AGORA: A Film About Hypatia of Alexandria

Oh boy! Get ready for another controversial segment of Church history to be debated this year.

At this years Cannes Film Festival there was a gala red carpet screening for a movie about the notorious pagan philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria titled Agora. The film is directed by Alejandro Amenábar -- director of The Sea Inside (2004), The Others (2001) and Open Your Eyes (1997), the last of which was remade as Vanilla Sky (2001) -- and interestingly stars Rachel Weisz who plays Hypatia. According to IMDB.com, it is slated for release on December 18th of this year. The same site gives the following synopsis.

"A historical drama set in Roman Egypt, concerning a slave who turns to the rising tide of Christianity in the hopes of pursuing freedom while also falling in love with his master, the famous female philosophy professor and atheist Hypatia of Alexandria."

The trailer can be seen on the official site here or the Youtube video below:

To get my positive remarks out of the way, I must say first of all that the cinematography looks impressive. And the topic of Hypatia of Alexandria for a film is an interesting idea. Did I mention the cinematography looks great?

Ok, I find it hard to get excited about this film. I already see yet another rewriting of history to fit someones agenda and make an otherwise fascinating true story into something that is relevant for today, yet lost in the mythology of modern storytelling. To be fair however, I have not seen the movie and it is too early to say just how this movie will approach the material.

From the synopsis of the film a few errors can already be pointed out. The slave mentioned is a character named Orestes, who is played by Oscar Isaac and previously starred in The Nativity Story (2006). Historically Orestes was not a slave, but the Imperial Prefect of Alexandria. I hope that they do not show a love affair between Orestes and Hypatia because Hypatia was a virgin for the sake of intellectual pursuits and was noted many times for shunning all advances made by hopeful suitors - to the point where she would even show them her menstrual rag to turn them off!

I find it curious that they describe Hypatia as an atheist. As far as I know, there is no evidence to suggest she was an atheist. As a Neoplatonist she almost surely believed in a god, and most histories even refer to her as a pagan. According to the director, the film is primarily an attack against fundamentalism. Could it be then that in order to make this film relevant to contemporary issues, the writers really made this film fit into a clash between atheism and fundamentalism, science and faith? I have little doubt. Do atheists and materialists have to dig so deep as to mythologize history in order to create its martyrs? Apparently so.

According to IMDB.com, Sami Samir is slated to play St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria. He also was in The Nativity Story as the thief on the Cross. Most historians have a very biased view of Cyril when it comes to his relationship with Hypatia. In fact, they accuse him of instigating a Christian mob to kill her by tearing her to pieces. If the majority of historians are biased, I can only suspect this film will be too. The fact of the matter is that one pagan historian of the time found an opportunity to accuse the Christian Patriarch of the murder, and slandered his name. No other historian seems to mention this, but modern historians tend to lean towards the more seedy tale and promote it as truth. There is not even a verifiable historical link between St. Cyril and the murder of Hypatia.

The truth of the matter is that the most reliable historical witnesses mention that the Christians of Alexandria admired Hypatia. Yet, as the 5th century historian Socrates Scholasticus states, Hypatia "fell victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed". Hypatia was not killed by religious fanatics who wanted to kill an intimidating intellectual woman, or an atheist or even a pagan. Hypatia was killed by a mob that happened to be Christian, as most were in Alexandria at the time, because the mob believed she helped fuel a division between Cyril and Orestes. Orestes, a Christian himself, had tried to silence the voice of Cyril in secular matters out of jealousy, and Hypatia, as a non-christian pagan, supported Orestes. This caused some over-zealous Christians who supported Cyril to seize her and kill her in retaliation for the murder of Monk Ammianus who threw a stone at Orestes and ignited his wrath. It should be pointed out that historians of the time mention that both Pagans and Christians of the time in Alexandria tended to be over-zealous in political matters and Christians were still being murdered there at larger rates by Pagans and Jews then vice versa. In other words, the murder of Hypatia was caused by fanatics on a political rather religious level.

It will be interesting to see how Agora will treat these very sensitive historical matters. Most interesting of all is how they will depict St. Cyril and the conflict between science and faith. With Rachel Weisz in the picture this multi-million dollar film will surely get at least a moderate release, enough to ignite some controversy and discussion in these matters.

Hypatia, as depicted by Raphael

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Did Members of the Bilderberg Group Plot World Domination This Weekend?

Astir Palace, site of this weekends Bilderberg gathering

To be honest, I can't say for sure. In fact no one can say for sure, since the meeting is closed to all outsiders except those who have a very exclusive invitation which include top politicians, bankers and business leaders. My hunch however is probably they made no plot for world domination.

Between May 14 - 17 the annual Bilderberg meeting took place, this year in Athens, Greece amidst very tight security surrounding every inch of the Astir Palace, a luxury hotel in the suburban resort of Vouliagmeni. The group meets annually at luxury hotels or resorts throughout the world — normally in Europe, and once every four years in the United States or Canada. It has an office in Leiden in the Netherlands.

Dozens of police kept the press and public at bay. According to reports: "A Greek navy launch and boats carrying elite divers could be seen a few meters off the coast of the peninsula where the hotel stands." Greek newspapers said the group had also asked for the protection of two F-16 warplanes and a police helicopter.

Though there is no official disclosure as to who attended this meeting, reporters claim to have spotted the following elite: Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis; U.S. State Department number two James Steinberg; U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; the director of the U.S. National Economic Council, Larry Summers; the Obama administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke; World Bank President Robert Zoellick; European Commission head Jose Manuel Barroso; European Central Bank president Jean-Claude Trichet; Queen Sofia of Spain and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands. Old time staples such as Henry Kissinger was there also, as well as a newcomer, Google CEO Eric Schmidt. The guest list usually includes about 130 people.

The Associated Press reports that the meeting this weekend met with several dozen Greek demonstrators outside the Astir Palace. According to the report: "The demonstrators, from Greece's right-wing Popular Orthodox Rally party, shouted slogans and held a large banner saying 'Bilderberg Unwelcome' outside the hotel...One demonstrator was arrested when the group tried to break through a police cordon. 'We came here to protest this anti-Greek meeting,' Argyris Sideris, a regional party secretary, told the Associated Press. 'We need to do something to protect our country.' Outside the hotel on Friday, Greek Communist Party members conducted a peaceful demonstration against the Bilderberg Group.

Why all the fuss about a meeting with top politicians and business people?

The Biderberg Group has its origins in 1954 when Polish political adviser Joseph Retinger, former Belgian prime minister Paul van Zeeland and former Unilever chief executive Paul Rijkens organized the first meeting at the Hotel Bilderberg in the Netherlands to unite European and U.S. elites amid growing transatlantic tensions. The success of the meeting led the organizers to arrange an annual conference inviting the most influential people of Europe and America on the political and business level.

The participants talk about a variety of global issues - economic, military, and political. According to the group rules, the members talk on one specific subject for 7 minutes, and comments, additions or questions may be introduced by the rest within 1 minute. Their only obligation is not to publish or disclose anything discussed. A record is then made of the discussions in which, however, the name of the speaker is never published. The official language is English, and the conversation notes are later published in a book.

Officially the meeting is private to "encourage frank and open discussion". An informal "steering committee" is supposed to pick the 130 or so attendees who are said to be invited solely for their knowledge, experience and standing and "with reference to the topics on the agenda".

What sets Bilderberg apart from other high-powered get-togethers, such as the annual World Economic Forum (WEF), is its mystique. Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the group is frequently accused of secretive and nefarious world plots and conspiracies.

But "privacy, rather than secrecy", is key to such a meeting says Financial Times journalist Martin Wolf, who has been invited several times in a non-reporting role. "The idea that such meetings cannot be held in private is fundamentally totalitarian," he says. "It's not an executive body; no decisions are taken there."

"There's absolutely nothing in it", says Dennis Healey, one of the original four founders of the Biderberg Group. "We never sought to reach a consensus on the big issues at Bilderberg. It's simply a place for discussion."

Former Bilderberger Jack Sheinkman, chairman of the Amalgamated Bank in the US, has admitted: "Yes, in some cases discussions do have an impact of world affairs, such as when the group discussed a single European currency before it was policy".

Since the Bilderberg Group only meets once a year over a period of just a few days, is it reasonable to suggest that this elite group plots world domination by making decisions that will influence all of us with no democratic control in such a short period of time? To me it seems irrational to suggest such a thing since no hard evidence has come forward over all these years to prove such a theory.

In fact, attendees have included those who are not quite on the same page as the alleged Bilderberg "consensus," who presumably would have been well-placed to "blow the whistle" on a conspiracy if it, in fact, existed. "These are carefully selected people of influence, who have been openly critical of globalisation. Examples are Jonathan Porritt (Bilderberg 1999) and Will Hutton (Bilderberg 1997) but there are many others. Most of these kinds of participants are happy to speak about the conference afterwards, and may even be refreshingly critical."

A good question to ask is where is the evidence of this global rule. The self-acknowledged chairman of Bilderberg in 2005, Viscount Etienne Davignon, told the BBC: "Bilderberg does not try to reach conclusions - it does not try to say 'what we should do'. Everyone goes away with their own feeling and that allows the debate to be completely open, quite frank - and to see what the differences are."

As one commentator writes: "So we have a 'conspiracy' that routinely double-crosses its members, like Gates/Microsoft and Shapiro/Monsanto. It also advocates transparent financial and international relations. It includes people from diametrically opposed viewpoints in real life like George Soros and George Bush Sr. as well as European socialists and European free market advocates. So either the entire world as it can be empirically observed is an illusion or the unsubstantiated and illogical notion that there is a secret group of Bilderberg elite that rule the world is bogus. Tough choice?"

However I will not be so bold to say that nothing significant happens at the Bilderberg meeting. I prefer to be a bit more middle of the road. I see no reason to disbelieve the participants merely exchange ideas of relevance. But why such secrecy? What kind of oath do they have to make to keep this meeting secret? It seems unjustified. Even illegal.

The legality of such meetings can be questioned according to United States law. The Logan Act forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. In his website, Senator Ron Paul says: "Are U.S. officials violating the "Logan Act" if they attend the current Bilderberg meeting in Athens? Would the "Freedom for Information Act" give reporters/citizens access to flights or cost associated with attending? Thereby proving any U.S official presence?" I have to admit, the Senator brings up a valid question.

This years meeting does seem a bit more exposed however. Some details can be read here. What I found most surprising was that a third of the participants invited didn't even show up this year, citing security reasons.

Is the Bilderberg meeting about discussion or domination? Maybe its just a little bit of both.

To conclude I would just like to add some food for thought - Isn't it odd that the Bilderberg meeting this year took place on a weekend when Europe is distracted by its Eurovision contest and America is distracted by the movie release of Angels & Demons which illustrates the ridiculousness of conspiracy theories such as world domination and the notorious Illuminati (who some claim lead the Bilderberg Group)? Maybe I'm fueling the fire of conspiracy, but it's only a question.

A video which fuels speculation regarding the intentions of the Bilderberg Group in Athens

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

P.T. Barnum vs. the Brooklyn Bridge

Another illustration of the effects of mass hysteria:

Tomorrow marks the 125th Anniversary of a rather strange event on the world-famous Brooklyn Bridge in New York City, New York. On May 17, 1884, famed showman P.T. Barnum decided to unleash a public spectacle by leading a menagerie of his circus animals across the still relatively young landmark. The train of animals included seven camels, ten one-humped Arabian camels, and 21 elephants, including the world famous Jumbo - a large African bush elephant that stood at an estimated 11-13 feet. The event was naturally well publicized and a massive crowd was said to have roared in applause as the convoy made its way across the bridge.

So why the need for such a spectacle? The Brooklyn Bridge had only opened one year earlier and questions about the bridge's stability started almost immediately. Tragically, those fears led to tragedy less than a week after its opening. On May 30, 1883, the bridge was loaded with people when a rumor went through the crowd that the bridge was about to collapse. The frightened crowd immediately made way for either side of the bridge and a stampede occurred. Officials were finally able to restore order over fifteen minutes later, but the damage had already been done. 12 people had either been trampled to death or died after being pushed into the river below, while another 35 were injured. Just short of one year later and "...in the interest of the dear public," P.T. Barnum and his circus arrived to prove once and for all that the bridge was safe. The stunt worked and the questions about the stability of the structure were silenced.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Saint Pachomios the Great and Founder of Cenobitic Monasticism

Reading from the Synaxarion of May 15th:

Saint Pachomius was born of pagan parents in the Upper Thebaid of Egypt. He was conscripted into the Roman army at an early age. While quartered with the other soldiers in the prison in Thebes, Pachomius was astonished at the kindness shown them by the local Christians, who relieved their distress by bringing them food and drink. Upon inquiring who they were, he believed in Christ and vowed that once delivered from the army, he would serve Him all the days of his life. Released from military service, about the year 313, he was baptized, and became a disciple of the hermit Palamon, under whose exacting guidance he increased in virtue and grace, and reached such a height of holiness that "because of the purity of his heart," says his biographer, "he was, as it were, seeing the invisible God as in a mirror." His renown spread far, and so many came to him to be his disciples that he founded nine monasteries in all, filled with many thousands of monks, to whom he gave a rule of life, which became the pattern for all communal monasticism after him. While Saint Anthony the Great is the father of hermits, Saint Pachomius is the founder of the cenobitic life in Egypt; because Pachomius had founded a way of monasticism accessible to so many, Anthony said that he "walks the way of the Apostles." Saint Pachomius fell asleep in the Lord before his contemporaries Anthony and Athanasius the Great, in the year 346. His name in Coptic, Pachom, means "eagle."

The Rule Of Saint Pachomios as revealed to him from an angel of the Lord:
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, & Part 4

Select Apophthegmata:

--The great Pachomios was asked once by a brother, ‘Why is it that before the demon comes to trouble us, we possess our mind’s understanding in a healthy state and we philosophize about temperance, humility, and the other virtues, but when the hour comes to display in deed what we have been philosophizing about, such as longsuffering in the time of anger, absence of vainglory when subjected to praise, and many other similar things, we are often defeated?’ In answer to this the Great Man said, ‘Because we do not pursue the active life perfectly—that is why we do not understand all the demons’ mind and versatility well enough to be able, when the Troubler manifests his presence, to repel swiftly the confusion of such thoughts which surrounds us by the contemplative power of the soul. Therefore,’ he said, ‘let us pour the fear of God like oil upon the contemplative part of the soul, every day and every hour. That fear, which accomplishes works and is a lamp for the contemplation of the things that concern us, makes our mind unshakable, not carried away by anger, wrath, rancor, and any of the other passions which lead us to wickedness. It makes it contemplative and raises it to that incorporeal region; it forces it to hold in contempt the things which are wrought by devils and prepares it to "tread underfoot serpents and scorpions and all the whole strength of the enemy"' (Luke 10:19).

--Once, while living in the desert, Pachomios learned that the city of Alexandria was being ravaged by famine and epidemic. He spent several days in tears, not even eating the meager ration of food which he allowed himself. His novices begged him to eat and restore his strength but St Pachomios replied, "How can I eat when my brethren do not have bread?" How far are even the best of us from such love and commiseration?

--Pachomios memorized the Holy Scriptures. When he started reciting God’s words by heart, he did not do it in the fashion of many other people, but he strove to comprehend it himself, each and every thing through humility, gentleness and truth, according to the Lord’s word, “Learn from me, for I am gentle and humble of heart" (Matthew 11:29).

--Pachomios was…in the habit of stretching his arms out in prayer, without folding them soon again into a resting position, but rather keeping them stretched out, as if on a cross, in order to force the body to labor and stay awake in prayer.

--Pachomios believed that “it was not good to ask for office and glory” and, wary of ecclesiastical politics, felt that “a clerical office is the beginning of contemplation of the lust for power”.

--As the Vita Prima Graeca informs us, the few monks of the early days of the Pachomian community marveled at him exceedingly, because they saw him toiling…through his assumption of nearly all the care of the monastery. For he prepared the table for them at mealtime…he sowed and watered the vegetables…he answered the door every time someone would knock at it…if any one of them were sick, Pachomios himself took care of him and ministered to him during the night…he freed them of all care.

--One day Pachomios was weaving a rush mat in Tabennesis and a boy came to the weekly service in the monastery. When the boy saw him weaving, he told him, ‘Not so father! Do not turn the thread this way. Father Theodore showed us another style of weaving.’ Pachomios rose and said to the boy: ‘Yes, teach me this style.’ After the boy taught him, he sat to work gladly, having even in this matter anticipated the spirit of arrogance. If his way were the way of the flesh, he would not have cared but would even have reprimanded the child for having spoken out of turn.

--It was while Pachomios was in the desert alone, praying to be taught God’s perfect will, (that) an angel sent by the Lord appeared to him…and (said) ‘The Lord’s will is to minister to the race of men and to reconcile them to him.’ It was after he thought about the voice which he had heard and realized its meaning (that) he started to receive those who came to him.

--The wife of one of the area’s leading politicians was bleeding. And when she heard about the great Pachomios, she asked…Dionysios to summon him. After the Great Man was summoned, he sat inside the church…and she…coming near him…touched the cowl on his head and was immediately cured.

--Elder Pachomios would say: "He who in my view is a sinner is not to ask of God to see visions. For without God’s will, visions are misleading…hear now about a great vision: it is a great vision to see a pure and humble man. For what is greater…than to see the invisible God in the visible man who is his temple".

--Abba Psenthaisios, Abba Souros and Abba Psoios used to agree in saying this: “Whenever we listened to the words of our father, Abba Pachomios, we were greatly helped…(and) we saw how, even when he kept silence, he taught us by his actions. We were amazed by him and we used to say to each other: ‘We thought that all the saints were created as saints by God and never changed from their mother’s womb, not like other men. We thought that sinners could not live devoutly, because they had been so created. But now we see the goodness of our God manifested in our father: for see, he is of pagan origin and he has become devout; he has put on all the commandments of God. Thus even we also can follow him and become equal to the saints whom he himself has followed.’”

Apolytikion in the Plagal of the First Tone
Thou didst prove a chief pastor of the Chief Shepherd, Christ, guiding the flocks of monastics unto the heavenly fold, whence thou learntest of the habit and the way of life that doth befit ascetic ranks; having taught this to thy monks, thou now dancest and rejoicest with them in heavenly dwellings, O great Pachomius, our Father and guide.

Kontakion in the Second Tone
Since thou hadst shown forth the life of the Angels while in a body, O God-bearing Pachomius, thou wast also counted worthy of their glory; and with them thou standest before the Lord's throne, interceding that divine forgiveness be granted unto all.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Feast of Mid-Pentecost and the Pentecostarion

The fifty days following Pascha until the Feast of Pentecost are known as the period of the Pentecostarion in the Orthodox Church. At the mid-point between these great feasts of Pascha and Pentecost, on the twenty-fifth day which is always a Wedneday, is one of the most beloved feasts for the most devout Orthodox Christians known quit simply as Mid-Pentecost. Mid-Pentecost is to the Pentecostarion what the Third Sunday of Great Lent which honors the Holy Cross is to the period of Great Lent. It is a day which helps us focus on the central theme of the entire period. Whereas the mid-point of Great Lent reminds us to bear up the Cross of Christ bravely so that we may daily die with Christ in order to experience the Resurrection of our Lord, so also the mid-point of the Pentecostarion enlightens us regarding the theme of the fifty days following Pascha - which is the acquisition of the Holy Spirit poured out as a gift upon all the faithful who partake of the living water which is Christ Himself.

The central theme woven throughout the period of the Pentecostarion therefore is water. This becomes the central theme of the period because it is the central theme of the Gospel of John which we read in its entirety during the Pentecostarion and which naturally flows into the Acts of the Apostles which is also read during this period in its entirety. This theme appears for the first time on Pascha itself in the joyous Canon of the Feast of Feasts written by Saint John the Damascene when he invites us to "drink a new drink," not "brought forth from a barren rock," as in the Old Testament under Moses, but which rather "springeth forth from the grave of Christ." Then during the Paschal Divine Liturgy the priest processes with the Gospel and chants loudly from Psalm 67:27 saying: "In the congregations bless ye God, the Lord from the well-springs of Israel."

When Renewal or Bright Week is over the Church wisely sets up two Sundays in which to abolish all doubts concerning the Resurrection of Christ, that of the Sunday of Saint Thomas and the Sunday of the Myrrh-bearing Women. This is done in order to ensure that we all partake of the living water that only the risen Lord can give. The following three Sundays, as we approach Pentecost, the theme of water becomes more and more central in the hymns of the Church. Thus we are found one Sunday at the Sheep's Pool with the Paralytic, then at the Well of Jacob with the Samaritan Woman, and finally at the Pool of Siloam with the Blind Man. During this festive period we hear concerning the "living water" which if one partakes of "he will never thirst". We are taught that it is our Savior Himself who is this living water, and we partake of Him through the baptismal waters and the Cup of Life which issued forth from His side at His crucifixion unto remission of sins and life everlasting. Then on Pentecost we have grace rained upon our parched souls and bodies so that we may be fruitful and have a great harvest as we hear from the holy Gospel on that day: "If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink". Finally the Pentecostarion concludes with the Feast of All Saints, that is those who partook of the "waters of piety", which is the harvest of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

The Fathers teach us that the feast of Mid-Pentecost stands in the middle of the fifty-day period from Pascha to Pentecost as a mighty flowing river of divine grace which have these two great feasts as its source. Pascha and Pentecost are united in Mid-Pentecost. Without Pascha there is no Pentecost and without Pentecost there is no purpose to Pascha.

We read the following entry in The Great Horologion that further explains the details of the feast:

"After the Saviour had miraculously healed the paralytic, the Jews, especially the Pharisees and Scribes, were moved to envy and persecuted Him, and sought to slay Him, using the excuse that He did not keep the Sabbath, since He worked miracles on that day. Jesus then departed to Galilee. About the middle of the Feast of Tabernacles, He went up again to the Temple and taught. The Jews, marveling at the wisdom of His words, said, 'how knoweth this man letters, having never learned?' But Christ first reproached their unbelief and lawlessness, then proved to them by the Law that they sought to slay Him unjustly, supposedly as a despiser of the Law, since He had healed the paralytic on the Sabbath.

"Therefore, since the things spoken of by Christ in the middle of the Feast of the Tabernacles are related to the Sunday of the Paralytic that is just passed, and since we have already reached the midpoint of the fifty days between Pascha and Pentecost, the Church has appointed this present feast as a bond between the two great Feasts, thereby uniting, as it were, the two into one, and partaking of the grace of them both. Therefore today’s feast is called Mid‐Pentecost, and the Gospel Reading, 'At Mid‐feast'—though it refers to the Feast of the Tabernacles—is used.

"It should be noted that there were three great Jewish feasts: the Passover, the Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles. Passover was celebrated on the 15th of Nissan, the first month of the Jewish calendar, which roughly coincides with our March. This feast commemorated that day on which the Hebrews were commanded to eat the lamb in the evening and anoint the doors of its houses with its blood. Then, having escaped bondage and death at the hands of the Egyptians, they passed through the Red Sea to come to the Promised Land. It is called 'the feast of Unleavened Bread,' because they ate unleavened bread for seven days. Pentecost was celebrated fifty days after Passover, first of all, because the Hebrew tribes had reached Mount Sinai after leaving Egypt, and there received the Law from God; secondly, it was celebrated to commemorate their entry into the Promised Land, where also they ate bread, after having been fed with manna forty years in the desert. Therefore, on this day they offered to God a sacrifice of bread prepared with new wheat. Finally, they also celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles from the 15th to the 22nd of 'the seventh month,' which corresponds roughly to our September. During this time, they lived in booths made of branches in commemoration of the forty years they spent in the desert, living in tabernacles, that is, in tents (Ex. 12:10‐20; Lev. 23 LXX). "

The Feast of Mid-Pentecost is celebrated for an entire week until the following Wednesday, making it an eight day feast. During this entire time the hymns of Mid-Pentecost are joined with that of Pascha. Because of the theme of water, traditionally the Church celebrates the Lesser Blessing of the Waters on this day, preferably with a procession with the Holy Cross to a water spring.

The theme of the feast not only invokes water, but even more central to the Gospel chronology it honors Christ as Teacher and Wisdom as He reveals Himself between the stories of the Paralytic and that of the Blind Man. During this time we are told: "Now about the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught...Jesus answered them, and said, 'My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself'" (John 7:14-30). The icon for this feast depicts the young Jesus teaching the elders in the Temple (Luke 2:46, 47) at which time Jesus first revealed Himself as a teacher or rabbi. Traditional Orthodox icons will depict Jesus as larger than the elders, showing his superior spiritual status.

Since the hymns of the Church invoke and praise our Lord as the Wisdom of God spoken of in the Book of Proverbs, it is traditional that all churches named after Holy Wisdom or Hagia Sophia celebrate their feast on this day. In fact, Greek scholar Constantine Kalokyre has written a study titled "The Churches of the Wisdom of God and the Date of their Celebration", which appeared in the periodical Saint Gregory Palamas, no. 71 (723) (1988), pp. 538-617. In this study he comes to the conclusion that the Great Church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople celebrated its feast day on Mid-Pentecost.

Apolytikion in the Plagal of the Fourth Tone
Midway in the feast, refresh my thirsty soul with the flowing waters of piety. For You cried out to all, O Savior, "Let him who thirsts come to me and drink." You, O Christ our God, are the Fountain of Life, glory to You.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Holy Cross Faculty Statement on the Ecumenical Patriarchate

[Finally a statement that gives the correct interpretation of Canon 28 of the Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon approved by the faculty of Holy Cross School of Theology in Brookline, MA. A must read for all Orthodox of all jurisdictions in America! May God unify us all in the so-called diaspora according to the prescribed canons of the Holy Fathers! J.S.]

The Leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and
The Significance of Canon 28 of Chalcedon

A Statement by the Faculty
Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology

Brookline, Massachusetts
April 30, 2009

The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is the preeminent Church in the communion of the fourteen Autocephalous Orthodox Churches. Reflecting the witness of St. Andrew, the First Called Apostle, the enduring mission of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is to proclaim the salutary Gospel of Jesus Christ in accordance with the Apostolic and Orthodox Faith.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate has a particular responsibility to strengthen the unity of the Orthodox Churches and to coordinate their common witness. At the same time, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has a specific responsibility to care for the faithful in lands beyond the borders of the other Autocephalous Churches. This is a ministry of service to the entire Church which the Ecumenical Patriarchate undertakes in accordance with the canons and often under difficult circumstances.

The Faculty of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology profoundly regrets that statements recently have been made which misinterpret the canonical prerogatives and distort historical facts related to the distinctive ministry of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Indeed, some injudicious remarks have insulted the person of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and have attempted to diminish the significance of his ministry.

These statements, made by bishops, priests and laity, have been widely distributed. Regretfully, they have done little to advance the cause of Orthodox unity and the witness of the Church today. Indeed, some observations have misrepresented the traditional basis of Orthodox ecclesiology. They contradict the admonition of St. Paul that “all things should be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40).

Principles of Ecclesiastical Organization

The Church, chiefly through the Ecumenical Councils, has established significant principles of ecclesiastical organization. These principles are expressed in the canons of the Councils and in subsequent historical practices which have been sanctioned by the Church. These principles support the proclamation of the Gospel and strengthen the good order of the Church.

The Ecumenical Patriarch has been accorded specific prerogatives of witness and service from the time of the fourth century. This was a period when the Church was able explicitly to provide for canonical structures following the period of great persecution of the first three centuries. These prerogatives form the basis for his ministry to the entire Orthodox Church. These prerogatives distinguish the responsibilities of the Ecumenical Patriarch from other bishops of the Orthodox Church. They clearly grant to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople a primacy among the bishops of the Church. This primacy of service brings with it significant authority and responsibilities.

A number of recent commentators have challenged the leadership and responsibilities of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. They have misinterpreted canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (451), and related canons and practices. In order to appreciate properly the significance of canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, it must be interpreted in the light of other canons and practices of the Church at that time. It is far from being irrelevant as some may claim.

The Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople (381) in canon 3 acknowledged that the bishop of Constantinople enjoys “prerogatives of honor (presveia times).” While recognizing that the bishop of New Rome (Constantinople) ranked after the bishop of Old Rome, a parallel between the primatial positions of the two bishops was affirmed.

At the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon, the privileges of the bishop of Constantinople received further elaboration especially in canons 9 and 17. These canons stated that disputes in local churches could be appealed to Constantinople. Canon 28 of Chalcedon continued to draw a parallel between Old Rome and New Rome and reaffirmed the decision of 381. Canon 28 of the Council stated that the bishop of Constantinople had “equal prerogatives” (isa presveia) to those of Old Rome. Over two hundred years later, the distinctive position of Constantinople was also reaffirmed in canon 36 of the Penthekti (Quinsext) Council (in Trullo) in 692.

Furthermore, canon 28 of Chalcedon explicitly granted to the bishop of Constantinople the pastoral care for those territories beyond the geographical boundaries of the other Local (autocephalous) Churches. At the time of the fifth century, these regions commonly were referred to as ‘barbarian nations’ because they were outside the Byzantine commonwealth. (St. Paul in Romans 1: 14 also had used the term ‘barbarians’ to refer to those beyond the old Roman Empire.) Canon 28 of Chalcedon appears to clarify the reference in canon 2 of the Council of Constantinople which says that churches in the “barbarian nations” should be governed “according to the tradition established by the fathers.”

This interpretation of canon 28 is supported by the fact that the geographical boundaries of the Local Churches are set. Their bishops are not permitted to minister beyond these limits. The Council of Constantinople in canon 2 clearly states: “Bishops should not invade churches beyond their boundaries for the purpose of governing them…” This principle is also reflected in canons 6 and 7 of the Council of Nicaea (325) and in the Apostolic Canons 14 and 34, also dating from the fourth century.

The Church invested only the bishop of Constantinople with the responsibility to organize ecclesial life in the places not under the care of other Local (autocephalous) Churches. This is reflected, for example, in the missions to the Goths and Scythians in the fifth century. The pastoral and missionary activities inaugurated by St. John Chrysostom while Patriarch of Constantinople are especially instructive in this regard. One must also take note of the missionary activity of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Central and Eastern Europe from the ninth under Patriarch Photios and later on through the sixteenth centuries. In these cases, the Ecumenical Patriarchate acted to spread the Gospel in territories beyond the boundaries of other Local Churches.[1]

The Ecumenical Patriarchate granted autocephalous status to the Church of Russia in 1589, confirmed in the Golden Seal Certificate in 1591, which was reaffirmed by a synod in Constantinople in 1593 when patriarchal status was granted. In these Tomes, the territorial jurisdiction of the Church of Russia was clearly defined. This practice was followed in the Tome of Autocephaly for all subsequent Autocephalous Churches which were granted their status by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and confirmed by the assent of the other Autocephalous Churches.

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has recently said:

"The Orthodox Church is an orderly community of autocephalous or autonomous Churches, while she is fully aware of herself as the authentic continuation of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. She fulfills her spiritual mission through the convocation of local or major Synods, as the canonical tradition has established it, in order to safeguard and affirm the communion of the local churches with each other and with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Ecumenical Patriarchate, as the First Throne in the Orthodox Church, has been granted by decisions of Ecumenical Councils (canon 3 of the II Ecumenical Council; canons 9, 17 and 28 of the IV Ecumenical Council; canon 36 of the Quinsext Ecumenical Council) and by the centuries-long ecclesial praxis, the exceptional responsibility and obligatory mission to care for the protection of the faith as it has been handed down to us and of the canonical order (taxis). And so it has served with the proper prudence and for seventeen centuries that obligation to the local Orthodox churches, always within the framework of the canonical tradition and always through the utilization of the Synodal system…"[2]

History bears this out. It is attested to by innumerable examples of initiative undertaken by the Ecumenical Patriarchate to exercise leadership for those Local Churches prevented by unusual circumstances from doing so. In this capacity, the Ecumenical Patriarchate elected patriarchs for other Sees when asked, acted as arbitrator in disputes, deposed controversial patriarchs and metropolitans outside its territory, and served on many occasions up to the present as mediator in resolving issues of Pan-Orthodox concern.

Especially important for the well-being of world Orthodoxy in recent times was the role of Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras in convening a series of Pan-Orthodox Conferences in 1961, 1963, 1964, and 1968 to address immediate issues requiring a Pan-Orthodox consensus, and to make preparations for the convocation of a Great and Holy Council. These Conferences marked the beginning of a new period of conciliarity among the Orthodox Churches. The Ecumenical Patriarchate acted with wisdom and love to draw the Churches out of their isolation so that they might address critical issues together.

Numerous consultations have taken place since then to examine the ten themes which were proposed by the Churches in 1976 for study in anticipation of the convening of a Great and Holy Council. Among these themes was the topic of the Diaspora.

When this conciliar process began in 1961, all the Autocephalous Churches recognized that it was the prerogative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to lead this effort for the good of the entire Church. For over forty years, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has wisely led this conciliar process with the concurrence of the other Autocephalous Churches.

In conjunction with this conciliar process, the distinctive initiatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch, with the collaboration of other Autocephalous Churches, have led to significant events in the life of the Orthodox Church. Among these are: the re-establishment of the Church of Albania (1992); the arbitration of disputed patriarchal elections in the Churches of Bulgaria (1998) and Jerusalem (2005); and the establishment of an orderly succession of the Archbishop of Cyprus (2006). In all of these cases the leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate was of singular importance. It was a leadership fully recognized by all the Autocephalous Churches.

Far from acting in an arbitrary manner, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew personally has profoundly contributed to the life of the Orthodox Church through his persistent efforts to deepen the sense of conciliarity and common witness among the Autocephalous Churches. In addition to the above developments, he has visited all the Autocephalous Churches and cultivated a personal relationship with their leaders. Most importantly, he has convened and presided at the historic Synaxis of Orthodox Primates in 1992, 1995, 2000, and 2008.

The wise words of Metropolitan Maximos of Sardis should be recalled:

"The Patriarch of Constantinople rejects any plenitudo potestatis ecclesiae and holds his supreme ecclesiastical power not as episcopus ecclesiae universalis, but as Ecumenical Patriarch, the senior and most important bishop in the East. He does not wield unrestricted administrative power. He is not an infallible judge of matters of faith. Always the presupposition of his power is that in using it he will hold to two principles: conciliarity and collegiality in the responsibilities of the Church and non-intervention in the internal affairs of the other churches…"[3]

With these observations in mind, the following must be noted with regard to the distinctive primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Firstly, all the Autocephalous Churches recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch as the ‘first bishop’ of the Church. He has specific responsibilities for coordinating a common witness among the Autocephalous Churches. As such, the Ecumenical Patriarch exercises this ministry first of all in relationship with the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Patriarch is the president of this Synod. He does not act over or above the other bishops. According to the Orthodox perspective, primacy involves conciliarity. He always acts together with the other bishops of the Patriarchal Synod. Likewise, in his relationship with other Orthodox, the Ecumenical Patriarch is honored as the protos, the first bishop of the Church. This position gives to the Ecumenical Patriarch the special responsibility for identifying issues requiring the attention of the entire Church and for convening appropriate meetings to address these issues. When the Orthodox meet in a Synaxis, the Ecumenical Patriarch is the presiding bishop of the meeting.

As Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has said, the Ecumenical Patriarchate constitutes par excellence the center of all the local Orthodox churches. It heads these not by administering them, but by virtue of the primacy of its ministry of Pan-Orthodox unity and the coordination of the activities of all of Orthodoxy.”[4]

The Development of the Orthodox Church in the United States

At the most recent Synaxis in Constantinople in October 2008, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew proposed to the other Primates that renewed attention be given to the so-called Diaspora. A part of the process leading to the Great and Holy Council, representatives of the Autocephalous Churches had examined the topic of the Diaspora in 1990 and 1993, and made significant recommendations. As one of his proposals, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew called upon the Churches to “activate the 1993 agreement of the Inter-Orthodox Consultation of the Holy and Great Council in order to resolve the pending matter of the Orthodox Diaspora.”[5] This was a clear indication that the Ecumenical Patriarchate refused to accept indefinitely the present canonical irregularities in places such as the United States.

Moreover, the Primates in their Statement affirmed the proposal of Patriarch Bartholomew that meetings be held in the year 2009 to resume discussions on this critical issue. They affirmed their “desire for the swift healing of every canonical anomaly that has arisen from historical circumstances and pastoral requirements, such as in the so-called Orthodox Diaspora, with a view to overcoming every possible influence that is foreign to Orthodox ecclesiology. In this respect we welcome the proposal by the Ecumenical Patriarchate to convene Pan- Orthodox Consultations within the coming year 2009 on this subject, as well as for the continuation of preparations for the Holy and Great Council. In accordance with the standing order and practice of the Pan-Orthodox Consultations in Rhodes, it will invite all Autocephalous Churches.”[6]

Under the leadership of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the Primates indicated that the status quo in the so-called Diaspora was not acceptable.

The development of the Orthodox Church in the United States is very complex. The early growth of the Orthodox Church in this country has resulted from immigration, missionary activity, and the return of Eastern Catholics to Orthodoxy. In more recent decades especially, the Church also has received many persons who have found in Orthodoxy the fullness of the historic Apostolic Faith. Truly, the Orthodox Church in this country has become a salutary witness to Our Lord and His Gospel. Through its teachings, ecumenical dialogues and philanthropic activities, the Orthodox Church has contributed to the process of reconciliation and healing in our society.

At the same time, it must be recognized that the proper development of the Church in this country has not always followed the principles of ecclesiastical organization reflected in the canons of the Councils which have already been mentioned. The presence of multiple jurisdictions from various Autocephalous Churches in the same territory and the presence of multiple bishops in the same territory are clearly contrary to the canonical tradition. The good order of the Church has been shaken by acts which have gone contrary to ecclesiological principles and historical praxis.[7]

Among these acts was the grant of ‘Autocephaly’ to the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church (the Metropolia) by the Church of Russia in 1970, thereby renaming this jurisdiction the “Orthodox Church in America.” This action had no canonical basis. From that time, the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the majority of other Autocephalous Churches have refused to recognize the “autocephalous” status of this jurisdiction. As a result, this jurisdiction has not been accorded a place in global Pan-Orthodox discussions in accordance with the agreement of the Autocephalous Churches.

Yet, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has exercised restraint and has not broken communion with this jurisdiction. Indeed, in the 1990s the Ecumenical Patriarchate frequently received representatives of this jurisdiction to discuss its irregular status. While recognizing the historical road of this jurisdiction, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has affirmed that the canonical irregularities have not been resolved.

Under the leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, a truly Pan-Orthodox solution must be found for the entire Church in the United States. Recent Ecumenical Patriarchs and their representatives have consistently reiterated this fact. During his pastoral visit to Washington in 1990, Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios said:

"It is truly a scandal for the unity of the Church to maintain more than one bishop in any given city; it clearly contravenes the sacred canons and Orthodox ecclesiology. It is a scandal that is exacerbated whenever phyletistic motives play a part, a practice soundly condemned by the Orthodox Church in the last century. The Ecumenical Patriarchate, as a supra-national Church serving the unity of the Church, is not indifferent to the condition that has evolved, and will exert every effort in cooperation with the other Holy Orthodox Churches, and in accordance with canonical order, to resolve this thorny problem."[8]

In order to address the difficult situation in America, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has consistently supported efforts aimed at increasing cooperation among the jurisdictions and at establishing proper order in accordance with the canons. Archbishop Athenagoras proposed a Conference of Orthodox Bishops in 1936. This proposal was the basis for the “Federation” which came into existence in 1943. Archbishop Michael convened a gathering of Orthodox bishops in 1952 with the intention of having regular meetings. Archbishop Iakovos led the establishment of the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops (SCOBA) in 1960. Since that time, the Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarchate has served as the chairman of SCOBA in accordance with the agreements affirmed in the Pan-Orthodox Conferences.

Moreover, it was under the leadership of the Exarch of the Patriarchate of Constantinople that meetings of all Orthodox bishops were convened in this country. Archbishop Iakovos presided at the meeting in 1994. Archbishop Demetrios presided at meetings in 2001 and 2006.

Members of the Holy Cross Faculty have been actively involved in a number of initiatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate aimed at addressing the canonical irregularities of church life in America. The Faculty of Holy Cross was invited in 1977 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate to submit a vision of unity for the Orthodox Church in the United States. The draft of this vision constituted one approach to the models of unity under study. [9] Faculty members have been invited to participate in meetings related to the preparation for the Great and Holy Council. The present Dean of Holy Cross was involved in meetings of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission convened by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Chambésy, Switzerland in 1990 and 1993 as well as a related meeting in 1995.

Conclusions

We believe that the Ecumenical Patriarchate possesses distinctive prerogatives to serve the unity and witness of the entire Orthodox Church in accordance with the canons and the praxis of the Church. Since the fourth century, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has acted in accordance with the canons to maintain and strengthen the “unity of spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3) among the Autocephalous Churches.

Directly related to our situation in the United States is the interpretation of canon 28 of Chalcedon and related canons. Although it deals with a specific situation of its time, canon 28 nevertheless safeguards principles which constitute the basis of permanent aspects of our canonical tradition. Other canons do the same. One might consider, for example, canon 6 of Nicaea or canon 3 of Constantinople or canon 39 of the Penthekti (Quinsext) Council (in Trullo), among others. In the first instance, an established order of church government is confirmed; in the second, an adjustment of church order is made to accommodate a special need. In both instances, principles are provided which reveal the manner in which the Church expresses herself in different situations. So it is with canon 28 of Chalcedon. It confirms what in practice was already in progress at that time – a primacy of honor among equals for the bishop of Constantinople, expressed in a way which reflected this reality.

While not diminishing the significance of canon 28 and related canons, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has wisely recognized the distinctive and complex features of Orthodoxy in the United States especially. The Ecumenical Patriarchate has recommended that a truly Pan-Orthodox solution must be found. It has advocated this perspective in recent Pan-Orthodox discussions. In light of canonical tradition and ecclesial praxis, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is alone in the position to guide the Autocephalous Churches toward a proper resolution for the Church in the United States.

We rejoice that much is made of Orthodox unity and the role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in achieving it. This is good and hopeful, in view of the fact that it keeps alive and at the forefront of our concerns the quest for this noble goal. At the same time, however, it raises, once more, the issue about the way in which this unity should be achieved. At the center of this discussion is our Mother Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and the understanding of its role in initiating the process of the goal towards unity.

We look to the venerable Ecumenical Patriarchate to continue to lead the Autocephalous Churches in addressing the difficult challenge of the Orthodox Diaspora, especially here in the United States. The recommendations of the Inter-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Consultations in Chambésy in 1990 and 1993, as well as the meeting there in 1995, provide significant proposals for addressing the irregularities of Church structures in the United States.

We endorse the proposal of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to activate the 1993 agreement which proposed the establishment of an Episcopal Assembly in given areas. We look forward to meetings scheduled to take place this year to continue to examine the topic of the so-called Diaspora.

We appeal to all, both clergy and laity, to pray for the unity of the Church and to commit ourselves to words and deeds of healing and reconciliation so that our good and loving God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, will be honored and glorified.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] See, Lewis J. Patsavos, Primacy and Conciliarity: Studies in the Primacy of the See of Constantinople and the Synodical Structure of the Orthodox Church, Brookline, 1995.

[2] Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “Address to the Ukrainian Nation,” July 26, 2008.

[3] Metropolitan Maximos of Sardis, The Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church, Thessaloniki, 1976, p. 236. This outstanding study documents the historic role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate especially in relationship with the other Autocephalous Churches.

[4] Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery, New York, 2008, p. xl.

[5] Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “Address at the Synaxis of the Heads of Orthodox Churches,” Constantinople, October 10, 2008.

[6] “Message of the Primates of the Orthodox Church,” Constantinople, October 12, 2008.

[7] See, Thomas FitzGerald, The Orthodox Church, Westport, 1995, pp. 101-115.

[8] “Remarks of Patriarch Dimitrios,” The Orthodox Church 26:9/10 (1990), p. 9.

[9] See Lewis Patsavos, “The Harmonization of Canonical Order,” in Journal of Modern Hellenism, 19-20, 2001-02, pp. 211-28.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

No Wonder the Antichrist Superstar Emerged From Heritage Christian School

Brian Hugh Warner (Marilyn Manson) at Heritage Christian School in 1983 when he was in the 8th grade

[If I were to list the books that most inspired my life, somewhere in the top five it would surprise many people to hear that I would firmly place the autobiography of Marilyn Manson titled The Long Hard Road Out Of Hell. I first read this book in 1998 at a very sensitive and transitional moment in my life and it filled a personal need at the time so perfectly that it is almost impossible to convey. It is a personal tale one day I hope to tell.

Among the many interesting elements of Manson's autobiography is his upbringing. In particular, that he attended a strict fundamentalist Christian school from elementary age all the way into his second year of high school. This school was called Heritage Christian School in Canton, Ohio.

In 2000 I had the opportunity to visit Canton, Ohio with my wife Maria whose hometown was about an hour away outside of Cleveland in Concord, Ohio. One of my desires was to visit all the sites associated with Manson mentioned in his autobiography. First we visited the house he was raised in as an only child. Interestingly a few years later I would come to find out that his next door neighbor was a friend of mine in Seminary who as a child Manson was the babysitter for (he said Manson was the nicest and coolest guy he knew). From there we went on to the home of his grandparents, which we found out from the name plate outside the house that it was still occupied by his surviving grandmother. In his autobiography Manson describes the horrors he witnessed as a child in the basement of this house that would forever change his life (yes we trespassed and snuck a quick peek through the basement window). We then went to Heritage Christian School, then Canton High School and finally ended our journey on home plate in the baseball field where Manson describes losing his virginity (which I was surprised to find out how close the proximity was to a busy street and surrounding houses). But as far as what made Brian Warner into Marilyn Manson, this became most apparent when we entered Heritage Christian School.

Heritage is a school that breeds either fundamentalism or rebellion. All over the walls were verses from the Bible to evoke fear in the students. When I went into the bathroom there were no doors for the toilets and there were signs about the exact way a child should wash his hands. Everywhere you went you were bombarded with rules on how to live your life and warnings that if you didn't live your life this way then wach out. As a traditional Christian myself, it was a very depressing atmosphere and it is no wonder that Manson had nightmares that came from this school well into his adult life. It is also no wonder how when Manson visited Canton while on his "Dead To The World" tour a few years earlier, he payed a visit to Heritage and walked the hallways dressed in his signature gothic style with fellow bandmate Twiggy Ramirez. No doubt it was a cathartic moment for him.

The reason for this post is because Heritage Christian School was in the news last week. It was not the Heritage in Canton, but in Findlay, Ohio though they still have the same system. What I found most interesting about this news story is that Heritage has not learned its lesson from its most famous student. Those familiar with the stories about Heritage in Manson's autobiography will see in fact that little has changed in the school, which may give some hope that Manson may not be the last rock star after all. -J.S.]

Ohio Christian School Tells Student To Skip Prom

Friday, May 8, 2009

Associated Press

FINDLAY, Ohio – A student at a fundamentalist Baptist school that forbids dancing, rock music, hand-holding and kissing will be suspended if he takes his girlfriend to her public high school prom, his principal said.

Despite the warning, 17-year-old Tyler Frost, who has never been to a dance before, said he plans to attend Findlay High School's prom Saturday.

Frost, a senior at Heritage Christian School in northwest Ohio, agreed to the school's rules when he signed a statement of cooperation at the beginning of the year, principal Tim England said.

The teen, who is scheduled to receive his diploma May 24, would be suspended from classes and receive an "incomplete" on remaining assignments, England said. Frost also would not be permitted to attend graduation but would get a diploma once he completes final exams. If Frost is involved with alcohol or sex at the prom, he will be expelled, England said.

Frost's stepfather Stephan Johnson said the school's rules should not apply outside the classroom.

"He deserves to wear that cap and gown," Johnson said.

Frost said he thought he had handled the situation properly. Findlay requires students from other schools attending the prom to get a signature from their principal, which Frost did.

"I expected a short lecture about making the right decisions and not doing something stupid," Frost said. "I thought I would get his signature and that would be the end."

England acknowledged signing the form but warned Frost there would be consequences if he attended the dance. England then took the issue to a school committee made up of church members, who decided to threaten Frost with suspension.

"In life, we constantly make decisions whether we are going to please self or please God. (Frost) chose one path, and the school committee chose the other," England said.

The handbook for the 84-student Christian school says rock music "is part of the counterculture which seeks to implant seeds of rebellion in young people's hearts and minds."

England said Frost's family should not be surprised by the school's position.

"For the parents to claim any injustice regarding this issue is at best forgetful and at worst disingenuous," he said. "It is our hope that the student and his parents will abide by the policies they have already agreed to."

The principal at Findlay High School, whose graduates include Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, said he respects, but does not agree with, Heritage Christian School's view of prom.

"I don't see (dancing and rock music) as immoral acts," Craig Kupferberg said.

___

Information from: The Courier, http://www.thecourier.com/

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The God of Howard Stern

I've been a Howard Stern fan since the early 1990's, but didn't start listening every day until I lived in North Carolina in 1998. I've hardly missed a show since.

Many people have asked me over the years how I as a christian can be a Howard Stern fan. I have hardly thought the question worth answering because to me it's a loaded question and absurd. Usually people that ask this question have already pronounced a judgement on Howard yet never even heard him on the radio for a full show and they assume you have to agree with everything he says and does in order to be a fan. It comes off as very condescending and judgemental, which is an attitude that alienates many people of faith to later come to revile faith. A more respectful approach is to try to understand the person before casting judgement, yet who really has the right to cast the first stone?

On todays show an interesting discussion on religion occured. Religion is one topic that is brought up fairly often on the show, but today was an especially interesting discussion when a frequent caller by the nickname "King of all Blacks" called in asking Howard about his views on God and religion. This wasn't the first time this caller asked these questions, which is why I found todays discussion very interesting. It was interesting because every time Howard and his crew are asked about their view on God and religion they treat it as if they never discussed it before. You can tell most of them are struggling with the answer and sometimes an answer they give one day is the opposite of an answer they gave two months prior.

For example, in the 1990's the crew on the Howard Stern Show gave little thought to religious matters. For the most part, the main cast of characters often answered they were all atheists because they associated religion with their persecutors and censors. Things started changing a bit in the early 2000's when Howard and Robin Quivers, his sidekick, started going to psychotherapy and working on their depression, anger and narcissistic issues. This process made them a bit more introspective and open in discussing matters of religion. Robin has since stopped going to therapy yet always seeks alternative methods of dealing with the issues in her life (to the point where she once experimented in Wicca, but now is very much involved in promoting veganism), while Howard daily practices Transcendental Meditation and goes to therapy three days a week.

Robin Quivers
What we do know about Howard's religious history is that he grew up in a Jewish-American household in Roosevelt, New York. He was raised in Conservative Judaism, though his parents had some very liberal tendencies. As such he studied the Torah and was Bar Mitzvahd. After this he hardly ever practiced Judaism though still had a certain respect for it in a cultural sense. As a fan of the Beatles, in the early 1970's he began to practice Transcendental Meditation which he has practiced daily ever since. He was encouraged to do this by his mother who was healed of her chronic depression through meditation. Recently Howard even spoke at a rally promoted by the David Lynch Foundation to encourage the practice of Transcendental Meditation in public schools. However Howard has never viewed his meditation as a religious practice, but as a means to relieve the stress in his life. In his early radio career he has admitted that he even lived in a Buddhist Monastery for a year because it provided cheap rent for him. When he was married to his first wife Alison she made sure to raise their three daughters in Reformed Judaism and Howard in recent days has stated that his daughters are very much into practicing Judaism. Howard credits their enthusiasm for the religion to the fact that they grew up in a Reformed tradition, opposed to his upbringing which he found to be too strict, archaic and close-minded causing him to be totally turned-off to religion for the deep scars it left on his psyche. It was his rebellion to such close-mindedness in religion and public policy that inspired him to be more open-minded and honest on the radio. Over the years this approach caused much controversy from conservative and religious groups, giving him more fuel to excel in his novel broadcasting method. Being hated caused him to hate back with a vengeance making him the most successful radio broadcaster in history and the self-proclaimed "King of all Media". His hatred for religion often drew him and his crew to deny God's existence, but in more recent years things have changed. As the years go by it seems some are more open to belief in God and struggling to disassociate God from the religions that seem to only inspire hatred and repression in their view.

When I was living in the South, I had a chance to experience this attitude of right wing religious conservatives toward Howard more than I ever experienced it while living in Boston. These were the days when people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were denouncing Howard on their TV shows and rallying to get him off the airwaves by having people send letters of complaints to Congress and radio stations. One of the first places this campaign affected was my hometown of Charlotte, North Carolina. The rally became localized, to the point where some churches were preaching really corny sermons titled "What Would Jesus Say To Howard Stern?" In the Spring of 2001 Howard was cancelled unjustly to my dismay when Evangelicals for the most part boycotted the sponsors who advertized on the Howard Stern Show. After this I couldn't wait to move back to Boston, which I did a few months later. This campaign never ended until the FCC was fining Howard to the point of ridiculousness. In 2004 Howard left terrestrial radio for censor-free satellite radio, and today has somewhere between 15-20 million listeners daily making him one of the most influential voices in America.

As I said, the King of all Backs calls in fairly often and he himself believes in God and finds it odd that Howard doesn't fully embrace faith. A few years ago a very serious religious discussion started in which Howard was asked if he believed in God and if he was afraid of dying. He has consistently maintained that he is very afraid of death and often in times of trials and danger finds himself praying to God, though he has always maintained all religions are man-made. Again on March 23, 2009 King of all Blacks called in and asked Howard if he believed in God. This time he responded that because his parents brainwashed him so thoroughly, he does believe in God, even though he knows there is no God. "I know there is no God, but I believe in God", he said. To this his sidekick Artie Lange, who was raised Italian Catholic, responded that he is an atheist too, but what leans his mind towards theism was the question "how did we go from dirt to texting on iPhones or from cavemen to iPhone?" Then Howard admitted that the most convincing argument for God's existence is the argument from design by saying: "Every design has a designer." His analogy to prove this was that he had recently gone to a fashion show with his model wife Beth. He said that seeing the intricate designs of the show make him think how unfathomable it would be to think the designs of fashion would have no designer, let alone the design of the universe. And just when things get too serious, the conversation usually ends and they get to more humorous material. This always leaves the discussion to be probed for another day.

Artie Lange

The next time religious issues came up in a serious discussion was on todays show when the King of all Blacks started asking Howard about his Jewish upbringing and his thoughts on God and religion. Howard responded: "Religion is free entertainment, it gives a sense of community and a sense of hope. Thank God for religion though. Can you imagine if poor people didn't have religion? They would be going down the street killing people." By saying this it seemed Howard was implying that people who aren't poor don't need religion because they are more capable of living happier and more pleasant lives. Then he went on to make a dichotomy between religion and belief in God. "I didn't say I didn't believe in God. I said religion is a bunch of horseshit."

When King of all Blacks asked specifically: "Do you believe in God?" Howard responded: "I don't know. I want to. Who the fuck knows. Here's how I'm playing it - I figure this is it." I wonder if Howard ever heard of Pascal's Wager? For someone who wants to believe in God and is agnostic on the matter, but chooses to live life like there is no God seems to imply that Howard refuses to believe in God because it doesn't fit his morality.

To this Robin responded: "Here's how I figure it. Einstein believed in God and he was the smartest guy around, so I go with him." This was probably the most interesting point in the discussion because for years Robin had always been vocal about her atheism. Now she seems to justify the rationality of faith by invoking the faith of Einstein, who claimed to believe in the God of Spinoza which was a pantheistic God.

At this point Artie, a professional comedian who is currently undergoing treatment for his alcohol and drug addiction, chimed in and talked about his father who was the man he most admired in his life. He explained how his father was always an atheist, but after an accident falling off a ladder he became a quadriplegic. In his fathers last days he explained how a priest came to visit his father and heard his confession. Later that day Artie's father told him that he had made his peace with God and was ready to die. (It's interesting that Artie's autobiography is filled with references to God and his guardian angel and he speaks to his dad as if he is a living spirit). From this Artie once again brought up that the greatest argument for God is the question of where all this began. This time he said: "How did we go from mud to Howard texting a vote on American Idol?"

Fred Norris

Fred Norris is considered by far the smartest guy on the Howard Stern Show, having just about memorized the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica. Howard wanted to hear his opinion on the matter. Fred responded: "A personal God that lives up in the sky that says 'you live, you die' - no. There may be some sort of intelligence out there, though we don't know what it is. This is it. When we die we are food for the plants and the soil. That's what I'm betting on.... There is no happy guy in the sky; there is no evil guy in the sky - depending on which Testament you believe." Robin then asked Fred how he explains the energy of our souls, which can neither be created nor destroyed? Fred didn't deny this, but explained that energy can change into something else. At this point they went to a commercial break and they came back with Fred, who controls the music on the show, playing John Lennon's "God".

Benji Bronk

Two other key members on the show who did not voice their opinions today are writer Benji Bronk and producer Gary Delabate. Gary usually expresses the same opinion as Howard on these matters, but Benji does believe in God and is a semi-practicing Jew though he is considered one of the most crazy and perverse members on staff by the staff themselves. Probably the ones who believe in God the most is prankster Sal Governale who is Italian Catholic and TV producer Scott Depace who is a staunch Republican though liberal on social issues.

What is most interesting and unique about the Howard Stern Show is that it is probably the only open-forum where all manner of diverse thinking, beliefs and lifestyles are discussed and treated with a sense of equality. It invites open and honest discussion and nothing is exempt from humor and criticism, even Howard himself. As far as I know, there is no other forum like this in the world. In many ways, the Howard Stern Show can be considered the equivalent of Mars Hill in Ancient Athens. And this is one of the main reasons I listen to Howard Stern and avoid most other talk radio.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Brainwashed Liberals Can't Distinguish Science From Myth

Funny thing happened in the news over the past week. Liberals, who often pat themselves on the back for being open minded, revealed how stubborn and brainwashed they really are. Below are three videos on different levels of scientific discussion that were hot news stories over the past few days. Judge for yourself which one makes the most sense.

First, the ladies on The View got into a heated debate on Tuesday about whether or not Darwinism and Creationism should be taught in schools. Elizabeth and Sherri are all for Creationism being taught in public schools, out of respect for both views. Joy Behar, however, wasn't having it. For her Darwinism is a fact and Darwinism equals science because, according to Joy, every scientist in the world equates Darwinism with science. Whoopi and Barbara try to have a balanced view that kind of gets lost in the shuffle. Watch the tempers flare below.



To say Darwinism is a fact of science because every scientist believes in it is a dogmatic statement based on faith. It also goes against the facts. Not every scientist believes in Darwinian evolution. There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard. Some names can be found here, though most don't want to expose themselves to the public and face heavy persecution as was described in Ben Stein's documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It should also be pointed out that the only scientific field which Darwinism has saturated is biology. Other fields such as physics, chemistry, engineering, microbiology, and medicine have scientists with a greater deal of skepticism concerning Darwinian evolution. It is only fair that at least their skepticism should be heard as well in the classrooms instead of teaching Darwinism dogmatically and unquestionably.

In the second video, we have MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews going after Republican Mike Pence on various scientific issues, though mainly evolution. In this clip Chris Matthews shows the same type of brainwashed mentality as that of Joy Behar, arguing in favor of a liberal definition of science that argues in favor of the positions of the majority of scientists as facts and does not allow the skepticism of a great number of scientists to even be considered. Mike Pence holds his ground and tries to open his mind to other valid possibilities, but Chris Matthews won't have it. See the dialogue below.



Did I say dialogue? These aren't dialogues. Liberals make these issues into yelling matches and whoever yells louder wins in their eyes. Dare not to hold your composure however, lest you lose the battle. From the clip above Chris Matthews is using a clever debate tactic in which you bombard your opponent with so many issues to tackle in a small amount of time that they are unable to properly respond giving off the illusion that the opponent is the bigger dimwit of the two. It is a classic dirty trick usually employed by someone who is overly opinionated and can't back up their claims.

We learn two lessons from the two videos above however. First we learn that Darwin-doubters need to be better informed about their position. Second, those that are better informed need to enter the public square and seperate this scientific battle from its politics. Lastly, we need to stop being on the defensive by taking the offensive position in these dialogues. At least maybe this way there will be less yelling.

Amidst all the controversy, there actually was a report done this past week with an expert Darwin-doubter that has more than enough knowledge to take the offensive regarding the issue of how to teach Darwinism in schools in a fair, balanced and respectful way. In the wake of the Texas School Board decision to require students to analyze and evaluate certains aspects of Darwinian evolution, CSC program officer for public policy Casey Luskin appeared on Fox & Friends this morning to discuss common problems regarding evolution still found in biology textbooks. Here is what he had to say.



It is at least refreshing to hear someone get to the heart of the issue and provide scientific evidence that backs up his claim. Does this really have to be so rare in our supposedly scientific age?

Tweet

Share on Tumblr