One Such as Thee, Ned Flanders...

Today on American college and high school campuses, the name most associated with the word Christian—other than Jesus—is not the Pope or Mother Teresa or even Billy Graham. Instead, it's a goofy-looking guy named Ned Flanders on the animated sitcom known as The Simpsons. The mustache, thick glasses, green sweater, and irrepressibly cheerful demeanor of Ned Flanders, Homer Simpson's next-door neighbor, have made him an indelible figure, the evangelical known most intimately to nonevangelicals.

A 1999 survey conducted by Roper Starch Worldwide found that 91 percent of American children between the ages of 10 and 17 could identify members of the Simpson family; 84 percent of adults could identify them. In each case, this was a greater percentage of children and adults than could identify then-Vice President Al Gore. Many evangelicals would have no difficulty in recognizing Ned and his family as their own. Gerry Bowler, professor of philosophy at Canadian Nazarene College in Calgary and chairman of the Center for the Study of Christianity and Contemporary Values, calls Flanders "television's most effective exponent of a Christian life well-lived."
- Mark Pinsky, Christianity Today

Glenn Beck owns RFK Jr.

It's Not About the Crusades- CT

In addition, Western Christians feel deep guilt over the Crusades, even though, as Sanneh says, Arab historians give the Crusades (which they refer to as the wars with the Franks) little notice. These incursions, mostly rebuffed by the Muslims, pale in comparison to the Mongol invasion under Genghis Khan.

Sanneh urges Western Christians to move beyond the guilt of the past. The global picture has changed, after all. Although the worldwide percentage of Christians has declined only slightly, from 35 percent in 1800 to 33 percent today, the geographical shift has been immense. While Christianity lost 800 million adherents in the 20th century—mostly in Europe and the former Soviet Union—explosive growth in places like Africa and China replaced them. (Sanneh acknowledges that this explosive growth occurred only after colonialism ended.)- Philip Yancey

Catholicity...not Catholicism

“And the Church is called ‘catholic’ for being in the entire world from one end of the earth to the other and for teaching wholly “KATHOLIKOS” and lacking nothing of all the doctrines that must become part of man’s knowledge… and for subjecting every race of men… to godliness and for curing completely (KATHOLIKOS) and healing every sort of sin, commited either through the soul or the body, and for being of possession of every notion of virtue in word or in deed that can be named, as well as every spiritual gift.” - St. Cyril of Jerusalem (stolen from here...image stolen from here)

The Church is Catholic, but not Roman. Can we be one Church confessing the same creeds and professing the same doctrine while also remaining relevant on a local basis? I do not blame the Pope for making no secret that the Roman Catholics believe that their Church is the one true Church. In a position of power, I imagine we Orthodox would do the same.

No, my major complaint with the Roman Catholics, and with many MANY Orthodox in general is the belief that one particular bishop would have a unique preeminence over all others. Orthodox would complain about the monarchical position of the Pope in the Catholic Church in the face of the collegiality of all bishops. However I am also convinced that many Orthodox would like to overthrow the cult of the Pope in favor of another cult of some other Patriarch/Catholicos.

The heart of Orthodoxy is and has always been that the head of the Church is first and foremost Christ who sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost over all his Apostles equally, allowing the fullness of the Church to be experienced completely in the Eucharistic community built around each Apostle and their successors. To be a successor to an apostle, however, means to assume overseership (episkopos), but not the individual characteristics of that apostle. St. John the Beloved of Christ outlived all the other of the original 12, but does that mean that the successors to Peter could claim preeminence over the Apostle who followed Christ to his Crucifixion?

St. Ignatius wrote that the Catholic Church is wherever the Bishop is. In the book of Acts, we find that the Apostles met together collegially (ie as a synod) in the case of major cross cutting Church issues. It is my opinion that the fullness of the Church can be contextualized on a local basis in a Church built around a local bishop who reports to the authority of the Church as manifested by the congress of bishops. In doing so, we can maintain Oneness and Catholicity while also being direct, local, and relevant; keeping to our call to bring the Faith to all nations.

In saying all this, it is my hope and dream for there to be a unique, English speaking, autonomous, and vigorously evangelistic American Orthodox Church growing out of the Indian Orthodox communities here in this nation. We have all the resources we need at our disposal. The need is not something for tomorrow, but developing an American face to our Church must be the end all to everything we do. We are after all Americans?

When will we be independent? When we start acting like it!
-Steve K

Bumper Sticker Theology...

from Ortho-dixie

But if YOU were the Pope...

You'd probably say the same thing

Saw Richard Dawkins on TV today...

He was debating Bill O'Reilly

Bill's not the best apologist but he stood his ground.

I've only recently been introduced to Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the evangelical atheists. I did notice however that Dawkins puts a good deal of faith in scientific progress. He says that science and reason are working on one day finding all the answers. So in the end, his atheism does have some sort of eschatological dimension. His faith is in the fact that humanity is sufficient enough to solve humanity's problems. Is humanity progressing somewhere? And if so, where is it progressing to? Is it really rational to believe in the infinite capacity of science? It seems hard to deny that scientific progress in the 20th Century coincided with a greater capacity to do evil on wider scales (by atheists, incidentally).

I am not saying that science has not made us materially better off over the ages, but I will not say that man has substantially changed in his virtues and vices over the course of history. I can not say that I am more enlightened than everyone that has lived before me, but rather I simply have more past to look back upon. Moreover, I do not think that atheism, or the negation of religion has somehow freed us of dogma and irrationality. Instead, the belief in the fallenness of man who is in need of healing and redemption has been replaced by a belief in the unlimited capacity of man in a world that has ceased believing in sin.
-Steve K

Theological Hairsplitting

A former OCF priest of mine told me about the following exchange between a priest and a layman on the fine points of theology:

"Father, all these arguments...it's like they're all just splitting hairs"
"Well, you must understand, these are important hairs"

I understand if things that are subject to interpretation can be interpreted in different ways. However, what I can't say is that every interpretation has the same truth to it. Especially if I believe that God has revealed Himself in a particular way to His particular people, then I can't say that anything about His revelation is especially subjective.

For example either God exists as the Trinity or He does not. But He can't be both a Trinity and a strict Unity at the same time. Either the Blessed Virgin gave birth to Christ in His full divinity and His full humanity at the same time or she did not. The Eucharist is either the body and blood of our Savior or it is not. I'm sure there are scriptural supports for either side of any theological argument. However, since we are dealing with a real God and not simply a beautifully written work of fiction, we have no choice but to say that there can be only one truth about Him.

Lex orandi, lex credendi; our rule of prayer is determined by our rule of belief. Our theology has a direct bearing on our worship (at least for the Orthodox...that's why our Services keep going...). Even things we would consider hairsplitting will have a direct effect on the worship of the Church.

I am not throwing Ecumenism by the wayside. However I am saying that a healthy and edifying Christian Ecumenism is one that finds common theological grounds between the churches, studies the common heritage of the unbroken Church, and looks to articulate the true Faith of the apostles in a way that neither compromises a particular theological point nor avoids controversial issues of confict.

I have not personally been part of any such real Ecumenical movement. I have attended many ecumenical fellowships though, where Christians of various denominations get together to NOT do things; not venerate saints, not discuss liturgical heritage, not study the "touchy" parts of the Bible, not really deal with anything that would actually challenge the believer to think abstractly. However, I do believe that quality ecumenical groups do exist. I have become a huge fan of the apologetics of GK Chesterton and CS Lewis because I feel those two authors deal with the practical every day life truths of the Chrisitan Faith in a way that proclaims the gospel while also embracing Christian Tradition (read touchstonemag!)

There are a great many things that Christians can find common ground on, especially in the realm of the rape of Christian values (yeah...I went there) in secular progressive society. However, what I'm not willing to say is that theological differences between Christians don't matter at all. Division in search for the real truth is much better than a unity based on a compromise in which the truth is sacrificed for argument's sake.
- Steve K