DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF ST. JOHN, ARCHBISHOP OF SHANGHAI AND SAN
FRANCISCO
ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN WITNESS (USPS 412-260)
is published monthly by St. Nectarios American Orthodox Cathedral,
10300 Ashworth Avenue North, Seattle, Washington 98133-9410.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to
OCW, 10300 Ashworth Ave. N., Seattle, WA. 98133-9410
Fr. Neketas S. Palassis, Editor Email: frneketas@stnectariospress.com
Telephone (206) 522-4471; (800) 643-4233 U.S. & Canada;
Fax: 206-523-0550
NOVEMBER, 2005, Vol. XXXIX, No. 11, (1554)
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
1. Metropolis Day Missive, 2005
2. Special Report: The Exorcism of Europe
3. The Decline of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. St. John,
Archbishop of San Francisco
4. The God Gene and Human Pride
5. Why They Hate Us
6. New Items from the Book Center
Fire makes iron impossible to touch, and likewise frequent prayer
renders the intellect more forceful in its warfare against the enemy.
That is why the demons strive with all their strength to make us
slothful in attentiveness to prayer, for they know that prayer is the
intellect's invincible weapon against them.
St. John of Karpathos
1. Metropolis Day Missive 2005
To the Beloved and Pious Priests, Deacons, Monastics and Faithful Flock
of our Parishes and Missions
We live in a world of competing creeds, and there is a diversity of
opinions and much confusion. The general opinion of society is that
truth is relative; everyone can have his or her own "personal truth."
We confront thousands of different organizations that claim they are
the Church.
How can modern man sort this out? Beloved, we are saved through the
order and hierarchy of the Church. Most modern men or women would
probably respond to this statement with complete skepticism and
disbelief. Yet, in his books "Celestial Hierarchies" and
"Ecclesiastical Hierarchies" Saint Dionysius the Aeropagite explains
that through the saving principle of hierarchy the hidden mysteries of
God are brought down to our level. It was through the Archangel Gabriel
that Mary, the daughter of Joachim and Anna heard of her election and
calling to become the Mother of God. Likewise from the very beginning
of the New Covenant, the Holy Apostles received the revelation of God
through direct experience and then brought this experience to us
through the words of their preaching.
This concept and context of hierarchy is lost on many. The Sacred
Scriptures are indeed sacred, but they are not revelation, they are
about revelation. One can say that Holy Scripture is the map, but it is
not the territory. It was for this reason Saint Peter explained that
Scripture is not subject to private interpretation. One cannot read the
map without a guide and that guide is Holy Tradition.
The Church that our Savior established on earth is hierarchical, but
hierarchs are subject to Apostolic Tradition and the Councils and
Canons. This is clearly illustrated in the ordination service for a
bishop wherein during the third confession of faith the hierarch to be
states:
In this my confession of the holy Faith, I promise to observe the
Canons of the holy Apostles, and of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and
of the holy Local Councils, the traditions of the Church, and the
decrees, orders and rulings of the Holy Fathers. And all things
whatsoever they have accepted I also accept; and whatsoever things they
have rejected those also do I reject.
Hierarchy does not exist for its own sake and is only properly
understood in the context of Holy Tradition. Ultimately it is an
expression of the principle that we are all subject to God in a context
that He established. The saints from ages past have always revered
hierarchy, i.e., the Tradition and structure of the Church that
provides for sound doctrine, right ritual and the grace of the Holy
Mysteries. It is all interconnected. Those that seek to undermine any
of the above stand in opposition of the Church, no matter what their
title may be.
After the descent of the Holy Spirit and the establishment of the
priesthood of the New Testament, the holy Apostles preached the word of
God and ordained bishops to oversee the Church, establishing the
hierarchical structure that Saint Paul references in his Epistle to the
Corinthian:
Brethren, As the body is one, and hath many members, and all the
members of that one body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ.
For in one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews
or Greeks, whether we be slaves or free, and all have been given to
drink in one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the
foot say, Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body, is it
therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not
an eye, I am not of the body, is it therefore not of the body? If the
whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were
hearing, where would be the smelling? But now God hath placed the
members, every one of them, in the body, as it hath pleased Him. And if
they were all one member, where would be the body? But now there are
many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I
have no need of thee; nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of
you. (Corinthians 12:12-26)
From ancient times it was understood that the "eye" signified the
episcopos, the overseer of the flock ( the bishop). The hands signified
the priesthood who lifted their hands in prayer and offered the
oblation in the name of the local high priest (bishop) and the feet
were the deacons who ministered unto the needs of the faithful.
Throughout the history of the Church there have been those that seek to
undermine this hierarchical structure of the Church, i.e., the Bogomils
(a Bulgarian sect that rejected all authority), the papists (who
rejected the authority of the local bishop and local synods), the
Protestants who at first made synods of presbyters (Presbyterians) and
then took the next step of allowing any man to start his own church.
There will always be demonically inspired forces that seek to undermine
the faith and order of the Church. The Holy Apostle Paul who spent his
days preaching the word of truth and establishing bishops throughout
the world spoke clearly, "But though we, or an Angel from heaven,
preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto
you, let him be anathema. As we said before, and I say now again, If
anyone preach any other Gospel unto you than that which ye have
received, let him be anathema."(Galatians 1:6-10)
Let us be faithful to Holy Tradition and let us give thanks to God for
providing for us. During these days of spiritual confusion we have a
light in the midst of darkness, and I am referring to the legacy of
that true hierarch and Confessor Saint Philaret of New York, the
Champion of Orthodoxy in our age. He it was who proclaimed the Anathema
against Ecumenism, the heresy of our days that has confused so many. He
it was that gave support to and recognized and regularized our
Archbishop Auxentius and his synod back in the 1970's. This provided a
haven for us when we had to flee the Synod of the New ROCOR when it
became obvious that they abandoned the legacy of Saint Philaret and
desired to be in communion with compromised orthodoxy.
It was because of Saint Philaret's understanding and faithfulness to
Hierarchy properly understood that we have hierarchy. Ours it is to
simply follow in his footsteps. May the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and
Holy Spirit preserve us in this by the prayers of the Theotokos and all
of the Saints. Amen.
Your fervent supplicant unto the Lord,
+Metropolitan Moses
______________________________________________________________________________
2. Special Report: The Exorcism of Europe
By George Neumayr
Published 10/18/2005 12:08:38 AM
Writing in Newsweek International, Barbie Nadeau scoffs at the
Vatican's preservation of its exorcism rite. But judging by the rise of
demonic cults cited in the article -- "Interest in satanic worship has
risen sharply across Europe recently; there are 5,000 Italians involved
in 650 active satanic cults in the country, more than double the number
a decade ago" -- the Church's exorcism rite is needed more than ever.
If enlightened Europe scoffs at Vatican exorcisms, it is not because
Europeans deny the existence of Satan; it is because they don't want to
fight him.
The Exorcism of Emily Rose, released in Europe in early October,
occasioned Nadeau's article. The movie is based on a European legal
case from the 1970s involving Anneliese Michel, a twentyish German
woman, now something of a folk hero, who died after months of
exorcisms.
The wholly secularized German legal authorities blamed her death on
benighted exorcists and her reactionary Catholic parents, who
considered post-Vatican II liberalism to be scandalous and stupid.
(According to media accounts, Anneliese agreed with them. Before her
possession began, she was doing penance for the progressive creeps
rapidly filling up the Church in Germany.) If she had only been left to
the ministrations of science and medicine, her death would never have
happened, went the German court's reasoning, and the exorcists and
parents were convicted of criminal negligence. The court declared
Anneliese, who had requested the exorcists after medicine failed to
help her, the victim of "Doctrinaire Induction."
The verdict illustrated secular Europe's morbid hostility to religious
freedom and Germany's fanatical attempts to uphold a secularist culture
that blocks out any acknowledgement of the spiritual realm. Most
Germans now, including most Protestants and a third of Catholics, don't
believe in life after death. And it is an open question how many
Catholic bishops in Germany believe in life after death. The faithless
cowards who populate much of the German episcopate offered zero help
during Anneliese Michel's trial; worried that they would appear
insufficiently progressive, they made sure to distance themselves from
the Church's teaching on Satan and exorcism.
In Hollywood's very loose but effective adaptation of the Michel trial
(the movie transfers the setting to the American Midwest and restricts
the criminal prosecution to the exorcist), this theme of Church
cowardice is commendably taken up. The movie makes it clear that the
typical modern bishop would rather maintain the good opinion of the
secular world than defend the Church's doctrine on Satan. In the movie,
consequently, that Emily Rose's edifying story gets told at all is not
because of the local bishop but in spite of him. The archdiocese is
content to let the honorable exorcist rot in jail because he refuses to
agree to the pinched, cowardly defense its lawyers prescribed for him,
a defense which would forbid him from talking about the reality of
Satan and the Church's powers of exorcism.
In the Michel trial, the German bishops actually used its outcome to
call on the Vatican to rewrite the exorcism ritual so that it would
incorporate all the proper secularist assumptions. The number of
exorcists in Germany can be counted on one hand, thanks to a Catholic
episcopate there that is now far, far to the left of Germany's historic
liberal Protestant reformers. The Vatican has rightly refused all these
calls, which upsets the glib jackasses at Newsweek who consider satanic
possession to be a punchline to a joke.
But while Newsweek mocks the ancient practice of exorcism, at least a
few people in Hollywood realize that the only successful movies about
Catholicism are the ones that take ancient traditions like it
seriously. While modern church "reforms" are good fodder for comedy,
they can't command the attention of an audience for a drama. In The
Godfather and The Exorcist, and now in The Exorcism of Emily Rose,
Hollywood recognizes that in order to rivet audiences it has to draw
upon ancient traditions of the Church, which contain cultural power
because they derive from a comprehension of the reality of evil rather
than the liberal fatuousness upon which modern "reform" is based.
Europe, according to Newsweek, is too enlightened for the Vatican's
exorcisms. But it is not too enlightened to host a growing number of
demonic cults. The Devil's greatest triumph, it is said, was to
convince man that he doesn't exist. But this saying needs revision.
Europe displays an even greater triumph for the Devil -- not ignorance
of his designs but respect for them.
George Neumayr is executive editor of The American Spectator.
________________________________________________________________________
3. THE DECLINE OF THE PATRIARCHATE OF CONSTANTINOPLIE
Translators 'Introduction
The anti-Orthodox career and statements of the late Patriarch
Athenagoras of sorry memory have been so striking that they have
perhaps tended to obscure the fact that the apostasy of this one man
was merely the culmination of a long and thorough process of the
departure from the Orthodox Faith of an entire Local Orthodox Church.
The promise of the new Patriarch Demetrios to 'follow upon the
footsteps of our great Predecessor " in pursuing Christian unity" and
to institute "dialogues " with Islam and other non-Christian religions,
while recognizing "the holy blessed Pope of Rome Paul VI, the first
among equals within the universal Church of Christ" (Enthronement
Address) - only confirms this observation and reveals the depths to
which the Church of Constantinople has fallen in our own day.
It should be noted that the title "Ecumenical" was bestowed on the
Patriarch of Constantinople as a result of the transfer of the capital
of the Roman Empire to this city in the 4th century; the Patriarch then
became the bishop of the city which was the centre of the ecumene or
civilized world. Lamentably, in the 20th century the once-glorious See
of Constantinople, having long since lost its earthly glory, has
cheaply tried to regain prestige by entering on two new "ecumenical"
paths.- it has joined the "ecumenical movement," which is based on an
anti-Christian universalism; and, in imitation of apostate Rome, it has
striven to subject the other Orthodox Churches to itself and make of
its Patriarch a kind of pope of orthodoxy.
The following article, which is part of a report on all the
Autocephalous Churches made by Archbishop John to the Second
All-Diaspora Sobor of the Russian Church Abroad held in Yugoslavia in
1938, gives the historical back-ground of the present state of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople. It could well have been written today,
nearly 35years later apart from a few small points which have changed
since then, not to mention the more spectacular "ecumenical" acts and
statements of the Patriarchate in recent years, which have served to
change it from the 'Pitiful spectacle " here described into one of the
leading world centers of anti-Orthodoxy.
THE PRIMACY among Orthodox Churches is possessed by the Church of the
New Rome, Constantinople, which is headed by a Patriarch who has the
title of Ecumenical, and therefore is itself called the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, which territorially reached the culmination of its
development at the end of the 18th century. At that time there was
included in it the whole of Asia Minor, the whole Balkan Peninsula
(except for Montenegro), together with the adjoining islands, since the
other independent Churches in the Balkan Peninsula had been abolished
and had become part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Ecumenical
Patriarch had received from the Turkish Sultan, even before the taking
of Constantinople by the Turks, the title of Millet Bash, that is, the
head of the people, and he was considered the head of the whole
Orthodox population of the Turkish Empire. This, however, did not
prevent the Turkish government from removing patriarchs for any reason
whatever and calling for new elections, at the same time collecting a
large tax from the newly elected patriarch. Apparently the latter
circumstance had a great significance in the changing of patriarchs by
the Turks, and therefore it often happened that they again allowed on
the Patriarchal Throne a patriarch whom they had removed, after the
death of one or several of his successors. Thus, many patriarchs
occupied their see* several times, and each accession was accompanied
by the collection of a special tax from them by the Turks.
In order to make up the sum which he paid on his accession to the
Patriarchal Throne, a patriarch made a collection from the
metropolitans subordinate to him, and - they, in their turn, collected
from the clergy subordinate to them. This manner of making up its
finances left an imprint on the whole order of the Patriarchate's life.
In the Patriarchate there was likewise evident the Greek "Great Idea,"
that is, the attempt to restore Byzantium, at first in a cultural, but
later also in a political sense. For this reason in all important posts
there were assigned people loyal to this idea, and for the most part
Greeks from the part of Constantinople called the Phanar, where also
the Patriarchate was located. Almost always the Episcopal sees were
filled by Greeks, even though in the Balkan Peninsula the population
was primarily Slavic.
At the beginning of the 19th century there began a movement of
liberation among the Balkan peoples, who were striving to liberate
themselves from the authority of the Turks. There arose the states of
Serbia, Greece, Romania, and Bulgaria, at first semi-independent, and
then completely independent from Turkey. Parallel with this there
preceded also the formation of new Local Churches which were separate
from the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Even though it was unwillingly under
the influence of circumstances, the Ecumenical Patriarchs permitted the
autonomy of the Churches in the vassal princedoms, and later they
recognized the full independence of the Churches in Serbia, Greece, and
Romania. Only the Bulgarian question was complicated in view on the one
hand of the impatience of the Bulgarians, who had not yet attained
political independence, and, on the other hand, thanks to the
unyieldingness of the Greeks. The self-willed declaration of Bulgarian
autocephaly on the foundation of a firman (2) of the Sultan was not
recognized by the Patriarchate, and in a number of dioceses there was
established a parallel hierarchy.
The boundaries of the newly-formed Churches coincided with the
boundaries of the new states, which were growing all the time at the
expense of Turkey, at the same time acquiring new dioceses from the
Patriarchate. Nonetheless, in 1912, when the Balkan War began, the
Ecumenical Patriarchate had about 70 metropolias and several
bishoprics. The war of 1912-13 tore away from Turkey a significant part
of the Balkan Peninsula with such great spiritual centers as Salonica
and Athos. The Great War of 1914-18 for a time deprived Turkey of the
whole of Thrace and the Asia Minor coast with the city of Smyrna, which
were subsequently lost by Greece in 1922 after the unsuccessful march
of the Greeks on Constantinople.
Here the Ecumenical Patriarch could not so easily allow out of his
authority the dioceses which had been tom away from Turkey, as had been
done previously. There was already talk concerning certain places which
from of old had been under the spiritual authority of Constantinople.
Nonetheless, the Ecumenical Patriarch in 1922 recognized the annexation
to the Serbian Church of all areas within the boundaries of Yugoslavia;
he agreed to the inclusion within the Church of Greece of a number of
dioceses in the Greek State, preserving, however, his jurisdiction over
Athos; and in 1937 he recognized even the autocephaly of the small
Albanian Church, which originally he had not recognized.
The boundaries of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the number of its
dioceses had significantly decreased. At the same time, the Ecumenical
Patriarchate in fact lost Asia Minor also, although it remained within
its jurisdiction. In accordance with the peace treaty between Greece
and Turkey in 1923, there occurred an exchange of population between
these powers, so that the whole Greek population of Asia Minor had to
resettle in Greece.' Ancient cities, having at one time a great
significance in ecclesiastical matters and glorious in their church
history, remained without a single inhabitant of the Orthodox faith. At
the same time, the Ecumenical Patriarch lost his political significance
in Turkey, since Kemal Pasha deprived him of his title of head of the
people. Factually, at the present time under the Ecumenical Patriarch
there are five dioceses within the boundaries of Turkey in addition to
Athos with the surrounding places in Greece. The Patriarch is extremely
hindered in the manifestation even of his indisputable rights in church
government within the boundaries of Turkey, where he is viewed as an
ordinary Turkish subject-official, being furthermore under the
supervision of the government. The Turkish government, which interferes
in all aspects of the life of its citizens, only as a special privilege
has permitted him, as also the Armenian Patriarch, to wear long hair
and clerical garb, forbidding this to the rest of the clergy. The
Patriarch has no right of free exit from Turkey, and lately the
government is ever more insistently pursuing his removal to the new
capital of Ankara (the ancient Ancyra), where there are now no Orthodox
Christians, but where the administration with all the branches of
governmental life is concentrated.
Such an outward abasement of the hierarch of the city of Saint
Constantine, which was once the capital of the ecumene, has not caused
reverence toward him to be shaken among Orthodox Christians, who revere
the See of Saints John Chrysostom and Gregory the Theologian. From the
height of this See, the successor of Saints John and Gregory could
spiritually guide the whole Orthodox world, if only he possessed their
firmness in the defense of righteousness and truth and the breadth of
views of the recent Patriarch Joachim III. However, to the general
decline of the Ecumenical Patriarchate there has been joined the
direction of its activity after the Great War. The Ecumenical
Patriarchate has desired to make up for the loss of dioceses which have
left its jurisdiction, and likewise the loss of its political
significance within the boundaries of Turkey, by submitting to itself
areas where up to now there has been no Orthodox hierarchy, and
likewise the Churches of those states where the government is not
Orthodox. Thus, on April 5, 1922, Patriarch Meletius designated an
Exarch of Western and Central Europe with the title of Metropolitan of
Thyatira with residency in London; on March 4, 1923, the same Patriarch
consecrated the Czech Archimandrite Sabbatius, Archbishop of Prague and
All Czechoslovakia; on April 15, 1924, a Metropolia of Hungary and All
Central Europe was founded with a See in Budapest, even though there
was already a Serbian bishop there. In America an Archbishopric was
established under the Ecumenical Throne; then in 1924 a Diocese was
established in Australia with a See in Sydney. In 1938 India was made
subordinate to the Archbishop of Australia.
At the same time, there has proceeded the subjection of separate parts
of the Russian Orthodox Church which have been tom away from Russia.
Thus, on June 9, 1923, the Ecumenical Patriarch accepted into his
jurisdiction the Diocese of Finland as an autonomous Finnish Church; on
August 23, 1923, the Estonian Church was made subject in the same way;
on November 13, 1924, Patriarch Gregory VU recognized the autocephaly
of the Polish Church under the supervision of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate - that is, rather autonomy. In March, 1936, the Ecumenical
Patriarch accepted Latvia into his jurisdiction. Not limiting himself
to the acceptance into his jurisdiction of Churches in regions which
had fallen away from the borders of Russia, Patriarch Photius accepted
into his jurisdiction Metropolitan Eulogius in Western Europe together
with the parishes subordinate to him, and on February 28, 1937, an
Archbishop of the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch in America
consecrated Bishop Theodore-Bogdan Shpilko for a Ukrainian Church in
North America.
Thus, the Ecumenical Patriarch has become actually "ecumenical"
[universal] in the breadth of the territory which is theoretically
subject to him. Almost the whole earthly globe, apart from the small
territories of the three Patriarchates and the territory of Soviet
Russia, according to the idea of the Patriarchate's leaders, enters
into the composition of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Increasing without
limit their desires to submit to themselves parts of Russia, the
Patriarchs of Constantinople have even begun to declare the
uncanonicity of the annexation of Kiev to the Moscow Patriarchate, and
to declare that the previously existing southern Russian Metropolia of
Kiev should be subject to the Throne of Constantinople. Such a point of
view is not only clearly expressed in the Tomos of November 13, 1924,
in connection with the separation of the Polish Church, but is also
quite thoroughly promoted by the Patriarchs. Thus, the Vicar of
Metropolitan Eulogius in Paris, who was consecrated with the permission
of the Ecumenical Patriarch, has assumed the title of Chersonese; that
is to say, Chersonese, which is now in the territory of Russia, is
subject to the Ecumenical Patriarch. The next logical step for the
Ecumenical Patriarchate would be to declare the whole of Russia as
being under the jurisdiction of Constantinople.
However, the actual spiritual might and even the actual boundaries of
authority by far do not correspond to such a self-aggrandizement of
Constantinople. Not to mention the fact that almost everywhere the
authority of the Patriarch is quite illusory and consists for the most
part in the confirmation of bishops who have been elected to various
places or the sending of such from Constantinople, many lands which
Constantinople considers subject to itself do not have any flock at all
under its jurisdiction.
The moral authority of the Patriarchs of Constantinople has likewise
fallen very low in view of their extreme instability in ecclesiastical
matters. Thus, Patriarch Meletius IV arranged a "Pan-Orthodox
Congress", with representatives of various churches, which decreed the
introduction of the New Calendar. This decree, recognized only by a
part of the Church, introduced a frightful schism among Orthodox
Christians. Patriarch Gregory VII recognized the decree of the council
of the Living Church concerning the deposing of Patriarch Tikhon, whom
not long before this the Synod of Constantinople had declared a
"confessor", and then he entered into communion with the
"Renovationists" in Russia, which continues up to now.
In sum, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in theory embracing almost the
whole universe and in fact extending its authority only over several
dioceses, and in other places having only a higher superficial
supervision and receiving certain revenues for this; persecuted by the
government at home and not supported by any governmental authority
abroad; having lost its significance as a pillar of truth and having
itself become a source of division, and at the same time being
possessed by an exorbitant love of power - represents a pitiful
spectacle which recalls the worst periods in the history of the See of
Constantinople.
_________________
(1) The diocese of a bishop or the place within it where his cathedral
is situated, Church of Holy Wisdom, Constantinople
(2) A decree or royal order issued by a sovereign.
4. THE GOD GENE AND HUMAN PRIDE
David Limbaugh
townhall.com December 14, 2004
Don't get all nervous, but this new "discovery" of a God gene that
finally gives us a scientific explanation for those whacked-out
believers in God started me thinking about the sin of pride.
Romans 1:20 says: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible
qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly
seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without
excuse."
In other words, human beings have to reject what their senses and
intellects tell them in order to arrive at any other conclusion than
that God created them and the universe.
Many learned scientists reject this idea, preferring to believe just
the opposite: that a belief in the Divine Creator is counterintuitive,
devoid of reason, blind to the facts and insufficiently deferential to
science. You wouldn't believe the condescending e-mails I received from
self-described scientists following my column on the book "I Don't Have
Enough Faith To Be an Atheist," telling me, essentially, what a moron I
am.
I wonder what these smug critics would tell Britisher Anthony Flew, one
of the world's leading proponents of atheism, who has now abandoned his
disbelief in God. Flew observed, quite rightly, that the latest
biological research "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity
of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that
intelligence must have been involved."
When anticipating the inevitable shock of some of his co-atheists to
his transformation, Flew said, "My whole life has been guided by the
principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."
That's precisely the point. Contrary to the position of many atheists,
especially those who believe that Christians are reality-challenged and
science-averse, theism - particularly Christianity - is supported by
reliable evidence.
Which gets us back to the subject of pride? I have always believed that
among the obstacles to belief, human pride is the leading culprit.
Pride is responsible for the notion that no God was necessary to have
created life from no life, the material world from the immaterial
world, something out of nothing.
Instructively, "Humanist Manifesto II" bears this out, declaring, "As
nontheists, we begin with humans, not God, nature, not deity.... But we
can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species.
While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for
what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save
ourselves."
It's hard not to conclude that such pride is responsible for the
above-mentioned bizarre theory of American molecular geneticist Dr.
Dean Hamer ("The God Gene: How Faith Is Hard-Wired Into Our Genes"),
that a person's capacity for believing in God is genetically determined.
Those with VMAT2 - the God gene - apparently have freer-flowing
mood-altering chemicals in their brains, making them more inclined
toward spiritual beliefs. Environmental influences, such as growing up
in a religious family, supposedly have little effect on our beliefs.
Uninhibited by humility, Dr. Hamer doesn't limit his conjecturing to
his area of expertise. He ventures out into the spiritual and
historical realms as well, telling us his findings aren't antithetical
to a belief in God because "Religious believers can point to the
existence of god genes as one more sign of the creator's ingenuity ...
Buddha, Mohammed and Jesus all shared a series of mystical experiences
or alterations in consciousness and thus probably carried the gene."
Perhaps Hamer's pride obscures from him the pitfalls in
over-generalizing and presuming to lump together believers of different
faiths. How could Christ, who claimed to be God in the flesh, have
shared any mystical experiences with Buddha and Mohammed, neither of
whom asserted their own deity?
Perhaps Dr. Hamer's conceit prevents him from recognizing that a
God-gene is hard to square with Biblical Christianity. How could
Christians subscribe to the idea of a God gene when the God of the
Bible, if nothing else, is a god of accountability and judgment? Surely
even Five-Point Calvinists would consider the notion a grotesque twist
on the Doctrine of the Elect. But these distinctions are doubtlessly
lost on the likes of Hamer, whose theories necessarily elevate the
concept of determinism and demote personal responsibility.
Indeed, perhaps it is pride that leads the anti-theistic among us to
reduce everything to deterministic molecules and DNA because such
things are within their eventual grasp and control. To acknowledge that
there may just be certain things beyond their eventual comprehension
and, thus, control could be tantamount to recognizing that there is
something - Someone - greater. Such blasphemy cannot stand.
Perhaps the good doctor's arrogance precludes him from considering that
for many Christians, believing is not a matter of some chemically
induced emotional state. It is based on things far less vulnerable to
the vicissitudes of our emotions, such as a belief in the Bible as the
unchanging, inspired Word of God.
David Limbaugh is a syndicated columnist who blogs at DavidLimbauah.com
________________________________________________________________________
5. WHY THEY HATE US
Joseph Sobran
The Wanderer, February 10, 2005
(A Roman Catholic periodical)
I often reflect that serious Catholics may have a special infinity with
serious Muslims. Catholics understand that political arrangements are
only provisional, not absolute goods. We may be called on to die for
the faith; but for democracy?
Many pro-war American pundits, who know just enough history to make
facile parallels between this war and World War II, are missing the
point. World War II isn't an important part of the Muslim memory, and
the militant Islamists have nothing in common with the Axis powers.
A more useful analogy might be this: The Muslims regard a Western
invasion as the Christians of Eastern Europe, not so long ago, regarded
Communist conquest - as a mortal assault on their religion and way of
life. Those who take their faith seriously must regard resistance as a
holy duty. To portray this as hatred of freedom is to misconceive the
whole situation.
Muslims now hate and fear Americans, whom they see as both aggressive
and immoral, as Christians in Poland and Czechoslovakia once hated and
feared the Soviet Union. It's hard for most Americans to imagine that
anyone could see the United States as anything but the standard-bearer
of liberty. "Infidels" seems a quaint and almost comical word to apply
to us. But we should try to think of ourselves as, in Muslim eyes, the
functional equivalent of the Bolshevik menace.
Putting the shoe on the other foot isn't something Americans are
particularly good at. Bush seems especially unable to grasp why people
of other cultures might dread not only our power, but the morality they
fear we would impose on them, just as Communism brought divorce,
abortion, and other evils to the nations it claimed to liberate. So
when we say "liberation, " is it any wonder that the Muslims hear
"slavery"? Bush, like many others, insists that our enemies "hate
freedom. " He almost never uses the word "fear." But the obvious truth
is that those enemies intensely fear what Americans have come to mean
by freedom, and what you fear, you also hate.
Why should this be so hard to understand? Fifty years ago, when America
was still predominantly Christian, our relations with the Muslim world
were distant but friendly. There were few huge moral differences
between the two worlds.
Which world has changed since then? How would Americans then have
welcomed the prospect of America today, where you can flip on your
television and watch pornography? Is this what Muslims think they can
look forward to if we manage to Americanize them?
Bush is a devout man, but he doesn't grasp how many pious people on
this earth see
him as the head of a Godless power. Are they all wrong?
________________________________________________________________________
6. NEW ITEMS FROM THE BOOK CENTER
(OPPC) ORTHODOX
PLANNING CALENDAR, 2006. Pocket planner with Facing pages for one week.
Saints, Feasts and Fasts according to Old Calendar. e$8.00
(DCAL) ORTHODOX
CHRISTIAN DESK CALENDAR FOR 2006. Tear-off daily calendar with old and
new calendar dates, major feast/saint(s) of the day according to the
Old Caledar and quotation from My Life in Christ by St. John of
Kronstadt. f$12.00 ea.
(NICA) THE HOLY
MONASTERY OF ST. NICHOLAOS ANAPAFSAS: History and Art.
Established in the 14th century as one of the rock monasteries of
Meteora in Thessaly. After extensive renovation at the end of the
15th/early 16th century, it became the first complete example of
frescoes by the famed iconographer Theophanes of Crete. This large
format volume completely documents in full color the magnificent
frescoes..All text in Greek and English. Truly a treasure. Quantities
limited. .345pp. Cloth f$125.00
(CTH) CHRISTINA'S
TRUE HEROES by Maria Khoury, Ph.D. The latest in the "Christina"
series features grandpa telling Chistina the lives of seven women
saints who were champions of the Faith: Sts. Anna, Mary Magdalene,
Photini, Brigid, Mary of Egypt, Theodora and Elizabeth. Full page
Byzantine icons accompany each life. For preschool and up. Large
format. 22pp. Paper c$10.00
(TIC) TRAVEL
ICONOSTASION A compact, genuine leather folder containing six
icon prints: The Saviour, the Mother of God, St. Nicholas, Archangel
Michael, Guardian Angel and St. John the Russian. 2-7/8" high. Folded:
2-3/8 " wide by 1" thick. Open width: flat is 14-3/4" Leather strap
closure. Please inquire about other icons available. $25.00