text:
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-97614942017-04-23T07:09:11.588-05:00Fr. John Whiteford's News, Comments, & ReflectionsFr. John Whitefordhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-11645618868470172812017-04-21T13:43:00.001-05:002017-04-21T13:43:38.714-05:00Stump the Priest: Relics

The Relics of St. Sergius of Radonezh

Question: "What is the basis for venerating the relics of saints?"

The veneration of the relics of the saints is rooted in several Biblical truths, as well as in the Tradition of the Church.

1). Unlike the pagan Greeks, we believe in the goodness of creation. As we are told in Genesis 1:31, when God completed his work of creation:

"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good."
Consequently, we believe that God can and does use material things to impart grace, as is seen throughout both the Old and New Testaments.

 2). God honors those who honor him.

"for them that honor me I will honor, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed" (1 Samuel 2:30).

"if any man serve me, him will my Father honor" (John 12:26).

"Wondrous is God in His saints; the God of Israel, He will give power and strength unto His people. Blessed is God" (Psalm 67[68]:35 LXX).
3). God has worked miracles through the relics of the saints in Scripture.

We are told that when the Prophet Elijah was taken up to heaven in fiery chariot, his mantle fell to the Prophet Elisha:

"And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is the Lord God of Elijah? and when he also had smitten the waters, they parted hither and thither: and Elisha went over" (2 Kings 2:14).
Furthermore, when the Prophet Elisha himself died, he was buried in a cave, but then a man was raised from the dead by touching his relics. After his death, the Moabites invaded, and when some men where burying another man in that area, when they saw the Moabite raiders, "they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet." (2 Kings 13:20-21).

And in the New Testament we read that "God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them" (Acts 19:11-12).

Countless examples could be cited from Church history, but let me cite perhaps the earliest example, which is found in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, St. Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna, ans a disciple of the Apostle John. His martyrdom was written down soon after he was martyred, around the year 160 a.d.. At the end of his martyrdom we not only see an example of the veneration of relics, but also an explanation of the difference between the worship due to God alone, and the veneration we should give to the saints. We are told of how some sought to have the Roman magistrate keep the Christians from retrieving the body of the Holy Martyr

"'lest,' so it was said, 'they should abandon the crucified one and begin to worship this man'—this being done at the instigation and urgent entreaty of the Jews, who also watched when we were about to take it from the fire, not knowing that it will be impossible for us either to forsake at any time the Christ who suffered for the salvation of the whole world of those that are saved—suffered though faultless for sinners—nor to worship any other. For Him, being the Son of God, we adore, but the martyrs as disciples and imitators of the Lord we cherish as they deserve for their matchless affection towards their own King and Teacher.... The centurion therefore, seeing the opposition raised on the part of the Jews, set him in the midst and burnt him after their custom. And so we afterwards took up his bones which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place; where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves together, as we are able, in gladness and joy, and to celebrate the birth-day [i.e. the anniversary] of his martyrdom for the commemoration of those that have already fought in the contest, and for the training and preparation of those that shall do so hereafter" (The Martyrdom of Polycarp 17:2-3; 18:1-3).
For more on the question of the veneration of holy things, see:

The Icon FAQ, by Fr. John Whiteford

And for more on the question of the veneration of relics in particular, see:

The Place of Holy Relics in the Orthodox Church, by St. Justin Popovich

On the Veneration of the Holy Relics and Remains of the Saints, by Archpriest Vasily Demidov
Fr. John Whitefordhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-91877897617234970422017-04-08T00:31:00.000-05:002017-04-08T07:00:49.340-05:00Stump the Priest: General Unction and Holy Week

Question: "Why do we not do the Unction Service on Holy Wednesday?"

The common practice among Greeks, Antiochians, and in some other parishes, of doing General Unction on the evening of Holy Wednesday is not an ancient practice. There is no mention of doing this service on that day in the Typikon, or in the Triodion. The Unction service makes no mention of Holy Week, and so stands completely outside of the liturgical cycle of Holy Week.

There is a service that is appointed to be done on Holy Wednesday evening and that is the Matins of Holy Thursday, which is what we do in our parish. This service commemorates the institution of the Eucharist, the Mystical Supper, the washing of the feet of the disciples, and the betrayal of Christ by Judas. So this service is not an inconsequential part of Holy Week, but unfortunately, those parishes that do General Unction on Holy Wednesday, rarely do this service.

So why is it that this practice originated? There is evidence of doing General Unction in conjunction with Holy Week that is ancient -- though it was never the universal practice. At various times, it has been done on Lazarus Saturday, Holy Saturday, or Holy Thursday. Unction is the sacrament of healing, both of soul and body. If you are seriously ill, you can ask the priest to do an Unction service, so that the parish can pray that you will be healed. Also, if you have a serious spiritual illness, you can do the same. If you read the letters of the saintly Fr. John (Krestiankin), for example, you will find that he often counselled people to do so, and to take the unction oil home, and anoint themselves with it daily. The purpose of doing General Unction in conjunction with Holy Week was to prepare the faithful spiritually for Holy Week.

During the period of Turkish occupation, there was a more practical reason for the spread of this practice, and also why it was done on the day prior to the Vesperal Liturgy of Holy Thursday. The Turks made it very difficult for the Church to properly educate its clergy. Consequently, the only educated priests were generally monks, and so only they were usually given a blessing to hear confessions. This led to the unfortunate practice of infrequent communion, because it was not possible for the average laymen to confess to such priests, and during Holy Week, the need for confession was greater than the supply of those priests who could hear them. And so on Holy Wednesday, General Unction was served as a substitute for confession, so that the faithful could receive communion at the Holy Week Liturgies that were to follow. The original practice was not to displace the Matins of Holy Thursday, but rather to precede it. However, if you do the General Unction service fully, it takes about 3 hours, not counting however long it takes to actually anoint the faithful, and so over time the Holy Thursday Matins was general displaced. The reason why the practice developed is understandable, but it is problematic for a couple of reasons.

1. Unction should not be used as a substitute for Confession, under normal circumstances. In fact, in Russian practice, one must have gone to Confession recently in order to receive Unction. The problems created by Turkish occupation were not normal, but there is no reason why the exceptional should become the norm, when the exception is no longer necessary.

2. This has generally encouraged an indifference to the need for regular Confession.

3. Doing this service on this day, as noted already, obscures some of the most important commemorations in Holy Week,
For those who have grown up with the practice of doing General Unction on Holy Wednesday, the service is one of the best attended services, and I can understand their reluctance to change it. But be that as it may, this has not been the Russian practice, and we have never done it in our parish.

Furthermore, even if I wanted to adopt this practice (which I don't), our bishop would not allow it. In the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, different bishops have different practices, but generally they do not allow a single priest to serve General Unction by himself. Some bishops only allow General Unction to be served when they are presiding, and they generally require that 6 priest concelebrate the service with them -- the service ideally should have 7 concelebrating priests or bishops (there being 7 Epistle and Gospel readings, and 7 anointings). Our own bishop serves this service once each Lent, when we have our Lenten Clergy retreat, which allows for there to be enough priests to serve it. Archbishop Peter allows priests to serve this service elsewhere in the diocese, without the need for him to preside, but there must be a bare minimum of two priests, and preferably, at least 3. But doing this service instead of Holy Thursday Matins is not the normal practice anywhere in ROCOR that I am aware of.

I do think the practice of doing General Unction during Lent as an aid to preparation for Holy Week has value, and we may, in the future, serve it, if at least one other priest is willing to concelebrate it with me. If so, we will probably try to do it during the sixth week of Lent (depending on when Annunciation falls). But I cannot imagine failing to serve the Matins of Holy Thursday, and it is unfortunate that so many Orthodox Christians have never seen this service actually served.

I would also encourage more of our parishioners to ask for the Unction service when they have a serious physical or spiritual illness (such as an addiction, depression, etc).

For More Information:

"The Anointing of the Sick," by Paul Meyendorf

"A Liturgical Explanation of Holy Week," by Fr. Alexander Schmemann

Fr. John Whitefordhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-75666051404108586372017-03-24T19:39:00.001-05:002017-04-10T11:18:27.461-05:00Stump the Priest: Pro-Life and Pro-Choice?

Question: "Is it possible for someone to be pro-life and pro-choice?"

We should define our terms here. By "pro-life," we mean that we oppose the shedding of innocent blood, at any stage of development, including unborn children. If someone is "pro-choice" they mean that they believe it should be up to the mother to decide whether or not she will have an abortion, for any reason. If someone says that they are pro-life and pro-choice, this can only mean that they personally oppose abortion, but they think that others should be free to decide the matter for themselves, because they don't want to "impose their morality" on anyone else.

Is this a morally defensible position? To answer this question, we first have to ask why a Christian would oppose abortion? We oppose abortion not because we don't like it. We oppose abortion because we believe that it is the murder of an innocent life -- the only exception being the very rare circumstances in which it is necessary to save the life of the mother, and in such cases it almost always would mean the death of both mother and child to do nothing.

The Scriptures are abundantly clear that God takes the shedding of innocent blood very seriously. We are told that God destroyed the kingdom of Judah because they engaged in child sacrifice:

"And he [Manasseh] made his son pass through the fire [a form of child sacrifice], and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger" (2 Kings 21:6).

"3 Surely at the commandment of the Lord this [the destruction of Judah by the Babylonians] came upon Judah, to remove them from His sight because of the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he had done, 4 and also because of the innocent blood that he had shed; for he had filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, which the Lord would not pardon" (2 Kings 24:3-4).
The belief that abortion is murder is not a recently adopted Christian position. In the Didache, which is the oldest Christian document outside of the New Testament, it says unambiguously:

"Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born" (Didache 2:2).
Canon 91 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council says:

"As for women who furnish drugs for the purpose of procuring abortion, and those who take fetus-killing poisons, they are made subject to the penalty prescribed for murderers."
Likewise, St. Basil says in his second canon:

"A woman that aborts deliberately is liable to trial as a murderess."
So an Orthodox Christian that actually believes what the Church teaches can only oppose abortion on the grounds that it is the wrongful taking of an innocent human life.

So can a person really be opposed to rape, but not want to "impose their morality" on others? No.

Could a person oppose lynching, but not want to "impose their morality" on others? No.

Can a person oppose abortion, but not want to "impose their morality" on others? No.

And as a matter of fact every law reflects someone's morality. There is no reason why Christians should not use their power to vote to influence the laws to protect innocent life.Fr. John Whitefordhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-44661414504529132542017-03-17T23:11:00.000-05:002017-03-30T14:38:08.006-05:00Fundamental Errors: A Response to "Tradition Without Fundamentalism" by George Demacopoulos

In a recently posted lecture on the topic of Fundamentalism, George Demacopoulos (hereafter "GD") fell into many of the same errors evident in his original article that began this discussion. He continues to make sweeping and unsubstantiated assertions, and he alleges connections between some of the most disparate ideas and groups found in contemporary Christendom without providing any evidence to substantiate his claims. He again fell into gross overstatement, oversimplification, and often evidenced a superficial understanding of the issues he raised, particularly with regards to Protestant thought and history, which he clearly has not spent a great deal of time familiarizing himself with. When you disagree with someone else, you should at least attempt to engage their actual positions, and when you state what those positions are, they should be stated in a way that is fair enough that your opponent would actually recognize them. There was unfortunately very little evidence in this lecture that GD has tried to understand the positions of those he disagrees with, much less that he actually has understood them, or has good reasons for disagreeing with them.

For those who would like to review the various exchanges in this discussion, you can read his original essay here:

Orthodox Fundamentalism
You can read my response to that essay here:

Response to "Orthodox Fundamentalism" by George Demacopoulos
You can listen to a debate we had on Ancient Faith Today on this subject here:

Orthodox Fundamentalism: What is it and does it exist?
That link also includes a transcript of the discussion.

I posted some further comments after that debate, which you can read here:

"Orthodox Fundamentalism" Discussion on Ancient Faith Today
To begin with, let me address one point that GD made well into the lecture (at about the 42 minute mark). He made the statement that every written criticism of his original essay that he had seen was written by a former Protestant convert, and then said "Maybe it's a coincidence... I don't know." In the context of his other comments, the suggestion was that at least "some" Protestants are more susceptible to a certain kind of "Orthodox Fundamentalism," and that perhaps those who disagreed with him fell into that category. As is true of his comments throughout the course of this debate, this was a part of what was largely a series of ad hominem arguments. While it may well be the case that he had not seen any written criticisms of his essay that were written by authors who were not converts from Protestantism, it is not true that such essays were not actually written.

Fr. Emmanual Hatzidakis, who is a retired priest in the Greek Orthodox Archdioce of North America, wrote a response, which can be read here:

What is Orthodox Fundamentalism?
Fr. George Maximov, (who is a professor at the Moscow Theological Academy, a member of the Church of Russia's Synodal Working Group on the Elaboration of the Conceptualization of Inter-Religious Relations, a member of the Expert Council of the Russian Federation's Justice Ministry on the Countering of Religious Extremism, a member of the Theological Commission of the Moscow Patriarchate's Interconciliar Presence, and the Head of the Sixth Day Missionary Educational Society) wrote an extensive rebuttal of GD's original essay, which you can read in Russian, here:

ПРИНЦИП «СОГЛАСИЯ ОТЦОВ» И СОВРЕМЕННЫЕ НАПАДКИ НА НЕГО
For those who do not read Russian, you can read a google translation to get some idea of its contents.

He ended his essay by stating "A wonderful criticism of Demacopoulos' article was written by Fr. John Whiteford," and then he links to his own translation of my original response:

http://yurijmaximov.wixsite.com/pravoslavie/--1-c15s9
So given that such a prominent Orthodox Theologian not only agreed with what I wrote, but thought it worthy to take the time to translate it into Russian himself, and publish it on his website, I think I am on very firm Orthodox ground here, despite the apparent handicap of having converted to Orthodoxy after having been convinced that it was the True Faith.

Unfortunately, this typifies GD"s entire lecture. He does not engage those that he disagrees with. He simply seeks to dismiss them with ad hominem arguments. In this rebuttal I am going to respond to GD's lecture at some length and in a fair amount of detaill. It will be interesting to see if he will at some point actually engage the merits of any of the criticisms of his positions on the issues he raises, but I would not recommend anyone hold their breath.

Misunderstanding the History of Fundamentalism

GD asserts that Protestant Fundamentalism was a reactionary response to the then current expression of "biblical criticism and academic theology as they were being pursued at elite universities," and that it had a "self conscious anti-intellectual character" from its very beginning.

The problem with this claim is that it simply is not the case. GD is basing his comments on a caricature of Protestant Fundamentalism, rather than on their actual history. It is true that the Fundamentalist movement was a response to modernist and skeptical Biblical criticism, but the suggestion that it was those who were not educated responding to those who were is not at all true. The leaders of the early Fundamentalists included B. B. Warfield and J. Gresham Machen who were prominent professors at Princeton Theological Seminary. Machen is still known to many because of his New Testament Greek Grammar, which is still in use (it was used in my first year of New Testament Greek at Southern Nazarene University). Princeton was considered even in those days to be an "elite university."

It is true that if you look only at those Protestants who today like to refer to themselves as "Fundamentalists," you are more likely to find people with more than a bit of an anti-intellectual bent, but there are many conservative Protestants, who continue to hold to the same positions that Warfield and Machen espoused, but who do not typically use that label, because it has acquired a negative connotation, and also because they consider their historic confessions (Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican) to be better descriptions of their faith. And whatever you may think of groups, such as the Missouri Synod Lutherans or the Orthodox Presbyterians, they are hardly anti-intellectual, nor do they devalue education, and contrary to GD's suggestions, they are neither Dispensationalists nor Restorationists.

Inerrancy and Innovation

Then GD went on to assert that the Fundamentalists were "far more innovative than the scholarship [they] found so egregious." And as an example of their allegedly innovative positions, he cited their belief in biblical inerrancy, which he claims was given its first "widespread endorsement" by them.

First off, even if you disagree with the idea of biblical inerrancy, it is simply ridiculous from an historical standpoint to claim that this belief is far more innovative than denials of the deity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth of Christ, or the physical resurrection of Christ -- which were all things that modernist scholars were teaching, that the Fundamentalists rightly rejected.

He went on to assert:

"The very notion of biblical inerrancy is a modern idea. I know of no patristic or medieval author -- and I have read quite a few of them -- who believed that the Bible was without error, which is what "inerrancy" means. Nor do I know of any ancient or medieval author who thought that the Scriptures were literally dictated to their authors by the Holy Spirit. Those are modern assertions, not patristic, not Byzantine, not medieval."

This is truly an astonishing claim. The Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy is usually dated as beginning in the 1920's, though you could see the beginnings of it in America as early as the 1890's. The inerrancy of Scripture was a belief universally held by mainstream Christians prior to the 19th Century. The idea that it was invented by Fundamentalists is a claim that has no basis in history. You might take issue with how Fundamentalists argued for inerrancy (and I would take issue with them there myself), and you can make a case that their approach was innovative, but not the very idea of inerrancy.

As for the suggestion that Fundamentalists believe "that the Scriptures were literally dictated to their authors by the Holy Spirit" -- no one believes that in any literal sense -- not even among Protestant Fundamentalists. You do find many writers long before the Fundamentalist controversy using dictation language, but this was never taken literally, but was simply used to emphasize the Divine origins of Scripture. Harold Lindsell, who was one of the staunchest Fundamentalists wrote "...there are no evangelical scholars who hold to mechanical dictation, although it is true that those who hold to Biblical inerrancy do believe in verbal inspiration..." (The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 55). And by verbal inspiration, he simply means that they believe (as St. Paul teaches) that all Scripture is inspired by God, and this includes every word of Scripture -- but this does not mean that the writers of Scripture played no role in the writing of Scripture. But one thing that this assertion shows is that GD has clearly read a lot more about Fundamentalists than he has ever bothered to read that was actually written by them. His belief that they would espouse a literal dictation view of inspiration is based on listening to those attacking Fundamentalism, rather than reading anyone who ever actually articulated such views.

Having been a Protestant from the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition, I once did an historical study of Methodist theologians, beginning with John Wesley himself, and found that every major Methodist theologian affirmed inerrancy prior to the end of 19th century.

John Wesley, speaking with regard to someone who questioned the complete inspiration of Scripture, wrote:

"If he is a Christian, he betrays his own cause by averring that all Scripture is not given by inspiration of God, but the writers of it were sometimes left to themselves, and consequently made some mistakes. Nay, if there be any mistake in the Bible, there may well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth" (qtd in Wilbur T. Dayton, "The Bible in the Wesleyan Tradition," Asbury Seminarian 40 (Spring 1985): 32).

In fact, you do not find a major Methodist Theologian failing to specifically affirm inerrancy until you get to John Miley's Systematic Theology, which was published in 1892. And only with Olin Curtis, in 1905, do you find one who specifically denied the complete inerrancy of Scripture. So clearly it is contrary to fact to claim that the belief in the inerrancy of Scripture only came into prominence among the Fundamentalists in the early 20th century.

The Roman Catholic Church also clearly and unambiguously affirms the inerrancy of Scripture (see A Catholic Understanding of Biblical Inerrancy). And so the idea that this teaching was invented by American Protestant Fundamentalists in the early 20th century, or even by earlier Protestants is simply a ridiculous assertion, contrary to actual history.

But not only did this belief predate the Fundamentalist controversy, and not only did it not originate within Protestantism -- you will find it clearly taught by the Fathers of the Church. You will find numerous quotes from the Fathers in which they express their belief that the Scriptures were without error in this article:

The Inerrancy of Scripture

However, here are a few examples:

First, to cite GD's favorite Church Father -- St. Gregory the Theologian wrote;

"We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, will never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazard by those who have recorded them, and have thus been borne in mind down to the present day: on the contrary, their purpose has been to supply memorials and instructions for our consideration under similar circumstances, should such befall us, and that the examples of the past might serve as rules and models, for our warning and imitation" (NPNF2-07 St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration II: In Defence of His Flight to Pontus, and His Return, After His Ordination to the Priesthood, with an Exposition of the Character of the Priestly Office , ch. 105, NPNF2, p.225).
Here St. Gregory references the words of the Lord: "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail" (Luke 16:17, c.f. Matthew 5:18). St. Gregory not only affirms verbal inerrancy, but in fact affirms every jot and tittle inerrancy.

St. John Chrysostom wrote:

"Don't worry, dearly beloved, don't think sacred Scripture ever contradicts itself, learn instead the truth of what it says, hold fast what it teaches in truth, and close your ears to those who speak against it" (Homily 4:8 on Genesis, The Fathers of the Church: St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 1-17, trans. Robert C. Hill (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1986), p. 56).

And this quote from St. John Chrysostom is simply one of many in which he routinely assures his hearers that there is nothing in Scripture that is in error.

St. Augustine also stated the matter very clearly:

"For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it" (Letter to St. Jerome, 1:3).

You can find countless other examples from the Fathers, as well as from the Protestant reformers to show that they held this belief in this essay:

Inerrancy and Church History: Is Inerrancy a Modern Invention?, by Jonathan Moorhead

So if indeed GD had never before read a single patristic or medieval writer who affirmed the inerrancy of Scripture, now that examples have been pointed out to him, will he bother to engage the evidence? Unfortunately, his approach to this discussion up until now does not inspire much hope that he will, but we shall see. If he does wish to deny that the Fathers believed in inerrancy, I would challenge him to provide examples of Fathers who actually asserted that what the Scriptures intended to convey was actually erroneous. I know that he cannot, not because I have read everything that every Father ever wrote, but because if such quotes could be found, I am sure people like GD would quote them ad nauseum.

Historical Critical Biblical Scholarship

GD seems to be under the impression that the Biblical scholarship that predominates modern western universities represents some empirical science, and if you question it, you are in the same anti-intellectual camp as members of the Flat Earth Society. This is hardly the case. Certainly, there are aspects of such scholarship that provide useful and valuable information, and there are aspects of it that are more empirical than others, but this scholarship does not come free from ideological agendas. In particular, the German Biblical Scholarship that emerged after the religious wars following the Protestant Reformation had a consciously secularizing agenda. I talk about the ideological assumptions of such scholarship in my essay on Sola Scriptura, but for more on why this is the case, I would refer the interested reader to two books on the subject:

Politicizing the Bible: The Roots of Historical Criticism and the Secularization of Scripture (1300 - 1700), by Scott W. Hahn and Benjamin Wiker (New York, NY: Herder & Herder Books, 2013)

and

The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies, by Michael C. Legaspi (Oxford University Press, 2010).

When Rudolf Bultmann, for example, argued that Jesus was not only not the Christ, but that he did not even believe himself to be the Christ, this was not a scientific conclusion that we are bound to accept unless we wish to be anti-intellectual and deny reality. This was the expression of Bultmann's opinions, cloaked in scholarly bluster in order to make it sound scientific. His opinions were not based on any hard evidence or undeniable facts whatsoever. This is true of quite a bit of what passes for Biblical scholarship today.

Having said all of that, I would never suggest that Orthodox scholars or clergy should not be familiar with such scholarship. In fact, I think it is very important that they be familiar with it, but like the Methodist theologian Thomas Oden, I would encourage them to apply the same hermeneutic of suspicion to that scholarship, which its practitioners so love to apply to Scripture. As Oden observes:

"Scripture criticism is more firmly captive today to its modern (naturalistic, narcissistic, individualistic) Zeitgeist than Augustinianism ever was to Platonism or Thomism to Aristotelianism. Trapped in modern prejudices against pre-modern forms of consciousness, reductionistic exegesis has proved to be just as prone to speculation as were the extremist forms of Gnosticism and as uncritical of its own presuppositions as supralapsarian Protestant scholasticism" (Agenda for Theology: After Modernity What? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990) p. 111).

 "We violate a primary ethical demand upon historical study if we impose upon a set of documents presuppositions congenial to us and then borrow from the canonical prestige of the documents by claiming that it corresponds with our favored predisposition. That lacks honesty. The modern attempt to study Christ has done this repeatedly. The text has often become a mirror of ideological interest: Kant's Christ becomes a strained exposition of the categorical imperative; Hegel's Christ looks like a shadow-image of the Hegelian dialectic. Schleiermacher's Christ is a reflection of the awkward mating of pietism and romanticism; Strauss's Christ is neatly weeded of all supernatural referents. Harnack's portrait of Christ looks exactly like that of a late nineteenth-century German liberal idealist; and Tillich's Christ is a dehistorical existential idea of being that participates in estrangement without being estranged…. The historical biblical critic was "not nearly so interested in being changed by his reading of the Bible, as in changing the way that the Bible was read in order to confirm it to the modern spirit"" (The Word of Life: Systematic Theology Volume Two, (New York: Harper & Row, 1989), p. 224f).

"Historical biblical criticism has been allied with polemical concerns since its eighteenth century inception as an ideological agent of "Enlightenment." It has expressed a determined interest from the beginning in discrediting not merely the authority of Scripture, but authority in general -- all authority as such. Just read the biographies of Reimarus, Rousseau, Lessing, Strauss, Feuerbach, and of course Nietzsche (cf. Jacques Derrida, The Ear of the Other). It has operated especially as a partisan "ideology for the demystification of religious tradition"... It is astutely described as the strike force of modernity, "the Wehrmacht of the liberal Church"... The hermeneutic of suspicion has been safely applied to the history of Jesus but not to the history of the historians. It is now time for the tables to turn. The hermeneutic of suspicion must be fairly and prudently applied to the critical movement itself... One obvious neglected arena is the social location of the quasi-Marxist critics of the social location of classic Christianity, who hold comfortable chairs in rutted, tenured tracks. These writers have focused upon the analysis of the social location of the writers and interpreters of Scripture. Yet that principle awaits now to be turned upon the social prejudices of the "knowledge elite" -- a guild of scholars asserting their interest in the privileged setting of the modern university" (Ibid., p. 225f.

Patristic Inerrancy

GD never offers any citations of anyone who actually asserts that the fathers of the Church were inerrant and always agreed. Again, we are expected to trust the accuracy of his caricature, but I for one do not. I have never read a single writer who has ever asserted such a thing. We certainly do believe that the Church itself is inerrant, and St. Cyprian of Carthage (who was martyred in 258 a.d.) clearly taught this, as has the Church ever since. No individual father is inerrant, but the consensus of the Fathers is... and we find this consensus most clearly expressed in the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.

Fr. George Florovsky observed:

"The teaching authority of the Ecumenical Councils is grounded in the infallibility of the Church. The ultimate "authority" is vested in the Church, which is forever the Pillar and the Foundation of Truth" (The Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth Century).
The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895, which was written in response to a Papal encyclical by Pope Leo XIII, in which he called for the reunion of the Orthodox Church with the Roman Church, states:

"...having recourse to the fathers and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church of the first nine centuries, we are fully persuaded that the Bishop of Rome was never considered as the supreme authority and infallible head of the Church, and that every bishop is head and president of his own particular Church, subject only to the synodical ordinances and decisions of the Church universal as being alone infallible, the Bishop of Rome being in no wise excepted from this rule, as Church history shows."
And St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain states, as he begins his famous commentary on the Ecumenical Canons:

"So every ecumenical council that possesses these characteristic features is in fact the Holy and Catholic Church itself in which in the Symbol of Faith (called the Creed in English) we profess to believe. ...being infallible and sinless. For the Church, which the Ecumenical Council takes the place of as its personal representative, is a pillar and framework of the truth, according to St. Paul (I Tim. 3:15); accordingly, whatever seems right to Ecumenical Councils seems right also to the Holy Spirit of Truth: for, it says, "He shall teach you all things and remind you of everything I have said unto you" (John 14:26)" (D. Cummings, trans., The Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church: The Compilation of the Holy Canons Saints Nicodemus and Agapius (West Brookfield, MA: The Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1983), p. 157).
Canon 1 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council states, with regard to all the Ecumenical canons and decrees of the previous Councils (as well as those of local Councils and Fathers whom these Councils specifically affirmed, states:

"For those who have been allotted a sacerdotal dignity, the representations of canonical ordinances amount to testimonies and directions. Gladly accepting these, we sing to the Lord God with David, the spokesman of God, the following words: "I have delighted in the way of thy testimonies as much as in all wealth," and "thy testimonies which thou hast commanded witness righteousness,… Thy testimonies are righteousness forever: give me understanding, and I shall live" (Ps. 119:14, 138 and 144). And if forever the prophetic voice commands us to keep the testimonies of God, and to live in them, it is plain that they remain unwavering and rigid. For Moses, too, the beholder of God, says so in the following words: "To them there is nothing to add, and from them there is nothing to remove" (Deut. 12:32). And the divine Apostle Peter, exulting in them, cries: "which things the angels would like to peep into" (I Pet. 1:12). And Paul says: "Though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any gospel besides that which ye have received, let him be anathema" (Gal. 1:8). Seeing that these things are so and are attested to us, and rejoicing at them "as one that findeth great spoil" (Ps. 119:162), we welcome and embrace the divine Canons, and we corroborate the entire and rigid fiat of them that have been set forth by the renowned Apostles, who were and are trumpets of the Spirit, and those both of the six holy Ecumenical Councils and of the ones assembled regionally far the purpose of setting forth such edicts and of those of our holy Fathers. For all those men, having been guided by the light dawning out of the same Spirit, prescribed rules that are to our best interest. Accordingly, we too anathematize whomsoever they consign to anathema; and we too depose whomsoever they consign to deposition; and we too excommunicate whomsoever they consign to excommunication; and we likewise subject to a penance anyone whom they make liable to a penance. For "Let your conduct be free from avarice; being content with such things as are at hand" (Heb. 13:5), explicitly cries the divine apostle Paul, who ascended into the third heaven and heard unspeakable words (II Cor. 12:2-4)."
And St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain adds two comments in his notes to his commentary on this canon:

"Note here how respectable and reverend the divine Canons are. For this holy Council, by calling them "testimonies" and "justifications," and the like, dignifies these very same divine Canons with those title and names with which the divinely inspired and holy Bible is dignified."
And

"That is why Photius, in Title I, ch. 2, says that the third ordinance of Title II of the Novels invests the Canons of the seven Councils and their dogmas with the same authoritativeness as the divine Scriptures." (Rudder, p. 428f).

Everyone I don't Agree with is a Fundamentalist

In the course of his lecture, GD somehow manages to link groups as diverse as the Protestant Fundamentalists (which include pacifist Seventh-Day Adventists) and ISIS; Dispensationalists (who tend to be more Zionistic than Jewish Zionists) and Greek and Russian Antisemites; American Protestant converts to Orthodoxy (who tend to not favor Orthodox ethnic xenophobia) and radical Greek and Russian nationalists; Protestant Restorationists (who believe that the Church ceased to exist for most of its history, and had to be recreated) and Orthodox Traditionalists (who believe the normative practices of the Church should remain unchanged, and needs little or no reform).

With at least as much justice, one could speak of modernists as a broad category, and lump GD into the same basket as French revolutionaries, Russian Bolsheviks, the Chinese Red Guard, sexual libertines, Unitarian-Universalists, the Living Church movement, the Masons, and the most extreme liberals found in mainline Protestant denominations. However, not only would that be unfair, it would also do very little to help anyone actually understand GD's actual positions. The same is also true of GD's "basket of deplorables."

But GD somehow connects all of the groups he lumps together as "Fundamentalists" because they all are reacting in someway to the process of secularization and globalization. By that logic, one would have to assume that there was some ideological connection between the United Kingdom, the United States, the Soviet Union, the Kingdom of Ethiopia, the Kingdom of Greece, and both the Nationalist and Communist Chinese... because all of them responded to being attacked by fascists in World War II by resisting it vigorously. But obviously, there was no ideological connection at work here. What was at work was the very basic instinct of any nation to want to survive as an independent nation rather than to be subjugated by a foreign power.

Modernism and secularism are not neutral results of the march of progress, as GD seems to suggest. They represent ideological views that are generally at odds with traditional religious faith. People who adhere to traditional religious faiths (of any kind) are generally going to resist attempts from the outside to impose foreign beliefs upon them, which contradict their deeply held beliefs. And in fact it is only the cultural imperialism of such modernists and secularists that would lead them to assume that adherents of such faiths had some obligation to bow the knee to their foreign worldview. Such modernists actively are pushing for moral relativism, and it is not surprising that any religion with a strong moral code would resist being "assimilated."

Deliberately Combative

One of the defining characteristics of Fundamentalism, according to GD, is its "deliberately combative" style, and yet in the course of this lecture we see ample evidence that GD deliberately adopts a combative style himself. For example, to explain his use of the term 'Fundamentalist" he mentioned that at a recent conference on Tradition, Secularization, and Fundamentalism at Fordham University, they had 14 international speakers, about 100 people in attendance, and said: "I think it's fair to say that no one in the room really agreed whether or not "fundamentalism" is an appropriate term... right? Because it is such a loaded term... right? And I acknowledge that it is a very very loaded term, and when I first wrote the blog I did it deliberately to be provocative... right? It worked... right?" and then he laughed. One has to wonder why he continues to be deliberately provocative, rather than attempt to engage in a constructive discussion on the many disparate issues he raises. For example, if he condemns Antisemitism, he would find me agreeing with him wholeheartedly. I've preached sermons on the subject before, and I think it is important to be clearly opposed to it. If he could find someone who actually opposes rational thought or theological education in the Orthodox Church, I would agree with him that they are wrong on those points too. However, when he lumps those people in with those who take issue with ecumenism, or theological and liturgical renovationism, he is not trying to engage in rational discussion -- he is simply engaging in name calling in order to avoid engaging in an actual rational discussion.

Anti-Intellectualism

One of the more novel claims GD made was that Vladimir Lossky, Fr. George Florovsky, Christos Yannaras, Fr. John Meyendorff, Fr. John Romanides, and Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos), all got it wrong on the differences between Orthodox spirituality and western spirituality. To make this claim, he confuses and conflates a number issues. He attempts to refute the contrast that these theologians made between the post schismatic west (which is obvious) by saying that there were no such differences during the patristic period... which would be pre-schism, and so obviously a very different matter. He also repeatedly conflates rationalism with rational thought, and so suggests that those who oppose rationalism are opposed to rational thought, and are thus anti-intellectual. Perhaps he was not reading his lecture notes properly when he made such statements, but the error is too obvious to waste time refuting. He also suggests that Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) somehow opposes "employing rational means," "critical thinking,"and "drawing upon non-Orthodox sources to make theological arguments." I'm pretty sure Metropolitan Hierotheos is not opposed to any of those things. But as is usually the case, we are left with bare assertions, and are presented with no actual evidence that what he claims is in fact true, nor with arguments that engage the person he is making these assertions about.

Restorationism

GD suggests that converts to Orthodoxy are prone to "embrace a restorationist approach to the Church. By "Restorationist" I mean an attempt to construct and pursue an imagined Orthodox past experience which never actually existed." His comments on this issue were based, I suspect, either on Fr. Oliver Herbel's recent book "Turning to Tradition: Converts and the Making of an American Orthodox Church" or perhaps on him having heard a lecture by Fr. Oliver on that same topic. However, I think he takes this idea much further than Fr. Oliver does in his book.

For one thing, I don't think GD understands what Restorationism really is, or realizes that it is a very particular strain of Protestantism, and that not all Protestant come from such a background.

Among Protestants, there are broadly speaking two views of Church history. There are those that believe that they are a reformation of the Catholic Church... which they see as having been the visible Church, but which fell into a state that needed reform -- in this group, you would find the Lutherans, the Reformed Churches, the Anglicans, and those historically connected with Methodism. None of these groups could be described as "Restorationists." You often (at least historically speaking) find in such groups a clear sense that the Roman Catholic Church became an apostate Church, but this was because it was that part of the Church which refused to be reformed, as they thought it should be. So they see themselves in continuity with the same Church that St. Augustine and St. Athanasius the Great belonged to. Theologians from such groups frequently quote the Fathers as having important ideas that they wholeheartedly affirm.

Then there are those who either believe that they descend from a hidden and long persecuted remnant of the early Church (such as Anabaptist and Baptist groups -- see for example the book "The Trail of Blood" for a classic expression of this view), and then there are those that believe that the Church actually ceased to exist, but was brought back into being by their group (such as the various Church of Christ denominations, the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, etc). Some would include both of these groups under the label of "Restorationists," but it is really only the second group that are truly "Restorationists" in the proper sense of the term. Such groups find little to no value in the Church Fathers, and would generally consider them to be apostates, though many of these groups are Trinitarian.

It is true that Protestants who come from a Restorationist background may well be drawn to Orthodoxy because they sense they have otherwise been disappointed by Restorationism, and Fr. Oliver Herbel makes a good case that this is what motivated the Evangelical Orthodox Church to eventually convert to Orthodoxy and become the Antiochian Evangelical Orthodox Mission. However, this is not what would motivate someone who converted from Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism, Lutheranism, or the Methodist movement.

Speaking from my own experience, I had an appreciation for Tradition before I had any real idea of what the Orthodox Church was, or had any thoughts of converting to it, because I came from a denomination that explicitly affirmed that Tradition had a role in theology, and which saw itself as being connected with the rest of Church history, rather than as a restoration of the Early Church, which had disappeared because of a complete apostasy. For me, it was because of this appreciation of Tradition that I eventually went looking to the early Church Fathers for answers to questions, and in the process of doing so, came to the conclusion that the denomination I was born into was not in fact in continuity with the Church of the Fathers I was reading. In particular, when I read the epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch (who was a disciple of the Apostle John), I became convinced that I did not belong to the same Church that he did, but wanted to. Had I lived a hundred years earlier, I quite likely would have become an Anglo-Catholic, and been satisfied with that, but the Anglican Church of the late 1980's did not strike me as being any closer to St. Ignatius' Church than the one I was in.

The problem with the suggestion that converts are approaching Orthodoxy in a "restorationist" manner is that such people would not be embracing the received Tradition of the Church, but would rather be seeking to reconstruct the Church into something else altogether. The irony here is that it is actually Orthodox Modernists that are trying to do that. They tell us we should not have an iconostasis, or at least not close the curtains or the doors, because they say such things did not exist in the Early Church. They argue that we should do the secret prayers aloud, because even though the Church has done them secretly as far back as any surviving service books would indicate, they tell us that such prayers were not said secretly in the Early Church. We should have deaconesses again, because they had them in the Early Church. We should have married bishops, because they had them in the Early Church. We should have baptismal liturgies, and weddings done in the Liturgy, because, they tell us this is how they were done in the Early Church. It is the Modernists who are the Restorationists in the Orthodox Church, not the conservatives -- converts or cradle.

When a Protestant converts to the Orthodox Church, he has taken just about as opposite a course from that of Restorationism as is possible.

Toll Houses

In conspiracy theory fashion, GD, goes on to try to connect all of his other asserted Fundamentalist traits with the Toll Houses. However, after first asserting that "It seems that a few Russian monks decided that it was a good idea to scare the peasants, and so they invented the teaching on the toll houses," he went on to say that "there is evidence in our teaching for this tradition, I don't mean to say that there isn't. There is." He hastens to add that it was "a minor, and somewhat suspect teaching" found in "some Byzantine texts." However, it is obvious that if this is a part of our teaching and if it is found in Byzantine texts, it is hardly possible that Russians monks invented the idea to scare the peasants.

What's more to the point is that there is nothing about affirming a Tradition that GD concedes is part of our teaching that makes someone a Fundamentalist. Fr. Thomas Hopko was hardly a Fundamentalist, and yet he stated that this tradition is found in virtually every Father of the Church (see The Illumined Heart: Toll Houses: After Death Reality or Heresy?, September 30, 2007: http://audio.ancientfaith.com/illuminedheart/hopko_tolls.mp3). He interpreted them in a mostly allegorical way, though he believed that they did indicate that demons attack the soul at the time of death, and that at the point of death a person has to answer for his life. Whether his interpretation is more accurate than Fr. Seraphim (Rose)'s or not is really not that important to me. I think both opinions are within the bounds of acceptable opinions on the matter. However, the often vitriolic dismissal of a verbal image that is found in the Fathers and in the Services of the Church, that we often encounter in our times, reflects an unhealthy attitude towards the Tradition of the Church.

In short, GD's primary objection to the Toll Houses is that they are not fundamental to our Faith. Perhaps he should come up with a list of what he considers to be fundamental beliefs... maybe including the virgin birth, the death and bodily Resurrection of Christ, and maybe a couple of other points that he believes to be fundamental. But he should recognize that he is the one being a reductionist Fundamentalist here.

Black and White

At one point in the lecture, someone in the audience asked if GD considered Fr. Seraphim (Rose) to be a Fundamentalist. He answered, without any sense of irony:

"Seraphim (Rose)? Absolutely! Anyone who wants to say that things are black and white is either willfully ignorant,or is lying... right? It's one or the other, because you simply cannot read Orthodox Christian history and think that it's always black and white."

That seems an awfully black and white perspective. Once again, it is obvious that GD has read a lot more about Fr. Seraphim (Rose) than he has bothered read that was actually written by him. Fr. Seraphim (Rose) does not fit the bill of GD's definition of an Orthodox Fundamentalist. He did not see everything as black and white. He criticized extremists. He wrote an essay on why we should call non-Orthodox Christians "Christians," and be cautious about using the word "Heretic" for people who have never been in the Church. He was highly educated, and encouraged education. One can disagree with him on some points, as I do myself, but he was not the caricature that GD would have us believe.

Ironically, when asked why people embrace those who see everything as "black and white" he answered that it was because it was "easy." But that is the problem with GD's entire lecture. He never acknowledges any nuances among those he attacks. He never concedes that their criticisms have any merit. It is all black and white. He has opted for easy, lazy responses.

Also, if one looks at GD's Twitter feed, you will see that there are a great many issues that he sees as black and white.

Opposition to Ecumenism

GD's sweepingly asserts that opposition to Ecumenism is by definition Fundamentalism. To see if this is so, let's first ask a question that GD never bothers to address: what do we mean by Ecumenism? Ecumenism is the belief that the Orthodox Church is not itself the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, but that the Church exists in separated branches that are somehow spiritually united (which is the Protestant notion of the invisible Church), and needs to be united together for the Church to be fully one. In its most extreme form, Ecumenism even goes beyond the Christian world, and promotes religious syncretism as an ultimate goal. The problem with those who promote Ecumenism is found in their use of the very word "Ecumenical." In the Orthodox Church, the word "Ecumenical" has a very particular meaning, and when we speak of an Ecumenical Council, we do not mean a council in which the Orthodox and all the various heretical and schismatic groups send representatives, and sing kumbaya. At Ecumenical Councils, quite the opposite happened. The Orthodox met together to reject heretical and schismatic groups who refused to be united with it in a common confession of Faith, and in a unity of communion.

Did the Fathers speak with those who were in error in an attempt to correct and reconcile them? Yes, of course. Did they ever have pan-religious prayers for peace, or have endless hobnobbing cessions with the various heretical groups of their times, and then do "Ecumenical Doxologies" with them? No. The canons clearly condemn praying with heretics or schismatics, and this is precisely because engaging in such joint prayers suggests a unity of faith that does not actually exist.

GD at various points suggests that those promoting Ecumenism are following the Tradition of the Church more closely than those who oppose them, and he speaks of them as "engaging in cautious but hopeful Ecumenical encounter." But here he completely ignores some of the most outrageous Ecumenical abuses we have seen in the past few decades, which included, for example, Orthodox bishops participating in liturgical processions that could only be described as heretical and pan-religious circuses. And if he believes that the Fathers engaged in such things, he is promoting an imagined history that never actually happened.

You can watch hours of such events in videos posted here:

http://www.hsir.org/Publications_en/VideoSeriesA.html

I would recommend going to the bottom of that page, and watching the documentaries that are posted, starting with the oldest first. These videos were produced by Greek Old Calendarists, but the footage they contain is real, and it is shameful. There are countless examples of ecumenical and pan-religious dog and pony shows in which you see Orthodox bishops playing prominent roles.

Fortunately, some of the worst abuses, particularly at the World Council of Churches (WCC) have stopped, because the widespread distribution of the footage of such ecumenical atrocities resulted in a backlash from the faithful that forced their bishops to put a stop to such things. After the reforms of the WCC that were pushed especially by the Russian Orthodox Church, there are now no longer pan-religious services, or "inter-confessional" services done at WCC assemblies, and the WCC can no longer issue any statements that are not agreed to by every group represented (which gives the Orthodox an effective veto over anything that they might say that would be objectionable). This has rendered Orthodox participation in the WCC relatively harmless, but I would suggest that one has to wonder what good our continued participation in it has brought about, and those who believe we should completely withdraw from the WCC have arguments that are worthy of consideration. The various heterodox groups that are in the WCC are certainly no closer to us today than they were when our participation first began. In fact, it is obvious that they are drifting further away from us with each passing year. However, the Ecumenical Patriarchate continues to push the boundaries by participating in interfaith prayer services in other context. It is not unreasonable to ask what the goal is with such things, and also what good fruit has come from it? It has only confused the faithful and confused the heterodox about what we really believe.

It is undeniable that there have been gross abuses in the history of Orthodox participation in the Ecumenical movement, both in terms of actions and statements. I would agree that some take extremist positions in response to such things, and that they should be criticized. However, those who are responsible for these abuses will have to answer for the scandal they have caused in the Church, and for causing such temptations in the first place.

However, as far as GD is concerned, there is no difference between the extremists and those who are moderate in their opposition to Ecumenism. Nor has he conceded that they have any legitimate points, because GD prefers to take the easy way, and see it all as black and white, without any nuance.

From some of GD's statements, it sounds as if he believes that Roman Catholics and Protestants are somehow part of the Church, and so it sounds like he too holds to a branch-theory of the Church.

"We do not have a single shred of evidence from the entire Byzantine period that a synod of Orthodox bishops ever declared that western Christians did not belong to the Church, or that they should be baptized before they were restored to communion with Orthodoxy. The most famous canon lawyers of the 12th and 13th centuries maintained that Latin Christians only needed to offer a confession of Faith."

What does he mean to suggest here? Even when the Church receives someone by confession of Faith, they are receiving them into the Church. You don't receive someone into the Church who is already in it.

I would encourage the interested reader to read the articles posted here: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/

For some of my criticisms of Orthodox extremists see: Stump the Priest: Old Calendarists.

Baptism in the Name of the Trinity

GD argues that the insistence of anti-ecumenists that all converts from Roman Catholicism and Protestantism be received into the Orthodox Church by baptism is proof of their rejection of a real historic view of the Church and its Tradition.

For one thing, GD fails to note that not all those opposed to Ecumenism would take the same position. While it is the norm to baptize all converts in ROCOR, with the blessing of my bishop I have received several Roman Catholics, Traditionalist Anglicans, and Presbyterians by chrismation. So again there is nuance where GD sees everything as black and white. However, if you actually read the service used to receive such groups into the Church, the text makes it very clear that they were not in the Church, but are being received into it.

But as the ultimate proof of the error of those who say that Roman Catholics should be baptized when they convert to Orthodoxy, GD points out that Arians, who "did not baptize in the name of the Trinity" were received by confession of Faith and not baptism. The problem with this argument is that we do not baptize with the words "in the name of the Trinity..." We baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The Arians baptized in precisely the same way. Even Jehovah's Witnesses today do the same. At the time of the Arian controversy, there were many local Churches that moved back and forth between communion with Arians and the Orthodox. It was a fluid situation. But this fluidity was possible in part because in terms of practical piety (how worship was conducted, how the sacraments were administered), there were not big differences. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that the Arians baptized people in any way different than the Orthodox did. The difference was in what they believed about who the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were... not what they said and did when they baptized someone. In fact, Arian baptism was undoubtedly far closer to Orthodox baptism than you find in Roman Catholicism today or among the Protestants. Under the circumstances of the time, receiving people who had been baptized by Arian clergy made complete pastoral and practical sense.

The objection that people who argue that all Protestants and Roman Catholics should be baptized have, is not that it is impossible to receive people by economia who were baptized by a triple immersion outside of the Church. Their objection is that the form of baptism that is commonly practiced among such groups is not triple immersion baptism.

Being baptized by triple immersion (or pouring, in cases of necessity) in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the canonical standard of a baptism that is valid in outward form. Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council lists various groups that would either be received by confession of faith, or by chrismation, but specifically mentions that the Eunomians "who are baptized with a single immersion" are to be received by baptism. And most Protestants are baptized today by a single immersion, and often they are baptized with non-standard verbage, such as "in the name of Jesus."

The historic practice of the Russian Church has been to receive Roman Catholics, Reformed (Episcopalians, Presbyterians), and Lutherans by economia. Since the 70's, the practice of the Russian Church Outside of Russia has been to baptize all converts as a rule, unless the bishop gives a specific blessing to receive someone by economia.

Another question we should consider is how does the Church view the baptisms of those outside of the Church? True baptism unites one to the Church, and obviously, those who are baptized outside of the Church are not united to the Church by their baptism. We pass no judgment on the souls of those outside of the Church, and leave that question in the hands of God, but we can say that at least in this life, they remain outside of the Church until and unless they are received into the Orthodox Church.

In the early Church there was a dispute about whether converts who had been baptized by heretics or schismatics should be baptized or not. St. Cyprian of Carthage took the position that they should, and he presided over a council in Carthage that declared there is no true baptism outside of the Church. And this canon was affirmed by the Sixth Ecumenical Council in its second canon. However, that same canon also affirmed the canons of St. Basil, and his first canon, provides a bit more nuance. He agreed that the Church is under no obligation to recognize baptisms that take place outside of the Church, but states that for the sake of "economia" the Church may do so, though he also noted that in different regions, different practices prevailed when it came to how certain heretics or schismatics were received.

So what happens when the Church accepts a baptism that was done outside of the Church, by economia? St. Augustine compared baptism to the "military mark" which was a tattoo a soldier was given when entered the Roman Army, and it showed what commander he belonged to. St. Augustine said that such a mark could be retained by deserters (schismatics), and it could illicitly be given to those who had never been in the army, and yet unless and until such men actually joined (or rejoined) the army, those marks did not have the real significance that they should have... however if they did rejoin or join the army, the mark would not need to be redone. And so what happens when someone is received by economia is they are finally united to the Church, and their baptism is then given the real meaning of what true baptism is.

So the key question here is whether or not the outward form of baptism of a particular convert is acceptable or not. Particularly in our times, this is an increasingly difficult question, because even what were once "mainstream" denominations have people doing all kinds of crazy things these days, such as baptizing people "in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sustainer.." And so simply confirming that someone was baptized as a Lutheran or even a Roman Catholic is no longer any guarantee of how they were actually baptized.

While one might disagree with how far some people take this issue, to deny that they at least have some reasonable concerns is to deny the Tradition of the Church on the matter.

For more on this subject, see: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_baptism.aspx

Moral Relativism

I would like to conclude this response by getting down to what I think is at least in large part the elephant in the room that is behind much of what GD is arguing,* but which he does not come out and say -- and that is the question of Christian morality, moral relativism, and homosexuality in particular. GD says that those he considers to be Fundamentalists believe that the Church is under siege by modernism and secularism, but that he does not believe that these are serious threats -- certainly no more serious than problems the Church has faced at any other time. However, one of the manifestations of secularism we see in high gear today, is the push against any Traditional morality. Is this really an imaginary threat to the Orthodox piety? If you look at a Pew survey which compared the beliefs of various Christian groups, those identifying as Orthodox have some of the worst percentages on moral issues of any of the groups listed. This shows that secularization has had a very negative effect already on the Church in America, and we would be foolish to not see it as a serious threat.

St. Paul made it very clear that there are some moral issues that really are black and white:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals (malakoi), nor sodomites (arsenokoitai), nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

We have many voices in the Church today who deny that homosexual sex is inherently sinful. They claim it is no more serious a sin than any other, if they do not flat out deny that it is a sin at all -- as very many of them do. Not too long ago we had the case of Gregory Pappas of the Pappas Post who publicly complained that a Greek Orthodox priest refused to commune him, because he was an active homosexual. In his complaint, there is no suggestion that he is struggling against this sin, only justification of his sin -- and in fact, a clear denial that it really is a sin. But the saddest part of this story is that, according to him, Metropolitan Savas of Pittsburgh told him that while the priest was "technically within his canonical rights" to deny him communion, he would commune him, and that other priests had likewise offered to commune him. He likewise tossed the word "Fundamentalist" around quite a bit too, suggesting that it was Fundamentalism that was behind telling an active homosexual that he could not receive communion.

Gregory Pappas is a victim of pastoral malpractice -- not because he was denied communion for refusing to repent of a serious sin -- but because he has been given the false impression that he does not need to repent of that sin, because it is not a sin. One cannot repent of a sin that they do not believe to be such. This is a complete departure from the Tradition of the Church, and if anyone thinks that there was a time when the saints of the Church would have put up with the suggestion that one could be an Orthodox Christian in good standing and also live in an active homosexual relationship, they are positing an imaginary history that never actually happened.

My questions for George Demacopoulos are:

1. Do you believe that it is inherently sinful for a man to have sex with another man?

2. Is a priest a Fundamentalist if he denies communion to a man who is having sex with another man, and doesn't believe he needs to repent of it?

3. Is it issues like this that are behind the push for "post-patristic theology," because only when we are ready to "move beyond the Fathers" can such things be "reinterpreted" in such a way as to satisfy the spirit of the age?
I am old enough to remember when pretty much every Christian group agreed that homosexuality was a sin, because it says so in the Bible. This was not in some imagined Fundamentalist past that never really was, this was not all that long ago.

*I say this based on conversations with past students of GD at Fordham University.Fr. John Whitefordhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-15734481711578101402017-02-28T06:51:00.002-06:002017-02-28T06:51:54.226-06:00Observing the First Week of Lent in Our Times

The way the first week of Lent was observed in pre-revolutionary Russia was that most business was shut down for the week, schools were in recess, and everyone went to Church. When the full cycle of services during the first week are observed, you spend about 10 hours a day in Church.

Unfortunately, we do not live in such a culture, and so in our parish we currently only do services in the evenings of the First Week of Lent. However given that some people drive great distances to come to Church, Houston traffic and secular obligations can make it practically impossible for some to attend even these services.

On the first four days of Great Lent, we do Great Compline with the Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete, which on these days is divided into four parts which are done on each of these four days respectively.

If you cannot attend these services at our parish, what you can do is do these services at home. Ideally, you could do Great Compline as a reader service. However, you could do Small Compline instead, which would make for a much shorter service -- and it is always better to do something, rather than nothing, and so if you have never done this before, I would suggest you opt for Small Compline. Both of these services are available on our website, laid out for use as a reader service (i.e., a service done without a priest):

Great Compline:

http://www.saintjonah.org/services/greatcompline.htm

Small Compline:

http://www.saintjonah.org/services/compline.htm

http://www.saintjonah.org/services/smallcompline.doc

The text of the Great Canon is available in the Bookstore in a recently published text from Holy Trinity Publications, but you can get another translation for free on our website:

http://www.saintjonah.org/services/greatcanon_sts.pdf

On Friday we will do the Presanctified Liturgy. However, if you cannot attend the Friday services, you could do Small Compline with the Akathist. The Greek practices is to do the Akathist in four parts on the first four Fridays of Great Lent, and you will find that text laid out here:

http://www.saintjonah.org/services/akathistforlent.htm

Fr. John Whitefordhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-51353060716823347082017-02-23T16:31:00.000-06:002017-03-02T21:51:44.038-06:00Stump the Priest: Spiritual Fathers

Question: "What is the role of the Parish Priest as Spiritual Father to his people and how does it compare with the role of the Abbot and monks in the Monasteries?"

The term "Spiritual Father" (in Russian "dukhovnik" (духовник)), has a range of meaning that has to be properly understood for this question to be answered. At the lowest level, one could speak very loosely of a priest that they regularly confess to as their spiritual father. But more properly, a spiritual father is one that you have an ongoing spiritual relationship. The difference is somewhat subtle, but a person might regularly confess to one priest for a period of time, but then switch confessors, and begin confessing to another priest. But when you develop a relationship with a priest that you maintain over a long period of time, and often when separated by distance, that is more a spiritual father/child relationship.

A spiritual father does not necessarily need to be a priest, but of course only a priest or bishop can hear confessions and grant absolution. Sometimes people have a monk, or even a nun who fulfills the role of long term spiritual direction. However, for laity, one's spiritual father is usually (though not necessarily) their parish priest.

The highest sense in which the term is used would be in reference to someone who has the spiritual gift of eldership... but this a fairly rare gift, and one should be extremely cautious about searching out such a relationship, because there are more people who think they are spiritual elders than there are those who actually have that gift.

The difference between the relationship between a parish priest and an abbot in a monastery is primarily the question of obedience. A monk is expected to be completely obedient to their Abbott, short of the abbot asking him to do something immoral or contrary to the teachings of the Church. An abbot can have such a relationship because an abbot is also responsible for the monks under their authority. They ensure that the monks have a place to stay, and food to eat. In that context, this level of obedience has an important role in the spiritual development of a monk.

It is completely improper for a parish priest to expect that kind of obedience from a laymen, because he has does not have the same level of responsibility for his parishioners. In other words, if a parish priest were to tell a man to quit his job, the parish priest is not going to ensure that his bills are paid, or that his wife will not divorce him because he is failing to provide for the family. Consequently, what priests generally express to their people in confession is on the level of advice, which they can take or leave -- because they are ultimately responsible for their own choices. Of course one should not dismiss advice from their confessor lightly, but it is simply a fact that different priests will give advice that will differ in some respects, and so it should not be taken as if it was delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai... unless of course it actually was, because the priest is simply conveying what Scripture or Tradition clearly teach. If a person confesses that they are involved in a serious sin, and the priest tells them that they must repent and cease from that sin, or else he will have to deny them communion, this is not mere advice, and the individual has no right to ignore what they are told.

It is not inappropriate for a laymen to have a monastic as his spiritual father, but this should also be approached with caution. Sometimes such monastics try to impose a monastic style of obedience, and this has often had disastrous results.

The clergy of our diocese issued (with the blessing of Archbishop Peter) a statement on this issue in 2009:

"As part of our pastoral discussions we talked about the need for parishioners to confess as a rule to their own parish priests, and only with a specific blessing to confess to other priests. This is especially important given the propensity for some clerics outside the Russian Church to employ the canons as a cold rule of law rather than as a pastoral guideline applied with love. This has led in some instances to parishioners being given lengthy penances of excommunication for sins that have been confessed previously with little or no penance from their own parish priest. Further, we strongly call upon our flock to confess on Saturday evenings or eves of feasts, and only to confess on Sunday mornings or feast days before the Divine Liturgy in extreme circumstances."
And so if a parishioner wishes to have a spiritual father other than their parish priest, they should get a blessing to do so, and this is for their own protection.

For more information on this subject, I would recommend Metropolitan Anthony (Khapovitsky)'s book on Confession, which we have in the bookstore, and which also available online.Fr. John Whitefordhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-44749635452036024722017-02-10T21:49:00.000-06:002017-02-10T21:49:13.101-06:00Stump the Priest: Spanking Children?

Question: "Some have argued that the verses in Proverbs regarding corporal punishment are referring to the punishment of adults and not to children. Can you clarify?"

Let's take a look at a couple of the verses in question:

"Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him" (Proverbs 22:15).

"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell" (Proverbs 23:13-14).
The word translated as "child" these verses is na'ar (נער), which means "boy" and is used with reference to boys from the age of infancy to adolescence. I doubt very much that any reputable commentary has ever been written that would seriously argue that this refers to an adult rather than to a child.

But consider the words of St. Basil the Great, which unambiguously, and approvingly speak of small children receiving corporal punishment:

"As small children who are negligent in learning become more attentive and obedient after being punished by their teacher or tutor, and as they do not listen before the lash, but, after feeling the pain of a beating, hear and respond as though their ears were just recently opened, improving also in memory, so likewise with those who neglect divine doctrine and spurn the commandments. For, after they experience God's correction and discipline, then the commandments of God which had always been known to them and always neglected are more readily received as though by ears freshly cleansed" (St. Basil the Great, Homily on the Beginning of Proverbs 5, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament, Vol. IX, J. Robert Wright, ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervasity Press, 2005) p. 147).
St. John Chrysostom recognized that for normal parents, their natural inclination is not to use the rod of correction because of their affection for their children, but that this is why Scripture admonishes them that if we truly love them, we will use it appropriately:

"Spare the rod and spoil the child (Proverbs 13:24). Here there is reference to the people who appear to love their children, but in fact do not; so spoiling is the result of sparing -- not of not sparing. Having children is a matter of no little import: we are responsible even for their salvation. On that reasoning Eli would not have paid a severe penalty. Whereas those who love them correct them diligently -- not casually, but diligently: since nature bids us be sparing, he makes no mention of excess. Hence he says, I instilled affection in you, not for you to harm your loved ones, but for you to care for them; so refrain from inappropriate affection" (St. John Chrysostom, Robert Charles Hill, Trans., Commentary on the Sages, Volume 2, Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Press, 2006, p. 133f).
See also:

Spanking: What Saith the Scripture?

When to SpankFr. John Whitefordhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-54204469143799960432017-02-03T23:37:00.000-06:002017-02-04T13:30:05.772-06:00Stump the Priest: Two Questions on House Blessings

Question 1: "Should a house be blessed every year?"

Question 2: "What should a family do to prepare for a house blessing and what should they expect?"

There are two types of house blessings: The blessing of a new home, and the blessing of a home at Theophany.

The Blessing of a New Home

The blessing of a new home is done only once, and is a more elaborate service. A table is needed, which should ideally be covered with a nice cloth, on which the priest will place the Book of the Gospels, the Cross, four lit candles, Holy Water, a hand censer, and a small bowl or cup of olive oil. Ideally this table would be in front of, or very near, the family Icon corner.

Other priests may handle this differently, but what I would like the family to have in such cases are a bowl the holy water, and a small bowl or cup with olive oil; and either four candle stands or four small saucers, on which the candles can be placed. I bring the Gospel, the Cross, the hand censer, and the Holy Water, and usually have candles with me, if the family doesn't have four candles that are suitable.

During the course of the blessing of a new home, the olive oil is blessed and a small Cross is made with it on the four sides of the home. The four candles are placed below the Crosses, after each one is made. Then the house is sprinkled with Holy Water, at which time a member of the family (usually the head of the house) leads the priest around the house with a candle in his or her hand, going through all the rooms of the home in as much of a circle as possible, and ending back at the same place the service began. Then there is a Gospel reading, and then the house is censed, and again a member of the family should lead the priest around the house for that purpose, just as with the blessing of Holy Water. Then, after a litany, there is a dismissal, followed by the singing of "Many Years," and everyone in the family kisses the Cross.

You can find the text for this service, in Word format, by clicking here.

The Blessing of a Home at Theophany

The blessing of a home at Theophany is done each year on or after the feast of Theophany, but before the beginning of Lent. All that the family needs to have ready is a candle and a bowl for the Holy Water, which should be placed on a table, which would ideally be in front of the family Icon corner. You should also make out a list of both the living and the dead that you would like to have commemorated, which should include all the members of the family. The family commemoration book used at the Liturgy can be used for this purpose.

The service begins with the usual opening prayers ("Blessed is our God... the Trisagion, etc), followed by the singing of the Troparion of Theophany. When we begin singing the Troparion, this is when the priest begins blessing the house with Holy Water, and so a family member with a candle in hand should lead him around the home, going through all the rooms of the home, making as much of a circle as possible, and ending back at the same place the service began. Then there is short litany, a prayer, the dismissal, and the singing of "Many Years." Everyone then kisses the Cross and is blessed with Holy Water.

You can find the text for this service, in Word format, by clicking here.

If you would like the priest to stay for dinner, you should discuss that ahead of time, so that the scheduling of other house blessings allows for it. If there are several homes close together, it is nice to bless them all relatively quickly, and then for everyone to get together at one of those homes for a time of fellowship. However, all of this is up to each family.

The reason why we bless homes each year at Theophany is because all of creation is blessed and renewed at Theophany, and this blessing and renewal is brought to each home, every year. Every Orthodox home is a little Church. We have communal prayers in our parish Church, but we all should also have a life or prayer in the home. Once each year, the Priest comes to each little Church in the parish, and leads the family in this service of blessing.

See Also:

Homily on Theophany by St. John (Maximovitch)Fr. John Whitefordhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-29614812543995553092017-01-28T01:32:00.002-06:002017-01-28T08:30:36.366-06:00Stump the Priest: Tithing

Question: "Is tithing a New Testament practice and a teaching in our Holy Tradition?"

Tithing was the practice of giving ten percent of one's "increase" to God. By increase, this meant that whatever one's labor managed to acquire, the first ten percent of it was the Lord's. Tithing was included in the Law of Moses, but it actually predated that law, because we see in Genesis 14:18-20 that Abraham also tithed. To fail to tithe was to rob God (Malachi 3:8-10).

When we tithe, we recognize that God is the source of all that we have, and by giving back the first ten percent, we give thanks to God, and show that we trust God to continue to provide for our needs, rather than clinging to what we have, because we have no such trust.

While tithing was clearly an obligation in the Old Testament, there is nothing that either specifically affirms that it is obligatory to Christians, nor anything that says that it is not. There is a great deal said about the need to give to the poor, and to support the work of the Church, but whether this was done by tithing is not stated. So to answer the question of what Christ taught the Apostles in this regard, and what the Apostles taught the Church, we must look to Tradition.

In the 13th chapter of the Didache (which is believed to be the oldest document outside of the New Testament) it speaks of giving the "firstfruits" to support prophets, teachers, and the poor, "according to the commandment" (Didache 13:8). The giving of firstfruits in the Old Testament was an aspect of the tithing system, and so when it speaks of doing so "according to the commandment," this suggests that tithing at least as some application for Christians.

St. Irenaeus says:

"We are bound, therefore, to offer to God the first-fruits of His creation, as Moses also says, "Thou shalt not appear in the presence of the Lord thy God empty;" so that man, being accounted as grateful, by those things in which he has shown his gratitude, may receive that honour which flows from Him" (Against Heresies 4:18:1).
St. John Chrysostom says, while commented on Ephesians 2:

"So that in this case the greatness of the sin will make such an one go away with the devil. Woe to him, it is said, who doeth not alms; and if this was the case under the Old Covenant, much more is it under the New. If, where the getting of wealth was allowed, and the enjoyment of it, and the care of it, there was such provision made for the succoring the poor, how much more in that Dispensation, where we are commanded to surrender all we have? For what did not they of old do? They gave tithes, and tithes again upon tithes for orphans, widows, and strangers; whereas some one was saying to me in astonishment at another, "Why, such an one gives tithes." What a load of disgrace does this expression imply, since what was not a matter of wonder with the Jews has come to be so in the case of the Christians? If there was danger then in omitting tithes, think how great it must be now" (4th Homily on Ephesians).
St. John Chrysostom's point is that it is not only wrong to assume that Christians don't need to be concerned with tithing, but that it is an even greater obligation now than it was in the Old Testament, and that we should do more than simply give tithes.

We know that St. Vladimir practiced tithing because the first stone Church in Kiev was built with money he tithed, and was nick-named "The Church of the Tithes" (Десятинна Церква).

We are stewards of all that God has given us, and this includes not only our money, but our time, and our talents. God has given them for us to use to his glory. Of course we have an obligation to take care of our families and to meet our own needs, but we also are to use these things to take care of others, especially the poor, and we also need to support the work of the Church, both on the parish level, but also on a wider scale so that the Church is able to do all that it needs to do to proclaim the Gospel and strengthen the faithful.

If every Orthodox Christian took this concept of stewardship seriously, the results would be astounding. If everyone in the Church simply tithed (not to mention going beyond it), the Church would be able to do so much more in the world that we would see great fruit like we have not seen, in recent memory. But as it is, we are far more limited in our ability to do what God has called us to do, and this is a sin that we should all repent of.

For more information:

The Trail of the Tithe, by Fr. Thomas Zell

Tithes and Firstfruits, by Fr. Dimitri Cozby

My Christ, My Care, the Official Blog of the Stewardship Committee of the Serbian Orthodox Church in North and South AmericaFr. John Whitefordhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-53510055467983544742017-01-21T10:07:00.001-06:002017-01-21T10:24:21.338-06:00Stump the Priest: Is Christmas Pagan?

Sol Invictus, the Unconquerable Sun

Question: "Did Christmas originate from a pagan holiday?"

There has been a long tradition among Protestants of accusing Roman Catholics of engaging in pagan practices based on shoddy history, and modern atheists seem to have taken up that tradition in order to discredit Christianity altogether.

The claims that Christmas originated as a pagan festival have a number of problems historically. For one, the Saturnalia, which is often claimed to be the feast that inspired Christmas was celebrated on December 17th, and eventually this feast was expanded to a week, which ended on December 23rd. The feast of the Unconquerable Sun, which actually was celebrated on December 25th, is a much later feast. The earliest evidence that this feast was celebrated on December 25th comes from a text dated in the year 354 a.d. The earliest Christian reference to a belief that Christ was born on December 25th comes from St. Hippolytus' commentary on Daniel, which was written about 150 years earlier. So if anyone was trying to displace a feast, it is more likely that Pagan Romans were trying to displace a Christian feast, then the other way around.

The other problem with this claim is that the Feast of the Annunciation is the more ancient feast. It was believed that the Messiah would complete his earthly mission on the anniversary of its inception. And we find Tertullian stating that Christ was Crucified on March 25th as early as 208 a.d. (An Answer to the Jews, Ch. VIII). If you calculate a birth exactly nine months later, you come to December 25th.

A further problem with this claim is that before Christmas became a universal feast of the Church, most of the Church celebrated Christ's birth and the beginning of his ministry in His baptism on January 6th. Only later, when the eastern part of the Church adopted the celebration of Christmas was the celebration of Christ's birth transferred to that date, and January 6th exclusively focused on Christ's baptism.

But even if it were the case that there was a pagan feast celebrated on December 25th, if Christians had displaced it with a Christian feast, this would hardly make the celebration pagan in origin. To prove that, you would not to demonstrate a lot more than the coincidence of the date.

More wild claims that the idea of the virgin birth of Christ is based on pagan myths have even less historical credibility. For the most part they are based on made up similarities that have no actual basis in reality.

For more information:

The 25th of December Pagan Feast or Patristic Tradition?", by Hugh O'Donnell

"Why December 25?" by Jon Sorensen

"Was the Virgin Birth of Jesus Grounded in Paganism?" by Jon Sorensen

"Was the Virgin Birth Story Created by the Church?" by Mikel Del Rosario

Why the Russian Orthodox Church Celebrates Christmas on January 7th
Fr. John Whitefordhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-56813033838977026452016-12-21T20:17:00.000-06:002016-12-21T21:34:29.152-06:00Stump the Priest: Fasting and Marital Relations

Question: "Are married couples required to abstain from sex during the fasts?"

The short answer is "no." But a longer answer is necessary here.

It is a pious custom for married couples to abstain from sex during the fasts, and when this is done by mutual consent, that is a good and laudable thing. However, the key word in the question is "required," and something that must be by mutual consent cannot therefore be required.

St. Paul addresses this question directly:

"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment" (1 Corinthians 7:1-6).
St. John Chrysostom comments on this as follows:

"The wife hath not power over her own body;" but is both the slave and the master of the husband. And if you decline the service which is due, you have offended God. But if thou wish to withdraw thyself, it must be with the husband's permission, though it be but a for short time. For this is why he calls the matter a debt, to shew that no one is master of himself but that they are servants to each other. When therefore thou seest an harlot tempting thee, say, "My body is not mine, but my wife's." The same also let the woman say to those who would undermine her chastity, "My body is not mine, but my husband's." Now if neither husband nor wife hath power even over their own body, much less have they over their property. Hear ye, all that have husbands and all that have wives: that if you must not count your body your own, much less your money" (Homily 19 on 1st Corinthians).
And specifically on the meaning St. Paul's admonition: "Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time," St. John says:

"What then can this mean? "Let not the wife," says he, "exercise continence [i.e. abstain from marital relations], if the husband be unwilling; nor yet the husband without the wife's consent." Why so? Because great evils spring from this sort of continence. For adulteries and fornications and the ruin of families have often arisen from hence. For if when men have their own wives they commit fornication, much more if you defraud them of this consolation. And well says he, "Defraud not; fraud" here, and "debt" above, that he might shew the strictness of the right of dominion in question. For that one should practice continence against the will of the other is "defrauding;" but not so, with the other's consent: any more than I count myself defrauded, if after persuading me you take away any thing of mine. Since only he defrauds who takes against another's will and by force. A thing which many women do, working sin rather than righteousness, and thereby becoming accountable for the husband's uncleanness, and rending all asunder. Whereas they should value concord above all things, since this is more important than all beside.
 We will, if you please, consider it with a view to actual cases. Thus, suppose a wife and husband, and let the wife be continent, without consent of her husband; well then, if hereupon he commit fornication, or though abstaining from fornication fret and grow restless and be heated and quarrel and give all kind of trouble to his wife; where is all the gain of the fasting and the continence, a breach being made in love? There is none. For what strange reproaches, how much trouble, how great a war must of course arise! since when in an house man and wife are at variance, the house will be no better off than a ship in a storm when the master is upon ill terms with the man at the head. Wherefore he saith, "Defraud not one another, unless it be by consent for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer." It is prayer with unusual earnestness which he here means. For if he is forbidding those who have intercourse with one another to pray, how could "pray without ceasing" have any place? It is possible then to live with a wife and yet give heed unto prayer. But by continence prayer is made more perfect. For he did not say merely, "That ye may pray;" but, "That ye may give yourselves unto it;" as though what he speaks of might cause not uncleanness but much occupation.
 "And may be together again, that Satan tempt you not." Thus lest it should seem to be a matter of express enactment, he adds the reason. And what is it? "That Satan tempt you not." And that you may understand that it is not the devil only who causeth this crime, I mean adultery, he adds, "because of your incontinency" (Homily 19 on 1st Corinthians).
A husband and a wife have a responsibility to serve one another, and to help each other on the path of salvation. If depriving your spouse of marital relations causes them to sin, you are responsible for having caused them this temptation.

In this regard, Origen wrote:

"You have given up your wife, to whom you are bound. This is a big step you have taken. You are not abusing here, you say, but claiming that you can be chaste and live more purely. But look how your poor wife is being destroyed as a result, because she is unable to endure your purity! You should sleep with your wife, not for your sake, but for hers. (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 3.33.23-25, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. VII, Gerald Bray, ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervasity Press, 1999) p. 59f).
St. Augustine wrote a letter to a woman named Eudicia on this issue, and advised her, based on St. Paul's words as follows:

"According to this, if he had wished to practice continence but you had not, he would have been obliged to give in to you, and God would have given him credit for continence for not refusing intercourse out of consideration for your weakness, but not his own, in order to prevent you from committing adultery. How much better would it have been for you, for whom subjection was more appropriate, to yield to his will in rendering him the debt, since God would have taken account of your intention to observe continence, which you gave up in order to save your husband from destruction" (Letter 262 to Eudicia, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. VII, Gerald Bray, ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervasity Press, 1999) p. 62).
So in summary, it is good to fast from marital relations for a time, by mutual consent, but it is positively sinful to insist upon it, if your spouse does not consent. And according to St. Augustine, when such a spouse do not refuse their husband or wife, they have both the virtue of having had good intentions, and also of showing due love and consideration for their spouse.

Finally, it worth considering the wise words of Fr. Alexander Lebedeff:

"Not long after we were married, my wife and I (I was a third year Seminarian at Jordanville then), were invited to have lunch by one of the old Russian couples that lived in the so-called "Russian village" about a mile from the monastery. We gladly accepted (we were so poor, we were subsisting mainly on macaroni, so any invitation "out" was deeply appreciated). After a wonderful Russian meal, the old "babushka" of the house took us over to the side and conspiratorily whispered: "I know you're recently married, but you do know, of course, the Church rules on when you can, and when you can't?"

It was pretty clear what she was talking about, so we just politely nodded.

She went on: "Well, you can't do it on Tuesday, because that's the eve of a fast day; you can't do it on Wednesday, because it's a fast day; you can't do it on Thursday, because that's the eve of a fast day, also; you obviously can't do it on Friday, because that's a fast day, too; you can't do it on Saturday, because that's the eve of a Feast Day, and you can't do it on Sunday, because that's a Feast Day."

"What about Monday?" I asked.

"Well, you can't do it on Monday, either, because of an old pious custom, since Monday is dedicated to the Bodiless Powers, the Angels, who are an example of purity--and it's also a fast day among monastics."

I asked the venerable Babushka, "And you followed these rules strictly when you were young and just married?"

"Oh, no," she replied, "We were young and foolish, and didn't know any better. . . "

The point of this story is that old babushkas are the first to point out restrictions that do not at all exist according to the Church. The scriptural admonition is for married couples *not* to deny each other sexual relations, except by mutual consent for the purpose of prayer and fasting.

Abstinence from sexual relations (by mutual consent) is certainly appropriate the evening before receiving the Holy Sacraments, and during the day that one receives them. It is certainly *not* an absolute "requirement" of the Church to abstain on all fast days (and on the eves of fast days), or during the 11 days after the Nativity when marriages are not permitted.

The Russian Church in the 13th century issued guidelines for married clergy on these issues, and they included as days of mandatory abstinence only the first and last week of Great Lent, the two weeks of Dormition Lent, and Wednesdays and Fridays during Nativity Lent and the Lent of the Holy Apostles.

The married state is blessed and the marriage bed is undefiled. The Holy Church in protecting the sanctity of marriage and the well-being of the spouses, as well as encouraging procreation and the raising of "fair children" has no interest in creating artificial impediments to preclude spouses from "rejoicing in one another."

If anyone wishes individual guidance on these matters, they should, of course, consult with their Spiritual Father."
Fr. John Whitefordhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-18455539404627035072016-12-13T07:09:00.000-06:002016-12-13T07:09:53.653-06:00Audio of the Advent Retreat 2016

On December 3rd, Metropolitan Jonah (Paffhausen) gave a talk and fielded questions and answers. Here is the audio:

Part 1: http://www.saintjonah.org/podcasts/lectures/metjonah_part1.mp3

Part 2: http://www.saintjonah.org/podcasts/lectures/metjonah_part2.mp3

Here also is the sermon he gave on Sunday, December 4th, which was the Feast of the Entry of the Theotokos: http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/amvon/the_entry_of_the_theotokos_into_the_templeFr. John Whitefordhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-12289650820612826272016-12-09T22:47:00.001-06:002016-12-13T14:03:36.915-06:00Stump the Priest: Time Management

Question: "How do you find the time to do all the things we should do as Christians, with all the demands that today's world puts on us?"

We have far more free time at our disposal than most people did in the past. Most people spent the bulk of their time trying to survive. They did not have lots of leisure time, as we do. But just as expenses rise up to meet income, we have found lots of things to waste our time on, and so we do.

Imagine how laborious a process it was just to wash clothes, within living memory. Now we throw our clothes into a washing machine, along with some soap, come back less than an hour later, and throw them into a dryer, and we are done. This once was a task that consumed hours and hours, and was hard and tedious work.

There are a few things that I have found helpful in terms of making good use of my time.

Samuel Logan Brengle

Years ago, when I was in college studying to be a Nazarene Minister, I read a little book by a once well known Salvation Army officer by the name of Samuel Logan Brengle (1860-1936), entitled "The Soul Winner's Secret." That book had a chapter entitled "Redeeming the Time" which was based on the verse:

"See that ye walk circumspect, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil." (Ephesians 5:15-16).
It was focused on time management, and he had two bits of advice that made a strong impression on me:

1). Look for opportunities to make good use of your time:

"If you would save time, have a Bible, a notebook and a pencil always at hand. Never go on to the street or take a journey without at least a Testament with you, and some other useful book if possible. And don't forget to use them. The Gospel of St. Matthew can be read through in two hours. This may not be the most profitable way to read it, and yet it will pay to read it right through at one sitting, that we may see the life of Jesus as a whole as we would the life of any man. Paul's first letter to Timothy can be read in twenty minutes, while Jude can be read in three minutes easily. Then don't throw away these minutes."
Many people insist that they haven't the time to read the Bible, but we have so many opportunities in a given day that would otherwise go to waste. For example, if you ride the bus to work, if you have a Bible with you, or simply a smart phone with a Bible App, you could read quite a bit of Scripture every day by simply making use of time that would otherwise be frittered away, either by staring out of the window, or surfing the web to no particular purpose. If you have a meeting to go to, you might spend 15 minutes waiting for it to begin, which could either go to waste, or be spent doing something profitable, like reading the Scriptures or some other edifying book. If you are travelling by air, you will likely spend quite a bit of time waiting to board flights, and even longer on those flights. You should see these as great opportunities for uninterpreted reading.

Also, when he speaks of carrying around a notebook, this is very important. The way most people's minds work, ideas come to us at unexpected moments. We often think about things we should do, but will forget to do, if we do not make notes when the thought is fresh in our minds. Today, we might do so in a wide variety of ways, but making notes that can later be easily retrieved and put to use is an important part of planning as well as being creative and productive.

2. Having a Plan:

"With many much time is lost for want of system. Things are done at haphazard, duties are performed at random, and after one thing is done time is wasted in deciding what to do next. It is well, then, to have a program for every day, or, better still, for every hour and minute, as our General [William Booth] does when he goes on a tour. For months ahead the General will have a program for every hour of the day, and whether he succeeds or not in perfectly carrying it out in all its details, he at least works to it, saves anxious worry, loses no time and accomplishes a well-nigh incredible amount of business. Of course in this busy world, full of surprises and unexpected calls, any program must be flexible and not like cast iron, and in times of emergency the soul-winner must be prepared to cast it to the winds and follow according to his best judgment where the Spirit leads, singing with all his heart:

"I would the precious time redeem, And longer live for this alone To spend and to be spent for them, Who have not yet the Saviour known, And turn them to a pardoning God And quench the brands in Jesus' Blood.

My talents, gifts and graces, Lord, Into Thy blessed hands receive. And let me live to preach Thy Word, And let me to Thy glory live; My every sacred moment spend In publishing the sinner's Friend"" [from the Hymn "Give Me The Faith Which Can Remove" by Charles Wesley].
We can either let the day unfold as it will, or we can come to it with a plan to accomplish what is most important to us. As he says, it is almost always the case that things will not go entirely according to our plans, but if we have a plan and accomplish only half of it, we will usually be far more productive than those who have no plan at all.

I tried to develop a system to plan my time, and it was somewhat effective. Years later, however, I discovered a much more effective system in the form of the Franklin-Covey planner. At that time, in my secular job, I was a new supervisor, and this coincided with me becoming a priest -- so I had a lot more demands on my time than I had ever had before. I often had to go to various training sessions, but one day the training was on the Franklin Planner, and in the training I was given a free starter planner. I walked out of that training somewhat incredulous about the claims of how effective their system was, but since I had a free planner, I thought I would give it a try. I found it to be so effective, that I went and bought a CD-set of the training "Focus: Achieving Your Highest Priorities," and every couple of months, for about a year or so, I would listen to that recording again, to refresh my memory until I had the system down.

I began talking to people about Franklin planners so much that some people thought I was getting a cut on the sales. I also discovered that quite a few people I knew were already using these planners... and I wondered why they didn't say anything to me about it before.

Now some people will be wondering why an Orthodox priest has gone from talking about a book by a Salvation Army officer, to discussing a planner designed by Mormons (Steven Covey and Hyrum W. Smith). But regardless of the theological shortcomings of these sources, we can and should learn from others -- even the non-Orthodox -- when they have they have something worth learning. In the case of Samuel Logan Brengle, you had a man who was deeply committed to Christ, was a servant of the poor, and was truly tireless in his work. While he was certainly wrong about many things, there was also much to be admired, and much worthy of emulation. In the case of the Franklin planner and its approach to time management, you have a tool that can be put to Orthodox use.

One fairly unique feature of the Franklin planner is it has you first clarify your values (i.e., what is important to you), and then to set goals to live out what is important to you, and then to plan how you will accomplish those goals. Using this system, one could place making lots of money as their highest priority, and then set goals and establish plans to get rich. But if you have Orthodox Christian priorities, you can use that same system to help you accomplish spiritual goals as well more mundane goals, and to balance them with your various roles in life (being a Christian, having family responsibilities, doing your job, etc).

We should, however, understand that no matter how good we may manage our time, we can't constantly be at 100% productivity. Human beings cannot sustain that. In the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, we find this saying regarding St. Anthony the Great:

"A hunter in the desert saw Abba Anthony enjoying himself with the brethren and he was shocked. Wanting to show him that it was necessary sometimes to meet the needs of the brethren, the old man said to him, 'Put an arrow in your bow and shoot it.' So he did. The old man then said, 'Shoot another,' and he did so. Then the old man said, 'Shoot yet again and the hunter replied 'If I bend my bow so much I will break it.' Then the old man said to him, 'It is the same with the work of God. If we stretch the brethren beyond measure they will soon break. Sometimes it is necessary to come down to meet their needs.' When he heard these words "the hunter was pierced by compunction and, greatly edified by the old man, he went away. As for the brethren, they went home strengthened" (Benedicta Ward, translator, The Sayings of the Desert Fathers, The Alphabetical Collection (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1975, 1984 revised edition), p. 3f.).
There are no doubt other systems to manage time that may work better for other people, but these are things that I have found helpful.

For more information:

Sermon: Redeeming the Time

A YouTube video explaining how Franklin Planners workFr. John Whitefordhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-71584999935032611272016-11-25T19:57:00.000-06:002016-11-26T12:18:55.131-06:00Stump the Priest: The Pledge of Allegiance

Question: "Does Christ's prohibition against oaths in Matthew 5:33-37 mean that we should not pledge allegiance to the flag?"

While Christ certainly forbade the making of foolish and idle oaths, he did not forbid the making of solemn promises. One thing that you find through Scripture is the concept of covenant, and a covenant is a binding and solemn promise.

Take marriage for example, which is one of the most common forms of a covenant that we still enter into today, In marriage we make a covenant with our spouse, with God as a witness, that we will remain faithful to them as long we both shall live.

The Prophet Malachi called the Israelites to task for failing to fulfill this covenant:

"And this is the second thing you do: you cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping and crying; so He does not regard the offering anymore, nor receive it with goodwill from your hands. Yet you say, "For what reason?" Because the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, With whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. "For the Lord God of Israel says that He hates divorce, for it covers one's garment with violence," says the Lord of hosts. "Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously" (Malachi 2:13-16).
It is clear from these verses that we can and do enter into binding covenants, that God is a witness, and that to fail to live up to those covenants is therefore treachery against both the person the covenant is made with (in this case, one's spouse), and treachery against God himself.

Furthermore, the Church does not teach that Christ taught against all oaths. The Catechism of the Russian Orthodox Church, composed by St. Philaret of Moscow has the following comments with regard to the third commandment:

"532. When is God's name taken in vain?

It is taken or uttered in vain when it is uttered in vain and unprofitable talk, and still more so when it is uttered lyingly or irreverently.

533. What sins are forbidden by the third commandment?

1. Blasphemy, or daring words against God.
2. Murmuring, or complaining against God's providence.
3. Profaneness; when holy things are jested on, or insulted.
4. Inattention in prayer.
5. Perjury; when men affirm with an oath what is false.
6. Oath-breaking; when men keep not just and lawful oaths.
7. Breach of vows made to God.
8. Common swearing, or thoughtless oaths in common talk.

534. Are not such oaths specially forbidden in holy Scripture?

The Saviour says: I say unto you, Swear not at all, but let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. Matt. v. 34, 37.

535. Does not this go to forbid all oaths in civil matters?

The Apostle Paul says: Men swear by the greater; and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath. Heb. vi. 16, 17. Hence we must conclude, that if God himself for an immutable assurance used an oath, much more may we on grave and necessary occasions, when required by lawful authority, take an oath or vow religiously, with the firm intention of not breaking it."
It should also be noted that St. Paul often called on God as a witness to what he said, which is what we do when we give an oath in court or when taking an oath of office:

"For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers" (Romans 1:9).

"I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit (Romans 9:1).

"Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not" (Galatians 1:20).
So no, there is nothing in Christ's commandments nor in Church tradition that would prevent us from saying the pledge of allegiance.

Fr. John Whitefordhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-23356991301502007092016-10-28T19:58:00.000-05:002016-10-28T20:27:52.601-05:00Stump the Priest: The Vote

Question: "Should Orthodox Christians vote?"

There are no canons of the Church that either require Christians to vote, or forbid them from doing so. There are restrictions on the involvement of clergy and monastics in political matters, but not laity... so long as they do not take positions clearly at odds with the teachings of the Church. Clergy may not run for office, and while they can and do comment on moral issues that may have a political element, they are generally not permitted to engage publicly in purely political matters.

The Russian Orthodox Church has a document which addresses a wide range of social and contemporary issues entitled "The Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church," and in its section on the Church and politics, it says:

In [the] face of political differences, contradictions and struggle, the Church preaches peace and co-operation among people holding various political views. She also acknowledges the presence of various political convictions among her episcopate, clergy and laity, except for such as to lead clearly to actions contradicting the faith and moral norms of the church Tradition.

It is impossible for the Church's Supreme Authorities and for the clergy, hence for the plenitude of the Church to participate in such activities of political organisations and election processes as public support for the running political organisations or particular candidates, election campaigns and so forth. The clergy are not allowed to be nominated for elections to any body of representative power at any level. At the same time, nothing should prevent bishops, clergy and laity from participation in the expression of the popular will by voting along with other citizens....

On October 8, 1919, St. Tikhon appealed to the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church not to interfere in the political struggle. He pointed out in particular that the servants of the Church «by virtue of their rank should be above and outside any political interests. They should remember the canonical rules of the Holy Church whereby she prohibits her servants from interfering in the political life of the country, joining any political parties and, what is more, from making the liturgical rites a tool of political demonstrations»....

The fact that the Plenitude of the Church does not participate in political struggle, in the work of political parties and in election processes does not mean her refusal to express publicly her stand on socially significant issues and to present this stand to governmental bodies in any country and on any level. This position may be expressed only by Councils, the church authorities and those empowered to act for them. In any case, the right to express it cannot be delegated to public offices or political or other secular organisations.

V. 3. Nothing can prevent the Orthodox laity from participating in the work of legislative, executive and judicial bodies and political organisations. This involvement took place under various political systems, such as autocracy, constitutional monarchy and various forms of the republican system. The participation of the Orthodox laity in civic and political processes was difficult only in the contexts of non-Christian rule and the regime of state atheism.

In participating in government and political processes, the Orthodox laity are called to base their work on the norms of the gospel's morality, the unity of justice and mercy (Ps. 85:10), the concern for the spiritual and material welfare of people, the love of the fatherland and the desire to transform the surrounding world according to the word of Christ.

At the same time, the Christian, a politician or a statesmen, should be well aware that in historical reality and, all the more so, in the context of today's divided and controversial society, most decisions adopted and political actions taken tend to benefit only a part of society, while restricting or infringing upon the interests and wishes of others. Many such decisions and actions are stained with sin or connivance with sin. Precisely for this reason the Orthodox politician or statesman is required to be very sensitive spiritually and morally.

The Christian who works in the sphere of public and political building is called to seek the gift of special self-sacrifice and special self-denial. He needs to be utterly attentive to his own spiritual condition, so that his public or political work may not turn from service into an end in itself that nourishes pride, greed and other vices. It should be remembered that «principalities or powers, all things were created by him, and for him… and by him all things stand» (Col. 1:16-17). St. Gregory the Theologian, addressing the rulers, wrote: «It is with Christ that you command, with Christ that you govern, from Him that you have received the sword». St. John Chrysostom says: «A true king is he who conquers anger and jealousy and voluptuousness and subjects everything to the laws of God and does not allow the passion for pleasure to prevail in his soul. I would like to see such a man in command of the people, and the throne, and the cities and the provinces, and the troops, because he who subjected the physical passions to reason would easily govern people also according to the divine laws… But he who appears to command people but in fact accommodates himself to wrath and ambition and pleasure, … will not know how to dispose of the power»....

V. 4. The participation of the Orthodox laity in the work of governmental bodies and political processes may be both individual and corporate, within special Christian (Orthodox) political organisations or Christian (Orthodox) units of larger political associations. In both cases, the faithful have the right to choose and express their political convictions, to make decisions and to carry out appropriate work. At the same time, lay people who participate in public or political activity individually or within various organisations do it independently, without identifying their political work with the stand of the Church Plenitude or any of the canonical church institutions or speaking for them. At the same time, the supreme church authority does not give special blessing upon the political activity of the laity....
If we involve ourselves in politics, we are not free to take positions that are clearly opposed to the teachings of the Church. Thus, for example, it is not possible for one to be pro-abortion, and an Orthodox Christian. However, there are often complicated choices that have to be made, and the Church is not going tell people who to vote for. But one should be guided by the teachings of Scripture and Tradition, and vote -- or not vote -- according to their own consciences. As is true of all that we say and do, we should always keep in mind that we will one day have to give an account to God. May God give us all wisdom and guide us in the way that we should go.Fr. John Whitefordhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-82600307136071254182016-10-21T20:18:00.002-05:002016-10-21T20:18:23.896-05:00Stump the Priest: Reproving a Scoffer

"He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot. Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee" (Proverbs 9:7-8).
Question: "How should we understand Proverbs 9:7-8? Are we not to reprove the scorner? Or the wicked man?"

Often people take things that are said in the book of Proverbs as if they were immutable promises of God. For example, the proverb "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it" (Proverbs 22:6) is often cited as it was guaranteed that if you raise your children right that they would at least eventually come to a point at which they would live according to the way that they were raised. However, a proverb is a word of wisdom that is usually going to prove to be true. This does not mean that there are no exceptions. There have been righteous people who raised their children right, but nevertheless had a child who died in rebellion against God. That does not make this proverb untrue... because generally it is true. Experience shows this to be the case. But experience also shows that there are some exceptions. Children retain free will, and despite the best Christian parenting, there are some children that rebel against their upbringing, and never repent.

In this case, it is generally true that rebuking a scorner is not going to go well, because such a person is not inclined to listen to any rebuke, and generally will only heap more scorn on the person doing the rebuking, But this proverb is not a commandment. There are cases in which rebuking a scorner might be in order. But one should obviously be very cautious about it, because it is generally not a good idea.

If you had a child who was a scoffer, as a parent, it would be your duty to rebuke him. Also, there may be some opportunities to say something to a scornful person that, at that particular moment, might actually be received well. If you have such a person in your life, you should pray that God would change their heart, and provide such an opportunity, and pray that God will give you the wisdom to know what to say, and when to say it.

One other aspect of this proverb is that it is teaching us to accept correction. All of us at some point in our lives have been wicked, and inclined to scorn correction. But if we have any wisdom we should love those who justly rebuke us. And even when we receive what we think to be an unjust rebuke, we should consider what we are told, and seriously question whether there is in fact some justice to it. Often our enemies will tell us things about ourselves that our friends will not. They may even do it with malicious intentions, but a wise man can even learn from his enemies.

Fr. John Whitefordhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-74797018202491408042016-10-14T23:45:00.000-05:002016-10-15T10:41:27.453-05:00Stump the Priest: Prostrations at the Liturgy

Question: "When are prostrations made at the Liturgy?"

We do not make prostrations at all on Sundays, with the exception being the veneration of the Cross on the third Sunday of Lent, or when the feasts of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross or the Procession of the Cross fall on a Sunday.

We also do not make prostrations on feasts of the Lord (except for the veneration of Cross), regardless of what day they fall on.

We do make them on great feasts of the Theotokos, unless they fall on a Sunday.

During the Church Year, we stop making prostrations after the Presanctified Liturgy on Holy Wednesday, with the only exception being the veneration of the Epitaphios (Plashchanitsa) at Holy Friday Vespers, and Holy Saturday Matins. Even though the Epitaphios remains out until just before Paschal Matins (in Russian practice), prostrations are not supposed to be done when venerating it after the Matins of Holy Saturday (which is actually served Friday evening). We do not make prostrations again until the Kneeling Vespers of Pentecost.

Keeping the above in mind, at Liturgies that do not fall on Sundays or Feasts of the Lord, there are five points at which prostrations should be made:

1. At the Anaphora, the priest or bishop says "Let us give thanks unto the Lord."

2. At the end of the hymn: "We praise Thee, we bless Thee, we give thanks unto Thee, O Lord; and we pray unto Thee, O our God." For those in the Altar who are able to hear it, this should be done when the priest or bishop says "Changing them by Thy Holy Spirit." That prayer is traditionally said in a low voice, while the hymn is being sung, and so the people usually do not hear it said.

3. At the end of the hymn to the Theotokos at the Anaphora: "It is truly meet," or its substitute (Zadostoinik).

4. When the chalice is brought out by the deacon or priest, and he says"With the fear of God and with faith, draw nigh." The clergy do not prostrate at this time, because they do this earlier in the Altar, before they commune.

5. When the chalice is shown to the people for the last time, and the priest or bishop says "Always, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages." The common practices, however, is that those who have received communion do not make a prostration at this point, and so the clergy likewise do not make a prostration.
It is also a common practice in some local traditions to make a prostration when we sing the "Our Father." However, according to Archbishop Peter, St. John of Shanghai taught that this was incorrect, because, as we say just before we sing this prayer at the Liturgy, we are asking that God would enable us "with boldness and without condemnation to dare to call upon [him] the heavenly God as Father..." And a son does not prostrate himself before his father, when he has such boldness and is not under condemnation.

Fr. John Whitefordhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-70459697894214522582016-10-07T19:12:00.000-05:002016-10-07T21:44:21.499-05:00Stump the Priest: Readers

The Tonsuring of a Reader

Question: "How does one become a Reader, and what does a Reader do?"

We learn a great deal about what it means to be a Reader from the admonition that the bishop gives to a Reader after he is tonsured (i.e., made a Reader):

"My son, the first degree in the Priesthood is that of Reader. It behooveth thee therefore to peruse the divine Scriptures daily, to the end that the hearers, regarding thee may receive edification; that thou in nowise shaming thine election, mayest prepare thyself for a higher degree. For by a chaste, holy and upright life thou shalt gain the favor of the God of loving-kindness, and shalt render thyself worthy of a greater ministry, through Jesus Christ our Lord: to whom be glory unto the ages of ages. Amen."
This tells us that the office of the Reader is the first rank of the priesthood. There are two types of clergy: minor clergy, and major clergy. Readers are tonsured, which means that rather than being ordained in the Altar, they are set apart by having some of their hair cut in the form of the Cross (as also happens at baptism, and when someone is made a monastic) and ordained in the Nave of the Church, as are Subdeacons, who are also minor clergy. The major clergy are Bishops, Priest, and Deacons.

But what it means for this to be the first rank of the priesthood is that the same basic requirements to be ordained a Priest are also required of a Reader. A reader must of course be Orthodox. He must also be a man who has not been married more than once. He must be of a good reputation. There are other possible impediments to ordination, and most of them apply equally to readers (there are different age requirements for deacons, priests, and bishops, and bishops are required to be monastics).

A Reader should also read the Scriptures daily, and be familiar enough with the texts that he reads that those who hear him are able to understand him, and be edified by his reading. In addition to that, a Reader should learn the rubrics of the services, and should learn to sing his way through the services by learning the tones, and how to use and combine the liturgical texts at the kliros. In most parishes, there are choir directors who do most of that work at the main services, but a Reader should learn this as well, so that if he is the only person at the kliros (as can happen at some of the daily services) he will be able to read and sing all of the parts of the services that are not specific to the Bishop, Priest, and Deacon.

The admonition to the Reader that he "in nowise" shame his election means that he should be an example to others in the Church. As St. Paul admonished St. Timothy: "be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conduct, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity" (1 Timothy 4:12). And a reader should do this in order to prepare himself "for a higher degree." In other words, a reader should be preparing himself for the possibility of serving in a higher rank of the clergy. Of course all Christians should try to be an example "in word, in conduct, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity," but this should be especially the case for clergy. This means a Reader should be personally pious, loving towards others, and should love the services of the Church.

Anyone who is able (and of course an Orthodox Christian) can serve the function of a Reader, when needed. And there are many people who are not tonsured as Readers who do. However, one who actually is a Reader has a duty to fill this role, and so should be zealous to prepare himself to fulfill this role, and should be eager to actually do it, being present whenever possible for the services, and making themselves available to do their duty.

If someone is interested in becoming a reader, they should speak to the priest and begin applying themselves to learning how to properly do it. Even if they are not eventually tonsured as a Reader, the knowledge they acquire is beneficial to any Orthodox Christian.

For more on what it means to be a Reader, I would recommend reading Instruction for the Church Reader as well as A Guide for Readers in the Orthodox Church, by Fr. Geoffrey Korz.Fr. John Whitefordhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-34191846189744505842016-10-06T19:13:00.001-05:002016-10-06T19:13:32.745-05:00The Immoral Policy of the United States Government in Syria

I feel compelled, as a Christian and as an American citizen speaking only for myself, to condemn the policy of the United States government which has been to overthrow the Syrian government by arming and funding a radical jihadist insurgency. This has fueled and exacerbated a conflict which has witnessed the deaths of nearly half of a million Syrians, produced five million refugees, seven and a half-million internally displaced people, and has brought untold misery upon many millions more who have suffered either directly or indirectly as a result of this shameful policy. [1]

I cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that our government continues, with our tax-payer dollars, to fund and arm those who are raping, murdering, and displacing Christians (who represent about ten percent of the overall population) and other religious minorities in Syria. [2]

Our government waged a phony bombing campaign against ISIS for more than a year, with the only effect being that it made it appear that we were doing something, and provided cover for what we have clearly been up to. In fact, the end result of our government's actions was to allow these terrorists to push further west into Syria. Our government willfully "looked the other way" because it put added pressure on the legitimate Syrian government (a United Nations member). [3] Some of the foremost academic experts in the world have repeatedly confirmed this. [4] To the extent that ISIS has been "on the run" in recent months, this is primarily due to the efforts of the Syrian Army and their allies, and not to the half-hearted actions of our government.

ISIS soon overran much of Iraq and Eastern Syria, often traveling in large convoys across open desert (which would have been easy targets for a serious bombing campaign by the world's most powerful air force), and eventually captured historic Palmyra in Syria. This has resulted not only in the immense immediate loss of human life, and the destruction of countless communities – but also the loss of priceless artifacts and documents that are lost to future generations, forever. Ancient Christian communities, many that spoke the very language of Christ, and have existed since the time of the apostles have been destroyed. [5] We have seen the revival of slave markets, which have functioned openly in the streets of cities in Syria and Iraq. And our government has not only done very little to put a stop to these things, but has in fact funneled arms and supplies to groups closely allied with the al-Nusra Front (which is a branch of Al Qaeda, lately calling itself Jabhat Fatah al-Sham) and ISIS. [6] Our own government has also continued to demonize other world powers, who at the invitation of the Syrian government, are assisting in the fight against ISIS and other terrorist groups. Our leaders continue to keep this civil war going, instead of pursuing legitimate avenues of peace, while continuing to remain closely allied with sources of terrorist ideology like Saudi Arabia. [7]

Lest anyone think that what I am saying reflects conspiracy theories or fringe views, I would note that no less than Franklin Graham, who does charitable work on the ground in Syria, and is the son of the famous evangelist Billy Graham, has been pointing out these errors in US policy in Syria for years. Like most of those who know the Christians of Syria, he opposes any attempt to overthrow the Syrian government, because this government has protected Christians and other religious minorities, and any government that would likely replace it, would see the end of Christianity in Syria. [8]

We should all call upon our leaders to stop this reckless and inhuman policy, and especially condemn any suggestion that we should bomb the Syrian Army. It is unfortunate that many civilians have suffered and died in this civil war, but the primary responsibility for that belongs to those who set this war in motion, fueled it with a steady supply of arms and supplies, and have consistently prevented efforts to bring it to a swift conclusion. [9]

We should also immediately cut off all military and financial aid to "rebel" groups, which is what fueled the rapid rise of ISIS in the first place. [10] We should end the sanctions that helped create the turmoil that laid the groundwork for this civil war. And furthermore, the US government should provide sufficient resources to rebuild the communities that have been destroyed as a result these immoral and unjust actions. We should also all continue to pray daily for the peace of Syria and for the victims of this tragic and foolish war.

[1] Seumas Milne (June 3, 2015). Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq. The Guardian. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

[2] BBC News, Syria's beleaguered Christians (February 25, 2015) Retrieved October 6, 2016, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22270455

[3] In fact, Vice President Biden, speaking at Harvard University on October 2, 2014, admitted that our regional allies (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar) created, armed, and funded ISIS and the other terrorist groups because they hoped to overthrow the Syrian government: https://youtu.be/dcKVCtg5dxM?t=53m20s

[4] See for example University of Oklahoma professor Dr. Joshua Landis in a May 2015 statement: https://twitter.com/joshua_landis/status/601579194179420161?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw or see Chatham House (UK) expert Hayder al-Khoei: https://twitter.com/Hayder_alKhoei/status/601528444686565376?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[5] Philip Jenkins (September 4, 2013). Syria's Christians Risk Eradication: A post-Assad Islamist regime threatens to re-enact the Armenian genocide. The American Conservative. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/syrias-christians-risk-eradication/

[6] Kevin Boyd (September, 2014). Remember Those 'Moderate' Syrian Rebels That The U.S. Armed? ISIS Got Some Of Those Weapons Too. Independent Journal Review. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from http://ijr.com/2014/09/175685-remember-moderate-rebels-syria-obama-armed-isis-got-weapons/

[7] Scott Shane (August 25, 2016). Saudis and Extremism: 'Both the Arsonists and the Firefighters.' New York Times. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-islam.html

[8] Newsmax Prime (September 30, 2015). Rev. Franklin Graham on how Russian airstrikes affect Christian persecution. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from https://youtu.be/IWX44PqYc6c?t=2m21s Russian Orthodox Church Youtube Channel (October 29, 2015). Rev. Franklin Graham meeting with Patriarch Kirill. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from https://youtu.be/uHaldjbUgc0?t=13m15s

[9] Ron Paul Liberty Report (October 6, 2016). Why Everything You Hear About Aleppo Is Wrong. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from https://youtu.be/I8mA0h7dCKI

[10] RealClear Politics (August 10, 2015): Former DIA Chief Michael Flynn Says Rise Of ISIS Was A "Willful Decision" Of US Government. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/10/former_dia_chief_michael_flynn_says_rise_of_isis_was_willful_decision_of_us_government.html

Fr. John Whitefordhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-66926681872455670432016-09-29T21:11:00.001-05:002016-09-30T13:59:55.275-05:00Stump the Priest: A Sacrifice of Righteousness

The Prophet Nathan confronts King David with his sin.

Question: "I have often been perplexed by the last two sentences of Psalm 50. Is this thought to me a Messianic psalm? If so, I find difficulty in the culmination of the psalm being animal sacrifice. How ought we to incorporate this psalm in our daily prayers in light of this verse?"

Psalm 50 [51 in Protestant Bibles] is not really a Messianic psalm in the usual sense. It is a penitential psalm. In fact, you could say that it is THE penitential psalm We not only pray this psalm daily, but usually we pray it several times a day in the services, as well as in our private prayers.

To understand the ending, you need to keep in mind the context of the entire Psalm. We are told in the superscription that it is "a psalm of David, when Nathan the Prophet came unto him, when he went in unto Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah." We read about this in 2 Samuel 11:1-12:23. There we are told that it was "the time when kings go forth to battle" and yet, for the first time in his adult life, David the King did not go into battle with everyone else, but rather "David tarried still at Jerusalem." Then, in his idleness, one evening, being unable to sleep, David walked upon the roof of his house, "and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon." And rather than put up any resistance to this temptation, he had someone find out that she was Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite. And not allowing the fact that she was married to another man to dissuade him, he seduced her, and got her pregnant. Then hoping to cover up his sin, he called for Uriah to return to Jerusalem (who was one of his own soldiers, putting his own life on the line for his king and the nation of Israel), hoping that he would sleep with his wife, and then believe that her child was his own. But Uriah proved to be a better man than David, because he would not allow himself the comforts of home while his fellow soldiers were fighting in the field. He told David:

"The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing."
David even called for Uriah to eat with him, and he got him drunk, but even then "he went out to lie on his bed with the servants of his lord, but went not down to his house."

Nevertheless, rather than admit his own guilt, David sent Uriah back to the battle, and wrote to Joab, his general:

"Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die."
Joab did as he was told, Uriah was killed in battle, and word was sent back to David. Then David took Bathsheba as a wife, and perhaps thought that he had gotten away with it... but he had not.

King David was, we are told "a man after God's own heart" (1 Samuel 13:14), and "the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel" (2 Samuel 23:1), and yet he fell into not only adultery but murder. How was this possible?

St. John Chrysostom says of this:

"And the prophet was found in adultery, the pearl in the mud. However, he did not yet understand that he had sinned; the passion ravaged him to such a great extent. Because, when the charioteer gets drunk, the chariot moves in an irregular, disorderly manner. What the charioteer is to the chariot, the soul is to the body. If the soul becomes darkened, the body rolls in the mud. As long as the charioteer stands firm, the chariot drives smoothly. However, when he becomes exhausted and is unable to hold the reins firmly, you see this very chariot in terrible danger. The exact same thing happens to man. As long as the soul is sober and vigilant, this very body remains in purity. However, when the souls is darkened, this very body rolls in mud and in lusts. Therefore, what did David do? He committed adultery; yet neither was he aware nor was he censured by anyone. This occurred in his most venerable years, so you may learn that, if you are indolent, not even old age benefits you, nor, if you are earnest, can youthful years seriously harm you. Behavior does not depend on age but on the direction of the will. Although David was twelve years old, he was a judge; his predecessors, however, who were old in years, committed adultery; and neither did old age benefit them nor youth injure this one. So you may learn that the affairs of prudence rely upon the will and do not depend on age, just remember that David was found in his venerable years falling into adultery and committing murder; and he reach such a pathetic state that we was unaware that he had sinned, because his mind, which was the charioteer, was drunk from debauchery" (The Fathers of the Church: St. John Chrysostom, On Repentance and Almsgiving, 2:2:5-7, trans. Michael P. McHugh (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1998), p. 18f).
St. John tells us, that since when a physician falls ill another physician must cure him, likewise, when one prophet fell into sin, another Prophet was sent to cure him. He did not immediately confront him, lest having his sin publicly exposed at once, he become defiant. Instead, he used a story to cause the King to pronounce judgment over himself:

"And the Lord sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, "There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds: But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him." And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, "As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die: And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity." And Nathan said to David, "Thou art the man!" (2 Samuel 12:1-7).
St. John Chrysostom observes:

"What did the king say? "I have sinned against the Lord." He did not say, "Who are you who censures me? Who sent you to speak with such boldness? With what daring did you prevail?" He did not say anything of the sort; rather, he perceived the sin. And what did he say? "I have sinned against the Lord." Therefore, what did Nathan say to him? "And the Lord remitted your sin." You condemned yourself; I [God] remit your sentence. You confessed prudently; you annulled the sin. You appropriated a condemnatory decision against yourself; I repeal the sentence. Can you see that what is written in Scripture was fulfilled: "Be the first one to tell of your transgressions so you may be justified" [Isaiah 43:26 LXX]? How toilsome is it to be the first one to declare the sin?" (The Fathers of the Church: St. John Chrysostom, On Repentance and Almsgiving, 2:2:9, trans. Michael P. McHugh (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1998), p. 20f).
So you find in Psalm 50 the full expression of the Prophet David's repentance. Towards the end of the psalm, we find the references to animal sacrifices. The Prophet, having come to see the depth of his sin, recognized the inadequacy of simply offering animal sacrifice to be reconciled with God:

"For if Thou hadst desired sacrifice, I had given it; with whole-burnt offerings Thou shalt not be pleased. A sacrifice unto God is a broken spirit; a heart that is broken and humbled God will not despise" (Psalm 50 [51]:16-17).
St. Augustine comments that this foresees the time when these sacrifices would be replaced by the reality that they pointed towards:

"David was living at that time when sacrifices of victim animals were offered to God, and he saw these times that were to be. Do we not perceive ourselves in these words? Those sacrifices were figurative, foretelling the One Saving Sacrifice. Not even we have been left without a Sacrifice to offer to God. For hear what he saith, having a concern for his sin, and wishing the evil thing which he hath done to be forgiven him: "If Thou hadst willed," he saith, "sacrifice, I would have given it surely. With holocausts Thou wilt not be delighted." Nothing shall we therefore offer? So shall we come to God? And whence shall we propitiate Him? Offer; certainly in thyself thou hast what thou mayest offer. Do not from without fetch frankincense, but say, "In me are, O God, Thy vows, which I will render of praise to Thee." Do not from without seek cattle to slay, thou hast in thyself what thou mayest kill. "Sacrifice to God is a spirit troubled, a heart contrite and humbled God despiseth not" (ver. 17). Utterly he despiseth bull, he-goat, ram: now is not the time that these should be offered. They were offered when they indicated something, when they promised something; when the things promised come, the promises are taken away. "A heart contrite and humbled God despiseth not." Ye know that God is high: if thou shalt have made thyself high, He will be from thee; if thou shalt have humbled thyself, He will draw near to thee" (Exposition on the Psalms, Psalm 50 [51], 21).
The psalm ends with these words:

"Do good, O Lord, in Thy good pleasure unto Zion, and let the walls of Jerusalem be builded. Then shalt Thou be pleased with a sacrifice of righteousness, with oblation and whole-burnt offerings. Then shall they offer bullocks upon Thine altar" (Psalm 50[51]:18-19).
Blessed Theodoret sees in these verses not only a prophecy of the Babylonian captivity (which happened several centuries after the time of King David, and the subsequent return and restoration of Jerusalem and Temple; but also a prophecy of the coming of the Church:

"From these words we are taught more clearly that the psalm is full of prophecy: the verses bear on those compelled to dwell in Babylon, longing for liberation from slavery and bewailing the desolation of the city. They beg that the city be granted some pity and recover its former good fortune, with the ramparts repaired, and the liturgy performed according to the Law. As it is, he is saying, it is not possible for those living in foreign parts to offer to you the prescribed sacrifices, as the Law is clear about sacrificing in that city alone. But if we were to be granted the return and were to rebuild the Temple, then we would offer to you the prescribed sacrifices. Now, very applicable to them is the verse, You will open my lips, O Lord, and my mouth will declare your praise: theirs is the cry, "How shall we sin the Lord's song in a foreign land? [Psalm 136 [137]:4]" The conclusion of this psalm contains, however, a further prophecy as well. You see, after setting forth above the gifts of the all-holy Spirit, he went on to show the God all to be not pleased with the sacrifices according to the Law, and his prayer is for the new Zion to emerge, the heavenly Jerusalem to be built on earth, and the new way of life to be inaugurated as soon as possible, offering not irrational victims but the offering and sacrifices of righteousness, and rational and living holocausts, of which blessed Paul says, "I urge you brethren, through the mercies of God to present your bodies as living sacrifice, holy, pleasing to God, your rational worship [Romans 12:1]." The most divine David, you see, in so far as he had learned the obscure and hidden things of the wisdom of God, was aware that the New Testament contains the complete forgiveness of sins, and yearned for rapid and complete liberation from sins. And in his longing to attain in his own case the rapid and generous purification, he spoke these verses" (Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Psalms, 1-72, trans. Robert C. Hill (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2000), p. 302f).
So while this psalm is not a Messianic psalm per se, it certainly does has prophetic elements that relate to the work of the coming Messiah.

Fr. John Whitefordhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-8573199404036089932016-09-27T06:42:00.002-05:002016-09-27T06:47:11.570-05:002017 St. Innocent Liturgical Calendar, now ready for order

You can now place your orders for the 2017 St. Innocent Liturgical Calendar. In addition to providing liturgical rubrics based on the Jordanville Calendar (Troitskij Pravoslavnij Russkij Kalendar), the calendar also includes a liturgical color chart. The cost is $32.95 Bookstore discounts are available based on the quantity ordered. The Calendar can also be ordered in PDF format. All Calendars are according to the Julian Calendar. To order, and for more information, see: http://www.stinnocentpress.com/products/liturgical_calendar.htmlFr. John Whitefordhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-80904753879201919332016-09-11T17:11:00.000-05:002016-09-14T06:32:59.448-05:00The Beheading of St. John the Baptist and 9/11

We do not generally celebrate the birthdays of saints. We celebrate the date of their deaths, because how we end our lives is more important than how we begin them. However, St. John the Baptist is one of the two exceptions to this rule. We celebrate both the conception and the birth of St. John as well as the Theotokos, because these two people are the holiest of the saints. St. John was, we are told in the Gospels, filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb (Luke 1:15), and so he was a great saint, and the greatest of the Prophets.

Though the beheading of St. John the Baptist happened on Herod's birthday, it is the death of St. John we commemorate, not Herod's birthday, because Herod is remembered now only as a very evil and weak man..

The Herod of the Gospel we heard today is not the same as the Herod we hear about on Christmas. This was one of his sons. Herod the Great had five wives, and many children -- several of whom he had executed, and so it was said of Herod that it was safer to be Herod's pig than Herod's son. After Herod the Great died, his kingdom was divided among the surviving sons, and so Herod Antipas was made a Tetrarch, who ruled Galilee and Perea. Galilee was the most prosperous area in the Holy Land. Perea was the land along the eastern bank of the Jordan River and the Dead Sea.

It's difficult to keep track of how the family was related to each other, because this was a family tree that didn't have a lot of branches. Herod Antipas, was born of Herod's wife Malthake, and was first married to the daughter of King Aretas, a Nabatean King. Herodias was the Granddaughter of Herod the Great, whose grandmother was Mariamne the Hasmonean. She was first married to Herod Philip, another of Herod the Great Son's, by his wife Cleopatra of Jerusalem, and so was half brother to Herod Antipas. This made Herodias both Herod Antipas's niece, and his sister-in-law. Herodias had a daughter from Philip, named Salome -- who was both Antipas' niece, and grandniece at the same time.

At one point, Antipas and Herodias were in Rome, and he seduced her. He convinced her to divorce her husband, and promised that he would divorce his wife, and then they would be married, and they both followed through, and were married, with complete disregard to the law of God forbidding the taking of another man's wife while he still lived, and also forbidding taking one's brother's wife at all if she already had a child from the brother.

St. John the Baptist did not say "Who am I to judge"? He did not say, "It is none of my business." He certainly did not say "Love wins!" as many in our culture today would be inclined to say. Instead he said "It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife" (Mark 6:18). He did not care what Roman law said. He did not care what Antipas said the law was. He only cared what the law of God said.

This, of course, did not set well with Herodias, who resented anyone speaking the truth about her. And so finally she persuaded Herod to arrest him, and he put him into prison in the palace fortress of Machaerus, which was on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea.

But what is strange is that having put this simple man into prison, "Herod feared John"(Mark 6:20). He was the man with the power. John was locked in a dungeon, and yet Herod feared him. He feared him because he was a "holy and just man" (Mark 6:20), and he no doubt feared the people, who all thought St. John was a prophet.

However, we are also told that he often went to see John, and "heard him gladly" (Mark 6:20). He was torn, because on the one hand, he had a sin he was not willing to give up – the sin of his adulterous and incestuous relationship with his brother's wife. But on the other hand, he was drawn to the what St. John said, and to what St. John represented. Much like when we later hear of his nephew Agrippa, he was almost persuaded. When St. Paul appeared before Herod Agrippa, after hearing his testimony, he said "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian" (Acts 26:28). And Antipas was almost persuaded to repent. However, "almost" only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades. In the spiritual life, "almost" is not good enough.

So he wavered between two opinions. He would not repent, but he also would not give into the demands of his wife and put St. John to death.

Then, one day he threw himself a birthday party. We are told that "he made a supper to his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee" (Mark 6:21). And then Salome, the daughter of Herodias, came in and shamelessly danced. This was not the normal behavior of a princess, but she had learned to be shameless from her mother. Antipas, who was no doubt somewhat drunk, was struck with lust for a woman who was his niece, his grandniece, and his step-daughter to boot. And he made a foolish oath: "Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee." And he then swore: "Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom" (Mark 6:23). Some also think that this amounted to a marriage proposal, because normally a ruler shares half of his kingdom only with his queen. She might have asked for all sorts of riches, the possibilities were great, but instead she went and consulted with her mother, and her mother told her to ask for the head of John the Baptist. And to make sure that Herod was not given an opportunity to change his made, she demanded that it be given to her on a platter, right then. Rather than renounce a foolish oath, Herod, because he feared the opinion of those who were at his party, gave in:

"And immediately the king sent an executioner, and commanded his head to be brought: and he went and beheaded him in the prison, And brought his head in a charger, and gave it to the damsel: and the damsel gave it to her mother" (Mark 6:27-28).
Herod's conscience troubled him. We know this because we were told at the beginning of today's reading, that when he heard of Christ, he was convinced that this was St. John the Baptist, come back from the dead (Mark 6:14-16).

We hear of Antipas one more time in the Gospels, on the night of Christ's passion. St. Luke tells us that when Pilate heard that Christ was a Galilean, hoping to pass the buck, he sent him to Antipas, who happened to be in Jerusalem at the time.

"And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him. Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing" (Luke 23:8-9).
He would have heard Christ gladly, as he had John, but Christ did not indulge him. He performed no miracle to impress him. And one thing that this tells us is that there comes a time when God will give up a man who continues to reject the call to repentance, and leave him to go his own way. Today, is the day of salvation. Now is the appointed time (2 Corinthians 6:2).

Since Christ would not provide him with with the entertainment that he had hoped for, we are told that he and his men treated Christ with contempt and mocked him, and "arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate" (Luke 23:11). And it happened that Pilate and Herod became friends (Luke 23:12). They previously had been enemies, but became friends in their opposition to Christ.

About a decade after all of this, Antipas fell out of favor. He went to Rome, but was accused of plotting against the Emperor by his nephew Agrippa, and so lost his rule, and was sent into exile with Herodias. No one knows exactly when or how Herod and Herodias died, and this is because no one thought it important enough to record it. In St. John's Troparion, we are told "The memory of the righteous is celebrated with hymns of praise..." However, the Psalms tell us:

"Not so are the ungodly, not so; but rather they are like the chaff which the wind doth hurl away from the face of the earth. For this reason shall the ungodly not stand up in judgement, nor sinners in the council of the righteous. For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous, and the way of the ungodly shall perish" (Psalm 1:4-6).
We celebrate another unhappy anniversary today -- the fifteenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. I do not believe it is coincidental that these attacks happened on the feast of the beheading of St. John the Baptist.*

St. John of Shanghai was the founder of our cathedral in our nation's capital, Washington, D.C. Most parishes that are dedicated to St. John the Baptist celebrate the feast of his nativity, or the Synaxis of St. John the Baptist -- because both feasts are usually not fast days, and when a parish celebrates a patronal feast, they, of course, like to do it on a day when they can eat whatever they want. However, the feast of the beheading of St. John the Baptist is always a fast day. There is never a year in which this day is another other than a fast day. And yet St. John insisted that they dedicate their cathedral to this feast. The people tried to convince him otherwise, but he warned them that unless they chose this feast, their parish would not prosper... and being fearful to go against such a warning from such a holy man, they relented.

I know that this story was not concocted to try to connect this feast with the 9/11 attacks, because I remember hearing it long before those attacks. Prior to 9/11, people just thought it was curious. Perhaps St. John simply wanted to encourage people to fast. However, after the 9/11 attacks this story was seen in a very different light. St. John the Baptist was a preacher of repentance. He warned that the axe is already laid to the root of the tree, and any tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and caste into the fire (Matthew 3:10). This means that the axe is already in position to start hacking away at the roots, and to chop the tree down, but there is still an opportunity for repentance.

Unfortunately, I remember how after 9/11 there was an upsurge in Church attendance. People seemed to be more interested in their faith. Like Herod, they heard the preaching of the word of God gladly. But it did not last. And look at what has happened since then. Our country has redefined marriage -- the very issue that lead to St. John being beheaded -- and in a way that Herod could not even imagine. We have thrown the law of God out of the window. And now, increasingly, we see Christ mocked in our culture.

We cannot have our cake and eat it to. This is true of us as a nation, and this is true of us as individuals. We cannot serve both God and our own lusts. We cannot call ourselves Christians, and do whatever we please, contrary to God' law. We have to choose this day whom we will serve, and we will have to live with that choice for all eternity. Regardless of what everyone else may do, we as Orthodox Christians must say "But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:15).

*It is worth noting that the comparable terrorist attack in the United Kingdom happened on July 7th, 2005, which on the Church calendar happens to be the feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist.

Click here to listen to the audio of this sermon.
Fr. John Whitefordhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-35474793949810496302016-09-09T20:27:00.000-05:002016-09-12T05:55:13.575-05:00King James English and Orthodox Worship

One doesn't usually look to Orthodox Jewish sources for guidance on the kind of English that is best suited for worship, but years ago I stumbled across some very telling comments in the preface to the book "To Pray as a Jew," by Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin. Commenting on his translations of the prayers his book would discuss, he says:

"I have decided to retain the use of "Thou," "Thee," and "Thy" in all passages that address themselves directly to God. The more contemporary "You" and "Your," which I had at first considered using, made me uncomfortable in some instances, although I find it difficult to explain why this should be so. The Hebrew atah (and the Yiddish du) reflect the familiar and the intimate approach to God with which I am comfortable. Still, English seems to demand, at least in some places, the more reverent "Thou" and "Thy." (To Pray as a Jew: A Guide to the Prayer book and the Synagogue Service, (New York: Basic Books [Harper Collins], 1980), p. xx.).
I would argue that Rabbi Donin was right in his gut, but wrong in his explanation. It makes no sense to limit the use of "Thee" and "Thou" to God, and so he correctly senses the inconsistency of his translation choices here. He is also incorrect in his assumption that these forms are not the "intimate you" he sees in Hebrew and Yiddish. In fact, "Thou" is simply the English form of the German "Du", which is were the Yiddish pronoun comes from (English being, after all, a Germanic language).* He is correct, however, that in English there is a need to use more traditional language when praying because we sense that the sacredness of the act requires a more reverent form of the language. Traditional English also has the added advantage of being more precise, because it allows for a distinction between the second-person singular pronoun ("thou"), and the plural ("you"), which is present in both Hebrew and Greek, and often this distinction is very important to the meaning of a text. Aside from all of that, praying "O You Who..." just doesn't work.

From time to time we hear some in the Orthodox Church arguing that English-speaking Orthodox Christians should abandon the use of "King James English" and simply use contemporary English in our translations of the Scriptures and the services. This is, however, a fairly recent phenomenon. From the time that the first modern English-speaking Orthodox Christians began translating the services (the earliest known example being in 1760), up until the 1960's, it never seems to have even occurred to anyone that they should translate the services into anything other than the traditional style of English that we find in the King James Version, and the pre-1980's editions of the Book of Common Prayer.

Even non-native English speakers followed this pattern. Nicholas Orloff, who translated a number of texts at the end of the 19th century did so, though these texts are notoriously clunky, and no longer in common use. Likewise Fr. Seraphim Nassar, published a compendium of liturgical texts in 1938 (affectionately known as the "Nassar Five Pounder") that used traditional English, and this text is still in use today, In 1906, Isabel Hapgood first published her Service Book, which was blessed by the Hieromartyr Tikhon of Moscow, and funded by the Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II (who spoke English in the home with the Tsarina Alexandra (who was raised by Queen Victoria), and their children). She was an Anglican, and she clearly modeled her translation on the style of the Book of Common Prayer. This text is likewise still in use today, and was highly influential on subsequent translations of the services. More recently, the Lenten Triodion translated by Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) and Mother Mary is probably one of the most standard English texts in use in the Orthodox Church today, being in use in the vast majority of parishes that use English. The fact is, one cannot find a complete set of service books in English that are not in traditional English, and the obvious reason for this is because this how the English speaking Orthodox Christians generally think it ought to be, and this has been true for more than 250 years.

But some might object that this is just due to Protestant influence. The fact that this is not true is shown by the oldest Catholic translation of the Bible in English, the Douay Rheims Bible, as well as the text of the "Hail Mary" that is still in general use:

"Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen."
The Orthodox approach to translation has generally been a conservative one. Slavonic was never the street language of Slavic speakers. It was a high form of Slavic language, with a huge amount of created terms, using Slavic root words, and putting them together in the same way Greek theological terms were constructed. The end result was a highly elevated language which was within reach of Slavic speaking people, but was not the language of the street.

When the services were translated into Chinese and Japanese, for example, the style used was that which was used in traditional Chinese and Japanese religious practice... which was an older form of these languages.

Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, the Greek of the New Testament was not really "street Greek." It is certainly in a form of Koine Greek, but it is in a Semitic style that it full of Hebraisms rooted in the Old Testament, both the Hebrew original, and the Greek Septuagint (which likewise is full of Hebraisms, see The Semitic Style of the New Testament, and Was the Bible Written in 'Street Language'?, by Michael D. Marlowe). Furthermore, even in the Hebrew Old Testament, you find the use of intentional archaisms, not to mention the fact that Jews continued to use the Hebrew text of the Old Testament long after Hebrew ceased to be the spoken language of the people (and in fact, they continue to use it to this day).

The Orthodox Church has always taken the position that the language used in our services and translations of Scripture should be within reach of the people (which is why Christians did not just continue to use the Hebrew Old Testament, and why we have always had so many different liturgical languages in use), but the Church has not felt the need to use the language of the street, or to regularly update our translations.

This does not mean that we should never update our translations. While I would argue that when it come to the text of Scripture we should begin with the text of the King James version, I would not argue that there is no need to correct the KJV or to update it when changes to English have rendered a particular text very difficult for the average person to properly understand. One does have to learn some vocabulary and get use to some older grammatical forms, but for the most part, these are not difficult.

Traditional English is also not a dead language. It is simply a form of English used in worship and in other solemn contexts. People use this language every day in prayer, and they do so naturally. Even among those who pray extemporaneously, they are able to pray in this manner without any difficulty, nor is what they say difficult to comprehend. For an example, I would refer people to one of the many extemporaneous prayers Billy Graham gave at his evangelistic rallies: https://youtu.be/X1eHJDJWx3Q?t=1m4s

I think we should take to heart the comments of Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol, Cyprus to Dr. Kyriakos Markides:

"We must avoid addressing ourselves to God in a superficial casual way. For this reason Elder Sophrony goes so far as to say that the language we use in prayer must be different from the ordinary language of everyday usage. That is why he insisted that the language of the liturgy should not be translated into the contemporary spoken vernacular."

"A lot of people today would strongly object to that suggestion," I pointed out. "They demand that church services be conducted in the spoken ordinary language so that they can understand what is being said. Why did Elder Sophrony hold to such a position?"

"Elder Sophrony claimed that when we conduct the liturgy using everyday language, we lower the level of our communication with God."

"How is that so?" I asked.

"He believed that ordinary language carries meanings and images from our daily reality that usually lack the element of holiness and purity. On the other hand, when we address ourselves to God in a language that has, as it were, an exclusive usage within the boundaries of the Ecclesia, the very words and sounds of that language evoke sacred feelings and images that facilitate communication with God. A special language that offers precise and exclusive meanings can automatically be experienced as the language of the Ecclesia. It carries greater spiritual force" (Markides, Kyriakos C., Gifts of the Desert: The Forgotten Path of Christian Spirituality, Random House-Doubleday, NY, 2005, quoted by Nun Nectaria (McLees), in an interview with the journal "Road to Emmaus').
*It is interesting to note that when the Austrian-Jewish philosopher Martin Buber's book Ich und Du was translated into English, the title was translated as "I and Thou", rather than "I and You."

Update: I received an interesting comment from Jason Rogers: "In linguistics, using different forms of a language in certain contexts is referred to as "registers" and they exist *almost* in every language. Religious registers are very common, if not the most common, kind of register. so in a sense, humans are predisposed - or "hardwired" - to use religious registers and I think this, in part, explains why older, elevated styles of language are important to us."

For more information:

An Orthodox Look at English Translations of the Bible, By Fr. John Whiteford

Liturgical Languages and Living Tradition: an Interview with Nun Nectaria (McLees)

A Linguistic Bridge to Orthodoxy In Memoriam Isabel Florence Hapgood, by Marina Ledkovsky

You can watch a pretty good documentary about the history of the King James Bible:

For more from the narrator, Adam Nicolson, see his excellent book on the subject: God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible, (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2003).

Here also is a lecture on the subject by Adam Nicolson:

 Fr. John Whitefordhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-66710652097268448742016-08-25T20:34:00.001-05:002017-04-19T21:55:07.271-05:00Review: New Edition of the Gospel, KJV

The St. Polycarp Press Gospel Book

It has been many years since the hardback edition of the Holoviak King James Version Gospel was available for sale, apart from being purchased along with a somewhat expense metal cover. A few years there was a Byzantine Lectionary based on the KJV available in hardback, but now that edition is only available in a softcover. Now, at long last, Reader Peter Gardner has come to the rescue.

This edition is available in two sizes: a smaller edition for $40.00 (6"x 9", with 12-point font); and a larger edition for $45.00 (8.25"x 10.75", with 14-point font), and it actually has several elements that are not in the older Holoviak edition. Based on the contents of the standard Slavonic Gospel, it contains a brief life of the four Evangelists, an extensive appendix of the Gospel readings (more extensive than is found in the Holoviak version), and the rubrics for how the Gospel readings are done throughout the year, including the "Lukan Jump." The cover is as seen in the photo above (this is the actual hardcover, not a dust jacket). For a small mission or home, it is usable as it is. The text is in standard sizes, and so could also be put into a nicer Gospel cover.

There are a few things that would improve future editions of the text. The King James text of the Gospels is remarkably easy to read, even after 400 years of changes to the English language, and so there are not a lot of obscure archaisms that are a factor, but because the King James text was done by different teams, there are some inconsistencies in the original King James, and one of them is that in the Old Testaments, the names of people and places were based on transliterations of the Hebrew (e.g., "Elijah," "Elisha," "Jeremiah"), whereas in the New Testament, the names of those same Old Testament figures are found in forms based on the Greek text, or older English usage ("Elias," "Eliseus," "Jeremy"). Also, even within the Gospels there was some inconsistency in the use of "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit." The Holoviak Gospel made the decision to use the most standard form of the names of Old Testament figures in its Gospel. It also generally replaced "Holy Ghost" with "Holy Spirit", though there are some places in which it failed to do that consistently. In my opinion, these were both good decisions. In the case of the names of Old Testament figures, to the extent that Biblical literate people know anything about these figures when they are mentioned in the Gospels, they know them by the more standard form of their names in the Old Testament, where their stories are found. While "Holy Ghost" was once commonly used in English, that usage has become increasingly rare, and I think we might as well have some consistency with the form we normally use in our private prayers, and in our public services. One other thing that would improve the text would be to use red ink for the rubrics. This would of course make the text more expensive, but perhaps, since the text is a print on demand edition, a more expensive edition could be made available as an option.

Reader Peter Gardner also has plans to publish an Apostol that will likewise be based on the King James Version. In the case of the Apostol, my recommendation would be to do a little more revision of the King James text to eliminate some of the more obscure passages, because unlike the text of the Gospels, some of these readings can be very difficult for the average English speaker to understand.

This text fills an important need for English speakers, in many respects it is the first full edition of the Slavonic Gospel in English, it is sturdily bound, and very affordable. I highly recommend it.

Update: There is now edition of this Gospel that is in full color, for $125.00.Fr. John Whitefordhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-9761494.post-63032962435196504632016-08-12T22:51:00.001-05:002016-08-14T14:53:12.435-05:00Stump the Priest: Self Defense

Question: "I have heard some claim that Orthodoxy does not approve of self defense or firearms specifically, specifically attacking the "take your purse and buy" a sword verse from Luke that is often used in support of armed Christian self defense. He even went so far as to say, or at least strongly imply, that Christians shouldn't kill in combat/war. So, I suppose the question is, what is the Orthodox Church's teaching regarding a Christian's right or ability to hurt or kill others in self-defense? As soldiers during war? What about defending one's family from violence?"

The passage you refer to is Luke 22:35-38:

"And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough."
Christ is referring to when He sent out His disciples earlier (Luke 9:1-6), and they were told to not take any of these things, and indeed they had not lacked anything during that time. But now Christ is saying that they will need to take these things with them. St. Cyril of Alexandria says that Christ was warning them about the coming tribulations that the Jews would suffer, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem. Blessed Theophylact says that Christ is simply saying that the special provision they had experienced before would not continue, and that they would need to take necessary care to provide for themselves, and that they would experience times of hunger, thirst, and face many adversaries. On the previous occasion, there was no mention of swords, but now Christ says that if they do not have a sword, they should sell their outer garment, and buy one. Had this been all that Christ said, one could have easily taken this as a command that all Christians should be armed. However, when the Apostles produced two swords, Christ said "It is enough" -- which suggests that they had missed His point. It would seem, especially based on what followed when Christ was arrested, that the Apostles thought that Christ was calling on them to defend Him in some way. However, when St. Peter attempted to do just that, Christ rebuked him and said:

"Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matthew 26:52).
Also, had this been Christ's point, 200 hundred swords would not have been enough, but Christ was in no need of human defense:

"Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? " (Matthew 26:53-54).
So what was Christ's point? There are a number of interpretations of the spiritual significance of buying a sword given by the Fathers, but having a small sword, or dagger, was considered a common necessity that a traveler would need, and so probably the literal sense of Christ's statement was to emphasize their need to beware of dangers, and to take necessary precautions:

"The directive to buy a sword deserves a measure of separate consideration. Lined up as it is with purse, bag, and sandals, we can eliminate at once any idea that zealot sympathies are coming to expression with the commendation of the sword. The sword is thought of as part of the equipment required for the self-sufficiency of any traveller in the Roman world. Nothing more than protection of one's person is in view." (John Nolland, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 35C: Luke 18:35-24:53 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993), p. 1076).
It should also be noted that the word for "sword" here (machaira (μάχαιρα)) can refer to anything from a knife to a short sword (See Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume 4, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1964-1976), p. 524ff).

There are two related but distinct questions here: 1). What does Scripture say about the private ownership of weapons? 2). What does Scripture say about using force, either in self defense, in defense of others, or as part of the military or police force?

As for the first question, there is nothing in Scripture that prohibits the private ownership of weapons. The passage in Luke 22 does not require us to own them, but it does not forbid them either.

In the Code of St. Justinian, there were restrictions on the private ownership of military grade weapons and armor, but even this did not prohibit the ownership of weapons such as staves, or knives (see Novel 85). It is true that this law was authored by a saint of the Church, but it reflected what was in the interest of the Roman state, which was to make revolts in a vast and diverse empire less likely. Rome also had a large standing army. On the other hand, in English history, the Kings of England long encouraged the practice of archery by the common people, because they did not have a large standing army, and in times of war, the skill of the average English bowman was in the interest of the state, and this necessarily required the common ownership of a very lethal weapon.

As for the second question, the use of force for Christians has long been a matter of debate because, for example, Christ taught us to turn the other cheek:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:38-39).
The question we must ask about this passage is does the Old Testament law regarding an eye for an eye relate to personal revenge, or defending ones family, faith, or homeland from attack? It in fact pertains to personal revenge. This law was actually an improvement on the usual practice of exacting many times more punishment than the original offense had inflicted on the person offended. Christ raised the bar to the next level, and said that we should not seek personal revenge at all. However, we cannot and should not turn the other cheek when the defenseless are being attacked, because it isn't our cheek to turn.

Let's take a look at some other statements from the Scriptures:

"Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked." (Psalm 81[82]:3-4).

"Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow (Isaiah 1:17).
The problem is that, usually, oppressors don't stop oppressing the weak simply because we ask them nicely to do so. More often then not, force, or at least the threat of force is necessary. So do these scriptures contradict the commands of Christ? No, they refer to defending others, not to seeking revenge.

It is often asserted that Christ never used or advocated the use of force. This is simply not true.

"And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables" (John 2:15).
A scourge is not something used to gently influence someone -- it is something used to violently beat other people, so as to inflict pain, in order to violently coerce them in some way or other. Whether He actually struck anyone, or merely threatened to, we are not told, but we do know that the money changers at least believed he would have, and left expeditiously.

Saints Boris and Gleb are often cited by Orthodox pacifists as examples of the way Christians ought to respond to war. After their father, St. Vladimir, reposed, their brother sought to usurp the kingdom, and so plotted to kill them. They offered no resistance, because they did not wish to fight their brother, nor to see a bloody civil war. However, they were not facing an external enemy who was seeking the destruction or subjugation of their people, but their own brother, and so they chose the path of martyrdom. Their act of personal sacrifice was praiseworthy.

St. Alexander Nevsky faced a completely different situation, and Ss. Boris and Gleb actually played a role in his course of action. St. Alexander Nevsky faced an invasion from the heterodox Swedes, and so had to defend his people and his Faith.

Here is the Kontakion of St. Alexander Nevsky:

"As thy kinsmen Boris and Gleb appeared to thee, bringing thee help from heaven when thou didst battle against Velgar the Swede and his warriors, so now, O blessed Alexander, come to the aid of thy kinfolk, and contend thou against those who wage war against us."
This refers to the following incident from the Life of St. Alexander Nevsky:

"But there was a miraculous omen: at dawn on July 15 [the feast of St. Vladimir] the warrior Pelgui, in Baptism Philip, saw a boat, and on it were the Holy Martyrs Boris and Gleb, in royal purple attire. Boris said: "Brother Gleb, let us help our kinsman Alexander." When Pelgui reported the vision to the prince, St Alexander commanded that no one should speak about the miracle. Emboldened by this, he urged the army to fight valiantly against the Swedes."
Had St. Alexander Nevsky decided to not resist the Swedes, it would not have been a praiseworthy act, but rather a dereliction of duty. It would not have been a higher path, it would have been a sinful path. So in the lives of these saints we see the balance between turning the other cheek, and defending one's own. St. Alexander's actions were praiseworthy, and Ss. Boris and Gleb's were praiseworthy... and there is no contradiction between them because they all responded to different situations in complete accordance with the commands of Christ.

The following quote from the Russian Orthodox Church's Social Concept Document, and the section on "War and Peace" is instructive:

"When St. Cyril Equal-to-the-Apostles was sent by the Patriarch of Constantinople to preach the gospel among the Saracens, in their capital city he had to enter into a dispute about faith with Muhamaddan scholars. Among others, they asked him: 'Your God is Christ. He commanded you to pray for enemies, to do good to those who hate and persecute you and to offer the other cheek to those who hit you, but what do you actually do? If anyone offends you, you sharpen your sword and go into battle and kill. Why do you not obey your Christ?' Having heard this, St. Cyril asked his fellow-polemists: 'If there are two commandments written in one law, who will be its best respecter - the one who obeys only one commandment or the one who obeys both?' When the Hagerenes said that the best respecter of law is the one who obeys both commandments, the holy preacher continued: 'Christ is our God Who ordered us to pray for our offenders and to do good to them. He also said that no one of us can show greater love in life than he who gives his life for his friends (Jn. 15:3). That is why we generously endure offences caused us as private people. But in company we defend one another and give our lives in battle for our neighbours, so that you, having taken our fellows prisoners, could not imprison their souls together with their bodies by forcing them into renouncing their faith and into godless deeds. Our Christ-loving soldiers protect our Holy Church with arms in their hands. They safeguard the sovereign in whose sacred person they respect the image of the rule of the Heavenly King. They safeguard their land because with its fall the home authority will inevitably fall too and the evangelical faith will be shaken. These are precious pledges for which soldiers should fight to the last. And if they give their lives in battlefield, the Church will include them in the community of the holy martyrs and call them intercessors before God'."
What is true of the defense of a nation on a big scale would also be true of the defense of one's family on a smaller scale.

As for self defense in a situation in which one is in danger themselves, but in which no one else is in danger, I do not believe that Scripture forbids the use of necessary force to defend yourself from a serious assault (as opposed to a personal quarrel in which there was no real danger), but it is certainly true that it is praiseworthy to not defend yourself. It is less complicated if you do not have a family that is depending on you, and more complicated if you do. All life is sacred, and we should never take the shedding of blood, lightly, however, a husband and a father has to take care of his family. As St. Paul admonished: "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel" (1 Timothy 5:8). And this does not just mean that he needs to bring home a pay check, it also means that he needs to take care of them, and that includes their protection, and it also entails that he try to the best of his ability to continue to be able to provide for his family.

With regard specifically to the question of the private ownership of guns. There obviously is no Orthodox position, one way or the other. It is a question of wisdom, and reasonable people can disagree. I think we would all agree that if banning private gun ownership would eliminate gun crime, and if we never had cause to fear our own government, that this would be wonderful. However, it is not quite that simple, in my opinion.

I know that people in the United Kingdom and Australia generally think Americans are crazy for wanting to have private gun ownership, but I would point out to them that in both cases, they live in Island nations that do not have a 2,000 mile border with Mexico. We have been unable to stop a steady flow of drugs across that border, and we even have a huge human trafficking problem. If we had a gun ban in the United States, there would be no stopping a steady flow of illegal weapons into the hands of criminals. So we simply have a different set of circumstances.

An Orthodox Christian is free to be opposed to the private gun owndership, but it is not true that the Tradition of the Church requires anyone else to agree with them, nor does it prohibit the use of force in defense of one's country, family, or even one's person, depending on the circumstances.

For More Information, See:

A Saint for Orthodox Pacifists to Ponder

Sermon: War, Capital Punishment, and the Sixth Commandment

The Christian Faith and War, By Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky)Fr. John Whitefordhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com