Brethren

After lunch I decided to buy a cup of coffee. As the receipt was printing the clerk, for some mysterious reason, decided that his hands were too dry. So, he squirted some moisturizer into his hands.

I was a little taken aback. I mean, is that even normal? What clerk decides to apply hand moisturizer while he's working the counter?

The clerk handed me my receipt. He had yet to finish working all the moisturizer into his skin. So, my receipt was duly moistened.

Wow, I'm thinking to myself, this is really weird. Am I being Punked or something?

It gets worse. My coffee's sitting in it's cup. Being in a helpful mood, the clerk decided to hand it to me...after he's put the lid on. Now, I don't even mix sugar into my coffee. I certainly won't take any hand moisturizer, thank you very much.

Wow, I'm thinking to myself, is Jamie Kennedy about to pop out and obnoxiously tell me I've been "Xed?" (Is that show even on anymore? The WB isn't terribly choosy when giving out TV contracts, is it?)

What surprised me most was my reaction. I was angry for about ten seconds. Then I smiled and laughed to myself. That clerk is a total goofball, but I'm sure I've done equally stupid things in my time (in fact, I'm sure of it). This was no great crime, no offense against me (not that I should get angry if it was on purpose; Christ ws crucified and let it slide). It was yet another example of the charming quirkiness that characterizes man. We can be so weird sometimes.

I can have a pretty bad temper at times. But not this time. Prayer and fasting sure do wonders. I'm still a rotten person, but perhaps not as rotten as I'd otherwise be.

Meta-note: As I write this, I can't help but have a twinge of smug self-satisfaction. Look at me, I'm so charitable. I can't even begin to imagine what it must be like to be a wonder-working saint. Guys like that can heal a blind man in the middle of a cheering crowd and walk away humble as anything, having never lost sight of the fact that God's Grace is behind it all. Meanwhile, I can't even have a minimally charitable thought without wanting to pat myself on the back.

Lord, save me.

Malthus

First of all, let me state that it is man's duty to carefully and responsibly husband the earth and its resources. The earth if ours; yet, like a home, it must be cultivated with love and reverence, as a sign of love and respect for the Master of the House.

That said, articles like this infuriate me.

Predictions of environmental disaster seem to be just as accurate as predictions of the Second Coming. And Malthusians seems to forecast gloom and doom just as often as millenarian nutcases forecast the "rapture."

Also, don't you always detect an anti-human element in stories like these? Case in point:

Because of human demand for food, fresh water, timber, fibre and fuel, more land has been claimed for agriculture in the last 60 years than in the 18th and 19th centuries combined.

You mean, [gasp] that people demand food and fresh water? And we demand more of it than before? Horror of horrors!

Perhaps this is due to the fact that over 6 billion people live on the planet. Of course, hardcore environmentalists think that's "too many." That phrase is generally code for either: 1) there are too many brown skinned people running around, or 2) man is a cancer that must be purged so that mother nature can flourish once again (think of the plankton!).

Sure man "exploit" the environment. In return people live longer, healthier lives. But every living thing exploits the environment. Plants leech nutrients out of the soil, lions brutally kill antelope.

True, man's impact on the world is much greater (sorry God made us smart enough to figure out a way to turn plants into medicines and cut down forests to grow more food; sorry most of us start from the proposition that humans are more valuable than artichokes). We can lessen that impact one of two ways:

1. Totally ditch civilization. People would pollute a lot less if they just moved back into caves and started foraging for nuts and berries again. If the doom and gloom forecasters would be willing to leave their air conditioned homes and showers behind first, then maybe I'll even consider the idea.

2. Continue to support free market innovations. As we become richer, we have an increased ability to be able to worry about the state of the environment. For centuries men tried to figure out how to ensure a steady stream of food and how to avoid death from infenctions, pneumonia, and other things a trip to the drug store fix nowadays. Since the demands of survival are not as pressing anymore, we can afford to spend money worrying about nature.

We can afford to set aside huge tracts of land for parks and natural preserves. We can afford to process waste before it's released into the environment. The list goes on.

Compare where we are now to the middle of the Industrial Revolution. Compare standards of hygiene, living conditions, etc. then and now. When would you rather live? You can thank mankind's industry and intellect.

Of, you can drag your knuckles in the dirt and look forward to dying of a tooth infection at the ripe old age of 28.

Panagia, Theotokos, Parthenos

I write in response to a question Mac posted in a comment to this post.

I have no issue with addressing and praying to Mary, as the Mother of Christ, etc., because I look at it as a sort of Female side of God. As if, due to cultural and gender-based influences, it is difficult to see God as anything other than masculine, and Mary affords a different perspective.

Just to clarify, I'm an Orthodox Christian; Mac seemed to be under the impression that I'm Catholic. I just wanted to clear that up.

I pray that the following if clear and free of errors.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to think about God in terms of masculine and feminine sides. God is a Unity, first of all. He is also transcendent. Masculinity and femininity are biological, and hence physical, concepts. These cannot apply to God.

I'd also caution about thinking of any aspects or characteristics of God. There are two basic ways to think about God. The first, and highest, is to think about God in terms of God, as a way to approach God to whatever degree we can. This is what the Church Fathers would have called true theology, meditations on the Holy Trinity in itself. Here we cannot speak of God as loving, just, what have you. These are all characteristics of the economic Trinity, or God as He relates to His creation. These meditations are in some sense inferior because they view God not through God, but through His creation.

Looking at the God Himself, we find the Unbeggoten Father, Who is neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit; the Begotten Son, Who is neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit "Who proceeds from the Father" and is neither the Father nor the Son. Thought stands still before the One in Three, and the Three in One.

(I'd like to write more on the Holy Trinity in a later post, and take up the long-dormant Filioque debate that occupied this blog in months past.)

God is unknowable. Yet, mysteriously and defying all human logic, He made Himself knowable to some degree. As the Virgin's Akathist Hymn mentions, the Son of God became the Son of the Virgin. This is a historical fact. Jesus the Christ was both fully God and fully man, born of a virgin. He died on the cross and arose on the third day, according to the Scriptures. Further, though Jesus had many disciples, He chose twelve Apostles who were all also men. God choose to manifest Himself in the form of masculinity, and we honor that to this day by ordaining only men to fill the order that He first created when He chose His Apostles, the men who would become His first bishops.

But again, God is beyond masculine and feminine in that He is not man. God became man so that men might become gods. But God is not a man, and is above and beyond any anthropomorphisms we can use to describe Him.

This was all just as a bit of background. The main point I wish to put forward, in response to Mac's question, is that Mary is not God. She is not at all the female side of God. She has the incredible honor of being God's mother, yet she is still His creation, just as we are. (And, though she is a symbol of many things, she is not a symbol of God's feminine side, but more on that in a moment.)

That said, Mary is the greatest of all saints. She is the only person in all history pure enough to have been able to carry the infant Christ. She is the greatest model of humility and obedience before God. She spent most of her early life in the temple, serving God. When the Archangel Gabriel visited her, Mary submitted herself to God's will and accepted the great task set before her, knowing full well the dangers that she faced as an unwed mother in a fiercely traditional society. God found her a fitting caretaker in Joseph, who refused to cast her out though she was pregnant.

As Mary accepted Christ into her womb, so must we accept Christ into our hearts. As she submitted her will to His will, so must we. She is a symbol and example for all Christians, as well as a symbol for the Church (as the Son manifested Himself into the world through Mary, so does He work in the world through His body, the Church).

Though Mary does not show us the feminine side of God, she does show us the importance of women. Christianity proved very liberating for women. Mary, a woman, is our greatest saint. Women were the first ones to know of the Resurrection, because they were steadfast in their faith when even the Apostles were scattered after Christ's imprisonment and crucifixion. A man can no longer put aside his wife with a certificate of divorce, as under the Mosaic law. The list goes on.

So yes, in some sense Mary is a figure that breaks down old gender norms and helps to establish that women are as fully human as men are. But she is so much more. She is the Mother of God. She was pure enough to bring the Son into the world so that He could fulfill His salvific mission. Her submission to God's will was the first of a series of steps that resulted in Satan's kingship and dominion over the earth being broken, and the shackles of death were shattered. One can't say enough for the All-Holy Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary.

But one can never say that she is God, or a female side of God.

Theotokos and Virgin, rejoice! Mary full of Grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the Fruit of they womb Jesus, for thou hast born the Savior of our souls.

Congratulations to all the new Catholics out there! Among the new converts that I know to some degree or other, congratulations especially to old friend JRB and Elliot.

A priest once told me an interesting story. He was on Mt. Athos and encountered a very old and pious hieromonk, who was also an ordained priest. This monk approached the priest warmly and reverently. The priest was taken aback, and asked why he was honored with such respect. The monk, very simply, responded that the priest had experienced the sacrament of ordination recently, and God's Grace was somehow "fresher," so to speak.

So it is with you all. You have not dishonored and made light of your baptisms through sin and self-indulgence. I pray that you never will. At this moment, close as you are to the almighty, pray for a not-humble-enough sinner who could use all the prayers he can get. You can be assured of my prayers, whatever they are worth.

The Ever-Virgin Mary

A blessed Feast of the Annunciation to you all.

As my grandmother if very fond of pointing out, have no fear of anxiety. When you leave your door in the morning, simply make the Sign of the Cross over yourself and ask the Ever-Virgin and All-Holy Mother of God to offer you her help and guidance.

May the Theotokos offer fervent prayers for us all, unworthy though we are before her Son.

The Hesychasts

Elliot's got a very interesting and challenging post up about St. Gregory of Palamas here. I've numbered my points according to the segmenting of his original post.

1. I used to think that Orthodoxy hasn't had an Councils with ecumenical force since the Schism, but other Orthodox disagree. I'm pretty sure I read that in one of the essays in Eastern Orthodox Theology, a very good collection of essays on several aspects of the Faith.

I won't come down on either side of the issue yet; I want to see if I can find the cite and re-examine the argument. I just wanted to through that out, regardless.

2. I disagree, if I correctly understand what Elliot means. I think the idea of divine simplicity is actually very important. It informs the Catholic understanding of the Holy Trinity, for instance, which seems to make the hypostases posterior to the simple essence.

Turning to the point about necessity, I suppose this arises from how we choose to think about God's Essence (to the extent we can think about God's Essence). I'm far from an expert in apophaticism and other modes of Trinitarian thinking, which seeks to go beyond the economic Trinity and attempt to approach the Trinity in itself. However, some Fathers have a good point in arguing that the names "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit" are more accurate than the name "God." "God" is a name that assumes the relationship between the Lord and man, while the names of the Trinity contemplate the relationship the Lord has to Himself in Himself. When we introduce concepts like love and justice into the Lord's essence, we're talking about "God." This introduces necessity into the Lord's essence. If love is part of the Lord's essence then necessity is introduced into creation, a necessary expression of that love.

I'm not sure if these are the objections Elliot had in mind. I'm working somewhat from memory of past reading, but mainly thinking as I type.

3. I think this point relates to my notes in #2. Energies are only a part of "God" and not of the "Father" or the "Son" or the "Holy Spirit." At least that's what I think; I haven't read as much of St. Gregory of Palamas as I'd like to, especially for one so interested in hesychasm.

4. This is my favorite of Elliot's 4 points, a very challenging one.

I'm not sure that a Palamist would say that God's Essence would swallow up a man. I don't think one would even entertain the possibility of a man ever experiencing God's essence. And one couldn't maintain that proposition without becoming a Monophysite, and a Palamist probably wouldn't like that.

With the Incarnation, the unknowable suddenly became knowable. God became man, that man might become God. Christ, along with several saints (like the Ever Virgin Mary the Mother of God, and the Propher Elijah), bodily rose up into Heaven. Those fortunate enough to enter Heaven will have their bodies, as prefigured by the Transfiguration and those bodily assumptions. Heaven will be like Paradise, I suppose, and I don't think there's anything to indicate that Adam and Eve had any experience of the Lord's Essence.

Beyond that, just because Christ could experience the Lord's Essence doesn't necessarily mean that we will as well. Christ exercised a Lordship that will never, and can never, be totally ours. He was God from before all time, and became man. We are men from the time we're born, and will hopefully become gods and reign with Christ at the End. But we can achieve no more. We can become like Christ, but we can never become Christ. I don't think we will necessarily have access to His experiences, either.

I hope his was clear. Maybe I'll have to return to this in the future. I think I may have reached one of those moments where thought stands still for a second, as my jaw hangs agape and moves with the breeze. Thinking about the Trinity, the Lord's Essence, and the meaning of the Incarnation tends to do that to mean.

Very difficult and interesting stuff to think about. In the end, though, faith cannot seek understanding. Understanding must seek faith. Lord, help me to know what is True, even if I can't make sense of it.

EDITED TO ADD: I just noticed that I wrote "St. Gregory of Palamas" instead of "St. Gregory Palamas." Wow, I'm a dullard. And sorry about that, St. Gregory.

Response to Randy

I recently surfed my way over to Randy's blog, and we've started up a little debate. Sine my latest response is on the lengthy side, I thought it more appropriate to post it on my blog rather than as a comment.

I want to first make a few points about the history that Randy alluded to, and then move on to some comments on political philosophy and ethics.

I think Randy's analogy to the ancient Greeks is a little imperfect (I'll assume for the moment that we're talking about Athens, as the various city-states certainly had significant differences). Athens didn't know taxation as we know it, if I recall my studies correctly.

The rich paid a lot, it's true, but that was a cultural choice and not a political one. When Themistocles needed to build his fleet to fight off the oncoming Persians, for instance, he didn't tax the rich. He asked that they each contribute one talent (or however much it took to build a trireme at that stage of technological advancement). That's generally how taxation worked in the pre-imperial days: rich families made contributions to the temples on the Acropolis. With Empire came real taxation, and all the brutality that comes with it: the Melian Massacre, the siege of Samos, and so forth.

This new wealth brought with it a war machine. The poor found constant work on Athenian triremes, and so were more than happy to continue to patrol the Aegean and extract more taxes so they could stay in business. Though imperial wealth gave Pericles enough money to build the Parthenon and completely rebuild the entire Acropolis after the Persians burned it some decades earlier, it also lead to massive instability, decades of war, and eventual collapse of the city-state system (had Athens and Sparta never fought, would Phillip and Alexander have been able to subjugate their fellow Hellenes?).

It seems to me that the greatest contributions and examples of Greek society came when the city-states were politically weak and did not tax. The golden age came when men clad is dogskin worked their plots of land and were totally self-sufficient, when these men were the ones to march out to war with the spear and shield that they had provided for themselves to do battle. These men were fiercely independent and crafted a society opposed to the politically powerful Mycenaean palace system that existed in Homeric times. Let's not forget that the Greeks didn't trust the rich, who didn't earn their keep. They also didn't trust the poor, who were shiftless and dependent on others rather than their own hard work. All of the admirable fruits of classical Greek society (from their philosophy to their drama, from their methods of warmaking to their self-governance) grew out of a fiercely independent chauvinism that idealized the middling and independent farmer-soldier. The rich were vulnerable to excessive pride and the poor to despair, and both of these characteristics could turn into a sense of entitlement (to either political rule or material wealth) that threatened Greek civilization.

Of course, as a Christian, I tend not to distrust the rich and the poor so much as to pity them, for various reasons. Looking to the poor for the moment, I agree that it is imperative that we all develop the love that will allow us to help those in need. I would suggest that you focus too much on the material issue of poverty and not on poverty's deeper significance.

But that was probably unclear. Here's an illustration. Suppose I starve to death on a deserted island, because I was foolishly swimming alone in the middle of the night and the current swept me out to sea. That's a horrible thing to happen. But now suppose I starve to death on a street in the crowded financial district of a major city, with very rich people walking past me and ignoring my plight. Clearly situation two is worse, right? In other words, the mere fact of poverty or physical suffering is not as disturbing as the callousness that leads to such poverty. This world will soon pass away, and the physical pain we experience here is fleeting. But the corruption that men carry in their hearts will have lasting significance.

In some sense I think we agree on this point. But we disagree in that you go on to argue that we should not be callous and oppose taxation and social welfare, while I go on to argue that we should not abdicate our personal responsibilities in favor of government action. I do so for a few reasons.

First, the government is inherently inefficient. If we want as many goods to get to the poor as possible, we should favor private action over state sponsored action. The government works through the coercive power of taxation, and it's appetite is ravenous. How often have we seen politicians simply call for more money when faced with failing programs, rather than propose any meaningful reform? That's because it's very easy for the state to get more money ("won't somebody please think of the children/the elderly/the [insert your favorite class here]" and other such rhetorically powerful but philosophically empty catch-phrases come to mind) by raising taxes, or borrowing, or whatever. A private charity, on the other hand, actually has to work to impress donors and actually get resources to those who need it. Some charities get over 90 cents out of every dollar to aid recipients; I doubt any government agency can boast of that kind of efficiency.

Second, the government is inherently impersonal. I don't have anything to do with the poor when I pay taxes. I don't even have anything to do with paying taxes when I pay taxes. The state taxes my money, I don't pay like I'm paying for a pair of shoes. Yet I have to actively cut a check to the charity of my choice, after doing a bit of research to make sure it's not a scam. Plus, I can help in non-monetary ways: by volunteering at a soup kitchen, mentoring a child, reading to the elderly, whatever. Cultivating this sort of behavior seems like what we should be shooting for.

Third, if we are excessively selfish at this point in time, that's most likely a consequence of the times and government policy. For generations people depended upon each other. Look the 19th century and early 20th century. Though critics call this era a time of unbridled, bare-knuckles capitalism that hurt the poor, the rich gave a surprising amount. How many hospitals and libraries, for instance, did Carnegie fund? How many regular people contributed money to their local churches? For centuries people have been forced to depend upon each other for support, and a culture reinforcing that reality developed accordingly. That culture has been largely dismantled in the last century.

Consider the elderly. Before Social Security children were expected to look after their elderly parents, a not unreasonable phenomenon. Now the elderly retire (retirement wasn't even on the table for the great mass of people before Social Security, back when work was considered ennobling and not just a way to make money; that belief can be traced back to the ancient Greeks, for the record) and lead horribly depressing lives in solitude since their children generally move far away (expecting the government to care for the old folks) and don't even provide any grandchildren to pass the time. And when children actually do "provide" for their parents, it's usually by sticking them in a crummy nursing home. Yet we worsen the problem by arguing about how to expand Medicare and save Social Security rather than by trying to reinvigorate a culture of family and community, one of generosity and love.

Because of our faith in government, as opposed to society and the church and each other, we've developed a rather perverse worldview that encourages individuals to abdicate their responsibilities.

Sunday of Orthodoxy

A very happy Sunday of Orthodoxy to all of you.

This is a joyous day, on the first Sunday of Lent (proof again that Lent isn't supposed to be sad or dreary). Though we celebrate the day that icons once again adorned our churches, we call this day the Sunday of Orthodoxy, a day to mark and celebrate the entirety of the Faith.

Why? Because those precious icons are powerful symbols of the Faith. In Christ the invisible became visible and expressable. Christ really was a man, and we celebrate that fact by portraying His Body. He also portray the Bodies of all the Saints. Yet the flesh we see depicted in an icon is not of this world. It is deified flesh, the Flesh of the Transfiguration.

Christ sharpened the lines that had faded in man, originally created in God's "likeness and image." Now we must all be icons of God.

Homosexuality

I thought I should write a few thoughts on the subject, since the topic has come up in class readings and in some recent conversations.

During a talk with a gay friend, he convinced me that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is rather stupid. My reasons for opposing the policy are probably different than his, though. I now oppose it because it doesn't make sense for me to label people "homosexual" any more than it does to label them "heterosexual." No, this isn't some deconstructionist line of thinking. It just seems to make sense that sexual impulses and orientations are nothing more than passions and impulses. They don't define people. It makes more sense, say, to describe one man as a married father of four and another as a monk than to describe both as heterosexual. Sure, in some trivial sense both are heterosexual in that both desire women. But one has responsibly acted upon his impulses by channeling them into the good of family life, while the other has chosen to heed a different calling.

If a man in the military confesses to having homosexual inclinations, he shouldn't be punished for it. He deserve the same prayer and love that, say, an unmarried man who lusts after women deserves. Both take a broadly defined good (physical union with another person) and pervert it, each in their own way. Both need to pray and fast and seek true repentance, and those around them should be participants in that process. Unfortunately, both homosexuals and those who would have sex out of wedlock both increasingly have the mainstream culture on their side, which makes such repentance more difficult than it should be.

That said, if a man is caught engaging in homosexual acts while in the military, he should be kicked out. Similarly, an unmarried man caught engaging in sex acts with a woman while in the military should be kicked out. I wasn't aware that people in the service actually date. Is it just me, or is that wholly inappropriate? If one of the perks of joining the Army was to pick up chicks, you need to go home. Inter-service fraternizing is just not cool. The services should also stop turning a blind eye to prostitution, which I've heard is quite a problem on foreign bases.

As a society, we can't let go of the proposition that homosexual acts are sinful. However, we should tone down the irrational gay-bashing. Culture necessarily plays a role in our thinking, but we should temper that with reason.

Homosexual acts are sinful to the same extent, and for the same reasons, that divorce and contraception (yes, I think I've changed my mind over the past year or so) and other such acts are sinful. I concede that I have an aesthetic revulsion to homosexuality, which is largely cultural. I hope, however, that that arational feeling has not excessively guided my thinking, or colored my rhetoric, when writing about homosexuality on these pages in the past. If it has, I sincerely apologize.

The beam in one's own eye can often skew one's perception. I have plenty of my own work to do.

What is Sin?

The Curt Jester's very witty post on Sinbot 2.0 prompted this post.

I used to think sin was, well, bad stuff people do. To sin is to get angry with someone, to commit adultery, to steal, and so forth. To sin was to cross the line, to engage in some sort of prohibited conduct.

That's only sort of true, I now think. One can walk out of church after confessing or receiving, be nice to everyone one meets, etc. and still be a sinner.

How does that work?

A list of prohibited conduct only makes sense when we talk about cultivating a relationship with God. Stealing is not wrong just because God said so; it's wrong because it impairs our relationship with God. But what is that relationship supposed to look like?

Two groups of people generally strike me as interesting examples of deep and consuming love: children and young people in love. Both groups dwell on the object of their love nonstop, whether it's a parent, a teddy bear, a girlfriend, what have you. Such a person can't stop thinking about his beloved. A little boy counts the hours till his father comes home from work. A young man sees his girlfriend's smile in every object of beauty.

These people desire closeness, and express that closeness even when they are alone: their thoughts inexorably center on those they love. When that obsession begins to diminish, it's natural for us to see a lack of love. When a little boy grows up and spends more time with his friends, or when a man loses interest in a woman, some aspect of love has been lost. Both have decided to devote their time and energy to something else.

Our relationship with God isn't all that different. Sure, I may not lie or steal in the days after confession, but do I really love God? So I see God's Hand when I gaze upon creation? Is the Immortal Name of Jesus Christ always on my lips? If my hours are "sinless" in a rule-based sense, yet my heart is not turned towards God, then am I really blameless? When I break a sin-rule I place my own will above God's no less than Satan did when he rebelled. When my heart is turned towards the fleeting goods of this life and to my own cares and concerns, have I dethroned God any less?

I recently read a brief monastic treatise that eloquently made the point I'm clumsily trying to make.

Pray that the Holy Spirit may teach us to pray sincerely and unceasingly.

I'm not sure if this is totally accurate. There's a very good chance I'd end up a Bacardi 151 swigging monk, like Angus. (I'm an odd one: if I wasn't in law school I'd probably be in seminary; or I'd be in the military, but I think fighting with guns and bombs is really cowardly, and would rather be in a phalanx than in a modern platoon any day of the week).

The Knight You scored 34% Cardinal, 43% Monk, 32% Lady, and 75% Knight!

You are the hero. Brave and bold. You are strong and utterly selfless. You are also a pawn to your superiors and will be lucky if you live very long. If you survive the Holy wars you are thrust into you will be praised for your valor and opportunities both romantic and financial will become available to you.

My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 40% on Cardinal You scored higher than 54% on Monk You scored higher than 18% on Lady You scored higher than 95% on Knight

Link: The Who Would You Be in 1400 AD Test written by KnightlyKnave on Ok Cupid

Fasting Question

I notice that a lot of my fellow Orthodox bloggers post various vegan or otherwise appropriate recipes and recommendations during the Lenten seasons. Why? Is it really appropriate for us to continue to eat relatively normal foods during Lent, with the only exception being that they're technically meat or dairy free?

I've seen recipes for things like Lenten chili and muffins. The instinct behind such cooking strikes me as odd. The peasants who have fasted for centuries didn't resort to food substitutes like bean chili or soy milk. Take my grandmother. During Lent her cooking revolves around three basic things: rice, potatoes, and various green things (like spinach). It's generally bland, dull food. The absence of her normal cheese pies and roasted lamb is quite obvious.

That's not to say that fasting should be difficult. Lent should be joyous in its own way, as I've previously tried to explain. Nothing is difficult when Christ's name is on our lips. But I think it is appropriate for us to forego things that even appear to be normal food during Lent. We should develop the ability to realize that fasting is quite easy, no matter how extreme. Just as tons of saints did before us, we too can subsist on little more than Grace; the laws of biology and digestion crumble before a God that can send food down from Heaven for his prophets or encourage men to live prayerful lives in barren wastelands with nothing but the occasional locust to much on.

Am I right, or totally of base?

Parenting, 21st Century Style

This is very sad. There's something very wrong with the world when parents have to hire other people to do the parenting.

I recently saw a program on the National Geographic Channel (I think) on zoo apes and changes in their lives over the past 50 or so years. The first apes to be captured and taken into zoos were young, since it's much easier to capture a juvenile ape than a fully grown one. In the absence of parents, zoo workers raised these young ones. When these animals grew old enough to have their own children they had no idea how to raise them (as they didn't have much contact with ape mothers or fathers). So zoo workers had to raise the next generation of ape children, and so on.

People seem to be going the way of the ape. One generation messed with the concept of family, and it's having some pretty severe repercussions. Let's hope people can re-learn how to be parents. If we can't, we're in deep trouble.

Clean Monday

Lent finally begins today, Clean Monday. The atmosphere that surrounds Easter Lent is always fascinating. Yesterday was the Sunday of Forgiveness, while the Sunday before that was the Sunday of Judgment. As we approach Easter we approach Mercy and Love. We approach pure, unbridled joy, as St. John Chrysostom explained in his famous Easter homily.

And in the meantime we fast and pray, even more than usual. Yet we do so with a joyous heart. We do not tear at our clothes, we do not pour ash on our foreheads. We abstain from food and smile because we feast on Christ himself, in both a figurative and literal sense.

Some of the Desert Fathers ate very little. The Pillar Saints barely needed any food or water. Yet they did not mortify or punish the flesh, just as we do not fast for the pain it causes. We fast to transform the flesh into the Flesh of the Transfiguration. We fast to transform the dirt that God collected into the Flesh of Adam, loving created in God's likeness and image.

Is it any wonder that next Sunday is the Sunday of Orthodoxy? Icons do not depict the muddled flesh we behold with mortal eyes. Icons depict the Flesh of the Life to Come, a Flesh on Fire with the Grace of the Holy Spirit. This Flesh is the product of fasting and prayer.

Though in one sense we fast during Lent, know that we are also called to feast on God as we prepare to celebrate his Blessed Resurrection. Christ may not have Risen yet according to the liturgical calendar, but that day swiftly approaches.

(That's why it's so wonderful to see how Orthodox nations celebrate Clean Monday, not as a day of sorrows but as the first day of spring and a sign of the Life to Come.)

Bacardi 151 Congratulations! You're 134 proof, with specific scores in beer (60) , wine (66), and liquor (104).

All right. No more messing around. Your knowledge of alcohol is so high that you have drinking and getting plastered down to a science. Sure, you could get wasted drinking beer, but who needs all those trips to the bathroom? You head straight for the bar and pick up that which is most efficient.

My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 63% on proof You scored higher than 87% on beer index You scored higher than 90% on wine index You scored higher than 96% on liquor index

Link: The Alcohol Knowledge Test written by hoppersplit on Ok Cupid

(via Eve)

10

Following Eve, Cacciaguida, and Zorak, here's my 10:

1. I've had a hereditary vision (one my father had before me, his father had before him, etc.).

2. The Shakespeare Lady once told me I was so handsome I should be in movies; my cousin's grandmother and her old lady friends once told me I was so handsome I should be "discovered" while walking through New York City (now if only women my own age thought that way...).

3. I once saw the face of Jesus, thought it turned out to be something evil (and really scary).

4. While watching the election results for the 2002 congressional election (where the Republicans made an unexpectedly strong showing), I celebrated by drinking over a liter and a quarter of my friend's Bombay Sapphire; woke up feeling great the next morning, surprisingly.

5. I got incredibly drunk in front of perennial Prohibition Party presidential candidate Earl Dodge.

6. I've high-fived Lars Ulrich, drummer for Metallica.

7. I own an awesome miracle icon.

8. I actually miss pro hockey. A lot.

9. After a ferocious night of drinking I woke up on a random porch, a long way from home (and had to rush home and shower so I could get to work later that morning); those who know me have heard this story a million times already.

10. I own a picture of me shaking (and crushing) Mayor Bloomberg's hand; he's got a very weak handshake.

EDITED TO ADD: Number 10 doesn't really say much about me. So, instead, there's this: before the age of 10 (seven, eight?) I began to pray to God to make me grow up into a great man; in return, I offered to live the rest of my life alone and miserable, if only it could be an influential and great life (a different twist on the choice Achilles made as a young man). I also spent a lot of time offering to trade my place in Heaven, should I have it, with the seats of any unfortunate people in Hell. I was an odd kid, and am now an odd adult.

I've added some blogs and websites, to reflect my new reading habits.

Aside from the one post on my interesting dream, I intend to pick up the debate on the Holy Trinity, now that I've had some time to pray and think and read. More on that soon, I hope.

I had a very weird dream a few nights ago. I was in what seemed to be my grandmother's house, a structure that no longer exists. The windows and doors were all closed tight, but light was eerily streaming in through cracks and gaps from the outside. I had the distinct impression that I was under siege. I ran to the second floor into a bedroom. When I turned around and looked into the dimly lit hallway I saw a menacing shape being to coalesce, like smoke that was coming together. I knew what it was; I've seen evil things enough times to know. So I shouted, at the top of my lungs, "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have Mercy on me a sinner."

The shape instantly disappeared. The mood of the placed changed. A bizarrely lit war zone became home once again. I started to pray the Jesus Prayer, and made my way to each door and window in the house. I made the sign of the Cross over each, and said something to the effect of "I hereby seal you with the sign of the Cross. Admit no evil."

I woke up at 4:30am and felt so wonderfully peaceful. I felt an incredible warmth, the sort acetics have written about. I realized that the Jesus Prayer was still on my lips. The tiniest fear suddenly intruded into my heart. I walked over to each window and doorway in my house and sealed them all, as I had done in my dream. At peace, I went back to sleep. I dreamed the Jesus Prayer, and woke up with it several hours later still on my lips.

I'm pretty confident the dream was legitimate. Some of the Fathers have written that one can easily tell the source of a dream's or vision's inspiration. When one begins with a false peace that turns into a mortal fear and despair, that dream of vision comes from Satan. When a deep fear turns into mystical Peace and Joy, that dream comes from the Father. Also, though Satan can take any form he so chooses (or at least appear to take any form; he can take on the form of any bearded and long-haired dude and come across as Jesus, since we don't actually know what Jesus looked like), and thus lead even the well-intentioned astray, he can never assume the form of the Cross.

I think I know what my dream meant. There is perfect safety and joy only in God. How easy it is to simply call on the Lord in times of trouble, to simply sign oneself with the Cross and mark oneself as a servant to the Master? What powers would even dare God, the Triune One and United Three? How easy it is to conquer sin! How easy it is to bear the Cross! Alone we are weak. In Christ, though, we can defeat any and all adversaries.

Such a glorious thought! The sweetness of Heaven is ours to taste. The enemy is powerless.

And yet, what a depressing thought! How often do I fail because I forget? How often to I walk alone and stumble, when a simple prayer will save me? Why can't I make the effort to say that prayer, or make that seal?

May the Holy Spirit grant me the gift of prayer. May my guardian angel always remind me to use it.