Anastasios Hudson

Category: Seminary

  • The Relationship Between Sickness and Sin

    The question before us today is the nature of the relationship between sickness and sin in the Orthodox understanding. The Holy Bible is the first place we will turn in order to understand this relationship. The Orthodox Church also has a service, which is understood to be a sacrament, called Unction. This service includes many hymns, prayers, and scriptural references addressing this topic and therefore, in order to explain the relationship between sickness and sin, we will take a look at this service, which can be found in various places, but which is most accessible in Hapgood’s Service Book.

    The first thing one realizes when approaching the topic is that the Orthodox Church is thoroughly anti-Manichean or dualist. The Manicheans preached a type of “matter is evil, spirit is good” theology that led them to forsake the body. Modern-day proponents of this theory are various New Age groups and the Christian Scientist Church, which denies suffering as a reality. The Orthodox, following Scripture, see the body and soul as intrinsically united and eternally inseparable (even though death provides a temporary rupture). Hence the Orthodox understanding sees bodily and spiritual health as intimately linked, and both are seen as being affected by sin.

    The cause of the illness that prompts the faithful to approach this sacrament is assumed to be sin. Canticle III, 2nd Sedalen states: “…do thou, the same Master and Lord of all, grant healing unto thy sick servant. Show compassion, have mercy upon him (her) who hath grievously sinned.” Sin is an ontological reality that separates man from God. The paradigm of sin is of course the Fall of Adam. Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden cut him off from communion with God and he was forced to leave his entire life as he knew it. Adam had to toil on the ground and ultimately die as a result of his sin, and his son Cain killed Adam’s other son Abel. St. Paul explicitly states in Romans 6:23 that “the wages of sin is death.” In Corinth, some of the members of the community were even dying because they were receiving communion without discerning the body of the Lord; their sin brought about a physical death. From these examples we see that both sickness of the soul and the body arise from sin. Sin is also seen as a paralysis. In the hymn of Tone 3, we pray, “raise thou up my soul, which is cruelly paralyzed by all manner of sin.” Paralysis in the biblical worldview was often thought to stem from the parents’ sin or from the sin of the paralytic, paralysis being a retributive punishment. Therefore, sin itself is a paralysis that can only be freed by a miracle: God’s grace; we humans certainly cannot free ourselves from sin.

    Despite bodily and spiritual sickness arising from Adam’s sin, they should not be seen as simply a punishment from God. Because of this estrangement from God, God in his love became incarnate as the “second Adam” to restore man to himself. Sickness and suffering on the Cross were transformed into a way for man to be united to God. Baptism is the principal way for man to be united to Christ. However, man tends to fall into sin and sickness will result even post-baptism; hence, the rites of penance and Unction exist to restore and witness to the restoration of the believer to the community. Sin separates man’s heart from others, and the sickness that results and which can progress until it visibly creates a separation between humans is really just a physical manifestation of an already-existing condition. The sacrament of Unction is a way for the followers of Christ to visibly participate in this work of reconciliation by professing their faith and asking for healing from Christ. St. James asks in the epistle read in this service:

    Is any among you afflicted? Let him call for the elders of the Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the Name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he have committed any sins, they shall be forgiven him (James 5:10-17).

    Death itself is a mercy from God because it limits suffering and sin to a finite period, and gives man a motivation to cease his behavior and return to God. Jesus Christ overcame death itself then, and to those who die to sin he gives the resurrection and new life, which is best expressed on this earth by the forgiveness of sins.

    Sin breaks a relationship with God, and it is the healing of this relationship—the health of the soul—that is the primary focus of the anointing service. However, the healing of the body is not excluded, and such a healing is assumed to be an interest as well. The first Troparion of Canticle I states: “O Master, who ever makest glad the souls, and likewise also the bodies of mortal men, with the oil of loving-kindness…” The priest’s prayer at the actual time of anointing states, “Heal thou, also, thy servant, N., from the ills of body and soul which do hinder him (her).” The anointing with oil is a sign and guarantee of the mercy of God. In fact, in the original Greek text of the sacrament of Unction, there is a play on words, given that oil in Greek is eleon, and the Greek word for mercy, eleos, in the accusative form, is eleon. Through the oil is given God’s mercy. When we as Christians approach this sacramental act with faith, God’s mercy and healing are given to us. A physical healing may be granted as well, depending on God’s pleasure. When Jesus healed the paralytic who was lowered through the roof in the Gospels, he first forgave his sins, and only then cured him of his physical ailment to demonstrate that he had the authority to do so. The forgiveness of sins was the primary focus, not the physical healing, which was only granted as a sign. When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, Lazarus still had to die again, so we can infer from this that healings are for the purpose of teaching and manifesting God’s grace in a dramatic way. The passage with the paralytic is also instructive because he was healed by his friends’ action of lowering him down; he nowhere in the passage asks to be healed. This shows us that we as the community and Body of Christ have a strong responsibility for intercessory prayer to help one another be healed.

    On a practical level, what should we as members of the Church expect the healing of the anointing service to effect? Again, the focus must be kept on a spiritual healing, while being open to physical healing. If the latter does not occur, we haven’t missed the mark. The service of Unction and the texts it quotes, especially the Epistle of James, speak of mercy, patience, endurance, and restoration. These are qualities that can be expected to be acquired by the sick person if he or she confesses his or her sins and is open to Christ prior to undergoing the sacrament—as sacraments are not magic and require our full participation and consent. Being sick separates the patient from the natural world, family, and friends, and often creates a quite negative environment. Hence, the sacrament of Unction brings God’s mercy, and should effect in us mercy towards those whom we know. A patient, especially terminal, must be careful not to let anger overcome him or her and especially must try to keep from lashing out at innocent people, especially nurses. Those around the ill person must show mercy in dealing with a quite difficult person and learn not to take such outbursts personally.

    Patience is acquired in this process of showing and receiving mercy. Patience is especially required on the part of the patient who is a “go-getter” and who doesn’t like being served. A patient acceptance of being served can be given by receiving and accepting the message of the sacrament of Unction. Endurance is a virtue that also to be acquired. The strength given by God’s grace allows a person to suffer through the sickness and not curse God or fellow humans. The endurance is also needed to be able to tolerate the intense pain and alienation from self that accompanies a sickness; the patient has to learn to accept that he or she cannot move his arm, or walk, or talk, or function in the same normal way as before. Finally, restoration is to be accompanied through the anointing. Restoration is the quality of being reintegrated into the community; it’s also the quality of having sickness and death be realized for what they are, and accepting that these ailments do not cut us off from God but instead are bringing us closer to him by virtue of our accepting the Cross. The sick person is accepted as part of the Church here on earth, and if he or she does not recover, is prayed for as a member of the Church beyond this world.

    Hence it is apparent that sickness and sin are related, and that sin can cause spiritual and physical ailments. The sacrament of Unction, a physical act, can be a means to restore spiritual health to the sick person, and even physical health, provided the person has disposed himself or herself to God’s mercy.

    Related posts:

    1. Sheep’s Pool Healings as a Type of Christian Baptism
    2. Fall Reflects the Fall
    3. An Orthodox Take on Death
    4. As We Begin Lent

  • Authority in the Early Church and the Modern Church of Greece

    The following reflection was a seminary paper I did for my Introduction to the Canonical Tradition class, where we were to reflect on a paper by Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens (of the New Calendarist State Church of Greece) about the role of the primate in that Local Church, comparing it to what the canons themselves teach about the nature of authority in the Church, and what we know about the development of such structures historically.

    The authority structure of the Orthodox Church is rooted deeply in the New Testament notion of ministry.  All authority is derived from Jesus Christ.  However, the New Testament speaks of the Church often as a household, and the one managing the local church is referred to as an episkopos—what we might anachronistically term a bishop, but which in New Testament vocabulary connotated a steward.  The requirements for a bishop were also tied to his being a good household manager and father (1 Tim. 3:1-8).

    The Church is both local, as just described, but also universal, in the sense that many bishops heading local communities exist across the world.  Yet those who share the Orthodox faith maintain horizontal (geographic) and vertical (in succession of time) links to other local Orthodox communities.  As such, there exists a union of equal parts.  We speak of one Church in the Nicene Creed, and the many are collected into one, just as in the liturgy the multitude comes together to manifest the Body of Christ.  On a spiritual level Christ maintains the unity because we are all rooted in Him.  The pastoral epistles, though, recognized that sinful human nature required a shepherd of souls to maintain order, and the early Church recognized this as well.  Hence, authority structures developed in the early Church to cement the bonds of unity.  In addition to this, as the Church emerged from the underground, the problems facing it came out into the forefront and public.  Sometimes, problems surpassed the local level and affected a wider sphere of influence.  Bishops began to meet in councils (originally laymen went as well but as the distances increased, the bishop began to function as a representative), and this necessitated someone to call them together, decide the topics to be discussed, and serve as a focus for the region.  By the time of the Council of Nicea, this function was being performed by the bishops of the provincial capitals, and they were hence given the title Metropolitan.

    The Church as household of God must be free to exercise the sacramental ministry; hence, clear authority structures need to be in place so that bishops do not get bogged down in petty disputes.  Apostolic 34 states that “the bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them…and do nothing of consequence without him…but neither let him do anything without the consent of all…”  A circular type of authority is envisioned here; the bishops respect the rights of the Metropolitan and the Metropolitan respects the rights of the bishops.  Antioch 9 frames this authority back into our above-discussed household vocabulary by stating that the bishops must acknowledge the concern of the Metropolitan because in the metropolis all men come to do business.  It’s a back-and-forth, dialoguing, circular, sharing of authority in order to allow for mission.  Someone needs to preside in order to maintain order, unity, communication, well-ordering of affairs, and to make sure that all are running their dioceses in the same spirit.  Again, it is the role of the Metropolitan to show concern, even if this means intervening in the local affairs (such as in II Nicea 11 to establish an administrator of a diocese) but always preserving the rights of the local bishops to perform their normal functions, such as ordaining and settling disputes (Antioch 9).

    In the paper by now-Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens, the role of the primate in the Church of Greece is discussed.  Archbishop Christodoulos writes that the Church of Greece has followed a Synodal structure since its Tomos of Autocephaly was granted in 1850, which was based in part on the practice of the RussianChurch at that time.  Synodal structures are existent in all Orthodox Churches and presumed in the canons (cf. Antioch 19, I Nicea 4, Carthage 50).  What is different about the situation in the Church of Greece is that the Archbishop’s primacy is deëmphasized while the Holy Synod’s collegiality is emphasized; for instance, the Holy Synod is the highest governing body, it exists in an abridged form as a Standing Synod (with rotating membership) that meets regularly to conduct business, and it is commemorated at liturgies instead of the Archbishop.  This caused considerable problems on several occasions, for instance, when members of the Holy Synod continued to meet after the Archbishop had left, and issued decisions contrary to his will.  The only remedy was for the state authority to intervene, which everyone agreed was unfortunate and needed to be corrected to avoid future repetitions.  The issue of not commemorating the primate could be considered a novelty if one examines the presuppositions of communion: the Archbishop himself argues that communion is expressed in one person, just as the Trinity’s communion is manifest in the hypostasis of the Father, and he states that Apostolic 34 ends in a Trinitarian doxology to emphasize this point.

    Despite this somewhat “new” way of exercising the primacy, it does not differ substantially from the model of the canons such as Apostolic 34 and Antioch 19.  These canons leave open the mechanics of how the primacy is to be exercised while clearly articulating its existence.  The Archbishop in the Church of Greece still calls the full Holy Synod together for its annual meeting, presides over it, sets its agenda, and determines the floor for speakers.  Finally, when the Synod is not in session, he has a blessing to conduct the “day to day” affairs of the Church, and oftentimes does so even by acting decisively without the Synod’s input.  All these are aspects of care and organization that were expressed in the presuppositions to Church order and in the above-mentioned canons.

    Related posts:

    1. The Traditional Orthodox Church and Its Hierarchy in the Western Hemisphere
    2. Canons Are Not Arbitrary Rules
    3. My Joy Over the Recent Church Union
    4. New Calendarism, Vaganteism, and the True Orthodox Church

  • Canons Are Not Arbitrary Rules

    The following is a seminary mini-essay I wrote in the form of a letter for an assignment; it is not an actual piece of correspondence. The goal is to elucidate the nature of the canons. In this case, a man was denied ordination because of an impediment (certain sins bar a man from being ordained in the Orthodox Church, despite his having repented of them), and why such a concept exists.

    Dear N,

    I’m so sorry that the Church decided against ordaining Peter! I want to try and help you understand why. The canons are not about rules and regulations, but about Jesus Christ. In the New Testament, Jesus frequently referred to Himself as “the Truth.” He is the embodiment of what is real and authentic for human life, because He lived it perfectly. As Truth, we can say that Christ is the rule of our faith; He is that against which we measure ourselves and our deeds. “Rule” in Greek is kanon, which we describe in canonical discourse as the Canon, or the general tradition of the Church, and canons are the particular applications of the Canon; a particular way of gauging problems against the Rule developed, and each generation of the Church has received this methodology and accepted it, then applied it to its unique problems.

    As such, the canonical tradition is not something which comes out of thin air but rather is something that is passed down to us and which we receive and accept as our own. Chalcedon Canon 1 states, “we have deemed it right that the canons hitherto issued by the saintly fathers at each and every synod should remain in force.” Canons ultimately reflect on the Canon, and as such “they remain unshakeable and immoveable…to these there is no addition, from these there is no subtraction” (II Nicea 1). Some of the canons come from the written texts of Scripture, and some of them come from the unwritten traditions of the Church, which are both from one source: the Word of God. St. Basil argues this in the 27th Chapter of his work, On the Holy Spirit.

    The ultimate goal of having canons is salvation. The Canon is the Christian way of life, transformed through an encounter with Christ, and the canons are the results of reflecting on this and applying it to life. For example, Canon 2 of the Council of Trullo states that the Apostolic canons, “should henceforth remain firm and secure, for the healing of souls and curing of passions.” By having canons, we are not left to do whatever, but are given practical advice about what works and what does not. Christ is the eternal God-Man who is eternally the same. The experiences of mankind are also quite similar throughout the ages; this is partially an answer to your statement that “none of this applies to us today!” The Fathers of the Council of Carthage in Canon 1 approve the canons of Nicea and then argued that “keeping this forum, let these things which follow…be kept firm,” showing that they are in the same mind to speak the truth and pass down applications of the Canon.

    In order to understand the process by which the Church decided as it did in regards to your husband, we need to look at the methodology of the canonical tradition. First, it is necessary to understand the “Canon particular” about the issue, in other words the teaching that exists behind the canons. If we are dealing with a marriage impediment, we need to first understand what Christian marriage is, for instance. Then the problem is examined, looking for what aspect in the situation falls short from the norm. Next, the canonical literature is consulted, which are the canons of various councils and Fathers which are given ecumenical authority in the Church (usually by other synods; c.f. Trullo Canon 2). Canons which seem unrelated may be extended to our situation as well. Finally, the Church determines whether the remedy found in the canon is an appropriate solution to the problem; sometimes the full prescription is not applied. The Church “must consider the peculiar nature of the sin and the readiness of the sinner for amendment, and thus apply a suitable remedy to the illness…” (Trullo 102). Basil Canon 3 also says that there are some matters which “do not admit of the strictest interpretation.”

    The canons also exist for good order. Certain people are not ordained because of impediments which might cause scandal, or may cause the candidate spiritual harm if he were ordained. Even if your husband is a nice guy, something could return to haunt him and the Church might suffer; hence, the Church uses the canons to guide its selection of priestly candidates, as well, for good order and in order to have good models of the Christian life for others to follow. The canons are prophetic and speak against the ways of the world; I encourage you and your husband to prayerfully reflect on this and allow Christ to transform this problem into an opportunity.

    In Christ,

    Anastasios

    Related posts:

    1. Uncanonical