Orthodox Demographic Winter

Global Orthodoxy will steeply decline in numbers this century. Just my opinion, and I am no expert, but the data seems to point to this outcome.

I asked the guy who knows about this stuff, the very competent Eric Kaufmann, whose book Shall the Religious Inherit The Earth has captured my attention for quite a while, this question on Facebook:

"I am interested in how the demography of Eastern Europe will affect the global Eastern Orthodox population (230 million). 93.2% of Eastern Orthodox live in 20 countries of Eastern Europe and Greece. The average TFR of these 20 countries is 1.37. The top 82% of Orthodoxy is located in Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Greece, Belarus, and Bulgaria, which also have a combined TFR of 1.37. With fully half of the world’s E.O. in Russia (TFR 1.42).


What I am interested in is if there are higher fertility groups of Orthodox within these nations that will outbreed their low fertility neighbors? The data is hard to find though. Orthodoxy seems set for an unusually steep decline in population compared to Catholics, Protestants, or most Muslim groups. Am I right about this?"

Eric Kaufmann:
"Yes, I think that's right. Though I believe Orthodox attenders have, as elsewhere, somewhat higher fertility than seculars or nominals (see Tom Frejka's work[*] on European survey data on this). What they are lacking is a closed, fundamentalist group with high fertility a la Dutch Calvinists or Finnish Laestadian Lutherans or Orthodox Jews."

Eastern Orthodoxy has it's population center of gravity in Eastern Europe (including Russia) and Greece. So the demography of Eastern Europe will affect the global Eastern Orthodox population (230 million) in the future quite heavily. This is of course assuming there are no large sub populations of Orthodox with high fertility rates. I had not heard of any, and Kaufmann seems to confirm that there are not.

And another aspect is that theologically, the Orthodox appear to accept contraception, so even the more religiously conservative Orthodox fertility in these countries, while higher than their secular neighbors, will still be tempered by these factors. If significant sub-groups of high fertility endogenous growth sects of more conservative Orthodox were present in these nations, then these groups would be the future of Orthodoxy in these countries. But it appears there are not.

Of the factors that affect religious population positively the 2 biggest are:

1. Growth from within. Religious populations within countries with high fertility rates due to prolonged demographic transition, eg. Africa and Latin America. In these societies, large, young populations of adherants (even nominal ones) will still have a  much higher fertility rate than their counterparts in countries further into their demographic transition.

2. Endogenous growth sects. These are the groups Eric calls "closed, fundamentalist groups". So this is not only the Amish, Hutterites, and Ultra Orthodox Jews, but less closed (yet still self consciously seperate) groups like the Mormons, Quiverfull type Protestants, and conservative Catholics. Each of these groups is closed to some degree from worldly influence and has intentionally high fertility rates while rejecting contraception.

On the flip side, nations who are far into the demographic transition have very low fertility and high secularization, with aging populations and actual population decline... right now. Not future decline, but right now decline due to people not procreating.

 The other major Christian groups have eggs in all of the above baskets, and have more geographic diversity as well. Orthodox have none. Somehow Eastern Orthodoxy has managed to be most populous in the lowest fertility countries on earth, So while Catholics in Italy (1.4) and Spain (1.48) do have a fertility rate just as bad as in Ukraine (1.29) or Greece (1.39), there is the crucial difference that Catholics are not only in Italy and Spain, while demographically, it can be said  that Orthodox are only in Eastern Europe. Sceptical? Look at my research in this chart:

93.2% of Orthodox live in Eastern Europe and Greece.

That chart is staggering. 93% living in Eastern Europe and Greece?? None of these contries have anywhere near the replacement fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman. Compare with this chart from the Pew Research center of the worlds 1.2 billion Catholics:

 Here are maps showing the same data, although keep in mind they do include Oriental Orthodoxy, which I did not.

The Orthodox:



The Catholics (from Pew Research):



Comparing these charts and maps we see not only a geographic isolation in Orthodoxy, but the countries it is isolated to are among the lowest fertility in the world. Protestantism and Catholicism on the other hand are diverse in geography and fertility.

If 92% of Catholics were located in Italy, Spain and Brasil (TFR 1.82), I would be predicting that there would be a huge plunge in the number of Catholics in this century. But the Catholic Church is spread wider and has a significant presence in high fertility Africa the Phillipines and other high fertility areas of the globe, and looks ready to keep growing significantly alongside Pentecostalism.

It would not be shocking if Eastern Orthodoxy, which is now second in numbers to Catholicism as a "denomination" (for lack of a better word), will be overtaken within a couple generations by an actual denomination: the Assemblies of God. Pentecostalism as a movement (279 million) is already larger than Orthodoxy. But if we nail the Protestant jello to the tree for a moment and count denominations before it falls, we see there are 64 million Assemblies of God members currently. Given their expansion rate and the swift contraction rate for Orthodoxy, they could easily switch places within a generation.

So what does this mean? Just as with historical recurrence we say with confidence with Mark Twain that "history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme", we can say with equal confidence that demography is not destiny, but it is pregnant. And we can look at the parents and reasonably expect what the child will look like.

We know that religion in general will gain in strength both of numbers and of force in the coming century. The future is one of religious fundamentalists gaining prominence, while the candle of the secular enlightenment is slowly suffocated and extinguished in the early 22nd century. The future of Christianity is going to look Catholic and Pentecostal, while Orthodoxy, sidelined by demographics, will implode alongside secularism until a core of true believers is revealed. Oriental Orthodoxy will grow during this time, thus increasing their percentage of global Orthodoxy. I am not sure what this will mean for Catholic Orthodox reunion efforts, or for Oriental Orthodox reunion efforts with each group. Unfortunatly my suspicion is that once the nominal Orthodox in Eastern Europe have left this earth, having aborted and contracepted  themselves into the grave, the higher fertility attenders who are left will be the ones sending their children to Mount Athos, and thus Orthodoxy will go from being 230 million and willing to discuss reunion, to being 40 million and hardened against it. Who knows. But one thing is certain, and even Eric Kaufmann agreed with me, that Eastern Orthodoxy looks set to decline dramatically compared to other religious groups. It will be interesting to check back in 10 years and see where things are.

*This is the article he is referring to possibly.

The Hobbit Movie: My Review

...Well to be more precise, a ditto of a review Devin Rose did and a couple additional thoughts of my own. I am too lazy to do my own review so I though I would just ride on Devin's coattails and blithely puff a bowl of the southfarthings finest longbottom leaf. Here is a comment I left on his blog which sums up my feelings:

My thoughts exactly.


Steven Greydonus, who is the best film reviewer now alive, said:

“There is an early moment in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey that captures the evocative poetry of Tolkien’s songs — something that The Lord of the Rings films, for all their achievements, never did. By the time the credits roll, that moment feels like it belonged in a very different film.”


This film is forgettable. Tolkiens book is anything but forgettable. So Jackson failed. Period. He really should have just left it alone if he wasn't ready to do it well, and I wish he had.
You said it best when you said:

“Hint to Peter Jackson: More of Tolkien’s genius and less of your discombobulation.”

I was excited when I heard he would do the Hobbit. Less so when I heard it would be 2 installments. Then I was very sceptical when I heard it was going to be 3. Can he really credibly claim that it is not about the bling? I understand wanting to stretch them out to include more of the book. Cool. But when much of the “stretching” is stuff not even in the book, and done in a swashbuckling goofy way that is uncharacteristic of the book, it is hard to not think there is some other goal than to just put Tokien’s vision on the screen.

I might watch this again with the kids someday, but it is not like Jackson’s earlier trilogy where I would watch them a few additional times and even wait with baited breath for the extended version.

Also I am sick and tired of adults ruining tales which children should be invited to enjoy also. There is no reason for many of the intense scenes to be in this movie. As The Incredibles showed, adults and kids CAN watch the same movie and enjoy it without needing “mature” material like violence and super scary scenes. I just don't get it

I was pleased to see Kate Blanchett reprise her role as the Virgin Mar... uh... I mean Galadriel.





I am the type to find symbols where there are none in movies, but I can't help but wonder if the moon behind Galadriel was not intentional here. Tolkien was a Catholic, and many things in the LOTR books are very tempting to see as allusions to Catholic spirituality. The Lembas bread as Eucharist is a big one, and Galadriel as Mary is another. The moon is associated with the Mother of God because of Revelation 12 where she has the moon under her feet, and also because she reflects the light of Christ to us in the darkness. I doubt Peter Jackson did this purposely, but did someone on his team?

And of all the odd additions to the film, I really did like Radagast the brown. I thought he was interesting and filled out the picture of who the angel-like 'race' are in the LOTR, who before we only knew of through Saruman and Gandalf. Radagast fills out that picture... interestingly.

Now he will diminish

A German man receiving ashes on Ash Wednesday.

The pope is a mere man, and the Catholic faith has never and never shall teach otherwise. And when the current pope steps down and there is a new holder of the petrine office, this fact will stand in stark relief. When the key of the house of David is passed to another, and yet both men are still living, one having the keys and one having given them up, we will witness this truth of the papacy.

When I heard Benedict XVI was stepping down, I became excited. Not because he is a bad pope, on the contrary he has done a superb job. But this move shows to the world what the Church has always believed and taught: that the bishop of Rome is a bishop just like any other bishop, and a man just like any other man, and that his unique charism is all about who Christ is and the indefectability Christ promised the Church, and most pointedly it is all about the chair the man sits in, and absolutely nothing about who the man is who sits in that chair. The most powerful man on earth does not lift himself by his bootstraps and lord over the people as the kings of the earth do. He receives his power from Another, and is merely a chamberlain to the Emperor, or a Prime Minister to the king. As Isaiah 22, which Jesus himself refers to when choosing Peter as his steward says:

In that day I will call my servant Eli′akim the son of Hilki′ah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house...

And now, he will hand the keys to another.

He has passed the test. Now he will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Joseph Ratzinger.

Gun Control? Who cares.

I'm sure back in the day a master archer liked to have a good quiver, but he didn't need it. If he found his enemy had stolen it from the camp in the night, or that his enemy wants to ban all quivers, he would simply laugh and offer his enemy his cloak also. He is serene in the knowledge that his effectiveness in battle has very little to do with his quiver, but has everything to do with his skill in archery, his bow, the quality and quantity of his arrows, his bravery, and above all, the quality of his Marshal and his Lord. He wonders why his enemy is so anti-quiver, but shrugs and crosses himself, thanking God for confounding the mind of the enemy to take the quiver and not his precious bow or arrows.


The Apostle Paul
is often depicted with a sword

 St. Paul says,

"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty to God unto the pulling down of fortifications, destroying counsels, And every height that exhalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ; And having in readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience shall be fulfilled."

2 Corinthians 10:3-6

Guns are weapons we use to protect our weapons.

They are the archer's quiver. We husbands and fathers are the archer. The bow and the camp are our wives. The arrows are our children, the marshal is the Church, and the Lord is Christ.

Psalm 127 RSVCE (my emphasis)

A Song of Ascents. Of Solomon.

Unless the Lord builds the house,
those who build it labor in vain.
Unless the Lord watches over the city,
the watchman stays awake in vain.
It is in vain that you rise up early and go late to rest,
eating the bread of anxious toil;
for he gives to his beloved sleep.

Lo, sons are a heritage from the Lord,
the fruit of the womb a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior
are the sons of one’s youth.
Happy is the man who has
his quiver full of them!
He shall not be put to shame
when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.

If only Christians would worry less about the evil of gun control and more about the evil of birth control. As the psalm says, the watchman watches in vain unless the Lord watches the city. This means the watchman could have a supply of weapons like the in the Matrix...

with a nuke silo in the back forty and an aircraft carrier battle fleet down at the marina, and he could still be doomed. If the Lord has ceased to watch the city, then all the modern armaments in the world will not stop that city from being overrun. And now for the reality check: Do you seriously think the city is not overrun? Do you seriously think God is watching the gate? Of course He isn't. Why would he? The men of the city are at home playing Xbox and "polishing their swords" by giving their wives contraceptives. And what children they do have are not being equipped to battle against the culture of death surrounding us within the city walls.

 Now I know what many conservative Christian gun guys might say about all this,
 "Yeah, that's all fine and good, our weapons are not carnal and all that... yeah yeah I get it. But what about my AK47!? Big Brother wants to take it away! *sob sob*..."

My response:

Let's focus on the more powerful weapons at our disposal: our own children, first by being open to lots of them, and second by training them for war, and to train their children for war.

When we fully understand that the war we are engaged in is entirely spiritual in nature, I think the whole gun debate will become about as meaningful to us as a presidential debate. I am not saying we should not care about voting for president, I am simply saying it is of very little importance to our lives as Christians. In the same way, many of these distractions we men let ourselves get focused on are the equivalent of a soldier boasting in the town tavern while the war is a mile down the road. Just one single Christian father who allows himself to be seduced by pornography or video games or any other evil that our culture offers is a bigger defeat than if all guns were banned tomorrow in the US. Think about that. Just one father failing his family by giving in to Satan is worse than all guns being banned. We are in a spiritual war, and we need to focus on the true weapons of are warfare.

Lets engage the enemy by being the best husbands and fathers we can be, and mobilizing vast armies of warriors to do the same.

Saint Michael, defend us in battle

Discussion about Orthodoxy and Catholicism

[What follows is a segment of an email exchange with someone looking into the diferences between the two. These are tough topics for scholars, let alone a biased layamn like me, so cut me some slack]

I highly recommend submitting some of these question to Bryan Cross on Called to Communion. He will give a better answer in every way, and most importantly, he will give an answer that you can trust to be the Catholic answer, and not just Dave’s feelings.


You said:

“Oriental and Eastern who aren't exactly in communion (although I think they have reached some sort of formal agreement) can seem to be so much alike theologically and yet both agree with each other against Roman Catholics on a variety of issues?”

You chose the perfect description when you said “against”. I find that the antipathy both groups (in general) have for Catholicism helps them to overlook big things they disagree with each other about like the dual nature of Christ. The Orientals are non-Calcedonian Monophysites who only accept the first 3 councils. It is great if they are showing signs of wanting to change, but the fact remains the Eastern Orthodox have far more in common doctrinally with Catholics than with them.

Check out the Orthodox doctrine (of not all Orthodox, but some) of “aerial tollhouses”. For some reason they are ok with being in communion with Orthodox who believe the aerial tollhouses theory, but not “purgatory”. Orthodox believe in purgatory. They just have a less defined doctrine of it. Otherwise why would they pray for the dead? Praying for the souls of the dead can only mean one thing… the soul is not known to be in heaven or hell, and the soul still has some journeying left to do. Is there anything else it could possibly mean? But anyway, Orthodox when being polite will insist that even that much cannot be said about the topic, and say it is a mystery, -or- they will just keep insisting on purgatory being heresy while their doctrine (or lack of one), because it is mystery, is just fine. Well as I said, they do have a doctrine (praying for the dead has very specific implications), and what is wrong with one tradition having something more defined or a different nuance than another? Look at the doctrine of the Trinity for instance. The Orthodox developed the essence-energies distinction. The Latin west did not. Therefore we talk past each other on the filioque. In my personal experience, Orthodox folks usually believe the filioque to be a big dividing issue between the 2 sides, yet the same people, in my experience, have never heard that Roman Catholics (the Latin rite) do not have a category for an essence/energy distinction within God. So often the criticism of the Latin rite is criticizing something they have no category to even describe or believe. The fact is, that the Orthodox have a more fully developed doctrine of the Trinity with their essence/energy distinction. It is not necessarily at odds with the Catholic (Latin rite) doctrine, it is just saying thing the Latin rite has left to mystery, simply affirming the unity of God. The Orthodox doctrine says more than the Catholic doctrine, and the Catholic Church is a-ok with that! Catholics just don’t want to be forced to adopt a tradition they do not share without a council or some discussion. And honestly, many Catholics have some reasonable reservations about the essence/energies distinction. Nevertheless, officially, the Catholic Magisterium does not see these differences as something which prevents reunion. Nor does it see a lack of specifics concerning the purgatorial state a barrier. The traditions are not necessarily at odds, they just have different emphases. The Church, even before the schism, has always had different groups within the Church give different emphasis on doctrines and which have different traditions (small t) within the Church, or different schools of theology. What I have found, and something which Timothy Flanders says well, is that Orthodox often want to tell Catholics what the Catholic tradition is and should be. (I am assuming you have read Timothy’s great article on Devin’s blog? http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/11/26/an-eastern-orthodox-christian-looks-west/) But if a Catholic says that the doctrine of aerial tollhouses is compatible with what he means by purgatory, or that he sees no contradiction with Catholic doctrine with the essence/energy distinction, but prefers to leave more mystery, I think Orthodox should give the benefit of the doubt.

“The fact is, that in matters of ecumenical dialogue, talk of reaching consensus and points of agreement only serves to mask the very real theological differences that separate the Orthodox Churches from Roman Catholicism.”

This saddens me and I couldn’t disagree more! In matters of ecumenical dialogue, talk of reaching consensus and points of agreement… in the Truth, should be what we are constantly doing! Not only between Catholic and Orthodox, but between Christians and non-Christians as well. This “talk of reaching consensus” does not by necessity mask anything. If he truly believes the Orthodox Church to be the true Church, which he no doubt does, how will he ever bring that truth to others who disagree if he does not try to reach a consensus with them? I am always puzzled when I hear this statement from Orthodox. I see it as a straw man view of ecumenism. There is good and bad ecumenism, the bad one wants agreement and unity without unity in the truth. The good kind wants unity and consensus in the truth. This does not “mask” anything.

I must be more of a Catholic partisan than I thought, my appologies for that. because I was pretty frustrated by that Ancient Faith article. Almost every sentence I was saying “wait a minute, that’s not true”. One thing is for sure, I am not the best person to give a full defense of Catholic ecclesiology. And I certainly am no scholar. So I will just touch on a few points that really stood out and make a general comment as well.

First the general comment: Many things he said about Catholic ecclesiology a Catholic would not agree with, or would certainly want stated in a different way, or with more nuance. I will give one example for the sake of brevity:

“…Roman Catholics, however, use the term [catholic] to mean the universal Church, which to their minds, is the Church, proper.”

No, that is not true. As I am accustomed to saying to Protestants, “It is both/and, not either/or”. Catholics also believe what he says, interpreting St. Ignatius as saying “when the people of God gather around their bishop in the same place to celebrate the Eucharist, there is the Catholic Church. There is Christ in all of his fullness. Nothing is lacking.”

Catholics fully believe this! My Archbishop, who sits on the chair (cathedra) in the Cathedral of St. Paul, is the “the image of the father” (as St. Ignatius said) and has the highest office in the Catholic Church, and that where he is, with his priests and deacons and his Eucharist, that there is the Church in its fullness. Nothing is lacking, and if the rest of the world suddenly were destroyed, nothing would be lacking in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis to call it the Catholic Church. Not even the pope. Oh, sure, Archbishop Nienstedt would then become the pope, but the pope is just a bishop.

And even as Clarck rightly points out in the article, Orthodox absolutely have a hierarchy of bishops (Bishop, Metropolitan, Patriarch) while at the same time the level of Holy Orders is the same for each*. In a similar way, Catholic hierarchy sees all bishops with equal authority, yet some have different functions based on the prominence of their diocese. I want to ask the author: If it is good for the Orthodox why is it bad for the Catholics? If, for the Orthodox, only a Metropolitan or Patriarch can do certain things within the government of the church, why is that wrong for Catholics? Nevertheless, my main point here is that I think he misstates the Catholic position. And calling our view of the papacy blasphemous is inflammatory. For Catholics, the term “Church” must include both what St. Ignatius says about the local Church, but also the universal “Church” in terms of individual “Churches” who are in communion with each other. The difference is that instead of merely one group of reference points which supposedly determine the “whole”, Catholics have that but also a single reference point which all others must be in communion with. This is very consistent with the fathers of the Church view of the apostolic see. It does not trump the unity of the episcopal college, but it must be present to have such a “whole” or “catholic” unity.

And if the Orthodox do not think in terms of this second “universal” church, as Clark implies, then why do they refer to themselves as “THE Orthodox Church”? I think the Orthodox have a very healthy understanding of a hierarchy of Bishops while at the same time, having no hierarchy. They both are true at the same time, it just depends on what we are talking about. And the Catholic ecclesiology is no different in that respect. Bishops of greater sees can depose or excommunicate those of lesser sees, call councils, vet and approve decisions, and all sorts of things, all while being of the same, (highest office) rank of “Bishop” in another sense. An Orthodox bishop and an Orthodox “Patriarch” are of the same office and are the source of the same Eucharist. Yet they have different authority in matters of Church governance. So if this is a wrong form of ecclesiology for the Catholics, then it should be for the Orthodox as well.



As far as his take on St. Cyprian, I completely disagree with his take. Let me suffice by encouraging you to read this article by Bryan Cross. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/09/st-cyprian-on-the-unity-of-the-church/

If you haven’t already, I highly recommend checking out Called to Communion. Particularly Bryan Cross. You can even email him privately, and I know he will respond, but feel free to leave comments on old posts and he will respond. I am no theologian! So things I say in this email will be less accurate and far less helpful than someone like Bryan Cross. Honestly, even just emailing or commenting to him with a short list of your top questions, you will not regret it. He will give you the authentic, best elucidated take on things from the Catholic point of view, and in a totally polite way. If you end up not being convinced by the Catholic arguments, please make sure that they are the best arguments--- and that they are arguments made by knowledgeable Catholics, not Orhtodox/Protestant glosses of those doctrines. By all means, read the glosses, but ask a Catholic like Cross “is this what Catholics believe? Or is there something missing?” At least then you can know you are making a totally imformed choice.

One more personal addition to this already long letter. When I found myself up my epistemic creek looking for a paddle, I happened to be looking at all the articles on Called to Communion. So obviously the Catholic take on theings was strongly presented. I knew I needed some balance. So I personally corresponded with Keith Mathison for a while. If you havent heard of him, look him up. But he has the cutting edge Reformed book on sola Scriptura, and is quite qualified to defend the solas. I knew that if he couldn’t defend sola Scriptura, no one could. Of course I also read many books (written by Protestants) on sola Scriptura. This gave me confidence in future decisions knowing I had gone to the best sources. I also did this with Orthodoxy. I read Orthodox literature and talked with Orthodox folks. But again, I am no scholar. The best I can give you is a fireside chat type of discussion/testimony with most likely weak and self-serving proofs. Bryan Cross can cut through the BS and get to the root of stuff. I cannot recommend him enough.

Sorry for the long letter again, peace to you and yours!

*Or perhaps not, because he says a single Orthodox bishop cannot ordain? I didn’t realize the Orthodox believed that. My mind immediately raced to think of what a bishop is lacking in order to ordain? Catholics certainly do not believe that more than one bishop is needed to ordain.

Militant Fecundity

The Duggar Family

"I am not convinced that we are in any very meaningful sense in the midst of a “culture war”; I think it might at best be described as a fracas. I do not say that such a war would not be worth waging. Yet most of us have already unconsciously surrendered to the more
insidious aspects of modernity long before we even contemplate drawing our swords from their scabbards and inspecting them for rust. This is not to say that there are no practical measures for those who wish in earnest for the battle to be joined: homeschooling or private “trivium” academies; the disposal or locking away of televisions; prohibitions on video games and popular music; Greek and Latin; great books; remote places; archaic enthusiasms. It is generally wise to seek to be separate, to be in the world but not of it, to be no more engaged with modernity than were the ancient Christians with the culture of pagan antiquity; and wise also to cultivate in our hearts a generous hatred toward the secular order, and a charitable contempt. Probably the most subversive and effective strategy we might undertake would be one of militant fecundity: abundant, relentless, exuberant, and defiant childbearing. Given the reluctance of modern men and women to be fruitful and multiply, it would not be difficult, surely, for the devout to accomplish — in no more than a generation or two — a demographic revolution. Such a course is quite radical, admittedly, and contrary to the spirit of the age, but that is rather the point, after all. It would mean often forgoing certain material advantages, and forfeiting a great deal of our leisure; it would often prove difficult to sustain a two-career family or to be certain of a lavish retirement. But if it is a war we want, we should not recoil from sacrifice...."

David B. Hart is an Eastern Orthodox theologian

This guy reads like a modern Chesterton. Read the rest here.

Guess what this map is showing...

This is a map of the greater Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area here in Minnesota. The top left light colored blip is St. Cloud, the huge blip is the Twin Cities, with Mankato down in the bottom left. Take a moment and try to guess what the light and dark colors represent.

...........

................

Did you guess population? Well, I can't blame you for that very good guess, and to be fair, if I overlaid a population map, it would look almost identical. So what do the colors represent?

They represent the level of degeneracy/sanity. Let me explain. We recently had a question on our ballot on whether to add a statement in our state constitution affirming that marriage as recognized by the state is between one man and one woman. Pretty simple right?

The amendment did not pass.

You see, the light colored areas apparently think marriage is an arangement that people define for themselves and their spouse, who apparently can be of the same sex, or a chimp, or 3 spouses, hell, why not a man and three chimps -who am I to decide- right!? Wrong. These people are insane. I just don't get it. When a culture looses its desire to live, and starts lying to itself on this grand of a scale, it can't last long.  

But what mystifies me is where these people live. They live in the higher populated areas. And not just the huge cities. Even my little town of Rockford, which is just a few thousand souls (which you can see on the map as the light colored blip in the south-east side of Wright county) had a below 50% "yes" vote. I am so ashamed of my town. But why oh why is every blip -big or small- of population so deranged? Every little hamlet I could think of, when I zoomed in on it is a lighter shade than the surrounding countryside. Is there something about living in proximity to other humans that makes us desire our own cultural destruction through gay marriage?

Lord, have mercy on us.

                                       

Orthodox Catholic Reunion: What will it NOT take?



Pope Benedict XVI and Eccumenical Patriarch Bartholomew



Chart of World Religions based on my own research

 In the chart above look at the grey blob at the top. Catholicism will not be reaching unity with Protestantism any time soon simply because there is no single Protestantism, and it continues to divide like a cancer cell. But what about Orthodoxy? They are true Churches in Catholic eyes, with all 7 sacraments being valid, and compared with other Christian groups they have rock solid unity. A unified "Cathodox" Church would be a great witness to the world, and would unite the 2 main Christian groups (51% Catholic + 11% Orthodox = 62%) into a true majority of Christians. But isnt there a lot that hold us back from unity?

In this post, I dont want to focus on what we need to agree on for unity to take place. I think the two biggest items on that list are obviously going to take time and effort to work through. The question I think is helpful before getting to the "big 2" is this:

What will it not take to achieve unity?

In other words: All else being equal, will my pet issue prevent unity? One thing is for sure: It should not take agreement about beards to achieve unity. Yet believe it or not I have seen this argued about as a reason for continued separation. A "sign" of where the true Church is that Latin's trend toward no beards and Orthodox have them. Stupid, silly, ridiculous, bad reasoning, which completely ignores the Maronites and other "bearded" Eastern Catholics. We need to get beyond it.

A few weeks ago I was chatting with an Orthodox co-worker. Let's call him "Nicholas" (And lest you think I am stereotyping, that really is his name!). For background, we are both "devout" in our respective traditions. I take my Catholicism deadly serious, as he does Orthodoxy. Although it is also his familys heritage, it is not merely that for him. He really cares about his faith. So our discussion gets around to distinctives of our respective "teams". Incorruptible saints bodies, quantity and types of saints, Holy Fire shooting from the Holy Sepulchre, marrying priests, monastic life, beards, ethnicity, nationalism, calendar differences, the Rosary, etc, etc.

After quite a bit of that sort of back and forth (quite congenial I might add), I was struck with the realization that we never quite got around to discussing Papal Primacy or the Filioque. As someone who is very interested in reunion between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, I always find this situation somewhat depressing. It seems comparable to a troubled couple going to marriage counselling and on the top of the list of crucial discussion topics for potential reunion is:

#1. Toothpaste tubes: Rolling or Squeezing?
#2. Toilet seat: To leave up or put down.
#3. Which is better: Mexican food or Thai food?

DUN DUN DUUUUN!

Misses the point eh? Perhaps instead of focusing on this meaningless stuff getting down to the real issues would be nice? Okay, so how to do that? I propose first using this same "non-issue" list as a starting point in narrowing the discussion. The guiding principle should be this:

If issue X were the last issue on the table would it prevent reunion? And if not, forget discussing it.

In other words, if the issues of papal primacy and filioque were resolved, and whatever else is deemed crucial to either side, and all that was left is issue X (beards for instance), would that issue prevent reunion? If the answer is "no", then please for goodness sake, let's ignore that issue from the get-go. So I propose we come up with a list which gives the many worthless, go-nowhere debates that would not and do not needfully separate Catholics and Orthodox. Keep in mind that some of these are worth discussing, and some are even fairly important, but they don't rise to the level of something that separates us from being in full communion with each other.

I would start the list thusly:

THINGS ORTHODOX AND CATHOLICS DO NOT NEED TO AGREE ON FOR REUNION:
#1. Beards. Get over it. No sane Jesus loving Christian would prevent reuinion because of such a triviality.
#2. Celibate priests. This is not a matter of dogma for Catholics, but merely the practice of the latin rite and not even the eastern rite Catholics such as the Maronites. And Orthodoxy would not need to change to accept this practice, they would merely need to allow some (latin rite) Catholics to continue this practice. And the fact that Orthodox priests may not remary, and that their bishops may not be married shows that they understand the latin reasoning to a degree, and should be able to respect and tolerate the Latin Rite on this discipline.
#3. Charisms of religious orders. Some Orthodox criticize Catholic piety for having different religious orders with different callings, unlike the Orthodox who have a more singular vision of what religious life should be like.
#4. Leavened or unleavened bread.
#5. Statues in the round vs. icons only.
#6. Different types of miracles. (Orthodox saints do not have stigmata, while some other miracles seem to only happen to Orthodox or Eastern Catholic saints, such as miracles of uncreated light appearing). Either way, let's agree that we both have holy ones who have miracles, and not disrespect the other side for it's differences.
#7. Differences of devotional practices. This one actually get's me steamed up a little. I have heard Catholics roundly criticized by Orthodox for praying the Rosary or Stations of the Cross. Generally the critique is that prayer focusing on events is not spiritual enough, and the Orthodox are soooo much more spiritual in how they pray. This kind of attitude is toxic for everyone who touches it. Both sides have deep histories of very intense types of prayer, and getting into a spitting contest here is just petty. In defence of the Orthodox critics on this topic, I have often found that they have wrong information about Catholic practices anyway.
#8. Calendar issues. Fact: There are three calendars in use among Orthodox churches who are in communion with each other: Julian, Revised Julian, and Gregorian. This fact should be the end of the discussion if this issue is brought up in the context of reunion. It is currently a controversy in Orthodoxy, and it can continue to be a controversy in a reunited Chruch.
#9. Orthodox crabbing about "proselysing" in "their lands". Give me a break. If I, as a Catholic, lived in a majority Orthodox country (in Eastern Europe or Russia), I would need to go to a Church in communion with the pope. It is as simple as that. The presense of Catholic Churches in these areas is totally legit, and Orthodox need to get over it. Was the way they got there in some cases not a good way? Perhaps. But the fact is that Catholics who wish to recieve the Eucharist from priests in communion with the Apostolic See need somewhere to go. And the fact that Orthodox have churches in America and elsewhere shows that they do the same thing the Catholics have done, yet the Catholics don't gripe one bit about it. I am just fine with there being an Orthodox diocese in my area. Let's each make our case and let people decide which team is right.
These a just a few things that it will not take to achieve unity. Unfortunaltely, that are often the ones most discussed as if they really are an impediment to unity. Anyone have any other items to add to the list?

The Medieval Mind

The medieval mind is awesome. And personally I would say that humanity is on the slow slide downward since the 13th century. Look at our culture, be it architecture, theology, morality, music, literature, and even science (yes I went there), and a very good case can be made that humanity has not outdone the Middle Ages. In fact, in the case of architecture, I think it is not even up for debate. Shall I compare Chartres Cathedral to the signature architecture of today, which would have to be a Wal-Mart building, or the big box mega-church auditorium?  We should be ashamed. Compare the following images and ask yourself where the focus is, and what kind of mind created each worship space.



Inside the Medieval mind.
Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres, France, completed in 1250AD.




Inside the Modern mind.
Lakewood Church and zombie thunderdome, Houston, TX. Completed... who cares.



    

On a personal level, I love the era because I *get* their thinking better than 21st century thinking. I did a bit of reading today in Religious art in France, XIII century: a study in mediaeval iconography and its Sources of Inspiration by Émile Mâle (Which you can read online for free btw). It is a fascinating peek into the medieval mind, to whom, to sum up the intro to the book, the whole world is a symbol. Here is a excerpt with my bolded emphasis:

The author of the Bestiary, whoever he may have been, must have drawn largely on his imagination. The traditional symbolism founded on the Bible gave him little help, for the animals of the Physiologus are fabulous monsters like the griffin, the phoenix and the unicorn, or animals of India unknown to the Old Testament, and he had of necessity to invent most of the moral interpretations accompanying his descriptions of animals. His symbolism was accounted none the less excellent, and was accepted without criticism through the Middle Ages. It occurred to no one, moreover, to verify the accuracy of stories in the bestiary. In the Middle Ages the idea of a thing which a man framed for himself was always more real to him than the actual thing itself, and we see why these mystical centuries had no conception of what men now call science. The study of things for their own sake held no meaning for the thoughtful man. How could it be otherwise when the universe was conceived as an utterance of the Word of which every created thing was a single word? The task of the student of nature was to discern the eternal truth that God would have each thing to express, and to find in each creature an adumbration of the drama of the Fall and the Redemption. Even Roger Bacon, the most scientific spirit of the thirteenth century, after describing the seven coverings of the eye, concluded that by such means God had willed to express in our bodies an image of the seven gifts of the spirit.





I think there is profound wisdom here that has been lost. We sure don't see the world this way anymore. If there is anything our age will be known for once it has passed from the earth, it will not be our search for meaning in the universe. Oh sure, we might be able to describe (to some degree)  how the physics how light is both particle and wave, or how Kryptonite has so many and such electrons in its valence field, but who cares? What we as humans long to know is why. And we long to know what the creator is telling us through His creation. And that longing is something modern "science" laughs to scorn.

At the foot of one of the side altars at the front of my Church is a pelican tearing at its chest so as to feed its blood to its brood gathered around. Something like this:

The modern mind looks at this and laughs, because of course we now know pelicans don't actually do this in the wild, like the silly medievals thought, so we have really advanced from the old superstitions they were beholden to.

But the medieval mind doesn't care if the fable is true or not, -the modern mind has missed the entire point- and in their "wisdom" has become as fools. Because the whole world is a symbol, we should see the pelicans action pointing us to Christ, who feeds us with his blood, which he says is real drink indeed (Jn. 6:55). Does it matter that a phoenix may not have existed? If you think it does, then you are a fool. You have missed a beautiful lesson about the Resurrection. And what I find ironic is that modern science has found these animals*, yet modern man ignores their significance. 

The difference is not one of scientific ability, as modern men might think, but it is one of philosophy, and specifically teleology (purpose). If medeival people had cared to know for sure if gryphons or unicorns or the pelican story were real, they could have easily examined the question. But for them it would be a worthless question. Because whether the pelican feeds its young of its own blood or not is not what matters. What maters is that Christ feeds us, and that the creation itself speaks of this feeding if we would just pay attention. What a wonderful world God has placed us in if we would only humbly look.

*Off the top of my head, I think of frogs who bury themselves in mud and are dead in a kind of hybernation, then when rain comes they come alive ala the phoenix. Or the many animals who sacrifice their life for their young, often even giving their own body as food, as Christ does for us.

Yet Another Reformed Bigshot Renounces the Reformation

The tide is turning... (cue Lord of the Rings type ominous music)

The Church, as She always has done, is winning... (slow-mo shot of pope offering the Eucharist at mass) 

As the cobbled together raft of Evangelicalism sinks before our eyes, with vapid emergentism on the starboard, and Purpose Drivel Life on the port, with wide-eyed, happy clappy Pentecostalism and every-man-a-pope fundamentalism filling the hold, Reformed Theology seems to beckon as the solid, traditional refuge from the theological anarchy engulfing global Protestantism. The problem for Reformed theology is, that when you give people an inch of authentic tradition, they will take a mile. And that mile means becomming Catholic or Orthodox.

Jason Stellman, who PCA and Reformed types will know as the prosecutor of the Peter Leithart heresy trial, and as a young up-and-comer in the Reformed world, has entered into full communion with the Catholic Church. Please read his brief article on Called to Communion titled "I fought the Church and the Church Won". (man, that is a clever title!).

I will try not to be triumphalistic here...

It is really hard not to. Bear with me...

WOOOO HOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

Ok thanks for letting me do that.




 

This guy looks like a cool cat. I would love to share a hookah and some scotch with him.

Perhaps read some poetry or talk about how the new Star Wars movies suck.

 As a former PCA guy, let me just say that it gives me a lot of comfort to know that all these smart guys are coming over to the Church. I mean, I would still be here if they didn't keep coming, but seeing them come, and reading their arguments and reasoning for their choice really bring me much peace about my decision. I find it so fascinating that his crucial "breaking point" issue was Sola Fide. Mine was Sola Scriptura, and for him S.S. was important too, but the lack of biblical and historical evidence for forensic imputation (which is what sola fide boils down to in it's essence) seems to be what really did it for him. Is the dunghill still dungy yet covered with snow? Or does God transform the dung into snow? That is the Protestant/Catholic paradigm difference in a nutshell, and unfortunately for the Protestant position, scripture and history know nothing of forensic imputation. Facts is facts.
This man is giving up his pastorate (his job), and really has nothing worldly to gain by this choice. Much of his Reformed schooling will be of little employment value now. He has a wife and kids. You got to respect a man willing to give everything to follow Christ.

So please pray for him, and Catholics reading could offer their next mass intention for him.