Throwing Stones

As Christians, it is our duty to correct and guide one another.

Or is it really that simple? In Christianity in general, Orthodox or not, we love our Scripture. We very closely adhere to Paul's endorsement in 2 Timothy 3:

¹⁶ All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, ¹⁷ that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

As a "People of the Book" and practitioners of a revealed religion, the "Book" is integral to our faith. As history shows, however, it has also been very useful as a weapon. In the slave-holding South, it was used quite effectively in helping to control the slave population. In the infamous "God Hates Fags" campaign of the Westboro Baptist Church, it is used to cast judgement on other groups. One might believe that we simply must place a Bible in the face of offenders every time they turn their heads. However, a few things ought to be examined:


Where does the desire to correct our brother come from?

One of the motivating factors in leading the Christian life is to be healed of our passions. One of our most devious passions (and the foundation of others) is Pride. When we come to our brother to "correct" their opinion, worldview, behavior, etc.; have we removed the beam from our own eye? Are we truly concerned with their spiritual health or do we take joy in policing them?


Am I the best person to correct my brother?

Beyond the implications of the first question, we must also examine whether or not our relationship is the sort where corrections can occur. In most peoples lives, their are very few people, if any, that we can listen to without becoming defensive. Becoming defensive is a roadblock to correction because an integral part of one's defense is a process of self-justification. On can justify nearly anything to oneself (something that is not easily done in Confession.).


True conviction.


In my personal experience, true conviction is a difficult thing to achieve in another person. The adulteress woman of John 8:1-11 knew full well what the Law said. In fact, Adultery is one of the big 10. Yet she did not receive true conviction against her actions through mere knowledge of the Law. One might even presume that she did what so many who are unfaithful do and justified her actions. Those justifications might have even stuck with her right up to meeting our Savior. Something deeper must occur for true, life altering conviction. Some of us even need to suffer. All of us need Grace.

True conviction is something really very beautiful in the life of one who truly wishes to change. There is joy in the revelation that pinpoints the wounds that need healing, even if it is bittersweet due to the fruit of those transgressions. We should try to allow those revelations, even when they come in the form of accusations. But not every brother or sister is ready to receive them and, even more importantly, there are so few of us that are capable of delivering those revelations with love and humility. Perhaps the more powerful and effective force in the lives of our brothers and sisters is prayer.

Confession on the Breath...

I was reading this blog post from Logismoi (It seems that piggy backing is becoming a habit, my apologies). I must admit that I'm not terribly familiar with Papadiamandis, but I find Logismoi's argument to be intriguing in asserting that Papadiamandis is still "saintly" regardless of his bad habits. I think perhaps I can use this to shed some light on my 'angry man'.

I mentioned before that I had a way of focusing the 'angry man' into a display of righteous indignation. Much of this, I believe, is for the benefit of my 'character'. We all love a protagonist with a just cause. The problem is that my motives aren't always so noble. I have said "Thou fool' (Matthew 5:22) in many ways over the years. I have brow-beaten and bullied many an adversary, and made many an enemy in debate.

Just as the alcoholic might hide his addiction under pretense of fun, I hide my anger under pretense of moral authority. The difference is that I could theoretically maintain the "show" for my entire life. Addiction has a way of forcing itself to the surface. The alcoholic will most often have to come to grips at some point with his or her need. Friends and family will likewise become aware. My "normal human behavior" is deadly to me but easily accepted (even applauded) in the world in which we live, alcoholism is not so easily accepted. Therefore, I might concede that the alcoholic has a better 'shot' at Salvation than I do. My 'angry man' leads to the 'prideful man' (another target). The alcoholic leads to the 'broken man' which is much closer to where I should be starting. I had to have my greatest enemy revealed to me in Confession. The fallen alcoholic carries his confession on his breath.

Of course, I am not an alcoholic and I cannot venture much further into what such a struggle might entail. Let it suffice for now to know that my being such a 'normal person' has its dangers. The world in which we operate places value in some of the very things which I must reject about myself. Modern society sees long-suffering as a sign of weakness, when recent experience tells me quite the opposite. It is extremely difficult NOT to defend oneself against the odd 'unfairness' in the world. Beyond, that, it takes nothing short of Grace to actually allow for the idea that we are not entitled to get our way. Am I advocating being the world's doormat? No. My goal in destroying the 'angry man' is to grow beyond knee jerk reactions to the odd inconvenience, to see past my own desires and passions. The 'angry man' makes me hang on when I should be letting go.

All the World's A Stage,

And all the men and women merely players;
-Shakespeare-

Each of us is an actor in his/her own little play, showing the audience (including ourselves) our best sides, making the appropriate dramatic motions, and making ourselves into the protagonist we wish to be known as. We do this although the costume doesn't quite fit right, our legs are getting tired, and the spotlight often shows us the things we don't like to see in ourselves.

In our struggles to live the Christian ideal, it is habitual for us to "change the script", directing the 'character' in a more appropriate moral direction. But the actor is left unchanged and, in a sense, unsaved from the wounds he is hiding under his dress and make up.

Inspired by a recent blog post by Archpriest Stephen Freeman, here, I am reminded of this in my endeavor to conform myself to Christ. Christianity is an internal struggle. One which I have not mastered to the point of being authoritative to any degree enough to make blog posts. I am also reminded of how easy it is to make an analogy of the internal life, but a whole different thing to actually examine it. Such is the power of inspiring words. It often seems that they reveal things about that mysterious subject, people, but the spotlight rarely falls on us. Our 'characters' are not nearly as crude as real human beings. In a video interview between Richard Dawkins and paleontologist Richard Leakey, on the documentary, The Fifth Ape, Leakey pointed out that people who have trouble with the idea that they biologically descended from apes, have far less trouble with the idea that other zoo goers descended from them. I think Leakey stumbled upon a fundamental human truth. In my own language, even within this very blog post, I will attribute human qualities and shortcomings to that still mysterious subject, people, and still more mysterious subject, we. In this regard, my focus ought to be the only creature that I have any faculties over, me, even if it is itself nearly as mysterious. To complicate matters, I should not even focus on me, but rather on the one doing the focusing. I cannot afford to make the mistake of revising my 'character', when the 'actor' is the one who needs the Salvation. My first target, if my lifetime confession shows anything, should be the 'angry man'. This is a part of me that I have most effectively focused into my characters righteous indignation. It is my main source pain.

In light of these thoughts, and advice from my spiritual father, my blog posts are going to be internalized. I stated recently that I have grown tired of polemics. It has dominated most of my writing. Henceforth, my writing will take on the appearance of a diary, instead. I still find it helpful to write my thoughts, as it helps me to organize them.

Polemics, Schmolemics...

As I sit down to write this, I must confess that I have grown weary of Polemics. I have no desire to continue comparing Orthodoxy to Protestantism. On the other hand, I have a little too much desire to defend Orthodoxy against Protestantism. We're all reading mostly the same Bible and coming to different conclusions based on preconceived ideas about the nature and purpose of the Christian life. In Orthodoxy, we call those preconceived ideas 'Tradition'. Everyone has a tradition. Everyone has dogma. So, what makes me feel that Orthodoxy has the correct Tradition? What gives it the weight to remain, in my opinion at least, the proper and authentic understanding of Christianity in the face of so many different ideas?

There is a great deal of diverse opinion in the world. In fact, there are as many worldviews as there are people. Particularly in America, perhaps as a result of our entrepreneurial spirit and value of individuality, we have come to a point where often we, as Christians, accept others on the grounds that they also assume the label of 'Christian'. In such a way, we have created an atmosphere in which it was possible to develop over 23,000 Protestant denominations (by some estimates). If that number is disturbing, you might be in agreement with a rapidly growing number of Christians who describe themselves as 'non-denominational'. 

When one confesses a particular doctrine, we may reasonably infer that they actually believe it and that they believe it to the exclusion of all others. When I say the Nicene Creed, it may be reasonably inferred that my Christianity fits within the context of that confession. What the Baptist, the Methodist, the Pentecostal, etc. are saying when they confess their particular creeds is that they believe what they are stating. No one objects to this. If the Baptist thought that their set of beliefs were wrong, they simply wouldn't be Baptist. But the Baptist that thinks that their set of beliefs is correct is doing so to the exclusion of all others. Often in religious conversation, we hear the words “I don't believe [Doctrine A], because I believe [Doctrine B]”. 

What any denomination is doing in reality is stating that they are the “Ark of Salvation”. They are marking a line in the sand and stating, “On this side you are correct and on that side you are wrong.” The logical conclusion is that they are also stating that no one was correct before they worked out their theology. For the Calvinist, no one had it before Calvin. The same applies for Luther. Even Roman Catholicism, with the advent of Papal Infallibility, is in some sense stating that Roman Catholicism was missing something before the doctrine was introduced. Even the non-denominational, although they may lean toward certain Protestant ideals, also takes the really strong stance that no one denomination has got it completely right. 

Furthermore, we are often faced with an utter lack of humility when working out our personal theological views. We will read, listen, and reason until we work out our own theological collage of doctrines and then search for the denomination that best fits us. Imagine that. We want a Christianity that fits us, rather than wanting to adjust ourselves to Christianity. 

The truth of the matter is that any Christian would likely give a limb to walk about the hills of Galilee with Jesus, or travel the Roman world with Paul, in order to get back to the 1^st century Church. We all want the most authentic faith that is possible. Despite whatever pitfall we happen to have fallen into, we really just want the truth. For most of us, if Jesus appeared as He did with Paul, and pointed at a particular denomination, we would abandon our own immediately. Just as Paul abandoned the Pharisees, we would completely readjust our theology to the religious view that Jesus pointed to.

In lieu of such a holy and miraculous event, I can suggest this defense of Orthodoxy. It and it alone can claim lineage from the Church of the first four centuries. All of Christianity was once a unified body of believers who did not refer to themselves as any denominational name but simply as the One, Holy, Catholic(universal), and Apostolic Church. The West split away and has been splintering since(Matt 7:15-20). With so many new denominational names coming into existence, the Church needed a way to set itself apart and took the name 'Orthodox'. Orthodoxy is pre-denominational.

What is significant about that defense is that it shows precedence. Whereas the Adventist is stating that Christ taught but no one really “got it” until the Adventists, the Orthodox Christian has been stating the same message for 2000 years. In fact, the Adventist isn't stating much of anything that goes past 500 years, except when they quote scripture. But they quote scripture and understand it from the Adventist tradition, which is less than 100 years old in its current form.

This is why someone can voice some protest against Orthodox doctrine and theology and it falls on deaf ears most of the time. Scripture has been studied and discerned. It has been worked through and the meaning understood by men who devoted their entire lives to prayer and communion with God. While our understanding can reach new depths and provide new insights, it cannot be negated and replaced by a different version. To negate Orthodox Theology is to negate the words of Jesus when He said, “the Gates of Hades will not prevail against” His Church (Matt 16:18). To take the position that only the Pentecostals got it right is to say that there was no true Christianity between Nicea and the Holiness Movement of the mid-19^th century. 

Thus, when seeking the most authentic understanding of Christianity, I saw no recourse except to come to Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church is the Ark of Salvation. That is not to insinuate that those outside of the Church do not have Salvation. It does not mean that many if not most other denominations are not, in some sense, Christians. It does mean that they are in danger of misunderstanding, confusing, minimizing, and dismissing the authentic Christian life that they could have. Depending on the doctrine of their denomination, they could even miss the mark altogether on what it means to “work out your salvation”(Phil 2:12).

Why do you want to be Orthodox?

Croatian highway, 2006

Today, my priest simultaneously posted a question, "Why are you Orthodox?" and answers from two parishioners. Their answers were wonderful and each brought their own perspective. I wanted to bring my own answer but then thought better about it. Both have been a part of the Church for a long time. The question fit them better. The better question for myself makes the title of this post. Why do I want to be Orthodox?

Faith had never been a choice for me. Growing up Southern Baptist/Pentecostal, with deep Primitive Baptist roots, faith was a no-brainer. This is especially true growing up in the rural South. I had Sola Scriptura in one corner and the Holy Ghost in the other with a tradition of backwoods independence playing referee. We weren't snake handlers or anything (“thou shalt not tempt the Lord”) but we did make for good Pharisees. I was raised to believe that I was a Sinner, but getting “Saved” was my ticket to Redemption. Since nearly everyone around me had a firm hold on Salvation, perhaps it is little wonder that I never questioned the world that was taught to me. Those who are not "saved" burn for eternity in a lake of fire. They were told the truth and if they rejected it. It was their fault. "Saved" in this sense means simply asking Jesus into your heart.

As a young adult, I left the borders of those belief systems and encountered the wider world: The Real World. Life found me standing in front of a Hindu temple in Malaysia, staring at the relief sculptures that frequently adorn such structures. I was frowning at the various depictions of gods and demons that were locked in struggle across the walls, holding back a grudging admiration at how well the artist(s) had captured, even if metaphorically, the human condition. One lighter being stretched for the sky, trying to escape the grip that a bluer being had on its ankle. Others seemed to have escaped, only to realize the volley of weapons hurled at them from the ground. It was the Hindu version of the Ladder of Divine Ascent. I looked to my left and right to witness the local people going about their lives. I have since been accused of judging the people but my religious education left me no alternative. These people are going to burn. I was suddenly struck with the revelation that faith is insufficient as a measure of salvation. Faith alone saved no one. The Devil has faith.

With no alternative understanding of Christianity, I had a crisis of faith. I bargained, begged, and threatened for answers and none were given. I found brief solace in the Old Testament alone but even that could not keep me. Noachidism, the sect of Orthodox Judaism that is reserved specifically for faithful Gentiles, could not see past the narrow view of Creationism. God is no liar. Without stopping to even look at Deism, I went straight to Atheism. Not some arrogant position that men don't need God, but the hopelessness of having no answer at the other end of the phone. Only ringing. If I had heard a voice from a burning bush, I'd have thrown rocks at it.

I was heavily involved with the Creationism/Evolution debate on YouTube.com. I was dumbfounded at the willful ignorance displayed by the Christian apologists and deeply dismayed by the arrogance of the Atheists. The baby had been thrown out with the bathwater and there was nothing “sacred”. Cold, hard, arrogant logic ruled the day. The Atheists had all the facts to support Evolution and the Creationists were doing all of the lying. They still are. In many ways, I still possessed "Christian values". I didn't fit. I was, as one fellow Atheist put it, an atheistic platypus. I subscribed to a video maker whose real name is Archbishop Lazar Puhalo. He resides in All Saints of North America Monastery in Canada. In the course of his videos, he demonstrated a kind of Christianity that I had never known before. Christ, Love, Asceticism, Hell, and more were changed in my understanding. How amazing it is that this “new” faith, this Christianity, is called Orthodox and the world doesn't bat an eye at it. Protestants are searching for the original Church and pass right by it.

A surprising revelation from two other sources also came to light. Daoism, commonly spelled “Taoism”, is an ancient Chinese philosophy absorbed into local Chinese pagan religions. One principle of Daoist thought is that human beings are born good but become “warped”. The ascetic aim of Daoism is to become like “uncarved wood” or to "unwarp" one's self. Something about this concept struck a chord in me. In addition, Buddhism introduced the idea that it was our passions that do the damage. Unknowingly at the time, I had encountered the purpose of the Church. In all practical applicability I found both principles to be true:

1. We are damaged.
2. It is our passions that do the damage.

Which introduced the question:

                     How do we repair the damage?

Of course, adopting those belief systems would mean taking on the rest of their baggage. Simply put, they didn't feel right. I wasn't looking for comfort, but I was looking for home. What is profound about those concepts is that they can be arrived at independent of religious conviction. The truth of them is inescapable. In the course of my studies, I discovered that this was the purpose of the Church. It is a hospital for our souls and it helps us to heal our passions. With no prior knowledge of this, I had been the one to throw the baby out with the bath water. I had walked away from Christianity without really knowing it. It was at this point that I decided to meet with a few Orthodox priests. I met with one of the Russian tradition; who happened to be a convert and from close to my hometown. I also met with a priest of the Greek tradition; a cradle Orthodox born and raised in Greece. It became clear early on that the nice Greek man just didn't know the language I was speaking. The Russian tradition priest knew where I was coming from and, in many ways, why. With his guidance, I am encountering deeper understandings of Christian theology.

The first time I attended an Orthodox service, it was Daily Vespers. It was early August, raining, and the sky was very overcast. Having come in from the rain, Matushka directed me to a seat and I waited for the service to begin. The Choir began behind me, the incense filled the air, and I fell in love. I would not call the seed planted that night Faith. I am still woefully short on that. It will likely be something I struggle with my entire life. That seed is probably best described as Wonder. Thus far, that seed has grown and branched into a new found recognition of the depth of my own sinfulness. This is not to say that I have acquired full self knowledge. Such a thing would likely destroy me. It is only to say that I have started walking down a path, cleared a little brush, swept a few leaves. I am acquiring the tools to work out my Salvation and the weapons to fight for it. For the first time, my faith is not a circumstance in which I find myself, but a conscious choice. Christ is my Saviour and I am putting my trust in Him.

In short, the answer to the question “Why do you want to be Orthodox”, can probably best be answered thus:

            I know where Christ is needed.

The Hardest Pill To Swallow

In coming to the Church, there are some things that a person must “lay aside”. That is, when one concludes that the Orthodox Church is correct, we converts are faced with the prospect that we are not the highest authority of our belief. For those of us that formerly felt that we can only trust the “Word as we understand it”, must come to grips with the “Word as it has always been understood”. Perhaps some of us hang on to our own little “heresies”. We cling to the Church because she is “correct in most things”, but secretly think that she poorly understands others. The caveat in which we may hide is that many, many things have not been officially addressed by the Church.

Some of the more common “pills that must be swallowed” are prayers to the Theotokos and the Saints, Confession, repetitious prayers, and icons. This blog post is not concerned with those subjects, although a fully orthodox understanding of them is a very worthwhile investment in one's salvation. I came to Orthodoxy an atheist. I came to see and fell in love with Christ. As I suspected, I never proved the existence of God. I only succeeded in proving to myself that I needed Him to be there. This is the weak and insufficient condition of my own faith. The benefit of this is that I am a blank slate, allowing Orthodoxy to teach me theology, rather than having to consolidate it with my own.

The hardest pill for me to swallow is that a lifelong union between two consenting adults is sinful. I am, of course, speaking of a homosexual union. The whole thing feels so backwards to me. I can participate in long discussions on the merits of celibacy, asceticism, mysticism, passions, Christology, and even, on really good days, Young Earth Creationism. But the minute someone brings up the sinfulness of homosexual relationships, I can't comprehend what is being discussed.

First, there is the fact that such people do not have a choice in their orientation. This is well documented and understood in Psychology and even more evident in the number of suicides committed by homosexual teenagers each year. One testimony to the truth of Christianity is that people gave their lives rather than abandon it. The “non-choice” of homosexuality is evident in the deaths of those who could not escape it. As a high school friend of mine who happens to be homosexual has pointed out, if it were a choice, he would un-choose it. It is a difficult life, especially in the South.

Second, even as a heterosexual, I face the power of lust. Yet the plight of the homosexual is such that they receive added baggage. More than anything, I think it is the “and” factor that bothers me. There is the power of lust “and” it's homosexual nature. Where my own lust-fulness was directed at and ultimately consummated in a relationship with a member of the opposite sex, the homosexual has no such outlet. There is no hope of ultimate release in this life. In essence, the shelter I have in my marital bed is not obtainable.

Third, we most thoroughly understand Sin, not as a specific act, but as a condition that infects us and, through our actions, does the damage. Lust can overwhelm a man and, through selfishness, cause him to violate a woman. Greed can infect our minds and cause us to steal. Homosexuality is different in that the only evident harm in a consensual lifelong relationship between two persons of the same sex is that other people don't like it. Meaning, the root ethical problem of a homosexual relationship is that it causes everyone else to sin. Maybe it is a hold over from my Protestant days but, whenever I read the Law, I saw the practical nature of the Decalog, the symbolism and holiness of the dietary and cleanliness laws, and the health and social wisdom of the laws concerning sexual morality. But the law demanding that two persons of the same sex cannot enter into a consensual lifelong union is an enigma except to see it as something God arbitrarily doesn't like(does God do anything arbitrary) or that it provokes other people to sin.

And that is probably the most troublesome idea that I can imagine. Could it be that the homosexual is required to choose celibacy for our sakes? Do they have to bear an extra cross so that we do not “hate our brother”? It is a difficult problem to address and one that I often have to abandon almost as soon as I pick it up. Perhaps my greatest flaw of reasoning is expecting this fallen world to show some level of fairness. Apparently, we are not all on a level playing field. Perhaps the axiom that I should abandon is that we are “all created equal” in our burden of Sin. Is there any Patristic teaching on this? Is there some guidance available to me?

So, I must swallow the pill. I must accept that Orthodoxy is correct, and I am wrong. My judgment is weak and ill advised, and the Church overwhelmingly opines that such relationships can never be sanctified. If asked of the relationship of homosexuality and Orthodoxy, I must state that Orthodoxy is in agreement that homosexual relationships are sinful and have no place in the body of Christ, and lament that my own lust can be controlled in my marriage bed and the inquisitor must suffer more than I or walk away from Orthodoxy altogether. My burden is so light and their burden is so very heavy. My heart breaks for them and I'm not sure if I should become callous to their feelings or heretical in my position. More than any other subject, I have to stand on a knifes edge, fearful of either side.

Humble: Verb or Adjective?

The other day, a co-worker and I were discussing something. He, being Pentecostal, and I, ascribing to Eastern Orthodoxy, certainly have our differences. I’m not sure what the original subject was, but we landed on the topic of humility. Both of us had a lot of trouble defining the word “humble”.

According to Oxford, “humble” is an adjective which means:

     Having or showing a modest or low estimate of one's own importance.

This would is probably a sufficient definition for the use of the word in common, everyday language. In all outward appearances, the person whom we describe as “humble” expresses his or her humility in the form of actions. Thus, it is often difficult to define “humble” without using an example. The definition is more in line with a “verb” or action rather than the adjective that it should be. Humility should be described as an attribute or, in the Christian sense, a spiritual condition.

The question at hand is, how should one define the actual “condition” of being “humble”? If one is working toward possessing such a condition, what is it they are actually working for? Alexander Schmemann, in chapter 1 of his popular Great Lent: Journey to Pascha, insisted that God was also humble. He explained this opinion by defining “humility” as essentially being synonymous with “completeness”. God is humble because praise adds nothing to His Glory. In the same way, a humble Christian should never allow worldly praise to build his or her pride. Alexander Schmemann wrote more than once on “humility”, and he better defines and explains this position in chapter 2 of the same work, as excerpted in an article posted here.

As it stands, perhaps the simplest definition for “humility” would be:

     Possessing accurate knowledge of one’s self.

This definition, while encompassing Alexander Schmemann’s, probably better conveys the Christian sense of the word. God is indeed humble in that He has an accurate knowledge of Himself. No human being is nearly as humble as God. In humanity, however, humility would involve knowledge of the depth of one’s own sinfulness.

A relative and I were messaging one another concerning her recent visit to a 7^th Day Adventist church in our hometown. Her experience was generally positive and she was very excited about the fact that they did “feet washing”. My Great Grandmother, who goes to a Primitive Baptist church, does feet washing as well. She went on to explain to me that it was to show humility just as Jesus did.

This is certainly a noble idea. But it lead me to wonder about whether it was effectively displaying real humility or was it an exercise to develop humility. In the parable, The Publican and the Pharisee, we get the sense that the Pharisee probably performed all of the tasks that are designed to display humility toward God. The Publican, as we know, actually possessed humility before God.

Prefacing the following with the statement that my Great Grandmother is an exceptionally humble woman, she takes a great deal of pride in the fact that her church does these practices as an act of humility. Perhaps the take home lesson is to recognize the many acts of piety within the Orthodox Church should be used as tools to gain humility, rather than performing them as displays of humility. If the lesson is taken to heart and we actually begin to possess humility, we will display it as a natural expression of ourselves.

Dogma of the Two Wines.

Below is an article my wife found on the net. I found the arguments within misleading and thought they deserved a proper refutation. The author is Pastor John Hamel and the article is The “Jesus Drank Wine” Lie: The Bible Exposé You Need to Read. The article is presented just as it appears here. All black text is Pastor Hamel’s, all red text is my own.

The “Jesus Drank Wine” Lie
The Bible Exposé You Need to Read
by Pastor John Hamel

One Sunday morning while preparing for a service, a young man who had previously attended our services approached me.  He explained that he wouldn’t be in Church because he’d been “drinking” the night before.  He then tried to justify himself by explaining, “Jesus didn’t have a problem with wine.  He drank it Himself.”  He claimed he could prove it from the Bible.  Half hung-over, he stood there dumfounded as I corrected this lie using the same Bible he referred to. 

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that a hung over man actually got up and went to church to tell you he wouldn’t be at church. Now it would be agreeable to address that this person was drinking in excess, but the author is claiming that alcohol is evil in itself. Let’s see what support can be mustered for this position.

I took him immediately to the following Scripture in Isaiah 65:8.  “Thus saith the Lord, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all.”

In this passage, Isaiah is using an analogy to show the sinful Israelites that they were a bad batch of wine, but new wine was growing on the vine. Within the analogy comes a sense that the new wine has not yet matured. This passage is out of context and does not support the author’s position.

I shared with this Brother that when the juice of the grape is still “in the cluster” God calls it “wine.”  “Grape juice still in the cluster is not ‘fermented’ wine,” I explained.  “It is un-fermented wine.  It is grape juice.  There are two kinds of ‘wine’ in the Bible.  Fermented and un-fermented.” 

What many don’t realize about the teaching that there are “two kinds of wine” in the bible is that it is a dogma. Having a dogma is not a bad thing. In fact it is a necessary thing. However, one must consider where a dogma originates. Has it been a position of the Church from the beginning? Is there any support in the Hebrew tradition? The answer is “no” to both questions. Temperance is a Protestant movement.

I then explained that Jesus neither drank nor created fermented wine.  That would have been disobedience to His Father’s Word.  Disobedience is sin and He never sinned. (Hebrews 4:15) 

This is a method often employed in propaganda. The Pastor has presented a specific axiom to be self-evident or already proven when neither is true. He has not yet shown that drinking or creating wine is against the Father’s will. The Pastor and Orthodox Christianity agree that the Son never sinned as supported by Hebrews 4:15

I then took him to the following passage of Scripture that Jesus, our High Priest, would have obeyed or He was just a sinner man, like everyone else. 

“Do not drink wine nor strong drink, …when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;” (Leviticus 10:9, 10)

This is the Pastor’s most powerful proof-text. It is also dependent on a certain level of ignorance. It is, of course, a matter of respect to not enter the Lord’s house intoxicated. Conversely, it is also a matter of duty to receive all who come in repentance. When comparing the traditions of both the Church and Judaism, there is simply no room in this passage for understanding it as a prohibition of imbibing alcohol.

I explained to my hung-over Brother in the Lord that unfermented “wine” or grape juice is “Holy” or “clean” while fermented wine is “unholy” and “unclean.”  All alcoholic beverages are unholy and unclean! 

As I have already demonstrated, this is a dogma. There is more on this later.

I proceeded to explain how ignorant, immature Believers use Jesus’ Miracle of “turning water into wine” as an excuse to drink alcohol without stopping to acknowledge the following. 

Jesus did not disobey Leviticus 10:9-10 by “creating” alcoholic wine to be consumed against His Father’s will.  He created unfermented “wine” or high quality grape juice. 

As has already been demonstrated, the author has failed to prove that Lev 10:9-10 is a prohibition of creating or imbibing alcohol, except on the basis of a recently created dogma. Still more to come on that.

Not to mention that fermentation is an aging process that happens over a long period of time.  It’s a process of decay.  Decay is death.  Jesus created that high quality grape juice instantly, not over time, without decay and without death!  All of Jesus’ miracles are rooted in Life and Love.  God’s Life.  God’s Love.   

Actually, fermentation is a result of life! Yeast reacts with the sugars in the juice to create Alcohol. Yeast, as most people know, is a living organism. The analogy is understood, but the good pastor should also recognize that wine is traditionally served at celebrations of life.

People who use the “water into wine” excuse are simply being deceived by one verse of Scripture taken completely out of Biblical context.  They need to be delivered.  This is why Jesus said we must have two or three confirming passages of Scripture, in context, to verify all doctrine or behavior.  Otherwise, we shouldn’t accept it at all. (Matthew 18:16)

It is unknown whether the author understands what he has done here. He begins the paragraph by asserting that a verse has been taken out of context, but finishes it by taking a verse out of context. I invite the reader to read Matt 18:16, in context, as a rebuttal to this argument.

Often, after sharing this revelation with shocked, “wine bibbing” Believers, they almost always respond, “Well, Paul told Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach.  I’m just doing it for my stomach.” (1Timothy 5:23) 

Pay special attention to the next paragraph.

I then explain that Paul knew the difference between fermented and unfermented “wine” and obeyed the Bible, too.  It was common in his day to put grape juice in water to kill water-borne bacteria, which caused stomach ailments such as Timothy’s.  This is what Paul told Timothy to do.  He was not telling Timothy that it was acceptable to “catch a holy buzz in the Name of the Lord.” 

Grape juice does not kill waterborne bacteria. Perhaps the good pastor is mistaken in his history and ignorant in chemistry, or he has accepted this from one of his teachers. Regardless, I must insist that he is mistaken. Wine, on the other hand, contains alcohol which kills waterborne bacteria. And this is where Pastor Hamel's "dogma of two wines" falls apart. Paul could not possibly be referring to a non-alcoholic wine if it is intended to kill microbes.

The Bible calls fermented wine and all strong drink a “mocker.”  It calls those who use it “deceived” and “unwise.” (Proverbs 20:1) 

It leads to poverty. (Proverbs 21:17) 

It will bite you like a serpent. (Proverbs 23:32) 

The Bible also calls God’s children “Kings” (Revelation 1:5,6) and says, “Wine is not for Kings.” (Proverbs 31:4) 

All of the above passages have traditionally been recognized as warnings against the dangers of over indulgence. Proverbs 31:4, especially, recognizes the importance of a sober mind when one possesses great responsibility. One wonders whether the good pastor read the rest of Chapter 31.Only a few verses later, it seems the Proverbs are recommending alcohol.

Say, “Jesus, I choose You and Your Word.” (Romans 10:13)  He’ll forgive you for what you didn’t know.  However, now you do know!

Oh, yes, my intoxicated friend who insisted that Jesus was a wine drinker, which makes it okay for everyone.  Within weeks of rejecting my Scriptural, loving correction, he raped a 13 year old child while intoxicated.  He’ll pay for that for the rest of his life.  He was bitten by the mocking serpent of strong drink.

This is a most unfortunate turn of events, to be sure. My prayers are with this young girl as well as the “imbiber”. Indeed, this is where one must recognize that excess is an evil to be avoided. I hope that the good pastor has made this up for the sake of making a point.

Regardless, there is a difference between correlation and causation. Alcohol lowers one’s inhibitions. All well and good when one is dancing at a wedding. Excessive alcohol lowers ones inhibitions excessively. If this gentleman was struggling with a perverse sexual appetite, excessive alcohol may have eroded his judgment and self-control. It did not, however, create that appetite within him.

Someone always says, “Something like that would never happen to me.  I can handle it.”  Interesting.  That’s what my young friend said, too.

It doesn’t happen to exponentially more people than it does happen to.

A Catholic friend of mine once told me a joke:

“When fishing with a Baptist, how do you keep them from drinking all your beer?”

Answer:

“Bring another Baptist.”

As a former Baptist, I almost fell out of my chair laughing because I knew it was true. The truth of the matter is people drink. If Prohibition showed us anything, it showed that the criminalization of a normal human behavior brought far worse consequences than the acceptance and normalization of the behavior in a healthy social environment. I must disagree with Pastor John Hamel in the entirety of his essay. Jesus did drink wine.

On the other hand, Jesus was not known for getting falling down drunk either. It is doubtful that He ever had a hangover.

Be blessed and be strong!  ... John and Barbara Hamel.

John Hamel Ministries is based in Nashville, TN and his website can be found at www.johnhamelministries.org

Welcome to My Blog

      It seems reasonable, as I introduce myself, that I should lay down exactly what it is I believe and understand.

The Incredulity of Saint Thomas by Caravaggio

      Who am I?  First, I must establish that I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I am still a Catechumen and, as such, submit my doctrinal understanding to be subservient to the doctrine of the Church. There are bound to be ways in which I have misunderstood and this blog, in part, is a way in which I can work these things out. For me, it has always been a good way to organize and standardize the cloud that my thoughts usually exist in.

  Why Orthodoxy:  I was raised a fundamentalist Christian, with roots in Pentecostal and Baptist (both Primitive and Southern) denominations. At some point, I lost faith. This will be explained in detail in other posts. At a certain point, I felt it necessary to come back to Christianity. This was in no small part thanks to the homilies delivered by Archbishop Lazar Puhalo, in Canada, delivered via YouTube video. You way think what you want of the man. I know what I think of him. His message attracted me because he did not live in fairyland or “Dance with Unicorns”, as he most elegantly put it. He took a realistic understanding of the world and was able to add depth to his faith rather than cloister himself away in it. This is what was lacking in my own Christianity.

   Furthermore, in historical context, Orthodoxy has maintained the teachings of the ecumenical councils and remained essentially unchanged in those doctrines. If there is any salvation within Christianity whatsoever, it is in the correct form. If there is any correct form, it is in the original form. Lest anyone object and maintain that Eastern Orthodoxy is corrupted, I must maintain that “the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). My meaning, if not very clear, is that the Church was One, for a millennium. If it was not correct for that millennium, then the gates of Hades has already defeated it. The rest, as they say, is history.

      Am I a Creationist:  In a sense, yes. If the question implies that I give credit to God for my existence as well as the beauty of the world around me, then I am most certainly a Creationist.

      If, however, the question implies that I believe the universe is only 6,000 or so years old, the answer is no. God is not a Liar.

      If I can see a supernova event from a star 2 billion light-years away, then I must submit that the age of the universe is very old. If a whale is sometimes born with legs, I must submit that they are indeed vestigial. Men of science are sometimes men of God and sometimes they are not. But what they are always is a group of men who, regardless of how excited by the claim, would be even more excited to discredit it. Even if Natural Selection didn’t apply to biology, it would apply to Science, as only the strongest and best supported theories will survive the test of peer review.

      The atheist says (at least this atheist said), "See, nature shows us that it isn't true", and is content to believe that there must not be any truth in it. The fundamentalist says, "It is true, regardless of what nature says", and is equally content to call God a Liar. What must be remembered about Genesis and Creation is that one was inspired by God and the other was written by His own hand. It becomes less important that it took longer than seven days, was done in a different order, or that there was (possibly) never an actual Garden, when one recognizes that forbidden fruits are sampled daily. The truth of Genesis (and Scripture as a whole) is not Archeological, Geological, Biological, etc. The truth of Genesis is experiential. We discard paradise for the sake of power; we murder our brother, lust after Abraham’s wife, and whole scores of other sins and are not repentant until we are called out on them. Genesis is more correct in describing the human condition than it is incorrect in describing, well, Genesis.
    All of that being said, the Orthodox Church hasn't released a dogmatic statement regarding the relationship of Genesis and science, probably for good reason. I understand very well that many have trouble accepting their physical body is descended from apes. Many more have trouble with the idea that Genesis might not be literally true. Let's proceed in all discussions on this topic with humility from both sides.

      Am I a Fundamentalist?  Rabbi Tovia Singer has stated that a fundamentalist was a person who believes that society and culture should be subservient to Scripture. In the Jewish tradition, he understands himself to be a fundamentalist. I say that a person’s own heart should be subservient to Scripture. And the lenses by which Scripture should be understood are by the love of your fellow man and the Tradition of the Church. To me, this is the fundamental core of Christianity. What is common between Rabbi Singer and I is the understanding that that the words, in and of themselves, are insufficient. For him, it is the Oral Torah. For me, it is the Dogmas of Orthodoxy. The person whom we commonly term, “fundamentalist” (at least in the Christian sense), is a person without Dogma or Tradition. In Sola Scriptura, he must connect the dots on his own. He must, in essence, create his own Tradition before he comes to some “understanding”. The hardest thing for the convert is to look at that body of Patristic writings and realize that you are standing on the shoulders of giants.

      Infidels?  I must warn the reader that I will, on occasion discuss other religions. Mostly they will be discussed in relation to Orthodox Christianity. One need not fear that I have a greater love of any religion other than my own. If I thought there was a more pure and true religious philosophy than Christianity, then that would be the philosophy I would have. It seems rather foolish that a man should sit in a darkened cave and admire the light the folks outside are enjoying. But wisdom is wisdom and I have no fear of highlighting how others have learned to live by it.

      I also feel compelled to mention that the sole criteria by which we are judged is in how we serve Christ by serving each other. I have seen Buddhists, Atheists, and Jews serve each other better than I have seen many Christians. It is not a matter of good taste or politeness that I do not continue this line of reasoning. It is that I am simply satisfied to leave it at that. The truth and beauty of Christianity is reflected in its members and the Body is often not as polished as it should be. 

     We know where the Spirit is, we do not know where it is not. That is the Ekonomia of Christ.