Having finished my taxes without an extension this year, I now am free to indulge a desire to reflect on taxes from an Biblical perspective.

As much as we complain about income taxes, especially their complexity and the frequent opaqueness of the instructions, they are Biblical in both the sense that such taxes are found in the Bible and that God prescribed such taxes for Israel. We know these taxes as tithes, which were based on one’s income or ‘increase’ in the course of a year, and the proceeds went both to support the Priests and Levites who were not given an inheritance of land and to succor the poor.

Indeed, there was more than one tithe in Israel. (In Homily 4 on Ephesians, St. John Chrysostom speaks of the Hebrews giving “tithes upon tithes” and then wonders why Christians under the new covenant scruple to given even a bare, first tithe and marvel at those who do.) The first tithe (Numbers 18:21), ten percent of one’s increase, went to support the Levites, an entire tribe that had been taken into the service of the Tabernacle and the Priests. The second tithe each year was used in two ways: in years three and six of the seven-year cycle, it was given to the “Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance with you, and the resident alien and the fatherless and the widow who are within your cities”; in the other years, it was taken to Jerusalem by the tither to be eaten there before the Lord with in a joyous celebration “that you may learn to fear the Lord your God all your days” (Deuteronomy 14:22-29). Thus the second tithe in four years out of seven funded a mandatory vacation to come and rejoice before the Lord, feasting on whatever one’s soul desired. The Priests of Aaron’s house received a portion of the sacrifices that were offered each day as well as a tithe from the Levites. And everyone was called to give alms, to loan to the poor without interest, to leave the corners of one’s field unharvested and not to pick over the vines and fruit trees twice so that the poor could come and glean from what was left.

What is striking by its absence in the polity of Israel is a common tax that is far less controversial to modern man than the income tax: the property tax. Property was the primary form of capital that allowed people to produce wealth, primarily food and clothing. It was a gift from God to His people, an inalienable inheritance. Each family had an inheritance of this inalienable land which could not be permanently sold. If a family fell on hard times or so chose for other reasons, they could sell their property for up to forty-nine years, but in the fiftieth year, the Year of Jubilee, all such land reverted back to the original owner. Thus no one was permanently dispossessed; everyone had access to productive capital. Everyone was taxed on his production, but not on his capital.

In our land, we are taxed on just about everything, and the property tax is one of the cruellest of taxes. It drives retired people out of the homes they own free and clear and in which they have long dwelt because their fixed income cannot keep pace with rising taxes. It denies people the existence afforded by subsistence farming, for to hold land, one must participate in the cash economy. It adds, I might argue, to the general rootlessness of our culture, where few people continue to live where their parents and grandparents lived.

The unpleasant truth for lovers of freedom is that there is little private property left in our ‘land of the free’. The term home owner in contradistinction to renters is a false. To pay a tax on one’s home or land is not to own it in the most meaningful sense. In reality, the state owns it, for if you fail to pay the state’s property tax, the state will take ‘your’ home or land (or the bank will get it under the state’s authority). Property owners are simply renters by another name. Although they have far greater control over the property than the classic renter, it does not change the essential fact of their relation to the land–that they are renters.

And what do these ever rising property taxes fund? Our shining bastions of knowledge and enlightenment, the public schools, who voraciously consume ever greater amounts of money to achieve ever higher standards of illiteracy of every sort. But that is another subject.

Popularity: 50% [?]

If you’re new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

I have mixed feelings about writing a blog. The internet can easily turn into a black hole voracious to consume the precious moments of our lives–and by writing I may contribute to people spending more time staring at a screen full of electronic ephemera than tending to concrete chores and caring for flesh and blood family and friends. Clearly my negative thoughts about a blog, not to mention lack of inspiration and other demands on my time have kept me from it.And besides, I wonder, by writing for electronic format rather than traditional hard copy, what sort of artifacts will we leave for future generations? What documents will the historians of 2200 have to study?Perhaps inspiration to write is returning even as I watch the recently bare trees outside my window clothing themselves anew with living green. The green in my brown vegetable patch is now easily visible my desk some sixty feet away. What new thoughts are waiting to bud forth from a mind long dormant in blogosphere? Stay tuned…

Popularity: 47% [?]

When scandal breaks out in a parish, at work, in the national Church, or in civil government, how do we typically respond? If it concerns or interests us, we typically try to get more information. “What happened? Is it true?” Then we begin to assess what happened. We talk about it. We read about it. We write about it on the internet. We monitor the latest postings of others, the latest analysis, the latest developments. We may be energized by this and labor to change things in whatever way we can. We may just grumble to ourselves and a few others and stay on the sideline. We may be perplexed as to what has really happened and what should be done, since discerning the truth of things from afar is uncertain at best. The problem has taken on a life of its own in us. We cannot get to the bottom of it, we do not understand it fully and are frustrated. We want resolution and solutions, but they do not come quickly enough to satisfy us. It can eat us up as we obsess over it. It taints our relationships with others who do not see what happened in the same way we do. We may despair in the face of it and flee from it. Alternatively, our world may become largely defined by the parameters of the problem so that we can scarcely see anything else. In such cases, how the sin of a few can catalyze the sins of many and cause many to stumble may be clearly seen.In response to a pious woman who wrote him about a ‘bad’ priest who was scandalizing parishioners, St. Theophan the Recluse wrote a letter recommending a different approach altogether. 

What To Do About A Bad Priest

From The Letters of St. Theophan the Recluse

Question: “We had a good priest; but he was transferred to another parish. In his place came another, who is a grief to the soul. In his serving the services, he is careless and hurried; when conversations occur, he talks only about trivial things; if he starts to talk about the things of God, then it is all with a kind of limitation and truncation of the strict truth. How is one to escape from such a temptation?”

Answer: You yourselves are at fault. You made poor use of the good priest, and the Lord took him away. Tell me, did you become better from your previous good priest? Here you falter to say, “Yes.” But I from a distance shall say that you did not become better, judging by the fact that you are judging the new priest, not knowing how to control your feelings in relation to him as you should. Indeed, you had a good priest even before this good priest who has now departed from you, and the one before him was good too. You see how many good priests the Lord has sent you; but you all have not become any better for it. And here He has decided: why waste good priests on these people? I’ll send them one not so good. And He did. Seeing this, you should have at once paid attention to yourself, to repent and improve, but you just judge and keep judging over and over again. Improve yourselves, and then the priest will at once be changed. He will think: “With these people I cannot carry out my holy work carelessly; I must serve reverently and conduct edifying conversations.” And he will mend his ways. If priests are negligent and hurried in serving the services and are trivial in conversations, then most of the time it comes from conforming to the parishioners.

Saying this, I am not justifying the priest. He has no excuse, if he tempts the souls entrusted to him not only with action against the ustav but even unwise action according to the ustav. But I say only what is more useful for you to do in the given case. And the most important thing I have already said: do not judge, but pay attention to yourselves and improve yourself both in prayer and in conversation, and in all your behavior. Pray for this with all your heart, that the Lord will correct the priest. And He will correct him. Only pray properly. The Lord said, that if two agree about anything and will begin to pray, then they will have their request (Matt. 18:19). So all you right-thinking parishioners gather together and decide to pray for the priest; join fasting to your prayer and  redouble your almsgiving; and do this not just for a day or two, but for weeks, months, a year. Labor and afflict yourself with brokenness so long as the priest has not changed. And he will change; be certain that he will.

I recently heard about a similar podvig and its fruit. One old woman, a simple peasant, a deeply pious woman, noticed that someone she respected had begun to depart some from his customary strictness of life, and she began to be sick at heart for him. She came home, locked herself in her hut, and began to pray after she had said to the Lord: “I will not leave this place, or taste a crumb of bread, or drink a drop of water, or give my eyes a minute of sleep until Thou hearest me, O Lord, and hast turned this person back to his former ways.” She did just as she had decided: she labored in prayer and afflicted her-self with broken-hearted tears importuning the Lord to hear her. Already she had become fatigued, already her strength had begun to leave her; but she all over again prayed: “Though I die, I will not give this up until the Lord hears me.” And He did. The confirmation came to her that this man for whom she was praying had again begun to keep himself as of old. She ran to have a look, saw that it was so, and broke into rejoicing. Her grateful tears had no end. And so this is the kind of prayer you are to establish—although not such in form, because, perhaps, for you it would not be suitable to do as she did—but such in zeal, self-sacrifice, and persistence. And undoubtedly you will receive what you desire. If you will some-times say, “Grant, Lord, that He may become good” only in passing, whether at home, or in church, or during conversations, then what sort of fruit is to be expected from such prayer? For this is not prayer, but words only.

I have said the main thing to you. I should add still one thing more; but it is the sort thing that is most difficult to carry out in such a way that it achieves its aim. Here is what I think! It may be possible for you who are right-thinking and respected to come to the priest and ask him to change in his actions that which incites you and leads you into temptation. To do this—there is nothing simpler; but to do it in such a way that it bears fruit is difficult in the extreme. Everything must breathe with the most sincere and zealous love—not only the content of what you say, but even your glance, and expression, and tone of voice. Then it may be hoped that this will achieve its aim. But without this love, it is better not to undertake such a step: it will come out worse, produce the most sorrowful discord. One could, perhaps, write everything to him in like manner, but, again, the whole matter must be carried off in the spirit of all-conquering love. It is also as possible to spoil the whole matter by this means just as it is by personally appearing to the priest. This is why I am not unconditionally decided to recommend this approach. I know, that it may be crowned with success, but the main thing is proper execution. Many good people will be found to come to the priest or to write him without seeing him and to express everything in the most polite manner, but for success, something other than gentleness is needed. Gentleness without love is a wounding sting. I know that in other places they act in this way and then boast: “We have done our part!” But I shall say, that it had been better had they not done it. 

I shall not say anything more to you about this—maybe just one thing more: be patient. There are still other legal means; but they are not my field, and I shall be silent about them.

Translated by Fr. Justin Frederick, all rights reserved

Popularity: 96% [?]

Imagine that you are having a wedding, a traditional wedding with true feasting to follow. You have invited all your good friends and relatives, who have indicated that they would be delighted to attend. You have planned accordingly to feed this chosen number sumptuously, hiring fine cooks to prepare tasty dishes (no run-of-the-mill caterers for you!) purchasing fine wines, sparing no expense to permit all you guests to enter into the joy of the occasion.

Then imagine, two days before the wedding, you start getting a flood of notes, emails, and phone calls from these friends and relatives saying that they won’t be attending. You call them to urge them to come, reminding them of your friendship and enticing them with details of your preparations for them. In response, they give you their excuses for not coming in a tone of voice that indicates that they think their decision makes all the sense in the world. But hear their excuses from your own perspective: “I just bought a new car and want to take a drive” or, “I want to stay home with my wife—we haven’t seen much of each other lately” or, “My refrigerator is empty, so I have to go shopping” or, “Someone just gave me tickets to the big football game, I can’t come” or “I just got a new plasma television and have to set it up to make sure it works.”

What do you think of these excuses? Do they make any sense? What would be your response? How would this make you feel, your ‘good friends’ choosing commonplace activities over you on your special day. Do you need friends like these?

Consider our Lord’s parable about the supper in todays Gospel (Luke 14:16-24). It has meaning on several levels for us, putting God in the position of the Host and us in the position of the invited guests.

First, Jesus spoke it to the Jews, God’s chosen people, to whom He had promised to send the Messiah. But as they had better things to do than to recognize Him when He came, so they spurned Him. Thus His servants were sent out to the spiritually and morally “poor, maimed, halt, and blind” of the world—the Gentiles.

Second, there is another level of meaning that affects still more directly. God is preparing a wedding feast for His Son, the Lamb, and His Son’s Bride, the Church. Through Christ’s first appearing on earth as man, the invitation has been issued. Many have responded that they would like to attend that feast. But when the time for the feast comes, strangely, many will beg off offering the worst of excuses.

Look at the excuses our Lord reports from them in His parable! One guest needs to see land he has bought, as if he hadn’t seen it before he bought it. Another wants to try out his new oxen. Surely that could wait? Another has been recently married. Why should that keep him from coming? These excuses are lame, or as a good ole’ boy in our part of the world would say, “Them dogs won’t hunt.” Clearly the lord giving the feast was unimpressed by such excuses; in fact, they were so poor that He was angered by them.

We may wonder how someone could turn God down by offering such lame excuses. But before we shake our heads in wonder at the foolishness of others and turn back to our own concerns, each of us needs to ask himself whether there is any chance we might be in the number of those offering lame excuses to God to avoid attending the feast He is preparing for His invited guests?

We have been invited to the wedding banquet in the Kingdom of God at the consummation of the ages through our Lord Jesus Christ, His Apostles, and the Church. Surely no one in his right mind would turn down such an invitation. But, in fact, we do, and more frequently than we might realize.

To invite you, Christ has humbled himself to be born into your world. He has lived life as you have. He humbled himself further to die unjustly to prove to you that God loves you and is serious about this invitation. He has made it abundantly clear that He wants you there as a guest. You have responded to that invitation. You accepted it by your profession of faith and your baptism. But now comes the test: did you really mean it, are you serious about attending that feast, or not? Because of the greatness of the feast and the glory of the Host, attending it requires some preparation—in fact, a lifetime’s worth of preparation. And how we respond to the means of preparation given us in this life is actually our response to God’s invitation to the ultimate feast.

For Christ has not only invited us to the ultimate banquet, he also invites us to a banquet set out for us at least once a week, a banquet that offers us a foretaste of what that ultimate banquet will be. The weekly banquet refines our palates so that we develop a taste for the fine food of the Kingdom. There is no junk food in the Kingdom, so if you can’t eat the normal fine fare, you’ll go hungry. The weekly banquet instructs us in the etiquette of the Kingdom. How do we act towards the King and His Son and their servants, the holy Angels? How do we treat our fellow guests? The standard of behavior is high, and we need to be ready and up to the task. The weekly banquet helps keep our white wedding garment given us at Baptism clean and us attired in it. No one is permitted at the ultimate feast without a clean wedding garment! By diligent participation in  the preparation offered by the weekly banquet, we shall not disgrace ourselves and our host by inability to eat the food, indecorous behavior, poor table manners, or unsuitable dress when the great banquet finally arrives.

I speak, of course, about the weekly Eucharist. Here, every week, we are offered the medicine of immortality, the body and blood of our Lord, a foretaste of the what will be offered at the marriage feast of the Lamb. Here we get training in the etiquette and behavior suitable for the kingdom of God.

Christ has commanded us to “do this in remembrance of Me,” and in obedience, His Church celebrates the Eucharist weekly at least and expects every baptized Christian to be present unless necessarily absent “for a cause worthy to inherit a heavenly blessing.” Such causes would include being sick in bed, helping someone in distress, taking care of a family crisis.

But how do we respond to Christ’s invitation and command? Some of us don’t attend for the lamest of excuses. “I was too tired.” But you chose to stay up too late doing other things, revealing your true priorities of the day.  “I had too much work to do.” Before we use this one, we’d better be sure it is true: did we use the time available during the week to do the required work, or did we indulge ourselves at times with entertainment, relaxation, sloth, or procrastination so that our work did not get done in the time allotted for it? By what right do we steal the time we owe to God to do ‘work’ that should have been done during the six days allotted for it? If we want God’s blessing on our work and lives, we had best be certain to bring Him the first part of our time on the Lord’s day, not our leftovers. Even if it is true that we have “too much work to do”, we need to determine which is more important—the work of this world, or the ‘work of the people’, the Liturgy, by which we are prepared for the world to come. Better to leave the lesser undone and attend to the greater than to neglect the greater for the of the lesser and do ourselves eternal harm.  And if we should have to work on Sundays, we can either work to change our schedule, make compromises with our employer to get some Sundays off, or make use of weekday services (and if your parish doesn’t have weekday services, ask your priest to provide them). Making the effort before God to put first things first invites His blessing and may well give us favor with employers and others making excessive demands on us that we may be able to worship on Sundays.

Sometimes the excuses seem more plausible. “My parents invited me over for Sunday morning brunch.” Certainly spending time honoring earthly parents is a worthy task, but not if it requires turning our backs to our Heavenly Father. As Christians, we have an appointment with God each Sunday morning. We schedule our lives around that appointment, for it is the most important appointment we have. How many invitations that would conflict with our appointment with God could be deflected just be saying, “I have a prior engagement at that time. How about we meet Saturday morning, or Sunday afternoon?” The same approach holds true for those Saturday evening conflicts that keep us from Vespers or Vigil, which is part of our preparation for the Divine Liturgy? (But that is another sermon!)

For some of us, it is not a matter of refusing to come to church for lame reasons. We come, but we do not come on time to hear “Blessed is the kingdom…” each week. All of us have done this at least once, some of us have done it more frequently, and some of us to our shame do it regularly. Now let us consider for a moment. Imagine that you have planned a fancy four-course dinner party and invited special friends to come at the appointed time for an evening together. Now, let us imagine that they arrive as typical Orthodox church-goers. A small percentage of your guests arrive at the appointed hour for cocktails. A few more are present for the appetizers. You already feel disappointed and annoyed that so many haven’t bothered to come on time. You wanted to bring these people together for their benefit and yours, but, because so many of the needed ingredients are still absent, the many useful connections you had envisioned being made among guests cannot be made and much stimulating conversation cannot occur.

Now it is time for the first course, and more than half are present. People keep straggling in as though tardiness were normal and it were their right to come straight in from the street to sit down at a meal already in progress. Some in their brashness don’t even offer an apology to the host for their tardiness while others in their self-absorption don’t seem to realize that they should. And now the main course has come, and a yet a few more come in to eat at the last moment. And some of these don’t even bother to stay for dessert!

How would you feel if your guests treated your dinner party in this fashion? 

The Divine Liturgy may be likened to a four-course, full service, formal sit-down feast—only we don’t sit down. It should never be treated as a spiritual drive-through or filling station. Cocktails and appetizers are found at the Hours or Orthros where are hearts are warmed up and the appetite stimulated for what is to come. The first course is the antiphons—two full psalms and the beatitudes—which speak of the goodness and mercy of God to the nourishment of our souls and the strengthening of our faith to receive what is yet to come. (Some Orthodox have basically cut this course out of the Liturgy by way of extreme abbreviation.) The second course is the Scripture readings and the homilies, where still more substantial nourishment is received. The main course, is, of course, the Eucharist. Everything leads up to it, everything prepares us for it, everything has been chosen to prepare us to receive Christ with faith and love to the benefit of our souls. Dessert is the fellowship that takes place after the Liturgy at Coffee Hour and in the parking lot.

Does it make any sense to come to this feast late? Does it in any way show respect to our Host or fellow guests to arrive after the appointed hour? Does coming late show us to be aware of the depth of our own spiritual need? Does it reveal us as spiritual slackers, unwilling to carry our weight in doing ‘the work of the people’? 

A communicant should be present in his place in church to hear “Blessed is the kingdom…” and should not leave the church until the dismissal. If, in unusual circumstances largely beyond one’s control, not due to sloth or carelessness, one is not able to arrive on time but is otherwise ready to partake, the economia has been offered that one may partake if one arrives in time to hear the Gospel reading. But this is the exceptional case, not the norm, and should be no one’s regular practice.

Let us hear no more lame excuses about coming late to the Liturgy. Let us hear no more of ‘Greek time’, ‘Russian time’, or ‘Orthodox time.’ Our time is God’s time, and on His time we had best be on time. You can get to work on time. You can get your children to school on time. You can get to the airport on time. You can get to your doctor on time. You dare tell me that you can’t make it on time for One far greater than any of these? Let us hear no more lame excuses. There is no such thing as being fashionably late to the Liturgy. It is rather an extreme spiritual faux pas and the height of presumption.

If you treat the Lord’s Table, the holy Eucharist with cavalier disdain by coming late or absenting yourself for no good reason, you need to think again. The Eucharist is offered in the Church each week to prepare you for the ultimate wedding feast of the Lamb and His Bride. No athlete makes it to the Olympic Games without many hours in lesser competitions. No beauty queen makes it to an international pageant without having won many lesser pageants. Our high calling requires training and preparation in this world including regular participation in the Lord’s training table that we may acquire a taste for true divine food in place of the world’s junk food, that we may learn the table etiquette and manners of the heavenly Kingdom in place of our crude earthly habits, and that we may remain clothed in our baptismal garment and keep it clean for the banquet to come. If we neglect this preparation for lame reasons, we may be surprised on the day of the Lord to discover that we have turned down our Lord’s invitation to His feast, or that we have arrived late and the door is shut, or that we have to be escorted out of the feast because we are not wearing a wedding garment, or our garment is dirty. May none of us be found among those who have turned down our Lord’s invitation to the wedding feast in His eternal kingdom by neglecting for lame reasons the necessary preparation for that feast at the weekly Divine Liturgy.  To Christ our God who has invited us to His wedding banquet through His Incarnation, death, and Resurrection be all glory, honor and worship, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.

Preached 16 December 2007 Sunday of the Holy Forefathers, edited for publication 

Popularity: 100% [?]

At this time of the year, we often hear about the need to “put Christ back into Christmas.” This means remembering “the reason for the season”—why there is Christmas at all. The feeling behind is that that Santa, toys, gifts, goodies, snow, sleigh bells, and TV specials—not to mention stress— have pushed the thought of Christ out of the celebration of His birthday, in Bethlehem so long ago.

Of course, Christ never left Christmas. His name is enshrined in the very word. And that is why the word “Christmas” has been dropped in public discourse and replaced with “holiday” or “season”, supposedly to avoid offending those of don’t care for Christ. It is worth fighting against this anti-Christian bigotry and exposing the rampant hypocrisy of those who speak of tolerance but have none for Christians and their Christ. But is it enough to restore the common use of the word “Christmas” in this overwhelmingly Christian country? Is it enough to be able to have manger scenes in public places and Christmas carols in schools?

There can be no one question on one level that we are an “overwhelmingly Christian nation.” Clearly the large majority of the citizens of our land identify themselves as Christians. But on another level, with a land full of divorce, abortion, murder, abuse, pornography, unfaithfulness, lies, manipulations, excessive consumption, greed, gluttony, drunkenness, drugs, blasphemy, a multitude of addictions and dysfunctions and much more, we can well question whether we are Christian at all, even were we all to speak of “Christmas vacation” and we could see public manger scenes in every town. How much really does our way of life have in common with Christ and the way of His Gospel commandments?

A manger scene once was a common decoration of Christmas both in the home and in public, a display which bears witness to the meaning of the holiday. It includes a collection of animals, sheep, cows, a donkey, a camel, maybe goats or a dog; it includes a couple shepherds, three wise men, a star, perhaps an angel; and of course, it has Mary, Joseph, and a manger, and a little baby in the manger. When I was young, we had one that was set up like this, and we kept the manger empty all through the advent season; when we woke up Christmas morning, that manger was no longer empty.

Christmas is about the babe in the manger, whom his mother Mary named Jesus. But who is this baby Jesus? Why do we still celebrate His birth 2000 years later?

The only proper reason to celebrate Christ’s birth “away in the manger” is because of who He is. If this were just another human birth, we’d not get so excited about it, put so much effort into it, or care. . . But He is different. He is more.

Here is who we hold Him to be, why we celebrate Him. He is the “one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father; by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man. And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures…”

He is God made man, the God-man, Emmanuel, “God with us.”

Why do we believe this? There are many reasons. But we’ll give one simple reason: the empty tomb. Jesus died publicly before all; his death was certified by a Roman soldier who knew death when he saw it to the governor. He was buried in a sealed tomb, guarded by Roman soldiers. Yet on the third day, that tomb was empty. Where was the body? Then the reports of seeing Him began to come in. . . Because of His resurrection and empty tomb, we know Him to be no mere man. In the light of the Resurrection, we understand the rest of the Scriptures about Him and His life: and hereby we know him as the God-man.

This is why we fast before Christmas. We put aside sinful behavior, and we cut out or back on things that tend to stir up sinful behavior. This clears our spiritual sight that we may see Christ for who He truly is, not a cute baby in a manger surrounded by animals, a warm traditional part of our Christmas. No, we see here the eternal Son of God who put on our nature for us. This is what we usually don’t see, really see, even if we believe it. We take it for granted, pay lip service to it, and go about life as though it made little difference.

But world is still at war with Christ. It doesn’t want God interfering in its affairs. God entering human time and space as man is a dreadful intolerable interference. It changes everything. Emmanuel, “God with us”, means it can’t be simply ‘business as usual’. God with us demands a response. And for many today, the response, which they are free to make, is to turn their backs, or even to rage against the babe born in Bethlehem and blaspheme Him.

So we can now see the real matter before us in the question of putting Christ back into Christmas. It is not that we need to put Christ back into Christmas. He never left it. We need Christmas to put Christ back into us. We need to contemplate that babe in the manger, see Him for who He is, and begin to realize the implications of God becoming man. That God has become one of us and dwelt among us changes everything. It means that God has drawn near to us, is accessible, and waits for us to turn our hearts and faces to Him. It means we have no more excuses for not acknowledging and knowing God and offering Him thanks. It means that we have hope for enduring joy, for peace among men, for eternal glory in an eternal kingdom. It means that in Him man overcomes death. It means that human nature is forever joined to the life of the Holy Trinity, to the Divine Nature and has been seated at the right hand of the Power on high. It means that through the One born in Bethlehem, we can become partakers of that Divine Nature. This good news truly understood can only result in joy to the world and the beginning of peace among men.

Christ is forever in Christmas whether we want Him there or not. We need not worry much about making efforts to “put Christ back into Christmas.” But we desperately need Christmas to put Christ—the Light, the Truth, the Way, the Life—into us. This is the point of Christmas, and this is where our efforts to reclaim the season from its commercialized corruptions need to be focused—in how to get more of Christ into the inn of our hearts where too often there is too little room for Him to lay His head.Homily preached 17 Dec 2006Edited 8 Dec 2007 for posting

Popularity: 99% [?]

We Americans pride ourselves on our freedom, considering ourselves to live as a free people in a free land. Our President has even advanced the claim that it is our freedom that causes many Muslims to hate us and to commit acts of terror against us. Whether that be the case or not, it is an axiom for us that we and our land are free. Patrick Henry’s words, which once rang in the hearts of all Americans, place the highest value on liberty: “Give me liberty, or give me death.” We might well ask ourselves whether we yet feel so strongly about it.

But what is this vaunted freedom? Do we possess authentic freedom or a cheap imitation? From what are we free? Are we absolutely or relatively free? If only relatively free, what are the proper limitations on our freedom keeping it from being absolute, and at what point does relative freedom become ‘unfreedom’? And once we have understood what this freedom is in which we exult, to what end is it to be directed? One could write a long treatise to address these questions and others concerning this concept we hold dear.

 This evening in our parish’s Dostoyevsky reading group, we encountered the following passage from Book Six, Chapter Three of Brothers Karamazov (published in 1881) which should prompt us to think about the nature of freedom:

The world has proclaimed the reign of freedom, especially of late, but what do we see in this freedom of theirs? Nothing but slavery and self-destruction! For the world says:

“You have desires and so satisfy them, for you have the same rights as the most rich and powerful. Don’t be afraid of satisfying them and even multiply your desires.” That is the modern doctrine of the world. In that they see freedom. And what follows from this right of multiplication of desires? In the rich, isolation and spiritual suicide; in the poor, envy and murder; for they have been given rights, but have not been shown the means of satisfying their wants. They maintain that the world is getting more and more united, more and more bound together in brotherly community, as it overcomes distance and sets thoughts flying through the air.

Since Dostoyevsky’s time and even before, a freedom has been proclaimed in the world that may well be false, that may actually be slavery and self-destruction. The essence of this freedom is to be able to satisfy your desires. “This is a free country, I can do what I want.” If we have grown up in these United States, we have no doubt heard someone say this, and perhaps we have said it ourselves. If this is how we conceive of our freedom, to be able to do what we want, then this is a freedom that Dostoyevsky claims is actually slavery and self-destruction. Is this a just assessment? We shall presently see.

‘Multiplication of desires’ may well be said to be the goal of advertising. Is it freedom to be full of desires? To have an ever-growing appetite for consumption? To have eyes bigger than our stomachs or budgets? One frequent result of growing desires that calls this conception of freedom into question is a heavy burden of  consumer debt . Is indebtedness freedom? Is it freedom to be full of desires that cannot be fulfilled due to lack of means (in the case of the poor)? Is it freedom to be able fulfill each and every desire as it comes along? What happens to a human being when he can and does indulge every desire?

Alas, put no faith in such a bond of union. Interpreting freedom as the multiplication and rapid satisfaction of desires, men distort their own nature, for many senseless and foolish desires and habits and ridiculous fancies are fostered in them. They live only for mutual envy, for luxury and ostentation. To have dinners, visits, carriages, rank and slaves to wait on one is looked upon as a necessity, for which life, honour and human feeling are sacrificed, and men even commit suicide if they are unable to satisfy it. We see the same thing among those who are not rich, while the poor drown their unsatisfied need and their envy in drunkenness. But soon they will drink blood instead of wine, they are being led on to it. I ask you is such a man free? I knew one “champion of freedom” who told me himself that, when he was deprived of tobacco in prison, he was so wretched at the privation that he almost went and betrayed his cause for the sake of getting tobacco again! And such a man says, “I am fighting for the cause of humanity.”

Dostoyevsky challenges the notion that freedom is defined by the ability to satisfy desires. People often become enslaved to the desires that they habitually satisfy. Of course, ’satisfaction’ of desires is fleeting in this world. We eat, satisfying our hunger, only to hunger again a few hours later. We experience the satisfaction of a pleasure, but it is short-lived and must be sought again. But then the law of diminishing returns kicks in: more of the pleasure is needed to achieve the same level of satisfaction; as time passes, it satisfies less and less, but we are addicted. Can one who is addicted to anything be considered to be truly free? Does our way of life tend to result in addiction or moderate, self-controlled use? 

How can such a one fight, what is he fit for? He is capable perhaps of some action quickly over, but he cannot hold out long. And it’s no wonder that instead of gaining freedom they have sunk into slavery, and instead of serving the cause of brotherly love and the union of humanity have fallen, on the contrary, into dissension and isolation, as my mysterious visitor and teacher said to me in my youth. And therefore the idea of the service of humanity, of brotherly love and the solidarity of mankind, is more and more dying out in the world, and indeed this idea is sometimes treated with derision. For how can a man shake off his habits, what can become of him if he is in such bondage to the habit of satisfying the innumerable desires he has created for himself? He is isolated, and what concern has he with the rest of humanity? They have succeeded in accumulating a greater mass of objects, but the joy in the world has grown less.

Living to satisfy desires leads to bondage to habits, and this bondage to the habits which bring us pleasure renders us self-centered and isolated from others. But man is a social animal, not an island unto himself. It is only in relation to others that he can truly find and know himself, but his so-called freedom enslaves him to pleasures and cuts him off from his fellow man.

Dostoyevsky goes on to contrast this way of life with monasticism, how through prayer, fasting, and obedience man is freed from the tyranny of desires that he can truly love God and others. But this freedom is not limited to monks: it is available to every Christian who submits himself to Christ and His Church and gives himself to prayer, fasting, and almsgiving.

Of course, in this reflection we have neither established what true freedom is nor demonstrated a Christian conception thereof such as Dostoyevsky’s; no, we have only challenged a prevailing notion of freedom and found it wanting. What is true freedom in the spiritual, social, and political realms? Freedom from what? Freedom to do, to be what? I hope to consider these and other questions in reflections to come. 

Popularity: 96% [?]

Yesterday evening and this morning we observed the liturgical beginning to the Nativity Fast in church with the appointed lenten-style Vespers and Matins. The lenten troparia and the prayer of St. Ephrem the Syian with prostrations break the routine of regular weekday Vespers and help us enter into the spirit of fasting even as our country looks ahead to the feasts of Thanksgiving and the “Christmas season” (really “pre-Christmas” season). Ahead of us is a journey through forty days of ascetic effort to reach a place where we may see Jesus of Nazareth for who He truly is and to worship him with the Magi.

One obstacle to reaching this place is our intellectual familiarity with the story, and that familiarity, if it falls short of breeding contempt in this case, may still generate a barrier to deeper apprehension of the Truth. Yes, we know Jesus, the Son of God was born of the Virgin Mary in the cave with singing angels and lowing oxen, and we celebrate that at Christmas (do we?). Our mind knows the facts of the story. But do we truly apprehend for ourselves the One who came and what His coming portends for us humans made in God’s image?

The Magi saw the star heralding the birth of the King of the Jews. They undertook a long, dangerous journey to come worship Him (and notice that their worship in part involved bringing costly gifts). The distinctive services marking the beginning of the Fast rise as a star calling us to set out to draw near to our rightful King. We need this journey back to Christ’s side. In the course of the year, we may wander from Christ, forget Him, or even keep Him in a small compartment in our life, forgetting that He needs to fill the whole. The fast calls us back to His side to apprehend Him for who He is—the God-man, the second Person of the eternal, holy Trinity made man for us—Emmanuel, God with us. Yes, we know this, too, intellectually, but we need to apprehend with the our spiritual eyes and our heart, to gaze on the eternal God made man to make man by grace to be what He is by nature, and it is by the Fast—prayer, almsgiving, and fasting—that our spiritual sight is cleared that it may apprehend Him.

Fasting may be misunderstood. It is not merely the fulfillment of a legalistic religious requirement to be in good standing with the Church. The Church calls us to fast, but not as an end in itself, only as a means to an end, an end that can scarcely be attained without fasting. It is not a misery creating effort in self-denial to impress God or win his favor. He has no need for our fasting, and it cannot impress Him. But we need fasting to help subdue the body to the soul, to collect our scattered thoughts, to reintegrate our vision to focus on the One who matters most, the One whose coming marks the decisive turning point in history, the One about whom all history turns and in whom it finds its only meaning.

Fasting at this time of year is particularly difficult. The world spends the time leading up to Christmas in feasting, not fasting, in self-indulgence, not self-denial, and then when the Feast comes, the world, satiated with its excess, is ready to put up the decorations, put out the trees, and go on a diet. Christians deny themselves of physical food that they may receive the spiritual Bread from heaven, and only having seen Him on Christmas morning do they keep the Feast with joy.
As we begin the Fast, we may see ourselves as beginning the journey of the Magi to culminate in seeing the eternal Son made flesh through the Virgin Mary. May God grant us all to arrive at that destination and to be changed by the encounter.

Popularity: 99% [?]