2006-06-12

Odes of Solomon


From the 35th Ode of Solomon, it being my favourite:

The gentle showers of the Lord rinsed me with silence, and they caused a cloud of peace to rise over my head;
That it might guard me at all times. And it became salvation to me.
Everyone was disturbed and afraid, and there came from them smoke and judgment.
But I was tranquil in the Lord's legion; more than shade was He to me, and more than foundation.
And I was carried like a child by its mother; and He gave me milk, the dew of the Lord.
And I was enriched by His favor, and rested in His perfection.
And I spread out my hands in the ascent of myself, and I directed myself towards the Most High, and I was redeemed towards Him.




Most scholars date the Odes sometime around the middle of the 2d century, yet if they are heavily influenced by Jewish apocalyptic thought and especially the ideas in the Dead Sea Scrolls, a date long after 100 is unlikely. Henry Chadwick and many other scholars, remain convinced that they must not be labeled "gnostic," and therefore should not be dated to the late 2d century. The Odes remain one of my all-time favourite almost-canonical reads. Read them for yourself and decide whether some of the early Orthodox were not wise in thinking these sublime pieces of writing to be worthy of canonical inclusion.

2006-06-04

Certainty and doubt


Is it possible to know and doubt simultaneously?

The vast number of men are caught somewhere between a consistent sceptical doubt and that which is certain. A few fortunate holy ones seem to attain to that level of 'comforting', undoubtable knowing. Most do not completely despair, but get caught somewhere above epistemological despondency; many of these learn to accept the knowledge of ethics, logic and aesthetics as ambiguious, as 'relative'. This notion comforts some men as it makes no one better or worse than another.

On the other side of the question are those who are comforted by thinking they know with certainty. Asked for a proof and they will reply with an appeal. But no appeal leads one to certainty. To be sure one requires a logical proof or a direct experience. Since all appeals are usually a pointer to one of these, the appeal is held by trust or belief; neither of which are undoubtable.

Again, regarding matters of tradition and faith, is it possible to know and doubt simultaneously?

Take the notion of friendship. My priest taught me that Christ's teaching on what it is to be a friend is a hard truth. At John 15:13, the full implications of friendship are made clear; a willingness to lay down one's life for another is the standard of friendship. Now I accept this as true. That is I know it to be so because I trust it is stated by Truth itself. Yet all of us who accept this idea of friendship can also entertain the idea that our trusted belief is capable of being doubted, even though we know it is the true doctrine of friendship.


Hence, I would suggest it is possible to know and doubt simultaneously. According to Hegel, that is what knowing in the fullest possible sense really is. How comforting is that? hehe.

2006-06-03

Gregory and The Prophet; dancing

My priest's son in law is getting me set up with a good bike; I think I will upgrade to sram XO immediately. The Cannondale model I will buy is called 'The Prophet'. This summer I am going to train by riding around The Fort and Glen Valley; also I will do a few dry runs to work with Ramone once we obtain a bike rack for her Subaru Forester. As well as the bike and rack, I will need to acquire the cycling wear for riding during the fall and winter months; but this can wait, for I need only some biking shorts, a helmut and a jersey to get through the summer.

In other news, my daughter had her dance recital tonight. She danced well with a big smile on her face; yet I sure do miss the days when Hannah studied Irish! All this hip hop and rap doesn't bring me delight; it is one of those grin and bear the sound sort of things. Fortunately it was held at the Chief Seapass Theatre inside the Fort Langley Fine Arts School just a block from my home; accordingly after Hannah was done, I walked home and had a cold ale. A fine day it was weather-wise, as we had some unexpected and most welcome sunshine.

2006-06-01

rainy

It has been rainy and very humid lately. More than I can recall ever at this time of year. I am reminded of Dante's descent into Hell and of the sign that reads, "Abandon hope all ye who enter." Well perhaps that is an exaggeration, but when it is rainy and muggy, the air is overbearing and too sweltering for a manly man; and one can even have trouble getting a good deep breath. Truly the rain itself is cool and renewing, but the humidity removes hope and drags a man.

Next September I am planning to ride my bicycle to work from the SFU campus at Surrey Central where Ramone, my money-lending wife, parks for her job. At the close of my day I will cycle back to rejoin Ramona. This will give me some consistent aerobic exercise; it will be a challenge for me to maintain 3x/week. I am going to start 'preparations' for this discipline after school gets out in two more weeks.

The petrol savings will be an added bonus, as will a slight loss in my stoutness:)

2006-05-27

course load revisited...

Another more senior colleague at my high school grieved the fact that the head of my department had assigned me History 12. As the formula the union uses to resolve such disputes involves looking at years of teaching beyond equivalent credentials, it was clear to me that my colleague would get what she wanted -- I am almost 41 and she is in her late 50s. My only solace was in the fact that my department head thought I was the best teacher to take the course. Accordingly I had to accept a different course load, albeit a slightly easier load for which to prepare materials. This will be my load in the coming 2006-2007 school year:>

2 blocks En.12
3 blocks En.11
2 blocks En. 8

In other news, I gave up the computer coordinator block. So my duties will be strictly in English this next year.

2006-05-24

course load

Next school year I will have a rather heavy marking load. A full time instructor has 7 teaching blocks and 1 preparation block. My schedule for 2006-2007 looks so:>

En.12 - 2 blocks (English 12=loads of essays to mark)

Hi.12 - 2 blocks (History 12=content volume; essays)

En.11 - 1 block (English 11=loads of essays to mark)

En.8 - 1 block (English 8=easy load to mark; just manage the teeny-boppers by scaring them with my trademark wildeman.manly.looks)

The astute among you are wondering where I get my seventh block, aren't you? Well, I won't keep you in suspense. That other block comes from my computer coordinator block. Yes, knowing how to use OpenBSD and other Unix-like systems has its advantages. However I may drop the computer coordinator block and pick up another En.8 if I think I will have to help a load of llama newbie computer lusers with their problems reading documented directions.

Accordingly this summer I will be beefing up my En.12 lecture notes and assignments. Similarly I will do the same for Hi.12, which covers the years 1919 to 1991. Yes, the years are wacky; I didn't set them: the ministry did. And we all know what great decisions the ministries of education have made over these last fifty years Canada-wide. I will never forgive the dropping of classical Latin and Greek from the curriculum. That, for me, was much like saying forget what in great part has formed your world. But being culturally disinherited is not the worst thing that could happen; being spiritually disinherited is the worst. Hold the phone...that hasn't happened, or no?

2006-05-19

For Vic

You Are an Old Soul

You are an experienced soul who appreciates tradition.
Mellow and wise, you like to be with others but also to be alone.
Down to earth, you are sensible and impatient.
A creature of habit, it takes you a while to warm up to new people.

You hate injustice, and you're very protective of family and friends
A bit demanding, you expect proper behavior from others.
Extremely independent you don't mind living or being alone.
But when you find love, you tend to want marriage right away.

Souls you are most compatible with: Warrior Soul and Visionary Soul


For what it is worth...I do think it is fairly accurate. The Soul Titles are so flaky!

2006-05-09

Like butter: moooove over...



thomas --

[adjective]:

Similar to butter in texture and appearance



'How will you be defined in the dictionary?' at QuizGalaxy.com

2006-05-08

parenting

Being the father of twins, I found these five points about parenting as an Orthodox Christian to ring true. I found these 'principles' in an article years ago. As turnabout is said to be fair play, I recently found them again being exposed by Leithart in the same original text! Here below is my rendition of these common sense points on parenting.

1. Children are sinners, not innocent and naturally good (Psalm 51:5; Romans 3:9-18). As Jesus said, infants and children are models of dependent faith. Yet, our children are also descended from Adam and therefore are corrupted by original sin. This condition characterises infants and children as well as adult sinners.

This innate corruption manifests itself in many ways. Crying is an infant’s only mode of communication, and it is not necessarily sinful; despite what Luther wrote in "Away in a Manger," Jesus in the manger did cry and yet was sinless. Yet, our infants do more than communicate with their cries. When only a few days old, infants cry to express their anger or impatience when their desires are not immediately fulfilled. Worse, descended from fallen Adam, our children resist anyone who tries to control or exercise authority over them. They invariably test the limits. When I said "No" to my 2 year-old son as he stretched out his hand to touch the computer keyboard, I could see on his face that he was debating whether or not to go ahead with his plans. Some children are less overtly rebellious than others, but all are rebels.

Most Christians believe in original sin, but often it plays little role in our parenting. We are reluctant to regard our children’s sin as sin. Instead, we make excuses for them. Very young infants, of course, have not learned the meaning of "No." Once they have learned that, however, we should not say of a disobedient child, "He doesn’t understand." When a child is uncooperative, we should not say, "Oh, he’s just tired." When children fight and treat one another cruelly, we should not say, "Boys will be boys." At other times, we refuse to believe that our children are capable of being as depraved as the Bible says they are: "Oh my child would never lie, steal, cheat, etc." But he would, and he does. We should recognise sin as sin and treat it as such. Circumstances might make children more prone to fuss and fight but circumstances are not an excuse for sinful behaviour. If your child has done something wrong, admit that it is a sin and give him the opportunity to confess it. Otherwise, you are training him to avoid responsibility. Thus, a corollary of this first notion is, don’t make excuses.

Also it poses a challenge to us as parents. Infants cannot raise infants. If you want your children to grow into mature adults, you have to act like an adult. Parents who make excuses for their own behaviour, who resist and rebel against those in authority over them, who follow whatever impulses pass through their heads, can hardly expect their children to behave differently.

2. You are the parents and they are the children. By this, I mean several things. As parent, you know better than your children what is good for them. They prefer sweets and ice cream to green vegetables, but you know that they need vegetables. You know that brushing their teeth is good for them, even if they do not understand that. You know they need a certain amount of sleep, so you set times for naps and bed.

Being the parent also means that you set the rules. Of course, we need to make sure that the rules are fair and biblical. If parents make up rules as they go, children can never know when they have broken the rules, and they will become frustrated. Children should see that parents too are under rules, that we cannot make up whatever rules we like. The fundamental rule to teach very young children is the fifth commandment: "Honour your father and mother." Every instruction or command from a parent becomes a rule because it comes from the parent.

Being a parent also means that you enforce the rules of the house and make sure the children live within the structures you set up. This is perhaps the most frequent failing for parents, especially new parents. We tell our son he needs to finish his vegetables before he has ice cream, but he complains and we eventually give in. We tell our daughter to go to bed, and in five minutes she is back in the lounge asking for a teddy bear. We tell a child to come, but he runs in the other direction.

This pattern produces enormous stress on parents and children. Parents get more and more frustrated and angry because their children do not listen, and children bear the brunt of the parents’ frustration. But parents often bring frustration upon themselves. In the short run, it takes some extra energy to make sure that children follow our instructions. In the long run, it is much easier on both parents and children if parents to follow through with their instructions and enforce the rules from an early age. Laziness is the main reason we do not follow through. And laziness is sin. If we have told our son to finish his vegetables, we need to make sure he does, even if this means spooning them into his mouth or leaving them for next morning’s breakfast. If we insist that he finish his vegetables before he eats anything else, he will eventually be hungry enough to eat broccoli, asparagus, and mushroom soup. If we send our daughter to bed, she should be required to stay there. If you tell your child to come to you and he does not, do not say it again, do not beg, coax, bribe, threaten, or count to three. Go get him and make him come. If you tell your children to help with the dishes and they do not, do not walk away. Make them do it.

In enforcing rules, parents have to recognise and resist their children’s efforts to manipulate. Do not let a child manipulate you by threats (I’m gonna run away) or emotional appeals (you don’t love me). If your child says such things, it may be a signal of deeper problems. More often than not, it is mainly a way to control you and to keep you from controlling him. Do not fall for it.

Being the parent means, finally, that your children owe you respect. Respect does not come naturally any more than obedience does. You need to train children to respect you. One way of teaching respect is by requiring them to submit to your control and your rules. If you tell them to do something but let them get away with ignoring you, they will lose respect. Children should also be disciplined specifically for disrespect, whether it manifests itself in words, actions, a tone of voice, or a gesture. Children should be disciplined not only for their disobedience but also for bad attitudes. If a mother tells her children to do something and gets a cheeky response, that is a sin and needs to be corrected.

Given points 1 and 2, it follows that conflict and confrontation are an unavoidable part of parenting. If your child is a sinner who wants to go his own way, and if you, as parent, take seriously your responsibility to train your children, then conflicts will occur. Of course, we should not create conflict, but when it happens we should not ignore or side-step it. Do not let a desire for peace and quiet dominate your parenting. What passes for peace is sometimes nothing more than a thin layer covering intense hostility. Conflict is not a sign of failure but of serious effort and even success. It shows that you are doing your job, not letting your children go off into foolishness but confronting and stopping it. If peace and quiet are supreme priorities, if you want to avoid conflict, do not have children.

3. Corporal discipline is a good and proper method for child training (Proverbs 19:18; 29:15). The Bible, tradition and the Fathers are clear not only that corporal discipline is a key tool for parenting, but also promises that faithful discipline will have spiritual effects. Stripes reach to the inner parts and cleanse away evil (Proverbs 20:30), the rod drives away foolishness (Proverbs 22:15), and disciplining a child will save him from Sheol (Proverbs 23:13-14). Christian parents sometimes come up with excuses for not spanking their children: It will turn our children against us, make them hateful and violent, get us in trouble with authorities. None of these holds weight. Using corporal discipline is a simple matter of obedience to God’s Word. We must use this tool wisely, but there is no valid reason for completely refusing to use it.

Corporal discipline must occur in a context of love and understanding. If done outside a loving and close relationship, smacking will seem harsh and arbitrary and it will be difficult for your child to believe that you are disciplining out of love. Your child will get the impression that they have to get into trouble to get any attention at all. Besides, children are different and respond to different kinds of training and discipline. At a young age, there is no substitute for swatting. No matter how persuasive you are, you cannot argue a determined one- or two-year-old out of running into the street. He needs to be restrained. As children get older, other forms of discipline may be more effective for particular children in particular circumstances, and you need to know your children well enough to discover what means are most effective with each.

Developing a close relationship requires some time. Parents should schedule individual time with each child to listen to them and seek to understand them. For several years, I have taken one of my children on a "date" every week. I spend an hour or so at the park, a coffee shop, or shopping mall. This gives me an opportunity to talk with each of them without interruption, and is a chance to discuss things that need to be addressed, such as school, future plans, friends, and so on.

When should a parent use corporal discipline? In part, this depends on the child and the parent. You will learn when your child will be corrected with a verbal rebuke and when they need a smacking. And it depends on the seriousness of the wrongdoing. Yet, as a rule, swatting is legitimate whenever your child breaks the rules. Breaking the rules is rebellion, and you must nip rebellion in the bud. If a parent calls a child, and the child refuses to come, the parent should go get the child, swat him on the bottom and make him come. If a daughter who has been put to bed keeps getting up, she should be spanked and sent back to bed. If a boy keeps climbing out of his high chair, he should be swatted and put back into the chair until the parent is ready to let him down. If they follow this procedure, mothers especially will feel that on some days they do nothing but swat the children. That can be emotionally draining, but my wife and I have found that early practice of corporal discipline does bear fruit, as the Lord has promised.

If corporal discipline is, as the Bible says, an act of love, it should look like an act of love. Parents should explain that they are disciplining out of love for the child. Afterwards, the parent should hug the child, kiss him, pray with him, and tell him again that he uses the rod out of love and out of obedience to the Lord. Loving discipline, however, does not mean mushy or vague discipline. Just as the Lord is specific in His demands upon us and specific in His rebukes, so loving discipline should be firm and specific. Parents should make sure that the child understands the rules, and make sure that he knows what rule has been broken. We should encourage children to take responsibility for the specific sin they have committed. Saying "I’m sorry" is usually not sufficient; the child should be required to say, "I’m sorry for hitting Julie" or "I’m sorry for taking your truck without asking" or "I’m sorry for lying." In this way, we train our children to take responsibility for their own specific actions.

I do not believe it is always wrong for a parent to swat a child when he or she is angry. The Lord disciples His people in wrath, and anger at disobedience can give the child a proper sense of the seriousness of his sin. It is wrong, however, for a parent to swat a child because he or she is angry. That would turn discipline into an opportunity for the parent to vent his frustrations, and would encourage the child to express himself violently. Corporal discipline should always be motivated by the loving desire to prevent the child from doing something wrong or harmful, to purge foolishness from his heart, to keep him on the way of righteousness. As the Bible shows us, God’s love for His children and His anger at their foolishness are closely linked.

4. Children grow up. At this point the goals of parenting come into play. What are we trying to accomplish during the 15--20 years we raise our children? Should protection be our main goal? Do we want to produce children that are carbon copies of ourselves, imitating our tastes, plans, and dreams? Or do we want to encourage them to chart their own course without regard to our opinions? As Christians, our goal in parenting is to raise mature adult believers who trust in and follow Jesus and serve His Church and Kingdom. With respect to our faith, we hope our children will imitate us, insofar as we are faithful. The Church, however, is made up of many members with many different gifts, and we should not expect our children to have the same gifts we have. Parents who are ears in the body of Christ may end up with children who are hands, brains, and toes. Our goal is to train our children to be the best hands, brains, and toes they can possibly be, rejoicing in their specific abilities.

In parenting, then, there has to be a balance of control and freedom. Maintaining this balance is difficult, but the Lord’s training of Israel gives us an example to follow. In Galatians 3:23-24 and 4:1-2, Paul says that Israel under the Old Covenant was like a minor child under the control of tutors and child-minders. Though a child is the heir of the whole house, he is treated like a slave during his childhood. But now, Paul says, those who are in Christ are no longer under the "elementary principles" of the law, but are mature and fully active sons and heirs. Paul’s point is clearer when we consider the character of the Old Covenant system. The Lord told Israel what to eat (Leviticus 11) and what kinds of clothes to wear (Leviticus 19:19; Numbers 15:37-41). Normal bodily functions caused uncleanness, so Israelites had to bathe before entering the Lord’s house (Leviticus 12-15). Their lives were tightly controlled and regulated. All of these commands to Israel are instructive for the Church today (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17) and God is still concerned about the details of His Word and of our obedience to it. Yet, we no longer have to perform these "elementary" regulations because, in Christ, we have grown up.

Similarly, in raising our children, we move through four general stages. These are not absolutely distinct and it would be a mistake to make this some kind of absolute framework, but they give a rough outline of how the parents’ role changes as the child grows.

First, when children are very young, parents control them. Young children should be trained to obey their parents immediately without discussion or question. Parents supervise the most minute details of their lives: what to wear, when to go to bed, how to hold the fork and spoon, how to chew food. In this phase, parents must do many things for the child. This is the predominant mode of parenting for the first seven or eight years, though the time period will vary somewhat.

Second, the parental role changes to coaching, from about eight to young teens. Coaching involves detailed and ongoing guidance of the child. A coach teaches and corrects, but the child is responsible to follow the coach’s direction. Thus, the older child has more responsibility and independence. Parents can test whether their children are ready for this transition by giving them small projects or tasks and evaluating their performance. A child of eight or nine should be able, for example, to go to the post office to buy stamps or to a newsagent to buy a paper. Daddy might first accompany his son, show him what to do, and then send him on his own the next time. By giving responsibility at this micro-level and gradually increasing it, parents avoid overwhelming their children, increase their confidence to act on their own, and give them room to fail and learn.

If a coach is doing his job, his players will eventually learn to think independently, calling some of their own plays. They will sometimes want to ask the coach for his advice in a particular situation, but they will increasingly learn to make decisions for themselves. This is the stage the Whites call counselling. During this period, parents advise children when asked, but leave them considerable room to experiment with their own ways of doing things. Even at this stage, parents exercise some degree of control. Parents should never give their children freedom to sin. As long as my children are in my house, for example, I will expect and require them to attend worship, participate in family worship, walk in God’s commandments. But the parents’ role is changing as the child grows into an independent adult believer.

Finally, with adult children, you reach the stage of caring. Grown children may ask parents for advice and sometimes even detailed coaching. There may be occasions when a parent must, in obedience to Christ, take the initiative to rebuke or correct a child. Here, however, their relationship has become more like that of two unrelated adult believers. Generally, parents should avoid giving their grown children unsolicited advice, freeing them to make their own decisions and their own mistakes.

To help make this scheme more concrete, let me offer one specific example: money. At the control stage, a child is physically unable to handle money. If given an allowance, he is likely to lose it. So, parents should exercise a great deal of control. If a child receives a monetary gift, the parent should decide how it is spent, perhaps even without consulting the child. If the child makes some change by working around the house, the parents should keep it for him.

Once the child can keep track of money without losing it and can add and subtract, the parent shifts to coaching. At this point, the child may be given an allowance, but the parent will still exercise a significant degree of authority over how it is used. The parent might require, for example, that the child give 10% to the church, keep 40% for savings and gifts, and have 50% for spending. If the child wishes to make a foolish purchase, the parent may forbid it. Alternatively, it may be prudent for a parent occasionally to allow a foolish purchase, which can be turned into an opportunity for the child to learn from a mistake. At least, the child who makes a rash financial decision will learn the painful but absolute economic truth that money spent on one item cannot be spent on another.

At the counselling stage, parents give advice concerning how money is spent and may occasionally intervene to forbid a purchase. In the main, however, the parents’ role is one of advising. If a child wishes to buy a computer, for example, the parents might help him find information, instruct him how to decide on a good purchase, point out the costs of using and maintaining a computer, warn against the temptations that might present themselves on the Internet or in some computer games. If the child finds that he has made a poor decision, he should be left to correct the problem himself.

When children have grown to adulthood and left home, parents should generally leave financial decisions completely to them. If parents have been careful to train their children in financial prudence, they are less likely to get into serious financial problems as adults. If they do fall into difficulties, parents should resist the temptation to intervene immediately to protect them from ruin.

In this process, two main errors must be avoided. Parents err if they fail to exercise control at the early stages of life or give too much responsibility too early. On the other hand, parents err if they try to maintain tight control when their children have outgrown that stage of their lives. Knowing when to loosen and when to tighten the reins requires a great deal of wisdom and prayer. This brings me to the fifth and last point…

5. God is sovereign; the Trinity rules all things for His own purposes, including our children. We must make every effort to train them in His ways, but their future is ultimately in His hands. That is a good thing, for I would certainly make a muddle of things! For parents, the truth that God is sovereign means: Relax and Trust the risen Lord.

2006-05-05

Emily is for manly men


Because I could not stop for Death

BECAUSE I could not stop for Death--
He kindly stopped for me--
The Carriage held but just Ourselves--
And Immortality.

We slowly drove--He knew no haste
And I had put away
My labour and my leisure too,
For His Civility--

We passed the School, where Children strove
At Recess--in the Ring--
We passed the Fields of Gazing Grain--
We passed the Setting Sun--

We paused before a House that seemed
A Swelling of the Ground--
The Roof was scarcely visible--
The Cornice--in the Ground--

Since then--'tis Centuries--and yet
Feels shorter than the Day
I first surmised the Horses Heads
Were toward Eternity--

Emily Dickinson

I've considered Emily Dickinson to be a poet of the highest order for many years. If pressed, I would say this gem is one of my favourites.

I enjoy how the poem can aid one in contemplating a restful drive outside of our time-space continuum. Be sure to make note of the number of passengers.

2006-04-27

homily by Leithart


Paul determined to know nothing but Jesus and the cross. Was that enough? To answer that question, we need to answer another: What is the cross?

The cross is the work of the Father, who gave His Son in love for the world; the cross is the work of the Son, who did not cling to equality with God but gave Himself to shameful death; the cross is the work of the Spirit, through whom the Son offers Himself to the Father and who is poured out by the glorified Son. The cross displays the height and the depth and the breadth of eternal Triune love.

The cross is the light of the world; on the cross Jesus is the firmament, mediating between heaven and earth; the cross is the first of the fruit-bearing trees, and on the cross Jesus shines as the bright morning star; on the cross Jesus is sweet incense arising to heaven, and He dies on the cross as True Man to bring the Sabbath rest of God.

Adam fell at a tree, and by a tree he was saved. At a tree Eve was seduced, and through a tree the bride was restored to her husband. At a tree, Satan defeated Adam; on a tree Jesus destroyed the works of the devil. At a tree man died, but by Jesus' death we live. At a tree God cursed, and through a tree that curse gave way to blessing. God exiled Adam from the tree of life; on a tree the Last Adam endured exile so that we might inherit the earth.

The cross is the tree of knowledge, the tree of judgment, the site of the judgment of this world. The cross is the tree of life, whose cuttings planted along the river of the new Jerusalem produce monthly fruit and leaves for the healing of the nations.

The cross is the tree in the middle of history. It reverses what occurred in the beginning at the tree of Eden, and because of the cross, we are confident the tree of life will flourish through unending ages after the end of the age.

The cross is the wooden ark of Noah, the refuge for all the creatures of the earth, the guarantee of a new covenant of peace and the restoration of Adam. The cross is the ark that carries Jesus, the greater Noah, with all His house, through the deluge and baptism of death to the safety of a new creation.

The cross is the olive tree of Israel on which the true Israel died for the sake of Israel. For generations, Israel worshiped idols under every green tree. Israel cut trees, burned wood for fuel, and shaped the rest into an idol to worship. Now in the last days, idolatrous Israel cut trees, burned wood for fuel, and shaped the rest into a cross. The cross is the climax of the history of Israel, as the leaders of Israel gather to jeer, as their fathers had done, at their long-suffering King.

The cross is the imperial tree, where Jesus is executed as a rebel against empire. It is the tree of Babylon and of Rome and of all principalities and powers that will have no king but Caesar. It is the tree of power that has spawned countless crosses for executing innumerable martyrs. But the cross is also the imperial tree of the Fifth Monarchy, the kingdom of God, which grows to become the chief of all the trees of the forest, a haven for birds of the air and beasts of the field.

The cross is the staff of Moses, which divides the sea and leads Israel dry through it. The cross is the wood thrown into the waters of Marah to turn the bitter waters sweet. The cross is the pole on which Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, as Jesus is lifted up to draw all men to Himself.

The cross is the tree of cursing, for cursed is every man who hangs on a tree. On the tree of cursing hung the chief baker of Egypt; but now bread of life. On the tree of cursing hung the king of Ai and the five kings of the South; but now the king of glory, David's greater Son. On the tree of cursing hung Haman the enemy who sought to destroy Israel; but now the savior of Israel, One greater than Mordecai. Jesus bears the curse and burden of the covenant to bear the curse away.

The cross is the wooden ark of the new covenant, the throne of the exalted savior, the sealed treasure chest now opened wide to display the gifts of God – Jesus the manna from heaven, Jesus the Eternal Word, Jesus the budding staff. The cross is the ark in exile among Philistines, riding in triumph even in the land of enemies.

Jesus had spoken against the temple, with its panels and pillars made from cedars of Lebanon. He predicted the temple would be chopped and burned, until there was not one stone left on another. The Jews had made the temple into another wood-and-stone idol, and Israel must have her temple, even at the cost of destroying the Lord of the temple. Yet, the cross becomes the new temple, and at Calvary the temple is destroyed to be rebuilt in three days. The cross is the temple of the prophet Ezekiel, from which living water flows out to renew the wilderness and to turn the salt sea fresh.

The cross is the wood on the altar of the world on which is laid the sacrifice to end all sacrifice. The cross is the wood on which Jesus burns in His love for His Father and for His people, the fuel of His ascent in smoke as a sweet-smelling savor. The cross is the wood on the back of Isaac, climbing Moriah with his father Abraham, who believes that the Lord will provide. The cross is the cedar wood burned with scarlet string and hyssop for the water of purification that cleanses from the defilement of death.

The cross is planted on a mountain, and Golgotha is the new Eden, the new Ararat, the new Moriah; it is greater than Sinai, where Yahweh displays His glory and speaks His final word, a better word than the word of Moses; it is greater than Zion, the mountain of the Great King; it is the climactic mount of transfiguration where the Father glorifies His Son. Calvary is the new Carmel, where the fire of God falls from heaven to consume a living twelve-stone altar to deliver twelve tribes, and turn them into living stones. Planted at the top of the world, the cross is a ladder to heaven, angels ascending and descending on the Son of man.

The cross tears Jesus and the veil so that through His separation He might break down the dividing wall that separated Yahweh from his people and Jew from Gentile. The cross stretches embrace the world, reaching to the four corners, the four winds of heaven, the points of the compass, from the sea to the River and from Hamath to the brook of Egypt. It is the cross of reality, the symbol of man, stretching out, as man does, between heaven and earth, distended between past and future, between inside and outside.

The cross is the crux, the crossroads, the twisted knot at the center of reality, to which all previous history led and from which all subsequent history flows. By it we know all reality is cruciform – the love of God, the shape of creation, the labyrinth of human history. Paul determined to know nothing but Christ crucified, but that was enough. The cross was all he knew on earth; but knowing the cross he, and we, know all we need to know.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

2006-04-26

St. John Chrysostom's Paschal Homily


Is this not the finest homily to teach everything one needs to know about Orthodoxy and to express the inexpressible joy of Pascha at the same time? I was told by Fr. Lawrence it was composed sometime in the late 4th or early 5th century; this homily is a delight to hear year after year, one of the finest treasures of our Orthodox inheritance.

The Paschal Homily of St. John Chrysostom

If anyone is devout and a lover of God, let him enjoy this beautiful and radiant festival.

If anyone is a wise servant, let him, rejoicing, enter into the joy of his Lord.

If anyone has wearied himself in fasting, let him now receive his recompense.

If anyone has labored from the first hour, let him today receive his just reward. If anyone has come at the third hour, with thanksgiving let him keep the feast. If anyone has arrived at the sixth hour, let him have no misgivings; for he shall suffer no loss. If anyone has delayed until the ninth hour, let him draw near without hesitation. If anyone has arrived even at the eleventh hour, let him not fear on account of his delay. For the Master is gracious and receives the last, even as the first; he gives rest to him that comes at the eleventh hour, just as to him who has labored from the first. He has mercy upon the last and cares for the first; to the one he gives, and to the other he is gracious. He both honors the work and praises the intention.

Enter all of you, therefore, into the joy of our Lord, and, whether first or last, receive your reward. O rich and poor, one with another, dance for joy! O you ascetics and you negligent, celebrate the day! You that have fasted and you that have disregarded the fast, rejoice today! The table is rich-laden; feast royally, all of you! The calf is fatted; let no one go forth hungry!

Let all partake of the feast of faith. Let all receive the riches of goodness.

Let no one lament his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed.

Let no one mourn his transgressions, for pardon has dawned from the grave.

Let no one fear death, for the Saviour's death has set us free.

He that was taken by death has annihilated it! He descended into hades and took hades captive! He embittered it when it tasted his flesh! And anticipating this Isaiah exclaimed, "Hades was embittered when it encountered thee in the lower regions." It was embittered, for it was abolished! It was embittered, for it was mocked! It was embittered, for it was purged! It was embittered, for it was despoiled! It was embittered, for it was bound in chains!

It took a body and, face to face, met God! It took earth and encountered heaven! It took what it saw but crumbled before what it had not seen!

"O death, where is thy sting? O hades, where is thy victory?"

Christ is risen, and you are overthrown!

Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen!

Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice!

Christ is risen, and life reigns!

Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in a tomb!

For Christ, being raised from the dead, has become the First-fruits of them that slept.

To him be glory and might unto ages of ages. Amen.

2006-04-18

manliness

So it appears that Maddox has published a book on manliness. I am certain the book will be hilarious and profoundly manly at one and the same time. Mathematically, as Maddox expresses it, the book's manliness limit is limitless:>

lim
Manliness → ∞

I still think that Maddox has yet to read Judges 19 to understand what untamed manliness is like. Whoever thought the Bible records only the rosy and lovey-dovey tales is mistaken. Of course the type of manliness described in Judges 19 is manliness-falsely-so-called. But Maddox's book should be a howl.

2006-04-11

QW: the best first person shooter!

The finest game I have ever played, quake, has an online version called quakeworld. I have played this game since 1997-1998. I started my gaming life by playing a great shooter called DooM. That was in 1993-4. I remember Dave Folster got me set up with the game. I played the game without a mouse, using only the keyboard to move and look around. I enjoyed DooM a lot and still like to deathmatch against another person or a bot. Occasionally I still load up the game and play it through in single player. I have to admit I've seen everything DooM can offer, yet the game can at times freak me out because of the in-game atmosphere. The single player game of Quake teaches you to engage in battle with demons; which I must say is a very good activity for the manly spirit in all of us. In QW, it is much the same. The main difference being that QW is about playing deathmatch against other humans, most often in 4 versus 4 matches. There is little doubt that QW involves the most demanding skill-set of any first person shooter; the speed of the game, the hard-to-learn movement skills and the team communication skills and tactics are challenging to master. QW is like chess with a boomstick.

2006-04-07

Fr. Chris, Thomas Aquinas, Temporality, and the end of deeds


Earlier in Lent, I was discussing the relationship between time and the end of actions with Fr. Chris of Vancouver. The insight of that conversation led me to think about what Thomas Aquinas had written on the topic.

Why should there be a final judgment when God judges in time?

Thomas Aquinas answers: "Judgment on something changeable cannot be rendered fully before its consummation. Thus judgment cannot be rendered fully regarding the quality of any action before its completion, both in itself and its results, because many actions appear to be advantageous, which by their effects are shown to be harmful. Even a human life continues after the human life is ended: it must be observed that although a person's earthly life in itself ends with death, it nevertheless remains to some degree dependent on what comes after it in the future. In one way, one's life continues on in people's memories, in which, sometimes contrary to the truth, good or evil reputations linger on. In another way, one lives on in one's children, who are, as it were, something of their parent. In a third way, one lives on to a degree in the result of one's actions, as in the case of how, from the deceit of Arius and other false leaders, unbelief continues to flourish down to the end of the world, just as faith will continue to derive its progress until then from the preaching of the apostles. In a fourth way, one lives on as regards the body, which is sometimes buried with honour and sometimes left unburied, and finally turns completely to dust. In a fifth way, one lives on in the things on which one's heart is set, such as worldly concerns, some of which are ended quickly, while others endure longer."

Given this, God must render judgment not only actions and persons in the middle of their history but also at the end: "a definitive and public judgment cannot be made of all these things during the course of this present time."

In a way this doesn't do much to answer the original question, since Aquinas believes that the final verdict will be the same as the verdict passed at the time of a person's death (a person will be in heaven or hell before their actions are "ended"). He suggests that one reason for the final public judgment is to overturn and correct "the imperfect judgment that human beings have made" in the course of history. Plus, although the judgment rendered at death is not reversible, there can be a kind of intensification of judgment: "Arius, at his death, could be judged for his erroneous beliefs about the Trinity; at the final judgment he could also be held accountable for the evil effects of his teaching on later generations."

Apart from the context of final judgment, Thomas' comments here are very intriguing. First, it suggests that endings are as problematic and elusive as beginnings. Second, it suggests some grounds for thinking that the meaning/significance of things appears to change over time. The reason Aquinas gives is that actions are not complete until all the consequences of the action have been taken into account. Precisely, Thomas does not believe that the significance of an action changes over time, but rather that the action is not complete without its effects, and that the meaning of the action cannot be known until it is complete. Thus, for instance, the final meaning of my speech-act today is deferred until all the effects of my speech-act are realized. This puts Thomas intriguingly into conversation with Derrida, with the absolutely critical difference that Thomas believes there is an end, a final summing up, a final judgment. (Thomas also believes that there are judgments within history as well as at the end; this also seems to be an important qualification to his recognition of dissemination.)

Finally, this passage discloses something about Thomas, whose theology is often characterized as static and rigid. To that we can say: not at all. As Fr. Chris said to me, "Thomas stop thinking linearly." In some ways I am like the great Schoolman, yet I fail to possess any of his non-linear mystical fire. "O for a Muse of fire that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention," as the Poet wrote. O that I would ascend!

2006-04-05

Apple Allows Windows on Its Machines

April 5, 2006

Turning a decades-long rivalry on its head, Apple Computer introduced software today that it says will easily allow users to install Microsoft's Windows XP operating system on Apple's newest computers.

The software, Boot Camp, is available as a free download on Apple's Web site and will be part of the next version of Apple's operating system, Leopard. It works on Apple's three lines of computer that run on Intel chips — the Mac mini, the iMac and the MacBook Pro.

Apple's move is a recognition of the growing interest among some users in running Windows on Macintosh computers now that they are using Intel processors, which power the majority of Windows-based personal computers. Many technology enthusiasts have already been sharing software and tricks on the Internet to allow Mac users to add Windows to their new machines, though those approaches involve a far more complicated installation than Apple's new software does.

In a statement today, Apple said it does not intend to support Windows for customers who install Boot Camp and run Windows XP on their machines. Still, the company said it is providing the software because it recognizes a sizeable demand — and opportunity.

"We think Boot Camp makes the Mac even more appealing to Windows users considering making the switch," Philip Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, said in the statement.

Investors seemed to think the strategy would help Apple expand its share of the personal computer market beyond the 3 percent to 5 percent level where it has stood at for many years. Shares of Apple jumped $4.23, or 7 percent, to $65.40 in morning trading. Shares of Microsoft were up 6 cents, to $27.70.

After years of stagnant or declining computer sales, Apple has seen a steady and significant rise in its desktops and laptops in recent years as more consumers have purchased its iPod music player and bought songs through its online iTunes music store.

Though Apple's shift to Intel from chips made by International Business Machines and a former division of Motorola has been considered risky from a technical and business standpoint, the move could help the company capitalize further on the so-far modest gains it has made in the computer business.

Many personal computer users have been reluctant to switch to Apple, because they cannot use software that is written to run exclusively on the Windows operating system, said Charles Wolf, a veteran technology industry analyst at Needham & Company. By making it easy for users to run Windows software on its machine, Apple has taken away "one of the most significant barriers to switching," he said.

The key test will be whether computer buyers will be willing to spend more money to buy an Apple computer to run the same software they can run on a far cheaper Windows-based machine from manufacturers like Dell and Hewlett-Packard.

Mr. Wolf calculates that Apple's biggest market share gains will be among residential users, who are more likely to be swayed by Apple's design and media savvy than corporate and government customers who will likely to stick with cheaper hardware and software configurations.

The shift could mean a significant increase in sales for Apple over time, especially after Leopard becomes the standard Mac operating system late this year or early in 2007. But the company's gains do not have to mean big losses for other hardware makers, Mr. Wolf said, because they will only lose a small fraction of their market share.

"You are starting out with a market share of 2 or 3 percent and maybe going to a market share of 6 or 7," he said. "Apple is not going to take over the world."

Users who download and install Boot Camp must buy a copy of Windows XP software, which starts at $141.98 for the home edition. The Boot Camp software serves as an intermediary that creates an installation disk (users will need to provide a blank compact disk for this step) that lets the Windows software operate the Apple hardware, including its networking, audio and graphics devices and controls. Certain other features like a remote control for Apple's media software will not work with Windows software.

Once the installation is complete, users can select which operating system, Apple or Windows, they want to use each time they start the computer. Sounds sweet?!

2006-04-03

Schmemann's Journals and Thomas Hopko on Prayer


The journals of Alexander Schmemann were published in 2000 by St Vladimir's Seminary Press, and they are simply mesmerizing. The same rich voice — the same rich soul — that is evident in Schmemann's classic published works shines through in these journals. His semi-"outsider" status as an Orthodox Christian in a Protestant nation gives him a unique perspective on American life. His long experience as a theology teacher with pastoral responsibilities gives him rare insight into the church and human personality. And he is altogether human. A moment of solitary silence at a train stop fills him with overwhelming joy, but in the next entry he is despairing of the direction of his life (he began the journal when he was 52). As a man of 40, I can relate to this type of spiritual self-questioning: should I have not stepped back from becoming a deacon, should I have had coffee with that person or enjoyed that mountain view, should I have not wasted time fly fishing or reading about tying knots or how to code in C? And so it runs on.

Schmemann's descriptions of his several intense encounters with Solzhenitsyn are worth the whole book; Solzhenitsyn, by Schmemann's account, is absolutely committed and obsessed with his own calling and vocation, uninterested in anything outside of that, ascetically single-minded. The description rings true, and indicates one of the key reasons for the later strain between the two men, given that Schmemann describes himself as a man who instantly sees both sides of a question.

The whole volume is wonderful, but I confine myself to just one sample:>

Why am I drawn from America to Europe and from Europe back to America? I feel that the usual answer is, Europe is culture, roots, traditions. America is freedom and also lack of culture and rootlessness. This answer is incomplete, one-sided, simplified and incorrect. Tentatively, I would say that in America, one finds everything that Europe has, while in Europe there is hardly anything of what America is. One is drawn, not so much TO Europe as OUT of America because in Europe one is spiritually more comfortable. There is always something to lean on, almost physically, whereas America is spiritually difficult. For years, people have rushed to America for an easier life, not realizing that deep down, life is much more difficult there. First of all, America is a country of great loneliness. Each one is alone with his own fate, under a huge sky, in the middle of a colossal country. Any culture, tradition, roots seem small there, but people strongly cling to them, knowing full well their illusory character. Secondly, this solitude in America demands from everyone an existential answer to the question, to be or not to be, and that requires effort. Hence so many personal crashes. In Europe anyone who falls, falls on some ground; in America he flies into an abyss. So much fear, such angst.

What draws a person to America is the possibility of having one's own individual fate. Once you have tasted it, it becomes impossible to be just a Finn or a Frenchman; in other words, to be determined once and for all. One is liberated from it. And although liberated, one is often drawn again to the illusory stability of Europe, to dreams and fantasy . . . While walking from Notre Dame to the Seine, to Place des Vosges, I realize that all that I like so much is illusory, not needed, that it has no relation with the France of Mitterand and others. The real France wants to become America. America does not want to become Europe, therefore it is genuine, while Europe is steadily losing its genuine character.


It is good for a man with a very small spiritual stature to read the thoughts of a great man who knows how to give thanks. And according to Fr. Thomas Hopko, the prayers of a thankful man lighten the heart of despair and put a man into a right relation with God the Maker. The brilliant fly fishing priest notes the classification of prayer into four types: asking (for oneself and others), thanking, praising, and questioning or complaining to God. "To learn to come to God in every situation," explains Fr. Hopko, "and with each of the four categories operating all the time, is a very important achievement: the achievement of a prayerful life."

What may we ask for in prayer? "For everything good; and nothing good is too small. For what should we thank Him? For everything. For what should we praise? For everything. About what may we question? About all things not understood. About what may we lament and complain? About all that is frustrating, confusing, and tragic in our lives. But in all things: thanksgiving and praise, for this is the essence of faith." And in all things, Fr. Hopko stresses: "Thy will be done."

Prayer must be private, personal, and secret. It cannot be limited just to the liturgy 'the common work' of the Church. Strictly speaking, the liturgy of the Church is not merely a form of personal prayer, a form done corporately and openly, together with others. Liturgy is more than a prayer. It is gathering, being together, singing, celebrating, processing, announcing, teaching, listening, interceding, remembering, offering, receiving, having communion with God and each other, being sent into the world with an experience of something to be witnessed to… Its efficacy depends upon our personal prayer done alone in secret. The liturgy cannot be our only prayer. If it is, we should seriously question its meaning and power for us.

How can we begin to pray? Just by beginning. But how to begin, with what sort of methods? Everyone's way will be different, but the saints give two absolute rules: be brief, and be regular. These are the pillars of prayer. Brevity to ensure humility, to discourage despair, and to enable us to do what can reasonably be done. And regularity to build the rhythm of prayer into the rhythm of life as an unchanging element of our existence. It is a million times more effective and pleasing to God to have a short rule of prayer rigidly kept at regular times than to "do a lot" just any old time, whenever we happen to do it.

This bolded bit is particularly pleasing for me to know. I will end this post with a thought by my favourite novelist:

Young man, do not forget to say your prayers. If your prayer is sincere, there will be every time you pray a new feeling containing an idea in it, an idea that you did not know before, which will give you courage. Then you will understand that prayer is an education...

2006-04-01

Auden and Worship

W. H. Auden said, "In my opinion sermons should be [a] fewer [b] longer [c] more theologically instructive and less exhortatory. I must confess that in my life I have very seldom heard a sermon from which I derived any real spiritual benefit. Most of them told me that I should love God and my neighbour more than I do, but that I knew already."

His first experience of worship was of "exciting mysterious rituals" rather than sermons, and this "implanted in me what I believe to be the correct notion of worship, namely, that it is first and foremost a community in action, a thing done together, and only secondarily a matter of individual feeling or thinking."


I don't agree with Auden regarding points [a] or [b]. Against point [a], I do think a weekly homily is a needed aspect of life in our age in our North American environs. Because we are living in such a violently materialistic time, the spiritual weapons of Christ's Gospel need to be forged in us on a weekly basis; perhaps even more so during Lent. Again, with regard to point [b], I think longer homilies are counter-productive; too much listening leads to most people turning slightly dull of hearing. A short and focussed sermon makes a few points that will have a better chance to stick. But oddly in the light of his thoughts on homilies, I confess that I concur with his experience of worship. Surely as any Orthodox would? He seems to be touching upon the sacramental aspect of worship; and aren't these the types of heavenly realities for us in the Church? Does he not also touch upon the fundamental authentic Christian truth that worship is corporate and not individualistic?