I sold another piece of my jewelry - yay! It was my Pascha bracelet, which was truly one of my favorites. She's off to a new home now, and I hope her new owner loves her!

Somerset Studio has two upcoming themes that I am going to attempt to make something for.

The first is the upcoming theme "paper dolls" from the magazine. The due date is October 15. I love paper dolls, so when I saw this theme I knew I had to come up with something. My first idea was to design a series of 1950s suburban housewives who decide to use their housekeeping abilities to revolt against the status quo. But that was too complicated. So now I've decided to design a porfolio of fabulous fairy fashions, and I have in mind a certain little fairy to serve as the paper doll. From revolution to fairies - not quite the same thing, but I'm keeping the housewife idea in mind for another time.

Somerset Studio is also putting out a special publication - featuring Marie Antoinette! I love love love Marie Antoinette. I absolutely must make something to submit for this. The deadline is November 15. I am already planning on doing a book about MA, but that, once again, is too complicated for me to finish in time. So I have to think of something else.

One thing that I've noticed when it comes to MA is that so much of the focus is on the fabulous dresses, the crazy hairstyles, the extravagance, the glitz and glamour, and the decadence. People immediately associate these things with her, and while that certainly was a part of who she was, there is so much to her story than that. I'm thinking I'd like to make a piece that examines the other aspects of such an intriguing woman.

And I did double-check the deadline for each, so I should be good this time.

 Where shall I go from your Spirit?
   Or where shall I flee from your presence?
 If I ascend to heaven, you are there!
    If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!   (Psalm 139:7-8)

A frequently asked question is "What is hell?"   Some think it a place of physical torture of sinners, others believe it to be a state of being (perhaps self created).  Whatever it may be, Christianity affirms that Christ our God has conquered it, in order to submit it to the will, love and lordship of God. 

As St. John Chrysostom says in his famous Paschal Sermon: 

The One Who was the Prisoner of Death has utterly destroyed it;
the One Who descended to Hades took it captive. ...

So, Death, where is your sting?
So, Hades, where is your victory?

CHRIST IS RISEN, and you are overthrown!
CHRIST IS RISEN, and the demons have fallen!
CHRIST IS RISEN and the angels rejoice!
CHRIST IS RISEN and life takes command!
CHRIST IS RISEN, and not a single corpse remains in the grave!

John Chryssavgis writes in his book , BEYOND THE SHATTERED IMAGE:

"Our joyful optimism lies in the conviction that there is no place devoid of God.

Hell- that is to say, the place where God is not- can only be created as a result of an estrangement between our world and God.  If we hold on to the earth and the fullness thereof (Psalm 91:1), then everything (even death and destruction) is a ferment of divine life, the air itself (no matter how polluted) is vibrant with the Spirit.  Beyond the shattered image, there always lies the reflection of the divine reality that has no end and the re-presentation of the vision of God that knows no darkness.  This faith alone can transform evil and pain, while disclosing a loving purpose beyond suffering and isolation."   

The very icon of Christ descending into Sheol/Hades is one which depicts Christ filling all things, even that region of outer darkness and death so that there is indeed no place where God is not.  (Ephesians 4:9)  And humanly speaking, this means that where ever we are - even in a state of despair, place of pain, the darkest reaches of our minds and when we feel totally forsaken - no place is beyond the reach and presence of God.  That is a truth to give us hope in times and places when we seem unable to believe. 

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? ... For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord"  (Romans 8:35, 38-39).

1Now on the first day of the week Mary Mag'dalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. 2 So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him."

Though Mary Mag'dalene is mentioned in all 4 canonical accounts of the Gospel at the Resurrection, she is introduced in John's Gospel (as well as in Matthew and Luke's) only at the crucifixion of Christ.  Only St. Luke makes a passing reference to her earlier in his gospel as a women Jesus had cured of demon possession, but then Luke does not mention her at the crucifixion.

One reason I think the Gospel accounts of the resurrection has a ring of historical truth to them, is that they are not written to make the disciples of Christ look good, which I think would have been a temptation of myth writers especially years after the events occurred (when the Gospels were written).  Mary Mag'dalene goes to the tomb, not looking for the resurrection like a child on Christmas morning rising early to see if Santa has come, but going to the tomb to weep over unfulfilled expectation and crushing disappointment.  Jesus had raised his friend Lazarus from the dead, but could not prevent his own death.

Mary Mag'dalene is astounded to find the tomb open and the body of Jesus gone.   She does not immediately think "resurrection" but "grave robbers" or some other bad news.  She runs to tell Peter about the missing body of Jesus.  "THEY" - she does not identify whom she suspects of having taken the body, but one might surmise the enemies of Jesus.  Killing him was not enough, now they have decided to desecrate and abuse the corpse as well.  "They" intend to humiliate Jesus and his disciples further.  But Mary's conclusion is the body has been stolen and dumped in an unknown location.   The empty tomb will discourage any cult of a saint from developing and prevent the disciples from making the tomb into a holy place of relics, or so "they" believe.

 3 Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. 4 They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; 5 and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, 7 and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; 9 for as yet they did not know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead.

Peter and the unnamed disciple (tradition says it was John) run to the tomb also not looking for the resurrected Jesus but to see if Mary's story is true - what now?  It's bad enough they tortured Jesus to execute him, what is happening now to his corpse?   (The disciples had fled from Jesus at his arrest.  Mary ran away from the empty tomb to tell the disciples about it, not as good news, but as very troubling news).  Strangely, whoever had taken the corpse of Jesus had taken the time to remove the linen burial shroud, and even to neatly roll up the napkin which covered his face.  Who would go through that trouble and why?   What was going on here?  Peter and the other disciple now believe Mary's story that the tomb is empty, but John the gospel's story teller notes that at this moment the disciples do not make any connection to the resurrection, nor really to the promises of God (thus the "they did not know the scripture").    The empty tomb has left them with questions but no answers. What's going on?  Who took the corpse of Jesus?  Where did they go with it?  For what purpose?  The disciples do not make an immediate leap of faith to the resurrection, an idea which was still foreign to them.  Corpses do not walk out of tombs.  Somebody must be responsible for this.  Tombs are made empty by grave robbers, the macabre, or by the enemies of the dead who want to make sure the deceased is not immortalized.  The empty tomb is not at first a sign of the resurrection, it is immediately more troubling news for Christ's disciples. Will they in fact be accused of being grave robbers as an excuse to arrest or discredit them?

10 Then the disciples went back to their homes.

What else can they do?   Are the authorities likely to be interested in investigating the theft of the corpse of a criminal?   More likely they are the very ones who stole the body and going to them can only bring threats and punishment to the whistle blowers. 

The empty tomb however will become everything the enemies of Jesus would not want - a holy place, the site of the revelation of the holy One of God, a confirmation of the Messiah. 

It will only be back in their own homes that the truth of what happened to the body of Jesus will dawn upon them.  

And this particular Gospel, read at Sunday matins or Saturday vigil, gives us the same glimpse into the historical fact of the resurrection.  And after we behold the resurrection, we go to our homes, like the first disciples, to contemplate what is the meaning of this totally new and unexpected event for our lives?  How does it change anything?  Or Does it change everything?

ein verlängertes Wochenende auf Ibiza zu verbringen.

Neben einem selbstverständlich obligatorischen Besuch der legendären Nobel-Diskothek "Pascha"

war vor allen Dingen das Grand-Hotel beeindruckend,

denn wann hat man schon mal ein eigenes Jacuzzi auf der Terrasse?

Man beachte auch das "kleine" Schiff im Hintergrund

Solche Wochenendtrips sollte mach nach Möglichkeit öfter machen,

um seine Akkus bei Zeiten wieder aufzuladen ...

This week, the focus of my ministry changes.  Now, I am just the pastor of my family.  We, as a family, have our pastor, Fr. Mark Fenn, and I have couple of others who have been my spiritual pastors, Fr. Patrick and Hieromonk Mark.  The ministry of these three men have helped me in understanding just what it means to be a pastor, and I hope to be that to my wife and kids.

At 8:00 tonight, I made my kids pause their movies and video games.  "Kids, it's time to pray.  We are all going to pray together tonight, including mommy."

For those who have not been following on the blog, over the last two years I have been learning about and moving towards the historic Christian Faith - and the Church of the Apostles and Prophets - the Orthodox Church.  My kids, who have intuitively known what I had to spend months looking at, have been far ahead of me in this journey.  My wife, who has had some difficult experiences in Christianity, has been much slower in her journey.  I would surmise it was just a couple of months ago, when she went to the Pascha service at the Church, that she went over the hump and began to slowly move towards Christianity and this ancient Faith.  She approaches everything with great caution, but I can already see that her Orthodox spirituality is in fact much further along then mine.

In the Orthodox Faith, prayer can look somewhat different than the typical Evangelical Protestant prayer time.  My prayers as an evangelical pastor were always extemporaneous (though, after a while, they followed almost an identical pattern), and were often focused on my needs.  Now, let me say, even now, I do not think there is anything wrong with extemporaneous prayers, and throughout the day I often utter a prayer in that fashion.  Neither do I think it is wrong to ask God for things, we do bring our petitions and requests before God.

But in Orthodoxy, there is another element - the liturgical or formal prayers we pray.  The best example of a given liturgical/formal prayer comes from the Lord Himself.  When asked how to pray, the Christ answered by saying, "when you pray, say this" and He gave the "Our Father" also known as "The Lord's Prayer."  Many churches still keep the practice of actually saying the Lord's Prayer, and I did in my life until I was 18 years old, when I was told it was just a "vain repetition."  I missed it over the next 15 years.

The fascinating thing I have learned about prayer is that there really is a two way communication in prayer.  Now, I used to teach, tell God what you want, then listen...spend 5-10 minutes in silence just listening.  Often, people would try that and get discouraged because they thought there must be something wrong - they weren't hearing anything.  Last summer, my kids went to VBS at a charismatic church, and when my oldest didn't "hear God speak" to him, he was sent outside "until he did."  Feeling like something was wrong with him, he eventually made something up so he could come back in and play with the other kids.  Too often, I think, we are looking for some grand voice or something.

As I began to pray the prayers of the church - these ancient and God-centered prayers - the prayers of incredibly holy men and women, known as Saints (we'll come back to them in the next post), I began to notice something happening in my own prayer life.  These prayers actually began to form me.  They were not just me expressing love and adoration to God, but they also communicated to me the glory of God.  This is something that can really only be understood through experience, by praying the prayers of the Church for a month or so, and seeing the effect it has.  I will make a feeble attempt to give an example though (trying to write about the painting :) )

In the prayers, one of the most common things said is "Lord have mercy."  One will say this 3 times, 12 times, 40 times.  It is said a lot.  In Apodiknon, or Compline (a formal after supper prayer service), one of the Psalms prayed speaks to this mercy of God, and that none of us could stand in His judgment without it.  Over a period of time, seeing God in this light - truly as a merciful and loving God - began to manifest itself.  Now, there were many things that contributed to this change - I've already mentioned the paper "The River of Fire," (which I again encourage anyone who has not read it to do so - check my links).  Prayer , though, also played a fundamental role.  And I noticed this when I was praying with some other people from my former church and one of them began to pray and ask God to send His wrath on a certain group of people.  My soul cringed.  We do not pray for God's wrath, but for His mercy.  I have seen, in many ways in my life, how the prayers themselves have taught me about God - that He has revealed Himself through the prayers, and in a way that is difficult to explain, prayer has begun to be a communion with God, rather than me just "placing an order."

I still, if I need to want to, pray extemporaneous prayers.  I still look to God for things, and ask Him for needs (now, though, that is usually that He will show His mercy and love on people, and that He will guide me and them into His Truth, though there are other needs as well "Lord, help me find the job You want me to have").  The extemporaneous prayers and the requests I now bring to the Lord AFTER I have prayed the prayers of Christ and His Church.  Praying them afterwards puts them in the proper perspective, and it changes my views going into them.  Hopefully this makes sense.  If not, try them out :)

So, back to my story.  Tonight we decided we were going to make a run at saying prayers every night as a family.  All of us came in, and we picked up our prayer books, and we began to glorify God:

O heavenly King, O Comforter, the Spirit of truth, who art in all places and fillest all things; Treasury of good things and Giver of life: Come and dwell in us and cleanse us from every stain, and save our souls, O gracious Lord.

In the evening, our prayers are for forgiveness for our sins, and intercessions for others.  During this time, each of us takes time to name those we wish to pray for, asking God to "grant them mercy, life, peace, health, salvation and visitation, and pardon and remission of sins; that they may evermore praise and glorifiy thy holy Name."

I have heard over and over again how in Orthodoxy it is often the husband who is the first one to come...that there are many stories out there where wives have lagged behind and come much more slowly. Now, this isn't always the case...but it is common enough to be noticed. I think the "Illumined Heart" broadcast on Ancient Faith Radio recently had a podcast about this. What a flip from the average Protestant church where wives tend to drag there husbands to service.

This has been true in our case, at least on the Orthodox side of it. There are many reasons for this, none of which I'm going to elaborate on now. There is something wonderful...something I look forward to tomorrow...about seeing my entire family there with me.

So we will be going to church twice this week...today I gave what will be my last "normal" sermon in the church I am pastoring. It is a Seventh-Day church, so we meet on Saturday morning. The reality that it is June already is sinking in, and I am both sad and excited by it. I have pastored here for eight years, and it is difficult that I am leaving this. While there has been little doubt that the Lord has guided this, it does not take away from the fact that I have pastored and cared for these people for a long time. That will make leaving hard. But it is time.

Well, I've been busy this week, so haven't had time to write...still looking for a job :(

After Pentecost tomorrow I will try to write some more about it...

(vs. 20:16)  "Paul ... was hurrying to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the Day of Pentecost."

Pentecost was a Jewish feast, but obviously, the early disciples also kept this Feast as a Holy Day.  Paul wanted to be in Jerusalem with the other disciples for the anniversary of this event - a Feast we still keep in the Orthodox Church 2000 years later.

(:18) "You know...  in what manner I always lived among you"

One of Paul's claims is that all that he did and taught was open - nothing was secret.  His life was open for all to see, to imitate, to judge.  Modern critics of St. Paul claim he hijacked Christianity and made it into a religion that is not consistent with Christ's teachings.  But Paul's own testimony seems to indicate he was upfront and open about everything, and his life was his proof about what he believed.   Transparent and trustworthy would be words Paul wanted people to notice about his life.

(:20) "but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house,"

St. Paul is denying there are any secret teachings - you can ask anybody.  He was never sneaking around and was never secretly changing anything. Every teaching of his was given publicly and open to public scrutiny.

(:23-24) "the Holy Spirit testifies in every city, saying that chains and tribulations await me. ...  But none of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy"

Paul was well aware that what his future held for him was suffering.  He was not a preacher of a prosperity Gospel.  He did not follow Christ just to get blessings from Him and have a wonderful life.  He was not a Christian just because of the benefits it provides in this world.

(:25)  "will see my face no more."

And Paul knew the sad reality; he would never see these people again.  But despite his love for them, he does not alter his desire to complete the task before him.   He is determined to accomplish his mission - they have to accomplish their own mission in life.   Here Paul shows a great deal of confidence in leadership emerging in the local church.  He does not see the Christian movement failing because its leaders are cut off from the local community.  He has a much broader view of leadership - it is diffused throughout the Christian community, not limited to a few hierarchs.  This is how the Church was able to survive persecution and to grow!  A hierarchically dominated Church will emerge with Constantine, but St. Paul does not envision this as normal for the Church of his day - the Church is the Body of Christ and the entire Christian community is essential in leading Christians to the Kingdom.

(:29)  "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock."

Not only did he know that he himself would have to suffer for Christ, but for any pastor/father he also knew the flock, this nascent church was going to suffer tribulations.  This probably weighed on his heart more than knowing that he would be suffering in the near future.  And he can do nothing to stop the attacks that would occur on the young church.   St. Paul knew his limits - he had to go on to finish his ministry, but would be worried about his disciples who had to undergo a terrible trial and he wouldn't be there to help them.  But note he is not despairing about this.   He seems confident that they will triumph.

(:30) "Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves."

Not only will the young Church be attacked by enemies from the outside, but sickeningly enough, from within the Church destructive people would arise.  But again, he can't stop these events from happening.  He can only warn them to be alert, be vigilant, be watchful, be prepared for every problem.

(:31)  "Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone"

Paul's job was not to prevent the attacks from happening but to forewarn the flock so that they could prepare themselves to deal head on with what would befall them.

 (:32) "And now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up

He expresses some confidence that they will pass the test - not only will they survive, they will be built up by God's Word.  And Paul deals with what he can change.  He does not fret about events over which he has no control.

(:35)  "I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak."

And he gives them this charge - you must support the weak.  Paul realizes that some are going to have their faith put to the test.  Some will not be prepared for the ordeal which is to come upon them.  But his command is to support those who will be tempted to apostatize, or despair,  or give up.  The Christian response to the weaker members is to support them, not to judge, condemn, deny or denounce them.

(:35)  "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' "

And the summary of Paul's own teaching on Christian behavior and attitude - it is better to give then to receive.  If you are a Christian just for what you can get out of life - prosperity, salvation, blessings - then you are a taker and not a giver.  But Christians are to be givers, to give care to others.  Don't keep looking for what you can get out of the church, the liturgy, the bible.  Look to what you can give to others, for in this giving you imitate Christ, and St. Paul.  The real blessing for us is not in what we personally will get from Christ, but what we are inspired to give as a result of experiencing Christ's saving love for us.  Paul modeled this behavior and it became his way of life toward others as he continued as a disciple.

Spiritual deception is the wounding of human nature by falsehood. Spiritual deception is the state of all men without exception, and it has been made possible by the fall of our original parents. All of us are subject to spiritual deception. Awareness of this fact is the greatest protection against it. Likewise, the greatest spiritual deception of all is to consider oneself free from it. We are all deceived, all deluded; we all find ourselves in a condition of falsehood; we all need to be liberated by the Truth. The Truth is our Lord Jesus Christ.

-Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, 19th century Russia

There have been times in my years pastoring when I found it difficult to pray.  Sometimes it was easier, but there were periods...dry periods...when prayer was a struggle and a battle I continually lost.  There were a variety of reasons for this...some of it was the "guilt" based theology so often part of the Western view of God, some of it was my own spiritual dryness - while I was a pastor, I had no one pastoring me, and some of it was my real lack of understanding of how to pray and what prayer really was.

I always knew I should pray, and that as a pastor I needed to pray - a lot.  I also knew I should fast, and that as the pastor of this church I needed to fast.  Knowing those things did not make it any easier, and I found that over the first six years of pastoring my fasting was almost non-existent, and my prayers, as I said, went through great dry spells.

One of the early things I learned in my journey towards Orthodoxy was the value and importance of prayer.  In Orthodoxy, prayer and fasting (and almsgiving) are called to the front.  The faithful are called to prayer several times a day (the Didache, a 1st century Christian manual, calls Christians to say the "Our Father," aka the Lord's Prayer, three times per day).  Fasting also makes up part of this Christian life, and during the average week Orthodox will fast two days per week (this is also spoken of in the Didache).  Fasting and prayer are understood and practiced differently than they are in the West - and I have no intention of really going into those distinctions, that is best served in a relationship with a spiritual father.  Besides, that's not the subject of this blog :).

In those first months of visiting with Father Patrick, I received some guidance on prayer and fasting (and almsgiving).  He helped me to begin a prayer rule for my life, and as I began to get a better understanding of what prayer and fasting were, I found myself spiritually drawn to it.  Finally, it seemed, I understood prayer in a way I never had before.

While his counsel (Fr. Patrick's) was godly and helpful, the zeal I quickly formed was not.  Again, I ventured into an area I was completely ill-equipped for and, since I was still only beginning my journey towards Orthodoxy, it was an area I was venturing into in large parts on my own, without direct spiritual guidance.

I still operated from the old Protestant adage, that if saying prayers for ten minutes at a time is good, then 30 minutes will be super-good.  It is interesting that what I seem to have observed is that spiritual fathers often need to slow us down and stop us from doing more than we are able.

In many ways, my new prayer life was very good.  I was praying at least every morning and evening, and I tried to incorporate midday prayers as often as I could.  The prayers of the Church and of the Saints gave me the words I had been so desperately seeking, and those words began to form me and work in my life.  After praying these prayers for a year and a half, I can say I love them more today than I did then.  But that's today, let me rewind a year and a few months.

Last year, 2007, was my first Lent...it was not my first Pascha (that was saved for this year with my wife :) and it was awesome!).  It was also during a time when I was really beginning to pray.  I wanted, in my zeal, more prayer books - longer prayer books.  I bought some prayer books and began to pray Apodiknon (Compline - and after dinner prayer service).  This lasted about 40 minutes, but there was a spot you could add a canon or an akathist hymn into it.  Well, if I could make it longer, all the better.  I bought an Akathist book, and with the canons or akathists, my evening prayers could easily last well over an hour.

I was praying 2-3 times a day, and during Lent of last year I moved up to fasting two times per week (Orthodox fasting, not Protestant fasting).  I was beginning to feel pretty good about myself.  In fact, I began to look at others and think: "I pray 2-3 times per day.  Hmmm.  I bet they don't," and "I fast twice a week...I bet they never fast."  (Am I beginning to sound like the Pharisee in Luke in the story of the Pharisee and the Publican?).  I began to feel real good about my prayer life, and the crazy thing was the better I felt about it the easier it became.  The easier it became the better I felt about it and the better I thought I was.

There was something happening here, but all of my time in Protestantism had not prepared me for what it was.  I had been disconnected from 2000 years of Christian spirituality and there were things I was unable to recognize.  One of these was something called "prelest."

Prelest, simply, is spiritual pride and spiritual blindness.  There are lots of things out there that talk about prelest more and give better explanations than I am giving.  Again, I am not trying to be too theological in these blogs.  My point here is to share how it was impacting me.

Did you know that the demons can help give you the strength to pray...they can help give you the strength to fast.  Stories of the Ancient Desert Fathers abound on this topic...I had never really heard it before.  You see, if the prayer or fasting is leading you into pride, then the demons will help you along.  Now the crazy thing about this pride and blindness (after all, what is pride but a blindness to our own true condition), you are blind to it.  I was praying more and more, trying to tack on more and more prayers.  I wanted to keep the fasts very strictly.  And I was becoming even more prideful and judgmental about it.  But I didn't recognize it.

I recall the story (this is from my recollection) from the Desert Fathers about a Christian who went to the desert to see one of the Fathers, while he was there the Abba told him to do thirty prostrations each day.  He said "Abba, back in the city I do 1000 prostrations with my prayers every day."  The Abba, being very spiritual and discerning, smiled and said "Go and do 30 a day."  After being there a week, the man came back and said: "Abba, I don't understand.  In the city I can do 1000 prostrations every day, but here, I am struggling just to do the 30 you said to do."  To which the Abba replied: "In the city, the demons helped you, as it led you into pride.  Here, there is no one to see you and the demons have withdrawn their help."

There are many more stories similar to this one, and many dealing with other elements of prelest and the ways in which demons deceive us and our own pride blinds us.  I don't have to look back 1500 years, though.  That Lent I learned prelest first hand.  I prayed, but was it on my own ?

When this was revealed to me, my hour and a half long prayers every night disappeared.  It quickly became a struggle to even do the "Our Father."  Suddenly all of this energy to pray was gone.  Unlike other times in my life, though, I did not have any "dry spell."  While I missed prayers more than I care to admit, I continued to struggle to pray.  Prayer is a struggle.  It should be, I think.  Crucifying the flesh and its wants and desires for this world is not easy.  With the Christian life, we enter into that struggle.  That struggle should not, can not, be done alone.  We will inevitably get caught up in prelest and commit spiritual suicide (and in some real cases, physical).

P.S.  After this event, I went to Fr. Patrick and asked for a more specific "prayer rule."  It was far less than my earlier zeal looked for, and far more real in my life.

Another P.S.  According to the Church, everyone is infected with prelest - we are all, in some way, blind to our condition.  But to that general prelest, we also can have more specific instances of prelest (as mine with prayer).  If you think it can't happen to you, that's probably because it is happening right now...

Dachau was liberated a few days after Orthodox Pascha and the surviving Orthodox celebrated a liturgy which gave a most profound meaning to the words of the hymn, "for from death to life and from earth to heaven has Christ our God led us."   The freed prisoners made makeshift vestments from prison garments.  It is said that they sang the Paschal hymns from memory.   It is amazing that they could remember anything at all from the days before they were thrown into hell. 

The words to the song are attributed to St. Nikolai Velimirovic.  A translation follows:

Sv. Vladika Nikolaj

People rejoice, all nations listen:
Christ God is risen! Let us rejoice!
Dance all ye stars and sing all ye mountains:
Christ God is risen! Let us rejoice!

Whisper ye woods and blow all ye winds:
Christ God is risen! Let us rejoice!
O seas proclaim and roar all ye beasts:
Christ God is risen! Let us rejoice!

Buzz all ye bees and sing all ye birds:
Christ God is risen! Let us rejoice!
O little lambs rejoice and be merry:
Christ God is risen! Let us rejoice!

Nightengales joyous, lending your song:
Christ God is risen! Let us rejoice!
Ring, O ye bells, let everyone hear:
Christ God is risen! Let us rejoice!

All angels join us, singing this song:
Christ God is risen! Let us rejoice!
Come down ye heavens, draw near the earth:
Christ God is risen! Let us rejoice!

Glory to Thee, God Almighty!
Christ God is risen! Let us rejoice!
Glory to Thee, God Almighty!
Christ God is risen! Let us rejoice!

http://www.podignimostupove.com

My first couple of times, I tried to follow along. Whenever I visited the Roman Catholic monastery, this is what we did. We had a couple of books, and I knew start to finish what they were doing. So I tried to follow along and read what was being said and chanted during these Vespers services. I have already commented on my first experience in Vespers and the profound impact it had on me.

Let me touch on something else briefly before we go on with what I am talking about here. The way the East understands and lives Christianity is different from how the West (Roman Catholic/Protestant) typically understands and views it (I am not speaking categorically for every Westerner - Western Christianity is so fragmented with such a wide variety of viewpoints I could not even pretend to speak on every group's view of things - I am speaking very generally here. Please forgive if I offend, that is not my intent). In the West, we tend to want to know doctrines - it is more of a knowledge based approach. "Give me your doctrines and why you believe them" (FYI, the first book I was given on Orthodoxy was "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Timothy (now Kallistos) Ware and the first thing I did was turn to the second half and read the part that dealt with the "Faith and Worship" or doctrines of the Church).

In the East, however, from my limited perspective, it seems to be more about communion - communion with God and communion with one another. Love, rather than knowledge, underscores what the Faith is about. Now, don't let this mislead you into thinking the Orthodox Church does not consider correct knowledge important - this the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils (those seven councils were held in the East and attended primarily by Eastern, not Western, bishops). This is the Church that has paid great attention to the meaning of words and the nuances that they imply - this is the Church that discussed the implications of using the words homoousias vs. homoiousias, and dealt with Nestorius' claim that Mary should be called the Christotokos instead of the Theotokos (the Church held to the ancient teaching that Mary be called the Theotokos and did not follow Nestorius' innovation). All of this to say, correct and true doctrine is very important in the East - but it isn't about knowing that information, it is about communing with God, knowing Him, and worshipping Him in a totally unselfish way. It is about being God-centered in our life, rather than self-centered.

Let me elaborate on this communion vs. knowledge base: Learning the Nicene Creed doesn't help you to know the Church anymore than reading a biography helps you to know the person you are reading about. It will help you know about them, and you may gain lots of interesting facts, but you still will not know them. To know them there has to be contact - you have to meet them, you need to interact with them. The Church is the Body of Christ - this is a profound statement. To know it, though, you need to meet it.

This is why I am saying this - you can read all the blogs, all the wikipedia articles, you can even talk to people who have been to services - even those who are Orthodox. None of that will replace actually going to a service yourself. Learn about the Church, read the history, study her beliefs, but more important than that - meet her. I am sharing with you, in a very limited way, some of our experiences, but I like the way Jordan Bajis put it in the book Common Ground: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity for the American Christian : "A book can never summarize a painting. One does not understand a painter's creation through an understanding of the physical properties that distinguish one color from another. One perceives the message of the painting by the sight one receives through a heart shaped by life experiences."

So, while I can share the best I can about these impacts and about these experiences, note that here in this blog I am writing about a painting. The best way for you to understand yourself is to go and see it for yourself.

I drove two hours away. Father Patrick was the pastor of a parish a couple hours from where I live (he has since moved to California). I wanted to visit with him about some things that we had begun to talk about that first night and that we had emailed each other on. I figured I would get there in the afternoon, visit a while, go to Vesper, and then we could visit more afterwards.

Vespers started at 5pm, and I went in. I grabbed a book and went and found a place to stand (in Orthodoxy, most try to stand throughout the services). Father Patrick was serving in the altar, and Hieromonk Mark and a Seminary student, Edward, were chanting. Very early on I lost my place in the book, so I figured I would just put it down and listen.

It was then that it happened. I had been so busy trying to follow and read along, that I really hadn't been engaged in the service itself. Now, I don't know how to describe that experience, and it always sticks out because this was the first time, but it was like we were, I don't know, somewhere else. At the time, my impression was that this is what it would have been like to worship God and go to church in those first centuries - but even more than that, in way it was like worshiping in those first centuries - and all of the centuries since, and maybe all still to come). It was an experience that is hard to explain, because in some ways it was like time functioned differently.

A year and a half later, my wife would make this same observation. This last Pascha was her first time to attend a Divine Liturgy - she went for the Paschal services late Saturday night. One of the comments she made right after the services was that it was "like time didn't matter." Time is very important to her, so it was a remarkable experience for her (the whole experience and service was very remarkable, this was just one element of it).

Father Patrick is blogging about the Divine Liturgy on his blog, (see the link on the right). There you can learn far more about the theology of the Liturgy and how it truly functions "out of time." I hadn't read any of this. I had just put a book down and begun to listen to prayers and the psalms - I began to pray. And while I was there, things just mattered differently.

So, if you decide to visit an Orthodox Church service, put down the book and try to be there with your senses. Listen to what is being said, see the icons and the things that are happening, smell the incense...be there - experience what is happening.

What is Ascension and why is it so interesting, whether for an Eastern Christian, or any kind of Christian in general? Why, also, would it be of interest to non-Christians, such as Muslims?

Well, if we admit that any tradition is a set of interwoven meanings, and that some of those meanings are easier to understand for a larger number of people and other meanings are only comprehensible by a smaller, more sensitive number of people engaged with that tradition, then the Ascension can be many things (as can any other event, "spiritual" or "earthly" [although I challenge the idea that there is a difference between those bracketed categories]).

The baseline meaning of the Ascension, its "exoteric" or outer meaning if you will, is what has been understood historically by the majority of Christians of both the West and the East. The Ascension is an event that occurred, according to canonical tradition, 40 days after the bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth in Jerusalem. The resurrection is understood to have occurred 3 days after Jesus of Nazareth's crucifixion at the instigation of the authorities of the Temple and his enemies among the Pharisee sect, accomplished with help by the Roman occupation forces. After the resurrection, Jesus of Nazareth revealed himself in his glorified or transfigured resurrection body -- his physical body which seemed somehow to be a normal human body, and which bore the marks of his wounds from the crucifixion, but which also seemed to be free from ordinary constraints of what we call the laws of physics: he could appear and disappear, materialize through walls, and even change his appearance. During this time Jesus of Nazareth visited his disciples and gave them further instruction and assistance. Then, he ascended in his resurrected body "up" into Heaven. The canonical scriptural references for this important event are as follows: Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51; Acts 1:1-12, John 20:17; Ephesians 4:7-13; Romans 10:5-7; 1 Timothy 3:16; and 1 Peter 3:21-22. The Eastern Christian, and some of the Western Christian traditions (even some of the reformed ones) also use ancient Christian traditions -- both written and oral -- that affirm this event, such as the Nicene Creed of 325 C.E.

The Ascension itself is not described. The author of Saint Mark's gospel has it occurring indoors, where Jesus gives his apostles the Great Commission to make disciples among all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He also mentions that believers shall be invulnerable to poison, heal sicknesses, and exorcise demons. He then ascends to "sit at the right hand of the Father" -- a rather cryptic statement that describes something beyond space and time as occurring in spatio-temporal terms. Other accounts are also brief and cryptic, and for someone like me, ambiguity is exciting because it is not a gate shutting one out but rather an invitation to engage in conversation.

What else can the Ascension mean? For those of us interested in meanings, especially meanings that are deeper, that go below surface narratives of events, for those of us who look not so much at what is mentioned as at what is left out of the narrative or what might present an inconsistency, much more can be said of this event. We may take the mystical or esoteric trajectory and see where we land.

Obviously the Ascension as understood by normative Christians is a historical and literal event consisting of facts. Some who deviate from this line may care to disagree and that is their prerogative. I see no point or use in disputing this claim. What interests me is what the Ascension can mean as a historical and literal event of fact. What do the ideas "history" "literal" and "fact" mean? What do those concepts reveal about the consciousness we have of reality?

I don't believe in "facts." At least, not in the way most people use the word--to denote a piece of information that is always self-evidently true, period, end of discussion. Something may be factual at one level of examination, but full or surprises and mysteries at another. The race to reduce everything from coffee mugs to the Ascension of the Lord to "literal" and "historical" "facts" only damages, in my mind, their mystery, beauty, and ultimately their REALITY and truthfulness. By damage I mean that we become so caught up in unimportant minutiae, that we mistake to finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself, to use a Zen Buddhist analogy. Facts are things easily understood and what is easily understood is easily mastered, and what is easily mastered is controllable and manipulatable: I find this obsession with epistemological veracity (i.e., those people, including but not limited to Christians, who rather simplistically insist on concepts such as "absolute truth" when they don't realize that talking about "God" in such a way makes "God" just another object of study) very annoying, and even blasphemous.

So the event is described as a literal movement of the physically embodied Jesus into the sky -- the heavens. Fine, phenomenologically I can work with that. Those who insist that there is nothing to phenomenologically analyze here because "thats just the way it was" are really not thinking and feeling on the same wave length as I am so I really don't have anything to say to them. More insidious are the people who, like the great but fallible mythographer Joseph Campbell, "explain away" this event as "only a story" with symbols that are very meaningful but which don't leave the psychological level of our existential human condition. For me, I don't think there is an essential difference between "myth" and "reality" even if there is a practical difference, so I don't know what to say. As an Eastern Christian, I take the Ascension literally and historically, but as a philosopher, phenomenologically inclined, and leaning toward esoteric ways of thinking, I see that no event is only what it seems.

We must avoid the modernist fallacy of assuming that our predecessors were "primitive" (i.e., less sophisticated and in touch with the truth of things as they are than we are). This stems from the naive empiricism (as the philosopher Quine called it) of the "Enlightenment" upon which Western concepts of modernity are based. Just because they described Jesus of Nazareth as going up, that doesn't mean they naively believed "heaven" was a physical location directly above the clouds, or beyond the sun and stars. Nor does the description of Jesus, "sitting at the right hand of the Father" mean he was in a physical space sitting on the right hand of some elderly king's throne. In many cultures, including Middle Eastern cultures, the right is the direction of decency and honor (while the left is the direction of impurity, hence the Latin word "sinistra," from whence the English "sinister" comes, which means simply: from the left.) This statement, ascending into heaven and sitting on the right hand of the Father simply states that the Christians believe Jesus to be with God the Father and to have equality with God the Father, and important idea for later Trinitarian theological doctrine.

In Eastern Christian thought and experience, the Ascension is the culmination of the divine mystery of God's incarnation as anthropos, man, in the singular person of Jesus of Nazareth.  The Nicene Creed says that Jesus Christ became man, not became a man, in the original Greek, and this is important for by becoming man in general as well as man in particular, the Incarnation, and all events pertaining thereto such as the resurrection and Ascension, may also apply to all of humanity.  The Ascension is the completion of the union of God and human -- and is closely attached to the dogma that Jesus of Nazareth is both fully human and fully divine, and that his two natures are united in his person.

Eastern Christianity sees the entire purpose of creation, and of Jesus' coming "down" into the creation, as theosis.  Western Christians, sometimes at a removal of two, three, four, or more times from the original cultural context of Christianity -- which is Eastern (Greek, Semitic - both Jewish and non-Jewish Syrian), often speak of salvation, from the Latin linguistic context.  While not inaccurate, and not wishing to put down Western Christianity, which has many profundities in its own right that Eastern Christians can learn from, we in the East speak rather of theosis, or deification/divinization.  The work of Jesus Christ, and of the Ekklesia (the Church) is to bring humankind, and possibly all of created reality into deeper and more active participation in the divine life -- to divinize it and deify it.  We are called to be divine beings within the one divine being of the One God in three unique and singular, yet inter-related expressions -- the Holy Trinity.

So esoterically, the divine drama revealed in the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah (Christ), and in the birth of His mystical body or presence in the world, the Ekklesia (Church), is really about every one of us.  Though it is frowned upon to say it, and it may even be thought heretical, if we flesh out the implications of Jesus becoming not only A MAN (indefinite article indicating he became one man out of many) but also becoming MAN (humanity in general), then all of us is somehow a divine manifestation.  I hesitate to say Incarnation, but that may be in essence what this train of thought leads to.  The difference is crucial though: we are not God by nature; none of us can stand up and say "I am God, therefore anything I want to do is fine and anything goes." That is exaltation of ego and ends in psychosis. We are divine by grace; by God's allowing us to be divine; and that means we take on all of the attributes of God, especially humility and self-emptiness.  We become ourselves truly by forgetting ourselves and remembering God, which the Sufis in Islam call dhikr.  Jesus Christ was born divine in a way that none of us were, but his whole life story and teaching and tradition is way for us to be "born again," of the Holy Spirit and of fire, to be a divine incarnation.  The Ascension is but the mysterious culmination of that esoteric process, and the Churches, Eastern and Western, celebrate that on the Feast, even though not many may realize the esoteric value of the teaching.

So this Thursday will be about that divine potential within all of us, and about realizing it; because from the creation of all existence and through all salvific acts and thephanies, God has enabled the same to be possible to all of us.

P.S.: This applies to all human beings.  The rather parochial notions of some religious groups that only their own are worthy of divine attention, and that God acts on an all too human and predictably egoistic level are quite absurd.  If we limit the "Church" to an institution, and a very specific tradition distinct from, say, Hindu, Jewish, Islamic traditions, we do two things: we put walls around where God's grace can go, thus insulting God (who is by definition almost impossible to insult...), and we insult our own reason by also making God's salvific acts apply based only on the narrowest and pettiest human sociological criteria.  We may have to be willing to admit that the belief that Jesus wants from us is not what many of his followers have understood: a belief in the ego of Jesus Christ (the ego is a veil and a shadow, not the ultimate reality of a person) rather than the timelessness and universality of Jesus Christ.  Does this mean that "all religions are the same" and that they should never have any disagreements?  That is both simplistic and stupid to assume; we are a human family, and all families have disagreements.  And the fact is, all religions are not the same: there are as many forms of Islam as there are Muslims, and so on for all traditions.  And there are as many forms of atheism as there atheists, and no two atheists quite denies exactly the same "god," they may share some of the beliefs they deny, but many atheists are in fact denying some very healthy conceptions, unfortunately they also fall prey to ideologies and illusions that cloud the consciousness from seeing reality as it truly is.

So for myself, I am an Eastern Christian of the Russian Orthodox Church.  I venerate icons of saints, angels, divine theophanies and miracles, Mary, the Mother of God, the Incarnate Lord Jesus, the Holy Trinity, etc.  I participate in the mysteries of the Church, which are corporate, group rites.  I struggle with many problems and issues.  But I equally venerate the holy ones and teachings of other paths, for how can a holy man who lives a life of great devotion in one tradition be demonized for doing the same exact thing in another?  It is absurd!  Reasoning is never fool proof, and deceit wears many masks, but truly it is too much to see the demons in wandering Sufis and Sadhus but not to look for them among our own saints.

Muslims also believe in the Ascension of Jesus Christ, though many of them, especially at the level of ordinary belief (at esoteric levels boundaries tend to blur and become more permeable) deny the divinity, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus recounted in Christian traditions.  I do not have to exoterically agree with such formulations to love Islam (which I do: it is an absolutely fascinating phenomenon, especially Shi'ite Islam) and to learn from it.  But the place to address esoteric Islamic approaches to Christian concepts is not here, that is another post.  Muslims however, do believe that Allah (Arabic for God, derived from an ancient Semitic root) took Jesus up, delivered him from his enemies and drew him near to Allah. Likewise, the central figure of Islam, the Prophet Muhammad, is also the subject of an ascension narrative that is quite fascinating.  So Muslims ought to pay attention to the Ascension story of Christians, and if they find their outward objections to Christian faith a stumbling block, put them aside and learn to look with eyes that penetrate surfaces and reveal the mystery within. Christians ought to do the same.

As he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" 3 Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him. 4 We must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day; night comes, when no one can work. 5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." 6 As he said this, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man's eyes with the clay, 7 saying to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Silo'am" (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing.

The blindman cannot see.   He does not appear to do anything to attract the disciples' attention.    How did they know he was blind from birth?     They either knew the man, or talked to someone about him, for there would be no way to know he was born blind.   What does the blindman hear?   Jesus spits - a big enough wad of drool to make some clay with!   Today, we antiseptically avoid people's spit, and certainly would not welcome someone rubbing their spit in our eyes.  Most of us blanch at the tiniest drop of a friend's spittle touching our face!   Jesus rubs spit and dirt into the man's eyes.  Maybe that is why the man was so willing to wash in the pool!   Had he been so abused before by the cruel who despised him for his plight?

There must have been more to their conversation than John reports. The blind man goes to the pool with a purpose.  Later (vs 11) he is able to tell people what Jesus did, though he wouldn't have "seen" it.  Jesus must have told him what he was doing.  Holy spit!  As far as I know the only spitting we do in Orthodoxy is to spit at Satan during the exorcism before baptism to show our rejection of the Evil One and to demonstrate our willingness to defy him.  And after that we too send the person to wash in a pool - the baptismal font.   And we do hope the newly baptized eyes are opened and that they come out of the pool with their spiritual eyes opened.

18 The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight, 19 and asked them, "Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?" 20 His parents answered, "We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; 21 but how he now sees we do not know, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age, he will speak for himself." 22 His parents said this because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if any one should confess him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue. 23 Therefore his parents said, "He is of age, ask him."

Wouldn't their son receiving his sight have been the answer to the parents' prayers?  And yet they are afraid to give credit to God for a miracle.  How often in life do we have chance to witness a certifiable miracle?   The parents are willing to be blinded rather than to have to speak about what is right before their eyes.   The social pressure on them is great.  They are not willing to come out of their comfort zone.  They will play it safe and accept the pressure of religious authority rather than admit what they think is true.  And they certainly are not going to sacrifice anything - personal safety, status in the community, personal integrity - for God and what God is doing in their lives.  They end up denying their own hopes, dreams and prayers for their son, so they won't have to suffer personal discomfort.

28 And they reviled him, saying, "You are his disciple... 30 The man answered, "Why, this is a marvel! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes. 31 We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if any one is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him. 32 Never since the world began has it been heard that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind. 33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing."

The cured blind man's eyes are opened in many ways.  He knows what his and his parents' hope and prayers have been.  He knows all his life he has wished not to be a beggar and blind man with the dubious cloud of sin hanging over him.  All of this has been taken away from him - stigma and blindness.  And yet no one is rejoicing for him.  Instead people are angry about how he was healed and who healed him.  And instead of the preachers of God's mercy rejoicing that God has done what they taught God would do,  these purveyors of God's law are angry because the miracle wasn't done in the manner that was acceptable to them - neither at the right time (the Sabbath) nor at the right place (the Siloam pool instead of the temple).   This is not how they expected God to act, and so therefore they are convinced it can't be from God.  They had convinced themselves that only they knew God's saving activities, and that God would have to act within what they narrowly taught as God's way.  They were looking to themselves and not to God for His Kingdom, or rather, they had blinded themselves to the possibilities of God and God's work in His entire creation.   God cannot act outside of our interpretation of godliness.    But Jesus came to give sight to the blind, not to continue blindness - to open the eyes of those who do not see.  But his actions are also judgment and those who are so certain that they alone control God are blinded by what Jesus does.   We in the one true Church should take note.  Our job is not to blind those who see God at work in their lives, but to rejoice in every act of God wherever and whenever it takes place.

39 Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind." 40 Some of the Pharisees near him heard this, and they said to him, "Are we also blind?" 41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, 'We see,' your guilt remains.

Please pray for Serbia, especially for Kosovo and Metohija!!

Jerusalem!  God's chosen and holy City!   Despite this designation,  Jerusalem had like any other city of the ancient world a collection of handicapped and disabled people.    This certainly had to be embarrassing for the people of God - how can one explain the existence of such piteous suffering in the city of the Great and Merciful God?   Sin was the obvious answer.  People violating the Torah - failing to keep the Sabbath laws:  Like the man carrying his bed claiming he was just healed of his life long paralysis and like that man who told him to carry his bed on the Sabbath.  Sinners!  What else could one call them?  They were the very reason for and cause of all those disabled people hanging out by the gate of the city.

"Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then shall the lame man leap like a hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing for joy. ...  And the ransomed of the LORD shall return, and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away"   (Isaiah 35:5-10 RSV) .  

In their narrow focus on keeping the Torah and not violating the Sabbath because they feared God (God promised death and conflagration for violating the Sabbath law) the religious leaders lost sight of the promises of God and exalted the Law of God above all else.   The Torah was given to help the Jews realize the Kingdom of God, but in their zeal to keep Torah, they sometimes lost sight of the Kingdom.  The result was that when Christ came giving sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, mobility to the lame, they could not recognize the signs of the coming Kingdom of God as promised by Isaiah the Prophet.  It is not unlike the man who buried the talent because he feared his master who he knew was demanding.

"Now when John heard in prison about the deeds of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples and said to him, "Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?" And Jesus answered them, "Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them" (Matthew 11:2-5 RSV)

If our focus in the spiritual life becomes too narrow, we forget that the entire universe was created by God and that God acts in and through the entire universe not just in His Scriptures and not just in the past.  We end up even ignoring other scriptures because they aren't part of our narrow focus.  

The antagonists of Jesus  forgot they existed to be the salt of the earth and a light to the nations.  They became concerned only about their own salvation.  They forgot they were on earth as witnesses to God's mighty presence and His saving activities.   So totally had they forgotten their role as witnesses, that they couldn't even see what God was doing right before their own eyes - raising a paralyzed man who had been handicapped for 38 years.

With the paralytic they clearly identified the laws from the Torah which were being violated - this is easily done through a literal reading of the Torah.  What they could not see was the breaking into their world of God's Messianic Kingdom - the healed paralytic carrying his bed on the Sabbath could be seen as a violator of the Torah, or a sign of God's Kingdom breaking into the world.  One needed only the eyes to see.     

Jesus established Himself as Lord of the Sabbath, and so the laws of the Torah were to submit themselves to His judgment.  And obviously Christ saw the need to challenge the narrow minded and overly legal reading of the Torah.  He tried to lift the minds and eyes of the religious leaders to see what God was now doing in salvation rather than simply to fear what God might do in judgment.  Christ tries to draw the people out of their narrow focus and their narrow and limited reading of the scriptures (though it was an accurate reading as all those words and concerns are actually there).    He tries to connect the reading of the Scriptures with seeing the world around them.  

"I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them;  he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away'"   (Revelation 21:3-4  RSV).

Red ones are!  (Link will break eventually.)  Here's why.

From Pesach to Pascha Part I

 On the 4^th Sunday after Pascha the Orthodox celebrate the Sunday of The Paralytic, commemorating the miracle which Jesus did one Sabbath Day as described in John 5:1-15.  Though a wondrous healing miracle takes place - a paralyzed man is made to walk - the discussion ends up focusing on whether or not it is proper for the healed paralytic to carry his bed on the Sabbath day.

Jesus said to him, "Rise, take up your pallet, and walk." And at once the man was healed, and he took up his pallet and walked. Now that day was the sabbath. So the Jews said to the man who was cured, "It is the sabbath, it is not lawful for you to carry your pallet." But he answered them, "The man who healed me said to me, 'Take up your pallet, and walk.'"  (John 15:8-11)

 First, we should note that the Torah in no uncertain terms indicates that absolutely NO work is to be done on the Sabbath  (Deuteronomy 5:12-14).   And in Exodus 31:12-17,35:2-3, twice mentioned is the penalty for doing ANY work on the Sabbath:  death!   Violating the Sabbath is listed as a capital offense, and so observant Jews should be upset when they see someone carrying their bed on the Sabbath as the healed paralytic was doing in John 15.

However, we can also note in the Scriptures that the death penalty for working on the Sabbath must not have been all that common for in Numbers 15:32-36 a man is caught gathering fire wood on the Sabbath but there is uncertainty as to what should be done about it.  We are not told whether the doubt is about exactly what one has to do to be considered in violation of the Torah, if it is a matter of intention or willful disobedience rather than ignorance,  or whether some "work" might be considered necessary or a disagreement about what constitutes work.  In the end the man is executed, so the law of Exodus is carried out. 

The Prophet Jeremiah (17:19-22) specifically forbids carrying burdens , carrying burdens nears the gates of Jerusalem or carrying household items out of one's house.  The Paralytic would have been guilty of all three of these infractions.  In Jeremiah the warned punishment is some terrible conflagration of the city.  In Nehemiah 13:19 guards are even posted by the city gates specifically to stop anyone from carrying burdens on the Sabbath.

In the Jewish Mishnah (developed by the rabbis in the first two centuries after the time of Jesus), there are listed 39 works forbidden on the Sabbath and it is forbidden to carry a bed, unless a sick person is on it and it is being used to transport the sick person.  The rabbis did allow necessary works of mercy on the Sabbath.

So it is pretty hard to criticize the Jewish leaders for questioning the paralyzed man for violating the Sabbath - he was in fact committing a serious violation of a well established rule.   They seemed to be upset here that a man who waited 38 years to be healed, certainly could have waited one more day to move his bed.

So what is John's point in relating His Gospel lesson?  It clearly is that what Jesus had done - healing a paralyzed man - should have been seen as the sign of God's coming Kingdom.    In their zeal to follow the details of the Torah, they had lost sight that this world was not God's kingdom, and that there would be signs of the coming Kingdom which they should also have been able to recognize.   As Jesus Himself claimed, He is Lord of the Sabbath.  His presence (which is also that of God's Kingdom) is more important than strict adherence to the Torah.

It is also possible that John is taking a swipe at legalistic thinking:  while it is OK for people to carry a paralyzed man on a bed on the Sabbath as an act of mercy, legalism says it is not OK for that same man who has experienced a greater act of mercy - God healing him - to carry his own bed as a sign of what God had done for him!  John certainly could have been criticizing hyper-Orthodox Pharisaic legalism.

And in the Gospel lesson, the cured paralytic says, "the man who healed me" (the man who brought the Kingdom of God into my life), while his antagonists completely ignore the healing and speak only of the man who said "take up your pallet" on the Sabbath (the man who broke the law).   The Torah which was to reveal God's Kingdom became only that which binded the eyes of the people shut so they could not see the Kingdom, they only could fear the judgment. 

Isaiah the Prophet had foretold that in the day of the Messiah the blind would see and the deaf would hear (Isaiah 29:18-19,  Isaiah 35:5-6).  So all the religious leaders saw was someone violating the Sabbath law, they failed to see that was happening was in fulfillment of the promise and the prophecy concerning God's coming Messianic Kingdom.

Total adherence to any religious laws or tradition can help conform a people to doing God's will rather than following their own ways, but it can also bind their eyes shut from seeing what new things God was doing.   That is what John is telling us in the Gospel.

 "You have heard; now see all this; and will you not declare it? From this time forth I make you hear new things, hidden things which you have not known.  They are created now, not long ago; before today you have never heard of them, lest you should say, 'Behold, I knew them.'  You have never heard, you have never known, from of old your ear has not been opened."   (Isaiah 48:6-8)

Yes, on the Third Monday of Pascha yesterday morning - May 12 (NS)! - some snow stuck to the ground in higher elevations of southwestern Pennsylvania (link may break), the Commonwealth where I and alot of other Orthodox live!

This discussion goes back to my recent post occasioned by the (Western) Good Friday Blizzard in the U.S. Midwest,* pointing out that the (small-T) traditional Western association of Easter with Spring is actually more likely to be fulfilled by Orthodox Pascha - for the next few thousand years anyway, if the Lord doesn't return in Glory first - because at this time it's usually one, two, or five weeks later than Easter, and will gradually get later vis a vis the seasons, over time, until of course it reaches Northern Autumn, at which point it will start moving back behind the other way, so to speak, toward Northern Spring.  Anyway, that means it's alot less likely to snow in the Northern Hemisphere, or be wintry-cold; not impossible, just less likely!

I've been prevented by circumstances from replying to A Simple Sinner's challenge there until now, among them my own continued study of the Calendar situation within Orthodoxy, and between Orthodoxy and Catholicism / Protestantism.  What I've learned is that Old Calendar Christianity - ie, most of Christendom before 1582 - essentially knowingly sacrificed, and continues to sacrifice, a little bit of astrological** accuracy in favor of perfect Liturgical convenience.  (As one calendar expert opines [quoted here], "However accurate we might try to make them, calendars should be judged not by their scientific sophistication, but by how well they serve social needs."  Or as Another putteth it, "The Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath.")

As a result of the determination of the Orthodox Paschalion or scheduling of Easter during the first Christian millennium (pursuant to the decision of the First Ecumenical Synod, the Council of Nicea, in AD 325), Western and Byzantine Christian worship services fell into a 532-year cycle discussed briefly and relatively simply here with relatively little polemic.  NB: Father Alexander, with the staunchly Old-Calendar Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, misspoke at one point: the 19-year cycle is lunar, and the 28-year cycle is solar, not the other way around.  Vis a vis the Julian calendar of dates and leap years, the dates of the moon phases calculated for planning purposes - approximate to the observed phases - follow a sequence that repeats every 19 Julian years.  And as the same linked paragraph also notes, Julian dates recur on the same days of the week every 28 years.  28 times 19 equals 532, the two cycles resynchronizing together every 532 years.

It wasn't just about Easter / Pascha.  For medieval Byzantine Christians, nearly every day of the year was - and for all Orthodox still is - describable in relation to Pascha, whether it's a day of a week of the Triodion (pre-Lent), the Great Fast (Lent), Holy Week, the actual Pascha Season, or weeks after Pentecost for the rest of the year and early the following year until the Triodion comes around again.  Most people don't make this connection - it took me a while - but literally every day is a Moveable Feast!  For medieval Western Christians, only the Season(s) of Advent / Christmas / Epiphany were taken out of the relationship to Easter, days of these weeks being defined specially.  (Byzantine Christians didn't have such a liturgical Advent [just our Nativity Fast], nor an Epiphany / Theophany 'season' really.)  When I was going through Catholic schools and seminaries, even "Ordinary Time" was discussed Pentecostally in terms of "the life of the Spirit in the Church," even if the name "Ordinary Time" seems like "generic/not exciting"!

Therefore, for Byzantine and High-Church Western Christians then and today still, any given day has two aspects.  Easterners characterize these as the Menaion and the Paschalion, ie, the Fixed and the Moveable - the commemoration of the numerical calendar date, and that of the relation to Pascha.  (This is why some of us consider it imprecise to call the Old Calendar as used in most of the Orthodox Church "the Julian Calendar."  Caesar didn't know about the Resurrection of Christ, because JC - the earlier one who only thought he was god - died too soon!  OC Orthodox' Menaion is Julian, but the Paschalion is Hebrew.)  Westerners traditionally thought of them a little differently, the Liturgical Season (Advent, Christmas, Lent, Easter, Pentecost) or "Temporal Cycle," and the saint's feast of the numerical calendar date otherwise, the "Sanctoral Cycle."

Why is all this important?  Because as I said, the sequence of services - not just Eucharistic Liturgy, but also the Hours and some other Church services - repeated every 532 years.  Each day's services were also complicated by multiple commemorations on many days of the year, and because of the Menaion and Paschalion (to use the Eastern terms) seeming to jump with regard to each other yearly, a priest needed help putting together any given day's services.  He didn't invent them himself eventually, but had the accumulated Holy Tradition in this regard to guide him.  As Fr. Alexander said in the linked article, for Orthodox the key to this (big-T) Tradition is called the Typikon (or Typicon), a big book that describes all the possible combinations of feasts and fasts for the 532-year cycle.  ISTM the Church of Rome had something similar whose most common name seems to have been the Ordinarius, the basis of the Ordo, although as this (old) Catholic Encyclopedia article emphasizes, it varied a bit with the addition of local, regional, or national feasts, or those pertaining to a particular religous or monastic order, and their interaction with the universal (Latin) feasts; this is also true in Orthodoxy, without vitiating the reliance on the Typicon as a whole.  Examples of Orthodox versions of the annual extracts from the Ordinarius that were eventually printed by dioceses, provinces, nations, and orders of the Church of Rome (as the CE discusses) include these from the (Old Calendar) Diocese of Alaska of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), and the "2008 Tipic" currently available on the homepage of the OCA's (New Calendar) Romanian diocese.  (I don't know if all the OCA's dioceses do their own Orders of Divine Services; the Romanian diocese's commemorations might vary from those of the rest of the OCA due to their Romanian traditions, most of the rest of the OCA being of Russian or Carpatho-Russian heritage.  And Alaska is their only remaining OC diocese, so its Menaion would differ from most of the rest of that jurisdiction [though they also have a few dozen OC parishes in other dioceses].)

So what?  I believe Fr. Alexander exaggerates when he complains that parishes and jurisdictions on the Orthodox New Calendar "throw the Typicon in the trash."  IIUC, they will only gradually, over the centuries, accumulate combinations of feast-days not currently covered by the Traditional Orthodox Typikon.  But most usage of the Typicon t/Traditionally didn't consist of the 'dartboard' approach he and others often employ - impressively - to prove its usefulness, but instead just marching through it day by day, week by week.  The Typikon in a sense was the calendar, covering both Menaion and Paschalion.  The same for the Ordinarius in the West.  I can't find discussion of the impact of the Gregorian Calendar reform on the Ordinarius and the Ordo, but since the Western Church went from a 532-year cycle to a nearly 6-million-year one, it has had to require increasing intervention by Rome to account for unaccounted-for combinations of universal (Latin) and other feasts, a significant departure from Tradition.  Or massive depletion of feasts from the calendar, as has happend in the last few generations, with the liturgical "reform's" increased focus on the Seasons, and the 'lay-off' of certain well-known but ancient Saints now questioned, such as Christopher and Philomena, and the Great-Martyr George for God's sake!  (Sorry, I almost never take God's Name in vain; but here, is it?!  In any case, Orthodox often include prayers and especially hymns from more than one saint-of-the-day, as well as from the season, in Liturgy, similar to what the Tridentine Mass did.)  As Dr. Roman points out in the linked article, this approach too is highly not-Orthodox - and he's an Eastern Catholic!  Or even a dramatic simplification of the calendar and approach to feasts: for instance, I have no idea what most of this even means, since I have no memory of the Latin Liturgy before Vatican II.  "Semi-double of the Second Class"?!!  Today Latin observances are in order of increasing importance: Commemorations (ie, de-emphasized Optional Memorials during Lent), Optional Memorials, Obligatory Memorials, Feasts, and Solemnities ... period.  In fairness, I don't know what most of the Orthodox Orders of Services I linked to above are talking about either, since I haven't had a chance to study the finer points of Orthodox Liturgy yet.  But I've probably seen or heard it in church, and I know it's all hugely valued by Orthodox Holy Tradition, so much that if you touch the Liturgy, there's rioting in the streets of Greece, even deaths ... or (successful) mass resistance to Communist-backed "renovationism" in the USSR in the '20s.  (I never heard that in "History of the Soviet Union" in college!)  And again in fairness, as Fr. Alexander points out, in the Orthodox New Calendar aka Revised Julian, there's no cycle, it's completely open-ended, so that it will require updating at the beginning of just about every century by dioceses or jurisdictions or synods.

Long story short, nearly all the world's Orthodox keep the Traditional Orthodox Paschalion,*** and the overwhelming majority of the world's Orthodox keep the Traditional Orthodox Calendar aka Julian (though a minority in the Western world), among many, many other reasons, because this Menaion and Paschalion are, mathematically speaking, internally perfect.  They trade one day every 134 years vis a vis the sun and stars and climatic seasons, for the convenience of continuing to follow the Services sanctified by centuries of Orthodox Fathers and Mothers of the Church, Saints, and the All-Holy Spirit of God, without requiring any more novel Hierarchical intervention than necessary (eg, when new Saints are added to the calendar), or the gutting of the calendar or its feasts and Saints (most of the world's Orthodox treat their Saint's name-day more importantly than their "birthday according to the flesh"), or of the Liturgical Tradition itself.  And it's not rare among Orthodox to express doubt that the Lord will delay His Return in Glory long enough to let us seriously worry about Pascha in Northern Autumn - though if He does, there's always the Southern Hemisphere!  (I guess then they'll trade kielbasa at the parish Pascha bash after late-night Liturgy, for "shrimps on the barbie"!  Or wait, they're shellfish and not part of the Fast.  You get what I mean though....)

Think of it computerwise: The raw data are (1) the universal calendar, (2) the elements of the Liturgies (Eucharist, Hours, etc.), (3) a national or regional calendar, and (4) a local calendar.  The Typikon or Ordinarius is/was the database assembled from these raw data.  Holy Tradition is/was the software.  And the annual Ordo's or other printouts are the output.  Michael Purcell (Orthodox) says his Menologion 3.0 software (both calendars) is ready for download and use on your computer, but generally speaking, the Typikon is in some ways similar to that, and in other ways different, as you could see sampled at the Alaskan and Romanian links above.  To really see it computerwise, a Melkite Catholic priest (Gregorian Calendar) has computerized (5.6 MB) an unofficial software version of his diocese's typicon for the next 1,000 years(!), and although he says the Hours will be added in a software update expected at the end of next year, the list of options just for Eucharist is more than the Menologion provides, because the Menologion isn't intended to provide those things.

(*--As well as part of a long-term ongoing attempt to get my head around Orthodox calendar stuff for the sake of explaining it here.)

(**--As they called it a long time ago.)

(***--Metropolitan KALLISTOS [Ware] in The Orthodox Church says Finland's Orthodox are required by the government to follow the Gregorian Calendar, ie, not even the Revised Julian.  I don't know why Constantinople's Estonians do, representing one in eight Orthodox in that country.)

Motherhood - we do set aside this day in our country to give special honors to mothers, to acknowledge their special role in shaping the lives of each of us, and consequently recognizing the special place that mothers play in the life of our nation.

We might also stop and reflect for a moment that despite the unique and powerful role that mothers play in shaping each of our lives, we as a nation spend virtually no time preparing our young women for the role of motherhood.  Certainly the school systems give virtually no attention to helping young women become mothers.  Colleges?  They are interested in degrees and careers but though you can find a Women's Study major at many colleges, it has nothing to do with motherhood.  The media also offers little in terms of true guidance in what it takes to be a mother.

 And we cannot deny that in Christianity, though the virtues of motherhood are often extolled, especially in relationship to Mary the Mother of God, little is offered in the church schools or even in our New Testament scriptures about motherhood.

 And yet our very understanding of God's plan of salvation rests upon the notion of God finding a woman to be mother to His Son.   The incarnation could not have happened without a mother.  Salvation, at least as we understand God's revelation, could not have happened without a mother.  God in his love and wisdom chose a woman, the teenager Mary, to be the Mother of His Son, and thus the Mother of our Salvation.

And the image we have of Mary, the reason for why God chooses her to be Mother of His Son, seems to be found in ideas of her purity, her humility, her love,  her willingness to believe in God's promises, her desire to hear the Word of God, and her willingness to be God's servant, to be obedient to the will and word of God, her capacity to accept the fullness of God's grace.  Her ability to be God's chosen mother, was found in her desire to be faithful to God. 

 This imagery we might quickly realize applies to us all, not just to women, nor just to those who would be mothers, but to any who would follow Christ and be children of God.

Today in the church we honor the Myrrhbearing Women, those women disciples of the Lord, who also exhibited those same virtues - humility, love, faithfulness, and a fearlessness in the face of those who opposed God, but a total fear of God.   For they were willing to courageously go to the tomb of Christ to anoint his body, knowing full well that they did this in opposition to their Jewish leaders and under the watchful eye of Roman soldiers.   So bold were they to come at dawn in full view of everyone.    Bold, courageous and fearless were they in their faith and love.   And yet when the angel tells them of the resurrection, they flee from the tomb saying nothing to anyone because they were afraid.  Ultimately it is only God who they fear, and an encounter with God, reveals that in fact the only One that they fear is God.  And this godly fear is for them yet another virtue.

One final comment - The Myrrhbearing Women were going to the tomb of Christ, to do what they believed they were required to do.  They were fulfilling a religious obligation.  Yet we also understand that in fulfilling the law, this was a total act of love for Jesus on their part.  Fulfilling religious duty and doing it because of love, are not ideas in opposition to each other, but rather are the signs of true religion. 

For us, our ‘Going to church' must become a similar work.  Though we might do it in obedience to God and to please God and to fulfill our sense of religious duty, it is most blessed when we also do it out of love for Christ.   Like the Myrrhbearing women, we too are engaged in an act of love, for here we come to proclaim Christ's death and to meet the risen Lord.  

Going to church becomes for us a journey to the place where we behold our destiny.  Here we come to see what is the ultimate destiny of our lives and of the world.   Going to church is part of that great journey, that magnificent voyage to the Kingdom of God.    Going to church may also be just part of our sense of obligation, but it is also and always is the path to opening the doors of the Heavenly Kingdom so that we might see God.

Christ is risen!