Preaching through the Ten Commandments, our pastor came to the 6th.  One of things I found fascinating is that there are quite a number of words for "kill" in Hebrew, and the King James translation doesn’t do much to get across this particular word.

Lo ratzach; don’t murder.

There is a word in Hebrew for killing an animal.  This is not that word.  You can be a vegetarian or vegan if you like, but you can’t use this verse as Biblical backup for your position.  (Actually, the Bible has a number of references showing that God’s OK with meat-eating.)

There is a word in Hebrew for killing in battle.  This is not that word.  You can be a pacifist if you like, but you can’t use this verse as Biblical backup for your position.  (Actually, the Bible has a number of references where God commands his people to make war on those God wishes to punish.)

There is a word in Hebrew for killing in self-defense or defense of another.  This is not that word.  You can be a police officer and kill someone in the line of duty while protecting yourself or others and you will not have broken this commandment.  You can protect an intruder with deadly force, and not be guilty of breaking this commandment. 

There is a word in Hebrew for the purposeful taking of an innocent life.  This is that word. 

Read the rest of this entry

Pro-choice, the Madison avenue euphemization for by the pro-abortion crowd is on some reflection an odd choice of terminology. The word “heresy” comes from the Greek hairesis (haireomai, “choose”), and means either a choice of beliefs or a faction of dissident believers. Pro-heresy might be an interesting alternative phrasing. Relabeling is in vogue these days, where it is common for those with the bully pulpit to recast the opponents and terms to favor their cause, which perhaps is why Mr Obama is trying to identify Mr Limbaugh as a conservative leader. If turnabout is fair play, perhaps recasting pro-choice as pro-heresy might help the pro-life cause within the liberal Christian community.

When making arguments one must consider one’s audience. When convincing a secular audience that one should rely on secular arguments, which is the primary place in which these arguments are taking place these days. If on the other hand, one is speaking to a Christian community, then Christian argument and theology should be used. Rarely however it seems to me does the pro-heresy community attempt to cast their arguments for abortion in the light of Christian tradition and theology. And for good reason … because Christian tradition and theology has stood against abortion for almost 2 millenia. Read the rest of this entry

David Henson at the blog Unorthodoxology posted a terse thought last Friday, “Sin is the beginning of empathy.”  I’ve been reading a bit of Dave’s blog ever since, I believe, Mark linked to something of his.  Dave, and the commenters that frequent there, are of the “many paths lead to truth” school of thought, and are not very much in agreement with my ideas about the exclusivity of Jesus as “the Way, the Truth, the Life”.  (See the comments to this post for examples.)

So this “empathy” post showed up, and I could see what Dave was getting at, and I made short comment about it myself, that perhaps this could also be said of pain.  Pain, whether caused by sin or not, can make us empathetic to others in the same situation as well.  But that thought, too, didn’t seem complete.  After 24 hours of having that roll around in my head, here’s what I came up with.

If sin causes no pain, then it does not bring empathy. If cheating old ladies out of their social security makes me “happy” (or at least doesn’t hurt in the short term), no empathy comes with it. It’s not until the pain that there’s a chance that empathy will develop. And even then, sometimes the consequences don’t quite get things rolling, but without the pain, it won’t happen.

So perhaps “sin is the beginning of pain which is the beginning of empathy.”

Well, ‘cept that you can have pain that leads to empathy but that did not originate with sin. I could say “Getting laid off from your job is the beginning of empathy” and it would be just as true, yet you don’t have to do anything wrong to feel it. But then what if you hated the job and are happy that you got laid off, because you have a back-up plan (or some similar situation)? No pain, and thus you probably can’t empathize with a co-worker who desperately needed that job and has nowhere else to go. So getting laid off, for you, isn’t the beginning of pain.

There are so many things that may or may not lead to pain for you, but until you feel that pain you can’t empathize with someone who has. So perhaps the phrase should be, “Pain is the beginning of empathy.”

Or is even that right? Can we really not empathize with a drug addict until we get high ourselves? Can we really not empathize with a murderer unless we kill someone ourselves? Sympathize, perhaps, but maybe not empathize. Still, is that such a bad thing; not being able to empathize? Granted, a drug addict might be more inclined to accept help from former addict, but many times this happens without dealing with someone who is a peer at that level. Someone who never took one drink can be merciful and helpful and caring to the alcoholic. Sympathy is just as potent.

Additionally, one can have the pain, but refuse to be empathetic to anyone in a similar situation. It isn’t always a given.

So what is beyond pain that would lead to empathy? If you don’t care about your fellow man, you’ll never empathize with him, no matter how much sin you commit or pain you experience or whatever bad circumstances come your way. You can only truly have empathy when you love your neighbor as yourself.

So sin might lead to pain, or it might not. And pain might lead to empathy, or it might not. But neither is necessary for love, and love is the beginning of empathy.

Why St. Ephraim. Today is his feast day. Today, centuries ago, St. Ephrem fell asleep with the Lord. For me, just under two years ago, on the Saturday before Pascha I was chrismated and became an Orthodox Christian. Part of the process also entailed choosing a patron Saint, who for native Orthodox persons was chosen at your birth and that is normally also your given name. I had spent some months considering and reading about various Saints. Some of whom I had read somewhat extensively prior even witnessing an Orthodox liturgy. The choice of which Saint I might select was difficult. St. Mark was one choice, gospel author and witness to the Coptic peoples … and my first name is Mark (the patron Saint is sometimes called your “name” Saint as that is the name by which you are referred to at Eucharist).

Some of those I considered were:

• St. John Cassian’s writings powerful and thought provoking.
• St. John Chysostom’s homilies are also were accessible to modern sensibilities.
• Metropolitan John Zizioulas wrote powerfully about the cosmic ontological theology of St. Maximus the Confessor echoed many centuries later by secular philosopher Sartre.
• and St. Theophan the Recluse a Russian monastic and Bishop of the 19th century.

But … throughout Lent, through the poetic piercing stanzas of the Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete and in the presanctified liturgies and Vespers services always ending every service was the Lenten prayer of St. Ephrem the Syrian:

O Lord and Master of my life!

Take from me the spirit of sloth,
faint-heartedness, lust of power, and idle talk.

But give rather the spirit of chastity,
humility, patience, and love to Thy servant.

Yea, Lord and King! Grant me to see my own errors
and not to judge my brother,
for Thou art blessed unto ages of ages. Amen.

Many have talked and written about this prayer. Fr Schmeman wrote a little book, Great Lent, which talks about it at some length. But remembering that prayer, I looked at St. Ephrem’s body of work and found it extensive … and almost all of it Psalmody. St. Ephrem is referred to by some as the Psalmodist of the New Testament, where King David was the Psalmist of the Old Covenant. And psalm and psalmody connects with me through music. I am not a poet. But music, harmony and polyphony, chant and song connect. My harmony teacher in college often remarked that those in math and physics often did the best in music because of connections between music and mathematics. Between the prayer above, the music connection, and St. Ephrem’s life of asceticism, prayer, and example … my choice was made.

This book, Spiritual Psalter or Reflections on God, has a collection of prayers penned by St. Ephrem, translated and collated after the manner of the Psalms of David by St. Theophan the Recluse. This latter book is something of an scandal in my opinion. It is virtually unknown in the West … but should be in every Christian home and in every pew or prayer corner. The crime is that it is not a Christian best-seller only superseded by the Bible. Those prayers in that book, some of which you can find excerpted and remarked upon by me here … read like they were written about me, to me, for me by St. Ephrem. And I found this book months after having chosen St. Ephrem (or perhaps being chosen by St. Ephrem).

Ed Darrell quoted this the other day, and I disparaged it. Mr Darrell gets exasperated when history is misquoted, misused or ignored. Which is ironic because this quote, ignores, misuses and offers a mistaken interpretation of history. The quote:

“In the beginning the church was a fellowship of men and women centering on the living Christ. Then the church moved to Greece, where it became a philosophy. Then it moved to Rome, where it became an institution. Next, it moved to Europe, where it became a culture. And, finally, it moved to America, where it became an enterprise.”

Shall we consider just a few ways in which this was wrong?

• There was no “church” when Jesus was performing his ministry prior to the resurrection. The church thing followed immediately after His Resurrection.
• Then the church moved to Asia Minor, Greece, Egypt, Rome, India and throughout the Mediterranean.
• The church was well established in Rome, recall Saints Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome well before Origen (a Alexandrian Copt) turned the tools of philosophy to the service of theology.
• Examine the early “Greek” church, and their early founders. St. Cyril and St. Athanasius … of Alexandria (Copts). The three Ecumenical Heirarchs, Saints Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom … all Cappadocian, i.e., modern day Turkey (hint: not Greece). In fact, I have trouble identifying right off any prominent Greek Saints from Early Antiquity.
• Next actually examine the Eastern church which came out of “Greece”. It is known for its mysticism not its Aquinan/Aristotelian philosophical logic.
• The Christian church’s movement to Rome didn’t make it an institution. It made it a persecuted cult. Three centuries later, when “Rome” was supplanted by Constantinople as the capitol it became a state religion. It is dogma among modern political philosophers, who are amazingly ignorant of the next 1000 years of the Roman state, that state and religion don’t mix. They look at the Reformation and English history for their ideas on that. Conveniently ignoring any historical trends which don’t fit their preconceptions.

And that’s just a start.

With this warning echoing on the web against amateur philosophizing. But that being noted, I will forge ahead nonetheless. Meta-ethics is that branch of ethics not describing normative ethics (how we act) but instead the means by which we do ethics. Two popular branches of ethical methodologies are deontology and consequentialism (of the latter, utilitiarianism is a particular example). It is my sense that virtue ethics via Aristotle and later supporters, while put forth some ancient Greeks, is less in favor today. Deontology, roughly speaking, is rule based ethics. Some time ago, I suggested that Christian ethics are neither of these. Christian ethics, described meta-ethically, I suggest are pneumatological.

Christian ethics is not deontological. Jesus time and time again speaks out against deontological Phariseeism, rejecting rigid, or perhaps even non-so-rigid, following of laws described and set down by man.

Christian ethics is not consequentialist. We don’t do our actions in order to “store up pennies in heaven” as it were. Salvation is not garnered via works of men.

What does this mean? In theology, pneumatology relates to the Holy Spirit. That is the Spirit, in the Trinitarian sense, is the center of Christian ethics. Why might we think of ethics for the Christian as pneumatological. As a Christian, to borrow a phrase from R.R. Reno, we are called to be “transparent” to Christ, that is to perform his will through us as if we were transparent. This is effected in the world, via the Spirit to inspire us as to how to do His will.

How might Pneumatological ethics work in practice? How does one discern the will of the Spirit. What has been said and laid out in Scripture and in our Tradition is one source for seeking guidance in this matter. But, for example, bio-ethics today is consistently throwing up questions and issues which are new to this age. How does one act in those cases. I’d suggest, prayer, fasting, being open to inspiration, and seeking advice from those who have more spiritual insight seem all likely possibilities.

Thoughts?

Congressman Chris Murphy (D-CT) is championing his support of what’s called the Protecting Patient and Health Care Act of 2009.  From his website:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – With the clock ticking down on the implementation of a sweeping Bush Administration rule that will deny vital health services to Americans, today Congressman Chris Murphy (CT-5) joined a group of colleagues to introduce the Protecting Patient and Health Care Act of 2009 to stop it.

In late December, the Bush Administration finalized the "refusal clause", which would cut off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, health plan, clinic, or other entity that does not accommodate employees who refuse to participate in care that they find ethically, morally, or religiously objectionable. Set to take affect on Sunday, this sweeping change in access to vital health services, including birth control, abortion, HIV and STI testing, end of life care, and fertilization treatments, trumps current practices that accommodate health care providers’ religious beliefs while also providing their patients with access to care. It even goes as far as to allow whole hospitals or health plans to refuse services even if individual doctors and providers are willing to perform them.

What’s missing in this description is the reason the "refusal clause" was needed.  It’s really only emphasizing how the law currently is, because a number of court cases, and the judges of those cases, have shown that apparently the judicial system doesn’t quite understand the concept. 

I’ve touched on one example last August where a pair of doctors in California were sued successfully when they declined to give their services to a lesbian couple.  (Actually, they did everything but the physical insemination, which is all they declined to do.)  Acting as though they were the only option in the state, the couple took the case all the way to the State Supreme Court and won.  This was an elective procedure, and the State Supreme Court seemed to think they were obligated to do it if asked.  (And as noted in the original post, the CA Medical Association was on the side of the doctors until they got bullied by the gay-rights community, and they caved.)

So the action by the Bush administration was simply to reiterate that this refusal is legal, and put some oomph behind it.  The whole idea the people have no where else to go for these treatments, elective or otherwise, is absurd, but the danger to a guaranteed constitutional right is real. 

But Democrats, who insist that they’re just as concerned about religious freedom as anyone, put the lie to that by making the First Amendment a second-class citizen.

I was recently reading about some protesters fasting in order to raise awareness for one cause or another.

It struck me that the secular left and the religious right have very different notions about fasting and its means and purpose. Read the rest of this entry

Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham, she of the Washington Post and he of Newsweek, have sort of a point / counterpoint set of articles in the "On Faith" section of the paper’s and magazine’s combined website.  Quinn argues that the tag "so help me God" shows "contempt for non-believers, while Meacham argues that the oath to God shows "regard for church and state".  Read Meacham’s piece first, as Quinn responds to specific points in his article.

The foundation of Quinn’s argument is that she thinks that religion should be compartmentalized.

Much good is done in the name of religion and there are many wonderful, intelligent and honorable people who are believers. I simply think that it doesn’t have a place in the public square.

And why is that?

My problem is with God. Actually, my problem is with the concept of God. I don’t know what "God" means.

But it’s not readily apparent that, because of her ignorance, why she might think that discussion of such a topic shouldn’t be allowed in public.  And just because, as she asserts, previous Presidents who invoked God had moral failings, it doesn’t invalidate their God. 

At one point, Quinn confesses confusion over Pascal’s Wager, but her reaction to it only points out her ignorance on this whole "God" thing.

Pascal’s wager never made sense to me. If there is an omniscient and omnipotent God and we believe in him we’re good to go. If there’s not and we don’t believe in him we don’t have a problem. If there is and we don’t believe in him, it’s because he doesn’t want us to and therefore we are following his will.

If you don’t know what "God" means, then how can you possibly draw the inference that if we don’t believe in him it’s because he doesn’t want us to?  How could you possibly assert that?  Isn’t it equally as likely an explanation that we’re not looking for him?  Or perhaps we’re simply on a quest to find out facts about God, but not get to know him.  Or that we’re afraid to find out about him because of what we may find out about ourselves?  Or that we refuse to believe in a God that permits evil in the world?  There are as many reasons to not believe in God as there are human beings. 

Meacham’s argument for "…so help me God" is less about religion and more of a case of "hey, what can it hurt?"  He at least does make a good show of dealing with that Jeffersonian phrase that has been elevated to "founding document" status by some.

The secular nature of the American government is one of its abiding strengths, but moments of prayer or a "So help me, God" here and there are no threat to the wall of separation Jefferson spoke of in his New Year’s Day 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. We can keep church and state separate, and we should. But as a matter of history and human nature, we cannot keep politics and religion separate, and we should not try. For politics and religion are both about people, about their hopes and their fears and their values and their sense of destiny and of duty.

And so we have a new poll on the blog:  Should the President, Obama in particular, use the phrase "so help me God"?  The poll has a simple yes/no answer, but I’m sure reasons for both are as varied as the voter, so let us know why you think he should or shouldn’t.

Fr Richard John Neuhaus died today, which is something you already know if you read more than half a dozen blogs in the Christian blogosphere. I think 30 or 40 blogs in my RSS feed mentioned his passing today. What I found odd, was that nobody seemed especially joyous over the occasion. After all he succumbed to a second bout with cancer, which typically involves a lot of pain and discomfort. While we are enjoined to celebrate our suffering, that is specifically not to be our attitude toward the suffering of others.

So many of the posts are talk about what his writing meant to various people, how he touched their life, what he did for me. This seems to me getting the hindpart foremost. Read the rest of this entry

In a case where social science once again affirms common sense, a new study shows that kids who grow up in two parent homes and also go to church have the fewest behavioral problems (Hat tip: Gene Veith):

Children living with both biological parents or adoptive parents who attend religious services regularly are less likely to exhibit problems at school or at home, a new analysis of national data shows.

The study by psychologist Nicholas Zill, the founder of Child Trends, and statistician Philip Fletcher found that children in such a situation — when compared to children not living with both parents and not attending religious services regularly — are 5.5 times less likely to have repeated a grade and 2.5 less likely to have had their parents contacted by the school because of a conduct or achievement problem.

Additionally, intact families who have regular religious participation (defined as at least weekly or monthly) are less likely to report parental stress and more likely to report a “better parent-child relationship,” the analysis, which focused on families with children ages 6-17, says.

The study, co-released by the Family Research Council and more than 30 state family councils as part of FRC’s Mapping America project, was based on interviews in 2003 with parents of more than 100,000 children and teens by the National Center for Health Statistics for the National Survey of Children’s Health.

The data “hold[s] up after controlling for family income and poverty, low parent education levels, and race and ethnicity.”

“An intact two-parent family and regular church attendance are each associated with fewer problem behaviors, more positive social development, and fewer parental concerns about the child’s learning and achievement,” Zill and Fletcher wrote. “Taken together, the two home-environment factors have an additive relationship with child well-being. That is, children who live in an intact family and attend religious services regularly generally come out best on child development measures, while children who do neither come out worst. Children with one factor in their favor, but not the other, fall in between ….”

The authors said that children in an intact religious family “are more likely to exhibit positive social behavior, including showing respect for teachers and neighbors, getting along with other children, understanding other people’s feelings, and trying to resolve conflicts with classmates, family, or friends.”

Pat Fagan, the director of FRC’s Center for Family and Religion, said the study should impact social policy.

“Social science data continue to demonstrate overwhelmingly that the intact married family that worships weekly is the greatest generator of human goods and social benefits and is the core strength of the United States,” he said in a statement. “Policy makers should strongly consider whether their policy proposals give support to such a family structure. Children are not the only beneficiaries but also their parents, families, communities, and all of society.”

Much has been written about Pastor Rick Warren’s invitation to give the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration in just a few weeks. Many on the left have been upset about the selection of Pastor Warren because of his stance against homosexual marriage. Some on the right are suggesting that he may be compromising the gospel for the sake of political influence.

Pastor Warren is symbolic of what’s happened to evangelicals over the past 30 or so years. The church has forsaken the gospel in favor of gaining political and cultural influence. As a result, principles have been compromised.

If Pastor Warren truly wants to be effective, then he should take Cal Thomas’ advice and be more like the prophet Nathan:

If Obama plans on having Warren as a presence in his presidency, Warren should seek to model himself more after Nathan the prophet. Nathan confronted King David over his affair with Bathsheba, whose husband, Uriah the Hittite, David sent to the front lines to ensure he would be killed so that David could have his wife. God sent Nathan to David. Nathan told David a story about a rich man who stole a poor man’s lamb rather than take one from his own flock to feed a visitor. Nathan asked David what should happen to such a man. David replied, “that man should surely die.” To which Nathan replied, “You are the man.” (2 Samuel 12)

Nathan’s confrontation led to David’s repentance and one of the most beautiful Psalms ever written (Psalm 51). The point is that Nathan did not compromise Truth, but confronted David with what he had done wrong. How many modern preachers would confront a president like that? Probably not many if they wanted to maintain access.

Former Governor Mike Huckabee wrote this in his book Do The Right Thing quoting his mentor James Robison:

The prophets of old were rarely invited back for a return engagement. In fact, most of them were never invited the first time. They came to speak truth to power regardless of the consequences.

Governor Huckabee goes on to note that one can be a politician or a prophet but never both. My hope is that Pastor Warren will take this opportunity to be a prophet and not worry about being invited by President Obama for another speaking engagement.

John Rowe (for example this post at Positive Liberty) is just one example of many who frequently cite the notion that Christian theology is not one of freedom. Putting it quite strongly, a commenter Andy Craig apropos of the post above notes:

A pretty good argument as to why biblical Christianity is on the whole a fundamentally authoritarian worldview and has little place in a world of individual liberty, actually. It’s one of the main reasons I rejected Christianity and religion in general (most religions take a similar view of government authority).

In the post itself, it is noted that Romans 13 written by St. Paul in the rule of Nero (who it might be noted did have a predilection for augmenting lighting public fixtures with Christian corpses) specifically enjoins the Christian,

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

which is pretty straightforward … it seems. However, this in a large measure misses the point. Read the rest of this entry

President-elect Obama has invited Saddleback pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation (i.e. opening prayer) at the inauguration.  While Obama and Warren disagree on some issues, Obama says he wants to "create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable."  In fact, this follows in the footsteps of Bush’s choice in 2004, as the Huffington Post notes.

At his 2005 inaugural, George W. Bush tapped Rev. Dr. Louis Leon to deliver the invocation. Like Obama and Warren, the two shared a commitment to combating AIDS in Africa, as well as a friendship from time spent in each other’s company. But Leon was and is a progressive voice. And his selection in ’04 sparked a lot of interest, though little of the outrage that we see with Warren.

Indeed, the "tolerant" Left side of the blogosphere didn’t seem to get the "disagree without being disagreeable" memo.

Americablog: “Great, then where are the racists, Mr. Obama?"

Markos himself at Daily Kos: “Yeah. Where is David Duke’s invitation? Or as Blue Texan notes, when do Phelps and Hagee get their invitations? Heck, throw up Tom Tancredo up there for good measure, so us Latinos can feel some of the hate!”

Atrios: "Wanker of the Day: Barack Obama."

Firedoglake: "President-elect Obama chose eliminationist hate preacher Rick Warren to give the invocation at Obama’s Inaguration. With this choice, Obama sends three destructive messages. Number one: In Obama’s America, equal rights and reproductive freedom aren’t for everyone. Number two: President-elect Obama likes sharing the national stage with hate. Number three: While Obama enjoys his equality before the law, LGBT Americans can go to Hell. Literally. Gee. Is this change we can believe in?"

Andrew Sullivan: "…pandering to Christianists at his inauguration is a depressing omen."

Think Progress:  "…he laughs off accusations of being ‘homophobic’ because he ‘talks to’ gay people and served protesters water."

(A tip of the hat to Don Surber and John Hawkins, from whom I got much of this list, and who have even more examples.)

Once again, we have examples of liberals, who tout their "tolerance" and "acceptance", being wholly unable to handle any sort of deviation from the orthodoxy.  Additionally, as even the Huffington Post notes, the folks they claim are the intolerant ones actually were more accepting when they were in the same situation. 

Tolerance.  You keep using that word.  I do no think it means what you think it means.

Last Sundays’ sermon was about meeting the God of Christmas.  If Christmas says anything, it says that God is full of surprises.

The text was John 1:1-9, where Jesus — The Word — is introduced in 3 different ways; the Word (vv. 1-2), the Light (vv. 3-4) and the Life (vv. 5-9).  We see his pre-existence, his creative power, and his life-giving light, which overpowers darkness.  I find it interesting that many religions claim that there needs to be a balance between good and evil.  John 1:5 begs to differ.  There is no balance; the Light overcomes the darkness, and the Light our life.

Some say God cannot be understood, but God most certainly wants to be understood.  If not, He wouldn’t keep trying, all throughout the Bible, to reveal Himself.  True, we cannot know all there is about God, but it is also true that we can know what He does reveal and what we are willing to see.  After all, he came down at Christmas and became one of us and spent 3 years teaching us about Himself and what He is like.  He will speak to us in our language and in a way we can indeed understand.  What we learn may be difficult and, as mentioned, surprising, but that’s not His problem; that’s ours to overcome, with His guidance.

God came into the world because He wants the world to know Him.  He wouldn’t have made the effort if knowing Him was indeed impossible.  During this Christmas season, get to know the God of Christmas.