Culture

Charles Colson: 1931-2012. May His Memory Be Eternal


Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

Charles Colson died today. He was 80 years old. I first met Colson at a conference at Washington, DC and was struck by his magnanimous character and intelligence. Everyone knows his story. Colson was a ruthless political operative in the Nixon administration, got caught up in the Watergate imbroglio during the Nixon administration and went to jail.

I heard him explain his experience in prison during one of his talks. It was the lowest point in his life where he had lost everything and began to question purpose, decisions, and direction. He was visited by a friend (former Minnesota Governor Al Quie) who shared with him how Jesus Christ came into the world to redeem man. Colson listened, cried out to God for help and, as his life would later prove, God heard him. His repentance was deep and lasting.

Prison opened his eyes not only to God, but the desperate conditions of other prisoners. He founded Prison Fellowship, an organization they helped prisoners while incarcerated, after they got out, and their families. The Russian Orthodox Church called on Prison Fellowship after Communism fell to help them build viable prison ministries in Russia.

Colson’s work grew to incorporate what he called teaching the Christian World View. He saw that decline in culture was moral in nature and that a return to the values and precepts of the Christian faith were the only hope for cultural renewal. This meant that he had to do the work of an evangelist. It also meant that a deep ignorance among Christians about their own history, the history of Western culture, and the viability of the Christian message in a relativist age needed to be addressed. That led to ecumenical outreach, and it was at one of his ecumenical events that I first met Colson.

I attended a conference with Christian leaders (cultural activists mostly) from all types of Christian communions; the first Orthodox priest ever invited to such a gathering. Most of us were not academics but more of what I call “rubber meets the road” types; people used to debate, interaction, dealing with crisis, and so forth. As such, the conference had a very practical, even edgy feel to it at times. All shared the conviction that the Christian faith has a public dimension and that we should not cede the public square to secularism. Christendom is, well, Christian and no amount of brow-beating, public scorn, the insecurity and impotence of liberal Christianity, or any other malady should stop us from boldly speaking out with intelligence and conviction.

It was there too that I first recognized how much that Orthodoxy has to give the culture. I saw that many Christians of other communions are waiting for us to step to the plate and make our contribution. They welcome us.

Out of that conference came the idea for the Manhattan Declaration, a document asserting that Christians would not forgo the moral mandates of the Christian faith even if the dominant culture or, God forbid, the government demanded that we do. The Declaration was roundly criticized when it was released a year later including in Orthodox circles. However, the recent Obama mandates that attempt to force the Catholic Church to act against its moral teachings show the signers understood the currents of culture better than their critics did.

I spoke with Colson through out the years, most recently last month in Naples where I live. He always had a deep appreciation for Orthodox Christianity and was especially interested in the resurgence of the Church in Russia. The Russian Orthodox Church has shown deep prescience about the Western cultural struggles, much more so than any other foreign patriarchate, and has garnered the notice of the cultural thinkers on the conservative and non-secularist side of the divide.

The late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus said we are more united in the honest expression of our differences than in pretending that no differences exist and he was right. This is what he called an ecumenism of the Holy Spirit. Colson believed that too. He could bring different people together to work in that common and needful commission of restoring the religious and thus moral foundations of culture.

The world has lost a good man. We will miss him. May his memory be eternal.

Colson at the signing of the Manhattan Declaration:

G.K. Chesterton: It is the State which changes; it is the State which destroys…


Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

“It is the State which changes; it is the State which destroys; it is nearly always the State which persecutes. The Totalitarian State is now making a clean sweep of all our old notions of liberty, even more than the French Revolution made a clean sweep of all the old ideas of loyalty. It is the Church that excommunicates; but in that very word implies that a communion stands open for a restored communicant. It is the State that exterminates; it is the State that abolishes absolutely and altogether; whether it is the American State abolishing beer, or the Fascist State abolishing parties; or the Hitlerite State abolishing almost everything but itself.” G.K. Chesterton from The Shallows and the Wells.

Fr. Gregory Jensen: Pursuing Our Own Good By Serving the Common Good

Fr. Gregory Jensen

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

From the essay:

Does the State serve the people or the people the State? The question here is more than just matter of personal or institutional conscience. Rather we must now ask whether the State is willing to acknowledge, and more importantly to defer, to any other authority or law other than its own in the Public Square? If it doesn’t then the State claims for itself the authority to dictate to the Church, to the family and to other social institutions the content and boundaries of their own lives. The practical effect of all this is to make the Church and the family creatures of the State and so subject to the partisan calculus of American politics.

Source: Koinonia | Fr. Gregory Jensen

The wisest thing in the world is to cry out before you are hurt. It is no good to cry out after you are hurt; especially after you are mortally hurt. People talk about the impatience of the populace; but sound historians know that most tyrannies have been possible because men moved too late. It is often essential to resist a tyranny before it exists. It is no answer to say, with a distant optimism, that the scheme is only in the air. A blow from a hatchet can only be parried while it is in the air.

G. K. ChestertonEugenics and Other Evils (1922)

Even if often honored only in the gap, the social and economic genius of America is that we do well by doing good and specifically doing good for others. This part of why, again if sometimes only in the gap, Americans have traditionally given such great respect to religion and to its free exercise by individuals and communities.  And this is why George Weigel recent analysis off the issues surrounding the HHS recent contraception mandate (here) is important for not only Orthodox Christians but all people of good will. Building on the recent argument made by the Catholic bishops (here), he points out that the issue before us is not contraception or even religious freedom in a narrow sense. Rather he raises a more fundamental, social question that goes to the heart of America as a free and civil society.

Does the State serve the people or the people the State? The question here is more than just matter of personal or institutional conscience. Rather we must now ask whether the State is willing to acknowledge, and more importantly to defer, to any other authority or law other than its own in the Public Square? If it doesn’t then the State claims for itself the authority to dictate to the Church, to the family and to other social institutions the content and boundaries of their own lives. The practical effect of all this is to make the Church and the family creatures of the State and so subject to the partisan calculus of American politics.

And what of the citizens if they don’t push back? What happens if we allow the Church and the family to be co-opted by the State? Initially maybe nothing but in time the members of these other institutions will inevitably betray themselves and their own deepest held moral, religious, cultural and political convictions through a life of gentle compromise. This at least is how I read Weigel’s analysis.

About a decade ago the Orthodox bishops in America proposed that the Church hire what would essentially have been a lobbyist to advocate for our concerns with Congress and the White House. To the best of my knowledge nothing came of this. While I don’t know why we didn’t follow through, I suspect that it was our lack of administrative unity that resulted in this missed opportunity.

We now find ourselves—as I said above—in a position where we are being asked to cooperate with policies that are objectively immoral. We can’t confuse a pastoral willingness to tolerate non-abortive forms of contraception as a concession to weakness with it being a good thing (see here). Much less can we collaborate with a policy that requires as a matter of law that we finance early term abortions. While we can, and I think should, be tolerant in our pastoral response to contraception, we can’t remain indifferent to the grave threat to civil society embodied by the HHS mandate.

Responding to this and future challenges will need a degree of internal unity and cooperation that builds on but necessarily transcends our admirable dogmatic agreement. Essential though right doctrine is to the health and unity of the Church without prudence it can become a trap. God by His grace and love for mankind preserved the faith of the Orthodox Church through centuries of oppression and persecution. For this we must thank God daily. We are, thank God and as Weigel points out in his essay, not facing the kind of attack today that we have experience in the Soviet era, under the Ottoman yoke, or the great persecutions of the early Church.

But as gentle as voice might be that commands us to betray Christ, it still commands us to do so. We can’t cooperate with moral evil; we can’t cooperate with the injustice being proposed under the cover of law. Simply put, we can no more do the Enemy’s work for him in this generation than could Christians in ages past. If there is a desire to destroy the Church, for the State to tell us when we are, and aren’t, functioning in that Name above every other Name, then so be it. What we can’t do is cooperate with that demand; at least we can’t cooperate if we wish to remain true to Christ, ourselves and to the witness of the martyrs.

Important though the specific issue is it is equally important that we as Orthodox not miss an opportunity to act in concert with each other. The American Orthodox Church, however administratively fractured, is still one Church. And we are one Church in a political and social context which, for all current and historical faults, affords us an extraordinary degree of freedom to live our lives and to proclaim the Gospel.

Such freedom brings with it a responsibility that is at once not only moral and evangelical but also political. If we are not active in our proclamation of the Gospel in the Public Square and in the Halls of Power, then it is likely that even our finest preaching from the Pulpit will be undone. We need not only missionary clergy, especially bishops, but also missionary laypeople who will bring the Gospel to the Culture and to the Congress. If recent events demonstrate anything it is that Orthodoxy in America needs to be proactive in our dealings with all levels of government but especially at the federal level.

There is a parallel between evangelism and lobbying that suggests to me that our efforts in the latter would, by God’s grace, be met with success. We have demonstrated in our evangelical efforts our ability not only to change lives but also concurrently to generate the social capital necessary to further the Church’s mission. The first we call repentance, the second the parish. Though lobbying would present its own challenges, these are challenges that we have a demonstrable ability to meet. Why do we imagine that we can’t successfully call politicians to repentance and to pass laws that—while not explicitly Orthodox in form or content—are at least not opposed to the Gospel?

We must move beyond responding only to our own immediate and often intramural concerns. These are important, and none more important than the freedom of the Ecumenical Throne to exercise its ministry in Turkey (see here) or the defense of Christians in an increasingly tumultuous Middle East (for example, here). These can’t be the whole of our concerns.

Effective lobbying is like effective evangelism. Rooted in prayer, it works to cultivate not only friendship with others but also their personal openness and commitment to the Gospel. If we only appeal to Congress and the White House on matters that directly concern us as Orthodox Christians, we will, in the short run, get a hearing. Eventually however I worry that we find ourselves marginalized and ignored, even on matters which concern us directly. “[S]eek the peace of the city where I have caused you to be carried away captive,” we read in Jeremiah, “and pray to the LORD for it; for in its peace you will have peace” (29:7). In the long run to advance the concerns of the Church we must prove ourselves to be good citizens according to the model given us by the Prophet Jeremiah. This means that we must not only pray but also work for the “peace of the city,” for its prosperity and success in the broad and narrow senses. Why? Because “faith without works is dead” (James 2:17). In the political and cultural spheres such a living faith requires that we show ourselves to be advocates for the common good and not simply our own good.

Like evangelism, lobbying is not without its risks. But what is the alternative? Being assertive we risk failure; being passive we guarantee it.

Russian Church: British Authorities Adopt Double Standard on Public Symbols


Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

Source: Russian Orthodox Church Department for External Affairs

Moscow, March 13 – People in the Russian Orthodox Church are amazed at the loyalty that the British authorities, who have forbidden wearing crosses at work, have shown towards other religious and non-religious symbols.

‘This decision of the British authorities cannot but give rise to anxiety, especially given the existence of other tendencies aimed at liberation of human instincts in the European society today. Why then is the public demonstration of one’s involvement in the gay culture considered a norm whereas the wearing of a cross is not? Indeed, there is a diversity of symbols connected with the gay culture, but just try to sack a person who openly demonstrates his sexual orientation. Clearly he will make a row and will certainly manage to be reinstated. And what is the danger of old Christian symbols? Who are insulted by them?’ the chairman of the Synodal Information Department Vladimir Legoida stated on Tuesday. The attitude to the Sikhs is another example of the double standards exercised by the British government. He said that the Sikhs, even those who serve in the London police, are officially permitted to wear the turban, one of the symbols of Sikhism.

He believes the decision of the British authorities to be ‘a very disturbing symbol’. If this signal, Mr Legoida said, means that it is impossible for one to show publicly one’s belonging to Christianity, ‘who then can guarantee that tomorrow the authorities will not tell you to put the notice saying ‘such-and-such church’ but to take away the crosses and that not only from the cupolas but also whatever represents the cross’. This attitude is difficult to assess as any other than a manifestation of Christinophobia, the cases of which are becoming ever more frequent in today’s world.

In addition, this situation, Mr Legoida believes, ‘vividly points to Europe’s abandonment of her fundamental identity’.

‘If we speak of the freedom of conscience, then why do we encounter with restrictions? If the non-aggressive demonstration of one’s religious affiliation is impossible in a civilized society, then the question arises about the nature of this society. It turns out that all the talk about tolerance and calls to it become meaningless words since we are unable to live in good-neighbourly relations, without losing our identity?’ Mr Legoida noted.

In his opinion, the problem boils down to ‘the imposition of an idea that religion is solely a private affair of each’.

‘I think it is wrong because never in history religion has been only a private affair of a person. But being certainly a very private affair, it has always had a public and social dimension. Otherwise we make a person to leave his faith behind in the church or in the narrow family circle and do not allow him to motivate his public actions by his faith. But it is absurd’, he believes.

Church vs. Reich


Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

What happened to Christians under the Nazi Regime? The traditionalists went to concentration camps, many fell away and adopted the Nazi neo-paganism, and some clergy actively supported the Third Reich. From the essay:

[T]he persecution of the Church was camouflaged as “positive Christianity,” which claimed through the use of quotations from the Bible to be fulfilling God’s commandments: “They thus built up an enormous propaganda-machine, which resulted in a general inflation of values, because it sanctified anything it wanted to, so that finally nothing remained sacred” (p. 98). Only then did the full persecution come.

Source: The Living Church | Leander S. Harding

Man’s Disorder and God’s Design, published by Harper and Brothers in 1948, is a remarkable collection of essays prepared for the first assembly of the World Council of Churches at Amsterdam. The authors include some of the most respected theological voices of the 20th century: Karl Barth, H. Richard Niebuhr, George Florovsky, Gustaf Aulén, and Lesslie Newbigin. Sober reflection on what European churches learned from Nazi persecution and the war years is a dominant theme in the book.

A powerful section, “The Shame and the Glory of the Church,” provides one of the most moving accounts of Church life which I have ever read, written by Edmund Schlink, who was a professor of systematic theology at Heidelberg. This essay on the life of the Church under Hitler speaks, as the editors say, “for the Church upon whom fell the first and the hardest part of the struggle to manifest God’s glory amidst man’s disorder” (p. 77).

Schlink reminds us that at first the persecution of the Church was camouflaged as “positive Christianity,” which claimed through the use of quotations from the Bible to be fulfilling God’s commandments: “They thus built up an enormous propaganda-machine, which resulted in a general inflation of values, because it sanctified anything it wanted to, so that finally nothing remained sacred” (p. 98). Only then did the full persecution come. The Nazis shut down the Church’s influence on public life, banned the printing of Bibles and hymnbooks, prohibited large Church assemblies, and pressured men and young people to join the party. Theological faculties atrophied, hundreds of evangelical pastors and Roman Catholic priests were sent to the camps, some to suffer martyrdom, and “even the women and children who went to church were watched” (p. 98).

Schlink reports that there was a great falling-off among Christians. Many people became ashamed of the name of Christ and stopped attending church. Some preferred the neo-pagan ceremonies offered by the state to baptism and marriage in the Church. “Families were torn asunder: children denounced their parents, husbands opposed their wives, brothers and sisters took opposite sides in the cleavage between faith and error. Love grew cold in many hearts. Its place was taken by delusions and hardness of heart” (p. 98). The defections reached into the clergy: “Many became preachers of the anti-Christian myth and entered the service of the Nazis to replace the loyal pastors and church leaders that had been deprived of office. Many became false teachers and then persecutors of the Church” (p. 98).

For Schlink, even more stunning than the apostasy was “the way in which it was usually taken for granted with an easy conscience. When the Nazi philosophy began to influence Christians, many of them did not even notice that this Nazi talk about ‘the Almighty’ and His ‘providence’ had nothing to do with the Living God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, but that it was directly opposed to Him. … It became evident that people were not all that clear about Christian teaching. In many churches, even before the Nazi regime, preaching had become an arbitrary religious explanation of personal destiny and world events. Otherwise, when the crucial moment came, it would have been impossible for a man of our own time to gain such an ascendancy and for him, with his personal philosophy, to become the object of such widespread faith and hope” (p. 99).

The German Church’s accommodation of the Nazi regime reveals an appalling failure of basic Christian preaching and teaching. In Schlink’s understanding the failure of the churches was not so much caused by the persecution as revealed by it. “The forces outside the church showed up what was real in the life of these churches, and what was only an empty shell” (p. 100).

By God’s grace an astonishing renewal of the Church occurred as well. “The renewal began when the Church recognized the enemy’s attack as the hand of God … and when resistance to injustice became at the same time an act of repentance and of submission to the mighty hand of God” (p. 100). As the contrast with anti-Christian propaganda became more intense “the Church’s ears were re-opened to the Word of God. … But at the same time God’s Word challenged us, questioned the reality of our own religion, and forced us to recognize God simply and solely in His Word. Under the attack of neo-paganism, but especially through the power of God’s Word, its promises, and its demands, our usual attempts to see God’s revelation in other historical events and forms, ideas and words, save in the historic event of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, completely broke down. … Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, was recognized and acclaimed afresh as the sole Word of God” (p. 100).

One consequence of this sifting was the emergence of a strong Bible movement in the German Church carrying through into the post-war years. There also emerged a new feeling for the sacraments of the Church. Before the war, Communion services were infrequent and the number of communicants small. “People gathered afresh around the sacraments. The number of communion services and communicants increased. In the midst of all the tribulation and distress there awakened a new longing for the concrete, personal experience of receiving the body and the blood of the Incarnate Son of God Who has given Himself for us. … These communion services echoed the joy of the early Christians, to whom the body and blood of Christ were objects of the greatest joy and praise” (p. 101).

There were other signs of renewal. Schlink reports that under the persecution there emerged a great sense that the Church was the fellowship of those who confess and bear witness to the lordship of Christ. The term brother came very naturally into common use again as Christians discovered their solidarity across denominational lines. The liturgy was reshaped so that common prayers for those exiled and imprisoned were a more prominent feature. There was greater attentiveness to saying the creeds and ancient prayers which expressed the identification of the people with the Church of the ages. “Through these prayers we realized that across all distances and even across the war-fronts, we were one people with the worshippers in all nations” (p. 102).

The clergy experienced renewal. There was a new focus on the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments as the chief work of the clergy, “which takes precedence over all other tasks. But it became especially clear that the Church cannot be led by anything but the voice of the Good Shepherd, as preached in the Word of God” (p. 102). There was a renewal in lay ministry. “Many elders then began to understand their task in a new way as that of watchmen. Many who had only listened to the Word before, now came forward to read to the congregation, or to give their own exposition of a passage of scripture. Many, who had never thought of doing so before, accompanied bereaved persons to the cemetery, so that the body should not be laid in the earth without a reading from scripture and a prayer. In addition to the old office of deacon, new duties were assumed; readers, catechists, both men and women, undertook the care of the poor and pastoral work, while young people taught the children” (p. 103). There was a new recognition that ordinary people in the daily work in factory, school and the military were presented with both the challenge and peril of Christian ministry and witness. “Hesitatingly, but with growing confidence, the Church in the Third Reich began to proclaim that in every sphere of life we owe obedience to God in Christ, proclaiming its message in the face of the world and helping the persecuted” (p. 104).

And then comes the stunning conclusion to Professor Schlink’s report. “All of this proved that the Church can only help, in the middle of the disorder of the world, by really being the Church. Its most important duty to the world consists in allowing itself to be re-made by the Word of God. When the Church derives its life solely from the Word of God made flesh, the witness of that word within the Church is bound to have effect in saving and bringing order into the world around. But if the Church bears witness to something other than this Lord, however well intentioned its advice, warning, help and sacrifice may be, it will only increase the disorder of the world” (p. 104).

In a time when the disorder of humankind asserts itself both in the Church and the world and the Church is again being sifted and sorted, albeit not as fiercely as under the Nazis, what can we say upon hearing this testimony of the German Church to us except amen and please God grant us their repentance and renewal.

The Rev. Leander S. Harding is dean of church relations and seminary advancement and associate professor of pastoral theology at Trinity School for Ministry.


Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined function nuthemes_content_nav() in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/archive.php:58 Stack trace: #0 /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-includes/template-loader.php(106): include() #1 /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-blog-header.php(19): require_once('/home/aoiusa/pu...') #2 /home/aoiusa/public_html/index.php(17): require('/home/aoiusa/pu...') #3 {main} thrown in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/archive.php on line 58