The Survival of the Species is not the Origin of the Species

In the 4^th part of her series honoring Charles Darwin, Olivia Judson writes in “A Natural Selection” about “some examples of recent evolutionary change in nature.”    She proceeds to list several examples - a few classic ones and a few lesser known situations where variation within a species is clearly shown.  In fact one might say the examples she offers are good evidence of the survival of the species and that the survival of the species portion of evolutionary theory seems well documented. 

However, the comments on her article which follow show that convicted Darwinists recognize the infuriating frustration they experience by the fact that no matter how many examples of genetic variation within a species they can point to (natural selection at work in the survival of the species), anti-evolutionary forces still remain unconvinced that macro-evolution actually occurs or that speciation - a new species emerging from an old - really happens.  Though they don’t seem to recognize it, these defenders of evolution experience the same frustrations that believers in God feel when no matter how many believers testify about the power of God in their lives, the atheists, agnostics and skeptics still maintain it proves nothing regarding the existence of God since each testimony is purely anecdotal.

As a non-scientist, I must admit that the evidence Judson offers is underwhelming.  Yes it does show how within a species variation occurs as natural selection predicts.  But the evidence offered could just as easily be proof of intelligent design - that the Creator God built within His creation the ability for species to adapt and survive.  The fact that Galapagos finch beaks change over time indicates survival of the species is a force in nature and that the genetic code is flexible enough to allow great variation over time.  But all the variation shows is that when conditions change the beak size changes - larger and smaller, back and forth through time without any new species emerging.  The finch gene code keeps the less helpful trait in the DNA and stores it for a rainy day as it were; and when that rainy or draught period comes along, the species is able to survive because the genetic variation is built into the species, but it does not morph into a new species.

And one has to ask - given that scientists have bred countless generations of rats, mice and fruit flies for specific genetic traits, has there been even one instance of a new species emerging as a result of selective breeding?  If under ideal laboratory conditions it doesn’t happen, how can we assume it happens in nature?

The theory of evolution has got many things correct and can overall explain many aspects of the variety of species in the world and the variations within a species.  But at least to this observer  it still does not have quite right an understanding of how a new species originates. 

And though I am a believer in a Creator God, I fully acknowledge that at some point whatever God does in creation becomes part of the natural order and can be fully studied by science.  So I think scientific explanations for life are possible - science is capable of exploring all aspects of creation within the time-space limits of science.

But so far, at least in my eyes, all that evolutionary scientists can actually show or prove is the survival of the species is factual, which is a far cry from showing the origin of new species.   And the claim that “well, it takes billions of years for speciation to take place” - I would ask with physicist John Polkinghorne  give us a rough estimate:  we are talking science here, facts and figures, so give us an estimate for how many generations and how many years are necessary for a new species to emerge or for a functioning eye to appear.  Because if you can’t or won’t, then your theory is no different than the Sidney Harris cartoon joke (what’s funny about science?”) about two physicists looking at an equation and saying “at this point a miracle occurs.”

See also my The Spontaneous Apperance of Life:  God is Creative 

Seeing is Believing and Then Again Its Not

In a 22 July 2008 NY Times science article, Mirrors Don’t Lie.  Mislead?  Oh, Yes,  Natalie Angier offers us a look into how mirrors do mislead our brains.  I recommend you read the entire article.   For those who haven’t studied much physics or haven’t studied it for awhile and can be amazed by basic science, I encourage you to try this as an experiment yourself, as described in the article:

Imagine you are standing in front of a bathroom mirror; how big do you think the image of your face is on the surface? And what would happen to the size of that image if you were to step steadily backward, away from the glass?

People overwhelmingly give the same answers. To the first question they say, well, the outline of my face on the mirror would be pretty much the size of my face. As for the second question, that’s obvious: if I move away from the mirror, the size of my image will shrink with each step.

Both answers, it turns out, are wrong. Outline your face on a mirror, and you will find it to be exactly half the size of your real face. Step back as much as you please, and the size of that outlined oval will not change: it will remain half the size of your face (or half the size of whatever part of your body you are looking at), even as the background scene reflected in the mirror steadily changes. Importantly, this half-size rule does not apply to the image of someone else moving about the room. If you sit still by the mirror, and a friend approaches or moves away, the size of the person’s image in the mirror will grow or shrink as our innate sense says it should.

Bottom line:  Seeing is believing and then again its not.

A Parable of Death and Life

A Parable I first encountered 30 years ago.  The author is unknown to me, but many variations of this story circulate on the Internet.

Once upon a time, twin boys were conceived in the same womb. Seconds, minutes, hours passed as the two embryonic lives developed. The spark of life grew and each tiny brain began to take shape and form.  With the development of their brain came feeling, and with feeling perception - a perception of surroundings,  and of self.  When they perceived the life of each other, they knew that life was good, and they laughed and rejoiced in their hearts.

One said to the other, “We are sure lucky to have been conceived and to have this wonderful world.”

The other chimed in, “Yes, blessed be our mother who gave us life and each other.”

Each of the twins continued to grow and take shape. They stretched their bodies and churned and turned in their little word. They explored it and found the life cord which gave them life from their mother’s blood.  They were grateful for this new discovery and sang, “How great is the love of our mother - that she shares all that she has with us!”  And they were pleased and satisfied with their lot.

Weeks passed into months and with the advent of each new month, they noticed a change in each other and in themselves.

“We are changing”, one said. “What can it mean?”

“It means”, said the other, “that we are drawing near to birth.”

An unsettling chill crept over the two. They were afraid of birth, for they knew that it meant leaving their wonderful world behind.

Said the one,  ”Were it up to me, I would live here forever.”

“But we must be born,” said the other. “It has happened to others who were here before.”   Indeed, there was evidence inside the womb that the mother had carried life before theirs.   ”Might not there be life after birth?”

“How can there be life after birth?” cried the one. “Do we not shed our life cord and also the blood tissue when we are born?  Have you ever talked with someone who was born?  Has anyone ever re-entered the womb after birth to describe what birth is like? NO!”

As he spoke, he fell into despair, and in his despair he moaned, “If the purpose of conception and our growth inside the womb is to end in birth, then truly our life is senseless.” He clutched his precious life cord to his breast and said, “And if this is so, and life is absurd, then there really can be no mother!”

“But there is a mother,” protested the other. “Who else gave us nourishment? Who else created this world for us?”

“We get our nourishment from this cord - and our world has always been here!” said the one. “And if there is a mother - where is she? Have you ever seen her? Does she ever talk to you? NO! We invented the idea of the mother because it satisfied a need in us. It made us feel secure and happy.”

Thus while the one raved and despaired, the other resigned himself to birth and placed his trust in the hands of his mother. Hours turned into days, and days into weeks. And soon it was time. They both knew their birth was at hand, and they both feared what they did not know. As the one was first to be conceived, so he was the first to be born, the other following.

They cried as they were born into the light. They coughed out fluid and gasped the dry air. And when they were sure they had been born, they opened their eyes - seeing life after birth for the very first time. They saw what they yet did not understand as they found themselves cradled lovingly in their mother’s arms. They lay awe struck before the beauty and truth they a few minutes before could only hope to know.

God Created Heaven for man Not man for Heaven

“Christ … made heaven to exist for the Church and not the other way around, because, as Chrysostom says, He created heaven for man not man for heaven.” (Gus George Christo, THE CHURCH’S IDENTITY: ESTABLISHED THROUH IMAGES ACCORDING TO SAINT JOHN CHRYSOSTOM) 

Though Christians talk a lot about their hope “to go to heaven”, the phrases “get to heaven” or “go to heaven” don’t occur in the Bible.   Heaven as the place where God or Christ dwells is an image that unfolds throughout the scriptures, and certainly it is presented that we should all desire to be with Christ, and that there is such a thing as the Kingdom of heaven, but it is not quite the place of destination that popular imagination has turned it into.  Biblical scholar N.T. Wright has written very clearly on the mistaken and not so biblical imagery of going to or getting to heaven. 

It is the human which is central to God’s plan for creation, not heaven.  God was not trying to fill heaven with humans, but rather He intended for humans to experience heaven - the place  where God dwells - wherever the humans were - in paradise or on earth, and by the resurrection of Christ even in Sheol/Hades itself.

Expelling the Demons in our Lives

Sermon notes for 5^th Sunday after Pentecost:    (Matthew 8:28-9:1)

[8:28] When he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes, two demoniacs coming out of the tombs met him. They were so fierce that no one could pass that way. [29] Suddenly they shouted, “What have you to do with us, Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?” [30] Now a large herd of swine was feeding at some distance from them. [31] The demons begged him, “If you cast us out, send us into the herd of swine.” [32] And he said to them, “Go!” So they came out and entered the swine; and suddenly, the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea and perished in the water. [33] The swineherds ran off, and on going into the town, they told the whole story about what had happened to the demoniacs. [34] Then the whole town came out to meet Jesus; and when they saw him, they begged him to leave their neighborhood.  [9:1] And after getting into a boat he crossed the sea and came to his own town.

We can note the contrasts from the beginning and end of the Gospel Lesson:

At the beginning, there is a road that no one could pass through because of these two demon possessed and violent men -  even though apparently knowing about the threat of these men, Jesus goes that way anyhow.   By the end of the lesson, it is the demons who are seeking to get away from that place, and then the locals send Jesus away.      In the beginning of the lesson everyone is afraid of the power of the demons, by the end of the lesson everyone is afraid of the power of Christ which overcomes demons.

Suddenly they shouted:  Anyone who has been around the mentally unbalanced knows how terrifying it is when they begin to shout as they become a very loud menace.   If you haven’t had that experience, just think about how loud one mall but crying child can be in church, or in a store.

The demons which have terrorized everyone who tried to pass that way, are terrified at the appearance of Christ  (”Have you come to torment us before the time?”)

Christ is clearly not afraid of the power these demons or the threat of the demon possessed.  The demons want to leave, but they know they have no power or no permission to do anything when confronted by Christ the Lord.  So the demons have to ask permission to leave.   Demons have no influence over us, except that which we let them have.   In the Baptismal service in the opening exorcism, we say of Satan that he has no power even over the swine.  Evil is not as powerful let alone more powerful than God.  And we certainly know that the demons begging to enter the swine represents a specially Jewish mockery of the demons, for swine are an unclean and unacceptable animal for Jews.  And even these dirty swine are spooked by the demons and jump to their death - even swine want nothing to do with demons.

Jesus was not afraid to go where others were afraid to travel.  He was not afraid to confront other people’s demons.  And for us Christians there is great hope for healing in this if we are tempted by evil thoughts, evil memories, evil imaginations, and we have become afraid to confront these demons in our lives:  things we did in the past and have suppressed their memories, things that happened to us in the past and still haunt us, temptations and sins that we have been afraid to confront. 

Christ is willing to confront and exorcize all such demons and to forgive all our sins and to grant healing to our souls, hearts, and minds.   Christ is not afraid of the haunts of demons.  And we are to submit every aspect of our lives to the Lordship of Christ:  to invite him into the deepest and darkest recessions of our souls, minds or hearts, to drive out every evil and unclean thought.

This expelling of the demons we cannot do alone.  And surely we know the stories in the Gospels where the disciples failed to expel demons when requested to do so.  Christ said prayer and fasting were needed to uproot such demons.  But we also know we are not required to face these demons alone, and shouldn’t.  We are to walk this path with Christ, and He is present with us in His Body, the Church.  We have in the Churchall manners of support:  our fellow Christians, our godparents, monks,  the priest, and the Saints to walk those difficult paths and to go to those places in our hearts and minds and souls where we are afraid to go.  We have confession as a weapon against such demonic influences.  We have Holy Communion and the reading of the Word of God to bring the light of Christ into the dark places of our lives.

May Christ our true God expel and exorcise any kind of demon from your lives - every spirit of darkness, evil thought and memory, any demonic temptation or fantasy.    May all demonic powers be crushed beneath the sign of the cross.

Christ the Interpreter of the Law

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. …  And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.  No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.”  (John 1:14, 16-18)

Fr. Paul Tarazi’s  THE NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION: JOHANNINE WRITINGS offers an interesting look at the close parallels between the writings of St. Paul the Apostle and of St. John  the Theologian.  Fr. Tarazi makes a strong case for the idea that we actually can see the influence of St. Paul in the writings of St. John.  Some might think this is backwards:  didn’t St. Paul become a Christian after St. John?  But historically St. Paul wrote his letters before St. John wrote his Gospel and the Book of Revelation.   Tarazi sees in the writings of St. John the influence of the Pauline writings and an effort by St. John to reaffirm the Gospel proclaimed by St. Paul.    As Fr. Paul shows both writers were building upon their knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures and the promises of God in their own proclamation of the Gospel.    One idea that Fr. Paul presents that I would make a brief comment on:

“However, Jesus is not simply a ‘new Moses.’  He is the goal that Moses looked forward to, the promised one envisioned by Moses, not a mere successor to Moses.  As John points out, no one else-including Moses-‘has seen God,’ so no one else-including Moses-could ‘interpret’ God for mankind (the Greek of verse 18 [John1:18}  has ‘interpreted’ where the RSV renders ‘made him known’).  Jesus’ role as the sole and unique representative of God the Father before mankind makes him effectively theos (God, divine) just as the Father of the Torah is and in a way Moses never could be.  He is the content of ‘the word’-as promise before and fulfillment now-and, as such, he is the sole interpreter of who God is and the sole interpreter of the Father’s word contained in the Torah.  Laying out this understanding of the role of scripture and the relationship between the old and new written expressions of God’s word is what John’s Gospel is all about.” (pp. 144-145)

What St. John is saying in 1:14-18, is that both the Law and the incarnation of the Word are God’s grace to humanity (”grace upon grace” which in the Greek reads “grace instead of grace”).  The Law (the old grace) served its purpose in preparing humanity for the full revelation which God was going to make known in Jesus Christ.  But now an entirely new grace has been given to humanity in the Word become flesh.  Moses gave God’s Law to the people of God, but He didn’t interpret it or reveal its full purpose and meaning.  It is Jesus Christ who interprets (”has made him known”) God, God’s Law and God’s Word to us.  Jesus Himself reveals the true meaning of the Law.   He doesn’t just interpret each of the 613 Laws of the Torah, but He reveals what the Torah was all about - what purpose the Torah had/has, how it fits into God’s plan of salvation.  The Torah wasn’t God’s plan of salvation for the world, but the very thing that would help make that salvation known, and now Christ has revealed what the Torah was pointing to - namely Jesus as the Messiah.  We had the Torah, but didn’t have the full understanding of it.   Thus St. Paul said we were trying to use the Torah to make ourselves righteous, whereas the Torah was there to reveal God’s righteousness to us - namely His Messiah and the free gift of salvation.

The Torah was to help God’s people be a light to the nations.  In Christ the Light has been given to the world.

For another blog on Fr. Tarazi’s book see my Harvest is Plentiful: Send Me Lord to do the Labor

Tradition: Conciliarity and Disagreement

The conclusion of Tradition: Incorporating Differences in Orthodoxy

Christians continued through their history to argue, disagree, dispute, divide, mutate, adapt, adopt and change throughout the first several hundred years of our existence. St. Paul sees serious morality issues appearing in the Christian community, and he offers directions for how a united local community should deal with serious moral offenses. He does indeed speak about expelling offending Christians from the fellowship of believers to preserve the purity of the community. His particular way of dealing with such issues also becomes part of the Christian Tradition. But the Christians have not always stayed faithful to lovingly finding solutions to their differences.

By the time Julian the Apostate became emperor (361-363AD) a few years after Constantine’s death, he wanted to eliminate Christianity but he concluded that no persecution of Christians was needed. In fact he commented that persecution creates martyrs and Christians seemed to draw strength from their martyred members. Instead Julian was convinced that religious tolerance was the best method to destroy Christianity. For he concluded that the minute the government stopped persecuting the Arians, the Christians would be at each other’s throats. Julian’s bodyguard, Ammianus noted that Julian “had found by experience that no wild beasts are so hostile to men as are Christian sects in general to one another.” Leave the Christians alone they will destroy themselves through their endless disagreements. Why? Because the Christians had become completely intolerant of any differences among themselves.

When Christians failed to imitate Jesus in dealing with disagreements, when they forgot the pattern set in the Acts of the Apostles in dealing with division, then they saw differences as the clear justification to hate and oppose one another. Intolerance of differences and diversity becomes the Christian norm after the time of Constantine.  And with the Constantinian conversion of the Church, Christians relied on the government to enforce intolerance.

But despite all of this, Christians found uniformity, conformity and a monolithic nature to be elusive. The date of Easter, what to do with the lapsed, how to deal with Imperial interference in the Church, theological dispute, all of these became issues continuing to divide Christians. And still the Christians often ignored Christ’s teaching to love one another.

Rarely can we find discussion in the Byzantine period concerning how to love one another. But Christians condemning and persecuting one another became common place. Jesus taught us to love even our enemies. As Chrysostom laments, Christians can’t even love their friends.

We can go on in Christian history; Antioch Vs Alexandria, Chrysostom Vs Cyril, endless theological debates and mutual excommunication, Byzantine Vs Slav rubrics, possessors Vs non-possessors, Old believers, Old calenderists, frequency of communion, etc., etc. Christian differences quickly lead to Christian divisions and mutual expulsions from each other’s communions.

And still today, Orthodox Christians when faced with diversity in piety or liturgics, often try to enforce one view on everyone. As if love requires everyone to be identical.

Hierarchy, police, excommunication, ethnic enclaves and armies have become the normative way for Christians to deal with differences and diversity. But in all of this maybe there still exists some hope. Perhaps the gift America will offer to us Orthodox is tolerance: to learn to love one another despite the fact that there is Greek and Slav, male and female, American and barbarian (or is it non-American and barbarian?).  Maybe the love Christ taught us in dealing with his disagreeing disciples is the love of tolerance for one another, bearing with one another, accepting one another, not judging one another, supporting one another despite our weaknesses, errors, failures, faults or even sins.  We seem to have tried every method to enforce a monolithic conformity and uniformity. Maybe tolerance, creativity, expansion of ministry - the ways of the earliest church - are the methods we need to turn to in the 21st Century Church. Is diversity in piety and thinking tolerable in Christianity?  Certainly our history is one of tremendous diversity and change, not one of a monolithic practice and vision.

Christ Himself came down hard against the Pharisaic unchangeable tradition.  He certainly indicates it is what blinds these super righteous men to what God was doing in the world. 

The spirituality of the desert fathers was no one-size-fits-all thinking.

In the Gospel, people follow the Lord Jesus for a variety of reasons. Some are called by Him. Some are merely curious. Some want to hear Him speak. Some want to learn from Him. Some want nothing more than a miracle - not theology, nor rubrics. Some want simply to touch the hem of His garments. Some want to dispute with Him. Others want to trap or trick Him. A few are hoping for heavenly seats in the Kingdom. Some want to destroy Him. One comes to follow Him in order to betray Him. But all are following Christ, for very their very diverse reasons. Christ sends none of them away. He even communed Judas with the rest. He spoke to all, blessing even the children brought to Him. He healed the sick. He forgave sinners. And He forgave them all including those who killed Him.

Tradition: Incorporating Differences in Orthodoxy

The first of two blogs on Conciliarity and Diversity in Orthodoxy.

“An argument arose among them as to which one of them was the greatest….” (Luke 9:46)

 Ever since there was more than one disciple, there have been disagreements in the Christian community. Sometimes over great issues, sometimes over minor ones, and sometimes even over sinful ones. How Christians have responded to their own disagreements is a topic worthy of consideration.

To the disagreement about who was greatest mentioned above from Luke 9:46, Jesus told his disciples that to welcome a child in his name is to welcome him, and that the least among us is the greatest. He doesn’t give them any orders, doesn’t threaten them, doesn’t ban or excommunicate any of them, and doesn’t really even criticize them. Our Lord seems to have been content with letting his disciples think about their differences.

Christ followed the pattern of a teacher of wisdom, which is very different from a lawgiver.  In some ways, by giving them wisdom, he gives them another set of ideas to argue over. What does it mean to welcome a little child? How do we do it and when or where? Did Christ intend this as the ideal for a disciple all the time or only when we are disputing with one another?  It is not clear from the text exactly what effect his teaching had on the disciples either. John the Beloved disciple does seem to pick up on the idea by referring to church members as “little children” in his epistles. 

As the church grew, serious growing pains emerged. An increasingly diverse Christian population threatened the unity of the Christians. In Acts 6, complaints arise about inequalities in the distribution of food to different widows. The Apostles neither rush to criticize or ostracize the offenders. No punishment is meted out, no castigation nor excommunication. Rather a new ministry is established - the diaconate - to deal with the issues involved. The Church relied on creativity and an expansion of its thinking and increase in ministry to take care of its needs - needs brought about by the increasingly diverse Christian population. 

By Acts 15, the Christian community is torn by yet another dispute. Do Gentiles have to become Jews in order to follow Christ? The issue confronting the church is one of the growing diversity of the Body of believers. Christ is not around to offer an enigmatic saying to the disputants. They are on their own. So how do they handle the problem? Church leadership again becomes creative. A new way of conciliarity and dealing with problems emerges:  the council.  The disciples hold council together to resolve their differences within community.  (This for us Orthodox becomes a pattern for dealing with disagreements.) The Council comes to a common mind: “We and the Holy Spirit…” have made a decision.  It is interesting that they quote the Jewish scriptures but do not quote Christ in their deliberations or in their rendered decision.  And again they deal with the divisive problem without threats, punishments, or excommunication for those who had threatened church unity to begin with.  Neither do they offer suggestion for how their decision is to be enforced in the future either. Nevertheless the decision is to be spread among the faithful. The effort seems to be at maintaining the unity Christ spoke for us in John 17.

Elsewhere in scripture, Paul argues with Barnabas. Paul disagrees with Peter. And we Christians in the 21^st Century must try to teach and follow the teachings of both Paul and Peter. There are differences in the approach to discipleship between Paul and John. We deal with this not by choosing one over the other, but by recognizing the apostolic authority of both. The catholicity and the unity of the church is maintained by finding the means to accept both visions of Christianity. We do the same by accepting the one Gospel of four evangelists who do differ on many issues, and offer us different versions and interpretations of the same events. Take for example the anointing of the body of Jesus: Matthew has no anointing of the dead Jesus either at his burial nor does he mention the women bringing spices to the tomb. Mark & Luke mention no spices at his burial, but have the myrrhbearing women coming to anoint the body on Sunday morning. John has Joseph and Nicodemus anointing the body at the burial, but no myrrhbearers on Sunday morning. We Orthodox liturgically celebrate this diversity. We liturgically follow John’s account on Holy Friday: Friday’s hymns remember the anointing at burial and the winding sheet usually has written on it John’s quote about Joseph and Nicodemus anointing the body of Jesus. We also celebrate Mark’s version of events on Myrrhbearers’ Sunday 2 weeks after Pascha. Both versions, though seemingly contradictory, find their way into the liturgical life of Orthodoxy. Difference and diversity liturgically celebrated.

Read the conclusion Tradition: Conciliarity and Disagreement

Psalm 1:3-6

 Psalm 1:3-6 (ESV)

 3He is like a tree
   planted by streams of water
that yields its fruit in its season,
   and its leaf does not wither.
In all that he does, he prospers. 4The wicked are not so,
   but are like chaff that the wind drives away.

 5Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
   nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous;
6for the LORD knows the way of the righteous,
   but the way of the wicked will perish.

 The Psalm contrasts the blessed human (singular) with the wicked who are many.  The one blessed person is like the well watered and fruitful tree; the many wicked are like chaff blown in the wind.   Chaff is seen as that which is worthless - of no value, serving no good purpose.

The person who spends time searching God’s word, studying and meditating on His precepts, is nurtured enough by God to be able to cope with life’s struggles.  The Cross of Christ is the Tree of Life for us - that well watered and fruitful tree.  If we think about what God has done in Christ on the Cross, we will find joy and peace even in the face of suffering and death.  We will find prosperity, because we will know what is truly valuable in the world and we will not be deceived by the emptiness of worldly wealth, possessions, beauty, popularity - which as it turns out eventually do reveal themselves as chaff.

America is said to be a country which makes up the rules of its culture as it goes along.  There is always a degree of uncertainty and instability here.  It is hard for us to discern what is right and what is wrong because nothing stays the same; everything is relative, changing, so temporary.  Perhaps this is so to help warn us not to cling to the things of this world.  We seek beauty only to find styles and tastes keep changing.  Ever changing notions of beauty (or at least so consumerism says) causes us to constantly buy more clothes and cosmetics to keep chasing the fleeting beauty of our bodies.   But even beauty passes away.  There is a lesson to pursue that which is lasting and permanent.  Pursue the happiness which doesn’t change with age, with taste, with style: the happiness which comes from knowing God and living the peaceful and steadfast way of the Lord.   The ungodly values will not last.  They will pass away, and then what will we be left with?  We’re in the 21^st Century now - the values, the highs and the sins of the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s are past.  They are perishing and could not give us the happiness and peace we want.

God has shown us and continues to show us the way to permanent and eternal values.   God’s love is eternal; it never fails.  His salvation enlivens the soul.  Only in His incarnate Word will we find  the life and happiness which never end.

See Psalm 1:1-2

Psalm 1:1-2

1Blessed is the man
   who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
   nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
2but his delight is in the law of the LORD,
   and on his law he meditates day and night

(Psalm 1:1-2, ESV)

True Happiness is something the Psalms speak about frequently.   Do you truly want to be happy?    The first Psalm tells us that true happiness (blessedness) comes by not following the way of the ungodly, or the sinners or the scornful.  Now we might ask where do I learn these ungodly ways for I certainly do not try to associate with the ungodly?    Well,  we learn the values of the ungodly and scornful from those who find God to be restricting their behavior.   We learn a lot of ungodliness from the books, emails, magazines, movies, podcasts, web pages and television we view each day.  We learn these values from modern songs, talk shows, and sitcoms.    Does this mean that everything in our culture is evil?     No.  It does mean that the values, priorities and perspectives of today’s mass culture media is not shaped by the Church or by God or by scripture.  Just think about the humor you encounter daily through the internet or media (maybe you even assumed, “hey it’s supposed to be humorous not holiness, otherwise it wouldn’t be funny.  Right?!?” )  Think about the language, images, content, which we accept as normative, and then ask yourself “is it ungodly?”  Should I be keeping company with such humor?   Or think about the things we consider to be “entertaining”  - murder, mayhem, slasher, blood and gore, torture, destruction, amoral, immoral, rape, violence, crime, suffering, humiliation, degradation.   We can be judged by the “company” we keep - our communications and our entertainment of choice.   We will learn the way of the scornful and the ungodly by the messages we watch, read and listen.

Interesting to note:  the early Church Fathers saw this Psalm as a prophecy of Christ - THE Man who rejected the way of the world and brought true joy to all.

Who is blessed by God? 

The person who studies and meditates on the Lord’s decrees, commands, teachings.  The happy person thinks constantly about what God says.   God’s commands are life, and light, and joy and peace and strength.  In them, we Orthodox will find all we need to survive in the world.  We will find guidance for daily living in God’s Word and World.  We will find comfort in time of trouble.  We will find God’s revelation to us - indeed through them we will find God Himself - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  We will find in God’s commands purpose for our existence.  We will find direction for all decision making.  We will find songs to uplift us, and songs that express our anguish.  God’s law is a joy to think about & fills our hearts with delight.

How different would our lives be if we read and studied the Gospels and the entire New Testament as often or for as long as we entertain ourselves with computers and the mass media?  I’m not saying we read the New Testament more than all these other things, only that we study it for an equal amount of time as we spend on entertainment and the internet.

See also Psalm 1:3-6