What did Jesus do?

For all of my Christian life, which is to say everything except for college and a few years after that, I limited my church involvement to within parish activities. Things like financial support, reading, teaching and the like. I thought at the time, and still think, that such things are important. There are a lot of jobs that need to get done (many that get almost no recognition) to help the Church get its job done. St. Paul speaks of the necessity of all of the parts of the body working together, with none being esteemed above the others.

In St. Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians, he also tells us to imitate him, as he imitates Christ. Of course, this passage spawned the somewhat notorious “What Would Jesus Do” fad. Regardless of how annoying the fad was, we do need to ask, at least, what did Jesus do? Probably the second most important “event” in history is the Incarnation. Jesus taking on human nature so that he could ultimately heal that nature and restore us to the state we should be in. He became one of us, interacted directly with us, communed with us. And not just “us” as in, the believers, but he interacted with everybody.

If we take that rather simplistic view of the Incarnation as a starting point, then it isn’t much of a stretch to suggest that perhaps we should consider getting more directly involved with people beyond the comfort of our parish. Of course, the New Testament is filled with just such commands and examples, and the Church has carried this tradition on throughout the ages. Feed the hungry, give to the poor, visit those in prison, the sick, etc. I’ve long supported such ministries financially, and indirectly by teaching about them when I was responsible for teaching. I assumed that supporting such efforts was, more or less, the same as directly doing those things. As far as the objective outcome of caring for those needs, it probably is the same. However, I was missing one key component, one I should have clued in to since becoming Orthodox. Perhaps there is some even greater benefit that would come from getting directly involved.

The Fathers of the Church teach us that the degree to which we are truly human is dictated by the degree to which we relate to God. The closer the relationship, the more human we are. How, then, do we develop a deeper relationship with God? Clearly the first answer is by prayer. In Orthodoxy, the hesychast tradition has, at its root, a pursuit of St. Paul’s command to “pray without ceasing.” We see this lived out by the great Saints of the Church, many of which were monastics. Monastics, however, are known for something else, even if that may not be the intent of anyone seeking out the monastic life. All monasteries, for the most part (I don’t know of any exceptions) routinely host large numbers of pilgrims, generally providing food, a place to stay, and spiritual guidance, meanwhile asking nothing in return.

The act of caring for others, of course, is commanded by our Lord, as mentioned above. The question is why? The incarnation gives us a clue, as do the words of our Lord when he was describing the last judgement. It is because when we take care of the poor, we are, in fact, deepening our relationship with Christ. This is not merely in a manner of speaking, but it is real. It is tangible.

Recently, I’ve had the opportunity to participate in ministry outside of the Church, to people who are not necessarily members of any Church, let alone ours. FOCUS North America has launched a program in San Diego to work with a local Rescue Mission to provide dinner to homeless in the downtown part of San Diego. Every Wednesday, groups of Orthodox, representing various parishes in the area, cook a meal, serve it to about 100 people, clean up and head on home. We get the opportunity to talk with and eat with these people who live on the streets of downtown San Diego. Young and old, single, and yes, even families (which is, I have to say, more heartbreaking than anything else we run into).

The feeling that I get by participating in this is rather hard to describe. It’s not pride, nor is it a sense of self satisfaction, even though I’m as susceptible to these feelings as anyone else – maybe even more so. It’s somehow deeper and more fulfilling. I am reminded of the experience of Merry and Pippen when they drank of Ent draught:

The drink was like water, indeed very like the taste of the draughts they had drunk from the Entwash near the borders of the forest, and yet there was some scent or savour in it which they could not describe: it was faint, but it reminded them of the smell of a distant wood borne from afar by a cool breeze at night. The effect of the draught began at the toes, and rose steadily through every limb, bringing refreshment and vigour as it coursed upwards, right to the tips of the hair. – The Two Towers

Perhaps it’s but a small taste of what it is like to really relate to God.

Knowledge of Religion

A recent Pew Forum survey demonstrates what appears, at first blush, to be an embarrassing lack of knowledge of things religious by Americans who claim to be religious. There are a few problems with the way this is being reported, not the least of which is the fact that believers appear to be more knowledgeable about their beliefs than non-believers, although they know less about other religions. It is this latter realization that I think may prove to be quite dangerous.

In general, for the living out of life as an Orthodox Christian, knowing that the Dalai Lama is Buddhist, or that most people in Pakistan are Muslim, serves little purpose. Surprisingly, knowing the order of books in the Bible isn’t very important either. Knowing who Moses is, or Job, and being familiar with the ten commandments, those are all very important. More importantly, knowing that Christ died for us, and rose again is important. That Martin Luther triggered the Reformation isn’t.

As I blogged about recently, there has been a growing tendency, as a result of the ecumenical movement, to believe that all religions are essentially the same. Certainly many act that way. I think there is a relationship between both the stated tendency, and this demonstration of the lack of religious knowledge. If someone, particularly someone who acts as if they are knowledgeable, that a certain item is fact, in the absence of any independent knowledge of my own, I am likely to believe them. In general, it is the job of our shepherds to guide us in these issues, much as St. Theophan the Recluse did in this work. Unfortunately, these days it is frequently the hierarchs that are engaged in much of the ecumenical behavior. So, instead of protecting the faithful, they are leading them astray. It is only a strong knowledge of our own faith, and faith of others, that will allow us to see the truth.

At our recent Greek Festival, we had a lot of great conversations with folks from other faiths at our booth. Frequently, though, we would have someone who was Roman (or in some cases Eastern) Catholic come and tell us how we were basically the same. The problem is, that we really aren’t. Superficially that may appear to be the case, but Rome has established doctrines that are at odds with the historic faith, and declared key elements of historic Orthodoxy to be, themselves, heresy. Unfortunately, many people are not sufficiently knowledgeable about their own faith to know this. They certainly aren’t knowledgeable enough about other faiths in most cases to know what the teachings actually are.

If this is truly the case, which is what the Pew survey suggests, and if the shepherds will not guide the flock any longer, how can they continue to follow the Way? Thankfully, not all of the shepherds have given up their responsibilities. There are still many holy bishops and priests to guide the faithful, and we have the tradition as found in our prayers and hymns and liturgies. We have the Monks and Nuns who have long been a source of nourishment for the Church. Finally, and most importantly, we have Christ as our head, and the Holy Spirit to guide us.

However, in this modern era, when the teachings of our Church are so readily available to those seeking them, we shouldn’t merely be content that God will protect the Church over time. As in everything else, we must be ready and willing to assist. We do this first and foremost by looking after our own education.

Interfaith Interest

One of the biggest phenomena on the religious scene in the past century has been the ecumenical movement. The goals of the movement are certainly laudable. People who know each other, and understand each other (to some extent) are less likely to kill each other. I suppose that presupposition warrants some exploration (given that one set of data indicates that 77% of people murdered are murdered by someone they know, with 30% being murdered by family members), but it does seem reasonable.

Now the question that needs to ask is, what is the point of the various religious groups in question? For the Christian, the point is salvation, although the definition of salvation varies a bit. For a more detailed understanding of the Orthodox view of salvation, you can visit the “Glory to God for All Things” blog. Other religions have somewhat similar goals. The hallmark of most of these, and certainly most forms of Christianity is that these groups feel that they have the means to achieve salvation (or nirvana, or entrance into heaven, etc.). Orthodoxy, for instance, believes that salvation comes from Christ, and via the Church that he established. It is important to remember that what we now call Orthodoxy or Orthodox Christianity, was originally called “The Way”. It was a process, not merely a set of doctrines. Since we firmly hold to this, and further hold that salvation is the most important issue facing humanity, it stands to reason that we would not want to do anything that causes confusion about salvation, and that may lead people – either our faithful, or others, to no longer seek out Christ and his Church.

The Ecumenical movement has, in my opinion, resulted in just this sort of confusion. Meetings where different representatives discuss their faith are fine. However, these turned into joint prayer services – in other words, joint worship. The Orthodox Church has long had canons against those activities, largely because we understand that worship is done by a community that is of “one essence” – in fact we state in the liturgy that our ability to recite the same creed somehow reflects our love for one another. I think that there remains that sense among most people, although it is beginning to fade, that of course you wouldn’t worship with folks who hold beliefs significantly different than yours.

I was recently provided with a copy of an article in the Chicago Tribune about an “interfaith” seminary being started up by the Unitarian Church. Given that the Unitarians do not believe that any one religion is necessarily true, one has to believe that this belief is part of what the program will be attempting to teach. Therefore, they will effectively be sowing the very confusion I was speaking of. In addition, I think that such teaching actually serves to denigrate the very religions they claim to be supporting. For instance, Christianity makes some very serious claims – that Christ is the Son of God, that he is the truth and the way. Islam makes similar claims about being the one true way, while at the same time claiming that those who believe that God had a Son are foolish, and that to hold that Christ is God, and that God is a trinity, is blasphemy. Maintaining that both religions are true really means that neither one is. Rather, some generic form of spirituality is true. So, instead of the intended goal of supporting all religions, this interfaith program demeans most of them.

Perhaps getting different religious groups together for a purely social gathering, in the interest of promoting peace, would be a good idea. Certainly there is nothing in Orthodoxy that supports harming members of other faiths. Similarly, if one group is interested in learning about what another group believes, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the one group to make a presentation to the other. It is when ecumenism drifts into either acting or teaching that all religions are basically the same, that the trouble begins.

The best example of the manner in which Orthodox should handle ecumenism, is to provide the kind of loving feedback that this priest provided at the National Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. That is, love everyone, and tell them the truth, in love.

Fundamentalist Christianity – Producer of the Finest Anti-Christians

Over the past 30 years or so, two of the most effective opponents of Christianity have been former fundamentalists. The first is the somewhat infamous John Shelby Spong, now the retired Episcopal Bishop of Newark. The other is Bart Ehrman, professor of Religious Studies at UNC, Chapel Hill.

Both men would certainly declare themselves Christian, but, since most of their work is focused on removing the Divine nature of Christ, its hard to agree with their description of themselves. I find myself wondering how it is they arrived at their current positions. Is it because of their fundamentalist backgrounds that they have become such ardent non-believers? How many other people, born fundamentalist, have arrived in the same place? Spong and Ehrman, of course, are somewhat unique as they hold positions as Christian educators. Spong, as a retired bishop, is still a bishop of the Episcopal Church, and thus is responsible for teaching Christians. Ehrman, as professor of religion holds a similar responsibility. I won’t make any arguments about the appropriateness of them holding their current positions, but it is because of their positions that they have such an impact on the Christian world.

Let’s begin by a brief description of fundamentalism. I am referring to the specific Christian movement of the early 20th Century, not to the overuse of the term to apply to anyone of a conservative religious bent (with violent overtones, I might add). You can read something about the movement at Wikipedia, with the caveat that the article has been flagged as not being sufficiently neutral, and lacking sufficient citations. I think the background material in the article is pretty solid, but it probably goes astray as it begins discussing the rise of the Christian Right in the U.S. As an aside, that probably doesn’t belong in the article other than as a passing reference to a separate article. Christian Fundamentalism came about as a reaction to a number of factors, but most notably to 19th century scholarly developments – most notably Darwinism and so-called “Higher Criticism” of Scripture which developed in Germany. The movement developed 5 “fundamentals” which all orthodox (note the small o) Christians must adhere to in order to properly be considered Christians: Inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth and divinity of Christ, the second coming, the vicarious atonement, and the resurrection.

Unfortunately, the movement came to have a reputation as being anti-intellectual. Although I have not read the 12 volumes of “fundamentals,” which may, indeed, not have been anti-intellectual, the movement clearly became that over time. It is fine to have a basic formulary which describes the faith, the Orthodox Church, in part, relies on the Nicene Creed for this. However, at the same time, we are required to be able to give a defense, an apologia, for our faith. Fundamentalism largely failed to do that, and many groups that adhered to the fundamentals became known as churches that required one to check their brain at the door.

I think it was this phenomenon that produced Ehrman and Spong. The excessive reaction to liberalism, which certainly challenged basic precepts of traditional Christianity, itself caused the pendulum to swing even farther away and we end up with those who don’t believe in anything that would resemble Christianity. In fact, I would argue that the views of Ehrman and Spong are not so much liberal as anti-fundamentalist. In an odd twist, they have adopted an essentially religious dedication to 19th century scholarship that results in them holding those opposed to such views in disdain in much the same way that their fundamentalist forebearers held liberal theologians in disdain.

Spong relies very heavily on his somewhat limited knowledge of Darwinism ( a view of evolution that is not universally held, even by the most atheistic evolutionists in academia), Newtonian physics absent any knowledge of quantum mechanics, and, of course German higher criticism. The problem is that all of these schools have since gone their way. While Newtonian mechanics are still valid, they are only valid within certain limited contexts. Quantum mechanics and subsequent developments have made it obvious that the universe is much more complex than previously understood. Whereas Newtonian physics would not allow for things like the warp engines of Star Trek, modern physics tells us that such things are not so impossible. I recall once reading an article by Spong dismissing the accounts of the Ascension simply because its absurd, in a purely Newtonian world, to posit that heaven is up in space somewhere. It completely escaped him that Christ’s rising into the sky and disappearing into a cloud could have been an essentially sacramental act. That is, a physical act describing a spiritual reality. Could it have indicated his moving into a higher state (such terminology being commonly used in Quantum physics)?

Ehrman, similarly, relies on 19th century scholarship, apparently unaffected by modern developments. I ran across a very interesting review of one of his books at this site. He and Spong have much in common.

Unfortunately, Ehrman and Spong have trapped themselves in a very limited view of the world. They, too, appear to have come to place where in order to visit, one has to check their brain at the door. I wonder if their arrival in that place is merely because after a youth spent among fundamentalists, they sought out a different place that looked pretty much the same as the place they came from.

The lesson to Orthodox is that, while we have a well established definition of the faith, we need to not be afraid of engaging new trends in academia. While a purely intellectual approach to life leaves one open to spiritual delusion, we do not need to automatically dismiss such endeavors. For sure, we need to evaluate new developments in the context of our faith. Sometimes, in fact probably frequently, we’ll find such developments consistent with the faith. Where it is not, we need to (as a Church – I don’t think every Christian needs to become some sort of scholar who is an expert on everything) examine it closely and see where it has gone astray. Once we know that, we can make intelligent arguments and hopefully lovingly lead people closer to God. I fear that the back and forth between Fundamentalism and the followers of Spong and Ehrman has not resulted in anyone growing closer to God. I think the example we need to look to is St. Catherine of Alexandria, not the Spanish Inquisition.

The Beatitudes

On an Evangelical but seeking blog that I follow, the topic came up recently about how to interpret the Beatitudes. This, like many sections of the New Testament, is hard for Protestants, especially Evangelicals, to deal with as they eschew anything that smacks of a works salvation. The blogger asserted that what Christ is saying is that anyone can come and receive Christ’s blessings, regardless of their state and how society views them. He says that the other way to phrase what Christ is saying is, “even if you are poor, come and receive my blessing, even if your mourn…” etc. The weakness in this argument is Christ is clearly not, then, saying “even if you are merciful come” as if being merciful is a bad thing, or even viewed as being bad by society.

So, I decided to look at what the Fathers of the Church have to say about the Beatitudes, and found that St. John Chrysostom interprets the first beatitude in this manner:

“What is meant by “the poor in spirit?” The humble and contrite in mind. For by “spirit” He hath here designated the soul, and the faculty of choice. That is, since many are humble not willingly, but compelled by stress of circumstances; letting these pass (for this were no matter of praise), He blesses them first, who by choice humble and contract themselves.

But why said he not, “the humble,” but rather “the poor?” Because this is more than that. For He means here them who are awestruck, and tremble at the commandments of God. Whom also by His prophet Isaiah God earnestly accepting said, “To whom will I look, but to him who is meek and quiet, and trembleth at My words?” For indeed there are many kinds of humility: one is humble in his own measure, another with all excess of lowliness. It is this last lowliness of mind which that blessed prophet commends, picturing to us the temper that is not merely subdued, but utterly broken, when he saith, “The sacrifice for God is a contrite spirit, a contrite and an humble heart God will not despise.” [Psalm 50 (51):7] And the Three Children also offer this unto God as a great sacrifice, saying, “Nevertheless, in a contrite soul, and in a spirit of lowliness, may we be accepted.” This Christ also now blesses.”

 

The blogger went on to assert that the parallel passage in St. Luke’s Gospel supports his view. It supports it more, because that passage lacks the “blessed are the merciful, etc.” verses, but it in no way demands his interpretation. I decided to check Blessed Theophylact and discovered that his interpretation of the parallel passage is in agreement (as I expected it would) with St. John’s interpretation of Matthew:

 

“These words of the Lord are directed to the disciples. After ordaining them, the Lord uses these beatitudes and teachings to guide them into a more spiritual life. He first blesses the poor, whom you may understand to mean either those who are humble or those who live without greed for money. Simply put, all the beatitudes teach us lowliness, humility, self-effacement, and self-reproach. And accordingly woe awaits those who are rich and propserous now, in this life, those who the Lord says have received their consolation, meaning that in this life they have enjoyed revelry, laughter, feasting, and the praise of men. Let us tremble, brothers, to hear that Woe! awaits those who are praised by men. First we ought to live such a life that will draw down upon us the praise of God, and then others will indeed speak well of us.”

 

This view of the Beatitudes finds support throughout Scripture, but there are a couple of places that merit pointing out. The first is the 50th psalm (51st in Western numbering), where we learn that “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, A broken and a contrite heart— These, O God, You will not despise.” In the 108th Psalm (109 in the Western numbering), we see King David, ruler of Judea refer to himself being “poor and needy,” and that he is weak from fasting. Clearly King David was not really poor, but rather this reflected a state of mind and spirit he had acquired. That his action was involved is clear from the fact that fasting is involved in all of this (among other things).

So, the Orthodox understanding is clearly that we must humble ourselves – make ourselves lowly, in order to be blessed by God. This interpretation agrees with all of Scripture. I fear that the blogger in question is guilty of looking for an interpretation that fit his preconceived theology, then forced it into the text.

Christian Judaism

One of the unfortunate outcomes of the Reformation, is the number of groups who have taken the notion of Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusions. Frequently, these groups rediscover heresies that were addressed by the Church many years ago. We recently became aware of such a group. Calling it a group may acknowledge more cohesiveness than exists. Perhaps the phrase movement is a bit more exact. At any rate, the movement seems set on returning Judaism to Christianity. In other words, they are the Judaizers of old, simply returned. It would appear that the first major attack of the movement was to assert that Christians are to observe Jewish Old Covenant holidays. They actually published book addressing this. Apparently, this book is having some small influence among home church and emergent church groups. At this point I would definitely argue a small influence as googling the topic yields little of interest.

The group has also moved on to suggest that Christians should also adhere to the Old Covenant dietary laws. From a purely sola scriptura perspective this is a little problematic. The Apostles and Fathers of the Church ruled on that issue at the Council of Jerusalem. It is of note that the only passage from Acts that they engage with is one that most Christians agree does not directly apply to the discussion(it does apply, but only in a broader context of the issue of clean vs. unclean). The real key to understanding Christian requirements regarding Jewish dietary laws is found in Acts 15.

The question of whether or not Christians need to basically become Jews first had risen to great prominence in the early church. In fact, one could argue that the entire letter to the Romans was written in response to those who believed that being Jewish was a requirement of the Christian faith. In response to the issue, the apostles and elders of the church gathered at the Council of Jerusalem. This council provides us with two key lessons. The first is that questions regarding the faith that had once been delivered need to be addressed by a council. The second is that essentially no Jewish ceremonial laws apply to Christians. To assert otherwise today is to ignore this entire section in the Acts. It amazes me that there are groups today still arguing otherwise. On the other hand, given the number of heresies still being taught by various groups, maybe I shouldn’t be so surprised.

So what about the question of Jewish feast days? Certainly, this question was not directly addressed by the Council. While this is true, there is an underlying principle in view that speaks to this, as well. That principle is that we are now part of a new covenant and the old covenant has been fulfilled in Christ. A quick examination of three Old Testament feasts should serve to illustrate the point.

Let’s start with the feast of Yom Kipur. Known in English translations as the Feast of the Atonement, it is the annual day on which the High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies and offer a sacrifice for the sins of the nation of Israel. This seems like a good thing, and, in fact, most Christians around the world celebrate this feast. However, it is celebrated in a different way. Our High Priest entered into the true Holy of Holies, of which the earthly one was merely a type, and offered a sacrifice, himself, once for all. This event is also celebrated once a year. It is the feast of the Ascension. Celebrating the events recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, where Christ ascended into heaven, and where St. Paul tells us that Christ made his offering and then sat down at the right hand of God. Now, this feast is not typically celebrated with the focus on the Atonement per se, much of that takes place with the feast of Pascha, as we shall see, but this is the event alluded to in Hebrews 10. The question in this, is, if Christ completed that which was signified by the annual offering for atonement, why would we think to celebrate the annual feast any longer?

Another major feast is that of Chanukah. At least it has become major feast on the modern era. Our school children even celebrate it along with what passes for Christmas( really Santafest) This feast celebrates the restoration of the second temple. At first glance there doesn’t seem to be any problem with Christians celebrating this feast. After all, it is remembering one of God’s acts in history. I’m not going to try to argue that it is wrong per se, but rather not really appropriate.

There are two key things to think about with regard to this discussion. The first is, what is the temple for the Christian, and the second is, what happened to the Jewish temple and why.

The first question may be the most important. Although the Church building can itself rightly (and scripturally) be referred to as a temple, that is not, I think, the key point. There are two other, closely related items, which are referred to as temples. One is the temple that is our body. The second, and key point, is Christ’s body, which he refers to as a temple, and which is further defined as “the” temple in Revelation. An important point to make here is that one of the key aspects of the Orthodox understanding of the Incarnation is that it serves as a mean to heal our fallen humanity. In other words, Christ the Temple restores our temple to its rightful state. So, if we are going to celebrate the restoration or dedication of the Temple, we should properly celebrate the Incarnation. In fact, we do, by celebrating the Feast of the Nativity, known in the West as Christmas.

Finally, we should look at what is the pre-eminent feast for Jews, the feast of Passover (Pesach). This feast, of course, commemorates the rescue of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. The events surrounding that first passover, the escape from slavery, being led by a somewhat unexpected savior (the son of an Egyptian princess), being led through the Red Sea to salvation, are all well known and prefigure the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Christ is referred to as our Passover by St. Paul, and as the Lamb that has been slain in the Revelation of St. John. The Church, therefore, has always understood the celebration of Christ’s resurrection to be the celebration of Passover itself. In fact, the name of the feast in most countries is just that. It is only in Germany and the English speaking countries that the feast came to be known as Easter, derived from Germanic god of the East according to the Venerable Bede. So, in fact, Christians do celebrate Passover every year. We just do not celebrate the Jewish Passover. Rather than celebrate the event that prefigured the greatest event in history, we celebrate that event. St. Paul states, in his first letter to the Corinthians, that we shouldn’t celebrate the Jewish Passover anymore, although the phrasing can be construed to speak of spiritual principles rather than practical. The service books of the Church, however, take that phrase to clearly mean that we are not to celebrate the old Passover any longer*. Again, not that there is anything wrong with the old feast, but why would one celebrate the type and not the fulfillment?

When we seek to celebrate the Jewish feasts, we are, intentionally or not, failing to live entirely in the New Covenant. Its as if we don’t really believe that the Old Covenant really has been fulfilled, and we are hedging our bets. In the modern era, of course, much of the impetus for celebrating Jewish feasts is coming from Protestant groups that have long been separated from the Church that Christ founded, and thus are without the guidance and wisdom of the “Pillar of Truth.” These groups largely don’t celebrate the feasts of the Church, and. given their frequently erroneous theology, when they do (“Resurrection Day” and “Christmas”), they miss the underlying themes that connect these to the Old Testament types. However, even Western liturgical churches have aided in this resurgence of Judaizing. What began as a practice of discussing the Jewish Passover in some detail as a didactic method to teach about Christ’s death and resurrection, has increasingly become a practice of celebrating a full Seder meal.

While this may be educational, it leads people down a path that the Church long ago realized we shouldn’t travel on any longer.

 

*For instance, at Holy Friday Matins, we have the following verse:  Let us not keep festival as the Jews: for Christ our God and Passover is sacrificed for us.  Again, this has more levels of meaning, but clearly points out that we have a new feast.

Good Works in Galatians

A friend of mine posted a passage from Galatians earlier today:

“Galatians 5:13: For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.”

A great passage, which reminds us of the importance of serving one another, and in a loving manner. That is, serve one another by love, not out of some sense of necessity. Of course, this makes it a part of the greater teaching we find throughout Scripture, but in particular in Paul’s letters about the danger of “empty” works, or works done in the interest of attaining salvation.

However, another question arises. What happens if you don’t comply with this line? What is the risk? There are some groups who would teach that the doing of works is utterly irrelevant. Most notably, various strains of protestantism. So, is this the case? Is there anything we can take from this passage to address this question? For those that don’t have a problem with the importance of works in our salvation, we still must ask the question of how we can learn to serve others by love. What is the key?

As it turns out, both the answer to what it means to not have works and the key exists a bit further on. St. Paul continues with the famous passage about the works of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit. He basically sets a stage for the conclusion that comes in verse 24, “And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.” From this we learn two things, the first is that crucifying our flesh is the means by which we establish ourselves as Christ’s (there would be some, I suppose, who would argue that after Christ makes us his, then we automatically crucify our flesh, but that is both a fairly tortured reading, and inconsistent with experience). The second thing is that it is by this crucifying of our flesh that we learn to love others. That is the crux of Orthodox spirituality. We are to serve other’s by love, that happens when we are walking in the Spirit, and that can only happen when we crucify our flesh of the passions. That is why asceticism figures so prominently. If you think about it, how can we truly love other’s if we are focused on our desires? Christ, who is not only the ultimate example of love, but is, in fact, love itself, demonstrates this for us.

A Challenge from the Canons

I need to more frequently catch up on available podcasts over at Ancient Faith radio. I hadn’t realized what a treasure a series by Deacon Michael Hyatt is. The information is all good, but there is the occasional special gem that you hear. While listening to his series on the Council of Nicea, I was struck by one of the Canons of the Council of Nicea that deals with people who fell away from the faith, but not by compulsion (basically, who sacrificed to idols with only the social pressure to do so). Here is the Canon:

 

CONCERNING those who have fallen without compulsion, without the spoiling of their property, without danger or the like, as happened during the tyranny of Licinius, the Synod declares that, though they have deserved no clemency, they shall be dealt with mercifully. As many as were communicants, if they heartily repent, shall pass three years among the hearers; for seven years they shall be prostrators; and for two years they shall communicate with the people in prayers, but without oblation.

 

The hearers were basically like the catechumens. They could attend the liturgy until the deacon called to close the doors, then they had to leave. As prostrators, they had to kneel outside the church, begging the faithful to forgive them. Notice they had to do this for seven years. Not seven weeks, not seven months, but seven years! I’m not sure how many people would be willing to do this these days (especially me). Most would probably wander down the road to the local non-denominational where a quick sinner’s prayer would do the job.

Metropolitan Encyclical on the Feast of the Nativity

“What shall we bring you, O Christ, Who for our sake, 
was born on earth as man? Every creature brings
 thanks to You: Angels their songs; the heavens a star;
Wise Men gifts; Shepherds amazement; 
the earth a cave; the wilderness a Manger; 
but we – a Virgin Mother.”
Troparion from the Great Vespers of the Nativity

Dearly Beloved In The Lord,

During this Holy Season of Our Lord’s Incarnation we are invited to join the Magi on their journey to Bethlehem of Judea where we will find the King of Heaven and Earth. These three Wise Men traveled with the guidance of one star from the heavens which illumined their road to the place where the Christ was born: “and lo, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came to rest over the place where the Christ was.” Matthew 2:8 – 9
For us, our guiding star is the Word of God, the Holy Gospel and all the Scriptures, in which the prophet wrote: “Your law is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my path.” Psalm 119:105   A lamp to our feet so that we may walk in the light of righteousness all of our lives; a light upon the road which we are traveling in life so that we may not lose focus or let worldly cares take over.

Upon arriving at Bethlehem, the Magi came before the Holy Child and His Mother and knelt down to worship the Savior; they opened their treasures and offered gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Holy Communion and Confession are the means by which we, too, become “wise” by offering three gifts to the Christ Child. We offer Him as gold – the purity of our heart and our intentions to avoid every evil thought and weakness; instead of frankincense we offer Him a soul that burns with love for God and all humanity; and instead of myrrh we present Him with a lifestyle that is worthy of Christian Orthodox living; a lifestyle that is replete with His love and our acceptance of this gift through our deeds, prayers and repentance.

The Magi, having worshiped Christ, did not return on the same road which brought them to the Savior. They changed their route and returned “to their country by another way.” Matthew 2:12
It is very important that we, too, change our direction. As we celebrate these Holy Days with our families and loved ones, we should not return to the same path we have taken for so long. “By another way” let us change our lives. These days are full of grief, uncertainty and dispute; let us bring the spirit of the Lord which is full of peace, reconciliation and mercy for everyone. “By another way” let us not repeat our previous mistakes. “By another way” let us follow the true path of Christian virtues.

As we celebrate the Birth of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, my prayer is that we look deeply into our lives and flee all the bad habits that may be distracting us from a life in Christ, actions that may lead to spiritual death, and that we begin a new journey “by another way” that will bring us to life eternal.

CHRIST IS BORN! GLORIFY HIM!

With Love in the Incarnate Logos,

+ G E R A S I M O S
Metropolitan of San Francisco

Encyclical on the Feast of the Nativity

We have beheld His glory, glory as of the
only begotten Son of  the Father.
John 1:14

To the Most Reverend Hierarchs, the Reverend Priests and Deacons, the Monks and Nuns, the Presidents and Members of the Parish Councils of the Greek Orthodox Communities, the Distinguished Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Day, Afternoon, and Church Schools, the Philoptochos Sisterhoods, the Youth, the Hellenic Organizations, and the entire Greek Orthodox Family in America

Beloved Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

On this holy feast of the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, we gather in joyous celebration of the One who gives us rebirth and new life.  We offer praise to God for His abundant grace and for His divine plan for our redemption and salvation.  We do this in a manner that is filled with beauty, honor and glory, as this is what is due to the commemoration of a uniquely miraculous and wonderful event by which God became man and dwelt among us.

Through our celebration of the Nativity of Christ, our souls and minds are directed to contemplate the glory of His Incarnation. We hear and sing of this in the hymns of the feast.  We read the passages from the Holy Scriptures that tell of the angels giving glory to God in the highest and of the shepherds returning to their flocks glorifying and praising God for all that they had heard and seen (Luke 2:14, 20).

This glory of the Incarnation revealed in the Nativity of Christ continued throughout His life and ministry as He took upon himself the challenges of our human condition.  His life in communion with God and humanity was an exaltation of what human life was intended to be.  Christ by word and deed showed that the chains of sin could be broken and the permanency of death overcome.  Through faith in Him and the salvation offered, we could know and experience a blessed life of peace and joy forever.

Further, the glory of the Incarnation was revealed through our Lord’s message of grace and truth. This was not a message that was dependent on the glory and might of military victory.  It was not associated with the earthly glory of political power.  The glory of the Incarnation was revealed through His love for us and through the Gospel of truth. He proclaimed, “I have come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” (John 10:10).  In grace and truth He offered to us the love of God.  Into a world that was marred by animosity, greed, and pride, He brought a beautiful and enduring witness of divine love; and into a world burdened by deceit and vain pursuits, He proclaimed the truth and nature of our creation, our being, and our relationship with God.

Finally, the glory of the Incarnation is revealed in the transforming power of Jesus’ presence.  What was lost in the Fall of Adam and Eve is found in His Incarnation and its amazing consequences.  Through His appearance among us, our Lord leads us out of the darkness of evil and into the uncreated light of eternal truth.  As He dwells with us, He effects our transformation from sin to holiness.  As the Good Shepherd, He guides us from despair to hope.  As the Incarnate Word of God, He shows us the way to overcome our alienation so that we might live in full and eternal communion with Him. As our Master, He leads us out of the wilderness and into paradise.

Beloved Brothers and Sisters,

On the day of our Lord’s birth, the glory of His Incarnation was revealed to all of those who were blessed to witness this unique and transcendent act of God’s love.  In our commemoration of this holy day, may we all bear witness to the glory of the Incarnation through the witness of what our Lord has done for us and by His loving and saving presence in our midst.  May our thoughts and words express the glory and honor that belongs to the One who became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14).  And may our experience of the glory of His Incarnation lead us to tell everyone of what we have seen and heard so that all will come and worship Him.

With paternal love in Christ,

† DEMETRIOS
Archbishop of America