What is Unity by Fr. Christopher Holwey

This
article first appeared in the Adbook for the

1996 Midwest Region Parish Life Conference hosted by

St. Elias Orthodox Church in Sylvania, OH

What
Is Unity?

by Father Christopher Holwey

  

    
The theme of our Parish Life Conference this year is: 
"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell
together in unity" (Psalm 133:1).  As
we contemplate the meaning of this verse, it is obvious to us that one of the
key words in this passage is unity.  What,
then, does it mean for us to dwell together in unity?

    
The dictionary defines unity as the state of being one; the state,
quality, or condition of accord or agreement; singleness or constancy of purpose
or action; the combination or arrangement of parts into a whole. 
After reading this, and keeping our focus within the life of the Orthodox
Church, it seems to me that the real origin or prototype of our understanding or
definition of unity, of being of one accord, purpose or action, or combination
of parts into a whole, is found within the nature of the Godhead, the Trinity: 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

    
We know from Holy Scripture that "The Lord our God is one Lord"
(Deut. 6:4), and that there is "one God and Father of us all, who is above
all and through all and in all" (Eph. 4:6). 
It is the teaching of the Orthodox Church, therefore, that there is only
one God of us all because there is only one Father of us all.  We also know from these verses and many others that when the
name of God is used in Scripture, it refers mainly to the Father Himself, which
means that the Son is referred to as the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit as the
Spirit of God, each coming from the Father in their own unique way. 
When the Jews claimed to have "one Father, even God," Jesus
said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded
and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me" (John
8:42).  Later, Jesus told of the
coming of the Counselor, "...whom I shall send to you from the Father, even
the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father..." (John 15:26). 
The point, then, is that from the beginning, before time, the Son and the
Holy Spirit are forever one with the Father, perfectly united with Him in their
divine and uncreated essence and being, yet distinct in their personhood: 
three Persons, yet one divine Godhead.

     
Furthermore, throughout the Gospel according to St. John alone, we see
many instances of the harmony that exists in the Godhead, where the Son and the
Spirit are in perfect accord or agreement with the Father, with singleness of
purpose or action according to the will of the Father: 
"My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his
work" (4:34); "I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will,
but the will of him who sent me" (6:38); "I do as the Father has
commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father" (14:31);
"No longer do I call you servants,...but I have called you friends, for all
that I have heard from the Father I have made known to you" (15:15);
"If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 
And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be
with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth" (14:15-16).

    
What does this mean for us?  It
means that we must now follow their example as well, and manifest this unity and
harmony of the Godhead in our world today. 
Under the spiritual guidance and direction of our bishops and priests, we
must all - clergy and laity alike - seek to know God personally as our Father
and Lord, and strive to be one with Him.  Every
time we gather together as the Church, to hear the word of God, to offer our
thanks, prayers, and love to God, and to receive the body and blood of Christ in
holy communion, we "become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter
1:4), and manifest our oneness and common union with God and with one another. 
This oneness must then translate into common action by our working
together for a common purpose, according to the will of God, in order to
accomplish the work that He calls us to do.

     
So, then, what is unity?  It
is beholding how truly good and pleasant it is for us all to dwell and be
together in God: living and working each day here and now in His being, in His
love, in agreement with His purpose and according to His will. 

What It Takes To Make A Parish Council Work

 Word Magazine 
March 1997  Page 6-9

 WHAT
IT TAKES TO MAKE

A
PARISH COUNCIL “WORK”

BY
RON NICOLA 

“…one
of the main functions of the parish council, along with the pastor; is to
maintain the unity of the community. The pastor and parish council must work
harmoniously together.  They reflect
the unity that exists between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 
Where this is not reflected, there is division, hatred, pride, and
jealousy. In the words of scripture, ‘A house divided against itself cannot
stand!’ It behooves us, therefore, to cooperate with each other as
co—workers in our Holy Orthodox Church. Where there is a common vision, along
with cooperation and respect for each other, parishes flourish and grow.”

 

 

Who
among us would disagree with such wise words? Considering these observations
were made by Bishop ANTOUN, they carry even more significance. Bishop ANTOUN, as
one of the great leaders of our Archdiocese, has more intimate knowledge about
what it takes to establish and maintain successful parishes than just about
anyone.  He has spent virtually his
entire career working closely with clergy and laity alike in the ongoing
struggle to do God’s work in his earthly vineyard. We would do well to heed
his observations and to consider seriously what it takes to achieve the level of
cooperation he refers to in this statement.

 

During
a recent gathering at the Antiochian Village Heritage and Learning Center,
sixty-five (65) faithful from this Archdiocese representing twenty-nine (29)
parishes and missions met with Bishop ANTOUN for two and one-half days to ponder
his words of guidance and to consider ways to make them a reality in the
everyday operation of our local communities. Working to achieve these concepts
of cooperation and common vision which Bishop ANTOUN addressed oftentimes falls
under the jurisdiction of the parish councils which exist in each and every one
of the parishes and missions in the Antiochian Archdiocese. What it means to be
a parish council member and what the council’s proper scope of responsibility
should be became a principle focus of this gathering.

 

It
is unfortunate that all too often faithful and dedicated servants, who give of
their time and talents to serve on a parish council, fall into the trap of
viewing their responsibilities from a narrow perspective. This narrow
perspective suggests that maintaining the routine, worldly, and secular aspects
of parish life is and should be the council’s primary focus. While practical
concerns such as paying hills, budgeting parish resources, and maintaining
parish property and buildings, certainly are what parish councils do, they are
not the only things a council should concern itself with when it gathers for its
monthly meetings. A parish council, when it is operating in a wider
realm, takes care of these daily needs of the parish while also focusing its
attention on the spiritual well-being of the parish. Councils are, after all,
made up of the pastor and the elected and appointed lay representatives of all
parishioners and parish organizations. From this perspective, parish councils
must continually remind themselves that they have a responsibility to shepherd
the growth and development of all aspects of parish life.

 

Bishop
ANTOUN, in his further involvement with the sixty-four (64) participants at the
third biennial Parish Council Symposium, spoke about this danger of parish
council members taking too narrow a view of their work. Speaking about council
members, Bishop ANTOUN said:

 

“You
are called by God and those who elected you to serve in the best interest of the
Church. In every decision that you are asked to make, the first question that
should enter your mind is .. . What would God have me to do in this
situation?’ Did I pray about it first? Did I weigh the pros and cons? How will
my decision affect the Parish and its members? Am 1 being fair and Christian?
Will our decision hurt our parish, our priest, others in our local community, or
the Metropolitan, our Archdiocese, our Holy Orthodox Church? Will my decision be
an affront to Jesus Christ?”

 

His
point in making these observations was that if a council does not routinely ask
these questions, it runs the risk of gradually forgetting that its
responsibility is, first and foremost, to let its deliberations be guided by the
wisdom of our Lord and the teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church. In this same
vain, all council members must view their area of responsibility to include all
aspects of parish life ... the spiritual as well as the secular realms of parish
life. This is where the spirit and reality of cooperation between pastor and
council members becomes most valuable. The work done by participants at the
Parish Council Symposium quickly revealed that nothing insures a healthy parish
and a properly functioning parish council more than a positive relationship
between the council and the pastor. While all in attendance recognize the
validity of this statement, questions often arose concerning how to achieve and
how to maintain this desired state of affairs.

 

This
question of how to maintain a healthy and positive relationship between pastors
and parish councils was not only on the minds of those who attended the
symposium. Prior to the October, 1996, gathering, a survey was mailed to all
parishes and missions in the Antiochian Archdiocese. Sixty-four of the 205
parishes and missions in the Archdiocese completed and returned the survey. One
section of the form asked respondents to list three issues they would like to
see discussed at the symposium. This question generated 119 different responses.
While these responses spanned a wide range of topics, the most common area of
concern had to do with relationships. Relationships between council members,
between the council and the parish priest, between the parish and the
Archdiocese. Clearly, many among us want to solve the puzzle of good relations
among our fellow Christian brothers and sisters as one of the important keys to
the establishment of successful parish councils and a healthy parish life in
general.

 

Three
moments which took place during the Parish Council Symposium offer clues
concerning how councils can and do play a positive role in establishing and
maintaining these good relationships in the local community and throughout the
Archdiocese.

 

What
symbol or shape reminds you of your parish? Parish
Council Symposium participants were asked to think about this question and then,
using scissors and a piece of card stock paper, to cut out a shape which
reminded them of their home parish. They then wrote the name and location of
their parish and a key phrase which described what they created with the paper
and scissors. This simple exercise provided significant insight, and a certain
amount of enjoyment. If you have ever served on a parish council, you know how
easy it is to become involved in the repetitive routine of daily, weekly, and
monthly parish operations. Often there seems little time to step back and
reflect on the overall health and well—being of the parish. An activity like
the one described above can provide the perspective often needed to identify key
parish needs and to then focus on programs which can best address those needs. A
parish council that takes the time to consider the overall character of
their community enhances the possibility that it will communicate effectively
with each other, with their pastor, and with the parish at-large.

 

Has
your parish ever seriously considered the role leadership plays in the life of a
successful parish? Probably most of us have talked
about leadership in the context of our pastors perceived effectiveness as a
leader, but leadership is not only the job of the pastor and leadership is not
an accident of fate. We hear about leadership training all the time in the
context of our jobs and careers, but rarely do we encounter leadership training
in our churches. During the Parish Council Symposium, Fr. David Randolph, pastor
of St. Andrew Church in Eustis, Florida, made a stirring and effective
presentation on the subject of leadership as a necessary element in the life of
any successful parish. His participation in the symposium was made possible, by
the North American Council of the Fellowship of St. John the Divine. The current
president of this organization, Kathy Abraham of Grand Rapids, Michigan,
contacted Fr. David and worked with him in the planning of this particular workshop
session. The work done by the Fellowship in the area of parish ministry teams
created the perfect match with the topic of how to recruit and train effective
parish leaders. To say that Fr. David’s presentation was well received would
be a major understatement. What seemed to attract the attention of the symposium
participants, besides the fact that Fr. David is a very effective speaker and
presenter, was the convincing fact that leadership training of the laity of a
parish can reap huge dividends when it comes to planning successful parish
programs. Fr. David pointed out that a truly effective leader is a servant in
the purest sense of the term. As such, a leader directs a group with wisdom and
guidance in a manner which allows all to feel equally involved. Materials were
presented which provided excellent ideas about, in Fr. David’s words,
“equipping members for ministry.” Good leadership training and technique,
for example, stresses the issue of consensus building as means of effective
decision making. Fr. David talked about how to make all decisions at parish
council meetings using the consensus process. “Don’t leave a parish council
meeting until consensus is reached,” he suggested. “If a crossroads is
faced, take time to pray.” It takes training and practice to learn the skill
of consensus building, but the rewards are worth the effort. Fr. David left
symposium participants with materials and ideas specifically related to this and
many other aspects of effective and realistic leadership training. One of the
surest signs of an effective church is the constant flow of new parishioners
into and out of key positions of leadership within the parish. The materials
shared by Fr. David stressed this point and offered ideas concerning how to
recruit and train a steady stream of people willing and prepared to assume
leadership within all segments of a parish organizational structure.

 

Do
the organizations of your parish function effectively and are the fund raising
efforts sponsored by your parish successful? These
issues were also identified as crucial areas of responsibility for all parish
councils. Symposium participants had the opportunity to consider each of these
topics, parish organizations and fund raising, through presentations made by Dan
Abraham and Mike Hamwey. Dan, an active member of the Order of St. Ignatius and
chairperson of its current membership drive, shared a newly developed brochure
called, “We Are What We Do.” He emphasized in his remarks the integrated
nature of the work done by the Order and the work done by the organizations in
every local parish. Dan cited numerous examples, including the clergy retirement
program, the summer camp scholarship program, and the Order’s funding of most
expenses for this parish council symposium, as areas where the Order does work
which directly supports work being done by our parish councils. Dan’s
presentation made it clear that the Order is very much a parish centered
organization. Its members are active in their local parishes and many of the
projects it sponsors directly impact the life of churches throughout the
Archdiocese.  Mike, the Director of
the Department of Planning and Future Development for the Archdiocese, offered
numerous tips on how to plan and executive successful parish fund raising programs.
He illustrated, for example, practices parish councils could follow based on the
principle that, “fund raising is not about raising funds, but rather fund
raising is about dream fulfillment.” While this may sound idealistic Mike
showed how the idealism of this concept can be realized in the projects and
activities our parish sponsor. Since Mike is a full-time employee of the
Archdiocese, he is available to visit parishes to make presentations like the
one he offered to the symposium participants. Communities throughout the
Archdiocese would be wise to contact him to discuss the many ways he could offer
assistance in the area of planning effective fund raising programs and
campaigns.

 

The
symposium schedule afforded plenty of time for participants to dialogue with
each other about the work being done in our local parish communities. These
opportunities for intimate conversation, plus the excellent group presentations
offered during the two-and-one-half day meeting at the Heritage and Learning
Center, produced consensus among the group that the work being done by our
parish councils throughout the Archdiocese could be enhanced by a manual which
offered ideas and suggestions on the role and function of parish councils in the
Antiochian Archdiocese. By the time the Symposium ended, an outline for such a
document was produced and reviewed by all participants. One section of the proposed
manual would include brief descriptions of programs which are already successful
in our parishes and missions. The survey sent to all parishes and missions prior
to the symposium asked for summaries of this type, and twenty-eight (28) such
descriptions were submitted. The other section of the manual would include brief
“how-to” articles on various subjects related to the issue of the parish
council member training and the role of parish councils in the life of their
communities. A list of possible topics was developed by symposium participants
and they will be refined and developed into a rough draft prior to the
Archdiocese Convention this summer in Toronto.

 

The
sixty-five (65) participants in the Third Biennial Parish Council
Symposium left for home feeling renewed and enthused about the important work
they do as parish council members. All were grateful to Metropolitan PHILIP for
the opportunity he gave us to host and participate in this important gathering.
While travel to the Middle East for a meeting of the Holy Synod prevented him
from attending the symposium, his support for this event contributed
significantly to its success. Symposium participants wish to thank Bishop ANTOUN
for the vital role he played during the various meetings and presentations. The
wisdom he brought to the sessions gave all participants hope that the work being
done by our parish councils is indeed important and can be enhanced by continued
commitment to the teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church. Funding for the
symposium, provided once again by the Order of 
St. Ignatius, and the excellent support provided by the Rt. Rev. George
Geha and the entire staff at the Heritage and Learning Center, made this
gathering both memorable and productive for all of the participants. At the
closing dinner on Saturday evening and during Divine Liturgy Sunday morning,
those in attendance felt they had truly established new bonds with faithful
Orthodox Christians involved in the common struggle to fulfill our mission here
on earth. All left with the humble prayer that we could return home to share
newly acquired knowledge with fellow parish council members.

 

Ron
Nicola is co-chairman of the Department of Stewardship of the Archdiocese. He is
a member of the Editorial Board for THE WORD.

 

 

What My Church Means To Me

 Word Magazine  October 1964  Page 13

 

 

  

WHAT MY CHURCH MEANS TO
ME

 

 By
Beverly Maloof — age l5

Church of St. John of Damascus, Boston, Massachusetts

First Prize Winning Oratorical — New England Region of SOYO

 

 

 

In answering this question, I first must express what I consider the church to
be. I feel that the church is something we cannot define, for it has many
meanings. One may say that he goes to church to pray and to be with God. Another
may say that he attends church since society expects it of him. But no matter
how you try to define church, it always refers to the people of God.

 

One important way in gaining God’s true love is to walk in His path, love Him,
and serve Him from the bottom of your heart. St. Cyprian said, “He cannot have
God for a Father who has not the Church for his Mother.” Those who love God and
go to church to worship Him will gain His true love.

 

We all know that churches are temples of worship. But there are many forms and
they all have their own symbolic meaning. A church constructed in the form of a
cross is dedicated to the Savior and represents Christ’s Crucifixion to redeem
sinners. A church built in an oblong shape to resemble a ship denotes that it is
through the church that we are saved. A church constructed in the form of a
circle signifies that the church, like a circle, is endless. In all of these
cases, the church is the main path to the Kingdom of God.

 

I feel that the contents of the church are just as important as the church
itself. Church symbolism dates back to the very beginning of Christianity. The
anchor symbolizes a belief and hope in God. The Gospel is significant of the
Word of God. The censor denotes the warmth of prayer, symbolized by incense.
There are many more wonderful significant contents placed in our church, but the
one closest to me is the cross. The cross symbolizes the Crucifixion of our
Lord, through whom we receive our salvation. Whenever I hold the cross or wear
it around my neck, I feel that the Lord is with me and will continue to be with
me until I die. During the terrible hour of our Lord’s Crucifixion, love was
there — His undying love for us.

 

Love is the key to happiness. Without love and love of your religion, there is
not much to live for. Love is found everywhere throughout the church. St.
John said, “If a man say I love God and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he
that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen cannot love God whom he hath not
seen.” Love was first emphasized by Jesus at the inauguration of the Last
Supper. He loved everyone and asked no reward other than the spiritual
satisfaction of knowing that His action was Godlike. To me, one should feel
nearly the same as Christ did Himself. We attend church not only for the
satisfaction of being there, but knowing that God is with us and we are honored
to be with Him. My way of feeling this satisfaction is through Holy Confession
and Holy Communion.

 

Before I receive Holy Confession, I ask myself many questions, but the most
important one is: am I loyal to God and my church? Before answering this
question, I first must answer other questions. I ask myself if I am an active
member of the church school, abide by the Ten Commandments and respect the Seven
Sacraments. Most of all, do I love my church? If all of these answer yes, I feel
that I am prepared to receive Holy Confession. I feel that Holy Communion has a
deeper meaning than receiving the body and blood of Christ. When the priest
places the substance into my mouth, I feel that Christ is within me and that I
am a new person. I receive a great feeling of hope and love. All of this would
not be possible without my church.

 

The church has another very specific meaning to me. We all know that the church
is the Lord’s house, but to me the church is the body of Christ, with each
member having a specific function and obligation — all working together unto the
same spirit and all characterized by humility and love. If we all live
remembering that the church helps to bring us together as the children of God,
we will live the life of true Orthodox Christians.

 

In conclusion, my Orthodox faith has helped me to discover Christ, to know him,
and to love him. I pray I may be worthy of His love.

 

For
questions, comments and to provide information to be added to this web site

Send e-mail to webmaster

What We Should Learn From The School Of Life

 

Word Magazine  October 1964  Page 6-7

 

 WHAT
WE SHOULD LEARN FROM THE SCHOOL OF LIFE

 (A Sermon Addressed To
Orthodox Youth)

 

 

  By Very Rev. Father
Michael Baroudy, Pastor Emeritus

St. George Orthodox Church, Vicksburg, Mississippi

 

 

Life is the greatest institution of learning. And the most important training we
get is not how to make a successful living, but how to make the most of our
lives in friendship, love, service, happiness, and worthy experience. So,
whether in war or peace, prosperity or poverty, the quicker we learn some of the
great lessons life tries to teach us, the closer we will come to being able to
say that our lives have been really worth the living. Whether we can pass the
test in the school of life and finish our record with flying colors, depends on
whether or not we are able to grasp these great lessons life teaches, and
practice them day by day.

 

The first lesson life teaches all of us is to be grateful. It teaches all to
appreciate what others have done for us. Most of the fine blessings we enjoy in
life were made possible to us by others who sacrificed, suffered, and died that
we might enjoy these privileges. There is a question in St. Paul’s letter to the
Corinthians, which I wish every growing Orthodox youth should remember. It asks,
“What is it that you have that was not given to you?” Think of it! Others have
built the churches in which we worship; others have built the schools in which
we study; others have written the books, composed the music, created the arts,
which are ours to have to enjoy. Others have built the roads upon which we
travel; others have made the scientific discoveries which make modern living so
much more comfortable. Others have died and are dying even now that you and I
might live and be free. Not a single step in human progress without someone
sacrificing for it! Others have paid the price that you and I might enjoy life.

 

The second lesson life teaches all of us is that it is a real game. If you want
to play the game and win it, you must learn the rules and obey them. You can
ignore the rules only to your own hurt. We all want something good out of life —
health, happiness, success, freedom, friends, a good home, a true love
experience, some thrills and adventures. Those are all normal desires for every
healthy soul. No one ever really makes a bad wish for himself or herself. Of all
the inmates in our prisons not one ever started his life deliberately planning
to end in prison. They got there because they used wrong and evil methods to get
what they wanted out of life. You can’t get something permanently good out of
life by doing something definitely wrong.

 

This is a very important matter for the young people. It is natural for youth to
go after thrills, adventures, self-expression. But the things many of them do to
get their hearts desire are often tragic. They ruin their lives and spoil their
dreams by ignoring the rules of the game, or by breaking them outright. A large
percentage of our prison population is made up of young people. The things they
did to get thrills and adventures led them to prison.

 

The third lesson life teaches us is that some of the finest things in life have
no price tags on them. Money can’t buy them. Your money may buy you a fine
house, but it can never buy you a real home. Money may buy all the luxuries of a
house, but not true love. It takes a lifetime of living and loving, sacrifices
and devotion to turn a house into a home.

 

That is true everywhere else. Your money may buy a high-powered automobile, but
it can’t buy happiness for you. You have got to earn that. Money may buy you a
political office, but never the faith and respect of your fellow citizens. You
have got to earn that. No amount of money can buy a man a good name that is
better than all the gold in the world, nor a clear conscience, nor yet a passage
to heaven and the most important truth about this matter is this —   the things
that money cannot buy are far more essential for the happiness and welfare of
our souls than the things it can buy.

 

The fourth great lesson life teaches us is that a man seldom gets what he wants
out of life, but if he is wise, he will learn to make the most of what life
hands out to him. Never be discouraged or disappointed just because you do not
get your heart’s desire. Life seldom hands out to a man his first choice. Some
of you are planning to become physicians, but will be forced to accept
something else. Some will want to take up law, but may end up as clerks and
laborers. Some young woman may be dreaming of becoming a great actress, but she
may become an ordinary housewife. Life is always like that. Someone said, “When
life hands you a lemon, add some sugar and make lemonade.” The truth is that
life may hand many of you a lemon. Will you be wise and brave enough to turn it
into lemonade?

 

The last and great lesson life tries to teach those of us who are willing to
learn is that a man’s real value is not so much in what he gets as in what he
gives.  You young people ought to get out of life all you can — education,
technical training, advancement, and success. But in the long run the true
measure of your life is not in what you have and keep for yourself, but in what
you give away. If you would have all the world’s wealth and the best education,
but kept it to yourself, it would be like burying your talents in the ground.
The more you use your talent and ability in some worthy cause, the more you will
get out of life.

 

So let us live for something worthwhile. Always try to fill your records with
kindness, honesty, love and service. And you will have your greatest rewards in
the loving hearts of your fellowmen.

 

What we have said so far would be incomplete and inadequate unless we take into
consideration the directives revealed by God in Jesus Christ our Lord. While God
revealed Himself to men in all the stages of history, yet the revelation of
Himself in His Son Jesus Christ excels and transcends all previous
manifestations, for it was the unfolding and unveiling of God in a particular
and peculiar way. In John 1:18 we read, “No man has seen God at any time; the
only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him” and
in St. Paul’s letter to the Colossians, Paul affirms, “For in Him (Jesus)
dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”

 

Jesus was a comparatively young man when He initiated the Christian movement,
being thirty years of age. He chose twelve young men to assist Him in the
promotion of the Kingdom of God. These men accompanied Him on all of His
missionary journeys, heard Him preach to thousands of people, witnessed His
power in healing people of all kinds of diseases, even raising the dead. Jesus
founded His Kingdom, not upon fear but upon love, not upon fanaticism, but upon
faith, not upon superstition but upon the truth. Jesus revealed God as Love,
Spirit and Light. The mark of genuine discipleship was love. Said he, “By
this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one for
another.”

 

It was from this nucleus of twelve men — modest insofar as numbers go, modest in
terms of educational, financial, political or social attainment, that it has
grown to be the most sacred, the most powerful instrument for righteousness this
world has ever known. It deals in matters that have to do with the salvation of
human souls, and in life’s higher values. Ours is a faith revealed by Jesus
Christ as to what should be a person’s attitude toward God, toward men and
toward himself.

 

With the permission and the blessings of our great leader, Metropolitan Antony,
I hereby appeal to all Orthodox everywhere to do no less than their best
in promoting peace, unity, and creative good will. Much depends on youth and how
to evaluate their heritage and their religious faith.

 

Today much is said about the high standard of living, but what about the high
standard of thinking for as the Good Book affirms, “As a man thinketh in his
heart, so is he.”

 

Upon the shoulders of all, both clergy and laity, falls the responsibility of
lending a helping hand in guiding the ship of the church, whose Pilot is the
Lord Jesus Christ. The church needs the support of every progressive,
forward-looking, God-honoring and God-fearing Orthodox.

 

I hope and pray that we won’t fail, neither the Lord nor our church leaders in
this hour of sinister, divisive, secularism and infidelity, and stand together
and fight off all sinister influences contrary to sound doctrine and faith.

 

For
questions, comments and to provide information to be added to this web site

Send e-mail to webmaster

What Women Can Do For The Church

 

Word Magazine  May 1981  Page 14

 

 

 

“WHAT WOMEN CAN DO FOR

THE CHURCH”

  

 

Some fifty men and women of all Orthodox jurisdictions met recently at St.
Vladimir’s Seminary for a conference on “Women in the Life of the Orthodox
Church.” According to Sophie Koloumzin, the Orthodox religious educator who gave
a summary talk, “If there is any problem which was addressed in all the
workshops and all the speeches of the conference, it is the problem of what
women can do for the church.”

 

The theme was introduced by Bishop Maximos of Pittsburgh, whose keynote address,
“The Orthodox Concept of Personhood and the Particular Charismata that Women
Bring to the Church,” introduced the Orthodox definition of “personhood” as the
human being created by God in the image of God. There is only one image of God,
which each person in his or her call to holiness strives to imitate. Yet each
person is unique, offering unique gifts to the church, which is the society of
persons under God. Bishop Maximos itemized the special gifts that women have to
offer the church. These gifts fall under the category of a great spiritual
sensitivity or “Spiritual Motherhood,” with the highest expression of this gift
being love, and the characteristics being a propensity to perfect, protect, and
nurture all things.

 

Vickie Trbuhovich spoke on “Orthodox Women in American Society.” She listed the
challenges facing “not just women, but men also” as challenges of morality,
lifestyle, commitment, security. “The highest-value that secularism has to offer
is relativity, in which there is no place for a total commitment to anything.”
Her proposed response to the challenge of secularism is “to be aggressive and
tireless in seeking the kingdom of God, to make Christ the center of one’s life,
to spend time in church, and not to be blown away by the quest for financial and
emotional stability.’’

 

Vasiliki Eckley, in her discussion of “New Possibilities of Leadership for Women
in the Orthodox Church,” gave an Orthodox definition of the leader, both female
and male, as “one whose acts through submission and service to God become
examples for others.” The new possibility that comes to humanity through
Christ’s incarnation is an invitation by God to act with God through willful
submission. This new possibility is especially significant in our present-day
“post modern” period, a time characterized by organized struggles to liberate
people in various situations, because of the tremendous need for people to
willingly become instruments of grace in a world “which seems to be coming apart
at the seams.” “If we hope to offer our lives humbly to God, we must face
the challenge of relating to each other in true humility, true service.”

 

The abstract discussion of the speakers was put into more practical terms by the
workshops. Participants attended one of five workshops and presented position
papers on each of the topics during the last day of the conference.

 

The Purification workshop, led by Jean Sam and Father Paul Tarazi, discussed the
Orthodox rite of “churching” a woman forty days after she has given birth,
studied the Old Testament view and laws of purification in their relation to the
natural flow of blood, and in this light tried to understand the New Testament
continuity and transformation of the meaning of this purification rite for both
the woman and the child. The workshop reported, “We find that a lack of
education in the teachings of the Church is pervasive among Orthodox men and
women. This leads to a misunderstanding and incorrect practice of the liturgical
rites of the Church. We recommend that people be educated in the essential
meaning of the rite of churching a woman, which seems to be especially
misunderstood.”

 

The workshop on Church Service and the Diaconate, led by Kyriaki FitzGerald and
Deacon Michael Roshak, discussed the resurgence of lay leadership in the Church,
and recommended exploring the possibility of reinstituting the Diaconate for
women and revitalizing the role of male deacons, in light of the tremendous need
for certain work to be done in the church, specifically teaching, social work,
and spiritual counseling.

 

Women’s participation in the ecumenical movement was lauded in the workshop on
Ecumenism, because of the special message that women who are educated in their
own Orthodox faith can bring to the movement. This workshop, led by Father
Thomas Hopko and Vivian Hampers, concluded that ecumenism is an area in which
women should even more actively serve the Church.

 

“Monasticism is the Christian life in its purest form; it is a clarification of
the Christian life.” The workshop on Monasticism, led by Sister Natalie Garland
of the Monastery of the Veil of our Lady in Bussy-En-Othe, France, Archimandrite
Nicholas Smisko, and Father Gregory Gula, named the qualities of the monastic
life as sacrifice, obedience, and trust in God. Monasticism is a basic, ancient
life, but it is new in North America. The workshop reported, “Although the quest
for spiritual life is not necessarily a call to monasticism, at this time in
North America we need not only monastics who are called by God to a life of
prayer, but also lay people who understand monasticism.”

 

The fact that there is no part of the church body that suffers as much as the
family suffers today was stressed by the workshop on Orthodox Women in the
Family, led by Father Joseph Allen and Elizabeth Vinogradov. “Parents take a
load on their shoulders that they do not have the strength to bear. They don’t
know what to do with the children.” The workshop suggested that women, with
their special gift of “spiritual motherhood,” could counsel and advise families
and family members, thus fulfilling the need for motherhood in the church body.

 

In all the workshops and lectures, participants and leaders found that the
question of what women can do for the church could not be isolated from the
broader context of how lay people can find a place in the Church
where they can serve the Church body with increased spiritual vitality. Because
the conference was the first of its kind in the U.S., discussion of topics
related specifically to women’s participation and influence in Church
life was preliminary and inconclusive, except in isolating issues for further
discussion. The conference mandated that similar conferences be organized on a
local level, for the purpose of incorporating more Orthodox lay people and
broaching issues that were introduced by the national conference.

 

 

For
questions, comments and to provide information to be added to this web site

Send e-mail to webmaster

When The Preacher Loses God

 

Word Magazine  September 1961  Page 7-8

 

  

WHEN THE PREACHER LOSES GOD

  

 

By Howard W. King

  

An Invitation to Soul-Searching 

 

To mediate God to folk is the lofty privilege of the minister of Christ. It is a
challenging and rewarding service, and to perform it the preacher keeps in touch
with God and men.

 

Peter Ainslie, who served one church in Baltimore for more than forty years,
wrote in Working with God, “As the physician goes on his rounds,
believing that he has the cure for most of the ills of the human body, I go on
my rounds with no less confidence, believing that the gospel of Jesus Christ is
the one cure for all the ills of the soul, . . . and bearing to all the
consciousness of God.”

 

The preacher is deeply interested in guiding men, women and youth into the
knowledge of God; but there are times when it seems that God fades out of our
consciousness. We may become less and less aware of His infinite nearness. We
may not even realize that the glory of the Lord has departed from us. If we lose
God, how can we help others to find Him?

 

In That the Ministry Be Not Blamed, John A. Hutton declared, “The whole
Bible is the record of man’s agony to find God, and having found Him, not to
lose Him.” Since there is the possibility of losing Him, what are some of the
experiences that indicate such loss is imminent?

 

WE MAY LOSE GOD WHEN WE ARE OBSESSED WITH OUR BUSYNESS. The preacher is
so busy responding to the ever increasing calls for his help that he may be
uncertain as to what he shall put first on his schedule, and what he shall leave
undone until another day. But every day becomes hectic, and it seems that he is
never able to do many things he had planned to do.

 

We may neglect thorough systematic study of the Bible. We may postpone a course
of reading which we had hoped to pursue. We may fail to take the necessary time
for private devotions; or, we may hurry through them and thus rob them of their
potential salutary effect on our ministry as a whole. The preacher must decide
what are the most urgent matters to which he will give himself.

 

Thomas Chalmers, the noted Scotch theologian, believed that most failures in the
ministry are due, not to lack of study or visiting or church activities, but to
lack of prayer.

 

What James S. Stewart suggested in Heralds of God is a wise and
profitable procedure, namely,     “. . . whether your congregation be large or
small a great part of your task on its behalf lies in the realm of intercession
. . . I mean praying for every family, each separate soul, by name.” He
advocated praying for about three families a day. Visualize their circumstances,
think of their work, difficulties, temptations. This consumes time, but the
effect on the people and the minister himself would be most helpful.

 

Are we too busy to think about the members of our flock daily, and to pray for
them according to their several needs?

 

WE MAY LOSE GOD WHEN WE ARE OBSESSED WITH BEING A VIP. The preacher’s
self-importance seems justified by his busyness. Why is he so popular? Why are
his services sought by so many? Why is so much praise lavished upon him?
The inference is that he is a very important person. But the preacher’s
seeming greatness may dim his vision of God and dull his sensitiveness to God’s
presence.  As Stewart affirmed, “Nowhere surely are pride and self-importance
more incongruous and unpardonable than in the servant of the cross.”

 

The humble man thanks God that he is being used to help others, and thinks of
himself as Roy Pearson put it in The Ministry of Preaching, “He is more
interested in becoming an instrument than an idol. He is more eager to be
used to the glory of God than to use the glory of God as the means of his own
adulation.”

 

WE MAY LOSE GOD WHEN WE ARE OBSESSED WITH THE PRAISE OF MEN. An
overweening desire for complimentary remarks indicates that we may love the
praise of men more than the praise of God. We may be more interested in
expressions of commendation from the hearers than in discerning the
manifestation of God’s power, and thinking, “This is the Lord’s doing, and it is
marvelous in our eyes.”

 

Inordinate desire for praise makes manifest that the preacher thinks more highly
of himself than he ought to think. He may forget God’s part in the work of
preaching and magnify himself instead of the Lord.

 

David Smith has reminded us in The Art of Preaching that the Greek
rhetoricians were so desirous of praise that they would ask for it after the
deliverance of their orations, saying, “What was your opinion of me?” Another
would boast that his audience was becoming larger. A friend would agree, stating
that there were about five hundred the last time. Whereupon the man would
counter that there were at least a thousand.

 

Christian preachers of that era imitated the Greek rhetoricians, even going
beyond them in their eagerness for praise. Chrysostom stated that if they won
the praise of the assemblage they were as happy as if they had gotten a kingdom;
but if their discourse ended in silence their despondency was unbearable. Some
went so far as to have hirelings in the audience to begin the applause!

 

To us this seems disgusting, profane. Yet it may be that we are often “greedy of
popularity” without making it so plain to others.

 

The words of Wilfred T. Grenfell in his little book, What Life Means to Me,
set forth the ideal toward which we might strive, “Amidst such shifting
scenes the highest reward of life to me would be to be like Jesus.”

 

WE MAY LOSE GOD WHEN WE ARE OBSESSED WITH SERMON MAKING. It is possible
that we may be so fascinated with the task of preparing sermons that they become
an end instead of a means to an end. We may overlook the fact that we are only
instruments in the hands of God. “We are laborers together with God.”

 

It is profoundly significant that many of those who have written books on the
sublime but difficult art of preaching have stressed the supreme importance of
nourishing the preacher’s inner life.

 

“I have seen so many men lose God in sermon making, as the scientist loses Him
in his search of nature,” avowed Ainslie, “that from my earliest preaching I
have sought to guard myself and made preparing my heart more important than
preparing my mind.”

 

James Black advised in The Mystery of Preaching, “Preach what you
believe. It is the one type of preaching . . . with magic in it . . . Only what
is real to you can be real to anybody else. The one sure note of power is
sincerity . . . Without the grace of God and a passion for others, the most
finished discourse is a tinkling cymbal!”

 

“The minister’s own religious experience is the in­comparable source of
preaching” averred Halford E. Luccock in In the Minister’s Workshop. “The
minister’s first equipment for preaching, beside which all else is trivial, is
replenished resources in his own life, and fresh first-hand experience of the
riches of the grace of God.”

 

When we are burdened with busyness and fail to renew our spiritual resources, we
are losing God. When we are afflicted with a serious case of “swellheadedness,”
thinking more highly of ourselves than we ought to think, we are losing God.
When we are so enamored of praise that we long for it as a hungry man longs for
food, we are losing God. When the thrill of sermon making supplants the joy of
fellowship with the Eternal, we are losing God.

 

But we can find Him again if we heed the voice of the Lord, “Take my yoke upon
you and learn of me,” the yoke of humility, the yoke of obedience, the yoke of
self-denial.

 

The self protrudes so persistently that the view of the Son of God is
obstructed. We should get out of the way and let the people see the Christ.

 

For
questions, comments and to provide information to be added to this web site

Send e-mail to webmaster

Where Have All The Grandmas Gone?

 Again
Magazine, September, 1994, Page 28,29,31 

Where Have All the
GRANDMAS Gone? 

THE
LOST INFLUENCE OF OLDER WOMEN

 IN
THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH

By Father John Weldon Hardenbrook

The
godless communist dictator Joseph Stalin inadvertently touched upon one of the
most formidable, yet unheralded sources of power known to the Orthodox Church
when he made the now-famous prophecy, “When the old women of Russia die, the
Church will die.” This statement was recently noted by an American news
anchorman. Speaking of the emerging strength of the Russian Church and the
collapse of communism, he said, “The truth of the matter is that the old women
of Russia never did die.”

 

Stalin knew he could not kill the soul of
the Orthodox Church in Russia without exterminating every pious old woman in the
land. Even Stalin knew he couldn’t get away with doing a thing like that. Most
of those women had lost their husbands to World War II or to the evil and cruel
persecutions suffered at the hands of Soviet butchers. However, no oppressor
could win the war against these grandmothers, the “babushkas.” Like the
Myrrhbearing Women, who, after the burial of Christ, were left to go to the tomb
with their costly spices in their hands, these women were left to anoint the
persecuted Church of Russia with their courage and faith. They guarded the small
eternal flame of life in the Church against the ever-pressing gates of hell.

Countless stories concerning the women of
Russia and their faith and courage have spread around the world over the last
seventy years—stories such as that of the nuns of Shamordino. They were sent
to the Solovki Prison and were taken up to a windy, freezing hilltop in the
Arctic winter to kneel bareheaded with no gloves, for eight hours each day for
three days, in temperatures below freezing, because they would not do hard labor
for “the regime of Antichrist.”

Of course these nuns were prepared, both
spiritually and physically, to face such persecution. Their endurance didn’t
just happen. Their spiritual disciplines of prayer, fasting, obedience, and
working with their hands had formed them into the women who were found faithful,
unwavering at their time of testing.

The young women of pre-revolutionary
Russia had godly nuns as their examples. Whether they saw nuns being formed in
the spiritual rhythm of life at the nearby convents or the novice nuns who
performed their sacred duties in the local parishes, the younger women of Russia
saw what it meant to be holy. Not only the nuns, but the older laywomen as well,
provided a living image of holiness for the younger women to follow. From this
heritage came in later years a constant flow of strong, selfless, and pious old
women—the old women who “never died” because their faith has never died to
this day.

Russia is not the only land that is graced
with the presence of such saintly and righteous old women. In fact, these
stories are typical of the old women of Greece, Lebanon, Syria, Romania, Serbia,
Egypt, and other countries where Orthodox Christians have had to suffer for
their faith. All the Christian immigrants who have come to America have stories
to tell about the old women “at home”—the women who overcame difficult
circumstances such as war and poverty with such selfless and courageous acts. In
fact, all these stories together make up the history of Christian women. 

WHERE
IS GRANDMA NOW?

My
question is—where are the faithful grandmothers in North America? Did these
women somehow fail to immigrate to our land? Did their daughters and
granddaughters get lost in “the land of plenty” and fail to pass on the
spiritual life and holy traditions of the Church? Why aren’t our women today
maturing into the role that is so needed in our lives? In many Orthodox parishes
throughout North America, Grandma is gone. And I believe we the Church will not
come to the fullness of healthy faith until we get her back. For God has given
such women an incredible gift of strength to overcome the most severe and cruel
obstacles of life when it comes to the need for faith and courage to survive.
The fabric of their lives was formed from the warp and woof of personal hardship
and endurance— including factors such as: 

I)
A life of suffering. Women become strong when they have to, not when they are
given the option to be weak. 

2)
An acceptance of suffering as not only inevitable, but beneficial to the
spiritual life. This is not the same as resignation: rather it is an active
decision to accept suffering as coming from God for the purpose of one’s
salvation, and to cooperate with Him in order to derive the greatest possible
spiritual benefit from it.

     
3) A belief that self-sacrifice is
an integral and beautiful part of the Christian life. For self-sacrifice to be
worthwhile, it must be voluntary, not forced: and it must be undertaken in love,
not with an attitude of false martyrdom.

     
4) A godly order of priorities. One
must, according to Scripture, put love for God first: love for neighbor second;
and love for self third (Matthew 22:37-39).

 CONTEMPORARY
COP-OUTS

 It
is not difficult to see how all these factors have been nearly eliminated
from the lives of modern middle-class American women. Physical suffering has
been reduced to a minimum through prolonged peace (at least within our borders),
advanced medicine, and the highest standard of living the world has ever known.
Mental and emotional suffering are combated through psychology and the self-help
movement. 

What suffering remains—for we can never
eliminate it all—is regarded as an almost unforgivable intrusion into our
lives. Our immediate response is to try to avoid it or overcome it in some way.
If this proves to be impossible, we respond with bitterness and self-pity and
try to find someone to blame. If no human scapegoat is handy, we can always
blame God. 

Given these conditions, self-sacrifice has
naturally acquired a bad name. The feminist movement strives to convince women
that self-sacrifice is forced upon them by male-dominated society, and that the
only way to assert their full personhood is to reject the concept of
self-sacrifice completely and pursue self-fulfillment instead. While fulfillment
is a gift which God longs to bestow on His servants, it is not something we can
achieve by striving for it directly. (“For whoever desires to save his life
will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will
save it” [Mark 8:35].) Self-fulfillment is just another name for self-love.

Self-love, of course, is the most abused
concept of all. Misinterpreting the second great commandment of Christ, “love
your neighbor as yourself,” modern pop psychology has decreed that in order to
be able to love others one must first love oneself—in fact, one must put
oneself first in everything. If there’s anything left over when the self has
been gratified, then we can think about giving to others. In this scenario, God
often ends up in last place. Rather than seeking to serve Him, we try to make
Him serve us. We demand abundant earthly blessings in exchange for the great
sacrifice we make in simply acknowledging His existence. 

This cultural context naturally af­fects
us all, men and women alike. However, because there are more real victims
(of physical and sexual abuse, abandonment, etc.) among women than among men,
women in general have been more encouraged to take up the attitude of
victims—an attitude of weakness, self-pity, and self-absorption rather than
the godly response of strength, perseverance, and forgiveness. Ironically, it
seems that the greater the real suffering a woman experiences, the more likely
she is to respond to her suffering with faith and strength. Women whose lives
are truly tragic have to be strong to survive.

GRANDMA,
COME HOME!

The Church
in America may not be facing overt physical persecution, but she is facing
something potentially much more harmful—the slow attrition in numbers and zeal
brought about by constant contact with a godless society. The Church in North
America is in desperate peril. She is losing her young people at an alarming
rate. Without strong, spiritual older women who are willing to give of
themselves to teach the younger women and to keep the traditions of the Church
alive, the Church will not survive.

We need
desperately the return of pious, fearless, courageous, and godly women to help
protect the interior life of the Church and home. Saint Paul wrote, “Older
women . . . [are to  be reverent in behavior . . . teachers of good things— that
they admonish the young women” (Titus 2:3, 4). No one has more experience and
wisdom to pass on to a younger woman than an older woman. It is always tragic to
come upon a young mother who has gone through needless agony because she failed
to understand this divine order—or could not find an older woman willing to
teach her.

Women are to take the responsibility for
helping to make the Faith come alive in the home. The man should set the course
for the home, but the woman has the gift from God to see that the Faith really
gets “fleshed out” as it applies to each unique situation. It is the woman
who can better ensure that her family keeps the spiritual calendar that sets us
apart from this world, rather than the calendar of this world which leads to
separation from God. Worship, feasts, fasts, prayers, pilgrimages, and festivals
should shape our lives more than sports, restaurants, television, and
movies—the pleasure and entertainment calendar of American culture.

Each Christian home is a “domestic
church.” A wedding is an ordination for service in the domestic church, where
husband and wife are called to a unique sharing in Christ’s priesthood by
their holy crowning. Their home is their church with a small ‘c’. If we have
that view of our homes, they will become the spiritual extension of the Church
which can fill our lives with the things of God. Our children will not survive
in this present culture unless we bring the calendar and the rich traditions of
the Faith into our homes.

A Christian home should look and act like
a Christian home. Family icons, votive lamps, altars, collected sacred objects
(oil, water, palm branches), incense, censer, candles, Bibles, a rule of
prayer— all help proclaim that this home is committed to the life of the
heavenly realm.

Having watched men and women for many
years—as a man, a husband, a father, a grandfather, and a priest—I would say
this to the men: Encourage the women and cooperate with them in their efforts to
nurture the holy traditions of the Church and home.

GUARDIANS
OF THE FAITH

The
faithful older women also are called to help beautify and guard the House of the
Lord. The pious old women of Russia and other Orthodox lands unabashedly take it
upon themselves to correct anyone—even a priest—whom they see behaving
improperly toward the things of God. It is the proper place of older women to
admonish the younger women concerning the proper dress and behavior in church.
You won’t catch a young Russian woman entering a church without a headcovering,
or wearing shorts in a holy place, or venerating an icon with lipstick on. The
“babushkas” would never let them get away with it!

These
women have earned the right to correct others’ behavior not by their age
alone, but by their lifetime of selfless and devoted service to the Church. They
are a living testimony to the words of the psalm: “Those who are planted in
the house of the Lord shall flourish in the courts of our God. They shall still
bear fruit in old age; they shall be fresh and flourishing, to declare
that the Lord is upright” (Psalm 92:13-15, emphasis added).

Let me exhort the older women of the
Church to make every effort to model themselves after the godly women of
Orthodox lands. Educate yourself in the traditions of the Church. Cultivate your
own spiritual life so that you will have good fruit to share with others. Be
willing to give of yourself to help younger women (beginning with your own
daughters and daughters-in-law, if you have them) to live out the Faith in their
homes and with their children. Spend time with your grandchildren, teaching them
the traditions of the Church and their meaning. (See the article “Building the
Domestic Church” for some specific suggestions.) Serve the Church in whatever
way you can, not disdaining the lowlier tasks, such as scrubbing floors, nor
shrinking in false humility from more difficult tasks which you may be called
and gifted to do. Finally, don’t be too intimidated to speak out (in love and
humility, not in self-righteousness) if you see others in your parish failing to
give proper reverence to the things of God.

To the
younger women, I would say, try to find older women to model yourselves after,
and receive their advice and correction with humility and respect. If you cannot
find any such women in the flesh, read the lives of women saints and the
writings and biographies of modern godly women. Do all you can to make your home
a domestic church, and strive to grow into the sort of older woman you would
want to emulate.

ONE
WOMAN’S BOLDNESS

As an example of what one valiant woman
can accomplish, I would like to conclude with a story from modern Serbia.
Monasteries everywhere had been laid waste by the communists. Piles of rubble
were all that remained of the once-thriving communities of monastics. The monks
had been driven away, but the nuns could move about with a certain amount of
freedom as long as they did not try to evangelize or to reconstruct any of the
buildings. But one Mother was determined to rebuild. She began by standing on
the streets of towns and villages with an old shoe box in which she stored any
alms given to aid her endeavors.

Forty years passed and she continued to
add to the meager amounts that were given by compassionate villagers, pilgrims,
or foreign tourists. Finally the time appeared to be right to begin the daring
task. Instead of rebuilding the chapel first, which was the normal procedure.
Mother began by rebuilding the living quarters. Villagers came and labored along
with the few nuns dedicated to the awesome task of reconstruction. Soon
communist officials heard rumors in the village of building going on at the
former monastery and sent agents to investigate.

Searching out the Mother in charge, they
demanded to know what she was constructing. “A home,” was her simple reply.
“For whom?” she was further ques­tioned. “A family,” was the answer
given. “What family?” they asked. She replied, “You do not know this
family.” The officials continued to question and remind her that she did not
have permits to build, but to no avail; so they departed for a time.

Throughout
the following months the building site was regularly inspected and the nuns
questioned and threatened, but this harassment had no visible effect upon their
activity. Finally one day, after enduring a barrage of harassment and
interrogation, Mother confessed to the communist agents, “I am rebuilding
God’s house. This is a monastery.”

The officials screamed in her face,
“There is no way you can do such a thing! You know this activity is totally
illegal! We will return and this must all be torn down immediately!”

With flaming eyes and set mouth. Mother
turned on her heel and stormed into the brick building in which the workers
lived. Just as quickly she returned and in her hand was a revolver, pointed
directly at the spokesman of the interrogators. “I am rebuilding God’s house
and you will not stop this work of God. Get out of here!” she cried.

The officials cursed and screamed. “Are
you crazy, old woman?” She replied, “Shall I show you just how crazy I
am?” She extended the gun with a deadly calm and slowly began to squeeze the
trigger. Cursing, the communist officials began to back away, then turned and
hurried to their car and drove away. That was in 1987, and they never returned.
The nuns continued their work until the entire monastery was rebuilt, and it is
now a thriving community of believers in Serbia.

May God raise up for us a generation of
courageous and truly pious women with this kind of conviction and fortitude—
women who refuse to compromise and who keep us connected with the daily life of
the Church. May the women of God help us all to live set apart from this fallen
world. 

 

Who Are You?

 

Word Magazine  October 1968  Page 14

 

  

WHO ARE YOU?

 

  

Father Vladimir Berzonsky

Holy
Trinity Church, Parma, Ohio

  

 

“Judge not,
that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be
judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.”   
(MATTHEW7:1)

  

It’s interesting the way a person is evaluated; the method changes from one
generation to another. Notice, for example, when you are introduced to somebody,
how your new acquaintance goes about learning more about you.

 

The older generation, those more than sixty years of age, always ask about your
origin. Where were you born? Where did your parents and grandparents come from?
Apparently from learning what city or village in Europe your ancestors
originated, they feel able to know you better and to understand your behavior,
personality, likes and dislikes.

 

To anyone less than sixty, origin and nationality are not so important. ‘They
ask, “What do you do?” They evaluate a person by his occupation. To simplify,
they judge the status of a man by his income bracket. We hear, “He’s a $7,000 a
year man.”

 

To assist that type of character analysis, maybe we should leave the price tags
on the sleeves of our suits and dresses, and on the left rear window of our
automobiles. What really does this say about a person? After all nothing
essentially changes in the man who moves from 137th Street to “Worstershire
Regal Estates.”

 

Nevertheless, we continue the hypocrisy of judging a man by his market value in
our society, even if this has nothing to do at all with his real self. He may be
a “big man” in the business world, yet a tyrant and a bully in his home. Another
man, working at the same machine for forty years, can be more full of the wisdom
of the world, concern for humanity, love for his family, his faith and his world
than any tycoon listed on the benefactor plaque at the public museum.

 

Christ warns us not to form judgments about others, not because it’s “not nice,”
to evaluate them, but because it’s impossible. We who don’t really even know
ourselves, can only make broad guesses at the personalities of others on the
basis of what they like, what they wear, how they act and where they “come
from.” How can a boy on the sidewalk with his nose pressed to the window know
what the cake inside tastes like? He can only judge by what he sees. We know
people only by the way they look and act. Their souls remain a secret, silent
mystery. It is much more profitable for us to try and fathom our own souls,
putting aright what is wrong with ourselves, before we begin straightening
others.

 

Depression, alcoholism and despair result when a man believes he is only worth
the price our society puts on him.

 

We in the Church must reach these men and convince them that we are not part of
the “Establishment;” that in the Holy Name of our Lord every person’s soul,
every human being has a value far greater than his “trade-in” value he has to
sell in our society.

 

Just as Jesus, so we too must not judge a person by the values of society, but
by the virtues of his heart. Those who are blessed: the poor in spirit, the
humble, the pure, the charitable, are known to God alone.

 

For
questions, comments and to provide information to be added to this web site

Send e-mail to webmaster

Who Cares? The Relationship Of Clergy And Laity

Word Magazine  June
1998  Page 8-9 

 

 

WHO
CARES?

 

THE
RELATIONSHIP

OF
CLERGY AND LAITY

 

 

By Father Joseph Allen

 

 

Whether
one is priest or parishioner in the “symphony” of the Orthodox Christian
parish, the question which strikes at the fundamental nature of our life together
is, “Who cares?” If we are serious about our parish life being a reflection
of the perfect Community, the Trinitarian Community of Father, Son and Holy
Spirit, then this question becomes that much more critical to the Church.

 

When the
Prophet Micah asked that same question, “Who cares?” he quickly answered it
by telling us how to care with this formula:

 

And
what does the Lord require of thee? To do justice, to love mercy, and to walk
humbly with your God (Micah 6:8).

 

Such are
the components of what St. Basil the Great called an “atmosphere” in which a
true caring community grows: to do justice, to love mercy, to walk humbly with
your God. And when God became human in the flesh of Jesus Christ, “when he
pitched his tent among us” (John 1:14), this atmosphere of care received its
ultimate affirmation: it is God who cares first (1 John 4:19). And so
today we speak not only of a community, but a veritable Christian community.

 

But does
all this mean that the atmosphere can exist today without our own efforts? Can
the proper symphony of clergy and laity function so that this atmosphere prevails,
without our own work? Of course, we already know the answer.

 

Depending
on our individual experiences, however, each person will probably be able to
note when he or she saw that Christian atmosphere break down. In turn, this
breakdown in atmosphere can occur between clergy and laity or simply among the
laity. And when it does occur, the question will again be raised: “Who
cares?” The atmosphere rapidly degenerates.

 

Allow me
two examples, one which is contemporary and specific, and a second, ancient and
universal.

 

The first
example is specific to the clergy-laity breakdown, one in which the atmosphere
was not Christian but pharisaic: The young priest was sent to his first assignment
as pastor of a long-established community. He knew “what the Lord required: to
do justice, to love mercy and to walk humbly with God.”  His intention was to create just such an atmosphere where the
Holy Spirit could take root.  But
the parish council in that community told the Bishop that they would “put him
to the test.” The Bishop knew the young man and had every confidence that he
could stand any test put to him. After Liturgy during his first month there, the
parish picnic was scheduled, and they all went out to the local lake as was
their custom. They normally would all gather on the boat with all their supplies
and cross over to the island. And so they did. However, this time as they were
halfway over, a member of the parish council suddenly said, “Oh no, we forgot
the hot dogs!” Someone would have to swim ashore to get them.

 

The new
pastor realized that this was one of those tests, and recalled that the Bishop
did warn him that they would indeed test him. Finally, he closed his eyes like
St. Peter, when at the raging of the sea he asked Our Lord to “call him.”
That young pastor then opened his eyes, got out of the boat and walked on the
water to the shore, where he retrieved the hot dogs. The parishioners were
stunned, forgetting Our Lord’s words:

 

“These
things will you do, and greater things will you do!” They stood amazed and in
silence, until, that is, the leader of the pharisees among them, still seeking
to find some fault, said, “See, I told you the Bishop would send us
someone who could not swim!”

 

The
atmosphere needed in our parish is one in which each of us will see the good
intent of the person who, when asked “Who cares?” will respond “I care!”
We simply will need “eyes to see, ears to hear and a heart to perceive”
(Isaiah 6:10, Mark 8:18), rather than a cynical pre-judgment which is the
hallmark of the pharisee’s attitude.

 

The
second example is an ancient one which has a universal meaning, that is, for all
of us, clergy and laity alike. It is a story which we have all heard, but which
I should like now to frame in our present context regarding that atmosphere
which answers the question “Who cares?” It is found in the Gospel of St.
Luke, Chapter Ten, and the scriptural scholars claim that in their encounter we
probably get the clearest example of the interactions in which Our Lord
participated.

 

“A
certain lawyer came to Jesus and asked, ‘What do I have to do to inherit
eternal life?’ “ The scholars say this is the trickiest question in the
Mosaic law. But Our Lord, being a good Middle Eastern man, answers the question with
a question: “Well, you know the law: what does it say?”

 

The
lawyer: “The law says, you shall love the Lord your God with all that you are:
your mind, heart, soul, etc., and your neighbor as yourself.”

 

Jesus
says: “Fine.” That’s all he says: “Fine! You’ve got it right.”

 

But this
is a shrewd lawyer, and he is trying to “justify himself,” trying to
“entrap” Jesus: “But who is my neighbor?”

 

And we
all know what Our Lord does in response: He tells the story of the Good
Samaritan. The Levite passes by. The Priest passes by. The Samaritan crosses
over. And Jesus ends the story with another question: “Now, who proved to be
the neighbor?” “The one who showed mercy.” “Good, go and do likewise!”

 

It is the
Samaritan, the least likely one, who answers “Who cares?” with “I care.”
He is the one who shows the lawyer — and all of us — what the atmosphere
must be like in our parishes. At each point in the story, there is a movement
from the abstract to the concrete, and this is critical because our faith is no
longer Christian Faith until it becomes concretized.

 

When this
lawyer asks “Who is my neighbor?” he would love to get Jesus up in that
beautiful web of the mind. “Well, let’s see: my neighbor is the one who is
within shouting distance, or that I can reach within sixty steps, or who comes
to the same synagogue.” Those kind of “law” questions, those kind of
“mind” questions. But he can’t get away with that: Jesus will not stay up
there in the ice of the mind. He tells the story of the Good Samaritan, what is
called perhaps the most concrete of stories in the entire New Testament.

 

Pay close
attention: with each step of the story into the concrete, we are taken ourselves
into the concrete: the Samaritan picks up the man, rubs oil on his wounds, puts
him on the donkey, takes him to the inn, pays — pays again for that day, pays
for the next day — and will pay for whatever that room and board will
cost when he returns. All very concrete factors. And slowly the lawyer is forced
out of the abstract ice of the mind into the concrete reality of living —
there, where he cannot “play with it” like philosophy. And we learn,
do we not, the real message of ministry, whether of clergy or laity: ministry is
as time-consuming, as expensive, and as “messy” as this process is! That is
the message which is pushed into the lawyer’s mind and into our minds.

 

And so,
both examples, the contemporary one of the young pastor and the ancient one from
Luke’s Gospel, are reminders that if the clergy-laity symphony is to work at
all in our parishes, then we will have to do what the Lord requires of us: “to
do justice, to love mercy and to walk humbly with our God.”

 

In this
way we create that atmosphere in which the question “Who cares?” can be
properly answered, “I care!”

 

 

 

Father
Joseph, Director of Theological and Pastoral Education in our
Archdiocese, is North American Chaplain of The Order of St. Ignatius and Pastor
of St. Anthony’s of Bergenfield, NJ.

 

 

Who Gave Us The New Testament?

WHO GAVE US THE NEW TESTAMENT?

By Fr. A. James Bernstein

“The history of early
Christianity clearly reveals that God used His Church, composed of
flesh-and-blood Christians, as active participants in the process of selecting
and establishing the New Testament canon, just as He used real people —with
feelings, emotions, unique backgrounds and perspectives—to write the
twenty-seven separate books.”

Sometimes it is
easy to overlook the obvious.  Take,
for instance, the New Testament.  Even
though  every Christian 
really knows better, it is easy to forget that the New Testament was not
written as one continuous book. Rather, it is a collection of twenty-seven
shorter writings which were penned by a variety of authors at differing times
and geographical locations and compiled much later. Nowhere in the New Testament
do we find a list of what books belong in the New Testament. The “canon” of
Scripture is, of course, not “scriptural.” 

This
brings up anther important question which may not be so obvious. Who, then,
decided which books should be included in the New Testament canon and which ones
left out?

As a
Jewish convert to Christianity via evangelical Protestantism, I once refused to
acknowledge that the Church had anything to do with compiling the
New Testament. I wanted to believe God chose and collected these books without
human involvement. The books, I assumed, somehow validated themselves beyond all
reasonable doubt, and early Christians merely recognized their obvious
scriptural status. 

Though
there is some degree of truth in this position, it is by itself naive and
unbalanced. The history of early Christianity clearly reveals that God used His
Church, composed of flesh-and-blood Christians, as active participants in the
process of selecting and establishing the New Testament canon, just as He used
real people—with feelings, emotions, unique backgrounds and perspectives—to
write the twenty-seven separate books. 

WHAT
BIBLE DID THE APOSTLES USE?

“All
Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (II Timothy 3:16). I had always
assumed that the “Scripture” spoken of in this passage included both the Old
and New Testament. In reality, there was no official “New” Testament
when this statement was made. Even the Old Testament was still in the
process of formulation, for the Jews did not decide upon a definitive list or
canon of Old Testament books until after the rise of Christianity.

As I
studied further I discovered that early Christians used a Greek translation of
the Old Testament called the Septuagint. *  This translation, which was begun in Alexandria, Egypt, in the
third century B.C., contained an expanded canon which included a number of the
so-called “deutero-canonical” books. Although there was some initial debate
over these books, they were eventually received by Christians into the Old
Testament canon.

In reaction to the
rise of Christianity the Jews narrowed their canons and eventually excluded the
deutero-canonical books—although they still regarded them as sacred. The
modern Jewish canon was not rigidly fixed until the third century A.D.
Interestingly, it is this later version of the Jewish canon of the Old
Testament, rather than the canon of early Christianity, which is followed by
most of the Protestant Church today.

HISTORY
IN THE MAKING

The
history of the New Testament canon and  
its development is a fascinating subject — and 
crucial to the understanding of both the Bible and the Church. For
over two hundred years a number of books we now take for granted as being part
of the New Testament were disputed by the Church before being included. Many
other books were considered for inclusion, but eventually excluded. I was
shocked when I first discovered that the earliest complete listing of all
twenty-seven books of the New Testament was not given until A.D. 367, by
Athanasius, a bishop in Egypt.

This
means that the first complete listing of New Testament books as we have them
today didn’t appear until over 300 years after the death and Resurrection of
Christ. Imagine it! If the New Testament were begun at the same time as the U.S.
Constitution, we wouldn’t see a final product until the year 2087!

During
the first four centuries there was substantial disagreement over which books
should be included in the canon of Scripture. The first person we know of who
tried to establish a New Testament canon was the second-century heretic,
Marcion. He wanted the Church to reject its Jewish heritage, and in so
doing dispense with the Old Testament entirely. Marcion’s canon included only
one Gospel, which he himself edited, and ten of Paul’s epistles. That’s it!

Many
believe that it was partly in reaction to this distorted canon of Marcion that
the early Church determined to have a clearly defined canon of its own.
The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70, the breakup of the Jewish-Christian
community of Jerusalem, and the threatened loss of continuity in the oral
tradition probably also contributed to the sense of urgency to standardize the
list of books Christians could rely on.

THE
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO WHOM?

The four
Gospels were written from thirty to seventy years after Jesus’ death and
Resurrection. In the interim, the Church relied on oral tradition—the accounts
of eye-witnesses—as well as scattered documents and written tradition. I was
very surprised to discover as I first studied the early Church that many
“Gospels” besides those of the New Testament canon were circulating in the
first and second centuries.

These
include the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel according to the
Egyptians, and the Gospel according to Peter, just to name a few.

The New
Testament itself speaks of the existence of such accounts. Saint Luke’s Gospel
begins by saying, “Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order
a narrative of those things which are most surely believed among us. . . it
seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things
from the very first, to write to you an orderly account. . .“ In time, all but
four Gospels were excluded from the New Testament canon.

In the
early years of Christianity there was even a controversy over which of
the four Gospels to use. The Christians of Asia Minor used the Gospel of
John rather than the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Based upon the Passion
account contained in John, Christians in Asia Minor celebrated Easter on a
different day than those in Rome, which resisted the Gospel of John and instead
used the other Gospels. The Western Church for a time hesitated to use the
Gospel of John because the Gnostic heretics also made use of it in addition to
their own “secret Gospels.”

Another
controversy arose over the issue of whether there should be separate Gospels or
one single composite Gospel account. In the second century, Tatian, who was
Justin Martyr’s student, published a single composite “harmonized” Gospel
called the Diatessaron. The Syrian Church used this composite Gospel in
the second, third, and fourth centuries. This is the very Church to which “the
Nazares” (Jewish ­Christians of Jerusalem) eventually migrated after the fall
of Jerusalem to the Romans in A.D. 70. The Syrian Church did not accept all four
Gospels until the fifth century. They also ignored for a time the three epistles
of John, and Second Peter.

OTHER
CONTROVERSIAL BOOKS