Midweek Morning Meditation

Source: uncutmountainsupply.com

I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

Nicene Creed

On Sunday, I continued with a series of homilies on the Nicene Creed, and the focus was on the Creed's declared belief in the "resurrection of the dead." Here is a succinct summary on that belief by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware from his book The Orthodox Way:

As Christians se believe not only in the immortality of the soul but in the resurrection of the body. According to God's ordinance at our first creation, the human soul and the human body are interdependent and neither can properly exist without the other. In consequence of the fall, the two are parted at bodily death, but this separation is not final and permanent. At the Second Coming of Christ, we shall be raised from the dead in our soul and in our body; and so, with should and body reunited, we shall appearbefore our Lord for the Last Judgement.

Monday Morning Meditation

Source: uncutmountainsupply.com

 At the Liturgy yesterday, the homily focused on the Nicene Creed (1700th anniversary this year, 325-2025) and our belief in "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." So I am now  sharing two very different types of approaches to the Church, one by a distinguished contemporary biblical scholar and the second by a very prominent Orthodox theologian who died in a Soviet prison camp. The first is more-or-less a short definition by the Australian biblical scholar, Brendan Byrne. I hope that it doesn't sound a bit too "textbook" in style, but it gives us an overall - though very concise - explanation of the very term used for the Church, primarily as encountered in the Apostle Paul:

"Church - In secular Greek usage the term ekklesia refers to an assembly of citizens "called out" from their homes (ek-kalein) by the civic herald to gather in the assembly to hear a solemn proclamation from the ruler or to make decisions. The early believers saw themselves as called out from the darkness of unbelief to hear in community the Good New of their risen Lord. In each separate locality they constitute "the assembly [ekklesia] of God." Paul usually employs the term with reference to the local communities but this does not mean that he lacks a sense of a total ekklesia, a renewed people of God, made up, on the analogy of Israel, from the spread (diaspora) of communities in each place (cf. I Cor. 1:1-2)"

Then, there is this from the early 20th theologian Fr. Pavel Florensky, whose words reflect more the mystery of the Church as a reality that is experienced more than it is described:

"There is no concept of ecclesiality, but ecclesiality itself is, and for every living member of the Church, the life of the Church is the most definite and tangible thing that he knows. But the life of the Church is assimilated and known only through life - not in the abstract, not in a rational way. If one must nevertheless apply concepts to the life of the Church, the most appropriate concepts would be not juridical and archaeological, but ones that are biological and aesthetic ones."

Coffee With Sister Vassa: PRAYING THE CREED

Coffee With Sister Vassa

PRAYING THE CREED

 

“I believe in God, the Father almighty…” (Beginning of the Apostles’ Creed)

I once read in an interview with the late John McCain, the U.S. senator from Arizona, that he scratched these seven words from the beginning of “The Apostles’ Creed” on a wall of his tiny cell in Vietnam, where he was imprisoned and tortured for over five years. These words, this profession of faith in “God, the Father almighty,” were an important part of what kept him going in a life-threatening situation.

How many of us really pray the Creed, – either this one, or the Nicene-Constantinopolitan one, more commonly used in our Orthodox Church, – and recognize its life-sustaining power, in the face of fear? Few of us have the experience of a John McCain, but many of us know the prison that is fear, which envelops us so easily when we abandon faith. 

I’m reminded today that we have very powerful, life-affirming tools in our Tradition, like the Creed, which can lift us out of fear and re-connect us with Life. “I believe in one God, the Father almighty, Maker of all things, visible and invisible,” I say today, from the bottom of my heart, as so many have said before me, and also say with me today, amidst their fears and worries. I need not be alone in any prison today, because I can re-connect with the Triune God and others, in what is greater and beyond the walls of any prison-cell, which is faith in Him. It is also hope. It’s hope in the new life He can bring us daily through the cross-carrying Way: “I look for the resurrection of the dead,” which happens daily when we rise after our falls, “and the life of the age to come,”which is always coming, and occasionally breaking into even the darkest of our places.

_____

In 2025, we will celebrate the 1700th anniversary of the Nicene Creed (325-2025). That means that The Creed has real "staying power," as a concise statement of the Church's universal and timeless Faith. Actually, the Creed was completed at the Second Ecumenical Council in 381, but the basis of the Creed was established in Nicea in 325, when the great breakthrough in theological terminology strengthened the Church's claim to the co-eternal status of the Son in His relationship with the Father within the life of the Trinity. And that term was homoousios ("of one [identical] essence") We will spend a good time next year reviewing the Nicene Creed in honor of that anniversary. 

I am glad that Sister Vassa turned to the late Senator John McCain as the image of a true hero who withstood the horrors of being a prisoner during the Vietnam War. I did not know this deeply-moving fact about his use of the opening of the Apostle's Creed as a statement of personal faith that sustained him during that most trying of times. John McCain returned to public life as a very honorable and respected political figure. He was an image of political integrity throughout his long career.  

'Substance' and 'Evidence'

 

 

Dear Parish Faithful,

In session V of our Summer Bible Study yesterday evening, we focused on that great definition/description of faith found in Heb. 11:1: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." I have deliberately modified the RSV translation. For the word "substance" above is a convincing translation of the Gk. hypostasis (it is substance in Heb. 1:3); and the word "evidence" is a convincing translation of the Gk. elenchos. Both "substance" and "evidence" indicate a more objective dimension to the sacred author's definition of faith (the words used in the KJV); though the fact that such words as "assurance" and "conviction" are used in the RSV, also indicates the wide-ranging intent of the author. It is the one great definition of faith found in the New Testament.

Be that as it may, we had a long discussion on this text, and many participants shared their own insights into the meaning and experience of "faith." I wanted to share one of those insights from the group. This one came over zoom chat from Kevin Rains:

"Faith = trust = confidence (in whom we place our confidence, and where we place our confidence, etc.) = allegiance." Kevin went on to qualify his use of "allegiance," by writing the following: "Allegiance obviously has some political overtones - as in 'I pledge allegiance ...' Yet we are reminded weekly in the Liturgy to "put not our trust in princes or sons of men"." 

All in all, that is a nice progression that steadily broadens our understanding and experience of faith. Too often "faith" is reduced to some kind of vague intuition, a highly subjective feeling; and perhaps worst of all, as a form of "wishful thinking" that someone may desperately cling to when "all else fails." Of course, our faith is so very much subject to change and fluctuation. We all empathize with the desperate father in Mk. 9:24, when he cried out to the Lord: "I believe, help my unbelief!" The words translated as "I believe" (pisteúo) and "unbelief" (apistia) in this passage both stem from the Gk. word that is used for faith: pistis.

Heb. 11:1 has given us a remarkable and encouraging insight into faith that, when truly manifested in our lives, is deeply convincing and stabilizing. We begin the Nicene Creed with the words: "I believe" (pisteúo). The Creed is therefore one of many confessions of faith as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." We have faith in the "one God, maker of heaven and earth;" we trust in God; we place our confidence in God; and we proclaim our allegiance to God, an allegiance that far transcends any such allegiance to "princes and sons of men."

The Fathers of the First Council and the 'Robe of Truth'

Dear Parish Faithful & Friends in Christ,

This meditation covers some of the theology that we discussed in our zoom class on June 4. Immediately below are links to the two handouts that we used as well. 

Fr. Steven

 

• The Nicene Creed of 325
• Arius and the Council of Nicea

__________

The Fathers of the First Council and the 'Robe of Truth'

Dear Parish Faithful,

"Let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the very beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers preserved. Upon this the Church is founded."  ~ St. Athanasius the Great (+373)

Last Sunday, we found ourselves in between the two great Feasts of Ascension and Pentecost.  However, on that Seventh Sunday of Pascha, we also commemorated the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council, held in Nicea in 325 A.D.  It is virtually impossible to over-exaggerate the importance of this Council in the life of the Church.

The Council had not only to reject the Arian heresy that claimed that the Son of God is a "creature" and thus subordinate  in essence to God the Father; but the Council had to find the right terminology to demonstrate that the Faith of the Church from the beginning believed and claimed that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God equal in essence to God the Father (as is the Holy Spirit). Arianism and Orthodox Christianity are essentially two different faiths which is why the Church was at a crossroads in the fourth century according to C. S. Lewis  either become just one more "synthetic/syncretistic religion" of the ancient world, or proclaim the uniqueness of Christ as the eternal Son of God and the Savior of the world. 

The dramatic story of the Council of Nicea has been told and retold throughout the centuries.  Not wanting to repeat that story here, I will simply include a link to a good summary found on the OCA website.

Yet, I would like to add a few words about the manner in which we honor the great Fathers of the Church in our liturgical tradition.  To do so, I would like to bring to mind the Kontakion of the Fathers that we sang on Sunday:

The apostles' preaching and the fathers' doctrines have established the one faith for the Church. Adorned with the robe of truth, woven from heavenly theology; great is the mystery of piety which it defines and glorifies.

This kontakion is very close in meaning to what we read from St. Athanasius the Great (+373) - one of the leading lights of Nicene Orthodoxy - as quoted above.  There is a direct continuity between what the Apostles "preached" and what the Fathers later formulated as doctrines.

This continuity is not simply chronological - it is theological. It was the same Gospel - the same "robe of truth" - without illegitimate subtractions or additions. The Fathers did not change the content of the Faith that they were expressing through their doctrine. They were developing and expanding upon the apostolic preaching for their own times. But the content of the "one faith for the Church" remained identical with itself in this ongoing transmission of the Tradition. (Tradition means that which is "handed down" or "handed over").

The Nicene Creed does not add anything new to what the apostles preached. It rather witnesses to what they preached so as to preserve the Truth in the face of its possible distortion. To do so they had to come up with new formulations of that unchanging Truth. Thus, their bold introduction of the term homoousios to describe how the Son is "consubstantial" with the Father was not something innovative or "creative." It was a necessary development to again preserve that which was proclaimed from the beginning: God became incarnate in order to save us for only God can save. 

In one of his classic articles "The Authority of the Ancient Councils," Fr. George Florovsky brilliantly described the relationship between the apostles and fathers and their respective roles in transmitting the Tradition:

Apostles and Fathers - these  two terms were generally and commonly coupled together in the argument from Tradition, as it was used in the Third and Fourth centuries. It was this double reference, both to the origin and to the unfailing and continuous preservation, that warranted the authenticity of belief. 

On the other hand, Scripture was formally acknowledged and recognized as the ground and foundation of faith, as the Word of God and the Writ of the Spirit. Yet, there was still the problem of right and adequate interpretation. Scripture and the Fathers were usually quoted together, that is, kerygma (proclamation) and exegesis  (interpretation).  

This is a "heavenly theology" because its ultimate Source is Christ Himself, Who reveals the will of the Father for the world and its salvation. And this is that "mystery of piety which it defines and glorifies," precisely as the apostles preached:

Great indeed is the mystery of our religion:
  He was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels,
  preached among the nations,
believed on in the world, taken up in glory.  (I TIM. 3:16)

We venerate and honor the Fathers within the ongoing life of the Church.  To again turn to the same article of Fr. George Florovsky, he further writes:

"Fathers" were those who transmitted and propagated the right doctrine, the teaching of the Apostles, who were guides and masters of Christian instruction and catechesis... They were spokesmen for the Church, expositors of her faith, keepers of her Tradition, witnesses of truth and faith.  And in that was their "authority" grounded.

Most glorious art Thou, O Christ our God!
Thou hast established the Holy Fathers as
lights on the earth! Through them Thou hast
guided us to the true faith! O greatly 
Compassionate One, glory to Thee!
(Troparion of the Holy Fathers)

The Breakthrough of the God-bearing Fathers at the beautiful city of Nicea

Dear Parish Faithful,

Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council

O Heavenly King, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth...

Today is the Leave-taking of the Feast of the Ascension of the Lord. Looking back to last Sunday, in addition to our ongoing celebration of the Ascension, we also commemorated the Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea. This is an annual commemoration on the Seventh Sunday of Pascha. This First Ecumenical Council convened in 325 and its great and timeless contribution to the Church is the first version of we call today the Nicene Creed.

Actually, what we use to this day in the Church is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, for the initial form of the Creed was completed at the Second Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople in 381. But since the full title of the Creed is something of a mouthful, we shorten it to the Nicene Creed, with a hopeful understanding of the history behind it.

At Great Vespers for the Holy Fathers, we chanted a long aposticha verse that characteristically and simultaneously praised the Holy Trinity while teaching the faithful, through a summary form, the meaning of this commemoration. Often, the hymns of the Church combine praise, poetry, teaching and exhortation. This particular hymn is a very fulsome example of that.

I would like to present this aposticha verse together with my own commentary added to it, so as to further expand on the hymn and discover what it is primarily teaching us about this First Ecumenical Council and the theology behind it:

O Orthodox faithful, let us celebrate today the yearly memorial of the God-bearing Fathers who came from all over the inhabited world to the beautiful city of Nicea.

The opening sentence is a somewhat rhetorical call to worship and a reminder that this is an annual celebration of these great saints of the Church. They are said to be "God-bearing Fathers," something like flesh-and-blood "vessels of the Holy Spirit," inspired to proclaim theological truths that open up to the faithful members of the Church some of the great mysteries of the Christian Faith.

The Council Fathers came from all over the "inhabited world," a somewhat inflated expression that means that they came from within the boundaries of the Roman Empire - the oikomene - or "civilized world."

Nicea was an ancient city of what was called then Asia Minor, but what is today, of course, Turkey. The city was just across the Bosphoros and the great city of Constantinople. Nicea was renamed Iznik by the Ottoman Turks long ago. As Nicea it was also the meeting place of the seventh and last of the Seven Great Ecumenical Councils. But I have no idea if it is still beautiful!

They rejected the impious teaching of Arius as a Council, excluding him from the Church throughout the world.

Here is the first mention of one of the great arch-heretics of the Church - the presbyter Arius from Alexandria.

A heretic promotes false teaching as if it was a legitimate expression of the Church's Faith, which it is not. It is therefore dismissed as "impious." The title of "heretic" is very unpopular today, as we have relativized all "truth claims;" but the early Church had to distinguish true from false teaching, in order to maintain the "unity of the Faith" and its faithfulness to the witness of the Scriptures.

The teaching of Arius was challenged immediately when it became known publicly. For this teaching was clearly a real threat to the Church's understanding of who the Son of God actually is. For Arius, the Son is a "creature" unequal with God the Father. For Arius, "there was [a time] when He was not." That would mean that the Son of God is not eternal. This severely compromised the claim of the Church that it was the eternal and timeless God who entered into our world in order to save the world. For only God can save.

Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world precisely because in His divine nature He is truly God. God, in the Person of the Son of God becomes incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth, the "Word made flesh." We should also take note that "as a Council" Arius and his teaching was rejected. This reveals the conciliar nature of the Church, based upon the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem (ACTS 15). When the apostles deliberated there over the hotly-contested issue of how the Gentiles should be received into the Church, they acknowledged the role of divine grace leading them in their deliberations: "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us... " The Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council would make the same claim. The decisions of the Church gathered together in Council are not merely the results of human agency.

They clearly taught all to confess the Son of God, consubstantial, co-eternal, and existing from before all ages.

The "breakthrough" achieved by the Fathers at the Council was to clearly articulate that the Son of God is equal to the Father according to His divine nature. The Son is therefore "coeternal." He has always existed "from before all ages." As the Son, He is "begotten of the Father before all ages... begotten not made." There was never a "time" when He did not exist (as Arius claimed), just as there was never a "time" when the Father did not exist. 

The Son is "Light of Light; true God of true God." And this "breakthrough" was possible because the Fathers of the Council took the very bold step of using a word not found in the Bible, to defend what was stated in the Bible about the Son of God by means of other expressions, images and terms. This word is the Greek homoousios, translated as "consubstantial," or as we say "of one essence" (with the Father). What God is by nature, so is the Son of the identical nature. Yet, the Father and the Son are distinct as divine Persons.

They composed this explicitly in the Symbol of Faith.

The Holy Fathers of the Council expressed this in a creedal form - succinctly and explicitly - with a clarity that refutes the teaching of Arius so that any further misunderstanding can be avoided. The Nicene Creed now expresses Orthodox dogma, the very content of the Faith. 

This Truth is eternal and unchanging for such is the Son of God - "the way, the truth and the life." The Orthodox Church will proclaim this truth to the world until the end of time and then we will experience it "face to face" in the Kingdom of God. 

What we call the creed (from the Latin credo - I believe) is actually called the Symbol of Faith. This Symbol of Faith has stood the "test of time" as it is still our surest expression of Orthodox teaching after almost seventeen hundred years.

Following their divine dogmas in the assurance of the Faith, we worship the Son and the Holy Spirit together with the Father: the Trinity one in Essence, one unique Divinity!

This very expressive hymn closes with a call to worship the Holy Trinity. Actually, the hymn is incorporating what was further expressed following the Second Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople in 381: that "we worship the Son and the Holy Spirit together with the Father." 

After the Second Council we have the full expression of our Faith in the Holy Trinity. (Thus was the work of such great Church Fathers as St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, and St. Gregory of Nyssa). 

And the Trinity is "one in essence." The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit share the identical divine nature from all eternity, thus being "one unique Divinity!" These are "divine dogmas." Dogmas have been described as "mystical facts" penetrating into the deepest layers of reality, because these dogmas reveal God to us to the extent that we can penetrate the mystery and majesty of God.

With the coming of Pentecost this weekend - and Pentecost Sunday is also called the Day of the Holy Trinity - we will be able to worship the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in and through the Liturgy and the coming of the Holy Spirit that we will experience in the Church. And that sounds exciting!

The Fathers of the First Council and the 'Robe of Truth'

Dear Parish Faithful,

"Let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the very beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers preserved. Upon this the Church is founded."  ~ St. Athanasius the Great (+373)

Last Sunday, we found ourselves in between the two great Feasts of Ascension and Pentecost.  However, on that Seventh Sunday of Pascha, we also commemorated the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council, held in Nicea in 325 A.D.  It is virtually impossible to over-exaggerate the importance of this Council in the life of the Church.

The Council had not only to reject the Arian heresy that claimed that the Son of God is a "creature" and thus subordinate  in essence to God the Father; but the Council had to find the right terminology to demonstrate that the Faith of the Church from the beginning believed and claimed that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God equal in essence to God the Father (as is the Holy Spirit). Arianism and Orthodox Christianity are essentially two different faiths which is why the Church was at a crossroads in the fourth century: either become just one more "synthetic/syncretistic religion" of the ancient world, or proclaim the uniqueness of Christ as the eternal Son of God and the Savior of the world. 

The dramatic story of the Council of Nicea has been told and retold throughout the centuries.  Not wanting to repeat that story here, I will simply include a link to a good summary found on the OCA website.

Yet, I would like to add a few words about the manner in which we honor the great Fathers of the Church in our liturgical tradition.  To do so, I would like to bring to mind the Kontakion of the Fathers that we sang on Sunday:

The apostles' preaching and the fathers' doctrines
have established the one faith for the Church. Adorned
with the robe of truth, woven from heavenly theology;
great is the mystery of piety which it defines and glorifies.

This kontakion is very close in meaning to what we read from St. Athanasius the Great (+373) - one of the leading lights of Nicene Orthodoxy - as quoted above.  There is a direct continuity between what the Apostles "preached" and what the Fathers later formulated as doctrines.

This continuity is not simply chronological - it is theological. It was the same Gospel - the same "robe of truth" - without illegitimate subtractions or additions. The Fathers did not change the content of the Faith that they were expressing through their doctrine. They were developing and expanding upon the apostolic preaching for their own times. But the content of the "one faith for the Church" remained identical with itself in this ongoing transmission of the Tradition. (Tradition means that which is "handed down" or "handed over").

The Nicene Creed does not add anything new to what the apostles preached. It rather witnesses to what they preached so as to preserve the Truth in the face of its possible distortion. To do so they had to come up with new formulations of that unchanging Truth. Thus, their bold introduction of the term homoousios to describe how the Son is "consubstantial" with the Father was not something innovative or "creative." It was a necessary development to again preserve that which was proclaimed from the beginning: God became incarnate in order to save us for only God can save.

In one of his classic articles "The Authority of the Ancient Councils," Fr. George Florovsky brilliantly described the relationship between the apostles and fathers and their respective roles in transmitting the Tradition:

Apostles and Fathers - these  two terms were generally and commonly coupled together in the argument from Tradition, as it was used in the Third and Fourth centuries. It was this double reference, both to the origin and to the unfailing and continuous preservation, that warranted the authenticity of belief. 

On the other hand, Scripture was formally acknowledged and recognized as the ground and foundation of faith, as the Word of God and the Writ of the Spirit. Yet, there was still the problem of right and adequate interpretation. Scripture and the Fathers were usually quoted together, that is, kerygma (proclamation) and exegesis (interpretation). 

This is a "heavenly theology" because its ultimate Source is Christ Himself, Who reveals the will of the Father for the world and its salvation. And this is that "mystery of piety which it defines and glorifies," precisely as the apostles preached:

Great indeed is the mystery of our religion:
  He was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels,
  preached among the nations,
believed on in the world, taken up in glory.  (I TIM. 3:16)

We venerate and honor the Fathers within the ongoing life of the Church.  To again turn to the same article of Fr. George Florovsky, he further writes:

"Fathers" were those who transmitted and propagated the right doctrine, the teaching of the Apostles, who were guides and masters of Christian instruction and catechesis... They were spokesmen for the Church, expositors of her faith, keepers of her Tradition, witnesses of truth and faith.  And in that was their "authority" grounded.

Most glorious art Thou, O Christ our God!
Thou hast established the Holy Fathers as
lights on the earth! Through them Thou hast
guided us to the true faith! O greatly
Compassionate One, glory to Thee!
(Troparion of the Holy Fathers)

'One Baptism for the remission of sins...'

Dear Parish Faithful & Friends in Christ,

“I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins” [Nicene Creed]

The Great Feast of Theophany is more ancient that that of Christ’s Nativity.  In fact, it was precisely on January 6 that the Church first celebrated Christ’s birth (and the adoration of the Magi), together with His baptism in the Jordan.  These events—of the greatest significance not only in the life of Christ but in the “economy” of our salvation—were united in one celebration known as “Theophany,” which means “manifestation of God.”  (The Feast is also referred to as “Epiphany,” which simply means “manifestation.”)  In His Nativity and in His Baptism, Christ is “manifested,” or “revealed,” to the world as the Light of the world in order to dispel the darkness of ignorance and spiritual blindness which are the direct result of sin.  This Feast of Theophany is also referred to as the “Feast of Lights.”  It was in the fourth century that we began to celebrate our Lord’s Nativity (and the adoration of the Magi) as a separate and unique event on December 25, while January 6 remained as the Feast of Theophany, on which Christ’s Baptism was commemorated.

Why did the Feast of January 6 retain the title “Theophany/Epiphany” instead of December 25, when the manifestation of the eternal Light was first revealed in His Nativity in the flesh?  Saint John Chrysostom writes that it is “because it was not when He was born that He became manifest to all, but when He was baptized; for up to this day He was unknown to the majority.”

But not only was the Lord Jesus revealed to the world as He began His public ministry with His Baptism in the Jordan at the hands of Saint John the Baptist.  The Holy Trinity was manifested, for the “voice of the Father” bore witness to His beloved Son, and the Spirit, “in the form of a dove,” descended and rested upon the Son.  The Trinitarian nature of God was manifested when Christ came to the Jordan to be baptized.  Paraphrasing St. Irenaeus of Lyons, the Father anoints, the Son is anointed, and the Holy Spirit is the ointment.

Yet, if Baptism is for the “remission of sins,” then why is Christ baptized, for He is without sin [1 Peter 2:22; Hebrews 4:15]?  The liturgical texts repeatedly ask and answer this question for us in the following manner: “Though as God He needs no cleansing, yet for the sake of fallen man He is cleansed in the Jordan,” and “As a man He is cleansed, that I may be made clean.”  Christ is representative of all humanity.  He is baptized for our sake.  It is we who are cleansed and regenerated when He descends into the waters of the Jordan.

For with Christ, and in Christ, our human nature—the human nature He assumed in all of its fullness in the Incarnation—descends into the cleansing and purifying waters of the Jordan (anticipating sacramental Baptism), so that the very same human nature may ascend out of the waters renewed, restored and recreated.  As the New and Last Adam, He “sums up” all of us in Himself—for this reason He became man.  The Spirit descends and rests upon Christ, so that our humanity may be anointed in Him.  Saint Athanasios the Great writes, “when He is anointed… we it is who in Him are anointed….  When He is baptized, we it is who in Him are baptized.”  Every Baptism is an “extension of” and a “participation in” the one, unique Baptism of Christ; just as every Eucharist is an “extension of” and a “participation in” the one, unique Mystical Supper.  Actually, all of creation participates and is sanctified by the manifestation of God’s Son in the flesh: “At Thine appearing in the body, the earth was sanctified, the waters blessed, the heavens enlightened.”

We die to sin in Baptism and are raised to new life—for this reason the baptismal font is both tomb and womb, as Saint Cyril of Jerusalem tells us.  Our pre- and post-baptismal lives must manifest some real change, according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa (+395).  In fact, I would like to append a few paragraphs from some of Saint Gregory’s writings about Baptism from his Great Catechism in order to allow him to describe the meaning of that need for change.  Saint Gregory wrote in the fourth century—a time when he could presuppose adult baptism as the norm—but we can apply his teaching to our own consciousness of being Christians as we grow up in the Faith following “infant Baptism.”

Saint Gregory writes:

When discussing Baptism and spiritual birth, we have to consider what happens to our life following Baptism.  This is a point which many of those who approach the grace of Baptism neglect; they delude themselves by being born in appearance only and not in reality.  For through birth from above, our life is supposed to undergo a change.  But if we continue in our present sinful state, then there is really no change in us.  Indeed, I do not see how a man who continues to be the same can be considered to have become different when there is no noticeable change in him…. 

Now the physically born child certainly shares his parents’ nature.  If you have been born of God and have become His child, then let your way of life testify to the presence of God within you.  Make it clear Who your Father is!  For the very attributes by which we recognize God are the very marks by which a child of His must reveal His relationship with God.  ‘God is goodness and there is no unrighteousness in Him…  The Lord is gracious to all…  He loves His enemies…  He is merciful and forgives transgressions.’  These and many other characteristics revealed by the Scripture are what make a Godly life…

If you are like this and you embody the Spirit of God, then you have genuinely become a child of God, but if you persist in displaying evil, then it is useless to prattle to yourself and to others about your birth from above.  You are still merely a son of man, not a son of that Most High God!  You love lies and vanity, and you are still immersed in the corruptible things of this world.  Don’t you know in what way a man becomes a child of God?  Why, in no other way than by becoming holy!

What Jesus was like

Dear Parish Faithful & Friends in Christ,

Actor Robert Powell in a still from 'Jesus Of Nazareth'

 

 

 

Regardless of how well one may know the Gospels, it is challenging to form a clear image of “what Jesus was like.” This is not in reference to His deeds and words, for these are amply recorded in the four canonical Gospels. I am referring more to what we would today describe as someone’s “personality.”

Are we able to get behind the personality of Jesus? Are we able to describe or analyze His personality with certainty, or at least with a measure of confidence? Some would formulate the question differently and ask if we are able to penetrate or understand the “self-consciousness” of Jesus.

New Testament scholars, beginning in the 19th century and through to the present day, are often preoccupied with questions concerning the “messianic consciousness” of Jesus. Did Jesus know He was the Messiah, and if so, when did this messianic consciousness dawn upon Him? Yet, we may ask, besides a genuine and justifiable curiosity, is it that important for us to probe either the personality or self-consciousness of Jesus? Is it even possible?

The Gospels are decidedly not preoccupied with these questions, for the Gospels do not consciously offer a “personality sketch” of Jesus, nor do they attempt to analyze the psychology of Jesus. The Gospels proclaim Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God through His deeds and words. Therefore, whatever insights that we are given into “what Jesus was like” are revealed precisely through His actions and His words – not through a psychological sketch or analysis.

In a very insightful article entitled “Quite Beyond Us,” Father Patrick Reardon of All Saints Church, Chicago, writes the following about what he calls the “unfathomable self-consciousness of Jesus.”

“The identity of the man Jesus is rooted in this eternal relationship of the Son to the Father,” Father Patrick writes.  “Self-awareness in Jesus is indivisible at every point from the consciousness of his eternal relationship to the Father. He has no personal identity apart from that relationship.

“Now I submit that there is nothing else in any human soul even remotely analogous, and this is the reason why psychological analysis… is an inadequate and even misleading path to the interpretation of Jesus. Jesus, while possessing a human psyche, transcends psychology for the same reason that He, partaking fully in created being, transcends metaphysics,” he continues.  “The ‘subject,’ the self, of Jesus’ consciousness is not a human being who is personally distinct from the consubstantial Son. We have not the foggiest idea how this self-awareness of Jesus took form in His soul, and speculation on the matter is an exercise in either futility or heresy” [Touchstone, October 2007, p. 13].

Father Patrick’s words will resonate strongly for any believing Christian who believes and confesses what is declared in the Nicene Creed about Jesus Christ in an orthodox manner: “Who for us men and for our salvation was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.” Without that belief and confession, the psychology of the man Jesus would be fair game for many different and contradictory interpretations.

Bearing in mind the wise words of Father Patrick, which I would further claim are supported by our Orthodox understanding of the Person of Jesus Christ, I still believe that we can say a good deal about “what Jesus was like” that neither betrays the Gospel image of Christ, nor our Christological confession of faith in Him as God and Man. To do this, I would like to turn to a work by Denise and John Carmody.

Respectfully and soberly, and with an excellent command of the Gospel narratives, they take on the task of summarizing what they believe is a genuine portrait of “what Jesus was like.”  They do this in a book titled In the Path of the Masters, in which Christ is discussed together with the Buddha, Confucius and Muhammad. Each figure is treated sympathetically and respectfully. Their goal is to be descriptive and informative, with no polemical edge.

Of course, for many Orthodox Christians this would prove to be a questionable, ambiguous—or perhaps blasphemous—endeavor! We do not consider Jesus as a “great religious figure” to be compared with others, but again, as the Son and Word of God incarnate. And, together with the Evangelist Luke, we also claim,  “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” [Acts 4:12]. 

Nevertheless, the Carmodys, Christian thinkers themselves, have offered a finely written and deeply reflective passage on some of the main characteristics of what they term Jesus’ “personality.” They have obviously meditated on this deeply, and I would like to share some of their insights.

Reading this section in their book, I can compile the following descriptive list about Jesus, though it may not be exhaustive. For them, Jesus:

• is both fiery and gentle, both sociable and solitary.
• is full of energy and subject to fatigue.
• is both conservative and a revolutionary.
• is eloquent and compassionate.
• possesses a heart open to the poor, the sick and children.
• makes friends and wins the allegiance of women, a very rare quality in His time.
• is celibate and unmarried.
• wanders from village to village and lives simply.
• is courageous in standing up those who opposed Him.
• is quick-witted in debate.
• is committed to the spirit above the letter of the Law.
• is filled with love.
• seeks and responds with appreciation to genuine faith.
• seeks only His heavenly Father’s will and glory.
• is consoled by the Spirit of God.
• never sins and is without moral faults.
• is not drawn to wealth and power.
• never succumbs to flattery or threats.
• possesses a sense of humor “now and then.”
• is often ironic according to Saint John.
• loves His friends deeply.
• is forgiving.
• is realistic about human weakness.

As thorough – and convincing—as this may sound, the Carmody’s also acknowledge the “unfathomable self-consciousness of Jesus.”  They write, 

Still, Jesus remains a mysterious figure, a personality that we cannot fathom, not only because all human beings finally escape our judgment… but even more because the depths of His personality lie in the undecipherable relationship he had with his Father. For Jesus to be was to be God’s Son. This is now orthodox Christian theology, expressing the Christian conviction that the godhead is a Trinity of divine ‘persons’ among Whom Jesus is the second, the Son and Word of God become flesh…  On the human level, Jesus seems filled with concern for the needs of the poor people whom He encountered. On the more mysterious, divine level, His sole concern seems to be to glorify His heavenly Father.

I very much appreciated these words of caution on their part. Yet, as a kind of final assessment, I will admit that this following sentence resonates deeply with me when meditating on what Jesus was like: 

But His over-all disposition seems serious, sad, absorbed in a mighty struggle.

And I also found their concluding paragraph on this subject compelling and profoundly challenging about our own relationship to Christ: 

There must have been something compelling about the personality bearing all these traits. By the time of Jesus’ ascension to heaven… He had stamped many lives indelibly. Simon Peter and Mary Magdalene, the beloved disciples John and James – all His intimates felt that He had become the substance of their lives, the only treasure they cared about. The report of later Christian saints has been similar. The most intense Christians have felt that Jesus was their reason to be.

For a moment, just imagine Jesus as the “substance” of your life, its true “treasure” and the “reason” to be!

The Holy Spirit's Presence in the Church

Dear Parish Faithful,

We are drawing near to the close of the (fast-free) Week of Pentecost.  This is something equivalent to Bright Week following Pascha.  The "fast-free" nature of these weeks reveals the bright and festal nature of Pascha and Pentecost, which in turn reveal the Church as Feast; as the "place" where we rejoice in all that our God has done "for us and for our salvation."  As is often the case, it is the Apostle Paul who articulates this truth to us in a passage of deep encouragement and comfort:  "May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope." (ROM. 15:13) The Leavetaking of Pentecost is tomorrow, and the Apostle's Fast (Sts. Peter and Paul) begins on Monday.  This is fitting, in that the two great apostles were clearly vessels of the Holy Spirit in their fruitful ministries to both the circumcised and uncircumcised, respectively.  Here, I would simply like to share a fine passage from Fr. John Breck who wrote a summary paragraph of the role and work of the Holy Spirit in the divine economy, and in the life of Christian believers.  This passage gives us a sense of the extraordinarily rich and varied aspects of the Spirit’s presence in the Church which is the Temple of the Holy Spirit.  I am breaking down Fr. John’s paragraph in a more systematic manner:

The Spirit …

+  Prays within us and on our behalf (ROM. 8:26).

+  He works out our sanctification (ROM. 15:16; I COR. 6:11; II THESS. 2:13; GAL. 5:16-18).

+  He pours out God’s love into the hearts of believers, enabling them to address the Father by the familiar and intimate name, “Abba” (ROM. 5:5; 8:15-16; GAL. 4:6).

+  He confirms out status as “children of God” through His indwelling presence and power (ROM. 8:16; GAL. 4:6).

+  He guides and preserves the faithful in their ascetic struggles against the passions (GAL. 5:16).

+  And He serves as the source and guarantor of our “freedom” from the constraints of the Law, a freedom which enables us to behold the glory of the Lord  (II COR. 3:17-18).

Looking up these passages in the Bible may further prove to be helpful in gaining a sense of the ongoing and endless gifts that the Holy Spirit brings to the Church and to our personal lives.

_____

To add a little bit more to these “fragments,” I would like to include a passage from Veselin Kessich’s book The First Day of the New Creation.  In his discussion about Pentecost, Prof. Kessich offers a good summary of the Orthodox position concerning the issue of the filioque.  As Orthodox Christians, we continue to recite the Nicene Creed in its original form, without the interpolation of the filioque, the Latin term that means “and from the Son,” when proclaiming the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father.  Prof. Kessich summarizes the Orthodox position based upon a careful reading of the Scriptures.  The “filioque controversy” remains to this day a divisive point of contention between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches respectively – and those Western churches that also use the term.  The point to be made is not about remaining entrenched in a polemical position, but to try to come to some understanding as to why the Orthodox have never embraced this later addition to the Nicene Creed.  In the words of Prof. Kessich:

“It is equally true that the Fathers sends the Spirit (JN. 14:16, 26).  The Son sends the Spirit, but the source of the Spirit is the Father, for the Spirit proceeds from the Father (JN. 15:26). The verb “proceed” that is used in JN. 15:26 is ekporeuomai.  When it is said that the Son “comes forth” from the Father the verb is exerchomai.  St. John consistently uses the latter verb whenever he speaks of the Son coming forth from the Father (8:42: 13:3; 16:27f.; 16:30; 17:8).  The Spirit and the Son have the same and only origin.  They are two distinct persons.  Their missions are not identical.  Although the Spirit had not been given because Jesus was not yet glorified (JN. 7:39), yet it is nowhere stated in St. John’s Gospel that the Spirit “proceeds” from the Son as he proceeds from the Father.  Therefore, there is no filioque here.”

Nothing like some good biblical exegesis to make’s one day brighter and more glorious!