Some terrific points are made in this article, making it very worth your time! Enjoy!

Textual Criticism is a discipline that has gained much popularity over the last one hundred years or so, especially as related to the so-called “Bible” of the Christian faith.

While this discipline has arguably been around since at least the late middle ages, there has seemingly been a distinct emphasis (among particular scholars, notably “liberal” Protestants) placed upon the Christian scriptures in recent decades.

I believe this concern and their approach is motivated by a number of factors — none of which are compatible with nor do they find their home within traditional, orthodox and catholic Christianity.

It has been said that

“the business of textual criticism is to produce a text as close as possible to the original.”

Given this raw and simplistic definition, we can make a few observations regarding this discipline within the context of the holy scriptures. And, as a point of emphasis, the existence and usage of the Septuagint (LXX hereafter) by Christ and the apostles (and the Orthodox, catholic Church) sheds both important and transformative light on this entire enterprise. Of the latter, I will make a few brief remarks and notes as well.

With that in mind, I firmly believe that textual criticism assumes and is dependent upon a few key, overarching concepts.

1. The humanist principle of ad fontes. Ad fontes was a philosophical tenet of Renaissance humanism that literally translates from the Latin as “to the fountains,” meaning “to the sources” (or more pointedly, “to the original source”). Inspired by the rediscovery of ancient, classical Greek works of philosophy and literature (due to the emigration of Greeks from the east after the fall of Constantinople to the Muslims in AD 1453), this principle dictated within the context of the Latin (“Western”) Church that Christians should return to their “original source” in order to purify and reform the Church from perceived corruptions over the centuries. In the reformation-era context (thanks to the likes of the rebellious Latin monk, Dr. Martin Luther), this meant holding “the Bible” or the holy scriptures to be the “source” of the Church, rather than the actual and true reality in which the Church arranged and put together the scriptures as part of Her sacred tradition. It was an erroneous move, based on profound ignorance, and one that has cost the West dearly over the last 500 years (and schism upon schism). Going one step further, this principle also inspired the idea among Luther and his followers that the original text of the scriptures are only pure in their original manuscripts. For the old testament, this meant adhering to the Hebrew text. Unfortunately for Luther, this required using a medieval text (the Masoretic) that was over a thousand years more recent than the Greek translation (the LXX) or even the Latin (originally based on the LXX), which were already in use by the Church. Not only was Luther incorrect in assuming that the Bible was the source of the Church, but also in that the Hebrew text available to him was more accurate or “closer to the source” than the Greek or Latin (for the old testament, specifically)
2. A theology or scholarly viewpoint that discounts and places no faith in the Church or Tradition. While catholic and orthodox Christians are faithful to confess weekly “I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church,” such faith is absent among textual critics. This is required, in fact, due to the utter disregard for the preservation of the scriptures within the Church (for example, within liturgical texts and the writings of the Church fathers). While Orthodox Christians, for example, believe that the Church is guided and preserved by the Holy Spirit and the very presence of Christ in the apostles and their successors (Who promised He would never leave us, and that the Gates of Hades would never prevail against said Church), adherents of textual criticism cannot, by principle, believe in such a thing. The essential dogma of textual criticism is that the text has been corrupted (i.e. mistakes have crept in through copying errors or intentional alterations by monks, scribes, etc.). This is the party line that Bart Ehrman and others espouse, but such a viewpoint (criticism) only holds water within a Protestant context.
3. Closely related to the last point, a belief that the Bible is the “Christian Koran.” Again, the “corruption of scripture” dogma of Ehrman and other liberal Protestant scholars only makes sense within a Protestant context, and through having a Protestant understanding of “the Bible.” According to Protestants (mostly regardless of which sect or stripe), the Bible is the only true/special revelation of God to humanity. As such, they are a “people of the book,” just as in Islam. However, orthodox and catholic Christians are not bound by such constraints and therefore many of the “concerns” of textual criticism are irrelevant to us. For example, we do not of necessity claim that the scriptures are “inerrant” — that is, without mistakes or errors of some kind (this is distinct from “infallibility,” by the way, which we hold to). Given that concession, the fact that a monk or copyist might have replaced the pronoun “they” with the more descriptive “the Gentiles” (in order to make the chanted word more clear in the liturgical setting it was always found) does not reveal a “corruption” of the text or some conspiracy regarding the “original autographs,” but rather the Spirit-guided common sense of a monk. Variant readings do not de-rail the faith of the Church, as might be cautiously hinted at within conservative, fundamentalist Protestant circles, nor do mistakes with regards to dates, names, places or other such things, to be perfectly honest. The scriptures are a great source of revelation, but they are not the only source of revelation (nor are they the “Word of God,” as such).
4. And this leads to the final concept, and that is the fact that textual criticism relies upon a Nestorian Christology (and by deduction, Iconoclasm). Textual criticism precludes the possibility of accurate and/or faithful translation of a text, due to the fact that it is believed this “corrupts” and “changes” the text in an irreversible and irreparable manner. Because of this (and related to the “inerrancy” remarks above), conservative Protestants will only claim that the “original autographs” in their “original languages” are truly “inspired” by God. This means that the English version of the Bible that everyone in their groups carry around are not actually the inspired “Word of God” (as they would put it), but rather a “best effort” translation of the actual Word of God. Word studies (in the “original” languages) become imminently important for Protestants, as a result, since a translation couldn’t hope to give us the same, exact meaning (or at least, an “inspired” meaning) of the text. While there’s certainly nothing wrong with learning and studying the original languages of these ancient texts, it is not absolutely required in order to read and understand the text of scripture, as inspired by God. Rather, the interpretation of the Church is what’s missing. That said, this is Nestorian in the sense that it divides the translated words from their original, Divine source (rather than seeing the translation as Iconic or symbolic — in the classical, Greek sense — of the original words). To preclude the authenticity of translation is to preclude the authenticity of the Incarnation (and in fact, many Protestants will claim that Christ took on a human nature that was slightly different than ours, which is through-and-through Nestorian). Just as Icons are true symbols of the Saints they represent (and truly connect us with these Saints in eternity), words and translations are true symbols of the original words, ideas and people found in the ancient text. The scriptures are not the ”Word of God,” but rather an Icon of the Logos of God — Jesus Christ.

And so, building upon that last point, we can consider briefly the LXX — the Greek translation of the old testament scriptures done between the third and first centuries BC in Egypt.

The Orthodox Church considers the LXX to be the inspired scriptures of the Old Testament, even in light of the fact that they are translations. This is, no doubt, primarily due to their authority and usage among Second Temple Jews, Jesus Christ (during his Advent ministry, as recorded in the Gospels), the original apostles and their immediate successors (the “early” Church fathers). When the new testament scriptures are considered, for example, there are 320 direct quotations from the Old Testament within the new. Of these, only five verses appear to be sourced from a text that is at odds with or different from the LXX (in those verses). At the very least, we could say the NT writers showed a strong preference for the LXX translation of the OT; that only seems fair. Beyond this point, however, there is much debate.

While there is little fanfare over the reality of the NT writers’ usage (and preference of) the LXX, they also many times show a “looseness” with the text of the OT that would make most present day Protestant exegetes cringe. There are many times where verses are quoted in part, “out of context,” dissected and combined with other verses (in different texts altogether) as well as paraphrased.

There are instances where the NT writer was using a version of the OT that closely resembles the medieval Masoretic Text (perhaps four such instances, exclusively speaking, in the entire NT), but this almost seems random and isolated. In those instances, it seems the MT was chosen in order to best make (or support) the point at hand. What we don’t find, however, is a definitive belief in a single, original, authentic text. The behavior of the apostles — and the NT writers specifically — shows a more “fluid” approach to both the idea of “canon” and “original text.”

When the Dead Sea Scrolls (the manuscripts found near Qumran in the 1940?s and beyond, hereafter DSS) are considered alongside the LXX, things become even more interesting (and problematic for proponents of textual criticism). There are numerous instances, for example, where the LXX and DSS align exactly in reading (throughout the OT scriptures), while also disagreeing with the medieval MT. For example, Genesis 1.9 reads

“And the water which was under the heaven was collected into its gatherings, and the dry land appeared”

in both the DSS (4QGenk) and LXX, but this passage is entirely missing from the MT. On the other hand, there are many verses or readings that make the DSS and MT to be in total agreement, while showing the LXX reading to be at odds with both (often with minor results, such as a change in exact grammar or phrasing, but not “meaning”).

So what does this mean? What this means is that there was not a single, authoritative, “original” text of the old testament scriptures, even in the first century AD (and perhaps even in the late centuries BC, when the LXX was translated and compiled). As such, the “ad fontes” and reductionistic approach of textual criticism is found entirely wanting and useless in light of such realities. The LXX does not show us that the Greek translation was based upon the only version of the Hebrew scriptures, but that it was based upon a very popular one. Furthermore, it shows that it is not necessary for the preservation, existence or propagation of the Faith to have a single, authoritative text of the scriptures.

Finally, there is somewhat of an unspoken belief among Protestant scholars that “Hebrew” was a “sacred language” to the Judeans during the time of Christ and before. In other words, the scriptures (especially the “original autographs”) would have only been written in the Hebrew language, due to its so-to-speak “Divine” quality. What we find with the DSS, however, is that even the most strict and “hardcore” of Jewish sects (the Essenes, presumably) was perfectly content with recording and transmitting sacred texts (including the scriptures) in multiple language, as the DSS were found in Greek, Aramaic and “modern” (for their time) Hebrew renditions.

At the end of the day, textual criticism is an enterprise devoid of the Holy Spirit. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church — and the sacred tradition of the Church — are both guided and preserved by “the Helper” and “Spirit of Truth.” We are not bound and required to have a single, authentic, original manuscript of the scriptures in order to constitute and make sense of our Faith, for our Faith is Personal and our Truth is found in Christ Himself, Who is Truth.

The irony of all of this is that neither Protestants nor textual critics have been able to produce or demonstrate a single example of this all-important “original autograph” of “the Bible” at any point in the history of either textual criticism or Protestantism (and no, “Q” doesn’t count). For one’s entire Faith to hinge upon something that is — at this point in time, a myth — seems a bit much for me. I will rather seek to hold fast to the traditions that have been delivered to us once for all in the apostolic Church that Christ established nearly 2,000 years ago.

© 2012, Fr. John A. Peck. All rights reserved.

Though the Orthodox Church does not follow the teachings of the Protestant Reformers, their views regarding the Theotokos’s ever-virginity are a point of commonality with Orthodoxy. Many of the major figures amongst the Protestant fathers in the faith believed in the Theotokos’s ever-virginity.

John Calvin:

He says that she [Mary of Cleophas] was the sister of the mother of Jesus, and, in saying so, he adopts the phraseology of the Hebrew language, which includes cousins, and other relatives, under the term ‘brothers.’ – John Calvin, Commentary of the Gospel According to John, on John 19:25

The word ‘brothers’, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relative whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons because Christ’s ‘brother’ are sometimes mentioned. – John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. II, p. 215 (on Matthew 13:55)

[Note: Helvidius was a 5th-century Christian who denied the perpetual virginity of Mary and was rebuked and refuted by Jerome in his treatise, "On the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary Against Helvidius"]

Huldrych Zwingli:

I give an example: taught by the light of faith the Christ was born of a virgin, we know that it is so, that we have no doubt that those who have been unambiguously in error have tried to make a figure of speech of a real virgin, and we pronounce absurd the things that Helvidius and others have invented about perpetual virginity. – Huldrych Zwingli. “Friendly Exegesis, that is, Exposition of the Matter of the Eucharist to Martin Luther, February 1527,” in Selected Writings of Huldrych Zwingli, Volume Two, trans. and ed. by H. Wayne Pipkin, Pickwick Publications, 1984 p.275.

Then the pious mind finds wonderful delights in searching for the reasons why the lamb chose to be born of a perpetual virgin, but in this other case it finds nothing but a hopeless horror. [The other case that Zwingli here refers to is the Real Presence] – Huldrych Zwingli. “Subsidiary Essay on the Eucharist, August 1525,” in Selected Writings of Huldrych Zwingli, Volume Two, trans. and ed. by H. Wayne Pipkin, Pickwick Publications, 1984 p.217.

Martin Luther:

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ, but that she conceived Christ through Joseph and had more children after that. – Martin Luther, “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 45, ed. Walther I. Brand, 1962, Muhlenberg Press, p. 199.

The form of expression used by Matthew is the common idiom, as if I were to say, ‘Pharaoh believed not Moses, until he was drowned in the Red Sea.’ Here it does not follow that Pharaoh believed later, after he had drowned; on the contrary, it means that he never did believe. Similarly when Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her. Again, the Red Sea overwhelmed Pharaoh before he got across. Here too, it does not follow that Pharaoh got across later, after the Red Sea had overwhelmed him, but rather that he did not get across at all. In like manner, when Matthew says, ‘She was found to be with child before they came together,’ it does not follow that Mary subsequently lay with Joseph, but rather that she did not lie with him. – Martin Luther, “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 45, ed. Walther I. Brand, 1962, Muhlenberg Press, p. 212.

John Wesley:

I believe that he was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. – John Wesley “Letter to a Roman Catholic”

Protestants who deny the ever-virginity of the Theotokos are breaking even with their own fathers in faith.

© 2012, Fr. John A. Peck. All rights reserved.

by Saint Peter of Damaskos

The passions are:

harshness,
trickery,
malice,
perversity,
mindlessness,
licentiousness,
enticement,
dullness,
lack of understanding,
idleness,
sluggishness,
stupidity,
flattery,
silliness,
idiocy,
madness,
derangement,
coarseness,
rashness,
cowardice,
lethargy,
dearth of good actions,
moral errors,
greed,
over-frugality,
ignorance,
folly,
spurious knowledge,
forgetfulness,
lack of discrimination,
obduracy,
injustice,
evil intention,
a conscienceless soul,
slothfulness,
idle chatter,
breaking of faith,
wrongdoing,
sinfulness,
lawlessness,
criminality,
passion,
seduction,
assent to evil,
mindless coupling,
demonic provocation,
dallying,
bodily comfort beyond what is required,
vice,
stumbling,
sickness of soul,
enervation,
weakness of intellect,
negligence,
laziness,
a reprehensible despondency,
disdain of God,
aberration,
transgression,
unbelief,
lack of faith,
wrong belief,
poverty of faith,
heresy,
fellowship in heresy,
polytheism,
idolatry,
ignorance of God,
impiety,
magic,
astrology,
divination,
sorcery,
denial of God,
the love of idols,
dissipation,
profligacy,
loquacity,
indolence,
self-love,
inattentiveness,
lack of progress,
deceit,
delusion,
audacity,
witchcraft,
defilement,
the eating of unclean food,
soft living,
dissoluteness,
voracity,
unchastity,
avarice,
anger,
dejection,
listlessness,
self-esteem,
pride,
presumption,
self-elation,
boastfulness,
infatuation,
foulness,
satiety,
doltishness,
torpor,
sensuality,
over-eating,
gluttony,
insatiability,
secret eating,
hoggishness,
solitary eating,
indifference,
fickleness,
self-will,
thoughtlessness,
self-satisfaction,
love of popularity,
ignorance of beauty,
uncouthness,
gaucherie,
lightmindedness,
boorishness,
rudeness,
contentiousness,
quarrelsomeness,
abusiveness,
shouting,
brawling,
fighting,
rage,
mindless desire,
gall,
exasperation,
giving offence,
enmity,
meddlesomeness,
chicanery,
asperity,
slander,
censure,
calumny,
condemnation,
accusation,
hatred,
railing,
insolence,
dishonour,
ferocity,
frenzy,
severity,
aggressiveness,
forswearing oneself,
oathtaking,
lack of compassion,
hatred of one’s brothers,
partiality,
patricide,
matricide,
breaking fasts,
laxity,
acceptance of bribes,
theft,
rapine,
jealousy,
strife,
envy,
indecency,
jesting,
vilification,
mockery,
derision,
exploitation,
oppression,
disdain of one’s neighbour,
flogging,
making sport of others,
hanging,
throttling,
heartlessness,
implacability,
covenant-breaking,
bewitchment,
harshness,
shamelessness,
impudence,
obfuscation of thoughts,
obtuseness,
mental blindness,
attraction to what is fleeting,
impassionedness,
frivolity,
disobedience,
dullwittedness,
drowsiness of soul,
excessive sleep,
fantasy,
heavy drinking,
drunkenness,
uselessness,
slackness,
mindless enjoyment,
self-indulgence,
venery,
using foul language,
effeminacy,
unbridled desire,
burning lust,
masturbation,
pimping,
adultery,
sodomy,
bestiality,
defilement,
wantonness,
a stained soul,
incest,
uncleanliness,
pollution,
sordidness,
feigned affection,
laughter,
jokes,
immodest dancing,
clapping,
improper songs,
revelry,
fluteplaying,
license of tongue,
excessive love of order,
insubordination,
disorderliness,
reprehensible collusion,
conspiracy,
warfare,
killing,
brigandry,
sacrilege,
illicit gains,
usury,
wiliness,
grave-robbing,
hardness of heart,
obloquy,
complaining,
blasphemy,
fault-finding,
ingratitude,
malevolence,
contemptuousness,
pettiness,
confusion,
lying,
verbosity,
empty words,
mindless joy,
daydreaming,
mindless friendship,
bad habits,
nonsensicality,
silly talk,
garrulity,
niggardliness,
depravity,
intolerance,
irritability,
affluence,
rancour,
misuse,
ill-temper,
clinging to life,
ostentation,
affectation,
pusillanimity,
satanic love,
curiosity,
contumely,
lack of the fear of God,
unteachability,
senselessness,
haughtiness,
self-vaunting,
self-inflation,
scorn for one’s neighbour,
mercilessness,
insensitivity,
hopelessness,
spiritual paralysis,
hatred of God,
despair,
suicide,
a falling away from God in all things,
utter destruction — altogether 298 passions.

© 2012, Fr. John A. Peck. All rights reserved.

Among the imperatives of the Christian moral life, I wonder if any is the occasion of more bewilderment than the call to be humble. This impression arises not only from my own experience of the problem but also from the many times other Christians have asked me,

“How can I learn humility?”

If humility were simply one of the moral virtues—as it is often treated—its acquisition would be rather simple, I think.  A person would first define humility, as an ideal, and then bring his conduct, as far as possible, into conformity with that ideal. This is, after all, the way someone attains other moral virtues, such as justice and prudence. We have always known, from the time of Aristotle, that a person attains justice and prudence by acting justly and prudently.

Little reflection is needed, I think, to detect a problem in this approach. That is: Although the person who acts justly and prudently will likely become just and prudent, it is not so obvious that the one who acts humbly will become humble. Humility is more subtle; indeed, the acquisition of humility can easily become the occasion of a special sort of pride.

The Christian ascetical tradition, in which the acquisition of humility is a matter of serious concern, has always recognized the problem. According to this tradition, Christian humility sits atop an ascending ladder, marked with certain discernable steps, some of which may not appear-to the uninformed observer-to be directly concerned with humility. 

Let us consider the first step, which involves the sustained and conscious effort to cultivate a sense of God’s presence to the conscience. According to St. Benedict,

“The first degree of humility _is that a person keep the fear of God before his eyes_ and beware of ever forgetting it.” Just as “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Psalms 11:19; Job 28:28; Proverbs 1:7; 9:10; Sirach 1:16),

so it is, also, the beginning of humility.

In other words, the man who seeks humility must start on the ladder’s first rung, which is a great moral effort, explicitly set under the divine gaze. St. Gregory the Dialoguist, in his account of St. Benedict, wrote of this experience. Benedict, he said,

“dwelt alone with himself, in the sight of his Creator, who beholds the hearts of all men” (Dialogues 2.3).

Centuries later, Richard of St. Victor summarized this fear of God:

“to know God and be known by God; to see God through the intuition of fear; to be seen by God through the regard of kindness” (Benjamin Minor 8).

Benedict himself describes this effort:

“Let [the monk] be ever mindful of all that God has commanded; let his thoughts constantly recur to the hell-fire which will burn for their sins those who despise God, and to the life everlasting which is prepared for those who fear Him.”

We observe that the climber, on this first step, is not thinking about humility. He is taken up, rather, with the presence of God, who searches the human heart:

“Let a man consider that God is always looking at him from heaven, that his actions are everywhere visible to the divine eyes and are constantly being reported to God by the Angels” (The Holy Rule 7).

As ladders are sometimes broader at the bottom, so in his treatment of humility, St. Benedict dedicates the greater space to that first step. The following steps are all arranged on the basis of it: abnegation of will, obedience, the cultivation of patience in trials, submission to spiritual direction, and contentment with one’s resources and opportunities.

Only at the seventh step does Benedict mention the actual struggle to act humbly; by this time, the essential foundation for acting humbly has been constructed. Still, the eighth step warns against assuming ascetical efforts outside the common monastic rule. Step nine exhorts the climber to greater silence, and the next two steps caution him against frivolity.

As for step twelve, it places the climber once again under the gaze of God, where

“he should consider himself already present at the dread Judgment.”

Most striking, I think, in St. Benedict’s description of the final step is that the climber does not seem to think of himself as humble. Indeed, he does not think of himself at all. He is taken up, rather, with the love of Christ,

“as though naturally and by habit.”

© 2012, Fr. John A. Peck. All rights reserved.

This just in from the St. Vladimir Theological Seminary Website. Just a reminder – St. Vlad’s is the only Orthodox seminary in America which employs a professor of homiletics – they are beginning to take preaching seriously. Kudos to St. Vladimir’s leadership for starting this, which will practically guarantee every prospective seminarian MUST give SVS a serious look.

“It is now possible for students to come to St. Vladimir’s Seminary with their tuition fully funded,” announced Archpriest John Behr, dean, as he unfolded a new plan designed to help seminarians cover the cost of their education.

“Effective for this coming academic year,” explained Fr. John, “we’re instituting a newly devised ‘matching grant’ program for students seeking either a Master of Divinity or Master of Arts degree in theology, and we’re expanding tuition grants available to students in other categories and degree programs as well.

“It is our intent,” he continued, “to care for our seminarians by lowering the burden of monetary debt that so often follows priests and lay ministers as they enter the field of church work.”

The plan, which was initiated by the seminary Board of Trustees in November 2011, is simple: the seminary will provide 50% of total tuition costs in outright grants, and up to 25% more in dollar-for-dollar matching funds to qualifying students, that is, students who meet the need-based criteria set by the seminary. The other 25% of tuition would be paid through matching funds donated by ecclesial sources, such as dioceses, parishes, parish organizations, and parish aid and scholarship funds.

“In this manner,” explained Fr. John, “the tuition for all our students will be potentially fully funded. Additionally, these funds will be available to incoming and returning students.”

Seminary Chancellor/CEO Archpriest Chad Hatfield further noted the import of the new plan, saying,

“We here at St. Vladimir’s are fully committed to fully paid tuition for our seminarians. Just as we built the Married Student Housing complex on our campus to create a close-knit community and to offer our students and their families affordable rental space, we’ve taken a leap of faith in creating this new plan to help students leave here debt free and ready to work in God’s vineyard.”

Both the Dean and Chancellor emphasized that the seminary’s commitment to pay at least 50%, and up to 75%, of the total annual tuition costs per qualifying student represents a substantial increase over what the seminary has contributed to student tuition in previous years.

“This does not mean that we have found a ‘pot of gold at the end of the rainbow’,”

remarked Fr. John,

“but rather that we’re absolutely committed to providing for our students in this difficult economy. We are likewise depending upon ecclesial bodies and parishes to take up the challenge to make seminarians debt free through their portion in matching funds, and we will be calling upon them in the future to do so.”

“It is also apparent,” Fr. Chad observed, “that we are contributing seminary funds to this program in hopes that potential students will seek an education at St. Vladimir’s.

“Those new incoming students,” he went on, “through their room and board costs—which, by the way, now are comparably low and directly competitive with other Orthodox theological schools in the U.S.—will help us replenish our general operations funds and allow us to continue funding student tuition in a more generous manner.”

Besides helping students in the M.Div. and M.A. programs through the new plan, the Board of Trustees expanded potential financial aid to four other groups of students:

1) seminarians in the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church will receive 60% tuition paid as an outright grant, with 20% in matching funds, and the amount of students eligible for funding is no longer capped at six;

2) monastics of (at least) the Rassaphore rank will receive 100% tuition paid in outright grants, and the amount of students eligible for funding is no longer capped at three;

3) highly qualified and select seminarians seeking Th.M. degrees will receive Dean’s Fellowships at 100% paid tuition, and the amount of students eligible for such funding is no longer capped at five; and

4) some residential part-time M.A. and Th.M. students will be eligible for financial aid.

Details of the new plan and other details about financial aid at St. Vladimir’s Seminary may be found at the SVS Website here, or by contacting Dr. David F. Wagschal, director of Admissions and Financial Aid, at , or 914-961-8313 x328.

© 2012, Fr. John A. Peck. All rights reserved.

This interview, with Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) is not all about preaching, but he makes the profound and necessary connection between preaching and mission (without which there would be no Church). I’ve republished the article in its entirety.

Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations and head of the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission, gave in interview to the Bogoslov.ru portal. In a talk with the portal’s editor-in-chief, Archpriest Pavel Velikanov, he explains his vision of the role his Commission plays and the place it occupies in today’s life of the Church.

He also speaks about theological problem facing the Orthodox Church today and the preparation and conduct of a Pan-Orthodox Council, as well as other topics.

Q. Your Eminence, on October 5, 2011, you were appointed as chairman of the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission. It is you that the supreme leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church have chosen for a very delicate and manifold task to direct the work of the Church in the area of theology. We would like to know your vision of the role and place of the Commission in today’s life of the Church. Is it planned to develop the Commission into something like ‘a leading research institute’ or ‘an experts’ council’ or will it functions remain the same?

A. In the first place I would like to stress that the Synodal Theological Commission and its chairman have never been set the task ‘to direct the work of the Church in the area of theology’. Unlike, say, episcopal ministry, which is primarily the service of direction (1 Cor. 12:26-29) as well as preservation of the doctrinal and canonical Tradition, theological ministry is a special calling. What is required to fulfil it, along with faithfulness to the Church, is appropriate competence and ability to think theologically. Today we face the task not ‘to direct theology’ but to create conditions for the new generation of Orthodox theologians to develop these abilities.

By definition the Commission is not a theological research institution. It rather acts as an experts’ council which, acting on the instruction of His Holiness the Patriarch and the Holy Synod, works on specific topics collegially formulating answers to posed question. This is its principal task.

As far as other forms and areas of the Commission’s work are concerned, we propose to consider them at the forthcoming plenary session.

Q. Your Eminence, you are a theologian rightly recognized by the scientific communities both inside and outside Russia. In your view, what are the most acute theological problems facing the Orthodox Church as a whole today? Are there problems the solution to which really determines the future of Orthodoxy?

A. Today’s Orthodox Church preserves continuity with the apostolic Christian community and in this sense she is above all a Church of the Tradition. The future of Orthodoxy depends on faithfulness to the church Tradition – the tradition that the Church has preserved in diverse historical situations through centuries.

As opposed to some liberally-minded Christian communities, the Orthodox Church does not need any rethinking or re-interpretation of her doctrinal or moral teaching. And when ecclesiastical scholars, patrologists, historians, liturgists and representatives of other disciplines, in their studies encounter some problems, these problems do not concern doctrine as such but they are specific problems arising in any serious scholarship.

However, there is one really acute and pressing problem which is quite theological, that of church mission today. In this case it is a not a matter of church message, not what the Church preaches but what needs to be done to make church preaching intelligible and effective in today’s situation. Indeed, theology is not only an in-depth study of the meaning of the Church’s dogmatic and moral teaching. It is also a proclamation, a special way of proclaiming to the world and people the truths of the faith through various means. It is not without reason that Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople, a well-known defender of the veneration of icons, used the expression ‘the melody of theology’.

Today we face the task to find such ways of expressing the church teaching as to enable us to give account of our hope to those around us who are still far from the Church or those who are on the way to it.

A particular part of this task is the work on the Catechesis carried out today under the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission.

Q. Recently there have been intensive discussions on the preparation and convening of a Pan-Orthodox Council. How intensively is this preparation process going? How do you see the role of the Biblical and Theological Commission in the preparation of this Council so important for all Local Churches? Indeed, there is a whole number of questions, in particular the problem of primacy, which is solved in different ways precisely for the reason of differences in ‘theological ways’?

A. I have had to answer questions about the preparation of a Pan-Orthodox Council more than once. This preparation has been carried out for half a century now, sometimes intensifying, sometimes standing stock-still. Positions of Local Orthodox Church on a number of items on the agenda have been harmonized. Today we have revisited the question of what the Council should be, in the course of inter-Orthodox dialogue. And it should be said that this discussion is part of the conciliar process which can be crowned by the Council itself.

Pehaps, some disputable problems, on which consensus has not been reached as yet, should not be posed before the Council but rather be left for the future. It concerns also the problem of primacy in the Orthodox Church as well as related issues of the granting of autocephaly and the problem of diptychs.

As far as the problem of primacy is concerned, serious studies have been carried out on this theme by the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission. On the basis of an historical, canonical and theological analysis, a document will be drafted which, after its approval by the Supreme Church Authority, will express the position of our Church.

Q. The Biblical and Theological Commission as related to Russian theological schools is actually one that ‘commissions’ projects and personnel. In your view, what fields of theology experience the most acute shortage of specialists?

A. The members of the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission are authoritative and competent theologians and church scholars but as the need arises we involve experts in various fields including young theologians.

Among our researchers and specialists there are many people who are engaged in patristic studies, both Eastern and Western. This concern should be developed since reliance on the patristic heritage is an important and strong aspect of the modern Orthodox theology. It is insufficient though.

We still have few highly qualified specialists in canon law, an area in which the Russian church scholarship used to be up to the mark in the pre-revolutionary period.

Matters stand better in Bible studies. In the Commission, a biblical group has been set up, involving both members of the Commission and invited experts. Orthodox Bible studies however need to be developed. This requires not only consolidation of resources but cultivation of a new generation of scholars.

There is another need, of course, – the need for systemic theologians. To meet this need is not an easy task because it takes specialists not only with enormous erudition, not only theological at that, but also with a philosophical, general cultural and really systemic thinking and with a literary gift as well. At this stage we are still to reach the level of such Russian dogmatists as Metropolitan Makary (Bulgakov). I hope that in the gradual development of various theological disciplines we will see the emergence of people capable of offering theological works of systemic nature.

Q. Speaking about theological academies and chairs of theology in secular universities, what is your vision of the calling of each of these academic schools so different structurally and administratively?

A. The theological academic tradition is an integral part of the Russian higher theological education, I its core and solid foundation. The principal task of a theological academy is to cultivate highly educated clergy, hierarchs and pastors. And here we have not yet reached the pre-revolutionary level either, because at that time the academic education had a solid general scientific and general humanitarian component.

Theological units such as chairs, departments and faculties in secular universities represent a new experience but their emergence is dictated first of all by the tasks of religious education and mission facing the Church today. These units should be developed with the use of advantages they enjoy as to their status, that is, their being part of a university. This involvement does not only make it possible to restore and assert theology as a legitimate and integral part of education and culture; it also makes it possible for theology to enter into dialogue and cooperation with secular sciences, especially humanitarian ones. This will contribute to the development and enrichment of our theology and to its ability to speak with the world. In doing so, it is necessary of course that the so-called ‘secular theology’ should not lose living relations with the life of the Church. This danger does exist, and we should always remember it, because Orthodox theology outside the liturgy and spiritual life is doomed to become emasculated.

Q. The Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission has come to prominence through theological conferences organized by the Russian Orthodox Church. They were attended by the best theological scholars from all over the world. Will this tradition of holding such conferences continue or will the format of these conferences be changed?

A. The tradition of holding international church-wide theological conferences will certainly continue. The papers of previous conferences constitute an important contribution to our theology and reflect the dynamics of its development. At present, a collection of papers from the latest conference on ‘Life in Christ: Christians Ethics, Ascetic Tradition of the Church and Challenges of the Modern Time’, which took place in November 2012, are in the press.

As for the format of the conferences and their thematic structure, changes are possible here. This matter will also be discussed at the plenary session of our Commission.

Q. In conclusion, allow me, Your Eminence, to hear your wish to the editors, contributors and readers of the Bogoslov.ru website, precisely in your capacity as chairman of the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission.

A. I wish that the editors and contributors of the Bogoslov.ru portal always remember the responsibility placed on those who address the theological word to such a broad audience and steadily raise the scientific theological level of the materials it publishes. And to readers I wish that introduction to the portal’s materials help them not only to broaden their theological horizon but also assert them in their Orthodox faith.

Source

© 2012, Fr. John A. Peck. All rights reserved.

Ever since opening the first volume of Tanquerey’s Dogmatics more than a half-century ago, I have sensed an ironic problem in the apologetics of modern Christians: An uncertainty about the meaning of certainty.

The root of the problem, I believe, is modern philosophy’s implicit acceptance of rigid scientific and mathematical standards in the pursuit of truth. Because of the close historical connection between philosophy and apologetics, it is hardly surprising that a development in the one would find a parallel expression in the other.

With respect to modern philosophy, it is not clear (to me, at least) when it first adopted scientific and mathematical standards of certainty, but this development started even before the invention of differential and integral calculus.

Already Descartes, a figure earlier than Newton and Leibniz, coveted for philosophy a kind of certainty comparable to that afforded by mathematics. When he looked at the history of philosophy, everything was in an ongoing state of confusion; the most significant and astute philosophers seemed unable to agree among themselves on even the most basic questions. When Descartes turned to the history of mathematics, however, there were no disagreements at all. No mathematician ever contradicted another mathematician. Philosophy was in confusion, whereas clarity reigned in mathematics. Descartes asked himself,

“Why can’t philosophy be more like mathematics?”

This was not a speculative question; Descartes systematically endeavored to shift philosophy in a direction that mimicked mathematical processes. In order to maintain scientific certainty throughout the philosophical quest, he began with what he considered a self-evident principle (Cogito,ergo sum—“I think; therefore, I am”) and then, step by step, “proved” derivative inferences—such as the existence of God—as though he were demonstrating geometric theorems.

Now, leaving aside the particular criticisms to which this philosophical approach is open—and which, in fact, it received almost at once—I propose here simply to comment that Descartes’ effort rested on an unwarranted assumption: a bias favoring logical precision as the correct path in the pursuit of truth.

I call this a bias, because it appears to me that the processes establishing precision should be ranked among the lower ventures of human reason. Let me state my suppositions on this point:

First, an ennobling feature of the human intellect is its close relationship to the freedom of the human will. The highest truths are known because they are chosen in the freedom of love. According to Gregory the Dialoguist, veritas non cognoscitur nisi amatur—

“the truth is not known unless it is loved.”

Mathematical understanding, on the other hand, allows no room for freedom. Mathematics is distinctively coercive, in the sense that its assertions always bear an imperative quality. Two and two are invariably four because two and two have nothing to say about it. No triangle is consulted about the sum total of its angles; it will have exactly half the degrees of a quadrangle, no discussion. Understanding these things, likewise, lies outside any experience of freedom.

Second, to the extent that rationality adopts a mathematical format as its standard, there is a distinct peril that human reason may simply grind to a halt. I can testify to this: When I taught symbolic logic to college students some years ago, I observed that many of them soon became adept in the process, moving symbols around according to all the established rules. They could do it unerringly. They could not, however, actually think.

Give them a hypothetical proposition, for instance—an English sentence written in real words—and many of them had trouble identifying which component of the proposition was the premise and which the inference. Give them an entire paragraph, in which the logical connection of the sentences could be discerned only through the laws of grammar, and they were quickly lost at sea. Even at the time, I wondered whether I was doing those students any real service. Mastering the (alleged) skills of symbolic logic, some of them simply forgot how to think as human beings. Indeed, symbolic logic, based on mathematical processes, is almost not human at all; a computer can do it just as well.

Third, mathematical thought has a reflexive, quasi-instinctual, quality. By reason of its consistency, precision, and predictability, mathematics serves human beings in a fashion analogous to the function of pure instinct in non-rational creatures. Indeed, Kant’s contemporary, Johann Georg Hamann, made this very point to the author of the Critique of Pure Reason. Hamann wrote,

“if mathematics is able to claim the privilege of nobility because of its universal and necessary reliability, then even human reason itself would not be the match for the infallible and unerring instincts of insects” (Metacritique on the Purism of Reason).

However, my real concern here is not for modern philosophers but for those modern Christian apologists who set a premium on scientific certainty and endeavor to establish the credibility of the Gospel by making the Gospel claims as scientific as possible, with the intent of attaining a culminating state of certainty.

The certainty they seek, however, has a compulsive quality. It is presented to the mind as an imperative—Tanquerey’s credendum est. That is to say, the implicit model in this kind of apologetics is mathematical; it works through a progression of demonstrated theorems, in which inferences are recognized as true, because they must be inferred.

The knowledge of God in Christ, however, to which we hope to bring the unbeliever, has nothing to do with this type of certainty. Christ our Lord spoke of certainty as a liberating knowledge:

“You will know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).

The knowledge of God in Christ is personal knowledge, freely given and freely received. Still, to embrace it is to attain what the Apostle Paul calls plerophoria polle,

“complete certainty” (1 Thessalonians 1:5).  

If this is the case, let me suggest that a proper apologetic procedure for Christians—in the hope of arriving at the truth in Christ—will endeavor, as far as possible, to beckon the mind, to lure the heart, by the sustained presentation of a vision, a vision of goodness and glory.

Since Holy Scripture describes the knowledge of God in Christ as an experience of liberty and a beholding of glory, we should suppose that the path to it will also involve both freedom and the perception of beauty.

© 2012, Fr. John A. Peck. All rights reserved.

This past autumn, about the time that students hit their post-midterm academic lull, I was presented with a curious opportunity. One of my professors, Fr. Sergius Halvorsen, invited members of his homiletics class to apply for an all-expense-paid trip…to Louisville, Kentucky…over Christmas recess…to attend the Festival of Young Preachers!

Now to some people, this sounds like the opportunity of a lifetime, while for others this doesn’t quite make their “bucket list.” Myself? I was somewhere in the middle. It would be Christmas break—perhaps my last career opportunity for three consecutive weeks of holiday. And, at 29, I would be the oldest “young preacher” at the Festival. I was also wary of the subject. We all know that homilies, even when divinely inspired, can occasionally be a bit drab, so the prospect of hearing 30 homilies in three days was not without its own risk. On the other hand, I hold preaching in very high regard. And I had a hunch that this conference might be a little more dynamic than a typical Orthodox Divine Liturgy homily. Many participants were from denominations or persuasions that had little structure to their worship beyond scripture and preaching. This was their bread and butter, so to speak.

So in an audacious (if scriptural) fashion, I replied with those famous words

“Here am I. Send me!” (Is 6:8).

And so, I was sent.

The faculty of St. Vladimir’s seminary very graciously provided for my traveling, meals, accommodations, and the festival registration fee, all so that I could preach a brief homily to my peers and listen attentively to their sermons as well! I would like to thank Fr. John Behr and Fr. Chad Hatfield, and the SVS Board of Trustees for making my attendance at this conference possible, and also Fr. Sergius Halvorsen for accompanying me on this journey. I will not soon forget this wonderful experience!

The Festival of Young Preachers is organized by The Academy of Preachers, and is billed as the largest and most ecumenical gathering of its kind in the country, with its 120 young preachers representing over 30 denominations of Christians from over 30 states and Canada. The gospel message upon which we were to preach was Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, taken from the Gospel of St. Matthew, chapters 5–7. From this text, we could preach on any section or subject that we considered appropriate.

So as a young preacher, I was asked to preach on the preaching of our Lord, to a room full of preachers! “Curiouser and curiouser…”

And where does one begin with the Sermon on the Mount, anyway? Even after acknowledging that it takes a life lived faithfully to do this passage of scripture justice, the text is so rich that it is hard to get a foothold. I figured that several of my peers would take the Beatitudes and ideas of faith in God, prayer and what-not, so I thought I would try to unravel some of the features of the Sermon that have always puzzled me.Fr. Sergius Halvorson, assistant professor of Homiletics at St. Vladimir’s (left), served as Seminarian Ketz’s mentor

I found myself struck by a brief passage near the beginning: Matt 5:17–20. Christ explains that he is here to fulfill the Law, telling us

“unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 5:20).

What fascinates me is the seeming contrast between this appraisal of the Pharisees’ legalism (which our righteousness must exceed), and Jesus’ famous rebuke shortly before his Passion, which we hear each year at the (Bridegroom) Matins of Holy Tuesday. “Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees…” (Matt 23:13-39). What is “exceeding righteousness”?

So I prepared my homily as best I could, drawing on the advice of my ‘coach’ Fr. Sergius and all of studies and life experiences to date, all while trying to imagine what, precisely, was in store for me in Louisville this winter

The conference began on Monday afternoon with a workshop on the “first line” of a sermon. Was this exercise to set the stage for the whole conference? Twenty-five of us gathered with two professors of communications and spent two hours practicing and discussing and rehearsing first lines of speeches and sermons. The workshop was technical and theatrical, and (deliberately so, according to its leaders), somewhat awkward. At one point, we were deliberately saying each others’ opening lines like movie stars, just to see if we could convey different messages with our tone of voice. While my understanding of the value of the first spoken line in an oration deepened considerably, my expectations for the festival were thoroughly confused by some of the memorable one-liners of advice in that workshop. At one point, we were told to “take a good breath before you start preaching, because that’s the last good breath you’ll get.” OK, I guess. But don’t all speakers (and preachers) pause to take a breath if they need to? I soon learned otherwise.

The festival began with an evening worship service, the main feature of which was scripture and a homily, followed by a reception. I was introduced to 12 of my peers, whose homilies I would hear in coming days. The group was an incredible cross section of America—people from all walks of life in all regions of the country. Most people were (undergraduate) college students, though there were two high school students and an itinerant minister who had been preaching for 14 years (he started at age 12)—all in this small group. High church, low church, non-denominational. We were quite an unlikely group of friends.

We continued the next morning with another worship service. After this, five rooms were set up for concurrent preaching. It wasn’t possible for all of us to hear everybody, so they organized things as best the could, giving us each 15–20 minutes, along with an introduction, scripture and prayer as appropriate, and a brief evaluation by a professional in homiletics or communications after we were finished. The first day was reserved for return students, presumably to give the first-time guests an extra evening to polish up our sermons based on what we saw and heard.

And nothing could have prepared me for the variety of preaching that I heard in just three short days!

The preaching I have heard throughout my life is all variation on a single theme: the paced, pointed, crafted message designed to engage the intellect. Most of my experience as a listener is in the Orthodox Christian liturgy, but even in the occasional wedding or funeral I have attended outside the Orthodox Church, the preacher’s style has had a familiar (slow) pace and gentle guiding tone. Apparently this is only a single type of flower in the garden of Christian preaching.

Here at the festival, the first thing that struck me was the repeated confirmation of our workshop coach’s advice on breathing before speaking! Though I don’t think I’d attempt it, many preachers are able to talk for three or four minutes before pausing for a dramatic breath. Several preachers controlled the emotion in the room with all the skill of a professional musician. Volume. Pitch. Punctuation. Crescendos, rhyme, meter, repetition, alliteration. I myself had never seen such deliberate speaking on a Sunday morning. None of these preachers let themselves get in the way of their message, but they used their public speaking abilities in ways I had never even considered! On the other hand, many preachers handled their homilies like rhetorical bible studies, asking deliberately paced questions, and inviting us all to walk through the scriptures together to find answers. There was such diversity in preaching that I can’t hope to describe it!

Yet for all the variety, these sermons shared a common ground. The soil from which these homiletic flowers grew was the gospel: our Lord’s call to repentance, and his promise of salvation. In fact, a point on which Fr. Sergius and I both mused was that, with only the slightest bit of theological editing, the texts of many of these homilies could be preached at any represented denomination’s Sunday service. But what would my homily sound like if it were offered by the preacher at a Southern Baptist or AME Zion church? And how would I deliver their homily if they gave me their manuscript? Preaching is so much more than words on paper! Even an attempt to describe my experience falls flat.

The festival continued with an evening worship service at the local Roman Catholic cathedral, and many more homilies on the Sermon on the Mount the following day. My predictions on content were only partially correct. Many preachers I heard discussed the Beatitudes, but never exclusively. And there was not a moment in these four days that I had the sense of “wash, rinse, repeat.” Every sermon was as unique as the preacher giving it, and I benefited from hearing every one.

We concluded our festivities with a wonderful banquet recognizing all of us who preached, all of those who help us preach, and especially  those who organized the conference. There seemed to be unanimous agreement that the breaking of bread (and other great food) together at a meal was the appropriate way to seal the friendships we had each begun over these few short days; to recognize the common roots of our diversity.

My last great question heading into the conference was whether I’d be burned out on the Sermon on the Mount. After 30 homilies, how would I feel about the “salt of the earth,” or the Beatitudes, or “lilies of the field,” or “turning the other cheek”? To my surprise, I am more excited than ever, and because of this excitement, I’m also a bit saddened. This festival has forced me to confront a strange reality within the Orthodox Church. Our lectionary seems to give Christ’s great lesson from the Gospel of Matthew “second billing.” The sermon is read in the first weeks after Pentecost, and almost entirely on weekdays. Almost nowhere in the Orthodox Christian world is this incredibly powerful portion of the Gospel read liturgically and then preached. This is not a critique of our lectionary—by no means!—but it is our loss that we don’t all read these verses of scripture together and rejoice in them as a community of believers. Realizing this, I am all the more thankful for this opportunity to attend a festival of preaching in which the Sermon on the Mount was the selected text!

Sadly, I will not be able to return to the festival next year, but I hope and pray that our seminary and Church will continue to send representatives to this Festival of Young Preachers. St. Vladimir’s Seminary was a welcome presence at the assembly, as was Holy Cross School of Theology in Brookline, Massachusetts. I hope that we will all see this festival as an opportunity for us to embrace the fullness of our faith, to share our joy with the world, and to be, as individuals and as an Orthodox Church, the trumpets of our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

“I can’t imagine paradise without you!”
The Author of the Law instructs his disciples (Matt 5:17–20)
by Jason Ketz

People love to follow rules! Right from the start — from our youth up, we have followed rules. Even as kids, we seemed to thrive on rules. We would even make games out of rule following. Did any of you play follow the leader? The whole point of the game is to follow rules, and kids love it! As adults, we take rule following to the extreme. We have laws to protect people, customs to protect the status quo, and sometimes we have rules ‘just because.’ One set of customs told us each what to wear today. A slightly broader ordinance told us we had to wear some clothing. Etiquette tells us not to slurp our soup at lunch. And those of us who drive are familiar with a whole book of traffic laws.

These laws and rules and customs support our culture. Like the wooden frame of a house being constructed, law is the framework of our society. The rules outline how we all live together, how we all agree to interact with each other. God gave the Law to Israel for this very reason. The Law of Moses brings God’s children together as one culture — one people. Authority, purity, sacred places and sacred spaces, tithes and sacrifice — all of these commands, all of these precepts outline how a society lives together in God’s presence. And the Law is the framework of God’s covenant — God’s promise to remember us, and our promise to remember God. We believe this, but at some point, we forget our place. We focus in on the promise — on God’s blessings as rewards for our obedience. We try to earn these blessings, to earn God’s love and approval through our willingness to follow his commands. But the moment we think we understand how to earn blessings, we become the judges. We become the administrators of the law, and we interpret the law to best serve our purposes. And other people become a threat to our blessings. Suddenly, we’re no longer neighbors, but adversaries. The rules and laws no longer unite us, but divide us. Now we’re not working together. We’re competing against each other.

We play with laws and ordinances, and even with commandments and traditions like a poker game. Constantly trading cards, betting and raising, bluffing and calling each other’s bluff, exploiting the rules to our advantage. Making sure that we get the rewards, even at somebody else’s expense. Does anybody remember the company Enron? The most hated company of the last decade. They used their authority to hijack the power grid. They blackmailed state governments with rolling blackouts, taking taxpayer money in return. And they spent their employees’ pensions on their personal riches, until the whole company buckled under the greed of just a handful of executives who were drunk with authority. Ponzi schemes, fraud, mafias and drug lords. With the wave of a pen or the click of a trigger, any of us can take a law we all agree on — a law meant to help us interact — we take that law and use it competitively. We use it to our advantage.

God’s covenant is not a private agreement. The Law of Moses promises eternal life to all humanity. It’s our way to paradise, and it’s available to everybody. We know this. We believe this, and still we figure out ways to abuse and exploit the ordinances of our Lord. Just as Enron used the power grid, we try to use God’s promise of paradise to our advantage, and to our neighbor’s disadvantage. When we imagine ourselves in heaven, we each have somebody who is not in that dream. All too easily, we can imagine paradise without somebody. What a horrible thing to say, right? That we could imagine paradise without a person?! And yet we do so constantly. Sure, we don’t set out to think these evil thoughts. We set out to help people. We know that God forgives sinners, and that God loves everybody, so we just want people to change, to repent. To be saved. Because we know that all people will be judged by God. And as students of the word, and students of the law, we know the law by which we are judged. we have heard the commandments — all of God’s “do’s and don’ts.” From Moses and the Prophets and Jesus and Paul. We know that we cannot relax them.

Today’s text tells us this. So we have to make people understand — we have to help people, get them to somehow hear the same law we’re hearing. And oh, do we know how to manipulate people with this idea of sin. Sexuality is one of those enduring examples of church authority. Our way of “helping the lost sheep.” Whether its preference or promiscuity, we comment
on the disparity between what we see in the world and what we read in the scriptures. Some of us preach. Some of us write. Some of us pastor, and some of us keep our mouths shut and do the judging in our hearts and in our minds. But every one of us has rendered a judgment against another human being. Our Lord has come today to knock us off our little thrones of judgment, because we’ve got it all wrong. Christ cannot imagine paradise without us. He can’t imagine paradise without us, so he doesn’t want us imagining paradise without
each other. Because we are not the judge. Our Lord meets us today in the midst of our legal competition, in the midst of our wicked card game of rules and customs and rewards and punishments. Christ takes Moses’ seat on the mountain, takes his place as the law-giver — and he gathers us all around for another familiar game of cards. And this time he’s the dealer.

There is only one round of cards being dealt, and the stakes are very high. Christ tells us all that

“not one iota of the law will pass away” (Matt 5:18).

We like to judge by the law, so the Author of the law can show us how it’s done. Jesus offers a radically intense reading of the commandments.

“You have heard in the law…dot dot dot… but I tell you even more” (Matt 5:21f, 27f, 33f).

He teaches us that hating our neighbor is the same as murder (vv 21–6). He tells us that looking lustfully at another person is the same as adultery (vv 27–32). The Law structures and governs and judges not only our actions, but also our emotions and our thoughts. All of the chips are in now, and we’re starting to see that we have a lousy hand of cards for this final round. As Christ has now explained the law of Moses, it’s impossible to follow! Game over, the house wins. Every one of us — all human beings will fall short under this law. Woe to us, scribes and Pharisees. None of us will be blameless in a judgment. None of us will be righteous by following the letter of the law. In fact, he tells us

“unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, you will not get into the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 5:20).

But suddenly this isn’t the same sleazy backroom poker game we know and love. Something more is going on here. Christ unexpectedly unites himself with — well, with the losers. He blesses those who can’t follow the laws, who struggle with rules, who aren’t the most competitive. The outcasts, the downtrodden, the hurtin’ people. Christ unites himself to these people, because they are his creation. They are his chosen people. Long ago he promised to remember them all, and today he honors this promise. Our Lord remembers those we would just
as soon forget. And he blesses them (Matt 5:3–12). He can’t imagine paradise without them.

Blessed are the poor, blessed are the meek, blessed are those who are persecuted, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Christ cares about his children. He can’t imagine paradise without any of us. And if the people that we would just as soon forget are an image of our Lord…well that’s bad news for our exclusive ideas of heaven. Now, if we imagine paradise without each other, we’re imagining paradise without Christ. And paradise without the messiah — well, there’s another name for that place. But instead of beating us at our own game of judgment, our Lord does something completely unexpected. He lays down his hand of cards and walks away from the game table. He reveals the law in a new light. This new righteousness our Lord speaks of. He’s not saying try harder, be craftier, or hang in there. He’s telling us to stop playing this silly game. Today Christ instructs us to love each other, because he loves us. This is the great law of the law-giver; the great lesson given by the teacher. He teaches us on the mountain, and he shows us on the cross.

“I can’t imagine paradise without you.”

And when we return on Easter Sunday to hear to hear Jesus’ second sermon on the mount — we witness the resurrection — the perfect display of Love. The Father’s love for his Son, and our Lord’s love for his creation. Love is action and love is a gift freely given. Throughout his ministry, Christ shows us how to give this gift of love to each other. Every time he healed a person or cast out a demon, or fed a group of people, he brought them back into his community. He singlehandedly dissolved all of the exclusion we had mistakenly created. He tears down our walls, he breaks our defenses. He takes our rules and our laws and our customs that divide us, that make us unique, and he unites us once again as his creation. Christ waits for all of us in paradise — in the resurrection. And as we journey through life in hope of the resurrection, We help each other along the way. And we help each other through God’s blessings. Because God’s blessings are gifts, not rewards. And we are stewards of these gifts, not recipients. As stewards, we share our blessings with others — with the least of the brethren (cf. Matt 25:31–46). Those hurting people that our Lord has recently blessed, the ones who have nobody else to look after them.

And what better place to start caring for each other, to start helping each other, to start loving each other than through basic needs. One of the great fathers of the church said, “to a hungry person, God is a loaf of bread.” As we give of our possessions, our time and our talents to those who need them, we offer hope. We offer hope in God’s promise. Hope in paradise. Hope in the Resurrection. Hope in our Lord. Every time one of us gives a coat and a cup of soup to a homeless person, both people suddenly understand Christ’s love. The scales fall out of our eyes, and we realize something. We realize that we can no longer imagine paradise without this other person. These loving interactions with each other are glimpses into the kingdom. The fiery red sky before the brilliant sunrise.

Our Lord’s great lesson is that we love each other. We give to those in need. We offer our strengths and our blessings to those who need them. But the least of Christ’s brethren, the weaker brother or sister — they not only live somewhere else, in shelters or slums. In fact, they are not even outside of this room. There is no “they” but only “we.”

So as we pause for a moment from our busyness, from our anxiety, from our theology — as we stop playing poker with all our rules and customs and expectations, we encounter our Lord. We encounter our Lord as we pause to ask the person sitting beside us how they’re doing today. Or maybe even “what’s your name?” We encounter Christ the moment we honestly say to one another

“I can’t imagine paradise without you.”

Christ gives us each other to prepare us for the kingdom of heaven, through our love for one another. As we care for each other, little by little, and day by day, we come to understand the depth of Christ’s love. Today he has opened his law to us once again. Today he has renewed the covenant, and today he has invited us to his heavenly kingdom. Today we rejoice, because Christ has said to us all

“I can’t imagine paradise without you.”

AMEN

© 2012, Fr. John A. Peck. All rights reserved.

A month ago, once again, I traveled to the Annual Festival of Young Preachers, hosted by Dwight Moody’s Academy of Preaching, and once again, it was a wonderful experience to behold and participate in. There were three young preachers again this year; Jason Ketz (SVS Student), Gabriel Alimeyahu (Hellenic College), and Benjamin Peck (Hellenic College). I want to congratulate them on their excellent work, and thank the many other preachers and mentors who were so supportive, encouraging and downright gregarious. Fr. Serge Halvorsen, Homiletics professor at St. Vladimir Seminary said it best:

Good preaching is contagious.

It is, and this is without a doubt, the best possible environment to begin a lifetime of preaching the Gospel. Here is a quick synopsis of the 2012 Festival experience by Benjamin Peck. His sermon is included below.

by Benjamin Peck

In early January of this year, 2012, I had the incredible opportunity to attend the held in Louisville, Kentucky. While there I gave a sermon entitled “Speak My Name” on the subject of the Sermon on the Mount which was very well received and thanks to a friend is, as well as Orthodoxy Today.

While I had attended the festival in the year 2011, and had a very powerful spiritual experience then, my time in Kentucky was no different this year. I made friends, contacts and became spiritually and emotionally enveloped in my surroundings; seeing all these different portrayals of Christianity brought joy to my heart and soul and I found that many of these people, while various forms of Protestant denomination, were very Orthodox in their minds and ideology.

Many of the sermons captivated what it truly means to not just be any Christian, but an Orthodox Christian, whether they know it or would believe it or not.

Last year, being new to the scene, I was very nervous about being in a place where I would be one of three Orthodox Christians. Luckily, I met men like Larry Crudup and Andrè Waller; two very experienced preachers with minds and hearts for the Word of God as well as incredibly supportive and validating. When I came back this year they were just as happy to see me as I was them.

My experience, both times, at the Festival could be described only as a Trial by Fire, because nothing else even comes close to the amount of spiritual intensity I not only witnessed, but was enamored by. I thoroughly want to encourage any and all upcoming preachers, priests and even speech givers to attend this festival, or one at least like it. You will make nothing but friends here.

Speak My Name

By Benjamin Peck

Oh Heavenly King, the comforter, the spirit of Truth, who art everywhere and fillest all things. Treasury of blessings, and giver of life; come and abide in us, cleanse us of every impurity and save our souls, oh Good One. Glory to God in the Highest, and on Earth, peace, goodwill towards men. Oh Lord, open Thou my lips that my mouth may show forth Thy praise.

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen. Glory to Jesus Christ.

My brothers, my sisters… my fellow sinners. It is important to note just that; we are all sinners. Sinners among brothers and as such we are called to do but one thing to one another; forgive. The Lord God said

“If you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins,”

in Matthew 6:15. To forgive is an act of love, a loving act of forgiveness is an act of meekness, and as we know from the Sermon on the Mount to be meek is to inherit the Earth. But what do we really know about being meek?  To be meek is to not respond harshly, in anger, agitation, irritant or even in sarcasm to those around us. It is to be utterly calm, peaceful; loving to one another. I tell you now when I was in High School I made the conscious effort that I was going to go an entire day of being meek, I wanted to try it and see if I could achieve such love. Do you know happened? Not even three hours into that day, and I failed out of habit. Habit struck me down and caused me to respond harshly and sarcastically to someone I barely even knew. Isn’t that sad? So sad is it our society has so much habit on not loving. I couldn’t even make it three hours being loving and calm, let alone an entire day.

Love and forgiveness are two of the hardest things we will ever accomplish and be called to do as men and women of God. I find this humorous because when our friends struggle offenses made against them, we say to them

“is it really so hard to forgive and forget?”

And that’s a really stupid question, we know darn well how hard it is to move on and forgive, because it is so much easier and justifiable to our society to stew in our hatred, boil our rage and let our grudges bubble and brew. The other amusing thing is when we say to one another “loving is easy! It’s not so hard to love,” which is also not true. Love is patient, love is sometimes kind, but it sure as heck isn’t easy! It’s easy to love those who love you back; your mother, father, brother, sister, dog, cat, goldfish, turtle they all return the love you give them. But Christ said in Matthew 5:43-47 ~

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?”

How often do we follow this command? How often do we truly love our enemies, do we even think about it?

Let me give you some examples, brethren; the terrorists from 9/11, we’re supposed to love and pray for them. If a man murders his wife, his children, his friend, your friend or my friend; we have to love, forgive and pray for him. That awkward relative nobody wants to admit they have, we have to love and pray for them. Do not mistake me, brothers and sisters we are not called to love them for what they’ve done, we are called to love them because, like us, they are children of God. You may or may not be fathers or mothers, and I certainly am not, but I know that when I am a father, despite what sins my child may commit, despite what atrocities they may do, even if I am the victim of their crimes I will still love them. They are my children; a father can’t not love his child, and just as I cannot unlove my children, God does not stop loving his children. Christ said

“Forgive them, Father; they know not what they do.”

And these fellow children who have fallen from God’s grace know not what they do.

God’s grace is given unto us freely, but our forgiveness, our penance is conditional. We are not saved the moment we believe, we do not get a meal ticket to Heaven. A few months ago I met a man who said

“I am righteous, I have been baptised since I was nine and now I cannot sin.”

I asked him if he meant that if he sins he’ll go to Hell, he responded

“no I literally cannot sin. Nothing I do is sinful. I am saved, I am righteous.”

I couldn’t help but laugh at such ignorance, such arrogance, such harmful pride. Righteousness is something we all strive, thirst and starve for, but it is not so easily attained. Believe me! I wish that when I was baptized at the age of three nothing I did since then was a sin. Lying to my parents about cleaning my room, fighting both physically and verbally with my brothers, and if you have siblings you know what I mean. Or, as an adolescent teenager, looking at someone in a way I knew I shouldn’t have been looking. It’d be nice if none of those, or anything else I’d done, wasn’t a sin; that’d just be swell. But the problem is it doesn’t work like that, I still sin when I don’t love.

Loving is difficult, it takes practice and perseverance to love everyone around us, especially our enemies. It is even harder nowadays, considering that the world hates us. The world wants us to go away, wants to ignore us, it wants to pretend we never existed in the first place, in fact it makes consistent efforts to ignore us and cover us up. On December 22nd a Ugandan Bishop had acid thrown on his face and poured down his back, just for preaching love and forgiveness. There was no news coverage, save a small news website. CNN didn’t touch it, Fox didn’t touch it, they ignored it, they tried to ignore us. December 25th, there were three bombings in Nigeria, on Catholic churches during their Christmas mass, for honor kills. No news coverage, no story. No care.

And yet we must find a way to forgive them for these atrocities, and so if nothing else baptism raises the bar for us and calls us to be that much stronger, do that much more in our daily lives and make our lives that much harder because we know the reward that awaits us in Heaven. I do not condone the actions of those terrorists but let me assure you every man, woman and child who died is sitting on a throne in Heaven at the foot of God because they died in prayer, and they died in faith. This is important to note, my friends, that when we get into the enemy’s head with our talk of love and compassion, when they know we’re right and the only response they can think of is to kill us off, we’ve won. This is our victory! The world doesn’t like being confronted, it doesn’t like it when we win. They don’t like it when we won’t go away.

St. Maximus the Confessor, when arguing with fellow Christians, would not stop preaching the Gospel, preaching the Orthodox Church, and beating them in theological discussions, they cut out his tongue and cut off his right hand. This way he could not longer write or speak the word of the Gospel. Thats good preaching! St. John the Baptist, they had enough! They were tired of hearing about the Messiah, about the Christ, about God so they cut off his head. Good preaching! My patron saint, St. Benjamin the Deacon, in 424 A.D. was martyred. They initially captured and tortured him for preaching the Gospel. They later released him saying

“Don’t do that anymore!”

So what did he do? He preached louder, he preached harder, he preached more until they captured him again, stuck barbed wire under his toenails and finger nails, and left him to bleed to death. I have a lot to live up to, and I certainly hope that is never my fate, but you know what? That is great preaching!

It gives me no pleasure to say this, brothers and sisters, but the day is coming, possibly even in our lifetimes, where Christianity is openly persecuted in America. Let me assure you, this is a victory, for the Lord our God says

“Blessed are you when men shall revile and persecute you for my sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad; for great is your reward in Heaven!”

And blessed will we be. On that day it will be our duty as Christians, as soldiers of God’s mercy, to stand with stalwart hearts and unflinching convictions even as the faithless come to hunt and attempt to remove us, but we must stand our ground.

So when the heretics come to make that list, brethren; speak my name.

© 2012, Fr. John A. Peck. All rights reserved.

© 2012, Fr. John A. Peck. All rights reserved.