Posts

Posted on

The Evolution Enigma

Last Night’s CCP Meeting was on the question of evolution. An intriguing and often highly emotional topic, it is one of those areas where, supposedly, science and fatih clash.

I’ve been doing a little bit of reading on the topic lately, and I have found there are a few conclusions that I think one is safe to draw about the current state of affairs. Please allow me to share them with you.

1. Evolution as a scientific theory is elegant, relatively simple, and in many ways quite a beautiful concept, if you look at it from a purely scientific point of view.

2. Looked at against the wider background of our existence, it can be a very ugly concept. I have no doubt whatsoever that some of the worst atrocities committed by humans in the past century were justified, whether consciously or subconsciously, by an evolutionary world view. Hitler’s purification of the German race is an attempt to take control of evolution. What gave him the right to do so? Because he was the “Fittest” and it is the fittest who should survive. The deaths of millions in the gas chambers is no more than the necessary by product of this law of nature, and we should not weep over it. Or so he thought.

3. Evolution still has many gaping holes. We started to look at some last night but time constraints meant we had to leave the rest for another session. Chief among the unresolved issues are the incredible probabilities against putting together DNA in the right sequence merely by chance, the vexed question of how the first life could possibly have arisen, and the lack of any sensible mechanism for the introduction of new genes into an organism’s genome. There are more, but these are my favorites.

4. Even if one day it should become apparent that evolution is the true cause of life on Earth beyond a shadow of a doubt, I cannot see how this would affect our faith. The Bible is interested in telling us what God did. How He did it is really His concern, and although we get a glimpse, we must not expect to be able to understand His ways. I still can’t understand how my mechanic diagnoses and fixes problems in my car, much less the mechanism of the Creation of the whole Cosmos! But to me, if the universe really can produce life all by itself, naturally and without any supernatural input, that would be an even greater miracle. I might be able to get some wood together and build a chair. Sure it would take some time, and it would probably wobble, but I think I could do it. What I don’t think I could do is build a machine that builds chairs without any help from me. Now that’s hard! So if God built a universe that can produce life without any supernatural input from Him, that would be a far greater miracle than if He had built each species individually.

5. There is, however, the case of microevolution as opposed to macroevolution. Macroevolution involves one species evolving into another species, and as such requires whole new genes to be inserted into the organism’s genetic code. There simply is no known mechanism for this to happen in most cases, and there does not seem to be any possibility for us finding one. But Microevolution involves the slightest fiddling with the existing genetic code, such as that which produces a tall or a short person, the colour of your eyes, or the resistance of bacteria against an antibiotic. Microevolution is implied in the Bible since all the different races of humans in the world are descended from just one family of eight people (Noah’s family). Clearly, all the variations between races must have arisen by a mechanism such as microevolution. But there is no evidence that I can see that can overcome the need for whole new genes in macroevolution.

6. Many people accept or reject evolution for reasons other than the actual science. If you want there not to be a God, you can use evolution as way of supporting your case that He didn’t have to be around to make us. And equally, if you want there to be a God, you can find the many, many holes there are in the theory of evolution. So how can one come to a genuinely objective Truth? I’m not sure anyone can. I admit freely that I am biased. I believe in God, for many other reason, and so I come to the evolution question expecting God to be a part of the true answer. And I find more than enough evidence to fulfil that expectation. But the fact is that the jury still out. Evolution is not fact, not macroevolution, anyway. So until we find unavoidably compelling evidence one way or the other, I suppose people will continue to choose their side on the basis of other factors.

7. I don’t think we should be ‘afraid’ of evolution. Sometimes Christians speak as though there was a demon called evolution, and we must not dabble with evil spirits, so stay right away! But evolution is not a demon, it is an idea, and ideas have no personalities or motivations. They can be right or wrong, they can tend towards causing evil or good, but in the end, they are just ideas. I think it is good for a Christian to understand the concept of evolution well, and to also be aware of all its shortcomings.

In the final analysis, our understanding of our universe is constantly changing, constantly being updated as new information becomes available. Personally, I suspect that in a few hundred years’ time the theory of evolution will have been replaced by some other explanation that we cannot even imagine today, much as Gallileo could not possibly have anticipated quantum physics.

But I don’t think I’ll be around to see it. Then again, by then I will be occupied with far more important things…

Fr Ant

www.stbishoy.org.au

Posted on

Insidious Institutionalism

It is sadly all too common a situation.

In the Enlightenment period, (roughly 1500-1800AD) it is apparent in the writings and the lives of most of the great thinkers. And today, one meets it regularly both inside and outside the Church.

I am talking about the disillusionment with ‘institutionalised’ Christianity.

Honest hearts, struggling with their own weaknesses and faults, look to the Church hoping to find a solid rock of Truth, a firm foundation of Hope on which to model their lives. It is to our shame that such hearts sometimes find nothing more in the Church than an organisation, an institution, a structure. The vision is missing and the original principles of Christ are, shamefully, relegated to a lower priority than principles invented by humans.

This is the great danger of becoming an institution. I hope you don’t misunderstand what I am saying; we benefit greatly from belonging to such an institution; but only if it is done right. If it is done wrong, we can suffer equally greatly.

Here are some of the more common signs of institutionalisation gone wrong:

– acceptance of using the strategies of the ‘world’, whether within the Church, or in dealing with those outside it;

– divisions based on loyalty to a personality rather than to Christ Himself;

– acceptance of the principle, “The goal justifies the means”;

– emphasis on achieving things rather than on being a good person;

– dry ritualism rather than using the rites as personally-moving prayers.

I’m sure you’ve heard of the WWJD question – What Would Jesus Do? It finds an application here. If our Lord were to come to Church this Sunday, I wonder what He would think of it all? It was He who said, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice”, and His Apostle said, “For the letter of the law kills, but the spirit gives life”. If Christianity teaches anything, it is that how you live your life, who you are, deep inside, is what really matters. The outer appearance is secondary, and should naturally flow from what is real inside the heart of the person.

Is it too dangerous for the Church to be an institution? Many in Western Churches have taken that view, and starting from Martin Luther back in the 16th century have gone outside the institutional Church to try to recreate the Church in a more natural setting. But I think this runs an even greater risk. Human beings are who they are, and in the absence of having “The Church” as their foundation, they will seek other foundations, and not always in the right place. Thus we see Churches that care far more about the personalities of the leaders or about being rebellious, or about being ‘hip’, or about one tiny little aspect of Christianity or… or…

The Truth of the Gospels remain untainted by the faults of those who follow the Gospels. If you have a bad experience with a surgeon, it would be irrational for you to condemn all surgery as harmful. Back in my medical days I was privileged to assist a wide variety of surgeons as an intern and resident. At one end of the spectrum was a gentleman whose operation style was anxious and jumpy. One never felt he was really quite sure of what he was doing, despite his many years of experience. At the other end of the spectrum was a quiet, elderly man whose deft, pinpoint accurate touch made every motion of his hands enchanting. I would leave his operations with the feeling that I had not witnessed an operation, but a work of art, like finely performed symphony orchestra concert. It was truly a poetry written with scalpels and stitches.

We should strive to make our institutional Church like that. Our history and our heritage are ingredients of the highest quality, and more than capable of producing works of beauty. We walk in the footsteps of Christ, and in the footsteps of those who walked in His footsteps – St Anthony of the Desert, that noble spirit who blazed the path of quiet contemplation; Pope Peter the Seal of Martyrs, the scholar, the profound philosopher who was martyred with his people; St Athanasius the undaunted spirit who could not accept that evil should dominate the Church … the list goes on.

In these examples and the many thousands more whom history has not recorded lived the spirit of the true follower of Christ. For them, the institution of the Church was the arena for living out the teachings of Christ, each in their own way, and sharing that way of life with others.

The Proverb says, “It is better to light one small candle than to curse the darkness”. The Church will be, for you, whatever you make of it. If the Church is the little seed that grew into a towering tree, seek then for the sweet sap of the Love and Truth of Christ within its heart, rather than being content to gnaw upon the dry outer bark of human institutionalism.

Fr Ant
www.stbishoy.org.au

Posted on

Musical Mayhem??? Part 3 (and final)

Addressing the remaining issues… (see parts 1 and 2)

C. “This is Protestant music.”

What exactly makes music Protestant?

What makes anything ‘Protestant’?

We define our denominations according to their theology, as well as their history, culture and demographics and so on. For example, we speak of the “Russian Orthodox Church”, and we know we are speaking of a group of Christians who hold to an Eastern Orthodox theology, who are mostly of Russian descent, although there are many members from other ethnic backgrounds, and who use chants and prayers and hymns in the Russian language and style.

But which of those descriptions is essential for the salvation of the Russian Orthodox individual? Which of them really characterises what it means to be Russian Orthodox? Do you have to be Russian? Do you have to speak Russian? Do you have to use that particular musical style? Certainly, the style helps define the CULTURE, but it does not define the FAITH. Greek, Macedonian and Japanese Orthodox Christians all hold to exactly the same faith, the same theology, yet they express their faith differently, according to their own culture and style of music. Without doubt, a style of music should enhance and complement one’s faith and beliefs, but there is nothing in our faith to say that only one particular style of music is going to do that.

Don’t get me wrong – I am absolutely in love with the rich treasure trove of Coptic Hymnology. I wish everyone could taste it and enter into the beautiful world of the spirit it can open up. I believe strongly that it should be carefully preserved and experienced and passed on intact and inviolate to the next generation. But I also believe that there can be room in our lives for more than one style of music.

A musical style cannot, in itself, be ‘Protestant’. Yes, perhaps historically Protestants have tended to use it, but that doesn’t give them ownership over that style, anymore than Protestants doing mathematics gives them ownership over the set of natural numbers. Can you imagine that? “No! We mustn’t count in our Church! We’d become Protestants!”

D. “We don’t want to become Hillsong.”

Hillsong, if you don’t know, is a Pentecostal Assemblies of God movement based in Northwestern Sydney that has grown in numbers and in notoriety over the past few decades. It specialises in worship services that are closer to a pop concert than they are to a traditional Christian worship service. Thus they have appealed to a young generation who enjoy going to ‘church’ to sing and dance and have a great time. All the traditional Christian Churches have, I think, felt the impact of Hillsong as their own young people are at times attracted to go and find out what it’s all about, and occasionally, they stay and never come back. This has made the traditional Churches somewhat defensive whenever the name ‘Hillsong’ is mentioned.

What is it about Hillsong we don’t like? I propose that we should not be cranky about their apparent success at drawing young people in, nor about their professionalism in putting on concert services, nor about the industry standard slick CDs they put out. There is nothing inherently wrong in singing snappy, catchy tunes to praise God. Nor is their anything wrong in using the music that speaks to a new generation – “I have become all things to all people that I might by all means save some” quoth St Paul.

No, our problem with Hillsong is their theology, and their philosophy. Theologically, they preach what has come to be known as the “Health and Wealth Gospel“. The gist of this is that material success is a sign of God’s favour and blessing – pretty much always. Thus, they soothe the consciences of the rich (it just means you’re God’s favourite) and their pastors are quite proud of their own personal wealth (extra special favourites!) It really is Christianity for Yuppies, but with such dangerous and subtle flaws that it genuinely runs the risk of no longer being true to the Gospel of Christ who remarked that not only did He have nowhere to lay His head, but encouraged His followers to sell everything they had. If the precepts of the Health and Wealth Gospel were to be consistently followed through, then God must have totally rejected St Paul the Apostle, since he was deprived of both health and wealth in the most dramatic of ways through his whole preaching life (just read 2 Corinthians 11 & 12 if you don’t know what I mean).

Philosophically, we have a big problem with reducing Christianity to the level of a consumer item. Yes, it is true that we should follow in St Paul’s footsteps and be all things to all men that we might by all means save some, but I don’t think watering down the Gospel and commercialising it is really what he had in mind. There is s fine line between doing something professionally and doing it commercially, and I think that Hillsong too often cross that line. It is true that Hillsong have a very large “front door” with large numbers going in. But it is a lesser known fact that they also have a very large “back door”, with lots of people leaving all the time in disappointment and disillusionment. Their congregation is not as stable as most traditional Churches, but the faces are always changing. Added to that is their Pentecostalism. That is perhaps a topic for another day, but I have deep concerns about modern day Pentecostalism and its ‘showiness’ and lack of theological foundation or even of sensible purpose.

No, it’s not Hillsong music that we distrust.

E. “This will make the youth think Church is giving them permission to listen to horrible worldly music on the radio.”

And they don’t already? OK, here’s my understanding of our Church’s attitude on Christian liberty: “All things are lawful to me, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful to me, but not all things build up” (St Paul again). Our role then is not to ban our youth from engaging with the secular world, but to train them and equip them with the divine wisdom, discernment and passion for God that will make the influence flow the other way – not from the world into them, but from them into the world. Whatever happened to “Let your light so shine among men” (Jesus this time)?

We only fear our youth listening to modern music because we fear it will lead them away from Christ. But surely this means we have failed miserably in instilling them with a genuine love for Christ? A person of any age who loves Christ with all his/her heart will not need anyone to tell them “Turn that song off – its leading you away from Christ”. They should be self-aware enough to sense the danger and devoted enough to make the right decision. There is even the possibility that the young person might use the secular song to bring them closer to Christ. Some love songs, for example, if sung with God in mind as the Beloved, can actually be quite beautiful prayers. This is not something new – King Solomon made a Book of the Bible out of that very concept!

Christianity, more than anything else in this world must be from free choice and sincere desire for God. Sure, we restrain younger kids with strict rules of what’s allowed and what is not in order to protect them from hurting themselves. They don’t yet know how to handle the world, so we help them do it. But is anyone really going to argue that a 25 year old, who might be responsible for millions of dollars or dozens of workers at work, can’t be trusted to be responsible for his/her own salvation?

F. “What is our Church coming to???”

Its senses, I hope. We live in a world of change, and often the answers of yesterday lose their relevance very quickly. If we are to remain strong as a Church and true to our core Christian mission, then we simply have no choice but to quickly separate the chaff from the wheat, to distinguish what is merely cultural norm from what is spiritual imperative, so that we can preserve that spiritual imperative by applying it to the ever changing cultural landscape in which we find ourselves.

I’m sorry, but musical style is not one of the spiritual imperatives of the Gospels. Yes, music has a powerful effect on people, but it is also true that it affects different people in different ways. I find today’s contemporary pop music just as cacophanous as my parents found the Beatles back in the 60’s, or their parents found jazz back in the 20’s.

Authentic Christianity isn’t bogged down in changing fashions.
It speaks the language that gets the message through, for it is the message that matters, not the medium.

Fr Ant

Posted on

Terrific Trivia Tales

It was that time of year once again.

Last Sunday, The Third Annual Great Trivia Challenge was once again contested by an enthusiastic and Einsteinian field. Yes, even Einstein himself made an appearance. Not Albert, but his distant relative, Andrew, although the family resemblance was truly uncanny.

For a parish priest, such nights are not really about winning (especially when our Men in Black Team did not win, but more on that anon). It is about the religious knowledge we see our flock displaying. Yes, every religious question was a win-win situation for us on the bearded table (sorry Tasonis!). If everybody in the room got it right, we rejoiced that our people are growing in knowledge and grace. And if everyone got it wrong (rare) and we got it right, we rejoiced that we were five more points up on everyone else!

A greater cause of rejoicing for us was the wonderful spirit in which the night was conducted. The behaviour of the youth and the oldies was exemplary of the true Christian spirit of love and unselfish fellowship. There was good humour among all, even among arc 9, proud winners of the wooden spoon, and Mashakel who narrowly missed out. It’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game, and everyone played the game with honour and good sportsmanship.

Another cause of great rejoicing for us is the way the night was organised and carried out. The team of young people who carried full responsibility for the organisation of the night worked enthusiastically and tirelessly. I have no doubt the workload was enormous. From the flawless performance of the computer scoring system (yes, first time in history I think, Coptic or otherwise!) to the lovely little touch of the kernels of knowledge hung up around the walls of the auditorium, to the delicious dinner … too many items to mention. And all were carried out with aminimum of fuss, an absence of ego and a true spirit of genuine mutual respect and teamwork. This is what it means to live as a Christian. And this is also a great example of how putting more into out community means that we will all get a lot more out of it. God bless those humble and faithful labourers.

What’s that? Oh, you want to know who won? Yes, I was just coming around to it – not that it really matters, does it (especially when it wasn’t us)? Well, about half way through the night, it seemed that the Men in Black were back! That’s right, the team that pioneered Trivia Victory by winning the first ever Great Trivia Challenge was in the lead, our rightful place. (Oops. Fr Botros has been trying to curb my boasting, but that one just slipped out. Sorry). We even had our Sudoko champion fit and ready this night, and sure enough, we had our entry in before the first round was over! That’s right! We were all in awe!

But there was trouble just around the corner. A couple of ‘challenges’ like eating spaghetti out of a plate without using your hands gave some of the less cultured teams (sorry Abouna) a big boost. No one ever taught us how to do that in our 40 days at the monastery! Oh, we could feel the competition breathing down our necks, figuratively, of course. In spite of the accumulated talents of our fourfathers, Fr Arsanius’ IT expertise, Fr Matthew’s legal skills (sadly, he had to retire early from competition), Fr Youssef’s administrative knowledge and the all-round brilliance of HG Bishop Daniel, the opposition was catching up.

Magdi’s Clipboard seemed to have a chance, but then for some unknown reason their screws came loose. By the final round, it had become a two-horse race. Team Malak, a bunch of Archangel veterans, were up against the usurpers from St Mark’s Church. Yes, that long running friendly rivalry, often the focus of Coptic Mastermind Competitions and other arenas of intellectual prowess was flaring up once more. Who would win? Only 7 points separated the accelerating St Marks Team from the nervous Team Malak going into the final round – a small matter of just two questions … but could they pull it off?

Then, the last question was answered, the computer scorer was quietly humming away, busily determining the fates of two dozen eager contestants, and a silent hush fell upon the crowd. Would history be made, and the coveted plaque travel down the M4 to Arncliffe? Or would the stalwarts of the Mountain keep the treasure on the hilltops?

Slowly, agonisingly slowly, the final scores went up, from last, to first. It was time to reveal who had come second. A pause that seemed to last forever hung in the air until, at last, the second place winner flashed upon the screens:

St Marks!

Team Malak had held on to win by the most meagre of margins – just 3 points! There was rejoicing and there were tears (well I didn’t actually see any tears, but I’m extrapolating). Once again the true Christian spirit of love was manifest in the sincere congratulations of respect exchanged by the two top teams, and we were all reminded that in the end, we are all one Church, one Body of Christ, and that which is victory for one of us is victory for us all.

Which brings me to the fate of the Men in Black. We too rejoiced in the victory of our blessed youth, for we had little to rejoice in from our own performance. Well, that is not strictly true. Team MIB repeated their performance of 2007 by finishing 8th. Of course, we all know that symbolically speaking, the number eight is used in theology to represent God. If 6 is the number of man (he was created on the sixth day) and 7 is the number of completion or perfection, then 8 is held to represent that which is beyond perfection, namely God. So how can we complain, if God is on our side? No, no, we are content, and yes, Abouna Botros, I will try to be quiet about our great team in future so we do not have to eat our words so often. But for next year, we are already assembling an even better team, with wider expertise…

Er, by the way, does anyone know a priest who is an expert at identifying cars from the 1970’s and can eat a plate of spaghetti without the use of his hands?

Fr Ant

Posted on

Musical Mayhem??? Part 2

Continuing on from the last blog, I will ponder some more of the possible objections to our Church having a band that plays contemporary Christian music.

B. “This is not our tradition.”

It is true that we are blessed with a long and rich tradition of worship in the Coptic Church. Not only does our Liturgy trace its roots back directly to Apostolic times, but our hymns go back even further. It is truly awesome to walk into Church in procession on a major feast day singing the very words and tunes that the ancient Egyptians would sing as the Pharoah entered the Temple in procession! It astounds me and humbles me to think of the hymn Epouro cascading down the generations of the past three or four millenia to land on our threshold here in Mt Druitt, Sydney in the 21st century! This is a precious pearl to be carefully guarded and preserved, and we have a tremendous responsibility to pass on to our children the good sense to enjoy it and appreciate it, and the immense importance of preserving it. This we do in many ways already, and we are planning more ways to implement in the future, such as DVDs explaining the liturgy and a Children’s Liturgy.

But having one precious and ancient pearl does not prevent you from also acquiring some less unique treasures, does it? Why should we not preserve the beautiful and pristine traditions of our Church while at the same time also using the culture of modern Australia?

This is nothing new. When the Apostles met at Jerusalem to discuss the rules to be imposed upon the Gentile converts to Christianity, they came down very firmly on the side of allowing them to keep their own culture and ways of doing things, so long as they did not transgress the Law of Christ. They would not even impose upon them the practices of the synagogue, although until then, all Christians had been Jews and had simultaneously attneded both synagogue and Christian liturgy. When the Hebrew St Mark the Apostle came to Alexandria, he did not impose Hebrew musical styles on the Egyptians, but allowed them to tailor the style of the liturgy to their own tastes, so long as they built faithfully on the skeleton of dogma he gave them. And three hundred years later, when the unparalleled Champion of Orthodoxy, St Athanasius, sent St Frumentius to establish a Church in Ethiopia, he did not insist at all on the Ethiopians adhering to Egyptian culture. Rather he allowed them to adapt their own familiar culture, once again, and use it to build a tradition on the foundation of the correct faith.

Yes, our tradition must be preserved, because we are the only ones who can preserve it as a living tradition, rather than in the reference books and libraries of the world. I would personally hate to see the raw and honest contact we make with God in the Liturgy where we use only our voices to worship Him replaced by some loud amplified musical instruments drowning out our voices. There is no place for modern music in an ancient rite like this.

But many of our youth understand that loving and preserving Coptic music doesn’t stop you from enjoying modern music. In fact, the kind of person who usually enjoys Coptic music the most is the musical personality type. This gift allows them to see deeper into its structure and logic. But that is also exactly the same person who is most likely to appreciate any style of music!

For decades, we in the Coptic Church have had a sort of split personality when it comes to western music. We sing it in our Youth Meetings and camps, and yet we warn our youth against it on the radio and in video clips. To a great extent, this is a very valid attitude, for the motivation and intention of the musical artist and the nature of the lyrics and their message are critical to deciding whether that music is going to help or hinder my walk with Christ. But I think we must guard against throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Music that is being used with the intention of bringing one closer to Christ, and that has enough in it to lend it effectiveness to achieve that goal should not be dismissed, particularly if it may be the best point of contact with some of our youth who are feeling alien in Church. We must cater for the needs of those who should be in Church, not only for those who already are in Church, or else those outside will never want to come in.

As always, I welcome your thoughts.

Fr Ant

Posted on

Musical Mayhem???

Our Church has a new band.

The musical variety, I mean. Complete with guitars (acoustic and electrical), drums, keyboard and a group of vocalists with angelic voices. All made up from our youth.

I got to hear them play (or ‘jam’, as they preferred to call it) last Sunday, and I was stunned. Not only did the songs sound great (they did Shout to the Lord and another one I haven’t heard before), but the teamwork and cooperation involved and the practice and effort they had clearly put in were quite impressive. “This,” I thought to myself, “is a beautiful icon of what it means to be in harmony with one’s brothers and sisters.”

The style of music they play is of course, quite western. Rather ‘rock’ in fact. I wonder how the rest of our parish community will relate to this new development? No doubt there are those with more conservative tastes in music who will find this style a bit too loud and too energetic to strike a spiritual chord with them, and that is fine. Our youth have often expressed the fact that they find middle eastern hymns too slow and too quiet to move their impatient young souls! It is nice that we can offer a varied menu in Church so that everyone can find something to suit their spiritual palate.

But I wonder if anyone will be downright offended by this new musical style. Here are some of the responses I fully expect to hear in coming weeks and months:

A. “Rock music is satanic. Any music with a beat, or worse, with a drum beat, is evil.”

B. “This is not our tradition.”

C. “This is Protestant music.”

D. “We don’t want to become Hillsong.”

E. “This will make the youth think Church is giving them permission to listen to horrible worldly music on the radio.”

F. “What is our Church coming to???”

Hmmmm. I’d better contemplate these questions, which I have no doubt will flow from some very sincere and genuine hearts, so I can be sure they don’t have a point. Mind if I share my machinations with you? Perhaps you can also give me some feedback.

A. “Rock music is satanic. Any music with a beat, or worse, with a drum beat, is evil.”

This objection is based, I suppose, on the fairly valid physiological finding that our bodies do enjoy synchronising with an external rhythm. You experience this when you hear a snazzy tune and your foot starts to tap in time with it. Or perhaps when you watch a troop marching and feel like getting up and joining in their apparently perfect regularity. Of course, dancing, modern and ancient, also depend a lot on this rhythm.

But I cannot see that rhythm is in and of itself in any way evil. In fact, music that does not possess rhythm is usually quite unacceptable to our ears. Classical music has rhythm. Middle Eastern Church hymns have rhythm. Liturgical responses have rhythm (often set by the triangle and cymbals). Tasbeha Praises are boiling over with rhythm. One of them, in fact, the First Hoas, uses rhythm to powerfully evoke a sense of marching along with the children of Israel as Moses led them through the Red Sea and out of Egypt. It is a true ‘marching song’. Does this therefore make them evil, because they have the power to draw attention to themselves and engross us, perhaps even hypnotise us with their beat? I don’t know anyone who would say that.

Surely then, it is the lyrics of the song, the intent of the composer and the intent of the singer that makes a song of good or evil effect? There are love songs on the pop charts that become the most beautiful prayers of love for God if you just replace the guy/girl the composer intended with God, and direct the words to Him. Of course there are others that a lost cause however hard you try to ‘baptise’ them.

In our African Coptic Churches every Sunday, there are drums being played along with the traditional cymbals and triangles. That is their culture, and they do not feel that a song is complete if it does not have a drum accompaniment. The worshippers sway from side to side gently as they sing the liturgical responses; try and stop them! It’s part of the expression of their joy in praising God. Like David the Prophet, they are ‘dancing to the Lord’. And why would you want to stop them? It’s quite moving to watch and inspiring to take part in.

Now we are not talking here about introducing our band into the liturgy – God forbid! Our beautiful ancient rites are of a totally different nature and serve a totally different purpose. Where there is joy in the liturgy, it is of the more solemn type, suitable for being in the direct physical presence of the Creator of worlds whose real Body and Blood rest upon the altar. But when we are outside the solemnities of the liturgy (or any other traditional Coptic rite for that matter), surely there is a degree of freedom to use whatever musical style speaks most effectively to our hearts? The one does not cancel out the other, but the same person can enjoy both, deeply and fully, in the different situations and environments.

Perhaps that’s enough deep thought for one day. I might leave the other points for future blogs. But please, do let me know if you agree or disagree with my thoughts, either by leaving a comment below, or if you prefer, by personal email to frantonios@ optusnet.com.au.

Fr Ant

Posted on

Love, Love, Love

“All you need is love.”

Thus sang the Beatles in one of their chart toppers (that incidentally also brought in a whole lot of money that they didn’t really need). “Love, love, love.” A beautiful sentiment; fill the world with love. But which love? What were they really after? Did they fill the world with love? No doubt this song had a lovely effect on millions who heard it, but there is also no doubt that everyone interprets that word, ‘love’, in their own idiosyncratic way.

For one person, love is a deep romance with the girl who sits two rows down on the train every morning (to whom, by the way, he has never yet had the courage to speak). For another, love is the suffocating, controlling, manipulating power over her only daughter so that her daughter can ‘have everything I never had’ (translation: fulfil MY needs). For a third, love is that vague and general sense of goodwill towards the human race, although “I can’t stand that annoying old hag in the canteen who insists on smiling and showing everyone her crooked yellow teeth” (Linus in Peanuts: “I love humanity; it’s people I can’t stand!”)

All you need is love.

I think this idea needs some qualification. Who do I love, in what way, and why? Most of us could honestly and immediately list those close to us as people we genuinely love. Parents, children, spouse, siblings (yes, even those) – perhaps we might add extended family, close friends, colleagues in study or work. If blessed with a nice neighbourhood, we might add the neighbours we often see through the week and stop to chat to. Our fellows at Church.

How real is this love? How strong? What type of love?

“Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.” (John 15:13)

How many people would I really be willing to give my life for? Would I do it for a complete stranger? Would I do it for an enemy? Would the Beatles do it for anyone? Yet this is the astonishing, awful standard that Jesus set for His followers; “…lay down one’s life for his friends…” And He took it further by calling His enemies (sinful humanity) His friends, and then proceeding to lay down His life, horribly, for the very people who violently wrenched it from Him.
And thus He won them.

Love is very powerful, when practiced the right way. It goes against the intuition, it goes against our instincts, but there can be no doubt that genuine, unselfish, willing love is the one and only invincible power in this world. And I do not mean only power on the large scale, as in the love that conquered the world peacefully through the Christian religion. I am speaking on the day to day individual level for each human being. Everyone genuinely dedicated to divine, unselfish love and living it out unreservedly is, in the long run, victorious over all other forces. And in the short term, they have the added bonus of peace and joy that no one can take from them.

Start the day with love.
End the day with love.
Fill the day with love.

Thus read the sign at a place I worked once. It is very good advice. Instead of awaking with a growl and a grumble, and being obnoxious to everyone until morning tea time, imagine if you awoke with love in your heart. Imagine waking to the joy of a new day gifted to you by a wildly generous Creator who has decorated it with flowers and twittering birds and bright sunshine on glistening green gardens. Imagine spreading that joy with those who are close to you through a smile and a hug and words of happiness that are infectious.

Instead of collapsing in a heap into bed at the end of the day, imagine taking the time and putting forth the effort to remind those you love that you love them, to offer them, more than words, some simple act of kindness, some small gesture that shows them practically what they mean to you; perhaps to turn on their electric blanket for them unasked so that they are pleasantly surprised when they gingerly crawl into bed expecting coldness, or to complete a household task for them so that they don’t have to do it tonight.

Imagine going through today with others in your mind. Thinking about their needs and acting in kindness towards them. Imagine that thoughtful kindness one day becoming a habit, a part of you, no longer something you must consciously choose to do, but rather something that springs forth from you naturally without conscious intention.

Love, love, love.

Yeah, yeah, George. That’s all very good; but which love do you mean?

Fr Ant

Posted on

Love, Liberty and Lies

“Love God, and do whatever you will”
– St Augustine

This brief quote from one of the most eloquent Christians in history is a profound description of the liberty of the spirit that has truly known God. Our Lord Jesus Himself described this person’s freedom of spirit poetically when He said:

“The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8)

A true Christian lives by the law of liberty. I do not believe that genuine Christianity is about living your life inside a cage of rules and regulations.

“Thou shalt not…” was the baby sitter of our infancy, charged with protecting and teaching us in our vulnerable spiritual childhood. But now we have grown up, we live thus; “All things are lawful to me, but not all things are helpful” (1 Corinthians 6:12). There is no real disagreement between these two. They both direct us to the same goal, humble obedience to God, albeit by different paths. The main difference is that the first is forced upon us, while the second is our own choice.

This liberty means the whole world is mine – there is nothing I need to fear. All doors are open to me, all knowledge is available to me. This marvellous universe God has lovingly created for me is mine to experience and to enjoy. But with liberty comes responsibility, and liberty must be used responsibly if it is to be of benefit and not harm. “All things are lawful to me, BUT not all things are helpful … not all things build up … I will not be made a slave to any” continues St Paul (see 1 Corinthians 6:12 & 10:23).

The second part of St Augustine’s words will not work without the first part being in place. Our liberty comes about and may be practiced safely and with benefit because we love God. To those who do not love God, but love the world or themselves above all else, liberty becomes the means of their destruction.

Sadly, there has always been a temptation to misuse this beautiful liberty throughout the history of Christianity. From the time of the Apostles, groups developed who squandered this precious gift and fell far from God (e.g. The Nicolaitans in Revelation chapters 2 & 3). Even today, cults develop that pervert the message and joy of Christian freedom.

And we as individuals commit the same sin when we justify our sins and say, “There’s nothing wrong with that! Who am I hurting?” or “He deserved it!” We also abuse it by allowing ourselves to get into tempting situations that are too hard for us. “I can listen to that violent music all day without being affected by it!” is a clear example of abuse of God’s liberty. I am using it to drag myself away from Him – how sad…

May God grant us the wisdom to use this great gift of liberty effectively and safely.

Fr Ant

Posted on

One FLEW out of the Atheist Nest

I’ve just finished reading the latest book by British philosopher, Antony Flew. He is now in his eighties, and has come to a conclusion that has startled the world. The title of the book sums up his conclusion quite nicely:

“There is A God”

The subtitle explains the amazement of the world:

“How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind.

The preface of the book explains that from the 1950s onwards, Flew basically laid the foundations of modern atheism in a series of ground-breaking papers. For example, he contended that atheism should be the ‘default’ position – we should start NOT believing in God. The burden of proof then lies with the faithful, to prove His existence, rather than the atheist having to prove He doesn’t exist. he suggested that we have not yet described how it is logically possible for a God to exist who is all-knowing and all-powerful and who exists everywhere.

Flew’s philosophy was the foundation upon which modern atheists such as Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great) and Sam Harris (The End of Faith) built their ideas and arguments against the existence of God. As you might imagine, they are not at all pleased with his turnaround!

So what has changed his mind? In a nutshell, he has come to the conclusion that there are things in this universe that are best explained by the existence of God. His arguments are all based on reason, logic. For example, how does something come from nothing? – there is no other sensible way to explain the existence fot he universe. The incredible fine-tuning of the universe in general and earth in particular that makes our existence possible – this is powerful evidence of Someone who had an intention, and designed the universe to be just so. The mystery of our consciousness; the fact that we know that we exist – how can matter, which is physical, produce consciousness, which is clearly non-physical?

Flew has been accused of giving in to fear in his old age (he is 85). As his inevitable death approaches, they say, he is hedging his bets. He is accepting belief in God just in case it turns out to be true, laying Pascal’s Wager. But this analysis couldn’t be further from the truth. Flew goes to great pains to clarify that although he has accepted the existence of God as truth, he is still sceptical about an afterlife. And indeed, his history and arguments in this book show clearly that his conclusions are the result of a very honest analysis of the issues and are not at all motivated by any emotion whatsoever.

His attitude to Christianity is interesting. He seems to be saying that if any religion is true, it is most likely to be Christianity, and there is an interesting dialogue at the end of the book between Flew and Bishop NT Wright, a Christian theologian, in which Wright presents a powerful defence of the Christian faith. Perhaps Flew’s final reflection in the book sums up his current position best:

I am very much impressed with Bishop Wright’s approach … Is it possible that there has been or can be divine revelation? As I said, you cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to omnipotence.

This book is not for everyone – the arguments in it are often quite complex and some background knowledge of philosophy and its ways and jargon is most helpful. But Flew’s style of writing is a delight; he is one of those old-style English writers who uses the English langauge so elegantly and economically.

Who knows if he will eventually come to a faith in Christ?

He is, after all, only 85…

Fr Ant

Posted on

Two Sides of the Rainbow

Walking along one day, I began to feel the raindrops on my face. This worried me a little, as the clouds above were pretty heavy and grey, and I was still some distance from my destination (a hospital). But it was the afternoon, and despite the heavy grey canopy directly above, the afternoon sun was shining bright amber under the clouds.

It struck me that the same storm that threatened to soak me miserably would very likely create a beautiful, bright rainbow for anyone watching from few kilometers out to the west…

“One man’s storm is another man’s rainbow”

I began to wonder how often this might prove true…

One man dies painfully from lung cancer; another man is frightened into quitting smoking.

One man has a horrible car accident; thousands slow down and drive more carefully.

One man fails his interview for job; another man’s family will now be able to afford proper food and clothing.

One man dies fighting a bushfire; hundreds of lives and homes are saved.

One man is mutilated fighting in a war; a whole country is protected from invasion.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons God permits us to suffer. Perhaps the good we buy for others with our suffering is all the more precious and wonderful for the price that has been paid for it, especially if that price is paid willingly, joyfully and with genuine unselfish love.

So the next time you benefit from someone else’s sacrifice, stop and think about that person and say a little prayer for them. And the next time things are not going well for you, think about this: without you knowing, someone else’s hope may be growing because of your storm’s rainbow…

PPFM

Fr Ant