The Forerunner (Summer 2004)

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Christians are not distinguished from the rest of humankind in locality or in speech or customs. But while they dwell in the cities of Greeks and barbarians, and follow the native customs in dress and food, yet the constitution of their own citizenship is marvellous, and contradicts expectation. They dwell in their countries, but only as sojourners; they bear their share as citizens, and they endure all hardships as strangers. Every foreign country is their fatherland, and every fatherland foreign. They marry like other people and beget children; but they do not expose their offspring. They have their meals, but not their wives in common. They are in the flesh, but do not live after the flesh. Their existence is on earth, their citizenship in heaven. They obey the laws and surpass them in their lives. They love all and are persecuted by all. They are ignored and condemned, put to death and endowed with life. They are beggars, who make many rich, in want of everything and abounding in everything. They are dishonoured and in their dishonour glorified. They are abused and vindicated. Reviled, they bless; insulted, they pay their respects. They are punished for doing good, and rejoice in this, as thereby they are quickened to life….

In a word, what the soul is in a body, this the Christians are in the world. The invisible soul is guarded in the visible body: so Christians are recognised in the world, and yet their religion remains invisible…. The soul is enclosed in the body, and yet holds the body together; so Christians are in the world as in a prison, and yet they themselves hold the world together.

Epistle to Diognetus (1st-2nd cent.), §5

Without catholicity one cannot conceive of the existence of the Church….

Catholicity is not just an external, quantitative and geographical feature of the Church, referring only to its ecumenical, universal character; but it is also inward and qualitative, referring above all to the orthodoxy of the Church, to its wholeness and unity….

Each local Church, being under its own canonical bishop and celebrating the Eucharist, expresses the one Catholic Church in its fullness….

We should not speak of a 'national' Greek, Russian or Romanian Orthodox Church; rather we should speak of the one Catholic Orthodox Church in Greece, or in Russia, or in Romania, and so forth. To be sure, Orthodoxy does not reject nationalism, correctly conceived, but this nationalism exists and acts within the framework of the Church's catholicity and is defined by it.

John Karmiris (1904-91), 'Catholicity of the Church and Nationalism',

in Procès Verbaux du Deuxième Congrès de Théologie Orthodoxe à Athènes 19-29 Août 1976 (Athens, 1978), pp.458, 459, 461, 473

As is well known, the traditional name of the Eastern Orthodox Church is no longer literally relevant since a considerable number of Orthodox people have moved to all parts of the world, especially during this century [i.e. the 20th century]. This is particularly true of Western Europe and America where numerous congregations, dioceses and ecclesiastical organisations have grown up outside the areas of the original and historical Orthodox local Churches.

In this way the Orthodox Church has become better known than before in the countries of the western hemisphere. However, the Orthodox witness has been seriously weakened by the fact that the Orthodox in their new environments, and in some places already for generations, have lived divided into groups according to nationalities and ecclesiastical jurisdictions which have, in most cases, none of the unity which is the qualification of Orthodox oneness, not to mention co-operation. This has successively been reflected in the relations of and between the Mother Churches in Europe and the Near East. In this way the 'dispersed' (John 7:35) Orthodox or the Orthodox diaspora has become a problem unto itself, to its own national Mother Church and to the whole of Orthodoxy; a complete tangle not easily unravelled; and which causes amazement to the members of other creeds, retards the rooting of the apostolic message of Orthodoxy in these new countries and causes deep sorrow among the Orthodox who love their Church and see how the disunity of the Orthodox turns especially the younger generations away from the Orthodox tradition and makes them open to influences alien to their own religion….

By taking into consideration what has been said previously, there should be ways to proceed and alternatives to enact, medicines which would help towards a quick recovery of the illness of the body of the Church.

The See of Constantinople… has here an important function: that of initiating new procedures. The following action might lead to the desired strengthening of Orthodox oneness, peace, and love:

Constantinople should relinquish the … theory that the Ecumenical See has supremacy over the whole of the diaspora and reject its talk of 'the barbarians areas of other tribes' as an anachronism.

Constantinople should return, at least formally, the jurisdictional rights over the Greek diaspora groups to the autocephalous Church of Greece.

In this way the position of honour of the Ecumenical See, primus inter pares (first among equals), would be grounded in the witness of the right and pure faith, and not be expressed by capturing areas or by the submission of other parts of the Church.

When the Ecumenical See, by its own acts, removes all doubts which have been related to it and gives an example of humility first, there would grow up equal diaspora groups in Western Europe and elsewhere. This would renew an atmosphere of peace and love between them. And this would also create the possibility for episcopal co-operation and in that way the gradual birth of new local Churches.

Archbishop Paul of Karelia (Head of the Orthodox Church

of Finland, 1969-87), 'Suggestions for Solutions to

the Problem of the Orthodox Diaspora', lecture given on

5 May 1979, in Sourozh 1 (1980), pp.34-35,51

First of all, let us stop regarding ourselves as a 'diaspora'. This term implies that our faithful are no more than temporary immigrants, who intend to return eventually to their country of origin. But in fact in most parts of the west we are no longer concerned with a temporary 'diaspora', but with the emergence in different lands of a local Orthodox Church which, so we hope and expect, will become one day autonomous or autocephalous.

Let us not forget that neither an Ecumenical Council, nor the Ecumenical Patriarchate, nor any Mother Church can create a new autocephalous Church. The most that they can do is to recognise such a Church. But the act of creation has to be accomplished on the spot, locally. The higher ecclesiastical authorities can guide, test, confirm and proclaim. But the creative work can only be accomplished on the local level, by the living eucharistic cells which are called to constitute gradually the body of a new autocephalous reality. We must work from below.

In our journey from plurality to unity, it is possible to envisage three successive stages:

The different Orthodox jurisdictions, existing side by side, maintain friendly contacts on a personal level, but there is as yet no official body or institutional structure whereby these contacts are maintained on a regular and formal basis. This is still our situation in Great Britain.

The representatives of the different Church families co-operate on a semi-official level, by meeting in a committee or conference which has a certain defined status, but which falls short of constituting a local synod in the proper canonical sense. In the USA, for example, there has been since 1960 the 'Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas' (SCOBA); in France there is an inter-episcopal committee [now the 'Assembly of Orthodox Bishops of France'], and in most other parts of Europe (except for Britain), as also in Australia, there are similar inter-jurisdictional committees.

Eventually the moment will come - or so at any rate we hope - when these semi-official episcopal committees transform themselves into a local canonical synod, embracing all the hierarchs in a specific territory, with power to elect bishops to vacant sees and to regulate pastoral life. Before attaining self-governance, however, such a synod might exist for some time in a provisional situation: it might function under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate; and individual hierarchs might continue to maintain links with their respective Mother Churches. There are many possibilities. In the radically new situation of Orthodoxy in the western world, let us not be afraid to look for radically new solutions: solutions that are adventurous and imaginative, yet loyal to Holy Tradition.

Clearly the crucial point of transition lies between the second and the third of these stages. So far, nowhere in the west has this transition been made. When will the time come?

May the Paraclete give us wisdom and courage!

Bishop Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia (born 1934)

'L'unité dans la diversité: la vocation orthodoxe en Europe occidentale', Speech given at the Institut Saint-Serge on the Sunday of Orthodoxy,

13 March 1983 (SOP, no. 77 [April 1983], pp.14-20) (summarised)

The historic Church, concrete, well-defined in time and space, encompasses within herself earth and heaven, men and angels, the living and the dead, sinners and saints, the created and the uncreated. How can we recognise beneath the outward failings and weaknesses of her historic existence, the glorious Bride of Christ: 'Having neither spot nor stain nor any such thing' (Eph. 5:27)? How could one escape from the temptation to doubt?… How many people pass by the Church without recognising the splendour of the eternal glory beneath the outward aspect of humiliation and weakness? Yet, how many recognised in 'the man of sorrows' the eternal Son of God?… The crucified and buried Christ will always be judged in similar fashion by those who are blind to the light of His resurrection. We must, in the words of St Paul, receive, 'not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we may know the things that are freely given to us of God' (1 Cor. 2:12), that we may be enabled to recognise victory beneath the outward appearance of failure, to discern the power of God fulfilling itself in weakness, the true Church within the historic reality.

Vladimir Lossky (1903-58), The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (London: James Clarke, 1957), pp.245-6

The Sun of Righteousness shall arise with healing in His wings.

He was moved with compassion towards them and He healed their sick.

'A soul that is in trouble is close to God', says Peter in one place - a marvellous utterance.

St Gregory of Nazianzus (ca.329-390), Letter 16

(Quoting the lost work The Preaching of Peter)

Today's world is one that poses radically new and extraordinarily difficult ethical dilemmas for all of us….

Health and wholeness have ultimate meaning only within the perspective of God's eternal purpose, the divine economy to be fulfilled at 'the second and glorious coming' of Jesus Christ. Medical care, therefore, should serve not only the proximate goal of restoring or improving bodily health; it should strive to provide optimal conditions for the patient's spiritual growth at every stage in the life cycle. This means curing disease; but it also means, particularly in terminal cases, easing pain and distress by any appropriate means in order to allow the patient, through prayer, confession and communion, to surrender him/herself into the hands of God. 'Medical heroics' result all too often from the prideful attempt on the part of caregivers to avoid 'failure', defined as 'losing' the patient to death. Such hubris is responsible for a great deal of unnecessary suffering on the part of patients and their families, and it represents idolatry of the worst sort insofar as the medical team assumes the role of God….

Modern medical technology has performed wonders for which many of us will be for ever grateful. But like human invention, that technology and its application must be subject to constant re-evaluation and judgement in the light of Holy Tradition. To paraphrase a well-worn maxim, 'ethics is too important to be left to the ethicists'. At its core, Christian ethic is a function of the worshiping, serving Church. This means that the work of doing ethics is a communal, ecclesial work for which each of us is responsible. Just as each Christian is called to be a theologian by offering the self and the world to God in prayer, each of us is called to be an ethicist, a 'moral theologian' in the proper sense. Informing ourselves of the issues, discussing them in family, parish and on the job, and taking a stand, both public and personal, that reflects our understanding of the Gospel and of God's imperative in our life, we can faithfully and usefully serve the dedicated health care professionals who live to serve us, while providing them with the guidance and discernment they seek.

Archpriest John Breck (born 1939),

The Sacred Gift of Life: Orthodox Christianity and Bioethics

(Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1989), pp.11,16-17

God has direct access. God meets a human at the level of his soul that is ultimately the level of silence, of those things which are beyond words; at the level of mystery, of those things which can be known within the silence, but which cannot be expressed by words otherwise than symbolically….

In all this, we should not forget the importance of touch - touch in relationships, physical contact. In almost every religious rite things are conveyed by contact: the laying-on of hands, a blessing - so many things are done physically; and we should be aware of the spiritual quality of our bodies. Without our bodies we could not commune in the sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ - we could not commune with Him. It is through our bodies and because of what they represent, because of what they are, that we can have this communion with Christ and God. In human relationships touch plays an immense role. How much one can convey of compassion, of love, of tenderness by putting one's hand on another hand or on a shoulder, which will never be conveyed by words and discourse, and with sick children more perhaps than with anyone else - or perhaps no, not only with them, for when a person is ill, gravely, grievously ill, everyone becomes a child again. So much can be conveyed by human touch: sacramental, sacred or simply human (which is also sacred and sacramental); and this is something which we must teach the parents of sick children, that where words fail, when means of communication are not there, there is a mysterious way of conveying what cannot be conveyed, of translating what one is incapable of expressing - love, tenderness, compassion, but also faith and certainty - by the way in which we treat a body.

We have to deal not only with the child who is ill but also with those around him who are in distress. They must learn, through faith, instead of being overcome by grief, instead of being conquered and destroyed, that they are partaking in a mystery, in a situation in which human power fails and Divine Power is abroad, acting sovereignly, building a kingdom in which each child - and we are all someone's children - in which each child participates one way or another in the mystery of the Lord Jesus Christ, born into a world of time, in order to die, and in order through death to open to us unconquerable, eternal life.

Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom) of Sourozh (1914-2003),

'The Suffering and the Death of Children', Eastern Churches Review 8:2 (1976), pp.110, 111-112

It is not even a question of unhappiness but of the sudden opening of doors, into eternity: one's whole natural life has been shaken, has disintegrated, desires have faded, meaning has lost its meaning and another incomprehensible Meaning has caused wings to grow at one's back….. Into the black, yawning grave fly all hopes, plans, habits, calculations and, above all, meaning: the meaning of life. In cases like this, everything has to be re-examined, rejected, seen in the light of corruption and falsehood.

People call this a Visitation from the Lord. Visitation bringing what? Sorrow? Much more: He suddenly reveals the true nature of things, and we see on the one hand the dead skeleton of a human being… and all creation, likewise mortal; while on the other hand and at the same time we see the life-giving, fiery, all-penetrating and all-consuming comforter, the Spirit.

…And I think that anyone who has had this experience of eternity, if only once; who has understood the way he is going, if only once; who has seen the One who goes before him, if only once - such a person will find it hard to turn aside from this path, to him all comfort will seem ephemeral, all treasures valueless, all companions unnecessary if amongst them he fails to see the one Companion, carrying His Cross.

St Maria Skobtsova (1891-1945), in Archpriest Serge Hackel

(born 1931), One, of Great Price: The Life of Mother Maria Skobtsova, Martyr of Ravensbrück (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1965), pp.4-5

Confess your sins one to another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed.

I am the Bread of life.… Verily, verily, I say to you, unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat My Flesh and drink My Blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day, for My Flesh is true food and My Blood is true drink. Those who eat My Flesh and drink My Blood abide in Me, and I in them.

Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting today for costly grace. Cheap grace means grace sold in the market like cheapjack's wares. The sacraments, the forgiveness of sin and the consolations of religion are thrown away at cut prices. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the Cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it someone will gladly go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a person will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble; it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows Him.

Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs us our life, and it is grace because it gives us the only true life.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1905-45), The Cost of Discipleship (1962), p.35

Christ became our brother in order to help us. Through Him our brother has become Christ for us in the power and authority of the commission Christ has given to him. Our brother stands before us as a sign of the truth and the grace of God. He has been given to us to help us. He hears the confession of our sins in Christ's stead and he forgives our sins in Christ's name. He keeps the secret of our confession as God keeps it. When I go to my brother to confess, I am going to God.

Confession is within the liberty of the Christian. Who can refuse, without suffering loss, a help that God has deemed it necessary to offer?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together (1954), pp.87, 92

When a doctor persuades a sick person to take some bitter medicine, he does so by making coaxing requests. There is no point in compulsion. The doctor knows that if the sick person spits out the medicine, however health-giving the remedy might be, it will be out of weakness rather than choice. We tend to reject the very things that will help us. Parents encourage their child to exercise personal discipline, but that will only succeed by love, not by force. A parent knows that harsh discipline will engender only rebellion in the young.

So if the sick person needs to be coaxed by gentle requests towards health, and if the disposition of the adolescent needs to be coaxed by the exercise of prudence, it should not come as a shock to hear the Apostle Paul writing as both a doctor and parent to the Church in Rome in a similar vein: 'I appeal to you by the mercy of God' (Rom. 12:1). Is he not trying to entice human souls have been wounded by bodily disease to accept divine medicine?

But Paul is introducing a new quality of appeal. He could have exhorted the people through God's might, or majesty, or glory; but he chose instead God's mercy. Why? Because it was through mercy alone that Paul himself had escaped from his criminal state as persecutor, and secured the dignity of his great apostolate. He tells us this when he is writing to Timothy: 'Formerly, I was a blasphemer, a persecutor and a bitter adversary; but I obtained the mercy of God' (1 Tim. 1:13). And a little later he says: 'This saying is true and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief. But I obtained mercy to be an example to those who believe in Him and so attain eternal life' (1 Tim. 1:15-16).

'I appeal to you by the mercy of God.' Paul makes this request, or rather God makes this request to us through Paul, because God wants to be loved rather than feared. God makes a request, because does not want so much to be Lord as Father. God makes a request in His mercy, rather than punishing in His severity. 'Come unto me all you who are burdened and heavy laden and I will give you rest' (Matt. 11:28).

From a Sermon of St Peter Chrysologus, Bishop of Ravenna (ca.400-50), in Celebrating the Seasons, Robert Atwell (comp.),

(Norwich: Canterbury Press, 1999), pp.452-3

We confess to God in the Church. This meant for centuries that we confess to the Church, to all the members of the Church. And it means the same today.

Christian confession, and even confession in the Old Testament, was always public confession. Indeed there was no idea that confession could be anything but public. A 'secret' confession done in the privacy of one's soul 'to God alone' - an idea not unheard of in very recent times - is completely unknown both in biblical and churchly history. A confession which is not a totally open and public confession before God, man and all creation is no confession at all. This is the Orthodox faith.

In the early Church confession was to all the Church. Then, when it was clear to all that the repentance of the person was sincere, the head of the congregation - the bishop or priest - read the 'prayer of absolution' which manifested plainly that God had forgiven the penitent through Christ, present in the gathering by the Holy Spirit.

As time passed, however, the public character of confession became more and more difficult to practise in the Church due to the growth of membership, and the subsequent loss of intimacy and community and mutual concern of the church members for each other. Thus confession became in fact more and more private, and Christians revealed their sins to specially-chosen men, priest or even lay monks who were considered competent and compassionate enough to hear, to co-suffer, to counsel, to encourage… and, most of all, to love the person in his sins.

Although the practice changed, the theory remained exactly the same: Christians confessed their sins openly, one to another. Christ in the Spirit in the Church granted forgiveness from God the Father. This forgiveness was pronounced by the leader of the local church, the bishop or priest, as he received the penitent to Holy Communion. But the confession was done to one person as if done openly and to all; or to put it another way, the confession was still made openly and to all, but in the person of one of the brothers.

We confess our sins today to our pastor. But we should still understand that we confess to him as if confessing to all. We confess to all in his person…. Thus in hearing confessions and bearing witness to sincere repentance and pronouncing the words of forgiveness, the priest represents not merely the Lord, but all of the members of the Lord's Body, the Church. He stands in behalf of all.

Archpriest Thomas Hopko (born 1939),

(The Orthodox Church in America, 1971), pp.13-17

We break one loaf, which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote whereby we do not die but live for ever in Jesus Christ.

I take no pleasure in the food of corruption or in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ, who was born of the seed of David, and for drink I desire His Blood, which is life incorruptible.

St Ignatius of Antioch (died ca. 107), To the Ephesians 20;

To the Romans 7

Concerning the Eucharist you should celebrate it in this way. First, say over the cup: 'We give thanks to Thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David, Thy servant, which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy servant. To Thee be glory unto the ages.'

Over the broken bread say: 'We give thanks to Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou hast revealed to us through Jesus Thy servant. To Thee be glory unto the ages.'

'As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and was then gathered together and became one, so too may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom. For the glory and power are Thine through Jesus Christ unto the ages.'

Do not let anyone eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord. For the statement of the Lord applies here also: 'Do not give what is holy to the dogs' (Matt. 7:6).

When you have finished the meal offer thanks in this manner: 'We thank Thee, Holy Father, for Thy name which Thou hast enshrined in our hearts. We thank Thee for the knowledge and faith and immortality which Thou hast revealed to us through Thy servant Jesus. To Thee be glory unto the ages.

'Almighty Lord, Thou hast created all things for the sake of Thy name; Thou gavest us food and drink to enjoy so that we might give Thee thanks. Now Thou hast favoured us through Jesus Thy servant with spiritual food and drink as well as with eternal life. Above all we thank Thee because Thou art mighty. To Thee be glory unto the ages.

'Remember, Lord, Thy Church and deliver her from all evil. Perfect her in Thy love; and once she has been sanctified, gather her together from the four winds into the kingdom which Thou hast prepared for her. For the power and the glory are Thine unto the ages.

'May grace come and this world pass away! Hosanna to the God of David! If any are holy, let them come. If any are not, let them repent. Maranatha, Amen'….

On the Lord's day, when you have gathered together, break bread and celebrate the Eucharist. But first confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure. If anyone has a quarrel with a neighbour, that person should not join you until the quarrel has been reconciled. Your sacrifice must not be defiled. For this is the offering of which the Lord has spoken: 'In every place and time offer Me a pure sacrifice. For I am a great king, says the Lord, and My name is great among the nations' (Mal. 1:11).

The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (1st-2nd cent.), §§ 9-10, 14

When Jesus Christ leads us to the holy table and gives us His own Body to eat, He transforms us completely and changes us into what He is Himself. Marked now with the impress of the royal seal, our clay is clay no longer, but itself becomes the very Body of the King; and it is not possible to imagine any state more blessed than this. This is the final mystery, and beyond this it is not possible to go, nor can anything be added to it.

'This is a great mystery', says St Paul (Eph. 5:32), referring to our union with Christ in the Eucharist. The Eucharist is that mystical marriage, praised throughout all the world, in which the divine Bridegroom espouses the Church as His virgin bride. By this sacrament we are made 'flesh of His flesh, and bone of His bone' (Gen. 2:23).

Under normal circumstances food is changed into the person who consumes it: fish, bread, and the like become human flesh and blood. But in Holy Communion the exact opposite happens. The Bread of Life Himself changes the person who eats, assimilating and transforming him into Himself.

See in what sense the Kingdom of heaven is within us.

St Nicolas Cabasilas (14 cent.), On Life in Christ 4:1,7,8,20

In the words Take, eat… Drink there is contained the abyss of God's love for humankind.

O perfect love, O all-embracing love, O irresistible love! What shall we give to God in gratitude for this love?

St John of Kronstadt (1829-1908), in Bishop Alexander

(Semenoff-Tian-Chansky), Father John of Kronstadt:

A Life (London/Oxford: Mowbray [1978]), p.35

Philip heard the Ethiopian eunuch reading the prophet Isaiah, and he asked, 'Do you understand what you are reading?' He replied, 'How can I, unless someone guides me?'

All scripture is inspired by God.

What is the Bible? Is it a book like any other intended for any occasional reader, who is expected to grasp at once its proper meaning? No, rather, it is a sacred book addressed primarily to believers. Of course, a sacred book can be read by anyone as well, just 'as literature'. But this is rather irrelevant to our immediate purpose. We are concerned now not with the letter but with the message. St Hilary put it emphatically: 'Scripture is not in the reading, but in the understanding.' Is there any definitive message in the Bible, taken as a whole, as one book? And again, to whom is this message, if any, properly addressed? To individuals, who would be, as such, entitled to understand this book and expound its message? Or to a community, and to individuals only in so far as they are members of that community?

Whatever the origin of particular documents included in the book may have been, it is obvious that the book, as a whole, was the creation of the community, both in the old dispensation and in the Christian Church. The Bible is by no means a complete collection of all historical, legislative, and devotional writings available, but a selection of some, authorised and authenticated by the use (first of all liturgical) in the community, and finally by the formal authority of the Church. And there was some very definite purpose by which this 'selection' was guided and checked. 'And many other signs and wonders truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through His name' (John 20:30-31).

George Florovsky, 'Revelation and Interpretation', Epiphany, Winter 1991

The Scriptures constitute a coherent whole. They are at once divinely inspired and humanly expressed. They bear authoritative witness to God's revelation of Himself in creation, in the Incarnation of the Word and in the whole history of salvation, and as such express the Word of God in human language.

We know, receive, and interpret Scripture through the Church and in the Church. Our approach to the Bible is one of obedience so that we may hear the revelation of Himself that God gives through it.

The books of Scripture contained in the Canon are authoritative because they truly convey the authentic revelation of God, which the Church recognises in them. Their authority is not determined by any particular theories concerning the authorship of these books or the historical circumstances in which they were written. The Church gives attention to the results of scholarly research concerning the Bible from whatever quarter they come, but it tests them in the light of its experience and understanding of the faith as a whole.

The Church believes in the apostolic origin of the New Testament, as containing the witness of those who had seen the Lord….

Any disjunction between Scripture and Tradition such as would treat them as two separate 'sources of revelation' must be rejected. The two are correlative. We affirm (i) That Scripture is the main criterion whereby the Church tests traditions to determine whether they are truly part of Holy Tradition or not; (ii) that Holy Tradition completes Holy Scripture in the sense that it safeguards the integrity of the biblical message.

By the term Holy Tradition we understand the entire life of the Church in the Holy Spirit. This tradition expresses itself in dogmatic teaching, in liturgical worship, in canonical discipline, and in spiritual life. These elements together manifest the single and indivisible life of the Church.

Of supreme importance is the dogmatic tradition, which in substance is unchangeable. In seeking to communicate the saving truth to mankind, the Church in every generation makes use of contemporary language and therefore of contemporary modes of thought; but this usage must always be tested by the standard of Scripture and of the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Councils. The mind (phronema) of the Fathers, their theological method, their terminology and modes of expression have a lasting importance….

The liturgical and canonical expressions of Tradition can differ, in that they are concerned with varying situations of the people of God in different historical periods and in different places. The liturgical and canonical traditions remain unchangeable to the extent that they embody the unchangeable truth of divine revelation and respond to the unchanging needs of mankind.

The Church cannot define dogmas which are not grounded both in Holy Scripture and in Holy Tradition, but has the power, particularly in Ecumenical Councils, to formulate the truths of faith more exactly and precisely when the needs of the Church require it.

The Moscow Statement agreed by the Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission meeting in Moscow 26 July- 2 August 1976, in

Kallistos Ware and Colin Davey (eds), Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue (London: SPCK, 1977), pp.83-85

One day the abbot took me to see the monastic library. It was not a very large collection of books. There were a lot of elderly, well-used volumes of the Fathers. 'Here', said the abbot, 'is a book which you give to beginners.' 'This is a work which is useful for someone who is depressed.' 'Here is a book which give very clear instructions about the Jesus Prayer.' Any Westerner showing you round this collection of books, even someone to whom they were of practical use, would have said: 'Here is an interesting sixth-century text.' 'This writer shows influences from the Syrian tradition.' 'Here is a work important in the later development of Hesychasm.' We look at books chronologically and classify them in terms of influences and development. To the abbot they all had a simultaneous existence and composed a simultaneous order. They were all books which were useful in the life of the Spirit. Their authors were fathers and teachers who had become friends, to whom one spoke in church and at other times; it was of little importance whether they had lived six hundred, twelve hundred or fifty years ago. He showed me his library rather in the way which an expert gardener might show you his collection of books on gardening, or a cook a collection of cookery books. These help you on your way. They are not an end in themselves.

Canon A.M. Allchin, (born 1930), The Dynamic of Tradition

(London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1981), p.28

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The loaf that we break is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

Take care to participate in one Eucharist: for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for union with His blood, one altar, just as there is one bishop together with the presbyters and the deacons my fellow-servants.

Do not try to justify anything as right for yourselves apart from the others, but let there be one prayer in common, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in the love and the blameless joy which is Jesus Christ; for there is nothing better than Him. Hasten all to come together as to one temple of God, as to one altar, to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from the one Father, is with the one Father, and departed to the one Father.

St Ignatius of Antioch, To the Philadelphians 4; To the Magnesians 7

For the first time in history each of the Orthodox Churches is not identified with a particular people. The ethnic boundaries have largely broken down, however much we may insist on defending them with a kind of sentimental naïveté. Even within the so-called Orthodox lands we do not have the capacity to create an all-ethnic cultural milieu. We belong to or find ourselves cast into broader cultural currents. Today more than at any other time our personal existence must be anchored in the local parish. The truth of the Church, the reality of salvation, the abolishment of sin and death, the victory over the irrational in life and history - all these for us Orthodox derive from the local parish, the actualisation of the Body of Christ and the Kingdom of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The liturgical unity of the faithful has to be the starting-point of all the things for which we hope: the transformation of the impersonal life of the masses into a communion of persons, the authentic and genuine (rather than the merely theoretical and legal) observance of social justice, the deliverance of work from the bondage of mere need and its transformation into an engagement of personal involvement and fellowship. Only the life of the parish can give a priestly dimension to politics, a prophetic spirit to science, a philanthropic concern to economics, a sacramental character to love. Apart from the local parish all of these are but an abstraction, naïve idealism, sentimental utopianism. But within the parish there is historical actualisation, realistic hope, dynamic manifestation.

The eschatological self-understanding of Orthodox theology cannot be actualised outside of the setting of the local parish. The role of Orthodox theology within the historical and cultural milieu of the West is to draw attention to the eschatological witness of the Church as embodied in the parish. However, I fear that we are far from taking such a course. Orthodox church life and theology show very few signs on which to base hope for the future. Our parishes today represent largely a socio-religious (sometimes an ethnic and chauvinistic) phenomenon rather than the eschatological dimension. We are bound to purposes so worldly that we have no place for the slightest eschatological vision. The return of Orthodoxy to its eschatological self-understanding which is to be embodied in the parish would signify radical changes.

Christos Yannaras (born 1935), 'Orthodoxy and the West', Eastern Churches Review 3:3 (1971), pp.299-300

Then the servant who had received only one talent also came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering when you did not scatter seed; so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' But his master replied, 'You wicked and lazy servant!'

The love of Christ constrains us…. We are ambassadors for Christ; it is as though God were appealing through us, and the appeal that we make in Christ's name is this: Be reconciled to God.

Always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you the reason for the hope that is in you.

Do not force peoples' free choice but sow in hope. For our Lord never compelled anyone, but He preached the good news, and those who wished listened to Him.

St Barsanouphios of Gaza (6th cent.), Letter 35

'No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven' (John 3:13)

Christ is speaking here about Himself, and the primary thrust of the passage as a whole has to do with 'lifting up', metaphorically a reference to His coming crucifixion, though also to His ascension to sit at the right hand of the Father. But I wish to draw attention this morning to His coming down, to the descent of Christ, not to the ascent…. The Christian faith proclaims that the transcendent God, existing from all eternity, from before the creation of the world, has descended, has come down into this world of space and time to become one of us, to become man, a human being: to become God with us, 'Emanuel'. But He has also descended to reveal Himself as God for us, leaving heaven behind, so to speak, in order to give us the possibility of sharing His eternal life, of joining Him where He is.

It is this element of descent, which precedes any ascent, that I wish to stress. This descent is required for the transmission of life, and if we are to be Christ-like, if we are to be imitators of Christ, that descent must figure in our lives as well. Specifically, it is very easy to speak to those who live the same kind of spiritual life as we do: we understand one another, we speak the same language. What is difficult is to descend, to reach down to someone whose inner life is weak, or virtually non-existent. Yet, it is this ability that characterizes the saints. How many stories there are of St Seraphim, of St Tikhon of Zadonsk, which show their ability to descend from the high rung on which they stand to find the person before them, standing on a much lower rung, and gently draw him upward. In doing this they repeat, in their own way, the descent and ascent of Christ.

It is not difficult to reach those who want God: they will readily attend lectures and meetings, eager to know more about what already attracts them. But it is very difficult indeed to reach those whom God wants - and who may very well not want Him. Each of us should relate to his or her own life the descent of God into the world - God reaching down, in Christ, into a hostile or at the least indifferent world. And we should ask ourselves what we are doing that in any way reflects this saving action of God.

And we should apply the same standard to ourselves as a community. Are we reaching out to those whom God wants, or do we content ourselves with speaking politely to those who are already seeking God? Orthodoxy will never be truly established in this country, will never have fulfilled its mission, until it can speak directly and effectively to those who do not know - and do not care - that it - or God - exists.

Bishop Basil (Osborne) of Sergievo (born 1938),

(Witney, UK: St Stephen's Press, 1993), pp. 9-11

More important still would be further thinking and study of the most crucial fact - which has been discovered by all Christians only in our generation - that true Christian 'mission' does not consist only, as was thought in the nineteenth century, in sending missionaries to distant countries considered as 'non-Christian', but in a global witness to a secularised world which begins not far away in 'missionary lands', but on our very doorsteps.

The Orthodox handling of that mission, expressed in the words of St Seraphim of Sarov (1759-1833) - 'Save yourself, and thousands will be saved around you' - provides the crucial additional dimension of the problem of Christian mission today.

Archpriest John Meyendorff (1926-92), introduction to James J. Stamoolis, Eastern Orthodox Mission Theology Today

(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1986), p.xii

The second challenge concerns the Orthodox Church itself. The theologians write beautifully of the witness of the Liturgy and the missionary structures of the congregation. But, if this is the case, why, especially in the Diaspora, are some of the churches centres of social activity that exclude outsiders? Can Orthodoxy break out of its cultural mentality so that it can witness? While there are positive trends opposing ethnocentrism, many problems still need to be resolved.

It is interesting to note Macarius Gloukharev's judgement 'that the Russian masses were only superficially Christian, and therefore inadequate for the great apostolic task God had in store for them.'

Is that judgement accurate today? It would seem that similar criticisms come from Orthodox writers even now. Is the present framework in which the theological treasures of Orthodoxy are preserved able to present those treasures to the world? These are real questions that need to be faced, and in some cases are being faced, by Orthodox theologians. Just as Gloukharev saw the need for educating the masses, so today the education of Orthodox congregations must be a priority for Orthodox mission.

James J. Stamoolis, Eastern Orthodox Mission Theology Today, p.129

What am I going to do? What are the Church and each Christian to do in this world? What is our mission?

To these questions there exist no answers in the form of practical 'recipes'. 'It all depends' on thousands of factors - and, to be sure, all faculties of our human intelligence and wisdom, organisation and planning, are to be constantly used. Yet - and this is the one 'point' we wanted to make in these pages - 'it all depends' primarily on our being real witnesses to the joy and peace of the Holy Spirit, to that new life of which we are made partakers in the Church. The Church is the sacrament of the Kingdom - not because she possesses divinely instituted acts called 'sacraments', but because first of all she is the possibility given to man to see in and through this world the 'world to come', to see and to 'live' it in Christ. It is only when in the darkness of this world we discern that Christ has already 'filled all things with Himself' that these things, whatever they may be, are revealed and given to us full of meaning and beauty. A Christian is the one who, wherever he looks, finds Christ and rejoices in Him. And this joy transforms all His human plans and programmes, decisions and actions, making all his mission the sacrament of the world's return to Him who is the life of the world.

Archpriest Alexander Schmemann (1921-83),

(Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1973), p.113

So God created adam [humankind] in His image and likeness, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply.'

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her…. We are members of His body…. This is a great mystery.

You have kept the good wine until now.

Receive their crowns into Thy Kingdom

Marriage, then, ceases to be simply the satisfaction of a natural human instinct, or the fulfilment of man's search for earthly happiness. It is an event which concerns not only the newly married couple, but also Christ Himself, for two of His members are being joined in one within the whole Church which is the Body of Christ. The crowns which are placed on the heads of the couple are martyrs' crowns, as indicated by the hymn 'O Holy Martyrs' which is sung during the circular procession round the table during the Crowning service. 'Martyr', in Greek, means 'witness'. The new husband and the new wife are thus called by the Church to be eternally - the circle is always a symbol of eternity - witnesses of the union of Christ with the Church. Marriage, then, ceases to be a 'private affair'. The meaning of Christian life is precisely to go beyond the simple egotistic interests of man. This new dimension is what constitutes the whole difference between a Christian marriage and the one which is concluded outside of the Church.

In the early days of the Church, marriage was not celebrated, as today, during a special ceremony or rite which one attends at special invitation. It took place, after the bishop had given his permission for the union, at the solemn Sunday Eucharistic Liturgy. The whole community was gathered together as the Body of Christ and the couple solemnly took Communion together, with the whole Church witnessing their pledge to be together and their desire to build a new Christian family. In our present rite, several elements recall that early stage of the celebration of marriage: the ceremony of the 'Crowning' starts, as does the Liturgy, with the exclamation 'Blessed is the Kingdom', and the rite itself includes such elements as the singing of the 'Our Father' followed by the couple's participation in a common cup of wine. It is not the place here to discuss the reason why this cup ceased to be the Cup of Communion to the Body and Blood of Christ, but it is important to understand that the Holy Orthodox Church has always considered marriage in its relation to our common life in the Body of Christ. When two souls and two bodies are accepting to be united in marriage, it is 'a great Mystery' and it concerns 'Christ and the Church'….

All these elements are, of course, incomprehensible, if one does not understand that the Kingdom of God calls for the Transfiguration and renewal of our whole self, body and soul, and that every step of our existence - our birth, our marriage, our death - become really different when they are accomplished in Christ.

Archpriest John Meyendorff, The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony

(New York: Department of Religious Education, OCA, 1975), pp.32-35

St Augustine says, 'If you are not spiritual in your flesh, you will become carnal even in your spirit.' One can paraphrase this statement: if you are not spiritual in your sexuality, you will become sexual even in your spirit….

In Greek 'chastity' (sophrosyne) means integrity and integration, the power to bring about unity. An ancient liturgical prayer asks the 'most pure Theotokos', 'By your love, bind together my soul'; that is to say, from the sum total of my psychic states, make unity to spring up - a single soul….

St John Chrysostom insists that the demands of the Gospel are the same for all. Perfection after the image of the Father in heaven, the new commandment of love, along with the Beatitudes, are addressed equally to every human being: 'When Christ tells us to follow the narrow way, He is speaking not only to monks but to everyone. In the same way He commands all of us to hate our life in this world. It follows from this that the monk and the layperson are called to attain the same heights, and if they fall they inflict the same wounds on themselves.' And again: 'You are entirely mistaken if you think that there are certain things required of laypeople, and other things of monks….They will both have to render the same account….And if any regard their marriage as a hindrance, let them know that what hinders them is not marriage as such but the manner in which they misuse their free will within marriage. Use marriage chastely, and you will be first in the Kingdom of Heaven, and you will enjoy all blessings' (Against the opponents of the monastic life 3:14)….

The married state, along with and just as much as the monastic, are two forms of chastity, each one appropriate to its own mode of being….

Chastity means that one belongs to Christ totally, undividedly. For the monk it signifies the betrothal of the soul to Christ in an unmediated relationship; for the married couple, it signifies betrothal to Christ through the marriage bond. This mediate character does not in the least diminish the value of the nuptial union. Husband and wife who understand this truth can pray: 'Grant, O God, that by loving one another we may love You Yourself.'

Paul Evdokimov (1901-70), The Sacrament of Love: The Nuptial Mystery in the Light of the Orthodox Tradition (Crestwood, NY:

St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1985), pp.20,38-39,66-67

This sacramental form of sexual love [within marriage] is something different from the love (if it can be called that) which is simply sensual desire or passion. It is something different even from that mutual sympathy, fidelity, and affection which by and large stands as the Christian ideal of marriage. What is indicated in this form of love is a relationship between two people - a man and a woman - in which through their mutual awareness and recognition of each other they experience what Plato calls that 'something, they do not know what' which overflows their beings and transforms their individual existence into a single reality. Through it, an 'I - thou' totality in the way that Martin Buber understood it is established, or a single heart and a single soul in two bodies….

We tend to distinguish between the love of God and the love of one person for another - to distinguish between agape and eros - and to regard the second as a rather debased form of the first, if not as directly opposed to the first and only indulged at the expense of the first. In a sexualised sacramental love there is no such distinction. It is transcended and eliminated and there is but a single communion, a single participation of the man and the woman and the divine in each other, although it must be remembered that however transparent the two human beings become to each other in its light, the divine itself always remains hidden and inaccessible in its essence. It is because of its participation in the divine that this love may further be defined as Plato defines it, namely, as a birth in beauty (tiktein en to kalo); and for the same reason it may also be said to partake potentially of eternity.

Philip Sherrard (1922-95), Christianity and Eros

(London: SPCK, 1976), pp.1-3

The Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen His glory.

He is the icon of the invisible God.

The icon is a door.

The Life of St Stephen the Younger (died ca. 764),

Migne, PG [= Patrologia Graeca] 100:1113A

We preserve unchanged all the traditions of the Church, whether handed down to us in written or unwritten form. Of these traditions, one is the painting of icons. The pictorial image in iconography and the verbal narrative in the Gospels are in agreement with one another, and both alike emphasise that the Incarnation of God the Word is genuine and not illusory….

We therefore declare that, together with the emblem of the precious and life-giving Cross, it is legitimate for holy icons, whether painted or made from mosaic or from any other appropriate material, to be displayed in churches, on sacred vessels and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and streets. In these icons there may be depicted our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, our most pure Lady the holy Mother of God, the honoured angels, and all saints and holy persons. The more often we see such icons, the more we are led to recall with love the persons depicted. To these icons should be given reverence and veneration, but not the worship of faith that is due only to the divine nature. They may be honoured with incense and candles, as is done with the emblem of the precious and life-giving Cross and the Holy Gospels….

This is the faith of the Apostles, this is the faith of the Fathers, this is the faith of the Orthodox, this faith has made firm the whole world.

The Definition of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787),

Mansi, Concilia 13:377B-E, 397C

When we venerate icons, we do not offer veneration to matter: but by means of the icon we venerate the person depicted. For, as St Basil says, 'The honour given to the icon passes to the prototype.'

St John of Damascus (died ca. 749), On Icons 3:41

We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith.

St Theodore the Studite (759-826), Letter to Plato, PG 99:505B

We declare that the holy icon of our Lord Jesus Christ is to be venerated with the same honour as is given to the Book of the Holy Gospels. Just as we all attain salvation through the letters written in the Book of the Gospels, so all of us alike, whether learned or uneducated, benefit from the colours painted in the icons. What the written word proclaims through letters, iconography proclaims and represents through colours.

Council of Constantinople (869-70), Canon 3

Because the human person is made in the image (eikon) and likeness of God, there is something divine about the act of painting an icon.

St Theodore the Studite, On Icons 3:2:5

The first thing that has to be said about the icon is that it is not simply a work of art similar in kind to other works of art….

It is not something which can be regarded as a self contained whole, complete in itself. We have become accustomed to looking at works of art as independent entities, areas of line and colour cut off from surrounding space, enclosed in a frame and hung on a wall. The icon is not like this. An icon, if it is to be regarded as an icon, is not something which can be separated off in this fashion. On the contrary, it is something whose full nature cannot be understood unless it is seen in relationship to the organic whole of the spiritual structure of which it forms a part. Divorced from this whole, hung in a frame upon a wall, and looked at as an individual aesthetic object, it is divorced from the context in which it can function as an icon. It may then be attractive as a piece of decoration, but as an icon it ceases to exist. For as an icon it can only exist within the particular framework of belief and worship to which it belongs. An icon divorced from this framework cease to be an icon. An icon divorced from a place and act of worship is a contradiction in terms.

This framework of belief and worship to which the icon belongs is the Christian liturgy. The art of the icon is a liturgical art. It is a visual system conveying and giving support to the spiritual facts which underlie the whole liturgical drama.

Philip Sherrard, 'The Art of the Icon', in A.M. Allchin (ed.)

Sacrament and Image. Essays in the Christian Understanding of Man

(London: The Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius, 1967), p.58

It is absolutely impossible to imagine any liturgical rite in the Orthodox Church without the icon. The liturgical and sacramental life of the Church is inseparable from the image…. The icon is an object pertaining to worship, an object in which divine grace dwells and which forms an integral part of the liturgy. The icon is often called, with good reason, 'theology in images'. Sacred art - its basis, meaning and content - is a theological subject, in the same way as the study of Holy Scripture. One can neither understand nor interpret sacred art from a viewpoint outside the Church and its life; any explanation given from outside will always be partial and incomplete. In relation to sacred art itself, it will be false.

Not only does sacred art reflect the life of the Church in all its complexity and all its depth; it also forms an integral part of that life, just as a branch forms part of a tree. As an object used in worship, the icon is not merely occasioned or inspired by the liturgy, but it forms with the liturgy a single and indivisible whole.

Leonid Ouspensky(1902-87), Essai sur la théologie de l'icone

dans l'Eglise Orthodoxe (Paris: Exarchat Patriarchal russe

en Europe Occidentale, 1960), pp.10-11

After singing a hymn they went out to the Mount of Olives.

About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them. Suddenly there was an earthquake, so violent that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone's chains were unfastened.

Is anyone among you in distress? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing.

Nothing so arouses the soul, gives it wings, sets it free from the earth, releases it from the prison of the body, teaches it to love wisdom and to condemn the things of this life, as concordant melody and sacred song composed in rhythm.

St John Chrysostom (died 407), On Psalm 41, §1 (PG 55:156)

On high, the hosts of angels sing praise; here below, humankind forms choirs in the churches and imitates them by singing the same doxology. On high, the seraphim cry out in the Thrice-Holy Hymn; here below the human throng sends up the same cry. The inhabitants of heaven and earth are brought together in a single festal assembly. There is one shared thanksgiving, one shout of delight, one joyful chorus.

St John Chrysostom, First Homily on Hosea 1 (PG 56:97)

There is not a single service, either public or private, in the Orthodox Church that does not contain singing either in the form of simple recitation or of a more complex nature. Moreover, in principle it makes no difference whether the singing is performed by a single singer, antiphonally by two highly-trained choirs, or by the entire congregation. In contrast to the Roman Catholic Church the Orthodox Church has in its practice no such thing as a 'low Mass', i.e. a service without singing. While there are parts of certain services, e.g. Compline or weekday Matins, that are not sung in the full sense of the word, they are still recited or 'read' on a single note. Even private services, such as a Prayer Service (molieben) held in a private home, contain singing, often performed out of necessity by the officiating priest. The principle remains the same in all instances: the word is presented in an appropriate musical setting, in accordance with the character of the service and the logical content of the verbal text.

It becomes clear, then, that the liturgical singing of the Orthodox Church is itself one of the forms of worship. The Russians of past centuries referred to worship as 'singing'. 'To go to sing' meant the same as 'to go to worship'. 'It's time for singing, it's the hour for prayer! Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us!' With these words the monk on wake-up duty would rouse the brethren to Nocturns and Matins.

Johann von Gardner, Russian Church Singing, vol. 1:

Orthodox Worship and Hymnography (Crestwood, NY:

St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1980), pp.24-25

No instrumental music

Orthodox worship consists almost exclusively of verbal expression in its many forms: prayer, glorification, instruction, exegesis, homily, etc. Only the word is capable of precisely expressing concrete, logically formulated ideas. Instrumental music, on the other hand, by its nature is incapable of such unambiguous expression; it can only express and evoke the emotional element, which is received subjectively by each individual listener, thus giving rise to a variety of interpretations. But it is impossible to give such an emotional reaction a precise logical definition. Concepts such as sadness, majesty, joyfulness, happiness, etc. are merely general and vague characterisations of emotional qualities and do not represent any unequivocal ideas that can be precisely expressed in words. The same musical form, whether a simple tune played on a fife, a complex piece of instrumental polyphony, or even a melody hummed without words by the human voice, can be supplied with texts of different content and character that will enable the same music to convey completely diverse ideas. Only the word can give musical sounds a definite, unambiguous meaning. And in worship only the word can clearly express the ideas contained in prayer, instruction, contemplation, etc. Thus wordless instrumental music by itself is not suited for conveying the concrete verbal content of worship. It can only entertain and please the ear, evoke various emotions and, to a certain extent, reflect the emotional content of ideas expressed by words. On the other hand, the word taken in conjunction with musical sounds can combine logical clarity and precision of meaning with the emotional response to verbal ideas.

Herein, it seems, lies the reason why the musical element is admitted into the Orthodox liturgy only in conjunction with the word.

Johann von Gardner, Russian Church Singing, vol. 1, pp.22-23

What is more pleasing than a psalm?

David expressed it well: 'Praise the Lord, for a song of praise is good: let there be praise of God with gladness and grace' (Ps. 146[147]:1). Yes, a psalm is a blessing on the lips of the people of God, a hymn in praise of God, the assembly's homage, a general acclamation, a word that speaks for all, the voice of the Church, a confession of faith in song. It is the voice of complete assent, the joy of freedom, a cry of happiness, the echo of gladness. It softens anger, release us from anxiety, lightens the burden of sorrow. It is protection at night, instruction day. It is a shield when we are afraid, a celebration of holiness, a vision of serenity, a promise of peace and concord. It is like a lyre, evoking harmony from the blending of the notes. Day begins to the music of the psalm. Day closes to the echo of a psalm….

A psalm can be sung at home, and then repeated out-of-doors; it is learned without effort and retained with delight. A psalm joins together those who are at variance, unites those at odds, and reconciles those who have been offended. It is after all a great bond of unity for a whole group of people to sing together in one choir….

In a psalm, instruction vies with beauty. We sing for pleasure. We learn for our profit. What excellence is not covered by the reading of a psalm? I come across the words: 'A song for the beloved', and I am aflame with desire for God's love. I go through God's revelation in all its beauty, the intimations of resurrection, the gifts of His promise. I learn to avoid sin. I see my mistake in feeling ashamed of repentance over my sins.

What is a psalm but a musical instrument to give expression to all the virtues? The psalmist of old used it, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, to make earth re-echo the music of heaven.

Ambrose of Milan, Commentary on the Psalms 1:9 (PL [= Patrologia Latina] 14:924-5)

May they all be one: as Thou, Father, art in Me and I am in Thee, may they also be one in Us, so that the world may believe.

…speaking the truth in love…

Unite us all, as many as are partakers of the one Bread and Cup, one with another, in the communion of the one Holy Spirit.

People such as St Seraphim, St Francis of Assisi and many others have accomplished in their own lives the union of the Churches. Are they not citizens of the same Church, a Church holy and universal? On the heights of their spiritual lives have they not passed beyond the walls that separate us, walls which, according to the fine expression of Metropolitan Platon of Kiev, 'do not mount up as far as heaven'?

Metropolitan Evlogy of Paris (1864 - 1946), cited in Michael Plekon,

Living Icons: Persons of Faith in the Eastern Church

(Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002), p.100

The responsibility of the Orthodox Church, as well as her ecumenical mission regarding church unity, were expressed by the Ecumenical Councils. These, in particular, stressed the indissoluble link existing between true faith and sacramental communion. The Orthodox Church has always sought to draw the different Christian churches and confessions into a joint pilgrimage aiming at and searching for the lost unity of Christians, so that all might reach the unity of faith.

The Orthodox Church, which unceasingly prays 'for the unity of all', has taken part in the ecumenical movement since its inception and has contributed to its formation and further development. In fact, the Orthodox Church, due to the ecumenical spirit by which she is distinguished, has, throughout the history, fought for the restoration of Christian unity. Therefore, the Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement does not run counter to the nature and history of the Orthodox Church. It constitutes the consistent expression of the apostolic faith within new historical conditions, in order to respond to new existential demands.

It is in this spirit that all the local holy Orthodox Churches actively participate today in the work of the various national, regional and international bodies of the ecumenical movement and take part in the different bilateral and multilateral dialogues, despite the difficulties and crises arising occasionally in the normal course of this movement. This many-faceted ecumenical activity derives from the sense of responsibility and from the conviction that coexistence, mutual understanding, cooperation and common efforts towards Christian unity are essential, so as 'not to hinder the Gospel of Christ' (I Cor 9:12).

Chambésy, 1986, Section III

There is a comment that one sometimes hears at ecumenical meetings from well-intentioned participants. 'Everything went fine, but we came back with one tremendous disappointment. The Eastern Churches, through their representatives there, appeared to everybody as absolutely the pre-ordained bridge between East and West. Yet somehow the historic moment for the Eastern Church is not the historic moment for the rest of the world and for what is happening here.' In other words, some who are not unsympathetic feel a painful discrepancy that somehow they who have the word at the present moment are not speaking it!

Br David Steindl-Rast (Roman Catholic monk),

in Cross Currents 24:2-3 (1974), pp.318-19

There is this question of truth, and I think that in that respect you westerners seem to over-simplify things and are over-optimistic, whether you belong to the Roman Communion or not: it seems to us Orthodox that you make light of theological divergences and that you think much too easily that because you have no particular reason to reject us and our views, we must conversely accept yours. Indeed, I see no reason why Roman Catholicism should not accept the views of Orthodoxy, because we are your own past; but I see quite definitely, as every Orthodox does, that we are in no position to accept indiscriminately the views that have developed in Roman Catholicism since the separation between east and west, because you are not our past, and this you must always remember. I am not now being either unkind or unfriendly; I mean it from the bottom of my heart. I wish for reunion, but not for a cheap reunion at the cost of those things which generations of people have built up and for which they have given their lives….

I would like to draw your attention to the problem of intercommunion…. We believe that there can be communion within one Church, but we do not believe that there can be intercommunion between two Churches; and we think that the differences between Roman Catholicism and us must first be overcome, and then crowned in the marvel and the joy of intercommunion.

Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh, in Eastern Churches Review 1:1

(1966-7), pp.19-20

Unity is simultaneously something already given and something we must attain to….

What is required for a complete reunion, and where do we start? The predominant formula runs: sacramental fellowship must be preceded by a preliminary dogmatic agreement. But is this axiom so indisputable as it appears? Here on one scale of the balance we have a difference in certain Christian dogmas and theological opinions, and an estrangement which has been formed through centuries; on the other we have the unity of sacramental life. May it not be that a unity in the sacrament will be the only way towards overcoming this difference? Why should we not seek to surmount a heresy in teaching through superseding a heresy of life such as division? May it not be that Christians sin now by not heeding the common eucharistic call? And, if this is so, then for Orthodoxy and Rome there still remains a way to their reunion on the basis of a fellowship in sacraments….

The way towards the reunion of East and West does not lie through tournaments between the theologians of the East and West, but through a reunion before the Altar. The priesthood of the East and the West must realize itself as one priesthood, celebrating the one Eucharist, and, if the minds of the priests could become aflame with this idea, all barriers would fall. For in response to this, dogmatic unity will be achieved, or rather a mutual understanding of one another in our distinctive features. 'In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus charitas' ('In things necessary, unity; in things doubtful, freedom; in all things, love').

A realisation of our unity as something given, and, at the same time of our disunity as a fact which we cannot ignore, is present as a vital antithesis in the soul of the modern Christian. This antinomy cannot leave him in peace. He cannot remain indifferent to it, for he must seek its resolution. The Ecumenical Movement of today is the expression of this search.

Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov (1871-1944), 'By Jacob's Well', in

James Pain and Nicolas Zernov, A Bulgakov Anthology

(London: SPCK, 1976), pp.101, 112-13 (originally published in 1933)

Fr Sergius wrote the following prayer for use at celebrations of the Orthodox Liturgy during conferences of the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius:

The criterion by which Christians evaluate and accept different religious ideas and principles is Jesus Christ, the Word of God and incarnation of the love of the trinitarian God…. The rays of divine glory that embrace the entire universe are received by everyone. All human beings benefit from the activities of the Holy Spirit - activities that promote life, love and truth. The Church, moreover, is the mystery of the kingdom, and as such it acts on behalf of and for the sake of humanity as a whole. Since all people share in humanity's common nature, which was restored with the incarnation of the Word, they also enjoy some of the effects of His grace and love, both of which become fully activated within the Church, which is His body.

As the world continues to bring us closer to one another, we Christians have a pressing obligation to engage in dialogue with people of other religious beliefs. In order for such dialogue to be sincere, we must first have respect for the personality and freedom of those with whom we speak, as well as a sincere love and understanding. We must also acknowledge the inspiration that exists in other religious experiences.

Nevertheless, this openness towards dialogue does not mean that we stop bearing witness to our Christianity. Precisely the opposite. Every time we engage in dialogue we also interpret and elucidate the testimony of our Christian faith. We have an obligation to speak with people and offer the priceless treasure that we possess. We cannot remain silent about the things that God's love has revealed to us and has bestowed upon us. These include, above all, our certainty that God is love and that all people are called upon to participate in a communion of love with the trinitarian God. If we are to be persuasive, however, what we say must grow out of our lives and experience.

What the world is seeking from Christians is consistency. The world is asking us to reveal the beauty of the Christian message by conscientiously living its principles, in the light of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. The world is looking for us to reveal, in the course of our daily reality, the beauty, radiance, glory and power in a life that has been made new in Christ. The world is calling upon us to radiate the presence of the Holy Spirit. It yearns for a living Christianity that bears witness to the mystery of the All-Holy Trinity's Love. It longs for the virtual transformation of human existence and for a communion with the transcendent power of Love.

Archbishop Anastasios (Yannoulatos) of Tirana (born 1929),

Facing the World: Orthodox Christian Essays on Global Concerns

(Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2003), pp.152-3

I am advocating two main ideas. One is the idea of a 'dialogue' substituted for the idea of a one-sided 'mission' to the Jews. By dialogue I mean that, if Christianity has a definite message to bring to Judaism, Judaism also has a message to bring to Christianity. The other idea is the 'communion' of Jews and Christians either in the same personal Messiah (this total communion is a distant goal rather than an immediate possibility) or in Messianic values common to both of them (this partial communion can be reached today and progressively enlarged). It does not mean that the difference between Judaism and Christianity should be obliterated or minimised. Egerton Swan is perfectly right in saying 'Judaism and Christianity are nearest to an agreement when Judaism is most unambiguously Jewish and Christianity most unambiguously Christian.' But Jews and Christians alike have to acknowledge and even to experience in their spiritual life the immanence of Israel in Christianity. A new and fruitful meeting between Judaism and Christianity implies a certain Judaisation of the Christian's Christianity as well as a certain completion of the Jew's Judaism. I look forward to a revival of Jewish spiritual values among Christians; and, if I had to express the trend of this book in terms of the New Testament, I would write here these two verses: '… and, as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the sabbath day and stood up for to read' (Luke 4:16), and: '… they, continuing daily with one accord in the Temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart' (Acts 2:46). The whole programme of the Christian approach to Judaism is there.

Archimandrite Lev Gillet (1893-1980), Communion in the Messiah (London/Redhill: Lutterworth Press, 1942), pp.x-xi

In thinking about the people of Israel, let us take St Paul as our model. How did he, as a Jewish Christian, feel about his fellow Jews who had not accepted Christ? We find the answer in Romans 9:1-5. Reflecting on the rejection of Christ by most of his nation, Paul's reaction is not anger, not bitterness or resentment, but overwhelming grief: 'I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart' (9:2). Although his fellow Jews do not acknowledge Christ as Messiah and Son of God, Paul remains acutely conscious of his continuing solidarity with them. He does not cease to look on them as his 'kinsfolk', his sisters and brothers, and he says that he would rather be 'accursed and cut off from Christ' than saved without them (9:3). (Here he doubtless has the example of Moses in mind: see Exodus 32:32).

Paul goes on to speak of the special blessings that God has given to the people of Israel. Does he think that all these blessings have been revoked because the great majority of the Jewish people have rejected Christ? Not at all. …In Paul's eyes, the Israelites are still most emphatically the Chosen People. 'I ask, then, has God rejected His people? By no means!… God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew' (11:1-2). In God's all-embracing plan, the people of Israel have still a unique and distinctive vocation. They are still specially 'beloved' by God (11:29), 'for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable' (11:29). What is more, when the Jewish people eventually turn to Christ, this will prove an enrichment to the total Church which lies far beyond our present imagining. 'If their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!' (11:12). To the Christian community as a whole their conversion will be nothing less than 'life from the dead' (11:15).

Anti-Semitism, in all its expressions, is the work of Satan.

Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia, sermon preached on 13 July 1996

(St John of Kronstadt Bulletin September 1996)

Christ is hidden everywhere in the mystery of His lowliness. Any reading of religions is a reading of Christ. It is Christ alone who is received as light when grace visits a Brahmin, a Buddhist or a Muslim reading his own scriptures. Every martyr for the truth, every person persecuted for what he or she believes to be right, dies in communion with Christ. The mystics of Islamic countries with their witness to suffering love lived the authentic Johannine agape. For if the tree is known by its fruits, there is no shadow of doubt that the poor and humble folk who live for and yearn for God in all nations already receive the peace which the Lord gives to all whom He loves (Luke 2:14).

Metropolitan Georges (Khodre) of Mount Lebanon (born 1923), 'Christianity in a Pluralistic World - the Economy of the Holy Spirit', Sobornost 6:3 (1971), pp.171-2

He was transfigured before them.

All of us, with unveiled faces reflecting like mirrors the glory of the Lord, are being transfigured into that same image from glory to glory.

Today on Tabor in the manifestation of Thy light, O Logos,

Thou unaltered light from the light of the unbegotten Father,

We have seen the Father as light,

And the Spirit as light,

Guiding with light the whole creation.

The Festal Menaion (London: Faber & Faber, 1969), p.495

In a union without confusion

Thou hast shown us on Mount Tabor the burning coal of the Godhead….

Thou wast revealed as non-material fire,

Not burning up the material substance of the body,

When Thou hast appeared to Moses and the apostles and Elias,

O Master who art one from two natures,

And in both of them complete.

The Festal Menaion, pp.486-7

Transfigured today upon Mount Tabor before the disciples,

In His person He showed them human nature,

Arrayed in the original beauty of the image.

Having gone up, O Saviour, with Thy disciples on the mountain,

Transfigured Thou hast made the nature that had grown dark in Adam

To shine again as lightning,

Transforming it into the glory and splendour of Thine own divinity.

Thou wast Transfigured upon Mount Tabor,

Showing the exchange mortal men will make with Thy glory

At Thy second and fearful coming, O Saviour.

To show plainly how, at Thy mysterious second coming,

Thou wilt appear as God most high

Standing in the midst of gods,

On Mount Tabor Thou hast shone forth ineffably

Upon the apostles, Moses and Elias.

The Festal Menaion, pp.476-7, 478, 494

Peter and the sons of thunder saw His beauty on the Mountain, shining more brightly that the radiance of the sun, and they were counted worthy to behold with their eyes the inauguration of His glorious parousia.

St Basil the Great (ca.330-79), On Psalm 44, §5 (PG 29:400D)

The Gospel story speaks not about the Transfiguration of the Lord, but about that of the apostles.

Paul Evdokimov, 'Saint Seraphim of Sarov.

An icon of Orthodox Spirituality', Sobornost 4:9 (1963), p.510

He did not at that moment become more radiant and exalted. Far from it: but He remained as He was before.

St Andrew of Crete (ca. 660-740), On the Transfiguration (PG 97:948AB)

He was transfigured, not by assuming what He was not, but by manifesting to His disciples what He was, opening their eyes.

St John of Damascus, On the Transfiguration 12 (PG 96:564C)

There are two icons of the Transfiguration which struck me very deeply when I saw them in the original in the Tretiakov Gallery in Moscow. One is by Rublev and the other by his master, Theophan the Greek. In both there are three mountain peaks, the Lord Jesus in the centre, with Moses and Elijah on the right- and left-hand sides, and the three disciples on the slopes of the mountain.

The difference between the two icons lies in the way in which the things are seen. The Rublev icon shows Christ in the brilliancy of His dazzling white robes which cast light on everything around. This light falls on the disciples, on the mountain and the stones, on every blade of grass. Within this light, which is the divine splendour - the divine glory, the divine light itself inseparable from God - all things acquire an intensity of being which they could not have otherwise; in it they attain to a fullness of reality which they can have only in God.

The other icon is more difficult to perceive in a reproduction. The background is silvery and appears grey. The robes of Christ are silvery with blue shades, and the rays of light falling around are also white, silvery and blue. Everything gives an impression of much less intensity. Then we discover that all these rays of light falling from the Divine Presence and touching the things which surround the Transfigured Christ do not give relief but give transparency to things. One has the impression that these rays of divine light touch things and sink into them, penetrate them, touch something within them so that from the core of these things, of all things created, the same light reflects and shines back, as though the divine life quickens the capabilities, the potentialities of all things, and makes all reach out towards itself. At that moment the eschatological situation is realised, and in the words of St Paul 'God is all and in all'.

Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh, 'Body and Matter in Spiritual Life',

in A.M. Allchin (ed.), Sacrament and Image:

Essays in the Christian Understanding of Man, pp.40-41

O Light in three persons, Father Son and Spirit,

O dominion and power of the unoriginate Principle,

O Light that none can name, for it is all together nameless,

O Light with many names, for it is at work in all things,

Unique glory and authority, rule and kingship!

St Symeon the New Theologian (949-1022), Hymn 28:112-16

*******