This excellent article was first published on Orthodoxytoday.org, where much of Fr. Morelli’s writings appear. We offer to our overworked, underpaid, and often exhausted brethren, in the hopes that they may be refreshed who are weary in well-doing.  It is placed under ‘Sermon Resources’ because – and I want to be quite clear about this – the healthy preacher is the greatest sermon resource of all. God bless you, brothers.

The apostles returned to Jesus, and told him all that they had done and taught. And he said to them, “Come away by yourselves to a lonely place, and rest a while. For many were coming and going, and they had no leisure even to eat (Mk 6:30-31).

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest (Mt 11:28).

In emulation of Our Lord Himself, priests are “on call” at all times. As St. Mark records of Jesus in his Gospel (1:33-34):

“And the whole city was gathered together about the door. And [H]e healed many who were sick with various diseases… ”

The priest, the icon of the healing Christ, is the instrumental physician of the souls they pastor. In the role of healer, the priest must hear their flock recount their personal problems. As discussed in Morelli, (2006c) many of these problems involve uttermost human and spiritual suffering, the disclosure of dysfunctional emotional reactions such as anger, anxiety and depression, the confession of helplessness, hopelessness and estrangement from God.

Priestly ministry is especially demanding because as Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev (2002) writes:

“The sacrament of priesthood is deeply significant…Despite the Orthodox emphasis on the ‘royal priesthood’ of all believers, the Church also recognizes a difference between laypeople and ordained clergy, the latter being entrusted with the celebration of the Eucharist, and having the power of ‘binding and loosing’. Ordination into a hierarchical rank, be it of bishop, priest or deacon, is not only a change of status but a transition to another level of existence.”

He goes on to quote St. Silouan the Athonite:

“[This] grace is so exceedingly great that were men able to see the glory of this grace, the whole world would wonder at it; but the Lord has veiled it that His servants should not be puffed up but find salvation in humility … Truly noble is a priest —- the minister at God’s altar.”

The words of Christ Himself given to his apostles and followers tell us of the consequences of receiving His gifts:

“…to whom much is given, of him will much be required…” (Lk 12:48)

Behavioral science researchers have noted the deleterious psychological effects on the healing professionals who are exposed to secondary trauma, that is to say by listening to individuals reveal traumatic events and or their reactions to such events. Figley (1995) calls this compassion fatigue. Pearlman and Saakvitne, (1995) have an even more pointed name for this diagnostic category: vicarious traumatization. In other words, the mental health professional, and by implication, the priest of Christ, is open to be traumatized themselves by simply being exposed to the verbal recounting of the traumatic events others have suffered.

Signs of compassion fatigue

Compassion fatigue has many indicators that are shared by other psychological disturbances such as depression. The following, therefore, should be taken as warnings, yellow flags so to speak, to consult a licensed, scientifically trained and Christ-centered mental health professional for evaluation and possible psycho-spiritual intervention. (Morelli, 2006a,c) Some of these signs include:

• A general unhappiness, preoccupation with those whom the priest is helping.
• A lack satisfaction with one’s healing ministry.
• A lack of connection with those being helped or other parishioners.
• A lack of feeling ‘energized’ after a helping encounter.
• A difficulty separating one’s thoughts, feelings and spiritual life from the problems being dealt with.
• Feeling the trauma of the one(s) seeking aid, feeling trapped in the pastoral ministry of helping.
• More irritability about everyday matters.
• A general feeling of discontent.
• A general feeling of dissatisfaction with one’s ministry.
• Feelings of being overwhelmed exhausted and fatigued, and a sense that one’s priestly efforts are not worthwhile.

Orthodoxy uses the synergia of medicine and Christ’s spiritual gifts in healing

Many are familiar with the adage: grace builds on nature. This is consistent with the words of St. Maximus the Confessor who notes

“the grace of the most Holy Spirit does not confer wisdom on the Saints without their natural intellect as capacity to receive it.”(Philokalia II).

Thus as St. Paul tell us:

“…for in Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth… and in him all things hold together. (Col. 1:16-17).

The early church fathers who used the medicine of their day in healing, considered this use of the intelligence God created us with in just this way. (Morelli, 2006c) As Fr. Stanley Harakas notes:

“Medical treatment is also seen as a human cooperation with God’s healing purposes and goals…[medicine has] … generally been understood throughout history in the Church to be appropriate, fitting and desirable ways of cooperating with God in the healing of human illnesses.”ⁱ

Psychological Aids to Prevent and Combat Compassion Fatigue

Limit mental rehashing time (Time Management)

Make out a detailed work schedule for each day of the week. With computer Personal Data Assistant (PDA) programs or old fashioned daily planners, this is not a difficult task and will reap great psychological and spiritual reward. Train your mind not to entertain or converse with the factual and emotional details of the situation or case. Some years ago when I was actively counseling and teaching, in addition to my pastoral tasks, I was very busy and was in a position to easily “burnout.” I developed what I called the “Appointment Book Technique.” I would write down all pastoral, clinical, academic, and spiritual tasks with the specific start and end time and travel time, then close the book.

I would not think about what I had written until the appointed day. Tasks that required preparation would be listed in a specific slot on the days before. Other than praying for them, and keeping in mind the presence of God (“pray constantly, 1Th. 5:7), I did not dwell on the details involving any person I had to counsel or to whom I had to minister. I closed the book: keeping it “out of sight, out of mind”, until the time of the event. Doing this takes practice but it can be done.

The depth of compassion I felt for the suffering person was not lessened, but the amount of time I spent exposed to secondary trauma was limited to the time I was actually with that person.

Prioritizing events

Intellectually we all know events differ in their importance. But this is very easy to ignore in everyday life and can be a cause of stress and leave us susceptible to burnout. In effective time management it is critical to prioritize the events that are listed in our schedule. For example, under usual conditions (excluding for example, natural disasters, catastrophes, warfare, etc.) Divine Liturgy on Sundays and Feast Days (and their preparatory services) would be highest in priority. Also visiting a critically ill parishioner would be an emergency “high priority’ and require a modification in the Priests schedule. That means a lower priority event may then have to get re-scheduled.

In prioritizing the events in one’s daily, weekly monthly and yearly schedule, balance of major life domains must be maintained. For the Orthodox Priest this means: Ministry, including prayer life, Family, and Recreation. Each of these domains can be subdivided into sub-domains. For example, Ministry, would include: The Divine Services and Holy Mysteries, parish administration, Scripture Study, pastoral visitations, pastoral counseling, etc. Family would include, dinner time, time spent with spouse, children, their school and extra-curricula activities, and special family events, etc. Recreation (re-creation) is for many priests, the forgotten domain.

Note above I emphasized the parts of the word, recreation, that is to say: to re-create oneself.

Another frequently encountered prioritizing situation occurs when a priest is faced with an unexpected encounter with someone in the parish who communicates a need for prompt attention. This is even more stressful if the parishioner perceives themselves as entitled to special attention because of their ‘status,’ for example a parish council member or officer. I discuss in more detail the problem of entitlement in the context of marriage (Morelli, 2007a) but the points I make are quite applicable in priest-parish situations. Basically entitlement is psychologically an unrealistic expectation and spiritually is based on the sinful passion of pride.

In such encounters the parish priest has to discern the “realistic” importance of the stated ‘need.’: If the request is critical, (e.g. need for immediate confession and reception of communion of someone in danger of death), then the priest would re-prioritize his schedule. In other situations, the priest has to learn to be assertive, and straightforwardly, firmly and in Christ-like charity, set up an appointment when the issue can be addressed. Assertiveness is discussed in more detail below.

The special case of prioritizing: Re-creation

Here I am only going to consider this psychologically below I will consider this domain from a spiritual viewpoint. We all need a time out from usual activity so to speak. This could be anything from walk, run or bicycle in the park to listening to a favorite musical piece. It could be a visit to a museum, walk on the beach, a walking trail in a park. (All these activities should and can involve a sense of the presence of God.) Re-creation conveys a sense of dissociating with and leaving the active world behind and just being absorbed by the present moment.

Some psychologists have even developed techniques of psychological meditation, which is a mental self discipline exercise the aim of which is to learn to focus attention, raise awareness and bring cognitive and physical processes under voluntary control (Bloomfield & Kory, 1976).

In a meditative state, electroencephalograph (EEG) studies (Travis, 2001) indicate an increase in brain alpha and theta waves, accompanying attenuation of heart rate, carbon dioxide output, oxygen intake respiration rate, and skin conductance. Subjectively those tested reported feeling quite un-aroused and relaxed. Sympathetic nervous system hormones which are associated with anxiety (Morelli, 2009a), are also lowered (Davidson, Kabat-Zinn, Schumacher, Rosencranz, Muller, Santorelli, Urbanowski, Harrington, Bonus & Sheridan, 2003).

Re-creation time should be scheduled at various times during the day, week, month and year. The length of time of the re-creation period should be commensurate with the time interval involved. For example, several 10-30 minute sessions would be adequate for a given day, a longer time period scheduled for each year.

Knowing memory limitations

Human working memory, also called working consciousness, has limited capacity. Research psychologists have found that the average individual has seven slots, plus or minus two, in which to store information at any one time. George Miller (1956) conducted the initial study some years ago given the whimsical title: The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity to Process Information.ⁱⁱ

When the capacity of working consciousness is filled, new information is either not stored or replaces the information currently in store. Applying these findings to burnout, or compassion fatigue, the more we try to rely on our memory to recall our task schedule or the details of the troubling experiences of those we are counseling, the more additional fatigue strain and tension we are putting on ourselves over and above the events we are dealing with or individuals we are ministering to. Use of digital or paper calendars and notes is highly recommended.

One Time, One Event

Multitasking in today’s world is commonplace. But it is a psycho-spiritual disaster for priests in any counseling ministry or in prayer life. During the time I am with Jack Smith, so to say, I am with him and him only, I totally focus on him and what we are talking or praying about. Tom, Dick or Harry are out of sight and out of mind. It is like I tune out alternate radio or TV stations by tuning into the one I want to hear. This also means, for example, during breakfast, lunch or dinner, that is the only task being performed: eating.—this is not the time for work, etc. Once again this technique has to be practiced.

Permit me a non-pastoral personal example. Several years ago I was working on research study. I had several students working under my supervision. Typically I would be behind my desk with computer data punch cards, computer printouts of statistical information, a partially written report, frequently on the phone on matters related to the study. At times a research assistant or student would come into the office and ask me a question. In my own mind I would do my best to answer, usually in one or two words, with gesture, and keep on ‘multitasking.’

Now in my view, I was being accommodating. I soon got feedback, I was ‘uncaring and aloof.’ I asked the assistant who gave me this feedback to interrupt me with a signal when I was doing an activity that was perceived as being ‘uncaring and aloof.’ I very quickly discovered what I just described above as the problem. My solution was to place the importance of the assistant and his question first, by stopping all other tasks. I invited him to sit down, I looked him in the eye with full attention, and answered his question.

It was not a difficult adjustment. I am happy to report, favorable feedback began to follow. I learned a valuable lesson. “Stretching myself” was perceived by me to be ‘caring and helping.’ but was not the perception of others. In this case changing my own behavior was aiding the research project by increasing morale and was more in fulfillment of Christ-like charity.

Delegate

Another common practical adage: An executive with ten secretaries can do ten times the work than ten executives with one secretary. In the average Orthodox parish, the pastor could easily get bogged down with clerical or even building maintenance tasks.

This is said not to denigrate these valuable functions, but the primary function of the parish priest is to be a servant as minister, that is to say, preach, teach and sanctify. Letter writing, addressing envelopes, preparing the Sunday Bulletin, scheduling Baptism and Holy Marriage, putting water in the baptismal font, filling Holy Water bottles, preparing service booklets for the parishioners can easily be done by those of the royal priesthood in their service to the Body of Christ, or in the case of a technical or extended work designation such as Parish Secretary, a salaried position (by someone not a member of the parish).

The Shepherds of the Church using the gifts of all

The visible Churchⁱⁱⁱ is ‘conciliar,’ but is not a democracy. The Church founded by Christ and enlivened by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is also hierarchical, that is to say made up of bishop, priest, deacon and those baptized into the royal priesthood. The teachings of Christ are understood and expressed in Council by the bishops and confirmed by the priests that surround them and the people of God, the royal priesthood. This is done in union with the common teaching and common mind of the church as passed on through the apostles and Church Fathers. Bishop Hierotheos (1998) quotes St. John of Damaskos on this matter:

“We accept all those things which have been handed down by the Law and the Prophets and the Apostles and the Evangelists. We know and revere them, and over and above these things se seek nothing else.”

St. Basil in his Divine Liturgy of reminds all who surround the Holy Table:

“Be mindful also, O Lord, of the Priesthood, the Deaconate in Christ, and every priestly rank, and put not to confusion any one of us who stand about Thy Holy Altar.”

The ministry of service of the priest-bishop is to preach, teach, sanctify and pastor, that is to say lead the flock of Christ. But the grace that outflows from ordination is not personal but is effectuated by God. Archbishop Hilarion (2002) quoting St. Ambrose of Milan says:

“It is not Damasius, or Peter, or Ambrose or Gregory who baptizes. We are fulfilling our ministry as servants, but the validity of the sacraments depends upon you. It is not within human power to communicate the Divine benefits – it is your gift, O Lord.”

Thus all who make up the visible Church on earth each a different function depending on God’s grace. As St. Paul tells us:

“Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in every one. (1Cor 12: 4-6)

The priest has to reflect on this fact and the parish reminded and taught the meaning of the words of St. Paul:

“For by the grace given to me I bid every one among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith which God has assigned him. For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them…” (Rm 12:3-6).

The service of the laity baptized into the ‘royal priesthood’ is to unite their prayer of offering, their sacrifice of praise, during Divine Liturgy with that of the priestiv and offer their talents to Christ’s Church under the shepherding of the pastors and arch-pastors of the Church in accordance with their gifts.

Assertiveness

Assertiveness is defined as an honest and true communication of real feelings in a socially acceptable (and for the Christian in a Christ-like) manner. It starts with the least effective response, that is to say the most gentle words in meaning and tone of voice that is needed to communicate a message. This can escalate to a firm neutral tone, in keeping with Christ-like charity in choice of words and tone of voice (emotional control: Morelli, 2006b). Development of this psychological cognitive-behavioral skill enables the priest to remove self-imposed or other-imposed demands that do not fit with the event prioritizing discussed above or that could be better handled by delegating tasks. The priest with an understanding of the structure of the visible Church founded by Christ and the individual gifts that may be of service to the parish community will not hesitate to assertively ask for aid needed in the parish. In imitation of Christ’s words

“Follow me” (Mt 4:19).

As mentioned above assertiveness may also have to be used in setting and maintaining priorities especially when requests are made by parishioners out of a sense of entitlement, those who misconstrue their role in the parish structure or some who wants preferential treatment of some type that would set a bad example, be seen as blatantly unfair or even puts undue stress on the pastor that minimizes his effectiveness.

I am sure priests can come up with many example of all of the above. I will use a rather common example of a request that I am sure every pastor received. A young person applying to college or university asks for a recommendation. Situation I: He/she have given a least a months notice. I ask the applicant to email me all relevant information (e.g. GPA, school honors, extra-curricular activities, Church/social service etc.) I will schedule doing the letter of recommendation, promptly (one-two weeks) based on my personal knowledge of the person and the information supplied me. Situation II: He/she tells me a letter of recommendation is needed immediately (right then and there, tomorrow). I find out this is not a last minute request (therefore emergency request) from the school, the applicant procrastinated in asking me. Speaking assertively, but (I pray) with Christ-like kindness, I simply tell the student,

“it will take me a couple days after I get the required information. I feel sorry for the problem, but it was your responsibility to come to me earlier.”v

Once again in the context of marriage I discuss this communication problem more extensively (Morelli, 2009b)

Have a psycho-spiritual expert to talk to

Clinicians and researchers who have worked with professionals who have dealt with victims of trauma, have themselves pointed out the importance of having a knowledgeable professional with which they can debrief and have support. It has been found that mental health professionals have attenuated their own compassion fatigue by having a peer support network, in which their own thoughts and emotional feelings can be shared (Figley, 1995, Boscarino, J. A., Figley, C. R. and Adams, R. E. (2004).

Distress tolerance

Albert Ellis (1962) has expended much of his clinical intervention with psychologically suffering individuals helping them to lean to tolerate distress:

“And we have Rational-Emotive imagery, where we get people to imagine the worst and then feel terrible, and then work on their feeling. We have my famous shame attacking exercise, because shame is the essence of much disturbance, where we get you and other people and our clients to go out and do something asinine, ridiculous, foolish, and not feel ashamed. Now don’t get in trouble; don’t walk naked in the streets or anything like that. But yell out the stops, if you’re civilized enough in your city to have a subway, like we’re civilized enough in New York. And stop somebody on the street and say, “I just got out of the loony bin. What month is it?” and not feel ashamed when they look in horror at you and think you’re off your rocker, which they think you are but you’re really not; you’re being very much saner than they are.”^vi

Learning to tolerate distress in such exercises, can be applied to other distressing situations. “Yes very unpleasant events occur in life, but I can learn to get through them and go on.” In actuality this is very similar to an intervention that would be given to person that has actually experienced a traumatic event. (Morelli, 2009a).

The priest who is subject to compassion fatigue can learn to perceive shocking narratives with coping thoughts. Below is a partial list of such coping thoughts:

• This situation won’t last forever.
• I have been through similar painful experiences and have survived.
• I can do what I have to while still being anxious.
• This is an opportunity to learn to bear with my fears.
• My anxiety or sadness won’t kill me; it just doesn’t feel so good right now.

In my pastoral-clinical experience I have given those I have counseled as well as myself ‘homework’ exercises that are geared to practice distress tolerance. I might accompany the distressed counselee during the exercise either close or at a distance as necessary. Debriefing takes place as soon as possible after the exercise. During debriefing, the patient is helped to identify the feelings accompanying the exercise and, most importantly, to recognize that they can modify the thought pattern they attached to the exercise. They did survive, thus change is possible and can be acquired. Such exercises are repeated as necessary. I recommend priest-counselors discuss their particular experience with such exercises with their personal psycho-spiritual ‘expert.’

Spiritual aids to prevent and combat compassion fatigue

Re-creation: Desert in the City

The Holy Gospels record one of the first events at the beginning of Jesus’ public life. St. Mark (Gospel, 1: 10-12) writes that after the Theophany in which:

“… the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.” The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness [desert].”

It is in the desert that Our Lord, God and Savior encountered the evil one and triumphed.

Throughout Jesus ministry, the evangelists record events of Our Lord going off by Himself to pray. For example, this account by St. Luke (5: 15-16):

“But so much the more the report went abroad concerning him; and great multitudes gathered to hear and to be healed of their infirmities. But He withdrew to the wilderness and prayed.”

Before the greatest of sacrifices for our salvation which St. Basil in his Divine Liturgy describes as

“…His voluntary, and ever-memorable, and life-creating death…His saving Passion and life-giving Cross, His three day burial and Resurrection from the dead…”

Jesus is in the Garden of Gethsemane praying:

“And he came out, and went, as was his custom, to the Mount of Olives; and the disciples followed him. And when he came to the place he said to them, “Pray that you may not enter into temptation.” And he withdrew from them about a stone’s throw, and knelt down and prayed…” (Lk 22: 39-41)

We have to imitate these withdrawal actions of Christ in ourselves. In this way we can make effective in our own lives and ministry, the priest’s supplication after The Lord’s Prayer in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom to be united to the Christ who:

“…[heals] the sick, Thou who art the physician of our souls and bodies.”

The importance of the desert and prayer for priests and all contemporary committed Christians, is delineated by Carlo Carretto (1985) in describing his own ‘desert’ experience:

“In the desert we had discovered the Divine Absolute, and problems were no more, including the gap between city and desert. For there was no gap: the desert was no longer absence of men, but presence of God…The desert trail leads through the city now, summoning man to contemplate the mystery of the Absolute God”

This mystery is love.

St. Isaac of Syria tells us

“Purity of prayer is silence ..[whereby we can contemplate the meaning of Our Lord’s death] that the world might become aware of the love which God has for creation.” (Brock, 1997).

This is because: “God is love.” 1Jn 4:8). When we imitate the withdrawal of Christ into the desert and pray we can take the first step in interiorizing God’s love for us, our love for God and our love for all mankind.

Retreating in the Midst of the City

St. Theophan the Recluse tells us:

“Begin retreating into solitude at your own home, and dedicate these hours of solitude to praying above all for one thing: ‘Make known to me, O Lord, the way wherein I should walk [Ps 142: 8]. Pray thus not merely in words and thought, but also from your heart. For this time of solitude, set aside certain hours every day ….” (The Art of Prayer).

In the spirit of St. Paul who tells us:

“…pray constantly…” (1Thes 5:17)

“Pray at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication.” (Eph 6:18)“

St. Theophan also reminds us;

“Some Godly thoughts come nearer the heart than others. Should this be so, after you have finished your prayers, continue to dwell on such a thought and remain feeding on it. This is the way to unceasing prayer.”

Prayer is also an instrument of compassion fatigue prevention and healing. St. Isaac of Syria notes: Once someone has doubted God’s care for him, he immediately falls into a myriad of anxieties…Knowledge of truth [through experiencing God in prayer] fills the heart with peace, establishing a person in joy and confidence.” (Brock, 1997). St. Theophan explains how this can be accomplished in the city, in the world:

“I remember that St. Basil the great solved the question how the Apostles could pray without ceasing, in this way: in everything they did, he replied, they thought of God and lived in constant devotion to Him. This spiritual state was their unceasing prayer…What is required is a constant aliveness to God —- an aliveness present when you talk, read, watch, or examine something.”

The Church is a hospital

Consider the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10: 30-37):

A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion, and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; then he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed mercy on him.” And Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

Bishop Hierotheos Vlachos (1994) emphatically states:

“In St. John Chrysostom’s interpretation of this parable it is clearly evident that the Church is a Hospital which heals those sick with sin, while the bishops and priests, like the Apostle Paul, are the healers of the people of God.”

It is in this context that we can understand the other words of Bishop Hierotheos: “..the priest is properly a spiritual physician who cures people’s sicknesses. Worship and sacrament must be placed within the therapeutic method and treatment.”

The fullness of this healing can only be enlivened with the reception of the Holy Mysteries of the Church. Holy Baptism; Chrismation; Eucharist, (reception of the very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ); Holy Confession, (metanoia, repentance in mind, heart and action, true sorrow for sin and longing for and working on being in communion with God); Holy Unction, the quintessential Holy Mystery of healing in which the priest prays:

“… this oil, that it may be effectual for those who are anointed therewith, unto healing and unto relief from every passion, of every defilement of flesh and spirit, and every ill; that thereby may be glorified Thine all holy Name, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.”

Healing can also come from the grace of the Holy Mysteries blessing an individual’s personal calling in life: Holy Orders, (ordination to the diaconate, priesthood, episcopacy) and Blessed Marriage, (male and female uniting to become one flesh, blessed by the Church).

The fullness of Healing: Communion with Christ’s Church

It is important for all priests to reflect on the enormity of the gift of healing for themselves and for those to whom they minister by being in communion with the Church, founded by Christ Himself. As St. Paul told the Hebrews (5: 1: 2-3,6):

“For Every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness. Because of this he is bound to offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the people. … “Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek.”

St. Paul tells us what this dignity and healing grace is based on:

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” (1Cor 10: 16-17).

Thus ordinary path of the fullness of healing Grace becomes possible only by being in communion with the Orthodox Church, whose spirit, came upon this Church at Pentecost.

Extreme thankfulness of Communion with the Church, but with extreme humility

However, not only is the glory of the priesthood veiled to save priests from the passion of pride, as St. Silouan tells us, but all of us who have received this Divine gift of ordination must consider that God cannot be limited in the economia of His Grace. In this regard I want to quote the caveat of Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev (2002):

When dealing with the difficult questions of Christian divisions, we must also bear in mind that God alone knows where the limits of the Church are. St. Augustine said, “Many of those on earth considered themselves to be alien to the Church will find on the day of Judgment that they are her citizens; and many of those who thought themselves to be members of the Church will, alas, be found to be alien to her. To declare that outside the Orthodox Church there is not and cannot be the grace of God would be to limit God”s omnipotence and to confine Him to a framework outside which he has no right to act. Hence faithfulness to the Orthodox Church and her dogmatic teaching should never become naked triumphalism by which other Christian Churches are regarded as created by the “cunning devices” of people, while the whole world and ninety-nine per cent of [mankind] is doomed to destruction.

In other words we priests have to be spiritually thankful and be enlivened by the unique gift of grace given in the priesthood and recognize our position is not a , personal resplendence but is rather a ministry of humble service.

Acceptance of being a servant

Christ told His apostles,

“It [domineering others] shall not be so among you but whoever would be great among you must be your servant” (Mt 20: 26).

For as St. Paul told the Corinthians:

“For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.”

This implies that we interiorize the compassion of Christ:

“When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.” (Mt 9: 36).

This recognizes that the priest and all who are true Christians

“Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, and patience, forbearing one another…”. (Col3: 12-13).

For as St. Paul explains

“if one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. (1Cor 12: 26-27)

But with discernment must come discrimination

“Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. (Mt 10: 16). St. Peter of Damaskos (Philokalia III):

This then is the general picture [preferring one’s own thoughts and wishes to those of God]. But situations and pursuits vary, and one needs to acquire discrimination, either through the humility given by God or through questioning those who possess the gifts of discrimination. For without discrimination nothing that comes to pass is good, even if we in our ignorance think that it is. But when through discrimination we learn how it lies in our power to attain what we wish, then what we do begins to conform to God’s will.

Especially for a priest, being a servant to others for Jesus sake make up part of their ‘path to perfection.’ St. John of the Ladder (1982) points out

“Among beginners, discernment is real self knowledge … it is the spiritual capacity to distinguish unfailingly between what is truly good and what in nature is opposed to the good.”

Opposition to being a good servant – the priest’s Achilles heal: not really ministering without ‘constant caring’

Empathy is defined in the psychological literature as thinking and feeling what the other is thinking and feeling. (Morelli, 2007b). It is my observation that many priests feel they are not fulfilling their presbyteral calling unless they ‘feel’ themselves the psycho-spiritual suffering of their parishioners at all times. This self-imposed definition of the service of priesthood would appear to be another significant contributor to compassion fatigue or burnout.

A reading of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ public life indicates that after encountering someone suffering he would heal the person and then move on. There is no mention of Him perseveratingvii over the ill person. For example, in the account of healing of the man born blind as recounted by St. John (9: 1-41), there is the observation of Jesus healing, but in the context of the assurance and of the power of God that He possessed. He announces simply as a matter of fact:

“We must work the work of Him who sends me…I am the light of the world…” (4,5).

After the healing and the Pharisees’ disparagement of Jesus, He appears focused on the reality of his mission and not caught up in an emotional entanglement. Jesus asks:

“Do you believe in the Son of man?” He answered, “And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?” Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and it is he who speaks to you.” He said, “Lord, I believe”; and he worshiped him. Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.” (35-39).

Thus the priest must minister in truth but also in wisdom.

I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world (Jn 17: 15-18)

REFERENCES

Alfeyev, Archbishop Hilarion. (2002). The Mystery of Faith: An Introduction to the Teaching and Spirituality of the Orthodox Church. London: Darton, Longman and Todd.

Bloomfield, H.H., & Kory, R.B. (1976). Happiness: The TM program, Psychiatry, and Enlightenment. NY: Simon & Schuster.

Boscarino, J. A., Figley, C. R. and Adams, R. E. (2004). Evidence of Compassion Fatigue following the September 11 Terrorist Attacks: A Study of Secondary Trauma among Social Workers in New York. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, 6:2, 98-108.

Brock, S. (1997). The Wisdom of St. Isaac the Syrian. Fairacres Oxford, England: SLG Press.

Carretto, C. (1985). Forward. The Jerusalem Community Rule of Life. Mawah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Davidson, R.J., Kabat-Zinn, J., Schumacher, J., Rosenkranz, M., Muller, D., Santorelli, S.F., Urbanowski, F., Harrington, A., Bonus, K., & Sheridan, J.F. (2003). Alterations in brain and immune function produced by mindfulness meditation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65, 564-570.

Figley, C.R. (1995). Compassion fatigue as secondary traumatic stress disorder: an overview. In: Compassion Fatigue: Coping with Secondary Traumatic Stress Disorder in Those Who Treat the Traumatized, Figley, CR, (ed.). NY: Brunner/Mazel.

Kadloubovsky, E. & Palmer, E. M. (1966). The Art of Prayer: An Orthodox Anthology. London: Faber and Faber.

Miller, G.A. (1956). “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on our Capacity to Process Information,” Psychological Review, 63. 81-97.

Morelli, G (2006a, May 08). Orthodoxy and The Science Of Psychology. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/OT/view/morelli-orthodoxy-and-the-science-of-psychology.

Morelli, G. (2006b, July 02). Assertiveness and Christian Charity. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/OT/view/morelli-assertiveness-and-christian-charity.

Morelli, G. (2006c, December 05). Understanding Clergy Stress: A Psychospiritual Response. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/OT/view/morelli-understanding-clergy-stress.

Morelli, G. (2007a, March 15). Good Marriage: How An Attitude of Entitlement Undermines Marriage. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/OT/view/good-marriage-I-how-an-attitude-of-entitlement-undermines-marriage.

Morelli, G. (2007b, December 02). Forgiveness is Healing. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/OT/view/morelli-forgiveness-is-healing.

Morelli, G. (2009a, January 13). Suicide: Christ, His Church and Modern Medicine. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles-2009/Morelli-Suicide-Christ-His-Church-And-Modern-Medicine.php.

Morelli, G. (2009b, February 08). Good Marriage XV. Ensnared By Mindless Helping. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/OT/view/good-marriage-xv-ensnared-by-mindless-helping.

Pearlman, L.A. & Saakvitne, K.W. (1995). Trauma and the Therapist: Countertransference and Vicarious Traumatization in Psychotherapy with Incest Survivors. NY: W.W. Norton.

Palmer, G.E.H., Sherrard, P. & Ware, K. (1981). The Philokalia, Volume 2: The Complete Text; Compiled by St. Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain & St. Markarios of Corinth. London: Faber and Faber.

St. John of the Ladder. (1982), John Climacus: The Ladder of Divine Ascent. NY: Paulist Press.

Travis, F. (2001). Autonomic and EEG patterns distinguish transcending from other experiences during Transcendental Meditation practice. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 42, 1-9

Vlachos, Bishop Hierotheos, (1994). Orthodox Psychotherapy: The Science of the Fathers. Lavadia, Greece: Birth of the Theotokos Monastery.

Vlachos, Bishop Hierotheos, (1998). The Mind of the Orthodox Church. Lavadia, Greece: Birth of the Theotokos Monastery.

NOTES

i. (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8076.asp)

ii. An example of the original research is to give subjects in the experiment a list of random numbers or letters: increasing in span and asking them to repeat them back either forward or backward (e.g. 86, 249, 3409, 52647, 951438, 61824913, etc.). In another example, most individuals would find the following task quite difficult—hearing them repeating back a series of twelve letters grouped as follows: FB – INB – CC –IAIB – M. However, most people would readily recall FBI,NBC,CIA,IBM. The terms working consciousness and short term store are functionally synonymous. Another common example is remembering a telephone number with an unfamiliar area code that you cannot write down and must keep in working consciousness (short term store) to be able to call it immediately after it has been given to you.

iii. The Church also includes the invisible Church. As Bishop Hierotheos (1998) tells us: “Members of the Church exist in all the ages … [they are commemorated] on the paten during the Liturgy there are many people. They are the Panagia, the Angels, the Prophets, the Holy Fathers, the great martyrs, and, in general, the witnesses of the faith, the saints and ascetics, the living and the dead who have a share in the purifying, illuminating and deifying uncreated energy of God.”

iv. As is said in the Prothesis Prayer of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

v. My thanks to one of my editors Sh. Laura Sanders who commented on this section as “an old adage has it, ‘I am not required to hurry because you procrastinated.’”

vi. (http://www.intuition.org/txt/ellis.htm).

vii. Clinically, perseverating  usually is accompanied by the dysfunctional emotions of anxiety or anger. It may also be related to certain personality and psychotic disorders. Spiritually may also be related to pride and vainglory.

V. Rev. George Morelli Ph.D. is a licensed Clinical Psychologist and Marriage and Family Therapist, Coordinator of the Chaplaincy and Pastoral Counseling Ministry of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese, (http://www.antiochian.org/counseling-ministries) and Religion Coordinator (and Antiochian Archdiocesan Liaison) of the Orthodox Christian Association of Medicine, Psychology and Religion. Fr. George is Assistant Pastor of St. George’s Antiochian Orthodox Church, San Diego, California.

Source

© 2010, Preachers Institute. All rights reserved.

In this, one of my favorite articles, William Tighe explodes the notion we were all taught in public school about the ‘Christianization’ of a pagan festival for the date of Christmas. He uses historical fact to prove his point, and has thereby offered all Christians that most precious of all jewels – the truth, regarding the Church’s celebration on Dec. 25th.

Enjoy!

Many Christians think that Christians celebrate Christ’s birth on December 25th because the church fathers appropriated the date of a pagan festival. Almost no one minds, except for a few groups on the fringes of American Evangelicalism, who seem to think that this makes Christmas itself a pagan festival. But it is perhaps interesting to know that the choice of December 25th is the result of attempts among the earliest Christians to figure out the date of Jesus’ birth based on calendrical calculations that had nothing to do with pagan festivals.

Rather, the pagan festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Sun” instituted by the Roman Emperor Aurelian on 25 December 274, was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians. Thus the “pagan origins of Christmas” is a myth without historical substance.

A Mistake

The idea that the date was taken from the pagans goes back to two scholars from the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Paul Ernst Jablonski, a German Protestant, wished to show that the celebration of Christ’s birth on December 25th was one of the many “paganizations” of Christianity that the Church of the fourth century embraced, as one of many “degenerations” that transformed pure apostolic Christianity into Catholicism. Dom Jean Hardouin, a Benedictine monk, tried to show that the Catholic Church adopted pagan festivals for Christian purposes without paganizing the gospel.

In the Julian calendar, created in 45 B.C. under Julius Caesar, the winter solstice fell on December 25th, and it therefore seemed obvious to Jablonski and Hardouin that the day must have had a pagan significance before it had a Christian one. But in fact, the date had no religious significance in the Roman pagan festal calendar before Aurelian’s time, nor did the cult of the sun play a prominent role in Rome before him.

There were two temples of the sun in Rome, one of which (maintained by the clan into which Aurelian was born or adopted) celebrated its dedication festival on August 9th, the other of which celebrated its dedication festival on August 28th. But both of these cults fell into neglect in the second century, when eastern cults of the sun, such as Mithraism, began to win a following in Rome. And in any case, none of these cults, old or new, had festivals associated with solstices or equinoxes.

As things actually happened, Aurelian, who ruled from 270 until his assassination in 275, was hostile to Christianity and appears to have promoted the establishment of the festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Sun” as a device to unify the various pagan cults of the Roman Empire around a commemoration of the annual “rebirth” of the sun. He led an empire that appeared to be collapsing in the face of internal unrest, rebellions in the provinces, economic decay, and repeated attacks from German tribes to the north and the Persian Empire to the east.

In creating the new feast, he intended the beginning of the lengthening of the daylight, and the arresting of the lengthening of darkness, on December 25th to be a symbol of the hoped-for “rebirth,” or perpetual rejuvenation, of the Roman Empire, resulting from the maintenance of the worship of the gods whose tutelage (the Romans thought) had brought Rome to greatness and world-rule. If it co-opted the Christian celebration, so much the better.

A By-Product

It is true that the first evidence of Christians celebrating December 25th as the date of the Lord’s nativity comes from Rome some years after Aurelian, in A.D. 336, but there is evidence from both the Greek East and the Latin West that Christians attempted to figure out the date of Christ’s birth long before they began to celebrate it liturgically, even in the second and third centuries. The evidence indicates, in fact, that the attribution of the date of December 25th was a by-product of attempts to determine when to celebrate his death and resurrection.

How did this happen? There is a seeming contradiction between the date of the Lord’s death as given in the synoptic Gospels and in John’s Gospel. The synoptics would appear to place it on Passover Day (after the Lord had celebrated the Passover Meal on the preceding evening), and John on the Eve of Passover, just when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Jerusalem Temple for the feast that was to ensue after sunset on that day.

Solving this problem involves answering the question of whether the Lord’s Last Supper was a Passover Meal, or a meal celebrated a day earlier, which we cannot enter into here. Suffice it to say that the early Church followed John rather than the synoptics, and thus believed that Christ’s death would have taken place on 14 Nisan, according to the Jewish lunar calendar. (Modern scholars agree, by the way, that the death of Christ could have taken place only in A.D. 30 or 33, as those two are the only years of that time when the eve of Passover could have fallen on a Friday, the possibilities being either 7 April 30 or 3 April 33.)

However, as the early Church was forcibly separated from Judaism, it entered into a world with different calendars, and had to devise its own time to celebrate the Lord’s Passion, not least so as to be independent of the rabbinic calculations of the date of Passover. Also, since the Jewish calendar was a lunar calendar consisting of twelve months of thirty days each, every few years a thirteenth month had to be added by a decree of the Sanhedrin to keep the calendar in synchronization with the equinoxes and solstices, as well as to prevent the seasons from “straying” into inappropriate months.

Apart from the difficulty Christians would have had in following—or perhaps even being accurately informed about—the dating of Passover in any given year, to follow a lunar calendar of their own devising would have set them at odds with both Jews and pagans, and very likely embroiled them in endless disputes among themselves. (The second century saw severe disputes about whether Pascha had always to fall on a Sunday or on whatever weekday followed two days after 14 Artemision/Nisan, but to have followed a lunar calendar would have made such problems much worse.)

These difficulties played out in different ways among the Greek Christians in the eastern part of the empire and the Latin Christians in the western part of it. Greek Christians seem to have wanted to find a date equivalent to 14 Nisan in their own solar calendar, and since Nisan was the month in which the spring equinox occurred, they chose the 14th day of Artemision, the month in which the spring equinox invariably fell in their own calendar. Around A.D. 300, the Greek calendar was superseded by the Roman calendar, and since the dates of the beginnings and endings of the months in these two systems did not coincide, 14 Artemision became April 6th.

In contrast, second-century Latin Christians in Rome and North Africa appear to have desired to establish the historical date on which the Lord Jesus died. By the time of Tertullian they had concluded that he died on Friday, 25 March 29. (As an aside, I will note that this is impossible: 25 March 29 was not a Friday, and Passover Eve in A.D. 29 did not fall on a Friday and was not on March 25th, or in March at all.)

Integral Age

So in the East we have April 6th, in the West, March 25th. At this point, we have to introduce a belief that seems to have been widespread in Judaism at the time of Christ, but which, as it is nowhere taught in the Bible, has completely fallen from the awareness of Christians. The idea is that of the “integral age” of the great Jewish prophets: the idea that the prophets of Israel died on the same dates as their birth or conception.

This notion is a key factor in understanding how some early Christians came to believe that December 25th is the date of Christ’s birth. The early Christians applied this idea to Jesus, so that March 25th and April 6th were not only the supposed dates of Christ’s death, but of his conception or birth as well. There is some fleeting evidence that at least some first- and second-century Christians thought of March 25th or April 6th as the date of Christ’s birth, but rather quickly the assignment of March 25th as the date of Christ’s conception prevailed.

It is to this day, commemorated almost universally among Christians as the Feast of the Annunciation, when the Archangel Gabriel brought the good tidings of a savior to the Virgin Mary, upon whose acquiescence the Eternal Word of God (“Light of Light, True God of True God, begotten of the Father before all ages”) forthwith became incarnate in her womb. What is the length of pregnancy? Nine months. Add nine months to March 25th and you get December 25th; add it to April 6th and you get January 6th. December 25th is Christmas, and January 6th is Epiphany.

Christmas (December 25th) is a feast of Western Christian origin. In Constantinople it appears to have been introduced in 379 or 380. From a sermon of St. John Chrysostom, at the time a renowned ascetic and preacher in his native Antioch, it appears that the feast was first celebrated there on 25 December 386. From these centers it spread throughout the Christian East, being adopted in Alexandria around 432 and in Jerusalem a century or more later. The Armenians, alone among ancient Christian churches, have never adopted it, and to this day celebrate Christ’s birth, manifestation to the magi, and baptism on January 6th.

Western churches, in turn, gradually adopted the January 6th Epiphany feast from the East, Rome doing so sometime between 366 and 394. But in the West, the feast was generally presented as the commemoration of the visit of the magi to the infant Christ, and as such, it was an important feast, but not one of the most important ones—a striking contrast to its position in the East, where it remains the second most important festival of the church year, second only to Pascha (Easter).

In the East, Epiphany far outstrips Christmas. The reason is that the feast celebrates Christ’s baptism in the Jordan and the occasion on which the Voice of the Father and the Descent of the Spirit both manifested for the first time to mortal men the divinity of the Incarnate Christ and the Trinity of the Persons in the One Godhead.

A Christian Feast

Thus, December 25th as the date of the Christ’s birth appears to owe nothing whatsoever to pagan influences upon the practice of the Church during or after Constantine’s time. It is wholly unlikely to have been the actual date of Christ’s birth, but it arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians to determine the historical date of Christ’s death.

And the pagan feast which the Emperor Aurelian instituted on that date in the year 274 was not only an effort to use the winter solstice to make a political statement, but also almost certainly an attempt to give a pagan significance to a date already of importance to Roman Christians. The Christians, in turn, could at a later date re-appropriate the pagan “Birth of the Unconquered Sun” to refer, on the occasion of the birth of Christ, to the rising of the “Sun of Salvation” or the “Sun of Justice.”

Copyright © 2003 the Fellowship of St. James. All rights reserved. This article appeared in Touchstone Magazine, and was reprinted by Orthodoxytoday.org. We have reprinted it with permission.

The author refers interested readers to Thomas J. Talley’s The Origins of the Liturgical Year (The Liturgical Press). A draft of this article appeared on the listserve Virtuosity.

William J. Tighe is Associate Professor of History at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, Pennsylvania, and a faculty advisor to the Catholic Campus Ministry. He is a Member of St. Josaphat Ukrainian Catholic Church in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. He is a contributing editor for Touchstone Magazine.

© 2009 – 2010, Preachers Institute. All rights reserved.

by Fr. George Morelli

In this essay, Fr. Morelli masterfully expresses the depth of Incarnational theology – the teaching of Orthodox Christianity about God, man, and spiritual reality – and the dangers of departing, even apparently,  from its foundational truth. We are approaching the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, the feast of the Incarnation, making this essay essential reading, in my opinion, among preachers in this day and age.

This essay was taken, and reprinted with permission, from Orthodoxytoday.org.

Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Pt 5:8).

The names we use for ourselves, for others, and for God shape our thought and influence our understanding of God’s revelation to us. A fundamental link between God and mankind “is concentrated in the use of the Name, in the ‘invocation of the Name.’ The Name is the preeminent word, the proper, exclusive word which is much more than a concept: it carries something of the presence, of the person” (Bobrinskoy, 1999). Paul Evdokimov (1998) makes this meaning even clearer. In recounting Jesus’ visit to the country of the Gerasenes where He met a man with an unclean spirit, St. Mark records Jesus’ words:

“What is your name?” (Mk 5:9).

Evdokimov goes on to explain:

“To the Jewish mind the name of an object or a being expresses its essence, and the old adage nomen est omen sees in the name both the expression and destiny of a person. Christ’s question meant therefore: “Who are you; what is your destiny, your secret being?”

God’s Revelation of Himself

Let us recall the words of Moses:

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one God…” (Dt 6:4).ⁱ

Bobrinskoy (1999) remarks about what is known about Yahweh in the Old Testament:

“Even before God is called Father, the fact He is called ‘God of the Fathers’ links Him to paternity…”

The same principle can be seen in Moses’ account of the Covenant of God with His people:

“I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and to your descendants; and your descendants shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south; and by you and your descendants shall all the families of the earth bless themselves” (Gen 28: 13–14).

While in flight from the Egyptians, we read Moses words:

“And he said, ‘I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God” (Ex 3:6).

However, it is only in the New Testament that a personalized name, “Father” will be given to Yahweh. As Bobrinskoy (1999) notes:

“When the Bible [Old Testament] speaks of the word of Yahweh, this word does not have the quality, the resonance of a proper name …”

Sex and Gender in God and the Church

God and His Triune Life

God reveals Himself to us as Father. No matter how strongly the tenets of postmodern secularism are promoted, unless we dare to rewrite Tradition and Scripture in a totally radical way, the teaching regarding God as Father cannot be denied without compromising the essence of the Christian faith. It is prima facie, evident both humanly and by divine revelation.

Consequently, attempts to rewrite history by downgrading, denying or ignoring the truth that Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself is “Son,” and His Father is “Father” historically negate God’s Self-revelation. As is pointed out in a recent article,

“Perpetrators of such attempts to distort the historical record often use the term [historical revisionism] because it allows them to cloak their illegitimate activities with a phrase which has a legitimate meaning” (Historical Revisionism negationism, 2006. See www.macedoniaontheweb.com/forum/archive/t-1240.html).

The term negationism, as used in this article, describes the process that attempts to rewrite history, including Scripture, by minimizing, denying or simply ignoring recorded facts. This wrongdoing of distorting the historical record often uses anachronisms based on the biases or values of the contemporary culture. Only the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit and one with the Apostles, can interpret Holy Scripture.ⁱⁱ

Evidence: Scripture and the Writings of the Early Church Fathers

St. John (1:14) tells us:

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.”

Jesus Himself tells us how to pray:

“Pray then like this: Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven” (Mt 6:9–10).

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, the second-century Christian apologist, tells us:

“No man has seen God at any time except the Only-Begotten Son of God, who is in the bosom of the Father. He has declared [Him]…For He, the Son who is in His bosom, declares to everyone the Father who is invisible. For that reason they know Him to whom the Son reveals Him.”

In another place St. Irenaeus also writes:

“He whom the law proclaimed as God, the same did Christ point out as the Father” (Bercot, 1998).

The teachings of Origen of Alexandria (third-century) fell afoul of Orthodoxy in some areas. Yet his understanding of God as Father is Orthodox:

“Although no one is able to speak with certainty about God the Father, it is nevertheless possible for some knowledge of Him to be gained by means of the visible creation and the natural feelings of the human mind. Moreover, it is possible for such knowledge to be confirmed from the Sacred Scriptures” (Bercot, 1998).

An important champion of God’s revelation of God as Father is the fourth-century St. Gregory of Nyssa. In his book, Against Eunomius, St. Gregory of Nyssa states:

I say, we have learned to what we ought to look with the eyes of our understanding, that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We say that it is a terrible and soul-destroying thing to misinterpret these Divine utterances and to devise in their stead assertions to subvert them, assertions pretending to correct God the Word…For each of these titles understood in its natural sense becomes for Christians a rule of truth and a law of piety.

For while there are many other names by which Deity is indicated in the Historical Books, in the Prophets and in the Law, our Master Christ passes by all these and commits to us these titles as better able to bring us to the faith about the Self-Existent, declaring that it suffices us to cling to the title, ‘Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,’ in order to attain to the apprehension of Him Who is absolutely Existent…

For when we hear the title ‘Father’ we apprehend the meaning to be this, that the name is not understood with reference to itself alone, but also by its special signification indicates the relation to the Son. For the term ‘Father’ would have no meaning apart by itself, if ‘Son’ were not connoted by the utterance of the word ‘Father.’ When, then, we learnt the name ‘Father’ we were taught at the same time, by the selfsame title, faith also in the Son.

Now since Deity by its very nature is permanently and immutably the same in all that pertains to its essence…Since then He is named Father by the very Word, He assuredly always was Father, and is and will be even as He was. For surely it is not lawful in speaking of the Divine and unimpaired Essence to deny that what is excellent always belonged to lt. For if He was not always what He now is, He certainly changed either from the better to the worse or from the worse to the better, and of these assertions the impiety is equal either way, whichever statement is made concerning the Divine nature.

The essential revelation of God to us is that He is called “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit.” He uses the language of sex and gender to communicate to us the name of His persons.

Trinitarian Ontology

Belonick (2004), in commenting on the importance of the name of Father and Son in the teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa, explains:

The name “Father,” said Gregory, leads us to contemplate (1) a Being who is the source and cause of all and (2) the fact that this Being has a relationship with another person—one can only be “Father” if there is a son involved. Thus, the human term “Father” leads one naturally to think of another member of the Trinity, to contemplate more than is suggested by a term such as “Creator” or “Maker.” By calling God “Father,” Gregory notes, one understands that there exists with God a Son from all eternity, a second Person who rules with him, is equal and eternal with Him.

“Father” also connotes the initiator of a generation, the one who begets life rather than conceiving it, and bringing it to fruition in birth. This is the mode of existence, the way of origin and being, of the First Person of the Trinity. He acts in Trinitarian life in a mode of existence akin to that of a father in the earthly realm. Before time, within the mystery of the Holy Trinity, God generated another Person, the Son, as human fathers generate seed.

As Father of the created world, God creates from without. In other words, creation exists apart from Him. Creation is not equivalent to Him. God as Father is transcendent to what He creates. There is no room for pantheism. As Joseph Campbell (1988) has noted, by giving God a feminine definition and name, God, as mother, creates from within. God’s transcendence is lost. The cosmos becomes one with God. Pantheism abounds.

Ontological-Existential Understanding

The Eastern Church prefers not to use philosophy in understanding the revelation God has given to His Church. The Church takes what it are God’s words to us as reflecting the essential or genuine character of what they refer too.

The Reality of the Eucharist

For example, the Eucharist is the real presence of Christ; it is His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. The terms of scholastic philosophy such as ‘substance’ and ‘accident’ are not found in Eastern theology. The Eastern Church simply accepts the ontological-existentialⁱⁱⁱ reality of Jesus’ words. St. Matthew (26:26–28) tells us:

Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

The Reality of the Holy Trinity

The meaning of the words of St. Paul are to be understood as ontological-existential reality. St. Paul connects the Son-ship of Jesus with the Fatherhood of God, telling us:

“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:5–11).

St. Paul tells the Ephesians (3:15);

“I kneel before the Father, from whom every fatherhood in heaven and on earth takes its name.”

Bobrinskoy (2003) has an interesting way of expressing the basic understanding of the teachings of Christ regarding the “Holy Trinity” It is summed up in his chapter titled “The theology of language and the language of theology.”He states:

“Thus, the incarnation of the eternal Word means that the eternal mystery of God can express itself forever in human words…”

Later Bobrinskoy cites the view of St. Hilary of Poitiers who radically opposed any speculation, even theological, regarding the holy mysteries of the Trinity.

“The guilt of the heretics and blasphemers compels us to undertake what is unlawful, to scale arduous heights, to speak of the ineffable, and to trespass upon forbidden places. And by faith alone we should fulfill what is commanded, namely, to adore the Father, to venerate the Son with Him and to abound in the Holy Spirit …”

The Deconstruction of the Christian Vocabulary

Stealth: The Weapon of Choice of the Evil One in the Modern Age

In a recent article (Morelli, 2009) I noted C. S. Lewis as a modern philosopher-theologian, who alerts us to the secularist-postmodernist threat. Secularists attempt to change the world and the church to conform to their worldview. Lewis, like the Church Fathers of old, identifies heresy not in ideological terms, but within the classical framework of spiritual warfare. Ideas matter to Lewis because they have consequences that affect the souls of men. How man’s mind is shaped has bearing on the light the soul receives. Indeed, we can heed the pre-eminent teaching of St. Paul who exhorted us to

“be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:2).

C. S. Lewis, recognizing that heretical challenges ultimately seek to undermine and eventually vanquish the Christian faith, argued that secularism is more pernicious than many of the transparent ancient errors. (see for example: The Abolition of Man). Secularism conceals itself in the concepts and terminology of Tradition while seeking to undermine and eventually supplant it (Morelli, 2009). Lewis wrote in 1959:

“He (the evil one) pours out self-knowledge in a quite shameless fashion. But even if He (God) defeats your (the demons) first attempt at misdirection, we have a much subtler weapon…Our policy, for the moment, is to conceal ourselves. Of course this has not always been so.”

For Lewis, the Evil One is cunning and often comes in disguise. In his famous work The Screwtape Letters (1961), the senior supervising devil tells the novice devil:

“Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don’t waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true! Make him think it is strong, or stark, or courageous—that it is the philosophy of the future. That’s the sort of thing he cares about.”

Call the novice devil in this passage the demon of correctness.

Repeating this “strong, or stark, or courageous” message eventually moves correctness from suggestion to fact. In psychological terms this means the listener gives up his cognitive skills. Instead of applying a reality test to the content of the message that is conveyed, the listener allows the deliverer of the message to usurp his cognitive potential.

The Secularist Appeal: Human Justice and Sentiment

In this case, the jargon of the secular post-modernists includes the following appeals: human justice and fairness, equality in all things, liberty, and non-discrimination. To these I might add doing things the ‘American way’: overcome insensitivity by making judgments based on emotion and sentiment. In human society these characteristics have value. In the Kingdom of God, these values are ultimately evaluated in terms of Divine Justice.

The Kingdom of God has a value system based on Divine Justice, not human justice. Insofar as human and Divine Justice are opposed to each other, a clash is inevitable. In Scripture, the parable of the workers in the Vineyard (Mt 20:1–16) is an example of Divine Justice over what is considered human justice, as the same wage or reward is given to workers regardless of how long they worked (Morelli, 2009).

In another example, we learn that claiming rights and equality in strictly human terms does not work in God’s Kingdom. In St. Mark’s Gospel (10:36, 37, 40), Jesus exhorts the apostles:

“And he said to them [James and John], ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ And they said to him, ‘Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory…’” Jesus replies “‘… to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.’”

The kingdom of heaven and His Church are based on God’s standards, and not human standards. Negationists, secularists, post-modernists and feminists, beware.

Affirmation of God as Father

The straightforward, ontological-existential understanding of words and names in Scripture is thoroughly Orthodox. Meyendorff (1998), in his study of St. Gregory of Palamas and the filioque controversy, writes:

“So when Photius was faced by the Latins who, on the basis of their own theology, arbitrarily modified the wording of the common Creed, the reproach of heresy came readily to his pen. He clearly saw the weak point of his adversary; if one admits the doctrine of Procession ab utroque, he wrote, ‘the name of the Father is deprived of its meaning and sense.’”

Affirmation of the Uniqueness of the Feminine Charism

In a similar straightforward, existential context, Orthodox theologians discern the essential revelation and Tradition of the Church. Paul Evdokimov (2001) beautifully describes the feminine vocation and charism:

“The ontological relationship of mother and child makes woman like Eve, ‘the source of life.’ She watches over every being, protects life and the world. Her interiorized and universalized charism of ‘motherhood’ bears every woman toward the famished and the needy and makes admirably precise her feminine essence: married or not, every woman is mother in aeternum. This is the sacramental character inscribed in her very being.”

Affirmation of Christ Incarnate as Male and Son of God

Evdokimov also captures the essential Church teaching and Tradition regarding the male character of the priesthood:

“The ordained ministry, that of the priesthood and episcopacy, is a masculine function of witness. The bishop attests to the saving validity of the sacraments and has the power of celebrating them. He has the charism of watching over the purity of the deposit of faith and exercising the pastoral authority. The ministry of woman belongs to that of the royal priesthood, and not that of attributed functions, as with the ordained episcopacy and priesthood, but that of her very nature. The ordained ministry is not to be found in such charisms.”

For Evdokimov an authentic Orthodox Christian anthropology demands a rediscovery of male and female are equal with but with distinct vocations.

Affirmation by St. John of Damascus

St. John of Damascus, writing in the eighth century, teaches the importance of icons in the Church as representative of what they image. He writes:

“An image is of like character with its prototype…”

St. John’s description of the relationship of the persons of the Godhead is also telling:

“The Son is the living, essential, and precisely similar Image of the invisible God, bearing the entire Father within Himself, equal to Him in all things, except that He is the Begetter. It is the nature of the Father to cause; the Son is the effect. The Father does not proceed from the Son, but the Son from the Father. The Father who begets is what He is because of His Son, though not in second place after Him.”

St. John describes the icon of the Theotokos, the God-bearer, the carrier and nurturer of her Son, as an image appropriate for the container and bearer of ‘The Word:’

The ark of the covenant is an image of the Holy Virgin and Theotokos.” For St. John, as “words edify the ear, so also the image stimulates the eye… as words speak to the ear, so the image speaks to the sight; it brings understanding.” For St. John, an apologist for icons during the influence of iconoclastic Islam, it would be inappropriate for Christ to be depicted as a female, or the Theotokos to be depicted as a male. He writes: “Let us receive the tradition of the Church in simplicity of heart, without vain questioning, since God created man to be straightforward, but he has entangled himself with an infinity of questions. Let us not allow ourselves to learn a new faith, in opposition to the tradition of the fathers.

The complementary nature of male-female, father-mother, husband-wife, father as begetter of children and mother as bearer of children is essential to Orthodoxy. Evdokimov (1985) interprets the biblical account of the creation of Eve from Adam as the foundation of the “consubstantiality of the complementary principle.” After the fall, brokenness occurs and distorted masculinity and femininity ensues. Two possible outcomes can take place:

1) without God’s grace “discord and fruitless contention” occur; and

2) with Christ at the center, masculinity and femininity are the “prophetic figure of the Kingdom of God, the ultimate unity, the communion of the Masculine and Feminine in their totality in God.”

Paul Evdokimov echoes the teaching of the Church Fathers. He writes:

“St. Clement of Alexandria states very clearly that ‘the Son only confirms what the Father has instituted…God created man male and female. The male is Christ, the female is the Church …’”

The complementarity of the sexes is an icon of the love of the Holy Trinity, the way the Father, Son and Holy Spirit relate to each another. The male and female sexes making up mankind reflects the essence of God Himself (Morelli, 2005a). St. John the Evangelist tells us

“… for love is of God…God is love” (1 Jn 4:7–8).

The love of Christ for the Church becomes the archetype of marriage, the union of male and female who become one flesh and create offspring, flesh of their flesh, in imitation of God, who created us (Morelli, 2005a, 2008b)

In the Orthodox Church, sacred Scripture is rooted in Tradition (Breck, 2001). No individual on their own can interpret scripture.^iv Any passage has to be viewed in terms of the “mind of the Church.” For example, attempts to interpret St. Paul’s saying in Galatians (3:28) that there are no differences before God between male and female, are not viewed by the Church Fathers as grounds for the female priesthood. Rather, as St. John Chrysostom interpreted, the phrase is meant to underscore the equality of spirituality or divine illumination that can be attained by both male and female. In Eastern spirituality, only in following God’s do we attain this illumination. For example, a bishop is of a higher ecclesial rank, endowed with the fullness and completeness of the ordained priesthood given to the apostles and their successors by Christ. If a male desires to be a bishop and God’s will is for him to serve only as a priest, his desire is to his personal damnation. As Our Lord told the apostles:

“Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Mt. 7:21)

The Fullness of Time

St. Paul told the Ephesians:

“For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth” (1:9–10). St. Paul’s teaching on the fullness of time is also found in his words to the Galatians: “So with us; when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe. But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons”(4:3–5).

The fullness of time encompasses the coming of the Messiah, Jesus, who would be born of the people of the Covenant, God’s chosen people. He would be born of the house of David. As Isaiah prophesized:

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good” (Is 7:14–15):

The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined. Thou hast multiplied the nation, thou hast increased its joy; they rejoice before thee as with joy at the harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.

For the yoke of his burden, and the staff for his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, thou hast broken as on the day of Midian. For every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult and every garment rolled in blood will be burned as fuel for the fire. For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called ‘Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’

Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore (Is 9:2–7).

There is no coincidence in God’s providential care for the world. The era in which the ultimate Divine Intervention among mankind took place, with its distinctive character, is part of the fullness of time in which the birth and lifetime of Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ was Divinely ordained to happen.

This includes the place, people, culture and state of the world in which this momentous event occurred. Historical negationists would like us to believe that the patriarchal Judaism of the people of the first Covenant was accidental and overthrown by Jesus in His establishment of the people of the New Covenant. However, this conclusion is not consistent the mind of Christ or His Church.

A Protestant Church Sees Through the Negationists’ Argument

In a significant rebuttal to negationist theory that echoes the “mind of the Church,” the Lutheran Protestant denomination issued the following statement:

Today the claim is frequently advanced that this masculine rendering of God in the Bible is a function of the patriarchal culture in which the Scriptures were written. Biblical language, it is said, reflects cultural realities and biases which we, given the new realities of our own cultural egalitarianism, are free to replace through the use of ‘gender neutral’ language.

Such an analysis of the biblical language, however, does not take with adequate seriousness the uniqueness of Israel in the midst of the nations. The peoples surrounding ancient Israel and the believers of the New Testament commonly possessed female as well as male deities. Rather than reflect the religious language of the broader culture, the language of the Bible was in considerable contrast to the language and understanding of surrounding peoples. Had the biblical authors thought of God in feminine terms (as in surrounding cultures), we would expect that there would be some equilibrium of use between masculine and feminine language concerning God. In fact, however, that is not the case (www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/biblrev.pdf).

Jesus Distinguished the Essential from Non-essential: Unseating Culture

Many of Jesus’ words and actions, as understood by the ancient Church and recorded in the Gospels, taught those around Him what was essential versus unessential in the Jewish way of life at the fullness of time. Jesus was no stranger to challenging the ‘establishment’ and customs of the culture of his day. A few examples follow.

• Our Lord’s first miracle was performed at the direction of a woman, his mother, the Theotokos. The gospel account of changing water into wine at the Cana wedding feast reads: “When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, ‘They have no wine.’ And Jesus said to her, ‘O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.’ His mother said to the servants, ‘Do whatever he tells you’” (Jn 2:3–5).
• To the Jewish leaders, Jesus said: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith” (Mt. 23:23).
• In St. John’s Gospel Jesus was found talking alone with a woman, and what’s more, a Samaritan woman. The Samaritans were a community of mixed ancestry not worshipping at the Jerusalem temple and thus eschewed by the Jews. In St. John’s account: “The Samaritan woman said to him, ‘How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?’ For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans… Just then his disciples came. They marveled that he was talking with a woman.” (Jn 4:9, 27)

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, it is an outcast Samaritan who shows the mercy of God, rather than a Levite or priest, that is, the elite of the chosen people. St. Luke (10:33–37) tells us:

But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he [the beaten man]; was and when he saw him, he had compassion, and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; then he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back. ‘Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?’ He said, ‘The one who showed mercy on him.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do likewise.’” There is no hesitation on the part of Jesus to break with tradition and point out that Godliness (mercy) is not inherent in title or bloodline, but is shown by the deeds and actions which come from the heart. Godliness is open to any one.

The Romans were the pagan occupiers of the Holy Land in Jesus’ time. They were hated by the Jews for their denial of God, worship of idols, oppressive taxes and brutal occupation. But this did not influence Jesus who read the heart and humility of the Roman Centurion who came to Him.

As he entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, beseeching him and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, in terrible distress.” And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” But the centurion answered him, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 8:5–12).

Jesus, the Son of God, became incarnate in the male sex. Jesus, who was not afraid to go against the establishment and cultural tradition, appointed apostles—the twelve and the seventy—who were of the male sex. The apostles, at the last supper in which he took bread and wine and made it into His Body and Blood, and ordained those around Him to “do this in Remembrance of me,” were of the male sex. As St. Luke (22:13–19) records:

And they went, and found it as he had told them; and they prepared the Passover. And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

So, Jesus, the Son of God, who was not afraid of depart from the conventions of His day, was not only of the male sex, but appointed male apostles to carry out His priestly ministry.

Another example of the distinct priestly ministry, given by Jesus to the apostles who were male, is the holy ministry of confession:

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (Jn 20:21–23).

The Regard Jesus Gave Women

Jesus’ choice of male apostles was not a sign the He disparaged women. As previously mentioned Jesus began His public life at the marriage feast at Cana doing what His mother, Mary, the Theotokos asked of Him. As told by St. John (2:1–11):

On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.” Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each. Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” So they filled them up to the brim. And He said to them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.” So they took it to him. When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom, and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.

The holy women of the Gospels were those who loved Him and served Jesus in His ministry. Jesus had great love for Martha, Mary and Lazarus their brother. It was Martha who served Jesus, and Mary who sat, listening to His every word and anointing His feet (cf. Lk 10:38–42; Jn 11:1). Who cannot recall the action of Jesus upon hearing Lazarus had “fallen asleep” (Jn 11:12)? The response of the Master was: “Then Jesus told them plainly, ‘Lazarus is dead…’” (Jn 11:14). The gospel narrative continues:

…and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to console them concerning their brother. When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, while Mary sat in the house. Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. And even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you.” Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world.” When she had said this, she went and called her sister Mary, saying quietly, “The Teacher is here and is calling for you.’ And when she heard it, she rose quickly and went to him” (Jn 11:19–29).

St. Matthew (27:55–56) records that at the crucifixion of Our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ:

“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”The holy evangelist Mark (15:41) describes these women as follows: “… who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered to him; and also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem.” The women, including the Theotokos, the Mother of God, now steadfast and faithful even unto Christ’s death at the foot of the cross, are described by the beloved disciple and apostle John with words impossible to emulate: “But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold, your son!’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother!’ And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home” (Jn 19:25–27)

After the death and burial of Jesus, the Myrrhbearing women tended to His Body. Recall St. Luke’s account of the holy women’s actions.

“And the women that were come with him from Galilee, following after, saw the sepulcher and how his body was laid. And returning, they prepared spices and ointments: and on the sabbath day they rested, according to the commandment. And on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came to the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared” (Lk 23:55–56, 24:1)

First Covenant Justice

Jesus not only freely went beyond the conventions of the era; he also surpassed the economy of justice of the first covenant. Regarding the economy of justice in the Old Testament, Moses in Exodus (21:23–25) tells us:

“If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

In the book of Leviticus (24:19–20) he tells us:

“When a man causes a disfigurement in his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has disfigured a man, he shall be disfigured.”

And again in Deuteronomy (21:21) Moses teaches:

“Your eye shall not pity; it shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

In the prayers of the Psalms (92; 9) King David utters:

For, lo, thy enemies, O Lord, for, lo, thy enemies shall perish; all evildoers shall be scattered.” And then the harsh call for vengeance accompanying the lamentation of the Jewish people during the Babylonian exile: “O daughter of Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall he be who requites you with what you have done to us! Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock” (Ps 136:8–9)!

Contravening the Culture of Vengeance

Consider St. Matthew’s (5:38–44) account of some of the most radical words Jesus said:

You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…”

The Early Church Distinguished Essential from Non-essential Culture

The Church did not hesitate to discern and discard what was not of Christ and to retain what was of Christ. St. Matthew (28:18–20) records the last instruction Jesus gave to His apostles:

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

It is the Church’s mission given to her by Christ to “teach all I have commanded you.” The Church is commanded by Christ to teach the essentials of His message.

The Judaising Controversy

Some did not adhere to Jesus’ words, as told to us by St. Luke:

“But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved’” (Acts 15:1).

There was a controversy among the Apostles on circumcision of the Gentiles. St. Paul wrote about this to the Galatians (cf. Gal 2:1–21) and even confronted St. Peter whom he called wrong on this matter:

But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned… he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews (Gal 2:11–14)?

This issue was settled by the first council of the Church, the Council of Jerusalem. St. James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, addressed this first Church Council and said:

Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood. Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to [the Gentiles]” (Acts 15:19–20, 22).

Early Church Authority: Counciliar, not Individual

Interestingly, the apostles considered their decision to be a synodal act, not one promulgated by one individual, either St. James, the president of the Council, or St. Peter, later considered (by the Western Church) that he and his successors, would have personal infallibility in matters of faith or morals. This is shown in the attribution of the spiritual act of this Apostolic Council:

“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” [emphasis mine] (Acts 15: 28).

Although a general church council did not occur until the fourth century, this Conciliar consensus, guided by the Holy Spirit, was considered by the Eastern Church to be the model of authority in Christ’s Body, the Church. As noted by McGuckin (2004),

“The council was always given precedence in authority over the bishop or patriarch.”

And, may I add, the Pope of Rome. From the beginning, the synod of bishops were expected to manifest a “common mind.”

Implications for Psychology and the Church

In the present secular culture the distinction between the essential and non-essential are blurred and confused by political correctness. (Morelli, 2009). Political correctness has no place in science or in the Church. The use of the term gender for sex among those who consider themselves scientists but are not , such as psychoanalysts (Morelli, 2006a) or those who write in the media is one such confusion. As I stated elsewhere (Morelli 2005b):

• • Sex: What a person is biologically.
  • Gender Identity: The sexual characteristics a person perceives himself as having that are socially defined, irrespective of his biological sex.

The political correctness agenda has implications for how we understand God’s revelation of Himself to us, Christ’s teachings, and the Holy Spirit guiding the understanding of the Church, and shapes our own attitudes and behavior. If sex is now called gender, then it is merely a social definition which can be modified, changed and re-defined by social consensus. Thus, this has implications for how we understand ourselves, that is to say: how we name ourselves.

Androgeny Research

Sandra Bem’s (1974) research on androgyny initiated the popular use of the term gender to replace sex. On the basis of her research, the ideal personality, the one most fully mentally healthy, would be considered to be one that has a mixture of androgynous traits which could be applied to social and occupational functioning. In actuality, however, behavioral research found that masculine traits of independence and competence were actually related to the psychologically functional characteristics (Lamke, 1982a,b; Massad, 1981).

Androgyny in Popular Culture

Bem’s redefinition of the ideal self spilled over into popular culture. In the 1970’s and 1980’s ‘fashionable androgyny’ became a widespread medium and model for youth. This redefinition was led by the entertainment industry. Dress fashions and other life style imitations followed. A music album, interestingly called “Sinner” (Joan Jett), is but one example. New names for how such individuals perceived themselves entered into popular vocabulary, such as androgynes and ambigender. Using such words defines the self as being genderless or in-between male and female.

Other movements, often started in the entertainment industry, to rename male and female became popular. ‘Heavy metal’ musicians often use satanic lyrics and imagery in their material. An example would be the upside down pentagram (a symbol of Satan). Those representing this so-called ‘left hand path’ have names such as Black Sabbath, Venom and Slayer. ‘Glam’ or ‘glitter rock’ had performers and their followers wearing ostentatious blended unisex apparel, jewelry, hairstyles and makeup.

‘Punk rock’ and ‘new wave’ glamorized a sex-drug lifestyle. Groups such as Sex Pistols and Sniff’n Glue not only made a sex-drug lifestyle normative, but projected an image of who they were as persons. ‘Gothic rock’ glamorized not only ‘the dark side’—death, evil, sex, suicide and the occult—, but also produced a subculture in society celebrating these ideas.

Lyrics contain crude, rude overt references to these themes. Furthermore, bodily gestures during performances depict these motifs and leave little to the imagination. As pointed out in Morelli, 2006b,

“language is in part a broadcast of our psychosocial definition. It shapes how other people see us and how they think we see ourselves.”

Modeling Influences Learning and Performance

There is copious child development research pointing to the crucial role of modeling in influencing child behavior (Bandura, 1986; Morelli, 2007,2008a). In another article I point out the efficacy of the various models children are exposed to which significantly influence their behavior: “If a parent capitulates to the culture, then the culture will assume the teaching authority of the parent. Several decades ago research psychologists demonstrated that there was no real difference between real life and mediated models (cartoons, movies, books) in terms of their effect on a child’s perceptions about sexuality and other important moral issues” (Morelli, 2007).

As indicated above, “the name of an object or a being expresses its essence.” In asking the name of the demon (Mk 5:9; Lk 8:31), Christ was asking: “Who are you; what is you destiny, your secret being?” This sheds a completely different light on the names we are describing, male and female (the modes of mankind) in this post-modern secular and negationist world. The sexes created by God are ‘out,’ the genders created by those committed to Satanism, secularism, or just plain misguided Christianity are ‘in.’

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi: Prayer as a Spiritual Model

A common rendition of this Latin phrase is: the law of prayer is the law of belief. Under the guise of emotion-based “human justice and fairness,” the rule of prayer, that is to say, what God has revealed to us about Himself and our relationship with Him, is under attack. As usual, the movement is subtle. C. S. Lewis paved the way for understanding how the evil one, Satan, (the divider, separator, adversary, tempter) does his work.

As St. John tells us:

“Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also. Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father” (1 Jn 2:22–24).

Looking back at Church history, we see that secularists, post-modernists and those who espouse political correctness, and those who promote inclusive language in Scripture and prayer affect the Church in the same way that the heresies of old did. Secularism, while not formally recognized as a heresy, functions in many of the same ways the ancient heresies did in that it overthrows the understanding of man and God (Christian anthropology) received through Tradition.

Inclusive Language and the Deconstruction of Orthodox Tradition

Some Translations of Scripture: The Work of the Evil One

A confession: I am not a Scripture or language scholar. I read sacred Scripture in English. It has always been the tradition of the Orthodox Church to translate scripture and prayer into the “language of the people.” Thus, the importance of the ‘correct’ translation and the danger of using standards of secularism (negationist, post-modernist, promotion of inclusive language and political correctness). Why? Because language communicates what we assert or confirm about our understanding of God’s revelation to us.

Inclusive language, with its blurring and confusion of names and meanings, can change theology if it differs from the word of God given to us in the fullness of time. Consider the link between Christ, the New Adam, and the first Adam, as told to us by St. Paul:

Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received our reconciliation.

Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned—sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many” (Rom 5:9–15).

Examples of Heresy (change in Orthodox Theology) by Inclusive Language

As mentioned at the start of this essay: ” The names we use for ourselves, for others, and for God shape our thought, and influence our understanding of God’s revelation to us. A fundamental link between God and mankind “is concentrated in the use of the Name, in the ‘invocation of the Name.’ Take for example what we know about God, by His revelation of Himself to us: He is Father-He begets the Son. An “Orthodox” scripture English translation, true to the original words of the ancient scriptures would keep the exact meaning given to us His creatures on earth at the fullness of time, and held by the Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit from its conception at Pentecost to the current day. For example consider St. Matthews words (3: 17) :

“This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

Now consider the inclusive language text: “This is my beloved Child [emphasis mine], with whom I am well pleased.” (An Inclusive Language Lectionary, 1986).

Now consider one other Orthodox scripture English translation of a passage from St. John’s Gospel (3: 16-17)

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.”

The feminist, secularist influenced inclusive language text reads: “For God so loved the world that God gave God’s only Child, that whoever believes in that Child should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent that Child into the world, not to condemn the world, but that through that Child the world might be saved.” [Bold text emphasis mine] (An Inclusive Language Lectionary, 1986).

Recall the key points of God’s revelation to us as understood by the Church in the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa as quoted above:

… the title “Father” [is understood] also by its special signification indicates the relation to the Son. For the term “Father” would have no meaning apart by itself, if “Son” were not connoted by the utterance of the word “Father.” … [the] Deity by its very nature is permanently and immutably the same in all that pertains to its essence … it is not lawful in speaking of the Divine and unimpaired Essence to deny that what is excellent always belonged to lt. For if He was not always what He now is, He certainly changed either from the better to the worse or from the worse to the better, and of these assertions the impiety is equal either way, whichever statement is made concerning the Divine nature.

St. Gregory describes any change in scripture wording as impious. Heresy is defined as a rejection of “orthodox understanding.”

The Lesson for Christians

The purpose of this essay has been to show the hidden danger of the values inherent in a Godless society and of human values detached from God and His apostolic Church, both of which can inwardly destroy both society itself and surreptitiously undermine His Church. Who should take note of this? All individuals who are committed to Christ. It should be noted by husbands and wives who also are parents, the leaders of their domestic churches, whose divine vocation is to lead each other and their offspring to the kingdom of Heaven. It should be noted by priests, the pastors of their local Churches in leading their flock to Christ. It should be noted by our hierarchs, the arch-pastors, who have the ultimate responsibility before God to account for the flock they shepherd. It is easy to look the other way and take what is going on in society for granted. It is also dangerous for each soul and for the Church, the Body of Christ given to us, not to discern the evil-inspired values of the world that are craftily disguised as virtue in today’s world.

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves (Mt 7:15).

REFERENCES

An Inclusive–Language Lectionary: Readings for Year A, rev. ed. (1986). NY: The Pilgrim Press.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Belonick, D. (2004, December). Father, Son, and Spirit–So What’s In Name? www.ignatiusinsight.com/features/dbelonick_name1_dec04.asp
Bem, Sandra L. (1974). “The Measurement of Psychological Androgyny,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42, 155–62.
Bercot, D. W. (1998). A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Bobrinskoy, B. (1999). The Mystery of the Trinity. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
Bobrinskoy, B. (2003). The Compassion of the Father. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
Breck, J. (2001). Scripture in Tradition. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
Campbell, J. (1988) The Power of Myth. NY: Doubleday.
Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod (1998) Biblical Revelation and Inclusive Language. www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/biblrev.pdf.
Engelhardt, H. T. (1996). The Foundations of Bioethics. NY: Oxford.
Evdokimov, P. (1998). Ages of the Spiritual Life. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
Evdokimov, P. (1985). The Sacrament of Love. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
Evdokimov, P. (2001). In the World of the Church. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
Harvey, S. A. (1997). “An Interview with Susan Ashbrook Harvey,” St. Nina’s Quarterly 1,4.
Lamke, L. K. (1982a). “Adjustment and Sex-Role Orientation,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 11, 247–259.
Lamke, L. K. (1982b). “The Impact of Sex-Role Orientation on Self-Esteem in Early Adolescence,” Child Development 53, 1530–1535.
Lewis, C. S. (1961). The Screwtape Letters. NY: Macmillan.
Maslow, A. H (1970). Motivation and Personality. NY: Harper and Rowe.
Massad, C. M. (1981). “Sex Role Identity and Adjustment During Adolescence,” Child Development 52, 1290–1298.
McGuckin, J. A. (2004). The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology. Louisville, KT: Westminster John Knox Press.
Meyendorff, J. (1998). A Study of St. Gregory Palamas. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
Morelli, G. (2005a, July 19). Sex is Holy: Psycho-Spiritual Reflections in a Secular World. www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/MorelliSexIsHoly.php.
Morelli, G. (2005b, August 11). Homosexuality: Some Psycho-Theological Reflections and Pastoral Implications. www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/MorelliHomosexuality.php.
Morelli, G. (2005c, September 17). Smart Parenting Part I. www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/MorelliParenting.php.
Morelli, G. (2005d, September 22). What Do You Know: The Score or The Saint? www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/MorelliScore.php.
Morelli, G (2006a May 06). Orthodoxy and the Science of Psychology. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/MorelliOrthodoxPsychology.php.
Morelli, G. (2006b, September 24). Smart Parenting IV: Cuss Control. www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/MorelliParenting4.php.
Morelli, G. (2007). Smart Parenting VI: Talking to Children About Sex. www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles7/MorelliSmartParentingVI.php.
Morelli, G. (2008a, February 12). Smart Parenting X: Combating Secularism’s Most Serious Sin: Indifference. www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles8/Morelli-Smart-PartentingX.php.
Morelli, G. (2008b, July 8). Smart Marriage XIII: The Theology of Marriage and Sexuality. www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles8/Morelli-Smart%20Marriage-XIII-The-Theology-of-Marriage-and-Sexuality.php.
Morelli, G. (2009, September 26). Secularism and the Mind of Christ and the Church: Some Psycho-Spiritual Reflections. www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles-2009/Morelli-Secularism-And-The-Mind of Christ-And-The-Church-Some-Psycho-Spiritual-Reflections.php.
McDowell, M. G. (2004). “Newness of Spirit: The Ordination of Men and Women,” The Word 48, 5.
Oftedal, S. E. (2004). “The Genesis of an Orthodox Christian Maternity Home,” OCAMPR EJournal II, 1. www.ocampr.org/loving.asp.
St. Gregory of Nyssa. Against Eunomius www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-05/Npnf2-05-09.htm#P481_155189.
Schmemann, A. (1973). “Concening Woman’s Ordination: A Letter to an Episcopal Friend,” St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly 17, 3, 239–243.
United Nations (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948.
Vlachos, Bishop Hierotheos (1998). The Mind of the Orthodox Church. Lavadia, Greece: Birth of the Theotokos Monastery.

Fr. George Morelli Ph.D. is a licensed Clinical Psychologist and Marriage and Family Therapist, Coordinator of the Chaplaincy and Pastoral Counseling Ministry of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese, (www.antiochian.org/counseling-ministries) and Religion Coordinator (and Antiochian Archdiocesan Liaison) of the Orthodox Christian Association of Medicine, Psychology and Religion. Fr. George is Assistant Pastor of St. George’s Antiochian Orthodox Church, San Diego, California.

Fr. Morelli is the author of Healing: Orthodox Christianity and Scientific Psychology (available from Eastern Christian Publications, $15.00).

© 2009, Preachers Institute. All rights reserved.

© 2009, Preachers Institute. All rights reserved.