Thomas the Confessor

Feast of the Sunoyo (Dormition) of the Theotokos

2011-08-19T10:47:00.000-07:00

“At the Assumption this fullness of deification – this purity and inner glory of soul- was made outwardly manifest in her body, which was received into heaven: that is to say (for heaven is not a geographical area), her body was made fully ‘spiritual’. Man, so the Bible teaches, is not a soul imprisoned in a body, but a unity of body and soul; the body is to be redeemed and deified as well as the soul. All Christian saints, therefore, await the resurrection from the dead, when their bodies will rise again, transfigured and glorified. What has happened in our Lady’s case is simply this: because of her outstanding purity and holiness, this bodily resurrection has been anticipated. By God’s special decree she had passed beyond death and judgment and lives already in the age to come, thus constituting (with her Son) the first fruits of the transfigured creation. Yet she is not separate by her Assumption for the rest of the human race, for every Christian, by virtue of his baptism, lives already in some degree in the age to come; and that same bodily glory with the Mother of God already enjoys, all of us hope one day to share.”

Metropolitan Kallistos Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Ethos: Studies in Orthodoxy, Vol. 1, p. 148.

How An Atheist Came To Believe in the Resurrection

2011-02-16T05:03:00.001-08:00

Investigating Easter

By Lee Strobel

I saw plenty of dead bodies as a reporter for the Chicago Tribune, but I've never seen anyone come back to life. That was the stuff of mythology and legend. After all, we live in a scientific age. Belief in a resurrection was simply untenable.

At least, that's what I thought until I checked the facts for myself. Using my legal training, I investigated the most audacious claim of history: that Jesus of Nazareth returned from the dead and thus authenticated his claim to being the Son of God.

After nearly two years of research, I found my atheism cracking. Here's some of what I discovered:

First, there's overwhelming evidence Jesus was executed. In addition to multiple, early, independent confirmation in the New Testament documents (which, incidentally, I gave no special treatment), there are also five sources outside the Bible. Even atheist historian Gerd Lüdemann called Jesus' death by crucifixion "indisputable."

Second, we have resurrection accounts that date back so early they can't be legendary - because legends take time to develop. A.N. Sherwin-White, the great classical historian from Oxford, said the passage of two generations was not even enough time for legend to grow up in the ancient world and wipe out a solid core of historical truth.

Yet we have a creed of the early church, recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, that confirms Jesus died, was buried, rose and appeared to named eyewitnesses, including skeptics. Scholars from a wide range of theological belief have dated this creed to within a few years of Jesus' death - and therefore its underlying beliefs go back even further. It's like a historical news flash!

Concluded eminent scholar James D. G. Dunne: "This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus' death." It would be unprecedented for a legend to develop that fast and wipe out a solid core of historical truth.

Third, there's the empty tomb, which is implicit in the early creed and reported in the earliest Gospel.

Scholar William Lane Craig points out that the site of Jesus' tomb was known to Christians and non-Christians alike. If it weren't empty, it would have been impossible for a movement founded on the resurrection to have exploded into existence in the same city where Jesus had been publicly executed and buried just a few weeks earlier.

Moreover, the empty tomb was implicitly admitted in the early claim that the disciples had stolen the body. Why would Jesus' opponents manufacture such a cover story unless they were trying to explain away the inconvenient truth that the tomb was empty?

Nobody had a motive for stealing the body, especially the disciples. They wouldn't have knowingly and willingly allowed themselves to be tortured to death for a lie.

Finally, scholars Gary Habermas and Michael Licona have enumerated nine sources reporting the resurrected Jesus appeared to the disciples:

• Paul confirms Jesus appeared to him, and then Paul met with the apostles and they agreed their teaching about the resurrection was the same as his.

• The early creed confirms the disciples (plus 500 others!) encountered the risen Jesus; indeed, many scholars believe two eyewitnesses cited in the creed, Peter and James, were the ones who gave the creed to Paul.

• Peter declared to a crowd in Jerusalem just weeks after Jesus' execution that "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it." Three thousand people agreed and the church was born.

• Matthew, Mark, Luke and John independently confirm his post-resurrection appearances. These first-century, eyewitness-rooted Gospels have regained respect in recent years. Scholar Craig Evans, who has lectured at Oxford and Cambridge, said that "there's every reason to conclude the Gospels have fairly and accurately reported the essential elements" of Jesus' resurrection.

• Early church leaders Clement and Polycarp were taught by the apostles. Clement said the apostles had "complete certainty" about the resurrection; Polycarp repeatedly confirmed the resurrection.

So convinced were the disciples that they were willing to die for their conviction that Jesus had risen -- not because they had faith in it, but because they were in the unique position to know for sure that it was true.

Even atheist Lüdemann conceded: "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."

He would claim these were hallucinations or visions, yet I don't find that credible. Hallucinations occur in our brains, like dreams. People can't share hallucinations, yet Jesus appeared to groups three different times.

Were these visions by grieving disciples? This wouldn't explain the conversion of Saul, an opponent of Christians, or James, a skeptic. Neither was primed for a vision, yet each died proclaiming Jesus had appeared to him. Besides, if these were visions, the body would still have been entombed.

My books analyze objections that many skeptics, including myself, have raised. None, in my view, overcome the affirmative evidence. So I reached the verdict that the resurrection really happened - and that's why I'm celebrating my 29th Easter as a follower of Jesus.

Lee Strobel, author of the bestselling "Case" series has created the new resources "The Case for the Resurrection" and "The Case for Christ Study Bible."

Wise Lessons From Saint Moses the Ethiopian

2011-02-16T04:59:00.000-08:00

1. A devout prince, upon hearing of the mortification of St. Moses, went with his retinue into the desert to see him. Informing Moses that the prince was coming to his monastery, Moses quickly ran out and began to flee and to hide somewhere, but he unexpectedly encountered the high-ranking visitors. "Where is the cell of Abba Moses?" the servants of the prince asked not suspecting that this was Moses himself. Moses opened his mouth and said: "What do you want him for? He is an ignorant old man, very untruthful and completely impure in life." Hearing this, the visitors were astonished and continued on. When they arrived at the cell of Moses, they inquired about the elder and the monks said that he was not there. Then they began to relate what a monk on the road had said about Moses. The monks were saddened and asked them: "How did he look, this old man, who spoke to you mocking words about this holy man?" And when they said that he was very dark in the face, tall and in a miserable garment, the monks cried out loudly: "But that was indeed the Abba Moses!" By this incident, the prince benefited greatly spiritually and joyfully returned to his home.

2. Abba Moses said to Abba Poemen, and the first word which was spoken by the old man was: “It is better for a man to put himself to death rather than his neighbour, and he should not condemn him in anything.”

3. “It is good for a man to die unto every work which is evil, and he should not vex a man before his departure from the body.”

4. “If a man doth not put himself in the attitude of a sinner, his prayer will not be heard before God.” A brother said unto him, “What is a sinful soul?” And the old man said, “Every one who beareth his own sins, and considereth not [those] of his companion.”

5. Abba Moses used to say, “Secret withdrawal [from work] maketh dark the mind, but for a man to endure and to persevere in his works maketh light the mind in our Lord, and it strengtheneth and fortifieth the soul.”

6. And he used to say also, “Bear disgrace and affliction in the Name of Jesus with humility and a troubled heart; and shew before Him thy feebleness, and He will become unto thee might.”

7. St. Moses knew how fasting helped in his early spiritual combats. He used to say, “These four lead to fornication: eating and drinking, oversleeping, negligence and decoration of clothes.”

8. “If you want to repent to God, beware of living in luxury, for this stimulates all passions and dispels the fear of God from the heart.”

9. “Control of the body diminishes the effects of other desires. Desire of food awakens the passions and emotions; they are controlled by fasting.”

10. A brother went to Abba Moses and asked him for a word of advice. The old man said to him, “Go, and sit in your cell and your cell will teach you everything.”

11. Of his other sayings, “Discourse with men of the world and mixing with them darken the soul and make her forget contemplation.”

12. The Elder (St. Moses) also said: “If the deeds do not match the prayer, the prayer is of no use!” The brother asked him: “How can the deeds be suitable for the prayers?” The Elder said:”One who prays for the forgiveness of his sins should thereon be alert because when one surrenders his will, God accepts him indeed!”

13. "So, our way my dear friend is to put forth the maximum effort, in the short time we have on earth, to correct and purify our deeds from all evil hoping to gain salvation by the grace of God from the hands of the devils who are anxious to meet us, especially if any of their works are in us, because they are evil and show no mercy. So, blessed is the soul that is free from them, it will be pleased and her pleasure is great."

14. "For this reason, my dear friend, we have to strive with tears so that the Lord may in his kindness have mercy on us. Because those who sow with tears reap with gladness.

Let us possess the desire to be with God, because those who desire God protect themselves from the desire to commit adultery. And those who desire meekness protect themselves from the love of silver (money).

Let us desire peace to protect ourselves from hatred.

Let us posses patience and long suffering because it will protect us from pettiness of the soul.

Let us posses pure love for everyone to protect us from envy and jealousy.

Let us be humble in every act and every deed.

Let us tolerate being cursed and teased to rid ourselves of pride.

Let us be kind to all our neighbors to avoid condemnation.

Let us reject the glories of the world and its honors to avoid false pride.

Let us use the tongue to glorify God and to protect ourselves from lying.

Let us love the purity of the heart to be saved from corruption, because all of these things surround the soul and follow it when it leaves the flesh.

So, if anyone is wise and works with wisdom, he should not give his deposit (surrender the soul) without having the good deeds that will help him go through the difficulty. So, let us use great care as much as we can and the Lord will help our weaknesses. Because the door of forgiveness is always open to those who repent as long as we are in the flesh."

Apolytikion in the First Tone

Thou didst prove to be a citizen of the desert, an angel in the flesh, and a wonderworker, O Moses, our God-bearing Father. By fasting, vigil, and prayer thou didst obtain heavenly gifts, and thou healest the sick and the souls of them that have recourse to thee with faith. Glory to Him that hath given thee strength. Glory to Him that hath crowned thee. Glory to Him that worketh healings for all through thee.

Kontakion in the Third Tone

O all-blest and righteous Father Moses, thou didst drive away the passions' darkness, being richly illumined with light divine; and with thy vigilant prayers, thou didst wither up the wanton pride of the flesh, and didst mount on high to the citadel above, where do thou continually entreat Christ God to grant great mercy unto us.

'The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity'

2011-02-16T03:54:00.000-08:00

The 2-volume, The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity edited by John Anthony McGuckin has been published.

"This is a monumental Encyclopedia, in both breadth and depth. It is sure to become a standard reference work for generations to come." — V. Rev. Dr. John Behr, Saint Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary

With a combination of essay-length and short entries written by a team of leading religious experts, the two-volume Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodoxy offers the most comprehensive guide to the cultural and intellectual world of Eastern Orthodox Christianity available in English today.

* An outstanding reference work providing the first English language multi-volume account of the key historical, liturgical, doctrinal features of Eastern Orthodoxy, including the Non-Chalcedonian churches
* Explores of the major traditions of Eastern Orthodoxy in detail, including the Armenian, Byzantine, Coptic, Ethiopic, Slavic, Romanian, Indian and Syriac churches
* Uniquely comprehensive, it is edited by one of the leading scholars in the field and provides authoritative but accessible articles by a range of top international academics and Orthodox figures
* Spans the period from Late Antiquity to the present, encompassing subjects including history, theology, liturgy, monasticism, sacramentology, canon law, philosophy, folk culture, architecture, archaeology, martyrology, hagiography, all alongside a large and generously detailed prosopography
* Structured alphabetically and topically cross-indexed, with entries ranging from 100 to 6,000 words
* I (Tenny Thomas) got an opportunity to contribute to this Encyclopedia. Six entries - Confession, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, Monasticism, Nestorianism, St. John Chrysostom and Vestments were part of my contribution.

The Orthodox churches are extensive families of ancient Christianity that derive from apostolic times and took much of their external shape in the Byzantine era. Today they are reemerging after generations of suppression and state persecution in eastern Europe, and now have a growing presence in Western Europe. Their voice is that of the largest single block of world Christians after contemporary Roman Catholics, but it is a voice, so far, largely unheard in the West. This Encyclopedia will serve as a voice for the Orthodox World.

The Encyclopedia is structured alphabetically and is topically cross-indexed, combining essay-length articles and brief, informative notations on hundreds of topics central to the history and theology of Eastern Orthodoxy. This invaluable new work will appeal to both academic and ecclesiastical groups, and represents a major resource for anyone interested in exploring the full breadth of topics surrounding the Eastern Christian world.

About the Author:

John Anthony McGuckin is Nielsen Professor of Early Church History at Union Theological Seminary, and Professor of Byzantine Christian Studies at Columbia University in New York. A Stavrofor priest of the Romanian Orthodox Church in America, Professor McGuckin is the author of more than twenty books on religious and historical themes, including The Orthodox Church (Wiley-Blackwell, 2008), and is widely considered one of the leading experts on Early Christian and Eastern Orthodox traditions writing today.

Why The Lord Permits Assaults On The Church

2011-02-16T03:47:00.000-08:00

Why does the good Lord permit assaults and sufferings on the True Faith while He permits the pleasure of tranquility to heresies and paganism? - St. Nikolai Velimirovich

Why? Even St. John Chrysostom asks and immediately replies: "So that you would recognize their weakness (the weakness of the heresies and paganism) when you see that they disintegrate on their own without any disturbance and also to be convinced in the power of faith which endures misfortunes and even multiplies through its adversaries." "Therefore, if we quarrel with the pagans or with the wretched Jews, it is sufficient to emphasize as evidence of divine power that the Faith (Christianity) which was subjected to countless struggles maintained victory" even when the entire world stood against her [the Church].

St. Isaac the Syrian says: "The wondrous love of God toward man is recognized when man is in misfortunes that are destroying his hope. Here, God manifests His power for his [man's] salvation. For man never recognizes the power of God in tranquility and freedom."

The Life of Saint John the Damascene

2011-02-15T21:33:00.000-08:00

St. John of Damascus (Feast Day - December 4)

By St. Dimitri Rostov

Our venerable father John was born in the great city of Damascus in Syria to noble, pious parents whose ardent faith in Christ, tested by temptations, was more precious than gold tried by fire. They lived in perilous times, for the Saracens had conquered that land and taken the city, bringing terrible calamity upon the Christians. Some they slew, others they sold into slavery, and they permitted no one to confess Christ publicly. John’s parents, however, guarded by providence, remained unharmed, and their property was left untouched. They held fast to the holy faith, and God granted them to win the favor of the Saracens, as once Joseph had won the favor of the Egyptians, and Daniel of the Babylonians. Thus the impious Hagarenes did not forbid the saint’s parents to believe in Christ or to glorify His name. John’s father was appointed magistrate of the city and commissioner of public buildings. Enjoying as he did the rulers’ trust, he was able to benefit his Christian brethren greatly, ransoming captives, setting free the fettered and imprisoned, commuting the sentences of those condemned to death, and extending a helping hand to all the suffering. John’s parents shone amid the Hagarenes of Damascus like beacons in the night, or embers glowing among ashes. They were preserved by God, as was the holy line of David in Israel, because the Lord had chosen them to be the parents of a son who would be manifested as a brilliant light illumining the whole world.

Although the Moslems forbade anyone to be born of water and the Spirit, John’s parents, eager to make him a child of light, did not hesitate to have him baptized. As the child (the namesake of grace) grew, his father was careful to rear him well: not teaching him the customs of the Saracens, nor the military arts, nor how to hunt game, nor worldly learning of any sort, but meekness, humility, and the fear of God, acquainting him also with the divine Scriptures. Moreover, he prayed God fervently that He send a wise and devout teacher who would instruct his son more perfectly in the virtues. God heard his prayer and granted him his desire in the following manner.

The barbarians living in Damascus made frequent raids by land and sea against other countries, taking Christians captive to their city, some to be sold into slavery in the markets, others to be put to the sword without mercy. Once they happened to capture a monk from Italy named Cosmas, a man of noble appearance and even greater nobility of soul. As Cosmas was being offered for sale in the market with other captives, those who were to be put to death fell at his feet, tearfully beseeching him to pray to God for their souls. Seeing the honor in which he was held by those going to their death, the Saracens asked Cosmas what rank he held among the Christians in his homeland. To this he replied, "I held no rank and was never counted worthy of the priesthood. I am only a sinful monk, although one schooled in philosophy, both Christian and pagan." Then, he began to weep, shedding bitter tears.

Not far off stood John’s father, who recognized the elder as a monk by his clothing. Wishing to console him, he approached and said, "Why, O man of God, do you weep? Is it because you have lost your earthly freedom? But your garb proclaims that long ago you renounced the world and died to it."

"I do not weep because I have lost my freedom," answered the monk. "I died to the world long ago, as you say, and care nothing for it. I know well that there is another life, one better than this, immortal and everlasting, prepared for the Lord’s servants, which I hope to inherit by the grace of Christ my God. I lament because I shall depart this life childless, without an heir."

John’s father said in astonishment, "You are a monk, Father, and have consecrated yourself to God, vowing to preserve your chastity. You are not permitted to beget children. You should not grieve over this."

"You do not understand my words, sir," answered the monk. "I do not speak of sons according to the flesh or of a material inheritance, but of things spiritual. It is clear that I own nothing; nevertheless, I possess a great wealth of knowledge, which I have labored hard from my youth to acquire. With God’s help I have mastered every worldly science, including rhetoric and dialectic, the philosophy of Aristotle and Plato, geometry, and the theory of music. I have acquainted myself thoroughly with the movements of the heavenly bodies and the courses of the stars, so that through the beauty of creation I might come to a clearer understanding of the wise Creator. Finally, I have learned well the mysteries of Orthodoxy as expounded by the Greek and Roman theologians. Yet while I possess such knowledge myself, I have failed to hand it on to another. Now there is no longer any possibility for me to teach what I have learned. I have no disciple, and little time remains to me, for I am certain that I shall die here by the sword of the Hagarenes. Then I will appear before the Lord and be likened to the tree that brought forth no fruit and the servant that buried his master’s talent in the ground. This is why I weep and lament. Like a married man who has no son, I leave no spiritual heir to inherit the wealth of my knowledge."

John’s father rejoiced when he heard this, because he was certain he had found the treasure for which he had sought so long. He comforted the elder, "Do not sorrow, Father; for God may yet grant you the desire of your heart." Thereupon he hastened to the Caliph of the Saracens, and falling at his feet, earnestly begged to be given the captive monk. The Caliph did not refuse him, and John’s father happily took the ruler’s precious gift, the blessed Cosmas, to his home, where he offered him hospitality and the opportunity to rest. He sought to console the monk, who had suffered much at the hands of the Moslems, saying, "Father, my house is yours, and I wish you to share in all my joys and sorrows." He added, "God has not only granted you freedom, but the desire of your heart as well." Then he presented his two sons and said, "I have two children, my son John and this boy who, like you, bears the name Cosmas. He was born in Jerusalem and orphaned while still a babe, and I adopted him. I pray you, Father, instruct them in the sciences and in good conduct, teaching them every virtue. They shall be your spiritual children, begotten anew by your teaching. Rear them and make them heirs of your spiritual riches, a wealth that no one can steal."

The blessed elder Cosmas rejoiced and glorified God, and began to instruct both youths with all diligence. Since the boys were intelligent, they progressed rapidly in their studies. Like an eagle soaring through the air, John attained the understanding of lofty mysteries, while Cosmas, his spiritual brother, in a short time plumbed the depths of wisdom, quickly crossing the sea of learning like a boat driven by a favorable wind. Studying assiduously, like Pythagoras and Diophanes, they mastered grammar, dialectic, philosophy, and arithmetic. So profound was their understanding of geometry, that they might well have been termed new Euclids. The ecclesiastical hymns and verses they composed testify to their skill in poetry. They were also well acquainted with astronomy and the mysteries of theology. Besides tutoring them in all these subjects, their teacher instructed them in good morals and the life of virtue. In a word, both acquired perfect understanding of spiritual and external wisdom, especially John, who caused his teacher to marvel. John surpassed even his tutor in certain fields of knowledge, becoming a great theologian, a fact to which his divinely inspired and wise books attest. Nevertheless, he did not become proud because of his learning: like a fruitful tree that bends lower to the ground as it becomes more heavily laden with fruit, so the blessed lover of wisdom, John, thought less and less of himself in his heart the more he excelled in his studies. He knew how to extinguish the vain imaginations and passionate thoughts of youth, and kindled within his soul, radiant with spiritual wisdom, the fire of divine desire so that it shone like a lamp full of oil.

One day, the teacher Cosmas said to John’s father, "My lord, your desire has been fulfilled. Your children have studied well, surpassing me in knowledge. Thanks to good memories and diligent toil, they have sounded the depths of wisdom. God has granted increase to the gifts bestowed on them, and they can learn nothing more from me. Indeed, they are ready to teach others. Therefore I pray you, my lord, grant me leave to depart for a monastery, where I may become a disciple to monks who have achieved perfection and can instruct me in higher wisdom. The external wisdom I have mastered leads me on to spiritual philosophy, a wisdom purer and more honorable than any worldly science, for it profits the soul and leads it to salvation."

John’s father was grieved at this, because he was loath to part with such a wise and worthy instructor. He did not, however, dare prevent the elder from doing as he wished, or give him cause for sorrow. Rewarding him handsomely, he permitted him to depart in peace. Cosmas took up his abode in the Lavra of Saint Sabbas, where he remained, leading the life of virtue until the day of his departure unto God, the most perfect Wisdom.

Some time later, John’s father also died in great old age. The Caliph summoned John, wishing to make him his chief counselor, but John declined, having another desire: to labor for the Lord in silence. Nevertheless, he was forced to accept the position and was charged with even greater authority in the city of Damascus than his father had enjoyed.

At that time Leo the Isaurian reigned over the Greek Empire. He rose up against the Church of God like a roaring lion, casting the holy icons out of the Lord’s churches, committing them to flames, and mercilessly destroying those who venerated them. Hearing of this, John was aroused with zeal for piety like Elijah the Tishbite and Christ’s Forerunner. He took up the sword of the word of God and hewed down the heretical arguments of the inhuman Emperor, writing many epistles in defense of the holy icons. These he circulated among the Orthodox, wisely demonstrating from the ancient traditions of the God-bearing Fathers that it is fitting to honor the sacred images. He asked his readers to show the letters to other Orthodox brethren and confirm them in the faith. Thus the blessed John traveled the whole world, not on foot, but by means of his divinely inspired letters, which were read everywhere in the Greek Empire, confirming the Orthodox in piety and flailing the heretics as if with a goad. Word of this reached the impious Emperor Leo himself, who, unable to endure this denunciation of his ungodliness, summoned other heretics who shared his opinions and ordered them to inquire among the Orthodox for a copy of a letter written by John in his own hand. If one of the Emperor’s agents should find such a letter, he was to take it on the pretext that he wished to read it. After much effort a letter written by John himself was found and brought directly to the Emperor. He in turn gave it to skilled scribes, commanding them to copy the handwriting and write a letter purporting to be a message to him from John. The forged letter read as follows: "Hail, O Emperor! In the name of our common faith I rejoice in your might, rendering due homage to your Imperial Majesty. I wish to make known to you that our city of Damascus, which is held by the Saracens, is poorly defended by them with a weak and paltry guard; therefore I entreat you for God’s sake to show compassion and send your brave army to our rescue. If it appears to be headed elsewhere, and then suddenly falls upon Damascus, the city can be taken under your rule without difficulty. I will do much to assist you in this, for the city and this entire country are under my administration."

Next the devious Emperor ordered that a letter from himself to the Saracen Caliph be composed. This letter read: "Nothing, I believe, is more blessed than to live in amity and enjoy friendly relations with one’s neighbors, for to keep a vow of peace is a thing most praiseworthy and pleasing to God. Truly, I desire ever to keep the peace I have concluded with you, honorably and faithfully. However, a notable Christian living in your domain often sends me letters urging me to attack you without warning and promises to deliver the city of Damascus into my hands without a great battle, if only I should come against it with my army. As a token of my friendship and so that you may know the truth of what I write, I am sending you one of the letters penned by that Christian. Thus informed of his audacious treachery, you will know how to reward him."

The Emperor sent both letters to the Caliph. After reading them, the barbarian Prince summoned John and showed him the forged letter he had supposedly written. John examined it carefully, saying, "The handwriting is similar to mine, but it was not me who wrote it. It has never entered my mind to write the Greek Emperor or to deal falsely with my master!"

John understood at once that this was a plot of the malicious and cunning heretics, but the Caliph raged with anger and commanded that John’s right hand be cut off. John begged the ruler to allow him to explain the reason for the evil Emperor’s hatred toward him and to give him a little time to establish his innocence, but this was refused. The Caliph would permit no delay, so John’s right hand, which had so greatly strengthened the Orthodox and assisted them in remaining faithful to God, was severed. That hand which had censured most forcefully those who hated the Lord was now stained, not with ink from the pen employed to defend the holy icons, but with its own blood.

After the amputation John’s hand was hung aloft in the city market, and the saint, weak from pain and the loss of much blood, was returned to his home. Just before darkness fell, the blessed one was told that the Caliph’s wrath had abated; whereupon John sent him this request: "My pain continues to increase, giving me indescribable torment. Permit my hand to be returned from the market, my lord, that I may bury it and so assuage my pain."

The Caliph granted the request, and when the hand was brought, John entered his prayer-room and fell to the floor before his icon of the most pure Theotokos. Pressing the severed hand to his wrist, he sighed and wept, praying from the depths of his heart: "O Lady, most pure Mistress and Mother of God, behold: my right hand hath been cut off for the sake of the divine icons by the tyrant Leo! Whatsoever thou willest, thou canst accomplish, for through thy holy prayers, the right hand of the Most High, Who was incarnate of thee, worketh numerous miracles; wherefore, come quickly to mine aid, that He may heal my hand by thine intercession, O Theotokos. May I again be permitted to defend the Orthodox faith; may my hand write once more in praise of thee and thy Son!"

With this John fell asleep and beheld in a dream the most pure Theotokos looking down upon him from the icon with warm, compassionate eyes. She said, "Your hand has been restored. Do not be troubled any longer, but return to your work and labor diligently, like a swiftly writing scribe, even as you promised me."

John arose from sleep, felt his right hand, and realized that it had indeed been healed. His spirit rejoiced in God his Saviour and in the Lord’s most pure Mother, who had done such a great thing for him. He rejoiced throughout the night with all his household, chanting a new hymn: "Thy right hand, O Lord, is glorious in power. Thy right hand hath healed my severed hand and crushed Thine enemies, who do not revere Thy precious image or that of Thy most pure Mother. It shall destroy those who destroy the icons, and multiply Thy glory!"

John’s neighbors heard him and the others chanting songs of gladness and thanksgiving, and learning the reason for their joy, marveled greatly. It was not long before the Caliph learned of it as well. He summoned John and ordered him to display his severed hand. Around John’s right wrist was a mark like a red thread, which the Mother of God had allowed to remain as testimony to the fact that his hand truly had been cut off. Seeing this, the Caliph asked John what physician had rejoined the hand to his wrist, and what treatment had been used to heal it. John did not hesitate to proclaim boldly, "It was my Lord, the almighty Physician, Who healed me! He hearkened unto my earnest supplication, offered through His most pure Mother, and restored the hand that you cut off."

"Woe is me!" lamented the Caliph. "I condemned you, a good man, unjustly, without investigating the accusation made against you. I beseech you to forgive me for passing judgment so hastily and foolishly. Agree to accept your former rank of chief counselor. Henceforth nothing shall be done in the realm without your advice or consent!" But John fell at the Caliph’s feet and pleaded to be released from service. He begged the ruler not to forbid him to take the path his soul desired, but to allow him to follow the Lord with those who have renounced themselves and the world, and have taken up Christ’s yoke. The Caliph was loath to agree, since he wished to retain John as overseer of his palace and entire domain. Each continued his attempts to persuade the other, but finally John prevailed.

Returning home, John immediately distributed his possessions among the poor, freed his slaves, and set out for Jerusalem with Cosmas his foster-brother. After venerating the Holy Places, he went to the Lavra of Saint Sabbas, where he implored the abbot to accept him as a lost sheep and admit him to his chosen flock. The superior and brethren knew of John, since he was famous even in Palestine due to his writings and the high rank he had held. Rejoicing because such a man had come to him in poverty and humility, the abbot received him with love. He called for a brother experienced in asceticism, to entrust the novice to his care for training in spiritual philosophy and the traditions of monasticism, but the monk refused to accept John, being unwilling to become teacher to a man who surpassed so many in knowledge. Then the abbot summoned another, but he too refused. A third and a fourth monk were brought, but they and all the rest declared that they were unworthy to instruct such a man. All were daunted by John’s wide learning and former exalted rank. Finally, a simple but wise elder was summoned who agreed to be John’s guide. The elder received John into his cell, and wishing to set for him the foundation of a life of virtue, first imposed upon him the following rules: never to do anything according to his own will; to offer God his labors and fervent supplications as a sacrifice; and to shed tears to wash away the sins of his former life, since God regards tears as an oblation more precious than any incense. These rules the elder regarded as the basis for the higher works that are perfected by labors of the body. Furthermore, he required that John not harbor any worldly thoughts; that he not dwell on unseemly images, but preserve his mind pure, untouched by every vain attachment; and that he not boast of his learning or consider that by his studies he had attained a perfect understanding. He also forbade John to seek revelations or the understanding of hidden mysteries, or to imagine that his reason would remain unshaken till the end of his life, and that he would never wander from the path of truth. On the contrary, he warned him that men’s thoughts are feeble and their understanding damaged by sin. For that reason, he said, he ought not to permit his thoughts to wander, but should take care to control them, so that his mind would be enlightened by God, his soul sanctified, and his body cleansed of every impurity. He enjoined the saint to strive to bring into concord body, soul, and mind after the image of the Holy Trinity, and to be ruled neither by the body nor the soul, but by the noetic faculty. In this way it is possible for a man to become altogether spiritual. Such were the rules given to his son and pupil by this father and teacher, who added to them these words: "Write to no one, and speak to no one of the secular sciences. Keep a discreet silence. Remember that it is not our wise men alone who teach the value of a quiet life; Pythagoras also had his disciples keep a lengthy silence. Pay heed to David, who said, "I held my peace, even from good," and understand that it is not profitable to speak out of season. And what gain did he derive from silence? He says: "My heart grew hot within me;" that is, the fire of divine love was kindled in him by reflection on God."

The elder’s instructions fell like seed upon fertile ground in John’s heart, taking root there. John lived for a long time with the divinely inspired elder, carefully fulfilling his injunctions and submitting to him without pretense, gainsaying, or murmuring. Even in his thoughts he never contradicted the elder’s commands, and he inscribed in his heart this saying as on tablets of stone: "Every command given by one’s father is to be obeyed without wrath and doubting, as the Apostle says." Indeed, how does a novice profit by fulfilling a task with his hands, while grumbling with his lips? What gain is there in doing what is commanded, while contradicting with the tongue and mind? How can such a man attain perfection? Never will he reach his goal. He labors in vain, for by thinking that he has achieved virtue through obedience, he has only hidden a serpent in his breast by complaining. But the blessed John, who was truly obedient, never grumbled, no matter what tasks he was ordered to perform.

One day, the elder, wishing to test John’s humility, ordered him to fetch a large number of baskets, which they made and sold. He said to John, "I have heard, child, that baskets sell for much more in Damascus than in Palestine. As you see, we are lacking in necessities of every sort and are in need of money. Go without delay to Damascus and sell our baskets there." The elder set a price for the baskets far above their value, and insisted that John accept nothing less, but the true son of obedience did not protest in word or thought. He did not object to being sent on such a long journey, nor was he ashamed to sell baskets in a city where he was known to everyone and had been a man of great authority, because he was determined to emulate the Master Christ, Who was obedient unto death. He asked for his father’s blessing and loaded the baskets on his shoulders. Arriving in Damascus, he began to walk through the markets, offering his goods for sale. Those who wished to purchase them asked what they cost, and learning their high price, would laugh at John, mockingly insulting him. Clad as he was in rags, the blessed one was not recognized by anyone, since the people of Damascus had always seen him wearing gold-embroidered robes. Moreover, his face was worn by fasting, his cheeks were sunken, and his handsome appearance had faded away. But finally one citizen, who had been John’s servant while the saint was in a position of authority, did recognize him after staring for some time. Astonished at seeing John clothed in wretched tatters, he was moved from the bottom of his heart. Pretending not to know him, the man approached John and gave him the full price set by the elder; not because he was in need of baskets, but because he felt compassion for his former master, who, having enjoyed great fame and wealth, had come to such poverty and humility for God’s sake. Accepting the money, John returned to his elder like a victor from battle, having cast to the ground his enemy, the proud and vainglorious devil, by obedience and humility.

Some time passed, and one of the monks of the lavra fell asleep in the Lord. He had a brother according to the flesh who grieved inconsolably for him. Although John spoke at length with the man, trying to comfort him, he was unsuccessful, for the mourner was wounded by measureless sorrow. Then the monk began to entreat John to compose compunctionate burial hymns, to console him in his sadness. At first John refused, not wishing to transgress the command given by his elder, who had forbidden him to do anything without permission, but the mourning brother did not cease his entreaties, saying, "Why will you not have pity on my sorrowful soul? Why do you not wish to give me a little medicine to heal my grieving heart? If you were a physician and some illness had stricken me, and I asked you to cure me, would you disdain me and leave me to die, though you had the ability to treat me? I am suffering greatly from heartache and seek only a little help, but you spurn me! If I die of grief, will you not have to answer for me to God? If you are afraid to violate your elder’s injunction, I will conceal what you have written so that he will not learn of it." At length John yielded to such persuasion and wrote the following troparia: "What sweetness of life," "Like a flower that withereth," "All human vanity," and others, which are used to this day in the funeral service.

One day, while the elder had left the cell, John was chanting the hymns he had composed. Upon his return the elder, drawing near the cell, heard John singing. He rushed in and reproached the disciple angrily, "How is it that you have forgotten your vows so quickly and make merry, singing to yourself instead of weeping?" John told him the reason and explained that he was compelled by the brother’s tears to write the hymns he was singing. Begging forgiveness, he fell to the ground before the elder, who nevertheless remained unyielding and forbade the blessed one to continue living with him.

Driven out of the cell, John recalled Adam’s expulsion from Paradise because of disobedience. He remained for some time before the door weeping, as once did Adam before the gate of the Garden. Afterwards, he went to the other fathers whom he knew to be perfect in the virtues, and entreated them to go to his elder and ask him to forgive his offense. They implored the elder to pardon John and permit him to return, but their pleas were unavailing. One of the fathers said to him, "Impose a penance upon the sinner, but do not forbid him to live with you."

To this the elder replied, "This is the penance I give him: if he wishes to be forgiven his transgression, let him wash out all the chamber-pots in the lavra and clean every one of the latrines."

When the monks heard this, they departed in consternation, amazed at the elder’s crudity and unyielding disposition. John went out to meet them as they returned, and bowing down before them, as was the custom, asked what was his father’s reply. They told him of the elder’s harshness, but did not dare relate what he had set as a penance. John, however, fervently besought them to tell him what his father demanded, and when he learned, he rejoiced exceedingly and was eager to undertake the shameful task. Preparing without delay the equipment necessary for the cleaning, he began the work with diligence, touching excrement with fingers once fragrant with perfumes, and soiling the right hand healed miraculously by the most pure Theotokos. Oh, the profound self-abasement of that wondrous man and true son of obedience! Seeing how John gladly allowed himself to be humiliated, the elder was moved to compunction and hastened to embrace his spiritual child, kissing him upon the head, shoulders, and hands. He exclaimed, "Oh, what a great sufferer for Christ have I begotten! Truly, he is a son of blessed obedience!" Flustered by the elder’s words, John fell at his feet, weeping. He did not permit feelings of pride to gain access to his heart because of his father’s praises, but humbled himself all the more, begging to be forgiven his offense. The elder took him by the hand and led him back to the cell. So elated was John by this that it seemed to him he was being led into paradise. After this he lived with his father in their former accord.

Soon thereafter, the Mistress of the world, the most pure and blessed Virgin, appeared to the elder in a dream, saying, "Why have you blocked up a stream which pours forth an abundance of sweet water, a water preferable to that which sprang from the rock in the wilderness or the water that David longed to drink? This is the water Christ promised the Samaritan woman. Do not hinder the flow of this spring that will water the whole world, drowning heresies and their bitterness! Let the thirsty hasten to this water, and let those who do not possess the pure silver of an unsullied life sell their passions and gain it by emulating John, a man radiant with purity and good deeds, and most learned in the dogmas of the Church. He will take up the psaltery of the prophets and David’s harp to sing a new song to the Lord God, one that shall surpass the canticles of Moses and Mariam. The fabled odes of Orpheus will be counted as nought when compared with his works, for he will sing a spiritual and heavenly hymn like that of cherubim. He will make the churches of Jerusalem like maidens playing the timbrel, chanting unto God and proclaiming Christ’s death and resurrection. He will expound in writing the dogmas of Orthodoxy and denounce the perverse teachings of the heretics; his heart shall pour forth a good word, and he shall speak of the wondrous works of the King."

The next morning, the elder summoned John and said to him, "O son of obedience to Christ, speak what is stored up in your heart! Let your mouth declare wisdom, announcing the things God has revealed to your mind. Open your mouth and proclaim, not legends and dark fables, but the truths of the Church and her dogmas. Speak to the heart of the Jerusalem that truly beholds God, that is, the Church, which He has reconciled unto Himself. Do not pour out empty words into the air, but relate what the Holy Spirit has inscribed in your heart. Ascend the lofty Sinai of the vision of God and the revelation of divine mysteries: ascend by means of your great humility, which is a bottomless abyss, to the summit of the Church, and there proclaim the Gospel to Jerusalem. Lift up your voice mightily, for the Mother of God has told me wondrous things of you. And forgive me, I pray, for my crudeness and ignorance have been a hindrance to you."

From that time the blessed John resumed writing sacred books and composing melodious hymns. He wrote The Ochtoechos, which, like a spiritual flute, delights the Church of God even to this day. John began this book with words he had once sung when his hand was restored: "Thy victorious right hand hath in godly manner been glorified in might." The hymn "In thee all creation rejoiceth, O thou who art full of grace" he also first chanted when exulting after the wondrous healing. John always wore upon his head the bandage he had used to wrap his severed hand, in remembrance of the miracle worked by the most pure Theotokos. He also wrote the lives of a number of saints, composed festal homilies, and various compunctionate prayers. He denounced the heretics, especially the iconoclasts, expounding the dogmas of the true faith and the mysteries of theology, and to this day the faithful are spiritually nourished by his edifying treatises, from which they drink as from a sweet stream.

The venerable John had as a helper in his labors the blessed Cosmas, who was reared with him and studied under the same learned monk. Cosmas, who was later consecrated Bishop of Maiuma by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, urged John to write sacred books and compose hymns, and himself assisted in this work.

The same Patriarch that consecrated Cosmas ordained John presbyter; but John, not wishing to tarry in the world and be praised by the laity, returned to his cell in the Monastery of Saint Sabbas like a bird to its nest. There he devoted himself to the reading and writing of sacred books, and the attainment of his salvation. Collecting all the books, homilies, and sermons he had previously written, he edited them carefully, so that no errors would remain in them. John passed much time in these labors, which greatly benefitted both his soul and the entire Church of Christ. He attained perfect holiness, and having pleased God in all his works, departed unto Christ and His most pure Mother. Not before their icons does he now pay them homage, but instead he gazes upon their countenances in the glory of heaven. Moreover, he prays that we also be deemed worthy of divine vision by the grace of Christ, to Whom, with His all-hymned and most blessed Mother, be honor, glory, and worship forever. Amen.

According to Theophanes, Saint John had two surnames: Chrysorolus and Mansur. He was called Chrysorolus because the grace of the Holy Spirit shone like gold in him and was evident both in his writings and his life. Mansur was the family name he inherited from his ancestors.

Source

Apolytikion in the Plagal of the Fourth Tone
You are a guide of Orthodoxy, a teacher of piety and modesty, a luminary of the world, the God inspired pride of monastics. O wise John, you have enlightened everyone by your teachings. You are the harp of the Spirit. Intercede to Christ our God for the salvation of our souls.

Kontakion in the Fourth Tone
Come, O ye faithful, let us praise the hymn-writer, the Church's luminary and wise instructor, the hallowed John, who cast down all her enemies; for since he took up the Cross of the Lord as a weapon, he drave off the heresies, with their every delusion. And as our fervent champion with God, he granteth all the forgiveness of trespasses.

Troy Polamalu Says 'Kala Christougena!'

2011-02-15T21:29:00.001-08:00

Christmas arrives today for many Orthodox Christians around the world.

Ann Rodgers
January 07, 2011
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The most famous Orthodox Christian in Pittsburgh, if not the nation, has a greeting for his fellow believers today:

"Kala Christougena!" said Steelers safety Troy Polamalu. That's Greek for "Merry Christmas!"

Mr. Polamalu and his wife, Theodora, actually celebrated Christmas 13 days ago, but they keep the same Orthodox traditions as those who observe today. Most Orthodox celebrate on Dec. 25, but many Slavic churches tie liturgy to the old Julian calendar, which is 13 days behind the Gregorian calendar. The Greek Orthodox Church and some others have adopted the Gregorian calendar -- except at Easter.

"We all celebrate Easter on the same day," said Mr. Polamalu, 29. Orthodoxy is the Eastern wing of the earliest Christian church, which split into the Orthodox and Catholic churches in 1054.

He and Theodora converted to Orthodoxy about five years ago. His background was Catholic and Protestant, hers Muslim and Protestant. They were Christians in search of a deeper, more consistent experience of God.

"Orthodoxy is like an abyss of beauty that's just endless," he said. "I have read the Bible many times. But after fasting, and being baptized Orthodox, it's like reading a whole new Bible. You see the depth behind the words so much more clearly."

That fasting is a Christmastime difference between Eastern and Western Christians. While many Americans pile on the food from Thanksgiving to Christmas, Orthodox Christians start fasting Nov. 15 or 28.

"Christmas Lent" or "Winter Lent" lasts 40 days, broken by a feast on Christmas, said the Rev. Stelyios Muksuris, administrative assistant to Metropolitan Maximos of the Greek Orthodox Diocese of Pittsburgh and professor of liturgy and theology at Ss. Cyril & Methodius Byzantine Catholic Seminary. Slavic Orthodox keep a strict fast, abstaining from meat, dairy products, oil and fish for 40 days. Greeks usually permit fish, cheese and oil for the first few weeks, then fast strictly for the last two, he said.

Mr. Polamalu is of Samoan heritage, and belongs to the Greek church, but fasts like a Russian.

His consists of a "fast from dairy, from meat and from oil for 40 days -- as well as from sex," he said. "It's to prepare you for the birth of Christ, of God incarnate."

Fasting doesn't affect his football fitness, he said. "When you fast, you can eat extremely healthy by eating a lot of light food, like fruits and vegetables."

There are other aspects to fasting.

"Maybe not watching as much TV, or not getting caught up in idle talk or different things, in order to keep you spiritually healthy," he said.

The most important Orthodox fast is Great Lent, for 50 days before Easter.

When he has kept longer fasts "I have never felt more spiritually strong," he said. Referring to great theologians of the early church, he said, "The church fathers have said that when you eat gluttonously or you eat a lot of meat, your passions get stronger, so your inclination toward sinning becomes stronger. ... [Fasting] really does soften your passions. It gives you spiritual insight."

In Orthodox theology "passions" are negative impulses -- such as sadness or greed -- that can harm the soul.

He doesn't claim that practicing the faith improves athletics. The player known for crossing himself on the field has seen his faith grow more from his injuries than his interceptions.

"When I got injured, I learned so much from it spiritually, just thanking God for the health that I had when I was healthy," he said.

"People have this idea that the more pious and devout I am, the more successful I am. Which is very dangerous. If you look at faith in that way, you're bound to fail at both -- spiritually and in your career."

As the Polamalus build Christmas traditions for their children, Paisios, 2, and Ephraim, 3 months, "It's become less about Santa Claus and more about the birth of Christ and the celebration of the Virgin birth," he said.

They spent Christmas Eve at an Orthodox monastery. The service lasted several hours, ending at 1 a.m. It was entirely chanted.

"Orthodox chanting is non-emotional, it's very monotone," said Mr. Polamalu, who also calls it "the most beautiful thing."

"It's the perfect environment for prayer," he said. "Chanting in Greek ... is like a beautiful opera, but way better. You have candles, not [electric] lights. It's dark. You have the women sitting on the left and the men sitting on the right. Everything is to keep your mind focused on God. ... To me the most beautiful thing anyone on earth can experience, other than maybe marriage and child-bearing, would be the Orthodox Liturgy."

Before he became Orthodox, he said, songs in church sometimes moved him to tears. He now distrusts those passing feelings.

"I'd start crying and feel 'This is awesome.' If I'd had a Red Bull, I'd feel it even more. If I'd had breakfast, I'd feel good. If I didn't have breakfast, I didn't feel anything, I was grumpy," he said.

"It was a very superficial experience. I was thinking, 'God, why did I not feel you today?' because I wasn't feeling the music today. Orthodoxy is very sensitive to that, to take the emotion out of it, to really go after the heart."

The difference between the heart and emotion, he said, is like the difference between the deep love he has for his wife and their daily ups and downs.

"I could say, emotionally, I'm mad and sad with my wife. But that has nothing to do with how much I love my wife within my heart," he said.

"Before we were Orthodox we were able to separate our spiritual lives and our daily lives. Now that we're Orthodox, because of the prayer life that is required ... and the fasting, it consumes your life. It's the number one thing in your life."

Kneeling In Church On Sundays

2011-02-15T10:56:00.000-08:00

By the late Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens

Preamble

The issue of kneeling on Sundays continues to engage clergy and laity, due to the fact that diametrically opposite views have been formulated concerning this practice.

On the one hand there are those who claim that this practice is prohibited by the Sacred Canons. In particular, Canon 20 of the First Ecumenical Synod states that no kneeling should be practiced on Sundays and during the period of Pentecost. According to this canon, kneeling, it states, is not consistent with the joyous and paschal character of these days, because kneeling is an expression of repentance and of godly sorrow.

On the other hand, there are others who make the opposite claim. They argue that kneeling at the time of the blessing of the Bread and the Wine, at the point we say “Your own from Your own we offer…,” is not a kneeling of sorrow, but of worship which is done because of the miracle which is effected at that moment by the God of our worship.

There is also a third category of theologians, who claim that kneeling on Sundays is neither recommended nor prohibited. It is simply tolerated, wherever it is enforced and observed.

There is no doubt that those Christians who kneel on Sundays do not do this out of irreverence, but out of great piety. They do it because they have been taught that at the point when we say “Your own from Your own we offer…” awe-inspiring mysteries take place: the Bread and the Wine that are used in the Eucharist are changed by the invocation (epiklesis) of the Holy Spirit into the Body and Blood of Christ. At the same time, however, it is certain that these Christians have not read the Sacred Canons, and have not studied the Holy Fathers. They simply behave according to what their Christian conscience dictates, without realizing that their behavior violates the order of the Church.

In the following paragraphs, we try to present in an analytic and objective manner the various aspects of this issue in an attempt to specify what is right and should be followed by the faithful Christians.

A. What Does The Term Kneeling (In Church) Mean?

The Sacred Canons on lesser and proper kneeling: Before we proceed to the next step, it is useful to observe what the Sacred Canons mean by the term kneeling in church. To begin with, kneeling in church is an ancient religious custom, whereby the people who are at prayer express their faith. Such kneeling is distinguished by two types:

Firstly, there is the kind when a person that prays bends the knees while holding the body upright and looking towards the foreground. This position is usually accompanied by simultaneous crossing oneself. It is the position we take at the Vespers of Forgiveness, i.e. the Vespers of Pentecost. (Indeed, the first prayer of this Vespers alludes to this in saying, “offering supplication by bending the neck and inclining the knees”).

Secondly, there is the type when a faithful rests on his knees on the ground, places his hands on it and bends down his forehead onto the earth, or when he is standing up and decides to go down on the knees to the point that his face touches the floor and then stands up again. This is repeated several times.

Kneeling and Repentance: The first kind of kneeling is called a minor repentance, and the second, major repentance, or prostration or ground prostration. Major repentances are practiced in the Presanctified Divine Liturgies, at the point when the Holy Gifts pass by the faithful. Greater use of them is made by monastics, and sometimes spiritual masters impose these major repentances as a penance on those Christians who have sinned and repented for their sins. Saint John the Faster introduced this custom of penances, and called the major type of (church) kneeling simply kneeling. Basil the Great closely identified repentance with the prostration.

When do we kneel and when do we not kneel in church: A differentiation is made between the minor and the major types of kneeling in the Kollyvadian Book of Liturgical Rubrics of the erudite economos Fr. George Regas of Skiathos, where we read the following: “Repentances are of two kinds, minor and major. The minor ones are the prostrations we do when we cross ourselves and bow only our head without bending the knees. These minor repentances are done each day and on many occasions throughout the day without ceasing. The major repentances are characterized by the bending of the knees. These are never allowed on a Saturday or Sunday (apart from the Feast of the Precious Cross), but are done only during the Great Lent and on any day except Saturday and Sunday.”[1]

Kneeling and the four types of repentant persons: From what has been said so far, we gather that prayer which is accompanied by repeated kneeling has the meaning of repentance, i.e. the return of a sinner. It is known that in the ancient Church the repentant persons were subdivided into four types:

Firstly, there were those who mourned. These people remained outside the church nave and invited other faithful to pray for them.

Secondly, there were those who simply listened to the services. These people entered only the narthex, and listened from there the reading of the Scriptures.

Thirdly, there were those who bended the knee or knelt to the ground. These people remained in this position in order to indicate their repentance.

Fourthly and finally, there were those who remained standing.

These types of repentance indicated people who had humbled themselves and were seeking God’s mercy. They symbolized human falling into sin and standing up against it. The falling to the ground indicated contrition and compunction, whereas the standing up indicated deliverance and salvation. As Basil the Great writes, “Each day by practicing kneeling to the ground and standing up again we show that through sin we fell to the earth and through the love for mankind of our Creator we were recalled to heaven.”[2]

B. What The Sacred Canons And Their Interpreters Say

What to do or what not to do on Sundays: Sunday was always distinguished from any other day as a day of joy and celebration, because of the Resurrection. This is why on Sunday we do not fast, and when we go through a period of fasting and do not use oil, Sundays and Saturdays are exempted. The 66th Canon of the Holy Apostles stipulates: “If any clergyman is found to be fasting on a Sunday, or on a Saturday, except on Great Saturday, he should be defrocked.”[3]

Why we should follow the Sacred Canons: One may ask, why do the Canons deal with such matters and do not leave the people free to do what they like and what they wish? The question is plausible. Nevertheless, we should not follow on all matters what we like, but what is right. Otherwise there will be no order in the Church and the symbolic actions will not be observed, in spite of their essentially dogmatic content. The ever-memorable professor of Liturgics John Foundoulis had this to say: “The position one takes in the Divine Liturgy should not be determined by our own personal piety and disposition, but by the Tradition of the Church, on the basis of the meaning which is given to every liturgical position and at every moment of the Church’s worship.”[4]

On Sundays we neither kneel nor fast: Along with fasting, the Sacred Canons prohibit all kneeling on Sundays.

What the Canons say: Saint Irenaeus writes: “The practice of not bending the knee on a Sunday is a symbol of the Resurrection, through which we were delivered by the Grace of Christ both from our sins and from the death which was put to death by Christ himself.”[5]

In a similar fashion pseudo-Justin bears witness in his 115th answer to the prohibition of all kneeling on Sundays. ´This custom was initiated in Apostolic times as blessed Irenaeus, the martyr-bishop of Lyons, says.”[6]

Of great importance for this matter is Canon 20 of the First Ecumenical Synod, which stipulates: “Because there are some persons who kneel in church on a Sunday and during the days of Pentecost, with the view to preserving uniformity in all parishes, it seemed best to the Holy Council that prayers should be offered to God while standing.”[7] In other words, the Holy Synod stipulates that on Sundays and during the period of Pentecost Christians should pray in Church standing.

Canon 90 of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod is even clearer. Here is what is specified: “We have received it canonically from our God-bearing Fathers not to bend the knee on Sundays when we honor the Resurrection of Christ. Since this observation may not be clear to some of us, we are making it plain to the faithful, that after the entrance of those in holy orders into the sacrificial altar on the evening of Saturday in question, let none of them bend the knee until the evening of the following Sunday, when, after the Entrance in the Vespers, we bend the knees again, and begin to offer prayers to the Lord. For inasmuch as we have received it that in the night succeeding Saturday was the precursor of our Savior’s rising, we commence our hymns at this point spiritually, ending the festival by passing out of darkness into light, in order that we may hence celebrate en masse the Resurrection for a whole day and a whole night.” In other words from the evening of Saturday, after Vespers, until the Vespers of Sunday we are obliged not to kneel when we pray. Here is Balsamon’s comment on this Canon: “The Resurrection of Christ took place on Saturday evening, i.e. before Sunday had dawned, so that what relates to the feast might start at night and end towards the light and so the vigil of the Resurrection is celebrated through the entire night and day.”[8] Indeed, it is known that the Divine Liturgy is not celebrated during the days of the Great Lent, except on Saturdays and Sundays. The reason for this is that the Divine Liturgy is a template of the Resurrection and the Kingdom of God.

What the Fathers say: Let us now see what the Fathers say about this matter. Peter of Alexandria says this in his Canon 15: “As for Sunday, on the other hand, we celebrate it as a joyous holiday because of Him who was resurrected on it, on which day we have not even received instruction to bend the knee.”[9]

St. Nikephoros the Confessor stipulates through his Canon 10 the following: “One must bend the knee for the sake of bestowing a kiss on Sunday and throughout Pentecost, but one ought not to make the usual genuflections.”[10]

Basil the Great says in his Canon 91: “We offer our prayers on the first of the Sabbaths (Sunday) in a standing position.”[11] And he goes on to explain the reasons which obligate us not to make the major genuflections on a Sunday and during the entire period of Pentecost. These reasons are basically the fact that Sunday is the day of the Resurrection of our Lord and consequently we are obligated to remain standing in an upright position as resurrected persons. Besides, every Sunday is a symbol of the eighth day, i.e. of the age to come and for this reason the Church trains and teaches the faithful to remember the age to come and to be prepared to welcome it in an upright position which indicates vigilance. “In which (Sunday) the upright position of prayer should be preferred as the stipulations of the Church have trained us to do, so that by a sort of active reminder our mind might transmigrate from the present to the future realities.”[12]

The minor kneeling (genuflection) or repentance used in worship. St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite is the one among the Fathers who clarifies that the prohibition of kneeling on Sundays does not include the minor kneeling, the so-called minor repentance, which we make when we venerate the holy icons. The Church does not forbid practicing this type of genuflection in church on Sundays. This is why we hear, “Come let us worship and prostrate before Christ…”[13] These minor prostrations which are done in veneration are not forbidden. The major kneeling, however, which involves bending the knee to the ground and touching the floor with the forehead, is forbidden, because it is contrary to the paschal and eschatological character of Sunday, i.e. to the joyful and festive spirit, which, on this account, is incompatible with any sense of mourning or contrition which is indicated by the major kneeling. This why the Church sings: “This is the Day which the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in It.”[14]

C. Other Views

There are theologians, however, who do not agree with what we wrote above. Here are their main arguments. When the Myrrh-bearing women met with the Risen Lord they fell on his feet and venerated Him. It was a Sunday when this took place. It was on the Mount of Galilee that the eleven Disciples venerated the Lord in the same way after His Resurrection. The Apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians, describes the gathering of the church for worship where each believer “falls down with his face onto the ground to worship God.”[15] Here, of course, it is not clarified whether the Apostle refers to the Sunday gathering for worship.

Serious arguments for major (proper) kneeling on Sundays: Such arguments, biblical, historical and canonical, are provided by Professor P. Trempelas in his book “Kneeling on Sundays.”[16] In this book, the wise professor invokes the witness of Codices 865 and 2055 of the National Library of Greece concerning the Hierarch who “makes three repentances.” Nevertheless this detail is not serious enough as to justify kneeling on Sundays. The same observation applies to the Typikon (Book of Liturgical Rubrics) of the 12th-13th century which has been published by Dimitrievsky and makes mention of “a triple kneeling of the priest.”[17] For these references, however, Matthew Vlastares’ comment made in the Pedalion (Rudder) is important: “The typika (rubrics) which are made by the founders of monasteries should be observed as long as they do not contradict the canons.” The same professor tries, on the basis of Canon 91 of Basil the Great, to render relative the upright position in Sunday prayers by writing that the opinion of the Holy Father is derived “from the unwritten tradition,”[18] although Canon 20 of the First Ecumenical Synod had preceded it. At the same time the ever-memorable professor appeals to the witness of the Typikon of St. Savva, saying that it foresees for Sundays “bending of our knee and bowing towards the earth.”[19] Nevertheless in the edition of this Typikon of the year 1771 that was printed in Venice by Hierodeacon Spyridon Papadopoulos, the exact text reads as follows: “bending and bowing unto the earth.”[20] Indeed, it is known that Trempelas’ arguments were offset by other counter-arguments through the special study of Metropolitan Hezekiel the Thessaliotis in the journal Ekklesia.[21] Finally, with regard to the argument that in the ordinations, which usually occur on Sundays, we kneel down, it should be carefully observed that the most important codices do not refer to kneeling, either of the candidate or of the people. The later liturgical practice speaks of the kneeling of the candidate, but not of the people.

In addition, the ever-memorable Archimandrite Epiphanios Theodoropoulos in his book “The Period of the Pentecostarion” insists on the distinction of various forms of kneeling. He clearly states, regarding this matter, that “this manner of combining the upright position with the bowing down in worship does not contradict the stipulations of the Church but satisfies a deep psychological need. This need is the worshipful prostration in the face of the one who already stands before us, under the species of bread and wine, namely, our King and Savior.”[22] And it seems that the solution to the whole problem is hidden behind this point.

Professor Basil Anagnostopoulos of the Theological School of Halki in his monograph “Kneeling at the Consecration of the Immaculate Mysteries of the Lord on Sundays: The Tradition of the Theological School of Halki” deposits his living memories from the School, where all the Patriarchs and Rectors of the last decades, such as the Patriarchs Maximos and Athenagoras, Melito of Chalcedon, Germanos of Thyateira, Gennadios of Elioupolis, Michael of America, as well as the two last Rectors of the period of his studies and the two of the period of his professorial service, used to kneel on Sundays. Ezekiel the Thessaliotis, however, deposits the witness of Polykarpos of Trikke and Stagoi (as Deacon to Patriarch Anthimos VII) according to which in the Patriarchate “no one ever bent the knee on a Sunday, because they regarded this custom as alien and strange to Greek Orthodoxy.”[23] Also, Archimandrite Eusebios Matthopoulos, the founder of the Zoe Brotherhood of Theologians, honored the custom of kneeling, having taken it from his Geronta Fr. Ignatios Lampropoulos.

A serious argument in support of the non-absolute character of the prohibition of kneeling on Sundays, which is put forth, is the Church’s praxis, whereby she transferred, through its pertinent authority and apparently for pastoral reasons, the Vespers of the Sunday of Pentecost when all believers kneel, from the vesperal hours of the Sunday of Pentecost when believers also kneel (because there is no prohibition of kneeling on this occasion, according to Canon 90 of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod) to the morning of the Sunday of Pentecost. Therefore, according to this view, the prohibition of kneeling on Sundays does not have an absolute character, but can be overlooked on account of spiritual-pastoral expediency. The position of Trempelas is indeed, that “since the transference of the Vespers to the morning was allowed, the prohibition of kneeling is of relative force and tolerable of exceptions and flexibility.” Also, St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite writes, that the prayers of kneeling should not be said in the morning because in this way the prohibition of kneeling is thereby abolished. “Hence when we read these prayers in the morning, we do it wrongly and sinfully and in contradiction to the Sacred Canons.”[24] In addition, it is known that the Church has accepted the liturgical repentances on Sunday worship. At this point we should remark that we regard of special importance the observation of Professor Trempelas that the Sacred Canons which prohibit kneeling on Sundays do not impose penalties for possible transgressions of the specific stipulation.

Professor Ioannes Foundoulis attributes the introduction of the custom of kneeling to Russian influence, which was exerted upon our customs most probably by Queen Olga through the practice that was established in the Palace chapel and was transmitted from there to the parishes. In Russia, this custom was introduced at the time of Peter the Great and was due to European influence. The same distinguished Greek liturgist, criticizing the support of this custom, writes: “The tragic aspect of this case is not that some faithful and even some clergy bend their knee at the consecration of the Precious Gifts, but that this is taught and encouraged by the teachers of the Church in spite of the Sacred Canons and the ages long ecclesiastical tradition and order. Our piety in worship is bound to the liturgical order and consists in our coordinating ourselves to the rhythm and the pattern of common prayer. Otherwise we cause disarray and arbitrariness by not obeying the ecclesiastical institutions and not trying to understand their spirit, but, rather, to introduce our personal pietistic and pious-looking practices which are alien to our ecclesiastical tradition.”[25]

D. The View of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece

The Holy Synod of the Church of Greece at its meeting of October 1999 included in its agenda the topic entitled, “Liturgical precision, orderliness and unity, and ballot vote on a Constitution for a Special Synodal Committee of Liturgical Regeneration” with Metropolitan Nikodemos of Patrai as chairman on account of his tempered knowledge of liturgical matters. The Most Reverend Metropolitan Nikodemos presented to the Synodal body the conclusions of the 10 member Committee which had examined the above topic under his chairmanship. On the matter of kneeling the Committee proposed the following: “That kneeling on Sunday is not required at the consecration and is not imposed. It is simply tolerated.”

This view was based on a combination of the two opposing views that were outlined above, because it was determined that neither those who over-emphasize the absolute character of the prohibition of kneeling on Sundays are right, nor do those who bend their knees at the awesome moment of the consecration ignore “what the Spirit (of the sacred Canons) says to the Churches.” In other words, the Holy Synod took the view that according to the rule (canon) Christians should not kneel on Sundays at the moment of “Your own from Your own we offer…” because this is what the Sacred Canons suggest because it is characteristic of these days to stress the Resurrection. Nevertheless, kneeling can be tolerated by concession (kat oikonomian), because it does not indicate any irreverence, but rather indicates great reverence and conscientious recognition of the awe-inspiring sacrifice which takes place on the Holy Table at the invocation (epiklesis) of the grace of the Holy Spirit.

What St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite says: We prefer to base our view not so much on the exercise of concession for those who bend the knee, or less on the absolute potency of the prohibition, but mainly on the distinction of the two senses of “kneeling” – as they were explained above and as St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite had explained the Canon. Here is what he writes in his interpretation of Canon 20 of the First Ecumenical Synod. “Note, however, that the present Canon is not referring to those genuflections which among us are more commonly called major repentances, which, properly speaking, are called prostrations that are made before kissing the icons of the saints or before the awesome sacraments and are not prohibited neither on a Sunday nor on the days of the period of Pentecost as Canon 10 of St. Nikephoros says. Indeed this is what the sacred hymns also say on occasions: 'Before You we fall down who was raised from the Tomb,' or 'Come let us worship and fall down before Christ the risen One…' and other such like hymns.”[26] And St. Nikodemos continues: “In my view the Canon does not refer to this kind of genuflection, but to the genuflection wherein while bending our knees we pray, as we do, for instance, during the evening of Holy Pentecost.”[27]

That is to say, yes the literary meaning of kneeling is the attachment of the knees to the ground, but this should be avoided on Sundays, because the Sacred Canons explicitly prohibit it and therefore, both clergy and laity should bend their body deeply when the consecration takes place in order to indicate that they stand before the sacrament in a spirit of veneration and worship. In this way, neither the Sacred Canons are infringed, nor is the pious disposition of the faithful overlooked or criticized.

Certainly we understand that this solution may cause the reaction of those who are used to kneeling to the ground on Sundays. This matter, however, has to do with pastoral and liturgical discipline, because people should be taught rightly why the Sacred Canons prohibit kneeling in church on Sundays. This is the duty of the clergy, who are required to undertake the responsibility to teach the faithful what is right and to use the liturgical sermon to educate their parishioners. There is no reason to allow the infiltration into the Divine Liturgy of personal and sentimental elements which change its character. Also, there is no need to try to find on every occasion pretexts or explanations of deviations which are not approved by the Church. The Divine Liturgy is not a personal affair. The Church lays down the order and she has specified that paschal character of the Divine Liturgy which stresses the Resurrection and which has been from the beginning associated with Sunday. We do not need to prove the paschal character of the Divine Liturgy which is connected with the Resurrection and the Last Things (eschatology). Besides, the Church prohibited the celebration of the Divine Liturgy on days of fasting and this, of course, has been today restricted to the period of the Great Lent, but the primary sense still remains intact: the Eucharist is an eschatological event and cannot be anything else but a celebratory occasion, full of joy and radiance.[28]

------------------

[1] See his Typikon, Thessalonica, 1994, p. 42.

[2] Ralles-Potles, Syntagma, vol. 4, p. 286.

[3] Translator’s note: See the Πηδάλιον Ἀγαπίου Ἱερομονάχου καὶ Νικοδήμου Μοναχοῦ (3η ἔκδοσις, Ζάκυνθος, 1864), ἐκδ. Ἀστήρ, Ἀθῆναι 1970, σ. 82. The English translation of the above, i.e. The Rudder of Agapius and Nikodemus, translated by D. Cummings, published by The Orthodox Christian Education Society, Chicago Illinois, 1957, p.110 gives the number 64 for this Canon, because, as it states it is so number in the majority of editions. However, the more recent editions of the Sacred Canons (Ἱεροὶ Κανόνες) of H. Alivizatos (1949) and Bl. Feidas (1997) give the number 55 to this Canon.

[4] Ioannes Foundoulis, Liturgics, p. 237.

[5] Εἰρηναίου, Ἀποσπάσματα ἐξ ἀπολεσθέντων ἔργων, ΒΕΠΕΣ, vol. 5, 1955, p. 174, 15-17.

[6] ΒΕΠΕΣ, vol. 4, 1955, p. 128.

[7] The Rudder, p. 196.

[8] The Rudder, pp. 394-5.

[9] The Rudder, pp. 754-5.

[10] The Rudder, p. 965.

[11] The Rudder, p. 855.

[12] The Rudder, p. 855.

[13] The Introit of the Small Entrance of the Divine Liturgy.

[14] The 3rd Antiphon of the Divine Liturgy.

[15] I Cor. 14:25.

[16] Ἡ Γονυκλισία ἐν ταῖς Κυριακαῖς, Τύποις Φοίνικος, Ἀθῆναι 1948.

[17] Ἡ Γονυκλισία ... ενθ. αν. σ. 8. Πρβλ. Αlekej Dmitrievskij, Opisanie Liturgitseskich Rukopisej, I, Τυπικά, Kiev 1895 (repr. Hildesheim 1965), p. 812.

[18] Εκκλησία, τευχ. 33-34, 1948.

[19] Εκκλησία 25-26 σ. 198.

[20] p. 5.

[21] Εκκλησία 33-34, 1938.

[22] Περίοδος Πεντηκοσταρίου, Το Εκκλησιαστικόν Έτος 2, έν Αθήναις 1973, σσ. 94-95.

[23] Ekklesia, issues 33-34, 1948, p. 280.

[24] Pedalion, p. 151.

[25] Ioannes Foundoulis, Liturgics, pp. 239-240.

[26] The Rudder, p. 965.

[27] Ibid.

[28] On this see further the article of The Most Reverend Metropolitan John of Pergamon in the journal Synaxis, 51 (1994) 88-89. See also, Archimandrite Kyrillos Kostopoulos, Sacred Tradition Regarding Kneeling: A Theological Reference to the Jewish Sabbath and to the Lord’s Day, Athens 2000.

Source: Translated by Protopresbyter George Dion Dragas and edited by John Sanidopoulos

America's God Is Dying

2011-02-15T10:47:00.001-08:00

Stanley Hauerwas
July 20, 2010
ABC Religion and Ethics

America is the first great experiment in Protestant social formation. Protestantism in Europe always assumed and depended on the cultural habits that had been created by Catholic Christianity. America is the first place Protestantism did not have to define itself over against a previous Catholic culture. So America is the exemplification of constructive Protestant social thought.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer thus got it right when he characterized American Protestantism as "Protestantism without Reformation."

That is why it has been possible for Americans to synthesize three seemingly antithetical traditions: evangelical Protestantism, republican political ideology and commonsense moral reasoning. For Americans, faith in God is indistinguishable from loyalty to their country.

American Protestants do not have to believe in God because they believe in belief. That is why we have never been able to produce an interesting atheist in America. The god most Americans say they believe in is just not interesting enough to deny. Thus the only kind of atheism that counts in America is to call into question the proposition that everyone has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Consequently, America did not need to have an established church because it was assumed that the church was virtually established by the everyday habits of public life.

Just take, for example, the 1833 amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that did away with church establishment, which nonetheless affirmed "the public worship of God, and the instructions in piety, religion, and morality, promote the happiness and prosperity of a people, and the security of republican government."

In his important book America's God, Mark Noll points out that these words were written at the same time that Alexis de Tocqueville had just returned to France from his tour of North America. Tocqueville confirmed the point made in the Massachusetts Constitution by observing, "I do not know if all Americans have faith in their religion - for who can read to the bottom of hearts? - but I am sure that they believe it necessary to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion does not belong only to one class of citizens or to one party, but to the entire nation; one finds it in all ranks."

Protestantism came to America to make America Protestant. It was assumed that was to be done through faith in the reasonableness of the common man and the establishment of a democratic republic. But in the process the church in America became American - or, as Noll puts it, "because the churches had done so much to make America, they could not escape living with what they had made."

As a result Americans continue to maintain a stubborn belief in a god, but the god they believe in turns out to be the American god. To know or worship that god does not require that a church exist because that god is known through the providential establishment of a free people.

This is a presumption shared by the religious right as well as the religious left in America. Both assume that America is the church.

But now we are beginning to see the loss of confidence by Protestants in their ability to sustain themselves in America just to the extent that the inevitable conflict between the church, republicanism and commonsense morality has worked its way through the system of our national life.

America is the great experiment in Protestant social thought, but the society Protestants created now threatens to make Protestantism unintelligible to itself. Put as directly as I can, I believe we may be living at a time when we are watching Protestantism, at least the kind of Protestantism we have in America, come to an end. It is dying of its own success.

Protestantism became identified with the republican presumption in liberty as an end in itself. This presumption was then reinforced by an unassailable belief in the commonsense of the individual. As a result, Protestant churches in America lost the ability to maintain those disciplines that are necessary to sustain a truly free people - people who are capable of being a genuine alternative to the rest of the world.

The great irony is that the almost pathological fervency with which the religious right in America tries to sustain faith as a necessary condition for democracy is the surest formula for insuring that the faith that is sustained is not the Christian faith.

More Americans may go to church than their counterparts in Europe, but the churches to which they go do little to challenge the secular presumptions that form their lives or the lives of the churches to which they go. For the church is assumed to exist to reinforce the presumption that those that go to church have done so freely.

The church's primary function, therefore, is to legitimate and sustain the presumption that America represents what all people would want to be if they had the benefit of American education and money. That is what Americans mean by "freedom." Thus the presumption that if you get to choose between a Sony or Panasonic television you have had a "free choice." The same presumption works for choosing a President. Once you have made your choice you have to learn to live with it. So there is a kind of resignation that freedom requires.

But this is where the entire "freedom" edifice begins to crumble. Just consider this question: "Do you think that people ought to be held accountable for decisions they made when they did not know what they were doing?" Most Americans would say no. They do not believe you should be held accountable because it is assumed that you should only be held accountable when you acted freely, and that means you had to know what you were doing.

This is what I mean when I say, in a rather convoluted way, that most Americans tell themselves the story that you should have no story except the story you choose when you had no story. That we are, in other words, people of our own making, constituted by a free choice. And that free choice is the only thing we are responsible for.

But the problem with such an account of responsibility is that it makes marriage, among other things, completely unintelligible. How could you ever know what you were doing when you promised life-long monogamous fidelity? That is why the church insists that your vows be witnessed by the church, because the church believes it has the duty to hold you responsible to promises you made when you did not know what you were doing.

This obviously has profound implications for how faith is understood. The idea that you should have no story except the story you choose when you had no story produces people who can say things such as, "I believe Jesus is Lord - but that's just my personal opinion." This kind of statement obviously suggests a superficial person, but such are the people that many believe are crucial to sustain democracy. For such a people are necessary in order to avoid the conflicts that otherwise might undermine the order, which is confused with peace, necessary to sustain a society that shares no goods in common other than the belief that there are no goods in common.

If I am right about the story that shapes the American self-understanding, I think we are in a position to better understand why 11 September 2001 had such a profound effect on the self-proclaimed "most powerful nation in the world." The fear of death is necessary to insure a level of cooperation between people who otherwise share nothing in common. In other words, they share nothing in common other than the presumption that death is to be avoided at all costs.

That is why in America hospitals have become our cathedrals and physicians are our priests. I'd even argue that America's almost pathological reliance on medicine is but a domestic manifestation of its foreign policy. America is a culture of death because Americans cannot conceive of how life is possible in the face of death. And thus "freedom" comes to stand for the attempt to live as though we will not die.

It is impossible to avoid the fact that American Christianity is far less than it should have been just to the extent that the church has failed to make clear that America's god is not the God that Christians worship.

We are now facing the end of Protestantism. America's god is dying. Hopefully, that will leave the church in America in a position where it has nothing to lose. And when you have nothing to lose, all you have left is the truth. So I am hopeful that God may yet make the church faithful - even in America.

Stanley Hauerwas is the Gilbert T. Rowe Professor of Theological Ethics at Duke University. In 2001 he was named "America's Best Theologian" by Time magazine.

The Patristic Understanding of the Virgin Birth of Christ

2011-02-15T10:44:00.000-08:00

Where God Wills The Order Of Nature Is Overruled

"And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered" (Lk. 2:6).

Concerning the birth of Christ, the Prophet Isaiah spoke thus:

"Behold she that travailed brought forth, before the travail-pain came on, she escaped it and brought forth a male" (Is. 66:7).

Saint John of Damascus adds to this saying that:

"After the normal nine-month gestational period, Christ was born at the beginning of the tenth, in accordance with the law of gestation. It was the birth that surpassed the established order of birthgiving, as it was without pain; for, where pleasure had not preceded, pain did not follow. And just as at His conception He had kept her who conceived Him virgin, so also at His birth did He maintain her virginity intact, because He alone passed through her and kept her shut.

While the conception was by 'hearing', the birth was by the usual orifice through which children are born, even though there are some who concoct an idle tale of His being born from the side of the Mother of God. For it was not impossible for Him to pass through the gate without breaking its seals. Hence, the Ever-Virgin remained virgin even after giving birth and never had converse with a husband as long as she lived."1

Saint Ambrose in his Synodal Letter 44 writes:

"Why is it hard to believe that Mary gave birth in a way contrary to the law of natural birth and remained a virgin, when contrary to the law of nature the sea looked at Him and fled, and the waters of the Jordan returned to their source (Ps. 113:3). Is it past belief that a virgin gave birth when we read that a rock issued water (Ex. 17:6), and the waves of the sea were made solid as a wall (Ex. 14:22)? Is it past belief that a Man came from a virgin when a rock bubbled forth a flowing stream (Ex. 20:11), iron floated on water (4 Kings 6:6), a Man walked upon the waters (Mt. 14:26)? If the waters bore a Man, could not a virgin give birth to a man? What Man? Him of Whom we read: '...the Lord shall be known to the Egyptians, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day; and they shall offer sacrifices, and shall vow vows to the Lord, and pay them' (Is. 19:20).

In the Old Testament a Hebrew virgin (Miriam) led an army through the sea (Ex. 15:21); in the New testament a king's daughter (the Virgin Mary) was chosen to be the heavenly entrance to salvation."

In the Resurrection Theotokion of Saturday Vespers (Plagal of the First Mode), we chant:

"Then, the deep was trodden dry-shod by Israel, now, Christ is born seedlessly of the Virgin. The sea, after the passage of Israel, remained untrodden: the blameless one, after the birth of Emmanuel, remained undefiled."

Saint Ambrose also writes in another letter that:

"A virgin carried Him Whom this world cannot contain or support. And when He was born of Mary's womb, He yet preserved the enclosure of her modesty, and the inviolate seal of her virginity."2

Where God so wills the order of nature is overcome. Is anything too hard for Him Who called heaven, earth and the sea into being by His word alone? Nature and the elements are creations of the Creator. Their laws and properties are immediately subject to their Lord Fashioner. Adam and Eve were given dominion over the fish of the sea, the flying creatures of heaven, and over the reptiles and cattle and all the earth (Gen. 1:26); all were subject to them before the fall. Saint Gregory Palamas comments that when the Logos of God took on human nature, He bestowed on it the fullness of grace and delivered it from the bonds of corruption and death. The consequence of hypostatic union in Christ of the two natures was the deification of the human nature He assumed.3 The regeneration of man in Christ was the restoration of Adam and Eve.

The saints, having put on Christ, have often resumed the authority and dominion that our first parents had. Thus, the Prophet Habakkum instantly traversed vast expanses of land, with no effort, and brought food to Daniel in the lion's den. The Holy Apostles, too, were transported on clouds to be at the Theotokos' repose in Jerusalem, and their bodily weight proved not to hamper their flight, in defiance to gravity. Our Savior and the saints performed those things outside the created laws of physics and medicine. By a word, straightway, long and terminal illnesses vanished, limbs that were palsied became sound, those without orbs received the power of vision, and many were raised from the dead. Some of the saints could go long periods without food, water or changes of clothing as St. Paisios the Great of Egypt or St. Mary Golinduc the Persian. Others, by their mere grace0filled presence, tamed wild and ferocious animals. Thus, why should it be difficult to imagine that the Christ infant could not pass through that virginal orifice through which children are delivered without incurring damage or the slightest discomfort to His Mother, despite His newborn height and weight? Later, in life, He would pass through the midst of the mob unscathed as though bodiless and, after His Resurrection, His body would pass through solid and shut doors to meet and greet His anxious disciples (Jn. 20:19).

Concerning the mystery of the incarnation, St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote the following:

"When God became known to us in the flesh, He neither received the passions of human nature, nor did the Virgin Mary suffer pain, nor was the Holy Spirit diminished in any way, nor was the power of the Most High set aside in any manner, and all this was because all was accomplished by the Holy Spirit. thus the power of the Most High was not abased, and the child was born with no damage whatsoever to the mother's virginity."4

Saint Hesychios (c. 451), a learned priest-monk of Jerusalem, expressed the same truth, writing that:

"The Theotokos was a woman, yet she did not suffer the pangs of childbirth because the field of marriage had not experienced the plow; the virginal vineyard was not tilled."5

Notes:

1. Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Bk. 4, Ch. 14.

2. Letter 59, To the Church at Vercelli.

3. Georgios L. Mantzarides, The Deification of Man: St. Gregory Palamas and the Orthodox Tradition, p. 29.

4. "Against Eunomius, Hom. II", PG 45, 492.

5. "Sermon On the Presentation", PG 93, 1469.

Source: The Life of the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos by Holy Apostles Convent, pp. 176-179.

Stories of the Post-Nativity Virginity of the Theotokos

2011-02-15T10:43:00.001-08:00

By St. Nikolai Velimirovich

A story about the Most-pure Virgin Mary: She conceived the Lord Jesus on a Friday, just as His passion was on a Friday, and she gave birth to Him on the first day of the week. On the first day of the week God said, "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3); on the first day of the week, manna fell from heaven; on this day the Lord and Savior was born; and on this day He was baptized in the Jordan.

At that time, there lived in Bethlehem the aged Salome, a kinswoman of Joseph and Mary. She was unable to receive her kinfolk at her house but visited them in the shepherd's cave. When the Most-holy Virgin immaculately gave birth to the Lord and Savior, Salome came to visit her. She was amazed that such a young girl could give birth without the aid of a midwife, swaddle the Child herself, and beside all of that still be on her feet.

When it was explained to Salome that this birth was of God and not man, that it was immaculate and without pain, and that the Virgin Mother remained a Virgin after birth as she was before birth, Salome did not believe it, but rather she stretched out her hand to the body of the Most-holy Virgin to examine it, after the custom of a midwife, and to find out if this was indeed so. And because of her unbelief and insolence, a punishment befell her: her hand was seized and withered. The aged woman was greatly frightened by the miracle and lamented over her withered hand. However, when she touched the Divine Child later, her hand was restored to health like it was before. Thus, Salome believed in the virginity of the Most-pure Virgin Mary and in the Divinity of Christ.

Thus after forty days, when according to custom the Most-pure Virgin came with the young Child to the Temple in Jerusalem, Zacharias the high priest placed her in the area reserved for virgins. The Pharisees and priests were disturbed by this and wanted to remove her to the place reserved for married women, but the discerning Zacharias did not allow this, claiming, that she was a virgin even though she had given birth. Because of this, the Jewish elders hated Zacharias and sought from Herod that he be killed. Immediately after she left the Temple, the Theotokos and Joseph left from Jerusalem to Nazareth and then to Egypt.

Elder Isaac of Dionysiou: The Perfect Orthodox Monk

2011-02-15T10:36:00.001-08:00

By Archimandrite Cherubim Karambelas

According to the Holy Fathers, all ascetic labors, whether bodily or spiritual, have one lofty and holy end: purity of heart. Fasting, all-night vigils, mourning, suffering, rules of prayer, the services, the reading of spiritual books, prayer, and other ascetic struggles help the monastic to rise high and live a pure and holy life. This end was attained in the life of the praiseworthy monk of Dionysiou - Isaac.

Climbing the ladder of the virtues, he perfected himself in meekness, innocence, and simplicity. This last virtue, according to St. John Climacus, "leads to the highest humility," and: "You will never see simplicity bereft of humility."

Deep humility opens the path to another summit of virtue: dispassion. Our good mountaineer and soldier of Christ conquered this peak also. Dispassion is a very lofty summit, and there are few who reach it. "This requires time and much longing for God.... When you see or hear that someone has in a few years acquired the most sublime dispassion, then conclude that he travelled by no other way than by this blessed shortcut - of humility" (St. John Climacus).

The fathers who knew him well, like Fr. Leontius who lived with him in several metochia, have told us of the high level of dispassion that adorned the life of the Elder.

"For Elder Isaac," Fr. Leontius said, "there was no difference or change of feelings when he conversed or associated with lay people."

"What do you mean by that, Father?" Fr. Lazarus asked him.

"I mean that Elder Isaac spoke with women just like he spoke with men."

When the need arose, therefore, he would associate and converse with everyone, but always on a higher level. This is called in Patristic language dispassion. Truly Elder Isaac, although living at the Monastery's Metochia in the midst of the world, was always a dispassionate monk, "an iron-clad warrior," "warring, but not warred against." He was dead to the world; only Christ lived within him. "He who is perfect in love and has reached the summit of passionlessness knows no difference between his own people and strangers, or between believer and infidel, between bond and free, or even between male and female...." (St. Maximus the Confessor).

As long as the mailman of Dionysiou,* this excellent courier of God, continued to follow this path, he would finish his course on the pinnacle of virtue, which is perfect love.

He reached the point where he sympathized with all manner of people, with the whole world, with all of creation, animate and inanimate, as his patron saint wrote somewhere on the nature of perfect love.** He loved and sympathized with all.

Across from the Monastery at the Kathisma of the Holy Apostles lived Elder Isaac together with Fr. Lazarus. The one, being older, looked after the garden with its lemon and orange trees, while the other took care of Elder Modestos who was suffering from hemiplegia. The latter had the cell next to the church, and the former two lived on the upper floor.

"After Compline," Fr. Lazarus remarked as we were parting, "no more that half an hour would pass before Fr. Isaac would be praying with tears and wailing. His face was awash with tears, tears falling from his soul and heart. After hearing him on several occasions, I decided to ask him why he wept every night. Going downstairs, therefore, I drew near and heard him saying: 'Have mercy on the poor people, O Lord. Have mercy on the unfortunate ones. Have mercy on the hungry. Give them Thy blessing, O Lord, have mercy....'

Not understanding for whom he was imploring, however, I asked him: 'Fr. Isaac, for whom are you crying and pleading to Christ for so long? Who are those poor and unfortunate ones?'

He replied: 'My child, don't you remember the tenant-farmers we had at the Metochia who worked all day long. Such hard work, yet they barely managed to live. How could they meet their families' expenses? How could they marry off their daughters? How could they teach their children to read? Where would they find clothes to wear? How can I not pity them when I think of them, especially when they loved and respected us so much? They were obedient to us like bought slaves. Why should I not weep and entreat Christ for them?'

Silently I left him to weep and supplicate Christ, marvelling at his great compassion."

In this picture of his life at the Kathisma of the Holy Apostles, we can perceive the attitude of a true Athonite monk towards his fellow men. It is revealed in two ways: Love towards a bed-ridden invalid, manifested by sacrifice, patience, night watches, labor, and self-denial; and love towards the tenant-farmers, manifested by warm tears and disturbance of soul. We see this attitude revealed all over the Holy Mountain.

Our minds wonder at these images of Elder Isaac's life at the Kathisma of the Holy Apostles - whether we see him on the ground floor, praying fervently; or on the upper floor, nursing the invalid. In these two scenes we see realized the Master's words in that historic upper room in Jerusalem: "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."

Here is the genuine social work of monastic: prayer for their fellow men and for all the world; self-sacrificing care for the sick, unceasing hospitality, true teaching by example. A work which is not blazed abroad has for this reason its own measureless worth.

***************************

The grace of God found firm abode in the soul of Elder Isaac. His prayers were compunctionate; he had received the God-given grace of tears, as we saw above in the example of his sympathy and love for those in want and sorrow.

"You cannot show," says St. Symeon the New Theologian, "that without tears and continual contrition anyone has been purified, or become holy, or received the Holy Spirit, or seen God, or completely received Him as a dweller in his heart."

Especially towards the end of his life, his eyes squinted from his perpetual tears. Many times the fathers noticed that his eyes were swollen and red from weeping; passing by his cell, they would hear him say the Jesus Prayer from the depths of his heart.

All day long, and especially at night, he communicated with Heaven. He tried to find as much time as possible to devote to prayer. During the silence of the nights, wakeful, beyond the world and everything earthly, he would pray for hours, pouring forth rivers of tears in his great compunction and divine love.

***************************

Fr. Lazarus once asked him: "How many hours should I sleep, Fr. Isaac?"

"For one as young as you, five hours are sufficient - three at night and two in the daytime. For older monks, however, three to four hours in the whole day are enough."

Indeed, Fr. Isaac slept for one hour during the day and two hours at night. The rest of the time was spent with Him for Whom his soul insatiably thirsted.

"When we were at the Kathisma of the Holy Apostles," Fr. Lazarus related, "the two of us would do the service with our prayer ropes for two-and-a-half hours.*** Fr. Isaac would do the first and second prayer ropes in a quiet voice: 'Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us.' On the third, his heart would grow warmer; he could not restrain himself to speak softly, but would cry each word with flaming zeal ... I would hear him and marvel at his heart's love for Christ."

One night Fr. Lazarus arose in order to go from the Kathisma of the Holy Apostles to Karyes. (Fr. Modestos, who was sick, needed something.) It was July and very warm: the night was moonlit. When he had left the Kalyva and gone a little way, beside the road he saw a singular sight. Someone was kneeling, praying with uplifted hands amidst the infinite silence of the night and peaceful nature. It was Fr. Isaac.

Fr. Lazarus stopped and changed direction. He thought it a sacrilege to pass him and disrupt that awe-inspiring scene.

Who knows what divine joy, what heavenly grace shone that evening on the Elder's bright face? Who knows what those holy raised hands were seeking from heaven? Who knows how many tears watered the ground of the Kathisma of the Holy Apostles? What tears he shed "from the pouring forth of divine light and heaven opening upon him...."

* Elder Isaac's obedience at Dionysiou was the difficult job of being a mailman, which even in the harsh winters he fulfilled and nearly cost him his life. Read Two Wondrous Miracles of St. John the Forerunner in the Life of Elder Isaac of Dionysiou.

** St. Isaac the Syrian wrote: "And what is the merciful heart? It is the heart’s burning for all of creation, for men, for birds, for animals and even for demons. At the remembrance and at the sight of them, the merciful man’s eyes fill with tears which arise from the great compassion that urges his heart. It grows tender and cannot endure hearing or seeing any injury or slight sorrow to anything in creation. Because of this, such a man continually offers tearful prayer even for irrational animals and for the enemies of truth and for all who harm it, that they may be guarded and forgiven."

*** Monks, ascetics or hesychasts who are away from their monastery, or do not have service books, or are illiterate, or out of obedience to attain a deeper form of prayer, etc., substitute attending services with a corresponding number of Jesus Prayers. For example, a Midnight Service and Matins can be substituted for thirty-three hundred prayers.

From Contemporary Ascetics of Mount Athos (vol. 1) by Archimandrite Cherubim, pp. 344-347 and 359-361.

Holy Scripture In the Orthodox Church

2011-02-15T10:27:00.001-08:00

By Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver

Strictly speaking, there never was a ‘Bible’ in the Orthodox Church, at least not as we commonly think of the Bible as a single volume book we can hold in our hand. Since the beginning of the Church, from the start of our liturgical tradition, there has never been a single book in an Orthodox church we could point to as ‘the Bible’. Instead, the various ‘Books’ of the Bible are found scattered throughout several service books located either on the Holy Altar itself, or at the chanter's stand. The Gospels (or their pericopes) are complied into a single volume — usually bound in precious metal and richly decorated — placed on the Holy Altar.

The Epistles (or, again, their pericopes) are bound together in another book, called the Apostolos, which is normally found at the chanter's stand. Usually located next to the Apostolos on the chanter's shelf are the twelve volumes of the Menaion, as well as the books called the Triodion and Pentekostarion, containing various segments of the Old and the New Testaments.

The fact that there is no ‘Bible’ in the church should not surprise us, since our liturgical tradition is a continuation of the practices of the early Church, when the Gospels and the letters from the Apostles (the Epistles) had been freshly written and copied for distribution to the Christian communities. The ‘Hebrew Scriptures’ (what we now call the ‘Old Testament’, comprising the Law (the first five books) and the Prophets, were likewise written on various scrolls, just as they were found in the Jewish synagogues.

The Church is not based on the Bible. Rather, the Bible is a product of the Church. For the first few centuries of the Christian era, no one could have put his hands on a single volume called ‘The Bible’. In fact, there was no one put his hands on a single volume called ‘The Bible’. In fact, there was no agreement regarding which ‘books’ of Scripture were to be considered accurate and correct, or canonical. Looking back over history, there were various ‘lists’ of the canonical ‘books’ comprising the Bible:

•The Muratorian Canon (130 AD) cities all the books we considered as parts of the Bible today, except for Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation/Apocalypse

•Canon 60 of the local Council of Laodicea (364 AD) cited Revelation/Apocalypse

•A festal Epistle by Saint Athanasius (369 AD) lists all of them.
Even so, there was no official, authoritative ‘canon’ listing all the books until the Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople in AD 680. Canon II of that Council ratifies the First through the Fifth Ecumenical Councils, as well as the local councils at Carthage (AD 255), Ancyra (AD 315), Neocaesaria (AD 315), Gangra (AD 340), Antioch (AD 341), Laodicea (AD 364), Sardica (AD 347), Constantinople (AD 394), and Carthage (AD 419). When the Council at Laodicea specified the content of the bible as we know it — 39 years after the First Ecumenical Council (AD 325) and 17 years before the second Ecumenical Council (AD 381) — the Liturgy was pretty much well-defined and established and had been ‘canonized’ by common usage — the reading from these books. It was not until the invention of the printing press in Western Europe, coinciding with the period of the Protestant Reformation of Western Christianity that ‘The Bible’ was widely disseminated as a single volume.

When Protestant Western Christians reviewed the canonical books of Scripture, they adopted the ‘Hebrew Canon’ accepted by the Jews since AD 100. [See The Books of the Old Testament]

The so-called Apocrypha, or Deuterocanonical, books were a problem for Jews living after the time of Christ, since they often very clearly prophesy concerning Our Lord, and indicate His divinity. Some of the books were also problematic for both the Jews and the Protestants because they make prophetically evident the special role of the Theotokos in the oikonomia of salvation. In fact, the Orthodox Fathers cite passages quite effectively to discuss the Church's understanding of the role of the Theotokos. Also, the only scriptural reference to praying for the dead is found in a Deuterocanonical book: viz., Maccabees. Not surprisingly, these Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books were rejected from the ‘canon’ of books indicated in the Jewish Scriptures. This canon was formally pronounced by a rabbinical council at Jamnia, which stated that all canonical Scripture had to have been written: in Palestine, in Hebrew (not Greek), and more then 400 years prior (300 BC) to that time.

In addition, the authorized Hebrew ‘translation’ was at variance with the accepted Septuagint Greek versions, which had been prepared by 72 translators working in Alexandria Egypt. This is significant, because the Apostles, who were the authors of the New Testament, as well as the early Church Fathers, frequently cite passages only found in the Septuagint (Greek) Old Testament that have significant differences in meaning from the Hebrew. Moreover, they frequently cite passages from the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament.

The Holy Scriptures were produced by the Orthodox Church. The Church's holy prophets and Apostles wrote the books contained in the Bible. The Church determined which books were authoritative and belonged in Holy Scripture. The Church preserved and passed on the texts of these Scriptural books. According to tradition, the seventy-two Jewish rabbis and scholars who gave us the Septuagint Greek Old Testament, produced seventy-two identical Greek translations working independently and in insolation from one another. Writing in Greek, the Holy Apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude produced the books of the New Testament.

The Holy Scriptures were preserved by the Orthodox Church. These books and letters were studied, copied, collected, recopied, passed from group of early Christians to another, and read in the services of the Church. Testimony to the fidelity of reproduction in this milieu is the consistent agreement among the Church Fathers when they cite Scripture, and their common understanding of Scripture in their deliberations at the local and Ecumenical councils.

Over the centuries, alterations crept into some manuscripts. Sometimes the texts were altered by accident (e.g.., mistakes made in copying these books by hand). At other times intentional alterations were made, either by misguided but innocent copyists who thought they were correcting errors in the manuscripts they were working from, or by heretics who full intended to change the words of Scripture to suit their purposes. The Church, however, guided by the Holy Spirit, distinguished between authentic and inauthentic manuscripts, discarding or ignoring the latter, copying and handing on the former. Even today we see the authentic words of Scripture preserved. When a young priest or a chanter mispronounces a word in its original Greek, there will be a Bishop, an older priest — or even a venerable Orthodox ‘grandmother’ — who will be quick to point out the aberration from the way the text ‘has always been sung or read’!

The authentic Greek text of the Bible is preserved by the Orthodox Church. When translating the New Testament into English, there are many Greek manuscripts to choose from. To ask, ‘What does the original Greek say?’ is to beg the question, which Greek text? For Orthodox Christians this is a very easy question to answer. We simply use the Greek text handed down within the Orthodox Church which has been proven consistent by 2000 years of liturgical use and which the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, has given us. To Scripture scholars there is a huge body of ancient Greek manuscripts, known as the Byzantine text-type, which embodies the Orthodox textual tradition. These old manuscripts and lectionaries differ very little from each other, and are indeed in overwhelming agreement with each other throughout the whole New Testament. Furthermore, they are great in number and comprise the vast majority of existing Greek manuscripts.

There is another, bogus, Greek text of the Bible. Besides the Byzantine text-type family of manusciprts, there is a minor collection of Greek Scripture texts which are very old, and sometimes predate the Byzantine texts by hundreds of years.

In the middle of the last century, ‘modern’ Scripture scholars, or critics, determined that newly-‘discovered’ ancient texts — such as the Codex Sinaiticus, the Alexandrian Codex, the Codex Ephraemi rescriptus — dating from the fourth through the sixth centuries, had determining authority in establishing the original text of the Gospels and the words of the Lord. Criticism was leveled against these critics by other scholars who maintained that the older manuscripts had been preserved through the ages precisely because they were set aside and unused since they were inferior copies — obvious from the ineptitude of the hands that wrote them and the many misspellings. They argued that it was hardly logical to prefer inferior texts from one text family over the received Byzantine texts were in agreement. Furthermore, they noted that the received text has even more ancient parallels — in second century Syriac and Latin versions — and is widely quoted in the Fathers. Even papyrus fragments from the first century bear out the veracity of the Byzantine text, and refute the validity of the older texts.

Amazingly — indeed, even unbelievably — most modern translators work from an ‘eclectic’ or ‘critical text’, which draws very heavily from the older Codices. This eclectic text is a patchwork of readings from the various manuscripts which differ from each other and from the Byzantine text.

Any Greek Orthodox Christian can take a copy of the Nestle-Aland critical (eclectic) text into church, and compare the Epistles with those in the Apostolos — they differ, often, radically, in hundreds of places, not only in words and word order, but also in tenses and meanings! The same comparison can be made between an English translation of the Psalms and the Greek version found in the Horologion — they differ in thousands of places. The English has often been translated from the Hebrew Masoretic text which was compiled by Jewish scholars during the first ten centuries after Christ. These scholars used inferior texts or edited them to delete or minimize the messianic prophecies or types which refer to Christ. Surprisingly, this Hebrew version of the Psalms is used even though the Greek Septuagint is often used to decipher the Masoretic text which is often unintelligible since the vowels are not indicated.

Most modern English Bible translations are based on bogus versions of the Scriptures. Unfortunately, no English translation of the Bible has been made using the Byzantine text-type manuscripts of the New Testament since the King James Version (KJV) in 1611. The others are all based on the eclectic Greek New Testament manuscripts and various Hebrew Old Testament texts. The bottom line is that manuscripts which the Orthodox Church did not use or copy have been elevated above those texts which the Church has preserved by modern and contemporary Scripture scholars and translators. Sadly, but perhaps significantly indicative, is the fact that the scholars who put together those eclectic critical texts decisively reject the Byzantine (that is to say, Orthodox) text-type, claiming that the Byzantine text was corrupted by Orthodox copyists eager to conform the text of Scripture to Orthodox theology as it developed over the first several centuries of the Church's life.

The Orthodox stand on the Critical Eclectic Texts. As Orthodox, we cannot believe that the text of Scripture is arbitrary and governed only by human considerations — especially those of modern scholars who decide what is and what is not ‘authentic’. We see the presence of God and His providence in our daily lives; how can they be denied to exist in the Church and in the canon and text of the Holy Scriptures? Otherwise everything in our liturgical worship is suspect and unreliable. The human element cannot be ignored or denied, but neither can the divine. Yet most biblical scholars and textual critics wish to disregard any form of divine intervention or revelation in order to make their study ‘scientific’. In fact, present-day biblical scholarship hides its fundamental unbelief from believers and even from itself. It ultimately results in such ludicrous claims that Jesus Christ never spoke any of the words recorded in the Bible — claims that make the front page of national news magazines and mislead millions of people.

Perhaps the best example of the modern ‘scholars’ bias is found in the first chapter, first verse of the Gospel of Mark: ‘The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God’ The modernists drop the words ‘the Son of God’ because they are absent from the Codex Sinaiticus and papyrus miniscules 28 and 255. Yet they appear in all other copies and versions and in many quotations of the fathers!

Modern translations obscure the Divinity of Christ. In what can only be a return to the ancient heresy of Arius, even the much touted 1952 Revised Standard Version (RSV) translation of Scripture tends to minimize Christ's divine nature. Forty years ago the King James translation was widely impugned for being based on the Greek Byzantine texts which were called corrupt — an amazing accusation considering the pedigree of the eclectic critical texts. In the liberal theological milieu of that time, many Protestant theologians denied not only the virgin birth, but also the divinity of Christ and His resurrection. One curious feature of the RSV translation is its apparent mixture of old and new English; the older traditional second person singular pronoun, thou/thee/thy, is intermixed with the nondescript modern ye/you/you. While at first glance this seems chaotic, it actually serves as a hidden code. The traditional ‘thou’ usage is employed when God is addressed, but ‘you’ whenever anyone else is addressed. Note, for example, that the Our Father in the RSV retains the word ‘thy’ in referring to God's name, kingdom, and will. But note that in the RSV translation a leper addresses Jesus in Mark 1:40, Saying ‘If you will, you can make me clean’, and Peter says in Matthew 16:16, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ The only time in the RSV that Christ is addressed as ‘Thou’ is after He is no longer on earth, but even this is found mainly in Hebrews when Paul quotes from the Old Testament.

The clearly Protestant bias against the Theotokos, and her Orthodox definition as critical to preserving the divinity of Christ is also very evident in the RSV. Consider Matthew 1:25 (KJV): ‘(Joseph) knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son; and he called his name Jesus.’ But in the RSV: ‘(Joseph) knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.’ From the Byzantine, Orthodox, texts, the KJV tells us that Mary brought forth not a son, but her firstborn — precluding her having had previous children. Moreover, He is clearly her son; but not Joseph's. Note how the RSV is distinguished from the KJV in Luke 2:33; after Simeon returned Jesus to His mother, the narrative tells us (KJV): ‘Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him.’ But the RSV: ‘And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him.’ The RSV infers that Joseph is Jesus' father, presumably his biological father — a clear refutation of the dogma of virgin birth.

Or again, consider the following notable omission in John 3:13. KJV: ‘No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.’ But the RSV: ‘No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.’

The Byzantine text is clearly reflected in the KJV; the eclectic text by the RSV. Yet only a tiny handful of manuscripts omit the expression ‘which is in heaven’ while the vast majority of manuscripts include it, as do the quotations of Church fathers such as Saint Basil the Great, Saint Hilary, Saint John Chrysostom, and Saint Cyril. This particular Scripture text is the clearest witness to the Orthodox teaching that Christ is fully man while not being circumscribed in any way as God, since it indicates that Christ was simultaneously on earth in the body and in heaven with the Father. It also indicates, contrary to modern liberal theology, that our Lord knew very well just Who He was, where He came from, and what business He was about.

There are many more examples, but let us simply note one more, I Corinthians 15:47, which needs no further comment. KJV: ‘The first man is of the earth, earthly: the second man is the Lord from heaven.’ But the RSV: ‘The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.’

The Corruption of ‘Paraphrased’ Bibles. There is no need in this article to provide such critical analysis of the various other translations which followed the RSV (e.g, NIV, NAB); all are even more flawed. A comment should be made, however, of several very dangerous paraphrased ‘versions’ of the Bible, such as ‘Today's English Version’ and the volume sold as ‘The Book’. If the Scripture scholars can criticize the Byzantine copyists for corrupting the text to conform to Orthodox theology, what are we to say about the non-Orthodox paraphrases who have radically altered not only text, but the whole meaning of various passages? These ‘Bibles’ are to be totally and completely avoided by the Orthodox; they have no good purpose whatsoever because they are gross distortions of the truth, and serve only to infiltrate a completely corrupted theology into the minds of the faithful.

The Orthodox Witness. One very interesting question, never asked, is this: ‘If scholars are willing to assemble an eclectic text out of Scripture fragments from various sources — often of unknown doctrinal origin or authority — why haven't they ever considered the living archeological evidence of Scripture segments that have been repeated faithfully for ages in the Orthodox Liturgy?’ Why haven't serious modern scholars considered the incredible ‘coincidence’ that 72 Hebrew scholars could all translate the Old Testament in exactly the same manner into the Septuagint Greek? Why haven't they examined the translation of the Scriptures done a thousand years ago from Greek into Slavonic, which has preserved exactly, accurately, and precisely the meaning of the Greek original? And, more to the point, if errors have crept in and accumulated as texts were copied over the years, why aren't the existing copies of these Greek and Slavonic Scriptures divergent?

Non-Orthodox scholars cannot answer these questions because, to do so honestly and truthfully, they would have to admit that in fact the Orthodox Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has preserved intact and correctly the Holy Scriptures. And, moreover, this preservation is in part assured by the dogma and doctrine of the Church which both draw from the Scripture and provide evidence and support of its truth.

What Translation Should I Use? The answer is this: the King James Version (KJV) is the most reliable and faithful English translation. Unfortunately, it is written in an archaic, 500 year old style of English. Although not as incomprehensible as the 2000 year old Greek of the New Testament and Liturgy is to modern Greek speakers, it is still awkward and difficult for many to understand. The real question that begs — indeed pleads — for an answer, is this: ‘Why hasn't the Greek Orthodox Church sponsored an accurate translation into modern English from the Byzantine texts and extant fragments of Scripture found in the liturgy of the Church?’

Source: Greek Orthodox Diocese of Denver Bulletin: March 1995, Volume 3, Number 3., pp. 14-17.

What the Bible Doesn't Say About Sex

2011-02-15T10:26:00.001-08:00

Katherine T. Phan
February 12, 2011
Christian Post

Reputable Christian scholars are outright rejecting one author's message that the Bible gives mixed and contradictory teachings on sex and sexuality.

Earlier this week, a Newsweek article entitled, "What the Bible Really Says About Sex", brought attention to the work of Jennifer Wright Knust, author of Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire.

Knust, a religion professor at Boston University, argues that there are cases in the Bible where premarital sex, homosexuality and prostitution is permissible, according to her book and the Newsweek piece.

Evangelical scholars say she fails to demonstrate authentic scholarship and correct biblical interpretation despite teaching religion and being an ordained American Baptist pastor.

"Jennifer Knuts offers a revisionist interpretation of the biblical texts. Her interpretation departs, not only from the traditional ways those texts are interpreted, but also from the true meaning of what the texts actually say," Dr. Claude Mariottini, professor of Old Testament at Northern Baptist Seminary, told The Christian Post.

In his blog post responding to the Newsweek piece, Dr. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said the Bible already presents a "clear and consistent sexual ethic" and that the issue at hand is not lack of clarity.

"The real problem here is not that the Bible is misunderstood and in need of revision," he wrote Wednesday. "To the contrary, the real problem is that the ethic revealed in the Bible is both rejected and reviled."

In an interview posted Thursday on the Huffington Post, Knust contended to Stephen Prothero, author of Religious Literacy, that the story of Ruth is an example of how premarital sex is "a source of God's blessing" in the Bible. She claimed that the Bible's record of Ruth "uncovering the feet" of Boaz and lying down at his feet is actually a scene of the great grandparents of King David having sex. "Feet" can be a euphemism for male genitals, according to Knust.

Dr. Paul Copan, a philosophy professor at Palm Beach Atlantic University in West Palm Beach, Fla., told The Christian Post that he believes Ruth's uncovering of Boaz's feet was just that and that nothing sexual took place.

"The Bible doesn't shy away from recording sexual encounters and would have recorded it if one took place," he said.

President of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, Copan also pointed out that the grammar in the Bible doesn’t support a sexual act. The word "lie" can be used in a sexual way, such as Potiphar's wife telling Joseph "lie with me," he noted. But in the story of Ruth, "the word is used here without sexual connotations," said Copan.

Mariottini acknowledged that "feet" can refer to "genitals" in a few passages of the Old Testament, but to say that "Ruth exposed Boaz’s genitals, is to read a sexual meaning into the text that may or may not be there," he said.

"Even if Ruth exposed Boaz’s genitals, it does not mean that they had sexual intercourse. It is possible that Ruth was tricking Boaz into thinking they had sex," offered the Old Testament professor.

Bottom line: "The case of Ruth cannot be used to give approval to premarital sex," said Mariottini.

Both Copan and Mariottini referred to Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to explain that the Bible is against premarital sex. According to the passage, sex consummates the marriage so if a man has violated a virgin woman, he must pay her father 50 pieces of silver and also take her as his wife, the scholars said.

They also cited the passage in Genesis 2:24, which states, "This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh."

Scripture affirms God's creation order of marriage between a man and a woman and sexual pleasure as taking place in the context of marriage, they said.

In another controversial claim, Knust also argues that the Bible justifies prostitution, pointing to the story of Tamar.

Tamar was left a widow after the Lord punished Er, Judah's eldest son, with death for his wickedness. Judah then asks his second eldest son, Onan, to marry Tamar and give her an offspring but he, too, is slain by the Lord after he intentionally withheld his seed from Tamar. When the third son Shelah was grown but was given to wed Tamar, she posed as a prostitute and had sex with her father-in-law.

"The Bible does not approve prostitution, but like in our society today, prostitution was very common," said Mariottini.

"The reason Tamar dressed like a prostitute was because Judah violated a societal rule and refused to provide an heir for his dead son. So, she was forcing him to fulfill his obligation," he said.

In a commentary to CNN this week, Knust takes another stab at the Bible's claims on sexuality by arguing that Scripture supports homosexuality. Again using Old Testament characters to make her point, she sets her sights on David and Jonathan, alleging that the two were same-sex partners.

"There is no evidence that David and Jonathan were gay partners," stated Mariottini. "Both of them were married and had children. They were just friends who had the kind of friendship that was common in the Ancient Near East. This type of friendship is unknown today. This is the reason people mistake this kind of friendship with a gay relationship."

Mohler had this to say about Knust's claim on homosexuality, "No Jewish or Christian interpreter of the Bible had ever suggested that the relationship between David and Jonathan was homosexual – at least not until recent decades."

"The revisionist case is equally ludicrous across the board. We are only now able to understand what Paul was talking about in Romans 1? The church was wrong for two millennia?" he asked rhetorically.

Knust acknowledged in her CNN commentary that same-sex intimacy is condemned in a "few" biblical passages, but claims that "these passages, which I can count on one hand, are addressed to specific sex acts and specific persons, not to all humanity forever, and they can be interpreted in any number of ways."

Not so, according to Copan.

Copan, who addresses the topics of homosexuality and gay marriage in his book When God Goes to Starbucks, said that homosexuality is strictly prohibited by the Bible in Leviticus 18:22 and again by Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6.

Homosexuality "goes against the very design that God intended: marriage is between husband and wife," said Copan, reaffirming the passage in Genesis.

"Paul speaks very strongly against homosexuality," he said. "He says that these sorts of things are not to be approved in the Kingdom of God. He is also saying that people can be redeemed against this."

In his book, Copan cited the work of Richard Hays, dean of Duke Divinity School, who calls such attempts to label Ruth and Naomi as lesbians or David and Jonathan as gays "exegetical curiosities” that just aren’t taken seriously by biblical scholars.

"The Scriptures offer no indications – no stories, no metaphors – that homosexual relationships are acceptable before God," concluded Copan in When God Goes to Starbucks.

The Dark Origins of Valentine's Day

2011-02-15T10:21:00.000-08:00

Arnie Siepel
February 13, 2011
NPR

Valentine's Day is a time to celebrate romance and love and kissy-face fealty. But the origins of this festival of candy and cupids are actually dark, bloody — and a bit muddled.

Though no one has pinpointed the exact origin of the holiday, one good place to start is ancient Rome, where men hit on women by, well, hitting them.

Those Wild and Crazy Romans

From Feb. 13 to 15, the Romans celebrated the feast of Lupercalia. The men sacrificed a goat and a dog, then whipped women with the hides of the animals they had just slain.

The Roman romantics "were drunk. They were naked," says Noel Lenski, a historian at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Young women would actually line up for the men to hit them, Lenski says. They believed this would make them fertile.

The brutal fete included a matchmaking lottery, in which young men drew the names of women from a jar. The couple would then be, um, coupled up for the duration of the festival – or longer, if the match was right.

The ancient Romans may also be responsible for the name of our modern day of love. Emperor Claudius II executed two men — both named Valentine — on Feb. 14 of different years in the 3rd century A.D. Their martyrdom was honored by the Catholic Church with the celebration of St. Valentine's Day.

Later, Pope Gelasius I muddled things in the 5th century by combining St. Valentine's Day with Lupercalia to expel the pagan rituals. But the festival was more of a theatrical interpretation of what it had once been. Lenski adds, "It was a little more of a drunken revel, but the Christians put clothes back on it. That didn't stop it from being a day of fertility and love."

Around the same time, the Normans celebrated Galatin's Day. Galatin meant "lover of women." That was likely confused with St. Valentine's Day at some point, in part because they sound alike.

Shakespeare In Love

As the years went on, the holiday grew sweeter. Chaucer and Shakespeare romanticized it in their work, and it gained popularity throughout Britain and the rest of Europe. Handmade paper cards became the tokens-du-jour in the Middle Ages.

Eventually, the tradition made its way to the New World. The industrial revolution ushered in factory-made cards in the 19th century. And in 1913, Hallmark Cards of Kansas City, Mo., began mass producing valentines. February has not been the same since.

Today, the holiday is big business: According to market research firm IBIS World, Valentine's Day sales reached $17.6 billion last year; this year's sales are expected to total $18.6 billion.

But that commercialization has spoiled the day for many. Helen Fisher, a sociologist at Rutgers University, says we have only ourselves to blame.

"This isn't a command performance," she says. "If people didn't want to buy Hallmark cards, they would not be bought, and Hallmark would go out of business."

And so the celebration of Valentine's Day goes on, in varied ways. Many will break the bank buying jewelry and flowers for their beloveds. Others will celebrate in a SAD (that's Single Awareness Day) way, dining alone and binging on self-gifted chocolates. A few may even be spending this day the same way the early Romans did. But let's not go there.

“Roads to Damascus”: Crisis, Conversion, and Community in the Lives of the Three Hierarchs

2011-02-15T10:16:00.001-08:00

By Monk Maximos of Simonopetra

Lecture Delivered on 30 January 2010

Introduction

In his First Letter to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul says that we have “many teachers but not many fathers” (1 Cor 4:15). As a hierarch, moreover, Metropolitans must embody something from each of the Three Hierarchs, whose memory we have come here to celebrate. He has Chrysostom’s love and knowledge of the Scriptures; he has Gregory the Theologian’s sensitive soul, refined culture, and love of learning; and, not least, St. Basil’s clarity and precision of thought, along with his strengths as a pastor and a teacher.

On the Holy Mountain, we are taught that everything in a saint’s life is worthy of admiration, but not everything in a saint’s life is worthy of imitation. This is certainly true, yet to this rule the lives of the Three Hierarchs are an exception: everything about them is both admirable and worthy of imitation.

Tonight I want to look at the Three Hierarchs in light of the remarkable experiences that changed the course of their lives and transformed them into great teachers, fathers, and saints. As we shall see, each of the three underwent a crisis, a decisive turning point, that led to spiritual transformation. As I hope to show, these critical experiences, which were essentially conversion experiences, are the key to understanding who they were and what their lives can mean for us today.

My remarks are divided into two parts. I begin with what the Three Hierarchs themselves have to say about their experiences, drawing directly on the descriptions of these events found throughout their writings. In the second part, I focus on the significance and implications of these experiences, highlighting their practical relevance for our own lives

St. Basil of Caesarea

St. Basil of Caesarea was born (ca. 329/330) into a large, upper class, Christian family. He attended the best schools and universities of his day, and was groomed for a career in what we would call civic administration. He had a strong personality, a tremendous talent for management and organization, along with an adamantine will for success. Upon returning from his studies in Constantinople and Athens, he embarked upon a promising career in public speaking, which included ceremonial orations, political speeches in the public assemblies, and forensic speeches for litigants in the jury-courts. These were vitally important functions in the ancient world, and Basil proved to be a master of the art. At the age of twenty-five, he was poised to become one of the leading rhetoricians of his day. However, something happened to change all that. He tells us about it in one of his letters:

Having wasted much time on frivolous things, and having sacrificed virtually my entire youth to study the teachings of a wisdom that God had made foolish (cf. 1 Cor 1:20), I woke up, as if from a deep sleep, and beheld the wondrous light of the truth of the Gospel, and I recognized the uselessness of the wisdom “of the princes of this world, whose rule was doomed” (1 Cor 2:6). Shedding a flood of tears over my wretched life, I prayed for a guide who might form in me the principles of piety. Above all, my concern was to make some amendment in my character, which had been corrupted by long association with people of low morals (cf. 1 Cor 15:33). Having read the Gospel, I saw that a great means to attaining perfection was the selling of one’s possessions (cf. Mt 19:21), and the sharing of one’s wealth with those in need; along with the refusal to take any thought for this present life, so that the soul should not be attached to the things of the world; and I prayed that I might find someone who had taken this path, so that with him I could cross the deep and troubled sea of life.

Simply put, Basil saw the light; the wondrous light of the truth of the Gospel, and his life would never again be the same. This was a transforming event, a change in consciousness, like waking up from a deep sleep after a long, disorienting dream. It was a movement from darkness to light, from the reflected, dead light of human logic to the splendor of the truth itself. Moreover, Basil’s call to a new life did not create in him a self-affirming rush to action, but rather the desire, the need, for a guide, a teacher, a longing to find someone who was already on the path, which is a longing for a new mode of relation, and a new kind of community.

Basil doesn’t tell us much more about this event, which was surely one of the most important in his life. However, his younger brother, St. Gregory of Nyssa, provides us with an interesting detail that enables us to expand our frame of reference. In a lengthy comparison of Basil and Moses, Gregory notes that God had called both of them through a vision of divine light, which in the case of Moses was the light of the Burning Bush (Ex 3:2). According to Gregory, something similar happened to Basil: “In the middle of the night, there appeared to Basil an outpouring of immaterial light, and by means of divine power, his entire dwelling was illuminated by a light having no source in anything material.”

In placing emphasis on Basil’s vision of divine light, we must not forget that this experience was preceded and indeed precipitated by a crisis. Before the light there was darkness, before waking there was a deep sleep, and before vision there was spiritual blindness. And what are darkness and night and sleep if not the symbolic counterparts of death? Thus we should not minimize the fact that before spiritual change was possible, a critical point was reached, a struggle had taken place, the anguish of dying to the illusory sustaining hopes of the world, after which Basil was able to embark on a comprehensive reorganization of his plans and priorities, a reconstruction of his life in light of a new allegiance.

St. Gregory the Theologian

The life of St. Basil finds many parallels in the life of St. Gregory the Theologian (b. ca. 329/330), and this is not surprising, since they were friends, fellow countrymen, and members of the same social class. But whereas Basil was disinclined to publicize his personal experiences, Gregory is the first Church Father to have written an autobiography. During his retirement, Gregory wrote a lengthy poem reviewing his entire life, beginning with the events of his infancy and childhood. He describes the poem as “the history of his calamities,” and among the many vivid vignettes is the botched attempt to assassinate him when he was archbishop of Constantinople. Yet the principal crisis was surely the terrifying event that led to his conversion.

After his initial schooling in Caesarea, where he first met Basil, Gregory studied in Caesarea Maritima in Palestine – at the time a cosmopolitan cultural center – and afterwards in Alexandria, Egypt. But Gregory was a great Hellenist, and was determined to study in Athens, the heart of classical civilization. However, it was already winter, and the sailing season had ended, but he found a ship heading to Piraeus and recklessly got on board. As the ship sailed past the island of Pharos and its famous lighthouse, Gregory mused on his plans for the future: should he marry, assume control of his father’s estates, pursue a career in politics, or devote his life to literature and philosophy? For this wealthy and intellectually gifted young aristocrat, there seemed to be no limit to the possibilities. He was twenty years old, and his “youthful spirits,” as he tells us, “were ready to be swayed by chaotic impulses, like a young horse anxious to begin the race.”

However, the voyage would change everything, and prove to be decisive for the subsequent course of his life. While at sea, his ship was caught in the midst of a massive storm, and the experience frightened him so profoundly that it left him a changed man. For Gregory, the road to Damascus was the sea route to Athens. Gregory gives us two accounts of this episode, both of which are literary masterpieces worthy of Conrad or Melville; I quote from the lengthier of the two versions (which scholars call the De vita sua) :

I chose to leave Alexandria at a moment outside the sailing season, before the sea had settled down. This was an act of rashness and not good sense. I was making my way to Greece when the ship was struck by a squall. Everything became a great blackness; deafening thunderclaps resounded amidst flashes of lightning; the sails were in shreds, the mainmast was bent, and the rudder was useless, being torn forcibly from the helmsman’s hands. Mountainous seas swamped the vessel. A confused clamor arose, cries of sailors, officers, and passengers. And we were without water, since the moment the ship began to roll, the barrels containing that precious treasure were smashed and scattered to the depths. The sea continued to rage, and we were harassed for many days. The question was whether the sea, or the lack of water, would make an end of us. Driven this way and that, we had no notion of where we were sailing, and we could see no hope of being rescued by God. All of us feared a common death, but more terrifying for me was the hidden death, for those murderous waters were keeping me away from the purifying waters that divinize us. That was the cause of my lament and misfortune. For this I kept sending up cries and stretching out my hands, and my cries drowned out the pounding of the waves. My clothing was in tatters and I lay, miserable and prostrate, in the prow. There was not a shred of hope, no island, no mainland, no mountaintop on the horizon, no beacon light, no guiding star. What was I to do? Was there any way out of these dangers? Despairing of all hope here below, I turned to God, my life and my light, the source of terror and affliction but the gentle healer too, ever weaving good into the dark pattern. It was at that moment that I gave myself to God, and the sacred promises I made delivered me from the raging ocean.

As soon as Gregory had finished praying, the winds ceased, the sea grew calm, the ship found itself on course, and in a short time he was in Athens. True to his promises, he “tore himself away from the spirit of the world”, and devoted the rest of his life to the service of the Church.

If Basil had seen the wondrous light of the Gospel, Gregory experienced all the fury of the sea. It’s hard to imagine enduring even a few minutes of such overwhelming terror, yet Gregory was caught in the storm for an excruciating twenty days and nights. The real fear, however, was not the prospect of death by drowning, but the prospect of dying unbaptized. Like many fourth-century aristocrats, Gregory had postponed his baptism, and so along with his plans for the future, his eternal salvation was about to be destroyed. It’s probably safe to say that, while onboard the ship, he suffered some kind of breakdown, and his condition became so severe that the sailors found his cries more upsetting than the storm.

The experience left a permanent mark on him, and the motif of the “storm” appears constantly throughout his writings. Over time he came to see his whole life as a storm-tossed journey, which is to say that he continued to live in that definitive moment. Gregory’s conversion experience is surely the experiential source of his celebrated dialectical thinking, an example of which we saw in the poem, where God is described as both “the source of affliction” and “the gentle healer, ever weaving good into the dark pattern.”

St. John Chrysostom

The last of our Three Hierarchs, St. John Chrysostom, was born in the city of Antioch, sometime around the middle of the fourth century. Antioch is about two hundred miles to the south of Caesarea, and when Chrysostom was born, Basil and Gregory were young students memorizing passages from the Iliad. Like them, Chrysostom was born into a prominent Christian family, his father being the military governor of Antioch. Also like them, he had a keen mind, received the best education available, and was groomed to be a leading figure in the life of his native city.

Here, however, the similarity seems to end, since Chrysostom does not seem to have experienced the kind of crisis and conversion that we saw in the other two hierarchs. The comparative stability of his early years; the absence of a disruptive, disorienting event, is probably due to the influence of his mother. When Chrysostom was still an infant, his father died, leaving his mother a widow at the age of twenty. Refusing to remarry, she became emotionally dependent on the child, who bore a strong likeness to her deceased husband. When John was still fairly young, she made him promise that he would not leave home until after she died. She took a strong interest in his education, and spared no expense in seeing that John would be raised as a gentleman. She did not permit him to go abroad for his studies, but placed him at the feet of the greatest teachers in Antioch (the “Athens of Syria”).

Thus it was that Chrysostom became the student of Libaniοs, an upper class pagan rhetorician renowned throughout the Greek world. Among Libanios’ students were many distinguished men, yet it was the nimble-tongued John whom he designated as his successor. After he completed his studies, we know that Chrysostom pursued a career as a successful young lawyer. Despite the fact that his mother had pushed him into law school, there is no evidence that John was unhappy with his career. On the contrary, for a while he seems to have lived to the hilt the lifestyle of a rich young man enjoying his growing fame as a brilliant attorney.

Chrysostom tells us that in those days he was “still fettered with worldly desires and vanities,” and “had upset the balance of his life by an excess of youthful fantasies.” He says that he was “spending all his time in the law courts, frequenting the theater, and being passionately excited by the pleasures of the stage” (τόν ἐν τῷ δικαστηρίῳ προσεδρεύοντα καί περί τάς ἐν τῇ σκηνῇ τέρψεις ἐπτοημένον) (SC 272:64). Similar to what Basil says in his letter, Chrysostom likewise admits that he had “wasted his youth in the vanity of secular studies” (SC 272:132). It was only at some later stage that he “emerged from the billows of life,” and “renounced the cares of the world” (SC 272:64, 138)

And lest we think this is mere rhetoric, it was widely believed throughout Antioch that Chrysostom had initially declined priestly ordination, not out of humility, but because he was prideful, arrogant, ambitious, and enamored of worldly glory.

Needless to say, this is not the John Chrysostom we know, and thus some sort of change must have taken place prompting the young lawyer to abandon his career and place his talents in the service of the Church. It seems safe to say that beneath the surface, various cross pressures were at work, and the balance of John’s life would yet again be shifting. According to Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos: “It was at this time that John found himself confronting the problem that was his life, the solution to which was not going to come about easily.” So, on closer inspection, Chrysostom does seem to have passed through a kind of crisis, and eventually enacted a critical volte-face very similar to Basil.

It would be interesting to know more about this critical period in Chrysostom’s life, but we don’t. Chrysostom’s chief biographer, Palladios, tells us only that Chrysostom “abandoned the sophists” (ἀφηνίασεν τούς σοφιστάς), which some English translations (e.g., H. Moore, 1921, p. 37) render as “revolted against.” Theodore of Trimithous and Cosmas Vestitor, writing in the seventh and ninth centuries, respectively, both say that Chrysostom abandoned his career because he had been “wounded by divine grace.”

Another way to approach this question would be to look at what Chrysostom says about the different conversion experiences described in Scripture, especially the conversion of his great hero, St. Paul. Had we the time to consider this in detail, we would find that Chrysostom’s extraordinary interest in St. Paul was motivated by his ability to identify with the great Apostle, for just like himself, Paul was an educated lawyer with a delayed vocation.

Part Two: Crisis, Conversion, and Community

What we see in the lives of the Three Hierarchs is a basic element of the spiritual life: the experience of a crisis that leads to spiritual growth. This may be a dramatic, once-in-a-lifetime event; a disordering, disrupting experience that calls into question our taken-for-granted world, resulting in a change of values and interests. The specific form that such an experience takes will vary according to the circumstances of our lives. Not too many of us are at risk of shipwreck on the high seas, but there are other kinds of storms, such as a crisis in adolescence or mid-life; and there are other kinds of shipwrecks, such as the perception that one’s life is not what it should be, that one has reached a dead end, is trapped in a pattern of self-destructive behavior, and that some sort of change is necessary.

In addition to these extraordinary, once-in-a-lifetime experiences, there’s also a sense in which every moment of life is a kind of crisis, or at least has the potential to be one, in the sense of being a turning point in which we are called on to make a critical choice. xxvii In his Letter to the Young, On How they Might Derive Profit from Greek Literature, St. Basil compares this situation to the famous story of “Herakles standing at the Crossroads”: one road leads to virtue, the other to vice, and Herakles must decide which way to go. And this, Basil says, is an image of each and every one of us, since we are called on continually to make a choice between God and the selfish desires of our ego.

In this way, Basil aligns Greek letters with the spirit of Christ, who said: “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross every day and follow me, for whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save it” (Lk 9:23-24). This means that in order to follow Christ, we must experience a kind of death. For something new to be born, something old has to die, but no one dies right away; it takes a long time to die, and so our whole life should be an ongoing conversion, an ongoing taking up of the cross, an ongoing surrender to God.

We often think that God is going to come into our life by means of some pleasant experience that will require little or no change on our part. However, God is more likely to enter our lives through a crisis, like a serious illness, or some other affliction, for these are the signs, not of God’s absence but of His active presence. As we saw in the lives of the Three Hierarchs, God comes to us in the eye of the storm, in the midst of our difficulties, in the midst of our confusion, our pain, and our suffering. Recall the words of Gregory, who learned by experience that God is both “the source of affliction” and “the gentle healer.” Affliction alone can tear us away from our isolated, individual existence and transform us into something much more whole and open. The self-consoling dreams and delusions of the ego make it hard for us to perceive the reality of God. But when all the illusions are swept away by some affliction, then I begin to call and cry out to God, like the psalmist who said: “In my affliction I cried out to the Lord, and He heard me” (Ps 18:5).

We see this very clearly in the case of St. Gregory: Gregory’s life was changed not by any mystical experience, not by any sublime meditation on the nature of reality, but because he confronted his death. For twenty days and nights, Gregory sat face to face with the prospect of his own annihilation. During that time he was forced to think of himself as non-existent, to see himself as dead already, and with the image of himself completely wiped out, he was able to see what was left without him. And what was left was everything else, all that was not himself, which he had never before seen and which now opened itself up to him and filled him to overflowing, so that through death he found life, and discovered that with the death of the self all things become the object of God’s perfect love.

So the crisis that engulfs me, the pain that I feel, is a kind of birth pang, for it is the initial movement of my soul longing to be united to God. And my longing for God is met by God’s longing for me, for it is God Who is seeking me in and through my sufferings, so that, in the end, a spiritual crisis is not the agony of man struggling to find God, but the agony of God struggling to find man. And so the pain that I feel is the pain of God searching for those who are lost, running after those that are far away, and until they are found and in His embrace, God will be in agony.

Conversion and Community

Another common element in the lives of the Three Hierarchs is their response to the crisis that brought God into their lives. In the wake of that experience, each of them was overcome by the desire to flee from the world and live exclusively with God. And so each of them spent a period of time in the desert, in the wilderness, in some kind of monastic retreat. Yet what’s so fascinating about the Three Hierarchs is that they didn’t remain in the desert. At a critical point, God called them back to the world in order to serve the Church. Consequently their flight to the desert is only part of the story, being a transitional stage in their journey back to community.

The pattern is well known. Christ retreated into the desert for forty days, after which he returned to the world to embark on His public ministry. St. Paul also spent a period of time in the desert, before beginning his apostolic work (cf. Gal 1:17-18; 2:1; 2 Cor 12:2). This pattern, with its crucial middle stage of flight and exile, has all the marks of a classic rite of passage, in which one is segregated from society before returning to it, armed with new knowledge and better prepared to rejoin the life of the community.

This is an ancient practice, and was very much part of the cultural world of the Three Hierarchs. Since St. Basil has taught us to “derive profit from Greek literature,” we might profitably illustrate this practice by turning to what is surely Plato’s most famous dialogue. Most of Plato’s dialogues are carefully constructed, beginning with the first word. One of these dialogues is the Republic, the first word of which is «κατέβην» (“I went down”) which is to be understood in various ways: the “going down from Athens to Piraeus” with which the dialogue begins; the going down from the exterior world of so-called reality to an interior world of transformation; ultimately it is the going down into death, in order to learn if death is the end of mortality or a way to immortality. The movement culminates in the “Myth of the Cave,” in the going down into that cave with the intention to rise from it. The dialogue closes with the vision of “Judgment in the Underworld,” from which one returns bearing an important message – what Socrates calls the “saving tale, that must be brought back from that other world,” making the one who returns from such a “crisis” (κρίσις /crisis) a “messenger to mankind.” Thus, the Republic does not give us a simple story of linear progress, but a dramatic construction of departure and return, and this is the existential core around which the dialogue is built, and which in a Christian context was enacted by the Three Hierarchs.

However, leaving the desert did not mean leaving behind the lessons of the desert. And so what we see in the Three Hierarchs is a synthesis of monastic ideals and practice with active service to the Church. Gregory articulates this very clearly in his Funeral Oration for Basil. Far from being opposed to the active life of pastoral care, the life of prayer and contemplation is a requirement for effective priestly service. To accept a position of priestly authority without the lessons of the desert is both foolish and dangerous, and thus the active life of love and service must be complemented by the life of prayer and contemplation. According to Gregory, the bishop is someone who joins to his performance of episcopal duties a commitment to ascetic ideals, two modes of life that Gregory saw united in Basil, whose experience of God in the desert was the source and foundation of his entire ministry.

After they renounced the world, Basil and Gregory became monks. After he “abandoned the sophists,” Chrysostom spent four years as an ascetic living in obedience under an elder, and then two years living in a cave. But having fallen ill, he was unable to care for himself, and so returned to the world, where his life was filled with troubles. Yet he tells us that if he “had to choose between the difficulties of working in the world and the tranquility of monastic life, he would prefer pastoral service a thousand times.”

* * *

Every crisis is an opportunity for spiritual growth, and it was the experience of crisis and conversion that enabled the Three Hierarchs to become instruments of God’s grace. In finding God, in allowing God to find them, they found themselves. In finding their own voice, we find in them a universal voice. In fulfilling the task of their own time, they produced work valid for all time, and though they lived more than a thousand years ago, we continue to honor their life and work. But in the midst of our celebrations, we ought not to forget the words of St. John Chrysostom: «ἡ τιμή τοῦ ἁγίου εἶναι ἡ μίμησις τοῦ ἁγίου» .

God speaks to all of us, but we don’t always listen, and if we do listen we don’t always do what He says, or if we do, we get tired easily and give up. But the Three Hierarchs, like all the saints, heard, acted, and never wavered in their resolution to live for God. And in giving their lives to God, they lost nothing; on the contrary, in losing their life they found it (cf. Mt 10:39), and whatever they gave to God was returned to them a hundredfold and they have inherited eternal life (cf. Mt 19:29).

The “memory of the righteous is not without praise,” and so I will close with words of praise taken from the hymnology of today’s feast:

Δεῦτε τῆς οὐρανίου Τριάδος οἱ λατρευταί,
τήν ἐπίγειον τριάδα, τῶν θείων Ἱεραρχῶν εὐφημήσωμεν:
τόν Γρηγόριον, τῆς θεολογίας τόν ἐπώνυμον,
τόν Βασίλειον, τῆς βασιλείας τόν φερώνυμον,
καί Ἰωάννην, τόν ὄντως χαριτώνυμον,
τούς σοφιάς βυθούς,
τοῦ Πνεύματος τά ρεῖθρα τά ὠκεάνεια,
τάς πηγάς τάς ἀεί βλυζούσας τό ὕδωρ τό ζῶν τό ἁλλόμενον,
τούς διαυγεῖς μαργαρίτας,
τούς ἐπιγείους φωστῆρας,
τῆς Ἐκκλησίας τούς οἴακας,
τά ἀγλαόκαρπα δένδρα,
τούς οἰκονόμους τῆς χάριτος,
Χριστοῦ μου τό στόμα,
καί τῆς Τριάδος τούς ὑπερμάχους,
τούς ἐξ αὐτῆς ἀμέσως ἐλλαμπομένους,
καί πρεσβεύοντας ἀπαύστως ὑπέρ τῶν ψυχῶν ἡμῶν

298 Passions Mentioned In Holy Scripture

2011-02-15T10:14:00.001-08:00

By St. Peter of Damascus

The passions are: harshness, trickery, malice, perversity, mindlessness, licentiousness, enticement, dullness, lack of understanding, idleness, sluggishness, stupidity, flattery, silliness, idiocy, madness, derangement, coarseness, rashness, cowardice, lethargy, dearth of good actions, moral errors, greed, over-frugality, ignorance, folly, spurious knowledge, forgetfulness, lack of discrimination, obduracy, injustice, evil intention, a conscienceless soul, slothfulness, idle chatter, breaking of faith, wrongdoing, sinfulness, lawlessness, criminality, passion, seduction, assent to evil, mindless coupling, demonic provocation, dallying, bodily comfort beyond what is required, vice, stumbling, sickness of soul, enervation, weakness of intellect, negligence, laziness, a reprehensible despondency, disdain of God, aberration, transgression, unbelief, lack of faith, wrong belief, poverty of faith, heresy, fellowship in heresy, polytheism, idolatry, ignorance of God, impiety, magic, astrology, divination, sorcery, denial of God, the love of idols, dissipation, profligacy, loquacity, indolence, self-love, inattentiveness, lack of progress, deceit, delusion, audacity, witchcraft, defilement, the eating of unclean food, soft living, dissoluteness, voracity, unchastity, avarice, anger, dejection, listlessness, self-esteem, pride, presumption, self-elation, boastfulness, infatuation, foulness, satiety, doltishness, torpor, sensuality, over-eating, gluttony, insatiability, secret eating, hoggishness, solitary eating, indifference, fickleness, self-will, thoughtlessness, self-satisfaction, love of popularity, ignorance of beauty, uncouthness, gaucherie, light-mindedness, boorishness, rudeness, contentiousness, quarrelsomeness, abusiveness, shouting, brawling, fighting, rage, mindless desire, gall, exasperation, giving offence, enmity, meddlesomeness, chicanery, asperity, slander, censure, calumny, condemnation, accusation, hatred, railing, insolence, dishonor, ferocity, frenzy, severity, aggressiveness, forswearing oneself, oathtaking, lack of compassion, hatred of one’s brothers, partiality, patricide, matricide, breaking fasts, laxity, acceptance of bribes, theft, rapine, jealousy, strife, envy, indecency, jesting, vilification, mockery, derision, exploitation, oppression, disdain of one’s neighbor, flogging, making sport of others, hanging, throttling, heartlessness, implacability, covenant-breaking, bewitchment, harshness, shamelessness, impudence, obfuscation of thoughts, obtuseness, mental blindness, attraction to what is fleeting, impassionedness, frivolity, disobedience, dullwittedness, drowsiness of soul, excessive sleep, fantasy, heavy drinking, drunkenness, uselessness, slackness, mindless enjoyment, self-indulgence, venery, using foul language, effeminacy, unbridled desire, burning lust, masturbation, pimping, adultery, sodomy, bestiality, defilement, wantonness, a stained soul, incest, uncleanliness, pollution, sordidness, feigned affection, laughter, jokes, immodest dancing, clapping, improper songs, revelry, fluteplaying, license of tongue, excessive love of order, insubordination, disorderliness, reprehensible collusion, conspiracy, warfare, killing, brigandry, sacrilege, illicit gains, usury, wiliness, grave-robbing, hardness of heart, obloquy, complaining, blasphemy, fault-finding, ingratitude, malevolence, contemptuousness, pettiness, confusion, lying, verbosity, empty words, mindless joy, daydreaming, mindless friendship, bad habits, nonsensicality, silly talk, garrulity, niggardliness, depravity, intolerance, irritability, affluence, rancor, misuse, ill-temper, clinging to life, ostentation, affectation, pusillanimity, satanic love, curiosity, contumely, lack of the fear of God, unteachability, senselessness, haughtiness, self-vaunting, self-inflation, scorn for one’s neighbor, mercilessness, insensitivity, hopelessness, spiritual paralysis, hatred of God, despair, suicide, a falling away from God in all things, utter destruction -- altogether 298 passions.

These, then, are the passions which are named in the Holy Scriptures. I have set them down in a single list, as I did at the beginning of my discourse with the various books I have used. I have not tried, and nor would I have been able, to arrange them all in order; this would have been beyond my powers, for the reason given by St. John Climacus: ‘If you seek understanding among wicked men, you will not find it.’ For all that the demons produce is disorderly. In common with the godless and the unjust, the demons have but one purpose: to destroy the souls of those who accept their evil counsel. Yet sometimes they actually help men to attain holiness. In such instances they are conquered by the patience and faith of those who put their trust in the Lord, and who through their good actions and resistance to evil thoughts counteract the demons and bring down curses upon them.

From The Philokalia: The Complete Text compiled by St. Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth, Volume Three.

Truth Is Unrecognizable Without Humility and Meekness

2011-02-15T10:12:00.000-08:00

By St. Nikolai Velimirovich

"When the Messiah comes, will He perform more signs than this man has done?" (John 7:31).

The Lord Jesus performed miraculous works before all and all saw but not all believed. The people witnessed His miracles and believed in Him. Servants heard His words and believed in Him. But the leaders of the people and the masters of the servants also witnessed His miracles and did not believe in Him. And so, in those days the words of the Savior came true: "But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first" (Matthew 19:30). "For behold, some who are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last" (Luke 13:30). Those who were first in honor and authority were last in having faith in Him; and those who were last in honor and authority were the first in having faith in Him.

Why did the people and servants believe and the princes and scribes not believe? Because, the people and servants considered themselves insignificant and unimportant and did not have any personal pride nor envy toward Christ. The people and servants, without malice and prejudice, looked upon the divine miracles and listened to the divine words and were amazed and rejoiced. The princes and the scribes considered themselves first among the people and in the world and so they were filled with pride and envy and were unable, even for a moment, to look upon the miraculous works nor to listen to the divine words without malice and envy.

Brethren, do you see how man, without humility and meekness, is unable even to recognize truth nor to rejoice in the truth? Do you see how the proud and the envious do not even allow God to be ahead of them? As did Satan, at one time!

Lord Jesus, eternal Truth, cleanse our hearts of pride and envy that we may be able to see You and to rejoice in You. To You be glory and thanks always. Amen.

The Orthodox Saint Valentine

2011-02-15T10:10:00.001-08:00

St. Valentine the Hieromartyr (Feast Day - February 14 and July 6)

The ancient martyrology of the Church of Rome marks February 14th as the remembrance of "the martyr Valentine, presbyter of Rome" (Valentinus mean "vigorous" in Latin). Unfortunately the historical data for the saint is incomplete.

The Martyrdom of the Saint in Rome

Saint Valentine lived in Rome in the third century and was a priest who helped the martyrs during the persecution of Emperor Claudius II the Goth. The great virtue and catechetical activities of the saint had become familiar. For this he was arrested and brought before the imperial court.

"Why, Valentine, do you want to be a friend of our enemies and reject our friendship?" asked the emperor.

Then the saint replied "My lord, if you knew the gift of God, you would be happy together with your empire and would reject the worship of idols and worship the true God and His Son Jesus Christ."

One of these judges stopped the saint and asked him what he thought about Jupiter and Mercury, and St. Valentine boldly replied, "They are miserable, and spent their lives through corruption and crime!"

The judge furiously shouted, "He blasphemes against the gods and against the empire!"

The emperor, however, continued his questions with curiosity, and found a welcome opportunity to finally learn what was the faith of Christians. Valentine then found the courage to urge him to repent for the blood of the Christians that was shed. "Believe in Jesus Christ, be baptized and you will be saved, and from this time forward the glory of your empire will be ensured as well as the triumph of your armory."

Claudius became convinced, and said to those who were present: "What a beautiful teaching this man preaches."

But the mayor of Rome, dissatisfied, began to shout: "See how this Christian mislead our Prince."

Then Claudius brought the saint to another judge. He was called Asterios, and he had a little girl who was blind for two years. Listening about Jesus Christ, that He is the Light of the World, he asked Valentine if he could give that light to his child. St. Valentine put his hand on her eyes and prayed: "Lord Jesus Christ, true Light, illuminate this blind child." Oh the great miracle! The child saw! So the judge with all his family confessed Christ. Having fasted for three days, he destroyed the idols that were in the house and finally received holy baptism.

When the emperor heard about all these events, he initially thought not to punish them, but thought that in the eyes of citizens he will look weak, which forced him to betray his sense of justice. So St. Valentine along with other Christians, after they were tortured, were beheaded on 14 February in the year 268 (or 269).

The Relics of the Saint in Athens

After the martyrdom some Christians salvaged the body of the saint and put a bit of his blood in a vile. The body of the martyr was moved and buried in the Catacombs of St. Priscilla, a burial place of most of the martyrs. Over the years, somehow he was "forgotten" since almost every day there were buried in these catacombs new martyrs for several decades. The memory of Valentine's martyrdom however remained robust, particularly in the local Church of Rome. Officially the memory of St. Valentine was established in 496 by Pope St. Gelasius.

Fifteen centuries pass and we arrive at 1815, at which time the divine intention was to "disturb" the eternal repose of the saint. Then the relics were donated by the Pope to a gentle Italian priest (according to the custom of the time). After this the relics are "lost" again until 1907 where we find them in Mytilene in the Roman Catholic Church of Our Lady. It seems that after the death of the priest that a descendant of his had inherited the relics who had migrated in Mytilene, which was then a thriving community of West-European Catholic Christians. There they remained until 1990 when they were moved to Athens in the Church of Saints Francis and Clara's Italian community, where they are today.

Saint Valentine the Greek

We should first say that there is not sufficient information on the national origin of the saint, though there are some other (shades of) evidence that the saint was of Greek origin. Few example, the earliest depiction of the saint bearing the inscription «O ΑΓΙΟC BAΛΕΝΤΙΝΟC" in Greek, is in the Church of Our Lady the Ancient (Santa Maria Antiqua) of the 6th century which was the parish of Greeks in Rome. The church particularly venerated saints who were Greeks and generally from the East. The decoration and renovation of the church was ordered by the Greek Pope John VII (705-707) and finished by his successors, including the last Greek Pope Zacharias (741-752). But perhaps it is no coincidence that after seventeen centuries, the remains arrived in Greece. The issue here still requires research.

Saint Valentine: Patron of Lovers

Apart from the historical data we have for Valentine's life, there is accompanied various legends, such as from those who say he is the patron saint of lovers.

The saint had a reputation as a peacemaker, and one day while cultivating some roses from his garden, he heard a couple quarrel very vigorously. This shocked the saint, who then cut a rose and approached the couple asking them to hear him. Even though they were dispirited, they obeyed the saint and afterwards were offered a rose that blessed them. Immediately the love returned between them, and later they returned and asked the saint to bless their marriage. Another tradition says that one of the charges against Valentine was that he did not adhere to the command of the emperor which stated that men who had not fulfilled their military obligations were not allowed to marry; meanwhile the saint had blessed the marriage of young Christian soldiers with their beloveds.

Besides all this, the likely choice of him as the "saint of lovers" is to be associated with the pagan festival of Lupercalia, a fertility festival, celebrated by the Romans on February 15. Others connect the celebration of this feast with the mating season of birds during this period. Certainly, however, the saint has nothing to do with the commercialism (marketing) of flowers, gifts and secular centers which trivialize Eros, this great gift of God.

Saint Valentine and Orthodoxy

Many, however, raise the objection that St. Valentine is not mentioned anywhere in the calendar of the Orthodox Church. Indeed on 14 February in the calendar of the Church there are commemorated Saints Auxentios, Maron and the martyrs Nicholas and Damian. The explanation is simple: in ancient times hagiographic directories, biographies and martyrologia were written to be primarily used locally in their own character, and the fame and reputation of a saint locally does not mean that it extended also throughout the Church. So there may be saints honored widely in one region and completely unknown in another, eg, St. Demetrios, who is famous throughout the Eastern Church, yet in the West is not honored at all, and is almost unknown, but this does not mean that he is not a saint. Another example of the modern Church: St. Chrysostomos of Smyrna († 1922) who in Greece is known, yet in Russia is completely unknown, but this does not mean that he is not a saint.

Honor Martyrs - Imitate Martyrs

We honor our saints and St. Valentine when we imitate their courage to proclaim their faith in Christ the Savior, even at the cost of their lives. We honor them when we beseech them to appeal to God to have mercy on us and forgive our many sins. We honor them when they are our models of the life in Christ. We do not honor the saints when we measure their 'worth' by worldly amusements and festivities in the best circumstances ... Honor Martyrs - Imitate Martyrs!

Bibliography

1. Encyclopedia New Advent (www.newadvent.org)

2. Patron Saints Index (www.catholic-forum.com/saints/indexsnt.htm)

3. Oxford Dictionary of Saints

The Holy Monastery of Saint Lot in Zoara

2011-02-15T10:02:00.000-08:00

The Cave Of Lot's Seduction And The Monestary It Inspired

The cave of Lot's seduction and the monastery it inspired at the Jordanian site of Deir Ain Abata testifies to a thriving Byzantine and Umayyad-era Christian community.

By Konstantine D. Politis
October 25, 2004
The Daily Star

The ruins were first discovered during an archaeological survey at the south-east end of the Dead Sea in 1986, near a spring named Ain Abata. After further investigations it was evident that the site - near today's Ghor al-Safi, the biblical city of Zoara - was none other that the Sanctuary of Agios ("Saint") Lot. Biblical scholars and archaeologists have sought the site for decades.

Within a year of the discovery and identification of Deir Ain Abata ("Monastery of the Abbot's Spring") an international team of archaeologists was assembled to excavate and study the site. After more than 10 years of excavations and research, the final report is about to be published.

The site is located on a steep mountain slope 3 kilometers southeast of the Dead Sea. At its archaeological center (and historic religious focus) is a cave, discovered in the north aisle of the basilica later erected on the site. Early Christians - drawing on Genesis chapter 19 of the Old Testament - believed Lot and his two daughters lived here after their flight from sinful Sodom and their brief stop at Zoar.

Isolated in the mountains, so the story goes, the daughters feared they would never find a husband to continue their lineage. So they plotted to get their father drunk and seduce him in order to procreate. The issue of this incestuous conspiracy was two sons, Moab from the eldest daughter and Ben-ammi from the younger one. They became the patriarchs of the biblical tribes of Jordan, the Moabites to the south and the Ammonites to the north. This story can be interpreted as somewhat immoral, but there are other stories in the Bible that describe seemingly unethical conduct, usually with some obscure reasoning behind them. In this case, God had not only saved the righteous Lot from the destruction of Sodom but also didn't blame him for fornicating with his daughters, since they had made him drunk beforehand. The daughters also seem to have been excused, because of the need to regenerate after the annihilation of their people.

Another interpretation has it that the story of Lot's seduction is victor's history. As with all stories in the Old Testament, this one was written by the Israelites. Perpetually at war with the Moabites and Ammonites, the Israelites used this story to discredit their traditional enemies after they defeated them.

When the entrance to the cave was revealed, it was preserved to its original height, but had no signs of door fittings. The sandstone pilaster capitals on either side are carved with eight-cornered (Maltese-type) crosses and bore traces of red paint. The lintel had a similarly engraved cross in the center and was flanked by two rosettes, also with traces of red paint. On the south side of the entrance the plastered wall had a number of scratched designs, crosses and graffiti. One such Greek graffito named a local Christian woman as Nestasia Zenobius. Another, in Kufic Arabic, is an Islamic invocation.

Further excavation of the cave revealed a series of steps leading into a 2 by 2.5-meter room, paved with fine white marble slabs, a simple room where early Byzantine Christians evidently believed Lot and his daughters took refuge. As to why the Byzantines venerated this specific cave - there are several in the vicinity - it is assumed it has something to do with ancient oral tradition.

The cave, which is the focal point of the entire monastic complex, had a long sequence of occupation suggesting long-standing use as a refuge. Excavations below the Byzantine-Abbasid floor level in the cave revealed ceramic and glass oil lamps dating from the earlier Byzantine period - circa the 4th-6th centuries. Beneath this were fine Late Hellenistic-Nabataean vessels from the 1st century B.C. to the 1st century A.D. Digging deeper, the team came across a fine ceramic chalice and a copper duck-bill axe-head, belonging to the Middle Bronze Age II period (c. 1900-1550 B.C.).

There are 18 cairn tombs that were identified just north of the monastic complex, which belong to this same period. These tombs represent the only known Middle Bronze Age evidence south of the Dead Sea. Some scholars argue that this may have been the actual era of Genesis. Excavating further down, the team found over a dozen pottery juglettes and cups dating from the Early Bronze Age I (c. 3300-3000 B.C.) and associated with multiple burials. These were surrounded by a stone wall. Flint tools, a complete jug with a dipper and drinking cups characteristic of this period attest to an occupational phase to the west in front of the wall.

The first years of work at Deir Ain Abata were treated as rescue excavations. They concentrated on retrieving as much information as possible from the site, which was threatened by erosion and the modern village of Safi. With its growing population expanding their agricultural activities and constantly rummaging for ancient treasure, Safi was ever encroaching.

Environmental studies have revealed evidence of a wide variety of animal remains - horse, donkey, cattle, pig, sheep, goat, deer, fox, hare, domestic fowl, partridge and quail, to name a few - that were probably consumed on site. Botanical finds included olives, dates, bitter vetch, grape, apricot, lentils, barley, bread wheat and cucumber and/or melon. These results suggest that the Deir Ain Abata community had a relatively rich diet, some of it imported from as far away as the Mediterranean and the Red Sea at considerable expense.

A number of fine architectural pieces were also retrieved, among which was a block inscribed in Greek invoking Saint Lot to bless Sozomenou, Ulpious and a third indistinguishable name. The inscription, written by three monks who probably lived at the site, was the first decisive evidence of Lot's association with Deir Ain Abata. Other Greek inscriptions also invoked Lot's blessing.

The triple-apsed basilica church was uncovered in 1991. The building was particularly well preserved against the eastern mountainside where it still stands to a height above the cornice where the vaulted roof began. The nature of the collapse and the lack of many in situ objects on the church floors led to the conclusion that it was peacefully abandoned and did not suffer destruction either by earthquakes or invaders.

The basilica was paved with four mosaics, three of which had Greek inscriptions. The first, in the north aisle leading to the cave, was decorated with a geometric design of stepped squares, diamonds and candles. At its eastern end in front of the cave entrance is an inscription four lines long, enclosed within a tabula insata naming the Bishop Iakovos, the Abbot Sozomenos and giving a construction date of April 605/7 A.D. This mosaic was of the highest quality found at the site.

Two further mosaic floors - also probably from the early 7th century - were also uncovered. One is just inside the cave entrance and consisted of multi-colored mosaic cubes randomly arranged to resemble the natural conglomerate rock of the cave. The second lies in the chancel of the church and is decorated with typical early Christian/Byzantine motifs such as birds, a lamb and a peacock, all surrounded by vines.

The fourth mosaic, located in the nave of the church, is perhaps the most interesting. It has a Greek inscription of six lines, naming the county bishop and presbyter as Christoforos, the presbyter and steward as Zenon, the governor as Ioannis son of Rabibos and describes the site as a holy place and the church as a basilica. The mosaic construction is dated to the Macedonian month of Xanthikos (roughly May) 691 A.D. The entire inscription is enclosed in a rectangle that has an additional diagonal inscription naming an Iannis son of Sabinaou who presumably was the mosaicist. Considering the fact that this name is not Greek and that it was incorrectly spelled, we may assume that the mosaicist spoke a local Semitic language such as Aramaic.

This inscription is of considerable importance. By describing the church as a basilica it means that it was large enough to accommodate pilgrims - a small monastic community would normally only require a chapel. The inscription specifically calls the site an agios topos ("holy place") which infers an association with a Biblical episode. There is also clear evidence for the existence of local Christian communities from the Semitic names of Rabibos and Sabinaou on the mosaic.

Finally, the church's renovation date of 691 A.D. is significant because it is well into the period of the Umayyad Dynasty (636-750 A.D.). Deir Ain Abata thus confirms the Umayyad's policy of religious tolerance and collaboration, as have another dozen recently excavated monasteries and churches. These attest to vibrant Christian communities during the first decades of Umayyad reign, such as those at Mefaa/Um al-Rasas and Mount Nebo/Siyagah. The early 9th century Arabic inscriptions on the site may also suggest a Muslim interest in Lot, who the Koran describes as a prophet.

6th Century Baptismal Font Discovered In Hagia Sophia

2011-02-15T09:59:00.001-08:00

December 14, 2010
Hurriyet Daily News

A baptismal font unearthed during restoration of Hagia Sophia has been revealed to the press. The baptismal font dates back to the sixth century and was used in mass baptism ceremonies. The pool, which shows the cultural and architectural style of the Byzantine period, will open to visitors in the spring.

A large baptismal font unearthed during restoration work in the Hagia Sophia and dating back to the sixth century was shown to press members at a press conference Monday.

Istanbul 2010 European Capital of Culture Agency head Yılmaz Kurt noted that a Google search of “Hagia Sofia” yielded 800,000 results and said Istanbul was home to popular world cultural heritage sites. “We are proud to take the initiative in the restoration of this heritage site, provide financing and finish such a huge renovation project.”

Outlining the history of Hagia Sophia, Kurt said: “The construction of Hagia Sophia was ordered by Constantius II. The structure opened in 360 A.D. Its roof burned in a fire in 404 and its restoration took 10 years. In 415, Hagia Sophia opened once again. This second structure burned down in 532 and the church was constructed for the third time under Emperor Justinian. The columns of the Artemis Temple in Ephesus were used in its construction; it opened for the third time in 537. The dome was damaged in earthquakes and completely destroyed in 558. It reopened in 562.”

Kurt said the museum had undergone many restorations between 562 and 2010, the most comprehensive of which was during the reign of Sultan Abdulmecit, between 1847 and 1849. “Archaeological work was also carried out during the restoration process after which it became a museum,” he said.

Kurt said the ancient baptismal font, which was unearthed during archaeological work, would be open to the public for viewing. “The baptismal font was positioned in a place in the structure that was closed to visits. It is made of solid marble. The font, which shows the cultural and architectural style of the Byzantium period, is still very strong and clean. It is very important in the history of the museum and everyone will be able to see it.”

Hagia Sophia Museum Director Haluk Dursun said 2009 and 2010 were the best years for the museum in terms of restoration. He said there were two very important events during the restoration process, the removal of the 17-year-old scaffolding and the discovery of a mosaic featuring a six-winged angel figure.

Dursun said they decided to open the baptism pool to visitors as a surprise for 2010. “As of next spring, visitors will be able to see the baptismal font.”

He also noted that the Hagia Sophia was chosen as European Museum of the Year for 2010 thanks to the comprehensive restoration work and had received the Rotandi Award.

Baptistery becomes sultan tomb

Speaking about the features of the baptismal font, Dursun said the Hagia Sophia’s Byzantine (Greek Orthodox) baptistery building had been turned into an Ottoman sultans’ tomb, and the sixth-century baptismal font in it was moved to the baptistery’s courtyard.

He said the sultans who were buried in the tomb were those who had been dethroned. “When Sultan Mustafa I and Sultan İbrahim were buried there, the baptistery turned into a sultans’ tomb and the baptismal font in it was moved to the court without being damaged. It remained under the soil. This court is a very beautiful section showing Byzantine art.”

Dursun said olive oil was used in baptism ceremonies in Byzantine Orthodox culture. Historical olive oil cubes and sarcophaguses were also unearthed in the court.

He said as part of the restoration work in 2010, the baptistery’s courtyard was restored and the baptismal font was unearthed. “This font was used in mass baptism ceremonies. I guess we are the first ones to see it since the conquest of Istanbul, because the baptismal font was never used again once the Hagia Sophia was turned into a mosque.”

Visits in spring

Dursun said the baptismal font was 3.32 meters long, 2.52 meters wide and 1.16 meters deep. He said interest would increase in the Hagia Sophia Museum when the pool opened to visitors in springtime.

“The number of visitors will reach 3 million. I am concerned about this big interest, because the museum is too narrow. It creates problems when these types of work are visited by lots of people.”

4th Century Church Discovered in Laodicea

2011-02-15T09:57:00.000-08:00

January 31, 2011
Hurriyet Daily News

An ancient church mentioned in the Bible has been discovered in western Turkey, according to the head of the excavation.

Culture and Tourism Minister Ertuğrul Günay visited the ancient city of Laodicea on Sunday in Denizli province and was briefed by Professor Celal Şimşek, head of the excavation team. The professor said they have discovered the Laodicea Church, one of the seven mentioned in the Bible. Şimşek said the church from the fourth century A.D. was found by underground radar search, a system they have tried this year for the first time. “The major part of the church, which is built on an area of 2,000 square meters, has kept its original [status].”

Minister Günay said he is very excited about the discovery, adding that archeology in Turkey developed greatly recently and the ministry is supporting academics fully. The minister said the excavations have been running nonstop since the site was transferred to the municipality of Denizli. “This summer we may invite the foreign press and organize a gathering after important steps are taken for renovation and the building is fully unearthed.” The minister said the church added to the already present historical richness of the ancient city and said he was happy that important sites other than Ephesus are coming into the spotlight. According to the minister, the baptismal pool at the Laodicea Church is even more exciting than the one at Hagia Sophia in Istanbul.

At a very early period, the city of Laodicea became one of the chief seats of Christianity, and the see of a bishop. Laodicea receives passing mention in the epistle to the Colossians and is one of the seven churches of Asia mentioned in the Book of Revelations. The Laodicean church is thought to have been founded by the Colossian Epaphras, a Christian preacher who spread the Gospel to his fellow Colossian citizens.

‘All To No Purpose Have I Left My True Home, I Need To Return To My Father’s House’

2010-10-13T09:57:00.001-07:00

Verse for the day: I Corinthians 16: 13, 14

Be watchful, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love.

Reflection:

St Paul is reminding the church in Corinth to be on their guard spiritually. He wanted them to wake up, to pay attention to their spiritual lives and their knowledge and devotion to God. Their lack of spiritual watchfulness was the foundation of the Corinthian church’s sinful condition. Most of the time spiritual indifference and spiritual ignorance are the root problems in our lives. This Lent, we need more than merely changing our behavior. We must be on our guard, with a focused awareness of His care and protection and His love for us as His children.

We live in a culture in which truth is regarded as relative. Our society waffles at the concept of objective, unyielding spiritual truth. It is dedicated to spiritual and ethical pluralism. If we are to be the witnesses God wants us to be, and if we are to have the relationship with God that He wants for us, then we must follow Paul’s admonition to stand firm in the faith. It is when we live out the Gospel of Christ in our daily lives, through the discipline of prayer, fasting and almsgiving that we become more Christ like. God wants us, in the midst of our spiritual watchfulness and our commitment to stand firm in the truth of the faith, to act courageously as Christians. To be men of courage spiritually would be unpopular, perhaps even unacceptable, behavior in society. It could mean loss of stature in with our peers, perhaps loss of jobs and economic opportunities, and loss of friends.

We are in this world to achieve the standard that God has set. Spiritual maturity demands courageous application of the truth, unfettered support of what we know is spiritually true and the standards that are true, and bold opposition to what we know is false. This maturity comes through our indulgence in the fast rigorously. God showers His grace and strength on us when we give ourselves completely to God’s will. We cannot do anything by our own strength, only by God’s might and support. We need to submit to the strengthening power and work of our Savior. When we submit ourselves to God, He fulfills His promise to strengthen us. And what is the strength He gives us? It is the strength to stand firm in spiritual knowledge and truth and to courageously apply spiritual truths in our lives. Today, we must stand firm in spiritual knowledge and truth and apply them with courage. Our part is to be on guard, to recognize and know what is spiritually right and wrong, and to act with courage. God’s part is to strengthen us.

Christ likeness is the solution to our problems as individuals and as a church. Do everything in love, incorporates the Christian’s life of serving God unreservedly and putting others above ourselves. Applying this principle of love for Christ and love for each other meant a radically different church, sold out to Christ and untainted by the world. Our goal is to be like Christ!

Prayer:

Help us, Lord, with the grace of your Holy Spirit to be witnesses for Jesus Christ through our lives, our words and the opportunities you set before us each day. Amen.

"In Silence Our Hearts Becomes Attentive To The Voice Of God"

2010-10-13T09:46:00.000-07:00

“Be still and know that I am God!” is the first part of Psalm 46:10. The command to “be still” comes from the stem of the verb (רפה) rapha (meaning to be weak, to let go, to release), which might better be translated as, “cause yourselves to let go” or “let yourselves become weak.” But to what end are we to “be still,” “let go,” “surrender,” and even to “die to ourselves?” We surrender in order to know that God is in control as Ribbono Shel Olam – the Master of the Universe. We “let go” in order to objectively know the saving power of God in our lives. We give up trusting in ourselves and our own designs in order to experience the glory of God’s all-sufficiency (Exodus 14:14). Christ teaches us in the Gospel of Matthew, “when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father Who is in secret; and your Father Who sees in secret will reward you. And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask them.”(St. Matthew 6: 6-8). In this short article I want to focus on silence in two areas. First, silence as part of one’s prayer life and second, silence in relationship to one’s liturgical life.

Metropolitan Hilarion says; “It is not out of words that prayer is born: prayer is not merely the sum of our requests addressed to God. Before being pronounced, prayer must be heard within one’s heart. All true masterpieces of music and poetry were not simply composed out of disconnected letters or sounds: they were first born in the depths of their authors’ heart, and were then incarnate in words or musical tones. Prayer is also creative work, born out of a deep stillness, out of concentrated and devoted silence. Before embarking upon the path of prayer, one must inwardly fall silent and renounce human words and thoughts.” In prayer we encounter the personal God Who hears us and responds to us, Who is always ready to come to our assistance, Who never betrays us, even if we betray Him many times. We know God only through an intimate relationship with Him. That does not come from knowing about God, but rather getting to personally know Him by what He says in His Holy Word, the Bible, recognizing the things He does in our lives, and by way of His Holy Spirit who comes to guide and comfort us. Saint Isaac of Nineveh said, “More than all things love silence: it brings you a fruit that tongue cannot describe. In the beginning we have to force ourselves to be silent. But then there is born something that draws us to silence. May God give you an experience of this “something” that is born of silence. If only you practice this, untold light will dawn on you in consequence . . . after a while a certain sweetness is born in the heart of this exercise and the body is drawn almost by force to remain in silence.” It is in the womb of silence that we can grow ideas for the best course of action to take. Abba Joseph said to Abba Nisterus, “What should I do about my tongue, for I cannot control it?” The old man said to him, “When you speak, do you find peace?” He replied, “No.” The old man said, “If you do not find peace, why do you speak? Be silent and when a conversation takes place, it is better to listen than to speak.”

St. John of the Cross wrote, “The Father spoke one word from all eternity and he spoke it in silence, and it is in silence that we hear it.” This suggests that silence is God’s first language. One of the problems we have in our society today is that we don’t value silence. Our lives now tend to be so busy that we have become accustomed to a constant barrage of tasks, inputs, and general noise. It’s not just an American thing; it’s a global phenomenon. Silence often makes us feel uncomfortable in our personal relationships. We always believe we should be saying something so as to avoid that “awkward moment of silence.” Sometimes we talk constantly because forcing conversation means we won’t be required to confront other issues in our relationships.

When did we begin to believe that moments of silence in our lives are a bad thing? When did we begin to believe that silence was good for monks, but not applicable to the lives of everyday folks? Silence is of particular importance for us Christians and our spirituality. Silence is probably the most important aspect of our spiritual lives. Silence is our admission that we are in communication with God, willing to listen. In our prayer life we are often so busy asking God for things, thanking Him for things, or praising Him, we forget that He wants to say something to us, too. We think that prayer means we must say something, but a prayer relationship with God is a dialogue, a conversation. We talk to Him, but we need to listen, too. We frequently are so busy talking to God that we forget to listen…sometimes we should just be quiet and let Him do the talking.

The purity of silence before God is profound. It is the most difficult, yet the most rewarding form of prayer. Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia says: “To achieve silence: this is of all things the hardest and the most decisive in the art of prayer. Silence is not merely negative — a pause between words, a temporary cessation of speech — but, properly understood, it is highly positive: and attitude of attentive alertness, of vigilance, and above all of listening.” It’s much easier to read prayers, or to try and pray extemporaneously. The ability to be silent is almost trained out of us by today’s society. Silence has a significant part to play in the spirituality of Orthodox Christian Churches. Silent prayer or contemplative prayer must be taught. It’s not something we ordinarily would naturally do. It must also be practiced. Like any other relationship, silence with God takes some work and time. We cannot expect to just sit or kneel and be quiet for a little bit and all of a sudden have amazing moments of insight and a quick connection with God. It takes learning some personal control and techniques that will facilitate the experience.

Silent prayer also takes commitment. It is not something that you can do one day and then pick up a few days later. You must work at it daily for it to be effective in your prayer life. The best way would be to set aside a specific period in the day when you will choose to pray in silence and stick to that if possible. Focus on the Jesus Prayer, “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Say it over and over until you find that you are praying it without saying it. Saying the Jesus Prayer does not disturb your inner silence, but rather it sustains and nourishes it.

Silence is not only a question for our personal prayer lives, but also for our liturgical experiences as well. We do not often consider the importance of silence in the liturgy, but it is a very key consideration. Since the word “liturgy” comes from a Greek word “leitourgia” which means “public work” and has also been translated as “people’s work,” it seems logical that liturgy should be busy, full of people working; and it is. The congregation has their part, the priest has his part, and it builds from the beginning with something constantly happening. You may ask how anyone can experience any silence at all with all that is going on. That is one of the beautiful characteristics of the liturgy. Even though there is usually something happening all the time, there are moments where we can all experience a bit of silence. In fact, the celebrant is often engaged in prayers silently during the Holy Qurbono. Silent prayer in one’s private prayer life and silence in the liturgy can be, and often are, two different things. They should be appreciated and experienced as such.

For an Orthodox Christian the Liturgy is ‘Heaven on Earth’ and as one participates in the Eucharistic liturgy one experiences a profound peace; a true silence in the soul. In silence, we journey toward God, becoming aware of His presence, leaving behind all the cares of this world. In silence we prepare the gifts, and encounter God in communion. The beauty of the Holy Qurbono is that it lifts us up out of our narrow sphere and lets us have a glimpse of the glory of God.

The Eucharistic liturgy allows us to participate in that greater world that is God’s Kingdom. And what do you do when you come before a king? You become silent. That is why we hear in the divine liturgy the deacon asking the congregation at various times to attend in silence and reverence, to stand well and in awe at the Liturgy. During the Liturgy, we need to be able to “tune out” everything else that is going on and feel as though it’s just us alone with Christ in this Holy Mystery. If we choose to experience silence in the liturgy, it provides a profound spiritual connection with Christ that will grow in us.

Silence is the perfect statement of faith. It is the perfect prayer. Silence allows a connection to God beyond what words can express. It is a special gift to us if we will only cultivate it and use it. Silence allows us to allow God to reach out to us and hold us in His arms. Silence is that perfect path to peace in Him. “For God is silence, and in silence is he sung by means of that psalmody which is worthy of Him. I am not speaking of the silence of the tongue, for if someone merely keeps his tongue silent, without knowing how to sing in mind and spirit, then he is simply unoccupied and becomes filled with evil thoughts: … There is a silence of the tongue, there is a silence of the whole body, there is a silence of the soul, there is the silence of the mind, and there is the silence of the spirit.” It is in profound silence that we truly experience God and it is in silence that our hearts become attentive to the voice of God.

Facing Your Everyday Battles

2010-08-04T13:54:00.000-07:00

CHOSEN BY GOD

God’s Training Method

Solitude – Alone with his father’s sheep

Obscurity – Not a prominent son

Monotony – Enjoyed his simple life

Reality – God became real everyday

Qualities God Saw in David

Spirituality – Active Faith

Humility – Serene Patience

Integrity - Zeal

“Man After God's Own Heart”

Loved the Word of God

Loved Prayer

Loved Praise

Loved Unity

Battle Belongs to the Lord

The Battle is the Lord’s

David had impossible odds against Goliath

David says "No, it will not be me fighting. God will defeat him."

“You will not need to fight in this battle. Position yourselves, stand still and see the salvation of the LORD (Exodus 14:13)

Dealing with Our Problems

Do you try to tackle your problems alone or with God?

You need to strengthen yourself in the LORD

Peter once walked on water, and then began to sink, and immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and caught him, and said to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?” (Mt. 14:31)

David Sins Against the Lord

The Sin of David

David was needed in the battle but he stayed home from this battle

David saw Bathsheba and lusted after her

David used his position as king to get whatever he wanted

David tried to cover up his sin

David made sure Uriah was killed in battle

Nathan's Rebuke

David's Repentance

Falling upon the mercy of God

Acknowledging of sin

Recognizing God as your only hope

Prayer for cleansing

David's Prayer - Psalm 51

Prayer for change

Prayer for restoration

Prayer for deliverance

Repentance/Confession

Repentance/Confession is a heartfelt recognition of what we are. It is important to God because it indicates that we take seriously our mistakes and failures. Of course, God does not ask us to confess our sins because He needs to know we have sinned, but because He knows that WE need to know we have sinned.

Repentance/Confession is a type of spiritual surgery, “Repentance works healing to the wound incurred in the heart. Just as the surgeon bursts a wound to permit the infection to drain and to heal from the inside, so confession opens the sore, drains the poison, and heals from within.”

God in Our Heart & Soul

Three Effects of the Life of God in the Soul

A New Relationship

A New Leadership

A New Freedom

Final Thoughts

“The conversion of a soul is the miracle of a moment, the manufacture of a saint is the task of a lifetime.”

Questions for Discussion:

1. How do you deal with the stress and strains of daily life?

2. Do you feel that you are tempted to go after what belongs to somebody else?

3. What are the key lessons you learn from David's life?

OVERCOMING LIFE’S CHALLENGES: Lessons from the Life of Joseph

2010-08-03T18:43:00.000-07:00

Joseph – “God adds"

Joseph’ life: I - Genesis 37: 1-4

• Joseph was Jacob’s favorite son. Jacob made a coat of many colors for him.

• His brothers hated him for this reason and would not even talk to him.

• Joseph was rather naive to tell his dreams to his brothers about his future supremacy and their submission to him.

• So, when the opportunity came at Dothan, they planned to kill Joseph. But Rueben tried to rescue him by persuading his other brothers not to kill him.

• His brothers sold Joseph to the caravan of Ishmaelite going to Egypt.

Joseph at the Potiphar’s House: II – Genesis 39:1-20

• He was a good administrator.

• Faithful servant

• Fair and handsome (Gen 39:6)

• God was with him and made him successful.

• God blessed his master through him. (Gen 39:2)

• Potiphar, his master had entrusted him with charge of all of his house affairs.

Temptation of Joseph:

• He was young and handsome. He was the head of the house. None would have known if he had given in to the temptation of the Potiphar’s wife.

• He feared God. (Gen 39:9)

• He tried to resist her as much as he could, but when time came he had to flee from the place.

• Due to false accusation of Potiphar’s wife, he was cast into prison. (Gen 39:20)

Joseph in the Prison: III – Genesis 39:20 – 41:37

• One could ask, why did God not rescue him from his troubles? But God’s plan and purpose are higher than ours.

• The Lord blessed Joseph in all his work. The Jailer gave him charge of all the other prisoners.

• In prison, he helped the chief butler (cup-bearer) to restore his position in Pharaoh’s office. But the cupbearer forgot his promise to mention about Joseph’s innocence to the Pharaoh.

• After two years, when Pharaoh had two dreams, the cupbearer remembered Joseph and his skills to interpret dreams.

• So when Joseph was brought to Pharaoh, he interpreted dreams about seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine.

• He suggested the preparation for the famine by storing food during the good harvest years.

Joseph: The Chief Minister (Governor) of Egypt: IV – Genesis 41:41-56

• The Pharaoh liked his proposal. And he made Joseph the Head of state to implement his plans for upcoming famine.

• He was given Egyptian name and was married to Egyptian priest’s daughter. God made him highly influential in Egypt.

• His wisdom and planning saved lives of people from not only Egypt but many other nations.

Joseph’s Life: The Unusual Family Reunion: V – Genesis 42-50

• The famine brought all people from different nations to Egypt for help, including his brothers from Israel.

• They could not recognize him, but he knew them. He remembered the dream he had, when he was a young boy.

• Joseph, after testing them in different ways, made himself known. (Gen 45:1-15)

• He forgave them and persuaded them to settle in Egypt with their father, Jacob.

• Joseph lived for 110 years. (Gen 50:26)

Lessons from Life of Joseph:

• God’s plans and purpose are greater and better than ours

• God’s providence and favor to the righteous

• Suffering to God’s people is not always bad

• Self control, patience and perseverance in the time of troubles

• Honesty, strong work ethics

• Fear of God and Faithfulness to God

FOCUS AND PERSONAL QUESTIONS

Focus Questions

1. What are the most interesting moments in Joseph’s story?

2. What were Joseph’s best qualities? What made him stand out from the rest?

3. What obstacles did Joseph face? Did he overcome them, or go with the flow? Explain.

4. How did Joseph use his abilities to do God’s work?

5. Which part of the story appeals to you the most? Why?

6. How is the story relevant to life around you?

Please include three short quotations from the Bible texts to illustrate the points you are making.

Personal Questions

1. Have you ever felt unloved by friends and family? How did you cope with it?

2. Have you had to compromise your values and morals due to peer pressure?

3. Can you think of moments when you have used your talents to help others?

4. If you are away from family for school or work, how do you accustom yourself to life in a new place?

Great Lent: ‘Restore Me To The Paradise From Which I Departed’

2010-02-14T15:47:00.000-08:00

The center of the liturgical year in the Orthodox Church is Kymtho, the celebration of Christ’s Resurrection. It is extolled in the services as the Feast of feasts and Triumph of triumphs. Justifiably so, for as the Apostle Paul declares, if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain (I Cor. 15:14). The sense of resurrection joy forms the foundation of all the worship of the Orthodox Church; it is the one and only basis for our Christian life and hope. Through His redeeming Passion, Christ freed us from the tyranny of death and opened for us the door to Paradise and eternal life. This is the goal of our life-long spiritual journey, a journey from death to life, from darkness to light – a restoration to paradise from which we have departed. It is a long journey and we travelers get weary; we get distracted and wander off or even lose sight of the road. To help keep us focused, the Church every year compresses for us this journey as it prepares us to greet the Feast of Christ’s Resurrection. This preparatory time is the joyous period of Great Lent. Without this preparation, without this expectant waiting, the deeper meaning of the Easter celebration will be lost.

The primary aim of fasting is to make us conscious of our dependence upon God. It is to lead us to a sense of inward brokenness and contrition; to bring to us, that is, to the point where we appreciate the full force of Christ's statement, `Without Me you can do nothing’ (John 15:5). During the Great Lent, we have to strip ourselves from the specious assurance of the Pharisee who fasted, it is true, but not in the right spirit. Lenten abstinence gives us the saving self- dissatisfaction of the Publican (Luke 18:10-13). Such is the function of the hunger and the tiredness: to make us `poor in spirit', aware of our helplessness and of our dependence on God’s aid. Abstinence leads to a sense of lightness, wakefulness, freedom and joy.

Lent is a time of joy. It is a time when we come back to life. It is a time when we shake off what is bad and dead in us in order to become able to live, to live with all the vastness, all the depth, and all the intensity to which we are called. We are at the threshold of the Great Lent. We have to believe the power of fasting as it relates to prayer is the spiritual weapon that our Lord has given us to destroy the strongholds of evil. Fasting might seem hard, but with each passing day, God’s call will grow stronger and clearer. Finally, we will be convinced that God has called us to fast, and He would not make such a call without a specific reason or purpose. With this conviction, enter the Great Lent with excitement and expectancy mounting in our hearts, praying, Lord, “I have walked away from You and Your precepts. But now I return, merciful Lord, and cry to You: I have sinned.”

As we begin to fast, our confidence in the Lord will help us. The longer we fast, the more we sense the presence of the Lord. The Holy Spirit refreshes our soul and spirit, and we experience the joy of the Lord as seldom before. Biblical truths leap at us from the pages of God’s Word. Our faith soars as we humble ourselves and cries out to God and rejoices in His presence. Fasting calls on the Holy Spirit and brings us to repentance, prayer and almsgiving. We need to revive our commitment to fasting and prayer and the rest of the Church will respond to this call. Spent time in reading God’s word and make your time with the Lord more spiritually rewarding. There is no point in fasting and prayer until it equips you for spiritual awakening. Hope this Great Lent will not slip by without having made a genuine effort to prepare ourselves for the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Savior. “Let us set out with joy upon the season of the Fast, and prepare ourselves for spiritual combat. Let us purify our soul and cleanse our flesh; and as we fast from food, let us abstain also from every passion. Rejoicing in the virtues of the Spirit may we persevere with love, and so be counted worthy to see the solemn Passion of Christ our God, and with great spiritual gladness to behold His holy Passover.”

The whole journey into the Resurrection can become our own if we are able to stand in examination of our lives, see how far we have brought ourselves from the life God intends for us, and then long, truly long to return to our true home, to paradise. We must turn with tears toward the home from which we have sinfully departed and resolutely start our journey back, begging God’s forgiveness in our return. True repentance begins with the acknowledgement of self-imposed exile. Such knowledge pains us, but it is a pain that leads to action, and action that leads to reform. And as Christ re-forms us into His heavenly life, we begin truly to live. Apart from God, there is nothing. We have each experienced this ‘nothing,’ for we have each turned from God. But now, as we prepare to enter into Great Lent, we long for the great ‘something’ that is God’s love and sanctification. Begging His mercy we strive for true repentance, that we may receive His salvation in all joy.

“Behold, O Christ, the affliction of my heart; behold my turning back; behold my tears, O Savior, and despise me not. But embrace me once again in Your compassion and count me with the multitude of the saved, that with thanksgiving I may sing the praises of Your mercy.” I end with the words of Ephrem the Syrian from his hymn ‘On Fasting’: “This is the fast of the First Born, the first of His victories. Let us rejoice in His coming; for in fasting He has overcome. Though He could have overcome by any means, He revealed for us the strength hidden in fasting, Overcomer of All. For by means of it a man can overcome that one who with fruit overcame Adam; He became greedy and gobbled it. Blessed is the First-Born who encompassed our weakness with the wall of His great fasting. Blessed is the King who adorned the Holy Church with Fasting, Prayer and Vigil.”

Rahaim ‘layn aloho abo aheed kool ethraham ‘layn.

Presentation of Our Lord in the Temple

2010-02-02T17:24:00.000-08:00

Today we celebrate a multi-layered Festival. It is multi-layered because it is both a festival of the Church and an astronomical calendar date marking the half way point between winter solstice and vernal equinox: spring is on the way! It commemorates a scriptural event which combines the Presentation of the infant Jesus, a Christological feast; the Purification of the Virgin, a Mariological feast; and at the same it is the honoring of the temple, so it is a temple feast as well.

This feast, celebrated on February 2, is known in the Orthodox Church as The Presentation of Christ in the Temple (Mayaltho in Syriac). Another name for the feast is The Meeting of our Lord. Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians call the feast, The Purification of the Holy Virgin. About 450 AD in Jerusalem, people began the custom of holding lighted candles during the Divine Liturgy of this feast day. Therefore, some churches in the West refer to this day as Candlemas.

Forty days after Jesus Christ’s birth, Mary and Joseph, brought Christ to the Temple to make the customary offering for purification; a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons. According to the Law of Moses (Leviticus. 12:2-8), a woman who gave birth to a child was forbidden to enter the Temple of God for forty days. There, the prophetess Anna and the aged Simeon met them. Simeon sensed the fulfillment of Isaiah’s puzzling prophecies of a virginal birth (Isaiah 7:14), and received God Incarnate just as he was promised he would before his death. Then Simeon praised God singing a hymn now called the Nunc Dimittis: “Now let Your servant depart in peace, O Master” (Luke 2: 29-32). Also, in the Temple was Anna the Prophetess. She had been a widow for many years. Anna was about eighty-four years old and spent her time in the Temple worshiping, fasting, and praying. When she saw the Christ Child she praised God and spoke of him to all who were awaiting the Messiah. After Jesus was presented in the Temple, the family returned to Galilee to the town of Nazareth. The Bible tells us that Jesus grew and became strong, and was filled with wisdom. (Luke 2:22-40)

Egeria, writing around AD 380, attests to a feast of the Presentation in the Jerusalem Church. It was kept on February 14th. The day was kept by a procession to the Constantinian basilica of the Resurrection, with a homily on Luke 2:22-39. However, the feast had no proper name at this point; it was simply called the 40th day after Epiphany. This shows that the Jerusalem church celebrated Jesus’ birth on the Epiphany Feast (as is common in some Orthodox Churches today). In regions where Christ’s birth was celebrated on December 25th, the feast began to be celebrated on February 2nd, where it is kept in the West today. In 542, the Emperor Justinian introduced the feast to the entire Eastern Roman empire in thanksgiving for the end to a great pestilence afflicting the city of Constantinople. Perhaps this is when Pope Gregory I brought the feast to Rome. The Feast of the Meeting of the Lord is among the most ancient feasts of the Christian Church. We have sermons on the Feast by the holy bishops Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, and John Chrysostom.

When Mary ritually presented her newborn Son in the Temple in Jerusalem, she did so in accordance with the Mosaic Law. The law provided that a woman should bring as a sacrifice a lamb and a dove. It was because Mary could not afford to bring a lamb, that she brought a pair of doves. The law also required that a first-born son should be redeemed with 5 shekels of silver, but there is no question of silver being paid in Mary’s case. Aside from the turtledoves, there was no real cost to this symbolic act of obedience and charity.

The key theme in the prayers and hymns of the feast is “datu sabro shariro, damsakyon leh beryotho datḥadeth lghenseh dodom: dḥableh bisho baḥsomeh” which translates “You are the true hope sought by the world: to renew Adam’s race that was corrupted by the Devil’s treachery.” The Scripture readings tell of the changing from the Old Testament to the New Testament, the old law becomes something new. The Son of God, giver of the law, now himself fulfills the law, being carried in Simeon’s arms as a human child.

This Feast presents the One on whom we focus, Jesus Christ, as the Redeemer of our race, the Hope of Salvation and the Light of the World, the light which no darkness can quench. God is the source and root of light and Jesus is the projection of this light to the world, even to the darkest and blackest of crevices within it. There is no-where that the light of God cannot reach. That is what this whole Church season is about: we who were once far off and distant from God were made close, by the revelation of the Light of the world to all people.

Jesus Christ came to bring life, and life to the full - for everyone. That was, and remains, His mission, and it is ours, too. Whatever is not life-giving needs to be challenged, measured against the love, truth, courage, and goodness of the Gospel. In other words, the good news is meant to enter into all aspects of society. The message of Jesus Christ is that where God reigns it is not good enough just to love our family and friends, or even those of our own nation, race or religion. The reign of God is about breaking down all barriers that stand between one person and another, all which divides between “us” and “them,” to bring all human beings into good and life giving relationship with God and with one another. Christ’s redemptive work, while essentially concerned with the salvation of men, includes also the renewal of the whole temporal order. Hence the mission of the Church is not only to bring the message and grace of Christ to men but also to penetrate and perfect the temporal order with the spirit of the Gospel.

What can we present to the Temple of Christ, the Church today? In what condition do we present our souls to Christ? Have we thanked God for all that we have received? What has changed in our way of life since the Birth of Christ forty days ago? What progress has been made? The more we focus on Christ, the easier our journey becomes, that in no way means Christian life is an easy life. The closer we get to Him, the larger and more vibrant our life becomes, the distance becomes less and the connection between us and our goal becomes more apparent.

The true light has come, the light that enlightens every man who is born into this world. Let all of us, be enlightened and made radiant by this light. Rejoicing with Simeon, let us sing a hymn of thanksgiving to God and say: “dbo’eno shrin bashlomo dho ḥzay ’aynay laḥnonokh: wal furqonokh qadisho - Let me depart in peace, for my eyes have seen Your compassion and Your holy Salvation.”

Fast of Nineveh

2010-01-26T08:45:00.000-08:00

In the first qolo of Thursday evening prayer, we sing:

The Ninevites trembled at the voice of Jonah, the son of Mattai, and took refuge in penitence by watching, fasting and prayer; and by tears and groans the sentence of judgment pronounced by Jonah concerning the destruction of Nineveh was annulled. Blessed be the Compassionate one who turned them from evil to good.

The three-day fast commemorates the three days Jonah spent in the belly of the fish and also the repentance of the city of Nineveh. Jonah runs away from God and from the mission that was entrusted to him. Jonah was cast into the sea and in the belly of the whale Jonah cries out to God. Jonah proclaims his message: “in 40 days Nineveh will be overthrown.” The people fast and pray. The king also prays and commands the whole city to call on God in the hopes that God would relent and withdraw his anger. God withholds his judgment due to their repentance and prayers. The Three Day Fast is in a way our preparation for the Great Lent. St. Jerome writes: “Fasting is not merely a perfect virtue: it is the foundation of all the other virtues; it is sanctification, purity, and prudence, – virtues without which no one can see God.”

The origins of the Nineveh Fast in the Syrian Orthodox Church can be traced back to the fourth century AD. This can be inferred from the memres and hymns of St. Ephrem, the Syrian. Initially the fast was for six days, but now it is only for three days starting on the third Monday before the Great Lent. The 3 days Fast had been neglected through the ages. Mar Dionysius Bar Salibi states that Mar Marutha of Tikrit was the one who enjoined it on the Church of the East first in the region of Nineveh. Armenians embraced this practice of the Syrians calling it (Sorep Sarkis). The Copts did the same during the time of Patriarch Anba Eprem, the Syrian.

Historically, this fast is one of the most rigorously observed fasts in the Church. The faithful traditionally refrain from food and drink for three consecutive days, from Monday till Wednesday. Some observe the fast by refraining from food and drink from morning till sunset during the three days. The church exhorts her faithful to at least refrain from meat, fish and dairy products during the period of fasting. The faithful are urged to go to church after this fast and receive the Holy Qurbono.

In the Old Testament, preparation for a special holy occasion included fasting and prayer. The New Testament often mentions fasting. Fasting is clearly not optional inasmuch as Jesus Christ said, regarding fasting “When you fast” (Matt. 6:16), rather than “If you fast.” Fasting is the change of every part of our life, because the sacrifice of the fast is not the abstinence but the distancing from sins. Fasting is an essential aspect of practicing the Orthodox life. You cannot be Orthodox and not fast. Unfortunately, many in the Church today do not participate in this grace-bestowing practice.

St. John Chrysostom says: “Fasting purifies the mind, calms the senses, subjects the flesh to the spirit, renders the heart humble and contrite, disperses the clouds of concupiscence, extinguishes the heat of passion, and lights up the fire of chastity.”

Fasting in the Orthodox Church has two aspects: physical and spiritual. The first one implies abstinence from food, such as dairy products, eggs, fish and all kinds of meat. Spiritual fasting consists in abstinence from evil thoughts, desires, and deeds. The main purpose of fasting is to gain mastery over oneself and to conquer the passions of the flesh. It is to liberate oneself from dependence on the things of this world in order to concentrate on the things of the Kingdom of God. It is to give power to the soul so that it would not yield to temptation and sin.

Basil the great reminds us, “As much as you subtract from the body, so much will you add to the strength of the soul. True fasting lies is rejecting evil, holding one's tongue, suppressing one's hatred, and banishing one's lust, evil words, lying, and betrayal of vows.”

God has forgiven us for running from Him and God has snatched us from death, and He has rescued us from what we deserve. May this Fast enable us to turn to God and experience His abundant grace, compassion and loving kindness. May this Fast truly prepare us for the Great Lent that will dawn upon us in a few weeks.

Mawdainan lokh moryo alohan, wyateeroeeth mqableenan tayboothokh dalwothan wethraham ‘layn. (We thank You, O Lord our God, and are grateful for Your grace toward us, and have mercy upon us).

THEOPHANY – DENHO DA’TLITHOYUTHO

2010-01-06T10:21:00.000-08:00

The Feast of Theophany is a celebration of an historic event, the Baptism of Christ, celebrated each year on January 6. The Feast commemorates the divine revelation of the Holy Trinity. At the Baptism of Christ, all three Persons of the Holy Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—were made manifest. Thus, the name of the Feast is Epiphany, meaning manifestation, or Theophany, meaning manifestation of God.

The Biblical story of the Baptism of Christ is recorded in all four of the Gospels: Matthew 3, Mark 1:1-9, Luke 3:21-22, and John 1:31-34. In accordance with the Gospel this is the first revelation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - the Holy Trinity. The Father and the Holy Spirit give testimony to the appearance of the Son of God in the flesh among mankind.

The Scriptures tell us that Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. Initially, John would not do this, saying that Jesus should baptize him. Jesus said to John, “Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness (3:15). John consented and baptized Jesus.

When Jesus came up from the water, the heavens opened suddenly, and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him. The Bible records that the Spirit descended like a dove on Jesus. When this happened, a voice came from heaven and said, “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” This was the voice of God the Father.

Festival of Lights:

The theme of “manifestation” or “revelation” is also expressed in Scripture with the symbolism of light. In the hymn of the Feast we sing, “Christ has appeared and enlightened the world.” Thus, January 6 is also known as the Feast of Lights. The Church celebrates on this day the illumination of the world by the light of Christ.

By descending into the waters, Christ has enlightened all creation, and has crushed the heads of the serpents. And now all are glorified in Him who is the Savior, the Enlightener of our souls. “Light” is a prominent image in the service of Epiphany, and many of the hymns refer to it: “Thou, who hast created the world, art made manifest in the world, to give light to those that sit in darkness. Glory to Thee, who loves mankind.”

Prefiguration of Christ’s Death:

As Theophany is the feast of Christ’s baptism – and baptism, St. Paul tells us is a baptism into the death of Christ. His Baptism is a prefigurement of His death.
Thus the waters of the Jordan become symbolic of Hades. Christ’s descent into the waters becomes his descent into Hades where he “leads captivity captive” (Ephesians 4:8) and sets free those who have been held in bondage to death.

Blessing of Water:

By blessing the water we acknowledge that Christ in His baptism purified the nature of the waters. He came to redeem not only human beings but, through them, the entire material created world. The waters become the means of healing and grace. But not only waters-any other material thing may be a bearer of the Spirit. No matter can be excluded or considered trivial, “for the redemptive and transforming grace of the Savior extends to all things....”

The feast of Epiphany thus speaks of the restoration of the pure human image, as well as of all material nature. The true nature of water has its destiny in the salvation of man and the world. Creation “will be set free from its bondage” and will obtain “the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Romans 8:20). All things are to be set aright. They are to be permeated by the light, love, grace, and glory of God. In the feast, the Church reminds its members of the historical character of the Incarnation and the goal of Christian existence: to “become partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4). The verb baptize “AMAD” (in Syriac) means sink, dip, wash, baptize, dye, seclude and hide. This symbolizes the burial of the dead in the tombs as the baptized are buried with Christ to rise up with him in the new life.

Road to Calvary:

The day of the Epiphany is the day when the whole world is being renewed and becomes a partaker of the holiness of God. But at the same time, it is the day when Christ enters on the way to Calvary. He came to John the Baptist on Jordan, not in order to be cleansed, because he was pure of sin. Christ did not need cleansing. But by entering the waters of Jordan, Lord Jesus Christ merges Himself on that day, taking upon Himself the mortality resulting from the sin of man. He vests Himself with the mortality of the sinful world. This is the beginning of the way to Calvary. This is a day when we marvel at the infinite love of God.

Let us therefore today wonder and marvel, and worship this love of God. kulkhun ’ammé, taw nebruk w’nesghud leh (All you people, let us bow and worship him). Amen!

HOW A BISHOP MUST BE CHOSEN – A LAYMAN’S PERSPECTIVE

2009-12-24T07:11:00.000-08:00

The answer to the question “Who chooses a new bishop?” is “The Holy Spirit.” Christ has not abandoned His church, and continues to guide and govern her through the Holy Spirit. However, the Holy Spirit uses human beings to accomplish this. The process consists of two parts: identifying priests with the necessary qualities, and selecting the one who best fills a specific vacancy. We have to try to find the best candidate who fits the niche.

Identifying the Right Priests

The process of identifying priests with the qualities desired in a bishop is an ongoing process, even if there are no vacancies. The bishop of a diocese in the Indian Orthodox Church should give the Catholicos the names of priests they think would make good bishops. The candidates passed on by a bishop should usually be from his diocese or with whom he has served, since these are the priests he knows best. In my opinion, the process of 30 people having to sign a form and then getting the consent of the person to become a bishop is uncanonical. From when have we become a worldly and secular institution?

The Qualities of a Bishop

The church is very explicit about the qualities that must be present in a candidate to the episcopacy. He must be “a good pastor of souls and teacher of the Faith.” The church examines whether the candidates “enjoy a good reputation; whether they are of irreproachable morality; whether they are endowed with right judgment and prudence; whether they are even-tempered and of stable character; whether they firmly hold the Orthodox Faith; whether they are devoted to the Apostolic See and faithful to the Church; whether they have a thorough knowledge of dogmatic and moral theology and canon law; whether they are outstanding for their piety, their spirit of sacrifice and their pastoral zeal; whether they have an aptitude for governing.”

Consideration is also be given to “intellectual qualities, studies completed, social sense, spirit of dialogue and cooperation, openness to the signs of the times, praise-worthy impartiality, family background, health, age (40-50) and inherited characteristics.” By the way, celibacy is by no way the only criterion for episcopacy. There was a time when men ran away from wanting to become a bishop, nowadays, we have many running for it and setting their eyes on higher offices. We sing in Syriac: tow b’shlomo aboon d’rabyath rooho d’qudsho: w’ablaishoneh t’een laqleedai d’baith aloho – (Hail Bishop, whom the Holy Spirit did raise up, and, with his tongue, bears the keys to God’s house).

The List

Periodically, the bishops must meet under the chairmanship of the Catholicos to consider the names of priests who are possible candidates for the episcopacy. At such meetings, a list of candidates for the episcopacy must be assembled, voted on and forwarded to the Managing committee. While the Managing committee can nominate a priest for bishop not from this pool of candidates, most appointments must come from these lists. When the church needs bishops, the second part of the process must get underway i.e. the thorough screening for the best persons who will fill specific vacancies. Why should we wait till the next association to have a pool of good and able candidates? Why wait, start early!

During the investigation the Church must send out a confidential questionnaire on the candidate to people who know him. The questions must address the physical, intellectual, moral, spiritual, social, and priestly characteristics that one would hope for in a bishop. Those from whom a report is requested must include clergy and laity and also from secular and religious institutions…these must include the priest’s diocesan bishop, others should be diocesan officials the person has gotten to know personally and also people who have worked with him on secular and academic levels too. The laity consulted should be officers in diocesan lay organizations or on diocesan advisory committees. Each must be told to answer the questions without consulting others. They cannot tell anyone, especially the candidate, that they have received the questionnaire. If we already have a pool of able candidates, then these reports makes the selection of the best among the list much easier.

Church’s Report

After the Church has examined the responses to the questionnaires, a ‘bishop-electing panel’ should prepare a final list of qualified candidates and write a report extracting and synthesizing the content of the consultation and giving their own judgment. The report must be sent to the Holy Synod, and no bishop sees the report unless he attends the Holy Synod convened.

Holy Synod

When the report arrives at the Holy Synod, the members discuss the appointment under the chairmanship of the Catholicos. The Holy Synod should finalize the best candidates. If there are only five qualified candidates for the five positions, well and good, but if there are more than five able candidates, election should not be our option.

The Catholicos

In the case of more able candidates than positions, the Catholicos should send out a Church wide kalpana to all parishes to observe 3 days of fasting for the need to choose bishops. After three days, let HH the Catholicos request the faithful (men, women and children) and clergy to gather for a Holy Liturgy. During the Holy Qurbana the names of the able candidates should be in a vessel on the altar. In the midst of the liturgy, offer litanies and draw names from the cup. Why have we become a church where we talk about being so liturgical but we do not value the spirituality of our services? This is how at the end, the church, led by the Holy Spirit, makes the appointment. Our way of choosing bishops today is a mockery of democracy and church canons.

We are a liturgical church and we must chose names from the ‘final list of able candidates’ during the Divine Liturgy. Let us see how the former saintly Patriarch of Alexandria, Kyrillos VI, was chosen to become the Patriarch.

There was no patriarch on the See of St. Mark at the time of the election of Kyrillos VI, and therefore Metropolitan Athanasios was the locum tenens as Deputy Patriarch. There were many bishops under him. As a preparation for the election, Metropolitan Athanasios made a nomination list, and all nominations were on behalf of spiritually outstanding monk-priests who never knew they had been in the list of nominations. There were no bishops in the list. Nominations were submitted on behalf of Fr. Demian, Fr. Angelos, Father Timotheos, and Father Mina. Having later known about his nomination, Father Mina declined to be part of this process. Having heard about this the Deputy Patriarch called Fr. Mina and asked him:

“Father Mina, why are you not part of this election?”

“Your Holiness, … may the Lord choose a good shepherd to guide His people with piety and purity of heart.” Father Mina replied.

“You should not have missed this duty.”

“Who am I but a little worm, to even consider this glorious and serious responsibility, and carry its enormous trusteeship, which should be given to a divinely chosen person, and not to whomever wants it.”

“But, I still did not hear your answer as to why you did not allow yourself to be nominated and allow the Lord to choose according to His will.”

“Your Holiness, all my fathers, the monks, who were nominated, are suitable for this critical position. But as for me, I am content with the Lord’s grace that is with me.”

“Father Mina, I am submitting a nomination for you.” “ … but where would the lowly stand among kings?’ “The Lord can lift the poor man from the pits to seat him with the principals of His people.”

Later Father Mina conducted a campaign against himself like St Ephraim.
On April 17, 1959 the nominees were narrowed down to three monks, Fr. Demian, Fr Angelos, and Fr. Mina.

On Sunday, April 19, 1959 the Deputy Patriarch offered the Papal Election Liturgy, which was attended by high dignitaries of the country, including the late President Anwar Sadat, ambassadors and high-ranking delegates of other churches in the world. At the end of the Liturgy, a young deacon was appointed to draw one of the nominations from their container placed on the altar. He pulled out the nomination that has the name of Father Mina, a humble monk of St Demiana Monastery.

While this was going on Fr. Mina was celebrating his Sunday Liturgy at St. Mina’s Monastery in Cairo. The news of his divine election was broadcast all over the radio stations in Egypt, and it came to the attention of the participants of Fr. Mina’s Liturgy. Bells of all the Churches rang all over Egypt, but Fr. Mina refused to allow his beloved people to ring the bell of St. Mina’s Monastery Church. You should know what Fr. Mina did when he heard about it. He went up to the sanctuary and cried. The people forced him out of the sanctuary. He came out and addressed his people: “Glory be to God. The Lord has chosen to demonstrate His power and glory through my weakness. I tremble with fear in the glory of Your power. … From You we receive power and help, O our Lord and Redeemer.”

Here are some things that I believe Indian Orthodox Christians need to be asking as they choose their leaders.

1.It is now so much how this individual “came over” in a short exposure to the people, but whether this person’s record is of someone who not only is able to lead, but is able to lead through perillous waters in difficult times. What has been their record as a pastor, evangelist, missionary, leader? Whatever the future configuration of the church, these years ahead are going to be extraordinarily difficult, and will require a leader who is firm but flexible when it comes to guiding a group of congregations through rough seas.

2. We need to be asking whether any of these individuals understand what is going on in the culture, where the culture is leading us, and what the impact will be upon the churches. The 21st Century is profoundly different in almost every way from the 20th, and the church that does not understand this is in deep trouble. If we are looking for someone who will try to maintain the institution in its present form then we are already digging the grave into which most of just about any diocese will very quickly be dropped.

3. Choosing a bishop is a theological act, so we want to know what a person believes, what their relationship to God is through Jesus Christ, whether they are able to be the chief missionary of the diocese. When you are part of a church like ours that tends to defer to the culture rather than Scriptures and Christian tradition in shaping its values, this is a major, major set of questions that need to be asked. Failing to do so is a great danger.

4. Furthermore, we need to be asking if this individual has a vision for the future. Vision is a key component to leadership, for as Scripture says, without a vision the people perish. We have been prone in the church to elect managers and administrators, who at times make compromises, and the result is that we have not had the kind of leadership that will take us to the places where God might want us to go.

5. While a person’s charm, wit, and social abilities are important, they ought not to be at the top of the list. Some of the greatest bishops in history would not have been the life and soul of a cocktail party -- indeed, a good number of those who do have such skills have been disasters. The election of bishops must not be a popularity contest.

6. While managerial and administrative skills ought not at the top of the list, it helps if someone knows themselves well enough that in leading they are able to guide an entity forward and fill the gaps in their own skill mix. We have to elect people who have a mix of administrative skills, management and above all the humility to serve.

7. A bishop should be someone with staying power. The stress of the office is so great these days. A bishop is someone who is involved in the leadership of a spiritual conflict, and therefore needs to be spiritually, physically, emotionally, up to the task.

8. Good bishops are people of prayer and study of the Word. They are individuals who keep themselves spiritually alert and fresh. They lead from grace that is centered on Jesus Christ, and not out of ego, personal gratification, or in pursuit of any specific political agenda.

9. Good bishops have an inner humility. This is a spiritual grace that tends to get overlooked in our push-and-shove age. This humility allows them to be honest to God and honest with themselves. A terrific place to start when thinking about who might be a bishop for a diocese is Paul's teaching in 1 Timothy 3.1ff.

10. A good bishop is someone who knows how to listen to and take good advice and wise counsel from Godly priests and laity.

11. We are a Church that focuses on the worship so much…if a bishop is present he tends to lead the service. This is not the top priority, but we need bishops who know the rubrics of the service and who can lead a service beautifully. I am not saying that they all should be melodious singers and chanters, but it helps.

A lot more can be said, but these are just some of the qualifications that we need to be looking for in those who are called to lead us, and we need to deliberately set the bar high. I expect those who lead to reflect Christ’s grace transparently -- this should be so of priests and certainly of bishops. Many of our problems in the past generations have resulted from setting the bar too low. The sort of bishop that a diocese needs today is someone for whom Christ is their all in all, someone who is determined that the Gospel is not about the Church as an institution, but about the Kingdom of God.

May the Holy Spirit guide our Church and move our leaders to discern and chose the best men for the episcopate. Hab moryo l’eeto deelokh qadishto shayno w’shlomo – (Grant, O Lord, Your Holy Church peace and tranquility).

Christmas Reflection 2: Prepare the Way for the Lord

2009-12-20T21:53:00.000-08:00

Meditational Text: Malachi 3:1-4, Baruch 5:1-9, Luke 1:68-79, Philippians 1:3-11 and Luke 3:1-6

Preparing is hard work and preparing the way for the Lord is harder. The prophet Malachi calls us to a time of preparation during the Advent season as we anticipate the coming of Christ. Malachi has good news—God will indeed appear. As a spokesman for the Lord, the prophet begins this particular chapter by saying, “Behold, I send my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts.” (Malachi 3. 1, RSV). In this season of preparation, we await the coming of Jesus into his temple – and into our hearts again at Christmas.

But, Malachi also has a warning: “But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner's fire and like fullers’ soap.” (Malachi 3. 2, RSV). In other words, the coming of the Lord means judgment.

That is precisely why it is imperative that we prepare for the Lord’s return. Preparing for the Lord’s coming is a matter of purification. True spiritual preparation involves repentance and change of heart. That is what getting ready for Christmas is about — preparing the way for the Lord’s arrival into our lives.

Like Malachi, John the Baptist tells us to prepare, but he also admonishes us to repair the path into our hearts. The crooked areas need straightening and our souls that have been bent and turned by too many false hopes need to return to God. The only way for us to get our souls made right with God is for us to turn our hearts toward the coming Savior.

John said it best when he quoted the prophet Isaiah, saying, “Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” (Luke 3.4, RSV).

This Advent season, may we have the courage to ask God to repair our hearts so that we are truly prepared for the coming of the King of Kings, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Christmas Reflection 1: NATIVITY: WAITING WITH HOPE AND EXPECTATION

2009-12-16T07:36:00.000-08:00

Meditational Texts: Jeremiah 33:14-16, Psalm 25:1-10 , 1 Thessalonians 3:9-13 and Luke 21:25-36

The LORD Our Salvation

The Nativity of Christ marks a wonderfully exciting time in the church year. The change of season proclaims - Jesus Christ is coming! We sing “O come, O come, Emmanuel” as we await Christ Jesus’ arrival. In announcing his nativity, all the readings echo the word COMING:

• The LORD said: I made a wonderful promise to Israel and Judah, and the days are COMING when I will keep it. (Jeremiah 33:14)

• When our Lord COMES with all of his people, I pray he will make your hearts pure and innocent in the sight of God the Father. (1 Thessalonians 3:13)

• Then the Son of Man will be seen, COMING in a cloud with power and great glory. (Luke 21:27)

The message of Nativity is God’s reassurance to us of his faithfulness to his promises. The promise is that Jesus Christ will be present among us and the Holy Spirit will guide and counsel us. Advent also is a summons to watch and pray. Watch for signs of the kingdom of God, for signs of love and forgiveness, for signs of hope and joy, for peace. Be alert for opportunities to reach out to others. Pray for the coming of the kingdom and the fulfillment of God’s will. We are called to grow in holiness as we prepare for the coming of the Lord.

God will overcome and change the world by pouring out, in self-sacrifice and love, his unrestricted force and flood of divine life. This life can be brought into being by making real in human affairs the depth of divine life and love; by showing ‘glory’ – the intensity and radiance of unqualified joy, eternal self-giving. Only in the heart of the ordinary vulnerability of human life can this be shown in such a way, so that we are saved from the terrible temptation of confusing it with earthly power and success. This is an assurance from the LORD, as recorded by Jeremiah, that God truly is the LORD, our salvation.

We have begun the new church cycle; we start over again, and we have the opportunity to review and recommit ourselves to the disciplines of faith. We will again receive the invitation and call, “Come, for all things are ready!” Let us respond with faith, in preparation of Jesus Christ’s coming! Amen!

The Sign of the Cross

2009-09-21T15:24:00.000-07:00

The Sign of the Cross is a simple religious act, which is so universal and so frequently practiced during the course of the day. We all make this holy sign, but hardly many of us give any thought to the mysteries it signifies. The sign of the Cross follows a believer everywhere. The sign of the Cross of Christ sanctifies all and everything, so when a believer makes this sign over himself it brings him closer to salvation.[1]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem says: “Let us not then be ashamed to confess the Crucified. Let the Cross be our seal made with boldness by our fingers on our brow and in everything; over the bread we eat, and the cups we drink; in our comings in, and goings out; before our sleep, when we lie down and when we awake; when we are on the way and when we are still. Great is that preservative; it is without price, for the poor's sake; without toil, for the sick, since its grace is from God. It is the Sign of the faithful, and the dread of evils; for He has triumphed over them in it, having made a mockery of them openly; for when they see the Cross, they are reminded of the Crucified; they are afraid of Him, Who has bruised the heads of the dragon. Despise not the Seal, because of the freeness of the Gift; but for this rather honor thy Benefactor”.[2]

St. John Chrysostom wrote: “never leave home without making the sign of the cross”.[3] Tertullian recounts, “In all our travels in all our coming in and going out, in putting on our shoes, at the bath, at the table we mark our foreheads with the sign of the cross”.[4] This sign or mark on the forehead of consecration to Christ has an antecedent in Ezekiel’s prophetic vision of judgment, in which the Lord commands that a “mark be set upon the foreheads” of the Israelites who cry out against the evil which surrounds them, so that by this mark God’s people were identified as belonging to Him and saved from annihilation [Ezekiel: 9:4-6]. Other biblical references to “sealing” God’s people with a sign on their heads are found in Revelation 7:4, 9:4.[5]

The origins of the sign are unknown; “our information is sparse because this ancient practice emerged naturally, as something that made sense to most Christians”.[6] The earliest descriptions, such as Tertullian’s, indicate that the cross was made with one finger—probably the thumb—on the forehead in the shape of a Hebrew T or a Greek X, letters that stood for names of God and Christ. Presumably, early Christians were taking their cues from passages in Genesis 4:15, Ezekiel 9:4, and Revelation 14:1 and 22:4 that describe a mark on the forehead as a sign of God's claim on a person. The similarities among the shapes of T, X, and the cross were noted by early writers, but it wasn’t until the fourth century that the cross became a symbol of pride, of worship, and of Christian identity. By then, Augustine declared, “What else is the sign of Christ but the cross of Christ?” and advised that “the sign be applied … to the foreheads of believers”.[7]

Crossing one’s self recalls this seal, and the invocation that is said while making this holy sign calls on our God -- the Father, His Son, and the Holy Ghost -- and is a sign of our of belief; it is both a “mini-creed” that asserts our belief in the Trinitarian God, and a prayer that invokes the Holy Trinity.[8] With the Sign, we send a visible sign to the world as St. Ephrem the Syrians says: “Mark all your actions with the sign of the life giving Cross. Do not go out from the door of your house till you have signed yourself with the Cross. Do not neglect that sign whether in eating or drinking or going to sleep, or in the home or going on a journey. There is no habit to be compared with it. Let it be a protecting wall round all your conduct, and teach it to your children that they may earnestly learn the custom”.[9] Because of what the Sign indicates -- the very Cross of our salvation -- Satan hates it, and our using it makes demons flee.

The Sign of the Cross is made by holding the thumb, index finger, middle finger of the right hand together (signifying the Trinity) while tucking the ring finger and little finger (signifying the two natures of Christ) toward the palm. The sign of the Cross is made by touching the hand sequentially to the forehead, lower chest or navel area, and both shoulders, accompanied by the Trinitarian formula: at the forehead: In the name of the Father; at the stomach or heart: and of the Son; across the shoulders: and of the Holy Spirit; and finally: Amen. Today, Western Christians and the Oriental Orthodox touch the left shoulder before the right. Orthodox Christians use the right-to-left movement.

There are several interpretations; according to Church Fathers the forehead symbolizes Heaven; the stomach, the earth; the shoulders, the place and sign of power. Also, the hand to the forehead may be seen as a prayer to the Father for wisdom; the hand to the stomach as a prayer to the Son who became incarnate; and the hand to the shoulders as a prayer to the Holy Spirit. The fingers put together first touch the forehead — to sanctify the mind, then — the belly near the solar plexus — for sanctification of feelings, then to the right and finally to the left shoulder — to sanctify one’s bodily strength.[10]

The right cross, practiced by Eastern Orthodox believers, symbolizes how “Christ descended from the heavens to the earth, and from the Jews (right) He passed to the Gentiles (left)”, according to Pope Innocent III. In Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholic practice, the left cross has become standard, showing, (in one of many interpretations) that the believer hopes to be not on Christ’s left—with the goats, as in Jesus’ parable—at the day of judgment, but on Christ’s right. The difference between the Latin and the Greek customs is that the right side is associated with holiness, and the heart (on the left) with the spirit, so that those who, in mentioning the Holy Spirit, used the Latin phrase “Spiritus Sancti” (noun before adjective) touched left before right, while those who said, in Greek, “τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος” – tou agiou pneumatos – (adjective before noun) did the opposite.[11]

Chrysostom admonishes: “You should not just trace the cross with your finger, but you should do it in faith”.[12] The sign of the cross is “a simple gesture and … a simple prayer”.[13]

[1] Very Rev. Canon Howe, “Sign of the Cross” in The Catechist, 1898.

[2] J.W. Drijvers, Cyril of Jerusalem: Bishop and City, (Brill, 2004).

[3] Rev. William Seymour, The Cross in Tradition, History, and Art, (Putnam Sons. Ltd., 1898). Also refer to Bert Ghezzi, The Sign of the Cross: Recovering the Power of the Ancient Prayer, (Loyola Press, 2006).

[4] Ibid.

[5] Andreas Andreopoulos, The Sign of the Cross: The Gesture, the Mystery, the History, (Paraclete Press, 2006).

[6] Ibid.

[7] Allan D. Fitzgerald, Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, (Eerdmens Publishing Press, 2009).

[8] Andreas Andreopoulos, The Sign of the Cross: The Gesture, the Mystery, the History, (Paraclete Press, 2006).

[9] Kees, den Biesen, Simple and Bold: Ephrem’s Art of Symbolic Thought, (Gorgias Press, 2006).

[10] Bert Ghezzi, The Sign of the Cross: Recovering the Power of the Ancient Prayer, (Loyola Press, 2006).

[11] Andreas Andreopoulos, The Sign of the Cross: The Gesture, the Mystery, the History, (Paraclete Press, 2006).

[12] Rev. William Seymour, The Cross in Tradition, History, and Art, (Putnam Sons. Ltd., 1898).

[13] Bert Ghezzi, The Sign of the Cross: Recovering the Power of the Ancient Prayer, (Loyola Press, 2006).

Feast of the Exaltation of the Salvific and Life Giving Cross

2009-09-14T12:08:00.000-07:00

Velum shathrukalle ninaal njangal halleluiah…
Dveshikale medhichedum nin naamathil
Varikallil ninnum kathengale nee halleluiah…
Shathrukalle lejipichu (Kukliyon of the Cross)

“The sayings of the prophets foretold the holy Wood, whereby Adam was set free from the ancient curse of death. And today, at the Exaltation of the Cross, all creation raises its voice, asking of God plenteous mercy. O Master, who alone art boundless in compassion, be our atonement and save our souls!" (Feast of the Veneration of the Cross)

Each year on the fourteenth of September, the faithful come together in her churches for a unique celebration bound up in mystery and paradox. In this season the Cross, that most horrible of tools, is hallowed in the center of the church. The bishop/priest, taking the cross, processes to the center of the church where, as through it he presents his blessing, the people intone a solemn ‘Lord, have mercy’. Christians “exalt” the Cross of Christ as the instrument of our salvation. Adoration of the Cross is, thus, adoration of Jesus Christ, God and Man, who suffered and died on this instrument of torture for our redemption from sin and death. The cross represents the One Sacrifice by which Jesus Christ, obedient even unto death, accomplished our salvation. The cross is a symbolic summary of the Passion, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ – all in one image.

On this great day, the precious Cross of Christ is not only venerated, it is exalted. It is elevated to the place of greatest honor, adored again and again as the ‘footstool’ by which Christ reigns over the universe. On this day, perhaps more than most other days, the full paradox of the Cross is loudly proclaimed: this instrument of most horrible death is become the ensign of victory and eternal life. The cruel weapon of torture and torment has been taken in the hand of God and transformed into the sword by which every enemy is defeated. The sword is raised, and the Devil is fallen. Without the Cross there is no Resurrection.

The Cross is power. The Cross is glory. The Cross is regal. The Cross is sweetness. The Cross is majestic. All these are wondrously foretold in the pages of a testament we call Old and all too often think of as ‘outdated’ or ‘outmoded’. But when the Church sings her hymns, and when she magnifies the precious and life-giving Cross, she turns her eyes to these images. It is with a heart immersed in this truly cosmic and eternal universality of the Cross that she exults: ‘The Cross is the guardian of the whole earth! The Cross is the beauty of the Church! The Cross is the strength of kings! The Cross is the support of the faithful! The Cross is the glory of the angels and the wounder of demons! We venerate Thy Cross, O Master, and we glorify Thy holy Resurrection!’.

The Cross – because of what it represents – is the most potent and universal symbol of the Christian faith. It has inspired both liturgical and private devotions: for example, the Sign of the Cross, which is an invocation of the Holy Trinity; the Sign of the Cross at the reading of the Gospel; and the Veneration of the Cross by the faithful on Good Friday. Placing a cross in churches and homes, in cars, or wearing this image on our persons, is a constant reminder – and witness – of Christ’s ultimate triumph, His victory over sin and death through His suffering and dying on the Cross. We remember Our Lord’s words, “He who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake shall find it.” (Mt 10:38,39). Meditating on these words we unite ourselves – our souls and bodies — with His obedience and His sacrifice; and we rejoice in this inestimable gift through which we have the hope of salvation and the glory. "Dying, you destroyed our death; rising you restored our life. Save us by your cross, Christ our Redeemer".

Nativity of the Theotokos

2009-09-09T09:17:00.000-07:00

For the past few days – there has been a lot of discussion about the ‘8 days fast commemorating the nativity of the Theotokos’. Questions have been raised if this ‘feast’ is to be celebrated at all? Then, there are those that argue for and against the ‘8 days lent’ that has picked up so much popularity is the Orthodox Churches in India.

i) – the Nativity of the Theotokos is not a feast the Orthodox Church got from the Catholic church. This feast is celebrated by Byzantine Orthodox, some Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. This is a feast of the Church - it might not have come down to the Indian Orthodox Church through the West Syrian influence. That is no way means it is not Orthodox.
ii) – abstaining from certain kinds of food is fasting. Even if believers partake of the Holy Qurbana during these 8 days and break their fast, but they abstain from certain kinds of food - it is considered fasting. Fasting is the expression of expectation, of the state of waiting and preparation.

With that said here is a brief overview on the ‘Feast of the Nativity of the Theotokos’.

The Feast of the Nativity of the Theotokos is the first major feast of the new Church Year (Eastern Orthodox), which begins on September 1st. Why was this day selected since it is not in the Holy Scripture? History shows that St. Helena, the mother of Emperor Constantine, built a Church in Jerusalem, which was dedicated to the Nativity of our Lady. It was said to be consecrated on the date of her nativity: September 8th. The birth and early life of the Virgin Mary is not recorded in the Gospels or other books of the New Testament, however this information can be found in a work dating from the second century known as the Book of James or Protevangelion.[1]

According to the story found in this book, Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anna, were childless for many years. They remained faithful to God, but their prayers for a child were unanswered. One day, when Joachim came to the temple to make an offering, he was turned away by the High Priest who chastised him for his lack of children. To hide his shame, Joachim retreated to the hill country to live among the shepherds and their flocks. Joachim was frustrated that he was turned away by the High Priest in the temple but he submitted his emptiness to the Lord. At the same time his wife Anna also prayed at their house in Jerusalem. An angel appeared to both of them and announced that Anna would have a child whose name would be known throughout the world. Anna promised to offer her child as a gift to the Lord. Joachim returned home, and in due time Anna bore a daughter, Mary.[2] Joachim was of the lineage of David, and Anna of the lineage of Aaron. Thus, Mary was of royal birth by her father and of priestly birth by her mother. In this, Mary foreshadowed Christ who would be born of her as King and High Priest.

“Mary, Full of grace, Blessed among women, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the Altar of the Living God, the Table of the Heavenly Bread, the Ark of God’s Holiness, the Tree of the Sweetest Fruit, the Glory of the race of man, the Praise of womanhood, the Fount of virginity and purity - this was the daughter given by God to Joachim and Anna. She was born in Nazareth, and at the age of three, was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem. In her young womanhood she returned again to Nazareth, and shortly thereafter heard the Annunciation of the Holy Archangel Gabriel concerning the birth of the Son of God, the Savior of the world, from her most-pure virgin body”.[3]

Romanos, who lived in the 5th century, was a native of Syria and later a deacon of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. He is known to have composed and written many prayers and hymns now in use in the Eastern Church. He was probably the first one who brought this day to the attention of the Church leaders. He wrote a hymn in honor of her birth and spread the knowledge of it among the people. Both St. Andrew of Crete and St. John of Damascus also wrote much about this event. Andrew of Crete said: “This day is for us the beginning of all holy days. It is the door to kindness and truth. Today is arranged for the Creator of all, an inspired Church and creation prepares itself to become the divine dwelling place of its Creator”.[4] John of Damascus says, “The day of the Nativity of the Theotokos is the feast of joy for the whole world, because through the Theotokos the entire human race was renewed and the grief of the first mother Eve was changed into joy”.[5]

The fact that there is no Biblical verification of Mary’s birth is incidental to the meaning of the feast. There had to be one born of human flesh and blood who would be spiritually capable of being the Theotokos, and she herself had to be born into the world of persons who were spiritually capable of being her parents. The feast of the Nativity of the Theotokos, therefore is a glorification of the miracle of Mary’s birth, a celebration as well of the very first preparation of the salvation of the world. “From Apostolic times and to our days all who truly love Christ give veneration to Her Who gave birth to Him, raised Him and protected Him in the days of His youth. If God the Father chose Her, God the Holy Spirit descended upon Her, and God the Son dwelt in Her, submitted to Her in the days of His youth, was concerned for Her when hanging on the Cross then should not everyone who confesses the Holy Trinity venerate Her?”[6]

“The Redeemer of the human race -- as I said -- willed to arrange a new birth and re-creation of mankind: like as under the first creation, taking dust from the virginal and pure earth, wherein He formed the first Adam, so also now, having arranged His Incarnation upon the earth, -- and so to speak, in place of dust -- He chooses from out of all the creation this Pure and Immaculate Virgin and, having re-created mankind within His Chosen-One from amidst mankind, the Creator of Adam is made the New Adam, in order to save the old”.[7]

The Orthodox Church gives a special place to the honor and veneration of the Virgin Mary the Mother of God. The Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus (431 A.D.) officially adopted the term Theotokos in her honor. There is a period of fasting (the first 14 days of August) and numerous feasts and hymns dedicated to her. Her image is traditionally painted above the Sanctuary and called “more spacious than the heavens” (Platytera). The Virgin Mary, being the mother of God, earnestly intercedes for us, for she gave her flesh to Christ in all humility and obedience, so that the Word of God could become man.[8]

The image of the Hodegetria holds a privileged place in the iconography of the Mother of God. “Hodegetria” means “She who shows the Way”.[9] Mary, the Mother of God always shows us the way to God. May the prayers of the Theotokos be a stronghold to us.

[1] Maria Vassilakis, Images of the Mother of God: Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium, Burlington. VT: Ashgate Pub. 2005.
[2] Ibid.
[3] St Nikolai Velimirovich, Bishop of Zica, The Prologue from Ohrid: Lives of Saints. Also refer to Miri Rubin, Mother of God: A History of the Virgin Mary, (Yale University Press, 2009).
[4] Andrew of Crete, “Homily on the Nativity of the Most Holy Mother of God” in Luigi Gambero and Thomas Buffer, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: the Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought.
[5] Andrew Louth, St John Damascene: Tradition and Originality in Byzantine Theology, (NY: Oxford University Press, 2002).
[6] Fr. Seraphim Rose, The Orthodox Theology of John Maximovitch, (San Francisco, 1997).
[7] Andrew of Crete, “Homily on the Nativity of the Most Holy Mother of God” in Luigi Gambero and Thomas Buffer, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: the Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought.
[8] Miri Rubin, Mother of God: A History of the Virgin Mary, (Yale University Press, 2009).
[9] Linda Murray, The Oxford Companion to Christian Art and Architecture, (Oxford, 1996).

CREED - Why does the Indian Orthodox Church recite "he rose according to His Will" and not "rose according to the Scriptures"?

2009-08-13T09:27:00.000-07:00

The Nicene Creed, is a statement of faith accepted by the Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental), Roman Catholic, Anglican, and major Protestant churches. It gets its name from the First Council of Nicaea (325), at which it was adopted and from the First Council of Constantinople (381), at which a revised version was accepted. Thus it may be referred to specifically as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed to distinguish it from both the 325 version and later versions that include the filioque clause. There is also an Armenian version of the Creed.

In modern times there are many variations to the Nicene Creed – but what we recite today in the Indian Orthodox Church has not deviated from the Faith of the Fathers. Given below are the Greek (original and transliteration), Syriac (transliteration) and Latin form of the Creed along with the translation. We see that in the Syriac – the word “w’meet” – “and died” is added in between “and suffered and was buried”. This in no way deviates from the Faith but it is just a variation. In the same way if you pay attention to the last part of the Syriac transliteration – the words “akh dasbo” – “according to His will” is what is recited in the Syriac Orthodox Church today. This is not a practice that crept into the Syriac Orthodox Church in the recent past, but something that has been handed down over centuries.

Always bear in mind that when the Creed was formed in Greek, there were people who followed the Faith and who did not know Greek and so several translations needed to be made into other languages such as Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Latin, Syriac – all these translations kept the core of the Faith and might have added a few words of which “w’meet” is one. Some Fathers might have thought that it is just not enough to say “he rose according to the Scriptures”, but to emphasize that “it was in accordance with His Will”. For Christ, the will of the Father signified, exclusively, one specific thing, and it was that one thing that he had come to the earth to perform. “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me”. (John 6:38). The “akh dasbo” emphasizes the will of Christ in accordance with the will of the Father.

Secondly, in the early days – when texts were copied on scrolls and a scribe translates a text from another language to Syriac – there is a possibility of word corruption. Originally it could have been “akh ketbo qadisho” or just “akh ketbo” (am not sure if there is a specific word for Scriptures that might be very similar to “dasbo” (will) in Syriac. So when a scribe copies from one manuscript to another, he might misread the text and write a word he thinks that might make sense to the context. This happens often in ancient manuscript copying. Please bear in mind that this reason is just a thought, but not a confirmed thesis as to why we use “akh dasbo”. However, the change “according to His Will” in the Creed from the original in no way deviates from the Faith of our Fathers. It only goes on to show that there are many variations of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρα κατὰ τὰς Γραφάς (Greek – Original Language)
kai pathonta kai tafenta kai anastanta ti triti imera kata tas graphas (transliteration)
and suffered, and was buried, and rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures

Hash w’meeth w’etheqbar w’qom latlotho yawmeen akh dasbo (Syriac transliteration)
suffered and died and was buried and rose on the third day according to His will

Passus, et sepúltus est, Et resurréxit tértia die, secúndum Scriptúras (Latin)
suffered and was buried, and rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures

Who Rules Our Lives Today – God Or Money?

2009-08-07T17:37:00.000-07:00

“No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon”. – Matthew 6:24

You cannot serve God And wealth (Mammon). Commanding us, not to be anxious for our food, drink, clothing or future, Christ asks us to trust God. The Gospel tells us that our lives are more than material things and that God cares for us.The word mammon comes from a word in Aramaic which simply means wealth or profit. Mammon was not the name of a deity in antiquity. Actually what we know about mammon is what Jesus told us about it. Jesus uses the name to denote a master of the heart of man, when that heart is consumed by self-interest and pride.

This is what makes his teaching so difficult for us today. We are part of society in which greed is covertly considered a good thing. No body says so too loudly but everyone knows it’s true. To a large extent capitalism is based upon the principle of self interest. As an economy model I do not know any other that surpasses capitalism. There is a danger when capitalism becomes the basis for the spiritual life, when self-interest is not only a necessary principle for free market but the foundation upon which our hearts are built. We derive our sense of identity and mission and value; the law of our personal, communal and spiritual life is founded on money. Economical success becomes equivalent in our minds to the blessing of the kingdom of God. Our sense of security derives from our wealth and not from our God. Then the leaven of greed leavens the whole lump; then the love of money rules over the use of money; then our trust is in money instead of God.

And that may be a very subtle virus. Wealth is very tricky. It seldom presents its ugly face directly unless taken by surprise. It has a very persuasive voice that easily appeals to our deepest yearnings. It promises pleasure, comfort, security, worldly glory, happiness and even goodness and blessing. It lures us to trust in it for our future, to justify our hardness of heart to others with all sorts of rationalizations. It promises all this if only we give it our unconditional allegiance by pursuing our own self-interest first in all we do, while we stop caring for our neighbors as ourselves and God above all things.

Money is the lord of self-interest, profit and wealth. And we say what is wrong with that? Every normal human being must have a degree of healthy self-interest and learn to fend for himself, pursue profit and wealth as much as he/she can. Yes, that is true. But there is a problem. Self-interest, profit and wealth are not the purpose God created us for. We were not made to serve things or ourselves. We were created to serve God, and self-interest, profit and wealth must be crucified with Christ – that is, brought to the service of God and not vice versa.

When how much we get defines how much our life is worth; when making money, because of its potential to satisfy our temporal needs, becomes the predominant purpose and preoccupation of our lives, we have fallen victims of slavery to money. The sad thing is that this may happen to us while we are not aware. As the Lord said: ‘Take heed, and keep yourselves from all covetousness’: We must take heed because there are many aspects of our lives that may be and have been under the influence of money for a long time.

Money forces us to worry trying to answer all questions regarding food, clothing, future, until we secure enough money when we won’t have to worry about anything, anymore. Worrying is exactly the opposite of that which the Lord tells us. The Lord clearly says ‘be not anxious about these things’. And that we cannot serve two Masters. So let us be honest with ourselves: Are we not anxious about these things? We often think that the only way for us to stop being anxious about such things is by working hard to secure a big stock of all of them, and then we can say to our soul, like the foolish rich man of the parable, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, be merry – Luke 12:19. But that night, God told him: ‘You foolish one, this night is your soul required of you; and the things which you has prepared, for whom shall they be?’ Luke 12:20.

Money is important and we need to have enough of it in our lives. However, there is another way to live responsible lives upon this world. We should pursue lives of stewardship instead of slavery. It is called the way of the cross, the way of faith, the way of love, trust and thanksgiving. It means learning that our lives are not defined by what we have, but by what we do with what we have in the service of Christ. It means learning to be content with whatever the Lord has in store for us good or bad. Learning to be good stewards of all God puts in our hands little or much. Working hard while trusting God in his plan for our future, both in the abundance as with the scarcity, caring for our neighbor as ourselves, putting our gifts in Gods service, not only to help ourselves but caring also for others.

The truth is that a man’s life consists not in the abundance of the things which he possesses – Luke 12:15. Life is more than clothing, eating, drinking and money. Wealth is not the greatest good. It is just a tool and as all tools it should be in our hands and not in our hearts. Wealth is not the greatest rest, it is not the greatest happiness. It is not the ultimate blessing or the unconditional sign that God is with us.

There is a richness, of which wealth knows nothing. It is the richness of the abundance of faith, and charity and compassion and love and peace. It is the blessedness of a heart filled to overflowing with the grace and goodness of the Lord. Such a heart can be deprived of all the benefits of this world and is still content, because of the greatest riches of the spirit, which cannot be taken away, which remain for ever. And this is where a catastrophe like the Tsunami, Katrina and Earthquake may come to help us. It gives us and opportunity to examine our priorities, to see where the treasure of our heart really is. Which Master are we pursuing? In which God do we trust? Is it God or wealth/mammon?

All the evil related to the human side of wars, catastrophe, problems within churches and parishes can be traced to the demon of self-interest, and egotism. The principles that govern God’s people according to his righteousness are directly opposite to the demon of wealth. Wealth cares for things over people. God cares for people over things. Wealth cares for comfort over kindness, while God for mercy over affluence. Wealth cares only for self. God cares for self and neighbor. Mammon cares for money. God cares for stewardship. Mammon loves temporal glory. God cares for eternal glory. Mammon cares for appearances but God cares for truth.

Our church has run into trouble because it has ignored the teaching of Christ. Whenever the righteousness of the kingdom has been compromised by worldly interest and temporal glory the Church of God has suffered loss. We have abandoned his true worship. Our church is in the forefront when it comes to charity but we are still at war with our neighbours. The elder generation might tell us that we do not understand the sentiments attached to all the faction fights that go in the Church. True peace and love can never be restored when the Gospel is compromised…however high the stakes.

‘Seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.’ No one can serve two masters. We must chose between the justice of the kingdom or the service of mammon. We cannot serve self interest first and the kingdom of God at the same time. All of us are charitable by nature and we do a wonderful job but let me take this opportunity to make a humble request to my young brothers and sister who have jobs. Please GIVE openly and freely. Never has anybody in history become a pauper because of his/her charity. God loves a cheerful giver. This is a time to examine ourselves and reassess our priorities, to order them according to the values of the kingdom. Let us renew our vows and commit our whole lives to the honor and service of God and his kingdom.

The Orthodox Church and Original Sin

2009-08-04T11:15:00.000-07:00

The Epistle of Romans is St. Paul 's magnum opus. While it's not the systematic theology text that some make it out to be, it is his most theological and most systematic epistle. It’s in this Epistle that Paul writes most specifically about the inherited nature of sin, and it is from this passage that St. Augustine gets his material for “inherited guilt”. Romans 5:12 – 19 reads: “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned -- For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous”.

Technically speaking, in their writings the Eastern Fathers and Orthodox theologians do not use the Latin term introduced by Augustine in his treatise “De Peccato originali”, but instead translate this concept by means of two cognate terms in Greek, namely, progoniki amartia and to propatorikon amartima, which is properly translated “ancestral sin”. These terms allow for a more careful nuancing of the various implications contained in the one Latin term.[1]

With regard to original sin, the difference between Orthodox Christianity and the West is: In the Orthodox Faith, the term “original sin” refers to the “first” or “ancestral” sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the “consequences” of sin, which is death. Here the word “original” may be seen as synonymous with “first” or “ancestral”. Hence, the “original sin” refers to the “first sin” or “ancestral sin”.[2] In the West, humanity likewise bears the “consequences” of the “original sin” of Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise “guilty” of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term “Original Sin” here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as consequence is involved. In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, which is death.[3]

John Karmiris writes that “the sin of the first man, together with all of its consequences and penalties, is transferred by means of natural heredity to the entire human race. Since every human being is a descendant of the first man, ‘no one of us is free from the spot of sin, even if he should manage to live a completely sinless day’”.[4]

The Orthodox Church cannot agree with Augustine, when he says that humans are under a “harsh necessity” of committing sin in his City of God. The image of God is distorted by sin but never destroyed and because we still retain the image of God we still retain free will, although sin restricts its scope. Orthodoxy repudiates any interpretation of the fall which allows no room for freedom. However, we agree with the West that sin had set up a barrier which humanity by its own efforts could never break down. Sin blocked the path to union with God. Since we could not come to God, He came to us. With all that said I do recommend works of Augustine for Orthodox believers.

It can be said that while we have not inherited the guilt of Adam’s personal sin, because his sin is also of a generic nature, and because the entire human race is possessed of an essential, ontological unity, we participate in it by virtue of our participation in the human race. St. Cyril of Alexandria says: “The imparting of “First Sin/Ancestral Sin/ Original Sin” by means of natural heredity should be understood in terms of the unity of the entire human nature, and of the homoousiotitos of all men, who, connected by nature, constitute one mystic whole. Inasmuch as human nature is indeed unique and unbreakable, the imparting of sin from the first-born to the entire human race descended from him is rendered explicable: ‘Explicitly, as from the root, the sickness proceeded to the rest of the tree, Adam being the root who had suffered corruption’”.[5]

[1] Original Sin in Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church ( Oxford , 2005).
[2] Fr. Anthony Hughes, “View of Sin in the Early Church: Ancestral Versus Original Sin”.
[3] Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition, trans. Hieromonk Seraphim Rose (Platina, Calif.: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1994).
[4] John Karmiris, A Synopsis of the Dogmatic Theology of the Orthodox Catholic Church, trans. from the Greek by the Reverend George Dimopoulos (Scranton, PA.: Christian Orthodox Edition, 1973), pp. 35-36.
[5] Justo L. Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought: Volume 2 - From Augustine to the eve of the Reformation.

Celibacy – A Gift and Calling from God

2008-06-20T11:19:00.000-07:00

The notion of celibacy is hard for the modern mind to understand, still less to appreciate. To what end might a man or woman rebuke (so it seem to many) the rich gift of the married life? For what reason might the human person embark upon a life that seems to 'fail to appreciate' the marvel of this type of precious relationship? Since many stumble at the weight of these and similar questions, so do many dismiss all together that 'other' way of life whose motivations seem so foreign, so unapproachable. In the conceptual struggle of contemporary man to comprehend a manner of living divergent from the 'mainstream' with which he is familiar, that whole way of life is all too often dismissed with the arguments that seem unable to support or defend it. Little does this modern man, who prides himself on the breadth of his understanding and the scope of his embracing acceptance, realise how truly closed his mind can be. Following the example of millions throughout history who have shunned and disparaged that which is not understood or personally appreciated, modern man regards the notion of celibacy as flawed, defective, at its core a distortion of the good and the fullness of human life.

There is little we can do to change this view which predominates in the contemporary world. People that close their eyes and stops up their ears to the unfamiliar will not be swayed by many words or patterned arguments. It is possible to have ears, but not to hear; to have eyes, but not to see. Understanding cannot be forced. Changes of heart come more gradually, more mystically. But we may, we must, reinforce in ourselves the understanding of realities which the world around us may not accept. There is a higher judge, a far greater standard, than the opinions of the society of men. When we live according to the truth of His standard, then shall the world come gradually to see through our lives what it might not otherwise accept from our lips.

And so with the calling of celibacy, we must not permit our hearts to be turned by a world which accords it no value. We must understand and always appreciate, cherish, the breadth of the love of God which gives divergent gifts to His precious children. As much as the blessing of the sacramental married life is known so to be, so must we come to understand, first of all, that the celibate life is, too, a gift. Only when it is so approached, only when it is so conceived, can it properly be comprehended. The heart of Christ, which accords all men their spiritual gifts through the person of the Holy Spirit, is the true source of the celibate vocation. Spiritual things come only from the Spirit, and a divine gift is always something given, when and to whom God Himself wills. To call celibacy a gift is to affirm that which is all too often forgotten in contemporary life: that it has its root and source in the divine life of God—that it has its manifestation in the person of such an individual as this same God has created, chosen, and formed to journey into the Kingdom by such a way.

From the holy voices of the Fathers of the Church we have been taught, time and time again, that this life, this calling, is not for all. Saint Paul, himself a great lover of the celibate way, affirms nothing less when he says: 'I wish that all men were even as I myself'—that is, that all could be celibate. But then he quickly adds, 'But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that' (1 Cor 7:7). Only those to whom God has given this gift may truly possess it, and only such a one should endeavour to embrace it personally. Just as a man who has not been given the gift of prophecy will never be a prophet, and as a woman who has not been given the gift of visions will never be a seer, so the individual who has not been given the gift of celibacy will never truly be a celibate. It is a holy way of life, but it is not the exclusive way of life. It is a gift given to some through the love of God, which neither debases nor exalts them in relation to their brethren to whom God has given the gift of the call to marriage. God's gifts are not to be 'rated'. All are holy blessings.

In appreciating this reality of celibacy as a spiritual gift, we are able to address and to quell in our hearts many of the concerns the world bears toward this life. First, and perhaps the most insidious among the views of the world, is the belief that the way of celibacy stands in judgement of the way of marriage. There is fear in our contemporary culture, that an acceptance of the notion of celibacy equates to an acceptance of a tacit devaluation of marriage—that the celibate man looks spitefully on his married brother and the celibate woman scorns her married sister. But it is the world, not the holy Church, which approaches our topic with such an 'either-or' attitude; for how can one who truly views both the married and celibate ways as gifts of one and the same loving God, set one in opposition to the other? How can he be serious of his faith, who would receive one gift from Christ, but call another evil? No, the value and sanctity of all things is in the Giver, who by His radiant energies makes all gifts holy. Celibacy and marriage both have their essence in Him who draws all things to life. How striking to our expectations that some of the most poignant phrases ever composed in support of and love for the married way, have come from the pens of celibate monks, nuns and Apostles. Such individuals know how deep, convicting and abiding God's gifts may be within a human life, and how precious can be that embodiment of Trinitarian love that is made manifest in the gift of Christian marriage. But they magnify a gift they know is not their own. Their own life is rooted in a different gift, another way, and it is this gift that receives the personal love of their own hearts.

Saint Paul, the great Apostle, taught us well concerning the varieties of spiritual gifts, that they are numerous, divergent, yet all precious and divinely personal. He himself received the wondrous and exceptional gift of the apostolate and therefore was in a position, it might be thought, to place one gift above another in the manner that some gifts bring authority over the exercise of others (cf. 1 Cor 12:1-31). But it is our same Saint Paul who reminds us of the inherent value of all the gifts of the Lord, precisely because they are gifts of the Lord. Because we know to call celibacy a gift, so we know not to use it in judgement of other gifts. The world which sees in Christian celibacy a despisal of the married way, sees but the illusion of its own misunderstanding.

Secondly, our understanding of celibacy as a gift helps us to appreciate the fact that this life is not a negative, but a positive calling. All too often is celibacy described in terms of negation: the celibate is one who 'lacks' a spouse, who 'goes without' marriage, who 'suffers the absence' of a partner. But gifts are not matters of negation, they are rooted in the active receipt of otherwise un-possessed blessings. Celibacy is only a negative state when viewed from one, specific angle. How often does modern man stop to think of celibacy, even attempt to think of celibacy, as the embracing of a different kind of positive? Perhaps never, certainly not often; and yet this is the very message of celibacy as gift. The celibate man may live without a wife, but he possesses the great gift of being wed solely to Christ, of having none for the object of his intimate love than his own Creator. She who lives in celibate devotion to God vests herself in the same manner of life embraced by the Son who walked on this earth with neither spouse nor mate, yet wed Himself to the entire world as the perfect Bridegroom for a waiting bride. Are not such things positive, not states of deprivation but of rich fulfillment? The celibate does not see his life predominantly as one of 'going without', but one of going with Christ in a different way. Yes, there are sacrifices made, oftentimes severe in form and nature, but this is no less true in a holy marriage. In the requirement of great sacrifice, the callings are the same. Their distinction lies in the manner, not the quantity, of the offering. Only when we are truly, deeply biased, do we fail to see that both gifts require tremendous personal sacrifice, yet from and through this sacrifice grant many rich blessings.

The celibate's call is to walk toward Christ in a different manner than his married brother. Due to the unsearchable wisdom and love of God, he is called to a type of journey into the Kingdom that is more socially solitary—but he is never alone. The celibate, too, believes that 'it is not good for man to be alone'; but let us not be so naive and closed-minded as to think that marriage is the only way to be 'together'. The celibate joins himself to the world in a relationship of no single intimate union with another, that through his one union with Christ, and through Him the Spirit and the Father, he may be lover and companion to all. It is a very different call than to the blessed state of marriage; but a call is always, by its nature, social.

Celibacy is a positive calling, and we are reminded of this when we appreciate its nature as divine gift. We find here, too, reassurance of the fullness of life to be had in such a calling. Society may be eager to decry the celibate way as one in which the individual 'misses out' on the fullness of life attainable in marriage, but in so doing, our modern world only shows more clearly its failure to understand the nature of the gifts of God as effective personal realities. The richness, the wholeness and the completeness of life do not come from the adherence to any social or relational model: they come from personal union with God. Such union is always and only available to man through the gifts given him by our precious and loving Lord; and so individual fullness comes from realising, embracing and fostering within us the gifts we, and not any other, have received. Many receive the gift of the married vocation, and to these the richness of union with God comes, in part, through that gift's actualisation in a holy and sanctified marriage. Not to embrace the gift is to wage battle with God, who knows better than man what life is most suited to him. And this same concept is equally true of him who has received the gift of celibacy: only in the gift's embrace will such a person ever truly know the richness and fullness of life as God has set it before him. No other way shall ever satisfy the longing in his heart, even if that other way is that which brings fulfillment and union to a hundred million others. It is not his way. To live a celibate life is, for the one who has received this gift, the context of his journey into union with God.

Our life in Christ is the true soul of our being as human persons. We live in Him through His coming to us as man—the divine Man to whose life we were joined when, through the mystical power of the Holy Trinity, we were baptised in the same waters that flowed over His own flesh and sealed with the same Spirit that soared over the creation formed in Him. It is to this life that we must attend with all diligence and care, working to attain the discernment that will enable us to see and to recognise the unique and precious gifts God has given to each of us personally as His own priceless children. Let us never succumb to societal pressures that would have us walk one way or another based upon the comforts and preferences of a troubled world. Let us never be swayed into judging or pre-determining the gifts of God, which only He has the right to determine and give. We must find in ourselves the light of Christ which calls us toward Himself, and see through its illumination the path by which He calls us to His side. Whether it be by the celibate or married way, our response should be only joy—and great joy at this. How can we do anything but rejoice when our Maker shows us the road which He has fashioned especially between us and Him? Shall we once again take from the Tree of Life the fruit that seems sweetest to our senses, rather than the food sprung forth specifically for our growth and sanctification? May our societally-induced 'preferences' never cause us to scorn our gift through longing for another. May God give to us the patience and the openness to discern which gift we have been given; and when we have found it, to follow Him in that gift. If we are thus faithful to Him and Him alone, surely our wise Lord will bless our lives with richness beyond imagining and fullness beyond expectation; for He is a good and loving God who knows and desires what is best for His children.

May we always have His blessing.

Marriage As It Was Meant to Be

2008-06-20T11:06:00.000-07:00

“Our entertainment-saturated society helps feed all sorts of illusions about reality. The fantasy of the perfect romantic and sexual relationship, the perfect lifestyle, and the perfect body all prove unattainable because the reality never lives up to the expectation. The worst fallout comes in the marriage relationship. When two people cannot live up to each other’s expectations, they will look for their fantasized satisfaction in the next relationship, the next experience, the next excitement. But that path leads only to self-destruction and emptiness.”[1]

Marriage is the capstone of the family, the building block of human civilization. A society that does not honor and protect marriage undermines its very existence. Why? Because one of God’s designs for marriage is to show the next generation how a husband and wife demonstrate reciprocal, sacrificial love toward each other.[2] But when husbands and wives forsake that love, their marriage fails to be what God intended. When marriage fails, the whole family falls apart; when the family fails, the whole society suffers. And stories of societal suffering fill the headlines every day. Marriage as it was meant to be is implied in the creation of man as male and female in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Husbands and wives need to mirror their relationship the way the Father, Son and Holy Spirit relate to each other in the Godhead – man is created in the image of the Holy Trinity. There has to be a perichoresis – a relationship of intimacy and pure reciprocity that does not result in abuse, confusion or loss of identity.

Divine Directives for Wives

St. Paul says “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Ephesians 5:21)

One of the most explicit passages of Scripture that outlines God’s standard for marriage is Ephesians 5:22-33. The majority of the passage deals with the husband’s attitude toward and responsibilities for his wife. Nonetheless, here’s the wife’s responsibility before the Lord: Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything (Ephesians 5:22-24).

Submission in no way implies a difference in essence or worth; it does refer, however, to a willing submission of oneself. Wives, submission is to be your voluntary response to God’s will—it’s a willingness to give up your rights to other believers in general and ordained authority in particular, in this case your own husband.

Husbands aren’t to treat their wives like slaves, barking commands at them; they are to treat their wives as equals, assuming their God-given responsibility of caring, protecting, and providing for them. Likewise wives fulfill their God-given responsibility when they submit willingly to their own husbands. That reflects not only the depth of intimacy and vitality in their relationship, but also the sense of ownership a wife has for her husband.[3] Keep in mind that the wife’s submission requires intelligent participation: "Mere listless, thoughtless subjection is not desirable if ever possible. The quick wit, the clear moral discernment, the fine instincts of a wife makes of her a counselor whose influence is invaluable and almost unbounded"[4].

Elisabeth Elliot, writing on "The Essence of Femininity," offers a fitting summary of God’s ideal for wives: Unlike Eve, whose response to God was calculating and self-serving, the virgin Mary’s answer holds no hesitation about risks or losses or the interruption of her own plans. It is an utter and unconditional self-giving: "I am the Lord’s servant … May it be to me as you have said" (Luke 1:38). This is the essence of femininity. It means surrender.[5]

Think of a bride. She surrenders her independence, her name, her destiny, her will, herself to the bridegroom in marriage … The gentle and quiet spirit of which Peter speaks, calling it "of great worth in God’s sight" (1 Peter 3:4), is the true femininity, which found its epitome in Mary.[6]

Divine Directives for Husbands

After giving the divine guidelines for the wife’s submission, Paul devotes the next nine verses of Ephesians 5 to explain the husband’s duty to submit to his wife through his love for her: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church" (5:25). The Lord’s pattern of love for His church is the husband’s pattern of love for his wife, and it is manifest in four ways.

Sacrificial Love

Christ loved the church by giving "Himself up for her." The husband who loves his wife as Christ loves His church will give up everything he has for his wife, including his life whenever it is necessary.

Most husbands would give verbal assent to that—literally dying for one’s wife is such a remote possibility for most. But it is much more difficult to make lesser, but actual sacrifices for her. Husbands, who put aside their own likes, desires, opinions, preferences, and welfare to please their wives and meet their needs, are truly dying to self to live for their wives. And that is what Christ’s love demands.

Purifying Love

Christ loved the church sacrificially with this goal in mind: “That He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless.” (5:26-27).

Love wants only the best for the one it loves, and it cannot bear for a loved one to be corrupted or misled by anything evil or harmful. If a person really loves his wife, he will do everything in his power to maintain her holiness, virtue, and purity every day he lives.[7]

That obviously means doing nothing to defile her. Don’t expose her to or let her indulge in anything that would bring impurity into her life. Don’t tempt her to sin by, say; inducing an argument out of her on a subject you know is sensitive to her. Love always seeks to purify.

Caring Love

Another aspect of divine love is this: “Husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church” (Ephesians 5:28-29).

The word translated "cherishes" literally means "to warm with body heat"—it is used to describe a bird sitting on her nest (e.g., Deut. 22:6). Husbands are to provide a secure, warm, safe haven for their wife. When your wife needs strength, give her strength. When she needs encouragement, give it to her. Whatever she needs, you are obligated to supply as best you can. God chose you to provide for and protect her, to nourish and cherish her, and to do so "as Christ also does the church."

Unbreakable Love

For a husband to love his wife as Christ loves His church he must love her with an unbreakable love. In this direct quotation from Genesis 2:24, Paul emphasizes the permanence as well as the unity of marriage: "For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh" (v. 31). And God’s standard for marriage still hasn’t changed.

Husbands, your union with your wife is permanent. When you got married, you had to leave, cleave, and become one with your wife—never go back on that. Let your wife rest in the security of knowing that you belong to her, for life.[8]

Just as the body of Christ is indivisible, God’s ideal for marriage is that it be indivisible. As Christ is one with His church, husbands are one with their wives. Paul goes on to say, "This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church" (5:32). Why is submission as well as sacrificial, purifying, and caring love so strongly emphasized in Scripture? Because the sacredness of the church is wed to the sacredness of marriage.
Marriage for a Christian is a testimony to the relationship between Christ and His bride, the church. Marriage will either tell the truth about that relationship, or it will tell a lie. One has to ask the questions - What is my marriage saying to the watching world? If a man’s/women’s walk is in the power of the Spirit, yield to His Word, and be mutually submissive, they can know that God will bless them abundantly and glorify His Son through their marriage.

[1] John MacArthur, Different By Design.
[2] John Chrysostom, On Marriage and Family Life.
[3] John Chrysostom, On Marriage and Family Life.
[4] Charles R. Erdman, The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon.
[5] Elisabeth Elliot, "The Essence of Femininity"
[6] John Piper, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
[7] John Chrysostom, On Marriage and Family Life.
[8] John Chrysostom, On Marriage and Family Life.