Why The Need...For Truth?

After a thorough dialogue and response to a contributing blogger concerning Authority, It's Huge! Huge! (see the blog article of the same name), I was not expecting to answer his suggestion that truth doesn't matter and that love for one another is all we should need. I choose to surmise that the blogger was overwhelmed by the historical and valid perspective on the Church and it's authority that was presented to him as seen in his words:

"I need to confess that I have much, much to learn still about the history of Christianity. I took three+ courses on it in college, but it really didn't take like I wish it would have. I have much to learn about the councils and the early church fathers. I have only recently begun reading the letters of the early church fathers, and it has been really refreshing and exciting. But still a lot to learn. This is one of the reasons I am starting seminary in the fall. Nonetheless, my ability to offer you a substantive dialogue on this is going to be limited until I do more research on the councils, etc. Also, you must read everything I write through the lens of understanding that what I believe is constantly under critical evaluation, and anything I offer to the dialogue is only penultimate and said with an epistemological humility (i.e., knowing full well the limitations of my knowledge, and that I could be totally wrong). I do not have delusions of changing your mind on anything, but only to offer my current finite perspective, and ask questions about yours."

I understand what it is to be confronted with a paradigm that overwhelmed the flimsy paradigm that I hold. My Journey To Orthodoxy has required me to face many such confrontations. However, one's intellectual and spiritual integrity can only stay intact if one faces the confrontation head on. In other words, don't go around the subject or go on to another subject until the one that overwhelmed you has been addressed. I am afraid the blogger, in this case, has made the misstep that many make when faced with a paradigm that threatens their own. Although he seems to sincerely state his need to study the "history of Christianity...the councils of the church and the early church fathers", he in actuality draws a conclusion by tossing aside the need for any further study on the verifiability of truth and the authority of the church to preserve it, by saying,

"Why the need? Why the need for total doctrinal unity through perfect oral transmission? I confess, I don't see or understand the need for it."

The blogger, then reveals the underlying object of his resistance. He, like many in the Protestant ethos, are given to moral, intellectual and spiritual Relativism. "If it feels good, do it. If it means something to me then it is valid. If it sounds good it must be true. If I don't understand it, avoid it". The blogger even assumes that I am given to Relativism,

"I ascertain that you feel a great need for it, and that perhaps this felt need is what eventually led you to the Orthodox church as the only satisfaction for this need. Because I have not felt this need, I have not been compelled to do the specific kind of research that I'm sure you have done in your journey. Perhaps if I felt this need, or could be persuaded of its importance, I would be more serious about digging into this subject." 

At least the blogger leaves open the possibility of future "digging". The problem is, Relativism is based on the word "feel" as the blogger so often uses. So, unless in some way, the discussion can rise above his feelings and what is felt, then he will be hard pressed to ascertain anything with certainty. Relativism, at its core, would value what the blogger feels over what the Church has taught or even what Christ himself says about truth. He would suggest that I believe what I believe because it meets some emotional psychological need. The conclusion is, since he doesn't feel this need, then the need doesn't exist. This western ideology of Relativism has caused the blogger to conclude:

1. "I think that certitude is irrelevant to the Christian life of faith.

I think that this need for certainty many people feel in our postmodern culture is what leads many people from being protestant evangelicals to the Catholic and Orthodox faith they can finally have more absolutes that are not under negotiation because of the perfect transmission of doctrine through apostolic succession. I have another friend that converted to Catholicism much because of this felt need. But I am not convinced this is a true need with regards to the Christian Faith."

The blogger's ignorance of the Church councils and the reasons each were called is glaring. The Bishops' defense of the certain truth of the nature of Christ is the very reason the blogger has a "Christian Faith", as he calls it. If there is no certainty coming out of the Councils of the Church, then the blogger's definition of "Christian Faith" is meaningless and subject to myriads of definitions. Does not his use of the word "faith" suggest that there must be an object to have faith in? Faith in what? "Christ was fully God but not human. Christ was fully man but not God. Christ only appeared to be human but was not actually so." All of these and more were the subject of the Councils as they refuted these heresies. But, Relativism would eliminate the existence of heresies. So, there is no ascertainable truth, therefore there is no ascertainable error? One would have to conclude the blogger would have said to the Bishops present at the Councils, "What's the fuss? Don't worry! Go back home. It's all good". The blogger's ignorance of the Martyrs of the faith and what they died defending is also glaring. Did they die just to defend some ethereal concept of Love as the blogger asserts? 

2. "Instead of being discouraged, dismal, and hopeless by the idea that we cannot all come to a perfect knowledge of doctrine before the Parousia (i.e., second coming of Christ), I find it actually very helpful in my walk with Christ. The unity Christ and the apostles were concerned about I think was a unity of love, not agreeing in every matter of doctrine. There is a saying attributed to St. Augustine, In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, diversity; in all things, charity. I think the Apostles creed does a pretty good job of outlining the essentials, and in these things, yes, unity. Jesus was crucified, buried, and rose from the dead three days later yes, yes, essential. The canonized Bible is inerrent, incorruptible, and infallible no, not essential. There is perfect transmission of doctrine through the laying on of hands in apostolic succession no, not essential. Love God, Love People absolutely essential."

The blogger uses history and quotations from the Councils and the Bishops to support what he "thinks" Christ and the Apostles were "concerned about", but he fails to understand that what he has quoted does not support his conclusion. Augustine's use of the word "essentials" is directly contradictory to the blogger's claim that "certitude is irrelevant". The blogger confirms the contents of the Nicean Creed as "essential doctrines" but ignores the fact that the same Councils confirmed the canonization of the "inerrent, incorruptible, infallible" scriptures that the blogger calls not essential, and they assume the authority to say what the scriptures mean. He claims that Love is all that is essential. If this be so, what is "Love" and how do you define it? Is that definition also based on what you feel or will it be based on certain doctrinal truths maintained by the Church? The question the blogger needs to define before going any further in his honest search is this, "What is Truth"?

I must say, and not to offend, that the idea of there being "absolute truth" is foundational to our human experience in finding God and an elementary principal of Christianity. Jesus said, 

"You shall know the TRUTH and the truth shall set you free."

Notice Christ's use of the word "know" in relation to truth. All personal opinions that certitude of truth is irrelevant should immediately be dispelled if one at least embraces Christ's words as authoritative. Christ defines truth for us and establishes the path and result of finding that truth.

"I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life, and no man comes to the Father but through me."

This divine statement asserts that there is "THE way" not "A" way. There is "THE truth" not "A" truth. There are not many truths or varieties of interpretation of the truth but THE truth. In fact, the Church, being Christ on earth, i.e. his body, was even historically referred to as "The Way". Why is that? It is through the way of Christ's Church that man finds the truth. Finding the truth brings spiritual and everlasting LIFE which leads us, through Christ, to the Father. Without verifiable certain truth, there is no salvation! Without the Church, truth is elusive! So, in case anyone should miss this important point, here is the question: "Where can that truth be found"?

"...the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth."

Understanding this scripture in context, we know that there was only ONE Church on the planet to which it is referring and that Church still exists in a visible verifiable form today! This proclamation found in Timothy does not extend to the new definition of "Church" which would include all, some, or even one of the 35,000 documented denominational or non-denominational "churches" that have evolved through heretical movements some 1600 years later. Truth has been and still is preserved in its unadulterated and unfiltered purity in the Orthodox Church. Here is how to approach truth in an Orthodox fashion: If the Church has taught it at all times and in all places, believe it first, then set out to understand it. John Chrysostom says,"

"[Paul commands,] 'Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter" [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further" (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).

This is the approach I have taken in recent years regarding all truth and I have never been disappointed nor have I found error. It is my self-made, self-taught doctrines that have been found to be erroneous.

Blogger, you and I were both innocently born in a house other than that which Christ established. It is pillarless and without foundation, although there are elements of truth to be found there. Come home to the house that Christ established and that which has remained standing for over 2000 years and, should the Parousia tarry, will still be standing 2000 years from now.

Read the words of the Early Church Fathers concerning the preservation of the truth by the Church. Note the dates of some of the writings. These things were taught and believed by the whole church everywhere up to the present day. To suggest we know something today that they didn't or that what they knew then is uncertain, is the height of arrogance and the depths of ignorance.

Apostle Paul

"[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim. 2:2). 

Papias

"Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition" (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).

 

Eusebius of Caesarea

"At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition" (Church History 4:21).

Irenaeus

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

... "It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. "But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. "With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:1�2).

 

Clement of Alexandria

"Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God's will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition" (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).

 

Origen

"Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).

 

Cyprian of Carthage

"[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way" (Letters 75:3 [A.D. 253]).

Athanasius

"Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord. Thus giving thanks unto him, and being followers of the saints, we shall make our praise in the Lord all the day, as the psalmist says. So, when we rightly keep the feast, we shall be counted worthy of that joy which is in heaven" (Festal Letters 2:7 [A.D. 330]).

"But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able" (ibid., 29).

Basil the Great

"Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term" (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

"It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).

Augustine

"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

"But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, 'that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times', is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation" (ibid., 5:26[37]).

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

John Chrysostom

"[Paul commands,] 'Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter" [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further" (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).

 

Vincent of Lerins

"With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity. "I received almost always the same answer from all of them?-that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church. "Here, perhaps, someone may ask: 'If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it? 'Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . . . "Thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning" (The Notebooks [A.D. 434]).

 

In Their Own Words...

African-American Orthodoxy

Saint Moses The Black is one of the most revered and venerated of the Orthodox saints. He is among a list of Orthodox saints from the continent of Africa who were instrumental in establishing the Christian Church throughout the world. The longer I am Orthodox, the more I am amazed at how ignorant I was about the history of the Church and its origins. It hadn't occurred to me that the Orthodox church in Africa predates Islam by some 600 years. I did not know that many of the slaves who were captured and brought to the North American continent were Orthodox Christians. I surely didn't know that African Americans are rediscovering their true spiritual roots and returning to the faith of their fathers in great numbers both on this continent and in Africa.

I had the pleasure recently of spending a few days with Father Moses, well, not the one pictured in the icon, but one who has honored him by taking his name. Father Moses Berry is an African American Orthodox priest who pastors a church in the Russian Arch Diocese in America. Father Moses is a priest with the mission of making all African Americans aware that to truly embrace their culture and roots they must return to the Orthodox Faith. To accomplish this, Father Moses has established the Brotherhood of St. Moses the Black. The Brotherhood is "a pan-Orthodox non-profit organization. Its mission is to minister to Americans the gift of Orthodoxy. In an effort to be good stewards of the manifold grace of God (1 Peter 4:10), the organization presents an annual conference that targets those who have little exposure to Orthodoxy as well as to the African roots of Orthodoxy."

It is at this 13th Annual Ancient Christianity and African American Conference, in June of 2006, that I gained a new debt of love and understanding for the history and plight of African Americans. Part of the reason for my epiphany was the fact that I was educated about a part of the church I had never considered. All humans tend to think in their own color. I am fully human in that regard. The images I carried with me all through my Protestant years never allowed me to consider that,

"Over two thousand years ago, a young Virgin and her child found refuge in Africa from threatening forces. Since that time, Christianity has developed extensive roots in Africa. St. Anthony and the Desert Fathers kept the church from worldliness and preserved the mystical gifts. St. Athanasius helped write the Creed. St. Cyril kept the Church from dishonoring Christ and His Mother. The African Martyrs gave the Church courage. The African Mothers gave the Church philosophers like St. Katherine. The hermitesses like St. Mary of Egypt and St. Sarah of the Nile showed the path of contrition, redemptive suffering and repentance. " ...and of course there was St. Moses The Black.

At the Conference, my knowledge of church history, doctrine, and my theological prowess, were dwarfed in the presence of some of the most reasoned, articulate and respected theological thinkers in our nation today. They are African-American and they are Orthodox. I had the privilege of sitting down one-on-one with the likes of Dr. Albert Roboteau, Professor of Theology at Princeton University. Being newly Orthodox myself, I marveled at how such a man as he, who teaches courses such as, African-American Religious History, Religious Radicals, Prophetic Voices in 20th and 21st century America, Holy Ordinary-the sacred in Contemporary Fiction, and Spiritual Dimensions of African-American Autobiography, had chosen the Orthodox faith above all others. He has answered well that question,

"When I was considering becoming Orthodox, a friend and fellow historian of African-American religion asked me if I understood how much Orthodoxy fit the aspects of African-American religion that had most personally interested me over the years. Several months earlier, an Orthodox monk had remarked to me how attuned he thought Orthodoxy was to the traditional spirituality of black people. Both comments took me by surprise. I had been so absorbed in the details of my own individual path toward Orthodoxy that I had failed to notice the forest for the trees, to discern the overall pattern my life was taking. Gradually after my chrismation, I began to reflect more generally upon the relationship between the faith of Ancient Christianity that had claimed me and the religious traditions of my people whose history I had been researching, writing, and teaching for the past twenty-five years. Since there are so few black Orthodox, it seemed like a lonely task. Providentially, a friend informed me of the conferences on Ancient Christianity and African-Americans, the purpose of which is to gather people from around the country to discover - in the context of prayer and the Divine Liturgy - the deep affinities and resonances between Orthodoxy and African-American spirituality. The resonances or points of convergence between Orthodoxy and African-American spirituality are profound. The first resonance is historical. Ancient Christianity is not, as many think, a European religion. Christian communities were well established in Africa by the third and fourth centuries. In Egypt and Ethiopia, Coptic traditions of worship, monasticism, and spirituality have remained authentically African and authentically Christian down to the present day.The second resonance is spiritual: there are important analogies between African traditional religions and Orthodox Christianity. In classical theological terms, these analogies constitute a protoevangelion: a preparation for the Gospel based on God's natural revelation to all peoples through nature and conscience."

My personal epiphany was strengthened as I saw the devotion of the African-American Orthodox nuns who have devoted their entire lives to prayer and service. My European arrogance began to diminish as I heard Father Jerome Sanderson, Orthodox Priest and author of Saint Moses the Ethiopian from the African Saint Series, talk of the history of slavery and pointing out that his great grandparents were Orthodox Christians in Ethiopia when they were captured and put in shackles. The reality that Christianity is multi-racial, not only today, but from its very conception, struck me in such a way that allowed no more room for me to continue seeing in my own color. But, the hallmark of the Conference to me was the sharing in the Liturgy led by European, African American, African, Russian, and Serbian priests and deacons, all at the same altar, all at the same time, all in one accord. This is the church. This is the community of faith. The old childhood song,

"Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world, red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world",

finally had real meaning.

The mission of the Brotherhood of Saint Moses the Black is a clarion call for all Christians everywhere to reunite in this historic hour under the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which is the original church of the New Testament, the Orthodox Church. Father Moses words say it best,

"In modern times, there is a renewed fountain of ancient Orthodox Christianity. It is flowing throughout the entire world. This flow of spiritual life does not negate the rich tradition already developed in the crucible of suffering and the triumphs of character in America. Rather, it beckons all Americans to row into deeper waters-the waters of the ancient Christian movement that has been kept alive in the Eastern Orthodox church."

"Preserve oh God,

the Holy Orthodox Church

and all

Orthodox Christians

unto ages of ages

amen."

Kingdom Films

The logo here was designed by my wife, Cynthia. It is the Logo for my Independent Motion Picture Production Company, Kingdom Films. The dilemma I face is the fact that it was designed before I became Orthodox. The sword is a Catholic King's Sword and the banner reads Adventiat Regnum Tuus or Thy Kingdom Come, from the latin Vulgate. Initially I considered redesigning the logo but lately I have been wondering if I should change the name of the company. "Kingdom" to me, has always reflected a time when God and country were conjoined and the government ruled by theocratic principals. It was a time of honor, morality and chivalry. The problem I have run into is the fact that the word "kingdom" in the Bible Belt has been usurped by evangelical protestants and is used to identify religious movements, doctrines, and ideology that are not historic or Orthodox. The question I must often field is, "Do you produce Christian films?" To answer this question I am forced to deal with the asker's definition of "Christian". I have seen many "Christian" films and am convinced that if any one of them died at the box office it would not go to heaven. They are typically artistically poor, creatively lacking, narrow in scope, demagogue in message and completely embarrassing.

I do not make "Christian Films" for I find no place in scripture or tradition that allows for a film to have an eternal soul. If I could create a "Christian Film" I would surely be a little higher than the angels rather than a little lower. I am a Christian who makes films. I am an artist as is a painter, a sculpture, a dancer, a singer. I reflect the world and the state of the human condition through my art as would any of these. I am a reflection of my Creator. I create, for He creates. He has made me so. It is he who has created me and I detest any who would attempt to recreate me in their image of what a filmmaker should be.

I am still wading my way through my place in the Orthodox world in light of the fact that I am in an industry that is traditionally considered morally corrupt and a tool of anti-Christ. I would lay down my art in a second were I to believe that the film industry is the forbidden fruit and no person of faith is to eat of it. I, however, believe it is possible to be in the garden and obey God's restrictions. Surely to "be in the world but not of it" applies to the film industry as well.

In an attempt to define my creative and spiritual path as a filmmaker, I have published a Creed. It is not so much for those who would consider doing business with me as it is to set a standard before my eyes so that I will not falter.

KFI CREED

We believe the authentic art of filmmaking has intrinsic value and is divine in its origins.

We believe art does not earn value just because it serves some human intent; rather, it is inherently valuable because the very act of creating is a reflection of the Creator.

We believe there should be no segregation of "religious" and "secular" artistic subject matter, for reality, like God, is One.

We believe the depiction of debase human behavior as gratuitous entertainment is destructive to the individual and to society as a whole.

We believe the realistic, germane, artistic depiction of debase human behavior is not inherently the endorsement of it.

We believe "Adventiat Regnum Tuus" as an infinite truth.

This brings us back to the question of a name for my company. Considering all that you have read here, what do you think would be the best name for my company? Is there a company name that would reflect the values that I hold while assuring that I am not mistaken for an evangelical demagogue whose amateur films consist of three points and a prayer? Mel already has the apropos Icon Pictures. What should I have? With this question comes this announcement:

ANNOUNCING THE NAME MY COMPANY CONTEST!

Please use the comment button below to leave your suggestion as to what to re-name my Independent Motion Picture Production Company. I will select the best entry within the next few weeks. The winning entry will win a one-line part in one of my upcoming feature film productions. We will bring you to the set, take care of all your expenses and pay you standard industry rate for your work. You will get the celebrity treatment! So start the creative juices flowing and you might even say a prayer or two. Enter quickly.

This contest will close without notice.

For more information on my company and its projects go to:

www.KingdomFilmsInc.com.

The Church Around The World-or "Autocephalous" Isn't A Type Of Milk

No, you probably won't be asked to pick up a gallon of autocephalous milk, but you may be able to be a part of an autocephalous Church. It helps me to see where the Church physically exists, how it is organized and how all the 14 equal, independent and self-governing Churches work in communion and unity with one another across the earth. Communion and unity do not mean an absence of human conflict born of flesh or selfish endeavor. I like what my Priest, Father Stephen Rogers told me when I first met with him. As we sat in his office in a separate building, he pointed in the direction of the Temple and said, "Remember Nathan, there are people over there." That has been true of the Church from day one. It amazes me the narrowness of some who always use the examples of the human element of the faith as fodder to discredit the relevance of the historic governance in the body of Christ. The Orthodox church is well aware of issues facing it and speak to these issues often. For instance there is not yet a North American Autocephalous Church. The Orthodox Church in this hemisphere is represented by several Churches in the East, such as the Greek, the Russian, the Antiochian. All are still the same Orthodox Church but governed by individual entities which carry with them their own cultural flavors. I am delighted however, when I visit a local Orthodox Church with cultural elements different from mine, that I feel at home because the shape, ethos, and worship experience is familiar. As you look at the graph here realize that the Patriarch of each of these Churches follow a continuous succession of Partriarchs extending back to the conception of the Church. The Orthodox Church is the original Church and has preserved the faith of the Apostles. It is unchanging and in this way has prevented in every century and culture the propensity to "change with the times". While "change" may be a good word to some religious cultures, "change" is equal to heresy in the Orthodox faith. While other religious cultures are given to the newest movements or doctrines, you can be assured that when you enter the Orthodox faith, you are receiving the original doctrines of the faith of our fathers without mixture.

Where Jesus "Blew It"- The Incarnation and the Body of Christ

The title to this article may be an exercise in semantic misunderstandings. Before you judge me too harshly please consider:

"In the evening of the same day, the first day of the week, the doors were closed in the room where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews. Jesus came and stood among them. He said to them, 'Peace be with you,' and, after saying this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples were filled with joy at seeing the Lord, and he said to them again, Peace be with you.

'As the Father sent me so I am sending you.'

After saying this he BREATHED on them and said:

'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone's sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone sins, they are retained.'

So, Jesus blew it. He blew His Holy Spirit onto the Disciples. Why? He had already said He was sending the Comforter and, indeed, the Holy Spirit did come later at Pentecost. So, why did he blow it here prior to that? See what He said prior to blowing it, "As the Father sent me so send I you." To understand why He blew it, we must understand how and why the Father sent him. In this way we will understand how and why he sent the Disciples.

The Purpose

'Look, there is the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. John 1:29

As Christ showed up for his baptism, an event that would launch his physical ministry on earth, John states as the purpose for Christ being sent, to "take away the sins of the world." Sin is what separates humanity from God and Christ was to take it away. Christ told the Disciples that just as God sent him so now He sends them...to take away the sins of the world.

The Preparation

There was an event of ratification at the launching of Christ's ministry.

'I saw the Spirit come down ON him like a dove from heaven and rest on him.' John 1:32-33

Christ blew ON the Disciples in John 20. Of course, the breath is the actual Spirit. As he breathed ON them, something demonstrably happened to them. Just as when the Spirit came ON Christ at his baptism, something demonstrably happened to Him. In another account of Christ's baptism Matthew recalls the voice of God,

'This is my son, the beloved: my favor rests ON him.' Matt. 3:16

"In Jewish literature a voice from heaven is a means of showing the God-given authority of a teacher.' (Page 1613 30-N note-New Jerusalem Bible) So, "as the Father has sent me, so I send you" established the Disciples in their role and mission with the provision of the Spirit resting on them. In this instance and in that room, it is the voice of Christ as fully God who bestows authority on the Disciples.

The failure to understand the incarnation of Christ and the results of that incarnation on the Body of Christ causes some to miss what happened in that room in John 20. Now Christ brings the Disciples into his dual identity. The Disciples are natural flesh yet, now they are provided with the super-natural nature of Christ. In this way His incarnation remains effective on earth as He goes back to the Father. In this way the Disciples, as a group, become Christ on earth or the "Body of Christ." The Disciples are to take away the sins of the world through the presence of the Spirit ON them as they proclaim this good news. They have become The Church and that Church is the place where the sins of men are taken away.

The Personification

"If you forgive anyone' s sins they are forgiven, If you retain anyone's sins they are retained." Yes, men are given the authority to forgive sins, but not just in their humanity is this done. Rather, man can do this because in his humanity, he has taken on the Spirit nature of Christ and become His Body. Humans make up the body of Christ. Christ decided it so. We are flesh and yet move within the supernatural. The gulf between Heaven and earth is suspended and we, as His Body, live in both just as he did-Fully God and fully man. Now, lest you misunderstand, we are not "Gods" as some assert. Christ was fully God yet was referred to as the Son of God. We are Sons of God also, joint heirs with Christ. The sons of God are gathered as ONE, as the Body of Christ, not as individuals as the Evangelical Protestant Ethos asserts. Herein lies the promise of power as we move and live in and through the Corporate Body He established. It is the Body of Christ that is given the attributes of Christ. It is the Church. Apostle Paul illustrates this union relating it to a husband and wife, "

"...and that is the way Christ treats the Church, because we are parts of his Body. This is why man leaves his father and his mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two BECOME ONE FLESH. This mystery has great significance, but I am applying it to Christ and the Church."

So in the southern colloquial, "you" are not the Church, "you all" are the Church and that Church is united in flesh and Spirit. That means there is a tangible and there is a spiritual. The spiritual is seen when Christ blows it in John 20, but so is the tangible, because the result of Him blowing it is the creation of an authoritative, spirit empowered, physical entity. The physical part of the Church is the reason the Disciples had to replace Judas. "...Let another take his episcopacy." The Disciples were 12 in number. Do you recall seeing that number elsewhere? There were also 12 tribes of Israel. So the Trinity was in the midst of the Old Covenant and now in the midst of the New Covenant. It is within the those covenants that we "live and move and and have our being." It is in that physical structure that the Church exists and individuals are kept in the faith through the governance of their souls. The Old Covenant had Priests and the New Covenant has Priests, those who guard the souls of God's people and hold men accountable to God's standard of righteousness. So, from early on the Church has strived to maintain the "faith of the Apostles" because they were the authoritative initiators and presenters of all that Christ taught. If you will look at the revelation of John you will see the names of the original 12 etched with the original 12 tribes in the gates of the heavenly Jerusalem.

The Perpetuation

Ah, but did Christ really blow it, or was he short winded? He really should have thought further ahead, blown it a little harder. If only he had know that the Disciples were to die martyr's deaths. Such a tragedy. The Purpose was great, the Preparation was powerful, and the Personification was unprecedented but, after just a few hopeful years, the Disciples were dead and gone and the Church was dissolved. THE END...or was it...

"So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it." (Matthew 16:18)

So much energy has been spent discussing the words "Peter" and "rock" that we often overlook the most relevant word in this scripture-COMMUNITY. The word here is qahal (hebrew) or ekklesia (greek) which means "an assembly called together." Each and every time this word is used it has as it's meaning an actual physical group with specific characteristics. It is never an ethereal, undefined, ungathered, disconnected group of people whose only connection on earth is an intangible spiritual philosophy or belief. This community is the community of the end times and is to "have its beginning here on earth in the form of an organized society whose leader he now appoints." (page 1637 16g note New Jerusalem Bible)

So the Disciples spread out taking the gospel into all the world. The Community established local communities all in harmony and communion with one another. After a while there was a local community in Jerusalem where it all started, then Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Rome. These were the five sees of the community or the five original Churches established by the Disciples. Now, if Jesus hadn't really blown it, it all would have stopped as each Disciple died off. But what happened? The Church continued in continuity and unity and does so to this day. It is called the Orthodox Church whose Bishops still guard our souls and still preserve the Faith of our Fathers. All because Jesus blew it.

The Mother of God?

CONVERSATION WITH A PROTESTANT

ORTHO: Theotokos is greek for " Mother of God".

PROTEST: I have a problem with calling her "Mother of God".

ORTHO: Then, who was she the mother of?

PROTEST: She gave birth to Jesus.

ORTHO: And giving birth makes you a...

PROTEST: Mother.

OTHRO: Then Mary was the mother of...

PROTEST: Jesus.

ORTHO: And Jesus is...

PROTEST: God.

ORTHO: Then Mary is the Mother of God.

PROTEST: I have a problem with calling her that.

ORTHO: Apparently.

In my Protestant years which included being raised in a Baptist Pastor's home and a BA in Religion from a Baptist University all I knew about Mary, the mother of Jesus, was what I saw in the pages of the Gospels. I also never heard a sermon about the Mother of our Lord although she was mentioned at Christmas time. Even referring to her as "the Mother of our Lord" was frowned upon even though the phrase is directly from scripture. The fear, it seems in the Protestant world, is that Mary might be given due belonging only to God. It is this mindset that allows for inaccurate accusations toward the Orthodox faith concerning Mary. Three things have helped me gain a balanced perspective concerning this matter. One, is that there is a difference between "venerating" and "worshiping." You do not worship the photo of your Mother that may hang on your wall, but you do venerate it.

Venerate: to regard with reverential respect or admiring deference.

So, if the Archangel can say Mary is Blessed and that all men shall call her so, then I can and should venerate her as the whole church has done for 2000 years. She was and is the greatest example of holiness and servitude to God and was the first to receive the Christ for who he was and in quite a demonstrative way.

Secondly, I had to be honest about this question: "Where is Mary right now?" She isn't dead. She is in heaven. Is she lost in some corner somewhere because she is "just another person and no more important than any other" as some have suggested or is she with her son worshiping around the throne? If she is there with Jesus, can I ask her to pray for me? It has always been common of the church to ask the saints, the "great cloud of witnesses", to pray for us and this includes the Mother of God. Most Protestants believe there are some measures of crowns or rewards in heaven. Wouldn't Mary receive a special place or reward, or focus? The church has always held this to be true.

Thirdly, I like how my priest Father Steven Rogers put it: "We don't get to God through Mary, he came to us through her." It is in this way that she is the "mediator." Christ became incarnate by choosing a purified and holy human vessel.

Let's see how the Early Church Father's referred to Mary:

Irenaeus
"The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
"[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]" (Discourse on the End of the World 1 [A.D. 217]).

Gregory the Wonderworker
"For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David" (Four Homilies 1 [A.D. 262]).

"It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, ‘Hail, full of grace!’" (ibid., 2).

Peter of Alexandria
"They came to the church of the most blessed Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs" (The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria [A.D. 305]).

"We acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; he bore a body not in appearance but in truth derived from Mary the Mother of God" (Letter to All Non-Egyptian Bishops 12 [A.D. 324]).

Methodius
"While the old man [Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled" (Oration on Simeon and Anna 7 [A.D. 305]).

"Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away" (ibid., 14).

Cyril of Jerusalem
"The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness" (Catechetical Lectures 10:19 [A.D. 350]).

Ephraim the Syrian
"Though still a virgin she carried a child in her womb, and the handmaid and work of his wisdom became the Mother of God" (Songs of Praise 1:20 [A.D. 351]).

Athanasius
"The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God" (The Incarnation of the Word of God 8 [A.D. 365]).

Epiphanius of Salamis
"Being perfect at the side of the Father and incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth, he [the Son] reshaped man to perfection in himself from Mary the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

Ambrose of Milan
"The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?" (The Virgins 2:2[7] [A.D. 377]).

Gregory of Nazianz
"If anyone does not agree that holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead" (Letter to Cledonius the Priest 101 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome
"As to how a virgin became the Mother of God, he [Rufinus] has full knowledge; as to how he himself was born, he knows nothing" (Against Rufinus 2:10 [A.D. 401]).

"Do not marvel at the novelty of the thing, if a Virgin gives birth to God" (Commentaries on Isaiah 3:7:15 [A.D. 409]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia
"When, therefore, they ask, ‘Is Mary mother of man or Mother of God?’ we answer, ‘Both!’ The one by the very nature of what was done and the other by relation" (The Incarnation 15 [A.D. 405]).

Cyril of Alexandria
"I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?" (Letter to the Monks of Egypt 1 [A.D. 427]).

"This expression, however, ‘the Word was made flesh’ [John 1:14], can mean nothing else but that he partook of flesh and blood like to us; he made our body his own, and came forth man from a woman, not casting off his existence as God, or his generation of God the Father, but even in taking to himself flesh remaining what he was. This the declaration of the correct faith proclaims everywhere. This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin ‘the Mother of God,’ not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word, being personally united, is said to be born according to the flesh" (First Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430]).

"And since the holy Virgin corporeally brought forth God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh" (Third Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430]).

"If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [John 1:14]: let him be anathema" (ibid.).

John Cassian
"Now, you heretic, you say (whoever you are who deny that God was born of the Virgin), that Mary, the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, cannot be called the Mother of God, but the Mother only of Christ and not of God—for no one, you say, gives birth to one older than herself. And concerning this utterly stupid argument . . . let us prove by divine testimonies both that Christ is God and that Mary is the Mother of God" (On the Incarnation of Christ Against Nestorius 2:2 [A.D. 429]).

"You cannot then help admitting that the grace comes from God. It is God, then, who has given it. But it has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ is God. But if he is God, as he certainly is, then she who bore God is the Mother of God" (ibid., 2:5).


Council of Ephesus
"We confess, then, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his Godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in Godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her" (Formula of Union [A.D. 431]).

Okay. So maybe she is the Mother of God.

The Journey of a Hobbit Priest

Father Denzil Roland, my former priest in the Charismatic Episcopal Church, once told me he thought he might be a contented man just to live in the hills and raise chickens. He being "the most unlikely of men to serve as a priest", as he puts it. I have always lovingly referred to him as a "sawed-off hobbit of a priest". His short stature and robust build, his burley beard and personable demeanor, his cultural speech interlaced with an occational "I seen it" and "I done it", causes some, at first glance, to miss the powerhouse of a man he is. His power comes not from his keen mind, uncanny literary retention, masterful ability as a wordsmith, relentless pursuit of truth and holiness, but from his unwavering heart of servanthood. Christ said the servant is the greatest of all. That being true, I deem it an honor to have served at the altar with one such as he.

Father Denny, as he is most often called, celebrated his 10th year in the Charismatic Episcopal Church July 1, 2006. On that day, at his own request, he was released from his Holy Orders as a priest in the CEC to pursue Holy Orders with the Antiochian Orthodox Church. Little did I know or even dream possible that when we, two years ago, asked him to release us from his pastorate in the CEC Church so that we might become Orthodox, he too would soon step over into the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which is the Orthodox Church.

I am humbled and amazed at the work of God in the life of Father Denny. I am especially expectant for the Bishop of the Orthodox Diocese in which we serve, to know Father Denzil Roland as I have known him. The Church has been blessed this year by his entrance into the undivided faith of our fathers. I long for the day when I attend Father Denny's Chrismation service and am able to utter the words, "Welcome home Father. You have reached the destination and now the real Journey To Orthodoxy begins."

(Pictured above is Father Denny with my Daughter April and her Husband Greg on their wedding day. Father Denny administered the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.)

What Heaven Looks Like!

The more accurate title would be "What Heaven on Earth Looks Like". I don't know a better way to illustrate the title than to share with you this picture of my granddaughter, Lily. Why the reference to heaven? The obvious reference is the state of angelic ecstasy any of us feel when we look upon or embrace a child that we love, be it as parent, grandparent, aunt, or uncle. I have found the Kingdom of God becoming more tangible to me as I watch such innocent heavenly beings participate in the Orthodox Liturgy week after week. I watch with a heart of worship as parents or grandparents carry a child or lead them by the hand to light a candle and pray, or as the child is lifted up so they can kiss and venerate the icon of Mary or of Christ. The power of Heaven is most displayed and the Kingdom of God is closest it seems, when a three year old boy pauses before the the altar and bows as he crosses himself or a little hand reaches out to touch the hem of the priest's garment as he passes or a beautiful little girl opens her mouth and willingly receives the body and blood of our Lord in the Eucharist. Some parents of young children, who are making the Journey to Orthodoxy, are surprised or even disappointed that the Orthodox Church for the most part do not have nurseries for all ages during the Liturgy. The Protestant ethos has taught them a culture of segregation or separation. These parents have become accustomed to dropping the kids off in their nursery or Sunday school class and leaving them in someone else's care during the church service. The ethos of the Orthodox faith is one of community and family. The Liturgy is vital for everyone. Entire families, young and old, are present most of the time sitting together as a unit. I have watched with amazement the blending of the reverence and holiness of the Liturgy amidst the occasional noise from a baby or the typical toddler's banter followed by a mother's "shhh." In an Orthodox Liturgy this is all normal. The family is together as is the whole family of God in that Liturgical service of worship, all around the thrown of God with the saints of all the ages. That's What Heaven on Earth Looks Like because that's What Heaven Looks Like. My wife Cynthia and I understand the stress of caring for young children, having had five of our own. We understand the need for time to ourselves. We too, were also accustomed to the "break" that the one or two hours in church without the kids gave us to recharge our own spiritual batteries. It can be a challenge to adjust to the Orthodox way of inclusion, but think about it. We are converts to the faith. Because we include our children and not seclude them, they will grow up in the faith. They will be "Cradle Orthodox" and so will your grandchildren. Please pardon me if I envy you this time in your life. I wish we had found the one true faith when our children were young. Oh, for the opportunity you have! As distracted and stressed out you might be at times during the Liturgy, your children will grow. They will settle in. They will take on the true spirit of worship and so will you, for what better worship can you offer to the Holy Trinity than to present your children to Him week after week? Don't let the challenge of transitioning to being an Orthodox Parent keep you from the Church and the eternal benefits that await you and your entire family.

"Freedom In Worship" or Is Orthodoxy Charismatic?

Before becoming Orthodox I spent six years in the Charismatic Episcopal Church (CEC). Much like the predominately convert Antiochian Orthodox Church of which I am now a part, the CEC consisted of Protestant Evangelicals who felt a strong pull back toward the roots of the historic faith. But even though they had dialogues with the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese, the founders of the CEC decided not to become Orthodox. Rather, they decided to form their own separate communion so they could have the "freedom" to remain "Charismatic" in doctrine and practice. During my time as a faithful CEC member I visited a Greek Orthodox Church with my CEC priest to hear an Orthodox convert speak. The main thing that intrigued us was the fact that this particular speaker was a former pastor of a Vineyard Church and thus a "Charismatic" as we understood the term. I had a desire to know what would motivate such a man, who believed in the gifts of tongues, healing, prophecy and the like and was involved in the entire Charismatic ethos, to switch to a "dead" liturgical church that didn't believe in the power of God or the "freedom" of the Holy Spirit. My actual question came out more like, "Having been a Charismatic, what part do the gifts of the Spirit play in the Orthodox Church.?" He answered, "I have found that the Orthodox Church is the most charismatic Church on the planet." That one statement was enough to start me on my quest for truth in this area. But he added more fuel when he said, "I finally had to admit to myself that much of what I saw such as "prophecies" in public meetings and to individuals turned out to be false and could not be authenticated." So that was a double whammy. As I researched his two assertions, I found them both to be true. The charisms have always been in the Orthodox Church throughout all of history. Saints were given names like John the Wonder Worker, because of the power of the supernatural gifts that poured through their lives. The monastic orders saw and continue to see the supernatural elements of the faith throughout all of history. The sacrament of Holy Unction, for the healing of the body by the anointing of Holy Oil, is a normative practice. All of the gifts of the Spirit found in the scriptures are considered Orthodox. But the question is: Are the gifts being demonstrated authentically and are the venues in which they are being demonstrated scriptural or profitable venues?

THE CHARISMATIC CULTURE

As a former Evangelical Charismatic, now Orthodox, I have become aware that the Charismatic culture is simply another denominational substitute for the Faith of the Fathers. In fact, it is predominately western in nature, particularly having its origins in America. The obstacle most Charismatics face when considering the Orthodox Faith is not the validity of the scriptural gifts themselves, but the methods and application of the gifts, especially in corporate worship. I had a conversation with a Charismatic minister recently and in trying to answer his questions about Orthodoxy was confronted with his presumptive dogma. He asked me if we had the "power" of the Holy Spirit. I knew instinctively, having been where he is, that he was not asking about the existence of the power of the Holy Spirit but whether or not the Orthodox Church allowed the demonstration of certain gifts and manifestations in the same manner and venue that he embraced. He asked me specifically about the gift of healing. I explained to him the sacrament of Holy Unction and how the Holy Chrism or Oil is blessed by the Bishops of the church to anoint the sick. He seemed satisfied with my answer until he realized that we didn't allow for that sacrament during every Sunday service. He just kept repeating, "See, you don't have the power. You've got to have the power!" Not even my explanation that we did have Holy Unction Services at other times just for the sick and that we pray for individuals at other times according to the needs, would satisfy him. Because we didn't "flow with the Spirit" in our Church services as he saw it, we were powerless and not Charismatic. I have discovered that elements of this mindset permeate much of the resistance some Charismatics have toward the Orthodox Faith. Their desire to have "freedom in worship" means they want to sing certain types of music and change things up if "the Spirit leads." "What if someone wants to give a prophecy or a message in tongues during a service", they ask, "we have to give the Holy Spirit freedom." Having been a Charismatic minister I understand all too well the cultural idea that to have a plan or agenda in a given corporate worship service is considered limiting the Holy Spirit. It is the mantra of many Charismatic pastors or leaders to begin a corporate meeting with the words, "We have no agenda here, we're just going to let the Holy Spirit do what he wants to do." This brings us to our former Vineyard Pastor's second assertion. What really are the results of this cultural atmosphere of "free" worship? What has it actually produced and what is just smoke and mirrors? One writer has said,

"What scares me is the anti-intellectual, anti-critical-thinking philosophy that has spilled over into the church. This philosophy tends to romanticize the faith, making the local church into an "experience center" . . . Their concept of "church" is that they are spiritual consumers and that the church's job is to meet their needs."
 

From this modern western Charismatic ethos has come the promotion of the individual. They either say they must go to a church where they "feel comfortable" or where they can publicly display their spirituality by demonstrating their spiritual gifts. Public demonstrations have become such a traditional, cultural part of the worship services that unless such demonstrations occur it is determined the Holy Spirit didn't "show up." It is in this unscriptural and unhistorical cultural atmosphere that error is bred and false unaccountable demonstrations occur.

WHERE IS THE VALIDITY?

Just so you will fully understand my perspective please know that I am considered a prophetic person. (Although I don't claim to be a Prophet). I have given prophetic words by the will of God in public and in private. I have seen angels and have experienced spiritual visions and dreams. I have been a Charismatic musician and worship leader, and have written many worship songs. I have danced in the spirit, spoken in tongues and been "slain in the spirit". I have also served on staff at several non-denominational Charismatic Churches as worship leader and associate pastor. I believe fully the power of the Holy Spirit and the existence of all the gifts that are found in Him. What I have discovered and what I have had to humbly admit is that much of what I saw in the Charismatic Movement was not authentic; in fact much of what I saw and experienced was wrought with deception. Although we should not judge the motive of people's hearts, we have the responsibility to judge the results of that done in the name of Christ. My most shocking epiphany was when I realized that 99.9 % of the so-called miracles, healings, and prophetic words were nothing more than anecdotal fables, wishful thinking, or soulish activity that could not be verified. Not only could they not be verified but in most cases there is no requirement that they be verified. Because so much of the Charismatic manifestations have been proven to be false, a new twist on a scriptural doctrine has had to be embraced. One Charismatic leader states the premise of this new doctrine concerning prophetic words, "In Pentecostal circles, we differentiate between primary revelation, which is the Bible and which we consider infallible, and secondary revelation prophetic utterances that we do not consider infallible." So to them it is okay to give an erroneous "prophetic word" that directly affects the response and lives of individuals with no accountability toward its authenticity. When it comes to the thousands of healing "miracles" that don't take, the doctrine is espoused that either they didn't have enough faith, they need to work to "keep their healing", or they just received a partial healing. An honest student will have to admit that ALL of the scriptural healings were 100% and unquestionable and if a prophet erred in even one point of his message he was deemed a false prophet and was stoned. As a former Evangelical Charismatic, my eyes were really opened when I began to read actual documentation of prophecies and healings that were verifiably false (See www.deceptioninthechurch.com). What was especially shocking was the blatant false doctrines also espoused by the prophets and healers such as, "You don't have God in you. You are a God!", the belief that God consists of nine parts not three, and the uncanny parallels between the latest manifestations happening in the latest Charismatic revivals and the cults of the eastern gurus (See www.bible.ca/tongues.htm). Without going into a thorough apologetic discourse to these points I will trust the integrity of your search to discover the accuracy of this assessment.

HOW THE EARLY CHURCH REALLY WORSHIPED

One of the paradigm shifts that I experienced, concerns methods of worship and the misconception of how the Early Church worshiped. I assumed and was taught that what we did as modern Charismatics was a model of the early Church. I had the idea that the Early Church met in homes, sat around in circles, and spontaneously (without any agenda) began to sing contemporary songs, say impromptu prayers, give sermons, and quote their favorite scripture as the "Spirit led". Using the list of gifts found in the scriptures, I imagined that at any given time in a corporate gathering, an individual might stand up and deliver a corporate or personal prophecy, a message in tongues, or suggest, "I just feel we need to pray for Miriam right now." It was a given that this might go on for several hours or until the atmosphere ebbed or it was deemed that the Spirit was finished doing "His" work. (I highly recommend that you study the early heresy of Montanism, which parallels much of the Evangelical Charismatic mindset today. Around c. 156 A.D., a so-called prophet named Montanus launched a very charismatic environment, believing that the Holy Spirit spoke directly through him, and his followers. Montanists believed that they were receiving Divine Revelation, like the Old Testament prophets. The concern among the Bishops of the Church was that such emphasis on new prophetic revelation whether corporate or personal might be viewed on the same level as Holy Scripture and could interfere with people's understanding of the core message of the Scriptures and the pragmatic servanthood required to be a grounded Christian. Does this sound familiar?) Make no mistake, there is authentic prophecy. I, myself, have given revelatory personal words of prophetic wisdom to individuals and Church leaders since becoming Orthodox, but not in a public worship service! It is not needed, is not necessary, and is, frankly, not what the worship service is for. The Church embraces all the gifts but not the modern heresy- based method in which it has been promoted.
COMPARE THE ORTHODOX AND CHARISMATIC WORSHIP ETHOS

There is a vast difference in the worship ethos of the west and that of historic Christianity which has its ethos origins in the east. Evangelical Charismatics value highly the idea of the invisible church or "everyone is a priest" doctrine and thus devalue the sanctity of worship implements or places of worship. Charismatics are comfortable calling their buildings auditoriums or centers. Even those who refer to their places of worship as "sanctuaries" have no qualms about taking cokes or coffee inside or having ordinary conversations of earthly matters. With few exceptions they enter into the building to the sound of a loud roar of conversation. The "call to order" is usually the band or choir striking up the music causing all to scramble to their seats. In Orthodoxy the word "sanctuary" is taken literally. The Temple is specifically "set apart" for the worship of God. The architecture itself lends itself to the Old Testament Temple with the outer court, the inner court, and Holy of Holies. Where individual expression is the hallmark for worshipers in an Evangelical Charismatic service, in Orthodoxy the goal is for all to worship with one voice. Each person enters the door in reverence and quietness paying respect to the Saints who have gone on before by venerating their pictures. They then enter the inner court and light candles, pray, and bow in the direction of the Holy of Holies where the Altar rests. There is always an awareness that one is in the presence of the Holy Trinity, the Host of Angels, and the Great Cloud of Witnesses who are the Saints that continue to worship around the throne of God with us. 90% of the Liturgy is scripture and sung corporately to the Trinity and the people stand 90% of the time out of respect for what is being said and done. The contents of the gospel book are revered and people show respect by kissing the cover as the priest presents it. The priest is shown honor and respect as he represents Christ to the people. Some touch the hem of his vestment as he passes in remembrance of Christ passing by or kiss his right hand when greeting him because it is that hand that blesses and holds the Eucharist. The Altar area itself is reserved only for those who are sanctified to minister there. It is not treated as a common area or a simple platform stage as in most Evangelical Charismatic Churches. If something comes in contact with the Altar it is treated as holy and with respect. The public Charismatic expressions have always been subject to confusion and infiltration of error and always considered an aberration of the shape and ethos of Christian Worship. Saint Saraphim of Sarov (1759-1833) who once spent 1000 days and nights in prayer on a rock and later died in the kneeling position while in prayer, speaks of the ethos of holiness required by all who come to corporate worship:

"Never, God forbid, not for anything, not for anyone, should one speak in the sanctuary. Even if one were to have to suffer for it. For the Lord Himself is present there and in fear and trembling all the Cherubim and Seraphim and all the powers of God stand before him. Who then will speak before his face? Even when wiping the dust and sweeping the dirt from the Temple of God, one should not throw it carelessly anywhere. Even the dust of the temple of God is sacred. And the water also to be poured into a special clean place. There is no higher obedience than a church obedience and were it only to wipe the floor of the house of the Lord with a cloth this will be counted higher than any other action by God!"
What a drastic contrast to the noisy self-promoting environment of the Evangelical Charismatic ethos where the criteria for spirituality is how well one can prophecy or how "anointed" the music set was!

THE TRUE MODEL OF WORSHIP

What I discovered through the perusing of history and the writings of the Early Church Fathers was that it is the Orthodox Church that is the model of the early Church worship not the modern Charismatic culture. The early Christians were Jewish. They continued to worship at the synagogue on Saturday and to meet in houses on Sunday, or what came to be known as The Lord's Day. As the Lord's Day meetings continued to develop they continued the structure and order of the synagogue services. It was anything but the free-wheeling "no agenda" atmosphere. Everything was done "decently and in order" as Paul would later state when the Corinthians public usage of some of the spiritual gifts became unbalanced and led to confusion. The work or praise of the people (liturgy) was centered around the Eucharist and all that led up to the partaking of it was designed to tell the whole gospel story. History has provided us with documentation to this effect. In Justin Martyr's First Apology, c. 150 A.D we see the shape of the Liturgical service that the Church has preserved even to today.

"And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world;and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration."

So, does the worship in the Orthodox Church look Charismatic as we have discussed? The answer is "no". But I would not trade one Liturgy for all the Charismatic "freedom" in the world. One of the greatest spiritual moments I have had since becoming Orthodox was during the Liturgy. As we were all singing, suddenly my propensity for individual desires, personal tastes and preferences in worship based on my own cultural passions fell away and I became part of the whole. We were all singing with one voice. Let me say it again: it was as if one person was singing. I didn't lose my own identity and yet it was melded with the others present and the Saints of the ages who were also present just as the Church has maintained for 2000 years. The Charismatic world has many catch-phrases, one of them being "open heaven". You might hear someone say, "We are praying for an open heaven," or, in reference to the newest Charismatic movement, "There is an open heaven over there." Heaven is truly open every time the Orthodox Liturgy ("work" or "glory" of the people) takes place and we have, not just some ethereal move of the Holy Spirit, but the fullness of the Holy Trinity in our midst and we actually take the Presence of Christ into our bodies by way of the Eucharist.

ORTHODOXY IS REAL FREEDOM

Until now you may have sincerely embraced the Charismatic because it is what you have known and I am sure there has been some value and comfort to you in it. Take heart as you Journey to Orthodoxy. There is room for expressions of worship outside the Liturgy through concerts, CD's and the like. In fact it may encourage you to know, being that our Orthodox Church is located in Nashville, we have as members, several contemporary Christian recording artists who don't feel a lack of freedom at all and whose CD's are available on our own Orthodox Bookstore. We have also had wonderful times of worship in Church fellowships and our annual talent show where different expressions are given freedom. There is also a place and proper time to move within all of the gifts of the Holy Spirit under the umbrella of the "One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." Just remember, it is the Charismatic culture you have been living in that is the foreign one and not Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is meant for you and you are meant for it. My wife and I and our children found this out first hand when we stepped into the Orthodox faith. We knew it was The Faith but also knew that the culture and customs of it might be a shock to our senses. So, we agreed to attend the Liturgy in an Antiochian Orthodox Church for three months before deciding whether or not we "liked" it. I am happy to say, it didn't take that long. The best is yet to come for you in the fullness and the worship of the Church. You are meant to become part of the whole. Don't fear what the Church of the Living Trinity has preserved for all of the body of Christ for hundreds of years. The Holy Trinity is waiting to meet you there as are the myriads of other former Evangelical Charismatics which includes all the saints of the ages who have come before you. May God continue to bless you in your Journey to Orthodoxy.