’s agents seem curiously oblivious to basic aspects of constitutional law. In one famous exchange during the [Marc] Lemire case, [Dean] Steacy [HRC investigator] was asked "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?" — to which he replied "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value." (I guess Section 2 has been excised from his copy of the Canadian Charter of Rights.)

If a photographer doesn’t want to take pictures at a same-sex commitment ceremony, but will get fined if she doesn’t, how soon before the First Amendment become a value-less concept within our own borders?

And this is not just a general free speech issue.  From the original article:

"[Vanessa] (Willock) had requested via e-mail for Elane Photography to conduct photography for her commitment ceremony, and the owner of Elane Photography responded that she would not perform that photography session because it was a same-sex commitment ceremony," [Carrie] Moritomo [public information officer for the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions] told Cybercast News Service .

No punitive monetary damages were awarded because Willock did not seek damages, Moritomo added.

Lorence said the Huenins, who are fervent evangelicals, politely declined the request because they did not want to use their art to disparage traditional heterosexual marriage. That should have been the end of the matter, he said.

"The Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling people to promote a message they disagree with and thereby violate their conscience," Lorence said. "Christians should not be penalized for abiding by their beliefs.""

Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School professor, constitutional scholar and contributor to the Volokh Conspiracy blog (where he’s blogged about this issue separately from the new story) is quoted, noting parallels to hypothetically requiring a freelance writer being forced to write for a pro-Scientology web site words that he does not believe in.  He also points out a bit of inconsistency.

"The law says that only when there is a ‘compelling government interest’ and applying the law is essential, only then can the government compel someone to violate their religious beliefs," Volokh said.

The fact that New Mexico does not recognize same-sex marriage makes it hard to argue that government has a compelling interest in protecting same-sex commitment, he added.

Human Rights Commissions are becoming less and less aptly named, and are instead becoming mere tools in the hands of liberal interest groups to silence dissent.  Where the legislative avenue doesn’t work, these commissions and activist judges are the Left’s next front to get their way in social law when the people are clearly against them.

[tags]New Mexico Human Rights Commission,free speech,Christianity,religion,homosexuality,same-sex marriage,Elaine Huenins,Jon Huenins,"Vanessa Willock,Alliance Defense Fund,Ezra Levant,Mark Steyn,Eugene Volokh[/tags]