Christianity is also in opposition to tyranny so we are not readily at home in any sort of political setup.

Is it the abortion on demand? Is it the feminism that has resulted in high divorce rates, single parent families, cycles of poverty and higher rates of crime and drug abuse? Is it the fact that one political party might be described as anti-God and the other as only somewhat involved with a very dilute form of modernistic Christianity? Is it the fact that the reproduction rate among non-immigrants here and in Europe is below replacement? Is it the coarseness of the culture, where you can’t turn on the TV or radio with your children without being exposed to lots of vile images and dialogue that would have been censored in decades past, and which no doubt have a deliterious effect on them? Is it the “progressive” (read, “anti-Christian”) education they will receive in the public schools?

What freedom are you particularly attached to? The freedom to vote for one of two lousy candidates for President who will not improve the above conditions but will likely allow them to progress downward, more or less rapidly.

Come on. Snap out of it.

The problem with democracy, at least a democracy as representative as ours (where the franchise is not restricted), is that it is nothing more than a competition of the passions, fanned by a media intent on exploiting those passions for their own profit. I finally came to the conclusion in the last couple of years that democracy is incompatible with traditional Christianity.

No one here, I hope, is advocating a democracy within the Church where the laity would vote as to what is proper theology or morality. Why then do you think we’ll get a better result in society in general? Because if the masses, molded by the media and led to a considerable extent by an anti-Christian elite, continue to get to make decisions about morality for us all, they will certainly be bad ones. Hopefully we needn’t argue about that.

Am i God to judge the heart of another? I’m not sure of my own salvation-how can i tell a person where they’re going when i don’t know myself? Wouldn’t it be much better to tell them the actual Truth, and not a fabrication of our presumption? That God is always searching for His Prodigals, and this person is one of them?

Seems to me that you are saying that in order to be true, you can’t speak the truth. Ofili might be a prodigal. Who knows but God? But does this translate into a willful blindness to the obvious meaning of Ofili’s desecration? Are we supposed to close our understanding to the other acts of desecration I mentioned as well? I don’t think so.

Moral courage is not found in oppression through legislation-it is found in ourselves. Only through our actions can True Courage be found to thwart the actions of our enemy.

I don’t argue for legislation. The only law that applies to desecration art is freedom of speech, and the courts have made it clear that the art falls under this legal rubric. Instead, I argued that the legal argument alone does not address the cultural ramifications of the piece and appeal instead to the conscience. Conscience references a higher law, one that ought to be reflected in civil law but in decadent societies becomes removed from it. Legislation alone does not awaken the conscience, but speaking the truth can.

Quit seeing these things as an attack from people, but see them for what they are-attacks from the enemy of man! Our fallen nature came when we listened to his lies! This is the true enemy we fight! It is this same enemy that tries to force God’s Holy People back into the oppression of our passions!

Evil enters the world when men put their hands in service to a lie. Yes, satan is the father of lies, but this does not mean that we remain silent when the lie is promulgated. Further, evil can never be creative; it can only destroy what has already been built (evil has no ontological reality). That’s why Ofili is a cultural vandal.

But a lie must be confronted by the truth (we can argue what the nature of the confrontation should be) lest evil grab its foothold. And truth enters the world through a word. That is why speaking the truth is necessary.

One theological clarification:

The only difference between us, and those who do not change, is we reject our fallen nature in lieu of our True Nature. We are not better then them.

You only have one nature — human nature. This nature is fallen and has to be redeemed through control of the passions (desires) — askesis. You can’t “reject” it. You can only reject the sin that corrupts it.

Thus, there is no such thing as “True Nature.” There is only struggle to conform ourselves to Christ. Grasp this, work the program, and any idea of being better than someone else won’t be a problem.

We never know until we try. We have a personal God who calls us to be personally involved. Even monastics who withdraw as hermits do so to pray more fully for mankind; they understand the full connection mankind has with each other in our fallen nature.

Do not judge this man too harshly. He’s caught in the trap of lies our enemy has set for us. Pray that he may be released from it, and come to the knowledge of our Loving God.

One of the ways you turn a person to Truth is by telling him the truth. You make it very clear to him where he is headed. If he listens, you have gained a friend. If he doesn’t, you still save others around him.

Am i God to judge the heart of another? I’m not sure of my own salvation-how can i tell a person where they’re going when i don’t know myself? Wouldn’t it be much better to tell them the actual Truth, and not a fabrication of our presumption? That God is always searching for His Prodigals, and this person is one of them?

Do they use wrong thought? Yes, but that’s what happens when they follow their fallen nature. We must introduce them to humanities True Nature-that of Christ which He showed to the world. We don’t do this through words only , but through our very lives!

If he rejects the words does that stop you from praying? We save no one-that power lies with God only because only He can change the heart, and begin the work of transforming us into His Perfect Image. So we can bring all to God through prayer-even those who do not wish it.

We can see this in all the Prayers offered in the Holy Synaxis of Liturgy. We’re not there for ourselves only! We’re there for all! Even when we offer the Holy Eucharist we do so “on behalf of all, and for all”! This Holy Gift is not just for ourselves, and the Liturgy is far beyond a simple gathering; it encompasses the very cosmos itself as a representation of the Eighth Day, and the ultimate Liturgy of God’s Holy Saints!

I can pray for anyone, and be friends with anyone! The whole psychological ideology of “poison people” is an affront to God, and should be an affront to us; especially when we consider the Holy Words of our Lord to Love the unlovable!

The only difference between us, and those who do not change, is we reject our fallen nature in lieu of our True Nature. We are not better then them.

Love these people! Weep for them! Pray for them daily! Only through this can we be bring these people to that Real Freedom found only Christ.

We must fight this passion to control others! We cannot allow ourselves to fall prey to this trap of our enemy, or we damage ourselves in the process.

Maybe, but this threat is largely overblown and too often excuses moral cowardice. I follow Solzhenitsyn’s insight here: the crisis in the West is a crisis of moral courage.

Moral courage is not found in oppression through legislation-it is found in ourselves. Only through our actions can True Courage be found to thwart the actions of our enemy.

Quit seeing these things as an attack from people, but see them for what they are-attacks from the enemy of man! Our fallen nature came when we listened to his lies! This is the true enemy we fight! It is this same enemy that tries to force God’s Holy People back into the oppression of our passions!

Pray for me a sinner, Holy Father. Perhaps one day we will meet in person. My prayer is if we do not God will grant that we may meet in His Holy kingdom at the end of time, and celebrate the Eighth Day together in the Synaxis of His Saints! God Bless all!

Your unworthy Servant,

Chuck(Moses)

I read your article, and i’m wondering if you have ever tried to speak to one of these artists? Perhaps tried to discern why they do these blasphemous pieces? Tried to turn their hearts to God? Perhaps prayed that God would clean this Icon, and show the artist His Light?

I’ve never met Ofili face to face but if I did I’d ask him: Do you understand that the meaning of your piece relies on what you are trying to destroy? If you destroy it, you destroy your piece along with it?

But my hunch is that he might reply: “Yes, I know. That’s what I am trying to do.” Ofili isn’t a 17 year old kid wrapped up in a Goth lifestyle — too unaware and too inexperienced to know where his ideas might take him. He’s already made up his mind. He embraces nihilism. How do we know this? By the fact that he positions his pieces in the institutions commissioned to display (and safeguard) our cultural heritage.

Can we use the enemies tools to fight him then? Never! It would be like lying to turn people to the Truth! We lessen ourselves by these actions!

One of the ways you turn a person to Truth is by telling him the truth. You make it very clear to him where he is headed. If he listens, you have gained a friend. If he doesn’t, you still save others around him.

As well, consider the impact on these poor souls. Have we ever considered why Christianity is derided in our society? Is it simply our Faith? Or could it be caused by certain Christian groups who wish to use oppression to force the Christian way?

Maybe, but this threat is largely overblown and too often excuses moral cowardice. I follow Solzhenitsyn’s insight here: the crisis in the West is a crisis of moral courage. Your implicit assumption however, that the most transformative encounters between people is face to face, is true.

If tyranny was a Godly action then we would have been destroyed in the Garden at best, or forced to live under a tyrannical God at worst. Love is not esoteric, or even an emotional response of synapses, and neurons, to some outside force-it is a Theological reality revealed to us by God.

The Christian directive is to Love-above all else including our own well being in some cases. Thus St. Justin, in his Apologetic discourse, could write that the early Christians lived beyond what the law required-they lived this directive in their daily lives. They did not force others to accept their way through oppression, but went out and became personally involved in helping others thus bringing them to God through prayer, and action.

While some of the worlds law’s are founded in morality, not all mind you, they cannot force morality. They simply remove the individual away from citizens, but do nothing to change the heart of that individual because law is devoid of Love. We live in an organized chaos because some choose to sin. So we go there to change the heart by showing Love, and pray that God will turn them away from their sin. Love will always trump law because only through love is the heart changed.

Man lives in an unnatural state because of the fall. Pain, suffering, and even the fact we can harm ourselves and others, is proof of our decline from the Perfect Image. Man was damaged by his own foolishness, and continues on this path today.

The Church retreated long before i became Orthodox. She sucked into Herself through nationalistic pride. The fact some ask why a person is Orthodox if they aren’t X nationality shows this problem; a Ukranian lad once asked me this when i visited the UOCC Metropolitan’s Cathedral in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and apparently it has happened to others. It moves far beyond a problem of ethnicity, or culture; it becomes devoid of Love altogether as She refuses to shine the Light of Truth given to Her, but instead buries this Divine Light, and Herself, under a flag.

According to this logic i should be Presbyterian because i’m part Scottish, or pagan because i’m part Cree. According to this logic the only true Orthodox Christian are Jewish, and every one who’s ever evangelized has just wasted their time. She has forgotten the jewel of Truth She was given as a Promise to adorn Her brow; a Truth for all nations and all peoples, and the only Absolute Truth which exists.

Since being baptized my family and i have jumped from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. While we consider our home jurisdiction to be OCA, and return to it’s parishes at times, we remain nomadic. In this we have many spiritual Fathers, and each has given us Wisdom to guide our spiritual journey. It has also allowed us to experience many different cultural traditions which have enriched our lives as well.

Currently we’re attending a UOCC English parish, and have snuggled in nicely. Our son serves as Acolyte there, and our daughter is one of the leaders of the parish choir. My wife and i go as often as possible, but i suffer from chronic pain making it difficult to do much at all. Of course our son will have to switch to an OCA parish when he enters seminary in a few years because the UOCC requires both written, and spoken, Ukranian from it’s clergy. Perhaps this will someday change, but for now having an English parish is an huge move for this jurisdiction. He may just learn Ukranian and remain in this jurisdiction; that remains to be seen.

Love can never retreat, nor can it ever surrender. Love is entirely too dynamic for retreat; it enters organically like a seed and grows outwards ever blooming. Those who choose this path must always be ready for personal challenges in helping others, and must always pray, and weep, for those they help. They must never oppress, or they fail in their own cause of Love.

Unfortunately i’m disabled and can no longer do the ministry i used to. Now i pray more, and continue my struggle.

I read your article, and i’m wondering if you have ever tried to speak to one of these artists? Perhaps tried to discern why they do these blasphemous pieces? Tried to turn their hearts to God? Perhaps prayed that God would clean this Icon, and show the artist His Light?

The only tyranny i see in these things is to themselves. I am neither required to look at it, nor even say it is art. They do not oppress me, or even my Faith. Is it wrong and blasphemous? Definitely, of course! Would i encourage seeing this? Never, unless the intent was to take the Icon! A little radical i know, but then Christianity requires a little radicalism.

Would i try to oppress these people because of my sensibility? Definitely not! My sensibility isn’t swayed by something i expect in a fallen world anymore then suffering has made me fall from my Faith. We must never allow righteous indignation to turn into self-righteous arrogance, or we lose Virtue for vanity.

We fight the oppression caused by sin within ourselves when we fight our passions. Oppression is nothing more than selfish arrogance used by the enemy to keep us under his thumb. Can we use the enemies tools to fight him then? Never! It would be like lying to turn people to the Truth! We lessen ourselves by these actions! Oppression is impious, and as far from humble as one can stray.

As well, consider the impact on these poor souls. Have we ever considered why Christianity is derided in our society? Is it simply our Faith? Or could it be caused by certain Christian groups who wish to use oppression to force the Christian way? Getting to know these people personally is the only way to discern which, and either can be turned to God.

I find it odd sometimes that some seem to believe that this world is Christian, and must therefore be governed under Christian values. The world rejected it’s Creator when it killed our Lord! Our Lord already warned us we would be rejected by choosing His Divine Path because He was rejected when He showed it! Why are we all shocked when blasphemous things happen exactly?

Is this legislating morality? Sure it is. Yet the only alternative you seem to propose is retreat. Rather than deal with the messiness of life (and pull ourselves upwards), you want us to abandon everything to anarchy simply because life is messy.

Now does this mean all laws are reasonable? Of course not. Do people misuse the laws for private gain? Yes. Do activist groups use the legal system to promote particular cultural agendas? You bet.

But Moses gave the law even after Cain killed Abel. There is a reason for this.

So pornography becomes part of free speech, and abortion becomes legal death. All one need do is define, or in some cases redefine, the meanings of certain words.

Easily done as pornography is considered Art under law thus protected by Free Speech.

Yup. Freedom shorn from virtue leads to tyranny in the name of freedom. See my article The Artist as Vandal: Culture and the desecration of religious symbols to understand how this works.

Legislation is the downfall of culture. The problem is those who have Virtue can’t do anything other then pray. If they seek to dictate Virtue they fall from it.

The world has been spiraling downwards ever since the Fall. That these things have happened is indicative of how far we have fallen from the original. The passions have corrupted us and thus our society. I’m more inclined to worry about those who are searching, and my own salvation, then worry about what the world is doing.

I don’t know what you mean by “real freedom,” but certainly relative freedom exists. Some places and eras are indeed freer than others. Secondly, it’s just not historically accurate to lump all revolutions together. There’s a world of difference between, say, the American and French Revolutions. One gave us freedom (yes, even relative freedom counts) while the other ended up with a Reign of Terror and despotism. (The French Revolution was a precursor of totalitarianism.)

Forgive me Father, but ask the loyalists, slaves, etc, or anyone who disagreed with the American revolution, about it and whether it was a prelude to despotism and totalitarianism. Once freedom, or anything, becomes relative it is left for interpretation.

Families burnt in their homes, or forcibly evicted and their land stolen, etc. Sounds like a reign of terror to me. That it was a majority that did it does not mean it wasn’t totalitarian; it was majority oppression which cannot be called freedom to those who live under it.

Freedom cannot be relative, or freedom ceases to exist. It exists for all, even those we disagree with, or none because it can easily be snatched away by a flip in majority.

Freedom has never existed in the world.

I think you look to the state as the guarantor of virtue, and in discovering that it fails at the task, conclude that all societies are equally corrupt and thereby equate freedom with tyranny. It’s a kind of utopianism shorn of hope.

I don’t actually think that, Holy Father. Society is apart from my Faith. If i believe anything it’s that my Faith is my society along with those in the Church; completely apart from the state. The state is not of the Church therefore Virtue cannot be guaranteed by it.

It is fallen Man which is corrupted. Tyranny is simply fallen man misapplying virtue, at best, or fallen man ignoring Virtue completely to meet it’s own ends, at worst. Personally i think it’s the latter as there are always those who only wish power and control; or what they perceive to be power and control. There are always those who choose to sin.

The state cannot inculcate virtue — that comes from within. A virtuous people however, can shore up the cultural structures that guarantee measures of freedom that precious few societies have experienced — such as freedom of assembly, freedom of speech (and thus thought), freedom of the press, and so forth.

My freedom is not based in what the state tells me i can, or cannot, do. It is based in God, as is my individuality. So the state can try to take these rights away by killing me, but in the end my life isn’t mine anyway. I’ll run and hide until they catch up.

Each of these so-called freedoms can be done away with ease, and often they are. Recently, in Quebec, the police infiltrated a protest group and actually began a riot causing a peaceful demonstration to be shut down. It’s happened elsewhere. Kent State in Ohio is a great example of how governments can easily thwart freedom.

It’s easy for a government to take freedom away because it’s not real freedom; it’s legislated freedom. Change the law and you change freedom because, in the end, it is relative freedom and up for interpretation.

Freedom is a word easily manipulated and controlled depending on who is defining it. Freedom in Christ, however, is absolute.

Of course, once the virtue corrodes, the cultural structures corrode along with it with the result that freedom becomes confused with moral license — pornography as freedom of speech, aborting children as freedom choice, etc.

As i said in my previous post, making all rights “unalienable” already establishes that an individual decides what is right, and what is wrong, for themselves. Individuals gather under a banner, etc.

So pornography becomes part of free speech, and abortion becomes legal death. All one need do is define, or in some cases redefine, the meanings of certain words.

Easily done as pornography is considered Art under law thus protected by Free Speech.

Abortion is easily done by redefining when a baby is actually born compared to it’s conception, and defining the difference between a baby and a “fetus” through scientific terminology. Toss in a woman’s right, etc, and it’s done.

Is it deranged thinking? Of course! It’s completely demented! It’s also legal! No politician would ever consider changing it; it amounts to pure political suicide!

Legislation is the downfall of culture. The problem is those ho have Virtue can’t do anything

I don’t know what you mean by “real freedom,” but certainly relative freedom exists. Some places and eras are indeed freer than others. Secondly, it’s just not historically accurate to lump all revolutions together. There’s a world of difference between, say, the American and French Revolutions. One gave us freedom (yes, even relative freedom counts) while the other ended up with a Reign of Terror and despotism. (The French Revolution was a precursor of totalitarianism.)

Historically this is a fact in America both during, and after, the revolution. Spin it how they will loyalist were either forcibly evicted or killed on the spot, slaves were left as slaves, etc, which is against the Liberty they were supposed to be fighting for. In the end it was a selfish Liberty based on a false sense of Man as an individual, and who he truly is; thus it was not based in Virtue but in another form of tyranny.

I think you look to the state as the guarantor of virtue, and in discovering that it fails at the task, conclude that all societies are equally corrupt and thereby equate freedom with tyranny. It’s a kind of utopianism shorn of hope.

The state cannot inculcate virtue — that comes from within. A virtuous people however, can shore up the cultural structures that guarantee measures of freedom that precious few societies have experienced — such as freedom of assembly, freedom of speech (and thus thought), freedom of the press, and so forth.

Of course, once the virtue corrodes, the cultural structures corrode along with it with the result that freedom becomes confused with moral license — pornography as freedom of speech, aborting children as freedom choice, etc.

While some countries have exhibited a form of Liberty at times it is invariably diminished, or completely obliterated, at points in it’s history. This is because Virtue is not collectively gained, but individually gained, and cannot be gained at the point of a sword. Where a leader has been Virtuous the country has seen some Freedom; where they haven’t is seen tyranny.

I draw the line at calling any country Christian because it will inevitably do things that are not Virtuous; they are of the world. While the Virtuous live in a country they are not truly part of it; one cannot serve 2 masters. While i love Canada i pray against it’s injustices and speak out against them.

The Constitution actually creates radical individualism by claiming all rights as “unalienable”. This means each person is their own master(so long as they were white, male, land owners at the time). Individuals gather together under one banner thus creating a majority. The majority then goes on to oppress the minority with their ideology, etc. Thus Liberty becomes a hypocrisy and Truth is diminished because of it.

Historically this is a fact in America both during, and after, the revolution. Spin it how they will loyalist were either forcibly evicted or killed on the spot, slaves were left as slaves, etc, which is against the Liberty they were supposed to be fighting for. In the end it was a selfish Liberty based on a false sense of Man as an individual, and who he truly is; thus it was not based in Virtue but in another form of tyranny.

In fact, when we look at it historically, it went the usual path when fallen Man is involved: fight oppression with oppression. Illogical and irrational, but there you go.

As i read my previous post, and as i write this one, i am once again reminded that radical individualism is actually a misnomer. It is actually majority dictatorship; forgive the confusion, Father. It is, however, derived from radical individuals grouping together.

This is simply the whole idea of democracy in action. The individual decides what is truth and then builds a moral and ethical system from there. Soon they find others of like mind and build a society based on their collective ideology. This is done either through force for the impatient or collectively through the slow corruption caused by rampant individualism based on the great and mighty human id; all hail the unholy trinity of me, myself and i.

Chuck, it sounds like you are conflating Democracy and radical individualism. Democracy requires a virtuous people in order to flourish. Lose the virtue and you lose freedom. Democracy, however, is not the cause of the loss of virtue. Radical individualism arises from other places.

Two articles you should read. The first is the Harvard Address by Alexander Solzhenitsyn where he praises the American Founding Fathers for understanding the relationship between freedom and virtue: A World Split Apart — Commencement Address Delivered At Harvard University, June 8, 1978.

A second is by Russell Kirk, where he draws on the relationship between religion and culture: Civilization Without Religion?.