As I trudge through my thesis...

I just realized that La Grange is both the name of a series of differential equations and a song by ZZ Top (ridiculously good highway driving song). Coincidence? I think not!

Reflections on the History of the Orthodox Church I

I spoke to my Sunday School Seniors about Church History...here are my notes

Reflections on the History of the Orthodox Church I

<> I was asked to speak to you all today about Church History. First of all, I don’t by any stretch of the mind consider myself an expert on the History of the Church. My education is in engineering and on that path I’ve read my share of books and heard my share of lectures about Church History. I’m sure that doesn’t make me an expert, but I’m confident I know enough to throw in my two cents worth of opinion every once in a while.

Secondly, I don’t think I have the time, nor you all the patience to hear a string of historical facts. In order to properly cover 2000 years of Church History, you’d probably need months if not years to just scratch the surface of what’s available. Instead, what I’m looking to offer to you high school students today is a mode of thinking in approaching Church history. I’ll present you with a few hard facts, but more importantly I’d like to elaborate to you a particular frame of mind with which to approach the history of Christianity.

I’d like to start then with an anonymous quote I’ve received a few different times forwarded to me via email. When you spend a lot of time wandering around the Orthodox blogosphere, you tend to get these random quotes. I thought this one was appropriate for today:

"The Orthodox Church is evangelical, but not Protestant. It is orthodox, but not Jewish. It is catholic, but not Roman. It isn't non-denominational - it is pre-denominational. It has believed, taught, preserved, defended and died for the Faith of the Apostles since the Day of Pentecost 2000 years ago."

We, the Orthodox Christians simply regard ourselves as “The Church.” We are not a particular denomination with a particular founder. While the Lutherans can trace themselves to Martin Luther in 1522, and Anglicans can trace themselves to Henry VIII’s secession from the Roman Catholic Church in 1534, we trace our roots back to the earliest times of the Church, which was “born” on the Day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended upon the Disciples and sanctified the Church’s existence. If we take the word “Orthodox” in its simplest sense, we don’t mean that our Church has ever been given the name “Orthodox,” we instead intend to say that our Church is in continuity with Christianity as it was founded to be. We are “orthodox” precisely because our Church maintains that we have kept Christianity alive as it was originally intended to be.

Let me explain this further. We believe that The Church was founded at the Pentecost. Jesus Christ Himself teaches his disciples that the Holy Spirit would guide them in “all truth.” Therefore, the Church was given the entirety of truth at the Pentecost. We can not “manufacture” doctrine, because our Church’s core doctrines have been set in place by Christ. At the heart of our Church’s teaching is that God has revealed Himself to be the Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that the Father has sent His Son to suffer and die, and resurrect, and in so doing redeem Humanity. Over 2000 years, the centrality of that Gospel has not changed, but has instead been re-expressed and re-contextualized according to the times and places. Orthodox Christianity, with the emphasis on the adjective “orthodox” implying proper, has never changed its teachings, but has strived to have a harmonious balance between the central truth that is preached and the restating of that truth to fit the particular situation.

In order to remain Orthodox, that is, true to the foundations of the Church as given by Christ to His Apostles, the Church’s main focus is to remain in continuity with the Church since ancient times. Nowhere else is this clearer than in our liturgical worship. I’ve been asked repeatedly where we Orthodox Christians got our Qurbana from. Well, the Church didn’t make the liturgy up out of nowhere. We inherit our Liturgy from the Temple worship in the Old Testament, which has since turned the focus from the sacrifice of the lamb on the altar to the living sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist.

Let us examine some of the early documentation from the beginning. An early document entitled the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” dated roughly around 70AD says:

Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:

We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..

And concerning the broken bread:

We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."

St. Justin Martyr writes in about 150AD:

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

I could cite early references to the Eucharist exhaustively. Allow me one more for good measure:

The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His Immortality. the strength of the Word is the Spirit, just as the blood is the strength of the body. [20,1] Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, --of the drink and of the Word,--is called Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.- St. Clement of Alexandria (202AD)

My point here is that there is an order of Christian worship centered on the Eucharist since the very beginning. We didn’t make this up. We received the Liturgy as given to us through the generations which was adapted to the times but never changing in its central truth. Our Liturgy in use today in the Indian Orthodox Church is referred to as the Liturgy of St. James, the cousin of our Lord, which is itself an order of Eucharist used by the Church in Jerusalem since the very beginning of Christianity. We have added certain aspects, the bells, the maravasas, the keyboard in an effort to elaborate on certain mystical aspects of the Church, but the central sacrifice offered on the table is still in direct continuity to that same Eucharist celebrated by Christ as given to his Holy Apostles to do always in remembrance of Him.

Aside from our continuity of Liturgy with the early Church, the Orthodox Church claims to have a continuity of doctrine with the Church since its beginning. Many modern so-called historians and novelists have made the accusation that a hidden yet true Christianity was obscured in later times by the Church which invented its dogmas at the Council of Nicea and beyond (ie The Da Vinci Code, Christ’s Family Tomb, etc). Even a casual reading of the New Testament affirms the fact that, since the very beginning, we have always believed the Jesus Christ is God, and that God is Triune.

Allow me to run through a list of some of the historical heresies that have existed in the history of the Church.

1) Simonianism- early form of Gnosticism, Simon Magus was the First God

2) Docetism- Jesus’ body was an illusion

3) Marcionism- God of Old Testament separate from God of the New Testament

4) Montanism- Separate revelation by God, ecstatic experience of the Holy Spirit

5) Gnosticism- Exclusive hidden knowledge from God given to certain people, God (the demiurge) is merely a craftsmen who forms the material world without the higher knowledge from the actual higher spiritual beings

6) Valentinianism- subset of Gnosticism, the Demiurge was basically good

7) Adoptionism- Christ was born man but was adopted as the Son of God later

8) Patripassionism- God the Father died on the Cross

9) Monarchianism- God is a strict unity

10) Arianism- God the Son, the Logos, is not coeternal with God the Father

11) Tritheism- The Holy Trinity exists as three distinct gods

12) Apollinarianism- Jesus Christ is a human body with the mind of the Logos

13) Nestorianism- Christ’s humanity and Divinity exist as two separate natures

14) Eutychianism- Monophysitism- Christ’s humanity dissolved into His Divinity

15) And so on and so forth...

All of these heresies sprang from a misunderstanding of the central truths of the Church. Either they misunderstand that God can exist as one God in Three Divine Persons, or they misunderstand that Christ exists as both fully Divine and fully human, consubstantial with both God and humanity. Though at its core a mystery to be apprehended if not comprehended, these doctrines have been upheld from the beginning and the struggle with heresy continues unto this day.

The accusation has been made that the Council of Nicea decided upon the Divinity of Christ. However, the New Testament itself is clear about Christ. We know St. John writes in the Gospel:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

…

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,^[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Church Fathers taught categorically that Christ was both fully Divine and fully Human. For example, St. Irenaeus writes, in the 2^nd Century:

But that the apostle did not speak concerning their conjunctions, but concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he also acknowledges as the Word of God, he himself has made evident. For, summing up his statements respecting the Word previously mentioned by him, he further declares, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” But, according to their hypothesis, the Word did not become flesh at all, inasmuch as He never went outside of the Pleroma, but that Saviour [became flesh] who was formed by a special dispensation [out of all the Æons], and was of later date than the Word.

3. Learn then, ye foolish men, that Jesus who suffered for us, and who dwelt among us, is Himself the Word of God. For if any other of the Æons had become flesh for our salvation, it would have been probable that the apostle spoke of another. But if the Word of the Father who descended is the same also that ascended, He, namely, the Only-begotten Son of the only God, who, according to the good pleasure of the Father, became flesh for the sake of men, the apostle certainly does not speak regarding any other, or concerning any Ogdoad, but respecting our Lord Jesus Christ. For, according to them, the Word did not originally become flesh. For they maintain that the Saviour assumed an animal body, formed in accordance with a special dispensation by an unspeakable providence, so as to become visible and palpable. But flesh is that which was of old formed for Adam by God out of the dust, and it is this that John has declared the Word of God became.

We know our Creed, which was formed in the Three Ecumenical Councils of our Church. What is the purpose of this recitation? The purpose is not the expression of a doctrine that was new or formulated at a given time or place. Instead, the Creed is the declaration of the common Faith of the universal Church, which expresses that core Gospel of the Church as inherited in the historical tradition through those first few centuries of Christianity and beyond.

In the preceding talk I’ve brought you up to around the time of the great Church councils. I hope to expand upon the Church and Imperial Christianity in a future discussion with you all. I’ve elaborated on the idea that the Church aims to maintain the continuity of Faith between ourselves in the modern era and the Church of the Apostles. I’ve told you how continuity means we have the obligation to stay true to our heritage of Faith. I’d like to introduce another word to you all now, “organic.” Being in continuity means that we have the boundaries of doctrine and spirituality we can not cross, however, organicness or organicity, means that the Church can and does indeed change as long as those changes occur faithful to the precepts of the Church. For example, as mentioned before, the liturgical vestments and embellishments may not have been part of the earliest Eucharistic celebrations, but because the Church was free to develop faithful to its own doctrines, the Church has adopted certain key elements of liturgical music and art in order to magnify the intended experience of the Eucharist for each individual involved. Thus, the Church can grow and continuously re-contextualize itself, as it organically develops in the continuity of Faith.

UK Documentary- The Great Global Warming Swindle

Check this out!!!

Just doing my part to get this viewed by as many people as possible

Tom and I Shoot the Breeze about Orthodoxy

Late one night a week and a half ago, my friend Tom and I got into a rousing discussion about salvation, Christ, and other religions. I'm posting an edited version of the chat here for your general edification. I'm "APT" and he's "JTD"...edited versions of our AIM screennames. Enjoy!

---

APT: Christianity is pretty deliberately exclusive

JTD: well...christianity is exclusive in one sense

JTD: but in the sense that God does love everyone as his children....no-one can deny that...

JTD: so as far as other religions are concerned..i can't even say they're wrong necessarily

JTD: and as more and more research is being done now..the principles of christianity agree with the principles of the other world religions that its sort of like...umm....the only difference is in the stories that were told...

JTD: in all honesty for all we know there coudl have been more than one version of Christ if you want to cal lit...that's my personal take...feel free to criticize

APT: well everyone already knew that Christianity preached the same moral principles as the pagans already were thinking about

APT: but if you're Christian...you're taking the leap of faith that whatever you've already rationalized as good and right in your head...you're going to take that and conform it to the revelation of Christ and the scripture

JTD: and if you were born a hindu and grew up as you have as a christian

JTD: u woudl be defending hinduism in the same manner

JTD: if not stronger

APT: obviously

APT: but

APT: even if I were

APT: I can't say that diametrically opposed ideas are both right

APT: I'm either right or wrong

JTD: they're not opposed ideas though

JTD: if you go and study..i don't have al lthe deatils...but yea...

JTD: let's put it this way

JTD: first achen started reading me books in malayalam

APT: the hindu conception of Trinity?

JTD: that some bishop wrote about the relationship between hindiuism and christianity

APT: Ostathios Thirumeni

APT: I think

JTD: right

APT: yeah but

APT: given that

APT: God has a historical reference point

JTD: what???

APT: Jesus

JTD: in our terms though

JTD: what about the chinese accoutn of seeing Jesus then...

JTD: thats' obviously differen

JTD: or the native american accoutns of the white man returning

JTD: and hten americans come along later and they realize its not the same guy

APT: well you either believe Jesus was God...the Son of God...or you don't

APT: but that's the revelation

APT: you can't really wiggle your way out of it

JTD: i mean we believe in what we belive...yes...

JTD: at the same token..what's the whole point in looking at jesus?

JTD: as the son of God

JTD: Son of God*

JTD: a revelation of God's love down to humanity..by sending his one and only Son...right?

APT: continue

JTD: k..

JTD: its basically the ultimate sacrifice...the biggest love in existence...so when we beleive in Christ and God...who is love in the ultimate form...according to what we believe

JTD: otherwise Christ woudln't be smashing down all the legalism that was going on..w.hich was basically the Jewish church becoming super traditional and set without realizing hte point behind everything

JTD: or what you would call fundamentalist today...

JTD: in some senses...i think

JTD: anywho...my point is..

JTD: what we see as Christ...someone else sees in another form maybe...another manifestation of that same sort of love...

JTD: and if its of the same magnitude..i can't deny (though I won't accept either) the possibility that God's sending down the same message in more than one way

JTD: or thatp eople are interepreting that same message

JTD: in different ways

APT: well I can say that the Holy Spirit works in ways outside the Church..I believe that

APT: and I can say that each religion has truth in it and can be very good

JTD: and so they won't be saved?

JTD: because they didn't call upon Jesus?

JTD: are we talking about Jesus the human son of God?

APT: no no no that's never been anything i'm saying

JTD: oh ok..i just wanted tomake sure lol

JTD: i thoguht u were going along those tracks

APT: I'm just saying that logically if I'm going to be a Christian I have to confess Christ being what He is...if I accept that He is the Truth...that ends up being logically exclusive to an ideology that says he is not the truth

APT: you can be wrong about things and I imagine God still deals with your in a good just way

JTD: oh yea i compeltely agree

APT: I'm just saying that logically

APT: I can't be Christian...than say all religions are pretty much the same

APT: they may be the same as far as morals

JTD: well even beyond morals though

APT: but I think Christianity is hyper-moral

APT: it's the only religion that invite you into a Communion

JTD: so far everyhting's been pointing me in the direction that God truly is everywhere

JTD: and you can see a bit of Christ in every real faith

JTD: note the difference between religion and faith

APT: yeah but you actually do have a real Christ

APT: so I believe that Christ acts everywhere

JTD: agreed

JTD: we just don't have to call him Christ everywhere

JTD: we meaning humanity

APT: yes but

APT: what is a standard of judgement

APT: other than the actual revelation of Christ?

JTD: our concept of salvation is actually really realyl similar to both islam and hinduism..as far as how to get saved

JTD: the actual revelation of Christ

JTD: how do you define that

JTD: in all honesty

JTD: who are we to say that other people haven't seen Christ?

APT: I mean

JTD: whether they call Him Christ or not?

APT: the historical person of Chirst

APT: as far as teachings go I don't know if he taught anything new

APT: but I can't get around that He was actually God

JTD: right taht's the entire ground of our faith

APT: I don't think the Church believes that a non-believer categorically goes to Hell

APT:I think we're saying a lot of the same thing

JTD: Orthodoxy definitely doesn't

APT: I'm saying that ministerially

JTD: we can't go around preaching that Christ isn't the son of God and that hte Bible is useless fundamentalism

JTD: because every other religion is right

APT: haha right

JTD: yea that's retarded

APT: see you know what I'm thinking

APT: but you know

APT: it happens so freaking often

JTD: uh oh

APT: I think the whole "will non-Christians be saved" thing is very played out

APT: the question is pointless...we don't know if Christians will be saved

JTD: right

APT:my apologetic point is

APT:worship is not pragmatic...but having been in touch with the Love of Christ...we can enter into this covenant based relationship with Him...because we are driven by Love to do so

APT:not because we are looking to be saved...that's a selfish motivation

JTD: right..that's not even close to attaining salvation

JTD: our concept of salvation is completely different as well...i mean from standard protestant terms

JTD: we look towards the theosis side of it as more or less a future sense of salvation..or ultimate union..in additon to the past and present sense of salvation

JTD: anywho continue

APT: well I guess

APT: having said that

JTD: there's one point i didn' get

APT:?

JTD: or i coudlnt' really come up with the response rhtaer...like cat got my tongue

JTD: so Christ comes down as a human and dies for us

JTD: human and divine...agreed

JTD: but is our saving faith dependent upon Christ's human element?

APT: I have to believe so

APT: because

JTD: that's the point of our fiath

APT: if God did not take all of humanity upon Himself and die...then how else can humanity be saved

JTD: i mean its how we're Christian...

JTD: right

JTD: so then if that's the case

APT: oh you were asking rhetorically

JTD: yea

JTD: because

JTD: that doens't agree with my initial argument..ir maybe it does

JTD: and i haven't figured it out yet

APT: explain

JTD: like salvation for non-believers

JTD: because they don't belive in CHrist as human..as you said

JTD: which is where i got stuck

JTD: but at hte same time

JTD: i also believe that if you believe in his ultimate Love

JTD: you are saved..becuase that is Christ

JTD: its suppsoed tobe a big paradox that fits togehter..and thats' like the one missing piece of hte puzzle i've hit so far

JTD: our faith is grounded on the fact that Christ was human and died for us to save humanity..is it the Love that saves us..or the death of hte human and divine Christ?

JTD: i mean its one and the same

JTD: but different at the same time in another sense

JTD: because if you reject the human element of Christ...and only accept hte loving aspect of it..it sort of doesn't add up

JTD: i guess tha'ts why stuff like the Da Vinci code is dangerous hah

APT: I don't understand the question though

JTD: like Christ is ultimate Love...the foundation of our faith is the sacrifice out of Love

JTD: right?

APT:yeah

JTD: so then...i was always thinkign a non-believer would get the ability to be saved because of their belief or faith and acceptance of that Love (Christ-love) irrespective of the religion

JTD: that's the place where they woudl be able to attain it

JTD: if any

JTD: the quesiton is...if salvation is dependent on our faith in the fact that Christ is human and divine...then that throws a wrench in that idea

JTD: like if welook at hte believe in hte actual crucifixion event

JTD: rather than the sacrifice

JTD: out of Love

JTD: u follow?

APT: so you're saying that a non-believer would be saved knowing that God is sacrificially loving...not necessarily believing in the Loving Sacrifice?

JTD: well...i'm not saying that they're saved or not saved...likeu said

JTD: that's hte pointless question

JTD: since we don't evne know about our won salvation

JTD: but if there were a point of salvation

JTD: i always thought that woudl be it

JTD: and that's basically by following ultimate moral

JTD: which is the common ground between all the major faiths

JTD: hinduism..islam..judaism...buddhism...christianity...etc.

JTD: all ends up with the definition of ultimate Love in some form or another

JTD: and i started to really think it as i started reading more baout other faiths..like look at the Gita...or listen to dad's Aduitha philosophy stuff

JTD: its directly linked to our Christian tenets

JTD: like every core concept

JTD: except the historical factor

APT: well I believe that Christ died and was resurrected for the believer and non-believer...so even if you don't know about the Sacrifice...you are still a beneficiary of it...but only by being bound to the person of Christ in the flesh can we begin to participate in it

JTD: k that works

APT: well...if you were God...and you wanted to become incarnate....you could really only pick one particular person to work that

APT: so whether we like it or not...God became incarnate in a specific time...in a specific people...in a very particular body

APT: I know it's not philosophically glamorous

JTD: u sure about that?

JTD: lol

APT: but St. Paul says that the Cross is foolishness to the Greeks

JTD: God does a good job of expressing himself as a dove a Son and a booming sound still separate

JTD: and the Son reappears in different forms later after his resurection don't forget

APT: but regardless

APT: He's still Jesus

JTD: i think u almost compartmentalized God hah

JTD: yea..not everyone called him Jesus

JTD: not everyone knew him as Jesus either

JTD: hence..the gazibillion names we have for him

APT: besides the point

JTD: lol it has everythign to do with the point

APT: he had one human body

APT: whilst being outside time...he had to exist in time

JTD: well yea Jesus Christ hte son did

JTD: but God in general...

JTD: can't say the same about that

APT: yeah but that's economy not revelation

APT: I already agreed that the Spirit works where It works

APT: but you can't philosophize your way around the Cross

JTD:): right...basically ur saying that Jesus Christ is the only savior of the world

JTD: through the Cross

JTD: agreed

JTD: that's the point in our human time if you want to call it where God saves humanity as a whole and we're saved

JTD: in one sense

APT: even if you're not aware of it...you still benefit from it

JTD: yea...so my question is mroe or less the requirements for the ones who aren't aware

APT: well that I won't profess to know

APT: I don't even know the minimum requirements for people who are aware

JTD: lol true

JTD: and we're back at the beginning of the circle

APT: I can only play by the rules of the game

JTD: so bascially we're not supposed to know

APT: and I've been revealed this much

APT: but I will say that if you're going to be Christian you have to adhere to the basic truths which are historical and scriptural and spiritual...and unique

JTD: agreed

APT: so what's the problem?

APT: Let's get out there

APT: and start Orthodoxing

JTD: hahaha

---

When the West was the Underdog...

SPARTA!!!!

I got out to see 300 last Friday night (not on the IMAX....sigh). I had been anticipating seeing it since at least last November when I saw the first preview before The Departed (also a great movie...go see it). The movie certainly lived up to all my expectations.

Was it gratuitously violent?
Yes! But not anymore than the average video game, and certainly not any more than most other R-rated movies coming out these days. Also, I imagine that in ancient warfare, beheadings and impalings actually did happen...what did you think they'd look like on film? Probably something like what I saw in 300.

Is this some sort of secret Red State/Conservative conspiracy?
The 300 graphic novel (aka long long comic book) came out in 1998, so I'm sure Frank Miller was not writing a cleverly disguised pro or anti Iraq war story. I think, though, that conservatives are identifying with a story of bravery and self sacrifice just as they did in 2004 with The Passion. It wasn't planned like that, it just happens. People like myself are looking for clarity of vision. If a foreign army marches into my city and threatens me with slavery, I don't need to hear their sympathetic backstory to know that I have only but to defend myself. Read the National Review article on 300 here

The high point of the movie for me, I'm sure the part that makes the multi-culturalists most squeamish came in the end, when the movie comes back to the character Dilios (incidentally also the same actor who played Faramir in the LOTR movies, David Wenham) in the present who had been telling the story of the 300 in a flashback. Reminiscent of Edmund Burke, Dilios explains how the 300 warriors fought to defend their homeland because that was the Spartan code they followed, and how, Greece remains the best hope for free people in the face of Persian "mysticism and tyrrany." Such remorseless nationalism! Nationalism, for Burke, was a natural instinct to defend one's homeland. We love our nation because it is indeed lovely. That was how things used to be.

The movie 300 is a reminder that at one time, men did indeed fight for the freedom of their homelands in the face of certain death and annihilation, and willingly gave their lives for the greater good.
~Steve

Adam Smith's Big Three

"Number one was that Smith exploded the notion that people could only enrich themselves at the expense of others. Not so, said Smith. Wealth is created by specialization and exchange.

Number two was the invisible hand, that spontaneous ordering of society which means that when we act in our legitimate self-interest, we often benefit countless others we shall never meet. When we buy we unwittingly create employment and pay wages. When we sell we provide other people with goods they value more than the money they part with.

Number three, from the Theory of Moral Sentiments, is that the most striking characteristic of humankind is our propensity to empathize with our fellow men and women, feeling sadness at their grief and pleasure at their happiness. The three points, taken together, amount to a powerful social philosophy and gave the world not only the scientific study of economics, but an understanding of how human beings interact with each other. Truly a powerful contribution."
Adamsmith.org

Youth Embracing Orthodox Forms of Religion

I wouldn't consider myself more "devout" than my parents. I will concede, however, that my brothers and I became more interested in the theology of the Orthodox Church than my parents who were more than willing to just accept the Church as it was. I've been very lucky to grow up in a house where life was centered around our family prayers in the evening.
~Steve

"While statistics on the number of devout young people are hard to come by, some groups that minister to the young report big gains. Young Life, an evangelical Christian ministry that focuses on children "disinterested" in religion, says more than 106,000 teens attended its programs on a weekly basis during the 2005-2006 school year, up from 66,362 12 years ago. "Mecca and Main Street," a new book by Geneive Abdo, a senior analyst at the Gallup Organization's Center for Muslim Studies, argues that a significant number of young U.S. Muslims are becoming substantially more devoted to Islam than their parents. In the Jewish community, a growing number of formerly secular young people are embracing an Orthodox lifestyle.

This issue is especially fraught in immigrant communities. Magdalena Ramos, 48, and her late husband came to Los Angeles from Honduras 24 years ago to provide economic opportunity for their children. "Every parent wants their child to have more money," says Mrs. Ramos, a housekeeper who didn't raise her son, Abner, with religion. During his sophomore year at the University of California at Los Angeles, Abner declared that he had decided to devote his life to Christ. But she became disappointed when Abner decided to forgo his plans of becoming a psychologist in favor of low-paying ministry work. Though Mrs. Ramos says she is proud that her son is "a good Christian," she had thought he would be the first person in the family with a professional career. He also had told her when he was a boy that he'd one day help support her. Says Abner, who now is 29: "My mom's dreams for me are inconsistent with the callings God has for me."

Tom Lin's parents, immigrants from Taiwan, sent him to Harvard University with the expectation he would become a corporate attorney. When he instead opted for a much lower-paying career in a Christian ministry, his mother threatened to kill herself, says Mr. Lin, 34, a regional director for InterVarsity, a college ministry that has 843 chapters in the U.S. Mr. Lin adds that both parents cut off all communication with him for seven years, reconnecting only after his mother was diagnosed with cancer. (She died in 2002.) Mr. Lin says his choices were "shaming" to the values held within many immigrant cultures. His parents "moved to America for material prosperity," says Mr. Lin. "When [immigrants'] children forsake the very reason they came to this country, it's particularly devastating.""
(complete article)
-Katherine Rosman

Protestant vs. Catholic Heaven :)