Holy Day?

A recent conversation I had involving the topic of whether "Happy Holidays" is an appropriate or tolerable phrase for Christians inspired me to do a little research yesterday.

During the conversation, I had wondered aloud whether the people who complain the loudest about the use of the phrase "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas," and who every year object to the "secularization" of Christmas in the "public square" and in the "marketplace," and who demand that we "keep Christ in Christmas," even bother to attend church on Christmas day. That in turn got me wondering whether most churches (except Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and other liturgical churches) are even open on Christmas.

I don't remember ever—even once—during my upbringing as an Evangelical Christian attending church on Christmas day. Christmas Eve, yes, but never on Christmas day.

So I decided to makes some calls. I contacted fifty local (and two out-of-state) Evengelical churches to find out who was holding services on Christmas day and who was not. Out of fifty-two Evengelical churches, a total of ...zero... were planning to celebrate Christmas on Christmas. In fact fifteen of them (that's 30%) weren't even having services on Christmas Eve! One of the churches that was planning four Christmas Eve services, not only wasn't planning to be open on Christmas day, but wasn't even having services on the 26th...that's a Sunday! Another church was planning a New Years party, and yet another was planning a "burning bowl" ceremony on the 31st (according to the receptionist, that's where you write down all your problems and concerns for the coming year and toss them into a flaming bowl for "god" to receive). Some churches were scheduled to have "candlelight" servies only on the 24th, others on the 23rd and 24th; five churches were planning three or more pre-Christmas services. But not one, I repeat: not a single one was planning to come together as a community on the feast of God's Incarnation in the flesh to celebrate His birth of a Virgin as foretold by the Prophets. Not one.

So, what's my point in all this? My point is that anyone who can't be bothered to get dressed and go to church on Christmas morning might do well to rethink whether or not they have a leg to stand on when demanding that people say "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays." I have heard people say of politics that if you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the government. I believe the same principle applies here: if you don't make a practice of attending church on Christmas day, you forfeit your right to complain when someone else says "Happy Holidays."

Furthermore, I would suggest that anyone who attends a church that doesn't even bother to open its doors on Christmas (even if it happens to fall on a Sunday!) is not to be taken seriously when they complain about the secularization of Christmas in the "public square" or when they boycott retailers and other businesses for not giving Christmas its proper respect. (see also here, here, here, here, etc...) My guess (and I welcome your correction if I am wrong) is that these churches have also done away with any observance whatsoever of any other event in the life of Christ (like His baptism, or His presentation in the Temple, or His Transfiguration, or His Ascension), or of the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost; and heaven forbid they should ever commemorate Mary or the Saints!*

I think it's pretty safe to say (and, again, please correct me if I'm wrong) that a lot of these churches that choose to lock their doors on Christmas, and that have decided to eliminate altogether the many other beautiful holy days throughout the year are the same ones that use theater seating, laserlight shows, rock bands, multimedia, and dramatic performance to entertain communicate their message. And these are probably the same ones that have removed from their building any visual cues that would identify the place as a house of worship (except maybe a cross above the rock band).

The "worship space" looks like a high school auditorium hosting a battle-of-the-bands contest, the "praise and worship" music sounds like something you would (and sometimes do) hear on any secular radio station, the feasts of the church are gone, any sense of majesty: gone; any sense of spirituality: gone; any sense of beauty, wonder, humilty, dignity, or awe: gone; any motivation to humble oneself before their Creator: gone. In other words, these places are about as secular as a "Christian" community can possibly be and yet there are people who attend them that actually have the temerity to complain, not about the secularization of their own churches, but about the secularization of the secular world. Hey folks; I undersand you want to put Christ "back into Christmas," but how about first putting Him back into Christianity!

If there is, in fact, a "war on Christmas," it is being LOST in American Evangelical "churches." Please pray for these people, that the scales may fall from their eyes and that they will allow the Lord to lead them into His Church.


*And yet, curiously, some modern churches have adopted the practice of observing Jewish holidays! That's right: they have eliminated all the ancient Christian Holy Days (except for one, Easter. Although I wonder: would these churches even celebrate Easter if it didn't happen to fall on a Sunday every year?) and have replaced them with non-Christian festivals! The old Jewish observances were given for the purpose of foretelling the coming of the Messiah. Now that the Messaiah has come, there is no need to celebrate them. Modern Evangelical Christians would know this if they had not completely lost touch with historic Christianity.

And please don't tell me that merely holding a candlelight Christmas Eve service is equivalent to celebrating Christmas, especially if you're unwilling to allow that "Happy Holidays" is as acceptible a greeting as "Merry Christmas." Christmas is, after all, one of the holiest days of the Christian calendar. At least to some of us...

Things You'll Never See in an Orthodox Church, Part 26

I must admit, I have always enjoyed listening to Rage Against the Machine, even if I cannot completely agree with their message. Below is a video of a band performing a Rage song called "Bulls on Parade," which was written to denounce the American military-industrial complex. To tell the truth, It's actually a pretty decent performance (although the guitarist is no Tom Morello). The problem is that the performance takes place in what claims to be a church (a place where the pastor likes to deliver sermons like one entitled "You Don't Suck Anymore" and where is the music is so loud that they "offer earplugs to anyone who wants them."). I have said before that I have no problem with the use of contemporary music in church, as long as it's appropriate, decent music (not a re-worded version of a secular pop song, like this one where the F-word has to be removed) and as long as it's not on Sunday. That's the Lord's Day, not yours!!!

As you watch this, keep in mind that this performance is taking place at a Sunday morning worship service; compare it to the dignified, holy, Christ-centered worship of the Orthodox Church and see if you can guess which is more pleasing to God.

Texas Pastor: Worship is About Christ, Not Impressing Crowds

Here is a Baptist minister who might just be on his way to getting it...
It's very easy for music to become the point during worship in the church, said a Southern Baptist.

But LifeWay Worship Director Mike Harland told pastors that it's not about better bands, advanced technology, newer copyright dates or newer models. Rather, it's about revealing the person of Jesus Christ and giving Him the adoration that is due.
"We don't want to gather trying to impress crowds with our technology, our innovation or creativity, but to passionately worship the God who saves," he said Tuesday at a one-day conference on "Transformational Small Churches."

Harland cited research from the recently released book Transformational Church, which was based on a survey of more than 7,000 Protestant churches and interviews with more than 250 of the church pastors.

The book, written by LifeWay's Ed Stetzer and Thom S. Rainer, identified transformational church principles and among them was a worship that actively embraces Jesus.

"God didn't call us to lead music or to perform worship services for the people's enjoyment," Harland said. "God called us to engage people in the experience of expressing their worship and praise to God."
...

"It's not enough just to put the word of adoration in the mouths of God's people. We've got to tell the story about who Jesus is," Harland underscored.
...

"What do transformational churches do?" Harland posed to pastors at the conference. "They don't get a rock band, they don't get a projection system, they don't get a fog machine. They show people who Jesus is and then give people the opportunity to respond to Him in worship and adoration."
source.

Okay, but instead of reinventing the wheel with "transformational churches," why not save yourself a lot of hassle and do it the way the Church has been doing it for two thousand years? There simply is no worship that better shows who Jesus is.

The Rapture

I listen nearly every day to a local Evangelical radio personality who discusses news, politics, science and other topics from a "Christian perspective." I disagree with him around 85% of the time, but he's entertaining so I continue to listen. On Friday he interviewed a woman who had written a novel concerning the sorts of horrors that await those who are not spirited away in the "Rapture." They spoke--as Evangelicals do--as if the "Rapture" is a dogma of the Faith and is as certain to happen as the Second Coming itself.
Folks, I have news for you: the "Rapture" is not a dogma of the Faith. It is an idea that was invented less than two hundred years ago. You will find no mention of it in the Bible or in the writings of any of the Church Fathers.

The following is courtesy of Mystagogy (emphases and links are added):

By Fr. Anthony M. Coniaris

As I was driving one day I encountered a bumper sticker admonishing me:

“WARNING! In the event of Rapture, this car will be driverless.”

The strange belief in the Rapture teaches that some day (sooner rather than later), without warning, born-again Christians will begin to float up from the freeway, abandoned vehicles careening wildly. There will be airliners in the sky suddenly with no one at the controls! Presumably, God is removing these favored ones from earth to spare them the tribulation of the Anti-Christ which the rest of us will have to endure.
Unfortunately the Rapture has been promoted widely by the Left Behind series of books that have sold over 70 million copies.

The Rapture represents a radical misinterpretation of Scripture. I remember watching “Sixty Minutes” a year ago and was appalled to hear the announcer say that “the Rapture is an unmistakenly Christian doctrine”. It is not!

It is a serious distortion of Scripture.

It is astonishing that a belief so contrary to Scripture and the tradition of the Church could be propagated by so-called “Christians”.

According to the Bible and according to the belief not only of Orthodox Christians but also of the Roman Catholic and most Protestant mainline churches, the true Rapture will not be secret; it will be the great and very visible Second Coming of Jesus at the end of the world. That is the one and only “Rapture”. It will not be a separate, secret event but one that "every eye shall see" (1 Thess. 4:16-17).

The word rapture is not found in Scripture but hearkens to 1 Thess. 4:17 where St. Paul says that when the Lord comes again “we who are alive…shall be caught up…in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.”

This “being caught up…in the clouds” — arpagisometha in Greek - is translated by some as “raptured”. The word itself is not found in Orthodox theology.

The notion of a rapture in which Christ comes unseen to take believers away secretly, and only later comes back again for everyone else publicly—this whole teaching is quite novel. It was almost unheard of until John Nelson Darby formulated it in the 1800s as part of a new approach to the Bible, sometimes called “dispensationalism”.

The purpose of the “Rapture” is to protect the elect from the tribulations of the end times. Yet Jesus said nothing about sparing anyone from tribulation. In fact, He said, “In the world you have tribulation, but be of good cheer. I have overcome the world.”

Nowhere did Jesus ever say that He would return secretly to rapture the elect. Rather, He promised to be with His elect in all tribulations.

“Lo, I am with you always.” “I will never leave you or forsake you.” He even had something good to say about being persecuted: “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:10).

Those who espouse the Rapture claim that Matthew 24:40-41 refers clearly to the rapture of the just, “Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.”

The entire passage, however, refers to Christ’s second coming where He will judge the living and the dead and separate the just from the unjust.

Darby taught as dogma that when the Scriptures reveal that the Lord will reign on earth for a thousand years (Rev. 20:4), this figure is to be taken literally, rather than as a symbol for eternity as we believe. The Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 condemned as heresy this teaching which is called Chialiasmos (millenianism or 1000 years).

In fact, the Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787 A.D.) in which the essential truths of the Christian faith were defined never mention a rapture. Yet Evangelical Christians and Pentecostals keep using obscure passages of the Book of Revelation which purport to give a detailed timetable of what will happen at the end of the world, despite the fact that Jesus Himself warned that no man knows either the day or the hour when the Son of Man shall return.

A major problem with the Rapture is that it ends up teaching not two but three comings of Jesus — first His birth in Bethlehem; second, His secret coming to snatch away (rapture) the “born-again”; and third, His coming at the end of the world to judge the living and the dead and to reign in glory. Yet only two not three comings of Christ are mentioned in the Bible. We have the clearest definition of this in the Nicene Creed when we confess that “the Lord Jesus Christ…will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. His Kingdom will have no end…. I expect the resurrection of the dead. And the life of the ages to come.”

There is no mention of a “Rapture”.

As already stated, most Christians, Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Protestants do not believe in the Rapture. In fact, one Protestant pastor, John L. Gray, summarized magnificently what we Orthodox and most other Christians believe about the Rapture when he wrote these remarkable words:

"Though many believe and teach this 'Pre-Tribulation Rapture' theory, they erroneously do so, because neither Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, nor any of the other writers of the Bible taught this. Nor did the early Church Fathers, nor any others for many hundreds of years…. Did you know that NONE of this was ever taught prior to 1812, and that all forms of Pre-Tribulation Rapture teaching were developed since that date? …. If I were to preach something, or believe something, supposedly from the Bible, but cannot find that ANYONE ELSE before 1812 ever believed it or taught it, I would seriously question that it is based on the Bible."

Thus the Rapture is foreign to the Bible and to the living tradition of the Church. It is what we call a heresy, a false teaching. False teachings, such as this, happen when people — like John Darby — believe that they have the right to interpret the Scriptures individually apart from the Living Body of Christ — the Church — where the Spirit of Truth abides and leads us to all truth.

I can think of no better words to conclude than those of Jesus when He speaks of the one and only “Rapture”, the Second Coming:

“Be on guard. Be alert! You do not know when that time will come…keep watch…if He comes suddenly, do not let Him find you sleeping. What I say to you, I say to everyone: Watch!” (Mark 13:32-37).

Church as Corporation; Pastor as CEO

Is this guy making disciples? This sort of thing is the exact opposite of what you find when you read the lives of the saints, which of course is something from which we all could benefit greatly.

Contemporvant

I just wanted to remind you of the sorts of cool, relevant things that you will me missing out on when you decide to start attending Orthodox Liturgy.
(from Byzantine, TX)

Wife of televangelist Benny Hinn files for divorce

The news here, in my opinion, isn't that she has filed for divorce, but that she managed to stay married to this nut for thirty years!!!

From the LA Times:

The wife of faith healer and televangelist Benny Hinn has filed for divorce in Orange County Superior Court.

The couple married in 1979 and have three daughters and a son, according to a biography on posted on the website for Benny Hinn Ministries.

The silver-haired Hinn is one of the world's most financially successful faith healers.

He lives in a multimillon-dollar home near Salt Creek Beach Park in Dana Point. And he has flown around the world in a leased Gulfstream jet to lead his "Miracle Crusades," during which tens of thousands of followers have packed stadiums and auditoriums to hear Hinn preach about the Gospel and God's healing powers.

Read the rest here.

"Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy" redux

If this series is anywhere near as good as the original (and I have no reason to think it's not), then I stongly suggest, as I did before, that everyone reading this drops what they're doing and links immediately to Ancient Faith Radio because it is a fascinating and worthwhile and enlightening series of lectures that is being re-recorded and broadcast in several weekly installments.

And, while you're at it, there's a ton of other good listening on AFR as well.

The Premodern Christian

From Byzantine Tx:

On one level, many Orthodox converts are fleeing megachurch Christianity. They are coming because they want something on Sunday morning besides a rock band and a giant plasma TV screen. Converts are also fleeing from mainline Protestantism, which is in the midst of a three-decade statistical nosedive and demographic suicide.

At the same time, I believe that most of these converts are coming out of that core 20 percent of their former churches. They are active, highly motivated people. They read, they think, they sing, and they serve. That hunger for more, that hunger for sound doctrine, is sending them to Orthodoxy.

These Orthodox converts are seeking mystery. They want a non-fundamentalist approach to the faith, but they are not fleeing the faith of the ages. They are trying to get back to the trunk of the tree. All around them are churches that are either modern, postmodern, post-postmodern or post-post-postmodern.

Read the rest here

The coming evangelical collapse

"We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity."


Read the rest here.
Then immediately contact your nearest Orthodox church.

"Ten Deadly Trappings of Evangelism"

The following is taken from a blog called Kuo & Joe. Although it was written by a Baptist, it sums up that which is most offputting about modern Christian Evangelicalism, demonstrating—yet again—why all Christians should be Orthodox:

#1 The Sinner’s Prayer — The gates of hell have a special entrance reserved for people who thought that they had a ticket into heaven because someone told them all they needed to do was recite the "sinner’s prayer." I’ve searched through the entire New Testament and can’t find an example of anyone who was "saved" after reciting such a prayer. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that such prayer is worthless or that it can’t be used by the Holy Spirit. But salvation is not obtained by reciting a magical incantation as many, many, "Christians" will discover after it’s far, far, too late.

#2 Making Converts — I’ve always felt uneasy about the idea that Christians should be seeking to make converts. Am I wrong in thinking that the making of converts is a task associated with Islam, rather than Christianity? Perhaps I have a flawed understanding of the Gospel, but I always thought the purpose of evangelism is not to make converts but to make, as Christ commanded, disciples. Indeed, my primary complaint against each of the other nine methods on this list is that they are usually ineffective in instigating true conversion, much less helping make true disciples.

#3 "Do you know Jesus as…" — This is one question that needs never be asked for it shows (a) you do not know the person well enough, (b) the answer is yes and the person is a lousy Christian, or (c) the answer is no in which case you just activated their Fundie-alert system and caused them to switch their brains into ignore mode. Instead of asking about a "personal savior" you might want to simply try to get to know the person.

#4 Tribulationism — Ask a non-believer to give a rudimentary explanation of "the Rapture" and chances are they can provide a fairly accurate description of that concept. Ask the same person to give a basic explanation of the Gospel message, though, and they are likely to be stumped. The reason for this curious state of affairs is that evangelicals have promoted what I refer to as "Tribulationism" — an overemphasis on pre-millenial [sic] eschatology that overshadows the Gospel. I’m sure that somewhere in the three dozen novels that comprise the Left Behind series the Gospel message is presented. But there is something horribly wrong when the greatest story ever told is buried beneath a third-rate tale of the apocalypse.

#5 Testimonies — Several years ago, during a job interview for a Christian organization, my prospective employer asked me to tell him my "testimony." The fact that I was a Christian apparently wasn’t enough. I had to have a good conversion story to go along with my faith. Now you may have a great story about how the hound of Heaven" chased you down and gnawed on your leg until you surrendered. No doubt your story would make for a gripping movie of the week on Lifetime and lead to the making of numerous converts (see #1). But the harsh truth is that your story doesn’t much matter. You are only a bit player in the narrative thread; the main part goes to the Divine Protagonist. In fact, He already has a pretty good story so why not just tell that one instead?

#6 The Altar Call — If he tells men they are under obligation to receive Christ on the spot, and demands in God’s name that they decide at once, some who are spiritually unprepared will try to do so; they will come forward and accept directions and "go through the motions" and go away thinking they have received Christ, when all the time they have not done so because they were not yet able to do so. Man takes it on himself to try to bring that work to a precipitate conclusion, to pick the fruit before it is ripe; and the result is "false conversions," hypocrisy and hardening.

#7 Witnessing — Evangelism ain’t Amway. It is not a form of Multi-Level Marketing in which you get extra credit for the number of people in your network and you don’t get a great commission for the Great Commission. If you want to sell something door-to-door make it Amway products not the Good News.

If you want to be a more effective "witness for Christ" then start by doing what Christ did and love other people. Start by loving the "unlovable" — the smelly, unbathed men down at the mission, the annoying kids at church, the bonehead who cuts you off in traffic. Yes, you need to tell people about the Gospel. But that is evangelism, not "witnessing." In the context of the Christian life, "witness" should be a noun more often than a verb.

#8 Protestant Prayers — Last week one of my fellow coworkers, a young Catholic man, was asked to open our meeting with a prayer. Without hesitation he began reciting the "Lord’s prayer." Afterward I joked that, having come up with such a fine prayer, he might want to write it down for future use. What I didn’t say what how his recitation of the prayer made me uncomfortable.

First, I’m not used to hearing prayers that don’t contain the word "just" (as in "We just want to thank you Lord…") so it had an odd ring to it. Second, it seemed to violate the accepted standards for public prayer. I had always assumed that praying in public required being able to interlace some just-want-to’s in with some Lord-thank-you-for’s and be- with-us-as-we’s in a coherent fashion before toppping [sic] it all with an Amen. Third, I thought that prayers are supposed to be spontaneous–from the heart, off the top of the head–emanations, rather than prepackaged recitations. If it ain’t original, it ain’t prayer, right? Can I get an amen?

But where did this idea come from? We have entire books to teach us how to pray yet Jesus managed to wrap up the lesson in less than forty words. Why isn’t that prayer good enough for evangelicals to use? Why do our prayers sound nothing like His example? (And if you are wondering what prayer is doing on a list of evangelistic fixtures then we are really in trouble.)

#9 The Church Growth Movement — Sadly, this has moved from fad to fixture. Think I’m wrong? Ask the next person you see to define that phrase. In fact, ask the next 100 people you see. Let me know if you find anyone that tells you they think the church growth movement is a movement in the church to grow disciples.

#10 Chick Tracts — Chick Tracts are a tool of the devil. That fact — and yes it is a fact — is not changed just because you know a guy who knows a guy who heard testimony about a guy who said the Sinner’ Prayer after finding "The Long Trip" on the floor of a truck stop restroom.


Recommended reading:
Evangelical Fads Don't Always Reach Others

Q&A

Q: Orthodox churches are getting a significant number of converts from Western Christian traditions. Is that a reflection on Orthodoxy, on Western churches, or both?

A: To a great extent, many of the other churches are falling apart. The mainline Protestants, the Methodists, the Presbyterians. The Episcopalians have lost half their membership. The Baptists, even. The evangelical movement is already coming to an end. It's only about 100 years old in American culture, and it's kind of come to the fulfillment of its potential. The Orthodox Church is the fullness of the apostolic faith and the apostolic tradition. People find in it what they always thought Christianity should be.


From a USAToday interview with Met. Jonah, 12/10/2008

Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

I cannot recommend this highly enough.
It is a series of lectures given recently by Father Andrew Damick of St George Cathedral in Charleston, WV on the many differences (and a few similarities) between Orthodox Christianity and the many other religions--Christian and otherwise--that are out there.

It is a fascinating and thorough and fair examination of the history and core beliefs of these religions and I strongly suggest that you take the time to listen.

Clicking on each title below will link directly to the audio file. They take a little while to download (each lecture is over an hour long), but, believe me, it's worth it.


Lecture 1: Heterodoxy & Heresy (series introduction)

Lecture 2: Roman Catholicism

Lecture 3: Churches of the Classical Reformation (Lutherans, Calvinists, Reformed, Zwinglians, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Wesleyans)

Lecture 4: Churches of the Radical Reformation (Anabaptists, Baptists, Brethren, Amish, Mennonites, Restorationists, Adventists)

Lecture 5: Modern Revivalism (Pentecostalism, Charismatics, Evangelicalism)

Lecture 6: Non-Christian Religions (Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Sikhism, Wicca, Neo-paganism, Zoroastrianism, Modern Gnosticism, Animism)

Lecture 7: Non-Mainstream Christians (Swedenborgians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarian Universalists, Christadelphians, Christian Science, Unification Church ("Moonies"); also includes series conclusions)


From Christ in the Mountains by Fr. Andrew Damick

The Nation of Israel in Prophecy

The Nation of Israel in Prophecy, by Fr. Peter Gillquist (emphases added)

"When the Lord was coming to His voluntary Passion, He said to the disciples on the way: Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man shall be delivered as it was written of Him. Wherefore, let us, O brethren, accompany Him with spotless consciences and be crucified with Him, and with Him kill the pleasures of life, that we may live with Him, hear Him say: I am not ascending to the earthly Jerusalem to suffer, but to My Father and your Father, to My God, and your God, that I may draw you with Me to the Jerusalem above in the Kingdom of Heaven."
-Matins of Holy Monday

Many Orthodox Christians, especially those with roots in the Middle East, are bewildered by the degree of enthusiasm with which many American evangelicals support the modern state of Israel. In addition to reasons rooted in contemporary geopolitics, evangelical support for Israel is also based on a particular modern theological view of the Second Coining of Jesus Christ. It is this aspect of the evangelical perspective that I want to explore in this short booklet.

ISRAEL AND THE END TIMES
As revealed in the New Testament, Christians have always believed that Christ could come again at any time, "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye" (1 Corinthians 15:52). Saint Paul cried out, "O Lord, come!" (1 Corinthians 16:22). Saint John in Revelation quotes our Lord Jesus Christ as saying, "Surely I am coming quickly" (Revelation 22:20). The Nicene Creed teaches concerning the Second Coming of Christ, "And He will come again, with glory, to judge the living and the dead, and His Kingdom shall have no end."

But in the mid-nineteenth century, through the teaching of a little-known former Anglican clergyman named J. N. Darby, a modern alteration of the historic Orthodox understanding of the return of Christ began to form.

First, Darby taught as dogma that when the Scriptures reveal the Lord will reign for a thousand years (Revelation 20:4), this figure is to be taken literally, rather than as a symbol of eternity. Many modern Christians see the choice between the literal and symbolic views as a toss-up. But the Church-wide Council of Ephesus in AD 431 condemned the literal view as heresy. The council forbade it to be taught in the churches!

Next, the Darbyites came to believe in two comings of Christ. The first would be a "secret" coming, only for Christians, preceding a period of tribulation; the other would be a visible coming of Christ before the thousand-year reign begins. This view, often called the "rapture theory," is virtually unknown in Church history before Darby.

Ultimately, Darby's followers came to believe that before the secret coming of the Lord occurs, before the "rapture," the remnant people of Israel must return to the Holy Land. A huge number of today's evangelical and charismatic Protestant Christians have bought into this innovative speculation.

So, unlike the vast ranks of true Christians throughout history, modern evangelicals have come to embrace the view that today's Israel has a "manifest destiny" to the land of Palestine. They believe when the Old Testament teaches that Abraham's descendants will inherit the land, it refers to the modern political state of Israel. In contrast, Saint Paul, himself a Jew, teaches, "If you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:29). To be a descendant of Abraham today means you must belong to Christ our God.

Many evangelicals teach that May 24, 1948, the day Israel became a state, was a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Passages such as Ezekiel 36:24 are cited: "For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land." Evangelicals believe this refers to the end-time regathering of Israel. The Church, however, has traditionally understood Ezekiel's prophecy as referring to Israel's return home after the Babylonian captivity in 539 BC.

I spent the first half of my adult life in the evangelical movement. It was there I committed my life to Jesus Christ, and for that I am eternally grateful. It was there that I found I could trust the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. It was in my study of church history with fellow evangelicals that I and a host of others became Orthodox. So today, when Orthodox believers ask for help in explaining to evangelical Protestants how we Orthodox Christians see modern Israel in light of the Scriptures, I see some crucial points that must be made. Let me mention three.

1. The Old Covenant is over.
The covenant God made with Abraham blessed him and his descendants with the land of Canaan and set them apart as the people of God. This covenant was called "everlasting" because it would be fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who reigns forever. The Book of Hebrews calls the old covenant "a shadow of the good things to come" (Hebrews 10:1), for it was a preparation for the new covenant inaugurated by the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In order for the new covenant--which offers salvation to all, Jew and Gentile alike--to take effect, the promises of the old covenant had to be fulfilled. This was done in Christ. Thus, we read that God "has made the first [covenant] obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:13). Interestingly, the Book of Hebrews was written about AD 70. That same year the temple in Jerusalem, a last visible sign of the old covenant, was destroyed. Now, the people of God have in view the heavenly Jerusalem, the City of God, as reflected in the Holy Week hymn at the beginning of this booklet.

Let me offer an illustration to give us a better understanding of this transition of covenants. Some years back, Art Modell, owner of the Cleveland Browns, decided to move his football team to Baltimore. Cleveland struck a deal allowing the city to retain ownership of the name "Browns." They planned on another Browns team playing in their stadium. So Modell called his team the Baltimore Ravens. And today, the new Cleveland Browns are also in place.

Let's say that several centuries pass. The Browns are still playing in Cleveland. But some of Art Modell's descendants have come back to town, and they decide to lay claim to the whole operation. "We were here for years," they announce to the fans. "It's our team, we're the originals, and we're taking over." There'd be one giant ruckus in Cleveland! Heck, even the Pittsburgh fans would come to their aid! Orthodox Christians know that if Israel wants to form a secular state and regroup as a people, they certainly can do so. But they cannot claim to be there by divine intent. Why? Because in rejecting Jesus Christ as God and Messiah, the nation "gave up the franchise" as the people of God. There is no divine mandate justifying Israel's claims over Palestine. Or, as His Eminence, Metropolitan PHILIP says, "God is not in the real estate business."

The Apostle John wrote concerning Christ and the Jews, "He came to His own [Israel], and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him [Jew and Gentile alike], to them He gave the right to become children of God" (John 1:11, 12).

On the night He was betrayed, Jesus "took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins'" (Matthew 26:27,28). The old covenant is complete. It is fulfilled. The new has come, and it is everlasting.

2. The Church is the people of God
The prophet Isaiah, who wrote in about 700 BC, records God the Father speaking of His Son: "Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, / My Elect One in whom My soul delights! / I have put My Spirit upon Him; / He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles" (Isaiah 42:1). Long before the Son of God came to us in human flesh, the Jews were told by God through their own prophets that salvation would no longer be only for Israel. The Gentiles, too, would receive His justice.
And then the Father gives His Son a remarkable promise. "I, the Lord, have called You in righteousness, / And will hold Your hand; / I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, / As a light to the Gentiles" (Isaiah 42:6). Jesus Christ Himself would be a "covenant" and a "light" to Gentile believers. It is apparent the beloved Simeon had Isaiah's prophecy in mind when he held the infant Christ in his arms and acclaimed Him as "a light to bring revelation to the Gentiles, / And the glory of Your people Israel" (Luke 2:32).

Saint Peter, writing to the early Christians, acknowledges that his kinsmen who disbelieve in Christ have become disobedient to God. But in the Church, to Jew and Gentile alike, he brings great encouragement:

"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy" (1 Peter 2:9, 10).

It doesn't get any clearer than this. St. Peter, in this passage, calls the Church a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and the people of God. These are terms from the Old Testament used to describe ancient Israel. Does this mean God sees the Church as a new Israel? Saint Paul answers that question as he concludes his letter to the Galatians:

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God" (Galatians 6:15,16).

Why would the Apostle Paul call a Gentile church in Asia Minor "the Israel of God"? The answer comes earlier in his letter to the Galatians, when he discusses what it takes to be a true child of Abraham.

"Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, 'In you all the nations shall be blessed.' So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham'' (Galatians 3:7-9).

Remarkable! Through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, we in the Church have become children of Abraham, grafted into Israel, and we have received the blessings that God promised to Abraham. Israel is no longer those who live in a certain geographical place; it is not an ethnicity, it is not a political state. The true Israel continues on through history serving the King of kings, the resurrected and reigning Christ, as the Church. Instead of the earthly Jerusalem, the people of God seek the Jerusalem above.

3. Jesus told us this would happen!
I know people don't like long biblical quotes in brief essays like this. But I am asking that you read this passage carefully, because in it Jesus Christ goes on public record that the heritage of the old covenant Israel would be handed over to those who by faith embrace Him as the Son of God.

"'There was a certain landowner [God the Father] who planted a vineyard [Israel] and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers [the Jews] and went into a far country.
"Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent his servants [the prophets] to the vinedressers, that they might receive its fruit. And the vinedressers took his servants, beat one, killed one, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did likewise to them.
"Then last of all he sent his son [Jesus Christ] to them, saying, "They will respect my son."
But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, "This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance." So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?'
"They said to Him, 'He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.'
"Jesus said to them, 'Have you never read in the Scriptures: "The stone which the builders rejected / Has become the chief cornerstone. / This was the Lord's doing, / And it is marvelous in our eyes'? Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be aken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it' " (Matthew 21:33-43).

So often in the New Testament, when the Lord spoke a parable, the chief priests and Pharisees just didn't get it. But that's not the case here. Saint Matthew goes on to tell us, "Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them" (Matthew 21:45). Not only is this passage clear to the Christian Church, it was clear to the leaders of Israel. The Kingdom of God would be taken from Israel and given to a new nation, the Church of the living God. So the Scriptures make the case. The old covenant has been fulfilled; the new has come. It is the Church that is the people of God, the heirs of the promises made to Abraham, and the true Israel. And Jesus said it so clearly that even those who did not want to hear it understood.

For the Bible-believing evangelical, the Scriptures have spoken. Any claim that the modern state of Israel is somehow a fulfillment of God's prophetic timetable simply is not valid. The Kingdom of God is in the hands of others.

OUR MERCIFUL GOD
But there's one last thing. It is not an accident of history that after two thousand years, the Jews still exist as a people. And while most Jewish people have rejected Christ as God and Messiah, the Lord has not rejected them.

His Grace, Bishop KALLISTOS (Ware), in commenting on Saint Paul's letter to the Romans, says, "The Apostle refuses to regard this act of rejection on the Jewish side as something final. With far-reaching, unquenchable hope he looks beyond the present situation to the time when, so he is convinced, the whole of Israel will finally turn to Christ."

As Orthodox Christians, we must say with the Apostle Paul, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved" (Romans 10:1).

Being a Christian is being a martyr. One glorious day, all this conflict will be settled. God will wipe away every tear. There will be no more crying, no more pain. For now, it is with great tribulation that we enter the Kingdom of God. In the midst of our trouble, the Lord is still on His throne. And so we cry, "Blessed is our God always, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen."

For a thorough explanation of how the Orthodox Church views this and other related issues, read A Second Look at the Second Coming by T. L. Frazier, available from Conciliar Press.
Conciliar Press
P.O. Box 76
Ben Lomond, CA 95005-0076
(800) 967-7377 or (831) 336-5118

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

Early Church Fathers, Pt 2

The following is lifted directly from a blog entitled "From Protestant to Orthodox." It reflects one particular blogger's conversion experience; not necessarily mine. But it does give you something to think about. Enjoy.


I found the first group of documents I’d need, conveniently, in one little volume. The title of this quick, easy read is usually just The Apostolic Fathers and is available through many bookstores (or online here). There were several things that any good Baptist would take issue with within these men’s writings:

Baptism was seen as the moment when a believer is fully and truly born again

Infants were admitted to baptism

Worship was seen as liturgical and directly connected to Jewish ritual worship; spontaneous worship was nowhere to be seen

Obedience to one’s bishop and/or priest was seen as a direct measure of whether one was an obedient Christian

Salvation was seen as something that was a process and which the believer could, after having started it, forfeit through later unbelief

Fasting was outlined specifically before the end of the first century, and the way it was to be done was expected churchwide, not individually

The departed saints, as well as the angels, were seen as and sought as intercessors in prayer for those still in the flesh

The Church was seen as a single, visible body of believers that was guided by the Holy Spirit and protected from error; one of its chief characteristics was that its bishops (and, by extension, priests) could trace their ordination through the laying on of hands back to one of the apostles themselves

Salvation was never discussed in terms of Christ paying a debt to God the Father, but rather in terms of His defeating death by His Incarnation, transfiguration, death, and resurrection

The Eucharist was, time and again, referred to as the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Himself

My journey into the first century and a half of Christianity had left me, then, not with comforting answers of Evangelicalism’s fidelity to the New Testament Church, but with many more issues to confront. The second century, with the insistence of Irenaeus and others on an intermediate state of the dead between the end of this life and the final Judgement, along with affirmation of the beliefs of the Fathers of the first century, offered little promise to aligning itself with my current beliefs. Either the Church had slipped dangerously “off the rails” immediately after the death of the last apostle, or my reading of Scripture—and that of Evangelicals everywhere—was dangerously off-base!