Humility and Right Faith (Orthodoxy)

One of my favorite quotes from the saints of our Church is from the Ladder of Divine Ascent. It says, "Expecting to find humility in a heretic, is like expecting snow to burst into flame." It's very, very true. I think it does not speak of those heretics who are genuinely seeking truth, but of those who are confirmed in their erroneous belief and are not seeking the truth. I am not citing it in order to judge, criticize, or condemn, but to highlight a spiritual truth about the relationship between humility and theological truth.

Humility is not listed among the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23) but much is said about it in the Ladder and in the Philokalia. Several things about it can be learned from the New Testament:

(a) Jesus highly values it, saying "whoever exalts himself [lifts himself up] will be humbled [brought low], and he who humbles himself will be exalted";

(b) Humility is the opposite of pride, which was the beginning of all evil - for it was what caused the devil to fall from heaven. when he sought to exalt himself (a perfect example of what Christ said, just quoted);

(c) The content of humility includes self-denial (the opposite of pride, which the exaltation of self) and choosing the will of God over one's own will - for Christ said, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself ... and follow Me. ..."

(d) Jesus Christ followed the most excellent way of humility when he washed the feet of the disciples, and when he accepted the Cross, rejecting his own will and obeying the Father's will - perfectly expressed in his prayer, "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will."

(e) The devil's pride was the beginning of evil, and led to his expulsion from heaven, and man's expulsion from Paradise. But Christ's humility on the Cross led to the destruction of evil, and restored man to Paradise.

(f) St. Paul refers to Christ's humility, saying "He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross." This humility of Christ - of God - is awesome when one considers that being God himself, he accepted to be crucified.

(g) As St. John of the Ladder notes in the step on humility, this virtue is divine and resists definition.

(h) God is the best teacher of humility, but even God cannot humble someone who refuses to be humbled. For Christ's words quoted above in (c) - "let him deny himself" - can also be translated "he must deny himself." God can arrange things to help the process, but a person must humble himself.

Rejoicing in someone's death?

In the Old Testament, in the book of Proverbs, one reads: ".. the destruction of the ungodly is speedy, and causes joy" (11:3).

But in the New Testament one finds this about Jesus: "... they entered a village of the Samaritans ... But they did not receive him ... And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, 'Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?' But he turned and rebuked them, and said, 'You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them' " (Luke 9:52-55).

Note the words: "... the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” If Christ's purpose is to save lives and not destroy them; if he restrains the disciples from desiring and praying for the deaths of others, and rebukes them for wanting to do so, and if he suggests that in doing so they are acting under the influence of a spirit that is not good, then how can Christians rejoice in the death of anyone?

I can understand it when I hear of unbelievers rejoicing at the news that someone has been executed or has been sentenced to death, but I cannot understand it when I read that someone who is is called a Christian is filled with joy at such news. To rejoice in the death of someone is not far removed from reviling them, or being angry at them -- things forbidden by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. The Scriptures say that God himself takes no pleasure in the death of any human being: "‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live" (Ezek. 33:11).

The difference between Proverbs and Matthew cited above is yet another case of a difference between the ethics of the Old Testament and the ethics of the New Testament.

More such differences can be seen in the New Testament passage giving Jesus's teaching on treatment of one's enemies, in Matthew chapter 5. They are noted by our Lord Jesus himself, who is the Lawgiver of the both covenants, the Old and the New: “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. ... “You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away. You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

Our Lord specifically intensifies the Old Testament ethic against violence and vengeance. Whereas the Old Testament had placed a limit on vengeance, permitting only equal retribution ("eye for eye, tooth for tooth") and nothing more -- Jesus forbids all vengeance, and goes much further, reaching instead toward his own words in Leviticus: "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD" (19:18). And, we know from the parable of the Good Samaritan that our "neighbor" is anyone, any stranger. Thus he requires that we forgive from our heart those who trespass against us, and love our enemies -- not only those of our own nation or fellow Christians.

(Unfortunately, most modern versions of the New Testament omit part of the text of Matt. 5:44 quoted above. Where the text should read "love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you," they say only, "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you," omitting the other words of Jesus. The full text of the verse was included in all Bibles until around 1885, and it is still included in the text used by the Orthodox Christian Church. Other instances where most modern versions of the New Testament omit important material are John 5:3-4 and Matt. 18:11.)

A important related issue concerns the words in the Ten Commandments, which are quoted by Jesus in the above passage from the Sermon on the Mount: "You shall not kill." Many modern versions change this to read: "You shall do no murder," while presuming that the difference between the English words "kill" and "murder" reflects a difference in meaning in the Biblical text. But a book-length study on this question shows that in fact the text should read "You shall not kill." (See "You shall not kill" or "You shall not murder"? The assault on a Biblical text, by Wilma Ann Bailey. Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 2005).

Some will ask if I mean to say that military and police activities, intended to protect from evil and stop killers, are inherently wrong. The answer is that in the main, the passages in Matthew 5 do not address the situation of soldiers or police taking a life in order to protect the lives of others. They address the situation of how to deal with those who threaten our own life. To kill in in defense of one's own life is not justifiable, but is sinful, in the Orthodox Christian understanding; the argument that one has killed in self-defense is a valid legal defense in the courtroom, but not before the Judgment seat of God. On the other hand, to kill in war is, in the Church's understanding, a sin needing to be repented of, like all sins: it violates the commandment "You shall not kill." But it is viewed as far less serious than cold-blooded murder, and the penance is incomparably less. Even so, to rejoice in the death of a criminal or of an adversary in a wartime setting, goes against our purpose as Christians, which is to preserve life.

The ethics of the New Testament - the ethics of Jesus - are not some hopelessly idealistic theory of conduct, but are obligatory for Christians. To set aside the commandments of Christ, to disregard them, to break them, is to display lack of love for the one who gave them. "If you love me, keep my commandments." "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”

Less authoritative, but no less true, are the words of the poet John Donne: "No man is an island, entire of itself ... Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee ..." These are words clearly informed by the Christian milieu in which their author lived. Absent Christianity, there would be no reason to grieve at the death of someone to whom one is not personally attached in any way.

U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower was the Supreme Commander of Allied forces in Europe during World War II. In his memoir Crusade in Europe, he avoids referring to "the enemy," but instead speaks of "the other fellow" - thereby keeping the humanity of his adversary before his mind at all times. Christ stands on the same ground when he commands us to "love your enemies": the word translated as "enemy" means one who is "hostile" or "hated" - but we are to love them. How could it be otherwise, since every human being is made "in the image of God, and after his likeness" (Gen. 1:26) and is enlightened by "the true light that enlightens every man who comes into the world" (John 1:9).

Palm Sunday in Larsen Bay

Spent the past weekend in Larsen Bay, AK, pop. 50 -- an idyllic spot with awesome beauty. I was there in August '09 (see Larsen Bay photos). Then, it was green -- this time it was brown, but the mountains that ring the village and its beautiful bays were snowy this time from about 400-500 ft. and up. They seemed to say "climb me" -- you can walk up them. The village sits at the intersection of Larsen and Uyak Bays.

I was in Larsen for a funeral. That was beautiful too. In many Alaskan villages, a funeral is done as it used to be done everywhere. The departed one is laid out in his home by the family; there is no funeral home. When I arrived on Friday, we did a service in the home of the newly-departed Peter. On Saturday, we went to the house again, began with a brief service there, then brought the body to the church for the funeral. Burial followed in the small church cemetary, which is all that stands between the church and the bay. Simple wooden crosses, painted white, mark the graves; there are no stones. Cemetery stones are expensive, and there would be added expense of transporting them by air to a village.

After services Saturday evening for the eve of Palm Sunday, I walked in the cemetary and looked out over the blue bays to the mountains beyond them. In the setting sun at about half past nine, the snowy mountains beyond the bays were pink and yellow. Soon, in summer, the churchyard will be adorned with purple fireweed.

The next morning, we had services for Palm Sunday. In the negative tide, some went gathering clams, tasty udoks (sea urchins), and octopus. On Sunday evening we started the Holy Week prayers. There were just two people in church, besides myself, but it was beautiful. The sun was still high and light was streaming in.

On Monday we returned in a float-plane. They are slower, allowing plenty of time to view the snow-blanketed mountains and the valleys as we flew over them. The scenery was spectacular as we floated just a few hundred feet above the peaks. At Larsen Bay, we waded into the water to reach the plane -- the tide was so low they could not use the usual float-plane berth. We landed in Kodiak at the float-plane base by Near Island, just a short distance from the seminary.

Reclaiming the Constitution

Every patriotic American concerned about the Constitution should read this article by Garrett Epps, a law professor and former Washington Post reporter. The article is excerpted from his forthcoming book. Interestingly, he cites Jaroslav Pelikan - one of the leading Orthodox theologians of our time - as saying that the origins of the constitutional debate taking place in America today are to be found in early Protestant theology.

Today's ideologues, Epps writes, argue that "virtually all of modern American life and government is unconstitutional. Social Security, the Federal Reserve, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, hate crime laws—all flatly violate God's law. State governments are not required to observe the Bill of Rights; the First Amendment establishes 'The Religion of America,' which is 'nondenominational' Christianity." This and similar thinking he calls "poisonous rubbish" and "mythology and lies" - and then he backs up his assertions with analysis of the document.

At the present time, efforts are being made to cut federal programs - everything from Head Start (by 22% of budget) to the National Weather Service (30% or $126 million). Such cuts are proposed ostensibly in order to achieve budget reduction - but the ideological underpinnings are the kind of thinking identified in Epps's article. The short-sightedness of such cuts is obvious. Consider the mega-billions it could cost our country if the Weather Service is unable to properly warn us of severe weather. As for Head Start, CNBC tells us in this report that cutting it is "bad for working families and worse for children. Kids who attended Head Start do better than their non-Head Start peers when they enter elementary school. One study found that in California, the state gained $9 in benefits for every $1 it invested in Head Start. And there are long-term gains in lower arrest and high school dropout rates once Head Start kids hit their teenage years."

Here is the section where Pelikan is quoted: "This notion—that there is somehow a fixed, binding, single intent hidden in a each phrase of the Constitution—confuses the Constitution with the Bible. The idea of a single, literal, intended meaning of a biblical text gained primacy during the Reformation. The religious historian Jaroslav Pelikan sees in early Protestant theology the origins of American constitutional discourse. Luther and the other Reformers believed that 'Scripture had to be not interpreted but delivered from interpretations to speak for itself.' What mattered to Luther was 'the original intent and sensus literalis [literal meaning]' of the words of the Bible."

Pelikan is not speaking of the authors of the Constitution - the American Founding Fathers - as being influenced by Protestant theology. Rather, he is speaking of today's ideologues

Just as we Orthodox Christians understand that we are to understand the Bible in the manner in which it was interpreted and explained by the holy Church Fathers, who breathed the same spirit and lived the kind of life that the holy authors of Scriptures themselves lived - so too should the United States Constitution be interpreted in a holistic way, and not in a piecemeal fashion that fails to consider the overall intent of its authors.

Epps is a serious patriot who perceives, in the current assaults on the Constitution, a threat to America's well-being, and thus is aroused to the defense of the true sense of this founding and constitutive document of our land. From the text of the Constitution itself, he shows that it provides for a strong central government, equipped with all the powers needed to govern this land for the benefit of its citizens. He refutes the novel theory that only those powers specifically named in the document are permitted to the government.

As Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has noted, the Constitution only mentions an Army and a Navy. Does this mean, she asks, that we cannot have an Air Force?

We need the countless services provided by the Federal Government, and as the article shows, the American Founding Fathers - who obviously could not see into the future - nevertheless did their best to anticipate new needs that might arise in the governance of the country, and to provide for meeting those needs. The authors of the Constitution, as Epps shows, intended to give us an able and empowered government, neither a weak confederation nor a tyranny, but a democracy for a unified nation.