Ask Father

Question:

Hi Father,

Regarding the incarnation of the Lord. Is any of this incorrect?

1. It is proper to say "God was born"

2. It is proper to say "God wept"

3. It is proper to say "God died"

It is also proper to say these things in a qualified manner

1a. God was born according to His humanity

2a. God wept according to His humanity

3a. God died according to His humanity.

It is proper to say these things either way but it is not proper to refuse to say things after the manner

of 1, 2 and 3 but to insist on 1a, 2a, 3a.

----------------

It is never proper, to say these things ...

1b. God was not born

2b. God did not weep

3b. God did not die

It is never proper to say these things ...

1c. God was not born but Jesus the God-man was born

2c. God did not weep but Jesus the God-man did weep

3c. God did not die but Jesus the God-man did die

Now for the point of all this. Is it proper to say that "Jesus did not die a spiritual death because he

was never separated from God and spiritual death is separation of man from God." In what sense

did Adam 'surely die' on the day he ate of the fruit? Was it not being separated from grace? So Adam

died spiritually but not seeing separate of soul and body (until later) and the Lord died (separation of soul

and body) but not 'spiritually?'

Answer:

 Inquirer said:  It is proper to say these things either way but it is not Proper to refuse to say things after

the manner of 1, 2 and 3 but to insist on 1a,2a, 3a.

Fr.H:  That is correct.  In fact, their relationship would be that 1a, 2a,and 3a are explanations and further

clarifications of 1,2,3, but could not be used "instead of" them, nor as the "only legitimate usage."  Thus, the

perspicacious disciple would say that a causal relationship may be inferred from a proper causal pairing:  1

because 1a; 2 because 2a; 3 because 3a.

 Let's move on:

> It is never proper, to say these things ...

> 1b.  God was not born

> 2b.  God did not weep

> 3b.  God did not die

Fr.H:  That's true, but because Scripture often uses "God" with the specific connotation of the person of

God the Father, we could perhapsconceive of encountering it patristically, but certainly within the context

that these three could ONLY be said if they refer ONLY to the person of the Father.  Thus the ambiguity

of the statement (i.e. the not adding "God the Father" for the sake of clarification) would necessarily

be eliminated in the context of the patristic (or liturgical) statement.

> It is never proper to say these things ...

> 1c.  God was not born but Jesus the God-man was born

> 2c.  God did not weep but Jesus the God-man did weep

> 3c.  God did not die but Jesus the God-man did die

FrH:  That's true, it is never proper to say these things.

> Now for the point of all this. Is it proper to say that "Jesus did

not die a spiritual death because he was never separated from God and

spiritual death is separation of man from God."  In what sense did Adam

'surely die' on the day he ate of the fruit?  Was it not being separated from grace?

So Adam died spiritually but not seeing separate of soul and body (until later) and the

Lord died (separation of soul and body) but not 'spiritually?'

FrH:  One of the hymns of the Paschal hours is "in the tomb with The body and in hell (hades) with the soul, in paradise with the thief and on the

throne with the Father and the Spirit, wast Thou O Christ our God filling all things uncircumscribed."   Remember that the removal of grace (i.e.

Divine Energy) is not an act of wrath, but in the case of a sinful person in particular is, rather an act of mercy for those to whom grace for the

sinful soul would be far more anguishing than the absence of grace.  The wrath of God and the grace of God are both the same Divine Energy

in different states.   Grace is tortuous to a sinful human soul that is evil.  But as we read in the Fathers, the wrath of God when it is poured out upon

the just is received as grace.  When received by a repentant soul who still has sin, however, although received as grace it still has some unpleasantness

about it because it is purifying.  Thus, God permitted death, as St. Basil says, not to punish man, but so that his now sinfully empassioned

self may be delivered from the body which led to eternal death.

   It is the same "grace" or "energy" in a different form that is both the warming fire of heaven for the saints and the anguishing fires of

Gehenna for the heathen, for no matter how you cut it "our God is a consuming fire."  St. Paul's saying is that "he is not far from each one

of us."  Thus Adam died the death in that the thing that was abundant life had turned into abundant wrath, and God removed Adam from

Himself.  Of course, in place, God is here, in grace, various levels of it are there.  Life itself is a grace of the Spirit, and thus Adam still

continued to have that grace, but not the grace of living in paradise.  Adam "died the death" because he no longer had communion (i.e.

because, from his end, sin interrupted the synergeiathe ability to communicate with God's grace in a redemptive manner).

   When did Christ die the spiritual death?  To some degree right from The beginning of the Incarnation.  One of the things that differs us

from the Franks (the Roman Catholics) is that the "Immaculate Conception" dogma is faulty, not just with regard to Mary, but with regard to

Christ Himself.  He did not exempt Himself from the stain of Adam, nor from the corruption of death.  The only thing different is that he did not sin,

by His perfect choice and perfect use of His human will.  But more specifically at the Last Supper, through the passion following and death.

First He poured out his blood spiritually on Thursday afternoon, and physically thereafter, culminating in the full and complete death the next day.

He "died the death" spiritually when He gave all His blood, when He went into Gethsemane and felt the absence of God.  Hence the Psalm of the

Messiah "Eli Eli, lama sabachtani."  Thirst didn't exist until Adam "died the death."  Thus, the meaning of the report on the Cross that Christ said "I thirst."

He did not say I thirst according to my humanity.  That would be absurd, because He is one person, it is obvious that it is according to His humanity

since the divinity cannot undergo passion.  Please understand also that when we speak of grace being "removed," in both the case of Adam and the case

of Christ, it is, again, not in place, for God is everywhere, but in communicative activity. But we also must remember that something was also

going on that did not happen in the case of Adamthe humanity of the Second person of the Trinity feeling this "absence" of the Father and

the Spirit in death, but even (by necessity given the unified energies of God) the voluntary withdrawal of communicative activity of His own divine

energies from the (human) energies of His soul, so that He may be able in all things to undergo all that mankind does in "spiritual" and "physical" death.

Question: Why don't we have women priests?

Answer: I think that the question itself is the result of a misunderstanding. Orthodoxy has both male and female eldership neither of which is superior and inferior, and both of which are needed. Every male monastery has a father superior and elder. Every female monastery has a mother superior and eldress. Every parish, on the other hand, ideally has both. Although in today's world, because of a shortage of priests and for several other reasons, celibate priests are often appointed pastors of parishes, traditionally in Orthodoxy (i.e. for the first 19 of 20 centuries), white clergy (married) serve parishes, and black clergy (celibate) serve monasteries. A monastery, because it only has men or women, the superior (Abbot or Abbess) is the same sex as the monastery. However, since all parish churches are mixed and have both men and women, the parish, with a married priest and priestwife, receives both a father (Batushka, Batko) and a mother (Matushka, Matka), both an Elder (Presbyter) and an Eldress (Presbytera), both a priest (Ar. Khoury) and a 'priestess' (Ar. Khouria); both a "dad" (Papa) and a "mom" (Papadija). It is to the Presbyter that the Lord, through the Bishop, gives the hieratic ministry, and he is the spiritual father of the parish. To the presbytera (mother or matushka) is given the role of comforter, a paracletic role, in the parish. The latter may take the form of contemplative ("Mary") or economic ("Martha") ministry. This is the priest and the priest's wife, who shares in His ministry. The ministry of the priestwife can vary quite a bit, since her primary role is to "be a help meet" in their ministry. This role entails being the "director of household affairs" in the "first family" of the parish, as well as to be motherly and guiding toward the children of the parish, just as she is toward her natural born children, and to offer the role of the Spirit--to offer comfort and loving motherly presence. Some priestwives may take on additional roles, but should not be expected to take on any roles other than that already stated. That being said, some might have additional charisms which lead them to take an intercessory role, such as her going to her husband and explaining that a person needs help. Other priestwives may have a charism where they can help introduce people in need to a good Christian doctor, psychologist, counselor, debt management consultant, or a monastic elder for solution to various problems. Other priestwives may just be "a shoulder to cry on" for younger women in the parish. And yet still others may have more of a primary role toward the household of their immediate nuclear family so that the husband may focus more time on parish rather than immediate household affairs.

Question: What do you do when the priest's wife has emotional problems? She is no good to the parish like that, so is it wrong to ask the bishop to transfer them? Some people think it is wrong of me even to think that way, but I don't see what is wrong with it.

Answer: Just because she has a place of eldership does not mean that she should be expected to be a "perfect role model." If the priestwife runs into problems, she should be treated by parishioners as they would treat their own biological mother if she was having a nervous breakdown, and the priest as they would treat their own biological father when he has problems. Each parish is a family in Christ, and we should treat each other as such. She also can function as an intercessor with her husband on many fronts, again, these expectations from her husband or from the parishioners should not get unreasonably high (just as those for any spouse or any parent or any child should not be unreasonably too much).

One misunderstanding is the commonly held belief that the priest is married to the parish before his wife and children. Of course, his wife and children are part of the parish, so this is nonsense and completely warped thinking. They are not the last of all parishioners, but the first, and the priest must not neglect them or else he is committing a sin, even if it is one he was told to commit by a seminary professor or a hierarch. The canons forbid the priest's neglect or putting away of a wife or family "under the pretext of piety" or priestly duty, for, indeed, he must show an example to all other fathers in the parish--that the family has priority over many other trifling matters of work. A wife having a nervous breakdown and a child needing a little attention is more important than getting the bulletin done. A bulletin 70% done in such cases is good enough. The homily and service preparation and a balance of time with the needs of others must take a priority, but, again, every priest should try and have back up homilies for "rainy weeks," for example. Anyway, with clerical divorce rates going through the ceiling, the two primary examples of what a marriage should be like in a parish (the should not be neglecting one another, but kindly affectionate and "recharging" one another in their shared ministry, and bearing one another's burdons when they break down--not saying "I don't need this from you right now, I have enough problems from other people"). As one article states: "Whether we call her "popadija", "matushka' or "presbytera," the name itself tells part of the story. The priest's wife becomes an extension of him. Women who thought this would be a symbol of status and honor are often mistaken. Frequently, it only makes them a target and the wife of a priest can often suffer more stress than her husband..." ("In the Shadow of a Priest", Orthodox America 1996). But this is not what it is all about.

Also, what is wrong with the question is the implication that it is normal for priests to be shifted around all the time. It is not. Even though this seems to be the common practice today, a priest is to stay on a parish, not moving unless promoted. For a priest and his wife to think that a parish is "easily dispensible" and for a parish to think that the priest and his family are easily dispensible is reminiscent of the divorce culture that we are in right now--a family does not give up on one another so easily--they treat each other with love and respect and understanding, and sometimes firmness and resolve, but never with the "I'm gonna leave you the next time you subtly offend me" or "I'm gonna make things miserable for you" type of mentality.

Christ said it simply: "By this all men will know that you are my disciples (i.e. are Christians), if you have love for each other." To put it simply, if we do not have love for each other--fellow parishioners for one another, priest and family for parishioners, and parishioners for priest and family, then we are neither Christian nor Orthodox. It is not only the Sacraments that make us Orthodox and Christian, but it is the obedience to His commandments and true repentance when we fall short of them.

Question (follow up to question above): I understand what you are saying about the priest's wife, but wouldn't that have to go then to any laymen who is a board member who is having problems. Can we not kick them off the council then? Would not the church eventually fall apart?

Answer: If someone is having that many problems you would not "kick them off the council" but rather find someone to relieve their duties, and, if need be, replace them on the council either temporarily, or perhaps long term. However, they would be permitted to retire from the council, and not be "kicked off" by their brothers and sisters in Christ. If the person becomes belligerent, then they need boundaries and need gently but firmly corrected. They may be unconsciously "looking for a way out," and we as a parish ought not be an aid in their self-destruction, but, rather, show them they they can have a way out without self-destructing and without destroying long-build friendships and relationships. I hope that answers the question.

Question: Why is plant life removed from the Church during the 40 days of Great Lent?

Answer: On the First Day of Great Lent we remember the fall of Adam and Eve from Paradise and of all of humanity's absence from the fullness of the garden due to sin. Thus, as a season of repentance and anticipation of the Resurrection, we look forward to the celebration of the regaining of the garden at the Week of Palms (Holy Week) and Easter. The nave (inside of the church building) represents the place where God has prepared for us to be, and in Great Lent, that place is "the desert" with Him in the 40 days. Thus, although there is nothing wrong with plant life in the Church building, we await the end of the season of repentance, preparation, and anticipation--Lazarus Saturday and Palm Sunday (and Holy Week and Pascha following), before we adorn the inside of the Church with plant life again for several reasons. Although all Sundays even in Lent we could have plant life brought in, it is rather wasteful to bring flowers in for a day only to be discarded the day after, so the custom is not even then. One exception during the forty days is the Sunday right in the middle of it--the Sunday of the Holy Cross, in which the cross is decorated with flowers (but typically nothing else) to show that the Cross is the way back into the Garden (remember, not only was Eden in a Garden, but the Lord's Tomb, the place of Resurrection, was in the midst of a Garden), and to tell us midway through Lent to "hang in there"--the Resurrection and all that it comes with--festal foods and decorations and celebrations--are on their way back soon, that is, after we do our yearly spiritual pilgrimage through the "desert" and the "high mountain" where Christ fasted for forty days in a barron wilderness with no flowers or beatiful trees (and thus to remind us that we remain in the desert and on the mountain with him until the end of the 40 days). On top of this, as sinful people we tend to appreciate things more when they are absent for a time. The awe of a blind person who regains their sight is testimony to this, but this latter detail is not theological, only practical. We get the garden when we repent and rejoin ourselves to Christ through the cross and the Resurrection, that's the message that the absence of plant life during Great Lent, and its restoration in Holy Week, gives us.

Question: I have another question, Do most of the archdiocese automatically fall under the Greek Church officially, with the Greek Church being the say, 1st among equals?

Answer: This is a good question. Of the nine jurisdictions of the Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops in America, four are jurisdictions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Many people mistakingly think that the Chairman of SCOBA is the Archbishop of the Greek Archdiocese because the Greek Archdiocese is the largest, which in part was the original reason for it (voted upon in its 3rd meeting, the size being one of the factors involved). While it may be true that it is the largest Archdiocese, and that originally this is the reason why the Archbishop of the GOA is always Chairman, this is not the reason why it is ranked first any longer. You will notice a pattern of the hierarchs with regard to the first few, at least. It is now practice for them to be ranked based upon the ranking of the jurisdiction they are in. Because the Archbishop of the Greek Archdiocese is the Exarch of Constantinople, for this reason he sits as first (Exarch is a rank just below a Patriarch, and Constantinople is first among equals in the world). Thus, in terms of ecclesiology, it is not because he is Archbishop of the Greek Archdiocese, but because he is Exarch of Constantinople, that he sits as first among equals on SCOBA. But, of course, the primary non-ecclesiastical reason given for the Archbishop of the Greek Archdiocese to sit first is that the Archdiocese is the largest.

Question (follow up from question below): Greetings Fr. Harry! I was looking at the response regarding pork and I haven't been able to find anything in Galatians or elsewhere where it states that he ate pork in the company of the Gentiles or otherwise. Could you tell me the specific verse you were referencing?

Answer: Scripture does not talk about meat and pork that much. Most Old Testament references, for instance, don't mention pork but rather the flesh of ritually unclean animals. Galations 2.11ff mentions Paul "eating with the Gentiles," meaning that he, of course, ate Pork., but withdrew for fear of those of the "circumcision party," who felt that Gentiles should be forced to be circumcized and not eat the flesh of unclean animals (i.e. Pork). Again Galations 2.14 expressly accuses Peter of being a hypocrite for "living like the Gentiles" I.e. ate pork) while require Gentiles to "live like Jews" (i.e. refrain from Pork) when he was around the circumcision party, not because it was right, but because he feared them. I believe I gave you the references to Pork in that the Acts 15 passages that I referenced refer to all foods and the only restriction on foods is now not between clean and unclean (unclean being pork), but rather to things strangled and things offered to idols. Christ himself taught that it is not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him, but what comes out. In the Old Testament itself, there is a distinction made between laws that applied to Jews only and laws that applied to Gentiles. Some laws were singled out as for Jews only, especially the food laws (Dt 14:21). This is where the crisis came about in Acts: did Gentiles need to get circumcized and give up pork? The council of Acts 15 ruled no restriction on what kind of meat, but there is a restriction if the meat was either offered to idols or strangled. While Jesus did not abolish the law per se (Matt 5:17-19), the Mosaic laws which separated the Jew from the Gentile were done away with, because it separated Jew from Gentile (Eph 2:14-15). And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) Mark 7:18-19

Question: The Bible says this and that, so a lot of people understand what's said. Yet there's plenty that's not said but we can learn through deducting the facts. You know it's like the dietary laws of Judaism, pork was forbidden. I haven't found anything to justify eating it yet, but as you mentioned justification the other day, it's a normal tendency as people want to fit in and with something as common and accepted as eating pork here in the US, there's not many that would contradict the status quo, nor would they have the nerve to even upset an industry as powerful as the pork industry which would also affect grocery stores and distribution centers, not to mention political significance or pork. But going back to the Bible as the central point of tradition to guide us as a whole, we know Christ never ate pork and his apostles never ate pork by the simple fact if he did what was good by healing a man on the Sabbath, they would have had him much sooner if he violated the forbidden practice of eating pork.
Then there's another issue, the Sabbath. Saturday is the Sabbath and always has been the Sabbath. Then at the council of Laodicea, Sunday was pronounced the Lords' day. But in protestant churches, playing on peoples' ignorance, they're told Sunday is the Sabbath. I assume this is where with the protestant reformation, the people left the church and carried on it's traditions but forgot it's roots that molded regular practices as the councils. But, if you can, could you elaborate on how this became twisted around as from Orthodox doctrine, I find the church still acknowledges the Sabbath. Even when I was a child, stores would close for Sunday as it was the Lords' Day. Saturday and Sunday were originally both revered as Holy Days in this country at one time, but the churches and clergy have sold out to mammon, which I could elaborate on extensively. Yet, I still find those who violate what the church itself teaches which actually lead me to the church because the truth has been retained through the fathers and homilies of the saints. Anyway, I hope you could elaborate one way or the other as to the stance the church holds.

Answer:

With regard to Pork, St. Peter himself struggled with this. In the book of Galations, St. Paul criticized St. Peter because St. Peter was abstaining from pork when in the company of the "party of the circumcision," even though otherwise he ate it. We read in the book of Acts that St. Cornelius was sent an angel, and then St. Peter was. St. Peter was torn over the Mosaic dietary laws and whether Christians were bound by them. So God made it clear to him, he showed him animals of pork: "...and a voice came to him 'Arise Peter; kill and eat.' But Peter said 'Not so, Lord! for I have never eaten anything common or unclean." And a voice spoke to him again the second time, 'What God has made clean, you must not call common.' (Acts 10.12ff). Then Peter mentions this again in Acts 11 and also adds that, ultimately, the "unclean animal" ritually indicated a heathen or heathen sacrifices. But now that the Messiah had come "so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord" (Acts 15.17), the shadow of the law has passed and finally, the whole council of the Apostles in Acts 15 agrees, that pork is not forbidden, but only "to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood" (Acts 15.29).

As for the Sabbath, it is true that we still recognize the Sabbath. In many traditional languages Saturday is literally Sabbath--in Greek Sabbaton (Sabbath) for Saturday and Kyriaki (the Lord's Day) for Sunday. The "Lord's Day," of course, comes from Scripture with regard to Sunday. In Revelation John was "In the Spirit on the Lord's Day." Every Friday, Saturday and Sunday are a "little" good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Pascha for us, as one can see in the hymns of the Octoechos (Paraklitiki). The Sabbath is important in that man rested--but "man" here ultimately referring to Christ i.e. the second Adam rested in the tomb that He might go and rescue first Adam, also resting in the tomb, and raise him up. Thus, the Sabbath is still an important day for us. Except for Great Saturday, it is never a strict fast day even in Lent, but together with the Lord's Day is "for us as a holiday," as the canons say. But remember that the 7th day is not the only day called the "Sabbath." In fact, for instance, during the feast of Tabernacles: "on the First day shall be a holy assembly: you shall do no servile work...when you have gathered in the fruit of the earth...you shall keep a feast unto the Lord seven days; on the first day shall be a Sabbath, and on the eighth day shall be a Sabbath" (Leviticus 23.40). The years in which this feast feel exactly the 1st and 8th on a Sunday and the 7th on a Saturday were special jublilee years, for a perfect "week of years" had passed. Since the coming of the Messiah fulfills the feast of Booths/Tabernacles in that now, in the Church age (the age of Pentecost--the 1st day after a week of weeks), every week is a week in which the Church "gathers in the fruit of the earth," as Christ says "the harvest is ready," and we are to harvest and even "fish" for men.. the Christian week is a fulfillment of this Feast of Tabernacles/Booths. Sunday is both the first day and the eighth day, in which we experience a foretaste of the age to come.

To close out, regarding both pork and sabbaths, I will simply point out the words of Holy Scripture:

--So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. (Col. 2.16, 17)

Christ's rest in the tomb is the fulfillment of the Sabbath as the day of rest, Christ's rising and sanctifying all things makes all formerly impure or unclean animals clean. Anyway, hope this helps!

Question: What is the place of the choir and the faithful in Orthodoxy? (note, the question was raised regarding an article on the following website: http://www.st-luke.org/why_do_we_sing_in_church.htm

Answer:

It is true that prior to the last 500 years we cannot find a service book that says:

Priest

Choir

Priest

Choir

and even still today many of the original language service books, especially in Greek say:

Priest

People

Priest

People

The Priest/Choir came first in the Greek because of Turkokrateia, as Fr. Stavros said.

The official service books for our diocese read this way although I think OCA read Priest Choir. The "choir" came to take the place of the "faithful" when the "faithful" started being "co-standers" or "penitents" by not partaking of communion. The Russian books changed from being "Priest People" to being "Priest Choir" under the Nikonian reforms. An authoritative source for this is Meyendorff's book Russia, Ritual and Reform.

By definition, there are 4 categories of people who are in Church:

1. The faithful (people who take communion--all children should be in this category, and most adults). In theory, they are to stand closest to the altar. These are supposed to sing and respond to the priest. Since this is the only group that is supposed to say all the responses, when the 16th-17th century started to have infrequent communion in many places, they needed "stand ins." This became the chanters or the choir.

2. The co-standers (people who are regular communicants but do not take communion for a particular Sunday but have special permission from the priest for that Sunday not to partake of Communion for a particular reason--perhaps a short penance, etc.). These need not take Confession before returning to communion, unless one abstains for more than 3 weeks, in which case they make themselves a penitent. These may also sing and respond to the priest on certain parts.

3. Penitents (people who do not take communion because they have excommunicated themselves by perpetual sin or sin unto death, or by not coming to Church for 3 weeks in a row, or for not taking Communion for 3 weeks in a row without dire circumstance, which per the canons excommunicates a person and them must receive penance/confession). There are several classes of penitents, including mourners (outernarthex) weepers (may only stand in the inner narthex until penance complete, may not stand in the nave of the church at all), and hearers (may stand in the nave until "catechumens depart" and then, according to St. Symeon of Thessalonica, must exit to the narthex, although St. Symeon mentions in his time, already, that because of infrequent communion that would mean a fairly empty church in many places, and so they let them stay. Technically a penitent is the only one who can kneel on a Sunday since they do not partake of the resurrection through communion nor do they offer the oblation. Thus, it is no wonder that people got into the habit of kneeling on Sundays because they, by definition, as people who took communion only 4 times or maybe even just once per year, were penitents.

4. Catechumens (learners)

Part of the problem is that many of our modern day Churches do not have narthexes as before (for instance, many of the rubrics for the services are to be done or at least start in the narthex, not the nave), but only a narrow entryway, and so some of the rubrics became impracticable.

Anyway, the idea of a "choir" as replacing the people is foreign to Orthodoxy. We have mention of the "singers" who led the people in singing on the under level of the Ambo in Constantinople. St. Symeon of Thessalonica's writings are probably the most authoritative on describing sung vespers of Constantinople giving way to chanted, etc. I know that his treatise on prayer mentions some of this.

Question:

...over the last few days I have come a across a few disturbing statements made by Orthodox clergy of various jurisdictions. So instead of letting it continue to cause me despair, which it had, I have decided to prayerfully seek answers from representatives of various Orthodox jurisdictions. Any help and guidance you give me would be greatly appreciated.

Here are my two questions:

1) On the OCA website a priest said that the Orthodox Church believed in the possibility of evolution? I have done some reading on other websites and it seems that some Orthodox agree, some disagree. What is the true Orthodox stance? What does your jurisdiction believe on this issue?

2) Some said that the Orthodox Church views Adam and Eve as a myth/legend, is that true? One person even claimed that the whole Old Testament was a legend? Surely this was not the view of the Fathers, was it?

Thank you for your time and prayers.

Pray for us

Answer:

There are a few facts here that I would like to state. 1. The understanding of 1st Adam and 2nd Adam is very crucial in Patristics 2. Although it is true that Scripture is not a science book, that also does not mean that we are to simply toss out what it says and reinterpret things apart from the traditional and continous understanding, which, as Orthodox, we believe to be lead by the Holy Spirit. The absolute-allegorizing of most of the Old Testament is something that has been verifiably condemned in Church history (particularly in Origen of Alexandria). 3. About "evolution" in general terms, the Bible is silent. Certain aspects of evolution (i.e. not the theory but of observable continuation of mutations and related observations) are undeniable. Various levels of theistic evolution attempt to explain the relationship of the facts about evolution to traditional belief, but most of these are insufficient when we read Scripture in light of the Holy Fathers. But what we will call the facts of evolution, and the the "Darwinian Theory of evolution", are two different things. Beyond this, there is not one theory of evolution, but many theories. Darwinism, which claims there is no design nor creator are clearly rejected by Scripture and by the Church, and science itself cries out against it.

I did not read the article you were referring to about myth, but I certainly hope that they were utilizing the term by its dictionary definition rather than its popular definition. Certainly calling something a "myth" by dictionary definition refers to it as a story, which neither has implications of it being true or false. I believe that the definition has it as being a story which is plausibly or ostensibly historical but not necessarily fully "demonstrable" as history by modern standards. The term legend is a little more disturbing, in that it does not indicate plausibility but rather presumability. However, I believe that these words are being used to be more academically astute--to try and be "objective" by modern "university standards" in order to "win over" more "educated readers" and make Orthodoxy more appealing to the "modern world." This, I believe, is a tragic error. Indeed, it is truly disturbing to hear that there are some who are "second guessing" the first Adam. About Creation and the existence of Adam, Scripture and the Church certainly are not silent: there was a creation and there was an Adam, who is called in almost every authoritative venue of the Church "our ancestor."

But enough of my opinion, here is the Orthodox stance:

"Whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, [and wrongly says that] whether he had sinned or not he would have died in body--that is, [they say] he would have gone forth from the body, not because his sin warranted this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema" (Canon 109, Council of Carthage 419AD, Approved by 6th and 7th Ecumenical Councils). Thus, Adam is "the first man" and was not "created mortal"but rather became mortal because it was warrented due to his sin, and not "natural necessity", i.e. it was willful transgression, not determinism by which he fell.

Also, the Synaxarion of the Orthodox Church clearly recognizes Adam as a historical person. In the Sunday before the Nativity of Christ we read that on this day "we celebrate all those who from ages past have been well-pleasing to God, beginning from Adam even unto Joseph the Betrothed of the Most Holy Theotokos, according to the genealogy, as the Evangelist Luke has recorded historically (Luke 3.23-38)". Thus it is not the book of Genesis which claims the "historicity of Adam," but rather the geneaology of Christ in the book of Luke.

Again, in the verses for Matins and Beatitudes for Mondays we read: "Adam the Forefather set aside Thy commandment, and Thou, O Christ, didst banish him from Paradise, to which Thou didst admit the Thief who reverently confessed Thee on the Cross, crying: Remember me..." (Octoechos, Tone 3 for Mondays). There are at least 27 other references to Adam as a person in the Orthodox services.

To deny Adam a historical existence on any website betrays a clear ignorance on the part of the writer of not only Scripture, but of the Orthodox services (perhaps this writer has never served the daily services, or was not paying attention?) as well as the canons and other official Liturgical dogmatic statements. Anyway, I would not take any of these disturbing writers' answers as "official answers", but as perhaps misguided or ignorance on the part of the writer.

If there is no Adam, there is no sin of Adam and thus no fall, and no common Anthropos, and no "seed of Adam" and, worst of all, no second Adam. This, of course, is absurd. Certainly Adam "sums up" humanity, but this logically only makes sense if Adam is our historical forebearer, for the first Adam sums it up because all others are his seed, and the second Adam sums up humanity in that He became the seed of the first Adam, raised it up from its fallen state, and mingles this raised body with our own in the Eucharist, and in this same Mystery He mingles His most precious saving blood--"Adam's blood" renewed on the Wood of the Cross for our salvation, with our own thus sanctifying it.

As for the claim that the whole Old Testament was a legend, if by "legend" is meant an unhistorical or wholly allegorical document, this is rejected by the Church and certainly by the Fathers, who condemned Origen of Alexandria for precisely this error. Clearly allegories are included, but most are designated by the Fathers as typology, not allegory. We are living in an age of anything goes, and it is disturbing what one reads, sometimes on "official" websites or in official documents.

As for evolution, please read a few of my notes on our website: www.forGodiswithus.org and click on "Science and Faith". If you need anything else, certainly feel free to call or email me.

With Prayers and Love in the Lord,

Father Harry

Question: Is it true that Kerygma and Dogma are distinctive aspects of our Faith?

It is somewhat true that kerygma and dogma are distinctive elements, but only because dogma is experienced or understood as much as possible in Mystery. Thus the two things that are even more distinctive in the Apostolic ministry of the Church are witnessed in the Liturgy itself: Kerygma (found in the Liturgy of the Word/Catechumens) and Mysterion (Mystery, found in the Eucharistic Synaxis/Liturgy of the Faithful).

Dogma (officially proclaimed doctrine as opposed to simply implicit doctrine) is the proclamation of the Church within itself of Mysteries that have been hidden till then, but then had to be more expressly revealed, i.e. in a more official manner. But this official proclamation was still primarily toward those who were already members of the Church. Hence, we find the creed and the other official pronouncements of the councils within the realm of Dogma. Is the creed a kerygmatic statement? And if so, does this mean that kerygma overlaps with dogma even though they have very distinctive purposes for existing (dogma for the maintaining and growth of the Body of Christ in the Trinitarian Mysteries of Truth, and kerygma for the obedient task of proclaiming the saving grace of God and calling one to the Trinitarian Mysteries of Truth who still remain without).

Now here is the answer to the question is the creed a kerygmatic statement, since it sums up many of the central elements of the Gospel and the rest of Scriptures? The answer is, that the creed (more properly the Symbol of Faith) is moreso a statement of Mystery than it is a statement of kerygma, even though there is some overlap of content. Why? Because of its primary usage is as an affirmation of the faithful in the context of the highest of the Mysteries of the Church.

For the creed we find, not within the Synaxis of the Word (which ends with the dismissal of the Catechumens), but in the Eucharistic Synaxis (Marked by the petitioning of the faithful and the Great Entrance). The Gospel is to be heard by all, but the creed to be proclaimed only by the faithful. Hence, dogma still lies within mystery, and mystery is understood only within the viewpoint of the Church as the Body of Christ, which is so because it partakes of the Sacrament who is Christ.

For although catechumens were to learn the Symbol of Faith and the Lords Prayer in private so that they would know it by heart for their baptismal affirmation, but do not fully experience its reality except when they proclaim it within the context of the Mysteries of the Church for the first time at Baptism/Chrismation/Communion (traditionally, since catechumens used to be dismissed before the creed was said, this would have been the first time the catechumens said the creed in a Liturgical context, hence experiencing it, not as concept, but as part of the Eucharistic Mystery, in which we have seen the true light, we have received the heavenly Spirit, and have found the true Faith, worshipping the undivided Trinity who has saved us. We express this Symbol of Faith/Creed with whole hearts in the context of Mystery. This is not so with the Epistle or Gospel, because these were parts of the kerygma expressed by the Church to the world.

Hence, the proclaiming of the Gospel was the focal point of the Churchs kerygma, whereas the Eucharist and the partaking thereof is the focal point of what? Of dogma yes (for the ultimate purpose of expressed dogmas is the Communion with God of mankind), but more broadly, of Mystery, in which dogma (as an expression of otherwise hidden truths experienced in Mystery) maintains a central role and finds its experienced meaning--the experience of God Himself.

Now again, God foreknew and predestined us (Romans 8.29) prior to the kerygmatic calling. Then came the Kerygmatic calling (Rom. 8.30), for faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. After that came the Mystery, and hence justification by making oneself Mysteriously one with the Just One Himself, and glorification, by being identified with the Glorious One Himself (Rom.8.30), in which we gain understanding of the incomprehensible by Grace. Thus kerygma is one concept, and Mystery another to be understood as two primary distinctive supplements in Gods salvation plan.

P.S., this understanding of kerygma is why even those who1^st heard the Gospel in settings outside the Church can still being called by and through the Church, since it is only available to others because the Church first preserved it after the first generation of the Church wrote it. Hence the Church still plays a role, even though it seems passive with regard to that person in this generation (since they may have learned it from the lips of a protestant minister), nevertheless, we should not ignore the dynamis, i.e. the power and the non-passivity of the Church for over one thousand years which caused it to be proclaimed and preserved and loved so much that it was one of the few things that Protestants and Catholics kept in common with each other and with us. They are still called to salvation through the Church in this sense, if they assent to the calling of the Gospel, even if they have never heard of the Orthodox Church.

Now the Gospel is the pinnacle of kerygma, and yet it is also at the heart of the Mystery (an example of which is the anemnesis, whereby the Gospel truth of the Mystery of Mysteries is revealed, and the calling down of the Holy Spirit, the Lords prayer, etc.). So then, is part of the Gospel kerygma and part Mystery? No, but rather the Gospel is the written word of God, i.e. truth revealed in written form (i.e. primary expression of revelation), which is a basis for both a revealed on different levels: by Mystery and Kerygma. Hence the Gospel penetrates both Mystery and Kerygma, and is found at the heart of both.

To evangelize, then, refers to two things: 1. the Gospel-based edification of the faithful

2. Calling people home to the Church by the proclamation and enactment of the Gospel.

Where does the principle of philoxenia (hospitality) fit in here? Well, there needs to be several things:

showing hospitality to strangers for thereby you might be entertaining angels unawares i.e. those who you do not know if they are Orthodox/Christian or not.

showing hospitality to those who you know are not even accustomed to Christianity

showing hospitality to those who are familiar with Christianity but not Orthodoxy

In all of these things we have a model: the hospitality of Abraham, in which when we show hospitality to strangers, be it in category 1,2,3,4 or 5, we are on some level showing hospitality to God himself, and hence: if you have done it to any of the least of these, by brethren, you have done it unto me.

Also, does your Church have something which could hinder someone in any of the 5 categories above (i.e. dollar amounts on the candle baskets, candles only in the front of the Church, a disorganized coffee hour, whereby long lines are a problem, cliques in the social hall, leaving visitors or even co-parishoners isolated and alone.

4. needs to feel that they will belong. They need to feel a sense of reality in the parish of love and oneness.

Now the worst thing is for any of these to come in with children, and to have the children feel isolated. Help outlet them know that you could be their childrens godparents and friends of the family. Children must not feel creepy in your church (you know there is something wrong with your parish when a child feels uneasy when they are regular churchgoers. Help to take care of their children while in Church (i.e. hold the children, let them see the icons, take them for walks, etc.).

Also, traditional processions and banquets on feast days need again to be a regular occurance. Processions are a traditional way to reintroduce Orthodoxy to a neighborhood or a town. Not just on Pascha night either!

Employers need to regulate employee policies to reflect the life of the Churchdays off for the twelve great feasts (for other employees, they could take off for 12 other religious holidays). They also need to take care of Orthodox brethren. It is a shame what has happened, people not taking care of one another.

In any case, kerygmatic activities also include soup kitchens, houses of hospitality, hospitals or charitable doctor services, etc. Are you taking care of your brethren. When you participate in any professional charitable day (free dentist day, for example), post it in the parish and in announcements so that fellow parishioners who dont have and dont know will be able to take advantage of it first (as St. Paul says, we must minister to all men, but especially to those of the house of God).

Question: Father Harry,

Reading through Fr. Alexander Schmemann's HISTORICAL ROAD OF EASTERN ORTHODOXY. He
has a very negative view of Justinian, seeing him as the culminating episode
in the effort by the Empire to co-opt the Church for its own pragmatic
purposes. Details in Justinian's tyranny include his brutal suppression
of the last vestiges of paganism, his forced removal of any bishop he
didn't like and replacement with puppets who were only able to maintain their
chairs by police protection, his embarrassing strongarming of the Pope
and others in the awful events leading up to the 5th ecumenical council, and
several other similar things, culminating in the loss of Egypt and Syria
forever. Schmemann thinks his"symphony" philosophy of church and state was essentially Pagan--the
State failing to understand that the Church was more than an instrument for
imperial unity and divine blessing. Do you think Schmemann is wrong in
all of this characterization or would you grant this portrayal but stress at
the same time Justinian's philanthropy, Church construction, and other good
works?

Answer: I want to say first that, although there is much value in Fr. Schmemann's works, the Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy is by far Fr. Schmemann's least impressive work. It is difficult for a historian to take it seriously. He was very valuable as a Sacramental Theologian but as a historian left much to be desired.

First of all, Schmemann is one of those who thinks that we have "progressed" past the Empire. The claim is that neither the Empire (Byzantine nor Kyivan nor Russian nor Serbian, etc.) nor monasticism was altogether successful as a vehicle of spreading Christianity properly, since both imposed cultural restrictions in missionary activity, and carried pagan roots with it. This is a common view in our day. Of course, on some levels this is true, and on others it is misleading. To blame St. Justinian for losing

Syria

and

Egypt

is unfair, since they were already lost. I read two historians (cannot remember either of names right now) who state that the ratios actually changed in

Egypt

for the better from the mid-sixth through mid-seventh centuries due to two figures: Emperor Justinian and St. John the Almsgiver of Alexandria. There are no recorded bishops that went to "their side" based on teh 5th council. But there are, verifiably in the historical records, bishops who came to "our side" because of the 5th council. Also, who can ignore his famous "Letter to the Monks of Alexandria Against the Monophysites". In it, he formulates it in the language of Alexandrian "flesh" theology which was accused only radical monophysites, and not the "mainstream" non-Chalcedonians of heresy.

As for symphony of Church and state, Justinian never advocated such a thing. This is a clear misunderstanding of his teaching. He advocated symphony of priest and ruler within the Church, not a symphony of church and state within the world. His vision only applies to rulers who are Orthodox laymen and who are functioning in their distinctive roles. This synergy of church and state was good in terms of their being Ecumene, but outside of a completely Orthodox government he thought symphony to be impossible, since only faithful Orthodox laymen are obedient to the Church and the Lord thereof and thereby can be Emperors of the Ecumene. This cultural relationship likewise was not responsible for their leaving, the theology "simply being an excuse." Tyranny is a clear exaggeration on Schmemann's part. As for brutality, there are several instances which are not even verifiably historical, but are called by some "mere character assassination." I suppose the nation of

Israel

carried pagan roots with it in his mind, with its prophet-king symphony? This was the basis of Justinian's thinking, that God ruled all men, through the state in corporal matters and through the priest in spiritual matters, but because these two cannot be separated in man, but are a symphony in man (i.e. soul and body), and were a symphony in Israel, so should it be on earth. All is the Church in such a model: Civil rulers are distinctive lay members of the Church with a specific God-appointed role and jurisdiction (St. Paul's idea, not his). The danger is, of course, confusing the "Empire" with the "Church", the earthly kingdom with the heavenly kingdom. But Justinian did not, and I think that this was clear from his writings. He acknowledged that earthly kingdoms are fleeting, but saw as ideal an earthly kingdom that was ruled by sons of the heavenly kingdom.

As for his character, he built and rebuilt, out of his own funds, monastary and church buildings for existing and new communities as they sprouted up. St. Justinian was superb in his almsgiving, with his own money establishing hospitals, hospices, establishing and redoing poorhouses and orphanages so that the persons in them could live well, even inviting the poor into his own banquets. He made a law stating that it was required of Christian Emporers that they, out of their own funds, are responsible to maintain and build churches and philanthropic services (hospitals, etc.) with their own funds. The doors of his palace were always opened to all without distinction of nobility or commoner (one of the few emperors that did this, since assassins could easily get in and kill him). Incidentally, no one ever did. Whenever someone was put in jail due to speaking or acting against the emporer, he pardoned them and asked them their pardon whatever he did not provoke them. He married Theodora, a commoner and (worse yet in those days) an actress. He was the first Christian Emperor to make it fully possible for someone born in illegitimacy (by concubine, servant, etc.) to become fully legitimate and to do away altogether with the "pagan concept" of labelling someone made in the image of God as illegitimate, simply because their parents had sinned.