The Catalog of Good Deeds: Christian Virtues

Showing posts with label Christian Virtues. Show all posts

How many times has someone you are talking to and whom you hardly know, labeled you a ‘friend?’ Or how many times have you been talking about someone with whom you have casual familiarity and said: “Oh! My friend, so and so, ..” etc? I think if we were to count all those whom we know or interact with whom we call ‘friends,’ most of the world would be one happy group of ‘friends.’

However, consider the words of Jesus: "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” (Jn 15: 12-13).

Psychologist Abraham Maslow, (1970) wrote that the feature of such love is a “profound interpersonal” relationship. He indicates that such a relationship “is not a matter of moment,” “demands a good deal of time,” which implies the “circle of [true] friends is relatively small.” War veterans would also add their understanding of the depth of the lasting, true friendship of comrades-in-arms who literally place themselves in the line of fire, allowing their lives to be laid out for their companions.

Thousands of years before psychological observation, the intense, committed depth of true friendship was perceived by Solomon, the writer of Proverbs (18:24): “There are friends who pretend to be friends, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.” King Solomon also notes the consequences of false friendship: “Wealth brings many new friends, but a poor man is deserted by his friend.” (Pv 19:4)

The spiritual fathers of the Eastern Church understood well the implications of the precept of Jesus and the adages of Solomon. Evagrios the Solitary (345-399 AD) writes: “The friends that you do have should be of benefit to you and contribute to your way of life. Avoid associating with crafty aggressive people ….Let your friends be men of peace, spiritual brethren, ….” (Philokalia I) Another Eastern monk makes the requirements of friendship much more clear. St. Maximus the Confessor (580-662 AD) tells us: “A true friend is one who in times of trial calmly and imperturbably suffers with his neighbor the ensuing afflictions, privations and disasters as if they were his own.” (Philokalia II) The good saint continues: “’A faithful friend is beyond price’ (Ecclus 6:15), since he regards his friend’s misfortunes as his own and suffers with him, sharing his trials until death. Friends are many, but in times of prosperity. (cf. Pv. 19:4). In times of adversity you will have difficulty finding even one.” (Philokalia II) “’A faithful friend is a strong defense’ (Ecclus 6:14); for when things are going well with you, he is a good counselor and a sympathetic collaborator, while when things are going badly, he is the truest of helpers and a most compassionate supporter.” St. Maximus the Confessor, (Philokalia II).

The lesson for us is to reflect on determining who are our real friends and to be truly committed and devoted to them. Non-hypocritically, we should also realize that most individuals we know are acquaintances. However, someone being an acquaintance does not let us off the ‘loving-helping hook.’ (Morelli, 2006). We can recall another precept of Jesus: “So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.” (Mt 7: 12). At the very least: “…pray for those who persecute you.” (Mt 5: 44). We have a modern witness of such radical love who eschewed the conventional boundaries of class and politics. The biographer (Alexander, 1998) of a modern saint, Fr. Arseny, an Orthodox priest banished into a Soviet gulag, recounts that upon seeing in spiritual visions the humanity of his fellow prisoners -- some political, some brutal thieves and murderers, some prison officials and guards who tortured him in Soviet labor camps --he prayed: "O Lord, O my Lord! Do not leave them. Help them; save them!"

An article by Fr. George Morelli

Source: http://antiochian.org/node/19981

Chrysostom frequently spoke about poverty and wealth, themes which were set for him by life in the large, noisy city. For him, these and all other social themes had primarily a moral significance, and he dealt with them in relation to the rules of Christian behavior. He judged the life around him on the basis of its morality. Everywhere he saw injustice, cruelty, suffering, and misery, and he understood that this was caused by the spirit of greed and by social inequality. He warned against idle luxury and also against wealth as a source of temptation, since money threatens to corrupt the man who possesses it. Wealth by itself has no value but is only a theatrical mask which covers the true image of man. However, the wealthy man comes to value his riches. He begins to deceive himself and he becomes attached to something which is good in appearance only. In Chrysostom's opinion there is danger not only in wealth which has been acquired by dishonest means but in all forms of personal property. These are not harmful in themselves but they may stimulate the will to desire things which are perishable and transient. "The love for wealth is an unnatural passion," Chrysostom writes. "The desire for wealth is neither natural nor necessary. It is superfluous." This movement of the will is dangerous and riches are a dangerous burden. "Wealth is harmful for you not because it arms thieves against you, nor because it completely darkens your mind but because it makes you the captives of soulless possessions and distracts you from the service of God."

The possession of wealth involves an unavoidable contradiction. By the spirit of greed men are attached to material things, but God teaches us to despise things and to renounce them. "There is harm not only in trying to gain wealth but also in excessive concern with even the most necessary things," Chrysostom writes. "Christ has demonstrated what kind of harm can come from the passion for money but His commandment goes even beyond this. Not only does He order us to scorn wealth, but he forbids us to be concerned that the food we eat is the best we can possibly get: 'Do not worry your soul about what you eat'." This does not exhaust the subject. "It is not enough to despise wealth," Chrysostom writes, "but you must also feed the poor and, more importantly, you must follow Christ." Thus another contradiction is revealed: the worldly drive of greed and the desire for the accumulation and preservation of material goods is opposed to the command of the Gospels to "give all you have to the poor." Against this background we see with greater clarity the injustice of the social inequality in the world. In the face of poverty and misery, all wealth is an unjust and dead thing. It testifies to hard-heartedness and the absence of love.

It is from this point of view that Chrysostom disapproves of the magnificent decoration of churches. "A church is not a place in which to melt gold or forge silver," he writes. "It is a triumphant assembly of the angels. Therefore it is souls which we demand as an offering because it is for the sake of souls that God accepts our other offerings. It was not at a silver table and it was not from a golden vessel that Christ offered His blood to His disciples to drink but nevertheless everything there was precious and called forth reverence, for it was filled with the Spirit. Do you want to honor the body of Christ? Do not scorn to see Christ naked. What good does it do you if here you honor His silken coverlings while outside the Church you continue to tolerate the coldness and nakedness of others? What good does it do you if the altar of Christ is covered with golden vessels, while Christ Himself suffers hunger? You make a golden goblet but you offer no cooling water to go with ft. Christ as a homeless pilgrim wanders and asks for shelter, but you, instead of accepting Him, adorn your floors, your walls, and the tops of your pillars, and you put silver harnesses on your horses. But Christ remains bound in the dungeon and you do not even want to look at Him."

It seemed to Chrysostom that each thing that one man puts aside is taken away from someone else who needs it, for there cannot be a man who is rich without another man being poor because of it. "The source and root of wealth must definitely be hidden in some act of injustice," he writes. Chrysostom did not consider that poverty as such was a virtue. Poverty attracted his attention as a form of need and suffering, and he considered that Christ is present among the poor, since He comes to us in the image of a beggar and not in the guise of a wealthy man. Furthermore, when poverty is voluntarily chosen for the sake of God and accepted with joy, it can be a path to virtue. This is primarily because a man without possessions is freer than a wealthy man and has fewer attachments and worries. It is easier for him to live and to strive to perfect himself.

Chrysostom knew also that poverty could be a heavy burden not only in terms of external and material things, but internally, as a source of envy, spite, and despair. For this reason he tried to fight against poverty, but his attention was always occupied with its moral implications. In this respect he functioned as a spiritual pastor, not as a social reformer. Although it is true that he did have an ideal vision of society, this ideal was primarily moral. It was the ideal of equality because inequality makes true love impossible.

The basic premise of Chrysostom's thought is that strictly speaking there can be no such thing as "personal property" because everything belongs to God and to Him only. All things are given by Him as a gift in the form of a loan. Everything is God's, and all that man can claim as truly his own are his good works. Everything God gives is intended for common ownership. "If the good things we enjoy belong to the Master of all of us, then they all belong equally to our fellow slaves. That which belongs to the Master belongs to everyone in common. Do we not see a similar arrangement in great houses?"

"The possessions of the Emperor, the city, the squares, and the streets, belong to all men, and we all use them in an equal degree. Look at the economy that God has arranged. He has created some things that are for everyone, including the air, sun, water, earth, heaven, sea, light, and stars, and He has divided them equally among all men, as if they were brothers. This, if nothing else, should shame the human race. The Emperor has made other things common to all, including the baths, cities, squares, and streets. There is not the slightest disagreement over this common property but everything is accomplished peacefully. If someone tries to take something and claim it as his own personal possession, then quarrels arise. It is as if the very forces of natures were complaining, and as if at that time when God was gathering them from everywhere they were trying with all their might to separate among themselves, to isolate them selves from each other, and to distinguish their own individual property by coldly saying that 'this is yours but that is mine'. If this were true, quarrels and bitterness would arise, but where there is nothing of this sort neither quarrels nor disagreements occur. In this way we see that for us as well a common and not an individual ownership of things has been ordained, and that this is according to nature itself. Is not the reason that no one ever goes to court about the ownership of a public square the fact that this square belongs to all?"

It seems to Chrysostom that in this respect even the animals are better than men. "They hold everything in common, the earth, and springs, and pastures, and mountains, and forests, and not one of them has more than the others. But you, O man, the most gentle of animals, have become more fierce than the beasts. In a single one of your houses you store up enough to feed thousands and even many thousands of the poor. How can this be, when we have one common nature, and much else in common besides this? We share a common heaven, sun, moon, choir of stars, air, sea, fire, water, earth, life, death, youth, old age, sickness, health, and the need for food and clothing. Our spiritual goods are also common to all: our holy altar, the body of our Lord, His sacred blood, the promised Kingdom, the bath of renewal, the purification of sins, truth, sanctity, redemption, and ineffable bliss. Is it therefore not madness for those who share so much in common, their nature, grace, covenant, and laws, to have such a passion for wealth that it causes them to forget their equality and to exceed the savageness of beasts? This is all the worse since they must of necessity soon leave these things behind them."

Chrysostom sees the source of inequality in man's free will and desire for personal property. Free will determines how an individual will manage the gifts he had been given, and Chrysostom considers that this is the heart of the problem. He does not recommend poverty for all men and, although he denounces superfluous luxury, it is primarily inequality to which he is opposed. Chrysostom demands equality and justice. Material goods are given by God and for this reason there can be no cause to abominate them. However, they must not be used to the personal advantage of one man in such a way that another man suffers for lack of them. Chrysostom believes that the problem can be solved by love because "love seeks nothing for itself." It seems to him that this solution was realized by the earliest members of the Church in the manner described in the Acts of the Apostles. "They renounced property and rejoiced greatly because in this way they gained blessings that were even greater. The cold words 'mine and yours' did not exist, and there was joy at the altar . . . The expression 'mine and yours', which is so harsh and has caused so many wars in the world, was driven out of that holy Church, and men on earth lived like angels in heaven. The poor did not envy the rich, for there were no rich, and the rich did not despise the poor, for there were no poor. At that time things were not the way they are now. Now those who have property give to the poor, but at that time it was not so . . . All of them were equal and all wealth was shared among them." This example has been frequently cited by the supporters of communal monasticism who absolutely reject the right to personal property.

Chrysostom wanted to realize the example provided by monastic communities in the world, having in mind a comparatively small society in Antioch or Constantinople. In his homilies he tried to demonstrate how the voluntary renunciation of property and its equal distribution could provide for the needs of all. This is the way in which the property of the Church was organized at that time. It was held in common and was distributed by the bishop. Part of it was devoted to upkeep of churches and to the support of the clergy, but most of it was the "property of the poor." Chrysostom emphasized that such a socialization of property could be truly effective only if it was voluntary and if it was the expression of true self-renunciation and love.

All of this would presuppose a high degree of moral development and perfection. It would be the ultimate and ideal expression of Christian charity. However, Chrysostom was content to limit his demands to generous almsgiving and works of charity. His conception of charity was very broad, extending from material contributions to consolation and comfort. "Is it not also an act of great charity when a soul, which is overwhelmed by grief, threatened by extreme danger, and held in thrall by the flames (of passion), is freed by someone from this affliction?"

An article by Fr. George Florovsky

Source: johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/09/st-john-chrysostom-on-poverty-and.html

By Fr. Igor Prekup

You sample, others sample you…soon there will be nowhere to place a stamp of approval and you’re still sampling each other? Such is the preliminary tasting.

But in order to define the flavor, you must have prior experience, which means that the first trial cannot be the last—after all, to evaluate the merit you need something with which to compare…And not one out of two. In general, to find your own thing you need to refine your taste; or else you look and it seems okay, like you got a match, and then you suddenly find out that’s it, yet not completely it…but it will be too late—bonds and shackles in the form of a ring on your finger and a stamp in your passport, weighed down by growing, and thus increasingly burdensome kids! What a nightmare! No, you can’t, you can’t do it without testing it first.

Without testing what? Family life? But there won’t even be any until that very stamp appears. Even if you drown in pots and wring yourself out in the centrifuge of the washing machine, you won’t come to know family life until that vile, good-for-nothing, senseless—as you think—little stamp isn’t slapped down where it belongs. After all, it’s magical…

Indeed: people live and continue living together. They dote on each other. They live one year, another. Finally, one of the “halves” (usually HER) gets its way and they go to the civil registry. Would it appear that things have changed? After all, they just went to a public office, signed somewhere, put something on their fingers, well, went out for a bit, but after that…?

Because afterward, in theory, everything should go as before, along the beaten path? Not by any means! Either both or one of the “halves” has been replaced, as it were. All kinds of things creep up out of nowhere. Everything is different! So much is unfamiliar, alien; so many trifles, and so loathsome! And it turns out that you are faced with a choice: either fight for your family, in whose life there has arisen a sudden cataclysm, or conclude that the trial hasn’t worked and try to start over. But in a different place and with a different person.

This was an example from life. What did a three-year trial give my college friend if he was already sleeping in the lecture hall the first month after the wedding?

Family life is communication, and communication is mutual respect. It’s trust, but it’s also vigilance that opportunely notices a crookedness in the relationship; it’s both a delicate silence and a stern reprimand that’s to the point; it’s both the translation of an uncomfortable situation into a joke and a strict outlook that fights off the urge to joke about serious things. But all of this can be “fine-tuned” and outside of “marriage-y” cohabitation. After the wedding (even if this is just a signature at the civil registry), there will still arise new, hitherto unknown features on the adored countenance. With time, the countenance will become a face. God grant that the countenance may not turn out to be a guise, concealing a snout. You never can tell. But for this there is no need to cohabit. Even without extramarital and out-of-place intimacy, you can recognize a scoundrel; even in premarital cohabitation, that scoundrel may never come out from the person’s worst side.

So this is not an argument from the point of view of testing mutual suitability for familial coexistence.

Without testing what? If you fit on sexual terms? Oh, please…what, if you won’t fit on the first try, you’ll immediately scamper, looking for the next object to test? Then it’s better to not even try because there is nothing connecting you above the belt; but building a family life only on what’s below is impossible. Then you don’t need to talk about any trials; it’s better for you to honestly admit that you simply want to live a regular sexual life, but, as it were, not entirely contrary to Christian morality. That is, contrary, but kind of tangentially, not head-on…

In reality, sexual intimacy is first and foremost communication—if we’re talking about people, of course. Because every human is first of all a person, and then an appearance, a plasticity, a character, a strength, and an anatomy with an endocrinology. In the confluence of bodies there occurs a confluence of souls, which use bodies as means (let us recall Aristotle, who regarded the body as an organ of the soul).

But this, forgive me, is again about people. Needless to say, each one is free to choose to be a human (cultivating within himself the divine origin) or something like an animal—that is, the kind of zoanoid that formed due to a mutation provoked by the stimulation of man’s animal origin. At times you get the impression that since man by definition cannot be a normal animal, this is where some get the desire to believe in reincarnation, which allows them to take comfort in the thought that in the next life they will be rabbits in the state of Kentucky and then…

If we are not inclined to see in each other first and foremost a person, no trial will give us anything. And conversely, a lively interest in a person and a considerate attitude toward him, serious and respectful, are the conditions for understanding him, including in terms of sensual congruence. This respectful interest is the indispensable condition of friendship; and friendship is that same clamp which provides the couple with viability when the first illusions evaporate, everyday life begins to gnaw and engulf them, and other worldly problems come up.

Is it possible to have a close relationship before marriage? Yes! But a close friendship: tender, poignant, romantic, with its highs and lows, raptures and quarrels, after which the friendship either falls apart or grows stronger. After a more or less lengthy period of such “non-confluent” interaction, you can tell clearly enough if the other is your kind of person through and through: by the glances, tastes, needs, manners, touch, by the “grimaces and jumps”. And it’s very important to not digress into extremes: either to fall into depression upon discovering many differences in habit, losing sight of something substantial and capable of uniting the pair to such an extent that everything else works itself out—or, the other way around, to concentrate on something attractive, diminishing the importance of “details.”

Sometimes these details, which at first glance and in reality are not worth fighting over, later make living together intolerable, poisoning all the good that remains. To say nothing of the fact that at times what some take to be trifles are really rather serious vices, such as an inclination to alcoholism. I don’t mean that you shouldn’t put any initial trust in a person who drinks, that you should break up after the first incident; but just too many sad stories began with a woman rushing to save a man “drowning in search of truth” (which, as the ancients said, is in wine), but in the end, without saving him, she drowned along with him not only her own life, but also that of her future children, if not grandchildren…Incidentally, such marriages were often preceded by sufficiently lengthy trials…

Abstinence before marriage makes sense not only for believing couples. Let us set aside such extremes as, on the one hand, scientifically dubious hypotheses (like telegony together with wave genetics) that pursue the good aim of convincing everyone of chastity’s utility, and, on the other hand, worldly concepts that seek to dethrone traditional values (like “a fling strengthens a marriage,” “everything in life is worth a try,” and so on). If we do this, we will find enough arguments not only in the Christian cultural heritage, but even in the traditions of many indigenous nations, popularly called “savages” (and, as it often becomes clear after an attentive familiarization with their culture, they are called so entirely in vain).

But, in order to not completely change formats, we will limit ourselves to the argumentation that applies only to Orthodox Christians, who are “tormented by vague doubts” as to the validity of premarital continence.

The fundamental value of premarital continence is the virtue of chastity. As any absolute virtue, it is directed towards God and in a certain way is God’s gift.

But what is chastity? In some prayer books, for example, among other recommendations for communion preparation, spouses are enjoined to “maintain chastity” the day before. But what about at other times? You can relax and let yourself go…in the sense of freedom from chastity? Here we run into a certain conceptual confusion that has taken root in mass consciousness, due to which the idea of chastity is narrowed to abstention from sexual intimacy. Even in the case of premarital abstinence, people say, “maintain chastity until marriage.” And afterwards…? Chastity is also asked of newlyweds during the marriage office. Is it really in the narrow sense mentioned above?

Needless to say, no. The other frequent and a bit wider concept of chastity—modest behavior and a cleanness of thoughts that rejects carnal (again) temptations—doesn’t uncover the essence of the phenomenon either.

Of course, chastity impels one to protect oneself from unclean thoughts and to disdain not only carnal sins, but also indecent conversations and entertainment. But it doesn’t boil down to this.

“Chastity” is the translation of the Greek word σωφροσυνη (“sofrosíni”), from σως (“sos”)—healthy, whole—and φρονεω (“fronéo,” from φρην (“frin”)—mind)—to think, consider, and possess a mind. From this, we get φρονησις (“fronísis”)—thinking, intellect, discretion, and mentality. That is, chastity signifies an integrated intellect, consciousness, and thinking, as opposed to a fractured consciousness—schizophrenia (σχιζω (“s-hízo”)—to cleave, tear asunder)—not only in a psychological sense, but also in a deeper, essential sense. (Incidentally, the etiology of schizophrenia still hasn’t been established).

From this, we get chastity[1]: this is a holistic worldview that provides a complete picture of life—of the hierarchy of values and ethics, of the interconnectedness of events and causes, and of the meaning of all that exists and occurs.

Wholeness is also an artistic term. The study of academic drawing or painting begins with a complete view of the model (arrangement) and a complete representation on paper. A dilettante is characterized by the fractionality of his work process (the little eye is all worked out, down to the lashes and shiny spots, but there’s nothing more on the sheet), while a professional is characterized by wholeness: it’s as if the image revealed itself gradually and simultaneously, and only little by little are some areas elaborated with more detail; and the others remain in their initial stage, being marked only slightly, but the work has a finished look because it is whole.

P.P. Chestiakov, the famous teacher from the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts (the teacher of Repin, Serov, and many other prominent Russian painters) paid a great deal of attention to wholeness. “Draw the right contour, but look at the left one,” the pedagogue advised. “If you’re drawing the eye, look at the foot.”

So chastity is akin to the integrated vision of a painter. The only difference is that a painter maintains within one scope the model with all its proportions, spots, lines and accents, but a chaste view does so with all the reality of existence; and scrutinizing it, gradually comes to distinguish its details, keeping them constantly in correlation, juxtaposing them by significance and building on the foundation of this vision its life.

The antipode of chastity is a worldview in which some single value (which, however lofty, is not God) occupies one’s entire field of vision or an unjustifiably large part. Man, as it were, buries himself in this and is simply incapable of seeing anything. But chastity is like an eagle’s view from the height of his flight: he can both survey an enormous area and perceive the finest details.

Chastity stipulates a vision of all aspects of existence in their interaction, as a certain system that is structurally directed towards God—the original cause of existence. This virtue ensures a sobriety of mind and the formation of all virtues, starting with the foundation of all foundations—humility. But the fact that the sexual aspect has come to the fore in our understanding of chastity is not at all surprising: sexual attraction (be it the sublime variant—being in love—or the vile one—bestial consumer lust) is such a powerful force that reason is drawn as if by a magnet and gets absorbed in the object of desire, becoming unable to see all that is happening in the totality of its component parts. Whereas chastity allows man, while loving someone or something, to not fall into idolatry, to not stop aspiring to love God with all his being and to love himself and his neighbor as His image; and, more importantly, to love his other half first and foremost as a neighbor.

Here’s a bit more of amusing etymology. One word that shares a root with σωφροσυνη (sofrosíni) is σωτηρια (sotiría), which comes from the verb σωζω (sózo). This verb has the same root as the adjective σως (“sos”)—healthy, whole—as does σωφροσυνη (sofrosíni). That is why σωτηρια (sotiría) signifies recovery, as liberation from illness, from corruption. Salvation is understood as the restoration of union with God, which man at some point destroyed. If we speak of salvation, then we agree that we have something to be saved from, that man’s condition outside of this path is perdition, as a result of apostasy. If we speak of salvation as healing in the Christian sense, then we mean spiritual healing, the recovery of human nature from sin and its consequences, which have stricken that nature unto death; this means giving human nature the capacity for eternal life.

We understand “perdition” as the radical injury to human nature incurred in the fall of our forefathers, which deprived the human race of life eternal (“eternal” not so much in the sense of endlessness as eternal in quality, as inherent to the eternal God and impossible outside of an intimate union with Him). Therefore, we take “salvation” to be the restoration of that unity through a rebirth into life eternal in the mystery of baptism and the subsequent purposeful recovery of the godlike soul in the course of all earthly life.

Chastity (in its wide, aforementioned meaning) is the basis of our salvation. A chaste relationship expresses itself not only in the keeping of premarital purity and not so much in the mutually voluntary and agreed upon “deprivation for the sake of fasting and prayer” (1 Cor. 7:5)[2] during marriage. Rather, it is to regard a loved one as a person in all areas of life. Chastity, to be more exact, reveals itself in that very sensitivity that impels one to “render due affection” (1 Cor. 7:3)[3], responding to the happiness or grief of the other half, disregarding one’s own comfort, tiredness, busyness, and anxieties.

Without trying it out…? Yes, that’s exactly it. Concern for one’s own soul and for that of the beloved will help to curb (not strangle) the “wonderful rush.” It’s worth it because in the life of a Christian, all important stages begin with sanctification. Thus should they begin.

Translated from Russian by Katia Shtefan for Kiev-orthodox.org

[1] In Russian, this definition of chastity is both morphological and etymological: the word целомудрие (tzelomúdriye) is a calque from the Greek σωφροσυνη (sofrosíni); that is, each part of the Greek word was translated separately. Hence, σω(ς) (so(s)) became цело (tzélo) and φροσυνη (frosíni) became мудрие (múdriye). Consequently, in Russian, the word “chastity” literally means a healthy mind. Translator’s Note.

[2] As in the original version, this is a paraphrase rather than a direct biblical quote.

[3] See previous note.

Source: http://www.kiev-orthodox.org/site/english/3276/

By Matushka Constantina Palmer

Great Lent is a wonderful, if trying, time. It’s an opportunity to recharge our spiritual batteries and tell ourselves that despite falling down all year, now is the time to get back up. It’s a time to guard ourselves and give of ourselves in a multitude of ways. We often hear that it is not enough to merely abstain during Lent; we should also do during Lent. To be specific, we should give alms. But almsgiving does not need to consist only in giving money. If that was so, those who have little would find it nearly impossible to give alms.

Giving alms can be done in a variety of ways. The Greek word eleemosyne means “alms, charity, mercy.” In other words, almsgiving is also the act of being merciful, so something as simple as a kind word, or a word not spoken, can be alms. Going to three different grocery stores to find those special ingredients so you can make your husband a delicious recipe because he is tired and a tasty fasting meal will lift his spirits, can be alms.

If we are watchful and mindful, we can find opportunities to give alms when we are shopping, by letting someone behind us go ahead. We can smile at someone on the street who looks like he’s having a hard day. We can go out of our way to help those we see struggling or say an extra prayer rope for those we know need it. We can visit the sick, spend an extra five minutes during coffee hour listening to someone unload about their difficult week, and tell an uplifting spiritual story. We can volunteer to help a young mother with her energetic little ones, and pick up after our own children for possibly the umpteenth time without grumbling. If we look for opportunities to give alms, if we ask God to put those opportunities in our lives, then we will see them on a daily basis.

Here’s my challenge to all of us: to give this Great Lent, to give and to pray and to thank God for the ability to do so. But, I would like to add an extra element to this challenge. Let’s give and not tell. Let’s give and not even recall our good deeds to ourselves. Let’s give and forget that we did good. For in reality it is God who should be credited for inspiring us to give. This is what the Gospel teaches us, to give to the poor (in whatever way we are able, to whatever kind of poverty we encounter) – but not let our “left hand” know what we’ve done (Matt 6:3).

Let’s become cheerful givers. And if we’re not cheerful right off the bat, let’s not be dismayed. I believe we’ll become cheerful through giving. It’s a worthy goal, for God loves the cheerful giver (2 Corin. 9:7).

Let’s arrive at Pascha having given of ourselves, having hidden our good deeds from others and ourselves. And let’s pray that while we were giving, our neighbour saw Christ in us – the True Giver of all good. Let’s pray that when we give alms, when others see us being merciful, we will be able to honestly say, “he who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9) because it is not us who gives, but Christ who gives through us.

Lastly, let’s not be found giving alms with our right hand and taking away the spiritual profit with our left by becoming puffed up, thinking we are good Christians. No, let’s give God the glory.

Source: https://oca.org/reflections/misc-authors/almsgiving-a-challenge-to-give-with-the-right-and-hide-from-the-left-matt

There are few ministries of the Church that require the devotion and the dedication that church singing does. You who lead the singing as well as you who follow the leader are precious gifts to your parishes. You are as important to the parish as is the holy table itself. As there can be no liturgy without the holy table, there can be no liturgy without you. This is not to compliment you or increase your pride, but rather to put a little fear and awe in you, so you know what your responsibilities are. Church singing is not a hobby. Being a choir director is not something one does for personal fulfillment. It is first and foremost a duty, a duty of those to whom God has given musical talents. It is sinful, in my opinion, for someone not to sing who has been given the gift to sing. Sinful! You join the angels, and do that which the angels do perpetually. That’s not an interest, avocation, or a hobby; it is a duty. Angels were created to serve and to praise, and you have been given voices for that same purpose.

I love to remind our church singers of the fact that we physically jump into something that goes on perpetually. We jump in and join with the angels for a couple of hours, and then we jump back out. The liturgy does not begin with “Blessed is the Kingdom” and your “Amen,” and it doesn’t end with “Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers” and your “Amen.” Those phrases only define the time that we participate in the liturgy which goes on perpetually before the throne of God.

We’ve been told that singers should listen to each other for a good blend. The tenors should listen to each other, and then the tenors should listen to the sopranos. The sopranos ought to listen to the altos, etc., etc. That’s fine for the street. For the church singer it is not the tenor, alto, or soprano who stands next to you we need to listen to, but the angels who lead us in our singing. Those are the voices we need to hear and with which we blend our voices. What can sound beautiful to us can sound like cacophony at the throne of God, if we are not singing with the angels.

St. John Chrysostom tells us that while the priesthood is something that takes place here on earth, and is an ordinance established here on earth, yet it is something that is super-heaven, because the priest and the deacon do that which angels dare not do. The angels stand in awe, not at the priest or bishop or deacon, but at what they’ve been permitted to do by God’s grace. If John Chrysostom wrote a book on choirs, as he did on the priesthood, I’m sure he would say that while being a choir member, cantor, or reader is something earthly, it is also something heavenly. That the angels stand there, perhaps not in awe, but at least with a little bit of jealousy, because you who are flesh and blood have been called upon to serve in the same ministry that they have been created for.

It’s a holiness. It’s not your ministry. It’s a ministry that belongs to the Church, and you respond to the call as well as recognize that the gift which you specifically fulfill in the church was, traditionally, and in some sense still is, an ordained ministry. The choir was not some club that existed in Church for those with some particular musical talent. To be a church singer was an ordained office within the Church. Canon 15, from the Council of Nicea, the Council of the 4th century, makes its point clear that only canonical singers should be appointed for that kind of ministry in the Church. That means "one set apart" for that particular ministry. Today we might call them Readers. While I’m not saying that every choir member must be a tonsured Reader, I do say that if we fulfill at least the spirit, if not the law of the Canon, that each choir member ought to see his/her participation in the choir as seriously as the ordained clergy take their ministry. I don’t know any priest who thinks that he can say on some Sunday, “I don’t want to serve because I want to sit with my wife,” or, “I don’t feel like serving today,” or, “I’m angry, one of the altar boys offended me, so I don’t want to serve this morning.”

As seriously as the ordained clergy need to take their ordination, so you ought to as church singers. Canonically, they are an order of the Church, to begin with. I’m not proposing that we fulfill the letter of the law by having you all ordained, but I think we ought to at least incarnate the spirit of the law, which implies a great responsibility, a great sense of duty and a privilege that is given to him or her as a church singer. This, then, should create in all of us, whether or not we are ordained clergy, a real sense of humility. We should give thanks that God has been pleased to call us who were created from the dust of this earth to participate in the heavenly liturgy and to offer up praises with His angels to join the perpetual hymn of “Holy, holy, holy.”

We jump in and we jump out. Some of us jump in on time and some of us jump in a little bit late. In my opinion, being in church for that first “Amen” is a sign, an indication of one’s humility. And where humility is, indeed, a virtue, its opposite is a sin. The sin is not disturbing other people. The other people in the church are not the object of our worship. It is rude, but not necessarily sinful, to disturb other people. But it is sinful to be presumptuous and prideful that one can jump in and sing with thousands of archangels and ten-thousands of angels at one’s own whim. “This Sunday I feel like singing, and next Sunday I won’t sing. I want to sit with my wife.” Leave that Hallmark—card kind of sentimentality for restaurants, concerts, and cinemas. You sing with angels, that’s secondary to sitting with any husband or wife or children. We stand before the throne of God, and when we realize that, every other consideration, all of our own personal likes and dislikes, become secondary. I’m giving my opinion now, and hopefully it humbles all of us. It’s a humiliation, that in its end, should be something that elevates us, that exalts us, something that gives us wing.

Now, I would like to share with you some of the writings of the Fathers of the Church, and some homilies on the canons about chanting in Church.

The choir leads the congregation in prayer. The invitation to prayer is put out by the deacon or archdeacon. The deacon invites prayer, but the choir leads the congregation in the prayer itself. First I will share the words of St. Meletios the Confessor. He says:

“Prayer with musical chants and melodies, loudly voiced tumult and shouting is heard by men; but before God our Maker, the prayer which proceeds from a man’s conscience and God-imbued intellect stands before God as a welcome guest, while the former is cast out.”

There are choirs which make “loudly voiced tumult and shouting.” Yet I do not wish to imply, and I know that St. Meletios does not imply, that aesthetic beauty is the only criterion for chanting. Here is a little story. Once upon a time there was a Monastery of St. George, and the Abbott was blessed with monks that did not have such wonderful voices. The annual pilgrimage on the Feast Day of St. George was not all that impressive with the rather awful sounds coming from the choir. So the Abbott called together all the monks and said, “Look this year I am going to invite the famous choir from the cathedral for the Feast.” Word went out and thousands of people came to St. George Monastery for the feast day and it was a glorious day. The famous choir from the cathedral was in great form and used its best voices. The Abbott was thrilled and even the humble monks who were not allowed to sing that day were thrilled. Following the day’s festivities the monks went off to sleep, and the Abbott was sound asleep after all the excitement of the day. St. George came to him in his sleep and said, “Father, I think you missed my feast day! Today is my feast day and here you are, you didn’t do anything. Have I not blessed you this past year?” And the Abbott said, “Oh, Saint George, I do not know where you were, but we had a glorious feast today. How could you not be here?” St. George said, “I was in the church and I saw a great multitude of people, but I heard nothing.”

You and your choir need be as aesthetically perfect as you are able. God not only expects, but He accepts only our best. If your best sounds like “a loudly voiced tumult and shouting.” but it is indeed your best, then God hears you, and St. George does too.

Here is a quote from St. Anatoloy Zertsaley of Optina, written to a new choir member:

“The fact that you have started to chant is not important. The roosters out on the farm sing like anything. They will drown you out right away. But you are not a rooster, and you are not a hen. You have to remember that your singing should not be like that of a rooster, but like that of angels, that is done, with humility, fear, ardent love, and self reproach. Such is true and God-pleasing chanting. But the vainglorious kind, designed to please not God but men, is worse than those of roosters. And this is precisely what you did not specify for me, that is, whom did you come closer to in imitating, when you chant, the angels or a hen?”

St. Simon the founder of Simones Petras Monastery on Mt. Athos says that “at the church services we should chant with solemnity and devoutness, and not with disorderly vociferation.”

And St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain counsels us, saying,

"The psalmody which takes place in the church is an entreaty to God. Now he who makes an entreaty and prays must be in a state of humility and contrition. Whereas an unduly loud voice manifest audacity and irreverence. One of the techniques that many chanters and choirs use is attempting to interpret to the congregation what the text means. Very loud at one point and very soft at another point, then slow, then fast. That is as artificial as controlling the emotions of those who stand in our churches by dimming the lights or turning them on bright. Your task is to sing, not to interpret. The Holy Spirit is the One who will lead us into the knowledge of all truth, not the choir director or the chanter. Again, he who prays must be in a state of humility of contrition.”

According to Saint Nikodemos, a sign of humility and contrition is that one does not chant or pray with an “unduly loud voice” interpreting the text. He says, “Chanters should psalmodize in a reverent and orderly manner, with fear of God and piety and contrition.”

"Pray gently and calmly. Sing with understanding and rhythm. Then you will soar like a young eagle, high in the heavens," wrote St. Evagrios.

“He, the church singer, should chant without hurrying and without dragging, and he should pronounce the words clearly and distinctly. He should chant simply and reverently in a monotone, without expressing his feelings by modulations and changes of voice. Let us leave the holy prayers to act on the listeners by their own spiritual power. The desire to convey to the bystanders one’s own feelings is a sign of vanity and pride.”

St. Ignatius Brianchaninov continues, “The singing should be begun and ended all together. Moreover, the hands should not be waved in a distracting manner.” You should not do in the choir loft or the choir area, that which you would not do in the sanctuary. “The hands should not be waved in a distracting manner, and on no account should there be any moving around. The members should go in order quietly, one after the other, without pushing or hurrying one another.”

St. Elias the Presbyter counsels us, saying, “When through continuous prayer the words of the psalms and hymns are brought down into the heart, then the heart like good soil begins to produce by itself, various flowers: roses, the vision of the incorporeal realities; lilies, the luminosity of corporeal realities; and violets, the many judgments of God, difficult to understand.” There are the gifts, the graces that come to the church singer who sings with humility and contrition, who leaves aside his or her own personality and idiosyncrasies.

If indeed we are singing with the angels, listening to their voices and melodizing with them, then we know that the responsibility for conveying the import of the text does not rest upon our shoulders at all. That is not to say that we can mumble. The Fathers that we have heard say that we should chant with understanding, distinctly and clearly. But we do that because we wish to show respect to the text, not because we are trying to tell the congregation what the hymn is about. We are not there in positions of teachers, the Church says. We show respect to the text, not to the hearer. Our first concern is the text, the holiness of the words themselves. And if we do that the hearers will hear. They will be given all the tools necessary to understand the mysteries which are encompassed in the holiness of the text. And yes, the words are holy. And the sheets of paper that have music on them are holy, just as holy as a paper icon. Words have power. And “The Word” is the title given to the Son of God Himself. The words and the music both have power. They have a holiness. The spoken word is a gift given to us, and given to none of God’s other creatures. And it is a gift that we must perfect, the gift of speech, the gift of communication, and the gift of music. It is a gift that we perfect and offer back to God as a spotless sacrifice and a pure offering, to our God who gave us the gift of words and music to begin with.

Source: http://www.antiochian.org/node/22680

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Search This Blog

featured Slider

Honest Friendship: An Orthodox Christian Perspective

The Teachings of St. John Chrysostom About Poverty and Wealth

A Question of Chastity: "Creating a family without trying it out first?"

Every Christian is chosen . . .

Almsgiving: A Challenge to Give with the Right and Hide from the Left

The Ministry of Church Singers

Partners