remembrance of God

One of my constant areas of struggle is with remembrance of God. I too easily go through my day without giving God much thought, living like it's just me facing whatever comes my way. It's a common theme in ascetic writing, but two writers in particular come to mind (perhaps because their audience is ordinary laypersons).

From St. Tikhon of Zadonsk's Journey to Heaven, in the section "on the remembrance of God in every endeavor":

Everywhere and in every endeavor remember the Lord your God and His holy love for us. Everything that you may see in heaven and on earth and in your house awakens you to the remembrance of the Lord your God and His holy love. We are enveloped in God's love. Every creature of God bears witness to his love for us. When you see God's creation and make use of it, say to yourself thus: This is the work of the hands of the Lord my God, and it was created for my sake. These luminaries of the heavens . . . . This earth . . . . This water . . . . This cattle . . . . This house . . . . This food . . . . This garment . . . . And so on.

This icon is the image of Christ . . . . I worship His unspeakable love for man.

This icon is the image of the Theotokos . . . . Blessed among women is the Mother that bore God incarnate . . . .

This is the icon of the Forerunner . . . .

This is the icon of the apostle . . . .

This word, the Sacred Scripture which I hear . . . . O Lord, grant me ears to hear Thy holy word.

This holy house, the church in which I stand . . . .

This consecrated man, the bishop or priest . . . .

This brother of mine, every man . . . . In a word, every occasion and every thing can and must inspire you to a loving remembrance of the Lord your God, and must show you His love toward you, since even His chastisement comes from His love toward us. According to the Scripture, Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth (Heb. 12:6). Remember, then, everywhere and on every occasion and in all things, the name of the Lord your God. Take care not to forget your Benefactor when you enjoy His benefactions, lest you appear ungrateful to Him; for forgetfulness of a benefactor is a clear sign of ingratitude.

And from St. Theophan the Recluse's The Spiritual Life, in Letter #48:

You write that you cannot manage your thoughts at all, they constantly wander off, your prayer is not going as you would like it, and you scarcely think about God as you go about your daily affairs and deal with other people. . . .

Letter #49:

We have a popular belief, fairly widespread, that holds that as soon as you occupy yourself with work around the house or at your place of business, you have already left the sphere of Godly things and things pleasing to God. . . . This is not the case at all. Life's everyday affairs, upon which the foundation of the home and society depend, are appointed by God, and carrying them out is not a desertion to the sphere of the ungodly, but a continuation of Godly affairs. . . .

Letter #50:

Remembrance of God is necessary. It is necessary to bring this to the point where the thought of God becomes intimately linked with and becomes one with the mind and heart and with our consciousness. . . .

When exerting yourself to maintain the thought on God, do not treat it as ordinary thought. Instead, combine it with every concept of God that you know, Divine attributes and activities, extending the mind first in one thing and then another. Meditate more on the Divine creation and Providence; on the Incarnation of God the Word and the matter of our salvation that He perfected; on His death, Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven; the descent of the Holy Spirit; the founding of the Holy Church that is the keeper of truth and grace; and of the place prepared for all believers in the Heavenly Kingdom, including you. Meditate also on the Divine attributes, the inexpressible goodness, wisdom, omnipotence, justice, omnipresence, all-mightiness, all-knowingness, ever-blessedness, and greatness. Review all this, if you will, during prayer, or best of all, when you read. When you have done so, you will clearly comprehend that when you think about God, such thought is not ordinary; instead, it is thought that accompanies and evokes a great number of ideas on salvation that affect the heart and energize the spirit. . . .

Letter #51:

It is necessary for you to reinterpret everything that comes before your eyes in a spiritual sense. This reinterpretation must fill your mind to such an extent that when you look at something, your eyes see something sensual, but your mind contemplates a spiritual truth. . . .

When you have done this, each thing will be like a holy book or an article in a holy book for you. Then each thing will lead you to thought about God, as will each occupation and deed. You will then walk in the midst of the sensual world as if it were the spiritual realm. Everything will speak to you of God and keep your attention on Him. If each time you add the fear of God and awe before His majesty to this remembrance, then what other teachers and advisors do you need?!

It was actually good timing that I started assembling these passages around the feast of the Holy Cross. Abbot Gerasim of St. Herman of Alaska Monastery gave the homily at Great Vespers, speaking about the Scripture readings and hymns of the feast. He highlighted a lot of patristic typology related to the cross, much of which I'd heard before on one occasion or another, but all of which was good to hear again. It seems the cross is everywhere to be seen, if one knows how to look. If I could get that much down, I think I'd be well on my way.

progress

I've been reading Patapsco: Life Along Maryland's Historic River Valley (2008)--a collection of photos and interviews with longtime residents of Ellicott City, Oella, Elkridge, and Relay. It's a wonderful book, and perfectly suited for my interest in the local history of my adopted home. In the last interview of the book, Harold Hedeman of Avalon (adjacent to Relay) remembers:

I love trains--especially steam trains. Yeah, after the bridge went in, they had local trains that stopped at every station between Baltimore and Washington. Then they had an express train which was Relay, Laurel, Washington, that's all it stopped. And then, of course, they had the Capital Limited, as they called it, and that didn't stop anywhere. That just took you right over.

And from Washington to Baltimore on the steam train ('cause I rode it more than once) it's forty miles exactly. I would have my watch out and usually it was on time. It was supposed to get there in forty minutes--and many times it was there in thirty-eight minutes.

And I'm telling you, there are curves on this end of the line and there are curves on the other end, and there's a lot of straight track in the middle of that route between Baltimore and Washington on the B & O. And when those steam trains were on that straight stretch of track over there, they were going between eighty and ninety miles an hour, because they had to go slower on each end of the line where all the curves were.

Oh, I always loved trains. More than once, I would get over on the boulevard, 'cause Washington Boulevard is right smack alongside of that straight section of B & O track. And when you had a steam train going through there--one of these big locomotives like the Capital Limited, you know, a big long train? And those driving wheels are eighty inches in diameter on that train, three pairs of driving wheels on those passenger engines that run those trains.

And when they went by at that speed, I mean, that was a sight to see. The ground was trembling where you're standing, and you can imagine, you know, that big arm that connects those wheels? You can't believe it that piece of equipment can be going that way, but it's going so fast that you can't even see, you know, it's just a blur. I mean, those wheels and that arm are just a blur going by there.

So, you know, it's a sight to see. So when they changed to diesel engines, I thought, phooey, I don't want any part of those things. I'll take the steam train.

Today the MARC Camden line is the only passenger train that runs the route he's talking about. It doesn't have a nonstop like the Capital Limited. The fastest scheduled time is the 843 morning express, which stops at Dorsey, Savage, Laurel, Muirkirk, and Washington. The scheduled run is 1:04; I don't normally ride that train, so I can't say whether it ever arrives ahead of schedule. In my experience, they sometimes do, but not by much. More often, there are delays, including the ubiquitous summer "heat restrictions"--anytime the temperature gets over 90 degrees, CSX says it's too dangerous to run the trains over 50 mph.

Glad to see we've come so far in 80 years.

A Simple--if Overly Specific--Guide to Commuting between Elkridge and NIH

When I moved to Elkridge almost a year ago and started commuting back and forth to NIH, I wasn't able to find much information online about the specifics of riding the MARC. On my first attempt, I boarded the wrong train coming home and only just missed sailing off to who-knows-where. It took time to figure out the best places to stand, the kinds of delays to expect, etc. In the interest of perhaps sparing someone such inconveniences, and at the risk of thwarting some adventure, I offer here a hopefully simple (but wordy) guide to my particular commute.

First leg: Elkridge Crossing to Dorsey MARC Station

I live in the Elkridge Crossing neighborhood, near the corner of Rt. 1 and Montgomery Rd. The public transit options include HowardTransit Purple Route, MTA Commuter Route 320, and MTA MARC Train Camden Line. The first two stop within walking distance, but neither is of much use for my commute. The Purple Route first run is at 7:00 a.m. I could catch the 320 a little after 6:00 a.m., but I'd still have to walk 15 min or more from Rt. 1 and Dorsey Rd. to the MARC station. The earliest I could start work is 8:00, which would get me back too late to catch the last 320. The last rush-hour Purple Route would get me home no earlier than 7:00 p.m., just when the kids were going to bed.

So, I bike to and from the MARC station. It takes about 20 min. each way--maybe a bit longer in the evening, since there's more uphill. As I've commented elsewhere, Dorsey is not designed well for bike access. You have no choice but to come down Rt. 1 (there are some more roundabout alternatives, but almost none of them keeps you off it for long), past the station at Rt. 100, turn left on Dorsey Rd., left again on Douglas Legum Dr., right on Deerpath Rd., cut through to the station parking lot, and lock your bike up down by the station itself. I don't know how much the lockers are. I'm cheap, so I just leave my clunker at the bike rack, and so far nothing has happened to it.

NOTE: St. Denis MARC Station is probably about the same distance away, in the opposite direction. I can't comment on getting to it because I've never tried. The train stops there infrequently, so for my schedule it would be impossible.

Second Leg: Dorsey MARC Station to Washington Union Station

I take the first train of the morning, but I haven't noticed much difference on the rare occasion that I've taken a later train. Normally you wait on the platform closest to the station to head south. If the signal is red, it may mean that the train will come in on the opposite track. There are loudspeakers, and sometimes you'll get a message indicating if there's a delay or track change. You can also sign up for e-mail notifications, which I would recommend if you carry a blackberry or some such device.

The main thing you need to know about riding the Camden Line is that it runs on CSX (freight) tracks. Freight traffic seems to get the priority in most cases, so sometimes a train will have to wait for something (never sure what) to happen. Sometimes you'll have to change tracks to accommodate a more important schedule. Then there are signal problems, switching problems, and the ubiquitous "heat restrictions," where CSX limits the speed of the MARC trains any time it gets over 90 degrees. Basically, expect to arrive late, and be appreciative if you arrive on time. Afternoons tend to be worse, but it won't be long before you spend half an hour standing on the platform in the morning, waiting for a train that's delayed for some vague reason.

The car closest to the engine is usually the quiet car. At some stations, the platform is too small, and you have to board or exit through certain cars. Aside from that, if you want to make the best time possible, identify the car that will get you closest to where you want to go. In the morning, you want one of the front two cars. Normally you can only use the rear doors in the first car or the front doors in the second car. Since they're next to each other, it makes little difference which car you actually ride in--just get as close to the doors as you can. You'll want to wait somewhere around the far end of the second bench on the platform. If you can't get a seat close to the door, you can do like a lot of people and stand in the aisle after Riverdale.

Union Station is the end of the line, so there's no danger of sleeping through your stop. One side of the aisle has two-seaters, the other has three. I prefer the two-seat side if I don't have to go far to get it. The aisle seat on the three-seat side is too short to sleep comfortably, and it's awkward to sit down in the middle seat if there are only two passengers in the row. If you don't mind sitting by the window, the side doesn't matter much. The bathroom is usually in the end car, though personally I've never used it. I usually go when I get to the train station.

When you exit at Union Station, walk toward the front of the train. Once through the doors, head right, then down the escalators, and through the turnstiles. If you need the men's room, it's straight through the doors from the platform. I think the women's room is further down to the left.

Third Leg: Union Station to Medical Center

There's good information on the WMATA site about riding Metro, so I'm not going to say much here. If you have time, head all the way down toward the opposite end of the platform. Wait along the railing next to the last escalator structure. By boarding the train there, you'll be just about in position to head right up the escalator when you get off at the other end. I usually get out of my seat at Bethesda and get in position by the door.

Fourth Leg: Medical Center Metro to Building 31

I usually walk up the escalator to save time. Keep walking straight ahead. Visitors have to go through the Gateway Center to your left. Anyone with a badge can walk down to the other end and enter through the turnstiles. Once inside, you can take a shuttle or walk. If I arrive more or less on schedule, I can usually tell by the time and the number of people waiting whether the Campus Shuttle has already come by or not. If it has, and I don't see Mid-Pike, I'll walk. Otherwise I'll usually wait. Mid-Pike is faster, since it goes straight from the gate to 31. Campus is more regular, because it doesn't have to deal with outside traffic. It also comes more frequently.

Return Trip

I take the Rockledge or Executive Plaza Shuttle back to the Metro. Campus Limited would also work. Again, I jog down the escalator, and if there's a wait, I walk all the way to the opposite end of the platform. The further you can get to the front of the train, the better. The escalator at Union Station will be just outside the front door, and it's usually mobbed. Get a seat right by the door, or stake out a spot to stand somewhere around Metro Center. Doors open on the left.

Up the escalator, through the turnstiles, up the next escalator, then straight ahead. Check the screen for your gate. This is important. There are electronic displays at the end of the tracks, but they don't always work. More on that in a bit. I usually run to the bathroom if I have plenty of time, so I don't have to again before riding home. There's also a display in the passenger waiting area, if you didn't already get your gate number. Everything's Gate A. I think that's all MARC trains--definitely all Camden.

Now, here's the tricky part. If the track displays are working, take a quick look at yours. It should say "far north end," if the trains are stacked. Sometimes they'll put one train in front of another. Unless you're super early, that almost always means yours is out on the end. You'll have to walk *past* the train behind it. Most of the time, the rear train isn't boarding yet, so you can tell by the closed doors that it's not yours. If it is, check the size of the cars. Camden trains are mostly single-decker, occasionally with one double. If you see a lot of double-decker cars, keep walking. Once you've been riding a while, you'll get to know the faces on your regular train and the conductors (though they do change). When in doubt, ask. Ask the conductor if possible; ask people around you if you don't see one. There will usually be an announcement at some point before the train pulls out, but if you got on the wrong one, chances are pretty good you'll miss the one you wanted by the time you hear anything.

This time, you want the rear of the train. I usually go for the second-to-last car, because they fill up faster, and the bathroom in the last car pushes you back from the door. If you don't get a good spot, you can move forward once people start clearing out, or stand in the aisle after Savage. Just watch where the conductor is hanging out, so he'll have room to get by. Once you exit, walk around the rear of the train and across the tracks back to the station side. If you need to use the bathroom or wait for a ride, the doors facing the parking lot should be open.

I ride my bike back the way I came, with one exception. I take Old Washington Blvd at the split to simplify turning left on Montgomery Rd. Traffic is more of an issue later in the day. You have more shoulder to work with, but don't get too comfortable with it. It will vanish into a turn lane or a curb without much warning.

NOTE: A word about MARC tickets. There are ticket machines in most stations. I don't use them, because I get a subsidy and you can't pay with vouchers. The Amtrak counter at Union Station will sell MARC tickets, but for my purposes it's very inefficient. Because I don't commute every day, I buy one-way tickets. Because I get subsidy vouchers, I buy large quantities at a time. At a manned MARC counter, this is pretty easy--they just punch in your destination and the number of tickets, and hit print. At the Amtrak counter, they have to key and print each ticket separately. Make sure to budget time if you have to buy your tickets that way.

What Not to Read

I'm considering a sporadic series of brief posts on books that the average Orthodox layman or inquirer probably should not read. I realize it's a presumptuous venture. For starters, just because I shouldn't have read something doesn't mean no one should. I understand that, and everything I write here must be qualified, at least by saying that I have no authority to speak from anything but personal experience. Take my advice for what it's worth, or don't take it at all. Another problem is that, obviously, for me to comment that a book is better left unread, I must have read it myself. (I suppose this is not strictly true, since I could just pass along useful advice I've found elsewhere, but that's not really my intention here.) Why, if I bothered to read it myself, would I tell others to avoid it? And why didn't I get (or follow) some good advice before diving in and reading the book in the first place? Well, again, you have to take my advice for what it is. Yes, I do let my curiosity get the better of me. But if I can spare someone else from making the same mistake, it's worth the effort to try.

Having said that, the first book I want to advise against reading is the Rudder. This well-known collection of Orthodox canon law is noteworthy--if you're at all familiar with the field in Roman Catholicism--for its outlandish brevity. Even so, it contains very little that is of any direct use to a layman. Perhaps most importantly, canon must always be handled with economy. Knowing the rule is certainly useful; but knowing the rule without knowing how and when to apply it is dangerous. In practice, many of these rules are relaxed in various ways and at various times. We might quibble over cases where perhaps the rules are relaxed too far (though speaking for myself, I have absolutely no basis from which to quibble), but it is axiomatic in Orthodox canon law that economy plays a critical role. Economy is the domain of clergy, and the specific application of canons is best left to their discretion. A layman is ill-equipped to do much of anything beneficial to himself or anyone else in this area.

That much I knew before I ever tried to read the Rudder, which is actually why I felt safe carrying out the project I assigned myself. I had no serious expectation that I would end up with a bunch of new rules to follow. I just wanted to satisfy my curiosity about the contents of the book, particularly how much would have any bearing on someone who's not a monk or cleric. The simple answer is--very little. Most of the canons have to do with things like the appointment, movements, and discipline of clergy and monastics. Of those that don't, two large categories remain--established penalties for various types of sin (which should be applied by a confessor, not by an individual to himself), and statements about doctrine, heresy, and how to resolve schisms. The theological statements may be of some general use, but their contents are repeated in so many places--and often much more clearly and completely--that it hardly bears recommendation as a key source for learning Orthodox doctrine. Even what one might glean from the canons about discipline, since they incidentally identify various types of sin, is probably not worth the trouble. There are plenty of guides for confession, any of which would contain a more or less effective list of sins. The Rudder is not organized as a confession guide, so it's best not used as one. Indeed, if that's what you're looking for, the Exomologetarion would be a much handier tool, and it's still probably in at least the debatable category for lay use.

I might add that most of the sins listed are so straightforward in Scripture that they need no special comment as sins. Again, the point of the canons is to address the means of discipline, not identify the sin as such. As I was skimming through, I found only a handful of offenses that I wouldn't have picked up from a general familiarity with biblical morality. I repeat them here as the minuscule produce of several hundred pages:

• Several canons order discipline for participation in or viewing of dramatic entertainment. I can't say myself whether this would apply directly to the kind of entertainment that is popular today, or if there was a more explicitly pagan component at that time. Of course, there are plenty of good reasons to think very carefully about the visual entertainment one consumes.
• In a few different places, there are canons indicating that Bright Week (the week after Pascha) should be observed by refraining from work and spending as much time as possible in church. I don't know of any church these days where enough services would be offered (perhaps in a monastery), but it's probably not a bad principle to apply generally, if one can actually spare the time off of work.
• In a few places, the importance of Sunday is emphasized. Notably, one should not travel unnecessarily on Sunday, nor should one skip three consecutive Sundays in church without a compelling reason. The latter is pretty straightforward as a general rule; the former is a beautiful continuation of the Jewish Sabbath observance and one that I think we would do well to take seriously in our lives today.
• Finally, I found at least one reference in passing to the goal for laymen of eating for sustenance, not primarily for pleasure. The main point, if I understand correctly, was to caution against excessive partying; but I thought it was an interesting argument, which I've seen plenty of times in ascetic literature, but I can't recall whether I've seen it applied elsewhere to laymen.

So there you have it. IMHO these four points are about all a layman might gain for his daily life from reading the Rudder. When weighed against the risks, particularly for those of us who tend to be rule-oriented anyway, it's probably better left to monks and clergy.

flying Simon

I had the opportunity last night to attend the patronal feast-day vigil at the ROC chapel of Ss. Peter and Paul here in Elkridge. (As much as I would love to have a full Orthodox parish within walking distance, it is still very cool to have a little chapel nearby, like some old-world village where scrounging up a priest to come out and celebrate the patronal feast at a local, all-but-abandoned shrine is an annual highlight. Or more to the point, I would love to see a revival of the tradition where everyone goes to the church dedicated to a particular saint on that saint's feast day. My circumstances don't always allow me to do it, but getting to the only Orthodox house of worship in Elkridge for its patronal feast is definitely going to be high on my recurring priorities.)

I had two revelations in the course of the service. (Not that kind.) First, knowing how to read Greek (loosely interpreted as meaning, at least I know the alphabet and a few other odds and ends) apparently means that I can follow along in the printed Slavonic service books. I hadn't really tried before. In the past, I just relied on my general knowledge of how the services run and getting my bearings whenever they switched to English. But at some point last night I started watching the Slavonic pages as well, and although I can't put together the sounds on my own, I found that I could track in the book with what was being chanted. That was helpful in keeping my place in the service; it also gave me some hope that, even without actually learning Slavonic, I might be able to pick up the pronunciation and improve my understanding of the script just by following along.

The second revelation had to do with the content of the service. Once again, I'm stuck having to rely on a passing observation, without finding a copy of the text; but I'm positive that one of the odes of the canon referred to the confrontation between Peter, Paul, and Simon Magus, where he flew about over the city of Rome, and they prayed to cast him down. I think it was back when I was in college that I was preparing a sermon outline or some such thing on the first part of Acts 8. In looking for more information about Simon Magus (I suppose I was trying to ascertain whether his conversion was genuine or not), I came across this passage in the apocryphal Acts of Peter and Paul:

Then Simon went up upon the tower in the face of all, and, crowned with laurels, he stretched forth his hands, and began to fly. And when Nero saw him flying, he said to Peter: This Simon is true; but you and Paul are deceivers. To whom Peter said: Immediately shall you know that we are true disciples of Christ; but that he is not Christ, but a magician, and a malefactor. Nero said: Do you still persist? Behold, you see him going up into heaven. Then Peter, looking steadfastly upon Paul, said: Paul, look up and see. And Paul, having looked up, full of tears, and seeing Simon flying, said: Peter, why are you idle? Finish what you have begun; for already our Lord Jesus Christ is calling us. And Nero hearing them, smiled a little, and said: These men see themselves worsted already, and are gone mad. Peter said: Now you shall know that we are not mad. Paul said to Peter: Do at once what you do.

And Peter, looking steadfastly against Simon, said: I adjure you, you angels of Satan, who are carrying him into the air, to deceive the hearts of the unbelievers, by the God that created all things, and by Jesus Christ, whom on the third day He raised from the dead, no longer from this hour to keep him up, but to let him go. And immediately, being let go, he fell into a place called Sacra Via, that is,Holy Way, and was divided into four parts, having perished by an evil fate.

The story stuck in my head at the time, probably as evidence of how wildly fanciful these apocryphal stories were. But apparently it was embraced in the Tradition of the Church as an authentic encounter. This doesn't mean that the book itself is inspired Scripture, but at least in this instance it happens to record something that actually happened. After a few years of reading lives of saints, I like to think that my take on what's "wildly fanciful" is a bit less biased than it used to be. For some reason, Evangelical Protestants have developed a habit of accepting at face value the supernatural powers manifested in biblical narratives, while discounting out of hand anything extra-biblical that really goes no further. Does it require more faith to believe that Simon flew by demonic power than to believe that demons could give superhuman strength or send a herd of pigs over a cliff? Is it any more fantastic that Peter would pray to end this blasphemous display than any exorcism found in the New Testament? Which came first--the assumption that such things only happened in the first century, or the refusal to accept them on any authority but the Bible?

Anyway, my point in bringing this up is not to preach. I'm just tickled that, after all these years, it turns out I can believe the story really happened.

cautiously optimistic about Chambésy

Most of the reactions that I've seen online to the recent Preconciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference in Chambésy have been either dismissive--it won't change much of anything--or downright negative--it's a step backward from the goal of Orthodox unity. Personally, I didn't feel like there was enough on which to comment until the publication this weekend of the official statement, and particularly of the promised "rules of operation." Having seen them, I must say I think there's reason to be hopeful.

Some have said that the proposed regional episcopal assemblies won't contribute anything to the American situation in particular, since we already have SCOBA. But there is a definitive difference--SCOBA's membership corresponds with that of the proposed Executive Committee: "the Primatial Bishops of each of the canonical Churches in the Region." The assembly itself, however, will consist of "all Orthodox Bishops of each region . . . who are in canonical communion with all the local Autocephalous Orthodox Churches." This is not only a more canonical arrangement (all bishops participate as equals), but it promises more balanced representation. Instead of, for instance, Bp. Ilia of the Albanian Diocese under the Ecumenical Patriarchate (representing two parishes) holding equal standing with Met. Jonah of the OCA (representing hundreds of parishes), the assembly would include all of the OCA bishops (not to mention, all of the Greek bishops, all of the Antiochian, etc.). It won't be strictly based on numbers of parishes or parishoners represented, but in general the larger jurisdictions will have more bishops in the assembly.

Another important point made clear in the statement is that this is an interim measure, designed to bridge the gap until a fully canonical resolution can be established at a future Pan-Orthodox Council. I realize there is a lot of cynicism about whether such a Council will ever happen, but there should still be at least two positive outcomes. First, the assemblies, to the extent that they perform their desired functions, should foster a unifying process over time. There is even an explicit prohibition on "actions that could hinder the above process for a canonical resolution of the issue of the Diaspora." For instance, there should be less confusion about clerical appointments and discipline: "It must record every decision relating to clerics promulgated by their bishops, in order that this decision is applied among all the Orthodox Churches in the Region." Second, they are specifically directed to work on developing canonical solutions. If that actually happens, we'll probably find ourselves in a better position further down the line, even if a Council never materializes. The latter outcome is safeguarded by specific requirements to meet regularly, and a mechanism for the bishops to call meetings even without the chairman's initiative. The assembly meets at least annually but may meet more often; the executive committee meets at least quarterly. One-third of the membership of either body may call a meeting.

Another point that should not be discounted is that this proposal has the stamp of approval from the Ecumenical Patriarchate. There seems to be a lot of negativity about this--whether anyone will accept the requirement that the chairman must be the ranking EP bishop, whether more conservative jurisdictions will follow, etc. (How much difference will it make that the MP is endorsing this plan?) But it seems to me that at least the perception of SCOBA is that its efforts at unity have stalled in the past because of EP intervention. If that's no longer going to be an obstacle, isn't that reason to be optimistic? Also, given the composition of the assembly and the directive to operate by consensus, I don't think anyone will need to fear a partisan agenda (liberal or otherwise) being pushed through against the wishes of certain jurisdictions.

Of course, if the American bishops aren't also hopeful about this proposal, it probably won't go anywhere. But my ignorant assessment is that it's a workable structure, and probably the best possible arrangement we can hope for right now. There will be time later to see whether the push is toward complete EP dominance, but for right now, taken at face value, I think it's a good opportunity to work out our own issues on our own soil.

more grumbling about the Dorsey station

It feels like too long since I last grumbled about the Dorsey MARC station and Rt. 100. Apparently the engineering firm that designed the Dorsey station won an award and some honorable mentions for the project. Good for them that I wasn't on the committees handing out awards--I'm not sure they would have fared as well. I suppose it depends on your criteria. The station is designed well as a fortress. It is hemmed in on two sides by steep grades that make overland access virtually impossible. Opposite these, there is an office park and a rather roundabout route, with no real entrance to the station. Fortunately, there is a paved cut-through for foot and bike access (must have been an oversight), but coming from the north you still have to traverse a circuitous path that adds significantly to the travel time involved.

Apparently it's more important that cars have the most direct access possible. I'm not sure why, since they're the fastest-moving option, and extra distance has less effect for them; but there it is. The best access to this modern-day Masada is an air-drop from the elevated highway that reinforces beyond all reason its north-facing impregnability. An elevated highway, I might add, that like most controlled access routes is off-limits to bikes and pedestrians. So, I have to climb over it, then skirt around the other side of the station.

For the most part, this is well-worn ground. The reason for my new rant is that I thought I had discovered an alternate route--shorter distance, and more back roads--but it was not to be. Google Maps thought so, but I was skeptical. For some reason, the address it pulls up for the station puts it on the other side of the tracks. A more suitable phrase cannot be found--apparently that's the way the barbarian hordes will come. I've looked down before on that road, from the lofty perch of the northbound platform. As I suspected, there is no access between the two, designed or incidental. Nor is there anywhere suitable to leave a bike at the bottom of the hill, if one were inclined to bushwhack an assault. So for all the apparent usefulness of that route, you're still left having to travel past the station and double back, to come in the very same way that I already do now.

Now, I'll admit that the engineers and architects may have done the best they could. I doubt that they had anything to do with the height of Rt. 100, and presumably the tracks were already higher than the adjacent road before the station was put in. But surely something could have been done to make it more broadly accessible. The grading isn't as steep elsewhere--perhaps a better location, or more of an effort to create a walkable hill. Failing that, what about putting in a stairway and a bike rack at the bottom? Apparently the completion of Rt. 100 included the station in its design--why couldn't they push the access road all the way through into the industrial park on the north side, so at-grade access from the north would be possible without a car?

The real problem is how the station was envisioned, as a car-accessible enclave, with no real connection to anything beyond Rt. 100. It is surrounded by other roads, but they may as well not exist. They're already talking about mixed-use development around the Savage station; how long before the same thing comes to Dorsey, and with it presumably (hopefully) a complete redesign of the station, at least as it relates to its environment? Wouldn't it have been better to make the place accessible from the beginning?