Anastasios Hudson

Month: June 2009

On the Practical Effects of Baptism
The Scriptures have laid the foundation of baptism, and the Church Fathers and serious theologians through the ages have expounded extensively on the subject, such that anything I could say on the matter would be redundant and insufficient. However, as a pastor, I have the opportunity to relate the theory to the practice for the sake of my flock, and anyone else who might benefit.

Orthodoxy makes no serious distinction between theory and practice; our theology is the result of Christians living the faith over the centuries, becoming one with God, and then using this enlightenment to reflect on issues and questions of the faith. The various manuals of spirituality, such as the Philokalia and the Sayings of the Desert Fathers are eminently practical manuals, and not the result of academic codification or sterile reflection divorced from applying the principles in one’s own life. Therefore, when we speak of baptism, we do not speak dryly and academically of an ordinance or practice that we are obliged to practice out of a mental obedience to the command of Christ, but rather we refer to something that was given to us by Christ, which produces a beautiful change in the person being baptized which is observable by others.

Theologically, baptism is our participation in the death and resurrection of Christ. His death on the Cross, entombment, and resurrection on the third day put death to death. Paradoxically, it was by death that death was abolished, in that when He was put in the tomb, His soul descended to Hades, where the dead lay, and He restored our Fathers Adam and Eve to life. A hymn from the feast of Ascension refers to Adam being taken in to Heaven with Christ—something which was impossible before Christ abolished the hold of death. Christ’s death, descent into Hades, and resurrection restored man’s relationship to God. His ascension into Heaven placed man’s nature with God, and the gift of the Holy Spirit allowed man to partake of God’s grace intrinsically, from the inside, allowing him to be a partaker of divine nature as St. Peter says in his epistle.

When man is baptized, he descends into the water, which becomes his grave. Emerging from this watery grave, he is resurrected with Christ. After the three immersions, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, man is chrismated, or anointed with oil, which bestows the Holy Spirit on him. His old nature is killed, and he is reborn with the gift of grace. All of his sins are forgiven. It must be underscored, however, that his faith in Christ is a presupposition; and the more he has put in to his preparation for baptism, by beginning the struggle against sin, the more he will be able to experience the grace of baptism. Man is like a balloon in this sense, in that it can expand, and the more it expands, the more air can be contained within. Through the struggle against sin, man expands his soul, and when the day of baptism arrives, God’s grace enters and fills as much of man’s soul as is available. Of course, baptism itself is necessary to attain communion with God, and so as man continues to practice the virtues, he will draw on the grace that has become available to him at baptism. But a good preparation is the only way to have a jump start in this process.

What then are the practical effects of baptism? Baptism bestows the forgiveness of sins. The white clothing that is put on the baptized person symbolize his new life and purity. As a consequence of baptism, a man’s life is reordered in a radical way. Allow me to speak from my personal experience.

The first two immersions were uneventful; I was more concerned about holding my breath. But after the third immersion, everything changed. As I emerged after the third immersion, it was as if scales were removed from my eyes. I could perceive a reality beyond what is perceptible normally by our senses. I “heard” a whooshing noise and felt a calming force come over me. Everything “made sense” to me and what I had read and studied for years became internalized. Saying that I was at peace would be an understatement.

Those being baptized have found that sinful tendencies that previously could not be conquered were destroyed, showing that God’s grace is what transforms man, not his own effort (although his consent and cooperation is required). The disposition of the person who has been baptized often changes; I have witnessed someone who was frequently nervous become a calm person, and in this case this has continued for several years from the baptism. Feelings of overarching and crushing guilt are replaced by an awareness of sin which admits a hope of correction through God’s love. Temptations often increase after baptism, since the person is now closer to God, but the means to overcome them are strengthened and man obtains confidence that the method of spiritual cure can transform him completely.

The practical effect of baptism is then to take the idea of the forgiveness of sins, the idea of the death and resurrection of Christ, which is spoken of in the New Testament and the writings of the Fathers, and bring this idea into a reality in the life of the believer. It must be emphasized that baptism is not magic; its efficacy depends entirely on the free will of the one baptized. The more he prepares, the more benefits he will reap; and he must continue his struggle with sin to maintain the grace he has received. However, the results will be there, and are obvious to more than just himself; others can see the transformation, and this confirms one’s faith. Stepping out in faith, accepting that baptism will effect a transformation, God in His love for man gives the reward of transforming man and allowing him to experience what is written of. What is written of, after all, is a description of what others who have preceded us have also experienced.

If you have not received Orthodox Christian baptism, God is calling you in to His Church, and inviting you to receive this same grace. He wants to give you the tools to experience the new life we have spoken of. Instead of life being a series of wild fluctuations, baptism will give you a base line. There will always be ups and downs in life, but through baptism you will be granted freedom from the apparent randomness of this constantly changing life. All the sins you have committed in your life can be forgiven; no matter what you have done, you can have a clean slate and be given a second chance. But it is up to you to make this decision, because God loves you enough to respect your free will and choice in the matter. If you feel the desire to be received into the Orthodox Church of Christ, contact us today about this. If you are unsure about the truths we have spoken of, and wish to know more, contact us today. Do not put off taking the next step, because there will always be a million other things to do in life, but they will not be meaningful outside the context of what Christ has established for your life.
Related posts:
June 11, 2009
The Orthodox Church in Raleigh, North Carolina
St. Mark the Evangelist Orthodox Church was founded in 2006 to serve traditional Orthodox Christians in Raleigh, North Carolina. Anyone familiar with the Raleigh area, or who has performed an internet search for Orthodox Churches in Raleigh, knows that there are other parishes in the area, which are well-established and active. Some might therefore question why we began our own mission instead of worshiping in one of the other parishes.

Since 1924, there have been three broad categories of innovations that have affected the Orthodox world, causing division and schism. These issues are Ecumenism, the New Calendar, and Modernism. We will address each one briefly, and why these problems have led us to found a mission unaffiliated with the other parishes in this area.

Ecumenism is a word which is used in different ways by different people, and thus can be difficult to pin down. For our purposes, we will define it as a movement which began in the early twentieth century with the goal of seeking cooperation on a social level between Christian Churches. Seeing the division of Christians has caused thoughtful people great consternation for centuries. However, until the twentieth century, it was viewed in terms of there being truth and falsehood; in other words, there was an original Church, and there were those who have broken off from this original Church. Over time, seeing that there were people who professed Christ in various Churches, the theory of an invisible Church arose, where what matters is not an affiliation with a denomination, but rather a confession of faith in Christ. All those who confess Christ are part of an invisible Church, which subsists in various denominations which may have different beliefs. The doctrinal differences are thus seen as secondary.

Ecumenism began as an attempt by people holding such views to form ways to cooperate on social issues, because they saw the divisions of Christians as irrelevant to social ministry. However, they were not content to remain on this level, and began to discuss doctrinal differences. What was originally a roundtable type of discussion evolved into a type of Parliament of faiths, where members began to vote on issues and release common statements. Orthodox Christians began to participate in these conferences and eventually became organic members of the World Council of Churches, which is an umbrella organization founded to coordinate these efforts on a global scale.

The Orthodox Church has always confessed itself to be the original Church of Christ, and that all other Churches have broken off from it. Christian unity thus can only be return to Orthodoxy, and not an attempt to work out differences by compromise, as there is no way one can compromise the truth of Christ which has been faithfully preserved only inside the Orthodox Church. Some original Orthodox members of ecumenical organizations believed that by attending such meetings, they were witnessing Orthodoxy to others. However, over the decades, so-called Orthodox theologians have participated fully in such meetings, including signing the joint statements of faith and participating in the liturgical worship of heretics. In a short reflection such as this, it is impossible to anticipate and refute any objections that so-called Orthodox Ecumenists may make, and indeed the present author has engaged in numerous conversations on the nature of ecumenism and its effects with members and clergy of the other Orthodox parishes in the area. While many “on the street” object to such ecumenical gatherings, they reason that it is not a big enough issue to warrant breaking communion with their bishops. We obviously disagree with this reasoning, seeing the fact that there are Ecumenists who deny the primacy of Orthodoxy and there are Non-Ecumenists who nevertheless remain in communion with the Ecumenists as one Church presenting an ecclesiological problem as to the nature of the Church and a proper confession of faith. Our conclusion has been that Ecumenism is a heresy that obscures the Church of Christ and reduces the likelihood of people embracing the Orthodox faith, and thus we confess that it is necessary to not commune with anyone who participates in Ecumenism.

The New Calendar. In 1920, the locum tenens (temporary administrator) of the Patriarchate of Constantinople released an encyclical letter “To the Churches of Christ, Wherever They May Be” which detailed a program of proto-ecumenism. In this letter, such things as altering the Calendar of feasts and shortening the fasts, having mutual exchanges of theological students, and other alterations were proposed, as a means to have union between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox Churches. The issue of the Calendar was one of the proposed changes which was adopted in 1924 as a result of this letter.

The Church Calendar was based off of the Julian Calendar, and was sanctified by centuries of use in the Church, just as other pagan customs were “baptized” and adopted by Christians. At the Council of Nicea, the date of Pascha (Easter) was set, and the overriding reason for this was to enforce unity of the celebration, since different Churches were celebrating at different times. The Fathers picked an arbitrary date in the middle of a possible range of dates when the Equinox occurs each year and set this as the date from which the tables for calculating the date of Pascha would be formulated.

As is well-known, the Julian Calendar is gradually drifting since it has too many leap years. Pope Gregory in the sixteenth century proposed a New Calendar, which was ostensibly formulated for astronomical accuracy, but which he also used as a way to assert his primacy over the Christian world. The Protestant and Orthodox Churches of this time rejected his new calendar on religious grounds, ignoring the issue of astronomical accuracy altogether. The Calendar that Orthodox use is perfectly designed for Orthodox worship, and the Fathers did not see a sufficiently valid reason to change it. Three Synods were called in the 16th century, and they produced a document known as the Sigillion in 1583 which rejected the New Calendar.

In 1924, however, the Church of Greece unilaterally adopted this New Calendar by force. A large number of the faithful rejected the adoption of it and monks from Mt. Athos served them on the Old Calendar. In 1935, seeing that the Synod would not budge, three bishops who were opposed to the New Calendar broke communion with the New Calendarists and returned to the Patristic Calendar. They rightly saw that this calendar was causing a division in the Orthodox world.

Unfortunately, as time went on, various other Churches adopted the New Calendar, and many who retained the Old, influenced by Ecumenism, did not see the need to reject communion with the calendrical innovators. In this way, there are two Calendars in use in the Orthodox world, causing embarrassment and division. In addition, those who remained faithful to the Patristic Calendar were generally not supported by members of the other Churches, who betrayed them by supporting the New Calendarists. Thus, for instance, the Moscow Patriarchate remains on the Old Calendar, but supports the New Calendar Church of Greece. However, another Church, the Russian Orthodox Chruch Outside Russia, seeing the New Calendar as part of Ecumenism, supported the Old Calendarists of Greece and Romania, thus allowing them to survive and flourish.

Modernism. Again, different people use the term in different ways, but this phenomenon is an inappropriate reaction to the phenomenon of the modern world by Orthodox peoples. Some were genuinely concerned that purely cultural considerations not cause difficulty for missionary work and Orthodox survival in the scientific age. However, it quickly became an occasion for many traditional Orthodox practices to be discarded by those who sought comfort and conformity with the world. Proper clerical dress was labeled as “Turkish” (a rather uneducated assertion to make), and replaced with Roman Catholic clothing or even street clothing when not in Church; the Church services were shortened and altered; fasting was reduced and in some places is rarely practiced; and a general disregard for Tradition is gradually seeping in.

The reason that these three issues are so dangerous is because Orthodoxy is a received Faith. We learn from our spiritual fathers, who provide us with instruction in the Faith. These practices which may seem secondary or external to those untrained in the Faith are actually the result of two thousand years of living Orthodoxy in each generation. What worked was cherished and expounded upon, while what was considered transient or cultural gave way. The practices of the Church which are being eschewed by Modernists and Ecumenists are the very tools that the Fathers have passed down to us in our time to aid us in our salvation, yet they are seen as merely cultural or outdated. The result is that the Modernists, Ecumenists, and New Caledarists make themselves the arbitrators of Tradition and thus superior to it. What is tried and true is put under a microscope by even catechumens and laymen who are not advanced in the spiritual life, and dismissed. In this environment, it is no wonder that there is a general degradation of the Orthodox spiritual life, a gradual shrinking of parishes, and a shortage of clergy and monastics.

We have made it our purpose to worship Christ in His Church in the way the Fathers passed Orthodoxy down to us, which involves the rejection of these three innovations. For this reason, when we founded our mission in Raleigh, we did so under the bishops of the Genuine Orthodox Church, also known as the “Greek Old Calendarists,” who have preserved Orthodoxy faithfully. The other parishes in the area to differing degrees either participate in these three innovations or are in communion with those who do. While we have had generally good relations with the priests and laypeople of these parishes, we must on principle remain separate. We do not judge ourselves as being more pious or more holy than they, nor do we actively solicit them and try to poach them with unfair methods to join our Church. We are here, following the Holy Fathers, and anyone who wishes to join with us is welcome. The separation found in the Orthodox world grieves us, and we hope that those who are involved in these innovations or are in communion with those who do will cease this participation and restore unity. Unity is not just a unity in the present, but a unity of mind with the Orthodox of ages past, whom we believe would have rejected these innovations. This is why we founded St. Mark the Evangelist Orthodox Mission, in our hopes to remain faithful to the Orthodox Church without compromise, and we hope to continue our work of promoting traditional Orthodoxy as long as the Lord allows us to do so.

Further Reading

A Scientific Examination of the Orthodox Church Calendar

Excerpt from the book Against False Union on the Calendar question
Related posts:
June 6, 2009
Righteousness Then and Now
“Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” John 14:10.

Dear Friends in Christ,

In this passage from the Gospel of John, which we read at Saturday’s liturgy, Christ speaks of the unity between Himself and the Father. What is interesting to note is the play on words; “The words I speak” are contrasted with the Father who “doeth the works.”

For Christ, and by extension for all those who follow Him, there is no distinction between one’s words and one’s works. If we profess to have a faith in Christ, we will demonstrate the works that prove it. Christ continues: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father” (verse 12).

Is Christ speaking symbolically? The Reading from Acts (20:7-12) for Saturday gives a clue. In it, a young man named Eutychus is listening to St. Paul speaking, and falls from a window and dies. St. Paul goes to him, and raises him from the dead. Only God can raise people from the dead, yet we see St. Paul doing it here. In other places, St. Peter also raises the dead. We can see in the book of Acts, then, that the very miracles that Christ performed were then given to his Apostles.

We might wonder if such things happen even in our time. The answer is yes, with a caveat. Christ gave the Apostles various blessings to perform miracles, but in a direct proportion to their level of faithfulness. If we recall in the Gospels, the Apostles at one point could not cast out certain demons. By the time Acts was written, they were raising the dead. A certain spiritual progress had occurred. This was due to the Gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, when the Spirit of God descended like tongues of fire. The Apostles, who had been preparing themselves for this gift, were ready to receive it.

When we are baptized and chrismated with the Holy Oil afterwards, we too are given the gift of the Holy Spirit. However, God does not force us to do anything against our will, and so if we are not prepared for the gift, and do not develop it through a life of “practicing what we preach,” God will respect our decision and pull away. If we continue to develop spiritually, however, he will give us spiritual gifts to be used for his glorification.

In our modern times, we can point to at least two people to whom God chose to give spiritual gifts. St. John Maximovitch was a Russian bishop who lead his flock across the world as communism spread, settling eventually with many of them in San Francisco. He was a wonderworker who healed many people. Elder Ieronymos was a monastic priest who lived on the island of Aegina in Greece. He lived a life of simplicity and comforted thousands of people through their troubled life. Both of these saints were given extreme discernment and were able to diagnose people’s spiritual ailments and sometimes even physically cure people. They lived in different places, but are both contemporary, dying in the 1960’s. When one reads their lives, they see the same kind of spiritual gifts that the Apostles possessed. God does not want us to look back to the past only for inspiration; he calls men and women in each generation to become holy and minister. Not everyone is given such extreme gifts, but God has a plan for each of us, and by fulfilling it, we will not only ourselves be saved, but we will save many around us.

Let us follow Christ’s words and produce the same works; let our lives become like that of St. Paul, St. John, and Elder Ieronymos. He has prepared the gift, but we have to step forward and receive it willingly.

In Christ,

Fr Anastasios

St. John Maximovich
Elder Ieronymos
Related posts:
June 4, 2009