The Catalog of Good Deeds

Archimandrite Symeon (Tomachinskiy)

The report of Archimandrite Symeon (Tomachinskiy), Rector of the Kursk Theological Seminary, was represented at the Oxford University, 27.10.2016

As you know well, London is a capital of Paris. And Paris is a capital of Rome. And so on, according to «Alice in Wonderland». It means that all the ways finally lead to London. So I’m here.

I'm not going to speak about all the religions, as I'm not an expert in Buddhism or Islam or Religion of the Opening Windows. Their relations with culture one should describe separately, for we can see a great diversity of the attitudes in different religion traditions.

But we can openly discuss a question, if Christianity needs a culture, which is not so clear. It's a really very old problem, formulated even by Tertullian in the end of the II century AC like that: «What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?» In other words, what a human wisdom, philosophy and art, could give to a spiritual experience? (Tertullian's answer, by the way, was: nothing.)

The word «culture» etymologically originates from Latin verb «culturare» which means «to cultivate soil, or ground». So «cultura» (culture) is a noun of that verb which means «cultivation». Cultivation of soul, cultivation of feelings. Let us remember it to go further…

An Oxford professor, famous writer and Christian thinker, C.S. Lewis wrote an essay «Christianity and Culture». He used a word «culture» in the sense of intellectual and aesthetic activity. And we'll do the same, using this narrow sense of the term «culture», and not meaning all the products of civilisation. We’ll pay special attention, immediately after Lewis, to the one part of culture, to literature, to see pars pro toto.

Lewis affirms that «the New Testament seemed, if not hostile, yet unmistakably cold to culture…» As a prove, he gives a demand to sacrifice the organs of sense (Matt. 5, 29) and of virility (Matt. 19, 12). Also Lewis reminds the text about hating father and mother and therefore, according to him, a fortiori hating of human culture.

But it’s not a categorical imperative. It seems obvious that Lewis in all these cases always forgets to add: «when it makes an obstacle for a salvation» or «if it's necessary for the Heavenly Kingdom». And the question remains the same: «Does culture is a real obstacle for a true spirituality? Or not? Or it depends?»

Lewis finds the strongest argument against culture in the words of Apostle Paul in Philippians 3, 8: «And I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ…»

It’s true, but in the same time we can mention another words of the Apostle Paul, from the first epistle to Corinthians, some kind of a main slogan of Paul's mission: «To the weak became I as a weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some». (1 Cor 9:22, King James' version.)

As a matter of fact, for the great amount of people human culture has a tremendous and unquestioned value. Therefore for such «weaks» we should become «as weaks», which means: as experts, appraisers and commentators of culture.

And the same Apostle Paul gives us an excellent example of that kind in his famous speech in Athens Areopagus.

We read in the Acts, 17, that in Athens «his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry”. Nevertheless when the philosophers and other Athens citizens had asked Paul to speak them about this «new teaching» he didn’t begin with saying: «Oh! Miserable pagans, shame on you! You worship devils instead of true God! »

Not at all. On the contrary, Paul said: «Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way. For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. What therefore you worship, as unknown, this I proclame to you» (Acts, 17, 22-23, New Revised Standard Version).

And, continuing his speech about true God, Paul makes a quotations of a well-known pagan poet: «As certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring». (Acts, 17, 28) The name of the poet is Aratus, Greek author who lived in IV-III c. before Christ, very popular in Greek and even Latin world of that time. Paul quotes here the fifth line of Aratus’s Phaenomena. And «apostle of pagans» builds his reasoning on the base of this quotation: «Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God…» and so on.

In the same speech of Paul we can see another quotation, not so clear, but anyway: «For in Him we live, and move, and have our being…» (Acts, 17, 28) Many commentators think that Epimenides, Greek philosopher and poet of VII-VI c. BC seems to be the source of these words.

It’s true that sometimes Paul doesn’t give a reference to some of his quotations as these are well-known, even like proverbs. For example, Paul in his 1 epistle to Corinthians underlines: «Evil communications corrupt good manners» (1 Cor 15:33). We know how it’s quite right. Corruption is a big evil of our times. But the source of this observation is another Greek poet, Menandros.

Not only quotations, but we could describe the manner of vision of reality in Holy Bible as artistic, sometimes metaphoric and emblematic. These are, for example, Song of songs, Psalter, Lamentations and other books of the Scripture. In our Creed (Symbol of Faith) we call the God «Maker of Heaven and Earth». In Greek version, which is basic in that case (as Creed was adopted in IVth c. AC in Byzantium), for the word «Maker» we find a word «Poetes» – poet. God is a poet of Heaven and Earth, He created all the things with great art.

A man was created in the image of God. And God, according to Genesis, 2, 19, brought all the beasts and all the other creatures, «unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof».

Here is a first human art – naming of creatures, in Eden. And that is an essence of every human art, naming of things. To give a name means to understand, to know a thing. So art is the very first and the most ancient human work. In that sense we usually say: «ars longa, vita brevis est» (art is long, life is short).

In the Holy Gospel Jesus said: «Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment» (Mt 22, 37-38). How could one love God with all the heart, all the soul and all the mind without cultivation of soul, cultivation of mind, cultivation of feelings? And a culture helps us in that cultivation.

So it seems that the Holy Scripture isn’t so hostile to a human culture. It is hostile to a sin, even expressed in a very artistic form.

Another point of Lewis’ article is a position of Holy Fathers of Church towards civil culture. As an illustration Lewis quotes St Augustine, who really was extremely rigorist towards pagan writings, in spite of the fact that Augustine himself was formed and cultivated by this culture. Either St Jerome said several words against some poets who justified the human sins by pretty words.

But this is not a common view of all the Holy Fathers, many of them thought otherwise. For example, St Justin the Philosopher: «Whatever things were rightly said among all men are the property of us Christians».

The same Justin told, that the Stoics, the poets and the historians «spoke well in proportion to the share [they] had of the seminal Logos». All the antique thought was looking for a basic element, for a universal beginning of the world. As you know, some of the philosophers called it water, or fire, or atom, or something else. But Heraclitus called this first element Logos. And finally the Logos came in person, in person of Jesus Christ. And we can read in the Gospel of St John: «In the beginning was the Word» (Logos in Greek).

Jaroslav Pelican in his beautiful book «The Christian Tradition” underlines, that Origen, too, said: «The Logos who came to dwell in Jesus… inspired men before that».

And it’s not occasionally that we can see Homer, Plutarch and Vergil painted on the frescos of Annunciation cathedral in Moscow Kremlin. Vergil’s Fourth Eclogue, which is called «messianic», written in 41-40 years BC, was seen by Christian theologians like a prophetic one. It «prophesied a golden age, the culmination of the centuries, in which a virgin would return and a new offspring, bearing a divine life, would descend from heaven to earth to rule a world…» The same St Augustine and some other Fathers of Church believed that these words really referred to Christ, even though «poetically»…

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware in his article «Could We Think of Lewis as of Anonymous Orthodox Christian?» wrote that Lewis didn’t make any references to the Greek Fathers and possibly even didn’t know them.

For example, we have a classic treatise of St Basil the Great, archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, «Address to Young Men on How They Might Derive Benefit from Greek Literature». St Basil advises to take benefit even from pagan writings to be prepared for a spiritual life. By these writings «we give, as it were in shadows and reflections, a preliminary training to the eye of the soul, imitating those who perform their drills in military tactics, who after they have gained experience, by means of gymnastic exercises for the arms and dance-steps for the feet, enjoy when it comes to the combat the profit derived from what was done in sport».

St Basil gives an example of Moses, «that illustrious man whose name for wisdom is greatest among all mankind, first trained his mind in the learning of the Egyptians». The same with prophet Daniel who «at Babylon first learned the wisdom of the Chaldeans and then applied himself to the divine teachings».

St Basil gives many examples of benefits from the pagan writers if one reads them with wisdom and care, like a bee, looking for the honey, and not like a fly, looking for the mire.

In general, it’s difficult to agree with Lewis in his reflections about culture. In the same time Lewis himself in his introducing lecture as a Cambridge teacher said: «Christians and Pagans had much more in common with each other than either has with a post-Christian».

Indeed, Lewis is much more severe towards medieval and modern literature. For him, their true values are honour, sexual love, material prosperity and, finally, «the life of liberated instinct».

Lewis was an Oxford professor of literature, so who am I to contest him?..

And in general, I do agree with him, Lewis is quite right. But anyway I’d like to give just few examples of possible benefits from the secular literature.

1) Literature gives us some beautiful expressions of Christian dogmas, in vivid images, not only in formulas. For example, God’s Providence. Everybody knows about it, we have a nice definition from catechism. But all the way, when something happened, like a death of innocent children or a terrible catastrophe like 11/09 in World Trade Centre in New York, we ask each other: why? Where is a God? Did He really want it? And sometimes we couldn’t be satisfied with the right definitions…

One day, it was almost ten years ago, when I was a priest in Sretensky monastery, in Moscow, our parishioner, young girl, came to me to confess and to take a blessing for the trip in her native city, Irkutsk (it takes for about 6-7 hours to get there by plane). She took a blessing and went away. And in the airport of Irkutsk, when the aircraft landed, it exploded. Everybody inside was killed. It was not a terroristic act, but anyway.

Everybody was dead, including this beautiful young girl, very pure, very devout, very gifted – she was a musician, she was teaching in Moscow conservatory, she was an editor of the Publishing there, also she sang in the choir of Sretensky monastery. She was not married yet…

What should I say to her parents when they came to me to find a consolation? «Read a catechism»? «Everything is ok»? «Don’t worry be happy»?

Her father was a famous Russian writer, Valentin Rasputin. (I can tell you about it as he and his wife have already departed.) And we could take some examples from the literature about God’s Providence.

I’m sure you know well an excellent novel of Thornton Wilder, «The Bridge of San Luis Rey», which got the Pulitzer Prize in 1928. It tells us about strange and unexpectable falling of the famous bridge in Lima, when five persons were lost. One monk, who saw this falling, tries to find out, what’s the matter: why these five, not others? What is it, this choice of Providence? Did these five persons, young and old ones, men and women, did they have something special in theirs lives?

And this novel gives us a very remarkable, artistic answer. I shouldn’t quote it to give you a chance to read it once more by yourself…

We could also remember a novel of Gabriel Garcia Marches «Hundred Years of Solitude». It’s only when everything has finished, when all the history is accomplished, that we can understand the inner sense of the things, we can translate the language of God’s Providence. Till that time something escaped from our vision, we try to decode the time letter, but some characters are not clear…

In that context also I’d like to mention a beautiful film of Terrens Malik «Tree of Life», consecrated to the question of passions, death and Providence.

2) The second reason for a Christian to study literature is to understand a psychology of different people, to know better a human race. For a priest it’s more than possibility, it’s a duty. It’s some kind of pastoral learning of the human. We can see that one of the works of metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitzkiy), famous hierarch of Russian Church abroad, is called «Pastoral learning of the people and life, through the writings of Dostoevsky».

But not only Dostoevsky could give us a food for thinking about life and people. For example, for many parents who care a lot of theirs teenagers it would be very useful to read «The Catcher in the Rye» of Jerome Salinger. We see a young boy, real trouble-maker, who stirs up, who fights with the world of phoniness and hypocrisy, but in the same time he is pure and honest. Metropolitan Antony of Surozh (Bloom) once said, that it was a novel about future priest.

The same things we can say about novels of Dickens or plays of Shakespeare.

Another manner of reading literature could be so-called «apophatic method» (not positive, but negative). An interesting thinker of XX century bishop Barnabas (Belyaev) wrote: «Literature is encyclopaedia of delusions, mirror of the vices, inexhaustible treasury of the human stupidity».

In that sense we can study the mistakes of others to avoid our owns.

3) Third use of literature (and culture in general) that it gives us a metaphor of life, an image of present. The main metaphor of life, the fundamental subject of literature was given to us even in Homer’s «Odyssey». Long and winding road home. Yes, it’s our life, long and difficult way home – to our Heavenly Fatherland. We can see the same subject in many poems and novels, including a new epos, «Lord of the Rings», of Tolkien.

We can see another metaphor of life, for example, in «House of Silence», the novel of the well-known Turkish writer, Orhan Pamuk, Nobel’s Prize winner. Life as a book, that we can’t change after it was written, but we do can read it again to understand our life and to see our mistakes and our mission.

You can ask me, what has this metaphor of life to do with religion? But religion is not about something strange, it’s all about life.

Sometimes it’s not but a literature that helps us make a right choice.

In my life, I had such experience two or three times when I made a very important decision with the help of the literature examples.

Sometimes we need it, as

… the native hue of resolution

Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought.

4) Another very important thing is that culture give us some heroes, some examples for an imitation. We can find not so many just men in literature, much less than villains. If we find any priests, some of them are kind, some are evil ones, like Gandalf and Saruman.

For example, we have beautiful examples of the true bishops in «Miserables», Victor Hugo, and «Promessi Sposi», Alessandro Mandzoni. And these bishops have real historical prototype.

(Usually we consecrate a special lesson in Moscow Theological Academy, where I teach a foreign literature, to the subject «An image of a bishop in world literature».)

But my favourite novel of that kind is «The Power and the Glory» of Graham Greene. (By the way, Greene was graduated from Oxford.) This novel, as you know, is based on the real facts and events in Mexico in the twenties of the last century. Firstly, Greene wrote a documentary book «Lawless Roads», where he described a total demolition of churches, murders of priests and the same terrible things in Mexico of that time.

In the centre of his novel we can see a priest, padre, drunkard, whisky-priest, not an Angel, not a knight without fear and reproach, but anyway a person who serves God and people. He understands well his own indignity but he continues his service in spite of the constant threat of the death. He gives a consolation to the people without consolation to himself.

For me, it’s a great illustration of the Gospel words: «My power is made perfect in weakness» (2 Corinthians, 12, 9, Bible English Standard Version). Here are the power and the glory of God manifested in human weakness. Through the novel of Greene we can understand better the essence of a priest mission – to sacrifice himself for a salvation of others.

I can continue very long time speaking about great use of the wise and careful reading of literature. One of the Russian modern writers, Fasil Iskander, said once, that « the goal of the art is a humanisation of a human». Another great Russian author, Gogol wrote that art is «invisible step to the Christianity».

It becomes much more important now when we are attacked everywhere by primitive pseudo-cultural temptations. Coca-colonisation goes on the planet. And we are alien in this world of total consumption, like an Englishman in New York…

We are called to shake our spear of culture to defend our values, great values of a Christian world.

Source: http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/5125763.html

The suggestion has been made several times recently that my criticism of moral progress is not supported by the example of the saints. Surely, it is said, the transformations we read about in the lives of the saints are clear examples of moral progress. A noted such example, perhaps the greatest story of repentance and asceticism known in the Church, is that of St. Mary of Egypt. It is worth looking carefully at her life (for which we have a canonical narrative) and consider what it is, exactly, that we are seeing. She is, indeed, a proper example of the transformation of the Christian life – one that is extended to the entire Church on the 4th Sunday of Great Lent. But I will again suggest that moral progress is largely a modern notion (it is certainly rife with Modern assumptions), driven by modern psychological and therapeutic models. And although moral progress would seem to be a correct way (for some) to describe the Church’s theology of synergy (that we cooperate in our salvation), it is in fact a distortion of that teaching and a distraction from the true transformation that is ours in Christ. St. Mary provides excellent material for all of this.

St. Mary’s story relates her sudden conversion from drunkard and harlot to desert dweller.

The first thing we notice in St. Mary’s repentance is its suddenness. She had “worked” her way from Alexandria to Jerusalem by “corrupting” young men among the pilgrimage group. Everything was like a lark to her, until she couldn’t enter the Church of the Resurrection in order to venerate the Holy Cross.

The holy day of the Exaltation of the Cross dawned while I was still flying about — hunting for youths. At daybreak I saw that everyone was hurrying to the church, so I ran with the rest. When the hour for the holy elevation approached, I was trying to make my way in with the crowd which was struggling to get through the church doors. I ad at last squeezed through with great difficulty almost to the entrance of the temple, from which the lifegiving Tree of the Cross was being shown to the people. But when I trod on the doorstep which everyone passed, I was stopped by some force which prevented by entering. Meanwhile I was brushed aside by the crowd and found myself standing alone in the porch. Thinking that this had happened because of my woman’s weakness, I again began to work my way into the crowd, trying to elbow myself forward. But in vain I struggled. Again my feet trod on the doorstep over which others were entering the church without encountering any obstacle. I alone seemed to remain unaccepted by the church. It was as if there was a detachment of soldiers standing there to oppose my entrance. Once again I was excluded by the same mighty force and again I stood in the porch.

Having repeated my attempt three or four times, at last I felt exhausted and had no more strength to push and to be pushed, so I went aside and stood in a corner of the porch. And only then with great difficulty it began to dawn on me, and I began to understand the reason why I was prevented from being admitted to see the life-giving Cross. The word of salvation gently touched the eyes of my heart and revealed to me that it was my unclean life which barred the entrance to me. I began to weep and lament and beat my breast, and to sigh from the depths of my heart. And so I stood weeping when I saw above me the ikon of the most holy Mother of God.

And there she prayed and offered her repentance. She made the promise:

Be my faithful witness before thy Son that I will never again defile my body by the impurity of fornication, but as soon as I have seen the Tree of the Cross I will renounce the world and its temptations and will go wherever thou wilt lead me.’

And she was as good as her word. Praying again after leaving the Church she heard a voice say, “Cross the Jordan and you will find glorious rest.”

She then managed to buy three loaves of bread. She washed in the Jordan, made her communion the next day at the Monastery of St. John on the banks of the Jordan, and then entered the desert.

And there she struggled:

“Believe me, Abba, seventeen years I passed in this desert fighting wild beasts — mad desires and passions. When I was about to partake of food, I used to begin to regret the meat and fish which of which I had so much in Egypt. I regretted also not having wine which I loved so much. for I drank a lot of wine when I lived in the world, while here I had not even water. I used to burn and succumb with thirst. The mad desire for profligate songs also entered me and confused me greatly, edging me on to sing satanic songs which I had learned once. But when such desires entered me I struck myself on the breast and reminded myself of the vow which I had made, when going into the desert. In my thoughts I returned to the ikon of the Mother of God which had received me and to her I cried in prayer. I implored her to chase away the thoughts to which my miserable soul was succumbing. And after weeping for long and beating my breast I used to see light at last which seemed to shine on me from everywhere. And after the violent storm, lasting calm descended.

And how can I tell you about the thoughts which urged me on to fornication, how can I express them to you, Abba? A fire was kindled in my miserable heart which seemed to burn me up completely and to awake in me a thirst for embraces. As soon as this craving came to me, I flung myself on the earth and watered it with my tears, as if I saw before me my witness, who had appeared to me in my disobedience, and who seemed to threaten punishment for the crime. And I did not rise from the ground (sometimes I lay thus prostrate for a day and a night) until a calm and sweet light descended and enlightened me and chased away the thoughts that possessed me. But always I turned to the eyes of my mind to my Protectress, asking her to extend help to one who was sinking fast in the waves of the desert. And I always had her as my Helper and the Accepter of my repentance. And thus I lived for seventeen years amid constant dangers. And since then even till now the Mother of God helps me in everything and leads me as it were by the hand.”

Her repentance came in a sudden manner. God alone could have known that preventing her entrance into the Church would provoke such a reaction. God alone could have known that within this drunken harlot was hidden the greatest of desert Mothers.

The long struggle in the desert – she described 17 years (out of 47) during which she “struggled with wild beasts, desires and passions.” Obviously, the struggle was engaged through prayer. Her fasting was beyond comprehension. And she describes simply lying on the ground for days at a time, weeping and beating her breast. But then: “a calm and sweet light descended and enlightened me and chased away the thoughts that possessed me.”

And of the 30 years after this great struggle she affirms: “I always had her [the Mother of God] as my Helper and Accepter of my repentance…even till now the Mother of God helps me in everything and leads me as it were by the hand.”

There is a moral struggle; she battles the passions (with such ferocity!). But she describes her victory in terms of pure gift: a calm and sweet light. In all things she credits her victory to the help of the Mother of God. And she maintains the same testimony for the 30 years subsequent to her struggles. The fasting and the prayers continued.

But for all of that victory, she still recognizes her weakness. When the Priest Zosimas questions her about her life she says: “You remind me, Zosimas, of what I dare not speak of. For when I recall all the dangers which I overcame, and all the violent thoughts which confused me, I am again afraid that they will take possession of me.”

Should we think of her as making “moral progress?” Were that the case, she would have no fear of the “dangers” and “violent thoughts.” She would have laid them to rest. What we see is repentance. Her repentance is not of the moral sort, a mere sorrow for deeds that have been done. Her repentance is an effort of self-emptying that is greeted by a Divine-filling. She becomes a vessel of grace in the manner described by St. Paul:

For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us. (2Co 4:6-7)

It is, of course, possible to describe the changes that occur in the state of repentance as “progress,” but this distorts the work that is taking place. In the words of the Elder Sophrony, “The way down is the way up.” The self-emptying of repentance is not the work of gradual improvement, a work of “getting better and better.” It is a work of becoming “lesser and lesser.” We are not saved by moral progress, transformed by our efforts. It is not self-improvement.

Because of the metaphors and images that dominate our culture, we quickly assume that change (for the good) is an improvement. But included within the progressive metaphor is an assumption of stability and a self-contained quality of goodness (improvement). Thus, if I buy a piece of property and make “improvements,” it is no longer the same. The streets and sewers that have been installed are now part of the property. In human terms, we presume that “progress” gained in the battle with the passions results in an improved self, a self that is less a prisoner to those same passions.

The human life is a dynamic relationship. We are not streets and sewers and electrical gridwork. What is “acquired” by grace in the work of repentance is a different dynamic, one in which our life is centered in the life of God. Repentance is never a one-time event – it is a mode of existence.

The modern laboratory of experience that is the Recovery Movement (AA and the like), provides interesting contemporary examples of this same principle. No recovered alcoholic ever says that he is no longer an alcoholic. He will say that he is “a grateful recovering alcoholic.” For he knows that the life of repentance that is described in the 12 steps, is a life that, once ended, will quickly return him not to a new beginning, to a state of non-alcoholism. He quickly returns to where he stopped and will in a short time drink as though he had never known a day of sobriety. St. Mary of Egypt did well to fear all the “dangers” that she overcame. They have not disappeared.

Our “progress” is a road into the life of God – one that is better described as repentance, the word by which we were first invited to the journey.

An article by Fr. Stephen Freeman

Source: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2015/01/11/st-mary-egypt-moral-progress-2/

An excerpt from the book “Becoming Orthodox:

A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith”

by Peter E. Gillquista

Years ago on an Easter Sunday we must have been seven or eight years of age and we went out for dinner after church to a hotel restaurant. About the time we placed our order, I recall looking up and seeing the family at a table across from us bow in prayer before eating and make the sign of the cross. My response was bewilderment. What does that mean? I thought to myself.

Not many years later, at the Minneapolis Auditorium, I attended one of my first Lakers' games. (Yes, the L.A. Lakers used to be the Minneapolis Lakers. Whoever has heard of lakes in L.A.?) At one point in the game, Center George Mikan stepped up to the free-throw line for a foul shot and crossed himself before attempting the free throw. What is this? I thought as he went two for two. Is this some sort of rabbit's foot gesture? What is this sign of the cross anyway?

Or let's ask the question another way. What is the most well-known symbol of all time? Anyone we ask - philosopher, historian, or artist - each would most likely respond, "the cross." This familiar symbol is found in all aspects of the life of each person, from birth to grave.

Besides the impact of the Crucifixion itself, history was also dramatically changed by a visual manifestation of the cross to the Roman Emperor, Constantine. Granted a vision of the sign of the cross in the heavens, he was converted, and in A.D. 312 he brought to an end a long, tortuous period of persecution of Christians.

How could two simple lines that even a child could draw, one horizontal, the other vertical, cause kings to change the course of history, yet give relatives such hope and comfort at the death of their loved ones as they bid farewell? Is it just a symbol? Or is something more powerful and effective to be found within the Christian application of this symbol? There is much more in the cross than most twentieth century Christians were led to understand. I believe a rediscovery of this biblical truth is essential to the spiritual health of each Christian.

A Sign of Triumph

It is the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ that makes the cross so powerful, so meaningful, and so essential to our salvation. Our Lord, who took upon Himself our complete humanity, also, in that flesh, took upon Him' self a common form of Roman crucifixion and made the cross once and for all the glory and victory for all believers.

The Scriptures say that Christ, in His death, "wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross" (Colossians 2:14).

Imagine what incredible power stands between us and death, between us and the clutches of the kingdom of darkness, between us and everlasting hell. Yes, the cross is more than a symbol for earthly decor: It is the weapon of peace that sets us free from being slaves to sin, death, and the devil.

No wonder the Apostle Paul shouted out in faith, "But God forbid that I should glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world" (Galatians 6:14). The reality of the cross was sealed on the breast of Paul, who was able to stand against the schemes of the evil one and run the race to the finish. "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18).

A Sign for All Centuries

Let's step back for a moment from any prejudice or preconceived ideas we might have about uses of the sign of the cross. Let's go back to the centuries when the Church was not divided and see if those early Christians felt as strongly as the Apostle Paul about the cross.

In Christianity's second century we find Tertullian (A.D. 145-220) saying, "In all travels and movements, in all our coming in and going out, in putting on our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupies us, we mark our forehead with the sign of the cross" (On the Soldier's Crown, chapter 3).

About a century later, the great Saint Athanasius recorded, "by the sign of the cross ... all magic is stayed, all sorcery confounded, all the idols are abandoned and deserted, and all senseless pleasure ceases, as the eye of faith looks up to heaven from the earth" (On the Incarnation, IV, 31).

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 315-386) was even more insistent on the use of the sign of the cross:

Let us not be ashamed to confess the crucified. Let the cross as our seal be boldly made with our fingers upon our brow, and on all occasions; over the bread we eat, over the cups we drink; in our comings and in our goings; before sleep; on lying down and rising up; when we are on the way and when we are still. It is a powerful safeguard; it is without price, for the sake of the poor; without toil, because of the sick; for it is a grace from God, a badge of the faithful, and a terror to devils; for He displayed them openly, leading them away in triumph by the force of it [Colossians 2:15]. For when they see the cross, they are reminded of the Crucified; they fear Him who had smashed the heads of dragons [Psalm 73:13]. Despise not the seal as a free gift, but rather for this reason honor your Lord all the more. (Catechesis, XIII, chapter 36)

Even Martin Luther, who is called the Father of the Protestant Reformation, called on his flock to use the sign of the cross. For example, in his instructions on morning prayers he wrote, "In the morning, when you rise, make the sign of the cross and say, 'In the name of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen'" (Martin Luther, Small Catechism, VII, 1).

A Sign Neglected

Astonishingly it was not until the seventeenth century, at the time of King James, that a small group of Puritans began writing and speaking against the use of the sign of the cross. Reacting to the ills of the medieval Roman Church, they believed it to be a human invention which catered to superstition. These same English Puritans, who significantly influenced the North American continent, deserted one of the most powerful and cherished weapons of the entire history of the Church. Romophobia was their mentor.

Today, many American Christians have been deceived by the actions of a vocal minority and have become ashamed of the glory of the cross signed upon their breasts. But hungry for a way to physically express their allegiance to Christ, many of those who reject making the sign of the cross have ended up creating their own Christian hand signs.

I remember so well the "Jesus Movement" days when many of us were trying to come up with a common sign to use to set us apart from the student movement which powerfully used the peace sign. One day in 1970, a close friend got the idea of the "one way" sign, which was inspired by the doctrine of Jesus Christ being the only way to God. Thousands of posters were printed and distributed and soon this "one way sign" was employed by Christians all over the world. Even Billy Graham was portrayed in a national magazine demonstrating the sign in Greenwich Village.

The "one-way" sign did help Christians to identify with each other. But it didn't last. I still see it used by a few die-hards, but it will soon be gone. Why? It wasn't Orthodox; it wasn't the Church's sign. It wasn't the sign of the cross. The insignia of Jesus is not a raised index finger, but the cross: the true sign of every Christian.

Making signs on one's person is not a distinctly Christian activity. The American government adopted a ceremony from a patriotic magazine called Youth's Companion in 1892 and soon after required by law that every student in the public education system salute the American flag. Until just recently students were expelled from their classrooms if they refused to honor their country in this way. Even today, most Christians in America would suspect the loyalty of anyone who rejected the patriotic demonstration of placing the hand over the heart as the salute to the flag. Yet many of these same Christian people are bothered and ashamed to use the sign of the cross on their breasts. They refuse to use it, writing it off as some Roman or pagan holdover. How great the loss they suffer!

A Sign with Power

Although some may say signs have no real power, signs have always been significant to the people of God. Remember the occasion of the first Passover as recorded in the Old Testament? God instructed the Israelites to "take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses where they eat it" (Exodus 12:7). He promised, "For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD. NOW the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt." (Exodus 12:12-13).

What is remarkable in this is that the sign of the blood on the doorposts was no mere symbol. It was a symbol with power so much so that it kept the death angel from destroying the firstborn children of Israel. Imagine, then, the power of the living cross which bore our Saviour's death as we apply it to our hearts.

Recall the time in the wilderness when the children of Israel were perishing from the bite of poisonous snakes because of their rebellion. God told Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live" (Numbers 21:8). As incredible as that sounds to modern man, the people who looked lived. That is what Jesus was teaching the Pharisee, Nicodemus, when He said, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up" (John 3:14).

Lifted up on what? The cross! Physicians still use the symbol of Moses' staff and serpent as their sign for healing. How much more healing will come to those who bear the Christian sign of the cross? That's why the Apostle Paul glories in the cross.

A Sign on Ourselves

By the cross of Christ, Satan was defeated, our sins were canceled out, our debt was paid in full. By identifying ourselves with the cross, we flash our new identification cards, as it were, before sin, death, and the evil one. And when temptation comes, or when our bodies want to take control with their passions, physically making a cross on our bodies brings the power of the cross into action like an arrow released from a bow.

Let's face it! We Christians put the cross on our steeples, Bibles, neck chains, tombstones, and everything else. How about using this sign on ourselves?

And how is the sign of the cross traditionally made by Orthodox Christians? We hold our thumb and first two fingers of our right hand together. This speaks of the three persons in the Holy Trinity. Then, the last two fingers are held against the heel of our hand. These speak of the two natures of Jesus Christ: His full Divinity and full humanity. With our hand held in this manner we touch it in succession to our forehead, middle chest, right shoulder, and finally to our left shoulder. We thus apply the cross to our mind, our heart, and our strength.

On our journey to Orthodoxy, Jack Sparks wrote an article entitled "The Sign of the Cross." He summarized the centrality of the sign of the cross as follows:

1. It has been, and still is the practice of the overwhelming majority of your fellow Christians, many of whom died for the faith to help preserve the Gospel of Jesus Christ for you to believe. If we truly believe our Lord's words in John 17 that the Church is to be one, then why should we not utilize the sign of the cross as our forefathers have done?

2.а We freely use the symbol of the cross atop our church buildings, on our lecterns, altars, bulletins, and imprinted on our Bibles. Why not use it on ourselves, the people for whom Christ died as well?

3.а Using the sign of the cross gives us a personal, physical, and visible means to glory in the cross. Apart from actually doing something specific, one is hard-pressed to glory in the cross of Christ mentally. We use our voices and lips to tell others of the cross. Why should we withhold our hands and arms, which God has also given us, from doing the same? This is all part of glorifying God in our bodies. (Jack Sparks, "The Sign of the Cross," New Oxford Review, January-February, 1982)

If we will but use the sign to express reverence for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to remind ourselves of God's presence, this will go a long way toward helping us both to do good and to avoid sin. For the cross is our weapon of peace and our power to live holier lives. Satan and his demons fear the cross. Its sign, therefore, can be a means of protection for the children of God.

The fourth century saint, John Chrysostom, said, "When therefore you sign yourself, think of the purpose of the cross, and quench any anger and all other passions. Consider the price that has been paid for you" (Commentary on Matthew, Homily 54).

The sign of the cross is for all Christians!

Source: http://becomingorthodox.narod.ru/

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Search This Blog

featured Slider

Does Religion Need Culture?

St. Mary of Egypt and Moral Progress

A Sign for all Christians

Partners