Awake thou that sleepest!
Reflection on spiritual Vigilance
I just returned from a visit to our monastery. While there, I was caught off guard by an Icon I had never seen before. It made such an impression on me that, for the remainder of my stay, it served as a reminder of something I find true of myself, that I am spiritually lazy. The Icon portrayed our Lord Jesus Christ while at prayer in the garden called Gethsemane. At the bottom of the icon, the disciples are depicted, laying together in a little pile, asleep. In scripture, we read that the Lord had entered a deep sorrow of the soul. Before leaving He explained this to His disciples and asked that they “remain here, and watch with me.” What follows, as most know, is the most vulnerable supplication offered by the incarnate Son of God to His Eternal, Unoriginate Father, that if possible, the cup of His suffering “pass from me…”. Three times the Lord prays and three times He returns to find the disciples, whom He had asked to keep vigil, asleep.
When I say that I am spiritually lazy, I am not talking about my schedule of services at the church or my prayer rule or spiritual reading or any of the other things that occupy my time. And I am certainly not fishing for affirmations or sympathetic comments to the contrary. What I am saying is that while I am doing any or all these things, it is always possible that my mind is divided and focused only partially on prayer or whatever other spiritual exercise there may be. The laziness has to do with allowing thoughts to creep in and losing focus on the words either being said or read.
It would be one thing if my mind was directed, by the prayer to my own sinfulness or unworthiness. But often, I find that I am distracted by something totally unrelated to the prayer. I might be thinking about how my feet hurt or how hungry I am or anything else. Lord Help! St Makarius of Egypt says “The mind that is never off the search of itself and the quest of the Lord avails to gain possession of its own soul, the soul that was in the perdition of the passions. Homily 9. 11. Sadly, my mind is often “off” of the search of itself and often on the search for comfort.
You may have had the same kind of experience. Do the services of the Church seem long? It’s because you have not fully entered into them. Do you feel like you would benefit from a shorter prayer rule? It could be because you are thinking about the coffee you smell beneath the smoke of the incense, or the sleep you look forward to.
If we are to overcome these distractions, we must first acknowledge the fact of our double mindedness. A distraction is something that prevents us from giving our full attention, but the Lord God is to be loved with all our mind. While at prayer, we must fight off the sleep which is a kind of betrayal of our Lord. We must be vigilant. We must fight off the invading thoughts that tug at our attention. If we do this, we will become aware of spiritual realities and the experience of grace in the heart. We will find in ourselves the activity of prayer and time will seem, as if, to have been suspended.
When your intellect is concentrated...
Reflection on multi-tasking
Have you ever been in a conversation with someone and, just as you are about to express a thought that you feel is important, they reach into their pocket and pull out their phone to answer a call or text that just came in? As a brief follow up on our recent reflection on spiritual laziness, I thought we should address something that may happen in the world, but should be kept out of our prayer, multi-tasking.
The Holy scripture says that “a double minded man is unstable in all his ways.” James 1:8 While there may be a way to achieve more in the world through multi-tasking, when it comes to our prayer life, we should guard against the idea that we can enter, to any depth, into the mystery of prayer while we budget time to contemplate other things.
For most of us, this means that our rational faculty must be watched over in the same way that a herdsman pans the hills to find livestock that have gone past the safety of the fence and paddock. The livestock, according to St. Maximos the Confessor are the practical virtues. One of virtues we must appropriate for ourselves, and this does not come without great effort, is prayer. In St. Maximos, the herdsman signifies the man practicing the virtues. When he finds his cattle, he finds virtue. Once he apprehends these virtues, prayer being among them, he brings them into his paddock. That is, he brings them into a place of safety where he can oversee them with ease; he brings them into his heart. Once these virtues enter the heart, they cease to be merely the activity of the body, as in the mouth during prayer. And they cease to be the product of the brute intellect. If this all seems complicated, we should remember that prayer is much more than simply telling God what we want from Him. In St. Maximos we read “it is said that the highest state of prayer is reached when the intellect goes beyond the flesh and the World, and while praying is utterly free from matter and form. He who maintains this state has truly attained unceasing prayer.”
If we are to transcend the flesh, the world, and free ourselves from matter and form, we have a lot of work to do. We simply have no intellectual budget to be divided in interest when it comes to prayer. In our sacred tradition, we have the riches of so many practical guides on prayer. We should take the time to dip into them. Of course, the only safe way to proceed down the road to acquire prayer is with guidance. If prayer has not become the center of our lives, it may be because we have equated prayer, the mystical transcendence of the flesh and the world, with the saying of prayers. We can start simply with our prayer books. We should ask God to teach us, through the Holy prayers contained therein, how we can enter more fully into that singular experience that affects our union with Him. We can go on our own pilgrim’s path and discover, through the time tested methods, the purpose for which we have come from non-existence into being!
...We pray for the health of Soul and Body
Reflection of the Flu
Today is Monday, the 3rd day of the new year on the civil calendar. I have the worst flu I have ever had. It’s nearly three O’clock in the afternoon and for the first time since our compline service last Friday evening I have the strength to sit up and jot down a few notes.
So many things have happened to me this Christmas Lent. I spent three weeks at the St. John’s Monastery in New York. If any of you have spent any time at our Monastery, you might understand the dynamic existing between the rigorous schedule, and the spiritual energy that enables one to continue, day after day in this holy life in imitation of Angels. I had the opportunity to spend some time with my beloved Archbishop, and his monks and to serve in that sacred place. My son Ivan accompanied me on the trip and for us it was a first and unique experience; being away from the family and together. In addition, while we were there, I was Ordained a Priest. You might say that everything was going well.
While I was away, I was informed that the flu had ripped through my family and extended family. One by one, they had all spent three to five days in a state of complete physical incapacity. From what I could discover from the texts I received it had been pretty bad. I was hoping, by the time we returned everyone would be well and the house would be purged of any residual contagion. As I internalized these hopes, based upon the fear of death (which is a symptom of the fall of man), I was reminded that whatever God wills will come to pass.
So, for the past two days I have been totally debilitated. I have needed to be served physically as an invalid. And here is where the reflection begins. Spiritual Grace, the Love of God comes to a man when He is humble. It can only be this way. If allowed, even the spiritual experiences alluded to above could easily become sources of pride. Ironically, to summarize this point I will refer to a book by the soviet era author Sergie Fudel who said…” When we have completed our prayer rule, we pause after its completion, or after having attended a service of worship, we experience a kind of sense of achievement. The pauses are filled with self-satisfaction, by a feeling of enrichment from the recent experience of prayer and this state of mind is a denial of the very meaning of prayer. We have just said many time “Lord, have mercy!” and then in the following pause, we feel satisfaction and fatigue and feel no need to beg for mercy. Interruptions in the experience of prayer can prepare a fertile soil for pride.”[1]
In the general, worldly, discussion, I hear what almost sounds altruistic. It almost sounds as if people are genuinely concerned for the health of others. Unfortunately, what is missing from the dialogue is any reference to the Spiritual health of the subjects. So, we see that my fallen fear of death, which must be transformed into fear of God, which drives out all other fear, is the basis for the general discussion. And what formerly seemed to be altruism is revealed as Auto-philia. At some deep inner level, we discover that our concern for other’s health is linked to our desire not to share in their illness.
For some, this may seem like insensitivity. Take courage. For the Orthodox Christian, we hope your experiences proves the point we make. Or that, after reading this you will see it in books you have read many times before. We pray for God’s mercy on all who are ill. We ask Him, in His great love for mankind, to do whatever is necessary for our salvation; the restoration of physical health or not. As I am constantly reminded, He knows precisely what I need, even when I do not.
[1] Light in the Darkness; Recollections and reflections of an Orthodox Christian in Russia Today Sergie Fudel, St. Vladimir’s Seminary press Crestwood, Ney York 10707 1989
We always get what we want...beware!
Reflections on necessary movements
It happens often that you will hear people claim to be Christian, but they live in such a way that betrays this supposition. In the Church, we are constantly moved to examine ourselves to see if our interior life reflects what our Holy Baptism requires of us. With Gods help, we discover that we have made little progress and that while we honor Him with our lips, our mind and its desires are scattered and attached to the acquisition of things and the pursuit of ease. We are not as fully trained upon His Kingdom, and the pursuit of full integration in Him as we believe. If this is the case for those of us in the Church, and may God help us, what goes on in the world must be understood as the blind spiraling of the inflated Ego toward all that is destructive of the soul! If we are to reach the blessed end; the salvation of our souls, what we say about ourselves must be true. True Faith in Christ necessarily moves toward an end.
In the scripture our Lord makes the statement, “If ye love me, keep my commandments. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.” At the risk of stating the obvious, one cannot help but see in this, a chain of consequences all beginning with the contingent “If”. If we love God, He will manifest Himself to us! This is how it works. And it is for this reason we must focus inward; because we say one thing, but our words and actions do not lead to the experience which results necessarily from Love for God.
St. Maximus the Confessor makes this statement, “If the intellectual being is moved intellectually in a way appropriate to itself, it certainly perceives. If it perceives, it certainly loves what it perceives. If it loves, it certainly experiences ecstasy over what is loved. If it experiences ecstasy, it presses on eagerly, and if it presses on eagerly, it intensifies its motion; if its motion is intensified, it does not come to rest until it is embraced wholly by the object of its desire.” Our problem is not that God does not reveal Himself to us. Our problem is that we are not seeking Him with all our heart.
St. Makarius of Egypt comments on the need to be constantly fixed on the pursuit of God in watchfulness and prayer. We should let his words and the citations above sink into our hearts. He says, “… if a man gives himself away to cares, or glory, or power, or human honors, and seeks after these things, and his soul is mixed up and enters into composition with earthly considerations, or is bound and held by anything belonging to this age, and if such a soul longs to transfer itself and escape and get away from the darkness of passions, in which it is held by the evil powers, it cannot do so.” We either love God, and are preparing ourselves for His revelation, or we love the world. He says if the soul is “mixed up and enters into composition with earthly considerations” it will not be able to get away. There is a necessary consequence and trajectory related to the things we love.
I often say in my homilies that we will get exactly what we want; that God will give or allow us to have exactly what our hearts desire. That’s my way of saying what the Lord and those great Saints above are saying. From a pastoral perspective, these truths are constantly on my mind as I speak with people. And I am always watching over my desires to see how I am divided and how my confession is compromised. These things make me fearful because I see that I, like the people I speak with, am not moving from Love of God to His Revelation in my heart. I need repentance. I need to go all the way back to the beginning. This is the Christian life though! Let us resolve to honestly evaluate our minds and desires. What are you attached to? Is it your health? Is it Money? Is it education? Maybe it is something you can’t even put your finger on. The way forward is to look to Christ in humility. If we see Him through eyes wet with tears, and sorrow over our sins, it may be that we begin the movement from seeing to Loving and ultimately to be embraced wholly by the object of our desire, God the Trinity, and Life in Him.
Zacchaeus Sunday 2022
For the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
This Sunday we celebrated Zacchaeus' conversion and the acts following it that proved his faith. It is quite normal for us, in the Church, to view this Sunday as a signal that we ought to prepare for the coming Great and Holy Lent. And this is proper. In some places, we are correctly instructed that the placement of this commemoration urges us bit by bit to make ready for the coming fast. Yes, we have more time before we stop eating all foods, but does that mean that we indulge even more? Maybe we would benefit from a closer reflection on the Gospel.
In our day of catering to the demands of the flesh and pandering to our weaknesses we often hear about the “baby step” approach. Even in the Church, it is not uncommon to hear advice from priests that people work up to a goal. It is said, “work up to giving ten percent of your income.” Or “work up to fasting by just getting rid of meat.” Or “I understand the services are long and the kids can’t behave, why don’t you just come around the reading of the Gospel, or for communion.” While these methods may prove useful in the world, I don’t know, they don’t seem to be helpful in the Church. I have never met the one who began by taking “baby steps” and made much progress. All anecdotes aside, this approach is upended by the Gospel account of the day!
Zacchaeus, the chief Publican, was the man who’s living was made by causing the poverty of others. His job it was to produce revenue for the government by theft. His job, as it were, was to steal from his own kinsmen. He had been groomed, through egotistical love of self, by the Devil to bring harm to man. If you knew him, you hated him. But, through conversion, in the hands of God, he became a destroyer of the kingdom of darkness.
There was no preparation for him. Zacchaeus felt within himself the desire to see Jesus and so he climbed a tree. Often, sermons focus on the diminutive stature of this short man who would, no doubt, in our day, be instructed to take his time and start slowly. But he took no baby steps. He had been converted and his life could not in any way go back to the way it was. We recently reflected on what we called the necessary movements of the soul. We don’t know at what precise moment the change took place, but he did climb the tree to get what he wanted. What we know is that he sought to see Jesus with great vigor. He moved toward this goal.
Maybe conversion caused him to climb up. The scripture says that before speaking to the Lord, he "stood up." Possibly this is a picture of his rebirth. But, by the time he had descended, he was already changed. He did not say that would give his money away, he said that he gives it away. For someone in his position, this public declaration was contractual. It was gone. How much was gone? Did he start small and work his way up? Of course not! What benefit to his victims would come if he started to slowly pay them back? Very little. More importantly, how is God glorified when we cling to our old habits as if His grace lacked sufficient power to make us free? Little. But this is not what we see, not baby steps but great, manful strides. We see immediate and complete conversion. He gave away one hundred percent of his money; everything.
As we prepare for the coming, saving time of the year; Great and Holy Lent, let us reflect on the conversion of a man like Zacchaeus. Let us compare our experience to his. What kinds of changes do we see in ourselves? Are we still attached to the world? Have we left all, like Zacchaeus to follow after Christ?
The time of the Triodion!
Reflection on the Publican and Pharisee
Yesterday the Church celebrated the Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee. Our Lord gives this parable to heal the illnesses of those who suffer from pride, one of the three main passions. In the Church, when we say passion, we do not mean the same things someone who loves snowboarding, or fine food, so much that he or she spends every moment and dollar pursuing it. They are passionate, but we use the word differently. According to St. Clement of Alexandria, “Passions are disturbances of our soul contrary to our nature, in disobedience to reason. Passion is not natural, and it ruins our nature instead of fulfilling it.” All the passions have their beginning in one of the three main passions which are Pride, Self-love, and Vainglory. The parable of the Publican and Pharisee is an astringent, capable of curing the malady of pride.
In her book, “God’s Path to Sanity” Dee Pennock says that pride “…blinds us to the reality of who we are and who God is. It’s presumption resulting from ignorance of oneself and of God. Scripture calls it “blindness,” or “foolishness…” We learn from the parable that the Pharisee had pride which blinded and condemned him while the Publican received the blessing of God because of his self-accusation and repentance.
Because of our blindness, we often come too quickly to conclusions. When we think of the Pharisee, we think “Bad guy.” Why do we think this? Were the Pharisees bad because they tried to keep God’s Law? Far from feeling remorse or shame over his past as a zealous Pharisee, St. Paul uses his history to establish his reputation as blameless. To King Agrippa, before whom he stood accused, he says, “My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; 5Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.” He is using his status as a Pharisee to justify himself to his audience. He says elsewhere that if anyone had reason to boast because of their righteousness, he had more. When we misunderstand the historical Pharisee; a man who had devoted his entire life to studying the Scripture and praying to understand how to apply it, it’s easy to judge them.
Outside of the Church, modern Christians have little in their way of life that separates them from everyone else, no spiritual disciplines. In fact, we Orthodox take a lot of heat and are occasionally compared to the Pharisee. As if keeping the Law of God makes a person bad. This is categorically impossible. Jesus says that if a man does not keep His commandments the truth is not in him!
I often say, when we are talking about the Saints that we are not discussing the difference between “good” and “bad” people, but something different. But on a human scale, the Pharisee was not a bad person. He was a good person who listened to his ego and, through pride, became convinced that his righteousness somehow elevated him above others. He failed to see that any so called good that he had accomplished was in and through God. His pride was as quick to condemn others as ours is to condemn him.
On the other hand, we somehow go out emotionally to the Publican. In our reflection last week, we touched briefly on the reputation of a Publican. This was a man whose livelihood it was to collect taxes from the people on behalf of the Empire. The word, its historical equivalent, became almost synonymous with extortion. Our opinion of the Publican, however, does not suffer this judgement, but is shaped by what we know of his repentance. We have this advantage after 2,000 years. The problem, sometimes, is that we enter into the text, especially as we hear it read in Church, already having the whole parable in our minds and, we think, “figured out.”
I may have surprised my congregation when I suggested we should all “live more like the Pharisee.” Maybe this sounds strange. I certainly do not suggest we proclaim our deeds before men. All that we do must be done in humility! But think about his self-description. His life is moral. Is ours? He doesn’t commit adultery, swindle people, he does not suffer from attachment, and so on. Notice, he, like the apostle above who uses it to his advantage, is not judged for this evaluation. His sin is that, in his pride he compares himself to his neighbor and condemns him. This we want to avoid. We should be acquiring virtue, fasting, giving, learning prayer, purifying our Hearts. This can only be accomplished through faith.
This is the week of the Publican and Pharisee. If the Pharisee was living, as we explained it, correctly, the Publican was feeling correctly. May God enable us, through humility, to live according to His commandments. And may we learn, considering His righteousness to feel more like the Publican.
A closer look at unconditional Love
Mistakes we make because we apply to God what we think we know of ourselves
I saw this on a marquee today, "God's love for you is unconditional" This statement is true, but it needs interpretation. First, we make a big mistake if we expect the love of the uncreated God to be just like ours. Our love begins with pride, is formed by the ego and is not capable of expressing itself without seeking its own interests. Our love is selfish. His Love is unlike ours. Second, His love, as expressed in our Sacred Tradition is dangerous if we are not prepared to receive it. His love is fire to those who neglect their soul and who live as if He were not. But it is light to those who, through the three-fold method of Holy Orthodoxy have prepared themselves to receive it. It is the same love that illuminates the Saints and consumes the sinner. With this sense in mind, we see that His love is beyond our definitions. If it is unconditional, we do well to make every preparation. Make haste, the time is drawing near!
When Thou shalt come, O righteous Judge...
From Meat-fare to Dread Judgment
This coming Sunday the Church will celebrate what is called Meat-fare Sunday. This is the last Sunday before Great and Holy Lent for the faithful to consume meat. This is not the only commemoration, but because of our attachment to this world, and because we live without much spiritual discipline, our attention will certainly be drawn to a focus. Nevertheless, we also commemorate the Terrible day of Judgement when the deeds of each shall be laid bare. How do these two things, not eating and being reminded of the judgment to come, combine, empowering me to move from neglect and apathy to a right frame of mind? How can my fasting become a means to my salvation?
What is Orthodox fasting? Am I fasting if I simply exchange my diet for a vegan diet? What if I choose for myself to give up certain things like they do in other groups? Is there spiritual advantage in that? There is so much confusion surrounding these questions that we should lay some groundwork. Consider the following points which we present as a distillation of teachings by the Holy Fathers.
Fasting, according to the Church, is a way of eating less than is necessary to satisfy hunger. It involves eating less frequently than is normally required to achieve the sense of well-being associated with a full belly. It is a way of intentionally weakening the body with the goal that it becomes subject to the will. When the body is weakened, it becomes useful for spiritual purposes. Fasting allows for certain foods to be consumed which we call Lenten. But those Lenten foods should not be consumed in a way that is gluttonous. We relax the fast not by allowing regular foods but using foods associated with fasting, such as fish, wine, and oil. We do not, as some confessions advise, introduce non-Lenten foods during fasts. On a Sunday or feast-day, enjoy some nice wine, but cheese is not Lenten, ever.
All these rules may seem difficult to embrace considering Orthodox people fast for much of the year. Fasting may create certain complications in our schedules. It may change how we relate to social and recreational activity. It may make our lives a little more difficult. As a matter of fact, our Lord teaches us that fasting, rightly practiced, has the potential to make our lives very uncomfortable. This discomfort he encourages us to disguise when He teaches, “But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; 18That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.” When will these rewards be given? The Dread Day of Judgment. Here we begin to realize the thematic connection.
Further, when we speak of the weakness that fasting causes, or enables, we should understand the close psychological association between what we believe to be our “strength” and our pride. Our pride not only makes us afraid to be weak, but we also fear the very appearance of it. This pride is what blinds us to the reality that Judgment is coming and that all my sinsof deed, word, and thought will be judged.
And so, we cry out together, “The books will be opened, and the acts of men will be revealed before the unbearable judgment seat; and the whole vale of sorrow shall echo with the fearful sound of lamentation, as all the sinners, weeping in vain, are sent by Thy just judgment to everlasting torment. Therefore, we beseech Thee, O compassionate and loving Lord: Spare us who sing Thy praise, for Thou alone art rich in mercy”.
Fasting prepares the soul for this experience. Evagrios the Solitary gives these words to the would be ascetic, “Fast before the Lord according to your strength, for to do this will purge you of your iniquities and sins; it exalts the soul, sanctifies the mind, drives away the demons, and prepares you for God’s presence.” He goes on to praise the benefits of eating a simple Lenten meal, once a day and says, “Having already eaten once, try not to eat a second time the same day, in case you become extravagant and disturb your mind. In this way you will have the means for helping others and for mortifying the passions of your body.” May God help us!
Thoughts on forgiveness Sunday
Forgive me a sinner!
For me, becoming aware of Orthodoxy and becoming interested in or attracted to it happened together. Somehow, even though my ancestors and relatives were Orthodox, I was raised totally ignorant of the Orthodox Church and faith. It wasn’t until later in life, while I was pursuing a short-lived preaching career as a presbyterian, that I stumbled upon books written from an Orthodox perspective. When this happened though, I threw in the towel on heterodoxy and literally pounded on the doors of the Orthodox Churches in my area until, thank God, someone answered!
As a young convert, I wanted to be correct. I wanted to sound correct. I felt like I had spent enough of my life in careless disregard for precision, clarity, and faithfulness to the Truth. I understood that I had much to learn (how much, I am only beginning to realize!) and that it was about joining Humility to Godly courage and not simply adding certain “theological” words to my vocabulary. At the same time, I heard people using strange greetings and expressions that seemed out of place to my new ears.
One of them, the ubiquitous “thank God”, you will hear all the time. Not only the Orthodox, but many heterodox and even unbelievers will utter this expression. Above, I used it in a sentence that accommodated it. It is very natural, when things go well, for us to say thank God. And it should be. But, in the Church, I began hearing people say it even when “bad” things happened. This other use begins to make sense only after some experience of spiritual struggle. We learn that God ultimately is the One, either throwing, or allowing the stones (circumstances) to be thrown for our salvation.
It is less obvious what is meant when someone responds to a greeting like, “how are you?” with “thank God.” I remember feeling like this response was a way to avoid a response. Ultimately, you come to the realization that man is created to live a Eucharistic life, to be the “giver of thanks.” That the sin of man, par excellence, is that he knows God, but refuses to give thanks to Him. Dostoyevsky’s definition of man never ceases to haunt me. He wrote, “I think the best definition of man is, the creature which goes about on two legs and is ungrateful.” Have mercy on us, O, Lord!
Recently we celebrated the rite of forgiveness in the Church. We do this by mutually falling prostrate before each other and offering the verbal exchange, “forgive me a sinner” and, in response, “God forgives, forgive me a sinner.” This exchange is finalized with a three-fold kiss of peace. We do this on the eve of Lent so that no barrier exists between those who will struggle for purification during the Forty days.
When I first heard this exchange years ago it sounded strange. As if something was missing from it. Years later, spending a brief stint in another jurisdiction, I heard the same exchange with what seemed to be a reasonable addition. To God forgives was added, “and I forgive.” This seemed to satisfy the psychological need for closure. But how is it, I wondered, with such an obvious oversight, that so many of the faithful, for such a long time, used the shorter form and felt no need to improve upon it? Was I hearingthe exchange properly? Is one version right and the other wrong? Is the addition of the clause “and I forgive” an improvement, or does it change the nature of the exchange?
As mentioned above, to correctly understand this expression and the exchange, we need Humility. If a case may be made here, let it be in my humble opinion. Humility enables us to receive the truth without forcing it into unnecessary molds. Nevertheless, we have the tendency to squeeze self-justification out of every occasion, including the rite of forgiveness. Proof that we enter a psychological leverage game is that Christians hold grudges. When, after the rite of forgiveness, old wounds resurface and relationships continue to deteriorate, could it be that we have lowered the rite from a grand, and binding Theological declaration to a mere psychological exercise? What role does the additional clause play in that transformation? How long after forgiveness Sunday is the soul saving fact of God’s clemency retained in our hearts?
Try thinking of it this way. When we ask someone to forgive us, we need first to remember the words of our Lord. “Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother…” We need to be the pursuant of reconciliation. We can’t wait for them to come to us. Second, we need to remember something He says elsewhere, “But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” If we join these twin truths in our hearts, we can begin to see the simple beauty and equally, the dread brevity of the “un-corrected” version.
The Lord taught us saying, “Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool…” Earlier I said that the rite of forgiveness seems, at times, to be used as a leverage tool and is not understood as a binding theological declaration. The evidence I offered is the broken relationships that are not healed as a result.
When someone asks me for forgiveness, I am bound to forgive that person. I am bound not by anything created by God, but by His own character and my expectations from Him. And when I tell them that God forgives, I am not offering them new information. I am however, reminding myself of that steadfast character. When I say God forgives, I am placing myself in the most vulnerable of situations. “If God forgives” and I want to be forgiven, these words suffice to forcefully locate my thinking and feeling in the realm of humility. If you will, the words “God forgives” make me liable to imitate Him. I cannot say them without forgiving the offense and not incur the greatest judgment. The exchange has the nature of an oath. With this understanding, any additional verbiage is unnecessary. To add the clause seems to be a move away from the humility required by the rite itself. If God forgives, and that is the important point, what choice do I, an unworthy sinner have?
A Bishop Then Must Be Blameless
By remaining in your compromised ecclesial situation are you betraying the Lord?
When, after many years of research and struggle, my family decided to seek entrance into the Genuine Orthodox Church, we lost literally all our Orthodox friends. People, who before had praised us for our commitment to the Faith, now refuse to have any kind of contact with us. Not only laity but clergy have subjected us to their shun. What before was to our praise, when carried out to its logical conclusion became, for us, condemnation in their eyes. Even blood relatives we helped bring into the Church, friends whose children we sponsored in Baptism and those we considered to be auxiliary members of our family, cannot find the ability to see us as anything but schismatics. If we are schismatic, if we have broken away from anything, we have broken away from the apostasy we see growing in world Orthodoxy and which, we feared, was taking root in our own souls!
Recently a letter, written by our former priest, went around online warning people to stay away from me and my parish. He said that I was not a real priest, that my parish was not a real parish, that our whole jurisdiction was a farse, and that we have no legitimate claim to apostolic succession. He called me a wolf in sheep’s clothing and warned that my goal is to harm those I attempt to attract. One of our GOC clergy who was offended at the suggestion that our jurisdiction was non-canonical threatened to withhold financial support of the parish’s day school. His threat did manage to procure an apology, to him, for writing such a vitriolic letter. In his apology, I am told, the priest did confirm that his jurisdiction has never held to his espoused positions!
God forgives! His claims and the entire sense of his letter seemed to be reactionary, and bode ominously in our time of skepticism and fear. Even without his admission though, it takes very little and light research to realize that his words are without foundation. As a matter of fact, if he were able to prove his points, he would place himself outside of the Church.
The official “Churches” seem to be embroiled in everything from the war against Traditional Orthodoxy to wars over land possession. With all the generous and mutual excommunications taking place, the Moscow patriarchate would have us believe that she alone can rightly divide the truth; if others are capable of error, she is never mistaken. And their ability to justify anything that promotes their agenda is nothing less than astounding! As one of their clerics has stated, ROCOR was never in schism. ROCOR was not in schism when she was separated from the Moscow patriarchate, and she is not in schism now in Union with the MP. Claims like this are impressive. That they can be made by self-respecting people is even more so! You just cannot have it both ways. While this reflection is not a reaction to these things necessarily, I thought it worth taking a few lines to ask some questions regarding the Truth and authority.
First, when we proclaim the truth, in Christ, to the world, we are inviting sinners to become members of the body of Christ. The Church is that body and her head is Christ. The Church is one. That means that there is one Head and one Body composing the Divine/Human Church. In the Church there exists a hierarchy of authority. It follows that if we invite people to join the Church, we are inviting them to subject themselves to this authority. The only way to escape the coming judgment and eternal death is to be joined to the resurrected and Holy Body of Christ which can no more again be subjected to death! If we are to be taken seriously, we need to be able to demonstrate the trustworthiness of our hierarchy and authority.
To illustrate, I know of at least one Roman Catholic priest who believes the current Pope is wrong on many issues and that he is destroying the church. Well…how can this be if the pope cannot make mistakes? In this system, like it or not, it seems to me that the church is whatever the pope wants it to be. Maybe I am oversimplifying things, but didn’t they create a doctrine purporting to establish Papal infallibility?
Simply put, if he wants people to become Catholic, to subject themselves to the structure of that body, he needs to be able to point to the head as the embodiment of all that pertains to life as a member of that body. The way I understand modern Catholic dogma (as it continues to develop!?!) that head is the pope. I cannot understand how a priest who feels this way about the pope could continue under his authority.
This brings me to a second point. When we were still in World Orthodoxy, we sometimes found that we disagreed with our bishops. As a member of the lesser clergy, at the time, I was often asked to give commentary on issues that gave rise to questions. At other times I shared my opinions without being asked…forgive! Some of my disagreements were voiced in person when I could gain audience with a bishop and others were written letters. Sometimes, the issues were weighty questions regarding doctrine and sometimes they had to do with parochial issues. Occasionally I found myself in need of correction and learned from their answers. Other times I could not accept what they said.
On one occasion, during a public discussion where I disagreed with something being done by our bishop at the time, a parishioner was shocked to hear my opposition. He stood up, red with anger, and asked, “do you think you are holier than our bishop?” I can appreciate his zeal to a degree. We need to be able to look to our bishops as exemplars of our Tradition. But unlike the Catholic position, the whole ship doesn’t sink if our bishops make mistakes. We see in our bishops the same kind of struggle that brought the Saints to their experience of grace and that we should see in ourselves. The Church is truly Divine, and truly Human. I cannot think of a more inspiring example of grace than when a bishop is truly humble acknowledging his mistakes.
But what if the bishop no longer embodies this struggle? What if, like the bishops of world Orthodoxy alluded to above, your bishop has abandoned the canons, apostolic teaching, has left the path to salvation? What if none of these things has taken place but you continue to complain about every little thing he does? Who do you point to? What does it matter what an internet preacher says or teaches when you cannot support or consent to what your own bishop is doing and supporting? How is your bishop shaping your thinking when he is constantly justifying the decisions war mongers and of those who pervert Orthodoxy? Has your bishop lead you deeper into the experience of Grace? Or has he allowed you to become polarized by political intrigue? Has your bishop encouraged you to assume protestant suppositions regarding doctrines of the Church? What about decisions made historically about heretics? Has he encouraged you to think yourself competent to judge against the decisions of old? Has your bishop asked you to ease your traditional views on human sexuality? Morality? Asceticism?
These are not made-up possibilities. For years I was asked to stay and fight “from the inside.” Finally, I realized that I could not stay and fight this kind of battle without forfeiting my soul. One priest called me recently to tell me that the people know I stand for “Truth.” But he asked me, “what about Love and mercy?” The Holy Fathers teach us that the only way to love and show mercy to ourselves in the age to come (when it matters most!) is to be strict and merciless to ourselves in this life. This reflection is my love offering to you. Is it possible that you remain where you are through love of ease? Is it possible that you fear the loss of family, friends, and popular acceptance; that they will call you schismatic? By remaining in your compromised ecclesial situation are you not betraying the Lord who said, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,”
Ye are yet carnal!
True Spirituality according to St. Hesychios
In the Church, we place a great deal of emphasis on prayer. As a matter of fact, prayer is inextricably linked with every other activity that can be called Orthodox, or truly Christian. While this is the case, in the Church, prayer as a spiritual activity, is not always understood in connection with the words of prayer. Sometimes prayer has nothing to do with the expression of words. It is common for the Holy Fathers to speak of prayer that is without, or before words. In fact, there is a kind of prayer that gives way to or enables another kind of prayer. We are not mistaken if we understand prayer to be the result, or the reward of prayer.
In his wonderful work, “On Watchfulness and Holiness” St. Hesychios the priest offers us one of many beneficial ways of understanding this dynamic. He also gives us very practical methods to employ spiritual disciplines which allow prayer to flower in our hearts and become both path to and expression of sanctity.
In a world that has forsaken prayer and union with God as the greatest and most important need of man, many are ignorant of the multi-dimensional aspects of prayer. Many say they are not “religious” but very “spiritual”. They reject certain accepted forms of spirituality as “religion” and they replace them, usually with nothing, but occasionally with trendy or random combinations of activity or inactivity they presume to be sufficient. Sufficient for what? One wonders.
St. Hesychios the priest, however, is familiar with the only spirituality that is equipped to accomplish the greatest and most important needs of man, union with God and Life Eternal.
He says the following:
69. One ignorant of the spiritual path in not on his guard against his impassioned thoughts but devotes himself entirely to the flesh. He is either a glutton, or dissipated, or full of resentment, anger, and rancor. As a result, he darkens his intellect, or he practices excessive asceticism and so confuses his mind.
He equates ignorance of the spiritual path with license and recklessness. Outside of the tradition of the Church, which is Neptic, or Ascetical, man is reduced lower than animal and becomes either a Hedonistic pig, or a self-destructive ignoramous. But such a one as is acquainted with the ascetical life makes progress.
He continues:
66. Someone else wise in the things of God has said that as the fruit begins with the flower, so the practice of the ascetic life begins with self-control. Let us then learn to control ourselves with due measure and judgment, as the Fathers teach us. Let us pass all the hours of the day in the guarding of the intellect, for by doing this we shall with God’s help and with certain forcefulness be able to quell and reduce the evil in us. For the spiritual life, through which the kingdom of heaven is given, does indeed require a certain forcefulness.
While dissipated man is torn by so many distractions, he can hardly make time for short prayers, the spiritual life requires every ounce of energy and every moment of the day and night. While he whiles the time away bouncing mentally from one intellectual seduction to the next, the evil in him takes root and grows. It forms pathologies and the habits that express them, showing that regardless of what he may think, he is not spiritual but deceived. He does not discern his need of the basic virtues that will enable him to climb to great spiritual heights.
Echoing the shared conclusion of all the Holy Fathers, St. Hesychios reveals what is necessary.
He says:
67. Dispassion and humility lead to spiritual knowledge. Without them, no one can see God.
While hedonistic, or nihilistic, or so-called “spiritual” man believes himself to possess spiritual knowledge, he confuses what he perceives through his darkened intellect with real knowledge. Operating on the basis of his mis-read of reality, he comes to wrong conclusions about himself, man, the world, and most tragically of God. He believes, if he believes at all, that dispassion or inner peace, and humility are the result of spiritual knowledge. He sees himself as master of spiritual dimensions but, sadly, he has no mastery of himself. Self-control, characterized by restraint is unknown to him. Because he has cut himself off before the flower is formed, there can be no fruit. In his attempt to bypass the purification so necessary through prayer and asceticism, he will not achieve the gift of prayer which is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God. But the one who has subjected himself to prayer and fasting, the one who has looked in and not out has great hope of becoming spiritual!
St. Hesychios continues:
68. He who always concentrates on the inner life will acquire self-restraint. He will also be able to contemplate, theologize and pray. This is what the Apostle meant when he said, ‘Walk in the Spirit, and you will not fulfil the desire of the flesh’.
Let us cry out in repentance, God forgive! Let us humble ourselves and begin the cleansing work for our salvation. God, in His mercy, has made the path clear. Let us forsake distractions and everything that so easily prevents us from achieving spiritual experiences!
Become your own worst enemy!
Strategy for holiness
The Evil one has bound fallen man in a psychological web, from which there is but one way to escape. This web can be understood as the trap of Self-love. The way out is the Cross. The Cross involves the painful renunciation of oneself. Because death is necessary, if one wishes to decamp the horror of this tangle, he must transform love of self into its opposite; love which does not seek its own. The difference between the two is not always perceptible so it takes great attention, and spiritual guidance to pick them apart.
In the world, you will discover two closely related phenomena developing together. Man views himself, his comfort, and the unbridled attainment of his whimsical desires as the highest good. He places what we call absolute value upon them. He sees himself as unique, never mind the fact that his entire orientation is commercial and that all his cues are the reproduction of images he finds on the internet, popular music, and the entertainment industries in general. But while he cultivates this invulnerable self-image, at the same time he becomes totally insecure. There is no place for humility in his way of living. Because, in his mind, he is the most important, it follows, also in his mind, that others are responsible for his happiness and that they should serve tirelessly toward that end. Those who fail to serve toward this end are a threat, they are the enemy. This is the problem with the world.
Saint Paul uses the locally universal truth to show how much and in what way Christ loves His Church. He says, “For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:” Christ’s love for His Body, the Church, is exemplified by the fact that He nourishes It and takes every care to ensure Its spiritual safety and health. But this is quite the opposite of what we have described above. If we are to arrive somewhere close to this Self-emptying Love for the other, we will need to acquire a vastly different relationship with ourselves. This is where it becomes painful.
Christian people must know by now that the battle is within and that we cannot truly be called Christians if we do not follow Christ. We must also expect that the Church is powerful to help us transform in ourselves those things that have become corrupt. St. Hesychios the Priest offers the following strategy. He says, “…we should be our own worst enemy.” This is not a cliché and he is not being cute. People use this language sometimes when they fail, through clumsiness, to achieve their hedonistic goals. That is not how he is speaking.
He goes on to say, “If we want to fulfil the first and greatest commandment- by which I mean the Christ-like way of life, blessed humility, the life of the incarnate God- we should have the same feelings toward ourselves as a person might have toward someone who had time and again grievously injured him and treated him unjustly. Indeed, we should have even stronger feelings than these.”
Consider the negative feelings you have attached to other people. Consider your fellow parishioners, your kids, relatives, co-workers, fellow patrons of the open road, does it occur to you that most of your interpersonal problems flow from your love of self? Now think about how different things would be if you truly felt that way, and worse about yourself. What if you thought that you were the cause of all the problems in your life? Think about how this would affect your interactions. Think about how you would prefer others, would seek peace, consider a matter before speaking, turn the other cheek and how you would fulfill every other Gospel commandment.
We need to begin somewhere. Maybe a good starting point is to see that we are caught in this web. That we cannot love without our own interests in mind. If we are to imitate Christ, we must shed love of self and acquire the love which does not seek its own. Salvation consists in the transformation of the one into the other!
Open letter to influencers of Evil
We understand what you are saying!
Because I use computers and cell phones to communicate with people and to publish important things about our parish, or to post our homilies and because I have not yet shrugged completely the vanity of the digital world, I see a lot of the garbage that passes for news and captivates the interest of those who subscribe to what Fr. Seraphim Rose, of blessed memory, called the “one, abnormal mind.”
Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, I have been reading many statements from people involved in the entertainment industry stating that their lives were “saved” when they chose to murder the unborn and innocent child within their wombs.
While these people no longer use the correct pronouns with reference to themselves, and while they postulate opinions that conflict both with the empirical and scientific facts of human sexuality, they remain steadfast in the self confidence that their moral standard should be imposed on those of us who both know what and who we are. While they race to redefine mores to update them with the current sexual revolution, they judge the rest of us who believe that there is a Law that transcends time, consensus, and the fiat creation of Godless law.
Ironically, somehow what they say is supposed to carry weight but what I, as an Orthodox Christian Priest, the husband of one wife, the father of seven children, two of whom are happily married in faithful Orthodox relationships, and the grandfather of one thrice blessed granddaughter; somehow what I have to say is of no value. Somehow my opinion is awkward, outdated, archaic and uncool. Thank God! If the world hates me, it also hated Christ my Lord!
The line of reasoning they use is clear though. They believe that the legal murder of unborn people should be protected because what they call “good” can come from it. This is a pragmatic and fallacious line of reasoning. Pragmatic because they use the end, the “good” to justify the brutal, barbaric, satanic, and hateful destruction of innocent, unborn people. To exemplify the lunacy of their pragmatism, one only needs to age the victim a few years. At this time, I doubt they would defend the slaughter of older children on the same basis. We have seen a rise in child sex trafficking and general human trafficking over the past 10 years. But it seems, still, that their Molechitism[1] is limited. Also, the fallacy of their view is made most clear by the destructive, hedonistic, Hollywood lives lived by some of the most outspoken advocates of this perverted view. They view their disgusting art (anti-art), their trivial and monotonous noise (they call music) and the drug lubricated, sexually charged, prostitution of their bodies and minds as the highest good.
What I cannot understand is how they do not understand our reasoning. Maybe we have not been clear enough. This will be brutal, but much less so than the abortion of the innocent advocated by these perverts. I will not say our view, but my view is that life of the unborn Human Child, that will become the victim of his or her parents, is of MORE value than his or her murderers. The child in the womb is of more value because she has not yet been tainted by the sinful world and Its influences. This is definitively true and cannot be said of the murderous parents. For this reason, the would-be parents should repent and do everything possible to ensure the live birth of the child. The Law of Moses forbid the boiling of the “kid” goat in its mother’s milk. It is therefore a sin of great magnitude when the thing that is supposed to give life (the mother) is used to take life. I cannot think of a more sinister and diabolical thing.
I would also suggest that the murder of one human being by another human being to ensure the health of that human being is simply the pathology of murder. No murderer ever killed anyone thinking that it would bring him, or her anything but pleasure. And this is the testimony of the abortionist. They say that there would have been no way for them to go on (be happy) if the child had not been aborted. If you can live with that, you have bigger problems than you may know.
It is also patently clear that the would-be murderer would achieve actual goodness by sacrificing herself for the life of the innocent and unborn child. In many cases, and they are plentifully documented, the child who was spared grows up to live a full and wonderful life. In nearly as many cases the repentant mother does as well. There is no greater good than that a man, or woman, lay down his life for his brother. This good becomes exceedingly sweet because the life laid down is that of the one who is supposed to give life, and the brother is the one created fearfully and wonderfully in her womb!
The entertainment industry and its zombies live for themselves. Until they learn to love selflessly, they will continue to cry to end the war on a woman’s body. Until they repent, they will never see that the war is being waged by themselves. That they are the attacker and not the victim. Have I made myself clear?
[1] Leviticus 20:2-5 2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
Robbers and Theives
We have the Holy Fathers as sure guides!
Many times, in the company of my much beloved Greek friends I have heard the ancient Greek philosophers extolled as proto-Christian theologians. Their teachings, my friends see as somehow foreshadowing the teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. While we, the Orthodox faithful, the sons and daughters of our Mother the Church, have the prophets of Old, some Hellenic people tend to add to our “cloud of witnesses” the pagan Greek philosophers.
Recently, my parish celebrated our second annual patronal feast. It was our great joy to host guests from one of our sister parishes which happens to be a Greek-style parish. Because our parish is dedicated to the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, who precedes the One Who is the fulfillment of all prophecy, I wanted to glorify and draw the attention of all to his birth and its significance. To do so, in my homily, I tried to dispel the myth that Alexander the Great was somehow a participant in the world’s preparation for the coming of the son of God. While he was motivational behind many of the socio-economic-ecological-linguistic and other currents that reflect and shape world history, Alexander the Great did not preach Repentance.
The message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” To prepare the world for it, the holy and glorious prophet, forerunner, and baptizer of the Lord, John had preached the same message beforehand. As the Holy Scripture records, “For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.”
And if someone points out the spread of the Greek language under the Macedonian prince, I will only respond by citing the day of Pentecost. God, Who confused the tongues at the tower of Babel, is not bound by language. Not Alexander the Great, but St. John the Baptist, therefore, paved the way for the Gospel.
But what about the Greek philosophers? Isn’t it true that all truth is “God’s truth?” Couldn’t we think of these men and women as true seekers of truth? After all, we do read some very honorable things in their writings. You may be shocked to hear how the Lord spoke of them. Not including all the prophets who truly pointed to Himself, our Lord Jesus Christ said that “All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.” When our Lord uses such all-encompassing words, we should indeed “stand upright, and attend.” Apparently, according to His Holy teaching, the Greek philosophers, and all other leaders of world religions and cults are out!
Often, a prophet is not without honor except in his own country. And there are times when the words of a foreigner cannot but be met with great skepticism. So, if I were to make the case that the pagan Greeks should be considered as thieves and robbers, leading people not to Christ with their philosophy, but away from Him, I would want to have a spokesman make the case for me. I would want someone with the ability to speak and be heard, whose words would be received with authority. Someone who had first-hand knowledge of both the Greek philosophers and the Theologians of the Church, someone like the fifth-century disciple of St. John Chrysostom, abbot of the Ankyra monastery St. Neilos the Ascetic.
In his “Ascetic Discourse” he begins by showing who the true philosophers are. He says, “Many Greeks and not a few Jews attempted to philosophize; but only the disciples of Christ have pursued true wisdom, because they alone have Wisdom as their teacher, showing them by His example the way of life they should follow.” He says that the Greek and Jewish philosophers attempted philosophy but, because they had no True Teacher, they failed.
He continues, “For the Greeks, like actors on a stage, put on false masks; they were philosophers in name alone, but lacked true philosophy. They displayed their philosophic calling by their cloak, beard, and staff, but indulged the body and kept their desires as mistresses.” Far from failing at an honest attempt to do philosophy, St. Neilos says that, because they did not forsake their passionate lifestyles, but continued in sin, they were merely charlatans, stage actors. Considering these words, I find it difficult to understand that some monasteries depict these same philosophers in a way similar to the way we depict saints.
Moreover, He says, “They were slaves of gluttony and lust, accepting this as something natural. They were subject to anger and excited by glory, and they gulped down rich food like dogs.” Subject to anger and excited by glory? This seems to describe today’s people with absolute precision. The slavery to the passions is being lived out today in a way that mimics the lechery of the past. So, when I make the statement that the pagan Greek philosophers were not in any way pious, I am not simply an outsider with an uninformed bias toward the Holy Fathers!
Why was it that these early, we can now say, pseudo-philosophers cannot be rightly called lovers of wisdom? Why is it that they should not be viewed as those who made a good effort but just missed the mark? Am I being a bit hard on Plutarch? St. Neilos answers these questions. He says, “They did not realize that the philosopher must be above all a free man and not a slave of the passions who can be bought or sold. A man of upright life can be that slave of others and yet suffer no harm, but to be enslaved to the passions and pleasures brings a man into disgrace and great ridicule.”
He goes on to parse the different pursuits of the past and how those engaged were all wrong because they “neglected to practice the virtues”. He says that some of them even tried to speak on the Divine creator. “At times they even tried to theologize, although here the truth lies beyond man’s unaided grasp, and speculation is dangerous, yet in their way of life they were more degraded than swine wallowing in the mud.” Others, who did attempt to live a life of austerity did so to fulfill the passions of vain glory and love of praise.
Now, when our Lord warned against the false teachers and philosophers who came before Him, He also warned of future imposters and those who offer themselves as a modern equivalent to the Apostles. While I am not calling anyone names, Our Lord did warn that “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. So, we need to pay attention. Not only will there be false Christs, but there will also be false teachers who speak without authority.
St. Neilos the Ascetic speaks without qualification about the pagan Greek “philosophers.” And although outside of philosophy courses in school, they are not cited very often, I do hear a lot of the Orthodox faithful quoting the Canadian clinical Psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson. He seems to occupy a position similar to the philosophers of old.
I have listened to many of his lectures. He speaks with command and seems to offer insights into the fallen human condition. And while I have nothing against him personally, I have come to realize that many otherwise Orthodox people look to him as a source of Orthodox faith. Recently, I met some young people who have devoted themselves to his teaching and express all manner of cleverly disguised heresy. They uncritically imbibed his teaching, believing it to be Orthodox. But these poor souls are not well-formed in the Orthodox faith. They hear what he is saying, and it sounds, mostly right. More importantly, his emotional, if passionate delivery ignites feelings in these undiscriminating people. They try to unite his teaching with some words from holy books and they interpret the holy fathers to accommodate his new teaching. The result is a resistance to traditional teaching and an inability to exercise humility in the presence of more experienced Orthodox influences.
I am not attacking Dr. Peterson here. I think that he would agree with me when I say that he is not Orthodox and not formally even a Christian. In his own words, “he is trying to act” as if he believes. Further, I believe he would agree with me when I say that Orthodoxy does not operate in any way like a religion and so it is distinguishable from them. Lastly, I think that he would agree that if there is any similarity between what he teaches and Holy Orthodoxy, it is superficial. The result of speculations from the outside. Nevertheless, I have encountered enough Orthodox clergy and laity who subscribe to his teachings that I felt it important to weigh in.
It is in the wake of this surprising phenomenon that we should reflect on the importance and uniqueness of the Church. The Lord Jesus Christ says, “All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.” And we know that in our time “they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;” that “even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies,” With all the dangers lurking, the Lord has not abandoned us that we should seek guidance elsewhere! We, in the Church, have the Holy Fathers, sure guides for our salvation.
In the same way that we do not need to incorporate the teachings of the pseudo philosophers of Greek paganism, we do not need to borrow from the unenlightened teaching of modern psychology. For those who wish to be saved, the pagan philosophers are out and so are the modern psychologists!
Back when I was taking seminary courses from one of the Orthodox dioceses, my professor took me to task for being idealistic. He told me that, “in our time it is not possible to have a purely Orthodox theology.” I resisted then as I do now. He told me that “anyone who thinks it’s possible is simply chasing after a Chimera.” I consider him to be a casualty of syncretism. I make it my business every day to seek a pure theology and life by “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;” We may learn from the world, but we must never borrow from it!
Call no man teacher, father, what?
I became your father through the Gospel
Call me Father or don’t but let’s be honest about religious bigotry!
I have been a member of the Orthodox clergy for many years. I was tonsured a reader, then spent many years serving as a sub-deacon. The office of sub-deacon is little understood both in and outside of the Church. In the western and papist confessions, this office has all but been forgotten, but in the Church, the office remains and is expressed most clearly in the service of a Bishop. But a few years ago, I was ordained a deacon and, as is proper to the office, I began to be referred to as Fr. Methodius.
In the priesthood of the Church, which consists of bishops, priests, and deacons, all but bishops are referred to as Father, while bishops are referred to as Master. Father is also the proper way to address male members of the monastic order who have progressed beyond the beginning stages. Moreover, in the customs of the Slavic churches, the wives of married priests and deacons receive some form of the title mother, more accurately “little mother”. Female monastics or nuns are referred to in the same way. The lesser clergy have their titles such as Reader and sub-deacon. These titles have been used from the earliest times. They serve in many ways to express respect, and love, and to make manifest the hierarchy and order of the kingdom of heaven.
While I was a deacon, I encountered many who struggled against using the title of Father when referring to me. Now that I am a priest, I find that where those people struggled to use that most traditional of titles, they now refuse outright and even try to use the bible to substantiate their refusal.
The sad thing is that not just the Orthodox Church, but all Christian confessions that have any connection to history further than the protestant reformation used the title father when speaking of and to the clergy. More disappointing than this is that they base their opposition on one passage in scripture, in which, our Lord warns his disciples against calling a man on earth Father. And finally, the most aggravating aspect of their protest, based upon this single scripture, is that the very disciples, the apostolic community, who were ostensibly warned not to use this term did use it. Not only did they use it, but their use is recorded in scripture and became and remains the universal practice of the Church.
The same people who lean exclusively on this one passage which seems to prohibit something that became the standard practice of the apostles, also seem to isolate only the title of father, and consider it admissible to allow the other titles prohibited “rabbi”, or teacher, and “master”. It would seem that some kind of bigotry allows the arbitrary distinction which allows for terms like teacher and master or boss while precluding the use of father.
In addition to this, it is common for evangelicals to use terms like Pastor, Elder, and even Reverend. Recently, I had a meeting with a local evangelical “pastor” whose congregation was getting rid of some pews. When I met him at his place of worship, I was dressed as a priest is required, in the traditional cassock, small ryassa, and scufia, with the pectoral cross. It was a hot day, and I was not surprised when this pastor met me at the front door of his building dressed in shorts, flip-flops, and a t-shirt while wearing a ball cap. Without poking fun, it would be easy to identify who was the Reverend Christian pastor and referred to as Father and which was not. Also, while these people resist the use of the traditional terms, one wonders if they have any understanding of the Greek words used in scripture which refer to the clergy. They may be surprised that the Orthodox Church is not only the author of scripture but that the language of the New Testament is known to us and is readily understandable by those of our confessions who are the direct descendants of the koine Greek used when the epistles were written.
Take for example the word that is ubiquitously understood to mean priest, “Presbyteros.” It’s true that some renderings have it as “Elder”, but even the elder of the early Christian community was the Priest. In the Greek Orthodox tradition today, a priest is called a Presbyter! And not only are words like Poimen, Prebyteros, Diakon, and Episcopos translated as Shepherd, Priest, Deacon, and Bishop, found in the New Testament, but the authors of the epistles specifically refer to themselves as “fathers” of their spiritual children. St. Paul says that the relationship he has with his church in Thessalonica is the relationship between a father and his children. 1 Thessalonians 2:11 To the church at Corinth, he says “Indeed, in Christ Jesus, I became your father through the Gospel.” 1 Corinthians 4:14-15 So not only are the words contained in scripture known to us in the Church, but the dynamic that enables spiritual fatherhood is the power of the Gospel!
So, forgive me if I seem a little blunt. The only reason evangelicals refuse to use the title father is religious bigotry. Maybe some are ignorant, but the hesitancy is a response to a mechanism that is built into that religion. These are the same Jew-worshipping people who say that drinking is evil even though our Lord came both eating and drinking. Even though He fasted and told us to fast, they believe that this kind of rigor is tantamount to paganism, and that baptism does no more than to publicly demonstrate a decision they made. They say, contrary to scripture that not baptism, but the “believer’s prayer” is necessary for salvation. They believe that they are “saved” even though the scripture warns them not to presume, or that the eucharist is a brute memorial and not as the scripture says the very Body and Blood of our Lord! One thing is clear, evangelicals are not people of the book but of some strange and seemingly gnostic reduction of it!
The priest gives or should give his whole life to his flock. He does everything that he does, often without pay, for the love of Christ and those placed under his care. He empties himself daily trying to help those who call, email, and write him with questions about life, emotional/psychological trouble, family issues, and money issues. He studies the sacred scriptures daily, prepares lessons, homilies, and generally labors to improve himself and others. He deals with births, marriages, deaths, and every other conceivable issue man encounters in this fallen world. Some even have the difficult task of dealing with demoniacs. His wife often becomes the counselor par excellence of the parish women, young and old. And his children often fill in the gaps, helping with everything from church services to building maintenance and any other thing necessary. He makes his whole life and all his time public property. Everything that he does, if he does it properly, he must do freely without seeking reward or thanks! And he does this for the sake of Christ. In every respect, he exhausts himself to give birth to and form Christ in his spiritual children!
If his critics cannot see that he is a father from scripture, from the testimony of history, from the Priest’s example of self-emptying love, and from what has been exposed as their cherry-picking of the book they are supposed to have such reverence for, I don’t know what else to say, they are blind. As the scripture says, “their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart…”
Evolutionary Theory Kills the Soul
However Refined, All Darwinist Doctrines Corrupt
Is evolutionary theory consistent with or opposed to our holy Orthodox faith? It has come to my attention that while the Church seems to offer a coherent, definitive, and conclusive teaching regarding the creation of the world and man, many Christians disagree with this teaching and even contradict it.
Upon entering the Orthodox Church's catechumenate, I examined the beliefs I held about God, man, sin, and salvation. When I compared them to the teachings of the Church, I found there were some things I had stumbled upon that needed the proper orientation. But some of my views were of no more value to me and needed to be repented of. When I finally came through the waters of Baptism, I did so with the knowledge that the holy Orthodox faith was not something that could be simply applied like paint over an old fence. I couldn’t simply retain my erroneous beliefs about God, man, sin, and salvation. As the Scripture says, I needed new wineskins for the new wine of our Holy faith!
While I try to be sensitive to the work required of me to uproot the heretical and soul-destroying doctrines I had learned from my educational experience and through exposure to protestant and papist teaching, it seems that others believe a combination of those doctrines, combined with some archaic words is compatible with their “Orthodoxy” as long other “intelligent” people agree. The resultant mindset becomes apparent that those who hold very close to the simple teachings of the ancient fathers are simplistic. While those who choose to synthesize novelty views like evolution with Orthodox teachings are more enlightened. While I don’t feel as though I have uprooted, or even discovered all the problems with my own thinking, I am committed to the vow that I made before Baptism to repudiate every error I find in myself. The more I become familiar with the true teaching of the Church, the more I see in minutia how much more work I must do!
Nevertheless, as stated above, there are whole groups of those who may be otherwise Orthodox, who subscribe to the doctrine of Evolution. They seem to have placed an iron curtain between what scripture and the holy fathers teach about the creation of the world and man, and what they learned from their worldly educational experience. And while it may be excusable for someone to be ignorant of a mistake, these people seem to be driven by a sincere conviction that their Darwinian suppositions are fully consistent with our holy faith!
It would be possible to show that the entire corpus of evolutionary teachings, included in it, the cosmologies, theories about cavemen, and Theories about the length of the days of creation, is not but a systematic and ugly alternative to the simple beauty of the creation account we receive through the prophet and God seer, Moses. And since it has been done in other places like in the magnificent work by our beloved hieromonk, of blessed memory, Fr. Seraphim Rose called “Genesis, Creation and early man” which brings together in symphony the voices of so many of the great teachers of the Church, we won’t take the time here.
But what I would like to do is to appeal to the good nature of those who oppose what could be called the “young earth” view of creation. In brief, I would like to appeal to their conscience on those three related levels: cosmology, anthropology, and history.
First, when God created man, as male and female, he was complete and good, very good. He was not, as some suggest, a being not completely human. And, as he was placed as ruler over them, he was certainly not an animal. While ruling over the world and beasts, Man had communion with his Creator and walked and spoke with Him daily.
Additionally, man is the immortal being which is a union of soul and body. This means that both the body and soul of man live forever and belong together. This union comes into existence from non-being at the point of conception. The body and soul both have their respective powers. One of the powers of the soul is nous, which enables intellection. It is self-consciously aware and can see and relate to others. Another is the power we call Word, which forms intellections into knowable packaging. These spiritual “sights” and experiences can therefore be described! By his creator, man was endowed with spiritual characteristics not given to animals. Man has special attributes that liken him to his creator and make him a suitable ruler over those other creatures. And so we understand that Man, from the very start, was not an animal, and did not develop from some primordial thing, but was a cosmos in himself, a created god!
Second, in evolutionary theory, things should be getting better in a certain sense. In fact, according to them, man is an advanced development in the perfecting of the world. They say that millions of years ago, the primitive or early man wandered out of the jungle and into caves. There they discovered fire, tools, art, and society. They see this as a line of demarcation where the animal that would become man is finally distinguishable from other animals, particularly other mammals.
A couple of things could be mentioned here. First, if this is the case, what do they make of the fall? Do they retain the belief that man fell from anything very early after his coming into existence? Or does the fall become simply a narrative inspiring man to become a better version of himself? Second, is it not likely that these people, who gathered in caves, were degenerated versions of their ancestors who were created to live in society? Isn’t it likely that sin had corrupted them to such a degree that they were not so much discovering these things as remembering them? It is difficult for me to understand how they make sense of salvation in this motif. There is so much less glory if our salvation came in the middle of history when we were almost developed enough to save ourselves; as humanism teaches, than if He came toward the end of history when we had reduced ourselves, over so many millennia, to be worse than animals. So much for humanistic anthropologies!
Third, the scripture says that the cosmos was created in the time of five days. On the Sixth day, He created man. The world came into existence, was formed, and sustained for three of these days before God commanded the sun, moon, and stars to appear. While some argue that we don’t know the exact duration of those days, we are given some interpretive keys in the holy fathers. St. Basil the Great says that the length of those days was the foundation for the length of the following days. So, we can safely reason that the first three “days” were right around the same length as our days today! So much for day-age theories!
The fact is that, in the beginning, God created the world, the animals, and man to share in His goodness. He did this with the primary intent of revealing Himself to man; the creature bearing His image. Man sinned and destroyed everything by his free choice, and he did this almost immediately. We should not be surprised, as some have quipped, that the chicken survived the impersonal process of evolution. It didn’t. We should, however, be surprised that God is patient with us. We should repent and thank Him, Who became man so that we could be restored to our original purpose; to live in and with Him!
Secrets of the Spiritual life
Remembrance Of God In Spiritual War
St. Diodochos of Photiki offers very practical assistance to practitioners of watchfulness. He also lets us in on some secrets our enemy doesn’t want us to know. He says that we can distinguish between the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error! This is especially helpful in our age of despair when it is generally agreed that truth is unknowable. That one truth claim has no more ascendancy than the next. When truth has been stripped of any power to transform. And when in the collective consciousness, it has become a sentiment, supported by nothing more than sincerity, because, after all, truth is relative. Away with that nonsense!
Of particular importance in the pursuit of truth is the soul’s ability to perceive the grace of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth. By His soul cleansing power, He kindles the soul “into love for God and, free from all fantasy and image, (the soul) moves untroubled by doubt towards Him; and it draws, as it were, the body with it into the depths of that ineffable love.” This activity of grace, the love which comes from the Holy Spirit, “so inflames the soul that all its parts cleave ineffably and with utter simplicity to the delight of its love and longing for the divine. The intellect then becomes pregnant through the energy of the Holy Spirit and overflows with a spring of love and joy.”
We should know that there are two powers at work that can be mistaken for each other. Not only do they seem similar at certain points, but one has an interest in mimicking the other. St. Diodochos says, “…grace dwells in the depths of his (man’s) intellect, while the wicked spirits cluster round only the outside of the heart. This is just what the demons do not want us to know, for fear that our intellect…will arm itself against them with the remembrance of God.” He continues, “When our intellect begins to perceive the grace of the Holy Spirit, then Satan, too, importunes the soul with a sense of deceptive sweetness in the quiet times of the night, when we fall into a light kind of sleep.”
He says, “…the illusion of grace comes to us… when we fall into a light sleep while our remembrance of God is half-hearted.” While the “experience of true grace comes to us when the body is awake or else on the point of falling asleep, while in fervent remembrance of God.”
But how do we turn this information into a tool we can use, or more precisely, how do we weaponize it? We know that the evil one mimics the action of grace. We now know as well that the point of deception lies somewhere beyond labor and watchfulness, beyond struggle and attention. That true revelation has little to do with sleep, rest, or dreams. The following few steps may help us make use of this teaching.
First, we should not look to our dreams for information of any kind. In fact, the fathers of the Church explain that the “sleep” state, spoken of in the books of Moses and the prophets, in which God revealed wonderful things, was not technically sleeping. Another way this is described is as a trance. We understand this to be Divine vision or Theoria. When used properly the term ecstasy also applies. So, these people were not reading their dreams, per se, their sleep was the result of having been overcome by the grace of God. The grace of God will come to us in our wakeful state when we keep a vigilant watch over our thoughts.
Second, we should include much more activity in our day. While we busy ourselves with every worldly distraction, we make almost no time for meditative prayer. We are active with those things that lead us into captivity, but we neglect the “active” life characterized by nepsis, or watchfulness. This is the discipline of gathering our intellect, centering our attention, and focusing our concentration on God. We do this through prayer generally and through the Jesus prayer said with the body.
We must remember that this nexus between Spiritual experience and the deception of the devil is a subtle thing and that very experienced people have been duped. How much more should we who are inexpert and unmotivated be on guard? Further, we should ask ourselves what judgment awaits us who don’t even attempt to place ourselves on the field of battle, who say that this spiritual warfare is for others, maybe for monastics but not us.
And lastly, we should struggle with all our power to purify ourselves of all impurity and the pride that seeks meaning in spiritual experiences, without knowing whether they be of God or not. St. Diodochos explains, “For when he (devil) sees the intellect unreservedly proud of its own experience of spiritual perception, he entices the soul by means of certain plausible illusions of grace.” The experience of grace leads to soberness and humility. But the counterfeit comes through an “amorphous and disordered” joy.
For those who wish to practice their Orthodox faith these are some tools. For those who wish to go to battle and take back some stolen ground, these are weapons. To those caught in the throw of deception, this is a wake-up call. To those who wish to avoid the spiritual life let this be a witness!
Out of his Treasure Things New and Old.
Apples of silver from the past
Recently, I have been reading a series of books that offer insights into the office of Priestly ministry and practical guidance on the celebration of divine services. Both books are full of helpful content including Rubrics, information about the responsibilities of the different servers and celebrants, guidance on Liturgical colors for the different seasons, and so on. These books have helped de-mystify some aspects of the service for me, but they have done more than that.
If you have read any of my reflections in the past, you will know that I have very little patience for the kind of knowledge that seeks merely to be right, or to give the right answer. The correct “use” of Orthodoxy is incarnational. In that day, we will be judged not for what we know, but by what we know and what we did with that knowledge. The only acceptable answer will be faith, working through love; good deeds done for Christ’s sake!
But before you start thinking about volunteering to clean your street or join some political protest, may I suggest that deeds include thoughts, feelings (which are thoughts with a physical component!), and words! We will be judged by every word spoken! So, we should start small. We should begin the journey into the heart with careful, methodical guarding over our words.
One of the treasures found in these books is in the volume “A Practical Handbook for Divine Services”,[1]written by Father Gregory Woolfenden, an Englishman, born in the 1940’s, who came into the Orthodox Church in the 1990’s. In citing The Russian Typicon of 1641, he provides his reader with a few words that have great power to transform all of life.
Before I get to those words though, I would like to quickly revisit the activity of the mind and its significance. Often, even in the church, and at prayer, our minds wander like aimless children. They may be “listening” to the prayers or even saying them, while the mind, which is more expansive than space, is occupying itself with every mental errand it can discover. In his weakness, man uses religion as a distraction from what he views as most important. But try as he may, he cannot distract himself for long and while the six psalms are being read, he has already repeated the three conversations had earlier that day, the one with his wife, the other with his boss, and the other with the Starosta, who took the opportunity to remind him quietly about the upcoming workday. The services, in which he hopes to find some relief from those things fades away and only his aching back has the strength to call him back to where he is!
Sometime after the reading of the Holy Gospel at Sunday matins, there is a time for veneration. It should be noted that many people who attend this service view this moment as being the end of the service. They come up before the Amvon, kiss the Gospel book, receive holy oil from the Litiya performed earlier, kiss the priest’s hand and off they go. This is a tragic mistake that needs correction. What those people miss is the teaching of the Church par excellence in the reading of the canons. While the clergy, chanters, and readers are strengthening themselves for the next pinnacle of Divine service, the people are checking out and heading home.
To a certain degree, we all have difficulty when it comes to concentrating our intellect. If the people are mistakenly heading home, they have created a temptation for the rest of us who struggle not to judge and stay focused. So, I always rejoice when I discover simple, helpful tools like the following words. Fr. Igumen Gregory writes that “The Russian Typikon of 1641 provides a form of words to be used at the kissing of the holy Gospel, quietly by each of the faithful when they come before the Gospel book: With fear and love I draw near to Thee, O Christ, and I believe Thy words; let fear cleanse sin, let love bring salvation. After the kissing is said quietly the following prayer: I believe, O Lord, in Your holy gospel, O Christ God protect and save me.”
Do you say a prayer of any kind before and after kissing the Gospel? Neither did I until I learned these words. In fact, rather than saying these words, I likely had distracted thoughts about who would be reading the canon or reminding myself to put out the prosphora for the morning. I am not suggesting a renovation of church practices. But what if you, reader, had these words in mind, on your lips before and after kissing the Gospel?
I would think the benefits would be realized immediately. You would associate the kissing of the Gospel with drawing near to Christ and you would do this with fear and love. You would not be distracted by thoughts about what you could quickly heat up to eat as soon as you get home. You would be asking for fear and love to do the work, in you, of spiritual cleansing. You would be inclined to linger and disinclined to leave. Lingering you would listen intently to the reading of the canon, and you would experience the jubilant censing during the 8th ode, and the rest of the joyful hymns, praises, fervent supplication, and the morning litany! You would have used your thoughts, words, and deeds, your time to make ready to receive the King of Glory Who comes invisibly upborne by the ranks of Angels! You would have prepared yourself properly to attend the Divine Liturgy.
Maybe you won’t be aware of any changes brought about by these two short prayers. It’s not magic! But don’t you agree that saying these prayers is far better than what you were formerly doing? I would be willing to state categorically that the use of prayers like these old prayers is superior to absent-mindedness, or an arbitrary frame of mind. And that by them, idle thoughts are brought to attention. That by incorporating prayers like these, our idle mouths will find good deeds to accomplish for Christ’s sake.
[1] A Practical Handbook for Divine Services Complied, translated and edited by Father Gregory Woolfenden from Pravoslavnoe Bogosluzhenie by I.V Gaslov and other Russian Orthodox liturgical sources, Holy Trinity Publications, The Prisntshop of St. Job of Pochaev, Holy Trinity Monastery Jordanvilled, New York 2011
Because He Laid down His Life
You cherish a freedom you do not have!
We sometimes feel as though we have great amounts of freedom to make choices in our lives. If we stop and think about it for a moment, we will soon discover that the choices we make are largely conditioned by influences. We feel free to decide to do one thing instead of another and, in this sense, we believe ourselves to have some authority over the design of our lives. We do not, nor can we conceive of the great restraints that guide and occasionally coerce our decision-making. Even the desires we pursue are often implanted in us by the things we see, hear and sense generally in the empirical world. Other times those interests come from forces that, while active in the sensory world, are not of this world.
When we are completely honest, we see that we are less the freemen we believe ourselves to be and much more slaves to our experience of the world around us. In the first place, we had no choice concerning our coming into existence. And for those of us who were baptized into the Orthodox Church as infants, we had no say in that matter either.
If we take these two examples together, we will see that we have the responsibility to maintain our lives, even though, as we said, we did not choose to come into existence. In like manner, we also have responsibilities to our Life in Christ because of our baptism.
Orthodox Christians must understand some of the implications pertaining to those who have been initiated into life. Unfortunately, many believe their association with the Church to be something secure; something to consider later in life if the interest arises. You may now think of it as an association you should honor to maintain a peaceful relationship with your spouse, parents, or your mother or grandmother. But I would like to impress upon your conscience the reality that, whether you like it or not, baptism into the Church made you responsible before God for the grace He imparted to you. You will be judged as having been given everything, regardless of how much of it you make your own.
In his book “The Life in Christ” Nicholas Cabasilas has some very important words for us. Nicholas Cabasilas is an important contributor to the Orthodox faith. He was the nephew of one Nilus Cabasilas, who followed St. Gregory Palamas, the bishop of Thessalonica in the 14th century. If this pedigree had any effect on his writing we become very aware of it in his sterling and faith-filled work.
Love for God leads to forgetfulness of self
He cites the great convert to the Orthodox faith from Judaism, the Apostle Paul. “The blessed Paul makes all things clear in a brief saying, “you are not your own, you were bought with a price” (1Cor. 6:19-20) He who has been purchased does not regard himself but Him who has purchased him, and lives according to His will. In the case of men, the slave is bound to the wish of his master, but only in body; in his mind and reason he is free and can use them as he pleases. But in the case of him whom Christ has bought, it is impossible for him to be his own.”
Cabasilas goes on to say of Christ, “…by giving Himself completely, He purchased the whole man. Therefore He has purchased the will too, and it especially.”
He goes on to speak of the tragic results when our first parents exercised their will freely. They did not view the decision to eat or not of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as the property of Christ. They chose according to the freedom they had not yet achieved through experience. What this resulted in was a great loss for all mankind, because in their folly, “we escaped from His (God’s) service …” Escaping from His service we lost the right to live, with Him, in paradise. And so, through His suffering, death, and resurrection, Christ purchased us back from sin and death and brought us back into the garden of delight; made us members of His Body!
So, when we discuss our relationship with the Church, we should bear this sense of obligation in mind. We are the slaves of Christ. We were bought with a price. If we consider these things, it should become clear that we do not live this way. We make almost every decision without regard to what our master requires of us. We love ourselves, not Him, and we treasure our so-called “freedom” failing to see that when we should do all to please Him, we are slaves to our egotism which has been programmed to pursue a remote, passing happiness in place of True Joy, which is in God.
Cabasilas says, “So it remains that none of the virtuous and righteous loves himself, but only Him who has bought him. It must be that at least some if not all of those who have been purchased should be thus disposed. How could it be reasonable for such an awesome purchase to have been made in vain?” And that when Christ purchased His slaves, He did so in a way that “everything has been accomplished for their benefit. He paid the ransom, not in order to enjoy anything from those who have been ransomed, but in order that what is His might belong to them, and that the Master and His labors might profit the slaves, and that he who has been purchased might himself wholly possess Him who has purchased him.”
The Life in Christ, Nicholas Cabassilas p 220
We've let them off the hook
The Priesthood: Office or Person?
Lately, we have had quite a few heterodox visitors come to our church. There are so many things they want to know, so many things they ask about and so many things they have never seen or heard. Some of them want to accept everything. They see us reverencing the Holy Icons, making the sign of the cross, or whatever else and want to do it too. This is a delight.
Of course, there are those who are more reserved and who take everything a bit at a time. They need to be convinced sometimes on a rational level but usually, their feelings change at a pre-rational level. It happens that these people will eventually become “teachers” of others, having done the mental and emotional work of “accepting” the practices of the Church. This kind of experience tends to produce a sense of healthy, godly confidence in the newly convinced, but it can also have a tendency toward the dark double of self-confidence. This too can be a delight once pride has been expunged from the experience.
Another thing that these visitors will see is people kissing the hand of the priest. While this practice is not unknown to those brought up in post-modern America, their understanding of why this happens is usually informed by the same films that introduced them to it. How many times in film has the evil bishop, or the self-serving priest offered his hand, bejeweled by the coveted signate ring for worship by the bloodthirsty assassin bent on ridding the kingdom of the underdog hero? So, when people see this it’s almost a given that they have these associations in mind. Even if they joke about it the association is bound to suggest itself.
So, in the Church, we are very careful to assure these inquirers that this practice has little to do with the man wearing the robe. We tell them, sometimes in the presence of the priest, that we are only kissing his hand because of his office. It is even possible to read in the Hagiography that the office is so exalted that if one were to happen upon a drunk priest, his blessing should still be sought. It is not my desire to say anything contrary to the sanctity of the priest’s office, after all, I am a priest. I would however like to suggest that in over-emphasizing the distinction between the man and the office, we have created a serious problem.
In one popular article we read the following, “When we kiss the hand of the bishop or priest, we are not showing respect to the person of the priest but to his sacred office. The priest as a man is a sinner, but the priest as priest represents Christ; he is an icon of Christ. Also, though his hand is unworthy, yet it touches the Most Holy Things – the Precious Body and Blood of the Lord. Furthermore, despite his unworthiness, in Holy Ordination he has received the Grace of God to impart spiritual gifts and blessings. Why would we deprive ourselves of the blessings of our Lord Himself, by not seeking the priest’s blessing?” This article reveals the problem.
In a reflection written earlier this year, I tried to show what a great responsibility the Bishop, the clergy, and all the people have to holiness. While it is true that the priestly office itself is dignified and holy, it is also necessary that those ordained to service in the Church struggle to purify their hearts and live a life of Sanctity! While it is true that the grace of the priesthood remains in the priest who struggles against his weaknesses and who sometimes sins, he should never presume. We also have examples of priests who have lost that office and its grace both in this life and in their particular judgment. The priest must be holy, righteous, full of virtue, and active in all aspects of our holy faith! This is the kind of priest whose blessing is assured by the office and empowered by his experience! If we kiss his hand because of his office and condemn him for his lifestyle, what confusion, what judgment do we bring upon ourselves?
The priest has a duty to point the way to Christ. He must have clean hands and a pure heart. Saint John Chrysostom says something very impressive about the office of the priest. He says, “If one were to meet an Orthodox Priest walking with an Angel, then one should greet the Priest first and kiss his hand, since that hand has touched the Body and the Blood of our Lord.” If this is the case, the priest must be working constantly to make what is true of his office also true of his person. If the priests believe that their conduct and interior life have no bearing on their priestly duty, we can understand the impoverished experience had by many in the churches today.