The Catalog of Good Deeds

Problem: While on Christmas vacation from college, my daughter told me that one of her professors said that sex outside marriage was not against the "natural law." In fact, there was no "natural law" - but "anything goes." I have tried to bring up my children to be good Orthodox Christians. What am I to do?

Solution: By all means continue to proclaim the Gospel teachings, but be sure not to base your moral system on some so-called 'natural law' as described by science. You see, your daughter's college professor is correct. Extra-marital sex is not against the natural law as defined by science. In science, when we speak of natural we mean what is "in nature." In nature, many types of behaviors exist. There are many varieties that we see in our own culture and even more varieties that we can see in cross cultural comparisons. Sociological and anthropological studies lead the way here. Thus monogamy, polygamy, war, murder, chastity, and homosexuality, etc., are all equally "lawful in nature" because they all exist. For example, we may observe that in a certain culture, homosexual behavior occurs and thereby deviates from what the average individual does. The fact that it exists means it is natural, as natural as a sunrise or an earthquake, a flower or a flood. Scientists view such a behavior merely as a statistic. A certain percentage of the population engage in homosexual behavior and is thus natural.

Science has spoken! All varieties of sexual behavior are "natural." But this view is entirely different from the definition of what is natural to man that God has revealed to us. Science and the Church are not opposed, they are simply using two different definitions of the term: natural.

Inner Conscience

It is not uncommon to consider however that in the depth of conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose on himself but which holds him to obedience. Christian ethics would imply that all evolution of morals and every type of life must be kept within the guidelines and boundaries imposed by the immutable principal based on every person's inherent sense of right and wrong.

In the course of history whenever the Roman Church (or any other Church) has based its faith, dogma or morals on science, she has been terribly embarrassed. Copernicus, a 16th century churchman and scientist, was considered a heretic for stating the sun was the center of the universe, instead of the earth as the theologians taught. This earth-centered universe fit well with the theological view of man as the greatest of God's material creations, who thereby must reside at the center or focal point of the universe. Galileo too, ran into difficulty defending the Copernican position. But, as we know, the earth is not the center of the universe, and whether it is or not has nothing to do with commitment to Christ, holding fast to His teachings or morality.

Natural as Understood by the Church

Mankind is meant for paradise, and paradise is understood as life in and with God that lasts for all eternity. (Morelli, 2006). The church fathers tell us what is "natural" for man is his original purpose. St. John of Damascus tells us:

As a golden seal to this plain homily, we will add a brief account of the way in which that which is most precious of all that God has created — the noetic and intelligent creature, man — has been made, alone among created beings, in God's image and likeness (cf. Genesis 1:26). First, everyman is said to be made in the image of God as regards the dignity of his intellect and soul ... and endowed with free will...

Further, St. John of Damascus taught this dignity natural to man carries with it a responsibility toward holiness:

Every man possesses that which is according to the image of God, "for the gifts of God are irrevocable" (cf. Romans 11:29). But only a few — those who are virtuous and holy and have imitated the goodness of God to the limit of human powers — possess that which is according to the likenesses of God" (Philokalia III).

The words of St. Simeon the New Theologian should be kept in mind then as a guide to our behavior, not as a scientific statistic, but looking to paradise, for which we were originally created:

It is right for us to place the yoke of Christ's commandments on our shoulders from the start; and we should not resist or hang back. On the contrary, we should walk straight ahead wholeheartedly obedient to them in truth the new paradise of God, until the Son comes to dwell in us with the Father through the Holy Spirit" (Philokalia IV).

The Parental or Pastoral Response

Well, for you as a parent or for a counselor or pastor, there would be two important issues left. One would be concern for the breakdown of society: indifference, moral relativism secularism and syncretism (Morelli, 2008) are the fruits of promoting or condoning behavior based on the scientific statistical definition of what is natural and therefore acceptable, ethical and moral.

Christ our Guidepost

Most important however, is the second issue. It is really not an issue at all because it is at the apex of our lives - this is our Orthodox commitment to Christ. We do not obey a proscription, sexual or otherwise, because it conforms or does not conform to a scientific definition of natural law. We obey according to the measure of our commitment to Christ. The measure of this commitment will be based of Christ indwelling the depth of hearts and sincerity of our prayer. It would be well to keep in mind what our holy fathers have taught us - obedience leads to faith and prayer, and in turn, faith and prayer lead to obedience. Being excellent psychologists, the fathers tell us that the main pitfalls to prayer and obedience to God's will are forgetfulness, ignorance and laziness. Possibly we could sum up these three categories into two: knowledge and perseverance (or persistence). Real knowledge and perseverance in living the Christian spiritual-moral life can only come from the perspective of Christ and His Church.

So you see, your daughter may be getting a very valuable college education, if she at least learns that the Orthodox Christian life, sexual or otherwise, cannot be proved by the 'natural law' as defined by science, but what is 'natural' for us in terms of the purpose of which God originally created us. You as her parent along with her pastor, and the entire Church, can add to her knowledge by teaching and witnessing the message of the Gospels, the commandments, the beatitudes, what Our Lord called the "narrow path" leading to our sharing of the Light of Christ. It is by the illumination of Christ that we will become as "little children"; that we will find the Kingdom of God.

This kingdom , as the evangelists tell us, is found in our hearts. I might add that it is not found in a science textbook, unless the "laws of nature" God created are illumined by his Divine light.

"The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge" (Psalm 19: 1-2).

By Fr. George Morelli

Source: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/OT/view/smart-parenting-xv-when-your-school-age-child-brings-up-a-conflict-between

Read through any collection of Gary Larson’s The Far Side cartoons, and you will doubtless come across a cartoon image of God as an old man, usually gigantic in proportion and surrounded by the clouds of “heaven.” This kind of cartoon image has become the popular depiction of God within our popular culture, from the Sunday morning funny papers to popular films such as Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail. Perhaps drawing inspiration from Michelangelo’s famous painting of the Creation of Adam in the Sistine Chapel, the image of God as an old man has been indelibly imprinted upon the consciousness of Western society. An interesting by-product of this sort of depiction of God is the inclusion of Jesus alongside him, making two figures, Jesus and his Father.

Most Orthodox Christians are aware of the Church’s prohibition of any depiction of God the Father. The 1667 Synod of Moscow canonically forbade the depiction of God the Father in icons, though this canonical decision has not always been obeyed. Icons of an “Old Man” figure called “Lord Sabaoth” and “Ancient of Days” are often claimed to be images of the Father and often claimed to be something else. To further complicate matters, St. Andrei Rublev’s icon of the Holy Trinity depicts the three Persons of the Holy Trinity in angelic form. What then are the theological principles that prevent us from depicting the Father in iconography, and in what particular ways can He be depicted if at all?

Iconicity

It is commonly said that the Father cannot be depicted in icons, because the Father is invisible while the Son is incarnate and visible, but is this the reason? It cannot be entirely so, for we depict invisible, spiritual beings all the time such as the angelic hosts. Orthodox hymnography regularly addresses the angels as “the bodiless powers,” attesting to the fact that they are pure spirit, pure nous, or pure energy. Nevertheless, we depict them in human form. Virtually every Orthodox temple will have images of the Archangels in this fashion. So then, the prohibition of depicting the Father does not stem merely from His invisible nature. Rather, the reason is far more theologically significant than mere visibility or invisibility.

To understand this, we must introduce the concept of iconicity, which is the ability of a thing to be imaged, that is to say, the possibility of a thing to have a thought-image or idealization. For example, I may stroll through a garden and see a beautiful flower. If I were then to sit down at an easel with a brush and palette, I can imagine an idealization of that beautiful flower and paint its image on the canvas. A beautifully painted image of a flower iconizes the particular flower that I saw in the garden, and it now gains the ability to inspire a sense of beauty in those who look at it as the particular flower inspired me as I strolled through the garden. The particular flower in the garden can be said to have a certain iconicity, which is actualized by the act of painting, the creation of the image.

The human person also has iconicity. Throughout history, the ideal human form has been painted and sculpted in a variety of ways, from Greek sculpture of the Olympian gods to modern comic book heroes with their powerful musculature. When we see an image of Superman, we see and are inspired by an icon of the ideal man (even though, and perhaps because he is an alien). All artistic images to one degree or another are iconizing, in that they portray an idealization of a thought-image about a particular thing.

The hypostatic icon

So then, when we speak about God or specifically about the hypostasis of the Father, in what way does He have iconicity? Orthodox theology of the Holy Trinity has long taught that God’s own thought-image of Himself, His own perception of Himself, His self-consciousness as it were, is realized in another hypostasis, the hypostasis of the Son. This is to say that the iconicity of the Father is realized by the Son. The only image of the Father that is possible is the very hypostasis of the Son. To put it another way, the Son is the natural image of the Father, as Jesus himself said to Philip, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (John 14:9).

It can be said then that it is the property of the Father to be iconized, imaged only by His Son, and it is the property of the Son to iconize the Father. The iconicity of the Father is entirely and completely realized by the Son, so that there is no way that another image of the Father could exist alongside of and in addition to the Son. The Son entirely and completely exhausts in Himself the iconicity of the Father. So then, to see the Son is to see the only possible icon of the Father, and it is for this reason that no artistic icon of the hypostasis of Father is possible, for that icon is the Son of God himself. Therefore, a painted icon of the Son, the incarnate Logos, Jesus Christ, is a material image of the hypostatic image of the Father, an icon of an icon. We might say then that Orthodoxy has many images of the Father—the image of Christ Jesus Himself.

What then can be said of that famous icon of the Holy Trinity by St. Andrei Rublev? In this icon, taking as its inspiration the hospitality of Abraham from Genesis 18, where Abraham is visited by God in the form of three men, God is depicted iconographically by the image of three angels seated around a table. Are we able then to point to each individual Angel and say that it is an image of one of the hypostases of the Holy Trinity? Theologians are divided on this issue, and perhaps both the affirmation and negation of this notion are correct in different ways. If we isolate one of the Angels and say that it is a direct image of the hypostasis of the Father, we would be wrong. Of course, the Father is most definitely not an angel, therefore to depict the Father as an angel is not possible. The Son and the Spirit alike are not angels either, so depiction of Them as angels is also incorrect. What then do we have in this enigmatic image?

The Eidos icon

St. Andrei Rublev’s image of the Holy Trinity is an example of the particular use of symbol to express a particular thought-idea. We may speak of the Holy Trinity. We may name the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the very act of speaking about these things we engage in a certain act of iconization. If we engage in the apophatic mode of theology, we would say that the essence (ousia) of God is not the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit. These are names given to the hypostases of God, but not the essence of God, which is transcendent, unknowable, and unnamable. Therefore, to speak of the Holy Trinity is to engage in cataphatic theology. “Apophatic” is derived from the Greek term meaning “away from speech,” and conversely “cataphatic” is derived from the term meaning ‘toward speech.”

When engaging in cataphatic theology, we may use certain manners of speech, specifically that of naming, or we may use various types of visual depiction to reference the thought-idea of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For example, in naming one hypostasis of the Holy Trinity “Father” we are depicting this hypostasis as having certain qualities of parentage, of fatherhood, and this is an icon of sorts. In doing so, however, we are describing the hypostasis of the Father in His eternal generation of His own hypostatic image, the Son. By naming Him “The Father,” we are saying that He has a hypostatic image, that is, by the very name of the Father, we are immediately presented with the hypostatic image of the Son.

We have distinguished, then, two types of icons: the hypostatic icon, which is the Son, and another icon which references or points to this hypostatic icon. The angelic depiction of the Father in Rublev’s Holy Trinity icon is of this second type. It is not an icon of the hypostasis of the Father. It is an icon of the thought-idea of Father by use of the angel as a symbol. All symbols contain a visible form, for which we can use the Greek word eidos. So we can speak about eidos icons, which symbolically depict ideas. The use of the angel as an eidos symbol carries the notion of “announcing” or “sending a message.” In both Greek and Hebrew, the term angel simply means “messenger.” So then, in the angelic image of the Holy Trinity, a message is sent or announced to us, which is the idea of the Holy Trinity itself, the revelation of the Holy Trinity as an idea present to our rational minds.

The Holy Spirit has an eidos icon, which is the image of a dove, seen in the icon of Theophany. St. Luke writes in his Gospel that the Spirit descended in the “form,” eidos, of a dove. The Holy Spirit is not a dove, of course, therefore the image of the Spirit as a dove is not a hypostatic icon but rather a symbolic eidos icon. In this symbol, we are reminded of the dove that Noah sent out to find the dry land after the flood. The Spirit in the form of a dove symbolizes to us the idea that the incarnate Christ, like the dry land, is the New Creation (cf. St. Paul’s phrase “Firstborn of all creation”), the New Adam, which rises up out of the waters of baptism as the land rose up out of the flood waters as a new creation.

The Ancient of days

The depiction of the Father as an old man, then, is not proper if it is understood as a hypostatic icon, that is, an image of the hypostasis of the Father, for the hypostasis of the Father is only depicted by His Son. The idea of the Father is depicted via the symbol of the angel. Can the idea of the Father be depicted as an old man? Some might argue so, though the propensity for this form to be understood as a hypostatic icon is perhaps too great, and in order to avoid this confusion, such depictions are regulated as non-canonical and prohibited by the 1667 Synod of Moscow (as they are understood to be images of the Father).

The Bible itself, however, uses the image of an old man, as an eidos image in the vision of Daniel, which he sees in a vision. “The Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head was like pure wool” (Dan. 7:9). In this context, however, we are not given the impression that this image refers to the hypostasis of the Father, but to God in His unified simplicity, i.e. in His oneness (The Synod of Moscow describes this vision as being of the Son). The idea symbolized here is the eternality of God, specifically that He exists before and after the earthly imperial powers which had subjected the Jewish people.

It is possible, then, to understand these “Old Man” icons as being icons of the “Ancient of Days,” and this is one way that they have been explicitly titled in painted icons. The other title that the “Old Man” icons take is “Lord Sabaoth” or “Lord of Hosts,” which references the vision of Isaiah in chapter 6 of his prophecy. Again, this image depicts the idea of God in His unified simplicity, not in His hypostatic plurality. The One Essence of God cannot be depicted in a direct manner, but the idea of it may be referenced symbolically through these eidos icons. Nevertheless, these icons remain on the cusp of canonical permissibility, and they should be treated with caution.

By Eric Jobe

Source: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2014/09/08/show-us-the-father-how-the-father-may-or-may-not-be-depicted-in-orthodox-iconography/

Vladimir S.

“Now see, young man, that you don’t let me down.”

In August of 2007, my wife and I took a tour of the Golden Ring.1 We travelled to the museums, monasteries, and churches. Not as pilgrims, but just to raise our cultural level. We always regarded the Church with respect, considered ourselves Orthodox, but we had no more than a vague understanding of Christianity, taken mainly from western films.

At forty years of age I thought that Christians believed in a Single God—Jesus Christ. I was even slightly preoccupied with the question: Where did God the Father go after the resurrection of the Son? I heard something about the Trinity, which was mixed up in my head with Andrei Rublev, the angels, and Abraham. I had also heard of the Holy Spirit but it just didn’t fit into my concept of Christianity, although I read the Gospels— three from start to finish and half of John. The last one seemed awfully complicated, and I didn’t have the werewithall.

Well, of course I knew how to behave in church, just like any Orthodox person. I walked in, crossed myself, and bought some candles—one for the dead, another for the Mother of God, a third for God, and a fourth for the saint. You light a candle, place it in the candle stand, cross yourself, ask the Mother of God for family happiness, God for defense against your enemies, the Crucifix for help for your relatives in the other world, and the saint—something for yourself.

My life at the time was more or less successful. A loving wife, children, a good job, material prosperity, vacations on sunny beaches and in beautiful cities. Everything was fine. My wife unexpectedly got the inclination to skip the Canaries and ride along the Golden Ring instead. We had never been there; let’s go and partake of our own culture. Off we went.

Well, among the other places of interest we were taken to the Monastery of the Resurrection in the town of Uglich. They lead us off the bus, told us about when it was founded, when it was closed, and when it was restored, and then took us to the monastery church. It was a plain building, with whitewashed walls. It looked more like a peasant hut than an Orthodox church.

I looked, and on the wall hung two large icons—one of St. Seraphim of Sarov, and one of some other elderly man. Although I knew nothing about the Holy Trinity I knew and respected St. Seraphim. I looked at the saints and suddenly and unexpectedly felt I could trust them. I wanted to go up and ask a secret wish. An inexplicable conviction arose that if you ask they will give it to you.

Because my life was more or less successful I had allowed myself to grow a respectable beer belly, a double chin, and fat cheeks. I drank a lot of expensive alcohol, chased by an abundance of caloric appetizers—mostly meat. This caused me problems with physical exercise. I dreamt of going to the gym and dropping extra weight but my corpulent body resisted and held me back.

So now I looked at St. Seraphim and the second elder and asked them, “Help me to start going to the gym; I want to get in shape and be strong, I don’t want this oncoming flabbiness. Give me a push, give me the opportunity to make the first step, and I won’t let you down.”

I don’t know how to explain this, but they looked at me sternly and I heard the answer: “Look, young man, you promised not to let me down.”

Young man? At age forty? Why “young man”? “Of course I promise,” I said. “You just give me a push, help me out.”

I left the church fully expecting a wave of unprecedented physical energy, but nothing happened. I did not become stronger or more energetic the next day either, nor the next week, nor the next…

A month later I quit drinking. I woke up one morning after the usual drinking bout and understood that I will not drink anymore. That’s enough. I’d drunk my fill. Of course I was sure that this caprice would pass by evening. It wasn’t the first morning I had resolved to stop drinking, and by that time I had a lot of experience. But it didn’t pass. Two days later, lost in my guesses as to what had happened to me, I suddenly remembered Father Seraphim’s stern look and his demand that I not let him down.

Now I haven’t drunk for six years, I go to the gym and the pool, have a better physique and have shed a number of ailments. I am not drawn to alcohol in the least, and this is without any effort on my part. It’s an ordinary Miracle.

But most importantly, my wife and I now believe in the Trinity One in Essence and Undivided; we know what repentance is, we receive Holy Communion, and after three decades of living together we have been married sacramentally in the church.

Thanks to the prayers of St. Seraphim I now know that my life was not successful at all, but to the contrary I had spent the greater part of it drinking and eating, but I am not offended at the saint for letting me know this.

I thank you Father Seraphim, for your prayers for this forty-year-old teenager, which saved his life!

Nikita Ovchinikov

I feel warm! Warm!

In the summer of 2013 my mother’s friend came to visit us. For about two months she was unable to cure a bad cough. Her “hack-hack” carried throughout the apartment. It is worth noting that this lady was a Tatar Muslim. During our conversation, between her coughing bouts, she took an icon of St. Seraphim of Sarov and pressed it to her chest. “Help me, please!” she said beforehand.

“I feel warm! Warm!” she said, now afterward. Her surprise knew no bounds—the warmth was so strong that the icon left a red mark on her chest. That is how Father Seraphim helped a person in need, and also strengthened our faith. Wondrous is God in His saints!

Boris Savinov

Despair overwhelmed my soul

The holy wonderworker and God-pleaser: great are his miracles! I always ask him to strengthen my faith. I always ask him to confirm me in the faith and understanding of God’s will. I did time in a penitentiary in Nizhny Novgorod province, and at times despair overwhelmed my soul.

Once it became very hard; I was in the hospital and the brothers of a local church brought me oil blessed on the saint’s relics. I made the sign of the cross with it on my forehead and prayed. The saint’s example of praying on the rock2 always gave me strength. I recovered, was released before the end of my term, and haven’t backslidden for five years now. I live and labor, and glory be to God, although things are not problem-free it is not that outer darkness that I had before. Glory be to God. Rejoice, holy God-pleaser Seraphim!!!

Vladimir

My wife and I were unable to have children for a long time

For me, St. Seraphim of Sarov is one of the greatest saints! I feel his wonderworking help every time I turn to him with prayer. My wife and I were unable to have children for a long time. Our relationship was not working out.

In 2012 we took my mother-in-law to Diveyevo, and she is not a religious woman. Well, we went to all the holy places. We immersed ourselves in all the holy springs and venerated St. Seraphim’s relics. And a miracle occurred. No more than a month went by before my wife got pregnant. Now our daughter Nastenka was born—a strong, healthy child.

I continue to go to Diveyevo alone, with pilgrimage groups by bus, because my wife is breastfeeding. But when Nastenka gets bigger the whole family will definitely continue to visit Diveyevo. That is our St. Seraphim of Sarov—a great wonderworker! May the Lord help us all!

Source: http://pravoslavie.ru/76529.html

An apparently new social concern has risen in our days which highlights the abuse of children. Child abuse is generally understood in our day in broad terms, including the physical, mental, and spiritual harassment of children. Specifically, child abuse is often understood as inflicting physical harm on children such as striking. punching, whipping, depriving them of physical needs, or subjecting them to sexual perversity. Also, included in the understanding of child abuse is the psychological and emotional harm caused by excessive criticism, denigration, constant verbal maltreatment, psychological abandonment, or hatred.

Child Abuse in History

None of these evils, however, is new or unknown in history. In the period when Christianity first began to spread throughout society, the place of children oftentimes was very precarious. Fathers had, in Roman Law, the right of life and death over their children. Abortion, infanticide, and the exposure of new born infants was a common practice. Young children who were exposed were frequently rescued by those who would use them for immoral purposes, such as pornography, homosexuality and prostitution. Christianity reacted strongly to these attacks against children and developed a widely-based and coherent moral teaching and practice reacting to wide-spread child abuse.

The Heart of the Matter

At the heart of Christian teaching and moral values concerning child abuse is the whole Orthodox Christian understanding of marriage and family. One of the essential purposes of marriage is procreation. Spouses become parents not only in a physical way, but also spiritual, since Orthodox Christianity understands procreation as the cooperation of husband and wife with God for the continuation of the human race not only in a physical sense but also morally and spiritually. For the Church, children are a gift from God who complete and fulfill the communion of husband and wife, in the image of the community of Divine Persons which is the Holy Trinity. Ethically, children are required to obey and respect their parents (Exodus 20:12) and parents assume the responsibility for the physical, moral and spiritual nurture of their children. The love of parents for their children is assumed by the teaching of the Church as natural and proper. It expresses itself in affection for children and concern for their welfare. Jesus asked, "If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone?", assuming the good will and intentions of the parent. The Church, expects as well, that parents will guide, direct, and discipline their children, including appropriate punishment when necessary. For, not to discipline offspring is to treat them "as illegitimate children, not as sons" (Hebrews 12:5-11). But discipline and punishment for the sake of correction must be motivated by love and genuine concern for the child, so the teaching of the Church also places limits: "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger," (Ephesians 6:4) "lest they become discouraged" (Colossians 3:21). The major task of parents is to direct their children in the paths of the Lord, that they may know Him and in Christian faith, obedience, and Sacramental life, grow in the image of God toward Theosis. In addition, parents are obligated to educate and train their children to be good and useful members of society, to earn their living, so as to contribute to the general welfare and assist the poor and to develop a consciousness of service to humanity, as well as to prepare them in turn to become husbands, wives, and parents in the future.

Abortion and Exposure

With this background, it become evident why very early in its history the Church sought to protect children from abuses of all kinds. Many of those early concerns are still pertinent today, and unfortunately, some new concerns have been added. The war against the child begins with abortion. What the Apologist Aristides said in the 2nd Century continues to be true today: "it is not permitted to destroy the fetus while it is still in the womb. To prevent birth is to be beforehand with murder; and it makes no difference whether one kills a life already born, or suppresses it at birth. He is already a man who is about to be one; and every fruit already lives in its seed." (Apology IX, 6) Orthodox Christians will oppose abortion in principle and practice and will struggle to change the immoral legalization of abortion, as a legalization of murder.

Though exposure of children in a physical sense does not happen too often in our society, it still occurs elsewhere throughout the world. It should also be noted that moral, emotional and psychological abandonment is becoming more wide-spread among us. Morally, the ancient practice led to the sexual abuse of children. Justin Martyr, writing about the year 155 noted that Christians "hold it a crime to expose newborn infants… because we see that almost all of them are dragged into prostitution, not only the girls, but also boys… people raise adolescents for the sole purpose of abusing them obscenely" (1st Apology XXVII, 1). An alarming increase of child pornography, child prostitution and child homosexuality is now being reported in the press, and the Church must oppose it. Even more widespread in our society is the emotional abandonment of our children. Children are not "wanted", they are a "burden", it is not "fashionable" to have children. The neo-paganism of our times repeats the attitudes of the enemies of the child of every age. A pagan work called the "Satyricon" advised that one ought not to have children, for whoever does have any won't receive party invitations and won't be esteemed. In imitation, our day speaks of "mere motherhood" and denigrates parenthood, which the Church sees as cooperation with God. How can these be reconciled? Orthodox Christians in precept, word and deed will affirm both parenthood and childhood.

Abandonment

Another concern unique to our time, is that children are isolated from the rest of the social fabric with their own music, styles, values, heroes, etc. Among the chief culprits in this "abandonment" is television. Parents use TV today to "baby sit" their children. But it has taken over the family. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Department of Religious Education pamphlet on TV refers to "the way the TV subtly gets control of our lives… TV casts out the natural experiences of the family, the daily give and take, the conversations and the personal sharing… It reshapes family life. It influences the raising and growth of children. It shapes and molds people's attitudes and world view almost without their realizing it." (Television in the Christian Home, p.5).

This psychological abandonment of our children allows all sorts of un-Christian values to enter the hearts and minds of our children, something no Christian parent may properly do. For it is the responsibility of parents to nurture, educate, and guide their child in the ways of faith, moral values, and spiritual life. A Christian writing from the earliest period of the Church instructs Christian parents "Do not neglect your son or daughter; but teach them from childhood the fear of God." (Didache IV, 9). It is abuse of our children to. permit the secular society to imbue them with materialistic, secularist and immoral values, denying to them the "waters of life" (Revelation 21:6) which come from God, for we deny to them in fact, their true light and life" (John 1:4; 11:25, 20:31). What greater abuse can there be! We must support all efforts of the Church, movements in society and civil efforts to provide a spiritually and morally wholesome environment for our children and wage a vigorous struggle against all that pollutes and distorts their lives, what ever form it may take.

Drug and Bodily Abuse

One of the greatest abuses of children is the diabolical spread of drugs. Young people are systematically introduced to various drugs and made psychologically and physically dependent upon them. This fearsome addiction attacks their whole being, destroying their moral freedom and spiritual growth. If abuse of alcohol is condemned by the Church (Romans 13:13, Galatians 5:21), how much more so does the Orthodox Church oppose involvement with illicit drugs? As a Church we are unalterably opposed to drug use by our own people, with special concern for our children, as well as all persons in our society. As a Church we support efforts by our government in its war against the traffickers in drugs.

It remains, to be noted that the Orthodox Church utterly condemns those who physically do bodily harm to children. Children are to be treated with love, concern, patience, and understanding. The tenderness of Jesus toward children is the source of our opposition to child abuse. "And He took a child, and put him in the midst of them; and taking him in his arms, he said to them, 'Whoever receives one such child in my name, receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me, but him who sent me'" (Mark 9:36-37). Thus, the remarkable conclusion: to treat a child with love is to show love for God. But the opposite is fearsome: to abuse a child is to abuse God!

By Fr. Stanley S. Harakas

Source: http://www.theologic.com/oflweb/curreven/abuse.htm

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Search This Blog

featured Slider

What to Do When Your Child States a Conflict Between Church and Science

Does God not Hear Me if My Depression Is not Going away?

May or May not God the Father Be Depicted in Orthodox Iconography?

Personal Stories about the Modern Day Miracles of St. Seraphim of Sarov

Parable of the Day: What Do Grievance and Potato Have in Common?

An Orthodox Perspective on the Problem of Child Abuse

Partners