LENTEN MEDITATION - Day XXIII — The Solar Eclipse

 

 

Dear Parish Faithful,

"And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night."  (Gen. 1:16)

“There was no sound. The eyes dried, the arteries drained, the lungs hushed. There was no world.”  — Annie Dillard, describing her experience of the 1979 eclipse from a vantage point in central Washington State

"Most of our communal enthusiasms these days are human-made: the Oscars, the Super Bowl, the election, the new Beyoncé album. A total solar eclipse is a product of the natural world. It happens without elaborate stagecraft, without any outlay of capital. For this reason alone, it’s a rare occurrence. And there won’t be another in the United States until 2044."  — Melissa Kirsch of the NY Times

The current fascination - if not obsession - with yesterday's total solar eclipse is in itself a very interesting phenomenon. One issue, at least, is the question of motivation: What was behind the movement of an untold number of people all through Mexico and North America who did everything in their power to see as much of the eclipse as possible? Perhaps some of you traveled further north yesterday for that even more "total experience." As to motivation, we have astronomers/scientists, of both the actual and the "backyard" variety, who "live" for such moments. I can only imagine their mounting anticipation in the closing hours of the countdown. And I can only hope that their expectations were met, if not perhaps surpassed. There are countless human beings who are drawn to any and all of the different phenomena in the world of nature, both terrestrial and in the heavens above. Because of how rare it is, a total eclipse is then an event awaited for with great excitement. 

Then, there are theistic persons who are awed by God's omnipotent authority over the cosmos; and who desire to always glorify the "the Maker of heaven and earth and of all things both visible and invisible." The eclipse could have accentuated that impulse toward the glorification of God. Or, there are "religious" people who are determined to find a foreboding "sign" in the eclipse, even if it means embracing wild and baseless apocalyptic speculation, usually of the "doomsday" variety, and based on an offensive misappropriation of the Scriptures. And then, there are the countless multitudes drawn to the eclipse out of a curiosity to witness and participate with others in a rare spectacle drawing us closer for a few precious minutes in a communal experience - mingling shoulder-to-shoulder with our political and cultural rivals as we share a rare moment of peaceful co-existence as members of the human race! I was probably somewhere in that particular mix.

I stood outside the house with Presvytera Deborah and with neighbors up and down the block gazing upward with our solar eclipse glasses protecting us from the power of the sun. In fact, and perhaps strangely, I was equally impressed by just how light it still remained even though about 98% of the sun was covered by the moon here in Cincinnati. What a powerful source of light and energy! There is some real logic to the "solar worship" of days gone by. It was the cult of sol invictus that drew the Emperor Constantine toward monotheism and even the Christian revelation in the fourth century. And then it was over and we returned to the house and the mundane events of a typical day. All-in-all, a bit anti-climatic, but then again we did not witness the effect of a total eclipse and the surreal effect of total darkness for a few minutes in the middle of the day. The images that I later saw were quite impressive. Is that what Annie Dillard was describing in the passage above? And perhaps was that your experience? 

Doing a bit of follow-up reading on the subject, I came across a few voices that expressed some of the motivation and anticipation to behold the eclipse. In one article, I heard the voice of someone called Ali. She said the following: “I’m not a spiritual person. I don’t usually think about the bigger picture of what we’re swimming in. But I felt that at the eclipse. I had a sense that I’m this one person in this huge thing.” Ali further added: “Sometimes, the things that we’re not in control of are really beautiful. It’s not just bad things.” To use an astronomical term, that just may be appropriate in this context, was Ali and countless "non-spiritual" observers of the total eclipse somehow "orbiting" around the notion of a cosmos of not just intrinsic beauty, but of "something" purposeful, structured and designed? Were they longing for something or "Someone" that they cannot quite find the words for, but Who remains paradoxically present in His perceived absence? 

Just what is the "bigger picture?" Or, just what are we "swimming in?" I am hoping that it is not a hauntingly beautiful, but yet empty cosmos utterly devoid of any transcendent presence. Not to crash the party, but without God, I cannot but wonder what anything is really "about," including cosmic phenomena. Random beauty can both attract, but also evoke a certain dread on another, more intuitive level - the level of meaning. I am certainly not denying the meaningfulness of any distinct person's experience of the eclipse regardless of their worldview. And that would include the older man I saw briefly on the television who could not speak because he was weeping so hard when interviewed about what he witnessed. But on a day on which we literally looked up from our earthbound concerns, I think that many of us cannot but turn our minds to the "God question." Is everything around us - on earth below or in the heavens above - God-sourced or self-sourced?

At every Vespers service, when singing or chanting Psalm 104, we glorify our Creator for the magnificence and abundance of His creation: "Thou hast made the moon to mark the seasons, the sun knows its time for setting." (v.19) These two great "lights" are God's handiwork, effortlessly brought into existence by God's uttered Word and perfected by God's Spirit. These two lights were brought to our attention yesterday, and regardless of how momentarily, I do hope that it evoked a sense of awe from our limited vantage point. Or, perhaps we can simply say, together with Mireya Munez of Mexico: “I wanted to thank God because we are alive and He allowed us to see it,” she said. “I hope to be alive to see the next one, too.”

O LORD, how manifold are Thy works! In wisdom has thou made them all. (v. 24)

Fr. Steven

Upholding the 'Fundamentals', versus being 'Fundamentalists'

Dear Parish Faithful,

"Scientism on the one hand and well-meaning but naive religious fundamentalism on the other have hardened in recent years so as to widen the gap that exists between the two domains."

- Fr. John Breck, Beyond These Horizons - Quantum Theory and Christian Faith

 

During the post-Liturgy discussion on Sunday, when presenting a brief description of Fr. John Breck's new book from which the quotation above is taken, I was emphatic in saying that we Orthodox are not fundamentalists. I hold that position very strongly. However, I would like to just briefly discuss the terminology that we use today so as to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding as to what I was trying to get at. And this confusion can arise when we use, rather interchangeably, such words as "fundamental," "fundamentalist," and "fundamentalism." 

 

The word "fundamentalism" refers to a strong reaction and rejection, usually in consistently black and white terms, of any contemporary movements that challenge a received tradition, or simply a long-standing understanding of a faith's core beliefs/doctrines. This strong reaction is against what is loosely called "modernism," which usually stands for a critique or challenge to traditional teaching. 

 

Protestant fundamentalism arose in the early 20th c. precisely against "modernist" trends - often based on new scientific evidence or new critical apparatus that challenged the veracity or claims of what was believed to be the correct interpretation of the Bible (as mainline Protestantism understood it).  Science and the the emerging popularization of the "theory of evolution" were clearly, but not exclusively, a part of this dispute, captured above in the words of Fr. John. What seemed to be at stake was the "literal" truth of biblical revelation.  Avoiding that difficult topic for the moment, I am simply pointing out that the movement we now call Protestant fundamentalism arose as a protest against modernism. In other words, these Protestants wanted to affirm the "fundamental" doctrines of the Bible which they were certain were being challenged, if not dismantled. However, this also led to what is now a more-or-less exclusively "literal" understanding of Scripture from "in the beginning" to the end.

As Orthodox Christians, no matter how we may differ from Protestant fundamentalists, we too affirm the basic or "fundamental" doctrines of the Christian revelation - the Holy Trinity, the divinity of Christ, God as Creator, the deifying energy of the Holy Spirit, the Mysteries/Sacraments of the Church, to name perhaps the most core doctrines. (The Church knew, taught and proclaimed these "fundamental"doctrines well before Protestantism began to exist!). So, we can certainly employ the term "fundamental(s)" on that level.  

 

However, as Orthodox, we do not have a "fundamentalist" mindset, characterized by an almost slavish commitment to the "literal" meaning of the Scriptures. That is far too narrow and lacking in insight and inspired creativity. Though the Fathers accepted the "literal" meaning of a given biblical text, their simultaneous use of biblical typology and allegory point way beyond the approach of "fundamentalism." With the ongoing discovery of new "facts," be it from the discipline of biblical scholarship or science, the literalist approach keeps being driven into a corner from which it cannot honestly emerge intact. This type of fundamentalism severely undermines the credibility of Christianity. 

 

Of course, regardless of any attacks on the "fundamental" doctrines of our Faith as listed above, we steadfastly defend those doctrines with all our intellectual and spiritual energy, often quite brilliantly. But we cannot do that if we escape into a literalist fantasy imposed upon the Bible that fears any new discoveries. I do believe that there is an element of fear that drives fundamentalism: If the biblical text is not "literally" true in just about any instance, then it simply loses it claim to reveal Truth.

Thus, when I emphatically insisted that we, as Orthodox, are not fundamentalists, I was referring to the spirit of the reactionary movement that we now call Protestant fundamentalism dating back to the early 20th c. If that type of fundamentalism enters into the Orthodox Church from outside it will undermine our credibility and stifle our longstanding and profound theological legacy. I do affirm that we uphold the "fundamental" doctrines of the Church "fearlessly," if I may put it that way. Perhaps clarifying such words as "fundamental," "fundamentalist," and "fundamentalism" can be helpful for our own self-understanding as Orthodox Christians.

Appendix

Fr. John and I have been corresponding about this issue. In a recent email he offered a fine summary of how we approach biblical exegesis, respecting the "literal" meaning - i.e. "history" - but also going beyond it.  He offers some important insights beyond which I wrote about above. I am therefore sharing what he wrote as an appendix to my own reflections:

Allegory and typology began with the "literal" sense of the Scriptures ("what the biblical author intended").  But those methodologies presupposed that there is a "higher" meaning than the literal.  The "symbolic" or "spiritual" aspect of biblical writings leads above and beyond the literal, as much as prayer leads us beyond self-centered "reflection."  A basic patristic hermeneutic principle states that "the spiritual sense flows forth from the literal sense."  We need to begin with the literal sense — i.e., with *history.  

 

* But history is merely a framework in which God works out the divine "economy" which by its very nature leads us beyond the empirical and draws us into the transcendent.  If this were not the case, Scripture would be nothing more than an outdated history book, and thus a dead letter.

I tried to deal with this in several places, the most accessible being, I suppose, the first section of the book Longing for God.  If any parishioners are really interested in the layers of meaning in the Bible, that might be a helpful place to begin.

 

 

 

Books to Deepen our Faith

Dear Parish Faithful,

At the Liturgy yesterday, the homily focused on one of the great Church Fathers, St, Ignatius of Antioch (+ c. 110). My purpose was to remind everyone of a homily preached back in July about the Church Fathers and my challenge then to everyone to choose the work of one of the Church Fathers and read it before the end of the year. I brought up St. Ignatius as one example among many together with his famous Seven Epistles. And during the post-liturgy discussion, I promoted the Popular Patristic Series from SVS Press. This series has now reached 50 volumes and counting. This is an outstanding resource that would give you an excellent collection to choose from. Therefore, I have provided a link to the Popular Patristic Series on the SVS Press website. 

https://svspress.com/categories/Popular-Patristics-Series/

I further promoted two more books, both dealing with the crucial and very contemporary issue of how science and religion can coexist and mutually support each other. Of course, there is a "dark side" to this relationship in which mutual and bitter conflict seem to be inescapable. Militant atheists have nothing but disdain for God and "religion" and they do not hesitate to "preach" this to a broad reading public ad nauseam. This is more scientism than science. On the other hand, defensive positions by "religious" people who do not trust the scientific community find strength in what is now being called "fundamentalism," a more-or-less literal interpretation of Scriptures. These both seem like close-minded systems of thought.

The two books I promoted present an open attitude to theology and science and understand them to be compatible within their spheres of competence and investigation. Their respective authors are Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and Fr. John Breck, two of the most prominent Orthodox theologians writing today.

I was surrounded by a large group of parishioners yesterday following the post-Liturgy discussion who were eager to get more information  of the two books I briefly presented. Many got out their phones are were taking pictures of the respective book covers  presumably in order to do some potential purchasing and reading. I further discovered this morning email requests from other parishioners for more information about these books.I have therefore provided two more links for your convenience. 

The first book is Met. Kallistos' Religion, Science & Technology - An Eastern Orthodox Perspective. The content of this short book is very accessible:

https://www.amazon.com/Religion-Science-Technology-Orthodox-Perspective/dp/1741282632/

Fr. John Breck's book Beyond These Horizons - Quantum Theory and Christian Faith is quite challenging on the level of content. But a careful and patient reading (and perhaps multiple re-readings)  can be deeply enlightening and rewarding. If you want to find a "lay" introduction to Fermions and Quarks and how they can possibly relate to God, then this book will do precisely that:

http://www.sebastianpress.org/product-p/sp-bk-ca-2019-002.htm

Science and Faith, and 'Pointers' in the vast Cosmos

Dear Parish Faithful,


"The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork" (Psalm 19)

Yesterday evening I attended a lecture entitled "Our Amazing Universe." It was delivered by Dr. Jennifer Wiseman, who studied physics at MIT and earned a Ph.D. in astronomy from Harvard University. In addition she has continued her research as Hubble Fellow at The John Hopkins University. Very impressive credentials! To use a misused term, I am a "layman" when it comes to astronomy, though this is clearly a fascinating and essential scientific discipline. I would like to simply offer a short summary of a wonderful presentation that captivated a large audience of at least five hundred participants or more.

In the first part of the lecture, we were treated to a computer-generated slide show (on two large mounted wall screens) of some incredible images of the universe, including galaxies, clusters of stars, nebulae, super novae, and the more familiar planets of our own solar system. Dr. Wiseman informed us of the continuing research into the vast dimensions of the universe made possible by the technology of ever-more powerful and sophisticated telescopes. What I was ignorant of is the fact the Hubble telescope circles the earth every ninety minutes! Some of these telescopes are placed above the earth's atmosphere, thus allowing for incredibly clear and wide-ranging views of the cosmos. We saw some wonderful images of star clusters that were so thick that the black space in between was not that visible. And the stars were of different colors: red, blue, green and yellow. Our own vision of the sky is very limited because the enormous amount of light from our urban and suburban settings simply reduces our visibility to the moon and a few other stars. We are missing a lot! One of her points was to impress upon us the sheer unfathomable scope of the universe, which holds billions of galaxies comprised of billions of stars, one of which is our own sun, though it itself appeared as a tiny dot on one of the shots of our own Milky Way galaxy. We may know this already, but in the context of her lecture, combined with the amazing images we saw, the effect of those statistics is rather staggering. Or, we should say "awesome."

Dr. Wiseman is a believing Christian - my guess would be something like an Evangelical - so the second part of her lecture was made up of a series of what she called "philosophical and theological" questions and observations. Her first question was: Does the universe seem to make any sense or have any deeper meaning? She was very even-handed in sharing the views of prominent fellow astronomers/scientists. Some argue that it really does not have any deeper meaning beyond its sheer size. Others find it all very meaningful. (One scientist asked: Does the fact that we even ask the question point to the inherent and unavoidable quest for meaning?) 

This raised the further issue of the relationship between science and religion. As a scientist herself, she presented an eloquent defense of how the two - both of which are concerned with discovering "truth," though each discipline a "truth" of a different sort - need to be and can be reconciled. She presented a "two book approach" to this issue of science and religion: the book of nature/science and the book of the Bible are revealing one and the same reality, though different language and thought-forms are used in the process. This sounded very close to something that St. Maximus the Confessor (+662) once wrote. Though he put it something like this: God is revealed in creation, in the Law, and then in the Person of Christ.

Just as my own aside, I believe strongly that we, as Orthodox Christians, cannot ignore this dialogue, and that we need to articulate our own understanding of this relationship, with a clear-headed sobriety about the amazing scope of scientific discovery over the course of the last few centuries. We cannot ignore the discovery that we live on a planet within a universe that is over thirteen billion years old. This allows us the freedom of some exciting and deeply meaningful theological thought. In other words, we cannot abandon the realm of science - and the universe itself - to a one-sided secular mode of thought.

Returning to Dr. Wiseman, once she impressed upon us the vastness of the universe. And how it reveals the power, majesty and awesomeness of God. (Our own Prayer of the Great Blessing of Water formulates this in a rather poetic and archaic form, but the point is well-made). She informed us that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community now unhesitatingly accepts the "Big Bang theory" of the origin of the universe. Atheists, however, are somewhat reluctant in their acceptance, because it points to the idea of a "Creator." Yet, she asked the unavoidable question of our own perceived insignificance within this vast realm. How short is our life in comparison to that of a star! This allowed her to remind us that "ancient man" was perplexed by those same questions, including the author of Psalm 8, whom she thought was a shepherd gazing up into the night sky (with a clearer vision than our own!):

"When I look at the heavens, the work
of thy fingers,
the moon and the stars which thou hast established;
what is man that thou are mindful of him?
and the son of man that thou dost
care for him?"

Bu the psalmist then includes this incredible thought:

"Yet though hast made him little less
than God,
and dost crown him with glory and
honor.
Thou hast given him dominion over
the works of thy hands..."

Dr. Wiseman interpreted this "dominion" as the capability of scientific thought. For regardless of how insignificant we may seem, it is only the human person who can consciously reflect and contemplate the vastness of the cosmos.

And she finally made the connection between the universe and Christ. Quoting the unrivaled Prologue to St. John's Gospel, she reminded us that this vast universe is the creative work of a Person - the divine Word of God through whom the Father brought all things into existence. And then that this divine Person became incarnate - "The Word became flesh." Everything is thus connected to and given meaning in Christ. That, at least, is the "faith perspective" of her lecture. Dr. Wiseman does not believe that science can be used to "prove" the existence of God; but there are "pointers" within the cosmos, revealed in the Scriptures, that can indicate that direction. Archbishop Kallistos Ware makes the same point in The Orthodox Way.

This was a very well-thought out presentation by Dr. Jennifer Wiseman. With clarity and conviction; and yet with her vast array of scientific knowledge clearly present within her soft-spoken and humble demeanor, she led the audience to a deep reflection on the nature of scientific discovery and how that can lead us to Christ.

An evening well spent!

Nothing Like a Good Book, Part 1 - The Idol of Our Age

Dear Parish Faithful,

I would like to share with everyone some brief reviews of the last three books that I have recently read. These books are:

• The Idol of Our Age - How the Religion of Humanity Subverts Christianity  by Daniel J. Mahoney; 
• Political Orthodoxies - The Unorthodoxies  of the Church Coerced by Fr. Cyril Hovorun; 
• and, Fossils and Faith - The Bible, Creation & Evolution by Lester L. Grabbe. 

All three are quite different, yet each in its own way deals with very contemporary issues that are the source of some fierce debates, to understate the issue. The first book is concerned generally with political philosophy; the second with contemporary challenges that our own Orthodox Church is facing; and the third with the relationship between religion and science. Inevitably, all three address the issue of how theology can either impact or interact with contemporary issues, with the implied claim that without a theological perspective, the subjects raised in these books are missing the "big picture."

From within the Church we realize that a theological perspective on any issue - including social, political and cultural issues - provides depth and a wider scope. We are thus able to grasp these themes sub specie aeternitatis  (under the aspect of eternity).

I am not really providing a detailed critical book review, but more of a summary/synopsis that hopefully encapsulates the primary intention and content of the book under consideration. All books have flaws, but my intention is to simply share some of those themes that provided me with new and insightful perspectives, or which made we think in new ways about the given subject, thus making the effort of reading these books more than a little worthwhile.

The first book I would like to cover is The Idol of Our Age - How the Religion of Humanity Subverts Christianity by Daniel J. Mahoney. According to the book jacket blurb, the author "holds the Augustine Chair in Distinguished Scholarship at Assumption College. He is a specialist in French political philosophy, anti-totalitarian thought, and the intersection of religion and politics."

The author offers a trenchant critique of what he calls "the religion of humanity," a term he claims was initially coined by the 19th century positivist philosopher Auguste Comte. This humanitarian can mimic genuine Christianity and even seem to improve upon it, but Mahoney is determined to prove that to be misleading and misguided. The author's approach is quite interesting, because he engages with, and summarizes the thought of other Christian thinkers and how they almost prophetically addressed the issue of the perils of a humanism devoid of God, and thus of a transcendent basis.

The first thinker is someone I have never heard of, and he is Orestes Browning (1803-1876), a 19th century American who converted to Catholicism and who then tried to provide a meaningful political philosophy for America that was deeply informed by his newly-found faith. Mahoney then surveys the deep insights into these issues offered by two Orthodox thinkers: the Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov (1853-1900) and the great Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn (1918 - 2008). Here I am on more familiar ground, and these two respective chapters did justice to the thought of these seminal Russian thinkers.

The chapter on Vladimir Solovyov really caught my attention, for Mahoney summarized and analyzed Solovyov's fascinating work A Short Story of the Antichrist, a work both prophetic and even phantasmagoric and one that I would highly recommend. A further chapter offers a respectful, but critical reading of some of Pope Francis' recent political statements. And there is also an appended chapter that reprints a very prescient essay written in 1944 by another thinker that I never heard of before, a Hungarian political philosopher by the name of Aurel Kolnai. 

Each thinker in his own way discerned that humanism without God is susceptible to degenerating into an inhuman form of totalitarianism, both from the "left" and from the "right." The twentieth century proved them all correct in their prognoses. Communism and Nazism are the two dreadful devolutions of "the religion of humanity" into a barbaric caricature of a political philosophy theoretically claiming to elevate and liberate humanity. (Although I do not recall any high-minded claims being made by the Nazis, whose thirst for naked power, based on blood and soil, was there from its inception). Such is totalitarianism. As Solzhenitsyn reminded us: Humanity has forgotten God - and the consequences can be horrific. Basically, then, though a secular humanism may appear benign on the surface - just one more choice other than a theistic humanism - the problem proves to be within humanity itself when unleashed from a divine source. As Mahoney writes:

"'Humanity', understood as the very best in human beings, becomes the Grand-Etre to be worshipped by limited and fallible men. Comte has forgotten that what is highest in man finds its ultimate source in what is higher than man. Without deference to the Beings, Forms, and Limits that inform and elevate the human will, man risks becoming a monster to himself, enslaved by his own self-deification." (p. 9)

In his concluding chapter, Mahoney writes the following:

"The totalitarian lie radicalized the subjectivism and relativism at the heart of liberal modernity. It did not so much re-enchant the world as empty it of all the resources of faith and reason. Comprehensive relativism, the denial of God and a natural order of things, and not some alleged moral absolutism is at the source of the worst tragedies of the twentieth century." (p. 124)

So, just to offer the slightest "taste" about - or by - some of the insights from these thinkers, I will include a typical passage from some of them or from the author himself.

In the very Introduction to the book, Mahoney addresses one of the central tenets of the religious of humanity's "creed" - free choice - and finds it wanting in moral and ethical seriousness. He writes: 

"The taking of an unborn life is merely a "choice," which is, one assumes, completely beyond good and evil. ... Free choice, autonomous choice, trumps any respect for the directness of human freedom toward natural ends and purposes. A kind of juvenile existentialism, marked more by farce than angst, has become the default position of our age."  (p. 2)

Orestes Browning, in claiming that the Church can only offer "moral authority" to an existing government - for he resisted any form of "clerocracy" or clerical government - stated a very positive form of that idea in the following manner:

"The only influence on the political or governmental actions of the people which we seek from Catholicity, is that which it exerts on the minds, hearts, and the conscience - an influence it exerts by enlightening the mind to see the true end of man, the relative value of all worldly pursuits, by moderating passions, by weaning the affections from the world, inflaming the heart with true charity, and by making each act in all things seriously, honestly, conscientiously." (p. 30)

Summarizing the thought of the Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov, Mahoney writes:

"True Christianity affirms the truth of pagan nature, the Jewish Covenant, and political reason and political civilization. All are allies in the common struggle against ideology or the demonic falsification of the good." (p. 64)

"Humanitarianism subverts human dignity when it identifies our highest aspirations with a peace and prosperity, a godless philanthropy, shorn of any concern for that which transcends humanity and which ultimately grounds our dignity as spiritual beings." (p. 65)

An underlying thesis in Mahoney's critique of the "religion of humanity" is its blindness toward the power of evil. He explores this theme throughout the book, and very much so in his chapter on Alexander Solzhenitsyn. He informs us that Solzhenitsyn, in resisting what he regarded as Tolstoy's naïve pacifism, argued that evil may at times have to be resisted by war. Thus, one of the characters in his sprawling novel, August 1914, the priest Fr. Severyan, argued that there are five evils even worst than war:

"An unjust trial, for instance, that scalds the outraged heart, is viler. Or murder for gain, when the solitary murderer fully understands the implications of what he means to do and all that the victim will suffer at the moment of the crime. Or the ordeal at the hands of a torturer. When you can neither cry out nor fight back nor attempt to defend yourself. Or treachery on the part of someone you trusted. Or mistreatment of widows or orphans. All these things are spiritually dirtier and more terrible than war."

Whatever one's attitude to war - sometimes or never justified - this is a moving passage indeed on the power of evil and the horrible consequences that occur when unleashed and perhaps, we can add, when not resisted.

This is a very rich book, but perhaps that might be sufficient to at least outline some of the main directions of The Idol of Our Age. Daniel Mahoney has thought this through with a refreshing thoroughness in an age in which we encounter "ideas" in various social media forums or on internet sites in such truncated forms as to render them meaningless; or with a desire no greater than to echo the surrounding popular culture which seems impatient with careful and responsible thinking.

As I said above, all books have their flaws, as this book surely has, and one can find areas of disagreement, with some lingering questions or concerns unanswered, but I found this to be an impressive approach to a very timely and essential issue: Will theism in its Christian expression retain its capacity to shape our moral, ethical and spiritual landscape; or will it be subverted by a "religion of humanity" and the moral, ethical and spiritual uncertainties of where that would lead us?

Daniel Mahoney is an unapologetic Christian thinker and he presents a cogent case - supported by other deep Christian thinkers and writers - for our need to remain vigilant about maintaining a Christian identity and corresponding worldview that places us firmly and humbly under the sovereignty and providence of God.

Next Review: Political Orthodoxies by Fr. Cyril Hovorun

Only Wonder Grasps Anything

Dear Parish Faithful,

Recently, I read an article that dealt with the issue of the possible convergence between theology and science.  The specific theme of the article was an analysis of the current Pope's remarks on the compatibility of belief in God and evolution.  Not addressing that specific issue here, I did want to share an interesting metaphor attributed to Albert Einstein on the wonder of the created universe with which the article closed.

"We are like a little child entering a huge library..." — Albert Einstein

"The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe," said Einstein.  " We are like a little child entering a huge library.  The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues.  The child knows that someone must have written these books.  It does not know who or how.  It does not understand the languages in which they were written.  But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books -- a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects."

I could never discern exactly where Einstein stood on the "God question."  Perhaps he was deliberately elusive about this ultimate question.  Yet, a metaphor as the one above, certainly has a theistic ring about it, even though I have read elsewhere that he did not accept the notion of a "personal God."  However, this passage seems to point toward a conscious "Designer."  I certainly read the metaphor in that light, as the author of the article also read it, for which reason he closed his remarks with it.

Be that as it may, Einstein's passage reminds me of something Saint Gregory of Nyssa said back in the 4th century -- Saint Gregory was clearly one of the greatest minds of that era, and well beyond: 

"Concepts create idols,

only wonder grasps anything."

Some of the things said by the Church Fathers are better left to stand without further commentary -- as I believe is true of these words of Saint Gregory -- but rather meditated, reflected and thought over for their deepest meaning.  As denizens of the information age, the question for us may be the following: Is there anything that truly fills us with wonder?  And what good is a mind packed with information but unable to experience a sense of wonder when reflecting upon the seemingly infinite order of created things, both animate and inanimate? 

I am convinced that the Church is the "place" in which we can maintain our sense of wonder to a remarkable degree.  How can it be otherwise when we believe that the very creative Word of God became incarnate as a "little Child," and that after suffering the Cross He was raised from the dead?

  

Fascinating as it is, the question of the "how" of the existence of the universe -- and of our place in it -- is insignificant when compared to the "why" of the existence of the universe.  We believe and we affirm that everything that exists does so because God exists, and the God Who exists is the "Maker of heaven and earth of all things both visible and invisible."