The Christmas Event, the birth of Jesus, is above all a miracle, a spiritual reality.  It can not be explained in logical or scientific terms.  This does not deny science, but rather stands beside it. Thanks to GeoGhristian (see blogroll) who posted these charts which I found helpful in thinking about the relationship between the two..

Have you ever wondered how Jesus, fully human yet fully God, could have been so compassionate? I confess that I have had the same thoughts he writes about below. It continues to be humbling to realize there is nothing new under the sun, except the Advent of Jesus Christ  into the world.

An Advent thought from Dr. Platypus.

(He even has a post explaining how he became one of the animal named bloggers)

We talk about the Ten Commandments, and when we do I always think about how God asked this young Jewish girl to put herself in the position of being censured and shunned, at the least, and even stoned to death because of the perception that she was breaking the law.

What was God up to, seemingly breaking his own rules to accomplish something so grand?

What was he doing, asking this young girl to put herself in the position of appearing to be scandalized by breaking the laws of her people?

Later, Jesus scandalized the religious culture of his day and turned the values of his day upside down, eating with prostitutes, touching the unclean, lifting up the downtroddent and making friends with women.  He befriended  the lowly, the outcast, the littlest and the least, and whenever the woman caught in adultery was brought to him, he dealt with her with unusual sensitivity, compassion and forgiveness.  I’ve wondered if Jesus’ compassion was born out of a memory of hearing stories of his mother’s plight.

via Dr. Platypus.

Here is a site which has a different way of expressing thoughts. It will give you opportunity to explore in a way more regular writings do not.  You may not like all of it, but give it a try.

“Christian Kane” has some really interesting poetry that he has written on his site.

Here is a taste of what you will read:

Bloody Love.
13 05 2009

My eyes lifted upwards,
no angels, colors, or shooting stars I see,
But a bloody mess nailed to a tree.
Fixed between Heaven and Earth
Love stretches it’s arms wide.
If I take the embrace it will stain my shirt,
But that man’s blood will heal my hurt.

So deep a wound requires remittance
Yet the earth is blissful of its debt
For its worthless appetites does it whet.
Strike the band and sing a chorus,
You who are about to perish.
You failed your calling and your maker,
Now is the time to pay the piper.

Failure never tasted so sour,
Nor did a victory seem so unloved,
As the coming king who is dyed in blood.
The peoples fall beneath Him,
But his pace does not slow.
If you side with Him you will yet live,
Though the rest are sent through a sieve.

I hope you take the opportunity to visit his site, The Eternal Uprising, and sample more of what he has to offer.

Ever wondered how ministry would be with little money or institutional support?  Or if you had to sleep on the ground, or only eat the same meals your hosts ate each day? How about managing your physical problems in primitive conditions?  All of the above apply to Fr. Francis on his africa trips. This is a glimpse into what it always is like for this missioner, and also for his students.

The ministry of OFM  (editor:  Office of Foreign Missions) is to provide ministry education in places where such education is hard to get.  The teaching has been completed for now here in Geita.  It was hard work for all concerned.  The class members thought that the whole Anglican Church believed, practiced and taught as they did.  They were wrong.  They discovered the need and desire to learn more in order to serve God and His people in the best way possible, now and in the future.  So they wanted to learn.  It was a huge challenge.

Learning was not easy.  The need to translate all instruction into Swahili slowed the process down.  The interpreter was an 18-year-old recent high school graduate whose Swahili vocabulary did not extend into church matters. So many words were a struggle. The students worked so hard at writing down everything that was said, that I often had to tell them put your pens down and listen.  Students with a seventh grade education were learning college level material.

Some things they caught at the first mention.  They understood that Moses himself did not personally write the first five books of the Bible.  They understood that others wrote in the spirit of Moses and God was all the greater for working through many people rather than one.  They spontaneously applauded God when they realized that.  It was a Holy Spirit moment.

They struggled to comprehend that the ministry of the prophet was to announce God’s Word, not to predict the future as they always had been taught.  But they learned that and accepted that.  Thank you Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.

What was hardest for them to comprehend was not really important, the concept of dating events in Scripture, B.C. and A.D.  Their Swahili Bibles listed such dates in a routine manner.  They asked what it meant.  It took me a half hour to repeatedly explain the meaning and I do not think that most understood completely. Why is it that for B.C., the numbers get smaller as the dates get closer to the birth of Jesus and for A.D., the dates get larger as you get farther away from the birth of Jesus? There was no answer to that question.

They finished proudly.  They looked good for the class picture. Note in the picture below how some proudly displayed their Bibles.  Each student was thrilled to receive a copy of the class picture.  Remember that they lived at the church for three weeks, sleeping on mats on the floor, having to cook their own food, and having to clean the church.

On the last class day, one by one, they proudly came forward and received their Certificates of Ministry Education, from the area Anglican coordinator, Fr Mathias.  Guests and other Anglican pastors came.  Speeches were made.  The students will put their certificates in a frame and display them proudly in the sitting room of their huts.

They went home different than they came.  What they knew before had been significantly supplemented.  They went home with a new determination to do the best for God and his people and had faith that they could now do such things better.  They went home with a desire to continue to learn.  They were all pressuring Father Mathias for more training and more education.  The seeds that had been planted and nurtured were now sprouting.  New knowledge, new attitudes, new confidence.

Geita is a place of contrasts – contemporary and ancient.  I saw large Mercedes cargo trucks for the gold mines and followed by donkey carts for firewood. There was electric power but it failed almost every day, sometimes for several days at a time. There were crowded roads with buses, trucks, and cars, but mostly there were bicycles – even bicycle taxis.  The battle between progress and traditional ways is happening.  For the pastors, they must learn much more in order to serve God and his people of the next 25 years.

Every Sunday in Africa, I preached at the liturgy in a local church.  So the people in several churches here in Africa heard about the Missionary Society of St John, Bishop Fick, and your support of ministry education in Africa.  I assisted Fr Mathias, the pastor.

Your prayers and donations made a big difference here.  These twenty pastors will change the nature of church in these rural areas.  They will become seed for sowing in God’s kingdom here in Tanzania.  Thank you God.  Thank you people of God.  Your prayers and financial support are bearing great fruit here in East Africa.  The teachers of God’s people are being taught.  Without you, all this does not happen.  We are grateful for those who supported this trip and we are grateful to the monthly donors who keep this ministry alive.  This ministry, the students in Africa, and the rural church in Africa, all rely on you and all thank you. Without such support from you, this ministry dies.

Asante sana!  (Thank you!)

Fr Francis Wardega MSJ

How did we get to where we are now?  Always a necessary answer if we want to understand how we became what we are now, and how we process the information about us.  This article explores historical theology. Theology gives us structure as to how we understand God. This has been extremely important in the forming and life of Christians. Each denomination and branch of Christianity has developed its own theology, and it will differ from other understandings by minor variations to incompatible formulations. Historical theology is a way of approaching the past. I enjoyed  this article which explores this facinating facet of our Christian life.

Society for Orthodox Christian History in the Americas’s Notes

One issue that has come to the fore in discussions at SOCHA’s website has been the use of historical sources. This got me thinking about what it means to be an historical theologian. It is not strictly the same as being an historian, though members of SOCHA, such as Matthew Namee, may consider themselves to be precisely that. Yet, historical theology is not systematic theology or philosophical theology. It is, after all, historical. So, where to start?

Let me start with the term theologian in historical theologian. Evagrios, though not a saint of the Church, did correctly note that a theologian is “he who prays rightly.” Theologians pray. They become spiritual fathers and leaders. They defend the faith. They build up the Body of Christ. Sometimes, they even heal people, feed people through miracles, and raise the dead. That is what theologians do when they “do theology.”

When combined with a contemporary, Western understanding of “theology,” which tends to mean treatises and reflections about God and Christianity, theology serves to articulate a vision of God, to uplift the faithful, to defend the faith, to express discernment, and to further a life of prayerful contemplation. This sort of theology does so making use of systematic, philosophical methods with contemporary concerns in mind (e.g., how does the Christian faith affect women and minorities?). Therefore, Orthodox theology in our current context is a movement from active prayer and contemplation and asceticism to intellectual apprehension and articulation of one’s spiritual experience(s).

What makes the historical theologian unique is that he or she does not concentrate only on the systematic and philosophical, but descends into the murkiness of the historical, for all that it implies, including overlap with anthropology, archaeology, and sociology. This assumes, of course, that the “historical theologian” brings his or her own experience and questions to historical studies. For this reason, an ascetic rigor of dispassionate openness to the historical evidence becomes paramount. Indeed, the historical theologian can only be faithful to the historical witness if he or she is able to maintain a healthy balance and dispassion in the face of his or her own theological experience and questions. Dispassion is a key factor here, but not in the sense of not caring, but in the sense of fighting the passions. The historical theologian must never allow an agenda to have a passionate hold on his or her own soul.

The basis for this understanding lies not so much in the historical distance between the Orthodox historical theologian and the people and events under study, but in the deifying or sanctifying distance that lies between the historical theologian and people and events in question. For God is the God of the living, and a cloud of witnesses surrounds and uplifts the historical theologian as he or she engages in prayer within an essentially structured community. In this experience, the difference in sanctification between a saint, or the witness of the fathers, and the historical theologian becomes all too obvious. Therefore, as a matter of humility, the Orthodox historical theologian seeks to learn from God’s presence in his saints throughout all the ages, and so remains open to the historical context rather than simply and anachronistically applying a contemporary and personal agenda.

The results of the historical investigation are then brought to bear upon the theological expressions at the systematic and philosophical level. In turn, these re-investigated expressions and understandings are applied to the realm of theology proper (prayer, discernment, and Christian action within the community).

“Historical theology,” therefore, denotes a circular process. It does not exist as an end in itself, but constantly evokes reflection and investigation on the part of the religious scholar. This process begins with an ascetic prayer life, expresses that experience through academic intellectual means, embraces and investigates history, and applies the results of historical inquiry to the academic intellectual expressions, which together shape prayer. As such, this circle is not a continual repeating of the same things, but the same process experienced anew each time. When done properly, historical theology becomes one small means by which we can circle the mind back up that downward spiral we have created since the first moment of Adam and Eve’s existence.

What “Historical Theology” Means is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

Father Orthohippo was greatly amused by the following reprint of an article from Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, a Catholic priest. Thus this humorous posting which Father Orthoduck was happy to reprint from Fr. Z’s blog. It is not the entire article. You will need to go there in order to read it, but it is quite a bit of the post. Enjoy the humor!

From a reader:

I have a question for you. Suppose during a EF Mass, a gunman or threatening person enters the church, and opens fire. What can be done within the rubrics to protect the Blessed Sacrament, the priest, the servers, and the congregation? Please keep in mind that the congregation is made up of slow, aging men, who no offense to them, really can’t protect anyone.

Lemme get this straight… what rubrics are followed in case of gunfire…?

I believe there is a little known rubric which calls for the deacon and subdeacon (who in any event should be packing) to take out, reverently, their .9mm and return fire. As I read it, they are to recite the Maledictory Psalms while firing. At the change of a clip/magazine, they may bow, or duck.

In the case of, probability actually… of the mention of the Holy Name, it is still necessary to uncover.

If one crosses the sanctuary, however, honorifics are not to be observed.

In the case of an incapacitating wound, it is permitted for the priest celebrant, or one of the sacred ministers, or any priest in choir, to give the assailant, et al., last rites.

Any bishop present ought immediately place himself in the line of fire between the assailant and the priest celebrant and then begin to remonstrate with the attacker, invoking the help of St. Michael. He is to wave his arms and shout: “in manus tuas commendo spiritum meum”.

At the conclusion of the gunfire, it is permitted to sing the Te Deum…. unless it is Good Friday.

Mass (or the service) continues afterward from the point it was interrupted, though it is not necessary to start in the middle of a word; going back to the first word of the sentence is sufficient.

Alternately, if the sacred ministers are not packing, there is no reason why a group of religious could not be formed as a sort of liturgical militia against such an eventuality.

I believe in this case, the gun stock must have a ribbon of the color of the days.

The distorted global-warming debate

What is happening in scientific presentation and peer review? When I was trained in debate in high school in the 1950’s, two sides could go after each other with facts open for discussion. The article below is a reprint from a post by David Frum, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Though the post is on the current climate debate crisis, read it carefully. The point he is making is actually significantly more important than just the climate debate. They key phrase is, “It used to be said that we were all entitled to our own opinions, but not entitled to our own facts. No more. In modern America, we choose our facts to fit our opinions.” And that is the sadness of what is happening currently. Reasoned debate no longer exists.

But, it is even worse than that. It is not just that reasoned debate no longer exists. It is that, as a culture, we no longer even see our failure to have reasoned debate. Rather, the opposite is true. We have come to believe that our debate is a reasoned debate. David From has been intelligent enough to see that what we think of as reasoned debate is simply our cherry-picking those facts that will confirm our already held opinions. But, look carefully at the conclusion of his debate. Having cherry-picked the facts, we all too often accuse the other side of doing what we have just finished doing. And, let me go one step further. Were we to actually encounter reasoned debate, too many of us would be fully unable to differentiate it from cherry-picking debate.

How do we get out of this vicious circle? Frankly, I doubt that we can. Decades ago, Josh McDowell published a book Evidence that Demands a Verdict. It was written at a time when one could still expect such a debate. For us Christians in America today, such a book would now be nearly useless for use in current culture except with those few people who continue in old style thinking.

I would enjoy debating commonly held facts rather than cherry-picked facts. I would enjoy the “iron sharpening iron” effect of dialoguing with a mind as sharp as his. We really do need more David Frum types in this country, on both sides of the various debates. You see, those types of minds are also the types of minds most likely to admit weaknesses in their own positions and–for the sake of the country–the types of minds most likely to work towards an acceptable compromise.  (above comments from Fr. Orthohippo and, mostly, Fr. Ernesto)

By David Frum, Special to CNN

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• David Frum says the global warming debate has been distorted by intellectual self-ghettoization
• How can we reach conclusions if we can’t agree on rules of discussion, Frum says
• Frum says that in modern America, we choose our facts to fit our opinions

Editor’s note: David Frum, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was special assistant to President George W. Bush in 2001-2. He is the author of six books, including “Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again” and the editor of FrumForum.

(CNN) — I asked a knowledgeable environmentalist earlier this week: “How big a story is the CRU scandal in your community?”

“The what?”

“The e-mails hacked at the Climate Research Unit at [the British] East Anglia University?”

“Ah.” He smiled. “It says something that I didn’t immediately recognize what you were talking about. I suppose on my side we’d take the same view that the Pentagon took of Abu Ghraib: a few bad apples on the night shift.”

Meanwhile, on the right, the story is the biggest scandal since the leak of the Pentagon Papers.

Seemingly unperturbed by the CRU embarrassment, President Obama will shortly jet to Copenhagen to pledge reductions in U.S. carbon emissions. The Democratic majority in Congress continues to work on a cap-and-trade bill.

At the same time, Gallup has recorded an amazing 20 point drop since summer 2008 in the number of Republicans who believe that global warming is occurring. Among Republican conservatives, the drop is slightly smaller — 13 points — but that’s because so few of them believed in the reality of global warming in the first place.

It used to be said that we were all entitled to our own opinions, but not entitled to our own facts. No more. In modern America, we choose our facts to fit our opinions. Michael Barone drove this point home in a 2008 column for the magazine of the American Enterprise Institute:

Americans’ views of the economy are increasingly a function of voting behavior or party loyalty, rather than the other way around. In early 2006, a time of vibrant economic growth, 56 percent of Republicans said the economy was excellent or good, while only 28 percent of independents and 23 percent of Democrats agreed.

Maybe Republicans were just doing better than Democrats? No — the partisan divergence held true among Republicans and Democrats even of the same income level. The same effect showed up in reverse in the 1990s. Under President Clinton, Democrats were more likely to assess the economy positively than were Republicans of the same income level.

Media critics often blame cable, talk radio and blogs for isolating the public into self-satisfied information communities. And for sure, Fox News, MSNBC, Rush Limbaugh and the Daily Show have done good business serving niche markets. But it’s a real question: What is cause and what is effect?

Maybe customers always wanted to have their pre-existing opinions confirmed. Notice how often 19th century newspapers had names like the “Clay County Whig” or the “Jacksonville Democrat.” What were these old county papers if not the Fox News and MSNBC of their day?

The whole global warming debate has been distorted from the start by intellectual self-ghettoization. Suffused by self-righteousness, the East Anglian scientists felt entitled to twist the evidence and delete the counter-evidence.

But it also helped that they felt sure they would not be caught. They had defined their community in a way that excluded skepticism, that defined skeptics as the enemy, as liars, as Holocaust deniers.

Private e-mails and documents allegedly from the servers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, a world-renowned center on the study of climate change, are thought to have been leaked by hackers.

Everything important about global warming remains disputed:

How fast is it happening? How much of it is attributable to human activity? How dangerous is it? How much should we pay to avert or mitigate it? Who should do the paying?

How are to begin to reach conclusions if we cannot even agree on the rules of discussion? The most famous public document on global warming calls itself “An Inconvenient Truth” — and yet that document itself is filled with untruths, on every subject from sea levels to polar bears. (The bears are doing fine, populations at record levels in the Canadian Arctic.)

In his first book, “Earth in the Balance,” former Vice President Al Gore wrote that human consciousness itself may be the most important obstacle to environmental improvement. He spoke more accurately than he knew.

The global warming controversy has been pervaded from the start by the human instinct to divide the world into “us” and “them” — and then believe only the news we hear from “us.”

Global warming advocates can see this weakness in their opponents. It was the same weakness in themselves that led the advocates themselves to cheat and twist and betray scientific standards and public trust.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Frum.

Here is a a book review which has some fascinating definitions.  I have been a conservative, especially in matters spiritual, for most of my life.  Confession:  I did have a rather spectacular venture into other spiritual waters while in college, but returned to the fold.  The labels we place on such things as liberal, conservative, moderate, and such are very restricting and generally do not accurately or adequately describe the person in question. Crunchy Cons does describe a part of me. It may also describe some of you.  Thanks, Fr. Ernesto, for finding this.

From Publisher’s Weekly:

What do you call people who vote for Bush but shop at Whole Foods? Crunchy cons. And according to Dreher, an editor at the Dallas Morning News, they’re forming a thriving counterculture within the contemporary conservative movement. United by a “cultural sensibility, not an ideology,” crunchy conservatives, he says, have some habits and beliefs often identified with cultural liberals, like shopping at agriculture co-ops and rejecting suburban sprawl. Yet crunchy cons stand apart from both the Republican “Party of Greed” and the Democratic “Party of Lust,” he says, by focusing on living according to conservative values, what the author calls “sacramental” living. Dreher makes no secret of his own faith in Christianity, and his book will resonate most with fellow Christians. His conversations with other crunchy conservatives—e.g., the policy director of Republicans for Environmental Protection, a Manhattan home-schooler, the author’s wife—are illuminating, but the book fails to offer any empirical evidence to connect these individuals to a wider “movement.” Instead, it works best as an indictment of consumerism and the spiritual havoc it can wreak. While his complaints about consumer culture are similar to those advanced by liberals, Dreher frames his criticism of corporate America in explicitly conservative terms, painting rampant consumerism as antithetical to true conservatism.

The “Crunchy Con” manifesto as posted on the Facebook® description for the group “Crunchy Conservatives”:

A Crunchy Con Manifesto

By Rod Dreher

We are conservatives who stand outside the conservative mainstream; therefore, we can see things that matter more clearly.

Modern conservatism has become too focused on money, power, and the accumulation of stuff, and insufficiently concerned with the content of our individual and social character.

Big business deserves as much skepticism as big government.

Culture is more important than politics and economics.

A conservatism that does not practice restraint, humility, and good stewardship—especially of the natural world—is not fundamentally conservative.

Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better than Big, Global, New, and Abstract.

Beauty is more important than efficiency.

The relentlessness of media-driven pop culture deadens our senses to authentic truth, beauty, and wisdom.

We share Russell Kirk’s conviction that “the institution most essential to conserve is the family.

“Politics and economics won’t save us; if our culture is to be saved at all, it will be by faithfully living by the Permanent Things, conserving these ancient moral truths in the choices we make in our everyday lives.

via OrthoCuban.

Moving towards a united Christianity

Here is an evaluation of the startling church unity initiatives of the past year from an overseas newspaper. One of the dangers in understanding such things are our cultural influences in processing information.  It helps to get other’s insights into the situation at hand

• • 

  Meetings between high-ranking Orthodox, Anglican and Catholic clergy signal that old schisms might soon be healed.  guardian.co.uk

  • , Wednesday 2 December 2009 11.00 GMT
  • Article history

• Comments (41)
• Buzz up!
• Digg it

In the past two months, relations between the three main Christian churches have moved in more promising directions than perhaps during the past 50 years of uninspiring liberal dialogue. By opening a new chapter of theological engagement and concrete co-operation with Orthodoxy and Anglicanism, Pope Benedict XVI is changing the terms of debate about church reunification. In time, we might witness the end of the Great Schism between east and west and a union of the main episcopally-based churches.

First there was the Rome visit in September by the Russian OrthodoxArchbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk, Moscow’s man for ecumenical relations. In high-level meetings, both sides argued that their shared resistance to secularism and moral relativism calls forth a further rapprochement of Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Declaring that “More than ever, we Christians must stand together”, Hilarion insisted that each side can appeal to shared traditions and work towards greater closeness in a spirit of “mutual respect and love”.

That this was more than diplomatic protocol was confirmed by the Catholic Archbishop of Moscow, Monsignor Paolo Pezzi. In an interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, he said that union between Catholics and Orthodox “is possible, indeed it has never been so close”. The formal end of the Great Schism of 1054, which has divided the two churches for a millennium, and the move towards full spiritual communion “could happen soon”.

Even on doctrinal matters, Roman Catholicism and Russian Orthodoxy are essentially in agreement. Hilarion acknowledged that the two have different ecclesiological models, with the former favouring a more centralised structure led by the pontiff while the latter emphasises the autonomy of provinces and local churches. “There remains the question of papal primacy and this will be a concern at the next meeting of the Catholic-Orthodox commission. But to me, it doesn’t seem impossible to reach an agreement”, said Pezzi.

Indeed, when Joseph Ratzinger was elected pope in 2005, one of his first acts was to drop the title of patriarch of the west. Rather than affirming absolutist papal supremacism, Benedict indicated with this act that he seeks to blend the historical primacy of the see of Rome and the pope’s universal jurisdiction with that of local churches in east and west. The next step for Rome is to incorporate the Orthodox emphasis on conciliarity as a counterweight to papal authority. Increasingly shrill attacks on Benedict by Catholic dissidents like Hans Küng represent little more than the angry expression of some liberals who are excluding themselves from pan-Christian reunification.

Meanwhile, closer church ties will be greatly helped by concrete co-operation. There’s already considerable convergence on social teaching, as evinced by Kirill’s preface to Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone’s book The Ethics of the Common Good in Catholic Social Doctrine. Both Catholicism and Orthodoxy argue for a civil market economy embedded in communal relations and serving the public good rather than exclusively private profit, a prominent theme in Benedict’s recent social encyclical “Caritas in veritate”.

Similarly, last week’s Rome visit by the Archbishop of Canterbury has advanced Catholic-Anglican relations. Far from humiliating the primate of the Anglican Communion by parking papal tanks on the lawn at Lambeth, Benedict emphasised the importance of Anglicanism in promoting the unity of all episcopally-based Christian churches.

The presence of Anglicans within Catholicism might lead to a better appreciation of Anglicanism’s unique contribution to Christianity. It could also help Anglicans define an episcopal identity beyond the divide between liberals and evangelicals.

No less significant was the fact both the pope and the archbishop spoke in favour of a different model of socio-economic development that does not rely exclusively on the state or the market. Rather, it accentuates mutualist principles of reciprocity and gift-exchange and the absolute sanctity of human and natural life which is relational, not individualist or collectivist. This shared social teaching is key in further developing concrete links and bonds of trust among Christians of different traditions.

Moves towards church reunification are signs of a revivified Christian Europe, one which can use its shared faith to transform the continent and the whole world.

Territoriality is one of the church’s favorite blood sports.  In America this was somewhat lessened because of our vastness.  When someone disagreed with something, they often simply moved a few blocks or miles and started a new church.  No problem with territory. Other, usually larger and older established churches, were very defensive about their territory. For example, Episcopal and Orthodox bodies were (and still are) quite sensitive about their pedigrees and precedence. Occasionally primogeniture was argued.

Below is an analysis of one such incident from OrthodoxHistory.org.

Episcopalians & Orthodox claims in America, 1862

Not going in chronological order, but continuing on the theme from yesterday… The following article appeared in the San Francisco Bulletin on December 6, 1862:

At the General Episcopal Convention recently held in New York, Dr. Thrall, late of San Francisco, took occasion to make some interesting statements as to the Russo-Greek church here. There were, said he, in San Francisco between 300 and 400 communicants of the Russo-Greek church, some of whom had been under his pastoral charge, although not feeling free to receive the communion at his hands, owing to the unsettled relations between their church and ours. They were about to builda church of their own and become organized into a parish; and before long there might be appointed a Bishop of the Russo-Greek church, who would claim jurisdiction and thus bring about a conflict with the Bishop of California. This ought to force upon the Convention the consideration of that great question — one of the greatest of questions — the establishment of full ecclesiastical relations with the Russo-Greek church. He was not prepared to pass an opinion on the subject, and did not suppose that, at this late moment in the session, the House would go into the discussion. He only asked for the appointment of a committee of inquiry and correspondence on the subject, the main object of which would be to present the claims of our own church as a true part of the Church Catholic, and thus as duly qualified to guide and feed those who might come from the Russian dominions to reside temporarily or permanently among us. There wre three possibilities that might ultimately result from the movement thus begun: 1st. A number of brethren of the Russo-Greek church might be brought into our own communion; 2d. It might lead the way to the correction of some of the errors of the Greek church itself; 3d. It might at last enable the Anglican and the Greek churches to present an undivided front to Rome and the infidel.

The article goes on to say that, after some discussion, the resolution passed “almost unanimously.” This committee — the “Russo-Greek Committee” — dove into its work. In 1865, it sent representatives to Russia to confer with the leading Orthodox churchmen there, including St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. The meetings were extremely positive; the Committee’s report to the 1865 General Convention can be viewed here.

From the above article, we alsosee that, in 1862, there were already several hundred Orthodox Christians in San Francisco, and even before the sale of Alaska to the US was imminent, they were hoping to establish a parish. The Episcopalians foresaw that”before long there might be appointed a Bishop of the Russo-Greek church, who would claim jurisdiction and thus bring about a conflict with the [Episcopal] Bishop of California.” It is this potential territorial conflict which provides part of the impetus to create the Russo-Greek Committee.

Eventually, in the winter of 1867-68, an Russian church was founded in San Francisco, and in 1870, Bishop John Mitropolsky moved his residence to that city. But, as we’ve discussed previously, he formally claimed territory in Alaska only, with the title, “Bishop of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska,” thusavoiding a conflict with the Episcopal Bishop of California.

We’ll keep fleshing this out in the days to come; however, for now, consider some of the thingsthat weregoing on in this period:

• As we saw above, at the 1862 General Convention of the Episcopal Church, Dr. Thrall reported on the presence of Orthodox Christians in San Francisco, and the possibility of an Orthodox parish and even an Orthodox bishop in the future. The convention passed a resolution to create a “Russo-Greek Committee.”
• In 1865, Anglican representatives ofthe Russo-Greek Committee visited Russia and had very positive meetings with the hierarchs there. The same year, Agapius Honcharenko served the first Orthodox liturgy in New York, using the Episcopalian Trinity Chapel. Among many Episcopalians, this was seen a landmarkevent.
• In 1866, the Russian Church planned to establish a representation church in New York City, with the main goal of furthering dialogue with the Episcopalians.
• In 1867, Russia sold its American territory — Alaska — to the United States of America.
• In the winter of 1867-68, the Russian Church established a parish in San Francisco.
• In 1870, Nicholas Bjerring opened a Russian chapel in New York, apparently in fulfillment of the 1866 plan. The same year, the Diocese of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska was created, and the new hierarch, John Mitropolsky, moved the bishop’s residence to San Francisco.

Bottom line, it’s impossible to understand the policy of the Russian Churchtowards America in the 1860s without also considering the relations between the Russian and Episcopal Churches. And once you start to understand those relations, Russia’s seemingly paradoxical treatment of America — with territorial claims only in Alaska, but a bishop living in the contiguous US — begins to make sense.

Episcopalians & Orthodox claims in America, 1862 is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved.