Category: St. Mark Mission

Posts that originally appeared on the website of St. Mark the Evangelist Orthodox Mission of Raleigh, North Carolina.

  • A Church Building Catch-22

    In November 2006, my wife, her brother, and I began to pray the Service of the Typica on Sundays, as we embarked on our journey to establish an Old Calendar Orthodox Christian mission parish in Raleigh, North Carolina. For the first year, we were often alone, only being joined a few times by others. Eventually, the Metropolitan decided to ordain me a priest in 2008, so that we would have a regular sacramental life and so that we would have a greater ability to spread the faith.

    Interestingly enough, about the time that the bishop decided to ordain me, a man in Raleigh contacted me and began to attend service. He eventually became my chanter. The same month, a family contacted me from Greenville, North Carolina, and expressed a desire to have a parish in their area. They were able to get together the resources to provide a location for worship, and this led to the Greenville mission growing much faster than the Raleigh mission. Now, our Greenville mission is doing quite well, is self-supporting, has a building, and is able to reach many people in the community.

    In Raleigh, we are still meeting in my home chapel, though. In the beginning, my wife and I reasoned that God wanted us to focus on growing the Greenville mission, which was a considerable feat given the distance, lack of resources, and small number of attendees in the beginning. However, through Grace, the community grew, and now has 30+ members. Recently, though, more and more people have been contacting me in Raleigh, and asking me questions about the faith.

    It’s kind of ironic, because I am not able to walk around Greenville witnessing and evangelizing and inviting people to our parish, but in Raleigh, where I live and have many contacts, I am not able to invite people to a Church, because we meet in my home chapel. Sure, I invite some people, but discernment is necessary as there are unfortunately dangerous people out there, and at the same time, many are uncomfortable to worship in a home chapel as well, even though this is the way of the early Christians.

    Hence, in Raleigh we are in a bit of a Catch-22: we need more people to be able to afford to rent or own a building, and we need a building to attract more people! Of course the Church is not only about the building, but rather is about Christ and a relationship with Him and through Him other human beings, but the Church building does provide an important function in providing a beautiful worship space, a place where visitors feel welcome, safe, and possibly anonymous if that is their desire, and fellowship opportunities. I make the most of what I’ve got, and minister to people whose needs are not met by the established parishes in the area, but I nonetheless know that more people could be reached if we were to have a place to meet.
    Seeing how the Lord has blessed Greenville, I am not worried about the future, and know that in God’s time, we will obtain a permanent place to worship and fellowship. I do want to highlight our situation, however, because I know that there are people who could bring us a step closer to obtaining a Church building if they only knew of our presence in the area. Perhaps that is why you are finding this article.

    We do not seek an extravagant Church building, but we do seek to have something meager in which to worship, fellowship, and serve. If you have the means to help us make this happen, or you are able to assist partially, please let me know. If you belong to a Church that is going through hard times and may be on the verge of closing, please let your community know about our struggle and if possible, perhaps we could take over your building if you feel you are unable to continue.
    By 2014, we can obtain a place to gather formally, and together is how we will do it. Keep us in your prayers, and let us know if you wish to help!

  • Our Vision for Raleigh

    Saint Mark the Evangelist Orthodox Church is:

    • A Church which is faithful to the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ
    • A Church which is part of the Orthodox Christian Church, which is the original Christian Church
    • A small mission community meeting in Raleigh, North Carolina
    • A missionary-oriented Church which in turn plants other Churches throughout North Carolina and the Southeast
    • A traditional parish which observes all of the doctrines and practices of the Orthodox Church
    • A Church which ministers to members of all races and ethnicities equally

    Our Church Will:

    • Continue to relentlessly share the Good News of Jesus Christ and His Church with the city of Raleigh
    • Encourage and equip its members to grow in faith and piety through active participation in the life of the Orthodox Church
    • Obtain a permanent Church building by 2015
    • Work to encourage a return to Traditional Orthodox practice among those who have lost it
    • Minister to those who have been left behind by other Churches or who are not sure how to explore faith for the first time on their own
    • Establish adult education to enable members and non-members to grow in their knowledge of the Christian faith
    • Work with local charities to provide material relief to the suffering and needy

    The Resulting Vision

    Currently, we have been meeting in our pastor’s humble home chapel. As we grow in our primary location in North Raleigh, we will obtain a Church building so that we can reach more people; our current situation prevents large scale advertising, and not everyone is comfortable to come to a house chapel (although I promise that we don’t bite!).

    Continued growth will reveal where there are groupings of families. When there are pockets of people concentrated in an area sufficiently far from the first Church, we will encourage and equip the group to meet regularly for prayer, and from this will sprout the next mission. When this mission blossoms, the process will be repeated, so that there will be exponential growth across Raleigh and the Triangle region.

    Over the long run, we seek to not just be “the” traditional Orthodox Christian parish in Raleigh and the Triangle, but rather one of many. Our goal is to see several traditional Orthodox Churches across North Carolina’s Triangle area, covering a wide geographical area and enabling everyone to have a truly local parish Church. We envision parish Churches in Downtown or South Raleigh, in North Raleigh, in Apex/ Cary, in Pittsboro, Durham, and in Wake Forest, although we are of course open to wherever the Lord ultimately blesses us to grow, and will follow His lead.

    We believe that a network of multiple, smaller Churches tied together will be more effective than growing and continuing to acquire or build larger and larger facilities over the years.

  • An Instance of Baptist Harassment

    Last Sunday, my wife and I met up for lunch with a priest friend and his family who were visiting from out of town. We went to an Indian restaurant in Cary, North Carolina, since it was close to where our friends were staying. They have three children, and so there were seven of us total at the table, which necessitated much shifting, re-arranging, and trips to the buffet. The conversation was a blessing, and we enjoyed each other’s company.

    At one point, the wife left the table with two of the children, leaving Father alone with his youngest, whom he picked up and calmed down when she began to act up. It was at this moment that the family sitting in the table across from us sprung in to action. The father of the family, who had a discernable accent suggesting a Mediterranean background, asked our friend the perennial question that we priests face: “what religion are you?” Upon hearing the response, “Orthodox Christian,” the man followed up with a quick retort: “so are you born again? Saved?” From the tone of voice and context, I was rather sure the man knew what we were, and that he was baiting my friend.

    (more…)

  • Letter to Kmart About Being Open on Thanksgiving

    Dear Kmart,

    I believe that your store provides products at a reasonable price, and that this benefits many people in my community. You kept the Raleigh, NC Capital Boulevard store open even when that area was depressed, which provided jobs for local people, and the ability of locals to benefit from your low-priced goods. As such, I have had a good impression of your organization.

    With that in mind, I am disturbed to see that your Raleigh, NC Capital Boulevard store (and I assume others) will be open all day on Thanksgiving. You probably have dual motives, like any corporation. You have an obligation to maximize profits, which I don't object to. You also have a sense of obligation to the local community, and there are surely some who would like to see the store open on a holiday for their last-minute needs.

    However, in this case, you also have two other obligations. One is to your employees. They deserve a break from the never-ending hustle and bustle of the modern working life. Your employees are also cheated out of time to spend with their families. The second obligation is to our nation and to do your part to preserve our American culture. Our culture prizes Thanksgiving as one of the oldest holidays of our nation. As more stores are open on this day, the character of the day is diminished.

    I encourage you to not repeat this mistake next year. If you are planning on sending a form letter back, there is no need. I just want you to know how I, and other Americans like me, feel about your decision to keep stores open on Thanksgiving.

    Kind regards,

    Rev. Father Anastasios Hudson

  • Holy Week in Our North Carolina Missions

    Whenever I visit our parishes, or speak to fellow Orthodox Christians, the topic of the missionary work we are doing in North Carolina always generates interest. I have previously written two articles concerning our missionary endeavors in North Carolina, “Our Missions in North Carolina” and “Our One Year Anniversary,” but for some time I have wanted to author another informal reflection to update our friends. Although it is now several months since Holy Week, that blessed time remains ever present in my heart and mind, so I will recount with joy how we celebrate this time in our missions.

    I continue to serve both our missions in Raleigh (St. Mark the Evangelist) and Greenville (Nativity of the Holy Theotokos) regularly; generally speaking, three times a month in each location, by a combination of Saturday and Sunday liturgies. I maintain a secular job to support myself, and my on-call rotation has increased, so scheduling is often challenging, but God has always blessed it to work out in the end. I also occasionally find time to visit my other mission station, in Charlottesville, Virginia, or to provide pastoral care for families who have found us elsewhere and are hopeful to establish a mission, such as the folks in Nashville, Tennessee.
    (more…)

  • Trusting in God

    Anastasios Hudson's daughter and his dog
    Daisy, the dog mentioned in this article, with my daughter Sophia

    A few days ago, my dog developed an itch and it became apparent that she needed to go to the veterinarian for treatment. It’s a recurring problem, completely minor, which takes less than a minute to alleviate. For my dog, however, it’s a traumatic experience on two counts; the first is that she hates traveling in the car, and the other is that she is afraid every time she goes in to the veterinarian’s office. The car must do something to her balance or her stomach, and she becomes upset, unsure of her footing, not knowing in what direction she is going. The veterinarian’s office represents greater uncertainty; she sees other dogs, some of whom are in pain, hears new sounds, and sees new things. The floor is cold, and there is a sterile smell in the air from the cleaning agents used to wipe down every surface.

    She knows the veterinarian’s office by sight, and as soon as we pull in the parking lot, she begins to cower and shake. For any animal lover, it’s a pitiful sight to see one’s beloved pet terrified. I took her in to the office, registered her, and then we waited. As each moment went by, she became more afraid, and the anticipation was fueling it. I held her in my arms (she is a medium sized dog), petting her gently, and whispering comforting words to her. She continued to shake, but she was not squirming as much. Finally, the veterinarian entered, performed the procedure, and we were done. She was relieved of her itch, and she bolted for the door. I rendered payment, and we went to the parking lot; she went directly for our car, which she recognizes, wagging her tail, utterly relieved.

    While my dog was shaking in my arms, and I was trying to console her, an obvious analogy came to my mind. It was nothing profound, but I felt it deeply. As I looked in to her eyes, and saw her fear, I felt utter compassion and love for her. She didn’t know what she was experiencing or why, but she trusted me despite her fear. She didn’t try to claw her way out of my arms, but rested there waiting. She trusted that I knew what was best, even though she was not happy. I thought about how on some level, this must be similar to how God sees us in our pitiful state.

    God knows what we need, what is best for us, what the medicine is to cure our souls, and He is willing to patiently guide us towards it. We are unable to see the clear end of the path we are on, and are constantly being cast off course by distractions, temptations, and adversaries. Terrible things happen, even to good people, because this world of sin has become corrupted and knocked off balance. Yet we are not alone in this. God looks in our eyes as it were, but even more than this, He peers into the depths of our souls, and He loves us. He is there to hold us, to nurture us, and to guide us. We may not understand the “why” of any given situation, but we know that there is a solution, a purpose, an ultimate end.

    Two key differences between a man and a dog, however, are free will and the noetic faculty of the soul of man. Man possess free will to choose good or evil; he has a choice of response that far surpasses the limited, pre-configured responses than an animal has to any given situation. In addition, while both man and animals have souls, only man has a noetic faculty, the highest part of the soul, which allows him to have rational communion with God. An animal cannot think with the same breadth of rationality, nor can it create an abstraction from an abstraction, and thus it cannot have a rational relationship with God, which is a life of prayer. This has two implications.

    The first implication is that while my dog responded to my loving attempt to calm her, she did not abstractly consider the implications of either accepting or not accepting my embrace. She was not able to calm herself by reasoning that the situation was not as grave as it seemed. Man, on the other hand, can both choose to reject the consoling love of God, which sometimes is manifested as a chastisement, as when a father scolds his child for running across the street without looking, in order to protect him; and he can attempt to console himself by replacing the love of God with his own devices. We see people “self-medicating” with alcohol, drugs, giving in to carnal pleasures, and gluttony, for instance. An animal cannot participate or choose not to participate on this level.

    The second implication is that unlike an animal, by reason of possessing a more developed soul, man can communicate with God. By constantly submitting to the will of God, man can attain union with Him and can become free of the cares of life by placing all his trust in God. Unlike an animal which can only respond to a stimulus, man can anticipate. By being in an ever more proper and close relationship with God, man can learn discernment and can avoid situations that lead to trouble. At a certain point, as his trust in God continues, he becomes so completely one with God that he is not thrown off by the cheap distractions of this world. He knows that the trips to the veterinarian as it were are for his own good, and that his master, the Lord, is guiding him. He in turn feels the same love back towards God that God feels for him, although in a limited capacity owing to man’s limited nature.

    While my dog’s response to me was predictable, man’s response to God is unpredictable. Yet God’s actions towards us are always of supreme love, and we have the freedom to accept His loving embrace. The deep affection that a human feels for his pet is nothing compared to the deep love that God has for His creation (after all, God became man in order to suffer death on the Cross!), but let us learn from the analogy what we can and strive to increase our trust in the Lord.

  • 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

  • How Do Orthodox View Non-Orthodox Religious Phenomena?

    For some coming to Orthodox Christianity, the conversion is a jolting experience where the difference between one’s former way of life and the Orthodox way of life becomes suddenly clear and is a stark contrast. For such converts, and for many people who were born into Orthodoxy and have never been anything else, Orthodoxy is simply true, its rituals and prayers give spiritual strength, and not much thought is given to non-Orthodox religious experiences. There are others, however, who have been religious or spiritual their entire life, and for whom Orthodoxy is the culmination of a gradual approach towards the fullness of faith.

    When Orthodoxy is the last step in a long journey of gradually turning to God, the Orthodox Church’s insistence on being the one, true Church often causes one to ponder what then to make of previous spiritual experiences. Some lifelong Orthodox, not having had experience outside the Church, see spiritual non-Orthodox and often wonder if their spirituality is of the same substance as the Orthodox way.

    Those of us growing up in Western Europe or America are now trained to be relativists; each culture, belief, and way of life is seen as a choice, and the logical outcome of our rights and freedom. Orthodoxy then presents itself as the true faith, and this seems rather medieval at first glace due to our upbringing. Yet relativism is an empty philosophy which in the end has not served modern man as much as he assumed it would. The belief that all religions, cultures, and practices are equal often leaves man with an empty feeling, or in a state of constant wandering. The fact that there is an alternative, a faith which claims it is the Truth, and can provide evidence that it has remained consistent since its founding by the Lord Jesus Himself two thousand years ago, is a welcome alternative to those burnt out by this empty world-view.

    The average Protestant is a also a quasi-relativist by virtue of following the invisible Church theory, whereby all true believers in the Lord are part of His body, which exists wherever His name is glorified. In practice, this means that there are true Christians in various denominations, all of which disagree with one another on many points. Appeals to Billy Graham, missionaries dying for Christ in distant lands, C.S. Lewis, and charismatic faith healings almost invariably follow. In the same way, Roman Catholics will also bring forth their many saints and miracles as testimony.

    We cannot remove foreign influences such as relativism so easily, however; while intellectually we come to accept the truth of the Orthodox Church, we wonder about our emotions, our feelings, and our own unique experiences. This leads us to the question: if Orthodoxy is the true faith, then what about miracles and experiences that happen in other Churches, and may have even happened to us? There are three broad possibilities as to what these experiences could be: a creation of our own minds; the work of God preparing us to receive Orthodoxy; and demonic deception.

    Most experiences we have are subjective, especially religious phenomena. Mass hysteria and group suggestion can also play a role, such that groups of people can experience something together by the power of suggestion. Our past experiences, such as feelings of intense love, awe, having a powerful dream, experiencing déjà vu, and the like can often be explained with rational explanations. Christians should be careful not to ascribe supernatural origins to every feeling and thought.

    Another possibility is of course that the experience did come from God. A sinner who prays in an Evangelical Church for forgiveness and accepts Christ, and then turns his life around, quite possibly did have an experience of God’s love and forgiveness despite the venue (although this must be compared to the often unmentioned revolving door—the high turnaround in many Churches where people fall away from fervor, often getting “saved” again in another Church). God is well aware that the Orthodox Church is not everywhere, and that not all people will have equal access to it at all stages of life. For some, God may allow them to draw closer to Him, and their experiences in other Churches may be part of His will. However, this must always be seen as a condescension, and not as a normal course of affairs. In other words, the Holy Spirit, who is “everywhere present and fill[s] all things” may come to someone outside the Church in order to open them up to receive the fullness of truth later. But we must also recognize that God can act in any way He wills in any place and any time.

    The final possibility is that the experience is demonic. This is most visible in the extremes, when we see televangelists preaching the “Word of Faith” gospel of material richness, or extreme Charismatics rolling about on the floor writhing in ecstasy. Such blatantly anti-Christian activities are not from God. While they could be a power of the imagination, when one gets into the area of speaking in tongues and prophecy, a demonic element is often present and leads such people further and further away from the historic Church.

    This leads us to the question of measuring such experiences. Is there a way one can know which of the above options any given experience was? Is it even profitable to do so? The Orthodox response might be that it is difficult to know, and is probably not profitable to investigate. A big clue though would be the outcome; as a result of any given experience, did the person come closer to God and His Church, or slip further away? Jonathan Edwards, the famous New England preacher, had ecstatic experiences which led him to become a Calvinist. Many Mormons cite a “burning in the bosom” as proof of the Book of Mormon.

    For Orthodox, however, religious experiences before conversion were often steps on the path that ultimately lead them to fulfillment—and what they experienced in Orthodoxy goes far beyond the experiences of the past. Orthodoxy builds on and completes prior experiences which while good were steps, not the end in themselves. By seeing where the person ended up—in or outside the Church—and if they died outside the Church by judging whether they came closer to it in their life (for instance from paganism to Evangelicalism) are good indicators, but again are highly subjective. It is best to leave such uncertainties to God, who is a just and merciful judge.

    Orthodox spiritual experiences are never separated from the True doctrine; if we are to have a relationship with Christ, we must know Him, and that means holding firm to the teachings about Him. These teachings have only been fully maintained inside the visible Church He left, which is the Orthodox Christian Church. It is within the body of believers that spiritual experiences can be shared and evaluated, especially under the guidance of a spiritual father. When an Orthodox Christian sees spiritual experiences occurring outside the bounds of the visible Church, he can appreciate God’s boundless love for all mankind, and he should pray that it is God’s grace moving inside the heart of the person to bring him to Orthodoxy. We may be able to point to prior events in our lives as the time when God moved us closer to Orthodoxy, but we must always be aware of the other possibilities for such experiences and remain vigilant. Experiences often add a feeling of confirmation to our beliefs, but we must be cautious not to base our beliefs solely off of our subjective experiences.

  • If Orthodoxy Is True, Why Have I Never Heard of It?

    As was explained in the previous article, What is the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church believes itself to be the original and true Church of Jesus Christ. Orthodoxy is not large nor is it well-known in the West, however, which often makes people wonder why they have not heard of this Church before. Much of it has to do with the events of history, and part of it is the fault of Orthodox people themselves in modern times given difficult external circumstances of adjusting to life in a new culture.

    Historically, there was one united Church in both the East and the West until the late twelfth century. In the West, the most commonly known and powerful bishopric was that of Rome. In the Eastern part of the Empire, which was much more populous than the West, there were major bishoprics in Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. These major bishops were given the honorific title patriarch.

    The Roman Empire fell in the West in the fifth century, but it continued in the East until much later. Historians often call this the “Byzantine” Empire, although no one in that time would have thought himself a “Byzantine.” Instead, they believed themselves to be Romans and their empire to be the Roman Empire, and it continued until the Turks captured it in 1453.

    Because there was a strong empire in the East with large population centers across it, ecclesiastical power did not become as centralized as in the West. With the fall of the empire in the West, the patriarch in Rome, by this time called Pope, was looked upon as the glue that kept the fabric of Western civilization together. The Pope took on thus a political and cultural role in addition to his spiritual duties. Over the centuries, this resulted in the Popes seeing themselves as above the other patriarchs. There was much back-and-forth for several hundred years, culminating in several events which ended up splitting the West from the Orthodox Catholic Church gradually between 1054 and 1204.

    In 1453, the Turks conquered Constantinople and the remainder of the Roman Empire fell. This lead the Christians in the East to be mostly second-class citizens, often poor, and unable to share their faith for fear of death, with some notable exceptions. At the same time, the Western powers were in the midst Renaissance and gaining fabulous wealth and strength. Their scientific advances allowed them to travel to and conquer vast amounts of land in the New World, Africa, India, and China. In each new place, the peoples were converted to Christianity via Roman Catholicism or its offshoot, Protestantism. The Orthodox expanded in Russia and through parts of Central Asia, but they were unable to penetrate deep into the Muslim lands. This is a major reason why today there are so many more Roman Catholics than Orthodox in the West.

    Turning our focus specifically to the Americas, Orthodox missionaries first came to the New World through the Russian territory of Alaska in 1794, and converted large numbers of native peoples. In 1864, the first parish for Greeks was set up in New Orleans, Louisiana. Within the next fifty years, there were parishes scattered across the United States. A large number of Catholics from Eastern Europe who were familiar with Orthodoxy became Orthodox due to the work of Alexis Toth, a converted Orthodox priest. Often, however, these parishes were seen as havens for the immigrants that came there, which accounts for the second reason that Orthodoxy is not as well known in the West.

    There were throughout this time notable exceptions to the ethnic character of Orthodox parishes, and liturgical and spiritual materials were translated into English. A small number of converts were beginning to enter into the Church, and the Church began to become more outward-focused, especially as the children of the immigrants became Americanized. However, it must be remembered that Orthodoxy was still seen as a foreign religion, and oftentimes many Orthodox children left the Church to become “more American.” The lack of resources and poverty of many Orthodox resulted in many of its parishes being unable to stem the tide of this loss, although it was beginning to be supplanted by the growing numbers of converts.

    Another major blow to Orthodox expansion was the fall of the Russian Empire to the Communists in 1917. The Russian Empire had been providing funding to the Orthodox in America to help it grow, and when the Empire fell, this led to a large amount of chaos as the support and communications with the home Church were cut off. This placed a great deal of stress on an already stressed-out infant Church in America.

    We thus see that two primary reasons why the Orthodox Christian Church is not as well known in the West are due to the vastly superior resources of the Western Churches, and the fact that the first Orthodox peoples in America were either Native Americans living in Alaska or immigrants who were trying their best to survive and fight off the loss of their faith as the pressure to assimilate mounted on them. Fortunately, since the 1960’s, the knowledge of Orthodoxy has been increasing greatly, and the number of converts to Orthodoxy has been steadily increasing. Many priests are converts, and there are parishes made up of large numbers of converts. New missions are forming in many areas which have not seen an Orthodox Church previously, and the Internet is helping to reach people in many areas as well. Now is a great time to see Orthodoxy for yourself, and we invite you to come to join us in worship and fellowship!

  • A Reading List for Academically-Inclined Inquirers

    One of the most common questions from those looking into the Orthodox Church is, “what do I read?” While English-language resources for understanding Orthodox Christianity have thankfully increased greatly over the past forty years, they are not all of even quality. Most have a slant of one type or another, and oftentimes there are errors of fact or interpretation in the presentation.

    It should also be recognized that people come to Orthodoxy for a variety of reasons. For some, the most pressing reason is that the beauty of the worship calls them in; for others the rich spiritual heritage of the Church beckons. For still others, a deep desire to find the historic and doctrinally correct Church is provoked inside them. Of course, these areas are not mutually exclusive, and true worship, true doctrine, and true spirituality are all key reasons why the Orthodox Church is the true Church. But it seems to be the case that one of these pillars usually features more prominently in one’s search than others, and for this reason, the following informal annotated bibliography has been created.

    Before directly accessing Orthodoxy via Orthodox sources, it may be helpful for the inquirer to set the foundation using materials that employ a common language to most Westerner Christians. The following are a few standard works:

    Henry Chadwick, The Early Church.

    This is a succinct treatment of the history of the Church with copious suggestions for further reading. It will take the reader through the basic stages of the historical development of the Church. Chadwick was a famous Anglican clergyman and scholar who held appointments at both Oxford and Cambridge.

    Jaroslav Pelikan, A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) and Vol. 2: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700).

    Pelikan’s history of the development of doctrine is another standard work. Whereas Chadwick’s book focuses more on the historical events, Pelikan addresses the development of ideas. The work is academic and thorough. Pelikan was at the time a Lutheran but ended his days a member of the New Calendar Orthodox Church of America.

    Now that the inquirer has a basic understanding of the history of the Church, a historical work dealing with the Orthodox Church specifically by an Orthodox author:

    Timothy Ware (now Metropolitan Kallistos), The Orthodox Church.

    This is the most commonly-recommended treatment of the Orthodox Church available in English. It has been through several editions. It is mostly accurate, although it would be wise to note a few deficiencies in it which can be noted in the following review.

    A new crop of apologetics works have arisen as well. Converts to Orthodoxy Clark Carlton and Michael Whelton provide decent arguments for why Orthodoxy is the true Christian Church, although the reader might note certain comments and styles of writing that may seem overly polemical or off-putting. These books, while engaging and thought-provoking, are of course not written as contributions to peer-reviewed, academic scholarship, but are rather popular literature.

    Clark Carlton, The Way and The Truth.

    The Way is geared towards explaining Orthodoxy to Protestants while The Truth is geared towards Roman Catholics, but it may be helpful to read both in order to compare and contrast.

    Michael Whelton, Two Paths: Papal Monarchy—Collegial Tradition
    and Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims.

    Two Paths is a general account of the trends in Roman Catholicism that led to the First Vatican Council and its declaration of papal infallibility, while Popes and Patriarchs is a modest contribution to understanding the way that some Roman Catholic apologists misrepresent Eastern Church Fathers in order to imagine that they were somehow supporters of Roman Catholic claims of papal supremacy.

    Now that the inquirer has understood the major themes of Church history and has a feel for the arguments as to why Orthodoxy is the true Church of Christ from those who have embraced Orthodoxy, it will be beneficial to read two paradigm-changing books by Orthodox authors.

    Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, The Mind of the Orthodox Church.

    This book will readjust one’s whole way of thinking about Orthodoxy. It is often hard to find, but is available via interlibrary loan. Excerpts.

    Vladimir Lossky, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church.

    This is a classic work that shows the interlinking between doctrine and spirituality.