Razilaženje

Christe, redemptor omnium (St. Ambrose of Milan)

2007-12-01T06:27:00.000-05:00

Christ, Redeemer of all,
out of the Father, and with the Father one,
alone before the beginning
born ineffably.

Thou art the light, the brilliance of the Father,
Thou art the perennial hope of all,
to Whom Thy servants in the world
direct the estate of their prayers.

Remember, O Author of Salvation,
how in taking on our flesh
from the unstained Virgin,
Thou wast born in our form.

So doth today testify,
as well the circling years,
that Thou alone hast come from the Father
for the Salvation of the world.

The sky, the earth, the sea,
and all that lieth therein,
to the Author of Thine Advent
chant exultantly in praise.

And also we, who Thy
holy blood hast ransomed,
on this day of Thy Nativity
join together in a new hymn.

Glory be to Thee, O Lord,
Thou Who was born of a virgin,
with the Father and the Holy Spirit,
unto ages everlasting.

[Ephrem Hugh Bensusan, Translator]
Original Latin Text

Items of Interest - Week of All Saints of North America 2007

2007-06-12T11:22:00.000-05:00

American Paterikon: The Lives of the Saints who have shown forth in North America

Today the choir of Saints who were pleasing to God in the lands of North America
Now stands before us in the Church and invisibly prays to God for us.
With them the angels glorify Him,
And all the saints of the Church of Christ keep festival with them;
And together they all pray for us to the Pre-Eternal God.

I have included in the above list only those North American Saints that, at this moment, either been officially glorified or are under consideration for official glorification. It is my belief and hope that the names of the Blessed Archbishop Vitaly of Jersey City and the Blessed Metropolitan Antony of New York should be added to the rolls of glorified American Saints.

Why I Am Not an Athiest
Voice of Russia's Nadezhda Pronina highlights the life and views of Fr. Deacon Andrei Kuraev.

What Is at Stake?
by Fr. Stephen Freeman. "In the struggle to come to the wholeness of Personhood - to become the “true self” rather than to sink into the “false self” our very existence as spiritual beings is at stake.

Kosovo’s Albanian Nazi Past: The Untold Story
As George W. Bush promises the creation of a new Jihadist terror state in the Balkans, Carl Savich reminds us of the Nazi-Muslim inheritance of the Kosovar Albanians.

Why Do They Love Us?
by Julia Gorin. "For a single day, George W. Bush knew what it felt like to be Bill Clinton. In Albania on Sunday, Bush for the first time got the Clinton treatment—being adored, cheered, hugged, reached for, applauded. And little wonder: Bush reiterated American support for Kosovo independence, gratifying the jihad-enabling Albanian goal for a “Greater Albania.”"

Albanian Necrophilia
by Julia Gorin. "Indeed, you could fill a mass grave with the number of empty Albanian mass graves we’ve found."

The Murderous Church of Rachel Carson
by Eli Lehrer. A century after her birth, the academic left worships a wildlife bureaucrat whose false claims have led to the death of millions of children, mostly in Africa.

Hunting Winston Smith
Ron Capshaw on George Orwell's near-execution in Spain.

Items of Interest - Week of All Saints 2007

2007-06-06T14:51:00.000-05:00

Sunday of All Saints
Sermon by Metropolitan Antony (Bloom) of Sourozh, delivered 25 June 1989.

The Violent Love of God
Commencement Address of Fr. Thomas Hopko at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, May 2007

Why I am Not a Good Ethicist
Fr. Jonathan Tobias on injustice and sin.

Daniel Dennett Hunts the Snark
by David B. Hart. Debunking a self-professed "Darwinian fundamentalist."

A Dark Day in History
Dr. Srdja Trifkovic on the Fall of Constantinople in 1453.

Remembering The Six-Day War
Joseph Puder on the day that changed the Middle East, and t he reason that the "Occupied Territories" remained occupied.

Terror and Double Standards
by Jacob Laskin. While Israel is condemned, Lebanon is free to fight terrorism.

Resurrecting Yugoslavia
by Julia Gorin. "Western powers led by the United States went to great lengths to abolish a pluralistic society called Yugoslavia,...yet as soon as one of those separate identities that we’ve buttressed misbehaves, suddenly we bring Yugoslavia back from the dead."

Religious Poetry / Just Leaving Town
Special thanks to Alice C. Linsley, who has published on her blog Students Publish Here (dedicated to the publishing of writings by elementary and secondary school students) a poem I wrote in high school over two decades ago, a few months before my conversion to Christianity.

Items of Interest - Week of the Samaritan Woman 2007

2007-05-11T15:17:00.001-05:00

Hristos voskrese iz mrtvih, smertiju smert poprav, i suščim vo grobje život darovav!
Al masih qam baini'lamwat, wa wati al mowt bil mowt, wa wahalba'l haya lil ladhina fi'l qubur!
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!

The Sacrament of Freedom
Archimandrite Victor (Mamontov) on personal liberation.

Do You Know Jesus?
Fr Stephen Freeman on conversion and knowing our Lord and Saviour.

Orthodox Mission in the 21st Century
by Fr. Deacon Methodius Hayes.

Call No Man Father
Fr. Richard Ballew on Matthew 23. In answer to a friend's question.

Balkan Muslim Gratitude
Julia Gorin on the planned attack on Ft. Dix.

Items of Interest - Week of the Paralytic 2007

2007-05-08T07:14:00.000-05:00

Ironic and Sardonic
Fr. Stephen Freeman on how the world needs divine irony.

Self-Critique
Reader Christopher Orr's answer to the question, "What do you think the strongest argument against Orthodoxy's claims are?"

Personal Jesus
Jason Lee Steorts on John Shelby Spong's “nontheistic” Christianity.

Christ on the Silk Road
by Glen L. Thompson. The Evidences of Nestorian Christianity in Ancient China

The Religious Left's Monster
Mark Tooley on the WCC and its support for the tyranny of Robert Mugabe.

Carter Comes to Berkeley
by Lee Kaplan. The saga of Jimmy Carter's one-sided and deceptive pro-terrorist agenda continues.

More Scientists Reject Evolution
A column by Jim Hyest in The Intelligencer and Wheeling News-Register.

Items of Interest - Sixth Week of Veliki Post 2007

2007-03-31T07:37:00.000-05:00

In Accordance with the Scriptures Part I · Part II
More excellent hermeneutical reflections from Fr. Stephen Freeman

Feathered Friend of Christ
by D. Ian Dalrymple. Good Christians, let us praise the noble Phoenix, and mourn his tragic loss.

This is Why the Altar Guild Gets Paid the Big Bucks
Terry Mattingly takes on Anglican defections and TEC bacchanalia.

Orthodoxy as Boutique Religion?
by D. Ian Dalrymple. A convenient entrance into a current and possibly productive debate running in the Orthodox-Catholic blogosphere.

The Cry of the Centurion
By Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon. "Truly this Man was the Son of God!"

Items of Interest - Fifth Week of Veliki Post

2007-03-24T17:43:00.000-05:00

Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth
Fr. Stephen Freeman on reading Scripture in spirit and truth.

A Notable Ruling at The Hague
by Dr. Srdja Trifkovic. In a landmark case that put a nation on trial for genocide for the first time in history, Serbia has been found not guilty by the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

Just Genesis
Alice C. Linsley has set up a blog to disseminate her years of fabulous in-depth research into the book of Genesis.

How Mr. Taleb Got Utterly Fooled by Randomness
Gary North on Nassim Taleb, Albert Einstien, John Maynard Keynes, Friedrich Hayek, and the Providence of God in economics.

Deliverance from Egypt
The late Rev. R.J. Rushdoony on the Exodus and being freed from the Egypt of the heart.

Why are Black and Hispanic Converts to Islam on the Rise since 9/11?
Anti-Jihad humour from Julia Gorin.

Items of Interest - Fourth Week of Veliki Post 2007

2007-03-17T06:45:00.000-05:00

What Wilberforce Would Do
By Terry Mattingly. Words on religion and politics in 1779 that could have been written yesterday.

The Deceptive World of Raymond Chandler
Ron Capshaw on the Leftist misuse of Chandler's literary world.

Contra Paul: Teasing Out the Pattern

2007-03-17T06:39:00.000-05:00

by Alice C. Linsley

Christianity builds upon certain established facts. It does not spring forth ex nihilo. It develops out of the Semitic experience of God, which in the Scriptures is well represented by Abraham and his descendents. What do we know about Abraham and his people? We have enough factual information to fill the pages of a large volume.

One of the facts that can’t be avoided is that salvation for Abraham was personal and embodied. Abraham, like Moses after him, spoke to the Lord as an intimate. His relationship with his Maker was so unlike most people’s that Abraham’s faith is remembered throughout the Old and New Testaments.

For Jewish Christians living in the first decades, Father Abraham’s faith represented both imputed righteousness and the necessity of faithful works. It depends on who you read. “Abram put his faith in Yahweh and this was credited to him as righteousness.” (Gen. 15:6) For Paul this text proves that righteousness depends on faith, but James cites this text when he argues that faith without works is dead. James writes: “Was not Abraham our father justified by his deed, because he offered his son Isaac on the altar? So you can see that his faith was working together with his deeds; his faith became perfect by what he did. In this way the scripture was fulfilled: Abraham put his faith in God, and this was considered as making him upright; and he received the name ‘friend of God’.” (James 2: 21-23)

For both Paul and James it is clear that to be a son of Abraham meant to have faith like the Father. On the other hand, to be a disciple of Moses required keeping all the Law. For James there seems not to be a conflict here, but Paul sets these up as a dichotomy. For Paul the wife, Sarah, represents imputed righteousness or grace while the bondservant, Hagar, represents the Law. (Gal. 4: 21-31) Paul writes, “There is an allegory here: these women stand for the two covenants.” The Apostle strikes a contrast in order to teach the superiority of the covenant of grace which he understood to be fulfilled in the Person of Jesus Christ. But did all early Jewish Christians think of these figures this way? Isn’t it likely that they also saw similarities between Abraham and Moses that spoke to them of the Person of Jesus Christ?

We recall that both Abraham and Moses were in contact with the Pharaohs of Egypt and both found themselves in trouble there. They do indeed have much in common when it comes to Egypt. What might this have meant for early Jewish Christians? What did it say to them about Jesus?

To understand how they might have thought we must explore other similarities between Abraham and Moses. Consider these:

• Both came into Pharaoh’s presence by water: Abraham because of lack of it in Canaan, and Moses as a baby floating in a basket.
• Neither Abraham nor Moses had offspring in Egypt. In terms of progeny, Egypt was not a fertile place for them (as compared to Joseph).
• In Egypt both men’s natural relationships became distorted. Abraham was estranged temporarily from his wife (also his half-sister). Moses was not raised as his parents’ son, but as a prince in Pharaoh’s household.
• Both leaders left Egypt with greater authority and wealth.
• Both were princes yet foreigners among the people.
• Both were blessed and counseled by noblemen priests: Abraham by Melchizedek, and Moses by Jethro (his future father-in-law).
• Both met their wife at wells: Abraham married Keturah in Beer-Sheba (well of Sheba) and Moses met Zipporah, his future wife, at a well.

The Person of Jesus Christ is foreshadowed throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul, John, Peter and the early Church Fathers found continuity between the faith of Abraham and the revelation of Jesus Messiah. Nothing in the Scripture is extraneous to the Person of Jesus Christ. As with Isaac, Jesus’ sacrificial journey required three days. As with Isaac, Jesus carried the wood upon which he would be sacrificed. As with Isaac, the sacrificed one is bound. As with Isaac, the Son is sacrificed on a mountain. Only with Jesus, no substitute is provided. God did not make a switch to save His Son. This is because Jesus is the real thing, not the archetype. Salvation is an embodied reality and has archetypes which point us to the True Form. As we consider Abraham and Moses as archetypes of Christ, we begin to see a pattern. Here are some threads of the pattern:

• The Prophet Hosea tells us that God called His Son out of Egypt. Since both Abraham and Moses were led out of Egypt, this can not apply to Israel. Were it so, the prophecy would speak of “sons.” Clearly this prophesy speaks of the Son, Jesus Christ.
• Jesus’ is revealed at his Baptism in the Jordan. Instead of the waters parting, the heavens part.
• Jesus had no progeny.
• On earth, Jesus’ natural relationship with the Father is distorted in that moment when He cries: “Why hast Thou forsaken me?”
• Jesus victorious rose from the grave, Almighty God.
• Jesus was a Prince whose royal lineage was not recognized by his own people. John reminds us that He came into the world but the world did not recognize or “receive” him.
• Jesus was blessed by noblemen sages (priests?) at His revealing by the great star.
• Jesus met his archetypical “bride” in the woman at Jacob’s well. She was the first female evangelist, and according to tradition, Photini and all her children were martyred. Photini means “Illumined One” and she represents the Church, the Bride of Christ.

Doubtless the reader will find more similarities between the archetypes and the True Form, but these suffice to tease out the pattern of Scriptural revelation. If we stay only with Paul’s dichotomy between Grace and Law, we are likely to miss some elements of the pattern.

Items of Interest - Third Week of Veliki Post 2007

2007-03-10T20:12:00.000-05:00

From Canterbury to Constantinople
Frank Lockwood interviews former Episcopal Priest Alice C. Linsley on her recent conversion to Orthodoxy.

Antichrist is an ecumenist, Cardinal tells Pope
Ruth Gledhill discusses Cardinal Biffi, Benedict XVI, and Soloviev.

New Hate Crime Bill: Power Grab!
Lee Duigon unveils the sinister possibilities of the David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, a bill currently being considered by the House Judiciary Committee.

Why Atheists are Theocrats
by Gary DeMar. "Don’t be fooled by the charge that a new theocratic form of government is threatening America; it’s already here."

Reflecting on 35 Years of Marriage
Gary North compares living now with living in 1972, and shares lessons learned about family life.

Items of Interest - Second Week of Veliki Post 2007

2007-03-03T08:46:00.000-05:00

Melchizedek, King of Peace: A Sign for our Time
Bishop Seraphim of Sendai reflects on the significance of Melchizedek, King of Salem.

Why People Become Orthodox
Fr. Steven Freeman looks at the reasons why people convert.

Simply Lewis: Reflections on a Master Apologist After 60 Years
Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright of Durham makes an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of Mere Christianity.

Gay Activists Threaten Violence
The Chalcedon Foundation's Lee Duigon describes the growing terrorist threat of homosexual militancy.

Explaining the Episcopalians
Terry Mattingly explains the recent explanations of the latest round in the Anglican Civil War.

Defining Terms: Theocracy
Gary DeMar says, “Theocracy is an inescapable concept. The rejection of one theocratic government leads to the choice of another theocratic government.”

Triumph of Orthodoxy Vespers Message

2007-02-27T21:14:00.000-05:00

Fr. John H. Erickson, Dean
St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary

Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
East Meadow, New York

February 25, 2007

We are here today for our annual celebration of the Triumph of Orthodoxy – to commemorate an event from what is now the very distant past: the official and definitive reestablishment of the veneration of the holy icons after over a century of controversy and sporadic persecution, an event that took place in Constantinople on the first Sunday of Lent in 843 AD. It would be easy for the professor in me to use this as an opportunity for an extended lecture about this past event and its circumstances – to explain, for example, the role of the empress of the day, Theodora, whose name is mentioned repeatedly in the troparia for the matins canon for the day – counted 6-7 times. “Our devout and pious Empress.” And what about her son the God-crowned emperor Michael, who also is mentioned, but much less often? Just hearing their names and titles reminds us how distant that past event now is, how remote Byzantium is from our world today.

I could provide lots of details about such past events. I won’t, not simply because you might get bored, or because that wouldn’t really be a sermon. That wouldn’t really be history either. As one of my favorite historians, Henry Glassie, has observed: “History is not the past. History is a story about the past, told in the present, and designed to be useful in constructing the future.” On an occasion like this, we naturally look back at the past, and we remember that past with affection and gratitude and pride. But as we do so, we have to remember where we are today, in the present – in 21st century America, not in 9th century Byzantium, not in a world of pious empresses and God-crowned emperors. What story do we tell about our glorious past, by our words but also by our actions, when we gather for a pan-Orthodox vespers service like this one, when we are in our home parishes, when we go about our daily lives? How do we present Orthodoxy to ourselves and to others? How we answer says a lot about what kind of future we can expect for Orthodoxy in America.

This evening we made an impressive procession with icons and proclaimed the triumph of Orthodoxy over the heresy of iconoclasm with the solemn reading of the Synodikon of Orthodoxy. But today isn’t just about icons, however beautiful. And it’s not just about controversies from the distant past. As all of us know, as we have heard many times, the controversy over the icons was not just about interior decoration. It was about the significance of the incarnation, the central doctrine of our faith. Today we are commemorating the restoration of the icons in 843 AD, but in doing so we are celebrating the coming of God in the flesh, which for us is the central event in human history.

We believe that with the incarnation a radical change came about in God’s relation to the world. This is how St. John of Damascus puts it: “Of old God was not depicted at all. But now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among humans, I make an image of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter who for my sake became material and deigned to dwell in matter, who through matter brought about my salvation.”

Matter, in other words, is not the opposite of spirit, as the iconoclasts seemed to think. We don’t become spiritual by escaping from matter, by somehow fleeing from the time and space of this world. It is in and through matter, the common stuff of this world, that God has revealed himself – has revealed his love, his mercy, his power and his glory. He has revealed himself, fully and definitively, in Jesus Christ, who is not a dematerialized spirit but truly human, flesh and blood, who entered into the time and space of this world for the salvation of this world.

This fundamental teaching is what justifies the making and veneration of icons. It also poses several challenges for us today, as we celebrate the Triumph of Orthodoxy. A friend of mine, a very good Orthodox priest, says that he always dreads this Sunday. Why? Because so often our celebration of the Triumph of Orthodoxy becomes a testimony to the triumphalism of Orthodoxy.

Just consider what message we are sending – to ourselves and to others: We get together for this once-a-year event, we display the rich diversity of our traditions – in many places we hear a little Slavonic, a little Greek, a little Arabic, maybe a little Romanian, In some places there may be a pot-luck reception featuring an assortment of ethnic specialties for Lent. We pay lip service to the ideal of eventual structural unity. We rightly say that this is “inevitable,” but we act as though this will happen without our active engagement. We may even set forth our dreams for “making America Orthodox.” But most of the time we are content to congratulate ourselves on our “spiritual” unity – as though this is all we need.. Who are we kidding? We claim to value visible, structural unity because unity is an essential mark of the Church, not just a desirable option. We believe that unity can’t remain simply “spiritual. It can’t remain disincarnate. To be faithful to Orthodoxy, we must express our spiritual unity in tangible, material ways. But as we all know, on a global level just as on a national level, we are divided. And as a result, we give a less-than-credible witness to the world. We appear to be simply a collection of fractious ethnic groups, with little to say to each other, and even less to say to the world in which we live.

Let’s turn back to another aspect of the iconoclast controversy – an aspect of the past that we easily can miss. The dispute was not just about the place of images in the church. It was also about the place of the church in society. Opposition to the icons had been spearheaded by a series of emperors who not only had theological reservations about “image worship” but also wanted to assert their own supreme authority in all aspects of the life of the empire, religion included. Defenders of the icons objected to the emperors’ attempts to dictate dogma, but their insistence on the Church’s integrity – its moral autonomy – had wider implications. They did not reject iconoclasm simply in order to preserve the otherworldly purity of the Church’s dogmas and cultic life – and with it the use of icons. Their goal was not just to be left alone in self-righteous isolation, to hand over “this world” and its life to the emperor and to the dictates of a society that did not take seriously the Gospel message. This would have been contrary to the very theology that they were defending - a theology that insists that matter can become sanctified, that “this world” can be filled with divine beauty, that this world is called to salvation, that it is capable of transfiguration and participation in divine life.

It is no coincidence that after the defeat of iconoclasm, the Church entered into a period of particularly lively engagement with the world and its concerns. The Church made its voice heard in the public square. It tried to mold society and state policy according to Christian standards. Even the image of imperial authority was affected. Hitherto emperors most often had been depicted as triumphant warrior-kings, just as they had been in pagan times. By contrast, the most famous portrayal of an emperor from the period after iconoclasm, a mosaic over one of the principal entrances to the great church of Haghia Sophia, shows the emperor prostrate before Christ the Pantokrator, Christ the ruler over all the world.

To this day we decorate our churches with this image of Christ the Pantokrator, the ruler over all – most often in the central dome. We decorate our churches with this image of Christ, and we may even accept Him as ruler over what happens within our churches. But do we really believe that his kingly rule extends more widely, beyond the walls of our churches to the whole world? Is Christ present – are we Orthodox Christians present – in the public square today? Do we take seriously the moral challenges facing the society in which we live, the society of which we are a part? Inside our churches, we proclaim the triumph of Orthodoxy, but outside we are mute, invisible, and perfectly content to be marginalized – except in cases when we feel that our public image has been slighted in some way, e.g., when the colorful eastern pageantry of our Holy Week and Pascha observances or our parish festivals have not been adequately covered by the press. What image do we project? What story do we tell? What story do we live out? In fact, as polls and statistics suggest, when it comes to moral and social issues we Orthodox in America simply reflect the opinions and behaviors of the wider society in which we live. Christos Yannaras, an important modern Greek theologian, has pointed out that “Sometimes the Church transfigures the world, and sometimes the Church is transfigured by the world.” We seem to be at this latter point, transfigured by the world, notwithstanding the images of Christ Pantokrator that adorn the domes of our churches.

As I said a moment ago, after the defeat of iconoclasm the Church entered into a period of particularly lively engagement with the world. This was expressed through the Church’s efforts to address the moral and social issues of the day – the sanctity of marriage, the problems of poverty and homelessness. But this was also expressed through mission. It is enough just to remind ourselves of the work of Sts. Cyril and Methodius among the Slavs in this period. They aimed – to use a fancy word – at enculturation, at incarnating the universal values of the Christian faith in what was then a new and very different cultural context. We today are heirs to their incarnational approach to mission, just as we are heirs to an incarnational understanding of the icon. And we very often take great pride in this approach to mission, contrasting it with the cultural chauvinism that we associate with western approaches. But how willing are we to support an Orthodox understanding of mission in our own lives?

I am always overjoyed to hear about the work of the OCMC, the Orthodox Christian Missions Center. OCMC has helped bring our attention back to the importance of mission – of responding to the Great Commission, to go out, preach, baptize even to the ends of the earth. OCMC – and other pan-Orthodox agencies, such as IOCC and Project Mexico – also have given us precious experience of working together, of acting like one church, despite our jurisdictional dividedness. But certainly we can do more. OCMC, for example, now supports approximately 17 long-term missionaries in places like Albania and Africa. This number may sound impressive to us, but it is miniscule compared to what is being done by other Christian – and non-Christian – groups. A single Protestant mega-church in the United States may support that many missionaries, not to mention other forms of evangelism and outreach.

We also have to consider our responsibility for mission and evangelism here at home, locally, on the personal and parish level. Icons of Sts Cyril and Methodius adorn many of our churches. But do we ourselves, in our daily lives, in any way try to imitate them? Our gospel reading this morning was from St. John’s account of the calling of the disciples. We read: “Philip found Nathanael and said to him: We have found Him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote – Jesus of Nazareth.” Nathanael was skeptical. “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip says simply, “Come and see.” It’s easy to understand why this Gospel is appropriate for the day. With the incarnation, God has become visible in the flesh. He can be seen, and therefore he can be depicted in icons. But how can someone be expected to “see” if no one has first said “come”? How many of us even think of inviting co-workers, friends and acquaintances to come to church with us? We feel perfectly comfortable about recommending our favorite restaurant or mechanic or hair stylist to them, but we become acutely uncomfortable when it comes to matters related to our faith. I am not suggesting that we should get up on a soapbox at work, but I am suggesting that we stop hiding our Orthodox identity. If not through words, then at least through our behavior – by being fair and honest in our business dealings, by being conscientious employees rather than slackers, by being helpful to others, by being genuinely concerned about them, by avoiding sleaziness of all sorts - we should invite those around us to “come and see.”

This evening we have been looking back at the past, commemorating that first Sunday of Orthodoxy in 843 AD. But the stories we tell about that past event – right now in this present moment, through our words, through our actions – seem to take us in any number of contrary directions, suggesting that we have no clear vision for the future of Orthodoxy in America and in the world. We all agree on some things: on the importance of icons, for example, rooted as they are in the doctrine of the incarnation. I believe we also agree that Orthodoxy is meant to permeate the whole of life, the whole of culture, if it is to bring about the cosmic transformation that lies at the heart of our doctrine of salvation. But often our words and actions betray these professed beliefs. On the one hand, all too often our life at home, our conduct in the workplace, our involvement in the public square simply mirrors that of the society in which we live – so well-integrated are we into the American way of life and value system. We love to have our churches beautifully decorated with icons, but we see no pressing need to bring the theology that lies behind these icons into a wider world. On the other hand, we find in all our churches, whatever the jurisdiction, an increasingly vocal element arguing that America is incapable of the kind of transfiguration that once took place in our Old World empires, in Byzantium, in Holy Russia or Holy Serbia – arguing that to maintain authentic Orthodoxy we have to flee from the world, to withdraw from wider society in various ways, by adopting a style of life and practice that visibly distinguishes and separates us from the increasingly secular, pluralistic culture around us. In both cases, I suggest, we must acknowledge our lack of faith. We must acknowledge how weak our faith in God is.

All of us want to see the triumph of Orthodoxy, but often we conceive of this triumph in external terms. For some this means increased respectability on the American scene; for others this means increased purity of our Orthodox practice. For some this means increased income for maintaining our many philanthropic and cultural programs; for others this means an increased number of church services and prostrations at them. The real triumph of Orthodoxy cannot be measured so easily. From its very beginnings our faith has taken its power from a very unlikely source: Christ crucified, abandoned by nearly everyone, hanging on the cross. He never triumphed more gloriously or reigned more truly than when he hung there dying, his arms outstretched in love to embrace all, to draw the whole world to himself. “Now the son of man is glorified,” we read in St. John’s gospel. Though defeated, crucified, laid in the tomb, he arose in power, filling even the tomb with life. This is the foundation of the faith we claim to hold: “This is the apostolic faith; this is the Orthodox faith; this is the faith of our fathers; this is the faith that is the foundation of the world” – to quote the words of the Synodikon of Orthodoxy that we just recited. The real triumph of Orthodoxy in the future may not be marked by any of the external signs that we imagine, whether we are among those who risk becoming submerged in the world around us or among those who try to escape from this world. But by God’s grace Orthodoxy will triumph – or rather, the triumph of Christ will be fulfilled in his Church. Let us pray that his triumph will also be fulfilled in each one of us! Amen.

LENT! Or, What am I doing out here in the desert, when it was so comfortable in front of the TV last week?

2007-02-24T21:22:00.000-05:00

by V. Rev. Fr. James Rosselli

Twice a year, the Church observes 40-day periods which permit us to take a vacation from the excuses we ordinarily make to ourselves and claim the freedom to be, frankly and unapologetically, seekers of holiness.

This is pretty embarrassing stuff, most of the time. After all, how many people at your office walk around murmuring the Jesus Prayer all day? How many business lunches have you attended where everybody orders lentil soup and water? In truth, how many opportunities does one get in the normal course of life to engage in self-sacrifice, without looking unacceptably weird?

In Lent. however, all that is turned around. We can get away with almost anything! Conversations that tend to go one way at most times can go in whole different directions.

For example:

Outside of Lent:

Harry: “Hey, Bob, did you see Sexually Desperate Survivors in the City last night?
Bob: “Sorry, Harry, I don’t watch TV.”

Harry: “What are you some kind of religious nut? What’s next? You gonna go hijack a plane?”

In Lent, however, it might go something like this:

Harry: “Hey, you wanna go out for a steak and a brew after work?”
Bob: “Sorry, Harry, I’m giving that up for Lent.”

Harry: “What are you, kidding?”

Bob: “No, I’m really giving those up for Lent.”

Harry: “Wow!” (pause) “Hey, Bob, could you give me some advice about…”

See? Lent brings heroic stature to acts of mental, physical and spiritual health that at other times simply come off as blue-nosed prudishness.

On the other hand, what’s wrong with blue-nosed prudishness? Can’t I take the odd occasion to not indulge myself? Is there a law telling me I have to sit staring at a box for hours, filling my mind with garbage? If someone should pass my office door sometime after Pascha and find me crossing myself, even if all the vampires are out having lunch, am I the one who needs to feel funny, if it doesn’t go over?

Lent gets us into habits of holiness. It gets us used to separating ourselves from the values and behaviors of the kingdom of Mammon, and more in practice about being an ambassador for the Kingdom of God. Additionally, it gives the people around us an opportunity to “get used to” us as Christians—which might well result in an occasion somewhere down the road to bring Christ into a conversation, and maybe win a new soul for the Kingdom of God.

Not a bad way to spend the rest of the year, come to think of it!

Fr. Jim is a mitred archpriest with the Community of the Holy Spirit, UAOC.

The Love that Overcomes

2007-02-24T21:01:00.000-05:00

by Alice C. Linsley

IN the beginning there was Love: generative and giving of itself in such a manner as only Love can. Love made the verdant fields and sprinkled them with wild flowers. Love made long-necked beasts and earth-hugging creatures. Love was patient in nurture and watchful, ever mindful of universes and planets, and a certain planet earth, and a certain people Israel. Love gave sons, even when men denied them or the flesh failed. So Sarah conceived and laughed. So Tamar became the mother of twins. So Ruth, under the robe of Boaz, became great grandmother to David, anointed King. So the Handmaid of the Lord, overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, conceived Love in her womb, the Love from before all time.

Eternal Love through millennia prepared salvation and the hearts of men; deliverance from floods, from prison, from enemies, from slavery, from exile, from sin and death. Love overcame all things and endured all things. Love set boundaries to preserve Love’s inheritance, and established statutes to instruct in the way of Life. Love led the Patriarchs to water and preserved their wells. Love spoke face to face with a woman at Jacob’s well and gave her grace to go and sin no more.

Out of a cistern, Love lifted the Prophet who came in the name of Love. Many were the despisers of Love. They cast Love’s servants into pits, stoned them, sold them into slavery, betrayed them to their enemies and nailed them to crosses. Other lovers of Love were burned, flayed or beheaded. Some suffered quietly until their hearts ceased within them and they entered into Love’s rest. The number of those despised is greater than a man could count and each name is written in the Lamb’s Book of Life. Love never forgets.

Love remembers every deed, every thought and every impulse. Imposters came and went, but Love remained. Sexual love vied for first tart in every generation and lacked grace. Sentimental love played silly tricks and lacked endurance. Intellectual love became lost in meandering phantasmal trails. Egotistical love shouted for glory until red-faced and hoarse. The vanities parade themselves as slaves in the market. The virtues go home with Love as beloved children.

To His beloved, Love shows His face in the radiance of the sun, in the dark catacomb, in the bloody imprint of Veronica’s cloth, in the smiling faces of the saints, in the gasps and groans of victorious confessors and martyrs. Love never hides, yet the first Adam continues to hide his face from Love.

Men hide themselves and their sins, but Love knows and sees all things. Love overcomes all things. There is none like Love: eternal, generative, patient, mindful, attentive and ever present. Therefore, seek Love and live, for apart from Love there is no life.

Items of Interest - First Week of Veliki Post 2007

2007-02-24T08:29:00.000-05:00

A Study on the Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete
For the 2005 Fall Class, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America's Internet School of Orthodox Studies presented this in Real Media format, and has made it available online.

Dostoevsky and Memory Eternal: An Eastern Orthodox Approach to The Brothers Karamazov
"Central to Eastern Orthodox Christendom is the singing, at the end of every Orthodox funeral, of the song known as "Memory Eternal" (in Church Slavonic: Vechnaya Pamyat). This song also concludes Dostoevsky's great, final novel, The Brothers Karamazov...To know something of this song's meaning is to comprehend both the Eastern Orthodox faith and Dostoevsky's greatest novel."

The Blood of Martyrs is the Life-Giving Seed of Christianity!
Translated by Anastasia Donets. “The 20th century – the century of 1000 years since the baptism of Russia – also became the century marked by the most severe and cruel persecutions of the Russian Orthodox Church. Churches and wholly objects were mercilessly wrecked and defiled, innocent people of faith were killed and tortured – all of this became essentially the thorny, cross-bearing path of Christ, which many and many believers followed. Among them were church hierarchs, priests, monks and laity – men, women, and children. More than 1600 of these people who suffered for Christ have been canonized as saints by the Russian Orthodox Church.”

Serbian New Hieromartyr Sabbas (Trlaich), Bishop of Gornji Karlovac (+ 1941)
The bishop and the priests were told that they were undesirables and that they must abandon their flocks. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Zagreb, Aloysius Stepinac, openly told Vladyka that he must leave ‘Croatian’ Karlovac, otherwise he would be liquidated. Vladyka answered him: ‘Even if it costs me my head, I will not abandon my people!’

Lent in the South
Fr. Stephen Freeman reflects on Orthodoxy in the American South. His essay ends with a link to Fr. Paul Yerger's address Orthodoxy and the Christ-Haunted Culture of the South, a must-read.

The Orthodoxy of Dickens, Augustine and the Bulgarian
Christopher Orr shares his Lenten reading.

The Meanings Of Some Essential Biblical Names
From Orthodox England. As we read the Scriptures, we may be accustomed to seeking the spiritual meaning of the words, in addition to the more obvious literal meaning. Sometimes we are so intent on this that we miss the meanings of the names found therein. In the Old Testament these meanings are often explained, but not so in the New Testament.

Solidarity
by W.H. Chellis, a pastor in the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America. An interesting article on the corporate unity of mankind.

Metropolitan St. Philaret - Orthodox Biblicist

2007-02-17T19:48:00.000-05:00

In watching the discussion of Scripture, Tradition, and Authority unfold on the Orthodox-Lutheran Dialogue, I have frequently found myself calling to remembrance a theologian-hierarch who, perhaps more than any other, has been influential on the manner in which I think about these, as well as so many other, issues; indeed one whom the brilliant Florovsky often called "probably the greatest theologian of the Russian Church in modern times": our father among the Saints Philaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan of Moscow and All-Russia.

I will not here give the standard hagiography; such exist here and here. The focus of this presentation is on the character and views of St. Philaret, for which I present below Fr. Florovsky's excellent summary from Ways of Russian Theology. Let the reader be warned: it is somewhat lengthy, but then, in order to capture an adequate picture of this great hierarch and teacher it must be; in some ways it is, perhaps, not long enough.

Filaret (1782-1867) had a long life, literally from the annexation of the Crimea to the "Great Reforms." But he was a man of the Alexandrine age. He was born in sleepy, oblivious Kolomna and studied in a pre-reform seminary where students were taught in Latin from Latin books. However, at the Holy Trinity monastery seminary, where he finished his studies and became a teacher, the spirit of Protestant scholasticism was mitigated and moderated by the winnowing of that churchly pietism so typically exemplified in Metropolitan Platon Levshin.

Archimandrite Evgraf (Muzalevskii-Platonov), the rector, taught from Protestant texts. Filaret recalled that "Evgraf would assign selected passages to be copied from Hollatius." Lessons consisted of translating and commenting on these dictated passages. "Those doctrines which Orthodox and Protestants have in common, such as the Holy Trinity, Redemption, and so on were studied systematically, but others, for example, the doctrine of the Church, were not read at all. Evgraf did not receive a systematic education, although he recognized the necessity for studying the church fathers and he studied them." Evgraf typifies a generation in transition. He loved mystical interpretations of the Bible and would become quite transported by such explanations. "The Kingdom of God is contained not in the word, but in strength." He attempted a transition to Russian language instruction. Subsequently he served as rector of the reformed St. Petersburg Theological Academy, but he died soon after his appointment.

Filaret did not judge him too harshly when he said that: "An inexperienced teacher instructed us in theology, but he did so with great application." Filaret's personal recollections of the "pre-reform" seminary were wholly negative. "What was there to admire?" Filaret himself acquired a brilliant command of classical languages and a sound preparation in stylistics and philology from such a school. As a consequence he knew ancient languages better than modern ones and never studied German at all. For the rest, he could thank his personal talents and dedication to hard work. Thus, in an important sense, there was some basis for his fond description of himself as a self-educated man.

In 1809 the newly tonsured hierodeacon Filaret was summoned from the quiet refuge of a Holy Trinity Monastery bathed in the spirit of pious reverie to St. Petersburg "for inspection" and for service in the newly reformed ecclesiastical schools. For Filaret the startling contrast and the sudden transfer gave St. Petersburg a strange appearance: "The course of affairs is entirely incomprehensible to me," he admitted in a letter to his father. He could recall those first impressions of St. Petersburg for the rest of his life. The Synod greeted him with the advice to read "Swedenborg's Miracles" [Shvedenborgovy chudesa] and learn French. He was taken to court to view the fireworks and attend a masquerade party in order to meet Prince Golitsyn, the Over Procurator of the Holy Synod, quite literally "amidst the noise of the ball."

Then a short man, his breast adorned with stars and medals, entered the room and began threading his way through the hall. He was wearing a three-cornered hat and some sort of silk cape over an embroidered uniform. Then he ascended to the balcony where the clergy were decorously seated. He mingled politely with the members of the Synod, nodding to them, shaking their hands, briefly murmuring a word or two first to one, then to another. No one seemed surprised either at his attire or his familiarity.

This was Filaret's first masquerade ball, and he had never before seen a domino. "At the time I was an object of amusement in the Synod " Filaret recalled, "and I have remained a fool."

Filaret received a cool welcome in St. Petersburg, and he was not immediately permitted to teach at the academy. But by early 1812 he had become the academy rector and an archimandrite, with the task of supervising the Iur'ev Monastery in Novgorod. He advanced primarily through his ardor, his distinguished "preaching of the Word of God " and his "edifying and eloquent homilies on the truths of faith." Filaret had already attracted attention as a stylist and a preacher while at the Holy Trinity Monastery. He truly did have a gift and feeling for words.

Platon and Anastasii Bratanovskii among Russian preachers influenced him. In St. Petersburg he became acquainted with seventeenth century French sermonists, especially Massillon, Bourdaloue, and most of all, Fenelon. But the influence of the eastern fathers, Chrysostom and Gregory the Theologian, whom Filaret always particularly loved and valued, is quite pronounced. Filaret chose contemporary themes for his sermons. He spoke about the gifts and manifestations of the Spirit, the mystery of the Cross, "a voice crying in the wilderness"-the favorite topics of pietism and quietism. He frequently preached in Prince Golitsyn's chapel, even on weekdays. Grigorii (Postnikov), a former student and friend, commented rather unfavorably on these early sermons. He wrote to Filaret, frankly saying that these sermons displayed "a studied concern for wordplay, ingenuity, and circumlocution, which could truly vex a heart seeking the unalloyed and edifying truth." In fact, during those first years, Filaret spoke with an overly intense and ornamental style. Later he became calmer and more cautious, but his language always remained complex and his phrases were always arranged as if in counterpoint. Such features do not diminish the expressiveness of his sermons. Even Herzen admitted Filaret possessed a rare control over language. "He masterfully commanded the Russian language, skillfully interweaving it with Church Slavic." This "mastery" of language provides the principal reason for his powerful style: he writes with the living word, a word which seems to be thinking, an inspired and vocal pondering. Filaret always preached the Gospel and never tried to achieve mere rhetorical effect. Precisely during those early St. Petersburg years, he produced his original and exemplary sermons on Good Friday (in 1813, and especially in 1816). Filaret's scholarly and pedagogical duties during those years display a still greater intensity. A burdensome and severe ordeal awaited him. "I had to teach what I had never been taught." In the short time from 1810 to 1817, he had to prepare himself and construct practically an entire course in theology in all of its branches, including exegetical theology, canon law, and church antiquities. It was not surprising that he complained of extreme exhaustion. Nor is it surprising that these first attempts did not always succeed or represent complete originality. They often produced diverse and overly fresh impressions. "Influences" would be too strong a word. Filaret's first books, An Outline of Church-Biblical History [Nachertanie tserkovnobibleiskoi istorii, 1816] and Notes on the Book of Genesis [Zapiski na knigu Bytiia, 1816], were modelled on Buddeus. He also borrowed Buddeus's scholarly apparatus. Such borrowing was simply unavoidable given his deadline and the haste of the work. The students had to be given textbooks and other manuals in order to take the examinations.

Filaret was an inspiring and brilliant professor.

He spoke distinctly with an incisive, lofty, and intelligent manner; but [he spoke] more to the intellect than to the heart. He freely expounded Holy Scriptures, as if the words simply flowed from his mouth. The students became so taken by him, that when the time came for him to stop teaching, a great desire always remained to go on listening without regard for food or drink. He produced a powerful impression through his lessons. Those lessons seemed truly pleasing and perfect to everyone. During class, he appeared as a wise and eloquent speaker and a skillful writer. Everything indicated he devoted much time to scholarship.

This is Archimandrite Fotii's own assessment. He adds that Filaret strongly advocated monasticism "and was very compassionate." Fotii had an opportunity to experience that compassion during his difficult and troubled year at the academy. As Sturdza noted, at that time Filaret was "agitated by the promptings of many quite diverse influences." Along with everyone else, he read Jung-Stilling, Eckartshausen, Fenelon, and Guyon, as well as Kerner's The Seer of Prevorst. Traces of such reading unquestionably remained an indelible part of his spiritual and intellectual make-up. Filaret could find a common language not only with Golitsyn, but also with Labzin and even with itinerant Quakers. Every dimension of religious life interested him and attracted him. However, for all such interests, Filaret stayed squarely within the church and inwardly remained untouched by this mystical awakening. Because he was always so impressionable, Filaret inclined toward suspicion: he noted everything and probed and reflected deeply on each detail, a discomforting habit for those around him. But he preferred a certain reserve, while subduing and disciplining himself above all others. Even Fotii, who in his memoirs reproached Filaret for many things and strongly disliked him, admitted that, while a student "living under the sharp eye of Archimandrite Filaret," he "never noticed, or could have noticed, even the slightest blemish on the teaching about the church, either in classes at the academy or in private." Fotii furiously attacks Filaret for only one thing: his excessive patience and extreme taciturnity.

Innokentii Smirnov advised Fotii to pay Filaret frequent visits, where he might learn what silence means. Such a trait actually was one of Filaret's characteristics. He appeared secretive and evasive. In is memoirs, Sturdza writes that there was "something enigmatic" in his entire being. Completely open only before God, and not before men-at least not indiscriminately-"Filaret never allowed himself moments of unguarded confidences." With partial justification, he might be accused of excessive timidity and caution, for he did not wish to risk challenging powerful authority. ("We two archimandrites of the Iur'ev and Pustynsk monasteries will not save the Church, if it contains some defect," Filaret told Innokentii.) But Filaret's caution had another dimension. He had no faith in the utility or reliability of harshly restrictive measures, and he was in no hurry to meddle or pass judgment. Always able to distinguish the error from the person making it, he looked benevolently on every sincere impulse of the soul. Even in the yearnings of the mystics he sensed a true religious thirst, a spiritual restlessness which stumbled along errant paths, only because "the rightful path had been poorly constructed." Thus, for polemical purposes, prohibitions alone would not be sufficient. Above all, education was needed. For that constructive and creative struggle with error which Filaret wished to wage, one must teach, reason, and refrain from impatient quarrels.

Behind the facade of mystical seductions, Filaret could recognize a vital need for religion, a thirst for religious instruction and enlightenment: hence his enthusiastic participation in the work of the Bible Society. The work attracted him, for he believed that the church should expend its energies on translation of the Bible, "so that the bread might not be taken from the children." He firmly believed in the power of renewal found in the Word of God, and forever linked his name with and his selflessly dedicated life to, the translation of the Russian Bible. His labor on behalf of the Bible is difficult to value at its true worth. For him personally the work meant great personal trials and humiliations. At the height of the "uprising" against the Bible in St. Petersburg, Filaret, in Moscow, replied that "such a desire to read the Bible, is already a sign of moral improvement." If some prefer to live on roots rather than pure bread, the Bible cannot be held responsible. To the anticipated question: "Why this innovation in a matter so ancient and unneedful of change as Christianity and the Bible?" Filaret replied,

Why this innovation? What is new? Dogmas? Precepts living? But the Bible Society preaches none of these things but instead places into the hands of those who desire it a book from which the truths of the Church always have been drawn, and from which Orthodox dogmas and also the pure precepts for living continue to be derived. The Society is a new one? Yet it introduces nothing new into Christianity or produces the slightest alteration in the Church . . . .`Why this innovation of foreign origin?' they continue. In reply to that question, one might point out for our worthy compatriots many things and ask a similar question: `Why are they not only of foreign origin, but even entirely foreign'? . . .

As one contemporary put it, "some of the most devout people held the unfortunate belief that people would go mad from reading this sacred book." For a time students in the military schools were officially forbidden to read the Bible, ostensibly as a precautionary measure, for two cadets had already become addled. Many others "regarded it as a book only for use in church and suited solely to priests." From fear of mystical errors and excesses, people suddenly began to shun the writings of Macarius of Egypt and Isaac the Syrian, whose "wise prayer of the heart has been destroyed and derided as a pestilence and a ruination."

Somewhat later Filaret had to prove that it was permissible to write new commentaries on St. Paul's epistles, despite the fact that Chrysostom had long ago provided explanations. "Smoke consumes one's eyes, arid they say `the light of the sun consumes them.' Choking from the smoke, they gasp, `how poisonous is the water from the spring of life.'"

Such a spirit of timid theological endeavor always disturbed Filaret, wherever and whenever it appeared. "Human nature contains a strange ambivalence and contradictory tendencies," he. once said.

On the one hand exists a sense of need for the Divine and a desire for communion with God; on the other hand, there is a mysterious disinclination to occupy oneself with Divine matters and an impulse to avoid any discourse with God. . . .The first of these tendencies belongs to man's original nature, while the other derives from a nature blemished by sin.

Possession and preservation of faith are not sufficient: "perhaps you have doubts you actually possess faith, or how you possess it. . . ." Filaret continues.

As long as your faith resides in the Word of God and in the Creed, then your faith belongs to God, His prophets, Apostles, and Fathers of the Church and not to you. When you hold your faith in your thoughts and memory, then you begin to acquire it as your own; but I still fear for your acquisition [of it], because the living faith in your thoughts is, perhaps, still only a token of that treasure you have yet to receive, that is the living power of faith.

In other words, faith, in the fullness of its dogmatic content, must become the vital principle or focus in life. Each person must not merely remember the content of that faith, but acquire it with the labor of the mind and with the entirety of the soul. Filaret was not afraid to awaken thought, although he knew temptations could only be overcome and conquered by the creative act and not by frightened concealment. Subsequently he wrote: "The necessity to do battle with enemies and with teachings contrary to dogma is quite a sufficient task. What purpose is served by combatting options which are not inimical to any dogmatic truth?" Filaret always emphasized the necessity to engage in theology as the single and immutable foundation for a complete religious life. "Christianity is not being a fool for Christ's sake [iurodstvo], nor is it ignorance, but it is the wisdom of God." Hence no Christian dares halt at the beginning or remain only at an elementary stage. Christianity is a path or a way. Filaret constantly recalls that "[we] should consider no wisdom, even that which is secret and hidden, to be alien and unrelated to us, but with humility we should direct our minds toward contemplation of God." Christian personality is shaped only through such reasoning and understanding; only in this manner is the "perfect man of God" shaped, and formed. Filaret's favorite aphorism, "theology reasons," is a commandment "to reason" given to everyone and not to the few. He considered overly detailed textbooks harmful, and for quite characteristic reasons. "A student having before him a large textbook, that he cannot absorb even that which had been prepared for him Consequently, the possibility of constructing something for himself seems impossible. Thus the mind is not stirred to activity and the memory retains the words rather than the ideas from the pages of book." What is actually needed is to arouse and exercise the "mind's ability to function," and not simply to develop the memory. Herein lies the solution or explanation for the fervor with which Filaret all of his life fought on behalf of the Russian language, both for the Bible and for theological instruction. He wished, and strove to make theology accessible to everyone, and for that reason he seemed terrible and dangerous to his opponents. General accessibility is just what they did not want. "Translation of the New Testament into the simple dialect left a permanent and indelible stain upon him," wrote Fotii.

It was necessary to wage war on two fronts in order to achieve the use of Russian in school instruction. First, one had to combat the civil authorities (and during Nicholas I's reign all "thought" was regarded as the embryo of revolution). The so-called Committee of 6 December (1826-1830) completely opposed the proposal for instruction in Russian, arguing that the necessary addition of new Russian language textbook editions for dogmatic and hermeneutical theology might attract the attention of unenlightened people to questions about faith: "Providing an opportunity for unfounded explanations and conjectures." Second, one had to debate with the represeritatives of the old learning about the use of Latin in theological instruction. Very many such representatives still survived. After Golitsyn's departure, Metropolitan Evgenii of Kiev had been summoned to the Synod. He was entrusted with a new construction of the ecclesiastical schools, "for the establishment of ecclesiastical schools on the firm and steadfast foundation of Orthodoxy," as Metropolitan Seraphim wrote. Fotii recommended Evgenii and openly counterposed him to Filaret as "wiser than Filaret and at the same time an Orthodox and great man and a pillar of the Church: ' (Fotii gave Evgenii a solemn greeting.) However, once in St. Petersburg, Evgenii became too preoccupied with his personal and archeological interests to be able to devote much attention to the large questions of church politics. Nevertheless, a reactionary spirit could be felt quite strongly among the new membership of the Commission on Ecclesiastical Schools. Filaret of Moscow did not attend the sessions of the Synod during those troubled years (if one does not count the brief session of the Synod in Moscow at Nicholas's coronation). He occupied himself with the affairs of his diocese, and only in 1827 did he return to St. Petersburg. During the first weeks after his arrival, he was called upon to discuss the question of church reform. Someone had presented the emperor with a proposal for fundamental reforms aimed at "saddling the Church with a kind of Protestant consistory composed of clergy and laymen," in Filaret's understanding of the proposal's intent. Apparently General Merder, Nicholas's former tutor, had transmitted the proposal. Filaret believed the author to be A. A. Pavlov, the cohort of Fotii and Shishkov during the "uprising" of 1824. The Synod struggled to compose a reply to the substance of the proposal. Filaret also presented a personal note, which was submitted by the Synod as the opinion of one of its members. The Emperor wrote the word "just" [spravedlivo] on this report, in which Filaret had once again raised the question of Biblical translation. But Filaret's suggestion could make no further progress in view of Metropolitan Seraphim's unqualified opposition. Filaret did not insist. "I do not wish to produce a schism in the Church."

In the next few years, Filaret had one other opportunity to set forth in detail his views on the question of church schools. Once again the opportunity came in connection with those same proposals for reform. He roundly condemned the scholastic schools, and still more emphatically castigated the belated attempts to return to such superannuated models.

Before the reform several ecclesiastical schools were distinguished by a knowledge of Latin. . . .As a result, priest knew Latin pagan authors well, but hardly knew religious and Church writers. They could speak and write in Latin better than in Russian. With their exquisite phrases in a dead language, they were more able to shine in a circle of scholars than illuminate the people with the living knowledge of truth. Only dogmatic theology was taught, and then in the school manner. The result was a dry, cold knowledge, a lack of a sufficiently practical capacity to inform, a forced tone, fruitless teaching, and an inability to speak to the people about the truths which seem so familiar in the schools. Since the reforms of the church schools in 1814, instruction in practical theology [deiatel'noe bogoslovie] has been introduced, thereby making the study of theology closer to the demands of life. . . .The Russian language was permitted in teaching theology. Knowledge of Latin became weaker, but at the same time the school terminology began to give way to a purer and cleaner exposition of truth. The extension of true knowledge was strengthened and its communication to the people made easier. . .

Filaret emphasized that: "Theological understanding, crushed by the great weight of school terminology taught in Latin, did not freely act on the mind during the period of study, and after study only with the greatest difficulty was it transposed into Russian for communication to the people." He then criticized the latest directives from the Commission on Ecclesiastical Schools. True, he agreed, not all teachers constructed their courses successfully, but should teaching from "one's own lectures" be totally prohibited for that reason? Must Latin once again become compulsory and Feofilakt's theology textbook, "copied from Buddeus's Lutheran theology," be assigned once again? Filaret once more adduced an argument based on effectiveness. "Return to Latin scholasticism from instruction in a comprehensible native language cannot facilitate the improvement of education. It is surprising that a time which is being praised for its zeal for Orthodoxy should prefer a return to Latin."

Another Filaret, the archbishop of Riazan' and later metropolitan of Kiev, responded to this determined note. Without quarrelling directly with Filaret of Moscow, he insisted upon preserving Latin for various reasons: as a defensive measure for scholarship, but more importantly as a precaution, so that errors and heresies refuted in dogmatic theology would not gain public attention through Russian books. Nevertheless, he did agree with certain points, and proposed that catechisms, particularly the Orthodox Confession, be published for popular use in Russian and Church Slavic. He also admitted that practical theology could best be taught in Russian. Finally, he thought it desirable to organize the translation of patristic writings into Russian from Greek and Latin. Filaret of Moscow had to give way. The final report did not include a proposal for theological instruction in Russian.

I proposed that theology be taught in Russian at the seminaries in order that its study and its transmission to the people might be made easier and so that those who are distrustful will not ask why we conceal the Holy Gospel in a non-Orthodox language. I stated that it is strange and crippling to give sway to Latin in the Greek Church and that Feofan Prokopovich, by doing so, had disfigured our learning, contrary to the general opinion of the Russian hierarchy at that time, and contrary to the example of all Eastern antiquity; but I had to be silent, in order to end those disagreements which could impede our work.

However, Filaret did achieve one thing: a special point was added to the Synodal resolution; "in order that instruction conducted in the ecclesiastical schools might be more fruitfully directed toward the goal of popular education in faith and morality by means of an educated clergy, to that end capable people should be encouraged to prepare theology textbooks which expound truths in a precise way, unobscured by scholastic subtleties, and which modify [theology] to suit the circumstances of the Eastern Greco-Russian Church."

The dispute over the language of instruction was decided with out preliminary debate. Despite the prohibition, in a short time Russian became the language of the schools everywhere. Filaret had already lectured in Russian at the St. Petersburg Academy, as did his successor Grigorii (Postnikov). Kirill (Bogoslovskii-Platonov) did so in Moscow. Both Grigorii and Kirill were graduates in the first class at the St. Petersburg Academy. Moisei, the rector at the Kiev Academy, l44 had already taught in Russian. Meletii (L.eontovich), and later Innokentii, followed his example. Gradually Latin fell by the wayside in the seminaries so that by the 1840's scarcely any school still taught, theology in Latin. Nevertheless, the transition to Russian still did not signify a genuine liberation from the captivity or slavery of scholasticism. In the 1840's Russian theology had to suffer still another relapse of Latin scholasticism. Once again the initiative belonged to the vising Over Procurator.

Filaret wrote very little. The circumstances of his life were unfavorable to writing. Only in his youth could he give himself to scholarship without too much interference. But he was compelled to work hastily. These years were actually more devoted to study than to independent creativity. Soon called to serve in the upper hierarchy, Filaret thereafter had neither the freedom nor the leisure to systematically investigate and study theology. And in his mature years, Filaret was able to be a theologian only as a preacher. In fact, his Sermons and Addresses [Slova i rechi] remains his principal theological legacy. Filaret never constructed a theological system. His sermons are only fragments, but they contain an inner wholeness and unity. It is not a unity of system, it is a unity of conception. These fragments reveal a living theological experience tormented and tempered in an ordeal of prayer and vigil. Filaret of Moscow was the first person in the history of modern Russian theology for whom theology once more became the aim of life, the essential step toward spiritual progress and construction. He was not merely a theologian, he lived theology. From the ambo or his episcopal seat in the cathedral, he firmly and judiciously taught the lessons of faith. Filaret was a disciplined speaker. He never simply spoke, but always read or followed a written text, an oratorical requirement from his school days.

As a theologian and teacher he was above all a Biblicist. His sermons dwelled most frequently on the Word of God. He did not consult Holy Scriptures for proofs: he proceeded from the sacred texts. In Bukharev's apt phrase, for Filaret Biblical texts "were the thoughts of the Living and All-wise God emanating from his unknowableness for our understanding." His thoughts lived in the Biblical element. He pondered aloud while sifting the nuances of a Biblical image or story. Filaret, notes Bukharev, never allowed his theology to become a "legal investigation governed by a dogmatic code of laws," as was usually the case before Filaret's time and as too often recurred during the epoch of the "return to the time of scholasticism."

During his first few years of teaching, Filaret worked out a general plan for a course in theology, A Survey of Theology [Obozrenie bogoslovskikh nauk, 1814]. It was a very characteristic plan, for it was a course in Biblical theology. In Filaret's view, the aim of a theological system was to "link in their proper order" the individual facts and truths of Revelation. A "system" of theology was something fully dependent and derivative. History came before system, for Revelation was given in history and events.

The formalism of the "old Protestant" theological school in which Filaret was raised and educated exercised a strong influence on him, especially in his younger days. He did not at once formally break with the Russian tradition of Prokopovich. A great deal in his definitions and manner of expression was suggested by, or he simply copied from, Protestant books. He refers to such books in his Survey; hence the incompleteness and scholastic imprecision of Filaret's early formulations. He had the habit of referring to Holy Scriptures as "the sole pure and sufficient source of teaching about faith" and added that "to grant the unwritten Word of God equal weight with the written, not only in the functioning of the Church, but in its dogmas is to subject oneself to the danger of destroying God's commandment for the sake of human tradition: ' This was said, of course, in the heat of polemics. But it does seem that if he did not deny it, then Filaret minimized the importance of Tradition in the Church. He shared and reproduced the Protestant idea of the so-called "self-sufficiency" of Holy Scripture. In his early work, An exposition of the differences between the Eastern and Western Churches in the teaching of faith [Izlozhenie raznostei mezhdu Postochnoi i Zapadnoi tserkvi v uchenii very] written in 1811 for the Empress Elizabeth Alekseevna and even in the early editions of the Catechism, Filaret says very little about Tradition or traditions. And in the final redaction of the Catechism during the 1830's, the questions and answers about Tradition were added at the prompting of others.

Yet this was more a fault of the peculiar language of the period than an actual mistake or error. In any case, Filaret never looked upon Scripture abstractly or in isolation. The Bible is given to and is maintained in the Church. The Church gives it to the faithful for reading and guidance. Scripture is written Tradition, and as such it is a witness to the living knowledge and understanding of the Church. Scripture is the record of Tradition, not ordinary traditions of human recollection, but Holy Tradition. To put it another way, it is the sacred memory embodied in writing "for the uninterrupted and uniform preservation of Divine Words."

Scripture, as Filaret explained it, is "only the continuation of Tradition and Tradition's unalterably constructed form." When he spoke of Scripture as the "sole and sufficient" source of teaching about faith, he did not have in mind a book with leather covers, but the Word of God which lives in the Church, and awakens in each living soul that which the Church acknowledges and teaches. Scripture is Tradition. Furthermore, true and holy Tradition is not "simply the visible and verbal tradition of the teachings, canons, ceremonies, and rituals, but it is also the invisible and actual instruction by grace and sanctification." It is the unity of the Holy Spirit, the communion of the sacraments. And for Filaret the main thing was not historical memory, but the uninterrupted flow of Grace. Therefore, only in the Church is authentic tradition possible. Only in the Church does the Grace of the Holy Spirit pour forth revealed truth in an unbroken stream and admonish with it.

Filaret's intense Biblicism was intimately and deeply bound up with his conception of the Church. This was a return to the patristic style and habit in theology. At the same time Filaret emphasized that modern philological studies must provide a precise definition for the "formal meaning" of Scripture. Scripture is the Word of God, not merely the word about God spoken or recorded at one time. It is the efficacious word acting eternally through the ages. It is a certain Divine mystery, the unalterable appearance of grace and power. "Light is concealed in every trace of God's Word, and wisdom is heard in every sound." And Filaret added, "the authenticity of Holy Scripture extends beyond the limits of our reason." It is a kind of Divine treasury: the unceasing, creative, life-giving Word. And the Church is that holy treasury in which this word is preserved. It is a special construction of the Spirit of God.

Authentic and undoubted, Holy Tradition is the indisputable "source" of faith. But the question remains, how does one recognize and discern this "undoubted" tradition? How is the tradition of faith distinguished from the traditions of the schools? It was precisely this question which constantly occupied Filaret's attention. He was reluctant to discuss appeals to tradition, not what constituted Tradition. He protested against the scholastic custom and habit of establishing or proving doctrinal propositions with a simple selection of texts or authoritative testimony. He emphasized that it was impossible to equate any non-Biblical testimony with that of the Bible, and the realm of direct Divine inspiration is precisely described by the boundary of canon. "Is it possible to define precisely that moment when a church writer becomes a saint and is no longer simply a writer subject to the usual human weaknesses?" Filaret did not place limits on the educational authority of the Church. He only limited the authority of the schools.

Historical tradition, in any case, is subject to confirmation, and Filaret had a lively sense of history. It was this sense, which separated him from later scholastics with their logical pedantry and from the mystics such as Speranskii, Labzin, and Skovoroda earlier for whom the Bible became an allegory or a symbol. For Filaret the Bible was always and above all a book of history. It begins with a description of the creation of heaven and earth and concludes with the appearance of a new heaven and earth, "the entire history of the existing world ", Filaret remarked. And this history of the world is the history of God's covenant with man. It is also the history of the Church which begins even earlier. "The history of the Church begins simultaneously with the history of the world. The creation of the world in itself may be seen as a kind of preparation for the creation of the Church because the purpose for which the kingdom of nature was made resides in the kingdom of grace." The world was created for the sake of man, and with the creation of man came the original Church, founded in the very image and likeness of God. Man was introduced into the world of nature as a priest and a prophet, so that the light of Grace would reach out through him to all the created world. In freedom, man was called upon to answer this creative love, "and then the Son of God would reside in men and reign openly and triumphantly throughout the world. Heavenly light and power would pour down ceaselessly on earth until at last the earth was no longer distinct from heaven."

The heavenly Covenant with God was abrogated by the Fall; the original Church was destroyed. Man stifled within himself the eternal life-giving attention of Divine glory, and he likewise blocked the flow of grace to all the world. In the fallen world, however, creative Divine purpose continued to operate. It acts as a promise and a calling. And the created world (submerged beneath the abyss of Divine infinity and hovering above the abyss of personal non-being) preserves the Word of God.

All history is the journey of God toward man and the journey of man toward God. This holy pulse of time and history especially can be felt in the Old Testament. That was a time of messianic expectations and preparations. Mankind awaits and expects the promised Savior, and God equally expects the exercise of human freedom and love. For that reason there is a tension in time: "the created world moves in definite cycles by necessity and cannot be hurried." The Old Testament was a time of prefigurations and premonitions; a time of multiple and multiform Epiphanies, and at the same time it was a returning of the chosen among men to an encounter with the approaching God. "The common ground of Epiphany, especially in its human dimension, is the Incarnation of the Son of God, for the root and foundation of His holy humanity is found in men from the time of the very first progenitors." In this sense, the Old Testament is a genealogy of the Savior.

The image of the Mother of God is sharply and clearly etched in Filaret's theological consciousness. And the Day of Annunciation was for him the most glorious day of all. With the Annunciation in Nazareth the Old Testament ends and the New Testament begins. The tension of expectation is dissolved. Human freedom responds in the Mother of God. "She unreservedly entrusted herself to the desire of the King of Kings, and the marriage of the Divine with mankind was consummated." And in the Birth of Christ the Church, destroyed forever by the disobedience of the earthly Adam, is recreated indestructibly and forever. The Kingdom of Grace is revealed and the Kingdom of Glory is already slightly visible.

In Filaret's view, the Church is the Body of Christ, "the unity of one life" in Him. It is not the union of all under one authority, even under the royal authority of Christ. Moreover, the Church is a continuing Pentecost: a unity in the Spirit of Christ. The sanctifying stream of grace as an unquenchable fount flows to the very threshold of the coming Kingdom of Glory. "When the mysterious body of the last Adam, composed and constituted by Him through the mutual linking of the members by the appropriate actions of each of them, grows in its composition and is perfectly and finally created, then, upheld by His Head, infused with the Holy Spirit, the image of God triumphantly appears in all its members and the great Sabbath of God and man ensues." The circle of time is closed. The Lord Pantocrator is enthroned and the marriage of the Lamb begins.

In his theological speculations Filaret always proceeded from the facts of Revelation and moved among them. He never departed from history in order hurriedly to ascend to "the exalted heights of contemplation" by means of abstract theology. He had no love for "cold philosophy" and was guided in theology not so much by logical conclusions as by historical phenomena. He was always conscious of the Divine Mysteries in their historical manifestations and actions. And all history is revealed before him as a single great unfolding of Divine Love and Divine Glory in the created world. The theme of his theology was always the Covenant of God and man, in all the complexity and multiform character of its historical fate.

Filaret's "system" was not constructed under "influences" and "impressions," for its inner structure is patristic (compare it especially with Gregory of Nyssa). He dwelled with particular attention on two themes: first, the mystery of the Cross, the mystery of Redemption. And second, the description of the life of Grace, the life in the Spirit Christ revealed to the faithful. Christ is the mysterious First Priest who is offered and who brings the offering. He is the Lamb of God and the Great Hierarch (see the Epistle to the Hebrews). It was the Cross of Golgotha he saw in the Gospels. It was the passion of the Savior he saw in the God-man. "The fate of the world is suspended from His cross, the life of the world lies in His grave. The Cross illuminates the weeping land of life; the sun of blessed immortality streams forth from His grave." The mystery of the Cross is the mystery of Divine Love. "Thus in the spiritual realm of mystery, along the entire dimensions of the Cross of Christ, contemplation is overwhelmed in the limitless love of God." On Good Friday Filaret once preached on the passage "And God so loved the world." He urged that the ultimate meaning of the Cross be grasped. "Behold! . . . There is nothing except the holy and blessed Love of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit toward a sinful and despairing mankind. The Love of the Father in the act of crucifying; the Love of the Son who is crucified; the Love of the Spirit which triumphs by the power of the Cross."

Filaret was completely free of any sentimental or moralistic misinterpretations of the love of the Cross. On the contrary, he emphasized that the Cross of Christ is rooted in the inscrutableness of Divine benevolence. The mystery of the Cross begins in eternity "in the sanctuary of the Tri-hypostatic Godhead which is inaccessible to the created world. Thus, Christ is spoken of in Scriptures as the Lamb of God, forewarned or even crucified from the time of the world's creation. "The death of Christ is the center of created being. The Cross of Jesus, built by the animosity of the Jews and the bloodthirstiness of the pagans, is the earthly image and shadow of this heavenly Cross of love." In his sermons, especially on days recalling the Passion, Filaret ascended to the heights of lyrical prayer; a trembling of the heart can be heard in these addresses. His sermons are impossible to paraphrase; it is only possible to reread and repeat them. We find no integrated system in Filaret, for he always spoke "on occasion." We do find something greater: a unity of living experience, a depth of intellectual conception, "a mysterious visitation of the Spirit." And this is the clue or explanation for his influence on theology. He had practically no direct disciples, nor did he create a school; he created something more important: a spiritual movement. Filaret was always reserved in his theological judgments and he urged others to exercise the same responsible caution. This unremitting sense of responsibility, in which pastoral and theological motives were intertwined, was always at work on him and gave him a stern countenance. It was rightly said that "he was a bishop from morning to night and from night to morning." This was a source of his caution. But he had another motive as well, an instinctive need to justify his every conclusion. It is precisely this need which explains all of his reservations. "Each theological thought must be accepted only in the measure of its strength." Filaret always opposed the transformation of private opinions into required ones which might restrict rather than guide perceptive and searching thought. That is why he was such an unpleasant and impatient censor and editor. His report on Innokentii's Passion Week [Strastnaia Sed initsa] is characteristic: "I wish that calm reason might accompany the labor of a lively and powerful imagination and cleanse this book." Filaret did not reject "imagination," but he subjected it to strict verification, and not so much verification by reason as by the testimony of Revelation.

Not much may be expected by relying on one's own philosophical reasoning for those subjects not found in life on earth. It is more fitting to follow Divine Revelation and the explanations of it given by people who have prayed, labored, cleansed their inner and outer lives more than we. The image of God is more apparent and the sight is clearer in those whose spirits here on earth border more closely on heaven than our own.

Obviously, Filaret was not so preoccupied with authority as with inner reliability.

Filaret appeared too pliable or excessively timid to others in direct proportion to his own demands and caution. Some accused Filaret of "Jacobinism in theology" because he always demanded "proofs" and very cautiously distinguished between "opinion" and "definition." "The people did not love him and called him a Mason" (Herzen). Others considered him a dark reactionary and (strangely enough) preferred Count Pratasov (this applies not only to Nikanor Brovkovich but also to Rostislavov). Still others were confused because Filaret would not condemn the Latin faith as heresy or even as a schism, but instead he argued that it was only an "opinion" and not a ruling of the Church. In particular he tried to guard against exaggeration: "Placing the Papal Church on the same level as the Armenian Church is cruel and useless." He seemed too cautious when he argued that the Eastern Church "does not possess an autocratic interpreter of its teachings who might give the weight of dogma to his explanations." It seemed that he left too much to the "individual judgment and conscience" of the faithful, even though it was "assisted by the teachers of the Church and was under the guidance of the Word of God."

Some could not find adequate words to describe Filaret's oppressive tyrannical character. In this connection, the hostile autobiographical "notes" of the historian S. M. Solov'ev were especially typical. In Solov'ev's description, Filaret was a sort of evil genius, who smothered the least inkling of creativity and independence in his subordinates. Solov'ev insisted that Filaret destroyed any creative spirit in the Moscow Theological Academy. Something must be said about this later. Here it is enough to note that Solov'ev's calumny can be countered by considerable contrary evidence. One example, which is supplied by a person whom it is difficult to suspect of partiality toward Filaret, must be enough. This was the statement of G. Z. Eliseev, the famous radical and editor of Notes of the Fatherland [Zapiski otechestva]. He was a student in the Moscow Academy at the beginning of the 1840's and then a baccalaureate and professor in Kazan'. In Eliseev's estimation, there was too much freedom and an exceptional environment of heartfelt warmth, softness, and camaraderie at the Moscow Academy.

Solov'ev was shortsighted and partial in his judgments. He was not able, nor did he wish, to find any redeeming qualities in those who did not agree with him. He was particularly irritated by people of a "restless mind," who offended his cozy night-Hegelian worldview. Filaret was not the only one whom Solov'ev condemned in this fashion. He found only harsh and foul words for Khomiakov. But Solov'ev was unfair to Filaret even as an historian. He could not and would not understand that Filaret's outward severity sprang from grief and anxiety. "This man has a hot head and a cold heart." This characterization is a deceptive half truth. It is true that Filaret's mind was fervent and hot, and restless thoughts left a deep impress on his withered face. But it is simply nonsense and a lie that Filaret's heart was cold. It flowed sensitively and impressionistically. And it burned in an uncanny and terrible anxiety. His obvious achievements and obvious integrity could conceal this grief and anxiety, this inner suffering, only from a shortsighted observer. Filaret's difficult and courageous silence hardly concealed or quieted his uneasiness about what was happening in Russia. "It seems that we no longer live even in the suburbs of Babylon, but in Babylon itself," he declared one day.

Khomiakov once noted that Filaret was compelled to travel by "devious routes" in order not to provide a pretext for being attacked. "Submission required detours, while his exactness perhaps made it less likely that they would be on the watch and inflict an unexpected blow," wrote another contemporary. Filaret once wrote to Grigorii [Postnikov] : "It is a great misfortune if those against whom they seek an opportunity to attack provide that opportunity. . . ."

Filaret did not like easy and safe paths, for he did not believe that easy paths could lead to truth - the narrow path could hardly turn out to be an easy one. "I fear only that joy on earth which thinks it has nothing to fear. . . ."

Items of Interest - Week of the Last Judgement 2007

2007-02-17T07:58:00.000-05:00

The Dread Judgment Seat of Christ
Fr. Stephen Freeman on what proceeds from the heart of man.

"We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet"
Christopher Orr comments on understanding the meaning of Scripture.

Something of an Aesthetic of Perversion
From the Ochlophobist: "Much of what we call art these days is nothing but sexualized affectation in various media forms. It is sad that many Christians, albeit to a lesser extent than the culture at large, embrace this art."

Toward a Biblical View of Obscenity
Peter J. Leithart on how the Bible describes sex, and how Christian writers and theologians should describe sex.

Should We Worry About a Bosnian Muslim Massacring People in Trolley Square?
Mary Mostert, from Banner of Liberty, tells the truth about the February 12 attack.

MSNBC: A Bosnian Kills Americans? Blame the Serbs!
by Julia Gorin. "As if we couldn’t have seen this one coming..."

The Religious Left vs. "Demonic" America
by Mark Tooley. Mainline American Protestantism, when its elites were still theologically orthodox, viewed the United States as a providential instrument for prosperity and freedom. But after its elites abandoned traditional Christianity for a plethora of radical ideologies, it discovered that America is actually “demonic.”

The Supreme Court Opinions of Clarence Thomas
Joseph Klein reviews Henry Mark Holzer's The Supreme Court Opinions of Clarence Thomas, 1991-2006: A Conservative’s Perspective, a book which demolishes the liberal mythology about Justice Thomas as a race-betraying right-wing ideologue in the shadow of Justice Scalia.

The Allende School for Subverting Democracy
By Daniel Mandel. Latin America's anti-American Left enjoys a second wind.

Scripture and Tradition: An Orthodox Point of View

2007-02-15T21:16:00.000-05:00

By Fr. Georges Florovsky

The Large Catechism of the Russian Orthodox Church opens with chapters on "Divine Revelation" and on "Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture." The question is asked: "In what manner is divine revelation propagated among men and preserved in the true church?" The answer is: "In a twofold manner, first by Tradition and then by Scripture." Now, Tradition is described in the following sentence, "The true believers transmit to each other — and one generation to the other — by word and example, the teaching of faith, the law of God, sacraments and holy rites." The keeper of tradition is the church. "All true believers, united by the sacred tradition of faith, jointly and in succession, constitute the church," which is the "pillar and foundation of truth." Tradition as a method of preserving divine revelation has the priority in time.

There was no Scripture before Moses. Christ himself instructed his disciples orally by word and example, and so did the apostles in the beginning. The Scripture was given in order to fix revelation in precise terms for future times. Then follows the description of the biblical canon. The Old Testament books are numbered according to the Hebrew canon, with a reference to Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius. The Holy Tradition is complementary to Holy Writ in the sense that it directs the right understanding of Scripture, the right administration of the sacraments, and the preservation of sacred rites in the purity of their original institution. Tradition must be kept in so far as it is in conformity with the divine revelation and the Holy Scripture.

In the later sections of the Catechism where it speaks of the church, the infallibility of the church is professed and acknowledged, as she is given and promised the guidance and assistance of the Holy Spirit. It should be added that in the whole course of the Catechism abundant references to Scripture are given, and proof-texts are quoted. References to tradition are comparatively rare. The most important of them are precisely in the chapter on tradition itself: a quotation from St. Irenaeus and a lengthy passage from St. Basil’s On The Holy Spirit, chapter 27.

The Large Catechism is not a "symbolical book" in the technical sense, as the term is used in the West. Yet, it is an authoritative exposition of Orthodox faith, approved by the Holy Synod of the Russian Church and intended for the general instruction of believers. It was drafted by the greatest Russian theologian of the last century, Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. It is safe, therefore, to take the statements of the Catechism as the starting point of presentation of the Orthodox conception of Scripture and Tradition, in their essence and in their mutual relationship.

The term tradition is used in the Catechism only in order to clarify the manner of propagating and preserving divine revelation. It is the paradosis, the handing down of what God chose to disclose and communicate to men. It is not a particular "source" of truth or doctrine. Revelation is adequately recorded in Scripture. But Scripture is, as it were, "stored" or "deposited" in the church. On the other hand, tradition is equated with the mind and continuous memory of the church. And in this sense it is the guiding principle and criterion of scriptural interpretation. Accordingly, tradition does not and cannot add anything to Scripture, but only elicits what is contained in Holy Writ and puts it in the right perspective. The Scriptures "belong" to the church, are committed to her and not to individual believers. A faithful guide is required for true exegesis. The church catholic is that guide. Or in other words, Scripture is given and preserved in tradition. Tradition and Scripture are inseparable.

This approach to the problem of Scripture and tradition is itself traditional. In fact, it was the approach of the ancient church. St. Irenaeus and St. Basil were appropriately quoted in the Russian Catechism. The problem of correct exegesis was a burning issue in the ancient church during the struggle and contest with heresies. All parties in the dispute used to appeal to Scripture. Moreover, at that time exegesis was the main, and even the only, theological method, and the authority of Scripture was sovereign and supreme. The orthodox leaders were bound to raise the hermeneutical question: What was the principle of interpretation? Now, in the second century the term "Scripture" still denoted primarily the Old Testament. It was in this same century that the authority of the Old Testament was sharply and radically challenged, and actually rejected, by Marcion. The unity of the Bible had to be proved and vindicated. What was the basis and the warrant of a Christian and christological understanding of "prophecy," that is, of the Old Testament? It was in this historic situation that the authority of tradition was first invoked.

Scripture belonged to the church, and it was only in the church, within the community of right faith, that Scripture could be adequately understood and correctly interpreted. Heretics, namely, those outside of the church, had no key to the mind of the Scripture. It was not enough simply to quote scriptural words and texts (the "letter"). Rather, the true meaning of Scripture, taken as an integrated whole, had to be grasped and elicited. In the admirable phrase of St. Hilary of Poitiers, "scripturae enim non in legendo sunt, sed in intelligendo." The phrase was also repeated by St. Jerome. One had to grasp in advance, as it were, the true pattern of scriptural revelation, the great and comprehensive design of God's redemptive providence (the oeconomia), and this could be done only by an insight of faith. It was by faith that the witness to Christ could be discerned in the Old Testament. It was by faith that the unity of the tetramorphic gospel could be properly ascertained.

Now, this faith was not an arbitrary and subjective insight of individuals; it was the faith of the church, rooted in the apostolic message or kerygma and authenticated by it. Those outside of the church, that is, outside of her living and apostolic tradition, failed to have precisely this basic and overarching message, the very heart of the gospel. With them Scripture was an array of disconnected passages and stories or of proof-texts which they endeavored to arrange and re-arrange according to their own pattern, derived from alien sources. They had "another faith."

III

This was the main method and the main argument of Tertullian in his passionate treatise De praescriptione. He could not discuss Scriptures with heretics, with those outside the communion of apostolic faith. For they had no right to use the Scriptures: the Scriptures did not belong to them. They were the possession of the church. Tertullian emphatically insisted on the priority of the "rule of faith." It was the only key to the Scriptures, the indispensable prerequisite of authentic biblical interpretation. And this rule was apostolic; it was rooted in and derived from the original apostolic preaching. The New Testament itself had to be taken in the comprehensive context of the total apostolic preaching, which was still vividly remembered in the church.

The basic intention of this appeal to the apostolic "rule of faith" in the early church is obvious. When Christians spoke of the "rule of faith" as apostolic, they did not mean that the apostles had formulated it. What they meant was that the profession of belief which every catechumen recited before his baptism did embody in summary form the faith which the apostles had taught and had committed to their disciples after them. This profession of faith was the same everywhere, although the actual phrasing could vary from place to place. It was always intimately related to the baptismal formula itself (Cf. C. H. Turner). Apart from this "rule" the Scriptures could only be misinterpreted, contended Tertullian and St. Irenaeus a bit earlier.

The apostolic tradition of faith was the indispensable guide in the understanding of Scripture and the ultimate warrant of right interpretation. The church was not an external authority which could be the judge over Scripture, but was rather the keeper and guardian of that divine truth which has been stored and deposited in Holy Writ. The "rule of faith," of which the early church fathers spoke, was intimately related to the sacrament of Christian initiation. It was the "rule" to which believers are committed (and into which they were previously initiated) by their baptismal profession. On the other hand, this "rule" was nothing other than the "truth" which the apostles had deposited in the church and entrusted to her, to be continuously handed down by the succession of accredited pastors, under the abiding guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The image of the church as a "treasury of truth" comes from St. Irenaeus. The treasure is indeed the Scripture, but also the living faith by which the mystery of the Scripture is assessed. Tradition in the early church was, first of all, a hermeneutical principle and method. Scripture could be rightly and fully comprehended only in the light and in the context of the living apostolic tradition, which was an integral factor of Christian existence. It was so not because tradition could add anything to what has been manifested in the Scripture, but because it provided that living context, the comprehensive perspective, in which alone the true intention and the total design of the Holy Writ, and especially of the divine revelation itself, could be adequately grasped and acknowledged. The Christian truth was, in the phrase of St. Irenaeus, a "well-grounded system," a corpus veritatis, or a "harmonious melody." And it was precisely this harmony that could be apprehended by faith alone. The apostolic tradition, as it was maintained and understood in the early church, was not a fixed core or complex of binding propositions, but rather an insight into the meaning and power of the revelatory events, of the revelation of the "God who acts" and has acted.

The situation did not change in the fourth century. The dispute with the Arians was centered again in the exegetical field, at least in its early phase. The Arians and their supporters had produced an impressive array of scriptural texts in defense of their doctrinal position. They wanted to restrict theological discussion to the biblical ground alone. Their claim had to be met precisely on this ground. Their exegetical method was much the same as that of the earlier dissenters. They were operating with selected proof-texts, without much concern for the total context of revelation. It was imperative for the orthodox to appeal to the mind of the church, to that "faith" which had been once delivered and then faithfully kept. This was the chief concern and the usual method of the great Athanasius. In his arguments he persistently invoked the "rule of faith," much in the same manner as it had been done by the fathers of the second century.

Only the "rule of faith" allows the theologian to grasp the true intention of Holy Scripture, the scopos, the genuine design and intent of the revelation. The "scope" of the faith or the Scriptures was precisely their credal core, which was condensed in the "rule of faith," as this had been handed down and transmitted "from fathers to fathers." In contrast, the Arians had "no fathers" to support their doctrinal claims. Their blasphemy was a sheer innovation totally alien to apostolic tradition and to the overarching message of the Bible. St. Athanasius regarded this traditional "rule of faith" as the norm and ultimate principle of interpretation, opposing "the ecclesiastical sense" to "the private opinions" of the heretics. Indeed, for him Scripture was an adequate and sufficient source of doctrine, sacred and inspired. Only it had to be properly interpreted in the context of the living credal tradition, under the guidance and control of the "rule of faith."

Moreover, this "rule" was in no sense an extraneous authority which could be imposed on the Holy Writ. It was, in fact, the same apostolic preaching which had been deposited in writing in the books of the New Testament. But it was, as it were, this preaching in epitome, Sometimes Athanasius described the Scripture itself as an apostolic paradosis. In the whole discussion with the Arians there is no single reference to any "traditions" in the plural. The only appeal is to Tradition. "Let us look at that very tradition, teaching and faith of the cathlolic church from the very beginning, which the Lord handed down, the apostles preached and the fathers preserved. Upon this the church is established." (St. Athanasius, ad Serap., T. 28). Thus, he teaches that "tradition" is even more than apostolic; it is dominical coming from the Lord Himself.

The first reference to "unwritten traditions" is to be found in the famous treatise of St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit; And, at first glance, it may seem as if St. Basil admitted a double authority and double standard — unwritten traditions alongside of the Scriptures. The fact is however, that he is far from doing so. His terminology is peculiar. His main distnction is between kerygmata and dogmata. In his phraseology, kerygmata are precisely what in the later terminology was denoted as doctrine, that is, formal and authoritative teaching and ruling in matters of faith or the public teaching. On the other hand, dogmata are the total complex of "unwritten habits" — in fact, the total structure of liturgical and sacramental life. These "habits" were handed down, says St. Basil, en mysterio. It would be a flagrant mistranslation if we took these words to mean "in secret." The only accurate rendering is: "by way of mysteries." This means, under the form of rites and liturgical usages. Indeed, all the examples which St. Basil cites in this connection are ritual and symbolic. These rites and symbols are means of communication. In a sense they are extra-scriptural. But their purpose is to impart to the candidates for baptism the "rule of faith" and prepare them for their baptismal profession of faith. St. Basil's appeal to these "unwritten habits" was no more than an appeal to the faith of the church, to her sensus catholicus. He had to break the deadlock created by the obstinate and narrow-minded pseudo-biblicism of his Arian, or Eunomian, opponents. And he pleaded that, apart from this "unwritten" rule of faith, expressed in sacramental rites and habits, it was impossible to grasp the true intention of the Scripture.

To conclude this brief excursus on the ancient tradition we should mention St. Vincent of Lerins and his famous Commonitorium. Sometimes it is asserted that Vincent admitted the double authority of Scripture and Tradition. Actually he held the opposite view. Indeed, the true faith could be recognized, according toVincent, in a double manner, duplici modo, that is, by the authority of the divine law (i.e. Scripture) and by ecclesiastical tradition. This does not imply, however, that there are two sources of Christian doctrine. The "rule" of Scripture was for St. Vincent "perfect and self-sufficient." Why then was it imperative to invoke also the "authority of ecclesiastical understanding," (ecclesiasticae intelligentiae auctoritas)? The reason is obvious: Scripture was variously interpreted and twisted by individual writers for their subjective purposes. And to this confusing variety of discordant interpretations and private opinions, St. Vincent opposes the mind of the church catholic (ut propheticae et apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum ecclesiastici et catholici sensus normam derigatur). Thus tradition for St. Vincent is not an independent instance nor a complementary source of doctrine. It is no more than Scripture being interpreted according to the catholic mind of the church, which is the guardian of the apostolic "rule of faith." St. Vincent repeats and summarizes the continuous attitude of the ancient church on this matter. Scripture is an adequate source of doctrine: ad omnia satis superque sufficiat. Tradition is the authentic guide in interpretation, providing the context and perspective in which Scripture discloses its genuine message.

The Orthodox Church is faithfully committed to this ancient and traditional view on the sources of Christian doctrine. Scripture is an adequate source. But only in so far as it is read and interpreted in the church which is the guardian both of the Holy Writ and of the total apostolic paradosis of faith, order and life. Tradition alone allows the church to go beyond the "letter" to the very Word of Life.

Metr. St. Philaret of Moscow on Christian Education

2007-02-13T15:09:00.000-05:00

It is very true that the gift and the duty to teach are not everybody's lot, and rare are those whom the Church has honoured with the name of Theologian. However, it is not permissible to anyone in Christianity to know nothing at all and to remain ignorant. Was not the Lord Himself called Master, and did He not call His followers disciples? Christians, before they assumed this title, bore the name of disciples. Would these terms be vain or meaningless? And why did the Lord send Apostles into the world? It was first and foremost to teach all nations... If you refuse to teach or to learn within Christianity, you are not disciples of Christ and you do not follow Him; the Apostles were not sent for you; you are not what all Christians were from the very beginning of Christianity. I do not know what you are, nor what shall become of you.

(Sermon preached in 1841, on the feast of St. Alexis)

The Lost Scriptural Mind

2007-02-13T09:06:00.000-05:00

by Fr. Georges Florovsky

“As the Truth is in Jesus” (Eph 4:21)

Christian ministers are not supposed to preach their private opinions, at least from the pulpit. Ministers are commissioned and ordained in the church precisely to preach the Word of God. They are given some fixed terms of reference — namely, the gospel of Jesus Christ — and they are committed to this sole and perennial message. They are expected to propagate and to sustain “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Of course, the Word of God must be preached “efficiently.” That is, it should always be so presented as to carry conviction and command the allegiance of every new generation and every particular group. It may be restated in new categories, if the circumstances require. But, above all, the identity of the message must be preserved.

One has to be sure that one is preaching the same gospel that was delivered and that one is not introducing instead any “strange gospel” of his own. The Word of God cannot be easily adjusted or accommodated to the fleeting customs and attitudes of any particular age, including our own time. Unfortunately, we are often inclined to measure the Word of God by our own stature, instead of checking our mind by the stature of Christ. The “modern mind” also stands under the judgment of the Word of God.

Modern Man and Scripture

But it is precisely at this point that our major difficulty begins. Most of us have lost the integrity of the scriptural mind, even if some bits of biblical phraseology are retained. The modern man often complains that the truth of God is offered to him in an “archaic idiom” — i.e., in the language of the Bible — which is no more his own and cannot be used spontaneously. It has recently been suggested that we should radically “demythologize” Scripture, meaning to replace the antiquated categories of the Holy Writ by something more modern. Yet the question cannot be evaded: Is the language of Scripture really nothing else than an accidental and external wrapping out of which some “eternal idea” is to be extricated and disentangled, or is it rather a perennial vehicle of the divine message, which was once delivered for all time?

We are in danger of losing the uniqueness of the Word of God in the process of continuous “reinterpretation.” But how can we interpret at all if we have forgotten the original language? Would it not be safer to bend our thought to the mental habits of the biblical language and to relearn the idiom of the Bible? No man can receive the gospel unless he repents — “changes his mind.” For in the language of the gospel “repentance” (metanoeite) does not mean merely acknowledgment of and contrition for sins, but precisely a “change of mind” — a profound change of man's mental and emotional attitude, an integral renewal of man's self, which begins in his self-renunciation and is accomplished and sealed by the Spirit.

We are living now in an age of intellectual chaos and disintegration. Possibly modern man has not yet made up his mind, and the variety of opinions is beyond any hope of reconciliation. Probably the only luminous signpost we have to guide us through the mental fog of our desperate age is just the “faith which was once delivered unto the saints,” obsolete or archaic as the idiom of the Early Church may seem to be, judged by our fleeting standards.

Preach the Creeds!

What, then, are we going to preach? What would I preach to my contemporaries “in a time such as this?” There is no room for hesitation: I am going to preach Jesus, and him crucified and risen. I am going to preach and to commend to all whom I may be called to address the message of salvation, as it has been handed down to me by an uninterrupted tradition of the Church Universal. I would not isolate myself in my own age. In other words, I am going to preach the “doctrines of the creed.”

I am fully aware that creeds are a stumbling block for many in our own generation. “The creeds are venerable symbols, like the tattered flags upon the walls of national churches; but for the present warfare of the church in Asia, in Africa, in Europe and America the creeds, when they are understood, are about as serviceable as a battle-ax or an arquebus in the hands of a modern soldier.” This was written some years ago by a prominent British scholar who is a devout minister too. Possibly he would not write them today. But there are still many who would wholeheartedly make this vigorous statement their own. Let us remember, however, that the early creeds were deliberately scriptural, and it is precisely their scriptural phraseology that makes them difficult for the modern man.

Thus we face the same problem again: What can we offer instead of Holy Scripture? I would prefer the language of the Tradition, not because of a lazy and credulous “conservatism” or a blind “obedience” to some external “authorities,” but simply because I cannot find any better phraseology. I am prepared to expose myself to the inevitable charge of being “antiquarian” and “fundamentalist.” And I would protest that such a charge is gratuitous and wrong. I do keep and hold the “doctrines of the creed,” conscientiously and wholeheartedly, because I apprehend by faith their perennial adequacy and relevance to all ages and to all situations, including “a time such as this.” And I believe it is precisely the “doctrines of the creed” that can enable a desperate generation like ours to regain Christian courage and vision.

The Tradition Lives

“The church is neither a museum of dead deposits nor a society of research.” The deposits are alive — depositum juvenescens, to use the phrase of St. Irenaeus. The creed is not a relic of the past, but rather the “sword of the Spirit.” The reconversion of the world to Christianity is what we have to preach in our day. This is the only way out of that impasse into which the world has been driven by the failure of Christians to be truly Christian. Obviously, Christian doctrine does not answer directly any practical question in the field of politics or economics. Neither does the gospel of Christ. Yet its impact on the whole course of human history has been enormous. The recognition of human dignity, mercy and justice roots in the gospel. The new world can be built only by a new man.

What Chalcedon Meant

“And was made man.” What is the ultimate connotation of this creedal statement? Or, in other words, who was Jesus, the Christ and the Lord? What does it mean, in the language of the Council of Chalcedon, that the same Jesus was “perfect man” and “perfect God,” yet a single and unique personality? “Modern man” is usually very critical of that definition of Chalcedon. It fails to convey any meaning to him. The “imagery” of the creed is for him nothing more than a piece of poetry, if anything at all. The whole approach, I think, is wrong. The “definition” of Chalcedon is not a metaphysical statement, and was never meant to be treated as such. Nor was the mystery of the Incarnation just a “metaphysical miracle.” The formula of Chalcedon was a statement of faith, and therefore cannot be understood when taken out of the total experience of the church. In fact, it is an “existential statement.”

Chalcedon's formula is, as it were, an intellectual contour of the mystery which is apprehended by faith. Our Redeemer is not a man, but God himself. Here lies the existential emphasis of the statement. Our Redeemer is one who “came down” and who, by “being made man,” identified himself with men in the fellowship of a truly human life and nature. Not only the initiative was divine, but the Captain of Salvation was a divine Person. The fullness of the human nature of Christ means simply the adequacy and truth of this redeeming identification. God enters human history and becomes a historical person.

This sounds paradoxical. Indeed there is a mystery: “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifested in the flesh.” But this mystery was a revelation; the true character of God had been disclosed in the Incarnation. God was so much and so intimately concerned with the destiny of man (and precisely with the destiny of every one of “the little ones”) as to intervene in person in the chaos and misery of the lost life. The divine providence therefore is not merely an omnipotent ruling of the universe from an august distance by the divine majesty, but a kenosis, a “self-humiliation” of the God of glory. There is a personal relationship between God and man.

Tragedy in a New Light

The whole of the human tragedy appears therefore in a new light. The mystery of the Incarnation was a mystery of the love divine, of the divine identification with lost man. And the climax of Incarnation was the cross. It is the turning point of human destiny. But the awful mystery of the cross is comprehensible only in the wider perspective of an integral Christology; that is, only if we believe that the Crucified was in very truth “'the Son of the living God.” The death of Christ was God's entrance into the misery of human death (again in person), a descent into Hades, and this meant the end of death and the inauguration of life everlasting for man.

There is an amazing coherence in the body of the traditional doctrine. But it can be apprehended and understood only in the living context of faith, by which I mean in a personal communion with the personal God. Faith alone makes formulas convincing; faith alone makes formulas live. “It seems paradoxical, yet it is the experience of all observers of spiritual things: no one profits by the Gospels unless he be first in love with Christ.” For Christ is not a text but a living Person, and he abides in his body, the church.

A New Nestorianism

It may seem ridiculous to suggest that one should preach the doctrine of Chalcedon “in a time such as this.” Yet it is precisely this doctrine — that reality to which this doctrine bears witness — that can change the whole spiritual outlook of modern man. It brings him a true freedom. Man is not alone in this world, and God is taking personal interest in the events of human history. This is an immediate implication of the integral conception of the Incarnation. It is an illusion that the Christological disputes of the past are irrelevant to the contemporary situation. In fact, they are continued and repeated in the controversies of our own age. Modern man, deliberately or subconsciously, is tempted by the Nestorian extreme. That is to say, he does not take the Incarnation in earnest. He does not dare to believe that Christ is a divine person. He wants to have a human redeemer, only assisted by God. He is more interested in human psychology of the Redeemer than in the mystery of the divine love. Because, in the last resort, he believes optimistically in the dignity of man.

A New Monophysitism

On the other extreme we have in our days a revival of “monophysite” tendencies in theology and religion, when man is reduced to complete passivity and is allowed only to listen and to hope. The present tension between “liberalism” and “neo-orthodoxy” is in fact a re-enactment of the old Christological struggle, on a new existential level and in a new spiritual key. The conflict will never be settled or solved in the field of theology, unless a wider vision is acquired.

In the early church the preaching was emphatically theological. It was not a vain speculation. The New Testament itself is a theological book. Neglect of theology in the instruction given to laity in modern times is responsible both for the decay of personal religion and for that sense of frustration which dominates the modern mood. What we need in Christendom “in a time such as this” is precisely a sound and existential theology. In fact, both clergy and the laity are hungry for theology. And because no theology is usually preached, they adopt some “strange ideologies” and combine them with the fragments of traditional beliefs. The whole appeal of the “rival gospel” in our days is that they offer some sort of pseudo theology, a system of pseudo dogmas. They are gladly accepted by those who cannot find any theology in the reduced Christianity of “modern” style. That existential alternative which many face in our days has been aptly formulated by an English theologian, “Dogma or… death.” The age of a-dogmatism and pragmatism has closed. And therefore the ministers of the church have to preach again doctrines and dogmas — the Word of God.

The Modern Crisis

The first task of the contemporary preacher is the “reconstruction of belief.” It is by no means an intellectual endeavor. Belief is just the map of the true world, and should not be mistaken for reality. Modern man has been too much concerned with his own ideas and convictions, his own attitudes and reactions. The modern crisis precipitated by humanism (an undeniable fact) has been brought about by the rediscovery of the real world, in which we do believe. The rediscovery of the church is the most decisive aspect of this new spiritual realism. Reality is no more screened from us by the wall of our own ideas. It is again accessible. It is again realized that the church is not just a company of believers, but the “Body of Christ.” This is a rediscovery of a new dimension, a rediscovery of the continuing presence of the divine Redeemer in the midst of his faithful flock. This discovery throws a new flood of light on the misery of our disintegrated existence in a world thoroughly secularized. It is already recognized by many that the true solution of all social problems lies somehow in the reconstruction of the church. “In a time such as this” one has to preach the “whole Christ,” Christ and the church — totus Christus, caput et corpus, to use the famous phrase of St. Augustine. Possibly this preaching is still unusual, but it seems to be the only way to preach the Word of God efficiently in a period of doom and despair like ours.

The Relevance of the Fathers

I have often a strange feeling. When I read the ancient classics of Christian theology, the fathers of the church, I find them more relevant to the troubles and problems of my own time than the production of modern theologians. The fathers were wrestling with existential problems, with those revelations of the eternal issues which were described and recorded in Holy Scripture. I would risk a suggestion that St. Athanasius and St. Augustine are much more up to date than many of our theological contemporaries. The reason is very simple: they were dealing with things and not with the maps, they were concerned not so much with what man can believe as with what God had done for man. We have, “in a time such as this,” to enlarge our perspective, to acknowledge the masters of old, and to attempt for our own age an existential synthesis of Christian experience.

“The Lost Scriptural Mind” originally appeared in the December 19, 1951 issue of The Christian Century as “As the Truth is in Jesus.” Copyright by The Christian Century Foundation.

Items of Interest - Week of the Prodigal Son 2007

2007-02-10T07:36:00.000-05:00

An Open Letter to the Holy Abbots and the Holy Representatives of the Sacred Twenty Monasteries in the Holy Community of the Holy Mount Athos
The Hagiorites are informing us that the time has come to openly confess our faith in defence of the Doctrine concerning The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. All Orthodox Christians are responsible for the preservation and spread of Holy Orthodoxy.

Concerning the Intercommunion that Took Place in Ravenna, 2002
An Article by Fr. Theodore Zisis and exchange of letters between Archimandrite George of Gregoriou, Archbishop Anastasios of Tirana, and others.

Men Without Chests—A World Without Morality
Gary DeMar responds to his free copy of Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation.

Ruminating Romans: 3:21-31
Fr. Al Kimel (Roman Catholic) meditates on the insights of N.T. Wright, Anglican Bishop of Durham.

Are Protestants Heretics?
by Edward T. Oakes, S.J. A Jesuit considers the meaning of heresy in First Things. This was followed by On Heresy: A Final Word (Until the March Issue of First Things).

Congratulations, Blogosphere!
Julia Gorin rebukes the conservative blogosphere for its failure to tell the truth about the Balkans

Julia's National Post Rebuttal
"As we face a unified Europe, and in light of Western policies in the Balkans turning history on its ear--supporting a Nazi Renaissance regime and a Bosnian jihad that gave birth to al-Qaeda as a global network (9/11 Commission Report finding)--isn’t a reevaluation of our approach to this region called for?"

Vote for Edwards, Godbag Christofascists!
by Mary Katherine Ham. How Hateful Bloggers Made a Hot Mess for John Edwards.

The Morality of Rising Inequality
by Tim Worstall. "Globalization is increasing relative poverty in the rich countries, while at the same time abolishing absolute poverty in the poor ones."

The Descent of Christ into Hades in Eastern and Western Theological Traditions

2007-02-08T20:01:00.000-05:00

by Bishop Hilarion (Alfeyev) of Vienna and Austria, Patriarchate of Moscow

A lecture delivered at St Mary’s Cathedral, Minneapolis, USA, on 5 November 2002

The Byzantine and old Russian icons of the Resurrection of Christ never depict the resurrection itself, i.e., Christ coming out of the grave. They rather depict ‘the descent of Christ into Hades’, or to be more precise, the rising of Christ out of hell. Christ, sometimes with a cross in his hand, is represented as raising Adam, Eve and other personages of the biblical history from hell. Under the Saviour’s feet is the black abyss of the nether world; against its background are castles, locks and debris of the gates which once barred the way of the dead to resurrection. Though other motifs have also been used in creating the image of the Resurrection of Christ in the last several centuries[1], the above-described iconographic type is considered to be canonical, as it reflects the traditional teaching on the descent of Christ to hell, His victory over death, His raising of the dead and delivering them from hell where they were imprisoned before His Resurrection. It is to this teaching as an integral part of the dogmatic and liturgical tradition of the Christian Church that this paper is devoted.

The descent of Christ into Hades is one of the most mysterious, enigmatic and inexplicable events in New Testament history. In today’s Christian world, this event is understood differently. Liberal Western theology rejects altogether any possibility for speaking of the descent of Christ into Hades literally, arguing that the scriptural texts on this theme should be understood metaphorically. The traditional Catholic doctrine insists that after His death on the cross Christ descended to hell only to deliver the Old Testament righteous from it. A similar understanding is quite widespread among Orthodox Christians.

On the other hand, the New Testament speaks of the preaching of Christ in hell as addressed to the unrepentant sinners: ‘For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirit in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited’[2]. However, many Church Fathers and liturgical texts of the Orthodox Church repeatedly underline that having descended to hell, Christ opened the way to salvation for all people, not only the Old Testament righteous. The descent of Christ into Hades is perceived as an event of cosmic significance involving all people without exception. They also speak about the victory of Christ over death, the full devastation of hell and that after the descent of Christ into Hades there was nobody left there except for the devil and demons.

How can these two points of view be reconciled? What was the original faith of the Church? What do early Christian sources tell us about the descent into Hades? And what is the soteriological significance of the descent of Christ into Hades?

1. Eastern theological tradition

We come across references to the descent of Christ into Hades and His raising the dead in the works of Eastern Christian authors of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, such as Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch, Hermas, Justin, Melito of Sardes, Hyppolitus of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria and Origen. In the 4th century, the descent to hell was discussed by Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzen, John Chrysostom, as well as such Syrian authors as Jacob Aphrahat and Ephrem the Syrian. Noteworthy among later authors who wrote on this theme are Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor and John Damascene.

Let us look at the most vivid interpretations given to our theme in Eastern Christian theology.

The teaching on the descent of Christ into Hades was expounded quite fully by Clement of Alexandria in his ‘Stromateis’[3]. He argued that Christ preached in hell not only to the Old Testament righteous, but also to the Gentiles who lived outside the true faith. Commenting on 1 Pet. 3:18-21, Clement expresses the conviction that the preaching of Christ was addressed to all those in hell who were able to believe in Christ:

Do not [the Scriptures] show that the Lord preached the Gospel to those that perished in the flood, or rather had been chained, and to those kept ‘in ward and guard’?… And, as I think, the Saviour also exerts His might because it is His work to save; which accordingly He also did by drawing to salvation those who became willing, by the preaching [of the Gospel], to believe on Him, wherever they were. If, then, the Lord descended to Hades for no other end but to preach the Gospel, as He did descend, it was either to preach the Gospel to all or to the Hebrews only. If, accordingly, to all, then all who believe shall be saved[4], although they may be of the Gentiles, on making their profession there…[5]

Clement emphasises that there are righteous people among both those who have the true faith and the Gentiles and that it is possible to turn to God for those who did not believe in Him while living. It is their virtuous life that made them capable of accepting the preaching of Christ and the apostles in hell:

...A righteous man, then, differs not, as righteous, from another righteous man, whether he be of the Law [Jew] or a Greek. For God is not only Lord of the Jews, but of all men[6]... So I think it is demonstrated that God, being good, and the Lord powerful, save with a righteousness and equality which extend to all that turn to Him, whether here or elsewhere[7].

According to Clement, righteousness is of value not only for those who live in true faith, but also for those who are outside faith. It is evident from his words that Christ preached in hell to all, but saved only those who came to believe in Him. Anyway, Clement assumes that this preaching proved salutory not for all to whom Christ preached in hell: ‘Did not the same dispensation obtain in Hades, so that even there, all the souls, on hearing the proclamation, might either exhibit repentance, or confess that their punishment was just, because they believed not?’[8] According to Clement, there were those in hell who heard the preaching of Christ but did not believe in Him and did not follow Him.

In Clement’s works we find the notion that punishments sent from God to sinners are aimed at their reformation, not at retribution, and that the souls released from their corporal shells are better able to understand the meaning of punishment[9]. In these words lies the nucleus of the teaching on the purifying and saving nature of the torment of hell developed by some later authors[10] . We will come back to the question of whether the pains of hell can be salutory when considering the teaching of Maximus the Confessor on the descent of Christ into Hades. An exhaustive discussion on this question, though, is beyond the scope of this paper.

Gregory of Nyssa entwines the theme of the descent in hell with the theory of ‘divine deception’. On the latter he builds his teaching on the Redemption. According to this theory, Christ, being God incarnate, deliberately concealed His divine nature from the devil so that he, mistaking Him for an ordinary man, would not be terrified at the sight of an overwhelming power approaching him. When Christ descended in hell, the devil supposed Him to be a human being, but this was a divine ‘hook’ disguised under a human ‘bait’ that the devil swallowed[11] . By admitting God incarnate into his domain, the devil himself signed his own death warrant: incapable of enduring the divine presence, he was overcome and defeated, and hell was destroyed.

This is precisely the idea that Gregory of Nyssa developed in one of his Easter sermons on ‘The Three-Day Period of the Resurrection of Christ’. Judging by its contents, this homily was intended for Holy Saturday[12], and in it Gregory poses the question of why Christ spent three days ‘in the heart of the earth’[13]. This period was necessary and sufficient, he argues, for Christ to ‘expose the foolishness’ (moranai) of the devil[14], i.e, to outwit, ridicule and deceive him[15]. How did Christ manage to ‘outwit’ the devil? Gregory gives the following reply to this question:

As the ruler of darkness could not approach the presence of the Light unimpeded, had he not seen in Him something of flesh, then, as soon as he saw the God-bearing flesh and saw the miracle performed through it by the Deity, he hoped that if he came to take hold of the flesh through death, then he would take hold of all the power contained in it. Therefore, having swallowed the bait of the flesh, he was pierced by the hook of the Deity and thus the dragon was transfixed by the hook.[16]

A very original approach to the theme of the descent to Hades is found in a book entitled ‘Spiritual Homilies’ which has survived under the name of Macarius of Egypt. There, the liberation of Adam by Christ, Who descended into Hades, is seen as the prototype of the mystical resurrection which the soul experiences in its encounter with the Lord:

When you hear that the Lord in the old days delivered souls from hell and prison and that He descended into hell and performed a glorious deed, do not think that all these events are far from your soul… So the Lord comes into the souls that seek Him, into the depth of the heart’s hell, and there commands death, saying: ‘Release the imprisoned souls which have sought Me and which you hold by force’. And He shatters the heavy stones weighing on the soul, opens graves, raises the true dead from death, brings the imprisoned soul from the dark prison… Is it difficult for God to enter death and, even more, into the depth of the heart and to call out dead Adam from there?… If the sun, being created, passes everywhere through windows and doors, even to the caves of lions and the holes of creeping creatures, and comes out without any harm, the more so does God and the Lord of everything enter caves and abodes in which death has settled, and also souls, and, having released Adam from there, [remains] unfettered by death. Similarly, rain coming down from the sky reaches the nethermost parts of the earth, moistens and renews the roots there and gives birth to new shoots[17].

This text is significant first of all in that the author regards the descent of Christ into Hades as a commonly accepted and undisputed dogma, which he uses as a solid foundation on which to build his mystical and typological construction. The use of the images of the sun rising over both the evil and the good, and rain sent upon both the righteous and the unrighteous[18], indicates that the author of the ‘Homilies’ perceives the descent into Hades as a reality affecting not only the Old Testament righteous, but also entire humanity. Moreover, it affects every person and inner processes which take place in the human soul. For the author of the ‘Homilies’, the doctrine of the descent into Hades is not an abstract truth, nor is it an event which occurred in the days of old and which affected only those who lived at that time, but it is an event which has not lost its relevance. It is not just one of the fundamental Christian doctrines, not just a subject of faith and confession, but a mystery associated with the mystical life of the Christian, a mystery which one should experience in the depth of one’s heart.

The doctrine of the descent of Christ into Hades occupies an essential place in the works of Cyril of Alexandria. In his ‘Paschal Homilies’, he repeatedly mentions that as a consequence of the descent of Christ into Hades, the devil was left all alone, while hell was devastated: ‘For having destroyed hell and opened the impassable gates for the departed spirits, He left the devil there abandoned and lonely’[19].

In his ‘Festive Letters’, Cyril of Alexandria elaborates on the theme of the preaching of Christ in Hades, popular in the Alexandrian tradition since Clement. He views the preaching of Christ in hell as the accomplishment of the ‘history of salvation’, which began with the Incarnation:

…He showed the way to salvation not only to us, but also to the spirits in hell; having descended, He preached to those once disobedient, as Peter says[20]. For it did not befit for love of man to be partial, but the manifestation of [this] gift should have been extended to all nature… Having preached to the spirits in hell and having said ‘go forth’ to the prisoners, and ‘show yourselves’[21] to those in prison on the third day, He resurrected His temple and again opens up to our nature the ascent to heaven, bringing Himself to the Father as the beginning of humanity, pledging to those on earth the grace of communion of the Spirit[22].

As we can see, Cyril emphasises the universality of the salvation given by Christ to humanity, perceiving the descent of Christ into Hades as salvific for the entire human race. He is not inclined to limit salvation to a particular part of humanity, such as the Old Testament righteous. Salvation is likened to rain sent by God on both the just and the unjust[23]. Putting emphasis on the universality of the saving feat of Christ, Cyril follows in the steps of other Alexandrian theologians, beginning with Clement, Origen, and Athanasius the Great[24]. The descent of Christ into Hades, according to Cyril’s teaching, signified victory over that which previously appeared unconquerable and ensured the salvation of all humanity:

Death unwilling to be defeated is defeated; corruption is transformed; unconquerable passion is destroyed. While hell, diseased with excessive insatiability and never satisfied with the dead, is taught, even if against its will, that which it could not learn previously. For it not only ceases to claim those who are still to fall [in the future], but also lets free those already captured, being subjected to splendid devastation by the power of our Saviour... Having preached to the spirits in hell, once disobedient, He came out as conqueror by resurrecting His temple like a beginning of our hope and by showing to [our] nature the manner of the raising from the dead, and giving us along with it other blessings as well[25].

Clearly, Cyril perceived the victory of Christ over hell and death as complete and definitive. According to Cyril, hell loses authority both over those who were in its power and those who are to become its prey in the future. Thus, the descent into Hades, a single and unique action, is perceived as a timeless event. The raised body of Christ becomes the guarantee of universal salvation, the beginning of way leading human nature to ultimate deification.

An elaborate teaching of the descent of Christ into Hades is found in Maximus the Confessor. In his analysis, Maximus takes as a starting point the words of St. Peter: ‘For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit’[26]. In Maximus’s view, St. Peter does not speak about the Old Testament righteous, but about those sinners who, back in their lifetime, were punished for their evil deeds:

Some say that Scriptures call ‘dead’ those who died before the coming of Christ, for instance, those who were at the time of the flood, at Babel, in Sodom, in Egypt, as well as others who in various times and in various ways received various punishments and the terrible misfortune of divine damnation. These people were punished not so much for their ignorance of God as for the offences they imposed on one another. It was to them, according to [St Peter] that the great message of salvation was preached when they were already damned as men in the flesh, that is, when they received, through life in the flesh, punishment for crimes against one another, so that they could live according to God by the spirit, that is, being in hell, they accepted the preaching of the knowledge of God, believing in the Saviour who descended into hell to save the dead. So, in order to understand [this] passage in [Holy Scriptures] let us take it in this way: the dead, damned in the human flesh, were preached to precisely for the purpose that they may live according to God by the spirit[27].

Thus, according to Maximus’s teaching, punishments suffered by sinners ‘in the human flesh’ were necessary so that they may live ‘according to God by the spirit’. Therefore, these punishments, whether troubles and misfortunes in their lifetime or pains in hell, had pedagogical and reforming significance. Moreover, Maximus stresses that in damning them, God used not so much a religious as a moral criterion, for people were punished ‘not so much for their ignorance of God as for the offences they imposed on one another’. In other words, the religious or ideological convictions of a particular person were not decisive, but his actions with regard to his neighbours.

In John Damascene we find lines which sum up the development of the theme of the descent of Christ into Hades in Eastern patristic writings of the 2nd-8th centuries:

The soul [of Christ] when it is deified descended into Hades, in order that, just as the Sun of Righteousness rose for those upon the earth, so likewise He might bring light[28] to those who sit under the earth in darkness and the shadow of death: in order that just as he brought the message of peace to those upon the earth, and of release to the prisoners, and of sight to the blind[29], and became to those who believed the Author of everlasting salvation and to those who did not believe, a denunciation of their unbelief, so He might become the same to those in Hades: That every knee should bow to Him, of things in heaven, and things in earth and things under the earth[30]. And thus after He had freed those who has been bound for ages, straightway He rose again from the dead, showing us the way of resurrection[31].

According to John Damascene, Christ preached to all those who were in hell, but His preaching did not prove salutary for all, as not all were capable of responding to it. For some it could become only ‘a denunciation of their disbelief’, not the cause of salvation. In this judgement, Damascene actually repeats the teaching on salvation articulated not long before him by Maximus the Confessor. According to Maximus, human history will be accomplished when all without exception will unite with God and God will become ‘all in all’[32]. For some, however, this unity will mean eternal bliss, while for others it will become the source of suffering and torment, as each will be united with God ‘according to the quality of his disposition’ towards God[33]. In other words, all will be united with God, but each will have his own, subjective, feeling of this unity, according to the measure of the closeness to God he has achieved. Along a similar line, John Damascene understands also the teaching on the descent to Hades: Christ opens the way to paradise to all and calls all to salvation, but the response to Christ’s call may lie in either consent to follow Him or voluntary rejection of salvation. Ultimately it depends on a person, on his free choice. God does not save anybody by force, but calls everybody to salvation: ‘Behold, I stand at the door, and knock; if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him’[34]. God knocks at the door of the human heart rather than breaks into it.

In the history of Christianity an idea has repeatedly arisen that God predestines some people for salvation and others to perdition. This idea, based as it is on the literary understanding of the words of St. Paul about predestination, calling and justification[35], became the corner-stone of the theological system of the Reformation, preached with particular consistency by John Calvin[36]. Eleven centuries before Calvin, the Eastern Christian tradition in the person of John Chrysostom expressed its view of predestination and calling. ‘Why are not all saved?’ Chrysostom asks. ‘Because… not only the call [of God] but also the will of those called is the cause of their salvation. This call is not coercive or forcible. Every one was called, but not all followed the call’[37]. Later Fathers, including Maximus and John Damascene, spoke in the same spirit. According to their teaching, it is not God who saves some while ruining others, but some people follow the call of God to salvation while others do not. It is not God who leads some from hell while leaving others behind, but some people wish while others do not wish to believe in Him.

The teaching of the Eastern Church Fathers on the descent of Christ into Hades can be summed up in the following points:

the doctrine of the descent of Christ into Hades was commonly accepted and indisputable;
the descent into Hades was perceived as an event of universal significance, though some authors limited the range of those saved by Christ to a particular category of the dead;
the descent of Christ into Hades and His resurrection were viewed as the accomplishment of the ‘economy’ of Christ the Saviour, as the crown and outcome of the feat He performed for the salvation of people;
the teaching on the victory of Christ over the devil, hell and death was finally articulated and asserted;
the theme of the descent into Hades began to be viewed in its mystical dimension, as the prototype of the resurrection of the human soul.

2. Western theological tradition

To what degree did the approach to this theme of the Fathers and Doctors of the Western Church differ from that of the Eastern Fathers? In order to answer this question, let us look at the works of the two most significant theologians of the Christian West, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

The Augustinian teaching on the descent of Christ into Hades is expounded in the fullest way in one of his letters addressed to Evodius. This letter contains a comprehensive interpretation of 1 Pet. 3:18-21. It follows from Evodius’ questions that the teaching on the evacuation of all in hell and the complete devastation of hell by the risen Christ was widespread in his time. Augustine begins with the question of whether Christ preached only to those who perished in the days of Noah or to all the imprisoned. In answering it, Augustine begins by refuting the opinion that Christ descended to Hades in the flesh[38] and argues that this teaching contradicts scriptural testimony[39].

Augustine continues by setting forth the view that Christ led from hell all those who were there, as, indeed, among them were ‘some who are intimately known to us by their literary labours, whose eloquence and talent we admire, - not only the poets and orators who in many parts of their writings have held up to contempt and ridicule these same false gods of the nations, and have even occasionally confessed the one true God…, but also those who have uttered the same, not in poetry or rhetoric, but as philosophers’[40]. The notion of the salvation of heathen poets, orators and philosophers was quite popular. In Eastern patristic tradition it was most vividly expressed by Clement of Alexandria. According to Augustine, however, any of the positive qualities of the ancient poets, orators and philosophers originated not from ‘sober and authentic devotion, but pride, vanity and [the desire] of people’s praise’. Therefore they ‘did not bring any fruit’. Thus, the idea that pagan poets, orators and philosophers could be saved, though not refuted by Augustine, still is not fully approved, since ‘human judgement’ differs from ‘the justice of the Creator’[41].

Augustine neither rejects nor accepts unconditionally the opinion concerning the salvation of all those in hell. Though very careful in his judgement, it is clear that the possibility of salvation for all in hell is blocked in his perception by his own teaching on predestination[42], as well as by his understanding of divine mercy and justice:

For the words of Scripture, that ‘the pains of hell were loosed’[43] by the death of Christ, do not establish this, seeing that this statement may be understood as referring to Himself, and meaning that he so far loosed (that is, made ineffectual) the pains of hell that He Himself was not held by them, especially since it is added that it was ‘impossible for Him to be holden of them’[44]. Or if any one [objecting to this interpretation] asks why He chose to descend into hell, where those pains were which could not possibly hold Him… the words that ‘the pains were loosed’ may be understood as referring not to the case of all, but only some whom He judged worthy of that deliverance; so that neither He supposed to have descended thither in vain, without the purpose of bringing benefit to any of those who were there held in prison, nor is it a necessary inference that divine mercy and justice granted to some must be supposed to have been granted to all[45].

While Augustine also considers the traditional teaching that Christ delivered from hell the forefather Adam, as well as Abel, Seth, Noah and his family, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob ‘and the other patriarchs and prophets’, he does not agree to it entirely, since he does not believe ‘Abraham’s bosom’ to be a part of hell. Those who were in the bosom of Abraham were not deprived of the gracious presence of the divinity of Christ, and therefore Christ, on the very day of His death immediately before descending to hell, promises to the wise thief that he will be in paradise with him[46]. ‘Most certainly, therefore, He was, before that time, both in paradise and the bosom of Abraham in His beatific wisdom (beatificante sapientia), and in hell in His condemning power (judicante potentia)’, concludes Augustine[47].

The opinion that through the death of Christ on the cross the righteous receive that promised incorruption which people are to achieve after the end of time is also refuted by Augustine. If it were so, then St. Peter would not have said about David that ‘his sepulchre is with us to this day’[48] unless David was still undisturbed in the sepulchre[49].

As for the teaching on Christ’s preaching in hell contained in 1 Pet. 3:18-21, Augustine rejects its traditional and commonly accepted understanding. First, he is not certain that it implies those who really departed his life, but rather those that are spiritually dead and did not believe in Christ. Secondly, he offers the quite novel idea that after Christ ascended from hell His recollection did not survive there. Therefore, the descent in Hades was a ‘one-time’ event relevant only to those who were in hell at that time. Thirdly and finally, Augustine rejects altogether any possibility for those who did not believe in Christ while on earth to come to believe in him while in hell, calling this idea ‘absurd’[50].

Augustine is not inclined to see in 1 Pet. 3:18-21 an indication of the descent into Hades. He believes that this text should be understood allegorically, i. e., ‘the spirits’ mentioned by Peter are essentially those who are clothed in body and imprisoned in ignorance. Christ did not come down to earth in the flesh in the days of Noah, but often came down to people in the spirit either to rebuke those who did not believe or to justify those who did. What happened in the days of Noah is a type of what happens today, and the flood was the precursor of baptism. Those who believe in our days are like whose who believed in the days of Noah: they are saved through baptism, just as Noah was saved through water. Those who do not believe are like those who did not believe in the days of Noah: the flood is the prototype of their destruciton[51].

Augustine is the first Latin author who gave so much close attention to the theme of the descent of Christ into Hades. However, he did not clarify the question of who was the object of Christ’s preaching in hell and whom Christ delivered from it. Augustine expressed many doubts about particular interpretations of 1 Pet. 3:18-21, but did not offer any convincing interpretation of his own. Nevertheless, the ideas expressed by him were developed by Western Church authors of the later period. Thomas Aquinas, in particular, makes continuous references to Augustine in his chapter devoted to the descent of Christ into Hades[52]. During the Reformation, many Augustinian ideas were criticised by theologians of the Protestant tradition. The teaching that the recollection of Christ did not survive in hell after His ascent was rejected by Lutheran theologians who insisted on the reverse[53].

Thomas Aquinas was the 13th-century theologian who brought to completion the Latin teaching on the descent of Christ into Hades. In his ‘Summa Theologiae’, he divides hell into four parts: 1) purgatory (purgatorium), where sinners experience penal suffering; 2) the hell of the patriarchs (infernum patrum), the abode of the Old Testament righteous before the coming of Christ; 3) the hell of unbaptized children (infernum puerorum); and 4) the hell of the damned (infernum damnatorum). In response to the question, exactly which was the hell that Christ descended to, Thomas Aquinas admits two possibilities: Christ descended either into all parts of hell or only to that in which the righteous were imprisoned, whom He was to deliver. In the first case, ‘for going down into the hell of the lost He wrought this effect, that by descending thither He put them to shame for their unbelief and wickedness: but to them who were detained in Purgatory He gave hope of attaining to glory: while upon the holy Fathers detained in hell solely on account of original sin (pro solo peccato originali detinebantur in inferno), He shed the light of glory everlasting’. In the second case, the soul of Christ ‘descended only to the place where the righteous were detained’ (descendit solum ad locum inferni in quo justi detinebantur), but the action of His presence there was felt in some way in the other parts of hell as well[54].

According to Thomistic teaching, Christ delivered from hell not only the Old Testament righteous who were imprisoned in hell because of original sin[55]. As far as sinners are concerned, those who were detained in ‘the hell of the lost’, since they either had no faith or had faith but no conformity with the virtue of the suffering Christ, could not be cleansed from their sins, and Christ’s descent brought them no deliverance from the pains of hell[56]. Nor were children who had died in the state of original sin delivered from hell, since only ‘by baptism children are delivered from original sin and from hell, but not by Christ’s descent into hell’, since baptism can be received only in earthly life, not after death[57]. Finally, Christ did not deliver those who were in purgatory, for their suffering was caused by personal defects (defectus personali), whereas ‘exclusion from glory’ was a common defect (defectus generalis) of all human nature after the fall. The descent of Christ into Hades recovered the glory of God to those who were excluded from it by virtue of the common defect of nature, but did not deliver anybody from the pains of purgatory caused by people’s personal defects[58].

This scholastic understanding of the descent of Christ into Hades, formulated by Thomas Aquinas, was the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church for many centuries. During the Reformation, this understanding was severely criticised by Protestant theologians. Many of today’s Catholic theologians are also very sceptical about this teaching[59]. There is no need to discuss how far the teaching of Thomas Aquinas on the descent of Christ into Hades is from that of Eastern Christianity. No Father of the Eastern Church ever permitted himself to clarify who was left in hell after Christ descent; no Eastern Father ever spoke of unbaptized infants left in hell[60]. The division of hell into four parts and the teaching on purgatory are alien to Eastern patristics. Finally, this very scholastic approach whereby the most mysterious events of history are subjected to detailed analysis and rational interpretation is unacceptable for Eastern Christian theology. For the theologians, poets and mystics of the Eastern Church, the descent of Christ into Hades remained first of all a mystery which could be praised in hymns, and about which various assumptions could be made, but of which nothing definite and final could be said.

The general conclusion can now be drawn from a comparative analysis of Eastern and Western understandings of the descent into Hades. In the first three centuries of the Christian Church, there was considerable similarity between the interpretation of this doctrine by theologians in East and West. However, already by the 4th—5th centuries, substantial differences can be identified. In the West, a juridical understanding of the doctrine prevailed. It gave increasingly more weight to notions of predestination (Christ delivered from hell those who were predestined for salvation from the beginning) and original sin (salvation given by Christ was deliverance from the general original sin, not from the ‘personal’ sins of individuals). The range of those to whom the saving action of the descent into hell is extended becomes ever more narrow. First, it excludes sinners doomed to eternal torment, then those in purgatory and finally unbaptized infants. This kind of legalism was alien to the Orthodox East, where the descent into Hades continued to be perceived in the spirit in which it is expressed in the liturgical texts of Great Friday and Easter, i.e. as an event significant not only for all people, but also for the entire cosmos, for all created life.

At the same time, both Eastern and Western traditions suggest that Christ delivered from hell the Old Testament righteous led by Adam. Yet if in the West this is perceived restrictively (Christ delivered only the Old Testament righteous, while leaving all the rest in hell to eternal torment), in the East, Adam is viewed as a symbol of the entire human race leading humanity redeemed by Christ (those who followed Christ were first the Old Testament righteous led by Adam and then the rest who responded to the preaching of Christ in hell).

3. The doctrine of the descent into Hades and theodicy

Let us move now to the theological significance of the doctrine of the descent of Christ into Hades. This doctrine, in our view, has great significance for theodicy, the justification of God in the face of the accusing human mind[61]. Why does God permit suffering and evil? Why does He condemn people to the pains of hell? To what extent is God responsible for what happens on earth? Why in the Bible does God appear as a cruel and unmerciful Judge ‘repenting’ of His actions and punishing people for mistakes which He knew beforehand and which He could have prevented? These and other similar questions have been posed throughout history.

First of all, we should say that the doctrine of the descent of Christ into Hades raises the veil over the mystery that envelops the relationship between God and the devil. The history of this relationship goes back to the time of the creation. According to common church teaching, the devil was created as a good and perfect creature, but he fell away from God because of his pride. The drama of the personal relationship between God and the devil did not end here. Since his falling away, the devil began to oppose divine goodness and love by every means and to do all he can to prevent the salvation of people. The devil is not all-powerful, however; his powers are restricted by God and he can operate only within the limits permitted by God. This last affirmation is confirmed by the opening lines of the Book of Job where the devil appears as a creature having, first, personal relations with God and, secondly, being fully subjected to God.

By creating human beings and putting them in a situation where they choose between good and evil, God assumed the responsibility for their further destiny. God did not leave man face to face with the devil, but Himself entered into the struggle for humanity’s spiritual survival. To this end, He sent prophets and teachers and then He Himself became man, suffered on the cross and died, descended into Hades and was raised from the dead in order to share human fate. By descending into Hades, Christ did not destroy the devil as a personal, living creature, but ‘abolished the power of the devil’, that is, deprived the devil of authority and power stolen by him from God. When he rebelled against God, the devil set himself the task to create his own autonomous kingdom where he would be master and where he would win back from God a space where God’s presence could be in no way felt. In Old Testament understanding, this place was sheol. After Christ, sheol became a place of divine presence.

This presence is felt by all those in paradise as a source of joy and bliss, but for those in hell it is a source of suffering. Hell, after Christ, is no longer the place where the devil reigns and people suffer, but first and foremost it is the prison for the devil himself as well as for those who voluntarily decided to stay with him and share his fate. The sting of death was abolished by Christ and the walls of hell were destroyed. But ‘death even without its sting is still powerful for us... Hell with its walls destroyed and its gates abolished is still filled with those who, having left the narrow royal path of the cross leading to paradise, follow the broad way all their lives’[62].

Christ descended into hell not as another victim of the devil, but as Conqueror. He descended in order to ‘bind up the powerful’ and to ‘plunder his vessels’. According to patristic teaching, the devil did not recognize in Christ the incarnate God. He took Him for an ordinary man and, rising to the ‘bait’ of the flesh, swallowed the ‘hook’ of the Deity (the image used by Gregory of Nyssa). However, the presence of Christ in hell constituted the poison which began gradually to ruin hell from within (this image was used by the 4th-century Syrian author Jacob Aphrahat[63]). The final destruction of hell and the ultimate victory over the devil will happen during the Second Coming of Christ when ‘the last enemy to be destroyed is death’, when everything will be subjected to Christ and God will become ‘all in all’[64].

The doctrine of the descent of Christ into Hades is important for an understanding of God’s action in human history, as reflected in the Old Testament. The biblical account of the flood, which destroyed all humanity, is a stumbling block for many who wish to believe in a merciful God but cannot reconcile themselves with a God who ‘repents’ of his own deed. The teaching on the descent into hell, as set forth in 1 Pet. 3:18—21, however, brings an entirely new perspective into our understanding of the mystery of salvation. It turns out that the death sentence passed by God to interrupt human life does not mean that human beings are deprived of hope for salvation, because, failing to turn to God during their lifetime, people could turn to Him in the afterlife having heard Christ’s preaching in the prison of hell. While committing those He created to death, God did not destroy them, but merely transferred them to a different state in which they could hear the preaching of Christ, to believe and to follow Him.

4. The soteriological implications of the doctrine of the descent into Hades

The doctrine on the descent of Christ into Hades is an integral part of Orthodox soteriology. Its soteriological implications, however, depend in many ways on the way in which we understanding the preaching of Christ in hell and its salutory impact on people[65]. If the preaching was addressed only to the Old Testament righteous, then the soteriological implications of the doctrine is minimal, but if it was addressed to all those in hell, its significance is considerably increased. It seems that we have enough grounds to argue, following the Greek Orthodox theologian, I. Karmiris, that ‘according to the teaching of almost all the Eastern Fathers, the preaching of the Saviour was extended to all without exception and salvation was offered to all the souls who passed away from the beginning of time, whether Jews or Greek, righteous or unrighteous’[66]. At the same time, the preaching of Christ in hell was good and joyful news of deliverance and salvation, not only for the righteous but also the unrighteous. It was not the preaching ‘to condemn for unbelief and wickedness’, as it seemed to Thomas Aquinas. The entire text of the First Letter of St. Peter relating to the preaching of Christ in hell speaks against its understanding in terms of accusation and damnation’[67].

Whether all or only some responded to the call of Christ and were delivered from hell remains an open question. If we accept the point of view of those Western church writers who maintain that Christ delivered from hell only the Old Testament righteous, then Christ’s salutory action is reduced merely to the restoration of justice. The Old Testament righteous suffered in hell undeservedly, not for their personal sins but because of the general sinfulness of human nature and because their deliverance from hell was a ‘duty’ which God was obliged to undertake with respect to them. But such an act could scarcely constitute a miracle that made the angels tremble or one to be praised in church hymns.

Unlike the West, Christian consciousness in the East admits the opportunity to be saved not only for those who believe during their lifetime, but also those who were not given to believe yet pleased God with their good works. The idea that salvation was not only for those who in life confessed the right faith, not only for the Old Testament righteous, but also those heathens who distinguished themselves by a lofty morality, is developed in one of the hymns of John Damascene:

Some say that [Christ delivered from hell] only those who believed[68],
such as fathers and prophets,
judges and together with them kings, local rulers
and some others from the Hebrew people,
not numerous and known to all.
But we shall reply to those who think so
that there is nothing undeserved,
nothing miraculous and nothing strange
in that Christ should save those who believed[69],
for He remains only the fair Judge,
and every one who believes in Him will not perish.
So they all ought to have been saved
and delivered from the bonds of hell
by the descent of God and Master —
that same happened by His Disposition.
Whereas those who were saved only through [God’s] love of men
were, as I think, all those
who had the purest life
and did all kinds of good works,
living in modesty, temperance and virtue,
but the pure and divine faith
they did not conceive because they were not instructed in it
and remained altogether unlearnt.
They were those whom the Steward and Master of all
drew, captured in the divine nets
and persuaded to believe in Him,
illuminating them with the divine rays
and showing them the true light[70].

This approach renders the descent into Hades exceptional in its soteriological implications. According to Damascene, those who were not taught the true faith during their lifetime can come to believe when in hell. By their good works, abstention and chastity they prepared themselves for the encounter with Christ. These are that same people about whom St. Paul says that having no law they ‘do by nature things contained in the law’, for ‘the work of the law is written in their hearts’[71]. Those who live by the law of natural morality but do not share the true faith can hope by virtue of their righteousness that in a face-to-face encounter with God they will recognize in Him the One they ‘ignorantly worshipped’[72].

Has this anything to do with those who died outside Christian faith after the descent of Christ into Hades? No, if we accept the Western teaching that the descent into Hades was a ‘one-time’ event and that the recollection of Christ did not survive in hell. Yes, if we proceed from the assumption that after Christ hell was no longer like the Old Testament sheol, but it became a place of the divine presence. In addition, as Archpriest Serge Bulgakov writes, ‘all events in the life of Christ, which happen in time, have timeless, abiding significance. Therefore, the so-called ‘preaching in hell’, which is the faith of the Church, is a revelation of Christ to those who in their earthly life could not see or know Christ. There are no grounds for limiting this event… to the Old Testament saints alone, as Catholic theology does. Rather, the power of this preaching should be extended to all time for those who during their life on earth did not and could not know Christ but meet Him in the afterlife[73].

According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, all the dead, whether believers or non-believers, appear before God. Therefore, even for those who did not believe during their lifetime, there is hope that they will recognize God as their Saviour and Redeemer if their previous life on earth led them to this recognition.

The above hymn of John Damascene clearly states that the virtuous heathens were not ‘taught’ the true faith. This is a clear allusion to the words of Christ: ‘Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’[74]; and ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but that believeth not shall be damned’[75]. The damnation is extended only to those who were taught Christian faith but did not believe. But if a person was not taught, if he in his real life did not encounter the preaching of the gospel and did not have an opportunity to respond to it, can he be damned for it? We come back to the question that had disturbed such ancient authors as Clement of Alexandria.

Is it possible at all that the fate of a person can be changed after his death? Is death that border beyond which some unchangeable static existence comes? Does the development of the human person not stop after death?

On the one hand, it is impossible for one to actively repent in hell; it is impossible to rectify the evil deeds one committed by appropriate good works. However, it may be possible for one to repent through a ‘change of heart’, a review of one’s values. One of the testimonies to this is the rich man of the Gospel we have already mentioned. He realized the gravity of his situation as soon as found himself in hell. Indeed, if in his lifetime he was focused on earthly pursuits and forgot God, once in hell he realized that his only hope for salvation was God[76] . Besides, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, the fate of a person after death can be changed through the prayer of the Church. Thus, existence after death has its own dynamics. On the basis of what has been said above, we may say that after death the development of the human person does not cease, for existence after death is not a transfer from a dynamic into a static being, but rather continuation on a new level of that road which a person followed in his lifetime.

* * *

As the last stage in the divine descent (katabasis) and self-emptying (kenosis), the descent of Christ into Hades became at the same time the starting point of the ascent of humanity towards deification (theosis)[77]. Since this descent the path to paradise is opened for both the living and the dead, which was followed by those whom Christ delivered from hell. The destination point for all humanity and every individual is the fullness of deification in which God becomes ‘all in all’[78] . It is for this deification that God first created man and then, when ‘the time had fully come’ (Gal. 4:4), Himself became man, suffered, died, descended to Hades and was raised from the dead.

We do not know if every one followed Christ when He rose from hell. Nor do we know if every one will follow Him to the eschatological Heavenly Kingdom when He will become ‘all in all’. But we do know that since the descent of Christ into Hades the way to resurrection has been opened for ‘all flesh’, salvation has been granted to every human being, and the gates of paradise have been opened for all those who wish to enter through them. This is the faith of the Early Church inherited from the first generation of Christians and cherished by Orthodox Tradition. This is the never-extinguished hope of all those who believe in Christ Who once and for all conquered death, destroyed hell and granted resurrection to the entire human race.

Translated from the Russian

NOTES:
[1] In particular, the image of the risen Christ coming out of the grave and holding a victory banner, borrowed from the Western tradition.
[2] 1 Pet. 3:18—21.
[3] The critical edition of ‘Stromateis’: Clemens Alexandrinus. Band II: Stromateis I—VI. Hrsg. von O. Stählin, L. Früchtel, U. Treu. Berlin—Leipzig 1960; Band III: Stromateis VII—VIII. Hrsg. von O. Stählin. GCS 17. Berlin—Leipzig, 1970. S. 3-102.
[4] That is those who came to believe while in hell.
[5] Stromateis 6, 6.
[6] Rom. 3:29; 10:12.
[7] Stromateis 6, 6.
[8] Stromateis 6, 6.
[9] Stromateis 6, 6.
[10] In the East it was developed by Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac the Syrian. In the West it gradually led to the formation of the doctrine on purgatory.
[11] The Great Catechetical Oration 23-24.
[12] The Homily on the Three-Day Period (pp. 444-446). The text of the sermon in: Gregoriou Nyssis hapanta ta erga. T. 10. Hellenes pateres tes ekklesias 103. Thessalonike, 1990. Sel. 444—487. Since in this edition the text is not divided into chapters, we indicate page numbers.
[13] Cf. Mt. 12:40.
[14] Lit. ‘to make a fool of somebody’ (from moros—fool)
[15] The Homily on the Three-Day Period (pp. 452-454).
[16] The Homily on the Three-Day Period (pp. 452-454). Cf. 1 Cor. 15:26.
[17] Spiritual Homilies 11, 11-13.
[18] Cf. Mt. 5:45.
[19] 7th Paschal Homily 2 (PG 77, 552 A).
[20] Cf. 1 Pet. 3:19-20.
[21] Is. 49:9.
[22] 2nd Festive Letter 8, 52-89 (SC 372, 228-232)
[23] Cf. Mt. 5:45. See the same comparison in ‘Spiritual Homilies’ by Macarius of Egypt.
[24] See above quotations from these authors
[25] 5th Festive Letter 1, 29-40 (SC 732, 284).
[26] 1 Pet. 4:6.
[27] Questions-answers to Thalassius 7.
[28] Is. 9:2.
[29] Lk. 4:18-19; Cf. Is. 61:1-2.
[30] Phil. 2:10.
[31] The Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith 3, 29.
[32] 1 Cor. 15:28.
[33] Maximus the Confessor, Questions-answers to Thalassius 59. More on this teaching see in J. C. Larchet, La divinisation de l’homme selon Maxime le Confesseur (Paris, 1996), pp. 647-652.
[34] Rev. 3:20.
[35] Rom. 8:29-30.
[36] See John Calvin, Instruction in Christian Faith, V. II, Book III (‘Concerning the pre-eternal election whereby God predestined some for salvation while others for condemnation’).
[37] 16th Discourse on the Epistle to the Romans.
[38] Concerning the teaching on the descent of Christ into Hades in the flesh, see: I. N. Karmires, ‘He Christologike heterodidaskalia tou 16 aionos kai eis hadou kathodos tou Christou’, Nea Sion 30 (1935). Sel. 11—26, 65—81, 154—165. See also: S. Der Nersessian. ‘An Armenian Version of the Homilies on the Harrowing of Hell’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954), pp. 201-224.
[39] Letter 164, II, 3 (PL 33, 709).
[40] Letter 164, II, 3 (PL 33, 710).
[41] Letter 164, II, 3 (PL 33, 710).
[42] Cf. J. A. MacCulloch, The Harrowing of Hell (Edinburgh, 1930), p. 123.
[43] Cf. Acts 2:24.
[44] That is, the pains of hell.
[45] Letter 164, II, 5 (PL 33, 710-711).
[46] Lk. 23:43.
[47] Letter 164, III, 7-8 (PL 33, 710-711).
[48] Acts 2:29.
[49] Letter 164, III, 7-8 (PL 33, 711).
[50] Letter 164, III, 10-13 (PL 33, 713-714). Elsewhere Augustine describes as heresy the teaching that non-believers could come to believe in hell and that Christ led everybody out of hell: See, On Heresies 79 (PL 42, 4).
[51] Letter 164, IV, 15-16 (PL 33, 715).
[52] See below.
[53] See details in: F. Loofs. ‘Descent to Hades’, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (New York, 1912), vol. IV, p. 658.
[54] Summa theologiae IIIa, 52, 2 (St Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae. Latin text with English translation. London —New York , 1965. Vol. 54. P. 158).
[55] Summa theologiae IIIa, 52, 5 (Summa theologiae. Vol. 54, pp. 166-170).
[56] Summa theologiae IIIa, 52, 6 (Summa theologiae. Vol. 54, pp. 170-1720).
[57] Summa theologiae IIIa, 52, 7 (Summa theologiae. Vol. 54, pp. 174-176).
[58] Summa theologiae IIIa, 52, 8 (Summa theologiae. Vol. 54, pp. 176-178).
[59] See for instance: H. U. von Balthasar et A. Grillmeier, Le mystère pascal (Paris , 1972), p. 170 (where the Thomistic understanding of the descent to Hades is described as ‘bad theology’).
[60] The teaching on the fate of unbaptized infants, contained in the work ‘Concerning Infants Who Have Died Prematurely’ by Gregory Palamas, is opposite to the teaching of Thomas Aquinas.
[61] The term ‘theodocy’ (literally ‘the justification of God’) was invented by Leibnitz in the early 18th century.
[62] Innocent, Archbishop of Cherson and Tauria, Works, vol. V (St-Petersburg—Moscow, 1870), p. 289 (Homily at Holy Saturday).
[63] Demonstration 22, 4—5 in The Homilies of Aphraates, the Persian Sage, ed. by W. Wright (London—Edinburgh, 1869), pp. 420—421.
[64] 1 Cor. 15:26—28.
[65] Cf. I. N. Karmires, He eis hadou kathodos Iesou Christou (Athenai, 1939), sel. 107.
[66] Ibid., p. 119.
[67] Bishop Gregory (Yaroshevsky), An Interpretation of the Most Difficult Passages in the First Letter of St Peter (Simferopol , 1902), p. 10.
[68] That is those who believed in their lifetime.
[69] That is those who believed during their life on earth.
[70] Concerning Those Who Died in Faith (PG 95, 257 AC).
[71] Rom. 2:14-15.
[72] Acts 17:23.
[73] Serge Bulgakov, Agnets Bozhiy [The Lamb of God] (Moscow , 2000), p. 394.
[74] Mt. 28:19.
[75] Mk. 16:16.
[76] Lk. 16:20—31.
[77] Cf. J. Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity (London , s.a.), p. 233—234.
[78] 1 Cor. 15:28.

St. Justin of Ćelije: The Three Principal Falls

2007-02-08T18:53:00.000-05:00

In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope. The principal characteristic of falling into sin is always the same: wanting to be good for one's own sake; wanting to be perfect for one's own sake; wanting to be God for one's own sake. In this manner, however, man unconsciously equates himself to the devil, because the devil also wanted to become God for his own sake, to put himself in the place of God. And in this self-elevation he instantly became devil, completely separated from God, and always in opposition to Him. Therefore, the essence of sin, of every sin (svegreha), consists of this arrogant self-aggrandizement. This is the very essence of the devil himself, of Satan. It is nothing other than one's wanting to remain within one's own being, wanting nothing within one's self other than oneself. The entire devil is found here: in the desire to exclude God, in the desire to always be by himself, to always belong only to himself, to be entirely within himself and always for himself, to be forever hermetically sealed in opposition to God and everything that belongs to God.

And what is this? It is egotism and self-love embraced in all eternity, that is to say: it is hell. For that is essentially what the humanist is - entirely within himself, by himself, for himself, always spitefully closed in opposition to God. Here lies every humanism, every hominism. The culmination of such satanically oriented humanism is the desire to become good for the sake of evil, to become God for the sake of the devil. It proceeds from the promise of the devil to our forefathers in Paradise—that with his help, "they would become as gods" (Gen. 3: 5). Man was created with theanthropic potential by God who loves mankind, so that he might voluntarily direct himself, through God, toward becoming God-man, based on the divinity of his nature. Man, however, with his free will sought sinlessness through sin, sought God through the devil. And assuredly, following this road he would have become identical with the devil had not God interceded in His immeasurable love of mankind and in His great mercy. By becoming man, that is to say God-man, he redirected man toward the God-man. He introduced him to the Church which is his body, to the reward (podvig) of theosis through the holy mysteries and the blessed virtues. And in this manner he gave man the strength to become "a perfect man, in the measure of the fullness of Christ" (Eph. 4:13), to achieve, that is, the Divine destiny, to voluntarily become God-man by grace.

The fall of the pope is a consequence of the desire to substitute man for the God-man...In the kingdom of humanism the place of the God-man had been usurped by the Vicarius Christi, and the God-man has thus been exiled to Heaven. This surely results in a peculiar deincarnation of Christ the God-man, does it not?

Through the dogma of infallibility the pope usurped for himself, that is for man, the entire jurisdiction and all the prerogatives which belong only to the Lord God-man. He effectively proclaimed himself as the Church, the papal church, and he has become in her the be-all and end-all, the self-proclaimed ruler of everything. In this way the dogma of the infallibility of the pope has been elevated to the central dogma (svedogma) of the papacy. And the pope cannot deny this in any way as long as he remains pope of a humanistic papacy.

From "Reflections on the Infallibiity of European Man" in Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, Belmont, MA: Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1994, Asterios Gerostergios, ed.

Uncomfortable Echoes of Barbaric Times

2007-02-08T09:58:00.000-05:00

Hitler-Era Law Targets German Home-schooler for Soviet-style “re-education.”

by V. Rev. James Rosselli

On February 1st, Melissa Buskeros was torn from the grasp of her parents and hauled off to a mental hospital by fifteen (yes, fifteen!) police officers. Her crime? being home-schooled. Melissa is seventeen years old.

If you think this is odd, wait until you hear the circumstances: Melissa was thrown out of school two years ago because her parents helped her at home with two subjects in which she had been having trouble. So, having no recourse to the government schools, her parents began to teach her at home.

Yes, you read that right: Melissa’s parents helped her with her studies, so the government threw her out of school. They then arrested her for being home-schooled, and threw her into a mental hospital.

This is not a story from the Soviet era. It isn’t a Kafka novel. This didn’t happen in some backward banana republic.

It happened in a certifiably First World country, a putative democracy; a NATO ally with a world-class economy.

It happened in Germany, and it happened (as I write this), last week.

Back in a dark era we all thought was long past, Adolf Hitler decreed that home-schooling was illegal. The children belonged to the State, not the parents. The State would educate and indoctrinate them, and the parents would pay for it—because the parents belonged to the State, too. Echoing this mindset, German authorities explained their actions of last week by declaring, “we do not allow subcultures.”

As if that wasn’t enough, bear in mind where they sent her: to a mental institution. It seems that, according to the Germans, if you have been denied access to school and still want to learn things, you’re insane.

Melissa’s new home is the Child Psychiatry Ward of the Nuremberg Clinic—a world-class, highly reputable facility, when it isn’t being used as a prison for children who have been kidnapped by the government. The diagnosis: “Phobic reaction to school.”

The Soviet Union used to send people to mental hospitals, where they could be safely drugged into silence and locked away from the world. Safely, because they could present themselves not as a jackbooted police state but as benevolent providers of therapeutic help. The Chinese Maoists and the North Koreans adopted this policy, also. The North Koreans continue to employ it.

Before they decided the world wasn’t big enough for both of them, Hitler and Stalin recognized each other to be kindred spirits and formed an alliance. The problem was, they both insisted on being in charge of it. It was this, rather than any philosophical difference, that put them on opposite sides in WWII.

It appears that in modern-day Germany the kindred spirits have finally formed an amiable partnership.

The Home School Legal Defense Association is asking interested parties to contact the German Embassy.

Fr. Jim Rosselli is a Mitred Archpriest in the Community of the Holy Spirit, Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. Fr. Jim’s “political stuff” reflects his own opinion as a private citizen, and not necessarily as a representative of his Community or Jurisdiction.

Perhaps The Time Has Come To Ask…DO WE REALLY NEED MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL?

2007-02-07T20:57:00.000-05:00

by V. Rev. James Rosselli

This past Sunday, the NFL sent its lawyers to shut down a church Super Bowl party. The church, which had intended to use a big screen and to ask its members to kick in for the refreshments, was violating their copyright, claimed the NFL.

They didn’t bother the bars and taverns down the street, who were doing the same thing. Saloons are exempt from the regulation.

Without question, football is a great game. It exemplifies all that is noble: courage in the face of danger, intense preparation for one’s task, intelligent planning and selfless teamwork in pursuit of a goal, and fair play in an aggressive environment. No wonder, then, that the game is so attractive to Christians. Throughout its history, football has exemplified the hard-driving life lived clean., and thousands of sermons have been preached using football as a metaphor for an honorable life.

Americans have always approached “watching the game” as an enjoyable group activity. Friends invite friends over, pals gather companionably at the local pub, the family settles down with popcorn in front of the tube. Churches, in fact, have been having—and advertising—Super Bowl parties for almost as long as there has been a Super Bowl to party about. America’s relationship with football has always been a comfortable, friendly and casual one.

All that has changed, now.

Time to re-examine.

The NFL has made it clear that it has no use for Christians. The prohibitions against hanging personal signs out at stadia were specifically aimed at the “John 3:16” signs fans used to bring. Last year, Janet Jackson “accidentally” exposed her breast as part of the Super Bowl half-time show, and objections were met with editorials about “ignorant religious people.” This year, they have begun to target churches for aggressive action, even attempting to forbid the showing of a video made by the championship coaches expressing their Christian testimony.

The NFL obviously wishes to have no relationship with us, Perhaps we should reconsider our relationship with them.

Monday Night Football helps take the edge off “blue Monday,” and psyches us up for the rest of the week. It also keeps us up late. It eats up our entire evening, and reduces us to screaming at a little glass box when we could be talking with our family, or going out together to dinner, or maybe renting a movie we could all enjoy It draws us deeper into the great American quagmire of sitting in front of a box, watching other people do things.

We don’t even “support” the team from the distance of our living room. I think we actually forget that they can’t hear us.

This year, the teams were Chicago (in the next state from me) and Indianapolis (which is three and a half hours away, in a different time zone from my part of Indiana)—two teams in which I have absolutely no stake. On the other hand, Notre Dame—one of the premier football teams in the country—is from South Bend, where I spend several days a week. My local high school has a State-championship-level team, whose play is as exciting as anyone’s, anywhere. Tickets are cheap, and you get to actually be there. It’s an actual activity. I bet you have a similar situation, where you live.

The NFL is entertainment. They have their status in our culture by our permission, not by Divine right. Football is supposed to be fun, and it’s supposed to belong to us. When it begins to behave like we belong to it, and further, to make judgments about which of their fans are and are not entitled to casually and without fanfare enjoy their games over a publicly-broadcast medium, maybe it’s time to re-think the relationship.

Maybe we can do without Monday Night Football for a season or two..

Fr. Jim Rosselli is a Mitred Archpriest with the Community of the Holy Spirit, Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.

Fr. Jim’s political and social commentary is his own, made as a private citizen expressing an opinion, and is not necessarily offered on behalf of the jurisdiction he serves.

The Parable of the Prodigal Son

2007-02-03T19:30:00.000-05:00

A sermon by St. John the Wonderworker, Archbishop of Shanghai and San Francisco

And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. (Luke 15:11-32).

The parable of the Prodigal Son is a most instructive lesson for youth. We see in the prodigal son the true character of flighty youth: light-minded, thoughtless, thirsting for independence; in short, everything that usually distinguishes the majority of youths. The younger son grew up in his parents' house. On reaching adolescence, he already began to imagine that life at home was too restrictive. It seemed unpleasant to him to live under his father's rule and his mother's watchful eye. He wanted to imitate his comrades, who had given themselves up to the pleasures of the world. “I am the heir of a rich estate. Would it not be better,” he reasoned, “if I received my inheritance now? I could manage my wealth differently than my father does.” Thus the light-minded youth was carried away by the deceitful glitter of the world's pleasures and decided to throw off the yoke of obedience and to depart from his parents' home.

Are not many inspired by similar impulses today, and, while they may not leave their parents' home, do they not depart from the home of their Heavenly Father, that is, from obedience to the Holy Church?

The yoke of Christ seems difficult for immature minds, and His commandments burdensome. They think that it is not really necessary to keep that which God and His Holy Church command us. To them it seems possible to serve God and the world at the same time. They say, “We are already strong enough to withstand destructive temptations and seductions. We can hold onto the truth and sound teachings by ourselves. Allow us to perfect our minds through acquiring many kinds of knowledge. Let us strengthen our wills ourselves amid temptations and seductions. Through experience our senses will become convinced of the vileness of vice!” Are such desires any better than the ill-considered request of the younger son to his father, “Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me?”

And so, a light-minded youth ceases to heed the commandments and admonitions of the Holy Church. He ceases to study the Word of God and the teachings of the Holy Fathers, and listens intently to the sophistries of those who are falsely-called teachers, and in these pursuits he kills the best hours of his life. He goes to church less frequently or stands there inattentively, distracted. He does not find the opportunity to devote himself to piety and to exercise himself in the virtues, because he spends so much time attending shows, public entertainments, etc. In a word, with each day he gives himself up more and more to the world, and, finally, he goes off to “a far country.”

What is the result of such an estrangement from the Holy Church? It is the same as the result of the prodigal son's leaving his parents' house. Light-minded youths very quickly waste their excellent energies and talents of soul and body, ruining for time and eternity all the good they have done. Meanwhile, there appears “a mighty famine in that land”: emptiness and dissatisfaction — the inevitable result of wild pleasures. A thirst for enjoyments appears, which intensifies with the gratifying of wanton passions, and finally becomes insatiable. It often happens that the unfortunate lover of the world, in order to gratify his passions, resorts to base and shameful pursuits, which do not bring him to his senses like the prodigal son and do not return him to the path of salvation, but complete his ruin, both temporal and eternal!

A Criticism of the Lack of Concern for Doctrine Among Russian Orthodox Believers

2007-02-03T16:42:00.000-05:00

by Fr. Georges Florovsky

The late Metropolitan Eulogius was discussing the recent religious revival among Russians, both at home and in exile, during the early years of Russian emigration. The fact was obvious: there was an awakening. The reasons were obvious, also: the shock of tragic events, insecurity and uncertainty, suffering and fear. But exactly what was it that attracted Russians to the Church? The dogmas, the Orthodox doctrine? Yes, said the Metropolitan, so it was in the past, and especially in Byzantium among the Greeks, but not in Russia. There was a time when even lay people were deeply interested in questions of faith. But Russians, the Metropolitan contended, with the exception of the few educated theologians, have not yet reached the point at which they would be concerned with the problems of abstract theological thought, and in fact they are not interested in them at all. It may be, the Metropolitan conceded, that the Church has failed to develop an interest in theology among believers. But, in his opinion, the true reason for this lack of interest among the Russians was that they neither cherish, nor understand the theoretical aspect of the realization or embodiment of the Church's ideals in the lives of men. Above all, they cherish the ritual aspect of religion, the beauty of services, ikons, melodies, and the like. The Metropolitan proceeded to explain the emotional and educational value of the rites. He added, however, that all this ritual may be little understood, and that people do not really know what truth is witnessed or symbolized in the rites. Yet, he contended, rites themselves are so touching and moving, exalting and inspiring, regardless of their meaning.

Whether this is a fair description of the Russian approach to Christianity is open to doubt. But the attitude described by the late Metropolitan is typical of certain elements in the Russian Church. It is persistently asserted by various writers that Russians learn Christianity not from the Gospel but from the Lives of Saints. It is also asserted that for the Orthodox in general, Christianity is not "Doctrine" but "Life." The Orthodox are concerned not with "dogmatic systems" but with "living." They comprehend the truth not through the mediation of intellectual understanding, but through the mediation of "the heart" and in an aesthetical manner. One should look for Orthodox teaching not in systems but in images, rites and ikons. It is even asserted that in the Orthodox East there is "no theory of Christianity," but that instead there are saints, ikons, poetry and so on.

No Orthodox, and no Catholic, would deny the basic importance of sacred rites and the life of sanctity. What is embarrassing in the statements which we have just quoted is their exclusiveness, their emphasis on not—but. One should ask why "doctrinal systems" and "intellectual understanding" are so carefully restricted, so contemptuously devaluated and almost altogether eliminated. The balance seems to be broken. In any case, this over-emphasis on the "artistic" aspect of the ritual is not in agreement with the actual tradition of Orthodox art itself. And if one can be instructed by Orthodox hymnography and ikons, it is precisely because a very definite "theory of Christianity" is embodied and expressed there. "Theory" means above all "contemplation;" it is an insight and a vision, a poetic insight and an intellectual vision. According to Orthodox spiritual tradition, the Nous is the ruling power of the inner life, "to hegemonikon." Traditional Eastern Orthodox hymnography, inherited by Russians from the Greeks, is not just lyrics; it is marked not by emotion, but by sobriety. It is high poetry, indeed, but it is "metaphysical poetry," or rather "theological poetry," and does not hesitate to sometimes use elaborate theological terminology. Indeed, some of the greatest hymns of the Eastern Church are simply paraphrases of dogmatic definitions: a Son, who was born before ages of the Father without mother, and who hath in no way undergone either a change, or intermingling, or division, but hath preserved in their entirety the peculiarities of each nature (Dogmatic Theotokion, in the 3rd tone.) This is precisely the definition of the Council of Chalcedon, and it requires theological understanding. It was aptly said that Orthodox Ikons are "dogmatic monuments" (V. V. Bolotov.) They witness the same truth which is defined in doctrine, and according to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, they must be controlled by sound doctrine. In brief, there is no room for this disjunction: not -but. Of course, dogmas must be lived and not assessed by abstract thinking alone, but for that very reason it is misleading to urge not doctrine but life. This habit of division and disjunction only distorts the "life" itself. One cannot separate "spirituality" and "theology" in St. John of Damascus, or in St. Gregory of Nazianzus. One misses the very center of the spirituality of Father John of Kronstadt when it is deliberately "abstracted" from his theological vision. Holiness in the Orthodox tradition is always interpreted "theologically," and not in the categories of aesthetic emotion or exaltation, but in the categories of spiritual sobriety, in faithfulness to truth.

It is really embarrassing that there is so little concern for "dogmatic systems," as well as for the Doctrine of the Church, in various circles and quarters of the Orthodox society of our day, and that "devotion" is so often forcefully divorced from "faith." There is too much concern with "the vessels" and too little concern with the Treasure, which alone makes the vessel precious. Symbols and rites are vehicles of the truth, and if they fail to convey the truth, they simply cease to function. Unfortunately, it is often suggested that "interest in doctrines" is something rather archaic and is a Greek attitude rather than a Russian one (again, not—but). There is but one Orthodox Tradition of faith, and it transcends all national barriers. The feast of Orthodoxy, which we still faithfully celebrate on the first Sunday in Lent, is precisely a theological feast. The Legacy of Fathers is the core of our Orthodox tradition, and it is a theological legacy. The Doctrine of Fathers is the spring of Orthodoxy in life. One is fully justified in contending that our modern confusion in life comes directly from the contemporary neglect of "sound teaching," from the lack of "sound learning" in matters of faith.

Orthodoxy stands by its faithfulness to the Seven Ecumenical Councils. It is so often forgotten that the Councils were engaged precisely in the formulation of Christian Doctrine, in the elaboration of "dogmatic systems." Is it a step forward that now we are not moved or impressed by the dogmatic teachings of those great men who gave their entire lives to the establishment of the Right Faith, of Orthodoxy? We praise the Three Hierarchs, who were above all the ecumenical teachers, the teachers of the right faith, but we are strangely indifferent to their perennial contribution to the life of the Church: namely—their teaching, their theology, their interpretation of the Christian truth "in the words of reason." And do we not need, as a matter of first priority, for our intellect to be illuminated by the "Light of Reason" in the present days of intellectual confusion? Without a sober guidance, without the stable element of sound doctrine, our feelings would but err and our hearts would be blinded.

One should accept the present revival of religion, the awakening of the heart, as a gift of Grace, as a token of Divine Mercy, but also as a stem summons and invitation to study and understanding, to the Knowledge of Truth which embraces our Eternal Life. There is an unfortunate prejudice, one which does not stem from Orthodox sources, that "doctrines" are abstract and "theology" is intellectualism. Our Lord and Redeemer is the Logos, and He illumines all men; and the Holy Spirit, the Giver of Life, is the Spirit of Truth. "Emotions" are human moods, but the truth is Divine.

Let us adorn the vessels, but not forget that vessels are of clay. Yet in them an Eternal Treasure is hidden: the Word of Life.

From The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, ed. Richard S. Haugh (Belmont, MA: Nordland), Vol. XIII, Ecumenism I: A Doctrinal Approach, pp. 168-170.

Items of Interest - Week of the Publican and the Pharisee

2007-02-03T08:52:00.000-05:00

Atheism and the Experience of God Part I · Part II
Fr. John Breck on the fundamentalism of radical atheism and the reality behind scientific inquiry.

Principle Issues: Understanding Mark 9
Fr. John Fenton of Holy Incarnation Orthodox Church in Detroit meditates on the meaning and application of Mark 9:37-39 (KJV 38-40).

Sober Up, Europe!
Bishop Artemije of Ras-Prizren warns Europe of the inevitable consequences of forcing the issue of Kosovo independence.

The Islamic Mein Kampf
David Horowitz's flash-presentation about what the Jihadists really want. From the Terrorism Awareness Project.

Carter and Clinton's "New Covenant"
by Don Feder. The latest assault on Southern Baptists.

Dinesh the Dhimmi
by Srdja Trifkovic. The transformation of noted young conservative Dinesh D'Souza into a CAIR fellow traveller.

Debate: D'Souza vs. Spencer
Dinesh D'Souza and Robert Spencer debate the question of what undergirds Jihadism on the Lores Rizkalla radio show in Los Angeles.

Thousands Fleeing Hugo Chavez's Venezuela
Each day after dawn, hundreds of Venezuelans gather outside the Spanish Consulate in Caracas, hoping to get papers allowing them to flee the South American country for Spain...

Ethnic Cleansing, Knez Lazar & Serbian Christianity

2007-02-02T21:29:00.000-05:00

A rather harsh critic of the Serbs, self-styled "Infowolf" has made some rather serious false allegations against the Serbian nation and Church on the Orthodox Re-Forum in response to the entries about Croatia in my Items of Interest for last week.

In regard to my posting of the Canadian documentary "The Battle of Medak Pocket", she said this:

These are valuable documentaries, but in case you all missed something, heh, the point is made during the first half of part 1, that the Krajina had been ethnically cleansed of Croats by the Serbs first. This was just retaliation. Not too nice, probably included some stuff that was dishonorable, but NOT unprovoked.

It is often alleged that the Serbs ethnically cleansed the Krajina. I have never seen any credible evidence that such is the actual case. What I have seen is that, even before secession, the Ustaša demons descended en masse on the Croatian collective mind, and they became a reincarnation of Pavelić's NDH. The Serbs tried to defend themselves and maintain their hold on Krajina, where they constituted the majority population both traditionally and in reality. The Croats, in 1991 just as in 1941, wanted it for themselves, and forced the Serbs out so they could resume their ethnically-pure Nazi-Catholic state which had been interrupted since WWII.

Despite the lies of the media, Serbia has always been committed to multi-ethnic harmony. This exists even today in Serbia. It does not in Croatia.

The Infowolf then continued to deride the Serbian nation and faith as follows:

Someone pointed out that the Serbs must have some genetic malfunction regarding brains, when they point to a major DEFEAT as an identity and glory point of their people.
Interested [sic] that Saint Savva and others were praying in heaven for the TURKS to win that battle at Kosovo according to what an angel told St. Lazar.

Nobody ever wants to address this. And no one - the usual sources of this story are Serbian, is it part of their national heritage - seems capable of drawing the obvious conclusion, that something is seriously wrong with them.

Maybe Benshushan here can be objective enough to examine this issue. The Deal Lazar struck with The Theotokos, agree with God that the Serbian forces lose, and thus gain heaven....

Lazar was given a choice by the Theotokos, have victory, and have an earthly crown, OR have defeat, and have a heavenly crown. NOT BOTH.

Lazar chose the heavenly crown, and with that choice, he preordained defeat for him and his people.

Wondering if he should have made this choice for his people and condemned them to slavery, without asking them first, he was comforted by an angel who reassured him that the saints of their people were praying in heaven for the defeat of the Serbs and the victory of the Turks. That this was in fact necessary, for the spiritual survival of the Serbs.

Well, seems to me that it is pretty obvious, that their Christian nation-empire in the making was a FALSE Christian nation, or its political survival and expansion as it was beginning to do, would not have meant almost all its citizens' damnation....

Now, given this information, the next question is, why?

There is only one possible answer. That something was terribly wrong with the Serbian culture and sincerity of Christianity, which would make them as representatives of Christianity on the world stage much like the Pharisees, of whom Christ said they made a convert twice the child of hell they were themselves.

Why else would the people's life spiritually be so dependent on their temporal collapse, that their own converters in heaven were praying against them?

Leaving aside the reprehensible remarks about "genetic malfunctions"...

Perhaps the Infowolf has great insight so as to plumb the depths of God's secret things, and thus comes up with her "only possible answer". I, however, am less assured that I can somehow figure out why God's providence works out the way it does.

Maybe it is true that victory over the Turk at Kosovo Polje would lead the Serbian people to a great fall that would result in the great mass of the nation falling away from true faith or so distorting it that it would become something other than real Orthodox Christianity. All of us have our defects, individually and as nations, and the will of God is to bring about their cure. Or perhaps God's purposes would be otherwise served by the subjugation of the Serb to the Turk for a period of time. Or maybe the reason is more subtle, like in the case of our righteous father Job. I have no way of even speculating about the depths of God's thoughts and plans regarding the Serbian nation.

I do know this, though: the beautiful and meaningful spirituality of Serbian Orthodoxy was thus formed in the crucible of suffering, and whatever might have been had history worked out differently is simply irrelevant. The Serbian nation was under the care of the Lover of Mankind, and He has been tending the tree which he planted for all the long centuries since the Serbs turned to Christ, and had been preparing that people for all the ages before. The voluntary martyrdom of Knez Lazar, and the Serbian nation with him, was instrumental in making them what they are today - a part of which is a people who can endure the greatest of calamities and emerge victorious through the power of the Holy Cross; a people who maintain their vital faith despite the most horrific persecution. Treated as though they are the offscouring of the earth, they have produced, by the grace of God, numerous spiritual fathers and monastic saints, brilliant doctors of the Church like St. Justin of Ćelije, visionary poet-teachers like St. Nikolai of Žića, countless martyrs whose blood has watered the Church Universal, and multitudes of holy men and women living Christian lives in a world that hates both them and Him who called them out of darkness and into His glorious light.

Rather than adopt the Infowolf's ill-informed assertions, we should consider what someone else has said: "The lesson of Vidovdan for all of us is that eternal values must be placed before earthly ones, that spiritual force superior to the force of arms. The legacy of Vidovdan teaches us that the forces of darkness and evil are always defeated in the end and that those of light and virtue ultimately triumph, even when such victory may seem impossible."

The third of Infowolf's charges against the Serbs:

Naturally, they [Croats] are the same blood and culture except for the RC angle as the Serbs, whose residual pagan customs like putting bread out for "the lord of the house" who lives in the attic during fast times which sort of attitude invites all manner of deceiving demons, is probably back of their innovation to have entire families instead of individuals take the name of whoever converted their patrilineage to Christianity.

She also, in another place, equates Serbian Orthodoxy with the pagan-Catholic syncretism of Voodoo, Santería, and Macumbe.

It is often alleged, particularly by Protestants of the more puritanical strains, that all manner of customs and traditions of Orthodox and Catholic peoples are pagan in origin, and therefore constitute an unlawful accretion to the faith. This applies not only to the type of things the Infowolf has mentioned, but even to the very celebrations of the Nativity and Pascha.

In some of the cases, it is probably a true saying. There are myriad folk customs and superstitions in all Christian societies that have pre-Christian origins. And it is quite possible that certain elements in various traditions of Christian nations are forms that existed in the pre-Christian religion that were later Christianized and modified to the newer religious milieu.

In the modern "scholarly" paradigm, there is an a priori acceptance of the idea that religion has evolved from the primitive and simple to the civilized and complex, and that much of the success of Christianity has lain in its ability to assimilate and absorb the older pagan forms.

I submit that this view is not particularly in harmony with the Christian presuppositions of Creation and the development of history. It should be obvious that, unless one is to consign the early history of mankind to mythology, there was once one religion which, through sinfulness, distortion, imagination, dispersion, and time devolved into the many faiths of man, past and present. The sole exception is the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by which God began His Scriptural revelation, His Covenant with the Israel of God (which is now the Church) and through which He worked out his plan for the redemption and salvation of Man.

With that in mind, we must also consider the view, common among the Fathers, that all these false religions and philosophies were, in whatever measure, a Preparatio Evangelica - a preparation for that people to receive the Gospel. Thus, I don't think that we can say that everything in pre-Christian paganism is necessarily evil, but rather that many elements of a people's pre-Christian faith are there pointing toward true faith and waiting to be transformed by the Gospel into something Christian. So it may have been with the Serbian Krsna Slava, which, despite whatever it may have been before the 9th Century, is now certainly a deeply meaningful expression of Christianity, something the detailed description here makes quite evident.

As Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos wrote in his discussion of a much more controversial subject:

Of course there are some who maintain that such notions as customs houses and aerial spirits have come into Christianity from Gnostic theories and pagan myths which prevailed during that period.
There is no doubt that such views can be found in many Gnostic texts, in pagan ideas which are found in Egyptian and Chaldaean myths. However it must be emphasised that many Fathers adopted the teaching about customs houses, but they cleared it of idolatrous and Gnostic frames of reference and placed it in the ecclesiastical atmosphere. The holy Fathers were not afraid to do such creative work.

It is a fact that the Fathers were working creatively and productively when they took many views and theories from the pagan world, but gave them an ecclesiastical content. It is well known that the Fathers took the teaching about the immortality of the soul, about the ecstasy of man and the dispassion of the soul and body, the teaching about the tripartite soul and many other things from the ancient philosophies, as well as from ancient traditions, but clearly they gave them another content and a different perspective. We cannot discard the teaching about the immortality of the soul just because the ancient philosophers spoke of it. We must look at the content which the holy Fathers gave to it.

And so for Christian customs and traditions that appear to be of pagan origin, or that simply have analogues in the pre-Christian faith of any people.

Certainly also, however, it can be noted that every culture has its superstitions and seemingly odd customs that don't seem to have any particular Christian significance, and can, perhaps, only be described as "pagan holdovers". Once might call to mind the "evil eye" pendants of Greece, the putting up of green branches over the doorways in Romania for protection against the strigoi, the Russian habit of never holding your hands behind you during Church Services since you are thus shaking hands with the devil, Irish belief in the Little People and Banshees, and even the Mummers Parade in Philadelphia. Not to mention the pre-Lenten Carnivals that are almost ubiquitous in Christendom. Of these, I will refrain from comment except to say that peoples often hold onto native customs and superstitions. It is not something that is in any way restricted to Serbia. Perhaps this is something the Infowolf should keep in mind next time she "knocks wood", throws salt over her left shoulder, or avoids walking under a ladder.

Items of Interest - Week After Zacchaeus Sunday 2007

2007-01-27T13:23:00.000-05:00

Razilaženje Restored
All posts and comments have now been migrated to the present location, and are available via the Blog Archive section of the sidebar. Additionally, there is now, farther down the sidebar, the Cloud of Witnesses, a gallery of Saints and various Christians that have particular significance for me. REMINDER TO ALL WHO HAVE LINKS TO RAZILAŽENJE: Please update your links to the new site.

Ancient ways entice Detroit Christians
Detroit Free Press article featuring the conversion of former Lutheran Priest Fr. John Fenton.

Words of Warning to the Western World.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's classic 1975 Address.

The Image of God as Man of War in the Old Testament Mystics
Alexei Somov on a much-overlooked aspect of God's self-revelation. Translated from Russian by Vladyka Seraphim (Sigrist), retired Bishop of Sendai.

The Lure of External Authority
"In Orthodoxy, there is no logical epistemology by which one may know the truth and no rational mechanism by which one may get absolute rulings on what is true and what is not."

Father Sophrony on “Dogmatic Consciousness”
"Conversion is not about learning a catechism, but about acquiring the Holy Spirit - knowing God."

Croatia's Undead: the Backlash
In last week's Items of Interest I included a link to Julia Gorin's article When will world confront the undead of Croatia? This piece, one of the first in the mainstream American press to treat Croatia's Nazi past and present with any degree of historical honesty, immediately provoked what Ms. Gorin has referred to as a "Croatian Storm". On her website, she has provided us with a remarkable glimpse of the furious, and often savagely barbaric, backlash of reaction from Croats here and abroad. The first follow-up article, Lest We Believe Mainstream Nazism be Dead, dealt with the official reaction, delivered by the Croatian Embassy's press attaché. The second, a three-part piece called Letters from a Croatian Storm (Part I · Part II · Part III) chronicles the bestial popular reaction among Croats. [A WORD OF WARNING - Letters from a Croatian Storm contains extremely graphic language and imagery, almost unimaginably vile personal attacks and racial/ethnic hatred.] This is followed by Some Curiously Less Pissed-Off Readers, which shares some more supportive correspondence (none of which, however, is from any Croatians). The latest article, Some Context, from a “not-to-be-listened-to” Serb, is particularly good and consists largely of a letter from a wonderful mutual friend, Svetlana Novko, who is a Serbian iconographer living in Canada.

The Battle of Medak Pocket Part I · Part II
Canadian video documentary on Croatian atrocities. Canadian soldiers faced combat and witnessed atrocities and the Canadian public knew almost nothing about it. Requires RealPlayer

I Know--Let's Just Shut all the Christians Up!

2007-01-25T08:25:00.000-05:00

by V. Rev. James Rosselli

Our new Democrat legislative majority has given us an example of what’s in store for us over the next two years. Their very first act has been to introduce legislation that would require anyone attempting to influence an election in any way to register as a lobbyist. The legislation targets “Churches and nonprofit and other organizations.” The definition of “other organizations” is nonspecific, leaving the door open for the government to target anyone they want silenced.

It is the single most brazen attack on the freedom of speech and assembly, not to mention the free exercise of religion, ever in our history. And this is only their first month!

There are laws governing lobbyists: fees to be paid, income-reporting requirements to meet, background checks to be passed, records of activities to be kept, files to be maintained, definitions to be learned and adhered to, etc. There are enormous fines for failing to register as a lobbyist, even if one is not aware he or she has been “lobbying.”

Example: Moveon.org and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, both of them more dispensers of information to the public than winers-and-diners of legislators, were recently fined under present regulations for failing to register as lobbyists (the Swift Boat vets were fined much, much more, of course). The new regulations would literally expose everyone who expressed his opinion in any public place to the same treatment.

The result of the legislation would affect talk radio, voter guide publishers, public interest groups and church conventions. Eventually, it would affect everything and everyone—from people who make speeches before community groups to bloggers: in short, all the “alternative media” that release news and state opinions the “major media--” meaning the Democratic Party—want to keep from us.

Your kid’s conservative My Space blog would probably not be convicted in court of being an unregistered lobbying organization. The legislation would, however, leave the door open to force your family to choose between bankruptcy from either fines or legal fees, and simply shutting up.

The Senate version was defeated. There is a House version now coming to the floor. For details, go to http://www.aclj.org , and go to “A Momentary Reprieve.”

I can sympathize with people who were fed up with our useless “Republican majorities,” and wanted to send a message to the GOP by either staying home or voting for some third-party candidate—or maybe even the Democrat.

Whatever the circumstances, we are the ones who—actively or passively-- elected this new majority. We need to make it clear to them just what we elected them to do—and not to do.

The United States is the only country in the world—and in fact in the history of the world—where the sovereignty of the nation reposes in the people themselves. The government, under our Constitution, is answerable to us, and we are responsible for the direction it takes.

We, in other words, are who the Bible defines as “the king.”

We need to be aware of what our officials and employees—our elected representatives and their appointees—are doing. We need to make them aware of what we do and do not approve of in terms of their conduct of our government. Because, make no mistake about it: if we abdicate our responsibility to govern ourselves, there are plenty of people who will be happy to do it for us. This bill is ample demonstration of that.

That URL, again, is http://www.aclj.org .

Fr. Jim Rosselli is a Mitred Archpriest with the Community of the Holy Spirit, a mission eparchy in the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. Father Jim writes his “political stuff” as a private citizen, and not as a representative of his Church.

Items of Interest - 2nd Week After Epiphany 2007

2007-01-20T09:30:00.000-05:00

More Americans join Orthodox Christian churches
USA TODAY story on the rise in American Orthodox converts.

After the Chrism Dries
David Tillman delineates some pitfalls awaiting converts to the Orthodox Church.

Secular Fundamentalists are the New Totalitarians
Tobias Jones on how militant secularists like Richard Dawkins are taking their revenge on us believers for refusing to stay in the closet.

American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America
Chris Hedges, a Secular Fundamentalist, mounts an eloquent and mendacious propaganda attack on the Christian Right. Scroll down for the first chapter, Faith. Note especially the opening quotation from Karl Popper, a clarion call for the repression of Christianity.

When will world confront the undead of Croatia?
by Julia Gorin. "Nazism is not 'part of the ugly past.' It was not a bout of madness that has been straightened out. The undead are among us."

Dickens and the French Revolution: Background
Peter J. Leithart examines the revolutionary and counter-revolutionary history that lies behind the development of 19th Century English literature.

“Socialism or Death” in Venezuela
Fidel's faithful disciple and his South American "Workers' Paradise".

Jimmy for Terror
A former president of the United States - a Nobel Peace Prize winner, no less - gives his blessing to wanton murder and terrorist assaults against Israel.

Carter: Morally vicious, morally unacceptable
Hugh Fitzgerald demolishes the myth of Jimmy Carter's integrity and moral uprightness.

St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, on Justice and Mercy

2007-01-17T16:26:00.000-05:00

Draw closer and examine the threatening face of God’s justice, and you will exactly discern in it the meek gaze of God’s love. Man by his sin has fenced off from himself the everlasting source of God’s love: and this love is armed with righteousness and judgement – for what? – to destroy this stronghold of division. But since the insignificant essence of the sinner would be irreparably crushed under the blows of purifying Justice, the inaccessible Lover of souls sends His consubstantial Love, that is, His Only begotten Son, so that He Who ‘upholds all things by the word of His power’, might also bear the heaviness of our sins, and the heaviness of the justice advancing towards us, in the flesh of ours that He took upon Himself: and, having Alone extinguished the arrows of wrath, sharpened against the whole of humanity, might reveal in his wounds on the Cross the unblocked springs of mercy and love which was to the whole land that had once been cursed - blessings, life and beatitude. Thus did God love the world.

But if the Heavenly Father out of love for the world gives up His Only-begotten Son; then equally the Son out of love for man gives Himself up; and as love crucifies, so is love crucified. For although ‘the Son can do nothing of Himself’, neither can he do anything in spite of Himself. He ‘does not seek His own will’, but for that reason is the eternal heir and possessor of the will of His Father. ‘He abides in His love’, but in it He Himself receives into His love all that is loved by the Father, as he says: ‘As the Father hath loved Me, so have I loved you’. And in this way the love of the Heavenly Father is extended to the world through the Son: the love of the Only-begotten Son of God at the same time ascends to the Heavenly Father and descends to the world. Here let him who has eyes see the most profound foundation and primordial inner constitution of the Cross, out of the love of the Son of God for His All-holy Father and love for sinful humanity, the two loves intersecting with, and holding on to, each other, apparently dividing up what was one, but in fact uniting the divided into one. Love for God is zealous for God – love for man is merciful to man. Love for God demands that the law of God’s righteousness should be observed – love for man does not abandon the transgressor of the law to perish in is unrighteousness. Love for God strives to strike the enemy of God – love for man makes the Divinity man, so as by means of love for God mankind might be deified, and while love for God ‘lifts the Son of man from the earth’, love for man opens the embraces of the Son of God for the earthborn, these opposing strivings of love intersect, dissolve into each other, balance each other and make of themselves that wonderful heart of the Cross, on which forgiving ‘mercy’ and judging ‘truth meet together’, God’s ‘righteousness’ and man’s ‘peace kiss each other’, through which heavenly ‘truth is sprung up out of the earth, and righteousness’ no longer with a threatening eye ‘hath looked down from heaven. Yea, for the Lord will give goodness, and our land shall yield her fruit’.

~Metropolitan St. Philaret of Moscow, Sermon on Good Friday (1816)

St. Innocent, Enlightener of North America, on Sin and Salvation

2007-01-16T14:16:00.000-05:00

[NOTE: St. Innocent, Metropolitan of Moscow, Equal-to-the-Apostles and Enlightener of North America, penned in Aleut, in 1833, while he was Bishop of Kamchatka, the Kurilian and Aleutian Isles, one of the finest introductions to the Orthodox Faith ever written: the Indication of the Way into the Kingdom of Heaven. Though this work exists on the internet, it can be found only in a highly abridged form, edited by someone who wished to strip away the Saint's teachings on Original Sin, Satisfaction, Substitution, Gehenna, and so on, calling such abridgements "minor stylistic changes". It is my hope, ultimately, to publish the entire work on the internet, in English and without any dishonest editing. The following is Part I of the Indication, unabridged, entitled The Blessings that Jesus Christ has Granted Us by His Death. ~EHB]

Before speaking of this, let us look at the blessings that Adam had in Paradise before he committed sin, and at the evil which Adam suffered after he had committed sin, and with him all men.

The first man, being created in the image and likeness of God, until he had blurred the likeness of God by his self-will, was blessed in that very image and likeness of God. Just as God has no end and is eternal, so too Adam was created immortal. God is all-just, and Adam was created sinless and just. God is all-happy, and Adam was created happy, and his happiness could have increased day by day throughout all eternity.

Adam lived in a most beautiful Paradise, in a garden planted by God Himself, where he was content with everything. He was always healthy and well, and he would never have known any kind of sickness. He was not afraid of anyone or anything. All the animals and birds obeyed him as their king. He felt neither cold nor heat. And although he laboured and worked in paradise yet he worked with pleasure and delight, and did not find toil burdensome or work tiring.

His heart and soul were full of the knowledge and love of God. He was always quiet and happy, and he never knew and never saw anything unpleasant, upsetting, painful or sad. All his desires were pure, right and in order. His memory, intellect and all the other faculties of his soul were perfect. And being innocent and pure, he always lived with God and conversed with Him, and God loved him as His favourite son. To be brief, Adam was in Paradise, and Paradise was in Adam.

Now, if Adam had not broken the commandment of His Creator, he would have been happy himself and all his descendants would have always been happy too. But Adam sinned before God and broke His law; and the easiest law; and for that reason God banished him from Paradise, because God cannot live with sin or with a sinner.

Adam at once lost the happiness he had enjoyed in Paradise. His soul was darkened, his thoughts or desires were muddled, his imagination and memory began to be clouded. Instead of joy and peace of soul, he saw sorrow, afflictions, troubles, poverty, the most painful labours and every kind of adversity: finally sickly old age threatened him, and after that — death But the most horrible thing of all was that the devil, who is consoled by the sufferings of men, gained power over Adam.

The very elements, that is the air, fire, etc., which had previously served Adam and ministered to his pleasure, then became hostile to him. From that time Adam and all his descendants began to fee! hunger, heat and the effects of change of winds and weather. Wild animals became savage, and began to look upon people as their enemies and as prey. From that time people began to feel external and internal diseases which in course of time increased in number and severity. Men forgot that they were brothers and began to attack one another, to hate, to deceive, to torture and to kill. And finally, after all kinds of bitter labours and anxieties, they had to die; and as they were sinners they had to be in hell and to be eternally and unceasingly tormented there.

No human being by himself could or can restore what Adam lost. And what would have happened to us if Jesus Christ in His mercy had not redeemed us? What would have happened to the whole human race?

God Who loves us far more than we love ourselves, in His great mercy sent us His Son Jesus Christ to save us. Jesus Christ became a man like us, but without sin.

By His teaching Jesus Christ scattered the darkness and errors of the human mind, and enlightened the whole world with the light of the Gospel. Now everyone who wants to can know the will of God and the means and way to beatitude.

By His life Jesus Christ has shown us the way into the heavenly Kingdom which Adam lost, and at the same time has shown us how we must seek it and how to follow it.

By His passion and death Jesus Christ has redeemed us from the debts which we had to pay to God and which we should never have been able to pay; and He has made us, who were slaves of the devil and of sin, children of God. And those torments which we, as transgressors of the will of God, would have had to suffer He bore for us. By His death He delivered us from miseries, from future torment and eternal death.

By His resurrection Jesus Christ destroyed the gates of hell and opened to us the gates of Paradise which had been closed for everyone by Adam's disobedience- and He conquered and crushed the power of the devil and death, our enemies. So now those who die in faith and hope, believing and trusting in Jesus Christ, through death pass from vain, rotten and temporal life into a life that is bright/incorruptible and unending; while for the conquest of the devil and for driving him away we have the cross and prayer.

By His ascension Jesus Christ glorified the human race; for He ascended to heaven with His body which He will always carry or wear.

Finally, by the grace and merits of Jesus Christ we can now go into the Kingdom of Heaven and receive support and help along the way; that is, we can all freely and truly receive the Holy Spirit and be filled with Him. Without the Holy Spirit it is impossible to go the way Jesus Christ went.

If Jesus Christ had not been on earth, no one could have entered the Kingdom of Heaven. But now we all, each one of us, can easily enter it; but we cannot enter it otherwise than by the way Jesus Christ went when living on earth.

But what the Lord has prepared for us there in heaven, no one can tell or imagine. We can only say that those who believe in Jesus Christ and follow His commandments will, after their death, live with the Angels, the Just and the Saints in heaven, and will see God face to face. They will rejoice with pure, constant and eternal joy, and they will never know weariness, or sorrow, or worry, or torment, or suffering. At the end of the world they will rise with their bodies and will reign with Christ eternally.

All these benefits Jesus Christ will give not to any one people, but to all without exception. Whoever wants to can receive them. The way has been shown arranged and, as far as possible, smoothed and made level And besides that, Jesus Christ is ready to help us to go this way, and He Himself is willing to lead us by the hand, so to speak. It only remains for us not to oppose Him and not to be obstinate, but to surrender ourselves completely to His will. Let Him lead us where and how He wills.

You see how Jesus Christ loves us, and what blessings He has bestowed upon us? What would happen now if Jesus Christ suddenly appeared before us visibly and asked us: My children, do you love Me for what I have done for you? And do you feel in your hearts gratitude to Me? Who of us would not say: Yes. Lord, we love and thank Thee?

But if you love Jesus Christ and consider yourself grateful to Him, will you do what He orders you? Because whoever loves anyone, and whoever feels grateful, will do everything he can to please his benefactor. But Jesus Christ wants from you only one thing: namely, He wants you to follow Him into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Jesus Christ has done everything for us: cannot we do for Him the one thing He asks? Jesus Christ came down from heaven to earth in order to save us; shall we not for love of Him be willing to follow Him to heaven? Jesus Christ bore for us all torments and sufferings: shall we not for Jesus Christ be willing to suffer and endure a little?

Blessed and most blessed is he who follows Jesus Christ throughout his whole life, because he will certainly be there where Jesus Christ Himself lives.

Happy is he who cares and tries to imitate Jesus Christ, because he will receive help from Jesus Christ.

But unhappy is he who has no desire to follow Jesus Christ, and excuses himself by saying that it is difficult to follow Him, or, he has not the strength for it, because such a person deprives himself of the grace of God and, as it were, pushes away the helping hand of Jesus Christ.

But woe to the man who opposes Jesus Christ and is obstinate and, in a manner, rises up against Him. because the lot of such people is in the lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Sin and Rule-Breaking

2007-01-15T00:26:00.000-05:00

Some thought provoking words from Fr. William Weedon, pastor of St. Paul Lutheran Church in Hamel, Illinois.

I think too often we've conceived of sin as "breaking a rule" - in other words, it violates the rules of the game set up by the Creator. What we miss is that sin doesn't just "break a rule" - sin "breaks" a person. Sin damages us. Damages our souls. Morphs us into what God never intended us to be; corrupts and distorts. In this morning's OT reading we had Ezekiel 18: "Repent and turn from your iniquities, lest iniquity be your ruin... Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God, so turn and live!"
Why does God hate sin? Because He's ticked off that we would dare to disobey His rules? No! Because He hates this satanic damage inflicted upon the creatures He made to share in His life forever.

Read the whole post...

Orthodox Revival: Emergence, Not Convergence

2007-01-14T23:49:00.000-05:00

By the V. Rev. Archpriest James Rosselli

There is a stirring within Orthodoxy: a yearning for the reunion of the Churches, a longing for the centuries-old arguments that distress and discourage us to cease in a more concrete way than simply declaring they don’t exist. There is a fresh turning to God and the Power of God, to the Person of Jesus Christ, to the solid bedrock of the Bible, which God brought about to be The Canon to which His Church looks. Similarly, there is a movement within Protestantism to resolve their differences and get “back to the basics.” While both of these are without doubt the work of the Holy Spirit, the phenomenon which is occurring within Orthodoxy is different and specific.

Who is the Holy Spirit, and why is He saying these things about me?

And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams and your young men shall see visions. Even upon the menservants and maidservants in those days, I will pour out My Spirit. Joel 2: 28-29

And these signs will follow those who believe: in My Name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents, and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover. Mark 16: 17-18

There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are diversities if ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God Who works all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all. For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 1 Corinthians 12: 5-12

But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth. Acts 1:8

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age. Matthew 28:19-20

The Church that is described here is One Body, and that body is whole and visible, filled with zeal and Divine power born of obedience.

How much does that sound like what passes for Christianity in our own day?

Over here we have “Liberals,” over there “Conservatives.” Over here Charismatics, over there Cessationists. We have Lutherans, Calvinists, Zwingliites, Cranmerians and Wesleyans. We have Apostolic churches, Holiness churches, Apostolic Holiness churches, Evangelical churches, Free churches, Evangelical Free churches, Baptists of every conceivable persuasion and a dizzying number of “non-denominational” Assemblies, Communities and Fellowships. All of them claim unwavering fidelity to the Bible that demands of them, Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul? and declares, I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say I baptized in my own name. 1 Corinthians 1:13

There is no shortage of “movements” to respond to this. We have the Church Growth Movement, which has taught us to think of God as a product; the Seeker Sensitive Movement, which has taught us that if our ideas and tastes aren’t being catered to where we are, there’s always someplace else; the Word of Faith Movement, which teaches us actual thaumaturgy; the Back to the Bible Movement, which ignores the Apostolic Tradition and therefore removes the legend from our map; the Kingdom Now movement, which teaches us that Paradise is attainable on this earth, and hundreds of others.

All of these movements arose to try to solve the problem of a divided Christendom.

Like a denomination with its own “denominational distinctive,” they hoped to unite all Christians around a single principle that would bring them together. Their promulgators imagined that these principles were so strong, so solid, so universal, that in their light the problems posed by doctrinal differences would vanish.

Instead, all that happened was that the various denominations divided once again, into those who did and those who did not support the particular movement. Then the movements themselves, being intrinsically incapable of performing the task they had set themselves, became unbalanced and finally grotesque.

Now we have the “Convergence Movement.” What are we to make of it?

Convergence

Early in my career I became acquainted with and followed the fortunes of a Protestant denomination that was founded on the Convergence principle. They spoke of a “cord of three strands: Evangelical, Charismatic and Liturgical, that binds us together.”

It was a noble ideal. Sacramentalists and Evangelicals would yield to the release of the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives and ministries. Evangelicals and Charismatics would be deepened through Word and Sacrament. Charismatics and Sacramentalists would operate out of an attitude of Biblical fidelity and evangelical zeal. Through prayer, fellowship and the activity of the Holy Spirit they would learn from each other and grow in each others’ strengths. Originally twelve parishes, the denomination grew explosively, to over a hundred and fifty.

This denomination gradually rejected its mission, to the point that eventually their president issued a statement condemning “the three-fold cord that’s strangling us.” They lost half of their parishes in the process.

There’s a happy ending to this particular story: the denomination gradually began to re-discover its original vision, and has begun to gradually grow, again. Unfortunately, there was the usual wreckage in the meantime: burned-out clergy, discouraged and fed-up parishioners, some of whom have never darkened a church door since—and, of course, jaded hierarchs in denial about their part in the debacle, who will have to one day give an account of it before God.

The story is not a rare one. Unfortunately, it’s not even that unusual. Reliance on a “movement” is not enough to hold a denomination, or even a parish, together. The Holy Spirit works in a certain way at a certain time to provide a specific sort of help. In the process, a system of definitions develops which can provide guidance. This, not attempts at some separate institutionalization, is the real value of a “movement.”

The principle value of the Convergence Movement is that it creates opportunities to reflect anew upon the physiognomy—or, if you will, the ecclesiognomy—of the Body of Christ: to reflect that, in her wholeness, the Church is indeed Liturgical, Charismatic and Evangelical.

Doctrine and Mindset

The Convergence movement is about three things:

a) encouraging acceptance of the release of the Holy Spirit, and the manifestation of the ministry gifts of the Spirit, in Christian individuals and ecclesiastical communions; promoting a Biblical approach to the manifestation of the ministry gifts, and avoiding identifying them with any separate “ism,” including “Pentecostalism;”

b) encouraging the order and spiritual depth that can only come from participation in Liturgy and Sacrament;

c) Using these to shape individuals and congregations into a strong force for witness.

Presumably, the hope is that our yieldedness to the Spirit will give Him greater access to us so that He can “lead us into all Truth.” (John 16:13a). However, there is a problem with this: Knowledge is acquired in context. We can be given right information, but without the proper context in which to place it, we will interpret it improperly. Most Protestants are doctrinally deprived of a sense of partnership between God and man, and they are ill-equipped to deal with this.

Take, for instance, the situation of someone who has been taught all of his life that the act he identifies as “baptism” is optional, and that the thing he calls “communion” is only a commemorative re-enactment of a past event. How will the activity of the Holy Spirit lead this person into knowledge of the Sacramental life, unless he is prepared to accept it? Chances are, the activity of the Spirit will succeed in leading him into tolerance of “people who hold the Eucharistic position,” but not into actual unity with them.

The upshot of this shift is that someone who believes with all his heart that the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist is false has been led into compromise of what he believes is true. A third factor, one that now supercedes truth and falsehood, has been introduced into his spiritual life. Call it “tolerance,” “co-operation,” “unity in diversity” or whatever, what has happened to this person is that he has been taught to think of Truth in subjective terms. He has learned to think in worldly terms of what is “true for you” and “true for me,” or has been dissuaded from thinking that we can know the One Truth at all. Wrongly-informed to begin with, this person’s ability to use what resources he has to grow in holiness has been interfered with rather than advanced. The enlightening activity of the Hoy Spirit was present, but the individual’s formation did not equip him to receive it properly.

If, on the other hand, this person accepts the encouragement of the Holy Spirit to look beyond his context, he will discover a dimension that will bring his walk to a whole new level. He will be led not to his own conclusions, but to sounder formation.

It is this element, of transformation by renewal of the mind (Romans 12:2b), which is key.

Where is this going to come from? An environment where there are thousands of variations on dozens of denominational “distinctives?” Where “Christian unity” has always meant “being nice to each other, despite…?” Or will some of what the Spirit is trying to say simply be interpreted as deception? After all, perfectly conscientious teachers, steeped in bad doctrine, can warn perfectly obedient believers not to be “deceived” by what is, in fact, the actual content of the Faith.

Take, for instance, the “Oneness Pentecostals,” who warn people against the “heresy of the Trinity,” or the Adventists, who inveigh against the dangers of believing in the immortal soul. Lesser, but still Spirit-inhibiting doctrinal positions, are advanced by every Protestant observance, and they all warn their followers against being “deceived” by what is in fact the Truth.

The phenomenon isn’t just catechetical. All denominations have their own traditions, and many have martyrs who have cruelly died in the defense of erroneous ideas. That the ideas were erroneous makes the martyrdoms no less compelling nor the traditions less absorbing. Passing along these ideas makes the teachers no less conscientious nor their students less obedient. The personal virtue may be abused, but it’s there, nonetheless, and only makes the positions more convincing.

So, the Holy Spirit may lead us into all Truth, but following Him there is a whole different matter.

The “homiletic exhortation” is no less true today than it was when it was first uttered: How then shall they call on Him in Whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of Whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? (Romans 10:14).

Fullness of faithfulness to God requires access to the fullness of the Faith. Without that there is no true unity, only a community bound together by tolerance of each others’ misconceptions.

At root, Protestantism is non-definitive. It is constantly asking questions in search of answers, in its attempt to “re-discover the Faith.” Either that, or it is locked into “denominationally distinctive” limitations that prevent it from having access to the fullness of the Faith. The ultimate usefulness of the Convergence Movement, therefore, is to acquaint individuals and congregations with the ecclesiognomy of—and thereby to encourage them toward--the Ancient Faith.

Emergence

What is happening within Orthodoxy is different, because the nature of Orthodoxy is different. Whatever is sound about the multiplicity of “distinctives” of the various Denominations is already present within Orthodoxy. What’s more, they’re placed in their proper balance, and they operate from the perspectives into which the Convergence Movement is going to have to grow if it is to accomplish the task God has set it.

Orthodoxy has always been evangelical, always been charismatic, always been Liturgical. Not because she has had to discover and define them, but because Orthodoxy is the Church, and these things are intrinsic to the nature and definition of the Church.

The coming together of these "three strains" requires no effort within Orthodoxy, because they're already here. They aren't promoted, or debated or "blended:" they're simply part of things, part of the Faith in its fullness, and there is nothing into which it is necessary to “converge.”

The problem is that, while Orthodoxy contains the fullness of the Faith, much of what we do contributes to sealing the container up, away from our daily experience. So, while “convergence” is not necessary, “emergence” most certainly is.

We are a two thousand year old family, and we are human and sinful and prone to quarrels. Many of these quarrels are hundreds of years old, carried on for no better reasons than vanity, pride and the unwillingness to forgive. This quarrelsomeness has become ingrained as a habit, a crippling disease which interferes with the work of God. Its malign fruit is that many Orthodox Churches—all of which share an identical Faith--are not in communion with each other; and that among those who are, there is constant bickering and jockeying for dominance.

As well, there is the insistent and debilitating influence the “Ecumenical Movement” has had upon the Church. So diabolically powerful is it that even many Orthodox bishops have been beguiled into hailing the most craven of apostates as “Christian brothers,” refusing to offer refuge to the unfortunate souls under their malign influence. This attitude has even begun to be extended to souls languishing without Christ in the “world religions.” Say these unfortunate bishops: “Orthodox do not proselytize,” as hell rejoices.

So, we stand at a crossroads. Our hearts cry out for the healing of a broken Christendom, and both sides of the cosmic struggle respond. We can follow the vertical bar upward, toward the solutions of Heaven, or downward, to the solutions of the world; the horizontal bar to the right, to order, or to the left, to chaos.

Hell offers us compromise: a mushy, amorphous “world religion,” wherein all religions and all activities are considered salvific, and the only sin is “intolerance.” Heaven offers us Reality, salvation and the Word of God. Heaven invites us, as always, to walk away from ourselves, our preferences and our insistences upon how we will and will not permit God to deal with us. God offers us Himself, and in our earthly life experience of and interaction with Him.

Hell’s way is attractive. It appeals to the highest standards of human reasoning, empathy and compassion. As he did with the Lord, the devil challenges us to “prove ourselves” to him. To the Lord, he said, “if you are the Son of God…”. To us he says, “If you love…”.

So has it always been, There have always been “lapses in character” on the part of the Church which have bottled her up in unhealthy ways, compromising her mission on earth. At such times God has responded, acting by the power of the Holy Spirit to work in and through His Body in a way that will “uncork” the bottle, so that the part which has been bottled up will emerge.

That’s what’s going on, again, today as in ancient days: emergence.

Purpose, Context and Mission

In general terms, the Orthodox Churches need to recover the vision of the Great Commission. We need to dispose ourselves to be willing to carry out this Commission in the manifest power of the Holy Spirit. Orthodox faith and practice already dispose us to take care that we respond to the Spirit, and not try to compel Him (the mistake of many “Pentecostals”). We will receive what we need in order to see the Church renewed, if we yield ourselves to God for the task. We are beginning to see it, now.

I truly think our divisions and contentions are due in large part to having too much time on our hands. We have neglected the advancement of the interests and work of the Kingdom of God, so to fill the time we pursue the advancement of our own.,

Christ came into the world for one purpose: to save sinners.(1 Timothy 1:15). If we are not about that, what are we doing with all of our spiritual work and advancement in the knowledge of the Faith? To what end do we refine our preaching skills? In what work is the prayer of our monasteries backing us up? Are the Churches simply organizations, whose primary purpose is to exist, and to advance their interests?

Are Christians called to be outward-looking, concerned with the spiritual plight of the world and its people, or inward-looking, concerned only about ourselves and our own salvation? Are we the Church Universal, or are we a collection of insular, self-absorbed ethnic social clubs?

Where is the Church that turned the world upside down? Where is the Church that swept across the face of the earth in the power and majesty of the proclamation of the Gospel, and transformed the human experience? When did God ever tell us to stop being that Church?

The answer, of course, is that He didn’t. God is as concerned for the souls of those without Christ as ever, and is just as concerned that His Church go out and harvest fields that have never been riper.

So, what are we doing about it? Where are the newly-planted communities and monasteries? Where are the evangelists, with fire in their eyes and healing in their hands, forming home cell groups and building up the parishes? Are we too tired? too ethnic? too middle-class? Too intimidated by the whining Ottoman-era proscription against “proselytizing?”

Whatever it is, the Lord has sent the Holy Spirit to refresh us and renew us once again, as He has from ancient days when we’ve become distracted from the task of going out into the highways and byways where we belong (Matthew 22:9).

The thing about Orthodoxy is that we have the proper context within which this can all happen. All the gifts, in all their proper order, are present within Orthodoxy. The ecclesiognomy is in the proper balance. Our advantage is that, for us, the business of emergence into the ancient fullness of the Church is neither experimental nor “new.” We do not have to seek ways to “make it work,” because it is already our daily reality: good tinder, lying in neat stacks, waiting to be ignited.

The Lord is not “doing a new thing” among us. The Lord did the New Thing two thousand years ago. What the Lord does among us is old things, from ancient days. He is doing one of these things, now, in our day. All we need to do is yield to Him, and go out with the Gospel to do as He has commanded. Signs and wonders will follow.

Fr. Jim Rosselli is a priest with the Community of the Holy Spirit, a mission community of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.

Items of Interest - 1st Week After Epiphany 2007

2007-01-14T14:55:00.000-05:00

Razilaženje Returns
The 3-week hiatus is over. Though my other two websites are still down due to certain technical issues, I have moved Razilaženje here, and am in the process of transferring over all the articles and comments.

Misinterpreting St. Paul
Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon on testing our interpretation against past teachers.

Adam and Christ
Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon on the contrast between Adam and Christ in scripture.

Faith, Logos, and Antichrist: A Post Scriptum on Regensburg
Srdja Trifkovic on the transcendent God of Islam

Will the 21st Be the Orthodox Century?
by Bradley Nassif. Fascination with the Great Tradition may signal deep changes for both evangelicals and the Orthodox.

The Humanist Manifesto II, “Democratic Society”
Lee Duigon of The Chalcedon Foundation examines militant Antichrist Humanism. Part IV of a series.

How Secular Donors Move Church Agenda
The National Council of Churches is becoming financially beholden to secular groups with liberal political leanings, according to a report by the Institute for Religion and Democracy.

Myths of the Teachers Unions
Jay Greene on the misconceptions that stand in the way of educational reform.

Jane Elliott and her Blue-Eyed Devil Children
Carl F. Horowitz on the totalitarian roots of diversity training.

Adam Smith for Dummies
Bill Steigerwald interviews P.J. O'Rourke on The Wealth of Nations.

14 Carter Center Advisors Resign Over Carter's Latest Book
"There are some things in life that you just cannot overlook. The truth is something that has got to be told. And certain portions of this book do not tell the truth."

Items of Interest - Week of the Holy Forefathers 2006

2006-12-23T16:47:00.000-05:00

Thoughts on Orthodox-Roman Relations Part III · Part IV By Metropolitan Anthony Bashir (+1966), Syrian Antiochian Archdiocese of North America.

The Historical Problem of Christmas By Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon. Just where did Matthew and Luke find the historical material that fills the first two chapters of each of those Gospels?

The Untold Story of Kosovo Negotiations By Srdja Trifkovic. The untold news is that Kosovo will not become independent.

The New Inquisition Gary DeMar on the Torquemadas of the secular scientific community.

Evolution is a Joke Gary DeMar speaks to Darwinism’s reliance on spontaneous generation.

Dining With Scrooge by Gary North. Dickens understood that Fezziwig had the right approach.

Ancestral Sin - Quotations From Orthodox Holy Fathers and Contemporary Authors

2006-12-21T15:51:00.000-05:00

“This is because Adam, when he ate from the tree which God had forbidden him to eat of, suffered the death of his soul as soon as he transgressed, but that of the body only many years later. Christ therefore first raised up, vivified, and deified the soul which had suffered first the punishment of death, and then, to the body condemned by the ancient judgment to return to the earth in death, He granted the reception of incorruptibility through the Resurrection.” (St. Symeon the New Theologian, On the Mystical Life, Ethical Discourses 1, SVS Press, Volume 1, Page 33)

“God willed from the very beginning to make His own good ours as well. He bestowed free will on the first created couple, our ancestors, and through them on us. This was in order that, not from sorrow or necessity, but as moved by a favorable disposition they should follow His commandment and do it with joy. Thus they would be accounted as having acquired the virtues by their own efforts, in order to offer them up as their gift to the Master and so progressively be led up by them to the perfect image and likeness of God, and approach the Unapproachable without suffering bodily death or the danger of being consumed by His fire, and one by one, generation upon generation, draw near to Him. But since the first couple submitted first to the will of the enemy and became transgressors of God’s commandment, they not only fell away from the greater hope, which is to say, from entering into the Light itself which neither fades nor has an evening, but were changed as well into corruption and death. They fell into lightless darkness and, becoming slaves to the prince of the dark and ruled over by him, they entered through sin into the darkness of death. Later we, too, who were born of them stooped to the will of this tyrant and were enslaved. This did not happen by compulsion, as is shown clearly by those who lived before the Law and under the Law and were found as well-pleasing because they dedicated their own will to the Master, and not to the devil.” (St. Symeon the New Theologian, On the Mystical Life, Ethical Discourses 10, SVS Press, Volume 1, Pages 143-144)

“Partaking of the fruit, he was entirely deprived of all those good and heavenly things and was lowered to the impassioned sensations of earthly and visible creatures. And, to repeat myself, he became deaf, blind, insensible in relation to that from which he had fallen. At once become mortal, corruptible and irrational, he became like the beasts which are without intelligence, in accordance with the prophet who cried: `He is become like the beasts without intellect and is like them.’” (St. Symeon the New Theologian, On the Mystical Life, Ethical Discourses 13, SVS Press, Volume 2, Pages 165-166)

“To such ignorance of God and His divine commandments were they brought down who were begotten of dust from the man of dust, that the honor which they ought to have rendered to God they gave instead to this visible creation, and not just to earth and sky and sun, moon and stars, fire and water and the rest, but they even made gods of those shameful passions themselves which ought not even to be imagined, let alone practiced, and which God has forbidden them…by which the whole race of mankind was and is enslaved, by which the devil has made and makes us his slaves and subject to his control. Whence, even if there were someone among those thousands and tens of thousands who had not stooped to these shameful ordinances and precepts, since he, too, because of his descent from the seed of those who had sinned, was yet a slave of the tyrant, death, he would also be given over to its corruption and sent without mercy to hell. There was no one, you see, who was able to save and redeem him. For this very reason, therefore, God the Word Who had made us had pity on us and came down.” (St. Symeon the New Theologian, On the Mystical Life, Ethical Discourses 13, SVS Press, Volume 2, Page 167)

“For since Adam’s transgression we are all subject to the passions because of our constant association with them. We do not gladly pursue goodness, nor do we long for the knowledge of God, nor do we do good our of love, as the dispassionate do; instead we cling to our passions and our vices and do not aspire at all to do what is good unless constrained by fear of punishment. And this is the case with those who receive God’s word with faith and purpose. The rest of us do not even aspire to this extent, but we regard the afflictions of this life and the punishments to come as of no account and are wholeheartedly enslaved to our passions.” (St. Peter of Damaskos, “A Treasury of Divine Knowledge”, Book 1, Introduction, Philokalia 3:77, Translated from the Greek by G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware, Faber & Faber)

“Consider the wisdom and power of the Creator and how He has produced such multiple states of being simply by summoning them into existence, St. Gregory the Theologian says that God conceived first the angelic powers and then the states sequent to them. As St. Isaac says, on passing spiritually beyond the threshold—that is to say, beyond the veil of the temple—one becomes immaterial. The outer part of the temple represents this world; the veil or the threshold represents the firmament of heaven; the holy of holies represents the supracosmic realm where the bodiless and immaterial powers ceaselessly hymn God and intercede for us, as St. Athanasios the Great says…As St. Kosmas the Hymnographer says, `When the first man tasted the tree, he was commixed with corruption: cast out ignobly from life and with a body subject to corruption, he passed on this punishment to all mankind. But we, the earth-born, restored through the wood of the Cross, cry aloud: Blessed art Thou and praised above all for ever.” (St. Peter of Damaskos, Seventh Stage of Contemplation, Philokalia, Volume 3, Page 142, Translated from the Greek and Edited By: G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware, Faber & Faber)

“When, using the woman as his accomplice, the devil deceived Adam, he divested him of the glory that enveloped him. Thus Adam found himself naked and perceived his disfigurement, of which he had been unaware until that moment since he had delighted his mind with celestial beauty. After his transgression, on the other hand, his thoughts became base and material, and the simplicity and goodness of his mind were intertwined with evil worldly concerns. The closing of paradise, and the placing of the cherubim with the burning sword to prevent his entrance, must be regarded as actual events; but they are also realities encountered inwardly be each soul. A veil of darkness—the fire of the worldly spirit—surrounds the heart, preventing the intellect from communing with God, and the soul from praying, believing and loving the Lord as it desires to do.” (St. Makarios of Egypt, “Patient Endurance and Discrimination”, 37, Philokalia 3:300, Translated from the Greek by G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware, Faber & Faber)

“The ancestral sin is that man withdrew from God, lost divine grace, and this resulted in blindness, darkness and death of the nous. We can say more accurately that `the fall of man or the state of having inherited sin is: a) the failure of his noetic power to function soundly or even to function at all, b) the confusion of this power with the functions of the brain and of the body in general, and c) its resulting subjection to mental anguish and to the surrounding conditions. Every person has experience of the fall or his own noetic power to varying degrees, as he is exposed to an environment in which this power is not functioning or is below par… Malfunctioning of the noetic power results in bad relations between man and God and between people. It also results in the individual’s making use of both God and fallen man to fortify his personal safety and happiness. This loss of the grace of God deadened man’s nous; his whole nature sickened, and he handed this sickness on to his descendants as well. In Orthodox teaching this is how we understand the inheritance of sin. The Fathers interpret St. Paul’s `as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners’ (Rom. 5, 19) not in legal terms but `medically’. That is to say, human nature became sick. St. Cyril of Alexandria interprets the situation thus: `After Adam fell by sin and sank into corruption, at once impure pleasures rushed in, and the law of the jungle sprang up in our members. So nature became sick with sin through the disobedience of one, Adam. Then the many became sinners, not as fellow transgressors with Adam, for they did not even exist, but as being of that nature which had fallen under the law of sin…Human nature in Adam became sick through the corruption of disobedience, and thus the passions entered into it.’ In another place the same Father uses the image of the root. Death came to the whole human race by Adam, `just as when the root of a plant is injured, all the young shoots that come from it must whither.’ St. Gregory Palamas says characteristically: `The nous which has rebelled against God becomes either bestial or demonic and, after having rebelled against the laws of nature, lusts after what belongs to others…’ Through the `rite of birth in God’, holy baptism, man’s nous is illuminated, freed from slavery to sin and the devil, and is united to God. That is why baptism is called illumination.” (”Orthodox Psychotherapy—The Science of the Fathers”, Pages 36-37, Metropolitan of Nafpaktos Hierotheos Vlachos, Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, 1997)

“Fr. Harakas, just what is Original Sin? You are certainly entitled to ask. Few teachings of the Church have been subject to so many misinterpretations. Some churches and religious traditions understand the meaning of Original Sin as inherited guilt, others as social disorder, others as sexual intercourse, and so on. In his book Original Sin (To Propatorikon Amartema), Fr. John Romanides explains the Eastern Orthodox position. Original Sin is the condition in which humanity finds itself as separated from true and full communion with God. As a consequence, our human nature is distorted. Our mind is darkened; our will weakened, our desires rampant; our judgment impaired; our relationships with others in constant tension. In short, we are in a condition which is disturbed and distorted. It is a condition which calls for redemption since we cannot remove ourselves from it by our own effort. The Church proclaims that it is Christ who has redeemed us from Original Sin through His death and resurrection. Through Baptism, we are freed from the determining power of this condition of separatedness from God. As a result of our membership in the Church we are given the potential of restoring our proper relationship to God, our neighbor and our own selves.” (Father Stanley S. Harakas, “The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and Answers”, Pages 238-239, Light and Life Publishing Co., 1987)

“And they `delight’ indeed `in the law of God after the inner man,’ which soars above all visible things and ever strives to be united to God alone, but they `see another law in their members,’ i.e., implanted in their natural human condition, which `resisting the law of their mind,’ brings their thoughts into captivity to the forcible law of sin, compelling them to forsake that chief good and submit to earthly notions, which though they may appear necessary and useful when they are taken up in the interests of some religious want, yet when they are set against that good which fascinates the gaze of all the saints, are seen by them to be bad and such as should be avoided, because by them in some way or other and for a short time they are drawn away from the joy of that perfect bliss. For the law of sin is really what the fall of its first father brought on mankind by that fault of his, against which there was uttered this sentence by the most just Judge: `Cursed is the ground in thy works; thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and in the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread.’ This, I say, is the law, implanted in the members of all mortals, which resists the law of our mind and keeps it back from the vision of God, and which, as the earth is cursed in our works after the knowledge of good and evil, begins to produce the thorns and thistles of thoughts, by the sharp pricks of which the natural seeds of virtues are choked, so that without the sweat of our brow we cannot eat our bread which `cometh down from heaven,’ and which `strengtheneth man’s heart.’ The whole human race in general therefore is without exception subject to this law…Of this also: `But we know that the law is spiritual,’ etc. And this law the Apostle also calls spiritual saying: `But we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.’ For this law is spiritual which bids us eat in the sweat of our brow that `true bread which cometh down from heaven’ but that sale under sin makes us carnal. What, I ask, or whose is that sin? Doubtless Adam’s, by whose fall and, if I may so say, ruinous transaction and fraudulent bargain we were sold. For when he was led astray by the persuasion of the serpent he brought all his descendants under the yoke of perpetual bondage, as they were alienated by taking the forbidden food. For this custom is generally observed between the buyer and seller, that one who wants to make himself over to the power of another, receives from his buyer a price for the loss of his liberty, and his consignment to perpetual slavery. And we can very plainly see that this took place between Adam and the serpent. For by eating of the forbidden tree he received from the serpent the price of his liberty, and gave up his natural freedom and chose to give himself up to perpetual slavery to him from whom he had obtained the deadly price of the forbidden fruit; and thenceforth he was bound by this condition and not without reason subjected all the offspring of his posterity to perpetual service to him whose slave he had become. For what can any marriage in slavery produce but slaves? What then? Did that cunning and crafty buyer take away the rights of ownership from the true and lawful lord? Not so. For neither did he overcome all God’s property by the craft of a single act of deception so that the true lord lost his rights of ownership, who though the buyer himself was a rebel and a renegade, yet oppressed him with the yoke of slavery; but because the Creator had endowed all reasonable creatures with free will, he would not restore to their natural liberty against their will those who contrary to right had sold themselves by the sin of greedy lust. Since anything that is contrary to goodness and fairness is abhorrent to Him who is the Author of justice and piety. For it would have been wrong for Him to have recalled the blessing of freedom granted, unfair for Him to have by His power oppressed man who was free, and by taking him captive, not to have allowed him to exercise the prerogative of the freedom he had received, as He was reserving his salvation for future ages, that in due season the fulness of the appointed time might be fulfilled. For it was right that his offspring should remain under the ancient conditions for so long a time, until by the price of His own blood the grace of the Lord redeemed them from their original chains and set them free in the primeval state of liberty, though He was able even then to save them, but would not, because equity forbade Him to break the terms of His own decree… Of this also: `But I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing.’ Because then the original curse of God has made us carnal and condemned us to thorns and thistles, and our father has sold us by that unhappy bargain so that we cannot do the good that we would, while we are torn away from the recollection of God Most High and forced to think on what belongs to human weakness, while burning with the love of purity, we are often even against our will troubled by natural desires, which we would rather know nothing about; we know that in our flesh there dwelleth no good thing viz., the perpetual and lasting peace of this meditation of which we have spoken; but there is brought about in our case that miserable and wretched divorce, that when with the mind we want to serve the law of God, since we never want to remove our gaze from the Divine brightness, yet surrounded as we are by carnal darkness we are forced by a kind of law of sin to tear ourselves away from the good which we know, as we fall away from that lofty height of mind to earthly cares and thoughts, to which the law of sin, i.e., the sentence of God, which the first delinquent received, has not without reason condemned us. And hence it is that the blessed Apostle, though he openly admits that he and all saints are bound by the constraint of this sin, yet boldly asserts that none of them will be condemned for this, saying: `There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus: for the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath set me free from the law of sin and death,’ i.e., the grace of Christ day by day frees all his saints from this law of sin and death, under which they are constantly reluctantly obliged to come, whenever they pray to the Lord for the forgiveness of their trespasses. You see then that it was in the person not of sinners but of those who are really saints and perfect, that the blessed Apostle gave utterance to this saying: `For I do not the good that I would, but the evil which I hate, that I do;’ and: `I see another law in my members resisting the law of my mind and bringing me captive to the law of sin which is in my members.’ (St. John Cassian, Third Conference of Abbot Theonas, Chapters 11-13, NPNF II 11:525-527)

“Terror of this kind we experience only when through disobedience we estrange ourselves from the life I am about to describe. This was the fate of Adam when he violated God’s commandments: associating with the serpent and trusting him, he was sated by him with the fruits of deceit (cf. Gen. 3:1-6), and thus wretchedly plunged himself and all those who came after him into the pit of death, darkness and corruption.” (Nikiphoros the Monk, “On Watchfulness and the Guarding of the Heart”, Philokalia 4:194, Translated from the Greek by G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware, Faber & Faber)

“You cannot be or become spiritually intelligent in the way that is natural to man in his pre-fallen state unless you first attain purity and freedom from corruption. For our purity has been overlaid by a state of sense-dominated mindlessness, and our original incorruption by the corruption of the flesh. Only those who through their purity have become saints are spiritually intelligent in the way that is natural to man in his pre-fallen state. Mere skill in reasoning does not make a person’s intelligence pure, for since the fall our intelligence has been corrupted by evil thoughts.” (St. Gregory of Sinai, “On Commandments and Doctrines, Warnings and Promises; on Thoughts, Passions and Virtues, and also on Stillness and Prayer: One Hundred and Thirty Seven Texts”, 1-2, Philokalia 4:212, Translated from the Greek by G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware, Faber & Faber)

“As the separation of the soul from the body is the death of the body, so the separation of God from the soul is the death of the soul. And this death of the soul is the true death. This is made clear by the commandment given in paradise, when God said to Adam, `On whatever day you eat from the forbidden tree you will certainly die’ (cf. Gen. 2:17). And it was indeed Adam’s soul that died by becoming through his transgression separated from God; for bodily he continued to live after that time, even for nine hundred and thirty years (cf. Gen. 5:5). The death, however, that befell the soul because of the transgression not only crippled the soul and made man accursed; it also rendered the body itself subject to fatigue, suffering and corruptibility, and finally handed it over to death. For it was after the dying of his inner self brought about by the transgression that the earthly Adam heard the words, `Earth will be cursed because of what you do, it will produce thorns and thistles for you.’…Thus the violation of God’s commandment is the cause of all types of death, both of soul and body, whether in the present life or in that endless chastisement. And death, properly speaking, is this: for the soul to be unharnessed from divine grace and to be yoked to sin. This death, for those who have their wits, is truly dreadful and something to be avoided. This, for those who think aright, is more terrible than the chastisement of Gehenna…As the death of the soul is authentic death, so the life of the soul is authentic life. Life of the soul is union with God, as life of the body is union with the soul. As the soul was separated from God and died in consequence of the violation of the commandment, so by obedience to the commandment it is again united to God and is quickened…The death of the soul through transgression and sin, is then, followed by the death of the body and by its dissolution in the earth and its conversion into dust; and this bodily death is followed in its turn by the soul’s banishment to Hades.” (St. Gregory Palamas, “Topics on Natural and Theological Science”, Chapters 9-14, Philokalia 4:296-297, Translated from the Greek by G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware, Faber & Faber)

“After our forefather’s transgression in paradise through the tree, we suffered the death of our soul—which is the separation of the soul from God—prior to our bodily death; yet although we cast away our divine likeness, we did not lose our divine image.” (St. Gregory Palamas, “Topics on Natural and Theological Science”, Chapter 39, Philokalia 4:363, Translated from the Greek by G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware, Faber & Faber)

“Hence—whether out of love for Him who wants us to live (for why would God have created us as living creatures if He did not especially want us to live?), or because we recognize that He knows what is for our profit better than we do (and how could He who grants us knowledge and is the Lord of knowledge not know this incomparably better than we do?), or out of fear for His almighty power—we ought not to have been misled, lured and persuaded at that time into rejecting God’s commandment and counsel; and the same now holds good with regard to those saving commandments and counsels which we later received. Just as now those who do not choose courageously to resist sin, and who set the divine commandments at nought, end up—if they do not renew their souls through repentance—by following a path that leads to inner and eternal death, so our two primal ancestors, by not resisting those who persuaded them to disobey, violated the commandment. Because of this the sentence previously proclaimed to them by Him who judges justly immediately took effect, so that as soon as they ate of the tree they died.” (St. Gregory Palamas, “Topics on Natural and Theological Science”, Chapter 48, Philokalia 4:368, Translated from the Greek by G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware, Faber & Faber)

“Through the fall our nature was stripped of this divine illumination and resplendence.” (St. Gregory Palamas, “Topics on Natural and Theological Science”, Chapter 66, Philokalia 4:376, Translated from the Greek by G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware, Faber & Faber)

“Before Christ we all shared the same ancestral curse and condemnation poured out on all of us from our single Forefather, as if it had sprung from the root of the human race and was the common lot of our nature. Each person’s individual action attracted either reproof or praise from God, but no one could do anything about the shared curse and condemnation, or the evil inheritance that has been passed down to him and through him would pass to his descendants. But Christ came, setting human nature free and changing the common curse into a shared blessing. He took upon Himself our guilty nature from the most pure Virgin and united it, new and unmixed with the old seed, to His Divine Person. He rendered it guiltless and righteous, so that all His spiritual descendants would remain outside the ancestral curse and condemnation. How so? He shares His grace with each one of us as a person, and each receives forgiveness of his sins from Him. For He did not receive from us a human person, but assumed our human nature and renewed it by uniting it with His own Person. His wish was to save us all completely and for our sake He bowed the heavens and came down. When by His deeds, words and Sufferings He had pointed out all the ways of salvation, He went up to heaven again, drawing after Him those who trusted Him. His aim was to grant perfect redemption not just to the nature which He had assumed from us in inseparable union, but to each one of those who believed in Him. This He has done and continues to do, reconciling each of us through Himself to the Father, bringing each one back to obedience and thoroughly healing our disobedience. To this end, He established Holy Baptism and gave us saving laws.” (St. Gregory Palamas, “Homily 5, On the Meeting of Our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ”, 1-2, Volume 1, Pages 52-52, St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press)

“Lack of self-control is actually an evil both ancient and modern, though it did not precede its antidote, fasting. By means of our Forefathers’ self-indulgence in paradise and their contempt for the fast already in existence there, death entered the world. Sin reigned and brought in the condemnation of our nature from Adam until Christ.” (St. Gregory Palamas, “Homily 6, To Encourage Fasting”, 16, Volume 1, Page 73, St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press)

“Man, indeed, can readily accept the evil one. Death has its grip on the children of Adam and their thoughts are imprisoned in darkness. And when you hear mention made of tombs, do not at once think only of visible ones. For your heart is a tomb and a sepulcher. When the prince of evil and his angels have built their nest there and have built roads and highways on which the powers of Satan walk about inside you mind and in your thoughts, then, really, are you not a hell and a sepulcher and a tomb dead to God.” (St. Macarius, “The Fifty Spiritual Homilies”, Homily 11, “Pseudo-Macarius, the Fifty Spiritual Homilies and the Great Letter”, Page 95, Classics of Western Spirituality, Paulist Press)

“Adam, when he transgressed the commandment, lost two things. First he lost the pure possession of his nature, so lovely, created according to the image and likeness of God. Second, he lost the very image itself in which was laid up for him, according to God’s promise, the full heavenly inheritance. Take the example of a coin bearing the image of the king. If it were mixed with a false alloy and lost its gold content, the image also would lose its value. Such, indeed, happened to Adam. A very great richness and inheritance was prepared for him. It was as though there were a large estate and it possessed many sources of income. It had a fruitful vineyard; there were fertile fields, flocks, gold and silver. Such was the vessel of Adam before his disobedience like a very valuable estate. When, however, he entertained evil intentions and thoughts, he lost God. We nevertheless do not say that he was totally lost and was blotted out of existence and died. He died as far as his relationship with God was concerned, but in his nature, however, he still lives. For look, the whole world still walks on the earth and carries on its business. But God’s eyes see their very minds and thoughts and, as it were, he disregards them and has no communion with them, because nothing that they think is pleasing to God.” (St. Macarius, “The Fifty Spiritual Homilies”, Homily 12, “Pseudo-Macarius, the Fifty Spiritual Homilies and the Great Letter”, Pages 97-98, Classics of Western Spirituality, Paulist Press)

“In that day, when Adam fell, God came walking in the garden. He wept, so to speak, seeing Adam and he said: `After such good things, what evils you have chosen! After such glory, what shame you now bear! What darkness are you now! What ugly form you are! What corruption! From such light, what darkness has covered you!’ When Adam fell and was dead in the eyes of God, the Creator wept over him. The angels, all the powers, the heavens, the earth and all creatures bewailed his death and fall. For they saw him, who had been given to them as their king, now become a servant of an opposing and evil power. Therefore, darkness became the garment of his soul, a bitter and evil darkness, for he was made a subject of the prince of darkness. This was the person who was wounded by robbers and left half dead as he `was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho’ (Lk 10:30). For Lazarus also, whom the Lord raised up, exuded so fetid an odor that no one could approach his tomb, as a symbol of Adam whose soul exuded such a great stench and was full of blackness and darkness. But you, when you hear about Adam and the wounded traveler and Lazarus, do not let your mind wander as it were into the mountains, but remain within your soul, because you also carry the same wounds, the same smell, the same darkness. We are all his sons of that dark race and we all inherit the same stench. Therefore, the passion that he suffered, all of us, who are of Adam’s seed, suffer also. For such a suffering has hit us, as Isaiah says: `It’s not a wound, nor a bruise, nor an inflamed sore. It is impossible to apply a soothing salve or oil or to make bandages” (Is 1:6). Thus we were wounded with an incurable wound. Only the Lord could heal it. For this he came in his own person because no one of the ancients nor the Law itself nor the prophets were able to heal it. He alone, when he came, healed that sore, the incurable sore of the soul.” (St. Macarius, “The Fifty Spiritual Homilies”, Homily 30, “Pseudo-Macarius, the Fifty Spiritual Homilies and the Great Letter”, Pages 192-193, Classics of Western Spirituality, Paulist Press)

“The real death takes place interiorly in the heart. It lies hidden. The interior man perishes.” (St. Macarius, “The Fifty Spiritual Homilies”, Homily 15, “Pseudo-Macarius, the Fifty Spiritual Homilies and the Great Letter”, Page 123, Classics of Western Spirituality, Paulist Press)

“The reign of darkness, the evil prince, after humanity at the beginning was taken captive, surrounded and clothed the soul as if it were a human form with the vestiture of the power of darkness. `And they made him king and they clothed him with regal garments and from head to foot he would walk in royal robes.’ So likewise he clothed the soul and all its substance with sin. That evil prince corrupted it completely, not sparing any of its members from its slavery, not its thoughts, neither the mind nor the body, but he clothed it with the purple of darkness. Just as the whole body suffers and not merely one part alone, so also the entire soul was subjected to the passions of evil and sin. The prince of evil thus clothed the whole soul, which is the chief member and part of humanity, with his own wickedness, that is, with sin. And so the entire body fell a victim to passion and corruption.” (St. Macarius the Great, “The Fifty Spiritual Homilies”, Homily 2, “Pseudo-Macarius, the Fifty Spiritual Homilies and the Great Letter”, Pages 44-45, Classics of Western Spirituality, Paulist Press)

“Man, then, was thus snared by the assault of the arch-fiend, and broke his Creator’s command, and was stripped of grace and put off his confidence with God, and covered himself with the asperities of a toilsome life (for this is the meaning of the fig-leaves); and was clothed about with death, that is, mortality and the grossness of flesh (for this is what the garment of skins signifies); and was banished from Paradise by God’s just judgment, and condemned to death, and made subject to corruption.” (St. John of Damascus, “Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith”, Book 3, Chapter 1, NPNF II 9:45)

“We were freed by holy baptism from ancestral sin [progonikh `amartia].” (St. Maximus the Confessor, Ascet.44, PG 90:956, quoted in: “The Christian Tradition—A History of the Development of Doctrine”, Volume 2 [”The Spirit of Eastern Christendom”], Page 182, Jaroslav Pelikan, Chicago University Press, 1977)

Jaroslav Pelikan writes concerning Maximus’ concept of Ancestral Sin vis-à-vis Augustine’s: “…which sounds very much like the Augustinian doctrine of a sinfulness passed on from Adam to his descendants for all generations. Human nature lost `the grace of impassibility and became sin.’ In other passages, too, Maximus spoke of sin and the fall in an apparently Augustinian fashion. But Maximus’ doctrine, while referring of course to the sin of Adam, did not have in it the idea of the transmission of sin through physical conception and birth. Rather, Maximus saw Adam not as the individual from whom all subsequent human beings sprang by lineal descent, but as the entire human race embodied in one concrete but universal person. In spite of the superficial parallels between the two, therefore, Augustine’s doctrine of man and Maximus’ doctrine were really quite different. Photius recognized that the church fathers had had a twofold anthropology, one praising and the other reviling human nature. In the Eastern tradition this did not lead to the Western view of sin through the fall of Adam, but to a view of death through the fall of Adam, a death that each man merited through his own sin. Thus the hardening of Pharaoh, which Augustine had interpreted as at one and the same time a result of the secret predestination of God and an act of Pharaoh’s own free will, was to Photius a proof that `God, who never does violence to the power of free will, permitted [Pharaoh] to be carried away by his own will when he refused to change his behavior on the basis of better counsel.’ No less striking was the contrast between the Augustinian tradition and the Greek tradition in the understanding of grace and salvation. An epitome of the contrast is the formula of Maximus: `Our salvation finally depends on our own will.’ For `one could not conceive a system of thought more different from Western Augustinianism; and yet Maximus is in no way a Pelagian.’ This is because the dichotomy represented by the antithesis between Pelagianism and Augustinianism was not part of Maximus’ thought. Instead, `his doctrine of salvation is based on the idea of participation and of communion that excludes neither grace nor freedom but supposes their union and collaboration, which were re-established once and for all in the incarnate Word and his two wills.’” (”The Christian Tradition—A History of the Development of Doctrine”, Volume 2 [”The Spirit of Eastern Christendom”], Pages 182-183, Jaroslav Pelikan, Chicago University Press, 1977)

“Following the canonical laws of the Fathers, we decree concerning infants, as often as they are found without trusty witnesses who say that they are undoubtedly baptized; and as often as they are themselves unable on account of their age to answer satisfactorily in respect to the initiatory mystery given to them; that they ought without any offence to be baptized, lest such a doubt might deprive them of the sanctification of such a purification.” (Quinisext Canon 84, NPNF II 14:402)

“The first man, through eating from the tree, went to dwell in corruption: condemned to shameful banishment from life, he fell prey to bodily corruption, which he transmitted to all our kind like some pollution from disease. But the inhabitants of the earth, finding restoration in the wood of the Cross, cry aloud: Blessed art Thou and praised above all, O our God and the God of our Fathers. The breaking of the law of God came through disobedience, and the untimely partaking of the fruit of the tree brought death to mortal men.” (Matins of The Universal Exaltation of the Holy Cross, Canon—Canticle 7, “The Festal Menaion”, Page 149, Mother Mary and Kallistos Ware, St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press)

“Today the death that came to man through eating of the tree, is made of no effect through the Cross. For the curse of our mother Eve that fell on all mankind is destroyed by the fruit of the pure Mother of God, whom all the powers of heaven magnify.” (Matins of The Universal Exaltation of the Holy Cross, Canon—Canticle 9, “The Festal Menaion”, Page 151, Mother Mary and Kallistos Ware, St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press)

“Jesus, hearken unto me who was conceived in iniquity. Jesus, cleanase me who was born in sin.” (The Akathist Hymn to Jesus Christ, Eta [Ikos 3], “A Prayer Book for Orthodox Christians”, Page 202, Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 1987)

“Come my wretched soul, and weep today over thine acts, remembering how once thou wast stripped naked in Eden and cast out from delight and unending joy. In thine abundant compassion and mercy, O Fashioner of the creation and Maker of all, Thou hast taken me from the dust and given me life, commanding me to sing Thy praises with Thine angels. In the wealth of Thy goodness, O Creator and Lord, Thou hast planted in Eden the sweetness of Paradise, and bidden me to take my delight in fair and pleasing fruits that never pass away. Woe to thee, my wretched soul! Thou hast received authority from God to take thy pleasure in the joys of Eden, but He commanded thee not to eat of the fruit of knowledge. Why hast thou transgressed the law of God.” (Matins of Forgiveness Sunday, Canon—Canticle 1, “The Lenten Triodion”, Page 171, Mother Maria and Kallistos Ware, St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press)

“The effects of man’s fall were both physical and moral. On the physical level human beings became subject to pain and disease, to the debility and bodily disintegration of old age. Woman’s joy in bringing forth new life became mixed with the pangs of childbirth (Gen. 3:16). None of this was part of God’s initial plan for humanity. In consequence of the fall, men and women also became subject to the separation of soul and body in physical death. Yet physical death should be seen, not primarily as a punishment, but as a means of release provided by a loving God. In his mercy God did not wish men to go on living indefinitely in a fallen world, caught for ever in the vicious circle of their own devising; and so he provided a way of escape. For death is not the end of life but the beginning of its renewal…On the moral level, in consequence of the fall human beings became subject to frustration, boredom, depression. Work, which was intended to be a source of joy for man and a means of communion with God, had now to be performed for the most part unwillingly, `in the sweat of the face’ (Gen. 3:19). Nor was this all. Man became subject to inward alienation: weakened in will, divided against himself, he became his own enemy and executioner…The Orthodox tradition, without minimizing the effects of the fall, does not however believe that it resulted in a `total depravity’, such as the Calvinists assert in their more pessimistic moments. The divine image in man was obscured but not obliterated. His free choice has been restricted in its exercise but not destroyed. Even in a fallen world man is still capable of generous self-sacrifice and loving compassion. Even in a fallen world man still retains some knowledge of God and can enter by grace into communion with him. There are many saints in the pages of the Old Testament, men and women such as Abraham and Sarah, Joseph and Moses, Elijah and Jeremiah; and outside the Chosen People of Israel there are figures such as Socrates who not only taught the truth but lived it. Yet it remains true that humans sin—the original sin of Adam, compounded by the personal sins of each succeeding generation—has set a gulf between God and man such that man by his own efforts could not bridge.” (”The Orthodox Way”, Pages 77-80, Archimandrite Kallistos Ware, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1986)

compiled by Stephen Gagnon of the Evangelical-Orthodox Forum

Nicholas Cabasilas on Satisfaction

2006-12-19T11:54:00.000-05:00

“The commission of sin involves injury to God Himself… there is need of virtue great than is found in man to be able to cancel the indictment. For the lowest it is particularly easy to commit an injury against Him who is greatest. Yet it is impossible for him to compensate for this insolence by any honour… He, then, who seeks to cancel the indictment against himself must restore the honour to Him who has been insulted and pay more than he owes, partly by way of restitution, partly by adding compensation…. [Jesus] alone, then, was able to render all the honour that is due to that Father and make satisfaction for that which had been taken away. The former he achieved by His life, the latter by His death. The death which He died upon the cross to the Father’s glory He brought to outweigh the injury which we had committed; in addition He most abundantly made amends for the debt of honour which we owed for our sins.”

from The Life in Christ IV:4

Peter Boyle’s Final Repose

2006-12-18T18:55:00.000-05:00

On 12 December, the great character-actor and former Catholic monk Peter Boyle died of cancer in New York City. Today would have been his 71st birthday.

This all reminded me of what was, in my opinion, the greatest role of his career: Clyde Bruckman, in episode 03X04 of The X-Files, Clyde Bruckman’s Final Repose, in which he played a life-insurance salesman cursed with the psychic “gift” of being able to see the future death of anyone he came into contact with.

The entire episode can be viewed online. The script is available here, and an excellent review here.

Which (Western) Theologian Am I?

2006-12-18T13:26:00.000-05:00

I took one of these silly quizzes, Which Theologian Are You? (which should have been titled, Which Western Theologian.., since it entirely excludes the East; or maybe even something else - the only non-Protestants in the list are Augustine and Anselm).

My results were:

You scored as Karl Barth. The daddy of 20th Century theology. You perceive liberal theology to be a disaster and so you insist that the revelation of Christ, not human experience, should be the starting point for all theology.

Karl Barth

93%

Anselm

80%

Martin Luther

80%

John Calvin

73%

Augustine

73%

Jürgen Moltmann

47%

Friedrich Schleiermacher

47%

Charles Finney

40%

Jonathan Edwards

33%

Paul Tillich

27%

Barth doesn’t come as a great surprise, considering the paucity and nature of the options. Nor is it at all surprising that Tillich, Jimmy Carter’s “favorite theologian”, came out on the bottom. I was initially dismayed that Moltmann and Schleiermacher were so close to the middle, but on further reflection, I realised that I dislike them about equally (though less than Edwards), and they did tie, after all.

Vladyka Seraphim, the retired Bishop of Hentai, also took this quiz - his results and insightful commentary can be found here.

In honour of Karl Barth though, I will repeat one of, in my estimation, the most important things he said:

For the history of Jesus Christ, whose content is the covenant between God and humankind, is the beginning as well as the end and goal of all things.

Amen.

Items of Interest - 27th Week After Pentecost 2006

2006-12-16T17:34:00.000-05:00

Thoughts on Orthodox-Roman Relations Part I · Part II
By Metropolitan Anthony Bashir (+1966), Syrian Antiochian Archdiocese of North America.

Everybody knows that Christmas is really just a warmed-over Celebration of the Feast of the Sol Invictus
Or do they? Mark Shea says “The fact is, our records of a tradition associating Jesus’ birth with December 25 are decades older than any records concerning a pagan feast on that day.”

The Logos and the Tao
The philosophy of Lao-Tzu as Preparatio Evangelica.

Allende: The Untold Story
By Humberto Fontova. Pinochet’s “democratic” predecessor was a Stalinist tyrant in waiting.

The Dictator and Double-Standards
by Jacob Laskin. “In a just world, Pinochet would be remembered as an unjust man who spared his country from an infinitely worse fate. That he will instead go down as a dictator of unrivalled malignity is more of a testament to the petty prejudices of the political Left than an accurate reflection of the historical record.”

The Dawkins Delusion
Now that Carl Sagan and Stephen Jay Gould have been committed—in their estimation at least—to the nothingness, the world has been “given” (by whom?) another Prophet of Scientism…

The Fall Into Liberal Protestantism
Raymond J. Keating on defining Liberal Protestantism.

Islam Gets Concessions; Infidels Get Conquered
by Raymond Ibrahim. What they capture, they keep. When they lose, they complain to the U.N.

Jeane Kirkpatrick, RIP
Ben Johnson eulogises America’s Iron Lady.

Why Things Were the Way They Were
by Gary DeMar. “Because Christians took their faith seriously and applied it beyond the church doors and the Sunday school hour.”

The Final Victim of the Blacklist
Richard Schickel reviews Gerald Horne’s The Final Victim of the Blacklist: John Howard Lawson, Dean of the Hollywood Ten.

Original Sin: The West-Haters Strike Back

2006-12-14T21:45:00.000-05:00

My recent essay, Original and Ancestral Sin: A False Dichotomy, has received, interestingly, more attention than anything else I've ever written. The bulk of it has been quite positive. It was inevitable, though, that a certain set of convert-Orthodox, the segment that, whether from a very superficial mindset in general or from a desperation to justify their conversion by maximising East-West difference by any means possible, would respond with rabid tirades that put on display their knee-jerk hatred of anything "Western", as well as their propensity to simply assert when they ought to argue. These responses have been quite illustrative, in that they show how the anti-Occidentalists, like the Leftists in the Democratic Party, try to portray themselves as "more compassionate" and "more loving", make their specious "Your God is mean; our God is nice - come worship the nice God" evangelistic pleas, and then boil over with vitriol when challenged. The first volley came, in an online forum in which Orthodox and Evangelicals interact, from one D.R., who wrote:

Nah, I blame Barlaam of Calabria. It is God's will that everyone beholds the uncreated light. Satans great lie is that we cannot. The Palamite Councils officially condemned the epistemology represented by Barlaam. When I look at western theology I see nothing but Barlaamism.

He then followed up with this, following the idea that, if you can't really make an argument against someone's writing, attack his credentials:

In final analysis I must ask, since you speak with such great authority and knowledge. 1. Are you an Orthodox Priest or Bishop? 2. Do speak with the blessing representing the mind of the Church? 3. Do have a graduate education from an Orthodox Seminary? If not, do you at least have a Ph.D in Patristics or Historical theology...and if so, what was your specialty? 4. In consideration of these questions, How can you have such confidence that you are correctly representing the mind of the Church? Are you somehow a greater intellect and spiritual authority that you feel at liberty to disagree with these great men. 5. No matter how you wish to represent "Your" preferent version of things. The fact is the Eastern Orthodox Church absolutely does not share a common epistemology with the Western churches.

The second volley was from T.V., who wrote:

Anyone who wants to know the Orthodox teaching regarding Ancestral Sin would do far better reading Dr. Alexander Kalomiros' _River of Fire_ than reading the piece of utterly unedifying piece of logorrhoea which started this thread. To cut to the core of the issue: it is extremely commonplace amongst Protestants (though, because Protestantism is 'all over the map' on any Christian teaching one might imagine, it is impossible to categorically state Protestants believe any particular thing) to view God as a 'Mean God'. Just read Jonathan Edwards' _Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God_. Listen to what Protestants typically say. For instance, during the drama of trying to save the miners trapped in the West Virginia (USA) coal mine about a year ago, the daughter of the Baptist pastor said that if it was God's will that the coal miners die, they were praying to be able to accept it. That's the 'Mean God' view -- a view wholly incompatible with the Orthodox understanding of God. Even the _Baltimore Catechism_ cited in that utterly unedifying piece of logorrhoea teaches that God took away gifts previously given to Adam and Eve -- IOW, it teaches that God is an 'Indian Giver'. Again, a view wholly incompatible with the Orthodox understanding of God. The Western Christian view of 'Original Sin' is very different than the Orthodox Christian view of 'Ancestral Sin'. No amount of obfuscation is going to alter that fact.

Then, T.R. followed up with something that is, at least, an some measure of attempt at an argument:

A couple of citations may be of use to demonstrate the real dichotomy between ‘Original Sin’ and ‘Ancestral Sin’. The first is from the venerable and recently reposed Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, a scholar of the highest rank and esteem. >>>BEGIN QUOTE>>> In a famous and controversial passage of _On Nature and Grace_, one of the most important treatises that he devoted to the defense of the doctrine of original sin, Augustine had listed the great saints of the Old and New Testaments, who had nevertheless been sinners. Then he continued: “We must make an exception of the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord. For from him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular [_ad vincendum omni ex parte peccatum_] was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear him who undoubtedly had no sin” When he made such a statement, Augustine was being MORE FAITHFUL TO THE GREEK TRADITION IN HIS DOCTRINE OF MARY THAN HE WAS IN HIS DOCTRINE OF HUMAN NATURE. As suggested in chapter 6, THE EAST AND THE WEST TOOK SIGNIFICANTLY DIVERGENT DIRECTIONS in their handling of the distinction between nature and grace — perhaps MORE DIVERGENT FROM EACH OTHER THAN WERE, for example, THOMAS AQUINAS AND MARTIN LUTHER. In spite of these differences between Augustine’s theory of original sin and the definitions of “ancestral sin” [_propatrikon hamartema_]” in the Greek fathers, however, they were agreed about the Theotokos, as this quotation from _On Nature and Grace_ indicated. < <<>>BEGIN QUOTE>>> [The tenets of their heresy, to summarize, are these: They say that men fall not by their reasoning but by their nature. They do not mean the nature in which Adam subsisted when he was first created (for they say this was the good creation of a good God), but that which he later inherited on account of sin, having exchanged good for evil and the immortal for the mortal by his own evil action. Therefore, [they say], having first been good by nature, men became evil, and it is by nature and not by choice that men acquire sin. Secondly, they go on to say that not even children, not even newborns, are exempt from sin. This is so, according to them, because nature subsists in sin on account of Adam’s transgression, and the sinful nature, as they would call it, extends to the entire race which comes from him.] Thus we see that the doctrine of Original Sin, a cornerstone of Western theology, was viewed as a “sickness” and a “heresy” by one of the East’s most important theologians. That Photios does not mention Augustine in his condemnation of this doctrine, which he rightly states was common in the West, indicates that he really knew very little about the North African saint and that what mention of him there is in his work is mere name-dropping. It is unmistakable that the doctrine Photios attacks is identical to that of Augustine, right down to the conclusion that even newborn babies are guilty of Adam’s sin. It is all the more remarkable how vehemently Photios attacks the Western view of sin given that the authority he cites in favor of his own views is Theodore of Mopsuestia, a Nestorian regarded as a heretic by the Orthodox Church. The Nestorian Schism, dating back to the Council of Ephesus in 431, was, in Photios’s time, the longest-standing division among Christians, yet Photios still believed that a Nestorian was better than a “heretic” who believed in Original Sin.

In regard to the quotation from Jaroslav Pelikan, it must be said that I have never posited that there are no differences at all between East and West regarding Original Sin; only that the differences are really not so great, and should certainly not be presented in the misrepresentative, hyperbolic, and generally exaggerated form that has become customary of late. But then, this quotation really only applies to St. Augustine, who, admittedly, said a number of rather bizarre things on a number of topics. (I don't mean, of course, that what he said in the passage quoted by Pelikan is bizarre.) Certain peculiarities of St. Augustine's teaching on Original Sin are not necessarily characteristic of the West as a whole. The passage in question does not examine anything more than the Saint's alleged inconsistency in his view of the sinlessness of the Virgin vis-a-vis his teaching on Nature and Grace, and, despite noting the "differences between Augustine’s theory of original sin and the definitions of “ancestral sin” [_propatrikon hamartema_]” in the Greek fathers", does not warrant (and was not, if I recall correctly, intended to posit) any hard division between the views of East and West in general. The second quotation, from Christopher Livanos' doctoral dissertation, begins with a citation from St. Photios the Great who calls "heresy" the idea that human nature itself has become sinful because of Adam's transgression. It is. Human nature was not fundamentally changed into evil by the fall - if it were, how could the nature assumed by the hypostasis of the Logos been sinless? The true doctrine, propounded by both East and West, is that all sin is of hypostatic provenance, not natural origin. A nature cannot sin - only a person can. Sin is rooted in the gnomic, not the natural, will. Sin has introduced corruption to each person descended from Adam, but it is not part of the physis of man. If St. Photios means, by saying "Secondly, they go on to say that not even children, not even newborns, are exempt from sin. This is so, according to them, because nature subsists in sin on account of Adam’s transgression, and the sinful nature, as they would call it, extends to the entire race which comes from him" he is in contradiction to the 112th Canon of Carthage*, which all Orthodox are bound to accept, since it is given oecumenical acceptance in Trullo, and this also makes his reliance on Theodore (who was not a Nestorian - he died before the controversy broke - but was the decisive influence in Nestorius' formulation, and an advocate for the Pelagian cause) somewhat suspect, and out of line with the general thought of the East which I have documented elsewhere. But if he is speaking on a deeper level, not denying the sinfulness of infants, but rather the basis for the sinfulness of infants, I cannot disagree. Not having either the source document or Dr. Livanos' dissertation at hand, I cannot really make an educated determination, and hesitate to say anything more in this context. A significant thing occurred on this email forum in the wake of D.R. and T.V.'s vehement condemnations of my essay. A (persumably Evangelical) woman thought it rather bad form for D.R. to jump straight to questioning credentials rather than interacting with content. Both D.R. and T.V. turned on her forthwith, and we should consider her reply, with which I close, most enlightening with regard to our behaviour both before and toward other Christians:

Personally, I have a lot more respect for a chimney sweep who speaks sense than for an archbishop who waffles garbage, no matter how many carpets are rolled out in front of him...[U]nfortunately I'm quite fed up with orthodoxy. When I first joined this forum a few years ago I was very interested in orthodoxy, after reading books by Father Alexander Schmemann and Kallistos Ware. But most orthodox people I met, including on this forum, came across as rather arrogant and exclusive. I find it rather funny that they want to evangelise by opposing the 'mean God' of evangelicals, but that love of which they speak I have not seen displayed much. But I see a lot of bowing, hand kissing, and carpet rolling.

It makes me wonder if the "niceness" of one's God-concept bears an inversely proportional relation to one's own personal level of "meanness". * CANON CXII of Carthage That infants are baptized for the remission of sins. LIKEWISE it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema. For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned,” than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.

17th Century Orthodox Confessions - A Rejoinder to Christopher Orr

2006-12-11T20:20:00.000-05:00

In a recent post on Orrologion, Christopher Orr wrote the following:

There are some in Orthodoxy that seek to give greater weight to those documents in Orthodoxy that can be read as being more "western" than one is normally used to hearing in the Orthodox Church. This is an unfortunate, but well-intentioned and interesting, misunderstanding of authority and witness in Orthodox doctrine and practice.

He goes on to post a quotation from Bishop Kallistos (Ware), one which is certainly worthy of all approbation. The relevant portion of this quotation is:

In the 17th century, as a counterpart to the various "confessions" of the Reformation, there appeared several "Orthodox confessions," endorsed by local councils but, in fact, associated with individual authors (e.g., Metrophanes Critopoulos, 1625; Peter Mogila, 1638; Dositheos of Jerusalem, 1672). None of these confessions would be recognized today as having anything but historical importance. (Emphasis Orr's) When expressing the beliefs of his church, the Orthodox theologian, rather than seeking literal conformity with any of these particular confessions, will rather look for consistency with Scripture and tradition, as it has been expressed in the ancient councils, the early Fathers, and the uninterrupted life of the liturgy. He will not shy away from new formulations if consistency and continuity of tradition are preserved.

I must say that I have never come across anyone in the Orthodox Church who uses these documents in the way that, say, a Presbyterian uses the Westminster Standards. I, however, have referred to these confessions from time to time. Just so that there is no confusion in the matter, I feel compelled to say that I have done so not because of any "unfortunate, but well-intentioned and interesting, misunderstanding of authority and witness in Orthodox doctrine and practice", but rather as a witness to the historical fact that certain teachings that Christopher characterises as "more 'western' than one is normally used to hearing in the Orthodox Church" were once normal fare therein. Of course, I have never restricted my historical examination of these issues - namely Original Sin and Substitutionary Atonement - to the Confessio Dosithei and the Confession of Peter Mohyla. I have documented my argument that such doctrines have been part and parcel of Orthodox dogmatics from the Ante-Nicene Fathers to current works from Orthodox scholars who do not buy into the semi-Marcionite consensus of a certain segment of American and European Orthodox scholars who militate against said teachings. The unfortunate thing, in my book, is the popularity of the Our-God-is-Nicer-than-Your-God apologetic which is so often presented as authentic Orthodoxy in our day.

Ancestral vs. Original Sin: A False Dichotomy

2006-12-11T16:41:00.000-05:00

In the current debate over the Orthodox view of Original Sin, one popular entry is Ancestral Versus Original Sin: An Overview with Implications for Psychotherapy by the Very Rev. Fr. Antony Hughes, rector of St. Mary's Antiochian Orthodox Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The essay was written in early 2005 at the request of one of the editors of The Journal of Psychology and Christianity, a publication of the Christian Association for Psychological Studies, in order to provide an explanation of the alleged differences in the Eastern and Western doctrines of Original Sin and their bearing on pastoral practice. My purpose in this response is to take on several of what I consider to be the defects of Fr. Antony's presentation, and to demonstrate the falsity of his artificial dichotomy between Ancestral and Original Sin. I do so not to defend Western Christianity, though I often feel compelled to since that tradition is so deeply misrepresented. Rather, what I find to be of great concern is the jettisoning of concepts that have, for the entirety of Church history, been part and parcel of Orthodox teaching, in favour of the innovations of a few recent thinkers who have been deeply influenced in significant (though certainly not in all) ways by postmodernism and Protestant Liberalism. The straightforward purpose of Ancestral Versus Original Sin (hereafter AvOS) is succinctly laid out in the Abstract of the paper:

The differences between the doctrine of Ancestral Sin—as understood in the church of the first two centuries and the present-day Orthodox Church—and the doctrine of Original Sin—developed by Augustine and his heirs in the Western Christian traditions—is explored. The impact of these two formulations on pastoral practice is investigated. It is suggested that the doctrine of ancestral sin naturally leads to a focus on human death and Divine compassion as the inheritance from Adam, while the doctrine of original sin shifts the center of attention to human guilt and Divine wrath. It is further posited that the approach of the ancient church points to a more therapeutic than juridical approach to pastoral care and counseling.

After a brief introductory anecdote, the relevance of which is to establish the point that "Love, in fact, is the heart and soul of the theology of the early Church Fathers and of the Orthodox Church", Fr. Antony continues:

The Fathers of the Church—East and West—in the early centuries shared the same perspective: humanity longs for liberation from the tyranny of death, sin, corruption and the devil which is only possible through the Life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Only the compassionate advent of God in the flesh could accomplish our salvation, because only He could conquer these enemies of humanity. It is impossible for Orthodoxy to imagine life outside the all-encompassing love and grace of the God who came Himself to rescue His fallen creation. Theology is, for the Fathers of the Orthodox Church, all about love.

Certainly, no Christian, Eastern or Western, can disagree with this. It is the central truth of the Christian faith. But then the subtle attack on the West, and the not-so-subtle attack on St. Augustine of Hippo begins:

As pervasive as the term original sin has become, it may come as a surprise to some that it was unknown in both the Eastern and Western Church until Augustine (c. 354-430). The concept may have arisen in the writings of Tertullian, but the expression seems to have appeared first in Augustine’s works. Prior to this the theologians of the early church used different terminology indicating a contrasting way of thinking about the fall, its effects and God’s response to it. The phrase the Greek Fathers used to describe the tragedy in the Garden was ancestral sin.

This is demonstrably untrue. In fact, when consulting the standard English-language Patristic anthology, the term original sin is used in Lactantius, Victorinius, Cyril of Jerusalem, and the pseudepigraphal Gospel of Nicodemus, as well as the Canons of Carthage, all before Augustine, while the term ancestral sin occurs not once in the entire series of books, which covers the first eight centuries of Church History. Now, to be fair, it must be said the the Greek terms equivalent to the Latin peccato originali - progoniki amartia and to propatorikon amartima, terms which are useful, indeed, in showing that there is a difference between the personal act of the First Man, and the condition engendered thereby, are better translated as Ancestral Sin. The problem, however, lies in this: the sharp distinction between Original and Ancestral is not a historical distincitive of Orthodox teaching. The difference in having two Greek terms simply resolves the possible ambiguity of there being only one term in Latin (and English, for that matter). It is, at the same time, noteworthy that Fr. George Mastrantonis uses the terms Ancestral Sin and Original Sin interchangeably. The difficulty involved with Fr. Anthony's (or, I should say, Fr. John Romanides', on whom he relies) reassignment of meaning in the two English terms is that it is misleading, and turns into an untrue criticism of Western Christian thought by making use of that very ambiguity. AvOS continues:

Ancestral sin has a specific meaning. The Greek word for sin in this case, amartema, refers to an individual act indicating that the Eastern Fathers assigned full responsibility for the sin in the Garden to Adam and Eve alone. The word amartia, the more familiar term for sin which literally means “missing the mark”, is used to refer to the condition common to all humanity (Romanides, 2002). The Eastern Church, unlike its Western counterpart, never speaks of guilt being passed from Adam and Eve to their progeny, as did Augustine. Instead, it is posited that each person bears the guilt of his or her own sin. The question becomes, “What then is the inheritance of humanity from Adam and Eve if it is not guilt?” The Orthodox Fathers answer as one: death. (I Corinthians 15:21) “Man is born with the parasitic power of death within him,” writes Fr. Romanides (2002, p. 161). Our nature, teaches Cyril of Alexandria, became “diseased…through the sin of one” (Migne, 1857-1866a). It is not guilt that is passed on, for the Orthodox fathers; it is a condition, a disease.

The most common slander of the West made by Orthodox is that Western Christianity is committed to the notion that all mankind is condemned on the basis that the personal guilt of Adam for his personal act of transgression is transmitted to his progeny, rather than the condition of alienation from God, a corrupt heart, a propensity to act sinfully, and mortality. Once again, this is demonstrably untrue. The Roman Catholic Baltimore Catechism says:

56. What happened to Adam and Eve on account of their sin? On account of their sin Adam and Eve lost sanctifying grace, the right to heaven, and their special gifts; they became subject to death, to suffering, and to a strong inclination to evil, and they were driven from the Garden of Paradise. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken; for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return. (Genesis 3:19) 57. What has happened to us on account of the sin of Adam? On account of the sin of Adam, we, his descendants, come into the world deprived of sanctifying grace and inherit his punishment, as we would have inherited his gifts had he been obedient to God. But, by the envy of the devil, death came into the world. (Wisdom 2:24) 58. What is this sin in us called? This sin in us is called original. 59. Why is this sin called original? This sin is called original because it comes down to us through our origin, or descent, from Adam. Therefore as through one man sin entered into the world and through sin death, and thus death has passed unto all men because all have sinned. (Romans 5:12) 60. What are the chief punishments of Adam which we inherit through original sin? The chief punishments of Adam which we inherit through original sin are: death, suffering, ignorance, and a strong inclination to sin. 61. Is God unjust in punishing us on account of the sin of Adam? God is not unjust in punishing us on account of the sin of Adam, because original sin does not take away from us anything to which we have a strict right as human beings, but only the free gifts which God in His goodness would have bestowed on us if Adam had not sinned.

The more recent Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

III. ORIGINAL SIN Freedom put to the test 396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die." The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom. Man's first sin 397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness. 398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God". 399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives. 400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul's spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination. Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay". Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground", for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history. 401 After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin There is Cain's murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ's atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians. Scripture and the Church's Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man's history: What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn towards what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end, and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures. The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity 402 All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned." The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men." 403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul". Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin. 404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man". By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act. 405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. 406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546). A hard battle. . . 407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man's situation and activity in the world. By our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails "captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil". Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action and morals. 408 The consequences of original sin and of all men's personal sins put the world as a whole in the sinful condition aptly described in St. John's expression, "the sin of the world". This expression can also refer to the negative influence exerted on people by communal situations and social structures that are the fruit of men's sins. 409 This dramatic situation of "the whole world [which] is in the power of the evil one" makes man's life a battle: The whole of man's history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil, stretching, so our Lord tells us, from the very dawn of history until the last day. Finding himself in the midst of the battlefield man has to struggle to do what is right, and it is at great cost to himself, and aided by God's grace, that he succeeds in achieving his own inner integrity.

The Lutheran Augsburg Confession says:

Article II: Of Original Sin. Also they [the Lutheran Churches] teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost. They condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that original depravity is sin, and who, to obscure the glory of Christ's merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before God by his own strength and reason.

The Reformed Belgic Confession says:

Article 15: Of Original Sin. We believe that, through the disobedience of Adam, original sin is extended to all mankind; which is a corruption of the whole nature, and an hereditary disease, wherewith infants themselves are infected even in their mother's womb, and which produceth in man all sorts of sin, being in him as a root thereof; and therefore is so vile and abominable in the sight of God, that it is sufficient to condemn all mankind. Nor is it by any means abolished or done away by baptism; since sin always issues forth from this woeful source, as water from a fountain; notwithstanding it is not imputed to the children of God unto condemnation, but by his grace and mercy is forgiven them. Not that they should rest securely in sin, but that a sense of this corruption should make believers often to sigh, desiring to be delivered from this body of death. Wherefore we reject the error of the Pelagians, who assert that sin proceeds only from imitation.

The Reformed Heidelberg Catechism says:

Question 7. Whence then proceeds this depravity of human nature? Answer. From the fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise; hence our nature is become so corrupt, that we are all conceived and born in sin.

The Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith says:

CHAPTER VI. Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment thereof. I. Our first parents, begin seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory. II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. III. They being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation. IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. V. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin. VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.

The Anglican Articles of Religion say:

IX. Of Original or Birth-Sin. Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, phronema sarkos, (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

The Methodist Confession of Faith says:

Article VII—Sin and Free Will We believe man is fallen from righteousness and, apart from the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, is destitute of holiness and inclined to evil. Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God. In his own strength, without divine grace, man cannot do good works pleasing and acceptable to God. We believe, however, man influenced and empowered by the Holy Spirit is responsible in freedom to exercise his will for good.

The purpose of this long recital of Western creeds is to establish that, despite the popular presentation by Orthodox of the aforementioned incorrect characterisation of Western teaching, the reality is that the Western confessions, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, say nothing about inheriting the personal guilt of Adam's personal act of sin, but rather concentrate on the effects of that sin, which are transmitted to the entire race of man, which forms an ontological unity with Adam - something we Orthodox also teach. The one document that discusses imputation of guilt, the Westminster Confession, does so in the context of the ontological corruption of mankind, not simply as an unconnected act of transgression by the federal head of the race. In other words, the basis of imputation is not an unjust transfer of guilt-by-association, but a reality rooted in the effect of one man's sin on the whole race. At the same time, it should be pointed out that the language of the Orthodox in this regard has, historically, been much the same. I will not add to the length of this article by appending the supporting data - I have already published it in other posts on this site:

Original Sin in the Eastern Orthodox Confessions and Catechisms

Fr. George Mastrantonis on Ancestral Sin

In summary, both Eastern and Western Christianity can agree with Fr. Alexander Golubov, who writes:

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. “The imparting of Original Sin by means of natural heredity should be understood in terms of the unity of the entire human nature, and of the homoousiotitos [i.e., coessentiality, consubstantiality] 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’” [St. Cyril of Alexandria].

After a largely unobjectionable discourse on the nature of salvation, AvOS continues with a section subtitled Augustine's Legacy, a discussion largely not about original sin, except for a description of the well known fact that the Latin text of Scripture at Romans 5:12 reads in quo (in whom) rather than the Greek eph ho (for, or because), which led this Father to speak of how all sinned in Adam. Rather, this section consists of a caricature of the development of Western Christian thought, making an argument that has become characteristic of Orthodox evangelism in the past several decades - one that distills down to "Your God is mean; our God is nice. Come worship the nice God." This is not the place for a long discussion of what I call the semi-Marcionite impulse in contemporary Orthodoxy, and its opposition to and reinterpretation of everything in the Scriptures and the Fathers that has to do with God's justice, wrath, etc., out of a presumed need to protect His goodness and lovingkindness from other aspects of His self-revelation. But it is necessary to address a couple of things in Fr. Antony's presentation. The first is the reinterpretation of the word justice, and its equivalents in Greek and Hebrew. Fr. Antony writes:

The Roman idea of justice found prominence in Augustinian and later Western theology. The idea that Adam and Eve offended God’s infinite justice and honor made of death God’s method of retribution (Romanides, 2002). But this idea of justice deviates from Biblical thought. Kalomiros (1980) explains the meaning of justice in the original Greek of the New Testament: The Greek word dikaiosuni ‘justice’, is a translation of the Hebrew word tsedaka. The word means ‘the divine energy which accomplishes man’s salvation.’ It is parallel and almost synonymous with the word hesed which means ‘mercy’, ‘compassion’, ‘love’, and to the word emeth which means ‘fidelity’, ‘truth’. This is entirely different from the juridical understanding of ‘justice’. (p. 31)

A scholar of Fr. Antony's calibre should know better than to follow Alexander Kalomiros' very bizarre and unsubstantiated assertion here. The source of the quotation is The River of Fire, a talk that the fanatic Old Calendarist medical doctor gave in Seattle in 1980, and which enjoys great popularity as an exposition of Orthodox teaching on soteriology. It is, in reality, a vicious anti-Western diatribe full of untruthful accusations, and constitutes what is perhaps the prime example of the semi-Marcionite position of which I have spoken. Kalomiros' definition of the Hebrew word צדקה (tsedaqah) - ‘the divine energy which accomplishes man’s salvation’ - cannot be found in any lexicon or dictionary. Instead, what one will find if one looks is this:

צדקה tsedâqâh Brown-Driver-Briggs Definition: 1) justice, righteousness 1a) righteousness (in government) 1a1) of judge, ruler, king 1a2) of law 1a3) of Davidic king Messiah 1b) righteousness (of God’s attribute) 1c) righteousness (in a case or cause) 1d) righteousness, truthfulness 1e) righteousness (as ethically right) 1f) righteousness (as vindicated), justification, salvation 1f1) of God 1f2) prosperity (of people) 1g) righteous acts Part of Speech: noun feminine

The literal meaning of the word is "straight", as opposed to "crooked". It is true that צדקה is also, at least in modern Hebrew, the word used to mean "charity", as in giving to the poor - and such should, indeed, enter into an expanded understanding of its meaning. But Kalomiros' definition, which is repeated here in AvOS, is entirely out of the field. The second problem in this portion of the presentation is evident in the following paragraph:

The image of an angry, vengeful God haunts the West where a basic insecurity and guilt seem to exist. Many appear to hold that sickness, suffering and death are God’s will. Why? I suspect one reason is that down deep the belief persists that God is still angry and must be appeased. Yes, sickness, suffering and death come and when they do God’s grace is able to transform them into life-bearing trials, but are they God’s will? Does God punish us when the mood strikes, when our behavior displeases Him or for no reason at all? Are the ills that afflict creation on account of God? For example, could the loving Father really be said to enjoy the sufferings of His Son or of the damned in hell (Yannaras, 1984)? Freud rebelled against these ideas calling the God inherent in them the sadistic Father (Yannaras, 1984, p. 153). Could it be as Yannaras, Clement and Kalomiris propose that modern atheism is a healthy rebellion against a terrorist deity (Clement, 2000)? Kalomiros (1980) writes that there are no atheists, just people who hate the God in whom they have been taught to believe.

This attack on Western Christianity is a straw man. The Western churches have no conception of God like the one described here - that God is angry and vengeful in a manner that makes him the enemy, rather than the lover, of mankind. Even in the most common example used to demonstrate that such is the Western view, Jonathan Edward's Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, the whole point is that God does indeed love mankind and is graciously offering salvation to the recalcitrant and sinful race, and staving off their final destruction so that we may repent. I have shown this in another essay. Rather, the view that God is a "sadistic terrorist deity" comes from unbelievers like those who St. Paul describes: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." It is noteworthy that this text is part of the Scriptures of the Orthodox Church, as are the words of Jesus Christ: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him". Fr. Antony's implication that God does not have any wrath is clearly contradicted by the words of the Apostle Paul. Certainly we recognise that all of God's punishments or chastisements are not rooted in some kind of uncontrollable temper, but rather in the love of God who arranges all things for our salvation; but it is requisite that we take into account all of what God has revealed about Himself, not just the parts we like. Fr. Anthony's description also makes the mistake of not discerning the shades of meaning inherent in the Western usage of the phrase "the will of God," which can refer to a number of things that includes events He permits even though they are not part of what one might say He "desires". The idea of "the will of God" is something that should never be addressed in a simplictic or superficial manner. It is unfortunate that, in this type of writing, Orthodox Christian teaching is not allowed to stand on its own merits, but resort is made to misrepresentation both of Orthodoxy and of other faith-communities, and the Holy Faith is defined in simple opposition to "bad" Catholicism and Protestantism. The next section of Fr. Antony's paper is Pastoral Practice East and West, and once again, we are faced with another false dichotomy:

In simple terms, we can say that the Eastern Church tends towards a therapeutic model which sees sin as illness, while the Western Church tends towards a juridical model seeing sin as moral failure. For the former the Church is the hospital of souls... For the latter, whether the Church is viewed as essential, important or arbitrary, the model of sin as moral failing rests on divine election and adherence to moral, ethical codes as both the cure for sin and guarantor of fidelity. Whether ecclesial authority or individual conscience imposes the code the result is the same.

There is no need to address this - the author is making an oversimplification that is necessarily misleading, and does not recognise that Western Christianity also considers the Church to be "the hospital of souls," with adherence to the commandments as a necessary part of healing. This kind of thinking, derides and disposes with the standards of Christian behaviour and ethics that have always been held up both in East and West in favour of a nebulous "restoration of life to the fullness of freedom and love"(the quotation is from Christos Yannaras). To be fair, it must be said that Fr. Antony qualifies these statements, saying, "Admittedly, the idea of salvation as process is not absent in the West. (One can call to mind the Western mystics and the Wesleyan movement as examples.)" But this ignores that virtually all of Western Christianity views salvation as a process. The great failing of this final portion of the article is that, with regard to the West, it makes the accusation that the process of salvation is seen only in conformity to an external code of behaviour, and with regard to the East, that it is rooted in compassion and freedom of growth through the sacraments, downplaying obedience to Christ's commands. A very telling excerpt is this:

Yannaras writes that the message of the Church for humanity wounded and degraded by the ‘terrorist God of juridical ethics’ is precisely this: “what God really asks of man is neither individual feats nor works of merit, but a cry of trust and love from the depths” (Yannaras, 1984, p. 47). The cry comes from the depth of our need to the unfathomable depth of God’s love; the Prodigal Son crying out, “I want to go home” to the Father who, seeing his advance from a distance, runs to meet him. (Luke 15:11-32)

The article concludes with another paragraph that, once again, all Christians would affirm:

As we have seen, for the early Church Fathers and the Orthodox Church the Atonement is much more than a divine exercise in jurisprudence; it is the event of the life, death and resurrection of the Son of God that sets us free from the Ancestral Sin and its effects. Our slavery to death, sin, corruption and the devil are destroyed through the Cross and Resurrection and our hopeless adventure in autonomy is revealed to be what it is: a dead end. Salvation is much more than a verdict from above; it is an endless process of transformation from autonomy to communion, a gradual ascent from glory to glory as we take up once again our original vocation now fulfilled in Christ. The way to the Tree of Life at long last revealed to be the Cross is reopened and its fruit, the Body and Blood of God, offered to all. The goal is far greater than a change in behavior; we are meant to become divine.

The tragic thing here is that, in order to make his case, Fr. Antony has, as have Romanides, Kalomiros, and Yannaras before him, resorted to a misrepresentation of the West - that it is almost purely juridical in its understanding of salvation, and has a conception of God that is essentially a bloodthirsty monster demanding blind obedience, or else - and a misrepresentation of the East, putting forth the innovative new understandings of issues like Original Sin and Atonement that are common both to the anti-Western Orthodox tendencies of Romanides, Kalomiros, and, to some extent, Yannaras, as well as to the Liberal Protestantism of the WCC, while also unconsciously downgrading obedience to the commandments to a secondary position, falling in behind a concept of "seeking God in freedom" which has no real ethical content, but sounds better than obedience - something which is, historically, a hallmark of Orthodox teaching. In the final analysis, I have written many words here, and perhaps it is best to end with the first comment made about AvOS when it was posted on the Antiochian Archdiocese website, which was much more succinct:

Sigh. Same old tired East / West stereotypes. Blame Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, etc. ad nauseam.

Items of Interest - 26th Week After Pentecost 2006

2006-12-10T09:02:00.000-05:00

The Myth of Objectivity
Gary DeMar on the falsity of claims to neutrality.

The Humanist Manifesto II, Choosing the Curse
Lee Duigon of The Chalcedon Foundation examines militant Antichrist Humanism. Part III of a series.

The Unsung Heroes of the Cold War
Ron Capshaw reviews Early Cold War Spies: The Espionage Trials that Shaped American Politics by Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes.

First 4 Seasons of 24 Online
The first four seasons of Fox's 24 are online in their entirety.

Old-Time Radio Shows of the Month
Ephrem's Old-Time Radio is back. Shows of the Month are:
· I Was a Communist for the FBI - 28 May 1952 - Traitors for Hire
· Have Gun Will Travel - 23 November 1958 - Strange Vendetta
· Yours Truly, Johnny Dollar - 6 July 1950 - The Bello-Horizonte Railroad Matter
· The Bickersons - 30 March 1947 - John's New Fishing Pole

Fr. George Mastrantonis on Ancestral Sin

2006-12-06T04:53:00.000-05:00

The following is excerpted from A New-Style Catechism on the Eastern Orthodox Faith for Adults by Fr. George Mastrantonis (St. Louis, MO: The OLOGOS Mission, 1969 [1977]).

ADAM AS ANCESTOR OF THE HUMAN RACE

"And he (God) made from one (“blood”, KJV) every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth", Acts 17:26.

Holy Scripture has recorded that the human race derived from one couple created by God. This teaching has been held by the Church as a revealed truth from which Christian doctrines have been formulated. The unity in the continuity of the human race from the first-created, Adam and Eve, is a sound teaching of the Church. The salvation of man in Christ depends on this unity of Adam and Eve, who "fell" into sin. All men died in Adam, thus all men are resurrected and have life in Christ, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous," Rom. 5:19. This "fall" of man, inherent in the generations of the human race, relates to the body. However, there is no definite teaching, doctrine or dogma to determine explicitly the soul's derivation. Theories concerning the soul, dating before the beginning of Christianity, are as follows: pre-existence of the soul; creation of the soul at the time of birth; transposing of the soul to something else. The Church has not accepted these theories.

THE NATURE OF ANCESTRAL SIN

''... by one man's disobedience many were made sinners", Romans 5:19.

Adam was created innocent by nature, and was endowed with capabilities to advance and develop his divine qualities. Man, through his own abilities and free will, could become perfect in full knowledge. Adam was created with the gift of free will. This implies he was expected to exercise free will and be tested in his efforts to reach his destination. Adam was well-equipped to keep intact his endowments and to advance his excellences. He was tested by his environment and his inner self (cf. Ja. 1:14). The fact that Adam was created with free will indicates he was tested by an opponent of the same nature and equal abilities. As Adam was a person, his opponent was a person, armed with equal powers. The difference is that man's opponent was a perverted figure with twisted ways not controlled by ethics. He was envious and clever. Scripture figuratively presents this opponent, a fallen angel, in the forms of serpent, demon, satan and devil. His weapons were arrogance and disobedience. This demon used all types of lies to make Adam and Eve fed arrogant and disobedient, above and beyond the God Who created them. The figurative form of the demon as a serpent is unusual; this demon had free will, the ability to think and talk and to tempt others.

Various Forms of the Temptor of Man

In the New Testament the serpent represents the temptor, the devil, satan, who deceived man. For "the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning", 2 Cor 11:3; "the woman was deceived and became a transgressor", 1 Tim. 2:14 "that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world", Rev. 12:9 (cf. Rev. 20:2); "He (the serpent) was a murderer from the beginning", Jn. 8:44b. Hatred is the main characteristic of the devil, for "through the devil's envy death came to the world, and those who belong to his party experience it", Wis. Sol. 2:24, "Sin began with a woman, and because of her we all die", Wis. of Sir. 25124 (cf. Phil. 2: 16). Many passages refer to Satan as temptor and deceiver appearing in various forms.

WEAKNESSES OF MAN

“You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree"; however, “she (Eve) (and Adam) took of its fruits and ate”, Genesis 3:3, 6.

The devil hid himself in the form of a serpent; his aim was to persuade Adam and Eve to become arrogant and disobedient. How- ever, Adam was persuaded because of his selfishness and inclination to be independent from God. Adam's objective was to achieve perfection and happiness by himself, not to advance through the Grace of God. Arrogance, disobedience, selfishness and independence changed Adam's intentions away from reaching perfection and happiness in a state of innocence and blessings with the assistance of divine Grace. Therefore, the sin of Adam weakened his will and he became a captive of his own weakness and the temptor. Adam's sin was a mortal one which penetrated his existence, and that of generations henceforth. The transmission of this mortal sin of Adam to all generations is the fundamental revealed teaching of Scripture.

Scriptural Witness to Man’s Weakness

Scripture states "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually", Gen. 6:5. "For the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth", Gen. 8:21, and "for no man living is righteous before thee", Ps. 143:2 (LXX, 142:2), and again, "Your hands are defiled with blood and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue mutters wickedness", Isa. 59:3 (cf. Prov. 20:9; Eccles. 7:21) ; "The scripture consigned all things to sin", Gal. 3:22. Mankind is under the power of sin, for "none is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God…there is no fear of God before their eyes", Rom. 3:10-11,18. As for the direct transmission of sin to the generations of mankind: "For who shall be pure from uncleanness? Not even one; if even his life should be but one day upon the earth", Job 14:4 LXX, and "in sin did my mother conceive me", Ps. 51:5 (LXX, 50:5). Jesus answered the question how can a man be born, anew, by saying, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God”, Jn. 3:5-6. “We all once lived in the passions of the flesh, following the desires of body and mind”, Eph. 2:3.

FORGIVENESS OF MAN'S SIN

"But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins", Matthew 9:6.

Many passages of Scripture teach that the sin of Adam was bequeathed to man and that man is aware of it and constantly asks for forgiveness. Forgiveness of sins is beyond human power; it is only God's Will that forgives. The negative view of forgiveness is inadequate. Forgiveness should lead to the Kingdom of God through rebirth granted only by Jesus Christ. The corruption of human integrity by sin is a teaching of Scripture. Apostle Paul said, "therefore, as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned", Rom. 5:12. This classic passage presents Adam as the perpetrator of the sinfulness of human nature and refers to the personal sins of man, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous", Rom. 5:19. The Church, regarding the sinfulness of man's nature as a result of Adam's sin, decreed that "whoso affirms that those newly-born and baptized contract nothing from Adam's transgressions, which needs to be washed away by baptism, is to be execrated, for through one both death and sin invaded the whole world" (Epitome of Sacred Canons, Synod of Carthage, Canon 121 ) .

THE SUBSTANCE OF ANCESTRAL SIN

Ancestral Sin is not an imaginary one created by human elements. Ancestral Sin is real in man's nature, and not only inherited from previous generations. It is a personal experience in the life of every individual, for man's own iniquities are woven with the original sin of Adam. This sin is apparent in man's tendency to violate God's laws. The heart of sin is the removal of sinful man from God's Will and Grace. It is a violation of the laws of God. Ancestral Sin is the perverted nature in sinful man which causes him to turn to himself and away from God. The fall of Adam is in reality his expulsion from the sight of God and His Grace. Adam was created with the power of free will and free choice, and this set the stage for his sinful action. This free will remains as the challenging force in man even after Adam's fall. The excellences and qualities of Adam as he was created were diminished and became blurred after his fall; still, man retained a spark to distinguish between good and evil. Scripture was revealed and written for the salvation of him who seeks spiritual betterment. For the sinful man who turns to God for salvation, Scripture and the Grace of God help him to recognize and accept with repentance and obedience his salvation by Christ.

THE FEELING OF GUILT IN MAN

"And the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden,” Genesis 3:8b.

As a result of man's "fall", the feeling of guilt engulfed his being. This feeling of guilt created in "fallen" man the desire to prepare within himself the basis for the acceptance of God's Grace. The feeling of guilt verifies that man did not lose all his divine gifts, for he retained the spark to seek "perfection" in discerning between good and evil. The desire of "fallen" man to cultivate the "good soil" is the result of this guilt feeling, which is expressed in obedience and humbleness as he dedicates his whole being to seeking repentance, as recorded in the Parable of the Sower (cf. Lk. 8:4-15). The feeling of guilt is a gift in leading one to acceptance of Christ's Gospel of salvation, as pain is a gift for the protection of one's health. The feeling of guilt is witnessed in the conscience of man, which is a reflection of his weaknesses. This burden of guilt, which is the weakness continuously reflected in the human race, created the need for man's atonement. This need of atonement to re-establish man's communion with God still is the great need of man, who alienated himself from God. Men "were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works'', Col. 1:21, KJV, and man became "alienated from the life of God", Eph. 4:18, KJV, without any hope until the coming of the Messiah by Whom "we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son", Rom. 5:10. Therefore, wherever sin is recognized, the feeling of guilt is apparent and projects the desire for repentance with humbleness and obedience for man's redemption.

CONSEQUENCES OF ANCESTRAL SIN

“As one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men", Romans 5:18.

Ancestral Sin has its consequences in penances and satisfactions. The punishment of this original sin is death as revealed in Scripture. "For the wages of sin is death", Rom. 6:23. There are various degrees of death: spiritual death severing the bond between God and man; everlasting death, the everlasting separation between God and man, "For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation", Rom. 5: 16b; physical death of the separation between the soul and body, "for in the day that you eat of it you shall die", Gen. 2:17b. These three degrees of death are the consequences of man's sin. Death is a severe punishment of sin, which could portray God as being without mercy. However, God foresaw the fall of Adam and its consequences, death, and provided the means of salvation for the human race from the very beginning and for all time. Death is a severe punishment equal to the great sin of Adam in Paradise. Therefore, for the salvation of man God had His Son become Incarnate and undergo humiliation, saving sinners and making them heirs of the Kingdom of God. This salvation in the name of Christ was the highest reconciliatory act of God, which is greater than what Adam in Paradise could have achieved in God's promise of "in our (God's) likeness". In this reconciliatory act in Christ, everlasting death is conquered and overthrown, for "Death is swallowed up in victory, 'O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?' The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ", 1 Cor. 15:54b-57.