Category Archives: Opinion

The Church is Paradise on Earth

Posted on by
Reply
Icon of the Holy Liturgy, Michael Damaskenos, from the 16th century Cretan school

Icon of the Holy Liturgy, Michael Damaskenos, from the 16th century Cretan school

With the worship of God you live in Paradise. If you know and love Christ, you live in Paradise. Christ is Paradise. Paradise begins here. The Church is Paradise on earth, exactly the same as Paradise in heaven. The same Paradise as is in heaven is here on earth. There all souls are one, just as the Holy Trinity is three persons, but they are united and constitute one.

Our chief concern is to devote ourselves to Christ, to unite ourselves to the Church. If we enter into the love of God, we enter into the Church. If we don’t enter into the Church, if we do not become with the earthly Church here and now, we are in danger of losing the heavenly Church here and now, we are in danger of losing the heavenly Church too. And when we say ‘heavenly’ don’t imagine that in the other life we will find gardens with flowers, mountains, streams and birds. The earthly beauties do not exist there; there is something else, something very exalted. But in order for us to go on to this something else we must pass through these earthly images and beauties.

Whoever experiences Christ becomes one with Him, with His Church. He experiences a mad delight. This life is different from the life of other people. It is joy, it is light, it is exultation, it is exaltation. This is the life of the Church, the life of the Gospel, the Kingdom of God. ‘The Kingdom of God is within us.’ Christ comes within us and we are within Him. This occurs just in the way a piece of iron placed int he fire becomes fire and light; once it is removed from the fire it becomes iron again, black and dark.

In the Church a divine intercourse occurs, we become infused with God. When we are with Christ we are in the light; and when we live in the light there is no darkness. The light, however, is not constant; it depends on us. It is just like the iron which becomes dark when removed from the fire. Darkness and light are incompatible. We can never have darkness and light at the same time. Either light or darkness. When you switch on the light, darkness vanishes.

Elder Porphyrious, Wounded by Love, pp. 90-91

On the Office of the Deaconess

Posted on by
Reply
St. Apollonia, an elderly virgin, deaconess, and martyr of Alexandria

St. Apollonia, an elderly virgin, deaconess, and martyr of Alexandria

On the Office of the Deaconess

The question of deaconesses is one that continues to haunt the church, long after the institution itself was abolished. What were the functions of deaconesses? Were they ordained? Did they have an liturgical function? And should the ancient order of deaconesses be revived?

None of these questions have easy answers, in part because the ancient fathers of the church wrote so little about the institution. There are those who assume that deaconesses were ordained, and had the same liturgical role as deacons. There are others who claim that the office of the deaconess did not exist. Between these two extremes, we have a range of opinions.

In this all too short description of the subject, I will demonstrate that deaconesses were an order in the early church, and were blessed to perform certain functions for women on behalf of the bishop and the presbyters. This order was not sacerdotal in nature; moreover, entrance into the order was not accomplished through ordination, as symbolized by the laying on of hands.

The Order of the Deaconess

One of the most interesting bits of historical detail is found in Canon XIX of the First Council of Nicaea.

Canon XIX

Concerning the Paulianists who have flown for refuge to the Catholic Church, it has been decreed that they must by all means be rebaptized; and if any of them who in past time have been numbered among their clergy should be found blameless and without reproach, let them be rebaptized and ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church; but if the examination should discover them to be unfit, they ought to be deposed. Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among the clergy, let the same form be observed. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity.

The Paulianists were followers of Paul of Samosata, an anti-Trinitarian. Since their baptisms would not have been in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (in accordance with an Orthodox understanding of the Trinity), they were required to be rebaptized. For our purposes we will focus on the council’s description of deaconesses. It is clear on the one hand that they were “enrolled among the clergy”, but since they were not ordained (lacking the “imposition of hands”), they were to be numbered among the laity. The Dictionary of Christian Antiquities assumes that women were ordained as deaconesses, and ascribes the description of deaconesses in Canon XIX to peculiarities among the Paulianists, where women “assumed the habit or office of deaconess without imposition of hands, and who therefore could not be reordained but simply reckoned among the laity.”

Henry R. Percival (in his book “The Seven Ecumenical Councils”) quotes St. Epiphanius of Salamis (from his book “Against Heresies”), as follows:

This whole matter is treated clearly by St. Epiphanius who, while indeed speaking of deaconesses as an order (τάγμα), asserts that “they were only women-elders, not priestesses in any sense, that their mission was not to interfere in any way with Sacerdotal functions, but simply to perform certain offices in the care of women” (Hær. lxxix., cap. iij). From all this it is evident that they are entirely in error who suppose that “the laying on of hands” which the deaconesses received corresponded to that by which persons were ordained to the diaconate, presbyterate, and episcopate at that period of the church’s history. It was merely a solemn dedication and blessing and was not looked upon as “an outward sign of an inward grace given.”

The plain reading of Canon XIX indicates that deaconesses occupied some sort of middle ground. They were not part of the ordained clergy, yet they clearly had entered into a formal office and received a blessing to perform certain functions within and on behalf of the church. As members of the order of deaconesses, they were identified by a particular style of dress (the meaning of the phrase “assumed the habit”). As the wearing of the habit suggests, there was a monastic element to office of deaconess. This is clear from the requirement that deaconesses be chaste and unmarried. Henry R. Percival, in his book “The Seven Ecumenical Councils”, writes:

The one great characteristic of the deaconess was that she was vowed to perpetual chastity. The Apostolical Constitutions (vi. 17) say that she must be a chaste virgin (parthenos hagne) or else a widow. The writer of the article “Deaconess” in the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities says: It is evident that the ordination of deaconesses included a vow of celibacy.”

Chastity was required of all those taking holy orders. A priest could be the husband of only one wife and, should his wife die, was forbidden to marry again. The deaconess was likewise chaste, living a pure and unmarried life of service to women on behalf of the church.

The Role of the Deaconess

The Dictionary of Christian Antiquities describes the general role of the Deaconess as performing for women the same functions deacons performed for men. This was necessary due to the cultural requirement for women to be kept in seclusion.

An order of women in the Primitive Church who appear to have undertaken duties in reference to their own sex analogous to those performed by the deacons among men. Their office was probably rendered more necessary by the strict seclusion which was observed by the female sex in Greece, and in many Oriental countries.

So what comprised the responsibilities of the deaconess? Again, we turn to the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, which describes a set of duties, but which implied no sacerdotal (priestly) function.

The duties of the deaconesses were various. The most important related to the administration of baptism to women. Thus the 4th council of Carthage (c. 12) speaks of them as widows or virgins selected for the purpose of assisting in the baptism of women, and who therefore must be qualified to assist the unlearned candidates how to answer the interrogatories in the baptismal office, and how to live after baptism. … No woman was to have any inter course with the bishop or deacon except through the deaconess (Ibid. ii. c. 26). … In the Apostolic Constitutions (iii. 15, 16) it is said that the deaconess (τήν διάκονον) was to be chosen tor ministering to women, because it was impossible to send a deacon into many houses on account of the unbelievers. … They were to attend to the women who were sick or in affliction as the deacon did to the men (Constitut. Apost. iii. 19), and in time of persecution to minister to the confessors in prison (Cotel. Aunot. in Const it. Apost. iii. 15, quoting from Lucian and Libanius). They were to exercise some supervision over the general body of widows, who were to be obedient to the bishops, priests, and deacons, and further to the deaconesses (Constitut. Apost. iii. c. 7).

The Need for the Female Diaconate

Due to the social strictures of the time — where women were secluded and were not to be in the company of men unrelated to them — there was a real need for women who could perform certain functions on behalf of the church. In the apostolic era, and perhaps into the 2nd century, things were not so formal, and both charismatic and hierarchical ministries appear to have existed side by side. But in the New Testament epistles we see excesses in those with charismatic ministries, excesses which necessitated a more formal approach. Take the example of Diotrephes, who had to be brought to heel by the Apostle John.

I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church. (3 Jo 9-11)

The Didache gives specific instructions on the management of itinerant Teachers, Apostles, and Prophets:

Chapter 11. Concerning Teachers, Apostles, and Prophets. Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord. But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there’s a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet. And every prophet who speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. But not every one who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet; but only if he holds the ways of the Lord. Therefore from their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known. And every prophet who orders a meal in the Spirit does not eat it, unless he is indeed a false prophet. And every prophet who teaches the truth, but does not do what he teaches, is a false prophet. And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself does, shall not be judged among you, for with God he has his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets. But whoever says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen to him. But if he tells you to give for others’ sake who are in need, let no one judge him.

Because the charismatic ministries sometimes came in conflict with the formal ministries of the church, various means were devised to deal with them,[1] and various orders were established — including the formal office of deaconess (which perhaps incorporated the more charismatic office of the widows) (1 Tim 5:3-12). In time, the ecumenical councils established canons which regulated the office of the deaconess. And, as the social structure changed, the need for the office diminished. It was done away with first in the Christian West, and gradually withered away in the East, where its functions seem to have been taken up in part by the women’s monasteries, and in part by a reversion to charismatic ministries within the church. So, for example, in our church the women tend to minister to each other’s needs, with guidance from the priest as necessary. The deaconess is no longer necessary for the instruction and catechesis of women, as most societies no longer frown upon a male priest teaching women he is not related to.

However, in some societies there could well be a need for women to perform the function of the female diaconate. In these situations, one could well imagine the bishop giving a special blessing to a woman to perform certain functions on behalf of the church, functions which would include those formerly performed by deaconesses. And if a female monastery were nearby, perhaps these functions could be performed by their members.

Modernity and the Diaconate

In the ancient world, it was quite rare for women to receive an education. Thus, while we have a great many writings of the church fathers, we have very little writings done by or on behalf of women. We do have examples of female saints and martyrs, and the sayings of the desert mothers are as instructive as the desert fathers. In the modern era, women have just as many educational opportunities as men, and it is not uncommon for women to receive theological training. So how does the church put these educated women to good use?

In most Christian communions, there is some pressure to ordain women. Some have succumbed to modernity, ordaining women as priests and even bishops. Some resist with great vigor, to the point of seeming hostility towards and subjugation of women. And some have devised ways of dealing with the legitimate aspirations of women. The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LC-MS) formally restored the office of the Deaconess, complete with theological undergraduate and post-graduate education. This, despite not having a formal male diaconate. (On the other hand, the LC-MS would not allow theologically educated women to teach theology in their universities or seminaries.) In the Roman Catholic Church, women are allowed to teach theology in the universities. Among the Eastern Orthodox (at least in some jurisdictions) women with the appropriate level of education are allowed to teach in the seminaries (I know of one woman who was a professor at Hellenic College Holy Cross in Brookline, MA).

So granted the increasing number of educated women and their legitimate desire to use their skills and talents within the church, the question is whether the female diaconate is the correct vehicle. One thing that should be noted is that to be a member of the female diaconate, the canons are quite clear: one must be at least forty years old, one must be either a virgin or a widow, and one must remain unmarried or risk excommunication. And the office of the female diaconate is not sacerdotal, meaning the deaconess has no function in the priestly and liturgical life of the church. The question, then, is whether the female deaconess would have anything to do, given that the functions of the deaconess are performed within the church now, absent the formal office. Moreover, given that many churches have a hard enough time paying their priest, let alone a deacon, how many churches could afford to hire a deaconess?

Practically speaking, there would be too few openings for female deaconesses, especially as their functions are currently performed by unpaid volunteers. And since the canons do not permit women to fill the office of deaconess until the age of forty, what would educated young women do in the meantime? Clearly, the office of the deaconess would not be an avenue for the legitimate aspirations of educated young women.

 

[1] The canons of the church were established to resolve problems. So when we see a canon requiring one thing and prescribing another, we can be sure that this was an issue that was either widespread or serious enough to have been raised to the level of an ecumenical council.

Continuity of Worship

Posted on by
Reply
Jewish Temple Liturgy

Jewish Temple Liturgy

Jewish worship was liturgical. There was a specific order of service to be followed, and deviation from that order of service was a serious matter (as Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu quickly discovered) (Le 10:1-2). The twice daily sacrifices were accompanied by choirs singing psalms, and accompanied by instruments (2 Chron 5:12-14).

A remarkable continuity of worship practice exists between the Old Testament and the New, between Jewish worship and that of Christians. It is clear from the book of Acts that the earliest Christians were “continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house” (Acts 2:46). Moreover, the lame man was healed as “Peter and John about to go into the temple” (Acts 3:3). And again, Luke says of the early church, that “were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch” (Acts 5:12). After the apostles were miraculously released from prison, the report was made to the “captain of the temple and the chief priests”: “Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people” (Acts 5:25). After they had been beaten and released, it is said of the apostles: “And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ” (Acts 5:42).

Following the Babylonian captivity (and perhaps even before then), the Jews had two centers of worship. The most important center of worship was Jerusalem, which was were the temple was, and were the twice daily sacrifices were held. But those who could not be present at the temple gathered at the synagogue, which had its own liturgical style. This was the center of worship for the diaspora, and was where Paul went first on his missionary journeys (Acts 13:14-15; 14:1; 17:1-3; 18:4-6). Even in the book of Acts, it is clear that there was a particular order of worship, with an exhortation following the reading of the law and the prophets. W. O. E. Oesterley, in his book “The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy”, writes that basic form of Jewish Liturgy was 1) the reading of Scripture, and 2) prayer. The reading of Scripture included some sort of homily or exhortation; the prayers were varied in form, but followed an over all structure. The prayers tended to focus more on praise, thanksgiving, and confession of sins; intercessory prayers and supplications were secondary. The singing of psalms was interspersed throughout the services, binding the individual elements of the service together.

Christian Community House

Christian Community House

The apostles, those with them in the upper room, and the converts following the feast of Pentecost were all Jews, and all familiar with liturgical worship. They continued in that worship in the temple, but also went from house to house celebrating the eucharist. It would be quite unexpected for Jews, used to liturgical worship, to conduct their services in any other way.

Gabe Martini, in his “On Behalf of All” blog, notes how church architecture has followed, and continues to follow, the architectural model bequeathed to us from the Jews. There is a remarkable continuity of worship between the Old and New Testaments.

You can read more here: Remaking the Temple of the Lord 

On the Death of a Christian

Posted on by
Reply

A fellow parishioner is being taken off life support soon, and we are beginning preparations for his funeral. I have begun looking at the funeral for an Orthodox Christian, and I am struck by how theologically rich the service is. Here is an excerpt of the Funeral Service (after the Greek Orthodox tradition).

Detail of the Dormition [falling asleep] of the Theotokos

Detail of the Dormition [falling asleep] of the Theotokos

Look upon me and have mercy on me, in accordance with the judgement of those who love your name. Alleluia.

I am young and despised; I have not forgotten your statutes. Alleluia.

Hear my voice, O Lord, in accordance with your mercy; in accordance with your judgement give me life. Alleluia.

Rulers have persecuted me for no reason; and my heart has been in awe of your words. Alleluia.

My soul will live and praise you; and your judgements will help me. Alleluia.

 

I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek out your servant, because I have not forgotten your commandments.

Evlogitaria for the dead in Tone 5

Blessed are you, O Lord, teach me your statutes.

The choir of Saints has found the source of life and the door of Paradise; may I too find the way through repentance; I am the lost sheep, call me back, O Saviour, and save me.

Blessed are you, O Lord, teach me your statutes.

You Holy Martyrs, who proclaimed the Lamb of God, and like lambs were slain, and have been taken over to the unending life which knows no ageing, plead with him to grant us abolition of our debts.

Blessed are you, O Lord, teach me your statutes.

All you who trod in life the hard and narrow way; all you who took the Cross as a yoke, and followed me in faith, come, enjoy you in faith, come, enjoy that heavenly rewards and crowns which I have prepared for you.

Blessed are you, O Lord, teach me your statutes.

I am an image of your ineffable glory, though I bear the marks of offences; take pity on your creature, Master, and with compassion cleanse me; and give me the longed-for fatherland, making me once again a citizen of Paradise.

Blessed are you, O Lord, teach me your statutes.

Of old you formed me from nothing and honoured me with your divine image, but because I transgressed your commandment, you returned me to the earth from which I was taken; bring me back to your likeness, my ancient beauty.

Blessed are you, O Lord, teach me your statutes.

Give rest, O God, to your servant (s) , and settle them (him/her) in Paradise, where the choirs of the Saints and all the Just shine out like beacons; give rest to your servant (s) who has/have fallen asleep, overlooking all their (his/her) offences.

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. Triadikon.

Triadikon.

Let us devoutly hymn the threefold light of the one Godhead as we cry: Holy are you, the Father without beginning, the Son likewise without beginning and the divine Spirit; enlighten us who worship  and snatch us from the everlasting fire.

Both now and for ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

Theotokion.

Hail, honoured one, who bore God in the flesh for the salvation of all; through you the human race has found salvation; through you may we find Paradise, O pure and blessed Mother of God.

Alleluia. Alleluia. Alleluia.

Glory to you, O God (x3) .

Tone 8.

With the Saints give rest, O Christ, to the soul of your servant, where there is no toil, nor grief, nor sighing, but everlasting life.

And after the Ekphonesis, we begin the Idiomels.

By Monk John, the Damascene.

Tone 1.

What pleasure in life remains without its share of sorrow? What glory stands on earth unchanged? All things are feebler than a shadow, all things are more deceptive than dreams; one instant, and death supplants them all. But, O Christ, give rest to him You have chosen in the light of your countenance and the sweetness of your beauty, as You love mankind.

Tone 2.

Alas, what an ordeal the soul endures once separated from the body! Alas, what tears then, and there is none to pity her! She turns towards the Angels, her entreaty is without effect; she stretches out her hands to men, she has none to help. Therefore my dear brethren, thinking on the shortness of our life, let us ask of Christ rest for him who has passed over, and for ourselves his great mercy.

Tone 3.

Everything human which does not survive death is vanity; wealth does not last, glory does not travel with us; for at death’s approach all of them disappear; and so let cry out to Christ the Immortal one: Give rest to him who has passed from us, in the dwelling of all those who rejoice.

Tone 4.

Truly most fearful is the mystery of death, how the soul is forcibly parted from the body, from its frame, and how that most natural bond of union is cut off by the will of God. Therefore we entreat you: Give rest in the tents of your just ones, him/her who has passed over, O Giver of life, Lover of mankind.

Another, outside the Typikon.

Tone 4.

Where is the attraction of the world? Where the delusion of the temporary? Where is gold, where silver? Where the throng and hubbub of servants? All dust, all ashes, all shadow. But come, let us cry out to the immortal King: O Lord, grant your eternal good things to him who has passed from us, giving him rest in the happiness which does not age.

Tone 5.

I remembered how the Prophet cried out: I am earth and ashes; and I looked again into the tombs and saw the naked bones, and I said: Who then is a king or a soldier, a rich man or a beggar, a just man or a sinner? But give rest, O Lord, with the just to your servant.

Tone 6.

Your command which fashioned me was my beginning and my substance; for wishing to compose me as a living creature from visible and invisible nature, you moulded my body from the earth, but gave me a soul by your divine and life-giving breath. Therefore, O Christ, give rest to your servant in the land of the living, in the tents of the just.

Tone 7.

Give rest, our Saviour, to our brother/sister , whom you have taken over from transient things, as he/she cries, ‘Glory to you!’

Another, outside the Typikon.

Tone 7.

Having fashioned man in the beginning in your image and likeness, you placed him in Paradise to govern your creatures; but led astray by the envy of the devil he tasted the food and became a transgressor of your commandments; and so you condemned him, O Lord, to return again to the earth from which he had been taken, and to beg for rest.

Tone 8.

I grieve and lament when I contemplate death, and see the beauty fashioned for us in God’s image lying in the graves, without form, without glory, without shape. O the wonder! What is this mystery which has happened to us? How have we been handed over to corruption, and yoked with death? Truly it is at God’s command, as it is written, God who grants rest to him who has passed over.

Priest: O God of spirits and all flesh, who trampled down death and crushed the devil, giving life to your world; do you, Lord, give rest to the soul of your servant N. , who has fallen asleep, in a place of light, a place of green pasture, a place of refreshment, whence pain, grief and sighing have fled away. Pardon, O God, as you are good and love of mankind, every sin committed by him/her in word or deed or thought, because there is no one who will live and not sin, for you alone are without sin; your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and your word is truth. For you are the resurrection, the life and the repose of your servant N. , who has fallen asleep, Christ our God, and to you we give glory, together with your Father who is without beginning and your all-holy, good and life-giving Spirit, now and for ever, and to the ages of ages.

People: Amen.

On Usury, Scripture, Tradition, and the Modern Church

Posted on by
Reply
Saturn Devouring One Of His Sons, by Francisco Goya

Saturn Devouring One Of His Sons
by Francisco Goya

On Usury as Lending at Interest

“The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender” (Pr 22:7)
“He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor” (Pr 28:8)

In the scriptures, usury is narrowly defined as lending money at interest. The modern sense of lending at exorbitant interest is not in view; rather, nearly all lending of money at interest is forbidden. The Pentateuch describes usury as lending money at interest to the poor, but permits lending at interest to foreigners (Ex 22:25; Lev 25:35-38; Deu 23:19-20). In the later writings this definition is seems to be expanded to cover all lending of money at interest (Ps 15:1,5). Justin Martyr, in the “Dialogue of Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew”, translates Ps 72:12-14 this way: “For He has delivered the poor from the man of power, and the needy that hath no helper. He shall spare the poor and needy, and shall save the souls of the needy: He shall redeem their souls from usury and injustice, and His name shall be honourable before them.” [1] (Schaff, ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus 1884, 335) Proverbs connects usury with unjust gain (Pr 28:8). Ezekiel describes usury as an abomination and as extortion (Eze 8:8, 13, 17; 22:12). Nehemiah contains an extended passage in which the people were forced to mortgage their property and possessions to purchase food and pay their taxes. Nehemiah forced the mortgage holders to restore everything they had taken, along with the interest (Neh 5:1-13).

The tradition of the church has been from the very beginning to forbid the lending of money at interest, which was considered the same as theft. Henry Percival, in his book “The Seven Ecumenical Councils”, provides the following information in his “Excursus on Usury”.

The famous canonist Van Espen defines usury thus:   “Usura definitur lucrum ex mutuo exactum aut speratum;” [the anticipated gain from each loan] and then goes on to defend the proposition that, “Usury is forbidden by natural, by divine, and by human law.   The first is proved thus. Natural law, as far as its first principles are concerned, is contained in the decalogue; but usury is prohibited in the decalogue, inasmuch as theft is prohibited; and this is the opinion of the Master of the Sentences, of St. Bonaventura, of St. Thomas and of a host of others: or by the name of theft in the Law all unlawful taking of another’s goods is prohibited; but usury is an unlawful, etc.” For a proof of usury’s being contrary to divine law he cites Ex. xxii. 25, and Deut. xxiii. 29; and from the New Testament Luke vi. 34. “The third assertion is proved thus. Usury is forbidden by human law: The First Council of Nice in Canon VII. deposed from the clergy and from all ecclesiastical rank, clerics who took usury; and the same thing is the case with an infinite number of councils, in fact with nearly all e.g. Elvira, ij, Arles j, Carthage iij, Tours iij, etc. Nay, even the pagans themselves formerly forbid it by their laws.” He then quotes Tacitus (Annal. lib. v.), and adds, “with what severe laws the French Kings coerced usurers is evident from the edicts of St. Louis, Philip IV., Charles IX., Henry III., etc.”[2] (Percival 2013, 106, 107)

 

Usury and Modernity

If this be the case, as is difficult to deny, then what accounts for the attitude of modern Christianity towards the subject of lending money at interest? Henry Percival, in his book “The Seven Ecumenical Councils”, makes the case that the distinction between interest and usury is Calvinist in origin.

The glory of inventing the new moral code on the subject, by which that which before was looked upon as mortal sin has been transfigured into innocence, if not virtue, belongs to John Calvin! He made the modern distinction between “interest” and “usury,” and was the first to write in defence of this then new-fangled refinement of casuistry. [98] Luther violently opposed him, and Melancthon also kept to the old doctrine, though less violently (as was to be expected); today the whole Christian West, Protestant and Catholic alike, stake their salvation upon the truth of Calvin’s distinction! (Percival 2013, 107)

It is interesting to read what some say about this. Merrill F. Unger describes usury as money loaned to aid the struggling poor. (Unger 1966, 1129) This idea is often thought to have been Jesus’ view as well, for he tells people to give to everyone who asks, and not require it again, and not to lend hoping for a return (Luk 6:30, 35). Although some read the Lukan text as “an exhortation to general and disinterested benevolence”, the text does not support this presumption, for this is not Jesus’ only mention of the subject. (Vermeersch 1912) In the parable of the unjust steward, the steward is entrusted with a sum of money; the steward thinks his master a hard and austere man, and hides the money rather than risk it. The master, condemns the unjust steward, for if he thought the master a hard and austere man, he should have lent the money out at interest (Matthew 25:26-27; Luke 19:22-23). The clear implication is that only a hard and austere man would lend money at interest.

After describing the particular social situation that gave rise to the prohibition of usury in the Old Testament and after describing the Luke 6 passage as being in the same vein, Unger indicates that the practice of lending money for commercial purposes was unknown, and therefore not prohibited. (Unger 1966) The Catholic Encyclopedia expands upon this idea when it describes how usury has been viewed over the centuries—from being barely mentioned in the early church, to being prohibited to clerics, to being to all Christians, to being absolutely prohibited by Jew and Christian alike in the medieval church, and from there to the modern view that acceptance of interest on loans is not absolutely prohibited. The modern argument proceeds from the idea of justice: it is unjust to expect a lender to risk his capital and forgo the use of same in other money-making ventures with no expectation of return. (Vermeersch 1912)

This discussion of the development of doctrine in this area seemingly explains away the church fathers and fails to take into account insight derived from apocryphal literature, including some writings that were of use in the early church. For example, the Apocalypse of Peter, likely composed prior to the middle of the second century, contains the following: “And in another great lake, full of pitch and blood and mire bubbling up, there stood men and women up to their knees: and these were the usurers and those who take interest on interest” (Apocalypse of Peter, 30). (Schaff, ANF09. 2004, 276) The so-called “Vision of Paul”, ostensibly an account of what he saw when he was taken up into heaven, was generally rejected by the church, and specifically mentioned by Augustine as being spurious. Yet the Vision of Paul was in use among the monks, and contains the following passage: “And I saw another multitude of pits in the same place, and in the midst of it a river full of a multitude of men and women, and worms consumed them. But I lamented and sighing asked the angel and said: Sir, who are these? And he said to me: These are those who exacted interest on interest and trusted in their riches and did not hope in God that He was their helper” (Vision of Paul, 37). (Schaff, ANF09. 2004, 293)

From the great Clement of Alexandria (writing in The Stromata), we find confirmation regarding interpretation of the Old Testament teaching regarding usury. As Clement rightly points out, “The law prohibits a brother from taking usury: designating as a brother not only him who is born of the same parents, but also one of the same race and sentiments, and a participator in the same word.” (Schaff, ANF02. 2004, 601) But we are not under law, but under grace (Rom 6:14); and under grace, our responsibilities to our neighbor are greater. Jesus, in answer to the question “Who is my neighbor”, gives us the parable of the Good Samaritan. A certain man is fell among thieves, and is grievously wounded. A priest and a Levite pass him by, but a Samaritan helps him. Jesus then asks: “Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?” The reply came: “He that shewed mercy on him.” Jesus then gave his universal charge: “Go, and do thou likewise” (Luk 10:25-37).

Under law, a person was restricted from lending money at interest to someone the law defined as a brother, someone who fell under the protections of the old covenant. Under grace, we are constrained to show mercy to all, for all mankind may partake of the new covenant. Therefore the whole world is our neighbor. While a Jew could lend at interest to someone outside the covenant, for the Christian no one is outside covenant protections. As the whole world is out neighbor, we are therefore constrained from lending money at interest.

Am I my Brother’s Keeper: The Theological Rationale Against Usury

“Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen 4:9) This, the answer of Cain following his murder of his brother Abel, is the first recorded question asked of God in the Holy Scriptures. It is ultimately the same question asked of Jesus by the lawyer when he sought to justify himself: “And who is my neighbour?” (Luke 10:29). This spirit of self-justification is the opposite of the spirit enjoyed by Adam and Eve in the state of original righteousness, a state in which they were naked, and not ashamed (Gen 2:25).

Prior to the fall of mankind, we see Adam created in solitude, of which God said it was “not good” (Gen 2:18). Once woman is created, man is no longer alone. Mankind is both iss and issa, both male and female. Although the first five days of creation were called “good”, only after the creation of mankind does our Maker look at His creation and call it “very good” (Gen 1:31). Mankind is created in the image of God and, as we see in the second creation account, is created with a full “communion of persons” (John Paul II 2006, 162ff). Because of this communion of persons, as “one flesh” created as male and female, mankind is a typological representation of the communion of persons within the trinity. What we see after the fall is a broken communion—not only with God, but with each other.

The questions “Am I my brother’s keeper” and “Who is my neighbor” are only possible after the fall. They are humanity’s expressions of Satan’s fivefold “I wills” (Isa 14:12-14), through which Lucifer expressed the broken communion between himself and the most High. Thus the question “Am I my brother’s keeper” is an expression of the self and shame, and a denial of the very essence of humanity. This self-justifying question is an expression of the pride that came before the fall. The question is a fig leaf designed to cover one’s essential nakedness before God, before humanity, and even before one’s own self.

The original creation of mankind as male and female was “very good”. Adam and Eve were created in communion with each other, in the image of God, and as a typological representation of the communion within the trinity. Thus the meaning of “naked, and not ashamed” is not an expression of sexuality, but is the essence of humanity created in original righteousness. “Naked, and not ashamed” is an anthropological statement, a description of what it means to be human. “Naked, and not ashamed” is also an ontological statement, a description of mankind’s original order of being. In the state of original righteousness, the question of “am I my brother’s keeper” has no meaning. The question only makes sense after the fall, as a description and consequence of an anthropological and ontological change in the nature of humanity.

After the fall, God pronounced a curse not only upon humanity, but upon the earth, for we were created “of the dust of the ground” (Gen 2:7), and unto dust we shall return (Gen 3:17). The curse passed upon the entire earth: “all flesh shall perish together” (Job 34:15). Adam’s sin not only passed upon all humanity (I Cor 15:22), but upon the entire creation, which “groaneth and travaileth in pain together”. Thus the communion of persons, by which we were intended to be “naked, and not ashamed”, has become a communion in suffering, a sharing of the curse.

James, the brother of our Lord, described humanity’s lot in this manner: “For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away” (Jas 4:14). Isaiah likewise says: “All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: The grass withereth, the flower fadeth” (Isa 40:6-7). But Isaiah does not leave us comfortless, but describes God’s provision in the midst of suffering: “O Zion, that bringest good tidings, get thee up into the high mountain; O Jerusalem, that bringest good tidings, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God! Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him. He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young” (Isa 40:9-11).

In this manner Isaiah describes God’s providential, merciful care for his people.

Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages; That thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Shew yourselves. They shall feed in the ways, and their pastures shall be in all high places. They shall not hunger nor thirst; neither shall the heat nor sun smite them: for he that hath mercy on them shall lead them, even by the springs of water shall he guide them. (Isa 49:8-10)

God’s gracious provision for mankind, His active involvement in the fate of individuals, is the characteristic of mercy. After holiness, mercy is God’s most important characteristic. We, being made after the image and likeness of God, are called to show mercy to our neighbor. And in showing mercy, we lend without expectation of reward.

Bibliography

John Paul II. Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body. Boston: Pauline Books & Media, 2006.

Percival, Henry R. The Seven Ecumenical Councils. Kindle. Edited by Sr. Paul A. Böer. Veratitis Splendor Publications, 2013.

Schaff, Philip. ANF01. Edited by Alexander Roberts, & James Donaldson. Vol. 1. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1884.

—. ANF02. Edited by Phillip Schaff. Vol. 2. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2004.

—. ANF09. Edited by Phillip Schaff. Vol. 9. 10 vols.Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2004.

Unger, Merrill F. Unger’s Bible Dictionary. Third Edition. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966.

Vermeersch, Arthur. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912.

 


[1] Justin Martyr seems to be following the Vulgate for Ps 72:12-14, in which the word usuries is the Latin translation of the Hebrew תך (tok), translated in the AV as deceit.

[2] That the student may be able to find the resources for him or herself, Henry Percival provides the following information:

Although the conditions of the mercantile community in the East and the West differed materially in some respects, the fathers of the two churches are equally explicit and systematic in their condemnation of the practice of usury.   Among those belonging to the Greek church we find Athanasius (Expos. in Ps. xiv); Basil the Great (Hom. in Ps. xiv). Gregory of Nazianzum (Orat. xiv. in Patrem tacentem). Gregory of Nyssa (Orat. cont. Usurarios); Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. iv. c. 37), Epiphanius (adv. Haeres. Epilog. c. 24), Chrysostom (Hom. xli. in Genes), and Theodoret (Interpr. in Ps. xiv. 5, and liv. 11).   Among those belonging to the Latin church, Hilary of Poitiers (in Ps. xiv); Ambrose (de Tobia liber unus). Jerome (in Ezech. vi. 18); Augustine de Baptismo contr. Donatistas, iv. 19); Leo the Great (Epist. iii. 4), and Cassiodorus (in Ps. xiv. 10). (Percival 2013, 108)

 

Hypostatic Prayer

Posted on by
Reply
The Rich Man and Lazarus

The Rich Man and Lazarus

 

What is prayer? For a great many years I struggled with this. Not only how to pray, but what to pray for. It was not until I became Orthodox that I began to learn something about prayer, and how especially bad I was at it. Fortunately, the Orthodox faith has 2,000 years of experience in teaching people how to pray. The most important thing I learned is that prayer is rarely about me, or for me. Instead, prayer is for others, and on behalf of others. Specifically, we are called to “pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Mt 5:44); we also enjoined to sorrow over and pray for those who do not know God.

St Silouan the Athonite writes:

He who has the Holy Spirit in Him, to however slight a degree, sorrows day and night for all mankind. His heart is filled with pity for all God’s creatures, more especially for those who do not know God, or who resist Him and therefore are bound for the fire of torment. For them, more than for himself he prays day and night, that all may repent. Christ prayed for them that were crucifying him: ‘Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.’ Stephen the Martyr prayed for those who stoned him, that the Lord ‘lay not this sin to their charge.’ And we, if we wish to preserve grace, must pray for our enemies. If you do not feel pity for the sinner destined to suffer the pains of hell-fire, it means that the grace of the Holy Spirit is not in you, but an evil spirit. While you are still alive, therefore, strive by repentance to free yourself from this spirit. (Archimandrite Sophrony 1991, 352)

We are also called to pray for the world — the entirety of creation. Some saints even prayer for the devil and the fallen angels, so great is their love for God’s creation.

Christopher Veniamin writes:

Hypostatic prayer – this prayer for all creation as for one’s self – is at the very heart of the Divine Eucharist – the Liturgy – and can be seen very clearly both in Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition: In the Old Testament, for instance, we find Moses imploring God to forgive the people of Israel, after falling into the grave sin or idolatry:

Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin — ; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou has written (ex 32:32)

And in the New Testament too, St. Paul says of his fellow Jews:

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh (Rom. 9: 1– 3). (Veniamin 2013, Kindle Locations 167-175)

Bibliography

Archimandrite Sophrony. St Silouan the Athonite. Translated by Rosemary Edmonds. Crestwood: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1991.

Veniamin, Christopher. Holy Relics: The Deification of the Human Body in the Christian Tradition. Dalton: Mount Thabor Publishing, 2013.

The Purpose of Man’s Existence

Posted on by
Reply
Icon of the Transfiguration of Christ

Icon of the Transfiguration of Christ

As Saint Gregory Palamas also points out, Christ is not only the Sole Revealer of God, He is also the Sole Revealer of God’s purpose in His creation of man. In simple terms, what is true of Christ’s humanity can also be true for us – by grace. Christ is unique in that the union of human nature with His divine Person is hypostatic or personal. But the consequence of this hypostatic union, namely, the exchange of the natural properties of each of His two natures (the communicatio idiomatum), serves as a model for our own salvation and deification (theosis). What is true of Christ’s humanity can also be true for us – by grace, that is to say, as gift. This is how salvation is understood in the tradition of the Orthodox Church; not in merely moral or ethical terms, but as the attainment of Christlike perfection. This is the purpose of our human existence – to become by divine grace what Christ is by nature.

Veniamin, Christopher (2013-09-10). The Orthodox Interpretation of Holy Scripture: St. Gregory Palamas and the Key to Understanding the Bible (Kindle Locations 140-151). Mount Thabor Publishing. Kindle Edition.

NOTE: The Westminster Shorter Catechism asks “What is the chief end of man?” The answer given is famous for its depth and concision: “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” This is not a bad answer, but it is incomplete — because Presbyterian theology derives its Doctrine of Man from the accounts of the fall, rather than from the creation accounts.

Man as the Recapitulation of God’s Creation

Posted on by
Reply
The Creation of Adam and Eve

The Creation of Adam and Eve

Man, the greater world contained in a lesser, is the combination of all things, the recapitulation of God’s creation, which is why he was produced last of all, just as we put an epilogue at the end of speeches; in fact, you could say that this universe is the composition of the person of the Word Himself. Man, then, brings his mind and senses into unity with the greater wisdom of Him who is able to mingle elements that cannot be mixed, by using his imagination, opinion and thought as intermediaries, as genuine bonds of the extremes.

Man and the world are in communion with each other, but whereas the world is greater than man in magnitude, man transcends it in intelligence. He is stored up like treasure within the world, like a very precious object kept in a large house and worth much more than the building that contains it.

Palamas, St. Gregory (2013-08-21). Mary the Mother of God: Sermons by Saint Gregory Palamas (Kindle Locations 880-884, 887-888). Mount Thabor Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Humanity and the Incarnation (part two)

Posted on by
Reply
Expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise

Expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise

The western Christian churches, following the example of Augustine of Hippo, generally begin their understanding of humanity with the fall. If humanity is defined by the fall, then we end up with the concept of original sin, and the guilt of Adam’s sin which is inherited by all of humanity. However, what if humanity is not defined by the fall, but by the creation? What then of Adam’s sin and it’s impact upon humanity?

Humanity was created in the image and likeness of God and, after the creation of humanity (both man and woman together), God announces that the entire creation is now “very good”. Humanity is the capstone of God’s creation. The relationship between the husband and wife, who become “one flesh”, is a similitude of the inner life of the Trinity. We are made for communion with each other, and with God. Moreover, like the animals, man is material; like the angels, man is immaterial. In this manner humanity was meant to be the bridge between the corporeal and the incorporeal. Humanity is the priest of creation, uniting the whole of creation and offering it back to God.

St. Irenaeus of Lyon writes:

For the glory of God is a living man; and the life of man consists in beholding God. For if the manifestation of God which is made by means of the creation, affords life to all living in the earth, much more does that revelation of the Father which comes through the Word, give life to those who see God (Against Heresies, Book 4, 20:7). 

Mankind fell: the great deceiver tricked Eve, but Adam sinned willfully — which is why after the fall we are all “in Adam”, and in Adam all die. Both Adam and Eve turned from beholding God, the giver of life, and chose the material world instead, along with all that the material world, apart from the life of God, affords. Lacking the wisdom of God, they chose sin, death, and the devil.

And yet that is not the whole of the story. We must examine the account of the creation and fall very carefully, for it is not true that God cursed humanity. Examining the accounts closely, we see God curse the serpent, yet we merely see God describing the effects of the fall upon humanity and the material world.  Thus it is untrue that God decreed that the woman be subservient to the man; that is merely a side effect of the fall. And we see no mention in the Genesis accounts of original sin, or of the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity. We see nothing of God’s wrath against Adam and Eve, but instead his providential care for them — both in His clothing them in the skins of animals, and in his promise of a redeemer who will wound the serpent’s head.

The first promise of the redeemer (which in theological terms is called the Protoevangelium, or first Gospel), contains no hint of any substitutionary atonement, no hint of an infinitely offended God defending His honor, or Hisdivine law. Instead, we see the overturning of the curse, and the victory over sin, death, and the devil. And how was this accomplished? Through the birth of the Christ, conceived by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, through whom He became man.

Our Lord was like us in every way. He is consanguineous with us, just as we are consanguineous with each other. Since He is of one blood with us, if we bear the guilt of Adam’s sin, so too did He. And yet He was free from the guilt of Original Sin, for Adam’s guilt is his own. We all bear the guilt of our own sins, and not the sins of another. We bear the burden of Ancestral Sin; our common humanity is infected by sin. As the author of Hebrews says, He “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb 4:15).

The point of the Incarnation is not that that the Son of God came to suffer and die the infinite penalty for our sins, but that He came to suffer with us, and die like us, so that He could win the victory over sin, death, and the devil, restoring humanity to its original purpose. The Christ put us back on our original path; once again we are called to be priests of creation, offering the entirety of God’s creation back to Him.

 

Humanity and the Incarnation

Posted on by
Reply
Christ in Glory

Christ in Glory

Most of us misunderstand the Incarnation, because we have a faulty understanding of humanity, of what it means to be human. When we misunderstand the meaning of humanity, we don’t know what it means for God to become not only of us, but consubstantial with us according to His humanity, while remaining consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit according to his divinity.

Archimandrite Justin Popovich, in a Christmas sermon entitled “Perfect God and Perfect Man”, writes of the Incarnation.

God is born on earth, and moreover He is born as a man: perfect God and perfect man–the unique God-man. And He has forever remained as the God-man both on earth and in heaven. Indeed, the God-man is the first perfect man on earth. Perfect man? Yes, because only in the God-man is man without sin, without evil, without death, totally filled with God, and thereby with all divine perfections.

 The God-man has demonstrated and proved this most convincingly: man is only a true man when he is completely united with God, and in everything and every way completely lives in God, thinks in God, feels in God, acts in God, is virtuous in God, is immortal in God, is eternal in God. Only and solely in God is man a man, a true man, a perfect man, a man in whom all the fullness of the Godhead lives.

For what purpose did God take upon himself the form of a servant? For what reason was He made in the likeness of our humanity? If we accept the western idea of substitutionary atonement, then God need not be consubstantial with us. In fact, the western idea of original sin, and the necessity that Christ be born without the guilt of original sin, means that the Christ could not have been “touched with the feeling of our infirmities”, nor could He have been “in all points tempted like as we are” (Heb 4:15). If humanity is contaminated by Original Sin, and if the Christ was born without Original Sin, then the humanity of Christ was something other than our humanity, and therefore Christ cannot be consubstantial with us according to His humanity.

Gregory of Nazianzus, in his Epistle 101 against the Apollinarians, describes the problem for us.

For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole.

Do you see the problem? If Christ was not fully one of us, if He did not assume the entirety of our human nature, then Christ’s work on the cross was for nothing, and we are still in our sins.

(To be continued)