St. Ephrem the Syrian - The Robe of Glory

In the introduction to Hymns on Paradise, by St. Ephrem the Syrian, Sebastian Brock explains that typical to almost all early Christian writers, including St. Ephrem, Melito of Sardis, and Jacob of Serugh, is the employment of clothing imagery. Ideas such as God ‘putting on’ names in the Scriptures, Christ ‘putting on’ the body at the Incarnation, and Christ ‘putting on’ our weakness fall within the use of this metaphor.¹

Clothing imagery is not original to St. Ephrem, as he is most likely developing imagery already found within the Old and New Testaments, and especially in the writings of St. Paul. In Romans 13:14, we read, “But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.” Also, in Galatians 3:27 we read, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ”.²

The originality that does belong to St. Ephrem is how he applies this metaphor to the whole of salvation history, and how the ‘Robe of Glory’ is a common thread interwoven throughout God’s cosmic plan. The ‘Robe of Glory’ image does not only appear in St. Ephrem’s Hymns on Paradise, thus the following can be thought of as an overall concept found throughout many of his writings.³

Again, in His divine Providence, God has interwoven the idea of the ‘Robe of Glory’ throughout His cosmic plan of redemption. Brock outlines this in four main episodes which make up this cosmic drama:

• At the Fall, Adam and Eve lose the ‘Robe of Glory’ with which they had originally been clothed in Paradise; in order to re-clothe the naked Adam and Eve (i.e. humanity), God Himself “puts on the body” from Mary.
• At the Baptism, Christ laid the Robe of Glory in the river Jordan, making it available once again for humanity to put on at baptism.
• At his or her baptism, the individual Christian, in “putting on Christ”, puts on the ‘Robe of Glory’, thus reentering the terrestrial anticipation of the eschatological Paradise (i.e. the Church).
• At the Resurrection of the Dead, the just will in all reality reenter the celestial Paradise, clothed in their Robes of Glory.⁴

Brock goes on to explain that the “Robe of Glory provides a thread which links up between the primordial and the eschatological Paradise”, and this context is intended to bring to mind the entire span of salvation history⁵. In one of his Epiphany hymns, St. Ephrem makes clear that Christian baptism was the means provided by God in order for the baptized to recover the lost robe when he writes,

“Instead of with leaves from the trees
He clothed them with glory in the water”⁶

Thus, as one considers the ‘Robe of Glory’ imagery, one can see the place of each individual Christian’s baptism within the divine economy as a whole, and the hope this provides for the believer and the Church.

Sources
¹ St. Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns on Paradise, Introduction by Sebastian Brock, SVS Press, 66.
² ibid., 66.
³ ibid., 66-67.
⁴ ibid., 67.
⁵ ibid., 67.
⁶ ibid., 70-71.

Faith and the Armenian Genocide

Faith can be a very illusive concept due to its seeming intangibility. It can be very difficult to define, even when Scripture references it numerous times. Faith can even be doubted, taken for granted, and trivialized, even though it is the theme throughout Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. None of this means we should avoid the topic, so what follows is a reflection on faith and its importance in our lives as Christians.

Faith seems to entail (but is not limited to) the following elements: trust, belief, and response. These three elements, although expressed and manifested in various ecclesiological expressions and traditions, are ultimately directed toward and placed in a Person; the Person of Jesus Christ.

Our faith serves as the foundation or grounding, where our trust in Christ as the Messiah takes root. We know that without faith, we cannot grow, mature, be transformed into the image of Christ, or obtain union with Him. Both the ethos and the telos of Christianity require faith, and require it to be placed in Jesus Christ.

Our faith defines who we are as Christians; as His disciples. John 1:12 says, "But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God." Ephesians 1:13 reads, "In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit."

Our faith defines what we do in His name, so that when we are redeemed, our works are redeemed as well. Our works follow what we believe and thus, are evidence of our faith. Ephesians 2:8-10 reads, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God --not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Also, James 2:14, 17 reads, "What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?...So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead." Without faith, our works become at the very least self-gratifying or self-glorifying. Only when our works are grounded in Christ do they have meaning and significance to the Church, the world, and the Kingdom.

Our faith is communal. Without the faith of others, we the faithful cannot survive. Although faith does apply to the individual before God, it is not merely something between one individual and 'his' God. Faith is not independent. The Church is the Body of Christ, and His entire Body is His instrument, and it is the Church's communal faith that makes up the people of God. I Corinthians 12:12-14 reads, "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body -- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free -- and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many." Again, from Ephesians 2 (which was written to the Church as a whole), "For by grace you have been saved through faith...For we are his workmanship..."

Today is April 24th, which marks the (95th) anniversary of the Armenian Genocide which took place in 1915. This post is written in memory of the faithful Armenians who suffered and died for their Christian faith and heritage no matter the cost. They are a true example of a living faith, and an inspiration to not only Armenian Christians, but to all Christians who believe, trust, and respond to the Person of Jesus Christ. They carried the cross of Christ, they suffered for His name, and they literally lost their lives for what they believed. May the fallen faithful Armenians never be forgotten, and may the light of their faith continue to shine.

Then Jesus told his disciples, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life?" - Matthew 16:24-26

The Armenian Letter "Eh" (Է)

If you walk into any given Armenian Orthodox Church, you may notice something over the altar, or at least most of them. You may either see the single letter 'Eh' (Է) directly at the top, such as the picture to the left demonstrates, or you may see the words 'Asdvadz Ser Eh' (in Armenian letters) with the English translation 'God Is Love' following it. In the case of the latter, the letter 'Eh' (Է) is still directly above the altar.

What is so special about the letter 'Eh' (Է) that it deserves such a prominent place over the church altar? First, let's look at its meaning. In the phrase 'God is Love', the word for is is 'eh', thus, 'Asdvadz Ser Eh' (transliteration: 'God Love Is'). So, the letter/word 'Eh' (Է) literally means 'is' or 'he is', which , to those familiar with the Old Testament, may sound like a reference to God Himself.

In Exodus chapter 3, the prophet Moses encountered God in the burning bush. As God was instructing Moses to deliver His people from Egypt, Moses asked, "If I come to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your ancestors has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' what shall I say to them?" God said to Moses, "I am who I am." He said further, "Thus you shall say to the Israelites, 'I am has sent me to you.'

God told Moses that His name is 'I am', or technically 'Is', or 'He Who Is'. Thus, God is a being who just IS, and it is only the eternal God who can call Himself by this name. In Armenian, it is the letter/word 'Eh' (Է) that serves as the name for 'I am' or 'he is', and just as Moses realized the 'Eh' (Է) to be dwelling in the burning bush, so too does the Armenian Church realize that God (Eh) dwells at the church altar.

Furthermore, 'Eh' (Է), when pronounced, makes the sound of a breath, and so the idea of God being the breath of life is attached to this letter. Also, the letter 'Eh' (Է) happens to be the 7th letter of the Armenian alphabet. Symbolically, 7 is known as the number of perfection, or completion. Throughout the Bible, the number 7 is attributed to several acts of God, and to God Himself, so the letter 'Eh' (Է) takes on even further significance.

Thus, for the Armenian Church, the letter 'Eh' (Է) and its meaning is considered to be Holy. It is not only symbolic, but 'Eh' (Է) is the name of God.

Intolerant of Tolerance

Are Christians are intolerant? Are they narrow-minded. Do they have any good reason to claim that someone else holds to erroneous beliefs? Should Christians be "tolerant" of other people’s views?

“Tolerance”, part of the political correctness campaign, has become a buzzword in American society and to be honest, I’m bored with it. The concept is applied to everyday conversation, politics, and religion where Christianity is one of the biggest targets of being tagged as intolerant. Those that point and scream "intolerant!" come off as sensitive, intelligent, and open minded, but what are we, as Christians, supposed to say or do? Are Christians really intolerant?

The truth is, the whole idea of “tolerance” is completely grounded on a logical fallacy and it is very frustrating to see ideas like this get as far as they do because it demonstrates how much people do not think about ideas before they adopt them. Furthermore, tolerance is just an attempt to escape the reality of truth and the absolute nature of it. Those who spout tolerance hate that Christianity claims to be absolutely true since that shows the supposed arrogance behind its claims. They would rather Christians “tolerate” every existing view and say that everybody can be right in what they believe.

The first of the few problems with the whole idea of tolerance/intolerance, as it is defined in today’s culture, is that the idea itself is self-defeating. (A self-defeating statement/idea is one that does not meet its own requirements.) Tolerance/intolerance requires that all views be accepted as equally valid. If this is truly the case, then even the view of “intolerance” should be accepted, but as we all know it is not accepted and that is the reason the whole “tolerance” movement began. As tolerance is currently defined, all views are tolerated except the view of intolerance, and thus it is self-defeating.

Secondly, the idea of tolerance/intolerance also ignores the definition and nature of truth. Truth by definition is what corresponds to reality. It describes reality as it really is. Moreover, in reality two contradictory things or ideas cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. If there are two contradictory things or ideas then one of them must be right and one must be wrong. It is possible that they are both wrong according to the whole of reality, but when they are just compared to each other error is still involved. Thus, truth by nature is narrow and intolerant of error.

If truth is intolerant of error then the whole idea of tolerance/intolerance falls apart, unless one wants to posit that there is no such thing as truth at all and that is exactly what birthed the idea tolerance/intolerance in the first place. If that is the case, then all truth claims are relative and "tolerance" is just relativism in disguise. But relativism is also self-defeating by nature since it claims that relativism is true and everything else is false. If, on the other hand, it is claimed that relativism itself is relative and does not claim to be a true idea, then there is no reason to even pay attention or consider the idea of relativism as having any worth or validity.

The third problem with tolerance/intolerance is that it misunderstands the very definition of the word “tolerance”. Tolerance, according to a simple dictionary definition, is the fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own. Where in this definition does it say that every idea should be considered equally valid and true and that no one should tell anyone else their idea is false? Since when has expressing or endorsing a particular view become a sign of intolerance?

The problem is that “permissive attitude” has come to mean “personal offense” and so when someone does not like or favor a particular view they become “offended” and so that other person is labeled intolerant. Simply expressing one’s view does not mean that person is not permitting alternative views to be expressed. The correct view of “permissive attitude” is that everyone has the freedom to express their views, even if they are contrary to other views and even if others personally disagree with them. Furthermore, the idea of being afraid to offend someone with our ideas blurs the line between emotion and truth and completely ignores the distinction between ideas and the people that express them.

The fourth problem with tolerance/intolerance is that everyone is equally exclusive with what they believe, which is contrary to the whole idea behind tolerance/intolerance. Those who label others as intolerant pride themselves to be open, progressive, and of course, “tolerant.” According to the nature of truth, if one individual or group claims to be true or correct in their views, then by definition, all other contrary individuals and groups are false. For example, when one claims that Atheism is true, then immediately what is implied is that all non-Atheism is false.

Also, when one claims that tolerance is the right view, then it is immediately implied that those who disagree with tolerance hold the wrong view. Contradictory views, by nature, are never open to each other and so they must be equally exclusive. Anyone who is "tolerant" and claims their belief as the right one is as equally exclusive as the everyday Christian who claims their belief as the right one. So when a Christian claims their beliefs are true, it is not out of arrogance but comes from the very definition of what truth is. Again, claiming a belief as right and true logically excludes all other contrary beliefs as wrong and false, so those that claim to be progressive or "tolerant" are just as exclusive and intolerant as everyone else.

Lastly, think for a minute about the possible ramifications of accepting everybody's view as equally valid and true – where everybody is allowed to be right. Contradictions become possible, no one gets offended, and everyone gets along? I don't think so.

Movie Review - Battlefield Earth: A New Standard

Since Battlefield Earth was released in 2000, I realize that I'm 9 years late on naming it "a new standard", but I have no other choice since I finally watched it in October of 2009.

Here are at least 7 reasons why I loved Battlefield Earth:

1) I watched big name actors humiliate themselves with terrible scripting and terrible acting.
2) The 'made-for-tv-movie' special effects.
3) I watched as Battlefield Earth violated all rules of story and plot.
4) I picked up the idea that knowledge, self-help, and autonomy (an abandonment of 'primitive' belief in a deity or deities) must be the philosophical underpinnings of Scientology.
5) The costumes were laughable, and it was amusing watching the actors clumsily trying to walk around in over sized boots.
6) Knowing how excited John Travolta was to make this movie due to his personal beliefs in Scientology and his love for L. Ron Hubbard, and to see how bad the movie is makes it that much more enjoyable.
7) And finally...I watched Battlefield Earth become the new standard for bad movie making; an excellent example of what not to do for film students.

Overall, Battlefield Earth is absolutely awful. But...it's an epic debacle that is so bad that it's actually enjoyable. So even though it violates every rule of good movie making, do yourself a favor and watch it. You'll have a good time.

If you want an honest, but humorous professional review, read this by Roger Ebert:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20000512/REVIEWS/5120301

Here is how Ebert begins his review of Battlefield Earth: "Battlefield Earth is like taking a bus trip with someone who has needed a bath for a long time. It's not merely bad; it's unpleasant in a hostile way."