Nyssa's Opinions on Theology--Page 4
--Is Wine from the Devil--or a Gift from God?
Dialogues between various Christian churches have been going on for decades. Here I have collected links to documents from or about, or summaries of, these dialogues, particularly the ones involving the Catholic and Orthodox churches:
An Orthodox section of Wikipedia which talks about many things, including these dialogues:
The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) has had a productive conversation with the Orthodox Church and now rejects the contested filioque clause in the Nicene Creed:
Here is a short book which was once part of the New Testament. It is supposed to have been written by the Apostles as a guide to Christian life, though many dispute that claim:
Technical Virginity--i.e., how far should a Christian single go?
This topic has been a big one among Christian teenagers since as far back as my own teens. I remember getting extremely upset when my fiance (I'll call him Phil) told me he'd had oral sex with two previous girlfriends. I saw it as plainly sex (as a Christian, I always believed my future husband and I would save ourselves for each other). But he and one or two friends told me they didn't see it as sex. Phil--who made a big deal about having gone through a few years of sex education in high school and "knowing better" than I did--also believed that various forms of heavy petting were not sex, either, even though they seemed a lot like it, because they didn't involve "penetration" and the clothes stayed on. There are various activities Christian teens engage in to avoid "fornication" while also satisfying their lusts with each other. But are they right to call themselves virgins?
I don't believe they are. Giving someone an orgasm is a basic element of sex. Just think about it: If a lesbian has had several lovers but has never had vaginal sex, can you honestly call her a virgin? Even Wikipedia, in its article on sexual intercourse (which I won't link to because it has pictures), includes oral sex as "intercourse." Christian teens and young adults need to realize that playing the game of "Don't go past here, and you can still keep your virginity" is a dangerous one, and hardly God-honoring. Don't think, "How far can we go without having actual sex?" Instead, think, "I don't have the right to damage his/her purity."
See these articles:
(The authors of this website have many viewpoints which are not Christian, and which I vehemently disagree with. But Christian teens still should see that even this website includes other forms of "stimulation" under the heading of "sex," and would not call a lesbian a "virgin" if she's only had female lovers.)
(Note that, in Wisconsin, you don't have to be over the age of majority to be charged with a sex crime. Even if you're 15 and so is your girlfriend, and it's completely consensual, you can be charged as a sex offender. I live in Wisconsin, and my source is the daily paper.)
(Yeah, I know it's from The 700 Club, but they do get things right once in a while.)
From the above URL:
While what virginity is and is not is not something medical or actual, but an idea some people have that can differ from person to person, I think it's very important that you acknowledge that you have been sexually active. You have had sex. Most definitions of abstinence simply mean that a person is not having any kind of genital sex with another person: not manual, oral, vaginal or anal sex.
Here is a good article about Christian dating.
Today, casual dates and "hookups" are so prevalent amongst teens and young adults. "Hookups" are one night stands with strangers (someone never met before), or that are only acquaintances. Any relationship starting on the foundation of sexual activity will not last long. All that lasts is the broken heart....The pressure today to develop only shallow friendships, or friendships that are all about "me", is significant. In a world of one night stands, and how many partners can I bag this weekend, today's relationships are not started to last. Many relationships are over before they even really begin. With broken relationships come broken hearts. It takes an incredibly long time for a person's heart to heal.
And this leads to....
Are Spiritual Marriages "real"?
This is another issue which seems to be hotly debated among Christians, especially teenagers who are too young to legally marry, and especially now that various forms of "marriage alternatives" have become popular in Western society: commitment ceremonies, same-sex blessing ceremonies, secret promises exchanged by couples who do not want a legal marriage for whatever reason. Even Sting has a song about it: "The Secret Marriage", copyright 1987, about his relationship with his own wife. (For ten years, their union was not blessed by church or state: story here.)
These have been around for some years: I have read about Christians having "spiritual marriages"--secret marriages contracted with only God as witness--as far back as probably the 1980s, possibly even farther. Where did people get the idea? Probably from history.
In the Middle Ages, at least since the twelfth century, such a marriage, called verbum or clandestine, would have been considered valid, even by the Catholic Church. The girl had to be at least 12, and the boy at least 14. The parents didn't have to agree, there would often be no witnesses, and the couple might even continue on living in their parents' houses, pretending to be unmarried--basically, Romeo and Juliet's marriage without the friar. "A couple who exchanged consents in the present tense in the back woods with only squirrels for witnesses, against the wishes of their parents, and never had sexual intercourse was just as legally and bindingly married by the law of both church and state as a couple married by the Pope himself with the proud parents looking on and a child nine months later." The Church hated such marriages and required penance, but considered the couple to be married. The requirement of a public sacrament came much later, in the Counter-Reformation, after the Reformation caused state involvement in marriage and the issue arose of Catholics marrying Protestants. Even now, the priest is merely a witness to a sacrament the couple carries out. My references are the Time-Life book What Life was Like: in the Age of Chivalry: Medieval Europe AD 800-1500, Wikipedia, and other sources.
According to note 17 of For God is also the God of bodies by Wanda Deifelt, quoting another source, “Luther accused church law of encouraging immature and unhappy marriages by its recognition of so-called ‘secret’ marriages. These were private unions entered into by youths of canonical age (at least twelve for girls and fourteen for boys) without the knowledge and consent of their parents and apart from any public witnesses. The medieval church sanctioned such unions grudgingly in an attempt to control premarital sex and to bring marriage, at its inception, under the moral authority of the church.”
But also note that the modern Catholic Church does not recognize civil marriages unless later blessed by a priest, or marriages between Catholics and Protestants which do not take place in the presence of a priest, unless they have special dispensation.
The Catholic Church did not always have so much influence on what defined a marriage among its members. In the beginning of the Church, except for the rules defined in Scripture, Christians took their marriage rules from the society, not the other way around. In the eleventh and thirteenth centuries, theologians "specified the church's beliefs regarding Christian marriage," and "held that marriage was part of the created order and subject to the laws of nature, a societal contract entered into freely by the parties involved and a sacrament that was subject to church laws." Though St. Augustine had already called it a sacrament centuries before this, this was just "to emphasize its permanence and stability. When it became a sacrament in the practical sense, everything that had to do with marriage became the church's responsibility and under the church's authority. This represented a significant shift from the church's previous policy, which was simply to add a layer of blessing to whatever local marriage customs prevailed." When Martin Luther came along and sparked the Reformation, he said the "church's laws on marriage were arrogant. He believed marriage existed since the first humans, long before the formation of the church." He wanted the state to regulate marriage, not the church. "In fact, to Luther a marriage existed even if it only was an agreement between a couple, without either a civil recognition or church blessing." Eventually, marriage became a legal arrangement. ("I do, I do" by Jeff Favre)
Here is a paper showing how marriage customs changed since Roman times, and how different Christian thinkers had different ideas on what constituted a proper marriage.
The Orthodox church also does not permit its members to be married in non-Orthodox ceremonies. But Protestant churches usually recognize any marriage, whether it's contracted by a judge or a preacher, and even if it involves the mixing of two Christian denominations. Would clandestine marriages be recognized as valid? It probably depends on the preacher, on how liberal or conservative the congregation is, and how much of a role the church insists on having in a wedding. For example, the Nazarene church probably would not recognize a clandestine marriage as valid, while preachers from the UCC and other liberal denominations sometimes consider a non-legal blessing ceremony between a gay couple to be valid.
I also read about a secret marriage in a Washington Irving story, "The Adventure of the German Student." In my own desert island novel Jerisland, which I've never published but worked on in high school and college, the castaway teenagers eventually began performing their own ceremonies because they couldn't possibly find a minister or follow U.S. marriage laws.
This practice of non-legal, sometimes secret marriage is common, even among Christian couples, long after the demise of medieval verbum marriages; opinions of its validity vary greatly. I even saw it on the vampire soap opera Port Charles. Allison and Rafe called themselves married, even though there were no witnesses, and they didn't live together or tell everyone they were married. Spiritual marriages have been depicted on other soap operas as well. In 1994 on an episode of Picket Fences, set in Wisconsin, a judge dissolved a Mormon's second marriage, but said there was nothing stopping them from a common-law marriage. Retirees often go into a "spiritual" marriage so they don't lose pension benefits. I occasionally read about couples who consider their true wedding anniversary to be some time before the anniversary of the public ceremony, though there were no witnesses or licenses. Another thing couples do is to get legally married, then keep it secret, having a public wedding later. The pop singer Brandy is said to have had a spiritual marriage: see here and here. This has also occurred between two famous actors, two famous singers, and various other parties, who have tried to get it legally recognized after a breakup, with varying success: see here.
In certain states (which ones, depends on which website you read), such couples would be considered common-law married on their vows and agreement alone, and would have to get legally divorced. In other states, the best you can get is "spiritually" married.
For much of American history, informal marriages with no clergy or witnesses were legally binding. Only in the past century have common-law marriages lost their legal status in such states as Indiana (1958) and Wisconsin (1917). Throughout history, you can find stories of people marrying "spiritually" but not civilly because their marriages were legally banned, such as between slaves or homosexuals. In the Early Church, marriages between people of different social classes were not legal, so the church "affirmed lifelong, monogamous relationships whether couples were officially married or not" (p. 90, The Unauthorized Guide to Sex and the Church, Carmen Renee Berry). The novel Clotel portrays a secret, spiritual marriage between a freed black woman and a white man in the days when the law did not allow such a marriage. Though the novelist considers their marriage to be real, the man eventually decides to take a white wife, and abandons his black wife (pages 80 and 108). A series of popular novels by Diana Gabaldon includes a young woman and her boyfriend who secretly take vows, which they call "handfasting." This allows them to be considered truly married until they can find a preacher to make it permanent, even though nobody witnesses it. They do not tell anyone until her parents discover it. (Of course, whether handfasting in this form actually occurred is up for some debate.) In modern times, neopagans have taken up handfasting themselves, complete with a public ceremony, deciding whether to make it temporary (with a permanent ceremony later) or permanent. It may or may not become a legal marriage. (Another source.)
Okay, we've established that these "marriages" happen a lot. But is a marriage binding in the eyes of God (or in the eyes of two people, if they don't believe in God) if the law or the church does not recognize it? It is an oath, so it could be valid spiritually. This website has a relevant section on oaths.
It's easy to find links to websites of people who believe there must be a public and/or legal declaration for a marriage to be real. Go ahead and get that side of the issue. But also check out these links, which either describe or promote different beliefs (not necessarily the views of this writer, but examples to show how societal values are changing):
"In specific, [libertarians] typically deny that the government deserves any role in marriage other than enforcing whatever legal contract people choose to bind themselves to, and to oppose the various additional rights currently granted to married people."
"[Libertarian View]: The government has no authority to recognize any marriage. The over 1,000 legal rights granted to heterosexual couples should not be granted. For example, the tax code should not treat married couples differently than unmarried couples. The government should not compel hospitals to allow any individual access to patients or medical records, except in accordance with that hospital's policy. Individuals can choose to cohabitate, and can declare themselves married, or perform a ceremony. It is up to individuals to choose, according to their own beliefs, whether to recognize any such marriage."
The Libertarians have an unlikely ally in this one issue in abortion extremist Pastor Matt Trewhella of Mercy Seat Christian Church of Milwaukee, who refuses to marry couples with state marriage licenses, and here's why. (Disclaimer: I'm not saying his arguments are right, just that he makes them.)
(Run by a Texas State Justice of the Peace who served for twelve years. See "Must we have a marriage license to get married?" section. It states that laws do not prohibit personal commitment ceremonies, or prohibit people from calling themselves married if they want to. What they do prohibit is legal protection/rights/recognition for such marriages, which are the basic reasons for getting a licensed marriage. So no, having a non-legal marriage is hardly "breaking the law" or "illegal.")
On this page, they discuss whether or not marriage requires a "piece of paper." The answer seems to be that no, it doesn't, since marriage is a lifelong commitment, but in the US, why wouldn't you want legal backing?
A debate on a Christian forum about whether or not spiritual marriages with no witnesses or clergy--and even secret ones--are valid in God's eyes. Opinions vary greatly in this thread. And this is not the only such thread I found! Here's yet another which just popped up. And here's a huge thread in a non-religious forum.
These websites and others show that attitudes are changing, especially now that the debate over same-sex marriage has been thrown into the mix. Though many people still consider a marriage to be real only if it's legal and public, and accuse those with non-legal or secret marriages of lacking commitment or maturity, there are a lot of people who feel the law has no bearing on what two people commit to with each other. They know the law won't recognize their marriage, but they do it anyway, and call it a marriage in the eyes of God. Many people have religious ceremonies without licenses, for various reasons. According to one post in a forum, which may or may not be trustworthy, many Christians accept lifelong spiritual bonds as valid even if there's no legal marriage. I found debates all over the Internet--between adults, not teenagers debating the meaning of abstinence--on what constitutes a "real" marriage in God's eyes. I found plenty of accounts of adult, mature couples privately committing to each other and considering it binding, even without a legal backing; it's not just kids who need to "grow up" or "accept adult responsibility." Even in college, a Pentecostal friend once told me that spiritual marriages could often be more real than ones with a "piece of paper," though for various reasons the bride would be better off getting that "piece of paper." If local customs are what makes a marriage a marriage--well, those "local customs" are changing in Western society. Still, unless it's legally valid, you won't have legal protections, whether the marriage fits "local customs" or not.
Of course, having a marriage not recognized by others can happen even with legal marriages. For examples: Two people marry legally, but secretly because their parents won't allow it, something that happens now at the courthouse and often happened in the Middle Ages with verbum marriages; what about the common argument that a marriage is a public declaration? If gay marriage is legalized, many groups (especially conservative religious ones) will still not recognize the marriages as valid. And the Catholic church considered my ex-boyfriend Peter's parents, though legally married, to be "living in sin" and Peter as illegitimate because his mother was Catholic and his father was Lutheran. (I don't know why they didn't have it at least blessed by a priest. I'm not privy to so many details.)
Here is an online advice column. Two divorced people came together and decided they would be spiritually married. The counselor, taking a Christian perspective, says that our word should be just as bonding as God's word, whether we back it up legally or not. She supports the idea that a spiritual marriage is valid. Of course, she also advises caution in such matters: "So, in God’s eyes, whether there is a ‘spiritual marriage’ with a promise or commitment, or a cultural civil ceremony with a piece of signed paper, it is one in the same [sic]. However, throughout history man has chosen to define the spiritual commitment with the civil act by emulating solemn ceremonies witnessed by others out of necessity for many reasons, chief among them being that man is deceitful and will want to break a vow!" So one point she makes is that we should be careful what vows we make--not just in public, but in private--because God will hold us to them.
Also see this article. An Ohio girl, dying of cancer, needed to stay on her parents' insurance policy because the treatments cost far too much. But she also wanted to marry her boyfriend. So, on September 16, 2006, Make A Wish Foundation paid for a commitment ceremony held in her church, Mentor United Methodist Church. Quote: "And despite some murmuring in the family about moral issues regarding the non-wedding and honeymoon to follow, Nicole is confident about her ethical standing after talking with the minister who will perform the ceremony. 'He told me that when Adam and Eve were married in the Garden of Eden, that God was the one who performed the ceremony--and they didn't need a marriage license either,' Nicole said. 'I already have the approval I need.'"
Many people do marry secretly with a license, not just without, then let their families think that the later, public ceremony is the legal marriage. But the problem with an unlicensed, secret marriage is that one spouse can claim that marriage never existed--as happened to the singer Brandy and somebody I know very well.
These days, when Americans are of various religions and many are not religious, it's simple enough for a couple to decide to be married without either a public ceremony or a license. If they draw up legal contracts, they can even get many of the rights lacking to unmarried couples. The lack of a legal wedding or church wedding will not phase them if they do not wish to be legally married and do not go to church. To them, all that matters is that they have committed to be together for life. Is this valid as a marriage in God's eyes? Only God can judge.
But what is a Christian to make of this? He has to be careful, because he answers to God, not to himself. He also has to answer to his church. An atheist or Wiccan couple could indeed consider themselves married without a license or a ceremony; they only have the law and themselves to answer to, and as long as they don't try to claim the legal rights of a legally married couple, the government probably won't care. But members of less permissive religious communities should follow the rules of their community. A Catholic or Orthodox believer could get excommunicated (prohibited from taking the Eucharist) for marrying without a legal license combined with a church wedding. So whether a nonlegal marriage is valid in God's eyes is moot for a Catholic or Orthodox believer, because anything less than a wedding performed or witnessed by a priest is not allowed anyway. Many Protestant churches recognize civil marriages as just as valid as a church wedding, but probably would frown on a clandestine marriage. But some liberal Protestant churches allow individuals to make up their own minds about how or whether to get married. If sex outside of marriage is allowed in a church, if living together is allowed in a church, then a nonlegal, private wedding will probably be allowed. And some Christians do not attend a church.
A combination of the Protestant belief that you decide for yourself what the Bible says, and living in a pluralistic society, can easily make a person believe that he can marry even without the okay of one church or another. Whether this is correct or not, I suppose that's up to the individual to decide. Even in conservative churches, you can often find the belief that only the Bible and your conscience is your ultimate authority, rather than the preacher. My own belief is that a nonlegal, even secret marriage is spiritually valid because of the oath and the commitment. My own belief is that breaking up that marriage to be with another is akin to adultery.
But I advise caution. I advise holding off on that commitment ceremony, vow exchange, consummation, and/or setting up house until you have thought things through and spoken with your priest or preacher. First of all, what if the relationship goes sour? You will not have legal recourse. You will not have the help of society which you would have if you were legally married. Instead, you will be left trying to sort out whether you can marry someone else without committing adultery. If your nonlegal "spouse" leaves you, he will be able to remarry--in the church, no less--without trouble. But you will be left thinking, "Isn't he committing adultery? Yet he gets a church wedding!" If the church does not consider his remarriage to be adultery, then you won't have any means to contest it. In the Catholic and Orthodox church, there is also the teaching that marriage is a sacrament, and without that church-ordered sacrament, you don't get the grace you otherwise would receive in your marriage.
I'm not going to tell you your marriage isn't "valid" because it wasn't done publicly, or in front of the right priest, or with a license. I'm not going to tell you it isn't "valid" because it was a handfasting ceremony with no license or justice of the peace, or because it was done in front of a justice of the peace instead of a preacher. But your religious community and secular society are different matters which you'll have to contend with. I do not recommend secret marriages, because many people won't accept a spiritual marriage as real and could even accuse you of all sorts of base motivations. Literature and drama is full of the problems of secret marriages, such as Romeo and Juliet and Cimarosa's The Secret Marriage. Or you can break up and your "spouse" will claim that you were never actually married in the first place, making you look like a fool to many. There are good reasons for those marriage laws and customs in the first place. You're much better off following your church's guidelines/rules for marriage, and having a public ceremony, not even eloping.
Does the Pill cause abortions, or is that just another weird Internet or extremist right-wing rumor?
As a long-time Pill user, who used it to regulate a menstrual disorder, I would love to tell you this is just a rumor. However, I have recently discovered results are not conclusive enough to say yes or no. The problem is that the Church (except for more liberal wings) and the medical community define "abortion" differently. The Church says a person's soul enters at conception; the medical community doesn't bother with souls, but only with the time the physical pregnancy officially starts: implantation. By the way, Emergency Birth Control (EBC) and the IUD are also suspected of preventing implantation of an already-fertilized egg. And the mini-pill is known to prevent implantation at an alarmingly high rate.
The following articles are ironically amusing because, not only are they dated (saying that the pro-life groups are against Emergency Birth Control but not the Pill), but they also rail against the pro-life side while proving its claims. They accuse the pro-life groups of misinformation, while confirming that the Pill and EBC can still work after conception. They treat the pro-lifers as stupid idiots, apparently thinking that our personal definition of "pregnancy" must depend on the current definitions of the medical community rather than the teachings of God and the Church. But the truth is that both sides are talking at cross-purposes, not even speaking of the same thing. If you believe the soul enters the body at conception, then terminating a fertilized egg is murder whether it's implanted yet or not, and whether or not the medical community calls it an "abortion."
Has it been proven that the Pill can actually abort a fertilized egg before it implants? No. But because it might, Christians are left with a difficult decision.
What about Missional Churches, Simple Churches, Fluid Churches, Organic Churches, House Churches or Neighborhood Churches?
I believe this latest fad is full of heresies and historical inaccuracies that will lead the Protestant church even further away from the fullness of Truth--that is, until the next fad comes along several years from now. It derides practices which are good and right, such as imitating Jewish worship (which was prescribed by God himself) and paying a priest/pastor a salary. These are the articles I have found about it:
Beware of it and do not fall for it! It could do a great deal of damage to the Church.
A blog criticizing this sort of church from the Orthodox perspective:
Is Wine from the Devil--or a Gift from God?
Now, I think the taste of wine is vile. But I did a little research on the origins of grape juice. The company web site of Welch's, maker of grape juice, confirms that Dr. Thomas Bramwell Welch first promoted the idea of "unfermented sacramental wine" in communion. Dr. Welch was a Methodist and part of the newly arising Temperance Movement:
"The story of Welch's began in 1869 in Vineland, New Jersey – when physician and dentist Thomas Bramwell Welch and his son Charles processed the first bottles of 'unfermented wine' to use during their church's communion service."
"Back in 1869, dentist Thomas Welch was elected Communion steward at the First United Methodist Church, Vineland, N.J. He objected to the use of wine for the sacrament and refused to touch it. Meanwhile he heard of Louis Pasteur's new method of killing bacteria in milk ('pasteurization'). He decided to try applying the same principle to preserving the juice of grapes unfermented."
Check out the history of alcohol in Christianity--and note that even Puritans drank it, despising only drunkenness:
(Note the section on Winemaking in biblical times. It describes how quickly grape juice ferments, and the true meaning of "new wine"--not grape juice, as some temperance groups will tell you, but already-fermenting wine.)
If you doubt Wikipedia's trustworthiness, check out the sources and links at the bottom of the webpages.
Apparently, the idea that alcohol is "evil" in and of itself, and must be eradicated from the Communion, is a feature of much of American Protestantism in the newer denominations, but not of the older churches which have strong traditions.
This is a big question lately among evangelical groups and in popular Christian self-help books. Is worship music? Is it the sacraments? Is it raising your hands and having an emotional reaction to praise music? Is it how you feel when you look at nature or listen to Iona (Celtic Christian band)? Is it God-centered rather than man-centered? Is it old hymns or poppy praise music? Is it serving the poor/needy in the name of Christ? Is it a praise and worship band at a concert leading an auditorium full of blissed-out Christians in the band's newest praise chorus?
Here is the OrthodoxWiki answer: "Worship is faith in action. In the words of Georges Florovsky: 'Christianity is a liturgical religion. The Church is first of all a worshipping community. Worship comes first, doctrine and discipline second.' Orthodoxy sees people as liturgical creatures who are fully complete when glorifying God." I've also read it defined as the expression of Orthodox beliefs and Christian experience through the Eucharist. The Orthodox Study Bible defines worship as, "Literally, 'to bow down.' In the Christian sense worship is the adoration of God through participation in the services of the Church, the highest act of a Christian (John 4:19-24). See also LITURGY" (p. 810). Liturgy is defined as, "The work or public service of the people of God, which is the worship of the one true God. The Divine Liturgy is the Eucharistic service of the Orthodox Church" (p. 802). The Divine Liturgy, to explain it to Westerners, is basically the Orthodox version of Mass. The North American Antiochan church has this on its website: "Worship is defined as: For Orthodox Christians, corporate worship is the sacramental expression of and participation in Holy Tradition, and is the indispensable foundation of ministry at all levels. Upon this foundation, we must cultivate a daily personal prayer life and reading of Holy Scripture." http://www.antiochian.org/1101931101
So I guess that leaves out concert performances by hot praise and worship bands.
One benefit of Orthodox worship is that it preserves intact the doctrine and teachings of the Orthodox Church. As quoted above, personal study of Scripture (and the Church Fathers) is highly encouraged. But in countries in which Christianity is suppressed, and with the illiterate, such personal study is impossible, making the Divine Liturgy crucial to proper understanding by the Orthodox faithful.
Here is an online library of articles on Orthodox worship.
Evangelistic Trips to Already Christianized Countries:
There is nothing wrong with sending off missionaries to evangelize non-Christian countries or to evangelize non-Christians in Christian countries. But there is a common practice these days of Protestants sending missionaries to countries which are predominantly Catholic or Orthodox, and actively trying to convert people who are already Christians (Catholic or Orthodox). These particular Protestant groups don't consider the Catholic and Orthodox to be truly Christian. The problem is, I'm now hearing from Catholic or Orthodox people who live in those countries, and they're not happy. Established churches consider it to be "invading their turf" or "stepping on their toes." Russia was Christianized 1000 years ago; the Orthodox church is still there, still predominant among Christian groups, and still considers itself part of Russian ethnic identity (p. 15, Presbyterians Today, April 2006). In fact, "70% of Russians identify themselves as Orthodox, though church authorities estimate that only 3-4 % participate actively in church life. Baptists and Pentecostals are the largest Protestant churches in Russia and have been growing" (see previous note). I don't know if the practice of individual churches follows this, but the PCUSA as a whole does its mission work with established churches in Russia: Orthodox, Lutheran and Baptist (see previous note). I'm told that there are people in the former Soviet Union who will "convert" weekly to please whatever Protestant missionaries are there that week, because they get "free stuff," such as free lunches or T-shirts. The missionaries don't follow up or, in most cases, even know Russian, so they think they've made real converts. For thorough and enlightening critiques, see The Battle for Russia's Souls and Mission in Post-Perestroika Russia.
I have heard charges that the Orthodox church is pagan, that the Catholic church is not really Christian. Yet these churches sometimes charge Protestant churches with the same thing.
Believers in predominantly Catholic countries, such as in Latin America, have problems with Protestant missionaries as well. One Orthodox convert reports that she once went on a mission trip to Mexico, thinking they'd be helping the poor; instead, she felt "frustrated, disgusted and used" because the trip ended up being about converting Catholic children to Protestantism. A young Brazilian woman told me that churches in Brazil have begun turning out American and even European missionaries, claiming that the American church is destroyed and Americans ruin churches. Brazilian churches started by American churches have been left on their own when their "mother" church failed.
A woman in my church who has done mission work says that she's seen people trying to evangelize Muslims on their holy days, such as during Ramadan! This is disrespectful, to say the least, and does not make Christians/Christianity attractive to Muslims!
I've also heard from an Orthodox friend that the Russian Church is proclaiming missionaries--the ones who proclaim the Rapture of the Church is coming--to be apostates, to be preaching a different Christ than the Orthodox preach, because Christ would not steal people away from his people. This different Christ is seen as "buddy Christ." (One such critique of evangelicalism is here, the blog for January 12, 2004, "The Right Answer.")
From The Greek Orthodox Church/Faith, History, and Practice by Demetrios J. Constantelos, published by The Seabury Press, page 69-70:
"While the [Orthodox] Church does not preach the gospel among people where Christ is accepted, there are every year numerous converts from various Christian bodies in such countries as Great Britain, France, Germany, and the United States of America. These converts choose the Orthodox faith freely and willingly....Today there is an ever increasing zeal for missionary activity in non-Christian territories. Unlike some denominations that make every effort to convert other Christians to their creeds, the Greek Church follows St. Paul, who said: 'I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation: but as it is written, to whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand' (Rom. 15:20-21). It is indeed unfortunate that there are Christian groups which send missionaries to such Christian countries as Greece. Professor Edward Jurji, of Princeton Theological Seminary, speaking of some missions in the Middle East, admitted that they are successful in converting only a few Christians to their denominations while they fail to convert non-Christians. Our friends of such misinformed groups must take heed lest the words of Christ apply to them: 'Woe unto you...for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves' (Matt. 23:15)."
Now this is not to say that the Orthodox consider other denominations to be of Satan. Rather, this demonstrates how upsetting Protestant proselytizing is to the Orthodox in such places as Russia. Catholic proselytizing has also been done in Orthodox countries in the past. And it can be expected that Catholics feel the same about Protestant proselytizing in Latin America.
What should we take away from this? I think we should follow the PCUSA practice of working with local churches when doing mission or evangelization trips, rather than trying to set up new churches or make converts from already Christian groups. Local holy days should be respected, whether they're Orthodox, Catholic or Muslim holy days. And, if it's an evangelization trip and not just a trip to help build houses or hand out food, the missionaries should know the language and follow up with the converts later. You'll notice that, in the Early Church, the apostles would establish churches, put someone in charge who knew the doctrine, and regularly visit or have someone visit the churches. The new churches weren't allowed to just die.
Fraternities, Sororities, Masonic Lodge
Should Christians join the Freemasons? The trouble with a secretive society is that it's hard to make definite judgments about what it does or teaches. The Wikipedia article is here. Various Christian denominations forbid membership in the Freemasons.
It can be argued that hazing and excessive (often underage) drinking are unChristian, best left alone by the Christian college student. During my short-lived time pledging a sorority, I was hazed in occasionally humiliating ways, all in the name of "unity." (This in a Christian college which forbade hazing.) How is it unifying for one sister to haze another? It unified us pledges, but against the actives. Once, while visiting friends in a sorority living suite, I overheard Sigma frat pledges getting paddled in the Sigma meeting room up above. And pledges in many such organizations are forced to drink far too much in far too short a time, sometimes resulting in death from alcohol poisoning. I recommend that Christian students avoid fraternities and sororities which use hazing of any kind, discriminate against non-members, and/or give alcohol to minors.
Here's one take on the issue from a nondenominational site.
The view of WELS, a very conservative branch of Lutheranism:
The view of LCMS, which is conservative but less so than WELS:
The Orthodox view, which is against Freemasonry but apparently not fraternities/sororities:
The Nazarene view:
"We hold specifically that the following practices should be avoided...Membership in oath-bound secret orders or societies. The quasi-religious nature of such organizations dilutes the Christian's commitment, and their secrecy contravenes the Christian's open witness" (p. 46, Manual/1997-2001).
Was Cassie Bernall a martyr?
In 2001 and possibly 2000 or 2002, I sent e-mails/letters to the editor to two prominent Christian magazines (CCM and Today's Christian Woman) complaining about stories which spoke of Bernall's supposed martyrdom as fact rather than myth. Neither magazine published my letters, even though they published all sorts of different letters, even (in CCM) some rather vicious attacks on Amy Grant in the aftermath of her divorce. I feared that the world would see Christians as a laughingstock for propagating the story of a martyrdom which everyone now knew never happened, that we would be derided for gullibility. While God's opinion is, of course, more important than man's, we shouldn't be giving the world new reasons to say we just believe in myths and create them ourselves when we need one. After all, this was shortly after beliefs in a Year 2000 Rapture were proven to be wrong.
When I wrote the e-mails, I assumed that I had to educate them, that they hadn't yet heard of the Salon.com article by Dave Cullen which exposed the myth as probably false in the results of a full investigation. But now I discover that Christianity Today , at the end of 1999, ridiculed Cullen's article and turned his exposé, as well as the responses by the "secular" media, into an example of some sort of persecution of Christians. (For more of the article, go to Clinton's Rogues Gallery and search for "Christianity Today 11/99 Wendy Zoba." For Cullen's response, see Columbine Summary, The Columbine Book and: "My disclosure that police believed Cassie Bernall never told the killers she believed in God provoked a bitter controversy in Evangelical Christian circles, and many of them insist to this day that Cassie did speak" (http://www.davecullen.com/columbine/all-in-1.html).)
I now find that all these years later, the myth continues, and has even been put in the song "Cassie" by Flyleaf--as late as 2006:
--Wikipedia article--which some have disparaged just for being on Wikipedia, but it gives the same information as Salon and other news sources
--Thread discussing the meaning of Flyleaf's "Cassie"--and arguing back and forth over whether or not she really said "yes," starting in 2006 and still continuing in May of 2008, almost 9 years after the myth was debunked
--Thread from April 2008 in which nearly everyone says the story is true
Now, so all can finally read it, this is my letter to Today's Christian Woman, "Re: March/April Issue, 'Our Picks," e-mailed on 2/28/01:
Regarding the video included in the 'Our Picks' column for March/April, "Whatever It Takes" [Michael W. Smith]: It's great to celebrate Cassie Bernall's life. She had a marvelous testimony. However, the front of the package says, "The 'She Said Yes' Video Tribute," leading me to believe that the video perpetuates the myth in Christian circles that she was martyred for her faith. In late September of 1999, it was revealed that several stories about the Columbine shooting were inaccurate, and that it was Valeen Schnurr, not Cassie, who said "yes." In fact, after she said it, the gunman reloaded but did not shoot her. She has since graduated and gone on to college. A witness who was right next to Cassie remembered no words being exchanged between her and her killer. I feel this myth should be recognized as myth, because the facts are verifiable, having been published in such places as Salon News, The Rocky Mountain News, The Denver Post, and the March [2000] issue of Redbook magazine (which gives Valeen's story). [Redbook Magazine incorrectly labeled the article as "March 1999" on one of its pages.]
If I ever find the other e-mail, I'll post it here. It's hard to find when I don't remember when it was sent.
My fears have proven to be on good grounds. This myth has given people new reasons to ridicule Christians:
The "martyrdom" story is a falsehood being spread to further the agenda of the Christian religion and to stereotype and stigmatize Christianity's critics.
Bernall, a troubled and rebellious youth who became a born-again Christian after being sent by her parents to a disciplinary religious camp, was quickly transformed into a 'Martyr" for her beliefs. Despite compelling evidence that such an event [never] even occurred as claimed, religious publications, spokespersons, web sites and media programs were quickly reporting on the "martyrdom of Cassie Bernall." The Bernall "martyrdom" was even mentioned on the floor of the U.S. Congress, as representatives passed a flurry of religion-friendly bills relating to school prayer, display of the Ten Commandments, and involving faith-based groups in the welfare system.
Surprise, xians lie to exploit a tragedy....But the reality will never be accepted. 100 years from now she will still be being praised as a true Christian hero...The lie
is more comfortable than the truth. Easy rationalization really, that is the basis of religion.
And the following, which is exactly what I feared back in 2000 or 2001:
It must be said, however, that Cassie's mother did not hide the fact that there were different accounts of what happened, and her book's focus was almost entirely on her daughter's transformation, not her murder. Nevertheless, several still refuse to believe it isn't true. One of those who reported the exchange originally, Joshua Lapp, although also not an eye-witness, still insists upon his account: ''She said it, plain and simple.'' It clearly does not take much to make someone into a confirmed believer in an inspiring story, even one that isn't true. The irony should not be lost on us that this kind of distortion and denial of the evidence could very well have been instrumental in the rise of the Christian faith, as inspiring, and perhaps not entirely true accounts of the death of Jesus were circulated.
More articles:
Some Awesome Things heard in the Lamentations Service (Good Friday evening) during Holy Week:
Here are many of the wonderful things that first attracted me to Orthodoxy. I had to wonder how many people were reading their service books with such rapt attention as I was on the evening of Good Friday, 2008. In bold are my comments:
"...for through Your Burial You opened for me the portals of life; and by death You have put Death and Hades to Death."
ie., This is why Christ had to die. It's not just about punishment for our sins: It's far more than that, and far more glorious and powerful.
"You stretched out Your arms and united those who were divided of old. Restrained by the shroud and tomb, You loosed those held captive, who cry out: 'There is none Holy, save You, O Lord.'"
There is that good ol' Orthodox theology, using contrasts, showing how Christ died so that we could have life.
"O uncontainable One, You were sealed in a tomb of Your own will; and You made known Your Power through Your Divine actions to those, who sing."
It was of Christ's own will, not something the Father forced on Him.
"You descended to the depths of the earth to fill all things with Your glory; for my person that is in Adam was not hidden from You; and being buried, You renewed me, from corruption, of Lover of mankind."
"You have revealed the symbols of Your Burial by many visions. But now, You have manifested Your secrets as God and Man, even to those in Hades, O Master."
"Foreseeing Your Divine self-emptying on the Cross, Habakkuk cried out in amazement: 'You cut off the power of the mighty, O Good One, speaking to those in Hades, as the Almighty.'"
"When Your soul was separated from the body, the bonds of both Hades and Death were shattered with greater strength by Your might, O Word of God."
"Hades in encountering You, O Word, was embittered, beholding a mortal deified; covered with bruises, yet all powerful. Wherefore, it shrank back at the awesome sight."
"You transform the mortal by death, and the corrupt by burial; for as befits God, You have made incorruptible and immortal the nature you assumed; for Your body, O Master, did not see corruption, nor was Your soul abandoned as a stranger in Hades."
"Verily, Hades rules the race of mortals, but not forever; for You, O Mighty One, when placed in the tomb, demolished the bars of death with Your Life-giving Hand, and preached to those, who slept there from the ages of old the true redemption, becoming O Saviour, the First-Born of the dead."
This is the Harrowing of Hades, when Christ preached to the dead in Hades, then brought out the righteous into Paradise. There are many in the various denominations today who say this is not really what happened, that it's one of man's traditions distorting a vague passage of the Bible, even though "He descended into Hell" is in the Apostle's Creed. I've even seen the Apostle's Creed altered. In the Evangelical Free Church, someone once asked, "What about the people who died before Christ's death?" The pastor said, "We don't know. We think they were able to go to Heaven if they believed in the promise of the Messiah." Which is entirely different from what my Nazarene dad taught me. He taught me about the Harrowing of Hades, though he didn't use that term. What he taught me was very close to the Orthodox teaching, though there are differences. I've held onto the hope for all my life that the pagan dead of the Old Testament were saved when Christ preached to them in Hades, so it was devastating to hear this teaching may be wrong. When I discovered the Orthodox teaching of the Harrowing of Hades, it was a great relief.
"Verily, Jonah the Prophet was caught, but not held in the belly of the whale. For being an impression of You, Who suffered and was given over to burial, he sprang forth from the whale as from a chamber, and said to the watchmen: 'Falsely, and in vain do you guard, O watchmen; for you have neglected your own mercy.'"
Showing how the Old Testament prefigures the story of Christ even in its own stories.
"The fall of Adam resulted in the death to Man, but not to God; for though the substance of Your earthly body suffered, Your Divinity remained passionless, transforming the corruptible into incorruption, and showed it to be the fountain of Resurrection for immortal Life."
"The Godhead of Christ was one with the Father and the Spirit, without separation in the tomb and in Eden, for the salvation of us, who sing."
Answering the question many have: Did God die on the Cross? Did God suffer?