Evening at the Royal Eagle

A text message beeped through on my phone. It was from Kathryn.

"Where are you? call asap"

That can't be good. I dialed her number, which means that I held down "1" for two seconds. When she answered, I could hear from the noise in the background that she was in the car.

"Father Pachomy just called me. One of the waitresses called in sick, and they haven't heard from Biljana. And they have forty reservations. I told him I'd come and help out...and that I'd drag you along."

Oh no!

"I'm on my way home now. Can you be ready in ten minutes?"
"Uh..."
"Okay, see you in a bit." click

Kathryn and I have been attending a church that is part of a monastery in Harper Woods. One of their fund-raising ventures is a restaurant that operates on Tuesdays for tea and Thursdays for dinner. They don't call it a restaurant, though, because of zoning restrictions. Rather, they call it a "trapeza," which is just a monastery dining hall.

We first had dinner there back in June, and thought the food was wonderful. The chef is a young Czech, who, if I remember correctly, was previously the personal chef of Mike Ilitch. We have brought Kathryn's parents to tea there as well, and have promised the same to my parents if they can ever manage to make their way north.

Our attendance at the church has become fairly regular and we have gotten to know some of the other parishioners, including Peter, the chef. So Kathryn, knowing that they are often short on waitstaff, and having experience herself waiting tables, volunteered to help out should the need arise.

And the need arose.

We got there around 4:30, and got acquainted with the kitchen, freezers, supply rooms, etc. They gave Kathryn an adorable Russian-style shirt and hat to wear. I, having never waited a table in my life, helped in the kitchen, washed dishes, bussed tables, refilled water glasses, etc. We had fun. The forty "reservations" were actually forty people in eight or so parties. It's a small place, so forty parties would have been a feat indeed.

It's a very nice restaurant, and it supports a good cause. I recommend it to all of my readers whenever they're in the area. If you go, you have to try the rack of lamb. It's exquisite.

Oh, and be sure to tip your waitstaff.

Mary, Part 2 - Ever Virgin

As I have already mentioned, I grew up hearing very little about Mary. In fact, the only two specific teachings about Mary that I can even recall from my years as a Baptist were that she was a virgin at the time of Christ’s birth, and that she did not remain a virgin all her life. And I had no problem with either of these doctrines; it seemed to me that the Bible was pretty clear on both of them.

Upon closer examination, however, I can see now that the Bible isn’t quite as clear on this second teaching as I had originally thought. Although the teaching of the Church on the matter is clear indeed: Mary remained a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ. This teaching has been with the Church since the beginning, was confirmed by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and received no serious opposition until long after the Reformation. In fact, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger, and John Wesley all recognized Mary’s perpetual virginity. Denial of this doctrine, it seems, is a fairly recent innovation.

So, who cares, really? Is it that important to insist that Mary remained a virgin her entire life? The Greek Archdiocese says that “the Orthodox Church proclaims the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is our message, our reason for being, the very life of our life. Teaching about Mary is really meant for the initiates, those who have already accepted the Gospel and have committed themselves to Christ and to service in His Church. What Mary teaches us about the Incarnation of the Word of God requires that we first accept the Incarnation.”

Deacon Fr. John Whiteford writes that, “this doctrine is not taught for the sake of upholding the sanctity of the Virgin Mary, but because of the uniqueness and holiness of her Son. Consider the following verse: ‘Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.’ (Ezekiel 44:2). This has always been interpreted by the Fathers of the Church to be a typological reference to the Virgin Mary and the Incarnation. When we consider that God took flesh from the Virgin's womb, it is not difficult to imagine that this womb would remain virgin.”

I have heard Mary referred to also as the Ark of the New Covenant. This is another bit of Marian typology about which I really can’t say a whole lot, other than, if Joseph recognized her as such, he surely would rather have not suffered the same fate as Uzzah (2Sam 6.6-7).

(The guys at “Our Life in Christ” have put together a fascinating series of podcasts on this very topic. You can find them at Ancient Faith Radio, or click here to listen to the first one)

So, what are some of the objections to Mary’s perpetual virginity?

“Until”
. . . and [Joseph] did not know her until she had brought forth her firstborn Son” (Mt 1.25).

The thinking goes: If Joseph did not "know" Mary until she gave birth to Jesus, then clearly he "knew" her afterwards.

It is important, first of all, to keep in mind that the Bible was not written in English, and that not all Greek (or Hebrew or Aramaic) idioms convey the same meaning in English as they were originally intended. This is one that doesn't. In English, the word "until" (or "till" or "unto") indicates a particular status up to a point in time, while implying a different status after that point. In the original language, "until" (Greek: ἕως or ἕως οὗ) does not necessarily imply a change of status. Consider the following passages:

And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto (ἕως) this day (Dt 34.6).

Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until (ἕως) the day of her death (2Sam 6.23).

In his days may the righteous flourish, and abundance of peace till (ἕως οὗ) the moon is no more (Ps 72.7).

The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until (ἕως) I make thine enemies thy footstool (Ps 110.1).

His heart is established, he shall not be afraid, until (ἕως οὗ) he see his desire upon his enemies (Ps 112.8).

So our eyes wait upon the Lord our God, until (ἕως οὗ) that he have mercy upon us (Ps 123.2).

"...if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until (ἕως) this day" (Mt 11.23).

"...and, lo, I am with you always, even unto (ἕως) the end of the world" (Mt 28.20).

Till (ἕως οὗ) I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine (1Tim 4.13).

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until (ἕως οὗ) the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts (2pet 1.19)

It is not necessary that “until” in any of these verses is intended to indicate a reversal. Nor, according to the Church, is this the intent of Matthew 1.25.

“Firstborn”
Again, a problem with language. In English, the word "firstborn" implies a secondborn. However, in Greek, the word for "firstborn," prototokos (πρωτοτόκος), does not imply subsequent children. Exodus 13.2 identifies the “firstborn” (πρωτότοκον) as the child that “openeth the womb.” Likewise Numbers 3.12 (πρωτοτοκου). The Mosaic Law required parents to sanctify their firstborn son to the Lord (see Ex 34.20). Are we to believe that parents were expected to do so only after the second son was born?
Consider also whether the "firstbegotten" mentioned in Hebrews 1.6 could possibly imply a "secondbegotten." In the following passages, "firstborn" or "firstbegotten" indicate Christ's status as Heir to the Kingdom rather than order of birth:

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn (πρωτότοκον) among many brethren (Rom 8.29).

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn (πρωτοτόκος) of every creature (Col 1.15).

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn (πρωτοτόκος) from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence (Col 1.18).

To the general assembly and church of the firstborn (πρωτότοκον), which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect (Heb 12.23).

And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten (πρωτοτόκος) of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth (Rev 1.5).

Brothers and Sisters
Several passages in the New Testament (Mt 12.46–47, 13.55–56; Mk 3.31–32, 6.3; Lk 8.19–20; Jn 2.12, 7.3–5; Acts 1.14; 1Co 9.5) mention Christ’s brothers and sisters. The word used in every case, adelphos (αδελφος), is usually translated “brother,” but is often used less specifically. As Fr. John Hainsworth writes, the word adelphos, “which can mean ‘brother,’ ‘cousin,’ ‘kinsman,’ ‘fellow believer,’ or ‘fellow countryman,’ is used consistently throughout the LXX [i.e., the Old Testament], even when cousin or kinsman is clearly the relation described. (as in Genesis 14:14, v.16; 29:12; Leviticus 25:49; Jeremiah 32:8, 9, 12; Tobit 7:2; etc.).

“Lot, for instance, who was the nephew of Abraham (cf. Genesis 11:27–31), is called his brother in Genesis 13:8 (αδελφοι) and 14:14–16 (αδελφος, αδελφον). The point is that the commonly used Greek word for a male relative, adelphos, can be translated ‘cousin’ or ‘brother’ if no specific family relation is indicated.”

These "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus are understood to be His cousins, or, as is the case with James* and Jude, His step-brothers. These two were Joseph’s sons by his first wife, Solomonia, who had died, leaving Joseph a widower. They weren’t sons of Mary, but they were, in a sense, brothers of Christ, and are referred to as such by the Orthodox Church.

*That's James of the Seventy (Mt 13.55, Mk 6.3, Acts 12.17, 15.13, Epistle of James), not James the son of Zebedee (Mt 4.21, Mk 3.17, Lk 5.10), or James the son of Alphaeus (Mt 10.3, Mk 3.18, Lk 6.15, Acts 1.13), both of the Twelve.

In fact, there is no place in the Scriptures where the “brothers and sisters” of Christ are referred to as the “sons and daughters” of Mary. Nowhere is Mary said to have had other children. Which is why Christ saw fit, as He hung on the cross, to entrust the care of His mother to His disciple John. Such an act would have been a grave insult to Mary’s other children, had there been any.

Marriage
Another objection to the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is her marriage to Joseph. If Mary and Joseph were married, the argument goes, shouldn’t they have been having sex? Perhaps, but, get this: the Bible never actually says that Mary and Joseph ever married. Yeah, that’s right. It says they were betrothed, or “espoused” (Mt 1.18), but it does not say that they went on to be married. The rite of betrothal, which in first-century Jewish culture came right before marriage, was a formal, legal state of “engagement” that conferred all the responsibilities of marriage with none of the, ahem, benefits. The Orthodox Church, in fact, still observes the rite of betrothal to this day. Betrothal was regarded as somewhere between our modern “engagement” and marriage. It wasn’t quite marriage, so “knowing” each other would have been improper. However, betrothed couples could be referred to as “husband” (Mt 1.19) and “wife” (v.20; Lk 2.5), and breaking off a betrothal required a divorce.

So, if they weren’t to be married, what was the point of putting Mary and Joseph together? It was his duty to support her while she reared the Messiah, and to protect her from suspicions about the legitimacy of her pregnancy.

Something we didn't learn about in the Protestant world is that Mary was, from a very young age, devoted to a life of celibacy and service to God. I suppose you might call her a first-century nun. The story goes that Mary’s parents Joachim and Anna, “praying for an end to their childlessness, vowed that if a child were born to them, they would dedicate it to the service of God” (oca.org). They fulfilled their promise once Mary reached the age of three, and brought her to the Temple, where she stayed until she reached puberty, when she was placed in the care of a widower named Joseph.

Knowing this makes it easy to understand why she responded the way she did when the Archangel Gabriel appeared to her and proclaimed:

“Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son.”

To which she answered, “Well, duh! I am about to get married, after all.”

No. She responded by asking, “How can this be?”

Why did she ask this? Was she confused as to the biological process of childbirth?

No. She knew that, given her vow of celibacy, childbirth would have been impossible. Her response might as well have been: “I’m sorry, but you must have me confused with someone else. You see, I am a consecrated virgin…”

What else?
Okay, I think, at the very least, it's reasonable to admit that the Scriptures allow for the possibility that Mary had no other children besides Jesus, and that she and Joseph never "knew" each other, or should have. In other words, the Bible does not explicitly deny that Mary remained ever-virgin.

But what do others have to say? Those who know more about the nuances of the original text, and about the theology and history of the Church than I or any of my readers do, or ever will?

"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 2:17; c. 248).

"If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother,’ as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (St Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew 1:4; c. 354).

"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (St Athanasius, Discourses Against the Arians 2:70; c. 360).

"We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it" (St Jerome, Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 21; c. 383).

"Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son" (St Ambrose of Milan, Letters 63:111; c. 388).

"In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave" (St Augustine, Holy Virginity 4:4; c. 401).

"Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (St Augustine, Heresies 56; c. 428).

"[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly [sic] he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing" (St Cyril of Alexandria, Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4; c. 430).

And what about those Reformers we mentioned?

"Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb... This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that" (Martin Luther, Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan, vols. 1-30)

"Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers" (Martin Luther, Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15).

"Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned" (John Calvin, Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39).

"Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity" (John Calvin, ibid.).

"‘Fidei expositio,’ the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary" (re: Huldreich Zwingli, G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395)

"Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary’s perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise" (Re: Heinrich Bullinger, In Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5).

"A true Protestant may express his belief in these or the like words...that [Christ] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin" (John Wesley, Letter to a Roman Catholic, 1749)

So Where Does That Leave Us?
If a new look—actually the original look—at the Scriptures, which made Mary's perpetual virginity at least plausible, wasn't enough to win me over, then that plus the testimony of the Church Fathers and the decision of the Fifth Ecumenical Council and the consistent witness of the Church through the centuries and the testimony of the Reformers, were more than enough to make me reconsider what I thought I knew about Mary.

And, really, why should I resist accepting this teaching? Is it that difficult to accept that a person could remain a virgin their whole life? For anyone who believes something so incredible as the Virgin Birth or the Death and Resurrection of Christ, believing that someone could live a life of celibacy—something practiced by pious and devout Christian men and women even to this day—should be no problem. Especially when that "someone" is the most pious and devout Christian who ever lived.

In closing, I will quote an article from the Orthodox Christian Information Center, which says that "while non-Orthodox Christian denominations may differ with regard to their assessment of the significance of the Mother of God, this does not explain the views of those who would like to believe—an incredible, if not demonic thing—that a woman chosen by the God of the universe to bear His Incarnate Son would simply return, after this miraculous event, to the world of the flesh. If St. Paul praises the chaste life, if Christians are called to become eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom, and if, at least in the Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran Churches, monks and nuns are called to uphold the standard of virginity and purity, how could any rational person suggest that the woman called to bear the Son of God would be exempt from such a pious commitment?

"The Fathers of the Church have written at length on these matters. Suffice it to say that ancient Christian tradition supported the idea that the Mother of God was ever-virgin, just as Church Fathers and Councils condemned heretics in the early Church who, like their counterparts today, questioned the spiritual eminence of the Theotokos."

For further reading:
The Ever-Virginity of the Mother of God
The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary
Why is Mary Considered Ever-Virgin?

Things You'll Never See in an Orthodox Church, Part 6

Q&A

Q: Why are there so many candles?

A: Since the Savior Himself taught that He is the Light of the World (John 8:12), our candles and lamps ultimately refer to His radiance. The Light of Christ illumines all humanity - in fact it enlightens the whole world. Some of our light is provided by oil lamps. These recall the parable of the wise and foolish bridesmaids who kept their vigil for the Bridegroom (Matthew 25:1-13), and help us to remember that we also must keep our watch for His coming again.

Some of our light is provided by wax candles. In Psalm 68 we read that the wicked (i.e., those who hate God) will disperse when they encounter Him in just the same way that wax melts near a fire. Our prayer is that any wickedness in us will vanish as the wax of a candle vanishes and is consumed by the flame. But more practically, wax candles are simply a convenient and age-old means of providing light by which to see. The faithful light candles as a sign of their fervent prayer to God. We light candles and lamps before icons; we carry them in processions; we place them at various locations throughout the church building - simply to give off illumination. The more candles that are lighted, the more light is generated, and greater is the image of the Empty Tomb of the Lord which shone forth with a brilliance far greater than the light of day.

Courtesy of St Anne's Orthodox Church

For more information:
A Candle

St Peter the Aleut

Little is known about Saint Peter the Aleut, who is remembered today in the Orthodox Church, other than the fact that he was brought to the Faith by Orthodox missionaries in Alaska and put to death by Roman Catholic missionaries in California.

St Peter was one of fourteen Aleut fishermen who, in 1815, were intercepted by Spanish sailors and brought to San Francisco for questioning. The Franciscans there insisted that the fishermen convert to Roman Catholicism or suffer torture. The captives refused, informing their captors that they were, in fact, already Christians. So the priests locked up the Aleuts in prison cells. They took Peter and severed a toe from each of his feet, while his companions watched. Still he refused to accept the Catholic faith, insisting that he was already a baptized Christian.

The Franciscans then set a group of local Indians to work, cutting off all of Peter's fingers one joint at a time, and then removing his hands and feet. All the while Peter refused to convert, even while they disembowled him.

After Peter died, the priests threatened to continue torturing the remaining fishermen one at a time until they converted. However, during the night, the priests received orders from their superiors to free the prisoners.

The fishermen finally returned to the monastery in Alaska and told the abbot, Father Herman, what had happened. When he heard about Peter he exclaimed, "Holy new-martyr Peter, pray to God for us!"

I wondered as I first read about St Peter whether there was a single one of the more than thirty-thousand Christian denominations in the world of whose truth I was so convinced that I would rather suffer torture than renounce. I think I can honestly say that if any Christian clergyman—even a Calvinist!—started chopping off my fingers I'd join their flock. That's sad to say, but it's true. And I'd justify it by saying, "What's the difference? They're still Christians."

St Peter is one of several thousand martyrs that Orthodox Christians look to as an example of devotion to Truth.

For more information:
OCA biography
Peter the Aleut
Article at OrthodoxWiki
From All Saints of North America

The Eucharist, Part 1 - The Real Presence

Note: "Eucharist" comes from the Greek word εὐχαριστία, which means “thanksgiving.” It is one of several names the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches give to Holy Communion.

One of the things that most troubled me as I moved away from the Baptist faith was coming to terms with the idea that the bread and wine (actually Baptists use grape juice) are not just symbols, but are, in fact, the Body and Blood of Christ.

Virgin birth? Fine. Death and Resurrection? No problem. But please, I would say, don’t try to tell me that those elements are actually Christ’s Body and Blood. That’s simply more than I can accept.

Well, as it turns out, it was more than some others could accept as well. St John records that, after Christ astonished His disciples by dividing five loaves of bread and two fish into food enough for a crowd of five thousand to eat their fill, He hit them with this:

“Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him” (Jn 6.53-56).

To which, after witnessing what was arguably Christ’s most staggering miracle to date, His disciples said “This is a hard saying; who can hear it?” (v.61) It was at this point that many of his followers turned their backs “and walked no more with Him” (v.66). In fact, I have heard it said that this is when He lost Judas: “For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him” (v.64)

So, after thinning the crowd of those who didn’t have the stomach for His teachings, Christ turned to His Twelve and asked, “Will ye also go away?” (v.67)

This was a question I was suddenly forced to confront several years ago when I began attending Lutheran worship, and again as I began the move toward Orthodoxy. Was this teaching too hard for me as well? Could I stand the idea of taking Christ at His word?

I didn't like it. I wasn't comfortable with it. It didn't sit well with me. I had always understood that Communion was symbolic, that the bread and "wine" were just that. I had always understood that when Christ said "this is my body" (Mt 26.26; Mk 14.22; Lk 22.19), He was speaking metaphorically like He did when He called Himself the “true vine” (Jn 15.1), or the “door” (Jn 10.9).

But, how could it be, I wondered, that we can “eat or drink damnation on” ourselves by not discerning…a symbol? (1Cor 11.29) Were many of the Corinthian Christians sick or dead because they didn’t recognize the symbolic nature of the bread and wine? (v.30) Did the men and women who had previously followed Christ walk away from Him because they thought he was speaking metaphorically?

“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” they asked (Jn 6.52). At this point, Christ might have said “Calm down, people; I’m speaking metaphorically.” He had cleared up confusion at other times (Mt 16.5–12), so if this was simply an honest misunderstanding by His listeners, He could certainly have said so. But He didn’t. Instead He turned up the heat: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.”

The New American Standard Bible translates this as “Truly, Truly.”

The Message says “Jesus didn't give an inch.”

The Amplified Bible: “I assure you, most solemnly I tell you.”

New Living Translation: “I tell you the truth.”

No matter how you look at it, there is simply no way to infer from Christ’s own words that He meant this symbolically. In today’s language, He may as well have been saying “I kid you not, folks. This is the real deal.”

If St Paul’s warnings were correct, then any confusion here would have had grave consequences. Jesus knew that. But He didn’t back down. Rather, He turned up the heat even further:

“My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed” (v.55).

By my count, Christ told His disciples twelve times that He is the bread from Heaven, and four times that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Not once did He back away from this.

So maybe I’m reading it wrong, I thought. Maybe the Greek text is nuanced in a way that I can’t get a hold of. Perhaps I should find out what others have to say on the subject.

St Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch during the first century. He was a disciple of John. Yes, that John! The very author of the Gospel I’ve been citing. Also known as John the Theologian. If anyone can shed some light on this doctrine, surely St Ignatius can:

“I have no taste for corruptible food,” he wrote to the Christians in Rome, “nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7.3).

Okay, but that doesn’t quite say that the bread and wine are really and truly the Body and Blood of Christ. However…

He later warned the Smyrneans to “take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6.2–7.1).

And while I was at it, I found these:

Justin Martyr, a second-century theologian explained thus in a letter to a Roman pagan: “We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e. has been baptized] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66).

Origen, a third-century Christian scholar and theologian wrote, “You know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence” (Homilies on Exodus 13.3).

Cyril of Jerusalem, a fourth-century bishop and theologian: “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4.22.9).

Theodore of Mopsuestia, a fifth-century bishop: “When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord” (Catechetical Homilies 5.1).

In fact, I was unable to find a single dissenting voice among the Early Church Fathers. They all believed that Christ truly did mean what He said.

What, then, could I do, but echo St Peter’s answer when Christ asked the Twelve if they planned to leave Him, too:

“Lord, to whom shall [I] go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And [I] believe and [am] sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God” (Jn 6.68-69).

St Peter and the Twelve didn’t understand what this was all about; they didn’t realize at the time that Christ’s Body and Blood would come to them in the Eucharist. All they heard was: You have to eat My flesh and drink My blood. That must have sounded like insanity to them. But they trusted Christ. Even if it didn’t make sense to them at first, they trusted Him. I knew I had to do the same.

Things You'll Never See in an Orthodox Church, Part 5

Q&A

I will begin posting a weekly question and answer extracted from credible online sources (yes, it turn out there is such a thing!).
Anyone wishing to submit a question may do so, and I will see what I can do about getting you a competent answer.

Q: I would like to know what is the orthodox canon regarding the "original sin." The following confuse me:

Father Michael Azkoul states that God punished man only once for the original sin by introducing death, and the original sin wasn't transferred to the next generations. He says (on the OCF website): "The Church does not accept the idea that the Mother of God was born with the (inherited) guilt of Adam; no one is ..."

On the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto's page there is a totally different statement:"Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam andEve's."

A: Concerning the original -- or "first" -- sin, that commited by Adam and Eve, Orthodoxy believes that, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sin, the foremost of which is death, only Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin. Roman Catholicism teaches that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of that sin. In the article by Fr. Azkoul, he deals with this quite clearly in the sections above the quote which you sent in your email. There is nothing wrong with his statement.

Concerning the second passage -- from the Toronto Metropolis' web site -- it would probably have been clearer to the reader had the sentence read as follows: "Worst of all, the consequences of the original sin are hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's." I am not sure that there is any conflict whatsoever; rather, the second passage needs to be clarified.

Finally, the "Orthodox canons" are not statements of doctrine; rather, they are the "canon laws" drafted by the early Church councils. Canons deal with Church discipline and order, not with doctrine. They are found in the proceedings of the seven ecumenical councils and the local councils of the early Church. If by asking "if the Orthodox canons are published and available for purchase" you refer to Canon Law, please let me know, and I will direct you to places where you can purchase them. If you are interested in doctrinal material, however, collections of canons would not contain the fundamental teachings of the faith.

Courtesy of oca.org

For more information:
What is the difference between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic understandings of original sin?
St. Augustine & Original Sin
What are the differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism?
Original Sin According to St Paul
Banishment and Repentance of Adam and Every Christian
Original Sin in the Eastern Orthodox Confessions and Catechisms
Ancestral vs. Original Sin: A False Dichotomy

"Cold Macaroni"?

Someone asked me last week whether the Gospel comes through in the liturgy of the Orthodox Church, or if it kind of drifts into the background like it seems to do in so many other churches.

My father has a special name for churches like that; churches whose teachings either communicate a timid, lukewarm, non-committal version of the Gospel, or avoid it altogether: "cold macaroni." These are the churches that don't want to discomfort or offend their audience with all that Death-and-Resurrection talk; or risk upsetting them by asking them to, y'know, be holy and stuff. These are the churches that look nice and allow people to sit comfortably in their pews and feel good about checking the "go to church" box on their To-do list every week; the ones that Frederica Mathewes-Green described as being a "social worker club with excellent aesthetics."

I can't say whether any particular Christian denomination tends more than the others toward the "cold macaroni" approach, but I can tell you that, if I saw this nonsense coming out of an Orthodox church, I'd be out the door.

So, in response to the above inquiry, I submit for your perusal some excerpts from the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, which is the standard liturgy for most Orthodox churches. Keep in mind as you read it that it is not intended to be sliced up like I have it here, but should be offered as a single complete prayer by the whole body of believers. You can read the rest of it here.

Be on the lookout as you read it for any sign of "cold macaroni"; any timidity or hesitation. I think you'll find none.

(Some of the Liturgy is spoken by the priest, some by the deacon, some by the congregation, and some by everyone together. I have not specified below which is which)

The Introduction:

Blessed is the kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages.

During the Great Litany:

Lord, our God, whose power is beyond compare, and glory is beyond understanding; whose mercy is boundless, and love for us is ineffable: look upon us and upon this holy house in Your compassion. Grant to us and to those who pray with us Your abundant mercy.

For to You belong all glory, honor, and worship to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen.

During the First Antiphon:

Lord our God, save Your people and bless Your inheritance; protect the whole body of Your Church; sanctify those who love the beauty of Your house; glorify them in return by Your divine power; and do not forsake us who hope in You.

For Yours is the dominion, the kingdom, the power, and the glory of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen

During the Second Antiphon:

Only begotten Son and Word of God, although immortal You humbled Yourself for our salvation, taking flesh from the holy Theotokos and ever virgin Mary and, without change, becoming man. Christ, our God, You were crucified but conquered death by death. You are one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit-save us.

Lord, You have given us grace to offer these common prayers with one heart. You have promised to grant the requests of two or three gathered in Your name. Fulfill now the petitions of Your servants for our benefit, giving us the knowledge of Your truth in this world, and granting us eternal life in the world to come.

During the Small Entrance:

Master and Lord our God, You have established in heaven the orders and hosts of angels and archangels to minister to Your glory. Grant that the holy angels may enter with us that together we may serve and glorify Your goodness. For to You belong all glory, honor, and worship to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen.

During the Trisagion Hymn:

Holy God, You dwell among Your saints. You are praised by the Seraphim with the thrice holy hymn and glorified by the Cherubim and worshiped by all the heavenly powers. You have brought all things out of nothing into being. You have created man and woman in Your image and likeness and adorned them with all the gifts of Your grace. You give wisdom and understanding to the supplicant and do not overlook the sinner but have established repentance as the way of salvation. You have enabled us, Your lowly and unworthy servants, to stand at this hour before the glory of Your holy altar and to offer to You due worship and praise. Master, accept the thrice holy hymn also from the lips of us sinners and visit us in Your goodness. Forgive our voluntary and involuntary transgressions, sanctify our souls and bodies, and grant that we may worship and serve You in holiness all the days of our lives, by the intercessions of the holy Theotokos and of all the saints who have pleased You throughout the ages.

Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. Blessed are You on the throne of glory of Your kingdom, seated upon the Cherubim always, now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen.

Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.

During the Great Entrance:

No one bound by worldly desires and pleasures is worthy to approach, draw near or minister to You, the King of glory. To serve You is great and awesome even for the heavenly powers. But because of Your ineffable and immeasurable love for us, You became man without alteration or change.

The Creed:

I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not created, of one essence with the Father, through whom all things were made.
For us and for our salvation, He came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and He suffered and was buried.
On the third day He rose according to the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who spoke through the prophets.
In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
I expect the resurrection of the dead.
And the life of the age to come. Amen.

The Holy Anaphora:

It is proper and right to sing to You, bless You, praise You, thank You and worship You in all places of Your dominion; for You are God ineffable, beyond comprehension, invisible, beyond understanding, existing forever and always the same; You and Your only begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit. You brought us into being out of nothing, and when we fell, You raised us up again. You did not cease doing everything until You led us to heaven and granted us Your kingdom to come. For all these things we thank You and Your only begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit; for all things that we know and do not know, for blessings seen and unseen that have been bestowed upon us. We also thank You for this liturgy which You are pleased to accept from our hands, even though You are surrounded by thousands of Archangels and tens of thousands of Angels, by the Cherubim and Seraphim, six-winged, many-eyed, soaring with their wings,

Singing the victory hymn, proclaiming, crying out, and saying: Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth are filled with Your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna to God in the highest.

Together with these blessed powers, merciful Master, we also proclaim and say: You are holy and most holy, You and Your only-begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit. You are holy and most holy, and sublime is Your glory. You so loved Your world that You gave Your only begotten Son so that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. He came and fulfilled the divine plan for us. On the night when He was betrayed, or rather when He gave Himself up for the life of the world, He took bread in His holy, pure, and blameless hands, gave thanks, blessed, sanctified, broke, and gave it to His holy disciples and apostles saying:

Take, eat, this is my Body which is broken for you for the forgiveness of sins.

Amen.

Likewise, after supper, He took the cup, saying:

Drink of it all of you; this is my Blood of the new Covenant which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Amen.

Remembering, therefore, this command of the Savior, and all that came to pass for our sake, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand of the Father, and the second, glorious coming.

During Holy Communion:

I believe and confess, Lord, that You are truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first... Loving Master, Lord Jesus Christ, my God, let not these holy Gifts be to my condemnation because of my unworthiness, but for the cleansing and sanctification of soul and body and the pledge of the future life and kingdom. It is good for me to cling to God and to place in Him the hope of my salvation.

Having beheld the resurrection of Christ, let us worship the holy Lord Jesus, the only Sinless One. We venerate Your cross, O Christ, and we praise and glorify Your holy resurrection. You are our God. We know no other than You, and we call upon Your name. Come, all faithful, let us venerate the holy resurrection of Christ. For behold, through the cross joy has come to all the world. Blessing the Lord always, let us praise His resurrection. For enduring the cross for us, He destroyed death by death.

The Dismissal:

Lord, bless those who praise You and sanctify those who trust in You. Save Your people and bless Your inheritance... For every good and perfect gift is from above, coming from You, the Father of lights. To You we give glory, thanksgiving, and worship, to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages.

Christ our God, You are the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. You have fulfilled all the dispensation of the Father. Fill our hearts with joy and gladness always, now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen.

May Christ our true God who rose from the dead, as a good, loving, and merciful God, have mercy upon us and save us, through the intercessions of His most pure and holy Mother; the power of the precious and life giving Cross; the protection of the honorable, bodiless powers of heaven, the supplications of the honorable, glorious prophet and forerunner John the Baptist; the holy, glorious and praiseworthy apostles; the holy, glorious and triumphant martyrs; our holy and God-bearing Fathers; the holy and righteous ancestors Joachim and Anna; Saint (of the day) whose memory we commemorate today, and all the saints.

The Resurrection Apolytikia:

Though the tomb was sealed by a stone and soldiers guarded Your pure body, You arose, O Savior, on the third day, giving life to the world. Therefore, O Giver of life, the heavenly powers praise You: Glory to Your resurrection, O Christ, glory to Your kingdom, glory to Your plan of redemption, O only loving God.

When you descended unto death, O life immortal, You destroyed Hades with the splendor of Your divinity. And when You raised the dead from the depths of darkness, all the heavenly powers shouted: O Giver of life, Christ our God, glory to You.

Let the heavens rejoice and earth be glad, for the Lord has shown the power of His reign: He has conquered death by death, and become the first born of the dead. He has delivered us from the depths of Hades; and has granted to the world great mercy.

The joyful news of Your resurrection was told to the women disciples of the Lord by the angel. Having thrown off the ancestral curse, and boasting, they told the Apostles: death has been vanquished, Christ our God is risen, granting to the world great mercy.

To the Word, coeternal with the Father and the Spirit, born of the Virgin for our salvation, let us, the faithful, give praise and worship. Of His own will He mounted the cross in the flesh, He suffered death, and raised the dead by His glorious resurrection.

The heavenly powers appeared at Your tomb, and those guarding it became like dead. Mary stood at Your grave seeking Your pure body. You stripped the power of hades, not touched by its corruption. You met the virgin woman, as one who grants life. O Lord, who rose from the dead, glory to You.

By Your cross You destroyed death, and to the thief You opened paradise. You transformed the sorrow of the Myrrhbearers, and commanded the Apostles to proclaim that You have risen from the dead, Christ our God, granting to the world great mercy.

From on high You descended, O merciful Lord, and accepted the three-day burial to free us from our passions. Glory to You, O Lord, our life and our resurrection.

The Scriptures, Part 3

The following is taken from an article entitled "There was Never a Bible in the Orthodox Church?" (emphases are my own)

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

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

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

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

The Muratorian Canon (130 AD) cites all the books we considered as parts of the Bible today, except for Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation/Apocalypse; Canon 60 of the local Council of Laodicea (364 AD) cited Revelation/Apocalypse; A festal Epistle by Saint Athanasius (369 AD) lists all of them.

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

Things You'll Never See in an Orthodox Church, Part 4

Sorry about the volume; you're going to have to turn it way up to hear this.

"The misconception is this..."

The following is a excerpt from the book by Matthew Gallatin, entitled Thirsting for God in a Land of Shallow Wells. Mr. Gallatin was a Seventh-Day Adventist and a charismatic before converting to Orthodoxy in his forties. Besides being a writer, he is also speaker, a college professor, and the proprietor of a superb podcast on Ancient Faith Radio called Pilgrims from Paradise.


The misconception is this: Christianity is essentially a faith that one can individually interpret and apply as one pleases. To many, the myriads of Christian denominations, rather than being a sign that something is dreadfully wrong in Christendom, instead testify to the fact that there are many paths to Christ. In their minds, it's perfectly obvious that a person is free to choose whatever path suits his personal needs, desires, and tastes. If one doesn't like any of the existing paths, he can legitimately create his own.

Again, many of us Orthodox, as well as Protestants, buy that line to one degree or another. But I can tell you this: If I proposed that definition of the Christian life to Christians of the apostolic age, or to Christians of subsequent ages who remained true to the apostolic faith, they would call me nonsensical—maybe even brand me a heretic. To them, the words of the Apostle would be eminently clear: To be a Christian, one must "stand fast and hold the traditions" of the Faith, as they have been taught from the beginning (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Only those who embrace "that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all" can genuinely bear the name of Christ.

Thus, true Christianity has no room for personal interpretations, preferences, qualifications, exemptions, or adjustments. Anyone, Protestant or Orthodox, who wants to enter into a real relationship with Jesus Christ must accept the fact that the Faith of the Apostles preserved in Holy Orthodoxy is an historical reality, not just a theological school of thought. We must not forget that until the eleventh century, "to be a Christian" meant "to be Orthodox." Of course, that's the point I've been arguing in this book. But I'll reiterate here that once a person accepts the fact that it is history, and not our personal interpretation of the Scriptures, that tells us what the Christian Faith is, the fact that Orthodoxy is the one true expression of the Faith is fairly easy to discover.

We must also understand that the Faith has not been bequeathed to us in order that it may serve us. Rather, we are all called to serve it. We are all priests of the New Covenant in Christ Jesus, required to offer up "spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God" (1 Peter 2:9). As priests, we are not called to create the Faith. Instead, we are enjoined to keep all its tenets, and observe all its sacraments. These we must observe faithfully—not as empty rituals and mindless doctrines, but as the essential steps in the mysterious and miraculous dance of love that Jesus Himself has choreographed for us.

If anyone reading this is interested in reading Mr. Gallatin's book, let me know and I'll send you my copy. My only stipulation is that you pass it on to someone else when you're done. M.M.

Orthodox Christian Russia under Communism

Icons

According to Fr. Thomas Hopko of St Vladimir's Seminary, "icons bear witness to the reality of God's presence with us in the mystery of faith. The icons are not just human pictures or visual aids to contemplation and prayer. They are the witnesses of the presence of the Kingdom of God to us, and so of our own presence to the Kingdom of God in the Church."

Icons, in case you're wondering, do not violate the Second Commandment. If it were God’s intention to forbid all images (the word “icon” comes from the Greek word εἰκών, which means "image"), He, in all likelihood, would not have commanded their use in the Tabernacle and in the Temple (cherubim, almond flowers, pomegranates, gourds, palm trees, lilies, lions, bulls, etc.), or even the display of the bronze serpent in the Book of Numbers (21.4-9). God’s commandment was clearly not intended to forbid the creation of images, but rather their worship.

The Church has always practiced the display and veneration of icons, although there have been periods during her history when icons were strongly opposed by certain factions. Finally, near the end of the eighth century, the Church convened a council that affirmed once and for all the display and veneration of sacred images.

Right up through the Reformation, most Christian bodies retained the use of images (including statues). Even to this day all but the most iconoclastic of Protestant churches display images of some kind or another: the Cross, Noah’s ark, prints of Warner Sallman’s famous Head of Christ (left), pictures of missionaries, or the pastor’s image on the Jumbotron. The difference between these uses of images, and the use of holy icons in the Orthodox Church is that the latter understands the theology and doctrine surrounding the display of sacred images.

Icons in the Orthodox Church are more than just decoration (although they certainly are beautiful to look at), they are a theological statement about the Incarnation of Christ, Who is the “image of God” (εἰκών του Θεου) (2 Cor 4.4). According to Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, the Orthodox Church recognizes that “God took a material body, thereby providing that matter can be redeemed: ‘The Word made flesh has deified the flesh,’ said John of Damascus. God had ‘deified’ matter, making it ‘spirit-bearing’; and if flesh has become a vehicle of the Spirit, then so—though in a different way—can wood and paint” (The Orthodox Church, p.33). In other words, it's okay to use material items in our worship of God.

Instruction
I have heard icons referred to as “theology in color.” What the Bible is to paper and ink, the icon is to wood (or plaster) and paint. What the Scriptures teach us through the printed page, the icons teach us with colors and shapes. Icons often depict events from the Bible or from Church history and therefore serve as tools of instruction in much the same way that stained-glass windows have historically in the Western Church. However, icons tend to be much heavier on symbolism. Every color, every posture, even the position of the hands, has a specific theological significance.

Icons are not portraits and are not intended to be realistic in the way that other paintings usually are, but are intended to communicate a spiritual reality. One of the techniques often used to achieve this is called “inverse perspective,” which you can read about here or here or here. Iconographers are pious, disciplined people who pray and fast prior to and during the creation of an icon; with each stroke of the brush a prayer is offered to God. Iconographers aren't free to alter the style of icons as they see fit, but use a style and a technique and a fomat that has been preserved unchanged in the Church for nearly a hundred generations. They are very careful to write (iconographers are said to "write," rather than "paint" icons) these images in precisely the same way they have been written since the Church began. I envision ancient monastic scholars praying over every penstroke as they transcribe the Scriptures, taking great pains not to alter a comma, lest they distort the meaning of the text. The same is true for inconographers and the way they pass on spiritual Truth through color.

Sacred Space
When you walk into an Orthodox temple, you know you're in a sacred place; a place that has been set aside solely for the purpose of worship. An Orthodox house of worship will never be mistaken for a theater or a high school auditorium, or any other secular venue. When you’re standing among images of saints and angels, you know where you are and for what purpose!

Worship in Heaven
Christian worship is intended to imitate heavenly worship (Heb 8.5). The interior of an Orthodox temple reflects that worship. One reason for the icons is to show us the “great could of witnesses” that worship with us. When the Jews worshipped in the Tabernacle and later in the Temple, they were surrounded by images of Heaven. Those images didn’t include Saints until Christ released the saints from Sheol and escorted them to Paradise. Now, in continuity with that ancient worship, the Orthodox Church shows us Heaven with the saints and martyrs, ascetics, virgins, unmercenaries, wonderworkers, and Apostles all around, worshipping the Trinity alongside us.

On an icon depicting Christ are the letters IC XC. This is the Greek abbreviation (the first and last letter of each word) of Ιησους Χριστος, which in English is Jesus Christ. On many icons, the fingers on the right hand of the person depicted will be positioned to mimic these four letters: index finger=I; middle=C; ring and thumb=X; pinky=C

In Christ’s halo is a cross, on the arms of which are the words “Ο ΩΝ,” which means “He Who Is,” or “I Am” (Exodus 3:14, Revelation 4:8).

On icons depicting the Virgin Mary are the letters ΜΡ ΘΥ, which is the abbreviation of Μητηρ Θεου (Mother of God). In contrast to Roman Catholic depictions of Mary, Orthodox icons seldom depict her without Jesus (in fact, to my knowledge, the only icon of Mary in which Christ is not visible—but certainly present—is the icon of the Annunciation), but show her holding Christ and pointing to Him as if to say “Do whatever He tells you.” (Jn 2.5)

Veneration
One thing that is very troubling to Protestant sensibilities is the Orthodox practice of venerating icons.

When one enters an Orthodox house of worship, one is likely to see parishioners bowing their heads, lighting candles, and making the sign of the Cross before the icons, and even kissing them. These actions are horrifying to a Protestant, and especially to one, such as myself, raised in the Baptist faith.

But, why is this practice so distressing? Are the Orthodox worshipping these icons? The Orthodox will say certainly not; that there is a big difference between worship or adoration—which are for the Holy Trinity alone—and the veneration, reverence, honor, and respect, which are paid to sacred items and holy people: worship is a total giving over of the self to be united with God, while veneration is showing delight for what God has done.

For millennia the Jews have understood the difference between veneration and worship: they kiss the mezuzah on their door post, they kiss the tallit before putting it on, they kiss the Torah before reading it in the Synagogue. Certainly Christ Himself did likewise when reading the Scriptures in the Synagogue. I doubt anyone confused these actions with idol worship.

And I think it’s a safe bet that I can get away with kissing a picture of my wife, or my grandfather’s headstone, or even a letter that he wrote without anyone accusing me of worshipping those items or the family members they call to mind. (I don’t know of a single Christian who will deny that humans are created in the image of God. In Genesis 1.26 God is quoted as saying “Let Us make man in Our image” (LXX: εικονα). So, when we kiss our loved ones, we are literally venerating icons of God!)

As a member of the Selfridge Honor Guard, I attended hundreds of funerals where a grieving next-of-kin would kiss the folded Flag and never once did it occur to me that that person might be worshipping the flag or the person in whose memory the flag was presented.*

The truth is, if I’m not scandalized by this…

…what reason could I possibly have to be distressed by a Christian kissing an image of Christ?

Anyone who has been to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. is sure to have seen people kneeling, laying flowers, lighting candles, kissing the wall, or bowing their heads in prayer. There is nothing improper or sacrilegious about this. It’s a very human and heartfelt expression of honor and respect, and no one will deny that those who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our Country are deserving of our respect, our gratitude, our honor.

How much more, then, is our honor and respect due to those who lived and died, who surrendered everything, who denied themselves and daily bore their crosses in service to the Lord?

For more information:
The Function of Icons
No Graven Image: Icons and Their Proper Use
What Do Icons Mean?
Is Venerating Icons Idolatry?
The Icon FAQ
Talk given by Fr. Jacob Myers at St John’s Church in Atlanta

*If we truly believe that the Second Commandment strictly forbids the display of “anything in heaven above,” then the U.S. flag itself is a violation of this commandment fifty times over! In which case we violate God’s commandment fifty times whenever we salute, rise to our feet in the presence of, or pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States.

Things You'll Never See in an Orthodox Church, Part 3

"...salt...not sugar..."

"What SHOULD church be like? Should it be stuffy or can it be fun? Is it supposed to be boring or can it be inspiring?"

These are questions from the information box of a video posted on YouTube. The video is a montage of clips, showing the "fun" and "inspiring" activities that go on at my former church.

As I watched this video with the volume off, I struggled to find any indication—other than some words on a computer monitor—that what I was watching was taking place in a church. I agree that Christian worship shouldn't be boring and stuffy. But should it be a variety show? Should it be 'relevant' according to the modern, secular understanding of the word?

I agree also that Christians need to make a priority of bringing unbelievers into the fold. But is there any sense in which the use of rock bands, dramatic performance, interpretive dance, laser-light shows, or cutting-edge multimedia in order to draw a crowd isn't contrary to St Paul's plea not to be "conformed to the world"? (Rom 12.2)

I don't question the sincerity of those who worship in the modern, "seeker-sensitive" style. When I did likewise, I was sincere, too. But I can tell you that, although I have been a believer in Jesus Christ for as long as I can remember, it was not until I witnessed the Orthodox Liturgy that I really began to see what it means to worship Christ on His terms. Not those of modern culture. If that's not fun and inspiring I don't know what is.

Below is part of an article by Charles Spurgeon, in which he laments (in 1887!) the extent to which Christian worship had become entertainment. Having seen what the church of my youth has evolved into, I find it fascinating that these words are from the pen of a Baptist minister. (all emphases are mine)

An evil resides in the professed camp of the Lord so gross in its impudence that the most shortsighted can hardly fail to notice it. During the past few years it has developed at an abnormal rate even for evil. It has worked like leaven until the whole lump ferments. The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the Church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them.

From speaking out as the Puritans did, the Church has gradually toned down her testimony, then winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she tolerated them in her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea of reaching the masses.

My first contention is that providing amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the Church. If it is a Christian work why did not Christ speak of it? ‘Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.’ That is clear enough. So it would have been if He has added, ‘and provide amusement for those who do not relish the gospel.’ No such words, however, are to be found. It did not seem to occur to Him.

Then again, ‘He gave some apostles, some prophets, some pastors and teachers, for the work of the ministry.’ Where do entertainers come in? The Holy Spirit is silent concerning them. Were the prophets persecuted because they amused the people or because they refused? The concert has no martyr roll.

Again, providing amusement is in direct antagonism to the teaching and life of Christ and all His apostles. What was the attitude of the Church to the world? ‘Ye are the salt,’ not sugar candy — something the world will spit out, not swallow. Short and sharp was the utterance, ‘Let the dead bury their dead.’ He was in awful earnestness!

Had Christ introduced more of the bright and pleasant elements into His mission, He would have been more popular when they went back, because of the searching nature of His teaching. I do not hear Him say, ‘Run after these people, Peter, and tell them we will have a different style of service tomorrow, something short and attractive with little preaching. We will have a pleasant evening for the people. Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it. Be quick, Peter, we must get the people somehow!’ Jesus pitied sinners, sighed and wept over them, but never sought to amuse them.

After Peter and John were locked up for preaching, the Church had a prayer meeting, but they did not pray, ‘Lord grant Thy servants that by a wise and discriminating use of innocent recreation we may show these people how happy we are.’ If they ceased not for preaching Christ, they had not time for arranging entertainments. Scattered by persecution, they went everywhere preaching the gospel. They ‘turned the world upside down’ (Acts 17.6) That is the difference! Lord, clear the Church of all the rot and rubbish the devil has imposed on her and bring us back to apostolic methods.

C. H. Spurgeon, Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats?

“…think ‘Braveheart’”

Frederica Mathewes-Green, a former public radio personality and convert to Orthodoxy from the Epsicopal church, wrote an article for Beliefnet.com on what it is about Orthodoxy that is particularly attractive to men. The men she polled for her article used words like “discipline,” “challenge,” “objectivity,” “stability,” and “warfare” to describe the traits that attracted them to the Orthodox Church.

I had to laugh the first time I read this article, because I realized that there is nothing whatsoever unique about my journey; only the names and faces are different:

In a time when churches of every description are faced with Vanishing Male syndrome, men are showing up at Eastern Orthodox churches in numbers that, if not numerically impressive, are proportionately intriguing. This may be the only church which attracts and holds men in numbers equal to women. As Leon Podles wrote in his 1999 book, "The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity," "The Orthodox are the only Christians who write basso profundo church music, or need to."

Rather than guess why this is, I emailed a hundred Orthodox men, most of whom joined the Church as adults. What do they think makes this church particularly attractive to men? Their responses, below, may spark some ideas for leaders in other churches, who are looking for ways to keep guys in the pews.

Read the rest of the article here: “Why Orthodox Men Love Church”

When you’re done reading, listen to this excellent talk by Frederica Mathewes-Green on the above article (in fact, even if you choose not to read the article, I recommend that you listen to this lecture): Men and Orthodoxy

Ορθοδοξία