My wife (a cellist) and her classmates in her prestigious music program survived in college by playing in churches like that! She always prayed that the sermons would land on her unbelieving classmates’ ears and stir them to faith. But yes, if you ever find yourself in a mega church like that, and there’s some orchestra on stage playing beautiful music, chances are high that they’re a bunch of atheist music majors gigging for the weekend!
I belong to a Presbyterian Church in America church. Our building is simple, the interior equally so. My orthodox Anglican soul yearns for a little more display, but when in Geneva, etc.
Thank God, we recite the creeds. We have communion every Sunday. And the congregation is the choir, those of them who can sing. ( I have a good musical ear, but as my mother said, I'm always on key, I just can't sing. ) We do have standouts, and those of us whose musical instincts didn't survive the journey to our post pubescent vocal chords are grateful for them.
The funny thing is that there are a bunch of organists who have become Orthodox, and there are (generally) no organs. I had a friend in Chicago who had been his church's organist for years, and even after becoming Orthodox, he'd occasionally fill in when the new regular organist had to miss. He said it was the thing he missed most about the old church.
If you watch Abbot Tryphon, his mother, who converted to Orthodoxy, was an organist, and there were enough "former organists" in her Orthodox parish that they could have applied for membership to some American organist's guild for the parish... *L*
If you read the Huffington Post expose you'll see that Hanania is a Nazi. He's a eugenicist who believes in the US becoming a white ethnostate. He's opposed to race mixing. This guy is a leftist in the American sense in all respects but identifies as right wing because of his "race realism". He's a Nazi, not a John Derbyshire or a Charles Murray. He is what people assume others to be when they say anything about racial differences. I subscribe to a "bell curve" mindset, with differences seen at the far ends yet with overlap that you'd never see in male/female differences. This is why you see Thomas Sowell and Larry Bird, but no female NFL players. It's obvious but the Richard Hananias of the world care so deeply, and in a such unchristian way, that people are rightly repulsed by it. Mind you, in a culture such as ours that is (rightly) hostile towards people like Hanania a whiff of something that smells like it alarms people. This is because for every good natured guy like Andrew Sullivan who brings it up there are 100 Richard Hananias.
Andrew Sullivan is totally odious. As a key player in the gay marriage victory, he's done more damage to the West than an army of Richard Hananias. But good ole Sulley knows how to play the fox in sheep's clothing act to a T. Sullivan is an actual enemy to any self-respecting Christian or traditionalist. Hanania is not; his critiques are more or less legitimate. Since he's just another atheist materialist, his prescriptions are terrible. But at least he's not swinging a sledgehammer at the edifice like Sullivan.
But why do Christians believe homosexuality is sin? Because it hurts others? If kept away from children, just as heterosexual sex should be, it does not hurt others. Well then, why would Christians believe God says it is sin?
I think Christians, and other faiths, believe this because it hurts the practitioner.
A life where your own children with a biological partner are unlikely, and where, for the most part, children won't come along (adoption, surrogacy and for lesbians, insemination, being difficult ways to have children). No real family of your own beyond one person, and we know that one person rarely stays for a lifetime. - - A life where the majority of people who you could desire are off limits, for example, a homosexual male can hope perhaps 3% of males might become his partner, no matter who he might desire. I could go one but you get my point - the reason traditional Christianity still sees sin in homosexuality is that it hurts the practitioner.
(In times of old, homosexuality hurt "the village" because children would not come along, but that is no longer the case.)
I was speaking of Christian tradition, and at the end, said it was the tradition of other faiths. I do not know of milieu outside faiths which say homosexual acts are wrong. I am told - and this may be propaganda - that Native American tribes accepted it. And I am told - though I am also told the extend is exaggerated - that some ancient Greek men had boys with whom it was fine to long as the man was in the dominant sexual position. - -AT any rate, my point is that pagan and "post-religious modern" societies have not cottoned on to the argument from harm. So I associate it with faith.
But you raise an interesting question. If it is harmful, or was harmful in times of old (due to no children, no drugs for sexual disease, etc.) then why did some pre-Christian e.g. pagan societies accept homosexuality.
(You are welcome to say I am wrong and it was anathema everywhere, but I do think I am right about the Greeks, at least.)
Of course you're right about the Greeks. We are already in deep water. I just think Christians can't used consequentialist arguments. They don't work for us.
>>And I am told - though I am also told the extend is exaggerated - that some ancient Greek men had boys with whom it was fine to long as the man was in the dominant sexual position.
Nasty moral system. what about the poor sucker that was in the "submissive" position. The "top" man doesn't lose any respect or esteem in the community but for the other......
The Lakota / Dakota tribes do accept homosexuality: "Wíŋkte is the contraction of an older Lakota word, Winyanktehca, meaning "wants to be like a woman". Winkte are a social category in historical Lakota culture, of male-bodied people who in some cases have adopted the clothing, work, and mannerisms that Lakota culture usually consider feminine. In contemporary Lakota culture, the term is most commonly associated with simply being gay. Both historically and in modern culture, usually winkte are homosexual, though they may or may not consider themselves part of the more mainstream LGBT communities. Some winkte participate in the pan-Indian Two Spirit community. While historical accounts of their status vary widely, most accounts, notably those by other Lakota, see the winkte as regular members of the community, and neither marginalized for their status, nor seen as exceptional."
To add to this, I think it goes against the male-female symbolism of Christ and the Church interacting, i.e., heterosexual union as an icon of the divine relationship between Christ and the Church. And on a practical level, make gay sex tends to be a lot more promiscuous, and is better at spreading diseases, which creates health problems, which tend to spread to women and can infect and seriously harm their offspring. We sometimes forget that sexual moral codes began in a pre-antibiotic and pre-antiviral world. And lastly, when men are allowed to satisfy their lust without risking pregnancy, society loses a lot of child-raising power (i.e., fathers, who contribute within the home and outside the home, to support their children.) That, and in pre-Christian times male rape or other males was apparently pretty common, and I don't think I need to explain why that was considered bad.
I will give the secular answer to those points. I do not say I fully embrace these points, but I do embrace the first two.
(1) "more promiscuous" - this is a separate issue. Promiscuity is wrong. Saying all gay sex, even among relatively faithful men and women, is wrong does not follow.
(2) Almost everyone here will disagree with me, but I am 100 percent certain that people cannot change their sexual orientation. There is incidental homosexuality from those who have been heterosexual at one point (for example, in prison, among women who have been hurt) but the basic orientation does not change. C.S. Lewis agreed with me on this. He believed God had a special calling to celibacy and dedication to God for those with a homosexual orientation.
(3) child-raising, as I mentioned, was important in the village. Here it is a wonderful thing that I would be sad for anyone to miss. But it is OK with me if non-Christians (most, not all, Gay people feel they have to be non-Christian because of the traditional church stance) have fewer children than Christians.
(4) "satisfy their lust without risking pregnancy"....so birth control, with its low risk, is also not OK, not even within marriage? (disclaimer: I know about humanae vitae).
See my other answer to a similar "because God said so" post.
Additionally, I think God is a good father. Sometimes parents have to say "do it because I said so". But sometimes the child can understand. The parent gives understanding when the child can understand.
So either (a) humans can't understand this command; or (b) it is OK to ask why God gave this command, with the assumption, of course, that a Christian follows commands whether or not he knows why.
Regarding Romans 1. First, and with all kindness because I think you did not see this, but - - I do think "read Romans 1" has, as its most obvious meaning, I am ignorant and have never read it. Not your intention, but it is how I always feel when someone tells me to read something in the Bible. I am sure I've read Romans 1 more than 100 times over the years. I have given so much thought to this issue because of beloved Christian homosexual friends.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
Now a quick diversion into a personal story. When an Episcopal priest said this did not apply to persons with a homosexual orientation, I stood up, crossed myself in the aisle and left church in the middle of the sermon.
But I've read it more carefully. It says that (1) First, humans did not recognize God, who can be seen from creation (2) they worshipped idols in human form (3) It says that only after they committed these wrongs did God give them over to the sinful desires of their hearts. (4) Those with a homosexual orientation, i.e., from birth, are not addressed here, according to this priest.
In other words, this can be read as incidental homosexuality.
This is not the only interpretation. But, it is actually a very relevant interpretation today, when 40% of Brown University says they identify as "other than heterosexual". I'm having second thoughts about whether what that priest said was correct. But...disclaimer...I continue to contend Christians see homosexual sex as wrong because it hurts practitioners.
edited above to add point (4) for clarity about orientation
Even from a non-christian perspective, support of homosexuality is unethical.
Homosexuality is the reproductive system's version of Pica. Recall that Pica is a condition where subjects crave eating objects that are not digestible (soil, rocks, nuts and bolts). The brain is therefore encouraging the body to use the digestive tract on items with 0 nutritional value.
Likewise, homosexuality is the brain encouraging the reproductive system to seek out sexual encounters with humans one cannot procreate with. It is, therefore, an unfortunate mental disorder, and encouragement of such a disorder is patient abuse. Supporting gay marriage is like giving a pica patient a bag of screws to eat.
Quote: "homosexuality is the brain encouraging the reproductive system to seek out sexual encounters with humans one cannot procreate with. It is, therefore, an unfortunate mental disorder,"
Why is sex between married persons known to be infertile (due to age or medical condition) right, by this reasoning? Is it a sin for an older widow or widower to marry and have sex?
It's normal sexual functioning, even if reproduction is not possible. Homosexual desire is disordered - as Hiroyuki said, it's the mind craving what the body is not built for. And you can see that in the amount of damage homosexual activity does to the body.
One perspective is that older male/female couples who have sex are aroused by the secondary heterosexual characteristics. Therefore, their brains are encouraging them to attempt procreation with humans who are indeed in the reproductive category. It's true that some people will have damage, by age or otherwise, which prevents them from being able to reproduce. However, sexual activity between these people doesn't categorically go against the reproductive system and thus does not reinforce faulty brain wiring
Do are you saying the only morally licit sex is sex that is intentionally reproductive? Which would rule out birth control, and any sex by an infertile person.
Traditional Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong for several reasons, but the primary reason is that they base their faith on the Bible, which explicitly calls homosexual acts sin. Say what you will, debate and split cultural hairs endlessly, if you are a follower of Jesus, you will call homosexuality what God calls it in His revealed Word: an abomination. There's no gainsaying this. If you pick and choose which Scriptures you want to believe, you can justify anything.
OK, but again, I am asking, why do Christians believe God says it is wrong?
I contend because a loving father forbids that which is harmful.
You can say it is never OK to ask "why" but I disagree.
I do think Christians are obligated to accept something is wrong even if no "why" can be found, i.e., "I don't know why but the Bible says so". I am just saying its fine to ask why the Bible would say that.
IMO, the Prohibition on homosexuality is more akin the ban on pork, or maybe the Muslim ban on alcohol. A holiness taboo, and one that the Christian Church chose to retain. I don't see any larger metaphysical reason and "This saith the Lord" is what we need to just accept.
I actually agree with you on that, but he's still a good guy. Good guys can be downright terrible. I still think Jimmy Carter is a good guy even if I also consider him to be a borderline antisemite.
Wow...a Baptist born-again antisemite. Rare. Could you say why? I don't doubt you but I just don't know of anything antisemitic about Carter. (Not to defend the poor soul who I think is a "good" man - a minority in politics - that does not understand economics and so saw the USA half-wrecked.)
I am a Zionist. I grew up Baptist. Carter is a Baptist Sunday School. teacher. Baptists have to be Zionist because Zionism is taught in Scripture - reading Scripture as the literal word of God does not leave room for another position, as far as I can see.
However, these are not Old Testament days when Jewish people are to kill the "infidels", in order to be the sole inhabitants of Israel. Are they to practice "apartheid". I think not. Do they? I don't know of it, but Carter apparently believes they do.
My point is that a belief Israel is practicing apartheid is not necessarily antisemitic.
I grew up Zionist as I said, and I am well aware that criticism of Israel re: Palestinians is very often merely veiled antisemitism. But I do not see that it always is.
Jimmy Carter, borderline antisemite? Why, because he wouldn't/doesn't write off on any claim Israel and her American supporters demand? Doesn't take much to be construed as an antisemite, does it?
I'm sorry. Arguing that two men are morally equivalent to a man and a woman in marriage is sophistry. But it can be argued. It's not so much that I don't want to argue with someone who wants to euthanize little babies. I don't want to be in the same room with him.
Awhile ago I read a story that the students at RADA, the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts, wanted Bernard Shaw's name taken down from a wall or whatever because he favored eugenics and said nice things about Hitler. Both are true. It's hardly accurate to call Shaw a Nazi, however.
The young do not understand how ubiquitous eugenics was in the first half of the 20th century.
In order to be a card-carrying member of the elite today, you "must believe" that human biology is irrelevant and sex is a social construction, and ensuring maximal individual autonomy is the best way to improve the human well being.
To be admitted into polite society in the 1920's, you "had to believe" that those who were financially and socially successful were better than those who were not, and therefore sterilizing those who failed was the best way to improve human well being.
The underlying framework is still endemic to American meritocracy (Deneen lays this out really well in Regime Change). Today's elites believe they have earned their status based on their own merit, which means those who have failed to achieve are defective in some way (bitter clingers, deplorables, Nazis, etc...). The similarities to 1920'elite s views are rather disturbing.
You're lucky that your priest preaches after Holy Communion, so that those who need to can slip out. In my wife's Romanian Orthodox parish, the lengthy sermon is preached (in Romanian, of course) right before Communion. If you don't understand the language, tough. You stand there, transferring your weight from one leg to the other, trying to pick out key words, your attention wandering from the icons to the restless children squirming on the floor who are periodically being hushed by headscarved women ... I must confess, I'm prone to resentful thoughts at such times.
Once, after Communion, we were treated to a second, impromptu, discourse by the priest. He spoke for some time and seemed annoyed. I heard him say the word 'copii', 'children', several times. Turned out he was scolding the parents for not keeping their kids quieter. (The Liturgy had begun at 10:00 and we were now well past noon.) I couldn't help thinking "Maybe if you didn't subject the kids to a long sermon in a language that isn't the one most of them encounter in their daily lives - which, reluctant though you may be to face the fact, is English - their noise wouldn't be as much of a problem." See what I mean by resentful thoughts?xD
That said: a quarter of an hour after the Liturgy, when I'm sitting in the hall slurping coffee and munching dumplings prepared by the kind ladies of the congregation, I often find myself feeling ashamed of my earlier narkiness. The world suddenly seems a kinder place!
I remember sermons being torture when I was a small child. If churches can, they should provide alternatives for families with small children during the sermon, such as a separate room with the service piped in.
One of the advantages of Orthodox churches that have the sermon at the end (which is less common when the Liturgy is in English) is that it's perfectly fine to just leave with little kids (usually to the hall) if they get to the point of not being able behave anymore.
I’ve been doing some exploring since my conversion. I went to a Latin Mass a few weeks ago and attended Shabbat services these last 2 Fridays. My next exploration is going to be Orthodox. Where do I start? And is the Byzantine Rite the same thing? There’s a Byzantine Rite church not too far, and I think some Orthodox churches as well, but, those all seem to be subdivided by language and culture. Should I just experience them all? Perhaps I just answered my own question, LOL
I just do pray that neither God nor the congregations I visit mind my being there purely out of curiosity and trying to understand.
I noticed Shabbat was a bit like that, some coming and going. But, I don’t know if it’s normally like that, these have been outside.
And I need to get a hold of my brain because it’s starting to spew.
No worries! We all kind of basically start by showing up :) . I wandered into an Orthodox Church with no idea of anything back in 2001 and... here I am, and the journey has been incredible. Do you mind if I send you an email? I'm running around a bit today (birthday party for a friend of the 6-year-old and all) but I don't want to leave you hanging either. (I have the email from my substack, btw.)
If you go to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, I'd recommend going to one that is in a language you understand. My own parish, for family reasons, is Romanian, but I'm told that the Antiochian parishes are the most welcoming to newcomers.
Other than that, I'd say just watch and (I say it with reverence) enjoy the service. Don't be too concerned with following along or copying what everyone else is doing. In Orthodox worship, as Rod notes, people do "their own thing" a bit more than in the Western traditions. There's a fair amount of coming and going. It will all seem a bit more relaxed than that Latin Mass you attended.
Don't, however, present yourself for Holy Communion at this stage. I'm sure you know not to do that, but I do see the occasional non-Orthodox visitor doing that from time to time, whereupon of course the priest has to turn him away.
Thanks! We actually had a marvelous discussion about taking communion in ‘not your house’ at my scripture study. We really dug in. But, of course, I would never!
We have made a commitment to go to Coffee and Conversation after the liturgy at our Anglican (ACNA) church. Right now we are studying the Lord’s Prayer. Sometimes we study a particular saint.
I could tell something was off with Hanania and unfollowed him months ago. I follow problematic people on my side, like Cernovich, but Hanania rubbed me the wrong way. He was clearly a hostile force. Had I read into him more maybe I would have picked up on the "Nazi lite" tendencies of his public persona. Somehow all these institutions didn't pick up on what I saw by merely following him on Twitter!
So true, it’s not always true that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” As my Dad used to say, if you lie down with dogs, you’re gonna get up with fleas.
I saw the tweets about Greear, but didn't look at them, because so much of internet controversy is about the pile on, I didn't read them, and I didn't have time to see the video for myself to make an independent judgment.
You mentioned: "Christian worship is not supposed to be a bespoke, individualized experience. Without meaning to, I had let it become that with me. I needed coffee hour to bring me out of my own head."
I'm Anglican, and I agree with this, although, I must say that sometimes the sermons speak to me as an individual dealing with universal experiences that we all share, and this is reinforced in the coffee hour.
All the baked goodies I love to make but shouldn't eat? I'm happy to share with my neighbors.
We share in the Eucharist during the service, and we share in the offerings at coffee hour.
I chat with the other folks about our lives, the things we're doing, what's happening in the church community, the outreach projects the church is organizing, the sermon, and current events. We have meetings to chat about church business.
I would never dream of missing it, and sometimes I'm around the last to leave.
Would it be a good idea to send two separate posts when dealing with two completely separate topics--like today's Hananian/Hoste and church etiquette? Having two entirely unrelated topics in one post makes the comment section feel schizophrenic.
I've been irritated by his "tray of cheeses" approach to the blog, but have realized that it leaves all of us free to comment or not comment on whatever we choose.
I read the Hanania post that Rod linked to and a couple of other pieces, and it’s clear to me that Hanania’s biggest problem is that he’s an asshole.
His views on Down Syndrome remind me of how the topic of DS brings out the worst in so many people. Many years ago Rod posted a story on his TAC blog about a high school that voted a young lady with DS as their homecoming queen. The comments section was riddled with indignation that a group of high school students treated a person with a disability as an equal. One commenter kept concern-trolling that the beautiful people were cheated out of their due, and oh the humanity!
It also astounds me that calling for mass abortion of “defective” spawn doesn’t disqualify someone from being a public “intellectual”, but racism does. To me, prejudice against people with disabilities and prejudice against people of different skin colors come from the same fetid moral sewer.
"...and it’s clear to me that Hanania’s biggest problem is that he’s an asshole."
Thank-you! I was thinking of just stating that very thing. When I read what he had to say about Down Syndrome babies and abortion I was a little sick. That was maybe a year ago or so. I had no idea of his past then. I think the term 'intellectual' gets thrown around too easily. Sometimes, people are just assholes. And being 'on the spectrum' is no excuse.
Thank you. I stopped reading him last year for the same reasons. Somehow calling for the elimination of a number of people as life unworthy of life is quirky but it was racism that was too much for folks.
I hadn’t heard of him till now, but the way he described his path in his “tips” on how to become a successful writer had me thinking he is basically a sociopathic Trump with a broader vocabulary and ability to articulate to the intellectual class. IOW, he sounds pathologically self-involved, focused on stirring the pot to slake an ego-driven thirst for attention.
He is a jerk, but I agree with Rod that he often has interesting things to say (eg he has popularized understanding how civil rights acts are used cynically by the left to win all identity group arguments).
Also, I find it hard to be upset about this when we live in a world so openly hostile to conservatives / whites / men etc. eg see the nyt response to the South Africa stadium full of people singing / calling for the murder of whites. I would like a set of rules where ALL are expected to treat each other well, not just some.
“I find it hard to be upset about this...” Not an issue for me. I have enough disgust for the loony left and eugenicists. Probably not good for my blood pressure, but I gotta be me.
Lol—I get ya. I was thinking there that I can’t see Trump actually championing eugenics. But then again, if he saw it as politically expedient…? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On being late for church and slipping out early: In all the years (decades, really) that I attended Protestant Evangelical churches, including the 20 or so years that I was a member of a megachurch, I never noticed large groups of people habitually leaving early. In fact, the only people I remember leaving services early from my youth were doctors in the congregation when they'd occasionally get paged or parents who had a kid get sick in the nursery. You always stuck until the end.
People might show up late, of course, but even then it wasn't ever that late. No more than 10 or 15 minutes, max. If you were going to be later than that, you just turned around and went home. So late (but not too late) yes. Leave early? You or somebody you were responsible for better have taken ill.
One of the weirdest things about Orthodoxy for me (and Orthodoxy can be plenty weird!) as a Protestant is how people seem to come and go as they please. I've been regularly attending at a Greek Orthodox parish in Lexington and it still trips me out to know that no matter how late I show up, I'll still beat at least half of the congregation to the pews. And I'm not talking 10- 15 minute Protestant Late. People routinely roll in 25 or 30 minutes late.
And then, of course, they bail right after Communion. A lot of them head on over to the fellowship hall for the coffee hour, but quite a few head on out to the parking lot.
I usually leave then too. Come forward, get my blessing since I can't take the Host as I'm not converted yet, and just keep walking out the door with a third or more of the congregation. The times I do go back to the pews to stick to the end for announcements and the benediction, it's amazing how empty the place is. Still weird in relation to my Protestant upbringing, but that's how the Orthodox roll around here.
In my experience in Orthodoxy (28 years) this seems to be a thing that's common more among the Greeks than among the Antiochians or the Slavic churches.
I'm an almost neurotically on time person and even after 26 years I'm still amazed how the Church can be almost empty when the Liturgy starts and slowly fill up by the Gospel reading.
My wife and I introduced ourselves to Father after Divine Liturgy some weeks ago and explained we were exploring Orthodoxy. My wife asked, is Divine Liturgy every Sunday at 10? Father sighed, "We usually start Orthos late to give the Greeks [he has a Greek surname himself] time to arrive. Different conception of punctuality." I have to get way more adept with the service book before I can say when Orthos ends and when DIvine Liturgy begins. But I'm getting there.
Well, it don't make me no never mind. One of the real nice things about the local Greek church is that there are many Greeks in attendance. I believe this to be because it's near a major naval base, and that means lots of pancake joints and diners (amateur sociology, but I think it true). It's a still a nice touch, especially when it comes to Greek Festival time.
To add, it’s super fun because although I was raised secular, it was with a very strong Protestant, military, and classical ballet attitude of ‘early is on time, on time is late, and late is unacceptable.’ Sunday mornings are awesome in my house, LOL
This is all so helpful! I am planning to attend my first Orthodox service tomorrow, while I expect to feel pretty lost, this will help me feel a bit less lost. Thank you.
Having attended many mega-church services in my life before moving to Reformed Presbyterianism and then, ultimately, Catholicism, I agree they need to be criticized for promoting the "worship as entertainment" mentality. The lights, the sound systems, the worship singers belting out intense ballads, the smoke machines, etc all add to the concert-like feel of these church services. Not to mention the jumbo screens that feature a digital countdown to the start of service. Many of these churches have high-production value video footage, too, that they show as a part of every service. Interviews with parishioners, interviews with the pastor's wife about her new book, upcoming events at the church, etc. So, no wonder people aren't treating church with reverance and respect. For decades, now, mega-churches have promoted "being relevant to the culture" and "come as you are", and competing with one another to be the biggest and the flashiest. It's all become so man-centered that it's not surprising people don't take it seriously. Also, the abandoning by Protestants of the moral obligation to go to church on Sundays has been a disaster, I think, because then it becomes a personal choice based on feelings rather than on a realization that we have a moral duty and a fundamental need to worship God even if we don't feel like it on any given week. Ironically, it's actually very freeing to "have" to go every Sunday.
That was my experience too! The Catholic mass is such a serious enterprise compared to the free flowing, high octane mega church production experience. I don’t miss the ‘series of the month’ sermon format either. Yes, the seats were comfy, but that’s all I really remember, except the music. I still remember having no clue when there’d actually be a communion service and how they’d randomly they’d pop up at the end of a service from time to time. It was truly weird.
I agree that they need to be called out on for focusing on entertainment, not worship. People who complain about Catholic ‘guitar mass’ should try going non-Dom for a few Sundays. They’d see that ‘guitar mass’ is truly underwhelming in comparison to all the lights, full stage and stadium effects of the non-Dom service. I get why some Catholics tend to hate it, but geez.....having been in non-Dom circles, the rage really doesn’t match the experience Catholics actually get with ‘guitar mass’. The Eucharist is still there!
I accept this is a matter of coming from a different perspective and the fact that I truly embraced being a ‘low church’ Christian when I was one. The Services are just night and day different in terms of reverence and respect.
I probably will never fully embrace the culture of hating on ‘guitar mass’, but I get where it comes from because I’ve seen the logical end result of being loosey-goosey with worship in non-Dom circles. I just realize that there are some people, like my husband, who finds that playing his guitar with the worship team allows him to open his mind enough to be able to listen to and participate in the mass more fully. Music is his gateway into the mystery. I don’t ‘get it’, but that’s how he explains it.
I've written this before, but Evelyn Waugh once wrote that when he was exploring
Catholicism one of the things that most impressed him was the entry of the priest and his server at Low Mass. "Like a tradsman and his apprentice." One wants to weep.
There's a book no American Catholic should die without having read, J.F. Powers' "Morte d'Urban." It's a comic novel which becomes serious. It's also a perfect novel.
Ah, you have the advantage there. Powers worked for twenty years on "Morte d'Urban," and even if I hadn't loved the novel, I'd have to love him for his indomitability.
I'm a tech in a Presbyterian congregation. We started using the countdown trying to get the congregants in their seats by the time the service starts, and it's only partly effective. Our third service starts at 11 and most of the congregants don't come in the door until 11:15 - and the latecomers are all 30-something and younger, many with children. I think it's a generational thing.
In Orthodox churches the coming later and leaving early depends on what the priest allows. Our
priest's rules are no receiving the Eucharist if arriving after the Gospel reading and no leaving early. I have heard that the Greeks are more lax about that than the Antiochians but my experience is limited.
I think that technically, at least in Catholicism, if you are not there for the whole Gospel through the consecration then you have not fulfilled your Sunday obligation.
I heard a priest say in a homily that the first person to leave mass early was Judas. Ever since then I've stayed until the end, even if it means I am late for something else.
We have no "obligation" in Orthodoxy, but it is established that if one arrives later than the Gospel one ought not take communion. I think we are expected to stay through the final blessing, but with some leniency once communion is over for parents of young children who may be getting antsy . And also for anyone who needs go attend to warming up food etc. for coffee hour.
A beloved and respected Russian priest I once met said: "Do what your doctor orders, diet-wise, and then keep to the Church's fasts as much as that allows." Medicine on Sunday morning isn't breaking the fast.
It might be an idea, then, to talk to your doctor about those headaches ...
If they're a caffeine junkie's headaches, no, but you're right: the possibility that they're not should maybe elicit medical inquiry.
I've never liked coffee, but I used to be addicted to caffeine pills. Among the worst depressions/headaches I've ever had was the one I got when I tried to cold turkey those caffeine pills.
The addiction, however one feeds it, can be broken simply enough, though. The magic word is "tapering."
Participating in ritual is an ordering of our will towards God. The church prescribes the gestures and motions and we acknowledge by our response that there is a mediator between us and God.
I want to clarify your view of a "ritual", Corwin. I think of a ritual as a set of physical actions that are intended to have real spiritual effects. In other words, a ritual isn't just about ordering ourselves, it's about creating conditions in which God can (and WILL) order us to His will, not our own. Hence the group preparatory period required before communion (sometimes including fasting the previous day). Maybe we're saying the same thing, I'm not sure.
I moved recently to a Greek island which is half Catholic (very unusual), and I’ve always wondered what Greek people are doing wandering in and out of the Divine Liturgy, which seems to last half of the day. They go inside, kiss icons, stand around, then walk out, light a cigarette, chit chat in the courtyard while the pappas (the priest) chants inside, wander in again, kiss some more icons. Then after it’s all over (and you never know when that will be), they gather around for a great Sunday barbecue (souvlaki, grilled vegetables, potatoes, etc.) with the pappas, and the entire village. It’s all absolutely wonderful and mysterious to a Catholic from Asia, still struggling with the Greek language and not especially keen on souvlaki. I find the Greek Orthodox Mass less formal for the laity. As you said, one can just wander in and out for coffee or a cigarette. No one will notice or care.
This used to be what Catholic Mass was like in some parts of Europe.
My grandfather, a man of immense dignity and immaculate probity, in the 1950s organized and executed an effort among his fellow emigrants from a little town in southern Italy, to take up a collection for pews in the madre chiesa. Without pews it was very much like what you describe, people came and went and the Arciprete discerned a lack of reverence.
For what it's worth my grandfather went to his grave (many years later, thank God) believing the local banker embezzled a substantial portion of the money. But the pews got installed. There's a backstory involving the banker, but since I use my own name I'd better be careful.
Syros? Tinos? Their majority-Catholic population (once almost entirely Catholic) is a relic of the centuries of Venetian rule, in the case of Syros from 1204 to 1566, and in the case of Tinois until 1715. There was once a lot of Catholics on Naxos, too.
Quote: "The important question is: what does the performance do to, and for, the people who observe it?"
I have never attended a megachurch, but when much younger, I attended non-denominational churches that could have as many as 500 people. Yes, it was a "performance".....but....here is what I got that I would not get in an Orthodox service.
Stick with me - I prefer a service with the liturgy...but here is what I got.
Worship: A few songs ("This is the day"...for instance...horrible song) were bad. But the meditative songs were wonderful. Raising hands and feeling as if God was there in a special way. Later I came to believe in the real presence in communion. But as a young woman, the time God was most present was in those very special songs. Liturgical congregations try, but they just don't permit the emotional songs that were used in "performance" churches. Also, you participate in the "raise hands/clap" churches. Physical action.
The sermon: Actually, this required a good preacher. If it is good, going over 15 minutes is often good. Like a novel vs. a short story. When I attend Catholic churches, the sermon is usually not as good as the ones I used to hear in "performance" churches. Anglican sermons can, not infrequently, exceed those of "performance" churches.
Certainty: This is true for Orthodox and "Performance". Certainty that truth is in the Bible, that it is a place people can go to find what is true. Very reassuring - a life without this certainty is much more difficult. I don't find this certainty in mainline (including Episcopal) or even Catholic churches anymore.
I could write a whole separate post on why I think liturgical services offer more. But it really comes down to the real presence, that is the main thing. And repetition of the beautiful words of the liturgy. They get down into the depths of your self-conscious. When I became Catholic, after a time, I rarely had nightmares, whereas I had plenty while Protestant.
Congregational singing is encouraged in my church, and I usually do so. I'm finding that is a great way to merge myself into the Liturgy and not get distracted by 101 cares and worries. And with a very few exceptions most modern Orthodox music doesn't require a voice with wide range or serious training.
I’m so glad you got to the Dominion Tom Holland point! Yes, this is the danger of letting atheists lead the conservative movement. Hanania always gave me the creeks because of his pro abortion views, eesh.
I wrote a piece for the Federalist about what “normal” life is like without Christ, it’s a lot like Hanania’s murderous world. Y’all might like it, I’m posting the substack version here because it has extra Tom Holland content!
“Self-proclaimed “normies,” fed up with the nonstop sexualization of children, are longing for a return to normalcy. The problem with that wish is that normal is exactly what we are now getting, good and hard”
Very good article, I think the "anti-woke" bar is way too low at the moment and is letting every Tom Dick and Harry be a potential conservative superstar as long as they are mildly uncomfortable with drag queens. It's just a catastrophe waiting to happen
Yep. Like Andrew Sullivan, who gave us gay marriage but draws the line at trans stuff. Because of course we should ignore God’s line but then totally have faith in *Andrew’s*, sigh…
Doctor, I put "Don't Be a Normie" on my church's googlegroups forum. It got more reaction than anything else I've ever put on the forum. One of our elders, a 70 year old man who is an electrical engineer and who isn't easily impressed, told me he thought the article had changed his life. ( His term. )
New Life Church? I lived in Colorado for a time.
Thanks, I did not know that. I had assumed it was just another non-denominational big tent mega church.
My wife (a cellist) and her classmates in her prestigious music program survived in college by playing in churches like that! She always prayed that the sermons would land on her unbelieving classmates’ ears and stir them to faith. But yes, if you ever find yourself in a mega church like that, and there’s some orchestra on stage playing beautiful music, chances are high that they’re a bunch of atheist music majors gigging for the weekend!
I belong to a Presbyterian Church in America church. Our building is simple, the interior equally so. My orthodox Anglican soul yearns for a little more display, but when in Geneva, etc.
Thank God, we recite the creeds. We have communion every Sunday. And the congregation is the choir, those of them who can sing. ( I have a good musical ear, but as my mother said, I'm always on key, I just can't sing. ) We do have standouts, and those of us whose musical instincts didn't survive the journey to our post pubescent vocal chords are grateful for them.
I sing in our choir as an act of rebellion. I can’t sing at all, so, every Sunday i give my terrible voice right back to Him.
That's funny! Sometimes, I wonder if the woman who sits next to me has had the concept of tonality explained to her.
Just sing louder!
Those that sing pray twice? I think our priest said that recently, though I don’t know the origin.
The funny thing is that there are a bunch of organists who have become Orthodox, and there are (generally) no organs. I had a friend in Chicago who had been his church's organist for years, and even after becoming Orthodox, he'd occasionally fill in when the new regular organist had to miss. He said it was the thing he missed most about the old church.
If you watch Abbot Tryphon, his mother, who converted to Orthodoxy, was an organist, and there were enough "former organists" in her Orthodox parish that they could have applied for membership to some American organist's guild for the parish... *L*
If you read the Huffington Post expose you'll see that Hanania is a Nazi. He's a eugenicist who believes in the US becoming a white ethnostate. He's opposed to race mixing. This guy is a leftist in the American sense in all respects but identifies as right wing because of his "race realism". He's a Nazi, not a John Derbyshire or a Charles Murray. He is what people assume others to be when they say anything about racial differences. I subscribe to a "bell curve" mindset, with differences seen at the far ends yet with overlap that you'd never see in male/female differences. This is why you see Thomas Sowell and Larry Bird, but no female NFL players. It's obvious but the Richard Hananias of the world care so deeply, and in a such unchristian way, that people are rightly repulsed by it. Mind you, in a culture such as ours that is (rightly) hostile towards people like Hanania a whiff of something that smells like it alarms people. This is because for every good natured guy like Andrew Sullivan who brings it up there are 100 Richard Hananias.
Andrew Sullivan is totally odious. As a key player in the gay marriage victory, he's done more damage to the West than an army of Richard Hananias. But good ole Sulley knows how to play the fox in sheep's clothing act to a T. Sullivan is an actual enemy to any self-respecting Christian or traditionalist. Hanania is not; his critiques are more or less legitimate. Since he's just another atheist materialist, his prescriptions are terrible. But at least he's not swinging a sledgehammer at the edifice like Sullivan.
But why do Christians believe homosexuality is sin? Because it hurts others? If kept away from children, just as heterosexual sex should be, it does not hurt others. Well then, why would Christians believe God says it is sin?
I think Christians, and other faiths, believe this because it hurts the practitioner.
A life where your own children with a biological partner are unlikely, and where, for the most part, children won't come along (adoption, surrogacy and for lesbians, insemination, being difficult ways to have children). No real family of your own beyond one person, and we know that one person rarely stays for a lifetime. - - A life where the majority of people who you could desire are off limits, for example, a homosexual male can hope perhaps 3% of males might become his partner, no matter who he might desire. I could go one but you get my point - the reason traditional Christianity still sees sin in homosexuality is that it hurts the practitioner.
(In times of old, homosexuality hurt "the village" because children would not come along, but that is no longer the case.)
That's the argument, from harm, which is utilitarian. What it isn't is Christian.
I was speaking of Christian tradition, and at the end, said it was the tradition of other faiths. I do not know of milieu outside faiths which say homosexual acts are wrong. I am told - and this may be propaganda - that Native American tribes accepted it. And I am told - though I am also told the extend is exaggerated - that some ancient Greek men had boys with whom it was fine to long as the man was in the dominant sexual position. - -AT any rate, my point is that pagan and "post-religious modern" societies have not cottoned on to the argument from harm. So I associate it with faith.
But you raise an interesting question. If it is harmful, or was harmful in times of old (due to no children, no drugs for sexual disease, etc.) then why did some pre-Christian e.g. pagan societies accept homosexuality.
(You are welcome to say I am wrong and it was anathema everywhere, but I do think I am right about the Greeks, at least.)
Of course you're right about the Greeks. We are already in deep water. I just think Christians can't used consequentialist arguments. They don't work for us.
>>And I am told - though I am also told the extend is exaggerated - that some ancient Greek men had boys with whom it was fine to long as the man was in the dominant sexual position.
Nasty moral system. what about the poor sucker that was in the "submissive" position. The "top" man doesn't lose any respect or esteem in the community but for the other......
The Lakota / Dakota tribes do accept homosexuality: "Wíŋkte is the contraction of an older Lakota word, Winyanktehca, meaning "wants to be like a woman". Winkte are a social category in historical Lakota culture, of male-bodied people who in some cases have adopted the clothing, work, and mannerisms that Lakota culture usually consider feminine. In contemporary Lakota culture, the term is most commonly associated with simply being gay. Both historically and in modern culture, usually winkte are homosexual, though they may or may not consider themselves part of the more mainstream LGBT communities. Some winkte participate in the pan-Indian Two Spirit community. While historical accounts of their status vary widely, most accounts, notably those by other Lakota, see the winkte as regular members of the community, and neither marginalized for their status, nor seen as exceptional."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit
This is pretty accurate from what I've seen among Dakota / Lakota here in South Dakota.
To add to this, I think it goes against the male-female symbolism of Christ and the Church interacting, i.e., heterosexual union as an icon of the divine relationship between Christ and the Church. And on a practical level, make gay sex tends to be a lot more promiscuous, and is better at spreading diseases, which creates health problems, which tend to spread to women and can infect and seriously harm their offspring. We sometimes forget that sexual moral codes began in a pre-antibiotic and pre-antiviral world. And lastly, when men are allowed to satisfy their lust without risking pregnancy, society loses a lot of child-raising power (i.e., fathers, who contribute within the home and outside the home, to support their children.) That, and in pre-Christian times male rape or other males was apparently pretty common, and I don't think I need to explain why that was considered bad.
I will give the secular answer to those points. I do not say I fully embrace these points, but I do embrace the first two.
(1) "more promiscuous" - this is a separate issue. Promiscuity is wrong. Saying all gay sex, even among relatively faithful men and women, is wrong does not follow.
(2) Almost everyone here will disagree with me, but I am 100 percent certain that people cannot change their sexual orientation. There is incidental homosexuality from those who have been heterosexual at one point (for example, in prison, among women who have been hurt) but the basic orientation does not change. C.S. Lewis agreed with me on this. He believed God had a special calling to celibacy and dedication to God for those with a homosexual orientation.
(3) child-raising, as I mentioned, was important in the village. Here it is a wonderful thing that I would be sad for anyone to miss. But it is OK with me if non-Christians (most, not all, Gay people feel they have to be non-Christian because of the traditional church stance) have fewer children than Christians.
(4) "satisfy their lust without risking pregnancy"....so birth control, with its low risk, is also not OK, not even within marriage? (disclaimer: I know about humanae vitae).
No, we believe homosexuality is sinful because God says it is sinful. Read Romans chapter 1.
See my other answer to a similar "because God said so" post.
Additionally, I think God is a good father. Sometimes parents have to say "do it because I said so". But sometimes the child can understand. The parent gives understanding when the child can understand.
So either (a) humans can't understand this command; or (b) it is OK to ask why God gave this command, with the assumption, of course, that a Christian follows commands whether or not he knows why.
Humans can't understand this command?
Would you please defend the idea that God made men sexually compatible with other men and women sexually compatible with other women?
Regarding Romans 1. First, and with all kindness because I think you did not see this, but - - I do think "read Romans 1" has, as its most obvious meaning, I am ignorant and have never read it. Not your intention, but it is how I always feel when someone tells me to read something in the Bible. I am sure I've read Romans 1 more than 100 times over the years. I have given so much thought to this issue because of beloved Christian homosexual friends.
So....some exegesis...first, the relevant parts:
-------------------------------------------------------
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Now a quick diversion into a personal story. When an Episcopal priest said this did not apply to persons with a homosexual orientation, I stood up, crossed myself in the aisle and left church in the middle of the sermon.
But I've read it more carefully. It says that (1) First, humans did not recognize God, who can be seen from creation (2) they worshipped idols in human form (3) It says that only after they committed these wrongs did God give them over to the sinful desires of their hearts. (4) Those with a homosexual orientation, i.e., from birth, are not addressed here, according to this priest.
In other words, this can be read as incidental homosexuality.
This is not the only interpretation. But, it is actually a very relevant interpretation today, when 40% of Brown University says they identify as "other than heterosexual". I'm having second thoughts about whether what that priest said was correct. But...disclaimer...I continue to contend Christians see homosexual sex as wrong because it hurts practitioners.
edited above to add point (4) for clarity about orientation
"Incidental" homosexuality.
So, I guess the other kind is okay? Read Leviticus. But, of course, you can rationalize that away by telling me that applied to Old Testament Israel.
Simply said and accurate.
Even from a non-christian perspective, support of homosexuality is unethical.
Homosexuality is the reproductive system's version of Pica. Recall that Pica is a condition where subjects crave eating objects that are not digestible (soil, rocks, nuts and bolts). The brain is therefore encouraging the body to use the digestive tract on items with 0 nutritional value.
Likewise, homosexuality is the brain encouraging the reproductive system to seek out sexual encounters with humans one cannot procreate with. It is, therefore, an unfortunate mental disorder, and encouragement of such a disorder is patient abuse. Supporting gay marriage is like giving a pica patient a bag of screws to eat.
Quote: "homosexuality is the brain encouraging the reproductive system to seek out sexual encounters with humans one cannot procreate with. It is, therefore, an unfortunate mental disorder,"
Why is sex between married persons known to be infertile (due to age or medical condition) right, by this reasoning? Is it a sin for an older widow or widower to marry and have sex?
It's normal sexual functioning, even if reproduction is not possible. Homosexual desire is disordered - as Hiroyuki said, it's the mind craving what the body is not built for. And you can see that in the amount of damage homosexual activity does to the body.
One perspective is that older male/female couples who have sex are aroused by the secondary heterosexual characteristics. Therefore, their brains are encouraging them to attempt procreation with humans who are indeed in the reproductive category. It's true that some people will have damage, by age or otherwise, which prevents them from being able to reproduce. However, sexual activity between these people doesn't categorically go against the reproductive system and thus does not reinforce faulty brain wiring
Do are you saying the only morally licit sex is sex that is intentionally reproductive? Which would rule out birth control, and any sex by an infertile person.
Traditional Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong for several reasons, but the primary reason is that they base their faith on the Bible, which explicitly calls homosexual acts sin. Say what you will, debate and split cultural hairs endlessly, if you are a follower of Jesus, you will call homosexuality what God calls it in His revealed Word: an abomination. There's no gainsaying this. If you pick and choose which Scriptures you want to believe, you can justify anything.
OK, but again, I am asking, why do Christians believe God says it is wrong?
I contend because a loving father forbids that which is harmful.
You can say it is never OK to ask "why" but I disagree.
I do think Christians are obligated to accept something is wrong even if no "why" can be found, i.e., "I don't know why but the Bible says so". I am just saying its fine to ask why the Bible would say that.
IMO, the Prohibition on homosexuality is more akin the ban on pork, or maybe the Muslim ban on alcohol. A holiness taboo, and one that the Christian Church chose to retain. I don't see any larger metaphysical reason and "This saith the Lord" is what we need to just accept.
I actually agree with you on that, but he's still a good guy. Good guys can be downright terrible. I still think Jimmy Carter is a good guy even if I also consider him to be a borderline antisemite.
Wow...a Baptist born-again antisemite. Rare. Could you say why? I don't doubt you but I just don't know of anything antisemitic about Carter. (Not to defend the poor soul who I think is a "good" man - a minority in politics - that does not understand economics and so saw the USA half-wrecked.)
Mel Gibson is an antisemite and he's also deeply religious. Carter falsely refers to Israel as an "apartheid state".
I am a Zionist. I grew up Baptist. Carter is a Baptist Sunday School. teacher. Baptists have to be Zionist because Zionism is taught in Scripture - reading Scripture as the literal word of God does not leave room for another position, as far as I can see.
However, these are not Old Testament days when Jewish people are to kill the "infidels", in order to be the sole inhabitants of Israel. Are they to practice "apartheid". I think not. Do they? I don't know of it, but Carter apparently believes they do.
My point is that a belief Israel is practicing apartheid is not necessarily antisemitic.
I grew up Zionist as I said, and I am well aware that criticism of Israel re: Palestinians is very often merely veiled antisemitism. But I do not see that it always is.
Jimmy Carter, borderline antisemite? Why, because he wouldn't/doesn't write off on any claim Israel and her American supporters demand? Doesn't take much to be construed as an antisemite, does it?
Anyone who categorizes Israel as an "apartheid state" is at best ignorant. I'm being charitable to him. I really do think he's decent.
I'm sorry. Arguing that two men are morally equivalent to a man and a woman in marriage is sophistry. But it can be argued. It's not so much that I don't want to argue with someone who wants to euthanize little babies. I don't want to be in the same room with him.
I agree. Andrew Sullivan is more a cancer to Western Civilization than Hanania can ever be.
Throwing a publicist like Derbyshire into the same basket with a social scientist of genius like Murray is counterproductive.
Well, "Nazi".
Awhile ago I read a story that the students at RADA, the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts, wanted Bernard Shaw's name taken down from a wall or whatever because he favored eugenics and said nice things about Hitler. Both are true. It's hardly accurate to call Shaw a Nazi, however.
The young do not understand how ubiquitous eugenics was in the first half of the 20th century.
In order to be a card-carrying member of the elite today, you "must believe" that human biology is irrelevant and sex is a social construction, and ensuring maximal individual autonomy is the best way to improve the human well being.
To be admitted into polite society in the 1920's, you "had to believe" that those who were financially and socially successful were better than those who were not, and therefore sterilizing those who failed was the best way to improve human well being.
The underlying framework is still endemic to American meritocracy (Deneen lays this out really well in Regime Change). Today's elites believe they have earned their status based on their own merit, which means those who have failed to achieve are defective in some way (bitter clingers, deplorables, Nazis, etc...). The similarities to 1920'elite s views are rather disturbing.
You're lucky that your priest preaches after Holy Communion, so that those who need to can slip out. In my wife's Romanian Orthodox parish, the lengthy sermon is preached (in Romanian, of course) right before Communion. If you don't understand the language, tough. You stand there, transferring your weight from one leg to the other, trying to pick out key words, your attention wandering from the icons to the restless children squirming on the floor who are periodically being hushed by headscarved women ... I must confess, I'm prone to resentful thoughts at such times.
Once, after Communion, we were treated to a second, impromptu, discourse by the priest. He spoke for some time and seemed annoyed. I heard him say the word 'copii', 'children', several times. Turned out he was scolding the parents for not keeping their kids quieter. (The Liturgy had begun at 10:00 and we were now well past noon.) I couldn't help thinking "Maybe if you didn't subject the kids to a long sermon in a language that isn't the one most of them encounter in their daily lives - which, reluctant though you may be to face the fact, is English - their noise wouldn't be as much of a problem." See what I mean by resentful thoughts?xD
That said: a quarter of an hour after the Liturgy, when I'm sitting in the hall slurping coffee and munching dumplings prepared by the kind ladies of the congregation, I often find myself feeling ashamed of my earlier narkiness. The world suddenly seems a kinder place!
You don't sit for the sermon? In the pewless churches I've been in people just sit on the floor for the sermon.
Alas, at my age and weight, sitting on the floor is not as painless as it used to be!
I remember sermons being torture when I was a small child. If churches can, they should provide alternatives for families with small children during the sermon, such as a separate room with the service piped in.
One of the advantages of Orthodox churches that have the sermon at the end (which is less common when the Liturgy is in English) is that it's perfectly fine to just leave with little kids (usually to the hall) if they get to the point of not being able behave anymore.
I’ve been doing some exploring since my conversion. I went to a Latin Mass a few weeks ago and attended Shabbat services these last 2 Fridays. My next exploration is going to be Orthodox. Where do I start? And is the Byzantine Rite the same thing? There’s a Byzantine Rite church not too far, and I think some Orthodox churches as well, but, those all seem to be subdivided by language and culture. Should I just experience them all? Perhaps I just answered my own question, LOL
I just do pray that neither God nor the congregations I visit mind my being there purely out of curiosity and trying to understand.
I noticed Shabbat was a bit like that, some coming and going. But, I don’t know if it’s normally like that, these have been outside.
And I need to get a hold of my brain because it’s starting to spew.
Apologies.
No worries! We all kind of basically start by showing up :) . I wandered into an Orthodox Church with no idea of anything back in 2001 and... here I am, and the journey has been incredible. Do you mind if I send you an email? I'm running around a bit today (birthday party for a friend of the 6-year-old and all) but I don't want to leave you hanging either. (I have the email from my substack, btw.)
Please do, enjoy the party, I’m off to do some gardening and then back to school, thankful for tax free weekend!
Back to school shopping, should have read.
If you go to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, I'd recommend going to one that is in a language you understand. My own parish, for family reasons, is Romanian, but I'm told that the Antiochian parishes are the most welcoming to newcomers.
Other than that, I'd say just watch and (I say it with reverence) enjoy the service. Don't be too concerned with following along or copying what everyone else is doing. In Orthodox worship, as Rod notes, people do "their own thing" a bit more than in the Western traditions. There's a fair amount of coming and going. It will all seem a bit more relaxed than that Latin Mass you attended.
Don't, however, present yourself for Holy Communion at this stage. I'm sure you know not to do that, but I do see the occasional non-Orthodox visitor doing that from time to time, whereupon of course the priest has to turn him away.
Good luck!
Thanks! We actually had a marvelous discussion about taking communion in ‘not your house’ at my scripture study. We really dug in. But, of course, I would never!
We have made a commitment to go to Coffee and Conversation after the liturgy at our Anglican (ACNA) church. Right now we are studying the Lord’s Prayer. Sometimes we study a particular saint.
I could tell something was off with Hanania and unfollowed him months ago. I follow problematic people on my side, like Cernovich, but Hanania rubbed me the wrong way. He was clearly a hostile force. Had I read into him more maybe I would have picked up on the "Nazi lite" tendencies of his public persona. Somehow all these institutions didn't pick up on what I saw by merely following him on Twitter!
So true, it’s not always true that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” As my Dad used to say, if you lie down with dogs, you’re gonna get up with fleas.
I saw the tweets about Greear, but didn't look at them, because so much of internet controversy is about the pile on, I didn't read them, and I didn't have time to see the video for myself to make an independent judgment.
You mentioned: "Christian worship is not supposed to be a bespoke, individualized experience. Without meaning to, I had let it become that with me. I needed coffee hour to bring me out of my own head."
I'm Anglican, and I agree with this, although, I must say that sometimes the sermons speak to me as an individual dealing with universal experiences that we all share, and this is reinforced in the coffee hour.
All the baked goodies I love to make but shouldn't eat? I'm happy to share with my neighbors.
We share in the Eucharist during the service, and we share in the offerings at coffee hour.
I chat with the other folks about our lives, the things we're doing, what's happening in the church community, the outreach projects the church is organizing, the sermon, and current events. We have meetings to chat about church business.
I would never dream of missing it, and sometimes I'm around the last to leave.
Would it be a good idea to send two separate posts when dealing with two completely separate topics--like today's Hananian/Hoste and church etiquette? Having two entirely unrelated topics in one post makes the comment section feel schizophrenic.
Yes!!! Exactly.
My feelings exactly.
It looks like this is happening more and more lately.
Rod, why not keep posts shorter and on single topics?
My plea too
I've been irritated by his "tray of cheeses" approach to the blog, but have realized that it leaves all of us free to comment or not comment on whatever we choose.
I also find it problematic to quote and share (on Twitter), especially when the part I want to share is the second or third topic.
I read the Hanania post that Rod linked to and a couple of other pieces, and it’s clear to me that Hanania’s biggest problem is that he’s an asshole.
His views on Down Syndrome remind me of how the topic of DS brings out the worst in so many people. Many years ago Rod posted a story on his TAC blog about a high school that voted a young lady with DS as their homecoming queen. The comments section was riddled with indignation that a group of high school students treated a person with a disability as an equal. One commenter kept concern-trolling that the beautiful people were cheated out of their due, and oh the humanity!
It also astounds me that calling for mass abortion of “defective” spawn doesn’t disqualify someone from being a public “intellectual”, but racism does. To me, prejudice against people with disabilities and prejudice against people of different skin colors come from the same fetid moral sewer.
"...and it’s clear to me that Hanania’s biggest problem is that he’s an asshole."
Thank-you! I was thinking of just stating that very thing. When I read what he had to say about Down Syndrome babies and abortion I was a little sick. That was maybe a year ago or so. I had no idea of his past then. I think the term 'intellectual' gets thrown around too easily. Sometimes, people are just assholes. And being 'on the spectrum' is no excuse.
“and being on the spectrum is no excuse”. This x1000!
Thank you. I stopped reading him last year for the same reasons. Somehow calling for the elimination of a number of people as life unworthy of life is quirky but it was racism that was too much for folks.
I hadn’t heard of him till now, but the way he described his path in his “tips” on how to become a successful writer had me thinking he is basically a sociopathic Trump with a broader vocabulary and ability to articulate to the intellectual class. IOW, he sounds pathologically self-involved, focused on stirring the pot to slake an ego-driven thirst for attention.
He is a jerk, but I agree with Rod that he often has interesting things to say (eg he has popularized understanding how civil rights acts are used cynically by the left to win all identity group arguments).
Also, I find it hard to be upset about this when we live in a world so openly hostile to conservatives / whites / men etc. eg see the nyt response to the South Africa stadium full of people singing / calling for the murder of whites. I would like a set of rules where ALL are expected to treat each other well, not just some.
“I find it hard to be upset about this...” Not an issue for me. I have enough disgust for the loony left and eugenicists. Probably not good for my blood pressure, but I gotta be me.
“sociopathic Trump” is redundant, but otherwise spot-on.
You beat me to it!
Lol—I get ya. I was thinking there that I can’t see Trump actually championing eugenics. But then again, if he saw it as politically expedient…? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah somethings off about the priorities in this country
Hanania:"Down syndrome babies and old people should be publicly exterminated"
Conservatives: "now now that's in poor taste. But I defend your right to say it, I love the first amendment"
Hanania: "Black people score lower on iq tests and I don't like Jewish people"
Conservatives "NOOOOOOOOOO MAKE HIM GO AWAY HELP ME AHHHHHHHH"
On being late for church and slipping out early: In all the years (decades, really) that I attended Protestant Evangelical churches, including the 20 or so years that I was a member of a megachurch, I never noticed large groups of people habitually leaving early. In fact, the only people I remember leaving services early from my youth were doctors in the congregation when they'd occasionally get paged or parents who had a kid get sick in the nursery. You always stuck until the end.
People might show up late, of course, but even then it wasn't ever that late. No more than 10 or 15 minutes, max. If you were going to be later than that, you just turned around and went home. So late (but not too late) yes. Leave early? You or somebody you were responsible for better have taken ill.
One of the weirdest things about Orthodoxy for me (and Orthodoxy can be plenty weird!) as a Protestant is how people seem to come and go as they please. I've been regularly attending at a Greek Orthodox parish in Lexington and it still trips me out to know that no matter how late I show up, I'll still beat at least half of the congregation to the pews. And I'm not talking 10- 15 minute Protestant Late. People routinely roll in 25 or 30 minutes late.
And then, of course, they bail right after Communion. A lot of them head on over to the fellowship hall for the coffee hour, but quite a few head on out to the parking lot.
I usually leave then too. Come forward, get my blessing since I can't take the Host as I'm not converted yet, and just keep walking out the door with a third or more of the congregation. The times I do go back to the pews to stick to the end for announcements and the benediction, it's amazing how empty the place is. Still weird in relation to my Protestant upbringing, but that's how the Orthodox roll around here.
I had a priest scold the congregation once for leaving early. He finally had the hall locked so no one could go in and start coffee hour early.
But some parishioners might need a beer. Let's have a little compassion.
In my experience in Orthodoxy (28 years) this seems to be a thing that's common more among the Greeks than among the Antiochians or the Slavic churches.
You can’t imagine how late they are in Greece during the summer months. Services usually start at 9 am but Greeks don’t wake up till 10.
23andme didn't show it, but I must have a huge amount of Greek DNA.
I'm an almost neurotically on time person and even after 26 years I'm still amazed how the Church can be almost empty when the Liturgy starts and slowly fill up by the Gospel reading.
My wife and I introduced ourselves to Father after Divine Liturgy some weeks ago and explained we were exploring Orthodoxy. My wife asked, is Divine Liturgy every Sunday at 10? Father sighed, "We usually start Orthos late to give the Greeks [he has a Greek surname himself] time to arrive. Different conception of punctuality." I have to get way more adept with the service book before I can say when Orthos ends and when DIvine Liturgy begins. But I'm getting there.
We call it "Orthodox Standard Time". It's the local time, plus 45 minutes, more or less. More if Greek, less if Slav.
Well, it don't make me no never mind. One of the real nice things about the local Greek church is that there are many Greeks in attendance. I believe this to be because it's near a major naval base, and that means lots of pancake joints and diners (amateur sociology, but I think it true). It's a still a nice touch, especially when it comes to Greek Festival time.
We Jews have the same thing, "Jewish Standard Time". No one ever shows up on time!
My husband is Philipino, time runs an hour behind reality.
To add, it’s super fun because although I was raised secular, it was with a very strong Protestant, military, and classical ballet attitude of ‘early is on time, on time is late, and late is unacceptable.’ Sunday mornings are awesome in my house, LOL
The Liturgy begins when the priest lifts the Gospel and chants "Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"
Gracias.
This is all so helpful! I am planning to attend my first Orthodox service tomorrow, while I expect to feel pretty lost, this will help me feel a bit less lost. Thank you.
Welcome, and hope it goes well.
This a rare Sunday I'll miss church, since I'm out of town, not close to an Orthodox church and have a long road trip to do.
Having attended many mega-church services in my life before moving to Reformed Presbyterianism and then, ultimately, Catholicism, I agree they need to be criticized for promoting the "worship as entertainment" mentality. The lights, the sound systems, the worship singers belting out intense ballads, the smoke machines, etc all add to the concert-like feel of these church services. Not to mention the jumbo screens that feature a digital countdown to the start of service. Many of these churches have high-production value video footage, too, that they show as a part of every service. Interviews with parishioners, interviews with the pastor's wife about her new book, upcoming events at the church, etc. So, no wonder people aren't treating church with reverance and respect. For decades, now, mega-churches have promoted "being relevant to the culture" and "come as you are", and competing with one another to be the biggest and the flashiest. It's all become so man-centered that it's not surprising people don't take it seriously. Also, the abandoning by Protestants of the moral obligation to go to church on Sundays has been a disaster, I think, because then it becomes a personal choice based on feelings rather than on a realization that we have a moral duty and a fundamental need to worship God even if we don't feel like it on any given week. Ironically, it's actually very freeing to "have" to go every Sunday.
That was my experience too! The Catholic mass is such a serious enterprise compared to the free flowing, high octane mega church production experience. I don’t miss the ‘series of the month’ sermon format either. Yes, the seats were comfy, but that’s all I really remember, except the music. I still remember having no clue when there’d actually be a communion service and how they’d randomly they’d pop up at the end of a service from time to time. It was truly weird.
I agree that they need to be called out on for focusing on entertainment, not worship. People who complain about Catholic ‘guitar mass’ should try going non-Dom for a few Sundays. They’d see that ‘guitar mass’ is truly underwhelming in comparison to all the lights, full stage and stadium effects of the non-Dom service. I get why some Catholics tend to hate it, but geez.....having been in non-Dom circles, the rage really doesn’t match the experience Catholics actually get with ‘guitar mass’. The Eucharist is still there!
I accept this is a matter of coming from a different perspective and the fact that I truly embraced being a ‘low church’ Christian when I was one. The Services are just night and day different in terms of reverence and respect.
I probably will never fully embrace the culture of hating on ‘guitar mass’, but I get where it comes from because I’ve seen the logical end result of being loosey-goosey with worship in non-Dom circles. I just realize that there are some people, like my husband, who finds that playing his guitar with the worship team allows him to open his mind enough to be able to listen to and participate in the mass more fully. Music is his gateway into the mystery. I don’t ‘get it’, but that’s how he explains it.
I've written this before, but Evelyn Waugh once wrote that when he was exploring
Catholicism one of the things that most impressed him was the entry of the priest and his server at Low Mass. "Like a tradsman and his apprentice." One wants to weep.
And the bells.
There's a book no American Catholic should die without having read, J.F. Powers' "Morte d'Urban." It's a comic novel which becomes serious. It's also a perfect novel.
I believe that in many ways Powers's Wheat That Springeth Green is even better.
Ah, you have the advantage there. Powers worked for twenty years on "Morte d'Urban," and even if I hadn't loved the novel, I'd have to love him for his indomitability.
I'm a tech in a Presbyterian congregation. We started using the countdown trying to get the congregants in their seats by the time the service starts, and it's only partly effective. Our third service starts at 11 and most of the congregants don't come in the door until 11:15 - and the latecomers are all 30-something and younger, many with children. I think it's a generational thing.
In Orthodox churches the coming later and leaving early depends on what the priest allows. Our
priest's rules are no receiving the Eucharist if arriving after the Gospel reading and no leaving early. I have heard that the Greeks are more lax about that than the Antiochians but my experience is limited.
Yeah, if I arrive after the Gospel, I do not receive Communion. Even if it's all in a language I don't understand. There must be discipline.
I think that technically, at least in Catholicism, if you are not there for the whole Gospel through the consecration then you have not fulfilled your Sunday obligation.
I heard a priest say in a homily that the first person to leave mass early was Judas. Ever since then I've stayed until the end, even if it means I am late for something else.
I was told, as a child, "from the Gospel reading through the Agnus Dei" although others have said "from the Gospel reading through the Our Father."
I heard the second limit was the elevation of the Host, yes.
That wouldn’t make sense, since the Sacrifice of the altar by which we offer perfect worship to God happens at the double consecration.
We have no "obligation" in Orthodoxy, but it is established that if one arrives later than the Gospel one ought not take communion. I think we are expected to stay through the final blessing, but with some leniency once communion is over for parents of young children who may be getting antsy . And also for anyone who needs go attend to warming up food etc. for coffee hour.
Are you still studying Hungarian?
Would it be a sin for an Orthodox person to take a caffeine pill with their water before the divine Liturgy? I am seeing it as medicinal here.
I don't think it would be.
A beloved and respected Russian priest I once met said: "Do what your doctor orders, diet-wise, and then keep to the Church's fasts as much as that allows." Medicine on Sunday morning isn't breaking the fast.
It might be an idea, then, to talk to your doctor about those headaches ...
If they're a caffeine junkie's headaches, no, but you're right: the possibility that they're not should maybe elicit medical inquiry.
I've never liked coffee, but I used to be addicted to caffeine pills. Among the worst depressions/headaches I've ever had was the one I got when I tried to cold turkey those caffeine pills.
The addiction, however one feeds it, can be broken simply enough, though. The magic word is "tapering."
Participating in ritual is an ordering of our will towards God. The church prescribes the gestures and motions and we acknowledge by our response that there is a mediator between us and God.
I want to clarify your view of a "ritual", Corwin. I think of a ritual as a set of physical actions that are intended to have real spiritual effects. In other words, a ritual isn't just about ordering ourselves, it's about creating conditions in which God can (and WILL) order us to His will, not our own. Hence the group preparatory period required before communion (sometimes including fasting the previous day). Maybe we're saying the same thing, I'm not sure.
Of course they have real spiritual effects but only if there is intentionality, a real yielding to God that flows into daily life.
Yep. We're saying the same thing. :-) Just checking.
They are also a sign to other worshippers that we are one with them. Of course this is demonstrated in our post ritual behavior.
I moved recently to a Greek island which is half Catholic (very unusual), and I’ve always wondered what Greek people are doing wandering in and out of the Divine Liturgy, which seems to last half of the day. They go inside, kiss icons, stand around, then walk out, light a cigarette, chit chat in the courtyard while the pappas (the priest) chants inside, wander in again, kiss some more icons. Then after it’s all over (and you never know when that will be), they gather around for a great Sunday barbecue (souvlaki, grilled vegetables, potatoes, etc.) with the pappas, and the entire village. It’s all absolutely wonderful and mysterious to a Catholic from Asia, still struggling with the Greek language and not especially keen on souvlaki. I find the Greek Orthodox Mass less formal for the laity. As you said, one can just wander in and out for coffee or a cigarette. No one will notice or care.
Well, you aren't supposed to be smoking or drinking coffee before communion. I suppose those who do this aren't planning to receive.
That’s correct.
And somehow my brain lept to "wait people are smoking coffee now?"
This used to be what Catholic Mass was like in some parts of Europe.
My grandfather, a man of immense dignity and immaculate probity, in the 1950s organized and executed an effort among his fellow emigrants from a little town in southern Italy, to take up a collection for pews in the madre chiesa. Without pews it was very much like what you describe, people came and went and the Arciprete discerned a lack of reverence.
For what it's worth my grandfather went to his grave (many years later, thank God) believing the local banker embezzled a substantial portion of the money. But the pews got installed. There's a backstory involving the banker, but since I use my own name I'd better be careful.
Syros? Tinos? Their majority-Catholic population (once almost entirely Catholic) is a relic of the centuries of Venetian rule, in the case of Syros from 1204 to 1566, and in the case of Tinois until 1715. There was once a lot of Catholics on Naxos, too.
Tinos.
Quote: "The important question is: what does the performance do to, and for, the people who observe it?"
I have never attended a megachurch, but when much younger, I attended non-denominational churches that could have as many as 500 people. Yes, it was a "performance".....but....here is what I got that I would not get in an Orthodox service.
Stick with me - I prefer a service with the liturgy...but here is what I got.
Worship: A few songs ("This is the day"...for instance...horrible song) were bad. But the meditative songs were wonderful. Raising hands and feeling as if God was there in a special way. Later I came to believe in the real presence in communion. But as a young woman, the time God was most present was in those very special songs. Liturgical congregations try, but they just don't permit the emotional songs that were used in "performance" churches. Also, you participate in the "raise hands/clap" churches. Physical action.
The sermon: Actually, this required a good preacher. If it is good, going over 15 minutes is often good. Like a novel vs. a short story. When I attend Catholic churches, the sermon is usually not as good as the ones I used to hear in "performance" churches. Anglican sermons can, not infrequently, exceed those of "performance" churches.
Certainty: This is true for Orthodox and "Performance". Certainty that truth is in the Bible, that it is a place people can go to find what is true. Very reassuring - a life without this certainty is much more difficult. I don't find this certainty in mainline (including Episcopal) or even Catholic churches anymore.
I could write a whole separate post on why I think liturgical services offer more. But it really comes down to the real presence, that is the main thing. And repetition of the beautiful words of the liturgy. They get down into the depths of your self-conscious. When I became Catholic, after a time, I rarely had nightmares, whereas I had plenty while Protestant.
Congregational singing is encouraged in my church, and I usually do so. I'm finding that is a great way to merge myself into the Liturgy and not get distracted by 101 cares and worries. And with a very few exceptions most modern Orthodox music doesn't require a voice with wide range or serious training.
I’m so glad you got to the Dominion Tom Holland point! Yes, this is the danger of letting atheists lead the conservative movement. Hanania always gave me the creeks because of his pro abortion views, eesh.
I wrote a piece for the Federalist about what “normal” life is like without Christ, it’s a lot like Hanania’s murderous world. Y’all might like it, I’m posting the substack version here because it has extra Tom Holland content!
Don’t be a “normie”:
https://gaty.substack.com/p/dont-be-a-normie
“Self-proclaimed “normies,” fed up with the nonstop sexualization of children, are longing for a return to normalcy. The problem with that wish is that normal is exactly what we are now getting, good and hard”
Ugh, the creeps I mean, sorry.
Very good article, I think the "anti-woke" bar is way too low at the moment and is letting every Tom Dick and Harry be a potential conservative superstar as long as they are mildly uncomfortable with drag queens. It's just a catastrophe waiting to happen
Yep. Like Andrew Sullivan, who gave us gay marriage but draws the line at trans stuff. Because of course we should ignore God’s line but then totally have faith in *Andrew’s*, sigh…
Doctor, I put "Don't Be a Normie" on my church's googlegroups forum. It got more reaction than anything else I've ever put on the forum. One of our elders, a 70 year old man who is an electrical engineer and who isn't easily impressed, told me he thought the article had changed his life. ( His term. )
Much appreciated - thank you!