Baby McKenzie and the Right to Life

I want to ask all of the readers of my blog to add to their prayer lists, the one year old baby McKenzie.    McKenzie is in need of a liver/small bowel transplant in order to live.  She has spent much of her short life in hospitals.  Her teen birthing mother has left McKenzie to foster care.  By the grace of God, a foster couple – Chuck and Jean whose own children are all grown – are caring for McKenzie and moving to adopt her. 

At left is a picture of baby McKenzie, her foster Mom, Jean, and my daughter, Julianna, who as a result of her senior project in Allied Health is working with baby McKenzie and her foster parents.  Julie herself has suffered from a critical kidney disease, and is learning about her own health situation through this project.

Most of all, I ask you to remember McKenzie and her foster parents, Jean and Chuck, in your prayers.  All of us who advocate a right to life position, also need to know that advocating bringing all babies to full term means we have to offer up care and financial resources to provide for some of them.  This is the price of being pro-life.

If you would like to donate toward helping Jean and Chuck care for McKenzie, you can send a check to St. Paul Orthodox Church and note on the check that it is for McKenzie.  Send the check to

St. Paul Orthodox Church

 4451 Wagner Rd.

 Dayton, OH 45440

McKenzie and her foster parents are not members of our parish.  But as one way to fulfill what Christ taught us (see my blog Pascha as our Judgment Day), we are offering support for McKenzie as a right to life issue.

Bailout: No Avoiding the Pain

According to the dictionaries, the word “bailout” as a term applying to corporate financial rescue was coined in the early 1950’s.  I am not sure what was happening at that point in the U.S. economy that such a term became necessary, but perhaps it was the post-WWII economic boom that created companies that grew too fast and needed then to be bailed out.   An old parental adage which says, “little kids, little problems; big kids, big problems,”   apparently also applies to the corporate world and to the U.S. economy as a whole.

The unprecedented “growth” of the U. S. economy beginning some 30 years ago was enjoyed by many, especially those at the top.   It was based in sectors of the economy who boomed or ballooned and then in recent years we began to experience these sudden growth spurts for what they were – empty bubbles that burst.  Much of the unparalleled spending spree by Americans, which was a driving force in this supposedly robust economy, was actually resting upon an unparalleled growth in personal and corporate debt – the booming economy’s foundation was an ever ballooning debt.  The huge vaporous emptiness which the debt represents was somehow thought of as both our wealth and also was the supposed bedrock on which the entire structure called the U.S. economy was being built. 

Not being an economist, I can’t understand how these things came to be believed, but they were, and the banking, stock market and real estate booms were inflating the voluminous bubble that couldn’t sustain the weight of the skyrocketing economy.   Apparently it was addicting to watch the economy grow in this way because people kept looking up at the unlimited growth rather than down at the foundation upon which this growth was being built.   Too bad some economic structural engineers weren’t called in to offer a safety opinion on whether in fact debt could bear the load of the economic building.

So I found listening to  Morning Edition, February 27, 2009, painful as the title of the story implied:  Taxpayer Beware: Bank Bailout Will Hurt.   The entire 30 year economic boom was a big party to which I did not attend, and yet I am going to be stuck with the bill.  I have no credit card debt.  I have faithfully paid by mortgage.  Admittedly, I have had very few vacations, do not have an expensive car and do not own a brand new spacious home with all of the modern devices others couldn’t live without.  I don’t have a lot to show for the 30 year economic boom – no investments, no savings account, but a mortgage and some college loans I had to take out to keep kids in college.

One of the factors that got us into our current problem is debt, pure and simple.   For most years, the amount of debt Americans owed was about 50% of the value of the entire U.S. economy.  But then between 2000-2008 (where were the fiscal conservatives?), our debt skyrocketed and equaled the value of the gross domestic product of the U.S.:  13 trillion dollars.  The last time that happened was 1929. 

David Beim, a former banker who is now a professor at the Columbia Business School has an explanation for what happened.

We have overborrowed, Beim says: “We’ve been living very high on the hog. Our living standard has been rising dramatically in the last 25 years. And we have been borrowing much of the money to make that prosperity happen.”

In other words, the problem the banks are facing is the problem we, as a society, are facing: We all have too much debt. And getting rid of it is going to be painful.

If you want a solution in which those who bear the most guilt for the financial crisis pay the most to fix it, while the innocent don’t have to pay anything, that’s not going to happen.

It seems that the U.S. economy is way past that point. Americans are going to spend a lot of money. The government may bail out some banks that some people wish it wouldn’t. There is no magical solution where the U.S. gets out of this mess without any pain.

While they might disagree on who will bear the brunt of that pain, all the experts interviewed for this report say the longer the U.S. waits, the worse it will be for everyone.

So whether you participated in the problem or not, you are going to have to pay these economists say.  No wonder web pages such as Stop the Mortgage Bailout have arisen;  for it does seem as if the prudent taxpayer is being forced to pay for the excesses of those who over borrowed, those lenders who promoted over borrowing for their own profit, and those who inflated housing prices and their corporate bottom lines.    The economic boom was based on an economic balloon over inflated  by excessive borrowing and lending.  Now we are seeing the price tag for this.  Who could have known we would have to pay our debt?   I mean as Christians don’t we pray “forgive us our debts”?

Forgiveness Sunday 1995

Sermon notes   Forgiveness Sunday     3/5/1995

We are about to embark on a heroic and noble journey. Our journey which will begin today will end on April 23, some 7 Sundays from now. We will be challenged by many perils, and it is only our faith and hope which will get us through to the end. Our journey is called Great Lent, our duties on this perilous voyage include forgiving, fasting, repenting, praying, maintaining sobriety, being vigilant, and loving. May God help strengthen us on this sojourn with His Holy Spirit, with His Word, with His presence, and be allowing us always to see and move toward the dawning Light of the Resurrection.

Sometimes when we think about this great voyage of Lent, the image which comes to mind is that Pascha is all light, the light at the end of the tunnel, far away. The tunnel full of darkness is in this imagery Great Lent. It is a darkness which we must pass through to get to the Light of Pascha. But that image is not totally correct, for Lent starts with today’s Epistle lesson, which said,

(Romans 13:11-14:4)
Besides this, you know what time it is, how it is now the moment for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we became believers; the night is far gone, the day is near. Let us then lay aside the works of darkness and put on the armor of light; let us live honorably as in the day, not in reveling and drunkenness, not in debauchery and licentiousness, not in quarreling and jealousy. Instead, put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

The imagery of today’s Epistle lesson, is now is the time to wake up, the dawn is come, the darkness is past.
The darkness is the time before Lent, this is now the dawn, the time to arouse ourselves from sleep and get to work, to wake up because the sunrise/daylight/dawn have arrived!

As one of the hymns we will sing tonight at Vespers says,
The Lenten spring shines forth,
the flower of repentance!
Let us cleanse ourselves from all evil,
crying out to the Giver of Light:
Glory to You, O lover of man!”

The imagery is not at all one of darkness, but of light, lent is said to be spring, not winter, a renewing, life giving season. Darkness and sadness belong to the past, for the Great Fast is here, the time to renew our lives and wake up from the long spiritual hibernation, and with joy and vigor to run into the season of fasting.

One other image to keep in mind. It has been said among drug addicts and alcoholics that a definition of insanity is to do the same things over and over and then expect something to change. Nothing will change unless we do some things differently. Great Lent is the time to stop the insanity and to do some things differently. Repent, forgive, pray, love.

Today, the Lesson of our Savior, to make a change and stop the insanity is:

If you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.  (Matthew 6:14-15)

Forgive others from your heart. Do not bear grudges against one another. Stop treating people remembering all their past faults. Treat them as if you have forgiven them, not building upon all past bad experiences, but with patience, love, kindness and respect. In doing this, you will bring about a great change in your own life and something new and different will be made possible for you and our parish community this Lent.

May God bless each of you as we embark on this journey. I hope most of you will join us tonight at 7pm when we begin Vespers and the journey of Great Lent.

Madison on Peace, Conscience, Industry, and National Debt

I began reading earlier this year the collected WRITINGS of  James Madison.  My original interest in him was because some historians think he was the most influential of the Founding Fathers in establishing the relationship between church and state in our country.  Madison wrote copiously on a wide variety of topics, but as I’ve discovered, his comments on religion are few and far between.  Nevertheless, I continue to enjoy reading him, and will offer a few of his thoughts of which I took note.   In 1792, Madison addressed the issue of universal peace, which he thought was a philosopher’s dream but worth hoping for since war is folly.   Madison thought the temptation for a nation to go to war could be curtailed if war could only be declared by the will of the people – not by their government,  and if all the costs of the war were carried by the generation declaring the war – no national debt could be incurred and no taxes raised on future generations to pay for the debt.

“… war should not only be declared by the authority of the people, whose toils and treasures are to support its burdens, instead of the government which is to reap its fruits: but that each generation should be made to bear the burden of its own wars, instead of carrying them on, at the expense of other generations.”

Madison usually connects religion to the rights of personal conscience – people should be free to act accoring to their own consciences, not according to the dictates of a monarch or a majority.   His desire to protect personal liberty is both rooted in and the justification for individualism.  He, however, also had a very profound sense of the individual being rooted in society.  It is hard to know what he would have made of modern absolute individualism and notions that society has no rights above the individual’s. 

“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses.  This being the end (i.e., purpose – my note) of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.  …  Conscience is the most sacred of all property…”

Writing in 1792 at the pre-dawn of England’s Industrial Revolution, Madison took note of how fashion could have a negative effect on the lives of thousands.  The buckle and button manufacturers in Birmingham, England and environs put out of work 20,000 employees, who were thereby made destitute, because fashion had changed and now people were using shoestrings and slippers and no longer using as many buttons and buckles.   The numbers left unemployed give us a sense that that buckle manufacturing was labor intensive work in the day before workers were replaced by machines.  Madison notes that while fashion itself is capricious and therefore an evil, what is worse is that a great many people (the working poor) are dependent for their employment on manufacturing items which another class of people (the wealthy) are not dependent on for their existence.  Madison writes that America is somewhat spared of this dependency on manufacturing unnecessary but fashionable items because it is mostly agrarian in nature.  Madison sees an ever greater danger when one nation becomes dependent for the sale of its manufactured goods on another nation.  He certainly would have been dismayed at 21^st Century global economics, free trade, the automotive industry, and America’s trade deficit due to its addiction to the newest electronic gadgetry.   

Madison was a tireless defender of small government, few taxes, and no public debt.  To him, this was the basis of republicanism and the best way to prevent monarchical government from arising.  Trust the people to govern themselves, not the government to defend their liberties.  He wrote that

“the real FRIENDS to the Union are those,  …  Who are friends to the limited and republican system of government  …. Who considering a public debt as injurious to the interests of the people, and baneful to the virtue of the government, are enemies to every contrivance for unnecessarily increasing its amount, or protracting its duration, or extending its influence.“

The Last Judgment: What Did you Give to Others?

Gospel Lesson of the Last Judgment (Matthew 25:31-46)

 Mother Maria Skobtsova wrote: 

The way to God lies through love of people. At the Last Judgment I shall not be asked whether I was successful in my ascetic exercises, nor how many bows and prostrations I made. Instead I shall be asked, did I feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and the prisoners. That is all I shall be asked. About every poor, hungry and imprisoned person the Savior says “I”: “I was hungry, and thirsty, I was sick and in prison.” To think that he puts and equal sign between himself and anyone in need…I always knew it, but now it has somehow penetrated to my sinews. It fills me with awe.  

Michael Plekon, in Living Icons wrote:

“Father Lev concludes the retreat on the burning bush, which I have closely followed here, with the incident toward the end of the apostle Paul’s adventures during his journey as a prisoner to stand trial in Rome, toward the end of the Acts of the Apostles, 28. The soaked, shivering survivors of the shipwreck are received with ‘great kindness’ by the barbarian inhabitants of the island of Malta. A huge fire is made so that they can warm and dry themselves. Moreover, the Maltese take the survivors back to their homes, after the emergency services are delivered, for food, rest, and other care. If we are truly servant of the Lord Love, Father Lev says by way of conclusion, then like the residents of Malta, we too will seek out the survivors wherever they may be, drenched and paralyzed by rain and cold, bringing them fire, the fire of our love, the fire of the burning bush, of Limitless Love.”

Thinking About Metropolitan Jonah’s Revision of the OCA

As  I listened to His Beatitude, Jonah, address the Metropolitan Council last week in New York, I jotted down some immediate thoughts and reactions to his address.   I was impressed by the fact that he had thought this out, and has a vision for the OCA.   I also had questions about how this vision would look in reality.    I appreciated the Metropolitan’s effort to begin a discussion, and understand his words to the Council to be an invitation to begin the work of restructuring the OCA.    Below are some of my comments and concerns (His words are in italics):

• 1) The Metropolitan thinks much of the OCA’s scandal originated from the lack of “structures of accountability and delineation of responsibilities” within the central church administration. To some extent the central church structure was governed not by structures and policies but by the personalities involved – where a personality went bad, so went the central church administration.  A fair analysis.
• 2) He worries that our reaction to the serious scandals in the OCA are “self-righteous indignation.” That seems to say the reaction to the scandal was worse than the scandal. I don’t buy that. How about Christ’s words that the one who causes a little one to fall should put a millstone around his neck and drown himself (Matthew 18:6)? It was not over reaction to scandal that has caused a problem for the OCA. We tolerated sinful behavior that was scandalous to many. Maybe a few need to heed Christ and take up their millstones. There should have been indignation over what some leaders did to our church and to its membership, Christ showed such indignation in overturning the money-changer’s tables.
• 3) “We are called to bear one another’s burdens” – many in leadership positions see this only in relationship to those who scandalized the church – the offenders – and always it is a call to forgive. But what about the victims and those who have been scandalized and traumatized by what their leadership has done? The role of the church leader is to protect the flock, not fleece it. Are we really to reconcile ourselves to the wolves, while the lambs’ wounds go unhealed?
• 4) “the principle of authority”: “Primacy is constituted by accountability and authority, in a relationship of obedience. This is Christian leadership. … Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive… (Heb 13:17)” Christ however used the word love a whole lot more than obey, and even when he commanded, he often commanded love. Is the primary command to each Christian to obey leadership or to love God, neighbor, and even enemy? “I believe that the starting place to understand all this is to understand authority and obedience as responsibility, rather than as ‘power.’ Any reduction to ‘power’ is by definition, corruption. … The question is, how are they invested with responsibility and for what, and to whom are they accountable?” In quoting Apostolic Canon 34, Metropolitan Jonah, noted that the canon is not about the bishop’s power, but about their accountability to their primate, and that the primate must not do anything without the consensus of all. This is a corrective to the emphasis on obedience and attempts to recast obedience in terms of responsibility rather than submission. But what does this look like? How is this not what Christ condemned – that his followers not “lord it over” one another, but rather serve one another as Christ served us?
• 5) “The Synod of bishops of a nation is the ‘Local Church.’ … They have the responsibility to elect and install new bishops where there is a vacancy or need.” The Diocese is apparently not responsible for electing its own bishop. Bishops elect other bishops, power flows from power. Where is the church in this? The Synod is the local church? Not the Eucharistic communities? The bishops alone are in the picture; the membership is not apparently needed. How does this enable the bishops to be Christ-like servants rather than elitist lords?
• 6) The bishops relationship to the metropolitan is one of “obedience, accountability in mutual love and respect.” Is the metropolitan obedient to anyone? Does he have any obedience to the other bishops? He bases this in Canon 9 of the Regional Council of Antioch. But with the empire gone, can we uncritically apply the ideas of Christians in the Roman Empire to our situation? For really in America we have another civil structure – the state which holds all the power not specifically given to the federal government. So in our situation, do we need to look at a metropolitan for each state rather than one for the nation?
• 7) “The Metropolitan’s ministry is to hold the bishops to accountability in a structure of obedience that is by its very nature love and respect, unanimity and synergy. The Metropolitan’s leadership arises through building consensus, rather than authority over the other bishops.” But how is this to be done considering that the metropolitan may have a weak personality, and any of the rest of the bishop’s quite strong ones? What is the consequence to any bishop for not being accountable? Does the Metropolitan alone have authority to correct, reprimand or remove a recalcitrant bishop? Can the Metropolitan interfere with the decisions of a diocesan bishop? If not the ideal breaks down. “The Metropolitan’s responsibilities, as primate, are in maintaining unity among the bishops of his Synod, and resolving whatever decisions need to be made on a Synodal level, and whatever issues directly affect the whole church.” But again, how is this unity to be accomplished or enforced? What exactly can he do if one or more bishops won’t obey him or disagree with him? If his role is to maintain the unity, then he will be paralyzed into doing nothing lest the unity be broken.
• 8) “The Metropolitan’s Office has the responsibility to take care of the administrative tasks that affect the whole church.” But what exactly affects the whole church? Can bishops decide what they believe affects the whole church and what is in their purview? Are ecumenical relationships within the diocese the sole responsibility of the bishop? If each diocese is responsible for missions, charity, youth ministry, in what sense can the Metropolitan’s office “coordinate” these diocesan programs without interfering in them? The lines of demarcation are totally vague and surely will be a source of conflict.
• 9) The Metropolitan Council is proposed to be mostly a fundraising agency for the work of the whole church. But since most ministry is to occur on the level of the diocese, it would seem such a fund raising organization has no true purpose, and in fact ends up being an awfully lot like what the central church administration was during the years of scandal – their main function was fund raising not ministry. This revisioned church would do far better to get out of the fund raising business altogether. The plan does not spell out clearly what the financial needs or limits of the territorial church are. They are to raise money, but why? What are they going to be doing that requires so much money to be raised? The Metropolitan Council is envisioned as a fund raising agency, but who decides what the MC must fund or how the funds will be allocated? It becomes purely an agency which takes from others rather than gives. Far better if the church is going to raise money at all that it shows what the need is. What are funds being raised to do? This plan puts fundraising ahead of purpose or function. Besides which the true ministry is supposed to occur in the diocese for what ministry belongs solely to the territorial church? The Metropolitan is more or less dealing with other bishops – both those on his synod and those on synods outside the OCA. Such an office would have very limited needs. A fund raising agency for the territorial church seems in many ways to go against other things for which the vision argues.

Metropolitan Jonah’s “Re-vision” of the Church

For those wanting to read more about the February 18-20 Metropolitan Council meeting, I would recommend reading Mark Stokoe’s comments on OCAnews.org.   I also hope the membership of the OCA will look into the Metropolitan’s new vision for the OCA, and also Mark’s opening questions about Metropolitan Jonah’s vision.   We in the OCA are entering a period of time in which we are to discuss the Statutes of the OCA, and the structure and future of our church.  The bishops will be meeting soon in Colorado for several days to hammer out their reaction to Metropolitan’s Jonah’s idea.

I want to comment only on one idea that the Metropolitan presents.  Basically he advocates replacing the current ideas of central church administration with an Office of the Metropolitan.  This will bring about staff reductions in the central church as more work is pushed into the dioceses where he believes the canon actually envision the work being done.  Stokoe in his comments raises some excellent questions about how exactly accountability would work as he points out some of the serious failures the OCA has experienced recently in accountability; some of the abuses in power might actually be exacerbated by having virtually autonomous diocesan structures. 

I was really encouraged by the open and frank discussions of the recent Metropolitan Council meetings.  There was true give and take as people expressed their concerns and ideas.  But it was also clear to me that despite differences in opinion on some issues, there was a tremendous sense of a common mind by all those present.   And if I would characterize the meeting I would say it was the bishop (in this case the Metropolitan) surrounded by his presbyters with some members of the Synod present as well.  I thought it a very healthy coming together of the Church in council.  If I look at the canons of the church (for example Canons 24 and 25 of the Council of Antioch, or Apostolic Canon 34 which Metropolitan Jonah references in his own paper)  I see reference to both the bishop doing nothing without consulting with his presbyters and a bishop being answerable to the synod of which he is part.   Numerous people have commented that in the early church, the presbyters were not the equivalent of priests, but more like the parish council.  They represented the leadership of the local church which met with their bishop in conciliar fashion to consider the issues and work of the church – in the church at some point the presbyters/elders sat in a semi-circle around the bishop as each “parish” had its own bishop and own council of presbyters.  This was a local configuration and we should beware that the current diocesan structure with a council of priests is not exactly the equivalent.   In the canons the presbyters are always mentioned together with the deacons as the body of church leaders. 

If the Metropolitan has a role of primacy in the church (a supra-episcopal role), it would seem to me that it would also be normal for him to have a council of presbyters that reflects this – a Metropolitan Council.  Especially if he has to consider issues that affect more than his diocese, as certainly was the case with the issues we were deliberating at the recent MC sessions.  If his vision entails the elimination of the MC, because he would only be meeting with the Synod of Bishops, it cuts the metropolitan off from the church which he serves as metropolitan.  If of course his role is nothing but a first among equals, and there is no sense of primacy, then his only point of contact with the rest of church probably would be through the Synod. 

The revision and restructuring of the OCA which is currently under discussion needs to consider how is the advisory role of the presbyters and deacons (apart from whom the bishop was not to make decisions and he was forbidden to keep secrets from them regarding the management of the church) is to be made real and present.  No restructuring which eliminates the role of the ancient council of presbyters (and I am not equating presbyters to priests) can be faithful to the canons themselves.  What is required in the church is greater openness, transparency and accountability – despite the fact that some consider these modern issues, the canons themselves seem to be clear that these are desirable features of the Church.  The bishops were to work in close harmony with all church leaders – this is even more important when the bishop has been moved from being the head of a parish to being head of a diocese (many parishes).  The greater the territory that the bishop’s office covers, the more chance for abuse as the bishops and others can hide behind anonymity, secrecy, distance, lack of oversight and ignorance.

Pascha as our Judgment Day

Meatfare Sunday 2009

The Gospel Lesson of the Last Judgment (Matthew 25:31-46) offers us some thoughts about how to end up on God’s good side on the Day of Judgment.  

Take note in this parable of Jesus that the Kingdom of God was prepared “from the foundation of the world” for those who show mercy, kindness and charity.  In other words before any human had done anything, God had prepared a Kingdom for all humans.  To get to that Kingdom required only that you be merciful and charitable. 

Note also in the parable that the eternal fire was prepared for the devil and his angels, not for humans.  God did not intend humans to end up in the eternal fire, but humans could through their own choices and behavior end up there.  The Last Judgment in Christ’s parable is God allowing humans to choose their final destination based on their own choices and actions.

The Great Lenten Journey we are about to embark on is the road to the Kingdom of God.   Great Lent is the road map to help us arrive at the good destination – Pascha and the Kingdom of God.   So how do we use Great Lent to get to the Kingdom?

Christ taught us to care for Him.  How do we do this?  By taking care of whom He called the least among the members of His family;  whenever we do these acts of charity to one of the least members of the Christian family we do it for Christ.

 We should take today’s Gospel Lesson and figure out how to live it each week of Great Lent.   Even if we did but one of the acts of mercy that Christ speaks about per week, there are plenty of weeks in Great Lent to accomplish them all.  So here is a check list for Great Lent:

____ Fed the hungry Christ     When & how accomplished?

____ Gave drink to the thirsty Christ    When & how accomplished?

____ Welcomed the stranger Christ     When & how accomplished?

____ Clothed the naked Christ     When & how accomplished?

____ Cared for the sick Christ     When & how accomplished?

____ Visited the prisoner Christ     When & how accomplished?

 

Pascha, the day without end, is also our Judgment Day – the day on which we enter into God’s Kingdom.  On that Day the Lord is not going to ask about what we ate during Lent, nor how many services we attended.   He is going to sort us out by whether we did the deeds of mercy to the least of His family members which he enumerated in today’s Gospel Lesson.  Fasting is a good discipline as it teaches us to stop paying attention to our wants, desires and passions and start paying attention to the least of Christ’s brothers and sisters.  The arrival at Pascha and the Kingdom will be a joyous celebration, not so much because we have avoided certain foods for 7 weeks, but because we indeed followed the discipline in order to figure out how to minister to Christ.

Evolution “According to Their Kinds”

The 200^th birthday of Charles Darwin and the 50^th Anniversary of the publication of his THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES has led to a wealth of literature being made available that really does make the theory of evolution accessible to the non-scientific public.  It has enabled me to learn more about evolution and whether it works and how it works.  Carl Zimmer’s THE EVER EVOLVING THEORIES OF DARWIN , an article appearing in the 23 February 2009 edition of TIME magazine is one article that has added to my understanding of evolution.  I offer a few quotes from his article:

Biologists have also found plenty of evidence to support Darwin’s other major claim: that different species share a common ancestry. Over the past 15 years, for example, paleontologists have found several fossils of whales with legs, linking modern whales to their terrestrial ancestors. Besides studying fossils, biologists can discover the genealogy of species by looking at their DNA. The fossil record points to hippos and other hoofed mammals as being the closest living relatives of whales. So does their DNA.

In a photo from LiveScience.com at right we are shown a fossil of whale that also indicates that ancient mother whales returned to land to give birth to their young.  Such fossil finds give credence to the theory of evolution despite the claims of some who say there is no evidence for evolution.

The discovery of DNA and the ability to map the genome of many plants and animals has revealed the mechanism by which genetic change occurs within any species.  If one feels unsure of how genetics work, just think about the selective breeding of dogs; dogs are interbred in order to produce very specific traits that clearly distinguish one breed from another.  This works precisely because of genetics and work with DNA has shown how this happens.   The various breeds of dogs have not always existed, but have been “purified” and created by selective breeding which is a good example of bringing change within a species. That is exactly the same thing the fossil record reveals has happened through the millions of years of life’s existence on earth. 

Paleontologists can track some of life’s transformations in fossils–observing how fins gradually evolved into feet, for example. But fins and feet and other complex structures are also encoded in DNA, and until the 1980s, biologists had almost no knowledge of the genes that built them. Over the past 25 years, biologists have identified many of the genes that help build embryos. A number of them help lay out the embryo’s blueprint by letting cells know where they are. The cells absorb proteins floating around them, and the signals trigger the cells to make other proteins, which in turn clamp onto certain bits of DNA to switch neighboring genes on and off. This network of genes eventually leads a cell to give rise to an arm or a brain or a tongue.

But can changes genetic changes occur within a species that introduce a new genetic feature not previously known in a species?  The answer is yes.

Every now and then, DNA moves between species. Viruses ferry genes from one host to another. Bacteria swap genes inside our bodies, evolving resistance to antibiotics in our own gut.

What the science of genetics has been able to discover and show is the mechanism of how genetic traits are passed down from one generation to the next.   The mechanisms for genetic change and variation indeed exist within all living things on our planet.  Mechanisms for introducing new genetic traits in a species also clearly exist.  Additionally biologist do have examples of the appearance of new species that have occurred in our lifetime.  In the book CREATION OR EVOLUTION: DO WE HAVE TO CHOOSE? author Denis Alexander (a scientist and believing Christian) offers examples of new species of flowers that have appeared “multiple times on separate occasions within North America over a period of a few decades.”   You can read the description of this documented speciation on pages 93-97 of his book.  It really does happen that flowers sometimes produce viable offspring that are not fertile with either of the parent plants.  A new species is born.  The proof is found in the salsify plant and in the wildflower lupins.  If these new species-offspring get separated over time geographically from their parent plants further differentiation occurs – this is documented in the Andes Mountain lupins which has produced different species some of which can live only in the lowland and some only in the highest parts of the mountain.  As D. Alexander shows in his book, speciation can actually occur quite rapidly in flowers and flower breeders have been using these methods for many years.  Though I have heard the claim that speciation occurs I had never really read much evidence for it, Alexander’s book offers the evidence.  God, the Master Creator, put into His world a most wonderful mechanism to cause life to flourish in an abundance of varieties and species.  Some biblical readers might wonder whether speciation in flowers in fact contradicts Genesis 1:11-12 in which God commands plants to reproduce “according to their kinds.”  The amazing thing that genetics study have been able to reveal is that in fact the new species which appear do in fact contain the DNA from both parents.   The new species are very much “according to their kinds” and yet God has provided the mechanism for variation to occur on earth.

The OCA’s Metropolitan Council

Getting home from my first full Metropolitan Council meeting in 15 years, I realized how different I felt that when I used to come home from these meetings so many years ago.   One thing was the same – we were still discussing budget overruns.  But how different it was to have leadership demanding accountability and that everyone including the Metropolitan live within the budget.   There were problems – plenty of them.  We spent more time in closed executive sessions in this one session of the MC than I had in years of being on the MC years ago.  Problems -serious problems – were discussed by people concerned for the Church.   Real disagreements were expressed, and some leaders were reprimanded for poor choices.  But the concern clearly was to pull the OCA together.   The Metropolitan was clear and articulate and showed visionary leadership, and yet there also was overwhelming disagreement with him on how to handle an issue.  Fear was gone, a willingness to express one’s concern for the Church was very evident.   I’m sure for all of the OCA leaders from the chancery it had to be grueling days.  We behaved like Christians in community, overcoming the pseudo-community which Scott Peck wrote about.   Peck said that in pseudo-community there is a fear to face difficult issues and disagreement – but when that fear is overcome and disagreements can be expressed and dealt with then true community exists.

Metropolitan Jonah sat with us in the Syosset chapel and discussed concern and real problems the Church in the 21^st Century faces – including sexual issues, abuse, victims, fallen clergy and despairing laity.  No issue was forbidden, and painful ones were acknowledged, for the first time that I observed at the MC.

Years ago I would come home depressed and distressed from the MC meetings.  Something was wrong – not just the issues presented – but how we dealt with them and how we related to each other.    This time we discussed far more painful issues than I had ever seen discussed before, and yet I came home hopeful for the OCA because we were actually talking about the problems and how to resolve them.

Metropolitan Jonah presented a vision for the OCA and for Orthodoxy in the 21^st Century.   I would characterize his ideas this way:  Metropolitan Jonah is a bottom up thinker.   In the past in the OCA I would say that the OCA tried to be a top down organization – vision and mission were to come from the top and move downward through the OCA – giving the membership something to look up to.  I am not saying it was done well, for I honestly do think all that was created was the Potemkin village, a façade.   There was an effort to create an illusion of grandeur.  In my opinion it failed grandly with the financial, spiritual and moral bankruptcy being revealed in the scandal which shook the OCA over the past few years.

His Beatitude on the other hand envisions building up the church from the bottom, from the grass roots, from the hearts of the believers.   His idea of where the Church begins is in people’s hearts, souls and faith.  It manifests itself in the parishes and then dioceses of the OCA. 

Interesting – the man at the top says the place to begin building up the OCA is at ground level.  He is not looking to impose something from on high, he is hoping to inspire the faithful to want to participate in the process. 

His emphasis is not on money – which is where the emphasis clearly was in past administrations.    The lack of money is not the problem we face, but a lack of vision.   Money is not the solution to our problems, but rather deep abiding repentance, love for God and love for one’s neighbor are the keys.  In other words our becoming disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ is the starting point and the goal of our endeavors.  We don’t need to impress anybody, we need to love everybody.