Love, Love, Love

Love, Love, Love by Fr. Antonios Kaldas “All you need is love.” Thus sang the Beatles in one of their chart toppers (that incidentally also brought in a whole lot of money that they didn’t really need). “Love, love, love.” A beautiful sentiment; fill the world with love. But which love? What were they really after? Did they fill the world with love? No doubt this song had a lovely effect on millions who heard it, but there is also no doubt that everyone interprets that word, ‘love’, in their own idiosyncratic way. For one person, love is a deep romance with the girl who sits two rows down on the train every morning (to whom, by the way, he has never yet had the courage to speak). For another, love is the suffocating, controlling, manipulating power over her only daughter so that her daughter can ‘have everything I never had’ (translation: fulfil MY needs). For a third, love is that vague and general sense of goodwill towards the human race, although “I can’t stand that annoying old hag in the canteen who insists on smiling and showing everyone her crooked yellow teeth” (Linus in Peanuts: “I love humanity; it’s people I can’t stand!”) All you need is love. I think this idea needs some qualification. Who do I love, in what way, and why? Most of us could honestly and immediately list those close to us as people we genuinely love. Parents, children, spouse, siblings (yes, even those) – perhaps we might add extended family, close friends, colleagues in study or work. If blessed with a nice neighbourhood, we might add the neighbours we often see through the week and stop to chat to. Our fellows at Church. How real is this love? How strong? What type of love? “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.” (John 15:13) How many people would I really be willing to give my life for? Would I do it for a complete stranger? Would I do it for an enemy? Would the Beatles do it for anyone? Yet this is the astonishing, awful standard that Jesus set for His followers; “…lay down one’s life for his friends…” And He took it further by calling His enemies (sinful humanity) His friends, and then proceeding to lay down His life, horribly, for the very people who violently wrenched it from Him. And thus He won them. Love is very powerful, when practiced the right way. It goes against the intuition, it goes against our instincts, but there can be no doubt that genuine, unselfish, willing love is the one and only invincible power in this world. And I do not mean only power on the large scale, as in the love that conquered the world peacefully through the Christian religion. I am speaking on the day to day individual level for each human being. Everyone genuinely dedicated to divine, unselfish love and living it out unreservedly is, in the long run, victorious over all other forces. And in the short term, they have the added bonus of peace and joy that no one can take from them. Start the day with love. End the day with love. Fill the day with love. Thus read the sign at a place I worked once. It is very good advice. Instead of awaking with a growl and a grumble, and being obnoxious to everyone until morning tea time, imagine if you awoke with love in your heart. Imagine waking to the joy of a new day gifted to you by a wildly generous Creator who has decorated it with flowers and twittering birds and bright sunshine on glistening green gardens. Imagine spreading that joy with those who are close to you through a smile and a hug and words of happiness that are infectious. Instead of collapsing in a heap into bed at the end of the day, imagine taking the time and putting forth the effort to remind those you love that you love them, to offer them, more than words, some simple act of kindness, some small gesture that shows them practically what they mean to you; perhaps to turn on their electric blanket for them unasked so that they are pleasantly surprised when they gingerly crawl into bed expecting coldness, or to complete a household task for them so that they don’t have to do it tonight. Imagine going through today with others in your mind. Thinking about their needs and acting in kindness towards them. Imagine that thoughtful kindness one day becoming a habit, a part of you, no longer something you must consciously choose to do, but rather something that springs forth from you naturally without conscious intention. Love, love, love. Yeah, yeah, George. That’s all very good; but which love do you mean? Fr Ant source: http://stbishoy.org.au/modules/wordpress/

Manifestations of the Lord Jesus Christ to Mary Magdalene After the Resurrection

By His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, One God, Amen. His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, may God grant him long life, explained that Mary Magdalene visited the tomb of Christ the Lord five times on the dawn of Sunday of the resurrection. The first four of these five visits occurred at the time between the appearance of the first beams of light at dawn “…when the sun had risen…” (Mk 16:2) and the fading of the remains of the night’s darkness “…while it was still dark…” (Jn 20:1). This period of time is usually no less than an hour each day. Mary Magdalene frequently visited the tomb and would return to the city of Jerusalem in haste, then she quickly went back to the tomb for her next visit. The tomb was near Jerusalem (see Jn 19: 20, 41) so the journey did not take her a long time. Despite the fact that Mary Magdalene covered the distance ten times in all five visits, in the first four visits, she only covered the distance six times because she had already visited the tomb on Sunday’s dawn. This means that the journey from the tomb to Jerusalem and back, took her about ten minutes each time. Since the sequence of these incidents of the resurrection are of great importance, we shall list the synoptical account mentioned by the four evangelists in the sequenced order of Mary Magdalene’s five visits to the tomb. The First Visit: Saint Mark mentions the first visit in his gospel as follows: “1Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. 2Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3And they said among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?” 4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away—for it was very large. 5And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. 6But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. 7“But go, tell His disciples—and Peter—that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.” 8So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” (Mk 16:1-8). The proof that this was Mary Magdalene’s first visit, are the words of Mary and Mary the mother of James when they said amongst themselves, “Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?” This indicates that Mary hadn’t yet seen the stone rolled away. The Second Visit: After Mary Magdalene’s return from the first visit, she did not notify anyone of what the angel told her because she was afraid. Thus, she went to see the tomb again, but this time accompanied by Saint Mary the Virgin. Saint Matthew mentioned this incident in his gospel without referring to the Virgin specifically, but he called her “…the other Mary…” He wrote, “1Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. 5But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6“He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7“And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.” 8So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. 9And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, “Rejoice!” So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. 10Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me.” (Mt 1:1-10). By stating, “…behold, there was a great earthquake…”, Matthew did not mean that the earthquake occurred during this visit, but rather that it had taken place prior to both the first and second visits. Saint Mark also mentioned the second visit briefly in his gospel. It is the visit in which Mary Magdalene saw Christ the Lord, when she accompanied Saint Mary the Virgin. Saint Mark mentions this visit after mentioning the first one. His gospel states, “9Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons. 10She went and told those who had been with Him, as they mourned and wept. 11And when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe.” (Mk 16: 9-11). From these verses, we can observe how Christ the Lord honored His mother, the Virgin Mother of God. He did not appear to Mary Magdalene in her first visit when she went in the company of Mary the mother of James and Salome; however, He appeared when His mother arrived. After the second visit, the will of Christ the Lord in informing His disciples about His resurrection was carried out. As Saint Matthew mentioned, they went out of the tomb “…and ran to bring His disciples word…” (Mat 28:8). It is desirable to have the companionship of Saint Mary the Virgin in our spiritual lives, in order to see Christ the Lord through the eyes of our hearts and evangelize the good news of His resurrection without hesitation. Amongst all of the saints, the Virgin is the example of complete obedience and surrender. The Third Visit: After Mary Magdalene informed the disciples of the Lord’s resurrection, both she and Mary the mother of James returned to the tomb accompanied by a group of women. Saint Luke mentions this visit in his gospel after outlining the incidents relating to the burial on Friday and the rest on Saturday: “55And the women who had come with Him from Galilee followed after, and they observed the tomb and how His body was laid. 56Then they returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils. And they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment. 1Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. 2But they found the stone rolled away from the tomb. 3Then they went in and did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4And it happened, as they were greatly perplexed about this, that behold, two men stood by them in shining garments. 5Then, as they were afraid and bowed their faces to the earth, they said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? 6“He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, 7“saying, ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.’ ” 8And they remembered His words. 9Then they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. 10It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them, who told these things to the apostles. 11And their words seemed to them like idle tales.” (Lk 23:55-24:11). Since our fathers the apostles did not believe the women, Mary Magdalene started to doubt, and so she decided to go alone to the tomb. This was the following visit. The Fourth Visit: Before the end of the night’s darkness, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone. Saint John the evangelist mentions this visit as follows: “1Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. 2Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” 3Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb. 4So they both ran together, and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first. 5And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen cloths lying there; yet he did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, 7and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. 8Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed. 9For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. 10Then the disciples went away again to their own homes.” (Jn 20: 1-10). Amazingly, after this visit, Mary Magdalene started repeating words that were entirely different to what she had stated after her second and third visits. After both the second and third visits, she informed the disciples that she had seen the Lord, proclaimed to them His words and the words of the angels, and told them about His resurrection. However, after the fourth visit, she started repeating a phrase that echoed feelings of doubt concerning the resurrection of Christ the Lord, despite His appearance to her and the frequent appearances of the angels. She told Saints Peter and John the Apostles, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” (Jn 20:2). Following this encounter, and the apostles’ awareness that those who guarded the tomb were no longer there, Saints Peter and John the apostles went to the tomb followed by Mary Magdalene. This was the fifth and final visit on the Sunday of the resurrection. This visit was filled with significant occurrences which completely changed the path of Mary’s life and her way of thinking. The Fifth Visit: Saint John mentions the incidents of this visit in his gospel immediately after the events mentioned in John 20:1-10. His gospel says, “11But Mary stood outside by the tomb weeping, and as she wept she stooped down and looked into the tomb. 12And she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. 13Then they said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him.” 14Now when she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus. 15Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” She, supposing Him to be the gardener, said to Him, “Sir, if You have carried Him away, tell me where You have laid Him, and I will take Him away.” 16Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to Him, “Rabboni!” (which is to say, Teacher). 17Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ ” 18Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these things to her.” (Jn 20:11-18). During this fifth and final visit to the tomb, we see that Mary Magdalene was weeping, perplexed, and in doubt. She repeated the words which she had spoken to Saints Peter and John, to the angels who were sitting inside the tomb. She said, “…they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him.” (Jn 20:13). Mary even spoke to Christ in the same manner when He appeared to her for the second time saying, “Sir, if You have carried Him away, tell me where You have laid Him, and I will take Him away.” (Jn 20: 15). She said this because she thought that He was the gardener and did not know that He was Christ (Jn 20: 15,14). When Christ the Lord called Mary by name saying, “Mary!” (Jn 20: 16), He wanted to reproach her for her unbelief concerning His resurrection. He wanted to rebuke her for doubting in His glorious resurrection, and also for desiring to hold on to Him. Mary wanted to hold onto Christ so He would not escape as He had previously, after she clasped His feet and worshiped Him when He appeared to her while she was accompanied by Virgin Mary (See Mt 28:9). This time, reproaching her, He said, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father.” (Jn 20: 17). This was a severe reprimand because she doubted His resurrection and wanted to hold onto Him, to prevent His disappearance once more.In doubting His resurrection, Mary also doubted Christ’s divine power to rise from the dead. She doubted that He is the Lord of life Who is equal to the heavenly Father in might, greatness, and authority. Thus, in Mary’s eyes, Christ had not reached the level of the Father. Moreover, she wanted to prevent His disappearance from her sight so that she would no longer doubt in His resurrection. It was as though she wanted to prevent His ascension into heaven. If this was her state at the time, one wonders what she would have been like after His real ascension to sit on the right hand of the Father. Thus, the Lord Jesus commanded her plainly, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father…” (Jn 20:17). In saying this, He meant to tell His disciples: Your God (the Father) became Mine when I emptied Myself, was incarnated, and came in the image of a slave. My heavenly Father (that is, My Father by nature), will become your Father by adoption when I ascend into heaven, and send the Holy Spirit, to filial you from God through baptism. Through My descent I took what is yours, and through My ascension you shall receive what is Mine. This time, Mary Magdalene understood that she should accept the notion of Christ’s ascension (although He had not yet ascended), despite His disappearance from her sight after His resurrection. Christ remained on earth for a full 40 days from the time of the resurrection until His ascension into heaven in the presence of His disciples and saints. Therefore, “Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these things to her.” (Jn 20:18). Christ took away the doubt of Thomas, on the Sunday that followed the resurrection. And likewise, He took away the doubts of Mary Magdalene by appearing to her in the garden for a second time on the Sunday of the resurrection. Our Lady, the Virgin Saint Mary was marvelous and superior in her faith. She believed before she had seen Christ the Lord risen from the dead, she believed when she saw Him, and believed when she clasped His feet and worshipped Him. She accepted His ascension in complete surrender because she knew that He would sit on the right of His heavenly Father. Saint Mary understood that His kingdom is everlasting, just as the angel had announced to her before the incarnation of the Word in her womb. Thus, through the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth told her, “Blessed is she who believed, for there will be a fulfillment of those things which were told her from the Lord.” (Lk 1:45). Glory be to God forever, Amen. source: http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/english/articles.htm

TOWARDS REAL ORTHODOXY

TOWARDS REAL ORTHODOXY That good thing which was committed unto thee, keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us. 2 Timothy 1, 14 Foreword Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy, Greek Orthodoxy, Russian Orthodoxy, Romanian Orthodoxy: whatever name it is given, it is surrounded by ignorance, myths, inventions and fantasies. Perhaps the greatest of these is the myth that Orthodoxy is different from Christianity. Let us be clear from the very beginning: Orthodoxy is Christianity. The two words mean exactly the same thing. Anything that calls itself Christianity and is not Orthodoxy is something less than Christianity. And anything that calls itself Orthodoxy and is not Christianity is something less than Orthodoxy. You can call it Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Evangelism, Baptism, Methodism, Pentecostalism, anything you like. However, if it is not Orthodoxy, it is not Christianity, and if it is not Christianity, it is not Orthodoxy, but a reductionist, manmade adaptation of it. True, the words Orthodox and Christianity, and Orthodox and Christian, are often put together to make ‘Orthodox Christianity’ and ‘Orthodox Christian’, but only in contexts where people might not otherwise understand and be confused. The words Orthodoxy and Christianity, the words Orthodox and Christian, mean exactly the same, they are synonyms. It is therefore curious to see how sometimes newcomers to Orthodoxy confuse Orthodoxy with something other than Real Christianity, Real Orthodoxy, so creating a false Orthodoxy and a false Christianity. The source of such confusion is in a non-spiritual approach to Christianity/Orthodoxy. This non-spiritual approach takes two different illusory forms, created by two sorts of temptations. The first temptation is that of the body, resulting from an external, physical approach. The second temptation is that of the mind, resulting from an intellectual, rationalistic approach. Since both sorts of temptation are superficial, they are not spiritual, and therefore do not lead to a Christian/Orthodox way of life. The First Temptation There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. I Cor 15, 44 The first temptation of some new to the Orthodox Church (because that is the only place where Christianity/Orthodoxy can be confessed) is to muddle the outward with the inward, confusing externals with internals. For example, we have sometimes seen how those new to the Church imitate what they think Orthodox ‘look like’, a fantasy which seems to be obtained from books. This can mean men growing long beards and long hair (so disobeying the words of the Apostle in 1 Cor 11, 14) and women wearing nineteenth-century clothes and putting impossibly huge headscarves over their heads. In such cases, both sexes may dress in black, displaying large crosses and, on their wrists, prayer-knots, in a manner exaggerating that of Orthodox monks and nuns (who do not wear crosses). Sometimes, both sexes may spend long hours talking about strange fasting foods and spend large sums on them. Sometimes, both sexes also wish to change ordinary Christian names to exotic Christian names. In over thirty years of Orthodox life, I have never met any ‘ordinary’ Orthodox behaving or dressing in the above way. Since Orthodoxy is simply Christianity, it most certainly does not involve bizarre ways of dressing or hairstyle. Neither does it mean non-monastics pretending to be monastics. And certainly the aim of Orthodoxy is not to eat strange foods. The aim of fasting is not to talk about food, still less eat it, be it fasting food or non-fasting food, but to spend less time eating and talking, and more time praying. And one of the benefits of fasting is spending less money on food and giving the money saved to good causes. In everyday life, ‘normal’ Orthodox, who may have been baptised ‘Dmitri’, Theophilus, ‘Haralambos’ or ‘Vladimir’, often modify their names to ‘Jim’, Theo’, ‘Harry’ or ‘Walter’. Newcomers, on the other hand, sometimes do the opposite, trying to change names like ‘Antony’, ‘Michael’, ‘Peter’ and ‘John’ to ‘Vladimir’, ‘Auxentius’, ‘Rostislav’ and ‘Theologos’. Why? Who knows. I plead with such newcomers to the Orthodox Church to get through this phase as swiftly as possible, if possible before they are received into the Church, and to start living like other Orthodox. They should look around. If they care to visit ordinary Orthodox churches, they will not find anyone dressed bizarrely. They will not find a single woman wearing a gigantic headscarf, they will rarely find a single man with a long beard (except for the priest, and his beard may be short and, perhaps like his hair, trimmed). They will not see a single person wearing prayer-knots around their wrists – for the simple reason that the other people in church are not monks or nuns, but married or single laypeople, who have not taken on the obediences of monastic life inside a monastery or convent. Regarding crosses, Orthodox do not wear them on the outside of their clothes, they do not even display them; small metal neck-crosses are worn inside our clothes, next to our hearts. And people rarely discuss the boring topic of food (unless, of course they own or work in restaurants, and even then they tend to change the topic swiftly – who wants to talk about work on a day off?). A superficial, physical view of Orthodoxy is not only strange, but it can also be spiritually dangerous. A strange external appearance, not an imitation at all, fails to understand that Orthodoxy is simply Christianity, it fails to understand that Orthodoxy is simply the Christian way of life. It reduces the Faith to an external and immodest show. And in failing to understand this, it can, in certain circumstances, degenerate, becoming pretentious, both in the sense of pretending to be what it is not, but also developing into pride. This pretentiousness can lead to people referring to themselves as ‘slaves of God’ (we are not called to be ‘slaves’ of God but servants and children of God). It can lead to people signing letters with the word ‘the unworthy’, ‘the sinful’ before their names. Let monks and nuns do this. But let the rest of us refrain from this: we already know that we are all unworthy and sinful – we have no illusions about ourselves. It can lead to the backbiting and gossiping of little hothouse groups, who gather together in order to criticise others. Such criticism and aggressiveness towards others come from insecurity. Not surprisingly, those who come into the Orthodox Church and think that Orthodoxy is about a fantasy imitation of supposed externals, which in reality do not exist in any Orthodox parish, will not last long in the Church, precisely because they are insecure. They will usually find that the Church is ‘not good enough’ for them, that they are well on their way to lapsing completely. The convert complex, the disease of the neophyte, is actually rooted in pride, the wish to be ‘better’ than everyone else. The curious thing is that when such people do fall away from the Church, they rarely blame themselves, but always ‘the Church’, which is ‘not good enough’ for them. The best away to avoid this temptation is to start looking at other Orthodox, at people have been Orthodox for decades and generations and to accept obedience. I knew a young man who turned up in an Orthodox church with long hair and a long beard, dressed in black clothes, and asked the priest if he could become Orthodox. When the priest told him that the first thing he needed to do was to have a haircut and shave and dress normally, the young man revolted and left. His refusal to accept a small dose of humility and obedience meant that he did not become Orthodox, and in more than one sense. The spiritual disease of the neophyte imitating externals, is to be overcome as quickly as possible. After a few months of frequenting an Orthodox church, it is time to become Orthodox. It is time to leave the first course of the meal and to come to the main course, to enter the arena, for only this will lead to our ‘dessert’ – salvation. However, there is yet another sort of temptation to overcome before we can begin this main course. The Second Temptation Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know I Cor 8, 1-2 For newcomers to the Church who are of a more intellectual frame of mind, there is another and perhaps still greater temptation. This is to turn Orthodoxy/Christianity into a mere set of ideas, booklore, a bookish cult. In reality, Orthodoxy/Christianity is not an idea, it is a way of life, the faith lived. Look at other Orthodox; they do not necessarily read piles of books and yet they have a faith stronger than piles of University professors. I know elderly Orthodox who have never read the Bible in their lives, and yet when they speak, they speak the Bible. How is it possible? It is simply because all their lives they have been to church, they have been bathed in a way of life impregnated with the living Scriptures. They do not read the Bible, because, much more importantly, they live it. The intellectual mentality often degenerates into mere rationalism. What we need, they say, is a new form of Orthodoxy, a better one, a reformed version. In other words, as worldly people, they want to invent their own religion, reducing Orthodoxy/Christianity to the size of their reason. They want to reduce eternal and infinite spiritual reality to the tiny neatness of their limited created minds, rather than humbly accept a drop of the limitless greatness of the grace of God, far beyond human reason and social conditioning. This spirit of rationalism does not come from the Church; they bring it with them from the outside, like so many holiday suitcases, full of unneeded clothes. Then, demands start. First of all, there are those who demand that the secret prayers and the Eucharistic Canon be shouted out during the Divine Liturgy. Apparently, salvation is only possible for them, if this is done, for, as they say, ‘everyone must understand’. But we have not come to church to understand what cannot be understood anyway, we have come to pray, to purify our hearts. Only when our hearts are purified will our minds begin to be enlightened and so understand. Spiritual enlightenment, true education, begins in the heart and then spreads to the mind, and not the other way round. For the mind is merely a tool, whereas without the heart we suffer both physical and spiritual death. However, this is not acceptable to those who think that the proud and sinful human mind can understand everything. Their next demand may be that the iconostasis be removed from their local church. Naturally, they have no concept of the sacred, or of the sacrifices that previous generations made to set up the iconostasis in their church. Then, of course, the calendar must be changed, so that ‘we can be like everyone else’. Unknown are the Scriptures, which say that we are not like everyone else, that we Christians are a race apart: But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people (I Peter 2, 9). What next? Well, of course, we must get rid of all these strange and irrational, ‘anti-feminist’ customs, that women cover their heads modestly in church (in obedience to the words of the Apostle in 1 Cor 11, 5), that women do not take communion during menstruation, that mothers do not go to church for forty days after childbirth (since both menstruation and childbirth are involuntary consequences of the Fall). Once they have eliminated all of the above ‘customs’, then, of course, why not have deaconesses and priestesses – ‘like everyone else?’ And on the subject of everyone else, we must have ‘ecumenism’ and intercommunion. In fact, why not destroy the Church completely and start all over again? What a pity the Holy Spirit has been wrong for all these 2,000 years, when only they were right. Clearly, they are God’s gift to mankind. Such is the logic of the rationalist. Such is the obstacle to reaching the main course of the meal, to reaching what is above reason, the supra-rational. Such rationalism is the result of pride and self-flattery. Pride can be seen in the desire of the rationalist to avoid confession (one of the hallmarks of the rationalistic approach) and to take communion at every single Liturgy. However, to refuse confession, in the words of the Evangelist John the Theologian, is self-deceit, for there is no man without sin and we all need confession (I John 1, 8-10). And communion without confession will only lead to the sickness described by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 11, 29. The rationalistic, anti-mystical approach to Church life is in fact the quickest exit from the Church, because it denies the essence of the Church, which is mystery. Sadly, there are those who have taken this exit. Afterword Now the end of the commandment is love out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: From which some, having swerved, have turned aside unto vain jangling. I Timothy 1, 5-6 Several years ago I remember hearing an anecdote about an elderly Russian woman commenting on the behaviour of a zealous young convert: ‘He’s certainly Orthodox’, she said, ‘but is he Christian?’ What she meant was that he observed all the externals, in fact he observed them to the exclusion of everything else, and, as a result, he observed none of the internals. In the words of the proverb, ‘he could not see the wood for the trees’. In the words of the Apostle, he suffered from ‘zeal not according to knowledge’. Outwardly he was Orthodox, but inwardly he tended to resemble a ravening wolf. In any case, he did not live a Christian/Orthodox way of life. Zeal was without experience. The conclusion must be that those who are new to the Church need first to follow the examples of others around them, who have never known anything other than Orthodoxy/Christianity. Hence the danger of parishes where, unfortunately, there are only newcomers to the Church. They can become unhealthy hothouses. Sadly, I have known people who have never got over their period as neophytes and all their lives remained ‘converts’, even describing themselves as such (for that is what they feel). This is because they have never passed through the first course of the meal and reached the main course, they have never been into the arena. How then will they get to the ‘dessert’? Our summary of ‘Towards Real Orthodoxy’ is seven words: Be humble, be simple and be modest. For is this not the message of the Gospels? Why complicate Christian/Orthodox life? Be humble, be simple and be modest. That is all there is to it. source: http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/realorth.htm

What is Monasticism?

by H.H. Pope Shenouda What, according to our Egyptian Coptic Orthodox Church, is Monasticism, as it was founded and blossomed in the early centuries? Yes, what is the Monasticism that attracted many tourists to Egypt just to see our fathers in the desert and hear a word of wisdom from their mouths; or learn some lessons from their fathers' lives? Yes, what is the Monasticism that our holy fathers lived and which Paladius, Rofinus, and John Cassian wrote about? And who is Saint Athanasius that explained a version in his book about St. Anthony? Monasticism is not only a name or a monastery legacy. It does not reside in the monks' clothes nor is it attached to their kolonsowa (head garment) or their belts. Monasticism is living a life of inner liberation from materialism. Our fathers have lived angelic lives. It is said that the monks are earthly angels and heavenly humans. They are people who have deprived themselves of every thing, to live humbly, and in contemplation in its highest level, executing the word of the Holy Bible."Do not love the world or the things in the world" (1 John 2:15-17). "When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money and overturned the tables. And He said to those who sold doves, "Take these things away! Do not make My Father's house a house of merchandise!" Then His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up." (John 2:15,17) Accordingly, monks rid themselves of all the worldly desires such as money, material things, positions, or fame. They leave everything so that God may be their world. Monks no longer desire worldly ways or their positions, but they choose poverty exactly like their hero, St. Anthony fulfilled the word of the Bible "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven; and come follow Me (Matthew 19:21). So, he went and gave away all of his possessions to the needy before he began his monastic life, and he lived as a poor monk in the ascetic life. It is true that monasticism and wealth are complete opposites which cannot travel in the same path of life. It is also true that monasticism and luxury do not correlate, because luxury is an easy way of life, to which poor people, other than monks, are not exposed to. Monks leave the world to live in the desert, mountains, and caves in order to live with God; the God they have dedicated their lives to. How deep is the everlasting expression which identifies monasticism! Monasticism is a total withdrawal from every person and every material thing to connect to the One and Only "God", who fills the heart, mind, and time. A monk will never achieve this spiritual level if he still desires worldly things. Here we remember what Jesus Christ said to Martha, "Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. But one thing is needed and Mary has chosen that good part which will not be taken away from her." (Luke 10:41-42). The goal of true monasticism is a continuous life filled with prayers. A life of continuous prayer is the main feature of a monk's life, which ordinary people cannot live because of their worldly engaging tasks and interests. He who begins a monastic life trains himself to a continuous life of prayer. When he succeeds, he then begins a life of isolation, which then helps him in his prayers and contemplation. This is why monasticism is a life of loneliness. From loneliness originated the name of the monk. The word in Greek (monakes) means lonely. In French, "moine" means a monk. In English…etc. In loneliness a monk may continue a life of prayer, contemplation, and songs without delay or distraction of any kind. A true monk escapes people to be with God. This is what St. Arsanius the Great had done. St. Macarius of Alexandria once asked him saying, "Father why do you flee from us?" He answered saying, "The Lord knows that I love you all, but I cannot speak with God and people at the same time.' This is why the Spiritual Elder in his deep wonder expression once said, "The love of God made me a stranger to humans and their ways." source: http://abbey.suscopts.org/library/whatis.html

THE FOOD SECURITY PROJECT OF JESUS

THE FOOD SECURITY PROJECT OF JESUS By FR. DR. REJI MATHEW, STOTS NAGPUR The price of food materials is increasing everywhere in the world along with that of oil. Inflation is a regular phenomenon in countries like India and people are afraid of starvation. Economists and scientists suggest many ways to control inflation and to put an end to the rise of price for essential commodities. In places like Kerala the governments are thinking about developing a Food Security Project so that this issue can be dealt with for a long time. In this background let us have a new study about the Feeding of the Five Thousand. This miracle is recorded in all the four gospels (Mtt 14,13-21; Mk 6,32-44; Lk 9,10-17; Jn 6,1-13) and in Matthew and Mark there is a second account; the Feeding of the Four thousand (Mtt 15,32-38; Mk 8,1-13). Whether the first was done in a Jewish territory and the second in a Gentile land is a matter of debate. Some people think that Matthew and Mark give a duplicate account of the same miracle. Both these reports have many things in common; only the place of happening, the number of loaves, the number of people gathered and the number of baskets are different. This miracle happened in a place near the Sea of Galilee, where Jesus got big crowds always. According to Luke this happened in a place called Bethsaida and John says that the season was that of Passover. The reason for a big gathering might be the increasing popularity of Jesus due to the healing miracles he was performing and because of the wonderful sermons he was delivering. Jesus is accompanied by his twelve disciples and the event becomes a practical class for them. Good teachers use always teaching aids and they choose good locations to make their ideas more concrete. The Feeding of the Multitude teaches the disciples as well as the people gathered the salient features of the Kingdom of God. They are the following: 1. God acts when his people suffer: Spirituality is not only about nourishing the “spirit” but also about addressing the needs of the “body” and “mind”. Since the spirit finds its home in the body, physical needs appear also in the divine plan of salvation. God is concerned about the material requirements of his people and he intervenes in history whenever there is a heavy need. He had answered the cries of Moses and the Israelites during their desert life and He had provided the Manna. According to the fourth Gospel this same God is active in the feeding of the five thousand. Jn 6,25-59 gives us a detailed exposition of the report of the feeding and there Jesus compares the event with that of the time of Moses. The pain of the people was always disturbing Jesus. He was healing “the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute and many others, who were laid at his feet” (Mtt 15,30) and the people were amazed at his divine power and they said: “this is a new teaching”. Yes, the healing and the teaching were two sides of the ministry of Jesus and these happened together. Jesus had compassion to the crowd which spent three days with him in a remote place. It is interesting here to note that even though the hungry people did not make any uproar Jesus understands their pain and he expressed his compassion towards them. 2. Disciples of Jesus should address day to day issues of the society: Jesus teaches his disciples a marvellous lesson. They have to take care of the pains and suffering of the people. He tells them: “You give them something to eat”. This creates an alarming situation. The disciples inform Jesus about the main problems they were facing: a) they have gathered in a remote place; b) it is already “very late”; c) the crowd is huge; and the price to feed that multitude “would take eight months of a man’s wages”. So the immediate reaction of the disciples is to find an easy solution. They recommend Jesus “to send the people away so that they can go to the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat”. Even today this is a common reaction of Churches and ministers. They make wonderful speeches and they are good in collecting money from the people who are affluent. But in places where the people starve and suffer they would ask: Why should we bother about the material, social or political needs of the people? Let them find an answer by themselves. But Jesus tells us always: “You give them something to eat”. 3. God is the ultimate provider, but our share is important: There is no doubt that God is the ultimate source of everything. History teaches us how miraculous His treasuries contain immense wealth and we can not measure His capabilities. In the book of Genesis we read How God created the universe “out of nothing” and in the Gospels we see Jesus who performs many miracles due to his creative power. He changes water in to wine and he walks on water. Here in the case of the hunger of the five thousand he is capable of doing something. But he needs the co-operation of his disciples and the people. He asks “How many loaves do you have?”. This is an important question. If God is the creator, human beings are co-creators and people’s participation is very much necessary. They can not sit idle and say: Let God act. In the event of the feeding of the five thousand the “Tiffin Box” of a young boy changes the whole situation. The boy, who carries it, and Andrew, who finds the boy, become instruments of God. Every mother takes something for the young children when they go for a long journey or for a long session. The mother of the boy of our miracle might have asked her son to carry something to eat, because she wanted no disturbance while she attends the sermon of Jesus. Thus an ordinary situation becomes a context for the divine providence. Similarly, we can also become instruments of God. 4. Discipline is necessary for food security: The crowd is always a challenging group. The crowd can make some body “king” and it can destroy some others at the same time. It is a difficult thing to control a crowd and “a hungry crowd” is a danger for the society. Such a crowd becomes destructive often. Our political leaders exploit such situations for their vested interests and they will not mind, even if a crowd kills innocent people. At the same time there are some people who are able to make use of the power of the crowd. Mahatma Gandhi was always careful to utilize the energy of the crowd for constructive thoughts and activities. Jesus knows well that nothing will happen if there is no discipline in a crowd. To feed a hungry crowd becomes a Herculean task. The Darwinian theory of “survival of the fittest” will be proved if we throw bags of food in a crowd. The strong ones would get more than they need and the weak ones would suffer and die in the stampede. Therefore the command of Jesus “Have the people sit down” is very important. The Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has proved that the major reason for famine is not the scarcity of food, but indiscipline and undemocratic systems. Even in the midst of plenty of food people may starve, if the government does not have a good system to distribute the food. 5. The rest from your table can feed many others: Jesus tells his disciples a finally: “Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted” (Jn 6,12). The multitude was hungry. But now they are full and they do not care where the rest goes. This is an interesting thing: the food security project of God includes a planning about the “rest” and the “waste”. It is a reality that there are lakhs of people in this world who waste food materials. What the American and European people throw away can feed quite a good portion of the African people. This is true of the clothes and other things also. We should be thoughtful about the needs of the future generation also. When we burn the fuel for unnecessary things, we should ask: Will our children and grand children find sufficient energy resources? Our responsibility is not only to manage the available resources but also to make researches for the future. source: http://www.lightoflife.com/LOL_BibleStudy_TheFoodSecurityProjectOfJesus.htm

What Makes Recovery Christian?

What Makes Recovery Christian? by Lance David For many Christians the idea of addiction recovery seems a touchy-feely, self-help, unchristian thing. With terminology that includes, "Higher Power," "sponsor," and "12 steps" recovery can be unfamiliar and possibly threatening to some Christians. It is certainly possible to do recovery- submitting to the program and to a higher power and experiencing sobriety- without following Christ. But this does not make recovery anymore unchristian than non-Christian couples remaining married until death does them part would make marriage unchristian. For something to be unchristian it would have to be contrary to the gospel. Even though the terms may seem foreign to some Christians, the key principles of recovery highlight significant realities of that are contained in the gospel. The first reality is that all of us are a mess. You may hide it or I may be in denial but that will not change the fact that we are both broken. This is the essential entrance exam both for Christians and those in recovery. The context for recovery is realization of the prodigal who knows that he has been fighting with pigs for sustenance. When a person does not view himself as a mess, he is more like the older brother who has all the riches at his disposal but remains aloof and on the outside. Jesus said, "It is not it the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners" (Mark 2:17 NIV). It is tragic that many in the church today do not deeply understand and appropriate this, instead resembling Pharisees rather than repentant sinners. Those truly engaged in recovery, on the other hand, grasp this reality very well. A second reality of recovery is that I am responsible for this mess. Neither recovery nor the gospel allows a person to wallow in the blame game of victimhood. No matter how a person has been sinned against, he is responsible for his response. Even though others have sinned against me, recovery only begins when I begin to struggle and repent of the character flaws that have developed as a result of my resentments. Jesus captured the essence of this idea with the admonition, "How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye" (Matthew 7:4-5). A third reality is that the path to healing in recovery must be done with others. Meetings, fellowship, support and sponsors all demonstrate that in recovery healing does not happen alone. Unfortunately, this is an aspect that most of us in the church in the western world have abandoned. Even with small groups, men's groups, accountability partners, Promise Keepers and other seminars, most men remain terribly isolated from others- especially when it comes to our problems. We have been taught that it is not masculine but weak to be a broken mess. But to be isolated denies the reality that we all have blind spots that can only be exposed to us by other people. Furthermore, relationships provide the context for change in that just as we all get hurt in by unhealthy relationships, healthy ones heal. Sanctification and recovery do not take place without community. A final reality of recovery is that it must include a recognition of and submission to a spiritual reality. Of course, as Christians, we recognize that the only "higher power" is the one true God revealed in the bible. However, the generic language of recovery makes the steps palatable to those who are not convinced of this truth. The twelve steps of recovery reveal a very spiritual agenda. It is one that includes submission, confession, repentance, reconciliation, and deep character change. These demonstrate that an addict's core problem is a commitment to self and not addiction per se. Only by submitting to the One greater than self can the addict and the run of the mill sinner experience true inner healing. The essential feature of anyone's recovery that makes it Christian is the person who is in recovery. Christ did not come to give us principles, a system, a cause, rules or many of the things that we have perverted his message into. Christ came to bring us back into relationship with God. Left to our own ingenuity, we have found so many different ways, including addictions, to run from him. The story of the gospel is the story of God's recovery of the human race to himself. For more help on this subject see Every Man's Battle. source: http://www.everymansbattle.com/articles.asp?id=871