The Threat of Dehumanization

 

 

I was recently reading an article concerning a current political and social issue by Peter Wehner, a Christian writer and leader of the Trinity Forum. In the middle of his article, I encountered this paragraph in which Peter Wehner calls the reader's attention to a process that is becoming more and more common in today's public discourse: The tendency to reduce the humanity of one's opponents and enemies. This process is called dehumanization. Here is the relevant paragraph from Peter Wehner's article:

"Dehumanizers view their targets as having “a human appearance but a subhuman essence,” according to David Livingstone Smith, a philosophy professor who has written on the history and complicated psychological roots of dehumanization. “It is the dehumanizer’s nagging awareness of the other’s humanity that gives dehumanization its distinctive psychological flavor,” he writes. “Ironically, it is our inability to regard other people as nothing but animals that leads to unimaginable cruelty and destructiveness.” Dehumanized people can be turned into something worse than animals; they can be turned into monsters. They aren’t just dangerous; they are metaphysically threatening. They are not just subhuman; they are irredeemably destructive."

We should be aware of the fact that two of the most infamous tyrants of the 20th c. - Hitler and Mussolini - called their enemies "vermin." (Lenin and Stalin called them “enemies of the people”). Ominously, the reduction of human beings – perceived as the enemy – to the level of vermin has recently entered into our own public/political discourse. Has that term ever been used before? This is dehumanization in an extreme form, for vermin are simply not human (the word comes from the Middle English - borrowed from the Anglo-French - verm or worm). To describe human beings as "vermin" is to strip them of their humanity, to reduce human beings to people perceived as despicable and dangerous to humanity. This is the dangerous rhetoric, indeed. This supports the definition of dehumanization above by David Livingstone Smith. Vermin, in the words of a parishioner, can only be treated by “extermination.” Hence, violence against such “monsters” is legitimized. We know the horrid results of this dehumanization of living human beings in the ghastly reigns of Hitler and Mussolini. And, for good measure, we can add Lenin and Stalin.

Obviously and tragically, human beings dehumanize themselves through repeated acts of serious sin. This is true of tyrants, dictators and killers. This is why criminal justice and prison systems exist: Human beings can do horrible things that dehumanize themselves and the people that they victimize. It is our responsibility to recognize this when it happens. We call this discernment. Only in this way, can we struggle against the nefarious and even malignant spread of sin, systemic or personal. But Peter Wehner in the passage above is pointing to the troubling trend of dehumanizing the actually decent people who may oppose us ideologically - or even, simply, politically. It is easy to fall prey to this if we lack vigilance or simply allow ourselves to be swept up into such careless discourse. We can easily lose sight of the humanity of the "other side." Is this happening within our own country?

Our goal as Orthodox Christians is to ceaselessly affirm the true humanity of all persons. It is by this affirmation of the other that we acknowledge that each and every human being has been created in the image and likeness of God. We cannot resort to the rhetoric that degenerates to the level of calling other human beings "vermin." We must oppose it even when employed by a person that we tend to agree with or support. In fact, the use of this abusive language may just challenge our own discernment in supporting such a person. Our goal is to humanize, not dehumanize, our neighbor - even if we strongly disagree with such a neighbor. 

I would like to re-emphasize, that what I am writing is in no way promoting a relativistic tolerance of sinful behavior (as in: no matter what someone actually does, ultimately we are all fine so we shouldn’t criticize anyone or challenge their beliefs or motives); or even with the non-acknowledgment of how deep-rooted sin deprives a human being of his/her humanity - sin can indeed be dehumanizing. But I was struck by what the philosopher David Livingstone Smith has written on the topic, which serves as a warning to what can happen among decent and well-intentioned people. Is not this what happened under both Hitler and Mussolini in Germany and Italy respectively? Is not the resurgence today, within our own society, of the irrational and wholly unjustified rise of both antisemitism and Islamophobia following the outbreak of war between Israel and Hamas, a warning sign of just how this can happen, even in a democratic society that prides itself on tolerance and civility? Once common civility – or basic deceny- is abandoned when responding to one’s ideological opponents, then the guardrails have been removed, and then, more-or-less, anything is permitted.

When we again celebrate the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, we commemorate His birth in the flesh, but also the renewal of human nature, the very human nature that the eternal Son of God assumed in the womb of His mother. We call this renewal of human nature the deification of that very human nature which had been estranged from God through sin and death. The healing of human nature begins with the Incarnation and subsequent passing of that human nature through death and into the light of the resurrection and its future glorification. That process is not “mechanical” or “magical.” It is given as a potential gift to those who consciously and freely accept that gift and then make an honest attempt to live according to the will of God. This is the noble challenge of being a disciple of Jesus Christ. To contend with our own ignoble tendencies may be equivalent to bearing a cross. But if we pursue that goal of reflecting the presence of Christin our lives honestly, we will always be able to see the humanity of other human beings, fallen and sinful though we and they may actually be.

It is true that we “dehumanize” ourselves through our sinful actions, words and thoughts. But we cannot allow ourselves to dehumanize our religious, ideological or political adversaries by the dangerous rhetoric that is becoming more and more widespread – and tolerated - in the current divisiveness of our contemporary world. And right here in our country. As Christians we can never align ourselves with referencing other human beings as “vermin.” Christians are responsible for opposing such a sinful breakdown of decent civil discourse, not for the sake of “good manners,” but in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, the One who is truly philanthropos. 

- Fr. Steven

 

The Glory of God

 

Dear Parish Faithful,

CHRIST IS BORN!  GLORIFY HIM!

One of the great Orthodox homilists of the 19th c. was St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow (+1867). He combined great rhetorical skills with a deep knowledge of the Scriptures and an in-depth awareness of the inexhaustible resources of Orthodox theology. In one of his many Nativity homilies, Met. Philaret chose as his main focus, the following text from St. Luke's Gospel: 

And suddenly there was with the Angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, Glory to God in the highest! (Lk. 2:13)

There follows in this homily a remarkable passage about the meaning of the term "the glory of God." I have seen this passage cited by later Orthodox theologians (such as Vladimir Lossky and John Meyendorff), in numerous publications because of its penetrating depth into the biblical and theological concept of the glory of God. It is more than timely to read these words during the Nativity season as we join the angels in precisely praising God with the words "Glory to God in the highest!" This text forms the deepest content of the ancient hymn known as the Great Doxology:

Glory is the revelation, a manifestation, a reflection, an externalization of inner perfection. God, from eternity, is revealed to Himself in the eternal birth of the Son of God, and in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, both of whom are one in essence with the Father. In this way, unity in the Holy Trinity shines forth essentially in an undimmed and unchanging glory.

God the Father is the Father of glory (Eph. 1:17), the Son of God is the brightness of His glory (Heb. 1:3), and Himself has the glory which [He] had with the [Father] ... before the world was (Jn. 17:5). Equally, the Spirit of God is the Spirit of glory (I Pet. 4:14). The blessed God who is above all glory abides in His own internal glory, so that He does not require any other witnesses and does not need any participants in His glory.

However, since, by His endless goodness and love, He desires to communicate His blessedness to have gracious participants in His glory, He moved outward with His endless perfections, and they are manifested in His creation. His glory appears to the heavenly powers, is reflected in mankind, and is dressed in the beauty of the visible world. He gives it, and it is accepted by its participants, and then it returns to Him, and this circle of the glory of God comprises the blessed life and the prosperity of creation.

 

Toward the end of the same homily, Met. Philaret draws the faithful into this glorification of God in the presence of the Mystery of the Incarnation with the following rhetorical flourish:

This is the glorious mystery and mysterious power of this day! Heavenly servants of the light saw the dawning of this glory before we ever did, and immediately, having turned to Him, they declared, Glory to God in the highest! Now it is no longer the morning, but the full day of this glory. Let our doxology rise up. Let it go up also to the inhabitants of Heaven. Let our own words rise up in the joyful ecstasy of the heart to the very throne of the Almighty: "Glory to God in the highest!"

Shared Points in the Gospel Infancy Narratives

 

 

Dear Parish Faithful,

"In the form of God all things were made by Him (Jn. 1:3); in the form of a servant, he himself was born of a woman, born under the law (Gal. 4:4)."  — St. Augustine - The Trinity

Yesterday's Nativity Narrative Test highlighted the differences between the two Gospels in the presentation of Christ's Nativity. Yet, we do not want to lose sight of the many "shared points" which are of great importance. This list was compiled by the eminent biblical scholar Raymond Brown. I hope that you find this quite helpful.

Eleven Shared Points in the Two Infancy Narratives of the Evangelists Matthew and Luke

+ The parents to be are Mary and Joseph who are legally engaged or married, but have not yet come to live together or have sexual relations (MATT. 1:18; LK. 1:27,34).

+ Joseph is of Davidic descent (MATT. 1:16,20; LK. 1:27,32; 2:4).

+ There is an angelic announcement of the forthcoming birth of the child (MATT. 1:20-23; LK. 1:30-35).

+ The conception of the child by Mary is not through intercourse with her husband (MATT. 1:20, 23,25; LK. 1:34).

+ The conception is through the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18,20; Lk. 1:35

+ There is a directive from the angel that the child is to be named Jesus (MATT. 1:21;LK. 1:31)

+ An angel states that Jesus is to be Savior (MATT. 1:21; LK. 2:11).

+ The birth of the child takes place after the parents have come to live together (MATT. 1:24-25; LK. 2:5-6).

+ The birth takes place at Bethlehem (MATT. 2:1; LK. 2:4-6)

+ The birth is chronologically related to the reign (days) of Herod the Great (MATT. 2:1; LK. 1:5).

+ The child is reared at Nazareth (MATT. 2:23; LK. 2:39).

From The Birth of the Messiah, by Raymond Brown, p. 34-35

Nativity Narrative Test

 

Dear Parish Faithful,

Here is an old "war horse" that I have sent out over the years; but since we have so many new parishioners, I hope that this Test will generate some interest. How well do we know the Scriptures, and here more specifically about the Nativity Narratives in the Gospels of Sts. Matthew and Luke?

Be that as it may - enjoy and see how  well you do!

 

Nativity Narrative Test

The following test questions should be answered by using the following key:

M – St. Matthew    |     L – St. Luke  

ML – Sts. Matthew & Luke   |   N – Neither Gospel

 

1. This Gospel contains a sequence of revelatory dreams to St. Joseph _____

2. This Gospel has an ox and an ass by the manger of the Christ Child _____

3. This Gospel mentions the census that takes Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem _____

4. This Gospel contains the genealogy of Christ that begins with the Patriarch Abraham _____

5. This Gospel narrates the massacre of the Innocents _____

6. This Gospel narrates the visit of three magi who bring gifts to the Christ Child _____

7. This Gospel narrates the angelic visitation to shepherds watching their flocks _____

8. This Gospel contains references to King Herod _____

9. This Gospel narrates that Christ was born in the Hebrew month equivalent to Dec. _____

10. This Gospel contains the prophecy of Isaiah that a “virgin” shall conceive _____

11. This Gospel narrates the journey of the “Holy Family” to Egypt and back to Israel _____

12. This Gospel narrates that Jesus was wrapped in swaddling cloths _____

13. This Gospel refers to Jesus as the Word of God _____

14. This Gospel tells us that the name of Christ’s mother is Mary _____

15. This Gospel narrates the circumcision of the eight-day old Jesus _____

16. This Gospel narrates that Jesus was born in a cave/stable/house _____

17. This Gospel informs us that Jesus was born in the town of Bethlehem _____

18. This Gospel tells us that after His birth, Jesus returned to Nazareth _____

19. This Gospel refers to the Roman emperor Caesar Augustus _____

20. This Gospel mentions women in the genealogy of Christ _____

 

A Christmas Carol - 'Mankind was my business!'

 

“Scrooge fell upon his knees, and clasped his hands before his face. 'Mercy!' he cried.” (Excerpt From: Charles Dickens. “A Christmas Carol.” Apple Books. GIF from 'Scrooge', 1951.)

 

Dear Parish Faithful & Friends in Christ,

 

The over-all theme of the Parable of the Great Supper, heard last Sunday at the Liturgy, had to do with how being "busy" can easily lead to excuse-making of a dubious kind because we then justify postponing our relationship with God based upon those very excuses. But as Christ said in the parable, the Master of the Supper was not impressed. 

This somehow connects in my mind with a certain literary classic. Over the years I have read A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens (and seen more than one film version!). For me, one of the most effective passages in the book, is toward the beginning, when the Ghost of Jacob Marley visits Scrooge on Christmas Eve. By this time, the miserly and miserable character of Scrooge has been masterfully etched in by Dickens. And to this day, the name of Scrooge is synonymous with avarice, greed, and a joyless and meaningless accumulation of profit. Earlier, Scrooge had articulated some of the utilitarian philosophy of the 19th c. when he coldly said in reference to the poor and prisoners, "If they would rather die they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

The Ghost of Marley returns to haunt Scrooge, but Marley himself is in great torment and anguish. Imprisoned in chains that he cannot free himself of, Marley is doomed to roam the earth as a restless spirit witnessing human suffering that he cannot alleviate because he ignored that suffering selfishly during his time on earth. Of the chains, Marley says:

"I wear the chain I forged in life. I made it link by link, and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it."

With a deep, bitter regret, Marley then confesses:

"My spirit never walked beyond our counting-house - mark me! - in life my spirit never roved beyond the narrow limits of our money-changing hole; and weary journeys lie before me!... Not to know that no space of regret can make amends for one's life opportunity misused! Yet such was I! Oh! such was I!"

At this point in this somewhat macabre dialogue between the two, Scrooge begins to grope for some signs of hope and relief as he intuitively realizes that Marley is speaking words of warning to him for his cold-hearted scorn for the rest of humanity. When Scrooge protests the working of an unseen providence, by saying "But you were always a good man of business, Jacob," we then hear what may be the most significant - and well-known - passage in this scene:

"Business!" cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. "Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were all my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!" 

It held up its chains at arm's length, as if that were the cause of all its unavailing grief, and flung it heavily upon the ground again. 

"At this time of the rolling year," the spectre said, "I suffer most. Why did I walk through crowds of fellow beings with my eyes turned down, and never raise them to that blessed Star which led the Wise Men to a poor abode! Were there no poor homes to which its light would have conducted me!"

Anticipating the regret of a life not well-lived is a frightening thought. Especially if it comes down to having been too busy!

Good literature is capable of leaving strong indelible images that are much more effective than a well-argued treatise. Dickens' characters were always exaggerated or "larger than life," as we may say. But they then "typify" a great deal about life in the process. 

Besides the necessary business that makes up our lives, and which must be done carefully and responsibly, just what else are we so "busy" with? Does that business also lead us away from charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence? Are we presently scurrying around, making sure that we will have a "Merry Christmas," while also turning our eyes downward so that we too cannot "see" the blessed Star that guides us to the Incarnate Christ? Are we going to somehow be able to "fit" the Church into our "Business?" Both the parable from Sunday and Dickens' classic A Christmas Carol raise the issue of our stewardship of time and the Christian truth that "mankind is our business."

Regarding Fr Alexander Schmemann's Liturgical Vision

 

Dear Parish Faithful,

As we marked the fortieth anniversary of the repose of Fr. Alexander Schmemann on Tuesday, I returned to his Journals and found this entry dated Tuesday, May 18, 1982:

Long letter from Father K[ostoff]: "I would like to at least - though superficially - let you know how absolutely important my three years of study under your guidance and in your presence were to me both intellectually and spiritually. I eagerly absorbed or attempted to do do so to the fullness of my capacity, that vision of the Church and simply of life itself which you presented to us at all times in the chapel and the classroom. For me, personally, and Deborah has expressed the same feelings, this was an encounter with an authentic vision, thereby making it not only inwardly convincing but also lasting and influential."

With many "ups and downs" it has been my goal over the years to remain loyal and committed to the liturgical and eucharistic revival that I was blessed to be made aware of as a seminary student at St. Vladimir's. Therefore, I am in no way blowing my trumpet with quoting my own letter to Fr. Alexander. Nor am I retreating into the pleasant realm of nostalgia. All I did was absorb a vision and practice of the Liturgy from the seminary that was imparted to us by Fr. Alexander in the chapel and the classroom. I then brought this vision and practice with me to the parishes in which I have served beginning as far back as 1981. And I have been here since 1989. 

My concern at this point in my life is this: Has Fr. Schmemann's vision been retained and still put into practice after all these years? Is it still alive and well? His "restoration" of the early Church's liturgical theology was often enough misinterpreted as an "innovation." Is that happening today, as a certain reactionary resistance to Fr. Schmemann's revival/restoration has seemed to settle in even in the Orthodox Church in America? If Fr. Schmemann's legacy is being slowly abandoned, what are the reasons for this, and what is it being replaced with?

Immersed in these thoughts, I then almost immediately received this email letter from an old friend, a woman who studied and graduated from St. Vladimir's in the same year that I did. Her letter brought to the surface some of the very things that I was concerned about. Here is her letter, only slightly edited to eliminate some personal comments she made to Presvytera and me. Regardless of what she may say about me and our parish, her letter is really a tribute to Fr. Schmemann, in that forty years later here is someone else who not only remembers Fr. Schmemann, but is also so grateful for his legacy to the Church. Her letter is therefore both very encouraging, but also discouraging; a reaction that you may agree with:

_____

Dear Fr. Steven,

I was happy to see that your parish streams its services, so I joined in. Needless to say, I was not disappointed. I love the way that you always keep the doors open, and say all the prayers aloud. With rare exceptions, that’s virtually unknown around here, despite the fact that our bishop went to St. Vladimir’s for a while, and that both the last dean and present dean of St. Tikhon’s are both graduates of SVS. I don’t know, maybe this distinctive liturgical practice isn’t taught/stressed/practiced anymore there either? On the 40^th anniversary of his repose, I wonder how much of Fr. Alexander’s legacy is actually preserved by graduates of St. Vladimir’s, despite the lip service. But I digress.

I noticed in your parish how active a role that women played, reading the epistle and even serving as “out-of-altar” girls. That was a nice touch. The choir sounds good, I see catechumens - always a good sign - and lots of communicants. I don’t know if anyone has told you, but it was very difficult to hear your sermon on the stream. I couldn’t figure that, since the epistle reader had been standing in the same place, and was very clear. Maybe you should look in to that. Anyway, you seem to have built a very good parish there. I wish such a parish existed in my area. There is just a different “culture” around here; Orthodox yes, but different from what I was used to. I thought that things would eventually change, but it’s apparently not in the cards. So my heart was cheered to know that the OCA that I joined at SVS nearly 50 years ago still lives and flourishes! I hope that you are not the only faithful and true son of St. Vladimir’s still left out there.

Related:

 Read more of Fr Steven's meditations about Fr Alexander Schmemann

Commemorating 40 Years from the Repose of Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann (SVS)

The 12 All-American Councils of Father Alexander Schmemann (OCA)

The Image of Giving in St Nicholas

 

 

Dear Parish Faithful, Yesterday evening, at the Vespers for St. Nicholas at Holy Trinity/St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, there were about thirty parishioners from our parish present for the service. That was more than just a representative group from the parish, I must say! There were five visiting priests, including myself, in addition to the host clergy of Fr. Mark and Fr. John. The service and fellowship went well, and it was a "good evening" spent with other Orthodox Christians.  Here is a nice anecdote shared by one of our parishioners: When one of our children entered the church and saw the stunning mosaics on the wall, she said: "But how do you kiss those icons?"  Below is a meditation on the figure of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra in Lycia: St Nicholas secretly provides dowries for three impoverished sisters, to save them from being sold into slavery by their destitute father.   The Image of Giving in St Nicholas Dear Fathers, Parish Faithful & Friends in Christ, There are nineteen days of charity, prayer and fasting left before Christmas... Redeem the time. Today we commemorate St. Nicholas of Myra in Lycia, the Wonderworker (December 6). There is a certain unresolved tension that accompanies his person and memory: On the one hand, there are few "hard facts" about his life (to the point where many doubt his actual historical existence); and on the other hand, he is clearly one of the most beloved and universally venerated of saints within the Church. It is said that even many Muslims venerate St. Nicholas! A good example of an objective account of the few facts behind the saint's life can be found in a short introductory biographical note concerning St. Nicholas in the book,The Time of the Spirit: Little is known for certain about the life of St. Nicholas, bishop of Myra in Lycia (Asia Minor). It is believed that he suffered imprisonment during the last major persecution of the Church under Diocletian in the early fourth century, and that he attended the first Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 325. Christian tradition has come to regard him, in the words of an Orthodox hymn, as "an example of faith and an icon of gentleness." (Time of the Spirit, p. 69) For those interested in the historical background of St. Nicholas, the following note found in The Synaxarion, Vol. II, edited by Hieromonk Makarios of Simonas Petras, may prove to be of real interest: Since the medieval period, St. Nicholas of Myra has been confused with St. Nicholas of Sion, who founded a monastery not far from Myra at the end of the 5th century. The Vita of the latter has come down to us but the incidents in it have been entirely ascribed to St. Nicholas of Myra, with the result that St. Nicholas of Sion has been forgotten n the hagiographical accounts.... (See The Life of Saint Nicholas of Sion, edited and translated by I. N. P. Sevcenko (Brookline, MA, 1984). So, even if we are dealing with a "composite figure" when we venerate St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, we nevertheless are given a glimpse into the "mind of the Church" when it comes to an image of a true pastor. A powerful and enduring image of a genuine Christian shepherd has remained within the memory of the Church, regardless of the now unrecoverable "facts" behind the actual history of 4th - 5th c. Asia Minor. It is this "unerring" intuition of the People of God that the faithful respond to up to the present day that remains as a solid foundation upholding all of the wonderful stories that endear us to St. Nicholas. The Church today desperately needs bishops of the type embodied by St. Nicholas. A shepherd who is a "rule of faith and an image of humility" would mean a great deal more to the Christian flock, than legal-minded adherence to canon law. St. Nicholas both protected and interceded for his flock, according to the great Russian Orthodox iconographer, Leonid Uspensky. And he further writes: "This 'life for others' is his characteristic feature and is manifested by the great variety of forms of his solicitude for men: his care for their preservation, their protection from the elements, from human injustice, from heresies and so forth. This solicitude was accompanied by numerous miracles both during his life and after his death. Indefatigable intercessor, steadfast, uncompromising fighter for Orthodoxy, he was meek and gentle in character and humble in spirit." (The Time of the Spirit, p. 69) Well-known as St. Nicholas has been, he is perhaps less well-known in today's world. In fact, he may be slowly slipping away from Christian consciousness. Santa Claus, that rather unfortunate caricature of the saintly bishop, clearly has something to do with this. But perhaps the very virtues embodied by this saint are slowly fading from our consciousness. A few weeks back, I wrote a meditation that passed on the name our social and secular world has "earned" for itself through its rampant commercialization of Christmas - and that is Getmas. The author who coined this new term - I forget his name - claims it came to him based on a conversation he had had with a good friend about the "spirit of Christmas." The friend of our author said that Christmas was about "getting things." When the author countered by saying, "I thought Christmas was about giving," the friend quickly retorted: "Sure, people are supposed to give me things!" Out of this sad exchange came the unfortunate, but accurate, Getmas. St. Nicholas was about the proper understanding of "giving." Perhaps the most enduring quality of his image is that of giving to children in need. Our children learn that those who already "have" more are those who will yet "get" more. And that is because they are taught this by their parents who yield to their demands. So we persist in widening the gap of imbalance between the "haves and "have-nots" without too many pangs of (Christian) conscience. St. Nicholas wanted to restore a sense of balance, and so he looked first to those who were in need, so that they could also taste some childlike happiness from receiving an unexpected gift. In a simple manner, this imitates the giving of God Who gave us Christ at a time when everyone - rich and poor alike - were impoverished through sin and death.  I sometimes fantasize that an ideal celebration of Christmas would find a relatively affluent family making sure that they spent more on those in need than on themselves. If Christianity is indeed the "imitation of the divine nature" as St. Gregory of Nyssa once said, then that need not necessarily be such an unrealistic idea. I do not believe that I have ever actually done that, so I convict myself through the very thought. Yet, I am convinced that our children would respond with an eager spirit of cooperation if properly prepared for some approximation of that ideal. Why should it be otherwise if, according to the Apostle Paul, Christ said that it is more blessed to give than to receive? Once again, just a thought based upon the image of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker.

 

Become a 'Welcoming Cave' for the Messiah to be Born In (Mother Gabriella)

 

Mother Gabriella (center) and sisters at Holy Dormition

 

 Dear Parish Faithful,

I "lifted" this wonderful reflection from the latest issue of The Burning Bush, the small monastic journal of the Holy Dormition Monastery in Rives Junction, MI, over which Mother Gabriella is the abbess. With few words, Mother Gabriella reminds us of the "life in Christ," so that we can spend this Nativity Fast in fasting, prayer and repentance, amidst the tumult of the season.

__________

Greetings from Mother Gabriella

Following the Liturgical season of the life of the Church gives great meaning and richness to life. As we begin this Advent season we cannot help but reflect on the end of life—as nature enters a period of “rest”—and on the spiritual level, on the purification of the soul through fasting, prayer and repentance, so we can better be “born anew” with Christ and in Christ, as we reach the feast of the Nativity.

Father Roman, of blessed memory, reminded us repeatedly, that we are to be born with Christ, live, suffer, die and resurrect with Him, as our own personal experience, not a simple commemoration of the historical facts. God came to teach us how to prepare for the heavenly banquet, by offering Himself as the eternal food, and as the One Who offers “Thine own of Thine own.”

This is the hospitality He teaches us to practice, in our relationship with one another and in whatever circumstances we find ourselves. Here at the monastery we have many opportunities to offer and receive God's gifts - the life and work of the monastery.

We thus enter the season of Advent, Nativity and Theophany as an opportunity to reflect on our own life with gratitude for the many blessings God bestowed on us through you who chose to be travelers and co-workers with us on the journey to the heavenly Kingdom.

No matter where you are working your salvation, know that you are not alone. We accomplish everything with Christ and in Christ, or rather, Christ accomplishes His work through each one of us.

Thank you, fellow travelers, for helping us on our journey, and we pray and hope that we are of some help to you. We thank you all for your love and generosity. We humbly pray God to make Himself present in your life the way He knows best! We pray that you will be a welcoming “cave” for the Messiah to be born in.

+ Mother Gabriella

 

'Let us give thanks unto the Lord!'

"Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine?" (LK. 17:17)

Dear Parish Faithful & Friends in Christ,

The cleansing of the ten lepers (LK. 17:11-19) is clearly a remarkable story that reveals the exousia, or authority, of Christ over sickness. Yet, in addition, it is a healing story that is just as much about the need to offer thanksgiving to God whenever we are a recipient of His abundant mercy.

As the story opens, we first hear the plaintive and pathetic cry from these lepers: "And as he entered the village, he was met by ten lepers, who stood at a distance and lifted up their voices and said, 'Jesus, Master, have pity on us'." (v.12-13) Did these lepers truly believe that Jesus could do something for them that no one else could possibly do?

In response to whatever level of faith they may have had, Jesus cleansed the ten lepers simply by His word:  "When he saw them he said to them, "Go and show yourselves to priests." And as they went they were cleansed." (v. 14).

Lepers, of course, were not allowed to be near the other members of their community, for they were declared to be unclean and therefore, ritually impure (LEV. 13:45-46; NUM. 5:2-3). Their cleansing not only freed them from a debilitating illness that left its victims visibly disfigured; but it also restored them to fellowship in their community. Their ostracism was now over. 

According to the Law, the priests that Jesus sent them to would declare their healing and make that restoration to society a possibility. Yet, considering the enormous generosity of Christ in being the source of both their cleansing and restoration, we read with great surprise that only one of them returned to Jesus in order to thank Him:

Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice; and he fell at his feet, giving him thanks. (v. 15-16) 

 

What adds to our surprise is that this newly-cleansed leper "was a Samaritan." (v. 16) We know that Jews and Samaritans were hostile to each other and that "Jews have no dealings with Samaritans." (JN. 4:9) In the light of that reality, it is all the more significant that there was a Samaritan among the ten lepers. Perhaps, as lepers, they were forced to keep company; but could it be possible that in their misery they understood that they shared a common humanity that transcended their ethnic/cultural/religious barriers? So, perhaps in their collective misery, these lepers overcame their mutual hostility as they remained together on the outskirts of the village. 

Be that as it may, Jesus wanted to point out the incongruity of a Samaritan returning to offer thanks to God, while His fellow Jews failed to do so. And then Jesus asks what is a very convicting question that goes to the very heart of the matter:  "Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine? Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner"?" (v. 17-18) Even Jesus calls the Samaritan a "foreigner!" (It is of note that it was a foreigner - Naaman - who returned to Elisha after being healed of leprosy (II KINGS 5:15, LK. 4:27). But the question "cuts deep," we can say. 

Christ does not "need" to be thanked. Jesus is not petulant; and He is not offended by the cleansed lepers who failed to return as did the Samaritan. It was the lepers who needed to offer thanksgiving or praise to God for what had been done for them. That was the point that Christ drew attention to through His publicly-stated question. Significantly, Jesus tells the Samaritan:  "Rise and go your way; your faith has made you well." (v. 17) Did the cleansed and thankful leper receive more than the others had done?

St. Athanasius the Great implies this in his comments on this passage:

"They thought more highly of their cure from leprosy than of him who who had healed them.... Actually, this one was given much more than the rest. Besides being healed of his leprosy, he was told by the Lord, "Stand up and go on your way. Your faith has saved you." You see, those who give thanks and those who glorify have the same kind of feelings. They bless their helper for the benefits they have received. That is why Paul urged everybody to 'glorify God with your body.' Isaiah also commanded, 'Give glory to God'." — Festal Letter 6

 

The leprosy that was treated with fear and great caution in the Scriptures can serve as a vivid metaphor for human sin. In the Orthodox Tradition, we treat sin more as a sickness than as the breaking of a commandment. Sin is more of a "condition" than a "crime." It is, actually, the "human condition" into which we are born when we enter this world. Thus, "Since all are sinners and fall short of the glory of God" (ROM. 3:23), we all need to be healed by God. And we all have been: through the redemptive death of Christ on the Cross and His Resurrection from the dead. And then through our personal death to sin and resurrection to life with Christ through the mystery of Baptism. (ROM. 6:3-11) 

For this we give thanks to God from a hear overflowing with gratitude, thanksgiving and love because we are overwhelmed by what God has done for us in and through our Savior Jesus Christ. We may have been healed through Baptism, but without the response of thanksgiving, this healing remains incomplete, and it will not bear much fruit. 

On the Lord's Day we come to the Eucharistic service of the Church - the Liturgy - which is the Service of Thanksgiving, we could say. Our presence signifies our own "return" to the Lord in response to His healing presence in our lives. (For the baptized who do not return to thus give thanks, we find a resemblance to the healed lepers who failed to return in order to praise God). And it is then that we offer thanksgiving to God as we offer ourselves up to God through the sacrifice of Christ actualized in the Liturgy. And then we receive the Eucharist - the "thanksgiving food" - to nourish us in this movement of growing love toward the most Holy Trinity:

"Eucharistisomen to Kyrio!" - "Let us give thanks unto the Lord!"