The idea of those who preside at public worship services is not unknown in Scripture—read Exodus 28 and 29, for example.  As such, in virtually every Christian tradition—Orthodox Christian, Roman Catholic, and much of Protestantism—presiding clergy wear vestments of some type, albeit not of the same “style,” when engaged in leading the faithful in worship.  [Sometimes such garb is academic in origin, rather than strictly liturgical; nevertheless, the preacher wearing a doctoral robe does not do so out of pride or self aggrandizement.]  So, those who lead public worship are “set apart” by wearing “formal” robes specific to their calling, and not for the purpose of exalting themselves above the so-called “rank and file.”

The purpose here is not to “personally adorn” the clergy or to elevate them “above the common people,” any more than judges who wear black robes or physicians who wear a white jacket are being aggrandized because of their vocations.  When discharging their “official duties,” judges and physicians vest themselves accordingly, indicating their “functions,” so to speak.  So too clergy, when officiating at liturgical services, wear vestments.

Vestments, obviously, do not resemble “secular” garb, in line with the fact that Orthodox Christian liturgical celebrations are not “secular” gatherings, nor are they designed to resemble them.  Liturgy is our experience of and participation in the very Kingdom of God, yet to be fully revealed but already fully present in the life of the Church, her worship, and her sacraments.

For additional information, please visit this link.  For the broader Scriptural context in which the use of vestments is discussed, please visit this link.

Hope this helps.

I too have seen this opinion expressed on occasion, and it is indeed “odd,” to say the least.  A few considerations here…

1. As the late Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko wrote, “The word liturgy means common work or common action. The Divine Liturgy is the common work of the Orthodox Church.  It is the official action of the Church formally gathered together as the chosen People of God. The word church, as we remember, means a gathering or assembly of people specifically chosen and called apart to perform a particular task.”  In the case of the Divine Liturgy, then, the “particular task” is to gather with the angels and the saints, who surround the throne of God, to offer thanks corporately to God for all that has been accomplished for our sake and salvation; to express our thanks through the celebration and reception of the Eucharist, His very Body and Blood; and to anticipate His second and glorious coming, when His eternal Kingdom—already fully present in the life of the Church—will be fully revealed to us.  As such, we are called, first and foremost, to be a “worshipping people,” called to join “with one mind and heart” with the angels and saints who have gone before us in worshipping Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with Whom we enter into a “common union” through the reception of Holy Communion—as a community, and not as isolated individuals.
2. Since the Liturgy is the “common action” of the People of God, it is not something merely “performed” by the clergy for the benefit of a “passive audience,” so to speak.  While the bishop or priest, as the “president of the Eucharistic Assembly,” certainly has a central function in the Liturgy, so do all of the members of the Church—including children, whose “holy noise” is a joyous sign of the ongoing life of the Church as it “marches through time”—especially through the singing of the liturgical responses and hymns, the various actions and gestures expressed in worship, and the collective offering of ourselves—as a worshipping community—to carry on the Lord’s work after the Liturgy formally ends.  As some have said, the Liturgy only truly ends when the next Liturgy begins.
3. Given these realities, it is hardly the practice of the Church to conduct lengthy services for the purpose of accommodating the faithful in “dropping in as convenient” to light a candle or offer private, personal prayers during public worship.  [The very public Liturgy of the Church is not the time to offer personal prayers “in secret.”]  To truly “make” the Liturgy “happen,” the entire community should be gathered together and participate in—from the very beginning of the Liturgy through its end [and beyond!]—the Liturgy.  This means that from the very opening doxology—“Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…”—to the final blessing the faithful should be present “with one mind” and heart and voice to celebrate their common faith, hope and love for God and one another through worship.
4. There are, of course, bound to be occasions in which arriving late or having to leave early may be unavoidable, but this is never the “norm.”  For example, an unexpected snow storm may cause the occasional late arrival, or the need for a physician parishioner to heed an emergency call may be cause to leave a bit early—absences that, as one of our prayers notes, “are worthy of a blessing.”  But these are the exception, and not the “norm.”

So, as the “common work” of the People of God, one who simply “drops by” to light a candle and offers a few personal prayers is not “liturgizing,” and the length of the Liturgy has nothing to do with making such “drop bys” more convenient, any more than hosting a formal dinner party at one’s home would be designed to allow those who just wish to drop by for sweets and a cup of coffee to do so.  Contributing to the common work of the Liturgy involves everyone, from beginning to end, from “Blessed is the Kingdom” to the final “Amen” and “Many years”—and ultimately, eternally beyond in “the never ending day of the Lord’s Kingdom” itself.

Hope this helps!

As clearly implied by the term itself, a “baptismal sponsor” is a pious, practicing Orthodox Christian who would be “sponsoring,” in this case, your infant son as he is initiated into the life of the Church through the sacraments of Baptism, Chrismation and the Eucharist.  As such, the sponsor “sponsors” the child into a reality—the worshipping faith community, the very Body of Christ—that the sponsor himself or herself already embraces in its fullness.  Hence, the sponsor, at the outset of the Rite of Baptism, speaks on behalf of the child in denouncing Satan, professing the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and acknowledging belief in and acceptance of Jesus Christ “as King and God.”  Properly speaking, then, one cannot “sponsor” someone into “something” that one does not fully acknowledge and embrace himself or herself.

The focus in selecting a baptismal sponsor must always be on ensuring the spiritual growth and formation of the child, who surely will benefit from the example of a pious sponsor as he or she grows in “life, faith and spiritual understanding.”  When choosing a baptismal sponsor, “honoring” a family member or close friend should never be a determining factor.  What is crucial is selecting a sponsor who can stand as a model with regard to living a faithful Orthodox Christian life, not only in word, but also by example.

Hope this helps!

The central issue here is not whether one “believes in the Bible,” but whether one “believes in Jesus Christ.”  In short, we as Orthodox Christians firmly believe in the One Whom the Bible reveals as Lord and Savior—Jesus Christ.  While we indeed firmly acknowledge that the Bible is the revealed, written word of God, our belief is centered not on the Bible as such, but on the One Whom it reveals as the only-begotten Son of God, the living Word of God [see John 1:1 ff.], Who took on our human nature [without relinquishing His divine nature or “blending” it with the human nature as a kind of “third” nature unique to Himself] in order to bring about the salvation of all.  As such, our faith and belief is in the person of Jesus Christ, the Living Word of God, Who is revealed in the written word of God—Holy Scripture.

It is often curious for Orthodox Christians to hear that they place “little emphasis” on Scripture, especially when one considers the worship of the Church.  For example, our primary worship service—the Divine Liturgy, which reaches its climax in the reception of the Eucharist, as mandated by Our Lord Himself in Scripture [see John 6:25 ff.]—is filled with hymns and passages directly taken from Scripture.  Thus, at the outset of the Divine Liturgy, the first and second antiphons consist of the singing of Psalms.  The Hymn of the Incarnation—an ancient hymn glorifying Christ as the only-begotten Son and immortal Word of God—contains several direct passages from Scripture.  In the third antiphon we again sing Psalms or, in some traditions, the entire text of Matthew 5:3-12—the very words of Jesus Christ Himself—widely referred to as the “Beatitudes.”  The Divine Liturgy continues with the responsorial singing of passages from yet another Psalm—known as the “Prokeimenon”—as a prelude to the reading of a selection from the New Testament Epistles or the Acts of the Apostles, which change daily.  Following this, “Alleluia” is sung in response to additional Psalm verses in preparation for the proclamation of the Gospel reading for the day.  The homily or sermon—in which a commentary on the Scripture readings is offered, together with the challenge for the faithful to “incarnate” these words from Scripture in their daily lives.  During the remainder of the Divine Liturgy, we find countless Scripture passages, including the recounting of the Last Supper [more commonly known in Orthodox Christian circles as the “Mystical Supper”], the text of which is taken directly from Scripture, during which we again hear Our Lord inviting us to eat of His Body and drink of His Blood.  It is said that there are hundreds of direct quotes from Scripture in the Divine Liturgy—far more, in a single service, than one would find in other Christian traditions.

There are countless other examples of the use of the Bible in Orthodox Christian worship, not the least of which is the use of the Book of Psalms which in monastic practice is sung in its entirety at least once during the course of a week.  During certain services and times of the year, such as the season known as “Great Lent” that precedes the celebration of Our Lord’s Resurrection on Easter [known as “Pascha” in the Orthodox Christian tradition], numerous readings from the Old Testament also are read, in addition to the New Testament Gospels and Epistles.  The Liturgy on Great and Holy Saturday—the day before Holy Pascha—features 15 readings from the Old Testament—in addition to the appointed Epistle and Gospel readings—that span God’s plan of salvation for His People from the moment of creation.  These readings have been a part of our liturgical worship since ancient times, in fact.  And the entire text of Luke 1:46-55—widely known as the “Magnificat”—is sung at every celebration of Matins, the Church’s morning worship.

So, the Bible indeed is central to Orthodox Christians, and widely used in public worship, or “liturgy,” far more than in any other tradition.  Yet it is in the One Whom the Bible reveals—Jesus Christ—that our belief is centered, for it is He Who is the All-Merciful Savior, and it is He in Whom our faith is placed.  As the Bible directs us, “He that believeth in the Son hath everlasting life” [John 3:36], and “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” [3:16].

For additional information please visit this page on our web site.

Hope this helps!

While reading about the Orthodox Christian tradition is certainly important, it is crucial to step—literally—into an Orthodox Christian parish church near you to witness/experience the Church’s worship and fellowship.  Doing so will make much of what you have read “come alive,” in the sense of seeing how that about which you have read is actually “lived.”  Think of it in the following way.  A person can read a dozen books on swimming, but that which he or she has read will not “come alive” until he or she actually gets into a pool.  Similarly, a person can read a dozen books on Orthodox Christianity, but that which he or she has read will not “come alive” until he or she actually encounters the Church as the worshipping People of God.

So it would be wise to visit a parish near you, perhaps for the celebration of Vespers on a Saturday evening or the Sunday morning Divine Liturgy.  You may wish to call the parish priest in advance to introduce yourself and explain that you will be joining him and the faithful of his parish for the first time, although this is not absolutely essential.  In any event, feel free to introduce yourself to and speak with the priest and his parishioners.  Your first—and subsequent visits—will help you to discern that to which the Lord is calling you.  As Philip said to Nathaniel, “Come and see” [John 1:46].

Assuming that, after subsequent visits, you grow into the conviction that Orthodox Christianity is the fullness of Truth as revealed by Jesus Christ and discern your desire to embrace faith in Our Lord in its fullness, make your desire known to the parish priest, who will initiate the period of instruction and spiritual formation that eventually would lead to your reception into the Church.  This could take some time—perhaps a year or more, depending on a variety of circumstances—and should not be “rushed.”  Just as we pray that God’s will, not our own, be done, so too we pray that we might embrace the faith in God’s time, not our own.  Conversion involves a change or transformation in vision, direction and heart, one rooted in repentance and the acknowledgement of Our Lord as the One Who is “truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who came into the world to save sinners.”

This period of instruction, discernment and spiritual formation also affords you with the opportunity to develop and strengthen your relationship with the parish’s clergy and faithful—those with whom you will worship “in Spirit and truth” and with whom you will share in fellowship as a member of the Body of Christ, the Church.  Naturally, it is crucial to “know” what the Church teaches and acquire an “Orthodox mindset” on the intellectual level, so to speak, but it is equally crucial to grow in identifying with the People of God, the worshipping community, through fellowship.  One who would claim that he or she “wishes to embrace the faith but doesn’t want to get involved with other people and their lives” falls short in his or her understanding of the Church as the People of God and, as such, has yet to make that internal conversion that must take place before one is received into the Church.  As Saint Paul reminds us, “so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” [Romans 12:5; see also Ephesians 4:25].  In other words, one cannot embrace Orthodox Christianity without embracing Orthodox Christians.

It also must be noted that embracing the faith involves a “running to” Christ and His Church as the “Ark of Salvation,” rather than a “running away” from something—other than sin.  Those who will guide you through your period of instruction and formation surely will help you in this regard.

In time, you will be welcomed sacramentally into the Church and continue your ongoing path to the Kingdom of God.

Hope this helps, and hope that your “journey to Orthodoxy” is filled with every blessing.

Hope this helps!

It is common in many parishes to hold such a vigil after the Matins service celebrated on the evening of Great, Holy and Good Friday.  During this vigil, the faithful customarily read aloud from the Old Testament Book of Psalms until the beginning of the Vesperal Liturgy of Saint Basil on Great and Holy Saturday.  [In most instances, everyone is free to volunteer to read, generally for periods of one hour.]  After this Liturgy, in many parishes the vigil continues, with the faithful reading from the New Testament Acts of the Apostles until the beginning of the Paschal services, generally an hour or so before midnight on Saturday evening.  Inasmuch as this Vesperal Liturgy speaks of the Resurrection of Christ, it constitutes, in a sense, the “first announcement” of this central reality, the cornerstone of our faith as Orthodox Christians.  Hence, reading from the Acts of the Apostles, which speaks of the life of the early Church after Christ had been raised from the dead and the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles on Pentecost, 50 days after Christ’s Resurrection, is most appropriate.

I might add that in the early Church, Holy Saturday was one of the main occasions on which those who had been preparing to be baptized—the “catechumens”—were received into the Church.  It is said that some of the faithful would keep vigil with the catechumens during the hours leading up to their baptisms, offering them encouragement and final instructions while praying for and with them.  While different in “form,” so to speak, the vigil also recalls this early Church practice.  It is also customary among many Orthodox Christians to keep a vigil, during which the Psalms are chanted, over the body of someone who had recently reposed until the time of his or her funeral and interment.  While I do not think that this custom is directly related to the vigil about which you enquire, it does recall for the faithful the importance of remaining vigilant for the coming of the Lord “in glory” throughout our early lives—something to which all Orthodox Christians aspire—and an affirmation of our belief in the universal resurrection of the departed.

For additional information on the services celebrated on the evening of Great, Holy and Good Friday and Holy Saturday, please see this link on our web site

Hope this helps!

A person with a serious physical ailment should turn to a hospital and its doctors in the hope of physical healing, or at least in a genuine effort to bring about a remission in his or her ailments.  It is precisely for such purposes that hospitals exist and doctors commit themselves to pursuing the “healing arts.”  Only the most unreasonable of persons would say, “I would really like to go to the hospital, but I am afraid that the doctor would turn me away because I am far too ill.”

Similarly, a person with a serious spiritual ailment should turn to the “spiritual hospital”—the Church—and those who minister therein in the hope of spiritual healing, or at least in a genuine effort to bring about a remission in his or her sins.  It is precisely for such purposes that the Church exists and her clergy pursue their vocation.  It would be most unreasonable to say, “I would really like to go to the Church, but I am afraid that I will be turned away because I am far too sinful.”  Our Lord Jesus Christ came into the world precisely to heal sinners, to seek out the lost, and to restore all who would receive Him to spiritual health.  As Christ reveals in Matthew 9:13, “I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

If you are convinced that you and your wife wish to embrace Orthodox Christianity as the fullness of Truth, then embrace it.  Just as one who is physically ill should not worry that he or she is “too sick” to see a doctor, so too do not fear that you will be turned away from the Church because you are “too sinful”—and this is especially so when one is genuinely repentant and intensely desires forgiveness and reconciliation.  Some of the greatest saints of the Church, such as Mary of Egypt, were quite notorious sinners, yet they repented, relied on the spiritual healing afforded by the Body and Bride of Christ—the Church—and attained holiness.

Ultimately, God does not desire the death of sinners.  He rejoices when we turn from our sins and live.  As Our Lord Himself plainly states in Luke 10:15, “there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.”

Hope this helps!

There is no “required amount” of works that are necessary for salvation. What is crucial is that, if we indeed have faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God, Who came into the world to save sinners, that we manifest or reveal our faith in how we live and how we treat others.

Read Matthew 25:31-46, in which we find the parable of the sheep and goats. In this parable, Christ reveals that which He will ask of us when He judges us, as well as that which He xpects from those who call themselves by His name. He asks if we have fed the hungry, clothed the naked, given drink to the thirsty, ministered to the sick and imprisoned—and, of utmost importance, whether we have discerned His very image in those around us, especially the “least of the brethren.” If we fail to put our faith into action through such works of mercy, our faith is purely intellectual, “lip service,” so to speak. Simply stated, if we accept Christ as the Son of the Living God and the Savior of the world, yet we fail to bring His love to others around us, then we are liars. Hence, faith without such good works is dead, and it is precisely on our willingness to put our faith into action that our eternal salvation hinges, as Christ reveals in Matthew 25.

The fingers are arranged to form the following letters—IC XC—which are the first and last letters of “Jesus” and “Christ” in Greek.

Hence, the index finger points upward, forming an “I.” The middle finger is curved to form a “C.” The fourth finger crosses over the thumb to form an “X,” while the little finger is curved in a manner similar to that of the middle finger, thereby forming another “C.”

I’d like to know if the Church believes this is a “family matter” to be taught by the parents- their responsibly?

Is it a subject that should be discussed in Church school?

QUESTION 1:

Could you please inform me of the Orthodox Church’s position on the subject matter of sex education being taught to children by laity?

RESPONSE:

While the Church has no official position on this, Saint John Chrysostom is quite firm that the primary responsibility of Christian parents is to see to the evangelization of their children. By “the evangelization of children” he means the overall spiritual, religious, and moral formation of their children for the purpose of leading them to salvation.

From his venerable statement we can deduce 1. that parents are the primary instructors and examples in the moral and faith formation of their children.

2. that, as such, Sunday School—something relatively new to Orthodox Christianity, having been introduced in imitation of non-Orthodox traditions in America in the 1930s and 1940s—while indeed important, is quite secondary to that which parents alone must and should impart in terms of knowing, living, and applying the Gospel of Christ to their lives.

3. that the imparting of Christian morality—which is the broader context in which “sex education” must be placed by Christian parents and the Church—is primarily the responsibility of the parents, demanding that they themselves live a moral life and that they provide an appropriate role model for their children.

4. that “sex ed” as commonly understood in our culture—and the school system is really wishy washy on what this means, to be frank—is first and foremost the responsibility of parents, not public schools [which unfortunately cannot impart morality, much less Gospel-based faith formation], nor be expected to express the Orthodox Christian view] or even private schools. [I know of “Christian schools” that teach “situational sexuality,” reflecting non-Orthodox traditions that have shunned Scriptural values with regard to sexuality.] 5. that parents who insist that imparting morality is the “job” of the Church, Sunday School, or public school are in effect displaying irresponsible behavior, violating the clear maxim of Saint John Chrysostom, to whom “Sunday School” would have been a very foreign concept.

Finally, “sex education” apart from Gospel-based moral formation is nothing but biology/health/science, as evidenced in most public schools, precisely because it is primarily interested in describing how/how to/what. It is well known that much of what passes for “sex education” indeed “educates” individuals in the “mechanics” of having sex. Without first implanting a moral conscience and attitude into a child—and this MUST be done well before a child is four or five years old, as even secular education professionals acknowledge—broaching the subject of human sexuality apart from Gospel-based morality is a futile task indeed.

Further, many sex ed programs offered in schools, while claiming to be “objective” and “non-judgmental” in terms of morality, in fact impart a morality that is utterly foreign to Orthodox Christianity. Claiming that a curriculum is “objective” while teaching that “Susie has two daddies” is a contradiction in terms, to be kind!

QUESTION 2:

I’d like to know if the Church believes this is a “family matter” to be taught by the parents- their responsibly?

RESPONSE 2:

I would have to say “yes.”

QUESTION 3:

Is it a subject that should be discussed in Church school?

RESPONSE 3:

My personal opinion—and the practice I’ve followed in my parish during my 32 years of priesthood—is that sexuality within the broader context of Christian morality should be discussed, but that it is better discussed within the context of a focused retreat, rather than in the brief, weekly, 45-minute Sunday School session. Better still, parishes should offer workshops for parents on this subject, not only instructing them in how to approach these matters with their children, but also reminding them that they are the ones who are primarily responsible for the religious, spiritual, and moral formation of their children, and that they should not dump their kids off at Sunday School to that “the Church can make them good Christians,” especially if the parents do not attempt to live Christian moral lives themselves—which, sadly, is often the case.

I would also say that all too often the only concern of parents is that their kids don’t get pregnant, or impregnate others, or acquire an STD.

Sadly, I’ve heard otherwise intelligent parents say blatantly stupid things like, “Well, little Nikita, you should NEVER engage in sex, but IF you choose to do so, please make sure you use ‘protection.’” This is no different than saying, “Well, little Nikita, you should NEVER drive 100 miles an hour, but IF you choose to do so, please make sure you have your seat belt buckled,” or “Well, little Nikita, you should NEVER do methamphetamines, but IF you choose to do so, please make sure that you don’t overdose.” Not acceptable, and hardly expressions of good parenting.

As one very astute and honest parishioner told me many years go, “If we spend the week at home living like pagans, we can’t expect the Sunday School to transform the kids into model Christians.” Much wisdom in this.

YOU WRITE: I was raised in a Catholic/Protestant family. Lately, I have been drawn to Orthodox Christianity, but I am worried that there will be a language barrier. Do Orthodox churches worship only in Greek or Russian or other ethnic languages?

RESPONSE: Orthodox Christianity is not limited to any particular ethnic or language group, just as Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism are not limited to any particular ethnic group. One will find Greek Orthodox parishes, Russian Orthodox parishes, and “generic” Orthodox parishes, just as one will find Polish and Italian Catholic parishes as well as “generic” Catholic parishes, and German and Swedish Lutheran congregations as well as “generic” Lutheran parishes.

If a parish has no “ethnic adjective” in its title, chances are that the parish worships in English. However, many of the “ethnic” parishes also use a good percentage of English, just as a Slovak Catholic parish, while offering some services in Slovak, generally would offer others in English.

YOU WRITE: Also is it possible for someone outside these ethnic groups to convert to Orthodox Christianity? I have seen things in the newspaper that talk about “Greek Easter” and “Ukrainian Christmas,” and I get the impression that only members of certain ethnic groups are welcome in the Orthodox Church.

RESPONSE: Just as being Irish or Hispanic is not a prerequisite for conversion to Catholicism, and just as being Finnish or Danish as a prerequisite for conversion to Lutheranism, so too one need not be Serbian or Lebanese to convert to Orthodox Christianity. The Church embraces everyone, regardless of their ethnic background, culture, or language, in fulfillment of Christ’s command to “teach all nations.”

YOU WRITE: And how do they do this?

RESPONSE: The first step, in addition to reading and studying about the faith—and praying to discern the Lord’s will for your life—is to begin participating in the worship and fellowship of an Orthodox parish. Once you are convinced that you wish to convert to Orthodox Christianity, make your wish known to the parish priest, who will be more than happy to guide you through the program of instruction and length of time it will take and explain the other expectations leading to your reception into the Church.

Have you ever heard of coincidence—or have you ever considered that the astrological “personality types” are go broad and so general that just about everyone would see himself or herself as fitting into what is described?
Also, have you considered that a “nearly 100% match” falls short of being an “absolute 100% match?”

I know many Capricorns, who are usually defined as being quite gregarious and outgoing, who suffer from social anxiety disorder. And I am sure that, if you check everyone born under your particular “sign,” they will have a wide variety of different personalities—even though they all might be predisposed to seeing themselves different than how they really are.

I know a woman who, years ago, went to an astrologist. He told her that she would move and live near water. Years later she got married and bought a house that had a creek running through the back yard. This, she claimed, proved that the astrologist indeed held the truth and forsaw her destiny. I responded by asking, “Where would one have to live to NOT be near water, short of Mars?” She insisted on remaining convinced that the astrologist held the truth and knew her future; his information was so general, however, that it was bound to come true at some point in time. Everyone, quite frankly, lives “near water.”

Jesus Christ is “the” Way and “the” Truth of our lives. There’s no truth in astrology. Stars do not control our destiny any more than rocks do.

YOU WRITE: Why do Orthodox Christians attend the Divine Liturgy and other religious services of the Church?

RESPONSE: We do so to worship God, to enter into union with Him and His People through the Eucharist and other Mysteries, or sacraments, and to receive strength as we continue on the road of salvation and “the life of the world to come.” In worship, we stand before the throne of God, loving one another “that with one mind we might confess Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Trinity one in essence and undivided.” And in our worship, especially in the Divine Liturgy, we participate in all that Christ has done for us—His incarnation, life, passion, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension—while anticipating His second and glorious coming.

YOU WRITE: What is the purpose of such services?

RESPONSE: The fundamental purpose of the Church services is to worship God, as defined above. Orthodox worship is “God-centered,” rather than “man-centered.” In our worship we strive to please God, not ourselves—and this is a great honor. We offer ourselves, commending ourselves to one another, in recognition of the fact that we have been created in the image and likeness of God. And we offer our worship and adoration of God “on behalf of all, and for all,” joining our voices, minds, hearts, and souls with all of the faithful who “in all ages have been well pleasing unto God.”

YOU WRITE: Is the purpose of such attendance “to get something out of it”
or is it an offering?

RESPONSE: We attend and participate in the sacraments and services in order to worship God, Who gave us life and all that we possess, and Who offers us through worship a foretaste of His heavenly Kingdom. We offer ourselves, as individuals and as a faith community, to God in worship, rather than expecting to “get something” other than communion with God and His People. Hence, worship is not meant to entertain; rather, it inspires—and this word means “in the spirit”—and is conducted in Spirit and Truth, as Scripture commands. While we indeed do bring our cares and concerns, our joys and sorrows to worship, seeking the Lord’s help in our day-to-day lives, the only expectation we must have is the encounter with God and our common expression of this encounter as shared and experienced within the context of the worshipping faith community. We pray that “the Lord will act,” praying that His will, rather than our own demands and wants, is revealed to us and commiting ourselves to discerning and living His will in our lives.

YOU WRITE: I have been told that we attend Church to identify with and help preserve our historical ethnic heritage and traditions. Is this correct?

RESPONSE: Not at all! Those who wish to preserve their historical ethnic heritage and traditions preserve their “old country” languages, foods, dances, and so on; these things have nothing whatsoever to do with the Church, much less the Church’s worship or our journey to “the life of the world to come” in the Kingdom of God. Those who think that the Liturgy is celebrated to preserve our ethnic heritage are sorely mistaken, and I dare say only harm their salvation. The Orthodox Church is not just for certain ethnic groups: Christ Himself said, “Teach all nations,” not “teach your own kind, and don’t share the Kingdom of God with others of a different ethnic background.” This attitude was condemned by the Orthodox Church in the 19th century as a heresy—“phyletism,” the identification of the Orthodox Christian faith with one or another ethnic group, as if it was its personal domain. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is intended for all mankind, not just for certain ethnic groups.

I have no credit cards, no car payment, no cable television, and no retirement fund. I rent a small apartment, support two children who live with me, and pay child support for two others who do not. After I am done paying rent, utilities, student loans, the orthodontist, etc., I am left with far less than 10% of my take home pay, out of which has comes gas, food, and bare essentials for my children. I simply can’t afford to give 10% unless I stop paying rent, paying child support, or buying food, etc.

Yet I have read that I must still give 10%, and that God will take care of the rest, and that if I do not do this, I will always struggle financially and will not be blessed. This does not seem right, yet I feel guilty that I am not able to contribute, even though I know that I have little to give.

Do you have any thoughts on this?

Thank you for your enquiry. I have plenty of thoughts on this; here are a few of them.

1. While tithing—giving 10% of our financial resources, or “treasures”
— is an Old Testament imperative, it certainly is not inappropriate for Christians to set aside a tithe, or percentage of their income, for God’s work. If one can contribute 10%, then let him or her do so; if one can contribute more, then let him or her do so. But if one can only contribute a smaller percentage, then let him or her do so, making no comparisons with others, and as a sign of thanksgiving for the blessings God has bestowed.

2. What is crucial is the fact that God indeed expects us to give of our treasures for His work. Your observation, that “God demands our love and not our offerings,” is not consistent with what is revealed in the New Testament, where it is clearly stated that “where your heart is, there also will be your treasure.” Further, the model for giving to the work of God through HIs Church is found in the story of the widow’s mite. A rich man enters the temple and offers his tithe—10%—which fulfills the Old Testament “law,” with little regard for the spirit behind the law; he gives not out of love, but out of duty and pride, and he could well afford to offer even more, given his means. Meanwhile, a poor widow enters the temple and offers two coins—hardly a great sum of money, but it was the sum total of all that she possessed. Our Lord praised her, rather than the rich man who fulfilled the “law” by offering 10%, for she gave all that she had, expecting nothing in return, and surely not expecting to be praised by others.

3. The principle found herein is that we must recognize that all we have is a gift from God, that we are called to be wise “stewards,” or “managers,” of His gifts, and that ultimately, we must give all that we have to Him. This does not mean that we are to ignore our own needs. To the contrary, we are urged to offer a portion of our treasures to God and to set aside our gift to God through His Church before paying our other expenses. Whether this represents 5%, or 10%, or 20% is a secondary matter; the point is to give the “first portion” of what we have for God’s work, as did Able, who offered the first portion and the best portion of his harvest to God, unlike his brother Cain, who offered God his “leftovers.”

4. You mention that you have read certain things in evangelical Protestant books on tithing. Some things found in some evangelical writings are not exactly consistent with the teaching and practice of the Orthodox Christian faith. I know from personal experience, and from the experiences of many other Orthodox Christians who have commited themselves to “first portion giving,” that God indeed blesses us if we give willingly and joyfully. Yet I also know that some [but not all, certainly] evangelical Protestants preach what is known as the “Gospel of prosperity”—that by giving a tithe, God will bless us with material wealth, and that material wealth is, in fact, a sign of being blessed by God. This is not “THE Gospel,” and Our Lord Himself warns against “laying up treasures here on earth.” Giving of our treasures out of the desire to acquire material goods, rather than out of pure, simple, and innocent love is hardly Christian. Some [but not all] TV preachers who proclaim the “Gospel of prosperity” and live lavish lifestyles, projecting themselves as icons of God’s blessings as evidenced by their wealth, are hardly preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I know of at least two mega-churches that require their members to submit their tax forms in order to calculate the precise 10% tithe that they are then expected to give—a practice that violates the very principle of giving in secret, not letting the right hand know what the left hand is doing.

5. There indeed are a number of Orthodox Christian resources which talk about “first portion giving,” about setting aside a percentage of our income for the Church before tackling the the phone bill, the orthodontist bill, or the car payment. If you click the OCPC link on the OCA web site, you will find resources on Christian stewardship and first-portion giving. The OCA Department of Stewardship page on the web site also has a number of resources that discuss how we are to be stewards/managers of God’s gifts, recognizing that, ultimately, everything we have belongs to God, and that we can only offer back to Him that which He has given us, as we say in the Liturgy: “Thine own of Thine own, we offer unto Thee, in behalf of all and for all.”

6. The bottom line is this: God does expect us to give; it is not an “option” for Christians, any more than prayer and fasting and almsgiving and worship are options or personal preferences. Our Lord says, “when you give,” “when you fast,” “when you pray,” not “if” you give, fast, and pray. He expects us to offer to Him first, not after we have satisfied our personal needs and bills. He does demand our love, as you note, but He expects us to reveal our love in concrete ways—one of which is by returning to Him a portion of the gifts with which He has blessed us. And, I might add, that this does not only involves our treasures, but our time and talents as well, for these are also gifts from God. Hence, in addition to offering of our financial resources, we are expected to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned, and minister to “the least of the brethren,” recognizing in others the very image and icon of our Savior HImself. If we are of limited material means, we should still give something, while also giving all the more generously of our time and talents to minister to others through the Church—and I don’t know an Orthodox parish that is not constantly looking for volunteers to do everything from teaching Sunday School to collecting food and clothing for the needy or ministering to the homeless or battered or forgotten or visiting the parish shut-ins, to name just a few essential ministries entrusted to all of God’s people, and not just the clergy. And, as Christ clearly spells out, we are expected to give of our time, our talents, and our treasures joyfully, not worrying about what others may or may not be doing, nor with the intention of being “seen” or “lauded” by others. We are taught that Our Lord is the only one Who needs to see our compassion and charity and generosity, whether they be offering our time, our talents, or our money; it is for His sake, and His sake alone, that we do these things, that in all things “God may be glorified,” as Saint Paul writes.

Is it not possible, despite your limited income, to set aside a portion of your resources for the Church before setting aside money for rent and food and the orthodontist? As Christ challenges us, look at the birds of the air
— do they worry about how they will eat; and to look at the lillies of the field—even Solomon in his finest garb could not compare to the beauty in which they have been clothed by their Creator. So too, setting aside $20, or $40, or even $100 weekly or monthly—or even just two coins, if that is all we have—before setting aside money for other things may at first be a bit difficult or akward, but it is consistent with what we are taught by Jesus Christ. And those who do this find that they still have plenty left over for themselves. In 30 years of priesthood, I have never met anyone who has gone bankrupt because they have given to the Church! And I have met plenty who, in thanksgiving for how God spares us, have made the commitment to give Him more than their “spare change.”

YOU WRITE: For years I have felt drawn to the priesthood. However, I have one major obstacle to being a priest. I must confess that I am an atheist, or at the very least a very skeptical agnostic. Does this condition absolutely bar me from entering the priesthood?

RESPONSE: Absolutely. The “heart and soul” of the priesthood is found in proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ as the “Son of the Living God most High.” If you do not believe in God, how can you proclaim Him in all honesty? If you do not believe in God, how as a priest could you reveal His presence in the lives of the people you are charged to guide spiritually, or proclaim that God loves and forgives them, or proclaim that they will spend eternity in His presence? It would be quite impossible for a non-believer to stand in the midst of believers and encourage them to strengthen their belief in a God that he himself denies.

YOU WRITE: ...or are my own spiritual problems no reason to resist the urge to help the souls of others?

RESPONSE: There is an old saying, “You can’t share what you don’t have.” It would be my opinion that, if you are interested in helping people but you have no religious convictions or belief in God, you might consider becoming a secular social worker, where you would not be expected to offer any sort of spiritual advice, nor to proclaim the existence of God.

An “autocephalous” Church is completely self-governing. It elects its own primate and has the right to consecrate its own Holy Chrism, among other prerogatives unique to autocephalous Churches. [The term “autocephalous” literally means “self-heading.”]

An “autonomous” Church is self-governing to a certain degree in its internal matters, but its head is appointed or confirmed by the autocephalous Church which nurtures it. An autonomous Church also receives its Holy Chrism from its “Mother Church.”

The Orthodox Church in America is an Autocephalous Church, having received its Tomos of Autocephaly from the Russian Orthodox Church in 1970.

If you are firm in your faith, to the point that the book would not cause you to question, doubt, or speculate, and if you can stay focused on the fact that it is a novel and nothing more, then read it.

If you begin reading it and then start questioning reality based on the fiction contained therein, stop reading it.

If you are not firm in your faith, to the point that the book would cause you to question, doubt, or speculate, or if you are the type that would at some point begin thinking, “hey, maybe this stuff is really true and Mary Magdalene really was what it says she was and the Church has been lying to us all these years,” then don’t read it.

In any instance, if by “book club” you mean a bunch of people who get together to give their personal views on what they have read, you may wish to skip the discussion. Surely, you’re bound to encounter those who draw inane and insane conclusions based on the book. If, however, you are fully capable of discerning reality and truth from opinions that could range from the bizarre to the downright stupid, then the discussion may prove a bit entertaining.

Frankly, the book is interesting as a fictional novel—in the same sense that the recent mini-series “Revelations” was interesting as a fictional novel—but both are about as factual as a book or mini-series about 18th century chicken breeding on Mars. Sadly, there are people out there who are incapable of discerning between fact and fiction.

Another related question would be: How does the Orthodox Church view the matter of a person’s wishes in the event they ended up in a vegetative state? In other words, does anyone have the moral right to deny themselves food, water, etc. If they enter a vegetative state or would that be considered suicide. I was reading in the paper today that doctors speak of a sort of spectrum here. On one end would be coma, then the vegetative state and finally brain death. Maybe you could comment on whether the Church would make a distinction between these states and what would be allowed or not allowed in each instance. For example, I would guess that the Church would consider a person in a coma should be treated as any other living person and that a brain-dead person would be considered as having already died. But, where would a person in a vegetative state fall, in the Church’s view? And does it depend at all on the factors listed above e.g. so-called quality of life, prognosis of recovery, length of time in the state or whatever?

YOU WRITE: In general, how should an Orthodox Christian view the current situation with Terry Schiavo?

RESPONSE: The principle affirmed by the Orthodox Church is that, while extraordinary/unnatural means should not be taken to prolong a life, especially in the case of brain death, it is also the case that extraordinary/unnatural means should not be taken to prematurely end it.
The problem in the Schiavo case is that there is no real consensus, whether it be among her husband and parents and other family members or within the medical establishment, as to whether she is in fact brain dead. While I am certainly no specialist in this, from what I have seen she seems to be responsive on some level and is obviously not in a coma. As such, it would only be my opinion that to hasten her death would be morally and ethically wrong. I have seen people, including my own father, who were brain dead, and from my uneducated perspective his and their situations were quite different from that of Mrs. Schiavo.

YOU WRITE: I guess one of the issues is that of extraordinary means. Does the Church have a position on extraordinary means?

RESPONSE: Yes, as stated above. In the case of my father, whose heart had been stopped for over two hours—far longer than necessary for brain death—and who had been hooked up to a respirator with no chance of ever being able to breath or function on his own, the procedure was clearly extraordinary, and after two futile days, he was removed from support after it was clear that in no way would he be able to breath or function without assistance. Mrs. Schiavo, however, does not appear to be in this same vegetative state.

YOU WRITE: I presume it does but then what are extraordinary means?

RESPONSE: The example of my father would constitute extraordinary means. The respirator did not assist him in breathing; rather, it breathed for him. As the doctor himself opined at that time, one could hook up a child’s inflatable swimming pool up to the respirator, and it would force it to “breathe.” Pumping air into someone or something, and forcing the air out, in reality does not constitute “breathing.” The doctor noted that if he were to be removed from the respirator, there would be no way that he could breathe on his own, since there was absolutely no brain activity.

The flip side of “extraordinary means” comes in bringing a life to a premature ending, as in the case of administering medications designed to literally kill a suffering person, a la Dr. Kevorkian.

And one must always be concerned with such buzz terms and concepts as “quality of life,” “death with dignity,” and so on. “Quality of life” is a highly subjective term, while “death with dignity,” depending on its precise meaning, stands in conflict with the Orthodox Christian belief that death is always a tragedy, that death, not being part of God’s creation, is always “unnatural,” inasmuch as we were not initially created to die. [Here we’re reminded by Saint Paul that death came into the world as a consequence of sin, not by the express will of the Creator.]

YOU WRITE: Does the Church consider a feeding tube extraordinary means?

RESPONSE: The answer is relative, depending on the condition of the individual. In my father’s case, it—the respirator—was clearly an extraordinary/unnatural means, inasmuch as it was clear that he would never breathe or function in any way, due to brain death. In the case of Mrs. Schiavo, for whom no real consensus has been forthcoming yet who clearly is in a different “place” than one who is totally unresponsive on any level, the feeding tube would not be seen as extraordinary / unnatural means. What makes it even more complicated in the case of Mrs. Schiavo is that there are some who have opined that with appropriate therapy, she might return to her former state. While this clearly seems to be a “long shot,” it is equally clear that she may be responsive on some level, and as such, it is impossible for anyone to know what is really and completely going on “in her head,” so to speak.

YOU WRITE: Another related question would be: How does the Orthodox Church view the matter of a person’s wishes in the event they ended up in a vegetative state? In other words, does anyone have the moral right to deny themselves food, water, etc. If they enter a vegetative state or would that be considered suicide.

RESPONSE: Based on the principle noted above, it would seem that one who requests that no extraordinary/unnatural means of prolong life, especially if brain death occurs, would not be inappropriate and would not constitute suicide, strictly speaking. This is different than requesting a lethal injection of a death delivering substance should one be diagnosed with a terminal illness. For example, the cancer patient who, rather than facing his or her illness requests to be euthanized would not be acting morally or ethically, inasmuch as what he or she is requesting is essentially assisted suicide—which is, indeed, suicide.

YOU WRITE: I was reading in the paper today that doctors speak of a sort of spectrum here. On one end would be coma, then the vegetative state and finally brain death. Maybe you could comment on whether the Church would make a distinction between these states and what would be allowed or not allowed in each instance.

RESPONSE: Obviously, these matters, much less such distinctions, are not found in the traditional writings of the Holy Fathers; this is “new territory,” so to speak. It is clear that coma is not synonymous with brain death, and there have been numerous cases—one just a few weeks ago—of individuals who have been in comas for years suddenly emerging from them, to the shock of family and physicians alike. Brain death is something completely different, from my uneducated perspective. Taking extraordinary means to prolong the life of a brain dead individual, on the notion that they might “snap out of it,” as in the case of so many coma victims, is more than a “long shot.” I must clarify that this is my opinion, and I must also note that it is a somewhat uneducated one, at best.

YOU WRITE: For example, I would guess that the Church would consider a person in a coma should be treated as any other living person and that a brain-dead person would be considered as having already died.

RESPONSE: This would be reasonable, given the Church’s definition of death as the parting of the soul from the body.

YOU WRITE: But, where would a person in a vegetative state fall, in the Church’s view?

RESPONSE: Again, the term “vegetative state” is somewhat subjective. One can say that Mrs. Schiavo is in such a state because she is completely dependent on others; at the same time, one could say that my father was in such a state as, being brain dead, he was completely dependent on others.
For that matter, one could say that a newborn infant is also totally dependent on others—“vegetative” in a different sense of the word. This would seem to indicate that there can be different “shades” of the vegetative state—but I do not want to delve into the area of pure speculation, other than to observe that there is a lot of “gray area” here.

YOU WRITE: And does it depend at all on the factors listed above e.g. so-called quality of life, prognosis of recovery, length of time in the state or whatever?

RESPONSE: Each case would have to be evaluated on its own merits from the pastoral as well as medical perspectives.

YOU WRITE: I recently read a statement by an Orthodox author that said, “The goal of Christianity is radically different than the goal of Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.” The goal of Buddhism is the relief of human suffering. The Buddha Dharma, or Buddhist teaching, begins with human suffering and ends with human suffering. Literally so. It is that simple. It is my observation that if Christianity, specifically Orthodox Christianity, does not hold the relief of human suffering as at least part of its goal, then we are missing the point. I look forward to your response.

RESPONSE: The goal of Our Lord’s earthly ministry is the salvation of the world. Jesus Christ is “truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who came into the world to save sinners.” While He was indeed concerned with human suffering, His ministry—and that of the Church today, which continues His ministry—was not limited to the relief of human suffering.

You note that “Buddhist teaching begins with human suffering and ends with human suffering.” During His earthly ministry, Our Lord ministered to the suffering, but his ministry was certainly not limited to this, nor did it find its end in human suffering. It ends precisely with the restoration of all that had been corrupted, fallen, distorted, and disfigured, including the human condition, in Him, in His Kingdom, in His becoming “all in all.” His ministry was one of proclamation and revelation, rather than mere alleviation.

YOU WRITE: It is my observation that if Christianity, specifically Orthodox Christianity, does not hold the relief of human suffering as at least part of its goal, then we are missing the point.

RESPONSE: I am not sure what leads you to observe that Orthodox Christianity does not pursue the relief of human suffering. Orthodox Christianity does not address human suffering simply out of sympathy, or out of humanitarian concern, or out of pity. It addresses it in response to the image of God that is found in “the least of the brethren,” in recognition of that image, and in response to that image. Ultimately, we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give drink to the thirsty, and minister to the sick and imprisoned not just for the sake of the hungry, naked, thirsty, sick, and imprisoned, but for the sake of Jesus Christ and for the sake of the Gospel. Such ministry is a proclamation and revelation of the Gospel, of the presence of God in the midst of human suffering, as a means of moving the suffering beyond their own condition and focusing them on the Good News that there is more to life than food and clothing and sickness and distress.

If Orthodox Christianity does not address human suffering, then why would we celebrate and offer hope through the sacrament of Holy Unction? Why would we anoint and pray for and visit and comfort the sick and infirm? Why would be struggle to continue Christ’s three-fold ministry of teaching, preaching, and healing?

Many of our parishes distribute food to the needy or operate “soup kitchens” or volunteer at homeless shelters or assist with offering encouragement to unwed mothers or counsel overwhelmed new immigrants in settling in to new surroundings. In pursuing such ministries, they are not simply relieving suffering but, more importantly, doing so in the process of proclaiming and revealing the love of God to those who could easily grow hopeless.

Hence, while it is true that the goal of the Savior’s work is not simply to relieve suffering—He Himself tells us that we will have the poor [humans who suffer] with us always—it is not the case that addressing suffering is not a part of the Gospel or an expectation in the life of God’s people, who are called to minister and serve “the least of the brethren.” Meanwhile, the goal of Christianity is salvation and the enjoyment of eternal life in the Kingdom of God where, as we sing in the Burial Service, “there is neither sickness, sorrow, nor sighing, but life everlasting.”

This is radically different than the goal of Buddhism.

YOU WRITE: Recently I came across some quotes from St. John Chrysostom concerning wealth which I find disturbing. First, he writes, “our money is the Lord’s, however we may have gathered it.”

RESPONSE: This is the very basis of Christian stewardship. Everything we possess—our time, our talents, and our treasures [“money,” material possessions]—are gifts from God and, as such, they ultimately belong to Him. They are given to us by Him; we, in turn, are called to be good stewards of His gifts, as Saint Paul writes. [A “stewards” is a “manager.”
Hence, a “Christian steward” wisely manages God’s gifts.]

YOU WRITE: Second, God allows us wealth “not for you to waste on prostitutes, drink, fancy food, expensive clothes, and all the other kinds of indolence, but for you to distribute to those in need.”

RESPONSE: If our wealth is a gift from God—a gift we are called to steward or manage wisely—then it would follow that using our wealth to fund our obsessions or passions or carnal pleasures is sinful, wouldn’t it?
Does not Scripture call upon us to distribute a portion of our wealth to those in need? And are we not called to overcome our passions and obsessions, our preoccupation with ourselves to the exclusion of others, especially “the least of the brethren?”

YOU WRITE: He also writes that wealth is theft, not because it was stolen as a means of gaining wealth, but because keeping it is to deprive others of their needs: “To deprive is to take what belongs to another; for it is called deprivation when we take and keep what belongs to others.”

RESPONSE: In light of the above, if one accumulates wealth for the exclusive purpose of accumulating wealth, is this not theft, inasmuch as one’s wealth is not being managed wisely for the good of others, the needy, the poor? Is this not completely consistent with the gospel in which Christ points out the foolishness of the man who builds bigger barns in which to store his harvest, only to die that very night and leave it all behind? And is not what Chrysostom writes here fully consistent with “how does it profit a man to gain the whole world and to lose his soul?”

One aspect of wise stewardship, of the wise management of God’s gifts, is to share it with those in need. [Is this not what we are commanded to do by Christ, Who says that we will be judged on how readily we fed the hungry, clothed the naked, gave drink to the thirsty, etc., in response not only to their needs, but also in response to our willingness to acknowledge His very presence in them?] If we have more than we can possibly need or use, and we know of others who have nothing, is not withholding God’s gifts to us from them theft?

This does not mean that we must give away everything, leaving ourself in abject poverty. Neither Saint John Chrysostom, nor Christ Himself, teaches us to do this. What it means is that a portion of what we have is to be shared—and not just a “token amount” simply to fulfill an expectation or “the minimum.” In the OT, this was the 10% tithe; in the NT, we discover that we are asked to give the “first portion”—that is, to set aside the first portion of our treasures [or, in contemporary terms, our pay check] for the work of God and for the poor, using the remainder for ourselves [but not on prostitutes, booze, and frivolous things that would constitute an unwise use of God’s gifts]. All of this applies to every gift with which we have been blessed, and not just to money. For example, our ability to speak is a gift from God, yet is it not possible that we can use this gift unwisely, by gossiping, by slandering others, by taking the Lord’s name in vain? Sight is a gift from God, yet is it not possible that we can use this gift unwisely, by viewing pornography or reading less-than-edifying literature or snooping on others? These gifts can also be abused, or improperly managed too.

YOU WRITE: Chrysostom’s words seem to go against the spirit of the Gospel that beckons and knocks, as opposed to bullying people into submission.

RESPONSE: Saint John is not “bullying people into submission;” he is frankly and openly pointing out the excesses that surrounded him, and that continue to surround us in our own time. He is “speaking the truth,” and the truth can sting when those who do not wish to hear it, hear it. This is not bullying, any more than Christ calling the pharisees hypocrites and a brood of vipers was bullying; it is a statement of fact and reality. [Saint John Chrysostom was well known for “telling it like it is,” mincing no words to speak the truth; so was Our Lord!] The only submission to which Our Lord and Saint John call us is submission to God, which hardly goes against the spirit of the Gospel.

YOU WRITE: Also, Orthodoxy teaches not only asceticism but feasting, so I don’t understand why he is so condemning of all excess.

RESPONSE: Can you name any excesses that are spiritually uplifting or edifying, or any passions that lead us to virtue and godliness? Does feasting necessarily involve prostitutes, drunkeness, gluttony, and the things Chysostom clearly condemns? Of course we are called to feast.

Harvey Cox, in his book “Feast of Fools,” laments that in our culture people have lost the true understanding of what it means to feast, often being so obsessed with making sure that people are having a good time that no one has a good time. Yet “feasting” is not synonymous with debauchery; Saint Paul not only condemns debauchery in general, but provides a rather lengthy list of those things which we need to avoid and which, while some may argue constitute “feasting,” are not elements of true, wholesome feasting. “Feasting” in the Christian sense is quite different from “feasting” as understood in pagan Roman times, or “feasting” as the residents of Animal House would define it!

All excesses and obsessions are sinful. Eating a well-prepared meal in an expensive restaurant is not, in and of itself, an excess; gluttony is. Periodically enjoying a glass of fine wine is not an excess; drunkeness is. Making love to one’s spouse is not an excess; having sex with a prostitute is. Buying a new coat is not an excess; buying a dozen new coats, while hoarding two dozen old ones which one neither needs nor will wear again when there are those who could use them, is an excess. Owning dress shoes and sandals and boots and gym shoes is not an excess; owning 200 pairs of shoes is—and this not only violates the principles of good stewardship and the command to minister to the least of the brethren, but it likewise violates the spirit of the popular saying, “I once felt bad because I had no shoes, until I met a man who had no feet.”

Also, while one must keep in mind the principle, “all things in moderation,” as Christians we are also called upon to discern that there are indeed some things to which this principle cannot be applied, as Saint John Chrysostom aptly points out. For example, one does not engages prostitutes “in moderation.” By definition, one does not “get drunk” in moderation. And how would one be “moderately gluttoness?”

YOU WRITE: Chrysostom’s words keep me feeling condemned about spending any money on vacation, eating out, etc.

RESPONSE: Why? Is taking the family on a well-deserved one-or-two-week-per-year vacation an excess? Surely this is hardly akin to engaging the services of prostitutes. Is going out to dinner on a Tuesday evening an excess? Surely this is hardly akin to engaging in ongoing gluttony or drunken beer bashes.

If, however, one reasons, “I will not give anything to the Lord’s work or to the poor, because if I do, I will not be able to go on vacation, or I will not be able to dine out; hence, I will use my hard-earned money exclusively for myself and for my own pleasure,” then indeed a vacation or a night out could condemn us—NOT because a vacation or a night out is sinful or obsessive in itself, but because our sole concern for using our treasures for our selves, with no regard for others, is indeed “theft.” In such instances, we imply that God has given me gifts, not not others; we imply that we have no need to be concerned with others, but only with the self.
Elsewhere, St. John Chrysostom laments, “You fret over which carpeting to put on your floor, yet you ignore your brother who is starving.” This is theft; it is sinful, because it is not a wise use of the treasures with which we have been blessed—treasures that belong to God in the first place, that He gives to us freely, and that He expects us to manage wisely.
At the same time, Saint John is not saying that carpeting is evil, nor that we should not carpet our homes. We can live without carpeting; we cannot live without food. What Saint John is saying here is that, if all one is concerned about is carpeting, ignoring the needs of others in the process, one is indeed not a wise steward, a wise manager, and one is indeed stealing that which, in reality, belongs to God in the first place.

YOU WRITE: I understand not spending money on prostitution, but the rest seems a bit harsh, almost to the point on anti-materialism.

RESPONSE: You are reading a lot more into Saint John’s words than you should, and casting his words into your own frame of understanding, failing to adjust your understanding to what he is saying. Please take no offense, because none is intended here, but this is not a wise use of God’s gift of reasoning. For example, Saint John Chrysostom lumps the eating of “fancy food” with “prostitution.” Clearly, he is not referring to the casual night out for a good steak with the wife and kids. He is talking about those who, as the old saying goes, “live to eat,” who engage in gluttony and wastefulness, who show no concern for the hungry but only for their own pleasure and gratification, who participated in the excesses that were quite common in his time and the culture in which he lived—the late Roman Empire, which was hardly a paradigm of moderation. It is—or should be—quite obvious that he is not lumping a night out with the family at the neighborhood restaurant in the same category as prostitution, isn’t it?

YOU WRITE: Does he really mean we shouldn’t ever spend money on anything other than the very basic needs and then “the poor.”

RESPONSE: He says neither, at least in the passages you are questioning. He is addressing obsession with riches—that obsession by which those so obsessed use their wealth exclusively for themselves, for their own pleasures and passions [prostitution and drunkeness and gluttony—passions—are not in the same category as a Tuesday evening meal at Steak and Shake or the family vacation to Disney World or a few glasses of champaigne to mark the new year or to toast a newly married couple] with no concern for others. He is addressing pure, unadulterated selfishness—those who are, as we would say today, “out of control,” who allow their wealth to manage them, even as they fail to or refuse to manage God’s gifts wisely; those who fail to see that their wealth [as well as everything else they have been given by God] is, in reality, not their “personal possession” but, rather, gifts from God that ultimately belong to Him; those who fail to understand, as the old saying goes, that “you can’t take it with you.”

In the burial service of the Orthodox Church, there is a hymn which reminds us of this very point. “Come let us gaze into the tombs…. Who is the rich man, and who is the poor? Who is the master and who is the slave?...”
Ultimately, God makes no distinction; in death, there is no distinction, and all stand equal before the throne of God to make account for whether they fed the hungry, clothed the naked, gave drink to the thirsty, ministered to the infim and imprisoned—and discerned the image of God in the “least of the brethren.” The person who thinks that by accumulating untold wealth in this life, or who hoards his or her earthly treasures like the man who pulled down his barn to build a bigger one, only to die that very evening, is truly deluded, precisely by his or her failure to realize that one should not store up treasures on earth while failing to store up treasures in heaven.

Read Luke 16:19-31, concerning the rich man and Lazarus. It’s an eye-popper!!