Matushka Elizabeth’s Neighborhood

something pinches inside
hot tears tear
what is it
God

i am lost

something eases inside
calm overtakes
it is you
God

i am found

New
       becomes old

Obsession 
                fades away

Everything
                 dust crumbles

Only
         you remain

 only you only you only you only you only you only you only you only you only you only you only

i shrink into the middle ground
trapped on one side
penned on the other

light mixes with the darkness in my eyes
still blind i fall into the silk-soft trap
of my own filth

it brushes against my skin
rushing up my nostrils
saturating my lungs

i suffocate
without you
God

life stirs again
you find me and i grasp
weak

cling tight
i let go
let go of your love

and death devours me
until i open to you again
God

see your face blur in the distance
you aren't blurred
i am

you are here
i forget to close my eyes
to see you are close

closer than my sight
my breath
my heart

you are life
no one dies in you
God

       When Fr. Joseph Honeycutt spoke at the Winter Youth Retreat a couple of years back, he talked about how, when he was working on his doctorate. He told one bishop about his idea and what he was trying to show about it in his Thesis. The bishop - who was not very fluent in speaking English - replied: "The wedding was good; the marriage is bad."
       This came to mind on Wednesday after I spoke with my drawing professor about class. I told him I felt like my conceptual abilities were ZIP!!
       We got on to talking about how I'm an English Major, Art Minor. I told him I felt like my "writing self" was tugging me in one direction and my "art self" was tugging me in another. If I focus on my writing, I feel like I'm sacrificing my art, and if I pay attention to my art, my writing suffers.
       "Your first mistake was separating those two," my drawing professor said.
       It was a definite light bulb moment.
       I need to use my strengths to work together instead of setting them against each other. It made sense (yes, I can be very dense sometimes). Still, I had no idea what to do.
       I made my way to the computer lab, to the tower for lunch, pondering.
       Finally, I realized: I need to get married!! XD
       My "writing self" and "art self" have only really flirted with each other. And, they've mostly been separated. But now, I discovered, it's time to go down for the long haul.
   

      This morning was unusual. The cloud cover was dense and it was grey and windy. Squeezed close. Not cold, but not hot, either.
    
      There's a sort of death, walking through the world, not noticing. The rhythm, the wind's dance, the trees as they grow, paying head only to the sun's warmth.

      It's so easy to forget.

      On Sunday, she stood on the patio, alone, and watched the sun gently touch the Wild Olive's leaves, fanned wide. Open, ready, waiting. Expectant.

      "The Beholder," that's what some crazy chick with a blog calls herself.

      She used to notice.

      On this dark morning, she woke up.

      What apathy has infected her? Has infected the world?

      "Follower of Christ" and "Light Bearer" that's what her name means.

      It means when the morning is darkest, she should still see the light. 

     Although I've had this blog sometime, I've only had my posts viewable to a few of my closest family and friends, which means I haven't been getting a whole lot of readers lately. Seeing as I'm a writer, I enjoy when there's an actual audience for my writing.
     So, the thought occurred to me that I could possibly get more viewers if I 1) make my posts viewable to the public, and 2) post the links on my facebook so that people who I actually know will see them!! :D

            I know, I'm a GENIUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ^.^

"Where there is no guidance, they fall like leaves; salvation exists in much counsel." Proverbs 11:14

From a recent Orthodox online forum discussion:

Speaking of formal/informal, I've heard many english-speakers address their
priest by his diminutive. For example Fr. Tom instead of Fr. Thomas or Fr. Bob
instead of Fr. Robert. How common is this? Unless a Russian wants to be mocking,
he'll never address a priest as "Otets Sasha" or "Otets Vanya." Granted, the
degree of intimacy between Tom and Thomas is much less than between Vanya and
Ioann, but still... it's sounds very odd to Russian ears. Does anyone know if
this form or address is a common practice among other orthodox (non-slavic)
nationalities?
A----

Sadly, yes, I have observed it almost universally in the OCA and GOA.

Ironically, this is based on an archaic idea -- that the priest is such an
intimidating figure that he has to be made 'more approachable' by the adoption
of familiar address (and other familiarities, for that matter). It has been a
long time since clergy in the West have had such societal clout as to be figures
of fear, but the popular mythology appears to persist in seminaries. Many
Protestants and RCs went down this path first, and the 'modernist' Orthodox
followed.

There is a certain seductiveness to this familiarity for the priest. Priests
are by nature isolated in their role, and it is always a temptation to step away
from that role, in one way or another, and to be more a 'regular guy.'

The reality, however, is that besides the respect due to the grace of the
priesthood, contemporary society in the West is starved for figures who are both
loving and authoritative. When the priest adopts an excessively 'familiar'
persona and becomes a 'buddy', he loses something as a priest.

The Russians, I think, have done a much better job of maintaining the proper
balance for their priests between being authoritative and approachable.

in IC XC,

Priest J--

   People do indeed seem starved for a return to being more "old-fashioned". In private conversations with both Priests and parishioners of jurisdictions with modern leanings, more than one expressed a wistful desire for more formality. Clergy caught in the catch-22 of familiarity should know that a certain expectation of formality from the laity is not unreasonable or prideful. Warmth or aproachableness is not a necessary trade-off. I think people need to hear that it is not only "OK", but a good thing to have some of the formality of older times. We all benefit from it; it functions as a protection from our own passions. "Familiarity breeds contempt."

   I have found, personally, that the moment I begin to be "buddies" with someone with whom formality is proper, that it does not take long for me to say something inappropriate. *That* is when disturbance, isolation and resentment can enter! [This says more about me than people in general, but the adage holds true nevertheless]

   Equating formality with severity, respect with slavishness, courtesy with falsehood and decorum with pompousness is a recent development. Fearfullness surrounding these ancient core values has become stamped (indelibly, it seems) on the society's consciousness, even to the degree that Christians begin to reject them as evil.

   The Berkeley Cultural Revolution changed the world, and was the beginning of the New Age. It was this event that was the culmination of the rejection of God's ultimate Authority, which began with Descartes' declaration that "Cogito, ergo sum." Any here who has had the benefit of listening to Fr. John Ocana describe the devolvement of Western philosophy knows the stunning impact the New Age had on Western society, which has now spread to the entire world. What we see today--legal murder, illegal prayer, the meanings of words turned upside-down, the great apostasy--could not have come about without first destroying the philosophical pillars of Judeo-Christian society. Already, the moral memory of mainstream society has been all but lost. Grandma and Grandpa were the Revolutionaries of the New Age.

 
   In today's society, especially among the youth, there is an impatience to feel familiar and relaxed with someone as soon as possible; formality just "gets in the way". I posit that formality is a buffer of sorts, protecting the Christian soul from taking part in the core values of the New Age: emotional openness in lieu of reserve, moral permissivity instead of reverence, humanism in place of love. In short, spiritual coldness, ripe for prelest. This is quite similar to what must be firmly in place for the antichrist to establish his kingdom (II Thes. 2: 3-4, 9-12).

   I know: this is taking it to the extreme. But think...by a thousand such little cuts, Christianity became the confused myriad of heterodoxy we see today. If we have been given the gift of right belief, but allow our brethren to excise what is proper to Orthodoxy without sounding the alarm, who are we to be the wards of it? Being "nice" will not preserve the faith, love and honesty will.

 "Let us live, even as true Christians of all times have lived, in expectation of the end of all things and the coming of our dear Saviour..." ~Fr. Seraphim Rose

 Or, more to the point:

 "Let all things be done decently, and in good order." (I Cor. 14: 40)

 in Christ our Hope,

 Sdn. Martinian

 PS- I'm a hypocrite, having grown up in Berkeley, and formed a sense of socialist outrage congruent to my surroundings...but I'm trying to overcome this. Pray for me!

Today I was forwarded this email from a friend:

My dear K! I can only tell you the answer to your questions from an Eastern Orthodox perspective. This is, however, an Eastern perspective, a mystical perspective, and one that is the most ancient in Christianity, having been kept unchanged for over 1,700 years. No other Christian denomination can claim this; it is historical fact and even Catholic priests will admit this is true. Orthodoxy means "right belief" in essence; from the Greek words "orthos" (right, true, straight) and "doxa" (belief, understanding, proclamation) which is itself derived from "dokein" (to think). This right, true and straight belief, understanding and way to think was given to us by Christ himself. The details of what it does and doesn't mean, leading to its final formation as we have it today, was established by the Holy Fathers of the Church over several centuries. The particulars of the choices they were faced with and how they decided are not my point here.

The point is that every single point of dogma, what we believe as Orthodox Christians, was not ever decided by one man, nor was it done without much deliberation, prayer and fasting. The bishops, monks and others in these councils are why we have the Bible that we do (there were many different books, they decided which would be in the Bible) and how we are to UNDERSTAND what is written in it. This understanding of the Holy Fathers, also called Patristics, is inseparable from the Holy Scriptures themselves. Without it, the Bible can be interpreted to say almost anything by anyone, and we see the dreadful and deeply wrong results of this flawed interpretation every day and throughout the last 2000 years.

Your understanding and use of the word "God" in connection with Vedic, Hindu and other religious contexts will not work well in this conversation. I say this not in an unkind way--I am familiar with the reverence associated with the Hindu understanding of God, and appreciate it for what it is--but to be sure of the context in which we speak about God, any talk of God (in this conversation) must come from the Judeo-Christian tradition, and more particularly, the Patristic understanding. Why is this? Well, the Hindu/Zoroastran/Gnostic/Buddhist understandings of God are completely different and unrelated to the Christian understanding, although they may seem to agree, in some basic, rather foggy way, on some points. The Mohamedans claim the One True God as their own as well--but this is an impossibility; on this, both Jews and Christians agree. It was God who blessed Abraham and his offspring, Isaac, who was the father of Jacob. The Arab and Palestinian tribes are all descended from the bastard child (Ishmael) of Abraham and his wife's maidservant, Haggar. Haggar, an Egyptian, did call on the God of Abraham, and Ishmael was blessed by God, but he did not recieve the Covenant--that is, the Promise--of The Messiah, i.e. He who would come to save mankind. See Genesis chapter 16 and 17 for the whole story, but the most important part is Ch. 17, verses 19-21. Without that Promise, those tribes' understanding of God has gone so awry that there is little resemblance left of the God of the Old Testament. Moreover, it is outwardly hostile and opposed to the Christian understanding of Jesus as Emmanuel ("God with us") and Christ the Savior. 

Islam is another very large discussion in and of itself, but it is enough to say that both Christians and Jews--and I am both, by faith and by bloodline--know that Allah is not the One True God as proclaimed by Mohamed, the false prophet. Any devout Moslem would kill me for saying this, but they have done this to Orthodox Christians for over a millennium, so that would be nothing new. A true Martyr is one who is murdered by unbelievers after being told to renounce their beliefs. A Christian is martyred for the sake of their love for Christ. How can one who blows himself up to kill and maim others for the sake of hatred, and some fantasy about having a massive orgy with virgins in "heaven", be compared equally? Here, the absolute baseness and falsehood of their god and prophet is clearly shown.

You wrote: "I know God loves for us to suffer but WHY? I know it HAS 2 be like this but it's kinda a bummer..ya know?"

The question of suffering is a common one. First and foremost: God does NOT love for us to suffer. This idea is completely foreign to the Patristic understanding of God. God is LOVE. If any idea of what God "wants" seems to conflict with this love for us, it is a flawed understanding. Most modern interpretations are flawed and have no basis in the Holy Fathers--they are just thoughts that occur to someone and gain popularity in modern culture. Popularity never indicates that something is true, K. I think you might remember me telling you this in High School. :-)

So. All this just to answer the first part of your first question in what you wrote! If you truly care about the answer, I will answer it as fully as I can, without watering it down. This is the Orthodox way. We don't treat these questions with anything less. If you want the answer, the Orthodox Christians have kept the answer safe for just this reason: so that all people can hear the Truth as Christ gave it to us, and have the opportunity to follow Him. The answers to such questions face us with a choice: to believe or not believe. If this is a choice you feel you may not want to make, then it may not be time for this discussion. I do seem to remember you having a deep hunger for the Truth many years ago. If you are still hungry, Christ gave Himself for us to be filled.

I want to give you the opportunity to ask questions about what I wrote so far, but if you want to get to the answer about the second part of your question, WHY, you should try to avoid asking too much, or it will take even longer to get there! May God grant us wisdom.

In Christ our Hope,

M.

Drank one too many espresso shots today
Trying to improve what I haven't the power to change.
I believed bitter could be sweet;
Heaviness, light.
 
So I ground finer. Tamped harder. 
Boiler ran hot, so I cleared the head.
It sighed, passionless
Steam floated away.
 
Some shots don't change
No matter what you do.
You don't have to take a sip to know it
But you drink it anyway

You drink it anyway.
The perfect shot
Bittersweet at best
You drink it anyway.

Bitter beats nothing at all.