God’s place in a humanist society (23) [Locul lui Dumnezeu într-o societate umanistă]

Not only that they are fewer, but British practicing Christians are more and more pressured to hide their faith, in order to go on enjoying the privilege of living in a democratic, progressive and prosperous country like the UK.

Wearing a cross at work, even exhibiting one in an electrician’s van have become unofficial offences that irreligious zealots are eager to punish.

More and more – of the already few! – Christians in Britain are at risk of being put in front of a stark choice: “Take off your cross or you’ll get sacked!”.

Supervisers, bosses, co-workers or any other politically correct authorities have no scruples about threatening Christians like this, whilst no one would dare asking a Muslim woman to remove her veil, a Jew to take off his kippah or a Sikh to renounce his turban.

Indeed, that would be outrageous in a country like Great Britain, wouldn’t it? But shouldn’t the same laws the same right for Christians?

It seems that the answer is definitely negative, according to the Conservative (?!) Chameleon in office at 10 Downing Street.

For the UK Government, wearing a cross is not a “generally recognised Christian practice,” thus it needn’t be supported by the State in front of the ECHR. In a country where any wacky minority can ask for protection, Christians are defenceless…

Then why is the British monarh still called Defender of the Faith? Why is the Union Jack still bearing not one but three crosses?

And what kind of faith is that which the Monarch defends? The faith that Christianity is a relic of history whose demise should be hastened?!

There’s no doubt that being a Christian has become a deficiency for one’s employability in the UK. Unless you’re a New man, you can hardly integrate in a society obsessed with material wealth and with loathing its Christian heritage.

Just like in the USSR, when politically correct bolsheviks in Britain can’t snatch crosses from people’s hearts by brainwashing, they forcibly take them off chests.

They are probably relying on the fact that those of churches will fall by themselves. If not, one day they will take the cross down even from St. Paul’s Cathedral in the City of London…

[For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

What the West cannot understand about Orthodoxy [Ce nu poate pricepe Vestul despre Ortodoxie]

There are so many things that the Western civilised (?!) world can’t understand about Orthodoxy, that I had given up the idea of writing a blog post on this topic.

Nevertheless, by God’s grace I came across an article*** which puts in a nutshell what I found so difficult to express. It’s written by Nana Devdariani, a famous Georgian journalist (and former state official), and it initially appeared in The Georgian Times.

Apart from some references to the political turmoil in Georgia, and to how Mikheil Saakahsvili (and probably his pupeteers from the USA) more or less ‘hijacked’ some symbols of Georgia, there’s something else I liked about this article.

It explains how un-Christian Western nations are compared to Georgia or to any Orthodox nation for that matter. It surely takes more for a nation to be Christian beyond St George’s (and England’s) flag kept on the UK’s Union Jack.

Be them the poorest, the most corrupt, the less civilised (and sadly, some of the most abortionist) nations, only Orthodox Churches have been blessed to hold on to the true teachings of Christ!

As individuals, we – the Orthodox believers – are often as spiritually sick as our Western contemporaries. We’re really no better, and while all heterodox may have excuses for their inequities after a millenium of heresies, we have almost none.

The secular nationalism of the West, and it’s array of humanist values are meaningless compared to the essence of Orthodoxy, which is not not just ‘another’ confession, among countless other – it’s the sole Truth left in this world.

We are often accused of being backward, and intolerant, yet many (not all) little Orthodox nations (not Tsarist, neither Putin’s Russia) have proven, throughout centuries, to be more tolerant than some ‘democratic’ societies of today.

I’m sure that some politically correct and brainwashed idiots who keep a watchful eye on this blog may be once more outraged by my claim that not all religions are good, and that there’s only ONE WAY to Salvation.

Our dreams of prosperity, of comfort, of understanding between nations, of solidarity, of world peace (and all the blah-blah-blahs) won’t save us! I’m not against any of these generous ideals; I only want to draw attention to how hypocritical they are.

The very people who are supposed to uphold them, trample on them behing closed doors, and within their hearts. Any of those people serving us the above values only care about themselves.

They are no saviours. The Lord has given us only One, and only once – some 2,000 years ago. It may appear irrational to affirm this for some many ‘wise people’ of today, but hell is full of ‘wise people’ who were sure (and taught others accordingly) that there is no hell.

.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Therefore, for those who have still got eyes to see, and ears to hear, I’m recommending the next article (whitin which I bolded some words):

The West cannot understand that Orthodox Christianity is not a confession – one among many others

Our politicians often note that Georgia and the West have ‘common values’. They say this so often that it has become a kind of slogan. The key motive for repeating such a statement is to make it an accepted formula, which people unthinkingly repeat without pondering its essence.

But this is a vitally important issue. Values per se define our place in the world, our perception of the world and our attitudes to each and all. Our values define life and often death. We all have seen the terrible pictures of naked Jews being brought to the Nazi concentration camps. Those who do not know what Erva means for Jews cannot guess that being naked is worse than death for a Jew.

The meaning of values is in reality a philosophical issue but we are witnessing their profanation and vulgarisation before our eyes. When a new article in the Criminal Code of Georgia on 'squealing' sparked a public outcry this was not a manifestation of a criminal mentality in society but something deeper, directly connected with our religious belief.

“Squealing” is not considered bad because people don't want to cooperate with the police but because Judas Iscariot did exactly this when he betrayed Jesus with a kiss. On the basis of religious values it can be readily deduced what will be acceptable to society and what not.

Different attitudes to sin are one of the differences between various religions.

.

If you observe the Western way of life, you realise that sin is becoming an increasingly ‘comfortable’ thing. Westerners can never get enough comfort, and this means accepting every sin going.

Through competing with Protestants (and other denominations) for members the Catholic Church has started to abandon its positions step by step to become a more comfortable place to be. But this is not a new thing. It all started with selling indulgences – forgiveness of sins in exchange of money.

The Catholic Church has simplified the state of a believer and accepted that deep repentance is not absolutely necessary for sins to be forgiven. Rather the fear of sin, or slight repentance, is enough.

The practice of indulgences was not ‘invented’ out of the blue. It has a well-argued basis: Catholic belief states that God is angry with humans for their sins and will inevitably punish them, and therefore you have to do something for God to have your sins forgiven. It was merely a scholastic and technical issue to turn this doctrine into enabling people to pay for indulgences.

But paying in any form is unimaginable for an Orthodox. Sin drives men from God but God never leaves a sinner. God does not demand payment but a change of behaviour. Sin is not as simple an issue as it may seem at first glance. It is unacceptable for Orthodox to try and buy God’s mercy, to ‘bribe’ God and then go back to living the same life as before.

Although trading in indulgences was eventually condemned the Protestants took the next step when they began to recognise only two out of the 7 mysteries: baptism and eucharist, and rejected sacramental repentance through confession along with the remaining four (chrismation, ordination, marriage, anointing the sick).

I am not arguing that a Protestant does not repent at all. But repentance is not a holy mystery for a Protestant. Today both the Catholic Church and Protestants are more tolerant of sins, including those which contradict their own religions' morals and ethics. It is indisputable that nobody forces you to behave this or that way.

But the problem is that you cannot refuse to repent of your sins if you want to be called a believer. Western Christianity has met such 'believers' halfway already.

Affiliation with any religion does not grant someone an insurance against sin (and neither does atheism). Man is sinful in essence, but the difference between them lies in whether they repent of their sins or justify them.

If you look at the histories of Europe and Georgia, you will see a significant difference between the two. In Europe kings (or noblemen, dukes or other rulers) could change the religion of the people. In medieval Europe this principle was universal: whoever rules, theirs is the Church of the people.

This principle has not been applied in Georgia since Christianity was declared the state religion, even when Georgia had Moslem kings. The ‘wars of religion’ often cited by academics were mostly fought for political reasons, religion being just the packaging of political attempts to change the values of the people by force.

When talking about the historic tolerance of Georgians scholars often note that Jews were never murdered or harassed in Georgia. But this is an extreme simplification of the issue. Jews enjoyed the same privileges as Georgians did, and, more importantly, their property was protected, which is as important for a Jew as their personal protection.

Researchers often complain that there is a lack of records about Jews in Georgia, but this is because there were no separate regulations for them and they enjoyed the same rights as all other people.

The West cannot understand that Orthodox Christianity is not a confession – one among many others. It is a rule of existence and social organisation and its identification with being Georgian is so firmly established that you cannot even dispute it without stirring angry protests.

In 1888 Ilia Chavchavadze wrote: “Christianity, besides the actual Christian confession, means the Georgian soil, means being Georgian. Today in the South Caucasus Georgia and Christian are identical. They would say somebody had turned Georgian, rather than turned Christian [if a Moslem converted to Christianity here].

Our Church knows that land and nationality mixed with belief, intertwined with religion, form an insurmountable sword and shield before the enemy. This is what has helped this tiny country resist numerous foes! The Church has linked the land and nationality to belief and the nation has had this trinity as a guide through 1,500 years of war and bloodshed. This trinity preserves the homeland and Georgian identity for a Georgian.”

Words and deeds often differ in politics but we also often cannot link issues which are rings in the same chain of logic. For instance, when the President says that his political idol is Kemal Ataturk he should remember that the Moslem religious schools were closed under Ataturk, teaching religious discipline was banned and religious symbols and clothes was forbidden.

In 1925 the Darwish brotherhoods were abolished. Ataturk expelled the Ecumenical Patriarch from Constantinople. In 1928 Article 2, which stated that Islam was the state religion, was removed from the Constitution.

Let’s remember 2002-2003 when the newly established Government raised five-cross flags with the slogan: “Let’s regain Georgia!” For many people this was a signal that the National Movement was nationalist and an Orthodox political force was coming into power. Many would even note: “I do not follow Misha but the five-cross flag!”

But in reality if you had looked at the past and present of that movement you would have seen that its nationalism meant no more than citizenship of Georgia and its Orthodoxy the equality of the national Faith with all the other confessions.

The attempt by the opposition to play the same card is again a false promise, as they have the same values as the National Movement and it cannot be otherwise, as the West they court teaches a different type of nationalism and does not teach Orthodox Christianity.

The message of the National Movement which people misinterpreted was absolutely understandable and acceptable for the Western political elite. The five-cross flag, which is associated with the Crusaders, was a signal that the people holding these flags would also be 'crusaders'.

The colours of the flag are the traditional colours of Coca-Cola, and have been established in the Western mentality as such for half a century. As for Christianity, the US still calls itself a Christian country but this is as far from the truth as Western Christianity is from Orthodoxy.

The symbol of the National Movement which has become the state symbol was well-thought out and has achieved its goal. But this goal did not have anything common with the hopes and desires of the people who thought that the symbol was designed for them.

*** NOTE: I’m afraid I couldn’t post an active link here, but any Google search with the name of the article usually finds it.

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

Ortodoxia în Scoţia (5) [Orthodoxy in Scotland]

Fiind binecuvântat de Dumnezeu cu străbaterea atâtor şi atâtor locuri din Scoţia (a se vedea aici şi aici o trecere în revistă a lor), am căutat să aflu care ar fi legătura dintre Sf. Apostol Andrei, cel dintâi chemat şi aceste meleaguri.

Cum se face că ţara asta îl are drept Patron Saint (cum zic ei) pe cel pe care noi îl considerăm Ocrotitorul României?

Ce poate lega ţinuturile acestea (Kingdom of Fife), aşa îndepărtate geografic de Ţara Sfântă şi locurile pe unde a propovăduit Apostolul, dar – după cum arată seculara Scoţie de astăzi – şi aşa de îndepărtate duhovniceşte de credinţa adevărată?

Şi nu vreau să zic departe de noi, cei ce ne-am crede (prea adesea fără temei în faptele noastre) ‘buni ortodocşi’, ci… foarte departe de însăşi tradiţia acestei ţări, care s-a născut ortodoxă.

Aici, creştinismul nu a fost adus de iezuiţi (ca în America de Sud), nici de puzderia de secte protestante ce au colonizat America de Nord, nici de penticostali, precum în rândul unor cetăţeni români mai închişi la culoare :-), ci de neobosiţi urmaşi ai Sf. Apostoli, precum Sf. Rule sau Sf. Columba.

La fel cum apostolatul Sf. Andrei avea să înduplece inimile sciţilor şi dacilor, urmaşi de-ai săi de peste veacuri aveau să înmoaie (exclusiv prin puterea Cuvântului pe Care Îl propovăduiau) inimile triburilor celtice de pe aceste tărâmuri nordice, odinioară margine a lumii cunoscute.

Cum oricine cere ia; şi cel ce caută găseşte, am aflat că legătura Sf. Andrei cu Scoţia o reprezintă faptul că o parte din moaştele sau au ajuns pe aceste meleaguri, mai precis în actuala localitate St Andrews.

Cu numai 18,000 locuitori astăzi (şi, probabil, niciodată mai mulţi), orăşelul are o bogată tradiţie academică (prima univesitate scoţiană, din 1413, şi a treia britanică, după Oxford şi Cambridge), iar până la Reforma Scoţiană a fost capitala (adevăratei) Biserici Scoţiene.

Aceasta era parte a unicei Biserici a lui Hristos, nu ceea ce avea să devină mai târziu Church of Scotland, această ‘instituţie’ la care aderă, formal (prin răspunsurile din sondaje) 42% dintre scoţieni, dar în fapt, membri înregistraţi nu-s mai mulţi de 12% din populaţia ţării. Iar câţi din aceştia din urmă (489,000 oameni) or fi practicanţi... greu de zis.

Pe aceste meleaguri, St. Rule (Regulus) a adus o pare din moaştele Sf. Andrei, mai înainte ca Sf. Împărat Constantin să mute trupul sfântului la Constantinopol, pe la anul 345 d.Hr. O altă legendă spune că osemintelele sfinte ar fi ajuns în această cadedrală la anul 733, aduse de St. Acca, Episcop de Hexham.

Oricum ar fi fost (rezumatul celor două legende – aici), e clar că moaştele au fost aduse în Scoţia încă dinainte de Marea Schismă, pe când şi prin aceste pustii ţinuturi nordice, şi prin cetăţile bizantine, era aceeaşi Ortodoxie curată.

Din păcate, după sângeroasa Reformă Scoţiană, avea să fie lăsată în paragină şi Catedrala Sf. Andrei din St Andrews (ale cărei rămăşiţe se pot vedea în imaginile de faţă), până atunci cea mai înaltă clădire din Scoţia. Odată cu distrugerea edificiului, însoţită de masacre de-o parte şi de cealată, între protestanţi şi catolici, se pare că şi moaştele Sf. Andrei au fost distruse de către reformişti cu o furie diabolică, asemănătare celei a iconoclaştilor.

Astăzi, pe lângă amintirea Apostolului rămasă pe steagul scoţian (de unde a fost preluat şi pe cel britanic – Union Jack), amintirea lui o mai ţine această Zi naţională a scoţiei, şi câteva tradiţii asemănătoare celor româneşti...

...pe care le mai înregistrează culegerile de istorioare folclorice, nu ştiu dacă şi memoria scoţienilor contemporani.

De pildă, dacă, în ajunul zilei de 30 noiembrie, o fată aruncă un pantof şi acesta cade cu vârful spre uşă, într-un an se va mărita şi ‘va ieşi din casă’.

Sau, dacă este destul de iscusită, încât să cureţe coaja unui măr fără să o rupă, aruncă acea coajă, şi ea negreşit va cădea în forma literei cu care începe numele viitorului soţ :-)

Dincolo de aceste superstiţii, exista odinioară prin Scoţia şi convingerea simplă că doar prin rugăciune către Sf. Andrei o fată nu va rămâne nemăritată.

Apoi, sunt convins că un praznic minunat se va fi săvâşit la Comunitatea Ortodoxă Sf. Andrei din Edinburgh, unde scoţieni de baştină, plus venetici (englezi, greci, români, sârbi etc) vor fi dat toată cinstea cuvenită Apostolului cel dintâi chemat de Mântuitorul nostru.

[Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la/For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to: Contents/Cuprins]