Editorial note: It seems that the Reuters interview either exaggerated or outright mischaracterized Met. Hilarion's original address, in Russian.  It appears that his comments are directed towards "militant secularism", an ideology at whose hands many religious practitioners in Russia have suffered extensively.  Hopefully, clarification on his actual views regarding evolution will be offered at some point.  It is certain that there are Orthodox in both Russia and the U.S. who are concerned with evolution and take the tact identified in the Reuters article, so my post will remain.

Dear Metropolitan Hilarion,

I write as a North American Orthodox, a lifelong member of the Orthodox Church, an Orthodox theologian and ethicist, and the daughter of two educated scientists, a physician and a geologist.  I am acutely aware of the confusion and conflict generated as a result of misunderstandings regarding science, the teachings of Darwin, and the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Here, in the U.S., some Protestant Christians are fighting tooth and nail for precisely what you are asking: the demotion (or even removal) of Darwin and the theory of evolution from the classroom, and the inclusion of various other theories, usually Creationism or its new incarnation, Intelligent Design.  While these Christians are fighting a battle they believe to be in accord with their faith and their interpretation of Scripture, their views are not compatible with Orthodoxy.

Michael Pollan reviews five books on the rise of the increasingly visible food movement.  The article alone is worth reading, providing excellent summaries as good reviews are supposed to do.  His closing comments on Janet Flammang's book are particular interesting given the tension created by the apparently conflicting values of women in the workplace and the importance of shared meals perceived as "women's work."

The full article is here.

But the movement’s interest in such seemingly mundane matters as taste and the other textures of everyday life is also one of its great strengths. Part of the movement’s critique of industrial food is that, with the rise of fast food and the collapse of everyday cooking, it has damaged family life and community by undermining the institution of the shared meal. Sad as it may be to bowl alone, eating alone can be sadder still, not least because it is eroding the civility on which our political culture depends.

John Sanidopoulos, whose posts on tidbits of Orthodox tradition and the Saints I enjoy reading, re-posted an article by Alice Linsley today.  Linsley is a former Episcopalian priest who left the priesthood and eventually joined the Orthodox Church.  She appears to be a sort of living proof-text used by some Orthodox assure us that women are not called to the priesthood (except, as she says in one explanation of both her call and eventual departure, when men fail to serve.  Only then does God call women to serve in this capacity.)  Since my response was a bit longer than most comments warrant, I decided to post it here.  

The Mystagogy post is here, and the original post at Preachers Institute is here.

The devotion below has been circulating the internet in the days since it was posted, particularly among the Orthodox.  It is, frankly, quite nice to have such sympathetic attention drawn to Orthodox liturgical practice.  I suspect much of its popularity is precisely because of such sympathetic attention on an otherwise quite Protestant website.  In addition, it highlights a number of aspects of Orthodoxy which are true, or, more honestly, which some of us would like to be true.  So while I appreciate elements of its characterization of Orthodoxy, and certainly resonate with the danger inherent in cults of personality, there is quite a bit here that is disingenuous.  I wouldn’t think the more disingenuous elements worthy of comment except that they are rhetorical descriptions which are voiced by many Orthodox, and I am not at all sure they are true.  They feed into a construction of ourselves, and a construction of us by others, which seems more about how we want to portray ourselves (or be portrayed) than about how we really are.

I recently quit the choir, primarily because I realized that I was having trouble praying while singing.  It took me a long time to make this decision since I couldn’t understand how it is that I could sing the liturgy and not be praying.  I am not sure I have ever regularly attended a church and not been in the choir.  Any number of factors probably contributed to the problem: concentrating on timing, the music, singing in a language I do not actually speak.  All of these things can distract from actually praying rather than just mouthing the words I sing in (thought not always) tune.  At other times in my life, these elements were not distracting, but they were now for whatever reason.  It was just time for a break.

My first Sunday standing in the congregation was, well, surprising.  I must admit, I sang virtually everything I would have sung had I been in the choir.  I am not sure I am able to participate in liturgy without singing.  At various points though, I didn’t sing.  Sometimes, I read the translation (if it was in Greek).  A number of times, I read the prayers along with the priest.  And it was wonderful, reading these prayers.

I had ample opportunity to read scripture this past Holy Week, as close as I get any more to “preaching the good news.”  During Holy Week, significant sections of the Psalter are read, and the otherwise too rare opportunity to read texts from the Hebrew scriptures is plentiful.  As is my custom, I modify the language a bit.

by Irene Dimiris-Papageorgiou
(trans. from Greek)

I stand waiting. I know.
I know God is here. In silence.
Who believes me?
Me, a woman.
A woman waiting. Knowing.
Knowing death is trampled. Christ is risen! I tell them all.

I don't hear their affirmations.
Of God's resurrection. Of my witness.
Of me.

JK Rowling on why she will not be voting Tory in the upcoming British Elections.  In case you don't follow British politics, that would be the British party that shares similar rhetorical values with the GOP.  Courtesy of 3quarkesdaily via Crooked Timber.  

I had become a single mother when my first marriage split up in 1993. In one devastating stroke, I became a hate figure to a certain section of the press, and a bogeyman to the Tory Government. Peter Lilley, then Secretary of State at the DSS, had recently entertained the Conservative Party conference with a spoof Gilbert and Sullivan number, in which he decried “young ladies who get pregnant just to jump the housing list”. The Secretary of State for Wales, John Redwood, castigated single-parent families from St Mellons, Cardiff, as “one of the biggest social problems of our day”. (John Redwood has since divorced the mother of his children.) Women like me (for it is a curious fact that lone male parents are generally portrayed as heroes, whereas women left holding the baby are vilified) were, according to popular myth, a prime cause of social breakdown, and in it for all we could get: free money, state-funded accommodation, an easy life.

Question: So many opportunities exist for women in the Church, why are you so concerned about the priesthood? Women can be parish council presidents, Sunday school teachers, the wives of priests, why do they need more? Why can't you be satisfied with what you already have?

I recently spoke at Huffington Ecumenical Institute's 2010 Symposium on Women and Church, East and West. My talk, "Virtuous Icons: Unique Persons or Gendered Stereotypes" is available in four parts below via YouTube. Videos of all the lectures are available via LMU's iTunesU podcast.  I have included the intro and conclusion as text below.