Why I am a Christian

Introduction: For those few actually wondering what I’ve been doing of late, other than Great and Holy Week, Pascha, and Bright Monday, in my spare time I have been infesting the web pages of Dan Simmons. In the course of that infestation, I’ve written several things which have apparently aroused the curiosity of the readers there. One of the readers there happened to ask how and I why I became a Christian. This letter followed (with some minor alterations and additions). The name and identity of my correspondent will remain concealed, in order to protect the noncombatants.

Dear Mr. X:

Thank you for your well-wishes for my birthday yesterday. It was a good one: I had a two-hour walk along the beach (Hermosa and Manhattan Beaches) near my home, I began reading Richard Feynman's "QED" (his elegant explanation of Quantum ElectroDynamics), and I cooked for my wife and myself a nice beef rib steak with baked potato, butter and sour cream. All and all, it was one of my better birthdays.

Thank you also for your request to learn more about why I chose to become a Christian. As I find distasteful the current tendency among Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals to "witness" to their faith (I believe that J. D. Salinger quite wittily referred to it as “the worst form of name-dropping”), I thought it best to answer your request in a private letter, rather than to parade my story about in a public posting in the Forum.

It would probably be good to give some background: while I was raised as a Roman Catholic for my first seven or so years in Tulsa, Oklahoma (an interesting story in itself), I was fortunate enough to escape childhood persecution by the baby Baptists and Fundamentalists there when my family moved to Southern California. I continued to go to Catholic school there, but, being a voracious reader and an occasional thinker, I decided at the age of 13 to become an atheist. I did so because, on a diet of Philip Wylie, Montague Summers, and Ayn Rand, I decided that an uncritical faith was not for a critical thinker.

For a couple of years, I espoused the Objectivism of Ayn Rand, and, unfortunately, I was an arrogant little prig in those days. To quote from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", though: "I got better."

Basically, I noticed that a lot of atheists adhered to their atheism as a matter of faith, just as much as theists held their beliefs. As I did not have much respect for faith at the time, I decided to become an agnostic.

It was just a couple of months after I had done so that I realized that there were two types of agnostic: those who were not sure whether or not there was a God, and those who believed that it was impossible to know whether or not there was a God. I came to the conclusion that the latter course was one that I could not take: not only did it involve a rather uncritical faith, but it closed off any sort of inquiry on the subject. I thus decided that I was an agnostic in the first sense, and was uncertain whether or not there was a God. I also decided that it would be worthwhile to examine that question further, and to prove, one way or another, whether there was such a thing as God.

During this time, the philosophy of Existentialism was becoming popular in the United States. I read Sartre and Camus, and found them both wanting. Basically, I found that their philosophy was entirely self-consistent, and the death of any inquiry for truth. If one believes that there is no rational order to the universe, and that there is no meaning in it, other than a meaning which one makes for one's self, then one can become an atheist, or whatever else one wishes. But without meaning, without an underlying order to the universe, there is no possibility of science or of knowledge, and life was absurd.

I also was in the process of learning formal logic, and studying rational systems. I found that such systems did not go into infinite regress, but began with axioms; in other words, with ideas or things worthy of belief. As a result of this study, I came to several conclusions: 1) that it could be consistent with reason for one to start with self-evident beliefs, and to build rational systems of though from these; 2) that the only alternative to the belief that life and that the universe were absurd would be that the universe, and the life which began in that universe, was an ordered, or rational system, and 3) that if the universe was a rational system, then it was a necessary consequence that in its origins, it would not go from effect to cause in an infinite regress, but that ultimately, there would have to be a First Cause.

In examining aspects of the universe, I found that there was great beauty, order, and (for want of a better word) wisdom in it. As manifestations of the effect had (to my mind) to be present in the cause, I came to the conclusion that in the First Cause was Order, Beauty, and Wisdom. Basically, rather than the wheel, I had reinvented the lines of reasoning of Plato and Aristotle.

From this conclusion, I came to two others: the first was that the more that I examined it, this First Cause seemed to be indistinguishable from God. But the second was not so much a conclusion, as an emotional response: at some point, I asked myself what was the appropriate response of a rational being to the possibility of the existence of God, and my immediate response was: gratitude, love, and the desire to learn more of this Being. At this point, I became a Theist.

I also had to deal with the unsettling possibility that not only did God exist, but that this God may have in some way communicated with humankind. I decided to start reading the world's religions, including Greco-Roman and world pagan mythologies, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Taoism, the teachings of Confucius, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. From this study, I came to several conclusions:

1. That many of the pagan mythologies appear to be compilations of stories told to attempt to explain things to the people of the time (rather like the modern tendency towards science fiction and fantasy), and that mixed in with a fair amount of nonsense is some truth, and some measure of inspiration;

2. That many of the world's religions (e.g., Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, etc.) appear to be attempts by their respective authors to sift through their indigenous mythologies and to find in them a human wisdom through which humankind might find peace and happiness. In the cases of Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism, the authors of those religions have specifically stated, one way or another, that the search for an "almighty God" or an "almighty Spirit" was irrelevant to their studies;

3. The only world religions I know of which specifically claim inspiration from or communication with a transcendent being are Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism;

4. From a simple study of the texts of those religions, it appears that only Judaism and Christianity develop unique doctrines. A textual study of the basic texts of Islam and Mormonism reveals a certain derivativeness: Islam from Judaism and Mormonism from 18th Century Protestant Christianity. While both of the latter religions have strengths in that they maintain the high moral code of Judaism and Christianity, they also have admixtures of a peculiar mythology (in the case of Mormonism), and of a barbarism (in the case of Islam: that is, its martial aspect, its subjugation of non-Islamic religions in the basic texts, and in some of the moral aspects of its leader, Muhammad) which I found to be personally repugnant.

I also started examining the religions from another angle: from their creation myths, from the Aborigines to the Zulus, and just about everything in between. With but one exception, all the other creation myths were of the fanciful sort found in the Firesign Theatre's "I Think We're All Bozos on This Bus". That one exception, which followed in large part just about all that we have learned from modern cosmology, biology, phylogeny, and anthropology, was the creation myth to be found in the first chapter of Genesis. That was my first clue.

Other clues that I found as I started reading Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings (e.g., Psalms) was the odd conjunction of a particularly barbarous people, and some of the highest wisdom that I had found in any of the religious writings that I had read. I also started seeing that this people was gradually transformed into one of the most intelligent, cultured, and simply civilized people on the face of the Earth. I personally came to the conclusion that there might be something to this God thing, at least as far as Torah was concerned.

I also started reading the New Testament, and as I was learning Greek at the time, also got into what was originally being said. I also started reading the apologetic writings of C.S. Lewis (together with similar writings as well as the fantasy literature of J.R.R. Tolkein, Charles Williams, and Dorothy Sayers). As a result of that reading, the objections which I had originally had to the possibility of supernaturalism (e.g., miracles), divine inspiration, of sin, and of resurrection, began to fade. I began to accept the possibility that the transcendent God might not only have communicated with us, but have actually become present as a human being.

Finally, at the age of 24, and on the Great and Holy Thursday before Easter, I accepted Christ, both in my heart and through the Eucharist, in the church of two friends who had helped me take the final steps, after an absence of more than ten years.

You have only asked me how I became a Christian, and so I will spare you the details of how I became a Russian Catholic, or why I decided that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy were both at the center of Christendom. I would, however, like to point out several things before I close this letter:

1. This is only an attempt to show the lines of reasoning by which I became first a Theist, and then a Christian: it is not an attempt to convert you. As Robert A. Heinlein put in the mouth of one of his characters, faith, like trust, is like a lifejacket: it can only help or cover the one who uses it;

2. This is not an attempt at religious chauvinism, or to attempt to say (as with so many religious believers) that "my religion is the one True Faith--everything else is totally wrong and damned. I find (as do many Catholics and Orthodox) the "philosophia perennis" of the pagan Plato and Aristotle and their later followers to have much wisdom quite compatible with both Judaism and Christianity. I also find much of the wisdom which I have found in Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism to be of great value to me, and each of these religions have given me great insights into human nature in general and my own happiness in particular. I must point out though, that the best of all of the virtuous pagans (including the Gautama Buddha, Lao Tze, Kung Fu Tze, Plato, and Aristotle) ask different questions, and point in different directions, than do Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, the Prophets, and Jesus of Nazareth. If it comes down to it, I prefer to follow the latter rather than the former line of teachers;

3. The possibility exists that I am entirely wrong: that there may be no sentient God, no Resurrection, no Heaven or Hell, and that when I die, that will be the end of my consciousness, forever. (Alternatively, I may wake up to hear the angels proclaiming “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One” in Hebrew, or “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet” in Arabic). I got used to that concept when I was in the middle of my atheism at the age of 13. I do not believe as I now do because I find such faith “comforting”, or “an escape”, or “a consolation in my later years.” I believe as I do because I believe it to be true. If it were adequately shown to me that it was not, then my immediate response would be to say: “To Hell with it!”

4. It is likely that one reading this long and tedious tirade would say: “How can one believe in Christianity, when so many atrocities have been committed in its name?” It is a reasonable question, and one which is the primary reason why it took me more than eleven years to accept Christ. I will note, however, two conclusions that I have come to after many years of reading World History and Religion, which I have come to term “Brandt’s First and Second Laws of Human Behavior”:

“First, there is no concept, idea, belief or creed so noble or holy that human beings cannot somehow manage to screw it up.

“Second, the fact that humans can screw up any concept, idea, belief, or creed does not by itself undermine the validity of the underlying idea, etc.”

Hoping that all of this rather tedious drivel might in some way answer the question which you asked, I am

Very truly yours,

Bernard Brandt

Dan Simmons' April Message-Update

Several days ago, I posted the full message of Dan Simmons' April Message here, because either technical error or a hacker's intent had caused the message to be removed, and because I thought that it was important that that Message should be read.

Mr. Simmons has since put the text back on his website, here. A mirror site which has the full message may be found here. Since Mr. Simmons' Message is available, I thought it best that people get that message directly from the source. I have thus set up these links, but have removed the text of that message.

Nonetheless, there has been a lively debate regarding the Message in Mr. Simmons' Forum, with some people (apparently genuinely) believing that the Message was just the expression of "hateful vitriol". I decided to take part in that debate, and (of course) I took the other side. What follows is the text of my reply:

* * *

If the assembled multitudes at www.dansimmons.com and its forum will permit a comment from a newcomer, I would like to counter the thesis of William Lexler, who has asserted that the April Message is Hateful Vitriol. Mr. Lexler’s thesis appears to be that a subtext of the April Message is that the West should kill millions and millions of Muslims, which is genocide, and which in turn is hateful. If it is true that Mr. Simmons’ message posits that, then Mr. Lexler would have a point.

It is unfortunate that Mr. Wexler does not bother actually to read the April Message, or to point out in it where Mr. Simmons is saying that we should begin a genocide of Muslims. I find, however, that if one were actually to read the message, and to read between the lines of it, Mr. Simmons is in fact saying something entirely different.

In my reading of the Message, Mr. Simmons is presenting a science fiction/horror story of the type: “If this goes on.” George Orwell’s 1984 is one example of this genre. Orwell’s story is an explication of “what would happen if English Socialism were to prevail in Great Britain. Simmons’ story is likewise an explication of what would happen if the West were to remain conflicted over whether to take steps to prevent radical Islamic nations or groups from manufacturing or using nuclear weapons.

I come to this conclusion from the words which the Time Traveler gives as hints of what is to come in the year 2006: Ahmadenijad, Natanz. Arak. Bushehr. Ishafan. Bonab. Ramsar. Anyone who would bother to Google these words, or to check on them at www.wikipedia.com or www.globalsecurity.com, would know that Ahmadenijad is the name of the current President of Iran, who is pushing for Iran’s development of thermonuclear weapons, who has vowed the destruction of Israel, and who has even been insane enough to posit that the Holocaust did not exist. The remaining words are the names of Iranian cities or towns in which Iran’s heavy water program, its nuclear plants, its plutonium purification program, its nuclear technology, and its sources of uranium are located.

The remaining words are just as indicative: General Seyed Reza Pardis is the General of Iran’s Air Force, who has sworn that attempts by Israel to disable Iran’s nuclear capabilities would be responded to with retaliation with all weapons at Iran’s disposal, including nuclear ones. Shehab-one, Shehab-two, Shehab-three are the names of Iran’s continental and intercontinental ballistic missile programs. The remaining names, from Tel Aviv to Dimona, are likely targets of Iran’s efforts: from cities in Israel to U.S. Army and Air Force bases in the mid-east.

Whether or not the United States would respond to nuclear aggression by Iran with a nuclear response, it is certain that Israel, a nuclear power, would respond with such weapons: since the 1970’s, the Government of Israel has quietly, but repeatedly, stated that if Arab or other Muslim nations were to succeed in the destruction of Israel, Israel would have no choice save to exercise its Samson Option: the retaliatory bombing of all Arab or Muslim combatant countries, which at present include Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, etc. The most likely result of that would be the genocide of both Jews and Arabs, a pan-Muslim Jihad against the West, global thermonuclear war, and a protracted conventional war. A “Century War” would not be outside the realm of possibility, or probability. The destruction of Western Civilization for centuries thereafter would be a more than likely consequence.

In this context, the Time Traveler’s (or TT’s) comments about Category Error and the War against Terror, the miscalculations of the Athenians at Syracuse, and the related Allied miscalculation regarding Iraq, make much more sense: I personally would tend to agree with the TT that a crucial mistake of Bush II after 9/11/01 was in framing the war as one against terror, rather than as against a radical ideological movement within Islam. The mistake is understandable, in that some of our allies were and are Muslim countries, and some of their leaders are sympathetic to that movement.

Nonetheless, in framing the conflict in those terms, Bush II inevitably lost support when he turned his attack from Afghanistan, the center of Al-Qa’ida’s efforts, to Iraq, which appeared to have little connection with terrorism. The facts that Iraq also attempted to obtain or develop thermonuclear weapons since the late 70s, that according to the U.N. Report on the subject, came within six months of achieving such weapons in 1991 (when Operation Desert Storm intervened), that Iraq’s leader had repeatedly stated the intention of using such weapons against Israel, and finally, the fact its leader appeared to be continuing to obtain such weapons in 2002, would have been valid reasons for toppling the government of Iraq, had the conflict been defined in terms of a war on a nuclear belligerent form of Islam, rather than a “war on terror”.

But Bush II miscalculated in two ways in his war on Iraq: 1) he was unwilling or unable to read the intelligence analyses which would determine whether Iraq was a current nuclear threat (and in fairness to Bush II, his predecessor had spent the previous years in dismantling the intelligence agencies and analysis communities which would have made such analysis either possible or accurate), and; 2) Bush II appears to have entered the war without a clear idea of an end game. Instead of returning the so-called nation of Iraq to its pre-WWI partition of a northern Kurdistan, a middle Sunnistan, and a southern Shiastan (and perhaps the ceding of the oil-bearing land to Kuwait for reparition for the 1991 war), Bush instead poured most of his military, economical and political capital into the “democratization of Iraq” for a people who either did not want democracy, or, if they did, to exercise the franchise in a way entirely inimical to the interests of the United States (much in the same way as the Palestinians are now exercising their democratic franchise).

Unfortunately, while Bush II had invested so much energy into the neutralization of Iraq as a nuclear threat, Iran continued, unchecked, to develop its nuclear capability, to the point where estimates now indicate that Iran is within three to six months of obtaining both thermonuclear weapons. Further, it appears that Iran is more than likely, especially with its current president, to carry out the intentions earlier expressed by Saddam Hussain regarding the destruction of Israel.

At this point, it is good to point out a mistake that a number of westerners, including those posting on this forum, are making: they are assuming that people of the Muslim world are proceeding on the same rational self-interest and desire to live and let live that we are. It is a reasonable, and indeed a charitable mistake to make, and perhaps, in the cases of many Muslim families outside of the Middle East, it may be not a mistake at all. But for hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people in the Middle East, they are not proceeding on that basis at all.

They are instead proceeding on the basis that their religion tells them that they are the rightful owners of all of the property and people of the world; that at present, there is the Dar al Islam (or House of Islam) and the Dar al Harb (or House of War); that the job of all believing Muslims is to turn the Dar al Harb into the Dar al Islam and to subject all People of the Book (that is, Jews and Christians) into submission as dhimmis, to convert all pagans to Islam by the sword, and to condemn all apostates from Islam, Christianity, or Judaism to death. By the bye, all you secular humanists, atheists, agnostics and general non-believers who have Christian or Jewish roots are considered to be apostates, as is the secular state of Israel and the post-Christian United States of America.

That is the reason why the Arab and Islamic world has rejected the state of Israel for more than the past half-century: Muslims believe that once a land, like Palestine, has been claimed by the Dar al Islam, it can never be permitted by Allah to be returned to unbelievers. That is why Al Qa-ida has called for the fatwa against the United States and the Allies for their unspeakable act of occupying the land of the Dar al-Islam. And that is why Iraq has called the United States “the Great Satan”, and seeks its destruction, along with that of Israel, even now.

It is hard for someone who has not gone to the mid-East, or read Arab or Persian newspapers, or watched their television, to understand the depth of that conviction, or that hatred, among many Muslims there. I recommend that those who are doubtful on this point start reading the English version of al-Jazeerah. I also recommend that they Google and start reading DhimmiWatch. Finally, as the most illustrative effort, I recommend that those with sufficient internet capability watch the newsclips of Islamic television around the world to be found at this web address (http://www.memritv.org), and to read the transcripts of what these people are saying: they are speaking truly poisonous and “hateful vitriol” against Israel, against Jews, and against the United States and the West, and are expressing their firm intention of destroying each and every one of these “enemies”. The most interesting thing about the newscasts are the thousands to hundreds of thousands of Muslims who are cheering, while this “hateful vitriol” is being uttered.

Thus, it appears that we of the West have two options, as both the facts and the April Message of Dan Simmons indicate: we can continue ruthlessly to suppress Muslim extremist attempts at developing thermonuclear weapons and using them against Israel and the West, or we can expect a thermonuclear and a conventional war, in which the ultimate aim is to subject Western Civilization to the “cleansing” effect of Islam and Shari’a law, and which, if we are to resist it at all, would mean a war involving the genocide of the Muslim peoples.

I leave as an exercise for the student the question of which of these two options would be the true expression of “hateful vitriol”.

Why we fight

Courtesy of Jerry Pournelle:

Why We Fight — An Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto (2.0)

WHEREAS, the period since the terrible events of 9/11 has exposed the vacuity and moral confusion of all too many of the thinkers, politicians, and activists operating within conventional political categories;

WHEREAS, the Left has failed us by succumbing to reflexive anti-Americanism; by apologizing for terrorist acts; by propounding squalid theories of moral equivalence; and by blaming the victims of evil for the act of evil;

WHEREAS, the Right has failed us by pushing ‘anti-terrorist’ measures which bid fair to be both ineffective and prejudicial to the central liberties of a free society; and in some cases by rhetorically descending to almost the same level of bigotry as our enemies;

WHEREAS, even many of the Libertarians from whom we expected more intelligence have retreated into a petulant isolationism, refusing to recognize that, at this time, using the state to carry the war back to the aggressors is our only practical instrument of self-defense;

WE THEREFORE ASSERT the following convictions as the premises of the anti-idiotarian position:

1. THAT Western civilization is threatened with the spectre of mass death perpetrated by nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons placed in the hands of terrorists by rogue states;

2. THAT the terrorists and their state sponsors have declared and are pursuing a war not against the vices of Western civilization but against its core virtues: against the freedom of thought and speech and conscience, against the life of reason; against the equality of women, against pluralism and tolerance; against, indeed, all the qualities which separate civilized human beings from savagery, slavery, and fanaticism;

3. THAT no adjustments of American or Western foreign policy, or concessions to the Palestinians, or actions taken against globalization, or efforts to alleviate world poverty, are of more than incidental interest to these terrorists;

4. THAT, upon their own representation, they will not be dissuaded from their violence by any surrender less extreme than the imposition of Islam and shari'a law on the kaffir West;

5. THAT, as said terrorists have demonstrated the willingness to use civilian airliners as flying bombs to kill thousands of innocent people, we would commit a vast crime of moral negligence if we underestimated the scope of their future malice even without weapons of mass destruction;

6. THAT they have sought, and on plausible evidence found, alliance with rogue states such as pre-liberation Iraq, Iran, and North Korea; states that are known to have active programs working towards the development and delivery of weapons of that would multiply the terrorists' ability to commit atrocities by a thousandfold;

WE THEREFORE DECLARE that both the terrorists and their state sponsors have made themselves outlaws from the moral community of mankind, to be dealt with as rabid dogs are.

WE FURTHER AFFIRM that the ‘root cause’ of Islamo-fascist terrorism lies in the animating politico-religious ideas of fundamentalist Islam and not in any significant respect elsewhere, and that a central aim of the war against terror must be to displace and discredit those animating ideas.

WE REJECT, as a self-serving power grab by the least trustworthy elements of our own side, the theory that terrorist depredations can be effectively prevented by further restrictions on the right of free speech, or the right of peacable assembly, or the right to bear arms in self-defense; and we strenuously oppose police-state measures such as the imposition of national ID cards or airport-level surveillance of public areas;

IN GRAVE KNOWLEDGE that the state of war brings out the worst in both individual human beings and societies, we reject the alternative of ceding to the world's barbarians the exclusive privilege of force;

WE SUPPORT the efforts of the United States of America, its allies, and the West to hunt down and capture or kill individual members of the Islamo-fascist terror network;

WE SUPPORT speedy American and allied military action against the rogue states that support terrorism, both as a means of alleviating the immediate threat and of deterring future state sponsorship of terrorism by the threat of war to the knife.

WE SUPPORT, in recognition of the fact that the military and police cannot and should not be everywhere, efforts to meet the distributed threat with a distributed response; to arm airline pilots, and to recognize as well the ordinary citizen's right and duty to respond to terrorist aggression with effective force.

WE SUPPORT, as an alternative greatly preferable to future nuclear/chemical/biological blackmail of the West, the forcible overthrow of the governments of nations that combine sponsorship of terrorism with the possession of weapons of mass destruction; and the occupation of those nations until such time as the root causes of terrorism have been eradicated from their societies.

WE DEFINE IDIOTARIANISM as the species of delusion within the moral community of mankind that gives aid and comfort to terrorists and tyrants operating outside it.

WE REJECT the idiotarianism of the Left — the moral blindness that refuses to recognize that free markets, individual liberty, and experimental science have made the West a fundamentally better place than any culture in which jihad, ‘honor killings’, and female genital mutilation are daily practices approved by a stultifying religion.

WE REJECT the idiotarianism of the Right — whether it manifests as head-in-the-sand isolationism or as a a Christian-chauvinist political agenda that echoes the religious absolutism of our enemies.

WE ARE MEMBERS OF A CIVILIZATION, and we hold that civilization to be worth defending. We have not sought war, but we will fight it to the end. We will fight for our civilization in our thoughts, in our words, and in our deeds.

WE HAVE AWAKENED; we have seen the face of evil in the acts of the Bin Ladens and Husseins and Arafats of the world; we have seen through the lies and self-delusions of the idiotarians who did so much to enable and excuse their evil. We shall not flinch from our duty to confront that evil.

WE SHALL DEMAND as citizens and voters that those we delegate to lead pursue the war against terror with an unflagging will to victory and all means necessary — while remaining always mindful that we must not become what we fight;

WE SHALL REMEMBER that the West's keenest weapons are reason and the truth; that we must shine a pitiless light on the lies from which terrorist hatred is built; and that we must also be vigilant against the expedient lie from our own side, lest our victories become tainted and hollow, sowing trouble for the future.

WE HAVE FAITH that we are equal to these challenges; we shall not be paralyzed by fear of the enemy, nor yet by fear of ourselves;

WE SHALL SHED the moral cowards and the appeasers and the apologists; and we shall fight the barbarians and fanatics, and we shall defeat them. We shall defeat them in war, crushing their dream of dominion; and we shall defeat them in peace, using our wealth and freedoms to win their women and children to civilized ways, and ultimately wiping their diseased and virulent ideologies from the face of the Earth.

THIS WE SWEAR, on the graves of those who died at the World Trade Center; and those who died in the Sari Club in Bali; and those who died on U.S.S. Cole; and indeed on the graves of all the nameless victims in the Middle East itself who have been slaughtered by terrorism and rogue states:

YOU SHALL NOT HAVE DIED IN VAIN.

--Eric S. Raymond
26 December 2003

Ontological Differences, Part II

In my last entry, I had presented the address of His All-Holiness, Bartholemew, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, in which His All-Holiness suggested that there might be ontological differences between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches which would need to be addressed. One of the things that I have noted about Orthodox Theology, is that it asks different questions and speaks almost in another language from that with which Western “theologians” are familiar. In my near twenty year sojourn in Russian Catholicism, I have learned perhaps a little about that language and those questions. Perhaps it would be helpful to those readers to present what I believe that I have learned.

The two main questions which I have learned, which the Orthodox continually ask, and to which Western theologians seldom respond, are these:

1. Why do you “theologize” through intellectual disputation rather than through your worship?

That the Orthodox ask this question comes in part from their own eponym: the very word Orthodoxy comes from a Greek phrase which can either mean right belief or true worship. Wrapped up in this linguistic nexus is the settled belief among Orthodox that only those who have entered into the heavenly worship can truly be called “theologians”. As far as I have been able to find, Orthodoxy accords the term “theologian” to only three people: John the Evangelist, Maximos the Confessor, and Gregory Palamas. All of those writers have in common the doxologies, or the praise of God, in their writings.

And the Orthodox regard most highly their hymnographers, from Ephrem the Syrian and John of Damascus, to the many (and usually anonymous) monastic theologians who have inscribed the dogmata of their theology into their hymns. Good translations into modern English of those hymns, and that theology, can be found at Archimandrite Ephrem Lash’s website of Anastasis. Otherwise, I would recommend that one compare in Fr. Alvin Kimel’s excellent weblog, Pontifications, his extracts from many eastern writings, which include the highest hymnography, with those of Western theologians, if only to mark the difference in language.

By comparison, most Western “theologians”, from the Schoolmen onward, appear to be far more interested in intellectual dispute than in the praise of the mysteries. From the viewpoint of those in the East, these appear to be, at worst, mere attempts to “unscrew the inscrutable”, and at best, attempts to treat the saving truths of salvation as data for analysis. Their opinion of this process can be best summed up by the Angelic Doctor, the Blessed Thomas Aquinas, who at the end of his life, in response to a divine vision which he was granted, considered all of his writings to be “so much straw.” The Orthodox would entirely agree.

In consequence, many Orthodox appear to believe that much of post-Schism Roman Catholic formation of dogma, from its definition of Transubstantiation, through its definitions of Purgatory, Papal Primacy and Infallibility, and even that of the Assumption of Our Blessed Lady (which the Orthodox express in their Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos), is tainted by an overintellectualization of basic truths, which should be better worshiped as mysteries than defined as doctrines.

I would venture to say that until and unless Roman Catholic “theologians” start to understand and address the question raised above, a basic ontological difference will continue to exist between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, and attempts at union which ignore that difference are doomed to failure. Perhaps the main reason why Orthodox are beginning to look with interest on the current pontiff, His Holiness Benedict XVI, is that His Holiness appears to understand the question, and moreover, appears both to worship and to “theologize” as the Orthodox do.

The second question which Orthodox raise, which is actually a summary of several questions which they ask, is this:

Why does your worship so seldom express your theology, or Sacred Tradition?

I will leave discussion of this question, and its subsidiary questions, to a later posting.

Ontological Differences

At present, something of a debate is going on over at Pontifications. The debate regards an essay of Fr. Louis Bouyer regarding union between Roman Catholics and Orthodox. Bouyer suggests that a form of union already exists between the two churches, and that it is just a matter of recognizing it. Tighe, a Ukrainian Greek Catholic, suggests that Bouyer's thesis is historically naive. Freeman, an Orthodox priest, suggests that an analogy to the Orthodox/Catholic schism may be found in relations between divorced spouses, and that it is a mark of the present schism that Orthodox and Catholics are talking about the same things but are saying essentially different things. Finally Likoudis, a former Greek Orthodox who has converted to Roman Catholicism, also finds Bouyer's thesis to be theologically naive, in that union between Orthodox and Catholics cannot occur without acceptance of all of the dogmata of the Roman Councils after the first seven ecumenical councils; and that opposition to such acceptance is mainly due to anti-unionist Orthodox.

In response to all of these theses and points for debate, I think that it would be wise to read His All-Holiness Bartholomew, and his speech before the Georgetown faculty on the occasion of his receipt of an honorary doctorate from that University. His All-Holiness suggests that there may be "ontological differences" preventing such a reunion, at least at present.

In the interest of providing light as well as heat on the matter, I shall be including a copy of His All-Holiness' address before the faculty of Georgetown. Here it is (and here is my source):

Address Of His All Holiness
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew
Phos Hilaron
(Joyful Light)
Georgetown University, Washington, DC
21 October 1997

Your Eminences, Your Excellencies and Graces, Father O'Donovan, President of this University, Honored Guests, Beloved children in the Lord:

It is a special honor that this distinguished University confers the title of Honorary Doctor upon my Modesty. This is an opportunity for us to approach one another and communicate in the spirit of brotherhood. Although we proclaim that we worship the one and same Lord Jesus Christ, whose name we bear as Christians, we seek in common the causes of our divergence.

In the distant past, great attempts have been made by both sides to prove, and motivated by a different spirit, each side has judged the other as being divergent from the true faith.

This deeply rooted conviction of our divergence has led us to a thousand years of separate and autonomous courses. We confirm not with unexpected astonishment, but neither with indifference, that indeed the divergence between us continually increases and the end point to which our courses are taking us, foreseeably, are indeed different. Our heart is opposed to the specter of an everlasting separation. Our heart requires that we seek again our common foundations, and the original starting point that we share. So that, retrospectively we can discover the point and the reasons for our divergence that led to separate courses, and be able, by lifting blame, to proceed thereafter on the same road leading to the same common goal.

Assuredly our problem is neither geographical nor one of personal alienation. Neither is it a problem of organizational structures, nor jurisdictional arrangements. Neither is it a problem of external submission, nor absorption of individuals and groups. It is something deeper and more substantive.

The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different. Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible.

No one ignores the fact that the model for all of us is the person of the Theanthropos (God-Man) Jesus Christ. But which model? No one ignores the fact that the incorporation in Him is achieved within His body, the Church. But whose church?

Because of the varying responses to these basic questions, we marched on divergent courses. This is easily understood and unavoidable. For whether we comprehend this or not, our existence is ontologically shaped in symphony and harmony with our inner self. According to the description of our Lord, in Matthew 15:11, not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth. This means that our essence is in continuous transformation [Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 3:18] by the renewing of your mind, and in the reflected glory of the Lord.

A characteristic detail, that cannot be understood without special attention, just as is described in the Old Testament, is that Jacob succeeded in having his flock bear multicolored lambs by placing before them multicolored rods [Genesis 30:37-43]. In a similar way, the Apostle Paul writing to the Corinthians says that we are being transformed into the likeness of the image of the glory of the Lord, which we reflect. Consequently the glory of the Lord, which we see, as in a mirror, is that which transforms us. This glory is that to which we are likened. The reflection of the divine glory recreates or otherwise regenerates us into something other or different in essence than our previous nature. Therefore, transformation into the image of the Lord and the image of His body becomes the fundamental pursuit of our life, accomplished in essence by the intervention of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore we do not engage in idle talk and discuss intellectual concepts which do not influence our lives. We discuss the essence of the Being who truly is, to whom we seek to become assimilated by the grace of God, and because of the inadequacy of human terms, we call this the image of the glory of the Lord. Based on this image, and in the likeness of this image, we become partakers of the divine nature [2 Peter 1:4]. We are truly changed, although neither earth, nor voice, nor custom distinguish us from the rest on mankind. [To Diognetos 2, P.G. 2,1173]

This change, which is bestowed on us from the right hand of the Most High, remains hidden, secret and mystical to many. And thus, a life which is directed toward Him is called mystical. That which leads to divine grace are called mysteries. The entire change of both language and intellect is beyond comprehension and when directed by God leads to unspeakable mysteries.

However, the change of man's essence, theosis by grace, is a fact that is tangible for all the Orthodox faithful. Grace is not only obtained through the transformed relics of the saints, which is totally inexplicable without acceptance of the divine. Grace also radiates from living Saints who are truly in the likeness of the Lord [Luke 8:46]. This change is also obtained through Holy Baptism which through grace transforms the neophyte. The transformation may only be grasped and discerned by the senses of those, who have been baptized, and who are receptive to it without external persuasion. According to the trustworthy testimony of devout Christians, divine grace even infuses the inanimate. This too, is discerned by those who are sensitive and pure of heart. Grace can also be obtained by the presence of the Saints who have influenced and sanctified, and to a degree transformed, natural objects and places.

Therefore, the Orthodox Christian does not live in a place of theoretical and conceptual conversations, but rather in a place of an essential and empirical lifestyle and reality as confirmed by grace in the heart [Hebrews 13:9]. This grace cannot be put in doubt either by logic or science or other type of argument.

Our conception of Holy Tradition moves upon the same track. Holy Tradition for the Orthodox Christian is not just some collection of teachings, texts outside the Holy Scriptures and based on their oral tradition within the Church. It is this, but not only this. First and foremost, it is a living and essential imparting of life and grace, namely, it is an essential and tangible reality, propagated from generation to generation within the Orthodox Church. This transmittal of the faith, like the circulation of the sap of life from the tree to the branch, from the body to the member, from the Church to the believer, presumes that one is grafted to the fruitful olive tree [Romans 11:23-25], the embodiment in the body (Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, 12:12-27).

Membership in the Church is not an act of cataloging a person as a member of a group but it is the true rebirth of this person in a new world, the world of grace. From that moment forward, he or she is nourished and grows a new body which is of different substance than the body of the flesh, and is joined with the body of Christ through baptism.

The relevant baptismal Hymn, Whoever is baptized in Christ, has been clothed in Christ is not simply symbolism or a poetic allegory. It is a real fact that brings change in the substance of the human being.

Those baptized as infants, whose Orthodox parents grafted them into the body of the Church, are unable to express in words the change that took place in them, but they feel it. However, those present at the moment of baptism who have purity of heart see the grace that surrounds them. Those baptized at a more mature age and with depth of faith are able to describe the liberating feeling of renouncing the devil and joining Christ.

This ontological view of the life in Christ entails a substantial element of the experience of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The glow of its light illumines all facets of our ecclesiastical and personal life in the Church and disposes of the need for foolish inquires. The Master himself knocks on the door, and seeks that we open to him the door of our entire being, so that he may enter and break bread with us. This is the foundational issue and posture for us as Orthodox. Understanding this opens the door for communication and makes dialogue possible.

The same ontological position of the Orthodox Church brings us to the difficult issues before us.

Let us look at some:

Regarding Dogma, the Orthodox Church maintains an apparently opposing position. On the one hand, Orthodoxy has never started a dogmatic dialogue, on the other hand, the Church has never neglected one. And let me explain why.

As we have said, the Orthodox faithful awaits and desires to become the reflection of the glory of God and through the grace of the Holy Spirit he becomes an image of our Lord Jesus Christ. He desires, in other words, to immediately know one person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, and through him the remaining two, the unapproachable person of the Father, and through the Son alone, the person of the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox Christian strives towards purity of Heart for the visitation of grace, and having been fulfilled, is able to behold the sought-after glory of God. Being thus transformed, from glory to glory, the Orthodox Christian approaches God. On the spiritual journey a dogmatic description of the manifestation of the Lord and his Body, the Church, is not required because our experienced guide at every moment protects us from deception, and allows us to accept the Glory of the Lord in any appearance it takes. Therefore, experiencing the Dogma of the Church is not something that is taught through intellectual teachings, but it is learned through the example of him who, through incarnation, joined Himself to us. To this point, dogma is life and life is the expression of dogma. However, a mere theoretical discussion on the meaning of life and dogma is unnecessary.

However, the evil opponent of man tries to interject between the enlightened faithful and the illuminating glory, his own distorted filter, that is a doctrine, a false glory, so that he might deceive the faithful as being the same. In this case, the Church, like a good shepherd, hurries to guide the faithful towards right glory. The entire body of the Church rises and vigorously warns that the said doctrine is false and that, by embracing it, it separates us from the true glory of God, leads us off the track resulting in the loss of our desired goal. The Church therefore, to protect the faithful from missing the mark, battles the distortions of the glory of God, that cunning spirits continuously plant.

Consequently, this difference in dogmatic theory does not lend itself to systematic analysis. Because, a systematic exposure of this dogmatic teaching could be understood only spiritually and therefore could harm the purity of the pure vision that the faithful has, by the voluntary import of all distortions. That is, immediate empirical and living knowledge of the only true glory of God and not the epistemological enumeration of a multitude of false imitations. This is summarized in the recognition that for those who have an immediate personal knowledge of the Lord, any description of him is rendered needless. For those that are on the road to knowing him, but still do not, a correct presentation of the basic elements of His glory is useful to have and particularly as much as it is necessary so that they do not engage in false beliefs.

Concerning those that have freely chosen to shun the correct Glory of God, the Orthodox Church follows the Apostle Paul's recommendation which is a man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition, reject (Titus 3,10). The same, of course, does not hold true for those who ask you a reason for the hope that is in you with meekness and fear (1 Peter 3:15). Therefore the Orthodox Church is always open for every good-faith dialogue but declines to partake in planted squabbles, because there is always a danger to be misunderstood in such a context.

If time and your kindness permit, let us examine one such case so you can better discern our position.

The nature of the Church, viewed in the light of the Orthodox Faith, is a reality which is recognized spiritually and not descriptively. Each one of us knows the members of his own body not because he has been taught about them or because they have been described in detail by anyone. He knows them, in a special way, because of the direct and living bond with them, even if he does not understand this scientifically.

The Church is our body. As a result of the existence of its Head, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, before all time, and before creation, the Church co-exists with Him before all time. The Church is not an imaginary entity, is not a legal entity, a mere gathering of the faithful, or a worldly establishment or creation. The Church is Christ and those that He chooses, in one body with him for all ages.

The comprehension of the meaning of this, as much as is possible, assumes living this reality fully. That is, what our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life (1 John 1:1), without exception, a sense of the union of all things in Christ, in Whom all things surmised, not pantheistically, but christologically.

All this leads to the conclusion that the organization, the goals, the functions and all aspects of the life of the Church are not determined by human judgment, but the real and unchanging nature of the Church. Thus, the steadfastness of the Orthodox Church on ecclesiastical assumptions of every type is not the product of any narrow perception, but the natural result of our living ecclesiastical experience. We are not talking about an object, subjected to our free manipulation, but of an existence independent of our desires and directed by him who governs all things and Who bestowed upon us limited responsibility or ministry. The starting point of the occasionally misunderstood position of the Orthodox Church concerning ecclesiological matters is rediscovered in the essence of this ministry in this real body directed by its head, the Lord Jesus Christ.

So much for this.

Time is passing and the subject cannot be exhausted. However, in these few words your judgment is expected regarding my thoughts about our hope, a hope starting from a living experience rather than an intellectual conception.

We thank you for your patience and attention. Our love towards you is warm. Let not the simplicity of my words cloud your judgment regarding their truth. You are able to understand the words of the divine Logos through the uttering of human words. Let us always hear the words of the divine Logos so that His grace may always be with us. For this indeed is our wish for you.

Thank you.

The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch Strikes. . .Well, you know.

It is my great pleasure to announce once again to the world that the Order of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch has once again been awarded, this time to Gabriel Syme of Et in Arcadia Ego. The discerning will note that the name is a nom de plume, and while I personally think that the name with which he was christened is an estimable one, I will respect his decision as regards choice of name.

While Mr. Syme has more than qualified with his sympathetic and intelligent writings regarding Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism in general, his recent posting here are of particular note.

So let the Rite of Investiture be administered, let the Holy Orb be given (at the bearer's own expense, alas), and let it be announced that Mr. Gabriel Syme of Et in Arcadia Ego has been inducted into the Order of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. And let the assembled multitudes offer their congratulations, or their condolences, as the case may be.

The Feast of Pope Saint John Paul the Great

Today is the first anniversary of the falling asleep in the Lord of His Holiness, Pope Saint John Paul the Great. While at least one weblogista in my acquaintance has repeatedly referred to this saint as "John Paul the Over-rated", I think this speaks more to this person's flippancy than to his acumen, at least on this one issue.

When I first learned of His Eminence, Karol Cardinal Wojtyla, more than thirty years ago, I found that he was a philosopher, at a time when the most important movement in modern philosophy was phenomenology, and the most important advocate of phenomenology was Edmund Husserl. I found that the most important journal of Husserlian phenomenology, the Analecta Husserliana in 1977 devoted an entire issue of its journal to a treatise by the then Cardinal Karol Wojtyla. I knew even then that he was a great man. Everything since then has confirmed that first impression.

Under Pope John Paul's auspices, the codes of Canon Law for both Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches were reformed; priestly fraternities both for the Old and the New Mass were developed; the magisterial Catechism of the Catholic Church (the first in four hundred years) was promulgated; and most importantly, under his pen, a wealth of encyclicals, from Laborem exercens to Ut unum sint were written. Finally, under his papacy, and through an incredibly intelligent and virtuous development of nonviolent opposition, one of the most evil empires which humankind had the misfortune to experience crumbled into nonexistence.

For all of these reasons, Pope Saint John Paul deserves, together with his brother popes and saints, Leo and Gregory, the title: the Great.

While it is unfortunate that His late Holiness did not do more to combat the tendency towards heterodoxy and unholiness which have developed in the Roman Catholic Church, it is good to consider that His late Holiness had to deal with both the oldest bureaucracy in human existence, and the most incredible tendency towards rebellion and stupidity which humankind has ever experienced. In this context, one should remember the words of the German poet, Schiller: "Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain." If a god could not prevail against such, how could one expect a simple saint, or even a profound pope, to do any better?

A more intelligent and a more charitable critique of His late Holiness could be found in the words: de mortuis, nil nisi bonum -- concerning the dead, say only good. I think that under the circumstances, we can and should say that not only was this pope and this saint good, but also, that he was great.