Theology & Philosophy – Page 2

Thoughts On A Theological Smugging, Part III

This should be the last “foundation” post for this series, but it is information that is good to keep in mind as we move forward. Especially since, as I said then, I’m not a theologian nor do I present this in any way, shape, or form as definitive or incisive. To quote: “…rather, it is an opportunity to lay out for your edification and my clarification some points about early Christianity and traditional faiths and how they differ from non-traditional Christianity. Given how many people there are out there today for whom history begins and ends with their own lifetime, it is good to review real history and how a number of things developed within it.”

Before moving forward with the discussion, I thought it would be good to review some aspects of the nature of God, and of man. I fear both often get overlooked in the rush to judgement, as it were, of commentary and rebuttal. In this case, I think both play an important role in understanding the veneration of the Theotokos and in why I think the concept I refer to as “Rent A Womb” is lunacy as well as heresy.

As I’ve noted in some previous writings (previously linked in this series I believe), the mind of God is not something we can understand save through what is shared in scripture. Let’s face it, God is larger than the universe; existed before time and will exist after time; is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent; and, a being for whom all of time is but a single instant. Those are not concepts easy to grasp.

Now, add to it that even the angels can’t look upon his face. In the Bible, there are many references to God appearing in or as fire. God appears as a cloud of smoke and fire, which causes mountains to burn and fall at his touch. The fire of God has more than thirty references in the Bible if memory (and some quick research) serves. A cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. Keep in mind that fire was often used to destroy, as with Sodom and Gomorrah. There are a number of references to those not found in the book of life, or the unproductive vines (same), that will be cast into the fire. God also spoke from the fire more than once, and it is worth remembering that the burning bush is a foreshadowing of Mary the Mother of God.

It is also worth noting that the fire of God was not always destructive. Again, there is the burning bush, which burned but was not consumed. There are also references to the fire of God as a means of purification and sanctification (Malachi) and in Acts there are tongues like flames of a fire that filled the Apostles with the Holy Spirit.

A point that will come up again later (I hope) is that foreknowledge by God does not equal coercion, manipulation, or invalidation in any form of free will. It simply means that God knows what we are going to do before we do it.

In comparison, humans are limited in senses and in how we perceive time. We are limited to Chronos, or linear time, while God experiences time as Kairos. Think I’ve talked a little bit about this before, but we tend to try to put things divine into terms of Chronos, where they don’t belong, instead of Kairos (God Time). Our five basic senses are rather limited, nor are we the strongest, fastest, toughest, etc. as a creature. In fact, we are rather fragile when you get right down to it. We are also most definitely not fire proof.

There is a special part of the human condition that I want to bring up today. That is microchimerism, specifically fetal maternal microchimerism. This refers to stem cells and other fetal cells pass through the placenta and into the mother. These have been shown in at least some cases to protect the mother from cancer and other issues during and even after childbirth as those cells are detectable for a period of time after childbirth. In some respects, your baby will always be a part of you.

Which, as an aside, just makes even more horrifying the imaging showing a baby in the womb trying to escape the suction of an abortion, desperately reaching out and trying to cling to it’s mother as best it can as it is ripped apart. If you haven’t seen that video, I’m torn on recommending it as once you see it you will never forget it.

A short one today, but some important things to think about and to keep in mind in the upcoming discussions. Yes, this does all tie together, though it may take a bit to do so. The reasons why traditional Churches venerate the Theotokos/Mary the Mother of God are many and complex, but they do all tie together.

Probably not going to wait a week to do the next post, so stay tuned.

Posts In This Series:

Thoughts On A Theological Smugging

Thoughts On A Theological Smugging, Part II

Thoughts On A Theological Smugging, Part III

Thoughts On A Theological Smugging, Part II

Last week, in this post, I started laying out the foundation of a few thoughts on the early Church and why traditional Churches reverence the Theotokos. Now, as I said then I’m not a theologian nor do I present this in any way, shape, or form as definitive or incisive. To quote: “…rather, it is an opportunity to lay out for your edification and my clarification some points about early Christianity and traditional faiths and how they differ from non-traditional Christianity. Given how many people there are out there today for whom history begins and ends with their own lifetime, it is good to review real history and how a number of things developed within it.”

In a very short recap, the early Christian Church was based on oral tradition, not written. This actually continued up well past 1,000 AD and on some levels continued well into the 1800s with the memorization of verses, songs, and other traditional elements of worship.

For an example of the difference between a written focus and and oral focus, look to the difference between the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Mark. The former was written by a very literate and well-educated man (who actually met with the Theotokos in gathering information for his work) who, while familiar with the oral tradition, was also brought up in and on the written word. As a result, the Gospel of Luke is the most literary of the Gospels included in the New Testament. The latter is built on a clearly oral tradition using both repetition and kai parataxis (the use of “and” to link elements together). This makes it easier to memorize and to chant/sing.

Now, oral tradition does not entirely rule out the use of the written word. “Cheat Sheets” probably were developed about the time of the first written language. Fragments of such exist from early history, and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers not only fill volumes, but there is a wealth of those fragments out there. Often missing context or the information scientists and theologians would give portions of their anatomies for, but they do exist. Keep this in mind, it is on the quiz later.

Just as the New Testament did not come into existence (as we know it) for several hundred years, a unified liturgy for the Church took even longer in many respects. At first, there was no set service and a ‘day of worship’ could mean all day and into the night. Some services were so long that food and drink were provided during breaks in the service. A number of traditional Churches will echo and honor this tradition during Pascha (Easter for you heathens out there *smile*) with nuts and dates, along with a small bit of wine, being offered to participants of one particular service.

Keep in mind that I am, in many respects, just starting to study the history of the liturgy, so this is likely to be a bit sparse and jump around a bit. I would say it was noted early on, even by the Disciples and first Apostles, that it would be nice to have a consistent liturgy. It would help ensure that the right things were said and done, guard against heresy, and make services a bit more timely and manageable.

Complete aside: one of the more interesting things about the early services was that at first, confession was done in public and round-robin. X stood up and confessed their sins before all, sat down, and then next in line/row/whatever Y did the same. While this does provide a strong incentive for one to change one’s ways (so as to avoid embarrassment and such), it does have a tendency (given human psychology) towards incomplete confessions. It also tends to cause a good deal of strife, especially if X stands up and admits an affair with W’s wife. Which is why the Church moved with surprising rapidity (change being frowned upon then and now in traditional venues) to having the priests hear confessions on behalf of the congregation. It’s why in Orthodox Churches it is done at a designated space (often to one side) that is technically in public but offers some degree of privacy to the participants. The current Roman Catholic confessional came, I am told, from the Irish. Keep in mind that while confessions need to be complete, you also don’t want or need to provide such a level of detail that you could lead your priest into sin. Maybe a topic for another day.

Now, back to the topic at hand. One of the first people that we know worked on developing a unified liturgy (worship service) for the Church was no less than James, the half-brother of Christ (more on that later in the series). While he got a good bit done, his martyrdom probably prevented him from doing as much on it as he would have liked.

Not an aside, it is worth noting that James was also known as “James the Just” for several reasons, including references to his ensuring that Mary and Jesus got their just portion of the estate when Joseph entered repose. Again, not in the Gospels, but in Church tradition and some of the writings I’ve mentioned. There is more to come on James and perhaps a few others. Especially since the man who took his work and created the basic service still in use today in Orthodox (and other) churches, St. John Chrysostom, is also noted in Marian issues. I also need to mention St. Basil the Great, as the liturgy he developed is still used on special feast days within the Church and does, in my opinion, tie into the topic. For some of the structure of the liturgy, along with that of a type of hymn/prayer, are things we need to consider in the upcoming posts.

As a final little bit for today, I also want to call out the Greek word for woman. In particular, I am referring to the word presented as γύναι or Γύναι which has the very literal and limited translation as “woman” (gynai, root of gynecology, etc.). It is the non-extremely literal translation I want to get into later, as the use of the particular word in question sheds some interesting lights on scripture and it’s interpretation as it is only used about three times in the entire Bible. Yet one more reason I think trying to interpret scripture entirely on your own and in isolation from everything else is far more an idiocy than a heresy (as discussed last week).

I had hoped to get into a bit more today, but this is a good place to finish some of the foundation for future discussion. There is more to come, and while some may not be definitive, remember that Faith is built on Divinity, not the lack of definity (no, not going to apologize for the word play).

Posts In This Series:

Thoughts On A Theological Smugging

Thoughts On A Theological Smugging, Part II

Thoughts On A Theological Smugging

Back in this post, kindly linked by Sarah A. Hoyt over at Instapundit, a response was left taking issue with the fact that a prayer I shared dared mention Mary the Mother of God/Theotokos. Since there was no response to the questions I asked in the comments (or to any comments), I e-mailed them and was unsurprised at the responses/non-responses.

It seems the person is in the habit of depositing such nuggets of what they deem wisdom in various punch bowls around the blogosphere. So much so that they can’t be bothered to keep up with all of them (according to one response). Apparently it is a busy life bravely dropping these nuggets on the fly (without even a glance in the rear view mirror).

However, what they regard as nuggets of wisdom can be seen as something else floating in the punchbowl. I also find the response to an old and much used prayer a bit churlish, inconsiderate, and even somewhat ignorant. My amusement at the refusal to answer the questions asked and bidding me “Good Day!” (I’m really surprised given the apparent dudgeon that I didn’t get the full “I said Good Day Sir!”) has sparked an idea for a series of posts.

What follows is not a refutation of the comment, per se; rather, it is an opportunity to lay out for your edification and my clarification some points about early Christianity and traditional faiths and how they differ from non-traditional Christianity. Given how many people there are out there today for whom history begins and ends with their own lifetime, it is good to review real history and how a number of things developed within it.

Please note that I am not a theologian and don’t claim to be one; rather, I am laying out some points and concepts for my own use and growth — a process previously started here and here. If these happen to help others, then that is a happy coincidence for which I am very glad.

Today, I want to look at the Bible, it’s development, and a bit on it’s use — along with other sources — in understanding Christian faith and the teachings of Jesus. Along the way, I think you may pick up on why I think it would be easy to make the case for Sola Scriptura as a heresy; but, I instead see it more as an idiocy. Some may see that as a bit harsh, but I think I can make a good case.

Let’s start with an honest question for you the reader: When did the Bible as we know it come into being? Was it extant before the Passion? Was it created immediately after? Was it created and accepted in the first century after the Passion? Was it created and accepted almost three hundred years afterwards? Was it created and accepted five hundred years afterwards? Is this a trick question?

The answer to the last question is: sorta. It’s not really a trick question except that it would depend on which part, Old Testament or New Testament, is being referred to above.

The proper Old Testament, as I have been taught of late, is the Septuagint. This is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and was the Bible from which Jesus preached in the Temple and elsewhere. It has books not contained in the current Hebrew Bible because the Hebrew faith changed versions of the Old Testament because of the rise of Christianity.

While it is a bit of an over-simplification, what happened was that since Christianity claimed and used the Septuagint, the Hebrew faith elected to switch to a different version of the Old Testament. Of course it’s much more involved than that, but it’s a (fun) rabbit hole that is not terribly germane to the current discussion.

I will note for the record, however, that there are sources (mostly online, caveat emptor) that have different accounts of this. Not having taken formal courses on such (yet), I admit there could be some error in this presentation. It is one reason I very much would like to attend formal seminary training, though I note that given my history geekiness that if I get in and have the chance to dig into this to my heart’s content, you may need to use a nuclear shaped charge to get me out again.

As for the New Testament, it took a bit over three hundred years for a version to be formally accepted. Up until then, the different Churches and bishops used a variety of different sources. That said, I will note that one of the early Apostolic Fathers (the first generation of Church leaders trained by the Disciples) pretty well nailed the books that became the New Testament some 200 years before such was formally ratified.

Side Quest/Note: At least one book of what is currently accepted as the New Testament has never been formally ratified by the Eastern Orthodox Church (and possibly others). It also has not been formally rejected. That book is the book of Revelation. Make of that what you will.

Now, as for those works not included in the New Testament, some were rejected as not being canon. Others were rejected as not rising to the level of Gospel. A category not often discussed (IMO) are the books deemed duplicative. While they might have unique insights and information, the key points were duplicative of the other gospels. As such, they were not included, though some continued to be used as supplementary texts.

Keep in mind also that there were two levels of costs involved with adding texts to the Bible. One was the cost of production. Given that such had to be hand-written and/or illustrated, a single book of the Gospel could cost the equivalent of a year’s wages for a family. The second is the cost of memory, as most scripture was memorized.

Christianity was not based on written tradition; rather, it was based on oral tradition as were most academic and theological undertakings of the time. The fact is, most people — often including priests, Bishops, and others — were illiterate. It does not mean they were stupid, far from it. It simply means that they were not able to read or write. When you read the epistles in the New Testament, find a version and translation that includes the salutations and conclusions as these will have discussion of who wrote the actual letter and how to know it was a faithful rendition of what was said to them. Interesting note, often the actual writer was sent with the letter so they could be questioned and the recipients satisfied as to the accuracy of the epistle.

The fact is, most of the instruction of new priests, bishops, and such was oral. Which is why the Didache was created: it was the written supplement to the oral teachings of the Disciples and Apostolic Fathers. It is also worth noting that a good bit of time is spent reminding the readers (or those to whom it was being read) how to spot False Prophets, which came in two types. One spread false gospel and did not preach the gospel of the Lord, and the second would be described today as grifters, who were in it for money and other riches (including power). I would note that the tests provided can be applied to drive by smuggings even now.

It is also why a number of the epistles included in the New Testament were written (as were a number of those not included for being duplicative). When you look at them, many boil down to: diplomatic greeting; polite description of problem; discussion often about no that is not what the Lord said/meant, that is not what we said/meant, you young punks need to put back those who you removed from being over you and apologize, this is what we are supposed to do, this is how we are supposed to do it, and this is what we told you (did you even listen?); and, a polite conclusion inviting the recipients to get it in gear, straighten up, and fly right.

Such letters were necessary because of the oral teachings. Again, let me emphasize that being illiterate does not mean being stupid. In fact, I would put the average member of the Church then (and even many priests who were not literate) up against most current Christians in their ability to quote, analyze, and discuss Scripture and other related teachings. Fact is, many of them could, would, and did quote not just passages, but entire books of what became the New Testament as well as the Old. They could also chant or sing hymns and prayers that went with them.

One reason for the elaborate decorations in the early Churches was that they created in effect a picture Bible. Each picture sparked the appropriate scriptures, hymns, and prayers associated with the events and people depicted. You still find this in many Greek and Eastern Orthodox Churches (Coptic too I think), and even some Roman Catholic Churches. It was all there to support the oral teachings and traditions of the early Church as memory aids.

Now, those oral teachings and traditions included a lot of discussion not simply on what Jesus said, but what it meant. Just as Jesus explained many of the parables to the Disciples (and in the process to those who heard said teachings later as they were chanted/sung during worship), the Disciples and the Apostolic Fathers also explained meanings, symbolism, and more to their audience. And again, these were handed down in oral tradition for centuries.

Even after Gutenberg revolutionized Western printing, books remained expensive and it actually took some advances in paper making to get prices down where books could be afforded by a wider section of the population. Even so, memorizing large chunks if not whole books of the Bible continued to be a significant factor until roughly a hundred years ago.

When you look at it, Sola Scriptura is based off the idea of everyone having access to the printed word, and that word alone — without any of the supporting words, writings, hymns, and other inputs of the Disciples and Apostolic Fathers (or even major theologians since) — and that such is sufficient for people to find their own special meaning in scripture.

I find that a conceit on more than one level (and meaning). Among other things, it is the idea that only now are we sufficiently advanced to truly understand the Word (all on our own!) and, by implication, that all those who came before were not true recipients of God’s Grace and Salvation because they lacked the intellectual and moral sophistication of their betters who are only now arriving on the scene. Think about it a bit.

As a final thought for the day, consider also that from the original Bible every schism has removed books from both the Old and New Testaments. For that matter, with at least one schism underway now we are hitting a point where it appears line-item exclusion is in process. So, again, which version of the Bible are you using for Sola Scriptura? The entire and complete version? If not, which edited version of the Bible are you using?

Also, which translation as that very much matters. One of the things I enjoy about our Bible study class, as I’ve mentioned before, is that our Sub-Deacon often presents different translations of the same text so we can hear and/or see the differences. Some of those differences can be profound. Again, which version are you using? It does make a difference.

In the next post, unless I get a flash of inspiration to do something different, I plan to go into more of the oral tradition and even (I hope) share some of those early items for your consideration. Until then, God Bless and Keep you.

A Prayer Request

I have a friend, let’s call him Standup (he is) who is having a rough time personally and spiritually. He’s a veteran, all-around good guy, and if you could lift him up in prayer I would very much appreciate it. Any extra for protection from the evil one also much appreciated.

Links And Food For Thought

Sorry, dragging this morning as yesterday was a full and amazing day. As I’ve said before, my Sundays usually start about 0245 and yesterday it ran until well after 2000 hours as we had a picnic and more hosted by our Priest and his wife. It was great to see all the kids playing together (and burning off energy), and I was highly amused watching a 2-year-old young lady going flat out on everything from chasing the free-range chickens (some of whom were bigger than she was) to pushing other children on carts and tricycles. We even had a bit of a sing-along with a couple of people bringing guitars and getting into a variety of music. Good but long day.

The idea of euthanasia horrifies me on its own, but the growing partnership between such and the transplant industry is actually terrifying. Nevermind that it is ALWAYS a matter of “right to die” being a euphemism for “obligation to die” when in the hands of the state (both it and abortion are murder, period, full stop). For more on part of this and why I am no longer an organ donor, see here.

Today, I offer you two very good bits of food for thought. It was a coin toss on who went first, and so we start with this piece from Ian at the Law Dog Files/Bugscuffle Gazette. Then, go read this post from Vodka Pundit at PJ Media. I will also note that Vodka Pundit has been all over this topic for a while.

Organ transplantation has saved lives, restored sight, and done many other things that have had positive impact on many, many lives. The growing linkage between it and the evil of euthanasia can, and will, not merely taint things but turn transplantation into an outright and unmitigated evil. I think we went over that slippery slope a while back. All we are seeing now is that the slope has been well greased.

More soon I hope.

Getting hit by lightning is not fun! If you would like to help me in my recovery efforts, feel free to hit the fundraiser at A New Life on GiveSendGo, use the options in the Tip Jar in the upper right, or drop me a line to discuss other methods. If you want to know some of what it is going for, read here. There is also the Amazon Wish List in the Bard’s Jar. It is thanks to your gifts and prayers that I am still going. Thank you.

Decisions

This morning, I could have slept in and frankly I PLANNED to sleep in. For some reason, however, I activated the alarm so at 0345 my day began. I wasn’t feeling great, so got online and started to read. That was in some ways a mistake.

Someone I know, an author, who has been one of the stalwarts of not being stupid and avoiding flipping the switch, had his personal switch thrown by the assassination of Charlie Kirk. He’s all in on civil war, and there are some of his points with which I do have to agree. However, I think we can and should still avoid such. I much prefer the person who argued for a few waves of civil purges instead of civil war. It would be much better for us and for the future.

For all that the author’s posts made my heart heavy, it finished clarifying some things on which I had been thinking and had already disturbed my sleep. As regular readers know, I’ve been looking at a change in my life, one that could set me on the path to several destinations, including ministry.

For those that know me, or even if you don’t really, it’s not a place where one such as me should be expected to go. Of the major and minor sins, I think the only one I haven’t punched is directly killing another. I’m not particularly proud of parts of my past, and for all I tried to be a good person and a man, didn’t quite get there. Then again, Jesus didn’t come here to save the perfect, but the sinners.

A few weeks ago, I started the process but this morning the decision was firmly made. It is a scary one to make, on several levels; yet, it was also an easy one to make in the end. I have no idea where the path I am starting leads, but I am content to walk it. Some things which had troubled me have fallen away, and I lay aside the sword I carried for man. I choose to pick up a different sword, and walk a path I know not. Nothing will happen quickly I suspect, as it a process where things happen over time. I am content with that.

If you are the praying type, please do pray for me and my soul. Where I end up on this journey is not up to me; but, wherever the path leads me I will be content. I think I’ve suspected this path was in my future from the moment I stood up after being hit by lightning. Still scary in many ways, but only if I look at the past, and not to the present and future that have been granted to me by the Light.

One day I may share more, but for now this is enough. To borrow from Tolkien, I lay aside the old sword, staff, and guardianship. I pick up the new.

Two To Share

I want to share two videos. Yeah, I know. I rarely do or post videos as I am primarily a reader. I love the written word, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing videos when I was a part of Blackfive. These two, however, need to be shared.

First up, a moving tribute to Charlie Kirk from an Orthodox Priest. Take the time, as it is worth it. Main link here, will try to embed the video.

Next up, the interview he referenced between Charlie and Father John Strickland.

Just wanted to share.

Cruel To Be Kind

Those who have been in any way, shape, or form on the sharp end will get some of what I’m going to say. A few others might as well. Those of ivory towers and sheltered lives (made safe by rough men) probably won’t. This may actually take several posts, as it reflects some things I’m working through right now.

In terms of the individual, the concept of turning the other cheek is the right and moral thing to do. When attacked a couple of times, literally or figuratively, I have simply asked the person — absent signs of continuing the attack — why they did it? That is a form of turning the other cheek. It has kept some things from escalating and saved a lot of mess.

That presumes, however, you are dealing with a rational (or at least semi-rational) person or creature. When that is the case, there is an opportunity for reason, and morality, to de-escalate (as they like to call it now) and reach a reasonable and just (important part) resolution.

It was an important factor in the spread of Christianity. The early Church was extremely pacifistic, something that didn’t change until the third century and even then there was some strong limits on things. Fact is, Orthodoxy and I believe certain other groups (Coptic?) never did adopt a “Just War” theory and dogma while the Roman Catholic Church (and some Protestant denominations) did adopt such. The traditional Christian view is that self-defense is allowed, but wars of aggression are not. And, yes, some Churches seem to honor that in the breach, but that’s a different story.

Of the Disciples, only one died of old age. The rest, along with many (most?) of the Apostolic fathers became martyrs. Their refusal to act in the ways the Romans and others tried to provoke, along with their unwavering faith (and some of the miracles that occurred in their deaths) helped turn the tide such that Constantine was moved by his dream after thousands had been converted. I will point out that the Fathers of the Church had to decree that people should not seek out martyrdom; but, only accept it if it came their way.

Because the Romans and (most) others were not irrational, people were moved and the new faith grew. Societies changed, and changed for the better over time. While many ‘elites’ are loathe to admit it, Christianity reshaped the world for the better, with slavery eliminated as a wide-spread practice (it is still there in a sadly growing amount) as England and other Western Nations (including eventually the U.S.) worked hard to eliminate it. Post for another day, but Islam is leading the spread of slavery in the world today.

The problem is that there are two major sets of irrational players in the world today. There are an increasing number of irrational individuals (again, likely another post), in the West. The other set of irrational players are major governments. As I’ve noted before, governments play by toddler rules and not necessarily by reason. The older I get, the less I suspect reason is used in government at all…

Irrational people come in a variety of types. At one end you have your typical street person, where mental illness and drug use (often related) create irrationality that may be very harmless, or very harmful. Sometimes in the same person. A quick solution to the problem of them would be to restore mental hospitals and mental health; but, there are a lot of rice bowls that would be kicked over by such so don’t expect local or state governments to move on that anytime soon.

On the other end, you have an extremely protected class who have led very sheltered and protected lives. Rather than reason, they have been conditioned to run off emotions, with facts, evidence, and Reason things to be shunned. It’s not limited to academia (sadly), but is rather widespread amongst the so-called ‘elite’ class.

And there is some overlap between that latter class and government. Which only makes the problem of governments not following reason worse.

Now, when one has a ‘negative encounter’ with a street person, your choices range from ‘I will not harm another made in the image of God no matter what’ to ‘I will protect the lives of others and myself however I have to.’ That choice is yours to make and you will either live with or die by the choice you make. Martyrdom still exists (see Syria, Africa, et al for examples) though most Christian denominations say it is a sin to seek it out.

If it is just you, it may even be an easy choice. The problem is, it seldom is just you. That complicates things, for you have a variety of responsibilities and duties to your family, and even to the greater good as represented in the social contract. Keep in mind, however, that the social compact only truly works and applies in high-trust societies. It works not at all in low-trust societies, to which the West is being rapidly reduced.

Now, keep in mind that there is still that other group of irrational individuals who are often in the bureaucratic leadership as well as political leadership. The ‘negative interactions’ there are less physical and far more political, ideological, and religious (and Woke is a religion that is waging religious war on Western Civilization and the Christian Church in particular). This is where ‘Render unto Caesar…” can come into play. There are some sects of Christianity that feel a ‘true’ Christian should not care of this world and it’s politics at all, to the point of not voting and refusing to discuss or deal with matters political. Even when there are anti-Christian efforts to be voted upon. Not my cup of tea, but again probably a post for another day.

I think one turns one’s back on politics and politicians at peril for all one holds dear. Especially when is dealing with Woke and Islam. Both of those do not respect restraint or any number of things they consider weak. They see such not as a moral or ethical goodness, but a sign of submission and surrender — and they act accordingly.

Which, to wrap this up for today, leads to a good example that those I mentioned in the opening paragraph will get. Sometimes, the best thing and the thing that will result in the least amount of death and damage in the long run involves death and destruction on a small scale. “Chinese” Gordon did so in Africa many years back, and the Islamic terrorism of the day settled down right quick. There are other historical examples that we may get into later, but to close we have something recent to consider.

The U.S. military just blew up a narco boat headed to the U.S. with gang members/narco terrorists (take your choice) and illegal drugs of a nasty sort on board. The ususal suspects are wailing that this is extra-judicial murder (gee, not our citizens, on the way to do harm to the U.S. and it’s people, etc., so that’s a no on murder from me) and we should have intercepted, coddled, etc.

The counter-point they are missing is that this action just accomplished several things that may well prevent more suffering, destruction, and death in the long-run. It served notice to a certain country that these efforts will no longer be tolerated, requiring them to either double down (skeet shoot), try to find other ways (time and expense), or give up (not likely, sadly). It also made it much harder to find boat crew and narcos willing to do these trips as the smart ones will get that the U.S. government is willing to make a few more examples. It also kept a few tons (most likely) of drugs out of the U.S. where it is helping fuel a variety of problems. Couple of other points, but those are the main ones.

Next time, I want to come back and look at this again, and at how this applies to the ‘migrant rape problem’ which is both a cultural problem and a deliberate act of war. The latter far more so than many/most are willing to openly discuss since to do so will get one called Islamophobic (and arrested in England). I also want to get into the morality of ‘cruel to be kind’ and the related topic of the morality of being willing to sacrifice others for your beliefs. It’s complex, it’s complicated, and it’s important as we are going to be facing a number of choices in the coming years as we deal with irrational people, governments, and even religions (mostly non-Christian).

Part II soon I hope.

A Bit Of Musing

With Jen Psaki, Frey, and others jumping in hard against prayer (if you have BP problems avoid the Congresscritter chastizing a 16-year-old for prayer), I agree with those on X who are asking variations of the following question: If you were a servant of the evil one, a demon, or demonically possessed and wanted to attack Christianity and prevent the power of prayer, what would you do differently from these people?

Saint Ailbe

In more traditional churches, it is the practice for people to be named for Saints and Martyrs, and for those joining as adults to take the name of a Saint or Martyr. When I joined the Catholic Church (I grew up Methodist, moved to the Episcopal Church, wandered a bit, then became Catholic) I was Michael Ailbe. When I joined the Orthodox Church, I was told to pick one name. St. Michael will always be a part of me, but I went with St. Ailbe. BTW, it’s Gaelic so is not pronounced anything like it looks (Ahl-Vee-ah)

Now, for the heathen out there, we don’t worship icons. Icons serve two primary purposes: they are windows into heaven, and they are a challenge to our lives. For the first, the short version is that the only people we know are in heaven for sure are the Saints and Martyrs. Icons are in effect windows to them, and we ask them to pray and intercede for us as we know they are in heaven and in position to appeal on our behalf. As for the second, go to any good military base or museum and look at all the photos, art, and illustrations of famous military figures. They are there as a challenge to both the recruit and the old salt, to live up to what they did on the field of battle. It’s the same thing with the Saints: they did good, so can you: can you do as well as they did?

For example, a Saint I have grown to admire is Saint John of Krondstat. Back in the day, he looked around at things and said this is bull. In his wake were orphanages, homes for the widows, food for the hungry, and medical care for those who needed it. The man did an amazing amount of good, and from what I have read was worried he hadn’t done enough. That’s a challenge for any warrior of the soul. As a side note, I was relieved to find out I wasn’t the only one to feel that the icon of St. Gregory of Palamas, who in our Church is next to St. John, was giving me/us the side-eye as I talked to St. John.

Back on track, St. Ailbe was a fifth century Irish priest and more. He had been born in Ireland and was a child of the hillside. Legend has it that the infant was rescued by a wolf, but what is known is that he was taken to England as a youth by a group of Christian evangelists and raised there. He became a priest, went to Rome, and was reported to have been made a Bishop there.

Other than he was highly regarded, his hearth (hospitality) was highly praised, and he dressed and spoke well, there is not a lot of verifiable fact to go with. Given the Irish penchant for tales, there are a lot of legends. He is alleged to have provided sanctuary to a female wolf who ran into his abode while avoiding hunters, with some legends saying it was the wolf who had saved him from the hillside many years before. Given that wolves do good to live five years in the wild, legend. It may be true that animals were as welcome at his hearth as people, as it would fit with the rules of hospitality at the time, especially Christian hospitality. He built several Churches, a monastery, and when he died was reported to have been buried in the cathedral at Emly. Sadly, that cathedral disappeared centuries ago.

There were a few icons and representations of him out there, but they were mostly generic and not terribly inspiring. Save for a couple that were less than flattering. In fact one with him and a wolf frankly looked like they were both up to no good and enjoying that fact. Again, not inspiring.

I had been looking around for something good, and have even looked at some Iconographers in England and Europe. Then, someone pointed me to a noted Iconographer who was located here in Indianapolis. I had seen his work, and to be honest his Icon of St. Brigid of Kildare is my favorite representation of her. I hadn’t really realized he was truly local or that he might be interested in working with me.

Long story short, I met with him and he had been briefed on me and my circumstances. Despite the latter, he was intrigued and we had a good discussion. I gave him all I had on St. Ailbe, and discussed some concepts I had thought about, but that he had free reign. A few months later, a concept sketch was presented which went in a very different direction, and was pretty much perfect. A few months after that, and today he presented me the Icon you see above.

Pretty much every report notes that the first Church he built upon returning to Ireland was by a lake and a yew tree. A basket of food at his feet symbolizes the hospitality of his hearth. There are a couple of other minor details, but those are the large ones that will stand out.

As you look at it, appreciate the colors and shadings. Something I didn’t know at the start, this talented artist and Iconographer is colorblind. I’m told his wife will help him a bit on colors, but appreciate that he can’t see the wonderful richness of the Icons and artwork he creates. If you are looking for a good Icon, and particularly if you are Orthodox, Catholic, or other traditional Church, be glad to put you in touch with him.

For me, I took the name Ailbe for several reasons. Yes, the connection to wolves led me to him, but the hospitality of his hearth hit home as I love to cook, helped lead a charity that cooked for troops and veterans (particularly wounded), and think highly of the ancient laws of hospitality. That he also did such a great job of spreading the Word, doing right by those who accepted the Word, and helped establish and expand the monastic tradition in Ireland made him someone to emulate. To have a good Icon to challenge me to live up to the name if I can is a treasure.

Oh, and if you are still bristling over the subject of Icons, keep in mind one of the earliest known Iconographers was the Apostle Luke. Yes, that Luke who is responsible for several books of the New Testament. I find it interesting that he is reported to have interviewed the Theotokos (The Virgin Mary, Theotokos translating as God Bearer/the one who gave birth to God). Note that the Book of Luke is the only book of the New Testament to have stories from the youth of Jesus. I would also contend that those are only stories a mother would tell. Of the Icons Luke created that have survived, I think it is four that deal with Mary and the infant Jesus.

The most famous (and most copied) is The Directress, where the Theotokos has the infant Jesus on her lap, and is pointing to him (He is the way, the truth, and the light). Another is the “Vladimir” Icon, which I love though the sadness in her eyes can rip your heart right out. I find it interesting and telling that while the infant is different in each, the Theotokos is pretty much identical, as if he had seen her but not him. Which is the historical case. There is more, but if interested it is well worth looking up and a fascinating glimpse into art and history.

As for me, once the Icon comes home (it is at the Church to stay on the altar and be blessed), it goes up in my room at the little shrine I have. I’m like a lot of guys in that if given a challenge, I try to live up to it. I hope I can do right by the name. I’d like to live this new life I’ve been granted such that I do so, and even do good enough St. Gregory stops giving me the side eye. I’m proof that God can work with anyone, and I remind myself and any who need it that Christ didn’t come down from the Heavens for the perfect. He came to save the sinners (of whom I am chief). Also keep in mind we are all called to be Saints in training. Few of us can and do live up to that, but the challenge is in trying.

Let’s get to it.