Thursday, 26 September 2013

Fr Patrick Henry Reardon on Doceticism

"...Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God"
+ 1 John 4:2

Doceticism
by Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon, The Dormition of the Theotokos, August 15, 2010
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/view/reardon-doceticism

Docetism, one of the earliest Christological heresies, derived its name from the Greek verb dokein — to "seem." This name was descriptive: It indicated the teaching that God's Son only "seemed" to be a human being. His presence on the earth, though real in itself, was conveyed by way of a revelatory appearance, not connected with His being. His humanity was a kindly illusion. According to this opinion, the Son of God wore a semblance of humanity, like a costume, as it were, a kind of actor's mask. Donning this mask, He "played a part" in the human drama, rather like the various gods of the Iliad — or, for that matter, the biblical angels, who “appeared” on earth.

Wednesday, 25 September 2013

The Paschal Foundation of Christian Theology

The Paschal Foundation of Christian Theology
by Fr John Behr, St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 45.2 (2001) 115-136.
http://www.svots.edu/sites/default/files/2001-06-svtq-behr.pdf

The question of the proper starting point, the “first principles,” is one to which theology, and every discipline it encompasses, must continually return. Without being firmly grounded on its proper foundation, the vast body of reflection developed within theology risks collapsing into dust. It is not simply that the first principles are elementary stages, transcended by higher realms of esoteric reflection, but that they also provide the necessary orientation or perspective within which the more abstract discussion takes place and is to be understood. It is clear that the Christian faith is first and foremost faith in the lordship and divinity of the crucified and exalted Christ, yet the implications of this fact for how we understand and construe Christian doctrine are rarely considered. The analysis of this dimension offered in this article might seem unnecessarily laborious and extensive, but the scope and importance of its implications merit such a venture.

Autocephaly Problem: History and Present

Autocephaly problem: history and present
by Very Rev. John H. Erickson (Presented at Institut de théologie orthodoxe Saint-Serge in Paris, at the conference "The Forthcoming Council of the Orthodox Church: Understanding the Challenges" on 18-20 October 2012)


Sunday, 22 September 2013

Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians: The Last Steps to Unity

"Blessed is the souls that loves her brother, for our brother is our life."
+ St Silouan the Athonite
The late Fr John Meyendorff wrote the article below in 1988 when there was still momentum for the Orthodox Joint Commission.

Such a tragedy that since 1993 there has been growing apathy concerning the hope of the Orthodox Joint Commission (even the simple website www.orthodoxunity.org has been abandoned)...

Je Nai Nan, Lord have mercy on us sinners.

Have mercy on our petty politics, our jurisdictional pride, our spiritual nationalism, our competing for numbers, our lack of compassion.

Je Nai Nan, Lord have mercy on us sinners.

Forgive me, beloved readers, for my presumption. Lord Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.


Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians: The Last Steps to Unity
by Protopresbyter John Meyendorff, St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 33.4 (1989) 319-329.
(Originally published in Orthodox Identity in India. Essays in honor of V. C. Samuel. Edited by M. K. Kuriakose, Bangalore, 1988, pp. 105-117)

Our century has witnessed significant steps towards better understanding and doctrinal unity between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Eastern Christians. Of course, the basic identity of christological understanding between the churches was affirmed earlier; for instance, by the very well-informed Russian Bishop Porphyry Uspensky, who, during his long travels throughout the Middle East, was in close contact, particularly with the Coptic Church, and wrote about his impressions subsequently.

Saturday, 21 September 2013

On Christian Community

It's one of the bigger paradoxes in Orthodoxy, that we are called to be perfect and holy, but must resist artificial means of achieving and striving for this encounter and union with the Holy Trinity.
"Don't try to create the perfect parish...you'll eventually be the only one left!"
+ Student Quoting Fr. Stephen Belonick, Pastoral Theology, St Vladimir's Seminary 
“Whoever loves their dream of Christian community more than the Christian community itself becomes a destroyer of the latter, no matter how honest, earnest and sacrificial their personal intentions may be."
+ Dietrich Bonhoeffer 
"We shouldn't seek the ideal community. It is a question of loving those whom God has set beside us today. They are signs of God. We might have chosen different people, people who were more cheerful and intelligent. But these are the ones God has given us, the ones he has chosen for us. It is with them that we are called to create unity and live a covenant. We choose our own friends; but in our families, we do not choose our brothers and sisters; they are given to us. So it is in community life."
+ Jean Vanier, Community and Growth



On the Mother of God

On the Mother of God
By Metropolitan Anthony Bloom

It is not always easy to speak of the Mother of God to Christians whose tradition may find little or no place for her in worship or in prayer. To begin by talking about the theology of the Incarnation leads quickly to the heart of the matter, but is likely to be counterproductive. In this sermon, preached at the University Church of Great St Mary's, Cambridge, on 19 May 1985, a different approach is used: we are introduced to the person, to Mary as an example of what it means to be a Christian and a child of God. Surely this is the proper introduction to one whose fiat made salvation possible for us all.

I want tonight to speak of the Blessed Virgin, of the Mother of God, in her relation to us; to try to look at what we can learn from her, what she is as an image - almost an ideal image - of what we should be. I want first of all to make a point concerning the Orthodox way of calling her the Mother of God. By this we mean simply that she is the one who brought God Incarnate into the world. Of course, she is not the mother of the Word of God according to his divinity, but without her the Word would not have been made flesh, the Son of God would not have become the Son of Man.

An English writer, Charles Williams, describes the event in a most wonderful way, as it seems to me, indicating at the same time the reality of the event and the decisive role of the Mother of God. He says that when the time was right, a maiden of Israel proved capable of pronouncing the name of God with all her mind and all her will and all her flesh, and the Word became flesh. It is a gift of self, and it is at the same time an unreserved and heroic acceptance: a gift of self in humility, and an heroic acceptance because of what it could have been, what is meant humanly speaking.

Some of you may remember that the word 'humility' comes from the Latin humus, the fertile ground. Humility is not a condition which we try to ape by saying that we are unworthy, that we are not as good as others imagine us to be - if they do. Humility is a condition of the earth, lying completely open and surrendered: the earth which is open to all actions, of mankind, of the rain, accepting the refuse and accepting the furrow and bringing fruit, surrendered, offered and given.

This is the essence of humility and this is the kind of humility which we see in the Mother of God. And this is something which we could learn and which is so difficult to learn, because we are so continuously and so painfully afraid of offering ourselves, of surrendering, of giving ourselves to God or even to those who love us and whom we love. Surrendering gifts is frightening, because it implies also a sort of frailty. To refuse oneself, to resist, gives us a sense of strength and vigour; and yet it is not our strength that can achieve great things.

You probably remember how Paul the apostle asked God to give him strength to fulfil his mission, and how the Lord said, 'My strength is made manifest in weakness. My grace sufficeth unto thee'. And the weakness of which the Lord speaks, of course, is neither laziness nor sloth nor timidity. It's another weakness, it's that of surrender.

If I had to convey it in images I would speak of the way in which a child is taught to write. A pencil is put into his hand, the mother takes the hand in hers, and then begins to move it; and as long as the child does not know, and cannot foresee, what is expected of him, the lines are so perfect, the straights are straight, the curves are curved. The moment the child begins to imagine he understands what is expected of him, becomes helpful, pushes, pulls, and turns, it becomes a scribble. Isn't that exactly what happens to us when instead of listening deeply, silently, listening intently in the stillness of our heart and ready to wait on God, we make haste to understand what he wants, and try to do it before we have understood?

The same is true (in terms of analogies) of the way in which a surgical glove, so frail that the nail can pierce it, tear it, put on an experienced, skilled hand can work miracles. Replace its frailty by the strength of an armour's gauntlet and nothing will be possible. And the same will apply to the image of a sail on a sailing ship. The sail is the frailest part of it and yet, directed in the right way, it can engulf the wind and carry the heavy, strong, resisting structure to its haven.

This is the kind of weakness, of frailty, of surrender, that we can see in the generous gift of the Mother of God to her Lord. She is the one who is the response of the whole creation to the maker. God offering himself and the creation in her person, accepting him, receiving him, worshipping and lovingly, freely and daringly.

When the Mother of God came to Elizabeth her cousin, Elizabeth exclaimed: 'Blessed is she who has believed. It will be done to her according to the promise of God'. She is the one who above and beyond all creatures has believed - believed in the sense of trusting the Lord, unreservedly and unconditionally.

We do not often think of what the words of the archangel at the Annunciation spelt. The archangel told the Virgin that she will bear a child, and we wonder, we marvel, at the name of this child Jesus who is our saviour; but at that moment the promise was also a threat. According to the law of the Old Testament an unmarried girl who bore a child was condemned to stoning. She did not say, 'But this cannot be, it will cost me my life'. She did not either say 'it cannot be' because she believed that every word of God can be fulfilled, every promise of his. She said, 'Here am I, the handmaid of the Lord. Be it unto me according to his will'.

And his will was, humanly speaking, her death, unless a miracle occurred. We must learn something from this, because so often we are afraid of a promise or a prompting from God. What is the cost which we shall have to pay? What is the risk entailed in obeying and following the commandment of God or the call?

And in that the virgin of Israel proved a worthy daughter of Abraham, the one who is Isaac. The Lord had promised to Abraham that he would have a son, that this son would be the beginning of a race as numerous as the stars of heaven and the sand of the beaches. Then suddenly, when the son was already a little boy, fully alive, loved, growing, opening up to the future, the Lord commanded Abraham to bring him as a blood offering, and at that moment Abraham believed God more than he believed his promise. He trusted God to know what he was doing in the certainty that God's word was truth.

The Virgin was in the same position. She trusted God because his word was truth, and we must learn if we want to belong to that new creation of which she was the first, if we want to be of the race of the Mother of God, if we want to be God's own people through whom God is present in the world, we must learn to trust, to believe, to be as faithful as she promised to be.

Then we can see another moment of her life. In St John's gospel there is the story of Cana of Galilee, a wedding feast in a village, people gathered who had brought to the feast all they possessed, all they could give; and long before their hearts were satiated with joy and with peace, long before they could say, 'We have had enough and we can go home, carrying with us a heart fulfilled', the feast was coming to an end. The family was poor, the wine was coming to its end.

And then the Mother of God turned to the Lord and said they had no wine. A simple remark; and Christ turned to her with a question, on which we do not dwell because we are piously accustomed to accept whatever we read in the gospel unthinkingly, or dismiss it also unthinkingly. Christ turned to her and said, 'What have we got in common, you and me?'

The question I think means, 'Are you turning to me because you are my mother, because you brought me up, because I was obedient to you in the course of all my childhood, and you expect me now to do your bidding? Or is there any other reason? If it is this, if our only link, the only thing we have in common, is your motherhood, according to the flesh, mine hour has not yet come. We are still in the realm of natural events'. The Mother of God does not argue. She does not say anything to him. She turns to the servants and says: 'Whatever he may say to you, do it'. Whatever he may say. And then Christ, seemingly contradicting his own words that his hour had not come, works the glorious miracle of Cana, transforming the waters of ablution into the good wine of the kingdom. What happened? What happened between the question and the words of the Mother of God? Just one thing. Instead of arguing she made an act of perfect faith, and by this act of faith in her divine son she established the Kingdom of God. She established Christ in this wedding feast as the king of heaven, as the Lord, and because through her the Kingdom had come, what was impossible in terms of the natural world occurred eschatologically: that is, the future and eternity poured into time, and within this eternity what cannot be contained by time happened.

Here is another thing which we can learn from her. It is not enough for us to believe more or less, we must establish for others that situation which is the Kingdom of God and in which things may happen to them and for them.

There is an old saying that God can enter into any realm provided a human being opens the door. We are that kind of doorkeeper. Doorkeepers usually keep doors shut: our vocation is to keep a door open for God who knocks at every door to find a door open.

In moments of strife or moments of tension, when we have no words and do not know what to do, we can sit still, turn to the Lord and say, 'Lord, I believe. Come, and give us thy peace'; and continue praying in the midst of the storm, in the midst of the strife, in the midst of the terror. Pray that the Lord, who is the Lord of the storm, as he is the Lord of peace, may come and spread his peace as he did on the lake of Tiberias when he commanded the waves to be still and the wind to be silent.

This is our vocation. Our vocation is to be sent like light into the darkness, with our divine hope where there is no hope; like salt where there is corruption. Our place as Christians is not in the safety of our Christian communities, but in the storm that must be stilled; at the heart of corruption that must be stopped; at the point of hopelessness where we must bring a hope which is beyond all human hope. Light that shines in the darkness, that is our vocation, and the image that we find in Cana of Galilee, so quiet and peaceful, opens up on all the tragedies of the world, all the events, great or small, that begin in a family and end in international conflict.

And then, lastly, two events which I would like to bring together. The presentation of Jesus in the Temple and the Crucifixion. Every male child first-born of a woman was to be brought to the Temple as an offering. If we read back into the Old Testament about the institution of the act we discover that God commanded the Hebrews to bring the first-born male children of every family to the temple as a blood offering, as a ransom for the first-born of Egypt, who had to die that the Jews might go free. Every first-born male child was therefore brought and God had the right of death and of life upon him. Century after century God accepted a vicarious offering, turtle doves and sheep, and once only in the whole of history he accepted a human offering: his only begotten Son became man who had to die on the Cross to redeem mankind - so that the two events are really connected with one another. But the mother who brought this child knew that God had all power over him of life and death, and unhesitatingly, in humility and faithfulness, brought this child.

Later, when we see Calvary as described in the Gospel, we do not see a mother fainting or a mother protesting or a mother clamouring for mercy, as so many pictures have it. At the foot of the Cross we see the Mother of God wrapt in deep, tragic silence seeing the fulfillment of what had been begun when she brought her child to the Temple. She stood silent, at one with the divine and human will of her son: she was fulfilling the offering which she had begun thirty-three or so years before. At one with the will of God, at one with the will of her divine son, renouncing her own will, her own hopes, in an act of offering.

This is something that very few of us will ever have to face in life, or at least I hope so; but it happens all the time in various parts of the world, and it has happened throughout history when one person has allowed another to give his or her life for a cause, for God or for men. Without a word of protest, sharing in the heroic offering. I would like to leave these images with you, however incomplete and imperfect they are. Look at them and ask yourselves. Where do I stand? What would I do, placed in the same circumstances?

The Mother of God was the response of all creation to God's love, but God's love is sacrificial love. At the heart of the love of God there is the gift of self, the Cross. May God grant us to learn from this frail maiden her heroic simplicity and her wonderful wholeness. And let us learn from all the steps of her life, all the self-denial and the gift of self, all the beauty of her surpassing humility and its perfect obedience to the law of eternal life. Amen.

Sourozh 1980. N. 21. P. 22-33

Thursday, 19 September 2013

What is worship for? Part 2

What is Worship For? Part 2
By Khoria Frederica Mathewes-Green

Posted on Thursday, September 19, 2013 at
http://www.frederica.com/writings/what-is-worship-for-part-2.html

Yesterday I wrote on “What is Worship For?”, but I forgot to answer the question. I said that it is not the time for evangelism, and shouldn’t be designed with non-believers in mind. But what is it for?

Worship is for God; we could expand that and say worship is for believers to offer to God. But even once we’re clear that worship is the work of the believing community, there’s a possible confusion. We might think the purpose of worship is to give believers a good worship experience.

This is subtle, because a worship leader might think the best way to worship is to arrange the songs and other elements to move and inspire worshippers, who will then turn whole-heartedly to God. In fact, that might sound like exactly what worship is supposed to do. But it’s another mis-direction. It leaves us focused on the process inside the worshipper, instead of on God.

In the first place, this is manipulative; it makes the hour of worship a process imposed on churchgoers, aimed at directing their thoughts and emotions into the right channels. People can usually sense when they’re being manipulated. Men, especially, hate to have their emotions tampered with, and I expect this is a reason most congregations are predominantly female, and we assume that women are more religious than men are (though that’s obviously not the case with conservative varieties of Islam and Judaism).

I recall a chapel service at a Christian college where two girls with guitars were leading the audience in a hymn that featured the line, “I lay my head upon his chest.” Every time that line came around, the male professors near me would just stop singing.
But some people might actually like this focus on their worship experience, feeling that it’s appropriate for churches to serve their preferences, just like restaurants do. Church-shopping is common, as people sample many different churches in their search for the one that feels best.

Unfortunately, the church that feels most comfortable is not the one that will challenge you. We are called to deep change, transformation in Christ, and the hard work of overcoming the poison of habitual sin. If you search till you find a church that feels just right, it’s likely to reinforce you as you already are.

A focus on the worshipper also burdens him, because it means worship succeeds or fails based on how he feels. He can look around during a hymn and notice others who look moved or inspired, while he himself feels nothing. He wonders if there is something wrong with him. Maybe his faith is too weak; maybe God has rejected him. Since the general mood during worship is upbeat (except for those times everyone is directed to be serious instead), the person who comes in feeling less than chipper will know that good manners requires holding it in. Church-time can come to seem very artificial. When you’re worried or sad it’s painful to be around happy people. Singing a hymn about how God takes care of me when I’m sad doesn’t really help.

  I got an email this morning from a person who said he attended a church meeting where one of the newer leaders wanted to remove the Creed and the general confession from the Sunday service, because they were a “turn off.” This led to a discussion of the purpose of worship, and he said that, for him, it was about “alignment.” In worship he comes into the presence of God, and is lined up with him, so to speak. In our daily lives we turn away from God through our anxieties and temptations; our attention is scattered in all different directions. In worship, as we face the Lord, we are brought into right order with him.
This alignment is like what happens to a steel needle when it is brought into contact with a magnet. When the needle is manufactured it’s not magnetic, because the atoms inside are pointing in all different direction. But when the needle is touched by a magnet, those atoms begin to turn. They become aligned as the magnet is; they become magnets themselves.

When we are thus aligned with God we are made one with him, transformed by his power. We don’t just become like him, in a superficial or analogical way; we actually become bearers of his presence, as the Burning Bush was filled with fire.

My correspondent wrote that, while describing this process, he said, “I speak the ancient words” of the liturgy. That’s a potential complication. In churches where the tradition is to put worship together almost from scratch every week, the authority for that worship resides in the pastor and worship leaders. Its depth is limited to the depth of their own wisdom, insight, and prayer life. Liturgical churches simply have an advantage here, because they don’t have to generate the content of their worship. The ancient liturgies still exist, and some churches have never stopped using them for all 2000 years. The Orthodox Eucharistic service is like a rack railway, one that is designed to climb a mountain. I can get on the train on Sunday morning, and it will carry me all the way to the top. It doesn’t matter whether I have emotions about worship or not; the Liturgy itself does the work.

As I said, this is more complicated for churches with a tradition of assembling the worship service new each week, but that does give you the freedom to try out the ancient prayers and services. They’re can be found in books and on line. I think it is less successful to just stick in a few ancient prayers, because you’re not wise enough to be an editor of those ancient texts; but if that is all you can do, it’s still something.

Years ago I met a young woman who told me she attended “the Celtic service at the First Baptist Church.” When I did a double-take she said, “The Boomers want a contemporary service, with rock music and all, but the young people, of course, want something more traditional.” They had located ancient Celtic prayers via the internet and were worshipping with vestments, candles, and incense (until the smoke alarm gave them too much trouble).

One thing that surprised me after I became Eastern Orthodox was that there was far less emphasis on believers being united with each other in worship. Previously, the prayers and hymns about communion were all about community. Now, they’re about the power of Christ’s presence in the sacrament and my unworthiness and unpreparedness to receive it. Communion does unites me to other worshippers, of course, but the understanding that the bread and wine really become Christ’s Body and Blood push other thoughts to the side.

I should clarify that I’m not recommending that go back to worship styles and hymns of a few decades or a century ago. That’s still a part of the culture we inhabit today, and it’s probably not disruptive or challenging enough to make a difference. Worship from thousands of years ago, from entirely different languages and cultures, has more of a chance of shaking you up.

Finally I have to ask, to what extent is worship supposed to teach the faithful? The Orthodox liturgies and prayers are full of meaty content, apparently intending that worshippers will understand and remember it, and not designed solely to glorify God. If you imagine that you were an illiterate peasant 1500 years ago, about the only time you would hear the scriptures would be during worship. The icons on the walls would serve as a picture bible, presenting the important scenes of bible and church history. The worship experience—the embroidery, incense, vestments, jewels and so forth—would be the most beautiful thing you encountered all week. Since everything is set to music, you can take it with you, and bring it to mind during the week. Some of the more important prayers are sung three times. We learned our ABCs by singing them over and over, and we learn church history and theology the same way.

I’m always impressed, on the Sunday of the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council, at the amount of detail the hymns give us in describing the heresy of Arius, the arguments against him, and even  his miserable end (he went into an outhouse and, it sounds like, exploded—yes, we sing even about this). We’re not singing these things in order to inform God about it. It must be intended to teach worshippers history and theology that they should know.
Likewise, it is right that there be a sermon or homily expounding the day’s scripture readings. An ancient practice is the moment when worshippers greet each other with a holy kiss—we see this referenced in St. Paul’s letters. So having insisted all this time that worship ought to be directed to God, I must admit that some elements teach and inform worshippers as well.

With that allowance, however, we still must answer the question “What is worship for?” with “Worship is for God.” We need to worship God, because it puts us in right “alignment” with him. God doesn’t need our worship; God doesn’t need anything the human race can offer. But when we drift from him we become scattered and confused. Worship brings us before our Creator, the only source of love that is worthy of the name. The more we focus on him alone, forgetting about ourselves, the more we will be healed.

Wednesday, 18 September 2013

What is worship for?

What is Worship For?
By Kh. Frederica Mathewes-Green

Posted on Wednesday, September 18, 2013 at http://www.frederica.com/writings/what-is-worship-for.html

A pastor in the UK wrote me asking, “What is worship for?” He said that his denomination was encouraging pastors to make worship more “user-friendly” in order to attract new members, and that this initially seemed to him a reasonable evangelistic strategy. A scripture cited in support of this approach was Acts 15:19, “We should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God.” But as he read this scripture in context, it looked to him like it was written of people who were already Christian believers, and would not be required to accept Jewish practices. It didn’t address the case of people entirely outside the faith. He wrote to ask, “Who are church services for? Believers or unbelievers?”

Let Us Go Forth in Peace

Let Us Go Forth in Peace: Healing in the Parish, Local Church and in the World
http://www.incommunion.org/2004/10/18/let-us-go-forth-in-peace/


Orthodox Peace Fellowship retreat in Vézelay, April 1999 / fifth lecture by Bishop Kallistos
Transcript by Peter Brubacher

Our theme is the liturgy after the Liturgy.

Tuesday, 17 September 2013

Communion as Pleasure

Fr David R. Smith interprets the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus in a very interesting way in the following adapted extract from his book "Christianity and Pleasure." In this particular reading, the parable is used to highlight the importance of communion with others, compassion for other, and the locating of desire for the sake of the other. If desire restored is to be desire to be planted in the will of God then Fr David's reading of the parable resonates with the kenotic offering of self that is manifest in our Lord Christ, manifest in all His saints starting with the Holy Theotokos, and which so often challenges Christians and the world.

"Then Mary said, “Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her." Luke 1:38 
"For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known." 1 Cor 13:12


Towards a Higher Pleasure
by Fr. David R. Smith

How can it be that a woman who literally weeps from fatigue still rises from sleep to comfort a crying child? How does a man run headlong into certain danger in order to save another — even someone he may have never met? The decision people make to give of themselves brings them joy, even though suffering and sometimes death may accompany it. And in some cases, became suffering and death are included. The moment of giving rises from, and gives rise to, gratitude and peace, the experience of communion, a prelude to all life that follows, the birth of a relationship, the noble act which becomes a standard of character. Sometimes the sacrifice gives birth to a relationship with the person who has benefited, but sometimes not. Either way, a communion develops between the giver and mankind, or between the giver and God Himself. Nothing enriches relationships like sacrifice.