Canada. Orthodox Canada

FROM “SAILING IN THE WINTER SUN.”Would you invite someone into your home and give them a room where the carpet has never been vacuumed and the bedding has never been changed but is soiled and wrinkled? Would you not undertake some serious housekeeping before you invited the guest? If we invite Christ into our lives, into our souls should we not take the same care? Confession should not be seen as a law or “rule” that we are compelled to fulfil, but as the housekeeping of the soul. Confession is a cleansing of the conscience and a step toward sincere repentance, and repentance is like a vacuum cleaner in the soul. Christ has told us that he would be present in our hearts. Remember how God the Word walked in the garden of Paradise as a friend with Adam and Eve – the “man befriending God.” Our heart can become Paradise if Christ is walking together with us in our hearts as in a spiritual garden. But would you take a guest for a walk in your garden if it was so overgrown and clogged with weeds and thorns that one could not even see any flowers that had been planted? Confession is also the cultivation of this garden so that one can see the flowers of grace planted there by the Holy Spirit. Truly, if we have Christ – our “man befriending God” – walking there with us, the heart becomes Paradise and we can experience something of the joy of Paradise when we walk together with Christ in our hearts. Confession is the housekeeping of the soul, the cleansing of the conscience and the cultivation of the garden of the heart so that we can truly open it to our Lord Jesus Christ with faith and love, and walk together with him there as in Paradise. Never think of confession as a law or a rule that must be fulfilled but as an act of love and a gift of the Holy Spirit to help us with the housekeeping of the soul and the cultivation of the heart. When we approach Holy communion, we are seeking to have Christ indwelling within us. We are approaching the chalice not only so that we can participate in Christ but also have Christ participating in us. It is, therefore, important for us to undertake this housekeeping of the soul and cultivation of the garden as we seek to have Christ within us. Confession is not some kind of law, some kind of obligation nor is it coming to be rebuked, shamed or punished. We should think of confession not only as the ‘housekeeping of the soul,’ but as a spiritual medicine, a balm that lifts the burdens that weigh our souls down and eases the inner sufferings caused by the passions. This prepares us even more completely to approach the chalice with love and faith and receive Holy Communion with a peaceful conscience.

[Editorial by Vladika Lazar]
The holy fathers theologised in a different manner than later theologians, except for those who maintained the awareness that theology deals with “mystery” and that it was approached by Theoria rather than reflective reasoning. Perhaps this is precisely why Saint Gregory the Theologian says of theology:
The holy fathers did not theologise lightly, and not for the sake of religious philosophy. In general, their primary works were responses to challenges to aspects of the Symbol of Faith, indeed, challenges to the sacred tradition which had formed the elements of the Symbol of Faith. Much of their theologising consisted in more complete explanations of those elements. Christian theoria (the word is Greek and acquired a different connotation when it was adapted to explain Christian theology) contains the ideals of prayerful contemplation, revelation and vision. Most significantly, it dealt with revealing as much about God as could be known by humans, and explaining, as best as human language can, the relationship between humanity and God.
This means that our theology was mystical; that is, it dealt with things that are genuine mystery without exceeding the boundaries set around them. Hesychastic theology opens insights into the spiritual life and the means for inner transformation and the synergism between man and the Holy Spirit in the process of the Theosis. This would include such writings as Saint Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of the Prophet Moses and the revelations that we received through Saint Symeon the New Theologian, though they are not often given the sobriquet “hesychastic theologians.” St Gregory Palamas was not introducing something new into theology, rather he was drawing on traditional modes of Orthodox Christian mystical theology.
When we go beyond that and seek to create a “theology of daily life,” and a
theology of behaviour, etc., we have exceeded the boundaries that properly belong to theology and enter into philosophy, unless we wish to admit to only a philosophy based on theology. It is in this realm of philosophy–as–theology, that we create ideologies. The ideologies of some portion of one century are not always appropriate to a succeeding century. A theology of kingship is one example. Excessive philosophising in the realm of anthropology is another area that draws us into ideology rather than sound theology. We can clearly see this from the way that advancementsin medicalscience and neurobiology demonstrate how wrong we were about many aspects of the subject in previous centuries. Having treated theology as legislation, we are trapped in ideologiesthat are difficult for us to extricate ourselves from when they are demonstrated to be in error.
One of the problems which as created a major conundrum for us over the last two or three centuries has been “theology as legislation.” And this also brings us to the understanding of the canons of the church. I do not know when the concept of “canon law” actually developed, but it is another area in which we paint ourselves into untenable corners. The canons were given at different times and in different locations in the framework of the culture and society of the day. When they refer to elements of the Symbol of Faith, they are immutable. Those canons which do not deal with the elements of the Symbol of Faith reflect the time, place, culture and social perspectivesin which theywere drawn forth to attempt to create “balance” rather than to legislate. Thisis why it is clear that our culture is much less “Judeo Christian” than Greco-Roman.
When we produce such “absolute” legislation in one century, we cannot expect that our legislation will be appropriate a thousand yearslater, and the absolutes which we have legislated may well be proved to be not merely a philosophical interpretation informed by a local culture, with its limitations and “reality tunnel” but obsolete, inappropriate and sometimes erroneous, lacking in understanding of the true nature of things. In such instances, they can actually become a hindrance to the preaching of the Gospel in a time and place starkly different from the one in which the original legislation was contrived, and at a time when science was rudimentary.
Our knowledge of reality will continue to grow and will often show the
concepts of nature and reality of previous centuries to have been significantly deficient. Once we have legislated those things, they become ideology rather than life-bearing theological precepts and guidelines to balance life. One example of the error of “theology as legislation” is the manner in which doctrine and dogma were drawn away from the original revelation into dry juridicalism rather than life-giving revelation. “Theology as legislation” and the canons as legislation have often entrapped us in an ideology or series of ideologies that are demonstrably untrue and at odds with advances in actual knowledge. Since we have legislated those concepts and turned them into ideology, it becomes difficult to return to the original purpose of theology as theoria rather than as reflective reasoning within the framework of the cultural norms of one given society and epoch in the development of philosophy. One can see the results of this in much of the 21st-century “deconstruction of religious faith,” much of which is driven by the patent untruth of much of our religious legislation-cum-ideology from previous centuries. We are often found in the unfortunate, untenable position of defending the fetishes and superstition of previous epochs (such as the late iron age or fear-ridden “dark ages”.)
Inasmuch as we have maintained theology as “revelation in theoria”– mystical theology – rather than as “theology as legislation” through reflective philosophical speculation and the influences of a given culture in a given period in history, with its limitations on knowledge and understanding of reality, we remain on firmer ground.
However, “theology as legislation” is really quite crippling and can even undermine the Gospel of Jesus Christ and lead to the politicisation of the ideologiesthat we have thus created and bound ourselves to.

The same can be said of the application of those canons which do not deal with the elements of the Symbol of Faith. We end up, for example, pitting an ancient demonology against the constantly developing knowledge in medical and psychiatric science, and certainly in opposition to the unfolding knowledge and reality exhibited in neurobiology and even physiology. “Theology as legislation” must inevitably collapse into ideologies, often quite untenable ones, unsustainable ones that cannot stand up in the face of our increasing knowledge and understanding of reality but which are often violently defended nonetheless.
All modern theology, especially that which has been subverted by the juridical mentality, is more properly named “philosophy about theology,” a series of rationalistic attempts at explicating “mystery” in a carnal and legalistic manner, with more than a hint of the dialectic of the Roman law court, which serves more to undermine Faith and the teaching of Christ than to establish it. As an example, the foolish attempt to “prove God’s existence” by sophistry and manipulating words is more likely to be seen as our lack of certainty about the existence of God. We end up with “the God of the gaps” rather than a secure faith in God, which comes from our own spiritual experience.
There is much more to be said, but this is a basic outline of our considerations. All modern theology that I have encountered isreally speculative philosophies about theological subjects and often attempts to explain things that we are simply not competent to explain. Our theology is traditionally mystical and existential, a revelation of as much as can be known by humans about God and our relationship with Him, and not speculations beyond those boundaries. Much of the theological writing of our day is, in fact, rehashing ancient theological controversies in a philosophical manner with no sign of theoria. “Theology as legislation” rather than revelation is an anchor that pulls the gospel down and contributes little to our spiritual life and struggle for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and inner transformation.


by Archbishop Lazar Puhalo

ZOOM SYMPOSIUM as of Thursday, 16 June, 2022 Morality vs Moralism.


The question about holy water and the blessing of the water comes up occasionally, although it perhaps should come up more often. I want to say something about it, but in the most direct and simple way, let me say that when you bless holy water on Theophany or at any other time, as you lower the cross into the water, try to call to mind and even picture in your mind, Moses lowering the two-branched limb into the bitter waters of Mara, thus converting it from toxic water to sweet water for the Hebrews.>>> You might also want to picture Moses opening and closing the Red Sea by making the sign of the cross with the staff: a downward stroke to open it and a cross stroke to close it. But let us look at the creation narrative first of all, and understand that the creation narrative in Genesis is not an historical account, but a spiritual account that is replete with revelation. We will not discuss here the revelation about the nature of mankind and the development of our alienation from God. Notice that in the narrative we are told that the Holy Spirit hovered over the waters of the earth – not just “passed over,” but as the Hebrew says, He hovered over the waters.

How this might have something to say about next Sunday’s reading for the Sunday of the Blind Man, we will not discuss here, but Christ did uniquely require the washing with water before the blind man actually did receive his sight, washing away the clay with the waters from the pool of Siloam.>>>In many of the prayers we refer to ourselves as “clay” and clay requires both water and dust, just as Christ made when he placed the poultice on the eyes of the blind men. The Holy Spirit hovered over the waters bringing forth life from the oceans, which God would have blended with the dust when he made man, as apostle Paul says, like a potter making a clay pot. The Holy Spirit hovered over the waters in a manner that is sanctifying and life-giving.

Although they were not submerged, apostle Paul tells us that the Hebrews were “baptized by Moses in the Red Sea.” After that, we see the prototype of our ritual of blessing water at Mara with the blessing of the bitter waters. Why God chastised Moses for striking the rock to bring forth water in the Sinai desert instead of speaking to it, we cannot be certain, but he did strike it with his rod and it gushed forth water abundantly for the Hebrews in the wilderness. Apostle Paul refers to it as the “rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ.”

The use of water for sanctification and for blessing occurs often in the Hebrew Scripture. However, when it comes to the ritual we use for the blessing of water, you should see the event with Moses and the two-branched limb lowered into the water at Mara as the prototype for our own divine service of the blessing of water. We see exactly the same aspect of this ritual from Mara in the blessing of the baptismal waters, as we lower the cross into the water, and we also understand that as, through the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the primordial waters, life came forth, so now in baptism, through the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the waters, new life comes forth, a rebirth, a regeneration. But the healing of the bitter waters of Mara is the prototype for our own divine service in the Holy Mystery of the blessing of waters. page

Approaching The Educated Person in the Post Christian Era
In causal terms, the presence of oxygen is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for fire. Oxygen plus combustibles plus the striking of a match would illustrate a sufficient condition for fire. (William L. Reese)1
The general subject of this conference is “The Cultured (or Educated) Person in the Age of De-Christianisation.”

The process of de-Christianisation in Western nations did not begin just recently; nor is it the product of any single era, movement or influence. In part, the disintegration of a unified Christian entity in Western Europe was the result of the degeneracy and corruption of the clergy, from the very highest levels to the lowest. This disintegration laid the groundwork for the mistrust of the Christian faith that slowly grew in the more educated classes of Western society. If one could place a single incident at the root of actual de-Christianisation, it would likely be the trial of Galileo. The condemnation of Galileo by fundamentalist forces in the Latin Church set off a chain reaction throughout Europe that powered the original process of de-Christianisation. Giordano Bruno had been burned at the stake a short while earlier for the “crime” of Copernicanism: he asserted that 2 the earth moves around the sun, and that the heavens are not mobile, translucent solid rings pulled by spiritual entities. Galileo confirmed the ideas of both Copernicus and Bruno, and was threatened with death if he did not renounce the truth. Since his works, banned in Italy, were nevertheless published in Northern Europe, educated and cultured people throughout the West would see these incidents as a Christian war against truth.

There was no immediate tidal wave of de-Christianisation, but the glacier had begun to melt and the trickle of doubt would soon become a torrent. Christianity was so deeply engrained in the cultures of Europe that it would take another three centuries for something like a general de-Christianisation to become obvious.
With the trial of Galileo, a process of deconstruction began. At first this process was slow and related only to doubts about cosmological doctrines. It began to pick up speed, however, and accelerated like the ball which Galileo had rolled down an incline whose velocity accelerated at ft/sec2. With each century, this deconstruction increased like the squaring of the seconds in the acceleration in Galileo’s experiment.

The Protestant Reformation, which had made the dissemination of Galileo’s works possible, was the greatest process of deconstructionism in history. For centuries since the great schism, doubt had arisen about many of the teachings which developed in the Western Church. These doubts were greatly increased by the avarice and degenerate lifestyle of the clergy, especially the highest ranking clergy of all.

  1. Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion: Eastern and Western Thought
    (Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1981, p.381).
  2. He was also a Pantheist, which was part of the charge against him, however, our sense of morality has evolved by now to such a degree that we no longer tolerate burning at the stake people who disagree with someone.

The deconstruction of the Latin Church had already begun by the thirteen hundreds. In that era, the various Gnostic movements had gathered strength in Western Europe as they had earlier in the East. Much of the strength of the Gnostic movements lay in their protest against the degenerate living and the remoteness of the clergy in both the Byzantine and Latin Churches. After the sixteen hundreds, however, much deeper doubts arose. The accusations which Martin Luther had nailed to the door of All Saints Cathedral in Wittenberg on 31 October 1517 concerned only ecclesiastical matters. The doubts which were given birth by the burning of Giordano Bruno and the condemnation of Galileo on 21 June 1633 (both were deemed guilty of “Copernicanism”) were of a more all-encompassing nature. When Luther expressed doubts about the theology, life and worthiness of the Latin Church, he was only giving voice to doubts that had
been arising regularly for centuries. With Luther, the Western Church became engulfed in a flood of deconstructionism that we call the Reformation. It was inevitable that both streams of deconstruction should merge.

The deconstruction ushered in by the Galileo affair pertained not only to the Western Christian Church, but to Christianity itself. The Protestant Reformation led to the deconstruction of Christian Church history and tradition. It would ultimately undermine the very concepts of tradition and
hierarchical structure. At first this affected only the Church. As this deconstruction gathered force, however, regard for all tradition and hierarchical structure in society would be undermined. This would have enormous consequences which are still being dealt with in the twenty-first century. The undermining of the traditional family paradigm would be one of the most notable casualties of Protestant deconstructionism.

That other form of deconstruction, for which we take the trial of Galileo as being the first milestone, formed a direct challenge to the whole of Christianity and to religion itself. It was not that the emerging scientific revolution was in opposition to Christianity. Science did not create this deconstruction; rather it was the overbearing reaction of Christian leaders and intellectuals that created this process. It was Christian leaders themselves who created the greatest doubts in the minds of ordinary people about Christianity. The Reformation was the beginning of liberalism and liberal democracy. It ultimately made it possible for people to deny all forms of moral and spiritual authority. Not only was tradition abandoned in the understanding of faith and of the Scripture, but now each individual became his own personal authority in the interpretation of Scripture and of the Christian faith itself. The nearly hysterical reaction on the part of some Christian leaders to the writings of Charles Darwin only fed the flames of this deconstruction of Christianity. It is not that Darwin could not be read critically or that one could not disagree with his conclusions, but the panic
with which the response had been carried out has had a profoundly negative affect. Worse still has been the clearly dishonest response on the part of many fundamentalist Christians, not least of which is the fraudulent “scientific creationism,” which is enough to make many educated people leery of Christianity.
Thus we must in all honesty assert that the process of de-Christianisation was really inaugurated by Christian leaders and apologists. Fundamentalism, coupled with the undermining of regard for
authority and tradition, could only result in the undermining of the institution itself. If fundamentalist Christians were confused and led into hysteria by the truth itself and if, as the Protestants taught, sacred tradition and hierarchical structure are evil, then there is essentially nothing left of the movement founded by Jesus Christ and His apostles. There is no foundation left in a Christianity which has no living sacred tradition or authority by which it interprets the Scripture and symbols of the faith. Without a foundation there is left only a structure which will collapse when struck by a flood or an earthquake. The flood began slowly with the trial of Galileo and reached its peak with the debates about Darwin. The earthquake was unleashed earlier by the Protestant Reformation which itself destroyed the foundation and caused the structure to begin to crumble. Somehow, Protestantism has never managed to come to grips with the truth that, in undermining traditional structures and authority in the Church, they planted the seeds of the same deconstruction of society and family. Having accomplished this, their furtive quest for scapegoats has made it impossible for them to grasp the real problems and issues in the decline of family values and social structure.

This is why I have chosen to speak about the manner in which many of our contemporary clergy and Church leaders continue to undermine the possibility of faith and loyalty to the Church in our younger and more educated generation. We ourselves are a part of the movement of the deconstruction of the Christian Church and faith. I wish to suggest that this conference will be of little value if we do not discuss this aspect of the condition which we are calling “ the age of de- Christianisation.”
The term “de-Christianisation” now seems to us in the West to be a bit obsolete. For the past fifty years, we have been speaking of our “post-Christian era.” Let me begin by illustrating what we mean
by the “post-Christian era.”

The focus of this term has been on (1) the pulling back of church institutions from direct attempts to control public life, (2) the aspiration of those who preach the Gospel to be free to do so without having to do it within state influenced frameworks which threaten the political independence of the church, (3) the increased recognition that the people of God are not the majority much less the moral majority, but may always be leaven in the bread of our common life.
Let us approach the specific subject of “de-Christianisation” from a point of view that is all too often ignored. I would like to discuss briefly the manner in which some Christian leaders support and advance the process of the de-Christianisation of society.
I teach and lecture regularly at a number of universities in both Canada and America; including two or three Protestant institutions. During any given year, I will have an opportunity to speak to thousands of students, and to actually have conversations with a few hundred of them. The doubts
which are aroused in students at civil universities are not always different than the ones expressed by students in Christian colleges and universities. Both will mention Christian bigotry and hypocrisy, but the anti-science bias of fundamentalists will be mentioned more often in civil institutions. The
factors that push students in both types of universities or colleges away from Christianity are nevertheless often the same, although Christian students are more likely to raise genuinely theological questions. There is a tragic variation in these factors among the Orthodox Christian young people that I speak with, but these particular factors are not limited to the educated youth. While we have many educated Protestants converting to Orthodox Christianity, we also have more and more people born in the faith failing to attend divine services or leaving the church altogether.
Please allow me to offer some observations about these matters.
Educated young people are not less spiritual than previous generations. If anything, they are more spiritually inclined, and are seeking some spiritual foundation more than those who took religion for granted in earlier generations. Why, then, is Christianity less often the spiritual vehicle of choice and why are so many people who were reared in one or another of the Christian religions opting to find spiritual sustenance in other philosophical or religious movements? In the brief time that I have, I would like to share some of the conclusions of my own rather extensive experience in confronting these very questions “on the front line,” to borrow a military expression. I would also like to aim my remarks primarily at those of our own tradition, the leaders of the Orthodox Christian Church. There are four particular areas that I wish to touch upon today. Some of them may not yet be so obvious in Romania, but they will be, and they are quite important to our subject:
(1). Foremost among the afflictions which drive people away from Christianity is the spiritual illness called “fundamentalism.” It includes both a hyper-literalist interpretation of Scripture and a dry, dead moralism, and above all the neo-pagan doctrine of atonement has crept into some of the teaching in the Orthodox world.
(2). Clergy arrogance and remoteness. This includes the failure of many priests and hierarchs to interact with the faithful in a meaningful and personal way. It also includes the failure of clergy to continue to educate themselves so that they can give meaningful and convincing answers to the
questions raised by educated and cultured people.
Moreover, far too many priests, even those ill-equipped for it, declare themselves “spiritual fathers” in order to exercise power and manipulative control over their flocks, while not understanding the real meaning of parenthood (which is the true pattern for the spiritual father).

(3). Folk superstitions being taught as if they were doctrines of the faith, rather than the teaching of sound theology. This is often done by clergy who wish to manipulate and wrongfully control the faithful through fear. This problem affects Orthodox Christians more than any other Christian body
and occurs most frequently among monastics. It forms the most salient distraction from a Christcentred spiritual life in the Orthodox Church. Often these superstitions completely distract one from an awareness of the fulness of the grace of the Holy Spirit.
(4). Among educated people raised in the so called “evangelical” denominations of Protestantism, the most common complaint I hear is called “spiritual abuse.” This is one of the more common reasons given by converts for leaving those denominations and becoming Orthodox Christians. This “spiritual abuse” includes the enormous unhealed guilt complexes that are heaped on people for even the most basic aspects of their humanity.
Evangelical fundamentalism, along with our own scholastics and fundamentalists, are more responsible for the de-Christianisation of society than any other force in the world. The Orthodox Church is certainly not immune to its own forms of spiritual abuse.

The mass rally is so valuable because it is there that people abandon reason and accept oversimplified solutions (Adolf Hitler).

The abandonment of reason and the cruelty and evil of oversimplification is a hallmark of the new “religious right” movement in both Canada and America. While, on the surface, it appears to be a restoration of Christian influence, it is in reality a new Gnosticism fed and nourished by both the New Age Movement and a kind of deep structural fear.. Not only is it cruel, attempting to force dictatorial oversimplification on very complex matters of human existence and social life, it is also divisive. Each individual in this fundamentalist movement interprets one of 100 or more conflicting translations of Scripture as he or she “sees fit.” It is an almost demonically prideful and arrogant movement. The common thread, apart from its New Age Gnosticism is a fear of, and war against, sound and solid modern science. The “religious right” has come into a spiritual bondage to a mythological understanding of the Old Testament and of the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse). Many of its adherents are openly in favour of provoking their version of the “battle of Armageddon,” arrogantly supposing that they can thus hasten the return of Christ. Most of them adhere to the internally contradictory doctrines of “rapture” and at the same time, a purely Gnostic radical dualism in the nature of man. In the end, this movement with its cold moral fascism, is spawning a deep and
lasting disillusionment with Christianity; perhaps with religion in general.
The twin malignancies, as I consider them to be, of Fundamentalism and moralism are the foremost causes of the de-Christianisation of society in Canada and America and, I am certain, in Europe as well. They are harboured also in elements within the Orthodox Church, especially in some
monasteries and “lay brotherhoods.” For that reason, I want to address them first.
As I mentioned before, I speak at several universities and colleges in both Canada and America every year. Some of these institutions are Protestant and Roman Catholic seminaries or Evangelical Protestant universities and schools. You may be startled at what I have to say, but I have asked literally thousands of students over the years, “How many of you were born and raised in Christian homes, but have rejected or turned away from Christianity?” When I have counted the hands, it is often the majority of the students in the class or auditorium. I ask some of the students if they will
share with us the reasons for their decisions. The overwhelming majority of the answers are the same, and they are touched upon even in Christian institutions where the students have not completely rejected Christianity. Let me summarize them:

a. Dead Moralism:

Morality consists far more in how well we care for one another than in what sort of behaviour we demand of others. (Deacon Lev Puhalo, 1973)

It turns out that the Greek iconographer and philosopher Photios Kontaglou was correct when he said that the Western Christian concept of God is a primary cause of atheism in the West. Perhaps more clearly, the novel Western doctrine of redemption called “atonement” is the real culprit. Aside
from the fact that the doctrine leaves one with the impression that God has a personality that is at best an almost homicidal divine fascism, it is contrary to the doctrine and teaching of the ancient Christian Church, and was invented only in early medieval times. The fact that I have heard such
sentiments expressed literally thousands of times by students, and often by deeply believing Evangelical Protestant youth, as well as those who have already given up Christianity altogether, gives it profound meaning to our subject. Indeed, the second American President, John Adams, raised precisely this point in his correspondence with the third President of America, the Masonic deist Thomas Jefferson. I do not have time here to speak about this doctrine and how it opposes the Orthodox Christian doctrine of redemption, except to say that the Doctrine of Atonement really teaches us that Christ died to save us from God. What the doctrine has done to Western Christianity has been to reduce the Christian faith to a legal code of correct behaviour which is void of the element of internal struggle (askesis; podvig) for inner transformation and the transfiguration of the
heart and mind of the believer. This legal code is expressed, not in genuine morality, but in a selfrighteous and arrogant system of dead moralism when Christianity is reduced to an ideologically based programme of “correct behaviour.” It is rendered lifeless and meaningless. This vapid ideology
has had to be shored up by turning churches into centres for shallow entertainment, self-centred hymns that reinforced ego and self righteousness and abolishes the idea of struggling for the transformation of the inner person into a living pattern of true morality. It is clear beyond contradiction that this self-righteous moralism is used as a weapon to persecute and harass others who might not share the Pharisaic interpretation of external moralistic behaviour. It does not provide the spiritual means of attaining a truly moral life in Christ. Even many Orthodox clergy in North America now reject, either tacitly or openly, the concept of spiritual struggle for the transformation of the heart, especially degrading the fasts of the Orthodox Church and discouraging people from
observing them.

One of the forces in de-Christianising cultured and educated society is one of the major focuses of fundamentalist political activism. A primary thrust of this activism is a war against modern science, accentuated by a general disregard of the needs of the poorest elements in society. This war, which has been joined by some Orthodox clergy, undermines the Christian witness to our unfolding knowledge concerning authentic social problems. This hinders valid and constructive Christian input into the resolution of urgent social issues when arguments are offered from a moralistic, ideological system rather than from some reasonable Christian perspective. This has driven many people to question the entire Christian message. It has helped to undermine our objections to open abortion and our efforts to preserve marriage and encourage young couples to make a firm commitment in
marriage rather than simply living together. In part, this is because dead moralism speaks in terms of absolute “black and white,” and fails to relate its version of morality to the realities of life and to authentic spiritual struggle. It should be obvious to any thoughtful observer that there is no such thing as absolute “black and white” in the human condition; everything should be seen rather in shades of grey. Everyone is in transit; none of us has yet arrived at the destination to which Christ has called us. Moreover, morality cannot successfully be taught in overly simplistic concrete terms of “good and bad.” We must give meaning to morality and teach it in terms of its actual ramifications in the life of society and of the individual. Constantly asserting morality in terms of “God will do something terrible to you if you do not do as we tell you to do” is not only ineffective, but it holds God up to derision. Moral law is not simply some arbitrary preference on the part of God; true morality is given to protect us from immediate negative consequences in this present life, and to make civilised society possible. God has given us moral instruction as an act of love and concern for our well being, not simply as an expression of divine fetishes and pique, as it is so often taught.
I am certain that this is a “hard saying” for many, but I respectfully ask that you open your minds and think about it seriously and with prayer, because we have far too many scholastic moralists in the Orthodox Church who are also destroying the Christian faith in the minds of educated and cultured young people. In every conversation I have had with students who are Evangelical Protestants, both in their own institutions and in civil universities, a number of them will always remark that the Christian teaching they have received leaves them with nothing but a heavy burden of guilt with no way to work it out, and that attempts are made to cover over this darkness with shallow, light-minded hymnology, various entertainments and trance inducing emotionalism (which is an invitation to delusion) in place of authentic worship. This is, as I mentioned, a common story that we hear from the thousands of converts from Evangelicalism to Orthodoxy in both Canada and America. The Orthodox Church, however, has its own disconnects and tragedies.

Moralism is a kind of religiosity which seeks to label and condemn external behaviour. It demands an abandonment of what it has labelled “bad,” without a deep analysis of its roots and causes and without offering a constructive programme of spiritual struggle. What it almost always
accomplishes is merely to drive the behaviour into hidden fulfilment. If often hides real wickedness under a cloak of religiosity and consistently confirms our dictum that moral outrage is a form of involuntary confession. Just as patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, so moralism is the last
refuge of the corrupt and devious man.
This same emotionalistic, but dry and lifeless, scholastic moralism is a cancer in many places in the Orthodox Church. We need to speak about this at some length on an occasion when there is time to do so. For the moment, let us allow St. John Chrysostom to speak to us with a brief word of instruction. “It is of no avail to hold right doctrine but neglect life; nor does it contribute to our salvation to gain virtue but neglect true doctrine.” (3 3.Commentary on Genesis, Homily 13:4.)

B. Fundamentalism:

Henceforth I spread confident wings to space:
I fear no barrier of crystal or of glass:
I cleave the heavens and soar to the infinite.
Giordano Bruno, 1591

The moralism I have just described is a part of all the fundamentalisms in the world: Christian, Islamic, philosophical, political: all of them have some form of dry, dead moralism that they put forth as part of their raison d’être. The other kind of fundamentalism we need to address here is the bible-literalism aspect of it. We have touched upon it briefly above. When fundamentalist Christians insist on absolute literalism in biblical interpretation, they make atheism inevitable among a substantial portion of educated and cultured people. At the root of this travesty is the demand that
people must believe things that have clearly been proved false in order to be “good Christians.” Fundamentalist Christians who insist that we must believe that dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time, or that the earth, even the universe, are no more than 10,000 years old, and that no form of evolution took place in God’s plan and direction of creation: these people and their ideology are the real force behind the growth of atheism in our society. Indeed, fundamentalist Christians are the foremost cause and moving force behind the de-Christianisation of Western Society, and they will be the primary cause for this same de-Christianisation in Orthodox Christian societies as well. Not only do they teach that Christ died to save us from God (rather than the Orthodox Christian doctrine of redemption from the power of death and bondage to Satan, and theosis), but they demand that we must choose between God and truth, but cannot have both.

Fundamentalism can thrive only in an atmosphere and culture of ignorance. In America today, we see the tragic spectacle of fundamentalists forming political movements in an attempt to force public schools to stop teaching modern science and physics because it contradicts their religious
ideology and egoistic models of reality. Yet, I have met thousands of deeply believing and faithful highly educated young people whose faith has not been shaken at all by the discovery that dinosaurs were extinct millions of years before humans appeared, that the earth is four billion years old, that
the time frame and chronology of the first few chapters in Genesis is not literally accurate, and that there is irrefutable evidence of some form of evolution taking place as God’s eternal will and plan has unfolded in our universe. These young people have a vital, living faith in God and in Jesus
Christ, while fundamentalists actually do not have faith but can only take refuge in their lifeless ideology, which is racing toward an empty cul-de-sac. It is a catastrophe when people think in terms of “absolutes,” especially when they think they possess “absolute truth,” or absolute reality. For one
thing, if you think that way, you become incapable of growth, development or even of adventure. For another, you will be inclined to persecute other people, never realising that you yourself have become an emotional, intellectual and moral cripple.

Truth is never harmed by reality. Falsehood and error can never substantiate the truth of the Gospel. While our fundamentalists are busy creating conflicts where none actually exist and raising doubts in young people where none need be found, they appear unaware that faith is ultimately a matter of orientation rather than of ideological indoctrination. This is why so many believing, educated people are not the least bit troubled by the ideas of modern science, and their belief in God and their profound faith in Jesus Christ are sure and deeply founded. This is because they have a living faith in God, rather than a crippled dependency on an ideology that passes for faith.
Among the other tragedies of literalist fundamentalists is the fact that so much of the actual meaning of the Creation Narrative in the Bible is lost to them. They are so busy arguing for the literal, scientific accuracy of their own interpretation of the narrative that they completely neglect the rich and powerful spiritual meaning of it, a message and meaning which cultured and educated people can appreciate and accept, and come to have faith in.
Just as truth is never harmed by reality, so truth can never be served by a lie.


It is of no avail to hold right doctrine but neglect life; nor does it contribute to our salvation to gain virtue but neglect true doctrine. (St. John Chrysostom)

This brings me to the subject of clergy interaction and Christian education, and particularly the education of seminarians who are going to be the priests, ministers and teachers in the Christian world.

A. Clergy Interaction:

When I speak of the failure of many priests and bishops to engage themselves with the people, the world and the great civil dialogue, I am not speaking specifically about “giving answers.” Later in this paper I will address the matter of clergy continuing to educate themselves so they can give “meaningful and convincing answers.” I am not speaking particularly about the priest as “a giver of answers,” however, and I want to frame this part of our discussion in another way. “Answers” are like giving sound-bits or offering what we call “pop-ups” on the computer monitor, while “engaging” seekers in the meaningful questions in their lives is an act of spiritually and conversationally walking with them in this life and leading them with humility. It also means that, when necessary, they commend them to others who can lead them into the landscape of meaning and the sources of meaning that is the lifelong work of Christian formation and dialogue. What I wish we could expect from clergy is that they have a grip on the important questions of life. Only this could enable them to open up the conversation with their flocks, especially the youth, bringing together the particular currents of our contemporary life (personally, socially and culturally). Only in this way can they frame these pressing questions and express how the landscape of the Church Tradition provides us with context, sign-posts, sensibilities and teaching so we can think clearly and deeply about our life and the life of the world. Only by fully understanding this connection between the Sacred Tradition and the real life of the world can one become illumined and speak with wisdom about the authentic
life of people in the world — not with ideology, but with real knowledge and wisdom. Truth opens our eyes, makes our hearts elastic and makes it possible for us, the clergy, to speak healing words rather than engendering emotional and moral bondage.

The lack of meaningful interaction with the faithful outside of the liturgical services is a serious problem. It leaves people to seek outside the faith for answers and guidance in many pressing questions. Some will turn to superstitions, others to non-Christian sources, most to the New Age Movement. It is true that many of our priests have too narrow an education to be able to frame discussions and offer guidance in ways that are meaningful and useful to the more educated young people of our era, or to cultured older people. In fact, this does not matter much when the priest is
open, warm and loving in his interactions with his flock, so long as he does not attempt to answer questions that he is not equipped to answer. The sincere care and love that the priest or bishop gives to his people is actually more powerful than any ability he may have to dialogue and answer broader questions.

The clergy are not called upon to be oracles, experts with all the answers. None of us, clergy or laity, are called to be ultimate experts. We are called to engage the world and the culture around us without flinching, seeking what is in the heart, not just what is said. We are called upon to learn to understand the gravity of the enquiries placed before us and cultivate for ourselves a refined way of asking important questions. Then we are, to the extent that we are able, to open up the Gospel and Tradition as landscapes of meaning that help us learn how to engage the spiritual longing coming
to greet us in the questions and enquiries we encounter. We must do this without fear and prejudice, taking delight in the opening up of the person with whom we are talking and his or her desire for knowledge. (4 These are issues that by my colleague David Goa and I have been advocating for the past two or three decades, and the ideas expressed come from our own discussions of these points.)
However, all the love and care that a person may have by nature cannot offset the damage that can be done by the clergyman who does not acknowledge his own limitations and understand the necessity of sometimes referring people to other professions.

B. Teaching and Education:

(1) An approach to teaching philosophy:

We need to carefully re-examine our seminary programmes. Let us ask ourselves if perhaps too much time is spent teaching Western philosophy, and too little time is spent on in depth study of the holy fathers. It is important to examine philosophy, but actually, most of the noted philosophers are utterly irrelevant to anything taking place in the world around us. I understand the value of teaching philosophy when it is taught as an engagement in the great human dialogue, and for the purpose of
a development of critical thinking among the students. When one teaches these various philosophers in place of contemporary studies, however, or teaches them in the same context as the holy fathers, then we are actually crippling these future clergy in the kind of pastoral impact they need to have on contemporary educated and cultured people — particularly the younger generation. Too often, when patristic studies are tied together with philosophy, we end up corrupting the dynamic spiritual teaching of St. Gregory Palamas, St. Symeon the New Theologian and other of the great holy fathers, with neo-Platonism or Aristotelian rationalism.

The theories of epistemology, general learning, the way the brain and mind function, etc., which have been advanced by the philosophers have been disproved by medical and scientific research, and far more attention needs to be paid to the more accurate discoveries of modern science. In the end,
we corrupt the grid through which theology should be understood. We teach students how non-Orthodox thought developed, but do not teach them the development of Orthodox Christian thought. We teach them Hellenistic, Latin and German rationalism, but do not teach them about the
existential encounter with mystery that constitutes the source of true Orthodox Christian theology.

Modern Western philosophy was developed by non-Orthodox theorists, many of them deist thinkers. Moreover, it was all done within the grid, and the vocabulary, of medieval scholasticism, which has the very opposite texture to Orthodox Christian theology. This has proved to be, as Canadian philsopher David J. Goa phrases it, “a dead-end but we must realise that it is an important dead-end that continues to reverberate in our public culture; and thus it must be understood.” The question is how and in what context we can understand it. When it is taught as a continuing tradition of learning it simply continues the historic problems and errors which permeate the Scholastic system — that is, the radical break from the Orthodox Christian holy fathers and the living Tradition of the faith. It informs religion with merely human rationalistic traditions rather than the living Tradition of the faith which Apostle Paul enjoined us to hold fast to. The tragedy of Western philosophical theology is not that people read Plato and Aristotle but that they did not read the Church fathers in their own context. Certainly they have not read Plato and Aristotle in the way that the holy fathers read them, “turning them on their heads [giving radically different meanings to the words and concepts which they expressed] while using their vocabulary to make sense of the world and of the human nature.” To read (5 The expression is from a lecture of David Goa. ) these great philosophers in any other context relating to theology, is to advance the cause of anti-Christian culture. I offer as a cautionary note that one of the responses to this misreading is that philosophical constraint was jettisoned in the development of a curious kind of scientism, which has been ushered in to replace it. And with all this, we still fail to read the Church fathers and fail once more to turn the philosophers’ quest for meaning around, reverse it, turn it upside down and thus recover the life of the world.

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle did establish the groundwork for laying many superstitions to rest but their disciples ushered superstition in by the back door as we know so well from the works of Plotinus, Origen, Augustine of Hippo and others. (6 The philosophers have contributed immensely to the great human dialogue, and produced a systematic method of thinking. In many cases, the helped shape the foundations of modern science. Within their own contexts they have profound insights. They are not, however, theologians and we cannot form our models of reality from philosophy, rather we can contemplate them in terms of the intellectual disciplines that philosophy had provided when our contemplations are informed by modern science.)

I suggest that we need a short course included in our philosophy classes, in Western thought that would unveil this foundational issue and map its patterns through the Reformation thinkers, through Kant to the present day. But here is the issue. Philosophy must be studied but not as it is done in many seminaries where the first academic degree is in philosophy. We would do well to begin with the Gospels and the fathers and, having laid this proper foundation, we would then be able to engage the Western philosophical tradition of scholasticism for what it is: an enormous lost weekend shaping the mind of the modern world through the patterns of dualism and distorted dialectical thinking.

(2) Approaching life sciences:

What is perhaps more important to our present era is that in seminaries, all dry, scholastic philosophy classes should be limited and more emphasis placed on life sciences, basic physics and above all, on the holy and God-bearing fathers. We lose credibility with educated people when we are unable to engage in even the most basic and simple conversations that include these subjects, or when we respond to them with some sort of fundamentalism or condescension. In February of this year, I was engaged with a group of university students during the agape at a Parish near Vancouver. Over the agape meal, one of them wanted to discuss the pros and cons of cosmic string theory. The discussion lasted for over an hour and was quite animated. Through it, these students increased in their sense of security in the Orthodox Christian faith. Naturally, no one expects every clergyman to be able to engage in that type of discussion, but one should expect the clergy not to respond to it with condescension, fear or retreat. It is far more effective to say honestly, “I am not versed in that subject, so I cannot discuss it adequately.” Moreover, when young people in our area raise such issues, many of the Orthodox clergy, and a few Protestants ministers recommend that these people come to our monastery for such discussions because we can provide someone from among the clergy who can discuss it with them. Giving modern seminarians a basic vocabulary in physics and life sciences is a great help. It is also advisable that there be enough interaction among the clergy themselves so that they know which one to refer people to for more specialized questions. For example, we have a Romanian priest in Vancouver who is a neurobiologist. As you all are aware, however, sometimes petty jealousy and envy prevent this. Some priests in our era have a feeling of “proprietorship” over their parishioners and, as the late Patriarch Alexei of Moscow once pointed out, this sometimes goes so far as to include cultish control and manipulation of the people by a priest or bishop. This tragedy, too, is part of the stream of forces that are helping to de-Christianize our society.

C. Education in General:

Teaching students “by rote” or mere memorization, simply reading to them or lecturing at them is not education; it is sheer indoctrination, the creating of ideologies, not the forming of sound knowledge and vital faith. Education involves interaction and dialogue; the formation of the ability for critical thinking and reasoning. It sometimes involves a professor frankly and honestly admitting that he or she is not able to give a satisfactory or meaningful answer to a question and suggesting where a student might go to find that answer. A professor who seeks to present himself as an oracle
rather than a human teacher is quite unconvincing and soon loses the trust of his or her students.

We truly need to give time in our seminaries and schools to subjects that will equip our seminarians to engage in meaningful dialogue with the contemporary world. We can do this without puffing them up so that they cannot also minister to less educated and simpler people. To the extent that we do spend time in the study of the philosophers, we need to make the subjects more vital than is usually the case. The study of philosophy should always be viewed as participation in the great human dialogue, the unfolding of the process of critical thinking and the mastering of organised and systematic thought. In this respect, we should be giving as much attention and credence to non-Western philosophers as to Western ones.
Let us also remember that modern science developed out of the philosophical process, and moved beyond the speculations of philosophy to testable and provable discoveries. The speculations of antique philosophers about the way the human brain works, the way we learn and about knowledge (epistemology) is no substitute for teaching the truth about these subjects. The reality about the way the brain operates, thinks and learns is to be gained from hard science, not from philosophers. The study of the philosophers, when not offset by a careful study of the holy fathers also leads to heretical thinking. For example, Plato and most of the Western philosophers were dualists, whereas almost all of the holy fathers make a point of refuting dualism and condemning it as heresy. Emanuel Kant, although he was a dry, scholastic moralist, taught that true morality is attained without resort to God, and he negated altogether the need for a life in Christ.

I would like to add that when professors and teachers sit on a stage, behind a table and talk down to the students, they appear like petty bureaucrats or automated statues. One can hardly make a class an exciting learning experience with any real relevance while teaching in this medieval manner. It is especially crippling and empty when the professor does not engage in dialogue with the students and encourage their critical thinking. Before the Soviet revolution, Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky of Russia had warned leaders in the Russian educational system that if they did not teach the students active critical thinking, the students would all end up as socialists. They would not be able to think critically about the promises and egalitarian philosophy of socialism and many would (and did) accept it uncritically. He proved to be correct. We, in our time, if we do not teach critical thinking and have active dialogue with our students, will drive some students away from the Church and equip our seminarians to help de-Christianize our society when they become clergymen.

Philosophy and all the most brilliant philosophers put together have never given, and could never give any real meaning to life, to the world, to the universe. Nor have they any capacity to form a convincing goal for life or for the world itself. The raison d’être, the goal, the destiny of life of mankind and of the world lies outside this world. It can be approached throug worship and prayer, but not by philosophy and worldly knowledge. But, and I wish to stress this strongly, this in no way negates the quest for knowledge and understanding in this world by means outside the Church and the faith. Our task is to participate in this quest for knowledge in the world without condescension or condemnation, and add to it the final conclusions, opening the door to ultimate meaning and creating a world of meaning that ultimately fulfils the worldly knowledge gained through science and thought. What we have to add to the knowledge gained in the world is the knowledge of God and the pursuit of a life in Jesus Christ.


“The offering of thanksgiving again is common: for neither doth he give thanks alone, but also all the people. For having first heard their voices, when they assent that it is `meet and right’ to do so, then he begins the Eucharist.” (St John Chrysostom, Homily 18, on 2nd Corinthians, 4th century.)

“When all make their profession of the divine faith together, they anticipate the mystical Eucharist…In making that thanksgiving, the worthy confirm their gratitude for God’s kindness, having no other way to reciprocate God’s infinite blessings.” (St Maximos the Confessor, The Mystagogia, 34:31 7th century).
“The priest says: Let us give thanks unto the Lord.’ the people affirm: It is meet and right’ to send up hymns of thanksgiving.” (St Germanos of Constantinople, Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, 41. 8th century).

“The celebrant addresses to God this act of thanksgiving: Let us give thanks unto the Lord’ The faithful give their consent, saying: It is meet and right’.” (Nicholas Kavasilas, Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, Ch.26. 14th century).

“Ah, the power and prejudice of custom…” laments St. John Chrysostom in his homily condemning the practice of not receiving Communion every Sunday. It is the power of custom rather than the Sacred Tradition of the Church that holds many of our Church leaders under its sway. Part of this stifling custom is based in a certain elitism and arrogance of our clergy. Whatever its basis, the power of custom prevents us from making adjustments and changes to practices in the Church, which are necessary in order to address and hold the faithful in the Church in the long term. We are not talking about some sort of “renovationism,” or altering of Sacred Tradition and liturgical integrity. We are indicating a need to reassess various customs that may in themselves contradict the essence of liturgical worship. The continued exclusion of the faithful from a full participation in the divine services is a problem that all of us must come to grips with sooner or later. In America and Canada, this has gone so far that we find some priests and hierarchs even discouraging the faithful from keeping the canonical fasts of the Church. A more immediate problem is that the faithful are not permitted in many places to join the singing of the responses in the divine services when, in fact, we should be encouraging them to do so. In the Greek Church in Canada and America, the bishops have introduced, sometimes by force, organs and pianos into the churches. Often, the antiphons are replaced by organ recital music, but the faithful still do not participate in singing or chanting in what is left of the Liturgy. Apostle Peter refers to the faithful as a “royal priesthood,” and the word “laity” is an abbreviation of the Greek “laos to theou” “the people of God.” How is it that we clergy are so enamoured of ourselves, so arrogant, that we desire to exclude the “people of God” from participation in the services as much as possible, primarily in order to uphold our own exaggerated high
opinion of ourselves?

This problem includes not only the failure to encourage the faithful to join the singing of the Divine Liturgy (and “Liturgy” is understood in the Orthodox Church as “the work of the people”), but also our failure to encourage regular and frequent Communion of the Holy Mysteries. Stop and think about it without the prejudice of custom for a moment. The obnoxious and meaningless custom of opening and closing the royal doors and curtains during the Divine Liturgy is based on nothing else except the rank of the clergyman serving that day. We once read in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate of a priest in Moscow who had been given, as an award, the right to serve the first part of the Liturgy with the curtain half open. Meanwhile, it is likely that very few of the faithful were approaching for Communion. The only argument I have ever heard for allowing priests of different rank to have the doors and curtains open for different portions of the Liturgy was that “it teaches the lower ranking clergy humility!”

As David Goa has stated, “The Liturgy is the highest form of the human story, and its most concrete expression.” ( 7 In an informal symposium.) The purpose of the Divine Liturgy is to bring the faithful to Holy Communion, not to teach some clergy humility and others pride! Whatever the origins of the custom of some clergy opening and closing the doors and curtains at differing times, depending upon rank and privilege, it is distracting and forms just another way of closing the faithful out of full participation in the Liturgy. In spite of unclever sophisms, no one has ever proposed an explanation of this custom
that has the slightest real meaning. Meanwhile, the faithful are seldom if ever taught the actual meaning of the actions and words which they see and hear during the Liturgy. How, then, do we expect educated and cultured younger generations to continue to attend the divine services? Protestantism at least offers participation in the services, as well as a great deal of shallow and empty entertainment; but this shallow entertainment is a big attraction for the “television generation.”

When we cling so fervently to meaningless customs based in vanity and self-importance, it ultimately becomes more difficult for us to hold fast to those things which do have meaning and which are needful.
The greatest thing we can offer to the world and culture in which we live is our common prayer with that great cloud of witnesses with whom we pray in the Divine Liturgy. Our prayer together, our common worship “with one heart and one mind” is our primary spiritual offering and work for the life of the world. It is our common work, not the work of the clergy and the choir or chanter: it is the work of God’s people together with the saints and angels.


Brethren, there would be nothing more unjust than our faith if it were only the sum of demonstrations which are wise and intellectual and abounding in words, for in that case simple people would remain without the acquisition of faith.(Saint Gregory of Nyssa).

There is a danger in reading the gifts of the secular simply as the loss of church power. While the secular is indeed a loss of religious power (and well it ought to be), the secular is a gift from the Christian tradition to both the life of the world and the life of the Church. To the Church, it provides the freedom from the corruption of worldly power so that it can regain authentic spiritual authority. To the world, it gives the freedom necessary to claim the Gospel and accept willingly its pathway to freedom and fullness of life. Moreover, to the Church, the secular makes it possible for it to reestablish its vocation as “leaven” so that the faithful may once more minister on all the margins present in the lives of people and in civil life. We have nothing to fear from an emerging secular society since “perfect love casts out fear.”

What it does require of us is a deep engagement, through our faith formation, in the suffering of the world. It does require of us that we live out our vocation modeled by the Holy Theotokos to be birth-givers of Divine love in the world and to do so without constraint, particularly the constraints that arise when the Church shares power with the State or sees itself as a power broker within society. The Christian Church is never going to hold such a position again in society, but we should not feel threatened by this; rather we should feel challenged to rise to and meet the new situation head on. We need to move into a post-Christian age with confidence, the confidence that comes from the recovery of the holy tradition and learning its sources and deepening the stance it gives us as the people of God instead of the arrogant stance shaped by the idea of being a people of the “dominant Christian culture” with all its requirements for self-interest and institutional interests, and the possibility of using the civil authority as a means to persecute others. Our gift is to witness the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not to govern the world or dictate the behaviour of others. Our gift is to join that great cloud of witnesses that has gone before us and seek to nurture the world, society and culture, and offer the healing of Christ’s words and presence to a world which we love and cherish, not one which we consider to be an enemy or adversary.

If we can accomplish this, then we may glimpse the energy of creation with an increased capacity to love God and minister in co-suffering love to His creation. We may then be able to heal the wounds of perception, the broken images of life which skew our regard for creation and for each other. Reality does not consist in abstract, disembodied ideas, but in that which we experience and the people whom we encounter. What we ultimately experience is that creation is good, even if man often does bad things with it and that we, if we pursue the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, may serve in some small way to help in the healing of our society and of the humanity around us, so dearly loved by God. Only then can we ever hope to turn back the tide of the de-Christianisation of culture and society.
Let a noted scientist have the last word:

Let everyone remember that the destiny of mankind is incomparable. Let him above all never forget that the divine image is in him, and in him alone, and that he is free to disregard it, to obliterate it, or to come closer to God by demonstrating his eagerness to work with Him and for Him. (LeComte Du Noûy, 1947).

Archbishop Lazar Puhalo
Readings for the five Sundays preceding the Great Lent.

(Meatfare Sunday)
Choosing our destination; planning the voyage.
{Saturday: 1Ths.4:13-17/Jn5:24-30;
Sunday: 1Cor.8:8-9:2/Mt.25:31-46}

“The day of death is better than the day of birth” (Eccl.7:1).
“Why rejoice when a ship sets sail upon a perilous journey; rather rejoice when it safely enters its harbour” (Hebrew commentary on Eccl.7:1).

Brethren, when one is about to take a journey, it is wise to look ahead to the destination, and to plan the voyage well. Many perils and dangers await the one who sets sail on a vast sea. No matter how well we plan, our lives remain an uncharted course, for no one knows what the dawning of each day will bring, nor whether, as dusk falls, he will live to see another dawn. Nevertheless, when a ship sets sail, not only the crew, but each passenger has made his plans and preparations for the end of the journey, when the destination is finally reached.
The Church has ordained that on this Sunday of preparation, as we make ready to sail on the voyage of Great Lent, we look forward to the end of our journey and contemplate our destination.
On Saturday, we celebrated the “great memorial” service, commemorating all those who have fallen asleep in faith, “in the hope of resurrection and life everlasting.”
In this service, we not only commemorated those who have already departed this life, but we contemplated the day of our own death. The Holy Church called upon us to remember that each of us must come to that final hour of earthly life, and so prepare ourselves for it.
To bring us through to a complete awareness and contemplation of our destination, we celebrate in advance the Second Coming of Christ and the Last Judgment on this Sunday.
Contemplating the end of our voyage on the sea of this worldly life is by no means morbid, and not altogether sorrowful. It calls upon us to prepare ourselves, through spiritual struggle and repentance, for those rewards which the Lord has promised to the faithful. The verses and readings of the services for both Saturday and this “Sunday of the Last Judgment” call to mind the terrible fate of those who do not take thought for their end, and who do not prepare, through faith, love and spiritual struggle, to come before the judgment seat of Christ.
All this is done to help make us ready for the fast, so that we might understand fully the purpose and meaning of our spiritual and physical fast, and make us aware of the nature of true fasting. Thus, in the Matins service of this Saturday we chant: “Dost thou fast? Do not deal treacherously with thy neighbour. Dost thou decline certain foods? Do not judge thy brother, lest thou thyself be judged and sent to that fire and burned like wax.”
As the end of our voyage in this life is death and the last judgment, the end of our journey of Great Lent is the glorious feast of the Resurrection of Christ. The end of both these journeys is summarized in a hymn of Saturday’s vespers:
“Thou, O Saviour, didst redeem us with Thine own precious blood. By Thy death, Thou didst deliver us from a bitter death, and by Thy Resurrection, Thou didst grant us life everlasting.”
As we read the hymns for this “Soul Saturday” and “Sunday of the Last Judgment,” we find instructions for planning our journey, navigational aids to plot the course of our voyage, a guide for making our preparations.
Beloved of Christ, bearing these things in our hearts, let us set forth on the journey of Great Lent with the vision of our destination clearly before us and, seeing the end even as we begin, let us, with joyous sorrow, make ready to depart, to cross the sea of Lent to Holy Pascha, to cross the sea of life to the longed-for harbour of Paradise.
May our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ be the captain and navigator of our vessel, to the glory of His Holy name, and of the Eternal Father and Life-bestowing Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.