Rich Russians Pursue Better Wealth

This Washington Post feature story will become unavailable to those of us without the money to sign-up (ironically). But the quoted remark of a museum curator in Russia in favor of Russian tycoons buying-back the nation's Orthodox Christian religious heritage, including Holy Icons, from abroad, where it had been taken, stolen, or sold after the Bolshevik Revolution, is telling for those of us only used to hearing about oligarchs accumulating rubles there: "It's a wonderful thing that our businessmen are returning our wealth to the motherland." Evidence, also, that Russia's post-Communist return to Faith isn't restricted to the poor or the boondocks, as some would have us believe. At least one quoted claimed 'a religious awakening.'

Coincidentally(?), a few days later the Boston Globe did a feature on a Massachusetts tycoon - an American - and his museum of Russian icons. Maybe we Yanks can work something out with the Russians?

Of course, some believe it's sacrilegious to treat Orthodox holy icons as mere artworks, merely displayed in museums. Prince Charles of the UK (and Her Majesty's other Realms and Territories), like his father a camp-follower of Orthodoxy (his father, Prince Philip, was born Orthodox, a prince of Denmark and Greece), recently tried to get a museum there to set aside a permanent display of its icons, as an improvement on letting most of them just collect dust in storage. The museum's disrespectful response to him - which went beyond simply stating that they weren't an icon museum but a general art museum - briefly became tabloid fodder. Perhaps some wealthy Briton (Your Royal Highness??) - or Russian - could sponsor a wing or even a whole subsidiary museum for those icons?

Almsgiving is good for you

It's easy to forget that almsgiving is not only a good idea and helpful to the needy, but also good for the giver, a spiritual discipline, encouraging detachment from things, and a form of union with God's Energies and activities everywhere - which may be why the Lord said, "It is more blest to give than to receive." Self-restraint of greed, desire, envy ... all things I have some acquaintance with as a not-so-healthy working-class American!

So said the pope of Rome in his Lenten message this week. (Western Lent starts this Wednesday.) The trio of Prayer, Fasting, and Almsgiving is also traditionally part of Orthodoxy's Great Fast, which this year begins on Clean Monday, March 10. They're also part of Orthodoxy throughout the year, though not as emphasized as during Fasts, especially the Great Fast.

I also read somewhere that it's good to say a prayer for a recipient when writing the check, filling-out the online form, giving it in-person (not necessarily audibly, I suppose, unless you're a cleric or monastic maybe!), or whatever.

Interview with OCA Primate; Parochial schools

An interesting brief talk with Metropolitan HERMAN (Swaiko) by the newspaper of the OCA's Archdiocese of Canada addresses succinctly his views on Orthodoxy here, and 'Why Orthodoxy at all?':

"The Orthodox Church is the light of faith in the Word of God in the darkness of whimsical opinions, the pillar of morality amidst the quicksand of relativist societies. Our purpose is to transform the modern world, rather than conform to it, as the Scripture tells us."

I'm intrigued to hear him promote parochial schools too. I'm a product of Latin parochial schools, and know at least some Eastern Catholic parishes have had them as well. I also know that in the Catholic Church in the U.S. parochial schools are seen as in trouble because of increasing costs and shrinking enrollment, though I haven't researched why this is - fewer religious Sisters to teach and support for little money, and the end of the Baby Boom?? And I believe OCA parishes tend to have 100-200 households or fewer, a fraction of many Latin parishes; what about getting Orthodox parishes of numerous jurisdictions in a vicinity to collaborate on a shared school? There are also other models available today than the traditional Catholic parochial school, such as what might be called 'joint homeschooling,' co-operative schools, cyberschools, etc. Just brainstorming here.

Years ago Andrew Greeley discovered that graduates of Latin parochial schools tended to give more money to that Church as adults than Latin graduates of public schools, even alumni of the weekly religious ed programs called CCD. Or as he put it - 'half-jest and full earnest' - parochial schools were profit centers - data not widely accepted by U.S. Catholic bishops, he complains. I think it's fair to say he believes they've been overcome by an ill-advised form of 'political correctness' opposed to parish schools for some reason.

Perhaps I should clarify two things. First, when I'm talking about "Latin schools" here, I mean parish schools of the Latin Church, not, for instance, this place. Secondly, the parochial schools Greeley and I are talking about were comprehensive educational institutions, September thru June, Monday thru Friday, 8am-3pm, all typical elementary educational subjects (Kindergarten or 1st Grade thru 8th), not just Religion, and actually very little ancestral-homeland culture, and in my experience, no languages besides English. Just 'normal education' in a faith context. (This would apply to pan-ethnic parishes, ie, most Latin Church parishes in this country from my childhood and still today. Ethnic parishes - whether 'old ethnic' ones like Polish and Italian, or newer ones like Latino or Asian here in the Northeast - might emphasize their ethnic culture more, I'm not certain. However, even in my theoretically-pan-ethnic school - mostly Irish, Poles, Italians, and Germans - we were taught a little about these and other cultures, usually around holiday traditions.) One might place them in-between public schools and "private schools" / academies. They didn't aspire to extraordinary academic greatness like the latter, but did alright by us generally anyway. (Statistically, Irish Catholics have been the best-educated non-Jewish group in the U.S. for at least a century!) They were located right in the neighborhood or community where the parishioners lived, usually right on or near the parish grounds. School life included weekly class Masses during Advent and Lent, all-school Masses on First Fridays and other occasions, altar servers being released from class for weekday Masses and funerals, days-off for Holydays of Obligation as days of rest and attendance at Mass (comparable to Orthodox Great Feasts), "pagan babies," the Rosary, Stations of the Cross during Lent, First Confession and Communion classes (1st-2nd Grades), Confirmation class (4th Grade then), memorized Questions and Answers cribbed from the old Baltimore Catechism combined with a Vatican II 'brand new attitude'(!), morning prayers, lunchtime Angelus and Grace Before Meals, class visits by the parish priests and sometimes other priests and Religious, as well as other religious and secular activities. There was also a little bit of promotion of vocations to the priesthood and religious life, yielding just in the last generation or two, one bishop, at least one missionary priest to East Africa (keep in mind the celibacy requirement), and at least two short-lived other vocations - one of whom ended up an Orthodox layman. ;)

My parochial school in Philadelphia charged no tuition as such to parishioners while I was there in the early-mid 1970s, completely supported by all parishioners and not only those with children currently enrolled - and these were working-class folks, few if any wealthy. Later they felt they had to start charging tuition on top of the parishioner support, very small at first, growing into hundreds, then a couple thousand, dollars; at the same time their Sisters' community shrank to nothing, replaced mostly by laywomen and men with their own residences and expenses and sometimes families, and not professing a Vow of Poverty. Currently its basic costs seem to be around $4,000.00 per year. For comparison purposes, the same rate at a nearby Catholic academy seems to be around $9,500.00, so even now, the parochial school is running less than half the cost to students of the truly "private" school.

Here in the Latin Archdiocese of Philadelphia (the five counties of southeastern Pennsylvania) the parochial schools were theoretically open to non-Catholics in the '70s if not before, at that time charging them tuition closer to actual cost, saying that as "non-parishioners" they didn't have the opportunity to support the school indirectly through Sunday collections and such. Since then, especially in parts of the City, as Catholics moved to the suburbs, non-Catholic enrollment grew, and the schools were also seen as a community service ministry, a relatively affordable quality alternative to the public schools; I believe they continued to teach Catholic Religion classes, because they always had, but without knowingly pressuring non-Catholic children to convert. As the non-Catholics of their communities, generally poorer Protestant African-Americans, increased in their enrollment, some scholarship funding was raised at some times and places; sometimes partnerships were established with better-off suburban parishes, area corporations, and other benefactors. But the truth be told, Philadelphia has not been completely immune from the wave of parochial school closures and consolidations seen elsewhere in the U.S. Catholic Church in the last decade or so; as you can see on their website, my own alma mater has been merged with several nearby parishes' schools, and one or two of them have been closed in the process. (One slated for closure, belonging to an ethnic Polish parish - canonically completely under the control of the local Archbishop - appealed to Polish Pope John Paul II anyway, and was 'saved.')

BTW, by the time I entered parochial school, it really had stopped being the "horror story" you hear about from Baby Boomers, mostly. Say what you will about Vatican II, it provided a healthful-feeling breath of fresh air to many quarters of the Latin Church.

One other thing: Philadelphia has a historical claim to having invented the Catholic parochial school system. The See's 4th bishop, St. John Neumann (1852-60), spearheaded the establishment of dozens of parish elementary schools in the eastern half of Pennsylvania, southern New Jersey, and Delaware, as well as the adoption of similar school systems in other dioceses throughout the U.S. IIRC, in the 1970s most of the more than 300 parishes of this Archdiocese - by then taking in just the five counties (the rest spun-off into their own dioceses) - had schools. They are considered a system because they have a single diocesewide superintendant of schools (currently a layman with a doctorate) and central administration, here not unlike a sizable public school district. In fact - here's a childhood memory - they used to close for snow only all together - even if the hills of Manayunk where I lived - William Penn thought of them as Little Switzerland - were far harder to navigate than the flatlands elsewhere - and less often than the city public schools! (Grrr! ;) ) As you can see at the link, each school is not left to fend for itself, reinvent the wheel, etc. But each school remains parochial because of its vital and necessary relationship to one or more local parishes and their clergy, staff, parishioners, and liturgical and prayer-life, as I've outlined above. They're not just outposts of the Archdiocesan Chancery or Cardinal's Office or something, like most public school systems are of the Board of Ed, Superintendant's Office, or City Hall. Fr. Greeley points to "social capital," the way that Catholic communities (neighborhoods, or more mobile suburban social 'communities of choice'), parishes, and schools, all serving the same group of people, join forces to reinforce Catholic faith in them. (And don't believe what some say; Catholics have been consistently about a quarter of the U.S. population for at least a century; they're not losing ground ... myself and my godmother excepted of course!)

How Orthodox Read Scripture

Interesting post from Orthodox Priest Stephen Freeman, a former priest from Anglicanism, specifically addressing issues with Protestantism, but not without insight for Catholics too, featuring our holy father among the saints Irenaeus of Lyons, Gaul/France.

[I'd just offer a small note from my own religious experience/study, but so marginal to his own point that I didn't think it necessary to post it there: At times and places the so-called Radical Reformation did indeed pose a popular uprising - twice violently, in the Peasants' Revolt and at the infamous 'holy experiment' at Muenster (that's Germany, not Ireland!) - almost universally vigorously persecuted by both 'Magisterial' Protestants and Latins. Many truths commonly held by U.S. Protestants today in fact trace back to these Radicals, not just those of Mennonites, Amish, Brethren, etc. - and Luther, Calvin, et al., are turning over in their graves! To bring things full circle, the RR had little lasting effect in continental Western Europe, but Russian Empress Catherine "the Great" offered some of these a refuge, even virtual states within the Empire, in exchange for them taking up farming. Most of these "Russian Mennonites" now live in the central and western U.S. and Canada. Most of them didn't intermarry with actual Russians or even learn the Russian language, but ironically, they did administer their colonies and enforce laws; I don't remember if they ever executed offenders, or just talked about whether they should given their "Christian nonviolence." I know of at least one Orthodox influence on them though - they make "paskha," a kind of cheese-loaf, for Easter, whose name is the Greek and Slavic name for Easter, also spelled Pascha.]

In Defense of Holiday Excess, Advent, "Epiphany," etc.

As you might suspect, this isn't exactly what it sounds like.

If the old Catholic Encyclopedia had their history right a century ago - for instance, their pieces about Advent, Christmas, and Epiphany - then besides Pascha, the earliest big Christian feast was around January 6.

(I'm not a professional historian, but ISTM the CE catalogs alot of fascinating historical data, including about the Early Church. They have a potentially-misleading Rome-centrism, they buy into alot of the early-PC "pagan influences" theories about certain practices in Christianity, and they really don't understand alot of the Orthodoxy, Eastern or Western, about which they report. But often from their 'bricks' an Orthodox might be able to build a more reasonable picture of aspects of the past than the CE itself does. Even I try.)

It seems Jan. 6 (on whatever calendar) commemorated the many manifestations of Christ's "glory" or Divinity, from His Nativity to His Transfiguration, including not only His revelation to the Magi but also miracles during His ministry - healings, the changing of water to wine at Cana, feedings of thousands, the raising of Lazarus, etc. The CE doesn't have a truly satisfactory reason as to the choice of this date. As they indicate, this date went by many related names, such as Theophany, Epiphany, Manifestation, Apparition, Day of Light, etc. Interestingly, this multifaceted Feastday is still echoed in the Latin Liturgy of the Hours - in particular the Benedictus and Magnificat Antiphons on the day itself, as I experienced as a teenager studying for the Latin priesthood and religious life.

(In Orthodox liturgy as in Judaism and many other ancient cultures, every day begins with Vespers [Evening Prayer] the night before, and ends at the beginning of Vespers that evening. But in the Latin Church, only Sundays and major feastdays begin the night before, and paradoxically, they continue through the 'evening of,' so they have two Vespers services, First and Second Vespers [or Evening Prayer I and II]. Several Latin services of the hours include Gospel Canticles, ie, hymns/poetry from the New Testament. Morning Prayer - what English-speaking Orthodox call Matins or Orthros - includes the Benedictus or Canticle of Zechariah from the Gospel of St. Luke 1: 68-79, and Evening Prayer includes the Magnificat or Canticle of Mary from Luke 1: 46-55. The Benedictus and Magnificat Antiphons are recited or chanted before and after these Canticles, IOW, twice each service. And feastdays have antiphons that talk about the feast being commemorated.)

This is even though, as is well known, the Latins came to emphasize Christ's first revelation to non-Jews, the Magi, shortly after His birth, over all other aspects of the Jan. 6 feast. Also, the name Epiphany 'stuck' in the West as its official designation, from Greek meaning a manifestation, although it is also well-known in Spanish as Dia de los Reyes, the Day of the [Three] Kings, and in English as Little Christmas, the end of the twelve-day Christmas celebration of Christ's Nativity which begins December 25. (Although in recent years some local Latin Churches have been allowed by Rome to move Epiphany to a nearby Sunday, for many it remains a huge feast on whatever day of the week it falls.)

The CE says Christians in Rome tended to go along with the local Solstice-time celebration of the Sun (god)'s birthday, and so their leaders decided to make it, for them, a celebration of the birth according to the flesh of the Sun of Justice, the Dawn from on high, the one and only Lord, Jesus Christ. And the idea spread East, although Orthodox services for Dec. 25 include both the Lord's birth and the visit of the Magi. "Christmas" of course is the name for the Dec. 25 feast in English, meaning "Christ Mass" or Liturgy; similarly, churches or cathedrals dedicated to Christ and called "Christ Church" in the English-speaking world generally mark their patronal feastday on Christmas, and Greek men named Christos, their nameday. Many other languages continue to call it Nativity: Spanish Navidad, Italian Natale, etc. The main Greek word is Gennesis, which can mean begetting or birth ('generation'), which - I could be corrected on this - I believe is why in Orthodoxy we often see it referred to in full as "the Nativity of Our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ According to the Flesh," to distinguish it from His begetting by God the Father from all eternity, even though I don't believe the word nativity could ever be mistaken by English-speakers for anything other than His birth according to the flesh.

Meanwhile the East came to emphasize the Lord's Baptism in the Jordan among the older multiple Jan. 6 manifestations, and the name Theophany generally stuck, Greek for the revelation of God, although sometimes Orthodox call it Epiphany. The West came to mark a separate Feast of the Baptism of the Lord shortly after Jan. 6. Theophany is considered a huge feast in Orthodoxy, while the Lord's Baptism is not, in Latinism, though as already noted, Epiphany in much of Latinism still is. This causes some confusion for Latins, who believe that for the Orthodox the Magi are extremely important, because Latins associate the Magi with Jan. 6, Orthodox Theophany. Ironically, if you don't get to an Orthodox parish for the services held before the actual Divine Liturgy of the Eucharist, the only Gospel you'll hear at Nativity IS the Magi Gospel, since the birth narrative comes earlier in the day's schedule of multiple services.

Speaking of holiday excess, as the CE notes - see under "Popular merry-making"! - it's always been a complaint of some Christians about other Christians at this time of year, even in ancient times! One thing I didn't know is that Latin Advent, the period currently set-off by the four Sundays before Dec. 25, used to have a fasting practice, though like the Orthodox Nativity Fast or Philipovka (because it starts November 15 after the feast of St. Philip the Apostle), not as strict as the Great Fast/Lent. Though in some times and places Advent began at the Fall Equinox, in September! And once, because of the 12 Days of Christmas' partying getting out of hand, a further fast was imposed then! The thing is, Orthodox "feasting" is advised not to become a license for overindulgence and debauchery, enslavement to the passions we've just spent an entire season working to free ourselves more from. But Latin Advent now is limited to a liturgical season, with service prayers and readings emphasizing waiting for the Lord's coming(s) into the world and people's hearts and lives - much more developed in that sense than Orthodox practice, although Orthodox hymns in church occasionally evoke preparation for Nativity. Western Advent is a fall/winter Lent without the fasting. Orthodox sometimes call their fast the Advent Fast.

How Orthodox handle near and dear Heterodox "feasting" during their Advent is often an issue and a question, especially for recent converts to jurisdictions that try to maintain something of the traditional Orthodox Fast for the full 40 days, throughout U.S. Thanksgiving Day (for New Calendar Orthodox), workplace and organization (pre)Christmas parties, etc. But I recall that for thousands of years for most Christians and their forebears, that is, north of the Tropics, this period has fallen between Fall harvest and Spring planting, an agricultural down-time often used for extra cultural and social activities, including packing-on calories and body-fat together for the long, cold winter. "Old habits die hard!"

Then there's the shopping-madness. "It is more blessed to give than to receive," says the Lord, according to St. Paul in the Acts of the Apostles. But of course, amid would-be recipients' expressed demands, our pressure on ourselves in their regard, and the rage of traffic, parking lots, and store aisles, it doesn't necessarily feel blessed in the preparation! Sorry, I don't have any new solutions for that one!

"Christ is Risen" in Latin; Blessing of Food

Christ is Born for us! Glorify Him!

I know this post is completely out-of-season, but I just came across information here that Pascha planners might want to consider (in the paragraph just above "PECULIAR CUSTOMS OF EASTER TIME"). In some Orthodox settings during Pascha-tide Liturgies I've heard them include the Greeting and Response - "Christ is Risen! Indeed, He is Risen!" - in different languages, including Latin - "Christus resurrexit! Vere resurrexit!"

However, according to the old Catholic Encyclopedia, briefly, in imitation of the East, Rome had its own version of the Greeting and Response, directly from Luke 24:34: "Surrexit Dominus vere! Et apparuit Simoni! The Lord has truly risen! He has appeared to Simon!" Maybe they did this variation because of Rome's emphasis on St. Peter. Anyway, so here we have an actual 'Latin Orthodox' traditional Paschal Greeting.

I also note under "Peculiar Custom" Number 8 that according to the CE, Pascha blessing of food wasn't just random like the West blesses any and all animals on its feast of Francis of Assisi in October - it was getting your priest's blessing, so to speak, to resume eating the foods fasted from, even though of course the Great Fast/Lent rules officially ended at Pascha. If they're right, there was no need to include in your Pascha basket at church things not covered by the Fast, like, I dunno, coffee, sugar candies, etc. Although the CE doesn't touch on the feast immediately afterward at church! ;)

Traditioooooon, Tradition!

From Russian-born U.S. theologian Fr. Georges Florovsky:

"Tradition is not a principle striving to restore the past, using the past as a criterion for the present. Such a conception of tradition is rejected by history itself and by the consciousness of the Orthodox Church... Tradition is the constant abiding of the Spirit and not only the memory of words. Tradition is a charismatic, not a historical event."

At the risk of second-guessing a great theologian(!), let me just add for clarity's sake that o/Orthodox Holy Tradition is neither slavish adherence to the past as relic, nor to subjective religious emotion as a substitute for the corporate and personal indwelling of the All-Holy Spirit of God, One of the Trinity. Tradition is a verb, the "handing-down" (Latin traditio, Greek paradosis) not only of data - written or oral - but also of God Himself in His Uncreated Energies, by His Graciousness alone and none of our deserving - in fact (the Orthodox Church experiences) by the direction and action of God's Spirit. Holy Tradition is God's Life, God's Living, in the Orthodox Church ... not just theoretically, but "empirically."

St. Nicholas movie update

Hey, check out the latest in the ongoing production of what may indeed be shaping-up as an "epic motion picture" as Hollywood says, the biopic of the REAL St. Nicholas, Archbishop of Myra in Asia Minor, VERY Orthodox Father of the First Ecumenical Synod (at Nicea), Miracle-worker, philanthropist, defender of teens' chasteness, rescuer of the storm-tossed, etc etc etc! Here's the main page, click through till you see "Updates," and go there. (The website has two versions, so I won't prejudge which "Updates" link you'll want to follow.)

Recent highlights include a mini web-documentary, and a moving photo-montage with new music from the sountrack.

This was my first post on it, and this was my second. I just hope I won't have to shuffle up to Buffalo from Philly to see it - hoping for Xmas '08 - lake-effect snow and everything!!!

Prayers

A selection of prayers from the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America's widely-used Pocket Prayer Book is available on the site of the Greek Archdiocese of Australia.

Rewriting prayers

A few years ago I picked up a blue half-sheet of paper after an Inquirers' Class at St. Philip's Antiochian Church in Souderton, Pennsylvania (the one with the great choir!), on which were printed the Jesus Prayer ("Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner"), the Prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian used during the Great Fast/Lent, and one called the "Morning Prayer of the Last Elders of Optina." (Optina is a famous monastery in Russia about 120 miles southwest of Moscow. "Elder" in Russian is starets, plural startsy, referring to a monastic spiritual father, like Elder Zosima in The Brothers Karamazov. The Greek equivalent is geronta [masculine in gender despite ending in A] - the source of the English word "gerontology"... and the brand name Geritol! Optina is once again an active monastery and center for pilgrimages and retreats, since the decline of Communist rule.)

As you can see here, I'm not the only one who has been disturbed by the line in the Optina prayer, "all is sent down from Thee." But ISTM the two priests toward the end of the current Comments at the link have some helpful things to say about it, especially Fr. Matthew. Reminds me of a line from an old Philadelphia Quaker* traveling minister, Hannah Whitall Smith, in her famous 1875 book The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life, that however something bad started, by the time it reaches you, God means it for your good. We say God is always trying to bring good out of the bad people do or have done. But often that's hard for us to perceive because of our limited perspective. "Your Arms Too Short to Box with God"! But eyes of faith might learn to see. Actually I'd forgotten that the line from the patriarch Joseph (he of the technicolor dreamcoat!) was his: "You meant this to me for evil, but the Lord meant it to me for good." It was paraphrased by St. Raphael of Brooklyn in reference to a persecution that temporarily drove his parents from their hometown of Damascus to Beirut while they were expecting his birth in 1860, and the incident is alluded to with that paraphrase in Oikos 1 of his Akathist, where I've re-encountered it.

But since I wasn't sure how well Mrs. Smith agreed with Orthodoxy, I've unfailingly read the prayer repeating the line from the previous paragraph, "subject to Thy holy Will," instead of "sent down from Thee"! (I *am* the worst of sinners, to second-guess Holy Elder-Martyrs of the Bolshevik Yoke!!!) It'll take some adjustment, and swallowing of pride....

(*--Ironically, Smith was an "Orthodox Friend"... no, not like some of these folks! In the 1820s-'30s U.S. Quakers split into two branches, each believing it was truer to the spirit of the first English Quakers of the 1600s, and thus to true Christianity: one branch sought to retain a theological 'peculiarity,' but soon tended in a Liberal Protestant direction, while the other sought a more 'evangelical' Protestant theology, and came to be called "Orthodox" in a sense not unlike the later "Neo-Orthodox" movement in Protestantism. Hence, perhaps, the Smiths' later involvement with Holiness movements in the U.S. and Britain. In fact, a majority of the world's Friends today are Evangelical of one tendency or another, and not very much like the Britain/Philadelphia stereotype - liberal, quiet, inclusive, non-evangelistic, pacifist - anymore. In fact, around the turn of the last century the Inupiat "Eskimos" of northwest Alaska - north of the Orthodox Yup'ik "Eskimos" - were converted from their Native faith to Pentecostal Quakerism!)

"Icons as Proof of the Existence of God"

I offer this one from Fr. Stephen Freeman not because I get it, but because I don't get all of it. Let me ponder it....

"Why Pagans Aren't Really Pagan;" Christmas; Low Churches; and How to Talk About Orthodoxy(!)

Out-of-season, but not in all ways, since I'm here 'talking about Orthodoxy' and all... and Neo-Pagans are always somewhere around! I'm not sure about all the alleged facts on this page, and take strong exception to one Commenter's endorsement of the genocide of the Aztecs no matter what they are alleged to have been doing. But the general thrust of Fr. Stephen Freeman's article and many of the responses is helpful for me. And yes, I'm still drafting my own "faith journey," but I'm afraid it's gonna be terribly 'cerebral'! ;)

(Not that anyone's asked...! Or needs to.... I think the blogosphere is like the saying I once heard: "Some people can speak at the drop of a hat; he brings his own hat!" And no, it wasn't about me... then!)

(Oh, and about Pagans... maybe that's one reason they're called Neo-Pagans? But there are some who claim to be "Orthodox Pagans," though I haven't studied them at all, just saw it on a T-shirt once, I think at a Louisville Irish Fest at Bellarmine College - er, University! - in Kentucky about a decade ago, over with the Society for Creative Anachronism folks; maybe that should tell me something?!! Of course, Fr. John Romanides would say pre-Judeo-Christianity IS "religion," and the Gospel - Old Testament and New - is its CURE.... Maybe a different perspective, different topics of discussion, different contexts, etc. Or maybe that's just the kind of thing to expect from a half-pagan Irish Catholic/ Native American "both/and" Orthodox like me!!! ;) )

Religious Freedom

A new friend, Destination Macedonia has left a new comment on [my] post "Liturgy: On Second Thought...": I am curious to learn how the Orthodox Church has seen the Hellenic culture. So I've suggested some readings on my blogsite. Could you help me with your comments? Thanks

and on [my] post "Pope's Regensburg lecture": I am curious to learn the Orthodox Church link with the Hellenic culture. So I've suggested some readings on my blogsite. Could you help me with your comments? Έρρωσθε

Dear Friend,

Thanks for your interest from all the way over in Thessaloniki! Please forgive my lateness in responding. Between Pennsylvania's heat waves this summer and my own health problems, I've been off my computer most of the last four months. Also, if you don't mind, I've taken the liberty to make my response a separate article, so if you're inclined to post comments, please do so here rather than at your original comments, or on your own site, since I can't monitor your site. Thanks. And I pray you haven't been harmed by the fires!

I gather from your website that by "Hellenic culture," you mean pre-Christian, or Classical. And I don't know if I can tell you anything you don't already know, living over there and everything, but I'll try my best.

The first principle of Orthodox Christianity in this question is to seek to persuade people outside the Orthodox Church to join it, called evangelization or spreading God's Good News (Greek euangelion). Orthodoxy doesn't rule out the possibility of salvation for non-Orthodox, but encourages others to take advantage of the 'full information/training' available in the Orthodox Church if possible. (And of course today the Orthodox Church is alot more widespread, geographically, than ever before!) In ancient times Orthodoxy did this almost completely nonviolently, as opposed to the much more violent spread of Western Christianity (ie, Catholicism and Protestantism) later, after it became heterodox.

As for persons already in the Orthodox Church, the ancient Orthodox Fathers of the Christian Church are divided on whether Christians should acquaint themselves with the philosophies and religions of their non-Christian ancestors, eg, the ancient Greeks. Some said there was only spiritual danger there, but others - even the great Saint Basil - thought there could be some intellectual benefit to academic students at least. In fact, in some Greek Orthodox temples (churches) even today I am told you may see murals that include Classical Greek philosophers in the vestibule (without halos), calling one or more of them "the Moses of the Greeks" (ie, of the pagans), because some of their philosophy came close to basic Christianity, or prepared the Greeks for Christianity, as Moses did for the Israelites. But certainly the Orthodox Fathers of the Church opposed embracing non-Christian religion as apostasy, requiring Baptism and Chrismation anew if someone who did so later returned to Orthodoxy. (This practice differs from Catholicism and Protestantism, which don't believe baptism can or may be repeated.) (Ironically, the pre-Christian Roman Empire took a similar stance: one of the charges typically levelled against Christians in the persecutions was atheism, because they 'apostatized,' turning to the worship of an 'unapproved' God, or rejecting worship of 'approved' gods! [Sound familiar?! ;) ])

(It is frequently said here in the West that Orthodox theology is heavily influenced, even "in thrall to," pre-Christian Greek philosophy. This is ironic for two reasons: [1] It is actually Western Christian - Catholic and Protestant - theology that is so, as a result of the Rennaissance of Classical Greco-Roman culture in Western Europe, without a similar "rennaissance" of contemporary Byzantine-Greek Orthodox thought in most of the West; and [2] Although Orthodox theology clearly echoes pre-Christian Greek thought, the Orthodox Fathers and Mothers of the Church make clear that Orthodoxy's teachings are the result of God revealing His Uncreated Divine Energies to them, and not Christian Greek "philosophizing." See below.)

I believe I have read that as late as the 7th century AD, there were significant pockets of the old Greek paganism in the Byzantine Empire; in fact, the Orthodox Byzantines used the word Greek or Hellene pretty much to refer to paganism, and called themselves Romans or Romaioi (because Roman citizenship had been bestowed upon all subjects of the Empire in AD 212, ironically a century before Emperor Saint Constantine the Great), and often the words Roman and Orthodox in their usage were synonymous, and sometimes the Empire of the Romans was called instead the Empire of the Orthodox. Furthermore, a small minority of the Empire's academics remained 'fans' of the paganism, both of the philosophy and even the religion (though not practicing it - as far as mainstream histories know anyway); it was these in part who, fleeing the Empire, sparked the "Rennaissance" of Classical Greco-Roman culture in then-largely-illiterate and impoverished Western Europe among Catholics and even eventually Protestants, in part leading to the Protestant Reformation, the American and French Revolutions, and the whole Modern Era as it is thought of by Westerners and others under Western influence (post-1500), with its revolutions in science, skepticism, philosophical speculation, economic "rationalization," the Industrial Revolution, (small-R) republicanism, Civil-Law human rights on the Continent of Western Europe and subsequently in modern international law [Arguably the basic rights doctrine under English/American Common Law does not derive from this but is far older.], Communism, Nazism/Fascism, secularism, "post-modernism," Evolution, the presumption of "progress" in history, anti-traditionalism (ironically perhaps), mass warfare, ideological politics, modern technology(!), etc etc etc.

Turning to modern Greece, it is this "Rennaissance" heritage of the West that led to Western romanticism over the Greek War of Independence from the Ottoman Empire in the early 1800s, and the high level of support for it there, even apart from Great Power interests in dismantling "the Sick Man of Europe," that Empire, by supporting linguistic-ethnic separatism in the Balkans and the Middle East (the results of which, some critics say, we are still living with today, for better or for worse). As a result of this dynamic, there have been two schools of thought in Greece since the War of Independence, which may be characterized as neo-Classical or neo-Byzantine. While Orthodoxy has been the official religion of the Greek State, ISTM some Greeks view Greekness largely through quasi-Rennaissance ("neo-Classical") eyes, and others largely through quasi-Medieval ("neo-Byzantine") eyes... and perhaps some lie in between these two poles. Another, related way of looking at this - and I say this with some hesitation, but descriptively, not judgmentally - might be a "cultural" view versus a "theological" view. I believe this ambivalence can be seen even in the life of the Greek Church as such, both in the Eastern Mediterranean (ie, the Churches of Constantinople [mostly], Alexandria [mostly], Jerusalem [still largely], Cyprus, and Greece) and in the "diaspora": some folks elevate Greeks' ancient heritage and culture, and its outworkings in more recent Greek cultural manifestations, which we in the diaspora see at Orthodox parish Greek or Grecian Festivals; while others elevate Greeks' Byzantine and Orthodox religious heritage over the former; and naturally, there has been some cross-pollination as well, as we are reminded of the Orthodox and Christian religious background to the more recent cultural manifestations, etc. The question of whether the two can be reconciled in modern Greekness, or even already have been, is a question for those more Greek-culturally-involved than I: although I have a couple Byzantine Emperors in my family tree, as well as an unnamed pre-Christian Greek concubine to a Mideastern potentate, I only found out about them in the last decade, and was raised mostly Irish-American, and also Native American (Indian)!

But then there is the question of Greek non-Orthodox, even non-Christians. Back to the history discussion, once the Byzantine Imperial throne was firmly in Orthodox hands for the first time, from the late 4th century AD, the Emperor came to be seen as protector of the Church and the Truth. In a sense his first responsibility was supposed to be his nation's salvation, not in the same way as this is clergy and bishops' responsibility, but he was supposed to take salvation into consideration when making policy. (In fact, IIUC, this was the choice offered St. Lazar, King of Serbia, going into battle against the Ottoman Empire - victory OR salvation. He chose salvation.) So increasingly, Jews, Heterodox Christians, apostates from Christianity, and I presume pagans in the Byzantine Empire, suffered legal disabilities, and some harassment. But the main interest of the Church here would not have been power for its own sake, but protection of its people from the perceived falsehood and temptation posed by these persons or doctrines/practices. We must remember that Orthodoxy doesn't see itself as simply another philosophy or sect; ideally, it experiences itself, as do the Orthodox Fathers and Mothers of the Church, the Orthodox Saints, and other Orthodox spiritual fathers and mothers, as the cure of humanity's fundamental problem of alienation from God's Divine Energies. The late Father John Romanides of America and Greece, and other Orthodox writers like him, have compared Orthodox Church councils (synods) to meetings of the national psychiatric association (a better U.S. comparison, in part, might be to a state board of licensing), defining illnesses, prescribing therapies, endorsing practitioners, and proscribing "quacks." Therefore it's not just mere routinized "paternalism" when Orthodox Church leaders become concerned about their people and spiritual temptations to them, but real spiritual fatherhood and care for souls under their responsibility. True Orthodox spiritual fathers and mothers have God's Wisdom to perceive dangers in the lives of their spiritual proteges.

But what if some Greeks (to focus on the question at hand, but applicable to others as well) wish to embrace other faiths, or none? As a "modern," a Westerner, and especially an American, my impulse is that they should be legally free to do so in the eyes of the state. How would I feel if non-Orthodoxy were imposed on me here in America?! Furthermore, I grew up as an Irish-American Catholic with a strong sense of Catholics' second-class status in their own Catholic-majority country of Ireland under British Protestant minority rule from the Reformation until the 1920s, and arguably continuing today in Northern Ireland under the rule of a slight Protestant majority since the Partition of the Island, as well as the history of anti-Catholic discrimination here in the Protestant-majority States largely until 1960, and in many places continuing to the present. In addition, recent sociology claims that all sects do better in a "religious free market," in terms of adherents' observance, than in a situation where one sect is legally favored by the State: they compare the relatively high level of religiosity in the U.S. to the much lower levels in many Western European countries having a legally-established Protestant or Catholic faith, even though in the last generation or more they have all 'established' individual freedom of religion - the implication being that even the perception of continuing governmental favor toward or involvement with one sect in particular is too much "socialization" (to extend the economic metaphor!), and hurts the whole "market," and thus everybody in it.

Three questions arise for me considering this just now: (1) Is the "free market" thesis even applicable to non-Western-European countries where Orthodox are in significant numbers or even a plurality or majority, such as Greece? After all, religious cultures are different. (2) From an Orthodox perspective, is the "free market" model a good idea, or spiritually responsible? A true "free market" would seem to require more than a token number of non-Orthodox. How many souls should Orthodox spiritual fathers and mothers be willing to sacrifice for the "benefit of the free market" in religion? Or is this like some other things the West has experimented with "market-wise" over the last couple centuries, only to discover that "the market" isn't always the best provider of necessity, equity, or social justice? So, do Orthodox Church leaders simply have to find other ways to increase observance among the faithful, or at least concede that a lax, skeptical, or even scandalous Orthodox is still spiritually better-off than s/he would be as a Latin, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, apostate, atheist, Neo-Pagan, or anything else? (It's common among Catholics and Protestants to consider that someone is better-off in a creed they care about, than one they don't. But such "relativism" would be a novelty to Orthodoxy, I believe.) And (3), presuming ambivalence toward a "free market" in religion, what should the attitude of the Orthodox Church as such be toward religious "tolerance," especially in a country that is officially or quasi-officially Orthodox? Should other faiths be allowed to build their own houses of worship, the question you raise at the end of this post on your blog? worship or preach in public places? proselytize? publish? broadcast? make use of historical sites for their own religious purposes? vote? hold public office? receive government support? be passed-on to children? be taught about in government-supported or government-run primary or secondary schools? Or should Orthodoxy call on the "Orthodox" State to protect the Church, the Truth, etc., and if so, how exactly?

In spite of all this, however, as well as how it may feel to you, my friend (and believe me, I am not without sympathy), the Orthodox Church does not rule Greece, any more than it ruled the Byzantine Empire. Orthodox theology strongly prefers a strict separation of powers between civil rulers, who are laity, and ecclesiastical leaders, who are Bishops - the Ottoman millet system, the Montenegrin prince-bishops, and Archbishop MAKARIOS' presidency of the Republic of Cyprus being exceptions more-or-less forced onto the Hierarchy IIUC. And throughout Orthodox history, Orthodox lay civil rulers have frequently done things that they considered politically or militarily expedient, if not exactly "Christian" or even "Orthodox." Therefore it stands to reason that the lay civil rulers of Greece also, minimally, will do for non-Orthodox, including your Hellenic culture and/or religion, what seems expedient from time to time, taking into account internal partisan and electoral politics, the domestic legal and court system, Church relations, and international relations. I have no familiarity with these currently, so I can't say how much hope that offers you; you probably have a better idea of that than I.

Finally, not to assign too much homework(!), but I've just browsed a recent statement by the Orthodox Bishops of the Patriarchate of Moscow, who work not just in Russia or the Commonwealth of Independent States, but also in the Western world in all sorts of legal and political contexts. It's a bit long, and sometimes not well translated, as well as not fully-informed on certain points (such as constitutional monarchy), but I think may reward your attention as you seek to understand Orthodoxy's position in your regard. I highlight for your attention in particular the first five chapters, and chapter XIV section 2 (scroll down about half-way). Again, it's kind of general, and not too specific to Greece or pre-Christian Hellenic culture or religion, but it might help shed light on Orthodox perspectives for you.

I don't imagine any of this will persuade you, but I hope you find my poor attempt helpful in understanding those around you in Greece.

Best wishes,

Leon Petros Foulaniou ;)

One way a mission starts

I sympathize with the founders of this mission in Wenatchee (say "wen-ATCH-ee"), central Washington state: I'm not exactly a couple hours from the nearest parish like they may have been, but in an "Orthodox black hole" nonetheless, so I may be looking in on their blog from time to time.

(HELLO WENATCHEE! Some beautiful country out there in the Cascade foothills! [The dry side of the Northwest!] I attended a couple Quaker Quarterly Meetings at the Methodists' Lazy F campground in nearby Ellensburg in the early '90s, living in Spokane and Seattle. And of course, drove through that neighborhood a few times between the eastern and western halves of the state.)

Liturgy is everybody's heritage!

Even Protestants, for most of Reformation history. See here from the blog of an Antiochian Orthodox missionary priest Down Under.

South African Anglican conversion story

of Father Deacon Stephen Methodius Hayes, who turned around and started spreading Orthodoxy among South Africans of all races and ethnicities, and talking evangelization among Orthodox internationally!

This is his account of a grassroots pan-ethnic evangelization effort that became a parish, and later a continuing grassroots pan-ethnic evangelization effort, with outreach literally around the world! Lots of other interesting stuff there too.

(I also got the idea from him to try using blog tags to help spread the News!)

Chinese Challenge from Canada to America

Canadian Orthodox fundraisers for the Orthodox Mission in China challenge U.S. parishes to do the same!

Hey, eat Chinese food, raise three grand for a worthy cause (and the Canadian Dollar has never been higher!)... and a recent edition of the magazine of the Orthodox Christian Mission Center in Florida says actively supporting overseas evangelization may be a key element in evangelizing here at home too, as a local mission that wants to be a 'grown-up church' "acts like one"!

Pass the hot mustard!

---

And one anticipated them!!

"Religion in the New Russia" book

I just posted an Amazon review (they insisted) of Jim Forest's 1980s book Religion in the New Russia, which I bought used there (CHEAP!) and read 4 years ago, so I thought I'd share it here too. It's not just Russia but the whole USSR, and it's not just Orthodoxy, but Orthodoxy figures prominently, not least because while researching this book in person in the Soviet Union, Jim - ex-Catholic, ex-Protestant, peace activist, "Catholic Worker" with Dorothy Day, author, founder of the Orthodox Peace Fellowship (whatever you make of the OPF) - embraced Orthodoxy... which he detailed more personally in Pilgrim to the Russian Church, also a great read. Many years, Jim and Nancy!

---

(Five stars out of five!)

Jim Forest has been Protestant, Catholic, worked with Dorothy Day at the Catholic Worker, was a Vietnam Era peace activist, an author, and then when he went to look into the state of all religions in the late 1980s in the Soviet Union (by then he was living in the Netherlands), he discovered Eastern Orthodox Christianity sounded like Truth to boot! Obviously some of this is dated today, although a valuable glimpse of an important turning-point for the 20th century... and for the life of a man who has gone on to become an influential writer and speaker on Orthodoxy as well, founder of the Orthodox Peace Fellowship (whatever you make of the OPF), consultant to Autocephalous Primates and Synods. If we'd read this a generation ago, we might not have been caught so surprised and flatfooted by Orthodoxy's rebound in the former Communist bloc, become involved in so much ecclesiastical conflict, or spent so much money and energy trying to "evangelize" a land that was Christian 'when our ancestors were still swinging from trees!' (as the saying goes)

Be careful if you look into "religion in the new Russia"... or [the new] Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, the Republic of Macedonia, Bulgaria.... You [just] might get hooked!

:)

New Patriarch of Romania; Fr. Roberson profile

His Holiness Patriarch TEOCTIST reposed at the end of July. The new Patriarch, DANIEL, has been Metropolitan of Moldavia. In Romania the Church is divided into several provinces, like the Byzantine Empire of old, one of them being Moldavia - not to be confused with the former Soviet republic now officially known as Moldova, next-door - and its Metropolitan is chief among the Ruling Hierarchs of its dioceses. The Patriarch in turn is Ruling Hierarch of Bucharest, the capital, Metropolitan of its province, and Primate of the national Church, as well as of its overseas jurisdictions.

The Patriarchate's official news release in English provides a glimpse into how one Autocephalous Orthodox Church chooses its primate. That day I read elsewhere that the procedure was taking all day and into the night, amid church services and meetings. (Also note that the Romanian Church doesn't put monastics' and bishops' family names in parentheses as do many others!)

Their official curriculum vitae for him reflects his appointment as locum tenens of the patriarchal throne in the period between Teoctist's death and his own election as patriarch, and hasn't been updated as of this writing. The locum tenens - usually already an active Ruling Hierarch elsewhere in the Local Church - serves as interim ruling hierarch there also during a vacancy, so a diocese is never left without one. (Here in America, OCA Metropolitan HERMAN is currently serving not only as OCA Primate and Ruling Hierarch of their Diocese of Washington and New York, but also locum tenens of the late Archbishop KYRILL's dioceses of Pittsburgh and the Bulgarian Diocese, until a successor to Kyrill is elected.) I note that the whole title for his Metropolitanate is "Moldavia and Bukovina": I've read elsewhere that the region of Bukovina is a somewhat ethnically diverse place, including some Orthodox Ukrainians and Carpatho-Russians I believe, all under the archpastoral supervision of the local Ruling Hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Romania. In fact, it seems Ukrainians in Romania have their own overlapping ethnic vicariate under the Patriarchate of Romania. (Go here, then scroll up a couple clicks for its official listing [in Romanian].)

This seems to be a secular media article about Daniel's election, with a little more background. The country still seems to be dealing with fallout from the Communist era.

This is the same Metropolitan Daniel of Moldova who figured somewhat humorously in English journalist Victoria Clark's Why Angels Fall, her travelogue through space and time / flirtation with Orthodoxy to try to get at the roots of the Yugoslav and Chechen wars she'd previously covered as a newspaper reporter. Over a community dinner presided at by Daniel after Liturgy one day, she asked him to comment on the "clash of civilizations" thesis that apparently took some parts of the world by storm in the late '90s as a result of Samuel Huntington's book of that title. (I was immersed in grad school at the time, so I didn't notice it! Apparently one of Huntington's 'fault lines' is between traditionally-Orthodox Europe and the rest of the continent - historically a line drawn right through Croatia and Bosnia 1,000 years ago by the East-West church split.) Daniel was inspired to respond to her in front of the whole room, placing her momentarily in fear for her safety! But Daniel was very concerned about an exaggerated emphasis on difference between East and West in Europe, and as the secular article linked above points out, is keen to collaborate with Europe's other religious leaders to 'revive' Christianity on the continent. (Although Andrew Greeley's sociological research calls into question the popular 'secularizing Europe' thesis....) In fact, a previous edition of the patriarchate's website touted the idea of their approach to Christianity being a sort of Latin Orthodoxy, due to the descent of their language from Latin, and the traditional descent of their people, in significant part, from colonists from Rome itself. This actually comes out a bit in this piece related to my secondary topic for this post, a 1993 profile of the Latin priest behind this occasionally-helpful 'Brief Survey of the Eastern Christian Churches.' It turns out he did his doctorate at the Vatican's "Oriental Institute" on the ecclesiology (theology of the Church) of well-known Orthodox Fr. Dumitru Staniloae of Romania!

Liberation Theology

This post reminded me of my old influence from Theology of Liberation, in particular from Latin America. I grew up Northeast urban working-class Irish Catholic, so labor unions are in my blood. In addition, I have belonged to two, NABET (now part of the CWA) as a broadcast journalist and SEIU as a caseworker. Full disclosure: I helped lead my NABET Local. But I never studied Liberation Theo. till I spent a year and a half at Gonzaga University* Graduate School's Department of Religious Studies, 1991-92... though I did connect with GU via their ads in the National Catholic Reporter, the independent, lay-run, progressive weekly religious newspaper, so I doubtless picked up some there too.

(*--In the days before their Men's Basketball team got so good!!)

At the heart of economic-oriented LT as it developed in Latin America (as opposed to Black Theo., Feminist Theo., etc... though they have their parallels to this) is a much-misunderstood and -maligned phrase, the preferential option for the poor. What this means is that Christianity is best understood from the perspective of the poor, not the rich, the bourgeosie, (Western) Europe (and by extension the USA), White people, males, clergy or bishops especially the unmarried (eg, Catholic religious and priests), the over-formally-educated, etc. - no more, no less. "POP" thus is LT's hermeneutical principle, its method for interpretation of Scripture, doctrine, ethics, etc., and its source for what it emphasizes in Christianity. Yes, it learns from "Marxian" economic and social analysis, but no more than "neocon" religious figures learn from "Smithian" or "Lockean" or "Keynesian" (?) economic and social analysis, or whatever, merely as a corrective to them. Certainly the "base church communities" - Catholic parish "small groups," as it were - in the Brazilian slums aren't sitting around reading Das Kapital or whatever!

Where LT most gets into trouble from Rome is in its pro-poor social ethics and its "Low Christology," which basically emphasizes Christ's humanity and life on Earth among the poor, more than the Latin Church has traditionally done... though never to the exclusion of His Divinity, AFAIK. Where LT most provokes opposition from especially "conservative" U.S. Protestant figures also is in its pro-poor social ethics, since the latter figures prefer "neocon" socioeconomics. (BTW, in Lat. Am. it's universally referred to more properly as neoliberalism, because they're using the global, "classical" liberal/conservative spectrum, not the U.S. one; "conservatism" would be evocative of Middle Ages Western Europe, not the 18th- or 19th-century USA.)

OPINION ALERT!: ISTM an Orthodox approach would be to seek solidarity between rich and poor, bourgeosie and workers, Christ's Humanity and His Divinity as it were. (Especially within the same Church: One of LT's big beefs is the fact that both the poor and the rich in Lat. Am. belong to the same, Latin Church, but the rich don't act like brothers and sisters of the poor, in Christ.) A "Chalcedonian" solution, if you will. Both perspectives are necessary to best understand any particular question; 'the big picture,' as it were. As well as, of course, the Orthodox Fathers and Mothers of the Church. Some of them had pretty radical things to say about wealth, economics, etc.! Paraphrasing: 'Your extra stuff belongs to the poor person who lacks them'... 'You have stolen it'... 'You owe it to them'... "It's not charity but justice'... mere stewardship, not ownership, of material possessions... 'When you withhold your workers' pay you starve their families'... etc etc. The Byzantine Empire ideal wasn't "income transfers" or "social programs," but it wasn't "trickle-down" or "bootstraps economics" either. It was literal philanthropy, philanthropos, love of humankind. Not just giving enough money to reduce your taxes through charitable deductions, but serious GIVING, by Emperors and Empresses and other rich people to effect real social change. Talking about health care, the Byzantines invented the modern hospital - St. Basil the Great, bishop of Caesarea and primate of Cappadocia (I), founded a hospital-town right outside Caesarea. More than one miracle-working Orthodox physician - males and females - were martyred for undercutting the pagan, for-profit medical sector; we call the former the Holy Unmercenary Physicians, unmercenary because they treated people not-for-profit.

LT is also sometimes accused of seeking a man-made material eschaton here and now: Heaven on Earth by our own efforts. In truth, some of their rhetoric sounds close to that. Maybe I'm out-of-touch with it after all these years, but ISTM in the end it's nothing more than what all people of real good will want, a world in which everyone has what they need as well as sufficient leisure to truly enjoy life, reasonably, and a sharing of the burdens of society more equitably. My eyes were opened by LT social analysis, even as a working-class kid. And the concept of structural evil, ie, unintended, unexperienced (by him or her) consequences of an individual's good intentions working within a system or "social structure" s/he doesn't know is sinful, explains alot for me. It's actually not entirely unlike the Orthodox concept of unintended or involuntary sin, for which we still need repentance and forgiveness and self-restraint/asceticism.