Due to the diversity of the participants at the Orientale Lumen conference, one of the first questions asked when you meet another participant is “What Church do you belong to?” I decided this year to ask a follow-up question: “In what tradition did you grow up?” Amazingly, I found only one person (a Roman Catholic) who has remained in the same tradition since birth. Here are some samples of those I met:

• A baptist who became Orthodox last year
• A Roman Catholic who became a Romanian Catholic priest-monk
• Someone who say she grew up “everything” who is now Orthodox
• A Roman Catholic who is now a Ruthenian Catholic seminarian

And of course, Metropolitan Jonah himself was baptized and raised Episcopal before becoming Orthodox in college (and I myself am a convert from Methodism to Roman Catholicism).

This anecdotal evidence is in keeping with larger statistical trends: a recent Pew Study showed that about half of all adult Americans are no longer in the same religious tradition in which they grew up. So the questions arises: Why all the converts?

Obviously, there are many factors, not least of which is the weakening of bonds of family and tradition within our culture. A hundred years ago, it was quite common for someone to live within a 10 mile radius their whole life, and to have contact with few people outside their own religious tradition. This fostered deep bonds in which it was unthinkable to leave the faith of one’s birth.

There is much to lament in regard to the loss of these bonds within our culture, but it is also an opportunity. Many who have not grown up Catholic are more than ever willing to consider Catholicism. Yes, we live in a “consumer” culture in which we pick and choose everything, including our religion. This can lead to a trivialization of sacred things, but it does not have to. As Catholics, we need to work to engage those around us and show them, in our words and deeds, the love that Christ has for them and how they can live and experience that divine love in the Church.

Scripture says that “in all things God works for the good of those who love him” (Romans 8:28). The weakened bonds of our culture do not just have to mean people leaving the Catholic Church – through our efforts, fostered by grace, it can also mean a great influx of new members into the Church.

St. Paul, pray for us!

This is a wonderful story – the Anglican Convent of All Saints in Catonsville, MD (only about an hour from me) is to be received in Full Communion with the Catholic Church. These nuns have been traditional Anglo-Catholics but have decided to become Roman Catholic. Please pray for them as they make this decisive step in their spiritual lives.

John Henry Newman, pray for us!

As I mentioned previously, yesterday I attended the Orientale Lumen Conference here in DC. The highlight of the day was the primatial liturgy held in the St. Nicholas Orthodox Cathedral and celebrated by Metropolitan Jonah, the Primate of the Orthodox Church in America. Last night I also attended a lecture by Metropolitan Jonah on monastic spirituality as part of the conference.

Metropolitan Jonah is an amazing story. Less than a year ago, he was not even a bishop. Today he is the head of the entire Orthodox Church in America. For those not aware of the story, the OCA was rocked with financial scandals within their hierarchy, and last year the reigning Primate, Metropolitan Herman, resigned. During this time, Jonah had been appointed auxiliary bishop of the OCA diocese of the South. Eleven days before the heads of the OCA Church met to pick a successor to Herman, Jonah was consecrated a bishop. His fellow bishops then selected him as their head. His election as Primate came as a great surprise to most Church-watchers, and seemed to indicate that the Church was serious about cleaning up its mess. (For more details, see here and here).

All this background is important to know, because when you hear Jonah speak, it is clear that he has not yet learned the art of “ecclesial-eze”: the ability that most bishops (of any Church) have mastered of speaking much and saying little. Jonah, on the other hand, speaks little but says a lot. He is completely undiplomatic and is completely non-defensive. He has no problem criticizing his own communion, but it is clear he does so out of love. Nor does he have any problem with praising members of other Churches, such as the Catholic Church, if he believes they are following Christ in an exemplary fashion.

His talk last night was quite impressive, as he was able to speak about a difficult subject – monastic spirituality – without being obscure or too scholarly. Here are a few examples of his comments:

The root of spirituality is common sense.

When the Holy Spirit comes, stop saying “Come Holy Spirit.”

Spiritual life boils down to “sit down and shut up.”

One cannot live a Christian spirituality without frequent confession.

Without asceticism there is no Christianity.

But it was my personal conversation with him afterward which was most enlightening. Earlier in the day, he asked us all to “picture what a united Catholic-Orthodox Church would look like in America. For it won’t happen until we picture it.” I approached him, told him I was a Roman Catholic, and then asked him to tell me how he pictured a united Church in America. He told me that he thought it was almost unimaginable, but that it would involve a united synod of bishops, which would most likely be predominantly Western since we are a Western country. Both sides, he stated, would need to change to make it happen. But then he said that it is clear from the problems currently in Orthodoxy that “we need a pope.” He was very quick to follow that with statement emphasizing that he doesn’t mean a pope as defined by Vatican I, but that nonetheless, the Church needs a single head.

I thought this was a startling statement by the Metropolitan. Not that I believe he is a crypto-Catholic, since many Orthodox will agree that the papacy, as they perceive it was practiced in the 1st millennium, is a valid part of Christian ecclesiology. But Jonah says it in a more blunt, less defensive fashion. He comes across as a lover of Orthodoxy who is not afraid to say things that traditionally have not been said for fear of being seen as traitorous to Orthodoxy. I think it is a good thing for both Orthodox and Catholics that he has been picked as the Primate, and I pray that his ministry will bring us closer to unity.

A picture of me with Metropolitan Jonah

As I mentioned yesterday, I am attending the Orientale Lumen conference today. This morning we attended a divine liturgy celebrated by Metropolitan Jonah, Primate of the Orthodox Church of America. It was quite breathtaking. Here are some pictures (taken with my phone).

In the spirit of this week’s OL conference, I link to a post by John at the blog Ad Orientem, a wonderful Orthodox blog I follow regularly. John comments on a post at the blog Energetic Procession (so yes, this is a blog post about a blog post about a blog post – ain’t the Internet great?) regarding the “imposition” of the filioque upon Eastern Catholics.

John makes an important point about the recitation of the filioque (or lack thereof) within Eastern Catholic Churches. Even if they do not recite the filioque, John notes that “You are who you are in communion with.” In other words, if you are in communion with someone, you are accepting the truth of what they believe, whether you proclaim it or not. Put more negatively, you cannot claim that what someone else believes is heresy if you are in communion with them, as your communion means that you accept that “heresy” as valid for some to believe. So it is true that Eastern Catholics cannot condemn the filioque as heresy (although it is important to note that within Orthodoxy there is debate as to whether the filoque is heresy or just a theologumen that was illegitimately added to the Creed)

Yet I must disagree with the idea that Rome still “imposes” the filioque on Eastern Catholics. Energetic Procession lists past events (none later than the 18th century) as proof of this claim, yet this is not the current practice of Rome, and even Pope John Paul II attended a liturgy in which the filioque was not recited. I realize that there is a serious difference in theology between Orthodoxy and Catholicism in regards to the filioque, but it is simply not correct to claim that Rome imposes this practice on Eastern Catholics.

I have often heard it said that Rome must change in order for Orthodoxy to accept reunion with them. Yet in this case it has changed its practice, but instead of acknowledging that change, the old practice is being dragged out like the bones of Pope Formosus in order to condemn Rome further.

About a decade ago, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity released a document regarding the issue of the filioque. It would be instructive for all interested to read it in full.

The 13th Orientale Lumen conference begins tonight, and I am fortunate to be able to attend tomorrow. The whole week looks to be quite eventful, but I am especially interested in tomorrow’s speakers and events. They will include:

• Orthodox Divine Liturgy at St. Nicholas Orthodox Cathedral
• Plenary session by Bishop Hlib Lonchyna of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
• Plenary session by Prof. Richard Schneider, a member of the Orthodox Church in America and professor at University of Toronto
• Plenary session by Metropolitan Jonah, Primate of the Orthodox Church in America

It promises to be a wonderful time and I am looking forward to it. Pray for all the participants!

I absolutely love this article. A Baptist minister on sabbatical decided to bring his family to an Orthodox Liturgy. Needless to say, it was quite a culture shock:

Saint Anthony the Great isn’t just old school. It’s “styli and wax tablets” old school. We arrived ten minutes early for worship and the room was already filled with people lighting candles and praying. There was one greeter. I said, “We don’t know what to do.” She handed me a liturgy book and waved us inside.

Pews? We don’t need no stinking pews! Providing seats for worshipers is SO 14th century. Gorgeous Byzantine art, commissioned from a famous artist in Bulgaria. Fully robed priests with censors (those swinging incense thingies). Long, complex readings and chants that went on and on and on. And every one of them packed full of complex, theological ideas. It was like they were ripping raw chunks of theology out of ancient creeds and throwing them by the handfuls into the congregation. And just to make sure it wasn’t too easy for us, everything was read in a monotone voice and at the speed of an auctioneer.

I heard words and phrases I had not heard since seminary. Theotokos, begotten not made, Cherubim and Seraphim borne on their pinions, supplications and oblations. It was an ADD kids nightmare. Robes, scary art, smoking incense, secret doors in the Iconostas popping open and little robed boys coming out with golden candlesticks, chants and singing from a small choir that rolled across the curved ceiling and emerged from the other side of the room where no one was singing. The acoustics were wild. No matter who was speaking, the sound came out of everywhere. There was so much going on I couldn’t keep up with all the things I couldn’t pay attention to.

Lillian was the first to go down. After half an hour of standing, she was done. Jeanene took her over to a pew on the side wall. She slumped against Jeanene’s shoulder and stared at me with this stunned, rather betrayed look on her face.

“How could you have brought us to this insane place?”

Shelby tried to tough it out. We were following along in the 40 page liturgy book that was only an abbreviation of the service were were experiencing. I got lost no less than 10 times. After 50 minutes Shelby leaned over and asked how much longer the service would be. I was trying to keep from locking my knees because my thighs had gotten numb. I showed her the book. We were on page 15. I flipped through the remaining 25 pages to show her how much more there was. Her mouth fell open.

“Are you serious?”

“Yeah. And I think there’s supposed to be a sermon in here somewhere.”

“They haven’t done the SERMON yet? What was that guy doing who said all that stuff about…all that stuff?”

“I don’t know?” I said.

“I have to go to the bathroom,” she said. I looked around and saw the door at the back of the sanctuary swinging shut.

And then there was one.

Read the whole article and then read his account of attending alone the next week. Pastor Atkinson’s accounts are humorous, educational, and deeply humble. Instead of rejecting a form of worship so unlike his own, he appreciates its inner beauty and value.

Most American Christians – both Catholic and Protestant – have been in a rush to see how they can be the most “relevant” and “friendly” in their church services. It is nice to see there are still places which place worship at the center of a worship service.

Yesterday, the Holy Father honored St. Rabanus Maurus, a monk who lived in the eighth and ninth centuries, calling him “an exegete, philosopher, poet, pastor and man of God.”

St. Rabanus is perhaps best known for writing the hymn “Veni creator Spiritus,” which my parish sang this past Sunday for the Feast of Pentecost. One of the verses of this hymn always amuses me:

O Holy Ghost,
Through thee alone,
Know we the Father and the Son;
Be this our firm unchanging creed,
That thou dost from them both proceed,
That thou dost from them both proceed.

For those familiar with the filioque controversy, this verse is a clear defense of the Western doctrine of the dual procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son (instead of the Eastern doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father). I tried to do some research as to the origin of this verse, but I could find nothing. In fact, most places I found that had the lyrics to “Veni creator Spiritus” did not include this verse (perhaps it has been scrubbed due to ecumenical sensitivities?). St. Rabanus did live during the time when this controversy was developing, but I’m unsure if this verse was actually written by him, and if so, was it simply to ingrain the recently added filioque in the minds of the faithful, or was it in response to Eastern attacks against the new creed? If anyone out there knows, drop me a line via email or in the comments.

To be honest, although I’m sensitive to the Eastern view in this matter, I have to admit I just enjoy seeing meaty doctrine in a hymn, instead of all-too-typical lyrics praising “How Great We Art”.

We are near the end of the Easter season, in which Christians around the world have celebrated the resurrection of our Lord. For those of us in the West (i.e. Catholics and Protestants), the Easter season ends this Sunday, May 31st with the Feast of Pentecost. In the East, however, Easter season is a week later due to a different calendar in use by the Orthodox. So they do not celebrate Pentecost until June 7th this year.

But due to a coincidence in the calendars, we are fortunate that all Christians will celebrate a shared Easter for the next two years – 2010 and 2011. But after that we only have two shared Easters over the following 12 years.

The dispute over the dating of Easter goes back to the earliest days of the Church, and is related to how one dates the Passover, which is itself based on the lunar calendar. In 325, the Council of Nicea decreed that the date of Easter would be the first Sunday after the full moon following the spring equinox. However, how the equinox is calculated has differed in the East and the West.

I have always thought this is a problem waiting to be solved. It is not doctrinal in nature and does not touch on the issues that still divide Eastern and Western Christians. Yet it is difficult to change traditions (see: Vatican II and its aftermath) and many would rather stick to “their way” of doing things than see unity on such an issue.

Recently, however, an ecumenical group came up with a plan to unite our Easters:

The problem before the advent of modern astronomy was calculating the equinox. Orthodox churches use March 21 in the Julian calendar, but since the 16th century the Western date has been derived in the Gregorian calendar. The resulting difference can be up to five weeks apart.

The council said theologians from the Vatican and various Orthodox and Protestant churches endorsed a compromise on May 15 that Easter should be held for all Christians using an equinox based on accurate astronomical data.

Under the plan the unified Easter usually falls as it would under the Gregorian calendar used by Catholics and Protestants, said Dagmar Heller, an ecumenical professor in Switzerland heading the council’s faith and order commission.

In the next 15 years, the only time Western churches would have to change Easter is in 2019 from April 21 to March 24. The bigger adjustment would be for the Orthodox Church, which has experienced several schisms in its history over the question of dates.

I sincerely hope and pray that this proposal gains traction, but the last sentence I highlighted touches on the problem of any unified plan. As it mentions, there have been schisms in the Orthodox Church in the past over dating issues, and there is no reason to think that wouldn’t happen again today. It would be highly ironic (and yet very typical) if a plan for a more unified Church led to more schisms.

Personally, I propose that the Catholic Church simply adopt the Eastern method – it doesn’t require any concession on doctrinal issues and I don’t think there would be as much of a fuss about it in our Church. Of course, it might also mean that the Protestants would not go along and then we would celebrate Easter separately from them. Sigh…

VirtueOnline, a traditional Anglican website, has an intersting article posted entitled “What Choices Do Traditionalists in the C of E [Church of England] Have?” The author, Roland J. Morant, discusses the various options for the traditionalist member of the Church of England now that their Church is slowly committing modernist suicide. Using the analogy of a ship, he gives the following options:

1. STAY ON BOARD AND DO NOTHING (don’t leave the C of E and just endure the problems)
2. TRANSFER DIRECTLY TO ANOTHER SHIP (join the Catholic or Orthodox Churches or even a Protestant denomination)
3. CLIMB INTO A LIFEBOAT AND HOPEFULLY BE PICKED UP BY A FRIENDLY SHIP (join a more traditional Anglican communion)
4. ABANDON SHIP BY JUMPING OVERBOARD (stop going to church)

What I found most interesting about this article was the importance Morant gives to practical concerns, such as one’s attachment to their parish (and parish building) and a person’s proximity to other churches (after all, what is the point of becoming Orthodox if the nearest Orthodox parish is 200 miles away). I think the importance of such concerns can be minimized when discussing the conversion of Christians from one tradition to another. But it should not be. The pull of one’s personal parish (“I was baptized in that church,” “Our parish has a wonderful, loving community”) can often trump doctrinal concerns. So too can personal connections: if all your friends go to a specific parish, it can be very difficult to transplant your whole family to another church over concerns that may not seem to directly impact your life – especially if the other parish appears cold and uninviting to you.

As Catholics, we should not simply dismiss such concerns out of hand. It is true that our Lord told us we would have to give up father and mother, sister and brother in order to follow him, but that doesn’t make it easy. We should make our own parishes as welcoming as possible so that if a Christian of another tradition decides to join, he or she will not need to feel like a complete alien.

Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and well-known Evangelical leader, has a blog post in which he takes issue with the Pope’s (and the Church’s) dealings with Islam. Here is the text, with my comments in red:

R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Should Christians “Respect” Other Religions?
The world we now know is marked by religious pluralism and the clash of worldviews. The modern world brings individuals and groups of different belief systems into both proximity and potential conflict. How should Christians respond when asked about this? Should Christians “respect” other religions? [A legitimate inquiry, but it begs the question: what do we mean by "respect"? Does it mean we agree with the religion? That we think it has the right to practice its faith? Or something else? Mohler doesn't really define it here.]

Headlines throughout the world announced this week that Pope Benedict XVI, while visiting Jordan, spoke of his “respect” for Islam. This came on the heels of the Pope’s notorious [this seems to be a loaded word] 2006 speech at Germany’s Regensburg University. In that speech Benedict quoted Emperor Manuel II, one of the Byzantine monarchs, who said: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” [Note that the pope didn't say he completely agreed with that quote.]

The outrage throughout the Muslim world was immediate and overwhelming. The Pope issued clarifications and explanations, but Muslim outrage continued. This week, with the Pope scheduled to make his first papal visit to an Islamic country, the sensitivities were high.

The Vatican’s official transcript of the Pope’s comments at the Amman airport records him as saying:

My visit to Jordan gives me a welcome opportunity to speak of my deep respect for the Muslim community, and to pay tribute to the leadership shown by His Majesty the King in promoting a better understanding of the virtues proclaimed by Islam.

[Here we have the first problem with Mohler's analysis: he asks in the first paragraph: "Should Christians 'respect' other religions?" yet note that the Pope says that he has "deep respect for the Muslim community". He did not say that he had respect for Islam per se, but for the people who practice that faith. As Christians, we have respect for all people created in the image of God, so his statement is quite benign. The pope also wants to pay tribute to the "virtues" proclaimed by Islam. Considering virtues are always virtues, no matter who proclaims them, I see no problem with that either.]

There are so many different angles to this situation. First, we have the spectacle of a Pope being received as a head of state. This is wrong on so many counts. [It would be interesting if he explained at least one count. Why exact is the pope being a head of state intrinsicly wrong? Does it not allow him opportunities such as this one to promote Christ's Gospel?] Second, we have the Pope speaking in diplomatic jargon, rather than in plain and direct speech. [Mohler seems to have a limited understanding of how the Gospel can be preached. History has shown that there are many means by which one can proclaim the Gospel - "diplomatic jargon" is not automatically excluded from that list. Furthermore, this pope has proven in the past that he is not against being blunt when the occasion calls for it.] Third, we have the Pope speaking of “respect” without any clear understanding of what this really means. [What? Why does Mohler say this? How does he even know how the Pope defines "respect." Again, it would be nice if Mohler himself defined it for us.] Does the Pope believe that Muslims can be saved through the teachings of Islam? [Now we have it - this is the real issue that Mohler has with the Pope and Catholicism in general.]

Actually, he probably does — at least within the context of a salvific inclusivism. The Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that Muslims are “included in the plan of salvation” by virtue of their claim to “hold the faith of Abraham.”

In the words of Lumen Gentium, one of the major documents adopted at Vatican II:

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.

The same language is basic to the current official catechism of the church as well. Within the context of the document, this language clearly implies that Muslims are within the scope of God’s salvation. While the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Islam is both erroneous and incomplete, it also holds that sincere Muslims can be included in Christ’s salvation through their faithfulness to monotheism and Islam.

[I give credit to Mohler for at least going to official Church teachings - many Evangelicals and fundamentalists would not do this. However, he woefully misinterprets the Church's teaching, most likely because he simply doesn't have the background to understand it in context. The Church talks of the "plan of salvation" in the sense that God desires all men to be saved, and likewise, that all men on some fundamental level desire to be saved. Thus, other religions are often attempts by man to reconcile himself with God. These attempts are always inadequate, but they reflect the need for God within all men and often contain truths that are implanted into our DNA - like the existence of a power above us, our sinful nature, and our duty to serve others. These are things that are true no matter who proclaims them, and if someone acknowledges them they draw closer to God.

The Church has always proclaimed that only through Jesus Christ is anyone saved - this was proclaimed at Vatican II and it is in the Catechism. However, the Church does not arrogantly declare that God is bound to save people through Christ only in ways we know. We know that Christ is the only way to salvation and we must proclaim that fact (which the pope does again and again), but we also humbly acknowledge that we do not know all the ways of God and if He desires to save someone, through Christ, who is not outwardly Christian, He can do so if He wishes.]

Thus, when the Catholic Pope speaks of “respecting” Islam, he can do so in a way that evangelical Christians cannot. Within the context of official Catholic teaching, the Pope can create a fusion of diplomacy and doctrine.

While evangelical Christians face a different context to this question, the urgency is the same. We are not playing a diplomatic role as head of state, but we are called to be ambassadors for Christ and his Gospel.

In this light, any belief system that pulls persons away from the Gospel of Christ, denies and subverts Christian truth, and blinds sinners from seeing Christ as the only hope of salvation is, by biblical definition, a way that leads to destruction. [Here is a difference between Mohler's worldview and the Catholic worldview: we believe that anyone who practices virtue and acknowledges truth (like the existence of one God) draws closer to God through that activity. Yes, it might be deformed and/or incomplete, but it still contains truth. And since Jesus is the Truth, he is present wherever truth is proclaimed.] Islam, like every other rival to the Christian gospel, takes persons captive and is devoid of genuine hope for salvation.

Thus, evangelical Christians may respect the sincerity with which Muslims hold their beliefs, but we cannot respect the beliefs themselves. We can respect Muslim people for their contributions to human welfare, scholarship, and culture. We can respect the brilliance of Muslim scholarship in the medieval era and the wonders of Islamic art and architecture. But we cannot respect a belief system that denies the truth of the gospel, insists that Jesus was not God’s Son, and takes millions of souls captive. [In this paragraph Mohler gets much closer to the Catholic position. It is the true elements of Islam that the Pope respects, not the false ones (this should be obvious). His statements here make me wonder if Mohler is simply looking for a reason to criticize the Pope.]

This does not make for good diplomacy, but we are called to witness, not public relations. We must aim to be gracious and winsome in our witness to Christ, but the bottom line is that the gospel will necessarily come into open conflict with its rivals.

The papal visit to Jordan points directly to the problem of the papacy itself and to the confusion of Roman Catholic theology on this very point. To understand Islam is to know that we cannot identify Muslims as those who “along with us adore the one and merciful God.” To deny the Trinity is to worship another God.

Respect is a problematic category. In the end, Christians must show respect for Muslims by sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the spirit of love and truth. We are called to love and respect Muslims, not Islam.

[Mohler needs a broader view of what it means to preach the Gospel. The Church looks at things with a very long view. If the Pope spouted off in Jordan as Mohler wished, he might have gotten some kudos from Evangelicals. However, would it have been something that long term would have helped advance the Gospel in the Muslim world? I don't know, but I do know that the Pope desires that all men, including Muslims become Christian (well, Catholic, actually), so his "diplomatic" efforts are part of a long-term effort to bring the Gospel to everyone.]

I just finished reading Cur Deus Homo by St. Anselm. It was my second reading of the book, the first being almost 15 years ago shortly after I became Catholic. Although not as well-known as classics such as Confessions by St. Augustine, Cur Deus Homo is one of the most influential books ever written. It is the foundational text for the theory of atonement know as “penal substitution”: the belief that man deserved death for his sins, but Christ as the God-man was able to die in our stead, thus taking the punishment we deserve. This is the most widely-held theory of atonement in Evangelical Protestant circles today.

I have a number of difficulties with the penal substitution theory, which I’ll attempt to address in a later post, but for now I’m more interested in the acceptance of this theory in Evangelical circles. At the time of the Reformation, Anselm’s theory reigned supreme in the West (it never gained traction in the East), and it was assumed as true by both Catholics and Protestants. However, it is a bit odd that Protestants have accepted Anselm’s arguments so readily. First. Anselm explicitly argues from reason, not the Scriptures. The whole purpose of Cur Deus Homo is to show to the “infidels” (i.e. Jews and Muslims) why God had to become man and die. Since these peoples don’t accept the authority of the New Testament, Anselm bases his arguments on reason, not revelation. There are few Scriptural references in the text and none are part of the main argument. This does not mean his arguments are contra Scripture, but considering the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, I find their wholesale acceptance of Anselm’s arguments ironic.

Furthermore, Anselm’s theory was quite innovative for his time. Penal substitution is not found widely in the Fathers, and it is only after Anselm that it becomes a “tradition.” Thus it seems to be the type of theory that Protestants are most leery of: a later tradition “added on” to the purity of the Gospel. Yet it endures as the heart of the Evangelical message.

Of course, proponents of penal substitution would argue that it is biblical and clearly in the sacred text. I’m not so sure. There is plenty of talk in the New Testament of the fact that Jesus’ death saves us, but very little as to why this is so. Also, if it is so clear, why did it not become prominent within the Church until the Middle Ages and then only after it had first been shown by reason alone?

Regardless of Evangelical acceptance of this theory, there is much value in the theory of penal substitution, but I also think much is problematic with it. I’ll try to address those concerns in another post.

I recently received an email announcement about the upcoming Orientale Lumen conference in Washington D.C. OLC is an ecumenical conference held each year which focuses on Eastern Christianity. I attended last year, and it was quite remarkable. The speakers are great, but the real benefit to this conference is the interaction between participants. In one day last year I discussed homeschooling with a Russian Orthodox nun, the Ecumenical Patriarch with a Greek Orthodox priest, and the Latin Mass with Fr. Robert Taft, a biritual Catholic priest who is a foremost authority on Eastern Christianity. I would highly recommend attending. Here are some details about this year’s conference:

The Orientale Lumen XIII Conference is now all set for June 15-18, 2009 at the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington, DC on the theme of “Monastic Spirituality for Everyday Life.” I am very hopeful that this ONE conference for 2009 (rather than the three locations we had last year) will bring everyone together in one place and foster more “face-to-face” ecumenical dialogue and exchange of understanding among Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Oriental Orthodox.

We have quite an interesting mixture of speakers this year. Let me tell you a little about them and why they will be particularly exciting to come and hear. They will include:

Metropolitan Jonah, Primate of the Orthodox Church in America — a year ago, Archimandrite Jonah was a monastic on the West Coast and after being elected and consecrated bishop last summer, he gave a stunning speech at the OCA Sobor which then elected him their leader. We are very honored that he has agreed to be with us for most of the conference agenda, will serve a Divine Liturgy for the Orthodox participants, and will surely have some unique ideas about monasticism for the every day life of lay persons and clergy alike.

Bishop Hlib Lonchyna, Ukrainain Greek Catholic Church, Kyiv, Ukraine — I have known Bishop Hlib for almost ten years, meeting him in Rome several times when I accompanied Archbishop Vsevolod there. He has also attended both Orientale Lumen Conferences in Constantinople, accompanying Cardinal Husar there in May 2007. He is responsible for Monastic Matters of the Patriarchal Curia of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church along with other jobs and has family (his brother is Father Taras Lonchyna, pastor of Church of the Holy Trinity in Silver Spring, MD) in the Washington area and is American born. I am certain he will also provide a wonderful perspective on monastic life for lay persons.

Mother Lois Farag, Coptic Orthodox Church, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN — Mother Lois earned her doctorate in Early Christian Studies at the Catholic University of America and also holds an MDiv from Harvard Divinity School She attended several of the early OL conferences while a student in Washington. She teaches Early Church History at Luther Seminary and is doing research on a book project related to the conference theme of spirituality. She will have a special perspective for the conference working in Church history, teaching at a Lutheran-oriented college, and being from the Coptic Orthodox tradition.

Sister Barbara Jean Mihalchick, OSBM, Retreat Center Director, Mt. St. Macrina, Uniontown, PA – In addition to her current position of directing and giving retreats to a wide range of participants, Sister Barbara Jean was also the Vicar General (number two) of the Order of Saint Basil the Great at their world headquarters in Rome for some 12 years. She has traveled the world, visiting Basilian monasteries and other religious institutions in many places, and will bring a wealth of experience for our spiritual journey of “theosis,” becoming like God.

Professor Richard Schneider, Orthodox Church in America, Director of the Orthodox Eastern Studies Program at Trinity College, Toronto, Canada — Prof. Schneider has been a speaker at the last three OL conferences, 2007 on Icons and 2008 on Feastdays in the US, and at OL EuroEast II on Liturgy in Constantinople. He has a unique perspective of understanding and learning from icons that he refers to as “iconology,” and will apply that to personal spirituality and growth in our Christian journey.

Mr. Elias Damianakis, Greek Orthodox Church, Iconographer and Lecturer — Mr. Damianakis has been studying and living the spirituality of an iconographer for many years, and has developed a well-respected studio of iconography which not only has decorated many churches around the world, but also produced icons for the Vatican and Ecumenical Patriarchate. His talk will bring iconography and spirituality together, and he will also display an exhibit of icons and the process of painting an icon at the conference.

Father John Crossin, OSFS, Executive Director of the Washington Theological Consortium and President of the North American Academy of Ecumenists — Father Crossin has written several books on spirituality, teaches courses on ecumenism, and served as the moderator of OL XII East in Washington last year. We welcome him back as moderator this year, and as an Oblate of St. Francis de Sales, he brings a unique perspective to spirituality.

So as you can see, this lineup is quite exciting and will provide some very unique perspectives on individual spirituality. This year’s agenda for OL XIII will be a little like Noah’s ark — two by two! We have two bishops, two nuns, and two lay men! It will be fun, exciting, and spiritually rewarding. To reflect current economic conditions, we’ve lowered the cost, and the airline and gasoline prices are as low as two years ago, so come and join us!

More details and registration information can be found at:

http://www.olconference.com/OL_FutCon_OL_XIII

It appears that the Episcopal church is losing priests left and right. Last week I blogged about an episcopal priest who has become Catholic. Now I find this story:

Episcopal Priest Defrocked After Refusing to Recant Muslim Faith

In response to the charge, Redding claimed becoming a Muslim “is not an automatic abandonment of Christianity,” according to the Seattle Times. “For many, it is. But it doesn’t have to be.”

An ordained minister in The Episcopal Church for over two decades, Redding made headlines in 2007 when she told the Seattle Times she was “100 percent” Muslim and Christian. Her story was first revealed in the Episcopal Diocese of Olympia’s newspaper, the Episcopal Voice.

Three years ago, Redding attended an interfaith gathering where she said was moved by Muslim prayers. She said she felt an overwhelming conviction to surrender to God and soon after she became a practicing Muslim.

Convinced that her new Muslim faith did not contradict her beliefs as a Christ follower, Redding declared she was both a Muslim and a Christian.

“Both religions say there’s only one God,” Redding said, according to CNN, “and that God is the same God. It’s very clear we are talking about the same God! So I haven’t shifted my allegiance.”

Something tells me that most Muslims would not accept that she can be both Christian and Muslim either. But to be fair, she is not really Christian, as can be seen from this statement:

She also said she does not believe that God and Jesus are the same and believes Jesus is divine just as all humans are divine.

If Episcopal priests still heard confessions she would probably be quickly disabused of her notion that “all humans are divine.”

According to this story, the bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion have been invited to Rome for Easter. If you remember, this is the ecclesial community of 500,000 members that has asked to be united to the Catholic Church. I can’t help but hope that this is a sign that a major announcement will take place soon regarding those efforts: Pope Benedict has made clear that he is willing to take concrete steps towards union with other ecclesial bodies, and rumor is that he would love to announce this union during the year of St. Paul, which ends in June.

Pray for all involved that union might take place soon!