The Antiochian School

The Antiochian School of Biblical Exegesis

Paul Nadim Tarazi

The Word 30 (1986) 7-9 Beloved brothers and sisters in the Christ and Lord Jesus: Besides the great names you already know about and you will hear in the Church from time to time, Antioch became known in the fourth and fifth centuries for its tradition of biblical exegesis represented in Diodor of Tarsus, the city of the Apostle Paul, his students Theodore of Mopsuestia and St John Chrysostom, as well as later Theodoret of Cyrus. Unlike the biblical approach prevailing in Alexandria at that time which made much use of allegory in its interpretation of Scripture, the Antiochian school stressed the primacy of historical exegesis. The Alexandrian Allegory Allegory tends to find different meanings in the one text, the premise being that men undergo three different stages in their seeking after God and union with Him: the lowest being the 'physical', then the 'psychological', and the highest being the 'spiritual.' At each of these levels, the allegorists say, man is capable of a different understanding of the same text, which thus offers different levels of meanings, the deepest being the 'spiritual.' From there it was only a tiny step to saying: the text itself has three different meanings! Now the fallacy as well as danger of such an approach lies in that its premise was rooted in a philosophical system that was alien to the Bible. This system conceived of creation as being essentially evil and thus of man's salvation as an 'inward' discovery, as well as growth in the knowledge of God, with whom eventually man becomes one. Consequently, history -- which is interaction between man and his fellow within the setting of creation -- is discredited as irrelevant. Furthermore, the text itself of the Bible becomes, as it were, at the mercy of the individual interpreter who could thus stretch it as far as his own interests dictate. In other words, the Bible becomes a mere crutch to prop our own preset ideas and preferences instead of the challenging and -- why not? -- upsetting Word of God. The Antiochian Approach to the Bible The Antiochian school reacted against such an approach and underscored the historicity of the Bible, namely that the latter consists of texts written by individuals to others at a given time of human history in the specific language as well as mindset of that time. Consequently, a given text can have only the one meaning intended by its author. One should note here that the case of double-meaning in some passages is not to be equated with two meanings; indeed: (a) the former radically differs from the latter in that it is still considered to be addressed to the same reader and not to two different kinds of readers as in the allegorical approach; (b) the exegete is to clearly prove that a given biblical author is intending the double-meaning in a given text. [NOTE: a telling example of double-meaning is the verb "to be lifted up" as used by the evangelist John and which means both "to be lifted up upon the cross" as well as "to be lifted up in glory."] Now, if the Antiochians insisted on the correctness of such an approach, it was not, as it is for many a modern biblical scholar, a question of technicality, but the reason was rather and foremost theological. To be sure, the Bible is not a philosophical treatise on the subject "Godhead and manhood and their relationship," but rather, a witness to God's actions in the realm of human history culminating with Jesus of Nazareth, God incarnate. Thus, biblical exegesis cannot have as its premise an abstract Godhead -- that actually never existed nor ever will! -- but the man Jesus, son of Mary, flesh of her flesh, who lived in first century Palestine and who spoke first century Palestinian Aramaic and very possibly first century Hellenistic Greek. It is this historical Jesus who is the Son of God and through whom we get to know this living God. It is the Spirit of this historical Jesus who opens for us the door toward a personal relationship with this personal God and not with an abstract Godhead. It is the flesh and blood apostles of this flesh and blood Jesus who preached, not to human generations at large, but the men and women who lived around them in first century Asia, Africa, and Europe, speaking to them, not in some sort of magical language, but in the actual languages spoken in those different areas at that time. Thus, in their exegesis, the Antiochians took seriously creation as well as time and space, which it entails, not so much due to a more scientific and realistic stand, but rather and foremost because of Jesus who, they learned from the Bible as well as their Christian Faith, was a human, and thus historical being and in whom as such, i.e. as human being, God was revealed. The outcome of such an approach was that the Bible was not for them the eternal Word of God -- abstraction of abstractions, for, whom would God be addressing in eternity? -- but rather the New Testament was a collection of first hand witness to that historical Jesus and to the faith of the apostles, who both lived centuries earlier, while the Old Testament was a collection of books relating the actions in a well-defined past history, not of an abstract Godhead, but of the Father of Jesus. And, for the Antiochians, these collections were alive because they were real, and they were real because they were, not present, but past! Thus the Antiochians cherished them by studying them, searching them and digging into them with the intention of seeking Jesus, their bread of life. They sought him by day and in the nightwatches, leaning their head as well as heart over the text, knowing that he will meet them in it and hoping that it will be sooner than later. They sought him, I said, because they knew that they were not dealing with an eternally present abstract Godhead triggered by an 'inward' search of one's soul, but rather the historically crucified, dead and resurrected Jesus who, as the living and thus free Lord, made Himself present to them by coming to them as He did among His disciples in the early church. Another and no less important outcome of their approach is especially reflected in the life and teaching of one of them, the incomparable John Chrysostom whose exegesis was always conceived and intended to feed the people of God through life-giving homilies. Since they started, not with an abstract Godhead, but with the real and historical Jesus, God and man, the Antiochians took seriously His humanity, i.e. His having been man. By this I mean that they gave full heed to the fact that Jesus Himself, the Son of God and God, took extremely seriously the human beings by becoming one of them. Thus, in their eyes, every human being was viewed, not as a symbolic reflection of an abstract Godhead, but rather as a real image of, i.e. really similar to, the man Jesus who is God. This meant that every human being was divinely valuable, yes every human being including the poor, the needy, the sick and the down-trodden with whom Jesus associated Himself in the same vein as His Father who, through the Old Testament prophets, took in His own hands the case of the poor, the needy, the widow, the orphan, the alien and those who suffered injustice. This explains why St John Chrysostom uncompromisingly stood for such human beings in Antioch as well as in Constantinople, in his homilies as well as in his attitudes, to the extent that he even paid with his own life for such a stand. Studying the Bible in America If this is our tradition, if this is the way in which our forebears expressed the life-giving Faith they handed down to us, if this is what we hold most dearly, then the question is: How are we to live up to this our calling, today and in this land? Our first duty pertains to the Bible and its place in our lives. We live in a country where the Bible is held in high esteem and thus a great opportunity is offered us to witness for our faith. But how would we do that if we do not know what the Bible says? And how would we know the Bible if we do not read and study it? And how would we study it if we are not willing to dedicate hours, researching the biblical text and discussing it with our fellow Orthodox? However a caveat is in order here: we ought not do as the large majority of the people here, namely start with a preset mind as to what the biblical message is all about by referring to a cluster of preferred passages and then proceed to read the rest of the Bible from this narrow perspective and impose on it our views. The Bible is a collection of writings amounting to well over one thousand pages that were written over a long period of time. Unless we are ready to engage in a lifelong serious study of how God has historically revealed Himself to us by researching the actual text, and be ready to question ourselves and our understanding on the basis of what it actually says ... unless we are ready to do this out of our belief that our God is not an ever-present abstract Godhead we have at the tip of our fingers, but a living God who revealed Himself once and for all in times past in the man Jesus of Nazareth ... unless we understand that every translation into English or any other language is already the interpretation of the translator imposed upon the reader and that the historical Bible is to be read historically, i.e. in the language and setting in which it was written and thus meant -- unless we are ready to humbly embark (with the help of our fellows who on our behalf have humbly undertaken the study of such) on this journey and be willing to sit in groups in our local parishes and seek Jesus Himself within the pages of the Bible ... unless the pages of our bibles have been dirtied and torn from our handling them ... the face of Jesus as carried by the Orthodox Faith will not shine brightly and convincingly on the people of our countries, both who read and those who do not read the Scriptures, both who believe in Christ and those who do not. Living and Witnessing the Biblical Message Our second duty stems from taking seriously the humanity of Jesus, our Lord and God. Antioch, most expressly in the name of St John Chrysostom, the prince of the exegetes of not only Antiochian but also catholic Orthodoxy, normative Father and teacher of not only the Antiochian but also the catholic church ... Antioch demands from us that we uncompromisingly speak for and uphold the case of every needy, poor, suffering and captive, hungry for both bread and justice, downtrodden and especially forgotten, not only in this country but throughout the whole world. Let us be reminded here that the word "impossible" that might come to mind at this juncture has been erased once and for all from Christian vocabulary by the God-man Jesus. Here again, unless we seriously heed this other and essential facet of our Faith, namely our uncompromising commitment to the neighbor in need whose defender is God Himself, the divine blessings bestowed upon this country because of its people's interest in the Bible might well turn, and sooner than we imagine, into divine wrath proclaimed by the same Bible. And then, woe to us Antiochians for we will be accounted forfeiters of the duty put on our shoulders by God Himself through centuries of living tradition. Woe and again woe to us then, for the Son of Man Himself will be our prosecutor and His accusation will be that we will have shied from witnessing Him as the philanthropos, the lover of man. Let us not imagine that we could come up with a pertinent excuse, namely that this country is Christian and that we imagined the people here would know what the Bible requests from them. Vanity of vanity is such an excuse, for it was in a Christian empire that St. John Chrysostom incessantly raised his voice exegeting the Bible teaching, and like the prophets of old castigating the oppressor while soothing the pain of the oppressed -- and it was that same Christian empire which put to death that great Antiochian champion of God's philanthropia, God's love for man. The Cross as Our Reference Children of Antioch: You heard it well. Antiochian biblical exegesis, true exegesis, is not a selfish manipulation of the text in order to insure a false security in a dream of ours we like to call heaven.' It is rather a true seeking of the man Jesus who reveals himself to us as Almighty God on the cross, Almighty indeed because it is then, says the Apostle, that "every knee bows in heaven, on earth and under the earth, at the name of Jesus" (Phil 2:10). Antiochian exegesis is a true seeking of the God-man Jesus and His heaven where true eternal rest lies and it is the cross that was the only place mentioned in the gospels where the Son of Man that had no place to lay his head did finally lay it. There, on the cross, lies our security because there God reveals His heavenly face surpassing judgment and condemnation, namely in that He is the monos philanthropos, the only lover of man. Children of Antioch: Today, if you have heard the voice of the only lover of man, go and study the Bible, go and speak up for the bereft. Children of Antioch: Today, if you have heard the voice of the only lover of man, do not harden your hearts (Heb 3:7-8). Amen.

THE PURPOSE OF MAN'S LIFE

THEOSIS* - DEIFICATION AS THE PURPOSE OF MAN'S LIFE By Archimandrite George Abbott of the Holy Monastery of St. Gregorios on Mount Athos

---

DEIFICATION AS THE PURPOSE OF MAN'S LIFE

The issue of the destiny of our lives is very serious, because it concerns the most important question for man: the purpose for which we are placed on earth. If man takes a correct stance on this subject, if he finds his actual destiny, he can then take also a correct stance regarding particular questions, and those that arise in his daily life, such as his relationships with other people, his studies, profession, marriage and the bearing and upbringing of children. However, if he does not take the correct stance on this basic issue, then he will also fail in his particular goals. Because what meaning can particular goals have, if human life as a whole has no meaning? The purpose of our life is declared already by the first chapter of the Holy Bible, when the holy author tells us that God created man ‘in His image and likeness’. We thus ascertain the great love that the Triune God has for man: He does not wish him simply to be a being with certain gifts, certain qualities, a certain superiority over the rest of creation, but He wishes him to be a god by Grace. Externally, man seems to be just a biological being, like other living beings, the animals. Of course, he is an animal, but ‘an animal ... which can be deified through its inclination towards God’, as St. Gregory the Theologian characteristically says (Homily on the Epiphany MPG 36, 324, 13). He is the only being that stands apart from all creation; the only one which can become a god. ‘In His image’ refers to the gifts which God gave only to man, alone among all His creatures, so that he constitutes an image of God. These gifts are: a rational mind (gr. nous), conscience, and self-authority, in other words freedom, creativity, eros, and the yearning for the absolute and for God, personal self-awareness, and anything else which puts man above all other living beings in creation, and makes him a man and a personality. In other words, everything that makes man a person. These are the gifts of the ‘in His image’. Having been formed ‘in His image’, man is called upon to be acquire the ‘in His likeness’, in other words, deification (gr. theosis). The Creator, God by nature, calls man to become a god by Grace. The gifts of ‘in His image’ were given to man by God so that that he may ascend very high; so that through them he may attain a likeness to his God and Creator; so that he may have not an external, moral relationship, but a personal union with his Creator. Perhaps it is very daring for us even to say or think that our purpose in life is to become gods by Grace. However, neither the Holy Bible nor the Church Fathers have hidden this from us. Unfortunately, there exists ignorance in people outside the Church, but also in many within the Church, because they assume that the purpose of our life is, at best, simply moral improvement, to become better men, whereas this is not what is given to us by the Gospel, by the Tradition of the Church, and by the holy Fathers: that man should only improve, become more moral, more just, more self-controlled, more mindful. All these must be done, but they are not the great purpose, the final purpose for which our Maker and Creator formed man. What is this purpose? Deification (gr. theosis) – for man to be united with God, not in an external or a sentimental way, but ontologically, really. This is how high Orthodox anthropology places humanity. If we compare the anthropologies of all the philosophies, social and psychological systems with Orthodox anthropology, we will ascertain very easily how poor these are; how they fail to respond to man’s great yearning for something very great and true in his life. Since man is ‘called to be a god’, i.e. he was created to become a god, as long as he does not find himself on the path of deification (gr. theosis) he feels an emptiness within himself; that something is not going right; he feels no joy, even when he is trying to cover the emptiness with other activities. He may numb himself, create a fancy world, but at the same time poor, small and limited, and cage and imprison himself inside it. He may organise his life in such a way that he is never quiet, alone with himself. He can try, through noises, tension, television, radio, continuous information about this and that, as if with drugs, to forget, to not think, not worry, not remember that he is not on the right path, that he has strayed from his purpose. In the end, however, the wretched, contemporary man finds no rest until he finds that ‘something else’, the greatest thing that actually exists in his life, the truly beautiful and creative. Can man unite with God? Can he commune with Him? Can he become a god by Grace?

7th Sunday of Pascha

7th Sunday of Pascha VESPERS Genesis 14:14-20 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus. And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people. And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale. And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. Deuteronomy 1:8-11, 15-17 Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them. And I spake unto you at that time, saying, I am not able to bear you myself alone: The LORD your God hath multiplied you, and, behold, ye are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude. (The LORD God of your fathers make you a thousand times so many more as ye are, and bless you, as he hath promised you!) So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes. And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it. Deuteronomy 10:14-21 Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is. Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name. He is thy praise, and he is thy God, that hath done for thee these great and terrible things, which thine eyes have seen. MATINS (X) John 21:1-14 After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he himself. There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples. Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing. But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus. Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No. And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes. Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea. And the other disciples came in a little ship; (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits,) dragging the net with fishes. As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread. Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught. Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken. Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise. This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead. LITURGY Acts 20:16-18, 28-36 For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost. And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons, Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive. And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all. John 17:1-13 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

Antiochian Church still growing

Churches that hold to original beliefs, traditions growing

By JAMES D. DAVISReligion EditorApril 26, 2008

Cory Dorta tried those big new warehouse churches with rock music and upbeat sermons. He went back to Orthodoxy. "It was fun and games, but it wasn't church," Dorta, 20, said in the foyer of St. Philip Antiochian Orthodox Church in Davie as incense and ancient hymns filled the air. "I like more discipline." That solid feel, of clinging to truth in a trend-driven world, is what helps the church keep about 75 percent of its young people attending, according to Bishop Antoun of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese. "People today are thirsty and hungry to know the truth," Antoun said after a Holy Week service this week at St. Philip's. "Faith and truth — that's what lasts." Antoun, whose Diocese of Miami and the Southeast covers nine states, has been in South Florida on a round of services. On Wednesday, he anointed people with oil and wine at St. Philip's. On Thursday night, he led a procession around St. Mary parish in West Palm Beach during the Twelve Gospel Readings of the Passion of Christ. The bishop returned to St. Philip's on Friday for the Funeral and Burial Service of Jesus Christ. And tonight, he'll lead the Resurrectional Service at 10 p.m. at St. George Cathedral in Coral Gables. The Antiochians are part of the Eastern Orthodox Communion, which includes Greek, Russian and Ukrainian groups. The Orthodox pride themselves on keeping the old-time religion from the oldest times. They still uphold the teachings of the first seven church councils, which ended in the eighth century, before the Eastern and Western churches parted ways. One such point is the date of Easter, which they're celebrating more than three weeks after their Catholic and Protestant brethren. The Orthodox keep the original standard to observe Easter after Passover, a rule dropped by Western churches in the 16th century. Most Antiochian Christians are ethnically Syrian and Lebanese, and a few of the prayers are said in Arabic. But the church is rapidly Americanizing and has drawn thousands of converts from Baptist, Methodist, Episcopal and other churches. Antoun, 77, is the senior among the six Antiochian bishops of Canada and the United States, where a half-million Antiochians live. They're increasing by a thousand or more per year — sometimes by whole congregations, he said. "They're all just looking for the full truth of the church," the bishop said. "They decided to return to the New Testament religion." The church also has made some practical moves, he said. The church runs a camp, school, museum and library on 403 acres in Ligonier, Penn. It all amounts to a lasting home for young people, like Cory Dorta. "I don't understand why so many churches preach different messages," he said. "Other churches base their beliefs on the Bible. But the Orthodox Church made the Bible." source: http://www.orthodoxnews.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=USNews.one&content_id=16949&CFID=26139589&CFTOKEN=29285412

Brikhta

"The Saint is still called by the residents of Maaloula Brikhta, which is an Aramaic word and means the Blessed, for she used to bestow her blessings to the Pilgrims visiting her tomb, even after her death." Believers who gather round it. It is said: everyone who pays a pilgrimage to her monestery, prays before her tomb and drinks of the water of her rocks would be blessed and all of what he wishes would be granted by God through her meditation. Due to the abundance of the sepulchre wonders and the people's increase of faith towards this sacred sepulchre, some of the people of the Western world countries tried to transport her mortal remains to their country; for she gave them aid during their numerous victories which they begot after obtaining her blessings from her renowned tomb, her superflowing water; how many time she guided them at dangers and perils; but the wish of God prevented such acts and her mortal remains stayed in her place which is a great treasure that the monastery preserved till this day. Saint tekla was called the First Martyr because she was the first Christian woman who was exposed to torture and persecution for the sake of God. She was given the title of: The equal to Messenger or apostles because she carried on preaching, calling and teaching as if she were one of the Twelve Apostles. That is why she deserved to be called: "Saint Tekla" or "Mar Tekla" because the ward Mar is an Aramaic word given as a title to the Saints of man only; but she was awarded this name due to her similarity to apostles through her performance of baptism which they granted to the Christian believers. Maaloula is a Kalamonian Syrian town which lies to the north-east of Damascus- the Capital of Syria, and it is 56 km. away from it. It is surrounded by the Kalamoun Mountains which connect it with the Kalamoun Chain of mountains that the Saint passed through in her journey. Its houses are the only ones in Syria which are built on the rocks going up over each other in the shape of a strange amphitheatre through which roads are nearly scarce except for narrow paths which seem to the on-lookers as beehives. The interior of these houses are not but caves in which the inhabitants take refuge in their stronghold sites. The wooden ancient ladders are still a witness of what if it had seen of bad crucial days. The inhabitants of Maaloula are distinguished with that the Aramaic language that Jesus Christ spoke is still wide-spread and spoken among them. It is their mother-tongue. We still hear some of the words of Jesus Christ in the Holy Bible written in Aramaic utterance. The Nunnery of Saint Tekla in Maaloula is the destination in this area by all religions and sects. It is the mother nunnery which embraces all visitors with humbleness. Those who make vows and pilgrims; we say "pilgrims" because it is one of the sacred places which Christian and Moslems visit before they go for pilgrims to the Holy city Jerusalem to visit the Holy Tomb and the Holy Al-Aksa Mosque. The Nunnery is now an Orthodix Nunnery Institution attached to the Patriarchate Center in Damascus, in which virgin nuns dwell patroned by the chief nun who dedicate themselves for worship, prayers and serve the monastery including reception of the kind visitors of the Holy Sepulchre. Beside the dignity of Saint Tekla, Christians built an altar to perform prayers to God. This was done in the First three Christian Centuries and is still aimed to visit the Saint's tomb "Mar Tekla" used to go up wooden and soil ladders. Since those early days till now it is its present state. In the Nunnery there is a church to perform prayers and devine mass, with a museum that contains different tools that are not used nowdays, ancient copper and clay utensils that are dated to the twelfth Christian Century. The Monastery includes now external buildings for the stay of visitors. These buildings were built in the nineteenth century. Building and renewal are continuous till this day by virtue of the wish of those responsible persons in it, those guardians and the bounty of the beneficient believers and their benevolent contributions. May God recompense them all in his Kingdom in Heaven. This Nunnery is concidered one of the most Holy Christian consecrated places after the Holy Jerusalem that is thronged with visitors who come from all over the world pray and be blessed all over the year. source: http://www.maaloula.net/src/tbrikhta.htm

Brief History of The Ethiopian Church

Adapted from what has been written in "THE LITURGY OF THE ETHIOPIAN CHURCH",By Archbishop Yesehaq, Addis Ababa, 27th February, 1954. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, an indigenous and integral Church of Africa is one of the oldest Churches in the world, if not the oldest one, and is a founder member of the World Council of Churches. It has branches in other parts of the world such as Jerusalem, Sudan, The United States of America, Canada, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Bermuda and England. From the beginning the Church was affiliated with See of St. Mark of Alexandria. After Frumentius, her first Archbishop died, Egyptian bishops were appointed to head the Church; until 1959 a complete independence was granted. This connection was discontinued for a while because of the conquests occurred by Caliph Omar, a Moslim (634 - 644 A.D. ). During these conquests the Byzantine Empire was pushed out of Syria altogether. Armenia was overrun, all Mesopotamia was conquered and Persia beyond the river. Egypt passed through much temptations. The Church is in full communion with Jacobite Church of Syria, the Church of Malabar in India, and the Armenian Church. It also maintains friendly relations with many other Christian Churches. Protestant missionaries have been allowed in the country since the reign of Menelik II whereas during the times of Emperor Tewodros (Theodore) (1838) and Yohannes (John) (1886) they were not allowed. These missionaries have their greatest activities in the western part of the country where it borders with former European colonies. When one speaks of the E.O.C. one speaks directly about the nation and their civilization. Intelligence and justice of the country were originated in the Church; its Head being the Lord Jesus Christ. The Church is the creator of art and crafts, literature, as well as creator of the secular and theological educational institutions and its curriculum. Until the time of Emperor Menelik II the Church was responsible for educating the nation. Even the Fetha Nagast (The Laws of Kings) which is composed of Canon Law and Civil Law is the creation of the Church. Early Types of Worship in Ancient Ethiopia No doubt the element of all kinds of forms of worship were practiced in the country especially the sun god which was widely known in Axum, one of Ethiopia's earliest Kingdoms. Sun god worship became widely practiced in Arabia in the town of Yemen. These Arabians a Cushite semetic people, migrated across the Red Sea to the South of Axum taking with them their sun god and moon worship and other cultures. Sun worship became widely practiced up to the point when the Queen of Sheba rose up during the era of King Solomon where she "admitted that she was a sun worshipper, though others adores stones, trees and grave images." Sun god worship was also current in Egypt. It was also believed that during this early stage, - "the worship of the serpent was popular and Ethiopians offered sacrifices to it. This is confirmed to some extent by archaeological evidence found at Axum. On a stelae at Axum an engraving of serpent is still visible today, though the worship of the serpent was spread through almost all the nations of the Middle East. We have reason to believe that this cult was introduced directly to Ethiopia; from Persia. The description in Avesta, the Sacred Book of Persia concerning this matter, is identical with the tradition found in Ethiopia". Nevertheless, Ethiopia is the first African nation to appreciate and worship the One True God of Old Testament and adopted the Judaic element (1,000 B.C.). It was even said that the idea of worship of one God has been in existence earlier. This was confined to a limited number of families. Later this disappeared when a segment of the population strayed to all forms of worship. The worship of the true God was officially announced and established by Queen Makeda on her return from her historic visit to King Solomon at Jerusalem. This powerful Queen had managed to reign over parts of southern Arabia in Sabaea (Sheba), and because of this was titled, Queen of Axum and Sheba. Her long and strenuous journey to Palestine in Search of righteousness, was a symbol of great faith, and so our Lord Jesus Christ, over a thousand years later, spoke of her to the continuing generations, that she "shall rise up in the judgement with this generation and shall condemn it: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, a greater than Solomon is here" (Matt. 12:42). The Queen was then converted to the worship of the true God. Her conversion was the light she found in King Solomon's wisdom - the light who is God and therefore, greater than Solomon. Makeda stayed in Jerusalem for six months during which time her union with Solomon produced King Minelik I, who was born while she journeyed back to Ethiopia. She condemned other types of worship and introduced to her people the true light. About Makeda and her work, a wealth of information is to be found in the book of Kebre Negest (The Glory of Kings) from which most of this section is cited. The Kebre Negest, States that when Menelik grew up he visited his father in Jerusalem; and came back home accompanied by Azarias, the son of Zadok the high priest and many other Israelites carrying with them the Ark of the Covenant, and placed it in the St. Mary of Zion Church in Axum, which is the birthplace of the Ethiopian civilization. The Ethiopian Falasha in northern Ethiopia who practice after the Judaism formula to this day, are to be descendants of those who accompanied Menelik. From this point of view Judaism and paganism were in effect in Ethiopia. The later was short-lived while the former became a channel for direction and introduction towards Christianity. The Introduction of Christianity into Ethiopia (The Ethiopian Eunuch) The country embraced Christianity and maintained the doctrine of Christ from the era of the Apostles to the present day, as it is narrated in (Acts 8:26-39). The history of St. Phillip the Apostle baptizing the Eunuch who was very much interested in religion, is of great interest for the Ethiopian Church history. This Eunuch was a man of high rank, the finance minister of Candace Queen of Ethiopia. Eusebius speaks of him as the first fruits of the faithful in the whole world. Irenius writes that preached the Gospel of the Ethiopians. Other evidence is that during the time that the Eunuch preached Christianity, Ethiopian women wore crosses upon their heads signifying the recognition of the Crucifixion of Christ. Besides St. John Chnysostom witnessed that among those who were present at Pentecost (the birth of the Universal Church) were Ethiopians. In the history of the Church, it is further recorded that St. Matthew the Apostle preached the Gospel to the Ethiopians and won a few converts to the new doctrine and left the country. Frumentius - First Bishop of Ethiopia The book of St. Tekle Haymanot tells us that in the beginning of the fourth century after Christ, there came to Ethiopia Meropius, a philosopher (pilgrim) from Tyre, accompanied by two young men, Frumentius and Aedesius (Sidrakos). They were received graciously by Anbaram the high Priest. In that very night Meropius was ill with fever and after a few days he died. But the two young men were introduced to the King Ella-Amida; they grew up in the house of Anbaram, learning the customs and life-style of Ethiopia. Later Frumentius was chosen and was sent to Alexandria, then Patriarch Athanasius consecrated him bishop and sent him back. Upon arrival in Axum, he was called Abba Selama (Father of Peace). As the first Archbishop he preached the gospel throughout the country. The book of St. Tekle Haymanot tells nothing about whatever occurred in relation to Aedesius, but according to the information given by Rufinus, a contemporary writer, he was made a priest in Tyre. Emperor Ezana (Edna) and Christianity According to the western historians and writers the introduction of Christianity to Ethiopia was in the fourth century during the reign of Ezana (320-356 A.D.) and Ezana became the first African King to have been a Christian and to have made Christianity the official religion of his empire. Nevertheless, Christianity was certainly known in the country before the time of Frumentius. Of course, Candace whose conversion had been due to the Eunuch becomes the first Christian Queen of the country. The official declaration of the doctrine of Christ by Ezana was done not as a new introduction to the people, he did it ti prove himself as the true Christian leader of the nation. http://exile.eotcholysynod.org/modules.php?name=3History __._,_.___

Pride Masquerades as Humility

by Archimandrite [now Archbishop] Chrysostomos

There is also a strange pride which presents itself as the standard of humility. This false humility is almost wholly the product of self-righteous hypocrisy. It is perhaps, indeed, the most transparent kind of false humility‹and yet, it is probably the most frequent. I saw it in its most spontaneous form once while visiting the city of San Francisco. In this, the most Orthodox of American cities (the city where St. Peter the Aleut was martyred by Jesuits in the nineteenth century and where the relics of a contemporary saint, Blessed Archbishop John Maximovitch, rest), I felt less out of place as an Orthodox clergyman among predominantly non-Orthodox people. Given this, I was astounded when a passer-by commented, within my hearing, that I was "nothing more than a Pharisee." It surprised me, too, that his companion responded with rather unflattering remarks about my appearance. While this is not an unusual occurrence among Orthodox clergymen who keep traditional dress, I had been particularly struck because it had happened in a place where I did not expect it. And this prompted me to think more seriously about these hecklers. Many find, in their desire to "fit into society," a rather strange basis upon which to accuse others of arrogance. Walking down the street in the traditional garb of an Orthodox clergyman almost immediately puts one out of step with the rest of society. And it is precisely this that identifies a Christian. If anything could be said about the Pharisees, aside from their spiritual pride, it would be that they were, indeed, in the mainstream of the then contemporary religious scene. And it was, to be sure, not their manner of dress which brought Christ's condemnation upon them. It was precisely their acceptance in society, their exploitation of religion as away of gaining social respect. And above that, their judgmentalism and wholly external grasp of the spiritual were the very things which the Christian message so fundamentally challenged. If there were modern Pharisees, it would seem to me that one might find them on the street, condemning Priests in clerical garb as Pharisaical, all the while imagining themselves humble by adhering to the social trend. We see this same false humility in the sometimes fanatic avoidance of the special dress, beard, and hair prescribed for Orthodox clergymen in the 102 canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Especially in the United States, Orthodox clergymen have proclaimed that they must not separate themselves from the laity by their dress. They eschew the traditional form of dress with such great vehemence that a modernist clergyman once told me that he would commit suicide before he would appear on the street in Orthodox clerical clothing. It is the vehemence of these declarations which betrays the ostensible humility of not wishing to separate oneself from the laity. (In fact, of course, the laity themselves, in traditional Orthodoxy, are also required to separate themselves from the prevailing fashions of the times.) Amidst the historically untenable protestation that Orthodox clerical dress derives from the "Turks," that it is Pharisaical, or that it is simply uncomfortable, one discerns that the actual problem is that the clergy lack two forms of humility: one which would prompt them to respect the Church canons (with which they take constant exception); another which would allow them to walk the streets witnessing their Faith to the heterodox, standing as reminders of the spiritual in a wholly materialistic world, and accepting the inevitable ridicule of those who wish to be rude. They do not, in fact, follow the modern dress trend out of humility, but out of a fear of humiliation! Theirs is a clear example of false humility. This false humility in some Orthodox clergy is not limited to external dress. Often it manifests itself in a deep internal misunderstanding of Church tradition and of the role of the clergy in the Church. Actually from the very Early Church, Orthodox lay people have continued the habit of kissing a cleric's hand as a sign of respect for his religious role. Many contemporary Orthodox clergymen spurn this practice, pointing out that, as with traditional clerical dress, it elevates the Priest above the people. In truth, the practice has traditionally been accepted in the Church as a means by which the people can express their humility before the holy, the image of which is embodied in the Priest. When a Priest's hand is kissed, the kiss acknowledges the fact that he touches the Holy Eucharist, which elevates not the man, but the holiness with which he interacts in a literal way. As well, other religious in the Church, such as the Abbess of a monastery or a particularly holy elder or spiritual advisor without priestly orders, are afforded this honor by virtue of the fact that their lives are elevated and touch on the holy. A cleric who disdains the practice of hand kissing often shows, by his apparent claim to humility, a certain hidden arrogance. False humility is that humility which is contrived and controlled by the human will. The desire to demonstrate to others that one is unworthy of respect, therefore, is actually an occasion for taking pride in the appearance of humility. And that pride lurks in such a cleric is easily demonstrated. Those who disdain this practice because it elevates them misapprehend, in the first place, the fact that the kiss is meant to rise up to the holy, not the individual himself. It is by this same logic that kissing an icon, for example, is not idolatrous. The Priest must set himself aside, when he understands his religious role, and become a mere image. That he thinks the kiss is directed toward him means that he has usurped the honor due his rank and the Grace operating within him, somehow fancying himself more than a Priestly Icon. He denies, therefore, the lay people a vehicle for expressing their own humility before the holy. If such clerics were not, indeed, falsely humble, they would not imagine themselves the objects of respect when their hands are kissed, but, like my own spiritual Father, who tells me that he feels as though he is under the feet of those who kiss his hand, would show true humility. Another rather disturbing and dangerous example of pride masquerading as humility has simply devastated the Orthodox Church in this century. It comes to us in the form of ecumenism. The Eastern Orthodox Church, with historical foundations for the claim, has always maintained that it continues the very Church of the Apostles, the Church established on earth by Christ Himself. Our Fathers, throughout the centuries, have taken seriously the burden of preserving the pristine truth of early Christianity. They have practiced a conscious conservativism, avoiding trendy involvement in the spirit of any particular age, lest they tarnish with temporal thinking the eternal witness passed down to them from the Apostles. In this process of preserving an eternal truth from the vicissitudes of various ages, they have used conservativism as a tool, and they have always, if one reads their words with care, avoided an arrogant view of their role, even when they were called to severe positions in protecting the traditions of the Church. They always felt it their first purpose to proclaim the absolute historical and spiritual primacy of the Orthodox Church in a humble way, preserving the Church as the final resort of those who might stray away, over the centuries, from her authentic witness. In effect, the Orthodox Church is the mother of true ecumenism. It has been Her role to preserve the true message of Christ in its purest form, offering it up to the whole world as the standard and banner of truth. Many contemporary Orthodox clergymen and lay people have come to think that the Orthodox Church's claim to primacy is an arrogant one which is an impediment to the spread of the Christian message. They often hold up theexample of would-be traditionalist Orthodox, who imagine their Orthodoxy to be some exclusive right belonging to them alone and who almost happily condemn all others as heretics. They quite rightly point out that such "tradition" has its source in personal pride and violates the missionary conscience of the true Christian. One might even agree with them, were they to say that such "traditionalists" suffer from deep, hidden pride. One cannot, however, countenance the conclusion that, because errant traditionalists violate the Christian spirit, their understanding of the primacy of Orthodoxy must be put aside. This is in itself a form of false humility, for when we proclaim the primacy of Orthodoxy, if it is not a personal possession or a personal understanding, we do so without violating our own personal humility. One can find a personal witness to divine primacy arrogant only if he imagines that divine primacy to be a personal belief and not, as It is, a divine revelation. In fact, there is perhaps no greater sign of humilitythan that of dedicating oneself to a truth which is absolute, which transcends the personal opinion, of boasting, as it were, of that which is above the individual. It precisely this humility which St. Paul reveals to us when, boasting of his sufferings and exploits, he tells us that they have meaning only in Jesus Christ. One cannot so boast if he thinks that Orthodoxy rises out of him, not out of God. Such a thought is horribly prideful and those who think thus, proclaiming that out of humility they cannot proclaim their religion to be the true religion, arrogantly deny Orthodox tradition, sadly deny a strong witness to others, and betray themselves as falsely humble. Such ecumenism is not really a form of humble love for others and for their Faith; it is a denial of the Orthodox Faith. It stands nakedly inadequate before the true ecumenism of the Fathers. From Humility, Volume I of the "Themes in Orthodox Patristic Psychology"series, pp. 31-36 source: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/pridemask.aspx

HOW TO FOLLOW JESUS ?

HOW TO FOLLOW JESUS ?

By H.B. PAULOSE MAR MILITHIOS METROPOLITAN

(Message given by H.B. Paulose Mar Milithios for Light of Life Magazine) " It is a wrong notion in Christian life that leading a Pius life brings us all materialistic favours from God. The only answer of innocent suffering in our life is the imitation of our Lord’s suffering. To culminate our spirituality we need to deny our self, carry His Cross and follow him unto the last." Jesus told his disciples “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” This verse has been taken from St.Mathew 16:24 and this is more like an announcement made by Jesus to his disciples immediately after a rude encounter with Peter. There were sufficient reasons for Jesus to make these words in utterances. The same Verse has been repeated in St.Mark 8:34 and St.Luke 9:23. Prior to these words, we see in the course of a conversation with Peter, Jesus got annoyed with him on account of a suggestion put forward by him regarding the future life of the Son of Man. It is found very noteworthy, the way Jesus relates to Peter to call him as ‘Satan’. The reference done by Peter was satanic and Messiah was very vigilant of the purpose and ways of satanic temptations. But Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's." It is of utmost important to look into the background of this episode. Once Jesus revealed to his disciples that he would be suffered and killed by the Elders, Chief Priests and Scribes at Jerusalem and will be raised on the third day. To this, Peter speak out as an advice to Jesus; “God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” Suddenly our Lord retorted to Peter; "Get behind Me, Satan!", addressing Peter as ‘Satan’. Was Peter really looking out for Jesus, or was he actually looking out for himself? The Philosophy of life, which was kept in Peter’s mind, had to be corrected by Jesus. The wrong concepts, they had, were to be changed. All the disciples were with a notion in their mind that by following Jesus they can make their earthly life a profitable one. Jesus needed to make their thoughts straight. The disciples were well aware of the Power of Jesus. In the heart of heart, they might have thought that they can make plenty of money and possess power of healing, casting out demons, respect from people and all kind of material benefits by the help and partnership with their leader Jesus.. But Jesus revealed his true mind to his disciples regarding the philosophy of life. If Jesus is killed, they would lose all they had hoped for those past three years. Their all-high expectations will be lost forever. Their friends, relatives and neighbors may ridicule them in all aspect. They were very confident that Jesus can survive easily of any troubled situations. Therefore, Peter had to advise our Lord not to happen as he proclaimed his death. While we try to analyze these verse in detail, we notice three very simple but important messages underlying in this verse, which are very difficult to observe. 1. To deny himself. 2. To take up his cross 3. To follow Jesus unto the last. SELF DENIAL: In Hinduism there are for stages of life namely Bhramacharya, Grahasthasrama, Vanaprestha, and Sanyasa These should be practiced in the ascending order off life. In first two stages of life, men will earn all earthly materials and in latter two stages what he earned will be renounced. All Christian fathers in early Church gave up everything and possessed Jesus as their whole and only asset. In English there are two words: attachment and detachment. We put all our effort to earn money, education, employment, respect from others, position, fame and all worldly pleasures for the enjoyment of life. But Jesus refused all material possessions for himself and gave up them to others. He never bothered the future safety of this physical life. He spoke to Pilate in St.John 18:36 “My Kingship is not of this world.” St.Paul says in Acts 20:35 “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” In St.John 12:24 Jesus says, “Truly, Truly, I say to you unless a grain of wheat falls into earth and dies, it remains alone, but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” From all these verses, it is definite that the message of self denial is very strong in the teachings of Jesus. TO CARRY HIS CROSS: The disciples of Jesus were with the impression that they were safe under the hands of their Guru in all respects. They never expected an experience of cross in their future life. They knew that the Lord would protect them from all kinds of troubles. No enemy can harm Jesus or the disciples in any situation. In our life we also keep an understanding that if we observe prayer, fasting, regular participation in worship, alms giving, confession, Holy Communion etc. then God will do all favours to us. But this is a wrong notion in Christian life. Jesus himself suffered a lot, though he was innocent and sinless in all respects. St.Mary, John the Baptist, Apostles and all holy fathers of early Church had to suffer, lay down their body and to depart for heavenly abode with great happiness. St.Paul says in Gal 6:14 “But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ by which the world has been crucified to me and I to the world.” The only answer of innocent suffering in our life is the imitation of our Lord’s suffering. In Hindu religion suffering is due to the result of Karma but Islam believes it is fatalism. In Christian life, suffering has got an important place to strengthen our spirituality. Jesus repeatedly spoke this idea in His Public Ministry. TO FOLLOW JESUS UNTO THE LAST: Our Lord chose Judas Iscariot as an Apostle among twelve. But he could not culminate the Apostolic Mission. He laid his hands to join with the enemies and betrayed his Guru for death. We also begin our spiritual life with God, through the Baptism. While we grow older, many may follow the wrong path due to the influence of adversaries. As a result, we give up Lord Jesus exactly as Judas Iscariot betrayed Him. If we are firm to live our life with Christ, we will be forced to deny many worldly pleasures. Following the footsteps of Jesus must be the target of our life. Our Lord is the Good Shepard and we are the sheep. We are supposed to follow the footsteps on His guidance. We have to maintain our personal friendship with our Lord uninterruptedly. We read the temptation of Jesus in St.Mathew 4:1-11. Satan asked our Lord to make compromise with him. If Jesus inclined to the temptations, He could not have redeemed the humanity from the bondage of sin. The true sheep will keep their life always in proximity with the Shepherd, Jesus and they will never turn their attention to left or right and they will never back off from the right path. The wife of Lot could not finish her journey because of her turning to the back. She wanted to see once more the beauty of her native place, against the instruction from the Angels. Obedience, Self-control and the desire to finish the aim of life are inevitable to culminate our mission of life. To sum up the message of the verse we dealt with, that we must be ready to give up all earthly possessions including our life. With out any disappointment let us welcome all persecutions of life for our Saviour Lord Jesus. The bitter experience of this life on behalf of Jesus Christ should bring internal happiness and more devotion towards risen Lord. Thus we can show a true Christian Life, leading a life of self denial., carrying his cross and following his footsteps in our daily life. source: http://www.malankaraorthodoxchurch.org/speeches.htm

Concerning the Tradition of Long Hair and Beards

The question of the appropriateness of long hair and beards is frequentlyput to traditional Orthodox clergy. A comprehensive article appeared in Orthodox Life concerning clergy dress in the J./F. 1991 issue. At this time we would like to address the topic of clergy appearance, i.e. hair andbeards. Anyone looking at photographs and portraits of clergy in Greece, Russia,Rumania, and other Orthodox countries taken in the early twentieth centurywill notice that almost without exception both the monastic and marriedclergy, priests and deacons, wore untrimmed beards and hair. Only after theFirst World War do we observe a new, modern look, cropped hair and beardlessclergy. This fashion has been continued among some of the clergy to our ownday. If one were to investigate this phenomenon in terms of a singleclergyman whose life spanned the greater part of our century one wouldprobably notice his style modernize from the first photographs up throughthe last. There are two reasons given as an explanation for this change: it is said,"One must conform with fashion, we cannot look like peasants!" Or even moreabsurd, "My wife will not allow it!". Such reasoning is the "dogmatic" lineof modernists who either desire to imitate contemporary fashion (if beardsare "in," they wear beards, if beards are "out," they shave), or areecumenically minded, not wanting to offend clergy in denominations outsidethe Orthodox Church. The other reason is based on a passage of HolyScripture where Saint Paul states, Both not even nature itself teach you,that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (I Cor. 11:14) Inanswer to the first justification, Orthodox tradition directly condemnsModernism and Ecumenism. It is necessary however to deal in more detail withthe argument that bases its premise on Holy Scripture. Orthodox Christian piety begins in the Holy Tradition of the Old Testament.Our relationship to the Lord God, holiness, worship, and morality was formedin the ancient times of the Bible. At the time of the foundation of thepriesthood the Lord gave the following commandments to the priests duringperiods of mourning, And ye shall not shave your head for the dead [a paganpractice] with a baldness on the top; and they shall not shave theirbeard... (Lev. 21:5), and to all men in general, Ye shall not make a roundcutting of the hair of your head, nor disfigure your beard (Lev. 19:27). Thesignificance of these commandments is to illustrate that the clergy are todevote themselves completely to serving the Lord. Laymen as well are calledto a similar service though without the priestly functions. This out wardappearance as a commandment was repeated in the law given to the Nazarene, arazor shall not come upon his head, until the days be fulfilled which hevowed to the Lord: he shall be holy, cherishing the long hair of the headall the days of his vow to the Lord... (Numbers 6:5-6). The significance of the Nazarene vow was a sign of God's power resting onthe person who made it. To cut off the hair meant to cut off God's power asin the example of Samson (see Judges 16:17-19). The strength of these piousobservances, transmitted to the New Testament Church, were observed withoutquestion till our present times of willfulness and the apostasy resultingfrom it. Why, one might ask, do those Orthodox clergymen, while rejectingthe above pious ordinances about hair, continue to observe the custom ofgranting various head coverings to clergy, a practice which also has itsroots in the ancient ordinances of the Old Testament (cf. Ex. 24:4-6) andthe tradition of the early Church (see Fusebius and Epiphanius of Cyprusconcerning the miters worn by the Apostles John and James)? The Apostle Paul himself wore his hair long as we can conclude from thefollowing passage where it is mentioned that "head bands," [Webmaster note:he then cites the Slavonic word using a special font. Consult the originalarticle if needed.], and "towels" touched to his body were placed on thesick to heal them. The "head bands" indicate the length of his hair (inaccor dance with pious custom) which had to be tied back in order to keep itin place (cf. Acts 19:12). The historian Egezit writes that the ApostleJames, the head of the church in Jerusalem, never cut his hair (ChristianReading, Feb. 1898, p.142, [in Russian]). If the pious practice among clergy and laity in the Christian community wasto follow the example of the Old Testament, how then are we to understandthe words of Saint Paul to the Corinthians cited earlier (I Cor. 11:14)?Saint Paul in the cited passage is addressing men and woman who are praying(cf. I Cor. 11:3-4). His words in the above passages, as well as in otherpassages concerning head coverings (cf. I Cor. 11: 4-7), are directed tolaymen, not clergy. In other passages Saint Paul makes an obviousdistinction between the clerical and lay rank (cf. I Cor. 4:1, I Tim. 4:6,Col. 1:7, and others). He did not oppose the Old Testament ordinance inregard to hair and beards since, as we have noted above, he himself observedit, as did Our Lord Himself, Who is depicted on all occasions with long hairand beard as the Great High Priest of the new Christian priest hood. In our passage noted previously, Both not even nature itself teach you,that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (I Cor. 11:14) SaintPaul uses the Greek word for "hair." This particular word for hairdesignates hair as an a ornament (the notion of length being only secondaryand suggested), differing from [Gr.] thrix (the anatomical or physical termfor hair). [1] Saint Paul's selection of words emphasizes his criticism oflaymen wearing their hair in a stylized fashion, which was contrary to piousJewish and Christian love of modesty. We note the same approach to hair asthat of Saint Paul in the 96th canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council whereit states: "Those therefore who adorn and arrange their hair to the detriment of those who see them, that is by cunningly devised intertwinings, andby this means put a bait in the way of unstable souls." [2] In another source, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, we read the follow ingconcerning the Old Testament practice: "To an extent, hair style was amatter of fashion, at least among the upper classes, who were particularlyopen to foreign [pagan] influence. Nevertheless, long hair appears to havebeen the rule among the Hebrews (cf. Ezek. 8:3), both men and women" [3](cf. Cant 4:1; 7:5). Thus we observe that cropped or stylized hair was thefashion among the pagans and not acceptable, especially among the Christianclergy from most ancient times up to our contemporary break with HolyTradition. It is interesting to note that the fashion of cropped or stylizedhair and shaved beards found its way into the Roman Catholic and Protestantworlds. So important had this pagan custom be come for Roman clergy by the11th Century that it was listed among the reasons for the Anathemapronounced by Cardinal Humbert on July 15, 1054 against Patriarch Michael inConstantinople which precipitated the Western Church's final falling awayfrom the Orthodox Church: "While wearing beards and long hair you [EasternOrthodox] reject the bond of brotherhood with the Roman clergy, since theyshave and cut their hair." [!] [4] Igumen LukeEndnotes * Webmaster note: In the original article footnotes 2 and 3 were reversed inthe text and footnotes. 1) Joseph Thayer D. D., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p.354. 2) The Rudder, trans. by D. Cummings, p. 403. 3) A. C. Myers ed., The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, p.455 4) N. N. Voekov, The Church, Russia, and Rome, (in Russian), p. 98. From Orthodox Life, Vol. 45, No. 5 (Sept-Oct 1995), pp. 41-43.+ + +Uncut Hair and Beards of the Clergy You often state that clergy must not cut their hair and beards. There arechurch canons to support this and certainly it is part of church tradition.But you also know that St. Paul says that men should not have long hair andthat certain church canons even allow for a monk with hair that is too longto cut it, as well as to cut his hair when he is away from the monastery. Iwould like your guidance on this apparent contradiction in tradition. (Fr.J.K., MA) Your comments are intelligently stated and do not, as is often the case,seek to dispense with a difficult discipline‹the uncut hair and beard ofOrthodox clergy‹by posing false contradictions in practice. The tradition ofmaintaining uncut hair and beard among the monastic and married clergy nodoubt traces back to the ascetics of the desert. Just as monastic practicehas influenced parish worship, so monastic dress and grooming have played anobservable role in establishing the standard for clerical dress amongmarried Priests. Except among "Westernized" Orthodox, with theiranti-monastic bias, this influence by the barometer of spiritual life, themonastic estate, on the so-called "secular" clergy has always been thoughtpositive. Since an ascetic monastic foregoes the cutting of his hair and beard inorder to avoid vanity, this custom has a practical purpose. Thus, it isobvious that a monastic would also avoid looking effeminate or styling hishair. It is for this reason that, if his hair gets too long, such that itresembles that of a woman, a monastic may ask his superior to cut it. Whenhe goes out into the world, too, he should, in such circumstances, trim hishair and keep it tied up in back, as is the custom in the Greek and someSlavic Churches. This is in keeping with the spirit of St. Paul's admonitionagainst men having long hair like that of women, when this admonition isread in context. What we must understand, here, is that the cutting of hair in all of theseinstances means nothing more than trimming off hair that falls below themiddle of the back. We are not talking about the modern haircut, which is,in fact, the equivalent of the desecration of the head that led to Samson'sloss of strength and power. Clergymen are, therefore, unjustified in cuttingtheir hair in the modern style, which is almost unknown in Christianhistory, until recent centuries. With regard to shaving, the Old Testament,the Church Fathers, and the Canons forbid a clergyman to cut his beard. Oneof the observations made by the Orthodox against the Popes during the unioncouncils (and repeated by a number of Orthodox Fathers in modern times) wasthat, as they began to deviate from the Apostolic Faith, they also, oddlyenough, began to shave off their beards. Moreover, not only should clergymennot shave, according to various Church authorities, but many holy men, suchas St. Kosmas Aitolos, hold that laymen should let their beards, or least amoustache, grow naturally. All of this does not, of course, mean that an Orthodox clergyman should notbe clean and well groomed. The Canons allow for the trimming of themoustache (primarily for the purpose of insuring care in taking HolyCommunion), and certainly by economy a Priest can trim his beard slightly,if he has to hold a secular job. Long hair should also be tied up in back ortucked under the collar, for which reason it rarely presents a problem for aworking Priest who truly wishes to abide by canonical exactitude. (And byPriest, here, we mean, of course, both the Presbyter and the Deacon.) Norwould we argue that a beard and uncut hair are the sure signs of a goodPriest. They are, as Bishop Chrysostomos of Etna always tells us, no more orless important to a Priest than "feathers are to a bird." Finally, in anticipation of those who oppose the canonical disciplinesplaced on Orthodox clergy, let us acknowledge that some monks, in thehistory of the Church, maintained a tonsure which involved cutting hair fromthe top of the head. This was one of many customs which did not last, and isnot an argument against the living tradition of the Church as it hassurvived today, which assigns to monastics and "secular" clergy alike thediscipline of leaving the hair and beard uncut, This discipline, combinedwith adherence to the canonical dress of the clergy (in Church, on thestreet, and at home), is a powerful deterrent against improper behavior onthe part of Priests, who should be moral exemplars for the people, andprovides a vivid witness of the peculiar nature to the people of God, theChristians.St. Tikhon and Clerical Appearance When Patriarch St. Tikhon was Bishop in America early this century, heordered his clergy to shave and wear Western clerical dress. What does thissay of your "traditional" dress? (J.K., NJ) We have seen only one directive attributed to St. Tikhon on this subject,and it by no means "orders" clergy in America under his jurisdiction toabandon traditional Orthodox dress and grooming. It is also well known thatthe late Father Georges Florovsky disputed the authenticity of thisdirective. Whatever the case, St. Tikhon did openly speak of a distinctionbetween the "essentials" and "accidentals" of the Faith, allowing for anumber of innovations, including some in clerical appearance. A distinctionof the kind made by the Saint is atypical in Orthodoxy, wherein "externals"(matters of apparent accident) are thought to reflect and to be inseparablefrom an "internal" (or essential) reality. St. Tikhon of course embracedthis principle, and his deviation from it merely entailed practicalaccommodations necessitated by difficulties facing the early Orthodoximmigration to America. It is both dishonest and an insult to the Saint'smemory that his use of justifiable oikonomia in what was then a relativelynew mission is now invoked as a standard of Orthodox practice in a localChurch that is more than two centuries old. From Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XII, No. 3, pp. 19-21.+ + +St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite's Comments on Canon 96 of the Sixth OecumenicalSynod Those too incur the excommunication of this Canon, according to Zonaras, whodo not put a razor to their head at all, nor cut the hair of their head, butlet it grow long enough to reach to the belt like that of women, and thosewho bleach their hair so as to make it blond or golden, or who twist it upand tie it on spills in order to make it curly; or who put wigs or ³rats² ontheir head. This excommunication is incurred also by those who shave offtheir beard in order to make their face smooth and handsome after suchtreatment, and not to have it curly, or in order to appear at all times likebeardless young men; and those who singe the hair of their beard with aredhot tile so as to remove any that is longer than the rest, or morecrooked; or who use tweezers to pluck out the superfluous hairs on theirface, in order to become tender and appear handsome; or who dye their beard,in order not to appear to be old men. This same excommunication is incurredalso by those women who use rouge and paint on their face, in order to lookpretty, and in this way to attract men beholding them to their Satanic love.Oh, and how the miserable women have the hardihood to dishonor the imagewhich God gave them with their wicked beautifications! Ah! how is God torecognize them and tell whether they are His own creatures and images, at atime when they are wearing another face which is devilish, and anotherimage, which is that of Satan? Hence it is that St. Gregory the Theologiansays the following in his epic verses: ³Build yourselves not towers of spurious tresses on your head, women,While petting soft necks of rocks invisible;Nor apply shameful paint to forms of God¹s,So as to be wearing masks, and not faces.Lest God requite you for such things when He has come to resent them.Who? Whence is the Creator? Avaunt, get thee away from me, strangefemale!I did not paint thee a bitch, but created an image of myself.How is it that I have an idol, a specter instead of a friend?² And the poor wretches do not know that by what they are doing they aremanaging only to make themselves like that hag and whore called Jezebel (IIKings 9:30), and are themselves becoming new and second Jezebels, becauseshe too used to paint her face in order to please the eyes of men, just asis written: ³And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of him; andshe painted her face, and attired her head, and peeped through the window²(ibid.). So all men and all women who do such things are all excommunicatedby the present Ecumenical Council. And is these things are forbidden to bedone by the laity in general, how much more they are forbidden to clericsand those in holy orders, who ought by their speech and by their conduct,and by the outward decency and plainness of their garments, and of theirhair, and of their beard, to teach the laity not to be body-lovers andexquisites, but soul-lovers and virtue- lovers. Note that the present Canoncensures the priests of the Latins who shave off their moustache and theirbeard and who look like very young men and handsome bridegrooms and have theface of women. For God forbids men of the laity in general to shave theirbeard, by saying: ³Ye shall not mar the appearance of your bearded chin²(Lev. 19:27). But He specially forbids those in holy orders to shave theirbeard, by saying to Moses to tell the sons of Aaron, or, in other words, thepriests, not to shave the skin of their bearded chin (Lev. 21:5). Not onlydid He forbid this in words, but He even appeared to Daniel with whiskersand beard as the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7:9); and the Son of God wore a beardwhile he was alive in the flesh. And our Forefathers and Patriarchs andProphets and Apostles all wore beards, as is plainly evident from the mostancient pictures of them wherein they are painted with beards. But, more tothe point, even the saints in Italy, like St. Ambrose, the father of monksBenedict, Gregory Dialogus, and the rest, all had beards, as they appear intheir pictures painted in the church of St. Mark in Venice. Why, even thejudgment of right reason decides the shaving of the beard to be improper.For the beard is the difference which in respect of appearance distinguishesa woman from a man. That is why a certain philosopher when asked why he grewa beard and whiskers, replied that as often as he stroked his beard andwhiskers he felt that he was a man, and not a woman. Those men who shavetheir beard are not possessors of a manly face, but of a womanly face. Henceit was that Epiphanius blamed the Massalians for cutting off their beard,which is the visage peculiar to man as distinguished from woman. TheApostles in their Injunctions, Book I, ch.3, command that no one shalldestroy the hair of his beard, and change the natural visage of the man intoone that is unnatural. ³For,² says he, ³God the Creator made this to bebecoming to women, but deemed it to be out of harmony with men.² Theinnovation of shaving the beard ensued in the Roman Church a little beforeLeo IX, Gregory VII even resorted to force in order to make bishops andclerics shave off their beard. Oh, and what a most ugly and most disgustingsight it is to see the successor of St. Peter close-shaven, as the Greekssay, like a ³fine bridegroom,² with this difference, however, that he wearsa stole and a pallium, and sits in the chief seat among a large number ofother men like him in a council called the college of cardinals, while hehimself is styled the Pope. Yet bearded Popes did not become extinct afterinsane Gregory, a witness to this fact being Pope Gelasius growing a beard,as is stated in his biography. See the Dodecabiblus of Dositheus, pp. 776-8.Meletius the Confessor (subject 7, concerning unleavened wafers) states thata certain Pope by the name of Peter on account of his lascivious acts wasarrested by the king and one half of his beard was shaven off as Œa mark ofdishonor. According to another authority, in other temples too there wereprinces, even on the sacerdotal list, who had a beard, as in Leipzig theyare to be seen painted after Martin Luther in the church called St. Paul¹sand that called St, Thomas¹s. I saw the same things also in Bardislabia. From The Rudder, pp. 403-405. source: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/clergy_hair.aspx

The Rise of Christian Fascism and Its Threat to American Democracy

By Chris Hedges, Truthdig Posted on February 8, 2007, Printed on April 30, 2008 http://www.alternet.org/story/47679/

Dr. James Luther Adams, my ethics professor at Harvard Divinity School, told his students that when we were his age -- he was then close to 80 -- we would all be fighting the "Christian fascists." The warning, given 25 years ago, came at the moment Pat Robertson and other radio and television evangelists began speaking about a new political religion that would direct its efforts toward taking control of all institutions, including mainstream denominations and the government. Its stated goal was to use the United States to create a global Christian empire. This call for fundamentalists and evangelicals to take political power was a radical and ominous mutation of traditional Christianity. It was hard, at the time, to take such fantastic rhetoric seriously, especially given the buffoonish quality of those who expounded it. But Adams warned us against the blindness caused by intellectual snobbery. The Nazis, he said, were not going to return with swastikas and brown shirts. Their ideological inheritors had found a mask for fascism in the pages of the Bible. He was not a man to use the word fascist lightly. He had been in Germany in 1935 and 1936 and worked with the underground anti-Nazi church, known as the Confessing Church, led by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Adams was eventually detained and interrogated by the Gestapo, who suggested he might want to consider returning to the United States. It was a suggestion he followed. He left on a night train with framed portraits of Adolf Hitler placed over the contents of his suitcases to hide the rolls of home-movie film he had taken of the so-called German Christian Church, which was pro-Nazi, and the few individuals who defied the Nazis, including the theologians Karl Barth and Albert Schweitzer. The ruse worked when the border police lifted the tops of the suitcases, saw the portraits of the Führer and closed them up again. I watched hours of the grainy black-and-white films as he narrated in his apartment in Cambridge. Adams understood that totalitarian movements are built out of deep personal and economic despair. He warned that the flight of manufacturing jobs, the impoverishment of the American working class, the physical obliteration of communities in the vast, soulless exurbs and decaying Rust Belt, were swiftly deforming our society. The current assault on the middle class, which now lives in a world in which anything that can be put on software can be outsourced, would have terrified him. The stories that many in this movement told me over the past two years as I worked on "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America" were stories of this failure -- personal, communal and often economic. This despair, Adams said, would empower dangerous dreamers -- those who today bombard the airwaves with an idealistic and religious utopianism that promises, through violent apocalyptic purification, to eradicate the old, sinful world that has failed many Americans. These Christian utopians promise to replace this internal and external emptiness with a mythical world where time stops and all problems are solved. The mounting despair rippling across the United States, one I witnessed repeatedly as I traveled the country, remains unaddressed by the Democratic Party, which has abandoned the working class, like its Republican counterpart, for massive corporate funding. The Christian right has lured tens of millions of Americans, who rightly feel abandoned and betrayed by the political system, from the reality-based world to one of magic -- to fantastic visions of angels and miracles, to a childlike belief that God has a plan for them and Jesus will guide and protect them. This mythological worldview, one that has no use for science or dispassionate, honest intellectual inquiry, one that promises that the loss of jobs and health insurance does not matter, as long as you are right with Jesus, offers a lying world of consistency that addresses the emotional yearnings of desperate followers at the expense of reality. It creates a world where facts become interchangeable with opinions, where lies become true -- the very essence of the totalitarian state. It includes a dark license to kill, to obliterate all those who do not conform to this vision, from Muslims in the Middle East to those at home who refuse to submit to the movement. And it conveniently empowers a rapacious oligarchy whose god is maximum profit at the expense of citizens. We now live in a nation where the top 1 percent control more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined, where we have legalized torture and can lock up citizens without trial. Arthur Schlesinger, in "The Cycles of American History," wrote that "the great religious ages were notable for their indifference to human rights in the contemporary sense -- not only for their acquiescence in poverty, inequality and oppression, but for their enthusiastic justification of slavery, persecution, torture and genocide." Adams saw in the Christian right, long before we did, disturbing similarities with the German Christian Church and the Nazi Party, similarities that he said would, in the event of prolonged social instability or a national crisis, see American fascists rise under the guise of religion to dismantle the open society. He despaired of U.S. liberals, who, he said, as in Nazi Germany, mouthed silly platitudes about dialogue and inclusiveness that made them ineffectual and impotent. Liberals, he said, did not understand the power and allure of evil or the cold reality of how the world worked. The current hand-wringing by Democrats, with many asking how they can reach out to a movement whose leaders brand them "demonic" and "satanic," would not have surprised Adams. Like Bonhoeffer, he did not believe that those who would fight effectively in coming times of turmoil, a fight that for him was an integral part of the biblical message, would come from the church or the liberal, secular elite. His critique of the prominent research universities, along with the media, was no less withering. These institutions, self-absorbed, compromised by their close relationship with government and corporations, given enough of the pie to be complacent, were unwilling to deal with the fundamental moral questions and inequities of the age. They had no stomach for a battle that might cost them their prestige and comfort. He told me, I suspect half in jest, that if the Nazis took over America "60 percent of the Harvard faculty would begin their lectures with the Nazi salute." But this too was not an abstraction. He had watched academics at the University of Heidelberg, including the philosopher Martin Heidegger, raise their arms stiffly to students before class. Two decades later, even in the face of the growing reach of the Christian right, his prediction seems apocalyptic. And yet the powerbrokers in the Christian right have moved from the fringes of society to the floor of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Forty-five senators and 186 members of the House before the last elections earned approval ratings of 80 to100 percent from the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups -- the Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, and Family Resource Council. President Bush has handed hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid to these groups and dismantled federal programs in science, reproductive rights and AIDS research to pay homage to the pseudo-science and quackery of the Christian right. Bush will, I suspect, turn out to be no more than a weak transition figure, our version of Otto von Bismarck -- who also used "values" to energize his base at the end of the 19th century and launched "Kulturkampf," the word from which we get culture wars, against Catholics and Jews. Bismarck's attacks, which split Germany and made the discrediting of whole segments of the society an acceptable part of the civil discourse, paved the way for the Nazis' more virulent racism and repression. The radical Christian right, calling for a "Christian state" -- where whole segments of American society, from gays and lesbians to liberals to immigrants to artists to intellectuals, will have no legitimacy and be reduced, at best, to second-class citizens -- awaits a crisis, an economic meltdown, another catastrophic terrorist strike or a series of environmental disasters. A period of instability will permit them to push through their radical agenda, one that will be sold to a frightened American public as a return to security and law and order, as well as moral purity and prosperity. This movement -- the most dangerous mass movement in American history -- will not be blunted until the growing social and economic inequities that blight this nation are addressed, until tens of millions of Americans, now locked in hermetic systems of indoctrination through Christian television and radio, as well as Christian schools, are reincorporated into American society and given a future, one with hope, adequate wages, job security and generous federal and state assistance. The unchecked rape of America, which continues with the blessing of both political parties, heralds not only the empowerment of this American oligarchy but the eventual death of the democratic state and birth of American fascism. Chris Hedges is the former Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times and the author of "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning." © 2008 Truthdig All rights reserved. View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/47679/

Beards in the Syriac Tradition

V. Varughese

After my wedding, I had returned to the United States and shared some photos of my wedding with some of my co-workers. Upon seeing the clerics, several of my Protestant colleagues made some rather startling remarks. “Why are these Al Qaeda people standing behind you?” “I thought you were Christian; why are these Arabs there?” I could not do much more than shake my head and fix myself a pot of tea. This was going to be a long lunch hour. Though they know I am Indian, I reminded them that these clerics are not Arabs, but like me, Indian. Society it seems, has planted in their minds certain ideas about the Eastern world. After they had thought a bit more about things, they realized that Jesus is almost always pictured with a beard, as are most of the apostles. I cannot remember a time when I have seen a priest, bishop, or monk without a beard, nor do I remember seeing any icons in Kerala like this. Taking all of this for granted, the encounter with my coworkers inspired me to look into the situation further. This piece is by no means exhaustive, but simply an introduction to the question: Why do we then wear beards and why do Western Christians seem to always be clean shaven? Beards in the Syriac Christian Tradition There are three major points I’ve uncovered as to why our clerics wear beards: 1) The service of the priesthood. When a priest celebrates the Qurbana, he is for us as Christ. The liturgy is structured on the priesthood that Christ held and gave to those He ordained. During one of our communion hymns we say, “The priest stands in place of a man clothed in linen;” This man in linen is Christ. Just as Christ greeted His disciples saying “Peace be with you all,” so to is it the role of the priest. The celebrant is a reminder for us of Christ, even to the point where he is a living semblance of Him. 2) Beards are a rejection of the world. Growing out the beard is an outward means of displaying one’s rejection of the world. It is a retort to the vanity of the slick looking man. Most ascetics are remembered in their icons with beards for this very reason. Certain monastic rules observe very strict grooming restrictions because of this. 3) The Syrians are the inheritors of the Semitic traditions The Hebrews deeply revered the beard as can be seen from many examples in the scriptures “You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard”(Leviticus 19:27). The beard was worn by the priests, as we see in the Psalms: “It is like the precious oil upon the head, running down upon the beard, upon the beard of Aaron, running down on the collar of his robes!” (Psalms 133:2) When Hanun shamed King David’s servants, David responded to their humiliation by letting their beards grow back before their return. So Hanun took David's servants, and shaved off half the beard of each, and cut off their garments in the middle, at their hips, and sent them away. When this was told to David, he sent to meet them, for the men were greatly ashamed. And the king said, "Remain at Jericho until your beards have grown, and then return." (2 Samuel 10:4-5) In other Semitic art, the Assyrians of Mesopotamia are typically depicted with the beard. It is a mark of their culture. Beards in the Western Tradition From various sources, one can observe the gradual eradication of beards in Western Europe. One major contributing factor was the decrees (or synods held under Charlemagne) which ordered the clergy to be clean shaven so that they would not appear like the Barbarians of Northern-Central Europe. From my study, it seems that the issue was far more refined, detailed, and worthy of further study. Nevertheless, the beard gradually departed from the Western European mindset and the clean-shaven cleric became the standard. I believe that the beard is a living witness to the rejection of vanity. It is a part of our tradition, and our clerics should continue to grow their beards as a subtle part of their ministry. Had I not shown these co-workers these photographs, I might have missed an opportunity to share my faith with them. With the lack of understanding that is prevalent in the Western world, this is one way we may help educate other individuals about our faith and spiritual heritage. source: http://www.socdigest.org/articles/05jul05.html

Unpacking Fundamentalism

21 Apr 2008 02:38 pm

The subject has spawned a very engrossing debate online. Larison criticizes Rollins here. I was most taken with a commenter's post, however: The main feature of fundamentalism, I'd suggest, is exclusion - both in the realm of doctrinal logic and in human relations. The main feature of Jesus’ message is inclusion, both in doctrine and in human relations. Love, in other words. I don’t think reduction of a message to a few essential precepts is, in itself, fundamentalism. Obviously Jesus himself reduced the entire message of the Judaic tradition to a few precepts, such as “God is love”. The question is whether these precepts are treated as exclusive and hostile to the rest of the tradition, and intolerant of other traditions,, or inclusive and openly disposed towards the rest of the tradition, and tolerantly disposed towards other traditions... In other words, there are forms of religious fundamentalism which are indistinguishable from narcissism. I don't think opposing fundamentalism requires that orthodoxy itself vanish. What it requires is that small space between orthodoxy and doubt that allows faith to breathe. When all such space is extinguished, when faith is about submission to an external authority tout court, when conscience is abolished or redefined as obedience, then we have exaggerated what we can claim to know about God. This is as much an attitude as anything else. Another way of looking at this is to see fundamentalism as a version of faith rooted in fear - of error, of choice, of doubt, of mystery. And yet Jesus' constant instruction was not to be afraid. I see in Benedict's cramped attempt to control all discourse within the church a function of fear. It does not sum up all that Benedict is and means - he has brought many good impulses to the fore as well. But in the end, he is of that scared generation - the generation of 1968. The Church is as much a captive of those debates and experiences as our political culture is. source: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/unpacking-funda.html