The Catalog of Good Deeds

By Archimandrite Kyprian (Pyzhov)

In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

By decree of the Council of Bishop of the Russian Church Abroad in early November of this year, it was decided to glorify the New Martyrs of Russia. This long-awaited event will soon take place to satisfy the persistent demands of many, many people of the Church, Russian Orthodox Christians, living both abroad in various countries and those who live in our Homeland, where wicked, cruel atheism reigns, now in its seventh decade. The Soviet state is possessed with hatred towards God and Orthodox Christianity and guided by dark forces. From the moment of its origin, right after the Revolution, unheard-of persecutions against the faithful began; mainly through attacks on the Orthodox faith as the sole bearer of the Truth of Christ and a powerful force resisting the spread of world atheism.

Faith in Christ in Russia, after its baptism, became the very foundation of Russian statehood, which developed in all facets of the life of the people, occupying a “fourth part of the earth” (Revelation 6:8). So in order to bring its plan into effect-the establishment of Communism through world revolution-the Soviets needed to quickly begin eliminating this obstacle, murdering with sword and hunger and starvation and (human) beasts those who believe in Christ, declaring them enemies of the people, political criminals and traitors, who were not afforded the slightest mercy or sympathy. Indeed, their destruction was viewed as a duty to the state.

The sickness of disbelief grew among the people long before the Revolution of 1917, it quietly spread throughout the body of Holy Russia, weakened by a bloody war. Infecting cities and then spreading into villages, this disbelief poisoned the worst element of society. The demands of the Revolution exploited this element, granting them broad powers to seek vengeance against believers. Bandits and hooligans, fervent and servile before the representatives of the International, which had just seized power, set upon innocent people, shooting some on sight, without trial or investigation, leaving orphaned children and infants to fend for themselves, to wander through the expeanses of their impoverished homeland, seeking crumbs of bread and a warm corner to sleep in, while others were sent to labor camps in frigid Siberia, where they filled prisons, where these innocent victims were mercilessly treated, subjected to sadistic torture during interrogation.

The greatest measure of suffering fell upon the clergyman, uncounted numbers were killed, for they were the pillars for the faithful and the main proponents of the ancient regime, who resisted the new state, which screamed in their bloody banners a slogan that never was fulfilled: “Freedom, Equality and Fraternity!” The servants of the Altar of the Lord were persecuted and killed, yet they proved to be true martyrs of Christ, boldly approaching death and torture, fervently confessing their faith, convincing their flock to submit to death for Christ, just like the ancient martyrs. Great courage and firmness were exhibited by our pastors as they were subjected to show trials, accused of counter-revolution and exiled to inhuman labor camps, whence they rarely returned. They continued to preach the Word of God and by their example of personal asceticism, taught patience unto death for Christ.

A special place amid the host of New Martyrs is occupied by the great Passion-bearer and sufferer for the Russian people, our Tsar-Martyr Emperor Nicholas II and his much-suffering Family. Where do they stand? It is not for us to determine where they are in the Kingdom of Heaven; that depends on Divine Will. Who suffered most of all? It is not for us to judge, but in the icon of the Host of the New Martyrs, he is placed in the center as the Anointed of God, as the preserver and defender of Holy Orthodoxy, occupying the first place in the earthly kingdom.

Many contradictory opinions have been rendered in connection with the glorification of the New Martyrs of Russia, especially of the Royal Family, from those who, though they are sympathetic, feel pressure from the opinion of society, including those who are not within the Church, or not very close to the Church, who nurture a superficial outlook on history, on the tragic death, and the forthcoming canonization. They consider the inclusion among the saints of the pious Russian Emperor and his Family, the Empress, the young Tsarevich and innocent Tsarevnas and their faithful servants, who were murdered, their bodies mocked and mutilated with the intention of hiding the crime, as merely a political assassination, a necessary collateral damage of terror. Some, out of reverence for the Royal Family, and venerating their holy memory, fear that the act of ecclesiastical glorification might spark new insulting attacks in the press and mislead the superficial, ignorant reader to criticize them.

Personally, for many years I had this same inclination, but I was finally convinced of the feebleness of these arguments, seeing the intolerance that the civilized West has towards the glorious past of Great Russia and the memory of the last Russian Emperor. What do the leaders of the hoped-for New World Order fear? Over 60 years have passed since the fall of Russia; the contemporaries of our Tsar, Emperor Wilhelm II, Emperor Franz Josef of Austria, the Turkish Sultan and other royalty and presidents, many political leaders of that epoch have long been buried and their places on the world stage taken by subsequent generations.

But the evil West cannot forget either the Russian Tsar nor the Russian Throne; even now in the world press and in movies, slanderous accusations appear, written by corrupt historians and writers who distort the depiction of the moral image of the Tsar and His Most-Pious Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, and of all of those who refuse to bow to the reigning, sinful world ruled by the father of lies.

As we see, the shadow of the murdered Emperor gives no rest to the criminal conscience of the graceless leaders of the world today, who try with all their might to trample into the mud the noble image of the Orthodox Royal Tsar and his Family, who fell victim to an international plot.

The scribes and Pharisees, out of jealousy, slandered, mocked and crucified the Son of God, and, achieving temporary victory, disgraced themselves and their descendants for all time; their followers, the rulers of today’s kingdom of Mammon, fulfilling their satanic goals, executed to one who on earth was the Restrainer of doom in the world. They shot the faithful Empress, the meek Heir, the virtuous Tsarevnas and their kind, selfless servants. The bloodthirsty executioners hacked the bodies of the martyrs, threw them into a coal pit, dowsed with kerosene and set them on fire. To hide their tracks, they filled the pit with earth, and, covering them with foliage, rejoiced at their well-executed by devilish plot, certain that the memory of the Tsar was forever erased in this world.

But decades passed, yet the memory of the murdered victims has not faded: the ruler of this age continues to try to absolve and justify the act of murder, desecrating and devaluing the memory of the last Russian Emperor, and the more slander that is spread about him, the more brightly does his gracious image shine, and the holy memory of him and those with him warms the hearts of believers. Those guilty of regicide will never be forgiven for their crime either in this life or the next, along with those who supported and sympathized with the murder of the Anointed of God without repentance.

The life of the Royal Martyrs and those who died with them in Alapaevsk, headed by Grand Duchess Elizaveta Feodorovna, her relatives, dukes and duchesses and their close ones, ended here on earth in fulfillment of the prophesy spoken by Christ the Savior Himself: “Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake… But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved” (Matthew 24:9-10, 13).

Now let us pray for the repose of the Holy Passion-Bearers, killed 63 years ago in distant Siberia. Amen.

Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, NY

July 17, 1981

Source: http://www.synod.com/synod/engrocor/enser_archimkyprianroyalfamily.html

Q: What the Church have to say about cosmetic surgery? I’m thinking of reconstructing my nose, but do not wish to violate my faith.

Please tell me whether it is OK or not to perform such surgery on a man.

A: Dear friend: Thank you for your enquiry.

While there is no “official” statement by the Church on cosmetic surgery, there are several considerations one should prayerfully consider before undergoing this procedure:

The reason for the surgery: Reconstruction of one’s nose in an effort to attain clearer breathing is different than the same procedure out of pure consideration for one’s appearance. Cosmetic surgery performed out of undue concern for appearance could proceed from or lead to the sin of pride and vanity.

The procedure itself: a major TV network reported just last week that cosmetic surgery can often be a risky proposition. In fact, the report stated that out of every 5000 cosmetic surgeries performed, there is one death; this is six times higher than for all other surgeries. Especially targeted in the report were liposuction procedures. It was also noted that many cosmetic surgeons are poorly trained or perform their services in an office, rather than in a hospital, and that there are no resources at hand should a serious emergency arise. While the report said nothing specific about reconstructing noses, it did offer a general warning to the public. Here one needs to prayerfully consider the risks involved as well.

It is only my opinion, but it would seem that unless there is some serious and valid reason—and I am not sure that wishing to change one’s appearance simply for its own sake is a valid reason or that such a reason is not prompted by pride or an undue concern for how we look rather than who we are—one should tamper with that with which one has been blessed by God. It is one thing, for example, to have reconstruction in order to make it possible to breathe better; it is another thing to undergo such procedures simply for the sake of “cosmetics” or to gain more “self esteem,” something with which our culture is obsessed and yet which the Church would view as taking our focus off of God and placing undue attention on the self.

Again, while there are no official statements on such things, the principles involved need to be considered before one can make a prayerful determination as to whether or not to undergo such surgical processes.

You may also wish to discuss your particular situation with your pastor and spiritual father as well.

Source: https://oca.org/questions/society/cosmetic-surgery

By Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna

Most abductees report being taken into spaceships from their homes or from their automobiles while driving. Once in the ship, "the atmosphere may be dank, cool, and occasionally even foul-smelling". Their abductors typically "appear as tall or short luminous entities that may be translucent, or at least not altogether solid. Reptilian creatures have been seen....But by far the most common entity observed are the small ‘grays,’ humanoid beings three to four feet in height....Gender difference is not determined so much anatomically as by an intuitive feeling that abductees find difficult to put into words". (A sketch of typical aliens, made by one of Dr. Mack’s patients, appears at left. It is noteworthy that the morphology of these creatures seems to be universal, as evidenced by reports from abductees worldwide.) Dr. Mack observes that abductees "will often wish to avoid looking directly" into the eyes of the aliens "because of the overwhelming dread of their own sense of self, or loss of will, that occurs when they do so" (ibid.). Communication between the humans and their alien abductors is almost always telepathic. The aliens seldom tell those whom they abduct that they are from outer space or another planet; rather, this is an intuition shared by abductees—a "given" that few ever question. Abductees (and investigators, for that matter) also universally assume that these alien abductors have technical skills far beyond those of human beings—as evidenced by what are assumed to be their spacecraft—, though, again, the beings only rarely state so.

Almost universal to the alien abduction experience—which typically entails a number of abductions, not just one—is the physical examination of abductees by the aliens, sometimes leaving lesions and small wounds and inevitably involving experimentation with "the reproductive system". Women often report mechanical impregnation by the aliens, followed, in subsequent abductions, by the removal of alien-human fetuses. Men are frequently subjected to similar mechanical procedures for the removal of reproductive fluids or, in some cases, are forced to mate with their alien abductors. As abduction incidents multiply, abductees usually come to feel "intuitively" that various of the aliens that they see are "their own", their offspring. This sense of attachment also generalizes, resulting in an increasing sense of familiarity with their abductors. For example, whereas their first encounters with the aliens and reproductive experiments are "deeply disturbing" and evoke "terror" (though at times the aliens use certain "emotion-extinguishing devices," with varying degrees of success, to "anesthetize" their victims psychologically), abductees eventually "reach new levels of understanding of what is occurring," through increased contact with their abductors, and "their relationship to the beings themselves changes" from a negative to a positive one.

I should emphasize once more, here, that the data from which Dr. Mack draws his profile of abduction events—which I have briefly summarized—show an astonishing degree of consistency. Nor do any psychological or emotional problems seem to account for his patients’ reports. The observed lesions on, and other physical changes in, the bodies of the abductees interviewed, furthermore, do not follow the psychodynamic patterns that normally account for self-induced physical scarring. Something has apparently acted on these individuals. Noteworthy, too, is the fact that reports of abductions by young children two or three years of age, who would be unlikely or unable to fabricate such detailed accounts, are astonishingly similar to those of Dr. Mack’s adult patients.

The effects of these abduction experiences on the personal transformation of abductees are very clearly enumerated by Dr. Mack and provide us with clear insight into the psychic and spiritual dimensions of the abduction experience. Once the initial terror of the experience subsides, and with the sense of familiarity or comfort that repeated abductions foster, abductees report profound changes in their philosophical outlook and understanding of themselves, others, and the world around them. Dr. Mack identifies eight stages in this process of change: 1) The individual begins to accept the aliens and experiences what he calls an "ego death." 2) Abductees come to regard their abductors as "intermediaries...between...human beings and the primal source of creation or God." 3) They begin to think of their experiences as trans-temporal and trans-spatial, as "returning to their cosmic source or ‘Home.’" 4) The individual begins to feel that he is himself an alien, when he returns "back" to Earth. 5) Abductees come to understand existence in terms of "cycles of birth and death over long stretches of time." 6) The individual forms a feeling of "identification of consciousness with virtually endless kinds of beings and entities." 7) Abductees develop "a double identity," associating their souls with an alien identity and their personalities with a limited human self. 8) They report functioning beyond what they often call a "veil" and describe "being in multiple times and places at the same moment," among other things.

Having examined evidence for the abduction of human beings by alien creatures and Dr. Mack’s description of the apparent spiritual changes that these abductees undergo as a result of their encounters with beings from other planets, how is an Orthodox Christian to understand these data? Do they constitute plausible, if curious and bizarre, evidence that humans are being abducted by advanced beings from other planets—indeed by beings with the ability to expand human consciousness and imbue their victims with new levels of spiritual insight? There is an immediate response to these questions. Whether or not these incidents are believable, as Orthodox Christians we believe that spiritual knowledge, not advanced technology, is the prime factor in the expansion and perfection of human consciousness. We would expect advanced beings from other planets, therefore, to evidence, not mundane powers, but highly developed spiritual sensitivities. Enlightenment and salvation, furthermore, are inspired within us, not by alien beings which seek to breed with us and exploit our fallen sexuality, but by God, as He is known in the Holy Trinity, and by His Angels and Saints. Nor, indeed, do we Orthodox Christians imagine that salvation will come to us from other planets or from super-intelligent beings, but from the Divinity within us, from our transformation in Christ through union, in Grace, with Him.

Given what I have said, we must come to understand that there is a decidedly anti-Christian tone in the eight stages that Dr. Mack identifies in the process of personal transformation in abduction victims. Seeing life in terms of cycles of birth and death, identifying with other beings and entities, the cessation of personhood, and looking to the "cosmos" for a "home"—these are all undefined, vague, and eclectic things that violate the precise, Christocentric teachings of Christianity and the life of discipline and obedience that spiritual transformation entails. Indeed, the Fathers of the Church warn us against these "false" teachings: reincarnation, delusion, and spiritual wanderings. The observations of one abductee interviewed by Mack, in particular, fully confirm the anti-Christian dimensions of the post-abduction philosophies and "spiritualities" of those who have come into contact with aliens. This man, called "Joe," reported that after his initial impression that the aliens were "sinister" or "malicious", he eventually embraced his abductors as "his spiritual teachers, peers, and helpers" . Rather than grow in an understanding of God and the traditional precepts that we associate with Christianity, after his abduction experiences, he came to think of himself as becoming "more human" and, in a dream, experienced the integration of his "male-female" self through the symbolic birth of a goddess, born in a way too obscene to be repeated. His personal testimony leaves little doubt that the post-abduction "transformation" of individuals who have contacted alien beings is at odds with Orthodox Christian notions of human enlightenment, transformation, and perfection in Christ, but is rooted, rather, as I have argued, in a human-oriented idea of personal growth not dissimilar to that envisioned by the New Age religions.

What, then, if they are not advanced beings from other planets, are these alien abductors? Ultimately, one cannot escape the conclusion that they are demons or phantoms created by demonic power. In the first place, they look like demons. They appear to be material creatures, and yet have a transparent character. According to the teachings of the Church, demons are spiritual beings; that is, they are fallen Angels. But because they are corrupt and degenerate, they thrive on the human passions—feed on them. This well explains the almost universal sexual exploitation of their captives by alien abductors. In the second place, in the course of their physical examination of abductees, the aliens inflict pain on their victims and frequently scar them. In spiritual literature, and especially in the lives of the Saints, we repeatedly read of physical attacks against Christian believers by demonic spirits. If these aliens are not demons, how is it that beings so advanced that they can achieve space travel cannot prevent pain and scarring during routine physical examinations? It is not pain which the aliens cannot control, but their demonic passion for inflicting the same on mankind. Moreover, at least initially, abductees experience terror and fright in the presence of their alien abductors; only later, after having been reluctantly won over by the aliens, do they feel secure in the presence of their abductors. This is a classical demonic machination. Demons inevitably strive, in a methodical way, to overcome the initial and natural repulsion that human beings feel in their presence, gaining the confidence of those whom they seek to mislead. Finally, the spiritual effects of abductees’ contacts with aliens, as we have pointed out, are anti-Christian. Abductees are drawn away from the universal teachings of Orthodox Christianity and towards the demonic delusion that underlies modern New Age philosophies. Human transformation ceases, for these victims of alien visitation, to be a God-oriented, Grace-mediated process, but becomes part of a personality-dissolving return to the "elemental" universals upon which the pagan notion of Paradise is predicated.

It is worthy of note that the late Father Seraphim Rose, in his book Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future (Platina, CA: Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1990; Revised Edition), has also examined the phenomenon of alien visitations to earth from an Orthodox standpoint. He devotes an entire chapter of this work, "‘Signs from Heaven:’ An Orthodox Christian Understanding of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs)," to the true nature and meaning of alien contacts with human beings. Though Father Seraphim, at a superficial level, approaches this matter in a way reminiscent of Protestant fundamentalistic thinking, and while his materials are dated and center only on more sensationalistic abduction reports—deficits compounded by the fact that some of the authorities whom he cites are clearly on the fringes of science—, his deeper analysis of the phenomenon is ingenious and supports much of what I have suggested about alien encounters with humans. He also observes that the aliens in contemporary abduction reports are similar in appearance to the demons which, for centuries, have been described in Orthodox literature. In fact, he recounts two cases of demonic "kidnappings" in fifteenth- and nineteenth-century Russia that, in Father Seraphim’s words, are "quite close to UFO ‘abductions’" today . It is his conclusion that classical demonic possession, known to the Orthodox Church for centuries, accounts for the alien abductions that we see in modern times and that "...modern men, for all their proud ‘enlightenment’ and ‘wisdom,’ are becoming once more aware of such experiences—but no longer have the Christian framework with which to explain them". This conclusion perfectly reflects what I have said about alien abductions and how they should be understood and viewed by the Orthodox Christian.

Source: http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/alien_abduct.aspx

Every night my family gathers around the dinner table. We pray, dish out the food, laugh, argue, and ask and answer questions. The scene is sometimes chaotic, sometimes serious, sometimes silly, but this scene defines our family. This table becomes the heart of our family. My girls, when they come to the table, come as full members of the family. They are not invited to the table but excluded from the food. They belong by right to the household, and therefore belong at the dinner table. This right is never questioned, their status never challenged. Do they understand the significance of belonging to the family? Do they appreciate the blessings inherent in membership? Of course not, at least not yet. Will they ever reject this family? Will they break the holy fellowship of that dinner table? Probably not, but even if I worry that they will, I cannot keep from them the family status which they have as a birthright. On the contrary, honoring that status, rejoicing and raising them in it, will do more to preserve them as valuable family members than waiting to offer this membership until I am sure they truly appreciate it.

Why start at the dinner table to talk about the practice of baptizing children in the Orthodox Church? Because the family table, and the family itself, are biblically ideal images for the church altar and the church family. We are born into an earthly family, and born again (John 3:3) into the heavenly family. We eat together at the dinner table, and we feast together at the altar. With God our Father, and the Church our Mother (Revelation 12:1), we gather as children of a holy family, each of us enjoying the full privileges of membership by a baptismal birthright. Do we fathom the many blessings we receive just by virtue of belonging to this family? No, for to do so would be to fathom the depths of the riches of God. Does God still honor us, treat us as His children, still welcome us to His table, still call us His own? Always and forever. We may reject Him, rebel against Him, flee to a far off country. But if we return, we do not return as stewards of His Household, we return as His children, we return as prodigal members of His family. If we do not return, we know that God will never stop His vigil at the gates of our hearts, waiting for the return of His own.

Nevertheless, the ancient, apostolic and biblical practice of baptizing infants and children has been challenged by some in recent times. Let us look at the background and arguments of this debate before we turn to what it means for the Orthodox Church to baptize children.

Background

Infant baptism was not controversial in the Church during the first two centuries after Christ. St. Polycarp described himself as having been in devoted service to Christ for 86 years in a manner that would clearly indicate a childhood baptism. Pliny describes with amazement that children belong to the Christian cult in just the same way as do the adults. St. Justin Martyr tells of the “many men and women who have been disciples of Christ from childhood.” St. Irenaeus of Lyon wrote about “all who are born again in God, the infants, and the small children . . . and the mature.” St. Hippolytus insisted that “first you should baptize the little ones . . . but for those who cannot speak, their parents should speak or another who belongs to their family.”

The first recorded opposition to the practice comes from Tertullian in the third century. He objected to the practice of baptizing infants because of the heretical idea that sin after baptism was nearly unforgivable. His dissention should be understood within the larger debates of his day, centered around perceived laxity in church morals and government. Many of the greatest Fathers of the third and fourth centuries were not baptized until they were adults, despite having been born to Christian parents. Among them were St. Basil the Great, St. Augustine, and St. Jerome. The later baptism of these men reflects a larger crisis in the newly legalized Church under St. Constantine. One reason postponing baptism became popular was the desire of some Christians to counteract the new wave of baptisms of pagans wishing only to belong to the faith of their emperor. While not yet a requirement of Roman loyalty or citizenship, baptism ensured that one was on the right side of Rome. Postponing baptism emphasized the significance of the rite, and was an attempt to preserve the genuineness of the life for which baptism served as the initiation. Postponement had nothing to do with the validity of a child’s baptism. Many of those Fathers whose baptism was postponed insisted later on that families baptize their new born children, notably St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, and St. Cyril of Alexandria.

Controversy over infant baptism did not arise in its present form until after the Protestant Reformation. Even Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted on the practice. It was with Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531), of the Swiss Reformed Church, that the first serious objections arose. Several of Zwingli’s students re-baptized themselves, proclaiming that they did so because their infant baptisms were invalid since they were not accompanied by professions of faith. This ignited a debate in the early Reformed churches, which was heavily influenced by social and political dimensions as well as theology. Soon after, former Anglican minister John Smyth (1570–1612) and his followers re-baptized themselves and the Baptist Church was born. The 1644 London Confession of the Calvinist Particular Baptists stated, “Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispersed only upon persons professing faith.” There are many million Baptists today, and this position on baptism is still among their foremost doctrines.

Protestant objections to baptizing children did not emerge from a vacuum-sealed objective reading of the Scriptures. Such objections arose from assumptions which were of recent origin and should not be retroactively applied to the Scriptures nor to the Church which arose within and around them.

Is infant baptism biblical?

Yes, it is. While there is no description of an individual infant being baptized, the Bible describes five separate household baptisms:

• The Household of Cornelius, Acts 11:13–14: “Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.”

• The Household of Lydia, Acts 16:15: “And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, ‘If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.’ So she persuaded us.”

• The Philippian Jailor’s Household, Acts 16:33: “And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.”

• The Household of Crispus, Acts 18:8: “Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.”

• The Household of Stephanas, 1 Corinthians 1:16: “Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas.”

Some have argued that while the Bible may say ‘household’ or ‘family’ this does not have to include children. Maybe those households did not include children. While this may be the case, it is hard to imagine that at least one of these households did not include children. And given the fact that we have five explicit references to a whole household being baptized, we have to assume that many, many more such households were baptized. Surely some of them included children.

The word ‘household’ for any Israelite of the day included everybody in the household, children included. We must remember that a household always included children throughout the Scriptures. Every time God established or spoke about His covenant with the House of Israel, it included the whole of Israel: men, women, and children. Noah’s whole ‘household’ was taken into the ark with him (Genesis 7:1); Abraham had his whole household circumcised (Genesis 17:23), and specifically his son Isaac when he was eight days old (Genesis 21:4); the whole household of every family was taken out of Egypt, and God’s institution of the Passover specifically included the children (Exodus 12:24–28). If the Apostles had taught that children were to be excluded from full inclusion in the covenant, such an innovation would not have fit the prophetic covenants which preceded the fulfilled covenant enacted through Christ.

The pattern of the Old Testament covenants formed the framework for the apostolic understanding of the true covenant of Christ, and those covenants included children. They were covenants which were made with a nation, in which every household participated. This is what is expressed in the household baptisms of the New Testament. Even when an individual was baptized, this baptism placed him in a larger body. Individual adult baptisms occurred, but there were no individual covenants.

The Bible teaches us that under the Old Covenant, every male child was circumcised on the eighth day after birth. With his circumcision, the child became a full and complete member of the covenant and could eat of the Passover sacrifice. Baptism in Christ absorbed and fulfilled this rite, as it absorbed all initiation and cleansing rites of the day. Circumcision, we know from the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:5; Acts 21:21), was no longer necessary for the Gentile convert or his children. Nowhere in the Bible is it hinted that while absorbing the rite of circumcision, baptism would suddenly and without precedent exclude children. Jesus did not have a problem with children gaining full inclusion to the covenant: He Himself was circumcised as an infant (Luke 2:21), like John the Forerunner (Luke 1:59).

Here we need to introduce a statement by Jesus Himself on the subject of children and faith. In Luke 18, some children are brought to Him to receive a blessing. His disciples try to interfere. But Jesus immediately rebukes them, saying, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:16). A sentimental reading of this passage tells us that Jesus loves children, and that we should not stop them from trying to ask questions about Him or wanting to pray to Him, or tell them that they are too young to get to know Him. While this is true, no one the Lord is talking to thought differently. These were people, we have to remember, who circumcised their children, included them in the Passover rituals and taught them from a young age about God, Israel and the Prophetic writings. The Jews were fanatical, by our modern standards, in their desire to raise their children in the faith. This is not a Hallmark moment in the Gospels.

Jesus is in fact including children in His Kingdom. And His inclusion of children in the Kingdom includes them in the covenant He establishes in His Name. There is no partial involvement in the Kingdom of Heaven, just as there is no partial inclusion in the covenant. We are either members or not. Jesus is saying that children are in, and there is to be no argument about it. There is absolutely no room here to make an argument that children must wait until some magical age before they too can be included with full rights into the Church and at the altar table.

Jesus was once an infant Himself. And Jesus was never separate from God, even in His mother’s womb. The heretical Nestorians claimed that Jesus’ divinity only descended upon Him at baptism. But the Orthodox Church has always declared that He united God and man from the moment of His conception, and the Orthodox believe that His Kingdom belongs to children. Not only because the covenant is with the whole household; not only because a distinction of age was never introduced into the practice of baptism; not only because such a distinction would not have matched the Old Testament covenants which served as the prophetic model for the New Covenant; but because Christ Himself became incarnate as an infant child. In Him all ages, like all humanity, are sewn into the perfect union expressed in the eucharistic supper of the New Israel, which we join only through baptism. Christ makes both childhood and adulthood fully capable of expressing and participating in the Kingdom of Heaven.

But children do not understand the faith!

The assumption behind this objection to infant baptism, one which did not exist in the early Church or in the centuries which followed, is that faith is a product of reason. That to truly believe, our minds must be capable of understanding why we believe, or at least able to provide intellectual consent. For the adult convert to the Orthodox Church, intellectual consent is crucial. Baptism is not magic. It is a voluntary act of submission to God, a consent to live in relationship with God within the covenant He has established through His Son with a larger body of baptized believers, the Church. But at the same time, faith falls flat if it does not go beyond individual reason. It falls flat because it is so individualized, exclusive, and self-centered. Tertullian said famously that “one Christian is no Christian.” It is true that our faith must be personal, that we must have a personal relationship with God. But our faith must not be limited to that personal relationship alone. Our relationship with God is valid only if it is realized in communion with the whole Church.

I’ve spoken of the Church as family, and I want to return to that image. Children can break fellowship with the family if they consider themselves outside the family’s fate. They are family members only in so much as they live as part of the family, accepting all the responsibilities and self-sacrifice that such family status demands. I don’t have to explain this to my children. They understand from birth that they belong to a larger group, and belong in the most intimate way. They know who their father and mother are and where to go for help and for security. The concept of ‘family’ is beyond them, but the reality of family life is not. In other words, children have a sense of belonging a dozen years or more before they understand what this belonging means.

The earthly family is an image of the heavenly family, the family of the Kingdom of God. Children born to a Christian family are born again into the heavenly family through baptism. A child baptized in the Orthodox Church belongs to a spiritual family. This family bridges both heaven and earth, stretches backward and forward in time and includes both saints and angels. Children belong to this family exactly as each of my daughters belongs to my family. They know in a profound way that they belong long before they have some kind of cerebral understanding of that belonging.

Our modern world so exults reason and cerebralism that young children are sometimes treated as not fully human, or are at least treated less seriously than adults because they can’t think like we do. The truth is that a child is a full human being. A child of any age is capable of expressing and participating in the glory of God. Christ Himself sanctified every age as God-bearing, since He was as much the perfect Word of God as an infant as when He was a grown man. We must remember that children are not second-class persons. Their baptisms are as significant to them and to God as adult baptisms. Even if they do not cognitively understand what that baptism means, they are certainly capable of intuitively understanding it.

What if a child leaves or rejects Christ later in life?

This is a real concern, but not a reason to keep children from full membership in the New Covenant by denying them baptism and communion. We should rather accept them as the Lord commanded us to do, because raising them up in the life in Christ will give them a much better chance of carrying this life beyond our parental guardianship. If someone has no intention of raising a child in Christ—if they have no intention of attending church, praying as a family in the home, teaching the Bible, encouraging questions about the faith, and giving their children every opportunity to experience the life of the Church—then they should in no way bring their child to be baptized.

When we decide to baptize a child we make the most solemn of promises to God. We are promising to do everything in our power to bring that child to Christ, and this is a promise that we can only make if we are doing everything we can to draw near to Him ourselves. Children take seriously what we take seriously. If they grow up in a home in which conversations about Christ, prayer, and reading from the Bible and the lives of the saints are part of normal daily life, they will feed off this as much as the food we put on their plates at the dinner table. Children are deeply impressed by candlelight and incense, by flowers at Pascha, by late-night processions during Holy Week, by palm leaves on Palm Sunday, by icons, by lake blessings at Theophany, and by vestments and altar service. All of this fascinates them and draws them into Christ. As a priest, I see just how real the life of faith is to children when they approach the chalice to receive communion. It is in their eyes, and I am humbled. When they see that we are excited and involved, they will become excited and involved. Raising a child in Christ is simple. Just be a child yourself in Christ. Take it seriously. Children take faith very seriously, and we should either honor that faith ourselves or we shouldn’t baptize them.

But what if they do leave Christ? What if we do all that we can do and they still walk away? Wouldn’t it then have been better not to baptize them? Of course not! Would a responsible parent ever dream of keeping their child outside full family membership until they were sure that the child wants to be in the family? Peter Leithart, a Presbyterian and father of ten children himself, makes an excellent point in his book Against Christianity: “Romans normally excluded children from the dinner table until the age of fifteen or sixteen, at which age boys received the toga virilis that marked their entrance to manhood. Family dinner as we know it was a Christian invention, not some ‘natural’ form of family life. The family dinner is a reflection of the eucharistic meal, the meal that welcomed all members of Christ to the table. Opposition to communion of children is pagan and seeks to reverse the revolutionary table fellowship established by the Church. It is an attempt to return to Egypt.”

The family that eats together should receive communion together, the one an image of the other. A child raised in the fullness of the faith has the greatest of foundations. Every human being is free to do God’s will or not. He wants us to choose to do His will. But even when He knows that we won’t, He still does not deny us food, clothing, or shelter. He does not deny us love, joy, long life, and children of our own. Will we be so afraid of what our children might do that we deny them the one thing everyone needs—communion in the Church and full membership in the life-giving covenant of Christ? Where is our faith? Where is our resolve? Where is our love for God and for our children? To whom is Christ speaking now, when He says, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them”?

Will unbaptized children go to hell if they die?

No. The Orthodox Church does not believe that children are born guilty of Adam’s sin and that unless freed of that guilt through baptism and communion they will die without God’s mercy. Such a notion is pernicious both for its barbarism and for its distortion of God. Do we really think that God is so small that He is bound by our rites, the rites He has given us? God is sovereign, and He will have mercy on whom He has mercy and judgment on whom He has judgment (Romans 9:15).

We can talk about sin and guilt in three ways. First there is primordial sin, the sin of Adam. We understand this not in terms of inherited guilt, but in terms of a fallen world. Primordial sin introduced sickness, suffering, evil, and death into God’s perfect creation (1 John 5:19; Romans 5:12). We are born into Adam’s sin in that we are born into a fallen world. But without our participation, there is no guilt. Second, there is generational sin, which we see in terms of specific propensities to sin. A child of alcoholics, for example, will inherit not the guilt of his parents but the tendency to sin as they did, or other sins associated with this generational heritage. Again, we do not have to submit to this sinful heritage, we do not have to carry it on ourselves. Finally, there is personal sin, the stuff we do ourselves, whether as perpetuation of the general fallenness of this world, the generational fallenness of our parents or surroundings, or as the invention of sins of our own. A person becomes guilty when they personally sin. A child is not guilty until they make sin a personal decision, either consciously or unconsciously.

It is true that baptism is the washing away of sin, and one could say that it seems senseless to baptize a child if they have no inherited guilt to wash away. However, Christ’s sacrifice, in to which we are baptized, was a sacrifice of His whole life as a submission to God— “not My will, but Yours, be done” (Luke 22:42)—and His death on the Cross not only washed away our sins, but also destroyed death itself. When we are baptized we are baptized into His life and death (Romans 6:4), and we become co-beneficiaries of a life which finally brought God and man into a union of love and a harmony of will. The infant is initiated into that union. This initiation will include the forgiveness of their sins, but is not limited to that forgiveness. The life and death of Christ, which reverses the primordial, generational, and personal falleness of this world, is what the child enters through baptism.

Is baptism just a sign?

Everything I have said assumes that baptism is more than just an outward expression of an inward acceptance of Christ. Of course, baptism is an outward expression in that physical hands are laid on a physical person and that the rites of baptism are tangible, visible, and physical. But the Orthodox embrace completely the Incarnation of Christ. For us, Christ’s body was not just an outward expression. Christ’s physical body was not an incidental part of His saving Incarnation. His body was indivisibly part of His whole person. So important is the body to God that the Christian promise is that we will be raised with our bodies.

Baptism effects a change in one’s status with God. It is more than a mere sign. The views held by most Christians about marriage provide a useful comparison. Few Christians would say that a marriage ceremony is merely a “sign.” A change clearly occurs. The man and the woman are separate before the ceremony, but they are “one flesh” after. This is a profound change, one which is effected by God through the ceremony itself. Baptism is no different. The rite of baptism has always been understood as a baptism into the death and resurrection of Christ, an entrance into the saving covenant, an enrollment in the Lamb’s book of life, a union with the whole people of God, and the giving of a new citizenship in the Kingdom not of this world. Clearly, this is more than just a formality.

What happens to a child when he or she is baptized?

First of all, children are baptized into a story. Christians are the people of a story. The Lord did not appear from nowhere with a message and language of His own inven-tion. He came as the fulfillment of a promise made in the beginning to Abraham, in conformity to the prophecies concerning Him. The subsequent promises and prophecies, the peoples and the sins, the punishments and the mercies, these are our story. It is the story of Christ, and it is the duty and joy of every Christian to know and teach this story. When children are baptized into this narrative, they become part of it. The stories of the patriarchs, the judges, the kings, the prophets, the apostles, the saints who followed them, and of Christ Himself, become their stories. This is clear in Exodus, when Moses and the Israelites are commanded to tell through a ritual re-enactment, the Passover Supper, the story of God’s glorious and nation-making act in Egypt. Children are commanded to be part of the ritual, because this story is their birthright. The same is true of the fulfilled Passover of Christ, when the Lord again commanded us to “remember” what He accomplished for us on the Cross through the ritual remembrance of the Liturgy. We tell the story of God and His people because we are His people. And when we preach—as Peter did, as Stephen did, as Paul did—we preach our story. Our children are raised in this story, and by virtue of baptism this story becomes their own.

Second, children are baptized into a people. From the beginning God’s covenant was made with a people, not with a person. The promise to Abraham was made to all nations, the covenant with Moses was made with the whole of Israel, and the New Covenant of Christ was made with the New Israel, the Church of God. We are a people called out of the nations, called out of the world, and through baptism we come to belong to a people who belong to God. We are made citizens of Heaven. We join a heavenly ethnicity. My daughters, through baptism, belong to this people more than they belong to Canada, their country of birth. We have our Kingdom culture of daily prayer, regular fasting, festal cycles, and biblical storytelling. We have oaths of allegiance in the form of the Creed. We have our national anthems in the hymns we sing. We have our national heroes in the saints and church fathers and mothers. Our king is God. This sounds cute to the modern ear, but it is true. And it is deeply Orthodox and fundamentally biblical, so much so that this alternative nationalism was the basis for the early Roman persecution of Christians.

Third, a child is baptized into life in Christ. “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus,” says St. Paul, “were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:3–4) This newness of life is what we all participate in through baptism, adult and child alike. Certainly children participate differently than adults, but no less authentically. Learning to pray, to read the Bible, to understand their inheritance, to walk in the way of the Lord, eating and drinking of the Eucharist, being trained in righteousness—this is as much walking in newness of life as anything in the spiritual life, and sometimes children are more engaged in these activities than adults in their church. And because they have been baptized into life in Christ they also receive the benefits of that life—the Grace, the forgiveness, the Fatherhood of God, the nourishment of the Body and Blood of Christ, and the presence of the Holy Spirit. The difference of twenty years and the ability to pay bills and stay up late does not make an adult more needful of these things than children, or more worthy of them. Children become full participants in Christ, as He ordained them to be and indeed as He became incarnate for them to be. This means as well that they are baptized into a promise. If they are buried with Christ in baptism, they will be raised with Him as well. They are raised with the promise of eternal life, with the expectation of the Resurrection. We do not hang this promise in front of them like a carrot (or a lollipop) to lead them to some future acceptance of Christ. By virtue of baptism, they participate in this promise now. They do so because they already experience life in Christ. Indeed, they grow up at His very knee.

By Fr. John Hainsworth

Fr. John Hainsworth is pastor of All Saints of Alaska Orthodox Mission of Victoria, British Columbia. Fr. John converted to Orthodoxy in 1992. He graduated from St. Vladimir's Seminary in 2002 with a Master's degree in Divinity. He is a popular retreat leader, the author of several articles in AGAIN Magazine, and hard at work on multiple book manuscripts.

Source: http://antiochian.org/content/infant-baptism-what-church-believes

On Pascha Monday, in the evening after midnight, before fore lying down to sleep I went out into the little garden behind my house. The sky was dark and covered with stars. I seemed to see it for the first time, and a distant psalmody seemed to descend from it. My lips murmured, very softly: "Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship the footstool of His feet." A holy man once told me that during these hours the heavens are opened. The air exhaled a fragrance of the flowers and herbs I had planted. "Heaven and earth are filled with the glory of the Lord."

I could well have remained there alone until break of day. I was as if without a body and without any bond to the earth. But fearing that my absence would disturb those with me in the house, I returned and lay down.

Sleep had not really taken possession of me; I do not know whether I was awake or asleep, when suddenly a strange man rose up before me. He was as pale as a dead man. His eyes were as if open, and he looked at me in terror. His face was like a mask, like a mummy's. His glistening, dark yellow skin was stretched tight over his dead man's head with all its cavities. He was as if panting. In one hand he held some kind of bizarre object which I could not make out; the other hand was clutching his breast as if he were suffering.

This creature filled me with terror. I looked at him and he looked at me without speaking, as if he were waiting for me to recognize him, strange as he was. And a voice said to me: "It is so-and-so!" And I recognized him immediately. Then he opened his mouth and sighed. His voice came from far away; it came up as from a deep well.

He was in great agony, and I suffered for him. His hands, his feet, his eyes—everything showed that he was suffering. In my despair I was going to help him, but he gave me a sign with his hand to stop. He began to groan in such a way that I froze. Then he said to me: "I have not come; I have been sent. I shake without stop; I am dizzy. Pray God to have pity on me. I want to die but I cannot. Alas! Everything you told me before is true. Do you remember how, several days before my death, you came to see me and spoke about religion? There were two other friends with me, unbelievers like myself. You spoke, and they mocked. When you left, they said: 'What a pity! He is intelligent and he believes the stupid things old women believe!'

"Another time, and other times too, I told you: 'Dear Photios, save up money, or else you will die a pauper. Look a my riches, and I want more of them.' You told me then: 'Have you signed a pact with death, that you can live as many year as you want and enjoy a happy old age?'

"And I replied: 'You will see to what an age I will live Now I am 75; 1 will live past a hundred. My children are free from want. My son earns a lot of money, and I have married my daughter to a rich Ethiopian. My wife and I have more money than we need. I am not like you who listen to what the priests say: "A Christian ending to our life ..." and the rest. What have you to gain from a Christian ending? Better a full pocket and no worries ... Give alms? Why did your so merciful God create paupers? Why should I feed them? And they ask you, in order to go to Paradise, to feed idlers! Do you want to talk about Paradise? You know that I am the son of a priest and that I know well all these tricks. That those who have no brains believe them is well enough, but you who have a mind have gone astray. If you continue to live as you arc doing, you will die before me, and you will be responsible for those you have led astray. As a physician I tell you and affirm that I will live a hundred and ten years ...'"

After saying all this, he turned this way and that as if he were on a grill. I heard his groans: "Ah! Ouch! Oh! Oh!" He was silent for a moment, and then continued: "This is what I said, and in a few days I was dead! I was dead, and I lost the wager! What confusion was mine, what horror! Lost, I descended into the abyss. What suffering I have had up to now, what agony! Everything you told me was true. You have won the wager!

"When I was in the world where you are now, I was an intellectual, I was a physician. I had learned how to speak and to be listened to, to mock religion, to discuss whatever falls under the senses. And now I see that everything I called stories, myths, paper lanterns—is true. The agony which I am experiencing now—this is what is true, this is the worm that never sleeps, this is the gnashing of teeth."

After having spoken thus, he disappeared. I still heard his groans, which gradually faded away. Sleep had begun to take possession of me, when I felt an icy hand touch me. I opened my eyes and saw him again before me. This time he was more horrible and smaller in body. He had become like a nursing infant, with a large old man's head which he was shaking.

"In a short time the day will break, and those who have sent me will come to seek me!"

"Who are they?"

He spoke some confused words which I could not make out. Then he added: "There where I am, there are also many who mock you and your faith. Now they understand that their spiritual darts have not gone beyond the cemetery. There are both those you have done good to, and those who have slandered you. The more you forgive them, the more they detest you. Man is evil. Instead of rejoicing him, kindness makes him bitter, because it makes him feel his defeat. The state of these latter is worse than mine. They cannot leave their dark prison to come and find you as I have done. They are severely tormented, lashed by the whip of God's love, as one of the Saints has said [St. Isaac the Syrian]. The world is something else entirely from what we see! Our intellect shows it to us in reverse. Now we understand that our intellect was only stupid, our conversations were spiteful meanness, our joys were lies and illusions.

"You, who bear God in your hearts, Whose word is Truth, the only Truth—you have won the great wager between believers and unbelievers. This wager I have lost. I tremble, I sigh, and I find no rest. In truth, there is no repentance in hell. Woe to those who walk as I did when I was on earth. Our flesh was drunk and mocked those who believed in God and eternal life; almost everyone applauded us. They treated you as mad, as imbeciles. And the more you accept our mockeries, the more our rage increases.

"Now I see how much the conduct of evil men grieved you. How could you bear with such patience the poisoned darts which issued from our lips which treated you as hypocrites, mockers of God, and deceivers of the people. If these evil men who are still on earth would see where I am, if only they were in my place, they would tremble for everything they are doing. I would like to appear to them and tell them to change their path, but I do not have the permission to do so, just as the rich man did not have it when he begged Abraham to send Lazarus the pauper. Lazarus was not sent, so that those who sinned might be worthy of punishment and those who went on the ways of God might be worthy of salvation.

"He that is unrighteous, let him do unrighteousness yet more; and he that is filthy, let him he made filthy yet more. And he that is righteous, let him do righteousness yet more; and he that is holy, let him be made holy yet more" (Apoc. 22:11).

With these words he disappeared.

By Photios Kontoglou

Source: http://orthodoxinfo.com/death/death_photios.aspx

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Search This Blog

featured Slider

A Sermon on the Holy Royal Martyrs

An Orthodox Christian Perspective on Cosmetic Surgery

Alien Abductions and the Orthodox Christian

What the Church Believes Concerning Infant Baptism

Background

Is infant baptism biblical?

But children do not understand the faith!

What if a child leaves or rejects Christ later in life?

Will unbaptized children go to hell if they die?

Is baptism just a sign?

What happens to a child when he or she is baptized?

The Great Wager Between Believers and Unbelievers

Partners

Search This Blog

featured Slider

A Sermon on the Holy Royal Martyrs

An Orthodox Christian Perspective on Cosmetic Surgery

Alien Abductions and the Orthodox Christian

What the Church Believes Concerning Infant Baptism

Background

Is infant baptism biblical?

But children do not understand the faith!

What if a child leaves or rejects Christ later in life?

Will unbaptized children go to hell if they die?

Is baptism just a sign?

What happens to a child when he or she is baptized?

The Great Wager Between Believers and Unbelievers

About Our Blog

Most Popular Posts

Partners