The Politics of the Cup

This is a very thought provoking article from Father Stephen. I encourage every one to read it in its entirety.  For me, the defense of closed communion rests with what Fr. Stephen says here:

 Those who separate the Eucharist from the Church also separate themselves from the Church – they seek to eat while “not discerning the body.” The treatment of the Eucharist clearly reflects the treatment of the Church.

The mystery of the Eucharist is integrated into the Church.  The Eucharist cannot be anything more than a token of hospitality outside of the Church.  For all those demanding to receive the Eucharist, but refuse to be a member of Christ's body this comment astutely sums it up:

A person who receives communion from a church but refuses to be a member is a little like a person who has a friend with benefits who [sic] he refuses to marry.

Share and comment.

HT:  Father Stephen at Glory to God for All Things

The Chick-Fil-A Controversy and How NOT to Approach It

To be honest, I'm tired of this Chick-Fil-A controversy.  What Chick-Fil-A's CEO said had NOTHING to do with gay marriage (if you doubt me, look up what he said.  There's not a word about gay marriage or homosexuality or anything like that.  Mr. Cathay did talk about "traditional marriage" but to imply that his words means he is anti-gay is argumentum ex silentio, which is no argument at all. He did, however, talk about being married to his first wife and that his staff were married to their first wives so if anyone should be calling for boycotts of Chick-Fil-A restaurants, the widowers, the widowed and the divorced should be screaming bloody murder about those remarks).  Unfortunately, like it or not, this has become the latest skirmish in the culture war about gay rights. And, naturally, Christian religion and beliefs come into this whole thing.

Throughout the debate, both sides, have claimed that the Bible is "on their side."  Opponents to gay marriage will routinely quote Leviticus and St. Paul while proponents say that since Jesus is silent on the issue of homosexuality, that's more important than what is actually said in Scripture (again, another example of argumentum ex silentio).  What's more is that proponents will say that Jesus' overall messages of tolerance and compassion suggest that any "sinfulness" of gay people should be off the table.

I won't get into the merits of the debate (though I will admit, by praeteritio, I already have).  But as both sides claim the Bible supports their respective stances, I am amazed that when Orthodox Christians are drawn into this debate, they will frequently argue using the same tools as the Evangelicals and the Mainline Protestants--i.e. appeal to the authority of the Bible.

Too many Orthodox Christians in this country have been coopted by the Protestant "appeals to Scripture."  Though we Orthodox Christians revere Holy Writ, hence is why we kiss the Evangelion (Gospel Book) at Orthros following the reading of the Resurrectional Eothinon of the week, Scripture is NOT our authority.  Our authority is Christ, which is what St. Peter confessed when Christ asked him who Peter thought He was.  And that truth is the exclusive guardianship of the Church (see 1 Tim 3:15). Before there was a canon of the Prophets and the Gospels and the Epistles, there was the Church.  I think most Orthodox Christians know this, but are frequently forced into religious arguments framed by Evangelicals and Mainline Protestants.

The problem with appeal to Scriptures is that, without the church, one's interpretation becomes the guide by which everyone else should read passages.  Proof texts are fired back and forth in the hopes that one sentence can cancel out another sentence.  Scripture, for us, is not simply what is referred to as the Bible;  it is the collection of the canons, liturgies, prayers, offices, icons, symbols of the Orthodox Church.  When asked why Orthodox Christians do not condone gay marriage or gay actions, we shouldn't respond with the knee jerk "Because Scripture says so."  We should respond, more accurately, that the Church has never, ever, taught such a thing.  St. Vincent of Lerins said that the definition of Catholic is that which has always been believed at all places and at all times, never altered, never subtracted from, never added to.

Of course, many won't like that appeal either because we're just substituting Scriptural authority for Church authority.  But, at least we're being honest.  Those who appeal to Scripture justifying a pro homosexual interpretation are then put on the spot to defend that if Scripture agrees with them, why has the church never taught similarly?  The usual response will be that the Church is bigoted, but that's an ad hominem which simply cannot be substantiated honestly.  It puts them on the spot to justify how an interpretation only 20 minutes old can successfully stand up to more than 2000 years of unbroken tradition and teaching.

Another common response is that the Church was a slave to the cultural norms of the time.  And are you not also a slave to the cultural norms of this time?  Why is one to be condemned and the other praised?  Then that brings up an argument about superiority of cultures, which is very interesting as progressives advocate for multiculturalism which states that no one culture is superior to another (with certain exceptions--i.e. Christians).

The Church has not altered her teachings. The Church is the bulwark of the Truth.  The Bible can be twisted and turned to support any reading.  Every major heresy in the church appealed to the Biblical writers, though the fathers said they were wrong.  They combatted those heresies not by applying Biblical proof texts (such is a modern innovation), but by defending what the church has always believed from the Scriptures, from the canons, from the writings of the fathers, from the icons, from the liturgies, from the prayers, etc.

This post is not about gay marriage.  This is a post about how and why Orthodox are different about how they (should) argue about theological matters.  Frankly, I don't care what two adults do between themselves.  I have to worry about my own numerous sins first and repent of those.   I will admit that I fear that if gay marriage is enshrined as a civil liberty in the USA, how long will it be before the state comes knocking on the doors of my parish and compel them to marry same sex individuals against its will?  Proponents say that will never happen and I hope they are right, but, if we look at what has happened in this country lately with regards to religious freedom, I don't think I'm far off.

Modern Orthodox Wisdom

From St. Nicolai Velimirovich in his Prologue of Ohrid on the Church.

Why is it necessary to listen to the Church and not listen to one man who thinks against the Church, even though he might be called the greatest thinker? Because the Church was founded by the Lord Jesus Christ, and because the Church is guided under the inspiration of the Spirit of God. Because the Church represents the realm of the Holy, a grove of cultivated fruit trees. If one rises up against the realm of the Holy, it means that he is unholy and why then listen to him? "The Church is an enclosure," says the all-wise John Chrysostom. "If you are within, the wolf does not enter; but if you leave, the beasts will seize you. Do not distance yourself from the Church; there is nothing mightier than the Church. The Church is your hope. The Church is your salvation. The Church is higher than the heavens. The Church is harder than stone. The Church is wider than the world. The Church never grows old but always renews itself."

Women in the Church

I really don't want to get into a long discussion or discourse on the exclusion of women from the priesthood. Many of my Christian, non-Orthodox friends and family will insist that women not being allowed to serve as priest is contrary to the Gospel of Christ and only proves that the Church wants to subject women as second-class citizens. I could argue this until the Second Coming but unsuccessfully since I find that arguing with the other side only entrenches each side in their own arguments from which they cannot and/or do not want to extricate themselves.

However, I will say this: To say that anyone can be a priest is to demean the priesthood. The priesthood is Christ's, not ours, not then, not now. There are plenty of divorced men who are holy, yet they cannot be ordained. There are many who have come to the faith late in life who have lived lives of outstanding holiness but cannot be ordained. They may become saints, no doubt, but not priests. I do not, nor will I ever support a change.

Reading the synaxrion for the day about St. Eleutherios, I found that, like many saints to serve the church in times of adversity, he had a mother who guided him in the faith. Her name was Anthia and she shared in the martyrdom of her son, beheaded while lamenting her just slain son. How many great saints would the Great Church of Christ be deprived of without these great mothers? I can think of several off of the top of head.

The Blessed Augustine (commemorated June 15) was a Manichaean for much of his teenage and early adult life. His mother, Monica, though somewhat dotal towards his worldy pursuits as a teacher of rhetoric as well as his devotion to his mistress who gave birth to his only son, Adeodatus (Given from God), nevertheless relentlessly kept urging, gently and forcibly, her son to adopt the Christian faith, which he eventually did in 387 A.D. when he was baptized by St. Ambrose, the bishop of Milan. Monica's faith in Christ and her desire that her son be saved reaped dividends. Augustine is regarded rightly as the greatest doctor of the Latin church (though many of his doctrines and statements are clearly not held by the consensus patruum) and his influence is still felt to this day. Monica's efforts should not be overlooked.

The mother of St. Basil the Great, one of the Cappadocian fathers, St. Emmelia, was responsible for teaching all her children the faith. Five of them are venerated as saints on the church calendar. It was because of her zeal for the Lord that her children became as great defenders of the church.

The list goes on and on. Even in our churches today, it is the women in the parish, the ya-yas and matushkas who not only teach the children in church school, but who also keep them in line during the services, teaching them to be reverent in the house of God. It was the women who kept the faith alive in the Orthodox countries, overrun by the communists who did all that they possibly could to suppress the Church. Priests and monks were often infiltrated by the KGB and many of them turned against the church and the faithful for perks from the communists. But the mothers were able to operate under the ever watchful eye of the atheist government and instill the faith in children. And so it goes on today.

I would say that the faith is celebrated by the priests, but that the faith is preserved and protected by the women. These women do not get the thanks that they truly deserve. Though St. John Chrysostom tells us that, after the incarnation of Christ, the priesthood is the greatest gift of God to man, these women are a daily gift which we often take for granted.

Church--redefined

On my way home this evening, I passed by the local evangelical megachurch where, on its marquee, there was displayed this phrase: CHURCH--REDEFINED. All I could think to myself, "I hope not."

This marquee has lots of these little tidbits which emphasize just how much in theologically poverty this particular church is, especially if they have to revert to "catch-phrase" theology, exemplified by other mantras such as "WWJD" and "I'm saved", etc.. Now, I'm sure I know what they mean by it: that they are a church which is contemporary and doesn't hold to certain dogmas beyond those of a political nature (anti-abortion, anti-homosexual marriage, pro-prayer in schools, etc.). In other words, it's all about Jesus...whatever that means to them.

We are in a crisis as a society. We are constantly redefining ourselves, our words, our phrases, our everything to the point that what we no longer mean what we say. We've been in this schizophrenia for awhile now. I don't know when it began, but I think a major benchmark was when President Clinton gave the country a run for its money when the word "is" was subject to extreme legal, lexical and colloquial scrutiny. But, there are a great many churches that are redefining themselves to the point that they cannot be called churches anymore.

If we look at the term ecclesia, which is the Greek (and later adopted by Latin) for church, as St. Paul used it, we will note that the church is comprised of those who are "called out." The Church is one body comprised of those who are "called out" from the world. As the Gospel frequently reminds us as does St. Paul, we are to be in the world but not of it (cf. John 15:19; Romans 12:2). We are to leave the world behind us, we are to be transformed as members of the Body of Christ, we are to be changed, no longer living in our world of sin, but living in the Kingdom of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Whatever ceremonies a church adopts, whatever Liturgy it serves (if any), whatever sacraments are observed, if church is redfined so that it is no longer comprised of those whom Christ has called out of sin with his precious blood, then there is indeed no church for Christ is no longer the center.

I'm not advocating for dropping the Liturgy (those of you who know me, know that I will NEVER call for that) or anything else in the life of the Church, but for these "catch-phrase" evangelical churches and even for mainstream churches as well, if redefined means (and I'm not saying it means this for the particular church I drove by today) that Christians are not called out by Christ, then the only alternative is egoism. Church has not been redefined, it has been utterly destroyed.

Patristic Wisdom

Never separate yourself from the Church. For nothing is stronger than the Church. Your hope is in the Church alone; your salvtion is inside the Church only, your refuge is the Church. She is higher than the heavens, and wider than the whole earth. She never grows old, but is always full of vigor and vitality. Holy Scripture (which would not even exist were it not for the Church), when pointing to Her strength and stability caller her an unshakeable mountain.--St. John Chrysostom, On Eutoprios, Homily 2.6