Apostle and Evangelist Luke

The life, work, and martyrdom of St Luke are commemorated today according to the old calendar. The following is from oca.org:

The Holy Apostle and Evangelist Luke, was a native of Syrian Antioch, a companion of the holy Apostle Paul (Phil.1:24, 2 Tim. 4:10-11), and a physician enlightened in the Greek medical arts. Hearing about Christ, Luke arrived in Palestine and fervently accepted the preaching of salvation from the Lord Himself. As one of the Seventy Apostles, St Luke was sent by the Lord with the others to preach the Kingdom of Heaven during the Savior's earthly life (Luke 10:1-3). After the Resurrection, the Lord Jesus Christ appeared to Sts Luke and Cleopas on the road to Emmaus.

Luke accompanied St Paul on his second missionary journey, and from that time they were inseparable. When Paul's coworkers had forsaken him, only Luke remained to assist him in his ministry (2 Tim. 4:10-11). After the martyric death of the First-Ranked Apostles Peter and Paul, St Luke left Rome to preach in Achaia, Libya, Egypt and the Thebaid. He ended his life by suffering martyrdom in the city of Thebes.

Tradition credits St Luke with painting the first icons of the Mother of God. "Let the grace of Him Who was born of Me and My mercy be with these Icons," said the All-Pure Virgin after seeing the icons. St Luke also painted icons of the First-Ranked Apostles Peter and Paul. St Luke's Gospel was written in the years 62-63 at Rome, under the guidance of the Apostle Paul. In the preliminary verses (1:1-3), St Luke precisely sets forth the purpose of his work. He proposes to record, in chronological order, everything known by Christians about Jesus Christ and His teachings. By doing this, he provided a firmer historical basis for Christian teaching (1:4). He carefully investigated the facts, and made generous use of the oral tradition of the Church and of what the All-Pure Virgin Mary Herself had told him (2:19, 51).

In St Luke's Gospel, the message of the salvation made possible by the Lord Jesus Christ, and the preaching of the Gospel, are of primary importance.

St Luke also wrote the Acts of the Holy Apostles at Rome around 62-63 A.D. The Book of Acts, which is a continuation of the four Gospels, speaks about the works and the fruits of the holy Apostles after the Ascension of the Savior. At the center of the narrative is the Council of the holy Apostles at Jerusalem in the year 51, a Church event of great significance, which resulted in the separation of Christianity from Judaism and its independent dissemination into the world (Acts 15:6-29). The theological focus of the Book of Acts is the coming of the Holy Spirit, Who will guide the Church "into all truth" John 16:13) until the Second Coming of Christ.

See also:
Luke the Evangelist

Sola Scriptura, Part 1

Sola Scriptura, which is Latin for "Scripture alone," is the belief that the Bible is "the only source of revealed truth concerning Jesus, faith and salvation."

This is a doctrine that, along with Sola Fide (by faith alone), Sola Gratia (by grace alone), Solus Christus (Christ alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (glory to God alone), make up the "Five Solas," which were the driving principles of the Protestant Reformation.

While four of the five Solas have never been troublesome to me, Sola Scriptura is something that I have had difficulty with for as long as I can remember; even before I knew it had a name. How could it be, I wondered, that the God of the universe would choose to restrict the entirety of His revelation to the pages of the Bible? Even while I was a professed Baptist, I began to develop an uncomfortable sense of the confining nature of this doctrine, and started asking questions to which I have never heard any satisfying answers: Where is the divinely inspired Table of Contents? (in other words, someone had to determine the canon of Scripture, because Christ didn't hand over the Bible in its present form); The Pauline Epistles seem to have been written to churches that already knew the Faith. Without the Bible, how did they know?; If the Bible were truly the sole source of revealed Truth, wouldn't it have to say so? It does not.

As my questions about Sola Scriptura grew in number and went years without proper answers, they evolved into misgivings, suspicions, and finally objections to the doctrine. It is partly because of my extreme discomfort with Sola Scriptura, and with what I eventually learned was a deep Lutheran commitment to it, that I ultimately decided to abandon my ambitions of pursuing ordination.

If there is anything on which the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches agree (and there really does not seem to be much), it is that the Bible is not the sole source of revealed Truth. The former places Scripture alongside Sacred Tradition, the latter includes Scripture as a part of Sacred Tradition. The Orthodox Church defines "Tradition" as "That which is handed down, transmitted," which, of course, includes the Bible. The Orthodox Church has immeasurable respect and regard for the Bible, and uses Scripture more than any other church I've ever known; they understand the Bible to be inspired by God, but they recognize that the Bible is a product of the Church, not vice versa. I am not aware of a Protestant tradition that would agree with this last point. That is part of what has gotten me where I am in the Faith.

Through the remainder of the year, I will be posting weekly excerpts from an great article entitled Sola Scriptura: In the Vanity of Their Minds. It was written by Father John Whiteford, who is a former Church of the Nazarene pastor, and it expresses as well as anything I've read what is at the heart of my intense mistrust of Sola Scriptura. It is a long article, so I will be posting it in several parts, but it has a lot of very good information, so I recommend that my readers take the time each week to read it through thoroughly. Here is the first section (all emphases in this and subsequent installments are my own):


AN ORTHODOX EXAMINATION OF THE PROTESTANT TEACHING
Introduction: Are Protestants Beyond Hope?
Despite all that stands in their way, there definitely is hope for Protestants. Protestants in search of theological sanity, of true worship, and of the ancient Christian Faith are practically beating on our Church doors. They are no longer satisfied with the contradictions and the faddishness of contemporary Protestant America.

Perhaps the most daunting feature of Protestantism — the feature which has given it a reputation of stubborn resiliency is its numerous differences and contradictions. Yet for all their differences there is one basic underlying assumption that unites the amorphous blob of these thousands of disparate groups into the general category of "Protestant." All Protestant groups (with some minor qualifications) believe that their group has rightly understood the Bible, and though they all disagree as to what the Bible says, they generally do agree on how one is to interpret the Bible — on your own! — apart from Church Tradition. If one can come to understand this belief, why it is wrong, and how one is rightly to approach the Scriptures, then any Protestant of any stripe may be engaged with understanding. Even groups as differing as the Baptists and the Jehovahs Witnesses are really not as different as they outwardly appear once you have understood this essential point — indeed if you ever have an opportunity to see a Baptist and a Jehovahs Witness argue over the Bible, you will notice that in the final analysis they simply quote different Scriptures back and forth at each other. If they are equally matched intellectually, neither will get anywhere in the discussion because they both essentially agree on their approach to the Bible, and because neither questions this underlying common assumption neither can see that their mutually flawed approach to the Scriptures is the problem. Herein lies the heart of this Hydra of heresies — pierce its heart and its many heads at once fall lifelessly to the ground.

Why Scripture Alone?
If we are to understand what Protestants think, we will have to first know why they believe what they believe. In fact if we try to put ourselves in the place of those early reformers, such as Martin Luther, we must certainly have some appreciation for their reasons for championing the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura (or "Scripture alone"). When one considers the corruption in the Roman Church at that time, the degenerate teachings that it promoted, and the distorted understanding of tradition that it used to defend itself -along with the fact that the West was several centuries removed from any significant contact with their former Orthodox heritage — it is difficult to imagine within those limitations how one such as Luther might have responded with significantly better results. How could Luther have appealed to tradition to fight these abuses, when tradition (as all in the Roman West were lead to believe) was personified by the very papacy that was responsible for those abuses. To Luther, it was tradition that had erred, and if he were to reform the Church he would have to do so with the sure undergirding of the Scriptures. However, Luther never really sought to eliminate tradition altogether, and he never used the Scriptures truly "alone," what he really attempted to do was to use Scripture to get rid of those parts of the Roman tradition that were corrupt. Unfortunately his rhetoric far outstripped his own practice, and more radical reformers took the idea of Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusions.

Continued next week in Part 2 - Problems with the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura

Bless the Lord, O my soul; blessed art Thou, O Lord.
Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me bless His holy name.
Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all that He hath done for thee.
Who is gracious unto thine iniquities, Who healeth all thine infirmities.
Who redeemeth thy life from corruption, Who crowneth thee with mercy and compassion.
Who fulfilleth thy desire with good things; thy youth shall be renewed as the eagle's.
Compassionate and merciful is the Lord, longsuffering and plenteous in mercy.
Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,
Both now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.
Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me bless His holy name.
Blessed art Thou, O Lord.
(First Antiphon, Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, from Psalm 103)

Prayer

Prayer is another subject about which rivers of ink have been spilled by many men who know far more than I ever will. Nor could I ever hope to add anything of value to what has already been said or written about prayer.

The following are just a few of my thoughts and observation regarding prayer, particularly the practice of formal, liturgical prayer.

One of my many early objections to liturgical worship was the use of what I considered to be "canned" prayers. Why, I thought, would I want to recite prayers that were written hundreds of years ago by some stranger who doesn't know me or my needs and wants? Doesn't God want prayer to be from the heart? Pre-written prayers seemed dry, dead, uninspired.

I have since realized that, for my entire Christian life, I have used pre-written prayers. The Psalms, hymns, even "praise songs" are all forms of pre-written prayer, and never have I had any reason to object to them. Prayer doesn't need to be off-the-cuff in order to be powerful and effective and sincere and worshipful. In fact, I can see now that there are times when formal, liturgical, pre-written prayers are actually preferred:

Pre-written prayers allow the worship community to pray together with one voice.
Imagine if, one Sunday morning at church, instead of singing the hymns together, everyone in the congregation stood up and started singing whatever was on their hearts at that moment.
That's not worship, it's chaos. And that's not a worship community, it's a crowd of individuals clamoring for their personal wants and needs to be heard. The truth is, short of miraculous intervention, there simply is no way to have corporate prayer that isn't pre-written.

I've mentioned before how important the sense of community is to Orthodox Christians. Combine that with their strong connection to the past, and you start to realize that, when you're standing in a Vespers service praying the ancient prayers, you're singing with one accord, not only with the others in the room and with the millions of Orthodox Christians elsewhere in the world, but also with twenty centuries worth of saints and martyrs who prayed—and still pray—those very same prayers. It's an awesome thing to consider.

Formal prayer removes the "me" from worship.
When I offer to God the prayers of the Church, I set my own worries and cares and preferences aside. Only then can I really worship, because "it is no longer I who live, but Christ [who] lives in me" (Gal 2.20). True worship cannot be about me; it cannot be personally fulfilling, pleasing or satisfying to me in any way and still be worship. Real worship must be a purely objective act. The prayers in my Prayer Book belong to the whole Church, not to me personally; they are the offerings of an entire community of believers, spanning thousands of years of Church history, rather than my own personal desires and impulses.

Now, that certainly doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with presenting to God our needs and concerns. On the contrary, we are instructed to do precisely that (Php 4.6). However, when we worship, it should be selfless and devoid of "me." Does that mean that my worship will never include an element of subjectivity? Of course not, I'm still human. But formal prayer gets me closer than I would get otherwise.

The Jews prayed liturgically and so did the first Christians.
According to the notes in the Orthodox Study Bible, "the Jews had practiced liturgical prayer for centuries," and the early Christians, being Jews, continued this practice, which has been maintained without interruption since that time. When Acts 2.42 says that the apostles continued in "fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers," the word prayers is "literally 'the prayers' in Greek, referring to specific liturgical prayers" (OSB, p.1473).

Furthermore, the prayer in Acts 4:23-30 "follows a traditional liturgical formula of praise, remembrance of God's works, and petition" (OSB, p.1476). And, according to the Book of Acts, the Apostles observed the "hours" of prayer which were observed by pious Jews and are followed in monastic communities to this day (Acts 3.1, 10.9).

For thousands of years—since long before King David—God has inspired men to compose beautiful, stirring hymns and prayers to His honor. I will, from time to time, be posting some of these "canned" prayers that are used by Orthodox Christians. This first one was composed by God Himself and is probably the one offered most frequently in the Orthodox Church:

Our Father which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. Amen. (The Lord's Prayer, Mt 6.9-13)

For more Information:

Prayer
Liturgical Prayer
Liturgical Prayer (OCA)

An Aid to Prayer

Infant Baptism

You hallowed the streams of Jordan, sending down from the Heavens Your Holy Spirit, and crushed the heads of dragons that lurked therein. Do You Yourself, O loving King, be present now also through the descent of Your Holy Spirit and hallow this water. And give to it the Grace of Redemption, the Blessing of Jordan. Make it a fountain of incorruption, a gift of sanctification, a loosing of sins, a healing of sicknesses, a destruction of demons, unapproachable by hostile powers, filled with angelic might. (From the Service of Holy Baptism)

I originally intended to write a post on the sacrament of Baptism, but it turned out to be a far bigger topic than I am in any position to discuss. So I decided to narrow my focus a bit and pass on a few of my observations—and of course the wisdom of others—regarding the practice of infant baptism.

Growing up in the Baptist tradition, I was taught that baptism was a symbolic action indicating a believer's conversion: One accepted Christ as their personal Lord and Savior and was thus born again. They could then be baptized as a public declaration of their personal commitment to Christ. Because infants could not make a conscious decision to follow Christ, they were not to be baptized.

When I left Grace and began attending Christ the King, I had difficulty at first accepting the practice of infant baptism, until I discovered that infants are never excluded from baptism in the Bible. We are told that, when the Apostles preached, entire households were baptized—Lydia’s, the jailer’s, Crispus’s, Stephanas’s—and we are given no indication that infants and young children were excluded from this.

Furthermore, I was unable to find a biblical basis for the teaching that baptism is strictly a symbolic act. Rather, there seems to be quite a bit more to it:
1) It replaces circumcision (Col 2.11–12)
2) Facilitates the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2.38, 22.16)
3) Brings about an infusion of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2.38; Ezk 36:25-27)
4) Marks incorporation into the Body of Christ (Jn 3.5; 1Co 12.12-13)
5) Is key to a person’s Salvation (Tts 3:5; 1Pt 3.20-21; Rom 6.3-4; Mk 16.16)

While I was never 100% on board with other points of Lutheran doctrine, I did come to realize that infant baptism is, at the very least, biblically defensible. So, by the time I began the move toward Orthodoxy, the practice of infant baptism was not even an issue for me.

To the Orthodox, baptism is far more than a mere formality, but is the "sacrament whereby one is born again, buried with Christ, resurrected with Him and united to Him." The Orthodox Church believes that,

baptism is not just a symbolic testimony of what God has done in the heart of an adult believer, but is in itself a dynamic means of actually effecting the power of the Gospel (the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ) in a life (Romans 6:4). Christian baptism is the means whereby we encounter and identify with Jesus Christ Himself. This is one of the reasons why Paul explains baptism as the manner in which we genuinely 'put on' or 'clothe' ourselves with Christ (Galatians 3:27). This is not just a metaphor, the Lord actually transforms a person through his baptism.

I have heard it said that, when the "why" of Orthodox baptism is understood, the "when" becomes self evident. To the Orthodox, there was never really a question as to whether infants should be baptized.

Objections
Infant baptism is never explicitly mentioned in the Bible.
While this is true, we need to be careful about insisting that everything we believe and practice must be spelled out in black and white on the pages of Scripture, because when we do, we put ourselves in the uncomfortable position of having to defend other beliefs and practices that are also not explicitly mentioned: original sin, the Trinity, etc.

There are certainly no clear, undeniable examples of infant baptism in the New Testament, but neither are there any examples of children waiting until the “age of accountability” before being baptized. And if we insist on excluding infants from baptism on the basis of a strict reading of the Scriptures, then we also must exclude women from receiving Communion for the same reason. This is a practice that is found nowhere in the Bible. The truth is that an argument from silence is simply no defense for the rejection of a practice that the Church has accepted for two-thousand years.

That’s not to suggest, of course, that those who appeal to the Scriptures for guidance on practices such as baptism are wrong for doing so. Surely the Apostles did likewise. We should remember, though, that the Apostles had only the Old Testament to turn so, because the New Testament had not even been written yet.

So, imagine if the jailer had approached the Apostles with his infant daughter—supposing he had one; certainly someone did—and asked them to baptize her as well. What would they have said?

“We’re very sorry, Mr Jailer, but according to the Scriptures, the Old Covenant was not for infants, so neither is the New Covenant.”

Nonsense! The Old Covenant was for infants. We know that, from Old Testament times, God not only allowed inclusion of infants into His Covenant, but required it! (Gen 17.9-14) Circumcision was the mark of this inclusion. It incorporated people into the community of Faith, the chosen people of God. Infants who were born into this community were brought—without their verbal consent—into a Covenant relationship with God and His Faith community through circumcision. Saint Paul is clear that baptism is the new circumcision; the "circumcision made without hands" (Col 2.11–12).

The Church has historically downplayed the modern notion of a “personal relationship with Christ,” in favor of what it has always understood to be a community relationship. Children who are baptized in the Orthodox Church are incorporated into a community of faith. They are not on their own. Through baptism, children

receive the faith and life of Christ as revealed in the Church. This is why the Church does not randomly baptize any child off the street but only those whose parents and sponsors present the child for Baptism from within the community of faith and make a pledge to raise the child in the faith. This sacrament is the beginning of faith and God’s response to it " (from Saints Constantine and Elena Orthodox Church).

In the Bible, faith always precedes baptism.
It’s interesting to consider that at no point does Christ ever instruct little children to have faith like an adult. Rather, it’s the adults that must have faith like the little children (see Mt 18.3, and Mk 10.15). To suggest that infants don’t have faith is simply contrary to Christ’s teaching. Children are born with faith; a faith more pure than what you or I have; a faith that is to serve as an example to us. Little children unlearn their faith by being exposed to the world of adults.

I was brought up believing that children must reach the “age of accountability” before they can be candidates for baptism. That’s when they can understand what it means that Christ died for their sins, and can make a conscious decision to accept His sacrifice. I don’t know of a single Christian who would say that a child who has not yet reached the “age of accountability” cannot be saved (If any of my readers wish to defend the doctrine of Limbo, I invite them to please find another blog). If, then, a child is saved,

it must be through Christ, somehow. And if it is through Christ, then that child is Christian. If he is being raised in a Christian home hearing the Gospel, he has never not heard the Gospel, and he has never not had faith in Christ. (faith in the sense of trust; faith in the sense of relationship with Christ) If the child is a Christian, then he is a member of the body of Christ. If the body of Christ is the family of God, then it must include children, not just rational adults, because the Church is relational, not just rational. And if he is a member of the Church and is saved, then why deny the child baptism? (from Our Life in Christ)

Infants don't understand what's going on, so what's the point of baptizing them?
Again, Saints Constantine and Elena Orthodox Church answers better than I could:

There are some who object to infant Baptism on the grounds that [because] an infant is unable to speak and unable to understand... they should not receive baptism. To this objection we would ask, “To whom is it given the ability to measure faith, to pass judgment on the degree of comprehension and desire in it?” By this measure adult baptism is no more valid than infant baptism. Christianity is a confession of faith... But this confession is more than just words spoken. It is a life that is lived in Christ so that we may recognize Him in all things. Therefore just as an infant is able to recognize and love its mother or father or anyone who cares for and loves the child, so too an infant that is raised in the Church, who lives in the context of a Christian family, is able to recognize and love Christ. This is a true confession of faith.

From GotQuestions.org: “Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism - as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible. How does pouring or sprinkling illustrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?”
Good point. In fact, the Orthodox do immerse infants. Three times! “Unwise and unsafe” or not, it’s the way they’ve done it for two millennia, and as far as I know, there haven’t been any casualties. It looks like this:



[The audio is cut off at the beginning, but you’ll hear the tail end of the priest saying, “The servant of God, Ezra, is baptized…” He says this rather than, “I baptize you…” in order to underscore the Orthodox belief that it is not the action of the priest that is instrumental, but the work of the Holy Spirit]

Most Christian faiths that practice infant baptism do, in fact, sprinkle or pour, and then stop there. They wait until the child hits puberty before they “confirm” them into the church. Only then are they considered full members of the worship community and allowed to receive communion.The Orthodox do it all in one day! They baptize the individual—child or adult—then immediately confirm* and commune them. (Yes, the Orthodox administer Communion to infants. They are full members of the Church, so why not?).

*The Orthodox call it chrismation, rather than confirmation, because of the oil (χρίσμα) used.

Also from GotQuestions.org: The Bible is very clear about baptism. There are two points we all need to understand. (1) Baptism is to take place after a person has received Jesus Christ as Savior, trusting in Him alone for salvation. (2) Baptism is to be by immersion.
If these are indeed the two criteria for proper baptism then the Orthodox practice of infant baptism is entirely proper, since 1) infants already have faith in Christ, and 2) the Orthodox baptize by full immersion.

However, the Orthodox Church would add another criterion. They will not recognize any baptism as valid that is not done in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It’s not enough to baptize someone in the name of the “Creator, Redeemer, and the Sanctifier,” or any other formula. It has to be done in precisely the manner described by Christ in Matthew 28.19.

Look, the bottom line is this: If the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, and the Fullness of Him who Fills All in All, and the Ark of Salvation, wouldn’t it make perfect sense to bring a child fully and completely into the life of the Church at the first possible opportunity? That's exactly what Orthodox Christians do when they baptize their infants.

For More Information:
The Orthodox Practice of Infant Baptism
Holy Baptism
Holy Baptism: An Orthodox Christian Understanding
Sacraments
Early Fathers on Infant Baptism
Orthodox Baptism

Things You'll Never See in an Orthodox Church, Part 9

Q&A

Q: Do Orthodox Christians place tradition above or equal to Scripture?

A: The Church sees the Scriptures as inspired and authoritative Holy Tradition: the Word of God. The key here is to see how the word "tradition" is used in the New Testament, which condemns the tradition of men but calls us to follow apostolic or holy tradition.

TRADITION OF MEN
First of all, Jesus warned against holding to the "tradition of men" and "your tradition" in the strongest possible terms (see mark 7:6-16). All Christians agree: The Bible says no to the tradition of men.

Secondly, Saint Paul warns in Colossians 2:8: "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Here again, the phase "tradition of men" stands out, which the Church condemns.

HOLY TRADITION
In distinction to the tradition of men, the Bible calls us to obey tradition which has God as its source. In II Thessalonians 2:15, Saint Paul writes, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." In contrast to man's tradition, apostolic tradition is our foundation in the Church.

Further, in II Thessalonians 3:6 we read, "But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us." Here again, we are dealing with Apostolic tradition, the tradition which God planted in the Church. Thus the Church is "the pillar and ground (or support) of the truth" (I Timothy 3:15).

All true tradition comes from the same source: the Holy Spirit in the Church. The same One who inspired holy Scripture prompted the on-location teaching of the Apostles, whether written or oral (II Thes. 2:15). Further, it was on the basis of Church tradition that the Biblical canon was determined.

Tradition is giving our ancestors a vote. It is walking in the "path of righteousness for His name's sake" (Psalm 23:3). Or, as Jeremiah writes, living by holy tradition is a call from God Himself. "Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls" (Jer. 6:16).

Thus, there are two kinds of tradition: that of God and that of men. It is to the former that the Church is singularly committed.

Courtesy of St. Athanasius Orthodox Church

Halloween, Part 2

From Is “Halloween” Just Harmless Fun?

The “feast of Halloween,” celebrated by many in America, is rapidly finding its way in many parts of our world. It is portrayed as harmless fun for children. This could not be any further from the truth! Halloween is normally regarded as one more occasion for a party, one more opportunity for a good time without the least inquiry as to its meaning or origins. It is hardly a surprise when we consider that the greatest feasts of Christianity such as Pascha (Easter) and the Nativity of Christ (for which our ancestors prepared with fasting, prayers and tears) are now to so many, simply dates for eating, drinking and the exchanging of gifts. Be warned: Halloween is not what it appears to be! Its seemingly innocent manifestations represent a memory of an ancient celebration deeply rooted in paganism and demonology; furthermore, it continues to be a form of idolatry in which Satan, the angel of death is worshipped.

As Orthodox Christians, it is important to be aware of how these anti-Christian, pagan and demonic practices have crept into our society and our very lives as innocent, fun, and playful diversions. Our Lord Jesus Christ calls us to the “narrow path,” to the bearing of our own Cross, to the difficult road of rejecting sin and embracing righteousness. By refraining from this hidden demon worship, we set ourselves apart from the world, perhaps even are mocked and laughed at for such stupidity and simple-mindedness. “How can children having fun be related to demonic activity?” they may ask. In the face of all this we must also remember that Satan is the “father of lies,” the great deceiver and he will go to any lengths to trap us into choosing to follow him rather than our Lord, even if we do so unwittingly and in ignorance. Know this: the devil exists; evil spirits exist! Our Lord Jesus Christ came into the world in order to destroy “him that had the dominion of death, that is, the devil” (Heb 2:14). Remember that many martyrs were tortured and killed rather than allow themselves to be coerced into tossing a little incense on a pagan altar. When we willingly participate in the sacrifice to the lord of death as a “harmless” social custom, we ourselves make a mockery of the witness of those martyrs.

Instead, as Orthodox Christians, we are given the opportunity on this night to remember the feast of the Holy Unmercenaries, Saints Cosmas and Damianos, celebrated on November 1st. God has provided us with His Saints as a powerful weapon against the snares of Satan, even in the midst of such a deception. We should take full advantage of this weapon and turn our hearts and minds away from the celebration of death and onto the remembrance of God, Who is “wonderful in His saints.”

Another weapon given to us by Christ is the power of Prayer and Fasting. In Christ’s own words, “by prayer and fasting” (Matt. 17:21) we can overcome evil.

We take great pains to protect our children and ourselves from disease and harm. We teach them good nutrition, hygiene and personal safety. We discourage them from engaging in fornication, substance abuse and other immoral and dangerous acts. Why do we allow them to dabble in darkness? Even if Halloween was good, clean, innocent fun, to what benefit-spiritual, intellectual or otherwise- is this for a Christian? Let’s teach our children to surround themselves with what is good and to “walk as children of light” (Eph. 5:8). Let’s show them that the hope of the Christian life is to be delivered from death into life with God for eternity! We are Orthodox Christians. We are called to be not of this world. We were instructed by our Saviour to pray: “deliver us from the evil one.” Halloween is the celebration of the evil one. Who could possibly support it?

Salt v. Sugar III

Can it be any wonder that the Anglican Communion is coming apart at the seams? They have completely lost touch with historic Christianity. Is there any going back once the church leaders have decided that the Bible is "banal"?

Beatles songs as likely to explain Christianity as the Bible, says bishop

History of Religion

I found this interesting and well-crafted presentation on a website committed to keeping history junkies like me occupied for hours on end.

Mary, Part 3 - Theotokos

In April 428, a man named Nestorius became Archbishop of Constantinople, a position which was, and is, one of great honor and influence within the Church. During his tenure, he took issue with, and began to preach against, use of the title Theotokos (Θεοτόκος: "God bearer") for Mary, claiming that the divine and human natures of Christ were separate, and so Christotokos (Χριστοτόκος: "Christ bearer") was a more appropriate term.

Other Church leaders, including Cyril, the Archbishop of Alexandria, rejected the teaching that Christ's natures were separate, and convened a Church council in Ephesus in 431 to define, once and for all, the proper understanding of this vital aspect of the Incarnation. They determined that while Christ did, in fact, have two natures, they existed together in hypostasis (ὑπόστᾰσις). Therefore, they reasoned, while Mary was certainly the mother of Christ, to call her simply Christotokos leaves too much room for error with regard to our understanding of Christ's Incarnation. Ultimately, the Church condemned Nestorius as a heretic and declared that Mary is, and shall be, properly referred to as Theotokos.

So, why didn't the Church just define Mary as Mήτηρ τοῦ Θεοῦ (Mother of God)? Because one can mother a child without necessarily bearing him. "Theotokos" actually refers to physical childbirth, while "Mother of God" implies nurturing and rearing. Mary certainly did raise and nurture Christ, but one can to that to an adopted child as well. To say Mary bore Christ leaves no room for doubt that Mary, a virgin, did in fact give birth to a child as prophesied, and that that child was, in fact, God.

Theotokos is a title that the Church has used for more than 1500 years, and that is, in fact, entirely consistent with Scripture (see Lk 1.43), and yet I never once heard it while I was a Protestant. Is there something objectionable about this title? The Church is very clear that it is not intended to imply that Mary is greater than, or equal to, God, or that she is the mother of the Christ's deity or of the Holy Trinity. The title Theotokos is not meant to elevate Mary, but to safeguard a proper understanding of the Incarnation. As Matthew Gallatin writes, "when you face the fact that Mary is Jesus' mother, you realize that what you call her must be entirely consistent with who you believe Jesus to be" (Thirsting for God, p.160).

If the Church felt, and has taught for more than fifteen centuries, that calling Mary Theotokos was necessary in order to affirm the doctrine of the Incarnation, what reason could I have to ignore or reject it? And could I do so and truly hope to affirm the Incarnation myself?

The Mother of God

Article from OrthodoxWiki

The Theotokos

Things You'll Never See in an Orthodox Church, Part 8

Q&A

Q: I thought there are just two kinds of Christians, Protestant and Catholic. How can you claim you are neither?

A: From the Orthodox point of view, Roman Catholicism is a medieval modification of the original Orthodoxy of the Church in Western Europe, and Protestantism is a later attempt to return to the original Faith. To our way of thinking, the Reformation did not go far enough.

We respectfully differ with Roman Catholicism on the questions of papal authority, the nature of the church, and a number of other consequent issues. Historically, the Orthodox Church is both "pre-Protestant" and "pre-Roman Catholic" in the sense that many modern Roman Catholic teachings were developed much later in Christian history.

The word catholic is a Greek word [καθολικός] meaning "having to do with wholeness." We do consider ourselves "Catholic" in that sense of the word, that is, as proclaiming and practicing "the Whole Faith." In fact, the full title of our Church is "The Orthodox Catholic Church."

We find that Protestants readily relate to Orthodoxy's emphasis on personal faith and the Scriptures. Roman Catholics easily identify with Orthodoxy's rich liturgical worship and sacramental life. Roman Catholic visitors often comment, "in lots of ways your Liturgy reminds me of our old High Mass."

Many of the "polarities" between Protestants and the Roman Communion (i.e., "Word versus Sacrament" or "Faith versus Works") have never arisen in the Orthodox Church. We believe Orthodox theology offers the "western" denominations a way in which apparently opposite differences can be reconciled.

Courtesy of St Paul's Greek Orthodox Church

Halloween

The following is from an essay called A Pastoral Word on Halloween: The Joyous Feast of Pumpkin

It is that time of the year when the secular society in which we live is preparing for the festival of Halloween. Many do not know its spiritual roots and history, and why it contradicts the teachings of the Church. The feast of Halloween began in pre-Christian times among the Celtic peoples of Great Britain, Ireland and northern France. These pagan peoples believed that life was born from death. Therefore they celebrated the beginning of the "new year" in the fall when, as they believed, the season of cold, darkness, decay and death began. A certain deity whom they called Samhain was believed by the Celts to be the Prince of Death and it was he whom they honored at their New Year's festival.

From an Orthodox Christian point of view, we can see many diabolical beliefs and practices associated with this feast which have endured to this time. On the eve of the New Year's festival, the Druids, who were the priests of the Celtic cult, instructed their people to extinguish all hearth fires and lights. On the evening of the festival, a huge bonfire built from oak branches (oak was regarded by the Celts as sacred) was ignited. Upon this fire sacrifices were burned as an offering in order to appease and cajole Samhain, the Prince of Death. It was also believed that Samhain, being pleased by the offerings, allowed the souls of the dead to return to their homes for a festal visit on this day. It is from this belief that the practice of wandering about in the dark dressed up in costumes imitating ghosts, witches, hobgoblins, fairies, etc. grew up. For the living entered into fellowship and communion with the dead by what was, and still is, a ritual act of imitation, through costume and the activity of wandering around in the dark of night, even as the souls of the dead were believed to wander.

The dialogue of trick or treat is also an integral part of this system of beliefs and practices. It was believed that the souls of the dead who had entered into the world of darkness, decay and death, and therefore into total communion with and submission to Samhain, bore the affliction of great hunger on their festal visit. Out of this grew the practice of begging, which was a further ritual enactment and imitation of what the Celts believed to be the activities of the souls of the dead on their festal visit. Associated with this is the still further implication that if the souls of the dead and their imitators were not appeased with "treats", i.e., offerings, then the wrath and anger of Samhain would be unleashed through a system of "tricks", i.e. curses. Such is the true meaning of this pagan feast. It is then evident that for an Orthodox Christian participation at any level is impossible and idolatrous, resulting in a genuine betrayal of God and Church. If we participate in the ritual activity of imitating the dead and wandering in the dark asking for treats or offering them to children, we then have willfully sought fellowship with the dead, whose Lord is not Samhain, but rather Satan. It is to Satan then that these treats are offered, not to children.

There are other practices associated with Halloween from which we must stay away, such as sorcery, fortune telling, divination, games of chance, witchcraft and the carving of an ugly face upon a pumpkin and then placing a lit candle within the infamous Jack O' Lantern. The pumpkin (in older days other vegetables were used) was carved by the Celts in imitation of the dead and used to convey the new light (from the sacred oak fire) to the home where the lantern was left burning through the night. This "holy lantern" is no other than an imitation of the truly holy votive light (lampada) offered before an icon of Christ and the saints. Even the use and display of the Jack O'Lantern involves participation in this "death" festival honoring Satan.

The Holy Fathers of the first millennium (a time when the Church was one and strictly Orthodox) counteracted this Celtic pagan feast by introducing the Feast of All Saints. It is from this that the term Halloween developed. The word Halloween has its roots in the Old English of All Hallow E'en, i.e., the Eve commemorating all those who were hallowed (sanctified), i.e. Halloween Unfortunately, either due to lack of knowledge or understanding, the Celtic pagan feast being celebrated on the same day as the Christian feast of All Saints (in western Christiandom) came to be known as Halloween.

The people who remained pagan and therefore anti-Christian reacted to the Church's attempt to supplant their festival by celebrating this evening with increased fervor. Many of these practices involved desecration and mockery of the Church's reverence for Holy Relics. Holy things, such as crosses and the Reserved Sacrament, were stolen and used in perverse and sacrilegious ways. The practice of begging became a system of persecution designed to harass Christians who were, by their beliefs, unable to participate by making offerings to those who served the Lord of Death.
One can see in contemporary Western society that the Western Church's attempt to supplant this pagan festival with a Christian feast failed. How then did something that is so obviously contradictory to the Holy Orthodox faith gain such acceptance among Christian people?

The answer is spiritual apathy and listlessness which are the spiritual roots of atheism and turning away from God. Today's society urges one that Halloween and other such festivities, notwithstanding their apparent pagan and idolatrous origin, are nonetheless harmless and of no consequence. Upon closer consideration these pagan festivals are the source for destroying any kind of spiritual foundation and lead to disbelief and outright atheism.

Halloween undermines the very basis of the Church which was founded on the blood of martyrs who had refused, by giving up their lives, to partake in any form of idolatry.

Holy Mother Church must take a firm stand in counteracting any such (pagan) events. Christ taught us that God is the judge in all our actions and beliefs and that we are either FOR GOD or AGAINST GOD. There is no neutral or middle of the road approach.

Today we witness a revival of satanist cults; we hear of satanic services conducted on Halloween night. Children are kidnapped by satanists for their ritualistic sacrifices. Orthodox clergy are ritualistically killed as has happened more than once in California. Everywhere Satan reaches out to ensnare as many innocent people as possible. The newsstands are filled with material on spiritualism, supernatural phenomena, seances, prophesies and all sorts of demonically inspired works. These works all serve Satan, for they are not the fruit of the Holy Spirit, but the fruit of the spirit of this world.

Գրիգոր Լուսաւորիչ

In the year 301, Armenia became the first nation in history to adopt Christianity as its official religion. Yesterday, old calendar churches celebrated the memory of the man responsible for bringing the Faith to the region, Saint Gregory, Enlightener of Armenia.

Years before Armenia's conversion, its emperor, Tiridates, who was a pagan and a friend of St Gregory, demanded that Gregory renounce his faith, which the latter refused.

The following is from the oca.org website:

The steadfastness of the saint embittered Tiridates, and he gave his faithful servant over to cruel tortures: they suspended the sufferer head downwards with a stone about his neck, for several days they choked him with a stinking smoke, they beat and ridiculed him, and forced him to walk in iron sandals inset with nails. At the time of these sufferings St Gregory sang Psalms. In prison the Lord healed all his wounds. When Gregory again stood before the emperor cheerful and unharmed, he was astonished and gave orders to repeat the torments. St Gregory endured them, not wavering, with all his former determination and bearing. They then poured hot tin over him and threw him into a pit filled with vipers. The Lord, however, saved His chosen one: the snakes did him no harm.

During this time the emperor Tiridates executed the holy virgin St Rhipsime, the aged abbess Gaiana and another 35 virgins from one of the monasteries of Asia Minor. As punishment for this horrible deed, the king's face became disfigured.

St Gregory was released from the pit, and buried the relics of the holy virgins with honor. Then he began to preach to the people, urging them to turn away from the darkness of idolatry and toward Christ. The people came to believe in Christ, and wished to build a large church. When it was completed, St Gregory had the relics of the holy nuns brought into it. Then he brought King Tiridates there before the bodies of the saints whom he had slain. He repented, and immediately his face was made whole once more. Soon all of Armenia was converted to Christ. The temples of the idols were destroyed, and churches for the worship of the true God were built. St Gregory ordained priests, established schools, founded monasteries, and provided for the good order of the Church. St Gregory went into the wilderness, where he departed to the Lord. His son Aristanes was made a bishop in Cappadocia, and was one of the 318 holy Fathers at the Council of Nicea.

Christianity in Iraq, Part 8

After viewing this final video in my Iraq series, readers are asked to do the following:
1) Read this article from over the weekend: Christians flee Iraqi city
2) Visit this website, and forward it to every Christian you know: Iraqi Christians in Need
3) Most importantly, include in your prayers every day the many suffering Christians in Iraq.

Christianity in Iraq, Part 7

A beautiful and stirring tribute to two Syriac Orthodox Christian martyrs.

Note: The flag you will see is that of the Syriac-Aramaic People

Christianity in Iraq, Part 6

Christianity in Iraq, Part 5

The woman being interviewed mentions Fr. Ragheed Ganni, who, with three deacons, was gunned down on the steps of his church in Mosul on 3 June, 2007, while I was in Kirkuk.

Chrisitanity in Iraq, Part 4

Christianity in Iraq, Part 3

Continued from yesterday...

Christianity in Iraq, Part 2

Christianity in Iraq, Part 1

When the Apostles disbursed throughout the known world, St Thomas and his disciples headed east to spread the Gospel in India, establishing churches along the way in Palestine, Mesopotamia, and Parthia. He eventually died a martyr's death in India after baptizing hundreds of Asians into the Church.

While I was in Kirkuk, I learned that some of the churches St Thomas founded in northern Iraq still exist and practice the Liturgy in Aramaic.

In honor of St Thomas, whose feast is celebrated today in churches that follow the new calendar, the next several posts on this blog will be dedicated to something about which we hear very little: Iraqi Christians.

This series is not intended to incite a discussion of how or why these Christians found themselves in the situation they are in, nor to speculate on the best political remedy. There are plenty of other places online for that sort of discussion.

It is meant to prompt awareness of a population of Christians who are suffering and need our prayer.

Follow-up to "'...salt...not sugar...'"

In a previous post, I quoted an article by Charles Spurgeon entitled Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats? in which he denounced the entertainment-based worship of the nineteenth-century Protestant evangelical movement. The point of my post, of course, was to question the propriety of such practices in today's worship communities.

In response, one of my readers brought up an excellent question: What about being "all things to all men?" (1Co 9.22)

I think it's a good idea, first of all, to remember that Paul can be easy to misread (2Pet 3.15-16), so we might consider that, when he says he tries to be "all things to all men," he doesn't mean that he tries to worship God in the most culturally relevant manner possible in order to win converts.

I know, dear reader, that you were as appalled as I was by the video I showed you of the clown Mass. But I have to wonder why that bothered you so much. Doesn't it fall under the "all things to all men" heading? I imagine you felt that a clown troupe serving Communion was simply over the line, but the problem, I think, is determining where that line is: where does appropriate become inappropriate? If rock and roll and laser light shows and cutting-edge multimedia on a Sunday morning can be justified with the "all things to all men" argument, what can't be? Honestly. Why not a nudist church? Is that over the line? There's nothing inherently sinful or evil about nudity and it's a good way to be "all things" to the nudists. Wouldn't you agree?

What about the church whose pastor dresses up like the Joker and the Incredible Hulk in order to make his sermons more timely?

Or the church in which the parishioners don Star Wars costumes and sing hymns to the tune of the Star Wars theme?

Are these over the line? If so, then where exactly is the line, and how can we be sure that drum sets and "dramas" are on the proper side of it?

I submit that the line is still way back where someone decided that being "all things to all men" meant that Sunday morning worship should conform to the latest cultural impulses.

If St Paul walked into Grace Community Church on a Sunday morning, would he have any idea what was going on? Would he praise them for being "all things to all men," or would he scold them for having "conformed to the world" (Rom 12.2)?

Don't forget that Paul also wrote that we should "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them" (Ep 5.8-12). Is this done by allowing the secular world to influence our spiritual lives? By conforming the sacred to the profane?

Is it done by teaching converts to the Faith that worship of God Almighty need not be any more holy and reverent than a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert? Or by giving kids the idea that the Holy Scriptures are to be given the same honor as a comic book or an issue of Cosmo or Glamour? Is it done by allowing people to believe that attending worship should be as convenient and comfortable as watching the latest summer blockbuster from the front seat of their SUV? Or that there's nothing whatsoever inappropriate about merging Sunday worship with football?

Honestly, what's next?

When the Apostles went into the world to spread the Gospel, they didn't sacrifice the holiness and reverence of the Sunday worship in order to win converts. They learned the language, ate the food, they may even have dressed or shaved according to local customs. That's how they became "all things." They also translated the Liturgy into the local language, but they never abandoned it; they never allowed popular culture to supplant God-ordained worship. They knew that "friendship of the world is enmity with God (Jam 4.4)" and that to confuse holy worship with popular culture was to leave God behind.

In a brilliant article entitled Mission and Worship - America and the Orthodox, Fr. Stephen Freeman relates a story about Orthodox missionaries in Alaska, who "found a tribe of Native Alaskans who lived exclusively on cariboo [sic]. There were no vegetables in their diet - only cariboo. The first conundrum arose with the question of fasting. It is traditional for Orthodox to fast from meat, fish, wine, dairy and olive oil during a fast period (such as Great Lent). What to tell these native Alaskans? The missionaries wrote back to the Bishop who responded: 'During the fast, tell them to eat less cariboo.' A perfect Orthodox solution."

That's being "all things to all men."

Now, having said all that, are there ever situations in which popular music, laser-light shows, dramatic performance, or cutting-edge multimedia are appropriate? I would say that yes there are. In a church-sponsored coffee house setting, or a Wednesday night gathering, maybe even a talent show hosted by the local parish. These things take place and they're fine and they attract people. But again, we have to ask, at what point do we cross the line? I think that's one of those you'll-know-when-you-get-there situations. Keep in mind St Paul's instruction to "test all things; hold fast to that which is good" (1Th 5.21). A worship body that truly allows itself to be guided by the Holy Spirit will be able to recognize the point at which "God-honoring" becomes "man-honoring" and will avoid it. However, the church that chooses to abandon holiness in favor of spectacle presumes much by presuming guidance by the Holy Spirit.

I think it's fair to say that the way in which a church body conducts its Sunday worship is a pretty good indication of it's view of God.

So, when a seeker walks into Sunday morning worship, should he be entering into the presence of the King of Kings, the Creater of the Universe, Who is Holy, and Eternal, and Unequaled, and Unsearchable? When he goes to church on a Sunday morning, should he be taught to bow before the throne of "the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth"?

Or how to hang out with his buddy Jesus?

The Scriptures never promised that preaching "Christ and Him crucified" would be cool or sexy or hip or relevant, but would be regarded as a "stumbling block" and as "foolishness" (1Co 1.23).

If there is a place in church for entertainment, and I think there is, it should not be in place of proper Sunday worship. We should be all things to all men, but never at the expense of holiness, dignity, mystery, awe, beauty, or reverence.

Here again let me recommend Fr. Stephen's article:
Mission and Worship - America and the Orthodox

And, while you're at it, read these:
The Circus Church
In Spite of all the Church Entertainment...
Young adults aren't sticking with church
Americans Leaving Churches in Droves

Things You'll Never See in an Orthodox Church, Part 7

Q&A

Q: What is the position of the Orthodox church on the full gifts of the gospels, specifically, speaking in new tongues? Also, do you believe that the age of miracles is passed?

A: Concerning the gifts of the Holy Spirit and specifically speaking in new tongues, I offer the following observations:

While the Orthodox Church does not deny this gift in any way, it does acknowledge that this gift is rarely given, spontaneous, and only evident in cases of need. On the day of Pentecost, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, the apostles proclaimed the Good News to all who would listen. Acts notes that there were many people from many lands in Jerusalem at the time, celebrating the Jewish feast of Pentecost. Many languages were spoken. Acts continues by stating that every one in the crowd heard and understood the apostles as if they were speaking in their own tongues. This gives rise to speculation: does speaking in tongues mean that someone is speaking in a language he or she does not know, or does it imply that he or she is speaking in his or her own language but that the Holy Spirit miraculously enables his or her listeners to understand, even if his or her listeners do not know the speaker's language?

It follows that on the day of Pentecost there was a clear need for this manifestation: everyone was from a different land and spoke a different language. However, everyone understood. This clearly implies that speaking in tongues is not meaningless babbling, but readily understood speech and language.

While on the day of Pentecost there was a need, due to varying languages, in the case of a group of people who all speak and understand the same language, what would be the purpose of tongues? In Scripture we do not find other indications or references to the apostles speaking in tongues, other than on the day of Pentecost. Perhaps it was because no such need had made itself evident.

It is only my personal opinion, but I think the Orthodox Church would say that "regularly scheduled" speaking in tongue sessions conducted by individuals who speak the same language somehow miss the point. For example, it seems inconceivable to say, "Welcome to our mid-week prayer service. From 7:00 until 7:30 we will pray and sing hymns, and then we will speak in tongues."If everyone speaks the same language, what is being revealed? If what is uttered is not intelligible to the hearers, what is being communicated?

If it is a way of showing who in a congregation is filled with the Holy Spirit and who isn't, it constitutes heresy, for the Holy Spirit is everywhere present and fills all things, including those individuals who have been created in God's image and likeness yet who reject the very notion. Scripture is very clear that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are never to become sources of personal pride.

With regard to miracles, surely there can be no end to the age of miracles, for God is present everywhere and at all times in the midst of His people. This in itself is a miracle.

If, however, by miracles we are referring only to physical healings, flashing lights, unexplained phenomena, and the like, then we may very well be disappointed. Christ Himself condemned those who continually wished to see signs, or miracles. And Scripture is clear that even those who witnessed miracles with their own eyes often rejected that which they had experienced.

Read the account of the resurrection of Lazarus; everyone witnessed Lazarus walking out of his tomb, yet Scripture says that immediately this created a division among the people, with some greeting Christ the very next day with palm branches as He entered Jerusalem while other witnesses sought a means by which they might put Him to death. "If we don't stop Him, the whole world will chase after Him."

Indeed, we believe in miracles -- the real miracle, however, is discoverning God's presence in our lives; discerning His voice, small and still as it may be, as the Prophet Elijah did -- and keeping still and silent so we can hear His voice and discern His will for our lives; accepting His call and invitation to live in this world while not being of this world; etc. Healings do occur, but as Christ Himself states in every case, healings are not only signs of God's power and love but also signs of tremendous faith on the part of the one healed -- "Your faith has made you whole."

Finally, one of the greatest miracles that can occur today, in this age of personal issues, lack of self esteem, and the ongoing search to discover "who am I," is the recognition of ourselves and our very lives as miracles. As Saint John of Kronstadt, the late-19th century Orthodox saint, once wrote, "Lord, I am a miracle of Thy love. ..."

With regard to what we might call phenomenal miracles -- weeping icons, faces of Jesus appearing on walls, and the like -- Saint John Chrysostom offers good advice: they may be a revelation from God, or they may be a deception from Satan. If we are living according to the teachings and example of Christ, however, we should not make much of them.

Courtesy of oca.org

For further reading:
Speaking In Tongues: An Orthodox Perspective
Speaking in Tongues
Orthodixie: Speaking in Tongues?

Pews

One of the many things about Orthodox Christianity that initially struck me as odd was that, in many Orthodox houses of worship, there are no pews.

I know. It sounds strange, doesn't it?

Although the lack of pews is certainly not as common in the U.S. as in other parts of the world, in very conservative churches, such as the one that Kathryn and I have been attending, there is simply an open area in the nave where worshippers stand for the entire service, except during the sermon, when they may make use of benches along the walls. Of course, anyone who is elderly, sick, or in pain is permitted to take a load off should they feel the need. But, even in churches where pews are present, the worshippers typically stand for nearly the entire duration of the Liturgy.

To be honest, before I became interested in Orthodoxy, I never even thought about pews. It didn't even occur to me that they were optional. I have since noticed, however, that the Orthodox worship on their feet, their knees, or their faces, but never on their back sides.

"We stand during worship services out of reverence and humility before God," writes an Orthodox lay person. "The absence of rigid pews gives us freedom to move about the Church and feel at home. We are free to venerate icons and light candles, as well as to bow and do the prostrations necessary at times during worship."

In an article called The Liturgical Effectiveness of Pews: A Call for Liturgical Renewal, the writer, who strongly opposes the use of pews in Orthodox worship, argues that pews...
...make us spectators rather than participants.
...teach us that discomfort has no place in the Christian life.
...restrict our freedom of movement.
...make worship "formal and frosty."
...make it easier for kids not to pay attention to what's going on up front.
...encourage the dangerous notion that it's important for church to be "relevant."
...make it very difficult to prostrate.

I have recently learned that no church, neither in the east nor in the west, had pews until the late Reformation. And, interestingly, there has historically been some serious objection by Protestants to the the use of pews.

In an article from 1841 entitled The History of Pues, Anglican scholar John Mason Neale condemned pews as "the intrusion of human pride, and selfishness, and indolence, into the worship of GOD," and as "eye-sores and heart-sores."

A Presbyterian minister named Isaac Todd wrote in an 1851 article, The Posture in Prayer, that sitting in church is "grievously improper whenever the infirmities of the worshipper do not render it necessary." Reverend Todd argued that only certain postures during prayer have any scriptural support: prostration, kneeling, kneeling while sitting on the heels, bowing the head while standing, and standing erect.
"Many and weighty are the objections to a congregation’s sitting in prayer," writes Todd. "It is a practice directly at variance with the principal ends had in view by the great Head of the Church in instituting public worship."
He goes on to list his specific objections to sitting during worship:
1) "Sitting in prayer is never expressive of either solicitude or reverence."
2) "Sitting in prayer is an indolent posture; consequently, its tendency is to produce a spirit of lounging indifference."
3) "When we keep our seats in prayer, we do violence to the instinctive sense of propriety which God has made a part of our very being."
4) "As often as we sit in prayer we disregard in many ways the laws of association, which God in his goodness has made a part of our very nature."
5) "Sitting in prayer is not only contrary to the usage of our Presbyterian ancestors, but also to that of the church in general for more than 1800 years after the coming of Christ."
6) "By sitting in prayer, we give others to understand that we make very little, or make nothing of our bodies. (the point being that by standing in prayer we are worshipping God with our whole bodies)
7) "By sitting in prayer we give the rising generation to understand also that we may with propriety, when moved by mere caprice, set aside any long established usage."

The question of pews is certainly not one over which I would fall on my sword, and I'm confident that most Orthodox clergy and laity would say the same. But, if the absence of pews enhances my ability to worship, then I am happy to do without them.