ABC: The “Otherly,” Innovation, Baptism, and God’s Wrath

Metropolitan Chrysostomos's first posting placed first
and then his answers to questions about it
following the original - to make it easer ... 

God bless you. An interesting and short commentary
by Metropolitan Chrysostomos on a newspaper article
that was sent to him by a friend.
                                                      † Bp. Auxentios

On Jun 5, 2017, at 12:39 PM, xxx wrote

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/living/religion/article154030349.html

Innovative Orthodoxy
meets
frightful sectarianism.

Well, as usual, I am not on neither side. Nor am I in the middle. I am with the “otherly”: exactitude in tradition bound to moderate freedom in the Christian yoke of love.

The reception of the man into a new and innovative kind of Orthodoxy was by an extreme form of economy (as pictured in the photograph, a ritual unknown to us!), rather than a proper Orthodox Baptism, which is not only a Mystery specific to Orthodoxy, but one that represents something quite different than the western sacrament. Most Orthodox are so unaware of their own Faith that they cannot explain that fact, usually for fear of appearing sectarian or, again, because they lack a basic understanding of the ritual to begin with. Neither is sectarianism involved in our view of Baptism (“enlightenment”) nor, were it so, can I imagine ignorance and bigotry as its valid antidote.

The reaction to his conversion with ignorant and sectarian ideas about graven images (these poor people cannot distinguish veneration from worship?) and other backwater bigotry appalls me. The babble about cancer and linking it to conversion speaks of an irrational understanding of God’s “wrath” that would place me in opposition to whatever vision of God these people entertain. What an awful conception of God. Cult-like notions of “wrath” unwashed by mercy and Christ’s ministry of love are not worthy of our attention.

I remain astounded, at times, at what passes as the God of the universe which gives Christianity its force: an ontological force formed in love, bathed in mercy, conveyed in pious action inseparable from inner faith, and surely higher than the lowliness of a sectarian narrow-mindedness that ares not ultimately leave to Christ, Who is the Church, the judging of another man’s heart.

A “lose-lose” situation is all that I see. On all sides, I walk away from a sour taste in my mouth: “Ye have changed judgment into gall, and righteousness into hemlock.”

In Christ, † Bp. C.

/further replies:/

From: Bishop Chrysostomos 

The “Otherly,”
Innovation,
Baptism, and
God’s Wrath

Feast of the Holy Spirit, 2017

Dear Diocesan Clergy, Faithful, and Friends:
Evlogia Kyriou. Gospod’ blagoslovit!

Bishop Auxentios sent me a letter from someone who responded to the mailing which he asked me to allow him to distribute earlier today. (See all of that material below, after my comments and four questions and answers.) He asked me to answer some questions that were contained in this response to his mailing. Quite frankly, I am desperately trying to complete my translation of the Spiritual Instructions of Abba Dorotheos of Gaza this summer, and my declining energy and the weight of my overwhelming correspondence have collided. I have spent well over a year on my translation, which I had hoped to complete much earlier than this. I am, I admit, not therefore inclined to invite the endless responses that I receive when I write something that those who love controversy and debate (and who therefore badly need to read what I hope is a much clearer rendering of the Saint’s very practical and wonderful treatise) take as an opportunity to inform me of their opinions. 

However, I have agreed to write a few short responses, with the hope that any who agree or benefit from my responses will understand and accept my silence as gratitude, and that those who have disagreements will simply realize that I have enough useless opinions of my own and am consequently not in need of those of others. I can then get back to the tedious but rewarding task of providing answers to many questions by translating the works of someone whose teachings are based on deep spiritual insight and experience, far exceeding my meagre opinions and the opinions of those in my limited state of spiritual development. 

Thus, please see, immediately below, the questions posed to His Eminence, Bishop Auxentios, and my short responses.

With warm wishes for the upcoming Fast of the Apostles next week,

Least Among Monks,
† Bishop Chrysostomos

1) What does [Bp. Chrysostomos] mean by what he calls the ‘otherly' and that he connects to "exactitude in tradition bound to moderate freedom in the Christian yoke of love”? I am at lost to find any meaning in this.

I mean that Orthodox traditionalists, who follow St. Paul in holding firmly to the traditions passed down to us and who cling to an Orthodox way of life found in the Canons of the Church and the teachings of the Fathers, take on this yoke as freedom in Christ. By our fidelity to our Orthodox traditions — in how we act, eat, dress, and worship — we gain the freedom of obedience. Obedience is a path to freedom, in that we trust that all things done in obedience to Holy Tradition will ultimately be for our good and, following the natural path set out by the Church for living in a world that has deviated from the standards of Christianity, we will be freed from the enslavement of an imperfect world. Our freedom is reinforced by seeing what such a life brings us, in terms of a modicum of relief from the woes of the world and an abiding vision of the wonderful path towards spiritual evolution and union, by the Grace of the Holy Spirit, with Christ: i.e., human deification.

By moderation, I mean that we do not foolishly impose our path, even if we may consider it correct, on others. Nor do we employ abusive, nasty, and ill-intentioned words, or engage in offensive actions, in relating to those who do not accept our path. Our path, the royal way, is always paved with toleration and respect for others, even when we disagree with them or regret the path they take. They have free will, the hallmark of those created in the Image of God, and we must respect them even when we disagree with them or politely chastise them for their errors. Nor can we consider ourselves somehow better than they. Such arrogance impedes any spiritual progress. We must simply pray for them and accept them where they are, unless they ask us for help in moving elsewhere.

The “otherly,” the cataphatic “unknowing” and the mystical life of the Church, wherein we encounter spiritual things in silence and in the mystery of inner transformation, is simply something that our tradition, moderation, and love make possible to us. The “otherly” is the goal of spiritual life, which is given to those who observe Holy Tradition as a “means to an end.” To state it ironically, obedience affords us a certain freedom in this life and, at the same time, opens up to us, when we embrace it, to something wholly beyond our expectations.

2) What does he mean by a new and innovative Orthodoxy?

I mean by that the Orthodoxy of “officialdom,” which is bestowed on whole jurisdictions either by virtue of their association with some political or national entity that sponsors one of the ancient Patriarchates, or the Orthodoxy of the ecumenical movement, which rejects Orthodox claims to spiritual and historical primacy and which, confusing “officialdom” with canonical authenticity, still calls itself “canonical.” There is, of course, no such thing as an “official” Orthodoxy, and the administrative authority of the Church is based on spiritual principles: Apostolic Succession, confessional purity, and, indeed, a life led according to Holy Tradition, the teachings of the Church Fathers, and adherence to the Canons of the Church, the rudders by which it is guided. Official Churches have canonical authenticity when they follow the Canons.

The new and innovative Orthodoxy of our day believes that Orthodoxy is not the criterion of Christianity, often teaches that it holds no primacy in the array of Christian bodies, and does not hold that all should be measured by it. Holy Tradition is at times dismissed as medieval (or openly mocked), and such inanities as a post-Patristic age and freedom from the search for the True Church or the criterion of the Faith is a matter of folly or simple-mindedness. As a result, the new and innovative Orthodoxy that we see so triumphantly raising its voice in the contemporary world today has succumbed to foibles and true follies that disfigure the Faith and give clear evidence that Orthodoxy as they present it is nothing special, but is slowly walking the path of irrelevancy that marks so many religious institutions today. While sincere people would like to believe that this is still the ancient Faith of Orthodoxy, they are foolishly ignoring the fact that it is teetering on the verge of losing what makes Orthodoxy what it is.

Nor is Orthodox traditionalism without it betrayals and weaknesses, though at least it has not succumbed to an institutional vision of the essence of Orthodoxy. It understands that genuine Orthodoxy lies in the cultivation of Saints, the transformation of human life, and a tenacious dedication to the principle that Christ founded the Church, the Apostles and Fathers preached and preserved it, and that the clear sign of its presence is found where sinners repent, where humans participate in the Energies of God and unite with Christ, and true guides /holy people/ guide us to that end.

3. How does Orthodox baptism differ from baptism in other churches and are non-Orthodox baptisms useless?

Baptism in the Early Church was often called “enlightenment,” since by threefold immersion in the sanctified waters of the Baptismal font the “ancestral curse,” the “sickness unto death” of fallen man, is washed away and our faculty for spiritual understanding (the nous, or spiritual mind) is activated. Our path to the restoration of our “Godlike” qualities is restored by Baptism. The Mystery and the form of the ritual are preserved in Orthodoxy as they were in early times, and that Mystery includes not just a washing away of sin and enlightenment, but a oneness, as Scripture expresses it, of confession and mind in the Orthodox Faith. The Church can, when those baptized in another confession by threefold immersion convert, and especially if immersion in water is physically impossible on account of age or health, receive believers by “economy,” that is, by endowing the Grace of one of the Church’s Mysteries on a ritual foreign to Orthodoxy. This is an elaborate service in and of itself and involves the profession of a clear belief in the primacy of Orthodoxy, even if Orthodox ecumenists ignore that provision in many cases. In fact, the wholly proper and acceptable manner of reception into Orthodoxy is by Baptism, whatever a convert’s Faith.

As for what Baptism in outside Orthodoxy, that is not our concern. Our concern is to preserve the integrity of the Church as a community of those with a common Baptism, a common confession, and a common mind in Christ.

Dismissing other Christians and their confessions as nothing, however, is impolite and crude, violates the ethos of the Church and the Church Fathers, and is, in my personal opinion, as much an assault against the integrity of Orthodoxy as receiving converts by economy, as though the Orthodox Mystery of Baptism were not unique and singular. 

Knowing where Grace is does not give us license to assume that we are God and can judge the hearts, intentions, and human virtues of others, whatever their religion. Those who disagree with me have every right to do so. But my assessment of deficiencies among the heterodox does not include ugly, loud, sectarian, and vulgar condemnations of anyone. I cannot imagine how people living a spiritual life could do such a thing, even if I do not believe that there is no criterion of truth or that all religions are the same (a belief that common sense, even a slight bit of logic and intelligence, and human decency cannot countenance).

4. Does he really think that God does not punish people and that His wrath is not going to destroy the earth? Can a Christian deny God's wrath?

I do not pretend to understand fully the Old Testamental vision of God, if taken alone, but I do know that it is a vision that is turned from fear to love, wrath to loving sacrifice, and violence to peace in the Light of Jesus Christ, Who is God revealed on earth and in human form and time. If God had to seek man within man's own fallen passions and through his primitive, sinful nature in Old Testamental times, in the New Testament the God Who was looking for man man in the Old Testament is revealed as the God that man (including the Old Testamental Fathers and Prophets) was all the while seeking in his heart. In the mystery of His Providence, God revealed Himself in full as what He always was, even if He mysteriously tried to reach man in ways that I, at least, do not, again, fully understand. In any event, taking on our nature, communing with the tarnished image of His Light within us, and sacrificing Himself for us, He proved that He is certainly not a God Who wishes by His wrath to destroy us. 

God does not wish to destroy sinners, whom He loves and forgives, and has no desire to destroy His own creation. He by nature withdraws from our world and from us when we indulge in and perpetuate sin; but He wills none of this. We will it, ultimately. And what happens when we destroy our world and lose our souls? God renews the world, restores us, and frees us from sin and death, if we freely desire that and voluntary accept Him. As for those who reject him and earn damnation, what about them? Even in Hell His love is present, though it serves to torment sinners for their choices and for having distanced themselves from Him.

What I said before, as a closing remark, I quote again from the Prophet Amos, whose prophecies are filled with the language of wrath and retribution, to find words that, wholly independently of their provenance, speak to me about the Old Testamental view of God: "Ye have changed judgment into gall, and righteousness into hemlock.”

These are simply my very fallible thoughts, and should they be wrong, discard them at first evidence of that.

Least Among Monks,
† Bishop Chrysostomos