Healing Our Disobedience

“He shares His grace with each one of us as a person, and each receives forgiveness of his sins from Him…His wish was to save us all completely and for our sake He bowed the heavens and came down.  When by His deeds, words and sufferings He pointed out all the ways of salvation, He went up to heaven again, drawing after Him those who trusted in Him.  His aim was to grant perfect redemption not just to the nature which He had assumed from us in inseparable union, but to each one of those who believed in Him.  This He has done and continues to do, reconciling each of us through Himself  to the Father, bringing each one back to obedience and thoroughly healing our disobedience” (Saint Gregory Palamas, The Homilies, 34-35).

On Faith

“Faith without works is dead and chaotic, and works without faith are empty and useless…This is so that we, eagerly pursuing both faith and works together, may show our faith by our works and carry off the prize for our labours through faith” (Saint Gregory Palamas, The Homilies, 58)

The Holiness We Receive

“…(the Priest says) The holy things are for the holy…(the people say) One is Holy, one is Lord, Jesus Christ to the glory of God the Father, amen…” (The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom; emphasis mine).

“The faithful are called saints because of the holy thing of which they partake, because of him whose body and blood they receive. Members of his body, flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone, as long as we remain united to him and preserve our connection with him, we live by holiness, drawing into ourselves through the holy mysteries the sanctity which comes from the that Head and that Heart.  But if we should cut ourselves off, if we should separate ourselves from the unity of this most holy Body, we partake of the holy mysteries in vain, for life cannot flow into dead and amputated limbs” (Nicholas Cabasilas, The Life in Christ, 27; emphasis mine).

“And the holiness of the Church is not our holiness, but Christ’s…Likewise, the holiness of the saints as well is but a revelation and realization of that sanctification, that holiness that each of us received on the day of baptism and in which we are called to increase.  But we could not grow in it if we did not already possess it as a gift of God, as his presence in us through the Holy Spirit” (Alexander Schmemann, The Eucharist, 23-25; emphasis mine).

Grace Alone

Caveat Lector Editorial: From the always thoughtful Orrologion.

“Grace alone is usually understood as meaning a special gift of God to a person that brings him to faith in Him and thus salvation.

In Orthodoxy, our salvation is also due to God, and He alone was able to save us, we were lost without Him. Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountaint (+1994) said to a spiritual child of his:

…the elder would tell me that, if God does not help man spiritually, it is impossible for man to approach the truth, and that this is why Christ came into the world.*

The ‘unmerited’, unearned favor that God bestows on us isn’t something extra He gives to those that will be saved and that is not given to those that are not saved. The graciousness of God was in uniting the divine and human natures together in His Person thus resurrecting and ascending us and our nature to the right hand of the Father, God. Blood is again flowing to the previously severed ear that Christ has healed – we can hear again, we can act again, we can struggle. Any and all ‘works’ the Church (Christ Himself through the action of the Holy Spirit) are not done by us independently – we can only do them because of the incarnation, they are only Spirit-filled and grace-bearing because of the incarnation, they are only salvific because “Christ came into the world”. It’s not just the message, it’s the ontological, organic, physical, ‘natural’ (of the ousia) outcome of the work of Christ starting at His conception, through his birth, life, suffering, death, resurrection and ascension. That ’seomthing extra’ has been given to all of us already.”

* Farasiotis, Dionysios. The Gurus, the Young Man, and Elder Paisios. Translated and adapted by Hieromonk Alexis (Trader) of the Holy Monastery of Karakallou, Mount Athos; edited by Philip Navarro (Platina, CA: Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2008), p. 120.

Why Blog?

Fr. Gregory Jensen, over at Koinonia, has a good reminder of what our attitude should be as bloggers:

It reminds me of what Paul said to the Corinthians (4:7): “For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?”   Ultimately all things are for God and we should acknowledge such things and willingly seek to give more than we receive.

Holiness: the Fruit of Faith

“…I do not belong to myself but to Another, who has established His kingly rule over my life.  So the ability to live a new life and the desire to render a new obedience grow out of the gift of the forgiveness of sins.  The new life of faith is fully conscious  of that fact and consequently there is no place for self-admiration, nor does it cherish delusions of perfection, but yet, in spite of all its weaknesses and failures, it is a real deliverance from the bondage of sin” (A. Koberle, The Quest for Holiness, xi, preface; emphasis mine).

“…Holiness is not an ethical but an ontological concept.  A man is not holy because his morals or conduct are good, or even because he leads a righteous life in the sense of devoting himself to spiritual endeavor and prayer—indeed, the Pharisees kept the fasts and made long prayers.  But the man is holy who bears within himself the Holy Spirit…” (Archimandrite Sophrony, St. Silouan the Athonite, 147-8; emphasis mine).

“…(the Priest says) The holy things are for the holy…(the people say) One is Holy, one is Lord, Jesus Christ to the glory of God the Father, amen…” (The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom; emphasis mine).

People tend to associate Christianity with morals.  Christians are supposed to behave in a manner that would be described as morally “good” while the rest of culture doesn’t know better or doesn’t care—thus their morals are “bad” or suspect at best.  The truth of the matter is Christians really aren’t any different than the rest of the world: we think too highly of ourselves, we get envious of our neighbor, we don’t love as we should, we’re condescending, and we’re selfish.  In short, we sin—we miss the mark of God’s standard of perfection.

Ethical behavior, morals, the good life (or however you would like to describe wise, clean living) is a by-product of the Christian faith, but not the point of it all.  To make Christianity about ethics is to miss the main point of the Gospel that distinguishes it from every other religious system in the world: Christ crucified for our sins (I Cor 15:3).

The human condition is one of brokenness and death, and in the end Jesus Christ did not come to make bad people good, but dead people alive.  Our hope, our salvation isn’t found in our climbing up towards God or heaven.  All our strivings, all our efforts, anything we can muster to try and give God, will never be enough.  We cannot fix the human condition, specifically the human heart—it’s turned inward and seeks to be control of our lives.  The message of the Gospel finds God stepping into our situation and somehow mysteriously absorbing our brokenness, sin, and death on a Roman torture device.

New life and holiness are first a gift before a lived reality.  We don’t conjure up holiness anymore than a new infant chooses to create their self and spring into life and be born.  Make no mistake about it, One is holy, and our holiness comes from the Holy Trinity.  God’s grace saves us and the new life that is poured into us springs into action with love towards God and neighbor.

Christianity should never be boiled down to ethics—to do so cheapens the Person and Work of Jesus Christ, who makes all the difference in the world.  The person who gazes in faith upon the crucified and risen Christ will find peace, a peace that is unlike no other.  Glory to God forever.

On Christian Hope

“The Kingdom of God is a gift, and precisely because of this, it is great and beautiful, and constitutes the response to our hope. And we cannot—to use the classical expression—”merit” Heaven through our works. Heaven is always more than we could merit, just as being loved is never something “merited”, but always a gift. However, even when we are fully aware that Heaven far exceeds what we can merit, it will always be true that our behaviour is not indifferent before God and therefore is not indifferent for the unfolding of history. We can open ourselves and the world and allow God to enter: we can open ourselves to truth, to love, to what is good. This is what the saints did, those who, as “God’s fellow workers”, contributed to the world’s salvation (cf. 1 Cor 3:9; 1 Th 3:2). We can free our life and the world from the poisons and contaminations that could destroy the present and the future. We can uncover the sources of creation and keep them unsullied, and in this way we can make a right use of creation, which comes to us as a gift, according to its intrinsic requirements and ultimate purpose. This makes sense even if outwardly we achieve nothing or seem powerless in the face of overwhelming hostile forces. So on the one hand, our actions engender hope for us and for others; but at the same time, it is the great hope based upon God’s promises that gives us courage and directs our action in good times and bad” (Pope Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter, Spe Salvi; emphasis mine).

What Changes Us?

“The Gospel is more than words. It is the dynamic, saving action of God in Christ Jesus through any of its various forms: Word or Sacrament. The Gospel is more than words, but it is still words—words about the Word made flesh for us, words that convey the Word made flesh to us. Is the Gospel just words? Hardly! But it is words nonetheless. It is words that convey and bestow the justification of God on sinners, apart from works of the law, by grace…through faith…Is the Gospel just words? No! Never just words. Rather, words that make us just” (Jacob Preus, Just Words, 9, 11; emphasis mine).

A Morning Prayer

My most merciful and all-merciful God, O Lord Jesus Christ! In Thy great love, Thou didst come down and become flesh in order to save all. Again, I pray Thee, save me by Grace! If Thou shouldst save me because of my deeds, it would not be a gift, but merely a duty. Truly, Thou aboundest in graciousness and art inexpressibly merciful! Thou hast said, O my Christ: “He who believes in me shall live and never see death”. If faith in Thee saves the desperate, behold: I believe! Save me, for Thou art my God and my Maker. May my faith replace my deeds, O my God, for Thou wilt find no deeds to justify me. May my faith be sufficient for all. May it answer for me; may it justify me; may it make me a partaker of Thine eternal glory; and may Satan not seize me, O Word, and boast that He has torn me from Thy hand and fold. O Christ my Savior: save me whether I want it or not! Come quickly, hurry, for I perish! Thou art my God from my mother’s womb. Grant, O Lord, that I may now love Thee as once I loved sin, and that I may labor for Thee without laziness as once I labored for Satan the deceiver. Even more, I will labor for Thee, my Lord and God Jesus Christ, all the days of my life, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.

Source

Surety — How can I know?

by Fr. John Fenton (April 23, 2009)

“Recently a Lutheran acquaintance wondered about the Orthodox understanding of the certainty of salvation. Like many looking into Orthodoxy, this person did not find much of an answer to the question, “How can I be sure that I am saved.”

Too often I’ve heard such a well-meaning question dismissed with the words like these: “That’s not the right question.” Such a frustratingly typical answer which is often taken to belittle both the questioner and a well-meaning, searching question!

What needs to be understood is that the question is driven by Luther’s question (“How do I know that I have a gracious God”). The prominence of this individual quest by Luther has prompted Lutherans and Protestants to place a great deal of stock in the surety of faith. As one who has was schooled by the question and so understands the angst behind it, permit me to suggest that it reveals a need to be convinced that God is merciful, that He loves men as they are, and that regardless of what they’ve done or their past He accepts, welcomes and forgives them.

There is nothing in those words that the Orthodox dispute. The Orthodox agree that God is merciful, forgiving, kind, and loving, and that we need constantly to be reminded of this since we are prone to forget it or live as if it doesn’t matter.

However, we would question why one needs to know for certain that which is a given; namely, that God is gracious, merciful, loving, etc. We would wonder how God could be otherwise since God is (i.e., both essentially and energetically; or metaphysically, epistemologically and experientially) love.

We would also wonder at the hubris of such a question. In other words, the focus of the question is on me (the individual) and my surety rather than on God and His grace. Notice the grammar: How can *I* be certain that God is who He is. Deep down, it seems to suggest that God is gracious only if I find Him to be so. Such a Cartesian method plays well in a post-Renaissance mindset but it, at base, quite prideful and not within the “mind of Christ” (Philippians 2).

Above all, however, we would question what is not said; namely, that this emphasis on the surety of faith quickly leads either to an antinomianism or to an abstraction (or both), and away from the primary narrative in Scripture–that the love God is calls us not to nearness or friendship but to an intimate participation and union; that God invites us to be “wrapped up” in Him (i.e., in the love His gives and does but, of course, not the love that he metaphysically is).

To the first (antinomianism), Luther of course emphasized “faith alone, but faith is never alone.” This emphasis of faith and love is seen most clearly in Luther’s sermons. However, the most unLutheran notion of total depravity (if not in so many words) has captivated Lutherans and Lutheranism to the point that they apologize for or downplay the necessity for works of love. Furthermore, when these works of love are emphasized, the key works of repentance and humility are not seen as works of love, and are not often seen as the key works.

To the second (faith as abstraction), we would wonder why justification (which is, as Lutherans properly teach, the work of Christ) becomes greater than Christ; to the extent that some would vociferously maintain that not Christ but Christ’s justifying work is the chief article (Hauptartikel). The two, we would say, cannot and ought never be separated since the person (hypostasis; essence) cannot be understood apart from His work (energon; deeds), and vice versa. We would maintain that the loss, in late medieval Western theology, of the distinction in one person/nature of essence and energy has led to this abstract understanding of faith in grace. (Note the grammar of the formula: justified by grace through faith–where is God or Christ except as an understood modifier, and all the other words are abstract concepts!) We would further point out that this loss is the result of a de-emphasizing (or, to be precise, a de-personalizing) of the Spirit.

It is precisely the person of the Holy Spirit that Orthodoxy points to as the necessity for the binding together of individuals in love to God and one another. And what is key, then, is not personal surety of one’s standing before God, but the relationship that the Spirit calls us to–a relationship of the fullness of love in the God who is love which then, of necessity, binds us to all whom (persons) and which (creation) God loves. Or, to ask it juridically: After one is declared not guilty or righteous (or “made righteous” as the Lutherans sometimes affirm), then what? Does that not evoke a relationship between judge and judged? And if so, what is the nature of this relationship, and what keeps is growing, maturing, deepening? The Orthodox answer, which is only partially (and therefore incompletely, that is, unsacramentally) found amongst the pietists or those oddly accused of Osianderism (often the accusers don’t understand the teaching of and charges against Osiander), we would see as an attempt to answer this very necessary relational question. And why is the relational question necessary? Because that is what God made us for–to live in union with Him. But now we are talking of theosis.”