Orthodoxy, Protestantism and Salvation

So far on this blog I’ve discussed why I decided to explore Orthodox Christianity and given some background to this branch of faith, highlighting the main differences from Protestantism.  In probing those differences, I’ve covered the Holy Tradition, the role of icons, and the role of Mary in Orthodox faith.  However, the most crucial difference between Orthodoxy and Protestantism is their respective views of salvation – what it means to be “saved” by God.  Of all the differences, this is the one I have struggled with the most.

Many writers and commentators I have seen in the course of my examination have liked to put the differences in terms of whether mankind is justified by faith alone (sola fide), or by a combination of faith and good works.  Indeed, to my dismay I have seen some Orthodox defend their faith in such terms!  It seems to me that this is more a problem of the language used, than where any real difference lies.  I am completely convinced that both traditions regard salvation as being 100% dependent on the grace of God through faith, as is stated in Ephesians 2:8-9.  Where the difference lies is in approach.  Generally speaking, Protestantism is intellectual, metaphysical and fatalistic, while Orthodoxy is experiential, dualistic and mysterious.  So you get very different thought patterns on this subject emerging.

The Protestant approach is to focus on Jesus’ saving acts as an event – a one-time thing that occurred at a specific point in history, that forever affects the eternal fate of mankind.  It is something that has already happened, that Jesus has already done.  It follows that mankind must choose how to respond.  To be saved, we must accept this act as a sacrifice for all our sins.  His sacrifice is a completed work, and once we accept it, we are assured of a place in Heaven.  This gives us the freedom to love God and follow Him.  Godly living is dependent not on our works or our efforts, but on trusting in the event of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection; an intellectual realization of what He has done for us which will permeate our lives with His Spirit and bear the spiritual fruit of Galatians 5:22-23.

There is a beauty and a simplicity to this sort of gospel, best encapsulated by hymn-writer Fanny Crosby:  “Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine!”  Assurance of salvation is, without a doubt, the main selling point of Protestantism.  But is it too simple?

The Orthodox Christian would certainly say so.  Firstly, Orthodoxy does not believe in predestination as understood and often taught by Protestants, though He created us to be of a certain nature, and foreknows all our actions.  We have complete free will in how we interact with God.  And while God does not change, and His promises toward us are assured, how we utilize our free will is not.  We are unable to be 100% sure of our ability to walk with God in the future throughout the rest of our lives.  Even Peter, who was confident he would never deny Jesus, did so within a short space of time.  Likewise, Judas was an apostle and shared in Christ’s ministry, but fell away.  To say that one is “assured” of salvation is to place confidence in the flesh – our flesh, rather than in God.  It’s an interpretation of how we are saved that is, ironically, legalistic, rather than one based on God’s grace.

Instead, Orthodox believe that salvation is a process of theosis – becoming more like Christ, becoming God’s image (or icon, if you like), becoming who God originally intended us to be before the Fall.  This occurs through the Holy Spirit, by the grace of God, through the faith He has given us.  But God requires our co-operation and our ongoing vigilance in these matters.  We do not pass from death to life intellectually, or in our spirit, at a fixed point in this life – there is no Billy Graham moment where we make a “decision for Christ” and we are “saved” from that point forward.  It is true that God knows our hearts, and that, like the thief on the Cross next to Jesus, we can live a deeply sinful life, and yet appeal for Him to remember us in His Kingdom at the last and be saved.  But for most of us, the decision to repent and follow does not represent the end of our earthly lives, but represents the first step of the journey into Life.  We are saved by faith alone, as Paul tells us, but it is ongoing faith that must be committed to with mind, body, soul and spirit, on a daily basis.  And as James the Just tells us, faith that is not shown by deeds is dead, and cannot save us.

In this view, salvation is not just a ticket to heaven for our soul and spirit at the end of our lives.  It is a gradual renewal of our whole being on a daily basis as we live out this life, and pass on to the next.  And this renewal must be sought on an ongoing basis, through physically living out our faith.

This new (or old!) way of looking at salvation has been by far the most challenging aspect of Orthodoxy for me.  Intellectual, event based salvation, with its Country Club “in or out” view of Christianity is so pervasive that adjusting one’s thinking to something different can be very hard.  The Protestant doctrine of assurance, based on predestination, can also be very difficult, and frightening, to let go of, and initially when I studied Orthodox salvation I felt cheated – like I was giving something precious up in exchange for something less.  Without assurance it can appear that the only alternative is salvation based on human effort, and every religion teaches that!    But of course, the opposite  is true, because in rejecting predestined assurance, we are no longer presuming our future faithfulness, but relying on God’s grace to maintain our faithfulness.  And God’s grace is assured.  His promises are faithful and true.  We stop relying on ourselves, or an inaccurate view of ourselves, and start relying completely on Jesus this way.

It remains to rebut the charge that Orthodoxy is not properly Christian because it is “salvation through works”.  It is true that Orthodoxy is loudly and proudly overt about its physical nature and the set prayers, fasts, sacraments and liturgies that constitute the religious activity that follows from being part of the Church.  But is Protestantism in all its many forms any less “religious”?  Protestants are told to pray, read their Bibles, and worship with others – the distinction seems rather fine.  The reality is that most Protestant churches themselves encourage people to live their faith by these means, and that without this activity, a Christian can only be so in name only.  As the old bumper sticker says, “If you were arrested for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?”  Orthodoxy is no different.  To quote the 19th Century Russian Orthodox Monk Seraphim of Sarov:

“Prayer, fasting, vigil and all other Christian activities, however good they may be in themselves, do not constitute the aim of our Christian life, although they serve as the indispensable means of reaching this end. The true aim of our Christian life consists in the acquisition of the Holy Spirit of God. As for fasts, and vigils, and prayer, and almsgiving, and every good deed done for Christ’s sake, they are only means of acquiring the Holy Spirit of God. But mark, my son, only the good deed done for Christ’s sake brings us the fruits of the Holy Spirit. All that is not done for Christ’s sake, even though it be good, brings neither reward in the future life nor the grace of God in this.”

There is no Christian faith without it being displayed through Christian religion, and no Christian religion can save if it is not inspired by Christian faith.  That seems an obvious hallmark of both the Orthodox and Protestant traditions, whatever armchair theologians may have to say on the subject.

Lesbian Sex at the Bed and Breakfast

It’s been fascinating to read about the case of the Whangarei Bed and Breakfast that refuses to put gay couples in the same room together.  What’s been even more fascinating to note is that the owners are Antiochan Orthodox.

It’s a classic conflict of rights.  The owners, of course, have the right to make any rules they like regarding what should happen on their own property.  This seems fair enough.  But the lesbian couple also have the right not to be discriminated against simply because they choose to bat for the other team.

Quite possibly the whole problem would have been solved with some clear terms and conditions on the Pilgrim Planet website.  But there is nothing – only a vague statement about “old-fashioned values”.  If you are going to have a policy of preventing gay couples from staying in the same room, it needs to be a lot more explicit than that, so that nobody has to suffer any embarrassment.  Furthermore, if the Ruskins really do run their B&B with “old-fashioned values”, meaning in this case Christian values, then are they being consistent?  Are they refusing shared accommodation to unmarried heterosexual couples as well?  Consistency would seem to demand that.  Judging from the lack of complaints in that regard, I’d say they are quite comfortable taking bookings from fornicating straight couples, and are therefore a pair of big fat hypocrites.

It’s all very strange.  Clearly it’s not the sex they object to.  People have sex in B&Bs all the time.  It’s not like gay sex is any louder or more offensive to the ears than straight sex.  And it generally takes place in the room where nobody else sees it.  No, the Ruskins are objecting to the “thought” that gay homosexuals might be enjoying themselves on their property.  This is not consistent with Orthodoxy, which is a faith of free will and free choices.  I suppose that, living in Whangarei they are a long way from the nearest Priest, but I can’t imagine any decent Orthodox clergyman condoning these attitudes.  If you aren’t prepared to have strangers commit acts of sin on your property, then maybe you shouldn’t be running a Bed and Breakfast?

The attitude that the Ruskins have taken is a disgrace.  They seem to believe they are “taking a stand”, when in fact what they stand for is nothing but hypocrisy and judgmentalism.  Of course, no sin should be condoned, but when you discriminate between sins, you cross a line.  The Ruskins need to be upfront about their policies and make them consistent with their faith, or get out of the hospitality business.

Protestantism, Orthodoxy and Mary

Once more we examine the two traditions of faith on this blog.  My previous posts have been relatively straightforward.  However, this one, and the next, are a little bit more contentious, and you will find me perhaps slightly more skeptical of the Orthodox position than I have been prior.  This post will deal with the position of Mary within both Protestantism and Orthodoxy.

The Protestant view of Mary is that she was a nice young girl who was blessed by God, conceived and gave birth to the Messiah by the Holy Spirit, had at least six other children with Joseph, played a minor part in Jesus’ ministry, and thereafter graced a million bad children’s nativity plays.  The Protestant looks at Catholic and Orthodox reverence for Mary, scratches his or her head, and asks “what’s the big deal?”   (or as we say in the hip-hop community – “Mary Mary, why ya buggin’?”)

For within Orthodoxy, Mary is indeed a “big deal”.  She is given the highest veneration of any mere mortal yet born, and holds the title of “Theotokos”, a Greek word literally meaning “God-bearer”.  She is invoked several times in the course of the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom – that 1600 year old communion service which is celebrated almost identically in every Eastern Orthodox church in the world most Sunday morning.  Prayers are said to her, and her icon is venerated and holds pride of place in all Orthodox churches over the altar.  Moreover, whenever the Theotokos is mentioned by the Priest in a service, it is customary for the congregation to sing “Most Holy Theotokos, save us”.  All of this is enough to make any respectable Protestant spit tacks and wonder whether Orthodoxy is in fact a pagan cult with a goddess placed on an equal footing with God.  So is it?!

Firstly, as I discussed in a previous post, the Saints are all alive and standing before God, and are also part of our Church family.  Mary is one of these exalted folk, so all the same arguments apply to Mary.  It then follows – well why is Mary so special?   The reason is that, in order for God to do His saving work and send His Son, Mary’s co-operation was needed.  Mary was, in effect, the very first of us all to make “a decision for Christ”!  For God to choose her to bear His Son implies incredible virtue on her part.  For her to accept confirms that virtue.  She is the only mortal who plays a direct part in God’s saving act.  She is the vessel on which salvation sails.  A Christian, if he or she is truly of God, has the Holy Spirit within and we are blessed because of it, but Mary literally had the Son of God within!  It is clear that there is no other Saint or mere mortal more exalted before the Throne of God.  She has earned the greatest veneration of all the Saints by virtue of God’s grace in choosing her, and by her example to us all as a model of holy living.

It follows that there is no greater intercessor for us with regard to the Judgment Seat of Christ than Mary.  She has the ear of Christ, and moreover, she is his Mum!  All respectable men listen to their mothers, so how much more does Jesus listen to his own mother!  There is no clearer explanation of their dynamic than the one we see  in the Bible when they were at the wedding in Cana.  It’s hard to think of a more petty or indulgent “need” than booze at a party, but Mary insisted that her son do something about it in a way that conveyed the authority she had been given in God’s Kingdom, and even persisted when he complained!  She told the servants “Do whatever he tells you”, and Jesus relented to perform the miracle requested.

That pretty much sums up the role of Mary in Orthodoxy.  She is the greatest of all those in Christ and our chief advocate before Him, especially for our day to day troubles.  But she also says – “Do whatever He tells you”.  The role of Mary is not to receive focus to herself, but always to point to Christ, her son and our Saviour.  Indeed, she is almost never without Jesus in any Orthodox icon you will see, but almost always has one hand pointing to Him.  She is not a goddess but a Queen Consort – the “Queen Mother” effectively, a consort to the One King.  And Orthodox see John 19:26-27 as applying to all Christians, not just the Apostle John – she is our mother too.

These concepts can be hard to get used to for someone who may have swallowed some of the vitriol leveled at Catholicism and Orthodoxy by more fundamentalist sectors of Protestantism, especially the notorious cartoonist Jack Chick.  The assertion is that veneration of Mary was not an original part of Christianity, that she is “worshiped” as a carry-over figure from pagan goddesses, and that she only became venerated in the post-Constantine era of the Roman Empire.  Not at all true.  While it is the case that the New Testament Epistles only make mention of her in passing, the hymn Beneath Thy Protection from c.250AD predates the Christian era of the Empire to a time when Christians were still being persecuted and martyred, and thus at a time when the stakes of good doctrine were exceedingly high.

What also needs to be borne in mind is that, for the first 600 or so years of the Church, giving props to Mary was so strongly associated with a defense of Christ’s joint divine and human nature that to question the effusiveness of it in and of itself would have been unthinkable.  The early heresies of Gnosticism were predicated on the idea that bodies were evil and therefore Christ could never have had a body or been born.  So to venerate Mary was (and still is) to defend against this idea.  Later on in the 6th Century, Nestorianism reared its ugly head with the idea that Christ was merely human and only assumed divine nature in his death and resurrection, relegating Mary to the role of being merely “lucky” to have given birth to someone who only later became God’s saving instrument.  To venerate Mary was to reject these heresies, which, if we are honest, still creep around the edges of Protestantism today.

Since the criticisms of Jack Chick et. al. are generally directed at Catholicism, they are sometimes not as applicable to Orthodoxy, which neither believes in the immaculate conception (as Catholics do), nor regards her as a “co-redemptress”, as has been debated by Catholics.  Orthodox regard these ideas as “innovations” which are not part of the Holy Tradition, and make Mary an exalted end in herself, rather than the traditional role I have described.  There is no separation of Mary from Jesus.  She is not a goddess but a Queen and a Mother, and has always been so from the beginning of the Church.

It only remains to discuss the specifics of how Mary is venerated within the Church, and what is said of her.  Some of the language would seem heretical to a Protestant – “Holy Theotokos, save us”?!  How does that square with Acts 4:12, where Peter says “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved”?  It took me a while to understand this part of the Liturgy, and for a long time I did not sing it until I was confident I wasn’t committing some grave error.  When Orthodox sing this, they are not invoking Mary to grant them eternal life, since that is obviously not in her power and she is not a co-redemptress.  They are asking her to exercise the authority that she does have in heaven to petition  God to work in our lives.  Just as she “saved” the wedding in Cana, she “saves” us in the same way.  Even the Apostle Paul uses the word “saved” in a variety of ways in his epistles – at one point he says that “women shall be saved through childbearing” (1 Timothy 2:15), which clearly does not mean all mothers will automatically receive eternal life!  As I have said, Orthodox have a different view on what it means to be “saved”, which I will discuss in a later post.

I would be lying if I said that I was completely convinced of the Mariology of Orthodoxy, or that all of the proscribed prayers to Mary I have come across seemed doctrinally sound to me.  Was Mary sinless her whole life, or even just sinless post-annunciation?  Was Mary a perpetual virgin?  Those could be innovations for all I know.  Orthodox theology itself is not particularly helpful in this regard either.  For whatever reason, there is not much literature defending the specifics of her place in the liturgical life in the Church.  In some ways this is reassuring – silence means other doctrines are regarded as much more important.  And it is true that they are more important.  Christ is the centre of our faith, whether we are Protestant or Orthodox.  But I am convinced of the exalted place of Mary within the Kingdom of God, and will continue to walk by faith in these matters.  Mary is venerated because God Himself has venerated her, because it adds to the glorification of Christ and because it stresses his two natures.  It is not “its own thing”, and should not be perceived that way.

ADDED:  I forgot to add this segment of the Akathist Hymn to Mary, which is sung in Friday services during Lent.  Again, not everything in here is something I am certain is doctrinally sound, but it’s probably the most beautiful of all Orthodox hymns:

 

Protestantism vs Orthodoxy: Icons

Continuing my series of posts on comparing Orthodoxy with Protestantism, I thought I should address the status of icons and the Saints in the two branches of faith.

One of the most distinctive things about the Orthodox Church, and probably the first thing that comes to mind when people think of Orthodoxy, is the proliferation of Byzantine-styled paintings known as icons.  Church walls are covered in them, especially down the front.  Believers will bow in front of them, pray in front of them, confess their sins, make the Sign of the Cross, light candles and kiss them as part of their observance of faith.  For Protestants, indeed, most Westerners, this is all very alien and bizarre.  Since, to a Protestant, our faith is defined by its spiritual, individual and internal nature, this behaviour has the appearance of, at best, unnecessary religious activity, and at worst, pagan idolatry.  It’s a cultural phenomenon which can lead Protestants to dismiss Orthodoxy without giving it due care of examination.

Of course this is not what is going on at all.  The word icon is Greek, and simply means “image”.  In this case, the images are of Jesus, Mary, and all those Saints, both Biblical and otherwise, who have passed on.  The Byzantine style in which they are painted is very deliberate.  It’s a reaction against Classical art, in which it was common to furnish pagan gods and goddesses as idols for worship.  The lack of 3D depth is simultaneously supposed to signify their current abode in a “different dimension”, as well as take the focus away from the object itself and place it on the real person the object depicts.  The paintings themselves are not idols.  They instead focus our minds on the Saint and the example he or she set us, or on Jesus Himself.

A Protestant may not see the necessity of such paraphernalia to their faith.  They would argue that the focus should be on Jesus, and Him crucified, and that it is Jesus who saves us.  Anything else is a distraction.  This is not necessarily untrue.  However, it is in Christ’s body that we find salvation.  The Saints are part of that body, and part of the congregation of our Church as we worship, even after they have passed on.  It encourages our faith to have their icons on the wall, participating with us, as we participate with them.  We are not saved by ourselves, we are saved in Christ, as part of His body, which is the Church.  Theoretically the presence or absence of icons makes no eternal difference, but for the sake of our own souls, we encourage their participation, as they encourage ours.  So that is why Orthodox value them in both their own homes and in their churches.  As my Priest would say, “they are part of our family, and the icons are our family album”.

Making the icons, and the Saints they depict, a part of our faith is no different from the way a Protestant would normally make other Christians a part of their faith as they seek to follow Jesus:  We look to others as good examples to follow, and we ask godly men and women to pray for us for our needs.  This is never a substitute for our prayers to God, but a way of involving the Body of Christ in our faith rather than struggling alone.

I should say here that in practical terms, icons of Saints play only a small part in Orthodox religious practice.  It is mostly icons of Jesus and Mary that are venerated and utilized on a day-to-day basis.  Usually Saints are only specifically venerated on Saint’s Days, or if they are a patron Saint of a specific church, or an individual’s Name Saint.   The focus is (rightly) on Jesus Christ, His incarnation, life, death and resurrection.

Icons are definitely the “weirdest” part of Orthodoxy, but they are a continuation of the Old Testament tradition of icons, such as those on the Ark of the Covenant, and the theological basis for them is directly related to Jewish veneration of physical objects like the Ark.  They are a manifestation of the Church’s focus on Christianity as a physical, material, experiential faith, rather than merely a spiritual and intellectual one.    Personally, as a lifelong Protestant I have found it very strange (and still do to some extent) to kiss and venerate icons, and, like any religious activity, to do it for its own sake without faith as your motivator is no better than not doing it at all.  But there is value in actually kissing Jesus’ image as a physical act, rather than just praying to Jesus in your head, or singing a gospel song about Jesus.  It binds us to Him in a physical way.  It gives us more reverence for Him and what he has done for us.  And like all acts of faith, it allows the Holy Spirit to work on us.

What about the Saints?  Is venerating the Saints an act of worship that should be reserved for God alone?  There is a tendency in Protestantism to regard any veneration of others as somehow diminishing God, or worshiping man rather than God.  However, I have come to the opposite point of view.  To venerate men and women of God, living or dead, and to honour them, glorifies God, and in turn it blesses us to venerate those God has chosen to work through.  And I have to say that it was not anyone Orthodox that convinced me of this, but a Protestant writer and speaker – John Bevere.  While attending a Protestant “Megachurch” in Corpus Christi, I got involved in a Bible Study which utilized his book Honor’s Reward.  Bevere explains in the book very clearly that how we act in the Kingdom of God determines our reward from God, and that for God to reward us, we must  honour both God and others in our lives.  Honour is an essential part of our Christian faith, and there are plenty of Bible references to those we should honour in our lives, all of which Bevere details.

As for the distinction between “veneration” and “worship”?  To me it is very clear – it’s simply a distinction of what you say about someone.  We praise people all the time and talk about their deeds.  If I say David Bowie is the greatest musical artist of the twentieth century, then that’s not worship, it’s simply veneration – saying an (admittedly subjective) true thing about him.  If I said David Bowie was King of the Universe, that would be worship (and therefore blasphemous, because he is not).  In Orthodoxy, Mary and the Saints are given due praise, but not praised as God is praised.  There is a clear dividing line, as there normally is when we praise even secular figures.

Iconography has always been a part of Christianity and a part of the Tradition of the Church.  It was only in the 8th Century that icons became hotly debated, partially due to the influence of the new religion of Islam, in which all images were banned.  In fact, icons were banned in the Byzantine  Empire for many years during this time.  However, the 2nd Ecumenical Council of Nicea proclaimed in 787AD:

… we declare that we defend free from any innovations all the written and unwritten ecclesiastical traditions that have been entrusted to us. One of these is the production of representational art; this is quite in harmony with the history of the spread of the gospel, as it provides confirmation that the becoming man of the Word of God was real and not just imaginary, and as it brings us a similar benefit. For, things that mutually illustrate one another undoubtedly possess one another’s message. … we decree with full precision and care that, like the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, the revered and holy images, whether painted or made of mosaic or of other suitable material, are to be exposed in the holy churches of God, on sacred instruments and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways; these are the images of our Lord, God and saviour, Jesus Christ, and of our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels and of any of the saintly holy men. The more frequently they are seen in representational art, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for those who serve as models, and to pay these images the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly this is not the full adoration in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to the divine nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, and also to the holy books of the gospels and to other sacred cult objects.

While there was there was further conflict in the ensuing years, until icons were finally restored by the Empress Theodora in 842AD, this settled the matter theologically.  I think the proclamation here sums up pretty well the value of icons to Christian faith.  They are an enrichment to it, not a detraction from it, and while one can obviously practice Christianity without them, they can be an excellent aid to faith.

Terrible Journalism From the NZ Herald

So I visit the NZ Herald site today and I see this:

OMG!  Key was misled by the US?!  This is a scandal!  So I click on the link, and…

Note that the key words “claims Dotcom” were left out of the headline.  This is quite a crucial bit of information, wouldn’t you say?  Changes the story somewhat, don’t you think?  Just a little?

Actually, there is a MASSIVE difference between John Key being objectively misled by the US as a provable fact, and the mere opinion of Augustus Gloop here.  One is big news worthy of a headline.  The other is not news at all.  We know what Dotcom thinks.  We don’t give a f*ck.  Why is that news?  Why pretend it is news?  What does the Herald think it is doing?!!!

 

Face Of This, And Every Other Day

Don’t give me that Andrew Sullivan crap on your blog…

Protestantism, Orthodoxy and Authority

Previously on this blog I covered my personal reasons for exploring Orthodox Christianity, and summed up some of the history of Christianity and the differences between Protestantism and Orthodoxy.  I promised future posts expanding on some of the differences between the two traditions, so I thought I would start by addressing the fourth difference I listed:  That of Authority.  How do we know what is true?  How do we know the difference between what comes from God through his Spirit, and what is just a bunch of guys making it up as they go along?

The idea of Sola Scriptura (“the Bible alone”) as the Authority really is the cornerstone of evangelical Protestantism.  It’s been interesting in my interactions with Orthodox and my readings of Orthodox writers to note that, for whatever reason, they have a very difficult time grasping this concept.  They see something akin to chaos, or no authority, or that every man becomes Pope of themselves.  These are bad arguments, because of course most Protestants do not see it this way.  The Bible transcends personal opinion, and even the whims of Protestant ministers and pastors.  A preacher who deviates from the Bible will soon find his congregation diminished of faithful Christians and anyone but pliable sheep, and other preachers denouncing him.  This is why Protestants are not as “fragmented” as many Orthodox suppose.  The Word itself is regarded as the driver of what happens, and everything is judged against it.  The Bible is what ties everyone, and everything, together.

However, this view was never something I felt entirely comfortable with, for several reasons.  Firstly, it seems awfully restrictive of the Holy Spirit to restrict Him to 66 books and no more.  There’s plenty that the Bible doesn’t tell us, and therefore plenty of scope for the Spirit to enlighten us on those matters.  Secondly, it became pretty clear to me that you could quote Scripture and make it mean almost anything you wanted it to mean, and to say that your interpretation had to correlate with other passages of Scripture was a dubious yardstick.  And thirdly, if churches were genuinely sola scriptura, there would be plenty of things that they would allow and plenty that they would not do.  The Bible, for example, does not explicitly forbid fornication, paedophilia, slavery or polygamy, but there are very few evangelical protestant churches that would say these were not grievous sins.

These realizations led me to, around 2000 or so, largely reject evangelical protestant theology and withdraw from involvement in a church.  I embraced a more Barthian view of Scripture and spent the next ten years living in a rather foolish and dissolute manner.  What brought me back was a recognition of the complete failure of that individualist Christianity in my life.  Broke, despairing and separated from my wife and children, I realized that doing it all myself was not working.  I needed to be saved.  I needed the Church.  And I decided that, whatever the Church had wrong, it had more right with it than what I could do on my own.

What I was looking for was more than just intellectual salvation.  I was looking for a practical way I could live as a Christian, and bring Jesus into my daily life.  I was looking for methods by which I could be healed from my worst impulses here and now on this earth.  This was one of the reasons I had cause to start examining Orthodoxy.

So what is the Orthodox view of Divine Authority?  I have had a couple of people ask me, on hearing that I attend an Orthodox church, whether it is “biblically based”.  If you really think about it, this is a pretty silly question, but let me state first of all that yes, the highest authority in Orthodoxy is the Bible – the 66 books we all know and love.  Nothing in Orthodox belief and practice can contradict the Bible or be “un-biblical”.  The difference is that in Orthodoxy, the Bible is not treated as a set of texts that almost literally fell from the sky into our laps.  Yes, the Bible is inspired, but it is inspired for a reason:  It was written and put together by the Church.  The Bible is a product of the Church, not the other way around.  The Church had existed for about twenty years before James the Just wrote the first book of the New Testament.  It had existed about twenty more before the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) were written.  By the time the Apostle John wrote his five books to round out the canon, the Church was almost seventy years old.  Throughout this period (and beyond), having no “instruction manual” as it were, the apostles and others close to Jesus first became the Church at Pentecost, and then established through their preaching and practices what is now known as the Holy Tradition – a set of beliefs and practices that sprang from the teachings of Jesus and, afterwards, from the Holy Spirit.

This Holy Tradition is the sole intermediary of Divine Authority in Orthodoxy.  The gospels and epistles of the New Testament were circulated and adopted because they agreed with the Tradition, not because they formed the basis of the faith by themselves.  So any doctrine or theology is measured not against the text alone, but on its consistency with the Tradition – the teachings and practices that are known to have always been part of the Church.  This is reassuring, because it means there is something to refer back to when we interpret Scripture rather than (at best) cross-referencing Scripture, or relying on Protestant tradition dating back only 500 years.

Note that this Tradition is not embodied by specific individuals or Bishops or even in the office of Bishop itself.  It is a concept that encompasses the whole Church throughout the ages, and what it teaches and does, so it is not subject to fallen men and their whims.  This is a very important point, because individual leaders, even right down to the original apostles, are fallible and sinful.  It is only collectively, through the whole (catholic) Church, that the Holy Tradition is embodied and the Spirit of God enlightens us.

Vincent of Lerins summed it up pretty well in 434AD:

“I HAVE often then inquired… how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That… we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the catholic Church.

“But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason, – because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters.

“For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of ecclesiastical and catholic interpretation.

“Moreover, in the catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.  …This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.”

So you see that, as with Protestantism, the Bible is “complete, and sufficient of itself for everything”.  But with Orthodoxy, we add to that a standard by which we can know objectively what Scripture tells us.  In fact, I would argue that Protestants too, by and large, interpret Scripture according to a tradition.  It just isn’t the same one, and it is more subjective.

Orthodoxy Versus Protestantism

In a previous post I covered some of my personal reasons for exploring Orthodoxy as a means of deepening my faith.  But I thought I should also give some background to Orthodoxy itself for readers, and explain the differences between Orthodoxy and Protestantism.

A lot of people in the West have either never heard of Orthodox Christianity, or if they have, have given it very little thought – most people when they think of Christianity only concern themselves with Catholicism and Protestantism.  However, both these branches of Christian faith have their origins in the Orthodox Church, which dates itself back to the original 12 apostles of c. 27AD, and today has 300 million adherents.

For over 400 years, the Orthodox Church was the only form of Christian church – there were no denominational splits that were not regarded as heresies.  The Church was run by the five Patriarchs – in order of seniority, the Bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, and while the Bishop of Rome was regarded as the Head of the Church, it was as “first among equals”.  After the two ecumenical Councils of Ephesus in the 5th Century, several branches of the church schismed off, the most prominent being the Ethiopian and Egyptian (Coptic) church (to this day, the Coptic Church has its own Pope).  The Roman Church, however, remained (in theory at least) part of Orthodoxy until 1054, when it too schismed off and became what we know today as the Catholic church.  While there were issues of theology disputed, the main problem was the issue of Papal supremacy over the whole Church, and his ability to set doctrine for the Church.  To this day, that issue remains at the root of differences between Catholicism and other forms of Christianity.

Protestantism sprang from the protests of Martin Luther against doctrines of the Catholic Church in 1519, and grew from there into a full rebellion againt Catholicism and ecclesiastical authority, resulting in many different branches and theological twists.  From an Orthodox perspective, this was both positive and negative.  In rebelling against Catholicism, the Protestants were, in many aspects, moving back towards Orthodox theology, and in pure theological terms Orthodoxy is closer to Protestantism than Catholicism is.  However, they were also throwing out the baby with the bathwater:  In rejecting Catholic tradition they were also rejecting that part of the tradition that came from Orthodoxy.  So while there were some attempts, on both sides, during the 16th Century to reconcile the Protestants back into the Orthodox fold, these were ultimately a failure – the battered wife could not bring herself to accept a new suitor.

There are many ways in which Protestants and Orthodox have common ground in a way that Protestants do not with Catholics.  Both traditions reject the absolute authority of clergy, especially Papal authority, in matters of doctrine.  Neither believes in Purgatory, penance, the immaculate conception, or clerical celibacy (though Orthodox bishops are celibate).  In both traditions there is a strong emphasis on faith alone as the driver of personal salvation (though there are some practical differences in how this works).  And there is no differences between the Orthodox Nicene Creed and what Protestants believe.

However, there are substantial differences.  The most obvious one is the liturgical worship of the Orthodox Church, an interactive recitation of prayer and praise between the Priest and the congregation that is mostly sung or chanted.  While some Protestant denominations have liturgical worship, most Protestants used to “rock bands and raised hands” will find it very alien.  But mostly this is a matter of style, not substance.  The real issues of difference are:

1. Sacraments:  Protestants regard sacraments like baptism and communion as “symbolic” steps of obedience to God undertaken by believers.  Orthodox regard them as “real” and obligatory facets of the Christian walk;
2. Icons:  Protestants do not use icons, invoke the Saints, or venerate them in any formal way.  Orthodox churches are full of icons, and the Saints they depict are regularly invoked and venerated;
3. Free Will:  Protestants largely follow the Calvinistic view that God predestines salvation for Christians, and that salvation once gained cannot be lost.  Orthodox emphasise the free will and free choice of humans, and believe that salvation can be rejected by choice;
4. Authority:  Protestants believe that divine authority and the revelation of the Spirit comes from the 66 books of the Bible alone (sola scriptura).  Orthodox believe that divine authority and the revelation of the Spirit rests in the “Holy Tradition” of the Church, of which the Bible is the primary, but not sole part;
5. Mary:  Protestants regard Mary as incidental to the Christian narrative.  Orthodox see her as the “Theotokos” (God-bearer), the greatest of all the Saints, the primary intercessor before the judgement seat of Christ, and accordingly invoke and venerate her in a way some Protestants would regard as heretical;
6. Salvation:  Protestants view salvation (being saved) as an event that has already occured through Christ’s death and resurrection, one which it only remains for us to claim for ourselves.  Orthodox view salvation as an ongoing process, a journey of “theosis” in which through ongoing faith we are restored to the image of God.

There are probably others I haven’t thought of right now, but those are the main ones.  I hope to tackle them all in detail, one post at a time, though not necessarily in order.  And there is a specific reason why I am doing this too:  After much googling, I have noticed that there is simply no concise resource out there on the internet that I could find which represented a genuine summary of the issues for any Protestant wanting to explore Orthodoxy.  There is plenty expounding on Orthodox beliefs, but it is written mostly for either people who are already Orthodox, or Catholics.  Likewise, Protestants all but ignore Orthodoxy – there’s been a couple of Christianity Today articles and that’s it.  And what is left is people talking past each other and misrepresenting the beliefs of the other side.

My impression from my studies so far on all the above issues is not that one view is right and the other wrong, or that one view is heretical and the other Truly Christian.  While others may beg to differ on both sides of the divide, I understand the Orthodox view as a completion of the Protestant view in most cases – one rounds the other out for a better picture of the Faith.  Conversely, the Protestant view can also inform and enlighten aspects of the Orthodox view in a way that is not contradictory to it.  In most cases where one side criticises the other, it is not because the doctrine criticised is wrong, but mostly because it has been misunderstood.  I hope to clear up some of the misunderstandings.

The Iron Lady Has Prevailed

Britain’s greatest peacetime Prime Minister has passed away at the age of 87.  This is not a sad occasion, but a time to celebrate.  Not because, like many on the Left, we despised her and wish to gloat at outlasting her, but because, to paraphrase Reagan, her contemporary, we won and they lost.  Her premiership, its ideas and its reforms, have never been reversed, equalled or bettered.  In many ways the broad conservative movement, and especially the Tea Party, are her ideological children.  Those ideas, while sometimes defeated from time to time, have only prevailed and become stronger as time has gone one.  And they will continue to go from strength to strength after her death.

Her legacy is not only ideological, but practical.  It lives on in every Briton whose lives were improved and whose wellbeing was lifted in the 1980s.  Those people may not think of Thatcher and they may not recognise her for the effect on their lives, but they vastly outnumber the few trade unionists, leftists, and fringe interests she smacked down,  and which even now make all the noise in the rush to define her.

Personally I find her a political inspiration who has yet to be equalled.  Possibly only Winston Churchill and Oliver Cromwell left a greater legacy as individuals upon both Britain and English-speaking peoples.  It seems unlikely we will ever see her like again, although maybe God will bless us once more in our lifetime.  We can only hope and pray.

While she never made much of it publicly, Baroness Thatcher was a woman of strong Christian faith, and her faith was her primary driver.  It is for that I admire her most of all.

May Margaret Hilda Thatcher rest in peace and may God grant her Life!

“I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.  Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day…”  2 Timothy 4:7-8

 

The Hipster Church: Coming Out as Orthodox

So, ever since the new year, I’ve been doing something radical:  I’ve been attending an Orthodox church.

At the moment I am attending catechism classes.  At the end of this month, on the event of Pascha (Easter on the Julian calendar) I am about 90% certain that I will be chrismated (anointed with oil as a sign of the Holy Spirit) and admitted into the Orthodox Church.

This is a strange thing for me, a Brethren and a Protestant, from the age of five years old no less.   But I am fairly sure that this is the right path for me.

Ultimately I am seeking God.  I want to be closer to Him, experience Him, and be filled with His Holy Spirit.  Nothing else matters.  It’s not an airy fairy goal, it’s a universal one.  Most people, unless they are dickheads, want to be Good.  We want to be moral.  We want to be righteous.  Those words mean a lot of different things to different people, but we all want that.  We want to live up to that objective standard that is ingrained in our psyche.

I have been a Protestant for a long time and I have seen lives changed and God at work in those churches.  I support Protestantism 100%.  I am not abandoning that tradition or faith, or at least I don’t see it that way.  Some people who “convert” to Orthodoxy like to rag on Protestants, and I won’t do that.  My view of Orthodoxy is that it is similar to a Jew who accepts Jesus as the Messiah:  I am not changing faith, but deepening it.  I am not “converting”, but “completing”.  Protestants accept the Word of God (the Bible) as their authority – I am simply adding to that by saying that guys who were disciples of the apostles, and disciples of their disciples, before the Bible was formalized in the 4th Century had (at least) some sort of handle on how to be closer to God.  And that they had a better idea of what Jesus and his apostles set down than Rick Warren and Joel Olsteen do.

What has really captured me has been less a matter of theology than it has of practice.  Every Protestant church has tried to devise its own method of living the Christian life.  Most of them that I have experienced do “okay” with that, and for many people they are a conduit to faith.  That is super freaking awesome, and I have no problem with that.  But in many ways they are reinventing the wheel.  There is a Church which already does all that stuff – the original Church.  The Orthodox Church.  They have the methods and the liturgies and the fasts by which you assume the Holy Spirit in your life, and they have had them for a long long time.  The service I participated in this Sunday is exactly the same as the one that they conducted in Greek 1600 years ago in Constantinople at the Hagia Sophia.  It ain’t broke, and there’s no point in fixing it.

I want “deeper” and I want “more”.  That’s the best way I can describe it.  In this, Protestantism has reached its limits.  It does not offer me the Saints or the Church.  I want communion with both.  Megachurches and casual communion do not offer me that.  With the result that I cannot seek to “work out my own salvation” with any fear and trembling.  That is a lonely business with Protestantism..  With the Full Church, I stand a better chance.

There have been obstacles.  I have had to get a handle on the Orthodox concept of Theosis, which contrasts with the Protestant value of event-based salvation, and what flows from that.  I have had to ask serious questions about the Saints, their icons, what the @#$%&* I’m doing kissing 2d tempura renditions of those guys, and what prayer to them actually represents.  And hardest of all, I’ve had to ask (and I am still asking) who is Mary?  What does her life mean?   Is it important to my faith?  If I sing “O Holy Theotokos save us”, is that theological correct?  That is my biggest barrier at this point in time.  How I feel about Mary may swing the whole thing.

I am working through that.  I hope t0  blog on the specifics of my inner theological dialogue in future posts.  But I will say this:  Nothing about my faith in the past has changed, only the method by which I live out that faith.  And I am also wary of getting caught up about talking of angels on pinheads.  Christianity is not in any method of any church, but in what that method produces – the freeing of peoples, the acceptance of strangers, the clothing of the naked, the feeding of the hungry, the care of the sick, the visits to captives.  That is a creed practiced by Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians.  What I am concerned with is my own faith.  Where can it grow best?  The Orthodox Church seems to me to be the best and most truthful and faithful of places at this point.

This is the Hipster Church.  The one where people were Christian before it was cool.  With the strange calendar, the weird hymns, and the awkward facial hair.  It’s a trend.  You should get on it

What’s Wrong With Being Equivalent?

Maybe people should express their opinion on the redefinition of marriage by putting this on their Facebook page instead.  Especially if you are a man who prefers curves

The Stupidity of the Gay Marriage Debate, and Why Gay Marriage is Like Hannukah

More and more I find myself disgusted by the right-on straight males of this world who seem to delight in demagoguing what is actually a debate about whether governments should issue bits of paper with certain words on them to certain people.  And then they call people who disagree “bigots”.  Bullshit.  I have not a bigoted bone in my body.  And here’s an analogy for you:  I feel the same way about teh gays as I feel about Jews.  (bear with me on this one)

I don’t have a problem with Jews.  I’m not a Jew myself, but Judaism in itself is not particularly offensive to me.  I think they are wrong about the whole Messiah thing (he’s been and gone), but I don’t judge them and I don’t treat them differently from any other people.  I tolerate them and support their right to do what they do.

Currently the government sanctions a public holiday for Christmas.  It does not sanction a public holiday for Hannukah.  Maybe the government shouldn’t be legislating public holidays for religious festivals at all.  But it does.  It’s not ideologically pure, but I don’t have a problem with that.  Christianity is the dominant religion in New Zealand (and the United States).  Judaism is a small minority.

To some, this may be terrible.  Not having Hannukah as a public holiday makes Jews second class citizens! they would cry.  It  violates their human rights! they whine.  Jews ought to be treated as equals! they would postulate.  We must have Holiday Equality!

Well, no, we mustn’t.  Where would it stop?  Kwanzaa?!  Nobody is telling you you can’t celebrate Hannukah.  Do as you please.  But to equate it with Christmas is not accurate.  It is not the same thing, or of the same importance in the society.

Now imagine if Jews started demagoguing us for holding this view in the same way that Marriage Redefinition activists have.  They would tell us they have a right to celebrate Hannukah, and how dare we deny them the right to celebrate it!  They would call us bigots.  And they would frame the debate in terms of themselves versus a bunch of anti-Semites who were determined to deny them the ability to practice their religion.  They might even bring up the holocaust and the Nazis for good measure.  And reasonable, on-the-fence folk would be polled and asked if Jews should be able to celebrate Hannukah, and would respond – why, yes… yes they should.  They would think it unfair that we were depriving Jews of their rights.  And legislators would happily sign into law public holiday provisions for Hannukah.

I suspect that if this happened, the Cameron Slaters of this world would be pretty staunch in telling Jews where they could stick their public holiday plans.  And yet, this has not happened with teh gays, even though marriage certificates are an even more frivolous concept than that of a public holiday.  For some reason, Marriage Redefinition activists can get away with using these same stupid distractions and straw-men, which would not work with any other minority.  How come?

The government should not be labelling things marriage that don’t fall under that definition.  That has nothing to do with whether same sex couples can formalise their relationship, or use their free speech rights to call that marriage.  I have no problem with them having those rights, and government should protect those rights.  But a marriage certificate is a privilege, not a right, and it is no more reasonable to change that definition for a small minority than it is to equalise holidays with various minorities, as I have illustrated.

Fox News Foxes: “I Want a Girl Like the Girls on Fox News”

Given that this was a regular feature on this blog for a while, I felt like I just had to put this up:

 

Review: David Bowie – The Next Day

It’s very very good indeed.

I confess that when I heard second single The Stars I was worried that we were going to get another Reality-type album of bland, mid-paced rockers with obtuse lyrics.  But not this time.  Thankfully, The Stars is the weakest song on the album, and even then it stands up well enough.

The songs themselves are, for the most part, fantastic.  Bowie seems to have found his mojo again, lyric-wise.  While Heathen and Reality tended to be lyrically vague, The Next Day sees Bowie once again telling stories with song in a way he has not done since his early glam rock days.  In fact, the best of this album’s songs recall his work on albums like Hunky Dory and The Man Who Sold the World, while not sounding like copies of what he has done in the past.  There are parts where you wish he had put together a more adventurous band than what is practically the same group of musicians he had twelve years ago, and one or two songs suffer for it.  But for the most part, the album is eclectic, and succeeds in breaking out of the mould of its two predecessors with more of a willingness to take musical risks.

How good is The Next Day?  I give it four stars out of five.  It’s definitely his best album since Earthling, and if you don’t count the timeless title track, it’s probably even better than “Heroes”, the cover of which it plagiarises.  There’s a run of five songs in the middle of the album, starting with Where Are We Now, which are the equal of his best work.  While I won’t do a full track-by track, some of my favourites are:

The Next Day

A barnstorming opening track, sung with passion and venom.  The melody and keyboards have hints of songs from his Berlin tryptich in there, especially What in the World, Beauty and the Beast, and Repetition.  “Here I am! I’m not quite dead!…”

Dirty Boys

Bowie was always a good saxaphone player, and he plays up the sleaze with it on this song.  It stomps along ominously, and the funk guitar recalls Fame.  The only pity is that the song sounds like it is dying for a middle eight, or some other form of dramatic conclusion.  Alas, it fades out after only two verses.

Valentines Day

This is just a classic mid-tempo song, with a winning melody and a touch of glam to it.  It would fit very easily on Aladdin Sane.  The lyrics are playful and fun, describing “Valentine” and “his tiny hands” poised to confound the world.  And this will piss my girlfriend off, but sorry honey, it’s way cooler than Paul McCartney’s recent Valentine song.

If You Can See Me

Probably the most musically “out there” song on the album, a frantic duet between Bowie and his bassist Gail Ann Dorsey.  It sounds like something off Earthling – an attempt to play drum n bass with live drums.

I’d Rather Be High

Another piece of glam, and the best song on the album, hands down.  The chorus just soars like all those classic Bowie melodies do, so good you’ll want to cry, and you can sing along to it.  Lyrically it deals with the tragedy of young men being sent off to war in the most direct way.  “I’d rather be high / I’d rather be flying / I’d rather be dead / Or out of my head / Than training these guns on those men in the sand / I’d rather be high.”

Boss of Me

More honking saxaphone, another winning chorus, a more soulful song.  “Who’d have ever thought of it? / Who’d have ever dreamed? / That a small town girl like you / Would be the boss of me?”

Heat

All synthy and atmospheric, Bowie closes the album with what could easily be a sequel to Hunky Dory’s The Bewlay Brothers as he sings once more of being “trapped between the rocks”.  “I am a seer, but I am a liar”.  A stunning end to the best comeback album ever.

Review: My Bloody Valentine – m b v

It’s not unusual for artists to take a break between projects, especially those studious ones obsessed with perfecting their art.  Bowie has just returned after a ten year hiatus.  The wonderful Scott Walker is notorious for Kubrickian interludes between albums.  Then there were the likes of New Order and Portishead, who buggered around for a decade before resuming output.  But there are no musical artists quite in the league of Irish band My Bloody Valentine, whom we last heard of in 1991.  That’s right, my girlfriend wasn’t even born when they last released an album, the fantastic Loveless.

For all the plebs who know nothing about this wonderful band, My Bloody Valentine sound like nobody else on the planet.  Essentially, they make a form of ambient music with ridiculously loud guitars and strangely soft, indecipherable vocals.  It is overwhelming, Wagnerian, beautiful, and meant to be played with the volume at 11.  And 21 years later, they still sound like the future.

The new album, m b v, it has to be said, sounds relatively similar to Loveless, especially on the earlier tracks.  It is only later in the album that the band start to vary from that formula, with success.  The song New You lays off the heavy for a bit and almost sounds like an intelligible pop song.  It then gives way to In Another Way, the album’s best track, a sonic cathedral which sucks you inside with sheer decibelic power before tickling you with its subtle melodies and demisemitonal modulations.  It’s not a giant leap from 21 years before, but it still sounds fresh – like nothing else being released today.  Nothing Is is the most impenetrable track – it sounds like a stuck CD player, but gradually you hear the background rhythms power through.

Critics are giving the new album five star reviews, and I don’t blame them, not because My Bloody Valentine have released anything too divergent from what they were doing a generation ago, but because that blueprint still sounds fresh, vital and amazing all these years later.  If you’re sick of hipster indie pop and all it represents in 2013, m b v is the antidote.  Download it, feed it through some big freakin’ speakers, dim the lights and crank it up.  It’ll blow your mind

Ten Reasons Why Texas is Better Than New Zealand

Colin Espiner’s recent posting Ten Reasons Why We’re Better Than Australia, and some of the surrounding discussion, were very interesting, given the constant exodus of New Zealanders toward the Lucky Country.  I really have no ability to judge anything in Australia, since I’ve only spent three days in Sydney once, and that was in 1997.  But I liked a lot of what he said about why New Zealand was better, and I thought it might be interesting to go through his points one by one and look at how New Zealand compared to Texas.  I could write vast swathes of material on this subject – probably even a separate blog – but Espiner’s ten reasons are as good a place as any to start.  So here goes:

1. We’re more friendly. Everyone comments on this. It starts the moment you get off the plane, and continues every time you walk into a store, sit down for a coffee, or pass someone on the street. In Sydney, you don’t acknowledge anyone you might meet unless you already know them. Even smiling at a stranger is considered odd. Here, you’re practically smothered with affection.

Friendliness is a tough one to gauge.  New Zealanders are a lot shier than Texans, so it may be about quality over quantity.  But Texans are definitely more willing to engage you, give you a smile, talk to you, even if sometimes it’s a bit superficial.  There’s definitely a politeness and a deference in Texas that is absent in New Zealand.  I’m giving this one to Texas.

2. Small is beautiful. Australia is every bit as beautiful as New Zealand. It’s just a shame you have to travel thousands of kilometres between sights. Take it from someone who drove 23,000kms in four months – and that was only between Sydney and Perth. Here, you only have to pop round the corner for the scenery to change.

No contest, New Zealand wins this one.  While Texas has some fine beaches, and the Hill Country can be spectacular in places, you can’t beat the Kiwi scenery.  Can anyone?

3. Our houses are cheaper. OK, there are people in some Auckland suburbs who may disagree with this, but for the most part, it’s cheaper to buy a home here than it is in Australia. Sydney is unbelievably expensive. Anyone who isn’t a millionaire or a major CEO can’t afford to buy an actual house unless it’s some 80km west of the CBD. And forget about a garden unless you earn well into six figures.

Texas wins this one hands down.  You can buy a perfectly decent home in most Texas cities for $150k.  Prices in Auckland, by contrast, are insane.  Who would dream of owning a house in Auckland?

4. Our food and drink is better. Yes, a big call I know. Australia markets itself very effectively as a gourmand’s paradise. But for my money, our produce is fresher, our meat tastier, our ice cream creamier and our fish, er, fishier. If you’re a beer connoisseur you’ll be sadly disappointed in Australia unless you’re a fan of freezing cold, mass-produced lager. Granted, they make a decent drop of red, but their white wine is rubbish. And we’ve got way better lollies.

I really need to drink some more Texas wine to judge, but I know the quality of the craft beer available here probably edges out the Kiwi stuff.  Something about the body of the malt just makes it tastier, even if they go a bit nuts on the hops.  Texas sausages and beef leave their NZ counterparts for dead.  Yes, if you want fine dining restaurants with flea-sized portions, New Zealand is your place, but if you want a proper feed, it’s Texas all the way.

New Zealand has better fish, better chocolate, better Indian curries, and probably better wine, but for anything else you’ll want to be in Texas.

5. We love our indigenous culture. You’ve got to leave New Zealand to fully appreciate this, but our Maori heritage is an immense asset. I’m as white as the driven snow, but I treasure what Maoridom and Pacific Island culture has done for New Zealand. It makes us proud, strong, independent, and interesting. By contrast white Australia all but ignores its Aboriginal roots.

This one is tough to judge.  In Texas, “indigenous culture” really is Hispanic culture, and especially here in South Texas it is more than celebrated – it’s the dominant majority culture.  Tex-Mex cuisine especially makes Texas such a distinctive and wonderful place to live.  I’ll call this one a draw.

6. We’re not so uptight. Big-city Australians are wound as tight as watch springs. Out in the bush it’s better, but Kiwis are world-beaters at laconic, she’ll be right laid-backness. And she normally is right. No point having a heart attack, is there?

I think it is easier to relax and be relaxed in New Zealand.  Americans are always paranoid about one thing or another, and that’s something that Kiwis just don’t have.  But I am not sure New Zealanders are less uptight than Texans.  As I say, there is a politeness and a sereneness to Texans – it’s a cowboy thing.  Nobody really wigs out and loses their rag in Texas in quite the same way that you will see a New Zealander do.  Another win for Texas.

7. We’re more entrepreneurial. Australia may have a bigger economy, but we’re lighter on our feet. Because we have a small, educated, enthusiastic population of early adopters, New Zealand is a great place to start a business, further your career, or do something different from the herd. And because there’s only 4.5 million of us, it’s easier for our voice to be heard. Hardly surprising that we’ve invented so much more stuff than the Aussies ever have.

The equivalent of the entire population of New Zealand moved to Texas in the last ten years.  Whatever opportunities New Zealand has, Texas has them tenfold.  Texas wins.

8. There’s fewer things that can hurt or kill you. Don’t underestimate this. Australia is home to all ten species of the world’s most poisonous snakes. Then there’s spiders the size of your hand, sharks cruising the beaches, scorpions, sting-rays … oh yes, and the world’s most dangerous reptile, the crocodile. We’ve got, um, stinging nettle. And wekas can give you a nasty peck.

You might get a rattler out west, but not much that will harm you in Texas either, especially if you’re packing.  Murders aside, the crime rate in Texas is half that of New Zealand, so unless you’re black and dealing drugs, Texas will be a lot safer for you.  Another one for Texas.

9.  Our TV’s better. Hard to believe, I know, but it’s true. We may all grumble about the box, but Aussie television is truly dire. Between The Block, The Project, Bondi Vet and Border Patrol, there’s Lara Bingle!, The Shire, and re-runs of Prisoner. It’s just a shame they export most of those shows over here. Next to this lot, Seven Sharp looks like hard-hitting current affairs. Plus, we’ve got John Campbell.

Yeah… John Campbell… that and 60 channels of basic cable says Texas rules and New Zealand drools.  The only thing you can’t get on TV here is cricket, but you can’t have everything.

10. The weather. Australia’s either too hot, too cold, or too wet. Thanks to climate change, Sydney alternates between floods and bush fires. Queensland suffers increasingly volatile storms. The Outback and Western Australia simply fries. We enjoy a temperate climate with plenty of sunshine and rain.

Texas has 10 months of summer and almost no rain – what more could you want?

Seems to me that Texas is a much better place to live.  Visiting New Zealand again recently, this was confirmed.  New Zealand is pretty, and has very few fat people causing visual pollution, but it is, alas, an insanely expensive place.  I never wanted to come to Texas, but now I have made it my home, I feel very fortunate.

People Say the Stupidest Things…

Take Chris Rock, for example:

Mulholland Drive predicts that at some point during the rest of this presidential term we will reach a critical mass of fawning stupidity over Mr Obama, sending shockwaves through the cultural universe and producing as yet unknown catastrophic outcomes.  Chris Rock has just brought that day ever so slightly closer.

Paul Holmes: Good Riddance

There’s been a lot of ridiculous eulogising of Mr Holmes in the media following his untimely passing.  Let me offer a rebuttal:

Paul Holmes destroyed current affairs television in New Zealand.  He trivialised it to the point where it meant nothing.  He took it from a place where reporters investigated stories to one where it became about “human interest”, feelings over facts, and cats up trees.  He was all style and no substance.  Worst of all, he made the stories about him, rather than finding out what was really going on.  While it has to be said that this formed part of a general worldwide trend in journalism, he was the one that spearheaded it in New Zealand.

The worst aspect of his show was that he had no clue how to interview a subject.  Invariably his “questions” would involve him talking at length, explaining the situation to viewers as he saw it, then asking the interviewee if he or she agreed.  Most of the time these people would be embarrassed enough to bloviate a little.  Occasionally, someone would call Holmes out on his bullshit and simply give a yes or no answer, leaving awkward dead air and a shuffling of desk papers as Holmes ambled back on through the silence in his classic, egotistical style.  The end result was that one was normally left knowing less about the interview subject and more about Mr Holmes.

Apparently enough people found this entertaining such that it kept his show on air.  Personally, I never understood his appeal.

On the other hand, it has to be said that he was an excellent talkback host, and one of the pioneers of that field in New Zealand.  It’s a shame he didn’t stay with what he was good at.  He was also one of the few media figures who tended to veer right, at least on some issues.  So there were some positive aspects to him.  But these do not merit the ridiculous fawning and slobbering over his corpse which has taken place in recent days.  The likes of which may be his ultimate legacy – the media are simply following that dreadful blueprint left behind by the departed.

“Where’s the Outrage?” David Horowitz on How Republicans Can Win

This guy gets it.  In fact, this is probably the best essay on political strategy I have ever read.  Mr Horowitz has put his finger on the problem.

One of my former ACT Party colleagues likes to say that “you should never get emotional in politics, and once you do, you’ve lost”.  But politics is all about emotions.  If it was about facts and rationality, the Left would never get anyone elected.

Progressives’ hatred for conservatives is thus not a reaction to a particular issue, or a particular slip of the tongue. It is a hatred for what conservatives are. Conservatives are people who believe in limited government. By its very nature, limited government means the death of progressive dreams. In progressive eyes, conservatives and Republicans actually are anti-woman, anti-minority, and anti-poor. Republicans oppose the very idea that government should function as a social savior.

Republicans are reactionary and hateful because they stand in the way of a society that can and should care for every man, woman and child from cradle to grave. Republicans take a view of politics that is fundamentally different. Republicans do not aspire to change the world. They want to repair systems that are broken. They are not missionaries, and they are not selling a land of dreams. Such practical agendas do not inspire them to despise their opponents or regard them as evil. Republicans think of their opponents as mistaken about how to fix particular problems.

Because Republicans are mindful of the past, they are uncertain about the future, and therefore wary of impossible dreams. They hope for a future better than the present but they are mindful that things could be even worse. Many problems are intractable and will not go away. Because this is their attitude, conservative emotions can never be as inflamed as their progressive opponents’.

Their instinct is to come up with practical plans and explain how specific problems might be solved. That is why they reach for facts and arguments, and spend a lot of time explaining things to voters. But voters have already been told not to trust their arguments because they are the arguments of enemies of women, children, minorities and the middle class.

The only way to confront the emotional campaign that Democrats wage in every election is through an equally emotional campaign that puts the aggressors on the defensive; that attacks them in the same moral language, identifying them as the bad guys, the oppressors of women, children, minorities and the middle class, that takes away from them the moral high ground which they now occupy. You can’t confront an emotionally based moral argument with an intellectual analysis. Yet this is basically and almost exclusively what Republicans do.

At the end of the day Leftists just don’t make us mad enough.  They should.  I’ve always hated most of those fuckers for how they destroy countries and livelihoods and call it “moral”, and with them the establishment media who refuse to call them out.  And if you are any kind of political activist with any care for the working poor then you should too.  We need to go mediaeval on their asses.

ADDED:  I should say that the Republicans used to be really good at this stuff.  They used to push the buttons in the right way.  When Bush won in 2004, and Newt and co took congress in 1994, it was because they ran a “heart” campaign based on pushing “hope and fear”, and pigeon-holing their opponents.  What happened?  It seems like those lessons were lost.  They need to be relearned.

The Awesomeness of David Bowie

David Bowie is awesome and you should buy his music.

Why is this so?  Well, because he is the consummate rock and roll artiste.  An alternative, avant guard musician who still sells in the millions.  A chameleon who changes musical styles with almost every new album.  An innovator, who unlike his peers, is still doing cool and relevant stuff.  (Or at least was until he retired for ten years, before re-emerging with a lovely new song).  And because he was to the ’70s what the Beatles were to the ’60s – a giant who bestrode that decade and turned out timeless tunes.

Very little of what Bowie has released has been dull.  Here is his catalogue:

1.  Space Oddity ** (1969)

Bowie had released a lot of very left-field stuff before this album, but this was his first “proper” one for RCA.  It’s largely a vehicle for the novelty single of the title, which catapulted him to the top of the charts for the first time.  Mostly it’s a set of 12 string acoustic folk rock, most of which is fairly disposable.  The title track remains an awesome pop moment.  Best moment:  “This is ground control to Major Tom…”   Best song:  Space Oddity (naturally)  Best song you’ve never heard:  Wild Eyed Boy From Freecloud.

2.  The Man Who Sold the World **** (1970)

The first classic Bowie album, and the first to feature Mick Ronson on guitar.  Much of it apes the then current “heavy metal” trend of bands like Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath.  While Bowie was never going to compete on that level, he finds his own voice in futuristic songs of dystopia and Nietzschean Sturm und Drang.  Key tracks are Width of a Circle (in which Bowie has a homosexual encounter with beelzebub!), the dotty All the Madmen, and the title track made famous by Nirvana covering it, although Bowie’s original is much better.  Also, wearing a freaking dress on the cover of your album was just not done in 1970!  A landmark album.  Best moment and song:  Width of a Circle – “And I ran across a monster who was sleeping by a tree.  And I looked and found the monster was me”.

3.  Hunky Dory **** (1971)

A complete change of tack on this album, which strongly resembles the piano-based singer-songwriter stylings of Harry Nilsson.  Hunky Dory is an album with its weak moments, but never without winning melodies.  Changes, Life on Mars, Oh! You Pretty Things, Queen Bitch, Quicksand, and the dark folk of closing track The Bewlay Brothers make this indispensable.  Best moment:  :SAAAAAAILOOOORSSS fighting in the dancehall…!”  Best song you’ve never heard: Quicksand – Nietzsche in Musica.

4.  The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars ***** (1972)

Hey na na… oh oh oh… not only a great album but a cultural moment!  Bowie singing Starman on Top of the Pops was the instant when British pop music lost its virginity.  With T-Rex’s Electric Warrior, the definitive glam rock album.  All killer no filler.  If you don’t own it or have never heard it, shame on you.  Moonage Daydream, Starman, Hang On to Yourself, Suffragette City, Rock and Roll Suicide… pure genius.  Best moment:  Five years – “It was cold, and it rained, and I felt like an actor…”.  Best song:  All of them.  Best song you’ve never heard:  …well I’ve always loved Lady Stardust for Bowie’s vocal performance alone – perfect!

5.  Aladdin Sane **** (1973)

In which Bowie goes all in on the glam.  Not as consistent as Ziggy, but it definitely rocks harder.  You’ll skip some songs, but the title track, Drive In Saturday, Cracked Actor and single Jean Genie make it difficult to ignore.  There’s also a brilliant cover of Let’s Spend the Night Together.  Mike Garson’s piano is to die for, as is Ronson’s guitar, both of which almost overshadow Bowie’s vocals.  Best song:  The title track.  Best moment:  the opening crunch of Cracked Actor.  Best song you’ve never heard:  The delightful closer – Lady Grinning Soul.

6.  Pinups ** (1973)

Bowie’s first contractual obligation album – a set of covers from the 1960s.  It’s largely unremarkable, although a pleasant listen.  The real gem is Sorrow – an instant classic.  Download it and don’t worry about the rest.

7.  Diamond Dogs ***** (1974)

So many reasons why this album is amazing.  Firstly, it contains Bowie’s greatest single – Rebel Rebel – though it was basically tacked on, and sounds nothing like the rest of the album.  But more importantly, it showcases Bowie’s transition into soul music, and his flair for making the drama of a lyric come alive.  Bowie intended the music to be part of a musical of George Orwell’s 1984.  It’s a shame the project was never realised, as the whole thing is kickarse, and draws you in to its drama with top tunes and exquisite turn of phrase.  Best song: Rebel Rebel.  Best song you’ve never heard:  The Sweet Thing suite, in which Bowie invites you to feel the pain of a rent boy, and succeeds.  Maybe even be the best album track Bowie ever released.  Best moment:  The end of Big Brother “we love you Big Brother”, where the coda of Chant of the Ever Circling Skeletal Family begins.

Indispensable Outtake:  The song Candidate.  Download it.

My daughter Bella shows why Diamond Dogs is da shiznit:

8.  Young Americans *** (1975)

Once again Bowie took a risk.  Having dabbled with soul on Diamond Dogs, he went all in.  The result is so-so – much of the album sounds like filler.  But the title track is a rollicking good time, and the closer – Fame – cowritten by John Lennon – was Bowie’s first big hit in America.  In between is not all that much, but it’s pleasant enough, and you have to admire the man for trying.  Best song:  Fame.  Best song you’ve never heard:  Right.  Best moment:  That sax at the start of Young Americans… om nom nom…!

Indispensable outtake:  John I’m Only Dancing Again.

9.  Station to Station ***** (1976)

For an album that has only six songs, and was dusted off quickly in the middle of a tour, it’s still pure genius.  Every single one of those songs will break your heart.  Golden Years is pure alchemy – Carlos Alomar’s guitar plays notes you didn’t even think existed (try whistling that riff and you will fail).  The title track – the longest in Bowie’s canon, slow burns like a motherfucker, from its opening choo choo train to  its rock-out fade-out.  And the conclusion – Wild is the Wind – has there ever been a better ballad to close an album?  No, never.  What makes this album a classic is the desperate mental state in which Bowie was at the time, which fueled his music to new heights.  Again, all killer, no filler.

10. Low ***** (1977)

Having released the most emotional album of his career, Bowie then completely abandoned soul, Americanisms, and indeed, any sort of conventional songwriting, to collaborate with Brian Eno on the most innovative and influential album of his career.  Sonically brilliant, a challenging listen, and yet strangely pop-oriented, this is Bowie at his most daring, with every song essential to the experience.  Side One sees him abandon lyrical narratives completely in favour of Burroughesque fragments and cutups, while Side Two is completely instrumental.  Best song:  Sound and Vision.  Best moment:  The fade-in to Speed of Life – the opening track.

11.  “Heroes” *** (1977)

Bowie continued with what he started on Low – adding a harsher, more guitar-oriented sound to the mix, but losing some finesse in the process.  Some of it is disposable, but the title track is brilliant, as are instrumental V2 Schneider and the dramatic Sons of the Silent Age.  A good enough album with some great songs, but somewhat overrated.

12.  Lodger *** (1979)

An album as messy as its awkward cover (featuring Bowie as a sprawled cadaver on the slab), with poor fidelity on the mix.  While Bowie returns to a more narrative (and new wave) style of songwriting, the whole is less than the sum of its parts.  But there are some good singles on it – the fantastic Boys Keep Swinging, Look Back in Anger, and DJ.  I’ve sometimes taken to changing the song order on my computer to improve the impact of what is mostly a fairly decent and experimental set of songs, but lacks impact as originally sequenced.

Indispensable outtake:  I Pray Ole, which should have been on there, and should have kicked the album off.

13.  Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps) **** (1980)

A loud, brash, guitar-driven album with some great songs on it.  The brilliant Ashes to Ashes and Fashion add to the canon of classic Bowie songs.  The sound is new wave, fresh, and enthusiastic, although side two of the album is not as strong as side one.  Bowie continues his form of having a different sound for every album.

14.  Let’s Dance **** (1983)

The big one.  If Bowie wasn’t massive before, this pushed him over the edge.  The title track is quite simply one of the best songs of the ’80s, and one of Bowie’s best songs.  China Girl, while inferior to the Iggy Pop version, had THAT video, and was also a huge hit.  Let’s Dance saw Bowie largely abandon his avant garde tendencies and embrace the New Romantic pop current at the time.  A very commercial album with Nile Rogers’ pop production to the fore, and an important album – if not totally a classic one.  Best moment:  The synth intro on Shake It.

15. Tonight * (1984)

At least when Bowie released a covers album in 1973 (Pinups) he was straight up about it.  This is just two great singles (Loving the Alien, Blue Jean), and a bunch of godawful padding, covers, and crap.  Bowie’s worst album to date, and one put out entirely to cash in on the success of Let’s Dance.  A total phone-in.

16. Labyrinth Soundtrack *** (1986)

Bowie’s iconic turn as Jareth, the Goblin King in Labyrinth, awakened the sexuality of a whole generation of young girls.  The music, while sounding dated now, is kitsch genius.  Who can forget the amazing Magic Dance as Bowie strutted about with muppets while throwing a live baby into the air?  A guilty pleasure.  The gospel-tinged Underground shows off his vocal skills  remarkably.  Great fun.

Indispensable download:  Absolute Beginners.  A classic, cinematic, epic song, one of his best from the 1980s.

17.  Never Let Me Down * (1987)

Well you did.  At least Tonight had the excuse of being written mostly by other people.  On this one, Bowie has only himself to blame.  It has the fine enough Time Will Crawl on it, but that’s the only good spot.  The excreable Glass Spider may well be Bowie’s worst song of all time (if you don’t count Dancing in the Street).  Bowie was in creative free-fall in the late ’80s.

18.  Tin Machine ** (1989)

Bowie had to do something to stop the rot, and what he did was radical.  He grew a beard and assembled a band to play loud, obnoxious rock and roll reminiscent of a cross between the Pixies and Gary Moore.  This was partially successful at best.  While the Sales brothers made a great rhythm section for Iggy Pop, they were completely unsuited to Bowie and his new guitarist, Reeves Gabrels.  Heaven’s in Here and Amazing are great songs, but the rest is noisy, preachy and boring.

19.  Tin Machine II ** (1991)

Having been burnt once, the public refused to care about this album, as Bowie was unceremoniously, and probably justifiably, dropped from his label.  There are gems like Baby Universal, Amlapura, and Goodbye Mr Ed here, but Tin Machine’s attempt to soften the edge of its first album otherwise fell flat.  At the end of the day, the weren’t a very good band, and it was time for Bowie to abandon them if he was going to survive as an artist…

20.  Black Tie White Noise **** (1993)

Ten years later, this is the followup to Let’s Dance that Bowie should have released in the first place.  Perhaps the only time Bowie has been out of sync with the musical zeitgeist, and it was only a partial comeback for him, but even without any big hits, it’s probably just as good as Let’s Dance overall.  Heavy on the synths, funky, smooth and sassy, Bowie made himself cool again.   Best moment – the opening synth on You’ve Been Around.  Best song:  Miracle Goodnight.  A return to form that would continue onwards and upwards throughout the ’90s.

21.  Buddha of Suburbia ** (1994)

Knowing Black Tie White Noise was ultimately a retrogressive step musically, Bowie went Underground with this low key release based on a TV series, in an attempt to reinvent himself yet again.  It was put out with almost no promotion whatsoever, and contained a mixture of instrumentals and more electronic-styled music in keeping with the times.  No real standout songs, but nevertheless, a compelling listen that doesn’t suck, even if it doesn’t quite engage.  At least he was trying again.  Best track:  the indomitable Strangers When We Meet.

22.  Outside ***** (1995)

Teaming up with Eno again was the best move of Bowie’s career, as it produced this classic album.  It’s the perfect summation of what he is all about – a mix of the avant-garde and the commercial, all using current musical trends.  Dark, brooding, foreboding and sinister, the songs are sometimes heavy listening, but never boring, and you’ll never need your skip button.  The title track, Hallo Spaceboy, The Motel, No Control, Thru These Architects Eyes and more are great songs, and point to a man who is once more at the top of his game.  An indispensable album in the Bowie story.

23.  Earthling **** (1997)

The good form continues with this rather loud album mixing industrial and drum and bass sounds reminiscent of Nine Inch Nails.  Trent Reznor even guests on standout track I’m Afraid of Americans.  Reeves Gabrels pummels the guitar and gives Bowie an energetic, exciting and cutting-edge album of excellent tunes, with no filler.

24.  …Hours *** (1999)

Bowie calms it down on this, Gabrels’ last album, with mostly slower, quieter songs.  There’s a couple of good ones here – Survive and The Dreamers stand out, but otherwise a bit dull and introspective.  With Hours, Bowie finally gave up on trying to be cutting edge and went for a more conservative sound, but ultimately it’s all a bit dull.

25.  Heathen ** (2001)

Having got his old producer Tony Visconti back on board, Bowie completely changed sound again, opting for a return to his late ’70s new wave stylings, but without the wonky edges.  The result is, again, a bit dull, but at least the album opens with the exquisitely sinister Sunday, and also contains the lovely ballad Slip Away.

26.  Reality ** (2003)

Musically indistinguishable from Heathen, it repeats the trick of dull new wave music of no great note, until the title track and the finale Bring Me the Disco King, both essential tracks.  Hopefully A New Day will give us something much more adventurous?