Monasticism in Early Christianity

The Evolution of Hermit Spirituality to the Rule of St. Benedict

Monasticism began in the 3rd and 4th Centuries as a response to laxity within a uniform church, prompting men and women to seek new avenues of faith and worship.

Monasticism in early Christianity began in the 3rd Century AD and is attributed to Anthony. Refined by Pachomius and carried to the West by Athanasius, western monasticism found its greatest expression in the leadership of Benedict of Nursia in the early 6th Century. Monasticism stressed an ascetic lifestyle but the emphasis on learning resulted in the long-term preservation of many written works and the establishment of medieval libraries.

The Beginning of Monasticism

After the conversion of Constantine the Great to Christianity, the Christian church went through rapid changes. As greater numbers of people became Christians, church communities began to exhibit moral laxity. Being a Christian no longer carried the possibility of persecution.

The effort to make church worship uniform offended younger Christians, looking for a more individual way to express their personal faith. Hermit Christianity and later Monastic communities provided this intense meditation. Finally, the ascetic lifestyle was seen as the highest form of spiritual achievement, something that had been a part of the martyr experiences in earlier years.

Monasticism began in Egypt as a hermit experience. In 270, Anthony took to the desert, seeking an ascetic lifestyle. Other men followed his example. It was Pachomius, however, who established the first true monastery at Tabennisi in southern Egypt early in the 4th Century. Men seeking a more complete spiritual life joined his community and by the time he died, ten monasteries under his guidance existed.

The monastic experience spread through the Levant with monasteries established in Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece. Basil is credited with the spread and organization of Eastern monasticism. Many Greek and Russian Orthodox monasteries still follow his Rule. There were many “Rules” or written guidelines for monasteries, usually identified with the institution’s founders.

Monasticism in the West

During the 4th Century, the monastic ideal was carried West by Athanasius. It spread through France through the efforts of Martin of Tours who established a monastery at Poitiers in 362. The monastic experience was brought to Britain and then Ireland where it evolved into a different form, stressing missionary activity.

The greatest single impact of western monasticism is associated with Benedict of Nursia. Benedict’s fame as a highly spiritual man spread and he was asked to become the abbot of a monastery. The poor discipline and habits of the monks, however, drove him away. In 529 he founded the famous monastery at Monte Cassino in Italy.

Benedict’s Rule highlighted strict discipline. Benedictines were enjoined to communal worship as well as manual labor in the fields. St. Benedict’s Rule for Monasteries contains daily readings, focusing on such topics as “What Are the Instruments of Good Works” (Chapter 4), “On the Daily Manual Labor” (Chapter 48), and “Whether Monks Ought to Have Anything of Their Own” (Chapter 33).

Irish Monasticism

During the time of Patrick, the Irish Church still conformed to models concurrent with the continental Catholic Church. This changed over the years after his death. The authority of bishops was replaced by Abbots who, in many cases, were also bishops. Irish monasticism was even more ascetic and emphasized missionary activity.

Irish Benedictines (the Irish monasteries eventually adopted Benedict’s Rule) like Boniface, Apostle to the Germans, brought Christianity to Scandinavia and Northern Europe. The practice of private confession also began with the Irish monks and rapidly spread throughout the western church.

Impact of Western Monasticism

Monasteries maintained the literary treasures of Antiquity and promoted education at a time barbarian hordes were ravaging the remains of the Roman Empire. Great learning sites, such as the monastery at Fulda, established by Charlemagne, helped strengthen a fragile Christianity among neighboring Germanic tribes while supporting missionary activity.

By Michael Streich

They Tried to Convert Me!

After the attacks on Mangalore's Christian churches (and others in Karnataka), the leaders have (finally) spoken, rightly condemning the Hindutva/Bajrang Dal organizations and the complicit administration, and praising the peace-loving nature and charitable activities and institutions of the Indian Christian community.

What this Ordinary and Undistinguished Homo Sapiens has to contribute is a slightly different perspective: on conversions, and on what makes a Hindu or Christian a real Hindu or Christian.

Truly, I have been the victim of conversion attempts on more than a few occasions by Christians, and once by the Hare Krishnas of Boston, run by Euro-Americans. Indeed, next to Osama Bin Laden and ex-Commie Vladimir Putin, I am considered the most convertible heathen in the world by a very close relative of mine, a Christian who I would rather not name (for his health as well as mine). Seriously, though I am a Christian by birth, a semi-agnostic by conviction (or more precisely, the lack of strong religious conviction), and a Mangalorean Catholic by community and identity-meaning, that's what the Hindus and Christians around me in India would call me, or what I would call myself, when probed about my social identity, whether or not I regularly go to Church (and I don't) - still, this close relative and his friends have tried to convert me to his brand of evangelical, American-influenced (Sarah Palin kind of American), rather intolerant Christianity. His group, or people like him, used to be called "Charismatics" a decade or two ago, but they have recently been "radicalized" or made more "fundamentalist" in their beliefs (but who comprise only a small section of the diverse body of Indian Christians).

So black and white is this close relative's view of the world that he once called me the devil (it's nice to have some distinction!), and at another time called my writings Satanic (though luckily, these writings were prosaic, not verses). Perhaps my novel "The Revised Kama Sutra" did anger some Christians (most of whom had not read the book), as indeed it gave other Christians, Hindus, and heathens like me joy, because I try in my writings to tell my truth as bravely and straight as I can, and believe that if we all speak our truths and never resort to violence, we would all be better off (Gautama Buddha, after all, was once a Hindu who decided to rebel against his religion and speak his truth).

Converting me, then, would be a major success in this close relative's book: he would earn a reserved Balcony Seat in Heaven for that. And yet, even if had been more diplomatic and erudite and glibly persuasive, he has about as much chance of converting me as he has of converting the Sultan of Swat.

Because, as they say, you can take a horse to the water, but you cannot make him drink it. You can't "convert" people against their will, which is why the Spaniards and the Portuguese decimated most of the Indian natives of South America, realizing that any "conversion," when it occurred, was only cosmetic, a temporary yielding to superior firepower or the force of circumstances, which were then overwhelming. The moment the Spaniards turned their backs, most of the Indians went back to being who they really were: wild, free, and happy.

Now, even though Mangalore has been a historically tolerant town in which often, an autorickshaw or taxi would simultaneously sport Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious images or symbols, I don't doubt that some or most Hindus would be outraged by the doctrinaire assertions of some of the evangelically inclined Christian fringe. I myself am often outraged, flabbergasted, rendered speechless and sometimes burst out laughing. Sometimes, I try to counter with sane arguments about why they can't possibly know The Truth any better than I or anyone else can, and that merely because something is printed or contained in some book doesn't make it true (I should know: I write fiction sometimes, indeed most of the time). That many of these people don't have a broad-based education and haven't read widely doesn't help matters, but only makes them louder.

And then, finally, I realize that laughter is the wisest choice, the sanest and healthiest choice. Laughter, and shutting your ears - and after a while, if the noise doesn't stop, and you can't laugh anymore, moving to a place where you can have peace, sane conversation, nature, beauty, and more laughter.

For me, most arguments between adherents of two different fundamentalist religious groups are absurd -like two people arguing about whether the teacup and saucer orbiting the sun between Jupiter and Saturn is of a blue or a green color. Neither of them, of course, having personally seen the said teacup and saucer.

But I'll tell you why my close relative and most fundamentalist Christians have zero chance of converting me, the same chance as a fundamentalist Hindu or Muslim (whereas Buddhists, who don't have fundamentalists among their number, might stand a marginally better chance).

Because to me, religion is not what you say it is. It's what you do. It's who you are as a human being. For example, if you try to convert me to Christianity, whose essence is love, charity, and compassion, and if you have not a charitable or loving bone in your body, it is as if you have disproved your own arguments.

A few months back, I was in desperate financial circumstances, and even lacked money for some essential medical care. But none of the ultra-religious members of my family came to my rescue, especially not my close relative, who had only a few months earlier been throwing money at the members and "pastors" of his fundamentalist sect. It was partly by accident that I ran into a sane Christian, meaning one level-headed, compassionate, intelligent, accomplished, and fair-minded Christian, who came to my rescue, approaching another similar Christian of means.

That's comforting and inspiring, that a value such as Christian charity, which is responsible for running orphanages and hospitals for the poor, is sometimes also to be found in a few individual Christians--though a very small fraction of those who call themselves Christian. And if either of these two persons were to approach me and ask me to put up a statue of Jesus or Mary in my apartment, I would gladly do so, out of respect for them, for their true charitableness. And I know they wouldn't demand that I pray to this statue, because they know that true love and true charity are unconditional. They are enlightened Christians; whereas the ones who preach and spout a virulent form of religion without practicing its fundamental ethical teachings are unenlightened boors.

Just because someone says they belong to this or that religion, it doesn't necessarily mean they are - to me, the label is meaningless, except for giving me some understanding of their background. Often, the loudest Christians are the most un-Christian people on earth (George Bush, for example), and no religion seems much good to me unless it remarkably improves the character, charitableness, and benevolence of spirit of the persons following it.

Therefore, arguments or brazen attempts to convert are useless, are doomed to failure. Much better that you so impress me by your character and your inspiring thoughts and actions that I ask you what is it that you believe in that makes you such a fine human being. At that point, if I am hugely impressed, I may ask for more information, and if it seems to make sense to my life and to my personality, I may ask to join your religion, without your having made a single attempt to convert me.

But most of us, in our everyday lives-and I, very much so-lag way behind our highest ideals, and our religion will remain largely talk, and the repetition of the words, mantras, and doctrines we have been taught by parents and teachers. Religion is just the dress we wear, on Sundays or when visiting the temple. But so long as people stick to argument or better, to discussions with civilized rules, courtesy, and time limits, that's fine with me.

Violence has absolutely no place in such a discussion, however. Thus the Bajrang Dal or whoever attacked churches and terrorized innocent Christians defeated their own argument, proving by their irreligious, unholy behavior that they are not worthy of being members of any religion, that any worthwhile and true religion would immediately disown them and their actions.

No doubt ignorance and politics played a part in what happened: the ignorance of the mob, which could not distinguish between two groups of people so different in character, temperament, and disposition, it would be as if someone were unable to distinguish between a Mafia thug and the Catholic cardinal of New York. And the politics of the few who have a stake in stoking anger and violence. And yet, as Christianity, like Buddhism, is a religion of compassion, this mob, and even harmless but deluded evangelical zealots, deserve some compassion as victims in turn-victims of a kind of brainwashing that they were not adequately equipped to resist, partly because our lowest common denominator education, which is a kind of brainwashing in itself, doesn't provide us the tools to resist brainwashing.

In this century, conversion by physical force is highly improbable except in a theocratic and fascist state, and any other kind of conversion-meaning, as an active, transitive verb, one person changing the religion of another person--is a logical absurdity. In other words, it is ultimately the horse's decision whether or not to drink the water being offered, no matter what the inducements or the persuasive means used.

In earlier centuries, conversions were often achieved by force; and when absolute monarchs changed their religion, the subjects often followed, either out of respect for the monarch or out of some feeling of compulsion, real or imaginary. Buddhism gained its initial following from Hindu converts; later on, most Indian Buddhists "re-converted" to Hinduism, while Buddhism spread to vast areas of Asia. Today, at least a few million Westerners follow some form of Hinduism or the other, whether or not they deem it as conversion; rare is the guru who shuts his door to such "converts."

In present times, some people convert themselves for personal advantage or as a practical consideration. For example, a Dutch man told me he "officially" had converted to Islam so he could marry his Muslim Indonesian girl friend. It was required by Indonesian law, and though he, like most Europeans today, was an agnostic/atheist, he did it simply as a practical matter, presenting himself at a mosque one day, getting "converted", and never returning to the mosque again. Also, if a woman or a man decides to get converted to the spouse's religion to overcome objections to the marriage by in-laws, that is also a practical recourse often by people who don't really mean it. It is not true conversion, and yet, in the modern age, we need to respect everyone's freedom to be any religion they choose; there is nothing we can do about this, no more than we can ban someone from wearing blue shirts or ban someone from falling in love with the adherent of a different religion.

All of which suggests that were someone to choose to change their religion, in a country like India, in which no one today can physically force others to change their religion, the circumstances must be either ones of self-interest (and everyone has the democratic right to pursue that within legal limits), or they must be so extraordinarily spiritual and personal that we need to respect the individual's democratic right and freedom to follow any form of religious belief (or unbelief) that they choose.

A Hindu friend had an even more advanced idea. He said, "Who is anyone to tell me that Jesus is not mine, or that Buddha is not mine? I am heir to all that is good in human history. Nobody owns Jesus or Buddha. Also, why should my religious identity be so important? I have so many other identities, and it is more important to me that I am a writer, a teacher, and a good father, than that I am a Hindu." He further said, "If my God is so great, then how can I possibly make him greater by having one or a hundred more persons follow him? Is he so insecure that he needs one more human being to praise Him? Therefore, conversion is absurd." In other words, conversion is a non-issue for any enlightened person, because what someone else chooses to believe is entirely their decision. And the Dalai Lama regularly advises Westerners not to convert to Buddhism, telling them there is no need, that you can be a good human being in any religion.

This, to me, is enlightened thinking-sadly, the minority thinking.

So I say to my Hindu brothers: Don't you realize how oxymoronic the phrase 'Hindu fascists' sounds? You can only be a Hindu or a fascist, not both. The Hinduism I admire is the Hinduism of Namaste ("Greetings to the god in you!") and Tat twam asi (That thou art), not the Hinduism of khaki shorts and dandas which some of your misguided brethren seem to follow. Why not laugh at the subject of conversions, as I did, both during the Hare Krishna conversion attempt (when I was a poor student who wished to enjoy their delicious Indian vegetarian feasts, but not their feast of eardrum-splitting chanting) and that of the evangelical Christians? After all, religion is a personal affair, and to worry ourselves about which God others choose to pray to when we can barely manage our own lives: it is absurd and unnecessary. But educating your brothers, teaching them, with a broad-based education, how to think for themselves, rather than just equipping them to make money, and showing them the greatness of your religion through the example of your lives: that would be the noblest and most dignified and democratic way to stop self-conversions.

To my Christian brothers, I say (lacking any credentials whatsoever, yet knowing that wisdom can sometimes come from the mouths of fools): how about simply doing good for goodness' sake, expecting no reward or gratitude, respecting everyone simply because they are children of God by virtue of being human? It would be the best way to practice our religion. There would be no conflict. And if you can, at least some of you, why not learn to admire the good in other religions, perhaps even telling your children stories from the Hindu epics, and the best ideas from Hindu philosophy?

For if religious groups, including fundamentalist groups, continue to mistrust, hate, and war with each other as they are doing now, then future generations will probably abandon organized, formal religion altogether, as is happening in Europe, where a few centuries back wars and genocide were committed in the name of religion, and where, in France and England for example, Sunday church attendance hovers around the five percent mark.

Which, from the point of view of my agnostic friends (and I must not forget them), would probably be the best thing for peace on earth.












By Richard Crasta

Christianity Growing Fast in Mongolia

(09-17) 17:55 PDT Ulan Bator, Mongolia - Mitch Tillman is an unlikely savior. Six years ago, the Baptist missionary languished in an Alabama jail, facing a prison sentence on drug charges. Today he builds hospitals, feeds street children and saves souls in Mongolia.

For Christian missionaries like Tillman, Mongolia is the new El Dorado. Since communist rule ended in 1990, some 60,000 Mongolians have turned to Christianity, according to records kept by Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists, other Protestant churches and Catholics.

"A lot of my friends were becoming Christian, so I decided to learn something about the faith," said L. Chimgee, 18, a student at Ulan Bator's Technical University. "I went on a weekend retreat to a Christian camp in the countryside. It was a lot of fun and I felt a real sense of community. So I joined the church."

Tillman, who was acquitted of cocaine possession in 2002, believes prayers secured his freedom. Once out of jail, the Chattanooga native sold his auto body business and moved to Mongolia where his father, a Baptist pastor, had established a mission.

"As Mongolia enters a new era of freedom and democracy, people are looking for something different," said Tillman, a 53-year-old father of six, whose family includes three adopted Mongolian children. "They are looking for hope and a better life for their children. I think that Christ will give them that."

Monks alarmed

But the campaign to convert Mongolians has set off alarm bells in the ancient hallways of Gandan Monastery, the nation's largest Buddhist complex with 800 monks. Senior monk Khunhur Byambajav says he is concerned that fewer Mongolians are coming to his monastery.

"It's a problem of money. (Christian) missionaries have money to build schools and educate young people. They entice them by various means," said Byambajav, referring to gifts offered by churches such as food, clothing and scholarships to study abroad. "We cannot financially compete, but we have to try, otherwise we won't have enough young people becoming Buddhist."

Tillman's Harbor Evangelism International, for example, operates two hospitals, an orphanage, a soup kitchen and an alcohol recovery program in a country where alcoholism is rampant even among some Buddhist monks, some observers say.

"Our Mongolian Buddhist monasteries are weak," said L. Odonchimed, a former member of parliament. "They get money from people but don't give much back. Missionaries give things away for free and help people - that is what a religious organization should do."

Unregistered groups

Byambajav says he is most concerned about unregistered Christian groups, which he says indoctrinate children, convince Buddhists to burn religious articles and even destroy stupas (a mound-like structure that symbolizes enlightenment). "There is no control over these groups and no one is paying attention to what they are doing."

In a nation that separates church and state like the United States, Byambajav has asked the government to make Buddhism the state religion. He argues that the nation needs a law giving monks state funds and allowing the teaching of Buddhism in public schools.

"We sent a letter to the government to change the law on religion, but foreign religious organizations are very strong and wealthy," said Byambajav. "They influence the decisions of politicians because they give them money. So it puts us at a disadvantage."

Back to Buddhism

Odonchimed, the former legislator, agrees that many Mongolians are attracted by the services offered by church groups. But he predicts they will be eventually ignored as the nation's economy develops.

"As time passes, people will have less need for these missionaries and they will be forgotten," he said. "Most people will turn back to Buddhism."

In the meantime, the Federation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition, an Oregon-based nonprofit Buddhist organization, is using a Western approach to win converts. The group has opened schools in monasteries and at its center in Ulan Bator.

"Mongolian religion needs to adapt to modern times," said Ueli Minder, the Swiss head of the federation. "Young Mongolians have little knowledge of Buddhism because the monasteries don't teach the faith to laypeople. It's our goal to help people understand the roots of the culture and the religion."

Western methods

Byambajav says Gandan monastery is also using Western methods, including a radio program, and plans to open several private schools and launch a television station.

Minder, however, concedes that Buddhist monks are facing a daunting challenge when going up against Christian missionaries: proselytizing is an alien concept for most of them.

"It should not become a missionary religion, but we need to have a strategy to overcome the negative propaganda of the past and the propaganda of missionary work," said Minder. "The lamas (Tibetan/Mongolian monks) need to learn to defend their beliefs ... regain the people's confidence."

Christianity in Buddhist Mongolia

Until religion was banned in 1921 by a Communist regime, most Mongolians followed Tibetan Buddhism. New freedom following the collapse of communism in 1990 legalized Buddhism and reopened monasteries. But it also opened the gates to outside faiths.

Currently, 50 percent of Mongolians are Tibetan Buddhists, 6 percent are Shamanist and Christians and 4 percent are Muslims. About 40 percent say they practice no religion, according to CIA data.

The challenge to keep the Buddhist faithful from converting to Christianity is hampered by language. Monks chant in Tibetan, which most Mongolians do not understand. Christian sermons and bibles are given and written in Mongolian.

According to records kept by church groups operating in Mongolia, there are 60,000 Christians - a 20 percent increase over the past eight years. The government keeps no statistics on religious affiliation.

In the capital, Ulan Bator, where half the nation's Christians reside, according to a U.S. State Department report, churches are located in prominent neighborhoods, including a five-story Mormon tabernacle situated next to the city's most luxurious hotel. Residents can also watch Christian programs via Eagle TV, a satellite channel funded by American Protestants.

U.S.-style revivals are also common, including charismatic pastors giving fiery sermons to packed halls. These services include rock music, flashing neon lights and high-tech videos beamed across large screens. Clear plastic boxes overflow with donations and teens can sign up to participate in rural "Jesus Camps."

"It's a release from the status quo," said American Baptist minister Mitch Tillman. "For so many years they were under Buddhism and then they were oppressed by communism. They want something new and they find it in Jesus Christ."

Michael Kohn

Spirituality and... Chocolate

One of the things that confirmed my former distrust of religion took place when I was in the second grade. My best friend was a little girl who lived near me. She and her parents were very Christian, and my parents were very not. I didn't ask my friend about what she believed, but I knew that I, and my family, did not hold the same beliefs. My friend decided one day that she couldn't reconcile the fact that we were best friends and that I didn't believe in God. She told me that if I didn't start believing, we couldn't be friends. With infallible seven-year-old logic, I told her that that was absurd, and it would be like me telling her she had to stop believing to be my friend. This did not go over very well, and we stopped talking for a few days. Her parents subsequently convinced her that she should make up with me and stop pressuring me to have the same beliefs as her.

Until recently, I have steered very clear of discussions pertaining to religion with people who adhere to a specific church. But in the last few months, since my own spiritual awakening, I have cautiously stuck my toe back into the theological discussion pool. This is because my own experience has caused me to reframe how I interpret a lot of my past experiences, and to reconsider the judgments and assumptions I made about others' beliefs.

The first few discussions I had were very validating and open exchanges with other people whose path to spirituality had also been fairly winding and not always conventional. But more recently I've had some conversations with people who are stricter adherents to one specific religion or another, and those conversations have been frustrating and confusing.

Let me preface this by saying that I experience what many call God as a universal consciousness that, if I clear my head enough (or sometimes even if I don't), I can recognize is part of me, and that I am a very small part of it. The sense of "I" that separates me from everyone and everything else seems less substantial than it used to, and I also am capable of feeling more compassion and acceptance of myself and others than I did previously. Most religions, including Christianity, have something to say about God as the unnameable, unfathomable source of all existence. They also usually say, at some point, that God is love, and that God is accessible to everyone without any external help. So I think that the major religions have much in common, and are different culture's ways of interpreting what is a universal experience. That is why the same themes, archetypes, and stories show up in totally different regions at different points in history.

So to me, and many others, one religion does not invalidate another. Experiencing a profound sense of connection to the Virgin Mary does not mean that someone who connects to Ganesha is wrong and is worshiping a false God. It just means that the Virgin Mary is a symbol that resonates most closely with your experience of Spirit, while Ganesha is what provides that connection for someone else. Others connect to spirit through nature. Some religions don't anthropomorphize God at all, claiming that doing so may limit our ability to experience spirit.

The thing that is really giving me trouble these days is this very idea, that one path to spirituality is "better" than the next. And in this age of diversity and political correctness, it is rare that someone would come out and say that their religion is the only way. But I've had some conversations lately where that has been the not so subtle subtext.

So substitute "Chocolate" for your specific religious institution of choice, and the conversation goes something like this:

• Me: I've discovered ice cream lately. Boy, is it great! I've tried several flavors, and I like home made vanilla the best so far.

• Them: I was raised with Hershey's chocolate ice cream, and it makes me really happy. I don't know that much about your vanilla, but I'm sure it's fine.

• Me: I don't object to chocolate, there are qualities I enjoy, but vanilla is what really works for me. I've also tried coffee and pistachio so far. I'm going to try some other flavors too, and see how I like them.

• Them: But Hershy's chocolate is the original flavor, you can't really like ice cream unless you like chocolate.

• Me: Actually, there were flavors before chocolate that shared similar qualities, and all ice cream is made of the same basic components, they just have different flavors.

• Them: Just try some more chocolate. I'm sure you'll come to love it the way I do, and then you'll understand. All those other flavors are just poor imitations, you can't really love ice cream unless you love chocolate ice cream.

• Me: Check, please.

After a while, I find myself wondering why the fact that a different flavor of ice cream (spirituality) is most appealing to me (after a lifetime of searching for one I like) should be so difficult for someone else to accept. The conclusion I tend to jump to is that the fact that I believe in something that on the surface seems different (or really just less clearly defined and dogmatic) is unsettling to them and may call into question their own beliefs. Which is weird to me, because I can't imagine telling someone that their connection to God isn't as strong, or valid, or advanced as my own. That would just be lame. I'm not questioning the validity of their relationship with God, why should they question mine?

And to get back to the chocolate metaphor, who can say what anything in this world smells, tastes, looks or feels like to another. One of my ex-boyfriends was red-green colorblind. He literally and provably saw the world differently than I did. Does that make what he saw a lie? Of course not. What I respond to and how I experience the world is not exactly the same as anyone else, and is not subject to debate. It just is. Perception by its nature can not be anything but individual and subjective.

So I guess I'm a little sad that I haven't been able to have a more constructive conversation regarding religion so far with people who are less universalist than I am. But I'm also kind of amused that in some ways, those conversations have born a striking resemblance to the one I had with my friend in the second grade. I'm just glad that her parents' take on their religion left room for people with different views, so we could still be friends.

Powered by: Miss Michelann

Church opens doors to yoga

Washingtonville — The only light inside St. Anne's Episcopal Church this Monday night is that of a small lamp next to a CD player emitting a composition of flute and electronic keyboard music.

Standing next to the lamp on an exercise mat is Linda Dougherty, instructing her students to bend forward with legs apart and arms outstretched.

"Think: 'Oh God, let me bow down in front of you in honor of you,'" she said.

Such pronouncements pepper the entirety of the 45- to 50-minute session of bending, stretching and meditating that Dougherty teaches at the Washingtonville church each week. It's part of a growing Christian yoga movement that has recently entered our region, joining Eastern techniques in health and spiritual fitness with the West's largest religion.

The rise of the trend in 2005 brought criticism from Christian and Hindu purists, who believed the Indian spiritual roots of yoga were irreconcilable with the West's religion. Pope Benedict XVI had once even signed a Vatican document warning Catholics to beware of Eastern traditions like yoga, which "can degenerate into a cult of the body."

Groups such as the American Yoga Association, however, deride such extremism. According to the nonprofit's Web site, the practice does not involve the worship of a deity nor conform to any one world religion.

"Many American Yoga Association students who practiced yoga intensively for many years continue to follow the religious traditions they have grown up in or adopted without conflict," the organization said on the Web site.

The controversy involving yoga and Christianity never came up at St. Anne's, where Dougherty introduced the classes in December, she said.

Dougherty was training with Yoga Mountain in Cornwall-on-Hudson for more than a year before mentioning her interest in the practice to her priest. A school social worker in Suffern, she noticed the health and mental benefits of the practice on her students. She received the priest's blessing to begin the teachings to other parishioners as part of Advent, the season leading up to Christmas.

The students enjoyed it so much, they asked Dougherty to keep it up, which she did.

A $10 donation is requested to help with expenses, as well as an offering to the church. Class membership varies from five to eight students.

Yoga opens the mind to one's inner spirituality through meditation, Dougherty said. "As you're moving through the postures and breathing, you also get the added benefits of good health."

By John Sullivan

A comparative study of the doctrinal, organizational and ceremonial differences in the Orthodox Church, Catholicism and Protestantism

There are some interesting differences of the doctrinal, organizational and ceremonial aspects among the Orthodox Church, Catholicism and Protestantism. We would like to draw your attention to the most significant ones.

1. Church structure and organization.

• Attitude towards other Christian confessions.

The Orthodox Church considers that they are the only true Church in the World. Catholics think the same. However, after the second Vatican Council (in 1962-1965) they say that all Orthodox Churches are Sisters, as for the Protestant Churches they treat them as Church consolidations. Due to variety of views in Protestantism a Christian has a free choice whether to belong to a confession or not to belong at all to any confession.

• Internal Church structure.

Orthodox has Local Churches, in Russia there are several different Orthodox Churches. Consequently, there is a range of differences regarding ceremonial and canonical issues (for example, recognition or non- recognition of the Gregorian calendar – the New Style). Under the aegis of Moscow patriarchate are 95% of the religious. The Old Belief is the most aged alternative confession in Russia. Catholicism is organizationally united by the Pope authority alongside with the considerable autonomy of monastic orders. But the Old Catholic Church as well as Catholic- Lefevrists (traditional ones) do not admit papal infallibility. But they are not numerous. Centralization is prevailed in Lutheranism and Anglicanism. Baptist Church is organized on the federative principle: Baptist commune is autonomous and sovereign, is subordinated only to Jesus Christ. Unions of communes sort just organizational matters.

• Relations with temporal power

Over history (in various epochs and in different countries) the Orthodox Church was in alliance with temporal power (“in symphony”), and subordinated to power in civil aspect. Right up to the new period Catholicism competed with temporal power, and even the Pope had temporal power over vast territories. Protestantism has various models of relations with temporal power: for example, it is the Established (State) religion; in other countries- Church completely separated from the State.

• Clergy attitude towards marriage


In Orthodoxy Secular clergy (thus all clergy except monks) has the right to marry just once in their lives. In Catholicism clergy takes celibacy (vow of chastity), with the exception of priests from Churches of the Eastern (Oriental) rite, based in alliance with the Catholic Church. Marriage is possible for all the religious in the Protestantism.

• Monkhood or Regular / black clergy

The Spiritual Father of monkshood in the Orthodoxy is St. Basil the Great. There are cloisters in cenobitical monasticism (goods in communion as well as spiritual discipleship) or cloisters living separately without any cenobitical rules. Since 11-12 centuries Catholic monkshood began to turn into orders. The most influential was Order of St. Benedict. Other orders are divided into monastic orders like Dominican, Franciscan or religious and military ones as Knights Templar or Knights Hospitallers. Protestantism denies any monasticism or monkshood.

• Superior Authority

The Superior Authorities in Orthodoxy are the sacred Scriptures and the Holy tradition, including Father’s works as well as Doctors` of the Church writings. The Pope and his point of view towards the faith (the infallibility dogma) are the Superior Authorities. Also the sacred Scriptures are treated as influential. Roman Catholic canon law states their Churches as ecumenical council. Bible is the Superior Authority in Protestantism.

2. Dogmas

• The Holy Spirit

Christianity considers that the Holy Spirit comes from the Lord through his Son. In Catholicism the Holy Spirit comes from the Lord as well as form his Son, so from both. The Eastern-rite Catholics have rather different point of view. Confessions- members of the World Council of Churches adopt a short and general Christian (Apostolic) Symbol of the Faith, not touching this question.

• Doctrine about the Virgin Mary

The Orthodox believe that Mother of God did not have her own sin, but carried the original sin (the old Adam) like all other people. She ruptured to heaven after her assumption. There is a doctrine about the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Catholicism. That proves the lack of the original sin. Mary image is the ideal and perfect woman in the Protestantism.

• Purgatory

There is this doctrine of purgatory (severe sufferings of the soul after death because of sins) and the Last Judgement in the Orthodoxy as well as in the Catholicism. Protestantism denies the doctrine of purgatory.

3. Bible


• Correlation between the Holy Script and the Holy Tradition

In the Orthodoxy the Holy Script is considered as the part of the Holy Tradition. In the Catholicism the Holy Script is equal to the Holy Tradition. Protestantism regards the Holy Script beyond the Holy Tradition.

4. Church Practice

• Ordinance

The Orthodoxy and the Catholicism have identical points of view regarding the Ordinance. They accept 7 sacraments: christening, anointing, confession, the Eucharist, marriage, the ordination to the Holy Orders and the Anointing (Unction) of the Sick (last rite). Most of the confessions in the Protestantism admit just two sacraments: the Eucharist and the Christening.

• Admission new members into the fold of the Church

Orthodox Church performs a christening usually in the childhood. Anointing and the First Communion are made immediately after the christening. A Catholic enters all these sacraments at more conscious age (7-12 years age). Along side with this factor a child ought to know the fundamentals of the faith. Protestantism follows the same rules as the Catholicism.

• Peculiarities of the Eucharist sacrament

Eucharist is performed with kvass bread (bread cooked with yeast). Clergy as well as layman celebrate Eucharist by the body of Christ and his Blood (bread and wine). The Catholics perform Eucharist with unleavened bread (no yeast). Priesthood can take bread and wine, layman – only bread. Different confessions of the Protestantism use various sorts of bread.

• Confession

If for the Orthodox Church the confession in the priest presence is obligatory, in the Catholicism- a person, is desirable, to confess once a year in the presence of the priest, then Protestantism does not admit any mediator between a man and the Lord. Nobody has the right to confess and to remit sins.

• Public liturgy (Divine service)

The main public liturgy in the Orthodoxy Church is by the Eastern (Oriental) rite. The Catholic Church follows the Eastern (Oriental) rite and the Latin (Roman) one. Protestantism pursues various kinds of public liturgies.

• The language of public liturgy

The language of Orthodox liturgies is the national language of the country; in Russia- you may hear the Church Slavonic language. Catholics- the national language of the country, also Latin language is used for these purposes. Protestantism applies various languages.

5. Piety

• Icons and cross. The Saints and the Prayers for the Deceased.

The Orthodox worship icons and cross. The Catholics are devoted to Jesus Christ, cross and the Saints. The prayer is permitted in front of the icon, but not to the icon. In Protestantism icons are not esteemed. You may just see a cross in some prayer houses. The Orthodox and the Catholics revere the Saints. The Prayers for the Deceased is normal for the both religions. The Protestantism does accept neither Saints nor any Prayers for the Deceased.

• The Virgin Mary cult

A man can pray to the Virgin Mary as to the Mother of God or the Heavenly Mediatress in the Orthodoxy as well as in the Catholicism. There is no any cult to the Virgin Mary in the Protestantism.

Tibet Isn't a Buddhist Litmus Test

As the violence in Tibet has continued, the Dalai Lama issued a stern statement that he could not align himself with insurrection in his home country. Buddhism rests on several pillars, one of which is nonviolence. Tibet quickly became a kind of Buddhist litmus test. How much pain and oppression can you stand and still exhibit loving kindness and compassion? I wonder if that's really fair. The Tibetans face a political crisis that should be met with political action. Whatever that action turns out to be, nobody should be seen as a good or bad Buddhist, anymore than defending your house from an intruder tests whether a Christian is living by the precepts of Jesus.

In India, where Gandhi preached nonviolence, or Ahimsa, he confronted a decaying British empire that was forced to give up its vast holdings. Historical luck was on his side, and as a result of Gandhi's pacifism, India gained its independence. The Dalai Lama, however, has had historical misfortune to contend with. The Chinese are an expanding empire, and their ingrained racism allows them to overrun the "inferior" native Tibetans without any moral qualms. Will pacifism work in this situation? A better question might be, Would anything work? It's not as though the Beijing regime can be defeated by force, either. One recalls that Gandhi combined pacifism with resistance, whereas the Tibetans up to now have sunk into an inert pacifism that could lead to their cultural extinction.

No doubt the entire conflict, now half a century old, is entangled in religion and other interwoven ingredients: Communist ideology, fantasies of restoring Chinese glory days, and much else. But Buddha, like Jesus, didn't start a religion. He was concerned with how to live in the world, and being entangled in the world's pain and confusion is an eternal dilemma. It didn't need ruthless bureaucrats in China. Over the centuries, failed crops, endemic disease, and poverty have been quite capable of bringing suffering. It would be superficial to say that Buddha and Jesus arrived at the same remedy -- to be in the world but not of it -- yet nobody needs to pass that test, either.

What Buddha and Jesus undoubtedly had in common was a sense that another realm of existence transcends the material world. Buddhists are asked to consider how to reach that realm. There are no dictates (as far as my limited knowledge goes) to engage the world and solve its tortured dilemmas. Indeed, Buddha is famous for teaching that such solutions don't exist. It is futile to apply Buddhism to a political crisis - or to the subprime mortgage debacle, for that matter - because wrestling with the material world never leads to freedom, fulfillment, or peace.

Someone may protest that the Dalai Lama is being an exemplary Buddhist in maintaining such perfect equanimity, and I completely agree. But he has achieved his level of consciousness for himself. This is a case where virtue must be its own reward. The world looks on and admires the Dalai Lama; it doesn't change for him. My intention isn't to give any Tibetan Buddhist advice, or to adopt a position superior to anyone else's. It just strikes me that Tibet shouldn't be a litmus test for religious purity while an entire people are slowly ground to dust. Nor should the peaceful countenance of the Dalai Lama become an excuse for the rest of us to stand by and do nothing, as if that proves how virtuous we are.

Powered By: huffingtonpost.com

The Scientists Have Made a Photo of Christ

World sensation: the secret of the "Turin shroud" is solved


Russian FSS (ex. KGB) experts the first proved authenticity of the Turin shroud, and their conclusions were confirmed by last researches in Oxford. For the first time the scientists have made an ultraprecise digital picture of the well-known Turin shroud, which is the most mystical and mysterious relic in the humanity history.

Christians name a piece of a linen cloth "the Fifth Gospel ", because the face and a body of Christ wonderfully were impressed on it, as on photo. Every wound of Jesus', every drop of blood spilled in rescue of humanity was embodied!

It’s the message of almost two thousand years age is visual evidence of everything that is written in the Gospel is true”, director of the Russian center of the Turin shroud, physicist Alexander Belyakov said, “it brings to people a good news about the Savior, about the victory over the death …”

“What have the militant atheists not done to try to announce the unique relic by a fake! Stupidly repeated, that it was only picture of the artist. Examination has denied this version: on a fabric really mirror impression of a body. Other sceptic argument has bust also with crash: as if the person, smeared by paint, was wrapped by cloth. There is not the ochre on the cloth, there is blood. Successes in finding out its components: hemoglobin, bilirubin and albumin. By the way, the raised bilirubin abundance testifies that the person has died in a condition of stress, under tortures. The group of blood was determined - IV (АВ). Male sex was defined by the set of chromosomes in leukocytes.

Digital technologies have allowed to recreate a face of Christ.

But the most heavy argument of the shroud authenticity proof was found by experts of Institute of criminalistics of FSS of the Russian Federation, they have established, that the radiocarbon analysis of fabric age which was made by laboratories in the Great Britain, the USA and Switzerland twenty years ago, to put it mildly, were inexact. It’s Dr.Sci.Tech. Anatoly Fesenko’s opinion, headed researches, that foreign experts "have rejuvenated" a relic more than on one thousand years, because haven’t considered the major circumstance. There was a terrible fire in a cathedral where the shroud was stored in the Middle Ages, and soot particles have settled on the fabric. Therefore devices have fixed not age of the fabric, and the carbon connections fragments which have stuck to it …

Picture

In Oxford the newest researches confirmed, that FSS experts were right - the shroud was really weaved in days of Christ life.

By the order of Vatican the most precise picture by the permission in 12, 8 billion pixels were made from it for the first time. On it silhouette of the body of the Savior and his face is impressed in the smallest details on it. The advanced technologies have allowed familiarizing the greatest relic in details.
Scientists photographed thousands of fabric fragments, and then picture of a shroud was spreaded from them on computer as if from puzzle parts.
The strong magnification allowed to see spots of sacred blood of Jesus.”We connected 1600 picture areas together, everyone has size with a credit card, and then we created a huge picture. It’s in 1300 times more, than a photo, which was made by the digital camera with the permission in 10 million of pixels”, explains Mauro Gavinelli, “Owing to new technologies it is possible to consider every thread, all details …”



Trepidation

Funeral cloth of Christ is unwrapped before believers extremely seldom. The shroud is stored in silver casket in the curtailed kind. For all last century it was got only five times! Last time it was exposed before pilgrims in Turin in 2000. And at the next time - in 25 years.

Now everyone can look at repeatedly magnified face of the Savior, which was wonderfully impressed on a linen cloth, and scientists plan to upload the digital photo into the Internet. And each person can join its familiarizing; it will be tremendous day for humanity! People by own eyes will see impressed body of Jesus Christ.

The Turin shroud was started to study exactly 120 years ago and owing to a photo. At that time the linen cloth was removed on a photographic plate by the Italian lawyer Sekondo Pia. After developed it, he looked at a negative. Also he instantly understood, that the objective embodied that eyes did not see - a impress of bearded person body, which had pierced wrists and feet. And his face was as on icons of the Christ!

The cloth, which was weaved of the Mediterranean flax with a touch of the Egyptian cotton, has kept on itself wrapped image of Jesus' – to his full height, in front and behind. Here is the description of the picture, which was made by scientists: "There are hair, which are confusedly sprawled on the cloth, a small beard and moustaches. The right eye is closed, left is poorly slightly opened. There is a drop of blood above the left eyebrow. The nose bone is interrupted from cuff from the left side. From the left side of face a cheekbone is broken, there are signs of a hypostasis. There is a spot from blood to the right of a mouth.”

Analysis

Scientists from the Oxford University in the Great Britain again try to determine age of the Turin shroud, already considering amendments of the Russian criminalists. The brigade under direction of Professor Christopher Ramsi spends analyses of disintegration of cloth hydrocarbon for the first time for last 20 years. The purpose of researches is to correct a scandalous mistake of twenty years' prescription about dating the shroud.

At that time it was declared, that provisional age of this relic seven-eight centuries, a cloth it is weaved from 1260 for 1390.

20 years ago three independent groups simultaneously researched the shroud in Zurich, Arizona and Oxford by method of the hydrocarbonic analysis and have made the conclusion, that it existed in the Middle Ages.

At that time Oxford professor Edward Hill said: " Someone bought a piece of flax, drew outlines of a body on it and strongly torn " …

The figures was presented by experts, pushed Turin cardinal Anastasio Alberto Ballestero to tell then, that the shroud indeed can be a forgery!

This pastor doubt revolted feelings of believers. They refused to trust a science. Hasty applications of the Oxford researchers was denied then in Russia, and in the most serious structures, such as FSS!

"The shroud is the original, which is concerning by the first century of our era, it’s not later fake ", that was the conclusion of experts commission under direction of director of Institute of criminalistics of FSS, Dr.Sci.Tech. Anatoly Fesenko.

“The reason of an error is the natural polymeric covering, which has formed on fabric fibres after monks cleared its vegetable oil in Middle Ages. It also has rejected analysis indications", experts counted.

Film

The professor from Oxford Christopher Ramsi, recognized reasons of Russian criminalist Fesenko, and he declared, that there could be a mistake at analyses 20 years ago.

“The age could be certain incorrectly because of pollution which have accumulated on a shroud”, he said, “besides in 1988 almost nothing was known about carbon-14 which we have well enough studied now. Probably, something unusual will open in it, that will help to reveal a secret the most mystical relic of Christianity”.

The newest researches will be shooted on video for channel BBC in Oxford. The project director doctor Rolf said, that is enough to remove from a shroud only two percent of pollution, to obtain true data.

Believers are assured, that till the end of March, when results of researches will be promulgated, it will be absolutely precisely proved, that a shroud is that fabric by which the the Savior body has been covered almost two thousand years ago!

In Russia the photo of the Turin shroud is stored in Sretensk monastery in Moscow, according to blessing patriarch Alex II . Believers pray to this picture, as to an icon. “We feel by hearts, that the Savior is on a picture”, believer said, “In fact they are filled with love …”

Sometimes all we need is a swift kick to know what to do

As I sat in the doctor's office this week - with my clothes in a pile - awaiting my annual physical, I could think of only one thing.

What could she possibly do for the horrendous pain in my butt?

Only the day before, I had fallen in a gallant attempt to safeguard my grandchild, who was teetering close to the stairs.

Oh don't worry, he's fine, but let's just say I'm not spending as much time in the writer's chair as I'd like to this week.

"Bruised tailbone" was the doctor's prognosis, for which she prescribed a shot of anti-inflammatory.

How, I wondered, was a painful shot in the rear supposed to make my backside feel better?

Nevertheless, the risk I took and the pain I endured to do the right thing was more than worth it.

The whole incident has served as kind of reminder of the metaphorical kick in the butt I'd already received this month. It, too, was a painful blow that inspired me in the right direction.

This past month our chaplain department faced the news that we would have to lay off a chaplain. No worries, I thought, I was not the last person hired. My job was safe.

The last person hired is an excellent chaplain. We can't afford to lose her, nor can she afford to lose us. She's a new mother, and her husband is a full-time student.

The thought of losing this chaplain saddened me, and I began to balance it with the dream of writing full time. In this economy, the thought of going out on my own gave me an additional pain in the rear.

No, it's just not a good idea.

But it was a good idea. It seemed to me that the threat of layoffs was the kind of cosmic butt-kicking I needed, to do what I know is in me to do.

So, after discussion with "Mrs. Chaplain," whose teaching income would largely support this happy journey, I surprised my boss and colleagues by volunteering to be laid off.

March 13 is my last day in this hospital, and my new journey of writing will unfold.

Cosmic butt-kickings don't come as often as we probably need. Most of the time, God is the kind and loving God we encounter in the famous poem, "Footprints in the Sand."

The poem describes the promise of God to "never leave you."

There is also a less-known parody of the poem, which I respectfully offer in closing today's column, called "Buttprints in the Sand."

One night I had a wondrous dream,
One set of footprints there was seen,
The footprints of my precious Lord,
But mine were not along the shore.
But then some strange prints appeared,
And I asked the Lord, "What have we here?"
Those prints are large and round and neat,
"But Lord, they are too big for feet."
"My child," He said in somber tones,
"For miles I carried you along.
I challenged you to walk in faith,
But you refused and made me wait."
"You disobeyed, you would not grow,
The walk of faith, you would not know,
So I got tired, I got fed up,
And there I dropped you on your butt."
"Because in life, there comes a time,
When one must fight, and one must climb,
When one must rise and take a stand,
Or leave their buttprints in the sand."

- Author unknown

Powered By: Norris Burkes is a civilian hospital chaplain and an Air Force Guard chaplain.