Concert Lumina Crucii

I just came across the following video on YouTube and thought it was a wonderful example of Byzantine chant. I encourage you all to listen to it. The concert was held in the Metropolitan Cathedral of Iasi, Romania. 

Kyrie eleison!

In the Life of Gregory Xandzta by Giorgi Merchule (8th-9th century), Gregory is asked to define the Georgian nation. "Georgia," he answers, "is that land where the Divine Liturgy is chanted in the Georgian tongue, but Kyrie, eleison is sung in Greek."[1] While the Christian Church has a long standing tradition of translating the divine services into the vernacular[2] - first the canonical hours and later the Divine Liturgy - this did not extend to every single part of the service. Just as the Hebrew phrases amen, hallelujah, hosanna, etc. remained untranslated in the context of Christian worship, so a number of Greek words and petitions remained even as vernacular services came to replace Greek outside the Hellenic world.[3] One such phrase, used more frequently than all the others combined, was the Kyrie, eleison (Lord, have mercy). Were you today to attend a Latin Tridentine Mass, a Syriac Liturgy, Coptic Liturgy, Ethiopian Liturgy, or even a Norwegian Lutheran Mass, you would hear Kyrie, eleison being sung in Greek. 

While the other prayers and petitions of the services were translated into the vernacular of each nation and people, in accordance with the divine will of God as revealed on the day of Pentecost, Kyrie, eleison - which is the summary of all other prayers, encompassing every need of the human condition - remained the universal prayer of the Christian people, citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, raised up to God "as with one voice" emphasising the fact that in Christ there is neither Greek nor Jew, barbarian or Scythian.[4] It seems a pity that the only liturgically centered churches in which Kyrie, eleison is no longer sung in Greek are those of the Eastern Orthodox, despite the fact that the rite of Constantinople, the heart of the Greek-speaking eastern Roman Empire, has been their only liturgical tradition for the last millennium. 

Of course, this is not a matter of dogma, but it would be nice if those local Eastern Orthodox churches who worship in the vernacular rather than the original Greek could rediscover and reinstate this last remaning remnant of Christian linguistic uniformity and universality,[5] which so beautifully expresses the unity we all share in the one Christ. At the very least, it should be something taken into account now as a host of new translations of the Liturgy are appearing in every corner of the world, particularly those used in Greek Orthodox churches.

[1] There is, as of yet, no proper English translation available, so this is an approximation.

[2] "Venacular" is, of course, not completely accurate. Church Slavonic, for example, is a language artificially constructed specifically for the purpose of liturgical translation - artificial in that it preserves the word order and syntax of the Greek original - and can therefore not be called a vernacular. Likewise, were you to visit an Arabic church, the language you would hear would be Fusha, a form used only in writing or formal communication, not a spoken language. It would therefore be more accurate to say that the Orthodox Church has always translated the services into a language that was understood, rather than a spoken vernacular. 
[3] The Trisagion, for example, was always sung in Greek in the Roman Church, long after it switched to Latin, and is still always sung in Greek in the Coptic Liturgy.

[4] cf. Colossians 3:11
[5] I make a distinction between the uniquely Christian character of the Greek phrase Kyrie, eleison and the Hebrew phrases, of which Amen is certainly the most important, which, although also signets of unity, are ones we share with the Jews (and, in the case of Amen, also Muslims). Therefore, while these Hebrew phrases remain, and act as an important link to our Judaic roots, the preservation of this Greek phrase should receive equal emphasis because it attests to the particular unity that should exist among Christians.

The Genocidal God of the Old Testament?

Simple thoughts on some difficult passages

Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ – 1 Reigns (1 Samuel) 15:2-3

They warred against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every male...And the people of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones, and they took as plunder all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods. All their cities in the places where they lived, and all their encampments, they burned with fire, and took all the spoil and all the plunder, both of man and of beast…Moses said to them, “Have you let all the women live? Behold, these, on Balaam's advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves. – Numbers 31:7,9-11,15-18

Passages such as these have long made the historical books of the Old Testament1 a stumbling block to believers, and a cause for ridicule for the disbeliever, for whom “the genocidal God of the Old Testament” has become something of a battle cry.

Many try to distance themselves from these passages with the oft repeated “That was in the Old Testament, now we have the New!” Not only is this a cop-out, but its implications are heretical. There is not one God of the Old Testament and another of the New. God is One. Moreover, while the movement from the Old Testament to the New signifies a change in man’s relationship with God, God Himself remains unchanged. “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind”2 and in Him “there is no variation or shadow due to change.”3 Consequently, while God acted differently with His people in the time of the Old Testament, condescending to their weaknesses and limited knowledge, gradually leading them to greater understanding, it is still the same One God we encounter in the New. If someone, then, convicts God of unrighteousness in the Old, simply pointing to the New is no answer.

Rather than ignoring these passages, a second possibility, based on the Holy Fathers, is to interpret them symbolically. The command to slaughter our enemies must be understood as an exhortation to put to death our sins, of which men, women, children, infants, ox and sheep, etc. all represent different forms and stages. For example, when the Psalmist says to the Babylonians “Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock,”4 the Fathers understand this to mean that we should destroy all sin, no matter how small. For just as an infant grows into an adult, so do minor temptations quickly become overwhelming if we do not immediately dash them against the Rock, who is Christ. This is certainly how we should be reading the Old Testament as Christians. However, while such a reading explains verses like the one from the Psalmist, the historical books are so called because the events they describe actually took place. Thus, while symbolism gives them meaning for us today, the question remains: how do we reconcile these events with the God of love we hear of elsewhere?

What must be remembered is that the Old Testament is first and foremost a work of theology, and that its purpose is prophetic. Not only is the text of the Old Testament prophetic, but the very purpose, existence, and life of the Chosen People was prophetic. The bondage of the Israelites in Egypt, for example, represents humanity's bondage to sin, their escape from death by the blood of lambs humanity's salvation through the blood of Christ, the Lamb of God, on the Cross, their escape from Pharaoh through the waters of the Red Sea our own liberation from the tyranny of the devil through the holy waters of baptism, and so on. Many often scoff when they find in the Law of Moses, the code by which the life of Israel was governed, seemingly bizarre or meaningless prohibitions like not wearing clothing of mixed fibres,5 or not eating a particular set of animals.6 What these people fail to do is take into account prophecy. Every act of God's People, down to the clothing they wore and the style of their hair, was prophetic. We see a perfect example of this in the Book of Ezekiel, where the holy prophet is commanded to lie on his side for 390 days in order to prophesy about the siege of Jerusalem,7 or in the Book of Hosea, who had to take as his wife a prostitute, Gomer, in order to prophecy against the adultery Israel was committing against God through their unfaithfulness. Perhaps the most difficult elements of Mosaic Law are the many instances of capital punishment, which is applied not only to things like murder, but to seemingly undeserving offences, such as cursing ones parents,8 homosexual relations,9 sorcery,10 working on the Sabbath,11 or blasphemy.12 These too must be understood in light of the prophetic nature of both the Law and the very life of the people who lived by it. We should not forget that much of Old Testament Law, and the accompanying punishments, was already present in pre-existing Semitic tribal law.13  As Christ said to the Jews who questioned him on divorce: "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.."14 God, then, did not wholly overturn existing cultural practices, but imbued them with new meaning, allowing them to continue for the sake of prophecy. "The wages of sin is death," St. Paul tells us, "but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."15 It was through the fall of Adam that death entered into the world,16 and it was the bondage of death from which our Lord Jesus Christ saved us through His glorious death and resurrection, trampling down death by death. The calls for capital punishment in the Law are first and foremost prophetic and theological, making ever present this connection between sin - the turning away from God, who is Life - and death. This is highlighted by the fact that in Jewish tradition, a Sanhedrin that issued the death penalty more than once in the course of seven years was considered "bloody,"17 pointing to the infrequency of its actual implementation.  

Returning, now, to the question of genocide. Although quite different from the issue of capital punishment, in that I do not believe it can be explained merely through God's condescension to human weakness by permitting existing cultural norms, here too we must understand the synthesis between historical reality, prophecy and theology, and the reordering of purpose. In the case of the historical books, what we see are descriptions of the Jewish people in conflict with their enemies, and the realities of warfare in the Iron Age Near East, but told from a theological perspective, giving prophetic meaning to an otherwise conventional act of war. Throughout the Holy Scriptures we see the evil deeds of men being used by God to serve a good purpose. This is not to say God willed evil, but rather that, once evil had been committed,18 God, as He is wont, turned something evil into something good. Likewise, here, the gruesome realities of war are presented to us as an image of our own spiritual battle, turning these stories into a source for our spiritual edification. In light of this, it seems to me that, while we read the descriptions of war as historical events, the words “Thus says the Lord,” and similar denotements of divine sanction and exhortation, apply not to their battle, but to ours. What we see in these books is not God saying to the Israelites “Kill your enemies” but rather God saying to us “As the Israelites defeated their foes, do likewise to your spiritual foes. As they left no one alive, not even infants, let no sin remain alive in you, no matter how small it may seem.”

The key to understanding these difficult passages, then, is to recognise that they are both historical and theological, neither abandoning historical truth in favour of pure symbolism, nor imposing on a theological text the rigidity of a common historical document, but simply reading Scripture as Scripture.

Notes:

[1] I include in this term also the historical accounts we find in the books of Moses or the Prophets.

[2] Numbers 23:19

[3] James 1:17

[4] Psalm 136:9, apparently a verse too difficult even for Boney M.
[5] Leviticus 19:19
[6] Leviticus 11
[7] Ezekiel 4
[8] Exodus 21:17
[9] Leviticus 20:13
[10] Exodus 22:18
[11] Exodus 35:2
[12] Leviticus 24:16
[13] The prohibition against the eating of pork, for example, is attested to in ancient Egypt.
[14] Matthew 19:8
[15] Romans 6:23
[16] cf. 1 Corinthians 15:21
[17] Mishna (Mak. 1:10, Mak. 7a)
[18] And necessary evil is evil nonetheless.  "As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live" (Ezekiel 33:11).

All quotations of Holy Scripture are taken from the English Standard Version (Anglicised).

Byzantine Chant in Norwegian

Herre, jeg roper (Lord, I have cried)

"Come and See" - Some (disorganised) thoughts

Questions posed by inquirers into the Orthodox Christian faith are often met with the simple response “Come and see.” What is meant by the use of these words of Christ to the inquiring disciple is that Christianity is not merely a philosophy to be grasped through the reading of books or intellectual discussion, but a living relationship with Christ, only properly understood through experience. Moreover, nowhere is the faith of the Christian Church quite so clearly and purposefully expressed than in her worship – lex orandi, lex credendi. While certainly an appropriate way to convey this important truth to inquirers, rarely do those among whom the phrase has become something of a cliché, particularly on the infamous Orthodox internet fora, consider exactly what these inquirers are to come and see.

“Of Thy mystical supper, receive me today, O Son of God, as a communicant. For I shall not speak of the Mystery to Thine enemies, nor will I give Thee a kiss as did Judas, but as the thief I confess Thee, remember me, O Lord, in Thy kingdom.” This prayer of the faithful prior to the reception of the Holy Gifts hearkens back to the early centuries of the Church when the divine Mysteries were treated precisely as that. The rites of baptism, chrismation and the Liturgy of the Faithful were a jealously guarded secret (μυστήριον means secret). Not only were the non-baptised prohibited from participating in or seeing these rites – the Orthodox Liturgy to this day includes the expulsion of the catechumens after the reading of the Holy Gospel – but believers were strictly ordered not to divulge any information about what they witnessed in church. To do so, as the hymn above suggests, was considered tantamount to Judas’ betrayal of Christ. In other words, not a trivial offence. Only the φωτιζόμενοι, those catechumens who had been enrolled for baptism the coming Pascha, would be given an explanation of the rites they were to undergo, though in some places even these had to wait, and retrospective explanations were given to the newly baptised. Even detailed explanations of doctrine were withheld from all non-baptised, save the φωτιζόμενοι, and the articles of the Symbol of Faith were only handed down to them orally – lest a written copy should fall into the wrong hands – days before their impending baptism. [This, incidentally, was the primary role of the godparent, something to remember next time you see a godparent at a modern day baptism stutter through a written copy of a wholly unfamiliar text!] St. Cyril of Jerusalem tells them that “This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it, and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart, taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you.” [Catechetical Lectures 5:12] To similar effect, prefacing his Catechetical Lectures is the following warning: These Catechetical Lectures for those who are to be enlightened you may lend to candidates for Baptism, and to believers who are already baptized, to read, but not at all to Catechumens, nor to any others who are not Christians, as you shall answer to the Lord. And if you make a copy, write this in the beginning, as in the sight of the Lord. We find similar sentiments expressed by more or less all patristic authors of the same period.

There is debate among scholars as to whether this practice of secrecy, known as the Disciplina Arcani in academic circles, has its origins in the New Testament period or is of later origin. In support of the former we find Christ’s own words regarding parables and secrecy, while those who favour a later date cite open discussion of the Mysteries in the 2^nd century (though the question naturally remains whether these were the exception rather than the rule). In any case, we know it to be firmly established by the 3^rd century, and see a greatly heightened emphasis on it in the 4^th. I mention this because it is important to understand that the concern to keep the Mysteries out of the gaze of non-Christians heightened, not under persecution, but at the time when the Church had just gained her freedom and Christianity had risen to a position of imperial favour. In other words, secrecy was a matter of sincere principle rather than fearful pragmatism. The disappearance of the Disciplina in later centuries was not due to a change in the Church’s attitude to the exposure of the Mysteries to the non-baptised, but in a world in which the vast majority of people were baptised Orthodox Christians it was simply no longer a matter of concern. That infant baptism, which in earlier centuries had been a fairly uncommon occurrence, later became the norm probably also accounts in part for its disappearance: the children would have had a harder time than their parents keeping what they saw in church to themselves.

In many ways, we in the West now live in societies much more reminiscent of the earliest centuries of Church history. Practicing Christians are an ever diminishing minority among a secular majority, with only history and cultural identity giving us an ‘upper hand’ over the myriad of other religious groups around us. We are therefore far removed from the overwhelmingly Christian society in which the Discplina Arcani fell into disuse. Yet, a quick google search will reveal countless images, audio recordings, and videos showing the Mysteries of the Church in every detail. Few will bat an eyelid when they see a camera man irreverently barging into the sanctuary during the anaphora, or pushing the priest aside to get a good shot of the godmother’s dress or mother’s hat during a baptism. One priest I know referred to filming in the altar as “liturgical pornography,” a description I find particularly apt as the Eucharist is the most intimate act of the Church, the Bride of Christ, with her Bridegroom. Many parishes broadcast the Divine Liturgy live on the radio, televison, or live steaming online. Not only does this needlessly expose the Liturgy to those unfit to see or hear it, but also undermines the simple fact that the Liturgy of the Faithful is meant for participation, it’s not a spectacle. It further undermines the reality of the Liturgy as a synaxis, a gathering, of the people of God, on which Met. John Zizioulas has the following to say: “The Eucharistic gathering, as an image of the last times, certainly should involve only the baptized. In this sense, we are talking about a closed community which comes together ‘the doors being shut’ (Jn. 20:19; cf. the exclamation ‘The doors! The doors!’) The Eucharistic gathering can never be a means and instrument of mission, because in the last times, which it represents, there will be no mission; anyway, mission presupposes dispersal, not a gathering ‘in one place’. Consequently, it is contrary to the nature of the Eucharist as image of the Kingdom to broadcast it over television or radio, whether for pastoral reasons or for the purpose of mission (a way of broadcasting or advertising the ‘richness’ and ‘beauty’ of our worship). In the Eucharist, one participates either ‘gathered in one place’, or not at all. Participation at a distance has no meaning. As for those who are sick or unable to come to the gathering, the Church’s very ancient practice is to bring them the fruit of the gathering (Holy Communion, antidoron, etc.), and not the gathering itself, either aurally or visually.” [The Eucharistic Communion and the World, New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2011, p.48]

Certainly a total restoration of the Discplina Arcani in a media driven age such as ours is neither possible nor desirable. The internet is littered with hosts of erroneous, often laughable, descriptions and explanations of Christian doctrine and practice. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen Moslem apologists, quite confident despite their ignorance, go to great lengths to demonstrate the tri-theism of Christianity, or Protestant sectarians ridiculing the blasphemous cannibalism and vampirism of the traditional Christian understanding of the Eucharist. It is precisely such blasphemous derision the Fathers cite as the reason knowledge of the Mysteries should be kept from those too spiritually immature and not sufficiently educated to hear them. Now, however, it’s too late, and not making the correct information on those subjects available would probably be a bad idea. Furthermore, the basic doctrines of faith and the sacraments of baptism, chrismation and communion are shared by a number of heretical and schismatic groups, and were the Orthodox to attempt to re-institute the Discplina, it would be of little effect in this respect.

What is possible, however, and in my opinion also desirable, is for us Orthodox to cease our shameless and wholly unnecessary parading of the Mysteries before the non-baptised (or trivialising them in the eyes of the baptised, for that matter). The Liturgy of the Faithful is so called for a reason. While I personally think the re-introduction of the dismissal of non-Orthodox from the Liturgy following the Gospel would be a good thing – and it does still happen in a number of places – I understand the obvious pastoral difficulties this involves, and it should only be done in a way that is pastorally sensitive, lest we cause needless offence and drive away potential converts. There are no such pastoral concerns when it comes to uploading pictures, videos, and recordings on the internet, however. A priest should not feel afraid to deny a camera crew entry to the sanctuary, nor to admonish an altar boy trying to photograph something on his camera phone. Those who have such pictures and videos up on the internet should be encouraged to remove them, and, if they really need to, replace them with something taken at a Vesper, Matins, or the Liturgy of the Catechumens, which are no less beautiful or awe-inspiring services. If someone wishes to make a video of a “Teaching Liturgy” or some such thing, these can be distributed to parishioners directly through the parish bookshop, or online via private mailing lists (even youtube has a privacy setting allowing you to chose who can see the videos you upload). Those churches who broadcast live can limit these broadcasts to the Liturgy of the Catechumens. Perhaps this would in turn encourage priests to deliver the sermon immediately after the Gospel, which is its proper place, rather than moving it to the end of the Liturgy or, more disruptively, to just before the Communion of the Faithful.

While there generally is still a strong sense reverence around the Eucharist in our churches, the same can sadly not be said for most baptisms, at least of the infant variety. These tend to be a rather disorganised affair, and are seen by most simply as a rite of passage, a celebration of the birth of a new child. Emphasis is not on death and rebirth into Christ, the reception of the Holy Spirit, or the making of a Christian, but on the attire of those present and the cuteness of the baby, assuming s/he is at all visible behind the photographer and camera man. The venerable position of the godparent as a spiritual guide for the new believer has become nothing more than a way to honour a good friend or relative, regardless of their spiritual life. I have had the misfortune of witnessing a number of baptisms at which the godparent was not even an Orthodox Christian! Perhaps if there was a renewed emphasis on baptism as a Mystery rather than a spectacle, open not to the general public but only to the prayers of the faithful, and where photography and such was limited, we might be able to regain at least some sense of reverence for baptism and an appreciation for its tremendous importance.

Thus, by all means, encourage the world to “come and see” what the Church has to offer. “Here is order, here is discipline, here is majesty, here is purity: here even to look upon a woman to lust after her [Matthew 5:28] is condemnation. Here is marriage with sanctity, here steadfast continence, here virginity in honour like the Angels: here partaking of food with thanksgiving, here gratitude to the Creator of the world. Here the Father of Christ is worshipped: here are taught fear and trembling before Him who sends the rain: here we ascribe glory to Him who makes the thunder and the lightning” [St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 6:35]. But let Mystery remain mystery.

Τοῦ δείπνου σου τοῦ μυστικοῦ σήμερον, Υἱὲ Θεοῦ, κοινωνόν με παράλαβε· οὐ μὴ γὰρ τοῖς ἐχθροῖς σου τὸ μυστήριον εἴπω· οὐ φίλιμά σοι δώσω, καθάπερ ὁ Ἰούδας· ἀλλ’ ὡς ὁ λῃστὴς ὁμολογῶ σοι μνήσθητί μου, Κύριε, ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ σου.

New Book Available!

A slightly revised version of the Commentary on the Creed by St. Cyril of Jerusalem posted below can now be purchased in book form from Lulu.com.

Commentary on the Creed
by St. Cyril of Jerusalem

Price: £2.16
Ships in 3-5 business days

This book is a small collection of citations taken from St. Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures, arranged so as to serve as a commentary on the Symbol of Faith, which faithful Orthodox Christians recite at least twice a day, morning and evening, as well as at every Divine Liturgy.

Pages: 40
Publisher: Olsok Forlag
Published: 31 July 2012
Binding: Paperback

On the Sanctity of Marriage

By St. Cyril of Jerusalem

[The] Holy Spirit wrought in Elisabeth; for He has in knowledge not virgins only, but acknowledges married women also, so that their marriage may be lawful. 

[If you are] observing chastity, be not puffed up against those who choose the humbler path of wedlock. For marriage is honourable, and the bed undefiled, as the Apostle says. [Heb. 13:4] Were not you who keep your purity born of married persons? Do not, because you have a possession of gold, set at nought the silver. But let also those who are married and use marriage lawfully be of good cheer; those who subject their marriage to laws, not making it wanton by unbounded license; who observe the seasons of abstinence, that they may give themselves unto prayer; [1 Cor. 7:5] who with pure garments bring their bodies also pure to the assemblies of the Church; who have entered into the state of matrimony, not for indulgence, but that they may have a home. And let not those who have been married only once set at nought them who have involved themselves in a second marriage. Continence is indeed a noble thing and admirable; yet we should make allowance for a second marriage, that the weak may not commit fornication. It is good for them if they abide even as I, says the Apostle; but if they cannot contain, let them marry; it is better to marry than to burn. [1 Cor. 7:8-9] But let everything else be put far away from you - fornication, adultery, and every form of incontinence - and let the body be kept for the Lord, that the Lord also may look upon the body. And let the body be nourished with meats, that it may live, and serve without hindrance; but not that it may be given up to indulgence.

Catechetical Lectures 17:7 & 4:25-26