Baptism of Converts

There is a pressing issue on how converts are to be received into the Church from various groups. The main area of varying opinion is the reception of converts who received a baptism in the name of the Trinity, especially from Anglicans or Roman Catholics. The seem to be two contrasting positions with those who insist on not rebaptising and those who do, e.g. Mt Athos. There is also a third position that allows for either approach: that is rebaptising is acceptable, and generally preferred, but not rebaptising may be acceptable as an economy provided certain conditions have been met.

Which position(s) conform to the Sacred Tradition? Looking through the debates and variety of views held in the early Church in which one party held that we should not rebaptise, St Stephen and St Leo the Great, Popes of Rome, and the other that we should, St Cyprian of Carthage and St Firmillian. St Basil the Great recommends maintaining the custom of the local Church but favours rebaptism and that the form of baptism be at least that of the Church in all points of faith. The Saints seem to contract themselves on a very serious matter. Is there a reconciliation of them or a common census to the matter by the Church? The answer is yes, although one that may not please those looking for a simple fixed approach.

Firstly, the Fathers accepted the Canon and hence arguments for St Cyprian of Carthage and thus rejected the argument of the Popes of Rome that insisted that the form of baptism must not be repeated because it can only be given once even though it does not confer any grace or salvation to those receiving the form outside the Church. The Fathers held that the one Baptism of the Church is the one conferred by a Priest of the Church not merely of the form. Outside the Church there is no Holy Spirit and hence no Priesthood and so no baptism, that is no baptism that brings man to be a son of God. (Note: the dependance of baptism of the Priesthood; it is not a function of the laity.) Also, rejected by both St Cyprian and St Leo is any effect of baptism outside the Church, at best the baptism is an empty form and nothing more. There was no sense that a baptism outside the Church caused the baptised to be “born again” nor to receive forgiveness of sins. Such a view is heretical and a denial of the Church and the mystery of one baptism.

However, the Fathers did not accept the position of St Cyprian without qualification. The Church, i.e. Christ, permitted converts from some heresies to be received only with Chrismation, i.e. by receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. Thus, while the Fathers rejected that the form could not be repeated by the Church, they accepted that the form could be received by the Church without repetition in certain cases and for the matter of economy. This is the position of St Basil the Great. This meant that the practices of those would insisted on not rebaptising did not affect the souls of those being received by Chrismation only and also enable certain converts of certain groups to be accepted without baptism, where there could be uncertainty about who baptised them but they knew that they received the form of baptism.

Where does this leave us with the converts of today? Canonically, all converts need to be baptised if they are not within the excepted groups mentioned by the Fathers in the Canons. However, following St Basil there is room for economy to be used in particular cases, such for example the Roman Catholics and this economy was used by various Fathers at times. This economy though does depend on the form of baptism applied outside the Church to be the same as that of the Church and this is the major issue regarding the present forms of baptism used outside the Church, which are no longer exactly as the Church baptises. Although, there is still sufficient connection that the form could be accepted being done in the Church by economy.

Although, as stated earlier, things are a bit vague regarding the limits of economy, i.e. the meaning of the same in all aspects of the faith, it would seem that the best option is to baptise all converts, excepting perhaps those from Uniate or recent schisms, who have exactly the same form of baptism. There is some room for those who are obstinate about already receiving a baptism to be received by Chrismation but there should be no rule that all members of a particular group should not be baptised on entering the Church. Also, any acceptance of some effect of the baptism outside the Church, that is outside the jurisdictions of canonical Orthodox Bishops, as somehow giving the baptised some connection to the Church should be rejected. This was thoroughly rejected by St Cyprian, whose the Fathers in the Ecumenical Councils accepted. There is no Priesthood outside the Church and hence no baptism, apart from empty form and this has been the consistent teaching of the Fathers both Eastern and Western.

The Court

Why the Court? This is an English means of expressing the Greek word transliterated as Bema. It is often translated judgement seat or tribunal. I will use Court, though, because it captures a range of meanings that can be understood in the Greek.

Why mention the Court? The area of Orthodox Temples were the Altar is located is named Bema in Greek. Why is this area called Bema? Because it is the Holy of holies, the symbol of the dwelling of God and the centre of His reign. Thus, the area is also defined by something other than the Altar, even though it is correct to define it by the Altar. A royal court is defined by the throne upon which we identify the sovereign. Thus also the Court of a Christian temple is identified by the throne. The throne is what chiefly identifes this area of the temple, not the Altar, which has is set before the throne, thus fulfilling the mystery of the dispensation of Christ.

So, when we build temples we must place a throne in this area and an altar before it, so it truly becomes the symbol of the dwelling and reign of God. It is not the Cross that is to be located at the eastern end but the Throne.

One place, one church

There is one Church. In the Old Testament this was realised with one place of worship. In the New Testament worship is permitted in any place. However, to maintain the mystery of one Church, only one church may worship in each place. The Church is centred on her Bishop, that is on Christ, who is one: one Christ, one Bishop. So, in each place there is only one Bishop.

The “area” of a place can only be defined by territory. This realises that the Church is in the world; it has a definable physical presence and location. This presence cannot be defined by other catagories. All mankind is one in Christ; there is neither Greek nor Jew. To define a church by human categories such as language, culture or ethnicity is to deny the union of all in Christ that transcends all human distinctions. It would be a human organisation defined by the human categories.

So, the present situation with Orthodox churches those Bishops have jurisdictions that are not only defined by exclusive territorial areas is in effect a denial of the Church. It is a situation that can only be justified by an heretical doctrine of the Church.

May we quickly repent of such organisation and order the churches as they should be by territories encompassing all Orthodox believers regardless of their human distinctions and trust that the one Christ is with each Bishop regardless on his language, ethnicity or other such distinction. As regarding liturgcal usages these are the right of the Bishop by better set by a region of Bishops, such as in a particular country, so that there may be consistency of practice.

May we also remember the tradition of order among the Bishops that was established to bring unity among the Bishops not by authority but by consensus. Also, none of the Bishops or Patriarches should act outside his territory with the consent of all.

Liturgy – the moment of change

Here is an essay submitted for my Master’s degree about the moment of change in the Liturgy. I look forward to some comments.
Liturgy

Some thoughts on time

These thoughts were made some time ago before I was Orthodox. They don’t necessarily represent the Fathers or the Tradition of the Church but they are a take on the issue that I think may be within the Tradition. Any thoughts or critiques?

I will begin by defining time as a measure of change. Things that change have a past, present and future. Things that do not change are said to be timeless because the past, present and future are indistinct and also there is no change to measure. Also, I understand that the future does not exist, expect as a potential, the present is an instant and lacks any permanence and the past also does not exist except as a memory. (Only timeless things truly exist in permanence.)

God is unchanging hence He exists without time. Creation has time because it is changing. Time began with Creation and will continue until Creation ceases to change; before Creation there was no time. We cannot think of what happened before because there was no change and we cannot say why did not God create earlier because there is no earlier. The first moment of Creation is the earliest time.

Time does not, therefore, have an eternal existence. It came into being with Creation. Like the rest of Creation it only existed in potential before the beginning of Creation. God’s existence cannot be referenced to Time; He lives beyond time and is unaffected by it. Time only has consequence to His creatures.

God being immutable cannot change with the events of time. Hence, He must know all future potentialities as if they were actual before Creation. When those potentials become present for the creature, this cannot affect God and they also do not make a change for God when they become past memories. His knowledge of things does not know any such difference.

Being omniscient God knows the future because the future potentials are knowable when they become present to the creature. If a creature knows something then so must God. Being Immutable the knowledge cannot come to God over time; He must know all things eternally.

God has given mankind free will. This means that man is free to make his own decision about things. Therefore, man is able to freely change some aspect or action of his. Because the future exists only in potential and not in actuality then the free choice of a man can make one potential actual for the man while others remain not so. Another choice will make a different potential actual for the man. This does not affect God because His knowledge is unchanged by potentials becoming actual for a man and His knowledge of potentials as actuals. Man’s free will is therefore consistent with God’s immutability and omniscience.

What about predicting the future? God is omnipotent so he can affect all things as He wills. If He determines that such an event should take place then He can make it happen; He is free. This is God’s providence in Creation. Note: all determinations of God were made before time and He does not change His mind. An apparent change of mind can occur because free choices actions of an individual can “trigger” a predetermined decision of God. Hence, a man prays for God’s mercy and then God “changes His mind” and relents from the threatened punishment. God had already determined to do so before time when the man actualised the future potential for prayer for himself and meet the “requirements” for God’s relenting. God can predict the future trials of a man because these things are brought to a man through God’s providence. However, God cannot necessarily predict a man’s salvation because the man’s free will actualises for himself salvation or damnation. It does not affect God whether a man is saved or not because He knows all future potentials including salvation of the man. The choices of men only affect themselves and those of limited knowledge. If Saints are to share the energies of God, including omniscience then they also will know the future potential of everyone being saved as if they were actually saved and they also will not be affected by the loss of sinners.

Because God’s decisions are all predetermined before time then all things He does are predetermined including the call, justification and glorification of man. He foreknows the potential salvation of all men and He has willed that all be saved. He has also determined the means for all to be saved. However, man must choose the triggers for these predetermined actions of God. If man chooses not to then God cannot and will not force them upon a man because God has given us free will.

Icons

Here is an essay about the theology of icons that may be of interest.

Icons

Canon Law – Can it change?

Here is a copy of a Canon Law essay that was recently submitted and received a distinction. It takes what may be described as a position of supporting an unchanging continuation of the Canons. This position is very hard to maintain due to the evidence. The relationship between the rhetoric of the Canons and the practical dealing with the Canons is difficult to reconcile. The essay is an attempt to substantiate the rhetoric more closely in trying to explain the practice in a manner that equates with the rhetoric of unchanging Canons. However, the marker found some of the arguments rather forced and unconvincing and even perhaps seemingly contradictory. Nevertheless, he commented that the essay does bring to the fore that the works of many modern writers on the subject have looked at the practice of change and from this have either dismissed or interpreted that rhetoric to make it of little effect and that this approach is not consistent with the tradition.

So, the essay is here, with its weaknesses, to provide some thoughts on the issues from a position seeking to remain faithful to the rhetoric by harmonising this with the historical practice. It is also a warning to those who hope or believe that another Ecumenical Council can make wide sweeping changes to the Church’s Canon Law or to its traditions.

I look forward to any comments or feedback to help develop understanding of these issues, which still require much theoretical work to come to a satisfactory answer.

Canon Law

Two Orthodoxies

I have thought to write this for a while but I have struggled to define what I understand as two diverging ways of thinking within the Orthodox Church today. These two streams are perhaps best illustrated with the Old Calendar schisms at perhaps one end, rather better to illustrate using the Monasteries on Mt Athos, and the in comparison the modern tendencies seen in some US and UK parishes.

Both groups claim a commitment to the Orthodox Faith and in some regard to Tradition. This latter point is where one can see the divergence most clearly; in how one regards the practice of Tradition and what they mean when they say “living Tradition”.

The best way of thinking about the motivation and mindset between the differences is rather more to do with the submission of the mind. Does one submit the mind to that of the Fathers and see and describe the world through their lenses, however, “out of touch” it may be with modern thinking or does one submit to modern thinking however “out of touch” it is with Patristic thinking (although this is rather a reinterpretation of the Fathers to fit with modern thinking by a process of accepting what is compatible and rejecting those parts not so by attributing them to cultural norms and influences of the Fathers’ time)? One in effect understands Tradition above time, place and culture and the other understands it as within culture and shaped by it. Both would argue that this is the mind of the Fathers and correctly corresponds with the Churches presence in the world: one tending to emphasise the eternal aspect and the other the historical.

Modern thinking has had a huge impact on Tradition and the work of many scholars has cut right to the root of Tradition and seemingly ripped the core out with their research and reinterpretation of history. The question is how are we to take this modern thinking. Do we accept it as being the most accurate because it is most up to date or do we ignore it as being of no importance or do we engage it and critique it? Many it would seem, especially among the intellectuals of Orthodoxy have accepted modern thinking and reworked Orthodoxy around this. Others have ignored it and continued with the Traditions such as some monks on Mt Athos. A few have tried to critique it in defence of traditional views.

While, I think that modern scholarship needs to be taken into account and addressed carefully, I would say that one needs great care before accepting it. That is because it is not based on submission to Tradition but one the research of those who are critical of Tradition, who do not approach Tradition with faith, whether inside or outside the Church. It is based on many modern humanistic assumptions that are not those of the Fathers nor of Christ. In fact most of those brought up with some from of Western based education are influenced by this, which makes accepting the thoughts of the Fathers very difficult. Such as how many of us would readily accept St Basil the Great’s instruction that it is best for a wife to stay with a husband who beats her? If one submits to the Father then one learns some important aspects of the mind of the Fathers and of the Church and would find themselves in reflection agreeing with St Basil because his teaching is in line with Orthodox Christian spirituality. I personally think that if one cannot accept his teaching then one has not yet understand nor obtained the Orthodox/Fathers/Christ’s mind, distinguishing between the principle and the application of this teaching to modern times.

I believe that the Orthodox path is first to submit to the Tradition and accept it as one’s own, as it is. Until such thinking is done, one cannot grasp the mind of the Fathers. Only then can we tailor Tradition to meet the modern world, so that it is preserved and not changed. Those who have submitted to modern thinking and try to fit Orthodoxy to this will go astray and change the Tradition without understanding it. There are many good questions raised by modern thinking that should not be ignored but these need to addressed from within Tradition in the terms of Tradition and not in the terms of modern thought.

Tradition is the Life of Christ expressed in the Church. It is Truth; a personal and living Truth that is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow because it is Christ Himself. Thus, where modern thinking is contrary to this it must be a lie and needs to be shown as such. Submitting to modern thinking first is do deny the continuing presence of Christ in the Church, His Body, and to submit to those of men. This way of thinking will lead Christianity to becoming another world religion and another social organisation that seeks the betterment of the world as an end in itself rather than seeking first the Kingdom of Heaven and then seeing the world confirmed to and transformed by this by being encompassed in it, that is the Church, which is in this world but not of it, while waiting for the final day when all things will be renewed. Modern thinking is becoming increasingly debased from the Gospel and hence increasingly “out of touch” with the Church. It is not Tradition that is “out of touch” because it is in touch with the True Life, Who is Christ, the world rather is moving further from Him and “out of touch” by rejecting His Life and substituting one of its own, which is bound to die because it is bound to this world of time and space.

Knowing God

This is a topic that in many ways I know very little about. I can claim no great spiritual heights nor theosis. Nevertheless, it is becoming increasing apparent to me what it means to know God and how this is achieved.

Knowing God is not an intellectual exercise nor even intellectual knowledge as such, although this is not excluded from participating in knowing God. This type of knowledge only grasps images and concepts about God but it cannot know God; this is something different. God is not a concept or image but a reality that it not containable in one’s mind. However, we do get to know God in a manner in what the Fathers call the nous. This is said but most to reside in the heart rather than the head. Thus, it is not a reasoning, intellectual knowledge such as mathematics but rather it is an experiential, intuative knowledge that is impossible to describe or compare to normal human experiences but has a little to do with wisdom.

God is known in the heart in the way that we participate in His life and this life becomes ours. We learn this initially through obedience to the commandments and then as we grow in virtue and purity through the participation in the Spirit. Eventually, we love as God loves, we think as God thinks and so thus we know Him because we realise that the way we live is how He lives. We share the same motivation, the same understanding and the same will; we want what He wants. This knowledge is in a sense active but it transcends physical activity and acts in a spiritual manner with far greater reach than of which physical human actions are capable. This knowledge is what is said to participate in God’s energies or operations. These are not something that happens to us from outside but come from within and become our own, yet remaining God’s and coming from Him. This is theosis or union with Him.

The above knowledge though is not that of the essence. We cannot attain to this that is because you have to be something to experience or know its essence. We can neither know the essence of a tree nor a dog because we are neither trees nor dogs. Thus, even though we are united to God in His life we will still know that He is somehow other to us and His essence is not ours. He is God and we are man. This cannot be changed. Nevertheless, by living His life we become gods because all of His life is ours, if we are willing to accept it as it really is.

Possession

Slavery is an anathema to modern man. The idea of being owned by another is abhorrent to us, especially those in western Europe with our cries of freedom. However, as Christians things are a little different. St John Chrysostom interprets that St Paul encourages slaves to remain as such even if given freedom because it benefits the soul. What a strange teaching to us. Why? Because we are free in Christ and slaves of Christ because He bought us with a price. We are His possession yet we are free from slavery to sin and the ways of this world. Whether in slavery or freedom we can be free as such.

We are possessed by Christ, we are no longer our own but His. Our bodies are His body and our lives are His. He does not take them forcefully but leaves it to us to freely surrender them but really we must do so because we are His. Also, wives own their husbands bodies and husbands their wives bodies. Again we are not free to use them as we will be as the other desires, except for time of prayer then the Lord’s possession takes first place but He does not prolong this overly least the partner is deprived of their possession.

We must learn to become free slaves of Christ and of husbands and wives. It is not for us to for our partners into this possession as Christ does not force us; it will be on their own head at judgement for failing to act as they should. Free slaves is an interesting paradox and that is why St John says that slaves should remain as they are because they freely choose their slavery then while they remain in the service of another the power of the slavery is broken in mind because it is a free gift to the master. We must willingly become slaves to Christ and remember that we are His not our own. We must not try to be selfish otherwise we will deny Him what is His and so lose what is ours in Him.

Let us then learn to serve others, to live in obedience to those with authority over us so that in freely doing we become free in Christ and free from the bondage of sin and the world.