Pentecost

By John G. Panagiotou

Collected Writings on Orthodox Christianity: Various Aspects of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, George Alexander, OCP Publications: Kerala, India (Second Edition, June 2016).

In this second edition of Collected Writings on Orthodox Christianity, editor and author George Alexander provides new content as good as the first.

This compendium provides a panoply of approaches in contemporary Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox jurisdictions regarding church structure and pastoral life. The writers discuss topics as varied as Orthodoxy in Israel, Ethiopia, India, Armenia, Egypt, Syria, Kenya and the challenges that they face in the modern world. We are introduced to the ministry work of Orthodox missionaries in the far off regions of Asia and Africa as well as the “domestic mission fronts” of Great Britain and America. We encounter many people who are saintly and try to live out the Good News of the Risen Jesus.

We are given moving first hand accounts of the recent conflicts (internal and external, ecclesial and secular) in Syria, Ukraine, and Serbia. Within these difficult and sobering hardships we see how the quest to become a communicant of Jesus Christ within the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” continues.

Matters of practical social importance are closely examined alongside topics as ministry to the poor, sick and disenfranchised. Other matters of lesser importance but divisive nonetheless are also examined. Take for example, Who Fears the Yoga? This is a controversial topic because in 2015 the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Church of Greece issued a statement condemning and banning the practice of yoga as incompatible with the Orthodox Christian life. These topics may seem random and curious to the casual reader. In fact they are conflicts of opinion that never stop within Orthodoxy.

Several chapters focus on the major feasts of Our Lord and His Mother Mary (the Theotokos) that are instructive for both Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike. These feasts are presented with great clarity for which the editor should be commended. It is important to understand them so that our youth can be properly taught. The late Coptic Orthodox Pope Shenouda III said, “A Church without youth is a Church without a future” and we need to heed this exhortation.

To Roman Catholic or Protestant ears Alexander’s tone may sound exclusionary. This reaction is understandable. To many Orthodox, Alexander’s call for greater cooperation with administrative and sacramental reunion of all Christians seem an impossible chasm to bridge while others don’t even desire it. To the secular reader, the often fractious history of the Orthodox Churches will be a confused, chaotic series of events which is followed by more confusion and chaos today.

I suggest that the reader not rush to judgment about the book regardless if he agrees or disagrees with the opinions of the authors. That would deprive him of an understanding of the realities that face the Orthodox world. Instead, approach the work through the eyes of the Orthodox who often see some things much differently than the prevailing wisdom would indicate. The great theologian Fr. Sergius Bulgakov said, “Orthodoxy does not try to persuade or try to compel; it charms and attracts.” For that reason we sometimes have to see things through eyes other than our own.

Two of the most intriguing chapters are A British Journey to Ethiopian Orthodoxy and From Baptist to Byzantium where a former Anglican describes his journey into the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and a former Baptist describes his journey into the Greek Orthodox Church. In each scenario we are given the phenomena of converts who, in spite of cultural barriers, leap the chasm between West and East in the conviction that they have found “the Truth.” That phrase strikes some as offensive, even arrogant, but Fr. Fr. George Metallinos, Professor Emeritus of Theology at the University of Athens, explains what the Orthodox mean by it:

The truth is not an idea, a theory, a system, but a Person, the Most Holy Person of the Incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ. Therefore we must ask the same about Orthodoxy because it is identified with the God-Man, Person of the Word of God. He as God-Man is our Orthodoxy, our complete Truth.

George Alexander has done another service to both East and West, scholar and student, clergy and laity with this second edition of Collected Writings on Orthodox Christianity: Various Aspects of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches. I warmly recommend it.

John G. Panagiotou is a Greek Orthodox theologian and writer, a graduate of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary and Wheeling Jesuit University. He is Lecturer in New Testament Greek at Cummins Theological Seminary. He can be reached at johnpan777@gmail.com.

Sergei Bulgakov (1871-1944) and Alexander Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008)

By Fr. Johannes Jacobse

In June 2016 I gave two lectures at the Acton University on The Economic Thought of Sergei Bulgakov and How to Understand Secularism (since changed to Secularism is a Sickness of the Soul). Acton University is a week where about 1000 people gather from all over the world to talk, learn, inspire and drink great Wisconsin craft beer. The Bulgakov lecture took a boatload of time to prepare but what I learned was invaluable. The man is brilliant. His book Philosophy of Economy The World as Household is the most anthropocentric (man centered) approach to economics I have ever encountered. It actually made economics interesting.

Sergei Bulgakov was raised in an Orthodox Christian home (his father was priest) but after crisis of faith left Orthodoxy and became a committed Marxist. After seeing that Marxism could not offer a solution to the economic problems of rural Russia, and after travelling throughout Europe as a young man, he began to reconsider his beliefs and in a profoundly painful journey (repudiation of the idols is always a painful process) returned to his faith.

The anthropology of the Orthodox faith grounds his analysis of economics. Economics, he argues, is rooted in the relations of man to nature. It’s complex but one of the more beautiful and poignant insights I come back to again and again is this: Man sees his reflection in the Divine Logos (Jesus Christ) while nature sees its reflection in man. Man, he writes, is in a relationship with nature and only when we understand this interaction will we understand economics properly.

The secularism lecture was easier because I have been working on this for years, especially the last five. It was also best received. I am grateful to Acton because when they asked if I had any topic I wanted to teach I mentioned secularism and they gave me carte blanche to do it any way I wanted to. It worked I think, especially for a first time lecture and I hope to develop it more. I think I have some ideas not expressed elsewhere that people found valuable for themselves.

Listen Here:

The Economic Thought of Sergei Bulgakov
This is an introductory course on the economic thought of Russian philosopher Sergei Bulgakov (1871-1944), focusing on his concept of House Economy (taken from the Greek economos or house-management) as the means for managing life and society.

Secularism as a Sickness of the Soul

This course looks at secularism as a materialist religion employing the thought of Alexander Solzhenitsyn (and others) and how it represents a fundamental shift in thinking about the cosmos and anthropology. The lecturer will draw from his considerable experience on how the shift affects the human person (including believers), and how to penetrate the almost impenetrable shield against anything non-material that surrounds it.

The “Holy and Great Council” – 2016

Source: Ancient Faith Radio

Listen Here:

(Audio courtesy of Ancient Faith Radio)

Transcript

Harbinger of Storm or Passage to Calm?

by Patrick B. O’Grady, Archpriest
The Antiochian Orthodox Institute, La Verne, California

“When we had sailed slowly many days, and arrived with difficulty off Cnidus, the wind not permitting us to proceed, we sailed under the shelter of Crete” —Acts 27:7 (from the apostolic lesson for Friday before Pentecost)

The so-called “Pan-Orthodox Synod” is about to convene on the island of Crete. It has been promoted with the epithet, “holy and great,” something traditionally reserved for fully ecumenical synods. Despite the hopes, this is now proving to be essentially only a partial Orthodox synod: the primatial hierarchs of some of the Local Churches have arrived and are greeting each other. Others are staying home, “the wind not permitting (them) to proceed” to a fully Pan-Orthodox Synod. Whether this synod will be “holy and great” is not up to the promoters to say ahead of time, but rather in the proof of its actions and substance as received by the Church in her catholic fullness, clergy and laity. So we can assuredly say now that we are talking about a Partial Orthodox Synod.

Where do matters stand on the eve of this synod of primates and their select episcopal entourages? As of this writing, four venerable Local Churches have announced their non-attendance, on principle: Bulgaria, Georgia, Antioch and Russia, in the order of the time of their announcement not to attend. The holy Synod of the Church of Serbia had also decided not to attend, but in the end, they reversed themselves with reservations, on conditions which could lead to a walk-out. The Church of Russia is expressing its strong conviction that no synod can be called “Pan-Orthodox” unless every church is present and whose grievances are heard and acted upon. Patriarch Kirill, via formal letter (17 June 2016) to the synaxis now in Crete: …the absence of the Church of Antioch’s consent to convene the Council means that we have not reached pan-Orthodox consensus. We cannot ignore the voices of the Georgian, Serbian and Bulgarian Churches either, who have spoken for a postponement of the Council to a later date… Surely this succinctly states the matter with clarity.

Now, the press, along with many commentators (Protestant, Roman Catholic, and even not a few nominally Orthodox), have been touting this Cretan Synod as the first one to convene since the 7th Oecumenical Synod (A.D. 787)! This claim in itself stems from ignorance about Orthodox Church history. However, such claims are ennervating and enthusiastic and must be repeated often! They promise with high hopes the ultimate fulfillment of the grand unification of all Christendom long desired and dreamed of, especially since the Faith and Order movement and the establishment of the WWC in 1948. This reasserted hope has become further widespread with the Roman Catholic Church’s embrace of ecumenism. This embrace is all the more especially underscored since the elevation of Pope Francis a few years ago, and the several encounters between him and various Orthodox primates (chiefly publicized are those with PC Bartholomew and PM Kirill). But the reality concerning such synods is not so striking.

How often have Orthodox synods met? When was the last one? Are the winds which are blowing now harbingers of a coming ecclesiastical storm or of the promise of safe harbour in “Fair Haven” (Acts 27:8)? As a member of the Permanent Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Hilarion, said in a interview posted on RT (14 June 2016), that if this synod convened as less than a fully attended synod by all the churches, it would prove to be an obstacle to Orthodox unity, rather than a contribution to unity. We have seen it before. The last named “Pan-Orthodox” gathering, then called a “Congress” (Συνέδριον), held in 1923—with the Churches of Constantinople (of course), Serbia, Cyprus, Greece and Romania present in one way or another was also a partial Orthodox Synod. Quite unfortunately for the Orthodox Church as a whole, the 1923 Congress, the last synod at this level to take place before that which is about to convene in Crete, did significant damage to Orthodox unity. The aftermath remains with us today: ecumenistic syncretism with heterodox notions about Man and the Church, the upsetting of the unified calendar of the paschalion with the menologion, the fostering of division and dissent within many of the Local Churches and, chief among all, an increase in the tendency toward political manipulation of our hierarchs. Now, some of the decrees passed in 1923 were not implemented, since the participants knew that they lacked “catholic fullness” (for example, they left open the question regarding remarriage of widowed presbyters). At that time, there was still an awareness that, absent the Church of Russia (then in the first stages of her martyrdom), the church of Antioch and many others, no profound actions could be taken. These would look to another day. It is well-known that in 1961 the preparations for reconvening a Pan-Orthodox Synod started to move ahead. Just the other day, Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and St Vlassios in his message given before his departure to Crete and published through his metropolis (parembasis.gr), listed many Pan- and, indeed, Partial- or even, may I say “merely,” Local Orthodox Synods, down through the centuries, in order to put the aforementioned perceptual error to rights, regarding the periodic occurrence of synods. Some of these synods, even some of the local ones, possess universal acclaim: those of 879-80, 1341-68, 1484, 1590, 1756, 1848, 1872 and 1923. That amounts to more in number than the number of the ecumenical synods of the first century! Of these synods of the 2nd millenium, certainly the 1923 synod has its faults as mentioned above—I dare say, consissting of a cross-wind contrary in the journey toward expressing Orthodox-catholicity oneness. The other synods, cited by their years above, ruled on many issues, some of very great substance, such as the condemnation of the filioque, of the doctrine of created grace (Barlaamism), Protestant errors and ethnic tribalism (ethnophylitism) as a basis for the identity of a Local Church—these condemnations were favorable winds for the Ark of Christ and a storm to the enemy of our souls.

Now, as we consider the obstacles to full attendance at this present Cretan Synod, we could point to the contents in the more controversial of the six working documents. Those more controversial documents include the one on the Diaspora and the one on relations with other Christians. This essay will not examine these; many others have done a laudable job on that side. I mention in passing that the Church of Bulgaria decided not to attend because of profound pessimism regarding the likelihood of emending the document on ecumenism. Antioch, the most ancient of all the churches, decided not to attend on basic principle, chiefly stemming from the rejection of the principle of unanimity raised in the last pre-conciliar session held in January 2016 in Chambesy. This was explained in point 1, in the statement issued by the holy Synod of Antioch explaining why she would not be represented. This principle of unanimity was set forth by then PC Athenagoras at the first pre-conciliar session held in Rhodes in 1961, so there was nothing new or surprising in this feature of Antioch’s statement. Unanimity is the bond of charity, without which no one can say, “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.”

Now I come to the heart of my theme: foundational principles of ecclesiology are being violated. This constitutes the heart of the imminent failure and shame of this partial synod now convening. The violation of such principles lies behind the ever-stiffening wind which is blowing contrary to any success or development of Orthodox unity. So, what are these principles?

1. First and foremost, the commandment to love: “this is my commandment, that ye love one another,” said our Master. When fraternal charity suffers between churches, it is the responsibility of the others to labour for a redress of differences and the crafting of solutions to problems. The Church of Antioch has suffered violation of its ancient canonical territory by the Church of Jerusalem in the emirate of Qatar. This is a known fact. The canonical solution to this issue was passed during the sessions of the 4th Ecumenical Synod “for all time to come”: that Arabia belong to Antioch, and Jerusalem would care for “tertia Palestina” (modern trans-Jordan area; de facto, the country of Jordan). Jerusalem, to date, has offered no canonical basis for its interference in the Gulf region; whereas Antioch has had a metropolitan overseeing this area out of Baghdad. All timely and patient attempts of the Patriarch of Antioch to solve this problem and to bring Jerusalem to account have failed. Indeed, Antioch’s repeated appeals to the Patriarch of Constantinople (PC) to lend a hand in settling this issue have been ignored. Late in time, the PC offered to broker a settlement after the Synod. Antioch rightly rejected this as it would involve hypocrisy: how can the hierarchs concelebrate the Liturgy before such a settlement is found? Antioch has broken communion with Jerusalem over this matter of profound principle. The Synod cannot call itself in any way Pan-Orthodox until this matter is settled.
2. The ancient canons regarding the presveia (primacy of honour) of the heads of churches have received far too much attention at the expense of the more practical reality of bishops over worshipping communities. This principle is violated by the promotion of the PC as “first without equals.” This is the language of papism, something abhorrent to Orthodox ecclesiology and practical church ethics. The bishops, no matter the title, ought to represent functioning communities of believers over which they preside as pastors. Titles are adornments to the shepherd, not his identity.
3. Synods professing any degree of ecumenicity (not in the ancient sense of co-terminous with the Roman Empire down to its demise, but rather, in the wider sense of universality) have not limited the attendance of any Orthodox (territorial) bishops. The episcopate is one (solidum, Cyprian of Carthage); therefore, any hierarch, no matter the honorific, possesses the charism of catholic and apostolic grace. This datum is suppressed because of the preoccupation with primacy and honors. Connected with this is the erroneous procedure of limiting votes to one per Local Church—effectively preempting the other bishops of their Christ-given responsibility to rightly set forth (orthotomounta) the word of truth. All of the bishops who preside over communities (not auxiliary, “helping” bishops) have a say in conciliarity.
4. Finally, on principle, the Cretan Synod cannot succeed because the documents are rife with language drawn from secular or, at best, heterodox Christian, conceptions of the construct of mankind (confusion of nature and person), the oneness of the Church (in favour of the branch-theory, the latitudinarian child of Anglicanism), and the facile adoption of civil rights language without a sufficient grounding in the patristic tradition.
5. May we faithful everywhere patiently and with humility and prayer, perfect holiness in the fear of God. I hope my humble statement forms some small part of a constructive way forward for the good of our precious Church. The holy Church is beset with many temptations, trials and assaults. But with God’s help and mercy, we shall withstand them all, until, “passing by with difficulty, we come to a place called Fair Havens” (Acts 27:8).

Source: Touchstone Magazine (May/June 2016)

Eastern Union

The Orthodox Dilemma: Personal Reflections On Global Pan-Orthodox Christian Conciliar Unity
George Alexander
OCP Publications, 2015; 202 pages, $12.00, paperback

By John G. Panagiotou

In George Alexander’s “The Orthodox Dilemma” the reader is given a highly accessible overview of the history, current situation, and possible future of Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. Through personal vignettes and historical illustrations, the writer, himself Oriental Orthodox, seeks to explain and address how the Orthodox Churches have found themselves in their present circumstances.

To those with a relatively undeveloped knowledge of Eastern Christianity, many examples that Alexander cites regarding these churches in both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox expression may seem esoteric and obscure, but his central reason for writing the book is plain—to issue a plea for greater Pan-Orthodox unity of witness on a global platform.

He begins by asserting that before any sort of coordinated form of Orthodox Christian witness can be made, the official estrangement and sacramental division between the Eastern Orthodox (Greek, Russian, Serbian, Antiochian, Romanian, and Bulgarian) and the Oriental Orthodox (Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Syriac, and Indian Malankara) needs to be addressed. He makes very compelling arguments that this “Eastern Schism” is the result of linguistic misunderstandings in Christology that have long since been theologically resolved, and he notes that it has been the long-­standing pastoral practice that Oriental Orthodox receive the sacraments in Eastern Orthodox Churches. It is high time, the author believes, that official communion should be acknowledged and proclaimed on the hierarchal level.

Nowhere is this point more pointedly made than where he observes that both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox bishops and theologians have made great efforts to dialogue and ecumenically interact with the Western Church in both its Roman Catholic and Protestant expressions (in the World Council of Churches and elsewhere) while the Eastern Church has yet to get its own house in order, for which he provides multiple examples from the Council of Chalcedon (a.d. 451) on down to our own time. In the words of the famed Greek Orthodox theologian John S. Romanides, whom he quotes in the book, “The two traditions (Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox) survived the complexities of history, while always maintaining essentially the same Orthodox Faith.”

The official declaration of reunion of the Eastern Churches would aid much in dealing with the cultural estrangements, prejudices, and suspicions of its members for one another. The irony Alexander notes, however, is that ultimately this needs to be a “grass roots” movement from the bottom to the top, issuing from the laity and the clergy, and facilitated by the hierarchy through better communication and public acknowledgment that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches are sisters.

This, coupled with greater opportunities for interaction between the members of both churches, should be happening throughout Orthodoxy. Concerted efforts along these lines would serve to mitigate prejudices, of which the author provides copious examples. Among the paradigms for reunion that the author cites to demonstrate the achievability of this are the reunification of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (aka ROCOR) with the Patriarchate of Moscow in 2007, the Patriarchate of Moscow’s recent outreach to the Old Believers’ Church, and the Pan-­Orthodox pioneering work of the Oriental Orthodox theologians Metropolitan Gregorios Paulose and Fr. V. C. Samuel.

It is important to note that Alexander is not calling for a one­world administrative hierarchical bureaucracy, but rather for an integrated Orthodox Christian witness, which will serve as a platform compatible with the concilliar nature of the Church’s episcopacy. This platform would be an expression of sacramental unity in all of its spiritual aspects of love and shared faith. It is not a call for a single form of worship or administration based on ecclesial jurisdiction, but an incorporation of St. Irenaeus of Lyon’s theme of “unity in diversity.”

The author provides numerous suggestions for realizing a unified Orthodox platform through better theological education for clergy, better use of the modern means of communication and media, and work in social justice ministries. To my knowledge, this is the first published book to provide thoughtful detail on the execution of this vital project. In many ways, it is a seminal work.

John G. Panagiotou is a Greek Orthodox theologian and writer, a graduate of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary and Wheeling Jesuit University. He can be reached at johnpan777@gmail.com.

Cecille Richards – President of Planned Parenthood

By. Fr. Johannes L. Jacobse

If a man is merely a biological machine, his sole value is determined by where he fits into the larger machine. He becomes a commodity, a thing to be used in ways that bring gain to other people. We call this a utilitarian world view.

Planned Parenthood ‘aborts’ (kills) unborn babies and sells their parts. It’s a bloody but lucrative business, and the profits increase when Planned Parenthood can provide more intact baby parts to its customers. The unborn child is reduced to a commodity (something to be bought and sold) that serves a larger machine.

In order for this uninhibited trade in baby parts to take place without any pangs of conscience however, a profound dehumanization has to occur first. No one, except perhaps a handful of people beyond the reach of normal human love and compassion, would argue that it is proper to slice up a newborn child in order to sell its parts. Yet Planned Parenthood does just that sometimes moments before the child is born.

The lie that justifies this grisly business is that the unborn child is merely “potential human life.” But since when did potential become divorced from being? Only human beings have human potential. Left unmolested, the developing child in a few short months will appear just like you and me.

The Apostle Paul says that we can do not do anything against the truth (2 Corinthians 3:18). When the truth threatens to lay bare the utilitarian justifications Of Planned Parenthood, when the lie that unborn children are not really human is revealed to be the lie that it is, only one option remains: more deception.

In the video below the President of Planned Parenthood Cecille Richards doubles down on deception. To Planned Parenthood an unborn child suddenly becomes human once you can sell its parts. Now that the lie has been revealed, all that remains is the denial that any parts are sold.

Plannned Parenthood is a business built on blood that self-justifies using the utilitarian logic that abortion is a net social good. This is what happens when dehumanization takes place, when human beings are viewed as commodities, as cogs in a larger machine that exists only to make people like Cecille Richards and her cohorts very, very rich (Richards makes almost half a million dollars a year).

Too much blood. Too much burning of the conscience. Too many children dead that who otherwise would be alive. Too many lies.

It’s time to jail the law breakers and shut Planned Parenthood down.

From The Center for Medical Progress, the producers of the video:

Planned Parenthood senior executives and medical directors told CMP investigators that Planned Parenthood’s abortion providers would be happy to alter their abortion procedures in order to harvest higher-quality baby body parts. The representatives with the most experience harvesting fetal organs, Planned Parenthood’s Senior Director of Medical Services Dr. Deborah Nucatola, and Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast’s Director of Research Melissa Farrell, indicated this already happens at their sites as a routine matter. When Planned Parenthood makes decisions about a woman’s abortion procedure based on what will serve its own tissue procurement needs, it is not treating her like a patient with rights and dignity, but like a harvesting pod.

The harvest and sale of aborted fetal organs and tissues exists to meet the demand for fresh and undamaged body parts, typically from the 2nd trimester of pregnancy. These practical constraints, plus the financial benefits offered by tissue purchasers, create incentives for Planned Parenthood to change their abortion procedures and even use illegal methods like partial-birth abortion to get fresh and intact specimens. In tissue harvesting cases, the absence of feticidal chemicals combined with the active attempt to remove the fetus as intact as possible make it far more likely the fetus may be born alive, only to be vivisected to death for his or her body parts.

Planned Parenthood has never provided any justification or explanation for the admissions of their abortion providers in this footage, because it is simply too damning. State, local, and federal law enforcement must listen to the broad public mandate for Planned Parenthood to be held accountable to the law and continue their investigations to criminal prosecution.