Christianity in the News- Fr. Stanley Harakas

"I spent half a day at my local public library to see just exactly what was going on. What I discovered was enlightening. I learned that you can no longer read what the magazines say uncritically. It is clear that behind every article there is an agenda. What the newsmagazines write is often no longer "religious reporting." What they sometimes write is becoming more and more "propaganda," and especially for some, "anti-Christian propaganda." Let the reader beware! Here is what I found in my unscientific review of Christianity as written about in the three major U.S. "news magazines" over the past few years."- Fr. Stanley Harakas, Orthodoxy Today

I'd also have to say be VERY careful about A&E and History Channel shows on Christianity and Christian History. I'd have to say they run 50/50 as being non-agenda driven. If I recall correctly, I really enjoyed the "Who Wrote the New Testament" series but some of the other daytime filler TV shows roll out the hardcore (but terribly played out) Christian anti-feminist, anti-mysticism, pro-imperialism, conspiracy theories. - Steve K

In the beginning....

In light of recent discussions I've had on other forums, here is some of St. Basil's views on the creation...more comments forthcoming...
- Steve K (image not my own...belongs to someone....I don't know how to do this legally...)


"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." I stop struck with admiration at this thought. What shall I first say? Where shall I begin my story? Shall I show forth the vanity of the Gentiles? Shall I exalt the truth of our faith? The philosophers of Greece have made much ado to explain nature, and not one of their systems has remained firm anti unshaken, each being overturned by its successor. It is vain to refute them; they are sufficient in themselves to destroy one another. Those who were too ignorant to rise to a knowledge of a God, could not allow that an intelligent cause presided at the birth of the Universe; a primary error that involved them in sad consequences. Some had recourse to material principles and attributed the origin of the Universe to the elements of the world. Others imagined that atoms, and indivisible bodies, molecules and ducts, form, by their union, the nature of the visible world. Atoms reuniting or separating, produce births and deaths and the most durable bodies only owe their consistency to the strength of their mutual adhesion: a true spider's web woven by these writers who give to heaven, to earth, and to sea so weak an origin and so little consistency! It is because they knew not how to say "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Deceived by their inherent atheism it appeared to them that nothing governed or ruled the universe, and that was all was given up to chance. To guard us against this error the writer on the creation, from the very first words, enlightens our understanding with the name of God; "In the beginning God created." What a glorious order! He first establishes a beginning, so that it might not be supposed that the world never had a beginning. Then be adds "Created" to show that which was made was a very small part of the power of the Creator. In the same way that the potter, after having made with equal pains a great number of vessels, has not exhausted either his art or his talent; thus the Maker of the Universe, whose creative power, far from being bounded by one world, could extend to the infinite, needed only the impulse of His will to bring the immensities of the visible world into being. If then the world has a beginning, and if it has been created, enquire who gave it this beginning, and who was the Creator: or rather, in the fear that human reasonings may make you wander from the truth, Moses has anticipated enquiry by engraving in our hearts, as a seal and a safeguard, the awful name of God: "In the beginning God created"-It is He, beneficent Nature, Goodness without measure, a worthy object of love for all beings endowed with reason, the beauty the most to be desired, the origin of all that exists, the source of life, intellectual light, impenetrable wisdom, it is He who "in the beginning created heaven and earth."-

Basil the Great of Caesarea, Homily 1: 'In the beginning God made heaven and earth'

Christ-Centered Orthodoxy

"Be that as it may, numerous consequences result from self-consciously making the gospel clearer and more central to our Church life. Once Jesus, in His trinitarian relations, is proclaimed in all the Church's sacraments and liturgical actions, then the Church's preaching, worship, missions, and education will reflect that Christ-centeredness. For example:

• Worship services will be more meaningful because the priest shows how Christheals us through the different sacraments.
• The Divine Liturgy will not focus on the Eucharist "per se," but on Christin the liturgy of the Word and in the liturgy of the sacrament, two inseparable aspects of the Sunday liturgy.
• Christian education will not simply be about learning the symbolic meaning of the priest's vestments, Church architecture, etc., but about the Bible itself and how Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity are the primary focus of those vestments and artistic expressions of theology.
• The Church's missionary work will not simply seek to "plant churches," but to "convert sinners" to personal faith in Christ through repentance, faith, and baptism. Moreover, its internal mission to parishioners who are Orthodox in name only may, for the first time, lead people into a saving relationship with Christ through rededicating their lives to the Lord as a renewal of their baptism.
• Finally, in the Church's preaching, the gospel of Jesus Christ will be applied to the marketplace of business, school, social, and family life.

Quite simply, we need to recover the evangelical dimensions of our Church's faith (see my chapter, "The Evangelical Theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church" in Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism, ed. James Stamoolis, Zondervan, 2004). We need to make the pulpit agree with the altar. Strange as it may sound, the Church's preaching needs to become more Eucharistic. Why? Because the Eucharist proclaims the gospel! It "proclaims the Lord's death, until He comes." The death, resurrection and second coming of Christ are the very core of the Good News."
-Dr Bradley Nassif, Orthodoxy Today

Proof of God?

Upon further pondering on the last post...

When we think about the "first cause" or "what existed before existence?" there are three ways to go:
1) There is no God and existence is ex nihilo...out of primordial chaos with life and an ordered existence in the universe existing by accident (i.e. atheism)
2) There is universal consciousness which preceded material existence and pervades the universe and transcends it (i.e. Hinduism, Buddhism, etc) I'm no expert on Eastern religions but my limited perusals have gotten me that far.
3) There is a personal, pre-existent God who deliberately creates as an act of will.

Perhaps there are other philosophical approaches to the First Cause dillemma. My point is merely that any one of these inevitably requires a leap of Faith into some dogmatic assumptions about the universe.

Having said this, I will reserve my argument that atheism in the public sphere is not the logical extension of religious freedom (i.e. secular progressivism versus tradition) for another day.

Today I'd like to say that merely proving God's existence tells us nothing about who or what He is. For me, I'd say that revelation is indeed superior to thinking. I can only think about God so much apophatically, that is, the way of negation.

By thought, I know what God is not. He is not mortal, is not created, is not bounded, and so on. But, because God has worked in very specific ways in history, and has chosen to voluntarily manifest Himself, we have been made aware of what God is. I can not conclude that God is a Trinity by logic, but because that has been God's revelation I can know that it is so. By reason I know that God is infinite; by revelation I know that He loves infinitely.

I realize that there is an apologetic imperative to be ready to dialogue with atheists on the existence of God. However for those of us who have made the jump, I find it's better to know than to just know about.
-Steve K.

D'souza and Aquinas

"The real force of Aquinas’ argument is not that every series must have a temporal beginning but that every series, in order to have being or existence, must depend on something outside the series. It is no rebuttal to say that since everything must have a cause, therefore God Himself requires a cause. Aquinas’ argument does not use the premise that everything needs a cause. Everything that exists in the universe needs a cause. God is not part of the series and therefore the rules of the series, including the rules of causation, do not apply to Him.

Aquinas can rest easy. It seems evident that Dawkins and Harris have not answered the theistic argument. Yet amusingly they think they have. What’s up with these self-styled paragons of reason? Dawkins and Harris are experts in laboratory science. One is a zoologist, the other a student of neuroscience. Here is the classic case of people who are experts in one field trying to issue authoritative pronouncements in another. When this happens the results are not hard to predict."
- Dinesh D'Souza

Coming soon this Fall...Dinesh D'souza's newest book "What's so Great about Christianity?"

Day at the Museum!

Today for the first time, I got to go to the Philadelphia Museum of Art...you know...where Rocky ran up the steps in the first Rocky movie. Why? Because all of my friends from Philadelphia have lived in Philadelphia their entire lives and never bothered going more than once (of course I lived in Tampa my whole life and never made it to Busch Gardens except maybe once in kindergarten).

There is a LARGE collection of European Church art at the museum. I'd call it baroque, or romantic, or Gothic but I honestly don't know much about art except to stand in front of a painting, stroke my chin, pretend to ponder, then say "hmm...intriguing..."

So the topic of icons/images/paintings in Church came up. Why do we Orthodox have them, need them, and want them in Church?

Off the top of my head I came up with two reasons:
1) In the Liturgy we stand in the presence of the whole Church, with the departed saints, and images help us remember so. I recall how the St. George Antiochian Church in Orlando (probably tons of others) had many small icons of saints behind their altar table. You wouldn't grasp that the Sacramental presence of the whole Church was there unless you had some guidance via images in front of your face during the Liturgy.
2) Having images of the saints adds to the experience of worship. I'm not sure if that is a true "mystical" experience of worship. However I'd like to think that just as we need chanting and hymns to condition our ears to the Liturgy, we also need our eyes to see things worthy of our awe and adoration.

Is it idolatry? No...I don't anyone in this day and age has ever "accidentally" worshipped an image before. If we know very well an image is exactly an image, then our hearts can't really be indicted for being so.

So if I like it...and you like it...let's get more and better icons in our Churches....nice ones at that!

Put this in your mp3 player....

I ran 3 miles all while being phased out by Ancient Faith Radio

Right click and download the mp3s and put them on your player...knock out your need for exercise along with your need for some good ole' fashioned spirituality all at once.

Full Orthodox Study Bible- Coming 2008!

Vote for the cover!