While leaving the church last Sunday, I noticed that we have a gold-plated Gospel Book cover on the “Wish List”. Shouldn’t we be using our money to help the poor and destitute instead?

Thank you for this question – I was hoping that someone would ask it!

Without a doubt we, as a church, should be engaged in charity. In the Scriptures, the very word for “charity” means “love”, and since “God is love” the primary work of the Christian is charity. One only needs to remember the words of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians, “though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels… and though I understand all mysteries and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so as to move mountains, and do not have charity, I am nothing.”

However, then St. Paul says something which might be a little surprising, he says, “and though I give out all my goods to feed the poor… and have not charity, I am profited nothing.” Why would St. Paul says this? Well, one answer is that St. Paul is talking about the need to have the right intentions when helping the poor - one must help the poor out of love. No doubt, this is definitely true, but perhaps St. Paul talking about something more as well.

If we consider the Gospel message in its entirety, in its fullness, as St. Paul always does, we would have to acknowledge that charity is about more than meeting people’s temporal needs, no matter how poor or destitute they may be. Real charity is about meeting their eternal needs as well. This is why Christ, when healing the physical infirmities of the people, always took more care for their spiritual restoration and healing. Christ’s primary focus was to raise mankind from earth to heaven, to impart forgiveness and reconciliation with God. And to this day, the Church, in continuing the Lord’s ministry, follows His example. This is why the Church’s primary objective is not to end world hunger or find cures for diseases (as good as these things may be), the Church’s primary objective is to save souls, to bring all of mankind into the Kingdom of God, making each and every person joint heirs with Christ of the Father’s eternal inheritance.

And so, when we see our churches adorned with beauty and splendor, it is so that both the poor and rich alike might glimpse something of the eternal inheritance which awaits them, should they be willing to leave the transitory behind and enter into the joy of their Father’s House. The famous Russian writer, Dostoyevsky, talking about the power of beauty to inspire man, went so far as to say that "beauty will save the world." Similarly, the Church teaches that without this vision of the glory of God and the beauty of His Kingdom, we will lack direction in our lives, and even if our earthly needs are met, we will still suffer the loss of our souls. Perhaps, King Solomon, who constructed the first Temple with great glory as was commanded of him by God, said it best, “where there is no vision, the people perish.” (Proverbs 29:18)

On a practical note, all the liturgical items used in our church, while beautiful enough to convey something of God’s glory, are also of modest value (i.e. our chalice is gold-plated rather than solid gold). In this way, the Church, while focusing on what is most important, what is super-essential, still has funds to minister to the temporal and material needs of God’s people as well – Christian charity demands no less.

If God is one, how can Christians have so many varying and even conflicting positions on theological, social, and moral issues?

Although the answer to this question is simple, it is not easily accepted, except by the humble. Quite simplely: God is truly one, but we are not yet fully one with Him.  As St. Dorotheus of Gaza once said, we are as points along the perimeter of a circle and God is at the very center.  As we draw closer to Him, we draw closer to one another, until finally we arrive at perfect union with Him and one another. The fact that we have conflicting positions on theological, social, and moral issues, should indicate to us that we need to draw closer to God, who alone can bring us closer together and make us one.  This is the mission and activity of the Church, which has the Lord Jesus Christ as its center, focal point, and means of unity.

I feel very strongly about my own beliefs, why should I believe as the Church believes?

Personal conviction is a key part of Christian development, however, just because we have strong feelings that we are correct does not make it so.  I may feel very strongly that 2 + 2 = 4 (which of course it does) but it is not my strength of conviction that makes me correct. The real proof is found in the discipline of mathematics, and the common witness of all those who have passed the 1st grade. :)

In the sciences and in the spiritual life, we should be very careful not to verify our thoughts and beliefs by our own feelings and emotions.  This is called “emotional reasoning”, an identified psychological pathology, and this can lead to spiritual delusion as well.

In the spiritual life, the safe way to truth, the sure way to acquire the seemingly intangible mind of the invisible Christ, is through the very tangible mind of the visible Church.  It is only when we compare our personal understanding to the commonly held mind and consensus of the Church that we are able to discern whether what we believe is correct or not.

This is the very reason why St. Paul makes the connection between the mind of the Church and the mind of Christ; through the one we arrive at the other. This is because although distinct the two are actually intimately and perfectly connected. To show this unity, St. Paul speaks about Christ as the head and the faithful as the body.  Just as a physical body has no mind without its head, so too the Church has no mind apart from Christ – the Church’s teachings are the Lord’s teachings.

It is through the unity of the Church that we can experience unity with God and with one another. But this unity only comes through the difficult road of repentance, which begins with the humility that perhaps we are not as connected to God as we might think or feel.

So are you saying that the consensus of the Church cannot be wrong? I have a real problem with that.

In our fallenness, in our separation from God and one another, we all have become accustomed to going our own way, doing our own thing, and not being held in check by anyone, even at times God Himself.  Although this is an unhealthy form of individuality and freedom, we justify this stance by claiming that all is relative; after all, we say, even if absolute truth exists, there is no way to verify it.
 
In His foreknowledge, God knew that this would be our problem.  And in His love for mankind, He not only revealed Himself as absolute Truth, in the person of Jesus Christ, but He also set up His Church as ”the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) in which dwells the Holy Spirit, who will “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).  When we see the Church’s divinely given claim to truth as tyranny, we tragically turn away from the leadership of God Himself.  This ultimately will lead to separation from not only the Church but also separation from God – the one a visible sign of the other. Such division then becomes the greatest evidence of our self-direction. Unity, on the other hand, is the greatest proof of God’s leadership.  This we see in the Lord’s Church, which Christ established “that all might be One”.
 
Therefore, we should test our relationship with God by comparing it to the relationship the Church has with God.  Submitting to such a test is not giving in to human tyranny but rather humble recognition of the sovereignty of God the Father, the Incarnation of God the Son, and the indwelling of God the Holy Spirit within the Church.  The Church then is not the problem; it is God’s answer to our problems.

Doesn’t the Church need to critically examine its core teachings in light of the changing world? Is the Church afraid of self-examination?

Historically speaking, remember what happened when the Roman pope reevaluated and changed core teachings, forgetting his accountability to the consensus of the Church and Christ its head.  This led to the Great Schism in the 11th century – the separation of Rome from the rest of Christendom, which remained united in Orthodoxy.  Centuries later, when people realized the errors of Rome, they broke away from the pope and formed their own churches in what became known as the Protestant Reformation.  Now, Western Christianity has some 30,000 divisions – all because of 1) not being afraid to change core teachings and 2) not being afraid to separate from the consensus.

In Orthodoxy, the core teachings are the Lord’s, who is “the same, yesterday, today and forever” (Hebrews: 13:8), and we guard these teachings through the consensus of the Church.  It is incumbent upon everyone to examine the teaching of the Church not in order to redefine it according to one’s own personal beliefs or the changing fads of the world; just the opposite. Examination of Church teaching is made to make sure that the current teaching corresponds perfectly to the unchanging consensus of the Apostles, bishops, priests and laity – a unity spanning across time and space, shared between the creation and the Creator.  Therefore, the reason we don’t change the teaching is because we don’t want to break our union with God and one another, not because we are afraid of self-examination.  Our understanding of self-examination is much more properly placed on the personal level where it belongs.  We examine ourselves to see if we are conforming ourselves to Christ through His Church.  We examine ourselves to see if we are overcoming divisions through repentance (changing our minds, hearts, and lives), or conversely if we are increasing divisions through our unwillingness to be changed and conformed to Christ, who alone is the focal point of all unity.

What is the doctrine of the Incarnation and why is it important?

The doctrine of the Incarnation is that the uncreated the Son of God has entered into creation, taking on flesh and becoming the prophesied Son of Man, the Savior of the world. The doctrine says that Christ is a single person with two natures, divine and human; being both perfectly and fully God, while at the same time perfectly and fully man.

The term used in the Nicene Creed to describe the relationship between God the Father and the Son of God is homoousios – meaning of the same substance. In other words, as the Father is truly God, so is the Son truly God – both being fully divine. In taking on our human nature, being like us in everything except sin (which is simply a deformation of our humanity), the Son of God, becomes also now truly man, taking the name Jesus Christ, and therefore homoousios (of the same substance) with us. And so, as we are fully human, Christ is likewise fully human. And so in Christ, we see the perfect union of the divine and human natures. The Incarnate Christ now serves as the perfect and only vehicle (only mediator) for humanity’s return and reunion with God, who is the eternal Life from which man has fallen. In the Church, we are joined to Christ’s Body, becoming one with Him, and being reconciled through and in Him to God, saved from our sin (separation from God) and from death (separation from life).

Can you please explain in detail how Christ can be both God and man!?

There are many who questioned how this can be, how this could have taken place, how this can be intellectually comprehended, articulated, explained, etc.. And each attempt to bring this divine mystery down to the human level and dissect it under the faulty microscope of the imperfect mind has resulted in heresy. This is because the human mind has limitations – the greatest being the ironic lack of awareness of those very limitations (ie. pride). And so, some said that Christ couldn’t be fully God, others that He could be fully man. The Arians thought the Son of God unequal to the Father and not fully God. The Docetists said that He only appeared to be man and really wasn’t so. But the Fathers in humility preserved and codified the Apostolic doctrine of the Incarnation, not explaining the “how” (which we can never comprehend) but expounding upon the “why”, which is for us men and our salvation. You see the Fathers knew that if Christ were not truly God and truly man at the same time, then He could not be the mediator and Savior, He could not reunite us with God, who is life, and we would remain dead in our sins.

Why was the Virgin Mary necessary? Couldn’t God “recreate humanity” without her?

Now, while it is possible for God to create a human being entirely “from scratch” so to speak, this human being would not be fully part of the existing community of human beings, which God had originally created, and which shares its communal nature through the physical bond: Eve taken from Adam’s rib, and children in subsequent generations being formed through the physical union of their descendants. A human being formed entirely separate would lack this important bond, it would not be part of the family, and community is actually one of the essential aspects to our human nature. Remember, we were created in the image of God – Who is a Trinity of Persons – who not only share the same divine substance but also share personal relationship and union, abiding in community with one another as the Father eternally begets the Son, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, who both in return offer their entire selves back to the Father in the same perfect love with which the Father loved them. At the divine level, this of course happens in a mystery outside creation, outside time and space.

Since personal connection is a fundamental aspect of the divine and human natures, Christ needed a person from which to receive His human nature in order to be fully human. The Virgin offered to Christ not only humanity but also this personal, familial bond. Hence He, who exists uncreated, outside time and space, born of the divine Father without a mother, enters into creation, time and space, born of a human mother without a father. In so doing, this Son of God – this single Person – shares the fullness of both natures, remaining in the community of Divine Persons as well as entering now through the Incarnation into the community of human beings. Through the Virgin, Christ joins not only otherwise abstract natures but also concrete persons.

In last week’s Gospel the Lord said that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. What does this mean? And do I have to literally give up all my possessions to enter Heaven?

While some say that the Lord is speaking here about the physical impossibility of a camel passing through the eye of a sowing needle, the 11th century saint, Theophylact of Bulgaria, says that the Lord here was referring to a certain gate in Jerusalem called the Needle's Eye, that was built so low that a camel could only pass if it entered kneeling and unencumbered with baggage. The lesson would then be that an eternal inheritance awaits those who unburden themselves of the things of this world, and in particular, sin.

In the Old and New Testaments there have been many who had riches, yet attained the highest levels of sanctity. Their wealth was not an obstacle to their entrance into Heaven for five reasons: 1) they did not consider their possessions to be their own, instead they saw themselves simply as stewards of the Lord’s goods, living only on what was necessary and using the rest to help those in need; 2) while they had wealth and possessions, they were able to use them dispassionately since they had given their heart entirely to the Lord and cared nothing for the world’s deceits; 3) they, while grateful for the Lord’s blessings, saw themselves unworthy due to their sins, and this allowed them to become “poor in spirit” even though they were given great wealth; 4) they trusted in the Lord alone, not their temporal riches or prosperity; 5) they were ever mindful of their death as the day in which they would have to give an account for what they had received.

The following verse seems to indicate original sin: "For behold, I was conceived in transgressions, and in sins my mother bore me.” (Psalm 50(51):5) I thought that the Orthodox Church does not accept the doctrine of original sin?

The Roman Catholic understanding of “original sin” is not accepted by the Orthodox Church because it sees all men as “guilty” of the first sin of Adam, not by repetition but by personal participation. This teaching was related to a mistranslation of Romans 5:12 from Greek into Latin which purported that “all sinned in Adam”. This was tied to the heresy that the souls of children are somehow in the loins of their parents (Traducianism – Google it!), rather than created by God at the time of conception.

Instead, we teach the doctrine of “ancestral sin”, which does not and cannot hold Adam’s descendents individually accountable for his sin because they weren’t even created yet. Adam passes to his descendants, not his guilt but the consequences of his sin: fallen human nature in a state of broken communion with God, an inclination to sin, sickness, mortality, corruption, etc..

In this verse of Psalm 50, it is the sinful state that is referred to, not an actual sin. Conception and birth both take place, not by sin, but rather in the world of iniquity – the fallen world, which has been separated from God, through the ancestral sin of Adam.  The verse implicates neither mother nor child (nor even Adam) as its meaning is not legal but ontological, simply talking about the world into which the newly created person is conceived and born; guilt has to be read into the verse by an overly legalistic theology.

In Orthodoxy, there is no overemphasis or fixation on the legal approach to sin.  This tendency has led some in the West to mistranslate or misinterpret Biblical passages such as those mentioned above. Such overemphasis on legalism has also contributed to the great theological arguments in the West over terms such as justification, imputed/imparted righteousness, salvation by faith/works, merits, etc..  The Orthodox Church deals with sin/redemption in a more holistic way, balancing the legal aspects of personal guilt and forgiveness, present in many Biblical images and metaphors, with the equally present ontological and therapeutic approaches to man’s salvation: ontological – the uniting of the human nature back to the divine nature; and therapeutic – the healing of man’s mind, heart, will, soul and body through personal reunion with God, in the Church, the spiritual hospital, the Body of Christ, by the indwelling grace of the Holy Spirit, received in the sacraments and by keeping the commandments.

I am a Protestant Christian who loves the Scriptures but doesn't really trust the Church. What would you say to me?

Is there a dress code in the Orthodox Church, and if so, why?

First, it should be said, that it is a recent phenomenon in some Roman Catholic and Protestant churches to advertise “casual”, “relaxed” or even no dress code at all for worship and fellowship. This answer will not directly critique this practice other than to say that this has never been part of and is a clear departure from Orthodox Christian tradition.

Both the Old and New Testaments are full of calls to modesty and respectfulness not only in inward spirit but also in outward appearance as the one is connected to and influences the other. Since the time of Adam and Eve, who covered themselves with clothing after the Fall, the way in which one dressed has been directly connected to the way in which one relates to God and one’s neighbor. Cleanliness, simplicity, appropriateness, humility, etc., are not only virtues of the soul but also virtues of the body, which, St. Paul tells us, is the temple of the Holy Spirit.

What’s the dress code, generally speaking, in the Orthodox Church?

The Scriptures offer us a dress code, with not only calls to the aforementioned virtuous principles, but also specific details in relation to: cross-dressing (Deut. 22:5), bodily markings (Deut. 14:1, Lev. 19:28), braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire (1 Tim. 2:9, 1 Pet. 3:3-4), and head coverings (1 Cor. 11) to name a few.

Now to be sure each of these references has nuances related to culture and epoch; for example men wear kilts in Scotland. Yet, just as it would be incorrect to overlook these nuances, so too would be incorrect to be dismissive of the teaching itself. Therefore, throughout the Orthodox world, the Scriptural teaching remains the ideal or standard, yet the application remains pastorally flexible in order to bring about spiritual growth and progress in the faithful. For this reason, one will observe both strict adherence to the dress code such as in monasteries or parishes whose faithful are from traditionally Orthodox cultures, as well as appropriate flexibility in churches who pastorally care for and missionize non-Orthodox societies. In general, it is a good idea to be aware of the dress code, and not only refrain from being critical of it but also to respectfully follow it because it has salvific import for us and others.

What is the dress code at our Christ the Savior Mission?

There are four basic categories: 1) men, 2) women, 3) children, and 4) everyone.

1. Men should not wear hats, bandanas, shorts, sleeveless shirts, or casual footwear like sneakers.
2. Women should not wear miniskirts, spandex-tight clothing, low-cut or revealing tops (unless covered with a sweater or other garment), or casual footwear like sneakers.
3. Children should be given a little more flexibility but should still wear “church clothes” so that they know they are somewhere that is special and holy.
4. Everyone should refrain from clothing that is immodest, ostentatious, a fashion-statement, or otherwise distracting from the prayerful and sacred space of the Lord’s House. Clothing or bodily adornments with images, symbols, or writing should not be worn or at least covered up, so that the holy icons and Word of God do not have to compete with the logo of our favorite sport team, the name of a music band, or the slogan of our political party.

This being said, we should not take it upon ourselves to enforce the dress code upon anyone else, especially visitors to the Mission. As people become familiar with Orthodox Christianity, they will slowly start to adapt themselves to the ways of the Church, naturally growing in Christ with that which pertains to both soul and body. If you have questions or concerns, please speak with Fr. John.

What about a dress code for the church’s pool?

The same basic principles apply with regard to modesty and respect for the Lord and our brothers and sisters in Christ. What we wear in the church’s pool should be a step above what is acceptable at the beach (or perhaps a few steps!). Although, we do have an exceedingly strict “no bikinis or speedos” policy :), there is no need to buy a new berka-style bathing suit; one can simply wear a T-shirt or shorts over what should be covered. This is actually what the Apostle Peter did when swimming in the Lord’s presence at the Sea of Galilee (see John 21:7). And so, enjoy swimming in the pool, the fellowship with each other, the presence of the Lord, and His blessing for your modesty and respectfulness!

Does the Orthodox Church have married priests?

In the Orthodox Church priests may be married – it has been this way since the times of the Apostles, when the Apostle Peter and other apostles were married. The Roman Catholic Church began the move to a celibate priesthood only in the 4-5th centuries and only in certain areas and by custom. Today, of course, there is required celibacy among priests in the Roman Catholic Church but this practice was never adopted in Orthodox Christianity.

The Orthodox Church fully honors the sanctity of marriage and sexual relations within this context and considers neither of these to be an obstacle to the priesthood.  It should be noted that priests (or deacons) who wish to marry must do so before being ordained.  However, this is just so that the practicalities associated with courting or dating do not complicate the ministry of the ordained.

Why do Orthodox Christians seem to worship saints and pray to them if there are to be no gods before the One True God?  Should we not just use their lives as examples.

While in the Orthodox Church we do pray to saints, we definitely do not worship them.  Prayer in the Biblical sense is simply communication, talking with God or even talking with each other.  And as God is the God of the living and those united to Christ are alive in Him, we do not feel death to be an obstacle to continued communication or prayer with the Lord’s saints (remember St. Paul calls all Christians “saints” or “holy ones”).  Of course, after death the communication between us and the saints becomes less earthly and more spiritual, more like the manner in which we communicate with God Himself.  As far as honoring the saints, we do this because as you have said they are examples for us.  And in the saints we see God’s own light, love, glory, etc. – it is God Himself who is glorified in His saints.  The saint is simple a vessel of God’s grace, simply a mirror reflecting the Lord’s glory.  And so, by honoring the saints we honor God Himself Who through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ has made it possible for mankind to be holy once again.

Is it an Orthodox practice to pray in one’s own words?  Or do we only pray with prayer books?

This is an excellent question, and the answer is definitely “yes” as Orthodox Christians we should learn to pray in our own words.  But before prayer in one’s own words can develop properly, one must first learn how to pray and what to pray for.  This is why the disciples asked Christ to teach them to pray, so that they could pray in spirit and truth.

Now, as we know, prayer to God can take on a variety of forms, but as St. Basil the Great says there are four types of prayer which are absolutely necessary for the Christian to develop in order to have a healthy relationship with God: 1) petition – in which we ask for those things necessary for salvation; 2) repentance – in which we confess our sins and change our life by keeping the commandments; 3) thanksgiving – in which we offer to God our gratitude for all He has done for us; 4) praise – in which we glorify God, being enrapt in His divine goodness. Since the prayers of the Church include all four of these types of prayer, they help us become well rounded Christians.  They help us not only avoid unhealthy types of prayer such as complaining or self-justification, but they also help us move beyond simply asking God for things in a selfish way, to giving Him thanks for everything, confessing our sins before Him, and praising Him for His great goodness. 

These prayers of the Church which we find in prayer books were written by the Saints, those men and women who passed through all the stages of the spiritual life on their way to union with God.  One could even say that the Saints have left us their prayers as a spiritual roadmap to the Kingdom, for they teach us not only how and what we should pray for on our Christian journey but also what our hearts should feel and how our minds should think.  When we make the prayers of the Church our own through attention and feeling we put ourselves on that same straight and narrow path which the Saints themselves took, that path which leads from earth to heaven.

Now it will happen that after time, when we start to become accustomed to praying in the manner of the Saints, we will feel prayer taking on its own life within us, and even when we do not have our prayer books before us we will start to feel the need to 1) seek those things necessary for salvation, 2) ask the Lord's forgiveness and repent, 3) offer Him thanksgiving, and 4) praise God.  At these times, when we are moved by the Spirit, our prayer can take on its own words and be very pleasing to God.

Are Orthodox Christians “young earth creationists”?

The question as to the age of the creation is inextricably tied to the bringing forth of creation from non-being into being – the very beginning when time and space were first created.  Two main doctrines come to mind: 1) The physical world is created and has limits.  2) Only God is uncreated and limitless.

If we are to answer this question truthfully, we have to acknowledge our limitations. The first being that it is impossible for the human mind to even fathom creation from non-existence into being. We run in circles around what came first, the chicken or the egg, the big bang or the stuff the caused the big bang, or the stuff that caused the stuff, etc..  This innate limitation of the human mind should be enough for us to realize the limitation of science which is simply a human intellectual discipline. So the question as to the age of creation, cannot be answered by science because it is impossible for the human mind to understand the mystery of going from non-existence into being.

That said, we are free to think/believe/hypothesize that the creation happened over trillions of years or that it happened in 7 literal days. But in my opinion, we should not argue for one or the other. The Church is humble enough and honest enough to say that not only do we not know, but most importantly we are incapable of figuring it out and God revelation on the subject is shrouded in mystery.  People debate the question as to which is more likely, an old earth or a young earth. You can read about this if you are interested in human debate about questions which are beyond human comprehension (ie. creation ex nihilo).  I would say this, though, that for God, with whom one day is like a 1000 years and 1000 years, one day, it is equally possible that the earth is old or young.  He could have fashioned it loooooooooong ago or just long ago.

We must remember that the observable natural laws which govern the continuance of creation do not apply to the unobservable act or process of creation from non-being into being.  The natural laws observed by science deal with what happened after the creation was set in motion, not the act or process of creation itself. Likewise, it logically follows that since creation and continuance are by definition different, the methods/processes/laws of each must be different as well. This means, that God wouldn’t have to wait trillions of years to make a world with layers of strata in line with the natural laws that He would later establish for the word’s continuance. He could do it in one second, if He wanted to. By way of example, God could call a pizza from non-being into being, without first kneading the dough, making the sauce, heating the oven, etc., but to us that pizza would look like it had passed through all the steps in the kitchen because otherwise it wouldn’t be a pizza. Sadly, I think that some, perhaps forgetting that they are not God, try to make microwave pizzas in this way. :)

Interestingly, Genesis speaks of a staged creation (7 days/stages), not a single instant, yet the stages are described as “days” not “months” or “years” indicating an expedited fashion. Of course, the whole Genesis account is shrouded in mystery because of our human limitations. For those who are interested, there are a million hypotheticals regarding method and how long it actually took but I think there are better uses of our time, like contemplating how cool it is that no matter what our opinion, we are all united in our inability to even know.  Thanks be to God for humbling us all!  And so, in summary, if you want an Orthodox response to the age of creation:  Only God knows because only God can know – and thank God for that!

But why would God create the world to look like it was millions/billions/trillions of years old when in fact it isn’t? Why would He trick us?

I don’t think that those who consider the possibility that the Lord could create the universe in short amount of time would list trickery among the Lord’s motives. Those who theorize a young earth, simply acknowledge that God could call things from non-existence into being at any stage and that no matter what stage, it makes logical sense that what He called from non-being into being would correspond to the natural laws and properties which He would later establish for the world’s continuance.

This is actually illustrated when the Lord Jesus multiplied the loaves in the Gospels. He didn’t need to wait for the yeast to rise and the oven timer to go off, He simply created more bread, and the bread looked and tasted just like any bread that had been made through natural processes. It wasn’t sleight of hand or a magic trick, it was a display of God’s unique power to do something beyond the laws of time and space. It showed that Jesus Christ was God, the Creator.  Now, how old was that bread?

Ironically, the same question, “Why would God trick us?” could similarly be posed to those who believe in an old earth too.  If you were to draw out a timeline of history, going back to the very beginning (non-existence into being), one would trace the universe back to its currently observable beginnings and establish a timeline that is say this long:

Creation (13.8 billion years ago) --------------------------------------------------- Present

In the old earth model, creation would be time-stamped at the big bang, stage of dust, crystals, etc..  at the stage of the earliest, most rudimentary elements that modern science can observe/conceive of. Currently, modern science puts this at 13.8 billion years ago, give or take a few million years.

But as science improves and more is learned about the natural universe, the hypothesized age of the earth will get increasing older.  We have already gone from thousands of years, to millions, now billions and next would be trillions.  A timeline would then look like this:

Creation (trillions) ---------------------------------- Creation (billions) ---------- Present

So in a generation or so, the old earth billions camp will actually be young earth people compared to the old earth trillions camp.  Ironically, then the question might be turned on them, “Do you think God is trying to trick us? Why would He create the universe at such an advanced stage?!”

This would continue forever and ever because even though the tools of science improve, the wielders of those tools will retain the same limitations. The human mind will futilely circle around the question, what came first the chicken or the egg, the big bang or the stuff the caused the big bang, or the stuff that caused the stuff? And so as the earth spins, its inhabitants will dizzy themselves trying to answer that which is known only to God.

Now, please note, (otherwise we will miss the whole point) that the above illustration does not make the case for either group, old or young earthers; the whole point is that those groups are actually much more alike than they think or may want to acknowledge.  The age of the universe is beyond us all.

And so, God proves to be the great equalizer of scientists, philosophers, theologians and everybody in between, but not by trickery. It is the devil who deceives, promising us that through knowledge we can be like God, enticing us with this foolish pride, and we listen to him so we can elevate ourselves over each other and ultimately the Other, God Himself. But as God alone is True, He brings us back from the error of our ways to unity with Him and each other by humbling us, reminding us of our limitations. The more we know this humility, the more we can know Him, and through Him, the truth about His creation and ourselves. Who is so great a God as our God? Thou art the God who doest wonders!

Wait, I don’t get it! So exactly how old was that bread that the Lord multiplied?

Ha! You will have to ask the Lord! Perhaps, though, not knowing the timestamp actually helps us come to know something and someone of greater importance: our own limitations, and the limitless One who’s got time, the stamp, and, as the song goes, “the whole world in His hands”.

In last Sunday’s sermon, you said that the Pro-Choice position on the issue of abortion was not entirely bad, how could you still call yourself an Orthodox Christian, let alone a priest?!

Yes, I did say this, but before you call the bishop to defrock me, remember that this was not an endorsement of the Pro-Choice position but rather part of a fair and logical refutation thereof.

Before getting into the issue of abortion, let me say that generally speaking, highly contentious and hotly debated issues can have a polarizing effect on those involved, so much so that opposing sides of the argument can even reach the point of seeing absolutely no validity whatsoever to the other’s position. When this happens not only is there little hope in coming to a resolution, but each side ends up undermining their own credibility by irrationally condemning truthful or good aspects of the opposing position just because the opposing side holds them. Resolutions can only be found when the positions on both sides of the argument are fairly broken down and impartially evaluated according to a commonly, agreed upon standard.

With the issue of abortion, there are two main opposing positions: Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. If one avoids the above pitfall of labeling the other's position as entirely without substance, and honestly and impartially assesses the debate, one would probably say that Pro-Choicers are not out to kill unborn babies, and likewise, that Pro-Lifers are not out to take away a woman’s freedom – even though this is sometimes how the argument is framed. Instead an impartial observer would see that there are two highly important things at stake, both being acknowledged by any rational being as good and worthy of respect and protection: 1) freedom and 2) life.

To find resolution, we have to breakdown the positions then evaluate according to a common standard:

Now, the question of evaluation according to a common, agreed upon standard. In last Sunday’s sermon, given in the context of the Church, the standard used for evaluation was the Christian Faith.

Although recognizing both freedom and life as present in the Pro-Choice position, the Church finds both expressions to be askew, lacking, and theologically unacceptable. According to Christianity, freedom is never to be unlimited but rather is to be bound by the Lord’s commandments and life is never to be taken but is instead to be cherished and protected from conception to natural death. Although never endorsing political parties or individuals, the Pro-Life position is fully approved by the Church as not only acceptable but also essential for followers of Jesus Christ.

Well, what about the question of abortion in America, where the commonly agreed upon standard is not Christianity but the nation’s founding documents?

Freedom and life are both highly valued in the American context as well. Like in the Church, in our nation, it is generally accepted that one’s freedom should be limited in that one cannot infringe upon the rights of others, for example: one is not free to murder, rape, steal, etc..

However, in the history of the United States there have been two shameful exceptions to this: 1) men were once free to own their fellow human beings as slaves, and 2) women remain currently free to abort their unborn children. In both cases, these highly divisive miscarriages of justice dehumanized minorities (blacks and the unborn), violating the commonly agreed upon standards of both natural law, which is the historic foundation of all civilized governments, and the Declaration of Independence, which holds all men to be created equal.

Why should I give to the Church?

This is a very important question, and primarily for two reasons:  1) offering our time, talent, and treasure is a necessary component of our spiritual life – we need to do this for our salvation; and 2) offering our time, talent, and treasure supports the ministry of the Church – we need to do this for not only our own salvation but also the salvation others.

Let’s look at the first reason – our own personal salvation.  The Lord says, “where your treasure is there will your heart be also.”  In other words, what we spend our time, energy, and money on reveals what is in our heart.  The most clear examples of this in the New Testament are the poor old woman who offered her whole livelihood to God when she gave her two mites and the rich young man who chose not follow the Lord because he could not part with his possessions.  In this life each of us will gravitate between these two poles – love for God and love for the world.  This is what Christ means when He says that “no servant can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon (riches).”  And so our offering of time, talent, and treasure should indicate to us, what God Himself already knows, that is how much we love Him or how much we love the things of this world instead of Him.

Now, the second reason we give to the Church is to support the Lord’s ministry on earth.  Of course, it should be said right off the bat that the Lord does not need us to do anything – He is the Creator of the universe and can do anything and everything He wants.  However, and this is important, while the Lord doesn’t need us, He does want us, and He wants us to labor together with Him for the salvation of our neighbor and the whole world.  The Lord wants us to be His hands helping those in need, His mouth preaching and teaching, and His feet carrying the Good News to all the ends of the earth – this is how we form His Body, the Church.  But for this to happen, for us to work together with God, for us to be His Body, we need to invest our time, talent, and treasure in performing the Lord’s ministry – we need to put our faith into action by giving to the Church.

I am wondering about the subject of "tithing" spoken about in the Old Testament. What is the Orthodox view on this? How much should we be giving to the Church?

A lot can be said on this important subject of Christian stewardship, but I will try to be as concise as possible. The following is adapted from a stewardship presentation recently given at our mission.

False Stewardship Models

Equal Giving: 1) Each person gives the same dollar amount, dividing the sum needed by the number of people. 2) Each person offers the same percentage amount, such as the 10% tithe.

Explanation: Every person differs according to financial resources and spiritual maturity. Equal dollar amounts unfairly burden the poor, not even meeting the Old Testament standard, which used a 10% scale (the tithe) as small step toward equity. The tithe, equal percentage, is also unfit for Christians for a series of reasons. The tithe: 1) only considers income not assets and liabilities, as does, for instance, the secular US tax system, 2) doesn’t address how to properly manage the other 90% of one’s income, nor teach the proper use of existing wealth, 3) doesn’t develop the necessary discernment between needs and wants, which allows the Christian to properly see the connection between one’s treasure and one’s heart, and 4) is not taught by the Lord nor the Fathers, except being referenced as something below Christian stewardship.

Orthodox Christian Stewardship

Equal Sacrifice: New Testament stewardship is the only model that is equitable, faithful to the Gospel, and spiritually sound. Each person is equally free, yet equally accountable, for 100% of everything God has entrusted to his or her temporary care.

Explanation: Of course, this does not mean that 100% of what we possess or obtain must be given to the Church and the poor (although some have done this), but it does mean that 100% of our financial resources should be acquired, stored, and used in a godly manner. As Christians we should be working hard and honorably, saving prudently to provide for those entrusted to our care, supporting the work of the Church, helping the poor, rendering taxes to Caesar, living within our means, curbing unnecessary wants, and in all things using our treasure to redirect our hearts to God and our fellow man. If truly practiced, this means that the stronger will help the weaker, yet no one will excuse himself or herself from stewardship as each person has been entrusted with time, talent and treasurer by God.

This model of 100% stewardship: 1) applies to each and every person equally, 2) burdens no one unfairly, 3) offers everyone, whether rich and poor, married, single, or monastic an equal opportunity to offer his or her own self completely to God’s service, 4) educates us to see the connection between our treasure and our heart, as well as the difference between our needs and wants, and most importantly, 5) is the teaching and example given by the Lord, who not only gave His whole life for us but also asks us to give our whole life back to Him. Understood in this manner, stewardship is an integral part of our common struggle and shared path, leading to a loving, self-sacrificial and full union with God and our fellow man.

In the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30), why is the servant who buried his talent condemned when he didn't lose the talent but in fact returned it?

The Parable of the Talents was largely about stewardship. Rule #1 in stewardship is “Do what your master wants with his resources.”

The steward acknowledged that he knew what he should have done – increase the talent – but choose rather to do what he himself wanted instead – secure the single talent.  He had his own motives for this, namely safety and self-preservation. It was safer to bury the talent in the ground because then he wouldn't lose it and at least he could return what was given to him.  To most of us this makes good sense, however, it is not a servant’s job to go against his master’s wishes – the steward’s sole function is to execute his master’s will not his own.  By burying the talent, the unwise steward disobediently traded the Master’s increase for his own security. This was an indirect theft of the interest which the Master would have received had the man invested the talent like the other stewards.  So the fearful steward was rightly punished for cowardice, self-seeking, disobedience, and theft.

The fact that he buried the talent “in the ground” shows that he considered the earth an appropriate place for investment. Many people often consider earthly investment a “safe” container, delusively promising “security” but in actuality, proving in every case to be untrustworthy, temporary and unable to bring forth lasting fruit of true value.  The unwise steward exemplifies the mindset of the worldly, who use the resources the Lord has entrusted to them for His eternal purposes according to their own earthly standards and agendas even when aware that the Master expects something more of them.  The Fathers explain that the man should have used the Lord’s resources properly by investing them through the Church, which brings forth much increase in the vaults of heaven, “where moth and rust do not destroy nor thieves break in and steal” (Matthew 6:20).  The parable makes clear that this increase, confidently anticipated by the Master, was not just some potentiality but rather a sure thing in that all the other stewards, the good and faithful ones in the parable, yielded a full and double increase by following the Master’s sovereign will.

In the end, most tragically, the true loss was not the increase or lack thereof of the material resources. The loss was about much more, and it was two-fold, including both:  1) the increase of people who could have been joined to the Church had the steward invested the Lord’s talent properly, and 2) the steward himself, who out of fear and desire for earthly security, buried with his Master’s talent his own soul as well.