[eocavrWM]

Dear Community Members,

Be forwarned, we are approaching a moment in cinematic history that will leave the film adaptation of Kazanzakis' "Last Temptation of Christ" in the dust, even 'The Ten Commandments' with Charleton Heston will pale in comparison, simply due to Computer Graphics.

At the Cannes Festival will be screened, Dan Brown's film adaptation of his mega bestseller (+40 million copies in hardcover alone). Yes, Ladies and Gentleman, "The Da Vinci Code" produced by our lovable Opie, on the Andy Griffith Show, from the '50's.

But money is money, and in the West, money is the last god to show up in fashionalbe dress.

If he was Muslim, the former Ayatollah Khomeni would have put a stop to this nonsense very quickly.

Now, tragically, it only fuels the ideology of Osama bin Laden, that the 'Crusader' West is awash in pornography and blasphemy.

Certainly, the 'Da Vinci Code' is a page turner. But, it is not what Dan Brown claims - only a ficitonal account.

How Christianity is so tolerant, so long suffering!

The Islamic world turns into a hail storm over cartoons. Yet we sleep, as our Lord who died for you and me, is depicted as a fornicator, a revealer of the true gnosis to Judas (supported by the National Geographic) and we sit by, watching the multi-cultural video game unfold.

Did not blessed Father Seraphim (Rose) who reposed in 1982, say that the end is 'closer than you think'?

Stigmata, imagination...it all leads to the crossroad where the Devil trades in souls.

We stand in Judgement. I do not speak lightly. If Salman Rushdie's life has been forever altered due to a fatwah against a false prophet and a false revelation, what are we doing? Sitting aroung eating potato chips and doing our taxes?

No doubt, you have attemped during Holy Week to attend the 12 Gospels, you will do your best to honour the Fast of Holy and Great Friday...so soon the Fast will end, and we will go from the Triodion to the Pentecostarion.

What does it mean, finally now in April 2006, that an Assistant Priest of the Cathedral of the Annunciation, under the Omophorion of Bishop Seraphim, has published, without blessing, the 'most heretical book' that Father Thomas Hopko has ever read?

Does it matter, that Dan Brown is allowed to write and publish a book in which Jesus marries Mary Magdalene, and a Blood-line continues, crushed by the 'ever-evil Catholic Church'?

Is day-to-day life so sufficient, that we never reflect on the impression we give to others?

Mahatma Gandhi is quoted as saying, that he did not become Christian, because he had never met anyone who lived the Gospel.

In our multi-cultural delirium we so easily lose clarity. Christ is Love. Yet out of false shame we prefer to remain mute, when Christ is assaulted right, left and centre. If Muslims defend their Prophet, Christians are too busy finding their 'inner self'.

"...some one says, what's mine and someone else says, well, what is, and you say, oh my God, am I here all alone...'

Was Hemingway's the 'Lost Generation'? Perhaps, in a certain sense.

We are truly lost and not yet found, because our media opium is dominated by the witchcraft of Harry Potter and the deceptively demonic 'Da Vinci Code'.

Let the credits roll...we do not ascribe to Inquistions, but it seems we do ascribe to a complicite silent agreement. Let the kids watch Harry Potter, and after all, the 'Da Vinci Code' is only fiction.

'Lost Generation' that is 2006. For we are so afraid to stand up and say CHRIST IS THE WAY, THE TRUTH, THE LIFE, all who came before Him (and after Him) are false Shephards.

Tomorrow is Great and Holy Friday. What does the death (and approaching Resurrection) of Christ truly mean? Furthermore, what does His death grant FINALLY to humankind? (Theosis).

Unique among all the world Religions, is the one embraced by poor fishermen from the Lake of Galilee, who left all, to follow Him, and in their earthly end to be crucified alike Him.

When Christ asks, "and you"...? what will be our response? "Yes..." or "first let me bury my dead"?

[Impariclainna]

Very ponent post. I am actually telling everyone i know not to watch the movie. Not that that will deter them..we always want what we can't have. At least we are doing what we can.

Side note: Wasn't Tom Hanks married in an Orthodox church? I seem to remember him being married to a greek girl..

[freddyujnf]

Yes, Tom Hanks is Greek Orthodox.

[Impariclainna]

no disrespect to the article or the faith of a man I know nothing of or have never met, but I can not bring myself to believe that a practicing Orthodox person would be involved in a film like this.

Hristos Voskrese,
~Bogdan

[JessiPollo]

I don't at all mind saying that I intend to see the Da Vinci Code movie, and am curious how much like the book it is. There has been such hype about the book, it sometimes gets forgotten that the basic concept - that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and their blood-line continued in Europe - is ages old and certainly not the invention of Dan Brown (though neither is he a plagiarist; it was surely right that he won his recent London court case). What is particularly intriguing to me is the type of modern social commentary that he inserts into the old legend, and the kind of reception his text has had in society. It seems, for example, to have gained an immense following on account of dealing with 'the sacred feminine', though having twice read the book I have been unable to determine precisely what this means, even to Mr Brown; and as a larger concept, I actually find the myth itself, and the book's modernisation of it in particular, to demean the place of femininity and the role of women in the history of Christianity - precisely the opposite of the general 'great liberation' that it seems taken by so many to represent.

I really don't think Christians ought to get terribly worked up about the book, its ideas, or its popularity. Such stories are as old as the Church; even the book of Acts recounts individuals re-interpreting the story of Christ to their own ends and mythologies. And I certainly don't think urges for a Christian fatwah against the film are useful. Today's culture seems to work on flash-in-the-pan 'groundbreaking stories' as films and other events; they're rarely ever groundbreaking, they almost universally fade - and quickly.

The fact that the book has had such success is itself an interesting sociological meter. People seem intrigued by any notion of conspiracy, of the secret; as if Christianity is deficient precisely because it is so open about its truth and its heritage. Let it be.

INXC, Matthew

[Impariclainna]

I will agree that this is nothing new and that perhaps getting worked up over it would be of no benefit. Especially since, as you put it, it will go away. I however do not find it so simply dismissable. I don't expect a Christian lifestyle to be easy; I don't remember a time where I have read about christians having it easy. The constant slander and attack is something that we must all get used to in one way or another; but I see no benefit in just "letting it be". Oh sure, turn the other cheek. Maybe it's just the balkan temper talking, but for some reason it seems that there is a fine line between faith filled acceptance of an attack, and foolish adherence to entertainments debauchery. Are we to never draw a line between good and bad entertainment? You are 100% right on the intrigue level of the Da Vinci Code. However with all due respect, I personally could not get through half of that filth. It is technically unsound, it's principles are baseless and in general I just think it's a horrible peace of writing. I think anyone that knows anything about literature can assume as much just from the first sentence. Now I'm to spend $10 to watch the movie? No thank you.

Hristos Voskrese,
~Bogdan

[GeraldCortis]

Regarding the "Da Vinci Code" movie, I also intend to see it, in much the same spirit as Matthew. The "sacred feminine" or "eternal" or "archetypal" feminine seems to crop up nowadays wherever there is talk of Sophia as God's feminine counterpart who together with Him brought about creation, and those who believe in it are very impressed by Roman Catholic statues of the "black Madonna" e.g. of Montserrat. I guess those who believe God the Father has a feminine counterpart or divine wife, would equally believe that Jesus married or had children by Mary Magdalene. All in the name of a more gender-balanced view of deity, I suppose, and it seems reasonable enough from a logical point of view - but that's probably where part of the problem in this kind of religious speculation lies: it is trying to make the Uncreated "make sense" in the categories of creation.

Incidentally, those who believe in a divine syzygy are probably less hostile to Christianity overall than those who detect, behind the figure of Sophia, the suppressed pre-Christian Mother Goddess whose worship was violently extinguinshed (supposedly) by the male-patriarchal followers of Yahweh.

I am curious, Matthew, where does this idea of a holy bloodline originate? You mention it has been around for some time...

One of the dangers I do sense regarding the book and probably the film also, is that people without strong convictions may be misled into taking these ideas seriously. On the other hand, perhaps a little thinking about "God, and all that" is better than none - wasn't it Oscar Wilde who said something along the lines of no publicity being worse than bad publicity? Again, although I'm glad Orthodox Christians aren't in the business of issuing fatwas even where they may seem well-deserved (but see Mt 7:1), I second Fr Seraphim's feelings that Dan Brown has done our faith an overall disservice and indeed committed blasphemy. Still, it is the blasphemy in my own life which causes me most concern. In Dan Brown's case, it is my personal hope that the Lord will once again use the actions of the enemy to serve the purposes of goodness, to the latter's eternal frustration.

In Christ
Byron

[Escamsrasiush]

And who wants to give the demons 10$? I can see it for free only

[Escamsrasiush]

Petition online against the heretical so called "da vincie code"is available http://www.tfp.org/php/action_form/davinci_code.php

Just Follow the instructions.

[9mm_fan]

Let us not be afraid of heresy, let us simply face it. Let us be prepared at all times, as the Holy Apostle Paul teaches, to defend the hope that is in us, not with petitions or fatwas or suppression, but with Light and Truth and lives lived in Faith, renewed in Christ.

This petition thing is a reaction of fear. "For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind." 2 Timothy 1:7

[Impariclainna]

I agree 100% Herman. Great quote and post.

Hristos Voskrese,
~Bogdan

[Escamsrasiush]

Well, at that time, when that movie will be broad casted on airs and on all TVs in 2007, for small children that are not maturated spiritually yet, and inside our own houses, how can someone not be budged about such?

I don't see a harm to say simply: "NO, please stop that particular known heresy from entering our house", rather then be practically inactive, relying on our children immunity.

What Herman said is very true, but i don't agree 100%.

[limpoporanique]

Here is a link to a very interesting critique of Elaine Pagels's The Gnostic Gospels

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=43736

It was referred to us by a priest from another list.

[Impariclainna]

you are right boulos,

it is important to make a separate case for people that might not be ready for the spiritual battle that comes with heresy. Dare I say none of us are truly ready for this battle? I know I probably am not. I will say though that I agree with the concept, as I stated in my last post. I also agree with your conclusion that it is not so bad to "just say no"

Whichever path we choose, let it be the correct one spiritually for us all.

Hristos Voskrese,
~Bogdan

[Preorbtat]

What follows is my opinion, and I hope not to offend many of you, but I can't keep this in any longer...

I think it is regrettable that people do not see the harm in heretical books/movies such as The Da Vinci Code. It is clearly the spirit of the antichrist which works such things, and I can't help but think Satan is smiling about the popularity of this story and laughing at the Christians who blindly believe this is not having any negative effect to those millions who have read it. I alone know about a dozen Christians who have changed their views on Christ simply by reading this book. I can't imagine how many other marginal believers this story has deluded and has caused them to question who Jesus Christ is. For shame to those who have read it and will go see it in the theaters.

I hope and pray the Vatican officially condemns it. Will it sell more books or cause it to be more popular? Maybe. But at least the rest of the world will know that Christians consider this book a lie. We should not fear heresies, but more importantly we should not fear condeming them. Its remarkable how cartoons of Mohammed can cause such an uprising, but a story which claims historical evidence that Jesus was not divine, that Him and Mary Magdalene deceived the world and had a child, and that the entire Church from the beginning was a complete lie and coverup ends up becoming a sensational hit, rakes in millions upon millions of dollars, and stands to make countless more in the future.

For shame to those who have read it. For shame to those who have enjoyed it and recommended it. And for shame to those who will go and see it at the movies. Perhaps by believing in their own strength of faith, which is obviously stronger than mine since I get repulsed just thinking about reading it and confusing my weak mind, they fail to see how many of their fellow Christians will come to doubt Christ and Him crucified by filling their eyes and their minds with Satan's entertainment and his seeds of doubt.

The eye is the lamp of your body; when your eye is clear, your whole body also is full of light; but when it is bad, your body also is full of darkness. (Luke 11:34)

Forgive me for being so blunt, but I expected a different reaction on Monachos than what I have read.

[GeraldCortis]

Dear Antonios,

Your thread is making me seriously reconsider my position on both the book and the movie. I should point out that I never claimed boycotting the entire "Da Vinci" market is not a viable and seriously respected Christian choice, perhaps the only viable Christian choice.

If my previous posts have led to the impression that I take this "impious book" (Sr Theopesta's words from an earlier thread) for "entertainment", then I have expressed myself badly. My thinking is that a Christian should either not read the book or see the film at all, or that both should be viewed in a deeply critical spirit, preparing to do battle intelligently and in an informed manner with the purveyors of this preposterous garbage. Sadly, there are many such, as you yourself have experienced. As Christians, we ought to know the 'facts and figures' the arguments in this book base themselves on - and claim as true - and we need to be able to show them up for their falsity. For example, the book claims as an actual fact that Jesus' divinity was only made official at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., giving the impression that Arianism was the mainstream Christian view before that! Arius' view however, as we know, was clearly a minority heretical one, and was never the majority view of the early Christians. I agree also that the Vatican should condemn this work, although no doubt that will add fuel to the fiery imaginanations of conspiracy theorists, who will probably see such condemnation as "proof" that the 'suppression of the truth by the Vatican' theory is correct.

You write We should not fear heresies, but more importantly we should not fear condeming them. Its remarkable how cartoons of Mohammed can cause such an uprising, but a story which claims historical evidence that Jesus was not divine, that Him and Mary Magdalene deceived the world and had a child, and that the entire Church from the beginning was a complete lie and coverup ends up becoming a sensational hit, rakes in millions upon millions of dollars, and stands to make countless more in the future. The claims of this story are so ridiculous, that I find it difficult to believe even its supporters don't really know they are false, at least in the sense that they are not, and never have been, the story of Christianity. Behind the "Da Vinci" phenomenon is not really heresy, but a guilty atheism. It's not that anyone (given perhaps a few cranks) really believes the novel's claims; it's more that sadly, few modern people really believe in God or Christ as anything but mythology, our real modern deities being science, technology and human ingenuity - but at the same time the unconscious guilt this provokes is superficially "eased" by books like this, which really say: "relax, all that stuff about Christ and God was just made up anyway - it's all about human struggles over conflicting beliefs and political interests ultimately". In this sense, the Da Vinci Code is satanic, inasmuch as all worldly thinking that excludes God is inimical to Him; there is no real mystery, in the sense of mysterion in this book however. Its soiled pages can never ultimately touch the deeper, fathomless and spotless appeal of the Truth.

Of course, unconscious guilt cannot account entirely for the huge popularity of the book. Well, that thrown in with a bit of murder / mystery / thriller action, a crash course in half-digested "symbology made easy", and a few pretentious but authoritative-sounding reasons to be both feminist and carnal - well, that makes for quite a tempting modern brew, even if it is poison.

Would I let my children watch it or read it? Not until they are old enough to know better.

For those of us who wish to be "in the world, but not of it" there seems to me to be a necessary creative tension between the extirpation and the transformation of provocations such as this. Boycotting is a good option, but lays us open to being caught off-guard, especially if we are living in the world, i.e. not monastics. On the other hand, I can clearly see the even greater risk of uninformed exposure: Perhaps by believing in their own strength of faith, which is obviously stronger than mine since I get repulsed just thinking about reading it and confusing my weak mind, they fail to see how many of their fellow Christians will come to doubt Christ and Him crucified by filling their eyes and their minds with Satan's entertainment and his seeds of doubt. I know my faith is weak. I also know many brothers and sisters will be confused and misled by the trash being served up by this book. I am still wondering whether it's best to leave well alone, or prepare to do battle. My only hope is that our Lord and God Jesus Christ will help me ond others in my position make the right choices as we walk together through this valley of the shadow.

Many thanks for your thoughtful words of caution Antonios. Pray for me, a sinner.

In Christ
Byron

[JessiPollo]

Dear Byron and others,

There's been some interesting food-for-thought in this thread as of late. In particular to a few points you raised:

The "sacred feminine" or "eternal" or "archetypal" feminine seems to crop up nowadays wherever there is talk of Sophia as God's feminine counterpart who together with Him brought about creation, and those who believe in it are very impressed by Roman Catholic statues of the "black Madonna" e.g. of Montserrat. I guess those who believe God the Father has a feminine counterpart or divine wife, would equally believe that Jesus married or had children by Mary Magdalene. All in the name of a more gender-balanced view of deity, I suppose, and it seems reasonable enough from a logical point of view - but that's probably where part of the problem in this kind of religious speculation lies: it is trying to make the Uncreated "make sense" in the categories of creation.

One of the chief problems I see with the kind of motivation and response one encounters in the 'sacred feminine' of works like Mr Brown's Da Vinci Code, is that it's essentially an attempt to conjure up feminine significance in a particular 20th- and 21st-century form, as if only these are of authentic value to the place of women in society and religion. To make ancient Christianity palatable, to make it 'appreciate the sacred in the female', one has to re-define it along modern-day conceptions of what is sacred, what gives value, what is female. Such approaches tend to be open to a wide variety of 'new' hypotheses as to all manner of historical possibilities, except the possibility that there is a valuation of men and women as holy and spiritual, but one that is not in accordance with modern conceptions. That Mary Magdalen might have been a friend of the incarnate Son is sexist and oppresive; she must herself be some manner of equal, if not in her own right a deity. That she was once a prostitute is not a sign of a life transformed and transfigured; it is male domination and the desire to discredit any female influence of note. And on and on.

Women must become goddesses; beliefs and traditions with male centre-points must be re-envisaged with secret, hidden female dignitaries. In other words, history must be re-interpreted along modern beliefs of what constitues 'equality': namely, that unless women and men have exactly the same roles, then one is oppressor, one is oppressed. There is rarely, if ever, room in such schemes for the idea that value and true worth have less to do with gender and more with transfiguration in Christ - a transfiguration that brings out the full worth, value and beauty of all of creation and all humanity, male and female.

That's the point I always find so ironic about such attempts. In dismissing outright the possibility that Christianity might have something profound to say to the relations of men and women in the cosmos, 'new Christianities' are preached with a 'sacred feminine' that is essentially nothing more than a mythologised and romanticised version of the early feminism of Mary Wollstonecraft -- that if men and women all wear the same clothes, hold the same jobs and behave in the same manner, then they are 'equal'; only now we dress it up in a 'religious' context: only if one thrusts women and men into precisely the same historical religious roles, are they ever of equal value. One romanticises a kind of feminism that was abandoned - even by feminists - over a century ago, precisely because it ultimately fails to find real meaning and value in authentic personhood, male and female.

I am curious, Matthew, where does this idea of a holy bloodline originate? You mention it has been around for some time... This is a hard question to pin down. There is some grounding for saying that they go back to the fourth and fifth centuries: texts such as the Gospel of Mary and Gospel of Judas (found in the Berlin Gnostic Codex and the Nag Hammadi Codices) present the basic pattern (and in fact both are called upon in Brown's book). Specific forms of the myth appear all over the Christian world, with variations based on locality, etc. But the basic idea is ages old. In a sense, it is even predicted or foretold in scripture: Pilate is concerned already at the crucifixion that the body of Jesus will be stolen away, and myths circulated of some miraculous power, etc. - hence the sealed tomb.

INXC, Matthew

[JessiPollo]

Dear Antonios, I appreciate your recent post (#15 in this thread), as well as Byron's response. I do not agree with some of it, mind you; but this is a matter much to the heart and mind (and needs and situation) of each. I do wish, though, to offer a few thoughts in reaction.

No one, I think, questions the fact that such a film can cause damage to certain individuals - those who are easily led astray by a good story or nice screen effects, etc. I do not think anyone in this community has suggested that this is not a possibility, nor a reality to be ignored. No one is suggesting that Christians should indescriminately flock to the cinemas to see the film version (Bogdan remarked specifically on this in his post). One must exercise discernment, in this as in all things.

Further, I don't see anyone arguing that heresy ought be called anything other than heresy, or stood up against when encountered.

What has happened on this thread is that certain people (certainly me, in my first reply) have suggested that a blanket protest against the book and film, a kind of Christian 'fatwah', is not an appropriate globalised reaction for Christianity. As has been discussed many times in many contexts in this community, a blind shutting up of one's eyes and ears to the 'ways of the world' is not - at least it seems to me - sufficient to the pastoral responsibility of the Church in the world. Some Christian persons will require it, need it, no doubt; in some contexts it must be the norm. But the Church sojourns in the world, is the spiritual hospital to those of this world, who exercises her priestly office to humanity after the example of Christ who did not shun, yet did not succumb, to the degeneracy of the world around him. I cannot help but hear the voice of 'the scribes and pharisees' shouting 'He sits and eats with sinners!' when I hear what at times amounts nearly to a condemnation of any Christian who would read this book or see this film.

Christ entered into the world and into the context of the most appalling realities of what we now call - precisely because he entered into it - the 'first century'. He befriended and visited prostitutes, liars, thieves, heathen, pagans, adulterers, murderers, and, not least, those religious who perverted religion to their own ends. 'It is not those who are well who need a physician, but the sick'.

We live now in the twenty-first century. The world is still sick, and in many ways with the same illnesses Christ encountered in Galilee. There are still murderers, still adulterers. And there are still those who would pervert religion - even now Christ's own body - to their own ends, or to the ends of the social morays of the day. One of the great spiritual struggles of these decades in which we live is precisely the type of neo-gnosticism that inspired the film Stigmata, and now The Da Vinci Code. It's everywhere, all pervasive. The only reason Mr Brown's book has had such success is because it feeds directly into a kind of gnosticisation of popular 'religious' sentiment that's been at work at least since the 1960s.

One can react in any number of ways. Surely what is untrue should be condemned as untrue, and exposed for what it is. Of course. But standing on one's pulpit and shouting to the world, 'You brood of vipers' is only part of the Church's witness. John the Baptist spoke to mobs, to crowds; by and large, Christ spoke to persons. He spoke to what ailed the person before him, often to a degree far deeper than anything they had expected, but to them, of them. Christ spoke out against adultery ('He who lusts in his heart... has already committed adultery...'), but when it came to his response to the adulterous woman, engaged with her. He did not shame those who would engage with sinners; he shamed only those who would have prevented him from doing so.

Is our mission simply to tell the world how fallen and wrong it is? I see no precedent for this, in the life of Christ and the history of the Church, as a sole responsibility. We must never shirk it, but we must never think that shunning wrong and those who are touched by it is the fullness of Christian responsibility. The Church is the body of Christ to a sick and suffering world, and must be prepared to engage with that world in all its deficiencies and wrongs - precisely in its deficiencies and wrongs - if it is to fulfil its priestly and pastoral duty to offer the healing of Christ not simply to some generic concept of humanity, but to actual human persons, concrete people with concrete problems. We are called to be 'in the world, not of it'; it's not an either-or position from which one gets to choose.

I fully intend to see the film when it comes out next month. I fully intend to call heresy heresy (and have done so already on television and radio numerous times), but I intend to see it. I intend to see it precisely because I also, like you, know individuals who have been swayed by it's story; or if not its story precisely, the general religious ethos it perpetuates. I'll see it because seeing what it is that captures the hearts of a generation is a necessary part - part, not whole - of responding to those individuals whose hearts are so captured.

INXC, Matthew

[Preorbtat]

Thank you Matthew for your post. I appreciate your position, but I still, mind you, don't agree with its conclusion. I am a lay person and hold no degree in theology, and I am quite sure you are much more learned in Orthodoxy than I am and than most people in this forum for that matter. I deeply respect you from what I know about you and am grateful for this online community. (in other words, please don't be mad at me for disagreeing with you! )

I don't believe for one instance that a heretical story like this is going to sway your beliefs. I'm confident your convictions are strong and your faith is solid. However, that is not the case with many of your fellow Christians (or those who would become Christians). Perhaps I am one of those people, and shunning the book and movie is what is needful in my individual situation. However, when you say that "one must exercise discernment", this is hard enough for deeply spiritual people let alone for those who are confused and disillusioned. The reality is, this is the spiritual condition of many, if not most, people these days. One must also excercise discernment in what they are endorsing and propagating.

I cannot see how your example of Christ sitting with sinners or His saving work has anything to do with reading a deeply heretical book which has led many souls astray, endorsing it as a good read, and then supporting it by going to see it in the theaters. Are we to accept such actions as Christlike 'engagement with sinners'? Is this the way Christ led by example? He did not shun the sinner, as you mention, but He did shun the sin.

You stated that "He did not shame those who would engage with sinners; He shamed only those who would have prevented him from doing so." I submit to you that endorsing this movie is preventing Him from engaging the hearts of men, and this should resoundly be put to shame. It is true that this is an age-old heresy, and there may be some fascinating social dynamics involved with its popularity, but to just chalk this up to "a flash in the pan" story which will 'quickly and universally fade away' is, by all due respect, an insensitive and ignorant statement to make while millions of people are being disillusioned and falling away from the Truth.

I would like to end my post by trying to tie together two observations you have mentioned, namely that the the Church is a spiritual hospital and that as the Body of Christ, it must be prepared to engage with the sick world in all its deficiencies and wrongs.

In the event of a chemical or biological accident, whether from an industrial incident or a terrorist attack, the first order of business is to announce a disaster code and to shut all the entrances to the hospital, especially the ones to the emergency department. This is done to secure the premises and protect the integrity of the facility and the health of those people within, especially those already sick from various ailments, from being exposed and contaminated, as they are the most vulnerable to die from such a contamination. Such procedures act to prevent the spread of disease and allow the hospital to efficiently concentrate its resources and energy in treating the sick which will be arriving, rather than expending itself on self-decontamination.

A heresy is such an accident, and in this regard, a terrorist attack by Satan. If the Church is going to perform its priestly and pastoral duty of healing its spiritually sick members, it will do this much more effectively if it first condemns the heresy for what it is, protects its already vulnerable from such demonic influences, thereby creating a suitable environment to address those newly contaminated members arriving in the ambulance bay in a more personal and individual manner.

By setting the example of spending time, money, and energy engaged with this heresy, it makes the job of the hospital more difficult and the vulnerable more so.

[JessiPollo]

I cannot see how your example of Christ sitting with sinners or His saving work has anything to do with reading a deeply heretical book which has led many souls astray, endorsing it as a good read, and then supporting it by going to see it in the theaters. Are we to accept such actions as Christlike 'engagement with sinners'? Is this the way Christ led by example? He did not shun the sinner, as you mention, but He did shun the sin.

There is a certain degree of round-and-round to which one will come in discussions like this. Setting that aside, since you make many good points, I'd simply say this: most people probably know what adultery is. Should someone approach who is engaged in adultery, genuinely seeking conversion and change, most people likely can respond, to some degree or another. Should an individual come, however, deeply engaged with and submersed in modern-day neo-gnosticism, what will your response be?

The example I see overwhelmingly in the fathers of the Church is to know the world - including the thought processes that are enshrined in the things that are popular for a time. Look at the actual content of the works of an Irenaeus, or an Epiphanius, or an Athanasius, or a Maximus. None ever suggests all their flock should go out and imbibe in the culture simply for its own sake; as before, the fact that some people are not in a position to encounter such material without it posing serious problems to their spiritual life, and who thus should not do so, has, I think, been a given from the beginning of this conversation - no one has ever suggested otherwise.

But to call down shame on people who do... this seems to step too far over the line.

INXC, Matthew