Thursday, February 23, 2017

Stump the Priest: Spiritual Fathers


Question: "What is the role of the Parish Priest as Spiritual Father to his people and how does it compare with the role of the Abbot and monks in the Monasteries?"

The term "Spiritual Father" (in Russian "dukhovnik" (духовник)), has a range of meaning that has to be properly understood for this question to be answered. At the lowest level, one could speak very loosely of a priest that they regularly confess to as their spiritual father. But more properly, a spiritual father is one that you have an ongoing spiritual relationship. The difference is somewhat subtle, but a person might regularly confess to one priest for a period of time, but then switch confessors, and begin confessing to another priest. But when you develop a relationship with a priest that you maintain over a long period of time, and often when separated by distance, that is more a spiritual father/child relationship.

A spiritual father does not necessarily need to be a priest, but of course only a priest or bishop can hear confessions and grant absolution. Sometimes people have a monk, or even a nun who fulfills the role of long term spiritual direction. However, for laity, one's spiritual father is usually (though not necessarily) their parish priest.

The highest sense in which the term is used would be in reference to someone who has the spiritual gift of eldership... but this a fairly rare gift, and one should be extremely cautious about searching out such a relationship, because there are more people who think they are spiritual elders than there are those who actually have that gift.

The difference between the relationship between a parish priest and an abbot in a monastery is primarily the question of obedience. A monk is expected to be completely obedient to their Abbott, short of the abbot asking him to do something immoral or contrary to the teachings of the Church. An abbot can have such a relationship because an abbot is also responsible for the monks under their authority. They ensure that the monks have a place to stay, and food to eat. In that context, this level of obedience has an important role in the spiritual development of a monk.

It is completely improper for a parish priest to expect that kind of obedience from a laymen, because he has does not have the same level of responsibility for his parishioners. In other words, if a parish priest were to tell a man to quite his job, the parish priest is not going to ensure that his bills are paid, or that his wife will not divorce him because he is failing to provide for the family. Consequently, what priests generally express to their people in confession is on the level of advice, which they can take or leave -- because they are ultimately responsible for their own choices. Of course one should not dismiss advice from their confessor lightly, but it is simply a fact that different priests will give advice that will differ in some respects, and so it should not be taken as if it was delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai... unless of course it actually was, because the priest is simply conveying what Scripture or Tradition clearly teach. If a person confesses that they are involved in a serious sin, and the priest tells them that they must repent and cease from that sin, or else he will have to deny them communion, this is not mere advice, and the individual has no right to ignore what they are told.

It is not inappropriate for a laymen to have a monastic as his spiritual father, but this should also be approached with caution. Sometimes such monastics try to impose a monastic style of obedience, and this has often had disastrous results.

The clergy of our diocese issued (with the blessing of Archbishop Peter) a statement on this issue in 2009:
"As part of our pastoral discussions we talked about the need for parishioners to confess as a rule to their own parish priests, and only with a specific blessing to confess to other priests. This is especially important given the propensity for some clerics outside the Russian Church to employ the canons as a cold rule of law rather than as a pastoral guideline applied with love. This has led in some instances to parishioners being given lengthy penances of excommunication for sins that have been confessed previously with little or no penance from their own parish priest. Further, we strongly call upon our flock to confess on Saturday evenings or eves of feasts, and only to confess on Sunday mornings or feast days before the Divine Liturgy in extreme circumstances."
And so if a parishioner wishes to have a spiritual father other than their parish priest, they should get a blessing to do so, and this is for their own protection.

For more information on this subject, I would recommend Metropolitan Anthony (Khapovitsky)'s book on Confession, which we have in the bookstore, and which also available online.

Friday, February 10, 2017

Stump the Priest: Spanking Children?


Question: "Some have argued that the verses in Proverbs regarding corporal punishment are referring to the punishment of adults and not to children. Can you clarify?"

Let's take a look at a couple of the verses in question:
"Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him" (Proverbs 22:15).
"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell" (Proverbs 23:13-14).
The word translated as "child" these verses is na‛ar (נער), which means "boy" and is used with reference to boys from the age of infancy to adolescence. I doubt very much that any reputable commentary has ever been written that would seriously argue that this refers to an adult rather than to a child.

But consider the words of St. Basil the Great, which unambiguously, and approvingly speak of small children receiving corporal punishment:
"As small children who are negligent in learning become more attentive and obedient after being punished by their teacher or tutor, and as they do not listen before the lash, but, after feeling the pain of a beating, hear and respond as though their ears were just recently opened, improving also in memory, so likewise with those who neglect divine doctrine and spurn the commandments. For, after they experience God's correction and discipline, then the commandments of God which had always been known to them and always neglected are more readily received as though by ears freshly cleansed" (St. Basil the Great, Homily on the Beginning of Proverbs 5, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament, Vol. IX, J. Robert Wright, ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervasity Press, 2005) p. 147).
St. John Chrysostom recognized that for normal parents, their natural inclination is not to use the rod of correction because of their affection for their children, but that this is why Scripture admonishes them that if we truly love them, we will use it appropriately:
"Spare the rod and spoil the child (Proverbs 13:24). Here there is reference to the people who appear to love their children, but in fact do not; so spoiling is the result of sparing -- not of not sparing. Having children is a matter of no little import: we are responsible even for their salvation. On that reasoning Eli would not have paid a severe penalty. Whereas those who love them correct them diligently -- not casually, but diligently: since nature bids us be sparing, he makes no mention of excess. Hence he says, I instilled affection in you, not for you to harm your loved ones, but for you to care for them; so refrain from inappropriate affection" (St. John Chrysostom, Robert Charles Hill, Trans., Commentary on the Sages, Volume 2, Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Press, 2006,  p. 133f).
See also: 

Spanking: What Saith the Scripture?

When to Spank

Friday, February 03, 2017

Stump the Priest: Two Questions on House Blessings


Question 1: "Should a house be blessed every year?"

Question 2: "What should a family do to prepare for a house blessing and what should they expect?"

There are two types of house blessings: The blessing of a new home, and the blessing of a home at Theophany.

The Blessing of a New Home

The blessing of a new home is done only once, and is a more elaborate service. A table is needed, which should ideally be covered with a nice cloth, on which the priest will place the Book of the Gospels, the Cross, four lit candles, Holy Water, a hand censer, and a small bowl or cup of olive oil. Ideally this table would be in front of, or very near, the family Icon corner.

Other priests may handle this differently, but what I would like the family to have in such cases are a bowl the holy water, and a small bowl or cup with olive oil; and either four candle stands or four small saucers, on which the candles can be placed. I bring the Gospel, the Cross, the hand censer, and the Holy Water, and usually have candles with me, if the family doesn't have four candles that are suitable.

During the course of the blessing of a new home, the olive oil is blessed and a small Cross is made with it on the four sides of the home. The four candles are placed below the Crosses, after each one is made. Then the house is sprinkled with Holy Water, at which time a member of the family (usually the head of the house) leads the priest around the house with a candle in his or her hand, going through all the rooms of the home in as much of a circle as possible, and ending back at the same place the service began. Then there is a Gospel reading, and then the house is censed, and again a member of the family should lead the priest around the house for that purpose, just as with the blessing of Holy Water. Then, after a litany, there is a dismissal, followed by the singing of "Many Years," and everyone in the family kisses the Cross.

You can find the text for this service, in Word format, by clicking here.

The Blessing of a Home at Theophany

The blessing of a home at Theophany is done each year on or after the feast of Theophany, but before the beginning of Lent. All that the family needs to have ready is a candle and a bowl for the Holy Water, which should be placed on a table, which would ideally be in front of the family Icon corner. You should also make out a list of both the living and the dead that you would like to have commemorated, which should include all the members of the family. The family commemoration book used at the Liturgy can be used for this purpose.

The service begins with the usual opening prayers ("Blessed is our God... the Trisagion, etc), followed by the singing of the Troparion of Theophany. When we begin singing the Troparion, this is when the priest begins blessing the house with Holy Water, and so a family member with a candle in hand should lead him around the home, going through all the rooms of the home, making as much of a circle as possible, and ending back at the same place the service began. Then there is short litany, a prayer, the dismissal, and the singing of "Many Years." Everyone then kisses the Cross and is blessed with Holy Water.

You can find the text for this service, in Word format, by clicking here.

If you would like the priest to stay for dinner, you should discuss that ahead of time, so that the scheduling of other house blessings allows for it. If there are several homes close together, it is nice to bless them all relatively quickly, and then for everyone to get together at one of those homes for a time of fellowship. However, all of this is up to each family.

The reason why we bless homes each year at Theophany is because all of creation is blessed and renewed at Theophany, and this blessing and renewal is brought to each home, every year. Every Orthodox home is a little Church. We have communal prayers in our parish Church, but we all should also have a life or prayer in the home. Once each year, the Priest comes to each little Church in the parish, and leads the family in this service of blessing.

See Also:

Homily on Theophany by St. John (Maximovitch)

Saturday, January 28, 2017

Stump the Priest: Tithing


Question: "Is tithing a New Testament practice and a teaching in our Holy Tradition?"

Tithing was the practice of giving ten percent of one's "increase" to God. By increase, this meant that whatever one's labor managed to acquire, the first ten percent of it was the Lord's. Tithing was included in the Law of Moses, but it actually predated that law, because we see in Genesis 14:18-20 that Abraham also tithed. To fail to tithe was to rob God (Malachi 3:8-10).

When we tithe, we recognize that God is the source of all that we have, and by giving back the first ten percent, we give thanks to God, and show that we trust God to continue to provide for our needs, rather than clinging to what we have, because we have no such trust.

While tithing was clearly an obligation in the Old Testament, there is nothing that either specifically affirms that it is obligatory to Christians, nor anything that says that it is not. There is a great deal said about the need to give to the poor, and to support the work of the Church, but whether this was done by tithing is not stated. So to answer the question of what Christ taught the Apostles in this regard, and what the Apostles taught the Church, we must look to Tradition.

In the 13th chapter of the Didache (which is believed to be the oldest document outside of the New Testament) it speaks of giving the "firstfruits" to support prophets, teachers, and the poor, "according to the commandment" (Didache 13:8). The giving of firstfruits in the Old Testament was an aspect of the tithing system, and so when it speaks of doing so "according to the commandment," this suggests that tithing at least as some application for Christians.

St. Irenaeus says:
"We are bound, therefore, to offer to God the first-fruits of His creation, as Moses also says, “Thou shalt not appear in the presence of the Lord thy God empty;” so that man, being accounted as grateful, by those things in which he has shown his gratitude, may receive that honour which flows from Him" (Against Heresies 4:18:1).
St. John Chrysostom says, while commented on Ephesians 2:
"So that in this case the greatness of the sin will make such an one go away with the devil. Woe to him, it is said, who doeth not alms; and if this was the case under the Old Covenant, much more is it under the New. If, where the getting of wealth was allowed, and the enjoyment of it, and the care of it, there was such provision made for the succoring the poor, how much more in that Dispensation, where we are commanded to surrender all we have? For what did not they of old do? They gave tithes, and tithes again upon tithes for orphans, widows, and strangers; whereas some one was saying to me in astonishment at another, “Why, such an one gives tithes.” What a load of disgrace does this expression imply, since what was not a matter of wonder with the Jews has come to be so in the case of the Christians? If there was danger then in omitting tithes, think how great it must be now" (4th Homily on Ephesians).
St. John Chrysostom's point is that it is not only wrong to assume that Christians don't need to be concerned with tithing, but that it is an even greater obligation now than it was in the Old Testament, and that we should do more than simply give tithes.

We know that St. Vladimir practiced tithing because the first stone Church in Kiev was built with money he tithed, and was nick-named "The Church of the Tithes" (Десятинна Церква).

We are stewards of all that God has given us, and this includes not only our money, but our time, and our talents. God has given them for us to use to his glory. Of course we have an obligation to take care of our families and to meet our own needs, but we also are to use these things to take care of others, especially the poor, and we also need to support the work of the Church, both on the parish level, but also on a wider scale so that the Church is able to do all that it needs to do to proclaim the Gospel and strengthen the faithful.

If every Orthodox Christian took this concept of stewardship seriously, the results would be astounding. If everyone in the Church simply tithed (not to mention going beyond it), the Church would be able to do so much more in the world that we would see great fruit like we have not seen, in recent memory. But as it is, we are far more limited in our ability to do what God has called us to do, and this is a sin that we should all repent of.

For more information:

The Trail of the Tithe, by Fr. Thomas Zell

Tithes and Firstfruits, by Fr. Dimitri Cozby

My Christ, My Care, the Official Blog of the Stewardship Committee of the Serbian Orthodox Church in North and South America

Saturday, January 21, 2017

Stump the Priest: Is Christmas Pagan?

Sol Invictus, the Unconquerable Sun

Question: "Did Christmas originate from a pagan holiday?"

There has been a long tradition among Protestants of accusing Roman Catholics of engaging in pagan practices based on shoddy history, and modern atheists seem to have taken up that tradition in order to discredit Christianity altogether.

The claims that Christmas originated as a pagan festival have a number of problems historically. For one, the Saturnalia, which is often claimed to be the feast that inspired Christmas was celebrated on December 17th, and eventually this feast was expanded to a week, which ended on December 23rd. The feast of the Unconquerable Sun, which actually was celebrated on December 25th, is a much later feast. The earliest evidence that this feast was celebrated on December 25th comes from a text dated in the year 354 a.d. The earliest Christian reference to a belief that Christ was born on December 25th comes from St. Hippolytus' commentary on Daniel, which was written about 150 years earlier. So if anyone was trying to displace a feast, it is more likely that Pagan Romans were trying to displace a Christian feast, then the other way around.

The other problem with this claim is that the Feast of the Annunciation is the more ancient feast. It was believed that the Messiah would complete his earthly mission on the anniversary of its inception. And we find Tertullian stating that Christ was Crucified on March 25th as early as 208 a.d. (An Answer to the Jews, Ch. VIII). If you calculate a birth exactly nine months later, you come to December 25th.

A further problem with this claim is that before Christmas became a universal feast of the Church, most of the Church celebrated Christ's birth and the beginning of his ministry in His baptism on January 6th. Only later, when the eastern part of the Church adopted the celebration of Christmas was the celebration of Christ's birth transferred to that date, and January 6th exclusively focused on Christ's baptism.

But even if it were the case that there was a pagan feast celebrated on December 25th, if Christians had displaced it with a Christian feast, this would hardly make the celebration pagan in origin. To prove that, you would not to demonstrate a lot more than the coincidence of the date.

More wild claims that the idea of the virgin birth of Christ is based on pagan myths have even less historical credibility. For the most part they are based on made up similarities that have no actual basis in reality.


For more information: 

The 25th of December Pagan Feast or Patristic Tradition?", by Hugh O'Donnell

"Why December 25?" by Jon Sorensen

"Was the Virgin Birth of Jesus Grounded in Paganism?" by Jon Sorensen

"Was the Virgin Birth Story Created by the Church?" by Mikel Del Rosario

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Stump the Priest: Fasting and Marital Relations


Question: "Are married couples required to abstain from sex during the fasts?"

The short answer is "no." But a longer answer is necessary here.

It is a pious custom for married couples to abstain from sex during the fasts, and when this is done by mutual consent, that is a good and laudable thing. However, the key word in the question is "required," and something that must be by mutual consent cannot therefore be required.

St. Paul addresses this question directly:
"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment" (1 Corinthians 7:1-6).
St. John Chrysostom comments on this as follows:
"The wife hath not power over her own body;” but is both the slave and the master of the husband. And if you decline the service which is due, you have offended God. But if thou wish to withdraw thyself, it must be with the husband’s permission, though it be but a for short time. For this is why he calls the matter a debt, to shew that no one is master of himself but that they are servants to each other. When therefore thou seest an harlot tempting thee, say, “My body is not mine, but my wife’s.” The same also let the woman say to those who would undermine her chastity, “My body is not mine, but my husband’s.” Now if neither husband nor wife hath power even over their own body, much less have they over their property. Hear ye, all that have husbands and all that have wives: that if you must not count your body your own, much less your money" (Homily 19 on 1st Corinthians).
And specifically on the meaning St. Paul's admonition: "Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time," St. John says:
"What then can this mean? “Let not the wife,” says he, “exercise continence [i.e. abstain from marital relations], if the husband be unwilling; nor yet the husband without the wife’s consent.” Why so?  Because great evils spring from this sort of continence. For adulteries and fornications and the ruin of families have often arisen from hence. For if when men have their own wives they commit fornication, much more if you defraud them of this consolation. And well says he, “Defraud not; fraud” here, and “debt” above, that he might shew the strictness of the right of dominion in question. For that one should practice continence against the will of the other is “defrauding;” but not so, with the other’s consent: any more than I count myself defrauded, if after persuading me you take away any thing of mine. Since only he defrauds who takes against another’s will and by force. A thing which many women do, working sin rather than righteousness, and thereby becoming accountable for the husband’s uncleanness, and rending all asunder. Whereas they should value concord above all things, since this is more important than all beside.
     We will, if you please, consider it with a view to actual cases. Thus, suppose a wife and husband, and let the wife be continent, without consent of her husband; well then, if hereupon he commit fornication, or though abstaining from fornication fret and grow restless and be heated and quarrel and give all kind of trouble to his wife; where is all the gain of the fasting and the continence, a breach being made in love? There is none. For what strange reproaches, how much trouble, how great a war must of course arise! since when in an house man and wife are at variance, the house will be no better off than a ship in a storm when the master is upon ill terms with the man at the head. Wherefore he saith, “Defraud not one another, unless it be by consent for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer.” It is prayer with unusual earnestness which he here means. For if he is forbidding those who have intercourse with one another to pray, how could “pray without ceasing” have any place? It is possible then to live with a wife and yet give heed unto prayer. But by continence prayer is made more perfect. For he did not say merely, “That ye may pray;” but, “That ye may give yourselves unto it;” as though what he speaks of might cause not uncleanness but much occupation.
     “And may be together again, that Satan tempt you not.” Thus lest it should seem to be a matter of express enactment, he adds the reason. And what is it? “That Satan tempt you not.” And that you may understand that it is not the devil only who causeth this crime, I mean adultery, he adds, “because of your incontinency” (Homily 19 on 1st Corinthians).
A husband and a wife have a responsibility to serve one another, and to help each other on the path of salvation. If depriving your spouse of marital relations causes them to sin, you are responsible for having caused them this temptation.

In this regard, Origen wrote:
"You have given up your wife, to whom you are bound. This is a big step you have taken. You are not abusing here, you say, but claiming that you can be chaste and live more purely. But look how your poor wife is being destroyed as a result, because she is unable to endure your purity! You should sleep with your wife, not for your sake, but for hers. (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 3.33.23-25, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. VII, Gerald Bray, ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervasity Press, 1999) p. 59f).
St. Augustine wrote a letter to a woman named Eudicia on this issue, and advised her, based on St. Paul's words as follows:
"According to this, if he had wished to practice continence but you had not, he would have been obliged to give in to you, and God would have given him credit for continence for not refusing intercourse out of consideration for your weakness, but not his own, in order to prevent you from committing adultery. How much better would it have been for you, for whom subjection was more appropriate, to yield to his will in rendering him the debt, since God would have taken account of your intention to observe continence, which you gave up in order to save your husband from destruction" (Letter 262 to Eudicia, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. VII, Gerald Bray, ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervasity Press, 1999) p. 62).
So in summary, it is good to fast from marital relations for a time, by mutual consent, but it is positively sinful to insist upon it, if your spouse does not consent. And according to St. Augustine, when such a spouse do not refuse their husband or wife, they have both the virtue of having had good intentions, and also of showing due love and consideration for their spouse.

Finally, it worth considering the wise words of Fr. Alexander Lebedeff:
"Not long after we were married, my wife and I (I was a third year Seminarian at Jordanville then), were invited to have lunch by one of the old Russian couples that lived in the so-called "Russian village" about a mile from the monastery. We gladly accepted (we were so poor, we were subsisting mainly on macaroni, so any invitation "out" was deeply appreciated). After a wonderful Russian meal, the old "babushka" of the house took us over to the side and conspiratorily whispered: "I know you're recently married, but you do know, of course, the Church rules on when you can, and when you can't?"
It was pretty clear what she was talking about, so we just politely nodded.
She went on: "Well, you can't do it on Tuesday, because that's the eve of a fast day; you can't do it on Wednesday, because it's a fast day; you can't do it on Thursday, because that's the eve of a fast day, also; you obviously can't do it on Friday, because that's a fast day, too; you can't do it on Saturday, because that's the eve of a Feast Day, and you can't do it on Sunday, because that's a Feast Day."
"What about Monday?" I asked.
"Well, you can't do it on Monday, either, because of an old pious custom, since Monday is dedicated to the Bodiless Powers, the Angels, who are an example of purity--and it's also a fast day among monastics."
I asked the venerable Babushka, "And you followed these rules strictly when you were young and just married?"
"Oh, no," she replied, "We were young and foolish, and didn't know any better. . . "
The point of this story is that old babushkas are the first to point out restrictions that do not at all exist according to the Church. The scriptural admonition is for married couples *not* to deny each other sexual relations, except by mutual consent for the purpose of prayer and fasting.
Abstinence from sexual relations (by mutual consent) is certainly appropriate the evening before receiving the Holy Sacraments, and during the day that one receives them. It is certainly *not* an absolute "requirement" of the Church to abstain on all fast days (and on the eves of fast days), or during the 11 days after the Nativity when marriages are not permitted.
The Russian Church in the 13th century issued guidelines for married clergy on these issues, and they included as days of mandatory abstinence only the first and last week of Great Lent, the two weeks of Dormition Lent, and Wednesdays and Fridays during Nativity Lent and the Lent of the Holy Apostles.
The married state is blessed and the marriage bed is undefiled. The Holy Church in protecting the sanctity of marriage and the well-being of the spouses, as well as encouraging procreation and the raising of "fair children" has no interest in creating artificial impediments to preclude spouses from "rejoicing in one another."
If anyone wishes individual guidance on these matters, they should, of course, consult with their Spiritual Father."

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Audio of the Advent Retreat 2016


On December 3rd, Metropolitan Jonah (Paffhausen) gave a talk and fielded questions and answers. Here is the audio:

Part 1: http://www.saintjonah.org/podcasts/lectures/metjonah_part1.mp3

Part 2: http://www.saintjonah.org/podcasts/lectures/metjonah_part2.mp3

Here also is the sermon he gave on Sunday, December 4th, which was the Feast of the Entry of the Theotokos: http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/amvon/the_entry_of_the_theotokos_into_the_temple

Friday, December 09, 2016

Stump the Priest: Time Management


Question: "How do you find the time to do all the things we should do as Christians, with all the demands that today's world puts on us?"

We have far more free time at our disposal than most people did in the past. Most people spent the bulk of their time trying to survive. They did not have lots of leisure time, as we do. But just as expenses rise up to meet income, we have found lots of things to waste our time on, and so we do.

Imagine how laborious a process it was just to wash clothes, within living memory. Now we throw our clothes into a washing machine, along with some soap, come back less than an hour later, and throw them into a dryer, and we are done. This once was a task that consumed hours and hours, and was hard and tedious work.

There are a few things that I have found helpful in terms of making good use of my time.

Samuel Logan Brengle 

Years ago, when I was in college studying to be a Nazarene Minister, I read a little book by a once well known Salvation Army officer by the name of Samuel Logan Brengle (1860-1936), entitled "The Soul Winner's Secret." That book had a chapter entitled "Redeeming the Time" which was based on the verse:
"See that ye walk circumspect, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil." (Ephesians 5:15-16).
It was focused on time management, and he had two bits of advice that made a strong impression on me:

1). Look for opportunities to make good use of your time:
"If you would save time, have a Bible, a notebook and a pencil always at hand. Never go on to the street or take a journey without at least a Testament with you, and some other useful book if possible. And don't forget to use them. The Gospel of St. Matthew can be read through in two hours. This may not be the most profitable way to read it, and yet it will pay to read it right through at one sitting, that we may see the life of Jesus as a whole as we would the life of any man. Paul's first letter to Timothy can be read in twenty minutes, while Jude can be read in three minutes easily. Then don't throw away these minutes." 
Many people insist that they haven't the time to read the Bible, but we have so many opportunities in a given day that would otherwise go to waste. For example, if you ride the bus to work, if you have a Bible with you, or simply a smart phone with a Bible App, you could read quite a bit of Scripture every day by simply making use of time that would otherwise be frittered away, either by staring out of the window, or surfing the web to no particular purpose. If you have a meeting to go to, you might spend 15 minutes waiting for it to begin, which could either go to waste, or be spent doing something profitable, like reading the Scriptures or some other edifying book. If you are travelling by air, you will likely spend quite a bit of time waiting to board flights, and even longer on those flights. You should see these as great opportunities for uninterpreted reading.

Also, when he speaks of carrying around a notebook, this is very important. The way most people's minds work, ideas come to us at unexpected moments. We often think about things we should do, but will forget to do, if we do not make notes when the thought is fresh in our minds. Today, we might do so in a wide variety of ways, but making notes that can later be easily retrieved and put to use is an important part of planning as well as being creative and productive.

2. Having a Plan:
"With many much time is lost for want of system. Things are done at haphazard, duties are performed at random, and after one thing is done time is wasted in deciding what to do next. It is well, then, to have a program for every day, or, better still, for every hour and minute, as our General [William Booth] does when he goes on a tour. For months ahead the General will have a program for every hour of the day, and whether he succeeds or not in perfectly carrying it out in all its details, he at least works to it, saves anxious worry, loses no time and accomplishes a well-nigh incredible amount of business. Of course in this busy world, full of surprises and unexpected calls, any program must be flexible and not like cast iron, and in times of emergency the soul-winner must be prepared to cast it to the winds and follow according to his best judgment where the Spirit leads, singing with all his heart: 
"I would the precious time redeem, And longer live for this alone To spend and to be spent for them, Who have not yet the Saviour known, And turn them to a pardoning God And quench the brands in Jesus' Blood.
My talents, gifts and graces, Lord, Into Thy blessed hands receive. And let me live to preach Thy Word, And let me to Thy glory live; My every sacred moment spend In publishing the sinner's Friend""  [from the Hymn "Give Me The Faith Which Can Remove" by Charles Wesley].
We can either let the day unfold as it will, or we can come to it with a plan to accomplish what is most important to us. As he says, it is almost always the case that things will not go entirely according to our plans, but if we have a plan and accomplish only half of it, we will usually be far more productive than those who have no plan at all.

I tried to develop a system to plan my time, and it was somewhat effective. Years later, however, I discovered a much more effective system in the form of the Franklin-Covey planner. At that time, in my secular job, I was a new supervisor, and this coincided with me becoming a priest -- so I had a lot more demands on my time than I had ever had before. I often had to go to various training sessions, but one day the training was on the Franklin Planner, and in the training I was given a free starter planner. I walked out of that training somewhat incredulous about the claims of how effective their system was, but since I had a free planner, I thought I would give it a try. I found it to be so effective, that I went and bought a CD-set of the training "Focus: Achieving Your Highest Priorities," and every couple of months, for about a year or so, I would listen to that recording again, to refresh my memory until I had the system down.

I began talking to people about Franklin planners so much that some people thought I was getting a cut on the sales. I also discovered that quite a few people I knew were already using these planners... and I wondered why they didn't say anything to me about it before.

Now some people will be wondering why an Orthodox priest has gone from talking about a book by a Salvation Army officer, to discussing a planner designed by Mormons (Steven Covey and Hyrum W. Smith). But regardless of the theological shortcomings of these sources, we can and should learn from others -- even the non-Orthodox -- when they have they have something worth learning. In the case of Samuel Logan Brengle, you had a man who was deeply committed to Christ, was a servant of the poor, and was truly tireless in his work. While he was certainly wrong about many things, there was also much to be admired, and much worthy of emulation. In the case of the Franklin planner and its approach to time management, you have a tool that can be put to Orthodox use.

One fairly unique feature of the Franklin planner is it has you first clarify your values (i.e., what is important to you), and then to set goals to live out what is important to you, and then to plan how you will accomplish those goals. Using this system, one could place making lots of money as their highest priority, and then set goals and establish plans to get rich. But if you have Orthodox Christian priorities, you can use that same system to help you accomplish spiritual goals as well more mundane goals, and to balance them with your various roles in life (being a Christian, having family responsibilities, doing your job, etc).

We should, however, understand that no matter how good we may manage our time, we can't constantly be at 100% productivity. Human beings cannot sustain that. In the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, we find this saying regarding St. Anthony the Great:
"A hunter in the desert saw Abba Anthony enjoying himself with the brethren and he was shocked. Wanting to show him that it was necessary sometimes to meet the needs of the brethren, the old man said to him, 'Put an arrow in your bow and shoot it.' So he did. The old man then said, 'Shoot another,' and he did so. Then the old man said, 'Shoot yet again and the hunter replied 'If I bend my bow so much I will break it.' Then the old man said to him, 'It is the same with the work of God. If we stretch the brethren beyond measure they will soon break. Sometimes it is necessary to come down to meet their needs.' When he heard these words “the hunter was pierced by compunction and, greatly edified by the old man, he went away. As for the brethren, they went home strengthened" (Benedicta Ward, translator, The Sayings of the Desert Fathers, The Alphabetical Collection (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1975, 1984 revised edition), p. 3f.).
There are no doubt other systems to manage time that may work better for other people, but these are things that I have found helpful.

For more information:

Sermon: Redeeming the Time

A YouTube video explaining how Franklin Planners work

Friday, November 25, 2016

Stump the Priest: The Pledge of Allegiance


Question: "Does Christ's prohibition against oaths in Matthew 5:33-37 mean that we should not pledge allegiance to the flag?"

While Christ certainly forbade the making of foolish and idle oaths, he did not forbid the making of solemn promises. One thing that you find through Scripture is the concept of covenant, and a covenant is a binding and solemn promise.

Take marriage for example, which is one of the most common forms of a covenant that we still enter into today, In marriage we make a covenant with our spouse, with God as a witness, that we will remain faithful to them as long we both shall live.

The Prophet Malachi called the Israelites to task for failing to fulfill this covenant:
"And this is the second thing you do: you cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping and crying; so He does not regard the offering anymore, nor receive it with goodwill from your hands. Yet you say, “For what reason?” Because the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, With whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. “For the Lord God of Israel says that He hates divorce, for it covers one’s garment with violence,” says the Lord of hosts. “Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously” (Malachi 2:13-16).
It is clear from these verses that we can and do enter into binding covenants, that God is a witness, and that to fail to live up to those covenants is therefore treachery against both the person the covenant is made with (in this case, one's spouse), and treachery against God himself.

Furthermore, the Church does not teach that Christ taught against all oaths. The Catechism of the Russian Orthodox Church, composed by St. Philaret of Moscow has the following comments with regard to the third commandment:
"532. When is God's name taken in vain?
It is taken or uttered in vain when it is uttered in vain and unprofitable talk, and still more so when it is uttered lyingly or irreverently.
533. What sins are forbidden by the third commandment?
1. Blasphemy, or daring words against God.
2. Murmuring, or complaining against God's providence.
3. Profaneness; when holy things are jested on, or insulted.
4. Inattention in prayer.
5. Perjury; when men affirm with an oath what is false.
6. Oath-breaking; when men keep not just and lawful oaths.
7. Breach of vows made to God.
8. Common swearing, or thoughtless oaths in common talk.
534. Are not such oaths specially forbidden in holy Scripture?
The Saviour says: I say unto you, Swear not at all, but let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. Matt. v. 34, 37.
535. Does not this go to forbid all oaths in civil matters?
The Apostle Paul says: Men swear by the greater; and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath. Heb. vi. 16, 17. Hence we must conclude, that if God himself for an immutable assurance used an oath, much more may we on grave and necessary occasions, when required by lawful authority, take an oath or vow religiously, with the firm intention of not breaking it." 
It should also be noted that St. Paul often called on God as a witness to what he said, which is what we do when we give an oath in court or when taking an oath of office:
"For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers" (Romans 1:9).
"I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit (Romans 9:1).
"Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not" (Galatians 1:20).
So no, there is nothing in Christ's commandments nor in Church tradition that would prevent us from saying the pledge of allegiance.




Friday, October 28, 2016

Stump the Priest: The Vote



Question: "Should Orthodox Christians vote?"

There are no canons of the Church that either require Christians to vote, or forbid them from doing so. There are restrictions on the involvement of clergy and monastics in political matters, but not laity... so long as they do not take positions clearly at odds with the teachings of the Church. Clergy may not run for office, and while they can and do comment on moral issues that may have a political element, they are generally not permitted to engage publicly in purely political matters.

The Russian Orthodox Church has a document which addresses a wide range of social and contemporary issues entitled "The Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church," and in its section on the Church and politics, it says:
In [the] face of political differences, contradictions and struggle, the Church preaches peace and co-operation among people holding various political views. She also acknowledges the presence of various political convictions among her episcopate, clergy and laity, except for such as to lead clearly to actions contradicting the faith and moral norms of the church Tradition.
It is impossible for the Church’s Supreme Authorities and for the clergy, hence for the plenitude of the Church to participate in such activities of political organisations and election processes as public support for the running political organisations or particular candidates, election campaigns and so forth. The clergy are not allowed to be nominated for elections to any body of representative power at any level. At the same time, nothing should prevent bishops, clergy and laity from participation in the expression of the popular will by voting along with other citizens....
On October 8, 1919, St. Tikhon appealed to the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church not to interfere in the political struggle. He pointed out in particular that the servants of the Church «by virtue of their rank should be above and outside any political interests. They should remember the canonical rules of the Holy Church whereby she prohibits her servants from interfering in the political life of the country, joining any political parties and, what is more, from making the liturgical rites a tool of political demonstrations»....
The fact that the Plenitude of the Church does not participate in political struggle, in the work of political parties and in election processes does not mean her refusal to express publicly her stand on socially significant issues and to present this stand to governmental bodies in any country and on any level. This position may be expressed only by Councils, the church authorities and those empowered to act for them. In any case, the right to express it cannot be delegated to public offices or political or other secular organisations.
V. 3. Nothing can prevent the Orthodox laity from participating in the work of legislative, executive and judicial bodies and political organisations. This involvement took place under various political systems, such as autocracy, constitutional monarchy and various forms of the republican system. The participation of the Orthodox laity in civic and political processes was difficult only in the contexts of non-Christian rule and the regime of state atheism.
In participating in government and political processes, the Orthodox laity are called to base their work on the norms of the gospel’s morality, the unity of justice and mercy (Ps. 85:10), the concern for the spiritual and material welfare of people, the love of the fatherland and the desire to transform the surrounding world according to the word of Christ.
At the same time, the Christian, a politician or a statesmen, should be well aware that in historical reality and, all the more so, in the context of today’s divided and controversial society, most decisions adopted and political actions taken tend to benefit only a part of society, while restricting or infringing upon the interests and wishes of others. Many such decisions and actions are stained with sin or connivance with sin. Precisely for this reason the Orthodox politician or statesman is required to be very sensitive spiritually and morally.
The Christian who works in the sphere of public and political building is called to seek the gift of special self-sacrifice and special self-denial. He needs to be utterly attentive to his own spiritual condition, so that his public or political work may not turn from service into an end in itself that nourishes pride, greed and other vices. It should be remembered that «principalities or powers, all things were created by him, and for him… and by him all things stand» (Col. 1:16-17). St. Gregory the Theologian, addressing the rulers, wrote: «It is with Christ that you command, with Christ that you govern, from Him that you have received the sword». St. John Chrysostom says: «A true king is he who conquers anger and jealousy and voluptuousness and subjects everything to the laws of God and does not allow the passion for pleasure to prevail in his soul. I would like to see such a man in command of the people, and the throne, and the cities and the provinces, and the troops, because he who subjected the physical passions to reason would easily govern people also according to the divine laws… But he who appears to command people but in fact accommodates himself to wrath and ambition and pleasure, … will not know how to dispose of the power»....
V. 4. The participation of the Orthodox laity in the work of governmental bodies and political processes may be both individual and corporate, within special Christian (Orthodox) political organisations or Christian (Orthodox) units of larger political associations. In both cases, the faithful have the right to choose and express their political convictions, to make decisions and to carry out appropriate work. At the same time, lay people who participate in public or political activity individually or within various organisations do it independently, without identifying their political work with the stand of the Church Plenitude or any of the canonical church institutions or speaking for them. At the same time, the supreme church authority does not give special blessing upon the political activity of the laity....
If we involve ourselves in politics, we are not free to take positions that are clearly opposed to the teachings of the Church. Thus, for example, it is not possible for one to be pro-abortion, and an Orthodox Christian. However, there are often complicated choices that have to be made, and the Church is not going tell people who to vote for. But one should be guided by the teachings of Scripture and Tradition, and vote -- or not vote -- according to their own consciences. As is true of all that we say and do, we should always keep in mind that we will one day have to give an account to God. May God give us all wisdom and guide us in the way that we should go.

Friday, October 21, 2016

Stump the Priest: Reproving a Scoffer

"He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot. Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee" (Proverbs 9:7-8).
Question: "How should we understand Proverbs 9:7-8? Are we not to reprove the scorner? Or the wicked man?"

Often people take things that are said in the book of Proverbs as if they were immutable promises of God. For example, the proverb "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it" (Proverbs 22:6) is often cited as it was guaranteed that if you raise your children right that they would at least eventually come to a point at which they would live according to the way that they were raised. However, a proverb is a word of wisdom that is usually going to prove to be true. This does not mean that there are no exceptions. There have been righteous people who raised their children right, but nevertheless had a child who died in rebellion against God. That does not make this proverb untrue... because generally it is true. Experience shows this to be the case. But experience also shows that there are some exceptions. Children retain free will, and despite the best Christian parenting, there are some children that rebel against their upbringing, and never repent.

In this case, it is generally true that rebuking a scorner is not going to go well, because such a person is not inclined to listen to any rebuke, and generally will only heap more scorn on the person doing the rebuking, But this proverb is not a commandment. There are cases in which rebuking a scorner might be in order. But one should obviously be very cautious about it, because it is generally not a good idea.

If you had a child who was a scoffer, as a parent, it would be your duty to rebuke him. Also, there may be some opportunities to say something to a scornful person that, at that particular moment, might actually be received well. If you have such a person in your life, you should pray that God would change their heart, and provide such an opportunity, and pray that God will give you the wisdom to know what to say, and when to say it.

One other aspect of this proverb is that it is teaching us to accept correction. All of us at some point in our lives have been wicked, and inclined to scorn correction. But if we have any wisdom we should love those who justly rebuke us. And even when we receive what we think to be an unjust rebuke, we should consider what we are told, and seriously question whether there is in fact some justice to it. Often our enemies will tell us things about ourselves that our friends will not. They may even do it with malicious intentions, but a wise man can even learn from his enemies.


Friday, October 14, 2016

Stump the Priest: Prostrations at the Liturgy


Question: "When are prostrations made at the Liturgy?"

We do not make prostrations at all on Sundays, with the exception being the veneration of the Cross on the third Sunday of Lent, or when the feasts of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross or the Procession of the Cross fall on a Sunday.

We also do not make prostrations on feasts of the Lord (except for the veneration of Cross), regardless of what day they fall on.

We do make them on great feasts of the Theotokos, unless they fall on a Sunday.

During the Church Year, we stop making prostrations after the Presanctified Liturgy on Holy Wednesday, with the only exception being the veneration of the Epitaphios (Plashchanitsa) at Holy Friday Vespers, and Holy Saturday Matins. Even though the Epitaphios remains out until just before Paschal Matins (in Russian practice), prostrations are not supposed to be done when venerating it after the Matins of Holy Saturday (which is actually served Friday evening). We do not make prostrations again until the Kneeling Vespers of Pentecost.

Keeping the above in mind, at Liturgies that do not fall on Sundays or Feasts of the Lord, there are five points at which prostrations should be made:
1. At the Anaphora, the priest or bishop says "Let us give thanks unto the Lord."
2. At the end of the hymn: "We praise Thee, we bless Thee, we give thanks unto Thee, O Lord; and we pray unto Thee, O our God." For those in the Altar who are able to hear it, this should be done when the priest or bishop says "Changing them by Thy Holy Spirit." That prayer is traditionally said in a low voice, while the hymn is being sung, and so the people usually do not hear it said.
3. At the end of the hymn to the Theotokos at the Anaphora: "It is truly meet," or its substitute (Zadostoinik).
4. When the chalice is brought out by the deacon or priest, and he says"With the fear of God and with faith, draw nigh." The clergy do not prostrate at this time, because they do this earlier in the Altar, before they commune.
5. When the chalice is shown to the people for the last time, and the priest or bishop says "Always, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages." The common practices, however, is that those who have received communion do not make a prostration at this point, and so the clergy likewise do not make a prostration.
It is also a common practice in some local traditions to make a prostration when we sing the "Our Father." However, according to Archbishop Peter, St. John of Shanghai taught that this was incorrect, because, as we say just before we sing this prayer at the Liturgy, we are asking that God would enable us "with boldness and without condemnation to dare to call upon [him] the heavenly God as Father..." And a son does not prostrate himself before his father, when he has such boldness and is not under condemnation.


Friday, October 07, 2016

Stump the Priest: Readers

The Tonsuring of a Reader

Question: "How does one become a Reader, and what does a Reader do?"

We learn a great deal about what it means to be a Reader from the admonition that the bishop gives to a Reader after he is tonsured (i.e., made a Reader):
"My son, the first degree in the Priesthood is that of Reader. It behooveth thee therefore to peruse the divine Scriptures daily, to the end that the hearers, regarding thee may receive edification; that thou in nowise shaming thine election, mayest prepare thyself for a higher degree. For by a chaste, holy and upright life thou shalt gain the favor of the God of loving-kindness, and shalt render thyself worthy of a greater ministry, through Jesus Christ our Lord: to whom be glory unto the ages of ages. Amen."
This tells us that the office of the Reader is the first rank of the priesthood. There are two types of clergy: minor clergy, and major clergy. Readers are tonsured, which means that rather than being ordained in the Altar, they are set apart by having some of their hair cut in the form of the Cross (as also happens at baptism, and when someone is made a monastic) and ordained in the Nave of the Church, as are Subdeacons, who are also minor clergy. The major clergy are Bishops, Priest, and Deacons.

But what it means for this to be the first rank of the priesthood is that the same basic requirements to be ordained a Priest are also required of a Reader. A reader must of course be Orthodox. He must also be a man who has not been married more than once. He must be of a good reputation. There are other possible impediments to ordination, and most of them apply equally to readers (there are different age requirements for deacons, priests, and bishops, and bishops are required to be monastics).

A Reader should also read the Scriptures daily, and be familiar enough with the texts that he reads that those who hear him are able to understand him, and be edified by his reading. In addition to that, a Reader should learn the rubrics of the services, and should learn to sing his way through the services by learning the tones, and how to use and combine the liturgical  texts at the kliros. In most parishes, there are choir directors who do most of that work at the main services, but a Reader should learn this as well, so that if he is the only person at the kliros (as can happen at some of the daily services) he will be able to read and sing all of the parts of the services that are not specific to the Bishop, Priest, and Deacon.

The admonition to the Reader that he "in nowise" shame his election means that he should be an example to others in the Church. As St. Paul admonished St. Timothy: "be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conduct, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity" (1 Timothy 4:12). And a reader should do this in order to prepare himself "for a higher degree." In other words, a reader should be preparing himself for the possibility of serving in a higher rank of the clergy. Of course all Christians should try to be an example "in word, in conduct, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity," but this should be especially the case for clergy. This means a Reader should be personally pious, loving towards others, and should love the services of the Church.

Anyone who is able (and of course an Orthodox Christian) can serve the function of a Reader, when needed. And there are many people who are not tonsured as Readers who do. However, one who actually is a Reader has a duty to fill this role, and so should be zealous to prepare himself to fulfill this role, and should be eager to actually do it, being present whenever possible for the services, and making themselves available to do their duty.

If someone is interested in becoming a reader, they should speak to the priest and begin applying themselves to learning how to properly do it. Even if they are not eventually tonsured as a Reader, the knowledge they acquire is beneficial to any Orthodox Christian.

For more on what it means to be a Reader, I would recommend reading Instruction for the Church Reader as well as A Guide for Readers in the Orthodox Church, by Fr. Geoffrey Korz.

Thursday, October 06, 2016

The Immoral Policy of the United States Government in Syria


I feel compelled, as a Christian and as an American citizen speaking only for myself, to condemn the policy of the United States government which has been to overthrow the Syrian government by arming and funding a radical jihadist insurgency. This has fueled and exacerbated a conflict which has witnessed the deaths of nearly half of a million Syrians, produced five million refugees, seven and a half-million internally displaced people, and has brought untold misery upon many millions more who have suffered either directly or indirectly as a result of this shameful policy. [1]

I cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that our government continues, with our tax-payer dollars,  to fund and arm those who are raping, murdering, and displacing Christians (who represent about ten percent of the overall population) and other religious minorities in Syria. [2]

Our government waged a phony bombing campaign against ISIS for more than a year, with the only effect being that it made it appear that we were doing something, and provided cover for what we have clearly been up to. In fact, the end result of our government’s actions was to allow these terrorists to push further west into Syria. Our government willfully "looked the other way" because it put added pressure on the legitimate Syrian government (a United Nations member). [3] Some of the foremost academic experts in the world have repeatedly confirmed this. [4] To the extent that ISIS has been “on the run” in recent months, this is primarily due to the efforts of the Syrian Army and their allies, and not to the half-hearted actions of our government.

ISIS soon overran much of Iraq and Eastern Syria, often traveling in large convoys across open desert (which would have been easy targets for a serious bombing campaign by the world’s most powerful air force), and eventually captured historic Palmyra in Syria. This has resulted not only in the immense immediate loss of human life, and the destruction of countless communities – but also the loss of priceless artifacts and documents that are lost to future generations, forever. Ancient Christian communities, many that spoke the very language of Christ, and have existed since the time of the apostles have been destroyed. [5] We have seen the revival of slave markets, which have functioned openly in the streets of cities in Syria and Iraq.  And our government has not only done very little to put a stop to these things, but has in fact funneled arms and supplies to groups closely allied with the al-Nusra Front (which is a branch of Al Qaeda, lately calling itself Jabhat Fatah al-Sham) and ISIS. [6] Our own government has also continued to demonize other world powers, who at the invitation of the Syrian government, are assisting in the fight against ISIS and other terrorist groups. Our leaders continue to keep this civil war going, instead of pursuing legitimate avenues of peace, while continuing to remain closely allied with sources of terrorist ideology like Saudi Arabia. [7]

Lest anyone think that what I am saying reflects conspiracy theories or fringe views, I would note that no less than Franklin Graham, who does charitable work on the ground in Syria, and is the son of the famous evangelist Billy Graham, has been pointing out these errors in US policy in Syria for years. Like most of those who know the Christians of Syria, he opposes any attempt to overthrow the Syrian government, because this government has protected Christians and other religious minorities, and any government that would likely replace it, would see the end of Christianity in Syria. [8]

We should all call upon our leaders to stop this reckless and inhuman policy, and especially condemn any suggestion that we should bomb the Syrian Army. It is unfortunate that many civilians have suffered and died in this civil war, but the primary responsibility for that belongs to those who set this war in motion, fueled it with a steady supply of arms and supplies, and have consistently prevented efforts to bring it to a swift conclusion. [9]

We should also immediately cut off all military and financial aid to “rebel” groups, which is what fueled the rapid rise of ISIS in the first place. [10] We should end the sanctions that helped create the turmoil that laid the groundwork for this civil war.  And furthermore, the US government should provide sufficient resources to rebuild the communities that have been destroyed as a result these immoral and unjust actions. We should also all continue to pray daily for the peace of Syria and for the victims of this tragic and foolish war.

[1] Seumas Milne (June 3, 2015). Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq. The Guardian. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

[2] BBC News, Syria's beleaguered Christians (February 25, 2015) Retrieved October 6, 2016, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22270455

[3] In fact, Vice President Biden, speaking at Harvard University on October 2, 2014, admitted that our regional allies (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar) created, armed, and funded ISIS and the other terrorist groups because they hoped to overthrow the Syrian government: https://youtu.be/dcKVCtg5dxM?t=53m20s

[4] See for example University of Oklahoma professor Dr. Joshua Landis in a May 2015 statement: https://twitter.com/joshua_landis/status/601579194179420161?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw or see Chatham House (UK) expert Hayder al-Khoei: https://twitter.com/Hayder_alKhoei/status/601528444686565376?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[5] Philip Jenkins (September 4, 2013). Syria’s Christians Risk Eradication: A post-Assad Islamist regime threatens to re-enact the Armenian genocide. The American Conservative. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/syrias-christians-risk-eradication/

[6] Kevin Boyd (September, 2014). Remember Those 'Moderate' Syrian Rebels That The U.S. Armed? ISIS Got Some Of Those Weapons Too. Independent Journal Review. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from http://ijr.com/2014/09/175685-remember-moderate-rebels-syria-obama-armed-isis-got-weapons/

[7] Scott Shane (August 25, 2016). Saudis and Extremism: ‘Both the Arsonists and the Firefighters.' New York Times. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-islam.html

[8] Newsmax Prime (September 30, 2015). Rev. Franklin Graham on how Russian airstrikes affect Christian persecution. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from https://youtu.be/IWX44PqYc6c?t=2m21s Russian Orthodox Church Youtube Channel (October 29, 2015). Rev. Franklin Graham meeting with Patriarch Kirill. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from https://youtu.be/uHaldjbUgc0?t=13m15s

[9] Ron Paul Liberty Report (October 6, 2016). Why Everything You Hear About Aleppo Is Wrong. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from https://youtu.be/I8mA0h7dCKI

[10] RealClear Politics (August 10, 2015): Former DIA Chief Michael Flynn Says Rise Of ISIS Was A "Willful Decision" Of US Government. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/10/former_dia_chief_michael_flynn_says_rise_of_isis_was_willful_decision_of_us_government.html